The writers are the most objective, least conflicted, and most diverse voting body and you've never nominated another better process than 400 independent voices voting.
ASk Jim Rice about their "objective" nature and their "conflicted" nature and their "diverse voting body".
And I HAVE nominated a better process in the past, here, but I am not taking the time to go back and find it, since that was long ago and before this place had its technical revisions.
The FACT is that I nominated a process that clearly delineated a rubric for induction for each position on the field. If players knew exactly how to get in the Hall of Fame, it would be on them and their actual performance that got them in, not the same old bullshit that passes for "objectivity".
The comparison to Trump is that didn't use a legitimate process for his pardons, because they don't have a legitimate process for induction because they don't have any real standards for what makes a HOFer and what doesn't.
That's not debatable.
In the mean time...
I wish a happy new year to you and to yours, jackass.
There are 400 independent voters making their own independent assessments of Hall worthiness. There is no strict template. But we usually have a general agreement of who's Hall worthy. and we get disagreements on the border line guys. And positions shift over time.
That you state its illegitmate is worthless. The Hall is pretty representative of the best who played the game.
And Trump has used the same process all other presidents have used.
But he abused the process presumably for his own ends.
There is nothing to suggest there is a vast BBWAA conspiracy to rig the HoF elections.
The most recent outrage came when the vets comm of 16 led by Reinsdorf and LaRussa pushed Harold Baines into the Hall.
and most observers thought it was bullshit and that Baines wasn't a HoF guy.
He didn't get in on the writers vote, but rather on his former manager and the owner of the team he played for.
Reflected glory for them, conflicts of interest.
The fact you think its not debatable, as you lose the debate is pretty funny.
Its like kid stating "no" thinking its the definitive answer to anything, or Red posting "LOL" when he has no facts to support his baseless bullshit.
It's a childish response.
The writers can nominate 0, 1 or up to 10 (IIRC) every year.
They are the best combination of least conflicted, objective, most knowledgable, most diverse and independent body to seek a large consensus of who does or doesn't belong in the HoF. And every one of your suggestions, former players, managers, guys in the game, etc. were proven to more conflicted than the BBWAA. (your suggestion as I recall was pre-Baines and the outrage over the expllicit conflict of interest)
And HNY to you as well.
Btw, what standard are you relying upon to continually suggest a wholly mediocre pitcher like Jamie Moyer, who only received 2% of the required votes, is a HoF pitcher?
At best he is a somewhat unique example that would fall outside of a standard that you seem to demand of the process.
98% of the writers have voted he falls outside anything remotely close to a standard.
Do you understand the intellectual hole you fell into?
Probably not.
Happy New Year.
HEH
Poll
1 (33.3%)