908 replies to this topic

[Swenny23]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

Strasburg! Can't wait for him to face a major league lineup. Did the Natinals turn their radar gun up a couple notches or can he really hit 101?

I think he can really hit 101. If it was spiked up his consistent 98 would be 100 or so. His stuff is so sick. How can a hitter even see that fastball? Then your thinking swing early and he throws an 80 mile an hr curveball. Is the sky the limit for this guy?

[JoeyJoJo]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 9:06 AM, said:

This is idiotic:http://content.usato...hall-of-famer/1

This should be in the Hall of Fame thread unless you're talking about something other than whether someone should be a unanimous member. If you are talking about that, then I agree that it's idiotic that some people don't vote for obvious hall of famers just because they have some weird philosophical policy not to vote for guys the first time.Also, Pete Rose used a corked bat.

[El Guapo]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 9:27 AM, said:

This should be in the Hall of Fame thread unless you're talking about something other than whether someone should be a unanimous member. If you are talking about that, then I agree that it's idiotic that some people don't vote for obvious hall of famers just because they have some weird philosophical policy not to vote for guys the first time.

Probably, but I had this thread open when I found it.

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 9:27 AM, said:

Also, Pete Rose used a corked bat.

To hit singles?

[JoeyJoJo]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 9:51 AM, said:

To hit singles?

Yes. Why do you ask?I hate it when people try to compare stuff like PED's or corked bats to scuffing the ball or throwing a spitter. Scuffing the ball takes place on the field of play and I think that's a significant difference. Not that I'm condoning it, but there are degrees here.

[El Guapo]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

Yes. Why do you ask?

I am not really sure what advantage that would give him, besides a slightly lighter bat.Also, I am not convinced a corked bat helps hit home runs. We did an experiment in H.S., don't remember the parameters, but it did not seem to give much of an advantage, if any.

[JoeyJoJo]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 10:03 AM, said:

I am not really sure what advantage that would give him, besides a slightly lighter bat.Also, I am not convinced a corked bat helps hit home runs. We did an experiment in H.S., don't remember the parameters, but it did not seem to give much of an advantage, if any.

Bat speed is everything. The quicker you can get around on a pitch, the longer you can wait on it, meaning you can see the ball better. It's not about making the ball go further.Right, it doesn't help hit home runs. That's not why he would do it.p.s. You obviously didn't read the link since it talks about a Mythbusters episode that showed corked bats don't make the ball go further.

[El Guapo]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

Bat speed is everything. The quicker you can get around on a pitch, the longer you can wait on it, meaning you can see the ball better. It's not about making the ball go further.Right, it doesn't help hit home runs. That's not why he would do it.p.s. You obviously didn't read the link since it talks about a Mythbusters episode that showed corked bats don't make the ball go further.

No I did not. I didn't see that mythbusters.I was trying to explain bat speed to my four year old at T-Ball practice the other day, I think he got it.So was Rose using the lightest bat allowable, and then added cork?

[speedz99]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 9:06 AM, said:

This is idiotic:

What's idiotic? That some writers won't vote for an obvious hall of famer just to keep the streak alive? I agree, that's idiotic.

[El Guapo]

speedz99, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:31 PM, said:

What's idiotic? That some writers won't vote for an obvious hall of famer just to keep the streak alive? I agree, that's idiotic.

No, to think Griffey would get voted in unanimously. When much better players haven't come close.

[JoeyJoJo]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:37 PM, said:

No, to think Griffey would get voted in unanimously. When much better players haven't come close.

Yeah, it's probably idiotic to wonder if idiotic sportswriters will stop being idiotic.Out of curiosity, what's your list of much better players who haven't come close?Edit: I can see one scenario where he comes close. The type of voter who wouldn't normally vote for a first-timer is also probably the type of voter who won't vote for McGwire. Maybe he'll vote for Griffey as sort of an eff you to the steroid guys since Griffey is usually considered to be a clean player.

[speedz99]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:37 PM, said:

No, to think Griffey would get voted in unanimously. When much better players haven't come close.

Do you think he should get voted in unanimously?

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:46 PM, said:

Edit: I can see one scenario where he comes close. The type of voter who wouldn't normally vote for a first-timer is also probably the type of voter who won't vote for McGwire. Maybe he'll vote for Griffey as sort of an eff you to the steroid guys since Griffey is usually considered to be a clean player.

Yeah, but all it takes is one.

[JoeyJoJo]

speedz99, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:52 PM, said:

Do you think he should get voted in unanimously?

I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case for why he shouldn't be a hall of famer and therefore he should be.

speedz99, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:52 PM, said:

Yeah, but all it takes is one.

I said close!

[speedz99]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:55 PM, said:

I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case for why he shouldn't be a hall of famer and therefore he should be.

But I've heard a case made that, since there's a precedent that nobody has been unanimously voted in before, it shouldn't happen unless it's for someone that is widely regarded as in the coversation for the best player of all time. I'm not saying I agree, but that's the argument, and occasionally someone's able to make it sound reasonable.

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:55 PM, said:

I said close!

What, I'm supposed to read your posts carefully now?

[El Guapo]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:46 PM, said:

Yeah, it's probably idiotic to wonder if idiotic sportswriters will stop being idiotic.Out of curiosity, what's your list of much better players who haven't come close?

Off the top of my head, Cobb, Williams, Ruth, Mays and Ryne Sandberg

speedz99, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 1:52 PM, said:

Do you think he should get voted in unanimously?

This is a tough question. I am argued he was not a sure fire hall of famer when he went to the reds, then he was injured so much, but was able to get healthy and string a half a dozen decent seasons together. So his numbers got there because of how long he played (since he was 19) but he really underwhelmed for a good half of his career.I think he is for sure a hall of famer, and when he was healthy he was one of, if not the best player in the league. But I could see the argument that someone could make for him not to be in the hall, although I don't agree with it.This is a really bad answer to a simple question.

[JoeyJoJo]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 3:04 PM, said:

Off the top of my head, Cobb, Williams, Ruth, Mays and Ryne Sandberg

Cobb: 222 out of 226 votes. 98%Williams: 282 out of 302. 93%Ruth: 215 out of 226. 95%Mays: 409 out of 432. 95%Sandberg: Wait, Sandberg? No way he was "much better" than Griffey; that's ridiculous.

[El Guapo]

JoeyJoJo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 3:24 PM, said:

Cobb: 222 out of 226 votes. 98%Williams: 282 out of 302. 93%Ruth: 215 out of 226. 95%Mays: 409 out of 432. 95%Sandberg: Wait, Sandberg? No way he was "much better" than Griffey; that's ridiculous.

Sandberg was my herring.

[speedz99]

El Guapo, on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010, 3:04 PM, said:

This is a tough question.

It's actually not. There is no reasonable, rational argument for Griffey not being a first ballot hall of famer. The only argument here is whether or not the tradition of not making it unanimous is worthy of being continued.

[digitalmonkey]

I don't think I'm understanding the voting process. If I have a vote on whether Ken Griffey Jr. belongs in the HOF then I would vote yes. Are we saying that some voters would vote 'no' despite the fact they also believe he deserves to be in the HOF just because they don't want him to get in unanimously? If this is the case, I think those people should have their voting privileges removed.

[speedz99]

digitalmonkey, on Thursday, June 10th, 2010, 6:34 AM, said:

Are we saying that some voters would vote 'no' despite the fact they also believe he deserves to be in the HOF just because they don't want him to get in unanimously? If this is the case, I think those people should have their voting privileges removed.

That is exactly what we're saying. It's not simply that they don't want him to get in unanimously, it's that they think if others before him (that were better) didn't get in unanimously, he shouldn't either. And yes, they should have their voting privileges removed.

[JoeyJoJo]

Also, some voters distinguish between "first ballot hall of famers" and others. It's like they're creating their own tiers of hall of famers based on when they got in, percentage of votes received, etc.