Camden Depot: How Orioles Writers Would Vote on the 2014 HOF Ballot
http://camdendepot.b...te-on-2014.html
Camden Depot: How Orioles Writers Would Vote on the 2014 HOF Ballot
#1
Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:20 AM
#2
Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:41 AM
Agree with Moroz about the rules of selecting 10 to be dumb/limiting; but those are the rules. Think his ballot should have been removed.
#3
Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:48 AM
Agree with Moroz about the rules of selecting 10 to be dumb/limiting; but those are the rules. Think his ballot should have been removed.
It is basically just a reason for a talking point.
I have not crunched the numbers, but I don't think it really impacts anything in the mock vote.
#4
Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:51 AM
It is basically just a reason for a talking point.
I have not crunched the numbers, but I don't think it really impacts anything in the mock vote.
Didn't think it should be removed because it impacts the vote, thought it should be removed because it is a cop out to the parameters of the existing thought exercise.
OTOH, I do agree with Dan's general point... and also understand keeping it in as a discussion point. Certainly fair enough.
Thanks for including us. I suspect the BBWAA will be providing us with official ballots shortly lol.
- JeffLong likes this
#5
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:06 AM
Tony has too much hate for Moose. LOL
The 10 player rule sucks...easily more than 10 deserving guys.
For that reason, I think I leave Maddux and Glavine off of my ballot...Not because they aren't HOFers...obviously, they are and they would get in with or without my vote.
I think, because you have the 10 player rule, you need to keep guys on the ballot that should be...Trammel, Moose, Schilling and Raines being 4 of the primary names there.
#6
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:32 AM
Agree with Moroz about the rules of selecting 10 to be dumb/limiting; but those are the rules. Think his ballot should have been removed.
Agreed on Moroz ballot being removed. He's just taking the easy way out there. If he really wants to make a point -- I'd say this, send a blank ballot. Even that I wouldn't like, but it's better than the fraction thing. And it shouldn't have counted like you said. If a real Cooperstown voter did that, I doubt it would count.
#7
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:36 AM
Tony has too much hate for Moose. LOL
The 10 player rule sucks...easily more than 10 deserving guys.
For that reason, I think I leave Maddux and Glavine off of my ballot...Not because they aren't HOFers...obviously, they are and they would get in with or without my vote.
I think, because you have the 10 player rule, you need to keep guys on the ballot that should be...Trammel, Moose, Schilling and Raines being 4 of the primary names there.
Disagree with your logic here, you don't keep more deserving players off the ballot to ensure that less deserving players get 5% of the vote.
#8
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:51 AM
I'm not sure what I dislike most about Tony's ballot- lumping Bagwell in with Bonds and Clemens and saying he'll never get a vote, giving votes to Glavine and Schilling but not Moose, withholding votes on players because they aren't "first ballot," or simply the fact that he left off a few players while waiting for "a down year" to decide their fate (Raines, Piazza, Biggio.) Huh?
- mweb08 likes this
#9
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:52 AM
Disagree with your logic here, you don't keep more deserving players off the ballot to ensure that less deserving players get 5% of the vote.
Why not? More deserving or less deserving is meaningless.
Are you a HOFer or not? If you are, it doesn't matter if you are a better HOFer than another. All that matters is that you are a HOFer.
#10
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:53 AM
I'm not sure what I dislike most about Tony's ballot- lumping Bagwell in with Bonds and Clemens and saying he'll never get a vote, giving votes to Glavine and Schilling but not Moose, withholding votes on players because they aren't "first ballot," or simply the fact that he left off a few players while waiting for "a down year" to decide their fate (Raines, Piazza, Biggio.) Huh?
Tony has always had that issue with Bagwell.
#11
Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:55 AM
Why not? More deserving or less deserving is meaningless.
Are you a HOFer or not? If you are, it doesn't matter if you are a better HOFer than another. All that matters is that you are a HOFer.
Just to expand on this....More deserving vs less deserving matters when you are at the bottom and trying to decide between player X and player Y.
#12
Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:00 PM
Why not? More deserving or less deserving is meaningless.
Are you a HOFer or not? If you are, it doesn't matter if you are a better HOFer than another. All that matters is that you are a HOFer.
The rules being what they are, I think every voter should be voting for the 10 most deserving candidates.
#13
Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:03 PM
I'm not sure what I dislike most about Tony's ballot- lumping Bagwell in with Bonds and Clemens and saying he'll never get a vote, giving votes to Glavine and Schilling but not Moose, withholding votes on players because they aren't "first ballot," or simply the fact that he left off a few players while waiting for "a down year" to decide their fate (Raines, Piazza, Biggio.) Huh?
Not a fan of "activist" voters. Just vote simply based on the criteria presented.
#14
Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:03 PM
The rules being what they are, I think every voter should be voting for the 10 most deserving candidates.
And because the rules are what they are, there is nothing wrong with saying that I want to make sure player X stays on the ballot, even if that means player Y doesn't get my vote, despite them being a sure fire HOFer...Thats just how it goes.
Its why the 10 player limit and 5% rule both suck. Get rid of one of them and you don't have this issue.
- mweb08 likes this
#15
Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:10 PM
It's a tie between them all for being incredibly stupid IMO.I'm not sure what I dislike most about Tony's ballot- lumping Bagwell in with Bonds and Clemens and saying he'll never get a vote, giving votes to Glavine and Schilling but not Moose, withholding votes on players because they aren't "first ballot," or simply the fact that he left off a few players while waiting for "a down year" to decide their fate (Raines, Piazza, Biggio.) Huh?
I recall Tony's absurd take on Bagwell and I got into it with him about that.
#16
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:22 PM
ESPN writers votes...They sucked:
http://espn.go.com/m...all-fame-ballot
Can't believe Timmy K wasn't smart enough to vote Moose.
#17
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:36 PM
ESPN writers votes...They sucked:
http://espn.go.com/m...all-fame-ballot
Can't believe Timmy K wasn't smart enough to vote Moose.
Reminds me of this.
http://hardballtalk....ame-electorate/
#18
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:42 PM
Jon, we just had David Schoenfield on Lance's show.... he said he's concerned Mussina won't get 5%.
#19
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:44 PM
ESPN writers votes...They sucked:
http://espn.go.com/m...all-fame-ballot
Can't believe Timmy K wasn't smart enough to vote Moose.
Other than Morris, I think Tim's ballot was fine.
#20
Posted 06 January 2014 - 01:46 PM
Jon, we just had David Schoenfield on Lance's show.... he said he's concerned Mussina won't get 5%.
He is wrong.
Mussina will be carried over to next year. He has already hit the minimum mark required for 5%. If the same number of voters vote this year as they did last year, he needs 28 votes to be carried over. He currently has 42 public votes. I doubt voters have increased from 568 to 841.
- BSLChrisStoner and JeffLong like this
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users