Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

On time

1 (33.3%)

Late, but on or before April 15th

0 (0%)

April 16th through April 30th

0 (0%)

May 1st through May 15th

2 (66.7%)

May 16th through May 31st

0 (0%)

Jun1st through June 15th

0 (0%)

June 16th through June 30th

0 (0%)

After June 30th

0 (0%)

No Season

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Voting closed: February 13, 2022, 10:41:25 PM

[Yankguy1]

Good back and forth today on High Heat, between Chris Russo and Tony LaRussa re:  Baines

Heard it. Wish he would have asked LaRussa this, especially after LaRussa referenced statistics.

Um, Tony, how do you feel about being in the HOF, when you had all those players who used PEDs? Was your winning percentage as a manager as good as managers who never had those types of players? And Tony, now that MLB is taking money for gambling operations, should Pete Rose be allowed into the Hall?

Bottom line, I have no issue with guys like Baines in the Hall of Fame, since it's always been a kiss-the-writers'-asses situation. Just ask Eddie Murray and Dick Allen.

Huh?  Eddie Murray's in the Hall-of-Fame and made it on the first ballot.  And was the opposite of a kiss the writer's ass type of guy. 

[Hamilton Samuels]

No, the writers hated him. Period. You'd have to admit that.

Bottom line, writers have no business being involved with the HOF. They are creating the news, then, not reporting it.

No integrity in the entire process.

[Yankguy1]

Yes the writers hated him.  But they voted him into the Hall-of-Fame.  Your suggestion was that the writers were using their love/hate of certain players, you used Allen and Murray as examples, to keep them out of the Hall.  That wasn't the case with Murray.

And I agree.  I don't think news, i.e., Hall of Fame selection, should be made by people who are supposed to report on the news.

[bankshot1]

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

[kiiidcarter8]

Brody must have missed the World Series

Mets give Familia 30 mil as Joe Kelly gets 25

Bring back Minaya and Team Latino reboot sure to follow

(Watch Ramos or Grandal be next)

[bankshot1]

Adios Joe "Fight Club" Kelly

to LAD 3/25

Sox seem to have a couple of late inning jobs open.

[kiiidcarter8]

Kimba wants 17 mil per

With the Familia signing I think he might get it.

[Hamilton Samuels]

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news, which is exactly what they are doing when they hand out awards based on rules they created, as well.

Proof of that is how media outlets like the NYTimes do not allow their writers to participate in such voting.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Yes the writers hated him.  But they voted him into the Hall-of-Fame.  Your suggestion was that the writers were using their love/hate of certain players, you used Allen and Murray as examples, to keep them out of the Hall.  That wasn't the case with Murray.

And I agree.  I don't think news, i.e., Hall of Fame selection, should be made by people who are supposed to report on the news.

You inferred what I didn't write, regarding Murray. Still, 15% of the writers didn't vote for him. Of that group, none were compelled to explain why.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Hell, Cy Young got only 76% of the vote, and he has an award named after him! Today's voters would have left them off the ballot.

We could hear it now:

"Sure, 511 wins is something. But he did it over 22 years. He's a compiler. And besides wins don't tell you how good a pitcher really is...."

I think Baines being picked by the committee was their view that longevity and high performance should be considered and rewarded.

[bankshot1]

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, over the past 80 years (whatever) its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.



 

[Hamilton Samuels]

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

[bankshot1]

The "election" of Harold Baines to the Hall of Fame spear-headed by by an ex-employer, and former GM who traded for him, and a committee of players he played with, puts a huge magnifying glass on the massive conflict of interest and potential cronyism of  this cherry-picking selection process. While some conflicts exists in the 500+ members/voters of the BBWAA, they are redcuced by the size of the voing base and several elements of diversification and they are relatively conflict-free body, as attested that not more than 6% of the voters thought Baines was a HoF player. There are only a handful of players who have been denied votes, and largely on the grounds they were massive assholes.

and voting for the HoF is not making news per se, again reduced by the fact a minimum of 75% of the 500+ voters are required to share a like opiinion, And its a largely neutral/bias free assessment of a ballplayer's qualifications relative to other ballplayers, and certainly much more neutral and less conflicted than a former owner might be.

Thank you, Joel Sherman. But the writers cannot call themselves journalists, when they create the news.

They're reporters who write about baseball.

They are giving their opinion on the subject they are probably 1) more qualified AND 2) less conflicted

than any other singular population to give an opinion.

And given a the tiny handful of errors, real and imagined, they may have made as a group, its hard to believe any other group would do as good and unbiased a job.

Given that it takes at least 375 like opinions (75% of 500) on the same player, the "make the news" argument is just not very well thought out position.

I adjusted my post above. And clarified my argument, demonstrating how you are indeed, wrong.

We disagree.

Big surprise.

Writers as a diverse population are more objective and less conflicted than owners, managers, past teamamates.

Case in point Jerry Reinsdorf, and Tony LaRussa championed and persuaded Baines-era players to elect Baines.

Only 6% of the BBWAA writers/voters who watched him play thought thought him a good candidate.

There was no Baines conspiracy to kee[ Baines out, No one really thought he was a compelling HoF player.

Listening to most callers/pundits for the past couple of days, Baines election is getting killed.

the consensus: Nice guy, good player but he doesn't belong in the Hof.

And troll the only thing you clarified was you were wrong again.

[kiiidcarter8]

Still on Baines?

I liked LaRussa's answer on AL Oliver

Russo:  "Is Baines better than Oliver"?

LaRissa:  "Oliver wasn't better than Baines"

Joe Beningo's silliness appears on FAN today, as he says, "if Baines is in Staub is in"

LaRussa's stance is strengthened vs Russo if you listen to the part re:  Alan Trammel.

(Buckner also mention on Evan and Joe's show.  But statistically, like Oliver and Staub Billy Buck was behind Harold.)

[Yankguy1]

Baines selection is going to lead to never-ending "whataboutism".