Why should Andy Pettitte get more Hall of Fame votes than Kevin Brown?

I was going to say Brown was on the Mitchell Report, but then... Andy Pettitte admitted to using HGH!

So, the only thing I can think of is that Brown 'really' left a bad taste in the writers' mouthes. He had a reputation of being a jerk, and broke his hand punching a wall. And having your deal with the Dodgers called "one of the worst contracts of all time" again does not leave the impression that, "This guy's a Hall of Famer!"

I am a yankees fan for over 50 years

I never considered Pettitte to be HOF worthy

he had a great career

but him nor brown should be in the hall

if pettitte get more votes then brown

well that's the way it goes sometimes

there are already plenty of players that are in the hall that do not belong there

Pettitte "belongs" in the Hall for the same reason Bernie Williams will unfortunately end up there. Post season numbers.

Pettitte is the only "Ace" who can win 20 games with an ERA of almost 4.0!

He shouldn't. Kevin Brown was the more dominant pitcher, and they both cheated. Period. I don't think Pettitte should be in the Hall of Fame, but since you're comparing the two, one thing he proved is that he could pitch under the pressure of New York, and pitch in big games, something Kevin Brown could not do.

Easy. Three things Pettitte has going for him over Brown (who was treated like well-fermented roadkill by the voters):

1. Yankees! The writers luuuuuuvvvv them some pinstripey goodness.

2. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. The writers luuuuuvvvv them some champeenships, too, expeshully pinstripily goodness-packed ones.

3. Pettitte gets an inexplicable but significant measure of "aw, shucks, he admitted to it" forgiveness, or at least we'll-mostly-overlook-it-ness. Granted the voters are under no obligation to maintain intellectual consistency, and boy howdy they do a very good job of not maintaining it, but this is akin to the defenders of Joe Jackson who dismiss his complicity by claiming he was an utter moron. Wholesale condemnation of some players and not others based upon circumstances and context is a wretched approach; not that circumstances and context shouldn't matter, they should, but the wholesale condemnations are leveled without regard -- even with disregard -- to circumstances and context, because when they really wanna bring the torches and pitchforks then by damn they will. But the ones, like Pettitte, who somehow earn easier terms of engagement, are given every possible break and loophole, and it is nakedly wrong. I appreciate those who strive for objectivity in their ballot considerations and am willing to live with those who wallow in subjectivity; but the ones who wallow in subjectivity yet claim -- falsely, possibly even to themselves -- that they are striving for objectivity are simply hampering the process and taking the dialogue off a cliff. And these voters, alas Babylon, are the majority. It's a mess.

Pettitte will probably get more votes because of the Yankee connection and the boost that gives among the media, but I don't think either one of them belong.

Pettitte gets credit for outstanding post season play and many rings. I don't think either goes to the HOF.

Nahh it's a big joke really. The record is obviously because of the backed up hitting he has and bullpen to come in and save him

He won't be