I loathe the Baseball HOF

[studm883]

Just a random rant here, but the baseball HOF voting is as big a joke as there is in sports today. First of all, I can't stand the fact that voters keep their vote as long as they keep their membership in the BWAA, there are guys voting who haven't actively covered the game in 10 years.

Second, the vote should not be anonymous, stick a name to the ballot, if for no other reason than so we can track down the 28 idiots who didn't vote for Rickey Henderson.

Third, stop making it personal! This is supposed to be about accomplishments on the field, not whether the guy was a decent interview. This is kind of about Jim Rice, and even though I'm from Boston I do not think he is a HOF player, but it's close. That aside, there are a large chunk of voters out there who didn't vote for him for years, or even this year, because he wouldn't kiss the ass of every beat writer who interviewed him.

And finally, 15 years on the ballot is insane. How is Jim Rice a hall of famer now but wasn't last year, or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Has his OPS improved that much since retirement? Three years on the ballot, 1st year for the guys who deserve the honor of "1st ballot" HOF...then two to catch the others who slip through in "crowded" years etc.

Anywho, no real reason for this, just blowing off some HOF voting steam...

 

[slacker2114]

I said it before, I'll say it again: until Pete Rose is in the HoF....FUCK baseball.

 

[studm883]

I said it before, I'll say it again: until Pete Rose is in the HoF....FUCK baseball.

I agree, and put Joe Jackson in too. Not to mention Bonds, Clemens, McGuire and the rest of the needle-boys. Put them in their own room with a syringe above the door if you want, but put them in. It's part of the history of the game, for better or worse, and they shouldn't hide from it...

 

[milagros317]

.. and put Joe Jackson in too.

Exactly. Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life, not for eternity. He has been dead for more than half a century now, so it's time to put him in the HoF.

As an unbiased Dodger fan, let me give you two names of people who belong in the Hall of Fame who are not there yet:

Gil Hodges (Any Mets fans willing to support this one?)

Maury Wills

 

[Goodieluver]

I agree, and put Joe Jackson in too. Not to mention Bonds, Clemens, McGuire and the rest of the needle-boys. Put them in their own room with a syringe above the door if you want, but put them in. It's part of the history of the game, for better or worse, and they shouldn't hide from it...

Rose's betting didnt affect games

Roids did

 

[punkrockergirl]

i couldnt agree more pete rose definitly deserves to be in the hall of fame, and i like what the writers are doing, keep mcguire and clemons and bonds out of the hall they dont belong there... sure they put up numbers but those are fake and ill concieved... there are plenty of clean players from this era that deserve to be in like Greg Maddux, Cal Ripken JR. Ricky Henderson etc etc put those guys in and leave the cheaters out

 

[fantastic8]

I actually think they should be in there. Why you ask? It is simple. It wasn't just the hitters that were juicing up as pitcher's like Clemens and Petite proved. If a good majority of players were using it, and it wasn't illegal, I don't see why they can't be in. I really don't want them in, but just like I think its terrible that the all time hits leader isn't in, I think you have to put Bonds in. And without the home run race between Sosa (who has never been proven to have taken steroids) and Big Mac brought the fans back to the game.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

Just a random rant here, but the baseball HOF voting is as big a joke as there is in sports today. First of all, I can't stand the fact that voters keep their vote as long as they keep their membership in the BWAA, there are guys voting who haven't actively covered the game in 10 years.

Second, the vote should not be anonymous, stick a name to the ballot, if for no other reason than so we can track down the 28 idiots who didn't vote for Rickey Henderson.

Third, stop making it personal! This is supposed to be about accomplishments on the field, not whether the guy was a decent interview. This is kind of about Jim Rice, and even though I'm from Boston I do not think he is a HOF player, but it's close. That aside, there are a large chunk of voters out there who didn't vote for him for years, or even this year, because he wouldn't kiss the ass of every beat writer who interviewed him.

And finally, 15 years on the ballot is insane. How is Jim Rice a hall of famer now but wasn't last year, or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? Has his OPS improved that much since retirement? Three years on the ballot, 1st year for the guys who deserve the honor of "1st ballot" HOF...then two to catch the others who slip through in "crowded" years etc.

Anywho, no real reason for this, just blowing off some HOF voting steam...

Let's see, you are 23 years old. So you were born in 1985. So that means you never really saw Jim Rice play when he DOMINATED the league for 12 season. So how do you qualify yourself as to whether he was a Hall of Famer or not??? I saw Rice play.

 

[studm883]

Let's see, you are 23 years old. So you were born in 1985. So that means you never really saw Jim Rice play when he DOMINATED the league for 12 season. So how do you qualify yourself as to whether he was a Hall of Famer or not??? I saw Rice play.

I did not see Rice play, so what I offer is an unbiased view on whether he should be in based on the numbers he put up rather than the waxing poetic of Tony Masarotti or Dan Shaunessy about "how they felt when he stepped to the plate etc" I've been hearing for the last week.

He's very, very close, hence why he's been on the ballot for 15 years. The case for him: 8-9 dominant years from ages 22-33. The case against, fell off the table after age 33, no staying power, fell short (albiet just short of 400 HRs and .300 batting average, but that last point is the weakest of those arguments because I think arbitrary litmus tests are fairly useles

Here's the big problem for me, he was a staggeringly better hitter at Fenway...I mean the splits aren't even close: .320/.374/.546 vs. .277/.330/.459. In Fenway he "DOMINATED," as you say...away from Fenway, he was nothing but another average hitter...

 

[Goodieluver]

Let's see, you are 23 years old. So you were born in 1985. So that means you never really saw Jim Rice play when he DOMINATED the league for 12 season. So how do you qualify yourself as to whether he was a Hall of Famer or not??? I saw Rice play.

I was born in 83

does this mean i cant say ty cobb is the greatest player of all time with a close second to ted williams?

Also, i am one of the few who say Joe Jackson's numbers dont merit HOF status. He was great but not long enough to show hall merit

 

[punkrockergirl]

I was born in 83

does this mean i cant say ty cobb is the greatest player of all time with a close second to ted williams?

you werent alive to see it.. so you dont get an opinion LOL😀

 

[studm883]

I was born in 83

does this mean i cant say ty cobb is the greatest player of all time with a close second to ted williams?

Also, i am one of the few who say Joe Jackson's numbers dont merit HOF status. He was great but not long enough to show hall merit

I agree with the top part obviously...I don't think less of an educated opinion from a younger person who didn't see players the old timers did etc. Sometimes having a little distance and perspective is a good thing. I don't think less of any of my history professors because they didn't witness the Battle of Antietam.

And the argument for Jackson is a tough one to make there, it wasn't like he got hurt or had his numbers fall off at the end of his career, he just couldn't play after 30 because of the whole banned for life thing. So if you argue it was wrong to ban him, you can't make the case he didn't excel long enough and if you think he shouldn't be in the Hall because of the scandal, then the point is moot...

 

[Goodieluver]

I agree with the top part obviously...I don't think less of an educated opinion from a younger person who didn't see players the old timers did etc. Sometimes having a little distance and perspective is a good thing. I don't think less of any of my history professors because they didn't witness the Battle of Antietam.

And the argument for Jackson is a tough one to make there, it wasn't like he got hurt or had his numbers fall off at the end of his career, he just couldn't play after 30 because of the whole banned for life thing. So if you argue it was wrong to ban him, you can't make the case he didn't excel long enough and if you think he shouldn't be in the Hall because of the scandal, then the point is moot...

I believe the HOF is for stats throughout a career and extraordinary play. Take Jacksons numbers and guestimate what he would have if he retired at 40 then sure, he's a HOF, but for his 10 yr career, i honestly think he is an above average player. The reason the HOF crowd gets into it is because of the scandal and how his story is romanticized.

 

[studm883]

I believe the HOF is for stats throughout a career and extraordinary play. Take Jacksons numbers and guestimate what he would have if he retired at 40 then sure, he's a HOF, but for his 10 yr career, i honestly think he is an above average player. The reason the HOF crowd gets into it is because of the scandal and how his story is romanticized.

No way man, the HOF crowd gets into it because he was .356/.423/.517 over 13 seasons in the majors. If a guy came into the league right now at age 23...played 13 years, and put up those numbers, wouldn't you put him in the all if he retired at age 36? Even if 4 of those season were injury riddled? Jim Rice was far below that level for an 8-9 year stretch and he's in.

And it comes back to the scandal, you just can't separate the two. Either Jackson was screwed, in which case how can you penalize him by keeping him out of the HOF when he was thrown out of the game, or you feel because of the scandal he doesn't deserve enshrinement. I disagree with the latter but it's a valid and widely held view, I just don't see the case for keeping him out, over his career, which wasn't that brief, his numbers were HOF and it's not even close.