- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:27 pm to jg8623
quote:
Ruth and Gehrig should have gotten 100% IMO along with some others
They were founding members of the HOF elected on the first ever ballot.
Why does it have to be 100%? The everyone should think alike mindset is something I don't really understand
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:27 pm to danfraz
quote:
Doesn't make them any less of a great player if one voter says no
No but it does make the voter an idiot and give plenty of reason to strip that voter of a vote
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:28 pm to danfraz
quote:
Sure. A 100% HOF vote for any player says, to me anyway, that HE was the greatest player to ever play whichever sport. No flaws, no failings. When in fact every player fails and has a flaw in their play.
The voters don't know the votes of others until they are turned in. Hence one guy doesn't have the ability to notice that everyone else voted for him, so I'm not just so he doesn't get 100%. They vote who they think is worthy or not for whatever reason, and for some people to think certain players aren't worthy is insane
Being in the Hall of Fame doesn't mean you're the greatest player ever. It means you're one of the greatest that everyone should remember. Every decade has players that are among the greats that should be remembered. And it's pretty obvious who they are.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:30 pm to danfraz
quote:
Why does it have to be 100%? The everyone should think alike mindset is something I don't really understand
I think it's a case of some things being so apparent as to be beyond dispute.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. But you would be wrong and have no business being an authority on science.
To use an example from basketball, if somebody said that Michael Jordan was not a Hall of Fame player, is that someone whose opinion you could take seriously?
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:31 pm to danfraz
quote:
Why does it have to be 100%? The everyone should think alike mindset is something I don't really understand
Why does it not have to be???
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:31 pm to danfraz
quote:
Why does it have to be 100%?
it doesnt. but sometimes it should.
if you ask the people who did not vote for greg maddux why, i GUARANTEE that none of them will say "because i don't think he's a HOFer." shouldn't that be the only criteria? if they do say that they think that, then they should not be allowed to vote, because they are a fricking idiot.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:32 pm to danfraz
quote:
Why does it have to be 100%? The everyone should think alike mindset is something I don't really understand
There's a difference in being intellectually different when filling out your ballot and being an attention whoring writer who is using your ballot for just that.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:33 pm to witty alias
quote:
So, you think it's right that some voters didn't vote for Maddux? Those voters didn't think he belonged in the HOF.
If they felt he wasn't a first ballot candidate so be it. I think going in on your first shot is a privilege. Doesn't mean someone isn't worthy of being a member, but waiting a year or two or 10 shows respect to the past IMO
I would have voted him in. Along with glavine, biggio, piazza and jack Morris. But I am fine with no one ever getting 100%
And comparing the sports isn't really all it's cracked up to be. The Baseball HOF has a much longer richer history that the Pro FHOF. I mean hell, some great AFL players aren't in the PFHOF
so when humans are involved there will be flaws
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:36 pm to danfraz
So you're saying nobody should be elected on their first ballot? Why even have a HOF?
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:36 pm to danfraz
quote:
If they felt he wasn't a first ballot candidate so be it. I think going in on your first shot is a privilege. Doesn't mean someone isn't worthy of being a member, but waiting a year or two or 10 shows respect to the past IMO
Then they should have different levels of the Hall of Fame. Have 1 building for first ballot, one for second ballot and so on based on that reasoning.
A hall of famer is a hall of famer. Nothing else to it
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:37 pm to danfraz
quote:
And comparing the sports isn't really all it's cracked up to be. The Baseball HOF has a much longer richer history that the Pro FHOF.
I'm not comparing sports, just pointing out how dumb some voters are
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:38 pm to jg8623
It's just some voters private statement of protest.
Like the old saying, why is one guy a HOFer one year but not the other 5 years he was on the ballot?
Some people maybe don't think Manning is the GOAT...and maybe don't want to make that statement...because of his post-season chokiness.
Or just like with Irvin not getting 1st ballot HOF.
Obviously rational minds clearly indicate that Manning should receive 100% vote if voted on by MLB writers...because he's a slam-dunk HOFer...and him spending a year in retirement doesn't change anything.
But...MLB likes to make statements with their ballot.
As does the NFL...with Irvin...dude was a clear HOFer - no reason he should have had to wait.
Like the old saying, why is one guy a HOFer one year but not the other 5 years he was on the ballot?
Some people maybe don't think Manning is the GOAT...and maybe don't want to make that statement...because of his post-season chokiness.
Or just like with Irvin not getting 1st ballot HOF.
Obviously rational minds clearly indicate that Manning should receive 100% vote if voted on by MLB writers...because he's a slam-dunk HOFer...and him spending a year in retirement doesn't change anything.
But...MLB likes to make statements with their ballot.
As does the NFL...with Irvin...dude was a clear HOFer - no reason he should have had to wait.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:39 pm to Ruxin
quote:
So you're saying nobody should be elected on their first ballot? Why even have a HOF?
Where did I say that? It's a honor to be first ballot HOF. Which Maddux is. Why does it matter if a few ppl think he wasn't? That's why the % is set at 75% to get in. What's the problem? Why do you think some dude should be required to vote him in? His reasoning is his reasoning
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:40 pm to Zamoro10
I agree. Like I just said above, they should add tier levels to the HoF if it's so important to them
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:41 pm to danfraz
What you're saying is nobody deserves to be elected on the first ballot because no one should get 100% vote. If everyone voted for them to get in you would be the one that said no, bc they don't deserve 100%
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:43 pm to jg8623
quote:
I agree. Like I just said above, they should add tier levels to the HoF if it's so important to them
I think the overall majority consider it a honor to vote and take it very seriously. No tiers needed. First ballot is first ballot, most rational people understand the significance.
I don't understand why some of you feel EVERYONE should view it as you do. Most of the voters do a ton of research and weigh history when voting, which is fine with me
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:43 pm to danfraz
quote:
Where did I say that? It's a honor to be first ballot HOF. Which Maddux is. Why does it matter if a few ppl think he wasn't? That's why the % is set at 75% to get in. What's the problem? Why do you think some dude should be required to vote him in? His reasoning is his reasoning
It matters because that person is obviously an idiot, never watched baseball, or is just trying to protest for whatever reason. No one is required to do anything, but if those guys don't think he was eligible for the Hall this year, why would their opinion change next year?
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:43 pm to danfraz
It's a yes or no vote. You don't get to say I'm 98% sure he's a HOFer but I don't want to give him my full vote bc he had flaws and wasn't the GOAT.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 6:46 pm to Ruxin
quote:
What you're saying is nobody deserves to be elected on the first ballot because no one should get 100% vote. If everyone voted for them to get in you would be the one that said no, bc they don't deserve 100%
Huh?
The % it takes to get elected is 75%. First ballot or not. So why do you feel its so important that someone should receive 100% of the vote? Because you think everyone should think like you? Wtf?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News