Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Mets Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee election #2, vote 2

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by ReyesOfHope View Post
    They don't care. It's their election, not yours.
    I don't agree, they do care otherwise they (and Cowtipper) wouldn't have spent as much time as they have on this. Quite frankly they have respected the process as it was established. I don't have problems with the process either, as I said before, I'm trying to shape the end result, not the process itself.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
      Anytime I express a belief different from your notions of what Met fandom entails...you suggest I either am a closet Yankee fan or that somehow I am not a real Met fan.

      Just as I can't define your Met fandom, neither can you do so for me.

      I am a Met fan. Our differing opinions make that no less so.

      I have never said I don't remember Marv Throneberry's (or the 1962 team) place in our history. I just don't find anything lovable about them. There is no shame in my mind associated with the 1962 team. A team was assembled played hard but lost a lot of games. The only way to go was up! Remember him/them yes. Honor him/them, no.

      If this Hall of Fame is set up to honor greatness (in a Met uniform) he doesn't belong.

      The 29 people that have been elected so far encompass players who either had great moments in a Met uniform, were the best players on great teams, very good players on bad teams, the best player in franchise history, and the longest tenured Met. All deserving and reasonable selections for a franchise with our history. Marv Throneberry's on field accomplishments pale in comparison to all the the other enshrinees. In effect, every other player in this Hall is there for their on field accomplishments.

      That to me says that Throneberry doesn't belong. More than 80% of the people who voted in the regular elections agreed (by vote at least) with me.
      15 times he stood election; 15 times he failed. He never achieved even 50% of the vote in any election he stood.

      It seems to me that for the VC to put a fringe candidate such as Throneberry into the Hall would contravene the democratic spirit of the elections.

      I've made my points and argued my case. The VC can decide going forward if they have merit.

      Finally, Whoisonit, I have never questioned your motives, character or Met fandom in anyway. We have a difference of opinion, but I'm sure love the Mets and experience the highs and lows being a Mets fan equally. Please stop insinuating that I am somehow not a Mets fan due to our difference of opinion.
      Chill my friend. Lighten up. One constantly paranoid poster in the thread is enough for all of us. I don't question your Met 'fandom' in the least. My last sentence was firmly tounge in cheek. sooo, moving on ....

      If we judge Met players against their contemporaries, the poll begins & ends and ends with Tom Seaver. Period. This is a team HoF, not Cooperstown.

      You have stated repeadedly in the past that you see no reason to "celebrate mediocrity". Well, Met history is mediocre so we might as well find things and players to enjoy and celebrate.

      Marv Throneberry is a New York Met Icon. Not for cheating, not for some infamous post career scandal, but for his New York Met tenure. An Icon. Why not embrace it ? Why do we have to be so serious and supercilious that only those who are remembered for athletic excellence are honored ? Personaly, I think one MUST have a sense of humor to be a life long Met fan.

      NYY fans can have their 'got rings ?' t-shirts. I would rather have one that says 'got marv ?'. Why ? Because ... we ain't got all those rings.
      We got Marv.

      We're not talking about retiring his number and putting it on the wall. As for his lack of support somehow proving how correct you are; the same tourtured logic could be used for the VERY, VERY small minority who choose 'none of the above. That option polls about the same numbers as Throneberry did sometimes, but usually far, far less.

      Marv Throneberry belongs in the OMHOF. That's my opinion. You needn't take it as a personal insult, lol.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
        One constantly paranoid poster in the thread is enough for all of us.
        lol
        Put it in the books.

        Comment


        • #34
          OK. We've both said our piece on this matter.

          I understand where you're coming from but I think that we look at the Mets franchise and history from different angles.

          Compared to the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers and some others maybe our records and accomplishments don't shine so bright.

          Those franchises have a 62 season head start on us.

          Compared to the the other expansion teams (especially our 1961-62 cohort) and even some of the oldest baseball franchises and we've been successful. We've got nothing to be ashamed of.

          I looked at this exercise (and it seems most of the other voters) as a way to honor our best.

          I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
          Last edited by MSUlaxer27; 07-12-2009, 04:52 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
            I don't agree, they do care otherwise they (and Cowtipper) wouldn't have spent as much time as they have on this. Quite frankly they have respected the process as it was established. I don't have problems with the process either, as I said before, I'm trying to shape the end result, not the process itself.
            The established rules state that no player is eligible after 15 tries. The link to this "rule" was even posted in the most recent election (#26).
            http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83894

            Please tell me how they respected the process as it was established. Thx in advance.
            Last edited by ReyesOfHope; 07-12-2009, 06:15 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ReyesOfHope View Post
              The established rules state that no player is eligible after 15 tries. The link to this "rule" was even posted in the most recent election (#26).
              http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83894

              Please tell me how they respected the process as it was established. Thx in advance.
              It's Cowtipper's ball game. He setup this Hall and has done the work to post the polls, tabulate votes etc. Just as Cooperstown didn't originally have a Vets Committee, neither did this Hall. While I don't truly believe it was necessary, I have no problem with him adding it.

              He established the original voting rules...later amended them and in all cases the voting has followed the established rules.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
                It's Cowtipper's ball game. He setup this Hall and has done the work to post the polls, tabulate votes etc. Just as Cooperstown didn't originally have a Vets Committee, neither did this Hall. While I don't truly believe it was necessary, I have no problem with him adding it.

                He established the original voting rules...later amended them and in all cases the voting has followed the established rules.
                Ummm...I was replying to the poster who said that he "respected the process, as it was established."

                He did not.

                As it stands he continues to post the original rule stating that no player is eligible beyond 15 votes. Why would he continue to do this? He ought to have removed the link from subsequent elections after the VC was established because it not true. It misleads voters. Since he has not removed it, he is - in effect - lying to people that vote. Do you think this is respectful of the process as it was established?

                I guess you and others might not understand that who someone does not vote for is as important as who someone does vote for. In saying Players A, B, and C belong, a voter is also saying that Players D, E, and F do not. The Veterans Committee makes 1/2 of the voters' opinions irrelevant. I find this disrespectful to the process and certainly does not "respect the process as it was established which continues to state that no player is eligible after 15 votes.

                My points are very logical and easy to understand.
                Last edited by ReyesOfHope; 07-13-2009, 03:01 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post


                  Compared to the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers and some others maybe our records and accomplishments don't shine so bright.

                  Those franchises have a 62 season head start on us.
                  This poll has NOTHING to do with those teams. It's about the Mets. I don't see the relevance here.
                  Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
                  Compared to the the other expansion teams (especially our 1961-62 cohort) and even some of the oldest baseball franchises and we've been successful.
                  Refrence above please. Repeatedly.
                  Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
                  We've got nothing to be ashamed of.

                  With all due respect, who is ashamed of ANY part of Met history besides you ? (the paranoid guy doesn't count, ok ?).
                  Come on pal, the freeking new apple didn't work last night. We're Met fans, things like this are just par for the course. Now stop being so silly and embrace our Marv.

                  Comment

                  Ad Widget

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X