I need help here. Is Dale Murphy the full ballot for Brookover…or is this just some splattermatter left over after my Shaggy Faust-led Splatcat EP that fell into my swingin’ barbiegrill? Thanks.

While I can't answer the question definitively, having read the full article, that's my interpretation: a ballot with only Dale Murphy.

With that out of the way: What bizarre reasoning! Brookover is basically saying that, because other journalists have committed plagiarism, you must presume the he, Brookover, is also a plagiarist. Oh, wait; he doesn't say that. Apparently his conclusion that "Since some are liars, all are liars" applies only the baseball players. Except Dale Murphy.

DB

FTFA:

The biggest dilemma I have from a numbers standpoint is that if some players' numbers are artificially inflated and others are not, aren't the honest ones paying a huge price for showing outstanding integrity, sportsmanship, and character?

Remove those three words and the Hall of Fame becomes a museum with the game's greatest players and nothing more, which is exactly what it should be. The baseball writers should push for that change and the Hall of Fame and Hall of Famers should agree to it.

Jack O'Connell, the longtime treasurer of the BBWAA and the man who prepares the ballot for the Hall of Fame, said a group of writers from Chicago once raised the issue of getting a clearer definition of how voters should interpret Rule No. 5. The motion was voted down, O'Connell said.

It's time to raise the issue again, and I will at the next BBWAA meeting. [Emphasis added]

Last year Brookover voted for Larkin - Trammell - McGriff - L. Smith.

but not Dale Murphy.

Link

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Why does he need a clearer definition? People are instructed to base their votes on six criteria. Do you need to be told explicitly that "integrity, sportsmanship, character" are or are not supposed to be elevated above "record, playing ability... and contributions to the team"? Voters in the past seem not to have had no particular difficulty deciding whether a player with exceptional ability but a somewhat thin record (short career due to injury or war or color line, eg) is deserving. What is so hard about deciding whether someone who has an exceptional record and made outstanding contributions to his team, but demonstrated less than stellar integrity, sportsmanship, or character, is worthy?

(Schilling) once was asked if he was still dipping smokeless tobacco during his playing days with the Phillies. He assured the questioners he was not. It was a lie that was revealed by his wife, Shonda, just a few days later.

That’s questionable integrity and character.

I've really got to quit reading these threads. I can feel myself getting dumber and dumberer with each passing one.

Are there any current Hall of Famers who make the Hall of Fame by his voting standards?
Hard to find a person who never told a lie.

Curt Schilling lied about chewing, therefore Jeff Bagwell might be lying. Well who can argue with that?

I still think he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but the rules on the ballot would argue against his case.

#4 hits it on the head. There is nothing in the rules that says "bad character" is a disqualifier. They are among a set of criteria. If anything, that they are listed after performance and ability, one might think they were of less importance but there's certainly nothing there to suggest they are of the greatest importance.

Meanwhile he's apparently perfectly OK with ignoring the "performance clause" and votes for Murphy.

So Schilling is out because he lied about smokeless tobacco (and vague assertions of other rumored faults) and Bagwell is out because Schilling lied about smokeless tobacco.

Well, Greg Maddux himself says that he once intentionally grooved a pitch to Jeff Bagwell and claims he did that sort of thing more than once, so he's right out.

If Tom Glavine were a true sportsman, he would have insisted that all those pitches 6 inches off the corner be called balls.

Ken Griffey had the temerity and gall to sign a big, multi-year contract yet still collected his paycheck even after he got hurt which was conduct detrimental to his team (see, I'm versatile, I don't need to rely just on the character clause).

Sure, Frank Thomas spoke out against PEDs and I'm not aware of any lies he told ... but he didn't rat anybody out by name, did he?

Randy Johnson -- when he finally had a chance to shine on the big stage with the Yankees, he choked. 'Nuff said.

Pedro Martinez -- speaks Spanish ... just like Sosa! How do we know he's telling the truth if we can't even understand what he's saying? He's right out.

What is so hard about deciding whether someone who has an exceptional record and made outstanding contributions to his team, but demonstrated less than stellar integrity, sportsmanship, or character, is worthy?

Quite a bit, apparently, since there seems to be loud, intractable groups on either side.

But then the HOF voting process is designed to accommodate, perhaps even foster, an extended decision making process in most cases.

Last year Brookover voted for Larkin - Trammell - McGriff - L. Smith.

but not Dale Murphy.

So, Smith, for example, must have been found in the last year to have used steroids during his playing career?

And Dale Murphy's "lost season" was discovered, giving him an extra dozen WAR?

What am I missing?

I do not agree with the writer in any way on this issue in regards to how to handle the voting.... Having said that, great article.

I'm sure that the normal response on here is going to be to ridicule the writer for straying too far away from the rules, or putting suspicions on players who don't have any credible evidence, or even for not voting for guys who the writer himself said he would normally vote for such as Trammell and Lee Smith, but ultimately for the most part the writer raises a very valid point, and if his (and this is the way I'm interpreting it) protest vote for Dale Murphy, the one guy that almost everyone agrees exemplifies the character clause of the vote, helps raise awareness on this issue, then more power to him.

I have no real problem with using a slot to reward a player (esp in his final year) who you felt 'played the right way'. However, to only vote for that player does seem weird when so many future HOF'ers are on the ballot. I suspect it is safe to say that in 25 years we'll see Clemens, Bonds, Bagwell, Schilling, Walker, Trammell, Raines, Palmeiro, Biggio, McGwire, Piazza, Sosa and Morris in the HOF (13 players) and might have Loften, Edgar Martinez, McGriff and maybe Bernie Williams (vet committee decides he was key part of Yankee dynasty, once vets have a few Yankees of that era on it). That's 17 guys who have a real shot at being there someday but he only votes for unlikely HOF'er Dale Murphy. Ah well.

Are there any current Hall of Famers who make the Hall of Fame by his voting standards?
Hard to find a person who never told a lie.

Maybe he'd vote for this guy?

I'm sure that the normal response on here is going to be to ridicule the writer for straying too far away from the rules, or putting suspicions on players who don't have any credible evidence, or even for not voting for guys who the writer himself said he would normally vote for such as Trammell and Lee Smith, but ultimately for the most part the writer raises a very valid point, and if his (and this is the way I'm interpreting it) protest vote for Dale Murphy, the one guy that almost everyone agrees exemplifies the character clause of the vote, helps raise awareness on this issue, then more power to him.

So, the way to call attention to the issue is to punish players, by leaving them off the ballot, even the writer acknowledges are innocent?

If that makes sense, it would be the first time this kind of approach ever has.

So, the way to call attention to the issue is to punish players, by leaving them off the ballot, even the writer acknowledges are innocent?

Yes. That is one of the things a protest is designed to do, bring awareness to the issue by accentuating the absurdity of the situation.

Agreed

As stated in the other thread, it's more a way of throwing a tantrum.

Bumped for Bitter Calculus Instructor.

Yes. That is one of the things a protest is designed to do, bring awareness to the issue by accentuating the absurdity of the situation.

Agreed

Wrong. Dead wrong.

A proper protest puts the burden on the protestor, not others. What Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus did was a proper protest. This is not.

So Schilling is out because he lied about smokeless tobacco (and vague assertions of other rumored faults) and Bagwell is out because Schilling lied about smokeless tobacco.

I laughed.