Author Topic: Greg Maddux will not be a unanimous HOF selection (tracking at 100% till now)  (Read 18726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Looks like some hack trying to make a name from himself by separating himself.

  I have that same thought every time I hear one of those writers talk about how they vote.

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Cliff Corcoran of SI.com just blew this guy up:

Quote
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. That’s the exact same ballot, and the same explanation, almost verbatim, that Gurnick submitted last year. Before you credit Gurnick for consistency, he had Lee Smith on his ballot in 2012 and dropped him last year without explanation, and in 2011 he did not vote for Morris.
 
Those irregularities merely reveal the internal hypocrisy of Gurnick’s votes. His reasoning is far more problematic, and not simply because he has decided to eliminate an entire generation of ballplayers from his ballot. One need not even wade into those waters to point out that Gurnick’s definition of “the period of PED use” is woefully lacking. Assuming one even could establish a starting point for such a period, it would have come comfortably within the playing days of Morris, Smith and Bert Blyleven, whom Gurnick also voted for in 2011.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
It is a pretty stupid tradition and I expect it will die off as the older generation of writers are replaced. Still, I don't get too upset about it because it's a relatively harmless issue that doesn't affect the ultimate induction.

What they do need to change is the stupid ten player limit on the ballot because that actually helps eliminates certain players from staying on the ballot in the future.

Also, there needs to be direction given by major league baseball on how to approach voting for players who took steroids or PEDs. It shouldn't just be a personal moral judgement made by each writer independently.

Oh yeah, and the baseball awards should be defined more clearly as well, specifically the MVP award and whether it should be position players only.

Offline McHales Pits

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1621
  • Tommy Points: 175
I actually like the rule.... If players like Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams weren't unanimous, then there should NEVER be a unanimous selection.

If Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio, and Williams weren't 1st Ballot, then who would be?

Those are four of the top 15 players in MLB history. I only say 15 to be safe. It's really top 10. But anyways, what this shows is the baseball writers' bias. If the writers don't like you, you won't get in. What does that tell you? Agenda much!
2013 CB Draft Champions*: Minnesota Timberwolves
DKC League: Washington Wizards

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I actually like the rule.... If players like Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams weren't unanimous, then there should NEVER be a unanimous selection.

If Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio, and Williams weren't 1st Ballot, then who would be?

Those are four of the top 15 players in MLB history. I only say 15 to be safe. It's really top 10. But anyways, what this shows is the baseball writers' bias. If the writers don't like you, you won't get in. What does that tell you? Agenda much!

 ???  Maybe I'm misreading your posts, but it seems like you're confusing being unanimous with being 1st ballot.  All those guys were elected on the 1st ballot and Maddux will be too.  You need 75% votes to get in, they just didn't get 100%.

Offline kraidstar

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Tommy Points: 2478
Fafnir:
"Of course Baseball is still in denial about PEDs too, Hank Aaron was on greenies all the time to hit all his home runs."

offensive stats across baseball were down when aaron played. offensive stats exploded in the 90's when the steroid craze took over. hank aaron's head was not twice its normal size from taking stimulants like barry bonds or roger clemens. comparing greenies to other PEDs is apples and oranges, because we've seen how much steroids changed the game in a short time, when greenies did not.

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9673
  • Tommy Points: 325
I actually like the rule.... If players like Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams weren't unanimous, then there should NEVER be a unanimous selection.

The question is, why weren't those guys unanimous. They all should've been.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9673
  • Tommy Points: 325
I actually like the rule.... If players like Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams weren't unanimous, then there should NEVER be a unanimous selection.

If Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio, and Williams weren't 1st Ballot, then who would be?

Those are four of the top 15 players in MLB history. I only say 15 to be safe. It's really top 10. But anyways, what this shows is the baseball writers' bias. If the writers don't like you, you won't get in. What does that tell you? Agenda much!

 ???  Maybe I'm misreading your posts, but it seems like you're confusing being unanimous with being 1st ballot.  All those guys were elected on the 1st ballot and Maddux will be too.  You need 75% votes to get in, they just didn't get 100%.

Well, those guys should've been first ballot AND unanimous.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9673
  • Tommy Points: 325
There's never been a shred of evidence that Maddux used PEDs. Good grief, he looks like he never even lifted a weight in his life.

Exhibit A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw

Nice! TP.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9673
  • Tommy Points: 325

As one of my co-workers said, if someone isn't a recognizable name, he probably shouldn't be in the HOF (think Bert Blyleven).

I think this is a terrible way to approach the process myself. Its called the Hall of Fame, but its not supposed to be about celebrity or name recognition. Excellence on the field is supposed to be the primary determinant.

And if all the new metrics have shown us anything, fans, writers, and coaches have historically often been poor at evaluating exactly what is winning baseball. (Gold Glove voting for example)

I understand your point, but I think my co-worker has a valid point, too. I mean, using certain stats, Mark Ellis is one of the best—perhaps THE best—defensive second baseman of all time. But he should never reach the Hall. And I think that, at least most of the time, the guys who are the best overall players are also the ones with the name recognition.

I agree with you that it's supposed to be about excellence on the field, but HOFers should be "the best of the best"—something that guys like Blyleven and Morris are decidedly not (career numbers that are certainly good, and solid, but not "the best"). Putting in guys like those two waters it down.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be

As one of my co-workers said, if someone isn't a recognizable name, he probably shouldn't be in the HOF (think Bert Blyleven).

I think this is a terrible way to approach the process myself. Its called the Hall of Fame, but its not supposed to be about celebrity or name recognition. Excellence on the field is supposed to be the primary determinant.

And if all the new metrics have shown us anything, fans, writers, and coaches have historically often been poor at evaluating exactly what is winning baseball. (Gold Glove voting for example)

I understand your point, but I think my co-worker has a valid point, too. I mean, using certain stats, Mark Ellis is one of the best—perhaps THE best—defensive second baseman of all time. But he should never reach the Hall. And I think that, at least most of the time, the guys who are the best overall players are also the ones with the name recognition.

I agree with you that it's supposed to be about excellence on the field, but HOFers should be "the best of the best"—something that guys like Blyleven and Morris are decidedly not (career numbers that are certainly good, and solid, but not "the best"). Putting in guys like those two waters it down.

It's already watered down.

The veteran's committee made sure of that a loooong time ago.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950

As one of my co-workers said, if someone isn't a recognizable name, he probably shouldn't be in the HOF (think Bert Blyleven).

I think this is a terrible way to approach the process myself. Its called the Hall of Fame, but its not supposed to be about celebrity or name recognition. Excellence on the field is supposed to be the primary determinant.

And if all the new metrics have shown us anything, fans, writers, and coaches have historically often been poor at evaluating exactly what is winning baseball. (Gold Glove voting for example)

I understand your point, but I think my co-worker has a valid point, too. I mean, using certain stats, Mark Ellis is one of the best—perhaps THE best—defensive second baseman of all time. But he should never reach the Hall. And I think that, at least most of the time, the guys who are the best overall players are also the ones with the name recognition.

I thought the guys who play for the Yankees and get their names pounded into our brains by the media are the ones with the most name recognition.

A lot of sabermetric analysis has gone towards proving that some players who don't get as much love from the media are better than more famous names.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9673
  • Tommy Points: 325

As one of my co-workers said, if someone isn't a recognizable name, he probably shouldn't be in the HOF (think Bert Blyleven).

I think this is a terrible way to approach the process myself. Its called the Hall of Fame, but its not supposed to be about celebrity or name recognition. Excellence on the field is supposed to be the primary determinant.

And if all the new metrics have shown us anything, fans, writers, and coaches have historically often been poor at evaluating exactly what is winning baseball. (Gold Glove voting for example)

I understand your point, but I think my co-worker has a valid point, too. I mean, using certain stats, Mark Ellis is one of the best—perhaps THE best—defensive second baseman of all time. But he should never reach the Hall. And I think that, at least most of the time, the guys who are the best overall players are also the ones with the name recognition.

I thought the guys who play for the Yankees and get their names pounded into our brains by the media are the ones with the most name recognition.

A lot of sabermetric analysis has gone towards proving that some players who don't get as much love from the media are better than more famous names.

I guess I just filter out all the "positive Yankees talk" from the media.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
Whatever, I don't need some "look-at-me" writer to tell me Maddux was one of the best pitchers ever.  My eyes told me that, and I should know, as a Braves fan I watched a vast majority of his games.

Maddux's skill, his precision, was unmatched.  Never seen a pitcher do more (success) with less (physical ability).

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23322
  • Tommy Points: 2509
I don't care much about HOF and generally am turned off by the importance given it by the lobbying forces in any chosen sport.  The players who "get in" have (especially nowadays) lived lives filled with praise -- receiving seasonal athletic recognition throughout their lives; batting awards, pitching awards, all-star honors, MVP awards, Coaches awards, athletic scholarships, number retirings, peer accolades, adult accolades (not to mention 7 or 8 figure remuneration). And finally, "immortality" in the Hall of Fame.  Enough already.

I can respect the enterprising interests of a sport having a Hall of Fame -- the attention it garners with opportunities for merchandising and revenue-generation, but what it really boils down to is that the HOF is a museum.  Hopefully, it's at least a good one.

Museums can be really good.  Good museums (as I am sure baseball's Hall is)  effectively tell the story of a valued aspect of culture.  The Smithsonion museums tell a wide range of American cultural stories and do so not as a 'Hall of Fame', but as an archive of fame, infamy, and all relevant feature of historic  interest.  A good museum (my opinion) is as much about the blemishes as the shining moments.  It is a place that isn't necessarily aimed at praising its product, but rather to explore and reveal the evolution of the product -- often sending the message that it takes visionaries, risk-takers, those who succeed and those who fail -- and also, to extents large and small, it requires contributions from the 'little guys'.   

"Hall of Fame" is a lofty moniker that makes the "enshrined" sound more important than they are.  They played baseball and they did it better than almost anyone -- yet each is still one of millions, just a solid contributor to a cultural pasttime.  Pete Rose is part of baseball's story as were Joe Jackson, Mark McGuire, Curt Flood, Scott Hatteburg, Smokey Burgess, and Walter the Usher, who helped sneak me into the 6th game of the 1975 World Series.

The fact that some would be dismayed to see anyone receive the unattainable honor of "unanimous entry" is just (again, my opinion) an example of thinking this is just a little more important than it is.