Master Index of Archived Threads


Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 03 2015 10:06 PM

Lynn Henning openly trying to get your goat, refusing to vote because he can't vote for 11 players. [url]http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2015/12/03/henning-11-are-hall-worthy-so-im-not-voting-again/76724478

Edgy MD Dec 03 2015 11:24 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

He says he's turning in no ballot, rather than a blank ballot, so that doesn't count against the denominator, right?

MFS62 Dec 03 2015 11:39 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

An authorized voter who doesn't submit a ballot for two consecutive year should lose his vote. Edgy, I believe the percentage is based on ballots cast. Don't remember ever hearing anything mentioned about ballots distributed. Later

Ceetar Dec 04 2015 02:41 AM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Edgy MD wrote: He says he's turning in no ballot, rather than a blank ballot, so that doesn't count against the denominator, right? right. I don't really have a problem with this. He'd rather not vote at all than screw someone.

Fman99 Dec 04 2015 03:30 AM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

He's actually screwing ten people instead of one. Ergo, he is a dipshit.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2015 04:02 AM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Something like that, yeah. But he's using his ballot to draw attention to himself and away from 10 or 11 or more outstanding baseball players, so that's some big league dipshitting.

Ceetar Dec 04 2015 03:08 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Fman99 wrote: He's actually screwing ten people instead of one. Ergo, he is a dipshit. No more than you're screwing them by not voting.

Nymr83 Dec 04 2015 03:35 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

obviously he just loves publicity AND is still a dipshit.. why not vote for the best ten? if a bunch get in, you'll be clearing the backlog for next year!

Ceetar Dec 04 2015 03:39 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Nymr83 wrote: obviously he just loves publicity AND is still a dipshit.. why not vote for the best ten? if a bunch get in, you'll be clearing the backlog for next year! guys at the bottom of the ballot are dropped though. Not voting for someone is actively voting for him to not be a Hall of Famer, it probably won't happen to eligible guys cause enough will spread the love around, but he shouldn't be voting based on what the other voters are likely to do.

seawolf17 Dec 04 2015 04:48 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Because like way too many voters, they have to make it about themselves, and not about the candidates. Eff that guy.

Centerfield Dec 04 2015 04:50 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

seawolf17 wrote: Because like way too many voters, they have to make it about themselves, and not about the candidates. Eff that guy. Yup. In other words, DOUCHEBAG ALERT! DOUCHEBAG ALERT!

Frayed Knot Dec 04 2015 05:32 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Nymr83 wrote: obviously he just loves publicity AND is still a dipshit.. why not vote for the best ten? if a bunch get in, you'll be clearing the backlog for next year! Because the aim of his protest is to get the poo-bahs in Cooperstown to change their regulations. Until that happens, he's willing to skew the vote in order to combat what he sees as their stubbornness.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2015 07:02 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

He's also being more than a little silly by suggesting that the limit of 10 is being held in place to keep Bonds and Clemens down. What planet is he on? And rather arbitrary in concluding that Clemens is a clear-cut case with or without the juice, but other guys aren't.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 04 2015 10:33 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

I can't imagine the people running the BBWAA are going to change their rules because one writer posts a "Look at me protesting" column. This is like protesting by voting for an obscure presidential candidate. He's wasting an opportunity to help players he likes, like a Tim Raines type who is running out of eligibility. If he really wants to vote for 11 and help players who need the support the most, then he just shouldn't vote for a guy like Griffey, who will get in easily. Then, when people say, "Lynn, you goofball, how could you not vote for Ken Griffey Jr.?" he could say, "Because I wanted to vote for 11 players, because of this lame system I could only vote for 10. Griffey didn't need my help, but Jeff Bagwell did." Then he gets to still make his little protest, get the attention he craves and doesn't hurt the players who need that vote.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2015 10:40 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

I can't see that he's hurting anyone. In fact, he may be helping, because since his lack of a ballot reduces the denominator, it will take fewer votes* for players to reach 75 per cent. (*I know it will only reduce the required number by a fraction, but if 100 people, for example, declined to vote, then the required vote count would have a significant drop.)

Frayed Knot Dec 05 2015 12:07 AM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I can't imagine the people running the BBWAA are going to change their rules because one writer posts a "Look at me protesting" column. I didn't say it was a good strategy, only that it was the reason he was choosing to not cast a ballot rather than going with his best ten. His message is to the folks in Cooperstown, not to the players. If no one is on his side then, yeah, it's probably futile. But don't knock the idea of a protest gesture. People should do more of it not less including at times voting for obscure presidential (or other office) candidates in those cases where the mainstream two don't meet your expectations. Elected officials who win with low-40s percent pluralities don't always act the same as they might have had they won with an upper-50s majority because the population felt compelled to pick only choice A or B. And there's nothing wrong (and a lot good) about elected officials looking over their shoulder.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2015 01:35 AM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can't see that he's hurting anyone. In fact, he may be helping, because since his lack of a ballot reduces the denominator, it will take fewer votes* for players to reach 75 per cent. (*I know it will only reduce the required number by a fraction, but if 100 people, for example, declined to vote, then the required vote count would have a significant drop.) Doesn't add up. Getting 7 out 10 votes helps a player more than getting 6 out of 9. It's not that hard a job the writers are asked to do. But their industry is falling apart and everybody's going insane.

Ceetar Dec 29 2015 09:55 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

There's a crappy Heyman ballot and 'justification' of you're into hate-reading.

Nymr83 Dec 30 2015 02:25 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Ceetar wrote: There's a crappy Heyman ballot and 'justification' of you're into hate-reading. Heyman is the king of all d-bags. he will vote for Bonds even though he admits Bonds used roids AND is lying about it, but he wont vote for Piazza and even says it is because of groundless suspicions! Heyman should be fired.

Ceetar Dec 30 2015 02:45 PM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Nymr83 wrote: Ceetar wrote: There's a crappy Heyman ballot and 'justification' of you're into hate-reading. Heyman is the king of all d-bags. he will vote for Bonds even though he admits Bonds used roids AND is lying about it, but he wont vote for Piazza and even says it is because of groundless suspicions! Heyman should be fired. but but Bonds even cheated better than everyone else! He'd be in the Hall of Fame of cheaters too!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 04 2016 02:57 AM Re: Hall of Fame ballot silliness

Yay, Murray Chass! They are arrogant, narrow minded and shallow. It means nothing to them that human beings play the game. They don’t talk to the people who play the game. They don’t need to. They have their computers and their statistical formulas, and they don’t have to emerge into the world where the sun shines on day games and the ball park lights illuminate night games. They especially detest baseball writers and the Baseball Writers Association of America, in large part, I believe, because we vote for the Hall of Fame and MVP and Cy Young awards and they don’t. I offer evidence of their view in the form of an online article I came across in my research for this column. Written nearly two years ago by Luis Torres, a name unknown to me, it is titled “The Biggest Enemies of the Advancement of Baseball (Part 1): The BBWAA.” An excerpt, faulty grammar included: The BBWAA are masters at creating narratives that obscure the facts. As long as they continue to do so, we will need to educate the public on what they’re doing so that they can learn to see right through it. Then the analytical writers of the world will be unhindered in elevating the public’s understanding of baseball. It WILL happen. One day, we will look back at the AL MVP voting and other injustices caused by the BBWAA, and shake our heads. Those writers that chose obstinacy over progression? History will judge them poorly, possibly even ridicule them. Just look at Murray Chass right now. As Dan Szymborski put it, he has declined into self-parody. They had the information at hand, and chose to ignore it. Fans today have access to a virtually endless supply of information and data on baseball. The writers know that we can do better than them, and they’re scared of becoming obsolete. After all, if the public figures out that their insider knowledge isn’t worth anything, what good will they be? With the additional thought that it sounds frighteningly like an ISIS polemic threatening to take over the world, I rest my case. Outside of that bit of measured, reasonable rebuttal, he... um... writes some things? Oh, he coins the term "Digital Dandy" for anyone... well... he doesn't actually define it. But he's coined it! And oh, yeah: he voted for Griffey. That's it. Anyone else either isn't "great" enough, or has been accused-- ACCUSED-- of "cheating."