What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

First Time said:
I don't think he was from the deadspin ballot.
Jones got 0.2% of the vote, which is two votes I think.
Click to expand...
Thought you were talking about who would have voted for him there...and no, he wasn't on the Deadspin ballot.

And yes, whoever voted for J. Jones from the BBWA is an idiot.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Wouldn't it have been a riot if Biggio had gotten exactly the number of votes he needed, and it turned out the Deadspin ballot was the one that pushed him over the top?
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I did find it funny today that ESPN personalities ripped Le Batard for doing it, saying that he has a national radio show and a national tv show, if you want to complain about the voting process, you have platforms to do it.
You don't need to look like an *** and do this.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

First Time said:
I did find it funny today that ESPN personalities ripped Le Batard for doing it, saying that he has a national radio show and a national tv show, if you want to complain about the voting process, you have platforms to do it.
You don't need to look like an *** and do this.
Click to expand...

But if he used that platform the suits in Bristol would suspend or fire him for daring to challenge an entity in which they have billions of dollars invested. How many times did the ESPN statement make it clear that he got his vote because of his job at the Miami Herald, not ESPN?
 
Priceless said:
But if he used that platform the suits in Bristol would suspend or fire him for daring to challenge an entity in which they have billions of dollars invested. How many times did the ESPN statement make it clear that he got his vote because of his job at the Miami Herald, not ESPN?
Click to expand...

Of course they would.
That's why it was funny that other on air people were advocating using the shows.
Espn would censor that in a heartbeat if he tried.
 
First Time said:
Of course they would.
That's why it was funny that other on air people were advocating using the shows.
Espn would censor that in a heartbeat if he tried.
Click to expand...

The HOF and MLB are separate entities tho. So I'm not sure why it would be a conflict of interest for EPSN.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Instead of fixing the morons who vote for Armando Benitez, JT Snow and Jacque Jones, let's strip a vote from LeBetard. Makes sense.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

MountieBoyOz said:
Instead of fixing the morons who vote for Armando Benitez, JT Snow and Jacque Jones, let's strip a vote from LeBetard. Makes sense.
Click to expand...
Who someone votes for (in a basic sense) is not the problem with the system. If someone wants to vote for JT Snow, thats fine. Its much like voting for a president in that way, you can vote for whoever you want, its your right.

I am glad there is no electoral college type system in place also!

The problems are related to there not being more guidelines in place as to how to vote. For example, "vote only based on the on field performance" or "take in to account actions outside of baseball". Also, because of the way baseball writers take themselves too seriously and think they are the gatekeepers, there is a backlog of quality candidates, so the "vote for only 10 max" rule is now broken.

Lastly, if the person hasn't been proven in a court of law/or some other legal way to have used PEDs it is not the writers place to exclude that player solely on that basis. They certainly shouldn't exclude an entire generation of players simply by association.

ETA: They should also go to 100% transparency. As soon as the class is announced all ballots should be made public.
 
Last edited:
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

JF_Gophers said:
Who someone votes for (in a basic sense) is not the problem with the system. If someone wants to vote for JT Snow, thats fine. Its much like voting for a president in that way, you can vote for whoever you want, its your right.

I am glad there is no electoral college type system in place also!

The problems are related to there not being more guidelines in place as to how to vote. For example, "vote only based on the on field performance" or "take in to account actions outside of baseball". Also, because of the way baseball writers take themselves too seriously and think they are the gatekeepers, there is a backlog of quality candidates, so the "vote for only 10 max" rule is now broken.

Lastly, if the person hasn't been proven in a court of law/or some other legal way to have used PEDs it is not the writers place to exclude that player solely on that basis. They certainly shouldn't exclude an entire generation of players simply by association.

ETA: They should also go to 100% transparency. As soon as the class is announced all ballots should be made public.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all your points.

I would add that the Snow, Jones, and Benitez votes were largely in place of blanks. It's not like Craig Biggio got robbed because somebody voted for Jacque Jones.

Also, I've heard some of the BBWAA voters discuss the idea of a committee to determine who should go in from the "steroid era" similar to what was done for many of the Negro League players. It's an interesting idea.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Perhaps the BBWAA should worry a bit more about getting a website that isn't a complete and utter pile of sh^t. Give a 10th grader $200 and an hour, he'll make a better website than what that embarrassment. That thing would be considered a bad website 10 years ago.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

MountieBoyOz said:
Instead of fixing the morons who vote for Armando Benitez, JT Snow and Jacque Jones, let's strip a vote from LeBetard. Makes sense.
Click to expand...
They could have been tribute votes. You know, you've had a nice career, you have no shot @ the HOF, but you can tell your grandkids that your received a hall of fame vote (or two). Thanks for the memories.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Curt Schilling hasn't got much support for the Hall, but looking at his numbers in comparison with others he doesn't seem far off. Obviously Johnson is the class of this group and becomes eligible next year along with Smoltz and Martinez.

Johnson and Smoltz are sure things.

Pedro Martinez [P]
18 Yrs, 219-100 (409 Starts, 476 total games), 2.93 ERA, 3154 SO, .214 Opp Avg., 1.05 WHIP
7-time All-Star, 1 World Series Title, 3-time Cy Young winner

Randy Johnson [P]
22 Yrs, 303-166 (603 Starts, 618 total games), 3.29 ERA, 4875 SO, .221 Opp Avg., 1.17 WHIP
10-time All-Star, 1 World Series Title (WS MVP), 5-time Cy Young winner

John Smoltz [P]
20 Yrs, 213-155 (481 Starts, 723 total games), 3.33 ERA, 3084 SO, 154 SV, .237 Opp Avg., 1.18 WHIP
7-time All-Star, 1 World Series Title, 1 Cy Young, 1 Relief Man Award

Curt Schilling [P]
20 Yrs, 216-146 (436 Starts, 569 total games), 3.46 ERA, 3116 SO, .243 Opp Avg, 1.14 WHIP
6-time All-Star, 3-time World Champion (WS MVP)
 
JF_Gophers said:
Curt Schilling hasn't got much support for the Hall, but looking at his numbers in comparison with others he doesn't seem far off...
Click to expand...

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/kirk-minihane/2014/01/07/making-one-more-hall-fame-case-curt-schillin
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

mookie1995 said:
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/kirk-minihane/2014/01/07/making-one-more-hall-fame-case-curt-schillin
Click to expand...
Some of his points I agree with, others I think are a bit of homerism.

Curt Schilling only had 143 IP in his first 4 seasons combined before finally becoming a full time starter with Philadelphia in 92. So I get that he did more of his best work in fewer years.

Also true that he played for a bad team for several seasons in Philadelphia which hurts his win/loss totals. But even when he was on good teams he didn't always perform at a high level. In his 16 prime seasons, he had 7 seasons of 11 wins or less (and a losing record). In those 7 seasons the win totals for the team were 54, 69, 67, (85/65), 84, 95, 96. So I am not fully buying that Wins and Losses are all related to poor teams or that on good teams he'd pick up another 50+ wins as he intimates.
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

JF_Gophers said:
The problems are related to there not being more guidelines in place as to how to vote. For example, "vote only based on the on field performance" or "take in to account actions outside of baseball". Also, because of the way baseball writers take themselves too seriously and think they are the gatekeepers, there is a backlog of quality candidates, so the "vote for only 10 max" rule is now broken.
Click to expand...
In context, the "vote for 10" rule isn't a problem. The number of quality candidates wouldn't be a problem if the voters didn't refuse to vote for deserving players. You could vote in all the guys who merit enshrinement in the next two years if the voters would just, you know, vote for them.
JF_Gophers said:
Johnson and Smoltz are sure things.
Click to expand...
How is Pedro not?
 
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

jmh said:
How is Pedro not?
Click to expand...

Not say'in this is right but "only" 219 wins and he has the reputation of an *******. Plus he's going to be directly compared to Johnson and Smoltz where I think he will come up short in a lot of people's minds. Those three things will hurt him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top