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 2 pages
But they don‘t have a formula for intestinal fortitude or determination.
The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot.
So basically, he's voting for Morris because it'll piss off the "new-age stats guys". And then he'll stop voting.
Barring a change in my thinking, which I don’t expect, I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year (actually 50-year) member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election.
Trolling loser is trolling for attention. Pay him no mind.
The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.
What he said was that (1) Writers should not make the news
He's basically saying that he's giving up voting (after his pet project becomes final) because the process has passed him by. He shouldn't be criticized for this; rather, strangely enough, he should be commended.
But they don‘t have a formula for intestinal fortitude
I think spite motivates just about everything Murray does these days. What a sad little man.
...Now, you might ask and reasonably so, if I plan to stop voting, why did I vote this year? I voted in the hope that my vote would contribute to Morris’ election. I didn’t vote for anyone else because anyone I might have considered was a known or suspected cheater, and I didn’t want to aid and abet a cheater.
My uncle survived 14 months in a Japanese POW camp, and he ain't a HOF'er, either. Not for baseball, anyway.
You're letting your spite cloud your judgment. He's saying that even his ballot and its decisions regarding Steroid Era players would contain flawed reasoning and be open to challenge. Because there is no correct philosophy to use.
And he's right.
The point -- and Chass isn't alone in saying/insinuating this -- is that MLB and/or the HOF need to give specific guidance to the writers regarding the proper treatment of the Steroid Era. There's a good chance something like that will happen in the next few years and it should.
I would love to know if Chass is in the minority of writers who also voted for Morris for the previous 13 years;
My point would be that they didn't need specific instruction with deadballers, they didn't need explicit instructions with spitballers, they didn't need explicit instructions with amphetamines, etc. etc.
It's funny but not surprising that the only people pushing this "further guidance" suggestion are the ones who want to see steroid users in the Hall.
But on what grounds can you give Morris a free pass on cheating and not extend the same to Alan Trammell?
What specific instructions are they supposed to get? They're not going to say "keep them all out" and they're not going to say "you have to ignore steroids." At best, the Hall would say something like "Please only consider positive tests/confessions/convictions and don't vote "no" on players just because a nutjob has carried on a bacne-based crusade against them for years."
I wonder if Ray would like that sort of wording?
What specific instructions are they supposed to get?
Thanks for being Exhibit A of what I was talking about. But then I know I can always count on you for support.
Exactly. I'm not sure that there are any specific instructions that you can give that wouldn't be perceived as a slap at the membership's collective judgment
That's certainly a legitimate POV, but given the context we're now in, it would still be a hamhanded move that would certainly meet with a huge amount of resistance,
since it would be clearly sending a one-sided message to the voters.
And what if the anti-steroids writers simply refuse to vote for Bonds & Co. anyway, which at this point would almost certainly be the case. What next? Strip them of their votes?
Which is exactly the point of those who keep pushing for those instructions. They're pissed that their views on steroids don't seem to be shared by 75% of the HoF voters, and knowing that, they want to try to rig the results in their favor.
It seems that most of the folks pushing for 'clarification' from the HOF are writers who are either not voting (see, e.g. TJ Quinn) or writers who are already witholding their votes against purported steroid cheats. I must have read that line in at least a half dozen ballot articles this year.
What he said was that (1) Writers should not make the news (which is why his former paper doesn't allow its news/sports writers to vote for awards); and (2) no unimpeachably correct philosophy regarding the Steroid Era commends itself to voters.
I'll add to 14 the fact that this is among the very best summaries of the Steroid Era and the HOF penned by anyone:
2- The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.
I can understand the HOF saying "Get suspended for violating the rules, you're off the ballot"
Writers would then pretend steroid use was against the rules and continue to not vote Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc.
Are they just mad because there are more voices to challenge them now?
That makes sense, but then what explains all the time, effort and anger spent by so many people here who seem to spend half their waking hours railing against these writers for daring to question their statistical Gods?
Barring a change in my thinking, which I don’t expect,
In his 1st 2 World Series in 84 and 91, Jack Morris was 4-0 with a 1.54 ERA in 5 starts and 41 Innings Pitched #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
Jack Morris' ERA+ is tied for 478th all-time with Javier Vazquez, Mike Witt, Denny Neagle, Ed Figueroa and Ken Holtzman. #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
The writers didn't "disregard" amp use; the idea that something so trivial could keep someone out of the HOF -- or that it should even weigh on their HOF chances -- never tinctured their consciousness
The great majority of it in the past few years has mainly been spent defending unjustly accused players against the Chasses and the Gumbels, not that you'd ever acknowledge that.
The rest of it has been spent wondering why people like you spend so much time worrying about an institution that you've proclaimed time is irrelevant.
Contra Murray Chass above ("I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election."), voting is not a right.
I didn't know bloggers could vote for the HOF.
Why is Chass such a bitter old man? My god. He got feted for a crappy career which seemed, at times, to consist of simply downloading MLB salary data into his articles. He was a boring, unimaginative writer and he never seemed to make very interesting arguments. And he was paid well and praised for this mediocre work. Now he's mad. If the guy had any perspective, he'd laugh.
I know Murray Chass is a lightning rod around here and I disagree with him on plenty of things, but it's inaccurate to say he had a "crappy career" or that he churned out "mediocre work." Murray almost single-handedly pioneered the coverage of the business side of MLB, from the labor wars and collective bargaining agreements to contract negotiations, team sales, and the commissioner's office. If the 65 J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners were whittled down to a "small Hall" 30, Murray should still keep his.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.8822 seconds, 59 querie(s) executed