Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Deadspin: The Angry Things Writers Are Saying About Our Hall of Fame Ballot

I found this comment to be especially rich given the source:

Dan Shaughnessy, Boston Globe:

“The wildly talented Dan Le Batard of ESPN turns out to be the voter who chose to mock the system by turning over his vote to a website that exists solely for the purpose of embarrassing people.

A lot of hard-working men and women have been involved in this process for 75 years, and like the rest of us, Le Batard was fortunate to be included in the process.

Effecting change from within is difficult. Anonymous betrayal and ridicule is easy. A stand-up guy would have recused himself.”

Shaughnessy makes a living off of trying to embarrass others. His ballot this year was Morris, Schilling, Thomas, Maddux, and Glavine. He had Trammell and Raines on his ballot last year, but dropped them despite having 5 empty spots on his ballot. A stand-up guy would have recused himself if they felt incapable of voting for more than five people on a ten person ballot.

The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 02:17 PM | 127 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: deadspin, hall of fame, scolds and curmudgeons

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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4634873)
A lot of hard-working men and women have been involved in this process for 75 years


And you, as well.
   2. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4634886)
LeBatard says he has been given a lifetime suspension from voting on the HOF and won't allow him to attend a game as credentialed media for a year. BBWWA.com apparently has a statement on it but the site has crashed.
   3. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4634898)
Got through eventually:
The BBWAA Board of Directors has decided to remove Dan Le Batard’s membership for one year, for transferring his Hall of Fame ballot to an entity that has not earned voting status. The punishment is allowed under the organization’s constitution.

In addition, Le Batard will not be allowed to vote on Hall of Fame candidates from this point on.

The BBWAA regards Hall of Fame voting as the ultimate privilege, and any abuse of that privilege is unacceptable.

-BBWAA President La Velle E. Neal III
January 9, 2014

Deadspin's Tim Marchman:
We really can't make our point any better than the BBWAA just did.
   4. Der-K, the bloodied charmer Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4634903)
Marchman is with Deadspin now? How did I not know that?
   5. PepTech Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4634908)
and any abuse of that privilege is unacceptable.
Ha!
   6. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4634910)
LeBatard says he has been given a lifetime suspension from voting on the HOF and won't allow him to attend a game as credentialed media for a year. BBWWA.com apparently has a statement on it but the site has crashed.


But was this punishment based on a codified rule or an unwritten rule, and will he be able to apply for reinstatement after a year.
   7. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4634912)
Is Bill Conlin the child molester still a "member of good standing" of the BBWAA and is Conlin still eligible to vote for the HOF?
   8. Tim Wallach was my Hero Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4634916)
In French, Le Batard (well, "le bâtard") literally means "the bastard". I find this amusing.
   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4634921)
According to wiki:

The baseball writers association (BBWAA) secretary/treasurer Jack O’Connell issued a "member in good standing" statement on December 20. It said in part "The allegations have no bearing on [Conlin's] winning the 2011 J.G. Taylor Spink Award, which was in recognition of his notable career as a baseball writer”.[18]
   10. Doris from Rego Park Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4634924)
the ultimate privilege


The ultimate!!
   11. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4634926)
What's the penultimate privilege?
   12. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4634930)
Even money that Deadspin gets someone to give them a vote next year.
   13. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4634934)
I would not categorize the Joe Posnanski post as "angry."
   14. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4634936)
give the bbwaa credit for falling hard on the situation. that will cause someone to think twice if the vote matters to them at all.
   15. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4634937)
Amazing
   16. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4634938)
Yet Chass, who states explicitly that his voting criteria for this monumental honor is to piss off fans he doesn't like, is golden.
   17. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4634942)
sam

that also has some validity

   18. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4634948)
LaVelle Neal is the President of the BBWAA? So the guy who announced the punishment for not following the rules is one of the two guys who didn't give Pedro Martinez a top ten MVP vote in 1999?
   19. DanG Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4634949)
The surprising, and very encouraging thing, here is: the BBWAA took action!! Is this a sign that they are going to begin to address what truly is ailing the voting system?
   20. HGM Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4634950)
.
   21. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4634951)
In French, Le Batard (well, "le bâtard") literally means "the bastard". I find this amusing.
i'm pretty sure he's cuban.
   22. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4634953)
Yet Chass, who states explicitly that his voting criteria for this monumental honor is to piss off fans he doesn't like, is golden.


Reposted, from the other thread:

When Murray Chass threatened to send in a blank ballot in future elections to spite his detractors, I sent an e-mail to the BBWAA (and the Hall) registering my complaint. I thought it was disgraceful that a Hall voter could be using his vote in such a way, and that it shouldn't be tolerated (though I didn't propose specific action).

I got a letter from the BBWAA (not the Hall) in response. One part of that letter said:

As for what the BBWAA and the Hall can do, are you suggesting we tell people how to vote? That would truly damage the process.

I fail to see how one can reconcile the above statement with LeBatard's lifetime ban. That's pretty much telling him how he can vote.

If there's something in the Hall or BBWAA's bylaws that supports such an action, I'd love to see it.

Edit: Looking at, but not poring over, the constitution linked above, I'm not sure where the foundation for his ban is coming from.
   23. Fanshawe Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4634957)
Look if one guy was doing it, obviously everyone else was, and whoever wasn't should have said something. I say suspend all the writers from the deadspin ballot era (also the Bill Conlin Child molestation era for good measure). Maybe after a few years of not casting ballots, these guys will realize how serious their coworker's transgression was.
   24. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4634961)
Yet Chass, who states explicitly that his voting criteria for this monumental honor is to piss off fans he doesn't like, is golden.
Woody Paige wrote that, because he is friends with Goose Gossage, "I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving."

I don't know if Conlin can still vote, but I can tell you for sure that they didn't ban him the day after the news came out.

The surprising, and very encouraging thing, here is: the BBWAA took action!! Is this a sign that they are going to begin to address what truly is ailing the voting system?
Are you the creator of Hi and Lois?
   25. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4634963)
Primey for #23.
   26. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4634968)
Banning LeBatard is genius comedy from people who don't understand which way the joke is pointing.
   27. Tim Wallach was my Hero Posted: January 09, 2014 at 04:57 PM (#4634970)
i'm pretty sure he's cuban.

He is. Many Cubans have French name. That's not the point.
   28. zonk Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4634984)
23.

Word.

   29. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4634985)
   30. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4634989)
Looks like Conlin can no longer vote for reasons beyond the BBWAA's control.


Speaking of journalism ethics... Randy Miller. Ha.
   31. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4634993)
One funeral at a time.
   32. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4635039)
I love that Ringolsby slammed LeBatard. He gave me a twitter lecture the day before for taking issue with Gurnick's vote. Anyhow, I have no problem with what LeBatard did nor do I have a problem with the punishment. It furthers the discussion about the spiteful Gurnick and Chass ballots being a-okay but LeBatard's ballot was wrong enough to warrant a ban.

It was interesting listening yesterday when Kurkjian was on and he told Dan that he was disappointed that the stunt took the focus away from Maddux, Glavine, and Big Hurt. Dan kind of agreed with him and obviously his statement today reflected that.
   33. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4635040)
that was an oddly phrased message by miller
   34. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4635042)
Banning LeBatard is genius comedy from people who don't understand which way the joke is pointing.

While I agree, I think this is less true in the general public. Perhaps far less true.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:47 PM (#4635053)
that was an oddly phrased message by miller

Very. From that, I'm not even clear if he is dead or still dying.
   36. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4635055)

I think Le Batard was aiming to be banned from voting or at least had to anticipate that it was coming. I don't have a problem with that.
   37. GregD Posted: January 09, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4635069)
I think Le Batard was aiming to be banned from voting or at least had to anticipate that it was coming. I don't have a problem with that.
Yeah he's not my favorite writer but he's handled this appropriately thus far. He preemptively accepted the consequences (by acknowledging they would come in his original statement) and now, presumably, will take them, which gives dignity to his protest.
   38. Danny Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4635098)
I fail to see how one can reconcile the above statement with LeBatard's lifetime ban. That's pretty much telling him how he can vote.

Not that I necessarily support Le Batard's ban or Chass's continued voting rights, but there's a meaningful difference between regulating how a member votes (i.e. who they vote for and their reasoning behind it) and regulating whether a member has transferred his/her vote to a third party.
Looking at, but not poring over, the constitution linked above, I'm not sure where the foundation for his ban is coming from.

I'd guess somewhere in Section 5:
1. Any member convicted by the Board of Directors of misusing or attempting to misuse his or her membership shall be expelled for five years and his or her membership card shall be revoked.

2. Reinstatement following expulsion shall, in addition to regular membership qualification, require payment of all debts previously contracted through the Association.

B: Members shall adhere to the objects and ethics of the Association and shall exercise utmost care in the duties and privileges of memberships.

1. Violators’ memberships shall be suspended automatically by any Chapter Chair or Association Warden for one year dating there from. This offense shall be reported to the Secretary-Treasurer and the card of the offender shall be revoked.

2. Reinstatement after suspension shall, in addition to regular qualification, require payment of annual dues for the period of suspension.

C: Members shall respect the selectivity of the Association’s credentials. In no case does a membership card entitle its holder to press box privileges for any person other than himself or herself.
   39. spike Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:22 PM (#4635110)
   40. Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4635111)
To be fair to Randy Miller's tweet that was linked, it was the 3rd in a series of tweet's about Conlin dying. The first one said "Just heard Bill Conlin died."
   41. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4635133)
I now wholly support completely stripping the BBWAA of the vote for the Hall of Fame. Their reaction to Le Batard's action has nothing to do with the integrity of the Hall of Fame, but rather their exclusive power, as though the Hall of Fame is about them and their exclusive club rather than, you know, celebrating baseball. They've been throwing words around like "sanctimony" -- they've been ten times more sanctimonious about this whole thing than Le Batard was.

Have the Hall of Fame appoint a 10 member committee every year, require them to elect at least 1 player every year and no more than 5.
   42. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4635136)
The fact that the Hall of Fame ballot is an MS Word document speaks to how seriously this process is taken.
   43. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4635139)
LeBatard says he has been given a lifetime suspension from voting on the HOF and won't allow him to attend a game as credentialed media for a year.


Well, that seems harsh. I think what Le Batard did was goofy, but I think the appropriate penalty would be widespread genial mockery.
   44. Zach Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:13 PM (#4635156)
Taking away LeBatard's vote makes perfect sense. What is the BBWAA if it isn't a credentialing organization? As a general rule, if you are given professional credentials to do an activity and you give those credentials away to allow an uncredentialed person to do that activity in your place, you're going to get in a lot of trouble. If LeBatard had given his press pass to someone from Deadspin, I imagine the BBWAA would have gotten upset, too.
   45. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:18 PM (#4635160)
As a general rule, if you are given professional credentials to do an activity and you give those credentials away to allow an uncredentialed person to do that activity in your place, you're going to get in a lot of trouble.

One voter admitted to delegating his Bonds/Clemens decision to a coin. Is this any different?
   46. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:22 PM (#4635165)
As a general rule, if you are given professional credentials to do an activity and you give those credentials away to allow an uncredentialed person to do that activity in your place, you're going to get in a lot of trouble.

I agree with you but voting for the hall of fame isn't the reason you need to be credentialed. It is a perq not part of one's job. It's more akin to Elaine using Steinbrenner's tickets to root for the Orioles than giving someone your badge and having them pretend to be a cop.
   47. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4635170)
The current criteria to become a Hall of Fame voter for life is "don't get fired for ten years."

You don't have to be an expert. Or even particularly sharp. Just get a job writing about baseball for a recognized entity and don't get fired.
   48. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:37 PM (#4635180)
One voter admitted to delegating his Bonds/Clemens decision to a coin. Is this any different?

Yes. There is a difference between a voter casting a bad ballot, perhaps even on an irrational basis, and transferring your vote to a third party. That the third party announced it was buying a ballot certainly made the transaction unacceptable, even if no money changed hands in the end.
   49. andrewberg Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:38 PM (#4635181)
It sounds to me like BBWAA thinks there is a meaningful difference between Le Batard letting Deadspin vote in his place and Le Batard voting based on what Deadspin told him to do (theoretically).
   50. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:43 PM (#4635186)
Not that I necessarily support Le Batard's ban or Chass's continued voting rights, but there's a meaningful difference between regulating how a member votes (i.e. who they vote for and their reasoning behind it) and regulating whether a member has transferred his/her vote to a third party.


He had final say over the vote, and indicated that if the Deadspin voters had chosen Jacques Jones or something, he'd likely veto it. I don't see how it's any different than if Joe POz had opened his ballot up to a vote from his readers, then followed their lead. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
   51. Sunday silence Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:48 PM (#4635187)
So the guy who announced the punishment for not following the rules is one of the two guys who didn't give Pedro Martinez a top ten MVP vote in 1999?


I dont see the connection here. You dont like how he evaluates MVP candidates or whatever. And this equates to how he runs an organization. Is there a connection between these?
   52. andrewberg Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:53 PM (#4635192)
51- I would guess that the common thread is that the only way LEN3 could leave Pedro off the ballot is to make up a rule that SPs are not eligible for MVP (even though it is not written), so it is hypocritical for him to Le Batard to violate an unwritten rule that a voter must not allow another voter to choose his/her candidates. Not sure I buy that. The problem is that Le Batard pointed out a real flaw in the system and they addressed it with a punishment that did not relate to the flaw.
   53. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:55 PM (#4635194)
What was the real flaw in the system that he pointed out?
   54. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:13 PM (#4635204)
What was the real flaw in the system that he pointed out?


That there qualification to be a Hall of Fame voter is "don't get fired for 10 years." You do that, then never watch another baseball game, and you're judged as expert enough to determine who should be a Hall of Famer until the day you die.

But Sean Forman? #### that guy, he's not qualified to vote.
   55. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:14 PM (#4635205)
What was the real flaw in the system that he pointed out?
That unlike 1935, there's now enough info freely available for people other than sportswriters to vote in an informed way about the (EDIT: Oops) HOF? That the BBWAA is more interested in their power than in celebrating baseball? That the readers of a website that makes fun of athletes and shows pictures of mostly naked, large-breasted college girls are better equipped to evaluate baseball talent than 650 "professionals"?
   56. Esoteric Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4635208)
I love that Ringolsby slammed LeBatard. He gave me a twitter lecture the day before for taking issue with Gurnick's vote.
Tracy Ringolsby is fairly old-school but he's a good guy and a Primate in good standing. Which is worth something, IMO.
   57. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4635209)
He had final say over the vote, and indicated that if the Deadspin voters had chosen Jacques Jones or something, he'd likely veto it. I don't see how it's any different than if Joe POz had opened his ballot up to a vote from his readers, then followed their lead. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Right, it was clear Le Batard was looking to make a statement and burn some bridges, because there almost certainly were more "legal" ways of doing and more diplomatic ways of writing about what he did. He did it in a way intended to provoke the type of reaction that it did. This is not a criticism of Le Batard, but I don't see a need to defend him from the punishment or negative attention he was seeking.
   58. Fanshawe Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:17 PM (#4635211)
That the readers of a website that makes fun of athletes and shows pictures of mostly naked, large-breasted college girls are better equipped to evaluate baseball talent than 650 "professionals"?


What really burns is that that those readers are actually precisely as equipped to judge talent for the purposes of HOF decisions as the BBWAA. The deadspin ballot was indistinguishable from a standard "expert" ballot that included light or no steroid punishment. The emperor has no clothes.
   59. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4635212)
But Sean Forman? #### that guy, he's not qualified to vote.

How many Sean Formans are out there? This shvtty low bar has been around for a long time (and really it isn't a low bar-10 years is a long time) and for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.
   60. andrewberg Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4635213)
What was the real flaw in the system that he pointed out?


Yeah, like 54 and 55 said, BBWAA is playing a meaningless gatekeeper role. If there was ever a strong correlation within the baseball world between BBWAA membership and talent evaluation, it seems pretty clear that there isn't one now.

I also don't understand why BBWAA seems to intentionally pick sides in an "old vs. new" debate so often. They have been slow to embrace online writers, their acknowledgment of blogs is not commensurate with blog traffic, and they excuse ballot-gaming by writers who troll younger fans while they suspend the guy who gamed the ballot in a way that appealed to younger fans. I get that they side with old over new, but I don't understand why.
   61. ptodd Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4635215)
I am not a CHB hater, but Deadspin submitted a better ballot than he did and most of the BBWAA.

Looking forward to Pedros unanimous 1st ballot entry into the Hall of Irrelevancy
   62. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4635217)

What really burns is that that those readers are actually precisely as equipped to judge talent for the purposes of HOF decisions as the BBWAA. The deadspin ballot was an indistinguishable from any standard "expert" ballot that included light or no steroid punishment.


Yes, thousands and thousands of voters were able to make selections and the Deadspin ballot took the top ten selections. Taking the top 10 selections from that many ballots isn't proof of much. Having a large number is why the BBWAA has historically done a very good job picking players.
   63. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4635219)
How many Sean Formans are out there? This shvtty low bar has been around for a long time (and really it isn't a low bar-10 years is a long time) and for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.


You can disagree with the point if you want.
   64. andrewberg Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4635221)
How many Sean Formans are out there? This shvtty low bar has been around for a long time (and really it isn't a low bar-10 years is a long time) and for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.


If someone designed a computer program that voted for HOF candidates based on era and park-adjusted career statistics, would the BBWAA do a better job picking the HOF than that program? If not, then why does it hold any credibility or authority?
   65. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4635222)
Marchman:
[The BBWAA], as we've pointed out here before, doesn't have any issue with voters filling out their ballots just to antagonize competitors, or not knowing anything about baseball, or any number of other things. It certainly doesn't have any issue with its members, who have rather illegitimately been given the power to confer what is, regrettably, baseball's highest honor, deciding as a collective to punish an entire generation of players for no good reason. The one thing it apparently does have an issue with—Le Batard's punishment is, as far as we know, unprecedented—is a voter being perceived as tampering with its sacred process. As BBWAA secretary/treasurer Jack O'Connell put it in an email to me, explaining exactly why the BBWAA board of directors had stripped Le Batard of his vote:

The rules of the Hall of Fame clearly state that the only voters are 10-year members of the BBWAA. Mr. LeBatard transferred his ballot to an entity that has not earned that status.

In that same email, O'Connell named the members of the BBWAA board, among them the group's vice president, Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. Funny thing, that: Earlier today, a member of the Houston baseball press dropped us a line. Among other things, he told us this:

As for the voter who seeks local input, that's BBWAA vice-president Jose de Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. He gathers about 6-8 people over a lunch or dinner, they talk about the players, then he votes by how the majority tells him to vote re: each player. I was part of the panel one year.

I guess turning over a vote to an entity consisting of your cronies is fine, and turning one over to an entity consisting of baseball fans isn't. QED.

Whatever, though. For our part, we'd like to acquire another vote next year. We think we have a decent line on one, and it wouldn't hurt to get another. The first, we'd hand over to the public. The second? Who knows. Maybe we'll give it to Dan Le Batard.
   66. Walt Davis Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:24 PM (#4635223)
LeBatard was a jackass for going along with this. But he knew what he was doing and, at least in his piece a couple days ago, seemed perfectly comfy with the consequences. It's a trivial example of civil disobedience but any true civil disobedient accepts the "legal" consequences -- it's pretty much the point.

I would hope the key issue was him "selling" his vote. If he never intended to sell it, he should have made damn sure Deadspin didn't spin it that way. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if LeBatard had been "guided" by a fan poll he ran himself.

But, yes, there's no difference between this and Chass voting specifically to piss people off. Both damage the integrity of the voting, equally so. Even more damaging are those small handful who refuse to vote for an entire generation of players due to the sins of a few.

I surmised last year that the BBWAA seems an organization on its way to a schism. It's not too late for them to avoid it -- and it's such a "non-organization" anyway that maybe there's not really anything there to schism. But we saw a good bit of squabbling as a result of last year's vote and now we're seeing more squabbling. When you have relative heavy hitters like Gammons writing about Bagwell's "unfair burden" while Morrissey writes about the slightest slivers of suspicion of possible use and Chass writing openly about voting based on spite ... this is not a cohesive group.

The main reason I'm probably wrong is that it's hard to imagine a lazier organization than the BBWAA or a more short-sighted group of people than sportswriters. Within a week, most everybody will have forgotten how they wish they could have voted for more than ten and/or figure somebody else will make this an issue for them and then next December we'll be reading another raft of "woe is me" articles about how stacked the ballot is along with the annual sanctimony.
   67. cardsfanboy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4635226)
Did any writer support LeBatard?
   68. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:29 PM (#4635230)
I also don't understand why BBWAA seems to intentionally pick sides in an "old vs. new" debate so often.

Because the new threatens the old. I would think that is fairly obvious. Look, the BBWAA wasn't setup and run for you. It was setup to look after the specific interests of a specific small group. I don't really understand why people get shocked when a special interest group setup to look after a specific group does just that.


The Deadspin ballot include many names in which those names did not get at least 75% of the vote so I'm not sure how vox populi has proven itself to be a better gatekeeper. They would have given 5 people admission instead of the three the hall is actually giving and from a Hall stand point pushing Craig back to next year to go in with Randy and Pedro is probably more preferred than having 4 guys go in this year and 2 guys go in next year.
   69. Tripon Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4635232)
ow many Sean Formans are out there? This shvtty low bar has been around for a long time (and really it isn't a low bar-10 years is a long time) and for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.


Don't think that's still a reason to keep a guy like Sean Forman out.
   70. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4635233)
If someone designed a computer program that voted for HOF candidates based on era and park-adjusted career statistics, would the BBWAA do a better job picking the HOF than that program? If not, then why does it hold any credibility or authority?

This is completely missing the point of why the Hall exists and why the writers vote for who goes in. A computer program picking the players would kill the Hall of Fame.
   71. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:35 PM (#4635238)
Don't think that's still a reason to keep a guy like Sean Forman out.

Out of what? The BBWAA? There is no reason for Sean to be in the BBWAA. If you want to argue that Sean should have a say in who goes in that is fine but he absolutely has no reason to be in the BBWAA and if the Hall wants Sean to have a say then they can give him one. That they don't isn't the fault of the BBWAA but of the Hall of Fame.
   72. andrewberg Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:36 PM (#4635240)
Because the new threatens the old. I would think that is fairly obvious. Look, the BBWAA wasn't setup and run for you. It was setup to look after the specific interests of a specific small group. I don't really understand why people get shocked when a special interest group setup to look after a specific group does just that.


But this forced antagonism is a poor business strategy. Regardless of whether digital media wins out over print media in the long run, is there any doubt that BBWAA could have included (or at least collaborated with) baseball's "new media" more congenially ten years ago? It seems to me that this approach would have preserved the existing structure in positions of power and avoided precisely this kind of marginalizing bad press. You can't say that BBWAA is effectively protecting its own interests when its behavior makes a significant number of one-time followers write off their usefulness. (ie, from another thread: 1. Dale Sams Posted: January 09, 2014 at 06:59 PM (#4635198)
I officially refuse to give a **** about the baseball HOF for the duration of my life... 3. ptodd Posted: January 09, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4635206)
How many ways can you spell IRRELEVANT. Citizens of the world Unite and throw the bums out.)
   73. andrewberg Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:37 PM (#4635241)
This is completely missing the point of why the Hall exists and why the writers vote for who goes in. A computer program picking the players would kill the Hall of Fame.


Yeah, you're right. We don't need a computer program to do that; the writers are taking care of it on their own.

That they don't isn't the fault of the BBWAA but of the Hall of Fame.


This is a good point. The HOF is really to blame for enabling this stupidity.
   74. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:43 PM (#4635249)
Dale Sams caring about the BBWAA or the HoF means exactly squat to the BBWAA. The BBWAA was formed so that they could ensure that they could get access to stadiums and some basic press tools when at the game. Perhaps they even lobbied for a decent spread in the dining room too, I don't know.

BBWAA for a long time saw "new media" as a bunch of shirtless "fans" sitting in their mother's basement wishing for free tickets to the game and BBWAA for a long time denied them membership because in part they were guardians of their rights and they didn't want them abused. And you know what, for the longest time they were right to fend off "new media" because for a long time they were just a bunch of basement dwellers doing this as a hobby. Did they come late to the party in letting "new media" in? Perhaps but again they still have to protect their rights and for the most part bloggers and independent writers are a risk to the BBWAA and to those rights they have been given by MLB.
   75. cardsfanboy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4635252)
This is completely missing the point of why the Hall exists and why the writers vote for who goes in. A computer program picking the players would kill the Hall of Fame.


It would also be subjected to the tendencies of whoever programmed it. No matter how complex of a system it's created, you are going to have ultimately, the programmers preferences will be hardwired into it. You would have to ultimately make a choice "Is fWar for pitchers a better concept than bWar." "Is high peak better than sustained good years." "Do we use Jaws7 or should we use Jaws5?" etc. "how much if any punishment do we give people who have cheated, and how do we determine their level of punishment if they did cheat." If you have a computer do it, it's answers to these questions are hard coded, every person would basically have one year on the ballot(which weakens the off season appeal and marketing) and it's limited by it's current knowledge. Everytime we discover something new (fip, catchers pitch framing) do we go through the entire list of past candidates and rework them through the formula?


There is a certain value to wisdom of the crowds system. My beef with the writers is all about the fact that they have so many members who steadfastly and proudly refuse to learn anything about the subject that they are covering beyond what they learned in 5th grade. I have zero problems with them as a body having the vote. I just wish they had a system in place to eliminate things like "I forgot Rickey Henderson was on the ballot." or "I'm voting for no one out of spite." or "I vote for this guy because he had a lot of rbi's and rbis is the true hallmark of a good hitter." (this last one is to point out the lack of requiring evolving education in order to vote. After all, most doctors don't avoid using new techniques, just because the old ones worked for them--in fact there was an episode of scrubs on that same thing.)
   76. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4635255)
Yeah, you're right. We don't need a computer program to do that; the writers are taking care of it on their own.

Those voters that are killing the Hall write more about the Hall than probably gets written about all other Halls combined and might even be possible that the baseball HoF gets more press in a single year than all other Hall of Fames have gotten ever. The BBWAA has just elected 3 players to the Hall and I'm betting the Hall is going to get a very big turnout for induction week this year. If the writers had picked no one or only one player I would agree with you and say the writers were killing the Hall this year but they didn't so I cannot.
   77. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4635256)
Looking forward to Pedros unanimous 1st ballot entry into the Hall of Irrelevancy

I wrote about this in the HOF thread, but the attention the HOF elections get, every year, especially in relation to any other HOF, makes your renaming a little ridiculous.


This is a good point. The HOF is really to blame for enabling this stupidity.

I'm sure they'll gladly take the blame for the popularity of the yearly elections and inductions.
   78. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4635258)
for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.
"Excellent"?

Just since '00, in: Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Puckett, Perez

Not in: Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Trammell, Whittaker (1 and done), Stieb (1 and done), Keith Hernandez, Will Clark (1 and done), Saberhagen (1 and done), Cone (1 and done), Kevin Brown (1 and done), Lofton (1 and done).

The first 4 are still on the ballot and have a chance, but I don't think Bagwell and Trammell make it. As for the rest, the "1 and done" guys certainly deserved more of a discussion, and I'd take any guy on the "not in" list over the 5 on the "in" list.
   79. Fanshawe Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:48 PM (#4635259)
Did any writer support LeBatard?


Richard Justice seems to.
   80. GregD Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:48 PM (#4635261)
I think it makes sense to think of the HOF not as a repository of our collective dreams but as an institution with, like any institutions, its own survival its primary goal.

I think it goes without saying that having baseball writers vote for the HOF has been incredibly beneficial to the HOF for a long time since it brought an incredibly out-of-the-way museum an amazing amount of free publicity. If you start with that premise, then the attachment of the HOF to the BBWAA makes sense.

Since newspapers no longer exert such a stranglehold on publicity, the logical step now would be to include other people who can bring more publicity to the HOF, whether bloggers or TV people or whatever.

I suspect the problem for the HOF is not that writers are sometimes wrong; the problem is that newspaper writers just aren't that important, anymore.
   81. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:52 PM (#4635266)
I'll echo GregD, and annoyingly quote my own comment from the HOF thread that has seemingly since died, because I liked it:

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier - I still can't imagine with everyone talking about the HOF induction, every year (even when NO ONE GOES IN) and no one caring about the induction of any other HOF at all, ever, why the HOF would change anything about the way things are voted on.

McCoy's argument that the HOF will be better served by moving their location seems to have more basis than the HOF being better served - subjectively, empirically - by changing their voting rules. I know the Big Hall vote is under-represented, but the HOF WANTS to be a small hall, and that is why a.) they still do it this way, and b.) any changes will be incremental, infinitessimal - out of fear that increase in numbers will bring less interest, not more. The same interest the world has in the Football and Basketball HOF.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.
   82. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:53 PM (#4635267)

Not in: Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Trammell, Whittaker (1 and done), Stieb (1 and done), Keith Hernandez, Will Clark (1 and done), Saberhagen (1 and done), Cone (1 and done), Kevin Brown (1 and done), Lofton (1 and done).


And 30 years from now the list of HoFers picked by the writers will inlcude Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza. Outside of Whitaker there isn't a single one and done that you listed that deserved more than a year appearance on the ballot. Whitaker and Trammell are tough choices and that is why we have the VC. To correct any ommissions by the writers. You'd rather have your gatekeeper be exclusive rather than inclusive when picking who walks through a gate that they cannot be kicked back through.
   83. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:56 PM (#4635269)
Did any writer support LeBatard?


Olbermann.
   84. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4635270)
The Deadspin ballot include many names in which those names did not get at least 75% of the vote so I'm not sure how vox populi has proven itself to be a better gatekeeper. They would have given 5 people admission instead of the three the hall is actually giving and from a Hall stand point pushing Craig back to next year to go in with Randy and Pedro is probably more preferred than having 4 guys go in this year and 2 guys go in next year.
First, "vox populi" is the reason the HOF exists. If the general public doesn't care who is or isn't in there, the museum wouldn't need to exist because no one would go.

Second, "4 this year and 2 next" vs. "3 and 3" isn't really the point; the point is that there are currently as many as 17 guys who deserve induction on the ballot and at least 3 more next year, and the BBWAA elected just 3 this year (with Morris dropping off), leaving the logjam for at least another year.

Finally, and importantly (and as I and many others have said over and over again), the general baseball public - the people who buy tickets or watch games on TV and who care enough to follow the game closely enough to care about such things (and again - the people who make a HOF museum economically feasable) - don't care nearly as much about PEDs as the holier-than-thous in the BBWAA.
   85. Zach Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4635271)
I guess turning over a vote to an entity consisting of your cronies is fine, and turning one over to an entity consisting of baseball fans isn't. QED.

For a lot of things in life, there's a broad presumption that people are acting in good faith. People can act in unconventional ways and will still get the benefit of the doubt. But I don't see how you can give LeBatard the benefit of the doubt here -- he agreed in advance to do what the site said, he let them advertise that they had bought his vote (whether or not money actually changed hands), and he went through with the deal.

The issue of whether Sean Forman should have a vote seems to me to be quite distinct from the issue of whether LeBatard should be suspended.
   86. cardsfanboy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4635272)
The sad part about this, is that LeBatard probably had a pretty good idea of what players Deadspin was going to end up voting for, and I'm willing to bet he was probably thinking they'll end up with pretty much my guys or one of the guys who I would have liked to vote for if I had more spots. I seriously doubt there was one player on his ballot, who he wouldn't have voted for on his own ballot(if there were no ballot limitations)


And 30 years from now the list of HoFers picked by the writers will inlcude Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza. Outside of Whitaker there isn't a single one and done that you listed that deserved more than a year appearance on the ballot. Whitaker and Trammell are tough choices and that is why we have the VC. To correct any ommissions by the writers. You'd rather have your gatekeeper be exclusive rather than inclusive when picking who walks through a gate that they cannot be kicked back through.


I'm sorry but you are nuts if you think Kevin Brown deserved one and done. And of course there is always the chance of someone dying the longer out you make them wait. Yes I know for the fans it doesn't matter if the inductee is alive or dead, but it's a nice honor that would be nice if they are alive to enjoy it.
   87. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4635274)
You'd rather have your gatekeeper be exclusive rather than inclusive when picking who walks through a gate that they cannot be kicked back through.
Since you seemed to miss the first and last lines of my post, I'll repeat them here.
Just since '00, in: Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Puckett, Perez...

The first 4 are still on the ballot and have a chance, but I don't think Bagwell and Trammell make it. As for the rest, the "1 and done" guys certainly deserved more of a discussion, and I'd take any guy on the "not in" list over the 5 on the "in" list.

   88. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4635275)
Finally, and importantly (and as I and many others have said over and over again), the general baseball public - the people who buy tickets or watch games on TV and who care enough to follow the game closely enough to care about such things (and again - the people who make a HOF museum economically feasable) - don't care nearly as much about PEDs as the holier-than-thous in the BBWAA.

Except the voters of deadspin couldn't muster up a 75% vote total for any of the proven steroid users or suspected users.

Second, "4 this year and 2 next" vs. "3 and 3" isn't really the point; the point is that there are currently as many as 17 guys who deserve induction on the ballot and at least 3 more next year, and the BBWAA elected just 3 this year (with Morris dropping off), leaving the logjam for at least another year.


The Hall doesn't care about a "logjam" if they are inducting 2 to 3 players a year. This issue is one of the those made up internet hand-wringing issues.

First, "vox populi" is the reason the HOF exists. If the general public doesn't care who is or isn't in there, the museum wouldn't need to exist because no one would go.


Since people do go and people keep on talking about the Hall I think it is pretty clear that the Hall is in no dangers of having the baseball public not care about the Hall.
   89. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:04 PM (#4635280)
Since you seemed to miss the first and last lines of my post, I'll repeat them here.

No I didn't miss it I found it unimportant. The Hall of Fame vote wasn't created to give some guys a discussion about their career. As I said the writers historically have done an excellent job in picking sure fire Hall of Famers and that is their job. The job of the VC is to make the decision on those candidates that aren't as obvious as the guys who got elected by the writers.
   90. Zach Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:04 PM (#4635281)
Second, "4 this year and 2 next" vs. "3 and 3" isn't really the point; the point is that there are currently as many as 17 guys who deserve induction on the ballot and at least 3 more next year, and the BBWAA elected just 3 this year (with Morris dropping off), leaving the logjam for at least another year.

The Hall of Fame election is a method of achieving consensus, not a one-off election or even a series of one-off elections. Candidates build constituencies, they get looked at more closely as they get closer to election or hang around too long. Expecting every deserving candidate to be elected or rejected their first time on the ballot is asking too much.
   91. spike Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4635290)
As I said the writers historically have done an excellent job in picking sure fire Hall of Famers and that is their job.

Anybody with a passing interest would get the "surefire" guys right, but I am not sure how Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Puckett, Perez meet the criteria of "surefire" or are representative of an "exclusionary" set of gatekeepers.
   92. Walt Davis Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4635291)
I get that they side with old over new, but I don't understand why.

I suspect the median age is at least 55. Newspapers are dying, sportswriters are being laid off or pushed into retirement. How would you expect them to act?

That said ... c'mon. How many current baseball websites are going to be there 5 years from now? McCoy's point about "how many Formans are there?"* is that we're talking about a current voting body of nearly 600 people. Who are you going to add -- Forman, Dave Cameron, Dan S, a couple BPro guys? How many do you need to add to change the results? Are you going to make them immediately eligible to vote or make them wait 10 years? What criteria will you use to choose these "experts" and will those criteria end up qualifying just as many "idiot" voters as "smart" voters? And, perhaps most importantly, who's going to pay their annual BBWAA dues if these people run free websites?

*And why Sean? I'm serious. I've never read much of Sean's baseball writings, is he particularly insightful? He's the god-king of baseball information -- and I'd be happy to see him put in the HoF or given a Spink award or whatever for those efforts -- but I don't associate him with "analysis." For all I know he'd have voted Ryan Howard over Pujols in the MVP those years. (Well, OK, just based on his rare posts here, he seems to not be an insane loon.)

I agree with folks in what they want to achieve but I get annoyed that few seem to bother to think through even the first hurdle. There is no faster way to de-legitimize the HoF selection process and the HoF itself than imposing a "we're going to eliminate the idiot voters we disagree with and replace them with voters we 'know' will agree with us." The HoM at least said "screw it, we'll start our own" which is at least a legit alternative. But I have no idea what the criteria are to become an HoM voter, I can't vouch for their credentials (since I don't track who they are) and I think they've come to some mighty funny decisions.

Also from the David Souter school of WTF, be careful what you wish for. For example in their 2010 ballot, the HoM elected Larkin, Alomar and Edgar. And ...

a) bearing in mind voters are required to rank the top 15, Larkin appeared on only 40 of 41 ballots -- somebody apparently didn't think he was in the top 15 eligible

b) Alomar was placed in the top 10 on only 90% of the ballots ... again, voters required to fill 15 slots, it's not clear they elect him under BBWAA rules

c) Edgar was names on only 63% of the ballots. 15 of the 41 HoM voters did not consider him to be in the top 15 on that ballot. Less than 50% considered him to be top 10. Only 5 of 41 ballots put him in the top 3 yet he was one of three elected.

d) 10 voters put Cone in their top 5 compared to just 8 for Edgar.

In 2013, Sosa received no votes higher than 5th, was put in the top 10 on only 16 of 34 ballots and was left off 8 ballots altogether. Note that because of their automatic election rules, they don't have any sort of serious backlog. The 7th place finisher was Vic Willis and the only contemporaries (besides B/C/B/P and Schilling) he's on the ballot with are Lofton and McGriff. So it's not like he's being ranked behind Raines, Walker, Edgar, Bagwell, etc. He was getting ranked behind Ben Taylor, Bobby Bonds, Hugh Duffy, Tommy Leach, Burleigh Grimes and Addie Joss (all received 4th place votes). Do we expect HoM voters to value the complexity of WAR? Hard to understand Lofton's 15th place finish with only 6 top 10s. (Lofton vs. Raines, discuss)

I seem to have missed the 2014 results when they were posted. Maddux received 32 of 34 1st place votes (Thomas got 2). The big 3 sailed in. Glavine was in the top 10 on 32 ballots but was left off one entirely (not top 15?). Meanwhile their cap kicks in -- Schilling and Mussina were named top 10 on 30 of 34 ballots (88%) but don't get in. The old guys got beat up a bit -- Rizzutto, Willis, Taylor are not outside the top 10.

Are you sure you want saber experts voting? Are you sure that, under BBWAA style rules, the candidates you want will achieve the 75% consenus? Or do you just want to decide who goes in and who doesn't?

BTW, I don't mean to pick on the HoM. I use them as an example that there is no "perfect" process and that, once you give people the freedom to vote, you can't know that they are going to vote the way you want. I find their take on Edgar to be interesting. The voting systems and ballots are different but then Edgar had less competition on the HoM ballot than the HoF ballot. His vote totals are really pretty similar between the two and his first-year election by the HoM is due to the quota system, the forced full (ranked) ballot, etc. NOT a clear consensus that he was deserving. And even the HoM has a crowded ballot on which Schilling, Mussina and Sosa (not to mention Lofton) can't break through easily -- despite electing 2-4 per year.

As to the HoF, they simply can't be seen as making the decision themselves. The legitimacy of the inductees, especially at a time of controversy like this, depends on an "independent" body making those decisions. (Putting together "expert panels" to induct people from 60 years ago is a different matter.) The BBWAA is a lame organization but I can't think of any other "legitimate" body out there except possibly SABR members. But SABR members are not going to write dozens of articles about the HoF -- well, not ones anybody outside of SABR reads -- and I see no reason to think SABR would vote "better". (Not to mention the hassle over defining voting eligibility, can any yahoo get a SABR membership, what happens when somebody sells their vote to Deadspin, etc.)

   93. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:17 PM (#4635294)
Except the voters of deadspin couldn't muster up a 75% vote total for any of the proven steroid users or suspected users.
Except Piazza (81.7%). And while Bagwell went from 54% in the writers' ballot to 68%, Bonds and Clemens both doubled their percentages. I'd call of those "don't care nearly as much".
The Hall doesn't care about a "logjam" if they are inducting 2 to 3 players a year. This issue is one of the those made up internet hand-wringing issues.
How do you know they're OK with "2 or 3 players a year"? Wouldn't they maximize their visitors (income) by inducting more players, especially more excellent players?
Since people do go and people keep on talking about the Hall I think it is pretty clear that the Hall is in no dangers of having the baseball public not care about the Hall.
"Since people keep buying Azteks, there is no danger of having the car buying public not care about Pontiac." - GM execs, circa 2005. Hubris is a #####.
   94. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:19 PM (#4635297)
And why Sean? I'm serious.


Because he's clearly established an interest in the history of baseball and the context of modern players in that history, and takes it seriously. As compared to someone who casts a ballot just to piss off people he doesn't like.
   95. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:19 PM (#4635298)
"Since people keep buying Azteks, there is no danger of having the car buying public not care about Pontiac." - GM execs, circa 2005. Hubris is a #####.

You cannot be serious with this analogy.
   96. Fanshawe Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:22 PM (#4635302)
There is no faster way to de-legitimize the HoF selection process and the HoF itself than imposing a "we're going to eliminate the idiot voters we disagree with and replace them with voters we 'know' will agree with us."


This is, effecitvely, the current standard as evidenced by the caterwauling from BBWAA types about LeBatard's vote being "just wrong" because reasons. It's just that "us" is the BBWAA (or some significant subset thereof).
   97. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:26 PM (#4635305)
How do you know they're OK with "2 or 3 players a year"? Wouldn't they maximize their visitors (income) by inducting more players, especially more excellent players?

People who make the trip to the HOF I don't think are disappointed that Kenny Lofton isn't inducted. Or Walker. Or Keith Hernandez, although jesus that pisses me off. Are there baseball fans, serious baseball fans who will not go because there is no Barry Bonds there? Of course. I think he should be elected, and I think it's idiotic that he isn't. Will that make me not go? No. And I'm pretty sure that's the bell curve of visitors.
   98. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:33 PM (#4635311)
For example in their 2010 ballot, the HoM elected Larkin, Alomar and Edgar. And ...
There are a couple of important differences:

1. The HOF drops you after 15 years on the ballot, the HOM has no time limit.
2. The HOF drops you if you aren't included on 5% of the ballots, the HOF drops you only if you're not named on any ballots.
3. The HOM generally elects the same number as the HOF - if the HOF inducts 2 in a certain year, so does the HOM.

The first 2 create a bigger backlog in the HOM (on the last ballot, there were 105 names to consider), and the third ensures the backlog stays big (Vic Willis has been on the ballot for almost 100 "years").
   99. TDF, situational idiot Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:35 PM (#4635312)
Are there baseball fans, serious baseball fans who will not go because there is no Barry Bonds there?
Uh, yeah. Just like "serious art fans" wouldn't go to an art museum that won't display a Dali but will display something I painted.
   100. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:36 PM (#4635313)
How do you know they're OK with "2 or 3 players a year"? Wouldn't they maximize their visitors (income) by inducting more players, especially more excellent players?

So you think the Hall wants to elect 10 to 15 players in one year and no one for a few years?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(485 - 2:19pm, Apr 23)
Last: Mark S. is bored

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(18 - 2:17pm, Apr 23)
Last: thetailor

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2206 - 2:15pm, Apr 23)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(35 - 2:14pm, Apr 23)
Last: spike

NewsblogJ.R. Gamble: Albert Pujols' 500-Homer Chase Is A Bore, But That's Baseball's Fault
(51 - 2:13pm, Apr 23)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogMatt Harvey of New York Mets deletes Twitter account after controversial tweet
(13 - 2:11pm, Apr 23)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(1060 - 2:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(8 - 2:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogMLB takes a swing at the video game business
(6 - 1:56pm, Apr 23)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogCameron: Numbers don't lie: The decline of Pujols is stunning
(221 - 1:46pm, Apr 23)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(5 - 1:33pm, Apr 23)
Last: esseff

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(195 - 1:29pm, Apr 23)
Last: zack

NewsblogMorosi: Diamondbacks' growing gloom might mean doom for manager or GM
(8 - 1:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: zonk

NewsblogThe rise and fall of Ike Davis' New York Mets | Capital New York
(19 - 1:05pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(110 - 1:04pm, Apr 23)
Last: Blastin

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.9815 seconds
53 querie(s) executed