Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Don Malcolm lists his 2013 Hall of Fame ballot, some standards for election and thoughts on a long-running debate on the politics of glory. Oh, and he also touches on several recurring BBTF debating topics, in characteristically frank terms:
don’t get hung up about WAR. WAR is not the answer, it’s just a convenient (and flawed) framework to utilize if more rudimentary and straightforward approaches are not sufficiently clarifying….
The “character clause” is such a basic red herring that it can be dismissed out of hand (and, really, Joe P.‘s experiences with the other Joe P. should be a cautionary reminder to him that his ability to assess “character” needs some more work). The notion of the Hall of Fame as an utterly botched concept that Marchman takes up is a convenient fiction borrowed from Bill James’s compelling but fatally slanted Politics of Glory…It is an overblown argument that rests on two items: slightly more than a dozen players who were shunned by the BBWAA over the past twenty years and the vagaries of Frank Frisch’s tenure on the Veterans’ Committee.
fra paolo
Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:14 AM | 3 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
hof
|
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.
1. TomH Posted: January 09, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4342982)Well, there is some truth in there, but Don goes as overboard in his critique of the critiquers as they have in their critiques. "Fatally slanted" and "truly pernicious"? Mighty big rocks for a guy in a glass house, sir.
That's pretty much his schtick. I find it somewhat entertaining in small doses. This wasn't one of his better efforts, but anyone who has Trammell on their ballots is a-ok in my book.
DM has laid out his criticism of James's book and its effect on the Hall of Fame "disloyal opposition" in considerable detail elsewhere. He probably should link to some of those prior discussions so that folks will be able to research that more easily. Whatever else one wants to say about him one way or the other, it's clear he's not a spoon-feeding type.
A bit more paint-by-numbers than is often the case for the blowtorch-type stuff, maybe. Could be that he's simply tired of writing about this issue. Which, for once, would put him right in the mainstream.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main