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.
How ironic and how unfair.
It could very well happen
The ballot-collecting gizmo sure makes him look like a lock, but stranger things have happened.
One long-time official at the Hall of Fame, who claims to have an 80 percent success rate at predicting who will be elected, recently went on the record by saying only Maddux, Glavine’s perennial co-ace on the Atlanta Braves, will be elected this year.
Seriously, how is it nobody has clued this guy in on the ballot-collecting gizmo, given all the publicity it has gotten recently?
I never heard of this Chaz Scoggins. And frankly, it sounds made up.
I never heard of this Chaz Scoggins.
If he went on the record, then isn't his name public?
One long-time official at the Hall of Fame, who claims to have an 80 percent success rate at predicting who will be elected
I am pretty sure he was one of the official scorers at Fenway through the 70s and 80s.
I was one of the few who correctly, publicly forecast the 2013 shutout."
Yes, he was. And he still is an official scorer at Fenway.
The author seems to have a man-crush on Glavine
Didn't most people predict a shutout for last year? (not me as I had Biggio clearing 75 pretty easily...but most other people)
Really? I thought he had to stop due to a conflict of interest. Thanks, good to know.
DL: Regarding any conflict-of-interest issues-do they exist?
CS: The editors think they do. I don't. While I've had my differences of opinions with players, there has never been one who refused to talk to me because he was mad at me about a scoring decision. If anything, the opposite might be true. A player might think that if he's nicer to me, he'll get a scoring break next time. (He won't.) I have always been able to separate the two duties and not let worrying about one affect the other. Whether or not they're nice or not so nice to me about a decision will never affect my next decision involving them. But I'll let you in on a little secret: If they want to think that way, it makes both my jobs easier, so I'm not going to tell them any different. Unless they read this, of course. Then the cat is out of the bag.
A couple of times my newspaper, The Lowell Sun, considered ordering me to give up scoring. The argument being used was pretty much the same at the other newspapers: If you tick off the players with a scoring decision and they won't talk to you because of it, then you can't do your job. Fortunately for me, the Red Sox in those days were a difficult club to deal with for all writers, and my argument was that sometimes the only time the players would talk to you was WHEN they were ticked off. Anyway, I always managed to convince them that by scoring I was devoting my full attention to the game, rather than walking around the press box chatting with other writers or hanging around the snack bar, and that guaranteed I was paying attention to my job. Also, I pointed out that many of the newspapers that stopped their writers from scoring had given them raises to compensate for the lost income. The Lowell Sun decided that ethics weren't nearly as important as money. So the paper has continued to let me score, making me one of the few active members of the BBWAA still doing it.
Hof? Not even the best pitcher on his own team.
Still there’s a very real chance no one will be elected by the self-appointed crusaders for the second straight year,
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.4916 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed