stevejrogers

="Gwreck":28khau2g]="Centerfield":28khau2g]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:28khau2g] There's a difference?[/quote:28khau2g] TECHNICALLY McGwire was only guilty of having a masking agent, which was legal in baseball at the time, in his locker. His name hasn't been officially named in any court document, or report. The only things people have on him is that his name is in the original Canseco book, anecdotal evidence (body size pre-Oakland, and post baseball) and "I'm not here to talk about the past." SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:52 PM ="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] 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. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM 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. 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. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="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. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="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. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM 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. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM 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 Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM 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. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="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.

="Edgy DC":19453cj2] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:19453cj2] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:13 PM Rickey on MLB Hot Stove talking about Rickey getting into the HOF. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:35 PM ="Nymr83"]the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. I got the impression that he either didn't double check his work and or didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot or played the first-ballot game, not that he was unaware of Henderson's career. Double checked and it seems to be a combination of the two. He overlooked it and then stubbornly refused to review when it was pointed out. http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_11408571 Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? On the other hand, we screw up too. The guy is from The Tucson Citizen and not Oakland at all. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:36 PM ="SteveJRogers":2mcf9cv6]="Edgy DC":2mcf9cv6] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:2mcf9cv6] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days.[/quote:2mcf9cv6] I don't care what it's based on. My point is that he would have gotten strong support, no matter the voters' motives, if his career petered out on it's tracjectory from that point with, say, 30 more victories. themetfairy Jan 12 2009 05:45 PM Fanhouse speculates on the content of Rickey's HOF acceptance speech[/url:25za1esj]. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 05:47 PM ="Edgy DC":ri22fmh2] Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? [/quote:ri22fmh2] Watch it, you young whippersnapper. Er, I see your point. Later Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:06 PM ="Centerfield":o99zxfxb]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:o99zxfxb] There's a difference? metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 07:43 PM i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... that THT article is great. i've been wondering the same thing myself, as a result of an especially time-wasty hof-related project i'm miring myself in... SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:50 PM ="Gwreck":28khau2g]="Centerfield":28khau2g]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:28khau2g] There's a difference?[/quote:28khau2g] TECHNICALLY McGwire was only guilty of having a masking agent, which was legal in baseball at the time, in his locker. His name hasn't been officially named in any court document, or report. The only things people have on him is that his name is in the original Canseco book, anecdotal evidence (body size pre-Oakland, and post baseball) and "I'm not here to talk about the past." SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:52 PM ="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] 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. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM 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. 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. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="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. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="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. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM 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. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM 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 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM 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 Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM 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. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="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.

="G-Fafif":2dczqg4a]To DocTee (and anybody interested), we'll be refilling the XL section of the FAFIF tees in short order...and hoping that while we have inventory, 31 isn't retired.[/quote:2dczqg4a] Are you planning on adding the word "SHEA" to the shirt as well?

="Frayed Knot"]One thing I've only heard mentioned once so far (briefly by Gammons) is that Teixeira wasn't exactly a big ARod fan when the two were in Texas together. IIRC, he and Blalock (and maybe a couple of the other young players) got pretty sick of Alex's all-knowing older-bother routine. Being reminded constantly to get good secondary lead, to wait for your pitch, yadda, yadda, kinda grows old real quickly. He probably figures that Alex isn't the big dog in the NYY clubhouse these days and is more reluctant to pull that shit. Funny, this was brought up by Michael Kay when he had Teixeira on, and Teixeira flat out denied that there was any heat between the two, and gave props to Rodriguez for that sort of behavior, and even said that he (Teixeira) actually sought Rodriguez out to pick his brain about the game. Course it is the diplomatic thing to say, but there are ways of saying everything when saying nothing, i.e. "Well, clubhouse rumors are clubhouse rumors. I have real hatred of Alex Rodriguez, but I'd rather not bring up the past at this time. All I really can say is that I look forward to being in the same lineup with such a great talent."

="Centerfield"]If we don't do it, we should at least start some rumors to light a fire under Derek Lowe's ass. I heard the Mets offered Sheets 2 years, $24 million. Ok Steve, go quote me on other boards. Only if it came from FK. Cause then it would be from Left Field! Yeah, I'll supply my own crickets

="Valadius":37nz4qvd]Who says I made any excuses? Obviously he changed his mind. So would I, after having the kind of second half he had last year.[/quote:37nz4qvd] Yeah but we probably would have heard about it by know, most likely around the time the Mets exercised the option. I mean who knows, we still may hear about it, but you'd think there would be a story saying "Delgado almost did the Mets a favor." Then again, there was nothing anywhere, all year long that suggested that he'd do the Mets a favor and retire, even with his first half.

="attgig":24qhj0cp]Sounds like the suspension in the NFL this past year. bunch of players (like Deuce McAllister) took a OTC dieuretic that was not in any banned substance list, but they suspended him anyway. The NFL didn't publish that drug because it helps to hide steroids in the blood. But then they suspend people anyways because they took it without knowing. in this case, it sounds like the players union screwed up and didn't get the info from MLB over to all the players.[/quote:24qhj0cp] In other words we have a misleading thread title! attgig Jan 05 2009 09:20 PM ="SteveJRogers":3iq18wtb]In other words we have a misleading thread title![/quote:3iq18wtb] I would say so. As much as I don't like the phils, I'm not going to hold this against him. Willets Point Jan 05 2009 09:33 PM I actually think he got a raw deal. Nymr83 Jan 05 2009 10:09 PM he got fucked. and i really don't see the point in baseball banning things that are over-the-counter legal in the united states, where do they draw the line? is caffeine a performance enhancer? Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 06:04 AM There are a lot of things that are over-the-counter legal that are banned from sports. Corked bats... vaseline... cutlery. How many games did he get for naming his daughter Jazlyn? Nymr83 Jan 06 2009 06:06 AM i'm talking about things you eat/drink and i'm sure you knew that Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 06:15 AM Yes, I know, and I don't think that makes a difference. The point is that a sports governors' are allowed to decide what's allowed and what isn't beyond what is banned by law --- whether it is equipment, athletic techniques, or dietary supplements used to mask performance enhancing drugs. A lot of the things banned by the International Olympic Committee are legally distributed. Androstenedione, for instance. Nymr83 Jan 06 2009 06:38 AM ]The point is that a sports governors' are allowed to decide thats not the point, because i never argued that they didn't have the authority to decide, i'm just arguing its a bad decision Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 07:00 AM It's my fucking point. And when you argue "i really don't see the point in baseball banning things that are over-the-counter legal in the united states," I'm tellling you it's done every day and all the time. The reason is to create a framework for the competition they intend to stage. metsguyinmichigan Jan 06 2009 07:19 AM ="Edgy DC":1d7kneh0] How many games did he get for naming his daughter Jazlyn?[/quote:1d7kneh0] That's what I was thinking, too. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 07:34 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2009 07:42 AM in ncaa competition, you can fail a drug test for having elevated levels of caffeine. Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 07:41 AM Thank you. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 07:56 AM and caffeine can be taken before and/or during exercise to improve one's performance, depending on the sport/activity. in fact, many popular and effective nutrient replacement products marketed to endurance athletes contain caffeine. and some of them are delicious, too! (the one on the left, yum. on the right, yuck!) to fail the ncaa drug test, i think you need to consume the equivalent of about 10 cups of coffee, depending on your metabolism. to fail the olympic drug test, 8 cups of coffee should suffice. this is way more than you'd expect a casual drinker of coffee to have in their system (depending, again, on your body and metabolism) the gu pictured above, which i highly recommend (again, the blueberry pomegranate is delicious. the vanilla orange, not), contains about a third a cup of coffee's worth, and should therefore be okie dokie with all the testing agencies in that regard. Nymr83 Jan 06 2009 08:21 AM thats just absurd. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 08:38 AM duan Jan 06 2009 09:26 AM ="Nymr83":34f8hfa5]thats just absurd.[/quote:34f8hfa5] no, it's true. duan Jan 06 2009 09:31 AM sorry I shouldn't be so flippant, but the reality is, Olympic athletes get pretty much EVERY SINGLE THING they put into their mouths approved by their federation's doctors. That's the way baseball players should think by default. Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2009 11:30 AM Lost in the shuffle here is that Sergio Mitre has gone down the same way. GNC is next to Scores in places that indicate highly questionable judgment for a professional athlete even to show up at. There's some loose threads here. If I'm reading the report correctly, Romero told a team trainer what he intended to take, the trainer inquired with the league, the league said no, and the trainer apparently never got back to JC or any other placers with that info. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 09:55 AM i would think it would behoove the various professional unions to establish a laboratory whose sole purpose would be to certify the cleanliness of OTC supplements. players could either submit a sample of a purchased supplement for analysis prior to use, or the supplement manufacturers could submit to random analysis of a given lot of supplement in return for a handy certification of goodness. jc romero, it appears, tried to do the right thing, and got fucked by a shady supplement. if he had the ingredients checked, and they checked out, then the manufacturer put something in there that shouldn't have been. currently, there's really no recourse for romero, but perhaps to sue the manufacturer. my way, he'd still have to be proactive and have the stuff checked out, but it would be a more vigorous analysis than just looking at the stated ingredients, and should prevent a player from taking supplements contaminated by the supplier. a further offshoot of this strategy would be to see teams stock up on the certified good stuff for their players to use with a clear conscience. and it really makes no sense as to why the fda stays the fuck out of the "nutrition" business. duan Jan 06 2009 09:58 AM i'm not sure if that's the way I read it. Either way, you're an athlete who gets drugs tested, ask that somethings ok to take from the people who make the rules, not from people who interpret them. Edgy DC Jan 06 2009 09:58 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2009 10:01 AM ="metsmarathon":36ldnps5]and it really makes no sense as to why the fda stays the fuck out of the "nutrition" business.[/quote:36ldnps5] Prediction: that'll change soon. metsguyinmichigan Jan 06 2009 10:00 AM So JC was taking these "supplements" because he thought they'd keep him healthy, like my psyllium seed husk tablets, or because he thought they were a legal way to enhance his performance? Frayed Knot Jan 06 2009 11:01 AM ="duan"]... Olympic athletes get pretty much EVERY SINGLE THING they put into their mouths approved by their federation's doctors. That's the way baseball players should think by default. And they'll likely get to that point, only now they're still a bit new at this. As is, apparently, their union. It sounds like Romero at least tried to do things the right way. I'd fight it if I were him too, although ultimately he may not have enough to stand on. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 11:17 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":2oiioy1d]So JC was taking these "supplements" because he thought they'd keep him healthy, like my psyllium seed husk tablets, or because he thought they were a legal way to enhance his performance?[/quote:2oiioy1d] for the same reason that i drink gatorade when i run. to supplement his nutritional intake in order to maximize either his potential for performance or his ability to recover afterwards. ain't nothing wrong with supplements, in general, unless suddenly we think that our professional athletes should be strict organic locavores. Frayed Knot Jan 06 2009 11:27 AM Will Carroll from BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1141 J.C. Romero was suspended for fifty games under terms of MLB�s drug policy. Just before it was handed down, Romero made his case public, the same one that the arbitrator rejected. With the NFL�s drug policy currently under attack in the Starcaps case, where six players took a supplement that was tainted with a diuretic but unknown to the players, this type of defense might hold water. Until you learn what Romero tested positive for. According to multiple sources, Romero tested positive for 6-OXO Extreme, a product that enhances testosterone production in ways very similar to anabolic steroids. While legal and still available at your local GNC, 6-OXO Extreme* has always carried a warning that it could result in positive tests. If you look at the above link, you�ll be able to find the same warning in the online information. But it gets better, or worse, if you�re Romero. 6-OXO is a product of Ergopharm. Ergopharm is owned and operated by a guy you might remember: Patrick Arnold. Yes, that one. Arnold was the source for the THG used by BALCO. Arnold served several months in jail due to his involvement and is now back in business. If Romero didn�t know what he was taking, he sure got unlucky in picking the product marked �for hardcore users only� and with a connection that baseball fans would rather forget. metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 11:32 AM ooh! i was just reading the same thing. apparently, the bottle that romero had did not contain the cited warning about the potential to test positive for banned substances, and its entirely likely that that warning was added to the bottles after the bottle romero had purchased was put on store shelves. the provenance of the company, while titillating, is really nothing that i would expect an athlete to look deeply into... metsmarathon Jan 06 2009 11:44 AM =" the philly inquirer[/url:8k89gky3]":8k89gky3]A new supplement Romero said he went to the store to look for a supplement in July, the time of year he typically starts weight training again. He went to the shelf where his usual supplement was stocked and noticed a new product, 6-OXO Extreme, next to it. Because the familiar supplement required him to take eight large pills a day, he was intrigued by the other product. The Major League Baseball Players' Association has told players that supplements purchased in U.S. retail stores should be safe and within the guidelines of baseball's drug-testing program. The union acknowledged giving that advice in a letter it sent out to players and their advisers in November. That letter, which arrived too late to help Romero, informed players that three over-the-counter supplements were found to create positive tests under baseball's drug program. In July, Romero showed the new supplement to Phillies strength coach Dong Lien, who recommended that Romero get a second opinion before using it. Romero then showed it to his personal nutritionist, "the guy I've been working with since I've been in major-league baseball," Romero said. That nutritionist checked the product's label and saw nothing on MLB's banned list. Romero began taking the supplement at that point. Meanwhile, according to the arbitrator's report, Lien sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing. The tests showed the supplement contained a substance that could result in a positive drug test. A copy of those results was sent to commissioner Bud Selig's office in July. Considering it was the first time a banned substance was found in an FDA-regulated, over-the-counter supplement - one available to every major-leaguer and millions of youths - that should have sounded alarms. But no one from MLB, the players' association or the Phillies told Romero that there was a problem with the supplement. So where was the negligence? With Romero? With Lien? With MLB? With a union that told Romero and other Latin players they could trust products in U.S. stores such as Vitamin Shoppe (where Romero purchased the supplement) or GNC?[/quote:8k89gky3] Centerfield Jan 06 2009 12:21 PM ="SteveJRogers":t4clidsw]="attgig":t4clidsw]Sounds like the suspension in the NFL this past year. bunch of players (like Deuce McAllister) took a OTC dieuretic that was not in any banned substance list, but they suspended him anyway. The NFL didn't publish that drug because it helps to hide steroids in the blood. But then they suspend people anyways because they took it without knowing. in this case, it sounds like the players union screwed up and didn't get the info from MLB over to all the players.[/quote:t4clidsw] In other words we have a misleading thread title![/quote:t4clidsw] Steve, why are you such a tool? Gwreck Jan 06 2009 07:03 PM I think Romero's beef is more with the Union than anyone. The MLB players union can't possibly be hurting for money -- I can't see why they wouldn't have full-time staff who can help players avoid these very problems.

="Edgy DC":cuzicc6n]Relaxarino, Steve. It's Rubin's blog, and clearly there's a different threshold for blog content, and little editorial oversite.[/quote:cuzicc6n] Withdrawn... Spacemans Bong Dec 31 2008 08:50 PM I don't really know why the Mets do this stuff. The Mets are unique among expansion teams in actually having an identity (compare to the Astros, who have changed their look four or five times). Blue from the Dodgers, orange from the Giants, a little kooky thrown in for good measure. Blue hats with an orange NY. Mets and number on pinstriped home unis, 1930s Giants-style New York on the roads (I could whine about how it's another example of Fred Wilpon disregarding the Giants tradition). That's it. The Mets butt in on every trend - pullovers, traditional pullovers, traditional-style buttonups, black trim - and it always looks bad compared to the classic unis. This is the uniform. Now stop fuckin' around. DocTee Dec 31 2008 08:53 PM Amen, brudda...but thems roads gotta be gray. seawolf17 Dec 31 2008 08:55 PM Bong! Holy cow! Long time no post! Hope to see you around more. ="Spacemans Bong":2pfqsqbh]I don't really know why the Mets do this stuff.[/quote:2pfqsqbh] That, however, would be to help support Fred's Bernie Madoff habit. Spacemans Bong Dec 31 2008 10:22 PM I was reading about some Mets stuff, thought of this place, then I thought "Why did I stop posting here?". Plus someone's gotta keep the NY Giants torch lit 'round here.. Edgy DC Jan 02 2009 07:43 AM G-FaFiF's helping on Giant duty, too, but welcome back. Let's be honest, though, the Mets have futzed around with this stuff before Wilpon came on board and they're as likely to futz around after he's gone. Spacemans Bong Jan 05 2009 01:54 PM ="Edgy DC":gx7itd7t]G-FaFiF's helping on Giant duty, too, but welcome back. Let's be honest, though, the Mets have futzed around with this stuff before Wilpon came on board and they're as likely to futz around after he's gone.[/quote:gx7itd7t] True, but in the end between Wilpon, Doubleday (What's baseball?), and M. Don Grant, that's not exactly the Tinker and Evers to Chance of baseball ownership. G-Fafif Jan 05 2009 01:57 PM ="Spacemans Bong":8ok7rcmx]="Edgy DC":8ok7rcmx]G-FaFiF's helping on Giant duty, too, but welcome back. Let's be honest, though, the Mets have futzed around with this stuff before Wilpon came on board and they're as likely to futz around after he's gone.[/quote:8ok7rcmx] True, but in the end between Wilpon, Doubleday (What's baseball?), and M. Don Grant, that's not exactly the Tinker and Evers to Chance of baseball ownership.[/quote:8ok7rcmx] Your New York Mets Management Team: Tinkers to Evers to Futz The more NYG torchbearing, the better.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":6a6omkpc]Isn't it funny how even when the information is wrong, the legit media is scooped by us interneters. I'm pretty sure Rubin's falling for the same falsehoods we did months ago.[/quote:6a6omkpc] It is more of a commentary on how the media, in all forms, has become such a "gotta break the story first" animal. I mean, yeah this was for his blog, which is different than an article in either the paper itself, or even the online edition, but still it is a small example of it. Funny about how this technological age is so driven in the point that simple research can be at our fingertips, yet it has created a laziness as well based on the desire to be the first outlet (major or otherwise) with a breaking story. metirish Dec 30 2008 06:15 PM Wrong again Bucket , thanks Steve for sorting that out. Edgy DC Dec 30 2008 06:21 PM Relaxarino, Steve. It's Rubin's blog, and clearly there's a different threshold for blog content, and little editorial oversite. SteveJRogers Dec 30 2008 06:24 PM ="Edgy DC":cuzicc6n]Relaxarino, Steve. It's Rubin's blog, and clearly there's a different threshold for blog content, and little editorial oversite.[/quote:cuzicc6n] Withdrawn... Spacemans Bong Dec 31 2008 08:50 PM I don't really know why the Mets do this stuff. The Mets are unique among expansion teams in actually having an identity (compare to the Astros, who have changed their look four or five times). Blue from the Dodgers, orange from the Giants, a little kooky thrown in for good measure. Blue hats with an orange NY. Mets and number on pinstriped home unis, 1930s Giants-style New York on the roads (I could whine about how it's another example of Fred Wilpon disregarding the Giants tradition). That's it. The Mets butt in on every trend - pullovers, traditional pullovers, traditional-style buttonups, black trim - and it always looks bad compared to the classic unis. This is the uniform. Now stop fuckin' around. DocTee Dec 31 2008 08:53 PM Amen, brudda...but thems roads gotta be gray. seawolf17 Dec 31 2008 08:55 PM Bong! Holy cow! Long time no post! Hope to see you around more. ="Spacemans Bong":2pfqsqbh]I don't really know why the Mets do this stuff.[/quote:2pfqsqbh] That, however, would be to help support Fred's Bernie Madoff habit. Spacemans Bong Dec 31 2008 10:22 PM I was reading about some Mets stuff, thought of this place, then I thought "Why did I stop posting here?". Plus someone's gotta keep the NY Giants torch lit 'round here.. Edgy DC Jan 02 2009 07:43 AM G-FaFiF's helping on Giant duty, too, but welcome back. Let's be honest, though, the Mets have futzed around with this stuff before Wilpon came on board and they're as likely to futz around after he's gone. Spacemans Bong Jan 05 2009 01:54 PM ="Edgy DC":gx7itd7t]G-FaFiF's helping on Giant duty, too, but welcome back. Let's be honest, though, the Mets have futzed around with this stuff before Wilpon came on board and they're as likely to futz around after he's gone.[/quote:gx7itd7t] True, but in the end between Wilpon, Doubleday (What's baseball?), and M. Don Grant, that's not exactly the Tinker and Evers to Chance of baseball ownership. G-Fafif Jan 05 2009 01:57 PM ="Spacemans Bong":8ok7rcmx]="Edgy DC":8ok7rcmx]G-FaFiF's helping on Giant duty, too, but welcome back. Let's be honest, though, the Mets have futzed around with this stuff before Wilpon came on board and they're as likely to futz around after he's gone.[/quote:8ok7rcmx] True, but in the end between Wilpon, Doubleday (What's baseball?), and M. Don Grant, that's not exactly the Tinker and Evers to Chance of baseball ownership.[/quote:8ok7rcmx] Your New York Mets Management Team: Tinkers to Evers to Futz The more NYG torchbearing, the better.

Well, it was odd, and technically a Met "story" since the arguments center around the public paying for Citi Field from tax handouts and the Citigroup bailout, which really haven't been reported much (the Yankees have been) and discussed on other forums. So yeah it belongs in this thread.

="Frayed Knot"]="SteveJRogers"]An under reported story of how the Wilpons aren't paying a single cent for Citi Field They're not? Not one? ]... based on their "share" coming from Citigroup's naming rights Since when does that cover the entire amount? ]which is now the public, no it isn't ]and how one Baseball-Fever.com poster seems intent on demolishing Citi Field and rebuilding Shea Stadium because of it. Well then I take it all back, that certainly makes it the story of the year. Heh, I could use you over there. Sorry, I just had to do it since they have some rather trollish anti-Wilpon folks over there that I just had to share it over here.

An under reported story of how the Wilpons aren't paying a single cent for Citi Field, based on their "share" coming from Citigroup's naming rights which is now the public, and how one Baseball-Fever.com poster seems intent on demolishing Citi Field and rebuilding Shea Stadium because of it.

Nice image of #13 on Hurdle's 1986 Topps card Also should be noted that he is still wearing #13 today as the skipper in Colorado

="Edgy DC":27zpzvzn]Hurdle --- like Roger Craig before him and Lee Mazzilli after him --- took 13 as an anti-whammy, trying to shake a string of bad luck by spitting in luck's face.[/quote:27zpzvzn] Pretty much. According to Mets By The Numbers he wore #33 the year before. The number was unused after Neil Allen was traded to Saint Louie 6/15 of 1983. SteveJRogers Dec 28 2008 04:15 PM Nice image of #13 on Hurdle's 1986 Topps card Also should be noted that he is still wearing #13 today as the skipper in Colorado dgwphotography Dec 28 2008 05:39 PM It didn't exactly work, since he was with the Mets in '85 and '87, and played with the Cardinals in '86. Quite the bad timing trifecta. dcrules01 Dec 28 2008 06:34 PM Thanks guys I saw he wasn't with the club because Johnson sent him down to be a catcher.Appreciate the help John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 28 2008 06:39 PM ="Iubitul":2ymqbxyn]It didn't exactly work, since he was with the Mets in '85 and '87, and played with the Cardinals in '86. Quite the bad timing trifecta.[/quote:2ymqbxyn] He was Rule 5'd by the Cardinals sending Davey into a fury. It's a shame he missed out. Edgy DC Dec 29 2008 07:05 AM Neil Allen --- also took 13 for anti-whammy reasons.

The 1984 media guide, with a roster date of 2/1/1984, lists non-roster invitee, Clint Hurdle as #13. Hurdle would spend 1984 in Tidewater, where he led the Tides in homers, and of course made the Mets squad in 1985. Still wearing #13.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":20ivi8ic]Bump. I nominate this for the 2008 Craney Award. If you have 10 minutes read it top to bottom. I'll also put it up against any other medium's take on this incident for humor and insight and understanding.[/quote:20ivi8ic] The thing is also that the whole incident is one "card" the anti-Wilpons or anti-Met people, whether fan or media member, will use forever to deride the Mets or the Wilpons as being classless; As in "Yeah, but we've never had a guy fly 3,000 miles only to fire him at night and fly all the way back." Like the argument over the 2004 ALCS vs 7 up with 17 to play (Which seems like this board actually is the only place where 7 up with 17 to play is NOT considered the greatest collapse in the history of sports period, but that is another topic), it is one more burden that Met fans have to put up with when arguing with other fans, or people that just don't know the whole story. metirish Dec 27 2008 09:27 PM The thing is that was a fun read over. A Boy Named Seo Dec 27 2008 10:03 PM Where the hell is Roblatt? TransMonk Dec 29 2008 03:27 PM I like how the embedded Newsday cover shows today's news. Edgy DC Dec 29 2008 06:25 PM Bam! ="seawolf17"] "Well, Joe, I'm just saying I'm available. In fact, I'm actually on a flight to Anaheim right now, and I brought my big box of manager stuff." Kong76 Dec 29 2008 06:57 PM Good bump, good nomination, and good illustration of 'bucket's sig line. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 29 2008 08:27 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2u8um23g][ Once you get past the Midnight Massacre hype, firing Willie was one of the smartest things the Wilpons ever did. Here are my top four or five smartest things the Wilpons ever did, in no particular order: 1. Firing Willie Randolph 2. Firing Dallas Green 3. Firing Art Howe 4. Firing Jeff Torborg[/quote:2u8um23g] This response didn't get enough lolove.

="metirish"]Can someone post an image of the patch please? It hasn't been released yet, the stir is being caused by this screen cap from MLB: The Show '09, look on Beltran's right hand sleeve:

This would have been a better choice, from a Photoshop expert on Baseball-Fever.com

The Batman vs Dracula (2005) � animated video / Rino Romano - strange, Italian horror film version of the character That is a movie spinoff of the second most recent attempt at an ongoing Batman animated series, titled The Batman. Which ran from, IIRC 2004 through this past year. No relation to the B:TAS/Batman Beyond/JL (as well as Superman) series which were all produced by Bruce Timm, that was a complete reboot by a new production team. Ditto the new attempt at an animated Batman, called Batman: The Brave & The Bold, taking it's name, and format, from a long running DC comic book series entitled "The Brave And The Bold" in which Batman would often team up with another hero. This started airing this past Fall.

John Hudek? Well, he DID go to an ASG one year as an Astro rep.

. RMPL!

="Edgy DC":1mqo2kx4]="SteveJRogers":1mqo2kx4]Ditto David Eckstein who does embodies that Backman/Bogar/McEwing/Wigginton type of player, but no doubt Angel fans would have tolerated him and embraced Cabrera if the situations were reversed. Cabrera being the Champion and Eckstein being his replacement.[/quote:1mqo2kx4] I'm sure Jeff Miller would be quick to point out how exclusive a club that "type" is.[/quote:1mqo2kx4] I'd include Endy Chavez, but he doesn't seem to be as universally "beloved" as the others mentioned. At least not in 2008. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 15 2008 08:47 PM woosh