Bleed Cubbie Blue

15,564....

... that's what my fingers hit as I was typing. It's probably way more than that, actually.

Agree on the number

of ass clowns. It's a shame a great sports town like Chicago is so void of talent in this area.

The voting process is obviously broken. I would advocate a blend of a limited amount of writers, HOF members and team announcers that meet certain criteria.

MPH73 - January 9, 2008 reply

Can't MLB do this

or is it a matter that they won't.

543 voters and the number always changes. I understand it's something like a 10-year writer history. But when I hear (OK read in articles) that some guys don't vote for players 'cuz they didn't see them play, then doesn't that diminish the process?

This Telander (and Ladewski last year) is just a freakin' mutation.

I don't think it's up to

MLB. It's probably the HOF's call to change any voting procedure.

MPH73 - January 9, 2008 reply

This is completely stupid...

...and makes me feel bad not only for the guys trying to get into the hall that didn't take roids (HAWK?!), it makes me feel bad for the guys that SHOULD be voters (i.g. Rob Neyer) but since they do not work for a physical "newspaper", cannot vote. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Dan

dtpollitt - January 9, 2008 reply

as much as I don't like the current system

I really don't have any good ideas for a replacement. It's often said that "if so and so does this, they should lose their vote." Well, I'd say Rick Telander's comments above are good enough to knock him out. If he no longer wishes to vote stop sending him a ballot.

mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue - January 9, 2008 reply

Here's a possible solution

Two words - Minnie Miñoso

Hey, the guy's played professional baseball in seven decades (1940s-2000s) so he's probably played with, against or at least seen everyone on the ballot. Set him up with his favorite drinks in a bar (he seems to frequent Sluggers here in Wrigleyville), bring the TV cameras in, read through the names and wait for a thumbs up or thumbs down.

Ok, so I kid. Or not. Don't think he could do much worse than the likes of Telander and Co.

ballhawk - January 9, 2008 reply

Wait a minute...

Telander didn't accuse Dawson of taking PED's. He is demonstrating the profound impact this subject has had on many baseball fans by pointing to an "unthinkable" example -- and saying he is not even one-hundred percent sure of even that any more.

There is a loooong ways from "accusing Dawson" to not betting his life.

Actually, he ends up saying that of all baseball players ever, Dawson is the last one you would suspect!

If that was his intention...

... he did it in the most tortured way possible. Sometimes these writers just try to get way too cute, and fail to make their point.

I agree

with the "too cute" part. There must be peer pressure among columnists to say things, as you say, in the most tortured way possible.

When "cute" is done well, it fits in seamlessly with the theme of the column and you barely notice it. This example sticks out like a sore thumb.

If that's the case...

...then Mike Downey must be his idol.

ballhawk - January 9, 2008 reply

Is it just me...

or has the Tribune baseball team just become absolutely embarrassing? I mean, how the taint of the Steroid Era can keep you from even considering voting on a ballot in which the VAST majority of nominees were pre Steroid-Era players is comical. Especially when as an admitted fan, you know that Gossage needed your vote, as this may have been his best chance to get in.

Rick, I think it's much more likely that you saw a chance to do this, and get an easy puff article out of it, rather than having to actually go and research a topic. My personal take? Miss two ballots in a decade, and your voting rights are suspended.

Damen Jackson - January 9, 2008 reply

Telander...

... writes for the Sun-Times. But your point is still valid.

Sorry...

I was reading the snippets, and it kept reading like a Morrissey piece.

Damen Jackson - January 9, 2008 reply

LMAO!

n/t

What a sanctimonious blowhard

The thing that bothers me about HOF voters is that they act like they have some holy duty, overplaying the importance of their own role almost just to remind us that they have it.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the papacy. You're voting on people who played a game, and did it well enough to be remembered for it. Telander hasn't just appointed himself judge and jury, he's decided that he must do so psychically, because it would apparently be so damaging to the institution to allow even one PED user in on accident and without evidence that it's better just to keep everyone out.

Congrats Rick. I truly do hope that every other writer follows suit so that your role in HOF voting is reduced to what it should be - none.

Wreckard - January 9, 2008 reply

Loud, sustained applause.

I used to respect Telander, too.

Then MLB can blow it up

and start over.

I posted the following earlier today

as a reply to another user's comment in another thread. Since it may get lost there, I will repost. Apologies in advance for those who are reading this again.

There are more than 575 voting members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. 543 ballots were cast including 3 ballots which supported no candidates.

A total of 2,907 individual votes were cast, an average of 5.35 per ballot.

That leaves at least 32 ballots that were NOT received by the December 31 deadline. Include the 3 submitted blank ballots, that's at least 35 "no votes."

Rick Telander has a right not to cast a ballot. His point is that there MAY be players on the ballot that "roided up" or used HGH. He doesn't know, so he didn't vote.

Shame on you, Mr. Telander. Voting is a privilege. You were asked to judge what these players did on the field. You chose not to cast a ballot because you don't know whether or not players like Rice, Dawson, Smith, John, maybe even Bert Blyleven used PEDs?

You said you would "bet [your] life Hawk didn't," but you didn't cast a ballot because "swollen Mark McGwire soils the ballot."

Rice, Dawson, and Blyleven would not have received enough votes even if every one of the 32 non-participating ballots named all three on their ballots. Rice would have fallen 8 votes short (575 ballots requires 432 votes; Rice would have had 424). And this assumes exactly 575 were distributed when it is published that OVER 575 ballots were distributed.

Your vote, and the vote of those that did not send theirs in, could have made a difference under different circumstances.

I don't ground my 17-year-old daughter every weekend because she MAY be going to keg parties or because her under-aged friends drink. I know she's been to parties, but she comes home sober. I trust her to make wise choices.

Let's trust that Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, Smith, John, and many others on the ballot are deserving without the aid of PEDs.

flachimesa - January 9, 2008 reply

And another thing.

Why does Telander still even have a ballot? He's a columnist who covers many sports in addition to baseball. How many games does he attend? Wasn't that the criterion given when certain ESPN.com writers were refused a BBWAA card?

The BBWAA is led by cretins.

These guys are like

college professors. Once they get tenure, it takes an act of God to change things.

MPH73 - January 9, 2008 reply

HEY HEY...

...Fellow professor-in-training here. Most PhD students with me are pretty open minded, but yes, I understand your point. :)

Dan

dtpollitt - January 9, 2008 reply

To think...

... that this kind of thing or other negative voting patterns wouldn't happen if you came up with a new voting system is completely foolish.

DmL

dmlichte - January 9, 2008 reply

Maybe...

... but it sure couldn't be any WORSE to try something different, could it?

Again...

... as I've said for the last two days, I think the writers do a fine job and there has been a lot of vitirol for a.) a process that involves humans and humans patently do stupid crap and b.) one that has, on the balance, produced the results.

I'm not opposed to tweaking because the system needs work. But I think, overall, the results are, on the balance, what they should be.

And with the Telander stuff... I think its fine, unless I'm misunderstanding. He's simply abstaining and, from what I gather, not impacting the process. He simply reduces the pool of votes, he's not adding a "no" vote.

DmL

dmlichte - January 9, 2008 reply

I agree.

What's with all the weepy hyperbole over something that in the end, is of little importance? I would have a problem with the writers if Mike Vail and Paul Kilgus were getting in. But if they're making it a little harder for borderliners like Dawson to get in, I have no problem with it. I'm sure Dawson cares but it's nothing for me to get all misty-eyed about.

If writers want to sit out a year it has no effect on the vote. Getting a column out of it is weak but hey, there are no Red Smiths and Grantland Rices working anymore so it's not surprising. In case you haven't noticed, the whole shootin'-match is slowly swirling down the drain. Why should sportswriters be more competent than the President and Vice President?

TR - January 9, 2008 reply

A couple thoughts...

I agree -- Telander's deciding not to vote is fine with me. And someone (who is not trying to stir the pot and get ratings) please explain to Dawson that Telander did not necessarily imply that he has taken PED's. I still say Telander was trying to say the exact opposite.

Hopefully, Rick is one of the cuts

at the Suntimes.

cubswin - January 9, 2008 reply

But Mariotti has to be first

N/T

Mordecai - January 9, 2008 reply

Dawson on "The Score"

If anyone gets a chance, click on over to www.670thescore.com and listen to Mike North's interview with Andre Dawson from this morning. Kudos to North for going after Telander, and letting Hawk know what he wrote in his column. Andre, a true gentleman's gentleman, got very pissed....you can hear the anger in his voice and I don't blame him. According to North, their producers were going to help Hawk get some phone numbers so he can get in touch with Telander. Best line of the interview was when Hawk said, "I want to tell him that I'll be at the Cubs Convention, and I want to meet him face to face." Something tells me that Rick, to use a Bill O'Reilly line, will be "hiding under his desk."

ctcoff99 - January 9, 2008 reply

re: Dawson on "The Score"

Yep, I just listened to this interview myself and North definitely echoes Al's outrage about Telander's remarks. And let's just say if Dawson catches up to Telander anytime soon, Telander better be able to talk awfully, awfully fast.

Right.

If, as was said by a couple of posters above, Telander was trying to say Dawson didn't do steroids, then Telander should turn in his journalist credentials. What a tortured, terrible way of saying it.

Dawson is justifiably angry.

"Kudos" to North?

For stirring the pot in an attempt to get better ratings? When we do that on BCB, it's called trolling.

If Telander had actually implied Dawson was on PED's, that would be different. But Telander did not say anything of the kind.

Reading is a skill.

Yep, reading is a skill.

Here it is again:

Do I know for a fact, say, that the slender, knee-ravaged, integrity-laced Dawson didn't 'roid up?

I'd bet my life Hawk didn't.

No, I wouldn't.

Not anymore. Not for anyone.

That's an implication that EVERYONE did them, and tars Dawson by association. I'm not sure what Telander was trying to say here, but whatever it was, he failed.

So,

in essence you are saying that Telander being no longer willing to bet his life that no player is clean is the same as saying he is implicating that everyone in baseball is on PED's?

He could have made it clearer, I agree, but come on.

See below.

Essentially, yes, that's what he wrote. If he wanted to say something else, he would have.

Hey, I'm comfortable

with the idea that we can just agree to disagree about Telander's writing skills. But, again Al, Yes or No: The following statements are saying the same thing:

I would no longer bet my life that even Dawson hasn't taken PED's.
I think all MLB players are on PED's.

All we seem to be disagreeing about is that the above two statements are the same. I say they are not. I am not saying Dawson should not be upset. I am saying he should think about what the intent was before he lets North push him over the edge.

They're not the same statement...

... on that, we agree.

But go back and read what Telander wrote. He said BOTH things -- that he wouldn't bet his life on Dawson not being on PED's, and then said "not for anyone", which implies that he thinks EVERYONE does them.

Did he specifically say that? No. But it is implicit. That's why Dawson is so upset.

I can see where one would think

that Telander implied that everyone does them. If he in fact intended to imply this, he lost me. I immediately took him to mean that he thinks Dawson is the most irreproachable of ballplayers and recent events makes him question what was once unquestionable.

If I was Dawson, I don't think I would take that as an attack. An attack on the steroid era, definitely, but not on Dawson.

But, that's me. Sorry about the "Reading is a skill" nonsense.

No worries.

I think you're probably right, that Telander intended it to be an attack on the steroid era.

If that was his intention, he failed. Badly.

It's not.

He's just saying that the ones who definitely used them have tainted everyone. I swear, this is getting like the Murph show where one interview or even one sentence is taken, often out of context, deconstructed a million ways, and over-analyzed to death.

TR - January 9, 2008 reply

That's still a ridiculous statement.

Because guys have used PED's in this decade, that taints Andre Dawson, who retired a decade ago?

That's a pretty broad brush, and I think the misuse of his position as a columnist. It's not just "one sentence", it's a pretty bold position taken, and maybe Dawson wasn't his specific intended target -- if so, Telander could have chosen his words more wisely.

Isn't that what he gets paid to do?

Re-read it bud

He's saying no one is beyond suspicion.

We should make this DH (no, not designated hitter) read Ryno's HoF speech 100 times.

"...Respect.

Andre Dawson, the Hawk. No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson. He's the best I've ever seen. I watched him win MVP for a last-place team in 1987 and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball. He did it the right way, the natural way and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here someday. We didn't get to a World Series together but we almost got there, Hawk. That's my regret, that we didn't get to a World Series for Cub fans. I was in the postseason twice and I'm thankful for that. Twice we came close. ..."

Exactly.

By saying no one is above suspicion, and mentioning ONLY Dawson's name -- what does that say to you?

If he was trying to say something else, he shouldn't have written it that way. I understand Dawson's anger toward Telander.

Anyone think Andre will get it next year?

He came damn close this year...

Dan

dtpollitt - January 9, 2008 reply

1 or 2 years.

Well, Rickey Henderson is a shoo-in, and you would think that Rice, if he got 72% this year and next year is his last year on the ballot would be a definite too. It's been a long time since three players were elected in the same class (I think Ryan/Brett/Yount was the last time). So my guess is he'll hit 70% next year, and 2010 he gets in.

ctcoff99 - January 9, 2008 reply

Perhaps...

... but I think next year will be tough. Henderson is a shoo-in. I think Raines will gain momentum. But next year is Jim Rice's final year on the BBWAA ballot and voters will take a close final look at him. I think Dawson gains steam and gets in in a few years.

DmL

dmlichte - January 9, 2008 reply

The Telander response to the Hawk's comments

is now posted on the Score's website. I listened to him, and read the column and kind of understand what Telander meant. He didn't say Andre took PED's but that some athletes that have vehemently denied taking them have lied so whom do you believe?

BigJohnAZ - January 9, 2008 reply

That makes a little more sense...

... but not much. Dawson clearly played in an era before PED's were rampant. He has been called a class act by everyone who played with him, and Ryne Sandberg made a point of saying, in his Hall induction speech, that Dawson played the "right" way (implying others he played with didn't).

Now who are you going to believe? Ryne Sandberg or Rick Telander? I know who I choose.

I would agree that Andre never

took ANY PED's. I also believe that writers sometimes write the wrong things for the right reasons. I am not giving Telander a pass by any stretch of the imagination, but look what happened. Instead of steroids becoming the issue based on his writing, HE has become the topic. Pretty smart, maybe?

BigJohnAZ - January 9, 2008 reply

Well...

... it was explained a little better in Telander's column today (see my main-page post).

I'm still not convinced that this was the right reason to make a protest non-vote, nor am I convinced that Telander's right in his assertion that "no one can be proven innocent".

Al Yellon - January 10, 2008 reply

Like I mentioned before

Telander is an ass.

It's a desperate attempt by a marginal columnist to get attention.

Well, he did get attention; and with an obvious lame-ass excuse.

His article today is a sorry cover up and to boot I didn't remember seeing him say he's sorry at all for how his language came across; got to check again.

Telander is just a simple example why the system has to be overhauled. I don't buy it for one minute that him not sending it in simply lowers the number of yes votes required by a player. But sending it in with guys like Dawson and/or Rice checked is a 1-for-1 which the last time I checked is a 1.000 winning percentage and therefore GOOD for a player looking for an overall 0.750 winning percentage.

blackhawk24 - January 10, 2008 reply

re: The Telander response to the Hawk's comments

After listening to Telander's response on The Score, I think he simply made a calculated decision to piss off (and probably forever estrange himself from) Andre Dawson. Why would he do this? Dramatic license, plain and simple. He wanted to make a grand, literary statement about steroids in baseball and he backhandedly implicated the Hawk (of all people) to do it. Personally, I think it was an overwrought and unnecessary move -- and it's one Telander is going to have to live with for the rest of his career.

LSA!

n/t

re: LSA!

Hey, did I just get the first official LSA? Best day ever!

I'm weary too!

Do you know what I'm weary of, pretentious sportswriters on their high horses. They are dissapointed with the use of "performance enhancing drugs". They say that this is tainting all of the records of previous generations of baseball players. How can you compare thse generations. Training methods are different, medical treatments is different (where would many pitchers be without Tommy John Surgery), certainly the money is different and that definitely alters the way some of these atheltes perform. I say inflated salaries are perfomance enhancing. Let's ban high salaries!

Maybe the players of the 60s and 70s didn't use HGH but many were popping pills to get them up after they spent all night on the town. I assume this effected their performance. And right or wrong MLB did not ban some of the drugs in question. If they did not break any rules how can you punish them?

Do I think there should be a ban on steroids and HGH? I'm not sure. But if there is a ban then there should be a strong testing policy including blood tests if need be. You want to play (and make millions), then take the tests don't hide behind the union.

I'm dissappointed in Telander, he sould turn in his BBWAA card.

Chodes - January 9, 2008 reply

Telander.....

also went out of his way to call Andre "dumb" at least twice, at one point referring to him as "a dummy". He could have taken the high road and pointed out that he didn't actually accuse Andre of using PED's, (which, if you read the column, he didn't) but instead of merely pointing that out, he uses the typical ammo of the elite media: personally attack anyone who questions you in any way. How irresponsible.

ctcoff99 - January 9, 2008 reply

re: Telander.....

Yep, he did call Dawson a "dummy" a couple times. How classless. I tell ya, if Dawson and Telander end up in the same room at the Cubs convention, it could be the YouTube clip of the year.