As I said, this was a long time ago, and remains a painful subject for me. But...

Tracy, my point is that you're upset with Keith because he's attributed actions/thoughts/etc to you without checking. Fair enough. While it's true that you reported my use of an alias -- for which I paid a dear price, by the way -- you also attributed thoughts and motives to me, and those were pure guesses on your part. You could have asked for my side of the story first, just as Keith could have asked for yours. You didn't. Which is why I find your current stance, from my (admittedly very personal) perspective, a tad hypocritical.

It really wasn't my intention to defend Keith Law here, but it appears Ringolsby has had a bone to pick with him long before Law joined ESPN. If you read the Rongolsby article linked in the blog entry above, Ringolsby wrote this before Law became a journalist for ESPN

TWO CENTS' WORTH

Let's see, Keith Law is forced out as an adviser to Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi, and ESPN makes him an instant celebrity in his evaluation of everything from amateur draft choices to MVP voting.

Law runs his statistical analyses and gets personal with those with whom he disagrees.

Wonder if he is using the same analysis system that helped him in Toronto when the Blue Jays signed Eric Hinske to that four-year contract and proclaimed him the foundation for the Jays' future? Was it the same approach to evaluation that led to the Jays using back-to-back first-round picks on Russ Adams and Aaron Hill, neither of whom emerged as the needed shortstop?

This post, with all apologies to Ringolsby, smacks of plenty of personal distaste for Law that has nothing to do Law's qualifications as a journalist, his qualifications to analyze or cover the game, or his ability to get "things right", which is a key point in post 50.

In fact, it appears that Ringoslby just has it for Law, Riccardi, and the Blue Jays organization in general. Heck, it seems to me that JP/Law are to Ringolsby what Billy Beane is to Joe Morgan. I do find the insinuations that Law largely responsibly for the Hill/Adams picks or the Hinske extension to be both inflammatory and dismissive of the fact that JP, the GM, and not Law, the assistant, was ultimately responsible for the draft picks and the Hinske extension. It's very intellectually dishonest to place the blame for a couple of draft picks and an extension on an assistant, and imply that Law personally was responsible for the mess that has been JP's draft history.

Ironically, I have heard that, in 2006, Law and LaCava were advocating that the Blue Jays take Troy Tulowitzki with their first round pick, and were overruled by JP who instead took Ricky Romero. Given Law's purported evaluation of Hill and Adams, it stands to reason that Tulowitzki would turn into a total bust, and would also fail to emerge as the needed shortstop in Toronto. I imagine Ringolsby, a Rockies reporter, can see the irony here.

Btw, just for the record, I do stand by post 44. I'd much rather read what Law would write about the Rockies farm system in the upcoming BA book, than leaf through Ringolsby's write-up.

Finally, I find this post truly ironic...

There have been several times during the year I have questioned him on his facts ... and he has explained the mistakes by saying he is young and inexperienced and makes mistakes but people need to be understanding. Boy that's great crediblity.

... in light of this recent opening paragraph by Ringolsby:

After giving up three of its top five pitching prospects in July of 2006 to acquire Livan Hernandez from Arizona and then shelling out a two-year, $26 million deal to get Randy Johnson — bad back and all — to return, Arizona finds itself searching for rotation help.

There were only two pitching prospects, and they went to Washington. That's the type of credibility and fact checking one would expect from a nationally recognized BBWAA member.

Best regards.

you used an alias to attack the author's works.

Such as in posts 4 and 9.

Most of "US" ? Us, i.e. primates, and otherwise saber savvy fans are still a relatively small group. 95% of baseball fans still look to the bbwaa awards as the definitive and final say on individual performance.

good point, but still, i think my point stands. in many ways, the work produced here and on other sites is better than the work produced by ANY bbwaa writer. and from that perspective, the bbwaa is irrelevant because this 5% is changing the face of the game, slowly but surely. people contributing work on this site have been hired by some of the more progressive baseball organizations. so, the bbwaa can yell from on high that its awards are the definitive and final say on individual performance, but at the end of the day how many of them can say that ANY of them have had a direct impact on teams, rosters, etc. not a one as far as i know.

the bbwaa is irrelevant. its functions have been superseded by online forums. most of us don't believe in or value the awards it hands out, we don't believe in or value its decisions on the hall of fame (we have our own hall of merit), we don't, for the most part, believe or value the writings of its members.

Most of "US" ? Us, i.e. primates, and otherwise saber savvy fans are still a relatively small group. 95% of baseball fans still look to the bbwaa awards as the definitive and final say on individual performance.

Plus: I think you're both way off in your assumption that most of "us" here at btf think these awards are irrelevent. People complain about ones they think are wrong, but if they really thought they were irrelevent, it would be silence and dead threads instead.

Just want to point out that this discussion is a lot more interesting (and useful) with ballfan around. There may be disagreement, but some semblence of a conversation is better than one-sided snipes. And this is a very useful conversation to have.

most of the time i hate you levski, but tonight, tonight, i love you.

#103 ... yikes. Glass houses, indeed...

So what is the backstory on Tracy and Rob?

never mind I found it.

Plus: I think you're both way off in your assumption that most of "us" here at btf think these awards are irrelevent. People complain about ones they think are wrong, but if they really thought they were irrelevent, it would be silence and dead threads instead.

right: i said "value or believe in". i think the bbwaa is irrelevant. i think its awards have no value. let's put it this way: the bbwaa is so predictable as a mass in its voting tendencies that bill james devised a points system to predict hall of fame players. and it is pretty darn right most of the time. now, you can argue that it is not always right, but it's a very simple algorithm attempting to model the behavior of 100 or so thinking human beings. the fact that it is so often an accurate picture of what those human beings do does not speak well to their "thinking."

Just want to point out that this discussion is a lot more interesting (and useful) with ballfan around. There may be disagreement, but some semblence of a conversation is better than one-sided snipes. And this is a very useful conversation to have.

Too late. He has rode off into the sunset. See post 100

"So what is the backstory on Tracy and Rob?"

He can give a better explanation I'm sure, but from what I remember, rob was sent an advanced copy of a book he thought was terrible. He posted on the comments section in Amazon under a fake name and was found out. He got in a lot of trouble as that's pretty low for a journalist.

Sorry Rob. I respect the hell out of you but it is.

EDIT: added quote

Re: 109 ... Links exist, but I'm not going to help you find them. I said everything I had to say on that subject -- well, until tonight -- three or four years ago. -r

Too late. He has rode off into the sunset. See post 100

i'm sure he'll check back in. it's not that he's (you're) not wanted around here. what is objectionable is the fact that this thread becomes a space for him (you) to air out personal differences with someone.

As long as they have the vote on virtually every major baseball related award, they are very much relevant.

Only so long as the general baseball fan views those awards as relevant. But then, you could take it even further, but I can understand if one doesn't... but I personally don't need to see an award from an organization or a plague in a museum to tell me who was a good ballplayer. I have access to the raw data and can make my own determination. Sure, I'd rather that a great player or a great season get the public recognition they deserve, but ultimately, my appreciation of the player is all that I can really concern myself with. If another baseball fan doesn't want to accept new methods, that's their decision to make on how they choose to enjoy the game.

Public perception of greatness does not make greatness. Certainly, it would be better without Joe Uninformed chirping off to me about how Juan Pierre is a star but it would be better yet if Joe Uninformed didn't parrot information that he hasn't verified (or even really thought about) too. But that's a much larger issue.

Re: 112 ... Okay, I'll take the bait ... Really? That's pretty low for a journalist? There is a long, long history of journalists writing under names not their own, for various reasons. The charge leveled against me was that I wrote that anonymous, negative review because the author had written a book on roughly the same subject as a book I'd written. And this was my way of hurting his book sales while pumping up mine. Which, if you know anything about the book I'd written, was pretty unlikely, as my book had been out for two or three years, hadn't sold more than a few hundred copies, and wasn't going to.

But it didn't look good, and appearances are important. I get that. I just wish Tracy had asked me why I did it. Because he was one of my heroes.

i'm sure he'll check back in.

(checks main page) ballfan is still logged on right now.

Public perception of greatness does not make greatness.

But public perception of greatness does make it relevent.

good point, but still, i think my point stands. in many ways, the work produced here and on other sites is better than the work produced by ANY bbwaa writer. and from that perspective, the bbwaa is irrelevant because this 5% is changing the face of the game, slowly but surely. people contributing work on this site have been hired by some of the more progressive baseball organizations. so, the bbwaa can yell from on high that its awards are the definitive and final say on individual performance, but at the end of the day how many of them can say that ANY of them have had a direct impact on teams, rosters, etc. not a one as far as i know.

Really?

Ok..that was just for fun.

I get plenty out of many of the bbwaa writers. In fact, I think you are missing out on a lot of good work if you dismiss any and all work from bbwaa writers. There are a lot of good young writers who think more progressively than some of their older colleagues. Ultimately, time will take care of most of the rifts, like you say, slowly but surely.

maybe what we should do is have a roundtable about the bbwaa with ringolsby, neyer, and law. i have no idea how we'd organize that, but it would be nice if we could submit questions and have them answered, and then be able to respond ourselves.

we could extract all of the personal ######## floating around in this discussion and talk about the (de)merits of the bbwaa. what say ye?

Why did you post under a false name?

Re: 109 ... Links exist, but I'm not going to help you find them. I said everything I had to say on that subject -- well, until tonight -- three or four years ago. -r

Yeah I found it again on your site, I actually remember when this happened.

Would somebody just start up a BBIWAA and not elect me already?

but at the end of the day how many of them can say that ANY of them have had a direct impact on teams, rosters, etc. not a one as far as i know.

Actually Bill Veeck's dad was a sportswriter who got the Cubs job by writing an honest critique of the state of the Cubs.

I get plenty out of many of the bbwaa writers. In fact, I think you are missing out on a lot of good work if you dismiss any and all work from bbwaa writers. There are a lot of good young writers who think more progressively than some of their older colleagues. Ultimately, time will take care of most of the rifts, like you say, slowly but surely.

i don't know what the joke in that picture was. i assume that's a writer hired by a team, but i can't identify the person, so the reference is lost on me.

but aside from that, i do read many of the bbwaa writers, but there are some so execrable that i refuse to read them. but there's not one of them that i read daily. there are some writers for major media outlets that i read daily who aren't members of the bbwaa. someday they probably will be and i will probably still be reading them. but right now, i don't think the members of the bbwaa as a group constitute the best, or the most intelligent, or the most insightful vision of what baseball writing can be.

i don't know what the joke in that picture was. i assume that's a writer hired by a team, but i can't identify the person, so the reference is lost on me.


Well, I blew the joke with a lousy picture. It's Plaschke.

The picture is Bill Placshke, and the reference is almost certainly his running Paul DePodesta out of the Dodgers job due to his personal vendetta against DePo, seemingly because Plaschke hated the LoDuca trade - "heart and soul of the team" and whatnot.

EDIT - Well, at least I didn't say the wrong guy.

Actually Bill Veeck's dad was a sportswriter who got the Cubs job by writing an honest critique of the state of the Cubs.

i'm trying to make a specific point about the bbwaa. was he a member of that organization? if so, i retract the point. but let me revise it: in the history of sportswriting, has the bbwaa had a bigger impact on the game than the writing appearing on the internet since its inception? i bet there hasn't been a time in history when 4 bbwaa writers were hired by a major sports league in positions that directly affect the team. we've had law, voros, chadbradfordwannabe, aaron gleeman (i think) and i think 1 or 2 more. the point is that internet writers are having a bigger, more measurable impact on the game than the bbwaa has ever had or ever will have. in one sense, they are nothing more than a symbolic organization, created by the media to justify itself to itself.

Re: 121 ... I've said this before and nobody believed me, I guess because I've got this reputation for lying to people ... I did it anonymously for two reasons. The second (in importance) was that I knew the author had many friends in the BBWAA and elsewhere, and -- knowing how people like to play games with Amazon reviews -- I worried that if I used my real name, his friends might come after me when my next book was released (and in fact, his friends did come after me, in their newspaper columns).

The first reason was that I didn't want to hurt the guy. I know NOBODY believes that, but it's true. When I was a teenager, I was a big fan of an SF writer named Harlan Ellison. Brilliant guy, brilliant writer. But I read an interview with him, and he was going off on somebody he didn't like -- there were a lot of people he didn't like -- and I realized that he was a bully. Not physically, but verbally. And Ellison was so articulate that it wasn't a fair fight. I never really had much interest in Ellison after that.

Believe it or not, there was a part of me that felt sorry for the author of this book that I didn't like. To pour your time and your heart and your soul into something, and then have it come out like this ... At the same time, I was going through a short phase of writing reviews on Amazon. If you check, you'll find that I wrote five or six of them, right around the same time. All of them positive, except for this one. I wanted to warn Amazonians about this book, but at the same time I didn't want to be a bully about it. I just wanted to say my piece, like anybody else who writes an Amazon review (not including authors' relatives), and go to the next thing.

But then things spun out of control.

The picture is Bill Placshke, and the reference is almost certainly his running Paul DePodesta out of the Dodgers job due to his personal vendetta against DePo, seemingly because Plaschke hated the LoDuca trade - "heart and soul of the team" and whatnot.

depo was a dead man before he even stepped in. he was not allowed to make changes to the organizational structure. i don't think it's fair to judge his performance when he's still dealing with another gm's organization.

Thanks Rob. I honestly appreciate that. I guess it made sense for you at the time to do it that way. After all it was your real opinion and you are entitled to air it as much as anyone without fear of reprisal.

Still, I'm sure you know now, it's probably better just to zip you lips (wear mittens.)

Piehole, I was making a joke about how Plaschke influenced decision making in LA in response to your comment that no bbwaa member influences roster decisions. If I have to explain the joke in that much detail, obviously it wasn't funny. Oh well....cold medicine kicking in I guess. Sick as a dog. I'm off to bed.

Well, let's just say Ike Farrell's career as a reviewer died a long time ago.

haha, that's a great name by the way.

I think he's in a poker game with Ron Mexico.

off to bed for me too. i hope there's some way to capitalize on the momentum gained in this thread.

I stole it. Ike Farrell is Ring Lardner's character, "Alibi Ike".

If being shut out of the BBWAA impedes Rob's or Keith's ability to do their jobs, then I'm sorry that's the case. (Not letting both of you in is, of course, transcendently stupid.) However, I'd remind you two guys that heretofore, you've both done consistently exceptional, not-to-be-missed work without the BBWAA imprimatur. I fully expect that to continue even though you're still not in the country club.

On another level has anyone ever been a part of any professional association that wasn't mostly a circle jerk? So with regard to not making it, I'd prescribe an extra-large helping of "who gives a damn."

Nobody should give a damn about me, but Keith belongs in the BBWAA and nobody's yet explained, to my satisfaction, how/why he's not.

Thanks for the entertaining afternoon. I'm off to run some errands.

This is a very cathartic thread.

Nobody should give a damn about me, but Keith belongs in the BBWAA and nobody's yet explained how/why he's not.

I think we do give a damn about Rob, and the point about KLaw has been made pretty clearly.

So Dayn, when does your nomination campaign begin?

Okay, that's it for me; it's late, even in Oregon. Thanks for hanging around tonight. You guys are great.

Dayn's point is a great one, and it dovetails with Rob's earlier point about the need of the BBWAA to be selective. I can answer Dayn's point by pointing to the academic profession. Gaelan and others (Sam M, for instance) can weigh in on this, but there's no question there are ways to explain Keith's and Rob's exclusions beyond accusations of ill will and incompetence. It can simply be a kind of sociological dynamic: in academics, flimsy rationales are often provided for forcing young academics to pay their dues. That's what I see here. The BBWAA needs to be exclusive, they have a rationale for excluding Rob and Keith, and they employed it. Is this the first time their names were floated? Even more plausible, then. There's no reason to think the next time around (or the time after that) they'll get included.

And, as Keith knows, I love his work, and I've said before that Rob's led me here (so if you don't like my posts, talk to him about it).

Yo, we got beef son, beef, beef, beef, Ringoslby and Neyer at BTF yo [flips Nextel]

But public perception of greatness does make it relevent.

That's true. I guess I meant instead that (and trying to put aside the awards and the HoF) the BBWAA is an organization whose members, in theory (leaving cartoonists out of this), write about baseball. I think most here would agree that they perform that function poorly. Therefore, the BBWAA is not relevant. And bringing the HoF back into this, I honestly think it's very likely that in 20 to 30 years, baseball analysts of that day will conclude that the methodology used to select members was highly flawed and won't put a lot of stock in the legitimacy of the institution. Who knows, maybe the Hall of Merit will have more, uh, merit then.

Of course, this is where I start to go cross-eyed, because at that point, neosabermetricans will be running around, saying that the Hall of Merit is statistically insignificant garbage and how Primates are a bunch of old fossils and that when the Internet 2: With Mustard! takes over the *truth* will finally be known and revolutionize the way we collect information...

Anyway, this is assuming that the BBWAA and the HoF don't somehow reform themselves between now and then, which I just think isn't very likely. I remember some people talking here about when the old guard dies out... well, I don't think they have the luxury to wait. Information moves pretty fast these days.

By the way, it's raining in Rome, and I've got to go pay my own dues in three minutes. I expect you all to come to my defense when I'm excluded from my profession's clubs.

I have a journalism degree and used to be a sports reporter about 10 yrs ago.

I'm firing these off to Mr Law and Neyer

So, How does it feel to be rejected by the BBWAA?

So, How does it feel to be the topic on 15+ interweb saber and baseball sites?

So, How does it feel to be called a phony? a Liar? a false name user?

So, 7 of the 9 made it into the BBWAA, ESPN's BA is ? SLG+ OPS+?

How does it feel to be gunned out at the plate?

Now if I could just get into Dodger Stadium and do these interviews; think the BBWAA will let me get my shiny badge

As a baseball fan who feels newspaper are irrelevant, I percieve therefore the BBWAA in its current format is irrelevent. The awards and boneheaded votes (ie Raffy getting a GG at 1b; certain players not getting on the ballot for MVP when EVERY other ballot has them 1,2 or 3; McGuire only get 20+ percent)

The awards are fun to debate and fans (especially casual one who have no idea why, other than thats my FAVE player think they're worth something) Its a effing shiny bobble, awards are irrelevant, HOF is irrelevant to the playing of baseball.

Nostalgia and awards are fun but if they ALL went away Baseball would live on, unlike the BBWAA which is becoming more and more irrelevant to its constituents. The newsrags are dying as will the BBWAA if it doesnt change

Oh the tangled Web We Weave - Fans and Non Fans are flocking here and away from Newsrags- they are going the way of the dinosaur- the consumer has spoken........

As for baseball fans the way of saber AND scouting is what has spoken... making the ballfans (rymes with Remlinger??), Plashkes, Marriottis, that idiot from the San Jose Mercury News (Woody?), and Conlin a dying breed 'cept for their brief time on wastes of time like Around the Horn (what a dumb@#& show) We want stats and scouting and prospect info now, not in idellible ink or on dogpan liners.

Free the 'Gang of 9' at ESPN - Admitt them ALL into the BBWAA

I've obviously overstayed my welcome. Sorry to have bothered you folks.

Are you retiring?

What a fascinating thread. I agree with Rob that Ringolsby does come across as a hypocrite, not only for the reasons he mentioned but also for his own use of the alias to criticize Keith. Keep up the good work, guys, I'm sure you guys will make it to the BBWAA sometime soon.

Let me also add that it seems that the key here to the BBWAA and the whole modern relevance thing is whether you care or not if baseball's recorded history is accurate. I'd prefer it to be, but it's not a dealbreaker to my experience of the game. It doesn't keep me up thinking while I'm trying to cut myself, delirious out of fear of Omar trading Jose Reyes for Carlos Santana and a couple broken slinkies.

Okay, that's it for me; it's late, even in Oregon. Thanks for hanging around tonight.

Nah, thanks to you, Rob and Tracy for hashing things out in such an entertaining fashione.

And good thing I didn't get permission to post the emails that I received from other BBWAA members. 'whew'

Ok...back to clipping choice Pet Politics cuts.

Carlos Santana

The clubhouse band would improve, at least!

Ok, this is my first post here, and I think I might be taking on the wrong thread to post in, but I have to say that Tracy Ringolsby is a world class a-hole. He wrote a column over the summer talking about some managerial jobs, I can't remember which ones he was referring to and he was blatantly wrong about a few things. I, being the overachiever, decided to email him and politely let him know that he was incorrect in his information. Okay, maybe I wasn't polite. Regardless, I really wish I would have kept his email because he refused to acknowledge that I was correct. Without getting into details because I don't want to misquote or anything, I believe that he is about as unprofessional as anybody that I have ever encountered, and I would believe and listen to anybody over that blowhard.

JT, where were you an hour ago???

(I know I said I was going to bed, but this is addictive! Okay, now I'm really logging out. Really. I swear...)

The clubhouse band would improve, at least!

Don't laugh. Why do you think the Mets ended up with VICTOR Zambrano?

Double-checking first names is important.

Sorry, Rob. I just got home and I always check the site before bed, and I ended up reading the whole thing and had to weigh in.

The second (in importance) was that I knew the author had many friends in the BBWAA and elsewhere, and -- knowing how people like to play games with Amazon reviews -- I worried that if I used my real name, his friends might come after me when my next book was released (and in fact, his friends did come after me, in their newspaper columns).

Wow, to shift the conversation to the field level, it's sad that a colleague cannot publish critical comments about another colleague's work in a public forum w/o fear of retribution. Critical remarks, sometimes rather harsh ones, are the norm, no demanded, in book reviews for peer review journals. In fact, it's the standard format of book reviews (intro, contextualizing the book within current research, paragraph of praise, paragraph of criticism). As long as the criticism is done in a professional manner (e.g. the reviewer doesn't have a ideological axe to grind and is using the review as pulpit), it's never a problem.

I couldn't agree more. To call someone out for a negative review that was in no way unprofessional is ridiculous. Whatever the writing equivalent to loving the sound of your own voice is, Ringolsby has. Of course, the same could probably said for me with three posts in a relatively short amount of time.

Can't we all just get along and pass some 'roids?

I'm taken by ballfan's Roger Angell analogy and Rob's city newspaper-based reading of BBWAA admission. Angell's written on baseball for more than 40 years and has always been a transcendent generalist, not an assembly-line beat-writer.

Although Rob's and Keith's writings (esp. Keith's, no offense, but business school will do that to a body) can't touch Angell's lyricism, they are of the same class in that they engender a broad understanding of the game while not being chained down to one team's perspective (if Rob were an adult from '75-'85, maybe he would have landed that dream job with the Star, and I wish there were an alternate universe where I could go read every story he would've penned).

Then again, now that Gammons has moved on to ESPN and his post at the Globe is held by vendetta-fueled CHB, I don't see what makes him, lacking a team beat, different from Keith & Rob, except for the possibly crucial distinction of his relying so strongly on face-to-face time with players, managers, GMs, and the like.

I imagine a crusty BBWAA member might conclude that Keith and Rob could do their jobs just as well with the Topps updated set as with actual access to a grassy field upon which physical specimens cavort.

"Hi, Andruw, this is Keith Law. I'm calling to confirm your Isolated Power figure from 2005."

I'm a little sympathetic to the BBWAA even though, like the bar, the AMA, or any professional association, it perpetuates itself first and foremost by protecting the careers of its members by restriction of access through ritualistic certification. If it makes you feel any better, Rob, unless I could meet in the hotel lobby and go drink for drink with Fred Lieb, I wouldn't want to join anyway.

I don't know about qualifications, but I'd rather read Rob Neyer and Keith Law (whose blog is actually a good read by itself) over Tracy Ringsolby / Bill Conlin and the other archaic members of an organization of luddites. Its weird - Tracy started Baseball America, which is one of the most enjoyable reads out there, but I've never understood why they're so afraid of information they can't understand (statistics, etc etc).

Before Rob replied to JT I thought maybe that was Rob's alter ego on BBTF. That would have really spiced up this thread! Petco, here we come!!!

Seriously, Rob I know I am not alone when I say that your early writing - along with early BPro - is what got me thinking differently about this great game. I was still unaware of Bill James and being a "child" of the internet age I easily stumbled upon your work and that of other internet scribes. Upon reading it - it seemed so damn logical that I was hooked.

Your work inspired me to understand, in a more meaningful way, this game that I loved. Unfortunately, as a fan of the Angels since 1981, baseball was also a game that slowly drove me crazy over the years. But your writing, and what I learned about offensive performance from you and Sheehan, etc., has made me appreciate baseball so much more than I ever would have had I just been exposed to the writings of Ringolsby or worse still Plashke.

As a professor, I know what it is to teach and see that realization in your students when they just "get it". Well, you don't get that visual confirmation of the teaching you do, but I - along with many others, I am sure - are walking, talking proof that it occurred. You absolutely belong in any organization that recognizes Baseball Writers in America...

Wow, there has been some very interesting points brought up in this debate.

Before I begin, I think it is important to note that I am a 22-year-old sports writer for a New Jersey newspaper. I have not been doing this for a very long time and I have never covered a professional baseball game (at this point I cover high school sports). I am a lurker of BBTF, but rarely post.

The idea that the BBWAA is irrelevant is a gross exaggeration. Back when the BBWAA was created, all you had was print journalists for newspapers. Now with T.V., the Internet, MLB Extra Innings, etc. the idea that newspaper beat writers are the only ones who see enough games and are qualified enough to vote for the Hall of Fame and other awards or should be a part of the BBWAA, is seriously outdated. Bill James, Rob Neyer, the Baseball Prospectus team and countless others may not go into the locker rooms, but based on their enthusiasm/knowledge of the game and their influence on baseball fans they are just as worthy of voting for the Hall of Fame. This is not a print vs. Internet debate. I dare anyone to say that people such as Vin Scully and Bob Costas are less worthy of voting for the Hall of Fame than Bill Madden, Richard Justice or any other baseball writer for a newspaper.

I'm not saying that Joe Blow the guy who runs "Joe's Mets Ramblings," should be a part of the BBWAA and vote, but it was way past due for people such as Verducci, Passan, Olney etc. to be a part of the BBWAA and have a Hall of Fame vote.

Rob brought up a very good point about the potential logistical issues of giving "everyone" BBWAA membership in post #58. For that reason I can understand trying to limit membership. However, there has to be some sort of middle ground here.

The idea that the BBWAA and "traditional media" baseball writers are irrelevant is a very unfair statement. It is important the baseball fanatics that are a part of this site, read the statistical analysis of Baseball Prospectus, etc. still represent a very small fraction of baseball fans throughout North America. The Internet has provided a wonderful opportunity for niche baseball writers such as Joe Sheehan, Jim Callis, etc. to get their opinions and expertise to that niche audience that seeks this information. For this reason I don't think these type of writers and content can work for a broad audience. Are some BBWAA members clueless and living in the past? No doubt about it. That doesn't meant that all of them are. Some have brought up the questionable results in the yearly award votes as proof that the BBWAA is out of touch. I think the bigger issue is that when you have so few people doing the actual voting for these awards (28 for the AL, 32 for the NL), the ignorance, incompetence, or biasness of one or two voters is magnified. I'm not saying you need 600 voters to determine the NL MVP, but maybe it might be time re-evaluate the idea of two beat writers from each team.

If the BBWAA does not embrace "new media" their relevance will start to dwindle. To be fair, the fact that they added 16 new writers to the club is a sign of progress.

Sorry for the long rant, but I felt that I needed to get this off my chest.

This is like Pacino missing out on an Oscar for Godfather II. Expect similar snubs for the next two decades until you both pretend you are using brail to type your reports.

Check this out 'Traditional Media' is becoming irrelevant- ITS DYING

http://www.dailytech.com/Bloggers+to+Receive+Same+Law+Protection+as+Journalists/article7200c.htm

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/archives/2006/10/catching_up_with_bill_griffith_1.php

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/new-media.html

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0301a/newspaperdying.html

http://www.editorsweblog.org/news/2005/04/advice_for_saving_the_newspaper.php

especially this last part ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*from a quick GOOGLE

Thanks to Tracy, and Rob, for putting forward their positions in this public forum.

A very interesting read on a hungover morning in Dublin...

I'm a big fan of Neyer's, not so much of Law's; I find his style too snarky and occasionally self-serving for someone writing for a mainstream organization...it's jarring to me to see the combination of ax-grinding with scout-oriented analysis but I do read his stuff. They should both be in.

As for Ringolsby, I understand using an alias and think it's fine. If someone doesn't want their name used to either give his/her comments more weight than those of another poster, or to prevent a thread becoming about 'well-known sportswriter posts on BTF', it's perfectly understandable -

BUT -

In this case, I'd think he'd be better off not posting at all, and if he chose to do so, not under an alias.

AND - he should (a) proofread his posts and (b) edit them, as well. I shook my head over and over as I went through the thread at the quantity of misspellings, the rambling lack of cohesion and the (for lack of a better word) crude writing style - even by 'off-the-cuff posting' standards.

A few thoughts here...

I've spewed quite a lot of venom in Tracy Ringolsby's general direction. He doesn't care, and shouldn't care, and has never heard of me, and probably never will, and rightly so, since I'm extremely insignificant even by internet-blogger standards. Some of you have probably seen something or other I wrote, posted around here, running with Michael Lewis' well-stated Raccoon Lodge concept of the BBWAA, and Ringolsby has time and again spewed vats full of venom of his own in the direction of what in his opinion are amateurs trying to encroach on the professionals' territory.

That said, it still stands -- and it's our job to make sure it stands, dammit -- that Tracy Ringolsby's opinions are as valid as anybody else's. I kind of like the alias he chose, simplistic as it may be; the man is a rabid baseball fan just like most of us. Most of us happen to think his viewpoints are wrong, and vice versa, but people have been arguing about baseball for as long as baseball's existed, which is precisely what makes the sport what it is.

It's unfortunate that Ringolsby has so often used his column to browbeat and belittle those he regards as his enemies, and believe me, I of all people don't hesitate to use my insignificant internet site to fight back with my own sometimes crude opinions, for my eight regular readers (that includes my wife and the other three guys that write on the same site -- hi, Molly!) to see. (And I think a good five or six of them agree with me.)

And one other thing -- as a professional proofreader, I must say that I don't hold Ringolsby's grammar/writing on this internet site against him. Some writers are gifted, like Rob for instance, such that the published work you read is actually pretty similar to what they submitted to their editors in the first place, but that's more exception than rule. Behind every great writer is a crack proofing department, we proofers like to say, and like many sayings, it's an overstatement holding a modicum of truth. You'd be surprised how many authors of bestselling books are really not terribly skilled writers, concerning grammar and structure. What they are good at is coming up with an idea and an angle. If I could do that, I would also be getting paid to write, instead of getting paid less to clean up the grammar of somebody who can.

And I, for one, am ecstatic that Tracy Ringolsby elected to express his opinion about Rob, Keith and the BBWAA here, on what we might reasonably call "our" turf, instead of just using his column to do it, the way many columnists would. He opened himself to feedback from a crowd that I'm sure he knows is largely hostile to him. That's not something every Raccoon Lodge writer does. For that, thank you, Mr. Ringolsby.

The internet's brought about an explosion of amateur wannabes (myself, for instance) trying their hand as baseball writers, which in the eyes of many of the established professionals is deplorable and/or dangerous (not necessarily in that order.) But one of the very good things about the internet--and this is a point on which even Tracy Ringolsby and Bill Plaschke should be able to agree with myself and (presumably) Rob and Keith--is that it created and maintains, in fact pushes higher and higher, a ruthless standard of quality.

Establishing oneself on a sports journalism career track means climbing up through more of a meritocracy than ever before. There are still some people, like there always have been and always will be, going to the top because of who their parents are and who they know. But here in internetland, you could type the word "baseball" into google and find probably hundreds of thousands of people writing about baseball. Only the very best writers, only the ones with the ability to constantly crank out high-value content and approach tired old stories from fresh and interesting angles, are going to develop serious readerships.

And that's one respect in which sports journalism has caught up to sports themselves: Now sports journalism has minor leagues, too, and the competition to reach the majors is extremely fierce. That develops better baseball players, and it develops better baseball writers, as well.

Frankly, I don't understand why Law, Neyer and Ringolsby don't all get on a conference call and talk this through instead of getting into it on the internet.

(If nothing else, it would give them a shred of closure, and it's a lot more difficult being snippy on the phone with someone than wyhen you write).

This thread has confirmed a lot of my thoughts about stat geeks. The sooner we get the trains moving, the better.

Thinking about all this after a night's sleep, it occurs to me that there's a great opportunity for ESPN here.

After all, the WWL has made substantial investments (in exposure and column inches, at least; I have no idea how much in monetary terms) in packaging and marketing Rob, Keith, et al. -- internet sports journalism in general. That's a two-sided coin; if those voices they invest in are perceived by a significant segment of fans as being irrelevant because they aren't "real" baseball writers as defined by getting to vote for awards and such, there's a risk that they'll lose value, or at least not accumulate as much as they could.

ESPN also has the unique advantage of having established close relationships with some iconic "real" baseball writers (like Gammons, et al.) as well as cultivating their own brand names. And they have unparalleled television exposure to use as they see fit.

In short, they're in a fabulous position to create awards voted by a modern version of the BBWAA; lend them legitimacy through association with established baseball writers and/or MLB; and then promote the hell of them to make them comparable to the existing versions. There's a media event just waiting to happen there -- "The Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award presented by ESPN" or whatever.

What's not to love? They could put the whole thing together for peanuts, get a new marketing tool and some almost free programming, and enhance the value of their own assets in the process.

I asked this over at The Baseball Analysts, but Pete Abraham and Bob Dutton (if he was reading) didn't answer, maybe Tracy can...

What is the exact number of games that a prospective member must attend to be considered for inclusion?

If the BBWAA wishes to be viewed with any form of credibility on these issues, then they better have something more than an "a good number of MLB games" as part of its bylaws.

Lastly, I understand the initial intent of the BBWAA's need to have writers at the ballparks, but that has gone the way of the Dodo at this stage, or at the very least, the BBWAA could set the bylaws so that at least one writer of the membership body is represented at each club's ballpark.

In other words, it's not as if this issue can't be resolved to address the change in technologies that allow those that cover baseball from places other than press row to do so. But, from what I've read from the several members of the BBWAA that have commented on this topic (something I thank them for doing), it seems that a culture shift will have to occur before they will get with the program.

By the way, the BBWAA has created the quandary. The award votes that garner much interest (read, criticism) is why there needs to be something a tad more than "must attend a [insert subjective figure here] of games at a major league ballpark" to hang their hat on. [hat reference for Tracy's pleasure].

Sincerely,
Maury Brown
Business of Sports Network
Author - Baseball Prospectus
(non-BBWAA member for 46 years and counting... and never will be)

A couple of thoughts.....

Alyssa Milano attends a lot of games and she writes about baseball. Would a BBWAA membership help or hurt her dating opportunities?

Based on this exchange, and the previous Michael Lewis back-and-forth, it appears that Ringolsby believes that attack is the best form of defense. It also appears that he believes that "all is fair in love and war", he will throw everything and anything at his opponent. Law didn't talk with Ringolsby at the winter meetings but had he, it seems to me, that it would likely decend into a mud-slinging contest very quickly. I would speculate that Keith didn't talk to Ringolsby for that reason.

So, what's new?

BTW, if you are posting anonymously here, it's always good to make sure that your e-mail address doesn't give away your identity or else someone with the "keys" here can figure it out in seconds. ;-)

[Note: If I had something against people writing under an assumed name on the site, I would require valid identification and the use of actual names.

I understand why people don't always want to use their own names when posting. I respect their wishes and expect everyone with the keys to respect those wishes as well.

Jim]

I have a different question.

From Bob Dutton's E-mail to Rob:

In both cases, concerns were raised prior to the meeting as to whether either of you required a BBWAA credential to do your job. That is a basic requirement for all members.

The word "required" stands out in that sentence, to me. I could buy an argument that neither Rob nor Keith has to have what a BBWAA credential gives them in order to write their articles. But by the same token, I can also see that argument applying to the 16 reporters whose bids WERE approved. So I'd pose this question:

How does what Rob Neyer and Keith Law do differ from what those reporters who *were* approved do, in a way that a BBWAA credential is required for those 16, but not for Rob and Keith?

-- MWE

On another level has anyone ever been a part of any professional association that wasn't mostly a circle jerk? So with regard to not making it, I'd prescribe an extra-large helping of "who gives a damn."

I find that the quality of professional organizations depend mostly on their purpose. If it's a vaguely defined purpose, or a social club, it's probably going to suck. There just so many mediocres in any profession and they tend to gravitate and self-perpetuate such hollow distinctions.

However, if the organization is based on some concrete goal: (To be self-serving and self-absorbed) "Teachers for student centered Social Justice", then I find that such organizations have that exponential positive effect the more quality folks who join.

Sometimes the professional mentoring and team action that goes on in these organizations takes place without such organizations--Neyer training with James, etc.

But it helps to have the organized model to replicate that dynamic.

It would be interesting if Neyer and Law started start their own purposeful sports writer organization. It would probably attract many of the BBWWAA or whatever it's called, writers who are better at their jobs and new open-minded folks who wanted to learn.

The BBWWAA is not currently obsolete--it serves a purpose--but it could be rendered so.

It would be interesting if Neyer and Law started start their own purposeful sports writer organization. It would probably attract many of the BBWWAA or whatever it's called, writers who are better at their jobs and new open-minded folks who wanted to learn.

Sure they can do it, but how does that give them a HOF vote?

I assume someone from the BBWAA spoke to an ESPN official other than their editor. Who could that be? ESPN.com? ESN? Could it be Gammons?

Harlan Ellison was a jerk?

*sound of windows breaking in TVerik's head*

Harlan Ellison was a jerk?

I don't know, but I do know that Edith Keeler must die!

From Bob Dutton's E-mail to Rob:


In both cases, concerns were raised prior to the meeting as to whether either of you required a BBWAA credential to do your job. That is a basic requirement for all members.

Mike, I read this quote much the way that you did (and much differently that how Keith HEARD it from Bob Dutton). It's not about going to games; it's about whether you need the BBWAA press pass to do your job. (That's confirmed by Abraham in his blog)

If that's the test, the result is understandable (and not some personal or anti-stats vendetta). Neither Keith nor Rob needs the credential to do their job. Keith basically states says in his blog that he doesn't need the credential--he never goes into the press box. Instead he prefers to sit with the scouts. Don't know if he goes into the clubhouse, but I doubt he needs that access for his analysis.

Rob certainly doesn't need to be in the press box for what he does--and I doubt he goes there. His analysis deliberately stays away from the emotion/immediate coverage of the game. I see him putting things in a more objective, statistical "big picture". It's very valuable and Rob has been a "must read" of mine for a long time. But what he does is very different from a report of what happenned in the game being covered--and you don't have to be there to do it. Indeed it might even get in the way.

I don't read Law or Neyer because, IIRC, they are behind the premium content window. Whereas, I can generally read my local BBWAA guys on the internet itself for free or because I pay for a general circulation newspaper. The ESPN.com's columns actually seem to be less accessible and far more expensive for what you get than the access and the cost to access the beat writers.

I don't think a freely accessible chat is enough to make them analagous to full time beat writers that go to the park and write almost every day.

I think the BBWAA does a very good job with HOF selections. I don't agree with all its decisions, but on the whole, I respect the outcomes.

EDIT: Actually, I have no idea if Law is (or was) behind the fee window. I know Neyer is (or was).

Alyssa Milano was credentialled during the post-season, and "working for an organisation that is credentialled during the post-season" is one of the criteria that the BBWAA established. Of course, mlb.com is the one big professional site that no-one was admitted from.

I think the point has been made several times by BBWAA writers that they don't see the awards and MVP voting as being the most important feature of their organisation, but rather that the BBWAA represents baseball writers collectively in negotiating press access with MLB and with the clubs. Writers who don't need press access to do their jobs - because they write based on watching on TV and/or from statistical data - are not people who need a BBWAA credential. The same point applies to TV/radio people: it's not a matter of negotiating access for reporters, but negotiating exclusive broadcast contracts. Unlike Europe, American sports are not geared to having dozens of broadcast commentary teams all at the same event; even at the World Series, there are only two (MLBI and FOX).

Most of us here seem clear that the awards should be voted on by respected baseball writers and commentors, regardless of their need for formal credentials to the press box at games. The logic for this is that the BBWAA should establish one or more additional chapters for such persons, include them in voting, but not grant them press access during games - though they probably should get access at events like the Winter Meetings.

As an aside, the European system I reference in my second paragraph is for big games of international interest; what happens is that there is a host broadcaster, who provides the TV production. They then provide a feed to all the other broadcasters, which has no graphics (or just graphics provided by the competition, e.g. an official clock for track races) and the only sound track is the crowd and game noise. Each other broadcaster then takes the host feed, adds on their own graphics and commentary and then broadcasts to their own nation. This does mean that the stadiums have to include many more broadcast booths than is typical in the USA. During the World Cup in 1994, luxury boxes were converted into temporary broadcast booths in some stadiums; in others, temporary additional booths were constructed. By contrast, when we broadcast American sports from the USA, we typically take a feed that includes the US commentary and graphics, because there isn't a "host feed" in the usual European manner. Because we generally carry fewer adverts than you do, we usually have a studio team who talk about the game while the ads are running over there.

Writers who don't need press access to do their jobs - because they write based on watching on TV and/or from statistical data - are not people who need a BBWAA credential.

Fine. If that's the case, then the BBWAA should explain why Gammons, Verducci, Heyman, Olney, et al need that level of access, compared to why Neyer and Law don't. My argument here isn't that the rule isn't appropriate, it's that it's not initially clear why the writers who DID get credentialed need the access.

The logic for this is that the BBWAA should establish one or more additional chapters for such persons, include them in voting, but not grant them press access during games - though they probably should get access at events like the Winter Meetings.

This makes sense.

-- MWE

Now, the next question is more interesting, which is, should the need for a credential *remain* a pre-req for the BBWAA card?

What's ironic is that it appears Tracy Ringolsby spoke in support of Keith Law gaining admission. That certainly explains why TR was so PO'd when he read KL's blog in which KL surmises that due to past differences TR blackballed him. Now I don't think TR's reacted all that well in the thread, but I understand why he'd be pretty PO'd and want to set the record straight: go to bat for somebody and then have them accuse you of just the opposite is bound to get the emotions up.

Seems to me that the BBWAA needs to draw a line somewhere--otherwise every blogger could show up in the press box using the BBWAA pass. So, maybe they have a special membership for those who don't need the press pass--even though the original point of the organiztion was to make it easier for writers to have access to games--because now distance writers are clearly leading baseball writers.

Fine. If that's the case, then the BBWAA should explain why Gammons, Verducci, Heyman, Olney, et al need that level of access, compared to why Neyer and Law don't.

Oh I agree with that - the rule is being applied idisyncratically at best.

This was more entertaining and informative than I expected when I heard of this thread. I'm a little disappointed in Ringolsby. I still remember when dropped by here after Ken Brett's death and posted his funeral arrangements, and I thought that that was very decent of him. Also, although I never read him that much, I recall Bill James praising him at one point or another.

BTW, if you are posting anonymously here, it's always good to make sure that your e-mail address doesn't give away your identity or else someone with the "keys" here can figure it out in seconds. ;-)

That's how I figured out who Jack Keefe is (but I won't reveal his true identity.)

Behind every great writer is a crack proofing department, we proofers like to say, and like many sayings, it's an overstatement holding a modicum of truth. You'd be surprised how many authors of bestselling books are really not terribly skilled writers, concerning grammar and structure. What they are good at is coming up with an idea and an angle. If I could do that, I would also be getting paid to write, instead of getting paid less to clean up the grammar of somebody who can.

I dabble in a little baseball history writing and I can't edit myself. I can sometimes pick up on other people's errors, but my third eye has astigmatism.

How does what Rob Neyer and Keith Law do differ from what those reporters who *were* approved do, in a way that a BBWAA credential is required for those 16, but not for Rob and Keith?

I'll go two steps further:

1. Tracy acknowledged that the BBWAA admits sports editors, cartoonists, etc. -- it doesn't seem to me that they need a BBWAA credential to do their job, do they? For that matter, it doesn't seem to me that they have to attend many games either.

2. Is the need to have a BBWAA credential or the requirement to need to attend games (or write about baseball) an on-going requirement? I ask because it seems to me that there are more than a few BBWAA members who no longer write about baseball nor attend games -- Phil Hersh of the Chicago Tribune comes to mind.

Writers don't need press passes? Nope. They need press passes to get into the press box. And regular beat writers get press passes routinely. Other writers, including internet writers, may also can get them by special request. At "big games" (playoffs), numerous non-BBWAA members get press passes and are assigned to an auxiliary press box.

If you don't get into the press box you can always buy a ticket and sit in the stands. I suspect that's how the vast majority of Primates and many others who analyze baseball and write for on-line publications watch the games they attend.

Fine. If that's the case, then the BBWAA should explain why Gammons, Verducci, Heyman, Olney, et al need that level of access, compared to why Neyer and Law don't. My argument here isn't that the rule isn't appropriate, it's that it's not initially clear why the writers who DID get credentialed need the access.

My guess is the answer is the most obvious one: those guys are actually seen by other BBWAA writers in and about the press box and clubhouse. Now do those guys need the credential to do thier job--the answer by defintion is no. They've been doing their job without it for a while. Would they USE the credential? Unlike Rob and Keith, the answer is probably yes.

1. Tracy acknowledged that the BBWAA admits sports editors, cartoonists, etc. -- it doesn't seem to me that they need a BBWAA credential to do their job, do they? For that matter, it doesn't seem to me that they have to attend many games either.

I think there are two possible explanations for this. In the first place, the barrier for admission and the requirement to keep your card are two different things. Many of the writers/cartoonists probably did attend games regularly at one point, thereby giving them the necessary credentials to gain admission to the BBWAA. Many editors were once reporters. But once in, the organization may not demand that the member continue attending games to remain an active BBWAA member.

Also, most of the members are admitted through local chapters, where entry standards may vary. Rob and Keith's nominations were weighted by the national body, and they may consider the "attends ballgames" portion more rigorously.

BTW, if you are posting anonymously here, it's always good to make sure that your e-mail address doesn't give away your identity or else someone with the "keys" here can figure it out in seconds. ;-)

Not that anyone likely cares, but I didn't surmise Ringolsby's identity through his e-mail account. I thought ballfan's comments looked similar to the arguments made by Ringoslby in that e-mail Repoz posted, I knew Ringolsby was at least a lurker here and I saw that ballfan was simultaneously posting quite a bit with insider-type knowledge in that humidor thread.

why TR was so PO'd when he read KL's blog in which KL surmises that due to past differences TR blackballed him

Actually, at least in the blog entry that serves as TFA for this thread, Law gives Ringolsby plenty of credit for being above a personal blackballing -- though Law does report that TR voted against all Internet writers, which may or may not be accurate.

Harlan Ellison was a jerk?
*sound of windows breaking in TVerik's head*

Actually, Erik, from what I've read (again, god knows how true) he was actually kind of impossible to be around. I hope that's wrong, but I doubt it.

Not that anyone likely cares, but I didn't surmise Ringolsby's identity through his e-mail account. I thought ballfan's comments looked similar to the arguments made by Ringoslby in that e-mail Repoz posted, I knew Ringolsby was at least a lurker here and I saw that ballfan was simultaneously posting quite a bit with insider-type knowledge in that humidor thread.

I noticed that, because I sometimes like to do that myself. But you're more successful than me. I never figured out a sportswriter's nom de web. My biggest discovery was finding out who Backlasher is (and he isn't anyone famous.)

Wikipedia (not copyrighted) has this to say about Ellison:

Ellison has a reputation for being abrasive and argumentative. He has generally agreed with this assessment, and a dust jacket from one of Ellison's own books includes a passage that described him as "possibly the most contentious person on Earth". Ellison is also well known for being fiercely litigious and his numerous grievance filings and lawsuit attempts have been characterized as both justifiable and possibly frivolous. These traits have attracted some controversy, especially among science fiction and fantasy fans. His friend Isaac Asimov noted that, "Harlan uses his gifts for colorful and variegated invective on those who irritate him — intrusive fans, obdurate editors, callous publishers, offensive strangers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison

#193

I an SF fan; from what I've read and heard, he's smart and opinionated, and isn't shy about sharing his opinions. Whether that means he's a jerk, who knows.

That's how I figured out who Jack Keefe is (but I won't reveal his true identity.)

...and I wont either, Jon. ;-)

Not that anyone likely cares, but I didn't surmise Ringolsby's identity through his e-mail account. I thought ballfan's comments looked similar to the arguments made by Ringoslby in that e-mail Repoz posted, I knew Ringolsby was at least a lurker here and I saw that ballfan was simultaneously posting quite a bit with insider-type knowledge in that humidor thread.

I knew you surmised it with good ol' detective work.

BTW, Tracy did post as himself a few years back to post someone's passing, IIRC.

Actually, at least in the blog entry that serves as TFA for this thread, Law gives Ringolsby plenty of credit for being above a personal blackballing -- though Law does report that TR voted against all Internet writers, which may or may not be accurate.

I read it the opposite way. Keith says, "but I’d like to give him the credit to think that his personal feelings about me didn’t affect his professional judgment here."(emphasis added). I read that as him saying he'd like to believe it, but he doesn't. If he did thnk there was nothing personal,with fewer words, he could just have said, I "think ".

Try this analogy, "I'd like to give Barry Bonds the credit to think that his use of PED's had nothing to do with his breaking the home run record. I'm told he was just indicted for perjury when he denied using steroids."

I can see the issues around the BBWAA and credentials. However given that they vote on the most important awards and admission to the HOF, perhaps they need to create a separate membership class for writers such as Neyer that let's them vote on awards (and after 10 years the HOF) without giving them carte blanche press access. Given their voting responsibilities they can no longer look at themselves only as a professional organization for beat writers. They also need to look at discontinuing the membership of those who aren't active in the coverage of baseball. Otherwise they are doing a disservice to their voting responsibilities and need to relinquish them.

FWIW, I hope Tracy stays around here either as himself or as ballfan. We have a tendency to run people off here when we disagree with them.