Ripken, Gwynn won't be unanimous selections

I have no problem with Ladewski voting any way he wants to and I do not agree with the knee-jerk "take his vote away" reaction.

My problem is why does he have to write about it and act like he's the keeper of HOF integrity .. other than to make sure everybody is talking about HIM!
SELF-SERVING BULLSHIT!

 

I think the Sun solicited the responses, though.

 

Sorry, misread the post..thought this was a Ladewski column as opposed to the Sun gving Cal a BJ.

He still comes off like a self-serving ass.

 

And he backs up that blanket rejection with a reasoned opinion. I don't have a problem with that. I think he makes an interesting argument, even if I don't agree with it.

 

I know there are some guys out there who don't want anyone to go in as a unanimous pick. There are others, who think that if a guy like Dimaggio had to wait a year to get inducted, that no one is deserving of going in during their first year of eligibility... I don't agree with any of that, but fine...

I agree this guy should lose his vote...

 

Guy is an ass-clown. Period.

That level of stupidity should result in his vote being taken away. Any arguments to the contrary is idiotic and ignorant.

 

If you weed out the self-righteous from the BBWAA, you wouldn't have a whole lot of it left. It's a self-righteous organization, particularly on the issue of HOF votes.

That said, this guy is free to vote (or not vote) his conscience, and if other votes are exposed to scrutiny in the name of accountability, then this one should too. Why not put it out there? Self-righteous doesn't mean he's not right. The fact of the matter is, he is. As much as we'd like to think Gwynn and Ripken are above suspicion, they're not. No one is. And if you're going to hold McGwire accountable based on an assumption (read: in the absence of a positive drug test) then you should hold everyone accountable to the same standard.

Besides, if Hank Aaron wasn't a unanimous choice, then none of these three should be, either.

 

The logical vacuum has been switched on.

 

The "if so and so wasn't unamious, no one should be" theory is crap. You can't judge the present based on the past. If every voter thinks Ripken and Gwynn are Hall of Famers (obviously, that won't happen), they should vote for them. End of story. Other Hall of Fame players and the manner in which they were inducted have no relevance.

Plain and simple, this is another example of jouralists making news, not reporting it. Egos are out of control.

 

Is it fair to say that nothing gets sports fans' panties in a bunch so egregiously and unnecessarily as the Baseball Hall of Fame?

 

The question becomes if you want to keep any potential 'roid users out, which is the better way to do it.... submit a blank ballot like Ladewski or not return the ballot at all like Rawlings?

 

If you return a blank ballot it counts as a vote for no one, but increases the number of votes necessary to reach 75%.
If you don't submit a ballot it has no effect on the voting