2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

It came up at the World Series and then again at the Winter Meetings. At the series, a bunch of the writers went out and a veteran guy who is pretty universally respected just said, "Hey, we're not voting for those guys this year..." I guess one can interpret that as encouraging or informing or whatever... It's not like anyone said, "If you vote for Bonds I'm going to break your legs."

He had something similar happen at the meetings. What's funny is the writer who approached him at the meetings wound up voting for Bonds and Clemens.

 

Best news to come out of baseball in a long, long time.

 

Again: Why is this a negative?

I understand that groupthink can be dangerous.

But I also think that, on the flip side, it's good to solicit learned opinions and ponder reasoning one might not have considered otherwise.

 

I just remember it came up because he and I were texting back and forth during the series and he said, "Oh by the way, I just found out there's no way Bonds goes in next year..." and then when he and I talked a couple weeks later he told me what happened. He said that until he heard that, he thought Bonds and Clemens would both be pretty close to making it, but would fall just short the first year.

 

Those of us who don't want a Hall of Fame vote made at the point of a gun might.

 

It's no coincidence that you picked Rob Neyer. Everybody knows how you feel about sabermetrics.

But here's the thing: Statheads fucking love steroids. They can't get enough of them. They'd eat them for breakfast if they could. The only thing that drives more message board thread traffic on a stathead site than a good ol' fashioned WAR hoe-down is a paen to PED usage.

So the dreaded Internet, and dreaded writers like Rob Neyer, Bill James, and Nate Silver, to name the holy trinity, aren't driving down the votes for Bonds and Clemens.

I promise.

 

Is today an argument for or against the press voting for the Hall of Fame?

 

Wow. That escalated quickly. Now it's the point of a gun?

I'm quite floored by the irony that professional baseball writers apparently need to be protected by people who have influence over public opinion.

 

Today is an argument against the press deciding much of anything.

 

For.

 

Why? Because of the sound logic and judgment shown?

 

On Twitter, the political scientist (and baseball fan, Giants fan to be precise) Jonathan Bernstein points out that baseball's institutional need to have a Hall of Fame that's not a source of permanent division within the sport makes the position of the "no"voters ultimately untenable. They'll change or their votes will somehow be negated.