Do fans and the media make too big a deal of being a "first ballot Hall of Famer"?

1st ballot hall of famer means there;s absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind they belong. Like when people say "Griffey Jr. is going to be 1st ballot." It means that no intelligent baseball fan could possibly make a good argument that Griffey doesn't belong in the Hall.

You're right though it really makes no difference once they go in. Most of the borderline players are still very deserving but it's just a little extra compliment to those "no doubt" players to go in easily on the first ballot.

It is somewhat ridiculous to attempt to qualify how good or not good a player is by arbitrarily setting up such an artificial standard for greatness.

Consider this scenario.

Ken Griffey, Jr., Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson are all on the same ballot and each gets a majority of the votes but none gets 75 % and consequently all three great players can never be considered a first ballot choice.

.

So are the the above three any less great than when a not nearly as good a player runs against a relatively mediocre field and gets 75.1% and is therefore a first ballot winner?

Think about it.

Mostly I think "first ballot HOFer" is used when discussing active or recently retired players, not so much players already elected into the Hall. It's a way of emphasizing who are the very best players, the "no brainers" as it were. It can be used to separate the Greg Maddux's and Ken Griffey Jr.'s from say the Barry Larkins and Roberto Alomars.

Maybe the Hall should do like the Olympics and Gold (first ballot), Silver (subsequent ballots) and Bronze (veterans committee) plaques. (I'm not really serious about that)

Considering that the standards for voting for a guy in his first year of eligibility has changed so drastically over the years, I think they do make too big a deal of it.

I mean, Joe DiMaggio was NOT a first ballot hall of famer. Neither were Yogi Berra, Roy Campanella or Jimmy Foxx! How much can it mean if those guys aren't on that list but Kirby Puckett is (no disrespect to Kirby, but was he better than Joe DiMaggio???)

They will wait until the campaign is over then splash it all over the news insuring a GOP victory. The media is sure hypeing Obama. yesterday he was on GMA, last night on the nightly news, all day yesterday they advertised that he would be on the View this am. It's getting a little ridiculous the way the media is deciding the campaign. On the view, he tried to suggest Wright was just his pastor and not his mentor. Does he think people have that short of a memory? And the obama supporters on YA keep reporting questions and answers about him. They are trying hard to shove him down everyones throat.

They sure do. Hall of Fame is Hall of Fame. Stupid-*** writers! Did you know that they purposely vote against a guy to make sure he's not voted in unanimously? They figure since Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth and all weren't unanimously voted in, that no one should be! But what about a year when there is only one clear Hall of Famer newly up? All unanimous would mean is that he didn't have competition! So, they jealously guard against it. Do you know who these genius dip-sticks gave the highest % to? Tom Seaver! They say, by their own standards, that Tom Seaver was the greatest player of all-time. Hell, he wasn't even the best pitcher of his own era!

It's crazy. Truly crazy. The voting method HAS to change. Once in Babe Ruth shouldn't have to be justified, Rabbit Maranville shouldn't have to be justified. . .no one should. And the % of vote makes no difference and the round makes no difference. Or at least it shouldn't.

The voters make the distinction by making guys that should go in, wait. Only the best of the best make it in on their first ballot nowadays. It's very stupid. Michael Irvin should not have had to wait. Neither should have Chris Carter, but it is what it is.

I agree with others that it doesn't matter but, at the same time, it does. It's like percentage of votes. You only need 75% to get in but everyone is interested in the top ten guys because they have gotten such a huge amount of votes.

It means there was no doubt about their qualifications. It's like the difference between a 450 ft. blast and a HR just over the fence. They both count the same, but one makes you go "Wow, that was impressive."

Yes, if your in your in. Five years after your in on one even remembers when or how you did.