HOF voting

[cjclong]

Greg Maddox was elected, but there were several sports writers who did not vote for him. I don't see how you could fail to vote for a pitcher who has won 353 games and a number of Cy Young awards and has never been linked to PED's? Does anyone have a thought as to why he should not have been a unanimous choice? I know one writer said he wouldn't vote for anyone who played "in the steroid era" even though they had never been linked to them, which is ridiculous.

[EricTheRed44]

You get 10 votes (if you wish). While I think Maddux should have been voted in by all (even though no one has) I'm sure some people knew he would get in, so they probably voted for guys like Morris who they knew would need any vote he could possibly get and it was his last go around.

A lot of times hometown guys get votes when they dont deserve it. I know my favorite player Eric Davis got at least a vote, when I believe he'd be a HOF'er if he had stayed healthy, even I know he's not a Hall of Famer. You'd still think you'd have a vote or two left over to vote for Maddux... but then if he said one bad word to a certain writer or turned them down for an interview, they may hate the man and simply not vote for him.

You also had the joker that only voted for Morris and didn't someone SELL their votes? A lot of writers are stand-up guys but there are plenty that are jokes and shouldnt have the write to vote!

That was a long response... my apologies.


Joe

[emann]

A lot of times hometown guys get votes when they dont deserve it. I know my favorite player Eric Davis got at least a vote, when I believe he'd be a HOF'er if he had stayed healthy, even I know he's not a Hall of Famer.

I think most of these ballots are coming in with only 1-2 selections each every year. They get up to 10, but I assume most voters don't put anywhere near that many (out of some weird need to keep the inductions small & exclusive every year maybe?)...

Davis got 3 votes BTW. He deserved those out of respect. It'd be nice to see more of that as opposed to writers making "statements" (or a quick way to get press for themselves) by not voting for anyone, etc.

[xpress34]

My personal opinion is that if Ruth and Clemente and other greats of the game didn't get 100% Unanimous election, then how can any modern player expect or be so deserving.

Maddux was a great pitcher, but others before him - Cy Young for example - didn't get 100% either.

I honestly think that there may be some voters who feel the way I do and possibly abstain their vote just to ensure no one gets the 100%.

Just my .02.

[metsbats]

The only number which matters is 75. Personally I don't think any player who gets the call to the Hall would really dwell on the votes he didn't get so why should we?

[metsbats]

My personal opinion is that if Ruth and Clemente and other greats of the game didn't get 100% Unanimous election, then how can any modern player expect or be so deserving.

Maddux was a great pitcher, but others before him - Cy Young for example - didn't get 100% either.

I honestly think that there may be some voters who feel the way I do and possibly abstain their vote just to ensure no one gets the 100%.

Just my .02.

That's so true.

[KGoldin]

Mickey mantle and Joe DiMaggio each got 88%
88% for Joe D! ever see his numbers?
Ted Williams got 93%, and over 5% of the morons (I mean writers) didn't vote for Willie Mays

I thought the closest person to get to 100% would have been Ripken, as he was universally loved and thought as the savior of the game after the strike...and he got 98.5%/....close, and 3rd all time, but not enough.
so no, no one will ever get 100%

[jbean023]

Just my thoughts and opinions on the situation. Yes by all means with 10 votes Maddux should have been a 100% unanimous along with a few others in the past. This is the baseball hall of fame, I understand all the steroid controversy but baseball would be nowhere near what it is today without the steroid era. To me Bonds, Clemens, ect get in. Can anyone say for 100% certain that all the guys that are already in never did anything illegal, there was drugs in the 50s/60s that were legal that are now illegal. So if you are the best in that era in my opinion you get in. For instance in Nascar you're going to say Jimmie Johnson doesn't deserve to be in the Nascar Hall of Fame, he cheats. The USA is all about the upper hand and whatever you have to do to get to that state. Just like the Seahawks secondary and aderol so they shouldn't of been able to be in the playoffs last year, they cheated! Its technology and use it to your advantage in my opinion. To me you can't compare Ruth and Young in any modern conversations because no one on this forum has seen either of them play in person its all what you read, what's on paper, and word of mouth. Cy Young pitched the first half of his career with the mound at 50 and 55 feet.

Greg Maddux is a pitcher that aged like you should, lost velocity, got larger in the waist, and got smarter. This guys stats were from guys hitting the gyms everyday, the guys that were doing steroids, the guys that could watch 24/7 tapes on Maddux if they wanted to and vice versa. A totally different generation and a new breed of athlete. Just take a look at USA track and field records and see how many are still holding from 1980 and back. The baseball hall of fame will be headlined controversy until the end of time. The Bonds, Clemens, ect argument will go on like our generation still talk about Pete Rose.


If everyone knew everything that goes on behind closed doors in the big 3 sports now days everyone would be disgusted.

[xpress34]

Cy Young pitched the first half of his career with the mound at 50 and 55 feet.

Before you start making statements like this, maybe you should know your history.

The Mound was moved from 50 feet to 55 feet in 1887. Cy Young's first year was 1890. So Young NEVER pitched from 50 feet.

The mound was moved again in 1893 to the modern distance of 60 ft 6 in and the pitching 'rubber' was instituted. This would be Cy Young's 4th season. So he only pitched from 55 feet for 3 years.

Cy's career lasted 22 years. 3 years is hardly half his career. In those 3 years, Cy won 72 games. In the other 19 years, he won 439 games. Even without the 3 years at 55 feet, he outpaced his closest competitor (Big Train - Walter Johnson) by 22 wins. Johnson won 417 in his career.

No other pitcher in history other than Young and Johnson has broken the 400 win barrier and only Young has broken the 500 win ceiling.

On top of that, he started 815 Games and threw an astounding 749 COMPLETE GAMES. He didn't have the luxury - even later in his career - of 'specialized' pitchers - relievers and closers - to finish his games for him like Maddux and his contemporaries.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but if you're going to start quoting history and such and comparing the two eras, please check the facts 1st.

In Maddux's last 9 seasons (2000-2008) he only completed 16 games of the 377 games he started, but he won 157 of his career 355 wins primarily on the backs of relievers and closers.

Just wanted to give a more realistic look at the comparison between the two. And regardless of the argument about pitching against better athletes, etc - the argument can e made the other way for Young - playing using primitive equipment, bulky wool uniforms even in the summer heat, crappy travel, worse medicine if you were hurt, etc.

This debate could go on forever, but I stand by my statement that if the Initial Class didn't garner any 100% 'Unanimous' selections, then no player ever should.

[cjclong]

I understand, but don't buy, the argument that because Ruth and others didn't get 100% nobody should. Just because some players weren't treated right early on does that mean everybody should be mistreated in the future. If a pitcher like Maddox who won 355 games (I believe I incorrectly said 353 games) and numerous Cy Yong awards isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame then no one is. I would genuinely like for those who didn't vote for him to state their reasons.
The writer who says he won't vote for anyone who played "in the steroid era" is ridiculous. How would he like it if his employer called him in and said there are thousands of men in this country who are child molesters and since you are a man living in America you might be one of them, even though there is no evidence that you are, so we are going to have to terminate you. That is exactly the same reasoning he is using in not voting for players who have never been linked to steroids. And he can't "know" the player he voted for didn't use them since at least a few athletes were using them in the early 60's.