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.

He's more than just opinionated.

I'm not a fan of Tracy Ringolsby, but at least he had the balls to come here and state his case, talking to us, so for that, I salute you sir.

Edit: Seriously Tracy, I'm not a fan, but WOO ME DAMMIT. WOO ME.

Primates are primates because we were able to keep an open mind. We can change.

he had the balls to come here

He is ballfan, after all.

Primates are primates because we were able to keep an open mind. We can change.

You know, that's true with some things, but really, not with everything.

You know, that's true with some things, but really, not with everything.

Yeah, I'd probably never turn into a homosexual. You guys could try really hard to convert me, but it'll probably never happen.

well chris no matter which side of the fence you were on you still wouldnt be getting any

Joe Posnanski tells a great BBWAA story here (scroll down to "New York Mets").

They seem like fun guys!

Did this back and forth really take place at nearly 2 AM on a Friday night?

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.

You know, I thought this might be the issue, but it seems cloudier to me than you say. The only evidence that I know that says Ringolsby spoke in favor of Law is Ringolsby. KL doesn't surmise that TR blackballed him. Law says he was told that Ringolsby voted against the general proposal to let in the 16. Law's comment is not based on his own speculation, but it seems on something he was told. I don't disagree with Ringolsby that Law should have investigated further before writing that, but I also wouldn't rely solely on Ringolsby's claims about the discussion and vote.

And frankly, Ringolsby's comments about how Law didn't appraoch him at the winter meetings is silly. When you treat someone the way he's treated Law in the past, you generally get nothing more than a curt nod at these professional meetings, if that.

Shouldn't Rob and Keith have to gain fifty pounds and have a total disregard for personal hygiene before they can even be considered for the BBWAA?

Did this back and forth really take place at nearly 2 AM on a Friday night? AG's #1 FAN

Damn East Coast Bias Machine! It may have been nearly 2 AM in NY, but in Oregon (where Rob is) it was more like 11 PM. Tracy is in Wyoming - which he divulged in the thread - and I assume it was close to midnight there.

Based on what I've read in this thread, the BBWAA has the same standards as they would if they were in a treehouse with a sign that said "no neyers or laws allowed". Ringolsby compared it the the AMA and the ABA, but both of those have concrete standards for admission, and don't have any way to say "You've done all we ask for, but I hate you so you don't get in." The BBWAA basically interprets each requirement differently for who they like and who they don't like.

KL doesn't surmise that TR blackballed him.

I think he does. see post 198.

And frankly, Ringolsby's comments about how Law didn't appraoch him at the winter meetings is silly. When you treat someone the way he's treated Law in the past, you generally get nothing more than a curt nod at these professional meetings, if that

I agree. I also think TR was way over the top calling KL a "liar". I'm sure Keith believed what he wrote.

The only evidence that I know that says Ringolsby spoke in favor of Law is Ringolsby.

For me too. The difference (I guess) is I believe TR on this. If he didn't want Keith Law or other internet writers in the BBWAA, he wouldn't be bashful in saying so.

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.

Agree with Mike that this makes sense. The disconnect here is that the BBWA is equating regular attendance and access at a game with the ability not just to do the job, but also with the ability to know the game enough to vote for awards/HOF. Especially if you are a beat guy or a local columnist, the latter makes plenty of sense, but in today's world, I think you could probably argue that that same guy who is focused on 1 team and might only see an opposing player 6 times a year is actually less aware of the game at large than the national columnist.

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

Just to clarify, when I made the "who gives a damn" comment, I was referring the attitude I think Keith and Rob should adopt, not everyone else. It's an injustice and should be regarded as such. But mostly I hope Keith and Rob are unfazed by this because, as I said, the did great, essential stuff without ever being part of the BBWAA, and they'll continue doing great, essential stuff after this.

So Dayn, when does your nomination campaign begin?

I truly couldn't care less. I don't need credentials all that often, but when I do the FOX name gets even little ol' me access. I'm sure that's especially the case for ESPN writers. I have no desire to vote on awards I think are meaningless, and while I love the physical Hall of Fame itself, being part of the sausage-making doesn't interest me.

On another level, you can't drink beer in the press box, so who the hell needs that?

well chris no matter which side of the fence you were on you still wouldnt be getting any

I laughed so hard I peed my pants

On another level, you can't drink beer in the press box, so who the hell needs that?

Best insight I've heard this thread.

I've read 198 and I disagree. Law's comment can't be taken out of context of the rest of the paragraph in which he states what he was told. It's clear that his POV, based on what he was told, is that this was, as he says, probably more about feelings about the Internet than personal animus towards him.

I don't really want to get tied up in the debate here, but I want to clarify one thing - cseadog is misinterpreting what I wrote. I did NOT write or imply that Tracy voted against me for personal reasons.

On another level, you can't drink beer in the press box, so who the hell needs that?

Best insight I've heard this thread.

I concur with Chirs. Sometimes the most brilliant insights are the simplest ones.

Everyone knows that that's why they make little tin flasks.

I don't care who said what to whom when. I'm bored to tears by the BBWAA, its members and most of the stuff written by its members that I've run across. If most of them weren't such utter hacks, they probably wouldn't need to act so petty to protect their status. Of course, we wouldn't need Neyer and Sheehan then, so keep on keeping on, ballfan...

On another level, you can't drink beer in the press box, so who the hell needs that?

That's awful.

Someone should check to see if this is allowable under the law.

How the hell did i get a link on Keith Laws blog! HA HA HA HA. I forgot I even tried blogging again this summer after 60 odd failures HA HA HA. Good times gaelan.

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.

The problem with letting the BBWAA set up an extra chapter, is that they'll probably do it wrong. I wouldn't trust their ability to distinguish the Union Associations from the best.

Yeah, I'd probably never turn into a homosexual. You guys could try really hard to convert me, but it'll probably never happen.

What if Sam started rooting for the Red Sox? I know I'd be swayed if he rooted for the other New York team.

I prefer to ignore the personal stuff here and discuss the real issue.

I really don't care whether Law or Neyer are kept out of the BBWAA. I'm not going to pour over emails and columns to find out who lied, who was disingenuous, or who was digging in their heels. I have read both Law and Neyer for a long time, and I respect both of them, and at the same time figure that they are human and might occasionally fail to be 100% consistent.

I have also been paying attention to the BBWAA for a long time, and I have zero respect for it as an organization. It is a FACT that it has resisted any influx of anything vaguely sabermetric since Bill James came along. It's simply oxymoronic that the BBWAA is supposedly open to internet columnists and simultaneously not allowing Rob Neyer in. We can and do all argue about Neyer as a columnist, but he was the first to have a mainstream venue for expressing the sabermetric heterodoxy, decades after Bill James and many years into a huge internet presence in forums like Usenet. He is a well-known, national presence in baseball journalism, and letting him in doesn't open up the floodgates.

I can't see a defense for the BBWAA here that passes by any sort of working ######## detector, and I consider this to be a matter of common sense.

I used to get worked up about who was and who should've been elected MVP or inducted into the Hall of Fame. I stopped doing that years ago. Hell, it's early December and I have to think a minute to recall who the 2007 MVPs were -- in a few months there's a good chance I won't recall at all. The one consistent thing about these awards is that they are given based on faulty logic, and you can bet that when the BBWAA gets it "right" it's a blind squirrel situation.

Of course, most people aren't like me. The MVP is still a big deal to most baseball fans, as is Hall of Fame induction. While this means the BBWAA is still very relevant, it doesn't mean that they will remain so, nor that they will be able to hold back the tide forever. When Neyer first appeared on espn.com, I simply couldn't believe that I was reading what he wrote in an outlet with a mainstream media logo on it. Now, I see that the folks I used to argue with on Usenet 15 years ago heading up Baseball Prospectus, and some of them actually being hired by MLB organizations. I see some teams incorporating solid sabermetric thinking as a matter of policy, and being successful relative to their peers. Huge progress has been made, and it isn't going to stop no matter how much the BBWAA circles the wagons.

I do sort of know Tracy Ringolsby, who isn’t about to nominate me for the Spink Award, but I’d like to give him the credit to think that his personal feelings about me didn’t affect his professional judgment here. I’m told he also voted against the general proposal to admit the 16 who did get in, so this is probably as much about the Interwebs as is it about me.

I don't really want to get tied up in the debate here, but I want to clarify one thing - cseadog is misinterpreting what I wrote. I did NOT write or imply that Tracy voted against me for personal reasons.

I certainly am in no postion to challenge what you intended to convey. And I have no dog in this fight. In fact, I think it would be better for baseball fans and the BBWAA if you and Rob were in. I also criticized TR for being over the top in his reaction.

But I didn't bring up Tracy Ringolsby's "personal feelings", you did. I hope that after re-reading the above language (together with post 198), you can understand why I (and probably TR)read it the way I did.

I hope you can also understand why someone might be pretty ticked off if they spoke in favor of someone--esp someone with whom they had differences--and then believed they were erroneously accused of (a) holding a grudge or (b) being against the Interwebs.

I just put this comment on the thread over at my blog:

I’m going to give Tracy some benefit of the doubt. He’s saying he stood up for me twice, and he feels like I stabbed him in the back in the post above. I wasn’t saying he voted against me for personal reasons, but he’s reading it that way. And I did say he was in the anti-Internet camp, but he says he’s not.

I don't agree that Neyer is a no-brainer. Like I said earler, his columns are accessed by very few people relatively speaking since a lot of his work went premium. His influence years ago is not that relevant.

I am speculating but I believe his limited access is unlike that of the other internet columnists admitted to the BBWAA, many of whom also write regularly for publications (like Verducci). I can't speak about Keith Law, I really don't follow him.

Does the coupling of Law and Neyer here seem odd? Whatever you think of Rob, he's got a much longer resume of writing about baseball on the Web for a lot longer, has multiple books to his credit, and has generally been at a higher profile site. Nothing against Keith, but I would think Rob would be in a different tier for consideration.

Does the coupling of Law and Neyer here seem odd?

Well, the BBWAA coupled them in their politically rigged voting structure, so that's the reason they're being discussed together.

I just put this comment on the thread over at my blog:


I’m going to give Tracy some benefit of the doubt. He’s saying he stood up for me twice, and he feels like I stabbed him in the back in the post above. I wasn’t saying he voted against me for personal reasons, but he’s reading it that way. And I did say he was in the anti-Internet camp, but he says he’s not.

Not that you need my approval, but I'm impressed.

I'm not going to pour over emails and columns to find out who lied, who was disingenuous, or who was digging in their heels.

While generally this might be a proper approach, it's the case that this thread began with an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation that Law was lying. It was entirely justified for a few of us to figure out who was tossing that out but not standing behind it.

It is a FACT that it has resisted any influx of anything vaguely sabermetric since Bill James came along.

A bit of inside info...in 2003 the idea of creating a Web division in the BBWAA to afford protections to people like Stark, Gammons, Rosenthal, Miller, etc. as well as Will Carroll, Joe Sheehan, Rob Neyer, etc. was met with resistance.

Well, I wouldn't mind if they just rejected Will Carroll.

(Kidding, kidding!)

FWIW, this does appear to being something against Rob Neyer and Keith Law. 7 of 9 ESPN.com baseball writers are let in, but the two who are willing to be critical and opinionated in there writing are left out.

It does smell fishy, or put in a less leading way, causes one to ask further questions about what the qualifications were for the ESPN.com nominees. Was it readership on the site or anything objective?

Regardless, I remain a big fan of Rob Neyer and Keith Law, but, unless they cut back their criticism of the actions of the BBWAA's behavior on HoF matters and whatnot, I doubt they'll ever be admitted to the club. That's how the world works. Mediocrity gets the keys and fights like Hell to keep competition away.

I don't agree that Neyer is a no-brainer.

Well, I fundamentally disagree. Indeed his column is paid-access now, and I have no idea how many people read it (I no longer do -- sorry Rob!). But his huge impact and contributions outside his column easily make the decision for me.

While generally this might be a proper approach, it's the case that this thread began with an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation that Law was lying. It was entirely justified for a few of us to figure out who was tossing that out but not standing behind it.

Sure -- all I'm saying is that this has turned from an argument about BBWAA into an exchange of personal attack and defense. It is worth noting that putting an argument on such a tangent is one of the older rhetorical tricks in the book.

If a group I was in wanted to include Will Carroll, I would offer some resistance as well.

Most private clubs are "old-boys-networks" where who you know is often more important than what you know. In this case Law has stated he rarely goes in the press box, and never eats there. As a result when he is at a game the writers don't know he is there. The members voting on admitting Law might know of him by reputation but not from personal interaction.

I also assume the BBWAA has a "you have to pay your dues" mentality, meaning you have to get to the park at 3, hang around the dugout, listen to the cliches from the managers, bs with the other beat guys, see if a player will give you a useable quote, hang around the press box, eat the bad food, and stay after the game to get another quote and file your report. Guys who haven't lived that might have trouble being accepted as one of the members.

If Law does want to get in the BBWAA he might want to put in some press box and bs time to get some face recognition.

If Law does want to get in the BBWAA he might want to put in some press box and bs time to get some face recognition.

It's amazing how much this conversation parallels my own dismal partnership prospects . . .

Sure -- all I'm saying is that this has turned from an argument about BBWAA into an exchange of personal attack and defense. It is worth noting that putting an argument on such a tangent is one of the older rhetorical tricks in the book.

True, and I wouldn't say that every last instance of that in this thread was justified. But, to the extent that one of the principals in the debate was originally unwilling to identify himself or to offer substantiation for his claims, that pretty much forces the group to concentrate on the personal aspect for a while. To put it another way, post #2 walked right into the thread and violated your quite reasonable statement from the outset.

Would we even be having this discussion if the BBWAA didn't hold the keys to the front door of the HOF?

-- MWE

Would we even be having this discussion if the BBWAA didn't hold the keys to the front door of the HOF?

Yes, because many writers desire to be part of an organization exhibiting cutting-edge web design.

With a clearly articulated mission statement prominently displayed, no less.

I think this thread jumped the shark after Page 1. At this point, Ringolsby is long gone and now we're all just complaining to each other about the BBWAA'a admission policies.

We can whine all we want, but it's their stupid club and they can make up whatever stupid rules they want.

For the record, although my tagline may infer otherwise, I am in no way affiliated with Kenny Williams.

For the record, although my tagline may infer otherwise, I am in no way affiliated with Kenny Williams.

that is quite a coincidence. neither am i! i wonder who else around here is also not kenny williams....

Sure -- all I'm saying is that this has turned from an argument about BBWAA into an exchange of personal attack and defense. It is worth noting that putting an argument on such a tangent is one of the older rhetorical tricks in the book.

Backlasher would be proud.

FWIW, this does appear to being something against Rob Neyer and Keith Law. 7 of 9 ESPN.com baseball writers are let in, but the two who are willing to be critical and opinionated in there writing are left out.

From my limited knowledge, I think that all of the others cut their teeth writing for the print media, or at least have some experience there. That's not true for Neyer and Law. Since the BBWAA is an organization of print reporters (many of whom themselves are "critical and opinionated"), that strikes me as a more plausible reason.

Well, I fundamentally disagree. Indeed his column is paid-access now, and I have no idea how many people read it (I no longer do -- sorry Rob!). But his huge impact and contributions outside his column easily make the decision for me.

Well, then I will use all my powers to make make sure you do never have the power to make that decision.

Wait. I have no such power. Carry on.

But seriously, should Angell have a vote?

complaining to each other

We can whine all we want

One of the other oldest rhetorical tricks in the book is to dismiss legitimate observations about unfairness, or a little related humor for levity's sake, as "complaining" and "whining."

Would we even be having this discussion if the BBWAA didn't hold the keys to the front door of the HOF

?

Maybe, but only because we got to talk to famous guys. Also, the HoF gave them the keys. It would be nice if the BBWAA said, "Hey, let's let some other qualified people vote, in addition to ourselves, to help the Hall and generate more interest in it" but it is the HoF's responsibility to do that, not the BBWAA's.

We can whine all we want, but it's their stupid club and they can make up whatever stupid rules they want.

Sure, and no one would care--except for the fact that you have to be in BBWAA to vote for the HoF.

One of the other oldest rhetorical tricks in the book is to dismiss legitimate observations about unfairness, or a little related humor for levity's sake, as "complaining" and "whining."

It wasn't meant that way. I agree that it's unfair. But when all we're seeing is hundreds of posts generally voicing the same point of view that the BBWAA is unfair -- mostly from people without dogs in the fight -- it's basically whining and complaining.

There isn't any real back-and-forth for it to qualify as debate. The only person who had a dog in the fight and stood up for the BBWAA, Ringolsby, has long since left.

I'm not saying that the BBWAA is irrelevant or unimportant -- far from it. But if all that's going on is laypeople like us complaining about how it's unfair, it just doesn't seem that this thread is all that interesting to me anymore. Of course, YMMV.

Now it would be interesting if he came back, but I seriously doubt that he or anyone else from the BBWAA will do it.

it's basically whining and complaining. There isn't any real back-and-forth for it to qualify as debate.

So if someone discusses an injustice with people who agree with him, he's merely whining and complaining?

Sure, and no one would care--except for the fact that you have to be in BBWAA to vote for the HoF.

Aye, that's the rub.

Well Al they are all up set because bloggers can not vote the Hall of Fame and there are at least 3 who can not Kieth Law Rob Near and me Jack Keefe this is because they do not want Birch Bayh-Levin nor Tim Reigns in the Coop and also I would like to say that I am not Kenny Williams neither tho once Mr Williams asked me for my Primer password so he could start a trade rumer under my name what rumer I asked him and Mr Williams said Keefe to Kansas City for a box of bricks I laughed he is such a Kidder.

Honestly I'm kinda shocked to see so many of you guys disregard the traditional media with such ease, what with the Winter Meetings having just occurred and all.

I mean I know many (if not all) of us cite "rotoworld" when we're talking about a rumor of some sort, but lest we forget (and I don't think I'm enlightening anyone with this information, I'm just saying) rotoworld pulls those rumors from newspapers and traditional reporters.

In the field of analysis and when it comes to truly understanding the game, the BBWAA is a bit of a dinosaur. But there's a lot of traditional reporting that gives us information the smarter guys don't have the access or ability to inform us on -- injury information, free agent and trade rumors, player and manager perspective, etc.

I, for one, am glad the BBWAA is there to ensure that there are traditional reporters who can report that sort of stuff. I'd rather read Neyer, Law, et. al., but I still like knowing exactly which part of Rich Harden's arm it is that's hurting this time, too. And I don't think the Neyers and such exactly want to report on that, nor do I really feel that it's worth their time, for that matter.

Obviously it needs to re-examine itself and change a lot of its policies (personally I liked the idea of expanding voting privileges and cleaning up the press pass qualifications), but by no means is the BBWAA "irrelevant."


(and I know the Gammons and Robothal guys aren't newspaper reporters. I'm talking about traditional reporting in general, which I'm tying to the BBWAA and traditional print media. Obviously Gammons and Robo and such do the best work, but "Brewers general manager Doug Melvin said Friday he still has interest in free agent Eric Gagne and planned to contact his agent, Scott Boras." (a rumor I just plucked from rotoworld) was reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. So that utility is still there.)

I think this thread jumped the shark after Page 1. At this point, Ringolsby is long gone and now we're all just complaining to each other about the BBWAA'a admission policies.

There are a number of further exchanges on Keith's blog worth reading.

So if someone discusses an injustice with people who agree with him, he's merely whining and complaining?

If someone is registering a belief that something is unfair and/or an injustice, to me that qualifies as a "complaint" and the person doing it would be "complaining."

"Whining" is a bit more subjective, of course.

If someone is registering a belief that something is unfair and/or an injustice, to me that qualifies as a "complaint" and the person doing it would be "complaining."

The issue is that the word is usually used with a strong negative connotation on top of its neutral denotation.

I think that's true of "whining" more than "complaining."

Still, it is what it is. My greater point is that there doesn't seem to be any back-and-forth about it and the only person in the BBWAA to stand up for it's policies has long left -- and not without taking a great deal of abuse.

Late to the party (as usual), but it won’t be the first or last time I end up the last post in a thread.

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.

Bingo. It’s part of the whole Conlin/Smith vs. the blogosphere. It’s best to let the cream rise to the top. I’d rather be read and have meaningful interchanges with my readers than be a member of the BBWAA. Doing what I love for pay is what success means to me. Whether a group wishes to include/exclude me doesn’t change that. The respect of the readers is far more important than respect from your peers. A writer can make a living if he has readers, he can’t if all he has are peers.

Just to clarify, when I made the "who gives a damn" comment, I was referring the attitude I think Keith and Rob should adopt, not everyone else. It's an injustice and should be regarded as such. But mostly I hope Keith and Rob are unfazed by this because, as I said, the did great, essential stuff without ever being part of the BBWAA, and they'll continue doing great, essential stuff after this.

Exactly, like Maury, I have no hopes or aspirations of being given BBWAA membership. I just want to do what I’m doing for a very long time and enjoy the ride.

I truly couldn't care less. I don't need credentials all that often, but when I do the FOX name gets even little ol' me access. I'm sure that's especially the case for ESPN writers. I have no desire to vote on awards I think are meaningless, and while I love the physical Hall of Fame itself, being part of the sausage-making doesn't interest me.

Yup, if you can get a press pass without difficulty, that’s good enough for l’il ol’ me.

On another level, you can't drink beer in the press box, so who the hell needs that?

Heh, I just wander off when I need a beer and come back.

As to Rob and Amazon … hey, you screwed up a few years back--no big deal. You’re human, it happens. If folks want to hold that against you then it’s a reflection on them not you. Same goes for Tracy--feuding (real or imagined) is a waste of time and energy. It’s baseball, the world won’t end if somebody has differing opinions on it. I hope the cowboy hat formerly known as “ballfan” will return. Sometimes we bust each other’s chops here but we always seem to survive and continue discussing the game.

Personally, I’m not a ‘club’ kinda guy for the simple reason that such things by definition are exclusionary. I hate the thought that I’d be part of a group deciding that somebody ‘doesn’t belong’ for whatever reason. No matter how nicely you word a rejection the person receiving it feels a bit diminished and I hate to think I made someone experience that feeling. I was part of a club like that once and I eventually flew the coop because diversity of opinion soon becomes unwelcome and you’re expected to think and behave in a manner consistent with the prevailing opinion of the group.

As I said earlier in the post, I like meritocracies and if folks read and appreciate my work and somebody is willing to pay my bills then I have succeeded. I’ll make mistakes, I will learn from them and I like my readers to think that baseball knowledge is a two way street; they’ll learn from me (I hope) and they’ll share what they know with me. In turn that will make me a better writer which just continues a happy little upward cycle.

Best Regards

John

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.

This, along with other comments I read, sounds like thinking less of Neyer and Law because they are behind the obviously 'not free curtain.' I think this is totally unfair. I'm surprised that paid content isn't the case in plenty of more places on the Net than it is - folks seem to feel they have a 'right' to read what people create because so much of it is free. I note folks saying that their readership 'must be a lot smaller since they are behind the pay curtain.' I'm not sure how true this is, but wonder what it's got to do with anything even if it is.

To compare 'beat writers' as the point of acceptance, for example, is silly. A baseball writer is only a baseball writer if they 'write almost every day'? That leaves out most columnists, all magazine writers, etc, etc.

This is all very interesting, though. In Oriole-land, there is one big big big website (disclaimer: I was one of the founding writers of said website, but quit years ago when the publisher began acting as if no one knew what they were talking about but him <this from a guy who supported Syd Thrift and claimed every year that the O's farm system was loaded with future pitching stars...sort of like Hank Steinbrenner>), and then everyone else. Said giant website has press credentials, though the quality of writing and general baseball-ese displayed on the site is just this side of fanboy.

Does this mean they shouldn't have the credential? I don't know. After all, I don't find the beat writers to be noticably better. Perhaps it's more of a running joke for me because I know the guys holding that credential. (This isn't jealousy talking. I have no interest in press credentials; I only go to 1/3 the games I used to and only write 1/4 what I used to <how many 'Orioles stink' articles can one write, after all?>, so I guess I'll never get into the BBWAA, either.)

The lines will continue to blur, and this debate will continue not only in baseball, but in news, politics, religion...most anything that people write about.

Can't we all just get along?

Let me make clear that I don't think less of Neyer because of the limited access issue. It's just very different than the traditions of the BBWAA. It seems to be adapting to changes by accepting some interneters--in fact 14 seems like a lot to me. You may disagree with where they draw the line and are free to criticize it but it is their call, I don't think it is patently unreasonable and I suspect there will be more movement over time.

Why don't broadcasters get votes? (Or do they?) Why does the written word qualify but not spoken? Why not baseball historians? I get more of my baseball from the Vin Scullys and Joe Morgans than the Dan Grazianos and Tracy Ringolsbys. I think most of the distinctions can wither under close scrutiny. But it doesn't mean the imperfect line drawing is stupid and personalized.

Speaking as an objective (yeah, right) observer, and leaving aside what happened this week -- just a passing storm, after all -- what we've learned is that the BBWAA's policies, when exposed to just a bit of sunlight, leave them open to questions about credibility.

Let us consider two men, Jim and Joe.

Jim has worked for many years as an editorial cartoonist for a newspaper, but has never been employed as a baseball writer.

Joe has been writing about baseball for 12 years, during which time he's written more words than anyone else for the most popular sports site in the country. He's also written five books about baseball, most of them available in your local Barnes & Noble.

Let us also assume that there's an organization called Baseball Writers Association of America.

Now, if you asked a man on the street which of these men -- Jim or Joe -- is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, what would he probably say?

Right. But as you probably have surmised, in real life it's Jim who's an Association member and Joe who's not. It's Jim who has a Hall of Fame ballot every year, and Joe who does not.

As long as this odd dichotomy exists, the BBWAA will be criticized for a deficit of credibility. Is that fair? I'm just a regular Joe, so I'll leave that question to others.

No, it's not fair, of course; you set that up as a rhetorical question, and so it is. It's not fair.

That leads to a few more, and somewhat more challenging, questions:

1. Does it matter?
1a. Why does it matter?
2. Is there anything we can do to remedy the unfairness?
3. Is it worth our time?

In my view, the answers are:

1. Yes;
2. Because it's an extremely excluding-oriented organization that happens to have absolute control over baseball's highest honors, the MVP/Cy Young awards and the Hall of Fame;
3/4. Nothing, besides keep producing high-quality work and wait for the inevitable death of "baseball writers" as the term was defined during the time period 65,000,000 B.C. - A.D. 2000.

It was Gandhi that said "first they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win." So that raises another question: Where are we in that chain of progress? I think we're shifting from phase two (they laugh at you) into phase 3 (they fight you).

Nothing, besides keep producing high-quality work and wait for the inevitable death of "baseball writers" as the term was defined during the time period 65,000,000 B.C. - A.D. 2000.

I'm pretty sure a number of these guys go way back into the Cretaceous.

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 don't know if he's a good bad, bad guy, saint or Garvey, but if we're going to start judging people by how they respond to impolite e-mails . . .

I'm not saying that Joe Blow the guy who runs "Joe's Mets Ramblings," should be a part of the BBWAA and vote

I think people are confusing things here. The BBWAA was founded to help those who do go to games and cover them get access to the teams and players. Years later, Cooperstown decided these should be the only ones voting for the Hall of Fame.

What we associate with the BBWAA isn't it's main function. By the standards of its main function, it makes sense to limit membership to those who cover a lot of games at the ballpark. If more should have a vote, that's Cooperstown's fault for limiting it as they do, not the BBWAA.

1. Tracy acknowledged that the BBWAA admits sports editors, cartoonists, etc

I don't think they did those jobs when admitted. SOunds like they have a guard door at the entrance, but once you're in, that's a whole other mess'o'potatoes.

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.

Ain't Bob Verdi a member? He hasn't written on baseball in years.

Shouldn't Rob and Keith have to gain fifty pounds and have a total disregard for personal hygiene before they can even be considered for the BBWAA?

No, they have to gain fifty pounds and have a total disregard for personal hygiene before they can even be considered primates.

Would we even be having this discussion if the BBWAA didn't hold the keys to the front door of the HOF?

Hell, no.

I've learned more about the BBWAA over the last 48 hours than ever before.

I don't think they did those jobs when admitted. SOunds like they have a guard door at the entrance, but once you're in, that's a whole other mess'o'potatoes.

Dagnabit, I think you're wrong. Yes, once you're in it's a whole other mess-o'-potatoes. But it's simply not true that every BBWAA member was, at some point, a regular newspaperman. I have two friends in the BBWAA who don't come close to meeting that criteria, so there must be at least a few score more.

Frankly, if the BBWAA is interested in furthering this discussion -- no, I don't know why they would be -- they should maintain and publish, on their super-duper website, a complete list of BBWAA members with Hall of Fame ballots. Considering that the Hall of Fame is the highest honor in professional sports, they should have done this a long, long time ago.

And, unless they want people to regard them as an amateurish bunch of buffooons, they ought to publish clear criteria for membership, adopt a consistent process for checking whether or not nominees have met those criteria, and provide some transparent summary of both and the results of their votes.

Screw Rob and Keith, but they gotta let Jack Keefe in.

Funny that "not going to games" was the reason Keith didn't get in. The only time I've met him in person, we met for dinner right before he went to a game, and the discussion centered around a four game series he'd attended in Boston between the Angels and Red Sox. Sounds to me like someone who, ya know, goes to games.

This whole affair is a poor joke. The BBWAA can posture all they'd like, but there is absolutely NO fair reason why Neyer and Law get stiff-armed at the door when this flippin' cartoonist is a member. Zilch. And if we knew all the members and their day jobs, I fear it would be even more infuriating. How can anyone take the BBWAA seriously given this hypocrisy?

Thank you Craig Calcaterra for bringing this discussion to my attention.

Randomly.

This thread will be forever remembered as the point in time when the 2.0 baseball community collectively drove off the edge of the cliff. ( I'm at the front of the line ). What's wrong with us?

Gammons made a remark in his blog last year about "people who write from between walls" or pretty damn close to that. The tone was somewhat dismissive and I assume(d) that he was referring to the garden variety baseball blogger but in retrospect was he also referencing Neyer & Law?

I think the 2.0 baseball world are jealous of the BBWAA membership. I think that is the root of much of the BBWAA bashing in this thread and possibly explains the ridiculously large # of comments. We - the baseball bloggers - think we can do it better. Meanwhile we plug away in anonymity and it pisses us off. I think the "baseball writers" are being judged too harshly on the whole in this thread. They write for general interest sports sections and neither their editors or most of their readers are interested in the stuff that we geeks are. As somebody before me commented, we also need them for the important day to day information gathering of lineup changes, injuries, etc. I read all of BBWAA member Jeff Blair's work and enjoy it as much as anything I read on the web. ( Although I usually read him online, but you get my point ).

This thread did "jump the shark" post Ringolsby. Post "Ballfan" ( 2.0 psuedonyms are childish ) the discussion regressed into a mutual admiration society gab fest.

I don't care about awards or HOF debates ( I am aware of them by osmosis ) and have zero desire to visit Cooperstown. But there is one overlooked group in this discussion that I suspect does care - a lot - about how the BBWAA votes. THE PLAYERS. I think membership in the HOF is probably immensely important for those elected and those who were close but denied. I also think a lot of current players are aware of BBWAA awards but are simultaneously ignorant of what's being said at BTF, Prospectus, THT, Neyer's & Law's blogs etc.

If baseball writers don't attend games, is their reporting bogus? Not for the type of insight that Law & Neyer provide but for game reporting I think live is better. I'm more aware of positioning, baserunning, jumps, routes to balls...when I'm at the ballpark. TV does limit what you can see.

There is something wrong with us, isn't there?

I hate being an "us". Can't I just be "me" ?

You gotta be.

I think the 2.0 baseball world are jealous of the BBWAA membership.

That's a particularly unfair blanket assumption to make. Some of the newer guard, sure, I suppose they might be jealous, but how that extrapolates to everyone who is an Internet-based baseball writer or forum participant is beyond me.

This thread's first page was essentially an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation of Law's supposed lies, followed by the discovery of that poster's identity, followed by that poster's accusing Neyer of doing the same thing the poster had done to begin this very thread. The poster even edited this latter accusation out of his original message. (The comment quoted in #97 was up briefly before its sudden disappearance.) So given all of this, the thread "jumped the shark" after this poster decided to leave?

The fundamental complaints, whines, or whatever one might call them, on this thread have little, if anything, to do with jealousy--in the majority of cases, not at all. The indignation exists because of the apparent fundamental insularism of the BBWAA's philosophy, the organization's apparent unwillingness to accept change in meaningful ways and proportions, and the transparent vote to bring in only those writers who meet certain unarticulated criteria.

In #265's comparison, Neyer briefly pointed out his writing experience, and it more than stands on its own--yes, even outside of a comparison with a political cartoonist's baseball output. If Neyer, with his combination of quality, prolificity, and tenure, is not considered worthy of being a part of an influential association of baseball writers in America, then quite obviously something is inanely awry.

Wow, what a thread. When do we have the feats of strength?

I think it's clear that Rob Neyer and Keith Law are being punished here for not playing the rules, but of course, not playing by the rules is what gives their writing value. It's not a matter here of writers like Neyer and Law replacing the traditional beat man--we're always going to need some indsider reportage, game recaps, injury news, trade rumors etc.--but of writers like Neyer and Law being allowed to join the party. (I also wonder now how much Keith is being punished for calling the Ordonez MVP votes idiotic.) The traditional baseball columnist, however, is very much in trouble.

I sympathize with Rob's learning some of his heroes are jerks and even finding himself in an adversarial relationship with one. I went through the same thing when I began to meet the short fiction writers I idolized. Avoid your heroes, guys. Avoid them like the plague.

And, of course, the good news in all of this is that Keith and Rob won't lose a single reader because they aren't members of the BBWAA.

SOunds like they have a guard door at the entrance, but once you're in, that's a whole other mess'o'potatoes.

In other words, the BBWAA is exactly like Harvard.

When I say the 2.0 baseball world I am referring to most of the commenters ( is that a word? ) on this blog. I didn't mean to lump Law & Neyer in with us. They obviously have large audiences ( I'm part of them ), although how large being that they are behind Disney's pay walls has been questioned here. They aren't typical of the 2.0 geekdom, we who blather on anonymously to very few if any.

What the hell, everybody seems in the mood for candor. Mr. Neyer & Mr. Law, are either of you jealous of BBWAA members? Does it irk either of you that you don't have a vote? ( Perhaps you've stated this already but after the first 100 or so comments do you get a bit dazed as well? )

What's wrong with us?

There's nothing wrong with me, and I'm just not sure about you.

Why does the BBWAA need two B's in its acronym when "baseball" has been one word for like a century or so? That's really the only remaining point of interest for me here.

Since when is 277 comments a ridiculously large number of comments??

Pete, I'm neither a blogger nor a baseball writer. I'm merely a fan. My first baseball memory is the 1966 World Series with the Baby Birds beating the big bad Dodgers. I grew up playing SOM and watching Brooks and Frank. I learned sabrmetrics before the term was even invented by watching and listening to Earl Weaver. I grew up having the joy of reading John Steadman. I have appreciated both print and electronic media thoughout my life.

And, bloggers have nothing to be jealous about. They do DO it better. I don't need and any reasonably intelligent human doesn't need some writer to tell me about lineup changes and injuries. I pick up a paper or my computer to learn. To be informed. To be educated.

And, quite frankly, I pick up print media less and less with each passing year. Most of the writers in print media do little to inform or educate me about the game of baseball. Most of the time they don't provide squat about lineup changes or injuries. Most of what they do is bloviate, typically with a column replete with misinformation, poor logic, and snide insults. Sure, the electronic media has the same. Maybe even more of it. But, once I cut through the chaff, what I find on the daily electronic media is outstanding analysis of the best game ever invented. Rarely a week goes by when I am not struck by some interesting insight into an old question or a new question that had not even occurred to me in the electronic media. What I find in my daily reading among the blogging community is so many lightyears better than the print media that it's laughable to even compare the two.

And, so, simply speaking as a simple baseball fan, I find the actions of the BBWAA to be appalling. At best, they have created and sustained a stupid and inane process for membership. At worst...and what I have seen from the comments of several of them suggests the worst is closer to the truth...they have engaged in a childish effort to blackball some people who've demonstrated that the Emperors of the Press Box have no clothes.

So, this passionate baseball fan answers your question with a very supportive "No". There's nothing wrong with you. In fact, I've never felt as happy about the state of baseball writing or enjoyed the game as much or felt as excited about learning more about it than I have in the last few years.

And that's because of the blogging community.

I hate being an "us". Can't I just be "me" ?

It is not he or she or them or it that you belong to.

It's alright ma, I'm only posting.

When I ask, "what's wrong with us?", I am asking if the reaction here to Neyer & Law being excluded isn't completely over the top? I.E. #283 calls the BBWAA's actions "appalling". EVERYBODY STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD, I REPEAT, STEP AWAY....

I've never commented here before, is 284 comments not ridiculous at this site?

I've mistakenly left the impression that I am anti "electronic" media. That is not the case. I am a faithful reader of THT, Prospectus, Neyer & Law etc. I think there is far too much of a, "you're either with us or agin us" sentiment in this discussion.

Really, there's nothing wrong with me / us being so obsessed with baseball? Maybe we should poll our partners, friends, co workers etc. We're not ok.

284 is a lot. For a thread that began as the east cost went to bed on a weekend night, 284 in under 24 hours is amazing.

I dunno if it qualifies as ridiculous, though. We've had threads go over 4,000. Last month a thread about an interview with Rob Neyer went around 1,100 posts. That was mostly people talking movies.

#'s 283 & 286, I stand corrected.

Thanks.

I've never commented here before, is 284 comments not ridiculous at this site?

At least two recent threads (the Bonds indictment and perhaps the Milledge trade) had over 300 posts in less than four hours. They topped out somewhere north of 500.

Really, there's nothing wrong with me / us being so obsessed with baseball? Maybe we should poll our partners, friends, co workers etc. We're not ok.

If you're not ok, feel free to change your life. Many people here are fully capable of maintaining a healthy family life, career, etc. while still being passionate about baseball. "Obsessed" is a word that is tossed around too casually.

The newspaper sports writers offer the basic information that the rest of us build into more incisive insights. Often, I get the distinct impression that a main job responsiblity is to report what their respective teams want them to report for competitive/PR purposes. And it is that "shilling" for the club is what really irks the internet community.

Maybe as a regular reader of four NY sports pages my perceptions are completely off-base.

Judean People's Front.

Splitters.

Maybe we should poll our partners, friends, co workers etc. We're not ok.

You've been talking to my wife, haven't you?

Seriously, I can only speak for myself. And I already did. In post 119 of this thread. I really enjoy reading Nick Piecoro every day. He gives me a lot of information that I can't get elsewhere, and does so in a style that I enjoy reading. He also happens to be young, progressive, and open minded. If you e mail him to discuss a specific point, he will read it with an open mind and respond in a courteous manner. At least that's been my experience with him. And I am sure he is not the only writer with BBWAA credentials that fits this description. I would never accept any one size fits all condemnation of an entire group simply because of the poor attitudes of some of their members. We hate it when people do that to "us", don't we? ;)

#288, you take me too seriously. I'm trying to poke fun at us / me. I am an avid baseball fan as well as a happy father and husband. You BTH folks are a bit, a lot, zealous. I'm certain I'll soon be told to leave if I find this the case. Does First Amendment apply to the web?

#288, you take me too seriously.

Actually, I would say that you're taking #288 too seriously.

In other words, the BBWAA is exactly like Harvard.

Except that you have to be smart to get into Harvard.

"Often, I get the distinct impression that a main job responsibility is to report what their respective teams want them to report for competitive/PR purposes. And it is that "shilling" for the club is what really irks the internet community.
Maybe as a regular reader of four NY sports pages my perceptions are completely off-base."

Yes, you are completely off-base. Especially in regards to NY media, which constantly frustrate the teams they cover precisely because they write whatever the hell they want. And well they should.

Look, I will back up the sentiments of many here that many/most mainstream writers aren't as up to speed on developing baseball statistical analysis as they could/should be. Yes.

And it's impossible to argue with the fact that so many BBWAA members have little to no current connection with covering the sport.

But I wish the reaction to that was not so often vitriolic. Is it so hard for you guys to imagine that maybe you don't really understand how the entire business works? Is there any room for humility?

One ridiculous extreme is, "If you haven't played the game/covered it, you don't understand anything."

Another ridiculous extreme is, "I understand everything."

Maybe it's my misinterpretation, but sometimes I feel like the middle ground gets lost.

And the level of anger is a little unnerving. What is the goal of such posters?

My one consolation is that several posters seem to understand what the main point of the BBWAA actually is. And that the issue of who votes on awards is a separate discussion.

Does First Amendment apply to the web?

Since BBTF is not a government organization, the 1st Amendment has no bearing on it.

Since BBTF is not a government organization, the 1st Amendment has no bearing on you being told to STFU.

That response seems overly harsh.

That response seems overly harsh.

Pet peeve. And now changed.

Sorry, Tom, but I call them as I see them. I speak as nothing more than a typical baseball fan. I'm not at all a frequent poster here or elsewhere on the blogs. I read several, a few regularly. Because of that I know Neyer and Law's work. And to vote to exclude them is ridiculous and appalling. Neyer's work in popularizing the statistical analysis of baseball, among other work, is imo, a significant part of why many fans are paying more and more attention to aspects of baseball that were largely ignored for years. Law's work on young players is among the best I've encountered.

What the BBWAA has done is appalling to me, just your average fan, because rather than make an honest decision on the merits, they simply looked for excuses to justify a mean-spirited dig. It's juvenile in the extreme. It's appalling as in appalling bad manners. I'm not sure why you think this is such an over the top reaction. It's not like I'm marching on their houses with torches and pitchforks. All I'm doing is what most are...sitting around, watching a little TV and posting a few comments.

Maybe it's my misinterpretation, but sometimes I feel like the middle ground gets lost.

I think that, in this particular situation, the feeling here is that it was the BBWAA who rejected the middle-ground position.