Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://bbwaa.com/

Andre Dawson only one elected. Bert Blyleven misses induction by only 5 votes.

Third highest vote getter was Roberto Alomar who missed induction by 8 votes.

David Segui got screwed!!!!

Blyleven needs to be in

dgreco wrote:http://bbwaa.com/

Andre Dawson only one elected. Bert Blyleven misses induction by only 5 votes.

Third highest vote getter was Roberto Alomar who missed induction by 8 votes.

Is this the first year that Alomar was eligible? If so, he'll make it next year. There are a lot of voters who won't vote for first timers.

dbackjon wrote:Blyleven needs to be in

I think he also gets in next year.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Blyleven needs to be in

I think he also gets in next year.

I agree Byleven and Alomar both make it next year. A small chance Alomar gets pushed to year 3.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dgreco wrote:http://bbwaa.com/

Andre Dawson only one elected. Bert Blyleven misses induction by only 5 votes.

Third highest vote getter was Roberto Alomar who missed induction by 8 votes.

Is this the first year that Alomar was eligible? If so, he'll make it next year. There are a lot of voters who won't vote for first timers.

Yup - his first time. At least he got within spittin' distance of the hall the first time out.

dbackjon wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Is this the first year that Alomar was eligible? If so, he'll make it next year. There are a lot of voters who won't vote for first timers.

Yup - his first time. At least he got within spittin' distance of the hall the first time out.

Dawson will NOT be the only one to be inducted this year. Manager Whitey Herzog (StL) and umpire Doug Harvey were elected last month by the Veterans Committee.

BlueHen86 wrote:

dgreco wrote:http://bbwaa.com/

Andre Dawson only one elected. Bert Blyleven misses induction by only 5 votes.

Third highest vote getter was Roberto Alomar who missed induction by 8 votes.

Is this the first year that Alomar was eligible? If so, he'll make it next year. There are a lot of voters who won't vote for first timers.

Yup, but it is silly to not vote for a first-timer simply becuase it is the first time he has appeared on the ballot.

These guys who won't vote for a first-timer should consider that if every voter acted that way, no player would get enough votes to even appear on the ballot for a second time.

JoltinJoe wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Is this the first year that Alomar was eligible? If so, he'll make it next year. There are a lot of voters who won't vote for first timers.

Yup, but it is silly to not vote for a first-timer simply becuase it is the first time he has appeared on the ballot.

These guys who won't vote for a first-timer should consider that if every voter acted that way, no player would get enough votes to even appear on the ballot for a second time.

I agree.

JoltinJoe wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Is this the first year that Alomar was eligible? If so, he'll make it next year. There are a lot of voters who won't vote for first timers.

Yup, but it is silly to not vote for a first-timer simply becuase it is the first time he has appeared on the ballot.

These guys who won't vote for a first-timer should consider that if every voter acted that way, no player would get enough votes to even appear on the ballot for a second time.

I've heard two reasons for this:

1) Since no one has ever gone in unanimously, some voters are bound and determined to make sure that no one ever does, so they will not vote for someone in the first year.

2) Other voters think that first ballot hall of fame is a greater honor than second/third etc, so they reserve their first ballot for the greatest of players.

The Hawk had to wait too long to get in, IMO.

Robby Alomar belongs as well. I don't get the whole first time no vote either.

Mark Maguire is screwed.

the HOF voting process is a friggin' JOKE.

Somehow, after 14 years of not playing the game, the Hawk is apparently a better player.

The whole process is just retarded.

Oh, and Blyleven should be in, as should Alomar and Lee Smith.

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Yup, but it is silly to not vote for a first-timer simply becuase it is the first time he has appeared on the ballot.

These guys who won't vote for a first-timer should consider that if every voter acted that way, no player would get enough votes to even appear on the ballot for a second time.

I've heard two reasons for this:

1) Since no one has ever gone in unanimously, some voters are bound and determined to make sure that no one ever does, so they will not vote for someone in the first year.

2) Other voters think that first ballot hall of fame is a greater honor than second/third etc, so they reserve their first ballot for the greatest of players.

Yes, that is their reasoning. But as noted, if all voters thought like, all players would drop off the ballot after the first year, and no one would ever make the Hall through the BBWAA election.

Congrats to Dawson

Quite a few on the list still Hall of Fame worthy, especially the best pitcher of the 1980's.

Gil Dobie wrote:Congrats to Dawson

Quite a few on the list still Hall of Fame worthy, especially the best pitcher of the 1980's.

And the best player in all of baseball throughout most of the 80s.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Congrats to Dawson

Quite a few on the list still Hall of Fame worthy, especially the best pitcher of the 1980's.

And the best player in all of baseball throughout most of the 80s.

The best player in baseball from the late '60s to the mid-80's still isn't in, either. Bart Giamatti, Fay Vincent, Bud Selig, and that jerk Jim Gray are ignoramuses.

Todd Zeile not getting a vote is a damned travesty.

SuperHornet wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
And the best player in all of baseball throughout most of the 80s.

The best player in baseball from the late '60s to the mid-80's still isn't in, either. Bart Giamatti, Fay Vincent, Bud Selig, and that jerk Jim Gray are ignoramuses.

You're talking about that singles hitter who barely hit .300 for his career, but was blessed with over 14,000 career at-bats? A very good player, but not the best of any era.

JoltinJoe wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
The best player in baseball from the late '60s to the mid-80's still isn't in, either. Bart Giamatti, Fay Vincent, Bud Selig, and that jerk Jim Gray are ignoramuses.

You're talking about that singles hitter who barely hit .300 for his career, but was blessed with over 14,000 career at-bats? A very good player, but not the best of any era.

Perhaps, but there was an intangible quality about Rose that made him special. He was a winner, sort of like Derek Jeter. If baseball doesn't want him coaching that is one thing, but he should be in the HOF.

JoltinJoe wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
The best player in baseball from the late '60s to the mid-80's still isn't in, either. Bart Giamatti, Fay Vincent, Bud Selig, and that jerk Jim Gray are ignoramuses.

You're talking about that singles hitter who barely hit .300 for his career, but was blessed with over 14,000 career at-bats? A very good player, but not the best of any era.

Rose was leaps and bounds better than Mattingly.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You're talking about that singles hitter who barely hit .300 for his career, but was blessed with over 14,000 career at-bats? A very good player, but not the best of any era.

Perhaps, but there was an intangible quality about Rose that made him special. He was a winner, sort of like Derek Jeter. If baseball doesn't want him coaching that is one thing, but he should be in the HOF.

I never said he shouldn't be in the Hall. I just said he was not the best of any of his eras.

andy7171 wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You're talking about that singles hitter who barely hit .300 for his career, but was blessed with over 14,000 career at-bats? A very good player, but not the best of any era.

Rose was leaps and bounds better than Mattingly.

Mattingly at his peak was so much better than Rose, there is no need to even compare the numbers. Mattingly hit higher -- like 30 points higher -- than Rose, and hit for power and production. And he was better defensively.

Rose was blessed with longetivity. Mattingly suffered a career-ending injury which caused his last years to be merely above average. The writers shortchange guys like Mattingly -- the very best at the game for an extended time, but whose careers are cut short. They worship numbers, like 3000 hits, or 500 HRs, no matter how long it takes for a guy to get there. Thus, an accumulator like Eddie Murray, who never sniffed the heights of Don Mattingly, gets in and Mattingly does not.

Any guy who can lay claim to being the game's very best player for as long as Mattingly was belongs in the Hall of Fame. And if he had not been a Yankee, he would have made it long ago.

Pete Rose was a very good player, certainly among the best of his times, but never the best. In the end, however, he was somewhat of the ultimate accumulator. He hit .303 for his career, so his career hit record really is the result of longetivity and his remarkable 14,000 career at-bats. And it was painful to watch Rose in his last years perservere on in pursuit of that record. He was by that time a well below average player with no power and limited defensive skills, but he reached his goal, and that is all everyone remembers.

JoltinJoe wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Perhaps, but there was an intangible quality about Rose that made him special. He was a winner, sort of like Derek Jeter. If baseball doesn't want him coaching that is one thing, but he should be in the HOF.

I never said he shouldn't be in the Hall. I just said he was not the best of any of his eras.