Except for the first time I voted 40 years ago, I have annually voted for only a few candidates, the best of the best, in my opinion.

Jack Morris, of course!

At the risk of hijacking an opportunity for dialogue and education, Murray also writes about a recent interview with noted redistributionist player agent Scott Boras:

Boras, who doesn’t let any baseball financial aspect escape him, has made a study of payrolls and has found, he said, that most teams have lower payrolls five weeks before spring training than their highest opening-day payrolls since the 2000 season.

“Only about five teams have higher payrolls,” the agent said. “Everybody else is below even though revenue is up by 200 percent and the value of franchises is up 300, 400 percent. What we’re seeing is not many teams are spending on payrolls despite the fact that their profits are extraordinary. You’d expect teams to have their highest payrolls but they don’t.” [...]

Boras’ point [is] that so many clubs are spending less on players’ salaries while producing greater revenue.

“There’s a whole bunch of teams that still have a great deal of dollars to improve their team,” the agent said.

The current payrolls Boras has computed will rise with teams’ signing of their unsigned players, including those eligible for salary arbitration. Some teams will sign free agents, mostly the inexpensive variety. But the eventual opening-day numbers for these teams will not reach their record highs. I say record highs because payrolls since 2000 have exceeded any prior to that year. [...]

“What are they doing with all of the profits?” Boras asked. “They’re paying off the debt they acquired to buy the team. The fans need to be aware of it.”

Signing [Boras' clients] Bourn, Lohse or Soriano at whatever price may not be everyone’s idea of building a team and Boras’ prices may not be their idea of intelligent spending, but many teams obviously are not spending at any price.

The Mets are one of those teams. They haven’t spent for two years under General Manager Sandy Alderson. They belong in a class with the Miami Marlins, which is the last place any self-respecting team should want to be.

Boras knows not to expect interest from the Mets or Marlins, but he does expect offers from teams looking to win.

“These guys are very talented,” he said. “The microscope of evaluation shows that. Teams are calling. We’re discussing, exchanging proposals. We’re going through the process.”

As is his usual practice, Boras declined to say with which teams he’s exchanging proposals. At least he didn’t say a mystery team was involved, which is also his usual practice.

That's the way it works in sports now--buy the team with debt and then have the players pay for it through reduced salaries. When you negotiate the CBA use the debt incurred purchasing the team to prove the business isn't profitable. It's a pretty good racket.

I know picking on Murray is a Primer pasttime but this has to be one of the most hilarious mixed metaphors I've ever seen: “Where would Washington be without Strasburg and Harper?” asked Boras, whom the new [draft] rules hoist on a double-edged sword.

Hoist on a double-edged sword? Really?

Hoist on a double-edged sword? Really?

You can't deny that it would hurt. I mean, that would really ####### hurt!

I think it would probably hurt worse to be hoisted on a single-edged sword, but I do not volunteer to test it out.

What weirds me out here is the idea of Tango as the "civil" one.

I asked Tom in an e-mail last week if he cared to share his real name and why he doesn’t use it.

“I don’t discuss the matter,” he replied.

His real name is...Gern Blanston!

Hoist on a double-edged sword? Really?

Think I saw that in a magic act once. Pretty cool illusion.

I have annually voted for only a few candidates, the best of the best, in my opinion.

What a mindfuck that is.

What weirds me out here is the idea of Tango as the "civil" one.

Huh? Are you confusing Tango with MGL or something? Tango has always been a level headed guy. I have the fourth most comments over the years on the book blog, so I think I've seen enough of his writing to make the judgment.

Tango got very weird in his thread last year "do you guys use fangraphs" or something like that. He had words for anyone complaining about shoddy writing/editing.

You can't deny that it would hurt. I mean, that would really ####### hurt!

Only for a little while though.

Tango got very weird in his thread last year "do you guys use fangraphs" or something like that. He had words for anyone complaining about shoddy writing/editing.

This seems to be the thread in question, in case anyone else was curious (as I was).

Damn you Tom Tango for making me read that old crones blog, and tie being civil to him!

Everyone looks at statistics, stathead or not. Here's something extremely simple-minded:

PA: Raines 10359, Gwynn 10232, Boggs 10740
R: Raines 1571, Gwynn 1383, Boggs 1513
RBI: Raines 980, Gwynn 1138, Boggs 1014
R+RBI per 10000 PA: Raines 2463, Gwynn 2464, Boggs 2353

(If you neutralize the stats before doing that, on the R+RBI per 10000 PA line, Raines and Gwynn would still be nearly tied with Boggs about 200 behind.)

I didn't realize that Tom Tango wasn't his real name. How odd.

Admittedly, I may be confusing Tom with MGL.

Jack Morris, of course!

I mean, I respect Murray if he's a small hall guy and I can see the case for Raines being out, but that does not compute with thinking Morris is some slam-dunk nominees. Did he vote for Jim Rice too?

"Tom Tango" linked to my blog last month, even though it has nothing to do with baseball, really. The man is everywhere!

I haven't had many dealings with Tango, and I don't know what he thinks of my old 1990s work, or my work today with the Hall of Merit, but he has always seemed to be pretty civil, if your own rantings give him any chance. I don't know if I agree with everything - or anything - he has said, but I'd be surprised if we got into a disagreement on a thread here and he went ad hominum or something. - Brock Hanke

R+RBI-HR per 10000 PA: Raines 2293, Gwynn 2329, Boggs 2271

Adjusted to remove HRs, in my anal mantra of not double counting, even though it changes little.

When I first looked up Tony Gwynn on BBRef I was originally shocked to find he only played 7 years and retired after this season. Then when I saw he hit only .244 in his career, I realized how low a bar it must be to be a star in San Diego.

I didn't realize that Tom Tango wasn't his real name. How odd.

If I was him, I'd have it legally changed to Tom Tango, you know, for the ladies.

Admittedly, I may be confusing Tom with MGL

The really odd part is that MGL's real name is MGL.

Tango got very weird in his thread last year "do you guys use fangraphs" or something like that. He had words for anyone complaining about shoddy writing/editing.

I somewhat agreed with Tom on that one, though probably not for the same reasons. If you want to have a site that comments on the daily news of the day, you have to get stories done fast. If your site can't afford to pay for a full time editor and full time writers, it's natural that the published stories are going to suffer grammatically.

Think of it this way. If your contributors are often part-timers, they are submitting pieces in their free time, sometimes under very severe time pressures. They also won't have the day in, day out practice of writing (unless their day job is as a writer) to hone their craft, so they are going to improve more slowly than the rawest sportswriter on a traditional paper. Lastly the raw sportswriter should have an experienced editor providing constant direction, feedback, and criticism (or at least angry drunken rants). And even given all that structure, how many sportswriters are really good writers? Not many in my mind, and I still see awkward writing and poor grammar from time to time in "professional" sports stories.

This all assumes Appleman can't afford a full time editor to polish and guide the writers. If the site has grown to where he can, I'd recommend he invest in someone who can serve in that role and make the site's content section as professional as it's statistics section, as it's next step up. If he never does that, I'd still say he's done a fantastic job, the stats sections are great, and the content is often very good, and even when I disagree with a piece they've written, I appreciate that they almost always have a strong opinion and back it up with facts more than opinion. Even when I disagree with Cameron, I feel it's because he gives too much weight to a study or statistic than is warranted, I rarely feel it's because he's pulling it out of his a**.

Okay, someone educmacate me; I hav eonly known about Chass via BBTF links in the past 2 years.

He obviously has written a lot of stuff for along time, so he must be thought of as being good at something. Is he good at something besides the articles I see? WAS he good for a long time and lost it later? Anyone have examples of "good" Murray Chass?

Is he good at something besides the articles I see?

Not really, no. He used to do basic reportage for the NYT, but I don't recall any of it being must-read stuff, in terms of style or scoops. Everybody there kind of writes in the house style, y'know?

Anyone have examples of "good" Murray Chass?

Writing on the business side of baseball. He wasn't terrific, but was often good.* Better than good when you consider his "competition" in the print media, which was very little.

His analysis of on the field play is piss poor.

* Feel free to say he wasn't good at that either. Lots of fun to hate and not too much fun to give out complements to folks you don't like.

Chass was excellent in examining and reporting on labor issues. Unlike most reporters (Dick Young, cough!), he didn't go to management, print their press releases verbatim and claim it was the entire truth.

I asked Murray once about why he was a contrarian and wrote relatively positive pieces on Miller and Fehr and he said, "well, they never lied to me".

A decade ago, supposedly Chass and Stan Kasten got into it during an interview session in which other reporters were present. I would love to know if a tape exists.

I guess that I will email Murray and have lunch whenever he gets his next medical follow-up in NYC.

chass didn't vote for paul molitor thinking he wasn't a hall of fame quality player?

i know as a brewer fan i am perceived as biased but in what world is paul molitor unworthy of the hall of fame?

long career. outstanding hitter. tremendous baserunner. great bunter. great post-season player. great teammate. when he was asked to play defense he was at minimum ok and i would contend good to very good.

chass b8tches constantly about 'little things' that win games and nobody did more of the 'little things' than molitor. and he also did a lot of the big things too. one could make the case that with both yount and molitor the brewers had maybe two of the most complete players of the last 30 years. they did everything either pretty well up to fantastic.

chass didn't vote for paul molitor thinking he wasn't a hall of fame quality player?

He didn't vote for anyone then, per Times policy. Whether he would have, or if he would have deemed him not worth Jack, I can't say.

That reminds me that after this year’s results were announced last week, there was a lively discussion on the baseball writers’ site centering on the view of many writers that they should not be restricted to voting for a maximum of 10 players.

I knew I had to be missing something so I soon went on to something more worthwhile. They want to be able to vote for 11, 12, 15 players? If they have voted for 10 players in any year, have all 10 been elected?

Do they know that five players were the most ever elected in one year, and that was the first year? Do they know that four players were elected twice, the second time in 1955? How and why could they possibly want to elect 12 or 15 players at the same time? Isn’t that what they’re saying when they advocate abolishing the limit?

As I said, I must be missing something.

What you're missing is that if you allow voters to vote for 15 players, there is virtually no way that 12-15 players are getting voted in unless there is a huge consensus those players are all HOFers, and in that case, why not elect 12-15 at the same time?

R+RBI-HR per 10000 PA: Raines 2293, Gwynn 2329, Boggs 2271

Adjusted to remove HRs, in my anal mantra of not double counting, even though it changes little.

It's not double-counting. A home run is both a rbi and a run. Every run (with the obvious Err / GDP exceptions) should be accounted for with both a run and a ribbie. Runs scored by homers should be treated no differently than runs scored by doubles or walks or sac flies.

He didn't vote for anyone then, per Times policy. Whether he would have, or if he would have deemed him not worth Jack, I can't say.

The article (and excerpt) seems to indicate Chass thought Molitor unworthy of the Hall (and still does), suggesting that Molitor's election predates the NYT non-voting policy.

As I said, I must be missing something.

Most definitely missing something. The point of having room for more than 10 names is not to induct more than 10 every year. It's to have room to keep borderline players who deserve more consideration from dropping under 5%. And for others making progress to continue doing so even when some big names come onto the ballot.

Picking a year at random, 1972. 3 players were elected that year. But the ballot contained 12 more players who would eventually go into the hall.

Runs scored by homers should be treated no differently than runs scored by doubles or walks or sac flies.

And removing one run per homer does that. If a double knocks me in I get a run. I don't get a run and a RBI. A home run with a runner on base gets a team two runs not three runs despite the fact that the batter would get a run and 2 RBI added to his stat line. Not subtracting the HR is in fact double counting.

If a double knocks me in I get a run. I don't get a run and a RBI.

But someone gets a ribbie. The guy who hit the double. The run has to be accounted for with both a run and a ribbie. In the case of a home run, the guy who hit the home run gets both a run and a ribbie. Subtracting one or the other from the tally causes the home run to be treated differently from all other runs.

A home run with a runner on base gets a team two runs not three runs despite the fact that the batter would get a run and 2 RBI added to his stat line.

This is a good example.

Tim Raines is on third base, and Andre Dawson is on second base, when Gary Carter hits a double. R+RBI tally:

R: 2 (Raines and Dawson)
RBI: 2 (Carter)
Total: 4 (2 for each run)

Tim Raines is on second base when Andre Dawson hits a homer. R+RBI tally:

R: 2 (Raines and Dawson)
RBI: 2 (Dawson)
Total: 4 (2 for each run)

You have to count both the run and the RBI for Dawson in the second scenario in order for the accounting to be balanced.

And removing one run per homer does that. If a double knocks me in I get a run. I don't get a run and a RBI. A home run with a runner on base gets a team two runs not three runs despite the fact that the batter would get a run and 2 RBI added to his stat line. Not subtracting the HR is in fact double counting.

You're talking about the runs produced formula? Back to back doubles gives one guy a run and the next guy a RBI. 2 runs produced, but your team has only scored once. Together those two players have done exactly as much for the scoreboard as the guy who hits a solo HR.

i know as a brewer fan i am perceived as biased but in what world is paul molitor unworthy of the hall of fame?

Molitor? Not even half of 500 HR. He was a compiler who had to become a DH just to pick up 3,319 hits. Wasn't good enough in the field to ever stick at one position. Never led the league in RBI. Basically a long career utility player.

But seriously I read it as Chass being disingenuous and deliberately misleading by saying he didn't vote for Molitor rather than saying he couldn't vote for Molitor because the NYT wouldn't let him vote for the Hall.

The key thing, if you want to use runs and RBI, is that each is a half run. Somebody's got to get on base, and somebody's got to knock him in. And then there's the homer, which does both.

But seriously I read it as Chass being disingenuous and deliberately misleading by saying he didn't vote for Molitor rather than saying he couldn't vote for Molitor because the NYT wouldn't let him vote for the Hall.

I'm a little surprised he's taking his anti-steroid stance and applying it to other illegal drugs. Most anti-steroid voters are smarter than this, and make a distinction between a drug of abuse, which is off-field behavior and probably irrelevant to the game, and performance enhancing drugs which constitute cheating, disrespect of the game if you will. To take an anti-drug stance based on legality, we'd have to kick Babe Ruth out for use of alcohol during prohibition.

The article (and excerpt) seems to indicate Chass thought Molitor unworthy of the Hall (and still does), suggesting that Molitor's election predates the NYT non-voting policy.

You may be right on the election. I can't find any information on when the Times started the policy, and Murray's previous Hall of Fame writings aren't exactly clear on the issue.

#35 I always use triple+sac fly compared to solo HR followed by flyball out. That way you have the same run situation, same out situation and same baserunner situation.

And yet triple+sac fly scores two net runs and the solo HR counts only one.

"Hello, Doctor."

"Hello Murray, how are you today?"

"I'm a little on edge Doc."

"I'm sorry to hear that, may I ask why?"

"It's started again."

"What's that Murray?"

"The notes, the emails, this Tom Tango character. These crazy, crazy things about baseball. I don't know who he is, he won't even tell me his real name."

"We've talked about this before Murray."

"We have?"

"Yes Murray. You know perfectly well who Tom Tango is."

"No! No I don't! I wish to God I did! Then maybe I could get him to stop writing all these crazy things about baseball!"

"Murray, Murray, calm down. Please sit back down. Take a couple of deep breaths. Murray ... Tom Tango is ... you!"

Good job, Walt. If that doesn't get Tango to post here again, nothing will.

Based on Murray's column here, we should all think and wish and hope and pray that he really does follow through on his pledge to quit voting after next year. At least that will be one less ballot in the process, one that can (and will) hinder the course of a rational selection process in the HOF voting.

#2

boras is stating the obvious. by theory of economic rent, players could still demand double what they're being paid, even though by pure-and-simple "what do you do for society" logic the salaries are so exorbitant. people underestimate how profitable pro sports teams are nowadays. especially with tv contracts now. by past criteria, the mlb, nba, and nhl should have contracted by now but they haven't. the tv contracts keep the bottom feeders afloat and in the case of baseball, even out the competition by allowing even the bottom teams to have huge contracts. salary caps and luxury taxes of course help this along since the tv contracts also benefit the big teams. i personally think that due to the dominance of the internet, etc. tv contracts will eventually go down. in about another generation when the baby boomers are gone.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with tv in the next couple of decades. I wouldn't be surprised if broadcasting of a not on-demand variety ceases within the next twenty years. Cable television already seems like an outmoded legacy technology. Networks will still be able to make money from live sports feeds and popular shows, probably through some combination of pay-per-view and commercials that can't be fast-forwarded through. But I can't imagine that they'll pay nearly as much for the privilege of covering sports as they do now, when they can use them to advertise and lead into their other shows.

I can't find any information on when the Times started the policy, and Murray's previous Hall of Fame writings aren't exactly clear on the issue.

When Chass got chassed by the NYT...he stated that he probably wouldn't be voting for anyone for the HOF...since there were no great players any longer or some such. He soon after picked up the shaky Jack Morris torch and has been running with it ever since.

'runs produced' discussion summary from various previous blogs, articles, etc.:

1 Yes, if you are using R and RBI to account "runs", you obviously should not subtract home runs - this is a clear point in favor of R+RBI instead of R+RBI-HR

2 It is obvious from ANY and EVERY formula used to evaluate offense that Home Runs have a disproportionately greater number of R and RBI (especialy RBI) than they are worth, while walks and singles have fewer. I mean, your average base on balls gets about 0.27 'R+RBI', while a home run may get about 2.53 'R+RBI', and no one believes a home run is worth 9 or 10 times as much as a walk. The 'subtracting' of a home run in this way makes the formula 'R+RBI-HR' CLOSER to the as-understood values of the individual pieces like BB, D, HR. Uglier, not as clean, but closer.

3 Using runs scored and runs batted in for career comparsions is... well it's useful like OPS and total bases and SB are useful, but not for serious analysis.


(thanks for the history on Murray C)

I'm a little surprised he's taking his anti-steroid stance and applying it to other illegal drugs. Most anti-steroid voters are smarter than this...

I don't know that I'd call pure anti-steroid voters "smarter". A different kind of dumb, maybe.

So did Tom Tango coauthor a book using his pseudonym?

So did Tom Tango coauthor a book using his pseudonym?

No, that was Billy Beane.

I think if you're a peak voter you definitely have an argument against Molitor. Just going off BB-Ref WAR, he never finished even top 5 in the AL in a season - he has three 8th place finishes. Position Player WAR his best finishes in the AL are 3-6-7-9.

But seriously I read it as Chass being disingenuous and deliberately misleading by saying he didn't vote for Molitor rather than saying he couldn't vote for Molitor because the NYT wouldn't let him vote for the Hall.

I read it the same way. Unless Chass actually DID vote when Molitor was eligible, then Chass using the wording "didn't vote for" rather than "wouldn't have voted for" was disingenuous.

I read it the same way. Unless Chass actually DID vote when Molitor was eligible, then Chass using the wording "didn't vote for" rather than "wouldn't have voted for" was disingenuous.

OTOH, Murray is a piss-poor writer, so it may have simply been his inability to communicate, rahter than unwillingness.

"Chass was excellent in examining and reporting on labor issues."

The worst anyone could really say about him at the time would be to claim that he was the one-eyed king in the valley of the blind. But nobody else had two eyes there, and I'm not sure it would be fair to make Murray only a one-eyed guy on that, either...

Chass was better at writing about labor issues than on-field baseball, but he was hardly an objective observer of the labor scene in the 1980s. If Dick Young was in the pocket of owners, then it could be said that Chass was fully in the vest of the Players' Association.

Through the past blogly with Murray Chass

"I have written here recently of being uncertain about whether I would resume voting, which I was not permitted to do with The New York Times, and if I did, would I vote for Rice.

Although I don’t think writers should vote for the Hall of Fame, I have lost that fight. As long as writers continue to vote and I believe Jack Morris belongs in the Hall, I decided I would vote because Morris needs all the votes he can get.

I also voted for Henderson and Rice, the first an obvious selection, Rice not so obvious, a borderliner actually. But I marked an X next to his name for two reasons."

2009 HOF Ballot J. Morris, R. Henderson, Jim Rice

2010 HOF Ballot J. Morris, Dawson, Blyleven, Larkin, Alomar, E. Martinez.

2011 HOF Ballot J. Morris & Bagwell

Wait, what? Murray voted for Larkin in 2010 but not in 2011 or 2012? The same with Edgar? Even more bizarre than one might have expected...

Did he say who should vote for the HOF if the writers shouldn't?

2009 HOF Ballot J. Morris, R. Henderson, Jim Rice

2010 HOF Ballot J. Morris, Dawson, Blyleven, Larkin, Alomar, E. Martinez.

2011 HOF Ballot J. Morris & Bagwell

So, 9 players, four of them weak HOFers.

Except for the first time I voted 40 years ago, I have annually voted for only a few candidates, the best of the best, in my opinion.


Jack Morris, of course!

Yeah it's fine if you're a small hall guy. Raines isn't a blow me away candidate or antyhing, but there's no way you could have such high standards and vote Morris.

So, 9 players, four of them weak HOFers.

At least he's better than Heyman who votes for Morris by not Blylevin. God I hate Heyman. It is weird that he didn't vote for Bagwell or Martinez this year after voting for them previously, it's not like his ballot is maxed out.

What I don't get is how any so-called professional baseball writer cannot be aware that modern players (1970ff) are being shafted by being held to a higher standard than players from previous eras. Best of the best is a glorious hallucination, nothing more. More accurately, an ego trip on the writer's part. You don't have to repeat the obvious errors of the past (George Kelly) but haven't players who are better than, say, Joe Sewell and Bobby Wallace and Joe Tinker and Dave Bancroft (such as, for e.g. Alan Trammell) earned a little bit of respect? The bottom line case against the BBWAA is ignorance.

It is weird that he didn't vote for Bagwell or Martinez this year after voting for them previously, it's not like his ballot is maxed out.

Since most of his actions are done out of nothing but spite, his votes are more likely to ebb and flow with whatever is grieving him most on the day the ballot arrives.