Immortality for Henderson and Rice

Centerfield · January 13, 2009

="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments."

You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process.

Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines.

My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider:

1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy
2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend).

And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own.

You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"?

Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong.

I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions.

="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical.

Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell.

January 13, 2009

="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here?

You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that.

="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can.

I'm just responding to what you write.

="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines.

Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all.

="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider:

1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy
2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend).

You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities.

="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own.

By the same token, you made up your own.

="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process."

That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently.

="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions?

Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful.

="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"?

By making a rational argument that moves their heart.

="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical.

="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself.

No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election.

="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell.

I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Guest

metsmarathon · January 13, 2009

i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections.

...

i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it.

and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody?

and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote.

and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey.

January 13, 2009

The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it.

It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame.

metirish · January 13, 2009

In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson.

]
The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions.

it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way.

metsmarathon · January 13, 2009

from the hall's own rules:

]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

well, that answers my question. thanks.

Centerfield · January 13, 2009

I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position.

="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful.

I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following:

Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote.

He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria).

To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee.

Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb.

I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys.

But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy.

nymr83 · January 13, 2009

maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out

January 13, 2009

Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account.

I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate.

And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Guest

Gwreck · January 13, 2009

="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion.

If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him.

Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o]

Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds?

I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.

Nymr83
Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM

he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one.

what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord?
if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions.

SteveJRogers
Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM

I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids.

The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers.

Valadius
Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM

He was subpoenaed:

]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern
Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids
Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify
NEW YORK (CBS) ―
Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned.

Elster88
Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM

1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context.
2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for.

Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct.

Edgy DC
Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM

Why is unanimity so important to you?

Elster88
Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM

Are you addressing me?

Edgy DC
Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM

Yes, please.

Elster88
Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM

Unanimity is not important to me.

Edgy DC
Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM

Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it.

Elster88
Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM

I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted.

Edgy DC
Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM

It does not have nothing to do with what you posted.

There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections.

And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.

Elster88
Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM

You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly.

I shall clarify one more time.

I want the voters to be
1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers
2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context
3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame
4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame

Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote.

Elster88
Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM

="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s]

Really?

Edgy DC
Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM

Great. Good night.

metsmarathon
Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM

i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it.

granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees.

and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right.

Centerfield
Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM

="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account.

I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate.

And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote.

I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain.

If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions.

However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee.

You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by:

1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all)
2. Reading his ballot.

By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future.

On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.)

Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone.

And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it.

And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage.

The criteria are:

1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments"
2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments.
3. Integrity - Is he a good guy?
4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy?
5. Character - Is he a good guy?
6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments.

If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate."

Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard.

Centerfield
Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM

="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]

="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion.

If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him.

Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m]

Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds?

I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m]

As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys".

If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that.

Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two.

HahnSolo
Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM

Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party.

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM

="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation.

Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was,

="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded.

You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable.

="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain.

Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up.

="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone.

Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard.

="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking.

Then I ask you to think about it some more.

="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions.

Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon!

Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought.

The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to.

="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate.

You wrote it and I disagree with it.

="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments"
2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments.
3. Integrity - Is he a good guy?
4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy?
5. Character - Is he a good guy?
6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments.

By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group.

="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard.

I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right.

It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system.

It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles.

Frayed Knot
Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM

]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote.

They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers.

Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out.

Centerfield
Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM

I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue.

1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all.

2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one.

3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates.

Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately.

4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here:

Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard.

Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced.

I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization.

Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment.

Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree.

Nymr83
Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM

I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was)

I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players.

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM

="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity:

Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance.

="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance:

In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response.

="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments:

I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it.

Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria.

="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters:

You don't monitor voters. You debate them.

I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to.

MFS62
Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM

Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility.

This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration.
And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election.

Later

metsmarathon
Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM

i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years?

i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention.

if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM

]You don't monitor voters. You debate them.

Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach.

Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say.

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM

A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.

Vic Sage
Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM

="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y]

As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives.

the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM

Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors.

The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA.

If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot.

MFS62
Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM

="Edgy DC":scjwko15]
The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA.

[/quote:scjwko15]
Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years.

Later

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM

True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.)

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM

="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19]
More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that.

Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well.

Edgy DC
Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM

="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq]
If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

nymr83 · January 13, 2009

he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one.

what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord?
if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions.

stevejrogers · January 13, 2009

I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids.

The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers.

Valadius · January 13, 2009

He was subpoenaed:

]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern
Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids
Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify
NEW YORK (CBS) ―
Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned.

Elster88 · January 13, 2009

1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context.
2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for.

Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct.

January 13, 2009

Why is unanimity so important to you?

Elster88 · January 13, 2009

Are you addressing me?

January 13, 2009

Yes, please.

Elster88 · January 13, 2009

Unanimity is not important to me.

January 13, 2009

Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it.

Elster88 · January 13, 2009

I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted.

January 13, 2009

It does not have nothing to do with what you posted.

There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections.

And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.

Elster88 · January 13, 2009

You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly.

I shall clarify one more time.

I want the voters to be
1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers
2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context
3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame
4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame

Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote.

Elster88 · January 13, 2009