What you are saying, in effect, is that someone who disagrees with you on the threshold of worthiness is stupid.

The point of the Hall is to RECOGNIZE baseball players. There should be standards, but in general (I'm a big hall guy) it should be an INCLUSIVE body. Putting in border-line hall of famers do not "desecrate" the elite hall of famers. Putting Bruce Sutter in the hall does not make Babe Ruth any less important.

I'd go so far as requiring a minimum requirement of one new HOF player every year, that being the top vote getter if they don't hit the voting threshold. Or they could lower the percentage of votes required. NOw I don't like requirements or "forced inductions' or whatever...

But I'm not sold he is a worthy HOFer.

Players on the HOF ballots should receive the benefit of teh doubt.

The point is that the HOF exists so WE CAN PUT PEOPLE IN THEM. BLANK BALLOTS DON'T PUT PEOPLE IN HALLS. So a player is a little "less worthy" then soem previous candidates. Putting that guy in the hall does not make the previous candidates worse. You think the top HOF players get together and laugh at the borderline players?

there is no such thing as an era so weak that NO players are worthy for the hall

Yes, but the voting doesn't occur at the end of every era; it occurs annually. If there are ten magnificent players in an era, and they all retire in 20xx and are first-ballot inductees, maybe there's nobody who retired in 20xx+1 that is worth inducting at all.

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

But Queens went "duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh". Ice's went "duh-duh-duh-DUH-DUH-duh-duh". See, they've got that extra "duh-duh" in there.

Bruce Sutter : Forkball :: Vanilla Ice : Queen's "Under Pressure"?

Yeah, but Queen's went "duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh". Ice's went "duh-duh-duh-DUH-DUH-duh-duh". See, it's got that extra "duh-duh" in there.

I'd go so far as requiring a minimum requirement of one new HOF player every year, that being the top vote getter if they don't hit the voting threshold. Or they could lower the percentage of votes required. NOw I don't like requirements or "forced inductions' or whatever...

Great. I'd favor requiring someone to get 80% of the vote in consecutive years. Unfortunately for both of us, that isn't how it works.

The point of the Hall is to RECOGNIZE baseball players.

The point is to make money. The point you're going for is to recognize the greatest players. Why not put in famous, popular players. Oil Can Boyd was quite a sensation. Who can forget John Kruk? That Dempsey guy was hoot, let's put him in. As you go lower in terms of quality, the number of players who would qualify increases exponentially. At some point, wouldn't you agree, there would be little meaning to being a HOFer other than that you played in the major leagues?

I get that you're a "Big Hall" guy. No problem. I get that you disagree with me on my view. Again, no problem. What is a problem is that you think I'm stupid and that voters who, within the framework set up by the Hall cast a blank ballot, are stupid. You can't simply disagree and argue your point. You have to call names and insult them (and all the rest of us who don't agree with you).

How can there be a year where NO players were worthy of voting in?

In addition to the point made by bunyon in post 98, the HoF election is an ongoing discussion. You vote to achieve two ends (1) to elect someone or (2) to ensure they remain the subject of discussion.

As it happens, I think the 5 percent threshold is not a good idea. It imposes a degree of 'risk' in the voting that shouldn't be there. Albert Belle is another statistical borderline candidate to me, and I'd like to see him reconsidered for a few more years. I would vote to keep him on the ballot, but not to put him in the Hall. So all voters have to weigh the risk of election against the risk of losing someone deserving more discussion. Since you can't take someone out of the Hall, the ballot becomes unduly negative, leading to Will Clark dropping off.

Someone else might convince me about the idea of Blyleven or Belle in the Hall, and I'd like them to get the full fifteen years to do it. But I haven't seen the argument yet.

Crap.

By the way, looking at the voting, I'm relieved that Albert Belle got enough votes to stay on the ballot. I was expecting more in the 15-20% range for him. Now HE was a guy who was the most feared hitter in the league.

Good point, fra. I would be happy to see the 5% rule dropped. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing the 15 year rule dropped. If you played 10 seasons and have been retired five, you're eligible, period.

Putting in border-line hall of famers do not "desecrate" the elite hall of famers.

I'm not aware of any small-Hall advocate here claiming that electing borderliners 'desecrates' the HoF.

Now HE was a guy who was the most feared hitter in the league.

I dunno about the league, but folks in his neighborhood certainly gave him a wide berth.

You have to call names and insult them (and all the rest of us who don't agree with you).


have i ever specifically said "Bunyon is stupid?" No, so don't bring that around here.

What i'm saying is that there is no valid reason for soembody to submit a blank ballot.

In addition to the point made by bunyon in post 98, the HoF election is an ongoing discussion. You vote to achieve two ends (1) to elect someone or (2) to ensure they remain the subject of discussion.

Even if you think there isn't anybody worthy enough for the hall, there ARE people that are worthy FOR DISCUSSION. Shouldn't you vote for the player that you think is at least worthy for discussion?

Anyway, Belle played only 10 full seasons (as many as Koufax). He retired at age 33, coming off a 23 HR, 103 RBI season, with an OPS of .817, which, though good, was his worst season in 10 years. He still managed to retire with a .933 OPS and 143 OPS+

I think he should be in the Hall, based on 10 years dominating the AL. But between smashing the clubhouse thermostat, being accused of corking his bat, running over kids at Halloween, being known as a money-grubbing spoiled brat, and the shortened career, there are good arguments for saying "no".

have i ever specifically said "Bunyon is stupid?" No, so don't bring that around here.

No, but you've said people doing something I agree with are stupid. It isn't hard to draw the conclusion that you think I'm stupid. I'm not as worked up as I sound; I just don't get the notion that anyone who disagrees with you on a subjective issue must be stupid. That is an issue that extends well beyond this thread and the baseball HOF and is one that troubles me deeply about the state of humanity. It isn't just your comments here that have me riled on this.

There are plenty of valid reasons, presented above by me and others, for casting a blank ballot. You disagree with those reasons but that doesn't invalidate them.

Even if you think there isn't anybody worthy enough for the hall, there ARE people that are worthy FOR DISCUSSION. Shouldn't you vote for the player that you think is at least worthy for discussion?

Indeed. This is a good reason to dispense with the 5% rule. Voting for someone should be because you think they deserve to be in the Hall, not because you want them discussed.

The point is that the HOF exists so WE CAN PUT PEOPLE IN THEM. BLANK BALLOTS DON'T PUT PEOPLE IN HALLS.

No, the point of the HOF is to put people in who meet the substantive standard. If you want to change the system so that it is easier for players to get in, change the standard. Don't change the voting system, and especially don't change it so that it makes it easier to get in. If anything, IMO, the current system is flawed in that it allows players to get in who don't meet the HOF's own standard for induction. The system should work in such a way that it produces not one or more a year, not that it recognizes as many players as possible, or anything like that. It should work to get the players who meet the standard inducted, and to keep 'em out if they don't. Convince me the writers (together with the Vet's Committee) are keeping people out who meet the HOF's stated test, and I'll be on your side.



Ferguson Jenkins? How is Blyleven not his equal?

7 20-win seasons
1 CYA
5 top 3 CYA finishes (17th all time in CYA shares fwiw)
lower WHIP, better K/BB ratio

Here, let me fix that for you:

1 undeserved CYA

Shouldn't you vote for the player that you think is at least worthy for discussion?

Discuss them all you want in your column. Or on your radio show if you've got one. But don't vote for them unless you think they're worthy.

It isn't just your comments here that have me riled on this.


It's OK. I get really touch after my menstrual periods too. When my ovaires stop pumpnig out that sweet estrogen, it's like everythign shuts down for me, and everybody becomes a-holes.

Indeed. This is a good reason to dispense with the 5% rule. Voting for someone should be because you think they deserve to be in the Hall, not because you want them discussed.

but you keep saying "within the framework". Right now, "within the framework", if you even want to keep teh player AROUND for discussion, you have to vote for him.

but you keep saying "within the framework". Right now, "within the framework", if you even want to keep teh player AROUND for discussion, you have to vote for him.

I'm agreeing with you that a person might want to vote for someone in order to keep them around. I don't agree with you that a voter must do this. If a voter looks at the roster and concludes no one is worthy and he is satisfied with that conclusion, he shouldn't vote for them.

Sam said it best: Convince me the writers (together with the Vet's Committee) are keeping people out who meet the HOF's stated test, and I'll be on your side.

I agree with this entirely. I think BB and Trammel and Gossage would be okay in the Hall. But I don't think it is a gross miscarriage of justice that they aren't in and may never get in. They're borderline and a lot of the borderline folks won't get in. Which is as it should be, IMO.

If anything, IMO, the current system is flawed in that it allows players to get in who don't meet the HOF's own standard for induction.

Ah yes... specificity vs. sensitivity.

I wish we could have a perfect test, but that'll never happen.

Let me ask you thsi Sam:

what would you rather see, keep the "unworthy" out at the cost of leaving a few "worthy" ones out, or makign sure all the "worthy" ones are in at the cost of a few "unworthy" in the Hall?

The fact that we're having this discussion is that the HOF standard is fuzzy and arbitrary in the first place. With this fuzzy and arbitrary standard, you're going to have to choose either to leave people behind, or let a few leakers in.

I say let the leakers in so no worthy player goes unrecognized.

The fact that we're having this discussion is that the HOF standard is fuzzy and arbitrary in the first place. With this fuzzy and arbitrary standard, you're going to have to choose either to leave people behind, or let a few leakers in.

I say let the leakers in so no worthy player goes unrecognized.

You asked Sam and not me, but I'll answer anyway. I'd go with the former. Make sure no one unworthy gets in even if a few that (maybe) aren't worthy don't get in either. If that resulted in folks like Rickey or Maddux not getting in my vote would change. But if it just results in Puckett or Belle or Sutter, then I'd be fine with it.

Of course, you've identified that the standards are fuzzy and arbitrary. Given that, there is no "right" answer.

if you even want to keep teh player AROUND for discussion, you have to vote for him.

Not necessarily. Take, for example, the thread here where we had our own mock ballot. It was apparent from reading what people were saying that some players I would like to see discussed, but whom I do not yet think are Hall-worthy, were attracting enough votes to keep them on the ballot. A sportswriter who knew that his or her choice was going to reach the 5% threshold could then leave a candidate off the ballot, knowing that the name was safe for future discussion.

Of course, people might not subsequently do what they say they are going to do, but that's a risk with everything.

Well, Ron Santo has dropped off the ballot, and he draws more discussion than anybody except Blyleven.

Whereas Red Schoendienst hasn't had a word said about him in years.

Whereas Red Schoendienst hasn't had a word said about him in years.

I have a feeling i'm being mocked but I'm too young to realize it

Sam M:

Regarding the end of your post of 256 I am not suggesting that the voters always get it "right". All I AM suggesting is that folks deliberate a bit on the subject instead of immediately rushing to brreak out the tar and feathers.

The impetus of my original post was twofold. One, I truly believe in the axiom that you persuade folks easier using honey as opposed to vinegar. Taking shots can certainly make for good reading and a few laughs but it doesn't help acomplish much other than to alienate a large and influential aspect of the larger baseball world. These folks ARE human. And human beings have a silly tendency to actually react when folks hurl invectives their way. Odd, isn't it?

Two, our "leaders" in the community are doing an awful job of presenting our "case" to the masses. And by leaders I am talking about folks who regularly write about baseball matters, have a commercially accessible forum, and who interact with both the public as well as individuals within the baseball world.

Instead of educating their focus is to be a wise*ss. And not a funny wise*ss at that.

Supposedly as justification for this dreadful decision they point to how "people are stupid" and "they are tired of having the same argument".

And to that I respond "Tough sh*t".

If you are going to take the de facto public lead by writing a column (Dayn Perry for example) then you are obligated, yes OBLIGATED, to try and spread "the gospel" in a persistently mild fashion.

We all understand that folks are resistant to change. That people don't like having their belief systems challenged. And if you are a moderately intelligent person you should consider those things when generating material to be consumed by the masses.

Unfair? Tedious? No fun?

Again, I respond, "No. Possibly. Only if you let it."

Then some might retort, "Well Bill James is pretty much a smart aleck. He set the tone."

And I respond, "Oh, you have been writing for several decades? You are a popular author of baseball books. As in you have some degree of credibility?"

Didn't think so.

I have a real problem with Johnny Come Latelys who stand on the shoulders of giants and then get all snarky.

But that's just me.

Are you kidding Jim Rice was probably the most feared hitter in the AL during his prime. Start a team and I'd take him on my team before Reggie Jackson, Tony Perez, Kirby Puckett, Paul Molitor, Wade Boggs and are you crazy Gary Carter in a minute. The writers need to get their head out of their butts.

I have a feeling i'm being mocked

Not at all! I was being completely straightforward -- just trying to telegraph a point that was made (inevitably) by Bill James awhile back. When a player who is arguably Hall-qualified is left out -- Allen, Belle, Blyleven, Gossage, Santo -- discussion is furious and constant. When such a player goes in (Doerr, Fox, Rizzuto, Slaughter, Schoendienst), people stop talking about him. It's a paradox ...

Nothing against Bruce Sutter, whose place is the Hall of Fame is deserved. By definition, Cooperstown is about fame. And today, Bruce Sutter has more fame than he has had in at least 12 years.
The other candidates were simply not famous enough.
That said, Will Clark was robbed.

Harvey, one of the problems with your criticism of the "Johnny Come Latelys" is that you're holding them to a somewhat unfair standard. Not about their tone, or being a smart-*ss. But you're criticizing them for not responding to the "character" argument against Blyleven, when there isn't anyone out there making that argument. I don't doubt that you're right that this affects some of the voters, but it isn't apparent in the public Hall of Fame debate. This is different from Dick Allen or Albert Belle, where the negative incidents are routinely offered when people make the case against them.

Blyleven's statistical record, properly analyzed, is strong enough (especially compared to Hall of Fame precedents) that a voter should have to answer why they're NOT voting for him. And to this point, they haven't done so by bringing up his character issues, at least not directly, so I'm not sure why his supporters have to answer for them.

It's tough for me to see how Will Clark was robbed. He had great rate stats and a great OPS+, but his career wasn't long enough to rack up impressive couting stats. I was comparing Clark and Al Oliver. Clark is the more impressive hitter, but it would have taken a few more years to even match some of Oliver's counting stats and I don't hear people saying that Oliver was robbed.

I agree. Clark was a great player, but for too short a time. His time with the Rangers, O's and Cardinals was good, but nothing special.

What you are saying, in effect, is that someone who disagrees with you on the threshold of worthiness is stupid....

What is a problem is that you think I'm stupid....

have i ever specifically said "Bunyon is stupid?"

Boys, boys! (Or in Chris's condition, Girls, girls!)

Enough jaw-jaw. Time for war-war.

IQ Talks and Bullshlt Walks. And all true SABRmetricans should be able to back up their charges and denials with cold, hard facts.

It's tough for me to see how Will Clark was robbed. He had great rate stats and a great OPS+, but his career wasn't long enough to rack up impressive couting stats. I was comparing Clark and Al Oliver. Clark is the more impressive hitter, but it would have taken a few more years to even match some of Oliver's counting stats and I don't hear people saying that Oliver was robbed.

well Al Oliver was robbed

Yest, I gotta say that you are the first poster I've seen to voice that opinion. I don't know enough about Oliver to have a firm opinion. I could seem in a large HoF, but I can easily see why people who want to recognize only greatness and not long goodness wouldn't want him in.

what would you rather see, keep the "unworthy" out at the cost of leaving a few "worthy" ones out, or makign sure all the "worthy" ones are in at the cost of a few "unworthy" in the Hall?

It depends on how many we're talking about. If the cost of getting ALL the "worthies" in is just one mistake, then I'd pay that price. But if it is to seriously and substantially dilute the quality of the HOF standards, then I'd say keep them out, at least if we're talking about a very small number of "worthies" who are wrongly excluded (and so long as they aren't players I would deem "inner circle" HOFers).

But most importantly, IMO a writer could reasonably feel either way about that question. Along with HW and others, I reject the idea that some of the writers are idiots, or should have their ballots taken away, because they either apply the standard very tightly to keep any mistakes out (up to and including returning a blank ballot) or because they apply it loosely (up to and including feeling there should be at least one inductee every year so they vote for at least one if not more). There is a spectrum of opinions on these questions.

Are you kidding Jim Rice was probably the most feared hitter in the AL during his prime. Start a team and I'd take him on my team before Reggie Jackson, Tony Perez, Kirby Puckett, Paul Molitor, Wade Boggs and are you crazy Gary Carter in a minute. The writers need to get their head out of their butts.

Well, I don't think the "most feared hitter in the AL during his prime" is the HOF standard. Jim Rice didn't have the longevity of Reggie -- who was pretty damned "feared" himself, by the way -- nor of Molitor or Boggs. All three of them are significantly better qualified for the Hall than is Rice. Perez and Puckett I'd give you -- Rice is as qualified as they are, all things considered. But then I wouldn't have voted for them, either. And as for Gary Carter, the hitting stats of catchers are judged on a different standard because of the demands of the position. There has probably only been one catcher in history whose offensive numbers alone would justify his induction had he been a first basemen, and that guy's five-year clock hasn't started running yet.

and that guy's five-year clock hasn't started running yet.

Has he signed with someone? I've been out of touch.

(Sorry for the aside)

Are you kidding Jim Rice was probably the most feared hitter in the AL during his prime.

Hal Trosky, Wally Berger and Roger Maris just called from the beyond. They both told me to tell you to get your head out of your tush.

Blyleven's statistical record, properly analyzed, is strong enough (especially compared to Hall of Fame precedents) that a voter should have to answer why they're NOT voting for him. And to this point, they haven't done so by bringing up his character issues, at least not directly, so I'm not sure why his supporters have to answer for them.

The public perception of Blyleven as a player - at the time he was playing - was that he wasn't as good as his numbers. That's what comes across to most of the HOF voters. His W/L record and lack of awards and recognition - which there is no question that most voters cite as their #1 reason for not voting for him - are part of the reason for that perception. But the underlying character issues - his relationship with the press, his decision to walk out on the Pirates in 1980, his efforts to force trades from the Twins, Rangers, and Indians - are also part of the reason for that perception. Voters aren't usually going to cite those reasons for their vote, because (quite honestly) they sound like petty reasons for keeping someone out of the HOF. But that does not mean that aren't part of the reason for the perception of Blyleven as being someone not as good as his numbers - and the reasons people are publicly citing for not voting for Blyleven come back to this perception. And that perception is grounded in more than just his statistical record, as Harvey (who was there) and I (who was also there) have tried to point out.

It is for that reason that arguments based solely on a comparison of his statistical record to that of other HOFers miss the point. The issue for a large number of voters is not whether Blyleven's statistical record is good enough, but whether Blyleven's statistical record gives an accurate picture of his HOF-worthiness, compared to the perception that he wasn't as good as his numbers. The fact is that he received little award recognition, has very little "black ink" on his resume, and didn't have any really "signature" seasons to which voters can point (no sizzle, as was pointed out earlier) - all of which are reasons to believe that he was not, in fact, "as good as his numbers" without ever getting to the character issues.

And it is that perception - more than anything else - which is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. It goes to his playing ability and his contributions to his teams, both of which are part of the HOF guidelines for voters, and I believe that for that reason it is perfectly legitimate for a voter to take those aspects of his performance into consideration. If Blyleven's teams couldn't leverage his performance into as many wins as they should have (and Chris Jaffe's research suggests this as a possibility), it's fair to at least question the extent to which Blyleven should be held responsible for that. It's also fair to at least question the extent to which Blyleven's 1980 walkout, and his efforts to force trades from other teams for which he played, counters his statistical record. The Pirates were the defending WS champs in 1980 when Blyleven walked out on the team, and when he was traded following that season the Pirates didn't get anything close to full value for him, and were never really the same after that (granting that a number of other players got old, too). Did that hurt the team going forward, and to what extent, and should that be held against Blyleven?

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but they are legitimate questions, in my mind, and some of them have occurred to the HOF voters as well. There are often good reasons to distinguish between two dogs that both hate cats, and there are potentially good reasons to distinguish between Blyleven's statistical record and those of other players who are in the HOF.

-- MWE

Mike:

A truly outstanding post. Thank you.

Sam, I think Bench's hitting alone was enough to justify putting him in the hall. But your general point holds; Gary Carter had a different standard to meet than a 1B/LF.

As for Rice, blecch. He had the monster '78 and was "feared" because of that, but his reputation outstripped his performance. He was hardly somebody the caliber of Bonds or Thomas or Manny, where you find yourself checking the lineup an inning or two ahead of time trying to figure out how soon you need to worry about facing him again.

I've said it before, but if Luis Gonzalez had had his 2001 season early in his career instead of late he and Rice would be the same player. And nobody thinks Luis Gonzalez is a hall of famer.

Good point, fra. I would be happy to see the 5% rule dropped. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing the 15 year rule dropped. If you played 10 seasons and have been retired five, you're eligible, period.

Don't you think that would lead to almost no one getting 75%, much like the early days of voting? Writer A votes for these 10, writer B votes for those 10, writer C votes for 10 thirdbasemen, writer d votes for all pitchers, writer E votes for 10 players from the 60's.

I really don't understand it, but maybe its Tiger-related. How the hell else does Whitaker drop off the ballot after one year? Were people not impressed watching them?

Basically, Whitaker and Trammell were unlucky. They didn't do backflips. They weren't cute. They played in the 1980s, which apparently has already been forgotten, thanks to the 1990s offensive surge. They played for only two playoff teams. They missed All-Star Games they should've been in, because they just didn't stand out enough and/or was in the shadow of an all-time great. One of them had an MVP flat-out stolen. And, of course, they played in Detroit, every sportswriter's least favourite place on earth, for the Tigers, who have had roughly ten zillion straight losing seasons.

Runs Created Above Average at Position, 1982-95

1 Wade Boggs 557
2 Rickey Henderson 555
3 Barry Bonds 453
4 Cal Ripken 391
5 Tim Raines 364
6 Lou Whitaker 357
7 Paul Molitor 352
8 Frank Thomas 346
9 Alan Trammell 332
10 Tony Gwynn 309

All HOFers (or future HOFers) except Lou and Tram, who along with Ripken are the only middle infielders on the list. (And they were good infielders, too.)

Is it frustrating to watch Ozzie Smith and Ryne Sandberg waltz into the Hall while Whitaker gets kicked to the curb, and Trammell gets to dine on the breadcrumbs of far inferior players? Oh, just a little.

Wrote a great rant on Whitaker and Trammell. Got eaten. Ah, well.

Runs Created Above Average At Position, 1982-95

1 Wade Boggs 557
2 Rickey Henderson 555
3 Barry Bonds 453
4 Cal Ripken 391
5 Tim Raines 364
6 Lou Whitaker 357
7 Paul Molitor 352
8 Frank Thomas 346
9 Alan Trammell 332
10 Tony Gwynn 309

All likely HOFers except Lou and Tram (who along with Ripken are the only middle infielders on the list...)

OK, it didn't get eaten. Doesn't make it any better, though, I noticed...

If you played 10 seasons and have been retired five, you're eligible, period

I'd like that rule for a different reason: I don't see why Gary DiSarcina gets either the honor or the humiliation of appearing on the ballot and receiving no votes, while Tim Belcher gets neither.

Sam, I think Bench's hitting alone was enough to justify putting him in the hall. But your general point holds; Gary Carter had a different standard to meet than a 1B/LF.

I doubt it on Bench. Do you think .267/.342/.476, with 389 career HRs and a career OPS+ of 126 in fewer than 8700 PAs would get a first baseman into the HOF? It would shock me if it did.

By way of comparison, Piazza is sitting at .311/.382/.555, with 397 HRs in 7000 PAs. Now, those numbers get a 1B in.

I would be happy to see the 5% rule dropped. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing the 15 year rule dropped. If you played 10 seasons and have been retired five, you're eligible, period.

Personally, I like these rules. It ensures that the majority of the BBWAA is voting on people who played the majority of their career while the sportwriter was covering the game.

There will always be retired sportswriters who weren't working during the players career, and there will always be snot-nosed kids who missed critical elements of the beginning of the players career.

But the 10 year member, 7 year retired, 15 year eligible, 5% minimum works real well to ensure that people aren't voting on stats alone. It ensures they aren't voting on the words of another alone. In fact, it helps ensure that people are voting based on their knowledge of the player from the player's playing days. If you start jimmying the system, you will have a Hall of Stats and lose most of the value of the recognition of hte playing career. You will make trending even stronger. And that is not how it should be.

IMHO, the problem is that people are taking away secondary distinctions from HoF voting:

(1) First Balloter
(2) Any votes (Shout outs)
(3) Bigger margin than Seaver

As a result, the voters are gaming the system. They aren't always voting for who they think should be in, but are voting to get the honorifics. I can live with that, but it will eventually lead to a weird results, like a rabbit winning a 1500K race.

Whitaker and Trammell were unlucky

LOL.

BL, when I made that statement, I'm assuming voters wouldn't go back and vote for someone left out that they didn't have first hand knowledge of. IOW, I don't think dropping those rules would lead to lots of old timers getting in. I think you'd find even without the rules, the vast majority of folks not elected in 15 years wouldn't ever get elected. Just like know most folks not in after 10 years don't get in.

But those certainly would be potential problems.

It ensures that the majority of the BBWAA is voting on people who played the majority of their career while the sportwriter was covering the game.

You can keep the 15-year eligibility but abandon the 5 percent rule and still achieve the same purpose.

The main effect of the 5 percent rule is to avoid a large pool of borderline candidates among whom votes might be too widely scattered to elect any.

Whitaker was one of those players who just snuck on people. He was seen as realy good, but never great. He only got votes in one MVP election, and came a distance eighth then. His black ink score was 1 (led the league in games in '81). He also has a pretty bad black ink score. He made it to five ASG but was most remembered for being the guy who forgot to bring his uniform to one.

But he established it certani level of performance for himself at age 26, and kept it until he retired. That is if you overlook the decreased playing time when he got older. Very strange career arc. In terms of OPS+, his quality increased in his 30s, while his quantity of at bats decreased. No great peak, no great eye-catching prime, but he kept on keepin' on enough long enough to get some pretty nice career numbers. Too bad he retired just as the Silly Ball Era began.

He's also hurt by being a tweener. Good average, not great. Good power, but never 30 HRs in a year and more than 23 only once. Good at drawing walks. Some speed on the bases, but nothing fantastic. Good enough defense to win multiple gold gloves, but overshadowed by Sandberg's many more GGs.

No, the point of the HOF is to put people in who meet the substantive standard.

What substantive standard is that? Regardless of what rules emanate from Cooperstown, the most accurate formulation for a standard for HoF induction is "What a super-majority of the BBWAA says." That's it. The point of the HoF is honoring former players, and like many honors determined by vote, it will do so in a fashion that defies discrete formulations.

Whitaker and Trammell were unlucky

LOL.

Er, they weren't?

I'm convinced if Whitaker were white and played in Chicago...ah, well, you know the drill...

I doubt it on Bench. Do you think .267/.342/.476, with 389 career HRs and a career OPS+ of 126 in fewer than 8700 PAs would get a first baseman into the HOF? It would shock me if it did.

Well, okay, maybe not as a 1B, but perhaps in the OF. Obviously he wouldn't be a first ballot selection, but if guys like Cepeda or Billy Williams can make it.

You're probably right, he didn't have the counting stats just as a hitter. OTOH, if he had been a 1B, his career would likely have lasted longer; certainly his 1970-1972 peak was high enough for an all star even at 1B. But we're venturing into attenuated hypothetical territory at that point.

Re: Gossage in 1976. I recall somebody making a "Paul Richards, genius" comment around Pete Vukovich.

Vukovich responded with (almost a direct quote) "Yeah, made me a reliever and the Goose a starter"

For some reason (perhaps stamina -- I know Gossage talked about the need to pace himself. Maybe the fact that Gossage didn't have the variety of pitches you'd like a starter to have) it really didn't work out.

You're probably right, [Bench] didn't have the counting stats just as a hitter.

Which, by the way, shows just how tough it is for a catcher, over a period of time, to maintain his offense the way every other position player can. Johnny Bench -- Johnny Frigging Bench -- couldn't put up the numbers that would be expected of a HOF corner outfielder or (especially) first baseman.

How come players like Belcher weren't even on the ballot? Who makes that decision?

Maybe I'm missing someting, but unless Tommy John is performing all those surgeries himself I'm still not convinced he deserves in.

He was the first one to get it.

Nope. Steve Hargan was. John's was the first successful surgery of that nature.

From Post 241:

You read article "A" and infer from that "B" and "C" must follow.

I can't agree with this. Like many others, I am simply wondering what % of BBWAA guys fit your description.

As far as the tone issues, you have a point. What I don't see much of in your analysis, though, is an acknowledgment that the arrogance/dismissiveness is on both sides. You seem to be imagining a BBWAA with 500 guys like Red Smith--thoughtful, erudite, soft-spoken, gentlemanly prose craftsmen with a deep love for baseball, passing up more lucrative careers and making personal sacrifices to be around the game. Some of them are like that, I am sure. I am equally sure others are not. The same, no doubt, can be said of "statheads."

I do not know that I would use the term "obligated" but I agree, for the most part, with the honey/vinegar point. That said, I also think one could argue that since voting for the Hall is a privilege, the BBWAA is "obligated" to consider new information and analysis, to make themselves more informed voters, rather than being dismissive of it, even if the guys presenting said evidence are smartasses. Instead of privileging VORP over their memories of Blyleven walking out in 1980, which Emeigh has mentioned several times but which I have not seen many, if any, BBWAA writers discuss (I may have missed it) or vice versa, they need to consider and weigh both.

Finally, the real message, again, is to let more people vote--ex-players, baseball people, statheads, etc. As Bill James said, people other than the BBWAA know enough to contibute intelligently to the HOF vote, and if they could participate, that might, eventually, help with the tone issue, not to mention helping baseball and the HOF in general.

I saw both Sutter and Gossage pitch many times. I have looked at their stats as well. Sutter was a phenomenon in 77-78 and was a key man in getting the Cardinals over the top in 1982. Gossage was a tough, scary excellent pitcher for years and years and a memorable figure in the game's history from that time. I would vote for both of them.

More RCAP goodness...here are the fourteen players with at least 300 Runs Created Above Position who are eligible for the Hall but aren't in:

Pete Browning478
Dick Allen395
Stan Hack370
Lou Whitaker369
Alan Trammell365
Bobby Grich355
Cupid Childs354
Mike Tiernan348
Sherry Magee337
Denny Lyons326
George Gore326
Bob Johnson319
Joe Torre314
Albert Belle310

The Hall's probably all done with 19th-century players, so no Browning, Childs, Tiernan, Magee, Lyons or Gore. That leaves:

Dick Allen395
Stan Hack370
Lou Whitaker369
Alan Trammell365
Bobby Grich355
Bob Johnson319
Joe Torre314
Albert Belle310

Stan Hack...who knew?

For comparisons sake, about 75% of the players in the 300-400 RCAP range are in, and all of the (eligible) players above 400 are enshrined.

Sigh.

robinred:

Thanks for the response.

As to the BBWAA and its communication issues, I will point out that the writers are mostly trying to enhance the readers game experience. Our community wants to change how folks "look" at the game. And in those circumstances where one party is trying to change the paradigm I think the onus is on the change "agent" to take a conciliatory tone.

The tone has been something LESS than friendly and in my opinion it is getting worse. And that serves nobody.

I will also point out that DESPITE the sarcasm the "new" metrics are seeping into the mainstream. It is almost a daily event where a columnist of some kind mentions VORP, or mgl's work, or Dave Studeman's efforts as a part of a baseball discussion. That is a great thing. And instead of CELEBRATING these events too many folks waste valuable time excoriating the new user for getting something wrong. That's helpful..........Not.

And with respect to others voting we here DO have an influence on the vote. You don't think that the columns at The Baseball Analyst on behalf of Blyleven changed a few minds? I KNOW it did. And in other instances via other mediums the same thing occurs. So INDIRECTLY folks who CARE about the game have a voice.

And that voice would be heard even more clearly if some of us would either catch up on our Emily Post or simply STFU. Because you ain't helpin'.

Literally the ONLY player where this community and the HOF voters diverge completely is Dick Allen. I do not wish to renew that conversation but some of you, for just a moment, ponder why MANY fairly well-educated AND open-minded individuals who DO love the game of baseball believe ADAMANTLY that Dick Allen is not a Hall of Fame worthy player. And if your response is that they are stupid, racist, or bear a grudge then you are just as close-minded as those you condemn.

Again, robinred, thanks for the response. I hope I have clarified some of my earlier remarks.

Sincerely,

HW

Thank you, Harvey.

Have you checked out the new Pinstriped Bible link yet?

I have a couple of other points I want to make, but I will save them until after I teach my next class.

And in those circumstances where one party is trying to change the paradigm I think the onus is on the change "agent" to take a conciliatory tone.

Here's the nub of my partial disagreement with you, HW: the onus for a conciliatory tone, a respectful airing of disagreements, an attempt to find common ground is, and should be, on both sides, equally. There is no more excuse for the awful, snarky tone of a Bill Plaschke or a Richard Griffin towards people who look at things differently from them than there is for a Saberist's dismissal of a non-stat perspective on Blyleven or Dick Allen. Discourtesy and rudeness are not a privilege reserved to traditionalists who are defending a paradigm.

Stan Hack...who knew?

Since someone else will surely mention it, the HOM knew when he was elected.

I still use my Jim Rice model Spalding baseball glove that I got in the 5th grade.

Sam M:

And I think most columnists, just like most of us here DO abide by the rules of common civility.

But I want this group to maintain the focus on the FACTS we are presenting. When we snipe we lose focus. When we lose focus we lose TIME.

I want to see many of the good writers here become part of the maintstream in MY lifetime. The Don Rickles wanna-bes are getting in the way.

Shove him out of the way. Preferably out of a moving car.

Any grown up should be able to "handle" a Bill Plaschke.

Rob Neyer lost me as a reader when he allowed John Sterling to verbally humiliate him in the booth several years ago. John Sterling is a solid guy, but any one of a 100 Primates could have handled themselves better. Neyer simply does not have the understanding required to carry the banner for the cause. It was embarrassing. And as a group we should think to only present our BEST face to the wider audience.

I know that reads as unduly harsh. But facts are facts.

Alan Schwarz is that kind of guy. Or it could be a "gal". Or someone like Chief (minus the racial slurs) if having someone of "color" is important.

Just someone who doesn't sound like yipping Dachshund and can convey a cogent thought without notecards.

The "Marketing" around these parts needs to get better.

We have the MESSAGE.

Clearly, the major problem in HOF voting is not the voters, but the method of voting. Having a binary 0/1 system has the damaging aspect of being both underrepresentative, because it promotes conservatism, and overrepresentative, because it implies that all votes for a candidate are equal, when that's rarely the case. (You frequently see writers and fans say, "I'd tentatively vote for that guy.")

A much better method would be to allow each voter to expend up to 10 points on any given player. That way, a writer could award a borderline player such as Jim Rice with 2 points, but give Tony Gwynn his full 10 point due, without feeling as though he is overrepresenting or underrepresenting Rice or the Hall of Fame.

This site's Hall of Merit offers a different kind of system, with weighted points attached to placement on a ballot, but it, too, is flawed because it only offers a limited number of points (unlike the Hall of Fame ballot, whose limit of 10 entries is rarely approached, much less encroached). Limiting the points gives rise to such tactics as abandoning "lost causes" and "pet projects" - players you feel are more qualified but do not have widespread acclaim - and instead advocating for other players (who you may also feel are qualified, only less so) who are closer to making the Hall of Merit.

Having weighted ballots would cure a lot of the conservatism and also dilute the drama of whether or not Player A makes enough ballots. Instead, we would see that players such as Rice, Blyleven, Dawson, and Gossage would probably make everyone's ballot, with varying degrees of support, and from there we could glean a cleaner consensus of their HOF voting position and their chances of making the Hall.

I doubt Cooperstown will ever consider such an option, as it seems both sophisticated (and thus ripe for gaming) and nuanced (a trait the BBWAA has never embraced), but it seems the best option to deflate the head-scratching decisionmaking of most Hall voters.

Alan Schwarz is that kind of guy.

And he has had a fair degree of success I'd say.

I'm unfamiliar with the Neyer/Sterling episode. Can you give a few details? It sounds interesting.

(FWIW, he lost me when I had to pay for him).

Clearly, the major problem in HOF voting is not the voters, but the method of voting.

I don't think this is clear at all.

The fundamental question is "Does [insert player name] belong in the Hall?". To which the answer can be 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'I don't know'.

This system has the virtue of being simple. Each voter decides for him or herself, and decides for each individual player. The aggregate of individual responses is treated as conclusive.

A points system is answering a different question. What you are saying is that the major problem in HoF voting is the question being asked the voters.

Discourtesy and rudeness are not a privilege reserved to traditionalists who are defending a paradigm.

When you hold the whip, you get to say what you like. That's life.

365 posts and the one that opened my eyes was Sandberg's stats versus Sutter. It seems that I remember each one of those meetings, and they distorted my opinion of Sutter as overrated, and closers as overrated.

I'm a medium hall guy, and Sutter's good enough.

HW's whippersnapper post and his followups were next. Good stuff.

Hmm, no RPs? I see Blyleven blowing away Sutter. But Jack Morris? I prefer Sutter [and moreso Gossage].

Bunyon:

First, RNis an awful speaker. High voice (for a man), stumbling speech pattern, and he "swallows" words when he gets nervous. (which is far too often)

FWIW I have coached debate for decades.

Second, he wasn't ready. Sterling controlled the entire discussion around Jeter's defense. RN' s comments made him sound like he barely watched baseball games.

Finally, he lost his composure.

So, his delivery is poor, he cannot express himself, and flusters easily.

Yeah that's my idea of a public face.

FWIW I have coached debate for decades.

Really? High school or college, HW?

Harvey,

How's your above assessment of Neyer different than the critiquing of poor logic and reasoning and writing skills?

Sam M:

Both. More specifically, Lincoln-Douglas debate, Cross-Ex, and forensics. And within forensics things like oratory and extemperaneous speaking.

I am sure you will be shocked to know I'm not much for interp events like poetry or prose. :)

Frida:

I do not understand the question.

...fourteen players with at least 300 Runs Created Above Position who are eligible for the Hall but aren't in....The Hall's probably all done with 19th-century players, so no Browning, Childs, Tiernan, Magee, Lyons or Gore. That leaves:

Dick Allen-- 395 (in 7226 plate appearances)
Stan Hack-- 370 (in 8370)
Lou Whitaker-- 369 (in 9767)
Alan Trammell-- 365 (in 9138)
Bobby Grich-- 355 (in 7977)
Bob Johnson-- 319 (in 7995)
Joe Torre-- 314 (in 8653)
Albert Belle-- 310 (in 6536)

Plate appearance totals added.

And within forensics things like oratory and extemperaneous speaking.

Did that stuff in HS and college myself. In fact, it paid my way through college, and probably got me into law school.

And I actually tried my hand (with only VERY limited success) in the interp events. A way to pass the time at tournaments between the rounds I really cared about . . . .

That is interesting, Harvey. And unfortunate. Those characteristics are pretty much just what Joe Sixpack would expect from a stat geek. So, not only is it a poor performance, it is the poor performance that allows reinforcement of established beliefs.

FWIW I have coached debate for decades.

Really? High school or college, HW?

...

Lincoln-Douglas debate

Geez, HW, you are old! :)

BTW, I think Frida is asking why you get to criticize RNs public speaking but stat geeks don't get to criticize poor analysis from sportswriters. If I may, it is because RN is trying to persuade people to a new way of thinking, while the establishment guy is preaching to the choir. IOW, there is nothing inherently worse about RNs performance compared to a poorly written column except that the cost to the "movement" is damaged much more by RN than is the establishment by, say, Skip Bayless.

<blockquote>Clearly, the major problem in HOF voting is not the voters, but the method of voting.

I don't think this is clear at all.

The fundamental question is "Does [insert player name] belong in the Hall?". To which the answer can be 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' or 'I don't know'.</blockquote>

It's funny that you essentially proved my point, since you suggest "maybe" as an answer to the question, while "maybe" is not an allowed response on a HoF ballot. A points system would allow people to quantify that maybe into a number. Or, to put it in a larger perspective, if 20% of the voters said yes, 60% of the voters said maybe, leaning towards yes, and 20% of the voters said no, that person should have a legitimate shot at the Hall.

And since we are all agreed that HoF voting is very subjective (as well it should be) and that there are different methodologies to quantifying how sure you are that someone is a Hall of Famer, it no longer becomes a yes/no question, but allows the shades of maybe to come into play.

bunyon:

L-D debate is named in the honor of that famous series of debates. Wiseguy! :)

got it on Frida's query. And your response nailed it. "within the family" it's candor spiced with an edge. Keeps us on our toes.

When meeting with "visitors" it's Sunday Suit with a smile. You can still be tough w/o the 'tude.

And if you are going to be funny be FUNNY. The lame metaphors won't cut it.

And if you are going to be funny be FUNNY. The lame metaphors won't cut it.

This is good public speaking advice along all lines. I've more or less cut out introductory jokes from all my talks because, this will shock you, I'm not that funny. Most of my jokes simply took the energy out of the (always earth shattering) data I had to present.


I hadn't heard of the L-D series for students but I figured it was something like that.

I'm fascinated by debate competitions, though I never had the opportunity to participate. It strikes me as very good training for students. Something all students should have to do (maybe not at the level of varsity competition, but still).

It's funny that you essentially proved my point,

The joke may be on you, because the 'maybe' is handled by the HoF ballot system, because of the 75 percent threshold. You can It's just that the individual voter can't vote 'maybe'.

To register a 'maybe', requires a certain amount of networking to see how other people are voting, owing to the 5 percent requirement to remain on the ballot.

The points system is better at answering who is the most deserving, not so good at answering whether they are deserving enough.

It's funny that you essentially proved my point,

The joke may be on you, because the 'maybe' is handled by the HoF ballot system, because of the 75 percent threshold. It's just that the individual voter can't vote 'maybe'.

To register a 'maybe', requires a certain amount of networking to see how other people are voting, owing to the 5 percent requirement to remain on the ballot.

The points system is better at answering who is the most deserving, not so good at answering whether they are deserving enough.

So that's how double posts happen.

I still don't think Sutter is getting his due from what I've been reading and hearing so here are some facts

- led his league in saves 5 out of 6 years (never equalled?)
- 1 Cy Young and voted top 5 three other seasons
- finished top 7 in MVP balloting 5 times
- first NL player to 200 and 300 saves
- 1977 season (not Cy Young in 1984) one for the ages (look it up)
- closed 7th Game of only WS appearance with 2 innings of no hit ball
- excelled in post-season & clutch
- highest paid player in MLB for a time

Also, as has been mentioned, he pioneered both a pitch that is
commonly used today and the way closers are used. There is no doubt he pioneered the split fingered fastball. Sutter is a humble man and always gave credit to Fred Martin and and the two of them share the invention of the pitch. The forkball is gripped between the index and middle fingers whereas the splitter is gripped between the middle and ring fingers. Also the forkball is gripped with the ball jammed as much as possible toward the knuckles but the splitter is gripped as much as possible toward the fingertips. If someone can provide proof that anyone preceding Sutter threw this pitch I would like to see it.

I would have voted for Gossage (and Dawson), but it rankles me to keep reading and hearing that Gossage was better (or more feared - who cares) than Sutter. That just is not the case.

bunyon:

Obviously I am biased, but I think ALL students in any program should first study rhetoric and then have a public speaking.

I confess to thinking a person MUST read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech to have a real appreciation on how to communicate.

Cicero, Martin Luther King, William Jennings Bryan

Must reads

bunyon:

Obviously I am biased, but I think ALL students in any program should first study rhetoric and then have a public speaking.

I confess to thinking a person MUST read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech to have a real appreciation on how to communicate.

Cicero, Martin Luther King, William Jennings Bryan

Must reads

Double post for rhetorical emphasis, Harveys?

Seriously, can you recommend a rhetoric textbook for college freshmen? I am looking at my book orders for Fall. I know that Corbett's Classical Rhetoric is still going strong, but are there others you prefer? I was thinking of The Politics of Glory, but not all my students are going to be strongly into the Rizzuto HOF argument :)

Bob:

Gee, my stuff is ancient. (As you might have guessed.)

Something that contains Cicero's First Philippic I think. William Jennings Bryan "Cross of Gold" speech. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural. (obviously) Martin Luther King "I have a Dream".

The basics in great rhetoric.

If you want one book that really digs deep then Gary Wills, "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America" would be quite good. Not a classic textbook but certainly academic in nature. Just a heckuva break down of what went into an incredible speech.

How's your above assessment of Neyer different than the critiquing of poor logic and reasoning and writing skills?

If I may, it is because RN is trying to persuade people to a new way of thinking, while the establishment guy is preaching to the choir. IOW, there is nothing inherently worse about RNs performance compared to a poorly written column except that the cost to the "movement" is damaged much more by RN than is the establishment by, say, Skip Bayless.

I have no idea what Harveys envisioned, but his statement is much different than the comparison posed in the initial question.

Harveys comment, whether intentional or not, speaks to Neyer's ability as a public speaker. He could have gone even further and talked about his degrading comments to other sports writers, athletes, and fans, and made the conclusion about whether Neyer should even be seen as associated with a cause. Either way, they speak to his qualifications for a specific endevor.

When most saberists insult sportswriters or threaten to take away their votes, they are attacking the person to devalue the message. And its usually not "poor reasoning skills" its usually some defamatory statement like "idiot"

That is not even close to being the same.

Its a gang and pack mentality. Most of the saberists haven't contributed anything to the body of knowledge. Many don't even understand the basic statistical theories that underly the numbers, and a really, really small number are able to do anything beyond classical statistical analysis. Yet its always "we", or "our" cause. That amazes me.

And they sit in their pack, hurling insults and invectives all over the place, and if they meet any resistance they want to talk about "civility", and banning posters, and disenfranchising voters, blah blah blah.

Now, let me be clear about one thing. I'll defend that statement, but I'm not packing on Harveys bandwagon. He is not above tuning the rhetoric up himself.

I reject the idea that some of the writers are idiots, or should have their ballots taken away

Children before ballots

Well said, BL (pun intended :-)

Rickey will break Seaver's 98.84 percent record. Book it.

"Limiting the points gives rise to such tactics as abandoning "lost causes" and "pet projects" - players you feel are more qualified but do not have widespread acclaim - and instead advocating for other players (who you may also feel are qualified, only less so) who are closer to making the Hall of Merit."

I don't think we have this problem. We specifically tell people not to abandon lost causes or pet projects, and vote for the 15 you think are the best candidates in order. To my knowledge, everyone complies with this, again, because we ask them too. When we notice something amiss, like a voter dropping someone off his ballot from one year to the next, we ask him why, and explain that we don't want them doing that. I'm sure some trickle through, but I don't think it happens very often.

We had 81 players receive a vote in the last election 36 of which were named on 3 ballots or less (out of 45 ballots cast), so I don't think this is an issue.

"When we notice something amiss, like a voter dropping someone off his ballot from one year to the next, we ask him why, and explain that we don't want them doing that."

I should have added, " . . . unless they've re-evaluated and don't believe the player is one of the 15 best candidates any more."

Rickey will break Seaver's 98.84 percent record. Book it.

I doubt it. His perceived arrogance by itself (remember when he broke Brock's record?) will cost him 5-10 votes.

"When we notice something amiss, like a voter dropping someone off his ballot from one year to the next, we ask him why, and explain that we don't want them doing that."

Great. Just what maerica needs more of. I voted for him before I voted against him. EXACTLY what you folks down in the USA needs

Gary Wills, "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America" would be quite good. Not a classic textbook but certainly academic in nature

Many thanks, Harveys! I had never thought of using Wills in this context, but it might be perfect for what I'm planning.

John Franco - Won't come close. Even Mets fans don't think he's worthy.

This Met fan thinks Franco is a worthy HOF.

There are 16 players in baseball history with a better ERA+ than Franco. 9 are HOF right now. 4 are locks (RJ, Maddux, Clemens, Pedro). 2 played before 1920. The other is Quisenberry. So there's one modern player with a better ERA+ that isn't in or a lock for the HOF.

But ERA+ is somewhat advanced for most sportswriters. They will look at stuff like "2nd highest number of games finished in his career" and "third all-time in saves (rivera should pass him, but nobody else is really on pace to)." Plus he had a 21 year career and was effective as late as age 42. He was pretty durable as well.

It's easy to poke fun at Franco because he really was awful in the last two years, but this guy was a dominant closer for a long time. I would rank Franco above Sutter and Gossage (although I wouldn't put either of them in the HOF). The only reason I could see excluding Franco is if you seriously punish relievers, because he was certainly one of the best relievers in baseball for a very respectable career.

Its a gang and pack mentality. Most of the saberists haven't contributed anything to the body of knowledge

I actually don't see this a lot in published stat-oriented work. You see it to some extent in some Web forums (at Primer, less so, really; this is a civilized place) -- and in the less professional blogs. But such venues are, for me, the 21stc. equivalent of talk radio, or before that, Duffy's Tavern. There will always be people who think sportswriters are idiots. It didn't bother Hugh Fullerton and it's unlikely to bother Mike Lupica.

Bob:

Good luck. My bias showed as I consider Abraham Lincoln to be not just one of the greatest figures in U.S. history but in world history.

Just an extraordinary individual.

One of my more favorite historically based "quiz" questions to ask folks is, "Who was the featured speaker at Gettysburg?". Clearly once I ask the question folks know it can't be Abraham Lincoln. So far, nobody has ever answered the question correctly.

I wish I had an original program which included the statement, "And a few remarks from the President of the United States"

I find that simple passage to be astonishing, educational, and hilarious all at the same time.

It was the governor of PA, wasn't it? I knew it wasn't Lincoln and used to know who it was.

His second inaugural is awesome. Everytime I'm at the Lincoln memorial I sit and wonder why none of our politicians can figure out that talking for hours isn't the same as talking well.

My bias showed as I consider Abraham Lincoln to be not just one of the greatest figures in U.S. history but in world history.


I like Jesus myself. Because he's a minority.