Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jdw
This is a red-herring.
337 Will Haggan (#8 all-time)
334 Mark Ponfick (#9 all-time)
You stopped voting for Haggan while he was still eligible for the BWAA. You haven't advocated him in the VC for ages... as in more than a decade, if ever.
Haggan didn't have the help of the War to go 70-30 to pad his way to 300 wins.
|
Well, the Haggan thing was intended as a joke. Still, I wouldn't be sad if he were in the Hall. I could live with it. To some degree, longevity is a credible factor for induction.
Quote:
Again, Ponfick would *never* have won 300 games without the War.
You, Matt, know this more than anyone else. You were the won who tinkered with the developmental style to slow down aging so those older players like Oscar, Dodger and Ponfick could "sustain" their careers and pretty much dominate the thin talent when all the stars were gone.
|
How I manipulated the game should have no, zezo, effect on voting. What happened happened. Blame it on war-weakened lineups, but not on what I did. That simply shouldn't be a factor. When voting in the game, you have to look at it as if it was real life and there isn't some Man Behind the Perverbial Curtain.
Quote:
|
You've pointed to the War hurting several candidates while making cases *for* them. Ditty among others. It's kinda sad when you then ignore the impact of the War on the one player above all others who benefitted from it. Frankly, the one candidate who wouldn't even have a case for getting in without the war.
|
Who's war-shortened career have *I* ignored?