Alomar not in on the first ballot, what a joke!

[ROLLTIDE4LIFE]

Alomar is far better player than at least 20 guys that are in the Hall of Fame! He is a top 5 2B alltime IMO. I am a guy that is very tough on letting guys in, I get heat for it all the time, but Alomar is a no brainer.

Youve been thanked. Also Tony Gwynn COllector get your head out of your arse. The Hall of Fame isnt about anecdotal incidences in your memory that happen to help you form a list of second basemen greater than Robbie Alomar based on you own personal feelings. Its a combination of other factors such as historically signifcant counting number milestones, post-season pieces of hardware, and longevity mixed with dominance. Not who you remeber being better growing up in the NorthWest. If every marginal player that every subjective person wanted in got in Rafael Belliard would be in. Alomar should have gotten in first ballot he was great, much better than those you listed above.

 

[braden]

I suspect that this is what kept him out...

If I had a vote, Alomar would never get mine....

Would you have voted for Babe Ruth? He punched an umpire. Or what about Kirby Puckett? He beat up women.

 

[Raymond]

I suspect that this is what kept him out...

If I had a vote, Alomar would never get mine....

Idiot! Even the ump forgave him! I guess Cobb wouldn't get yours either for spiking that fan with no arms. Has nothing to do with his acomplishments you overofficious jerk!

Are personal attacks and insults REALLY necessary when debating HOF induction?

Alomar missed by a few votes. That incident likely cost him a few votes. If it were not for that episode, he would likely be in the HOF.

I personally believe that how one plays the game, and off field activities/morale character SHOULD factor into voting. The world was a lot different in 1936 when Cobb was elected. Baseball was a far rougher game. If he were on the ballot today, his behavior would be looked at. I would not vote for him based on that alone. But the fact that Cobb is in the Hall has noting to do with how today's voters vote for todays players. It is not a precedent that should be used today.

And, BTW, I think the HOF is far to watered down. It has become a Hall of Very Good Players. HOF entry should be more limited. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[bodiaz]

I suspect that this is what kept him out...

If I had a vote, Alomar would never get mine....

Idiot! Even the ump forgave him! I guess Cobb wouldn't get yours either for spiking that fan with no arms. Has nothing to do with his acomplishments you overofficious jerk!

Are personal attacks and insults REALLY necessary when debating HOF induction?

Alomar missed by a few votes. That incident likely cost him a few votes. If it were not for that episode, he would likely be in the HOF.

I personally believe that how one plays the game, and off field activities/morale character SHOULD factor into voting. The world was a lot different in 1936 when Cobb was elected. Baseball was a far rougher game. If he were on the ballot today, his behavior would be looked at. I would not vote for him based on that alone. But the fact that Cobb is in the Hall has noting to do with how today's voters vote for todays players. It is not a precedent that should be used today.

And, BTW, I think the HOF is far to watered down. It has become a Hall of Very Good Players. HOF entry should be more limited. But, that's just my opinion.

First off I was quoting Marv Levy. Nice being in touch and getting the joke! Second, does not matter which era you played in, or what you do off of the field, matters what you do on the field. We all have things we would like to redo in our lives. Most of us can get by because noone knows about them. These guys live in a fish bowl. Everything they do they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Everyone cracks and has a bad moment. This was Alomars. He should not lose votes for the hall of fame for one harmless incident. Third, I agree the Hall is way to watered down. Having said that Alomar still would get my vote for being one of the 5 greatest at his postion to ever play! I said earlier there are at least 20 guys in the Hall of Fame that were not as good as Alomar. After doing some research I would change that to at least 50! This guy should be in, not Dawson.

 

[muchuckwagon]

And, BTW, I think the HOF is far to watered down. It has become a Hall of Very Good Players.

I agree....but that is the direction they decided to take and who they have elected to the HOF over the years. With that in mind, you have to let guys like Alomar and Blyleven in...because they were very good players.

I read a few articles that said Larkin had an impressive first showing with 50%+ of the votes. What? That statement alone shows what is wrong with the process. Voters seem to be taking the approach players need to earn their way in over a course of several years on the ballot.

Why?

 

[Raymond]

I suspect that this is what kept him out...

If I had a vote, Alomar would never get mine....

Would you have voted for Babe Ruth? He punched an umpire. Or what about Kirby Puckett? He beat up women.

The game was differejnt in Ruth's era, and that type of behavior was more acceptable back in the day. If a player did that today, I would look at that in voting.

Pucketts antics came to light mostly AFTER he got into the HOF. So it would not be a factor. But, I (as a Twins fan) am embarassed by some of the things he did.

The HOF gives no guidelines about what should be HOF worthy. It does suggest that on field lifetime occomplishments should be considered as well as how one plays the game and off field character should be considered. How a voter balences those attributes, and what weight a voter gives to any specific accomplishment is subjective.

I think the system works, and has worked for 70+ years. I don't think it's a joke.

The only glarring injustice that I see is Buck O'Neil being snubbed...

 

[Raymond]

And, BTW, I think the HOF is far to watered down. It has become a Hall of Very Good Players.

I agree....but that is the direction they decided to take and who they have elected to the HOF over the years. With that in mind, you have to let guys like Alomar and Blyleven in...because they were very good players.

I agree that, since it is the Hall of Very Good, you must continue inducting the Very Good. I want to see Blyleven in. But, it there were only 100 or so HOFers, then I would agree that Blyleven should be out. But, as it currently stands he should make the cut. Alomar will too...

 

[leatherman]

If I had a vote, Alomar would never get mine....

Idiot! Even the ump forgave him! I guess Cobb wouldn't get yours either for spiking that fan with no arms. Has nothing to do with his acomplishments you overofficious jerk!

Are personal attacks and insults REALLY necessary when debating HOF induction?

Alomar missed by a few votes. That incident likely cost him a few votes. If it were not for that episode, he would likely be in the HOF.

I personally believe that how one plays the game, and off field activities/morale character SHOULD factor into voting. The world was a lot different in 1936 when Cobb was elected. Baseball was a far rougher game. If he were on the ballot today, his behavior would be looked at. I would not vote for him based on that alone. But the fact that Cobb is in the Hall has noting to do with how today's voters vote for todays players. It is not a precedent that should be used today.

And, BTW, I think the HOF is far to watered down. It has become a Hall of Very Good Players. HOF entry should be more limited. But, that's just my opinion.

This is one of those occasions where I ferociously agree with someone.

BBWAA HOF ELECTION RULES
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

I am sure that MANY voters decided long ago that they would NOT vote for Alomar in his first year because of the spitting incident. There are a few others that will NEVER vote for Alomar because of it. The rules for election clearly state that voting should be based on sportsmanship, and spitting in an official's face is one of the most unsportsmanlike offenses one can commit at any level of competition.

Accomplishments on the field are one thing, but the rules are the rules, and the intangibles of integrity, sportsmanship, and character are all question marks for Alomar and MUST be considered prior to writing his name on a ballot. Alomar will get in, most likely next year, but I hope he understands that the reason for his lack of induction this year is a direct result of the incident. He had better keep his mouth shut for another year, or more people will refrain from voting for him next year.

David

 

[ThoseBackPages]

BBWAA HOF ELECTION RULES
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

When was this rule put in place?

Ty Cobb WENT INTO THE STANDS to BEAT a black man because he was black (and heckling him).

if thats not worse then spiting at someone, i dont know what is.

and who here over the age of 35 can say theyve NEVER spit at anyone?

 

[leatherman]

BBWAA HOF ELECTION RULES
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

When was this rule put in place?

I'm guessing sometime after 1936.

 

[A_Pharis]

*** members, people who viciously beat hecklers and would intentionally spike during "slides" (which were more like jump kicks, drunks and just overall pretty nasty guys are all fine. It wasn't frowned upon during that age so it's okay to do those things. Spitting, however, is icky and totally out of the question.

[/sarcasm]

 

[brouthercard]

BBWAA HOF ELECTION RULES
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

When was this rule put in place?

Ty Cobb WENT INTO THE STANDS to BEAT a black man because he was black (and heckling him).

if thats not worse then spiting at someone, i dont know what is.

and who here over the age of 35 can say theyve NEVER spit at anyone?

When Cobb was playing, women couldn't vote, there was no internet or video or television- standards were different back then. I like to think we have evolved as a culture. That spitting incident NO DOUBT played a role in preventing him from getting in. If Alomar's name was DALE FREAKING MURPHY, he would have been voted in cause he wouldn't have spat on an ump.

 

[yakacack]

It blows my mind that people would rather simply lower standards of what is sportsmanship, integrity, etc. now to get guys into the HOF rather than raise those standards and hold these guys accountable to what those standards should be and not what they were a century ago.

 

[A_Pharis]

I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

 

[brouthercard]

I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

Projecting body fluids on another individual is FAR worse than any word that can be muttered to their ears. It is the ultimate form of "harmless" personal insult in my opinion.

 

[A_Pharis]

I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

Projecting body fluids on another individual is FAR worse than any word that can be muttered to their ears. It is the ultimate form of "harmless" personal insult in my opinion.

I know a bunch of guys that have a lot of spittle when they talk.. sometimes it hits me, and I spare them the embarrassment of calling it out since they obviously are aware they do it. Yeah, one case is accidental and one is intentional, but I don't see any difference as far as harm done to me as the receiver.

If someone spit on me I think I could find it in myself to turn the other cheek. If I were crippled by rusty spikes to the shin and lack of modern healthcare, then I might be a little PO'ed.

 

[brouthercard]

[quote="A_Pharis":2p4qt1s5]I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

Projecting body fluids on another individual is FAR worse than any word that can be muttered to their ears. It is the ultimate form of "harmless" personal insult in my opinion.

I know a bunch of guys that have a lot of spittle when they talk.. sometimes it hits me, and I spare them the embarrassment of calling it out since they obviously are aware they do it. Yeah, one case is accidental and one is intentional, but I don't see any difference as far as harm done to me as the receiver.

If someone spit on me I think I could find it in myself to turn the other cheek. If I were crippled by rusty spikes to the shin and lack of modern healthcare, then I might be a little PO'ed.[/quote:2p4qt1s5]


Kind of like playing football with a leather helmet, or in hockey's case, without a helmet! Brilliant... :lol: :lol:

 

[Moonlight Graham]

I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

Projecting body fluids on another individual is FAR worse than any word that can be muttered to their ears. It is the ultimate form of "harmless" personal insult in my opinion.

Agreed; 2 things you absolutely never do in baseball. Bet, and physically abuse an umpire.

P.S. Good to see Dr. Marer again...

 

[A_Pharis]

[quote="A_Pharis":1xzq3tc0]I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

Projecting body fluids on another individual is FAR worse than any word that can be muttered to their ears. It is the ultimate form of "harmless" personal insult in my opinion.

I know a bunch of guys that have a lot of spittle when they talk.. sometimes it hits me, and I spare them the embarrassment of calling it out since they obviously are aware they do it. Yeah, one case is accidental and one is intentional, but I don't see any difference as far as harm done to me as the receiver.

If someone spit on me I think I could find it in myself to turn the other cheek. If I were crippled by rusty spikes to the shin and lack of modern healthcare, then I might be a little PO'ed.

Kind of like playing football with a leather helmet, or in hockey's case, without a helmet! Brilliant... :lol: :lol:[/quote:1xzq3tc0]


Is this a comparison between Ty Cobb spiking people with intent to hurt them and people playing sports with equipment available at the time? It'd be better if it were comparing the spiking to someone clapping the ears of said helmet-less hockey player. One is playing the sport by the rules with the equipment available, and the other is using equipment made for better running grip as a weapon.

 

[brouthercard]

[quote="A_Pharis":1afd5uvr]

[quote="A_Pharis":1afd5uvr]I just can't believe people see spitting on someone as such a moral mark. Is it tasteless? Yeah. Is it a sign of how sportsmanlike someone is? Not really.

Hell, even Jeter (Mr. Sportsman) rolls his eyes at calls sometimes. Some guys curse, and it's no big deal. Alomar was pissed and spit on an ump. Whoop-dee. You all must live in ivory towers to see that as such a negative action.

Projecting body fluids on another individual is FAR worse than any word that can be muttered to their ears. It is the ultimate form of "harmless" personal insult in my opinion.

I know a bunch of guys that have a lot of spittle when they talk.. sometimes it hits me, and I spare them the embarrassment of calling it out since they obviously are aware they do it. Yeah, one case is accidental and one is intentional, but I don't see any difference as far as harm done to me as the receiver.

If someone spit on me I think I could find it in myself to turn the other cheek. If I were crippled by rusty spikes to the shin and lack of modern healthcare, then I might be a little PO'ed.

Kind of like playing football with a leather helmet, or in hockey's case, without a helmet! Brilliant... :lol: :lol:[/quote:1afd5uvr]


Is this a comparison between Ty Cobb spiking people with intent to hurt them and people playing sports with equipment available at the time? It'd be better if it were comparing the spiking to someone clapping the ears of said helmet-less hockey player. One is playing the sport by the rules with the equipment available, and the other is using equipment made for better running grip as a weapon.[/quote:1afd5uvr]

My point was that sport, human behavior, and etiquette have all evolved over the last one-hundred years in a positive manner. Ty Cobb may have been a neanderthal, but the voters at the time were also less considerate/socially aware/politically correct than they are today.

And we still have cavemen playing today's game- see Delmon. I don't think he will really ever have a shot at the hall unless he puts up super-human career numbers to make up for his incident- a complete and total sign of disrespect for the game and it's governors.