Will Greg Maddux Actually Be a Unanimous Hall of Fame Selection?

greg madduxThe 2014 Hall of Fame class – well, the voted-on players – will be announced in one week, and votes were due before the calendar flipped yesterday. Because of the densely-packed ballot and the never-ending scourge of PEDs, Hall of Fame voting has been a popular discussion point over the past few weeks. That will continue to be the case up to, and soon after, the announcement of those who made the cut next Wednesday.

Today’s bit of discussion: will Greg Maddux be a unanimous selection?

The obligatory precursor to any Maddux Hall of Fame discussion: he’s going to be voted in, and he should be unanimous. No matter how you slice Maddux’s numbers, he’s among the best pitchers of all time. For 12 straight years, he was worth at least 5 wins, and reached 7 wins seven times (and two of those were in strike-shortened seasons!). I just started down a wormhole of number praise, but it’s never-ending. Suffice it to say, to have done what Maddux did – particularly in the era he did it, and without any whispers – makes him the most obvious Hall of Famer we’ve seen in a very long time.

… but will he actually be unanimous?

Baseball Think Factory has been tracking the many ballots that have been made public thus far – 101 of them as of this morning – and they’ve all featured Mr. Maddux. That’s nearly 18% of the total available ballots out there, so maybe it really will happen?

Eh. I’m not so sure. The problem I see here is that only folks who are very comfortable discussing their ballot with the public will be publishing them before next Wednesday. The kinds that aren’t interested in discussing their ballot publicly? Some of them likely know that they’d face a great deal of backlash if they volunteered the fact, for example, that they found a reason to exclude one of the best pitchers in baseball history.

To be sure, I don’t believe that any voter would say Maddux isn’t a Hall of Famer, and wouldn’t vote for him eventually. I just think we’re going to see a few folks out there who still subscribe to the bizarre “first ballot” sentimentality, and maybe there are even a few folks who simply don’t want to see a “unanimous” Hall of Famer go in right now. Or maybe someone does the blank ballot protest thing. Who knows. People are strange. (Edit: a few folks have reminded me of another reason Maddux could be left off – in a year with so many possible electable choices, some voters could play gamesmanship with their 10 allotted spaces, leaving Maddux off in favor of a guy they fear needs their support more.)

What do you all think? Will Maddux actually be on every single ballot this year?

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

81 responses to “Will Greg Maddux Actually Be a Unanimous Hall of Fame Selection?”

  1. jh03

    Maddux won’t get unanimous, and it saddens me.

    About the only excuse a writer can have for leaving Maddux off (and I still don’t like it) is if they left him off because they knew he’d get in without their vote and they felt the ballot is so stacked that they needed the extra slot to try to keep someone else deserving on the ballot for next year, at least.

    1. jh03

      I want to echo that I don’t agree with this thought process…

    2. terencemann

      Yeah, this would be a good idea to make sure guys like Mussina or Trammel don’t fall off. I think they deserve more consideration.

      1. Drew7

        I have a feeling Mussina will be one that gets shafted by the stacked ballot. He absolutely deserves to be in, but it wouldn’t shock me in the least if he drops off the ballot entirely.

        1. cub-hub

          I grew up watching Orioles games on HTS just like I did watching Cubs games on WGN. Mike Mussina was always consistently good, but I’m not sure if he was ever great. Maddux had a 7 yr run in his prime where he was absolutely unhittable, never having an ERA over 2.72 and several times it was sub 2. That run was sandwich by 4 seasons on each side, for a total of 15 yrs consecutive, where his highest ERA was 3.57. He also had the peripherals to match those numbers. That 7 yr run alone made Maddux Hall worthy, and the 15 year run makes him a candidate for a unanimous vote.

          Mussina never had that run. And while he was consistently good, he always sprinkled in a bad or average year every several years. I know the career numbers are similar, and Mussina actually has a better ERA+, probably because he pitched in the AL, but Maddux’ dominant run sets him apart. If Mussina gets in, I’ll be happy for him, but if not, I can’t say I’ll be upset.

  2. NorthSideIrish

    No chance he gets 100%. At least one writer will submit a blank ballot so they can write a “Look at Me” column about the Steroids Era and how they are protecting the sanctity of the game by not voting for anyone.

    1. tobias

      I will always believe that if a sportswriter leaves his ballot blank then he should have his voting rights taken away.

      1. cub-hub

        Really? Why? What if he feels no one in that class is hall worthy. Why should he be forced to vote for someone he feels shouldn’t be in.

        1. baldtaxguy

          Even with the suspected PED HOF considerations, there are still candidates that are “worthy” even to the most strictness of perspectives. I would expect that intentionally blank ballot submissions before the PED era likely never occurred. I cannot believe a writer could not find one candidate to vote for.

          If a writer submitted a blank one this year, he could only be taking two positions regarding Maddux: (1) that he did PED’s or (2) that he is not worthy of HOF status. Regardless, in this situation, I would agree that his voting rights should be taken away going forward since his personal biases are inconsistent with an informed opinion. In other words, if you take either position with respect to Maddux, you, as a baseball writer, are not performing your job to the minimum acceptable level (i.e. a prof baseball writer could not take either position based on the information available), and you therefore are abusing the voting privilege and should not have HOF voting provileges.

          1. cub-hub

            I disagree completely. I agree, that this year, Maddux should at least be on a voters ballot, but if a voter feels Maddux is not worthy, that’s his opinion. The point in having ballots is to take a survey of the writers opinion. Once again, if there is a mandate that a writer has to vote for Maddux, or for anyone for that matter, then what’s the point of even taking a vote. Just put Maddux in and call it unanimous.

  3. @justinjabs

    Yup, no way he is unanimous. The pool of voters is too large and there are far too many quirks and personal rules for a group of people like that to be in agreement, even on a guy like Maddux.

  4. Forlines

    Should he be? Yes

    Will he be? No chance

    If someone like Tom Seaver or Nolan Ryan didn’t get in unanimously, Maddux won’t either. To me, that’s just about as lame as you could get.

  5. Diesel

    You know what bothers me more than Maddux not being unanimous? The number of articles I find with people excluding Biggio from their ballots because of steroids which I had never once, before he became eligible last year, heard him connected to in anyway. 3000+ hits all while being a selfless player and a class act. Injustice I tell you.

  6. hawkboy64

    It’s sad such an such an obvious choice won’t be unanimous but a few old timers who only think that voting someone in unanimously somehow violates some bs unwritten rule will leave him off some of these guys shouldn’t be voting.

    1. Fishin Phil

      There are so many “unwritten rules” that I can never remember them all. I sure wish someone would write them all down for me.

      1. DarthHater

        The first rule of Unwritten Rule Club is . . .

        1. Old Fat Guy

          Never talk about Unwritten Rule Club…

          The second rule of Unwritten Rule Club is: Whatever happens in Unwritten Rule Club, stays in Unwritten Rule Club…

          Of course, these rules aren’t written down, so sometimes the number of the rule changes, but you can’t correct the person on giving the wrong rule number ( That’s unwritten rule 37… or is it 38? ). :-)

      2. jh03

        When I was growing up playing there were only a few unwritten rules:

        1) Don’t step on the lines
        2) Don’t talk to a pitcher about his no-no

        I think that’s it…

  7. D-Rock

    Has anyone heard any report about whether Theo and Jed have talked to Tanaka and his agent yet? Rotoworld reports that the Mariners are “the team to watch” in signing Tanaka.

    22 days left to sign him…

  8. Khross

    Absolutely he should be in this year. Unanimous, I don’t think so. Just cause of some reasons Brett said and that some people are just not right in the head. (Myself included!)

  9. Cheese Chad

    I would be shocked if he was unanimous. And that is ridiculous.

  10. Scotti

    “(Edit: a few folks have reminded me of another reason Maddux could be left off – in a year with so many possible electable choices, some voters could play gamesmanship with their 10 allotted spaces, leaving Maddux off in favor of a guy they fear needs their support more.)”

    Not a legitimate reason. There are plenty of other cats they can leave off who aren’t at risk of falling off (i.e. Maddux isn’t the only one who isn’t at risk of falling off). Selecting Maddux as the guy you’ll leave off instead of some mid-range schmuck would be monumentally stupid (and reason enough to revoke one’s voting privilege)…

    1. Norm

      Maddux is a lock to get in on this ballot. He might be the only one that is a lock, so he would make the ideal choice to leave off a ballot if you want to vote on a Trammel or someone in hopes of keeping Trammel (or someone) above the 5% threshold.

      I don’t blame the voters for that. I blame the 10 person limit, as there are about 15 choices that are defensible.

      1. Scotti

        Maddux is the only guy who has a shot to be 99-100%. That’s historic. Glavine will get in and so will Frank Thomas. Neither is in danger of ever getting bumped off the list. If you want to keep Trammell above 5% then give him your Glavine or Thomas vote.

        Not only did Maddux dominate and deserve 100% consideration based solely on that, but, also, he did it clean. Putting Maddux in at 100% would send a message and then voters can get on with life. Move on. Turn the page.

  11. DarthHater

    For any group of human beings to unanimously make an obviously correct decision, it is necessary that there not be a single moron among them. Good luck with that.

    1. Jim

      It only takes one…

    2. Scotti

      Yup.

  12. Pat

    While the whole “no unanimous selections” idea is stupid to me, it is at least enough of a established precedent to keep me from getting too worked up if Maddux also isn’t unanimous.

    Should he be? Absolutely. But I’d be shocked if he is. And I can’t really muster any angst over it. I’ve learned to let stupid people making decisions that don’t affect me go.

  13. bobww1959

    How often does someone climb up the ballot from the brink of elimination to actually be voted in? If someone leaves Maddux off to try so get someone else ELECTED, I’m fine with that. Those at the bottom level of the list are almost always terrific players, local heroes to the teams they starred for, but not necessarily Hall-of-Famers. In our on-going hero worship, sometimes the line between star, superstar, and all-time great gets blurred.

    1. Norm

      Blyleven started at 17% of the votes and ended up with 79% last year.
      Jack Morris started at 22%.

      I’m sure there are others.

  14. Spriggs

    Not only will a voter or two leave Maddux off for some of the reasons you’ve all mentioned, but another one that could be used is his less than stellar post season records.

  15. Spoda17

    If [you] don’t for Maddux on this ballot, you probably should not be voting. Gamesmanship is BS, vote for those who deserve it.

    1. Myles

      Don’t hate the player, hate the gamesmanship. If I had a vote, I probably wouldn’t vote for Maddux, because if I believe there are 17 hall of famers on this ballot, I’m choosing the 10 most at danger of not getting elected or falling off the ballot (and as we’ve seen the Blyleven, you can go from mid-teen percents to elected.

      If Kevin Brown can fail to get 5% of the vote, plenty of people in the conversation can fail to get 5% of the vote. Simple as that.

      Note, this all has the side benefit of affecting change in the BBWAA in some small way.

      1. Internet Random

        “Don’t hate the player, hate the gamesmanship.”

        To clarify, hating gamesmanship is not the same as hating the game. I can both hate a player and his gamesmanship without hating the game.

        Anyone who doesn’t think Maddux is one of the top ten candidates should have their voting privileges revoked on the grounds of their being entirely unqualified.

        1. cub-hub

          I disagree. Who cares if he is unanimous. Will him being, or not being, unanimous make you feel any different about him. I doubt it will. Guys with votes have a right to vote for whoever they choose, and however they choose. They have, according to guys in charge, earned that right. What makes anyone here style of voting better then theirs. Maddox deserves to be in and he will be in. I really won’t remember if he got 75% or 100% of the vote when it’s all said and done. What I will remember is that he is a Hall of Famer and one of the greatest of all time.

          1. Internet Random

            “Guys with votes have a right to vote for whoever they choose, and however they choose.”

            Do you think they have a right to cast votes for bribes? If not, you need to re-think that statement.

            “They have . . . earned that right.”

            And like other rights, if they abuse it, it should be revoked.

            1. cub-hub

              I honestly don’t think anyone is casting votes for bribes, so I’m not going to address that.

              Just because someone doesn’t vote for your guy, that you think should be unanimous, doesn’t mean he abused his rights. It means his opinion is different from yours. No one has a right to the Hall, not even Maddux. Once again, I think he should be unanimous, but if he is not, who cares.

              1. Internet Random

                “I honestly don’t think anyone is casting votes for bribes, so I’m not going to address that.”

                But according to you it would be okay if they were, because they “have a right to vote for whoever they choose, and however they choose.”

                “Just because someone doesn’t vote for your guy, that you think should be unanimous, doesn’t mean he abused his rights. It means his opinion is different from yours. No one has a right to the Hall, not even Maddux.”

                True enough for what it’s worth, but irrelevant.

                We’re not talking about just any “your guy”. We’re talking about Greg Maddux, behind whom is a mountain of undeniable evidence proving beyond any trace of reasonable doubt that he is one of the very best pitchers to ever pick up a baseball.

                “Once again, I think he should be unanimous, but if he is not, who cares.”

                If people abuse the system, I care. The same way I would care if an election official were casting illegal votes for a candidate that lost anyway. (That’s an example, not an attempt at equivalence.)

                I think people should vote honestly. Apparently, you don’t care whether they do or not. I’m okay disagreeing about that.

                1. cub-hub

                  Ok. How’s this?

                  A guy has a right to vote for who they want to as long as the are accepting bribes. Is that better.

                  Greg is “just another guy.” He is no different than any other baseball player. Any baseball player can be voted on, not voted on or wrote in, no matter how good they are. Maddux is no different.

                  A voter not voting for Maddux because most people think he should is not abusing the system. I would consider it using the system the best way he knows how. If a voter genuinely feels voting for a guy who he feels should be in but may fall off the ballot is more important than voting for a guy who is going to get in with or without his vote, I have no problem with that. He has earn the right to place his vote value where he chooses. His vote becomes more valuable for the guy holding on than for a guy like Maddux who will be inducted either way. Once he’s in, does it really matter if it was unanimous. No one will discount his greatness just because he didnt get that one or two votes. But the guy who was in danger of dropping off, but get inducted 10 years later will appreciate the non Maddux vote more. Unlikely to happen that way, but you never know.

                  1. cub-hub

                    * a guy has a right to vote for they want as long as they are not accepting bribes.

                  2. Internet Random

                    “a guy has a right to vote for they want as long as they are not accepting bribes.”

                    Better. But now you’re okay with a guy voting only for non-hispanic whites.

                    “Greg is “just another guy.” He is no different than any other baseball player.”

                    By this rationale, you’d pay a Maddux-caliber pitcher the same as a Theriot-caliber player.

                    Don’t be silly. He’s not just another guy, and his numbers prove it.

                    As for saving votes for players who appreciate them the most, that’s a great system if you want the Hall of Fame full of the most appreciative players. I’ve been operating under the assumption that the HoF was for the best players, not the most appreciative.

                    If the current system allows worthy candidates to fall off the ballot, then the system ought to be changed to avoid this while still allowing voters to cast their ballots for the players they feel were the best.

                    1. cub-hub

                      “”Better. But now you’re okay with a guy voting only for non-hispanic whites.”

                      You are just pulling examples out of your ass. Be more realistic. If any of the crazy scenarios you keep doo dooing out were to happen, then yes, it would be wrong. But to suggest these things are happening, without knowing it, is just crazy. You know exactly what I mean when I say a guy can vote for who and how they want.

                    2. cub-hub

                      ““Greg is “just another guy.” He is no different than any other baseball player.”

                      By this rationale, you’d pay a Maddux-caliber pitcher the same as a Theriot-caliber player.

                      Don’t be silly. He’s not just another guy, and his numbers prove it.”

                      When it comes to hall voting, every single player is just another guy. The process to vote Maddox in should be no different than the process to vote Theriot in. They should be on equal footing, and the worthy ones will get in.

                      As for the system being changed. Maybe it should. But a voter can only vote based on the system that exist and not one that should exist. If I had a choice between Maddux who I felt should get in and I know he will get in with or without my vote and player x who I felt should get in but may fall of the ballot, then my vote is more valuable for the guy who deserves to be in but may fall off the ballot. If that’s where my vote is more valuable, then that’s where I will place my vote. And I will do it no matter if a bunch of fans who think they know more I do feel I’m a idiot, moron or any other term.

                    3. DarthHater

                      This conversation is getting really interesting. I can hardly wait to see how it will turnout.

                    4. cub-hub

                      Darth Hater, the part about doo dooing scenarios out was suppose to have a smiley behind it, but I don’t know what happened to it. It will turnout fine. Just 2 guys who disagree on a process. Good ole debate. Nothing wrong with that.

                    5. DarthHater

                      When you accuse the other guy of pulling examples out of his ass, I’m not sure that a smiley face would really compensate, anyway. But hey, I’ve made the same kind of remark many times, so this pot ain’t criticizin’ no kettles.

                    6. cub-hub

                      I agree. But when you use extreme examples like voting for bribes and only voting for white people, when it has nothing to do with the post or convo, that can only be equated to pulling extreme examples out of ones ass.

                      I could say a writer shouldn’t have a right to vote for who they want because they might write Michael Jackson name in on the ballot, but until some writer does that, is it really worth even discussing.

                    7. Internet Random

                      “You are just pulling examples out of your ass.”

                      I’m showing that your statement—“Guys with votes have a right to vote for whoever they choose, and however they choose”—is a gross oversimplification. It doesn’t speak well about the quality of your statement that things pulled from my ass so easily refute it.

                      “But to suggest these things are happening, without knowing it, is just crazy.”

                      I didn’t suggest that these things are happening. Please try to pay attention. They are examples that show your statement is faulty. Namely, it is not true that “Guys with votes have a right to vote for whoever they choose, and however they choose”.

                      If they choose their votes in a bad way (e.g., bribery or racism), that’s not okay with me.

                      And there are other bad ways to choose votes.

                    8. Internet Random

                      “This conversation is getting really interesting. I can hardly wait to see how it will turnout.”

                      I haven’t even lectured him on the differences between a right, privilege, power, and immunity yet.

                    9. cub-hub

                      The fact of the matter is a guy does have a right to vote for only non-hispanic whites, or vote off of bribery, and unless he gets caught, there is nothing that can be done about it. And if he is caught, you still can’t go back and change the previous votes. Right now, the voter does have a right to vote for whoever they choose and however they choose. Pulling extreme examples out of your ass, that have nothing to do with Greg Maddux and if he will recieve a unanimous vote, doesn’t change that.

                      Also, if there was a mandate that every voter has to vote for Greg Maddux, then why even put his name ballot. He should just automatically be in, you know, since he is different than all other ball players.

                      We agree he should be unanimous, but if he is not, we don’t need to start pulling voting privileges. We don’t need to raise hell. And if the guy who doesn’t vote for uses the reason that I stated above, then that is a perfectly good excuse, and makes a lot of sense.

                    10. Internet Random

                      “The fact of the matter is a guy does have a right to vote for only non-hispanic whites, or vote off of bribery, and unless he gets caught, there is nothing that can be done about it.”

                      Nope. There is a difference between a right to do something and the ability to do it.

                    11. cub-hub

                      “I haven’t even lectured him on the differences between a right, privilege, power, and immunity yet.”

                      A writer is granted the privileges to vote for the hall. Once he is granted those privileges, he has the right and the power to vote on that class how he sees fit. I don’t see where immunity has anything to do with this convo. There is nothing you can teach me. Before you try to teach someone something, you should learn what they mean first.

                      I think fortunately, but unfortunately for you, that writer has a right not to vote for Greg Maddux if he feels his vote is needed elsewhere. It is a privilege for Maddux to receive a unanimous vote, not a right. He does not even have the right to be voted in at all. He is privileged to be mentioned, and will be privileged to get in.

                      Also, you have really proved nothing in this convo except that you will be entirely butthurt if Maddux is no unanimous.

                    12. cub-hub

                      Once they has been granted the privilege to vote for the hall, a writer is the only person that has rights. The privileges granted to him give him those rights. If he has an ability to vote a certain way, then that is his right. Like it or not.

                    13. Internet Random

                      “A writer is granted the privileges to vote for the hall. Once he is granted those privileges, he has the right and the power to vote on that class how he sees fit. I don’t see where immunity has anything to do with this convo.”

                      Rights, privileges, powers, and immunities are the four primary legal entitlements.

                      “There is nothing you can teach me.”

                      I have the same problem with cats.

                      “Before you try to teach someone something, you should learn what they mean first.”

                      I’ve been trying to learn what you mean, but your communication thus far is not making it easy for me to understand you.

                    14. cub-hub

                      “Rights, privileges, powers, and immunities are the four primary legal entitlements.”

                      And once again, what does this have to do with Maddux being unanimous or not. Usually when you speak out of your backside, you have difficulties understanding common sense.

                      For your sake, I hope Maddux is unanimous, because you seem to be Damn near suicidal on the matter. I hope he is unanimous, because he deserves it. However, if he is not, and he still gets in, I won’t lose sleep over it. I also will not care what writer did or did not vote for him. There are players better than Maddux who didn’t get in unanimously. It happens.

                    15. Internet Random

                      Heh. No, Sparky. Just no.

              2. Scotti

                “Who cares if he is unanimous.”

                I bet MADDUX does. I know that many others do, Me included.

                “Will him being, or not being, unanimous make you feel any different about him.”

                About him? No. The voting process? Yes.

                “I really won’t remember if he got 75% or 100% of the vote when it’s all said and done.”

                If you wouldn’t remember that he got in at 100% then your memory is r e a l l y poor.

  16. Voice of Reason

    It’s funny that a majority of sports writers say they will not vote any player into the Hall of Fame who was known to be taking PED’s.

    Yet, at the same time, where were those same sports writers when the roids were in every locker room? Why weren’t those same sports writers writing about the problem THEN?

    If they didn’t write about it then, then they have no write to tell us that they will not vote any of the known users into the HOF.

    1. cub-hub

      Actually, they are the ones with the voting right and the job as a sport writer. So they have a “write” to tell you however they feel. They have the “write” to vote how the want. You have have the “write” to not like it. Unfortunately for you, you don’t really have the power to do anything about it. Unless, you become a writer, earn voting “writes” and then place you vote with the roid losers.

      1. Oregon Cubs Fan

        Are you trying to make some sort of cute pun with “write” instead of “right”? If so, please explain, because this righter does not quite understand…

  17. Tommy (TC)

    I guess I’m the weird old fashioned dude who doesn’t want to see anyone go in unanimously. If guys like Williams, Mays, Ruth, etc weren’t unanimous, for whatever reasons (media didn’t like him, old fashioned racism, too many people on first-time ballot, respectively), I don’t think it’s good to have anyone in with 100% of the vote. It’ll get turned into this strange thing where “only unanimous HOF’er” becomes part of an argument over the best ever, when it’s not really a valid argument. Unanimity gets conflated into short hand for Best Player Ever, and I don’t want to see that

  18. hansman

    All of this angst over a guy with a 37 MPH fastball

    1. Professional High A

      Really hansman? Every one knows his fastball was clocked at 48 his change up was averaging 37.
      As a side note after seeing your avatar pic I am going to have a hamburger for breakfast. So thank you for that.

  19. Joker

    Simply criminal if he is not unanimous.

  20. Oregon Cubs Fan

    If Mad Dog is not elected unanimously it would be a crime.

    The argument that there should not be any unanimous selections has passed. The reason there were none when Ruth, Johnson, Matthewson, Wagner and I’m forgetting the fifth were elected the very first go around is two fold. First because the electors (I don’t remember if it was the writers at the time) had every single player whoever played to choose from. The second, and very much connected to the first, is that the media was not nearly as national as it is currently. Prior to TV, the popularity of players remainder local even with sportswriters. This would have been especially true within leagues. A sportswriter in Cincinatti, say, would never have had an opportunity to see Ruth play or Johnson play. They may have heard about them, but the national league players still would have earned their vote first hand.

    Regarding why players like Ted Williams and Micky Mantle were not elected unanimously, it must have had to do with their character and/or animosity with the media. In regards to guys like DiMaggio and Musial, the only explanation (I would hope) is due to the league issue.

    In this day in age, if any are leaving someone off a ballot simply because they don’t think they should be a “first ballot HOF” or that they should not be unanimous, they are simply being petty.

    Maddux has no blemish on his character, has the stats to show he was the best of his era, the testimony of his teammates and coaches not to mention the media and the fans. There is absolutely no argument against him being inducted into the hall of fame.

    The only possible scenario that a writer would not put him on the ballot is if he/she returns an empty ballot. In that case, it seems to me that it simply should not be counted. An empty is no different than the person who turns no ballot in at all.

    In the end, however, if he does not go in unanimously, so be it. As long as he gets elected this year he’ll go down with the rest of the greats as a first ballot HOF. If there is any bbwa person who leaves him off a ballot while naming others, I can think of a few consequences for that person, none of which, as a member of the clergy, I will put in print.

    Maddux, simply put, is the best pitcher I have witnessed in my 48 years of life. He deserves to be in the hall of fame.

  21. Katie

    Two things:
    #1 that picture you always use makes me say “How you doin” in my head every time I see it.
    #2 the closest I’ve come to a bar brawl this week was with a fellow Cubs fan on this very topic. He said not only is he not a unanimous choice, he’s not even a first ballot Hall of Famer. Things got a little heated after that.

    1. Fishin Phil

      Did he get dicked in the dick?

      Happy New Year Katie!

      1. Katie

        Phil!!!! My favorite little puppet! Yes, there was an obscene amount of dicking in the dick. Well, actually in my opinion there was just the right amount of dicking in the dick.

        Happy New Year to you too!

      2. MichiganGoat

        That’s our Katie and Happy New Year to the both of you.

        1. Fishin Phil

          You too ya horny old bugger.

          1. Katie

            Awww it’s my favorite Goat! Happy New Year to you!

            1. MichiganGoat

              Ah it’s like we just jumped in the way back machine and returned to 2010/11 BN.

              1. Katie

                The good old days. Le sigh.

  22. arta

    18 GG’s, 3.16 ERA, 4 straight CY’s, 355 wins, that makes him a sure unanimous HOF’er. there is a first for everything, he will be the first. IMO

  23. Brace for a Moment of Outrage: Writer Votes Jack Morris, but not Greg Maddux, for Hall of Fame | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary

    […] week, we asked the question and concluded that, no, Greg Maddux would not be a unanimous Hall of Fame inductee. Although he obviously should be, there are too many voters and too many potential crackpots out […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.