What the hell do sportswriters know anyway? I've read enough sports blogs from hard core fans to know we know just as much as they do, and we don't have a statistician.
The Baseball Hall of Fame recently elected Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn. Sure, both deserving, but I don't give a shit about these guys, although I would vote them in for the love of the game.
A few writers even sent thier ballot back empty. Fuck those guys and dolls! Voting is an honor, not a right, and I say we take that right away from them. You Must vote people!
Vote yes or no and be done with it already. I am sick of that 75 percent. Let players be nominated as many times as it takes. I say don't let sportswriters vote anymore. What the fuck do they know? Example: If I had a vote, no Met or Cardinal would ever enter the hall again, and we'd see guys like Jody Davis, Ivan Dejesus, Bill Buckner, and ANDRE FUCKING DAWSON! His stats are fine.
Why does it have to be only stats? What about the lore? The myths? The intimidation factor. All of the players nominated have comparable stats. Why would they get nominated if they didn't?
Goose Gossage should be in. Great numbers, but besides that he was ferocious. He was one of the guys I started watching when I was very young. He helped me to love the game and to be frightened at the same time. He was a monster. He fucked up Ron Cey and I'll never forget that. Animal!
Lee Fucking Smith! He should be there right along side The Goose. I would hardly be able to look at him he was so scary, except for the fact he was a Cubby!
Mark McGwire is simply being picked on.
Jim Rice has been nominated before and I think writers don't vote for him because he was never media friendly. Go check out his stats.
Harold Baines was the only reason besides Greg Luzinski that I loved the White Sox. He was pretty good too, and durable, playing for a long time.
Burt Blyleven. Uhhh, sure, vote him in. Champion.
Andre Fuckin' Dawson! Yes or no already? Quit jerking this guy around. Oh yeah, I'm a Cubs fan alright, but I knew what he was doing in Montreal back in the day. He's better than a few of those outfielders in the hall.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I think that when it comes to HOF voting it comes down to one simple question... "Is the athlete in question a HOFer or not?" There shouldn't be a percentage, years eligilble, or first ballot deliniation involved at all. A player is simply in or out. What's the big fuckin' deal behind making people wait? Is Harry Carson more of a HOFer now than he was 5 years after he retired? I say, strip the the sportswriters of their privelege and give it to the HOFers.... Mariotti shouldn't even be able to order his own dinner for Christ's sake... what a douche.
The problem with having the HOFers vote is they tend to be very exclusive. The bottom line is the money that can be made is greater while there are less of them.
Honestly who really cares about the HOF? Does the fact that Pete Rose isn't there mean that for some reason your kids won't know who the all time hits leader is? I find it hilarious that Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn NEVER won a ring while they played and now for some reason can lord it over McGwire that they played the game "the right way"... So now they're hall of famers. Bullshit, Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken cared just as much about stats (probably more so in Cal Ripken Jr's case even) as they did about winning. McGwire has a world series ring, and he was the first to pass Maris. He's more famous than either of them will ever be (even if Ripken's record is untouchable), and he'll get in the hall eventually. I seriously doubt he's at all hurting for any money he'll score from hocking autographs as a hall of famer. Boo freaking hoo. Cry me a river.
Anonymous - Thanks for reading and commenting.
I tend to agree that the HOF is only so important, how important can it be without the all time hits leader (and perhaps in the future, the home run leader) enshrined there. Championships, also, are only so important when considering individual HOF merit. (It is equally hilarious that you don't know that Cal did win a ring in '83. Look it up.) It is a team game and there are plenty of HOF caliber players without rings.
My feeling is that the HOF should tell the story of the sport. Good and Bad in a much more inclusive way.
Yes, you got me on Jr. in 83' and much to my shagrin he had a pretty good year as well. My mistake. My point is, much like the other major halls (basketball, and football) the HOF, all too often, seems to be the consolation prize for the stud athletes who had the numbers but never won on the field. When they're enshrined they expect us to believe it's a larger accomplishment than anything they ever did when they were playing. Whatever, Charles Barkley would trade his left nut and his HOF ring if he could have beat MJ in the finals, Barry Sanders rarely even came close to the elusive big game, and Tony Gwynn was an incredible contact hitter who would probably have mixed in a few more K's if it meant a world series ring. Yes I understand that the HOF is not about team accomplishments, it's about individual statistics, the point is that Mark McGwire alreday won the ring that matters most, and as far as fame (good or bad) he'll be plenty remembered.
Mark McGuire world series stats: 18 games, .188 batting average, 1 home run, 2 rbi's.
Scott Brocius shits better WS stats.
Tony Gwynn world series stats: 9 games, 371 batting average, 1 home run, 3 rbi's.
Clearly he could have done more. Gwynn, what a pussy.
If you can forgot that Ripkin had won a championship, how memorable will McGuire's be?
Who said anything about Tony Gwynn's awful performance on the field? I said nothing but the contrary, in fact it's kind of the point. Don't twist the argument because you have an axe to grind with McGwire. Lighten up, it's only sports.
You seemed to be celebrating McGuire for winning a WS and criticizing Gwynn for not winning one. (I might be way off base here though.)
So I thought it might be informative to look at their WS stats. See how they performed in the big game, and how they earned that praise.
I have no axe to grind with with McGuire, I'm only trying to further explore the comparision that was made. I apologize if this is a form of twisting an argument.
I think your point is that championships are more important than the HOF. I agree, and I'm not sure Gwynn or Ripken said anything otherwise. And not to be a dick, but if Ripken's championship isn't remembered, why would McGuire's?
I see what you're saying, but I think you might have misunderstood my argument.
Just to clarify, I'm not criticiszing Gwynn's performance at all, he was a solid player and a statistical machine. I never disputed that. If anything he deserves a WS ring just as much as McGwire, but that's obviously not going to happen now.
Here's the thing about who does and who doesn't remember a WS ring. Just because I can't remember Ripken's ring means nothing. The only person that matters is Ripken, or in this case Mcgwire. He won't forget, and for that reason he shouldn't care if the HOF snubs him long after his playing days are over. He already reached the pinnacle of a baseball player's career. Look at the joy and jubilation on the faces of players when they win a championship and spray champagne in the locker room. Who can forget MJ crying on the floor after winning one for his Dad? Do you think when these guys get a call five or ten years after they played they experience anything close to that kind of emotion? Maybe, I don't know, but Cal Ripken Jr. looked pretty dry at his press conference to me. That's not to say it isn't an honor to be selected, it's just something of a concolation prize to the players who never reached the real pinnacle while they played.
Here's where you misunderstood me I think. It's not Gwynn's fault he didn't win one, but the fact remains he never did. That's all.
Mark Mcgwire had his moment despite his lousy play in the actual series, but nobody can dispute his impact on the teams he was on and how much his constant threat to launch the long ball was to opposing pitchers (not to mention managers, and fans). As a Cub fan you probably tore your hair out every time that monster came to the plate. Plus, if what you said about his stats in the WS is true (and it probably is) then his one HR was a game winner I think. They didn't win that series if I remember right, but how many players can say they hit a game winning HR in the WS? That's all i'm saying. And, I seriously doubt that when McGwire finally did win his ring he was in the locker room, as the champagne was spraying, thinking to himself "I don't deserve this, I played like an ass."
I certainly pulled my hair out when he set the record.
Legitamate question here. Is there anyone beside Pete Rose who has worked so hard to get in the HOF? Santo did, but he falls in that catagory of none champion. Rice, I don't think, really campaigns for himself.
Pete Rose might be one of those guys who really does need the HOF title to reap the monetary benefits. Plus, to get in wouldn't he need to be reinstated which would mean he could coach again, although who would hire him at this point? I don't know.
Santo unfortunately isn't as well liked among his peers in the hall as he is by the fans I think (although most of the vets won't admit it). Sure he's a sentimental favorite (all medical conditions aside), but people forget that when he played he was a mean son of a bitch who regularly bowled over catchers and did anything to win. Not that he was at all dirty, but he played with a ferocious mean streak and it might have cost him when his vote went to the HOF veteran's commitee. I'm not at all alone in thinking this. Personally I think he belongs in the hall, but he might be a sentimental favorite of mine as well.
Rice, I have no idea if he campaigns. It's certainly an interesting question though.
Somebody should campaign for Andre Dawson more. Let's get the Hawk in the hall!
Post a Comment