Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
A lot of hard-working men and women have been involved in this process for 75 years
The BBWAA Board of Directors has decided to remove Dan Le Batard’s membership for one year, for transferring his Hall of Fame ballot to an entity that has not earned voting status. The punishment is allowed under the organization’s constitution.
In addition, Le Batard will not be allowed to vote on Hall of Fame candidates from this point on.
The BBWAA regards Hall of Fame voting as the ultimate privilege, and any abuse of that privilege is unacceptable.
-BBWAA President La Velle E. Neal III
January 9, 2014
We really can't make our point any better than the BBWAA just did.
and any abuse of that privilege is unacceptable.
LeBatard says he has been given a lifetime suspension from voting on the HOF and won't allow him to attend a game as credentialed media for a year. BBWWA.com apparently has a statement on it but the site has crashed.
the ultimate privilege
In French, Le Batard (well, "le bâtard") literally means "the bastard". I find this amusing.
Yet Chass, who states explicitly that his voting criteria for this monumental honor is to piss off fans he doesn't like, is golden.
The surprising, and very encouraging thing, here is: the BBWAA took action!! Is this a sign that they are going to begin to address what truly is ailing the voting system?
i'm pretty sure he's cuban.
Looks like Conlin can no longer vote for reasons beyond the BBWAA's control.
I think Le Batard was aiming to be banned from voting or at least had to anticipate that it was coming. I don't have a problem with that.
I fail to see how one can reconcile the above statement with LeBatard's lifetime ban. That's pretty much telling him how he can vote.
Looking at, but not poring over, the constitution linked above, I'm not sure where the foundation for his ban is coming from.
1. Any member convicted by the Board of Directors of misusing or attempting to misuse his or her membership shall be expelled for five years and his or her membership card shall be revoked.
2. Reinstatement following expulsion shall, in addition to regular membership qualification, require payment of all debts previously contracted through the Association.
B: Members shall adhere to the objects and ethics of the Association and shall exercise utmost care in the duties and privileges of memberships.
1. Violators’ memberships shall be suspended automatically by any Chapter Chair or Association Warden for one year dating there from. This offense shall be reported to the Secretary-Treasurer and the card of the offender shall be revoked.
2. Reinstatement after suspension shall, in addition to regular qualification, require payment of annual dues for the period of suspension.
C: Members shall respect the selectivity of the Association’s credentials. In no case does a membership card entitle its holder to press box privileges for any person other than himself or herself.
LeBatard says he has been given a lifetime suspension from voting on the HOF and won't allow him to attend a game as credentialed media for a year.
Not that I necessarily support Le Batard's ban or Chass's continued voting rights, but there's a meaningful difference between regulating how a member votes (i.e. who they vote for and their reasoning behind it) and regulating whether a member has transferred his/her vote to a third party.
So the guy who announced the punishment for not following the rules is one of the two guys who didn't give Pedro Martinez a top ten MVP vote in 1999?
What was the real flaw in the system that he pointed out?
I love that Ringolsby slammed LeBatard. He gave me a twitter lecture the day before for taking issue with Gurnick's vote.
That the readers of a website that makes fun of athletes and shows pictures of mostly naked, large-breasted college girls are better equipped to evaluate baseball talent than 650 "professionals"?
How many Sean Formans are out there? This shvtty low bar has been around for a long time (and really it isn't a low bar-10 years is a long time) and for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.
[The BBWAA], as we've pointed out here before, doesn't have any issue with voters filling out their ballots just to antagonize competitors, or not knowing anything about baseball, or any number of other things. It certainly doesn't have any issue with its members, who have rather illegitimately been given the power to confer what is, regrettably, baseball's highest honor, deciding as a collective to punish an entire generation of players for no good reason. The one thing it apparently does have an issue with—Le Batard's punishment is, as far as we know, unprecedented—is a voter being perceived as tampering with its sacred process. As BBWAA secretary/treasurer Jack O'Connell put it in an email to me, explaining exactly why the BBWAA board of directors had stripped Le Batard of his vote:
The rules of the Hall of Fame clearly state that the only voters are 10-year members of the BBWAA. Mr. LeBatard transferred his ballot to an entity that has not earned that status.
In that same email, O'Connell named the members of the BBWAA board, among them the group's vice president, Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. Funny thing, that: Earlier today, a member of the Houston baseball press dropped us a line. Among other things, he told us this:
As for the voter who seeks local input, that's BBWAA vice-president Jose de Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. He gathers about 6-8 people over a lunch or dinner, they talk about the players, then he votes by how the majority tells him to vote re: each player. I was part of the panel one year.
I guess turning over a vote to an entity consisting of your cronies is fine, and turning one over to an entity consisting of baseball fans isn't. QED.
Whatever, though. For our part, we'd like to acquire another vote next year. We think we have a decent line on one, and it wouldn't hurt to get another. The first, we'd hand over to the public. The second? Who knows. Maybe we'll give it to Dan Le Batard.
ow many Sean Formans are out there? This shvtty low bar has been around for a long time (and really it isn't a low bar-10 years is a long time) and for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.
Because the new threatens the old. I would think that is fairly obvious. Look, the BBWAA wasn't setup and run for you. It was setup to look after the specific interests of a specific small group. I don't really understand why people get shocked when a special interest group setup to look after a specific group does just that.
This is completely missing the point of why the Hall exists and why the writers vote for who goes in. A computer program picking the players would kill the Hall of Fame.
That they don't isn't the fault of the BBWAA but of the Hall of Fame.
for the most part the writers have done an excellent job in picking and choosing who should go in.
Did any writer support LeBatard?
The Deadspin ballot include many names in which those names did not get at least 75% of the vote so I'm not sure how vox populi has proven itself to be a better gatekeeper. They would have given 5 people admission instead of the three the hall is actually giving and from a Hall stand point pushing Craig back to next year to go in with Randy and Pedro is probably more preferred than having 4 guys go in this year and 2 guys go in next year.
And 30 years from now the list of HoFers picked by the writers will inlcude Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza. Outside of Whitaker there isn't a single one and done that you listed that deserved more than a year appearance on the ballot. Whitaker and Trammell are tough choices and that is why we have the VC. To correct any ommissions by the writers. You'd rather have your gatekeeper be exclusive rather than inclusive when picking who walks through a gate that they cannot be kicked back through.
You'd rather have your gatekeeper be exclusive rather than inclusive when picking who walks through a gate that they cannot be kicked back through.
Just since '00, in: Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Puckett, Perez...
The first 4 are still on the ballot and have a chance, but I don't think Bagwell and Trammell make it. As for the rest, the "1 and done" guys certainly deserved more of a discussion, and I'd take any guy on the "not in" list over the 5 on the "in" list.
Except the voters of deadspin couldn't muster up a 75% vote total for any of the proven steroid users or suspected users.
The Hall doesn't care about a "logjam" if they are inducting 2 to 3 players a year. This issue is one of the those made up internet hand-wringing issues.
Since people do go and people keep on talking about the Hall I think it is pretty clear that the Hall is in no dangers of having the baseball public not care about the Hall.
And why Sean? I'm serious.
There is no faster way to de-legitimize the HoF selection process and the HoF itself than imposing a "we're going to eliminate the idiot voters we disagree with and replace them with voters we 'know' will agree with us."
For example in their 2010 ballot, the HoM elected Larkin, Alomar and Edgar. And ...
Are there baseball fans, serious baseball fans who will not go because there is no Barry Bonds there?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 0.9371 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed