|
Rickey doesn't break Seaver's record:
| ="MLB.com":3ox4xomj]Henderson's name appeared on 511 of the 539 ballots cast, falling a little short of the percentages for the last two first-ballot electees -- Tony Gwynn (97.6 percent) and Cal Ripken (98.5 percent), who holds the record for the highest percentage for a position player. Both were elected in 2007. Right-hander Tom Seaver received the highest-ever percentage (98.8 percent) when elected in 1992.[/quote:3ox4xomj]
|
seawolf17
Jan 12 2009 12:09 PM
|
|
Rice is probably my favorite non-Met ever. Thrilled for him.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 12 2009 12:10 PM
Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 12:17 PM
|
|
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.
|
Edgy DC
Jan 12 2009 12:10 PM
|
|
I pray that you don't edit that.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 12 2009 12:16 PM
|
|
="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:
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 <i>really</i> 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 <i>really</i> 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:
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 [url=http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-joe-dimaggio-forever-changed-cooperstown-voting/:2g3fq09w]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
|
|
[url=http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/01/12/fanhouse-exclusive-rickey-hendersons-acceptance-speech/:25za1esj]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 [url=http://cranepoolforum.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40]previously:[/url]
| ]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...
<table border="1"><tr><td> Player </td><td> Career </td><td> 5-yr peak </td><td> 7-yr Peak </td><td> 10-yr Plateau </td><td> 1-yr Max </td></tr><tr><td> henderson </td><td> TOP </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> TOP </td></tr><tr><td> blyleven </td><td> TOP </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 2nd </td></tr><tr><td> trammell </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td></tr><tr><td> raines </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> cone </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td></tr><tr><td> mcgwire </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td></tr>
<tr><td> mattingly </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td></tr><tr><td> murphy </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td></tr><tr><td> dawson </td><td> 3rd </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> john </td><td> 2nd </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> morris </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> rice </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> baines </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> grace </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> bell </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> williams </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> parker </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> smith </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> vaughn </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> gant </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> vaughn </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> orosco </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> plesac </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td></tr></table>
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
