Jump to content

2017 Hall of Fame


flavum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting Manny Ramirez is at 34%, considering he failed tests after testing became a thing. I think he belongs based on being a great hitter--even though he'll probably not get in. My ballot would be:

 

Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Guerrero, McGriff, Mussina, Raines, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Schilling

 

Everyone else fall short for me. I could clean this ballot up in one year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 12:34 PM)
Interesting Manny Ramirez is at 34%, considering he failed tests after testing became a thing. I think he belongs based on being a great hitter--even though he'll probably not get in. My ballot would be:

 

Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Guerrero, McGriff, Mussina, Raines, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Schilling

 

Everyone else fall short for me. I could clean this ballot up in one year.

You have 4 "PED" guys and Raines with the cocaine stigma on your list. It will be interesting to see how the writers treat them.

 

I think the only reason Raines hasn't made it is the cocaine issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 02:51 PM)
I refuse to acknowledge the Hall of Fame anymore until they vote Bonds in. It's good to see that after the cleaning out of some of the old guard voters are starting to vote with common sense.

 

Raines most definitely deserves to be in too.

I disagree on the Bonds part but whole heartedly agree on the getting rid of the old guard. The whole "no first ballot" thing drove me crazy. He either is or isn't a HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 02:59 PM)
I disagree on the Bonds part but whole heartedly agree on the getting rid of the old guard. The whole "no first ballot" thing drove me crazy. He either is or isn't a HOF.

 

The "no first ballot" was my biggest beef. Anybody who wouldn't vote for Maddux or Ripen or Henderson should have their name stricken from anything involving baseball for all of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 09:25 PM)
The "no first ballot" was my biggest beef. Anybody who wouldn't vote for Maddux or Ripen or Henderson should have their name stricken from anything involving baseball for all of history.

Agreed. There just aren't words to describe how idiotic the concept is.

 

Edit: I could see it if there was a limit on how many they could let in per year. Some players are more deserving than others.

Edited by ptatc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 07:30 PM)
Agreed. There just aren't words to describe how idiotic the concept is.

 

Edit: I could see it if there was a limit on how many they could let in per year. Some players are more deserving than others.

Yep. Sometimes voters strategically don't vote for one of the "guarantees" so they can try and get up the vote for other players who they also think are a fit (or even just get enough votes for players to stay on). Bit more strategy to it in some cases (although clearly some of the voters were just straight up delusional).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 10:48 AM)
Yep. Sometimes voters strategically don't vote for one of the "guarantees" so they can try and get up the vote for other players who they also think are a fit (or even just get enough votes for players to stay on). Bit more strategy to it in some cases (although clearly some of the voters were just straight up delusional).

While this is kind of understandable, it all just starts to reek of corruption when people vote for HOF players as a favor. I know it's not corrupted, but there is a slippery slope, especially if a guy like Raines is a small number of votes short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are looking good for Rock Raines. With 118 ballots made public he is sitting at 91.5% and needing just 69.1% of the remaining vote. Needed to gain 20 votes from people who didn't vote for him last year and has already gained 19. Appears to be a lock at this point.

 

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F...AE2Lu5P1f92OW8o

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 01:40 PM)
162 known ballots or approx. 40% of votes counted. Bagwell and Raines still above 90%. Ivan Rodriguez and Guerrero still both above the 75% needed to get in.

Bonds and Clemens both with big spikes upward compared to last year.

 

There's a column on that spreadsheet for players that would get votes if they could vote for more than 10. Looks like Vlad is getting hurt by being on the ballot for the first time, otherwise he would be way up there too.

 

It's interesting...the ones that made their votes public early are more likely to vote for Clemens and Bonds, so now the last 60% of the ballots, will they drop them for guys like Ivan and Vlad and Hoffman to get over 75%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 04:24 PM)
Ryan Thibodaux ‏@NotMrTibbs 2h2 hours ago @ 172 ballots/~39.5%: Bags 92% Raines 92% Pudge 83% Vlad 75% Hoff 72% Edgar 69% BB 69% RC 68% Moose 62% Schill 54% http://bit.ly/bbhof2017

 

If Pudge is so easily voted in, then it's indefensible to not vote in Bonds and Clemens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 01:12 PM)
http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

 

51.7% of the ballots public.

 

Raines - 89.8%

Bagwell - 88.4%

Rodriguez - 78.2%

--

Hoffman - 72.4%

Guerrero - 72.0%

 

Announcement tomorrow at 5pm.

 

I'm not a Hoffman guy, but he's getting in eventually, so I'm rooting for 5 guys to get in tomorrow.

 

Typically the percentages drop with the last ballots, so it will be interesting to see if IRod holds on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 01:14 PM)
Typically the percentages drop with the last ballots, so it will be interesting to see if IRod holds on.

 

I'm hoping the remaining ballots are the non-Bonds/Clemens people, and their votes are more pro-Guerrero.

 

Only 2 would be disappointing. 3 is ok, but no Guerrero is a joke. 4 or 5 would be very nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...