Your votes have been tabulated, and I’m pleased to announce that BP readers have bestowed the dubious honor of entry into the Hall of Famously Weak Arguments to these three deserving candidates:
- “See, I TOLD you that sacrifice bunt was the right play—we scored a run!”
This was the leading vote getter, which I find fascinating. I’m guessing it’s because this argument is not only (probably) wrong, but the person expressing it now also feels their wrong opinion has been proven correct. I totally get that. My wife, an otherwise wise and rational person, believes she can improve cell phone reception in remote areas by shaking her phone above her head, and every time she tries I find myself actively hoping it doesn’t work. In fact, I suspect I’d still be actively hoping it doesn’t work even if she was trying to call an ambulance for me after I had been badly injured, most likely after arguing sacrifice bunts and/or the efficacy of shaking a cell phone above your head with a large, impatient backwoodsman. What does this say about me/us? Is it that we believe the only thing worse than ignorance expressed is ignorance perpetuated?
- “Home runs kill rallies.”
No, they don’t, unless by “kill” you mean “bring them to an extremely beneficial conclusion.” Sorry, Steve.
- “I’m against instant replay because it removes the human element.”
Also, I’m against using security cameras because they remove the human element from identifying who stole all that copper wire from the store room.
These three worthy entries can now take their place alongside the Founding Five: “You can’t know how good he was unless you saw him play,” “He’s one of a small number of players to reach this random collection of stat thresholds,” “Slow players that draw walks merely clog the bases,” “He’s a winner,” and “Sabermetrics takes all the fun out of the game.” So far, I’ve been rebuffed in my attempts to develop a display in Cooperstown to honor our inductees; however, negotiations with the New York State Thruway Authority about installing a History Kiosk for our use at the Mohawk Travel Plaza, right between the Dippin’ Dots and the Hebrew National stand, have been somewhat more fruitful.
The following three candidates didn’t garner enough support to remain on the ballot:
- “He was great because he did the little things/played the game the right way.”
- “Money doesn’t matter.”
- “He was a clean player competing in the steroid era, so imagine what his numbers might have been.”
Thanks to all who submitted ballots.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.Subscribe now