Jump to content


Class of 2019 MLB Hall of Fame announced


Bret Hart
 Share

Recommended Posts

The voting has become a sham, it's ridiculous that Rivera went in unanimous!!! HOFer sure but a damn reliever to be the first unanimous is crazy. Especially given the voters take on closers making Lee Smith wait to get in through the veterans committee when he was just as dominant a pitcher. Also how the hell are Martinez and Mussina hall worthy??? Neither were the best player on their respective teams, didn't win any awards or hit any magic numbers or win a championship?? I'm not seeing their worthiness. With their inclusion and the veterans adding Baines this is now a Hall of Good Players.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also how the hell are Martinez and Mussina hall worthy???

 

Because they were Hall of Fame tier players.

 

Lou Gehrig wasn't the best player on his teams when Babe Ruth was around, so should he not have made it?

 

Ted Williams never won a championship, so should he not have made it?

 

Jim Thome never won any awards, so should he not have made it?

 

I can go on and on, those are just awful arguments to make.

 

Martinez' career slash line was .312/.418/.515 - do you know how many players in history have done that? Not many. As a matter of fact, here's the list of people who have done better: Ted Williams (HOF), Jimmie Foxx (HOF), Lou Gehrig (HOF), Rogers Hornsby (HOF), Babe Ruth (HOF), Dan Brouthers (HOF). THAT'S IT. Six people. None since Ted played. So yes, he deserves to be in.

 

Mussina pitched for 18 years in the heaviest offensive era in MLB history, in the heaviest offensive division, in some of the worst parks to pitch in, and yet, he won 64% of his decisions (and no I'm not the biggest proponent of W-L%, but that's sizable). He was durable, averaging 204 innings a year from 1992-2008 (that's a hell of a long time to do that), and given that amount of workload, he kept the ball in the park pretty well - 0.9 HR/9. Again consider the era and ballparks. Throughout all that, 3.68 ERA? In those years? That's Hall worthy alone.

 

it's ridiculous that Rivera went in unanimous

 

No it isn't. You can have a case that it's ridiculous he was the FIRST one to do it unanimously, but not that he was unanimous - that's perfectly fine. Many before him should have been unanimous. That stupid stigma by voters that "because Player X and Player Y didn't get in unanimous, then NOBODY should," I'm glad that's finally over. And on top of that, Rivera, greatest reliever OF. ALL. TIME. Not just "a damn reliever" as you'd like to state. He pitched 141 innings in the playoffs and allowed 11 runs. More people walked on the moon than scored on Rivera in the postseason, for crying out loud.

 

I will agree with you on only one point, and that is that Harold Baines should not have made it in.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"m SHOCKED that Rivera went in 100%.  I figured some jackass writer would exclude him.  

 

Ask any player htat played with Mo.  He was so far and away the GOAT at his position that its not even funny.  He is really in the same category of GOAT at their position as guys like:

 

Michael Jordan

 

Wayne Gretzky

 

Mussina was a damn good, damn good pitcher, pitching in the AL East (the most powerful division for basically all of his career).  He pitches 2 more years and he reaches that magical 300 win level.  

 

Edgar was a damn good hitter who if it wasnt for that shitty carpet probably plays the field more over his career.  

 

Bonds/Clemens basically making zero progress is interesting.  They better approach 70 next year or they arent getting in with the BBWAA vote.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One did plan to originally and then changed his vote, wonder if he was influenced in any way.

 

There is no way that is accurate.

 

He released his first column on what?  Dec 31 and then his 'changed my mind' column 3 weeks later.

 

It was all a ploy to bring more readers to his little blog.  

 

Votes were due in Dec 31. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i certainly don't have a problem with Mo getting 100% of the vote - yes, it's idiotic he is the first to do so but that's in no way his fault and nor should he have been penalized by some writer to avoid being the first to get 100% of the vote.  Can't erase the past and all the times others should have clearly received 100% of the vote - but you can cheer that it finally happened for someone who is worthy of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivera got 100% because ballots can now be revealed and no writer wants the backlash of being the guy who didn't vote for Mariano. The same will happen with Jeter. If ballots were secret then you'll always have the ones that say "I don't vote for anyone on their first ballot no matter who it is."

 

Not sure this voting transparency is good either. It's like when kids ask each other what's cool and what isn't cool and many kids just agree with the majority just to not be left out... that's gonna start happening with many voters now. Anonymity allows truth... transparency hides it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Mo getting 100 percent. Gwynn also should've been 100%, but in the past it didn't happen. I wonder if Jeter gets 100.

 

I already know one writer who says he won't vote for Jeter but not because he thinks Jeter is not a Hall of Famer - he does - but because he says he sees 12 HOFers and can only vote for 10, so he'd rather use them for guys that could use the vote.

 

He also said he may abstain from voting this year for that reason.

 

IMO, I think what he could do instead is, if he knows one particular player is going to be on the ballot next year anyways, he can leave them off their vote for this one, but ... we'll see.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivera got 100% because ballots can now be revealed and no writer wants the backlash of being the guy who didn't vote for Mariano. The same will happen with Jeter. If ballots were secret then you'll always have the ones that say "I don't vote for anyone on their first ballot no matter who it is."

 

Not sure this voting transparency is good either. It's like when kids ask each other what's cool and what isn't cool and many kids just agree with the majority just to not be left out... that's gonna start happening with many voters now. Anonymity allows truth... transparency hides it. 

 

You dont have to reveal your ballot.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fanofthefish sorry I made good points? ❤️ 

 

They're points , not necessarily all good ones, Martinez and Mussina despite what was posted still don't merit what I consider Hall of Fame consideration, they're both very good players just not good enough to be considered among the games very best. To me the Hall is about those players I would pay to watch and want to see, neither of these did this despite lengthy careers in which they failed to hit several of those magic numbers the majority of enshrined players have,   I would point out I rarely agree a lot with the voters especially on certain selections over the years or fellow members here on what a Hall of Fame career is,  that said your points fail in my estimation to qualify either as Hall worthy.

 

As for Rivera, he truly was great pitcher, but I don't see his value being unanimously better in its value over previous selections for the Hall, especially as these are the same voters that seem to disregard the value of the reliever in as much that the closest in comparison to him Hoffman had to wait three years to be selected and  Smith finally goes in, but only by the veterans.  I get  that someone would eventually be unanimous, but I find it hard to believe the voters chose him, personally would've preferred a position player, but that's my preference. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're points , not necessarily all good ones, Martinez and Mussina despite what was posted still don't merit what I consider Hall of Fame consideration, they're both very good players just not good enough to be considered among the games very best. To me the Hall is about those players I would pay to watch and want to see, neither of these did this despite lengthy careers in which they failed to hit several of those magic numbers the majority of enshrined players have,   I would point out I rarely agree a lot with the voters especially on certain selections over the years or fellow members here on what a Hall of Fame career is,  that said your points fail in my estimation to qualify either as Hall worthy.

 

As for Rivera, he truly was great pitcher, but I don't see his value being unanimously better in its value over previous selections for the Hall, especially as these are the same voters that seem to disregard the value of the reliever in as much that the closest in comparison to him Hoffman had to wait three years to be selected and  Smith finally goes in, but only by the veterans.  I get  that someone would eventually be unanimous, but I find it hard to believe the voters chose him, personally would've preferred a position player, but that's my preference. 

 

You shouldn't have downvoted Micheal. He provided his points just as you did, fairly and respectfully. Disagreeing isn't a reason to downvote. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...