NBC Sports - By Craig CalcaterraOct 16, 2015, 5:25 PM EDT In late July the Hall of Fame delivered some very good, albeit long overdue news: BBWAA members who were more than 10 yers removed from actively covering the game, would no longer be allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame.*** *** (If this were decided in July, how come were just now reading about it or hearing it?) - (Has anyone heard of this prior????????) Personally, I'm all for narrowing down HOF Voters. Many of us take a staunch hard nosed approach to demand transparency from the writers, and/or MLB. In this era when MLB; just this year, stated: there will be no transparency, and for BBWAA to speak publicly on who they voted for, could be costly, enough for a Writer to lose his vote.....WTF- is the HOF without transparency, when some of these ass clowns literally have voted for players currently playing, who will never see the HOF, while those same Voters, fail to vote for the obvious HOF'rs. Talk about rocking the boat........ http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/10/16/the-hall-of-fame-electorate-has-been-reduced-by-20/ Prior to the move, once a writer was eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame — with said eligibility coming after 10 years of BBWAA membership — they got that vote for life. This meant that a great many voters who were no longer covering baseball, including many who never really covered baseball in a meaningful way, got a vote. Editors who oversaw baseball writers for a time. People who covered baseball for a few minutes during the Carter Administration but later went on to do other things. It didn’t matter. At the same time, active BBWAA members who were totally engaged with the game and who possessed a thorough knowledge of its history had no vote if they hadn’t been in the club for a decade. It made no sense. While those BBWAA members without ten years still can’t vote, at least now the dead wood is out. At least in theory. In any event, the Hall of Fame announced today that, as a result of the change, the voting pool has been cut by about 20 percent. Specifically, it estimated 475 ballots would be mailed for the upcoming election. Last year about 600 ballots were mailed and 549 were cast. This year Ken Griffey Jr. and Trevor Hoffman are the top new candidates for election. I suspect that the change will have zero effect for Griffey, who will be about as close to a unanimous choice as any ballplayer can be (note: there has never been a unanimous choice). Hoffman could see some benefit in that, in theory, the rule change will eliminate more older voters, many of whom may be less amenable to vote for a relief pitcher who plied his trade in an era of specialization. The backlog could be helped as well. Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines all drew over 50 percent last year but fell short of the required 75 percent needed for election. If you believe that Piazza and Bagwell were dinged by PED suspicions, and if you think that older, less-engaged voters are more likely to harbor such suspicions, their totals should go up. The same could apply to Raines insofar as the merits of his Hall case tend to be less obvious to a certain stripe of voter. Possibly older ones who are less prone to dig deeply into the numbers and prefer to look at more traditional milestones. Not that Raines’ case requires a microscope to appreciate, but that’s another conversation. These are all broad generalizations of course, and it’s quite possible they’re unfair generalizations. We don’t know how every single voter votes or which voters are being deprived of the franchise. Maybe the culling of the electorate changes things, maybe it does not. But whatever happens, it’s a good move aimed at arriving at a better, more engaged electorate.
I do think that Piazza, Bagwell & especially Raines should be voted in. And I know I may be in the minority but I still don't understand why Griffey is above suspicion when every other big HR hitter in his era isn't. I mean hell Even Bonds didn't have back to back 50 HR seasons let alone 55 + HR seasons. Griffey is one of only 5 players to average 50 HRs a season over a 5 year stretch & aside from Ruth the other 3 (Sosa, McGwire & Bonds are labeled as cheats. How is it that Griffey has gone unscathed? Seriously never even under suspicion. Seriously? How did he escape this?
Raines, IMO should of been in the HOF a few years ago. I haven't seen any evidence that Bagwell did Steroids; that I'm aware of....??? Mike Piazza admitted, multiple times, to taking PEDs. For reference, Mets Today discussed Piazza's PED use in a post in Feb 2013, and another in October 2011. http://www.metstoday.com/8374/12-13-offseason/mike-piazza-admits-peds-use/ http://www.metstoday.com/6054/10-11-offseason/mike-piazza-and-the-steroid-issue/ I have no clue on Griffey Jr. Another mystery player I've heard suspicions of, could be Albert Pujols? Rumors spread during the last and prior WBC, that Albert "may have taken HGH." Since we've seen no proof on many of the players of the Vitamin-S era, they remain rumors.... until proven guilty one remains innocent; yet in a Court of Law, often the Innocent are punished, and the guilty go free with un-deserved innocence.....
"If this were decided in July, how come were just now reading about it or hearing it?)" ____________________ "were"? And you want THEM to take you seriously? Lol
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/123218-did-ken-griffey-jr-take-steroids Found this older analysis on Grif. All circumstantial, but compelling.
Why did you say that? Did you NOT refer to the SF Giants as your Giants? That is really all I said in the post you're replying to....yes,no?
I know it may be hard for you but stop playing stupid, you were criticizing Matts for misspelling the word WERE instead of WE'RE. Just stop the nonsense will you. And yes genius I'm also a SF Giants fan. NEWSFLASH! you're allowed to like more then one team.
