re: Will we ever see a unanimous HOF electee in MLB?

It goes back to Babe Ruth not being unanimous. If he wasn't, then no one should be (that's the argument of some voters, not my argument).

quote:

---

It goes back to Babe Ruth not being unanimous. If he wasn't, then no one should be (that's the argument of some voters, not my argument).

---

Actually it's probably more - if Ty Cobb wasn't unanimous then nobody will be.

Because at that 1936 initial vote - old coots still considered Cobb the GOAT...and while Cobb got the most votes, he wasn't unanimous. 98.2%

Cy Young got 49% of the votes
Lou Ghering got 22.5% of the votes

You could vote for current players...there was no rule about being retired or out of the game X amount of years. This was the inaugural class for a LONG period of baseball. And Gherig only played 3 more years after the vote.

I haven't seen an MLB voter whose a-hole wouldn't pucker up tighter than a snare drum when you ask them for their vote.


There were 47 players listed on the initial ballot - which was covering over 50 years of baseball!!!!!

And they fricking elected 5.

5 goddamn players.

No, because some nerd writer will take it upon himself to say no one desrves to make it on the first ballot.