Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyElm
Oh sure, Peter, it's not obvious to me or anyone else (because we're so stupid) that you want to direct the conversation in a completely different way. To steer into some other area that has nothing to do with anything being talked about. You think I'm going to fall for that BS?? Lemme take a wild guess, you're a lawyer???
Straw man argument?? You imply that the voters are the say all, know it alls of baseball. So if these folks are the arbiters of who belongs in the Hall, how in hell did any of them leave those inarguably great players off their ballots?????
Many people like you, right? You? If that's the metric, then I will gladly ignore all of them and rely on reality instead.
|
Let me take a wild guess, you're not.
I think in the aggregate, yes, the voters are a pretty good barometer of who is Hall-worthy. Obviously there are some idiots voting but overall, someone getting 15 percent in their first three tries, is pretty relevant. Now if it's true that the reason people aren't voting for Kent is steroid suspicion, then I would have to modify that. But wasn't Kent leading the charge for testing? And wasn't he even speaking out against HGH?
http://www.sfgate.com/giants/shea/ar...ra-4197014.php
Perhaps more than any other ballplayer, Kent lobbied for testing when it wasn't trendy, when the union and much of its membership fought against it. In a clubhouse in which Greg Anderson once had free rein as a drug runner for Bonds and other Giants, Kent often stood at his locker and called for Major League Baseball and the union to iron out a legitimate steroids policy.