Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  7    8    9    10    11    12    13  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: This Day in Baseball Part 2

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 82619
(82978 all sites)
Registered: 4/16/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 05:01 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Wow! How can you leave off those two! I can understand the blank sheet for a statement but you could have put those two on there.

I wonder where Santana would like to pitch? You know they are going to try and trade him after this year. Maybe sooner if they dont contend. HMM! Maybe the Yankees are stocking up to make a play for Santana

I know you would like that trade Chuck!


Come on Rob......... a lefty in the new Yankee stadium? I don't know..... something tells me it wouldn't work.


Sure, bring THAT up


I'm suprised you guys are going to miss something so much that resembles a toilet seat from above.


 

____________________
RIP Cindy Fischer
RIP Hugh Duty
RIP John Ott

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 82619
(82978 all sites)
Registered: 4/16/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 05:02 AM
This should come as no suprise.....'

http://www.optonline.net/Sports/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D33 %26article%3D20781481

What as ass...

 

____________________
RIP Cindy Fischer
RIP Hugh Duty
RIP John Ott

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12843
(12843 all sites)
Registered: 3/26/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 07:58 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Wow! How can you leave off those two! I can understand the blank sheet for a statement but you could have put those two on there.

I wonder where Santana would like to pitch? You know they are going to try and trade him after this year. Maybe sooner if they dont contend. HMM! Maybe the Yankees are stocking up to make a play for Santana

I know you would like that trade Chuck!


Come on Rob......... a lefty in the new Yankee stadium? I don't know..... something tells me it wouldn't work.


Sure, bring THAT up


I'm suprised you guys are going to miss something so much that resembles a toilet seat from above.






LMAO!

 

____________________


Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12843
(12843 all sites)
Registered: 3/26/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 08:16 AM
quote:
Why do Yankee fans always assume that when a big name player becomes available that 1.) The Yankees are going to get him


and

2.) The guy wants to be a Yankee?



Old Time Fan I know you are sick of us Yankee fans but I am really a baseball fan. I can be a little over the top but never obnoxious. I never assume anything anymore! I have made an ass out of myself to many times See my original post below.


quote:


I wonder where Santana would like to pitch? You know they are going to try and trade him after this year. Maybe sooner if they dont contend. HMM! Maybe the Yankees are stocking up to make a play for Santana







 

____________________


Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12843
(12843 all sites)
Registered: 3/26/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 08:18 AM
quote:
quote:
This should come as no suprise.....'

http://www.optonline.net/Sports/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D33 %26article%3D20781481

What as ass...



I love the way he blames it on a teammate. Class guy!



What an idiot!

 

____________________


Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 09:34 AM
quote:
On the subject of voting percentages, I don't think it's any grave injustice that a lifetime .276 hitter who never won a World Series had a handful of No votes...especially when you look at some other HOF percentages over the years:

CAL RIPKEN 98.53%
BABE RUTH 95.13%
WILLIE MAYS 94.68%
TED WILLIAMS 93.38%
JOE DIMAGGIO 88.84%
WARREN SPAHN 82.89%

I mean... who exactly was unconvinced by the Babe's credentials? Or the 24-year career of the greatest lefty pitcher ever? Or Joe D or the last man to hit .400? It's mind-boggling to imagine what went through the heads of the a-holes who took a pass on these great players.

Unfortunately, it's easier to guess what motivated the 22.50% of the sportswriters who voted AGAINST Jackie Robinson getting in.


[Edited on 1/10/2007 by ThePeteMan]


2,632 CONSECUTIVE GAMES

That alone should be enough to get every vote, regardless of past vote totals.

Couple that with his career stats:

.276 BA
.447 Slugging
3,184 hits (14th all time)
1,695 RBI (20th all time)
431 HR (37th all time)
1,078 Extra Base Hits (17th all time)
5,168 Total Bases (13th all time)
.977 Fielding Percentage
Rookie of the Year ('82)
8 Silver Slugger awards
2 AL MVP awards ('83 & '91)
2 Gold Glove Awards ('91 & '92)
MLB Player of the Year ('91)
19-time All Star (MVP in 2001)

As for not winning a WS...you must have just forgot that his team DID win it in 1983, same year he won his first MVP (Orioles beat the Phillies 4 games to 1). In fact in 6 post season series his teams won 4 of them (including 1 WS as noted) and he had a nice .336 BA.

Soooo, who out there with the honor an HoF vote could possibly remain unconvinced that this guy is hall-worthy?? Besides those self-serving a$$heads who turned in blank ballots of course...






 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 11:14 AM
quote:
quote:
On the subject of voting percentages, I don't think it's any grave injustice that a lifetime .276 hitter who never won a World Series had a handful of No votes...especially when you look at some other HOF percentages over the years:

CAL RIPKEN 98.53%
BABE RUTH 95.13%
WILLIE MAYS 94.68%
TED WILLIAMS 93.38%
JOE DIMAGGIO 88.84%
WARREN SPAHN 82.89%

I mean... who exactly was unconvinced by the Babe's credentials? Or the 24-year career of the greatest lefty pitcher ever? Or Joe D or the last man to hit .400? It's mind-boggling to imagine what went through the heads of the a-holes who took a pass on these great players.

Unfortunately, it's easier to guess what motivated the 22.50% of the sportswriters who voted AGAINST Jackie Robinson getting in.


[Edited on 1/10/2007 by ThePeteMan]


2,632 CONSECUTIVE GAMES

That alone should be enough to get every vote, regardless of past vote totals.

Couple that with his career stats:

.276 BA
.447 Slugging
3,184 hits (14th all time)
1,695 RBI (20th all time)
431 HR (37th all time)
1,078 Extra Base Hits (17th all time)
5,168 Total Bases (13th all time)
.977 Fielding Percentage
Rookie of the Year ('82)
8 Silver Slugger awards
2 AL MVP awards ('83 & '91)
2 Gold Glove Awards ('91 & '92)
MLB Player of the Year ('91)
19-time All Star (MVP in 2001)

As for not winning a WS...you must have just forgot that his team DID win it in 1983, same year he won his first MVP (Orioles beat the Phillies 4 games to 1). In fact in 6 post season series his teams won 4 of them (including 1 WS as noted) and he had a nice .336 BA.

Soooo, who out there with the honor an HoF vote could possibly remain unconvinced that this guy is hall-worthy?? Besides those self-serving a$$heads who turned in blank ballots of course...




Scott, you totally missed the point of my post -- although I do need to check my head, I totally speced the '83 World Series, my bad. But my point was, look at the guys I mentioned and look at their vote totals. It's ABSURD to imagine that Babe Ruth and Willie Mays -- IMO the 2 best overall ballplayers in history -- and Jackie Robinson, by far the most IMPORTANT ballplayer of all time, not to metion the ridiculously amazing pitcher Warren Spahn, all got fewer than 100% of the vote... I wasn't debating thwat Ripken belongs in the Hall, jsut trying to put it in perspective. Every player I mentioned is, IMO, a greater all-time baseball player than Cal Ripken (as is Tom Seaver, who still has the highest percentage of Yes votes for the Hall ever )

I mean, I was pointing out that greater injustices exist in Hall of Fame voting history, and that it's really kind of not that big a deal that Ripken didn't get a "perfect score."

And BTW, his stats are nice and all, but I'm assuming that you'd draft Joe Dimaggio, Warren Spahn, or Jackie Robinson ahead of Cal in fantasy GM land, wouldn't you? And they all got BELOW 90 PERCENT!!!

 

____________________


Bringin' It All Back Home, 1969 - 2009 ... and the road goes on forever ...

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 11:20 AM
quote:
[As for not winning a WS...you must have just forgot that his team DID win it in 1983, same year he won his first MVP (Orioles beat the Phillies 4 games to 1). In fact in 6 post season series his teams won 4 of them (including 1 WS as noted) and he had a nice .336 BA.



Shoulda won 5 of them, too, if not for Jeffrey Maier...

[Edited on 1/11/2007 by ThePeteMan]

 

____________________


Bringin' It All Back Home, 1969 - 2009 ... and the road goes on forever ...

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1656
(1656 all sites)
Registered: 3/30/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 11:34 AM
quote:
This should come as no suprise.....'

http://www.optonline.net/Sports/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D33 %26article%3D20781481

What as ass...


somebody take him out of baseball........... please.

 

____________________


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 12:39 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
On the subject of voting percentages, I don't think it's any grave injustice that a lifetime .276 hitter who never won a World Series had a handful of No votes...especially when you look at some other HOF percentages over the years:

CAL RIPKEN 98.53%
BABE RUTH 95.13%
WILLIE MAYS 94.68%
TED WILLIAMS 93.38%
JOE DIMAGGIO 88.84%
WARREN SPAHN 82.89%

I mean... who exactly was unconvinced by the Babe's credentials? Or the 24-year career of the greatest lefty pitcher ever? Or Joe D or the last man to hit .400? It's mind-boggling to imagine what went through the heads of the a-holes who took a pass on these great players.

Unfortunately, it's easier to guess what motivated the 22.50% of the sportswriters who voted AGAINST Jackie Robinson getting in.


[Edited on 1/10/2007 by ThePeteMan]


2,632 CONSECUTIVE GAMES

That alone should be enough to get every vote, regardless of past vote totals.

Couple that with his career stats:

.276 BA
.447 Slugging
3,184 hits (14th all time)
1,695 RBI (20th all time)
431 HR (37th all time)
1,078 Extra Base Hits (17th all time)
5,168 Total Bases (13th all time)
.977 Fielding Percentage
Rookie of the Year ('82)
8 Silver Slugger awards
2 AL MVP awards ('83 & '91)
2 Gold Glove Awards ('91 & '92)
MLB Player of the Year ('91)
19-time All Star (MVP in 2001)

As for not winning a WS...you must have just forgot that his team DID win it in 1983, same year he won his first MVP (Orioles beat the Phillies 4 games to 1). In fact in 6 post season series his teams won 4 of them (including 1 WS as noted) and he had a nice .336 BA.

Soooo, who out there with the honor an HoF vote could possibly remain unconvinced that this guy is hall-worthy?? Besides those self-serving a$$heads who turned in blank ballots of course...




Scott, you totally missed the point of my post -- although I do need to check my head, I totally speced the '83 World Series, my bad. But my point was, look at the guys I mentioned and look at their vote totals. It's ABSURD to imagine that Babe Ruth and Willie Mays -- IMO the 2 best overall ballplayers in history -- and Jackie Robinson, by far the most IMPORTANT ballplayer of all time, not to metion the ridiculously amazing pitcher Warren Spahn, all got fewer than 100% of the vote... I wasn't debating thwat Ripken belongs in the Hall, jsut trying to put it in perspective. Every player I mentioned is, IMO, a greater all-time baseball player than Cal Ripken (as is Tom Seaver, who still has the highest percentage of Yes votes for the Hall ever )

I mean, I was pointing out that greater injustices exist in Hall of Fame voting history, and that it's really kind of not that big a deal that Ripken didn't get a "perfect score."

And BTW, his stats are nice and all, but I'm assuming that you'd draft Joe Dimaggio, Warren Spahn, or Jackie Robinson ahead of Cal in fantasy GM land, wouldn't you? And they all got BELOW 90 PERCENT!!!


Point taken. I actually understood your point before, but I think we are just making two different points. In the historical context, I would agree that if the legends you mentioned did not get 100%, why should we expect that Ripken would. Not knowing when those players were inducted, my guess it they were each inducted at least 30+ years ago. For the most part, it is a dfferent set of voters now. Someone might have not voted for Ruth because he was too self-indulgent i.e. an overweight beer drinker (not that there is anything wrong with that). Some people didn't vote for Williams because he was a jerk to the media in his playing days (Rice may be suffering from some of that now). Are those valid reasons not to vote for someone who so obvisouly belongs there? No, IMO, and I would have criticized those voters for not voting for these players like I am criticizing today's voters for holding back on Ripken.

At the end of the day I guess it doesn't really matter, they were all voted in by a wide margin. That said, it still blows my mind that some voters, for whatever reason, felt like Ripken (and Ruth, Mays, Williams, DiMaggio, Spahn) did not deserve their HoF vote.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 12:49 PM
quote:
I have heard of writers who won't vote for a player in his first year because they don't believe that anyone should get ijn unanimously because Ruth and Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote. That's crap. That's a couple of writers creating their own standards. They should have their voting privelige taken from them.


DING DNG DING DING....we have a winner!!

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4139
(4139 all sites)
Registered: 7/12/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 02:18 PM
quote:
quote:
I have heard of writers who won't vote for a player in his first year because they don't believe that anyone should get ijn unanimously because Ruth and Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote. That's crap. That's a couple of writers creating their own standards. They should have their voting privelige taken from them.


DING DNG DING DING....we have a winner!!



So...what exactly are the standards and where are they written? This is the USA right? Ya know, freedom of speech and expression yadda yadda yadda....

Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong. Alot of well qualified players were not voted for, for reasons that had nothing to do with them. On the surface this may seem wrong, but in reality is it?

Sure the guy who doesn't vote for someone, because someone else didn't get in, or get in as quickly as they thought he should, would appear wrong. What about the guy who doesn't vote for anyone this year because he's not sure which players may have used steroids during this era?

Tony Gwynn hardly looks like he would have, but what about Cal? Endurance is one of the greatest reason's players take steroids, it's isn't just about the increased strength. No more dog days of August with 'roids. I doubt Cal took them, but who really knows?

What I do know is, is with the millions of dollars at stake for almost every player in the game today, I don't trust ANY of them. Sosa? Bonds? Palmeiro? McGwire?

Liar-liar-liar-liar!!!

It's a completely sad state of affairs when Jason Giambi and Jose Canseco look like the more 'trustworthy' players. If a voter wants to leave his ballot blank in protest of what has been a baseball atrocity, more power to him!

 

____________________
Everything dies, baby that's a fact
but maybe everything that dies someday comes back,
put your makeup on and fix your hair real pretty,
and meet me tonight in Atlantic City...

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 02:23 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have heard of writers who won't vote for a player in his first year because they don't believe that anyone should get ijn unanimously because Ruth and Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote. That's crap. That's a couple of writers creating their own standards. They should have their voting privelige taken from them.


DING DNG DING DING....we have a winner!!



So...what exactly are the standards and where are they written? This is the USA right? Ya know, freedom of speech and expression yadda yadda yadda....

Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong. Alot of well qualified players were not voted for, for reasons that had nothing to do with them. On the surface this may seem wrong, but in reality is it?

Sure the guy who doesn't vote for someone, because someone else didn't get in, or get in as quickly as they thought he should, would appear wrong. What about the guy who doesn't vote for anyone this year because he's not sure which players may have used steroids during this era?

Tony Gwynn hardly looks like he would have, but what about Cal? Endurance is one of the greatest reason's players take steroids, it's isn't just about the increased strength. No more dog days of August with 'roids. I doubt Cal took them, but who really knows?

What I do know is, is with the millions of dollars at stake for almost every player in the game today, I don't trust ANY of them. Sosa? Bonds? Palmeiro? McGwire?

Liar-liar-liar-liar!!!

It's a completely sad state of affairs when Jason Giambi and Jose Canseco look like the more 'trustworthy' players. If a voter wants to leave his ballot blank in protest of what has been a baseball atrocity, more power to him!


Ozzie, I love ya, but those are some wild mental gymnastics! I've re-read yr post 3 times and still cannot figure out how we got from point A (that the writers have a right to vote as they wish) to point Z (that anybody might be guilty of steroids, so screw 'em!

I'm just glad Tom Terriffic is still #1!

 

____________________


Bringin' It All Back Home, 1969 - 2009 ... and the road goes on forever ...

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4139
(4139 all sites)
Registered: 7/12/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 02:40 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have heard of writers who won't vote for a player in his first year because they don't believe that anyone should get ijn unanimously because Ruth and Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote. That's crap. That's a couple of writers creating their own standards. They should have their voting privelige taken from them.


DING DNG DING DING....we have a winner!!



So...what exactly are the standards and where are they written? This is the USA right? Ya know, freedom of speech and expression yadda yadda yadda....

Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong. Alot of well qualified players were not voted for, for reasons that had nothing to do with them. On the surface this may seem wrong, but in reality is it?

Sure the guy who doesn't vote for someone, because someone else didn't get in, or get in as quickly as they thought he should, would appear wrong. What about the guy who doesn't vote for anyone this year because he's not sure which players may have used steroids during this era?

Tony Gwynn hardly looks like he would have, but what about Cal? Endurance is one of the greatest reason's players take steroids, it's isn't just about the increased strength. No more dog days of August with 'roids. I doubt Cal took them, but who really knows?

What I do know is, is with the millions of dollars at stake for almost every player in the game today, I don't trust ANY of them. Sosa? Bonds? Palmeiro? McGwire?

Liar-liar-liar-liar!!!

It's a completely sad state of affairs when Jason Giambi and Jose Canseco look like the more 'trustworthy' players. If a voter wants to leave his ballot blank in protest of what has been a baseball atrocity, more power to him!


Ozzie, I love ya, but those are some wild mental gymnastics! I've re-read yr post 3 times and still cannot figure out how we got from point A (that the writers have a right to vote as they wish) to point Z (that anybody might be guilty of steroids, so screw 'em!

I'm just glad Tom Terriffic is still #1!


Sorry Pete, but I still get a little too excited about the steroid issue (even when I bring it up myself).

My point is that some of those who chose not to vote for an 'obvious' choice might have somewhat valid reasons in doing so.

 

____________________
Everything dies, baby that's a fact
but maybe everything that dies someday comes back,
put your makeup on and fix your hair real pretty,
and meet me tonight in Atlantic City...

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 02:40 PM
quote:
Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong.


Yes, as a matter of fact it does.








 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4139
(4139 all sites)
Registered: 7/12/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 02:45 PM
quote:
quote:
Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong.


Yes, as a matter of fact it does.

Obviously, this is why WE do the voting!









 

____________________
Everything dies, baby that's a fact
but maybe everything that dies someday comes back,
put your makeup on and fix your hair real pretty,
and meet me tonight in Atlantic City...

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 03:04 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong.


Yes, as a matter of fact it does.

Obviously, this is why WE do the voting!












Hey, no one ever complains about the All Star team voting, right?

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6168
(6172 all sites)
Registered: 6/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 08:31 PM
quote:
Tony Gwynn hardly looks like he would have, but what about Cal? Endurance is one of the greatest reason's players take steroids, it's isn't just about the increased strength. No more dog days of August with 'roids. I doubt Cal took them, but who really knows?



Well, I believe Cal.

From an article by Thomas Boswell, member of the BBWAA

"Now we realize that all those years when it never crossed Cal's mind to skip even a single game, something else never crossed his mind either -- cheating. Now, his 431 home runs look larger as the totals of others seem smaller. And we know why Cal never hit a ball 475 feet in his life. "I don't think my numbers are deflated because some other numbers may be inflated," Ripken told me last week.

On an occasion when he was universally contrasted with Too Big Mac and Balco Barry, Ripken tried to make one point perfectly clear -- in his mind, at least, virtue had nothing to do with it. "To me there was no fork in the road. There was no choice. Those things scare me to death," Ripken said last week when asked about playing clean.

Lest he get too much credit for mere honesty, he adds: "I never had the options. The Orioles were thought of as a bunch of goody-two-shoes. After those guys in Kansas City had [cocaine] problems, our team voluntarily agreed to have drug testing. Eddie [Murray] said, 'Just go along with it.'

"When I came into the big leagues [in 1982, his first full season], the locker room had ashtrays, spittoons and candy bars," adds Ripken, chuckling at a lifestyle little changed since the days of the Babe. "Then the blenders for the protein mixes replaced them. Maybe I had the old-school naive view. People think I had this nutritional regimen. Yeah, my regimen was the four food groups."

full article here... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR200701090 1724.html

 

____________________

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 239
(239 all sites)
Registered: 11/23/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2007 at 10:26 PM
Why would a TEAM accomplishment (winning the series) affect a vote for an INDIVIDUAL achievement honor (HOF)?

Maybe the HOF should only include Yankees lol

And in reply to another post, I tend to complain about the All Star voting every year, especially since the fans got a voice in it.

[Edited on 1/12/2007 by TexGent]

[Edited on 1/12/2007 by TexGent]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12843
(12843 all sites)
Registered: 3/26/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2007 at 08:01 AM
I think both voting for HOF and All Star is flawed.

As long as you have people voting who do not follow the guide lines there is going to be controversy.

Stated earlier some writers will not vote person in first year. That is a crock! A player snubs the press so they dont vote him in(Jim Rice)! That is a crock too!

All Star voting with the fans. A lot of people who should get in dont. It is always the most popular. Most of the most popular do deserve it. But once in awhile a person who has an outstanding year doesnt make it because he is not popular.



[Edited on 1/12/2007 by cupofjo]

 

____________________


Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 82619
(82978 all sites)
Registered: 4/16/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2007 at 08:34 AM
quote:
Shoulda won 5 of them, too, if not for Jeffrey Maier...


 

____________________
RIP Cindy Fischer
RIP Hugh Duty
RIP John Ott

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3866
(3866 all sites)
Registered: 3/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2007 at 09:49 AM


One championship that should never have counted!

 

____________________


Bringin' It All Back Home, 1969 - 2009 ... and the road goes on forever ...

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4139
(4139 all sites)
Registered: 7/12/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2007 at 10:23 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I have heard of writers who won't vote for a player in his first year because they don't believe that anyone should get ijn unanimously because Ruth and Cobb didn't get 100% of the vote. That's crap. That's a couple of writers creating their own standards. They should have their voting privelige taken from them.


DING DNG DING DING....we have a winner!!



So...what exactly are the standards and where are they written? This is the USA right? Ya know, freedom of speech and expression yadda yadda yadda....

Just because a writer doesn't vote for a player who we feel is an obvious choice doesn't automatically make the vote wrong. Alot of well qualified players were not voted for, for reasons that had nothing to do with them. On the surface this may seem wrong, but in reality is it?

Sure the guy who doesn't vote for someone, because someone else didn't get in, or get in as quickly as they thought he should, would appear wrong. What about the guy who doesn't vote for anyone this year because he's not sure which players may have used steroids during this era?

Tony Gwynn hardly looks like he would have, but what about Cal? Endurance is one of the greatest reason's players take steroids, it's isn't just about the increased strength. No more dog days of August with 'roids. I doubt Cal took them, but who really knows?

What I do know is, is with the millions of dollars at stake for almost every player in the game today, I don't trust ANY of them. Sosa? Bonds? Palmeiro? McGwire?

Liar-liar-liar-liar!!!

It's a completely sad state of affairs when Jason Giambi and Jose Canseco look like the more 'trustworthy' players. If a voter wants to leave his ballot blank in protest of what has been a baseball atrocity, more power to him!


Ozzie, I love ya, but those are some wild mental gymnastics! I've re-read yr post 3 times and still cannot figure out how we got from point A (that the writers have a right to vote as they wish) to point Z (that anybody might be guilty of steroids, so screw 'em!

I'm just glad Tom Terriffic is still #1!


Sorry Pete, but I still get a little too excited about the steroid issue (even when I bring it up myself).

My point is that some of those who chose not to vote for an 'obvious' choice might have somewhat valid reasons in doing so.


Ozzie, some of these writers have passed over every player in their first year of eligibility. And exactly which player got better in his second or third or fifteenth year of eligibility?


I'm not disputing that, and I agree that's a ridiculous reason not to vote for a qualified player.

I think most of the 'reasoning' behind seemingly qualified players not be voted for is ridiculous, but at the same time I do think there are a few valid reasons for voters not voting for qualified players as well as turning in blank ballots.

Most of these have to do with the steroid issue which is a complex issue.Yet it's not just steroid use, it's baseball's willing ignorance of steroid use. It's also the players ambivalent and/or indignant attitude towards the issue. It's also baseball's manipulation of the ballparks general size, possible tampering with the baseball, and the rapid, greed motivated, expansion which has diluted the talent base to a greater or lesser degree.

All of these factors have taken place in a relatively short period of time and have left more than a few of us with a very bad taste in our mouth. For a voter to turn in a blank ballot to protest what the game has become, I don't think is wrong.

 

____________________
Everything dies, baby that's a fact
but maybe everything that dies someday comes back,
put your makeup on and fix your hair real pretty,
and meet me tonight in Atlantic City...

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1656
(1656 all sites)
Registered: 3/30/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2007 at 02:15 PM
Hehe....... so the Dodgers have decided to turn right field pavilion into all you can eat seats......... $40 a pop.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2728273


anybody think this is worth it? The left field pavilion seats are $10.

 

____________________


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12491
(12481 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2007 at 02:45 PM
quote:
Hehe....... so the Dodgers have decided to turn right field pavilion into all you can eat seats......... $40 a pop.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2728273


anybody think this is worth it? The left field pavilion seats are $10.


If there were $10 before, that's $30 more. Definitely worth it if you plan to eat the food (if the food prices compare to Fenway, it doesn't take much to nget to $30). Looks like they will still have $10 if you don't want the all you can eat deal.

Sounds like a good place for Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, Richard Simmons, etc. to put billboards...

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 
<<  7    8    9    10    11    12    13  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com