1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Hank_Scorpio, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. cyclingwriter

    cyclingwriter Active Member

    Yeah, but he should have worn his Cleveland Spiders hat for the induction.

    Also, the real reason he got only 76 percent of the voter the second year was because of a popular phonograph record that gained a lot of steam amongst fans that lambasted Young's career VORP.
     
  2. budcrew08

    budcrew08 Active Member

    I thought Ted Williams took a couple of times too...
     
  3. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Nope - 93.4% of the vote his first time on the ballot, 1966.

    Which of course means 6.6% of the BBWAA that year was brain dead.
     
  4. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Alomar had great expectorations. Got what he deserved.
     
  5. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    I do believe that if a player gets 95 percent of a vote, contrarians should lose their voting privileges.
     
  6. spnited

    spnited Active Member


    Why should anyone ever lose their voting privilege?
    And why pick 95%? How about 90 or 85%.
    How about anybody who didn't vote for Roberto Alomar this year because he deserves to be in?
     
  7. Maybe they knew that guy would get in anyway, so chose to use his slot on their 10 to vote for a borderline guy who needs the support.
     
  8. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    There had to be some of those 6 percent who were among the writers Williams hated and vice versa. I know there are many issues with today's Hall electorate, but I honestly believe my peers try to make more dispassionate judgments than the voters of yesteryear. That doesn't stop them from making mistakes, but they are less petty mistakes.
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Which is yet another bullshit way to decide. Vote for the 10 (or fewer) who deserve to be in. It's that simple, yet somebody always fucks it up.
     
  10. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    The greatest Cy Young line, laid onto some whippershapper:

    "I won more games than you ever saw."
     
  11. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Awesome. Can't top that.

    But there is a great story about how he made Rube Waddell his bitch on the day he threw the first perfect game under modern rules.

    After one-hitting Boston on May 2, 1904, Philadelphia Athletics pitcher Rube Waddell taunted Young to face him so that he could repeat his performance against Boston's ace. Three days later, Young pitched a perfect game against Waddell and the Athletics. It was the first perfect game in American League history. Waddell was the 27th and last batter, and when he flied out, Young shouted, "How do you like that, you hayseed?"
     
  12. It's still no reason to start overhauling the system or imposing ultimatums on voters. Posters on here vehemently disagree with the "Hall Within a Hall" concept of first-ballot Hall of Famers, but are upset because someone isn't a unanimous selection, as if that lessens the honor or something. It doesn't. The Hall of Fame is the Hall of Fame is the Hall of Fame.

    They've covered the game for 10 years or more, and theoretically earned the right to vote as they please. There are enough votes that a few outliers don't really affect anything. No reason to change anything, and certainly no reason to begin taking votes away from people because they didn't vote with the majority.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page