MLB Hall of Fame a joke???

[2y4life]

First off, I personally think that the MLB Hall of Fame is a joke. Listen to what I have to say before you get angry or what not.

The only reason I feel that the Hall of Fame is a joke is because many of these voters feel like some players don't deserve to be "first-ballot" hall of famers. WTF does that mean? Isn't a player a hofer or not? You either deserve to be in the HOF or you don't yet many voters don't vote for some players purely because they feel that certain players should wait longer or what not.

What I'm trying to get at is: If a player is not a sure fire "first-ballot" hall of famer...does time actually make that player better? Is 10 years after retirement going to make that retired player look better? Will his stats get any better with time? This is why I don't like the whole MLB Hall of Fame. Vote in those who you think deserve to be in the HOF and don't wait fucken 10-40 years before you vote them in.

Also, how the fuck does a guy like Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripkin Jr, Nolan Ryan, or Reggie Jackson not get 100% of the votes to get in? That means there are voters out there who don't think these guys belong in the HOF and that to me just shows how shitty the HOF system is right now for baseball. Much like the game, the hall is tainted by voters and has always been.

[AsHopeDies]

That's the nature of voting man. It's the human element. It's also the nature of the 'first ballot' hall of famer. When looked at scientifically, you are correct. But being a first ballot hall of famer has become a greater honor. It's like winning something unanimously versus just getting the majority. Baseball, or any sport for that matter, isn't science. There's not a set criteria for getting in, that alone is reason enough for all of the things you don't like about it. It's completely human and it's completely subjective.

I feel like the wrong group of people are doing the voting though, that's for sure.

[Shymega]

Cal Ripken is overrated.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ripkeca01.shtml

[High On PCP]

I said yes before even reading the post...


But I said yes mainly because of that whole silly steroids ordeal.

[piggyman18]

Until Pete Rose is in, yes, it's a complete joke.

[atreyu_2020]

Until Pete Rose is in, yes, it's a complete joke.

Exactly what I was going to say. It will always be a joke considering Pete Rose isn't in it, and will never be in it.

[sprak_]

What I'm trying to get at is: If a player is not a sure fire "first-ballot" hall of famer...does time actually make that player better? Is 10 years after retirement going to make that retired player look better? Will his stats get any better with time? This is why I don't like the whole MLB Hall of Fame. Vote in those who you think deserve to be in the HOF and don't wait fucken 10-40 years before you vote them in.

From what I understand, each writer can vote for up to 10 players. You need 75% of the votes to make it in. Players who had to wait 10 years to get in simply were borderline HOF and needed weaker competition in the year they were voted in.

I don't see why Gwynn or someone of that caliber wouldn't get 100% of the votes, but some people have personal agendas and that will never change as long as there are humans involved. Also I'm sure there are a few every year who send in a blank ballot, and people who maybe don't vote for the surefire HOFers so they can use their votes on borderline players, who knows. Then again, for people like Mark McGwire it's a good thing the voting works the way it does.

Edit: And actually no one has ever gotten 100% of the vote. Ripken had 98.5%, 3rd highest ever, and Gwynn is 7th with 97.6%.

I don't think the HOF is a joke because Pete Rose isn't in... why should the rules not apply just because he was an excellent player?

[2y4life]

From what I understand, each writer can vote for up to 10 players. You need 75% of the votes to make it in. Players who had to wait 10 years to get in simply were borderline HOF and needed weaker competition in the year they were voted in.

I don't see why Gwynn or someone of that caliber wouldn't get 100% of the votes, but some people have personal agendas and that will never change as long as there are humans involved. Also I'm sure there are a few every year who send in a blank ballot, and people who maybe don't vote for the surefire HOFers so they can use their votes on borderline players, who knows. Then again, for people like Mark McGwire it's a good thing the voting works the way it does.

Edit: And actually no one has ever gotten 100% of the vote. Ripken had 98.5%, 3rd highest ever, and Gwynn is 7th with 97.6%.

I don't think the HOF is a joke because Pete Rose isn't in... why should the rules not apply just because he was an excellent player?
You get what I mean. There hasn't been a single player who received 100% of all the writers votes which just shows how ridiculous these voters are since they all couldn't even agree on whether guys like Ripken, Gwynn, Nolan Ryan, or Reggie Jackson deserve to be in the HOF or not.

[sprak_]

Well why should any player ever get 100% of the votes if Babe Ruth didn't? It just makes getting into the HOF a more prestigious honor, and I'm sure there are other reasons for players not being unanimous picks. Certainly every professional sports writer would agree that Babe Ruth belongs in the HOF.

[2y4life]

Well why should any player ever get 100% of the votes if Babe Ruth didn't? It just makes getting into the HOF a more prestigious honor, and I'm sure there are other reasons for players not being unanimous picks. Certainly every professional sports writer would agree that Babe Ruth belongs in the HOF.
Why should players like Nolan Ryan or Tony Gwynn not get 100% of the votes? What more should they have done in their careers in order to deserve 100% of the votes then? It's all because of politics and it should be left out of the HOF but I guess it's baseball for ya. Everything is messed up.

[sprak_]

I don't care what they did in their careers... no one should get 100% of the vote if Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ted Williams etc. didn't... and that's exactly why some writers didn't vote for them or sent in blank ballots. I've read an article where one writer sent in a blank ballot because Ripken/Gwynn played in the steroid era. It doesn't matter anyway, it's not like there's different levels of the HOF, you're in or out.

And actually Nolan Ryan is not a good example... low winning percentage, extremely high numbers of walks and wild pitches, only one WS and 8 all star games in 25 years, no Cy Youngs. Lots of reasons why he shouldn't be a unanimous pick.

[AsHopeDies]

Until Pete Rose is in, yes, it's a complete joke.

Exactly what I was going to say. It will always be a joke considering Pete Rose isn't in it, and will never be in it.

Aren't there other banned players that aren't in there that aren't such huge assholes?

[sprak_]

shoeless joe, and all he did was lose the world series on purpose :bigwink: