Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
This year is especially controversial with all the first-year players from the ‘steroids’ appearing on the ballot.
Unlike last year, and the year before that and the year before that...
Hopefully this year really shows how far lost the process is and how the entire voting structure and who votes needs to be changed.
Where [Leitch] lost me was in equating both sides of the debate. That's not fair, not even a little bit, because both sides of the debate are not behaving similarly. One one side you have people whose goal is to protect the standards of the Hall of Fame, to see each generation of players treated fairly and consistently, to hold the voters to some standard of reason, of logic, my god, of decency.
...See, the other side of the argument Will chides, the "establishment," by and large the people with votes, do things like this with their privilege. Protest votes. Blank ballots. Treating the Hall of Fame vote as little more than an opportunity to display their ignorance of baseball history, of the Hall's history, of statistics, of logic and reason and fairness. This is the year, I would say, that the Hall of Fame voting ceased to be about the players and became, wholly, about the writers.
...The side that didn't exist 20 years ago is standing up in opposition of the idea that any group of people could tell us, as fans, that Barry Bonds is anything less than a living legend. ... We're standing up for a Hall of Fame that, frankly, should be ashamed that it won't stand up for itself.
...The Hall of Fame will eventually have to join the fight, because Will's central point is right: these arguments, which are not about baseball, will turn people off from the Hall.
He then goes on to mention that the electorate needs to change, because the change in media landscape has left too many people voting who are unqualified while too many people left out of the process are qualified.
#2 When I pointed out that Terry Mosher (Aislin -- Montreal editorial cartoonist) has a HOF vote, many people simply didn't believe me.
Whatever happened to that story that there were a bunch of golfers who were using PEDs? Tiger seems to me like the Roger Clemens of golf - I could definitely see him embroiled in a long, bitter PED battle in the media/courts.
I once heard him say he happened to apply to the BBWAA to get a HoF vote and was accepted, for some reasons.
The best way to clear it up is to require 10 years as a writer plus to have been an active member (ie: published columns about baseball) in the past 5 years (lets be generous). I bet that'd clear out a lot of the non-baseball people.
Mind you, I agree that they need to remove the guys who may not be the best candidates, but I think that if you have a vote, and there is one player on the ballot who you covered live, you should continue to have the vote.
They aren't voting on one player on the ballot, they are voting on all of them. i don't think it's unreasonable to say that they should have covered all of the players on the ballot live.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.4001 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed