Replies

I consider debates over "First ballot" HOF vs. "Not first ballot" HOF impossibly stupid since voters vote individually and it officially means jack diddly squat.

And any voter who thinks someone is clearly a HOFer, but doesn't vote for him his first year of eligibility because he's not a "first ballot HOFer" is a mindless idiot who needs to have his voting privledges stripped from him.

"And any voter who thinks someone is clearly a HOFer, but doesn't vote for him his first year of eligibility because he's not a "first ballot HOFer" is a mindless idiot who needs to have his voting privledges stripped from him."

I agree. That is absolutely STUPID. Or how about that fat writer from Philadelphia (Conlon perhaps? ... hes always on Sports Reporters) who only votes for 1 name and then just pulls another name OUT OF A HAT!!! WTF??

And any voter who thinks someone is clearly a HOFer, but doesn't vote for him his first year of eligibility because he's not a "first ballot HOFer" is a mindless idiot who needs to have his voting privledges stripped from him.

I couldn't agree with you more. Quite frankly, I've always thought that to be in the HOF requires a unanimous vote. After all, you either are or are not of that caliber. To say that, among recent entrants, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Dave Winfield, Mike Schmidt, and Nolan Ryan were not amongst the best players of all time is horsecrap. But then again, the very fact that some idiot sports writers with grudges will not vote for someone based solely upon personality (witness the inexplicable absence of votes for Jim Rice) makes my idea pure fantasy.