quote:
Do you think that a reasonable argument can be made that Peyton Manning (or Maddox in this case) should not be in the hall of fame? If there is no reasonable argument then it is unreasonable to vote that he should not be in the hall of fame.

I'm not in these voters heads and I've stated I'd vote them both in the first chance I got

But Manning, while leading his teams to the playoffs often, has also has some flameouts. Was he the best of his era or was Brady? Was his era built or manufactured for his numbers? Rule changes etc...all that enters into the equation

Maddux is tougher to critique IMO. He was rather dominant in a hitters era. He wasn't spectacular in the post-season but he was there a lot. He was probably the best most consistent pitcher of his era.

His 97% or whatever he got was plenty for him to get in though.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by jg8623

Baton Rouge

Member since Aug 2010

13531 posts

Posted on 1/9/14 at 9:23 pm to danfraz

quote:
Do you think that a reasonable argument can be made that Peyton Manning (or Maddox in this case) should not be in the hall of fame? If there is no reasonable argument then it is unreasonable to vote that he should not be in the hall of fame.

I'm not in these voters heads and I've stated I'd vote them both in the first chance I got But Manning, while leading his teams to the playoffs often, has also has some flameouts. Was he the best of his era or was Brady? Was his era built or manufactured for his numbers? Rule changes etc...all that enters into the equation

Michael Jordan lost in the playoffs. There will never be a perfect player so yea obviously all players will have flaws. That's not the point.

The point is that anyone with a pulse will say Michael Jordan ( or any other all time great such as Peyton) is a Hall of Famer. And for some reason some guy on the MLB voting side will not vote him in because of the "first ballot" crap even when he himself even knows the guy is a hall of famer.

Like I've said, it would make a little sense if they had different tiers in the HoF. There's no such "Hall of First Ballots", but if that's what the MLB guys want then so be it.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Matisyeezy

End of the bar, Drunk

Member since Feb 2012

16624 posts

Posted on 1/9/14 at 9:44 pm to jg8623

quote:
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.

My god this is perfect. No sarcasm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jcorye1

Tom Brady = GoAT

Member since Dec 2007

71503 posts

Posted on 1/9/14 at 11:32 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.

Lulz.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by broeho

Atlanta, Ga

Member since Jan 2013

1815 posts

Posted on 1/10/14 at 4:01 am to rockchlkjayhku11

quote:
houldn'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.

exactly. nobody will ever be a first ballot hall-of-famer, because a solid percentage of the voters are just fricking retarded.

If Mike Trout hits 1000 home-runs and wins 15 MVPs, some baseball traditionalist will still keep him off his ballot because no reason at all.

Page 1 2 3 4