Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The meaning was clear.. However, the logic was flawed.
.
Could you be specific. Where is the flawed logic in stating that it is as difficult to understand why writers didn't vote for any of the three I listed as opposed to Griffey Jr.?
You mean it is much more understandable that someone would not vote of Mays on the first ballot rather than Griffey Jr.? If so, why? If not, what exactly is your complaint here?
Could you be specific. Where is the flawed logic in stating that it is as difficult to understand why writers didn't vote for any of the three I listed as opposed to Griffey Jr.?
You mean it is much more understandable that someone would not vote of Mays on the first ballot rather than Griffey Jr.? If so, why? If not, what exactly is your complaint here?
Which part of the whole explanation there about voters who submit blank ballots as protests is giving you trouble?
Glad the dopers didn't make it. I'm afraid over time that voters will let Bonds and Clemens in- as time has a way of forgetting. I hope I'm wrong- cheating should not be rewarded. The shame is they both were good enough w/o the drugs. I guess it's like the greedy millionaire- it's never enough.
Which part of the whole explanation there about voters who submit blank ballots as protests is giving you trouble?
That does not answer my question..I asked for your specific reason why stating that it is no more logical to deny Griffey Jr. unanimous selection than it was to deny the same to players such as Mays, Maddux or Aaron...is "flawed logic."
Well? You made the statement. Are you incapable of explaining or defending it?
Since you are ducking answering the question and the above makes no sense at all in relation to that question, I make the assumption that you are just making noise to cover the fact that you don't actually have any logical reason for questioning my comment.
A 3.23 and 3.26 ERA during the steroid era were not average by any stretch. That 3.26 ERA in 2004 was the 2nd best ERA by a starting pitcher in all of the American League. The average ERA that year was 4.46 for all of baseball.
The year Schilling had a 3.23 ERA (2002 with Arizona), the average ERA that year in MLB was 4.28. My lord, the guy threw 259 innings in the 2002 regular season and had 316 Ks to only 33 walks. 33 walks in 259 innings is unbelievable. The guy had a 0.968 WHIP that year in the steroid era (which, by the way, led the NL in WHIP that year).
Needless to say, those were not average years by any stretch but elite, ace-type years.
The players using steroids was small stop acting like it was all players. Like to see some proof that the average was 4.46. Letting up 3 runs a game average is good not great by any means. Most CY Young winners have an ERA under 3.00 look at the history. You are just taking the good ERA's he posted what about the years he had these ERA's
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
