Andy Petitte Hall Of Famer?

Should Andy Petitite be in the Hall Of Fame?

  • yes! no brainer,first ballot

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • yes! should be in the Hall Of Fame but not on first ballot

    Votes: 10 35.7%

  • No Way! he should not be inducted

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
LorenzoDeMedici

LorenzoDeMedici

#61
#61
Honestly..

LISteve said:
It's one thing to not talk to the sportswriters and it is another thing to be outride rude or a dick to them. Let's face it .. some of these superstars are huge pieces of shit that take every opportunity to be rude. I bet you would be shocked at some of the things some of these guys have done. I would love to hear some stories. If we heard the truth maybe we wouldn't blame the voters. HOWEVER ... if a sportswriter didn't vote for Scooter because he wouldn't buy him a drink ... that guy should have had his voting priviledges yanked.
Click to expand...
...I would not be shocked by anything. I am quite sure(have heard and seen) what dicks they can be(to the sportswriters). And I honestly don't care...when it comes to them being considered for the HOF. In EVERY walk of life/business organization/group of people you are going to have some assholes(we have some here and I'm sure some sportswriters too). bUt when it comes to simply deciding whether or not someone deserves a "Prolific" honor or award. Then that is not part of the criteria. Especially when there is no way to be just about it. The HOF is full of shitty human beings(but PROLIFIC Athletes!) What basis is there for denying a more recent Shitty one....NONE.
Hell in my personal business I just gave a guy who I had a falling out with and I generally think is a shitty person, a HUGE year end bonus...why? ...simple...He earned it!
 
Last edited:
LorenzoDeMedici

LorenzoDeMedici

#63
#63
Now heres a good example

JIM RICE
I watched him play a ton of times. As a Reds fan I could not watch my team so I watched almost every Yankee game I could in the 70's.
For Years(before the prolific internet age) all I heard or read was that Jim Rice was not being voted in because he was "surly" and generally "un-cooperative" with the media. Not that it was the Only reason but that it was a large part of it. WTF!! I always felt he was a clear HOFer. Certainly not first ballot but should have made it sometime between years 2 and 7 of eligibility. The fact that a guy like Ron Santo was ahead of him most of those years is a F%^ing joke. But because of his supposed reputation he was always being held back. And yet ...Now for giggles and shits I decide to google his name I find things like this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4353486

and this:

http://jimmyfund.com/ImgGallery.asp...style=/XML/XSL/img_gallery.xsl&index=8&page=1

and more. So I say F%$%^ the sportswriters.......Seriously!!...RON SANTO??
 
Last edited:
LorenzoDeMedici

LorenzoDeMedici

#65
#65
Oh yeah...

..Speaking of Rice. And then Dave Winfield gets voted in, in only his second year. Ahead of Rice.

And Andre Dawson gets voted in, his 9th year of eligibilty and doesnt even belong.
 
Last edited:
H

Heartbreaker

#66
#66
One of the biggest problems I see is that some sportswriter will not vote for Player A because he believes Player B is more deserving. So, until Player B gets in, said sportswriter continuously does not vote for Player A. Player A is usually someone who said sportswriter covered, so they are not truly objective.

Then you have the whole unanamious voting bullshit where they believe no player should receive 100% of the vote. If I am mistaken, didn't Tom Seaver have the highest % with like 95%? So, I guess there was some asshole who didn't think Tom Seaver was a HOF?

What a crock of shit.

A player is either a HOF or they aren't. I would also like to see the voting results made public and then defend their stance.

I always see these type of articles written by guys who vote, especially the NFL.
 
O

Ozzy

#67
#67
LorenzoDeMedici said:
<<< not sure what exactly you were referencing with Cal Ripken but check this out and just look at the myriad of names who actually got HOF votes year by year. Downright amazing!

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/bbwaa-voting/year?year=2007
Click to expand...
No particular reason. I was trying to reference a recent "first ballot" type who didn't get a unanimous vote and just drew a blank on anyone not tainted by steroids or something else. Could have used Tom Seaver or Willie Mays (I think Seaver was tops when it came to the highest % of votes). But look at Mays in 1979 as a perfect example... he only got 94% of the vote. 407 out of a possible 432... that means of the 432 writers that year of which I think each get 5 or 6 votes to cast.... 23 dopes actually thought there were 5 or 6 more deserving that year than Mr. Say Hey. It's either a case of closet racism or plain fucking stupidity. Either way the 23 should have been publicly exposed and had their voting rights rescinded for life.
 
O

Ozzy

#68
#68
Heartbreaker said:
One of the biggest problems I see is that some sportswriter will not vote for Player A because he believes Player B is more deserving. So, until Player B gets in, said sportswriter continuously does not vote for Player A. Player A is usually someone who said sportswriter covered, so they are not truly objective.
Click to expand...

But here's the really absurd thing... Each writer gets mulitple votes. They did this in part so you can still vote for your player B and still have another few votes to use for the sure thing and the more deserving players (Mays, Seaver etc...). The fact a writer chooses to vote for his player (player B) with one vote and still not find a way to vote for the sure thing or more deserving is nothing but a sign of disrespect for the hall of fame itself.
 
H

Heartbreaker

#69
#69
Ozzy said:
But look at Mays in 1979 as a perfect example... he only got 94% of the vote. 407 out of a possible 432... that means of the 432 writers that year of which I think each get 5 or 6 votes to cast.... 23 dopes actually thought there were 5 or 6 more deserving that year than Mr. Say Hey. It's either a case of closet racism or plain fucking stupidity. Either way the 23 should have been publicly exposed and had their voting rights rescinded for life.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting these specifics. And I didn't realize the racism aspect.
 
P

pudgy.in.the.middle

#70
#70
Ozzy said:
No particular reason. I was trying to reference a recent "first ballot" type who didn't get a unanimous vote and just drew a blank on anyone not tainted by steroids or something else. Could have used Tom Seaver or Willie Mays (I think Seaver was tops when it came to the highest % of votes). But look at Mays in 1979 as a perfect example... he only got 94% of the vote. 407 out of a possible 432... that means of the 432 writers that year of which I think each get 5 or 6 votes to cast.... 23 dopes actually thought there were 5 or 6 more deserving that year than Mr. Say Hey. It's either a case of closet racism or plain fucking stupidity. Either way the 23 should have been publicly exposed and had their voting rights rescinded for life.
Click to expand...
I forgot about Mays, that was a travesty.
 
O

Ozzy

#71
#71
Heartbreaker said:
Thanks for posting these specifics. And I didn't realize the racism aspect.
Click to expand...
Has to be something especially in Mays case becase 94% is petty low for someone of his stature. I gotta look and see What Mantle got. But in 1979 there were still a lot of those old southern beat writers around who got a vote.
 
LorenzoDeMedici

LorenzoDeMedici

#72
#72
Just use the link...

Ozzy said:
Has to be something especially in Mays case becase 94% is petty low for someone of his stature. I gotta look and see What Mantle got. But in 1979 there were still a lot of those old southern beat writers around who got a vote.
Click to expand...
...Mantle only got 88%
My point is aside from percentages. WhyTheF%$ are some of these names even on the list getting votes at all.??
 
LorenzoDeMedici

LorenzoDeMedici

#74
#74
1990

AT this stage(1990) Only 3 of these guys should have gotten any votes At All.
All anywhere from good to very good only 3 of em Great! but not quite HOF material...Clearly. As an average fan during that generation it would have been Easy for even Me to tell ya that. But collectively they got over 530 votes? Which meant...

Boyer, Ken 78 17.6%
*Allen, Dick 58 13.1%
Torre, Joe 55 12.4%
Minoso, Minnie 51 11.5%
Face, Roy 50 11.3%
Tiant, Luis 42 9.5%
Pinson, Vada 36 8.1%
*Flood, Curt 35 7.9%
Munson, Thurman 33 7.4%
*Bonds, Bobby 30 6.8%
Lolich, Mickey 27 6.1%
Lyle, Sparky 25 5.6%
McGraw, Tug 6 1.4%
Dent, Bucky 3 0.7%
Watson, Bob 3 0.7%
Monday, Rick 2 0.5%
Piniella, Lou 2 0.5%
Rivers, Mickey 2 0.5%
Luzinski, Greg 1 0.2%
Remy, Jerry 1 0.2%
Torrez, Mike 1 0.2%
Bibby, Jim 1 0.2%
 
LorenzoDeMedici

LorenzoDeMedici

#75
#75
...all these guys had to wait..

...meant that the years they got in other guys had to wait and so on

Perry, Gaylord 320 72.1%
Jenkins, Fergie 296 66.7%
Bunning, Jim 257 57.9%
Cepeda, Orlando 211 47.5%
Mazeroski, Bill 131 29.5%

and this guy never did.(maybe rightfully so)

Oliva, Tony 142 32%
 
L

LISteve

#78
#78
One thing not mentioned here is a popular belief among the voters that practically NOBODY should get in on the first vote. That is why you don't see no brainers getting 100%. I think it's stupid but that's the explanation they give ... they just don't believe in voting for anyone in their first year of eligibility.
 
M

morgan2

#79
#79
only because the HOF is too watered down now. sutton and blyleven, good pitchers, but never the best or near the best for any particular year. pettite has it over both of them.
 
N

nychelsea

#80
#80
With all respect to OZ, I think Andy P's post season record is something special. I would vote for him if he was the only one on the ballot. But let's see who his competition is. Another issue is redefining standards for 5 man rotation modern pitchers. If 300 wins is the HOF standard, there won't be many starting pitchers getting as the years go on.

All this said, I understand why many folks do not agree with me about Andy P. It is a tough call based on the numbers.

My 2 cents.

Chels
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top