<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes. >>
+1 >>
He knows exactly what that rag is. Sorry y'all either missed his overall point or decided to ignore it.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>This assumes you know what all the meaningful stats are; as most self-aware baseball analysts from the 1980s will tell you, metrics can and do change. >>
If I happen to sneeze and miss it, be sure and inform me of the inclusionary metric that helps Biggio garner two-tenths of a percent over the next twelve months. >>
You said: "The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote."
I'm saying that 'no, that isn't the only reason'. You can (and should, probably) alter your ballot if you come into some new way of processing the relevant data that's superior to the methodology you employed the year prior.
It is who votes that is the problem! They are writers! That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. They are great are sentence structure and 'making stories', but neither of those lend itself to analyzing and determining ability, worth, or value of a baseball player.
But, like Tabe said in regard to why a player gets 15 years on the ballot....things change! I am still in shock and awe that the writers actually picked a Cy Young Winner with a 13-12 record(King Felix). That simply WOULD NOT have happened 25 years ago...but people are learning(very slowly and inconsistently, but they are learning).
If Catfish Hunter were up for election for the first time this year, he would NOT be getting more than 20% of the vote(and rightfully so, because even that is too high for him), so there is hope!
Writers and broadcasters are slowly starting to realize that there are far better ways to measure baseball players than the archaic methods they grew up with. I grew up with the same archaic methods, and I myself used to hail RBI as the greatest stat....that is until the Elias sports books came out in the early/mid 80's and they showed how X player only got more RBI than the other guy because he had 85 more runners in scoring position to drive in when he batted. That was a game changer, because it was common sense mixed with facts to back it up. That was just the beginning, as things improved light years since then!
As for this guy(voter) everyone is talking about, no matter what you do, there will be a few complete fools in the process...and that is why the threshold is only 75%. >>
Well put, Skin. This pretty much sums it up.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>OOOOOOOH....I get it now. He was being sarcastic Crazy BBWA member. Maybe he should start writing for a snarky publication. >>
I appreciate witty snark but in moderation. Deadspin should give it a try but then their clicks would shrivel up like Alex's testies.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Biggio as a Hall of Famer doesn't exactly roll off the tongue for me so I will not lose sleep over this. Certainly he has accumulated the stats and he will most certainly get in one day and I personally won't have a problem with it when he does. He just isn't a slam dunk in my opinion…………….MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>You said: "The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote."
I'm saying that 'no, that isn't the only reason'. You can (and should, probably) alter your ballot if you come into some new way of processing the relevant data that's superior to the methodology you employed the year prior. >>
I get what you're saying and in a perfect world that sounds great. But when you hear what guys like Gurnick and Le Batard did, clearly new metrics are not part of the conversation. Until someone gives a concrete example of how a new 2014 methodology opens the Hall doors for a guy like Biggio, I'll remain a cynic and say you're giving voters far too much credit. Who knows, maybe I also hold this view because I eat, sleep and breathe numbers every day of my professional life; there's nothing you could show me from now until January that would sway my opinion in regard to Craig Biggio's candidacy.
Same goes for a guy like Tim Raines. Trust me, I've conducted my own analysis and when it comes to getting on base and wreaking havoc, only Rickey did it better. And last I checked, that was his primary role as a leadoff man. Yet here we are, a day after the '14 vote, watching his percentage sink lower than it was back in 2012. If you're able to digest that and go about your day, I'm happy for you. I personally cannot because it leaves a vile taste in my mouth.
If you need another example of a voter who eschewed intellectual consistency, take a look at Dan Shaughnessy's last two ballots:
2012: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines 2013: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine
It's funny, people wanting to make fun of Deadspin, and especially on this voting process. Who exactly did the Deadspin readers vote for that was a bad vote? Oh, what's that? There was none? But some 'official' writers felt JT Snow was worth two votes? Hideo Nomo and Moises Alou should get 6 each? If you want to talk about the real mockery of the Hall of Fame vote, it sure as hell wasn't the Deadspin vote.
As far as Deadspin only writing in snark, as our resident journalism expert stown would have you believe, that couldn't be further from the truth. Who broke the Manti Teo story? Who broke the Favre sexual harassment story? They do real work over there, but the old fogeys like stown and 'traditional' journalists would have you believe that because they don't cuddle up to pro athletes, and they write in a tone and about things that real people talk about, it's somehow not 'real' journalism.
When I want highlights, I'll watch ESPN. But sports news? Real sports news? Big outlets like ESPN and FOX stopped covering that stuff AGES ago.
<< <i>You said: "The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote."
I'm saying that 'no, that isn't the only reason'. You can (and should, probably) alter your ballot if you come into some new way of processing the relevant data that's superior to the methodology you employed the year prior. >>
I get what you're saying and in a perfect world that sounds great. But when you hear what guys like Gurnick and Le Batard did, clearly new metrics are not part of the conversation. Until someone gives a concrete example of how a new 2014 methodology opens the Hall doors for a guy like Biggio, I'll remain a cynic and say you're giving voters far too much credit. Who knows, maybe I also hold this view because I eat, sleep and breathe numbers every day of my professional life; there's nothing you could show me from now until January that would sway my opinion in regard to Craig Biggio's candidacy.
Same goes for a guy like Tim Raines. Trust me, I've conducted my own analysis and when it comes to getting on base and wreaking havoc, only Rickey did it better. And last I checked, that was his primary role as a leadoff man. Yet here we are, a day after the '14 vote, watching his percentage sink lower than it was back in 2012. If you're able to digest that and go about your day, I'm happy for you. I personally cannot because it leaves a vile taste in my mouth.
If you need another example of a voter who eschewed intellectual consistency, take a look at Dan Shaughnessy's last two ballots:
2012: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines 2013: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine >>
I think we're arguing about two different things. My point is that there are reasons why a ballot can change; I'm not arguing that the reasons why ballots change are valid, only that there are conditions where they could be valid, and this 'could be' is why I think the 15 year window is a good idea.
I completely agree that the voters are idiots, and that's why I don't take the HOF seriously. A club is only as prestigious as the people who determine admittance.
<< <i>2012: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines 2013: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine >>
Let's also not forget that there's room for TEN players on the ballot, so it's not like he had to leave Trammell and Raines off to put Thomas, Maddux, and Glavine on.
From all of the possible examples, one defines Deadspin's so-called 'journalism' by their coverage of sexual behavior during an athlete's personal time.
Thank you. Just as I said, tabloid trash.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>From all of the possible examples, one defines Deadspin's so-called 'journalism' by their coverage of sexual behavior during an athlete's personal time.
Thank you. Just as I said, tabloid trash. >>
I used two and you sir, YOU focused on this one.YOU. Favre engaged in sexual harassment and YOU would rather it be swept under the rug instead of bringing this predator to light.
Math is hard but what do you expect from a devoted tabloid trash reader.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>The Te'o story had nothing to do with sex....if I remember correctly? >>
It had absolutely nothing to do with the sexual behavior during an athlete's private time. None whatsoever.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I mean, if you want to get into semantics, guess I could have phrased it like:
<< <i>From all of the possible examples, one defines Deadspin's so-called 'journalism' by their coverage of stories that are sexual in nature and during the althletes' personal time.
Thank you. Just as I said, tabloid trash. >>
Deadspin is nothing but mean-spirited tabloid trash that thrives on click bait. It's the core foundation of their so-called media organization and regardless of what they self-proclaim to be, it's not Journalism. Exploiting Le Batard's HOF vote is a perfect example.
It is what it is and they are what they are.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
So deadspin exploited his vote? It wasn't Dan expressing anger and frustration with the voting process? Hilarious how short sighted and WRONG you are.
Also it's pretty sad you think victims of sexual harrassment shouldn't have their stories brought to light because it happened in an athlete's personal time. Not sad, actually, it's sickening.
<< <i>I think we're arguing about two different things. My point is that there are reasons why a ballot can change; I'm not arguing that the reasons why ballots change are valid, only that there are conditions where they could be valid, and this 'could be' is why I think the 15 year window is a good idea.
I completely agree that the voters are idiots, and that's why I don't take the HOF seriously. A club is only as prestigious as the people who determine admittance. >>
In my spare time I've been known to pull a Skin, therefore I feel like I cover all the bases when it comes to the numbers. In fact, I comprise a mock ballot each year just for funsies. To date, the only time mine changes is when new names hit the eligibility list. I dig a fairly deep analytical hole, thus I've never been one to be capricious when it comes to my selections. Personally speaking, if a fresh metric were to ever emerge and a new name was catapulted onto my list as a result, then that's the kind of stuff that needs to be bottled up and sold on the open market. Is it plausible that a voter could be swayed from year to year under the scenario you've presented? I agree that it is, but I would also add that it's more likely to happen to someone who didn't properly conduct his/her due diligence. And I guess that's why I initially made the statement I did, because I expect voters to care more and be even more passionate than I am about the process.
Deadspin covered the suspension of LeBatard, and stated that he didn't break any of their rules in what he did. Other voters have asked fans/non-voters for help; they can still vote. He did absolutely nothing to earn this ban, other than to point out the absolute absurdity of the hall and all it has come to stand for, and the absolute idiocy and hypocrisy the voters themselves now carry themselves with.
<< <i>As a side note, this happened a short time ago. >>
Bet he regrets it now but dogs and fleas and such.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>As a side note, this happened a short time ago. >>
Bet he regrets it now but dogs and fleas and such. >>
Wrong, again:
"I'm not sure what kind of trouble this is going to bring me. I imagine I'll probably have my vote stripped. But I don't want to be a part of the present climate without reform anyway. Given that climate, doing THIS has more impact than my next 20 years of votes as sanctimony bars the HOF door on the steroid guys. Because, in a climate without reform, my next 20 years of votes will be counted but not actually heard. At least this gets it heard, for better or for worse."
Regardless, I do want to give him props for taking action in a cause he believes in. A type of civil disobedience and suffered real consequences. That's infinitely more than the keyboard pawns.
In the meantime, the tabloid trash gets more traffic and hands are washed clean. Mission accomplished.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Richard Justice tweeted: We had a guy in Houston ask for fan help in filling out his HOF ballot. He still votes.
English is hard but what do you expect from a devoted tabloid trash reader.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Either way, it's a wasted vote as far as the purpose for which it was intended. Refusing to vote for any eligible player based simply and solely on the dates he played is a more egregious offense to the so-called sanctity of the ballot this guy DeBetard supposedly violated.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>English is hard but what do you expect from a devoted tabloid trash reader. >>
stownie why don't you enlighten us as to how different what LeBetard did and the writer Justice referred to are?
Don't stress yourself there is no difference. LeBatard simply showed what a farce the voting process has become so he gets punished. Typical of the bury your head in the sand mentality permeating the BBWAA and MLB in general.
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Either way, it's a wasted vote as far as the purpose for which it was intended. Refusing to vote for any eligible player based simply and solely on the dates he played is a more egregious offense to the so-called sanctity of the ballot this guy DeBetard supposedly violated. >>
You can say voting for one player is just as bad but it's within their rules, which state you can vote from 0 to 10 eligible players. There's also a difference between getting outside opinions and giving your vote to a non-approved 3rd party. Every respectable trade with membership dues has a code of ethics and submitting an executed document under false pretenses has consequences. That's just basic common sense. He figured there would be some type of punishment for this publicity stunt but assumed, wrongly, it would only be temporary. He regrets it in hindsight but what's done is done and you move on.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Either way, it's a wasted vote as far as the purpose for which it was intended. Refusing to vote for any eligible player based simply and solely on the dates he played is a more egregious offense to the so-called sanctity of the ballot this guy DeBetard supposedly violated. >>
You can say voting for one player is just as bad but it's within their rules, which state you can vote from 0 to 10 eligible players. There's also a difference between getting outside opinions and giving your vote to a non-approved 3rd party. Every respectable trade with membership dues has a code of ethics and submitting an executed document under false pretenses has consequences. That's just basic common sense. He figured there would be some type of punishment for this publicity stunt bu t assumed, wrongly, it would only be temporary. He regrets it in hindsight but what's done is done and you move on. >>
Barry, I'm not debating whether he violated the rules. What I'm saying is that the a guy who refuses to vote for a player based solely on the era in which he played ought to have his voting privilege revoked as well. After all, now that Morris is done, who can he even possibly vote for? By his own admission, the answer is no one.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Barry, I'm not debating whether he violated the rules. What I'm saying is that the a guy who refuses to vote for a player based solely on the era in which he played ought to have his voting privilege revoked as well. After all, now that Morris is done, who can he even possibly vote for? By his own admission, the answer is no one. >>
I hear what you're saying, Tim, and completely disagree with his approach but as the rules state, he's not doing anything wrong. I believe the process should have some tweaks going forward but that's for the BBWAA and its membership to decide.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I am VERY disappointed in the vote count for Schilling. Over 200 wins, a stellar post-season record, very "clutch" if you believe in that, the bloody sock and 2004.
Would have been nice to see Schill and Pedro go in together next year, but I don't think Schill will get there next year, if ever. Hell, Pedro, who should be a slam dunk first ballot HOFer might not get in next year.
<< <i>No chit. He could have at least Googled Deadspin before writing the article. And I had considered him one of the better journalists. >>
Guess you also missed his sarcasm in the hypocritical similarities of “attention-seeking trolls.”
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
The funniest part of the whole LeBatard thing is the writers playing the role of sanctimonious ahole to perfection and the mindless fans lining up to support them and try to rip LeBatard in the process.
Nice work in perfectly proving LeBatards point completely.
Good on Dan for admitting regret working with the tabloid trash and in hindsight, would have done things differently. He could have easily pointed fingers and whined "IT'S NOT FAIR!!" but instead, took the responsibility of his own actions. While I disagree with his actions, he went up a couple notches in my book dealing with the consequences.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Tabloid trash. That's hilarious. The 'tabloid trash' is putting out better work and doing more investigative work than any old school sports reporter is and has been doing so for some time now.
<< <i>I hear what you're saying, Tim, and completely disagree with his approach but as the rules state, he's not doing anything wrong. I believe the process should have some tweaks going forward but that's for the BBWAA and its membership to decide. >>
I read something where they're going to look into tweaking it for stuff like we saw this year - one guy turning in an empty ballot, the "only Morris!" guy, Le Batard, and so on.
FWIW, I have no problem with them stripping Le Batard of his vote. Farming your vote out to another group as he did - where he completely gave up control over who got voted for, as opposed to just seeking input - is not cool.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes. >>
+1 >>
He knows exactly what that rag is. Sorry y'all either missed his overall point or decided to ignore it.
<< <i>
<< <i>This assumes you know what all the meaningful stats are; as most self-aware baseball analysts from the 1980s will tell you, metrics can and do change. >>
If I happen to sneeze and miss it, be sure and inform me of the inclusionary metric that helps Biggio garner two-tenths of a percent over the next twelve months. >>
You said: "The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote."
I'm saying that 'no, that isn't the only reason'. You can (and should, probably) alter your ballot if you come into some new way of processing the relevant data that's superior to the methodology you employed the year prior.
<< <i>The % required isn't a problem.
The 15 years on the ballot isn't the problem.
It is who votes that is the problem! They are writers! That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. They are great are sentence structure and 'making stories', but neither of those lend itself to analyzing and determining ability, worth, or value of a baseball player.
But, like Tabe said in regard to why a player gets 15 years on the ballot....things change! I am still in shock and awe that the writers actually picked a Cy Young Winner with a 13-12 record(King Felix). That simply WOULD NOT have happened 25 years ago...but people are learning(very slowly and inconsistently, but they are learning).
If Catfish Hunter were up for election for the first time this year, he would NOT be getting more than 20% of the vote(and rightfully so, because even that is too high for him), so there is hope!
Writers and broadcasters are slowly starting to realize that there are far better ways to measure baseball players than the archaic methods they grew up with. I grew up with the same archaic methods, and I myself used to hail RBI as the greatest stat....that is until the Elias sports books came out in the early/mid 80's and they showed how X player only got more RBI than the other guy because he had 85 more runners in scoring position to drive in when he batted. That was a game changer, because it was common sense mixed with facts to back it up. That was just the beginning, as things improved light years since then!
As for this guy(voter) everyone is talking about, no matter what you do, there will be a few complete fools in the process...and that is why the threshold is only 75%. >>
Well put, Skin. This pretty much sums it up.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes. >>
+1 >>
He knows exactly what that rag is. Sorry y'all either missed his overall point or decided to ignore it. >>
OOOOOOOH....I get it now. He was being sarcastic Crazy BBWA member. Maybe he should start writing for a snarky publication.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes. >>
+1 >>
He knows exactly what that rag is. Sorry y'all either missed his overall point or decided to ignore it. >>
OOOOOOOH....I get it now. He was being sarcastic Crazy BBWA member. Maybe he should start writing for a snarky publication. >>
Ken is a total cutup. Just check out some of his zany bow ties!
<< <i>OOOOOOOH....I get it now. He was being sarcastic Crazy BBWA member. Maybe he should start writing for a snarky publication. >>
I appreciate witty snark but in moderation. Deadspin should give it a try but then their clicks would shrivel up like Alex's testies.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>You said: "The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote."
I'm saying that 'no, that isn't the only reason'. You can (and should, probably) alter your ballot if you come into some new way of processing the relevant data that's superior to the methodology you employed the year prior. >>
I get what you're saying and in a perfect world that sounds great. But when you hear what guys like Gurnick and Le Batard did, clearly new metrics are not part of the conversation. Until someone gives a concrete example of how a new 2014 methodology opens the Hall doors for a guy like Biggio, I'll remain a cynic and say you're giving voters far too much credit. Who knows, maybe I also hold this view because I eat, sleep and breathe numbers every day of my professional life; there's nothing you could show me from now until January that would sway my opinion in regard to Craig Biggio's candidacy.
Same goes for a guy like Tim Raines. Trust me, I've conducted my own analysis and when it comes to getting on base and wreaking havoc, only Rickey did it better. And last I checked, that was his primary role as a leadoff man. Yet here we are, a day after the '14 vote, watching his percentage sink lower than it was back in 2012. If you're able to digest that and go about your day, I'm happy for you. I personally cannot because it leaves a vile taste in my mouth.
If you need another example of a voter who eschewed intellectual consistency, take a look at Dan Shaughnessy's last two ballots:
2012: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines
2013: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
As far as Deadspin only writing in snark, as our resident journalism expert stown would have you believe, that couldn't be further from the truth. Who broke the Manti Teo story? Who broke the Favre sexual harassment story? They do real work over there, but the old fogeys like stown and 'traditional' journalists would have you believe that because they don't cuddle up to pro athletes, and they write in a tone and about things that real people talk about, it's somehow not 'real' journalism.
When I want highlights, I'll watch ESPN. But sports news? Real sports news? Big outlets like ESPN and FOX stopped covering that stuff AGES ago.
<< <i>
<< <i>You said: "The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote."
I'm saying that 'no, that isn't the only reason'. You can (and should, probably) alter your ballot if you come into some new way of processing the relevant data that's superior to the methodology you employed the year prior. >>
I get what you're saying and in a perfect world that sounds great. But when you hear what guys like Gurnick and Le Batard did, clearly new metrics are not part of the conversation. Until someone gives a concrete example of how a new 2014 methodology opens the Hall doors for a guy like Biggio, I'll remain a cynic and say you're giving voters far too much credit. Who knows, maybe I also hold this view because I eat, sleep and breathe numbers every day of my professional life; there's nothing you could show me from now until January that would sway my opinion in regard to Craig Biggio's candidacy.
Same goes for a guy like Tim Raines. Trust me, I've conducted my own analysis and when it comes to getting on base and wreaking havoc, only Rickey did it better. And last I checked, that was his primary role as a leadoff man. Yet here we are, a day after the '14 vote, watching his percentage sink lower than it was back in 2012. If you're able to digest that and go about your day, I'm happy for you. I personally cannot because it leaves a vile taste in my mouth.
If you need another example of a voter who eschewed intellectual consistency, take a look at Dan Shaughnessy's last two ballots:
2012: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines
2013: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine >>
I think we're arguing about two different things. My point is that there are reasons why a ballot can change; I'm not arguing that the reasons why ballots change are valid, only that there are conditions where they could be valid, and this 'could be' is why I think the 15 year window is a good idea.
I completely agree that the voters are idiots, and that's why I don't take the HOF seriously. A club is only as prestigious as the people who determine admittance.
<< <i>2012: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines
2013: Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine >>
Let's also not forget that there's room for TEN players on the ballot, so it's not like he had to leave Trammell and Raines off to put Thomas, Maddux, and Glavine on.
The voters are idiots, period.
Thank you. Just as I said, tabloid trash.
<< <i>From all of the possible examples, one defines Deadspin's so-called 'journalism' by their coverage of sexual behavior during an athlete's personal time.
Thank you. Just as I said, tabloid trash. >>
I used two and you sir, YOU focused on this one.YOU. Favre engaged in sexual harassment and YOU would rather it be swept under the rug instead of bringing this predator to light.
Speaks volumes about YOU, sir.
Teo (sex) + Favre (sex) = 2
Math is hard but what do you expect from a devoted tabloid trash reader.
<< <i>The Te'o story had nothing to do with sex....if I remember correctly? >>
In stowns world where we wants victims of sexual harrassment to shut up and be kept quiet everything revolves around sex.
<< <i>The Te'o story had nothing to do with sex....if I remember correctly? >>
It had absolutely nothing to do with the sexual behavior during an athlete's private time. None whatsoever.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Te'o story had nothing to do with sex....if I remember correctly? >>
It had absolutely nothing to do with the sexual behavior during an athlete's private time. None whatsoever.
You missed the point of the story, hardly surprising though given your limited abilities. Keep trying though!
<< <i>From all of the possible examples, one defines Deadspin's so-called 'journalism' by their coverage of stories that are sexual in nature and during the althletes' personal time.
Thank you. Just as I said, tabloid trash. >>
Deadspin is nothing but mean-spirited tabloid trash that thrives on click bait. It's the core foundation of their so-called media organization and regardless of what they self-proclaim to be, it's not Journalism. Exploiting Le Batard's HOF vote is a perfect example.
It is what it is and they are what they are.
Also it's pretty sad you think victims of sexual harrassment shouldn't have their stories brought to light because it happened in an athlete's personal time. Not sad, actually, it's sickening.
<< <i>I think we're arguing about two different things. My point is that there are reasons why a ballot can change; I'm not arguing that the reasons why ballots change are valid, only that there are conditions where they could be valid, and this 'could be' is why I think the 15 year window is a good idea.
I completely agree that the voters are idiots, and that's why I don't take the HOF seriously. A club is only as prestigious as the people who determine admittance. >>
In my spare time I've been known to pull a Skin, therefore I feel like I cover all the bases when it comes to the numbers. In fact, I comprise a mock ballot each year just for funsies. To date, the only time mine changes is when new names hit the eligibility list. I dig a fairly deep analytical hole, thus I've never been one to be capricious when it comes to my selections. Personally speaking, if a fresh metric were to ever emerge and a new name was catapulted onto my list as a result, then that's the kind of stuff that needs to be bottled up and sold on the open market. Is it plausible that a voter could be swayed from year to year under the scenario you've presented? I agree that it is, but I would also add that it's more likely to happen to someone who didn't properly conduct his/her due diligence. And I guess that's why I initially made the statement I did, because I expect voters to care more and be even more passionate than I am about the process.
As a side note, this happened a short time ago.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>As a side note, this happened a short time ago. >>
Bet he regrets it now but dogs and fleas and such.
<< <i>
<< <i>As a side note, this happened a short time ago. >>
Bet he regrets it now but dogs and fleas and such. >>
Wrong, again:
"I'm not sure what kind of trouble this is going to bring me. I imagine I'll probably have my vote stripped. But I don't want to be a part of the present climate without reform anyway. Given that climate, doing THIS has more impact than my next 20 years of votes as sanctimony bars the HOF door on the steroid guys. Because, in a climate without reform, my next 20 years of votes will be counted but not actually heard. At least this gets it heard, for better or for worse."
Regardless, I do want to give him props for taking action in a cause he believes in. A type of civil disobedience and suffered real consequences. That's infinitely more than the keyboard pawns.
In the meantime, the tabloid trash gets more traffic and hands are washed clean. Mission accomplished.
The height of stupidity.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote.
<< <i>
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Richard Justice tweeted:
We had a guy in Houston ask for fan help in filling out his HOF ballot. He still votes.
Any other theories stownie?
Link
<< <i>
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Either way, it's a wasted vote as far as the purpose for which it was intended. Refusing to vote for any eligible player based simply and solely on the dates he played is a more egregious offense to the so-called sanctity of the ballot this guy DeBetard supposedly violated.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>English is hard but what do you expect from a devoted tabloid trash reader. >>
stownie why don't you enlighten us as to how different what LeBetard did and the writer Justice referred to are?
Don't stress yourself there is no difference. LeBatard simply showed what a farce the voting process has become so he gets punished. Typical of the bury your head in the sand mentality permeating the BBWAA and MLB in general.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Either way, it's a wasted vote as far as the purpose for which it was intended. Refusing to vote for any eligible player based simply and solely on the dates he played is a more egregious offense to the so-called sanctity of the ballot this guy DeBetard supposedly violated. >>
You can say voting for one player is just as bad but it's within their rules, which state you can vote from 0 to 10 eligible players. There's also a difference between getting outside opinions and giving your vote to a non-approved 3rd party. Every respectable trade with membership dues has a code of ethics and submitting an executed document under false pretenses has consequences. That's just basic common sense. He figured there would be some type of punishment for this publicity stunt but assumed, wrongly, it would only be temporary. He regrets it in hindsight but what's done is done and you move on.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This guy has his vote stripped but a guy who voted only for Jack Morris and who publicly stated he will not vote for ANYONE who played during the PED era is still allowed to vote?
The height of stupidity. >>
Agreed but the big difference being, it was his vote. >>
Either way, it's a wasted vote as far as the purpose for which it was intended. Refusing to vote for any eligible player based simply and solely on the dates he played is a more egregious offense to the so-called sanctity of the ballot this guy DeBetard supposedly violated. >>
You can say voting for one player is just as bad but it's within their rules, which state you can vote from 0 to 10 eligible players. There's also a difference between getting outside opinions and giving your vote to a non-approved 3rd party. Every respectable trade with membership dues has a code of ethics and submitting an executed document under false pretenses has consequences. That's just basic common sense. He figured there would be some type of punishment for this publicity stunt bu
t assumed, wrongly, it would only be temporary. He regrets it in hindsight but what's done is done and you move on. >>
Barry, I'm not debating whether he violated the rules. What I'm saying is that the a guy who refuses to vote for a player based solely on the era in which he played ought to have his voting privilege revoked as well. After all, now that Morris is done, who can he even possibly vote for? By his own admission, the answer is no one.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Barry, I'm not debating whether he violated the rules. What I'm saying is that the a guy who refuses to vote for a player based solely on the era in which he played ought to have his voting privilege revoked as well. After all, now that Morris is done, who can he even possibly vote for? By his own admission, the answer is no one. >>
I hear what you're saying, Tim, and completely disagree with his approach but as the rules state, he's not doing anything wrong. I believe the process should have some tweaks going forward but that's for the BBWAA and its membership to decide.
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
No chit. He could have at least Googled Deadspin before writing the article. And I had considered him one of the better journalists.
Would have been nice to see Schill and Pedro go in together next year, but I don't think Schill will get there next year, if ever. Hell, Pedro, who should be a slam dunk first ballot HOFer might not get in next year.
<< <i>No chit. He could have at least Googled Deadspin before writing the article. And I had considered him one of the better journalists. >>
Guess you also missed his sarcasm in the hypocritical similarities of “attention-seeking trolls.”
Nice work in perfectly proving LeBatards point completely.
<< <i>I hear what you're saying, Tim, and completely disagree with his approach but as the rules state, he's not doing anything wrong. I believe the process should have some tweaks going forward but that's for the BBWAA and its membership to decide. >>
I read something where they're going to look into tweaking it for stuff like we saw this year - one guy turning in an empty ballot, the "only Morris!" guy, Le Batard, and so on.
FWIW, I have no problem with them stripping Le Batard of his vote. Farming your vote out to another group as he did - where he completely gave up control over who got voted for, as opposed to just seeking input - is not cool.