Debating Joe Mauer's Hall-of-Fame credentials makes for great Twitter fodder

After 113-plus comments and 27,658 votes the result is in, and it is definitive: Twins first baseman Joe Mauer is not a Hall-of-Famer.

So: No soup for you; you are the weakest link; and better luck next year.

That, at least, according to non-scientific Twitter poll crafted by Dallas Morning News Rangers reporter Evan Grant over the weekend while the Rangers were in town to play the Twins.

Sixty-three percent of respondents voted against Mauer’s candidacy, citing many of the familiar lines heard round Minnesota:

“It’s a good career—just not a hall of fame career. Certainly, he’s a Twins hall of famer—not Cooperstown.” -@bryandolgin

“If he was a catcher longer and played at that level the whole time then certainly.” -@AshleyJeramy2

“Let’s just say that if you sign a $20 mil (or thereabouts) per year contract and it’s almost universally agreed that your team regrets signing you to that then you’re not a Hall of Famer (or even in the discussion).” -@HBKevin91581

“He was a HOF catcher and a below average 1B.” -@titosaysfu

That’s not to say Mauer didn’t have his backers – 37 percent thought he was worthy:

“3 batting titles and MVP as a multiple gold glove Catcher. it not for concussions he is greatest catcher ever perhaps, YES YES YES he is HOF.” -@therotowhiz

“If he's not, then it's basically impossible for a catcher to go in.” -@uofmike

“Yes, because of what he accomplished as a catcher.” -@tylermelroe

And, as is always the case with Twitter, there were the questionable takes:

“Never was a difference maker !” -@ronSchulz2 (He’s right: MVP-winners usually aren’t.)

“Mauer might be first ballot for taking the Twins out of obscurity when he came in.” -@dudedonnie (Mauer’s MLB career began in 2004, and the Twins were coming off two consecutive playoff appearances.)

“Should have stayed behind the plate. That was a bad career decision.” -@democratcirca71 (Guess the thought here is you can make impact your team from the DL?)

But there is also this caveat: Grant put “No” ahead of “Yes,” which tripped up a few participants:

“Who puts No first?” -@bill_style

“You gotta put yes on top! I voted no :/” -@andy_hawe

“Why’d you flip yes and no. I demand a recount.” -@snagholorelite

ERRONEOUS!

Let the conspiracy theories begin.

Or then again, maybe there is a simpler explanation for why "No" was listed ahead of "Yes."