because of some Twitter beef.

Same term you used prior to 1/6. It was emotional, biased bullshitt then, and it is even more so now.

I’ve certainly been exposed to racism and sexism and homophobia as it’s part of who human beings are. I’ve played with and talked with gay teammates.

I found it suspect that a player (or any person) would come out privately to a loudly homophobic lout. Has an MLB player other than Glenn Burke or Billy Bean ever come out as gay?

And at the risk of looking dumb, if an unearned run is the result of an error or passed ball, other than by not making a fielding error himself, how does a pitcher prevent that which is committed by other players?

It was emotional, biased bullshitt then, and it is even more so now.

No, I was right then and I'm even righter now.

Look, the Hall of Fame is a way to appreciate baseball history. To think back about the bloody sock game, or the great playoff run he and Randy Johnson had in Arizona. Or to notice that Schilling was ridiculously good at preventing unearned runs.

Yet here we are with a guy who's pretty close to a median Hall of Famer, right on the cusp of being elected, and we're 200 posts into a thread about how some people don't like his Twitter feed and yet can't seem to bring themselves not to read it. No baseball discussion at all. We're not talking about Bonds, Clemens, Vizquiel, Wagner, Helton, Sheffield, Kent, Ramirez, Sosa, Pettite, Buehrle, Hunter, or Abreu -- all of which have fun baseball related cases to be in or out. We're just being Twitter police, and we're arguing for how long a sentence he deserves. And this is on a site that loves Hall of Fame discussions so much it invented its very own Hall of Merit and has been commenting about that for decades!

I hate being the Twitter police. I like baseball. Let's talk about baseball.

And at the risk of looking dumb, if an unearned run is the result of an error or passed ball, other than by not making a fielding error himself, how does a pitcher prevent that which is committed by other players?

Really, all it means is Schilling was an extreme flyballer.

Forgot to mention: the guy himself hates the new process so much he asked to be left off the ballot on the cusp of being elected.

And at the risk of looking dumb, if an unearned run is the result of an error or passed ball, other than by not making a fielding error himself, how does a pitcher prevent that which is committed by other players?

Really, all it means is Schilling was an extreme flyballer.

He was a high-strikeout, low-walk, low-hit, flyballer in an era when fewer errors were assigned. It's less about having a special ability to prevent unearned runs as opposed to having a pitching style that wasn't going to lead to many. But as Philly said, it does make his actual performance more valuable than ERA+ would suggest.

thanks for 151 for putting up Schilling's full post.

has anyone seen an article that actually details the most offensive things Schilling has said?

no doubt they are pretty numerous, based on countless reports. but better to have a list of actual comments, I think.

I'd also be interested in the percentage of his offensive comments and the percentage of offensive comments that he retweeted - especially if Schilling is "on the spectrum."

most of us familiar with Twitter take a RT as an endorsement, and understandably so. if he misunderstood that social cue AND he's, well, kinda stubborn, then I could picture him refusing to retreat - and digging himself a deeper hole because he doesn't like how society interprets his actions. now, he's a grown man so he doesn't get a pass, regardless. but I've become curious how his claims are so far off from what his reputation is (and sure, it might be as simple as he's completely delusion and paranoid. still, more information is better).

and maybe almost all of the worst stuff is what he posted himself. whatever it is, it is.

going back 5 to 10 years, a lot of journalists tried to carve out their own niche - putting a comment in their Twitter bio that "RTs do not equal endorsements." idea being that they were trying to disseminate thoughtful stories that may not match their own conclusions, but are worth adding to the public discourse anyway.

it didn't really work, then - and obviously in the last 5 years it hasn't worked at all.

I have no idea if Schilling is on the spectrum. But even if he is, that does not explain his behavior. Aspies aren't incapable of appropriate social behavior. They just have to put in time and effort to learn certain social skills. If a 54-year-old man hasn't learned those skills, that's his own damn fault. Being an Aspie is neither a cause of nor an excuse for being a terrible person.

I'm not much of a twitter guy, but I can buy that line of thought if you specifically do so while adding some commentary. But if you just retweet any fool ass thing without comment, that damn well should be interpreted as endorsement.

Aren’t Sheffield and Ortiz almost perfect comps? Sheffield should have been a DH. Is his defensive WAR adjustment better or worse than being a DH? Roughly the same number of hits, home runs, length of career, both known for prodigious hitting ability, both productive into their later years and both with minor PED noise. What am I missing?

Oh, and they’ve both been shot in robberies

The public - private disparities are interesting. Vizquel did really well with the private guys and Wagner/Helton/Kent held their own. Jones and Rolen did terrible and all the PED guys performed worse. Defense just doesn’t sell the old-timers. So I think Rolen has a tough hill to climb while Helton seems to appeal more broadly. Buehrle did ok. I half expect he ends up in the 20-40% range before he’s off ballot.

What am I missing?

One has been generally beloved by his team's fanbase, and baseball in general, has a reputation as a clutch hitter, with lots of examples in the playoffs, and was a key part of multiple World Series teams, including the team that broke "the Curse". The other was generally disliked by fans, moved around all other place because he kept assholing his way out of town, and claimed to have made errors intentionally.

This stuff may not show up much in their seasonal stat lines, but will affect how voters view them.

Like I said, Pete Rose also got all of those except the Branch Rickey Award, which did not start until he was out of baseball. Awards, even those supposedly given for character, are not necessarily probative of character.

Absolutely.

As to 151, whatever else he is, one thing that really tells me is that Schilling is a professional social media diva.

Since the existence of a "social media diva" presupposes the existence of social media, it appears that we're in general agreement that Schilling's persona was changed by the internet and we're certainly in agreement that social media can be a formulator of new personality archetypes that didn't exist pre-net. While there's a likely relationship between being a pre-internet diva and a social media diva, it's by no means an exact one or even close. The virtue signaling leftie can also properly be referred to as a social media diva and I'd guess the vast majority of them had little to no diva tendencies until the internet and the crowds on the internet harvested and created those tendencies.

I'm not much of a twitter guy, but I can buy that line of thought if you specifically do so while adding some commentary. But if you just retweet any fool ass thing without comment, that damn well should be interpreted as endorsement.

People lose their minds and faculties on Twitter. It's little different than being drunk or high and the behavior we see is that of the addict. In addition, it's performative theatre. People perform on Twitter, message boards, social media. So the "real" underlying person pretty much gets entirely swept away.

I don't see why many seem to think Wagner is dropping down to a new level of reliever in the hall.

His WAR/WAA and ERA/ERA+ numbers beat all the guys who have been mentioned.

The best list of HOF reliever candidates I can find is this list of RP JAWS leaders. It is an imperfect list with guys like Greg Swindell and Kerry Wood on it.

Wagner is settled in there with Lee Smith, Sutter, and Hoffman. Joe Nathan does surprisingly land among that group but doesn't have sterling ERA+. But everyone else is down the list. Papelbon is the closest, and he is well down the list. KRod, Orosco, and others are way down.

I like baseball. Let's talk about baseball.

Fair enough.

Joe Nathan does surprisingly land among that group but doesn't have sterling ERA+.

That's because his numbers are being pulled down by his time as a starter. If you look only at his time as a reliever, his ERA+ is 179 over 739.2 IP, which fits in well with the other top (by rate) closers of his era.

The public - private disparities are interesting. Vizquel did really well with the private guys and Wagner/Helton/Kent held their own. Jones and Rolen did terrible and all the PED guys performed worse. Defense just doesn’t sell the old-timers. So I think Rolen has a tough hill to climb while Helton seems to appeal more broadly. Buehrle did ok. I half expect he ends up in the 20-40% range before he’s off ballot.

If Vizquel did really well then it’s tough to claim that defense doesn’t sell.

Basically, the writers have never been consistent in applying virtually any standards to HOF voting, and this year was no exception.

The virtue signaling leftie can also properly be referred to as a social media diva and I'd guess the vast majority of them had little to no diva tendencies until the internet and the crowds on the internet harvested and created those tendencies.

I am not a fan of the term "virtue signaling" in general, but if you want to go with that, I think it is fair to say that people of all political stripes do it.

The other point about personality creation etc. is interesting but not one I am really able to engage. If I am reading you right, you seem to be saying that Schilling's Twitter content is sort of part of a larger sociocultural problem that is affecting all kinds of folks psychologically, and that we should cut him some slack. I am open to that on some level, with the caveat that as a lefty, Schilling being part of the the party of "personal responsibility" makes me cynical about it. Also, Schilling seems to be a pretty smart guy in many ways, so I am not inclined to go that route with him and to hold him accountable. Whether that accountability includes the HOF is another issue.

Vizquel did really well with the private guys and Wagner/Helton/Kent held their own. Jones and Rolen did terrible and all the PED guys performed worse. Defense just doesn’t sell the old-timers. So I think Rolen has a tough hill to climb while Helton seems to appeal more broadly.

How on earth are you getting this?

Rolen passed Vizquel. He expanded his lead over Helton and outperformed both Jones and Helton on private ballots (and improved from 11 percent on the privates to 42 percent this year). Every bit of evidence (and history) points to Rolen as having the kind of momentum that's going to lead to election within two years, and you're reading all of it to say the exact opposite.

Basically, the writers have never been consistent in applying virtually any standards to HOF voting, and this year was no exception.

They have been relatively consistent in applying the standard that turns their ballot into a statement about themselves rather than the candidates they're voting on, so there is that.

What am I missing?

Well, not much, in terms of numbers. But Ortiz is pretty much an actual folk hero among many Boston/New England sports fans I think, right up there with Orr, Russell, Yaz, Bird, Brady. Add that to his postseason heroics in 2004 etc. and the fact that he looks like the Cookie Monster and is almost as likable, I think he gets in.

Vizquel has 2877 hits. Rolen didn’t even get 2000

So just like Pettitte and Buehrle, Ortiz will get 75% of Home town votes. That seems obvious. I don’t see how hometown votes translate to 75% of the electorate any time soon.

I love Rolen because he was great in st Louis, my hometown. Same for Edmonds. But I can see the flaws in their case.

If I am the Hall, I take Schilling at his literal word.

OK, so you want off of the ballot? Fine. And going forward into future ballots by future voting bodies, too.

I’ve kind of accepted that it’s difficult to draw a line between Hoffman and Wagner. My gut always told me that Hoffman was the more consistent and durable pitcher, but that’s not really supported by the stats. Hoffman basically pitched 3 more seasons than Wagner but they are extremely close in career value. I don’t know if that means Hoffman shouldn’t be in or Wagner should be out, but given that Hoffman basically sailed in, I’m ok with Wagner going in as well. I don’t think it will necessarily open the floodgates.

One legit knock on Wagner is that he was horrendously bad in the postseason, whereas Hoffman was at least decent.

There isn't a clear standard about how good a reliever has to be in order to be Hall worthy. Rivera's clearly above the threshold, but who's a good borderline case? Papelbon? Quisenberry?

Vizquel has 2877 hits. Rolen didn’t even get 2000

FWIW, Rolen did pass 2,000 hits.

You've obviously convinced yourself that Rolen can't succeed with the voters because they won't appreciate his defense or he didn't have a high average or whatever. But the voting tells a completely different story than this, and you're ignoring it. Rolen is now the top votegetter among anyone without a cloud over him (and the three above him are gone after this year). He gained a tremendous amount of ground with the privates this year. He put distance between him and two of the other holdovers. Everything points to his election within two years, with an outside shot at one if the writers make a concerted effort to see the Hall avoid a shutout.

but who's a good borderline case?

Wilhelm. Or Goose, if you're particularly big hally.

Vizquel has 2877 hits. Rolen didn’t even get 2000

Harold Baines had 2,866 hits and never got more than 6.1% from the writers. Rusty Staub had 2,716 and never got more than 7.9%. Johnny Damon, one and done despite 2,769 hits. Like I said, no consistency.

One legit knock on Wagner is that he was horrendously bad in the postseason, whereas Hoffman was at least decent.

Wagner's career ERA would jump from 2.31 to 2.41 if you included his postseason record, which demonstrates just how bad he was in the postseason and just how few innings he threw in the regular season.

Baines did get in, Staub was a pinch hitter, and Damon is nick markakis. No one at 2800 hits has not gotten in (except those that have been canceled

I think the character clause should be jettisoned. Character is unknowable in many ways and one can ruin one's honor with one act, while never being able to cement it.

I differ from Schilling in most ways and think the world would be better with very few of his kind. He has, undoubtedly, contributed all he's going to to humanity. At the same time, I think he's a clear HOFer on the field.

I feel much the same about Bonds and Clemens and Rose. I doubt I'd want to spend half an hour with any of them. But they were phenomenal players and should have a plaque.

I also sort of think the Hall is toast. Once you get the voters and committees trying to gauge character and honor, you're screwed.

Rolen and Helton got a lot of votes in the last two years because they were simply left off 10 person ballots in prior years. There’s no groundswell of support for them. You are misreading why they are where they are. In fact most of the increases were likely a couple years of the ballot getting cleaned out do the backlog. I think Helton ultimately has a better story because the only real knock is the park effect and he can’t really be blamed for that. But frankly i think both are long shots.

Rolen didn’t have great counting stats (i apologize, he did sneak over 2000 hits), but the bulk of his case is defense. It’s further complicated by a bad rep with his managers. His whole end of St. Louis story was an ugly one - we basically had to fire sale him away because he and TLR were toxic. Most great players don’t end up playing for two managers who run them out of town.

It’s nonsensical to me that vizquels 2877 hits and 11 gold gloves have gotten him basically equal to Rolen but that’s just how writers see things - they love hits and longevity.

Wagner’s whole career is one of SSS but if you are going to have a SSS case it better be pristine. His post season sucks

Baines did get in, Staub was a pinch hitter, and Damon is nick markakis. No one at 2800 hits has not gotten in (except those that have been canceled

LOL. Are these the types of baseball-related HOF discussions that people were nostalgic for? Can we go back to arguing about Twitter and the character clause again?

Rolen and Helton got a lot of votes in the last two years because they were simply left off 10 person ballots in prior years. There’s no groundswell of support for them. You are misreading why they are where they are.

Loads of players over time have made slow increases in this fashion and made it in via the writer's ballots.

Ortiz may miss out on the first ballot, but he's getting in on the second. He'd be viewed as a slam-dunk sans PED concerns.

I also sort of think the Hall is toast. Once you get the voters and committees trying to gauge character and honor, you're screwed.

On the other hand, one could view it as a sign of progress that (a) the character clause is being taken more seriously now; and (b) the concept is being extended to things that do in fact reflect character. For millennia, philosophers and laymen have thought it a worthwhile endeavor to identify high character and honor and the traits that make it up, and their opposites, and there's no real objection to be had to that endeavor. This is at least somewhat in that vein.

For decades, major league baseball and the Hall of Fame looked the other way when the people that ran the sport and the people the HOF enshrined conspired (*) to keep hundreds of talented athletes and men of actual character out of the sport because of their race. One could argue that there are excesses the other way now, but net-net, it's hard to see the HOF voting of, say, 1962 as superior to today's.

(*) To whatever relative degree of culpability one wants to assign.

Rolen and Helton got a lot of votes in the last two years because they were simply left off 10 person ballots in prior years. There’s no groundswell of support for them. You are misreading why they are where they are. In fact most of the increases were likely a couple years of the ballot getting cleaned out do the backlog. I think Helton ultimately has a better story because the only real knock is the park effect and he can’t really be blamed for that. But frankly i think both are long shots.

Scott Rolen will be in the Hall within two years. I wouldn't have guessed it when he joined the ballot, but his progression over the last three years makes it clear. Every single thing about his vote pattern (he's cleared 50 percent, he's improving with the privates, he's moved to the top of the clean backlog, there aren't many great candidates coming on) tells us he'll be in soon. I have no doubt about that.

There has got to be a better way to phrase that than "improving with the privates."

On the other hand, one could view it as a sign of progress that (a) the character clause is being taken more seriously now; and (b) the concept is being extended to things that do in fact reflect character.

It is complicated, but I'd rather see them wrestle with it than throw up their hands. I suppose the I'd vote for a murderer among you would never have to do any soul searching come voting time, but I'd rather withhold an honor from Vizquel than worry that it's not fair that old-time wife beaters got off scott free.

On the other hand, one could view it as a sign of progress

I dunno, a bunch of guys armed with bubble gum cards and long ago memories were able to put together a pretty respectable Hall of Fame without leaving out people like Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker. Now we have more stats than we can shake a stick at and we can't manage to put in Pete Rose or Barry Bonds.

I dunno, a bunch of guys armed with bubble gum cards and long ago memories were able to put together a pretty respectable Hall of Fame without leaving out people like Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker. Now we have more stats than we can shake a stick at and we can't manage to put in Pete Rose or Barry Bonds.

Right, but that could be viewed as progress, not retreat. (I generally agree with the things you've written; I just want to use this one to offer up the point. In purely baseball terms, no, it probably isn't progress. In social/cultural ones, it could be viewed as that.)

The other school of thought is that we should separate the art from the person. There's a lot to be said for that, too, and that's probably where I am if I had to choose. But (a) the HOF voting standards explicitly tell the voters not to do that; and (b) that still doesn't get you an answer on the roiders because that really isn't a "character" claim per se; it's a cheating claim. And of course we're in a phase in the culture where there's little to no appetite to make the separation.

#238 - I don't see it as progress at all. Holding modern players to a far higher moral standard than players were ever held to before is unfair to fans (as well as players), and creates a much less historically accurate institution.

Ortiz is going to land somewhere near Sheffield, probably north of him. If you tell me Ortiz will also drag Sheffield into the Hall then I am with you but I don’t think that will happen. Basically the argument for Ortiz over Sheffield is his nickname and a speech after the marathon bombing. His World Series records are good but Sheffield’s are fine if not legendary like Ortiz. I still contend they are basically the same player

#245 - Statistically, yes, but as others have pointed out, they sure as hell had vastly different reputations during their careers..

His World Series records are good but Sheffield’s are fine if not legendary like Ortiz.

You can decide how to count it, but Ortiz is one of the best clutch postseason hitters of all-time. Then again, so is Lance Berkman and that's not going to get him in.

Ortiz is going to land somewhere near Sheffield, probably north of him. If you tell me Ortiz will also drag Sheffield into the Hall then I am with you but I don’t think that will happen. Basically the argument for Ortiz over Sheffield is his nickname and a speech after the marathon bombing. His World Series records are good but Sheffield’s are fine if not legendary like Ortiz. I still contend they are basically the same player

I seem to recall there being postseason games other than the World Series.

Ortiz postseason record: 85 games, .947 OPS, 3 rings, 2 series MVP awards
Sheffield postseason record: 44 games, .799 OPS, 1 ring, zero series MVPs

I mean, maybe that's "basically the same" to you, but can you at least understand why some people might think differently?

RMc’s insistence that writers who leave ballots blank should have their votes taken away is either him trolling or him showing an extreme lack of self-awareness that he’s a top advocate for cancel culture.

There's never been a HoF ballot without deserving candidates on it, ever. If you're going to send back a blank ballot, then that's a pretty good indication that you don't know what the hell is going on, and thus do not deserve a HoF vote, QED.

Holding modern players to a far higher moral standard than players were ever held to before is unfair to fans (as well as players), and creates a much less historically accurate institution.

And of course it's not "morality", it's politics. And political winds don't all blow in the same direction forever, guys.

And of course it's not "morality", it's politics. And political winds don't all blow in the same direction forever, guys.

Nope, this is not true.

The winds you hate have consistently, inexorably, undeniably blown in the same direction going back centuries. The parties leveraging the headwinds have changed - sometimes they reorient to cobble together coalitions that result in who makes up the forefront and who represents the obstinate rear change, but that drive of morality -- and specifically, that involving the "woke" and "SJW" aspects have gone in one direction at least since the dawn of the country, if not globally.

Doesn't matter whether you're talking about gender equality, racism, or LGBTQ issues. There has been one long, universal direction.

It makes me happy, taking the long view of humanity. 200 years ago, people of a certain race could be owned, women were barely one step above that status, and god forbid you were gay or transgender. 100 years ago, you couldn't be owned on the basis of race, but you better know your place; women were finally voting at least; and well... you still better watch your step if you weren't straight-up hetero.

And on and on it goes.

The direction is one way and it's been an undeniable good thing for everyone - excepting those whose value is self-defined as a function of inherent "betterness" than the "others".

Sometimes I pity such folks, but mostly? I just find the whining over the cancellations that are a matter of choice and longing for the days when well over half the country was subject to cancellation by inherent traits.

Live in the new world or die in the old one.

122 Free speech exercise? Is the government stopping Schilling from being in the HOF? 1st Am doesn't apply. If those writers ticked off their editors or the publisher or a major advertiser, out they would go; because if it ain't the government doing the censoring, then 1st Am not in the picture.

But, by your logic, why are the writers' first amendment rights in deciding not to vote for Schilling somehow lesser than Schilling's right to express himself.

He was great at throwing a ball across a dish, but why should one care about his politics or opinions? Likewise when Garvey was being touted for senator, pre-scandal, who cares (you can if you want to, but why, like he has some insight into something other than how to throw a curve, or, in Garvey's case, hit a fastball?)

Should Schilling be subject to the opprobrium that upsets his ill wife? Deserving's got nothing to do with it (I am not criticizing his opinions, he is welcome to hold them, but why should I care?). If he's that concerned, he is free to stop running his yap. Apparently, he wants to put himself out in the public with his opinions. If he doesn't like negative attention, he can stop seeking attention. He is a grown up and gets to make the choice.

Also, I did find it rather arch the following from his statement: "I’ve never hit a woman, driven drunk, done drugs, PEDs or otherwise, assaulted anyone or committed any sort of crime." I refer to the last 5 words + "never"

Now, that fiasco in Rhode Island, was it, with the gaming, there are very smart prosecutors in the country. It wouldn't surprise me if one of them could figure out a theory of fraud against Mr. Schilling. But, far be it from me to cast stones at Mr. Schilling, as he, among all of us, has never committed a crime. Mr. Schilling's statements can be good for laughs.

Ortiz has about 370 at bats in the post season vs 9000 for his career. I’m a big believer in post season value and his is good but it doesn’t make his hall of fame case. I would no more put Ortiz in the Hall for his post-season than I would a Lou Brock who was renown for great performances in the series. Definitely a plus, but not determinative. Sheffield’s post season stats are fine, not as good. But it’s silly to say that the post season is what makes the difference between them. And I did not say their post season was basically the same. I said their careers were basically the same.

I would say Sheffield is probably the better player. He wasn’t good in the field but he played in the field most every day which takes its toll. You only have to look at a guy like Marcell Ozuna to see how valuable a hitter can be if he doesn’t have to play the field every day.

Ortiz has a huge fan base in New England but I’m not sure if there is a carryover elsewhere

I'm pretty sure David Ortiz' support is nationwide and will not be concentrated among Northeastern writers. I'd bet he finishes within 5% of 50% on his first ballot and goes in on the second ballot. Outside possibility he has a Piazza-style progression. The narrative of "David Ortiz, Superstar" was pretty huge.

The statistical case against Ortiz is not lost on me, but the difference between Ortiz and Sheffield is that Ortiz is widely beloved and admired, and Sheffield just wasn't.

Mariano Rivera was unanimous, and his case was also narrative-based more than it was statistical.

Ortiz has a huge fan base in New England but I’m not sure if there is a carryover elsewhere

Well, as a neutral who lived in a non MLB city 2300 miles away from Boston for Papi's entire career, I'd say that Ortiz was a much bigger star than Sheffield. Not a better PLAYER, to be clear, but much more famous, well liked, and easily more significant/relevant to MLB's narrative during their respective careers. You can't tell the story of the 2000's/2010's without mentioning David Ortiz early and often. Sheffield's pretty far down the list of players you'd just HAVE to mention if you were recapping the sillyball era.

Ask a bunch of baseball fans to name every 500 HR hitter off the top of their heads, and I'd bet that Sheff is the one that gets forgotten the most (at least amongst modern players).

Mariano Rivera was unanimous, and his case was also narrative-based more than it was statistical.

It was both, at least to the people doing the voting.

I think he was unanimous because he was the best at his position.* Previous voters could claim Mays wasn't as good as Cobb or Aaron wasn't as good as Ruth or Morgan wasn't as good as Hornsby, and if the old guy didn't go in unanimously why should the new guy, but that argument simply wasn't available for Rivera. He was the best reliever.

*I disagree it's a position, but the BBWAA clearly does.

yes, "narrative" is a word that cannot be overstated when talking about sportswriters - or really any writers.

there's an old saw about someone asking a sportswriter "Do you root for teams when you cover games?"

and the answer is - well, no. but the better-remembered and also accurate reply is, "You root for the story."

Rivera and Ortiz were part of so many epic stories.

even when Rivera failed in 2001 or 2004, it was epic. the point about each is they were THERE, in that spot. and obviously they were very successful in such spots overall.

it would take a concerted effort against Ortiz to downplay the "narrative" angle, and I don't think it's possible. the PED issue is more complicated.

will be fascinating to see who votes for "Barry Clemens" but not Ortiz, and vice versa. or both, or 'neither.'

Rolen passed Vizquel. He expanded his lead over Helton and outperformed both Jones and Helton on private ballots (and improved from 11 percent on the privates to 42 percent this year). Every bit of evidence (and history) points to Rolen as having the kind of momentum that's going to lead to election within two years, and you're reading all of it to say the exact opposite.

In particular, Rolen was +31 over Helton in the final tally of public votes, and +32 over Helton overall; they had basically the same level of support among private voters. How that translates to private voters being willing to support Helton but not Rolen, I have no idea.

there's an old saw about someone asking a sportswriter "Do you root for teams when you cover games?"

and the answer is - well, no. but the better-remembered and also accurate reply is, "You root for the story."

My answer was always, "no overtime."

There isn't a clear standard about how good a reliever has to be in order to be Hall worthy. Rivera's clearly above the threshold, but who's a good borderline case? Papelbon? Quisenberry?

There is an clear standard I wrote this last year (just copying and pasting. (Think of this stat like the way writers use wins)

Till the end is copied from last year



voters love saves and wins, but they also value long saves more than short ones. adjusting saves based innings clearly makes a career in/out line.

saves with 4+ outs
1 Rollie Fingers 201
2 Rich Gossage 193
3 Bruce Sutter 188
4 Lee Smith 169
5 Dan Quisenberry 160
6 Jeff Reardon 152
7 Hoyt Wilhelm 148
8 Sparky Lyle 134
9 Mike Marshall 127
9 Gene Garber 127
11 Mariano Rivera 119
12 Dave Righetti 108
13 Stu Miller 107
13 Ron Perranoski 107
15 Dennis Eckersley 106
15 Doug Jones 106
17 Steve Bedrosian 105
18 Tug McGraw 104
19 Kent Tekulve 100
20 Lindy McDaniel 97


Saves with 6+ Outs
1 Rollie Fingers 135
2 Bruce Sutter 130
3 Goose Gossage 125
4 Dan Quisenberry 120
5 Hoyt Wilhelm 118
6 Gene Garber 107
7 Mike Marshall 95
8 Lee Smith 94
9 Sparky Lyle 91
10 Tug McGraw 79
11 Jeff Reardon 78
12 Steve Bedrosian 77
12 Ron Perranoski 77
14 Lindy McDaniel 74
14 Stu Miller 74
16 Greg Minton 71
17 Bill Campbell 66
18 Bob Stanley 65
19 Roger McDowell 63
19 Don McMahon 63


Saves with 9+ Outs
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 53
2 Gene Garber 52
3 Mike Marshall 40
4 Bob Stanley 37
5 Dan Quisenberry 37
6 Rollie Fingers 36
7 Bill Campbell 35
8 Sparky Lyle 32
9 Tug McGraw 31
10 John Hiller 29
11 Lindy McDaniel 28
12 Gary Lavelle 28
13 Roger McDowell 27
14 Aurelio Lopez 27
15 Pedro Borbon 27
16 Clay Carroll 25
17 Rich Gossage 24
18 Ron Reed 23
19 Dick Radatz 23
20 Darold Knowles 23
21 Dave Giusti 23

wins in relief
1 Hoyt Wilhelm 124
2 Lindy McDaniel 119
3 Rich Gossage 115
4 Rollie Fingers 107
5 Sparky Lyle 99
6 Roy Face 96
7 Kent Tekulve 94
8 Gene Garber 94
9 Mike Marshall 92
10 John Franco 90
10 Don McMahon 90
12 Tug McGraw 89
13 Clay Carroll 88
14 Jesse Orosco 87
15 Bob Stanley 85
16 Bill Campbell 80
16 Gary Lavelle 80
18 Mariano Rivera 79
18 Stu Miller 79
18 Ron Perranoski 79
18 Tom Burgmeier 79


so tabulating
1 point for every save 3 outs or less
1.5 point for a 4-5 out save
2 points for every 6+ out save
2 points for a win in relief
3 points for every 9+ out save

you have a clear in out line for the hall, just using saves and Wins in Relief
700 for a career, 600 with a great peak and 555 if you have a peak like ECKs and have a starting career to go with it.

numbers are inning save, 4/5 out save, 6+ out save, 9+ out save, Wins in Relief, weighted victory points

Just taking a sampling from different eras this would thus be the Relief equivalent of a wins like stat for relief pitchers with similar flaws to wins. To compare them to how the hall sees wins divide this number by 3.
Mariano Rivera 533-108-11-0-79=875 (HOF)
Rollie Fingers 140-66-99-36-107 =759 (HOF)
Trevor Hoffman 546-48-7-0-61=754 (HOF)
Lee Smith 309-75-94-0-71=751.5 (HOF vets)
Rich Gossage 117-68-101-24-115=723 (HOF)
John Franco 334-53-31-6-90=673.5 (got 4.6% in 2011)
Hoyt Wilhelm 80-30-65-53-124=662 (HOF)
Jeff Reardon 215-74-65-13-73=641 (got 4.8% in 2000)
Bruce Sutter 112-58-115-15-68=610 (HOF)
Gene Garber 70-41-55-52-94=585.5
Sparky Lyle 104-43-59-32-99=580.5 (got 13.1% in 1988)
Doug Jones 197-44-57-5-89=570
Francisco Rodriguez 405-30-2-0-52=558
Dennis Eckersley 284-80-26-1-48=555 (HOF)
Dan Quisenberry 84-40-83-37-56=533
Billy Wagner 386-32-3-1-47=526
Lindy McDaniel 77-23-46-28-119=525.5
Mike Marshall 61-32-55-40-92=523
Randy Myers 257-56-31-3-42=496
Joe Nathan 366-10-1-0-52=487
Tug McGraw 76-25-48-31-89=480.5
Kent Tekulve 84-38-43-19-94=472
Jonathan Papelbon 331-36-1-0-41=469
Tom Henke 215-54-39-3-41=465
Dave Righetti 144-52-50-6-46=432
Steve Bedrosian 79-28-63-14-65=419
Craig Kimbrel 332-14-0-0-31=415
Bob Stanley 48-19-28-37-85=413.5
Roger McDowell 71-25-36-27-70=401.5
Bill Campbell 43-17-31-35-80=395.5
John Smoltz 119-24-11-0-4=185 (HOF)


This is not meant to be a real stat just something (I came up with after seeing this post last night) that is supposed to be similar to some of the Bill James HOF tests that show the likelihood of getting in, not the worthiness of it.

For anyone thinking about the Veterans Committee, in general, not necessarily regarding Schilling, Jayson Stark said this about why he didn't vote for Andruw:

A few years back, I was honored to serve on the Hall of Fame’s Modern Baseball Era Committee. That gave me the privilege of spending many hours talking about Cooperstown cred with a bunch of smart, caring, articulate Hall of Famers (including the late Don Sutton, whose insights on everyone we discussed were so valuable).

Over the course of those conversations, one question came up more than any other: How long, those Hall of Fame players asked repeatedly, was this guy’s period of greatness? Over the course of that day, I learned something I now think about all the time: The clear feeling of those players was that, if a player couldn’t sustain a certain level of dominance well into his 30s, they believed that didn’t qualify him for a plaque alongside theirs.

Good think the writers voted in Griffey, Jr.

SoSH: It is complicated, but I'd rather see them wrestle with [the character clause] than throw up their hands. I suppose the I'd vote for a murderer among you would never have to do any soul searching come voting time, but I'd rather withhold an honor from Vizquel than worry that it's not fair that old-time wife beaters got off scott free.

They're not wrestling with the clause as evidenced by the fact that character is only ever a negative or maybe a neutral (e.g., one's character wasn't a problem) attribute. Pick any one of Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, or Manny as the Hall-eligible guy who is the embodiment of bad character. Who is the positive-character opposite of your pick? Answer: Curtis Granderson. Writers won't come close to putting him in.

And I'm not saying they should put him in. But wrestling with an idea suggests grappling with all sides of an idea, and writers are really only wrestling with ideas of bad character.

Doesn't matter whether you're talking about gender equality, racism, or LGBTQ issues. There has been one long, universal direction.

Utter garbage I can name 1,000s of people who in the 60s supported civil rights, and in the 70s, opposed the era, in 80s opposed lgbt rights.
All for their view of biblical based morality

And I can also name 1,000s of people who strongly opposed civil rights in the 60's, also supported the era in the 70s, lgbt rights in the 80.

Majority of those who were still in the Senate who voted against the 64 civil rights bill, voted against bork, including the most racist member of Congress.


In fact I venture to guess if every slave owner and every abolitionist went In a time machine and came to modern day America. And you polled them on lgbt rights for example. The abolitionists probably would be more against them.

Even things like the women vote, oregon (was one of the earlier states to grant it, while still officially having laws on the books banning blacks from living there.

The feminists pejoratively call Terfs is very against transgender, but will push stronger then the woke crowd for the other things on your list.



George wallace before his "change" on civil rights was pro abortion.
In short l, g, b, t, sex, and race, have nothing to do with each other. In the sense those who are the leading advocates on one can oppose the others. (Some like lgbt usually go together, but others like race more often than not historically didn't go together (This is just In the American sense, using world history makes your statement more laughable Rome super homosexual, zero transgender, racist, and sexist.

Ask a bunch of baseball fans to name every 500 HR hitter off the top of their heads, and I'd bet that Sheff is the one that gets forgotten the most (at least amongst modern players

Rafael Palmeiro

For all those attacking my autospell check of Olbermann. The only way to get it to work easily on this phone is copying and pasting (ditto with the previous name, except was even less readable)

They're not wrestling with the clause as evidenced by the fact that character is only ever a negative or maybe a neutral (e.g., one's character wasn't a problem) attribute. Pick any one of Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, or Manny as the Hall-eligible guy who is the embodiment of bad character. Who is the positive-character opposite of your pick? Answer: Curtis Granderson. Writers won't come close to putting him in.

Nor should they, regardless how much I love Curtis. Having great character, by itself, does not make one a Hall of Famer.

But lots of guys have benefited from this concept, including at least one (Kirby Puckett) who, it turns out, shouldn't have. Pops Stargell sure as hell did. Clemente did. Robinson did. Tony Perez did. David Ortiz is probably going to. It's not the entirety of their cases, because it shouldn't be, but it's a factor. A player deemed the leader of a successful team, like Perez or Ortiz, is going to get viewed more favorably, and that's a clearly a character issue.

And I guess I look at it this way. We don't hold the worst of the Hall talent mistakes as the barrier for entry. So why should we hold the worst of the character ones? That voters overlooked wife beaters in the past, when society as a whole overlooked it in general, is not really an excuse to do it in the future, any more than the Vets committee electing High Pockets Kelly is a good reason to usher in Steve Garvey.

If I were a voter, and I were previously inclined, I would not have given a vote to Omar Vizquel this year. I wouldn't vote for baseball's equivalent of Rae Carruth were such a creature to put together a Hall-worthy career before becoming so homicidey. It's an honor, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to bestow one on an individual whose conduct clearly doesn't warrant being honored by society.

A few years back, I was honored to serve on the Hall of Fame’s Modern Baseball Era Committee. That gave me the privilege of spending many hours talking about Cooperstown cred with a bunch of smart, caring, articulate Hall of Famers (including the late Don Sutton, whose insights on everyone we discussed were so valuable).

The Hall of Famers: George Brett, Rod Carew, Bobby Cox, Dennis Eckersley, John Schuerholz, Don Sutton, Dave Winfield, Robin Yount

Elected Morris and trammel
Put on Griffey, alomar, sutter, etc not sure this view holds
All hitters have 3000 hits, sutton's not making the hall without hang time, and eckersley has his second career

Put on Griffey, alomar, sutter, etc not sure this view holds

Roberto Alomar, Ozzie Smith and Joe Morgan, sub 3,000-hit men all, were on the committee that elected Smith and Baines, two compilers over some higher peak guys on the ballot.

I suspect a thorough study would show the Vets committees are more career-centric than the BBWAA.

I counter with ted Simmons. He largly fails the good after 30 test.

Ps ozzie smith is a proof against you, ozzies best years were after 30
Ozzie till including 30 (using bb ref)
243/317/306 78 ops+
31 and over
278/354/347 94 ops+

If Curt Schilling had issued a statement half as dignified as Omar Vizquel’s, he’d probably get voted in next year.

If Curt Schilling had issued a statement half as dignified as Omar Vizquel’s, he’d probably get voted in next year.

Since the attack on him is 100% political, it would work because he will stop advocating for positions he believes in (regardless of the merits or demerits of his positions), if he caves it will strengthen the hand of the woke terrorists. The most dangerous threat in the world.

Yet, yest.... here we stand.

With a lot of people upset because government forms have some additional drop-downs beyond Mr/Mrs (or hey, go back a generation when "Ms" was the big downfall of civilization).

Stand by my point.

it would take a concerted effort against Ortiz to downplay the "narrative" angle, and I don't think it's possible. the PED issue is more complicated.

I think it was John Smoltz who said it during Ortiz' last All Star Game. He was discussing Jeter and Ortiz and he said something to the effect of "the difference is that Jeter is respected by everyone in the game, Ortiz is loved by everyone in the game." I'd see it when I went to Sox games. Before the game several players from the other team would always go over during warmups and greet Ortiz. There would be hugs, handshakes and everyone would smile and laugh. This is not to dismiss the very reasonable arguments about his career value but just to note that the narrative and his status in the game is going to push him over the line pretty quickly I think.

My answer was always, "no overtime."

There was definitely a small mini-party on the floor of MLBAM the night Buehrle failed to throw his second perfect game/no hitter in a row.


woke terrorists. The most dangerous threat in the world.

What episode of RuPaul's Drag Race: The Opera have I wandered into? Good lord girl, the drama.


Pops Stargell sure as hell did. Clemente did. Robinson did. Tony Perez did. David Ortiz is probably going to.

Am I remembering wrongly that this argument may have been made (wrongly or rightly - more asking about whether it came up) on Dawson and Vlad? (Also, re: Clemente, had any player with 3000 hits not made the HOF, then or now? Seems like an odd inclusion.)

Good think the writers voted in Griffey, Jr.

starting with his age 31 season, Andruw played 435 games, with an ops+ of 95 and 1.7 WAR and wa done at 35.
starting with his age 31 season, Junior played 991 games, with an ops+ of 114 and 7.6 WAR (8.4 without his brief return to Seattle). From 31-35 KGJ's ops+ was 130.

They're not wrestling with the clause as evidenced by the fact that character is only ever a negative or maybe a neutral (e.g., one's character wasn't a problem) attribute.

I disagree. See the comments on Ortiz's "narrative." I'd be shocked if it hasn't helped some borderline players as it's hurt others. (Perhaps a smaller outbuilding at Cooperstown, a Hall of Infamy, as a complement?)

The winds you hate have consistently, inexorably, undeniably blown in the same direction going back centuries. The parties leveraging the headwinds have changed - sometimes they reorient to cobble together coalitions that result in who makes up the forefront and who represents the obstinate rear change, but that drive of morality -- and specifically, that involving the "woke" and "SJW" aspects have gone in one direction at least since the dawn of the country, if not globally.

Doesn't matter whether you're talking about gender equality, racism, or LGBTQ issues. There has been one long, universal direction.

While this is certainly a healthy perspective on the human experience and condition, it's historical illiterate and laughably so. There shouldn't need to be a reminder of things like Hitler's Germany, Stalin and his pre-Gorby successors' Soviet Union, Mao's China, much less things like Pol Pot's Cambodia. Even as we sit here today, illiberalism is on the march and human rights liberalism on the defensive if not in retreat. The type of liberalism and openness and quest for equality we see in things like America's 1975 to 2001-ish peak is an historical accident in long sweep terms. And America is less liberal and open today than at its peak, by quite a bit actually. The paranoid streak that's always been here has returned with a vengeance, as has a form of neo-McCarthyism.

#263 - Maybe on the field Palmeiro was more forgettable (I'd agree; I LOVED the Sheffield bat waggle!), but Raffy made himself memorable for humorous and/or groan worthy reasons (getting traded from the Cubs for hooking up with Sandberg's wife, pitching Viagra, winning a gold glove as a DH, pointing his finger at Congress and adamantly denying ever using PED's...only to become the first big name to test positive and get suspended later that year, his 3000 hit parade getting cancelled because of that positive test, etc).

Re 262: The people that are the "right side" about one or two things like to imagine themselves being on the right side about everything. And they always have been! And history backs them up! We have always been at war with Eastasia...!

History is, mostly, going in the right way, yes, but in fits and starts. (Welcome to the latest fit.)

History is going the wrong way in the United States. The only reason some people think otherwise is that they've recently been empowered by modern communication tools and they're a bit drunk with their power. But it's little different than the McCarthy era and the McCarthy era was obviously a far lesser state of affairs than, say, 1975-2001.

Things will likely turn back around, but maybe not. With the tools of private and public surveillance we now have and with the ability they give to efficiently and quickly enforce "norms," we may be on a permanent downturn.

Re 262: The people that are the "right side" about one or two things like to imagine themselves being on the right side about everything. And they always have been! And history backs them up! We have always been at war with Eastasia...!

History is, mostly, going in the right way, yes, but in fits and starts. (Welcome to the latest fit.)

Nope. I've been on the wrong side of lots of things, from the baseball future of Bobby Hill to the future of Firefly.

But I'm quite happy with the direction, albeit understanding that I just think the direction is right but not among the folks who would say "but not there yet" from direct experience.

Further to #275 Bill James argues that Catfish Hunter is a character inclusion.

I know Rabbit Maranville was. Hell, the "here's why I'm voting for him" articles focus very heavily on this. Yeah, you can make a "long career, great glove" case for him, but nobody bothered.

Does being a friend of Frankie Frisch count as positive character?

Another way to look at it: Check the borderline HOF cases. Pretty sure they'll skew heavily good guy.

I do know Landis wanted to make character more prominent -- advocating for Eddie Grant for instance (KIA in WWI). But he pretty clearly lost that argument.

I remember a now ancient ASG stunt that had a promotional element involving a 1-900 number voting Yes/No for Bob Uecker for the HoF.

I never quite found out if it was serious or not, I presume not... All I know is that I got in trouble for running up our phone bill.

111. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 27, 2021 at 01:52 AM (#6002079)

I don’t have a problem with voters who take a hard-line view on PEDs. But the logical extension of the anti-PED stance is that the statistical bar for clean players should be lower, because the numbers that they did put up were compiled against a lot of cheating players. Like, if Scott Rolen only faced clean competition, (a) his raw stats would likely have been better, (b) the same raw stats would have translated to better advanced stats, because the “average” and “replacement” baselines would have been lower.

Who is/was clean? Seriously, who do you know with 100% certainty was clean? And that is the problem about the moralizing over PEDs - is all based on assumptions and we really don't KNOW.

Who is/was clean? Seriously, who do you know with 100% certainty was clean? And that is the problem about the moralizing over PEDs - is all based on assumptions and we really don't KNOW.

What part of my post are you arguing with? Do you think that the writers who aren’t voting for guys like Bonds/Clemens *or* Rolen are boycotting all players from that era? Sure doesn’t seem that way to me. They just don’t think Rolen cleared the bar for HOF induction.

@Ron J I had to look up Grant, whose statistics--traditional or advanced--are in no way impressive. What was Landis's case, if any, beyond Grant's death in combat?

#285 Literally nothing beyond his being the first (former -- he'd actually retired to practice law full time) player to enlist as well as being KIA.

194. RJ in TO Posted: January 27, 2021 at 03:08 PM (#6002227)
Should have left Troy out as he's already been passed over.
He'll be eligible for the VC.

True, I just don't think we've seen anything from the VC or Era Committee's that indicate how they feel about relievers who didn't get significand BBWAA support. They put Smith in with no hesitation, but he debuted pretty strongly and, although he didn't really build a great deal of momentum, he did get to 50% before getting swamped by the ballot glut.

193. The Duke Posted: I find it interesting that so many people think Ortiz will be inducted next year. If you were predicting how writers on this blog would vote you would be right. I highly, highly doubt 75% of the BBWA are voting for Ortiz. He might get in over time if everyone decides to ignore the PEDs. But even without that he’s a borderline candidate. I suspect he will wallow around the Gary Sheffield area.

Borderline of what though? Is he a DH? Because with Edgar popping the DH cherry, Ortiz doesn't look very borderline to me.

196. caspian88 Posted: David Ortiz is pretty much only similar to Gary Sheffield on Baseball Reference and in suspicion of steroid use. In terms of HOF narratives, they're not even vaguely alike. I'll be surprised if Ortiz isn't in after two ballots.

Yep, and this is why he doesn't look borderline, or like Sheffield. Narrative matters, personality matters, and Ortiz has both in a big way over Sheffield.

Never mind.

Was there ever any actual evidence that Sheffield used PEDs?

Sheffield admitted to using the cream. However, he hit upon an outstanding strategy to mitigate his offense - blame Barry.

Borderline of what though? Is he a DH? Because with Edgar popping the DH cherry, Ortiz doesn't look very borderline to me.

Right. The Ortiz, will they or won't they stuff was interesting in like 2013 post World Series, when some thought he'd go in just on narrative/postseason heroics, and some didn't. But then he finished (very) strong, got to 541 HRs, etc. I don't even really see him as borderline anymore.

284. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 28, 2021 at 10:52 AM (#6002407)
Who is/was clean? Seriously, who do you know with 100% certainty was clean? And that is the problem about the moralizing over PEDs - is all based on assumptions and we really don't KNOW.

What part of my post are you arguing with?

Wasn't arguing with your post specifically. More the overall assumption that those who didn't test positive were necessarily "clean" or didn't care enough to try to be at their best. Personally, I just don't care about PEDs. Taking supplements, eating well, exercising, practicing, taking vitamins, sleeping in hyperbaric chambers, Lasik surgery, whatever else players do to try to be better prepared to play than the other guy is all irrelevant. All that matters is what actually happened on the field. David Wells and Gaylord Perry were not exactly gym rats but they were successful anyway. We can probably name dozens who were workout fiends and looked like Adonis but couldn't hit major league pitching.

Nope. I've been on the wrong side of lots of things

That's in pretty stark contrast to your earlier yammering about "gender equality, racism, or LGBTQ issues" (which are three very different things, but never mind) all going in the right direction, with you, bravely, at the head...and concluded with the tasty bon mot, "live in the new world or die in the old one." (As always, there's only two choices, and you damn well better pick the correct one, bigot!)

the baseball future of Bobby Hill

Don't play lawyer-ball, son.

226. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: I’ve kind of accepted that it’s difficult to draw a line between Hoffman and Wagner. My gut always told me that Hoffman was the more consistent and durable pitcher, but that’s not really supported by the stats. Hoffman basically pitched 3 more seasons than Wagner but they are extremely close in career value. I don’t know if that means Hoffman shouldn’t be in or Wagner should be out, but given that Hoffman basically sailed in, I’m ok with Wagner going in as well. I don’t think it will necessarily open the floodgates.

This is my hope, that Wagner, if he goes in, does not lead to a great deal more selections of one inning relievers, but it is my fear that he will. The writers have elected more relief pitchers than any other position (except starting pitcher, of course, and no, I don't consider reliever a position, but as SoSH has noted the writers certainly seem to) since 1985 when they elected Wilhelm, and that doesn't include Smith who went in via VC. They created the narrative of the Fireman, which gave us Fingers, Gossage, and Sutter, they created the narrative of THE CLOSER. How can they not then vote their own story when it comes to HOF time? This role, this position, is SO crucial, because we've said it is, that we must believe our own stories and we must vote for still more relievers! Hopefully I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but only time will tell. I am going to continue to try to contact voters and push the case against relievers because the absurdity of a pitcher who has only around 600 IP (Wagner with only 903 IP regularly would pitch in about 1/3 of his innings in low leverage situations, his team trailing or so far in the lead it was not a Save situation) in high leverage situations receiving more votes than a player who regularly has more than 600 PA's per season, along with more than twice 600 innings on defense per season, is beyond the ken!

Since the attack on him is 100% political, it would work because he will stop advocating for positions he believes in (regardless of the merits or demerits of his positions), if he caves it will strengthen the hand of the woke terrorists. The most dangerous threat in the world.

Contending that a child nearly murdered in his school was a paid actor is not a "position."

I am going to continue to try to contact voters and push the case against relievers

It seems to me that the folks you ought to be writing to if you have a problem with relievers are the teams themselves.

They created the narrative of the Fireman, which gave us Fingers, Gossage, and Sutter, they created the narrative of THE CLOSER. How can they not then vote their own story when it comes to HOF time?

It is a position, if not in the most literal sense, in which case starter also isn't a a position; there is only Pitcher. It is certainly a role, one remunerated well because integral to the game as managed today. If the value of the closer is a fiction, it's one believed by FOs, which are not dependent on writers' opinions.

It is a position, if not in the most literal sense, in which case starter also isn't a a position; there is only Pitcher. It is certainly a role, one remunerated well because integral to the game as managed today. If the value of the closer is a fiction, it's one believed by FOs, which are not dependent on writers' opinions.

There is only pitcher, starter or reliever is simply a role. As to value, where are the closers being paid more than top position players or starting pitchers? It would be interesting to see how the closers are paid relative to other relievers as well.

How can they not then vote their own story when it comes to HOF time?

They talked about Dale Murphy as a future Hall of Famer for years, and then let him linger on the bottom of the ballot for his entire time. They did the same to Trammell. For Lou Whitaker, they didn't even bother keeping him at the bottom of the ballot. There are all sorts of examples of players who the writers said were supposed to cruise into the Hall of Fame, and when it hit voting time, those players found themselves on the outside.

The guys creating the story are not necessarily the same ones voting on the story 10, 15, or 20+ years later, and even if they are the same people voting, they're not bound to their thoughts from decades ago.

That's in pretty stark contrast to your earlier yammering about "gender equality, racism, or LGBTQ issues" (which are three very different things, but never mind) all going in the right direction, with you, bravely, at the head...and concluded with the tasty bon mot, "live in the new world or die in the old one." (As always, there's only two choices, and you damn well better pick the correct one, bigot!)

Nope, try again.

I've never claimed, nor would I because it would be silly, that simply using social issues a a voting decision deal breaker, occasionally tossing a few bucks and hours at causes I believe in, or yammering on the internet makes me at all brave... much less, at the head of anything. I prefer to think of it as simply facing the direction at minimum, being little more than pebble in a glacier at most.

But live in the new world or die in the old is less a tasty bon mot than it is good advice that transcends social and political issues. Rarely does life progress otherwise... I suppose the Microsoft folks actually did bring back the Start button though.