- Thread starter
- #1
Why not? Gurnick wrote that he won’t vote for any player who “played during the period of PED use.” Not one. So who was on his ballot? Just Jack Morris.
I'm honestly amazed that this actually bothers people. If I had a vote, I'd vote for 10 guys but if you give nearly 600 people votes, you'll have to accept that some of them are going to be ones you wouldn't make.
Who knows, this guy covered the NL, maybe he knows something about Maddux we don't. In the end it doesn't matter, Maddux will sail in.
I'm honestly amazed that this actually bothers people. If I had a vote, I'd vote for 10 guys but if you give nearly 600 people votes, you'll have to accept that some of them are going to be ones you wouldn't make.
Who knows, this guy covered the NL, maybe he knows something about Maddux we don't. In the end it doesn't matter, Maddux will sail in.
I disagree.
There are borderline guys that I wouldn't expect to appear on every ballot, nor should they, but some guys are clear Hall of Famers. There should be no dispute when it comes to a guy like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, etc.
Well, how about neither of them should've been unanimous b/c they played in a segregated league? Cobb was pretty racist and probably bet on baseball. Wouldn't any of those be valid reasons not to vote for them?
You don't think betting on baseball would be a valid reason not to vote for someone? Wow. Can you at least see how reasonable people might differ?No, I don't think so.
If a baseball writer feels Maddux isn't unanimous first-ballot HOF, he needs to be removed from participation. Period.
If a baseball writer feels Maddux isn't unanimous first-ballot HOF, he needs to be removed from participation. Period.