2024 Classic HOF election

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

Feeding the same list of favored names over and over and over again to a small committee of insiders for a closed door discussion and non-public vote pretty much ensures that the selections will not be objectively good or reasonable and that an almost random (or corrupt based on who has the most friends on the committee as appears to have happened for Baines) sub-selection will get chosen each time, with most of the recurring names eventually chosen since its the same names put forth again and again. After decades of this same basic formulation being instituted despite blatantly obvious corruption only adding to the problem, it is clear there is not soon going to be any kind of reasonable or rational method adopted to pick people for logical reasons. This is a silly farce each year.

We need to stop taking the HOF so seriously because they themselves don’t take it seriously. This year is really a joke.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by calvindog

We need to stop taking the HOF so seriously because they themselves don’t take it seriously. This year is really a joke.

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

Certainly a different evaluation of Parker today than in prior years, including two veterans' committee votes where he received zero votes.
1997 BBWAA (17.5%)
1998 BBWAA (24.5%)
1999 BBWAA (16.1%)
2000 BBWAA (20.8%)
2001 BBWAA (16.3%)
2002 BBWAA (14.0%)
2003 BBWAA (10.3%)
2004 BBWAA (10.5%)
2005 BBWAA (12.6%)
2006 BBWAA (14.6%)
2007 BBWAA (11.4%)
2008 BBWAA (15.1%)
2009 BBWAA (15.0%)
2010 BBWAA (15.2%)
2011 BBWAA (15.3%)
2014 Veterans ()
2018 Veterans ()
2020 Veterans (43.8%)

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Certainly a different evaluation of Parker today than in prior years, including two veterans' committee votes where he received zero votes.
1997 BBWAA (17.5%)
1998 BBWAA (24.5%)
1999 BBWAA (16.1%)
2000 BBWAA (20.8%)
2001 BBWAA (16.3%)
2002 BBWAA (14.0%)
2003 BBWAA (10.3%)
2004 BBWAA (10.5%)
2005 BBWAA (12.6%)
2006 BBWAA (14.6%)
2007 BBWAA (11.4%)
2008 BBWAA (15.1%)
2009 BBWAA (15.0%)
2010 BBWAA (15.2%)
2011 BBWAA (15.3%)
2014 Veterans ()
2018 Veterans ()
2020 Veterans (43.8%)

I don't think he definitely received 0 votes in 2014 and 2018. I think if someone gets less than 3 votes, they don't report the total so he could have received a few, but still was nowhere close to election.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Delgado's OPS is 100 points higher than Parker's and he hit 140 more HR in 2000 fewer AB. Just saying.

[rhettyeakley]

Congrats to Dave Parker.

It took me forever to find his first ever item, I have never seen another for sale (luckily when I found the one I have in my Personal collection there was an extra as well)...

I hate sharing pictures of items that haven't been seen before as it will take 8 seconds for TradingCardDatabase to steal the image

1972 Salem Fast Service (SALEM PIRATES) DAVE PARKER

[paul]

I already saw the image on the Trading Card Database. Was it not there yesterday?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Congrats to Dave Parker.

It took me forever to find his first ever item, I have never seen another for sale (luckily when I found the one I have in my Personal collection there was an extra as well)...

I hate sharing pictures of items that haven't been seen before as it will take 8 seconds for TradingCardDatabase to steal the image

1972 Salem Fast Service (SALEM PIRATES) DAVE PARKER

I literally posted this same card about five posts before yours!! ������

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

It's clearly a mess. I think that the fans are much more concerned about the integrity of the game than the actual stewards of the game, i.e. the commissioner's office which presumably impacts all of this. After all, we're now discussing this "golden at bat" bullshit. The extra inning ghost runner at least made some sense due to the decreased innings per starter as the game has evolved. But the golden at bat is just a slap in the face of any purist or quasi-purist. If they care this little about the integrity of the game, why should they pretend to care who gets into the HOF and why?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It's clearly a mess. I think that the fans are much more concerned about the integrity of the game than the actual stewards of the game, i.e. the commissioner's office which presumably impacts all of this. After all, we're now discussing this "golden at bat" bullshit. The extra inning ghost runner at least made some sense due to the decreased innings per starter as the game has evolved. But the golden at bat is just a slap in the face of any purist or quasi-purist. If they care this little about the integrity of the game, why should they pretend to care who gets into the HOF and why?

That golden at bat idea was probably brought up after a long night of drinking and smoking whatever it is that causes thoughts like this to be even mentioned out loud after the alcohol bottles and bong bowls have been emptied.

That idea is a golden turd... if there's any serious consideration to it, I think I'll look for another favorite sport.

[packs]

I would be in favor of a golden at bat if the golden at bat was a random drawing once a year for a fan to get an at bat. MLB could donate to charity for every fan who manages a major league hit.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by packs

I would be in favor of a golden at bat if the golden at bat was a random drawing once a year for a fan to get an at bat. MLB could donate to charity for every fan who manages a major league hit.

Here's a thought. The manager selects the golden at bat for that game. The umpire breaks out the golden at bat coin and flips it. The opposing manager chooses headsand it comes up heads, now the opposing manager gets to pick who he wants to have that at bat. MLB could get a sponsorship from Draftkings or some other betting entity and before the coin flip, people can place a bet on who wins the coin flip. Then there could be side bets on who the batter will be, what will transpire. MLB could have the betting website pay a 10% commission for each golden at bat situation to pop up. Isn't that the way sports is going these days? Parlays, over/under on final game scores, or how many strikeouts a pitcher has in a certain inning... whatever happened to just watching a game.

Edited to add - Allen and Parker were good choices from the bunch, but I think el Tiante should have gotten in. As mentioned by many others, the HOF is very watered down thanks to the Veterans committees of the past.

[calvindog]

I think Parker and Allen are worthy all things considered. But why not Garvey and Tommy John?