a lot of stuff has happened
So, yeah, I feel like I fell asleep in blogger-land over the past two weeks (not aided by the fact that I've gotten sick for the first time in two years this week), and a lot has happened on the national sports scene since then. I'll try to write a couple more of these this week to discuss some of the big events, including the NFL playoffs, UConn stuff, and of course MLB's disaster.
But the first thing I want to mention happened a while ago. Like I said, I fell asleep in blogger-land and when I woke up I found that Goose Gossage had gone from an eight-year Hall of Fame reject, much of that time not even coming close to the required 75 percent, to a shoe-in, earning 86 percent of the vote. Somebody explain this to me without it sounding ludicrous or making the entire voting process a sham.
Are we saying that since last year, Gossage's stats and achievements were re-examined by enough of the voters, who suddenly saw the error of their ways and voted for the man after not voting for him for eight years? This isn't a small number of voters. We're talking about around 50 votes that he never got before.
All this proves is that the HOF voting is more politically charged, and based on image, than anything else. The writers did not want to have an empty class, leaving the five veterans committee picks as the only inductees, and since no clear-cut first-timer showed up on the ballot (although Tim Raines should have gotten more votes) the writers went with the guy who was closest. A lot of guys voted for him for the first time rather than leave their ballot blank or risk nobody getting in. And quite simply that makes the whole process a joke.
For what it's worth, I will never agree with the writers who choose to delineate between a "first ballot" HOFer and a "subsequent ballot" HOFer. If a guy deserves to get in, he deserves to get in. The percentage of votes he gets above 75 will delineate who were clearer choices than others. Don't decline to vote for a guy one year and then vote for him the next year just so he won't get in on the first ballot.
And the fact that some guys go from getting about 30 percent their first year and then eventually work their way up to 75 (Jim Rice, I'm talking about your fate next year) is almost laughable. Sure, some voters will rightfully re-examine a player's impact and eventually decide he merits a vote, but it shouldn't ever be over half the voters. That's just HOF voters wielding their power, saying, 'Well, I think you're a borderline HOFer, so I'm going to make you sweat a little before you get my vote.'
This all makes me sick.
But, congratulations to Gossage, who probably does deserve to be elected and should have been long ago. I just wish it didn't have to be like this.
But the first thing I want to mention happened a while ago. Like I said, I fell asleep in blogger-land and when I woke up I found that Goose Gossage had gone from an eight-year Hall of Fame reject, much of that time not even coming close to the required 75 percent, to a shoe-in, earning 86 percent of the vote. Somebody explain this to me without it sounding ludicrous or making the entire voting process a sham.
Are we saying that since last year, Gossage's stats and achievements were re-examined by enough of the voters, who suddenly saw the error of their ways and voted for the man after not voting for him for eight years? This isn't a small number of voters. We're talking about around 50 votes that he never got before.
All this proves is that the HOF voting is more politically charged, and based on image, than anything else. The writers did not want to have an empty class, leaving the five veterans committee picks as the only inductees, and since no clear-cut first-timer showed up on the ballot (although Tim Raines should have gotten more votes) the writers went with the guy who was closest. A lot of guys voted for him for the first time rather than leave their ballot blank or risk nobody getting in. And quite simply that makes the whole process a joke.
For what it's worth, I will never agree with the writers who choose to delineate between a "first ballot" HOFer and a "subsequent ballot" HOFer. If a guy deserves to get in, he deserves to get in. The percentage of votes he gets above 75 will delineate who were clearer choices than others. Don't decline to vote for a guy one year and then vote for him the next year just so he won't get in on the first ballot.
And the fact that some guys go from getting about 30 percent their first year and then eventually work their way up to 75 (Jim Rice, I'm talking about your fate next year) is almost laughable. Sure, some voters will rightfully re-examine a player's impact and eventually decide he merits a vote, but it shouldn't ever be over half the voters. That's just HOF voters wielding their power, saying, 'Well, I think you're a borderline HOFer, so I'm going to make you sweat a little before you get my vote.'
This all makes me sick.
But, congratulations to Gossage, who probably does deserve to be elected and should have been long ago. I just wish it didn't have to be like this.
Labels: baseball
posted by Ryan Pipke at
2:35 PM
1 Comments:
It is the anybody but Jim Rice syndrome.
Goose had a few good years and got to play on the big stage enuf.
Rice he just learned to say hello (to press, public) when it was time to say goodbye and now a lot of people are saying good riddance to his HOF hopes
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home