User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1188 seconds
82 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Baseball Analysts: Lederer: Q&A: Tracy Ringolsby on the BBWAA
And on top of the umpty ump go-round on the BBWAA/internet writers situation...we get Ringolsby’s HOF picks.
Tracy: Alphabetically, Bert Blyleven, Dave Concepcion, Rich Gossage, Jack Morris, Lee Smith and Alan Trammell. The biggest debates for me were Tim Raines, who obviously was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, but also if you take Vince Coleman’s five top years, I would say he outperformed Raines, too, and I don’t see Coleman as a Hall of Famer.
...Rich: You sent me an email last year, saying that you had come around on Blyleven. I commend you for being open minded on the subject and changing your vote. My next project is to have you see the light on Raines. I would be remiss if I let the comparison to Coleman go by without comment. Yes, they both played left field, led off, and stole a lot of bases. But, other than that, the difference between Raines and Coleman is like night and day. Raines hit .294/.385/.425; Coleman, .264/.324/.345. That’s 141 points of OPS. Over the course of their careers, Raines got on base twice as often and had twice as many total bases as Coleman.
I know you referenced their top five years, but the truth is that Raines (.334/.413/.476 with an OPS+ of 151) was a much better player than Coleman (.292/.340/.400 with an OPS+ of 104) at their respective peaks, too. I don’t think the five-year numbers are much different. We agree on Coleman. He’s not a Hall of Famer. But we disagree on Raines. I believe he is very worthy. I hope you keep an open mind on Raines and give him a closer look next year.
Tracy: That’s probably not the only one we disagree on. Raines will have to get in line for me, behind Dawson and Murphy and Rice, while I still try and sort those three out. I know there is support for each of them, but I guess what I have the hardest time dealing with is why Rice’s support seems stronger when I would put him third out of the three, and I’m not convinced yet on any of the three. Now that’s where a vote gets difficult because I have so much respect for the people that Dawson and Murphy are that it is hard not to put them on my ballot.
Repoz
Posted: December 26, 2007 at 02:15 AM | 41 comment(s)
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame, Media, Online
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame, Media, Online
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: MLB, Granderson join anti-obesity effort
(104 - 11:39pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia
(104 - 11:39pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia
Newsblog: Hardball Talk: Gleeman: Lenny Dykstra is back with some more can't miss investment advice
(135 - 11:38pm, Feb 09)
Last: depletion
(135 - 11:38pm, Feb 09)
Last: depletion
Newsblog: JS Online: Schoeneweis signs minor league deal with Brewers
(2 - 11:38pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)
(2 - 11:38pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)
Newsblog: Borzi: Upbeat Twins owner Jim Pohlad has lots to say but stays mum on the Mauer issue
(18 - 11:37pm, Feb 09)
Last: Replacement-Level Primate
(18 - 11:37pm, Feb 09)
Last: Replacement-Level Primate
Newsblog: Dodger Thoughts: In search of truth about Frank McCourt and the Dodgers
(7 - 11:34pm, Feb 09)
Last: Tripon
(7 - 11:34pm, Feb 09)
Last: Tripon
Newsblog: FanGraphs: Carruth: Fastball Losses
(11 - 11:32pm, Feb 09)
Last: Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter)
(11 - 11:32pm, Feb 09)
Last: Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter)
Newsblog: MLB: Mays' life and legend transcend statistics
(82 - 11:18pm, Feb 09)
Last: Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter)
(82 - 11:18pm, Feb 09)
Last: Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter)
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I like how he seems to imply that the situation is still fluid as to whether players who have been out of the league for over a decade are worthy of going into the Hall of Fame or not.
Rice retired in 19-freakin'-89 for God's sake. Either he belongs in the HOF or he doesn't.
Is that how most of the BBWAA sees Raines? Vince Coleman with a longer career? Holy hell.
Something to consider.
If that's the case, Harvey, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
So yeah, I'm with Harvey on this one.
Mom!
Vince Coleman???!!!!
I think you're giving him way too much credit. My guess is that he just tossed the Raines/Coleman comparison out there without having spent much (any?) time thinking about it, and once Lederer pointed out the stupidity of the comparison he changed the subject to Rice, Dawson and Murphy.
Except a ridiculous number of worthy candidates drop off the ballot because of the 5% rule. It would be nice if we could keep arguing for Whitaker or Will Clark. Whoops!
That's the kind of comment that is so inane that it diminishes the author more than it does the intended recipients of the insult. Even if it were later claimed to be sarcasm, it would have failed just as spectacularly on that front.
That said, the comparison of Raines to Coleman in terms of peak case for the Hall is preposterous.
Forget his BBWAA membership card, column space, and HOF vote... Anyone that says this:
Probably shouldn't really be allowed to even watch baseball.
Do us all a favor and take up curling, Tracy....
Hey, he at least recognizes Coleman isn't a HOFer. He doesn't seem to have an opinion on Otis Nixon, though.
I disagree vehemently with his position on Raines, but his stance on Blyleven shows he's willing to hear out the opposing point of view and change.
BTW, giving us a big FU at the expense of Raines' candidacy would be pretty juvenile.
Two things: 1) not necessarily what Harv was saying. It's not a matter of vote for Raines or say he's Coleman. A person can think he's better than Coleman but still far short of Hall-worthy. I thought post #4 theorized that he said his position in a way to stir things up, not that he took a position in order to stir things up.
2) That's just Harv's theory anyway. TR doesn't post under HW's name.
Have you ever met a sportswriter? They're basically the people who flunked out of gym class and journalism school, and were rejected by McDonalds.
Oy. Have you ever met a sportswriter? THe people I know who have, such as Sean Forman, who saw them in action at the winter meetings, have a consierably higher opinion of them than this. Second, this guy isn't just a sportswriter. He was elected head of the BBWAA and given the Spinks Award. I have a lot of trouble believing his opinion isn't worthy of respect (even if I think it's wildly off the mark) and that he isn't a passionate baseball fan.
Living in Chciago, I can tell you some sportswriters (cough Jay Mariotti cough) well deserve every negative thing you can say about them. But those guys aren't given the highest awardds possible by their peers. (Actually, with Mariotti, you get some occasssional evidence that other sportswriters think he's scum as well, but that' another story).
Oy. Have you ever met a sportswriter? THe people I know who have, such as Sean Forman, who saw them in action at the winter meetings, have a consierably higher opinion of them than this. Second, this guy isn't just a sportswriter. He was elected head of the BBWAA and given the Spinks Award. I have a lot of trouble believing his opinion isn't worthy of respect (even if I think it's wildly off the mark) and that he isn't a passionate baseball fan.
Of course what David wrote was his usual hyperbole, and Sean isn't the only one who could name scores of exceptions to that hit-and-run description.
That said, lots of those Spink awards were given out largely on a basis of seniority and and not due to any discernable merit. Most of them are eminently worthy of the honor, but it's a long leap between Leonard Koppett and Murray Chass. I also note some obvious omissions, such as Thomas Boswell, who for all his faults has certainly been one of the game's premier writers for the past 30 years. That award of Ringolsby's in and of itself means very little.
And yes, I've met sportswriters. I've met journalists, and I've found very few of them even in more 'serious' parts of the media who I would trust to find their way out of a phone booth, if phone booths still existed -- but the sportswriters I've encountered are even lower, because few people think the field is important enough to care about the quality of the work. (When I say the "quality of the work," I don't refer to the technical aspects of writing, although I wouldn't exactly say I was impressed with many sportswriters in that arena, either.)
Yeah. Josh Adande ("J.A." now), Dennis Manoloff, Victor Chi off the top of my head. Each of them very smart, hard workers.
Read the link... look at the comments regarding the BBWAA inclusion process. Every time there is an interview with someone on the topic, the landscape shifts.
I can tell you this... I've interviewed more than one that have said directly that there is no way that some of the members should be included in the BBWAA based upon the number of games they take in. As someone that contacted me and was at the NY office of The AP for 8-years said, "Look at the list. It's a joke." He said that he knew personally of a key AP member that never went to games -- less than 5 a year -- that was on the Badge List. He brought up how one columnist lived in Vegas... how in the world would you get in 40 games a year if you lived in Vegas?
All that said, everyone that has looked at the list sees value in having these types in the mix with the BBWAA. What got screwed up was by making Neyer and Law the only two that didn't make it in, they brought focus on the whole process -- the subjective manner of saying that members have to attend a, as Ringolsby says, "cover the team on a regular basis." If 4 or 5 had not been selected, there wouldn't have been nearly the bluster -- Neyer and Law would have most likely been lost in the mix.
I agree. It's better than 80% of the ballots we've seen. The Coleman thing is dumb but less dumb than two suggestions I got last week from world experts in their field who generally provide a lot of insight. Everyone is entitled to throw out some bad off the cuff ideas - especially in this sort of interview.
Credit to Ringolsby as well for geting out there and trying to give poeple an insight into the BBWAA process. After the whole Law brouhaha it reflects well on him that he is getting out there and generating some more constructive debate.
That being said, here are some things I learned about Vince Coleman on BBref.com thanks to this thread. He scored 100 runs only twice in his career. He only really played five-seven full seasons, depending on what you define as a full season. 107 SB and 14 CS is just out of this world sick, holy cow. He was pretty much a full time leftfielder, so no bonus points for center at all. He once only had 28 (!) RBIs in a full season. He hit above .280 three times, only once in a 500 AB season. He struck out an awful lot for a guy with no power.
I had a much higher opinion of Coleman before I looked at the numbers.
That's exactly what I thought both men were saying, so I still stand by post, Chris. It's one thing to say that Raines doesn't belong in the HOF, but it's another thing to say Coleman was better than Rock at his peak. That's just irresponsible.
For my part, Mr. Ringolsby, I applaud your choices of Blyleven, Gossage, and Trammell for your Hall of Fame ballot, and respectfully encourage you to reconsider Tim Raines. Others more eloquent than myself can make his case well. I'd like to give you and the BBWAA the benefit of the doubt regarding the addition of the internet BBWAA members this year, but circumstantial evidence makes the exclusion of just Rob and Keith very fishy. I urge you to carefully re-consider them (as well as your justification for excluding them this time) next year.
Fair enough. Looking at the list, it seems it's a combination of merit and longevity. Boswell really came into his own in the early 1980s. (From memory, Maury's link of BBWAA members had Boswell show up later than I would guess, not getting his membership until around then). Boswell will get his in the next decade.
That's undeniable. Equating Raines to Coleman deserves zero respect.
Two things:
1) there's a differnce in whether or not you deny something or if it's deniable.
2) There's a huge difference between disdaining an opinion and disdaining the person who has the opinion. Everyone - without exception - has some opinions that are absurd and nusto. That doesn't mean all people ought to be scorned.
I love that tv show The Lost World. It's got dinosaurs and ghosts and lizard people and cleavage and volcanoes and pirates. Goddam I love that show!
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3168797&name=Neyer_Rob
In any case, anyone who actually looks at the careers of Coleman and Raines HAS to realize that Ringoslby either (a) Had a brain cramp; or (b) Got confused.
Ultimately, it was an interview, not a court deposition, so I'll give the man the benefit of doubt since he picked Blyleven, Gossage and Trammell for the HoF.
That's what I was trying to say above. I don't think TR was trying to provoke anyone and I doubt he seriously believes that Raines and Coleman are similar in any way. I think the comparison just popped into his head and he tossed it out there without much thought.
I kind of took it that way, too. The acid test will be whether he repeats it in the future...
Do you think the negative reaction to Ringolsby's Raines/Coleman mess-up is a case of BTF posters getting back at him?
I'm pretty sure it is, which is sad, because I see a lot of benefit in writers participaing in forums such as these, and I really don't get why some people get-off on dissing writers for a mess-up that apparently was cleared up between Ringolsby, Neyer and Law (one of the first things I learned as I was moving from my teens to adulthood was to avoid, as much as possible, becoming "enemies" with people out of solidarity with someone else who had the original misunderstanding with that person).
After all, he specifically cited their best five years, not some vague statement like "Vince Coleman did a lot of things just as well as Raines, and he's not a HOFer."
Maybe, although it's such a facially stupid comment that it's easy to understand why people would react in the way that they have, esp. in light of the fact that Raines already seems so underappreciated. But I'm sure TR's earlier comments played a role.
I don't have a ton of sympathy for TR because he was pretty obnoxious in that other thread. I'd love to have more writers participate, but I see no reason to bend over backwards to accomodate them just because they're public figures. If a writer joins in and makes an inflammatory or stupid comment he's going to get called on it. That's the nature of the beast.
It's a strange/dumb enough assertion that I think just about anybody would get some negative attention for forwarding it in an (apparently) serious fashion. Some people here might have retributive desires toward Ringolsby (which would be kind of sad), but if they do, I don't think this thread is a good example of such.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main