Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Mets Hall of Fame, election 19 - PLEASE READ NEW RULES

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Our Mets Hall of Fame, election 19 - PLEASE READ NEW RULES

    Please limit your ballot to a maximum of 15 names.

    This is the nineteenth election for Our Mets Hall of Fame. Last time, we elected no one.

    For the original rules and specifications for this Hall of Fame, see:

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83894

    New, additional rules:

    When voting, consider the player’s Mets career only. The only exception to that is if the player ever played with the Brooklyn Dodgers or New York Giants, you may also consider their career with those teams as well – but remember, this is a Mets poll, and that should be first and foremost. If you choose to vote “none of the above,” you must explain your decision or your vote will not count.

    Furthermore, please post who you vote for as well, and please explain the reasons behind your choices.

    --

    New on the ballot:

    Bill Almon
    Wally Backman
    Mark Bomback
    Hubie Brooks
    Scott Holman
    Ed Lynch
    Phil Mankowski
    Dyar Miller
    Jerry Morales
    Jose Moreno
    Mario Ramirez
    Claudell Washington
    Mookie Wilson

    Dropped from the last ballot:

    Bruce Boisclair
    Ray Burris
    Jose Cardenal
    Ray Chapman
    Ed Charles
    Dock Ellis
    Pete Falcone
    Doug Flynn
    Andy Hassler
    Richie Hebner
    Steve Henderson
    Ron Hodges
    Willie Montanez
    Dale Murray
    Dan Norman
    John Pacella
    Len Randle
    Jeff Reardon
    Mike Scott
    Warren Spahn
    Frank Taveras
    Wayne Twitchell
    Pat Zachry

    Code:
    Mets Hall of Fame:
    
    Player:          Times on ballot:          Induction percentage:           When inducted:
    
    Tommie Agee             2                           80.00                   8th election 
    Jerry Grote             1                           100.00                  5th election
    Bud Harrelson           1                           100.00                  4th election
    Gil Hodges              1                           77.78                   1st election
    Ron Hunt                11                          77.78                   12th election
    Cleon Jones             1                           100.00                  2nd election
    Dave Kingman            2                           81.25                   15th election
    Jerry Koosman           1                           100.00                  6th election
    Ed Kranepool            1                           88.89                   1st election
    Jon Matlack             1                           81.82                   10th election
    Lee Mazzilli            1                           75.00                   15th election
    Tug McGraw              1                           90.00                   4th election
    Felix Millan            1                           77.78                   12th election
    Tom Seaver              1                           91.67                   6th election
    Rusty Staub             1                           85.71                   11th election
    John Stearns            3                           83.33                   16th election
    Ron Swoboda             10                          75.00                   13th election
    
    
    Manager:          Times on ballot:          Induction percentage:           When inducted:
    
    Gil Hodges               1                           90.00                   1st Mgr. election
    Davey Johnson            1                           100.00                  1st Mgr. election
    Bobby Valentine          2                           100.00                  2nd Mgr. election

    Code:
    Holdovers:
    
    Player:          Times on ballot:          Previous percentage:          High percentage: 
    
    Neil Allen              1                       11.11                        11.11   
    Donn Clendenon          11                      58.82                        68.75  
    Ed Glynn                1                       11.11                        11.11
    Skip Lockwood           5                       52.94                        66.67
    Willie Mays             8                       16.67                        62.50
    John Milner             9                       22.22                        50.00
    Jesse Orosco            1                       58.82                        58.82
    Nolan Ryan              14                      16.67                        50.00
    Craig Swan              7                       47.06                        62.50
    Bobby Valentine         3                       11.11                        16.67
    Joel Youngblood         3                       5.88                         33.33
    
    Holdovers dropped:
    
    Yogi Berra...eligibility expired
    Bruce Boisclair...lack of support
    Ed Charles...lack of support
    Steve Henderson...lack of support
    Ron Hodges...lack of support
    Willie Montanez...lack of support
    Dale Murray...lack of support
    Dan Norman...lack of support
    John Pacella...lack of support
    Len Randle...lack of support
    Warren Spahn...lack of support
    Pat Zachry...lack of support
    
    Last year of eligibility:
    
    Nolan Ryan
    Number of voters in each election:

    Election 1: 18
    Election 2: 8
    Election 3: 9
    Election 4: 10
    Election 5: 9
    Election 6: 12
    Election 7: 10
    Election 8: 10
    Election 9: 10
    Election 10: 11
    Election 11: 14
    Election 12: 9
    Election 13: 8
    Election 14: 15
    Election 15: 16
    Election 16: 12
    Election 17: 14
    Election 18: 18

    Manager election 1: 10
    Manager election 2: 11
    Manager election 3: 8
    69
    Neil Allen
    4.35%
    3
    Bill Almon
    0.00%
    0
    Wally Backman
    10.14%
    7
    Mark Bomback
    0.00%
    0
    Hubie Brooks
    2.90%
    2
    Donn Clendenon
    8.70%
    6
    Ed Glynn
    4.35%
    3
    Scott Holman
    0.00%
    0
    Skip Lockwood
    7.25%
    5
    Ed Lynch
    0.00%
    0
    Phil Mankowski
    0.00%
    0
    Willie Mays
    7.25%
    5
    Dyar Miller
    0.00%
    0
    John Milner
    4.35%
    3
    Jerry Morales
    0.00%
    0
    Jose Moreno
    0.00%
    0
    Jesse Orosco
    13.04%
    9
    Mario Ramirez
    0.00%
    0
    Nolan Ryan
    7.25%
    5
    Craig Swan
    5.80%
    4
    Bobby Valentine
    4.35%
    3
    Claudell Washington
    0.00%
    0
    Mookie Wilson
    15.94%
    11
    Joel Youngblood
    1.45%
    1
    None of the above
    2.90%
    2

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Cowtipper; 04-12-2009, 11:44 AM.

  • #2
    I'm voting for...

    Neil Allen

    Because he was a real character, and he wasn't too shabby a pitcher. If it wasn't for the fact that he has some "lore" attached to him, I wouldn't be voting for him.

    Wally Backman

    He was an integral part of the 1986 Mets, hitting .333 in that year's World Series. He was just a real solid player for them when he started as well. It's a shame he didn't get to start until 1984.

    Donn Clendenon

    Without him, 1969 might not have happened the way it did.

    Skip Lockwood

    Just about the most underrated reliever the Mets have had to date. His average ERA+ was 161.2. Tell me that's not impressive.

    Jesse Orosco

    Another great Mets reliever. Only twice in eight seasons did he have an ERA over 3.00 with the Mets, and five years in a row he had 15 or more saves. He too had an exceptional ERA+. Oh yeah, he also had three of the Mets wins in the 1986 NLCS.

    Nolan Ryan

    Just giving him props for lasting the full 15 years on the ballot.

    Craig Swan

    When the Mets were bad, he was a glimmer of hope. He was a bright spot during the Mets dark years.

    Mookie Wilson

    He was a great table setter and one of the fastest players the Mets have had. And, he won game six of the 1986 World Series.

    Joel Youngblood

    He doesn't get a lot of accolades, but he was a real solid player who could hit for a little power and steal some bases.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
      If you choose to vote “none of the above,” you must explain your decision or your vote will not count.
      That's ridiculous.
      • If someone decides to vote for 5 players, it isn't much of a hassle to explain their five votes.
      • If someone chooses not to vote for any of the 20+ players, do you expect them to explain why they did not vote for each of the 20?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ReyesOfHope View Post
        That's ridiculous.
        • If someone decides to vote for 5 players, it isn't much of a hassle to explain their five votes.
        • If someone chooses not to vote for any of the 20+ players, do you expect them to explain why they did not vote for each of the 20?
        If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.

        Comment


        • #5
          I voted for None of the Above because although many of these players were fan favorites or performed well during the darkest years, as Mets they were not even perennial All-Stars in the National League. None of these players measure up to the likes of Keith Hernandez or Mike Piazza, whom I would vote for to be in the Mets HoF.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ReyesOfHope View Post
            I voted for None of the Above because although many of these players were fan favorites or performed well during the darkest years, as Mets they were not even perennial All-Stars in the National League. None of these players measure up to the likes of Keith Hernandez or Mike Piazza, whom I would vote for to be in the Mets HoF.
            See, was that really that difficult?

            Comment


            • #7
              BS.

              You dropped 9 players I voted for due to "lack of support". If they get a vote, they stay on the ballot. Those were the rules.

              So after the debacle of the last election, you decide to keep the idiotic "none of the above" option everybody hates, and now you're wiping people off the ballot in contradiction to the rules you yourself were abiding by. So my vote gets nullified and the guy who makes the idiotic, nihilistic choice gets their vote validated. Nice!

              I protest!

              What gives?

              On edit:

              In fact, you voided every single vote I made!!! I voted 16 instead of 15 because I miscounted and said so!!! Feel free to void one choice, but don't you dare void them all!!! Way to bungle a poll!!! Way to wind up with nobody elected!!!

              I demand that you reinstate 15 of the 16!!!

              In the wake of the disaster of election 18 I'm eagerly awaiting some sort of explanation.
              Last edited by Mongoose; 04-12-2009, 02:46 PM.


              "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

              Comment


              • #8
                I voted for...

                -Wally Backman. Terrific bat control, excellent number two hitter, slick fielder, and is synonymous with the Mets from 1984-1988, when he was first a regular and then platooned with the lesser Tim Teufel. Although he typically had a low OPS+, Wally made up for it with clubhouse presence and speed on the basepaths.

                -Donn Clendenon. The first Mets World Series MVP, Donn was our first legit slugger. Sure Frank Thomas and Charley Smith had power, but they weren't the really solid type of player that Clendenon was. Although he only played two and a half seasons in orange and blue, Clendenon posted OPS+'s of 114, 129, and 102 from 1969-1971 while playing with the Mets.

                -Skip Lockwood. The most underrated relief pitcher to wear a New York Mets uniform, Skip was unspectaular outside his Mets career due to his misuse first as an infielder and then as a starter. Coming out of the bullpen, however, Skip was not only above league average, but truly fantastic. I've written a lot before about Skip and feel little to no need to reiterate it unless I'm asked.

                -Willie Mays. Willie Mays WAS New York Giants baseball in the 1950's, or so Dad explained to me. Growing up a Giants fan, the Say Hey Kid was a one-man sparkplug and arguably the most sorely missed Giant when they moved to San Francisco. When Willie came back to New York in 1973, his presence alone was inspiring for the former Giants fans, especially, and many of the Brooklyn Dodger fans too (I know some of them) who had turned toward the Mets since the Giants/Dodgers rivalry was gone (and as my Dad put it, "There wasn't a Dodger fan I met who didn't want Willie in Dodger Blue!").

                -Jesse Orosco. Probably the finest left-handed reliever in Mets history, Jesse was more than just a LOOGY with the Mets, the role he became famous for in the 1990's. He was the closer at first, then alternated with Roger McDowell. Still, he was quite a bit better than McDowell. Not counting his rookie year where he was used as a long reliever and even a starter (twice) as well as his 1987 marred by injuries, Jesse 's WORST ERA+ in a Mets uniform was 128. His best? 247.

                -Craig Swan. The ultimate "what might have been" if not for repeated arm injuries, Swanie was seen by many as the last of the products of the Seaver/Koosman/McGraw/Matlack/Ryan era to have success in the Majors. Pitching with several horrid New York Mets teams, Swanie regardless led the National League in ERA and ERA+ in 1978 with 2.43 and 143, respectively. He was also a workhorse in 1979. A groundball pitcher who gave up very few homeruns, he also likely would've been even better had his fielding not been so lousy.

                -Mookie Wilson. The Mookster brought spirit, speed, and a superb stolen base success rate to the eventual World Champion New York Mets. A star in both the lowly early 1980's as well as the middle of the Cashen era, Mookie collected a lot of extra base hits (Extra Base Taken percentage of 62%) in spite of striking out a lot and not walking too terribly much. Oh, and he also hit well in the 1986 World Series, despite his most famous at-bat resulting in an error.
                Last edited by Dalkowski110; 04-12-2009, 01:56 PM.
                "They put me in the Hall of Fame? They must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel!"
                -Eppa Rixey, upon learning of his induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

                Motafy (MO-ta-fy) vt. -fied, -fying 1. For a pitcher to melt down in a big game situation; to become like Guillermo Mota. 2. The transformation of a good pitcher into one of Guillermo Mota's caliber.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
                  If you choose to vote “none of the above,” you must explain your decision or your vote will not count.
                  Excellent compromise. I give reyesofhope credit for explaining his, imo, misquided votes in election 18, the other three don't deserve to have their votes counted.
                  Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
                  Furthermore, please post who you vote for as well, and please explain the reasons behind your choices.
                  An excellent addition. Why wouldn't you want to educate and/or sway other voters ? Besides, I want to hear mongoose elaborate on more of his quixotic causes because he's always interesting.

                  I'll get my votes in as soon as I rumage through the old posts and cut n paste my explanations.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dalkowski110 View Post

                    -Skip Lockwood. The most underrated relief pitcher to wear a New York Mets uniform, Skip was unspectaular outside his Mets career due to his misuse first as an infielder and then as a starter. Coming out of the bullpen, however, Skip was not only above league average, but truly fantastic. I've written a lot before about Skip and feel little to no need to reiterate it unless I'm asked.
                    I'm asking you to.

                    You've made strong arguments on his behalf and I would like to see all of them pulled together in one post. Very few Met fans know what this guy did in the late 70's.

                    You seem to be a budding stat, ahh ... umm, guy which i'm not, but you're stats back up everything I've said about Lockwood. We're enetering the phase with all the legends of the 80's joining the ballot and I think this is the round for Skip to get his well deserved due as one of the best Mets of all time.
                    Last edited by whoisonit; 04-12-2009, 05:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "You seem to be a budding stat, ahh ... umm, guy"

                      Definitely a guy, but you can say it (despite the fact that I have a girlfriend and do not live in my parents' basement)..."geek."

                      Either way, Lockwood just didn't have the pitches to cut it as a full time starter...he was VERY hit or miss in that role with Milwaukee. At that time, he threw heat as well as an array of breaking pitches and lacked a true changeup. The best thing that happened to him was coming into contact with Wes Stock, the Mets pitching coach. Stock suggested that Lockwood drop his slow curve entirely, use his slider pretty sparingly, and start pounding hitters with his fastball. His strikeout rate shot upward, going from the low 5's per nine innings to the 7's (although initially, he struck out 11.4 per nine innings that year). Let's examine Skip's ERA+'s (ERA relative to league average, basically) from 1975-1979, which was his five year stint in Orange and Blue. Keep in mind that 100 is league average and anything over 150 is superb. Anything over 200 is very special.

                      1975: 232 (In a shorter season...he was being used as a middle reliever..but still nothing to dismiss)
                      1976: 123
                      1977: 110
                      1978: 97 (arm problems)
                      1979: 244

                      Skip's actual ERA's were 1.49, 2.67, 3.38, 3.57, and 1.49 again. Although he split time with Neil Allen in the role in 1979, he was a full-time closer (i.e. fireman) from 1976-1978. As that was the era of the fireman reliever, that meant that Skip saw very high pitch counts for a reliever as well as relatively minimal save opportunities (Bill James' "bullpen ace" thinking is nothing new...the fireman reliever of the 1970's WAS that bullpen ace). Rather than measure Skip's saves, which would be pretty useless, we have to look at how many games and innings he pitched in general (also games finished, since it didn't matter to managers of the day whether or not it was a save situation, and rightly so)...

                      1975: 24 games, 48.1 IP, 8 games finished
                      1976: 56 games, 94.1 IP, 44 games finished
                      1977: 63 games, 104 IP, 50 games finished
                      1978: 57 games, 90.2 IP, 40 games finished
                      1979: 27 games, 42.1 IP, 22 games finished

                      Seeing as some insist on using saves as a benchmark, I'll give those too. However, as I said earlier, in the era of the fireman, you didn't get many save opportunities to begin with. Therefore, total saves vs. blown saves is what you really want to look for. Note that despite the relatively high numbers of blown saves, this was pretty much the league norm, even for guys considered the cream of the crop of the day (Sparky Lyle, Mike Marshall, Rawly Eastwick, Goose Gossage). Realistically, anything above 75% was very good for the day.

                      1975: 2 for 3 (67%)
                      1976: 19 for 24 (79%)
                      1977: 20 for 24 (83%)
                      1978: 15 for 23 (65%)
                      1979: 9 for 9 (100%)

                      We're left with one season we can't really judge based on saves in 1975 as well as one that has to be considered skewed due to arm problems in 1978. Also, please note that Skip's BABIP's (Batting Average on Balls put Into Play) was pretty normal in all these seasons. An abnornally low BABIP indicates the pitcher was basically getting lucky. An abnormally high one points to the pitcher being highly unlucky. With a career BABIP of .278, or roughly just above league average (with about .270 being league average at the time), we're left with these single-season BABIPs with the Mets...

                      1975: .255
                      1976: .255
                      1977: .274
                      1978: .270
                      1979: .294

                      What Lockwood did cannot be quantified as a fluke. .255 is low for the first two seasons, but not so low that it shows us a fluke year. Rather, the pitcher just pitched really efficiently and really well in a year like that. Once you start getting into the low .240's is when you start hitting "he got lucky" territory. Also, please note that Lockwood's 1979 BABIP was abnormally HIGH...and he still produced a 1.49 ERA.

                      I should also note that Skip had a very good pickoff move. Good enough for ya, whoisonit?
                      Last edited by Dalkowski110; 04-12-2009, 06:21 PM.
                      "They put me in the Hall of Fame? They must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel!"
                      -Eppa Rixey, upon learning of his induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

                      Motafy (MO-ta-fy) vt. -fied, -fying 1. For a pitcher to melt down in a big game situation; to become like Guillermo Mota. 2. The transformation of a good pitcher into one of Guillermo Mota's caliber.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
                        BS.

                        You dropped 9 players I voted for due to "lack of support". If they get a vote, they stay on the ballot. Those were the rules.

                        So after the debacle of the last election, you decide to keep the idiotic "none of the above" option everybody hates, and now you're wiping people off the ballot in contradiction to the rules you yourself were abiding by. So my vote gets nullified and the guy who makes the idiotic, nihilistic choice gets their vote validated. Nice!

                        I protest!

                        What gives?

                        On edit:

                        In fact, you voided every single vote I made!!! I voted 16 instead of 15 because I miscounted and said so!!! Feel free to void one choice, but don't you dare void them all!!! Way to bungle a poll!!! Way to wind up with nobody elected!!!

                        I demand that you reinstate 15 of the 16!!!

                        In the wake of the disaster of election 18 I'm eagerly awaiting some sort of explanation.
                        I said I was going to disqualify your votes if you voted for more than 15 people. You voted for more than 15 people and I disqualified your votes. You should have made sure that your ballot had only 15 people on it, counted twice, three times. Ever since I instituted the 15-per rule, you have had multiple instances where you had more than 15 people on your ballot. I let the first couple slide but I really want to make it clear that you can have only 15 people at a time. Perhaps you'll count a little better from now on. It's nothing personal, but I'm sticking to what I said in my warning - your votes were disqualified. That brought those guys down to zero votes, which as per the original rules set out would force them off the ballot.

                        Also, if you'll note, the guys I removed were guys that you and only you have been voting for.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
                          I said I was going to disqualify your votes if you voted for more than 15 people. You voted for more than 15 people and I disqualified your votes. You should have made sure that your ballot had only 15 people on it, counted twice, three times. Ever since I instituted the 15-per rule, you have had multiple instances where you had more than 15 people on your ballot. I let the first couple slide but I really want to make it clear that you can have only 15 people at a time. Perhaps you'll count a little better from now on. It's nothing personal, but I'm sticking to what I said in my warning - your votes were disqualified. That brought those guys down to zero votes, which as per the original rules set out would force them off the ballot.

                          Also, if you'll note, the guys I removed were guys that you and only you have been voting for.
                          I think the 15 players rule is asinine, but I abide by it because it's a rule. You're mistaken in saying I've voted for more than 15 in any elections since you instituted that rule. In this past election, I voted for 16: the crime of the century! If you had a beef, you should have PMed me - I'd have eliminated one.

                          What you're basically saying is that someone who totally doesn't get the concept of a Mets Hall of Fame can vote for nobody and their vote doesn't just count, but because it's essentially a veto, their vote counts as much as 3 other votes, but because I accidentally vote for an extra person, you feel happy completely disenfranchising me. Brilliant.

                          In this election I will cast just one vote, which should make you happy. It's for "none of the above" and I will happily explain why:

                          1) After the disaster of election 18, you've learned nothing.

                          Perhaps if nobody gets elected yet again, you'll correct the "none of the above" flaw in the poll.

                          2) After being completely disenfranchised in the last poll, I want my vote in this one to count for 3 times as much as everybody else's now to make up for not having my voice heard in the last one.

                          3) Since you're comfortable with people applying general Hall of Fame standards and allow that to the detriment of this project, I figure I'll give it a shot. Other than Swan, none of the players in the poll have more than 10 years of ML eligibility in a Mets uniform. Even though I've voted for Swan every single time up until now, I think we'd both have to admit: he was a "one and done" candidate for Cooperstown. So this time, I'm forced to vote "none of the above".

                          Last edited by Mongoose; 04-12-2009, 07:27 PM.


                          "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ReyesOfHope View Post
                            I voted for None of the Above because although many of these players were fan favorites or performed well during the darkest years, as Mets they were not even perennial All-Stars in the National League. None of these players measure up to the likes of Keith Hernandez or Mike Piazza, whom I would vote for to be in the Mets HoF.
                            Ugh.

                            You continue to display an obtuseness concerning this poll. Or do you ? perhaps you just like being contrary.

                            Being contrary just because you get your jollies being the non stop devil's advocate doesn't make your reasoning sound. Or interesting.

                            This is not a MLB HoF standard, nor is it an All-Star HoF standard. It is not about how Mets compared to All-Stars on other teams or their contemporary HoF caliber counterparts on other teams or how any Met compared to players on other teams. It is about their place in Mets history.

                            It's about their play as Mets compared to other Mets.

                            You're seriously going to claim that Mookie Wilson is not one of the best, the greatest, outfielders to ever play for this franchise ?

                            The standards here are strictly orange and blue. Not HoF. Not All-Star. Mets. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just Mets.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mongoose View Post
                              I think the 15 players rule is asinine, but I abide by it because it's a rule. You're mistaken in saying I've voted for more than 15 in any elections since you instituted that rule. In this past election, I voted for 16: the crime of the century! If you had a beef, you should have PMed me - I'd have eliminated one.

                              What you're basically saying is that someone who totally doesn't get the concept of a Mets Hall of Fame can vote for nobody and their vote doesn't just count, but because it's essentially a veto, their vote counts as much as 3 other votes, but because I accidentally vote for an extra person, you feel happy completely disenfranchising me. Brilliant.

                              In this election I will cast just one vote, which should make you happy. It's for "none of the above" and I will happily explain why:

                              1) After the disaster of election 18, you've learned nothing.

                              Perhaps if nobody gets elected yet again, you'll correct the "none of the above" flaw in the poll.

                              2) After being completely disenfranchised in the last poll, I want my vote in this one to count for 3 times as much as everybody else's now to make up for not having my voice heard in the last one.

                              3) Since you're comfortable with people applying general Hall of Fame standards and allow that to the detriment of this project, I figure I'll give it a shot. Other than Swan, none of the players in the poll have more than 10 years of ML eligibility in a Mets uniform. Even though I've voted for Swan every single time up until now, I think we'd both have to admit: he was a "one and done" candidate for Cooperstown. So this time, I'm forced to vote "none of the above".

                              http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89062

                              You voted for 16.

                              http://www.baseball-fever.com/poll.p...ts&pollid=6562

                              You voted for 16.

                              http://www.baseball-fever.com/poll.p...ts&pollid=6491

                              You voted for 19.

                              The reason I instituted the 15 player max rule is because I didn't want someone, just to be a troll or a nuisance or whatever, to just vote for everyone, every time, because that would make a overly cumbersome ballot that could have in excess of 50-100 names or more.

                              I let your "over voting" slide multiple times. If another person votes for 16 once, even twice I'll let it slide. But after I give them a warning telling them to keep it at fifteen and if they still vote for more, even if it's a mistake, I'm going to stick to the warning.

                              It is entirely your fault for getting your votes removed. I explicitly stated that your votes would be disqualified. 15 is not a big number, it's not hard to count to 15 and make sure that is exactly what you got.

                              In this election I will cast just one vote, which should make you happy. It's for "none of the above" and I will happily explain why:

                              1) After the disaster of election 18, you've learned nothing.

                              Perhaps if nobody gets elected yet again, you'll correct the "none of the above" flaw in the poll.
                              So, you're voting for none of the above just to spite me. That's mature. And it doesn't make sense. To fight the problem you're going to become part of the problem? Instead of whining and griping and trying to get back at evil ol' Cowtipper, how about you just participate normally and make sure that you have only 15 people on each of your ballots from now on?

                              The "none of the above" has been around since the second or third election, and it has never posed any problem before election 18. You had not a peep to say about it until election 18. So why now should I all of a sudden remove it?

                              2) After being completely disenfranchised in the last poll, I want my vote in this one to count for 3 times as much as everybody else's now to make up for not having my voice heard in the last one.
                              Why don't you just follow the rules? You're like an illegal alien who's suing because you got hurt in America and don't have insurance. If you had just followed the rules in the first place, none of this would have taken place.

                              3) Since you're comfortable with people applying general Hall of Fame standards and allow that to the detriment of this project, I figure I'll give it a shot. Other than Swan, none of the players in the poll have more than 10 years of ML eligibility in a Mets uniform. Even though I've voted for Swan every single time up until now, I think we'd both have to admit: he was a "one and done" candidate for Cooperstown. So this time, I'm forced to vote "none of the above".
                              Where did I say I wanted people to apply general HOF standards to this Hall of Fame? In the election 18 thread, I said that this is NOT the normal Hall of Fame and therefore there should be different standards and a different way of thinking applied.

                              Originally posted by Cowtipper
                              The standards established for this Hall of Fame are obviously different than those of the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown - I mean, the Mets have been around for only a little more than 1/3 of the time pro baseball has existed. This Hall of Fame is not so much based on statistical accomplishments, but also where a player lands in Mets lore, what kind of effect the player had on the team, how he is remembered. Sure, stats are also to be considered, but you have to consider more in this Hall of Fame. If we were stats based only, then I could have listed all the players that would "qualify" for the Hall of Fame, and we could have had two elections and been done. But this Hall of Fame is more than that. There's a reason why I list and I plan on listing every player that ever played in a Mets uniform - because some guys, although their statistical accomplishments may be lacking, may still get votes.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X