batmagadanleadoff

Has it been confirmed that the new apple will also rise out of a magician's hat? If I remember correctly, the old magician's hat was a tie-in to the "The Magic is Back" 1980 ad campaign. Perhaps Met management doesn't consider the hat as being integral to the apple. I'd guess that there'll be a new magic hat to go along with the new apple ... but you never know.

="G-Fafif":1vm29rsf]His preliminary thoughts here[/url:1vm29rsf].[/quote:1vm29rsf] After reading the roster of ex-Mets in attendance, the first thing I thought of is whether bmfc1 could get Doug Flynn to donate one of his old jerseys to soupie. bmfc1 Jan 19 2009 08:03 PM Thanks everyone. The best part was the surprise appearance by this forums namesake. I will try and tell him about us. Doug Flynn was with a gorgeous woman. More later on FAFIF. G-Fafif Jan 19 2009 08:23 PM Jeff's obviously big time into Mister Koo, as evidenced by his uniform choice[/url:33ptvf76]. G-Fafif Jan 20 2009 03:31 PM Doug Flynn's a hoot, bmfc1 reports[/url:14lfgj4l]. Fman99 Jan 20 2009 04:10 PM ="G-Fafif":1q249yei]Jeff's obviously big time into Mister Koo, as evidenced by his uniform choice[/url:1q249yei].[/quote:1q249yei] I had assumed that he was a Komiyama fan. G-Fafif Jan 20 2009 04:22 PM My guess was Jerry Morales, but what do I know? G-Fafif Jan 21 2009 02:36 AM Pat Zachry salts his tongue, Lenny Randle assaults his chest and Bobby Wine gets on his case, yet you couldn't knock the smile off bmfc1's face at Mets Fantasy Camp[/url:1it3lw2s] on Tuesday. He's already better at being a Met than Bobby Bonilla. Also, see how the Mets attempt to motivate[/url:1it3lw2s] themselves. (Surprisingly, it's not with money.) metirish Jan 21 2009 06:53 AM I love reading his daily exploits down there , sounds like he is having a blast and the ex-players are a lot of fun. One thing , I for some reason thought fantasy camp was a one week thing but in reading the entry form Tuesday I see mention of 80 people at camp last week and 80 this week. So how many camps are there ? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2009 07:41 AM Great stuff. I don't think I'd ever have the courage to even pretend to play baseball with the pros. Edgy DC Jan 21 2009 08:19 AM That Pepsi machine is inspiring. That inside scoop on Duaner Sanchez may mean nothing, but it's more than any professional Mets correspondent has come up with in recent weeks. G-Fafif Jan 21 2009 09:18 AM ="metirish":2fqgi2s7]I love reading his daily exploits down there , sounds like he is having a blast and the ex-players are a lot of fun. One thing , I for some reason thought fantasy camp was a one week thing but in reading the entry form Tuesday I see mention of 80 people at camp last week and 80 this week. So how many camps are there ?[/quote:2fqgi2s7] Two per year, judging from the Mets site[/url:2fqgi2s7]. G-Fafif Jan 22 2009 04:21 AM It's every ballplayer's dream to be told how to prepare your laundry like a big-leaguer...or so bmfc1 tells us here[/url:2qnuogol]. His laundry? Here[/url:2qnuogol]. Edgy DC Jan 22 2009 07:57 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2009 07:15 AM Can there be any doubt that the problems with the last two Septembers can be traced to a franchise afflicted with the most un-inspiring motivational rhetoric ever? http://faithandfear.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2009/1/21/4064537.html G-Fafif Jan 23 2009 02:58 AM Day Four of Fantasy Camp: bmfc1 learns the Ropes, praises the Dude; and gets edited by a former Met hurler. It's all here[/url:25pivpn6]. More inspiring rhetoric[/url:25pivpn6], too. G-Fafif Jan 24 2009 04:02 AM BMFC plans to dare Pete Schourek to stick it in his ear today. Well, maybe not, but you can read more about it here[/url:1q778t59]. G-Fafif Jan 24 2009 09:18 PM The end of the road[/url:tkncb9ai] has come for Mets fantasy campers like bmfc1. Read what it was like to face Anthony Young and say goodbye to all that here[/url:tkncb9ai]. G-Fafif Jun 01 2009 01:58 PM The logical conclusion to Fantasy Camp is a turn with the big club. FAFIF St. Lucie correspondent bmfc1 and his fellow Fantasists get to ply their skills at Santos Stadium tomorrow. Yesterday each camper was called to line up on the warning track and hear his name called. Coach Swoboda met our man before the game, pictured here. I was happily along for the ride. Photo by accident. PiggiesTomatoes Jun 01 2009 06:57 PM I had the pleasure of going with a couple of buddies in 06 and had a great time. Photos really help to supplement the memories.

He's starting to look like Robert Klein.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1gam0e1s]="Benjamin Grimm":1gam0e1s]He was the first "manager" baseball card I ever had. At least, I think so. I recall having his 1971 card, but all I could find online was his 1972: [/quote:1gam0e1s] I never got the jersey-over-windbreaker look. So many ballplayers used to do this.[/quote:1gam0e1s] Those windbreakers you see underneath the uniform were sometimes called "thermal suits" and were intended to be used on colder days. Preston's '72 card was photographed in Candelstick Park. Earlier thermal suits appear to be heavier and more cumbersome. It's possible that at a later point, some of those "thermal suits" were made of thinner material, thus facilitating the use of that suit as much for style as for function. They don't wear those anymore, right? HahnSolo Jan 16 2009 07:11 AM Interesting (probably only to me) that Gomez's '71 card had manager abbreviated as "mgr", while Hodges's is spelled out "manager". themetfairy Jan 16 2009 07:17 AM ="HahnSolo":2zhjly8b]Interesting (probably only to me) that Gomez's '71 card had manager abbreviated as "mgr", while Hodges's is spelled out "manager".[/quote:2zhjly8b] Gil's name was shorter - they had more room for his position on it. Met Hunter Jan 16 2009 08:03 AM ="metirish"]] In July 1970, he used a pinch-hitter for Clay Kirby after he had pitched eight hitless innings in San Diego against the Mets, who led by 1-0. The pinch-hitter, Clarence Gaston, struck out, and the Mets went on to score two runs and get three hits in the ninth for a 3-0 victory. How did the Mets score that first run? According to Retro Sheet: Harrelson singled. Singleton bunted him over. Shamsky intentionally walked. Jorgensen then pinch ran Cleon Jones singled them over. Bases loaded. Garrett struck out. Foy singled in two. Grote grounded out. Edgy DC Jan 16 2009 08:13 AM Them's the last two runs. I think he's looking for the initial run that put them up 1-0 without a hit. metirish Jan 16 2009 08:18 AM ="Edgy DC":3t4lw9qq]Them's the last two runs. I think he's looking for the initial run that put them up 1-0 without a hit.[/quote:3t4lw9qq] Exactly. Met Hunter Jan 16 2009 08:43 AM ="metirish":4hte5aoo]="Edgy DC":4hte5aoo]Them's the last two runs. I think he's looking for the initial run that put them up 1-0 without a hit.[/quote:4hte5aoo] Exactly.[/quote:4hte5aoo] Sorry. My mistake. Top 1: Agee walked. Then stole second. Harrelson popped out. Singleton walked. Agee stole third. Singleton stole second. Shamsky fielder's choice 4-3. Agee scored. Jones struck out. metirish Jan 16 2009 08:47 AM Thank you Met Hunter from hunting that down. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 16 2009 08:52 AM ="HahnSolo":tq0o6xxx]Interesting (probably only to me) that Gomez's '71 card had manager abbreviated as "mgr", while Hodges's is spelled out "manager".[/quote:tq0o6xxx] No, not just you. I actually prefer that approach to squeezing the leading or point size, though I suppose in the interest of true consistency in style they'd go with mgr. on all cards just to avoid this issue. Edgy DC Jan 16 2009 09:06 AM I might've gone for a line break. preston gomez� manager Eh.

The last effin Yankee we took in cost us post-season play, twice. Let Willie Randolph destroy some other team's offense.

="Frayed Knot"]CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" I had a strong feeling that your post was gonna kill this thread.

Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3hn0xubd]="batmagadanleadoff":3hn0xubd]="Edgy DC":3hn0xubd]I pray that you don't edit that.[/quote:3hn0xubd] Too late. I can't help myself.[/quote:3hn0xubd] What'd I miss?[/quote:3hn0xubd] Nothing. I edited the post to correct my know/now. And then I added a few lines (no deletions) that were consistent with the spirit of the entire post. I just edit my posts a lot, that's all. I think Edgy noticed. But I'm not totally sure that he was even referring to my post, so there is that possibility. Or something else. I dunno. seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 12:37 PM Who was the other dumbass who voted for Jay Bell? I know ESPN's Pedro Gomez was one of them. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:38 PM Are there really two people who think Jay Bell belongs in the Hall of Fame? Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:40 PM I'm shocked that Raines' total was so low. Iguess his candidacy will be a long and grinding one like Blyleven's and Rice's have been. McGwire lost 10 votes from last year, but you really have to look at it as a bigger loss than that because last year was his first on the ballot, so its not like he had a bunch of guys saying "i wont first ballot him but i like him in." Tommy John was the biggest guy in his last year of eligibility, he didn't even come close (which is fine.) I guess if Blyleven wants to get in he has to un-retire and play for some teams that will give him more support, or he can assasinate those voters still stupid enough to think W's are a meaningful statistic for an individual. Why is Trammell continuosly ignored? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:44 PM Actually, I think this was McGwire's third year on the ballot. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM McGwire's pct went down, but so did that of Raines and Trammel The two closest to the door, Blyleven & Dawson, both got a shade closer compared to last year. Tommy John was in his final year. The <5% guys get dropped: Cone, Orosco, Vaughn^2, Bell, Williams, Gant & Plesac - all first year guys. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:46 PM hmm ok, well in any case he wont be getting in. the real test cases for the steroid era will be Bonds and Clemens though, because both would get 95%+ of the vote absent steroids Centerfield Jan 12 2009 12:48 PM ="Edgy DC":2m29bboa]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:2m29bboa] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded. soupcan Jan 12 2009 12:48 PM From redsox.com ]The Red Sox policy on retiring uniform numbers is based on the following criteria: � Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame � At least 10 years played with the Red Sox So now that Jim Rice becomes a Hall of Famer who spent at least 10 years with the Red Sox - does he automatically get his number retired by them? I'll bet he does. Not automatically but I bet they do it. No reason not to. What was he..14 right? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:51 PM I think McGwire's vote totals are an ominous sign for Clemens and Bonds, which is part of the reason why I'm so pleased. True, without steroids they'd both be sure-fire first-ballot guys, but if McGwire, a guy who hit 583 home runs, is only getting 22% of the vote, then we can see that ("alleged") steroid use carries a high HOF-vote penalty. I'm sure McGwire would otherwise easily be at 50% (and that's very conservative) so if steroids costs you 27 or more percentage points, then they, essentially, make you ineligible. Willets Point Jan 12 2009 12:53 PM Yay for both of them. Hard to believe that Rickey isn't still playing. Willets Point Jan 12 2009 12:55 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":333icjy9]Are there really two people who think Jay Bell belongs in the Hall of Fame?[/quote:333icjy9] Jay Bell's toddlers? Jay Bell's parents? Centerfield Jan 12 2009 12:55 PM 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. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:59 PM ="Centerfield":2jvc996l]="Edgy DC":2jvc996l]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:2jvc996l] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded.[/quote:2jvc996l] Of course I disagree. There will always be a minority opinion. It's healthy for a democracy. And rescinding the rights of someone who departs with the majority position, no matter how compelling it is to the heart or mind, is akin to fascism. And again, while you nitpick over the non-harm done to Rickey Henderson's legacy, look at the true harm done to Tim Raines'. Fman99 Jan 12 2009 01:12 PM ="Benjamin Grimm"]Rickey, of course, deserves it without a doubt. I'm not so sure what I think about Rice. Since I don't have a vote I haven't given it much thought. Had I a vote, though, I think I would have done a "bullet ballot" with just Henderson's name on it. This is the part I'm happiest about: ] Mark McGwire 118 21.9% That's actually a decline from last year, isn't it? I think he was at around 23% his first two years. There were some flimsy rumors that McGwire might start to see a rise in vote totals, but as long as he stays far far away from 75% I'll be happy. Mac scored 128 votes each of his first two seasons, so he did lose a bit of ground this year. metirish Jan 12 2009 01:16 PM I's wrong but in the next few days there will probably be more column inches given to those voters than left Henderson of there ballot than to the players that failed to get in like Raines. Those voters shouldn't become the story. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 01:18 PM I don't care about Rickey Henderson's legacy. At least, not for the sake of this argument. I don't know enough about Tim Raines to know whether he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. But I don't lose sleep over the borderline guys. If they make it, great. If not, they're a borderline guy. I don't care. What I don't like are the idiots who can't follow simple rules. The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments. There can be no intelligent argument given for leaving Henderson off the ballot. He is just too good. The ones that leave him off have created their own criteria. (He's not a first-ballot guy, he is a first-ballot guy, but if Seaver wasn't unanimous, I don't want him to be either, bla bla bla) Out of the millions of people who follow baseball, these select 500 individuals are given the honor of selecting the people who are inducted into the Hall of Fame. If you can't follow simple rules, you should lose that honor. If they don't like the criteria, they are free to petition the Hall to change them. They can write articles (they are writers after all) about who deserves to be a first ballot guy etc. They can ask the Hall to introduce levels onto the ballot (First Tier Hall of Famer, Second Tier, Only getting in because of Sympathy Tier etc). But until the Hall does that, they should follow the fucking rules. I disagree that there are always minority opinions, but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound. Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong. If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law. Likewise, anyone who argues that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer should not be voting for the Hall of Fame. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 01:20 PM ="Centerfield":1llejwm6]="Edgy DC":1llejwm6]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:1llejwm6] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded.[/quote:1llejwm6] It's a tough call, because my idea of a no-brainer -- Seaver -- might be different from someone else's and you start down a slippery slope when you start stripping ballots. I favor making all the ballots public, so we know who voted for who. This isn't some governmental election. Then you can see who the dumbasses are and hold them accountable. Make them make a case for why they don't think Rickey Henderson or Tom Seaver or Hank Aaron or Willie Mays belongs. My buddy and I have been chatting about this, and here was his repsonse: I bet most of them are of the old-timer, "if Babe or Ty aren't unanimous neither is anyone else" ilk who refuse to vote for anyone, regardless, on the first ballot. There used to be a few who turned in blank ballots in protest of Pete Rose, but I doubt that's an issue any more. I suspect Ricky's "Today I'm the Greatest" speech turned off a lot of writers (aka dumbf***s) there. If Ripken couldn't get 100 percent, I don't see anyone else getting it, although how do you possibly vote against Maddux? (Even pre-McNamee, Clemens didn't have a shot because of his jerk status.) Depending on how he finishes his career, DFJ might come the closest of any current candidate: great numbers, Skank postseason mystique, no scandal of any kind, beloved by the media. He's sloughed off the past couple of years, but if he gets around 3,500 hits (a good chance, given good health) and the Yanks win another title or two with him as shortstop (unknown), then he'll be real close. Pujols might have a shot, but even if his totals end up near Bonds' level, the whispers of PEDs might be enough to keep him from 100 percent. A-Rod? See Postseason, choke; and Fodder, tabloid. And my own PS: If Rickey goes in wearing a Skank cap, I'm gonna hurl. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 01:27 PM Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 01:29 PM I would gladly allow the voter to justify his decision before stripping his voting rights. I suspect that their explanations would only confirm the dumb-assedness of their decision. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 01:37 PM ="Centerfield":3a52kunr]I would gladly allow the voter to justify his decision before stripping his voting rights. I suspect that their explanations would only confirm the dumb-assedness of their decision.[/quote:3a52kunr] Would love to know if Klapisch has ever voted for a Met! When I worked in Flint, the sports editor would let me oogle the HoF ballot. You'd be surprised how very plain it is. Maybe its changed in the years since. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 12 2009 01:43 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2g3fq09w]Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb.[/quote:2g3fq09w] Well, to be fair (and as I'm sure you know), the DiMaggio voting was all screwed up[/url:2g3fq09w]. That he didn't make it the first time is more likely because of a wacky system than voters' negligence. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 01:52 PM The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 02:08 PM the ballots should be made public, this isnt a political election. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 02:12 PM ="MFS62"]The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later A guy frm OAKLAND didn't vote for him?????? Are you freaking kidding me? You telling me his own paper didn't do several stories about how the hometown kid being up for the Hall this year? Idiot. metirish Jan 12 2009 02:13 PM ="MFS62"]The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later He's taking the piss right? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 02:22 PM That's unreal. He's a baseball writer in Oakland. He needed to do "research" to know that Rickey belonged in the Hall. AND he voted for eight other guys instead. What a maroon. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 02:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 02:35 PM ="Centerfield"]I don't care about Rickey Henderson's legacy. At least, not for the sake of this argument. I don't know enough about Tim Raines to know whether he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. But I don't lose sleep over the borderline guys. I know plenty about Tim Raines and I don't think he's a bordeline case. ="Centerfield"]What I don't like are the idiots who can't follow simple rules. The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments. No, they don't. ="Centerfield"]There can be no intelligent argument given for leaving Henderson off the ballot. It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error --- on both sides --- to protect the mainstream from living under the whim of the minority opinion. ]I disagree that there are always minority opinions, Really? What do you know of that 500 people broadly selected agree on? ]but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound. No, it's not. ]Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong. No, they don't. ]If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law. And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. ]Likewise, anyone who argues that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer should not be voting for the Hall of Fame. Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. dgwphotography Jan 12 2009 02:28 PM That's offensive to maroons everywhere... Obviously Rickey is a no-brainer. I think Rice should have been a just-miss, but I'm not terribly upset by his enshrinement. As mentioned earlier, Bonds and Clemens should prove interesting. the argument can be made that Bonds had already achieved HOF credentials pre-steroids. I don't think any such case can be made for Clemens if the story of his use starting in Toronto are true. Either way, neither cheater should be allowed in now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 02:38 PM I think we as a people are eventually going to have to come to grips with the idea that everyone was cheating (or rightly should be suspected of cheating) at the same time as Bonds, Clemens and McGwire and like it or not we're going to have to hold our noses and consider their accomplishments in the context of their era. I think McGwire is destined to have an especially hard time of all of them since his best skill was the one most associated with PEDs, rightly or wrongly, and that he was a fraud who hid behind the poor-single-father facade and seemingly turned aside several chances to come clean including at a certain congressional dog-and-pony show. I think somewhere we have to remember that the pitchers trying to get Bonds and McGwire out were users, the opponents challenging them for records and contracts were users, and the minor leaguers who wantd their jobs were users too. Doesn't make it right, but adds context. Valadius Jan 12 2009 02:45 PM I am thrilled by the election of both Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice. Rice becomes only the third player elected in his final year of eligibility, joining Red Ruffing and Ralph Kiner. Grimmy, time to update the UMDB page on the Hall of Fame. And speaking of that, Gary Carter and Eddie Murray need their profiles filled out. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 02:46 PM Based on what I know and what I think I know of who used what and their career tracks: Bonds put up a Hall of Fame career if he never hears the word steroids. Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. McGwire is an early burnout who gets about as much support as he's getting now. That said, I think it's perfectly rational for writers to lock them all out based on what they know and what they think they know, and if they want to be selective, or even keep out most of an entire generation, they may try to do that, and it'll compel more players to play clean and come clean. If Mike Piazza used, there's got to be a dozen guys that know it, and if he gets support while somebody else does not because of suspicions, somebody will sing. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 02:56 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":rwd1ymci]I think somewhere we have to remember that the pitchers trying to get Bonds and McGwire out were users, the opponents challenging them for records and contracts were users, and the minor leaguers who wantd their jobs were users too. Doesn't make it right, but adds context.[/quote:rwd1ymci] True enough. But in my opinion, those two guys brought particular disgrace to the game, and I do give weight to the "Fame" part of "Hall of Fame." Despite their stats, I'd disqualify them for their infamy. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 03:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 03:02 PM ="Edgy DC"]I know plenty about Tim Raines and I don't think he's a bordeline case. Think what you will. I'm not arguing about Tim. ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't [state that if a guy is eligible, he is judged on his accomplishments. Then what is it based on? Singing voice? From the Hall's Website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. To me, that sounds like you judge a player on how good he was. ="Edgy DC"]It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error to account for them --- on both sides. Voting for the Hall of Fame is not a democracy. You and I don't have the right to vote. The Hall of Fame voters are awarded that right because they are believed to be members of an elite group of educated, knowledgeable voters. (Oligarchy? I forget) If they demonstrate that they cannot follow the rules set for them, or in the case of the Oakland writer, that they are, despite their membership in the BBWAA, grossly underqualified to be voting, they should be stripped of that right. The whole point of limiting voting rights to the writers, and not the general public, is to eliminate the dumbass vote. ="Edgy DC"] Really? What do you know of that 500 people broadly selected agree on? Things that I would guess all 500 voters agree on: 1. You should not run over babies with your car. 2. I would rather eat cupcakes than eat dog poo. 3. Breaking your leg hurts. 4. Breathing air beats suffocating to death. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound." No, it's not. I consider it the more pertinent issue. We could go back and I could come up with more examples of things everyone agrees on. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong." No, they don't. Um. Ok. Everyone I've ever met agrees that speeding is wrong. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law." And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That it's better to leave the idiot in place, because it's harmless? I say it's better to remove him from Congress where he can be even more harmlesser and give the privilege of law-making to someone more qualified. ="Edgy DC"] Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. What harm? No one has listed even one drawback of forcing people to follow the rules. ="Edgy DC"] You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. Sure. But I can't identify them yet. If they vote in a way that exposes them as idiots, then get ax them too. For instance, if one of the guys who voted for Rickey also voted for Jay Bell, I'd want him to lose his voting privileges because that exposes him as a moron. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 03:00 PM ="Valadius"]Grimmy, time to update the UMDB page on the Hall of Fame. Not yet. I'll wait until he's actually inducted. Remind me again in July. (I'm sure I won't really need to be reminded.) ="Valadius"]And speaking of that, Gary Carter and Eddie Murray need their profiles filled out. Yeah, I've been lazy about that, haven't I? Truthfully, I'm still not too motivated. If you (or anyone else) care to bang out a couple of paragraphs that puts the players Mets career into the context of their overall career (for Carter, Henderson, and Murray) feel free to do so. I can't promise I'll post it exactly as you write it, but I can't promise that I won't. Just try to keep it in the same spirit as the other entries on that page. Thanks! Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 03:37 PM ="Centerfield"]The rules state that if a guy is eligible, he is judged on his accomplishments. ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't ="Centerfield"]Then what is it based on? Singing voice? From the Hall's Website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. To me, that sounds like you judge a player on how good he was. That, to me, sounds very different from "accomplishments," and very different from "how good he was." Nice try, but there is a world of difference beween six criteria, though they clearly overlap, and one. ="Edgy DC"]It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error to account for them --- on both sides. ="Centerfield"]Voting for the Hall of Fame is not a democracy. You and I don't have the right to vote. Universal suffrage is not the nature of democracy. The Hall of fame goes for a vote based on principles of democracy. I'm not arguing about what constitutes a democratic state, only pointing out what is inevetiable once you submit to those principles. Absolutely inevitable. Minority opinions that you don't like but are nonetheless impotent. ="Centerfield"]The whole point of limiting voting rights to the writers, and not the general public, is to eliminate the dumbass vote. You really think the general public would produce fewer dumbass votes? ="Edgy DC"]Things that I would guess all 500 voters agree on... Thanks for the absurdist positon. We'll see when it's voted on. ="Centerfield"]but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound." ="Edgy DC"]No, it's not. ="Centerfield"]I consider it the more pertinent issue. We could go back and I could come up with more examples of things everyone agrees on. I'm not arguing that all minority opinions are or aren't sound. I'm arguing that there are no victims to the minority opinion until they are joined by enough voices to validate themselves. It takes 75% to get in for God sakes. Henderson isn't a victim. Period. ="Centerfield"]Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong." ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't. ="Centerfield"]Um. Ok. Everyone I've ever met agrees that speeding is wrong. I'm calling bullshit. ="Centerfield"]"If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law." ="Edgy DC"]And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. ="Centerfield"]I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That it's better to leave the idiot in place, because it's harmless? I say it's better to remove him from Congress where he can be even more harmlesser and give the privilege of law-making to someone more qualified. His constuents will remove him if and when they're tired of how he represents their views. If he's removed for voting in the minority by the legislative body he is a part of, those constutents will be rightfully angry. ="Edgy DC"] Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. ="Centerfield"]What harm? No one has listed even one drawback of forcing people to follow the rules. The rules are to cast your vote for zero to ten people. The criteria are listed. The harm is the tyranny of the majority. ="Edgy DC"] You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. ="Centerfield"]Sure. But I can't identify them yet. If they vote in a way that exposes them as idiots, then get ax them too. For instance, if one of the guys who voted for Rickey also voted for Jay Bell, I'd want him to lose his voting privileges because that exposes him as a moron. Good luck with that. You'd be standing alone on this planet with a worn-out ax. I'll tell you what, maybe you should find out who votes from your favorite paper, and threaten to withdraw your subscription, patronage of their sponsors, etc., if they don't vote according to your rationale. But Raines is the real victim here (and it's not enough to say you don't know enough about him, while crying out against the igorance of others). Anybody who would pooh-pooh somebody being absolutely screwed by the majority opinion while decrying the the lack of absolute consensus in another case would be the type of person who would, I don't know, place the sartorial importance of the entire Met uniform beneath that of the orange dot on the hat. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 04:07 PM Be honest with me, you're just arguing with me for the sake or arguing right? Have you been planted to distract me from my work? Crap. I need to get better at staying focused. Anyway, back to the argument. I don't see how this is a controversial position. As far as I know, the Hall of Fame has no obligation to grant the Writer's Association the privilege of selecting their inductees. It's bestowed upon them because, at some point, the Hall figured the writers were in the best position to judge who belongs and who doesn't. We can argue about the exact wording, but basically, the criteria seems to be: really really good baseball player that didn't do anything serious enough in his personal life to fuck things up. When a baseball writer, a member of this voting class, starts promoting absurd ideas, such as Rickey Henderson not belonging, or Jay Bell belonging, they are clearly underqualified to hold this right. They are, as I mentioned, either applying their own criteria or really dumb. Now, if the whole point of granting the vote to writers, and not fans in general (such as All-Star voting) was to eliminate the dumb votes, and the arbitrary votes, and the random preferences, I don't think it is odd to suggest that writers who exhibit this random voting behavior should be removed. I view the right to vote for the Hall of Fame as a responsibility to uphold the criteria set by the Hall. If one cannot abide by it, harmless or not, that person's vote should be given to someone who will. Maybe I'm showing my profession here, but it bothers me to no end when those given a position of authority feel that the rules don't apply to them and that they can make up their own standards. You're right. Rickey is not a victim here. I never said he was. I don't care where he ranks in percentage. I'm saying get these idiots out of the voting pool before they're put in a position where they can do real damage. Like Tim Raines. If I'm Tim, I want my credentials reviewed by a pool of people who are all bright enough to understand that Rickey is a Hall of Famer. I want those twenty some-odd people gone, and smarter people replacing them. I want the guy who voted for Jay Bell gone, and the guy who voted for Orosco. If I am a legitimate candidate, I want intelligent decision makers deciding my fate. Like I said, I don't know enough about Tim to know whether he belongs or not. That makes me unqualified to vote for the Hall of Fame. However, knowing that Rickey belongs and Jay Bell doesn't, makes me MUCH more qualified to vote than some of the dumbasses that did. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 04:26 PM ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Be honest with me, you're just arguing with me for the sake or arguing right? Have you been planted to distract me from my work? Crap. I need to get better at staying focused.[/quote:2ucmatoa] I was going to ask the same. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]I don't see how this is a controversial position.[/quote:2ucmatoa] 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. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]When a baseball writer, a member of this voting class, starts promoting absurd ideas, such as Rickey Henderson not belonging, or Jay Bell belonging, they are clearly underqualified to hold this right. They are, as I mentioned, either applying their own criteria or really dumb.[/quote:2ucmatoa] And I think, when you're on the overwhelmingly winning side, you need to have enough security in that to humble yourself and be charitable about the continued existence of the minority. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Now, if the whole point of granting the vote to writers, and not fans in general (such as All-Star voting) was to eliminate the dumb votes, and the arbitrary votes, and the random preferences, I don't think it is odd to suggest that writers who exhibit this random voting behavior should be removed.[/quote:2ucmatoa] It may not be odd, but it is dangerously intolerant. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]I view the right to vote for the Hall of Fame as a responsibility to uphold the criteria set by the Hall. If one cannot abide by it, harmless or not, that person's vote should be given to someone who will. Maybe I'm showing my profession here, but it bothers me to no end when those given a position of authority feel that the rules don't apply to them and that they can make up their own standards. [/quote:2ucmatoa] But it's pretty easy to argue that you made up your own standards. Six criteria exist. Everybody gives them different weight, including you. And somebody can weigh them so as to disclude almost anybody. The consensus prevailed, and that's the way things work. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]You're right. Rickey is not a victim here. I never said he was. I don't care where he ranks in percentage. I'm saying get these idiots out of the voting pool before they're put in a position where they can do real damage. Like Tim Raines.[/quote:2ucmatoa] But Tim Raines is not a victim of the outliers you declare to be unworthy of the vote. Tim Raines is a victim of the majority. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]If I'm Tim, I want my credentials reviewed by a pool of people who are all bright enough to understand that Rickey is a Hall of Famer. I want those twenty some-odd people gone, and smarter people replacing them. I want the guy who voted for Jay Bell gone, and the guy who voted for Orosco. If I am a legitimate candidate, I want intelligent decision makers deciding my fate.[/quote:2ucmatoa] And who is this body? ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Like I said, I don't know enough about Tim to know whether he belongs or not. That makes me unqualified to vote for the Hall of Fame.[/quote:2ucmatoa] But you're qualified to vote on the voters? Minority votes are healthy, even when they're wrong. They force us to examine even our most sacred positions. I disagree with the elimantion of somebody who fails to garner 5% of the vote. Lou Whitaker got eliminated without reconsideration, while Ryne Sandberg is immoralized in bronze. metirish Jan 12 2009 04:36 PM You two should get a room, great reading btw. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 05:05 PM ]But you're qualified to vote on the voters? i see no contradiction here. he's not saying that if he had the right to vote that he wouldnt make it his business to become better informed on the players he is voting on. the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 05:10 PM ="Edgy DC":19453cj2] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:19453cj2] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:13 PM Rickey on MLB Hot Stove talking about Rickey getting into the HOF. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:35 PM ="Nymr83"]the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. I got the impression that he either didn't double check his work and or didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot or played the first-ballot game, not that he was unaware of Henderson's career. Double checked and it seems to be a combination of the two. He overlooked it and then stubbornly refused to review when it was pointed out. http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_11408571 Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? On the other hand, we screw up too. The guy is from The Tucson Citizen and not Oakland at all. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:36 PM ="SteveJRogers":2mcf9cv6]="Edgy DC":2mcf9cv6] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:2mcf9cv6] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days.[/quote:2mcf9cv6] I don't care what it's based on. My point is that he would have gotten strong support, no matter the voters' motives, if his career petered out on it's tracjectory from that point with, say, 30 more victories. themetfairy Jan 12 2009 05:45 PM Fanhouse speculates on the content of Rickey's HOF acceptance speech[/url:25za1esj]. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 05:47 PM ="Edgy DC":ri22fmh2] Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? [/quote:ri22fmh2] Watch it, you young whippersnapper. Er, I see your point. Later Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:06 PM ="Centerfield":o99zxfxb]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:o99zxfxb] There's a difference? metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 07:43 PM i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... that THT article is great. i've been wondering the same thing myself, as a result of an especially time-wasty hof-related project i'm miring myself in... SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:50 PM ="Gwreck":28khau2g]="Centerfield":28khau2g]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:28khau2g] There's a difference?[/quote:28khau2g] TECHNICALLY McGwire was only guilty of having a masking agent, which was legal in baseball at the time, in his locker. His name hasn't been officially named in any court document, or report. The only things people have on him is that his name is in the original Canseco book, anecdotal evidence (body size pre-Oakland, and post baseball) and "I'm not here to talk about the past." SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:52 PM ="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong. I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here? You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. ="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. I'm just responding to what you write. ="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all. ="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities. ="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. By the same token, you made up your own. ="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently. ="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. ="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? By making a rational argument that moves their heart. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. ="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself. No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election. ="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections. ... i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it. and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody? and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote. and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it. It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame. metirish Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson. ] The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions. it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM from the hall's own rules: ]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. well, that answers my question. thanks. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position. ="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following: Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote. He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria). To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee. Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb. I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys. But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

I suppose that Jim Rice banged out a few more home runs between last year and this year to finally get in.

="Edgy DC":3j8acplf]I pray that you don't edit that.[/quote:3j8acplf] Too late. I can't help myself. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 12:17 PM Player Total Votes Percentage Rickey Henderson 511 94.8% Jim Rice 412 76.4% Andre Dawson 361 67.0% Bert Blyleven 338 62.7% Lee Smith 240 44.5% Jack Morris 237 44.0% Tommy John 171 31.7% Tim Raines 122 22.6% Mark McGwire 118 21.9% Alan Trammell 94 17.4% Dave Parker 81 15.0% Don Mattingly 64 11.9% Dale Murphy 62 11.5% Harold Baines 32 5.9% Mark Grace 22 4.1% David Cone 21 3.9% Matt Williams 7 1.3% Mo Vaughn 6 1.1% Jay Bell 2 0.4% Jesse Orosco 1 0.2% Ron Gant 0 0% Dan Plesac 0 0% Greg Vaughn 0 0% batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 12:18 PM I suppose that Jim Rice banged out a few more home runs between last year and this year to finally get in. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 12:20 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":25z1ab4b]="Edgy DC":25z1ab4b]I pray that you don't edit that.[/quote:25z1ab4b] Too late. I can't help myself.[/quote:25z1ab4b] What did it say? Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:22 PM That's Nymr's line. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:23 PM Rickey, of course, deserves it without a doubt. I'm not so sure what I think about Rice. Since I don't have a vote I haven't given it much thought. Had I a vote, though, I think I would have done a "bullet ballot" with just Henderson's name on it. This is the part I'm happiest about: ] Mark McGwire 118 21.9% That's actually a decline from last year, isn't it? I think he was at around 23% his first two years. There were some flimsy rumors that McGwire might start to see a rise in vote totals, but as long as he stays far far away from 75% I'll be happy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:26 PM ="Centerfield":xsozsl64]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded.[/quote:xsozsl64] I know there are some who say that, if Joe DiMaggio, or Willie Mays, or Jackie Robinson, or whatever baseball icon, didn't get in unanimously, then neither should whoever is currently being considered, so they'll hold back on voting for the sure-thing candidate. I am surprised, though, that Rickey didn't come closer to Seaver's total. He got less than Tony Gwynn? I suspect it's more than the no-unanimous thing in Rickey's case. He must have lost some votes for his personality, I suppose. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:27 PM Instead of talking about the now-irrelevant 28 voters who passed on Henderson, how about the highly relevant 417 who passed on Raines? It does no good to get exercised about the outlying dissidents when true justice and injustice is done in the hands of the mainstream. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 12:30 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":g7v9ddzu]="Edgy DC":g7v9ddzu]I pray that you don't edit that.[/quote:g7v9ddzu] Too late. I can't help myself.[/quote:g7v9ddzu] What'd I miss? It's a bad way to think about it, but Rice getting in may make it easier for those guys who may deserve it more but have less juice, like Raines or Trammell. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:33 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1lt65a9j]What'd I miss?[/quote:1lt65a9j] ="batmagadanleadoff":1lt65a9j]"We now know that 1999 was Rickey's last truly productive season.[/quote:1lt65a9j] Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 12:33 PM Offer the voters a choice where they can add a player to their favorite team who will be an exact clone of Tim Raines - same strengths, same weaknesses, same length of career - or an exact clone of Lee Smtih under the same circumstances and see which one they choose. Then ask them why their HoF vote doesn't reflect that. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 12:33 PM ="Edgy DC":rp43tszz]Instead of talking about the now-irrelevant 28 voters who passed on Henderson, how about the highly relevant 417 who passed on Raines? It does no good to get exercised about the outlying dissidents when true justice and injustice is done in the hands of the mainstream.[/quote:rp43tszz] I agree wholeheartedly. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:35 PM Metzkoviches: Rickey Henderson 511 94.8% David Cone 21 3.9% Mo Vaughn 6 1.1% Jay Bell 2 0.4% Jesse Orosco 1 0.2% batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 12:35 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3hn0xubd]="batmagadanleadoff":3hn0xubd]="Edgy DC":3hn0xubd]I pray that you don't edit that.[/quote:3hn0xubd] Too late. I can't help myself.[/quote:3hn0xubd] What'd I miss?[/quote:3hn0xubd] Nothing. I edited the post to correct my know/now. And then I added a few lines (no deletions) that were consistent with the spirit of the entire post. I just edit my posts a lot, that's all. I think Edgy noticed. But I'm not totally sure that he was even referring to my post, so there is that possibility. Or something else. I dunno. seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 12:37 PM Who was the other dumbass who voted for Jay Bell? I know ESPN's Pedro Gomez was one of them. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:38 PM Are there really two people who think Jay Bell belongs in the Hall of Fame? Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:40 PM I'm shocked that Raines' total was so low. Iguess his candidacy will be a long and grinding one like Blyleven's and Rice's have been. McGwire lost 10 votes from last year, but you really have to look at it as a bigger loss than that because last year was his first on the ballot, so its not like he had a bunch of guys saying "i wont first ballot him but i like him in." Tommy John was the biggest guy in his last year of eligibility, he didn't even come close (which is fine.) I guess if Blyleven wants to get in he has to un-retire and play for some teams that will give him more support, or he can assasinate those voters still stupid enough to think W's are a meaningful statistic for an individual. Why is Trammell continuosly ignored? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:44 PM Actually, I think this was McGwire's third year on the ballot. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM McGwire's pct went down, but so did that of Raines and Trammel The two closest to the door, Blyleven & Dawson, both got a shade closer compared to last year. Tommy John was in his final year. The <5% guys get dropped: Cone, Orosco, Vaughn^2, Bell, Williams, Gant & Plesac - all first year guys. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:46 PM hmm ok, well in any case he wont be getting in. the real test cases for the steroid era will be Bonds and Clemens though, because both would get 95%+ of the vote absent steroids Centerfield Jan 12 2009 12:48 PM ="Edgy DC":2m29bboa]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:2m29bboa] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded. soupcan Jan 12 2009 12:48 PM From redsox.com ]The Red Sox policy on retiring uniform numbers is based on the following criteria: � Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame � At least 10 years played with the Red Sox So now that Jim Rice becomes a Hall of Famer who spent at least 10 years with the Red Sox - does he automatically get his number retired by them? I'll bet he does. Not automatically but I bet they do it. No reason not to. What was he..14 right? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 12:51 PM I think McGwire's vote totals are an ominous sign for Clemens and Bonds, which is part of the reason why I'm so pleased. True, without steroids they'd both be sure-fire first-ballot guys, but if McGwire, a guy who hit 583 home runs, is only getting 22% of the vote, then we can see that ("alleged") steroid use carries a high HOF-vote penalty. I'm sure McGwire would otherwise easily be at 50% (and that's very conservative) so if steroids costs you 27 or more percentage points, then they, essentially, make you ineligible. Willets Point Jan 12 2009 12:53 PM Yay for both of them. Hard to believe that Rickey isn't still playing. Willets Point Jan 12 2009 12:55 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":333icjy9]Are there really two people who think Jay Bell belongs in the Hall of Fame?[/quote:333icjy9] Jay Bell's toddlers? Jay Bell's parents? Centerfield Jan 12 2009 12:55 PM 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. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 12:59 PM ="Centerfield":2jvc996l]="Edgy DC":2jvc996l]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:2jvc996l] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded.[/quote:2jvc996l] Of course I disagree. There will always be a minority opinion. It's healthy for a democracy. And rescinding the rights of someone who departs with the majority position, no matter how compelling it is to the heart or mind, is akin to fascism. And again, while you nitpick over the non-harm done to Rickey Henderson's legacy, look at the true harm done to Tim Raines'. Fman99 Jan 12 2009 01:12 PM ="Benjamin Grimm"]Rickey, of course, deserves it without a doubt. I'm not so sure what I think about Rice. Since I don't have a vote I haven't given it much thought. Had I a vote, though, I think I would have done a "bullet ballot" with just Henderson's name on it. This is the part I'm happiest about: ] Mark McGwire 118 21.9% That's actually a decline from last year, isn't it? I think he was at around 23% his first two years. There were some flimsy rumors that McGwire might start to see a rise in vote totals, but as long as he stays far far away from 75% I'll be happy. Mac scored 128 votes each of his first two seasons, so he did lose a bit of ground this year. metirish Jan 12 2009 01:16 PM I's wrong but in the next few days there will probably be more column inches given to those voters than left Henderson of there ballot than to the players that failed to get in like Raines. Those voters shouldn't become the story. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 01:18 PM I don't care about Rickey Henderson's legacy. At least, not for the sake of this argument. I don't know enough about Tim Raines to know whether he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. But I don't lose sleep over the borderline guys. If they make it, great. If not, they're a borderline guy. I don't care. What I don't like are the idiots who can't follow simple rules. The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments. There can be no intelligent argument given for leaving Henderson off the ballot. He is just too good. The ones that leave him off have created their own criteria. (He's not a first-ballot guy, he is a first-ballot guy, but if Seaver wasn't unanimous, I don't want him to be either, bla bla bla) Out of the millions of people who follow baseball, these select 500 individuals are given the honor of selecting the people who are inducted into the Hall of Fame. If you can't follow simple rules, you should lose that honor. If they don't like the criteria, they are free to petition the Hall to change them. They can write articles (they are writers after all) about who deserves to be a first ballot guy etc. They can ask the Hall to introduce levels onto the ballot (First Tier Hall of Famer, Second Tier, Only getting in because of Sympathy Tier etc). But until the Hall does that, they should follow the fucking rules. I disagree that there are always minority opinions, but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound. Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong. If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law. Likewise, anyone who argues that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer should not be voting for the Hall of Fame. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 01:20 PM ="Centerfield":1llejwm6]="Edgy DC":1llejwm6]That's Nymr's line.[/quote:1llejwm6] Do you disagree with that? People who left Rickey off their ballot either know nothing about baseball, or refuse to follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. Either way, their voting privileges should be rescinded.[/quote:1llejwm6] It's a tough call, because my idea of a no-brainer -- Seaver -- might be different from someone else's and you start down a slippery slope when you start stripping ballots. I favor making all the ballots public, so we know who voted for who. This isn't some governmental election. Then you can see who the dumbasses are and hold them accountable. Make them make a case for why they don't think Rickey Henderson or Tom Seaver or Hank Aaron or Willie Mays belongs. My buddy and I have been chatting about this, and here was his repsonse: I bet most of them are of the old-timer, "if Babe or Ty aren't unanimous neither is anyone else" ilk who refuse to vote for anyone, regardless, on the first ballot. There used to be a few who turned in blank ballots in protest of Pete Rose, but I doubt that's an issue any more. I suspect Ricky's "Today I'm the Greatest" speech turned off a lot of writers (aka dumbf***s) there. If Ripken couldn't get 100 percent, I don't see anyone else getting it, although how do you possibly vote against Maddux? (Even pre-McNamee, Clemens didn't have a shot because of his jerk status.) Depending on how he finishes his career, DFJ might come the closest of any current candidate: great numbers, Skank postseason mystique, no scandal of any kind, beloved by the media. He's sloughed off the past couple of years, but if he gets around 3,500 hits (a good chance, given good health) and the Yanks win another title or two with him as shortstop (unknown), then he'll be real close. Pujols might have a shot, but even if his totals end up near Bonds' level, the whispers of PEDs might be enough to keep him from 100 percent. A-Rod? See Postseason, choke; and Fodder, tabloid. And my own PS: If Rickey goes in wearing a Skank cap, I'm gonna hurl. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 01:27 PM Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 01:29 PM I would gladly allow the voter to justify his decision before stripping his voting rights. I suspect that their explanations would only confirm the dumb-assedness of their decision. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 01:37 PM ="Centerfield":3a52kunr]I would gladly allow the voter to justify his decision before stripping his voting rights. I suspect that their explanations would only confirm the dumb-assedness of their decision.[/quote:3a52kunr] Would love to know if Klapisch has ever voted for a Met! When I worked in Flint, the sports editor would let me oogle the HoF ballot. You'd be surprised how very plain it is. Maybe its changed in the years since. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 12 2009 01:43 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2g3fq09w]Not only was Yogi Berra not a unanimous ballot, but Yogi didn't even get into the Hall in his first year of eligibility. (ditto Diamggio and Hornsby and Ott) Talk about dumb.[/quote:2g3fq09w] Well, to be fair (and as I'm sure you know), the DiMaggio voting was all screwed up[/url:2g3fq09w]. That he didn't make it the first time is more likely because of a wacky system than voters' negligence. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 01:52 PM The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 02:08 PM the ballots should be made public, this isnt a political election. metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2009 02:12 PM ="MFS62"]The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later A guy frm OAKLAND didn't vote for him?????? Are you freaking kidding me? You telling me his own paper didn't do several stories about how the hometown kid being up for the Hall this year? Idiot. metirish Jan 12 2009 02:13 PM ="MFS62"]The Mea Culpa from on guy who didn't vote from Rickey (as seen on Yahoo): ]From the Oakland Tribune: "If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head. "He was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more � and I wish to heck I had." Later He's taking the piss right? Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 02:22 PM That's unreal. He's a baseball writer in Oakland. He needed to do "research" to know that Rickey belonged in the Hall. AND he voted for eight other guys instead. What a maroon. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 02:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 02:35 PM ="Centerfield"]I don't care about Rickey Henderson's legacy. At least, not for the sake of this argument. I don't know enough about Tim Raines to know whether he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. But I don't lose sleep over the borderline guys. I know plenty about Tim Raines and I don't think he's a bordeline case. ="Centerfield"]What I don't like are the idiots who can't follow simple rules. The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments. No, they don't. ="Centerfield"]There can be no intelligent argument given for leaving Henderson off the ballot. It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error --- on both sides --- to protect the mainstream from living under the whim of the minority opinion. ]I disagree that there are always minority opinions, Really? What do you know of that 500 people broadly selected agree on? ]but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound. No, it's not. ]Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong. No, they don't. ]If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law. And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. ]Likewise, anyone who argues that Rickey Henderson is not a Hall of Famer should not be voting for the Hall of Fame. Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. dgwphotography Jan 12 2009 02:28 PM That's offensive to maroons everywhere... Obviously Rickey is a no-brainer. I think Rice should have been a just-miss, but I'm not terribly upset by his enshrinement. As mentioned earlier, Bonds and Clemens should prove interesting. the argument can be made that Bonds had already achieved HOF credentials pre-steroids. I don't think any such case can be made for Clemens if the story of his use starting in Toronto are true. Either way, neither cheater should be allowed in now. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 02:38 PM I think we as a people are eventually going to have to come to grips with the idea that everyone was cheating (or rightly should be suspected of cheating) at the same time as Bonds, Clemens and McGwire and like it or not we're going to have to hold our noses and consider their accomplishments in the context of their era. I think McGwire is destined to have an especially hard time of all of them since his best skill was the one most associated with PEDs, rightly or wrongly, and that he was a fraud who hid behind the poor-single-father facade and seemingly turned aside several chances to come clean including at a certain congressional dog-and-pony show. I think somewhere we have to remember that the pitchers trying to get Bonds and McGwire out were users, the opponents challenging them for records and contracts were users, and the minor leaguers who wantd their jobs were users too. Doesn't make it right, but adds context. Valadius Jan 12 2009 02:45 PM I am thrilled by the election of both Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice. Rice becomes only the third player elected in his final year of eligibility, joining Red Ruffing and Ralph Kiner. Grimmy, time to update the UMDB page on the Hall of Fame. And speaking of that, Gary Carter and Eddie Murray need their profiles filled out. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 02:46 PM Based on what I know and what I think I know of who used what and their career tracks: Bonds put up a Hall of Fame career if he never hears the word steroids. Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. McGwire is an early burnout who gets about as much support as he's getting now. That said, I think it's perfectly rational for writers to lock them all out based on what they know and what they think they know, and if they want to be selective, or even keep out most of an entire generation, they may try to do that, and it'll compel more players to play clean and come clean. If Mike Piazza used, there's got to be a dozen guys that know it, and if he gets support while somebody else does not because of suspicions, somebody will sing. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 02:56 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":rwd1ymci]I think somewhere we have to remember that the pitchers trying to get Bonds and McGwire out were users, the opponents challenging them for records and contracts were users, and the minor leaguers who wantd their jobs were users too. Doesn't make it right, but adds context.[/quote:rwd1ymci] True enough. But in my opinion, those two guys brought particular disgrace to the game, and I do give weight to the "Fame" part of "Hall of Fame." Despite their stats, I'd disqualify them for their infamy. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 03:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 03:02 PM ="Edgy DC"]I know plenty about Tim Raines and I don't think he's a bordeline case. Think what you will. I'm not arguing about Tim. ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't [state that if a guy is eligible, he is judged on his accomplishments. Then what is it based on? Singing voice? From the Hall's Website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. To me, that sounds like you judge a player on how good he was. ="Edgy DC"]It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error to account for them --- on both sides. Voting for the Hall of Fame is not a democracy. You and I don't have the right to vote. The Hall of Fame voters are awarded that right because they are believed to be members of an elite group of educated, knowledgeable voters. (Oligarchy? I forget) If they demonstrate that they cannot follow the rules set for them, or in the case of the Oakland writer, that they are, despite their membership in the BBWAA, grossly underqualified to be voting, they should be stripped of that right. The whole point of limiting voting rights to the writers, and not the general public, is to eliminate the dumbass vote. ="Edgy DC"] Really? What do you know of that 500 people broadly selected agree on? Things that I would guess all 500 voters agree on: 1. You should not run over babies with your car. 2. I would rather eat cupcakes than eat dog poo. 3. Breaking your leg hurts. 4. Breathing air beats suffocating to death. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound." No, it's not. I consider it the more pertinent issue. We could go back and I could come up with more examples of things everyone agrees on. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong." No, they don't. Um. Ok. Everyone I've ever met agrees that speeding is wrong. ="Edgy DC"] CF: "If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law." And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That it's better to leave the idiot in place, because it's harmless? I say it's better to remove him from Congress where he can be even more harmlesser and give the privilege of law-making to someone more qualified. ="Edgy DC"] Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. What harm? No one has listed even one drawback of forcing people to follow the rules. ="Edgy DC"] You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. Sure. But I can't identify them yet. If they vote in a way that exposes them as idiots, then get ax them too. For instance, if one of the guys who voted for Rickey also voted for Jay Bell, I'd want him to lose his voting privileges because that exposes him as a moron. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 03:00 PM ="Valadius"]Grimmy, time to update the UMDB page on the Hall of Fame. Not yet. I'll wait until he's actually inducted. Remind me again in July. (I'm sure I won't really need to be reminded.) ="Valadius"]And speaking of that, Gary Carter and Eddie Murray need their profiles filled out. Yeah, I've been lazy about that, haven't I? Truthfully, I'm still not too motivated. If you (or anyone else) care to bang out a couple of paragraphs that puts the players Mets career into the context of their overall career (for Carter, Henderson, and Murray) feel free to do so. I can't promise I'll post it exactly as you write it, but I can't promise that I won't. Just try to keep it in the same spirit as the other entries on that page. Thanks! Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 03:37 PM ="Centerfield"]The rules state that if a guy is eligible, he is judged on his accomplishments. ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't ="Centerfield"]Then what is it based on? Singing voice? From the Hall's Website: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. To me, that sounds like you judge a player on how good he was. That, to me, sounds very different from "accomplishments," and very different from "how good he was." Nice try, but there is a world of difference beween six criteria, though they clearly overlap, and one. ="Edgy DC"]It's a pointless argument to entertain and I'd rather not be drawn into playing the devil's advocate against Rickey. My point is that the nature of democracy is to indulge the rights of people who you think are un-intelligent, and the system is designed to provide a margin of error to account for them --- on both sides. ="Centerfield"]Voting for the Hall of Fame is not a democracy. You and I don't have the right to vote. Universal suffrage is not the nature of democracy. The Hall of fame goes for a vote based on principles of democracy. I'm not arguing about what constitutes a democratic state, only pointing out what is inevetiable once you submit to those principles. Absolutely inevitable. Minority opinions that you don't like but are nonetheless impotent. ="Centerfield"]The whole point of limiting voting rights to the writers, and not the general public, is to eliminate the dumbass vote. You really think the general public would produce fewer dumbass votes? ="Edgy DC"]Things that I would guess all 500 voters agree on... Thanks for the absurdist positon. We'll see when it's voted on. ="Centerfield"]but the more pertinent issue is that not all minority points are sound." ="Edgy DC"]No, it's not. ="Centerfield"]I consider it the more pertinent issue. We could go back and I could come up with more examples of things everyone agrees on. I'm not arguing that all minority opinions are or aren't sound. I'm arguing that there are no victims to the minority opinion until they are joined by enough voices to validate themselves. It takes 75% to get in for God sakes. Henderson isn't a victim. Period. ="Centerfield"]Everyone agrees that speeding is wrong." ="Edgy DC"]No, they don't. ="Centerfield"]Um. Ok. Everyone I've ever met agrees that speeding is wrong. I'm calling bullshit. ="Centerfield"]"If there is a member of the legislature that argues speeding should be punishable by death, that is a stupid, impractical minority opinion. And that guy has no business making law." ="Edgy DC"]And the system is designed to frustrate him. He will either come toward the mainstream or slide into greater irrelevancy. That's the nature of democracy. ="Centerfield"]I'm not sure what you're arguing here. That it's better to leave the idiot in place, because it's harmless? I say it's better to remove him from Congress where he can be even more harmlesser and give the privilege of law-making to someone more qualified. His constuents will remove him if and when they're tired of how he represents their views. If he's removed for voting in the minority by the legislative body he is a part of, those constutents will be rightfully angry. ="Edgy DC"] Such a policy will do more harm than good. I don't know how you can't see that. ="Centerfield"]What harm? No one has listed even one drawback of forcing people to follow the rules. The rules are to cast your vote for zero to ten people. The criteria are listed. The harm is the tyranny of the majority. ="Edgy DC"] You know, it's entirely possible that just as large a number of people who voted for Henderson voted for him for reasons you'd find just as intolerable. ="Centerfield"]Sure. But I can't identify them yet. If they vote in a way that exposes them as idiots, then get ax them too. For instance, if one of the guys who voted for Rickey also voted for Jay Bell, I'd want him to lose his voting privileges because that exposes him as a moron. Good luck with that. You'd be standing alone on this planet with a worn-out ax. I'll tell you what, maybe you should find out who votes from your favorite paper, and threaten to withdraw your subscription, patronage of their sponsors, etc., if they don't vote according to your rationale. But Raines is the real victim here (and it's not enough to say you don't know enough about him, while crying out against the igorance of others). Anybody who would pooh-pooh somebody being absolutely screwed by the majority opinion while decrying the the lack of absolute consensus in another case would be the type of person who would, I don't know, place the sartorial importance of the entire Met uniform beneath that of the orange dot on the hat. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 04:07 PM Be honest with me, you're just arguing with me for the sake or arguing right? Have you been planted to distract me from my work? Crap. I need to get better at staying focused. Anyway, back to the argument. I don't see how this is a controversial position. As far as I know, the Hall of Fame has no obligation to grant the Writer's Association the privilege of selecting their inductees. It's bestowed upon them because, at some point, the Hall figured the writers were in the best position to judge who belongs and who doesn't. We can argue about the exact wording, but basically, the criteria seems to be: really really good baseball player that didn't do anything serious enough in his personal life to fuck things up. When a baseball writer, a member of this voting class, starts promoting absurd ideas, such as Rickey Henderson not belonging, or Jay Bell belonging, they are clearly underqualified to hold this right. They are, as I mentioned, either applying their own criteria or really dumb. Now, if the whole point of granting the vote to writers, and not fans in general (such as All-Star voting) was to eliminate the dumb votes, and the arbitrary votes, and the random preferences, I don't think it is odd to suggest that writers who exhibit this random voting behavior should be removed. I view the right to vote for the Hall of Fame as a responsibility to uphold the criteria set by the Hall. If one cannot abide by it, harmless or not, that person's vote should be given to someone who will. Maybe I'm showing my profession here, but it bothers me to no end when those given a position of authority feel that the rules don't apply to them and that they can make up their own standards. You're right. Rickey is not a victim here. I never said he was. I don't care where he ranks in percentage. I'm saying get these idiots out of the voting pool before they're put in a position where they can do real damage. Like Tim Raines. If I'm Tim, I want my credentials reviewed by a pool of people who are all bright enough to understand that Rickey is a Hall of Famer. I want those twenty some-odd people gone, and smarter people replacing them. I want the guy who voted for Jay Bell gone, and the guy who voted for Orosco. If I am a legitimate candidate, I want intelligent decision makers deciding my fate. Like I said, I don't know enough about Tim to know whether he belongs or not. That makes me unqualified to vote for the Hall of Fame. However, knowing that Rickey belongs and Jay Bell doesn't, makes me MUCH more qualified to vote than some of the dumbasses that did. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 04:26 PM ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Be honest with me, you're just arguing with me for the sake or arguing right? Have you been planted to distract me from my work? Crap. I need to get better at staying focused.[/quote:2ucmatoa] I was going to ask the same. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]I don't see how this is a controversial position.[/quote:2ucmatoa] 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. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]When a baseball writer, a member of this voting class, starts promoting absurd ideas, such as Rickey Henderson not belonging, or Jay Bell belonging, they are clearly underqualified to hold this right. They are, as I mentioned, either applying their own criteria or really dumb.[/quote:2ucmatoa] And I think, when you're on the overwhelmingly winning side, you need to have enough security in that to humble yourself and be charitable about the continued existence of the minority. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Now, if the whole point of granting the vote to writers, and not fans in general (such as All-Star voting) was to eliminate the dumb votes, and the arbitrary votes, and the random preferences, I don't think it is odd to suggest that writers who exhibit this random voting behavior should be removed.[/quote:2ucmatoa] It may not be odd, but it is dangerously intolerant. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]I view the right to vote for the Hall of Fame as a responsibility to uphold the criteria set by the Hall. If one cannot abide by it, harmless or not, that person's vote should be given to someone who will. Maybe I'm showing my profession here, but it bothers me to no end when those given a position of authority feel that the rules don't apply to them and that they can make up their own standards. [/quote:2ucmatoa] But it's pretty easy to argue that you made up your own standards. Six criteria exist. Everybody gives them different weight, including you. And somebody can weigh them so as to disclude almost anybody. The consensus prevailed, and that's the way things work. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]You're right. Rickey is not a victim here. I never said he was. I don't care where he ranks in percentage. I'm saying get these idiots out of the voting pool before they're put in a position where they can do real damage. Like Tim Raines.[/quote:2ucmatoa] But Tim Raines is not a victim of the outliers you declare to be unworthy of the vote. Tim Raines is a victim of the majority. ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]If I'm Tim, I want my credentials reviewed by a pool of people who are all bright enough to understand that Rickey is a Hall of Famer. I want those twenty some-odd people gone, and smarter people replacing them. I want the guy who voted for Jay Bell gone, and the guy who voted for Orosco. If I am a legitimate candidate, I want intelligent decision makers deciding my fate.[/quote:2ucmatoa] And who is this body? ="Centerfield":2ucmatoa]Like I said, I don't know enough about Tim to know whether he belongs or not. That makes me unqualified to vote for the Hall of Fame.[/quote:2ucmatoa] But you're qualified to vote on the voters? Minority votes are healthy, even when they're wrong. They force us to examine even our most sacred positions. I disagree with the elimantion of somebody who fails to garner 5% of the vote. Lou Whitaker got eliminated without reconsideration, while Ryne Sandberg is immoralized in bronze. metirish Jan 12 2009 04:36 PM You two should get a room, great reading btw. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 05:05 PM ]But you're qualified to vote on the voters? i see no contradiction here. he's not saying that if he had the right to vote that he wouldnt make it his business to become better informed on the players he is voting on. the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 05:10 PM ="Edgy DC":19453cj2] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:19453cj2] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:13 PM Rickey on MLB Hot Stove talking about Rickey getting into the HOF. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:35 PM ="Nymr83"]the guy who didn't vote for henderson and admitted he "didn't know" about him shouldn't be allowed to vote, because he's admitted that he doesn't care to take the effort to judge which players fit the criteria that was quoted above. I got the impression that he either didn't double check his work and or didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot or played the first-ballot game, not that he was unaware of Henderson's career. Double checked and it seems to be a combination of the two. He overlooked it and then stubbornly refused to review when it was pointed out. http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_11408571 Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? On the other hand, we screw up too. The guy is from The Tucson Citizen and not Oakland at all. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 05:36 PM ="SteveJRogers":2mcf9cv6]="Edgy DC":2mcf9cv6] Clemens had a foot and a half in the door when he got to Toronto. [/quote:2mcf9cv6] I'm not so sure it was that close though. Oh he'd get in if he said he had enough before going to Toronto, but it would have been based on "legacy" voting rather than an actual analysis of what he accomplished. In other words, voters would be voting simply on his first few years, and ignoring the fact that he was an average pitcher by the end of his Red Sox days.[/quote:2mcf9cv6] I don't care what it's based on. My point is that he would have gotten strong support, no matter the voters' motives, if his career petered out on it's tracjectory from that point with, say, 30 more victories. themetfairy Jan 12 2009 05:45 PM Fanhouse speculates on the content of Rickey's HOF acceptance speech[/url:25za1esj]. MFS62 Jan 12 2009 05:47 PM ="Edgy DC":ri22fmh2] Old folks: trouble with ballots and stubborn as heck. What else is new? [/quote:ri22fmh2] Watch it, you young whippersnapper. Er, I see your point. Later Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:06 PM ="Centerfield":o99zxfxb]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:o99zxfxb] There's a difference? metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 07:43 PM i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... that THT article is great. i've been wondering the same thing myself, as a result of an especially time-wasty hof-related project i'm miring myself in... SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:50 PM ="Gwreck":28khau2g]="Centerfield":28khau2g]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:28khau2g] There's a difference?[/quote:28khau2g] TECHNICALLY McGwire was only guilty of having a masking agent, which was legal in baseball at the time, in his locker. His name hasn't been officially named in any court document, or report. The only things people have on him is that his name is in the original Canseco book, anecdotal evidence (body size pre-Oakland, and post baseball) and "I'm not here to talk about the past." SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:52 PM ="metsmarathon":1fdxmugo]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... [/quote:1fdxmugo] I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 07:54 PM 162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him SteveJRogers Jan 12 2009 07:59 PM ="Nymr83":1u41q325]162 ops+, .394 obp, .588 slugging. he is a no brainer if you arent going to hold steroids against him[/quote:1u41q325] I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing why baseball writers, who care more about opp than ops+ or obp, would consider McGwire a lock if they weren't holding steroids against him. Which is different than why people who study stats and analysis would consider him a lock, or not. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:12 PM I may be smart enought to shit a dictionary, but I don't know what Steve is talking about. metsmarathon Jan 12 2009 11:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="metsmarathon"]i just wish there were more voters who cared to point out that mcgwire just wasn't good enough to be in the hall... I doubt that though. He does have that "magic" 500 homers on his ledger and if he didn't have the steroid stink thanks to what I mentioned above, he'd have that "saved baseball" label. should "magic numbers" or "saving baseball" be sufficient, steve, for a player to merit induction into the hall of fame? i'm asking for your own actual opinion here. not what you think might be the opinions of others whom you've never met, or the possible opinions you might've read somewhere on the internets. what do you yourself think, and why? ... as far as mcgwire goes, i'm overstating a bit my opinion on his hof merit. i showed a bit more of the reasoning way back over here: and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously: ]per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks... among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. summing it up in that handy table... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out he's basically a below average hall of famer. that's probably pretty good, overall. he's hurt by being hurt a lot, and having a relatively short career, and not playing generally good defense (gold glove not withstanding) i'm in the process of re-looking my methodology on the hall, and with baseballprospectus talking up some major, big changes to their WARP3 calculations, i might be forced to redo it all once i have it close to being finished... and we'll see what i come up with then... but right now, mcgwire would surely not top my ballot. imo there are easily four more hof-worthy players on the ballot. is that a fair cutoff? i'm not sure, as i'm not sure where my cutoff actually is. if i were a voter, would i really only vote for four players this year? i dunno. that sounds a bit harsh actually. so maybe mcgwire would get my vote afterall. the point i guess, is that i wouldn't consider him a lock, or a no brainer. i wish the voters were looking at the merits of his career instead of its provenance, as i think that's a more interesting conversation (within the context of baseball). the ped issue is more like arguing religion. or politics. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:16 AM ="Edgy DC"] I happen to be a minority voter in much of my life, and I'm offended by the majority opinion attacking me with "too dumb to vote" arguments. I'm so smart I could shit a dictionary. It'd be a crude dictionary --- small and constructed entirely of shit --- but I could. Those who voice minority opinions should be ready for criticism coming from the majority. Sometimes, minority opinions will be well articulated, valid points of view. Your's, I believe, would probably fall into this category. I encourage minority opinions. I'm in the minority often as well. Some minority opinions, however, are dumbass steaming piles of crap. And if their vote is bestowed upon them because of an expected level of expertise, they are too dumb to vote. So I want the voters who leave Rickey, or Hank Aaron, or Mays, or Ripken off their ballot to justify their reasons for doing so. If they really are taking a stance, they should relish the opportunity to be heard. I suspect, though, that they will be applying some "I didn't see him as a first-ballot guy" or "If Seaver wasn't unanimous, he shouldn't be either" criteria that is not set forth in the rules. Or you'll discover just plain idiots who didn't realize Rickey wasAnd if this is their justification, I say strip them of this privilege and give it to someone who will research and follow the rules. Who? You. Me. Anyone who will take the time to get educated on the subject and abide by the criteria set by the Hall. I said I didn't know enough about Raines to know whether he was worth of induction or not. But if you gave me the right to vote, I'd make sure to get educated on it before checking off any names. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:27 AM I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:29 AM ="Gwreck":1s58j1sc]="Centerfield":1s58j1sc]I realize on the McGwire point (unlike the Henderson point) the baseball writers have more wiggle room to exercise discretion, but I think they should be careful to distinguish the evidence against Clemens and Bonds versus the evidence against McGwire.[/quote:1s58j1sc] There's a difference?[/quote:1s58j1sc] Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 08:42 AM ="Edgy DC":3ihja6wu]I am ready for criticism. I am not ready to defend my vote from being rescinded for being a big steaming pile of crap, because the ones who would decide the crappiness of my vote are the same majority who just outvoted me --- a jury of my opponents. The game is rigged. And no, I often don't relish the opportunity to be heard by people with passionate contempt for my views. I cherish the anonymity of my ballot and the dispassionate blindness with which its counted.[/quote:3ihja6wu] Who said anything about being reviewed by your opponents? How about this... Someone at the Hall (Board of Directors? Trustees? Important Hall People?) decided that the Writers' Association should have the right to vote on inductees. Those writers submitting questionable ballots (exclusion of Rickey, inclusion of Jay Bell) should have to justify their decision to a panel of Important Hall People (not fellow voters). If the IHP determine that the vote was justified, great. If not, the voter is put on probation, told to abide by the rules (or get educated). If the voter has a second transgression during the probation period, his vote is rescinded. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:48 AM Yeah, my response would be that Jay Bell appeared on the ballot as an eligible candidate, so blow me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 08:58 AM Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:33 AM I for one am vehemently opposed to keeping people out of the Hall of Fame purely on suspicion of steroids. If there's hard proof, I understand. But if suspicion of steroids is the sole reason behind keeping someone like McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, those voters don't deserve their voting privileges. They're journalists, after all - go get some solid facts. However, if they based not giving someone a Hall pass based on something tangible - in McGwire's case, his low batting average - I completely understand. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:41 AM How about the tangible facts of his testimony in Congress? I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:46 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":vgghykq1] I'd not vote for him because of the disgrace he brought to the game.[/quote:vgghykq1] Ditto. And double ditto for Bonds. Later Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 11:49 AM If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler. Valadius Jan 13 2009 11:51 AM If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. I must admit, I have a fondness for McGwire. I was 11 in 1998. The big home run chase was a big childhood memory for me. And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. If you want to debate a player's stats, fine. If there's definitive evidence that a player cheated, fine. But basing a vote on rumors and innuendo is destructive to the process. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 11:58 AM ]And I would feel cheated if the generation of players I grew up watching ends up getting shut out of the Hall of Fame. It's not about you. Great players who disgrace the game don't get in. Pete Rose didn't get in. Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't get in. And I don't think that Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire are going to get in. Your generation won't get shut out. But even if it does, so what? It's not about you. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:09 PM ="Valadius"]If I were a reporter, I'd call him up and ask him to explain himself. He was asked to explain himself, and he elected not to. A voter is asked to make a judgment call and they're making the logical one that the facts of his past incriminate him. Look at it this way, he said he didn't want to talk about the past. By not honoring his career and legacy by inducting him in the National Baseball Hall of Fame, those writers are honoring his request. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:28 PM ="Edgy DC":21bklxmx]If one more person starts rescinding voting privileges, I swear I'm gonna holler.[/quote:21bklxmx] no vote for you. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:48 PM i'd like to see what the reasoning behind some of the more interesting votes were - like the 6 yeses for mo vaughn and the 2 yeses for jay bell. at the very least, everybody got greg vaughn right, right? i'm also curious as to what the reasons are for not voting for either rickey or especially tim raines and bert blyleven. i think the thing that i'm most interested in seeing from the voters is internal consistency. if a guy voted for jay bell because he was a salt of the earth kind of guy, and didnt vote for rickey because he was a selfish player, then i'm okay with that (sortof), because it is a reasoned response to the judging criteria, wherin that voter has taken the liberty afforded him to weigh one factor far more heavily than another. because the criteria are so broad, nebulous, and essentially qualitative, it is the voter's right to apply his vote as he sees fit. i may argue with his weighting or reasoning, but at least there's reason applied. even if it's a simple dumb criteria like 'jim rice scared his opponents, and bert blyleven didnt' i can kindof live with it as long as the same criteria is applied evenly on a given ballot. but if you've denied ricky a vote because you don't believe that anybody should get in on their first try, but throw a bone to greg vaughn, well, then you're a fool, perhaps twice over. if you apply your reasoning evenly, than you can be argued with. and the greater point may even prevail. if the reasoning is not applied evenly, then the choices made are essentially illogical, and it becomes a waste of time to even bother discussing. i believe, too, that the voters should be voting on who they feel among the eligible were good enough to be in the hall of fame, not how long they should wait until they are enshrined, or by what percentage. that is really not what they are being asked to do, and that is what is frustrating. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:53 PM I'm frustrated that Jim Rice is on the inside when Tim Raines had a better career. Let us lobby the 380 voters who carry the day, not the 20 curiosities. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 01:25 PM ="Edgy DC"] Listen, it should be clear when you're pounding out sentences that "The rules state that if a guy is eligible, you judge him on his accomplishments." You're a lawyer, you know how important phrasing is. That is certainly not what the rules say at all. It is your interpretation of the criteria (not the rules, but the criteria) that satisfies your own sensibility. Other people will interpret them to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process. Are the selection criteria at issue here? I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? Because, in reality, standards have been set. A player's "record" has come to mean that there is an accepted level of performance deemed "Hall of Fame-worthy". When someone who falls near those guidelines gets in (or falls short) there will always be those who cry foul. Their point, and I believe your point, is that the voters got it wrong. I agree that the voters can get it wrong. In fact, I think they can be so wrong, they demonstrate they are in no position to be making these types of decisions. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. Again, your logic contradicts itself. If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:09 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:32 AM ="Centerfield"]Are the selection criteria at issue here? You keep saying that voters broke the rules. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. ="Centerfield"]I feel like you're jumping from issue to issue trying to win a point whereever you can. I'm just responding to what you write. ="Centerfield"]When I said that a player should be judged on his accomplishments, I didn't think we were getting into that exact of an argument over selection criteria. We know how players are to be judged with respect to the Hall of Fame. It is the same criteria you are using to advocate Tim Raines. Apparently, we don't know, because what you wrote, to me, does not accurately paraphrase the criteria at all. ="Centerfield"]My point was that the following issues are not things that the voters are to consider: 1. Whether they deem him a "first-ballot" guy 2. Whether he should get more percentage of the votes than (whatever legend). You're arguing much more than that. You're arguing that voters should be made to justify their votes and that their voting privileges should be rescinded if they don't account for themselves to some star chamber's satisfaction. Certain voters, not all, but ones that trigger your sensitivities. ="Centerfield"]And oftentimes, you will get justifications such as the foregoing for their outlandish omissions. They should not be allowed to create their own standards. They are not interpreting the criteria, they are making up their own. By the same token, you made up your own. ="Centerfield"]You say that voters are free to interpret the criteria "to satisfy their own sensibility. That's the process." That's just the way the world is. We all understand things differently. ="Centerfield"] Yet you say they got it wrong with Raines. If voters are free to satisfy their own sensibility, how can we ever find fault with their decisions? Easy. We say, "You got that wrong, and here's why," make an argument of our own, and lobby them. I didn't say we should always consider them right, I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. ="Centerfield"]Maybe those guys balanced those six criteria and deemed Raines unworthy. How can we ever tell anyone that their subjective views are wrong? How can we label it "harm"? By making a rational argument that moves their heart. ="Edgy DC"] The idea that Jay Bell was considered worthy to turn over to the body for their judgment, only to have the body cleansed of any single person who would vote for him, is farcical. ="Centerfield"]Again, your logic contradicts itself. No it doesn't. And there's no again. Don't you think that would be farcical? I think it would be outrageous in the context of anything called an election. ="Centerfield"]If a voter cannot be "wrong" about Jay Bell, they cannot be wrong about Tim Raines. If they can be wrong about Tim Raines, then they are certainly wrong about Jay Bell. I didn't say anybody can't be wrong. I say the way to establish right from wrong is not to strip the minority of their votes, but to lobby those you disagree with until one side compels enough voters past the designated threshold established to determine an issue. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:18 PM i think there are a greater percentage, by an order of magnitude, of unfit voters participating in our presidential elections than there are in the hall of fame elections. ... i have a quick question that perhaps nobody here can answer. i was just reading an article on nytimes.com, and in it, ty kepner mentioned that he did not vote, though he received a ballot, because the times' policy will not allow it. and it got me thinking.. does a ballot unreturned count towards the total? if 25% of the ballots were never returned, would it then be impossible for the hall to elect anybody? and if not, is not the times policy self-defeating? instead of making news by voting for a player, are they not making news by not voting for a player? if there is no abstention, then a lack of a yes vote is a no vote. and this, then, might be the source of some of the "no" (or non-"yes") votes for rickey. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 02:22 PM The Times policy has been in place a while now, and I'm sure the Hall accounts for it. It's also a good retort to the idea that the New York media machine or somesuch inflates the prospect of New York athletes being enshrined in Halls of Fame. metirish Jan 13 2009 02:26 PM In his NY Times blog Kepner has this to say about Dawson. ] The New York Times does not allow its writers to vote for the Hall of Fame, but if I could have sent in my ballot, I would have checked Dawson�s name � and not just because of childhood impressions. it's not sent in so I doubt it's counted either way. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 02:34 PM from the hall's own rules: ]Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. well, that answers my question. thanks. Centerfield Jan 13 2009 03:00 PM I don't know how many more pages this thread needs to continue before you stop mis-stating my position. ="Edgy DC"]I said that stripping people of their vote for being in the minority is awful. I never said one should be stripped of their vote for being in the minority. Some people elected to keep Rice off their ballot and I have no problem with that. To be clear, my position is the following: Where voting rights are bestowed upon a select group of educated individuals because of their superior knowledge, if an individual within that group demonstrates that he does not have such superior knowledge, he should be stripped of that privilege to vote. He should not be stripped of his vote for being in the minority. He should only be stripped if he is stupid (or refuses to abide by the established criteria). To my understanding, Nobel prizes winners are selected by committees, made up of highly qualified individuals in each field. If, during the selection process, a member of the Physics committee says "Oh, I thought we were selecting psychics", then that guy should be off the committee. Of course, this rescission of votes for the stupid should only take place where the privilege of voting was bestowed upon them based upon an assumption of superior knowledge. So rights like voting for President, which are not based on merit, should not be stripped for being dumb. I'm assuming, here, that the Hall gave the vote to writers, and not to fans, because they wanted voters to be educated. I could be wrong. The Hall could come back and say "Nope. We picked the writers because some are smart, some are stupid, and we wanted a good mix of both." In that case, it makes no sense to get rid of the dumb guys. But if it was the Hall's intent to put this decision in the hands of an educated few, I say get rid of the ones that demonstrate their idiocy. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 03:08 PM maybe fans should get to pick the writers who get to vote. Rob Neyer deserves a vote over some old guy who thinks a "walk" is what you do to get back to the dugout after you strike out Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 05:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 16 2009 10:35 AM Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or not exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. Gwreck Jan 13 2009 06:55 PM ="Centerfield":29tslt5o]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:29tslt5o] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:01 PM he's saying you shouldn't lump any of these guys together and say "they all used" but should instead consider only the evidence against each one. what were the exact circumstances of McGwire's testimony before Congress? was he subpoenad or did he appear on his own accord? if the former, i can understand his "i don't wanna talk about" answer which obviously would have come from his lawyer. if the latter he shouldnt have shown up voluntarily if he wasnt there to be honest and answer all questions. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 07:12 PM I'm pretty sure they all were subpoenad. Don't forget the Palmerio finger waging, Sosa forgetting that he is fluent in English and Schilling backing down from his original commentary on players who took steroids. The whole lot of them clearly got instructions from lawyers. Valadius Jan 13 2009 07:17 PM He was subpoenaed: ]Mar 16, 2005 1:18 pm US/Eastern Mark McGwire To Testify On Steroids Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig Will Testify NEW YORK (CBS) ― Mark McGwire plans to comply with a subpoena and attend Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, The Associated Press has learned. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:27 PM 1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:37 PM Why is unanimity so important to you? Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:38 PM Are you addressing me? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:40 PM Yes, please. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:41 PM Unanimity is not important to me. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:43 PM Then please accept a Hall of Fame without it. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 09:45 PM I do. Please don't bring up topics that have nothing to do with what I posted. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:57 PM It does not have nothing to do with what you posted. There is no crime and no damage done by a miniscule minority disagreeing with the mainstream. You want them disenfranchised, which does do harm by forcing a false consensus and chilling independent thought among all voters in all future elections. And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:00 PM You clearly have no idea what I want. You are reading what I said and extrapolating it incorrectly. I shall clarify one more time. I want the voters to be 1) people who understand the players' on the ballot and their careers 2) people who are able to place them in the proper historical context 3) people who vote "yes" if they think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame 4) people who vote "no" if they don't think the player belongs in the Hall of Fame Anyone who doesn't fit these criteria should not have a vote. Elster88 Jan 13 2009 10:01 PM ="Edgy DC":2jwfby5s]And spare me the snotty "Are you addressing me?" bullshit. We're adults.[/quote:2jwfby5s] Really? Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 10:02 PM Great. Good night. metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 07:59 AM i think it is perfectly allowable for a voter to have such high standards that rickey henderson does not meet them, provided they consistently apply those standards to their ballot and have a good logical reason for it. granted, the only remotely logical reason would be something about holding the hall to the same high standards as the first two or three classes of inductees. and if that's their standard, then good for them. there's no reason that the voters have to be hog-tied to the precedents set by prior votes and voters. if they, for instance, think that the hall of fame voting started to go awry when they lowered their standards for george sisler and willie keeler in 1939, that those guys aren't good enough to share the room with the babe and the big train, and neither is rickey, then that is their right. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:33 AM ="Edgy DC"]Right, it's not the minority that offends, it's the extremely small minority. You assume anybody voting In that tiny block isn't abiding by the established criteria, and needs to be made to account. I think that's ridiculous. It's doubly ridiculous when your paraphrase of the criteria isn't at all accurate. And I didn't mis-state your position. There is nothing that qualifies them as being "stupid," or "idiots," or nto exhibiting "superior knowledge," except being in that small minority and exercising their vote. I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. However, if they have no valid explanation, then they should be punished. Probation perhaps, with another transgression leading to them being removed from the voting committee. This will force the voters to take more care. You won't see as many reporters like the one in Oakland who didn't realize Rickey was on the ballot. You won't see "He deserves to be in, but not first ballot" type votes. And if you do, and this voter repeats such behavior, he should be booted from the committee. You say that their voting record is insufficient to label them as idiots or insubordinates. I agree. That alone is not enough. That is why you get an explanation. After having heard the Oakland guy's explanation, I think we have enough here to label him "idiot". Not knowing Rickey was on the ballot is negligent to an incredible degree. This information could have been ascertained by: 1. Reading any article on the Hall of Fame candidates this year. (He is a writer after all) 2. Reading his ballot. By putting him before a committee, you let him know that his behavior is unacceptable. And if it happens again, he will be deemed unfit to vote in the future. On the other hand, let's assume the writer provides a explanation such as marathon's example. His voting history reflects that he voted for Aaron, Mays and no one else. Then, it's understandable that he didn't vote for Rickey. You and I can disagree with his application of the criteria, but at least he is applying the criteria. And unless the Hall specifies their criteria, they would have to live with such an application. (However, if his voting record showed he voted for Jim Rice, Tommy John and Burt Blylevin, the guy is a fucking fraud and should be booted.) Your argument seems to be that there is no pattern in which a voter can vote that would justify his removal from the committee, or even an investigation into his criteria. He could come out and say "I only like ballplayers who are Pisces" or "I didn't vote for Rickey because I don't like the way he spells his name." By your argument, that guy should be left alone. And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. Secondly, I listed the specific criteria, when you accused me of mis-stating it. And most importantly, save me the "not at all accurate" garbage. The criteria are: 1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. If I had said the criteria were shoe size, that would have been "not at all accurate." Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 08:39 AM ="Gwreck":1mvpbc6m]="Centerfield":1mvpbc6m]Well, there is more evidence against Clemens and Bonds than against McGwire. As far as I know, McGwire has not been linked to any dealers, we have no packages of HGH being tracked to his house, no bloody gauzes, etc. All of the steroid stink around him arises from evasive testimony given before Congress and his subsequent seclusion. If I were voting, I'd want to see more than this before I slap a steroid label on him. Having argued this point many times, I've come to the conclusion that I have no problem if someone uses this to decline to vote for McGwire. Just as long as they make sure to consider the evidence against McGwire, and McGwire only, rather than throw him in with Clemens and Bonds.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] Wait, what? You are ok with people using what exactly to decline to vote for McGwire? But not ok for using that same thing to decline to vote for Clemens or Bonds? I really can't figure out what position you're taking here.[/quote:1mvpbc6m] As Namor said, if one is going to decline to vote against McGwire, or Clemens, or Bonds, I would hope they would weigh the specific evidence against each individual rather than casting his name aside as "one of those steroid guys". If at the end of the day, a voter were to decide that the specific evidence against McGwire (evasive testimony, Canseco's book) were enough to ban him, I would have no problem with that. Obviously, I have no problem with a voter declining to vote for Clemens or Bonds considering the amount of evidence that exists against those two. HahnSolo Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. Let's have more voices heard...why is it only the BBWWA? Some in this thread advocated for broadcasters, I agree. Why should Buster Olney have a vote and Gary Cohen not? If you've been broadcasting (radio or TV) for more than 10 years, or whatever limit you want to put on it, you get a vote. So come on down Vin Scully. I'd add internet writers. No vote for Rob Neyer? Boo. Am I sounding like Bill James now? Well, let's bring him and Bob Costas to the party. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 09:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM ="Centerfield"]I assume nothing. I'm saying when I see a voting pattern that appears to have no justification, that appears to defy all logic and common sense, I want those guys to offer an explanation. Actually, that's not what you were initially saying. What you originally said was, ="Centerfield"]Oh, and anyone stupid enough to leave Rickey Henderson off their ballot should have their voting rights rescinded. You've only softened your stance and complicated your system of bureaucratic review as your original position became untenable. ="Centerfield"]In fact, it's because I don't assume they are not abiding by the criteria that I ask them to explain. Then you would call everyone in, but no, it's the gross minority that's rounded up. ="Centerfield"]If they have a valid explanation, in the Hall's discretion, then they are left alone. Let me repeat this, if they have a valid reason, they should be left alone. Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. ="Centerfield"]I don't see how this will discourage individuality. I don't see how this will hamper free-thinking. Then I ask you to think about it some more. ="Centerfield"]If anything, this will give these voters more of a forum to convey their unique positions. Oh, how generous of you. The cleansing committee is just a forum for free thought. A Parisian salon! Come on, what professional writer with enough tenure to gain membership in the BBWAA needs a special forum to convey his or her position. It's about persecuting thought and purifying thought. The description of the punishment is too disheartening to respond to. ="Centerfield"]And finally, you keep bringing up my off-the-cuff statement about accomplishments. First of all, I said it speaking generally when I didn't believe the selection criteria was the focus of our debate. You wrote it and I disagree with it. ="Centerfield"]1. Player's record - I assume these are statistics, another way of saying "accomplishments" 2. Playing ability - Which could best be measured by looking at his accomplishments. 3. Integrity - Is he a good guy? 4. Sportsmanship - Is he a good guy? 5. Character - Is he a good guy? 6. Contributions to his team - again, accomplishments. By your own estimation, you're merely half right. You get to meet with the review committee to see if you need to go on probation until you can show yourself to think like the group. ="Centerfield"]Anyway, since we agree on the criteria, I don't see why you keep bringing it up, except as an attempt to somehow undermine my credibility by stating I mis-state the standard. I don't know that we agree. I bring it up because you mis-stated the criteria, and want to punish others for not abiding by criteria that you couldn't be bothered to get right. It's also helpful to my argument to make you understand the feeling of vulnerablity that you would seek to place upon voters. I understand you don't want to live under the reign of a pedant. Neither would I. Neither would I want voters to. You were wrong, and you would have been hung by your own system. It seems obvious (though I guess not), but a democratic system is not designed to generate unamity, but to produce credible decisions by assenting to the freely expressed will of the majority. Take freedom of expression out of the equation, and the credibility is shot, and the whole thing crumbles. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 14 2009 10:40 AM ]Rather than taking away voters' rights, I'd like to expand who gets to vote. They recently did expand things a little. Several of the BP writers now have votes in an attempt to start admitting some "non-traditional" writers. Personally, I prefer public humiliation of bad voters over kicking them out. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 09:47 AM I can't understand why you keep bringing up ancillary points rather than focusing on the issue. 1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I don't give a shit about unanimity. Elster doesn't give a shit about unanimity. Distorting our position to discredit it is not productive. I want the select group of voters to be monitored to make sure they are competent and applying the correct criteria. If there is never a unanimous selection into the Hall of Fame, I will care less than Elster, who doesn't care at all. 2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: My first remark was obviously a throw-away statement meant to express my distaste with those voters. When you proposed a serious challenge to my idea, I gave you a system that was more thought through and less draconian. I went from an idealistic point of view, to a more rational, practical approach when you asked for one. 3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: Again, sure I wrote accomplishments. And when challenged on it, I gave you a more thorough answer. I see no reason why you continue to bring it up. It was a generalization. You say it is only half-right, but that is only the case if you believe that the six criteria are weighted evenly. In my experience, the accomplishments of a player are far more pertinent to the analysis than his character. Number of hits has been weighed far more than pats on the butt given to teammates. Secondly, I don't need to go before a review committee because I'm not a voter. If I were a voter, I certainly would get educated on the criteria before submitting my ballot. If I did not, and upon review, demonstrated that I did not know the criteria, I should be dealt with appropriately. 4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: Sifting through all these other points, I think the crux of our disagreement comes here: Edgy: Nobody should be called to account for checking a box on a ballot. Again, I would tell them to blow me and blow me hard. Simply stated, I disagree with you. I think the writers have a duty to be educated and follow the criteria set by the Hall of Fame. I think they should be monitored to make sure this is the case. If they demonstrate they are not so, they should be replaced. I think this applies to all situations where a select group of individuals, based upon their presumed knowledge or experience, is given the responsibility to make an educated, informed decision based upon the criteria set by an organization. Admissions officers to Universities should make educated and informed decisions based upon the University's guidelines. Officers who appear to stray from these guidelines should be monitored, and replaced if shown not to be worthy. They should not be allowed to not know a candidate's worthiness ("Oh I didn't read his transcript") or apply their own criteria ("We have enough redheads on campus already"). The same should hold true for the members of the Nobel Price selection committee, corporate settings, any situation where the select group of voters are asked to exhibit superior knowledge and judgment. Your way promotes free-thinking. My way promotes accountability. We disagree. Nymr83 Jan 14 2009 10:04 AM I agree with metsmarathon thats it is ok for a voter to have such high standards that Rickey doesn't meet them, as long as they apply such standards across the board (in which case the last player they should have voted for was likely Tom Seaver... or Ted Williams, because thats how great Rickey was) I would like to remove the ballot from people who don't use it properly. Properly doesn't mean "vote for who i would have voted for," it means "evaluate each player based on the criteria and decide if they should be in our out" its ok to change your mind on a guy, its not ok to forget to vote, be too lazy to properly reseaech each player on the ballot, or apply different standards to different players. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 10:07 AM ="Centerfield"]1. Ancillary Point: Unanimity: Henderson was elected. The system worked. There's no need to stamp out dissedent thinking except intolerance. ="Centerfield"]2. Ancillary Point: Softening of my Stance: In other words, you softened my stance when your original position looks untenable. Why should I not point that out when you change your view and act as if I'm distorting your position, which you now explicitly accuse me of doing? I'm not. I'm responding to what you wrote. Because you move away from it doesn't erase your words and doesn't erase my response. ="Centerfield"]3. Ancillary Point: Accomplishments: I explain exactly why I bring this up. And even as you claim I shouldn't continue to bring it up because you've (again) moved away from it, you continue to defend it. Of course you're not a voter. It's an analogy, made to point out what one effect of such a system would be. An asshole with an agenda could toss you out for working with what you think is a most reasonable reading of the criteria. ="Centerfield"]4. The Real Issue: Monitoring Voters: You don't monitor voters. You debate them. I think your admissions office metaphor is a fine one, but students are not admitted by a voting body of several hundred, and Hall of Famers (at least the first time up) are not admidded by an appointed panel of a very few. If you submit to the former system, you've got to tolerate differences. Got to. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 10:13 AM Was watching a SNY roundtable yesterday around 6:30 PM with 4 reporters/ writers/ sportstalk -type folks. Didn't get all the names. They were talking about HOF voting and one guy (didn't get his name) made what I thought was a good point. He said that as some of the older voters retire and no longer vote, they have been replaced by newer, younger voters who have only experienced the more recent eras. As a result, they may have different criteria for selection to the Hall. I just caught the end of it, but I think he was answering the question of why players get votes (like Jim Rice) after years of eligibility. This makes sense to me. I remember when I thought a player had to have close to, or over, a .300 career BA for consideration for the Hall. But as newer statistics have become available, there are more detailed ways to measure performance. I don't believe in "magic numbers" for automatic election. But if a player/ pitcher is the best (or one of the best) at his position for an extended time that he played, he deserves consideration. And by that I do mean consideration, not automatic election. Later metsmarathon Jan 14 2009 10:21 AM i don't necessarily buy that argument. doesn't it seem like the longer you're on the ballot, the more votes you get? do many candidates actually see their percentages move appreciably downward over the 15 years? i think its a softening of the criteria and an increase in the nostalgia for a given player moreso than looking at the numbers a different way. otherwise, we'd see players drop from near 70% to 20% as routinely as we seem to see the 20% guys rise up into contention. if i had the time, i'd look into that claim i just made. but i'll let others do the work for me. just this once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 11:09 AM ]You don't monitor voters. You debate them. Our elected legislators vote on our behalf. And we do (or should) monitor their votes. And while we can and do debate them, we also can vote them out (or, take away their vote) if we don't feel they're voting properly. In my example, that could me wisely, correctly, or any number of things. But in the case of Hall of Fame voters, they should be qualified; they should have a strong knowledge of what they're doing and a consistent approach. Should there be no standard at all for Hall of Fame voters? It's not akin to the public voting in a democracy, I wouldn't say. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:15 AM A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber. Vic Sage Jan 14 2009 11:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2wrtve2y]A legislator being monitored by his or her constituents is a different thing from the star chamber.[/quote:2wrtve2y] As long as you keep equating the voting RIGHTS of citizens in a democracy, with the voting PRIVILEGE of a small number of selectors for the HOF (or any other private selection process based on specified criteria), then no, it's not different. It's a constituency (whether citizens in a republic or members of the HOF administraton) monitoring and evaluating the performance of their chosen representatives. the BBWWA don't have a right to be enfranchised in this process. They'e been granted a privilege. The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes. If you don't agree that such a selection committee should have oversight, then we will need to agree to disagree on that point. If you DO think there should be oversight, then the discussion can shift to what form it should take, without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber". Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM Of course, it's different. Legislators are not electors, they are representatives of a constuency, empowered and disempowered by electors. The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. If a vote for Jay Bell is an indiscretion that will lead to your investigation and possible disenfranchisement, then his name should not be on the ballot. MFS62 Jan 14 2009 11:54 AM ="Edgy DC":scjwko15] The privilege is granted to the members of the BBWAA, not select members of the BBWAA. [/quote:scjwko15] Don't think that's exactly true. I believe it is granted to members of the BBWAA who have been covering baseball for at least ten years. Later Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:01 PM True enough. (Or sort of true enough. It's BBWAA membership plus 10 years as an active baseball writer that qualifies one.) Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:09 PM ="Edgy DC":gnqufv19]The exercise of that privilege should be monitored in a way that increases accountiblity and, therefore, best possible outcomes.[/quote:gnqufv19] More importantly, I don't believe hauling people before a review committe for being in the extreme minority ensures the best possible outcomes, but undermines that. Democratic systems are designed to absorb such votes, and this one does it quite well. Edgy DC Jan 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Vic Sage":2ifvditq]...without resorting to inflammatory hyperbole like "star chamber".[/quote:2ifvditq] If that comes out as uncivil, then please allow me to withdraw it with apologies.

Congratulations. Rickey is one of my all time favorite baseball players. One of my all time favorite baseball quotes comes from Bill James who once remarked that if you could split Rickey Henderson in half, you'd have two Hall of Famers. It was a real pleasure watching Rickey in a Met uniform in 1999, even though he was past his prime. Of course, Rickey at 20 or 25% off his peak is still better than just about everybody else. We now know that 1999 was Rickey's last truly productive season. Rickey's 1999 season qualifies as one of baseball's all time best by a 40 year old outfielder -- a 40 year outfielder not suspected of abusing illegal performance enhancers.

="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season. TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM ="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM 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 Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM 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 Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

="smg58":1lloyi2s][url:1lloyi2s]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1lloyi2s] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:1lloyi2s] This was a good read. By the way, I was always under the impression that Citi Field would favor the pitcher slightly. So Heyman's piece notwithstanding, am I misremembering? metirish Jan 12 2009 09:58 AM No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 10:01 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM According to the Mets, CitiField was designed to be, at worst, neutral and hopefully favoring pitchers somewhat. But like someone said above, the proof is in the playing and all kinds of things can affect the final outcome that may not have been thought of by the planners. It's a lot more than just the numbers on the wall. Was it the new place in Philly or in Cincy (or maybe both) where open areas behind home/3rd led to wind tunnels that carried the balls out towards RF much more than anyone thought. Neither was necessarily designed as homer-happy palaces. CF is going to be more enclosed than Shea and also turned some 25-30 degrees to the north. Not sure how much/if those will factor in. I think Heyman is taking a quickie impression based on an impromptu BP session and drawing a whole lotta silly conclusions from it. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season. TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM ="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM 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 Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM 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 Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

="metirish":1seai211]Roberts had a decent career. http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/roberda05.shtml[/quote:1seai211] He was one of baseball's best pitchers in 1971. His 14-17 W-L record that season was largely the result of pitching for one of the most dreadful teams in modern history. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 09:55 AM ="Edgy DC":3k1my762]Funny how the UMDB is the last place in the world that uses the pre-two-letter-USPS-standardized abbreviations for states. It's sort of irksome on the one hand but it's stubborn anachronistic quality has to be respected, and it may be one of the top ten odd things about the UMDB --- number one being, of course, the blue hat standard. [/quote:3k1my762] I'd love to see the rest of that Top Ten list! I'd also like to see a style guide to those old-fashioned state abbreviations. I had to guess at what they should have been, and I'm sure I got a few of them wrong. Last time I looked (which was years ago) I couldn't find any such thing online. EDIT: Found it! On the website of my alma mater: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/copyXediting/STABBREV.html John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 10:56 AM I'm an AP Style man. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 11:00 AM I have no memories of this Dave Roberts. The early '80s are perhaps my least baseball-knowledgeable era - both for the sport as a whole and the Mets. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 11:01 AM Pretty cool that he was a David Arthur also. There were three David Arthurs in Major League history and all three played at the same time between 1971 and 1975. Who was the third? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 11:03 AM Wore No. 15. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 11:07 AM Dude, I'm way ahead of you with the 15 thing. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 11:12 AM Yeah but what you didn't know was that he wore 34 all through spring training that year, and switched only when the season began. seawolf17 Jan 09 2009 11:15 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2sfd2kv5]Yeah but what you didn't know was that he wore 34 all through spring training that year, and switched only when the season began.[/quote:2sfd2kv5] You should start a Web site with all that info. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 11:30 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3j5pvsuf]Yeah but what you didn't know was that he wore 34 all through spring training that year, and switched only when the season began.[/quote:3j5pvsuf] That's what I'm looking for. G-Fafif Jan 09 2009 02:59 PM I spent an evening with Dave Roberts once[/url:3kn3tq44]. Mendoza Line Jan 09 2009 03:46 PM ]There were three David Arthurs in Major League history and all three played at the same time between 1971 and 1975. Who was the third? Dave Schneck? on edit - David Lee Schneck is not the answer. Met Hunter Jan 09 2009 04:07 PM From a card show signing in Pittsburgh, 2005. http://www.jpaulsports.com/images/photos/robert_large.jpg Met Hunter Jan 09 2009 04:11 PM The third guy was another pretty good pitcher: David Arthur McNally. Edgy DC Jan 10 2009 09:27 PM Well done, Hunter.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3l874qhx]It's thisclose to an actual ad on the uni, of course, and that makes it all the more sadder.[/quote:3l874qhx] My theory is that Citi had significant input into that design. I think that the Wilpons are ruthless businessmen who put the dollar ahead of every single damn thing they ever do with this team -- not that this behavior is unusual but that the Wilpons operate out of greed even more than is to be reasonably expected from MLB team owners. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 09:52 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":1q3q58va]My theory is that Citi had significant input into that design.[/quote:1q3q58va] I'm guessing you're far from alone. As an opinion, that practically qualifies as a fact. attgig Jan 09 2009 12:08 PM ="SteveJRogers"]This would have been a better choice, from a Photoshop expert on Baseball-Fever.com or how about this that they already have: metsguyinmichigan Jan 09 2009 12:47 PM That routunda design is so much better. I would love to hear someone justify picking the rectagle over this. (And you can easily take off the Citi name on top) soupcan Jan 09 2009 01:06 PM Okay - no corporate logos on uniforms? No problem. I did this in 30 seconds - nobody associated with the team could come up with this? Inexcusable. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 01:21 PM Well, an excuse for not using that logo is that they've stilpulated and exclusive license that doesn't allow that logo to be used on any merchandise except that bought within the mallpark. The excuse for using the logo that resembles the corporate one is because they're getting a lot of money to do that. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 01:32 PM But it doesn't resemble Citi's logo: It just resembles the Citi Field logo, the tilted rectangle. I don't see how THAT has a whole lot of corporate value. If it only represents the ballpark (and as far as I know that's true) then I'm not sure what this is all about. soupcan Jan 09 2009 01:38 PM Agree wholeheartedly with Grimm. This: Does not resemble this: The logo that they will use on the merchandise is nicer and makes a lot more sense. They're using it on the merchandise - throw it on the unis! Synergy baby. You can't fight that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 01:50 PM But that diamond shape is the "citi field" logo, which is, more or less, a secondary logo for citibank. We've seen it Zvon Jan 09 2009 02:22 PM This patch gets the lame award for 2009 and we are only nine days into the new year. Compared to the other inaugural stadium patches I've seen over the last bunch of years, this is a disgrace in concept and design. And if its the Citi Bank people that pushed it on the team, they suck. It IS close to an ad, and a cheap bumper sticker kind of ad to boot. mario25 Jan 12 2009 04:07 PM The logo is awful, I agree with Lukas. It is a sell out to Citibank. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:15 AM Patchless so far: John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:17 AM Mets by the Numbers is reporting that Redding is the third player on the current 40-man roster who can make a claim to to the No. 44 jersey. Knight wore it most recently, and Kunz wore it prior to that. Knight initially was 28 but that went to Murphy while Knight was in Bejing. Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:22 AM He seems to have something on the uniform top there. Mets.com lists him as --. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:35 AM Yes, that's a 44 jersey, you can tell in other photos and on the video of him at mlb.com Fman99 Jan 13 2009 10:34 AM More humor at the patch's expense, some entertaining 'discarded' patch ideas.[/url:f79je3a2] Oh good, it's been a few months since someone laughed at the expense of a Mets fan. Fuck. soupcan Jan 13 2009 12:38 PM Possible that all this 'outcry' over the patch forces the Mets hand and they consider changing it?[/url:1ki8azaz] Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 12:45 PM That blog has nothing supporting that possibility. soupcan Jan 13 2009 12:50 PM i know the blog didn't say it but I was just wondering since the fugly patch has become the topic du jour among the diehards and is finding some ink in the media. metsmarathon Jan 13 2009 12:50 PM ]They could've held a coloring contest among preschoolers and still ended up with a better design than the one above. they could've held a writing contest by preschoolers and come up with a better punchline than the one above... MFS62 Jan 13 2009 12:51 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 13 2009 12:54 PM 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 metirish Jan 13 2009 12:52 PM I know it's ugly but is it really the laughingstock of MLB , will there be soccer style chanting at opposing stadiums ridiculing the Mets about the patch? DocTee Jan 13 2009 01:12 PM It's a patch. It takes up like 2% of the uniform, and will be gone in ten months. Yes, they could've done better. Yes, I hope they change it. No, I'm not losing sleep over it. It's a patch. SteveJRogers Jan 13 2009 06:54 PM ="MFS62":3grqchiz]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[/quote:3grqchiz] That is probably a reason for the reaction that it is garnering. Basically people with opinions thinking they can get a grass roots movement going. Hey its better than that article in the Post the other day that was bashing the Mets because rust has been forming on Citi Field's exposed steel beams. themetfairy Jan 14 2009 07:10 AM The Dugout rips into the patch[/url:3nnav038]. Benjamin Grimm Jan 14 2009 07:21 AM It really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but there would appear to be hope of some kind of a change. The revulsion has been pretty wide-spread, and since the real point of the logo is to move merchandise, then I would think the Mets would have to weigh that very few people will be buying t-shirts, mugs, caps, and beach towels with the boring ugly logo. I don't know whether or not it's too late to make a change. I know that anything that appears on the uniform has to be approved by MLB, and they may have missed a deadline for a new sleeve patch, but maybe they can call an emergency meeting or something. soupcan Jan 14 2009 07:34 AM EMERGENCY SLEEVE PATCH MEETING!!! seawolf17 Jan 14 2009 07:40 AM That Dugout is hilarious. I need to catch up on their stuff. themetfairy Jan 14 2009 08:40 AM This one made me laugh - metirish Jan 14 2009 08:45 AM How about no patch ? dgwphotography Jan 14 2009 09:17 AM They should have a patch designed like the old World's Fair patch from '64 celebrating the demise of the chop shops across the street... Rockin' Doc Jan 14 2009 11:34 AM I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve. Centerfield Jan 14 2009 11:43 AM ="themetfairy"]This one made me laugh - Fantastic! Centerfield Jan 14 2009 11:44 AM ="Rockin' Doc":1ly46k5l]I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve.[/quote:1ly46k5l] Wait, you're not going to obsess over every minute detail of this team from the speaking patterns of our GM to colored dots on hats? Dude, you're like, not going to fit in around here at all. Frayed Knot Jan 14 2009 02:57 PM ="Rockin' Doc":1brfj8rx]I agree that the patch is pretty ugly and a far better design could and should be designed, but I agree with DocTee's sentiment that it's not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm far more concerned wirth the quality of the collective players that will be wearing the uniform than I am the logo on the sleeve.[/quote:1brfj8rx] It's not just that the design is ugly (or plain, or unimaginative, or whatever adjective you want to throw in there) it's that the design is ugly because it's essentially advertising and they're not wearing it to celebrate the opening of the stadium as much as they're wearing it because they struck a deal with the (broke) company that's paid for the naming rights for the damn thing. soupcan Jan 15 2009 08:30 AM The 'controversy' hits the mainstream media... ] January 15, 2009 Mets� Latest Off-Season Problem? A Dull Patch By TYLER KEPNER The Mets unveiled their primary logo on Nov. 16, 1961, and it has gone virtually unchanged. With the team�s name scripted across a city skyline and above a bridge on an orange-laced baseball, the trademark is timeless. The Mets� most recent design has not been as warmly embraced. The uniform patch that commemorates the opening of Citi Field has caused a stir on the Internet, with ESPN.com calling it �the worst sleeve patch in M.L.B. history.� Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. �Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� The sleeve patch is a variation of the official Citi Field logo introduced last year, with the words Inaugural Season in white letters on a blue square. Below is an orange square that says 2009, also in white. In recent seasons, the Astros, the Phillies, the Cardinals and the Nationals have all used distinctive ballpark elements in their commemorative patches; the Astros showed their roof in silhouette, the Cardinals their arched entryway. The Yankees� 2009 patch prominently features the rooftop facade of the new Yankee Stadium. The Mets� patch seems to take minimalism to the extreme. Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company�s general branding. The Mets did not object. Citigroup itself is in financial distress and is planning to dismantle part of its corporate empire. But the patch remains the patch, for better or worse. �It is compatible and consistent with Citigroup�s overall branding and graphic design elements,� Howard said. �That�s the connection. The Citi logo is a fairly simple logo. It�s �citi� in lowercase, with a red arc. So they have more of a minimalist style to their brand and their logo. Obviously, as our partner for Citi Field, we�re going to give substantial deference to their design and graphic treatment.� The official Citi Field logo has been widely panned as drab and too evocative of the Domino�s Pizza logo. But fans will have to get used to it, because it will be affixed to the side of every other seating row at the ballpark and used extensively in marketing and promotions, assuming the Citi name survives. Howard said the Mets were flattered that Citigroup designed a logo that incorporated the team�s blue and orange colors. That is not always the case; the logo for Petco Park in San Diego has the corporate name in red, even though the Padres do not wear that color. Then again, that logo also includes a Padres insignia and two palm trees, while the Citi Field trademark looks painfully plain. The Mets do have an alternate inaugural season logo that features the windows of the distinctive rotunda at Citi Field. But Howard said that logo would be available only on merchandise sold at the ballpark. He added that the team would not change the sleeve patch, which will be used for all home games. The Yankees� 2009 uniform patch, left, depicts the facade of the team�s new stadium. The Mets� uni- form patch for the season displays ... words. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:36 AM It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form. Farmer Ted Jan 15 2009 08:47 AM Fire Dave Howard NOW!! Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 08:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 15 2009 09:03 AM What's amazing is that they got the Mets to admit two basic truths that --- though as big and glaring as Dave Kingman's feet --- I fully expected them to talk around: ]Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. ]The Mets� patch seems to take minimalism to the extreme. Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company�s general branding. Where Howard is lost is this: ]�Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� No, actually, this time, everyone seems to have the same point of view. The funny thing is that Wilpon put his heart into evoking the aesthetic he wanted, but took the queen's shilling and is now letting her wreck his whole palace. OE: Maybe MLB will step in and end this nonsense. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:57 AM I hadn't thought about it like that , very lame from the Mets. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 08:59 AM ]"we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� Or, it's good that everyone hates this patch! It shows that they care! Centerfield Jan 15 2009 09:27 AM That MFY Patch is really nice. Dear Dave Howard: My ass is still available if you want to do some last minute revisions. Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 09:31 AM I hope, for their sakes, that they're not printing up too many t-shirts and mugs with that logo on it. It's the New Coke of baseball logos. metsmarathon Jan 15 2009 09:32 AM y'know, they could've at least had the lettering be in lowercase. that way, not only would it be more in line with the citi logo, but it would also appeal to my narrow sensibilities. Fman99 Jan 15 2009 09:42 AM ] Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president for business operations, said the Mets signed off on the design presented to them by Citigroup, which is paying the team $400 million over the next 20 years for naming rights to the stadium. �Everyone has their own point of view,� Howard said. �Taste is very subjective, and we understand that and appreciate the passion of Mets fans.� What an ass. They can't even admit that it's a shitty patch. This is like standing pat with a half a lineup full of duds and washed up vets. Oh wait. G-Fafif Jan 15 2009 10:14 AM ]Obviously, as our partner for Citi Field, we�re going to give substantial deference to their design and graphic treatment. Good god, do they ever fucking learn? You tell The Paper Of Record that you're deferring to a discredited corporate fat cat on an issue of what goes on your very own uniforms? Jesus fucking crackers, I swear with this organization. Oh, and this: ]Howard said the Mets were flattered that Citigroup designed a logo that incorporated the team�s blue and orange colors. Gee, that was mighty blue and orange of them! WHY SHOULDN'T THEY? There'd be no Citi FUCKING Field without a team to play in it. Good god, Mets. Pull up your pants and stand up straight for once. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 10:25 AM See, maybe my standards have fallen, but I'm just happy he didn't say, "I am standing, and those, um, aren't my pants." attgig Jan 15 2009 11:42 AM lol that dugout chat was hilarious. Zvon Jan 15 2009 09:55 PM Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. I'll link the segment when/if its on the shows site. Should be up sometime tomorrow. http://www.colbertnation.com/home Gwreck Jan 16 2009 12:07 AM ="metirish":2301kyuo]It actually looks somewhat better in cloth form.[/quote:2301kyuo] It's more the angle -- it's not at that ridiculous angle in that picture. themetfairy Jan 16 2009 06:31 AM ="Zvon":1sa3qaqn]Stephen Colbert took a shot at the patch tonight on his show. [/quote:1sa3qaqn] .cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cTip/Wag - Monkey on the LamColbert at Christmas Colbert Christmas DVDGreen Screen Bill O'Reilly Interview Zvon Jan 16 2009 09:33 PM Thanks for posting that TMF. I really got a kick out of that bit. themetfairy Jan 17 2009 05:22 AM You're very welcome Zvon Farmer Ted Jan 27 2009 05:10 PM Still stuck with this horseshit logo. Embarrassed that the Mets haven't taken another look at this hunk of junk. metsguyinmichigan Jan 27 2009 09:02 PM Not gonna happen. They're already selling patches and jerseys. themetfairy Jan 27 2009 09:05 PM But is anyone buying it? DocTee Jan 27 2009 09:16 PM As Paul Lukas explains today, the Mets might be off the sartorial hook thanks to Texas awful new batting helmet: [url:3aj1ya7j]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/090126&sportCat=mlb[/url:3aj1ya7j] Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:55 AM That's only 15% worse than the Mets two-toner. metsmarathon Jan 28 2009 08:09 AM well, the voting right now has the 1999 future uni's leading the way at 41.3%, with citifield patch holding onto second with 13% of the vote. the devil rays' inaugural duds are currently tied with the rangers' ugly hats for third, at 12.7%. the ugliness of the devil rays' uniforms is the only one of the four that the mets did not directly have a hand in. yay mets.

At least they ditched the black on that patch thing.

Nineteen sixty-nine dollars should go a very long way in depression-era Detroit. I'd bribe the ump.

="metirish":2x7g5wva]I would have thought that Manuel is not as much of a " gut and feel" guy as say Willie was. In fact I thought Manuel was well versed in stats.[/quote:2x7g5wva] Fuck Willie Randolph!

] "You get so many statistical people together, they put so many stats on paper, and they say, well, if you do this and you score this many runs, you do that many times, you'll be in the playoffs," he said. "That's not really how it works, and that's what we have to get away from. And that's going to have to be a different mind-set of the team in going forward. We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people. We have to win because we have baseball players that know and can understand the game." This quote portrays Manuel as a non-believer of statistical analysis. But in Jerry's defense, FJM might've squeezed the context out of that last quote. It's likely that Jerry believes statistical analysis is part of, rather than all of the solution. And if the context wasn't distorted, perhaps Jerry simply failed to properly qualify and/or modify his commentary.

fireJoeMorgan.com has closed it's doors. http://www.firejoemorgan.com/ ]Post #1377: The Relatively Short Goodbye Hello, everyone. After 21 years, and almost 40 million posts (we'll have to check those numbers, but it's something like that), we have decided to bring FJM to an end. Although we have not lost our borderline-sociopathic joy for meticulously criticizing bad sports journalism, the realities of our professional and personal lives make FJM a time/work luxury we can no longer afford. We started this site with two purposes: to make each other laugh, and to aid and abet the Presidential campaign of Bob Barr. Although we failed in the latter goal, we gleefully succeeded in the first, and thanks to a grassroots internetty word-of-mouth kind of a deal, we appear to have positively affected the lives of actual citizens as well, which astonishes and delights us to this day. We really never thought FJM would be for anyone but us. We are thrilled and kind of humbled to have been proven wrong. We thank all of you for the kind emails, and the tips, and the support. To each and every person who ever contacted us: hat tip to you. Perhaps the future holds another project for us on which to waste massive amounts of time. For now, we will leave the site and the archives up as a testament to the fact that if you work hard enough, and blow off enough social occasions, and stare at the internet enough, and get nerdy enough, and repeatedly ignore entreaties from your friends and loved ones to please God stop blogging about Bill Plaschke and get out of the house it's a beautiful day!, then you, too, can...have a blog. Again, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you. And as Joe Morgan himself might say: "I really haven't seen them play...slidepiece...Dave Concepcion." Love, dak, Junior, and Ken ____________________ Did Jerry Manuel say these dumb things? "Jerry 'Needs An Instruction' Manuel" --Chris Berman (1955-2008) KT covered some Manuel lunacy in the Gallimaufry, and there's more where that came from: ]While the big offensive trio had respectable statistics or better, they didn't stop the September slide. Manuel said spring training will be a time of teaching, for him to give "clarity" to players on his methods. Execution in the clutch is his emphasis, and the Mets likely will bring in new offensive players, most likely in the corner outfield spots. So Manuel plans on teaching "clarity" (I assume this means making the team watch The Love Guru repeatedly), teaching guys to be clutch, and bringing in guys who are clutch. Good luck with that, Jerry Manuel. I have some suggestions about how you teach guys to get clutchier: 1. Just before Jose Reyes takes a swing in BP, scream in his ear "It's Game 7 of the World Series!" and also punch him in the gut because that's what butterflies in the stomach feel like. 2. Secretly feed the team laxatives before practice because that's what butterflies in the stomach feel like. 3. Make the team eat butterflies. 4. Kidnap Carlos Delgado's kids and hold them at gunpoint while Carlos takes BP. "You like pressure, Carlos? This is what the playoffs feel like." Then, after Carlos strokes a home run, shoot one of the kids. Just in the leg, though. Remember, it's just a game. 5. Strap Luis Castillo to a speeding train. "Unless you hit in the clutch, Castillo becomes the meat in a train sandwich." Everyone comes through, and you reveal that you basically just wanted Castillo gone anyway. 6. One bat in the clubhouse is filled with plastic explosives. Stay on your toes, gentlemen. 7. Put up a picture of Derek Jeter in the clubhouse. 8. Be positive. ]"You don't see a lot of guys that have statistical numbers play well in these championship series," Manuel said. This is so bonkers I don't know where to start. First of all: what are "statistical numbers"? How do they differ from "numbers," "statistics," or "numerical statistics"? Are there "statistical letters"? We have a right to know. Second: Jerry Manuel is claiming that doing well in the regular season is a detriment to playing well in the playoffs. That's right. You want to be a playoff hero? Fuck around for 162. Careful, David Wright. Don't let those numbers get too statistical! Third, here are your League Championship Series leaders in on-base percentage: 1. Mark Grace .575 2. Will Clark .529 3. Kevin Youkilis .518 4. Carlos Beltran .476 5. Ryne Sandberg .457 6. Dusty Baker .451 Manny Ramirez .451 8. Darrell Porter .450 Gary Sheffield .450 10. Albert Pujols .449 Look, these are pretty stupid because we're talking about minuscule sample sizes. But those are, for the most part, pretty awesome players. Players who did accrue very statistical numbers. Pujols, Manny, Sheffield, Sandberg. And hey, Carlos Beltran's number 4! Guess what: Carlos Beltran also leads the world in Divisional Series OBP and SLG. His career postseason OPS is a cool 1.302. But he still needs clutch lessons from Jerry Manuel, according to Jerry Manuel. ]"What you see is usually the little second baseman or somebody like that carries off the MVP trophy that nobody expected him to do. That's because he's comfortable in playing that form of baseball, so therefore when the stage comes, it's not a struggle for him." Here are the World Series MVPs for the past 10 years: 2007 Mike Lowell 2006 David Eckstein 2005 Jermaine Dye 2004 Manny Ramirez 2003 Josh Beckett 2002 Troy Glaus 2001 Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling 2000 Derek Jeter 1999 Mariano Rivera 1998 Scott Brosius Two of these 11 players sort of stink. The rest range from very good to Hall of Fame locks. Because the best players in the playoffs are the best players. Period. Sure, there are Brosius-style flukes once every few years. But Jerry Manuel is mistaking the fucking Brosius Exception and turning it into the rule. That's plain dumb. Also, Jesus: coaching your team in a way that you think will produce a Craig Counsell or David Eckstein MVP award is white-hot, untrammeled madness. Your team has: Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, David Wright, and Johan Santana. Your bullpen stinks and you need some more starting pitching depth. But you were second in the league in runs scored, tied with the Phillies, who are in the World Series. "Clutch" hitting is not your problem. "Clarity" on your methods is not your problem. "Statistical numbers" are certainly not your problem. But hey, by all means, start getting rid of the guys whose numbers are too good. The more silly things happen, the better things go for me, a critical asshole with the free time on a beautiful sunny Friday afternoon to blog about dumb remarks about baseball. ______________ And this ........... Finally, we close with some more bad news for Mets fans. Here's your new manager, on the first day of his new deal, talking about how to take his team to the next level: ] On his first full day as the Mets' long-term manager, Manuel forcefully attacked the SABR-type mathematical analysis some have fixated on in recent years. "You get so many statistical people together, they put so many stats on paper, and they say, well, if you do this and you score this many runs, you do that many times, you'll be in the playoffs," he said. "That's not really how it works, and that's what we have to get away from. And that's going to have to be a different mind-set of the team in going forward. We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people. We have to win because we have baseball players that know and can understand the game." Congratulations to the Phillies, for winning the 2008 NL Pennant. Congratulations to the 2009 Phillies, Braves, Nationals, and Marlins, for all of the easy victories you will have over the 2009 Mets.

="Willets Point":26u7xluz]Berman was funny?[/quote:26u7xluz] Go and ask Leather. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 11:44 AM CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" (he wouldn't dare) batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2009 11:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2009 02:41 PM ="Frayed Knot"]CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" I had a strong feeling that your post was gonna kill this thread. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 10:24 AM ="Iubitul":qzy0y9q0]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh Housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita[/quote:qzy0y9q0] Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Scott Workin' too hard can give you a heart attack a ka ka Kazmir Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 10:30 AM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Chuck Baby You Can Drive My Carr dgwphotography Mar 03 2009 12:50 PM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Hubie Babbling Brooks Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 01:25 PM Iubitul taking on the reigning champ Iubitul. Met Hunter Mar 03 2009 05:31 PM I will dethrone Carlos with a twofer Tuesday. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius vs. Pat People are Strange LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 07:09 PM Um... yeah. That's, like, against the rules. Carlos In Delgado De Vida vs. Endy-is Mama Cried Chavez Met Hunter Mar 04 2009 09:30 PM OK. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Dan Keep Your Eyes on the Road Your Hands Upon the Wheeler. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 09:37 PM Carlos In Delgado De Vida versus Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da Edgy DC Mar 04 2009 09:47 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Shawn Bows and Flows of Angel Hare LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 10:32 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down/Of the big lake they call Kaz Ishii Edgy DC Mar 08 2009 05:37 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Ty I SAID, What's that on your HEAD?! A WIIIIIG!!-inton dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 05:44 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Rick "see ya later" Aguilera batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:59 AM Iubi's really good at this. Met Hunter Mar 08 2009 05:27 PM Rick See Ya Later Aguilera vs. Rich Sweet Chiles of Mine dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 06:22 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":1jca620l]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:1jca620l] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 08 2009 06:38 PM Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" vs. Raul "Blame it on the" Casanova batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:37 PM ="Iubitul":3nzo1sfn]="batmagadanleadoff":3nzo1sfn]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:3nzo1sfn] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics...[/quote:3nzo1sfn] You mean youve been plagiarizing from the man? Say it ain't so, Iubi! LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 16 2009 09:11 PM REBOOT: Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" versus J. J. Putz "the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again"

="MFS62":36g7dwi7]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie VS Tommy nobody ever loved as much as he, but me, I love you Moore. (from "Pajama Game")[/quote:36g7dwi7] Wayne When the Moon is in the Seventh Housie vs. Mike When the Moon Hits your Eyes Like a Big Piazza Pie Willets Point Jan 07 2009 09:06 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":13zmwl5q]If I remember correctly, Berman's Bermanisms were funny because they were long. [/quote:13zmwl5q] Berman was funny? batmagadanleadoff Jan 07 2009 09:11 PM ="Willets Point":26u7xluz]Berman was funny?[/quote:26u7xluz] Go and ask Leather. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 11:44 AM CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" (he wouldn't dare) batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2009 11:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2009 02:41 PM ="Frayed Knot"]CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" I had a strong feeling that your post was gonna kill this thread. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 10:24 AM ="Iubitul":qzy0y9q0]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh Housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita[/quote:qzy0y9q0] Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Scott Workin' too hard can give you a heart attack a ka ka Kazmir Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 10:30 AM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Chuck Baby You Can Drive My Carr dgwphotography Mar 03 2009 12:50 PM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Hubie Babbling Brooks Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 01:25 PM Iubitul taking on the reigning champ Iubitul. Met Hunter Mar 03 2009 05:31 PM I will dethrone Carlos with a twofer Tuesday. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius vs. Pat People are Strange LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 07:09 PM Um... yeah. That's, like, against the rules. Carlos In Delgado De Vida vs. Endy-is Mama Cried Chavez Met Hunter Mar 04 2009 09:30 PM OK. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Dan Keep Your Eyes on the Road Your Hands Upon the Wheeler. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 09:37 PM Carlos In Delgado De Vida versus Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da Edgy DC Mar 04 2009 09:47 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Shawn Bows and Flows of Angel Hare LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 10:32 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down/Of the big lake they call Kaz Ishii Edgy DC Mar 08 2009 05:37 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Ty I SAID, What's that on your HEAD?! A WIIIIIG!!-inton dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 05:44 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Rick "see ya later" Aguilera batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:59 AM Iubi's really good at this. Met Hunter Mar 08 2009 05:27 PM Rick See Ya Later Aguilera vs. Rich Sweet Chiles of Mine dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 06:22 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":1jca620l]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:1jca620l] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 08 2009 06:38 PM Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" vs. Raul "Blame it on the" Casanova batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:37 PM ="Iubitul":3nzo1sfn]="batmagadanleadoff":3nzo1sfn]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:3nzo1sfn] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics...[/quote:3nzo1sfn] You mean youve been plagiarizing from the man? Say it ain't so, Iubi! LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 16 2009 09:11 PM REBOOT: Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" versus J. J. Putz "the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again"

Wayne When The Moon Is In the Seventh Housie vs. Jeff Let the Sunshine, Let the Sunshine, The Suh-uhn Shine Innis

="G-Fafif":2bdq7a8p]Bill Joltin' Joe Has Left and Gone A-Wakefield vs. It's Up To You New York, New Yorkis Perez[/quote:2bdq7a8p] Bill These Little Town Blues Are Melting Awaykfield vs. It's Up To You New York, New Yorkis Perez batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2009 05:23 PM Wayne When The Moon Is In the Seventh Housie vs. Jeff Let the Sunshine, Let the Sunshine, The Suh-uhn Shine Innis dgwphotography Jan 06 2009 05:45 PM Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita MFS62 Jan 06 2009 05:54 PM Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie VS Tommy nobody ever loved as much as he, but me, I love you Moore. (from "Pajama Game") Later batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2009 06:00 PM ="MFS62":36g7dwi7]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie VS Tommy nobody ever loved as much as he, but me, I love you Moore. (from "Pajama Game")[/quote:36g7dwi7] Wayne When the Moon is in the Seventh Housie vs. Mike When the Moon Hits your Eyes Like a Big Piazza Pie Willets Point Jan 07 2009 09:06 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":13zmwl5q]If I remember correctly, Berman's Bermanisms were funny because they were long. [/quote:13zmwl5q] Berman was funny? batmagadanleadoff Jan 07 2009 09:11 PM ="Willets Point":26u7xluz]Berman was funny?[/quote:26u7xluz] Go and ask Leather. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 11:44 AM CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" (he wouldn't dare) batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2009 11:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2009 02:41 PM ="Frayed Knot"]CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" I had a strong feeling that your post was gonna kill this thread. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 10:24 AM ="Iubitul":qzy0y9q0]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh Housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita[/quote:qzy0y9q0] Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Scott Workin' too hard can give you a heart attack a ka ka Kazmir Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 10:30 AM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Chuck Baby You Can Drive My Carr dgwphotography Mar 03 2009 12:50 PM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Hubie Babbling Brooks Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 01:25 PM Iubitul taking on the reigning champ Iubitul. Met Hunter Mar 03 2009 05:31 PM I will dethrone Carlos with a twofer Tuesday. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius vs. Pat People are Strange LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 07:09 PM Um... yeah. That's, like, against the rules. Carlos In Delgado De Vida vs. Endy-is Mama Cried Chavez Met Hunter Mar 04 2009 09:30 PM OK. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Dan Keep Your Eyes on the Road Your Hands Upon the Wheeler. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 09:37 PM Carlos In Delgado De Vida versus Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da Edgy DC Mar 04 2009 09:47 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Shawn Bows and Flows of Angel Hare LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 10:32 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down/Of the big lake they call Kaz Ishii Edgy DC Mar 08 2009 05:37 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Ty I SAID, What's that on your HEAD?! A WIIIIIG!!-inton dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 05:44 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Rick "see ya later" Aguilera batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:59 AM Iubi's really good at this. Met Hunter Mar 08 2009 05:27 PM Rick See Ya Later Aguilera vs. Rich Sweet Chiles of Mine dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 06:22 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":1jca620l]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:1jca620l] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 08 2009 06:38 PM Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" vs. Raul "Blame it on the" Casanova batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:37 PM ="Iubitul":3nzo1sfn]="batmagadanleadoff":3nzo1sfn]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:3nzo1sfn] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics...[/quote:3nzo1sfn] You mean youve been plagiarizing from the man? Say it ain't so, Iubi! LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 16 2009 09:11 PM REBOOT: Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" versus J. J. Putz "the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again"

="batmagadanleadoff":1h0qkwj4]="Centerfield":1h0qkwj4]Dae Sung Koo Koo Ka-Choo Mrs. Robin(son) Ventura[/quote:1h0qkwj4] That's the spirit. How about: Bill (Koo Koo Katchoo Mrs.) Robinson vs. Hideo Jesus Loves You More Than You Will Nomo (Whoa Whoa Whoa)[/quote:1h0qkwj4] Bill Joltin' Joe Has Left and Gone A-Wakefield gets the winner of the above matchup. G-Fafif Jan 06 2009 02:38 PM Bill Joltin' Joe Has Left and Gone A-Wakefield vs. John "You Know Your Love (Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Keeps On Lifting (Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher (Lifting Me) Higher And" Strohmayer. MFS62 Jan 06 2009 02:46 PM Bill Joltin' Joe Has Left and Gone A-Wakefield VS Chan Ho MacArthur Park Later G-Fafif Jan 06 2009 02:55 PM Bill Joltin' Joe Has Left and Gone A-Wakefield vs. It's Up To You New York, New Yorkis Perez batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2009 03:33 PM ="G-Fafif":2bdq7a8p]Bill Joltin' Joe Has Left and Gone A-Wakefield vs. It's Up To You New York, New Yorkis Perez[/quote:2bdq7a8p] Bill These Little Town Blues Are Melting Awaykfield vs. It's Up To You New York, New Yorkis Perez batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2009 05:23 PM Wayne When The Moon Is In the Seventh Housie vs. Jeff Let the Sunshine, Let the Sunshine, The Suh-uhn Shine Innis dgwphotography Jan 06 2009 05:45 PM Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita MFS62 Jan 06 2009 05:54 PM Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie VS Tommy nobody ever loved as much as he, but me, I love you Moore. (from "Pajama Game") Later batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2009 06:00 PM ="MFS62":36g7dwi7]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh housie VS Tommy nobody ever loved as much as he, but me, I love you Moore. (from "Pajama Game")[/quote:36g7dwi7] Wayne When the Moon is in the Seventh Housie vs. Mike When the Moon Hits your Eyes Like a Big Piazza Pie Willets Point Jan 07 2009 09:06 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":13zmwl5q]If I remember correctly, Berman's Bermanisms were funny because they were long. [/quote:13zmwl5q] Berman was funny? batmagadanleadoff Jan 07 2009 09:11 PM ="Willets Point":26u7xluz]Berman was funny?[/quote:26u7xluz] Go and ask Leather. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 11:44 AM CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" (he wouldn't dare) batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2009 11:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2009 02:41 PM ="Frayed Knot"]CB: "... and the starter was relieved by Aaron Heil-Hitler-Man" I had a strong feeling that your post was gonna kill this thread. batmagadanleadoff Mar 03 2009 10:24 AM ="Iubitul":qzy0y9q0]Wayne when the moon is in the seventh Housie vs. Carlos In Delgado Da Vita[/quote:qzy0y9q0] Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Scott Workin' too hard can give you a heart attack a ka ka Kazmir Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 10:30 AM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Chuck Baby You Can Drive My Carr dgwphotography Mar 03 2009 12:50 PM Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Hubie Babbling Brooks Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 01:25 PM Iubitul taking on the reigning champ Iubitul. Met Hunter Mar 03 2009 05:31 PM I will dethrone Carlos with a twofer Tuesday. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius Tommie This is the Dawning of the Agee of Aquarius vs. Pat People are Strange LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 07:09 PM Um... yeah. That's, like, against the rules. Carlos In Delgado De Vida vs. Endy-is Mama Cried Chavez Met Hunter Mar 04 2009 09:30 PM OK. Carlos In Delgado Da Vida vs. Dan Keep Your Eyes on the Road Your Hands Upon the Wheeler. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 09:37 PM Carlos In Delgado De Vida versus Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da Edgy DC Mar 04 2009 09:47 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Shawn Bows and Flows of Angel Hare LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2009 10:32 PM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down/Of the big lake they call Kaz Ishii Edgy DC Mar 08 2009 05:37 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Ty I SAID, What's that on your HEAD?! A WIIIIIG!!-inton dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 05:44 AM Ed Bouchee Bouchee Ya Ya Da Da vs. Rick "see ya later" Aguilera batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:59 AM Iubi's really good at this. Met Hunter Mar 08 2009 05:27 PM Rick See Ya Later Aguilera vs. Rich Sweet Chiles of Mine dgwphotography Mar 08 2009 06:22 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":1jca620l]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:1jca620l] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 08 2009 06:38 PM Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" vs. Raul "Blame it on the" Casanova batmagadanleadoff Mar 08 2009 08:37 PM ="Iubitul":3nzo1sfn]="batmagadanleadoff":3nzo1sfn]Iubi's really good at this.[/quote:3nzo1sfn] I just remember a lot of the old Bermanisms. some of his originals were classics...[/quote:3nzo1sfn] You mean youve been plagiarizing from the man? Say it ain't so, Iubi! LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 16 2009 09:11 PM REBOOT: Rich "Sweet" Chiles "of Mine" versus J. J. Putz "the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again"