I have never been a Conlin fan and reluctantly voted for his nomination because of a dearth of good candidates.

God, what an idiot.

REPOZ'S CONFUSION OF THE RIP CORDS WITH THE BEACH BOYS ALMOST DEFINITELY DUE TO EXCESSIVE BONG HITS, MR. PRESIDENT.

the writers should not be in the position of celebrating someone who allegedly is a ...

Oh boy.

UPON FURTHER REVIEW DEPLETION BONG HIT COUNTER OFF THE CHARTS, MR. PRESIDENT.

As for Capuano, he was a creditable pitcher for the Mets, who signed him as a free agent last year, and $5 million a year for two years seemed like a reasonable price to pay to have someone pitch every fifth day instead of having the mound unoccupied on those 30 or so days.

I had hoped to ask Alderson if he would have taken the Mets’ job had he known the future financial instability of the Mets, but he didn’t return my telephone calls...I asked both Larry Lucchino, the Red Sox chief executive officer, and general manager Ben Cheringtion by e-mail if they were aware of the Rockies’ experience with Royster, if they asked him about it and if they cared, but neither responded.

I guess they don't return calls from bloggers.

I’m skeptical, but I’m willing to listen.

Mike Piazza, on the other hand, has already been proven guilty.

I'm indifferent to Chass, and if I ignore his history the column is actually reasonable. Hardly insightful, but there's nothing egregious. What should he say: "Ah, the news reports tell me he's guilty, so he's guilty"?

I still find Alderson's prank of blowing the Mets limited budget on relievers very funny.

This time Citi Field attendance has plunged 42 percent in three years, from a first-season 4,042,043 to 2,352,596, ninth in the National League last season.

That 4 million figure was for 2008, their last year at Shea Stadium. Good team or bad team, the Mets will never draw that many again with a 45,000 seat seating capacity at Citi Field.

Royster lasted only that one season with the Rockies. They fired him because they discovered he was giving signs at third contrary to the signs Baylor had given him to give.

Valentine, however, didn’t last either. Johnson found that like Royster, Valentine was giving players his own signs, not those that Johnson flashed him to give. Initially, Johnson thought Valentine might have a problem with his eyes and sent him to an eye doctor to have his eyes examined.

When the doctor found nothing wrong, Johnson removed Valentine from third and replaced him with Ray Knight.

I've never heard of either of these incidents before. I can't believe a third-base coach would consider the signs from the manager to be subject to be optional.

@10: agreed. It's startling. How can you expect to pull something like that and not get fired?

It does sound odd but I could see it with Baylor. Certainly when he was with the Cubs I wish the 3B coach had called off all those 1st inning bunts after the leadoff man had gotten on. :-)

In Valentine's case, I can imagine his ego getting in the way.

It seems more likely that they screwed up the signs rather than deliberately changed them. That's got to happen every once in while -- missing the sign from the dugout, forgetting that you changed yesterday to "rub the stomach=bunt", and just plain old brain farts -- and so wouldn't be noticed the first few times it happened. But if you were just really bad at it ...

SHUT DOWN WAS A BRIAN WILSON SONG ORIGINALLY RECORDED BY THE BEACH BOYS. OOPS, WRONG SANDBOX, MR PRESIDENT.

I still find Alderson's prank of blowing the Mets limited budget on relievers very funny.

Youre right, he really should have gotten Pujols and Wilson.

I think its kinda funny he's saying he didn't find Conlin's writing all that great.

Youre right, he really should have gotten Pujols and Wilson.

Yup. Gotta love those either/or situations.

I think its kinda funny he's saying he didn't find Conlin's writing all that great.

Isn't it a good thing that some people can honestly say Conlin didn't touch them?

MURRAY CHRISTMAS NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY, MR. PRESIDENT

Very simple. Call BBWAA President Bill Shaikin (who has done a fine job covering the McCourt/Dodgers story), tell him that the Spink Award exhibit is in the dumpster behind the library, and if the BBWAA wants it, they can come get it. The garbage truck comes on Thursday.

I'd take down this year's exhibit honoring Conlin, but I really dislike the idea of revoking awards or honors. You can't change the fact that he won the Spink. But you don't have to go out of your way to remind people.

I just don't think that anywhere on the Baseball Hall of Fame grounds is an appropriate place to honor BBWAA lifetime achievement award winners, which is what the Spink Award is. Let the BBWAA put it in their own library.

I have never been a Conlin fan and reluctantly voted for his nomination because of a dearth of good candidates.

This has always been a pet peeve re: the writer and broadcaster awards: Why are one of each essentially guaranteed election each year, when the player pool is larger and has no such guarantee?

Murray, it's Christmas! Be nice now.

I just don't think that anywhere on the Baseball Hall of Fame grounds is an appropriate place to honor BBWAA lifetime achievement award winners, which is what the Spink Award is. Let the BBWAA put it in their own library.


I think the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a perfectly fine place to honor the BBWAA's lifetime achievement award, the baseball broadcasters' lifetime achievement award and any other professional award given to honor individuals whose careers were devoted to the sport in some way. In fact, I can think of no better place.

This has always been a pet peeve re: the writer and broadcaster awards: Why are one of each essentially guaranteed election each year, when the player pool is larger and has no such guarantee?

They're really not comparable in any way. The first two are annual industry awards, given to a single person, and its recipients are not Hall of Famers. The latter represents acutal induction into the Hall of Fame, with no top or bottom limit on the number of enshrinees in a given year.

They're really not comparable in any way. The first two are annual industry awards, given to a single person, and its recipients are not Hall of Famers. The latter represents acutal induction into the Hall of Fame, with no top or bottom limit on the number of enshrinees in a given year.

You're right factually, but I disagree with the spirit. The same people are doing the voting, so a little more consistency seems in order. Also, the line between "honoree" and "inductee" has been almost irrevocably blurred, with BBWAA members responsible for most of the blurring.

I constantly see BBWAA members/voters referring to Spink winners as "Hall of Fame writers" — several refer to themselves as such in their bios — as well as to "the writer's wing" of the HOF, which is imaginary. Spink winners might not be actual Hall of Famers, but the BBWAA doesn't seem to mind people believing otherwise.

All that is true, but Chass actually does have a point about the "dearth of good candidates." They really should think about alternating the Spink and Frick awards instead of giving both annually.

I constantly see BBWAA members/voters referring to Spink winners as "Hall of Fame writers" — several refer to themselves as such in their bios — as well as to "the writer's wing" of the HOF, which is imaginary. Spink winners might not be actual Hall of Famers, but the BBWAA doesn't seem to mind people believing otherwise.

It doesn't make it true though.

All that is true, but Chass actually does have a point about the "dearth of good candidates." They really should think about alternating the Spink and Frick awards instead of giving both annually.

That's certainly reasonable. And if the Hall wanted to restock its Saturday slate of honorees as a result of that change, introduce other professional awards given biennially (one for scouts, for instance, seems like an obvious choice).

All that is true, but Chass actually does have a point about the "dearth of good candidates." They really should think about alternating the Spink and Frick awards instead of giving both annually.

Keep the awards annually, but allow the election of deceased writers and broadcasters. Among people who haven't received either award, there are far more great dead writers and broadcasters than living ones.

No one has said the BBWAA or the various veterans committees can't vote for deceased players.

Chass actually does have a point about the "dearth of good candidates." They really should think about alternating the Spink and Frick awards instead of giving both annually.

Or, as I've said on other threads, expand the Spink Award mandate to honor authors/historians/sabermetricians/bloggers as well as regular BBWAA beat writers.

BTW, hope everybody here had a merry Christmas.

There are no broadcasters elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Some became broadcasters after their playing careers ended.

The Ford C. Frick Award is presented annually during the Hall of Fame Weekend. Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee) is presented with a calligraphy of the award and is recognized in the "Scribes & Mikemen" exhibit in the Library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

This is from the Cooperstown web page. There are plaques for the winners in the Hall of Fame but not with the inductees.

I just don't think that anywhere on the Baseball Hall of Fame grounds is an appropriate place to honor BBWAA lifetime achievement award winners, which is what the Spink Award is. Let the BBWAA put it in their own library.

I think the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a perfectly fine place to honor the BBWAA's lifetime achievement award, the baseball broadcasters' lifetime achievement award and any other professional award given to honor individuals whose careers were devoted to the sport in some way. In fact, I can think of no better place.

I've stared at those two paragraphs for several minutes now, and I still can't figure out where you think that the Spink Award winners should be honored. First you seem to say that they shouldn't be honored "anywhere on the Baseball Hall of Fame grounds", and then you seem to say the exact opposite, when you say "I can think of no better place". Maybe it's just too late at night or something.

AFAIC while more than a few of the Spink awards have been given to dubious winners (Conlin being a prime example), I don't see anything wrong with honoring them on the Cooperstown grounds. The idea that baseball could have ever existed in its present form without the writers is the sort of conceit I'd associate with some of the more thickskulled players and owners, but not with anyone who thought about it for more than 10 seconds.

Whether writers are "in the Hall of Fame" or not is nothing compared to the fraud among writers - including many, many of the most famous sportswriters - about "being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize."

That basically takes 50 bucks and a willing editor - or someone who likes what you wrote and enters you.
A prime offender:

http://www.siue.edu/alumni/aboutalumni/plaschkewilliam.shtml

What does it mean to be a Pulitzer Prize Winner or a Pulitzer Prize Nominated Finalist?

from Pulitzer.org:

"A Pulitzer Prize Winner may be an individual, a group of individuals, or a newspaper's staff.
Nominated Finalists are selected by the Nominating Juries for each category as finalists in the competition. The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from the three nominated finalists in each category..........
Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term "nominee" for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was "nominated" for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us."

I'm indifferent to Chass, and if I ignore his history the column is actually reasonable. Hardly insightful, but there's nothing egregious. What should he say: "Ah, the news reports tell me he's guilty, so he's guilty"?

Pretty much, yes. If one reads the news reports, one can safely conclude with 99% confidence (and I conclude it with more than that) that Conlin is guilty.

I don't see how one can conclude otherwise.

Yes, the news reports are "one sided." But what is the other possible "side"? I ask seriously, and not rhetorically.

I've stared at those two paragraphs for several minutes now, and I still can't figure out where you think that the Spink Award winners should be honored. First you seem to say that they shouldn't be honored "anywhere on the Baseball Hall of Fame grounds", and then you seem to say the exact opposite, when you say "I can think of no better place". Maybe it's just too late at night or something.

You could have saved some time if you just looked up instead. I was quoting jwb in 21. I just forgot to hit "quote."