Quote:
Originally posted by sixto
Yeah, I usually try to be an empirical thinker but I confess, in this case I allowed myself to be sentimental, which is I guess kind of some of the fun of the HOF. Also, I didn't take another look at Rice's stats before I voted this year. If I had I probably would have kept him on my ballot. But something kept me from looking and there's something to that.
As for Sandberg, I think I'm just trying to respect history. There are a lot of truly great players in the HOF who didn't go first ballot, and for Sandberg to do it to me is just not ideal. Since the HOF doesn't distinguish between Mike Schmidt and Bobby Doerr, it's as if keeping someone off the ballot for a period is the only way of differentiating the greatest from the merely great.
|
But the HOF also doesn't differentiate between first-ballot HOF'ers and otherwise, either. It's like you're saying that Sandberg is a second-tier HOF'er, when in reality there isn't such a thing. A player is either a Hall of Famer or not.
Please don't think that I'm trying to mock your thought process either. The majority of voters think exactly the way that you do, that there are players worthy of first-ballot enshrinement, and those that aren't, but are still Hall of Famers. I just have the opposite opinion, that a player is either a HOF'er or not, and his status shouldn't change based on time elapsed.