has fancy plans, and pants to match
- Apr 12, 2001
Of course Cafardo voted for Andy Pettitte. Of course he did.
Agreed. There is no way to look at that ballot and determine that there is only one worthy player.Cafardo getting grief but CHB and his 1 man ballot goes unmentioned? Given that he’s such a miserable prick it really shouldn’t surprise me that his ballot looks like this.
Pettitte over Halladay is odd, though Halladay is pretty certain to be voted in whereas Pettitte is borderline dropping off the ballot entirely - so you can make a non-completely ridiculous argument about strategic voting there.No. I saw that.
But voting for Pettitte over Halladay is a bit much.
Edit: and also voting for Clemens and Bonds but not Manny? Get out of here with that bullshit.
A lot of people make a distinction between Manny's two positive tests during the testing era and the usage by Bonds and Clemens (and others) back during the old days.Edit: and also voting for Clemens and Bonds but not Manny? Get out of here with that bullshit.
Once again, Sheffield, unlike Manny Ramirez, was never suspended as a result of a positive test under MLB's rules.Bonds over Ramirez is one thing. He voted for Sheffield over him too. Everything you could pin on Manny—PEDs, quitting on his team, poor defense—Sheffield did too.
The guy couldn’t be worse if he tried.
Definitely. Though I believe Bonds had some accusations thrown at him in an article at one point, this is probably the answer as to why.Manny's domestic violence arrest could be part of it too.
Yes I read your post above and am already totally clear on this. It is a fairly meaningless distinction where this is concerned. I wasnt trying to argue that he hadnt come up with a pointless reason to pick one and not the other.Once again, Sheffield, unlike Manny Ramirez, was never suspended as a result of a positive test under MLB's rules.
Yeah, I'm actually surprised by how close to competent Nick's ballot is. At the least, it's defensible.I was just happy Cafardo voted for 10 people, even if they weren't the 10 best choices.
CHB should be drawn and quartered for his ballot.
Thank you, this is exactly the info I was looking for. I was thinking the announcement was at 3 and I was on the train wondering why Twitter didn't have the results yet.MLB Network is doing a five hour show starting at 3pm but the announcement will come at 6pm.
C. They genuinely believe that if Ruth, Mays, Cy, Cobb, etc weren't unanimous, then no one should be.When was the last time sports writers all agreed on something?
I never thought we would see a unanimous inductee.
I always expected some writer to leave someone off because
A: they want to make a name for themself
B: make up some Cockamamie reason to leave them off (like closers are not a real position)
Everyone gets that. But it’s still fitting because no other player is head and shoulders above every other player at his position like Mariano.I agree in the sense that he deserves to be in, but there are dozens of guys who should have gotten this honor before he did.
Including today, the two times that a player has played a majority (>50%) of his career games at DH, zero position players wound up being elected by the BBWAA:Interesting year. Zero position players made the cut
That's a great analysis. This is a pretty big vote, as it creates new respect for closers and DHs and inducted a "Big Hall" guy (Mussina). That's good news for Papi, Larry Walker, and Schilling.I think we can consider "The Backlog" to be largely cleared here, aside from Bonds and Clemens remaining. Next year only one sure-thing is joining the ballot (Jeter), and only 2-3 other "Vote-bait" candidates who aren't getting in but whose HOF Monitor rating is >100 (Jason Giambi 108 / 50.5 WAR, Alfonso Soriano 105 / 28.2 WAR, plus Bobby Abreu 95 / 60.5 WAR). Meanwhile, this year they elected 2 first-balloters, 1 long-building-campaign guy (Edgar), and 1 bubble guy who was probably getting in sooner or later, so sooner is better than later (Moose) - all of whom were going to siphon big shares of votes until they got in. I'm not sure that next year even the "Big Hall" voters will think there are >10 deserving candidates, so finally their vote will probably be concentrated on all those they think are worthy. That alone should bump the top candidates a few percentage points here and there.
This is what almost happened with Christina Kahrl's ballot, by the same use of logic. I'd defend as much too, but she did not want the reaction if she had wound up being the only dissenter.Yeah this is why I figured we would never see 100 percent and is somewhat defensible.