No Thread for Junior?

[EVille3]

No one started up a thread for Junior having the highest percentage of vote into the HOF at 99.3%? Interesting...

I wonder who the 3 writers were that left him off and why

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

I would love to know who they were and why they left him off, as well. Morons

 

[TheDayMan]

The regulars on the Mariners board are a surly bunch... they probably wouldn't want to be bothered discussing something like this...

 

[mcnabb7542]

I'm sure the 3 writers are Yankee fans and are still bitter about 95 and the kid telling them to F*ck off when he was looking to leave here...

 

[cezero]

I would love to know who they were and why they left him off, as well. Morons

it'll be some of the geriatrics who refuse to give anybody a 1st ballot vote

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

it'll be some of the geriatrics who refuse to give anybody a 1st ballot vote

Which is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What if they all thought liked that and he dipped below the 5% and could never be on the ballot again? I'd be pissed if I were him or a fan.

 

[Tech_God]

Maybe old news but today he declared he'll be going into the Hall wearing a Mariners cap. Outstanding!

 

[wazzu31]

Yeah no idea why there is some rules about no unanimous guys. The 3 dudes who didn't vote for him should have their privileges revoked. Same as with the Edgar crap, how do you go from one thinking he isn't worthy to casting your vote the next year

 

[NWinAZ]

The baseball writers get all hurt feelings when guys don't tel them everything they think they should as players so the play the high and mighty on others when voting. I mean Garrett Anderson got a vote and Jason Kendall and David Eckstein each got 2 votes. Yes all the voters who pull that crap need to be removed and exposed for the frauds they are.

 

[wazzu31]

The baseball writers get all hurt feelings when guys don't tel them everything they think they should as players so the play the high and mighty on others when voting. I mean Garrett Anderson got a vote and Jason Kendall and David Eckstein each got 2 votes. Yes all the voters who pull that crap need to be removed and exposed for the frauds they are.

Which is an issue is the bias all allowed, guys who show bias year after year need to be put out in the pasture like so many beat writers have been. Griffey might have been a prick to media members but noone takes into account his childhood with the media and who cares, he was great to 9 year olds who would show up early who wanted a signature and advice. Fans matter more than jaded wriders who until the 80's only voted for guys who was give them notoriety. Imagine a dude like Ty Cobb trying to survive in today's game where you have to worry about what people think.

 

[dude82]

If he was left on those writers' ballots because they didn't want him getting 100% of the vote, their privileges should be revoked. If, on the other hand, that stupid "rule of 10" caused them to leave Junior off their ballot because it was a foregone conclusion that he'd get in on the first ballot and they wanted to use that vote on someone who should be in the Hall of Fame already, but who, for some reason, hasn't been getting the necessary number of votes in the past and whose eligibility is getting close to ending (Edgar, perhaps?) instead, that is the only legitimate excuse I'd accept. It's a stupid rule that needs to go.

 

[NWinAZ]

If he was left on those writers' ballots because they didn't want him getting 100% of the vote, their privileges should be revoked. If, on the other hand, that stupid "rule of 10" caused them to leave Junior off their ballot because it was a foregone conclusion that he'd get in on the first ballot and they wanted to use that vote on someone who should be in the Hall of Fame already, but who, for some reason, hasn't been getting the necessary number of votes in the past and whose eligibility is getting close to ending (Edgar, perhaps?) instead, that is the only legitimate excuse I'd accept. It's a stupid rule that needs to go.

I wouldn't accept that reason either. Their job is to vote on H.O.F candidates. By not voting for a guy like Junior or whomever, they are saying those players are not H.O.F candidates regardless of their reasoning. They are not there to be judge, jury, and executioner of the system itself.

 

[dude82]

I wouldn't accept that reason either. Their job is to vote on H.O.F candidates. By not voting for a guy like Junior or whomever, they are saying those players are not H.O.F candidates regardless of their reasoning. They are not there to be judge, jury, and executioner of the system itself.

It's not a great reason not to vote for a particular player, but I can at least respect it a lot more than that stupid "If Babe Ruth or Cy Young or 'insert legendary old-timer here' didn't get 100% of the vote for the Hall of Fame, no modern player deserves to" excuse I've actually seen some voters give, as if we're somehow going to forget that Babe Ruth or DiMaggio or Mathewson or one of those guys existed simply because a modern player deserves 100% of the vote. If that stupid "Rule of 10" didn't exist, every player that a voter wanted to vote for could get a vote and you wouldn't have situations where shoo-ins get left off of a voter's ballot because he or she thinks more than 10 players are worthy and the choice is down to voting for someone they know is getting in anyway and someone they think is worthy, but who needs every vote he can get. I don't see much eagerness to change the system, so the voters seem to be working within the system they're given to work in. It sucks, but I don't know how they could go about getting it changed. It's been an issue for years now and it hasn't changed yet.

 

[NWinAZ]

It's not a great reason not to vote for a particular player, but I can at least respect it a lot more than that stupid "If Babe Ruth or Cy Young or 'insert legendary old-timer here' didn't get 100% of the vote for the Hall of Fame, no modern player deserves to" excuse I've actually seen some voters give, as if we're somehow going to forget that Babe Ruth or DiMaggio or Mathewson or one of those guys existed simply because a modern player deserves 100% of the vote. If that stupid "Rule of 10" didn't exist, every player that a voter wanted to vote for could get a vote and you wouldn't have situations where shoo-ins get left off of a voter's ballot because he or she thinks more than 10 players are worthy and the choice is down to voting for someone they know is getting in anyway and someone they think is worthy, but who needs every vote he can get. I don't see much eagerness to change the system, so the voters seem to be working within the system they're given to work in. It sucks, but I don't know how they could go about getting it changed. It's been an issue for years now and it hasn't changed yet.

I am just saying that of you need to leave a deserving guy off to vote for a borderline guy, then the voter isn't doing what he has been given the responsibility to do. I don't don't excuse it.

 

[wazzu31]

I am just saying that of you need to leave a deserving guy off to vote for a borderline guy, then the voter isn't doing what he has been given the responsibility to do. I don't don't excuse it.

Exactly, writers are idiotic and realize they are a dying breed and need to stay relevent. There is no way sure fire hall of fame guys aren't in on the first ballot. They don't play any more games to improve their resume. Now fringe guys I can see an argument but Junior not being unanimous is ludicrous. He is by far the best position player since Mantle retired.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I am just saying that of you need to leave a deserving guy off to vote for a borderline guy, then the voter isn't doing what he has been given the responsibility to do. I don't don't excuse it.

Who's to determine if someone's a 'borderline' guy however? I mean, if a voter thinks 12 players were clear HOFers, in theory he's not thinking any of them are 'borderline' and as a result may need something to ensure/help that all of them get in.

Looking at the ballot, there's probably 11-12 guys I would've voted for....I don't think any of them were really borderline ...some were underrated and hence their percentages were hurt, but not borderline. And in a situation like that, what does one do: vote for the 10 best or try to vote in a way that could potentially put all the guys in?

 

[NWinAZ]

Who's to determine if someone's a 'borderline' guy however? I mean, if a voter thinks 12 players were clear HOFers, in theory he's not thinking any of them are 'borderline' and as a result may need something to ensure/help that all of them get in.

Looking at the ballot, there's probably 11-12 guys I would've voted for....I don't think any of them were really borderline ...some were underrated and hence their percentages were hurt, but not borderline. And in a situation like that, what does one do: vote for the 10 best or try to vote in a way that could potentially put all the guys in?

If he picks the sure thing guys first as he should, then anyone left is a borderline pick. It doesn't matter if he is allowed to pick 5, 10, or 15 guys the same issue could still happen and it should never be an issue at all. You pick the top guys and if you run out of picks then so be it. Those are your borderline picks. I didn't think the definition of borderline was all that confusing.

What does one do? Pretty simple and not up for debate. You pick the players allotted (10 in this case) from #1 to #10. If a borderline guy is #11 that year on a writers ballot, then that is life. Not all that complicated.

So to sum up, there are;

1- Obvious choices (see Jr.)
2- Borderline choices (see Edgar, Raines, and the like)
3- Non H.O.F. choices (see G. Anderson and 95% of all other retired players)