1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Alomar, Blyleven are in

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by BYH, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Fine. Fair enough. Maybe I was thinking about the football HOF.

    To answer your question....No. I'm not ready to say players only get one year to be voted in. Doesn't mean the voters aren't a fucking joke for holding back players because of the dumb reasons I listed below, which happens damn near every year.

    So....

    The whole Blyleven thing (evaluating players over time)...fine. I'll live with it. I'm not all for it, but not 100 percent against it either.

    The Alomar thing. Shows how idiotic the writers are.
     
  2. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Bullshit. Complete bullshit.
     
  3. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Anybody who didn't vote for Alomar is either falsely moral or stupid or both. I'm not assuming anything; it's patently obvious.
     
  4. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    Why is it falsely moral to say I found the Hirshbeck incident unsavory and choose to not vote for Alomar in his firsr year of eligibility but will vote for him next year?
    An opinion you don't agree with, fine. Nothing falsely moral about it. Just someone else's opinion.
     
  5. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I think baseball does it right. Fifteen years to evaluate someone's career is fair, even if it puts the borderline HOF candidates through hell as the process plays out.

    I wouldn't have voted for Blyleven, but I also don't think Blyleven deserved a low 17 percent vote count either. His continued presence on the ballot allows for re-evaluation, for those to realize that someone might be more deserving than they would have thought. Or less so. Some players reps can and should decline over time.

    When Dale Murphy was active, he was thought of as a HOFer. Time has told us that he had a great peak period, but a lot of woodwork before and after.

    It also allows emotion to take over the process, which isn't a good thing, and which I think finally carried both Blyleven and Jim Rice (who I did support as a HOF) into Cooperstown. Emotion is what kept Ron Santo's drum beating, even though he's very borderline.
     
  6. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I remember when I covered baseball a writer told me, "With the HOF if you have to even think about it, they shouldn't be in."

    I always kind of liked that way of thinking, but there are a few players that if you said their name, I would say, "Oh, absolutely..." and then look and their stats and maybe think twice. Jack Morris and his ERA fell into that category and I kind of felt the same way when I looked at Bagwell's stats.

    The problem with Murphy was he hung around too long. I think if you're a borderline player already it doesn't help if the last memory people have of you is getting cut by the Rockies or whatever team was his last one.
     
  7. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Murphy hung around too long, but his early years weren't great either when the Braves were messing around trying to make him into a catcher. Maybe that's not Murphy's fault, but its part of his career.
     
  8. amraeder

    amraeder Well-Known Member

    I should probably preface this with -- I'm hardly a PED expert, but to me this is only an indication that he's stopped working out. Hardly surprising from someone who's retired.
     
  9. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Simple. Because he was punished for the incident when it happened. Because he apologized to Hirschbeck and was forgiven. If Hirschbeck can forgive and move past it, what right do you think you have to continue to punish Alomar by denying him his due, even if only for a year?

    If he's a no-brainer Hall of Famer - and, again, no one can credibly deny that he is - then he belongs in the Hall of Fame at the earliest opportunity. Any other outcome is dishonest, distasteful, pointless, etc.

    Put it this way - did any pro athlete have a more scandalous 2010 than did one Eldrick T. Woods? Would you deny Tiger a spot in his sport's hall of fame at the end of his career, even only for a year, because you disapprove of his wandering dick?
     
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Last time I checked, banging Waffle House waitresses wasn't a performance enhancing drug.
     
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Because they are not voting on whether or not he is a "first-ballot" Hall of Famer, just a Hall of Famer. Leaving him off the ballot is basically saying he doesn't belong. So if they think he is a Hall of Famer, but left him off, that is bullshit.

    It is just like these idiots who leave no-brainers off because they think nobody should ever be unanimous. The sad thing is that they are probably proud of themselves for voting that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer, or that Tony Gwynn is not a Hall of Famer. Idiots.
     
  12. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    I'm not talking about PEDs, I'm talking about the fake morality that I believe kept Alomar out last year.

    Sorry my posts aren't always clear as to what I'm referring to. I'm using my phone and I can't cut and paste the posts to which I'm responding.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page