Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball

Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Yes
12
41%
No
15
52%
Leroy
2
7%
 
Total votes: 29

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by Socnorb11 »

Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:10 pm
Socnorb11 wrote:
January 26 23, 11:35 am
Even IF he lied about his age, who cares?
Weird writers? Like I said. There will be some reason. Always is. Mariano is only unanimous lately.

Age lying matters to Angels and signing a ten-year deal. Like a lot. Age cliffs and projection, etc. Obviously I don't care about billionaire funds but some writers will probably simp for them for sure.
David Samson claims that literally everyone knew that there were question marks about Albert's age. It's one of the reasons why Samson was reluctant to sign him.

User avatar
Fat_Bulldog
likes to grate his own cheese
Posts: 12554
Joined: May 9 06, 12:41 pm
Location: Drunk

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by Fat_Bulldog »

heyzeus wrote:
January 26 23, 3:07 pm
Fat_Bulldog wrote:
January 26 23, 1:57 pm
The Top 3 list I put together is my opinion and nothing more.
No no, we have to argue about your opinion. I need this W.
It's that wonderful time of year.

Everyone can win. My opinion can always be wrong.

User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

Socnorb11 wrote:
January 26 23, 3:51 pm
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:10 pm
Socnorb11 wrote:
January 26 23, 11:35 am
Even IF he lied about his age, who cares?
Weird writers? Like I said. There will be some reason. Always is. Mariano is only unanimous lately.

Age lying matters to Angels and signing a ten-year deal. Like a lot. Age cliffs and projection, etc. Obviously I don't care about billionaire funds but some writers will probably simp for them for sure.
David Samson claims that literally everyone knew that there were question marks about Albert's age. It's one of the reasons why Samson was reluctant to sign him.
The news came out after the signing.

Definitely matters in a 10 year deal if Angels didn’t know. And it sounds like they didn’t—or that deal looks different. Samson isn't Dipoto.
Last edited by Big Amoco Sign on January 26 23, 4:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Online
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 28727
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by ghostrunner »

Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:34 pm
Fat_Bulldog wrote:
January 26 23, 12:50 pm
Who was better than him? In my opinion, he is in the top 3 baseball players (hitters) ever.

Babe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
Huh. I actually didn't know this.

Online
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 28727
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by ghostrunner »

Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:34 pm
Babe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
Huh. I actually didn't know this.

User avatar
Big Amoco Sign
Master of Hyperbole
Posts: 14402
Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by Big Amoco Sign »

ghostrunner wrote:
January 26 23, 4:30 pm
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:34 pm
Babe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
Huh. I actually didn't know this.
Yeah. The fence was like right field Fenway at most stadiums too. Lots of "bounce homers" as they called them in the newspapers back then.

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by Socnorb11 »

Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 4:15 pm
Socnorb11 wrote:
January 26 23, 3:51 pm
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:10 pm
Socnorb11 wrote:
January 26 23, 11:35 am
Even IF he lied about his age, who cares?
Weird writers? Like I said. There will be some reason. Always is. Mariano is only unanimous lately.

Age lying matters to Angels and signing a ten-year deal. Like a lot. Age cliffs and projection, etc. Obviously I don't care about billionaire funds but some writers will probably simp for them for sure.
David Samson claims that literally everyone knew that there were question marks about Albert's age. It's one of the reasons why Samson was reluctant to sign him.
The news came out after the signing.

Definitely matters in a 10 year deal if Angels didn’t know. And it sounds like they didn’t—or that deal looks different. Samson isn't Dipoto.
The news came out after the signing, but Samson says that every executive in baseball was suspicious before the signing.

Online
User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 28727
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by ghostrunner »

I’d imagine there’s documentation with Albert attesting to his age as a matter of course, but I don’t know. If so I guess it would be up to the Angels to press the issue.

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17324
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by Magneto2.0 »

ghostrunner wrote:
January 26 23, 4:30 pm
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
January 26 23, 1:34 pm
Babe Ruth also had ground rule doubles counted as home runs.
Huh. I actually didn't know this.
I remember reading this on Reddit years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comme ... ound_rule/
I can’t find any conclusive research on that either, but two other rules that were in effect during his career also likely affected his home run total.

Prior to 1920, you weren’t credited with a home run if the winning run crossed the plate ahead of you; that is, if you were down by one with runners on 1st and 2nd and hit a home run, you would only be credited with a triple (once the runner from 1st scores, the game is over; similar to today, if you get a game-winning hit and the outfielder doesn’t bother to pick it up, you can’t keep running for an inside-the-park home run). Ruth lost at least one home run due to this rule.

Also, around the same time the “bounce home run” was turned into a ground rule double, umpires called any ball that went over the fence in fair territory but then landed in foul territory a foul ball; you couldn’t hook a ball around the foul pole for a home run as you can today. There was a rope attached to the foul pole stretching back to a second foul pole at the rear wall of the bleachers; the ball had to land in fair territory no matter how far you hit it. Ruth’s 60th home run in 1927 was said to have cleared the fence clearly fair but landed close enough to the line some argued it should have been called foul. By today’s standards there would have been no debate. Baseball writer Bill Jenkinson’s research concluded Ruth lost dozens of home runs to this rule.

So the answer is we really don’t know how many home runs Ruth hit by modern standards, maybe more than 714, maybe less. Maybe it all came out even in the end.
Later in the thread someone referenced the book "The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Homeruns" and apparently they went through extensive research and concluded that Ruth hit substantially more than 714 HRs by modern standards, for what it's worth.

User avatar
CardsofSTL
All Hail the GDT Master
Posts: 47810
Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Will Albert be a unanimous HOF vote?

Post by CardsofSTL »

I voted yes because I want to believe in miracles.

Post Reply