PDA

View Full Version : Jackass Voter Guarantees No Unanimous Hall Of Famer Tomorrow


UNHWildCats
January 8th, 2007, 11:11 PM
Paul Ladewski of the Daily Southtown in suburban Chicago wrote in a column Monday that he submitted a blank ballot because of doubts he had over performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.

"At this point, I don't have nearly enough information to make a value judgment of this magnitude. In particular, that concerns any player in the Steroids Era, which I consider to be the 1993-2004 period, give or a take a season," Ladewski wrote.
kardplayer
January 8th, 2007, 11:21 PM
I don't see why this is wrong. His point is, the whole era is tarnished, so no Hall of Famers.
BigApp
January 8th, 2007, 11:44 PM
is he, then, attempting to connect Tony Gwynn to steroids??? xlolx
Marcus Garvey
January 8th, 2007, 11:53 PM
I don't believe there has ever been a unanimous election to the HOF, so it's not like this guy was making some sort of earth-shattering proclomation.
AppGuy04
January 9th, 2007, 09:18 AM
is he, then, attempting to connect Tony Gwynn to steroids??? xlolx

yeah, thats laughable, thats like saying John Kruk isn't linked to twinkies
SunCoastBlueHen
January 9th, 2007, 09:37 AM
I don't believe there has ever been a unanimous election to the HOF, so it's not like this guy was making some sort of earth-shattering proclomation.

There was, however, a lot of speculation that Ripken and Gwynn could be the first. Rather than just hand in a blank ballot, he wrote an article explaining that he was going to do so. I wonder how much his actions were about making a statement concerning steriods and how much was about getting his name in every paper in the U.S.
Eyes of Old Main
January 9th, 2007, 09:39 AM
A unanimous selection would be nice, but who would really remember that? Point is, Gwynn and Ripken will still go in easily and McGwire won't.

The guy has a vote and he's using it the way he wants to. I don't see where anyone has much room to complain.
bodoyle
January 9th, 2007, 09:49 AM
There never has been a unanimous vote and there never will be.

I think he did the right thing, and that's not because he writes for my local paper. Until everything is cleared up noone should go in.

And Gwynn on steroids? That's downright funny. xlolx xlolx xlolx

UNH who should be in unanimously?
Marcus Garvey
January 9th, 2007, 11:07 AM
There never has been a unanimous vote and there never will be.



I recall seeing a sports talk show in Philly years ago, where all the talking heads were sports writers. I believe it was Stan Hochman who said that there are always a handful of writers that refuse to vote anyone in during their first year of eligibility. Based on that, a unanimous election to the HOF remains highly unlikely.
89Hen
January 9th, 2007, 11:23 AM
a handful of writers that refuse to vote anyone in during their first year of eligibility
THAT is completely asinine. This whole thing cracks me up anyway. What does a player do AFTER they retire that makes people change their mind? IMO players should be voted IN or OUT, end of story. xidiotx
UNHWildCats
January 9th, 2007, 11:55 AM
There never has been a unanimous vote and there never will be.

I think he did the right thing, and that's not because he writes for my local paper. Until everything is cleared up noone should go in.

And Gwynn on steroids? That's downright funny. xlolx xlolx xlolx

UNH who should be in unanimously?

Cal Ripken Jr
UNHWildCats
January 9th, 2007, 11:56 AM
I don't see why this is wrong. His point is, the whole era is tarnished, so no Hall of Famers.

Jim Rice is deserving and from an era prior to the steroids era, he could have voted for him.
bodoyle
January 9th, 2007, 12:06 PM
THAT is completely asinine. This whole thing cracks me up anyway. What does a player do AFTER they retire that makes people change their mind? IMO players should be voted IN or OUT, end of story. xidiotx

Their justification is that if Babe Ruth and Gherig etc didn't get unanimous votes that noone deserves to because noone was better.
89Hen
January 9th, 2007, 02:07 PM
Their justification is that if Babe Ruth and Gherig etc didn't get unanimous votes that noone deserves to because noone was better.
Just another example of why many journalists are pretentious idiots.
LeopardFan04
January 9th, 2007, 02:27 PM
I recall seeing a sports talk show in Philly years ago, where all the talking heads were sports writers. I believe it was Stan Hochman who said that there are always a handful of writers that refuse to vote anyone in during their first year of eligibility. Based on that, a unanimous election to the HOF remains highly unlikely.

Jayson Stark is freaking out about voters like this right now on ESPN...



THAT is completely asinine. This whole thing cracks me up anyway. What does a player do AFTER they retire that makes people change their mind? IMO players should be voted IN or OUT, end of story.

I have the same opinion. If they are good enough to vote for do it every year they are eligible. Not, say okay, well "he shouldn't get in the first two years, so I'll vote him in during year 3." Stupid in my opinion...:rolleyes:
Marcus Garvey
January 9th, 2007, 02:28 PM
THAT is completely asinine. This whole thing cracks me up anyway. What does a player do AFTER they retire that makes people change their mind? IMO players should be voted IN or OUT, end of story. xidiotx

Agreed that it's absurd. It's the same logic as in "Office Space," where 16 pieces of flair is the minimum, but the a-hole manager keeps hasseling Jennifer Anniston!
http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/storyimages/1089_wide.jpg
"So can I get you gentlemen something more to drink? Or maybe something to nibble on? Some Pizza Shooters, Shrimp Poppers, or Extreme Fajitas? "