Quote:
Originally Posted by David Watts
Way back in this thread someone brought up Babe Ruth in a 1984 random debut environment. Just for kicks I started a random in 1941 and simply let it fast sim using "adjust modifiers according to history.": So, this league didn't use 1984 every year, but it just happens that Ruth career in this league spanned from 1971-1991. This league used high fatigue and had injuries set to low. Here is Babe Ruth
Attachment 661629 |
I bet the twitter world lit up with righteous indignation at the fact that he was not a unanimous selection (I know twitter didn't exist then, but let's just pretend that it did), and, internetically speaking, chased down any writers that didn't vote for the Bambino, and beat them to a bloody pulp, in order to satisfy their thirst for Cooperstown Justice. Sometimes, writers run out of space on a ten player ballot, and it comes down to a player that they feel deserves the ultimate honour, and a guy who's pretty much a shoo-in, and is possibly going to get a unanimous selection, and they select the first guy, and that's OK.
Sometimes there's personal bias based on negative interactions with the player, which, while not in the spirit of the supposedly objective nature of the voting process, is understandable because writers are human too. Sometimes it's PEDs. Sometimes the player doesn't cross their threshold for inclusion. Could we all just take a deep breath, and realize that non-unanimous selections really don't amount to a hill of beans in this world? Please? The writer had their reasons for doing it, and whether you approve of them or not, they've earned the right to not have braying keyboard warrior baseball fans, from all corners of the globe demand that their ballot gets taken away. The passion for, and love of the game is wonderful. The anger is fine. The lust for vengeance is dumb. Just a pet peeve of mine. Thank you.