Enfuego79
Well-known member
I second this, a lot of folks have the potential to be a first ballot, but many have never made it on the first look.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Do you think Maddux should get 100% HOF vote this year?
- Thread starter MansGame
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
I second this, a lot of folks have the potential to be a first ballot, but many have never made it on the first look.
Kennesawsportscards
Member
- Jun 30, 2010
- 726
- 0
Pure and simple....Either you are worthy of being in it or not. All the other factors about someone else not getting 100% of the vote soesn't compute with me.... All things considered, a writer who doesn't vote for Maddux is essentially saying that he does not belong in the Hall.. All this " others didn't get there on their first try " is hogwash.... FWIW...If I hit 900 homeruns(clean of course), batted 350 for my career, drove in 2500 runs, stole 1500 bases and was a poster human for integrity; does that mean I am not worthy of 100 percent of the vote just because nobody else had. Just a hypothetical question, don't argue my stats example.
Somebody PLEASE enlighten me with a writer's crazy logic for leaving Maddux off!!!
Somebody PLEASE enlighten me with a writer's crazy logic for leaving Maddux off!!!
Yanks2151
Active member
- Nov 9, 2013
- 3,231
- 8
Very well put, I like it!
All The Hype
Active member
The problem is that some of the past greats should have been 100% as well. I feel like the main argument is that Maddux isn't the #1 best baseball player of all time so he shouldn't be the only player to receive 100% of the vote. If you can throw out the fact that it hasn't happened yet, there's really no argument anyone can make not to vote for him, because by not voting for him, you are saying "Greg Maddux does not belong in the Hall of Fame" which is obviously a silly statement.
Julz24
Member
Of course he should get 100%. Anyone who even remotely followed baseball would know about him and his awards and accomplishments.
If not - then what exactly is the point of the Hall of Fame?
If not - then what exactly is the point of the Hall of Fame?
Musial Collector
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 5,671
- 2
Over inflated ego with and under inflated *****!
- Thread starter
- #27
MansGame
Active member
Anthony K.
New member
I completely agree with Ryan here.
If the reasoning behind your decision is "this is the way we've always done it" (as in, never having a 100% HOF vote), then your reasoning is wrong. Just because it's never happened, doesn't mean it never should.
There have been plenty of players who should have had 100% before now, but writers have let their egos get in the way of their vote and then come to delusional rationalizations for why certain players shouldn't receive votes.
SteelBrad
New member
- Mar 2, 2013
- 820
- 0
He should get 100%
D-Lite
New member
Don't know if I should hug you or slap you.
And you are right and that is a reason some writers have given before , specifically for the reason of an open-ended ballot. The 10 vote crunch this year puts a lot of the fringe but worthy guys at risk of removal. And that's stupid. If you have a wife and two kids and drive a Prius, what do you do when you find out you're having twins?
Leave two in the driveway!
DaClyde
Well-known member
While I agree with the sentiment of several posts here about previous players who should have received 100%, everyone should take a moment to read the history of HoF voting posted on Wikipedia. Then, discount any inductees prior to 1954 from your reasoning, as there were very few official rules as to who was eligible. Also take into account the sheer backlog of likely (not simply eligible, likely, y'know, Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, etc.) inductees who would be added once the HoF was established. 1936-1954 was really just a clearing of the historical roster of deserving candidates. The real work didn't actually begin until 1954 when the 5 year wait was initiated and almost all of the initial class of greats since the beginning of the game had been added. So arguing that Maddux shouldn't get 100% because Ruth didn't get 100% is just uninformed ranting. Ruth didn't get 100% because literally every one in the history of baseball was eligible in that first class, including active players.
I think the only real issue with the 10-vote limit is that people actually waste (yes, I'm saying the vote is a waste) on guys who the voters know full well don't deserve a slot in the Hall. Yet, every year someone like Aaron Sele or Brad Ausmus gets a vote. I almost wish there were some sort of statistical requirement (however slight) to cull players like that from the ballots unless there is a concerted movement to include them. If someone didn't vote for Tim Raines because their vote went to Steve Finley, THAT is what is wrong with the system. Sure, maybe they were Finley's childhood best friend. That doesn't mean Steve Finley (and no disrespect intended for Finley) deserves a vote for the Hall of Fame. And it's those pointless votes for those types of players that leave people like Raines and Lee Smith and Jack Morris teetering on the bring of induction or elimination.
I think the only real issue with the 10-vote limit is that people actually waste (yes, I'm saying the vote is a waste) on guys who the voters know full well don't deserve a slot in the Hall. Yet, every year someone like Aaron Sele or Brad Ausmus gets a vote. I almost wish there were some sort of statistical requirement (however slight) to cull players like that from the ballots unless there is a concerted movement to include them. If someone didn't vote for Tim Raines because their vote went to Steve Finley, THAT is what is wrong with the system. Sure, maybe they were Finley's childhood best friend. That doesn't mean Steve Finley (and no disrespect intended for Finley) deserves a vote for the Hall of Fame. And it's those pointless votes for those types of players that leave people like Raines and Lee Smith and Jack Morris teetering on the bring of induction or elimination.
Last edited:
RedSoxSoul
New member
I want to say Maddux should, that's the way I voted, even though we all know he won't. Glavin was much more guilty of this but I saw both he and Maddux grabbing just a little bit more off the outside of the plate called strikes time and again from umpires who just figured if the guy could fit his spot over and over again it must be a strike. I did see Clubhouse Confidential on MLB network and Kenney and Jaffey were talking about Glavin's skill at not allowing runners to score even though he walked more. I'm off track here. I think Maddux was one of the greatest ever, but seeing Clemens, Pedro, Big Unit in their primes I think they were better than Maddux. They all deserve the HOF, but perhaps Maddux is 1 vote less than Big Unit, so not 100%. I'll be really interested to see how the Pedro vote goes too. And obviously I'm ignoring the PED issue but I'm tired of it.
D-Lite
New member
I agree and something does need to be done.
A great article over at ESPN about starting pitching and Schilling and Mussina in particular. It's amazing how guys like that a$$clown Shaughnessy vote for Morris and Glavine but not Mussina and use contradictory reasons for doing so in each case. All votes should be made public.
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43236/time-to-elect-some-starting-pitchers-to-hall
Last edited:
Similar threads
