Wednesday, December 12, 2012
2013 Results: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza and Biggio are elected to the Hall of Merit!
(bbtf)
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have been elected to the Hall of Merit!
The timing for our first year electing 4 candidates could not have worked out better, since class of 2013 is the strongest in terms of electees that we’ve ever had. The top of the 1934 ballot included Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, Pop Lloyd, Smokey Joe Williams and Cristobal Torriente, but only 2 were elected.
Bonds and Clemens were each unanimous at 1 and 2. I believe that’s the first ...
Read More...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 4 pages
1 2 3 4 >Naw, I kid. Did anyone read it? Any good?
The A's never win anything! Beane was just lucky in 2002! Moneyball is a sham!
Wait, did Beane vote for Bush in 2004? Oh, it's on.
Well, he's a rich guy, ain't he?
I think we've all met smart Republicans. It's just that the ones who go on TV and/or run for office tend to make you forget about the smart ones.
I can see a connection between sabermetrics and right-wing politics. The desire to rationally explain events on the baseball field and the libertarian view of the world that is rationally derived from the absolute premise of individual liberty could in some cases have a similar source.
The surprise at Beane being a Republican may come from that his team benefits from the welfare state, or that he led a revolt against conservatism in his field. Or maybe it's that he likes soccer.
On the flip side exploiting market ineffecincies sounds like awfully free-market Republican thing to do.
It may also be that in the world of BBTF, the virulent anti-Billy Beane/Moneyball people tend to be conservatives. It's kind of interesting, I guess.
It may also be that in the world of BBTF, the virulent anti-Billy Beane/Moneyball people tend to be conservatives. It's kind of interesting, I guess.
Hah! I continue to defy characterization, and maintaing my uniqueness on BBTF!
BTW, nice job against Cuban. Now I gotta face Gaelan again.
Politics in baseball are awfully contradictory, anyway. For a game run by rich old white Republicans, they sure act like a bunch of socialists when it suits them.
Likewise, many of my liberal friends who are baseball fans are very quick to ##### about the ridiculous millionaire contracts ballplayers get without giving any consideration to the history of the reserve clause, Curt Flood, and how and why free agency came to be.
If it makes you feel better, that was not the plan!
I hear this complaint from liberals about CEOs, but never about baseball players. I personally hear more conservative personalities (literally, not Rush, etc.) get down on baseball for salaries.
Rich businessmen don't like truly free markets. They like rigged markets that favor them, and Hyman Rothesque "partnerships with friendly governments."
Which is why the world doesn't need less capitalism, it needs more.
On purely fiscal issues, the reason I'm not a Republican (I'm not a Democrat, either) is that the rich old white Republicans who preach free market concepts sure act like a bunch of socialists when it comes to pulling taxpayer money to their businesses.
It's really not all that shocking: the vast majority of Americans (well, of anyone) wants their goverment to shovel money toward them and have completely rationalized why this shovelling is in the best interests of everyone while, at the same time, desperately not wanting to shovel money anywhere else, again, having rationalized why not doing so is in everyone's best interests.
MLB is simply a microcosm: small market owners demand revenue sharing "in the interest of the game"; large-market owners demand others be locked out of their markets "in the interest of the game".
If it makes you feel better, that was not the plan!
Not really, no.
I'm a little worried though. His pitching is goooood.
His lineup is vulnerable to LH's though. Wish I had another good LH RP.
As noted, politics and pro sports, for obvious reasons, mix in odd ways. Liberals often bash players for making too much money, thereby taking management's side over a union/guild and siding with superrich guys over very rich guys, ignoring that many of the latter group grew up working class and/or in poor countries. Conservatives are often pro-owner in labor disputes, in effect backing socialistic economic reasoning, restriction of employee options, and mandated control of compensation.
Everyone is a libertarian until they need something from the government. Old people are Tea Party supporters who want the Medicare and Social Security. Corporations want the government out of their hair until they need a bailout. Heck, its funny to see the Post Office debate - people in rural areas arguing that we need less federal government suddenly protesting the closure of their local post office.
Mickey Kaus wrote a book about 20 years ago whose thesis was, rather than take the rich's money from them, take away the privileges money can buy. If the rich want to squander their money on yachts and the like, fine, just don't let them buy their kids' way into college and their kids' way out of military service.
The book had effectively zero influence, but its thesis and prescriptions remain great ideas.
Or take the English route, and just call private schools "public schools".
The reverse would work much better. Privatize public schools, and give parents a check to purchase education for their kids.
Set the amount equal for all children in the state (you could adjust for cost of living). That way, you wouldn't have rich suburbs spending $25,000 per student, and rural areas $8,000.
If schools had to compete for students, or the administrators and teachers would lose their jobs, they'd get better in a hurry.
Set the amount equal for all children in the state (you could adjust for cost of living). That way, you wouldn't have rich suburbs spending $25,000 per student, and rural areas $8,000.
That would be interesting, too. The key for me is equality of opportunity for the kids.
Set the amount equal for all children in the state (you could adjust for cost of living). That way, you wouldn't have rich suburbs spending $25,000 per student, and rural areas $8,000.
If schools had to compete for students, or the administrators and teachers would lose their jobs, they'd get better in a hurry.
I've been through the Manhattan private school process; a lot/most of those schools are jokes. No report cards until 8th grade, no expectations, no distinctions among the best and the mediocre, basically a bunch of softies sitting around telling each other how great they are. The deal is simple: you pay us a bunch of money, we'll stamp your ticket with our name, enhancing your "brand."
Essentially everything people think goes on in public schools really does go on in elite private schools.
I see that the idea is to let loose the competitive instincts of administrators, and reap the benefits, but I don't know if it would actually work that way. If your school has 1,000 kids, and you get the same amount of funding whether you have the gifted kids or the crappy ones, you might have created a situation where the administrators actually have less incentive to care about their product than they do today.
How does School A (operating budget $5,000,000) distinguish itself from School B (operating budget $5,000,000)? It can't spend more money.
Also, this would have an unlimited number of unpredictable unintended consequences. (So would Shooty's idea, I think).
I tend to be pragmatic about it. I think the system is broken for the poor and am open to different ways of fixing it. I'm also sympathetic to teachers and pro-labor. I don't think they are very many teachers who don't want to do a better job, despite the rhetoric of anti-union people. I'm probably going to bow out of this thread now and I apologize if I've kick-started a 1000 post throw down.
No need for that at all. If I don't like it, I am free to bail.
FWIW, Beane played in Detroit in April, while Bean came up when the rosters expanded in September. But they both played over a hundred games in Toledo.
No "e" Bean was one of the trinity of young players (along with Scott Lusader and Jim Walewander) from that era that Sparky praised far beyond any rational assessment of his abilities.
That would be interesting, too. The key for me is equality of opportunity for the kids.
I agree with both of these points. Public schooling has miserably failed the poor in this country. Yet private and religious schools operating with the same population, on shoe-string budgets, succeed.
How does School A (operating budget $5,000,000) distinguish itself from School B (operating budget $5,000,000)? It can't spend more money.
Curriculum? Extra tutoring? Focus on specific subjects? Vocational education?
I'm not sure, that's why you want to let the market loose. All I know is inner city Catholic schools in NYC outperform the public schools with 25% of the per pupil spending.
The idea that we can't do better is silly.
It was more than a trinity, unless Torey Lovullo and Chris Pittaro are from different eras.
Doesn't that have as much to do with the Catholic schools having the built-in advantages of involved parents and the ability to boot out any kid that doesn't measure up? I've always seen vouchers as a way for good schools to choose their students rather than a way for students to choose good schools.
I know this argument has been made a million times, but when one side of the voucher debate comes up, the other side (me) responds reflexively.
That's biased though. In practically every area of the country, merely attending private or religious school is a sign of motivated and engaged parents, with sufficient time to sift through alternatives and the ability to sift effectively. Kids of those parents will generally do better in school.
Yea, I remember Lovullo being the next big thing. Also, Walt Terrell was supposed to win 20 games.
I know this argument has been made a million times, but when one side of the voucher debate comes up, the other side (me) responds reflexively.
Sure, but you act like thats a flaw, rather than a feature.
A voucher program would allow parents to get their kids out of disfunctional schools into ones that maintain order. Why should the 80% of students who want to learn be dragged down by the incorrigibles?
The ianbility of Public Schools to permanently expel anyone until they're 18 or 19 is a major problem.
If I believed it worked that way, I would support vouchers. More likely, it would allow parents to try to get their kids into better schools. For the ones that succeed, that would be great, but for the ones that fail (for reasons of numbers, lack of connections, paperwork foulups, whatever), their kids would be stuck in the rapidly decaying neighborhood school with even less motivation from administrators and politicians to improve it.
One might say "Well, those kids/parents should have made more of an effort to get into a better school." Maybe, but that platitude doesn't help the kids left behind.
Page 1 of 4 pages
1 2 3 4 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.