#297, thanks for enlightening me on the 1st amendment - I'll use the excuse that I'm a Canadian. And thanks for enlightening me on what the Internet acronym STFU means - I had to look it up.

I had to look it up

Maybe you should spend more time here.

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 think that's backwards. You can't read a newspaper columnist unless you buy the newspaper. Some newspapers put their content online for free, but not all of them.

If anything, the fact that people pay to read Rob's work should make it more prestigious, not less. But I don't think the BBWAA was considering that issue at all, really.

Ringolsby talking about the quality and completeness of Keith Law's quals and analysis is funny.

What qualifies Ringolsby to write about baseball, anyway? Some paper hired him to do it a while ago? Great....they hired some clown to write a gossip column too, does that person qualify for BBWAA membership as well?

they hired some clown to write a gossip column too, does that person qualify for BBWAA membership as well?

Evidently so, if the cartoonist story is true - I'm not sure there is a way to confirm BBWAA membership online, unless you're in the BBWAA.

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

The President and hordes of legacy admissions suggest otherwise.

The President and hordes of legacy admissions suggest otherwise.

True that.

"What qualifies Ringolsby to write about baseball, anyway?"

He's been covering baseball for 31 years; and he did win the Spink Award while doing so. Chances are, Ringolsby knows a lot more about baseball than most of us, even if he showed poor tact in his comments on this thread.

What qualifies Ringolsby to write about baseball, anyway?

I'm pretty sure that Tracy Ringolsby knows more about baseball than everyone else who has posted on this thread, with the possible exceptions of Rob Neyer and Keith Law.

#297, thanks for enlightening me on the 1st amendment - I'll use the excuse that I'm a Canadian.

Same rules apply here. The Charter guarantee of freedom of speech - which has been interpreted far less broadly than its American equivalent - doesn't apply to private enterprise. People are free to say that you shouldn't be posting. Of course unless it's Furtado saying so, you're free to incorrectly rely on chunks of any constitution in the world in your response to them.

I'm pretty sure that Tracy Ringolsby knows more about baseball than everyone else who has posted on this thread, with the possible exceptions of Rob Neyer and Keith Law.

I'll bite. On what basis do you think this? And what do you mean by "knows more about baseball"?

It's funny when a D-list celebrity pops in here and posters feel the need to kiss his ass.

On what basis do you think this?

The man has been reporting on and writing about baseball on a daily basis for thirty-one years. For longer than a lot of people here have been alive, that's been Ringolsby's job.

And what do you mean by "knows more about baseball"?

He knows more about baseball. In one of the links someone posted, Ringolsby mentioned offhand that Burt Hooton learned the knuckle curve while playing for a team in Boulder. Now, I'm sure a lot of people here wouldn't think that's more valuable than knowing Gregg Zaun's lifetime VORP, but it sure is knowledge.

I'm pretty sure that Tracy Ringolsby knows more about baseball than everyone else who has posted on this thread, with the possible exceptions of Rob Neyer and Keith Law.

How easily you forget who posted #255.

It's funny when a D-list celebrity pops in here and posters feel the need to kiss his ass.

I don't think that's a very nice way to describe Rob and Keith.

Seriously, you can't possibly be referring to Ringolsby, because he is certainly a far bigger name, now and likely ever, than the aforementioned messers Neyer and Law, and I'd hardly describe this thread as an example of ass-kissing TR.

It's funny when a D-list celebrity pops in here and posters feel the need to kiss his ass.

It's better when the D-list celebrity shows less tact than I do.

Right. I'm aware that Ringolsby is a big name in the field of baseball writing, but that doesn't mean he's particularly high in "celebritiness."

This is a dumb argument though, I was just making a joke.

If I sat and watched people program computers and wrote stuff like "Joe Bigass looks really good in the chair; you just know he's going to come up with a clutch subroutine," and "Dick Mantits has the type of experience this office needs, since he came up back in the days of the 360," that wouldn't mean I knew anything about programing computers.

He knows more about baseball. In one of the links someone posted, Ringolsby mentioned offhand that Burt Hooton learned the knuckle curve while playing for a team in Boulder.

Ringolsby lives in Colorado. He probably knows a bunch of interesting Colorado-baseball facts. That doesn't mean he's more "knowledgable" about baseball though, necessarily.

Isn't he a member of SABR? Does he participate in the trivia contest? :)

He knows more about baseball. In one of the links someone posted, Ringolsby mentioned offhand that Burt Hooton learned the knuckle curve while playing for a team in Boulder. Now, I'm sure a lot of people here wouldn't think that's more valuable than knowing Gregg Zaun's lifetime VORP, but it sure is knowledge.

But it may not be fact.

Raffy getting a GG at 1b

Way back in the thread, but ...

That particular howler isn't a black mark on the writers. They don't get to vote on the GGs.

It was the true pros who gave us that particular piece of idiocy.

Based on a direct quote from Hooton, this article says that Hooton began to use the knuckle curve in Corpus Christi, Texas.

This article mentions Hooton refined the pitch while playing for a team in Boulder.

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.

Yeah, but seeing that Ringolsby checked out at Post #100, it is surprising to me that the thread has gotten to Post #323, particularly insofar as the last 223 posts or so have voiced the nearly unanimous thought that Law and Neyer should have been admitted.

wow.

and to think that I almost didn't read this thread.

I mean honestly. The thread title alone is .. "Kieth Law speaks" and for the life of me couldn't figure why that would be worth 5 comments let alone 300.

interesting read though.

thanks for sharing

I'm pretty sure that Tracy Ringolsby knows more about baseball than everyone else who has posted on this thread, with the possible exceptions of Rob Neyer and Keith Law.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong; I would agree that Tracy Ringolsby knows more about writing a baseball column in a newspaper than anyone who posted in this thread, but my point was that this is not the same as knowing baseball.

I don't actually dislike Ringolsby and have read him occasionally for years. But he's a reporter who has the baseball beat so far as I can tell, not an analyst or someone a baseball team would look to to make decisions. Knowing (or, perhaps more accurately, misstating) where Burt Hooton learned a certain pitch is trivia to me--interesting, but not a qual which means you should be voting on awards or the Hall of Fame.

I would bet I, and dozens of others in this thread, watched more MLB games last year than Ringolsby did. What he has is access to people via his job, his reputation, and his contacts over the years. That means he is able to get information most of us can't and express opinions based on that info, and I'm glad he does so. That's not the same, however, as being able to usefully analyze the game and situations within it.

The bbwaa is worthy of all the criticism it got here, but questioning Ringolsby's knowledge about baseball is absurd.

That's not the same, however, as being able to usefully analyze the game and situations within it.

Exhibit A:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/25218/

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.

Amen, John, Amen.

The bbwaa is worthy of all the criticism it got here, but questioning Ringolsby's knowledge about baseball is absurd.

Amen to this too.

What in the hell is "baseball knowledge," anyway?

Who among these "knows" (or knew) "the most" about baseball?

Bill James? Rob Neyer? The collective knowledge of the editors of Baseball Prospectus?

Joe Morgan? Greg Maddux? Ted Williams? Tom Seaver?

Leonard Koppett? Fred Lieb? Roger Angell? Thomas Boswell?

Johnny Sain? Charlie Lau? Lee Mazzone (Atlanta version)? Lee Mazzone (Baltimore version)?

Or a 46-year old mental patient I know who spends 14 hours a day reading baseball books, who can recite the starting lineups of every team that's played in a World Series, and can give you an intelligent synopsis of the career of every significant baseball owner and executive going back to the 1860's?

How can you really "know" baseball if you've never played it on a professional level?

And how can you really "know" baseball if you're ignorant of its history?

I know one thing: Any baseball "analyst" who doesn't respect the perspective of experience and the judgments of contemporaries isn't much of an analyst. And any player (or writer) who thinks that playing the game tells you all you need to know about it is in his own way every bit as limited as the condescending analyst.

If I sat and watched people program computers and wrote stuff like "Joe Bigass looks really good in the chair; you just know he's going to come up with a clutch subroutine," and "Dick Mantits has the type of experience this office needs, since he came up back in the days of the 360," that wouldn't mean I knew anything about programing computers.

Congratulations, Vaux. You win the thread.

From #169..Then again, now that Gammons has moved on to ESPN and his post at the Globe is held by vendetta-fueled CHB

No. Gammons was a beat writer and wrote the Sunday notes column, and wrote only about baseball (with the Globe). CHB is a columnist. Edes and Cafardo share the beat writing and Sunday baseball notes duties.

In an early post Rob Neyer said something like "maybe all internet baseball writers should be allowed into the BBWAA..."

I was going to post something in opposition to this, something like "great, make it a complete Tower of Babbling Idiots", but the more I think about it, the less I care. GG, MVP and Cy Young awards are meaningless. If those awards didn't exist, would baseball suffer? It seems to me that the only suffering would be felt by agents who couldn't use the awards to help negotiate contracts for their clients. Does anyone give a #### whether Josh Beckett or CC Sabathia won the Cy Young this past year? Everyone knew ARod was this year's MVP; does anyone really care that the writers felt Jimmy Rollins deserved the award over Matt Holliday? The votes are artificial abstractions. The writers can say that 11 inches is one foot; that doesn't make it so. And, in the final analysis, the votes don't make the winner the rightful recipient. Baseball is a team game. The only awards that matter are the team championships. Thankfully, there isn't a BCS-type vote that awards them. IMO.

edit...Rob's post brings up opening admission to the BBWAA as an extreme measure that would create logistical problems. He wasn't saying it should be so.

I don't think the issue is the MVP and CY Young – still less the GG, which writers don't vote on at all. The awards are voted on by only a very small panel of the BBWAA membership, two voters from each league city. National columnists like Law and Neyer would never vote on them anyway.

The main issues are respect for the considerable expertise that Law and Neyer would bring to the BBWAA, and (eventually, and somewhat down the list of important things) knowing how to fill out a better Hall of Fame ballot than the one linked in #327.

I agree with Andere Richtingen, Andy, and others that disrespect for Ringolsby is misplaced. Criticism of Ringolsby is fine – that 2004 HOF Ballot is unbelievably random, and he should take all kinds of heat for it. But he has considerable obvious expertise of his own, and it doesn't pay to discredit it even though he may discredit others'.

If I sat and watched people program computers and wrote stuff like "Joe Bigass looks really good in the chair; you just know he's going to come up with a clutch subroutine," and "Dick Mantits has the type of experience this office needs, since he came up back in the days of the 360," that wouldn't mean I knew anything about programing computers.

And if you sat at your computer all day typing things like "Jimmy Rollins the MVP? He led the league in outs made!!," that wouldn't mean you know anything about baseball, either.

I would bet I, and dozens of others in this thread, watched more MLB games last year than Ringolsby did.

This may be true. Ringolsby was in attendance at something close to 162 Rockies games last year, which would limit his ability to watch other teams. It's interesting to see the whole "get your head out of a book and watch a game!" insult get totally flipped around, though.

What he has is access to people via his job, his reputation, and his contacts over the years. That means he is able to get information most of us can't and express opinions based on that info, and I'm glad he does so. That's not the same, however, as being able to usefully analyze the game and situations within it.

This is the crux of the argument, I think. It's not that Primates (of which, you know, Ringolsby is one) know more about the game than beat writers; it's that what Primates know is so much more important.

I'm not taking a position on that. But if your argument is that Ringolsby or any other BBWAA member is worthless because he has foolishly spent his time talking to managers and coaches and players rather than studying the base-out run-expectancy matrix, then say it that way.

He knows more about baseball. In one of the links someone posted, Ringolsby mentioned offhand that Burt Hooton learned the knuckle curve while playing for a team in Boulder.

I couldn't find where Ringolsby said that he learned it in Boulder, but he did say that he refined it there in the article that Sawney Sowes linked. That sort of local color is probably for Ringolsby's main audience in Colorado.

Page 19 of the October 9, 1971 Sporting News said that Hooton started using the pitch when he was 14 in a Pony League and I believe that he was in Corpus Christi at the time. Good memory by Burt. BTW, paperofrecord could be better, but it rocks!

From Neyer's article:

Was Hooton the first pitcher to throw the knuckle-curve? Probably not. He later remembered, "I started fooling around with the knuckle-curve when I was 14, pitching in the Corpus Christi Pony League," and it's unlikely that a 14-year-old would actually invent a pitch.

In the TSN article, Phillies coach George Myatt mentions Johnny Niggeling as a previous knuckle curve artist. Hooton said that he was trying to throw a conventional knuckler and wasn't able to and wound up throwing the knuckle curve instead.

I've spent way too much time on this.

I couldn't find where Ringolsby said that he learned it in Boulder, but he did say that he refined it there in the article that Sawney Sowes linked.

That's my bad, then. I didn't go back and re-read the article before I posted that.

Ringolsby talking about the quality and completeness of Keith Law's quals and analysis is funny.

What qualifies Ringolsby to write about baseball, anyway? Some paper hired him to do it a while ago? Great....they hired some clown to write a gossip column too, does that person qualify for BBWAA membership as well?

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

but questioning Ringolsby's knowledge about baseball is absurd.

I've always viewed BTF as a place to discuss/challenge commonly accepted logic. Occasionally those commonly held beliefs are flawed, occasionally they are not. I don't find the discussion absurd at all.

And I also find it very telling that "ballfan" only reveals himself to be Ringolsby after another poster specifically asks if they are, in fact, the same person.

Oh, and if BTF is Web 2.0, it's been Web 2.0 for several years before Web 2.0 was Web 2.0...good luck deciphering that sentence.

What the hell? It's Web 2.01 at least!

Or a 46-year old mental patient I know who spends 14 hours a day reading baseball books, who can recite the starting lineups of every team that's played in a World Series, and can give you an intelligent synopsis of the career of every significant baseball owner and executive going back to the 1860's?

You've just describe me as a seven-year old.

In terms of the "Tracy has forgotten more about baseball than you'll ever know!" arguments, let's remember: Experience should be respected, but it is not the same as expertise or critical understanding.

I have no personal comment on Ringolsby's ability, but I get sick of the "I've taught poorly for 35 years, so there's nothing you can teach me on the subject" co-workers.

I also found it troubling when people used the "yeah, it's not just but you don't have to whine about it among a bunch of people" argument. If something is indeed unjust, you absolutely MUST address it until it is changed.

Or a 46-year old mental patient I know who spends 14 hours a day reading baseball books, who can recite the starting lineups of every team that's played in a World Series, and can give you an intelligent synopsis of the career of every significant baseball owner and executive going back to the 1860's?

You've just describe me as a seven-year old.

And instead of "Stump the Schwab," ESPN could have had "X-Out the Eraserhead."

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

On the contrary. The question of what "qualifies" someone to be a baseball writer is at the heart of the whole issue. I mean no offense to Ringolsby, but asking what qualifies him -- and by inference, what disqualifies others -- is absolutely valid and necessary in order to address that issue.

If there is a clear answer, fine; there should be no problem with articulating it. If there is no clear answer, doesn't that confirm what some people have been saying about the BBWAA -- that they're basically making up the rules as they go along?

Primey for #329.

I've always viewed BTF as a place to discuss/challenge commonly accepted logic.

Up to a point. Up to another point it's a place for likeminded people to reinforce their own conventionally held wisdom, espeically the parts where it veers from mainstream thinking. Frankly, it's a lot more of that than a place to challenge accepted logic.

Occasionally those commonly held beliefs are flawed, occasionally they are not. I don't find the discussion absurd at all.

The assumptions that some are making are absurd.

And I also find it very telling that "ballfan" only reveals himself to be Ringolsby after another poster specifically asks if they are, in fact, the same person.

Huh? I don't get this post at all.

Among other things, please note the is-ballfan-Tracy? line began after post #23 when repoz posted a comment Tracy had made under his own name after he gave repoz permission to do it.

I'm not taking a position on that. But if your argument is that Ringolsby or any other BBWAA member is worthless because he has foolishly spent his time talking to managers and coaches and players rather than studying the base-out run-expectancy matrix, then say it that way.

That's not my argument, which is why I didn't xpress it that way. Taking something and shorthanding it like that is pretty unhelpful, I'd say, to a serious discussion actually. There's more to this than a run-expectancy matrix and there's more to it than an old-school journalist and his approach.

The point is, there's a bunch of different ways to reach opinions about baseball. Tracy Ringolsby, who is a journalist that has never worked for a baseball team, saying that Keith Law doesn't know what he's talking about because the team who employed him made a bad FA decision, is just an opinion---one I personally believe to be asinine. So is suggesting that the only type of baseball knowledge involves formulas....an approach I don't agree with either.

But there's an assumption here (represented least-thoughtfully by the 'shark jumping' person above) that simply because someone has been doing something for a long time that they are good at it and can pass value on others who do things like it. I don't think that's the case, nor do I think that someone who uses numbers necessarily knows what they are talking about either.

What I think is that a serious discussion of different approaches, qualifications, and the different perspective and value they add to the larger baseball discussion is a useful way to figure out who should be taken seriously on baseball. I don't think Ringolsby's view shows that level of thoughtfulness, and thus I think we should ask why anyone cares about his view as part of the process, too.

As I said above, I've been reading him for a long time and think his perspective is interesting. He has a huge set of knowledge of people; I also think we should be able to agree that his approach (a pretty classic one for US baseball print journalists of long tenure) relying primarily on sources is one approach and a stat-based approach is another. One being better than the other is a matter of choice, not an absolute. I personally don't find Ringolsby's analysis of team moves very useful...that's because I think of these issues using a different paradigm than he appears to I imagine. I valu the news and information he brings, and recognize that sometimes this reflects his opinions as well, and sometimes reflects the biases or agendas of those who feed him info. Just like reading BP reflects a set of assumptions and biases about how to analyze player performance or what 'factors' are worth considering.

Different approaches, and we should ask the same set of questions about each of them, imo.

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.

In case anybody's wondering, Matt LeCroy is actually a really nice guy.

Does this all mean that battlekow is a handle that Gammons and Stark share?

In case anybody's wondering, Matt LeCroy is actually a really nice guy.

Maybe I should amend my statment to choose your heroes wisely? :)

Maybe I should amend my statement to choose your heroes wisely? :)

Or admire them for what they do well rather than giving them every good attribute.

The point is, there's a bunch of different ways to reach opinions about baseball. Tracy Ringolsby, who is a journalist that has never worked for a baseball team, saying that Keith Law doesn't know what he's talking about because the team who employed him made a bad FA decision, is just an opinion---one I personally believe to be asinine. So is suggesting that the only type of baseball knowledge involves formulas....an approach I don't agree with either.

It's kinda funny, too, in that Keith is probably more scout-friendly than the average stathead is.

All I can say in this is that while I've never had any contact with Ringolsby, I've had plenty of contact with Keith over the years (he's old Usenet Mafia, so we're talking nearly 15 years now) and when we've disagreed on something, he never, without exception, ever used an appeal to authority as an argument.

Or admire them for what they do well rather than giving them every good attribute.

This, in some cases, is easier to do from a distance. Also, for some, if I "gave" them a good attribute, it would be their first.

He's nice, but you can't tell us why!

But there's an assumption here (represented least-thoughtfully by the 'shark jumping' person above) that simply because someone has been doing something for a long time that they are good at it

Ringolsby has been reporting on baseball for a long time, but that's not the only reason to respect his work. He has been given the highest honor his profession affords, the Spink Award. Also, the fact that he has been lurking and occasionally posting here for a couple of years now speaks well of his desire to continually learn more about the game.

and can pass value on others who do things like it. I don't think that's the case, nor do I think that someone who uses numbers necessarily knows what they are talking about either.

What I think is that a serious discussion of different approaches, qualifications, and the different perspective and value they add to the larger baseball discussion is a useful way to figure out who should be taken seriously on baseball.

That sounds like it might be valuable, but it also sounds as dull as the day is long. Anyway, I don't want to read Ringolsby to find out what he thinks of how different approaches add value to the larger baseball discussion. I want to read him because he knows many, many things about baseball that I don't.

I don't think Ringolsby's view shows that level of thoughtfulness, and thus I think we should ask why anyone cares about his view as part of the process, too.

I don't disagree with you. At the same time, we might as well ask ourselves why we should care about the views of Vaux, Sawney Snows, the Piehole of David Wells, or anyone else who dismissed Ringolsby out of hand in this thread as irrelevant or worthless without the level of "thoughtfulness" that you seem to think is necessary. For that matter, your post #304 doesn't come close to anything like "thoughtfulness."

I've always viewed BTF as a place to discuss/challenge commonly accepted logic. Occasionally those commonly held beliefs are flawed, occasionally they are not. I don't find the discussion absurd at all.

Sometimes the commonly accepted logic is accepted because it's dead obvious. This is one of those cases.

Ringolsby doesn't know everything. I'm quite sure there are many things I know about baseball that he doesn't. He is, as he was in his little diatribe against Keith when ESPN hired him, occasionally completely full of ####. But the idea that he is anything but brimful of baseball knowledge, gained from more than half of a lifetime of fulltime experience watching and writing about the game, with access to its inner workings that only very few people have, I'm sorry, that is absurd.

Now, what qualified him prior to all of his experience to be a baseball writer, that's another question. My guess is that he was no more qualified than Rob or Keith, perhaps less so. Obviously, it's a job that you learn by doing, and I really don't find that to be an issue for much discussion. On he other hand, what it takes to be a member of the BBWAA is an issue of contentious discussion.

Ringolsby lives in Colorado. He probably knows a bunch of interesting Colorado-baseball facts. That doesn't mean he's more "knowledgable" about baseball though, necessarily.

I have no doubt he's more knowledgeable about certain aspects of baseball than anyone here. However, that doesn't mean that he's more analytically-minded than both MGL or Walt Davis is or more informed about the NeL than Gary A. I'd wager that I know more about 19th century baseball than Ringolsby does and I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination on the subject nor am I the researcher that Paul Wendt is regarding that era.

#353:

Which is precisely the point. It's not so much that any one person has, or doesn't have, a great deal of knowledge about baseball, but rather that people know different things about the game.

My own opinion is similar to what Boots expressed in #333. The issue here IMO isn't that Ringolsby doesn't have knowledge; it's that his "world view" of the game is different.

-- MWE

For that matter, your post #304 doesn't come close to anything like "thoughtfulness."

I suggest if you think about what the underlying point being made was you wouldn't say this, but to each their own. I think I've explained my view, and the reason for the question, sufficiently. I certainly could have phrased it less confrontationally, but that wouldn't change the issue at all.

A snip from a former BBWAA bigwig on the internet writer question

At the core of the "resistance" were members who reasoned that the BBWAA was created and survives as an advocate for NEWSPAPER writer. They saw the Web sites more as competition than colleagues and wondered if by embracing them would ultimately weaken the association and take us away from the core principles of newspaper advocacy. Committees were created. Discussions were held. But again, I wasn't able to convince a majority of the membership to come to my side of the fence.

The issue here IMO isn't that Ringolsby doesn't have knowledge; it's that his "world view" of the game is different.

Which is, I would submit, one reason why we should welcome him, rather than try to chase him off because he's a cranky old fart, which he undoubtedly is. I'd much rather have more people with his kind of insider knowledge around here than someone else who can tell me what Mike Mussina's FIP was last year.

dismissed Ringolsby out of hand in this thread as irrelevant or worthless

My view of this overall topic was summarized in post #278. Nowhere have I even remotely dismissed Ringolsby as irrelevant or worthless, and a review of my posts would ascertain that.

I will say this. I've used this site fairly consistently for five years and four months now, and even with all the nonsense that has gone on here, I have never, ever read a post so egregious in certain significant ways as post #2 in this thread.

My dislike of anonymous, unsubstantiated accusations that a fellow poster is lying is a completely different thing from dismissing someone as irrelevant or worthless. If anyone would like to go to bat for post #2, or for the other things I mentioned in the second paragraph of post #278, be my guest. If not, then don't claim I said a fellow human being is irrelevant or worthless.

Which is, I would submit, one reason why we should welcome him, rather than try to chase him off because he's a cranky old fart, which he undoubtedly is.

I totally agree, Boots.

The issue here IMO isn't that Ringolsby doesn't have knowledge; it's that his "world view" of the game is different.

That's probably half of it - the other half is his attitude. Delivery does just as much, if not more, to create perception as content ... we are human beings after all. And yes, many Internet geek dorks who don't watch baseball and have slide rules are certainly often snippy as well.

Which is, I would submit, one reason why we should welcome him, rather than try to chase him off because he's a cranky old fart, which he undoubtedly is.

And, of course, to note that when he was here and especially when he was posting anonymously, he behaved exactly like the rest of us.

Sawney Snows, I apologize if I mischaracterized your views.

That's probably half of it - the other half is his attitude.

I think if his positions were more orthodox, his attitude would be accepted as that of a typical Primate.

#341

what makes anyone a baseball writer is that we write about baseball.

and let me tell you writing every freaking day is damm tough. heck writing 3 times a week is damm tough. being a beat writer must be a LOT of work

and i might could not always agree with what tracy ringlosby says, but i refuse to agree that if a baseball writer isn't from bpro that means he is an idiot. and there is more to writing about baseball than brap and vorp and warp. sorry. there is. maybe a lot of yall don't want to hear about what the manager says and what the players say, but some people do.

this is starting to sound like all that old scouts vs stat geeks crap. sometimes more IS better

i am getting damm tired of all the print writers saying us people who did not go to journalism skool should not be ALLOWED to write.

and the BBWAA making sure writers like neyer and law don't get in their club? well, it is called revenge. surely yall must understand what that is

it is pretty much not the writers who have put undeserving guys in the hall, it is the vets. which all yall know darn good and well. and the hall is a private business and they can pick anyone they darn please to vote for who gets in.

and john brattain is right as usual - great writers will have an audience.

Ringolsby was in attendance at something close to 162 Rockies games last year, which would limit his ability to watch other teams.

This is why I don't understand the "he doesn't go to enough games" thing. If you get the Extra Innings package you can watch a few hundred games of whatever team you want.

Obviously beat writers need to go to the games, but do most other writers really need to?

So my understanding is that the BBWAA kept Tracy and Rob out because they wanted to move the HOF to the Mall of America. Am I misreading things?

going to games is WAAAAYYY different from watching on tv

going to games is WAAAAYYY different from watching on tv

How so?

I would submit that while defensive alignments are sometimes harder to make out when watching on TV, what you can see of the most important part of the game (the pitcher/batter battle) is far greater and makes up for the lack.

There's definitely a difference, but it's not clear to me that either one is necessarily superior from the standpoint of analyzing the game.

going to games you DO see the defense, you get to watch what really DOES happen with "speed on the basepaths" you get to see who the manager gets up in the pen and when and how many times

tv is great for good closeups of batter/pitcher and close plays

sometimes when u are watching at the park you really cant tell what exactly happened

i never said one was superior although i think going to the game is and the tv is backup

The debate about which whether game attendance or watching TV is better arises from different levels of importance ascribed to the advantages and disadvantages of either. Regardless of any writer's particular views or preferences on this, for high-profile writers at major organizations, it would seem that allowing, rather than disallowing, access to parks wouldn't be a negative thing in any way.

As I understand from previous discussion and a little web research on the BBWAA, the primary practical advantage of BBWAA membership is universal access to MLB ballparks; members don't need to apply to each park separately. According to some (but not all) reports, the BBWAA denied Neyer's and Law's candidacies because they don't require park access to do their jobs, or alternately because they don't go to "enough" games.

There has been no evidence thus far that the BBWAA discussed the fact that, by having universal park access, Neyer and Law would have an extra avenue of information-gathering open to them that could improve their output and scope further if they desired. The BBWAA has around 800 members or so--are Neyer and Law among the top 800 MLB baseball writers who might benefit from park access? I would say probably so. There can't possibly be about 27 beat writers per team, so a good percentage of the members are presumably on a national level, and baseball writers for ESPN would seem to be in the top 800 or so who could make use of access. In some ways, a national writer would seem to benefit even more from universal access than would a local beat writer, who would travel to a little more than half of the parks annually. National writers might actually go to fewer games, or they might go to more, but why limit them?

At the core of the "resistance" were members who reasoned that the BBWAA was created and survives as an advocate for NEWSPAPER writer. They saw the Web sites more as competition than colleagues and wondered if by embracing them would ultimately weaken the association and take us away from the core principles of newspaper advocacy. Committees were created. Discussions were held. But again, I wasn't able to convince a majority of the membership to come to my side of the fence.

Great. So the Hall of Fame, MVP and Cy Young Awards are under the thumb of an organization whose core principle is advocacy of print news. That makes a lot of sense and serves baseball really well.

Great. So the Hall of Fame, MVP and Cy Young Awards are under the thumb of an organization whose core principle is advocacy of print news. That makes a lot of sense and serves baseball really well.

Forgetting about the fireworks it would cause for a moment, couldn't MLB just open the voting up to other groups or does the BBWAA have total control over the system?

it is pretty much not the writers who have put undeserving guys in the hall, it is the vets. which all yall know darn good and well.

As has been mentioned the past weeks, what the BBWAA has been guilty of is errors of omission.

245. DeJesus Freak Posted: December 08, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2639012)

I think this thread jumped the shark after Page 1.

336. G-String Posted: December 09, 2007 at 11:02 AM (#2639387)

This thread has officially jumped the shark.

How many sharks can one thread jump?

You bloody shark!

- Hoagie Newcombe

This discussion has gotten me thinking. I watched almost 500 baseball games last season via MLB.TV, and not an unsubstantial number of games in person (though fewer than in seasons past). And yet, I honestly wondered through last season, that even though I had watched 9 hours of baseball a day or more, if I could have come up with a column every day. My guess is "maybe."

A daily column must be a ##### to write.

That said, its no excuse for lazy or faulty analysis.

Uh, "dick peckermore" - Lisa, is there a story behind the new handle?

Serious, non-sarcastic question: what percentage of beat writers do a daily column, meaning "column" as not counting game recaps? It's been about 20 years since I touched a newspaper on a daily basis, so I'm really not sure.

Someone upthread meantioned the "army" of proofreaders and editors that support the newspaper guys. The following sentnce (a one-sentence paragraph) appeared in T.J. Simers's column today:

"Colletti's future with the team probably rests on the play of the the youngsters he continues to horde."

(No particular point here. And I kind of like the typo.)

I always liked Red Smith's remark: that he preferred to write every day, because when you wrote a column that stunk, you could get another chance as soon as possible.

I take it that people were not serious above when claiming that seeing games on TV was in any way near-equivalent to seeing them live. On TV, the director decides what you're going to see. At the park, you decide. Now of course, there are lots of things you can write about baseball besides what happens at a given ballgame. But you can't write about a given baseball game very well from the TV broadcast. At best you can write about the experience of watching it on TV, which is in itself interesting, of course.

Its certainly a difference experience BDM. I wonder how valueable the analysis is from the horde of Stats Inc folks working from television or MLB.TV is.

That said, you don't get the ability to stop, rewind, or see slow motion instant replay.

I'd be at the ballpark everyday, though, if I could.

Would there be booze allowed in the Vincennes press box? Or mandated?

Flasks would not be discouraged, and there would be beer, as beer isn't really booze.

Ineresting discussion about the decision, rationale, and what the BBWAA sees itself to be between Joe Posnanski and Bob Dutton (organization president) on Poz's blog www.joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog

OCF Posted: December 09, 2007 at 07:59 PM (#2639674)

Uh, "dick peckermore" - Lisa, is there a story behind the new handle?

- well, you see, i think it is time i put balls to the wall (why on EARTH is that good?) and man up. and how much more manly can a name get i ask you???
somehow all yall males always got ALL this time and i got ALL this stuff to write. and with mami this and baby sister that and baby darlin the other and ALL my gf and all their crazy men/kidz/jobs i gotta hear about i got NO time. and i got a column coming due and i got 4 started i can't finish and i am ready to SCREAM with frustration
- and being born penis free makes it tough to understand a whole lot of the man stuff you guys talk about. like, say "leaders"

and now if i can find a wife i can get HER to do all the stuff i have got to do while i write all the stuff i am behind on writing.

I take it that people were not serious above when claiming that seeing games on TV was in any way near-equivalent to seeing them live. On TV, the director decides what you're going to see. At the park, you decide. Now of course, there are lots of things you can write about baseball besides what happens at a given ballgame. But you can't write about a given baseball game very well from the TV broadcast. At best you can write about the experience of watching it on TV, which is in itself interesting, of course.

I was serious.

While I admit that when watching on TV you're at the mercy of the production crew, that crew virtually always gives you a good view of each pitch. In my experience, when at the ballpark, you cannot choose to get a good view of any pitch, let alone all of them. I confess that I've never had premium seats, however.

If you are particularly focusing on the defense, then I admit the ballpark is superior. And none of this should be read to suggest that I prefer to watch games on TV; I love going to the ballpark, and would do it more often if I had the time and money. But when I attend games, I'm doing it because I enjoy the live baseball experience, not because it's better for analyzing the game.

In my experience, when at the ballpark, you cannot choose to get a good view of any pitch, let alone all of them

It's certainly true that you can't get the closeups that deliver such a good image of the strike zone on TV. And there are some angles in any park that are just lousy viewing angles, including lots of luxury boxes. (At least a third of the seats in the Ballpark press box in Arlington have no view of home plate at all, incidentally. No wonder the BBWAA reserves the front row :)

While I admit that when watching on TV you're at the mercy of the production crew, that crew virtually always gives you a good view of each pitch. In my experience, when at the ballpark, you cannot choose to get a good view of any pitch, let alone all of them. I confess that I've never had premium seats, however.

I've had some very, very good seats in various ballparks, and my experience is that every last damned one of them will cause you to miss out on something. Also, if your eyesight isn't that great, you miss out on even more.

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. If you watch the game on TV, you're at the mercy of the TV crew, but you get a much better view of the pitches; you get instant replays in case the TV crew was looking the wrong way when the play actually occurred; you have far less in the way of distractions from the game; and if you have a Tivo, you can examine a particular play or pitch much more closely and at much more leisure than you would at the ballpark (assuming the crew caught it at all).

I'd never say that watching a game on TV is better than watching it live. And there are some elements of the game that are very difficult to impossible to analyze in depth when you don't have control of what you're looking at. On the other hand, it's fairly evident to me that there are places where watching on television is superior.

Great. So the Hall of Fame, MVP and Cy Young Awards are under the thumb of an organization whose core principle is advocacy of print news. That makes a lot of sense and serves baseball really well.

Forgetting about the fireworks it would cause for a moment, couldn't MLB just open the voting up to other groups or does the BBWAA have total control over the system?

MLB has nothing to do with the price of tea, nor does the BBWAA have control over any "system."

The HOF -- which is independent of MLB, though generally closely allied -- gives the vote to the writers. It can change voting eligibility any time it feels like. As Bill James pointed out in TPOG, it gave the vote to them because, at the time it did so, the organization represented all the experts in the field (other than people from MLB itself). Since then, it has tinkered with the VC voting bodies, but never with the writers. (It has changed HOF inductee eligibility rules, but not HOF voting eligibility rules.)

The BBWAA doesn't control "the" MVP and Cy Young Awards; it controls the BBWAA's MVP and Cy Young awards. Other organizations give out their own awards -- TSN is the most prominent, or at least used to be, when it still covered baseball.

All this complaining about how Keith and Rob were kept out of the BBWAA seems to me to beg the question: why do we care? Some people in this thread tried to claim that the BBWAA is irrelevant, but the fact that so many people are so upset seems to prove otherwise. Neither Keith nor Rob have reacted to the rejection by saying that they're not going to be able to do their jobs, so why does it matter? People seem mostly to be taking it personally -- that a snub of Rob/Keith is a snub of sabermetrics is a snub of Primates who follow sabermetrics. But Rob/Keith don't need the BBWAA to give them legitimacy; to complain so vociferously about this is to buy into the notion that BBWAA membership confers such legitimacy. I don't think the BBWAA members are irrelevant, but I don't think that Rob/Keith getting the free hat and coffee mug will make them any more legitimate.

I've had some very, very good seats in various ballparks, and my experience is that every last damned one of them will cause you to miss out on something. Also, if your eyesight isn't that great, you miss out on even more.

Indeed. I have great vision which helps (especially when trying to see who's warming up in an outfield bullpen). But I miss things too. When Jill and I score games together, though we make a fantastic team and rarely will both of us miss something. Its nice to take home a scorecard without "WNL" (was not looking) or "CGMP" (cute girl missed play) on it somewhere. And frankly managing a scorecard, a hotdog, and beer all at the same time is tough in the small seats at Wrigley or Fenway.

Though it's been awhile since I've been in a pressbox, I would think that most if not all are equipped with television monitors, providing the writers with the advantages of live viewing and the benefit of replay. They kind of have the best of both worlds, so I'd have to give the nod to being present at the game over watching it from home.

Though it's been awhile since I've been in a pressbox, I would think that most if not all are equipped with television monitors, providing the writers with the advantages of live viewing and the benefit of replay

Not only monitors with feeds of the game being played before them, but sometimes feeds of other games and even other sports. Sportswriters are prone to occupational ADD and good at multi-tasking, so they constantly follow bunches of different games at the same time.

and now if i can find a wife i can get HER to do all the stuff i have got to do while i write all the stuff i am behind on writing.

Here you go, Lisa.

Primey for #329.

I second that.

And a nomination to #386 for tackling rampant ballism, peckerism and sack-upism in sports writing.

Sportswriters are prone to occupational ADD and good at multi-tasking, so they constantly follow bunches of different games at the same time.

Guilty. I was covering the NCAA Tournament in 1993 and I was seated next to Andrea Kremer, who had a portable TV that was broadcasting the other game being played at the same time. Since I spent so much time watching it, she eventually moved it over in front of me. Nice lady, and much more attractive in person than she appeared on television.

The BBWAA doesn't control "the" MVP and Cy Young Awards; it controls the BBWAA's MVP and Cy Young awards. Other organizations give out their own awards -- TSN is the most prominent, or at least used to be, when it still covered baseball.

I think you are badly understating the importance of the BBWAA-elected awards in the eyes of MLB and its fans, and how entrenched the BBWAA is in its role electing them. At the same time, I think print media (and thus the BBWAA) is on a slippery slope to irrelevance, and sure, in five or ten years the awards might look very different. Of course, as electronic media replace it, heady folks like Keith and Rob might find themselves doing something else, replaced by electronic media every bit as dumbed-down as what existed pre-internet.

All this complaining about how Keith and Rob were kept out of the BBWAA seems to me to beg the question: why do we care?

I only care because I have a sense of history regarding folks like Keith and Rob and the orthodoxy in major league baseball and the media, as do you. I wrote off the BBWAA-elected awards a long time ago, and if it weren't for those awards, no one would give a mouse turd about the BBWAA. They'd merely be, I don't know, an advocacy group for print journalism or some other equivalent of a village green preservation society.

We care because we always root for fair and transparent treatment to people or things we like (or care about) Freedom to follow our dreams and be the (or get the best out of our likes and dislike). I really could care less if Mr Neyer and Law make the BBWAA - its the principal of asshatedness, revenge and not being fair to someone that irks the snot out of me. Standing up for fairness and being treated respectfully is not complaining or whining.

We want the best, most knowledgable and all aspect of baseball news to be reperesented (even if we dont have a stake in the process)

Nobody like underhandedness, sneaky votes, and obsfucation except maybe the Illuminate and Politicians

Whether we read pint, read the internet, use scouting, writers or sabermetrics to enjoy or increase the enjoyment; we want the things we enjoy to be a part of what we enjoy. Does that make sense?

As for awards (and who votes on what) and the BBWAA- they are irrelevant. They are extra (like icing on a cake) they add to the experience but arent needed to enjoy or learn about baseball. ie I love chocolate cake (it can be better with icing but isnt needed) to make or enjoy chocolate cake.

Example We need air to breathe = relevant; BBWAA, Awards = irrelevant. We dont need them to watch, learn or discuss baseball. In this day and age I get my education, enjoyment and discussions of baseball from the net (yes online newspaper may be used) in person or thru TV (satellite, Tivo, etc)

I can watch in person, on the net or TV, I can discuss in person, on the net but not in print (INK)

Therefore the BBWAA is irrelevant- that's not to say its not relevant to beatwriters and such.

I this day and age of instant information- I dont need someone to print boxscores in ink, bloviate about the game in Ink. I can be there or see it instantly on the web.

Just like the Electoral College, the Steamship, the Pony Express - Ink media is on its way to extinction- it just isnt needed

Professionally produced media is needed (and relevant) and the BBWAA can become a part of that and still retain its original purpose- helping beatwriters access to games to get a product or service out to the consumer via non Ink media

Currently many consumers just dont need what the ink media and BBWAA offers- it doesnt add to their baseball experience or relevance and may even distract from it.

(PS Also just because someone wins an award given by their peers doesnt mean the voters or that person knows their butt from a hole in the ground. Just because someone won an award or didnt or it was given out doesnt mean it relevant. Awards only feed egos and make one feel worthy and are mostly subjective- ie Gino Torreta or Interceptiverde winning the Heisman, Putin and Gore winning Nobel prizes, Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose not in the HOF, Tom Cruise winning an Oscar, Jethro Tull winning a Grammy for Best Hard Rock/Metal Group)

While I admit that when watching on TV you're at the mercy of the production crew, that crew virtually always gives you a good view of each pitch. In my experience, when at the ballpark, you cannot choose to get a good view of any pitch, let alone all of them. I confess that I've never had premium seats, however.

Since this whole tangent began as a question why does it matter if the non-beat writers go to the games, let me note: 1) sitting in the press box gives you a good view of the pitches, 2) the BBWAA writers have the best seats in the press box reserved for them. Thus the main knock you have on watching the game at the park doesn't really apply to them.

I've had some very, very good seats in various ballparks, and my experience is that every last damned one of them will cause you to miss out on something.

It's my experience that watching the game at home will cause you to miss out on something. The director will miss a few pitches, or they'll cut back from commerical late or the phone will ring, or the door bell will ring, or there will be an appliance in the kitchen or . . . .

Having written that, I realize that you probably meant that you'll miss part of the field, regardless of where you sit. To that I'd say, 1) sit in the front row of the Wrigley upper deck. You won't miss a thing. 2) the press box is designed to give writers the best view they can, and the BBWAA has the best seats in it reserved for them.

At the same time, I think print media (and thus the BBWAA) is on a slippery slope to irrelevance

At the same time, the print media are often becoming he main online news sources. When this site wants links to Chicago baseball, it usually gets them from Chicago newspaper writers. Sure blogs are around and have an influence, but it's still centered on the Trib, Sun Times, and to a lesser extent the Herald. Some irrelevance.

All this complaining about how Keith and Rob were kept out of the BBWAA seems to me to beg the question: why do we care?

- Because it's the Hall of Fame.

- It's a symbol of respect from the outer world. If the goal is to influence the way people look at baseball and all that, it's good to have people outside the same little sounding board say you're work merits it.

- Sabermetric writers getting this is a sign of legitimacy and merit for this approach to baseball from the standard point of view. Unless one wants to be in the same little box speaking to the same little corner, it's nice to get your viewpoint taken seriously and respsected by those who don't necessarily agree with it.

- Crossover appeal always seems to confer an extra layer of legitimacy. One can argue if it should, but it does.

- Scorsese effect. He didn't need an Academy Award to make anyone think he was a great director, but dammit, it bugs.

The HOF -- which is independent of MLB, though generally closely allied -- gives the vote to the writers. It can change voting eligibility any time it feels like. As Bill James pointed out in TPOG, it gave the vote to them because, at the time it did so, the organization represented all the experts in the field (other than people from MLB itself). Since then, it has tinkered with the VC voting bodies, but never with the writers. (It has changed HOF inductee eligibility rules, but not HOF voting eligibility rules.)

Correct and does matches my memory of what I read in The Politics of Glory, David, which means that the HOF and/or MLB are the groups that we should address, not the BBWAA, IMO.