Will ken Griffey jr be the first unanimous hall of famer?

[Rookiemonster]

I would be so confused if anybody didn't vote for him . If someone didn't vote for him then it would just be for the recognition of this matter .

[packs]

If Pedro and Maddux weren't unanimous I don't think Griffey will be. But we all know he should.

[chaddurbin]

when hell freezes over.

[pclpads]

Never happen. There will always be some arrogant writer who fashions himself more important than the subject at hand and wants the distinction of being the lone holdout voter to block a 100% vote. When these morons do that, they should forfeit their future voting privileges.

[Bored5000]

This exact same argument comes up every few years: Will this player or that player be the first unanimous selection. It never happens and never will.

That being said, I don't understand the angst in the least over whether or not a player receives 97 percent of the vote or 100 percent of the vote. A player only needs 75 percent of the vote for election, and the plaques are not grouped by voting percentage at the Hall of Fame, anyway. It's not like the players who are elected with 75 percent of the vote or the Veterans Committee have their plaques exiled to a storage closet or a third floor bathroom.

[packs]

Well don't you think someone's credibility comes into question if they don't vote for a player like Griffey? What reasoning is there not to vote for him?

[pokerplyr80]

I don't get it either, but the mentality seems to be if Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, etc didn't get 100% of the vote than no one should. There will always be a few hold outs. I also agree these people who hold out should not be allowed to vote. I'm sure I could name 25 or more players off the top of my head who deserved 100% of the vote their first year but didn't get it.

[Rookiemonster]

Seaver has the highest percentage of the vote with 98.8 . I don't know who was like nah I ain't voting for him . It's one of those bizarre things . I just feel at this point with all the steroid players on the ballet that how do you not start you voting by going Griffey and then who ever else .

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by packs

Well don't you think someone's credibility comes into question if they don't vote for a player like Griffey? What reasoning is there not to vote for him?

He's first ballot easily, but not unanimous. He was mediocre due to injuries for far too long of a stretch the second half of his career. If Maddux wasn't unanimous then Griffey doesn't stand a chance.

[TAVG]

nope, some won't vote for him simply because they know he will get in.

I know that happened last year with johnson and pedro.

[chaddurbin]

griffey is not even a good case for 100%...mike trout at his current trajectory will be the first 100% no doubter if he keeps this up for another 12-15 years.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I don't get it either, but the mentality seems to be if Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, etc didn't get 100% of the vote than no one should. There will always be a few hold outs. I also agree these people who hold out should not be allowed to vote.

The problem with that is how would you decide what players are so obviously Hall of Fame worthy that someone should lose their vote for not voting for them? Who would make that decision to take someone's vote away for not voting for a particular player? We all know that Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or Walter Johnson were Hall of Fame players, but what would be the concrete metric for determining who a voter has to vote for?

I just don't get the angst over a player receiving 97-98 percent of the vote as opposed to 100 percent; it doesn't matter. If we were discussing a guy receiving 74 percent of the vote as opposed to 75 percent of the vote, that I could understand.

[packs]

Everyone has up to 10 votes, but there are probably a lot of writers who don't vote at all. Those are the people whose votes I'd take away.

[canjond]

Jeter

[CMIZ5290]

no, but he will have a huge percentage....

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

Everyone has up to 10 votes, but there are probably a lot of writers who don't vote at all. Those are the people whose votes I'd take away.

The ONLY way ANYBODY will EVER be elected unanimously would be for all the writers to each vote for 10 players, which would mean that they would be saying that 10 out of a total of 32 players on the ballot should be elected...and I do not see that EVER happening.

I'm okay with no one ever being elected unanimously...considering the truly great players who have NOT be unanimous.
.
.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I'm okay with no one ever being elected unanimously...considering the truly great players who have NOT be unanimous.

yea let's compound the stupidity...

jeter wasn't even the best ss during his time, no way he's 100%.

[Rookiemonster]

There may not be a 100% hall of famer ever but it will only come from a political stand point . Griffey is on a ballot of minor star and PED users . Ruth , Seaver , didn't have that going for them . But to say it never happened so it will never happen is not a rational way of looking at it .

[EldoEsq]

Rivera

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[almostdone]

I'm not sure who it was but a writer who don't didn't vote for Maddox said that he would never vote for any player who played during the steroid era regardless if they had ever been implicated of using PEDs or not. I'm sure there are others out like this as well. If that's true no one will ever be 100% voted in. It only takes one. Too bad to but as long as a deserving player goes in that all that matters in my book.
Drew

[clydepepper]

Drew - that's Maddux, not Maddox - he was a fine centerfielder but not a strong candidate. You may feel like I'm nit-picking, but Baseball is built around the accuracy of its details.
.
.

[almostdone]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Drew - that's Maddux, not Maddox - he was a fine centerfielder but not a strong candidate. You may feel like I'm nit-picking, but Baseball is built around the accuracy of its details.
.
.

Sorry. I knew that but my auto correct kept coming up with anything but either spelling. I'll work on my attention to details. I'd hate to disappoint.
Drew

[bdangelo]

He's a slam-dunk, but won't be unanimous. There's always someone who has a thing about not voting candidates in their first year of eligibility. Mays, Aaron, Ted Williams, DiMaggio -- none of them could get all the votes. Heck, neither did Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. But Junior will have his plaque next July in Cooperstown.

[the 'stache]

I don't think there will ever be a unanimous selection.

[the 'stache]

Nine people didn't vote for Hank Aaron. He played 3,298 games, had 755 home runs, and another 3,000 hits on top of the home runs. He drove in 2,297 runs, had 6,856 bases...an average of 337 bases per 162 games played for a quarter century.

Nine people thought he didn't earn induction on the first ballot.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Nine people didn't vote for Hank Aaron. He played 3,298 games, had 755 home runs, and another 3,000 hits on top of the home runs. He drove in 2,297 runs, had 6,856 bases...an average of 337 bases per 162 games played for a quarter century.

Nine people thought he didn't earn induction on the first ballot.

There was still a lot of racism at the time .

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Drew - that's Maddux, not Maddox - he was a fine centerfielder but not a strong candidate. You may feel like I'm nit-picking, but Baseball is built around the accuracy of its details.
.
.

And I was thinking Nick Maddox instead of Gary. I'd like to see Bill Dahlen or Tony Mullane get in, think either Maddox would be a big stretch.

[CMIZ5290]

no....

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

The problem with that is how would you decide what players are so obviously Hall of Fame worthy that someone should lose their vote for not voting for them? Who would make that decision to take someone's vote away for not voting for a particular player? We all know that Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or Walter Johnson were Hall of Fame players, but what would be the concrete metric for determining who a voter has to vote for?

I just don't get the angst over a player receiving 97-98 percent of the vote as opposed to 100 percent; it doesn't matter. If we were discussing a guy receiving 74 percent of the vote as opposed to 75 percent of the vote, that I could understand

It would be hard to enforce, especially since it's been going on for so long. Writers who didn't vote for Ruth, Cobb, Young, Mays, Mantle, etc should have lost there votes when it happened. Since the practice has continued this long the only way anyone will ever get 100% is if the mentality of these holdout voters change. Or they're all replaced by people with enough common sense to vote in an obvious HOFer.

Joe Posnanski's article on Griffey's impending election:


http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/ken...-hall-of-fame/

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandBaseBallist

Joe Posnanski's article on Griffey's impending election:


http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/ken...-hall-of-fame/

A very interesting article. Definitely worth a read. It really is a shame Seaver didn't get every vote since as the article said that would have ended this stupid tradition.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Nine people didn't vote for Hank Aaron. He played 3,298 games, had 755 home runs, and another 3,000 hits on top of the home runs. He drove in 2,297 runs, had 6,856 bases...an average of 337 bases per 162 games played for a quarter century.

Nine people thought he didn't earn induction on the first ballot.

11 didn't vote for babe ruth, I heard that it was because some voters didn't like ruth personally and yet in the same election ty cobb got 7 more votes than ruth but also had 4 not vote for him.

I think not voting for a guy just cause its his 1st time on the ballot is just dumb

[egri]

Originally Posted by packs

Well don't you think someone's credibility comes into question if they don't vote for a player like Griffey? What reasoning is there not to vote for him?

If I was a writer, my reasoning might be that Griffey is going in come hell or high water, and he only needs 75%. Player X is on the borderline and needs every vote he can get. If my ballot is already full, with Griffey on there, I would not have a problem replacing Griffey with Player X. Griffey would still get 90%+ of the vote, and my guy would get some extra help.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Nine people didn't vote for Hank Aaron. He played 3,298 games, had 755 home runs, and another 3,000 hits on top of the home runs. He drove in 2,297 runs, had 6,856 bases...an average of 337 bases per 162 games played for a quarter century.

Nine people thought he didn't earn induction on the first ballot.

Because of racism, I feel that Musial is the better "Why the hell not?" player over Aaron or Mays.

[bdk1976]

Originally Posted by egri

If I was a writer, my reasoning might be that Griffey is going in come hell or high water, and he only needs 75%. Player X is on the borderline and needs every vote he can get. If my ballot is already full, with Griffey on there, I would not have a problem replacing Griffey with Player X. Griffey would still get 90%+ of the vote, and my guy would get some extra help.

Have you seen the players on this year's ballot? Pretty sure I saw one writer tweet his and he only picked 9 since he couldn't even find 10 guys worthy of a vote (first time he hasn't picked 10). even a couple of the nine he picked were a stretch and they included PED users including Clemens.

If I had a vote is be checking off even less than 9 this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[almostdone]

Here is a list of all of the players with the first time ballot. I don't see anyone, besides Griffey, who would be a potential HOFer with the eventual possibility of Trevor Hoffman but even he isn't a given and especially in his first year. I think with the last few years of multiple players inducted this year will be a bit more sparse.
Drew

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by almostdone

Here is a list of all of the players with the first time ballot. I don't see anyone, besides Griffey, who would be a potential HOFer with the eventual possibility of Trevor Hoffman but even he isn't a given and especially in his first year. I think with the last few years of multiple players inducted this year will be a bit more sparse.
Drew

Exactly and the people who do deserve to be in the hall are PED users . So this means somebody will have to just not vote for anybody .

[packs]

Piazza and Raines will probably be his only competition for votes.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by egri

If I was a writer, my reasoning might be that Griffey is going in come hell or high water, and he only needs 75%. Player X is on the borderline and needs every vote he can get. If my ballot is already full, with Griffey on there, I would not have a problem replacing Griffey with Player X. Griffey would still get 90%+ of the vote, and my guy would get some extra help.

I was going to mention the same thing. There have been a few admittedly marginal players who might have squeaked in in their last eligible year but were dropped because of a very solid group somewhere in between. The one that comes to mind right off is Dwight Evans. Not a first ballot guy for sure, but someone who might just make it. Health kept him just short of 400 HR which was almost a certain thing when he played. Combined with his fielding he might have made it.

From Wikipedia.
" Evans was dropped from the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot when he did not receive the minimum five percent of votes in his third year of eligibility. Evans received 5.9% in 1997, 10.4% in 1998, and 3.6% in 1999. Evans' low vote total in 1999 is attributed to the appearance of future Hall of Fame players Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount, and Carlton Fisk on the 1999 ballot. Based on his win shares metric, baseball statistician Bill James has argued that Evans is a worthy candidate for induction.[3]


Steve B

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by packs

Piazza and Raines will probably be his only competition for votes.

No way....Having said that, he will not be elected 100%. But I bet his percentage ends up being in the top 5% of HOFers of all time...

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by pclpads

Never happen. There will always be some arrogant writer who fashions himself more important than the subject at hand and wants the distinction of being the lone holdout voter to block a 100% vote. When these morons do that, they should forfeit their future voting privileges.

+1. Over his many great years, he is bound to have pissed off some vindictive individual with voting privileges. Truly a fabulous player!

Larry

[Rookiemonster]

99.3 all time record for the kid ! But not unanimous by impressive

[chaddurbin]

jeter the golden god is out of the running for the 100% club. the al jazeera peyton manning hgh story has link to jeter's former trainer being in business with the guy there.

i don't think 75 yr old murray hopewell of the missouri daily express can survive this bombshell. if even jeets is infallible, what's sacred anymore? just let the whole lot of them in already...

I'll admit it, I've been smoking some of Washington's finest for this very announcement, but 99.32% is too low. Does the other 0.68% not watch baseball?

Quan's right, no one is beyond reproach according to voters.

[Rookiemonster]

I believe that 3 people did not vote for the kid . But a few guys voted for nomar , garret Anderson , Jason Kendall ! Smh