HOF'er Perceptions

[MattyC]

Perceptions are often far, far removed from reality.

In addition, I think far too many baseball fans waste thought and energy on the HOF (and other voted awards, such as MVP, for that matter). The HOF is an institution whose membership is determined by "sports writers."

What qualifies these men to make such determinations, as opposed to players (the veterans' committee notwithstanding) or even fans?

These "sports writers" have so often proven themselves irrational, subjective, and petty that I have zero respect for so many them. Their personal biases are what color their decisions, and somehow grown men wind up being baited by the whole sports "journalism" (entertainment) machine into debating the inconsistent and irrational choices of these "writers."

Educated fans can watch players and look at stats and make our own determinations of who the greatest were. I say utterly ignore what amounts to popularity contests decided by others whose opinions are worth as much as anyone else's.

[tulsaboy]

Growing up in the 1980's, we all were excited about Mattingly, McGwire, Canseco, Strawberry, Clemens, Boggs, Sandberg,Will Clark, and Bo Jackson.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by tulsaboy

Growing up in the 1980's, we all were excited about Mattingly, McGwire, Canseco, Strawberry, Clemens, Boggs, Sandberg,Will Clark, and Bo Jackson.

It's funny that you mention those specific guys, because I was at a show today and quite a few people had that entire grouping of players prominently displayed on their tables. I finally asked one of the dealers, "Why??" and his response was, "Look at the grades! You never see that Will Clark in a 9!!" I chuckled and moved far away from that table.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Perceptions are often far, far removed from reality.

In addition, I think far too many baseball fans waste thought and energy on the HOF (and other voted awards, such as MVP, for that matter). The HOF is an institution whose membership is determined by "sports writers."

What qualifies these men to make such determinations, as opposed to players (the veterans' committee notwithstanding) or even fans?

These "sports writers" have so often proven themselves irrational, subjective, and petty that I have zero respect for so many them. Their personal biases are what color their decisions, and somehow grown men wind up being baited by the whole sports "journalism" (entertainment) machine into debating the inconsistent and irrational choices of these "writers."

Educated fans can watch players and look at stats and make our own determinations of who the greatest were. I say utterly ignore what amounts to popularity contests decided by others whose opinions are worth as much as anyone else's.

Second your motion, Matt, on HOF'ers. How about Ed Barrow, as a case in point - only reason he's in the hall is as payback for giving Ruth to the Yankees.