One and done.
I placed an X next to Jack Morris on my Hall of Fame ballot, and I was finished voting. If Morris is elected, I will most likely be finished voting period. If Morris is not elected this time, I will vote for him next year in his final year of eligibility and then be done.
Barring a change in my thinking, which I don’t expect, I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year (actually 50-year) member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election.
I offer two reasons for my decision.
1- Though I don’t believe there is a more qualified set of electors, certainly not the new-age stats guys who are envious of the writers and believe they should determine Hall of Famers, I don’t think reporters and columnists who cover and comment on baseball news should be making baseball news.
2- The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.
I have read and heard all sorts of explanations for voting or not voting for players listed on the ballot, the focus falling on players known to have used performance-enhancing substances (i.e. those who tested positive) or those who were suspected or having used them (especially those cases where circumstantial evidence e of use was strong).
...Now, you might ask and reasonably so, if I plan to stop voting, why did I vote this year? I voted in the hope that my vote would contribute to Morris’ election. I didn’t vote for anyone else because anyone I might have considered was a known or suspected cheater, and I didn’t want to aid and abet a cheater.
I think I am safe in concluding that Morris did not cheat. I know the stats zealots don’t think Morris is a Hall of Famer because his rankings in their new-fangled ratings fall below their standards. But they don‘t have a formula for intestinal fortitude or determination.
Repoz
Posted: January 03, 2013 at 01:33 PM |
103 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
hof
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Better late than never
2. Right for the wrong reasons.
3. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I feel so empowered.
I've got a good idea for one, though: define a unit of measurement as "the amount of intestinal fortitude and determination required to read this entire column." We could call it a chass.
I'm at about 1.4 millichass right now.
I would love to know if Chass is in the minority of writers who also voted for Morris for the previous 13 years; lots of them were late to this bandwagon....
Was he going to try that?
I think spite motivates just about everything Murray does these days. What a sad little man.
And while I noted earlier I'm on board with the idea that writers shouldn't be in the newsmaking process, deciding that you'll observe that philosophy two years hence, once you've gotten done making news with this particular gentleman, would be inexplicable if expressed by a rational human being.
My uncle survived 14 months in a Japanese POW camp, and he ain't a HOF'er, either. Not for baseball, anyway.
please, yes.
Sage advice that wouldn't be necessary if the thinking fans here didn't feel that omigod the hall-of-fame is the most important thing ever!
Except that isn't what he said, and the "spite" thing is purely projection.
What he said was that (1) Writers should not make the news (which is why his former paper doesn't allow its news/sports writers to vote for awards); and (2) no unimpeachably correct philosophy regarding the Steroid Era commends itself to voters.
There isn't really a thing to argue with in either of these.
2- The steroids issue has made it impossible to conduct a rational vote and cast a reasonable ballot. No matter how a writer votes or on what he bases his decision whom to vote for or not to vote for, his reasoning has to be flawed and open to challenge.
Nice work, Murray.
You're projecting and wishcasting. That isn't close to what he's saying, or implying.
Yea, I hate when my ideas are challenged too. Time for me to pack it in and take my ball and go home.
Its curious he's taking this stance by writing an entire news column devoted to this. Reminds me of when my four year old says he's giving me the silent treatment by yelling at me.
You're letting your spite cloud your judgment. He's saying that even his ballot and its decisions regarding Steroid Era players would contain flawed reasoning and be open to challenge. Because there is no correct philosophy to use.
And he's right.
That you would side with any one of the many grumpy drama queens proposing the most pointless response possible to something actually complicated is not a surprise.
No, he's saying that newspeople shouldn't be engaged in the process of making news, a statement I agree with. But only after he gets done trying to make news with his guy, which is incoherent.
For me it has become cringe-worthy. When every single one of his columns (and it is a column, not a blog) finds a way to take pot shots at the geeks that have ruined baseball it just makes him look small.
I'm old enough to be sympathetic to Chass' viewpoint, but at some point the level of discourse needs to go beyond simple name calling.
The point -- and Chass isn't alone in saying/insinuating this -- is that MLB and/or the HOF need to give specific guidance to the writers regarding the proper treatment of the Steroid Era. There's a good chance something like that will happen in the next few years and it should.
My point would be that they didn't need specific instruction with deadballers, they didn't need explicit instructions with spitballers, they didn't need explicit instructions with amphetamines, etc. etc. They idea that they are frozen like deer in the headlights without explicit instructions here is absolutely childish and self-serving of those voters who are saying so.
He's voted for years and years and years. Apparently, he was never before that concerned with writers "making news" and now he also doesn't know how to handle a ballot with PED guys. I interpret that as recognizing that things have passed him by and that he's done with it .... after the Morris thing (which is incoherent, but we're talking about a professional grump and troll here, so he should be held to a fairly low standard).
OK, if you go into the guilt by association and hearsay to the point where you can't vote Biggio or Schilling (because they played in a time where so many were using steroids) that's one thing.
But on what grounds can you give Morris a free pass on cheating and not extend the same to Alan Trammell?
Shame on you Murray.
I thought we had one. Most wins in the '80s. Number of times pitching 10 innings in a Game 7.
Yeah, this is what's so bizarre about the intestinal fortitude thing. They are playing baseball, not engaging in hand to hand combat in the jungles of Vietnam. People who can play baseball at this level all have "intestinal fortitude."
I know, but the notion that those things are equivalent to steroids is a distinctly minority idea, like it or not. And at the time of the voting on those guys, there was nothing like the unbridgeable split in opinion that there is today in re the roiders. It doesn't really matter whether that split is "right" or "wrong." No one should be happy that HOFers are being decided on the basis of a baseball writer's opinion of steroids.
We have had many ballots before with "flawed reasoning" open to challenge. This isn't supposed to be perfect. I don't get why sportswriters think this process all of a sudden should be an open and shut case. HOF induction has been debated for years. Are they just mad because there are more voices to challenge them now? It strikes me a ridiculous that writers would give up because their reasons might be open to challenge. Isn't that exactly what they do for a living? Challenge ideas?
I think this would be an awful, awful idea.
For the record, I don't think Murray voted at all during Jack's first 10 or so years on the ballot, due to the Times' policy on such things. It was only after being released from the shackles of the oppressive NYT* that he began flexing his electoral muscles.
* An extrication which also allowed him to perform his uniquely Chassian brand of journalism, i.e. Backne Tales for All, Stan the Monster, Who Will I Help Marvin Miller Groundlessly Smear this Week...
I know, but the notion that those things are equivalent to steroids is a distinctly minority idea, like it or not.
As is the idea that writers need to be given an offer they can't refuse as to how to handle the issue. It's funny but not surprising that the only people pushing this "further guidance" suggestion are the ones who want to see steroid users in the Hall.
--------------------------------------
What specific instructions are they supposed to get? They're not going to say "keep them all out" and they're not going to say "you have to ignore steroids." At best, the Hall would say something like "Please only consider positive tests/confessions/convictions and don't vote "no" on players just because a nutjob has carried on a bacne-based crusade against them for years."
I wonder if Ray would like that sort of wording? I wouldn't, even though it expresses my POV pretty much to a T.
I think the only people pushing it are writers. Probably guys who want to vote against Bagwell/Biggio/Piazza, but have no excuse to do so under the current rules.
1. A stage that included Alan Trammell would take attention away from Jack Morris and the 2013 HOF ceremony should exclusively be focused on Jack.
2. There are already three being elected to the HOF by the veterans committee. If you start voting more players than just Morris, you are going to have to take a break during the ceremony for dinner.
Including guys like Trammell just doesn't make any sense.
where Y=times article read/time X distance to bathroom.
No, I would like to see wording to the effect of "We didn't think we needed to tell you this, but please disregard steroids use because you already disregarded amphetamines use, you twits."
Except don't make the instructions seem so respectful.
I would like to see wording to the effect of "We didn't think we needed to tell you this, but please disregard steroids use because you already disregarded amphetamines use, you twits."
Thanks for being Exhibit A of what I was talking about. But then I know I can always count on you for support.
"Disregarded" implies a conscious consideration, but amp use didn't even rise to that worm-level bar.
The writers didn't "disregard" amp use; the idea that something so trivial could keep someone out of the HOF -- or that it should even weigh on their HOF chances -- never tinctured their consciousness. The greenie era writers disregarded amp use in the same sense that I disregarded stopping at the local bordello on the way to work today.
Exactly. I'm not sure that there are any specific instructions that you can give that wouldn't be perceived as a slap at the membership's collective judgment - that's why there was so much flack about the Pete Rose rule when it was added. The BBWAA as a whole - despite the posturing from a handful of its vocal members - doesn't really want to be given specific criteria on what they must consider when voting.
-- MWE
Here's my serious answer: I wouldn't provide any instruction per se; I'd simply remove the character clause to stop voters from abusing it. The character clause was rarely invoked before, and the HOF screening committee can simply screen out any player that in their view would so fail the character clause that he wouldn't be a worthy selection. So, maybe Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Players like that.
Which is exactly the point of those who keep pushing for those instructions. They're pissed that their views on steroids don't seem to be shared by 75% of the HoF voters, and knowing that, they want to try to rig the results in their favor.
While I would handle the matter differently as set out in #45 above, I don't really care whether the voters would perceive action on the HOF's part to be a slap at their collective judgment. Frankly, their collective judgment should be slapped at, because it is retarded. I mean, sheesh. If reasoning this bad, this illogical, and this dishonest shouldn't be "slapped at," what should be?
Maybe, but all I meant was some statement from MLB and/or the HOF regarding its postion on the Steroid Era, even if it's, "We take no position on steroid use with regards to HOF eligibility and we remind voters of the stated criteria for election. As has been the case for _____ years, we counsel writers to apply these criteria using their best judgment."
Even something like that could be useful, as it would give a faction of writers comfort that "Yes, MLB and the HOF really does want us to vote as we see fit." As it stands, there seems to be a big group wondering if that's really what they should be doing.
That's certainly a legitimate POV, but given the context we're now in, it would still be a hamhanded move that would certainly meet with a huge amount of resistance, since it would be clearly sending a one-sided message to the voters.
And what if the anti-steroids writers simply refuse to vote for Bonds & Co. anyway, which at this point would almost certainly be the case. What next? Strip them of their votes?
Of course not. Japan doesn't count.
Which rather nicely mirrors their likely opinion of outsiders with POVs like that. Unfortunately for you, they're the ones with the votes.
Hopefully it would be, and hopefully the voters would react to withhold their services en masse similar to what Richie Phillips advised the umpires union to do some years ago.
The HOF can then view the voters' wails to withhold their votes as either an offer to be accepted or a threat to be ignored.
Then mission accomplished. They vote at the privilige of the HOF. Contra Murray Chass above ("I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election."), voting is not a right.
If they admit that they refused to vote for Bonds & Co. on character or steroids grounds -- and thus that they failed to follow the new Ray Rules which no longer have the character clause -- then yes, strip their votes. I doubt the evidence would be hard to find. The writers are in the habit of publishing a confession after breaking the voting rules.
(It's kind of ironic that the same group of people criticizing players for "cheating" and "breaking the rules" don't follow the voting rules that have been laid out for them.)
And he's right.
Remind us why he voted for Morris, then? Because his ballot this year contains flawed reasoning and is open to challenge. If Chass lacks the intestinal fortitude to submit a well-reasoned ballot and defend his considered (if possibly imperfect) reasoning when it comes to players of a more modern era, what makes voting for Morris different?
If a player doesn't fail a test, how can the HOF make a judgement on it?
Who would that include? Bonds? Clemens? Ryan Braun (when the time comes)?
I can understand the HOF saying "Get suspended for violating the rules, you're off the ballot".
Any instructions that cast a wider net than that is just going to leave the voters with the same silly interpretations they have now.
The reverse of that (go by stats and performance only) leaves them open to allowing Rose and Jackson.
It seems that most of the folks pushing for 'clarification' from the HOF are writers who are either not voting (see, e.g. TJ Quinn) or writers who are already witholding their votes against purported steroid cheats. I must have read that line in at least a half dozen ballot articles this year.
Yeah, that's just Andy seeing patterns in clouds.
Pretty sure this can apply to anything ever.
Except that:
1. He's voting, which seems to be so anathema to him.
2. He's making such a judgement RE: Morris.
So his entire post is complete hypocracy.
Of course not. Japan doesn't count.
Well, if he spent at least 10 years in an American POW camp and won an MVP (Most Villified Prisoner) award, then he gets partial credit for Japan.
It seems that most of the folks pushing for 'clarification' from the HOF are writers who are either not voting (see, e.g. TJ Quinn) or writers who are already witholding their votes against purported steroid cheats. I must have read that line in at least a half dozen ballot articles this year.
I was more referring to BTF, but in any event the idea is a complete non-starter, despite the "Ray Rules" and other wet dreams being posted here.
---------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly the point of those who keep pushing for those instructions. They're pissed that their views on steroids don't seem to be shared by 75% of the HoF voters, and knowing that, they want to try to rig the results in their favor.
Pretty sure this can apply to anything ever.
How are the current guidelines rigging anything? According to Repoz's count, you've roughly got a 50-50 split on Bonds and Clemens, which certainly doesn't indicate anyone's being forced to go against their steroid views one way or the other.
The interesting thing is that they've explicitly said that's not the rule. Quoting from the Joe Jackson section on the old FAQ.
In order for Jackson to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, the following criteria must be met:
Since he is deceased, a party acting on behalf of Jackson's estate must apply to the Office of the Commissioner for reinstatement to Major League Baseball.
Should Jackson's estate apply for reinstatement and his eligibility is regained, he would then be a viable candidate for consideration by the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans.
(similarly, if Rose is now reinstated he'd be a VC candidate)
I think they're just pissed they put in all these years, time, and effort to become Baseball Men and get all the rights and privileges that go with that rank, and now that they finally have there are a bunch of punk kids who haven't put in all those years, time, and effort questioning them. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go.
But the simplest clarification it seems to me would be along these lines: "the character clause is intended to refer to violations of baseball rules only. The voters should consider the severity of the rules violation(s) in weighing the character criteria against others."
Writers would then pretend steroid use was against the rules and continue to not vote Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc.
Fay Vincent once doodled a non-binding memo containing a drug catch-all that included steroids, a memo purporting to set out workplace rules that weren't collectively bargained, weren't followed by management, and weren't seen by the players. That ought to be enough.
here's a fresh tweet showing that Morris pitched to the stat:
MLBreports 4:37pm via Web
In his 1st 2 World Series in 84 and 91, Jack Morris was 4-0 with a 1.54 ERA in 5 starts and 41 Innings Pitched #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
...........
[just don't ask what he did after that]
I think they're just pissed they put in all these years, time, and effort to become Baseball Men and get all the rights and privileges that go with that rank, and now that they finally have there are a bunch of punk kids who haven't put in all those years, time, and effort questioning them. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go.
That makes sense, but then what explains all the time, effort and anger spent by so many people here who seem to spend half their waking hours railing against these writers for daring to question their statistical Gods? It's not as if the anger is all in one direction.
What explains all the time you've put in?
Few people would see improvement in their cognitive functions after a major stroke, but we may have found the exception.
Jack Morris has the highest rate of wild pitches per inning of any pitcher who has thrown at least 2500 innings during the foul strike era.
Jack Morris, post-season other than 84/91 world series: 3-4, 51.1 IP, 5.61 ERA #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
Poster boy for stat geek fip love , so Morris must be a pretty good pitcher then.
Morris was, indeed, a pretty good pitcher.
Jack Morris got a hair less than 3/5 of Jimmy Key's career voting total in Cy Young balloting. #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
(Key is specifically selected as a rough, though far from exact, contemporary, and as someone who also never won the award.)
What explains all the time you've put in?
The great majority of it in the past few years has mainly been spent defending unjustly accused players against the Chasses and the Gumbels, not that you'd ever acknowledge that. With you it's got to be all or nothing, just like a Tea Partier or a hard core Marxist.
The rest of it has been spent wondering why people like you spend so much time worrying about an institution that you've proclaimed time and again is irrelevant. But I'm sure you've got your reasons, just like Don Quixote.
I think the point is silly. You convict players for jaywalking and sentence them to life behind bars for the crime, while "defending unjustly accused players." Pardon me if I find that disconnect appropriately nonserious. It would be like coming to the aid of a black man who is being jumped in the Jim Crow South -- while executing Rosa Parks for sitting in the back of the bus.
Not irrelevant. In the process of relinquishing its relevancy. Thanks to people like you.
What is he saying, Joe McEwing for the HOF?!
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
I know Murray Chass is a lightning rod around here and I disagree with him on plenty of things, but it's inaccurate to say he had a "crappy career" or that he churned out "mediocre work." Murray almost single-handedly pioneered the coverage of the business side of MLB, from the labor wars and collective bargaining agreements to contract negotiations, team sales, and the commissioner's office. If the 65 J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners were whittled down to a "small Hall" 30, Murray should still keep his.
(Before anyone asks, I don't know Murray other than having exchanged a small number of emails with him over the years, none within the past 12 months or so.)
That's a point worth making for those who only know Chass's idiotic blogging, but unfortunately that was then. He's like a HOVG ballplayer who should have hung it up about five years before he did, but instead wound up with a string of 76 OPS+ seasons.
What a tool.
Exactly. People armed with cold, hard facts are actually challenging his subjective opinions!
He is a sad little obsolete man that the world has passed by who can only see sabremterics as a threat to his ability to spout foolish and nonsensical opinions...like his drivel about Jack Morris and the HOF.
He is everyone's grumpy and grouchy old neighbor, complaining about how complicated cell phones are, about this new thing called the Internet, and about these damned kids that won't get off his lawn, and he will never realize that the problem isn't anyone else, it's him.
If he sticks with this ballot next year, it won't just be the worst of the year. A Morris-but-not-Maddux (and Glavine, and Mussina, and Schilling, not even mentioning Clemens or the position players) ballot would have to be a strong contender for worst ballot submitted in the entire history of the Hall of Fame.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main