MFS62

My answer to the thread title's question? Because he breaks the cameras. Every time I keep checking replies to this thread, I'm amazed how much, in that first picture in the first post, he reminds me of Billy Martin. Later

Daily News reports Freddy is a Met. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/01/garc ia-lands-with-mets.html I'd be interested in knowing what his base salary is, before the incentives. Later

Will be held this Sunday night. I heard Marty Noble interviewed today on WFAN. He said that the event is open to the public. The cost is $225 per person. Some stuff he mentioned: Jim Kaat (who won 18)with give a Golden Glove Award to Greg Maddux (who won 16) Dave Winfield and Ed Kranepool will be given awards for having played the most games in the new Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium, respectively. All 2008 MVP, Cy Young and ROY winners will be present. If you're interested, he said to call the NY Hilton and ask for ex-NY writer Phil Pepe. Later

="Benjamin Grimm":1dsbg77z]Cora's signing is now official.[/quote:1dsbg77z] Be still my heart. Later

="Benjamin Grimm":3f25ii7t]Rumor has it the Yankees are also in the mix for Ben Sheets. [/quote:3f25ii7t] Sheets' agent is Casey Close. Otherwise, we'd be hearing the term "secret team" bandied about. Later MFS62 Jan 22 2009 06:45 PM Daily News reports Freddy is a Met. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/01/garc ia-lands-with-mets.html I'd be interested in knowing what his base salary is, before the incentives. Later Frayed Knot Jan 22 2009 07:40 PM Freddy get ready, and rock steady! Just a minor league deal, so there's still some 'prove it' time left in ST and possibly beyond that in Buffalo. Wouldn't surprise me if there's some cut off date at which point they either have to bring him up or allow him the option to walk away and try to find another deal. Up to $9mil with incentives so if he winds up making that much it'll probably be a good thing for the team. attgig Jan 23 2009 07:04 AM ="Frayed Knot":3gop57up]Up to $9mil with incentives so if he winds up making that much it'll probably be a good thing for the team.[/quote:3gop57up] agreed. I hope he can hear 9 mil, and push redding to be the long man. I'm not looking forward to a season of ~5 era and 10-10 record...even from a #5 guy.

]FLUSHING, NEW YORK (TICKER) �The New York Mets on Tuesday signed outfielders Ryan Church and Angel Pagan to one-year contracts, avoiding an arbitration hearing with the two players who are coming off injury-plagued seasons. Church, 30, who signed a $2.8 million contract, was limited to 90 games last season - his first in New York - due to a concussion suffered during a collision at second base in a game at Atlanta on May 20. For most of the rest of the season, Church experienced migraine headaches and dizziness associated with the concussion, the second of his career. He finished the year with a .276 average, 12 home runs and 49 RBI. Pagan, who is still recovering from surgery to repair his torn left labrum, signed for $575,000. The 27-year-old outfielder hit .275 with no homers and 13 RBI in 31 games with the Mets prior to injuring his shoulder on May 7 at Los Angeles. In other moves Tuesday, the Mets signed lefthanders Tom Martin and Casey Fossum and catcher Omir Santos to minor league contracts. All three were invited to spring training next month. D'ya think that is THE Tom Martin? If so, that guy's gotta' be older than Mole and me put together. Maybe its time for my comeback. Omar, I'll sign to be cannon fodder in the bullpen for only $2 million for 1 year. My agent, Scott Boras told me there's another (secret) team interested in a 2 year, $5 million deal. Later

Overworking a pitcher can also be defined as one more pitch than his arm can stand. Arms are fragile and, you never know what will happen on the next pitch. Its something you can't mathematically predict with any degree of certainty. Later

According to Troy Renck of the Denver Post, the Mets have signed outfielder Corry Sullivan, formerly of the Colorado Rockies. "Cory Sullivan, arguably one of the best defensive center fielders in Rockies' history, has caught on with the Mets, signing a one-year, $600,000 major league deal with $300,000 in incentives. Sullivan was a career .279 hitter with the Rockies in four seasons, splitting time as a starter and reserve beginning in 2005. http://blogs.denverpost.com/ro...igns-with-mets/ " Who knows? Major League deal? (Edgy roster alert) Maybe he will be the next Rod Gaspar and will lead the Mets to WS glory. Later

="Kong76":23f3gaue]The thought of Pedro riding into the sunset in Pittsburgh makes me laugh out loud. Not lol, laugh out loud. [/quote:23f3gaue] A great player ending his career in Pitsburgh isn't that bad. He'd be in pretty good company with Hank Greenberg. Later Frayed Knot Jan 19 2009 06:15 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":va8fttx0]Is this Sheet AND Ollie or Sheets OR Ollie?[/quote:va8fttx0] I suspect one or the other but not both. Rockin' Doc Jan 19 2009 06:43 AM From what I have read in most reports, Perez is the Mets first choice now that Lowe is in Atlanta. Sheets, Wolf, Garland, etc. are potential back up plans should Perez (and Boras) play hard to get. Personally, I think I would prefer to have Sheets. Perez has a tremendous arm and great stuff, but he often leaves me wondering where his head is at. Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2009 06:51 AM I too would prefer Sheets. Even if he misses time with an injury, we'll probably get as many good starts from Sheets as from Perez, and fewer bad starts. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 19 2009 10:06 AM I would rather 150 innings of Sheets and 50 of Niese than 200 of Perez, and 100/100 of those two might still be more useful than a full season of Ollie. Centerfield Jan 20 2009 08:18 AM Lots more sources picking up on the Mets interest in Sheets. Tom Verducci was talking about it on the MLB Network, there's a piece in the Daily News this morning. The more I think about it, they really have to pull the trigger on Sheets. It is the only way they can significantly improve the rotation from last year. And they need to improve the pitching if they're not going to do anything about the lineup. TransMonk Jan 20 2009 09:18 AM I'm not a big fan of Sheets...his upsides and downsides are terribly drastic. That being said, he probably has the best potential upside available for next season. His eldest son is named after Tom Seaver. That's gotta be worth something I guess. DocTee Jan 24 2009 09:57 AM According to Buster Olney, Texas mulling a two-year, $16M offer to Ben. http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/story/1162289.html That's a steal, considering: "Over the last five seasons, the 30-year-old Sheets has an ERA of 3.24; his ERA has never been higher than 3.82 in any season, and was as low as 2.70 in 2004. His strikeout-to-walk ratio has never been worse than 2.87 to 1. Hitters have never had an OPS against him, in any season, higher than .705. In 2008, Sheets made 31 starts, threw 198 1/3 innings, posted an ERA of 3.09 while pitching in Milwaukee's bandbox, held opposing hitters to a .390 slugging percentage, started for the National League in the All-Star Game, struck out 158 while walking just 47..." metsmarathon Jan 24 2009 10:32 AM grr... Frayed Knot Jan 24 2009 11:14 AM Sheets lives in Texas which may give them the inside track there. Be nice if Omar were to match that offer and convince Big Ben that staying in the NL and staying out of that hitters' haven with the daily 90+ degree heat will be better for him in the long run. Then tell Boras that he can review that offer plus this newest one we supposedly made to Ollie and tell him first one to say yes gets the job. Nymr83 Jan 24 2009 12:16 PM ]According to Buster Olney, Texas mulling a two-year, $16M offer to Ben sounds cheap, offer him a 3rd year at the same price Omar! metsmarathon Jan 24 2009 12:57 PM uh, i'd go 2x9 before i went 3x8. but i'd be happy to include a vesting option for the third. Rockin' Doc Jan 24 2009 01:33 PM I like marathon's plan. Sheets has tremendous talent, but given his injury history I don't want to see the Mets guarantee more than two years to him. Centerfield Jan 24 2009 08:25 PM Come on Omar. At least make a fucking offer. Fman99 Jan 24 2009 08:39 PM ="Centerfield":3glgv0y9]Come on Omar. At least make a fucking offer.[/quote:3glgv0y9] Do something. Jeez, pitchers and catchers report in what, 3 weeks? metirish Jan 24 2009 08:44 PM Watch the MFY's come in a sign him. Frayed Knot Jan 25 2009 06:34 PM Just a few warning signs via the Ft Worth Star-Telegram: Lingering concerns over the status of Ben Sheets� right elbow could ultimately prevent the Texas Rangers from signing the free-agent All-Star pitcher to an incentive-laden contract. The Rangers have examined Sheets� medical reports, but sources said the club wants the most recent information on his torn flexor tendon. It�s an injury the Rangers know too well. Jason Jennings lasted only six starts last season before suffering a second torn flexor tendon in nine months. In both instances � August 2007 and May 2008 � Jennings had surgery. Sheets� tear did not require surgery, and he has resumed his normal preseason throwing program. He threw twice last week at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. However, the Highland Park resident has not undergone a physical and would have to pass one performed by Rangers doctors before a deal could be completed. The likelihood that an agreement will be reached by Monday, if at all this week, is waning. Centerfield Jan 26 2009 10:16 AM Is a torn flexor tendon what knocked out Wagner? The article doesn't make it clear whether the Rangers are concerned because he had a torn flexor tendon, or whether they feel he still has a torn flexor tendon. Edgy DC Jan 26 2009 10:26 AM I'm a fan of Ben Sheets and want the Mets in the mix, but I think the fans are being too hard here on poor ol' Omar. 1) Yeah, Sheets numbers from last year make him look pretty healthy, but that's because his injury took place at the end of the season, after he logged those numbers, but it shut him down for the playoffs. And the nature of an injury at the end of your season and your contract means that nobody knows the extent of the damage or what they're getting until you take the mound somewhere and log some time. 2) Isn't Omar getting somewhat hammered for the lost gamble he took on Moises Alou? If you pressure your GM to roll the dice, be a little more forgiving when he craps out once in a while. A Texas Ranger blogger takes a close look at this injury history here: http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/the-ben-sheets-medical-file.html Maybe Sheets and Nolan can talk blister cures. batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2009 10:53 AM ="Centerfield":11j9ihkf]Is a torn flexor tendon what knocked out Wagner? The article doesn't make it clear whether the Rangers are concerned because he had a torn flexor tendon, or whether they feel he still has a torn flexor tendon.[/quote:11j9ihkf] Flexor Shmexor. I'm worried that Johan Santana might've sustained some permanent and irreversible diminishment of his abilities as a result of the surgery to repair his torn left meniscus. I realize that his injury is considered minor but still, it's Johan's rear pitching leg. On the other hand, no one else seems to be making a big deal about the surgery. And Santana did pitch his best game of last season while injured. So maybe there's not much to this. Frayed Knot Jan 26 2009 10:58 AM ="Centerfield":11erg5gp]Is a torn flexor tendon what knocked out Wagner? The article doesn't make it clear whether the Rangers are concerned because he had a torn flexor tendon, or whether they feel he still has a torn flexor tendon.[/quote:11erg5gp] Wagner's was a ligament tear. That's what TJ surgery is needed to fix. Sheets' flexor tendon tear did not have surgery - probably meaning it isn't thought to be severe enough and he can still pitch with it while it heals or remains strong enough on its own. Maybe it can but that's a risk whoever signs him is going to need to consider. Edgy DC Jan 26 2009 11:17 AM He may want to pull an Astacio and do some showcase pitching in the Caribbean. smg58 Feb 05 2009 11:56 AM [url:2ctckaya]http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090205&content_id=3801488&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp[/url:2ctckaya] The poor guy just can't buy a break. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 12:47 PM sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010 seawolf17 Feb 05 2009 01:36 PM ="Nymr83":3bzpskk2]sounds like a good time to sign him for cheap and hope he can help out in the second half or even for 2010[/quote:3bzpskk2] Bingo! Two-year, backloaded deal. Didn't the Yankees do that with Jon Lieber? Frayed Knot Feb 05 2009 02:38 PM Re: Leiber; yes, but I think it was post-surgery and not pre. Plus you don't want to do this at a time when it'll cost you a draft pick. So maybe after the cut-n-slice sounds like it worked and after the draft is done in June and you're off the hook for compensation it may be time to look into a rehab signing. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 02:40 PM its strange that Sheets, if he knew he might need surgery, didn't accept arbitration from the Brewers. attgig Feb 05 2009 03:03 PM perhaps he had differing opinion vs the rangers doctors. him/his doctors didn't think he needed surgery, but the rangers docs did. and once ONE team's docs blackball you, it's gonna be impossible to get anything from any other team. Ashie62 Feb 05 2009 03:50 PM Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that DocTee Feb 05 2009 04:20 PM Tough break. You know who I'd like to see the Mets take a flyer on: Mark Mulder. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 08:00 AM ="Ashie62":k5uv0414]Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that[/quote:k5uv0414] That makes no sense. If that was the prognosis, why not have the surgery back in October? John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Centerfield":125azak8]="Ashie62":125azak8]Sheets out 4-6 months for partially torn flexor tendon That answers that[/quote:125azak8] That makes no sense. If that was the prognosis, why not have the surgery back in October?[/quote:125azak8] Apparently the injury was revealed as part of a physical examination the Rangers required as a condition of a 2-year contract offer, now revoked. There is a question as to whether the Brewers will pay the doctor bills, paper sez. Nymr83 Feb 06 2009 08:38 AM thats going to be a question for the collective bargaining agreement, his last contract, and/or worker's comp laws. this is probably a good opportunity for the brewers to sign him for 2 years backloaded for cheap, maybe with a semi-expensive option for 2011 that kicks in with 200 innings in 2010. they'll probably be paying for his rehab anyway so they might as well be able to direct it and benefit from it

Someone told me that they had heard a few days ago that the Mets offered Sheets a 1 year $6 million guaranteed contract. He had no other details about incentives, options, etc. Anyone else hear that? If so, what was the source? Later

="metirish":u5wn1qf4]I saw today that Delgado will wear #21 for Puerto Rico with the blessing of Clemente's family , it will be the first time since the number was retired in Puerto Rico that a player will wear it.[/quote:u5wn1qf4] Here's the link: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_carlos_delgado_will_honor_roberto_clemen.html The more I read about Delgado, the more I like him. I'm proud he is a Met. Later Frayed Knot Jan 20 2009 07:19 AM "Provisional" rosters for the WBC were submitted yesterday. Mets include: Beltran, Carlos - PR Bowman, Shawn - CAN Cuan, Angel - PAN (19 y/o LHP who was with the Mets' VZL team in 2008) Delgado, Carlos - PR Feliciano, Jesus - PR (29 y/o OF who spent each of the last 2 seasons with New Orleans) Feliciano, Pedro - PR Putz, J.J. - USA Reyes, Jose - DOM Rodriguez, Francisco - VEN Santana, Johan - VEN Schneider, Brian - USA Tejada, Ruben - PAN (18 y/o SS with Pt St Lucie in 2008) Welch, Stefan - AUS (19 y/o 1B/3B with Kingsport in 2008) Wright, David - USA Putting a player on the provisional roster doesn't mean they're committed to play (Santana may yet be pulled depending on the condition of his knee) although no players can be added to the final roster who are NOT on the preliminary list. Gwreck Jan 30 2009 10:58 AM WBC to use the totally-ridiculous rule from the Olympics re: extra innings: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2009/news/story?id=3870558 A Boy Named Seo Jan 30 2009 11:03 AM Jeezus. themetfairy Jan 30 2009 03:04 PM The Dugout's 2 Cents On The Matter[/url:3vxty9j0] MFS62 Jan 30 2009 03:15 PM ="Edgy DC":2wqaxhlm]Listed as "Auxiliary Coaches": Mike Schmidt, Barry Larkin and Billy Ripken [/quote:2wqaxhlm] That looks like a question in a children's textbook. "Which one of these doesn't belong?" Where's Cal? Later Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 11:36 AM Jimmy Rollins to back up Derek Jeter? http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2009/02/05/sports/doc498b0918eb0ef575544613.txt I expect that kind of crap from Buck Martinez, but not Davey Johnson. metirish Feb 05 2009 11:55 AM I find it funny how other players defer to Jeter like he's the Jordan of baseball. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 12:18 PM ]"It has nothing to do with pride (or) who's better," Rollins said. "This is a team, it's not about me or him, it's about us taking the WBC title home. I'm just fortunate to be on the team - to be on the team is enough. When I do play, I hope to contribute." Well, it may have nothing to do with pride, Jimmy, but taking the title home has a lot to do with who's better. Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2009 01:30 PM It's nice how Jimmy is deferential and humble when he's talking about Derek Jeter, and brash and disrespectful when he talks about the Mets. Gotta love the guy. smg58 Feb 05 2009 02:17 PM Just for fun we can count the ground balls Jeter can't make plays on that Rollins would have fielded cleanly. Nymr83 Feb 05 2009 02:24 PM if the US doesnt win the tournament I want to lose on a Jeter doubleplay grounder with the bases loaded and 1 out. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:22 AM ]Derek Jeter, the New York captain, said yesterday he will play for the United States against the Yankees in a spring-training game on March 3. "Hopefully, I won't see any pitches inside," joked Jeter, who will be playing for the U.S. team in a warm-up for the World Baseball Classic. "It will be funny. It will be fun." Will designated assasin Shelley Duncan be in uniform for the Yankees? metirish Feb 09 2009 08:18 PM Johan Santana feels great but will not play in the upcoming WBC. MFS62 Feb 09 2009 09:30 PM ="Edgy DC":3ekr2o8j] Will designated assasin Shelley Duncan be in uniform for the Yankees?[/quote:3ekr2o8j] IIRC Shelly Duncan was released by the Yankees when they signed one of their free agents this off season. I commented at the time that he might have made an nice pickup for the bench. Then someone called my attention to his stats..... Never noticed the Yanks re-signing him to a minor league contract after that. Did they? Later Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 09:43 PM I wasn't actually serious, but yes, he remains on the payroll as a non-roster player, and no, I don't want him. Fman99 Feb 10 2009 07:43 AM ="metirish":2uepqax4]Johan Santana feels great but will not play in the upcoming WBC.[/quote:2uepqax4] Perfect. Frayed Knot Feb 10 2009 07:44 AM Ichiro to pitch in WBC?!? Probably not, but maybe[/url:1a2k82o1] Edgy DC Feb 13 2009 07:29 AM Mets making the wrong sort of enemies. Chavez wants players cleared for WBC Associated Press CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez urged major league baseball teams on Thursday to allow Venezuelan players to represent their country in next month's World Baseball Classic. "They take away the athlete's right and duty ... to represent Venezuela," said Chavez, speaking during a ceremony to honor Venezuela's under-20 soccer team. "It's constructive criticism of professional sports." Chavez said baseball should follow the example of professional soccer teams in Europe and the United States, which are forced under FIFA regulations to clear players when they want to join their national teams in international competitions. Edwin Zerpa, president of the Venezuelan Baseball Federation, said Thursday that he was particularly concerned that the New York Mets might not clear ace Johan Santana to pitch. "What's most worrisome is that they attempt to stop the pitchers, who are in excellent condition, from playing," Zerpa said. "Without good pitching, you cannot win in baseball." Mets general manager Omar Minaya has said he is in favor of having players in the WBC. Other big league stars on the Venezuela roster include: Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez, Detroit outfielder Magglio Ordonez, and Los Angeles Angels outfielder Bobby Abreu. Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press Frayed Knot Feb 13 2009 10:02 AM Maybe someone should mention to Hugo about the players who were thinking about not playing because they believe that bureaucrats within the gov't of Venezuela are pocketing much of the money intended for the players. Fman99 Feb 13 2009 10:07 AM ="Frayed Knot":2co5mxmt]Maybe someone should mention to Hugo about the players who were thinking about not playing because they believe that bureaucrats within the gov't of Venezuela are pocketing much of the money intended for the players.[/quote:2co5mxmt] Still you can't be mad at Chavez. He made that sick catch in Game 7 of the 2006 NLCS! Oh wait, what? Frayed Knot Feb 13 2009 10:17 AM Easy to confuse the two, they're both Venezuelan lefties. metirish Feb 14 2009 04:38 PM High cost of insurance is reason why Johan will not play in WBC ] PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- Although the withdrawal of Johan Santana from the World Baseball Classic was for weeks a foregone conclusion within the Mets' organization, Santana said Saturday the club never withheld its approval for him to participate with the Venezuelan team in the international tournament. Santana's remarks came one day after the Classic released a statement explaining that the issue that would deny Santana an opportunity to pitch for his country was the high cost of an insurance premium. Santana, who underwent left knee surgery Oct. 1, said he is one of a number of big league players who will not participate in the Classic because of the insurance issue. He named no others. "It has nothing to do with my willingness to play in the [Classic]," Santana said. "I was preparing myself. Everything was on the right track." Santana said he had heard from his agent, Peter Greenberg, on Friday that the Classic had made a decision. Mets general manager Omar Minaya confirmed the situation with Santana on Saturday morning. "We never had to make a decision about his participation," Minaya said. "It's tough," Santana said. "It's sad. I wanted to pitch." LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2009 10:03 PM Speaking of things Venezuelan: IN (provisional roster): Victor F-ing Zambrano OUT: Freddy Garcia Really? (HAS to be a lack of interest on the Chief's part.) Edgy DC Feb 17 2009 08:31 AM Albert Pujols, out. The pattern seems that any player who had any sort of offseason surgery, and hasn't yet returned to action (like playing winter ball) is uninsurable. Nymr83 Feb 17 2009 08:41 AM ="Edgy DC":3foyo3u8]Albert Pujols, out. The pattern seems that any player who had any sort of offseason surgery, and hasn't yet returned to action (like playing winter ball) is uninsurable.[/quote:3foyo3u8] Seems like a wise policy to me. F. Garcia was injured, if he wants to make the Mets' opening day roster he's probably better off avoiding the WBC anyway and concentrating on getting healthy to the Mets' satisfaction. I hope Zambrano gets rocked. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 17 2009 10:58 PM Endy and K-Rod are playing for the 'Zuelas, too. I'll enjoy the games, I'm sure... but a little part of me will be rooting against with too many of Flushing's finest on 'em, if only in hope of fewer injuries. Also, needs more team mascots. Edgy DC Feb 18 2009 05:55 AM Endy was the unlikely star for Venezueal three years ago. Brought his power stick then also. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 01:17 PM Fare thee well, Metsies, and come back safe: Beltran Cora Delgado Feliciano Figueroa (shouldn't he be reppin' Brooklyn?) Ollie P. Putz Reyes KRod Wright Am I missing anyone? Edgy DC Mar 02 2009 01:56 PM You've got to be. I saw reports saying the Mets and Red Sox led the bigs in WBC-bound players with 15 each. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 02 2009 02:01 PM Had everyone on the 40-man... but was missing a handful, yet. As broken down by country in Newsday: Australia Stefan Welch Canada Shawn Bowman Dominican Republic Jose Reyes Mexico Elmer Dessens Oliver Perez Panama Ruben Tejada Puerto Rico Pedro Feliciano Nelson Figueroa Alex Cora Carlos Delgado Carlos Beltran Jesus Feliciano United States J.J. Putz David Wright Venezuela Francisco Rodriguez So... who else is rooting for Cuba-Japan II? Nymr83 Mar 02 2009 02:04 PM Shawn Bowman (Canada), Stefan Welch (Australia), Ruben Tejada (Panama), and Jesus Feliciano (Puerto Rico) are all listed as part of the Mets' organization and are on the rosters on espn.com edit- i got beat to it, but Elmer Dessens is listed as a Brave not a Met here: [url:3izz30jv]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2009/news/story?id=3844570[/url:3izz30jv] Edgy DC Mar 05 2009 11:17 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 24 2009 11:38 AM So, if you're the manager of Equipo DR, and you lose Alex Rodriguez, who is your thirdbaseman? Do you go to Adrian Beltre or do you move Hanley Ramirez (or Miguel Tejada) over there and free up short for Jose Reyes? Nymr83 Mar 05 2009 12:13 PM mpve Ramirez so that you have no trouble starting both him and Reyes Edgy DC Mar 09 2009 10:11 AM Answer is Tejada. Yeah, I'd move Hanley there also, or move one of them to second, keep Tejada at third and go with the three shortstop lineup. metirish Mar 09 2009 10:27 AM In his minor and major league career Rameriz has played one game at third , Alou can't just slot him in there surely. Edgy DC Mar 09 2009 10:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 09 2009 10:36 AM Porque no? It's about catching and throwing. If Tejada can do it, why not Hanley Ramirez? The key is getting the bats in the lineup. Given a few days to work out in the spot, will he be so much worse than a Fernando Tatis that the giveback with his offensive ability isn't worth it? Anyhow, at this point, he's the better weapon, so if you won't move him to third or Reyes to second or outfield or even one of them to first, Reyes is left to be a a pinch-runner. metirish Mar 09 2009 10:33 AM Sounds good but I wonder what his club would think about moving him. Edgy DC Mar 09 2009 10:44 AM If some alleged negative consequence of Ramirez playing third for a few games is upsetting Florida, I'd sure like Alou to push the issue to find out exactly how much kowtowing the WBC managers are expected to do. At any rate, nobody stopped him from moving Tejada over. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 09 2009 10:46 AM The Snooze tried, not very hard not very effectively, to make Reyes' remark that he's be play wherever Alou asked into a controversy which "may make Met management cringe" in a tortured allusion to the Matsui-at-SS thing in '04. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 09 2009 01:56 PM ="Edgy DC":2elgx6dp]Porque no? It's about catching and throwing. If Tejada can do it, why not Hanley Ramirez? The key is getting the bats in the lineup. Given a few days to work out in the spot, will he be so much worse than a Fernando Tatis that the giveback with his offensive ability isn't worth it? Anyhow, at this point, he's the better weapon, so if you won't move him to third or Reyes to second or outfield or even one of them to first, Reyes is left to be a a pinch-runner.[/quote:2elgx6dp] Porque no? This tournament means a LOT more to the Dominicans than it does to us. The criticism from the leadup and after game one has been so harsh, GM Stan Javier's already tendered his verbal resignation, effective after the games. One key error by an out-of-place guy, and who knows what happens to Felipe Alou's house postgame. They shoot people over dominoes in the DR. (Well, okay... the psychotic, 100-mph-armed ones whose names rhyme with "Gurgos," anyway.) Edgy DC Mar 09 2009 02:49 PM Well, like I said, they already are playing a shortstop out of position, and world stayed intact. High stakes mean high pressure. It's no place for the weak-kneed, but you still want to make the most effective decision. I think most any shortstop can play anywhere else on the infield with modest preparation. Benjamin Grimm Mar 09 2009 02:52 PM ="Edgy DC":1u447jdd]I think most any shortstop can play anywhere else on the infield with modest preparation.[/quote:1u447jdd] I would think so. And the difference between third base and shortstop is, I think, less than the difference between second and short. At third the key difference is that you have to react a bit quicker, and at second it's the trickier turn of the double play. MFS62 Mar 09 2009 06:42 PM Many years ago, I spoke with Yank utility player Gil McDougald who played in the majors for several years. http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcdougi01.shtml I asked him about the difference in playing the three positions and about the preparation for playing each. He mentioned the things you folks said above. Then he added that it only took him a few throws during pre-game at the position he was going to play that day to get his arm ready. That surprised me. I guess that's why he was so valuable to the Yanks of that era. Later metirish Mar 18 2009 01:56 PM I like the opening paragraph. That scout for the Marlins talking about the Koreans using BP to work on moving runners over and hitting to the opposite field is what Manuel was preaching at the start of camp. I wonder if that is still a big part of BP for the Mets. Scouts See Works of Art in Asian Teams� Workouts ] By ALAN SCHWARZ Published: March 18, 2009 SAN DIEGO � He could see Meadowlark Lemon turning two, almost hear �Sweet Georgia Brown� whistling through vacuous Petco Park. As Japanese and Korean infielders gobbled up grounders during infield practice Tuesday and whipped the balls among themselves in bouncy syncopation, Mark Weidemaier sensed he was watching a different sport, a different show. �They�re the Harlem Globetrotters,� said Weidemaier, who has spent this week scouting the San Diego bracket of the World Baseball Classic for the Los Angeles Dodgers. �They�re not flashy or showy, I don�t mean that. But the footwork and timing. They�re going full bore, full speed. They go through every play that needs to be made in the game. They�ll get more ground balls than a big-leaguer takes in a week.� Baseball scouts are known for watching games, but the best in the business focus just as much on pregame practice, sometimes more. Three games can pass without getting to see how a shortstop can flash into the hole, or how well a second baseman charges a slow grounder. But when top Asian teams take batting practice, a scout�s inner aesthete awakens to the beauty of the game. Tuesday night � when Korea beat Japan, 4-1, to advance to this weekend�s W.B.C. semifinals � presented a double shot for the two dozen scouts in attendance. All of them want to be prepared in case any player becomes available to be signed, and both teams� hour of pregame drills had oodles to eyeball. �Korea has a B.P. routine they use where it�s more about moving runners over and hitting to the opposite field,� said Orrin Freeman, a longtime scout for the Florida Marlins who has watched international baseball since the 1980s. �You watch a major league team in the United States take B.P., and most of the guys are just playing home run derby.� As Japan and Korea practiced before Tuesday�s game, Freeman watched from the loge seats behind first base. He saw a distinctly Korean defensive drill in which any ball that goes beyond outfielder depth draws an infielder deep onto the grass to take a relatively short cutoff throw, in large part because third-base coaches tend to hold runners if cutoff men already have the ball. After Korea left the field, Japanese infielders took fungoed grounders at almost infield-in depth, pushing their reflexes so that the real game would feel easier, not unlike how a hitter might swing three bats in the on-deck circle. Rob Ducey, a former major league outfielder who scouts for the Toronto Blue Jays, sat beside the third-base dugout and enjoyed a sonata of skills rarely seen in the majors. He saw Japanese shortstop Yasuyuki Kataoka field grounders in perfect position to turn double plays, and other infielders moving to balls on angles that would make Euclid proud. Korean third baseman Bum Ho Lee charged grounders with the intensity of October, which for many foreign players this W.B.C. might as well be. �They work their craft a whole lot more than we do,� Ducey said. �They work on their swings instead of being pull, pull, pull.� Asked how a typical major-leaguer might respond to pregame practices as intense as those of Asian teams, Ducey said: �They�d feel like it was overkill � �I don�t want to get gassed.� Major league players, not all of them, but they do enough to get by because physically they�re such gifted athletes.� Not unlike how Asia�s practices are more rigorously exacting than those in the major leagues, several scouts said that Japan�s infield drills are generally more taut than Korea�s, a difference they ascribed to Korea�s having larger players with more power and less reliance on basic run-at-a-time fundamentals. Cleanup hitter Tae Kyun Kim packs 220 pounds on his six-foot frame, while first baseman Dae Ho Lee stands a downright behemoth 6-foot-4, 264. Japan has only one regular who weighs as much as 205: catcher Kenji Johjima, who perhaps not coincidentally makes his living with the Seattle Mariners. �The Japanese, they are far superior fundamentally,� said Ducey, the Blue Jays� coordinator of Pacific Rim operations. �They take thousands of ground balls a week, not just the young guys, all of them. The Japanese run hard down the line all the time. Koreans, it�s a little haphazard at times. And Koreans are generally more physical, more aggressive at the plate. They�re more suited for our game.� And still, a few hours later, the Koreans proved that they were plenty fundamental, more so, on this night, than Japan. They beat Japan on execution alone, all in the first inning. It started with the first two batters of the game: second baseman Keun Woo Jeong grabbed a high chopper and threw to first to barely nip Japan�s speedy Ichiro Suzuki, and on the next play, first baseman Tae Kyun Kim dived to his right for a hard ground ball and threw to the pitcher hustling over to cover first. Rather than an early first-and-second, no-out jam, the inning soon ended peacefully. And in the bottom half of the inning, Japan looked uncharacteristically clumsy. After a leadoff single, second baseman Akinori Iwamura double-clutched a ground ball in the hole for what was ruled a single; later, with Iwamura trying to start a double play, Kataoka could not handle Iwamura�s low throw and got no out at all. Two batters later, Korea�s Jin Young Lee stroked a beautiful opposite-field single through the left side for two runs, a 3-0 Korea lead and San Diego�s best imitation of Tony Gwynn in years. With the loss, Japan left itself having to play Cuba on Wednesday night to stay alive in the tournament it won three years ago. Disappointing for Japanese fans, but a treat for American scouts. Just another day at the symphony. �Watching the Japanese fungo hitters is great,� Weidemaier noted. �They�re hitting every type of ball that can happen to an infielder: to the left and right, backhand, sharp one-hoppers, backspin, top spin, slow rollers. Rat-a-tat-tat, they�re so precise in all their movements. To me, that�s what makes this game so beautiful.� metirish Mar 24 2009 07:36 AM I think this quote from Davey Johnson in a way ties in nicely with the observation above from the scout. ] "I'm kinda feeling like Earl Weaver, I don't push the running game," Johnson said. "I don't think that was a big factor when I was playing in Japan. I don't think it is today. I think the stolen base and the bunt base hit, those are becoming less and less a factor in the game." Is "small ball" as Davey suggests becoming less a factor in the MLB game ? Edgy DC Mar 24 2009 07:41 AM A difficulty in such discussions is that we treat "small ball" as a monolith. Not all small ball approaches have the same merit. metirish Mar 24 2009 07:47 AM True , I shouldn't have used that term. Edgy DC Mar 24 2009 08:01 AM Not at all. It's how the writers use it. metsmarathon Mar 24 2009 08:34 AM americans love to americanize their sports. and by that, i mean that we love to turn every sport into football. american football. who needs quickness and finesse when you can have power and strength? we prefer our sports to be blunt instruments presided over by blunter athletes. Edgy DC Mar 24 2009 11:40 AM Not a bad allusion. Centerfield Mar 24 2009 11:58 AM Dae Ho Lee. Not about speed and quickness. Not to rain on the "Playing baseball the right way" parade, but am I the only one that thinks the Asian players lack fundamentals? At least at the plate anyway. They all step in the bucket, they all overswing, and some of their leg kicks are ridiculous. There isn't a short, compact swing on either team.

="Vic Sage":17shm725]I'd root for the NL team that inevitably moved into the NYC market. [/quote:17shm725] Exactly. That's what we Brooklyn Dodger fans did. Later G-Fafif Jan 16 2009 09:09 PM In the mid-'90s, when talk of replacing Shea first gained traction and the Mets were going nowhere in the standings and drawing few while doing it, I began to fear the worst, that they would leave if they didn't get a new ballpark, so I considered the question. I couldn't go with an American League team, save for whoever's playing the MFYs. I thought about the Phillies for proximity's sake (I was able to get their games on the radio through static and in their post-Dykstra phase, I still had a vaguely lukwarm feeling for them, long since dissipated); I thought about the Giants since it would bring the whole NY thing back around then, and if the Mets abandoned NY, how could I hold the SF thing against them?; and I settled, eventually (as the question lingered and rearose once in a while in my closet of anxieties), on the Pirates as my doomsday choice, especially once PNC Park opened. I liked the Pirate history. I didn't hate the Pirates as a kid the way I hated the Cubs. I considered the Cubs a little, for Wrigley, but I hate the Cubs. I also thought about the Rockies, because Coors Field is so nice and the Rockies never did anything of lasting psychic damage to the Mets, but what am I going to do with the Rockies? No, it would be the Bucs. Maybe if the Expos were still alive, but they're not. (Dodgers, Cardinals, Diamondbacks, Brewers, Braves, Padres, Nationals, Reds, Astros and Marlins all nonstarters for various reasons and bad associations.) But I now realize that was all folderol. I'd become one of those former fans who groused about the good old days and maybe clung to the old days, like the guys I know who remain NY Giants fans long after the fact (like me, except they actually saw them and my Giants thing is historical and maybe a little fetishistic). Or I'd be like a publisher I had who grew up in Brooklyn but washed his hands of the whole thing once the Dodgers moved west (but liked to mention he once saw a triple play). But I couldn't follow the Carolina Cosmopolitans or whatever they'd become if the Mets moved. I accepted Citi Field on the condition that once and for all I could put this nightmare scenario behind me, but between Citi's nonsense and Madoff and who knows what the Wilpons will shoot themselves in foot with...nah, I think we're safe. I would doubt, however, if the Mets ever blew it and blew town that we'd necessarily see National League baseball here again. The whole "National League town" thing that carried such resonance in 1962 no longer exists per se. It's a baseball town. If it wasn't a baseball town big enough for two, and the one that couldn't make it happened to be the National League entry, I think we wouldn't get the same makegood Bill Shea and Branch Rickey engineered on our behalf. Hail to them for doing so, not incidentally. We should name a stadium after one of them. For what it's worth, I still root, however lightly I follow basketball, for the Nets because they were a Long Island team more than 30 years ago. But they're still in the same ADI. If they moved, as Howie Rose once suggested they should, to Louisville, then I'd be completely detached. G-Fafif Jan 16 2009 09:28 PM Just catching up on the KC Isles coverage on Newsday here and find this headline regarding my town supervisor: Isles game in KC doesn't phase Hempstead's Murray Yes, but will she be fazed by it? Some editor should catch flak, perhaps from a flack for Merriam-Webster. Zvon Jan 16 2009 09:41 PM I would step back from being a fan of any baseball team. In time I might follow another. They would have to be accessible and I guess that means the Phillies, who are very available to watch as part of my basic cable package. That transition would take quite a while though, if it did ever take root. If it happened I would never be a fan of any baseball team in the same way that I am a fan of the Mets. Mind and body.Heart and soul.Win or lose. In many ways the Mets have been moving away from me. Have been making themselves more inaccessible to me. In that respect a move wouldn't make much difference. I keep myself attached to the team because thats the way I roll. I grew up Mets. I love the Mets, have since I found I loved the game of baseball. I love that I have witnessed its entire history. I love the name (Mets or Metropolitans), the uniform, the way Mets is written across the chest, the logo. The orange NY on the blue cap. I love the way and the reason they came to be. And that's the thing. If they left New York they would no longer be the Mets I love. I guess if they came to New Jersey that wouldn't be the case. Still, seeing the New Jersey Mets would be very strange. It would not be the same. If they moved out west or to the other coast, that would be the end of that chapter of my baseball life. I would close the book on the Mets. It would take a while to come to terms with that, to get over it. But I would. I might even just give up on MLB all together and follow my local minor league team. Because, on the whole, I don't like what has become of the game at the major league level. I'd find a way to enjoy the game again. Because the only thing in sports that equals or even surpasses my love for the Mets is my love for the game of baseball. Frayed Knot Jan 17 2009 06:21 AM Leaving aside for a moment that I can't even imagine a set of circumstances that it would take to drive the Mets out of NYC -- I'd still follow baseball but probably not the Mets. Most likely there'd be a replacement team and I'd pick up on them. If not I guess I'd be a man without a team for a while, following baseball but without the nightly obligation to see a game. The one option that hasn't been discussed here is that you could pick up stakes and move to whatever city the Mets moved to and continue to follow them there. OK that's pretty stupid, but it is an option.

="metsguyinmichigan":2yp7ku6e]Wally thinks we should spend $10 million on a broken down, formerly juiced MFY. .[/quote:2yp7ku6e] Which one? You gotta' be more specific. Later metsguyinmichigan Jan 15 2009 12:07 PM Re: Wallace Matthers continues to be a goofball. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 15 2009 12:24 PM ="MFS62":4yhwbzip]="metsguyinmichigan":4yhwbzip]Wally thinks we should spend $10 million on a broken down, formerly juiced MFY. .[/quote:4yhwbzip] Which one? You gotta' be more specific. Later[/quote:4yhwbzip] Good point! Badass. Yeah, he means Pettitte. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 12:12 PM I stopped reading after the analogy that opened paragraph four. ="Wallace Matthews":1y3ppig5]There now seems to be a better chance that CC Sabathia will squeeze into Derek Jeter's pants than the Yankees will re-sign Pettitte for 2009.[/quote:1y3ppig5] Whoah, hey. Family paper, here, Wally. Fman99 Jan 15 2009 12:13 PM I am guessing it's Pettitte. And, uh, no. Why do newspaper hacks always suggest that the Mets act in the interest of keeping up with the MFY's? Give me one reason why I should give a damn about that. metirish Jan 15 2009 12:14 PM So Andy won't go back to the MFY's becasue they only offered him ten million and Wally wants the Mets to give him more than that I assume. No thanks. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 12:15 PM It'll sell papers. Period. That's it. G-Fafif Jan 15 2009 12:16 PM ]looked like jerks the past few years watching the Yankees rescue their castoffs (Gooden, Strawberry, Cone, Nady) Somebody wanna get Matthews a calendar? Three of his four "past few years" examples joined the MFYs in 1996, 1995 and 1995, respectively. And yeah, Nady's right up there in the Met pantheon. Shoot, we took in ex-MFYs Shane Spencer and Karim Garcia. Haven't we done enough to give hoodlums a second chance? batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2009 12:20 PM The last effin Yankee we took in cost us post-season play, twice. Let Willie Randolph destroy some other team's offense. metsguyinmichigan Jan 15 2009 12:27 PM Here's the whole thing. Read at your own risk. Pettitte would be perfect fit for Mets' rotation Wallace Matthews January 15, 2009 The Yankees can find nearly a half-billion dollars to pay three players who, as brilliant as they've performed elsewhere, have yet to do a thing for this franchise. And yet they can't scrape up a nickel more than $10 million for Andy Pettitte, who played an instrumental role in bringing them four world championships? What disloyalty! What ingratitude! What heartlessness! And what a break for the Mets. That is, if they are smart enough to recognize it. There now seems to be a better chance that CC Sabathia will squeeze into Derek Jeter's pants than the Yankees will re-sign Pettitte for 2009. After blowing their bankroll on Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira, the Bankees now claim that $10 million - a pretty damn good paycheck for anyone these days but still, a $6-million pay cut for Pettitte from last season - is as high as they are willing to go for a pitcher who won some of the most important postseason games in their recent history. Fair enough. Times are tough, all good things come to an end, you can lead a horse to water, yada, yada, yada. But for whatever reason, the Yankees - either scared off by his poor second half, emboldened by their relatively painless jettisoning of Bernie Williams a couple of years ago or warming up for their inevitable discarding of Jeter and Mariano Rivera a couple of years hence - have decided that unless Pettitte wants to work for the Yankee equivalent of clubhouse-boy wages, he no longer fits into their plans. That is fine. Their point is a fair one, as is Pettitte's. And like Billy Martin in a long-ago beer commercial, I feel very strongly both ways. Pettitte has just as much right to be insulted over the Yankees' contract offer as the Yankees have the right to insult him. But I feel even stronger that while Pettitte's tenure in the Bronx may be over, his time in New York need not be. Last time I checked, the Mets were still shopping for a starting pitcher, and one glance at their roster reminds you of how badly they need one. Johan Santana, check. Mike Pelfrey, check, with reservations. Can he repeat his 2008 season? John Maine, check, with further reservations. Will his arm, dead as Casey Stengel for the last two months of 2008, rebound in 2009? Tim Redding? OK as a No. 5, considering the next important start he makes in front of a large, demanding crowd will be his first. That still leaves the Mets an arm short, and with only one lefthander in the rotation. Having lost out on Derek Lowe to the Braves, they could chase Oliver Perez for four years and something like $50 million. Detractors say no, you never know what you're getting with Perez, but I say hogwash. You know precisely what you're getting with Perez. Agita. You're better off riding the Coney Island Cyclone continuously from now until 2013. Cheaper and more fun. There's also Ben Sheets, only he's another righty, besides being expensive and injury prone, or Randy Wolf, who's a lefty but never has pitched in a postseason game, something which I assume is in the Mets' plans for next year. And, oh yeah, Pedro Martinez. Gulp! It doesn't appear to me that any of those guys is a better fit for the Mets' rotation than Pettitte. Unlike Perez, you absolutely know what you're getting: 30 to 35 starts a year, 200-plus innings, a minimum 14 wins. If you make it to October, you have a starter guaranteed not to rattle under pressure, and almost always guaranteed to put you in a position to win. (Pettitte went 13-8 in the postseason for the Yankees, who never lost an ALCS game he started. But because they haven't been to the ALCS in quite a while, it's possible they forgot that stat.) Plus, it would be a tremendous PR coup for the Mets, who frankly have looked like jerks the past few years watching the Yankees rescue their castoffs (Gooden, Strawberry, Cone, Nady) but now have the opportunity to return the favor. And best of all, Pettitte doesn't cost you all that much, in money or years. One year at $12 million to $14 million, maybe with an option, probably gets it done, and that's perfect. No long-term entanglements with a head case like Perez, or a hospital case like Sheets. No five-innings-and-out, at best, like you'd get from Pedro. What you get is a low-maintenance, no-drama professional who's here for one reason only: To help you win now, this year, not promise you things down the road that he will likely never deliver. The Yankees can't find a few more bucks in their otherwise limitless vault for a guy like that? Fine. Maybe the Mets can. And should. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 12:30 PM Why does a team particularly care if there is only one lefthander in their rotation? Wait a minute don't answer that. I'm talking to Matthews for some reason. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 12:44 PM I've never been concerned with that. smg58 Jan 15 2009 01:18 PM Neither have I. I agree with Matthews' assessment of Ollie, though. I'd be interested in Pettitte for at most half of what Matthews is suggesting. He's capable of bouncing back, but last season just wasn't that good. Still, at this point I'd be looking for the right bargain at starting pitcher, and instead focus on getting Castillo out of town and Orlando Hudson in. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 01:24 PM Oliver Perez, last year at 26: 10-7, 4.22 ERA, 100 ERA+, 194.0 IP. Andy Pettitte, last year at 36: 14-14, 4.54 ERA, 98 ERA+, 204.0 IP. Kiss my agita. Nymr83 Jan 15 2009 01:39 PM indeed. Pettite is 10 year's older than Perez and arguably not as good, let the Yankees keep him. Rockin' Doc Jan 15 2009 04:58 PM G-Fafif - "Shoot, we took in ex-MFYs Shane Spencer and Karim Garcia. Haven't we done enough to give hoodlums a second chance?" Don't forget Miguel freakin' Cairo. As batmag pointed out, the Mets also made the mistake of taking on Willie "I'm a Winner" Randolph. OlerudOwned Jan 15 2009 06:00 PM Calling Nady a rescued castoff is more than a little unfair to X. RealityChuck Jan 16 2009 09:09 AM Agreed. The Mets would have loved to have kept Nady. But they liked Perez a lot, and thought they needed immediate bullpen help after Sanchez's injury. Edgy DC Jan 16 2009 09:31 AM And they did. It may look like they got little in bringing Robo back, but he did fine. It was just that the greater immediate success of the subsequent Guillermo Mota acquisition left Robo marginalized. attgig Jan 16 2009 10:43 AM ="Edgy DC":12wtotpe]Oliver Perez, last year at 26: 10-7, 4.22 ERA, 100 ERA+, 194.0 IP. Andy Pettitte, last year at 36: 14-14, 4.54 ERA, 98 ERA+, 204.0 IP. Kiss my agita.[/quote:12wtotpe] so, Olie was just average, and Pettite was just under average going by ERA+ I don't like either option here... Edgy DC Jan 16 2009 10:58 AM A starting pitcher with a league average ERA is not an average pitcher, because (1) relief ERAs tend to be lower than starting ERAS and (2) the better and best pitchers pitchers pitch disproportionately more innings than the worser and worst. attgig Jan 16 2009 12:42 PM sheets on the otherhand: last year at age 29: 13-9, 3.09 ERA, 139 ERA+, 198.3 IP Edgy DC Jan 16 2009 12:54 PM But he's a righty! Benjamin Grimm Jan 16 2009 12:58 PM And his name is kind of like a sentence.

="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.

Ok then. Anyone think the Cora signing was sort of a peace pipe offering from Omar to Boras to say "We can still talk. Now let's do some serious talking about Perez?" Later

="Edgy DC":2htik5y9]All I'm getting on wifey Nilda Cora is that the FBI interviewed a Nilda Cora in the aftermath of September 11.[/quote:2htik5y9] Any bets on which NY writer is going to have an article titled "Mets sign husband of suspected terrorist" and then fill out the article with a lot of speculative claptrap? Later Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:11 AM I'll guess that no such article will be written. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:46 AM I know Bucket has been shilling for Hairston since day 1, but the truth is he'd be an unreliable bench player. For the same reason Castro is a "bad backup catcher" because he is so often unavailable, so, too, would Hairston be a much riskier signing than Cora. You know what your going to get. A good glove, versatility, not much stick, but enough for a utility infielder. Yes, Hairston is a better offensive player when healthy, but he rarely is. Look, they had to sign somebody to be the 25th man. He's it. No big deal, but at least he'll be there if you need him. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:46 AM Ok then. Anyone think the Cora signing was sort of a peace pipe offering from Omar to Boras to say "We can still talk. Now let's do some serious talking about Perez?" Later smg58 Jan 14 2009 01:00 PM No, we needed a reserve infielder who won't kill us at short if Reyes needs a day or two off, and Cora was the best remaining available player who fit that description. metirish Jan 14 2009 01:53 PM I thought that the Mets have no problems dealing with Boras , and he no problems with them. Valadius Jan 14 2009 04:02 PM If we can replace Marlon Anderson with someone better, I'll call it a wash. But I hope he's a guy we can part with if a prospect beats him out. G-Fafif Jan 14 2009 04:25 PM ="Iubitul":20qdmhzc]When I saw the headline, "Mets Reach Agreement With Cora" on my RSS reader, I thought, "Freakin' Omar - brought Joey Cora out of retirement".[/quote:20qdmhzc] I've spent most of Alex's career thinking, "Not Joey?" Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 07:01 PM ="Valadius":2rd11ho2]If we can replace Marlon Anderson with someone better, I'll call it a wash. But I hope he's a guy we can part with if a prospect beats him out.[/quote:2rd11ho2] I hope he's a guy no prospect can beat out. Ashie62 Jan 14 2009 07:38 PM So lets so..the best we can do is Alex Cora & Tim Redding. Fine additions to Citi/Morgan Stanley/Smith Barney/Madoff/Taxpayer Field I'm beginning to think Wilpon lost it all in real estate CDO's Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 08:45 PM ="Ashie62":2o5zqj4i]So lets so..the best we can do is Alex Cora & Tim Redding.[/quote:2o5zqj4i] Well, I think Rodriguez and Putz are a bit better than Cora & Redding. Also, from what I understand, the off-season still has some time to go. duan Jan 15 2009 04:11 AM the key with the mets to be sure that we get more value out of the non-core players. Last year the mets didn't have a nearly Major League Average innings sponge for the 5th starter slot. Redding should give them that, but if something better comes along the 2-3 million spent on Redding will be used as longman/spot starter. Last season we had 4 people the we'd pulled in on minor league deals start 13 games, showing the problems we had finding satisfactory depth in the rotation. This year if we sign one of Perez/Wolf/Sheets we now have Redding & Niese to be the 5th slot and provide some injury cover. If Niese takes some lumps that's ok cause it can contribute to development a la Pelfrey. The money is fine as is the one year part of the equation. duan Jan 15 2009 04:15 AM sorry also I should reference that Cora fulfils the same function. We spent way too much time with Argenis Reyes being our good fielding reserve. Cora's your man that allows you to PH for Castillo with someone else when you need a sac-fly in the 8th inning. I'm not saying we'd be thrilled if Reyes' hammy pops and Cora's the replacement but having one defensive middle IF is ok because it allows you to fill the other bench slots with guys who's got different skill sets allow platoon matchups. duan Jan 15 2009 06:33 AM does anyone think That Moises might be up for coming back in a kick ass pinch hitting odd start, DH in interleague play role. he'd be totaly savage. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 07:11 AM ="Ashie62":ojzs9ftv]So lets so..the best we can do is Alex Cora & Tim Redding. Fine additions to Citi/Morgan Stanley/Smith Barney/Madoff/Taxpayer Field I'm beginning to think Wilpon lost it all in real estate CDO's[/quote:ojzs9ftv] That's twice now you elected to overlook Francisco Rodriguez and J.J. Putz, cleon/grote whatever. Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2009 03:48 PM Cora's signing is now official. attgig Jan 22 2009 04:17 PM sad when i'm looking for mets news, this and freddie deciding between the mets and yanks are the biggest things out there... MFS62 Jan 22 2009 04:34 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1dsbg77z]Cora's signing is now official.[/quote:1dsbg77z] Be still my heart. Later

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

I would guess that Wigginton could have been brought back for that amount of money. He can play second (granted, probably not as well) but could also fill in at other positions, is a righty bat, and has more power than Cora. I guess he's ok. Meh Later

I'd scan Sheets' arm with every test known to mankind until it glows in the dark. And if nothing bad shows up, sign him. Later

Remember when MLB was going to put Spiderman on the bases? There was a tremendoud hue and cry from the fans, and the idea was killed. Maybe the front office will back off on this idea as a result of reactions such as the stories we've seen linked here. At least, we can hope. Later

IIRC, Sheets' late season injury was "stiffness in the forearm". I'm not sure how the cause of that can be diagnosed. Later

="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.

From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later

Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later

="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.