|
Rule 5
Jul 23, 2009 23:00:09 GMT -5
Post by lonewolf on Jul 23, 2009 23:00:09 GMT -5
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." (Taken from Rule 5, BBWAA Rules For Election To The Hall Of Fame)
Are the players being eliminated from being in the Hall of Fame by the bolded section of Rule 5 really any different from many that are already in there?
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 9:50:26 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 24, 2009 9:50:26 GMT -5
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." (Taken from Rule 5, BBWAA Rules For Election To The Hall Of Fame) Are the players being eliminated from being in the Hall of Fame by Rule 5 really any different from many that are already in there? Who do you think currently is being eliminated from the Hall based on Rule 5?
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 14:07:02 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 24, 2009 14:07:02 GMT -5
On second thought, that isn't a fair question. Everyone not in the hall of fame is not there because of Rule 5.
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 14:08:18 GMT -5
Post by ladeda on Jul 24, 2009 14:08:18 GMT -5
I can't comment until I read rule 1-4
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 14:08:45 GMT -5
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 24, 2009 14:08:45 GMT -5
On second thought, that isn't a fair question. Everyone not in the hall of fame is not there because of Rule 5. Well, except for those who are still playing or retired less than five years ago.
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 14:53:48 GMT -5
Post by lonewolf on Jul 24, 2009 14:53:48 GMT -5
I can't comment until I read rule 1-4 don't exist
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 14:55:58 GMT -5
Post by lonewolf on Jul 24, 2009 14:55:58 GMT -5
Sorry...I have rephrased the question the way I meant to when I was half-awake.
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 15:53:43 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 24, 2009 15:53:43 GMT -5
As such, see my first reply
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 16:00:28 GMT -5
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 24, 2009 16:00:28 GMT -5
Well, Ty Cobb might not be in there.
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 24, 2009 16:04:29 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 24, 2009 16:04:29 GMT -5
Well, Ty Cobb might not be in there. that's not my question. My question is who is currently NOT in the HOF because of that? (hint: it's not Joe Jackson nor Pete Rose)
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 27, 2009 13:33:48 GMT -5
Post by goGopherBill on Jul 27, 2009 13:33:48 GMT -5
Mark ..from St. lou?
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 27, 2009 17:26:26 GMT -5
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 27, 2009 17:26:26 GMT -5
More from Oakland, actually. He has numbers that would probably be high probability of HoF entry. So does Sammy Sosa. But neither one would have been a slam dunk even without the drug issues/suspicions. (And Sammy's not eligible yet anyway.)
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 27, 2009 19:51:43 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 27, 2009 19:51:43 GMT -5
McGwire might be the closest to qualifying, and there were probably those who didn't vote for him based on the steroid accusations. Then again, there are other knocks on McGwire (low BA, for example), and as MikeGarrison notes, he wasn't a slam dunk. Especially not on the first ballot.
If 15 years go by and McGwire doesn't make the HoF, then we can talk about it. However, it isn't going to happen. He will be voted in.
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 28, 2009 9:51:08 GMT -5
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jul 28, 2009 9:51:08 GMT -5
Wait!!!
I remember Rule 5 being "No Poofters!". The wording seems slightly different, but maybe the effect is the same.
Personally, my favorite is Rule 6.
|
|
|
Rule 5
Jul 28, 2009 11:36:21 GMT -5
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 28, 2009 11:36:21 GMT -5
Wait!!! I remember Rule 5 being "No Poofters!". The wording seems slightly different, but maybe the effect is the same. Personally, my favorite is Rule 6. Rule 7 is better.
|
|