Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerplyr80
This is the one argument against voting for an obvious choice that should have been unanimous I have heard over the years that makes sense to me.
The guys who just don't think anyone deserves 100% of the vote should not be allowed to vote at all. It was just as ridiculous when Babe Ruth was left off some ballots as it has been with most other first ballot HOFers.
|
If votes are supposed to be preordained and people will be booted off and pitchforks taken up because they vote differently on issues, there shouldn't be votes. Apparently, some people think voting means you get to choose between Yes and Yes.
I am in general suspicious of unanimous votes, because it often indicates groupthink and a lot of yes men.
Besides, as far as HOF enshrinement goes, the induction percentage is just trivial trivia. As DiMaggio and Jimmy Foxx demonstrate, it's not an indication of anything significant. No one, including here, looks at induction percentages when ranking Pre-War players. No one anywhere says Robin Yount is better than Joe DiMaggio (And I say that as a Robin Yount fan).