One of the non-Griffey ballots. Fantastic trolling job.

 

Marc Maturo - Lifetime Honorary - Bonds Clemens Raines

 

seems to be misinformation

 

he's not a voter

 

https://twitter.com/officialBBWAA/status/684913463660015616

Edited January 7, 201610 yr by buhbuhburrrrlz

seems to be misinformation

 

he's not a voter

 

Dang. Got that from a friend.

 

Edit - He just sent me this:

 

... apparently that was from somebody who got purged from the voter rolls and the BBWAA site f***ed up by posting it.

 

GG BBAA

So is my unopened copy of Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball for Nintendo 64 worth more now? I'd like to retire, please.

 

Pretty emotional for me. I've now seen my favorite white sox player ever (Big Frank) and my favorite overall player ever (Griffey Jr.) get in in consecutive years. He was the reason I emulated his stance and batted lefty, played CF, etc. Pretty cool I got to see him wear the sox uni also. Thanks for my childhood Griffey Jr. and congratulations.

 

Pretty emotional for me. I've now seen my favorite white sox player ever (Big Frank) and my favorite overall player ever (Griffey Jr.) get in in consecutive years.

 

Pssst...Frank was inducted in '14.

Dan LeBatard's troll job on twitter last night about being one of the people who did not vote for Griffey was hilarious. Some of the responses from people (and he retweeted a ton of them) were gold.

Am I alone in liking the history that nobody gets 100%?

 

Griffey certainly was a great player but for him to be the only player to ever get 100% kind of doesn't feel right.

 

The story that he was the only player to ever get 100% would be.....I don't really know how to explain it.

 

 

Am I alone in liking the history that nobody gets 100%?

 

Griffey certainly was a great player but for him to be the only player to ever get 100% kind of doesn't feel right.

 

The story that he was the only player to ever get 100% would be.....I don't really know how to explain it.

 

It doesn't make sense NOT to vote for Griffey, but there are a couple things that I don't get upset about at all:

 

1- This issue. A few weirdos out of 440 didn't vote for him. Big deal. If they didn't take away privileges away from 100 voters, he wouldn't have gotten 98% probably, so it's improving.

 

2- Buddy votes. If you don't want David Eckstein to get a vote, don't put him on the ballot at all.

Edited January 7, 201610 yr by flavum

Ken Griffey Jr. is “the second-best left-handed hitting, left-handed throwing outfielder ever born in Donora, Pennsylvania on November 21.”

It doesn't make sense NOT to vote for Griffey, but there are a couple things that I don't get upset about at all:

 

1- This issue. A few weirdos out of 440 didn't vote for him. Big deal. If they didn't take away privileges away from 100 voters, he wouldn't have gotten 98% probably, so it's improving.

 

2- Buddy votes. If you don't want David Eckstein to get a vote, don't put him on the ballot at all.

 

The one plausible scenario I have seen is if a guy had 11 names he wanted to vote for, he could have left Griffey off knowing he was getting in and used his 10 votes for the others.

The one plausible scenario I have seen is if a guy had 11 names he wanted to vote for, he could have left Griffey off knowing he was getting in and used his 10 votes for the others.

 

Right, although I haven't heard anyone come forward and say that's what they did.

Right, although I haven't heard anyone come forward and say that's what they did.

 

I haven't seen any reason given for any of them.

I would love to have been able to say that I cast a ballot for Ken Griffey Jr. to be in the hall of fame.

Ken Griffey Jr. is “the second-best left-handed hitting, left-handed throwing outfielder ever born in Donora, Pennsylvania on November 21.”

What a great article. I love those "relating eras" pieces.

The one plausible scenario I have seen is if a guy had 11 names he wanted to vote for, he could have left Griffey off knowing he was getting in and used his 10 votes for the others.

I wonder if it is the voter who voted for Eckstein.

I wonder if it is the voter who voted for Eckstein.

 

When David Eckstein is on a ballot, you can't pass up that chance to vote for him.

I mentioned new guys next year- Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Vlad Guerrero. Guess I should have included Jorge Posada too, but I hope he falls off quick.

 

Omar Vizquel is going to be an interesting case in a few years. He has so much support for whatever reason.

Whoever left Griffey off the ballot, no matter what the reason, shouldn't be voting for the HOF.

 

No unanimous entrants ever is a joke. Griffey should have been, but he also should have been nowhere near the first.

I thought it was pretty amazing that the highest and lowest drafted hall of famers are going in together.

I mentioned new guys next year- Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Vlad Guerrero. Guess I should have included Jorge Posada too, but I hope he falls off quick.

 

Omar Vizquel is going to be an interesting case in a few years. He has so much support for whatever reason.

Posada will be around for awhile due to the yankee championship ties.

What a great article. I love those "relating eras" pieces.

yeah, that was a real delight while having coffee this morning. Front page. Got to that quote and thought awesome. Glad someone else enjoyed.

Did not realize this.

Don't be fooled by the percentages.

 

The chances of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds making the Hall of Fame didn't necessarily improve with the results of the 2016 voting, which were announced Wednesday.

 

Yes, the respective percentages of both former greats jumped, Clemens from 37.6 percent to 45.2 and Bonds from 36.8 percent to 44.3. But both are still well short of the 75 percent minimum needed for induction -- and both actually received seven fewer raw votes than they did a year ago from the eligible members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

 

The percentage increases for Clemens and Bonds, then, were something of an illusion -- and almost directly attributable to the Hall’s decision last July to eliminate voters who were more than 10 years removed from actively covering the game.

Did not realize this.

 

7 fewer total votes, but about 100 less people voting.

It does point to their gains being a 1-time thing though. We won't see a clearout of the voting body like that every year.

7 fewer total votes, but about 100 less people voting.

I'd say it's not an unfair guess that 100 people who were cleared out due to not having covered MLB in >10 years would probably be a group particularly strongly biased against the roiders.