I was not inclined to comment on this whole mess, but I think at this point it’s probably a good idea to set a few things straight.
First and foremost is that yes, I do attend MLB games on a regular basis. I couldn’t do my playoff advance reports without actually going to see the teams play live; on the season’s final Saturday, I hopped in the car and drove from Boston to Philly because I hadn’t seen the Phillies play and wanted to get at least two games with them before writing them up. I’m not even sure why this was in question, since I mention being at games all the time. (Seriously, did they think that I sat at home and pointed the radar gun at the television?) I watch games from the scouts’ section, not the press box, because the view is better, and I usually eat before going to the park, not in the press dining room, because the food is better.
Second, Bob Dutton, the president of the BBWAA, has said this:
Some board members informally contacted folks at ESPN with this question and were told neither Rob nor Keith regularly attend big-league games and do not need to do so in order to do their jobs.
To the best of my knowledge, this isn’t accurate. Jack O’Connell, the secretary of the BBWAA, has my full contact info (including cell phone #), and he has the contact info for the ESPN.com baseball editor, who submitted the list of nine names. Neither Jack nor anyone else on the seven-member committee contacted me or the baseball editor to ask if I attended big-league games regularly. We were also both in Nashville in the hotel at the time of the meeting, but again, we weren’t contacted. In fact, we can’t figure out who the board members “informally contacted” at ESPN, because there was no one else with the authority to speak about Rob and myself. I have expressed this concern to Bob, although I won’t reprint any of his private responses to me here.
There are various statements out there on blogs and in blog comments (by the way, thank you all for your support) saying that ESPN somehow told the BBWAA that I didn’t need to be a member. This is false.
Third, the rank-and-file were presented with a binary choice on the motion to admit these Internet writers: Yay, which admitted the 16 who got in and rejected Rob and myself; or nay, which would have admitted no one. There was a little floor debate, but the names could not be unbundled, and I was told by more than one member that they felt there was “no room for discussion.” Given that scenario, I would have voted “yay” as well. Better to get Gammons and Stark and Verducci and Passan and the others in than to get none in at all.
I only know two members of the committee: Dutton, whom I just met for the first time after the vote and who seems for all the world like a great guy; and Bob Elliott, whom I’ve known since 2002 and whom I respect as a person and a writer. I do sort of know Tracy Ringolsby, who isn’t about to nominate me for the Spink Award, but I’d like to give him the credit to think that his personal feelings about me didn’t affect his professional judgment here. I’m told he also voted against the general proposal to admit the 16 who did get in, so this is probably as much about the Interwebs as is it about me. I’ve only exchanged emails with O’Connell and with Phil Rogers (the latter exchange coming years ago), and have never had any interaction with Paul Hoynes or David O’Brien. I’m not sure if any of them would recognize me if they saw me at a ballpark or at the winter meetings or anywhere. Would it have helped if anyone on the committee besides Bob Elliott was more familiar with how I go about doing my job? Perhaps. (NOTE: Ringolsby disputes the accuracy of parts of the preceding paragraph. His objections are in the comments below.)
Either way, I’ve been encouraged by a steady stream of positive comments (support, sympathy, righteous indignation) from the BBWAA’s rank and file to reapply next year. It has now been brought to their attention that I do attend games regularly, and I’ll be going to more games next year anyway. Bob Dutton explained to me that this was the obstacle, and he was one of those encouraging me to reapply. So while I appreciate all of your support, the best course of action for all of us is to just wait until next year. Thanks.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you…”
I’m sure you know how the rest goes.
Keep fighting the good fight. The Conlins and Chass’s and Ringolsby’s of the world can’t hold back the tide any more than Canute could.
The fact that this is even a debate right now has to be considered another step in the right direction. We’ll be pulling for you and Neyer both when the time comes next year.
Funny, Keith Law says no one contacted him about the issue. Well, Keith Law makes an assumption on how I voted and never asked me why I voted the way I did. He, however, wants to create a better picture of his self pity and that would not be the case if he spoke the truth.
He accuses me of being against internet membership in the BBWAA, showing his complete ignorance of the subject even though he has never once ever asked me about the subject nor has he done any research or he wouldn’t have made such an ignorant comment.
Wouldn’t it be nice if Keith Law was as dilligent in ascertaining facts as he is in accusing others of not doing it.
But then if he got his facts it would undermine his woe is me story.
Secondly, Keith Law is a liar when he says ESPN wasn’t consulted about the need for membership. The ESPN person who submitted the names for membership was at the Winter Meetings for a day and did speak to members, although I wasn’t one.
Thirdly, Keith Law has told me in several emails that he has trouble getting to ballparks becuase of family matters and that he spends a great deal of time at minor league parks. No writer who covers minor league baseball is in the BBWAA.
He says he couldn’t write his previews without seeing teams, but yet he has admitted he has evaluated and done stories cirtiquing the Rockies without having ever see them play. I do believe they actually played Philadelphia in the palyoffs.
Those who want to point figures and make their accusations can go ahead and do it because people llike Keith Law will try and find support for themselves by making false accusations.
This story gets more interesting the more I read. You mean the BBWAA actually submitted a ballot to their members where the only way the rank and file could vote the other reporters in was to cast a vote against both you and Rob? That’s incredible.
I might also add that doing reearch on this subject was not that difficult. Keith Law saw me more than once in Nashville. He even sat at my work station when he spoke with Dutton and I stood by, waiting for him to finish his conversation so I could sit down and work. I wasn’t on deadline and there was no problem. I am just pointing out that I wasn’t in hiding from Keith Law, but yet he didn’t seem to have any interest in how I voted until he could post a false accusation to try and support his case.
From everything I have read in the past 24 hours, the BBWAA sounds more like a press box fraternity than a legitimate consortium of journalists. As the proud graduate of a Jesuit school without Greek life, I offer my pleasant thoughts. Besides, when a club has Bill Conlin and Dan Shaughnessy but not Joe Sheehan and Rob Neyer, it’s quite easy to decide which to support. Thanks for all your great writing and good luck next year. Also, I appreciate the tips on the Harpoon seasonal and Charlie Wilson’s War. Let’s hope the movie doesn’t disappoint.
Keep up the great work, Keith.
The number of baseball fans (and literature/fine dining fans–I’m not trying to pollute your blog with unwarranted baseball chatter) that have been influenced by you and your colleagues (i.e. baseball prospectus, Neyer of course, the innumerable baseball blogs the challenge mainstream reporting…yay FJM) is so much greater than you probably ever could have imagined when you first got involved in the business.
Saying something along the lines of “tough break, Keith, you really deserved admission into the BBWAA” is self-evident enough that the phrase is almost insulting to anyone who follows your work.
The best (albeit, perhaps, somewhat hackneyed/Rick-Reilly-esque) tribute I can give you is this: My grandfather, a blue-collar “I-used-to-go-to-Yankee-Stadium-for-double-headers-with-my-sister-on-July-4th-for-25-cents” type, is not in the best shape right now. Chronic doctor visits… Parkinsons… super high blood pressure… takes 30 million pills every morning… questionable hearing (to say the least)… the works. But the guy LOVES baseball. Ever since you started working for espn, I’ve forwarded him your articles since it’s an easy point of mutual interest (how much does a 23 year-old have in common with a 87 year-old, after all?). Needless to say, he loved them. Long story short, about 5 months ago he completely lost his eyesight to glaucoma. Yet, at least once a week he calls me at work imploring me to read to him, over the phone, the “latest from that Keith Law fellow.”
Keep on chugging away, Keith.
To be honest, I do not know much about the system of BBWAA, but I sure can say that you are my favorite writer in ESPN now, as I like your objetive evaluation with the view of scout(I am more than sick and tired of hearing ‘winning player’). Please keep in mind that here is one more individual to support you as a baseball writer whether you are the member of BBWAA or not.
Their loss. For one more year.
You are in this, as in all other areas, classy, intelligent, and articulate. In other words, it is the BBWAA’s loss to have excluded you (and Rob Neyer for that matter). A loss which one hopes they rectify sooner, rather than later, for their sake more than ours. Thank you for your excellent work, it keeps some of us inspired to keep reading sports columns.
Keep up the great writing and chatting. The visible outpouring of reader gratitude serves to validate your commitment to quality and enrage the small-minded.
Free the ‘Gang of 9’ at ESPN
best baseball topic in awhile
the BBWAA, Newsrags are all going the way of the dinosaur
Consumers (Baseball Fans) want stats, scouting, trade rumors at their fingertips.
If the petty BBWAA and Newsrags keep it up they will join Arsenio and the Dinosaurs
E X T I N C T
Mr. Law, if it means anything, consider me another supporter of yours and of Rob Neyer.
Both you and Mr. Neyer have handled your rejection with class, and honestly, you two don’t need the BBWAA as much as they need you.
That “you don’t attend enough games” excuse is lame. Really, they could have tried a little harder to hide their true intentions.
The bottom line is, however, that there’s no logical reason for the BBWAA’s stance that “attending games” should be a primary criterion for membership. As I wrote on my own site yesterday, I attend virtually every Cubs home game and write a recap of it on my site. Shouldn’t that qualify me?
I’m not necessarily lobbying for BBWAA membership, but I think you see the hypocrisy.
Funny, I thought “people like Tracy Ringolsby” had class.
Guess I was wrong.
Rob. you are correct. I have no class. I was supporitive of Keith Law being given membership, even though he accuses me of being against him and being anti-internet. Yep, I’m the one with no class. Maybe you can explain it to me so in my no-class ignorance I can fully understand why it was classless to support Law’s membership and be supportive of internet efforts? And why it is classless to be upset that Law would write that I am ant-internet.
Ringolsby’s replies here cemented it for me. Any “professional” that can come to a man’s blog and call him out as a liar in the manner that Mr. Ringolsby did doesn’t deserve his readers.
Also, I saw no rebuttal from Mr. Ringolsby about the inexcusable way that the vote was rigged. How can you have a vote set up that will only vote in 7 applicants IF 2 PARTICULAR applicants are denied? What a crock of sh!t that is.
I know that Keith and Rob are showing professional decorum and not enlisting support from us, but, I would like to see someone at BA or BBTF or some such site set up an online signature page for those supporting Keith and Rob. Just a simple show of support, nothing more.
Mr. Ringolsby,
Just a quick question: Other than the rule about MLB game attendance, is there ANY other reason NOT to admit Neyer or Law? Also, why have the acceptance of the 16 based upon the denial of the 2? That gives the perception of a rig job.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian, first there were 16 applicatns approved, not seven.
Second, I don’t agree the vote was rigged.
Third, I call him a liar because he wrote I am anti-internet and voted against him, both of which are flat out lies.
Is it really that hard for you to understand?
Keith, Ringolsby said it best. You should have done more “reearch” about the Rockies for the “palyoffs”. Can’t say it any more eloquently than that…and good thing he used the internet to do it! Nice use of the family too. Stay classy Tracy.
Seriously though, someone is supposed to go to ALL the parks? I love Olney, but wasn’t his credential that he was a beat writer? When he was a beat writer he presumably went to the same ballpark 80 times a year and saw mostly AL teams. Does that then disqualify him from having legitimate opinions about the NL?
The only thing worse than having a opinion based on flawed reasoning is virulently defending it based on -more- flawed reasoning. Seriously, the BBWAA should have just been upfront and said, “We’re not sure how these guys fit and we’re going to think about it while we let the other folks in.”
The most shocking thing about all of this is that Delmon Young finished 2nd in the credentials voting. Weird.
Brian I can’t speak for what prompted others to vote the way they did. I can speak for myself and that is all I have attempted to do. That’s why I take exception to Keith Law speaking for me and saying I have feelings about the issue that are completely false. I have made no effort to defend the vote nor will I other than it was how the majority voted. As usual I was in the minority.
Sir,
I asked why the acceptance of the 16 was based on denial of 2. 7 was in my previous post where I erred. I didn’t ask if you agreed with the vote being rigged.
Again, I ask, why is the acceptance of the 16 based on the denial of 2? That is not a vote, it’s a sham.
I also didn’t ask why you call Keith a liar, I simply stated, in not so many words, that the manner in which you did so wasn’t “professional”.
Last but not least, I have no comprehension problems. In fact, I comprehend this all too well.
Regards
Seriously Tracy….when folks talk about “The Interwebs” it’s a joke that is not to be taken seriousness. We’re sure you like the internet, maybe you even have an amazon prime membership, it’s cool, we’re all friends here.
Keith a) gave you credit for not letting personal feelings influence your voting and b) said he ‘heard’ how you voted..not knew..heard. And c) he then said that he would have voted the same way if it meant putting folks like Gammons in. If the BBWAA process was TRANSPARENT, then there wouldn’t be any controversy about this.
I’m sure when the vote took place, you could have contacted Keith just as easily as he could have contacted you. Doesn’t that then make calling someone names on a website (at what? 8 in the morning your time?) seem a little bit silly. If you’re so fired up about this, why don’t work toward the positive change of making the process more transparent and less like a meeting of the Illuminati?
Tracy,
I think the real solution is to make the process more transparent so everyone understands why these things happen, including publishing the criteria, to avoid controversies like this from arising. When the front office of the Red Sox (who, it still shocks me to say, have won 2 championships in the last 4 years) employs Bill James, folks like me are surprised when it still seems like there’s an inherent bias against folks like Rob and Keith in a vote like this.
Tracy,
You call out Keith Law on the scrippsnews.com article you wrote on 11/24/06. This is the evidence that Keith uses in his blog above to assume that you have some sort of beef with him, either personally or professionally.
I’ll write more in a few minutes, but I insist that everyone treat Tracy and any other critics who come here with some measure of respect. In particular, please refrain from insults and name-calling. I didn’t intend to stir up any new controversy, but since I have, please keep it civil. Thanks.
Mr. Ringolsby ~ Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am hoping to clarify what you mean by Mr. Law being a “liar.”
He indicated that the vote was a single vote to admit 16 and reject 2 rather than a series of 18 up or down votes. Was he correct?
Assuming he was correct, he indicated that you voted against the proposal to admit 16 and reject two. Was he correct?
You indicated that he was a liar about you voting against him but later indicated that you were in the minority on the vote. If the mechanism of the vote (a single up or down on the group split 16/2) was correctly reported, those two statements seem contradictory. I am certainly not trying to put words into your mouth, but do you mean that your vote was against the admission, but it had nothing to do with Mr. Law as an individual?
He indicated that no one contacted either himself or the baseball editor at ESPN.com. Was he correct?
Again, I do appreciate that you’ve taken the time to respond to his statements and hope that you can clarify what you meant. I also understand that you are not defending the majority’s vote, but I would appreciate reading an explanation of your position. Thanks for your time.
Brian, there is a comprehension problem becuase as I explained I do not profess to offer reasons for why others voted the way they did, just like I found it infuriating when Keith offered his opinion of my vote. Why I didn’t contact Keith was I saw no reason. I did not want to make how I voted an issue and in fact when I was contacted about the vote by some I recommended they talk to BBWAA leadership for thier explanation simply because I didn’t want to get into issues I was not a part of. When I saw Keith I wasn’t looking for a Red Badge of Courage and as a result I didn’t feel any need to run up and say, “I didn’t vote against you.” I would have assumed if he was curious he would have asked. I didn’t take Keith’s statement about me not letting my personal feelings interfere as simplistic as you did. I took it with sarcasim because his statement was not that he gives me credit for not letting personal feelings affect the vote but rather, a cryptic, “I’d like to give him the credit to think that his personal feelings about me didn’t affect his professional judgment here.” Also if you want to go back over a year to soemthing I wrote and say Keith’s accusations are based off that fine, but then why has he written me with a few questions since then in a civil tone, asking me for information, which was sent back to him in a civil manner. Was that all a ruse on his part, and was his actually holding a deep grudge that now comes out? If I had that strong of a feeling against him, why did I take the time to answer his questions with the information he requested?
I think it’s a shame, though not surprising that two writers like Keith and Rob would be excluded from something like this. Just as it took time for people to understand the true importance of advanced, non-traditional baseball metrics, it will take time for old school baseball types to accept different ways of synthesizing information and opinions that differ from the norm. Having read Rob at ESPN for years, and Keith at BP and ESPN for a few years now, they both clearly have strong opinions and back up their opinions with reasoning and logic. It might not be reason or logic that others agree with, and if you read their ESPN chats, it’s pretty clear that not everyone agrees. But what they write is no less important than what other writers are churning out.
We know baseball is very much about tradition, and any attempt to present an opinion that goes against conventional wisdom will be met with resistance. I think Keith and Rob understand that, and were probably even prepared for this outcome. The disappointing thing to me is seeing attacks get personal, and finger pointing back and forth. Tracy, it does seem like you come off as a bit insecure here. Keith obviously was just sharing his general disappointment, and even went out of his way to not blame you for the vote, which he easily could have based on your past unwarranted attack against him.
If you believe that your vote was correct, there’s no real reason to try and validate it to us here, or anyone else. Keith is entitled to his interpretation, just as you are entitled to yours. At the end of the day though, excluding someone’s opinion because you disagree with it is a major flaw in the system. Sometimes it stings to read something that goes against what you believe, but if the person giving the opinion gives reasons why, then I think you have to just file it into the memory bank and move on. Keith doesn’t pull punches, he gives his opinions based on what he sees and who he talks to, and I think that’s really all you can ask for in someone covering baseball.
Dan, try and understand. When the vote was a group vote, I was against it. Why? Because I did not agree with the groupings. I did not agree that 16 should be approved and 2 shouldn’t. I felt that Keith met the qualifications. That’s my personal opinion and not a statement for anyone else from the BBWA. If I felt he met the qualifications then how could I justify voting in favor of the 16-2 grouping?
From what I understand based off conversations with at least two people who talked to his editor, he is wrong on that statement that nobody contacted ESPN.
I can’t help but be influenced by the spelling and grammatical errors in Mr. Ringolsby’s postings. I know virtually nothing about Mr. Ringolsby, but he comes off as being unprofessional and not having the courtesy to fix his errors using the handy spell checker.
Keith, I have read some of what Rob Neyer has said about his desire to be included in a “club” where there is such open animosity and little accountability. I tend to agree with him, though I am in no position to judge the credence such a membership would give you in helping your reputation and to further your career.
However, in the words of the late Arline Feynman (Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman’s first wife) “What do you care what other people think?”
Keep up the great work.
I’ve got a lot to cover and clarify, so forgive me if I take it in pieces.
One, I did not accuse Tracy of voting against me for personal reasons. I didn’t actually know that he voted against me, and didn’t say that he did. I was told by three different BBWAA members that Ringolsby voted against the 16 in 2 out proposal when it was given to the general membership. A fourth BBWAA member called me this morning and reiterated that position. Tracy says this is false and that he voted for the general proposal.
Two, Bob Dutton told me via email that the membership could have broken down the individual candidates and voted on them individually. I’ve spoken to at least ten BBWAA members who were in the room, and more than half said to me that they felt that while there was a little floor debate, there was “no room” for discussion on the candidates.
OK, more in a bit but I wanted to get something up quickly to address those two points.
amen, james.
Hey Keith, No need to post this, just wanted to apologize if the comment I wrote on your previous post concerning Nashville eats inspired you to comment on this whole thing and start this debate. I just wanted to show my support.
I did not say I voted for the general proposal. I have been very clear I was against it. And I was against it because of the exclusion of the two.
Also I don’t know why you would say there was no room for discussion on the candidates. There was merely no desire for discussion from the general membership, including those who are suddenly calling you with the information you are posting.
Mr. Ringolsby ~ Thank you for your response. If I can bother you for one more clarification. You appear to be a frequent reader of a number of internet based writers and an occasional poster on at least one message board, so you clearly have some degree of familiarity with the qualities of at least a subset of the internet writers. Regardless of a position on Law / Neyer or any other specific internet based writer, do you believe the BBWAA bylaws should be amended to allow the admission of non-print media writers to membership? Why or why not? Again, thanks for your reply.
Fran, no, it wasn’t you, it was the growing storm on several blogs I visit where it appeared that 1) people were getting details of the whole thing wrong and 2) supporters of Rob and myself were starting to vilify the BBWAA membership, which isn’t fair. I thought getting this out there would clear the air and calm things down. Tracy took offense to something I wrote, and things are not calm.
The ESPN person who submitted the names for membership was at the Winter Meetings for a day and did speak to members, although I wasn’t one.
I spoke to the person who submitted the names yesterday. He said he never spoke to anyone about my qualifications or whether I attend games. I always notify him when I’ll be at a big-league park because he likes me to file a dispatch or two from the scouts’ seats (figuratively speaking).
Thirdly, Keith Law has told me in several emails that he has trouble getting to ballparks becuase of family matters and that he spends a great deal of time at minor league parks.
This is sort of right, sort of not. I don’t see as many NL games as I should because I try to limit my travel, but I did go to four different NL series in four parks covering eight teams this year. The AL isn’t a problem because I can be at Fenway in 20 minutes by car. I also went to more MLB games than minor-league games this year.
He says he couldn’t write his previews without seeing teams, but yet he has admitted he has evaluated and done stories cirtiquing the Rockies without having ever see them play.
This is no secret, nor is the fact that my advance report on them the worst of the eight I wrote. I leave the last weekend of the season open so I can rush out to see any team that sneaks into the playoffs. Unfortunately, this year, there were two such teams, and I went to see the Phillies (up one with two to play) instead of the Rockies (down two with two to play). Fact is I do a better job when I see the teams live.
Tracy has said to me that he opposed the 16-2 vote because it excluded me. Only Tracy knows his motivations, but in that case, my comment above about him opposing it because he’s in the BBWAA’s anti-Internet group was wrong, and he’s got a right to be ticked. When I spoke to other BBWAA members, the board member they singled out most often in explaining why I was rejected was Tracy. It sounds like they were wrong too.
Keith, once again, nice, measured post. Why do I have this uncomfortable feeling that Tracy will still attack you. I hope not.
I’m going to give Tracy some benefit of the doubt. He’s saying he stood up for me twice, and he feels like I stabbed him in the back in the post above. I wasn’t saying he voted against me for personal reasons, but he’s reading it that way. And I did say he was in the anti-Internet camp, but he says he’s not.
Hi Keith:
I’d just like to say that between your composed posts on this page and Pete Abraham’s clarifications on the Baseball Analysts site (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/12/bbwaa_opens_up.php) you’ve done a really great job of keeping this from escalating into unnecessary tension. The way I see it, there’s been a lot of misunderstanding, dropping the ball, and some misinformation as well – but most importantly, there seem to be few if any ill intentions.
And that gives me complete confidence that next year when you reapply for membership (please do), the BBWAA will get it right – especially since you’ve made your case for putting the credentials to good use. And as much as Rob Neyer has claimed that his omission doesn’t really bother him, his support of your inclusion should be the clinching deal in this matter.
What’s the big deal about seeing games in person vs. tv. I know maybe it’s some rule in the BBWA, but baseball is baseball. Are you telling me some scout who watches a ton of film doesn’t know anything?
I’m guessing Law, Sheehan, Neyer probably watch more total games than most of the beat writers. That argument seems silly.
And Mr. Ringolsby (if those posts are really you) even if you are correct on the facts, you certainly didn’t take the high road here. I don’t know you personally but I must say I think less of you now.
One of the things that makes your reports so great is that you don’t mince words, even if it costs you in situations like this.
I’ll resist the temptation to rail against members of the BBWA by name (as has been done by several commenters above). We all know who those guys are, and calling them out by name in a format like this only causes more trouble for Keith.
I’ll just say that it speaks volumes about the credibility of the organization that they’re in and guys like Keith, Rob, and deserving others like Sheehan are out.
Hopefully they’ll get it right next time around.
There’s somewhat of a difference depending on where you sit. The centerfield cam that you see on TV doesn’t give as good an indication of the movement of pitches as being live, for example. Also the camera only shows folks after the ball is in play, so it might look like an OF was making a great play, but in actually he was out of position and had to dive to catch a ball he could have taken a better route to.
Keith,
Thanks for helping to clarify the details surrounding this issue.
Tracy,
I have to admit I don’t quite understand your hyperemotional response here. You call Keith a “liar,” but being incorrect and lying aren’t the same thing.
Keith was fairly straightforward in his initial post in saying that, based on your “nay” vote, he *assumed* that you were against including Web-based writers in the BBWAA. His assumption may have been incorrect, but it was a fairly reasonable one, and it was informed by the opinions and beliefs of several of your fellow BBWAA members.
Keith didn’t accuse you of anything inherently negative in his post. The only person who’s made you look unreasonable, on this particular Web page, is Tracy Ringolsby.
From my standpoint as a baseball fan, casual blogger, and friend to no one in baseball, I’ve had an impression of you as the poster boy for anti-“Moneyball” sentiment among baseball journalists.
I tend to lump anti-“Moneyball” sentiment with part-fearfulness, part-defensiveness, part-ignorance. (Over the years, many of your peers have attacked the writings and concepts of Bill James, Rob Neyer, et al, not based on fact-based evaluations or any scientific method, but rather fueled by vitrol towards that which you do not control. Perhaps it terrifies newspapermen to consider the idea that your press-box access has not served you as well as you always believed; and that, even with your access to players and managers and coaches and executives, you missed out on so much of the story. But I digress.)
Regardless of how you voted, or why you voted that way, your behavior on these comments pages has done little to dispel my conception of you as a writer fueled less by inspiration than by insecurity. But perhaps you should be glad to be meeting expectations, as a person so intent on cementing his status; for this reader, the cement’s dried.
Sincerely,
Dean Simakis
In honesty, I don’t think that Keith deserved to be a voter. While I do feel that columnists in the electronic media should be allowed to vote, there should be a certain amount of tenure required to vote. Keith quite frankly hasn’t been working at ESPN long enough.
Greg: I don’t believe tenure is a requirement for voting according to the BBWAA by-laws. Regardless, it wasn’t all that likely that I’d get a vote for an annual award right away, and I’d have to put in my ten years to vote for the Hall.