HOFer (inevitable) Ichiro Suzuki

[Big_Maple]

Right. Every year there are guys submitting blank ballots or only voting for one or two guys. Its crazy but unless they scrap the voting system in favor for an objective quantitative system (highly unlikely) then everyone gets to yell at the dumb voters every year. lol

Of course people would then just yell at the computers.

I move for an electoral college system. We can’t trust those sportswriters.

Because electoral college systems work perfectly, don’t you know.

[Mesully11]

The best way to get in is to be a good player that wears a Yankee cap!

[Big_Maple]

The best way to get in is to be a good player that wears a Yankee cap!

hahahah.

Let's see if it works for Ichiro.

[Donn Beach]

Your All Snub starting lineup

1. Kenny Lofton, CF
2. Barry Bonds, LF
3. Gary Sheffield, DH
4. Mark McGwire, 1B
5. Sammy Sosa, RF
6. Dick Allen, 3B
7. Nomar Garciaparra, SS
8. Thurman Munson, C
9. Lou Whitaker, 2B

SP: Roger Clemens

Closer: Dan Quisenberry

[D-train]

Your All Snub starting lineup

1. Kenny Lofton, CF
2. Barry Bonds, LF
3. Gary Sheffield, DH
4. Mark McGwire, 1B
5. Sammy Sosa, RF
6. Dick Allen, 3B
7. Nomar Garciaparra, SS
8. Thurman Munson, C
9. Lou Whitaker, 2B

SP: Roger Clemens

Closer: Dan Quisenberry

I have Edmonds in the OF. 60.4 WAR no roids.

Ichiro 60.0
Sosa 58.6 With Roids
Bonds POS human AND massive Roids
Lofton should have made it with 68 WAR

[D-train]

btw I keep seeing people talking about the Unanimous thing. Drives me insane.

So they think that there are two types of guys that should be in the HOF. Those that should be unanimous and those that should be in but not unanimously.

If you think a guy should be in shouldn't you think that EVERY voter should vote for him??

Nobody has said that Helton and Maurer should be unanimous but obviously most think they should be in.

So does that mean they think some voters should vote no even though they think they should be in???? Makes zero sense.

It would make sense if voters rated guys 1-10 and anyone with a 7.5 average or higher should get in. Then you could say, I think a guy should be a 10 or I think a guy should get in but only as and 8 or a 9 but it is BINARY, its 1 or 0. Its either IN or OUT, voters can't specify unanimous or non unanimous but so many act like you can.

[Donn Beach]

Your All Snub starting lineup

1. Kenny Lofton, CF
2. Barry Bonds, LF
3. Gary Sheffield, DH
4. Mark McGwire, 1B
5. Sammy Sosa, RF
6. Dick Allen, 3B
7. Nomar Garciaparra, SS
8. Thurman Munson, C
9. Lou Whitaker, 2B

SP: Roger Clemens

Closer: Dan Quisenberry

I have Edmonds in the OF. 60.4 WAR no roids.

Ichiro 60.0
Sosa 58.6 With Roids
Bonds POS human AND massive Roids
Lofton should have made it with 68 WAR

Sure, it's not qualifying it at all, simply the best team you could put together from players not voted into the HOF

[Donn Beach]

btw I keep seeing people talking about the Unanimous thing. Drives me insane.

So they think that there are two types of guys that should be in the HOF. Those that should be unanimous and those that should be in but not unanimously.

If you think a guy should be in shouldn't you think that EVERY voter should vote for him??

Nobody has said that Helton and Maurer should be unanimous but obviously most think they should be in.

So does that mean they think some voters should vote no even though they think they should be in???? Makes zero sense.

It would make sense if voters rated guys 1-10 and anyone with a 7.5 average or higher should get in. Then you could say, I think a guy should be a 10 or I think a guy should get in but only as and 8 or a 9 but it is BINARY, its 1 or 0. Its either IN or OUT, voters can't specify unanimous or non unanimous but so many act like you can.

There's three, guys that take years, first ballot guys, and the fabled unanimous since there's only one. It's a level of achievement. Being first ballot is seen as superior to the multiple ballot guys, unanimous superior to first ballot

[D-train]

btw I keep seeing people talking about the Unanimous thing. Drives me insane.

So they think that there are two types of guys that should be in the HOF. Those that should be unanimous and those that should be in but not unanimously.

If you think a guy should be in shouldn't you think that EVERY voter should vote for him??

Nobody has said that Helton and Maurer should be unanimous but obviously most think they should be in.

So does that mean they think some voters should vote no even though they think they should be in???? Makes zero sense.

It would make sense if voters rated guys 1-10 and anyone with a 7.5 average or higher should get in. Then you could say, I think a guy should be a 10 or I think a guy should get in but only as and 8 or a 9 but it is BINARY, its 1 or 0. Its either IN or OUT, voters can't specify unanimous or non unanimous but so many act like you can.

There's three, guys that take years, first ballot guys, and the fabled unanimous since there's only one. It's a level of achievement. Being first ballot is seen as superior to the multiple ballot guys, unanimous superior to first ballot

I know but you can only say that you think a guy should be in the HOF. You can't say a guy should be unanimous any more than you can say you think everyone should vote republican or democrat and if they don't something is wrong with the system.

[Donn Beach]

You can say it, it doesn't mean it's going to happen, or it's a crime if it doesn't. It's making a judgement on a guys career relative to the HOF. Saying Ichiro should be unanimous is valuing him at the very pinnacle of the sport. Junior is there, junior wasn't unanimous. It's commented he should have been. I don't read it as saying it's unfair, rather that junior deserves to be at the pinnacle. The unanimous thing is a recent development