I've got to say that's a pretty damn good ballot. Kudos to a Detroit writer leaving Morris off.

There seems to be some kind of problem here. I cannot muster any outrage!

Best ballot I've seen posted yet by far. Doesn't miss any of the obvious (to us) inclusions*, and doesn't include Morris.

*I guess this depends on how you feel about the McGwire subject.

This isn't outrage, per se, but Dawson seems an incongruous choice on the list. I will grant that Henning basically draws Dawson as the worst player in his personal Hall, but I'm surprised he made the cut on this list.

That being said, it's real close to what my ballot would look like, so fair enough.

Take out Dawson and he matches my ballot exactly. Great minds must think alike.

None of these guys had 3000 hits, I don't see how you can let any of them in!!!!

That's a really nice ballot. It's got all the most deserving candidates (including Trammell!) and none of the least-deserving-but-often-mentioned ones (Morris, Mattingly).

The only difference between Henning's ballot and my theoretical one is that I wouldn't include Dawson and I would include McGwire. But I don't mind Dawson (I could be convinced), and I know there are legitimate reasons (OK, one legitimate reason) to not vote for McGwire.

Good job, Henning!

If this thread proves anything, it's the soundness of Repoz's pinata post strategy. The intelligent columns by MSM writers don't attract 1/10th as many comments as the ones written by the morons.

Best ballot I've seen posted yet by far. Doesn't miss any of the obvious (to us) inclusions*, and doesn't include Morris.

Agreed.

I think we really ought to do more than just add up ballots -- we ought to have a community project ranking the writers -- from best to worst ballot. It would give BBTF the opportunity to show we're more than bashers - but still give us an opportunity to pile on the worst of the worst.

I think this one seems to be the clear front-runner.

Well done, Mr. Henning.

I've got to say that's a pretty damn good ballot.

I can't really call a ballot that leaves McGwire off a "good ballot." We're supposed to pat him on the back because he realized that obvious HOFers Raines, Trammell, Blyleven, Larkin, and Alomar should be included? And that obvious non-HOFer Morris shouldn't be? He doesn't include McGwire but goes for Dawson and Edgar? He doesn't deal with Fred McGriff?

Pass.

More conspicuous by his absence is McGwire - he didn't even mention his non-vote for Big Mac. I'd like to see his reasoning, especially since he got everything else right.

It's hard to keep track after all these years, but it seems to me that Lynn Henning is a writer whose opinions I agree with the majority of the time. But then every once in a while he comes up with something that I feel is ridiculous and destroys all the goodwill he has built up with me. :-) I guess there are a lot of writers like that.

But overall, I think Henning falls a lot closer to the Posnanski end of the scale than the Plaschke/Mariotti end. And this ballot is a good example.

You don't really need more than a formula to rank the writers. They get points for putting everyone on ballot that BBTF supports >75%, lose points for putting anyone on ballot that BBTF ranks <5% and are neutral for any off-ballot strong support candidates. The BBTF mock-election is ongoing, we can rank the writers after it completes.

You don't really need more than a formula to rank the writers. They get points for putting everyone on ballot that BBTF supports >75%, lose points for putting anyone on ballot that BBTF ranks <5% and are neutral for any off-ballot strong support candidates. The BBTF mock-election is ongoing, we can rank the writers after it completes.

This has to be tongue in cheek, right? Surely you don't think that a writer's entire worth can be reduced to whether or not he happens to agree with the BTF consensus on the Hall of Fame?

In order to "rank" writers with any degree of coherence, you'd have to have read their columns on a wide variety of subjects, and go by their reasoning and their writing skills as well as whether they agree with you or not. Catering to the stat crowd is not the entirety of their job description.

This has to be tongue in cheek, right?

Durrrrr....

Surely you don't think that a writer's entire worth can be reduced to whether or not he happens to agree with the BTF consensus on the Hall of Fame?

Given that we're currently in HOF season, and every second thread is a HOF ballot, I think it's quite obvious that we can reduce a writer's entire worth into whether or not he agrees with us.

After all, whether or not he agrees with us (and occasionally whether or not he used the right reasoning to agree with us) is typically how we judge a writer during the rest of the year too.

When it comes to how "good" a ballot is, whether or not they agree with us should be the measure of "goodness". They might be a remarkable writer but I'm not reading 100+ different articles to find that out.

Surely you don't think that a writer's entire worth can be reduced to whether or not he happens to agree with the BTF consensus on the Hall of Fame?

Of course not. Just to whether he agrees with me.

In order to "rank" writers with any degree of coherence, you'd have to have read their columns on a wide variety of subjects, and go by their reasoning and their writing skills as well as whether they agree with you or not. Catering to the stat crowd is not the entirety of their job description.

Agreed, but the post that suggested this topic in the first place said:

I think we really ought to do more than just add up ballots -- we ought to have a community project ranking the writers -- from best to worst ballot.

Everything that followed was in reference to that — not actually ranking writers.

We're supposed to pat him on the back because he realized that obvious HOFers Raines, Trammell, Blyleven, Larkin, and Alomar should be included? And that obvious non-HOFer Morris shouldn't be?

... Yeah, we sort of are. I only had one psychology course, but this is how conditioning works, right?

Here's the formula:

Each candidate is worth 20*(% of BBTF vote) - 10

Voting for Barry Larkin would be worth ~10 points. Voting/not voting for Dawson worth ~0 points. Voting for Don Mattingly ~-9 points. Conversely, not voting for Barry Larkin is worth ~-10 points.

Agreed, but the post that suggested this topic in the first place said:

I think we really ought to do more than just add up ballots -- we ought to have a community project ranking the writers -- from best to worst ballot.

Everything that followed was in reference to that — not actually ranking writers.

Yes - that was my intent, poorly worded and imprecise as it was - that it would be interesting to develop some of system to rank the best and worst ballots... I think DL's formula works fine.

I also think many things are interesting that require no work from me.

Agreed, but the post that suggested this topic in the first place said:

I think we really ought to do more than just add up ballots -- we ought to have a community project ranking the writers -- from best to worst ballot.

Everything that followed was in reference to that — not actually ranking writers.

Yes - that was my intent, poorly worded and imprecise as it was - that it would be interesting to develop some of system to rank the best and worst ballots... I think DL's formula works fine.

Thanks to everyone for clearing that up, though the concept that "best" or "worst" writer (or ballot) has some sort of correlation (and a mathematical one, yet) to "agrees with the BTF consensus" is still more than a bit bizarre.

If they're a really good writer - a thought leader - they're going to influence our consensus.

Any other method of evaluation is going to be full of pitfalls due to opinions, biases (didn't read X's article) and the fact that we're not all English majors.

If they're a really good writer - a thought leader - they're going to influence our consensus.

Any other method of evaluation is going to be full of pitfalls due to opinions, biases (didn't read X's article) and the fact that we're not all English majors.

True enough, but there's still that conceit of using a word like "best", when all you really mean is "he votes like we do." That's about as subjective and "biased" a standard as you can get.

Well, the other option is to use this group to rank the writers subjectively. Either way you're using "us" to do the ranking.

True enough, but there's still that conceit of using a word like "best", when all you really mean is "he votes like we do."

Yes. And? Are you in the habit of strongly holding opinions that you don't have confidence in, or that you don't think are best?

I feel strongly that Jack Morris is not a deserving HOFer. So obviously I'd find any opinion that he is to be not as good as my own -- unless the writer can convince me that his opinion is in fact better than mine.

True enough, but there's still that conceit of using a word like "best", when all you really mean is "he votes like we do."

Yes. And? Are you in the habit of strongly holding opinions that you don't have confidence in, or that you don't think are best?

I feel strongly that Jack Morris is not a deserving HOFer. So obviously I'd find any opinion that he is to be not as good as my own -- unless the writer can convince me that his opinion is in fact better than mine.

Well, Ray, the logical consequence of all that is that your sole criterion of "good" writing is whether or not at the end of the day, the writer agrees with you. And that your way of establishing the "best" writer is by simply adding up all the votes for the likes of Mark McGwire and Bert Blyleven, and subtracting all the votes for the likes of Jim Rice and Jack Morris. Forget anything else, just show me the bottom line. It's a bit like the "thinking contest" in Pogo, where Albert and Churchy vie for the title of "best" thinker by conjuring up images of quantity: "I'm thinking of all the baby chicks what's hatching and what's already been hatched----Peep, peep, peep..."---"Well, I'm thinking of all the black-eyed peas in the sovereign South", and so on.

Sorry if I find that approach to be more than a little offputting, juvenile, and sad. But maybe that's because I don't view every last column as a sort of contest to establish the "correctness" of the writer's view. There are scores of writers I'd consider "good" whom I seldom if ever agree with, and plenty of others whose views on a particular topic coincide with mine, but who I think are nevertheless idiots.

Honestly, your views as expressed above, taken into the political realm, would be entirely in line with the PC mindset of every ideological sect, both "Left" and "Right." Whenever someone agrees with 90% of what you say, you always seem to seize upon the one area of disagreement, such as you do in #10. "Correctness" is always the bottom line.

Well, Ray, the logical consequence of all that is that your sole criterion of "good" writing is whether or not at the end of the day, the writer agrees with you.

Actually, Ray's pretty clearly stating that he would consider something which convincingly challenges his opinions to also be good writing. You can find that part right here:

So obviously I'd find any opinion that he is to be not as good as my own -- unless the writer can convince me that his opinion is in fact better than mine.[/quote]

But at the end of the day, it comes down to whether the writer agrees with him or not. It's as if I refused to consider G.K. Chesterton to be a "better" writer than Michael Moore simply because I don't agree with Chesterton's reactionary Catholicism, while I do agree with Moore's views on our health care system.

It's not that Ray's not "honest" in expressing his views, it's just that his method of ranking writers hasn't apparently gotten beyond that of a first grader.

Does anyone have a "final tally" from past years of pre-announced BBWAA ballots and how well they "forecasted" the inductees that year?

So obviously I'd find any opinion that he is to be not as good as my own -- unless the writer can convince me that his opinion is in fact better than mine.

And Ray's still searching for the first who can meet the challenge. :-)

"I'm thinking of all the baby chicks what's hatching and what's already been hatched----Peep, peep, peep..."---"Well, I'm thinking of all the black-eyed peas in the sovereign South", and so on.

Well I'm thinkin' about poppin' corn! POP POP POP
PEEP PEEP PEEP
POP POP POP

If this thread proves anything, it's the soundness of Repoz's pinata post strategy. The intelligent columns by MSM writers don't attract 1/10th as many comments as the ones written by the morons.

Human nature. If you go to a rottentomatoes page of a popular movie (Avatar, for example,) the positive reviews get 3-10 comments. The negative ones get 100+.

If you agree with someone, all you can say is "I agree." If not, you can say "I disagree for reasons X, Y and Z." (or, on rottentomatoes, "Your a fag.")

True enough, but there's still that conceit of using a word like "best", when all you really mean is "he votes like we do." That's about as subjective and "biased" a standard as you can get.

Actually, it's 100% objective, not subjective in the least. That word doesn't mean what you think it does.

I don't see why you're getting on Ray; he's almost exactly right in his analysis. The only problem is that he's using his views as a baseline, rather than mine.

Sorry if I find that approach to be more than a little offputting, juvenile, and sad. But maybe that's because I don't view every last column as a sort of contest to establish the "correctness" of the writer's view. There are scores of writers I'd consider "good" whom I seldom if ever agree with, and plenty of others whose views on a particular topic coincide with mine, but who I think are nevertheless idiots.

Honestly, your views as expressed above, taken into the political realm, would be entirely in line with the PC mindset of every ideological sect, both "Left" and "Right." Whenever someone agrees with 90% of what you say, you always seem to seize upon the one area of disagreement, such as you do in #10. "Correctness" is always the bottom line.

I must admit, the phrase "PC" has never entered my mind when I've read any of Ray's contributions to this board.

Now as to offputting, juvenile and sad....

8-)

DB

I don't see why you're getting on Ray; he's almost exactly right in his analysis.

That's your problem there. Ray's never right in any of his analyses.

I must admit, the phrase "PC" has never entered my mind when I've read any of Ray's contributions to this board.

I used that term in the historical sense, and from having observed way too much of it in action in various liberal / left groups I was formerly involved in. Like Ray, the guiding principle in those groups often seemed to be little more than "are you for us or against us?", with no room for the slightest bit of "deviation" from the "correct" line, and little room for subtleties. Of course Ray's not PC in the sense that he follows any particular line but his own, but his seeming need to always be looking for small areas of disagreement (see #10 above) instead of the larger areas of agreement is wholly characteristic of what I see as an important part of the PC mentality. Perhaps it's only his inner lawyer.

All that aside, I actually enjoy Ray's baseball analysis even though I disagree with him a great bit of the time. For example, his take on Ichiro was very well expressed and logically developed in spite of its faulty premise. He doesn't often convince me, but I'd much rather read him than someone who just says "I agree completely with Nick." Although I have to admit that the latter comment can be nice to read every once in a while.

Of course Ray's not PC in the sense that he follows any particular line but his own, but his seeming need to always be looking for small areas of disagreement (see #10 above) instead of the larger areas of agreement is wholly characteristic of what I see as an important part of the PC mentality. Perhaps it's only his inner lawyer.

Well, people were congratulating the above HOF voter for being rational enough not to vote for Jack Morris. (See, e.g., #1 above.) I find that beyond silly, akin to congratulating someone for not walking into oncoming traffic.

And it was worse than that: The voter said that he "understands" those who vote for Morris. And that Morris "misses by only a stitch." That kind of wrongheaded reasoning is to be criticized, not applauded.

Fred McGriff is appearing on the ballot for the first time. McGriff didn't warrant a comment in the way of explanation, but the silly candidate did?

I find that beyond silly, akin to congratulating someone for not walking into oncoming traffic.

If a person is part of a group whose members have frequently been known to walk into oncoming traffic in the past, this could still be productive - at least, if you care whether or not they keep getting run over.

Well, people were congratulating the above HOF voter for being rational enough not to vote for Jack Morris...The voter said that he "understands" those who vote for Morris. And that Morris "misses by only a stitch." That kind of wrongheaded reasoning is to be criticized, not applauded."

Pure speculation here, but if I were a writer in Detroit, thinking "There's no way I'm voting for Jack Morris. But I don't want a ton of angry emails from people saying 'OMG wins!' Game 7 gamer mustache!!!'," I'd say exactly what Henning did.

Good ballot. I'd swap Dawson for McGwire, but even Dawson isn't an awful choice.

Pure speculation here, but if I were a writer in Detroit, thinking "There's no way I'm voting for Jack Morris. But I don't want a ton of angry emails from people saying 'OMG wins!' Game 7 gamer mustache!!!'," I'd say exactly what Henning did.

I think we went into this pretty deeply on the BBTF HOF discussion thread... "missing by a stitch" still oversells Morris, but I don't think he'd be any of worse of a selection than Jim Rice. For all his plentiful faults, it's not like Jack Morris is Jason Marquis.

Pure speculation here, but if I were a writer in Detroit, thinking "There's no way I'm voting for Jack Morris. But I don't want a ton of angry emails from people saying 'OMG wins!' Game 7 gamer mustache!!!'," I'd say exactly what Henning did.

Well, I'd seek a new profession if I wasn't capable of writing things that I believed in.

Because he's in Detroit the writer should be applauded for not voting for Morris, as Post #1 did? Huh? Is the writer twelve years old and thus not expected to be able to judge a HOF candidate objectively?

"missing by a stitch" still oversells Morris, but I don't think he'd be any of worse of a selection than Jim Rice."

That's damning with faint praise. Morris was a very good pitcher. But there are at least a dozen equally good pitchers who'll never approach the HoF support of Morris. He's no better than Luis Tiant, Dennis Martinez, and Rick Reuschel, and clearly worse than Dave Steib. He'd be a pretty bad selection.

So meanwhile we've got a mainstream writer whose choices come closer to matching the BTF consensus than virtually any other MSM writer; whose ballot included at least two BTF favorites (Trammell and Raines) with little or no MSM support; and who didn't jump on the MSM bandwagon to support one of his city's hometown heroes---and for this you still want to slam him because he didn't vote for one candidate (McGwire) for clearly non-statistical reasons, and because he threw in a nice word or two about the hometown hero whom he didn't vote for.

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld: Ray, you are the King of Confrontation.

Actually he didn't say why he didn't vote for McGwire. I'd really like to hear why he didn't vote for McGwire.

Actually he didn't say why he didn't vote for McGwire. I'd really like to hear why he didn't vote for McGwire.

Googling around, I found what looks like a 3-year-old column that says this:

One Hall of Fame voter, Lynn Henning of the Detroit News, explained in a recent column why he won't vote for McGwire.

"Right now," he wrote, "I don't like the idea of putting McGwire into Cooperstown any more than I look back on 1998 with any feeling other than the sense that I, and we who chronicled the McGwire-Maris chase, all were exploited during a freakish period of abuse to baseball and its records."

In spite of Ray's rather stern opinion of the writer's ballot, for an MSM ballot, I reckon it's a reasonably solid, well thought out ballot. Ray, I can see what you are saying regarding Big Mac and Crime Dog, however some of your posts come across with a bit of righteousness without any leeway for grey areas. Heck, I'm just happy to see a ballot with both Larkin and Raines on it.

Andy, you seem to want me to grade the MSM writers on a scale, and basically give them charity points for not being as informed about the issues as the average BTF poster is. I don't know why you're obsessed with this notion that MSM writers shouldn't be criticized when they express silly views, but I don't share your sentiment. I don't care how many times he also says something that shows a functioning brain cell.

In spite of Ray's rather stern opinion of the writer's ballot, for an MSM ballot, I reckon it's a reasonably solid, well thought out ballot.

And again, I don't see that a ballot that includes votes for Edgar and Dawson, while leaving McGriff out without explaining why, represents a "well thought out ballot." Any voter who is being serious would explain how the voter arrived at his conclusion with respect to McGriff.

How well do you have to "think out" a ballot to check the box next to Bert Blyleven's name?

How well do you have to "think out" a ballot to check the box next to Bert Blyleven's name?

I suppose I look at it the same way we use metrics to measure players. I compare this ballot to many of the other MSM ballots and it is significantly more in line with primer thinking. I gave you concessions regarding the lack of explanations for Big Mac and McGriff. Personally I think Edgar belongs, Dawson no. I just think you have taken a rather inflexible line on what constitutes a "solid" ballot. In this case, taking in other MSM voters and past voting into account, I think(and other posters above) consider it a good/solid/well thought out/decent/ etc. etc. ballot.

And again, I don't see that a ballot that includes votes for Edgar and Dawson, while leaving McGriff out without explaining why, represents a "well thought out ballot." Any voter who is being serious would explain how the voter arrived at his conclusion with respect to McGriff.

How well do you have to "think out" a ballot to check the box next to Bert Blyleven's name?

Don't you believe in grading on a curve, Ray? ;-)

I view this similar to asking whether X (Joe Torre, Terry Francona, whoever) is a good manager. Sure, compared to other managers, those two are, since the bar for that is so very low. But when you watch these guys on a regular basis, as I have with Torre (and some, although less so, with Francona), you see that they're constantly doing really stupid things. That is not to say they don't have their skills, but their extreme blind spots leave me unable to sing their praises.

I find the arrogant groupthink on HOF threads to be really nauseating.

I find the arrogant groupthink on HOF threads to be really nauseating.

Well, certainly nobody can accuse me of that in this thread.

Andy, you seem to want me to grade the MSM writers on a scale, and basically give them charity points for not being as informed about the issues as the average BTF poster is. I don't know why you're obsessed with this notion that MSM writers shouldn't be criticized when they express silly views, but I don't share your sentiment. I don't care how many times he also says something that shows a functioning brain cell.

Of course when you start by imagining that any premise and / or conclusion contrary to yours is "silly," then everything you say falls right into place. As in this beautiful passage:

I view this similar to asking whether X (Joe Torre, Terry Francona, whoever) is a good manager. Sure, compared to other managers, those two are, since the bar for that is so very low. But when you watch these guys on a regular basis, as I have with Torre (and some, although less so, with Francona), you see that they're constantly doing really stupid things. That is not to say they don't have their skills, but their extreme blind spots leave me unable to sing their praises.

The only way that this makes any sense at all is (a) you think that your own observational skills are somehow superior to everyone else's; (b) you're judging these two shlumps on some sort of an absolute scale, where any move you approve of is met with "anyone could have done that," and any move you disapprove of brings a reaction of "What a moron!"; and (c) you actually believe that you could manage Torre's or Francona's teams better than they can.

And in fact, if I had to put money on it, I'd say you do believe that. You really do believe that you could manage a ballclub from the comfort of your computer better than two managers with a total of 6 championships and countless postseason appearances between them. That's what I find so utterly charming about you, this sense of the utter superiority of your own POV over 99% of the known baseball world.

Just do me one favor, Ray: Don't ever change. I don't want to wake up one day and think that your soul has been invaded by a pod person. I like you just the way you are, and I mean that. You're nobody's sock puppet.

Andy, I don't claim that I could manage Torre's or Francona's teams better than they can, given that people skills is part of what they do, and they also have to work within an organizational structure, etc. (Of course, even there, Torre has botched some of the team chemistry situations we know about, notably batting ARod 8th and such. And Torre was generally careful in New York about not letting dirty laundry air if he could prevent it, which was smart but also probably made him look better than he was.)

Of course, it's not clear to me how much being good at intangibles really buys you as a manager, relative to wins and losses.

I do think I could tactically outmanage Torre, if that draws any further good-natured ridicule from you. Including putting the right players on the field. Torre didn't have to worry too much about that in New York (though he wasn't able to do a great job with anything but a push-button bullpen), but when he had some notable decisions to make in LA he didn't exactly acquit himself with flying colors.

And in fact, if I had to put money on it, I'd say you do believe that. You really do believe that you could manage a ballclub from the comfort of your computer better than two managers with a total of 6 championships and countless postseason appearances between them. That's what I find so utterly charming about you, this sense of the utter superiority of your own POV over 99% of the known baseball world.

It's obviously a different situation from the real world, but I do think Torre would get flatly outmanaged in a Diamond-Mind league by most people on this site.

It's obviously a different situation from the real world, but I do think Torre would get flatly outmanaged in a Diamond-Mind league by most people on this site.

Kind of like you did in our draft? Have I mentioned you should trade for Fernado Tatis, he is an above average SS in Diamond-Mind.

BTW: I think I would vote for Jack Morris. I think I would vote for Kirk Gibson too. I'm quite sure I wouldn't vote for Edgar.

Kind of like you did in our draft?

Yes; kind of like that...

Andy, I don't claim that I could manage Torre's or Francona's teams better than they can, given that people skills is part of what they do, and they also have to work within an organizational structure, etc.

Which is what's nearly always missing from the posturings of the grandstand managers, and here I'm not singling you out when I say this. Of course the problem with those "people skills" is that there's no way to quantify them to the satisfaction of a rotisserie league crowd, beyond perhaps noting that Torre managed to last a dozen years under an owner who previously had gone through seven managers in the dozen years before that, and six managers during the last stretch of postseason appearances that they'd had prior to that.

But maybe if Torre had imitated the tactical genius Billy Martin during his twelve year run, they would have won all those titles anyway. We'll never know.

I do think I could tactically outmanage Torre, if that draws any further good-natured ridicule from you. Including putting the right players on the field.

It's obviously a different situation from the real world, but I do think Torre would get flatly outmanaged in a Diamond-Mind league by most people on this site.

And I've gone for many a half hour stretch on my basement pool table without missing a shot, which proves just about as much about my real world pool skills against pro competition as Diamond-Mind skills have to do with the real world of managing in the Majors. Obviously I'm not claiming that all managerial decisions represent the best of all possible choices, and if I'd been a Red Sox fan in 2003 I would have put Grady Little in front of a firing squad, along with Mike Hargrove and Ken Macha and a few other of my pet betes noirs. But I do think that it's a lot harder to manage a ball club in a dugout than it is while sitting in front of a computer screen.

Now, if you'd talked about owning a ballclub, that's another story. I know damn well that I could run half the clubs in the Majors better than their current owners, and do a better long range job of marketing than every last one of them, including the Yankees. And all I need to prove this is about a billion dollars and some owner who's willing to sell---see how easy it is?

I don't see why you're getting on Ray; he's almost exactly right in his analysis. The only problem is that he's using his views as a baseline, rather than mine.

No one jumped on this? Aren't David and Ray the same person (or if you're saying Ray is a poor man's David, then you've got me there)?

The problem with the theory, Doris, is that people have seen us in the same thread at the same time. :-)

Jolly Old St. Nick (now, with Screen Name history) Posted: December 22, 2009 at 10:29 PM (#3420489)


Now, if you'd talked about owning a ballclub, that's another story. I know damn well that I could run half the clubs in the Majors better than their current owners, and do a better long range job of marketing than every last one of them, including the Yankees. And all I need to prove this is about a billion dollars and some owner who's willing to sell---see how easy it is?

- well, the astros are for sale and look to be, at BEST, a 65-70 win team this year

cmon down

putcher billions where yo mouth at

The problem with the theory, Doris, is that people have seen us in the same thread at the same time. :-)

Both of your personalities claim to be lawyers. On that salary, I'm sure whichever one of you is real could afford two computers.

In order to "rank" writers with any degree of coherence, you'd have to have read their columns on a wide variety of subjects, and go by their reasoning and their writing skills as well as whether they agree with you or not. Catering to the stat crowd is not the entirety of their job description.

and I agree with this assessment, there is more to evaluating writers than based upon just their raw votes....in fact it's about their debates and arguments for whatever they voted for. I want a writer to write a good, and logical article supporting their viewpoint, or heck even a contrary viewpoint

I find the arrogant groupthink on HOF threads to be really nauseating.

Oh nonsense.

We have had plenty of debates on here about McGwire, Blyleven, Gar, even Trammell.

The only "groupthink" is that most think Raines and Larkin (and Alomar) are pretty obviously qualified...because they are.

The HOF/HOM debate threads are my favorite on primer, even though I don't give a toss who they put in.

I find the arrogant groupthink on HOF threads to be really nauseating.

We all do.

How our managerial tactics really would stack up compared to real ML managers is a hard (if not impossible) question to answer. Some of us might do quite well, while others would crash and burn. As much as I love DMB, it's not a substitute for the real thing (even though I do own a .536 W-L% in my league :-D)

With that said, the fact is that there are far, far more prospective managers out there that could do just as well (if not better) a job in the majors than there are ML-caliber players. We're not talking quantum physics here, either.

With that said, the fact is that there are far, far more prospective managers out there that could do just as well (if not better) a job in the majors than there are ML-caliber players. We're not talking quantum physics here, either.

Well, unless you're talking about the scarcity of star players, as opposed to roster fillers, I'm not sure if that's literally true. But even assuming that it is, how do you tell the wheat from the chaff? We've all seen countless cases of managers who are flops in one situation and fine in others, and how do you know which one of those managers is going to show up? Managing itself may not be quantum physics, but selecting the best managers out of AAA isn't necessarily an exact science, and in the real world it's a lot easier to be a bad manager than to be a good one.

OTOH if your underlying point is that teams far too often hire Big Name retreads rather than promoting managerial talent from below, then I thoroughly agree with you. But of course here the problem lies with ownership---and that's where I come in. (smile)