Frayed Knot

In some cases a blank ballot might be the best one. That's not saying that some don't do that for stupid reasons, but I don't think we want to get into a situation where some higher power scrutinizes each ballot and takes the voting privileges away from anyone whose answers they don't like. One of the good things about a large ballot is that a handful of kooky votes can't skew the overall results too badly. If this stuff was all cut-n-dried obvious there wouldn't be the need for a vote in the first place.

- The option of NOT voting has always been there and one that is often taken by various eligible members. The 675 number (assuming that's correct) sounds like the total number of those who qualify to vote but the actual number seems to me (without actually checking) to usually be in the low 500s. Blank votes as a protest over steroid issues are another story (a bit of a silly one if you ask me although I'm not going to bust a gut over someone doing that) but writers who long ago stopped covering the sport opting not to vote even though they have that right is nothing new. - The election guidelines (ten years as a BWAA member) have been consistent for a long time now and, to paraphrase Captain Renault, I'd be SHOCKED ... SHOCKED!! if there was even a discussion about changing things as the result of one year without a new member (and, again, it's not like this hasn't happened before, nor do I think it's going to happen now). The Vets committee is an entirely different deal. That was and is a much smaller group with less specific membership requirements that they've tweaked a number of times over the years - both for electing no one and for electing too many (or too many questionable ones). In fact it wasn't even that they elected no one recently that spurred a change it was that no one got elected at least in part because the HoF players admitted to not knowing what their role was supposed to be with their newly granted powers. - Lowering the threshold to 60% based on the idea that anyone who gets to 60 usually gets to 75 is a really dumb idea. I'd venture that most of those who get to 50% eventually get to 60% and so on down the line and you can see where that logic leads. The idea here isn't to get as many people as possible in. It's kind of just the opposite.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I guarantee there is ZERO chance that the writers don't elect anyone this year. There would be an uproar, and a huge economic hit to Cooperstown. The rules would be changed pronto, and the BBWAA would find itself with a very different process. So what, the BBWA members are going to conspire amongst themselves to rig the vote so as to not offend the Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce? It's not like there is a constitutional amendment out there somewhere decreeing that the BBWAA gets to vote for the Hall of Fame. The Hall board could change the rules to make the Crane Pool Forum pick the honorees with a vote at the drop of a hat. Do you honestly believe they'd take a nearly 80 year process and turn it upside-down on the basis of one year's result? ... a result which, as pointed out somewhere above, has already happened before. Look, I don't think there's going to be an empty ballot either, but not for any of the above reasons. The choices are simply too strong for all of them to get passed up. I'm not buying any of the doomsday scenarios.

Ceetar wrote: It's an interesting debate for sure. Do we want baseball to be closer to a tightly knit group of smart fans, or broad-reaching national pastime that everyone pays attention to? I lean towards the latter, which is why I always gladly welcome the Yankee bandwagoners to Queens when the opportunity arises. I welcome intelligent, informed debate at any time or place. The problem is that ESPN has become such the 800-lb gorilla of sports talk that what they do & say sets the agenda for much of the discussion in this country (in many smaller cities and towns the only choice for sports info is an ESPN-controlled outfit) and ESPN has decided to cast their lot almost entirely with football and basketball. The NFL because it's such a ratings monster; the NBA because the national TV package is a (mostly) ESPN/ABC product; and with NCAA football & hoops because they control virtually all of that too as those two provide most of their programming from August through April. As a result, the hosts who man the everyday jobs up in Bristol are hired specifically because they're gridiron & hoops geeks knowing that when baseball does get on the four-letter network it's as a ghettoized sport and can be shunted off to the side and dealt with by the guys on BB2N and a handful of specialized journalists like Olney & Kurkjian, etc. What remains can generally be divided into two groups: those who are indifferent to the sport of baseball; or those who are openly hostile to it. Given the option of having that crew discuss baseball, I'd prefer they simply take a pass.

SteveJRogers wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Mostly I remember Mike & Mad Dog (Chris particularly) as being vehemently anti-Biggio for the HoF - which is as good a reason as any for a 'Yea' vote IMO. I heard Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio fame declare that Biggio doesn't belong anywhere near a Hall of Fame, while he'd put Canseco in. Reasoning, because of the FAME part! Canseco is much more FAMOUS than Biggio will ever be! My only comment to this is that it's exactly what I'd expect from Cowherd and that comments like these are why, rather than hoping he (and many of his ESPN brethren) would talk more baseball, I'd prefer they talk less.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but Craig Biggio did achieve 3,000 hits; plus 1,100 walks, 290 homers; and 400 steals (at a 77% success rate). He was hit by 285 pitches, leading the league five times and ultimately coming within two of turn-of-the-century Hughie Jennings' all-time leading number. In 12,504 plate appearances, he somehow grounded into only 150 double plays.] And chalked up nearly 700 doubles in his career, behind only Speaker, Rose, Musial & Cobb Think of him as George Brett minus 24 points of BA plus a little power (although not much, plus was in a tougher hitting environment) but with more speed and defensive versatility. Mostly I remember Mike & Mad Dog (Chris particularly) as being vehemently anti-Biggio for the HoF - which is as good a reason as any for a 'Yea' vote IMO.

Judging from the above list, I didn't have a very movie-going year. In rough order of goodness: Argo Premium Rush Looper The Grey Ted Safe House

For the record, BA's top 10 prospects in the Mets system (excluding the Dickey loot): 1. Wheeler (RHP) 2. Gavin Cecchini (SS) 3. Brandon Nimmo (OF) 4. Luis Mateo (RHP) 5. Rafael Montero (RHP) 6. Flores (3B/2B) 7. Michael Fulmer (RHP) 8. Jeurys Familia (RHP) 9. Domingo Tapia (RHP) 10. Cory Mazzoni (RHP) If we designated d'Arnaud as a non-prospect (cos there's a 99.95% chance he'll make the 25 man roster) Syndergaard prolly slots in at 2. Well D'arnaud certainly IS a prospect seeing as how these off-season lists judge them by their current status of ML service time not where they expect them to be a year from now. BA did update their list following the Dickey deal and slotted D'arnaud at #2, Syndergaard 3rd. Baseball Prospectus & John Sickels released their lists right after the deal (see the 'Prospects' thread) and had the same top 3 although Sickels ranked D'arnaud 1st and Wheeler 2nd rather than the other way around.

It's not that the Marlins wouldn't want Flores, the question is which other 3-5 players/prospects they're going to want in addition to Flores before they agree to let go of Stanton.

MFS62 wrote: If this is the guy I'm thinking about, he was once a highly rated Cards prospect. Was originally with the Cardinal org, but was an 18th round pick who didn't make his pro debut until age 22, has had some good though hardly outstanding seasons in the minors, has never seen a BA Top-100 lists, and is 28 y/o at this point - so either you're thinking of a different Brown or you're mis-remembering (as Rajah would say) his one-time prospect status. You always have to take the 2012 Colorado Springs stats with a grain of salt, but the 2011 stats at AAA Memphis are in a similar neighborhood. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=brown-004and

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, Stanton is a win now/win tomorrow/win on Mars/win on Venus property. If the price is right, but you're set at his position, you still want him. If the price is right, sure. But if the price is going to be (as it shirley will be) several various players and prospects, you wind up weakening the club at several positions both now and in the future in exchange for improving the hell out of one spot which is the kind of cosmetic back-page stealing, attendance-minded move that doesn't really improve the club. IOW, if I'm the Mets, I'm definitely NOT in a do whatever it takes to get Giancarlo Stanton mode.

I brought up the whole Stanton story merely to illustrate the continued transformation of the revenue-share gobbling, public stadium financed Marlins and their slime-ball owner, not because I thought it would be a good idea for the Mets to trade for him. Trading for G. Stanton is what you do when you believe yourself to be a 'this-year' team that's one player away and/or because you have a minor league system with prospects to spare who are blocked by the depth in your major league squad. We're not at either spot right now. Oh, and according to any and all sources on minor league prospects, there's no way Wilmer Flores is a future CF. A 2B? ... maybe. A corner OF or 1B most likely.

It would be quite unexpected if I were to journey to the theater to see this movie.

So one of the things the MWWF (mediots who worship football) cite in their love for the sport is its "perfect" season and playoff set-up. Well this year that perfect set-up saw three of the eight divisions and eight of the twelve playoff sports clinched with 1/4 of the season left. And this season saw five teams finish with 10-6 records but, for reasons having to do solely with convenience, only four qualified for post-season. At least there weren't this year, although there often are, any playoff teams with .500 or even sub-.500 records.

Marlins say they're not actively shopping him BUT ..... did say publicly this weekend that it's standard club policy for them to listen to any offers that might come their way on any player, and that Giancarlo Stanton is no exception. I think history tells us that emanations like this coming out of south Florida usually represent step one in a process that leads to the inevitable conclusion.

The Second Spitter wrote: Lets see in the last 3 years the NFL has had: 1. A lockout (w/ litigation) 2. Bountygate 3. Replacement referee shenanigans 4. The whittling away of its ASG into a farce. Plus there's that that minor problem of having a few hundred (or is it thousand?) of its former players in a class action law suit against the league.

The difference being that while concussions happen in baseball they're pretty much endemic to the sport of football, and that although Goodell and the NFL are currently being credited for virtually discovering the connection between concussions and later cognitive problems, it was only about 24 months ago that they were sounding for all the world like 1980s-era cigarette executives by denying that there was even the slightest hint of a connection between concussions and their sport.

I've quoted these "parity" stats before, but they can use some updating and repetition since "conventional wisdom" continues to deny their existence. Last 10 years: MLB -- 7 different champions, 36.7% (11 of 30) of franchises have appeared in a WS NFL -- 6 different champions, 37.5% (12 of 32) of franchises have appeared in a SB Last 20 years: MLB -- 12 different champions, 63.3% (19 of 30) of franchises have appeared in a WS NFL -- 11 different champions, 68.8% (22 of 32) of franchises have appeared in a SB [u:339mldfd]TWO[/u:339mldfd] MLB franchises have failed to at least reach a league final over the last 20 years (Mont/Wash & KCR) [u:339mldfd]FIVE[/u:339mldfd] NFL franchises have failed to at least reach a conference final over the last 20 years (Wash, Det, Cinc, Hou, Cleve - those last two being expansion teams that weren't there for the entire period) Not that any of those numbers will stop the talking heads from repeating, with full CAHNfindence of course, that one of the things that makes the NFL the best league is that the parity brings so many more teams into play each year. Consider also that that the above similarities occur DESPITE the one sport having: a hard salary cap; a playoff system which allows (until this past year of MLB) 50% more teams into their post-season*; a shorter and therefore much more variable regular season plus a one-and-out playoff system. * 3 of the last 7 SB champs would not even have made the playoffs using MLB's system

every now and again, when i foolishly tune my radio to sports-yelling, i hear someone describe football as "the best run league in sports". Some version of this statement is uttered by just about every sports media guy working today. I'm sure they truly believe it and are certainly free to argue it, but I think they're mostly just repeating now it as if by rote to the point where there's no need to even question the statement anymore than you would question whether water is wet. - One of their biggest reasons is their belief that the NFL creates much more parity than baseball. It's not remotely true but the fact that they believe it is makes it so in their minds. - They also, almost without exception, LOVE the byproducts of the weak NFLPA: things like the limited free-agency (particularly for the major stars); the regimented draft; the restrictive rookie cap; authoritative coaches and commissioners, are considered the hallmarks of a well-run league. - They love the gambling aspect tied to football (doubly so now with the growth of fantasy) which drives fans to seek out advice and knowledge each week from ... well, from guys like them! - And mainly you just have to remember the fact that the highly profitable marriage of TV and football means that most of them were hired to be on TV because they eat, sleep and breathe football. They don't examine the strengths and weaknesses of baseball because most neither pay attention to over even like like baseball. And most of the people they come in contract with (ie. each other) feel the same way because they're there for the same reason which just in turn reinforces their original thinking. football is the best run league in sports only because baseball is held to a much higher standard. The only media guy I've heard with the guts to say this is Joel Sherman at the NYPost. At the time he was talking specifically about the football media punting on the (then) most recent NFL/steroids story as it, once again, got swept under the rug in favor of the latest QB/coach soap opera. But he also expanded his point to other issues as well and basically called out his football counterparts for too often simply accepting and repeating what the league wants them to do.

bmfc1 wrote: I'm in favor of any and all technology to get every call right. Unfortunately, we have a Commissioner that refuses to act with any alacrity on anything so the greatest game is destined to utilize these prima donnas for many years to come. In fairness to the umps, I don't think they're the ones fighting technology, they certainly weren't on its use in HRs calls. Nor do I think the commish is against it. Granted Bud is a 'consensus' type of leader meaning he's not going to publicly endorse a change until he can work behind the scenes and get enough people to agree with it, but I believe what's holding further replay up is the lack of agreement on a workable system rather than Bud digging his heels in or pressure from the umps union.

I wasn't aware that: a) Sheehan was writing for Sports Illustrated or that SI still covered baseball That said, the AS game thing was a cheap shot. The two NYC stadiums had a smaller pct of public money used than most and there's no age or lingering injury reasons to think that Wright will be off to a slow start except that it fits his pre-determined narrative. And what, btw, would make the ASG "a disaster"? - The home team being out of contention and having few representatives? ... Ummm, they were just recently in Kansas City and Pittsburgh. - Shrinking TV ratings? ... Don't look now Joe but this has been happening for years. Just ask your colleagues, it's the one aspect of baseball they like talking about. - A non-exciting game? ... As if CitiField site makes that more likely or that the possibility of a cliff-hanger is the reason people tune in. I assumed before clicking on the link that a 2013 preview this early was going to be one of those humorous prediction pieces that writers like to run, but the rest of his points are at least plausible. The whole finances issue and Selig's view on it are legit topics but he's merely using the site of the ASG as a taking off point to use it.

A one-hour show on MLBN earlier tonight (and I'm sure on a regular basis in the near future as well) tracking the umpiring team throughout the 2012 World Series. Basically the six man team was all miked up during the series so you hear some of the on-field conversations both between themselves and with the players and managers. They also have before and after game chatter in the dressing room with the brass as well as interviews with each of the six. Reasonably entertaining even as it comes off as a bit of an in-house project done strictly for PR purposes by MLB. Even manages to humanize Joe West a bit (but only a bit). West, Dan Iassogna, Brian O'Nora, Fieldin Culbreth, Brian Gorman, Gerry Davis was your crew.

"Squatchee" ... so that dot on the top of the hat that CF hates so much when it's the wrong color actually has a name? Learn something new every day.

Edgy MD wrote: Maybe. Hope so, I guess. Though who do we expect as of now to pass him? Bixler and Cowgill, I suppose. Wheeler, I hope. I'd say we probably average about 8-10 newbies a year so if we ever actually do get any new members around here to put up 50 or so posts before this time next year, they'll be the final ones to "achieve" Mel Rojas status. Frank-Frank most likely hits the boards this year after narrowly missing the top 500. Hopefully D'Arnaud jumps aboard. Also Wheeler, maybe Mejia, Familia, John Buck or some mystery back-up catcher, several mystery relievers.

^ smg58 is Mo Vaughn today -- 11 years to the day after the trade that brought him to New York ^ ^ ^ ^ Several of this crew spent the night chatting with Bobby V in his short-lived Queens restaurant about this and a variety of other topics just a day or two later.