Alomar, Blyleven are in

I dunno. He hasn't won since he stopped doing it.

 

Not everyone who is in the Hall of Fame is equal. Tony Perez is not in the same ballpark as Babe Ruth.

Since the Hall doesn't differentiate between the two, I have no problem with voters, knowing they have 15 years to get someone in, deciding they are not a first-ballot guy.

 

Murphy's career wasn't terribly long --- he retired at 37 --- it's just that he was washed up by about 33.

 

Bingo.

Someone didn't vote Nolan Ryan into the Hall of Fame. Same for Ripken. That's OK with you, spnited?

 

Show me a cop who has.

 

What the hell does that have to do with the debate?

 

I'm saying that it's silly to say that you have had to have lived a flawless moral life to sit in judgment of someone else's life. That's just not true. Otherwise, cops would not be able to be cops if they, like, yelled at the dog after a tough day one time.

The voters aren't electing themselves to the HOF. They are electing Roberto Alomar.

 

There is a big difference between enforcing the law and evaluating baseball players.

 

A cop is ostensibly sworn to uphold and enforce the law, a codified list of statutes and regulations. What law says Alomar had to be denied first-ballot entry into the HOF, and by what right does any writer have to enforce that law?

A writer can have and express any opinion they want on Alomar. When they let that opinion get in the way of deciding what is right - whether or not he deserved to be elected to the HOF upon becoming eligible - they were wrong. That's my opinion.

 

The principle translates to both cases.

 

The hell they are, ridiculous comparison.

 

OK, how about this one:

"Anyone who can't throw a 90 mph fastball has no right to sit in judgment of Jack Morris, who was able to."