Elster88

Sheffield 2 Castillo 2 Green 1.25 Reyes 1.25 Wright 1 Parnell 0.75 Putz 0.75 Castro 0.75 Feliciano 0.25

Brewers Rickie Weeks 2B Corey Hart RF Ryan Braun LF Prince Fielder 1B J.J. Hardy SS Mike Cameron CF Bill Hall 3B Jason Kendall C Jeff Suppan P =blue]Mets Jose Reyes SS Daniel Murphy LF David Wright 3B Carlos Delgado 1B Carlos Beltran CF Gary Sheffield RF Fernando Tatis 2B Omir Santos C Nelson Figueroa P

Finally I can be comfortable watching the post-game. The only thing worse than Carlin's voice is actually looking at him. The first time the gf saw him on Beer Money she was afraid of him. I've got no problem with equal treatment for slobs but does this guy have to be on TV? I also have no problem with TV personalities being hired based on how they look and sound.

SWEEP THE LEG, JOHNNY On the postgame Jerry tells us Figgy will get the start tomorrow.

Santana 4.5 Reyes 1.25 Castillo 1 Putz 1 Rodriguez 1 Santos 0.5

Box score[/url:1en8nez0]

Santos throws out the runner at second for the last out.

Rockin' Doc wrote: Somehow, deriding the Padres unworthiness after they just beat the Mets two out of three games in their new ballpark doesn't make me feel any better. It might if you catch any of the Heath Bell interview on ESPN. He's extremely pleased with himself. Which I guess he has a right to be but a childish part of me is very happy that he's going to play for a losing team this year.

Fuck Heath Bell. I hope he enjoys closing for a 90 loss team.

Wow the home plate ump must have really been cold. Two horrible calls as strikes.

Sheffield almost hit that one to Shea

Gary tells us Young David has struck out 13 times in his first 33 at-bats. Yuck.

Yup I know you meant hop just messing with you.

Funky hot and fresh?

="MFS62":2l78sr07]I hope Delgado doesn't see him and go into a slump. Later[/quote:2l78sr07] What happened to the thread for memorable posts? Nymr83 Apr 16 2009 07:15 PM Jerry today said Willie is still his good friend, they talked over the offseason, and he can't wait to see him. no story here folks.

Seriously though, the house that roids built does look like a prison in that picture.

Nymr83 wrote: ="Frayed Knot"]When are these fans going to learn to leave balls-in-play alone? They won't. I can't believe they didn't give that guy the boot though. On the radio they weren't sure if Reyes would've scored how did it look on tv?

1995, Brett Butler. I'll never forget him taking his hat off to pose for the guy who ran on the field in the first game at Shea after the strike.

oops

="Centerfield":1ftrzzap]You'd think that I, of all people, would be able to remember the Asian Met of 2007.[/quote:1ftrzzap] I was 100% sure that Chan Ho played for the Mets in 2008 until I went to baseball-reference. 2007 and 2008 are combining to form one big lump in my mind. And I think my mind is actively trying to block it out.

="OlerudOwned":2jr1g48g]As long as they don't put his brain into Jeff Francoeur's body, I'm not too worried.[/quote:2jr1g48g] His brain? If they put Griffey's 1995 body in Jeff Franceour's body there's a problem. Griffey's brain shouldn't be a concern. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 17 2009 10:55 PM His chief competition for a starting slot? Gregor Blanco, Josh Anderson and Matt Diaz. Um... he'll play some. (Hopefully, some center.) metsguyinmichigan Feb 18 2009 08:26 PM Braves? Who wants to play for the Braves? Junior's going back to Seattle! G-Fafif Feb 18 2009 09:52 PM The Braves lost this battle Ken's back in Seattle Their outfield needs help They better not yelp Or sit or sulk -- just skedaddle Benjamin Grimm Feb 19 2009 02:10 PM Willie Mays is getting a bunch of UMDB hits today. For a minute I feared he had died, but it turns out that it's probably because of "breaking news" that Willie advised Ken Griffey to return to Seattle. Edgy DC Feb 19 2009 02:28 PM Worth noting in that it flies in the face of every writer who writes about an old athlete that they should hang 'em up because there was nothing sadder than seeing Willie Mays return to New York in the seventies. Willie apparently thought it was nice and still does. Centerfield Feb 19 2009 02:43 PM First they lost AJ Burnett when it looked like they were closing in, then Rafael Furcal. Smoltz bolts to the Red Sox, and now this. Apparently, John Schuerholz is flipping out again and is really pissed at the Mariners. ="John Schuerholz":2f3pxa1e]Having been in this business for 40-some years, I�ve never seen anybody treated like that. The Atlanta Braves will no longer do business with that team � ever. I told the Mariners that we can�t trust them to be honest and forthright. I told him that in all my years, I�ve never seen any team act in such a despicable manner. It was disgusting and unprofessional. We�re a proud organization and we won�t allow ourselves to be treated that way. I advised Bud Selig that whatever games are scheduled with them, just scratch us off the list. Take the name of the Atlanta Braves off their schedule and mark it a forfeit. We will play games against the other 28 clubs.�[/quote:2f3pxa1e] Edgy DC Feb 19 2009 03:23 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 19 2009 05:06 PM Sounds a lot like his tirade after the Furcal debacle. Needless to say, if he actually did follow through on his threat to forfeit games, it would be... hawesome. Then again, it don't mean nothin' 'til you sign it on that dotted line. I don't know why people don't listen to Richard Marx when he's TALKING RIGHT TO THEM? John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 19 2009 03:40 PM Not to dismiss the Braves sour grapes, but the M's also made Heilman go sell tickets for them and traded him to Chicago the same week. Edgy DC Feb 19 2009 03:48 PM An interview with J.J. Putz last week opened up a can of worms about bad clubhouse issues. It read to me like a boilerplate "this is a great bunch o' guys" article, and he stayed away from specifics, just saying that the Ms attitudes had all detiorated and they "weren't playing baseball the right way." Seattle press ran with it and went to senior M players and their new manager looking to get them to shoot back at J.J., but they pretty much acknowledged that, yeah, J.J. should shut up, but it had become a really negative environment. Most interesting is that when reporters asked if Ichiro was a prime factor in the negative atmosphere, nobody would finger him, but nobody would clear him either. I guess 213 hits only buys you so much love when you lose 100 games. G-Fafif Feb 19 2009 04:28 PM Jerry Crasnick on ESPN: ]Both Hall of Famers were speaking from personal experience. While Mays will be forever known as a Giant, he played 135 forgettable games with the Mets in his early 40s. Except they'll never be forgotten by any Mets fan lucky enough to have seen Willie Mays in orange and blue. And I defy anyone to say May 14, 1972, Willie's New York homecoming homer against the Giants, was forgettable. Frayed Knot Feb 19 2009 05:34 PM It's not quite apparent why the Braves are mad at the Mariners. In l'affaire de Furball they were mad at him and/or agent(s) but not the Dodgers. This sounds like it should be two independent contractors trying for one contract and I'm not sure what the Ms could have done that the Braves consider underhanded. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 19 2009 05:39 PM About Shoo's threat to forfeit: he didn't. It's a joke-- a pastiche of the Furcal rant. Edgy DC Feb 19 2009 05:57 PM Shit. Sometimes I just so want something to be true. Centerfield Feb 19 2009 07:25 PM Sorry. Lame attempt at a joke. I just thought Schueholz's Furcal tantrum was ridiculous and wanted to have fun. I like when Braves get bitchy. Edgy DC Feb 19 2009 07:46 PM Apologize not. You yanked me. Good for youse. Edgy DC Feb 19 2009 09:49 PM The Braves just announced a "preliminary agreement" with Tom Glavine. I say we sweep in and outbid them, just to mess with their minds. Edgy DC Feb 22 2009 01:24 PM Yahoo News: Don't Be Willie Officially an ancient Mariner, Ken Griffey Jr. must be careful not to hang around too long, as Willie Mays did.Oh, shut up. Vic Sage Feb 23 2009 10:18 AM yes, he should retire when journalists tell him to. Me? they would have to rip the bat out of my hands and beat me to death with it.

="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.

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.

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

Unanimity is not important to me.