I wanted to pose this question to the Yankees fans on the board. For the most part, I think most of the pinstripe fans on BBI have a pretty good understanding of the game.
With that said, will there be an uproar if Jeter doesn't go in as a unanimous decision? I know there was a thread some time back was talking about Jeter that sparked some heated debates.
From my perspective, Jeter is a no doubt HOF'er. First ballot, yes...Unanimous, no way. There is a reason that Mo was the first and only unanimous HOF'er. He is the best closer that has ever played and probably will ever play this game. There is no player that I can remember that teams did not want to face more than Rivera, especially in the post season.
Think about it, even Ken Griffey Jr didn't go in as a unanimous (99% is pretty damn close though). Jeter has the rings and the stats, but did anyone ever consider him the best in the game at any point during his career?
So let's hear it Yanks fans, when Jeter gets the call later this evening, if he is not 100%, do you have a problem with that?
Whoever doesn't vote him in is just trying to get noticed, but whatever.
Ninja, it might be a media driven controversy which is why I am asking the Yanks fans here. Talking to Yanks fans here at my office, I don't get that sense either.
I believe there is a box you can check on your ballot to say if you want the results known to the public or not. I would assume the people that do not vote for Jeter don't want it to be known, unless they are looking for their 15 minutes.
Maybe I just didn't pay attention, but was there any backlash for the ones that didn't vote for Griffey Jr?
Whoever doesn't vote him in is just trying to get noticed, but whatever.
That's basically how I feel. I also don't understand how someone knows they will vote them in on next years ballot, but can't this year because they need their vote/voice heard.
cases like Jim Rice IMO cheapen the HOF.
either he's a HOFer or not.
anyway, just my opinion and leaks are that Jeter is unanimous (from what I read he's on all public ballots so far and all indications are he will be unanimous).
Quote:
hear a reason why a voter didn't vote for him. Because there is no reason not to vote for him.
Maybe I just didn't pay attention, but was there any backlash for the ones that didn't vote for Griffey Jr?
I have no idea. But they could be assholes and say "he never won a ring" but with Jeter... I don't see any excuse.
Bonds/Clemens have a better chance than you think. I know its far from scientific, but Bonds or both have been on every ballot I've seen a writer post.
Quote:
There is a chance that Jeter might be on the only player elected this year. They say Larry Walker (his last year on the ballot) is the only one who might come close.
Bonds/Clemens have a better chance than you think. I know its far from scientific, but Bonds or both have been on every ballot I've seen a writer post.
They're hovering around 70% and the anonymous or late-reporting ballots have historically contained fewer names and not named suspected PED users. Schilling has an outside shot and Walker should be right on the cusp.
Quote:
In comment 14788105 figgy2989 said:
Quote:
There is a chance that Jeter might be on the only player elected this year. They say Larry Walker (his last year on the ballot) is the only one who might come close.
Bonds/Clemens have a better chance than you think. I know its far from scientific, but Bonds or both have been on every ballot I've seen a writer post.
They're hovering around 70% and the anonymous or late-reporting ballots have historically contained fewer names and not named suspected PED users. Schilling has an outside shot and Walker should be right on the cusp.
I know that's what the HOF vets are saying but I think Bonds/Clemens are different. I don't think writers hide not voting for them, they wear it as a badge of honor.
They have no chance. First of all, regardless of what you've seen, they're not on every posted ballot - you can see here that they're both below 75% on publicly revealed ballots. And they always do much better on ballots revealed in advance than on other ballots (most guys do, but the PED guys in particular drop a lot from the pre-announcement public ballots to the final vote). They will both be well below the threshold.
current public HOF vote - ( New Window )
Nope. Last year, for example, Bonds was at 70.7% on the public ballots revealed before the announcement. His final tally was 59.1%. Clemens was similar.
Bonds past voting - ( New Window )
This is what I think as well.
A lot aren't made public until after the official announcement. Last year 55% were made public in advance, but 84% were made public in the end.
I think they are allowed 10? The fact they were limited in the number of votes was the rationale that some voters gave in the past for not voting someone unanimously. They would say something like "I know that ____ player will get voted in without my vote, so I wanted to save a vote for ___ player"
Quote:
Neither should be an issue. If you, as a HoF voter, feel a guy is worthy of the HoF, you should vote for him. Period. Part of the problem is that I believe they are limited to a certain number each year they can vote for. But, in my mind, it shouldn't even enter the conversation what ballot a guy is elected on or how many votes. A guy is either a HoFer, or not; vote accordingly. What does it even mean that you feel a guys is not a 1st ballot guy? To me, that means you don't feel he is a HoFer.
I think they are allowed 10? The fact they were limited in the number of votes was the rationale that some voters gave in the past for not voting someone unanimously. They would say something like "I know that ____ player will get voted in without my vote, so I wanted to save a vote for ___ player"
That may happen, but it's not the reason no one, besides Mo, has been unanimous. There are writers every year who withhold votes from slam dunk HOF'ers simply because they don't want a unanimous election. Some of them have admitted as much publicly.
Jeter is a HOFer. Who cares how many votes he gets above 75%.
The PED guys are a whole lot different questions.
Bonds & Clemens yes because they played the first parts of their career without PEDs and put up HOF numbers before they started using?
Sosa no because his career was the opposite?
Arod no because he started using very early in his career?
Ortiz yes because he only failed one test and it was before steroids were illegal in baseball?
Pudge Rodriguez is in the HOF. You have to be a complete idiot to think he wasn't using PEDs for about his entire career certainly his HOF years. Bagwell, Piazza, Henderson and others are in too.
So who are we kidding at this point?
That I can sort of understand if there is another guy you feel is in danger of not being elected. But, as with football, I think limiting the number of players you can vote for is silly. If you feel 11 or 12 guys on the ballot are worthy, then you should be able to vote accordingly.
Agree 100% - the whole first ballot/unanimous/not unanimous thing is really dumb; someone either is or is not a HOF. Their stats don't get any better when they are retired...
Quote:
I think they are allowed 10? The fact they were limited in the number of votes was the rationale that some voters gave in the past for not voting someone unanimously. They would say something like "I know that ____ player will get voted in without my vote, so I wanted to save a vote for ___ player"
That may happen, but it's not the reason no one, besides Mo, has been unanimous. There are writers every year who withhold votes from slam dunk HOF'ers simply because they don't want a unanimous election. Some of them have admitted as much publicly.
It is absolutely a reason. But you are correct, there are also asshole voters who like to think they are making some sort of statement and want their 15 minutes...
Nothing is more irritating than a voter who strong arms these players to prove a point. They're self-conscious losers who want to feel like they matter or that they're oh so important. That may be a little harsh but come on? Derek Jeter? Derek freaking Jeter? How do you hear that name and not think unanimous? How does somebody even put up an argument against him? He's a bonafide stud and should be a unanimous first-ballot HOFer. I wish people would just use the eye-test and common freaking sense. Growing up for me, he was baseball. He was THE player. Class-act, leader, captain, just an absolute icon. Enough with the numbers game crap. There's no point in making it "fair" because others with better numbers had to wait longer. Jeter wasn't just great at baseball, he was great off the field and carried himself like a true pro. He was the face of the MLB for a very long time. Me and all my friends growing up would mimic his jump throw from shortstop. He was literally everyone's favorite.
Oh by the way, this is coming from a Mets fan. Unfortunately (but understandably), David Wright isn't a HOFer but Jeter is literally Wright but x10. Those are the type of players the MLB should appreciate more. If he doesn't get in unanimously I really give up on these voters.
Quote:
I think they are allowed 10? The fact they were limited in the number of votes was the rationale that some voters gave in the past for not voting someone unanimously. They would say something like "I know that ____ player will get voted in without my vote, so I wanted to save a vote for ___ player"
That may happen, but it's not the reason no one, besides Mo, has been unanimous. There are writers every year who withhold votes from slam dunk HOF'ers simply because they don't want a unanimous election. Some of them have admitted as much publicly.
Very Very well said. I remember a few years back didn't Dan Le Betard basically give his HOF vote out to a public vote to mock the other baseball writers?
I think it was Dick Young who once said that if Jesus Christ were up for the HOF, some writer would leave him off the ballot the first time becuase he made 3 errors.
Jeter is a HOFer. Anyone who doesn't vote for him is an idiot.
The same is true of Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Ramirez but for the PED issue. In time, all of them will get in and they should. MLB let it happen, at a minimum, and this noise isn't unique. I suspect Altuve will get in one day despite the cheating scandal he was involved in.
I also think ARod and Ortiz should be unanimous in 2022, Beltre and Ichiro in 2024.
Let's get back to objective standards already.
Should Jeter be unanimous? - yes.
Will he be? IDK.
Does it matter in the end? not really except to DJ.
But I do think the BBWAA should review reporters voting rights that do not vote for an obvious HoFer (say a guy that gets 95%). Because if that writer does not know what a Hall of Famer is, they should not be voting.
Will he be? IDK.
Does it matter in the end? not really except to DJ.
I imagine it matters more to some fans than it does to Jeter himself.
So if you have a HOF vote today you are not going to vote in anyone their first time on the ballot because someone else failed to vote for Mays and Aaron?
Yeah...
Jeter is a HOFer. Anyone who doesn't vote for him is an idiot.
The same is true of Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Ramirez but for the PED issue. In time, all of them will get in and they should. MLB let it happen, at a minimum, and this noise isn't unique. I suspect Altuve will get in one day despite the cheating scandal he was involved in.
I also think ARod and Ortiz should be unanimous in 2022, Beltre and Ichiro in 2024.
Let's get back to objective standards already.