Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Rob Parker: These Morally Superior MLB Voters Can Kick Rocks

Pulverizin’ Pulitzers! Don’t piss off Parker and his mighty Masters Degree from the Columbia School of Journalism!

The most-prized possession in my life is my Baseball Hall of Fame vote.

Yes, it means more than anything I ever obtained in this world - even my Masters Degree from the Columbia School of Journalism.

...Think about it. There are more than 300 million people in the United States. Yet, less than 500 people—just 10 of whom are African American—have a vote after being issued a membership card from the Baseball Writers Association of America after 10 consecutive years of Major League Baseball coverage. For sure, it’s not easy to obtain.

...Sadly, it seems as if many of my brethren have lost their way. They no longer vote the best of the best in. They are so caught up on punishing this Steroid Era that they have overvalued previous players that simply don’t belong.

In doing so, they are almost doing more damage to the American Pastime than the players who used performance enhancing drugs. They’ve blurred the lines, skewed the facts and now use that new math we never adopted 40 years ago in this country.

They are wrong, dead wrong.

They only thing worse than not putting in players that clearly belong - Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa - is putting in players that don’t belong - Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven and Goose Gossage.

...Shame on baseball writers who think they are the game’s police, the men supposedly believe they are fixing what’s wrong.

In reality, they are doing the damage, killing a Hall of Fame that won’t mean a hill of beans without some of the greatest players who ever played in it.

I refuse to go along, ignoring what I saw while making Cooperstown more and more irrelevant every year.

 

Repoz Posted: December 03, 2013 at 06:09 AM | 44 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. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: December 03, 2013 at 06:38 AM (#4609311)
putting in players that don’t belong - Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven and Goose Gossage.


Everybody sing!
   2. LargeBill Posted: December 03, 2013 at 08:38 AM (#4609325)
How race obsessed must this guy be that he can't get three paragraphs into a column about his Hall of Fame vote without airing a race grievance? What difference does your race have to do with which players had careers meriting induction in the Hall of Fame?
   3. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 03, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4609328)
It didn't sound so much that he was airing a race grievance as it was that he felt fortunate to be one of that tiny group of ten. You'd expect a "race obsessed" writer to drag Bonds's race into the conversation, but he doesn't do that at all. He includes Clemens and McGwire along with Bonds in his group of wrongly excluded players, and he includes Rice and Dawson along with Blyleven and Gossage in his category of undeserving. You can argue about Blyleven, but there's nothing racial about his argument.
   4. bobm Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:01 AM (#4609329)
How race obsessed must this guy be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Parker_(sports_journalist)

On December 13, 2012, on First Take, Parker made controversial remarks relating to Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III during a segment discussing Griffin's comment at an earlier press conference that although he was an African-American, he did not want to be defined by that alone.[10] Parker stated that these words were a "red flag" for him and asked "Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother?” When asked to explain what he meant by this, he stated, "He's not real. OK, he's black, he kind of does the thing, but he's not really down with the cause. He's not one of us. He's kind of black but he's not really, like, the guy you want to hang out with because he's off to something else." Parker then cited Griffin having a white fiancee and "talk about how he's a Republican" (though he acknowledged having no information to support this).[11]

Later that day, ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys said that Parker's comments, "were inappropriate and we are evaluating our next steps."[12] ESPN announced on December 20, 2012 that Parker would be suspended for 30 days.[13][14] Parker expressed surprise at the reaction to his comments, stating "Looking back on some of the comments, I can see where people could take it out of context and run with it. But the response and what happened over the past 30 days is just shocking." [15] ESPN announced on Tuesday, January 8, 2013, that Parker would not return.[16]
   5. bob gee Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:05 AM (#4609331)
@2 i get it, as a majority, that you'd like to have more minorities in there.

but i think instead of the knee-jerk "blacks aren't voting" - which requires little thought - the question should be "are a smaller % of younger black writers voting than equal white writers"? i haven't checked it up, but i suspect the answer is no.

my main problem with the voters is NOT their skin color/ethnicity/anything else that you're born with, but their thought process at voting for HOFers.

btw, citing goose gossage as "doesn't belong" while citing sammy sosa as "clearly belongs" shows that parker falls perfectly in the bad thought process camp.

and who ARE the younger black writers? there's howard bryant, but i don't know how he is.
   6. bobm Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:08 AM (#4609333)
You'd expect a "race obsessed" writer to drag Bonds's race into the conversation

Does an article called "Shame on Aaron for not being supportive of Bonds" count?

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/detroit_news_parker2

Hank Aaron is a coward. He’s taking a stance but not saying what it is.

There’s no other way to look at it. Aaron, the home run king, is playing a neutral role in the biggest sports debate since whether hits king Pete Rose deserved to be in the Hall of Fame....

What’s Aaron’s problem?

Well, he needs to take a stand—either denounce Bonds’ attempt because he’s been implicated in the steroids scandal, or embrace Bonds’ accomplishment and show up.

Playing middle of the road isn’t fair—to baseball, its fans or Bonds.

Instead, Aaron has chosen the easy way out—saying nothing.

That’s sad
   7. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4609335)
That column quoted in #4 (EDIT: and in #6) might be relevant in another thread, but it doesn't have anything to do with the column under discussion. There's no race factor whatever in any of Parker's HoF arguments, either for or against.

And in that column in #6 he's calling on Aaron to take a stand one way or the other. He doesn't mention race at all.
   8. bob gee Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4609337)
@4 - ugh, THAT'S parker? i didn't associate his name with the RG3 incident; i also don't follow football.

   9. Lassus Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4609343)
I was riding my bike down a hill in the middle of nowhere with my GF once and saw a large clump of dirt in front of me. In order to be gallant and make sure she didn't hit it, I kicked it out of the way as I sped past. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a softball-sized rock covered in dirt, which in kicking I broke my big toe.

So, I'd avoid kicking rocks.
   10. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:37 AM (#4609345)
but he's not really down with the cause.


I didn't realize being black was a cause.
   11. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4609346)
How race obsessed must this guy be

He's black Andy.
   12. LargeBill Posted: December 03, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4609394)
When I asked "how race obsessed must this guy be?" I was influenced by past actions/comments on his part. I reflexively responded to his feeling the need to throw race into the column. I will admit he did not dwell on it in the rest of the article. If Parker is reading these comments I apologize for judging him based on his ugly past. Oh wait, no I don't since he has shown no inclination to give others the benefit of the doubt.
   13. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 03, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4609420)
As a matter of fact I think it shameful the HoF (well you know what I mean, it is shorthand) is ignoring many great great players because of Moral Outrage (TM), including not enshrining two of the inner circle great players(Bonds, Clemens). So as to the main point of the article I agree.

But hey keep harping on race I guess. And no I am not supporting or demeaning his past or present stands on the "race issue", I just don't think it is the central part of the article at all.
   14. TJ Posted: December 03, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4609443)
...Think about it. There are more than 300 million people in the United States. Yet, less than 500 people—just 10 of whom are African American—have a vote after being issued a membership card from the Baseball Writers Association of America after 10 consecutive years of Major League Baseball coverage. For sure, it’s not easy to obtain.


Not easy to obtain? You don't have to cover baseball for ten years to be issued a membership card from the BBWAA. You only have to do so for a few months (in any manner, not just as a beat writer or reporter)for an accredited newspaper until you get your membership. Then just pay your monetary dues for ten years to remain a member in good standing, and voila! You're a BBWAA-certified Hall of Fame voter!

One would think someone with a masters degree from the Columbia School of Journalism would know this...
   15. spike Posted: December 03, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4609456)
How race obsessed must this guy be that he can't get three paragraphs into a column about his Hall of Fame vote without airing a race grievance?

Every article I've ever read from this site covers sports from a particular POV. it's not just this guy.
   16. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4609465)


Not easy to obtain? You don't have to cover baseball for ten years to be issued a membership card from the BBWAA. You only have to do so for a few months (in any manner, not just as a beat writer or reporter)for an accredited newspaper until you get your membership. Then just pay your monetary dues for ten years to remain a member in good standing, and voila! You're a BBWAA-certified Hall of Fame voter!


That's not really true. Some chapters don't police it, which is how you end up with that political cartoonist having a vote, but other locals and the national chapter require and track the 10 years of baseball coverage for an accredited publication/web site.
   17. TJ Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4609477)
Go read the BBWAA bylaws. I'll give you some excerpts:

ARTICLE IV

MEMBERS: Classification

Section 1: Membership in this Association shall be classified as Active and Honorary.

Section 2: Active membership in this Association shall be reserved to persons who meet the following qualifications:

A: Members, as restricted below, of the staff of a daily newspaper which covers, by staff reporter at home and by a staff reporter or special correspondent on the road, 75 percent of the scheduled games of the Major League teams in its area. In the case of a chapter in which two or more Major League teams are based, it shall be sufficient for a paper to cover, by staff reports, 75 percent of the home games of those teams.

1. On such papers, the sports editor shall submit to the Chapter Chair a list of applicants. That paper shall be entitled to membership in the Association for one sports editor, all full-time general sports columnists who regularly cover baseball, and as many reporters as are primarily assigned to cover baseball.
2. The definition of “special correspondent,” as noted in Subsection A, shall be determined by the local chapter. Any newspaper denied Association membership in this situation may appeal the ruling to the National Board of Directions.

H. To qualify for Honorary Membership, candidates shall have fulfilled ten years of dues-paid membership and shall have ceased to be Active members.

How is the pool of Hall of Fame voters different?

In order to be eligible for a Hall of Fame vote, a writer must be an active member of the BBWAA for 10 consecutive years. Once a writer receives a Hall of Fame vote, he is eligible to continue voting even when he is no longer an active member of the BBWAA, provided he becomes a lifetime honorary member.

Does that mean some Hall of Fame voters don’t even cover baseball any more?

Yes. The BBWAA trusts that its voters take their responsibility seriously, and even those honorary members who are no longer covering baseball do their due diligence to produce a thoughtful ballot.

(Source: BBWAA Website, BBWAA Constitution, BBWAA FAQ)

So tell me where in any of this it says one thing that a HOF voter must continually cover baseball to retain membership?
   18. dejarouehg Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4609480)
I'm not a Rob Parker fan but it's worse when I agree with him.

Forgetting his history of race-baiting, I think his argument that if you need to debate the merit of a candidate's worthiness to be in the Hall, like Rice/Dawson/Blyleven, etc., then they are be definition unworthy.

The Hall is for absolute no-brainers. Which is why I think it should be a two-year eligibility process. (The extra year for the d.b.s who think they get to play god with others' legacies.)

(I'm not on the side on letting the cheats in, other than Bonds who I believe did not cheat until the late 90's when I thought he had been the best player in the game for that entire decade already.)
   19. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:22 PM (#4609489)
So tell me where in any of this it says one thing that a HOF voter must continually cover baseball to retain membership?


I would say right here:

A: Members, as restricted below, of the staff of a daily newspaper which covers, by staff reporter at home and by a staff reporter or special correspondent on the road, 75 percent of the scheduled games of the Major League teams in its area. In the case of a chapter in which two or more Major League teams are based, it shall be sufficient for a paper to cover, by staff reports, 75 percent of the home games of those teams.

You must be an active member (covering baseball) for 10 years. After that, you're good.

When Rob Neyer moved from ESPN, an accredited site, to SB Nation, a non-accredited one, he was moved to one-year at-large membership, after which time he would lose his active membership unless his employment changed, or the status of his employer did.

   20. TJ Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4609500)
You must be an active member (covering baseball) for 10 years. After that, you're good.


No, it says you must be an active member. Being an active member means paying your dues. It does not say anything about anything else in the bylaws.

From Tyler Kepner of the NY Times, Jan. 2013...

To get a ballot for the Hall of Fame, you must be a member of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America for 10 consecutive years. Most of our membership does an extraordinary job of bringing the game to the fans, just as we did when we started voting for the Hall of Fame in 1936. Most writers care deeply about the responsibility.

But we are an imperfect voting bloc, and to suggest otherwise is naïve. In theory, everybody who covers baseball for 10 years has a depth of knowledge and perspective that should last a lifetime. But it does not always work that way.

Plenty of the association’s active members do not cover the sport regularly; there are editors, general assignment writers and so on. They hold the card mainly for the convenience of access. But if they hold it long enough, they can keep voting no matter what they cover.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4609520)
No, it says you must be an active member. Being an active member means paying your dues. It does not say anything about anything else in the bylaws.


are you reading the same thing that you posted? It says right up front.

Section 2: Active membership in this Association shall be reserved to persons who meet the following qualifications:


That pretty much clearly states that you have to meet the qualifications quoted in post 19.

after covering it for ten years, then all you have to do is be a due paying member.
   22. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4609522)


No, it says you must be an active member. Being an active member means paying your dues. It does not say anything about anything else in the bylaws.


And I don't think this is an accurate reading of the bylaws. It describes active membership as covering the game (and editors qualify). It describes 10 years of active membership before one receives a Hall vote. There's nothing that suggests that you only have to actively cover the game for part of one season and then pay dues, nor is that a reasonable inference.

There are obviously people who are getting around it because it may not effectively policed. That's a different matter. Obviously, papers must submit the list of applicants for active membership each year, so you could easily lose your active membership regardless whether you were willing to pay your dues if the paper you work for doesn't submit your name.

For what it's worth, I wondered the same thing years ago, and Howie Menckel said guys do lose their membership if they stop covering baseball before 10 years.

   23. TJ Posted: December 03, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4609538)
There are obviously people who are getting around it because it may not effectively policed. That's a different matter. Obviously, papers must submit the list of applicants for active membership each year, so you could easily lose your active membership regardless whether you were willing to pay your dues if the paper you work for doesn't submit your name.


Thanks, guys- I accept your corrections, and agree that the policing is the problem. I withdraw my rant...
   24. Howie Menckel Posted: December 03, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4609581)
"Howie Menckel said guys do lose their membership if they stop covering baseball before 10 years."

Yes, there have been times where a guy maybe covered MLB for 6-8 years, then got switched to NFL for instance, and covered another 5-6 years of MLB. But it had to be 10 years in a row.

That said, it's true that there are voters who covered MLB for close to 10 years, then made sure to keep their memberships active long enough to get a HOF vote. It's not unusual for writers who get switched to other sports to still cover some MLB games. For instance, if your NBA or NHL beat team didn't even make the playoffs, they're done in April. That means you will have to cover something else - and filling in on summer MLB games is a common assignment, for 3-4 games at a time here and there.

It's also true, as noted above, that enforcement can be spotty - the guy who "polices" it in a market may be a buddy of the borderline guy, or may feel that he is extremely knowledgeable and thus deserves a vote even if he doesn't meet all technical standards. And yes, the sports editors aren't likely to keep listing you as one of their MLB "team" if you get switched to the copy desk or something. So they need that cooperation as well.

There are plenty of writers who might have covered MLB, for example, from 1980-95, then switched off. They would still have a vote even if they haven't covered a game in ages. It helps that they are voting on past guys and not current, in the sense that no one retired for fewer than five years is even eligible. So it's not necessarily awful if those guys have a ballot.
   25. Bob Tufts Posted: December 03, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4609665)
It is not necessarily racist but there is a racial component involved with the BBWAA and the HOF vote.

An almost lily white group of people that are a generation older than the people they cover will have a tendency to not be as sensitive to diversity issues and other cultures. Like the anti-stats group, they are more set in their ways and not open to learning about new ideas or people and how they tick. Check the Pew studies and other surveys on how people view race, gender and sexual orientation over time.
   26. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: December 03, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4609695)
*Unpopular opinion alert* I don't see an issue with Rob Parker's RGIII comments. However, if Skip Bayless had made them, I would see an issue. In addition, while I think ESPN was well within its rights to react the way it did, I think it's ridiculous that there are non-Black people who are so OUTRAGED by the incident or feel that they should have some say in whether or not Parker can make such comments.
   27. GuyMcGuffin Posted: December 03, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4609730)
Rob Parker also used to frequently troll analytically minded baseball fans while he was at ESPN. He would call them nerds and make jokes about pocket protectors. He would also say that he keeps watching the end of the Moneyball movie but the A's never win the World Series. They had him "debating" against Keith Law during the 2012 Trout/Cabrera MVP award. It was not entertaining.
   28. LargeBill Posted: December 03, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4609746)
26. NJ in NY Posted: December 03, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4609695)
*Unpopular opinion alert* I don't see an issue with Rob Parker's RGIII comments. However, if Skip Bayless had made them, I would see an issue. In addition, while I think ESPN was well within its rights to react the way it did, I think it's ridiculous that there are non-Black people who are so OUTRAGED by the incident or feel that they should have some say in whether or not Parker can make such comments.


That sentiment is how racism persists. There is near universal belief that racism is wrong. However, some people act as if it is okay if some people do and say racist crap. That is garbage. If it is wrong (and by the way, it is) then it is wrong. Period. Your admission that you accept comments from one man as opposed to another based solely upon their race is pretty much the definition of racism.

Parker (or others) giving a black man (RG III) grief for "acting white" or potentially thinking for himself and reaching his own conclusions on political issues is just as racist as if David Duke declared that white people have to act and think a certain way. How about we let people be individuals and screw the race nonsense?
   29. Lars6788 Posted: December 03, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4609863)
I don't see anything wrong with Parker said - he's kind of like saying how tough it is for a stats guy to get voting privileges and how hard the climb is.

Obviously everyone parsed this to make this a race issue for themselves when it's one paragraph in a story that has nothing to do with race, so who is playing the card?

Basically if Brian Kenny made the same statement about Hall of Fame voting and instead talked about how to it is for new school thinking baseball writers to get the ability to vote, we'd be like preach on brother, preach on.
   30. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: December 03, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4609892)
It is not necessarily racist but there is a racial component involved with the BBWAA and the HOF vote.

An almost lily white group of people that are a generation older than the people they cover will have a tendency to not be as sensitive to diversity issues and other cultures.


What is all this mumbo-jumbo supposed to mean exactly? "Diversity issues" and "culture" have nothing to do with whether a player is worthy of being a Hall of Famer or not.

Is there a player in particular who you think is being discriminated against primarily because of his race, ethnicity, or nationality, or a particular HOF voter that you think has a racially questionable voting record?
   31. Bob Tufts Posted: December 03, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4609897)
What is all this mumbo-jumbo supposed to mean exactly?


I find that Joey B's use of the phrase "mumbo jumbo" to be racial or racist in nature due to its Mandingo origins.

Any subjective decision is affected by personal biases.
   32. cmd600 Posted: December 03, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4609899)
I think his argument that if you need to debate the merit of a candidate's worthiness to be in the Hall, like Rice/Dawson/Blyleven, etc., then they are be definition unworthy.

The Hall is for absolute no-brainers. Which is why I think it should be a two-year eligibility process.


But at some point, there will have to be a debate, right? Who is the worst of the no-brainers, who is the best of the debateables? Shouldn't the line between the two be so miniscule as to be pretty much meaningless? And then what do you tell guys like Mussina (fill in the best example you can think of if you prefer someone else), who is clearly better than a lot of already HoF-ers, but seems to fall in the "debateable" range.
   33. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: December 03, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4609947)
I find that Joey B's use of the phrase "mumbo jumbo" to be racial or racist in nature due to its Mandingo origins.

Any subjective decision is affected by personal biases.


Translation: "Of course I have absolutely no concrete evidence to back up my risible assertion."
   34. Gonfalon B. Posted: December 03, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4609962)
I find Joey B's use of the phrase "concrete evidence" to be racial or racist in nature due to its unspoken reference to lawn jockeys.
   35. dejarouehg Posted: December 03, 2013 at 07:46 PM (#4609982)
But at some point, there will have to be a debate, right? Who is the worst of the no-brainers, who is the best of the debateables? Shouldn't the line between the two be so miniscule as to be pretty much meaningless? And then what do you tell guys like Mussina (fill in the best example you can think of if you prefer someone else), who is clearly better than a lot of already HoF-ers, but seems to fall in the "debateable" range.


The worst of the no-brainers will be the one who gets the number of votes closest to the threshhold. Debate amongst each other all you want but the numbers are what the numbers are.

Mussina is to some, on the bubble. Parker would say, and I would agree, that this means he is not worthy of a yes vote. The fact that Mussina might be better than other inductees, is unfortunate.

It makes more sense to me that there is no limit to the number on the ballot and if you get 80% you're in. Two shots and you're done. I think if voters knew it was 2 and done they would be more judicious with their vote.


   36. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 03, 2013 at 08:31 PM (#4610013)
The worst of the no-brainers will be the one who gets the number of votes closest to the threshhold. Debate amongst each other all you want but the numbers are what the numbers are.

Mussina is to some, on the bubble. Parker would say, and I would agree, that this means he is not worthy of a yes vote. The fact that Mussina might be better than other inductees, is unfortunate.

The currently no-brainers are only np-brainers, because they are far enough removed from the ones who are, well... brainers. If you remove the currently debatable guys from eligibility, it just moves the line of debate up to catch the next group.

So ok, now Mussina is out. Then it becomes "What about Cal Ripken"? Is he a no-brainer? Now he's in the discussion for borderline, if you have ripped the floor out from under him.
   37. Bob Tufts Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4610035)
I find Gonfalon's use of the phrase "unspoken reference" offensive to mute people.
   38. Howie Menckel Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4610045)

I imagine that bald men might be offended by constantly seeing the word TUFTS on BBTF!

   39. madvillain Posted: December 03, 2013 at 09:46 PM (#4610067)
This guy is a cornball brotha if ya know what I mean.
   40. Booey Posted: December 03, 2013 at 10:23 PM (#4610106)
I don't agree with every specific player example he named, but I think the overall point of this article is very good. These lines are spot on, IMO:

They no longer vote the best of the best in. They are so caught up on punishing this Steroid Era that they have overvalued previous players that simply don’t belong.

In doing so, they are almost doing more damage to the American Pastime than the players who used performance enhancing drugs.

...Shame on baseball writers who think they are the game’s police, the men supposedly believe they are fixing what’s wrong.

In reality, they are doing the damage, killing a Hall of Fame that won’t mean a hill of beans without some of the greatest players who ever played in it.


Though I would remove the "almost" from the second paragraph.

   41. cmd600 Posted: December 03, 2013 at 11:49 PM (#4610187)
The worst of the no-brainers will be the one who gets the number of votes closest to the threshhold.


And we're supposed to accept that there is a clear demarcation between the guys who will get 81% versus those who only get 79%? We know that's not true. And as Fancy Pants says, you've now made all the future guys who are equivalent to that 81% guy debatable, hey, they're right on the edge, there's no better definition for debatable.

I would be interested in seeing how the voting would work with your setup. I'd like to believe that the voters could be pressured into being more careful, but when you read the likes of Heyman, you can tell he's being about as thoughtful as he possibly can be, and he still can't figure it out, so I don't think we'll ever force them to get it right.
   42. dejarouehg Posted: December 04, 2013 at 07:00 AM (#4610278)
I would be interested in seeing how the voting would work with your setup. I'd like to believe that the voters could be pressured into being more careful, but when you read the likes of Heyman, you can tell he's being about as thoughtful as he possibly can be, and he still can't figure it out, so I don't think we'll ever force them to get it right.


I know Heyman and many of the other voters genuinely labor over this. However, shortening the eligibility will not allow them to say - which Heyman has - "well, maybe next year when the ballot isn't so crowded." Opening the ballot for more options will help as well.

However, this hand-wringing of the voters is the point, isn't it? If you have to delve into the deepest of sabermetric minutae to justify inclusion or exclusion, then they should just be out.

How many HoFers could not be elected on the eye test alone? For the most part, those that couldn't, shouldn't be in. I'm a big fan of most of the recent bubble players. IMO, there's no way Blyleven is a HoFer. He was just not an ace long enough. I think Dawson might be one of the 5 best athletes in the HoF. Does he belong? No way - his knees and the turf in Montreal robbed him of that; too many really good seasons, not enough great. I'm a big Jim Rice guy b/c I remember seeing how intimidated pitchers were.............for 3 years! The rest not HoF standards. OUT. Dewey Evans - who is promoted by several people here - was never for one week of his career a dominant enough player to be considered HoF material. It's nonsense revisionist history.
   43. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 04, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4610489)
How many HoFers could not be elected on the eye test alone? For the most part, those that couldn't, shouldn't be in. I'm a big fan of most of the recent bubble players. IMO, there's no way Blyleven is a HoFer. He was just not an ace long enough.

First of all, Blyleven has the 5th most strikeouts of any pitcher in the history of the game, and had probably the most ridiculous curveball ever. Seriously, it seemingly defied physics, it is one of the most amazing things you will ever see on a baseball field. If you don't think he passes the "eye test", you simply are not watching the same sport as everyone else.

Secondly, the "eye test" is still dependent on the current size of the HoF. If it were big enough where Jim Rice and Jack Morris were actually borderline candidates and not silly jokes, guys like Dawson (and I am not a huge fan of his induction) would pass the eye test easily enough. Blyleven would be a mortal lock of all locks. If you move the line to make the hall so small where Blyleven clearly doesn't belong, it just makes a new bunch of guys debateable. Ripken, Niekro, Yaz, Joe Morgan? And we are right back to debating if those guys belong. You can shrink the hall down to the 10 greatest players of all time, and we will still be debating who is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12...
   44. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 04, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4610499)
OK, this is starting to bug me. From context I know what it means to tell a group of people to "go kick rocks" (which is very similar to 'go pound sand') but has anyone else ever heard the expression? I keep thinking he wanted to say "suck a bag of dicks" but couldn't for obvious reasons, and came out with this expression instead.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2399 - 7:19am, Apr 24)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(180 - 7:18am, Apr 24)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(33 - 7:10am, Apr 24)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4-24-2014
(1 - 7:07am, Apr 24)
Last: General Zod

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(215 - 6:26am, Apr 24)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogKeri: Slump City: Why Does the 2014 MLB Season Suddenly Feel Like 1968?
(17 - 6:01am, Apr 24)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(188 - 4:32am, Apr 24)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogDoyel: How was Gerrit Cole not suspended? He basically started the brawl
(28 - 2:44am, Apr 24)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogJonah Keri Extended Interview | Video | Late Night with Seth Meyers | NBC
(8 - 1:54am, Apr 24)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(226 - 1:39am, Apr 24)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogColiseum Authority accuses Athletics of not paying rent
(12 - 1:12am, Apr 24)
Last: greenback likes millwall, they don't care

NewsblogMorosi: Diamondbacks' growing gloom might mean doom for manager or GM
(12 - 1:11am, Apr 24)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(14 - 12:44am, Apr 24)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(498 - 12:39am, Apr 24)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(57 - 11:31pm, Apr 23)
Last: Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.4155 seconds
52 querie(s) executed