As an example of the kind of columns Cook turns out, behold: "It's very simple: Simon is a steal".

This one is also quite entertaining in retrospect, particularly when read alongside this one.

As far as I can tell, the people on the BBWAA list are all professional wordsmiths, spinning sentences of tales of the times for discriminating readers. As they should, BBWAA refuses to enlist fat-boy pamphleteers. If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution.

If you care... Will be on XM 175 talking this issue tomorrow (Weds.) at 12:45pm ET/9:45am PT.

We didn't get to the BBWAA on XM (something about this guy Mitchell that they wanted to talk about), but here's what I was prepared to mention...

I spoke yesterday with someone that worked for The AP at their New York offices that told me in his 8-years with the organization, a key member that is on the list, "Could have never come even close to meeting Bob Dutton's low requirement."

We discussed how many on the list would seem extremely valuable to have as members, but based upon the inclusion requirement that stubbed Neyer and Law in the foot, many members would not meet the same. There are columnists that live in Vegas and Portland that would be hard pressed to make 20 games, let alone 40.

I have been asked repeatedly now, "Why isn't this story getting any play in the [mainstream] media?" Well, it's pretty obvious... don't bite the hand that feeds.

This whole issue is perfectly understandable. This is how the newspaper business works.

Great profession I'm entering.

One thing that I haven't really seen mentioned is a basic question. "would Rob and Keith having credentials help them do their job better?".

I've seen the question the other way plenty of times, where it was asked "is credentials necessary for their work?" but that really shouldn't be the question, they do a good job now without it, but being a member of the BBWAA (assuming you aren't one of those that think it's a dead/dying organization) opens up doors by probably providing better access (or more convenient) than just having a press pass.


I still don't even begin to understand the argument about the difference between print media vs internet, it's still writing.

I posted this over on another thread, but I actually under counted. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has NINE members in the BBWAA. Two, Carrol Rogers and David O'Brien probably meet the 40 game requirement. They are the two primary beat writers. Terrance Moore, Furman Bisher, and Tim Tucker all hold BBWAA cards, but maybe contribute one story per week on the Braves during the season, often times much less. I'm almost positive they don't make the cut. Thomas Stinson, Mark Bradley, and Jeff Schultz may contribute on a more regular basis than Moore or Bisher, though I have serious doubts that they hit the threshold either. As for Steve Hummer, I think he covers football?

I posed a question about the BBWAA maelstrom to David O'Brien in his blog and he ignored me, which I understand since it's his blog and he probably doesn't want anything to do with this. But I was curious, as I believe he was on the internet member selection committee and seems to be fairly progressive as print writers go. Anyway, I'd be glad to do further research on the matter (as far as the AJC goes).

I myself am a historian and a member of several professional organizations and it would seriously burn my chaps if the AHA told me to join I had to be tenured or tenure-track to gain admittance, with the permission of the university employing me. There's a lot of great independent researcheres and people at community colleges that would be left out in the cold.

Again, we have multiple issues swirling around, and everyone's swinging hammers at them as though they're all nails. Let's separate the issues and deal with them separately.

1. The BBWAA has an informal standard of game attendance for entry of new members.

Yeah, as they likely should. It's being at the park and having the kind of access membership would provide that should determine eligibility. That's their reason for existence. It might not be your reason for their existence - but that's your problem, not theirs.

2. The standard to gain membership appears to be much more stringent than the standard to maintain membership.

This is where I think the major legitimate beef is with the BBWAA. They seem to expect more out of new members than "legacy" members. That said, if the main purpose of membership is access, I don't see what the harm is in having more lax standards to maintain membership as long as the privilege isn't being abused. (Before you respond on the "if" in that sentence, it's addressed below.) And I'm sure if a political cartoonist were showing up to the ballpark every day to watch the game under the pretense of media access, their BBWAA membership would likely be revoked. Regardless, this seems to be an issue for the BBWAA to deal with.

3. The separate processes for local vs. national media produce significant variations in standards.

Another legitimate beef, IMO. A local paper might have one beat writer who handles most games a year, plus backup writers who handle the rest. Those backups still need just as much access to do the job; they just need it less frequently - and only when the first-stringer won't be there. I can easily see a local chapter allowing membership to the backups, even if they attend fewer MLB games than, say, Keith Law. I doubt those kinds of exceptions will be made very often at the national level.

Heck, there doesn't seem to be much incentive for the local media to allow in the national media at all. The national folks might need access for 120 games a year, but only 4 in each park. If someone needs access for 4 games, there's no reason they can't negotiate that with the local team, right? And if they're my competition, why let them?

None of that, IMO, is a legitimate argument for exclusion of the national folks. I'm willing to entertain arguments that I'm missing something, but that's how I see it. I do see the argument that a media outlet covering the team on a consistent basis needs credentials for their backups, but IMO the rationale should apply nationally.

4. Membership means more than just access. It means Hall of Fame voting, too.

As Bob Dutton put it, that's up to the Hall of Fame. I see no reason why the BBWAA should modify its membership because the Hall of Fame's voting rules are obsolete. I think anyone suggesting they do so is barking up the wrong tree. The Hall of Fame should update their rules to include people outside the BBWAA membership, and perhaps require the BBWAA to appoint some capped subset of their current and former membership for Hall of Fame voting.

5. Membership means more than just access. It means the "official" awards, too.

Clearly the BBWAA awards are not any more official than the BBWAA membership is the official arbiter of who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. That is, at one point they served as a sufficient enough proxy; they have become insufficient as a proxy; and nobody has done a damn thing about it. Teams are using BBWAA awards (and now as little as one vote!) in contract incentives; and fans still cite the awards as the final answer in who's the best, despite the pretzel logic put forth by some BBWAA members to rationalize their votes.

The problem here is not that Rob Neyer doesn't have a voice in the matter. He does. He has no voice in the BBWAA awards, but anyone with enough sense to recognize Rob adds value in these kinds of things is already hearing what he has to say and valuing his opinion on awards higher than they do with the BBWAA voters. No, the problem is that many people don't believe that the BBWAA awards are insufficent to meet their needs.

But what, really, are their needs? Simple minds love simple solutions, and the BBWAA awards are a series of simple solutions. You don't need to weigh the rationales, or even understand whether the arguments have any merit at all. It's an answer; it's right most of the time; and it has history. Really, their needs are met. You have higher standards? Fine, do what you must.

6. Membership means more than just access. It means prestige.

Really? You're kidding, right? Look at the names on Maury's list.

Once you've separated out the HOF voting (it's up to the HOF) and the awards (outlived their usefulness), what's left? Whatever smell that is, it ain't prestige.

7. The people excluded certainly could do better with the access that membership provides.

So could the 8000+ people who contribute to this site. We're all baseball writers. But there's nothing essential about what we do that requires constant access. Currently, the same appears (to me) to be true for Rob Neyer and, to a lesser extent, Keith Law. It applies more to me than it does to them, but just because there's a HUGE difference between Neyer/Law and me, that doesn't mean they should get the access. To me there's still a fundamental difference between what they do and what is done by the usual BBWAA member, with the latter needing the kind of access membership provides. If Neyer or Law could do better, they should seek out one of those jobs or petition their employer to change the scope of their current assignments.

Frankly, I don't want that. They are very good at what they do; and it's in my own self-interest that they contribute to my baseball experience in their current roles. If they want a different role, they have my blessing; but without such a blessing from an employer they're not getting BBWAA membership.

8. The BBWAA relied on some unknown ESPN personnel, who may or may not have any knowledge about the need for Neyer and Law to have access.

Yes. Until that person or people come forward, we won't know what they know about it. I suspect they know more about their need for access than we do, but while that suggests we can't judge, it doesn't necessarily mean they can judge.

Another conspiracy theory is that the BBWAA made up the story about the mystery ESPN employee in order to justify their rejection of Law and Neyer. Look, these folks reject people for the Hall of Fame in their first year simply because they don't want them elected in their first year, and they openly admit it. Why would they be so secretive on this one? I'm not buying it.

9. Those two were singled out by the BBWAA.

Were they? Or was the same question asked about the other national applicants? I've yet to see anything suggesting that they were the only two asked about; I've only seen that they were the only two for whom the answers from a representative of their employer were unsupportive of membership. If they were singled out, it was by an ESPN representative; if they couldn't clear that hurdle I don't see why this is the BBWAA's problem.

- - - -

So, to sum up, the BBWAA is at the center of many problems. Some of them are for the Hall of Fame to resolve; others belong to the public; others belong to Rob Neyer, Keith Law, and ESPN. The problems that truly belong to the BBWAA can be resolved, but doing so will not result in Rob Neyer or Keith Law becoming BBWAA members - nor would it make sense for them to become BBWAA members.

Rob and Keith, I get the impression that you wanted membership. I really have to suggest that you should consider what BBWAA membership means to you, and compare that to what BBWAA membership means to the BBWAA. Seriously, if BBWAA membership is a real goal for you, you should look at what kind of job will get that for you, and pursue it. I don't get the sense that either of you want that kind of job, because your heart wouldn't be in it.

You don't need BBWAA membership as some kind of affirmation or certification of what you currently do. Look at the passion to which you've been defended here and elsewhere; the number of hits your columns get; the number of times other people cite you as a voice of reason. It's not that people want you to be a BBWAA member because without it they think less of you; rather, we want you in because, without you, we think less of the BBWAA. You couldn't ask for better.

I posted this over on another thread, but I actually under counted. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has NINE members in the BBWAA. Two, Carrol Rogers and David O'Brien probably meet the 40 game requirement.

Just to reiterate: there is no "40 game requirement." That's what Dutton said he personally would favor.

The Bay Area writers appear to be mostly legitimate...

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Glenn Schwarz [Sports Editor]
Bruce Jenkins, Ray Ratto, John Shea, Gwen Knapp, Henry Schulman, Scott Ostler, Susan Slusser are all regular baseball writers.

San Francisco Examiner

Jim Pimentel [Editor + sports blogger]

Oakland Tribune

Art Spander, Carl Steward, Monte Poole are all regular baseball writers
Jon Becker [editor]
Josh Suchon hasn't written for 18 months. He is the broadcaster for the Modesto Nuts A ball team

San Jose Mercury

Mark Purdy, Ann Killion, Andrew Baggarly, Tim Kawakami, Dan Brown write about baseball regularly
Bud Geracie does write about baseball sometimes, mostly football
Laurence Miedema writes about college sports, at least recently

I generally agree with 108, BUT I'm struck by fact that the same argument could be made for some of the other new admittees. True, they may not need the credential to do thier job, but others may not meet that test. It does seem that Keith and Rob were held to a higher standard. If nobody had heard of them and the WWL put them up, would they have sailed through?

On another front, is anybody from Baseball America a member? I didn't see anybody.

Just to reiterate: there is no "40 game requirement." That's what Dutton said he personally would favor.

Sorry, should have clarified as the rough guideline as defined by Dutton. Point still stands, however.

The Philadelphia writers:

Bill Conlin regularly writes about the Phils in his columns.
Hal Bodley covers baseball for USA Today.
Paul Hagen covers the Phillies.
Rich Hoffman is mosty a football writer now, but he still does articles on the Phillies, albeit irregularly.
I'm not familiar with Jim Gauger, Ed Hilt, Martin Frank, Mike Sielski, Dan Gelston, Nick Fierro, Steve Miller, or Kevin Noonan.
Claire Smith has baseball columns in her archive, but I know she doesn't cover the team, and I don't think she writes regularly anymore. In Rob's wangdoodles column, I mistakenly said she doesn't write about baseball, though I probably blocked her from my memory. She's the Famuly Circus of the sports section.
I don't see anything recent from Rod Beaton in the USA Today archive.
I don't think Carchidi covers baseball anymore but I could be wrong.
Sam Donnellon covers basketball, baseball, hockey, and football.
McCaffery regularly writes about the Phillies.
I don't see any recent articles from Kevin Roberts or Phil Anastasia in the Philadelphia area, but that could be because their paper stopped archiving articles online after 05.
Jim Salisbury regularly writes about the Phillies/baseball (I'm almost 100% sure he took over the Sunday baseball column from Jayson Stark when Stark left the Inky).
Randy Miller and Dennis Deitch write about the Phillies still, though I can't speak to how much.
I think Rob Maaddi is still a baseball writer for the AP.
Marcus Hayes writes regularly about baseball (and football).
Todd Zolecki writes about baseball frequently (I think he's the team's beat writer).
Bob Ford covers all sports.
It appears that Kevin Cooney is mostly on football now.
Mike Radano regularly writes about baseball.
Scott Lauber still writes about baseball (though he and the last several names are more recent inductees).
Jim Jenks is an editor and I can't recall seeing many, if any, articles by him.
Phil Sheridan is mostly a football guy, but he does articles on the Phillies when football isn't is in season, and during football season semi-regularly.

So it appears that the Philadelphia writers still maintain a healthy stream of baseball articles, even older inductees like Conlin and Hagen.