Fixing the Hall of Fame – Part 3: Plausible Fixes
by Daniel Greenia
In a better world, fixing the Hall would be simple. Face it; you or I or anyone could come up with a better system for identifying and honoring baseball’s greatest players. Start from scratch: dump the BBWAA and develop an expert electorate; dump the simplistic up/down voting method with its 75% supermajority requirement; dump the VC and any other second chance reviews; dump the limits on candidates and consider all players together. And so on.
Well, that’s never gonna happen. Due to inertia, tradition and “it could be worse” timidity, reforms that cut right to the heart of the system’s problems have no realistic chance of being instituted. The aim here is towards proposing “plausible” fixes, relatively simple upgrades to the existing system. My proposals are mainly first steps: how can we start moving towards a better system?
Part 3a – Obviating the Screening Committee
First of all, why do we even have a ballot screening committee anymore? It was established 43 years ago because of the difficulty in assessing a ballot with more than 50 players on it. (The 5% rule was established for the same reason.) Well, the world has turned since then; researching 200 Hall candidates is really not hard. However, we’ll have to work our way up to that size ballot, since the voters are used to handling only a couple dozen candidates at present.
It’s been said that the Hall of Fame is the final honor for players. But for most of them that’s not the case; less than 2% of all players make the hall of fame. No, the final honor for most outstanding players is simply to appear on the hall of fame ballot. There should be more of an effort made to get this right, rather than a casual review by six guys. I would advocate for an objective screening process for the ballot, setting standards for inclusion that are based on minimum standards of the Hall.
Let’s start with the question, what do we look for in a hall of fame player? At its most basic view, we look for 1) a long career, and 2) a high level of performance. What’s a better measure of a long career, years played (which the HOF procedures consider) or games played? Games, of course; we’re looking for full-time players. As to measuring performance at a “high level” this can be quickly eye-balled by looking at support in award voting, MVP and Cy Young. (Using award voting, rather than some standard based on playing statistics, eliminates any need for context adjusting.)
So, establish a minimum number of games to appear on the ballot. This can be fairly low, because we can now evaluate a lot of players fairly easily. The fewest games by a HOF player are by Ross Youngs (1211) and Roy Campanella (1215). So, let’s say 1200 or more games played. At the same time, we also need a way to honor a great(!) player who suffers a premature career demise. After 2006, Albert Pujols had played 933 games, batted .332 and had 250 HR. In a six-year career, his MVP finishes: 4-2-2-3-1-2. If his career had suddenly ended then we would want to have a rule that puts him on the ballot. So, along with the games qualifier there should be an MVP qualifier such as: any player who ever finished in the top 5 in a MVP vote will appear on the ballot. For pitchers we might consider minimums like 550 games or 1500 IP or a top 3 finish in Cy Young voting.
These limits can be studied and tweaked. The point is you can set objective standards that will capture every viable candidate, while fairly honoring every player who reached the standard by letting him appear on the ballot. This eliminates any possibility of charges of subjectivity or favoritism that can tarnish a screening committee’s selections.
The idea also is to get the voters’ attention towards considering statistical standards of the Hall of Fame in deciding which candidates deserve a more thorough vetting process. This is not to say that stats tell the whole story of a player, but as a better way of separating the wheat from the chaff than relying on subjective impressions of a player.
Another benefit to setting statistical benchmarks is it generates good promotion for the Hall. It turns the attainment of a minor milestone into a newsworthy event. “Julio Lugo played in his 1200th career game tonight, thereby earning a shot at immortality. This milestone qualifies him to appear on the ballot for the Hall of fame after he retires.” “The top-five MVP finishes of Pedroia, Youkilis, Mauer and Quentin secures them a spot on the ballot for the Hall of fame after their retirement.” The Hall of Fame appears in new contexts, creating a stronger link between today’s players and the HOF.
Part 3b – More Years Eligible / Reinstating 5% Rule Victims
One long ago rule change made by the Hall that suppressed the size of the ballot (even before the screening committee existed) was to reduce from a 25-year to a 15-year window that players could appear on the ballot. For their elections from 1947 to 1962, voters could vote for players who retired up to 30 years ago. (This was apparently adopted in principle for the 1947 election and officially codified for the 1958 election.) The Hall reduced this to 20 years starting with the election in 1964, not only to reduce the size of the ballot, but to get more “Golden Age” players over to where the veterans committee (VC) could elect them. (All the players retiring from 1932 to 1943 were thrown off the BBWAA ballot after 1962 and into the waiting arms of the VC, who eventually elected 20 players from that pool of candidates.)
What’s the rush? The writers are the Hall’s primary electorate. Stars of the past 40 years, those within living memory of most of the voters, should be solely under the jurisdiction of the primary electorate. The average age for a voter is…I don’t know, 50-something? Plenty old enough to handle evaluating the stars who retired in the past 30 years.
Who are we talking about? Who would be the oldest players being looked at now if they reinstituted the BBWAA’s 25-year window? Player who debuted on the ballot in 1987 (retired 1981) or later. Guys like Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Rusty Staub who came to prominence in the mid 60’s and played into the 80’s. I remember all of these players as stars, and I’m only 50. Players of the modern era like these should be under the jurisdiction of the writers, not the VC!
What about all of the victims of the 5% rule? We need a plan for getting all these players back onto the ballot, players who dropped off the ballot in the previous 23 elections. Bringing all of these players back at once would lead to about a 300-man ballot. While I think that would be ideal, I don’t think the BBWAA is ready for that. The voters are conditioned for starvation rations of candidates; they will need to be gradually weaned to the bounty of candidates that is rightfully theirs.
I propose a 1% solution, with a four-year phase-in. That is, anyone debuting on the BBWAA ballot from 1987-2009, and who ever received 1.0% in an election, and was dropped off will get reinstated. This means reinstatement for 68 candidates. For the 2011 election we would reinstate players who debuted on the ballot from 1987-92, a total of 15 players. For the 2012 election we would reinstate players who debuted from 1993-96, a total of 19 players. For the 2013 election we’ll reinstate players who debuted from 1997-2003, a total of 17 players. For the 2014 election we’ll reinstate players who debuted from 2004-09, a total of 17 players.
Part 3c – Escalating Increments
We have seen how the 5% rule tends to restrict voters from giving all the top candidates a thorough consideration over a period of years. Another factor contributing to this is a common attitude towards first-year candidates. To be a “First-Ballot hall of famer” is usually seen as a special honor. Due to this, many voters will only vote for a player in his first year if he is a no-brainer, an all-time great player. Combine this with a wait-and-see attitude that many voters have, a reluctance to support a player until he sees that his peers are doing so. These factors suppress the support of first-year candidates, leading to some less obvious greats dropping off after only one year.
At the same time, the 5% rule allows many weaker candidates to linger on the ballot for 15 years, despite meager support. For example, look at Dave Concepcion’s recently completed run on the ballot. In his first year he got 7% support. By his 5th year this had advanced to 17%. This turned out to be his top year. His support stagnated in the low teens, averaging 12% over the next nine elections. He finished with 16% in his 15th year on the ballot.
Allowing a candidate with this low level of support to linger on the ballot for 15 years is not serving anyone. Looking at recent decades of BBWAA voting, at what point can we say with fair assurance that this player is not going to come close to election? Certainly by his 10th year, when he got only 11% support. Let’s institute a way to eliminate stagnant candidates. A system of escalating increments would better serve the Hall and the candidates than a flat 5%.
Here is what I think is a good system. In the first five years of eligibility you need to get one vote to stay on the ballot. As long as one member of our esteemed panel thinks you belong in the Hall, you get to be a candidate. However, if you haven’t reached 10% support in an election in five years, you’re done. (Done for now; the fourth part in this series will describe a system giving a second chance to some of these players.)
If you have received 10% in an election, you can continue on the ballot in years 6-10, as long as you continue to receive at least 10% support in each election. If you fall below 10% you’re done. Then we raise it again.
If you have received 20% in an election, you can continue on the ballot in years 11-15, as long as you continue to receive at least 20% support in each election. If you fall below 20% you’re done. Then we raise it again.
If you have received 30% in an election, you can continue on the ballot in years 16-20, as long as you continue to receive at least 30% support in each election. If you fall below 30% you’re done. Then we raise it again.
If you have received 40% in an election, you can continue on the ballot in years 21-25, as long as you continue to receive at least 40% support in each election. If you fall below 40% you’re done.
To give reinstated players a chance to reestablish their candidacies, they will get a four-year pass; as long as they receive a vote we’ll let them continue on the ballot. In their fourth year back on the ballot, we’ll hold them to the vote percentage specified for them. For the one-and-done players it’s simple. Their fourth year back on the ballot is, in total, their fifth year eligible. They need to have attained 10% support in one of those elections to continue on the ballot.
For Bobby Bonds it’s a bit more complicated. He was previously eligible in 11 elections. His fourth year back is his 15th overall. Per the chart he needs to attain 30% support in an election to continue on the ballot. His highest support to date is 10.6%, so he quickly needs to establish a stronger base of support.
For a reinstated player who previously had 15 years on the ballot, they need to hit the 30% mark in one of the four years we’re giving them, or they’re done. Look at Luis Tiant, for example. He previously attained 31% support in an election, but that was way back in his first year eligible. To continue on the ballot past his 19th year, he needs to reach 30% again in one of the four elections we’re giving him.
Reinstated candidates who continue to receive the required amount of support will be allowed to remain on the ballot beyond 30 years past retirement. They will be allowed up to the maximum of 25 years on the ballot.
Tags: candidates, Hall of Fame, rules
April 28th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Daniel,
I really do appreciate what you’re trying to do with this HOF series.
But in reality if it’s not broke why fix it.
With the way this mess is currently set up, it works well for the Hall itself, works well for the BBWAA, and it works well for Baseball.
The process is designed to incite controversy. And most years it does. You don’t need, “Another benefit to setting statistical benchmarks is it generates good promotion for the Hall. It turns the attainment of a minor milestone into a newsworthy event.” to promote the Hall.
Right now Baseball and the Hall itself are making more than enough money and have more than enough interest in their product, let’s be honest in what it really is, that why would they change it?
Putting people back on the ballot after their time is stupid. They were not voted in for a reason, be it legit or not, and it’s done.
There are maybe four or five guys who belong in the Hall who are not and you could argue that the BBWAA and the VC screwed it up on those.
But by in large, the Hall does not need more fringe guys put in who were good but not great, there are enough in there already who fit this description.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
You want to make it easy for players who didn’t get in to get in. It should be harder. Bonds and Staub are not HOFers. I’m tired of hearing about “golden age players.” If they’re not in by now, maybe they don’t belong in. Joe Gordon is barely a borderline player as it is. We don’t need more Gordons getting in. If guys like Ted Williams had their way, Dom DiMaggio would be in and a flood of similar players, who all belong in the Hall of Good, not the Hall of Fame.
And really, what does it matter anyway. At some point they’re going to start putting in the juicers, players who used illegal drugs to cheat – and then teh whole HOF is moot anyway.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I can’t seem to get it when people say “it’s not the hall of very good, it’s the hall of fame”
But…”fame” and “good” have nothing to do with one another.
The appropriate response would really be “it’s not the hall of almost-famous, it’s the hall of fame”….or something to that degree.
:-/
I’m just saying…
April 28th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
They’re all famous. “Hall of Fame” implies the best of the best.
“Hall of almost famous” is stupid since they’re not “almost” famous.
Thus “Hall of Good” is absolutely apropos.
Hope this helps.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, Joe B.
April 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“But in reality, if it’s not broke, why fix it?”
Amen.
April 28th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“But in reality if it’s not broke why fix it.”
Because it’s easier to sit around and tolerate the status quo, rather than acting to improve things.
And think of the risk…someone might CRITICIZE me! I would be mortified if I offended someone!
April 28th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I don’t consider any of your suggestions to be plausible, Daniel.
Nor would they be considered an improvement.
Daniel, we’re all in the same boat here as you. The new site has caused ALL OF OUR WORKS TO DISAPPEAR.
Adam has told me that, sooner or later, the archives will all be restored.
You don’t see any of us re-writing or re-posting any of our older articles, right?
It’s not that you’re not a good writer, because you are, it’s just you’re not the only one who has written about the HOF here.
It’s probably the single most over-saturated subject on this site.
We’re just not interested anymore, especially when you’ve resorted to tactics more commonly associated with late night TV.
Rerun after endless rerun.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Chuck, I understand that.
Do me a favor and just skip by it. Why even read it, or post negative comments about it?
April 28th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Who said I read it?
Positive comments go to positive articles, negative to negative.
I’m sorry, Daniel, I don’t get it.
This wasn’t very well received the first time, yet you’re re-posting in the hope one or two new users may see it?
Does that mean six, eight months from now you’re going to re-post it a THIRD time?
That is, assuming you’re done with this one by then.
April 28th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
I can’t think of a single other Dugout contributor who comes into the comments with such an insulting tone as Daniel Greenia.
They’ll come in and explain, elaborate, and converse… but seldom have I ever seen a writer be so defensive.
You’re the one who opened up your work to public scrutiny, not us. Hell… you did it twice. Hard to be surprised that we’re expressing ourselves, no?
Daniel Greenia: “Do me a favor and just skip by it.”
Hear that everyone? Just skip his articles. He apparently wants people to have the ABILITY to read his articles, but he doesn’t actually want them to read them, think about them, or express opinions about them.
If that was my philosophy, I’d just email them to dad, and revel in his unmitigated praise… but hey… that’s just me.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Just set up minimum requirements for admittance to any sports Hall of Fame.
You can’t get in unless you have multiple championships AND…other high-level type of stats specific to your sport.
This eliminates any voting by old geezers. You either have the stats or you don’t.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Dave: “You can’t get in unless you have multiple championships AND…other high-level type of stats specific to your sport.”
Quite easily the worst suggestion I’ve ever read.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Hossrex: “I can’t think of a single other Dugout contributor who comes into the comments with such an insulting tone as Daniel Greenia.
They’ll come in and explain, elaborate, and converse… but seldom have I ever seen a writer be so defensive.”
I’m honestly puzzled by this attack. Could you enlighten me with an example of what you’re referring to?
April 28th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Daniel Greenia: “I’m honestly puzzled by this attack.”
You construe my pointing out your confrontational nature as an “attack”?
Fascinating.
You want an example? Sure.
Daniel Greenia: “I’m honestly puzzled by this attack. Could you enlighten me with an example of what you’re referring to?
Insulting? Check.
Defensive? Check.
Confrontational? Check.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
I don’t see your point, Hossrex.
If you, or anyone, ever want to discuss the Hall of fame, I would welcome that.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Sometimes the ones who were brilliant but had injuries or in a few cases premature death are passed over. High level of performance is very important.
Some people who made the HOF but had to wait a long time include Ross Youngs, Addie Joss, Fred Lindstrom and Kiki Cuyler.
My pick for the best former player not in there is Tony Oliva. He played parts of 15 seasons (10 is the minimum unless injury occurs). In the first eight seasons as a regular he lead the hits five times. One of the other three he lead the league in hitting. I have never read or heard a rap on his fielding. He won three batting championships. That was before he injured his knee and never recovered.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
When people tried doing that, this was your reply:
Daniel Greenia: “And think of the risk…someone might CRITICIZE me! I would be mortified if I offended someone!”
You’re not interested in discussing it, you’re looking for people to agree with you.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:04 am
The guy just wrote an article about the baseball HOF, for God’s sake. You guys act like he’s Hitler or something.
You don’t agree with his article, that’s fine, at least be civil to the guy no need for a bunch of personal attacks.
Daniel told Chuck to “Skip it” because Chuck didn’t even read the article and just basically ripped Daniel for even bring up the subject.
And then you’re wondering why the guy gets defensive?
April 29th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Len: “Chuck didn’t even read the article”
I don’t know how long you’ve been around, but these articles are reposts.
We’ve read them before.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:37 am
I’ve only checked this site for a couple of months on and off. But a lot of the posts I’ve read come off as very angry and not very civil and most of the time everybody is just attacking each other.
Why are they “reposts”?
April 29th, 2010 at 2:33 am
Len: “Why are they “reposts”?”
They were reposted because in a switchover to new software, the archives were lost. Whether or not these needed to be reposted isn’t really my point… I don’t care… but my point is we’ve read them before, so it’s not like we don’t know what he’s saying.
I don’t particularly care that the articles are nonsense.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I don’t see Daniel as being particularly difficult in his responses. I thought his response to Chuck, who laps the field in rudeness, to be quite right. Chuck claims no one is interested yet here we are, comment #22 and growing.
Frankly I think Daniel is 100% wrong in his opinions here but I find it amusing that every time this subject is raised we get a dozen or more comments of the variety “oh no, another Hall of Fame article.” If you don’t care about the subject, don’t click on it.
If you do care, even if you disagree, click on it.
Having said all that Daniel, I think Joe B in #2 was spot on, it should not be made “easier” for people to get in. There is a reason that the baseball HoF is the only one of the four Major sports that really matters and that is because it is so difficult to get in.
I feel it is better to have a Hall where errors of exclusion are more common than errors of inclusion.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I don’t think it’s nonsense. Instead of 5%, just do 1% each year (e.g. you drop off in year 8 if you got 7.5%) and it’s simple and fair.
We laugh about poor ASG choices from bad teams, but that could also be a qualifier, even if it will produce someone who will get 0 votes.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Gilbert: Yes, 1% per year would be a good system. As you say, simple and fair. And definitely, ASG could be used as a ballot qualifier, maybe three times gets you on the ballot.
Thanks. Good thoughts, along the lines that the BBWAA and HOF should be considering.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
So….
If you count All-Star appearances as HOF criteria, wouldn’t fans then have an indirect vote?
April 29th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Yeah ,having all star games mean anything is a joke to me. the fans do a much worse job voting in All Stars then the HOF committee does voting in HOF members.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“Because it’s easier to sit around and tolerate the status quo, rather than acting to improve things.”
Alright Daniel, I’ll bite.
In my first post I broke it down for you pretty clean why I think what you’re saying is junk and so far you have offered zero in rebuttal or reasonable ideas.
So I’ll ask you:
What is so inherently wrong with the status quo?
What is the incentive for The Hall of Fame, The BBWAA, and MLB to fix or modify anything?
What real fixes would you want them to implement?
Why water down the Hall with more bit-players?
Why the ASG voting? The only voting process more bloated with biases and ballot box stuffing than Hall voting is ASG voting. It would seem that you are suggesting that we use two wrongs to make a right.
Who do you think that the BBWAA missed for induction that is so egregious?
Like I said before, I appreciate what you’re trying to do with this. But in all honesty, it’s not really a burning topic that needs major examination or fixing.
To me a topic that would be more interesting to talk about would be all of changes that could happen or will happen with the next CBA.
That topic has real issues in it that are broken and need fixing.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Lefty: “What is so inherently wrong with the status quo?”
The players he likes aren’t in, and players he doesn’t like are.
Lefty: “To me a topic that would be more interesting to talk about would be all of changes that could happen or will happen with the next CBA.”
That topic would require that he actually research something, and hold an actual understanding of it.
I forget how many parts comprise this hall of fame diatribe… couldn’t be much longer, no?
April 29th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Len you are so right. Snark and nastiness rule here, right Hoss?
April 29th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Dean m: “Snark and nastiness rule here, right Hoss?”
Nothing amuses me quite so much as a jack-ass being “unintentionally” snarky while condemning the snark of others.
Physician, heal thyself.
Or… to put it a way in which you might be more familiar…
GIT ‘R DUN!
April 29th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
I learned at the Master’s feet.
April 30th, 2010 at 8:44 am
The only player who is eligible and NOT in the Hall of Fame is Roger Maris. Also, I think it is way too late to ‘fix’ the voting process.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:01 am
“Len you are so right. Snark and nastiness rule here”
Yes, and I think it’s a shame. There are some good minds here, but when their rhetoric sinks to what would be considered troll-level on many sites, it kills any productive discussion.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Oh please.
Some of you guys need to seriously grow a pair.
Are you really crying because someone thinks your ideas are stupid?
Daniel,
You wrote a series of articles that was already posted and read months ago.
Some people like your ideas. Some people think they’re a waste of time.
That’s what happens when anyone writes anything. Tuck in your skirt.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Post #35 only confirms the accuracy of my preceding post.
The bile that often passes for discussion here is all too common on the internet. It’s yet another illustration of the coarsening of our culture.
I’m hardly a newb to message-board conversations. But I am so over responding to these kinds of sophomoric blustering and snark attacks. You may not believe it, but a more polite tone here would lead to the benefit of more productive conversations.
My apologies for briefly trying to imitate the “native tongue” in post #7.
April 30th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
“but a more polite tone here would lead to the benefit of more productive conversations.”
First of all man grow up. It’s the only the internet.
We are not debating Third World Debt Relief with George Will and Henry Kissinger.
I gave you two posts that clearly and mostly politely laid out what I thought was lacking in what you wrote and I asked you to clarify your own positions.
And you have since offered nothing.
If you are going to put something out there be ready to defend it and back up your own stuff. Don’t just post all this boo-hoo stuff about the lack of DC ethics.
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
April 30th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Now back to the origianl article:
“This can be fairly low, because we can now evaluate a lot of players fairly easily. The fewest games by a HOF player are by Ross Youngs (1211) and Roy Campanella (1215). So, let’s say 1200 or more games played.”
Ten years appears to be a really good barometer for minimum requirement. It has not caused any problems in the 74 years of voting, so why change it? Both Youngs and Campy played the minimum 10 seasons, but their careers were cut short via death (Youngs) and Campy (career ending accident).
But those players were really great in their era. HOF manager John McGraw called Youngs the best outfielder he ever saw, while Campy won three MVP’s.
But if either one DID NOT play the required 10 seasons…
“At the same time, we also need a way to honor a great(!) player who suffers a premature career demise. After 2006, Albert Pujols had played 933 games, batted .332 and had 250 HR. In a six-year career, his MVP finishes: 4-2-2-3-1-2. If his career had suddenly ended then we would want to have a rule that puts him on the ballot. So, along with the games qualifier there should be an MVP qualifier such as: any player who ever finished in the top 5 in a MVP vote will appear on the ballot.”
…we already have a precedent. Addie Joss played NINE major league seasons and is in the Hall of Fame. He died of meningitis at age 31 (Youngs was only 29), and compiled a great 160-97 career record. He is the all time leader in WHIP with 0.968 (second is Big Ed Walsh) and second (to Walsh) in career ERA with 1.89.
It is interesting that Joss’ perfect game in 1908 was against the White Sox in which Walsh was the opposing pitcher.
Even though Joss was limited to nine seasons, he was voted into the HOF in 1978 by the Veteran’s Committee, one of the very few no-brainers for that committee.
So, even if Pujols was unable to play after six, seven, eight or even nine seasons, there would likely be a special committe set up to get Albert (or any other player similarly that dominant) into the HOF. This would be similar to the special elections for Lou Gehrig and Roberto Clemente to get them in early, even though they did have the necessary 10 seasons.
And it would not take the 60+ years it took Joss to get elected. With all the bleeding hearts in this country right now, it probably would only take six days, if not six minutes.
So the MVP ranking method would not be necessary, and Tito Francona in 1959 (AL), Joey Jay in 1961 (NL) and John Mayberry in 1975 (AL) (all decent but not great players) who appeared in the Top 5 in MVP voting would need not be eligible.
With such a miniscule amount of plaeyr sinthe Hall of Fame compared to all the players who have appeared in at least 10 season (or dominated), the voters have done a really good job.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Daniel Greenia: “Post #35 only confirms the accuracy of my preceding post.”
You know when you were younger… and all the kids would be making fun of one of the smaller/fatter kids? That small/fat kid would start crying, and screaming at the other kids to stop. Insisting that he isn’t small/fat.
Right now Daniel, you’re that kid.
There’s an unwritten rule to manhood that most guys learn young… and some guys never learn at all.
When someone is making fun of you, just laugh along with them. Know your place.
When you start going around acting like a crybaby, people are going to treat you like a crybaby.
If instead of getting hilariously defensive, you’d just stuck to your guns, laughed along with the rest of us, and explained your position when prompted (notice the difference between explaining something, and defending something)… none of this would have happened.
Regardless of whether it’s “fair” or not… you brought this whole shitstorm on yourself.
And that just makes the whole thing even funnier.
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I missed these articles when they were originally posted…thanks for reposting them Daniel.
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 pm
There’s nothing manly about ganging-up to make fun of the short/fat kid, it’s just cowardly behavior. The same goes for people who gang-up to attack One guy. The same goes for people who post uncivil remarks on a message boards with the benefit of anonymity.
In the end, the whole thing seems counter-productive to growing a web-site. Uncivil message boards like this just turn people off. There are thousands of Baseball Blogs/Web-Site/Message Boards, so people will just look for something else.
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 pm
“In the end, the whole thing seems counter-productive to growing a web-site. Uncivil message boards like this just turn people off. There are thousands of Baseball Blogs/Web-Site/Message Boards, so people will just look for something else.”
And yet, the cult-like following of FireJoeMorgan was built exclusively on an uncivil message board.
Dugout Central staff writers are made up of current and former media members, ML and minor league players, scouts and front office personnel.
The overall knowledge here is far and away above that of the vast majority of these other “Baseball Blogs/Web-Site(s)/Message Boards”. When somebody comes in and makes a sub-standard comment or contribution, he will, rightfully, be called out on it.
Including one of us. Especially including one of us. We hold each other to higher standards.
If I want to read an endless supply of crap, I can go to any of these other “thousands” of sites and get my daily fill.
I’m here because there is very little crap, and when it does show up on occasion, it doesn’t go unnoticed.
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Len: “There’s nothing manly about ganging-up to make fun of the short/fat kid, it’s just cowardly behavior.”
Yet none of that changes the fact that a crybaby fit kid is going to get made fun of.
You’re saying “should be”, I’m saying “actually is”.
That aside, I think you’re taking my metaphor too literally.
May 4th, 2010 at 12:43 am
Another factor I’d like to see considered is whether the player played on a winning team. I realize that is often a function of playing with good players rather than the player’s individual skills.
Look at HOFer Joe Morgan’s stats. He had two excellent seasons, the rest pretty good. But he played on two World Champions, and won MVP awards those seasons. Played with Bench, Perez, Rose. It’s the two great seasons on winners that put him over the top, otherwise he’s probably still waiting.
Compare to Maury Wills, who played on three World Champions and a league champion. Aside from an aging Duke Snider, he didn’t play with any HOFers in the every day lineup (although obviously Koufax and Drysdale were HOF pitchers). Definite HOFer, IMHO. Put stats aside, his team won, and he was a key component of those winning teams.
On the other hand, take someone like Ron Santo, who is often mentioned as a possible HOFer. He played with Banks and B. Williams, but the Cubs stunk most years he played there. Not a HOFer, IMHO.
I know it’s hard to quantify these things, but winning ought to count for something.
May 4th, 2010 at 3:12 am
I know of no other baseball site where the message boards are not filled with no nothing idiots. that is why I have learned to enjoy this board so much. the guys here are knowledgable and the points of views on most ocasions are valid (no matter which side of the debate u look at) and documented by the writer to at least you know where they are coming from.we got plenty of opinions and everyone learns from each other even if when not wanting to admit it.
This article is the just the same article no matter the writer no matter the website, it is always the same. I really read about 3 lines of this atrticle and did not need to read the rest(and I never seen it when it was posted the 1st time that I can remember,but maybe I did) because I knew where it would go and I knew where it would end. it is just a subject that is boring to many and the writers almost always want to do something that won’t even help the situation at all. the Hall is the Hall and it will evolve as it is needed (maybe a little later than the guys paying the most attention) but will evolve. all the players in the Hall people believed belonged.so they are in. nothing we can do about it and really nothing we should do about it.
We should have a dugout central HOF . that would be cool. keep it to the same many players that are in right now and have a draft. or has that been done?
May 4th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Good effort, but not really needed. The Hall of Fame selection ends up being darn pretty excellent as is. If we’re gnashing our teeth over Bert Blyleven not being in while not giving a real look at Tommy John, we’re doing just fine. Bert was a consistently excellent but not truly dominant pitcher, and Tommy was slightly better but more injury-prone. The line is at a good place, or very, very close to it.
Albert Belle was a masher but can’t get in, I guess on character and lack of longevity. What other dominant players, not a Ron Santo, but a dominant force, are out? Richie Allen? A wacko, or too close for comfort. And injured. Santo was excellent but no Matthews, Robinson, Killebrew or Schmidt. Close, but on the outside looking in. And if he does get in, okay, fine, not a travesty.
No overtly deserving player is out, and in the last 25 years or so no egregiously undeserving player got in, other than Bill Mazeroski maybe, but he was the best second baseman in the NL for about ten years, so the case can be made he’s not only not overtly undeserving but actually deserving. If he’s the poster child for undeservingness we’re doing fine.
May 4th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Here you go, Len, maybe this is the groundbreaking journalism you’ve been looking for:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/387580-should-the-mets-release-johan-santana-to-avoid-losing
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/387556-javier-vasquez-to-san-francisco
On behalf of all DC staff writers, I sincerely apologize to you for not being capable of such out of the box thinking when considering stories to present.
Maybe if I could write like this I could be the next Ken Rosenthal or Buster Olney!!