Quote:
Originally Posted by awz50
Of course this could create unintended consequences any kind of change or choice will. I think this creates two good things and is the reason why I am in support of it. It helps avoid ballot clogging, with it now limiting only three votes per ballot, I think the committees will have more focus and I think it will help limit the continuous debating of players who probably should not be on the ballot anyway. This brings me to my second one: it discourages debating the controversial candidates to death. At this point you are pro-bonds or anti-bonds, no middle ground. This should help to decide it more clearly. Maybe take it as a sign that they dont belong in the hall?
|
Exactly. Give some other guys a shot at the HOF such as Bill Freehan, Keith Hernandez, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Graig Nettles, Lance Berkman, Kenny Lofton, Jim Edmonds, Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, David Cone, Bret Saberhagen and Dave Stieb. They are worth having a debate over and are all better than at least 20 guys already in the HOF.
It is pretty obvious that the current Hall of Famers want nothing to do with guys who cheated to put up their numbers and cheated them out of awards and bigger contracts. If you keep putting the same guys on the ballot that are never going to get elected, it just prolongs the wait for others. We don't need any more Ron Santos and Dick Allens being elected after they die.