Le Batard, Deadspin, the HOF vote

Laugh about it and tell him not to do it again. Jesus Christ, his ballot was pretty much perfect except for not having Raines -- Joe Bag of Doughnuts got it right.

Doyel, Passan, Brown, Kornheiser etc etc etc just spewing a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

And to answer Dick, perhaps his act was just one more piece of the "mockery", that you could sell a vote and that plain ol' baseball fans could do just as good of a job as "the writers". Other than that, I have no idea what he accomplished. But he didn't do anything wrong by letting Deadspin cast his vote.

Because Deadspin got it right, except for Raines, who didn't get in anyway.

 

Oh, and, like, first-world problems and shit.

 

I'm not familiar with how credentials worked, but couldn't DLB just get them on his own? Or does the BBWAA decide who can and can't go in a press box? A co-worker covered a game at Fenway (local guy was playing for the Rays, it was his first trip to Boston) and he isn't a BBWAA member.

 

Did they fax him the notice that he was suspended?

 

If it's 1 year, isn't that almost by definition not the "max penalty"? Couldn't they have done 2 or 3 or 10 years?

 

Believe it or not, people do actually take their votes pretty seriously. The vast majority, I'd say.

The thing you're not factoring in about LeBatard is this: He hates sports. At least the way most of us the world talks about them. He has written words to this effect many times, and it's clear from what he writes and says that he believes it's beneath him to discuss sports as important and shit. So when it comes down to it, he isn't a guy who feels up to the task of weighing Craig Biggio's immortality. And that's fine, it is probably a healthier outlook in general and I do sometimes wonder why I pay so much attention to these grown-ups playing games, but there is no moral high ground here. He is like Joe Buck with the "I'm too good for this" smarm.

He likes watching LeBron be famous, but he does not particularly care to see the Heat play basketball.

He'll talk all day about the Googleiciousness of Ryan Tannehill's wife, but who really gives a crap about whether the Dolphins can build around Tannehill.

Arguing about someone's ERA+? Please. He left that behind long ago.

Maybe it's instructional in the criteria the BBWAA should use regarding people who actively cover or covered baseball. But the fact that he would care so little about losing his vote or access is a very good gauge of how he feels.

 

If they really wanted to punish him, they'd force him to watch the Marlins.

 

Nah, I think he can get them thru ESPN or his radio station or whatever, but not based on his BBWAA membership.

 

A few things...

Why is it called "BBWAA" when "baseball" is one word?

Is what Le Batard did against BBWAA's imaginary rules? Because he called them names? I've read several columns over the years where writers have solicited reader input or allowed readers to make picks.

The BBWAA denies him a credential for a year? Do they think they have the authority to do that? Go to hell. If he wants to go to a game, he has just as much right to be in the press box as anyone, as long as he is working media. Disagree with the BBWAA and we'll your toys away, you bad boy.

Why does the BBWAA have complete control over the Hall of Fame? This is the main issue, because it is ridiculous. Other media, many of which have better credentials than some of the "veteran" writers who don't cover the game any longer, deserve a say. I can think of several. The BBWAA's reaction and the individual writers' reactions were so predictable. This is the thing they clutch to the most and somebody disrespected the fraud of a process.

Other things that bother me about the process is the idea of someone being a HOFer on the "first ballot" or 10 years down the line. That's just a dickish thing to do to someone. You either are a HOFer, or you aren't. Stringing these guys along (ahem, Ron Santo) is cruel. The writers finally have the superiority and power over the players, and they relish it.

On the flip side, Le Batard also painted with too broad a brush, because some voters do take it very seriously. He also shouldn't have gone through Deadspin if he wanted to make a statement on the process. He's already acknowledged his mistake in that respect, because ESPN has good reason to be pissed, although I'm sure they're getting some residual benefit from people paying attention to Le Batard more now.

 

This was the ultimate slap in the face. You are given the responsibility of voting because it is presumed (for whatever crazy reason) that your knowledge is superior to the unwashed masses. Then, instead of valuing it, you give it away?

They should ban the guy for life and give his credentials to someone who will actually appreciate them.

 

So about that crowdsourcing ...

http://deadspin.com/baseball-writers-to-baseball-fans-fuck-you-1498157564

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.

 

Base Ball is so much more pretentious. Actually, that might be the way they referred to it in the early days when the association was created.
We have two writers who haven't covered baseball regularly for quite a few years and one who hasn't been in the business for a few, and they have a vote. While they certainly know the sports world fairly well and followed MLB very closely in the past, I'm sure there are many who are just as (if nor more) qualified to make such judgments. The voting system needs an overhaul, and I'm not sure what the criteria should be, but all of the voters I know, including the ones mentioned, see it as a privilege and take the votes quite seriously.

As for the voters who leave guys off on the firts ballot, I am not sure how you can fix that. The ship has sailed, because a lot of the voters feel that if Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, then Greg Maddux sure as hell isn't. But how anyone can look at that ballot and say that Maddux isn't one of the 10 best is beyond me. Maybe the rules or the thinking was different in the 1930s and it snowballed from there. Also interesting to note that there were NO first-ballot Hall of Famers between 1936 and 1962.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

But on the flip side, some of these guys are strung along because there are better guys on the ballot in the following years after they are snubbed on a couple of ballots. That is why some guys went backward this year ... because guys who voted for them last year instead voted for Maddux, Benitez(!) or Jacque Jones(!!) instead.