If a baseball player had a Michael Jordan like basketball career in baseball, would he be voted into the HOF unanimously?
No, because baseball writers are exactly the kind of dicks who would not vote for someone just for the sake of them not being unanimous.
I understand the thinking that if certain players from the past didn't get a unanimous vote, then neither should today's players. At the same time, it's douchetastic. If Barry Bonds was a media-friendly guy who never took a steroid in his life, would he seriously deserve not to be a simple choice for a unanimous HoF vote? I'm generally not a fan of the media in the first place, but sportswriters are the worst of the bottomfeeders.
What's to understand about it? It's the same kind of illogic that has people arguing, "well, mediocre player x is in the HOF so that means i should vote for the comparable mediocre player y to get in"
I didn't mean the argument was sound, just that I understand the argument being made. We agree that it's stupid.
Easy answer - should he? Yes. Would he? Probably no. I assume that Tiger Woods will be a unanimous inductee into the World Golf Hall of Fame, and that's also an analogous situation.
No, he wouldn't. There's idiot and asshole writers out there who vote based on standing grudges and vendettas because Player didn't grant him an interview or was less than nice. Theres even dumb asses who say NO player should be granted in his first year of eligiblity. Many greats weren't even voted in during their first year of eligiblity!! Tom Seaver has the highest percentage, if IIRC...just under 99%. In conclusion, the BBWAA is full of assholes, idiots, dickheads and abortion candidates. Fuck those self-rightous sons of a bitches.
