Talking with the Prez
Posted: December 10th, 2007 | Filed under: Baseball | 31 Comments »
I always thought Groucho Marx went a few words too far when he said, “I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.†I believe he could have just said: “I don’t care to belong to a club.†Left it there.
I am a card-carrying member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, have been for almost 15 years, and it’s a perplexing and contradictory experience. About the only thing I can say for sure about the BBWAA is that I would rather watch a Cirque du Soleil-Blue Man Group doubleheader than go to an Association meeting. No offense to anyone. I just hate those sorts of things. Procedures. Yelling. All that stuff.
I’ve written before about my introduction to the BBWAA — my first Major League game, long before I became a member, I was kicked out of the front row of the Atlanta Braves press box because I did not have a membership card (or as the BBWAA member screeched as he brandished his card and held it two inches in front of my nose, “You need one of THESE to sit in the front row! One of THESE!â€). So I learned quite early that the BBWAA (like most associations) has, in the New York word I heard someone scream over the weekend, its share of schmuckheads.
(God, what a great New York word. Schmuckhead. I love New York. I wrote a whole post about how much I love New York. Maybe I should post that at some point).
Still, the association isn’t all schmuckheads, it’s not even mostly schmuckheads. There are many dedicated and talented journalists in the BBWAA, good people, men and women who don’t take themselves too seriously, who love baseball and writing, who are open to new ideas, respectful of tradition, helpful to young writers and all those other good qualities.
One of those good guys is my friend and BBWAA President Bob Dutton. He has kindly offered to answer a few questions about the last week, when the BBWAA managed to tick off more or less everyone. I am going to simply put the interview up here without much comment because Bob has some very good and interesting things to say, and it would be nice to just let somebody talk.
I will say quickly for the record, that on the two big BBWAA issues I am:
1. In favor of convincing the Union/MLB to strike down clauses like the one in Curt Schilling’s contract — where he would get $1 million for a single third-place Cy Young vote. To me, this is just begging for corruption and/or the appearance of corruption. I’ve already written about this at some length.
2. Very happy that the BBWAA has opened up membership to Internet writers and not at all thrilled they left out friends and fine baseball writers Rob Neyer and Keith Law. I wish, for both personal and professional reasons, that they had been voted in.
OK, we’ve gone on too long already. Here comes the Prez.
* * *
We’re here with my friend Bob Dutton, Royals beat writer for The Kansas City Star and the BBWAA President for 2008. Of course, we’re not really “here†with him — this interview was conducted via email. And some of the questions and comments have been adjusted for clarity.
OK, Bob, let’s start with the incentive clauses. Well, before diving in, we should start with a quick intro because there is a lot of confusion out there about the BBWAA awards. There are four BBWAA awards — the MVP, the Cy Young, the Rookie of the Year and the Manager of the year. These are voted on by BBWAA members — two in every city. The voters tend to rotate.
The confusion, from what I can tell, comes from this notion that these awards are somehow MLB’s “official†awards. They are not. There are lots of awards. The Players Union has the “Player’s Choice†awards. MLB has its own awards (Hank Aaron Award; Roberto Clemente Award, etc). Rawlings and The Sporting News give out the Gold Gloves. The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum gives out the Legacy Awards. Etc.
These are just the BBWAA awards. They get more attention because they’ve been around longer and because, obviously, we promote the heck out of them. But I read a “high-ranking baseball official†tell MLB.com that, “There has been consideration to removing these awards from the writers’ jurisdiction, and this may give us the excuse to do so.†So even high-ranking officials don’t seem to get it. This would be like MLB.com quoting some “high-ranking BBWAA hack†saying, “There has been consideration to removing the Yankees from the Steinbrenner’s jurisdiction and this may give us the excuse to do so.â€
Anyway that’s the quick background. This week the BBWAA decided to take on the incentive clauses that involve BBWAA awards. Why?
Bob: They’re our awards. And we feel they’ve been co-opted. That’s really what this is about.
Our BBWAA constitution specifically prevents us from making money on the awards. We’ve repeatedly turned down the chance to do so by rejecting overtures from television.* So we’re not happy when other people make money from them.
*Explanation: The BBWAA has on several occasions been offered a chance to put on a big television awards show, not unlike the ESPYs or the Heisman Show or, if you want to think grander, the Oscars. The organization voted down the opportunity — apparently because many feel that it would be unseemly.
Patrick Reusse of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune tells me we expressed this concern about 15 years ago when he was the BBWAA president. So it’s not a new issue.
So if it’s not a new issue, why the big move this week?
Bob: The landscape changed when Boston pitcher Curt Schilling received a clause that gives him a $1 million bonus for getting a single Cy Young vote. Then he joked about how he’d split the bonus with any writer willing to give him a vote. To be fair, I really think Curt was joking. But, that sent some people over the edge.
The question then is what do we do about it? The membership acted last Wednesday by passing a resolution of intent that, starting in 2013, any player whose contract contains bonus clauses tied to our awards be ineligible to receive those awards.
The board of directors, meeting later, voted unanimously to table implementation of the resolution upon receiving word from the union that it was willing to discuss the issue. Our first preference is to discuss the matter with the union and MLB. We understand the union’s concern that we are, in effect, unilaterally threatening to cut off a revenue source for its members. That was another reason the board tabled implementation, a belief that meaningful negotiation seldom results when one side perceives it has a gun to its head.
Plus, bottom line, our goal is to fix the problem. We’re not looking for a fight. My belief is officials from the union and MLB are likely to propose solutions we haven’t considered. At minimum, we want to give them the opportunity to do so. So let’s talk about it. Right now, we’re in the process of setting up a committee to meet with the union and MLB. Hopefully, we can have something to report by our next meeting, which is in July at the All-Star Game.
OK, but some people — plenty of people on this site — would say: What’s the big deal? The BBWAA screws up these choices all the time anyway. They have biases anyway. Isn’t the BBWAA being a bit oversensitive?
Bob: The BBWAA recognizes that people don’t always agree with our choices — boy, do we realize that — but we make every effort to determine those choices in an open manner.
Let me backtrack a bit to make a point: Do our members bring biases to their vote? Sure. I think it’s inevitable that everyone brings some sort of bias to anything they do. Those biases are usually a result of life experiences.
I cover the Royals. That means I see that team roughly 150 times a year. I see other teams in the AL Central about 16-18 times a year. I see teams in the AL East and AL West about 5-10 times a year. There’s a built-in bias there that can only partly be bridged through studying statistics, no matter how much studying I do.
OK, well the BBWAA recognizes that. It’s why the panel for each of our awards contains two members from each league city. In effect, whatever bias exists is spread evenly throughout the league.
Secondly, our ballots are public. We release them, every vote. There were papers in New York after Minnesota’s Justin Morneau beat out New York’s Derek Jeter for the 2006 AL MVP award that published every ballot, all 10 choices, of all 28 voters.
So you might think our choices are foolish or even indefensible, but we’re accountable. Can you tell me any other major award where all ballots are public?
All this is a long way around to get to my point. Take the Schilling clause. Look, I really don’t think Schilling is going to try to buy a vote. Further, I think the problem is just the opposite.
Let’s just say that Schilling goes 16-8 next year but finishes second among AL pitchers in ERA. As a voter, when you’re putting together your short list of candidates, he’d probably be on it. It would depend on what other pitchers did, of course, but a season like I’m describing might easily merit a third-place vote.
But as a voter, knowing your ballot can be (and would be in this case) made public, I think you’re going to stop and wonder, `Do I need that aggravation? Do I want people wondering whether I got a kick-back, even if they’re just joking about it?’ My guess is most voters would say, `Heck with that’ and pick someone else.
Well, we don’t want that. We want voters to pick the most-deserving choices, period. And that’s all we want.
So, tell us where does this stand now and do you think something can be worked out?
Bob: I don’t know why something can’t be worked out. Even if we untable our resolution, we’ve got until 2013. Look, the net effect of the resolution, I think, was to put everyone on notice that, hey, we’re serious about this. This bothers us. So let’s talk about it. The union has already signaled a willingness to do so. I anticipate the same reaction from MLB.
OK, for one second, take off your Prez hat and give me your opinion. Where do you stand on this?
Bob: My personal view — and let me stress that, my personal view — is pragmatic. I think many members are willing to tolerate bonuses for winning the awards. Not happy about it, or the principle it represents, but willing to accept it. But we need to try and put an end to clauses like the Schilling Clause.
* * *
OK, now on to the somewhat testier Internet situation. Let’s start with a little background again. As you see it, why does the BBWAA exist?
Bob: There is a lot of misunderstanding about this. The first article in the BBWAA constitution names the organization. The second spells out four objects as its reason for existing (Article II, Section 1.)
Subsection A: To insure proper facilities for reporting baseball games and to provide competent regulation of press boxes of the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs and National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, hereinafter designated as the Major Leagues;
Subsection B: To assist in clarifying baseball scoring rules, thereby promoting uniformity in official scoring;
Subsection C: To sustain cooperation and fellowship with the baseball writers of the minor leagues;
Subsection D: To foster the most credible qualities of baseball writing and reporting.
From that, I think it’s easy to see the association exists, primarily, to assist the coverage of baseball print reporters at big-league parks. I believe most members see the association’s primary job as ensuring adequate access at ballparks for them to do their jobs.
These are things we negotiate with MLB and the union. When does the clubhouse need to be open? What areas of the clubhouse are off-limits to reporters? What is the field access for members? The location and amenities of the press box. Etc.
Right. So now give us a little history about the BBWAA and the Internet. Obviously, since the BBWAA goes back to 1908, it’s sort of an old-boy’s network. I can remember going to a meeting in 2000 or so and there were some people still denying there WAS an Internet. What has been the history here?
Bob: We realize the business is changing. We began discussing the possibility of admitting online reporters back in 1999. My personal view is we moved too slow on this†(*Editor’s note: Agreed). But we finally passed an amendment earlier this year that creates a portal for internet reporters to gain membership.
It works like this (Editor’s note: The following five or six paragraphs are detailed explanations of the admittance policy. They are, as Bob will tell you, not especially riveting reading. I include it because you might be into the specifics, but you can also skip down a bit if you want to get to the Rob and Keith stuff. I’ll tell you when to hop back in):
Each year at our World Series meeting, our annual meeting, the association formally considers a list of online sites. The only stipulation is that MLB.com will not be considered. This was added to the original amendment because members wanted to avoid any appearance of a conflict resulting from MLB.com being owned by MLB. Not all members agree with this, but that’s irrelevant at this point. (And besides, there’s very little that all of our members agree on.)
As a starting point, and only as a starting point, the list of sites to receive consideration are those credentialed by MLB for the World Series. Approved sites are then asked to submit qualified candidates by Dec. 1 for consideration. This year, the membership approved MLB’s World Series credential list which included: CBSSportsline.com, ESPN.com, FoxSports.com, SI.com and Yahoo.com.
Qualified candidates are specifically defined as those who are full-time employees whose primary job is to write about baseball.
I think it’s important to point out that we follow a similar procedure in admitting newspaper reporters. The sports editor of any qualified newspaper is asked to submit candidates for membership. Qualified newspapers are defined, basically, as those that cover at least 75 percent of a team’s games (home and away) with a staff reporter or a special correspondent. There are some exceptions, but that’s the general requirement.
One key difference, however, is newspapers generally apply through the chapter chairman in their area. The internet sites were required to apply through the national office. The primary reason for this is most internet sites don’t serve just a specific area. Each chapter chairman is charged with reviewing newspaper applicants; the national board of directors reviewed the internet applicants. The national secretary-treasurer acts as a check on chapter chairmen; the entire membership acts a check on internet admissions.
(Editor’s note: OK, you can come back now).
So now, this year, tell us how this thing went down.
Bob: The five sites submitted a total of 18 candidates for consideration. The seven-member board reviewed the candidates and voted to recommend 16 for membership. This was presented to the full membership, which had the option of accepting the board’s recommendation, amending it or voting individually on each candidate. A motion was made, seconded and passed to accept the board’s recommendation.*
(*Editor’s note: In other words, the board’s recommendation was to include 16, and leave out Keith and Rob. The BBWAA approved the recommendation).
OK, well, as you know I’m good friends with Rob and Keith — and I know you know them both as well. They are both opinionated guys, and I know they have ticked off some people in the organization. Do you think that had anything to do with what happened?
Our entire membership consists of people who tick each other off. I mean, you’ve been to our meetings. But I can tell you this: I chaired the board meeting, and I chaired the full meeting. The first point I made to each group was to capsulize a legal opinion: We can reject or admit anyone we want as long as we don’t violate the law (i.e., make a determination based on race, gender, age, etc.) and as long as we apply the same standard across the board.
With regard to Keith Law and Rob Neyer. the issue became whether their job required them to spend regular time at big-league parks. As I pointed out at the start of this section, the basic purpose of the association deals with issues our members encounter at ballparks.
Informal discussions with people at ESPN indicated that neither Keith nor Rob spent significant time at big-league parks.
Who were …
And before you ask, no, I’m not identifying whom I or any board member talked to. I recognize this might seem unfair much in the manner that the use of unidentified sources is unfair. But some of these people, who were candid, have already expressed concern that they would be identified. I told them I wouldn’t do so unless they out themselves and ask for confirmation.
In any event, the information we received appears to be generally accurate. Rob said he attends very few big-league games. Keith admitted that he attended about 25-30 games although he said he expects to attend a lot more in 2008.
The board determined, with the best information available, that neither Rob nor Keith needed a credential. That became the board’s recommendation.
Most of the criticism of this decision seems to argue that Rob and Keith know much more about baseball than many current members. That might be true. The issue, for us, is whether they need a credential to do their job.
Of course, most people don’t see the BBWAA as simply a way to get credentials or an organization that fights for working conditions. BBWAA members do vote for those big awards and, even more, vote for the Hall of Fame.
Bob: That’s right. And there is a strong belief out there that analysts such as Rob and Keith are far better qualified to make such assessments. Again, that might be true. Both are bright guys. But the awards are our awards and voted on by our members. The HOF balloting is an issue determined by the Hall of Fame, although we certainly regard it as an honor to participate as we do.
I know you have personally encouraged Keith and have also said the same thing about Rob — you encouraged them to reapply next year. Do you wish, for the organization’s sake, that they had been voted in this year? it just seems to me that the BBWAA has finally become more inclusive, which is great, a nice first step. And that step is generally overlooked because Rob and Keith did not get in. What do you think?
Bob: Are we generally moving in the right direction? Yes. Are we moving fast enough? Not for me personally, but we have other members who believe we’re moving plenty fast. I’m encouraged by a compromise that I believe moves us in right direction.
Regarding Keith, if he attends the number of games next year that he indicated he expects to attend, I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t be admitted. I can’t say more than that because (1) he would have to be offered as a candidate by ESPN and (2) approved by the board and (3) by the full membership. But I’ll be on the board again next year as the immediate past president and will certainly point out that the reason for our past concern no longer exists.
To my knowledge, Rob has made no such claim that he intends to sharply increase the number of big-league games he attends for professional reasons. If that changes, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be admitted either.
Obviously, we are talking somewhat long term — but how much do you think the BBWAA will expand the membership base? Baseball writing has become so much more widespread, with all the good things they are doing at Baseball Prospectus and some of the extremely popular and legitimate internet sites and blogs (meaning: blogs unlike this one). Do you see the BBWAA expanding to include these folks at some point.
Bob: That’s really hard to say. The business itself is evolving so fast — who knows what to expect? Speaking as the BBWAA president, I’ll say that we need to constantly reconsider all aspects of our association. Also, the amendment, as written, is sufficiently broad to cover any group with the specific exception of MLB.com.
Speaking for myself, and only for myself, my general view is anyone whose full-time job is to write about baseball should be eligible for membership. I say that knowing it currently places me in a distinct minority among our members. That’s fine. Just a few years ago, the membership’s overwhelming view was in opposition to admitting any internet sites. So I choose to remain optimistic.
Some have suggested the possibility of a two-tiered membership system that accords more benefits to those who need to be at ballparks while still admitting others on an associate basis. I’m sure other ideas will surface. The decibel count gets a little high at times, but that’s fine. It shows people care and proves that we’re relevant. Plus, we should be willing to handle the sort or criticism and examination that our members dish out to others. Besides a little revolution now and then is a still good thing.
Loading ...
Thanks for the excellent interview, Joe. More grist for the discussion beast. For what its worth, Dutton acquits himself quite well in the conversation. I hope he’s right, I hope that at some point in the very near future the BBWAA expands its membership, lest it expose itself to irrelevancy in the eyes of the true core fan base of the sport.
Okay, first things first. Many thanks to Bob Dutton for being gracious enough to provide these responses. And many thanks to Joe for presenting them as-is, with as little editorial commentary as possible.
Regarding the awards issue, I’ll make a point I’ve made elsewhere on more than one occasion. Why didn’t the BBWAA take similar action against its own members who profit from their association with players? Shouldn’t someone like Tony Massarotti, who co-authored the recent autobiography of David Ortiz, have a similar restriction on his eligibility to vote on any BBWAA award for which Ortiz would be eiligible? The financial benefit to the writer in such cases is more indirect, but it’s just as real since anything that promotes David Ortiz as a player or personality, like an MVP award, is also likely to increase book sales and benefit the writer. And yet, to all outward appearances, no such restriction exists on BBWAA members.
Even if such a restriction does exist, and the BBWAA just doesn’t publicize it, the mere association of a BBWAA member with an active player has the obvious potential to lend the impression of favoritism and bias in that writer’s work. Why is it that the BBWAA allows that kind of clear conflict of interest to continue unabated, but suddenly wants to crack down on a different kind of conflict? I would love to know Bob Dutton’s views on these questions.
Regarding the internet writers, I think it’s pretty clear that Bob would like to see the BBWAA be more inclusive. That could mean considering writers from additional websites, or it could mean loosening the restrictions they threw up for writers like Neyer and Law. I certainly hope that’s the case, because I just don’t buy the reason Bob gave for withholding their memberships. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that the BBWAA’s main reason to exist is to ensure access to press boxes and clubhouses, etc., when there is no longer a real possibility that those privileges and facilities will ever again be removed. There may still be some quibbling about the hours the clubhouse is available, or when the writers can be on the field, but those are pretty small details in the grand scheme of things. Baseball teams want media coverage. If the BBWAA ceased to exist tomorrow, it is exceedingly unlikely that MLB as a unit or individual teams would suddenly withhold access to media members.
No, the only one of those BBWAA bylaws that still applies is Subsection D – “To foster the most credible qualities of baseball writing and reporting.” One would think that should include writing and reporting that takes place far away from the ballpark, and would obviously include writing and reporting that is pulished online. To exclude these guys on the flimsy excuse that they don’t attend many games in person seems bogus, the primary reason being that there is quite a hefty percentage of current BBWAA members who haven’t seen the inside of a baseball clubhouse or press box in years. Others rarely attend. Does Bob really want me to believe that the Kansas City Star’s Jeffrey Flanagan goes to 75% of the Royals’ games? Please, don’t insult our intelligence. And yet there’s Flanagan every December or January, posting his annual “Here’s my Hall of Fame ballot” column. He’s a BBWAA member who clearly doesn’t meet the exact same criterion cited by Bob to explain why Law & Neyer weren’t voted in, so why is Flanagan still a member? Why are editors who haven’t seen a ballgame in years still active voting members?
As long as the BBWAA continues to retain people as members who haven’t seen very much live baseball for years on end, the excuse used to withhold membership from certain online writers is going to continue to seem like nothing more than a convenience that masks something else. That might be personality conflicts, it might be some kind of sour grapes, or it might be something as simple as lingering tradition and love of hardcopy newspapermen. Whatever it is, I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with the number of baseball games they attend.
What exactly about watching games in person makes someone more qualified than someone watching games on television? Is there some essence I’m missing here?
I’ve read some of the online debate on this issue, and I applaud Bob and Joe for presenting a well thought out and clear statement on the issue of admission. Many people may still be unhappy at the reasons and results, but the point about needing the BBWAA credential to do the job is understandable. Here’s hoping that the BBWAA continues to be more progressive in their membership and open to the wonderful talent on the internet. Standards may need to be established, but this move (as unhappy as some may be) is a good first step.
Thanks for this, Joe. It really adds to the discussion, and it’s good to see an official position on just what the BBWAA is actually about (even if that’s only in theory).
Rob certainly can’t be doing himself any favors, though, with his passive-aggressive approach on that BTF thread.
So, the reason there has never been a televised awards presentation show is because the BBWAA is avoid the appearance of impropriety? I was not aware of that. Why doesn’t the BBWAA just license such a show out and donate all revenues to charity? Where’s the harm in that?
Thank you Mr. Pozsnanski and Mr. Dutton for a candid talk about both issues. I agree with both of you that Mr. Neyer’s and Mr. Law’s exclusion should be revisited and I’m dissappointed that it wasn’t taken care of at this year’s meeting.
I’d also encourage the BBWAA to revisit the narrow interpretation of their membership criteria surrounding game attendance, or at least make sure it’s applied consistently across new and existing members.
We’ll be watching a bit closer next year.
“What exactly about watching games in person makes someone more qualified than someone watching games on television? Is there some essence I’m missing here?”
Yes. What you’re missing is that the BBWAA’s primary function is to facilitate the credentialing of reporters to cover the game. This is not an issue at all with Rob, since he doesn’t attend most games, and if he had to go, I’m sure he could get a temporary press pass.
The awards are simply an ancillary function of the BBWAA, I’m sure as a result of MLB never having their own official awards that gained much attention.
Had BBWAA never gone into the business of awards, no one would care that Rob wasn’t a member. He doesn’t need the credentialing.
I think Dutton’s idea of the tiered system is a good one. Allow more internet writers in as members who can vote on awards, vote on organization matters, but create a higher membership status for those that cover teams on a daily basis so they can be credentialed.
Oh, and kudos to Joe and Bob Dutton for doing this. If everyone were as reasonable and calm as them, things would have been resolved much better.
I’ve covered the Tigers for AP for 18 seasons, but I’m not eligible for the BBWAA because I’m not a full-time employee. Like Joe, I had an early hint – at one of my first games, I was told to never dare apply to the organization because I’m not qualified.
So Rob and Keith aren’t eligible because they don’t go to enough games. I’m not eligible, even though I go to 60-70 a year. But newspaper columnists who show up on Opening Day and have to ask where their paper’s seats are in the press box? They get in.
It’s a silly organization that baseball has allowed to have way too much power. At least they are admitting women these days.
I think one of Joe’s first points is most apt:
“The confusion, from what I can tell, comes from this notion that these awards are somehow MLB’s “official†awards. They are not…These are just the BBWAA awards. They get more attention because they’ve been around longer and because, obviously, we promote the heck out of them.”
That means the 4 awards are created and governed by the BBWAA and they can do what they want – when they want. As Dutton puts it:
“We can reject or admit anyone we want as long as we don’t violate the law (i.e., make a determination based on race, gender, age, etc.) and as long as we apply the same standard across the board.”
Argument pretty much ends right there.
I guess people or organizations are free to create their own ‘perfect world’ versions of these same awards based on whatever criteria they like and challenge the propriety of the writers opinions. But it sounds to me as if Dutton is genuine and progressive and yes, loyal to the traditions of the union – as well he should be.
Thanks Joe.
Joe, I absolutely love your work.
The BBWAA: I can see no positives to their organization. Catering to the largest entities in the world ((Time (SI), News Corp (FOX), Disney (ESPN), CBS and Yahoo, and claiming it is reaching out to internet writers is an unconvincing spin, to be polite.
Their award voting is useless. The Hall vote is politically and/or emotionally motivated.
Joe, if you get a benefit from being a member, I am glad for that. If your work’s availability or quality is higher because of your membership, I would be very curious as to how.
As for Neyer and Law, I haven’t read their work since they sold out to Disney, so the internet has not made their work more available to me, as it has for your work. I liked their work prior to that point, and still buy the books.
There is a difference about attending games in person and watching them on TV. The reporter at the site of the game is expected to learn things about the team. Who gets along with whom? Who’s injured? Why did the manager pull the starter in the sixth inning? People want to know that stuff.
As for a televised awards show, I think it’s great that baseball DOESN’T have one. All sports awards shows are horribly painful to watch.
Why does the BBWAA engage in these these post-season awards at all?
We’re told that the purpose of the existence of the organization deals with the mechanics of covering baseball teams at major league parks. That makes a great deal of sense to me.
But why have these awards? It has nothing to do with creating criteria for credentials or anything else mentioned in subsections A-D. If the award votes create the appearance of impropriety, why engage in it?
Great interview, Joe. Thanks.
I agree that the real issues here are the power of the BBWAA awards and Hall of Fame voting. Really, the HOF should change their approach immediately, and find an entirely different way of selecting candidates. I’d go for some sort of ad hoc rotating group. Get SABR involved. Yes, I know it would be political and ugly, but it would hopefully be better than what we have today.
I’m re-reading Dodger Dogs to Fenway Franks. It’s still a stellar book and a lot of fun. Does anyone know what happened to Bob Wood though? He was the author and wrote one more book and then vanished. There is nothing on him anywhere on the net. Any info? Thanks.
dear joe,
thank you for yet another well written piece.
of course the commotion is not REALLY about recognition of excellence of writing but rather about HOF voting. the writers who were voted in are not stat geeks and the 2 writers who were voted out are. interesting coincidence, no?
i would certainly like to know if it is true that there are actually members of the BBWAA who are not baseball writers (i read that a political cartoonist for a canadian paper is a member) and if this is true, i would like to know why they were elected in the first place.
Thanks to Dutton for doing the interview, but I read his comments as an after-the-fact rationalization for keeping out two “geeks” who the “Womens Auxilliary” (TM Michael Lewis) didn’t want in the club. Anyone who believes “press box access” is the primary driver for the BBWAA is pretty doggone gulible. If that was the case, and “attending a lot of games” was the real key to membership, cards would be getting revoked all over the place.
How many people actually meet the criteria Dutton sets out: 100?
It’s really a minor issue, in the grand scheme. An increasingly-irrelevant organization, with an ossified membership, thrusting its head into the sand to hide from unstoppable technological and societal advances. Enjoy your lofty perch, guys, and keep running rookies out of the press box.
The world would be a more just place if you published the name of the “one of THESE” BBWAA guy.
Thanks to both Joe and Bob for this excellent interview. This topic clearly resonates with many a baseball fan, particularly those who read lots of internet writers (or just Keith and Rob).
While I still feel the BBWAA made a mistake in it’s exclusions (and it’s reasons for exclusions), I can understand it. I appreciate Mr. Dutton’s effort to address the questions that have arisen from this contentious issue. Thanks also for his reminder that the BBWAA isn’t monolithic and there are varying opinions from the President on down. We as fans sometimes forget that organizations like the BBWAA are made up of members, some of which agree with us, some who don’t.
Hopefullly with intelligent, eloquent leadership like Mr. Dutton, the BBWAA will continue to increase it’s membership to other respected and deserving writers.
For me, the most frustrating thing about being a fan of baseball is the silly divide between “Traditional” & “Saber” stats. I am 31. This means that I grew up playing Strat-O-Matic baseball, as well as wiffle ball in the neighbor’s yard. To me, the “newfangled” stats are perfectly logical. I grew up in the 80s, when the “one true way” to play baseball was beginning to be undermined quite a bit by some underground figures, and I locked in on baseball in the 90s when those folks became more influential, and the sport actually began to change. I don’t feel any nostalgia for “the one true way” to play the game, though that way to play did, in effect, die during my own coming of age. It is so simple to see why bunting, hitting and running excessively, and losing hair over strikeouts are not the most effective approaches to the sport. And it is so simple to see how the teams that are utterly dominant, and look to remain that way for some time, aren’t playing the sport in the “one true way.” I can also see why “traditionalists” hate the way the sport has shifted, as the game is far more intellectualized now than it used to be. Did you ever get stuck between the firstbaseman of the high school team, and the all-state math whiz on the bus…? Many reporters probably feel this way. And the old ones, the Conlins of the world, as well as the self-willed I’m going to rant as though I am one of the old ones, the Plaschkes of the world, hate the shift. Most folks just don’t like math much.
So where is this going? Well, internet writing is extremely math heavy, and pumped full of vitriol. It is often grossly under-edited, and even quality sites, like Joe’s awesome Blog, are rife with typos, and other errors. The math is daunting to folks for whom the simple notion of adding hits and walks together to see how often a fella gets on base, then dividing that # by plate appearances, to come up with a workable number for comparison, is too much to deal with. This alienates folks for whom Batting Average and RBIs are truly effective ways to asses players. And the old school folks see web-writing (which is often times needlessly angry and just as pompous as the Conlins of the world) that is filled to the rim with typos, incomplete sentences, and style shifts, and they think: These Guys can’t write their way out of a paper sack, how could they know anything? At the same time, these folks might well feel a bit of envy that the internet-based work isn’t filtered through as many checkpoints as the newspaper-based writer’s is, and folks can just say what they’re thinking.
In the end, who knows what the “average” BBWAA writer grumbles about as he fitfully tosses and turns in bed at night. But, it is becoming ever apparent that the “average” BBWAA writer isn’t very good at what he does. In fact, without the various editors, and other checkpoints, his writing would likely be just as bad, or even worse, than the “average” blogger. Neither would ever use the correct “there/their/they’re,” for example. The best become overshadowed due to their awful kin. But, I think that web-based writing is seen as being “far superior,” and this too is a myth. The vast majority of it isn’t very good either. The problem is that the BBWAA hasn’t done a very good job of finding the best writing, and making those folks “card-carrying” members. The Yahoo writers are simply bad. Not sure what folks were thinking there… And the list of folks from ESPN isn’t so hot either. Gammons was great at one point, a hero, and his “Diamond Notes” were something I lived for. But, since the stroke, and the ravages of old age, much of his writing isn’t very good or provocative. Amy Nelson is more of a human interest writer, and seems to follow trends (though this may be the fault of ESPN, and their “Who’s Hot” philosophy). But I’ve never seen any probing insight in her work. Anyway, I am rambling…
My question is: when will folks like Tom Tango, Rich Lederer, any of the better writers at BP, and yes, even guys who write for the big boys like Law and Neyer, be acknowledged and allowed to vote on these awards, as well as help to carry out Subsection D: “To foster the most credible qualities of baseball writing and reporting”…? These are folks who can actually come up with ways to compare players from different eras, to determine statistically the merits of a candidate, and who have revolutionized the way we look at the sport. These are the heirs to Bill James. It would seem that making an honest effort to integrate some of these folks would be in the interests of the BBWAA, as these kinds of folks would help to ensure that Subsection D is honored. And, to my mind at least, aside from voting on awards, focusing on fulfilling the challenge presented by Subsection D should be the only concern of the BBWAA, since the previous three Subsections aren’t as pressing, or as important, or even truly honored once folks get into the BBWAA.
I cannot emphasize this enough: as nice as he seems, and as much as I like what he says, Dutton is really missing the point here. In a group named the BaseBall Writers’ Association of America, ensuring the best writing is a live or die proposition. At one point, ensuring access to facilities may have been the most important thing, and it still is of some importance. But, some of the writing, and thinking, and ideas put forth by BBWAA certified members is negative and foolish, poorly thought out and even detrimental to the sport. And the exclusion of folks who could balance out, or even replace, the “worst” members will ensure the health and existence of the BBWAA. Otherwise, the BBWAA is destined for irrelevance. Even with my roots in the early 80s, and “the one true way,” most newspaper writers, and all of the Conlin/Plaschke types are completely irrelevant to me. They might provide good fodder for sites like Deadspin and Fire Joe Morgan, but they’d never be places I’d look for insight. Yet folks who think in this exact manner determine who is the best, both per year, and per career. There are many more fans like me out there than these folks would like to admit. And, with the passage of time, they will be replaced if they refuse to evolve. Continuing to award non-peak performances (how many Gold Gloves to Jeter, for example?) just won’t cut it at some point, and that point is not so distant as it might have once seemed…
jacob,
good points – but GG are NOT awarded by the BBWAA. They are awarded by Rawlings/TSN and the recipients are picked by managers/coaches.
maury brown has a list of over 600 members of the BBWAA on his site and i know for a guaranteed fact that some of those members have NEVER written one word on ML baseball for a newspaper, for example, frank faour. i can’t conceive of one single reason that he would REQUIRE access to a ML pressbox to do his job, and i would really like to hear why this man was made a member of the BBWAA.
Wow, I’m glad to see that D.B. Cooper is posting on the board now. I thought he died when he hit the Cascade Mountains.
Anyhow, I’ve been doing some reading on the campaign trail here in New Hampshire and I’m now convinced the Indians can win the World Series next year. I truly believe that if Tony Bernazard keeps hitting well we’ve got a shot. Ken Schrom was an All-Star last year and I like what we’ve seen thus far of that rookie Swindell. Candiotti is scary with his knuckler, but his results are solid. Not sure about Camacho in the pen though. I think Cory Snyder is a certain future HOFer and Mel Hall has a good shot to end up on the All-Star team along with Joe Carter. Oh, and my favorite Native American is Brook Jacoby. What a third sacker! 1st place baby!
Ah, that’s right. The GG is not one of the big four… Damned head-cold!
Good read, Joe.
Funny thing is, I think one of the more important things brought up here relates to my pal Dave, who commented above. It’s all well and good for us to be up in arms over Rob not having a vote; it’s a valid issue. However, it strikes me as extremely odd that almost every day during the season, virtually every major newspaper in the country carries at least pieces of a story Dave submitted to the wire, whereas virtually no newspaper outside of Detroit carries anything written by full-time Free Press employees. Neither you nor Bob cover the Tigers for the Star, after all (except for the occasional story when the Royals visit Detroit or the Tigers visit Kauffman, of course); the Star gets that stuff from AP.
So, a question for you to pose to Bob: Why AREN’T the regular AP stringers eligible, despite not being full-time employees of a specific paper? With all due respect to Rob, if we accept the BBWAA’s rationale, then folks like Dave have a greater complaint that Rob does.
(Another question which occurred to me, just out of curiosity as it’s not really relevant to anything: who credentials the USA Today guys? Washington chapter, or national office? Paul, you probably know this one, so feel free to field it.)
i just wrote a letter (a nice polite one) to bob dutton asking him why the BBWAA admits people who don’t write at ALL, let alone baseball articles in newspapers, but use the reason that neyer and law shouldn’t be admitted because they don’t need to go to the press box to do their jobs as the reason to refuse admission to them.
as the old aesop’s fable sez, any excuse will serve a tyrant….
Sorry, I’m not the USA Today Paul White. I’m some other schlep with the same name.
re: the existence of credentialed membership for non-(baseball)writers.
As I understand it, most people get membership through their local chapter president (KC Chapter, NY Chapter, etc.). Since these local chapters operate like any other local insiders’ club, guys who are friends with local chapter leadership and express an interest can be shepherded through.
These online people went through the national office and don’t really have buddy-buddy friends there in the same way, since they don’t work for the same papers (or any paper, obviously). Thus they don’t get that preferential treatment.
The question of wire service writers is an extremely valid one, and I think it’s just another indictment of the AP. You’d think Dave (who has covered the Tigers since 1989 or so) would have a better idea of Alan Trammel’s worthiness for the Hall of Fame (Trammel retired in 1996) than some beat writer for the LA Times who maybe never saw him play.
Then again, this is also why we have stats, but that appears to be a virtual non-starter for people like Plaschke anyway.
If nothing else, there’s cause to be excited about all of this. Folks are really talking about this issue, and I think it speaks a lot about where people go for MLB news: the internet. Nobody cares if a guy from a newspaper is or isn’t in, and I’ve never even heard of this much information being bandied about on the subject, until two writers the online generation loves are denied for silly reasons. There’s a great thread of discussion about this over at Baseball Think Factory as well. Information’s out there, and the internet has accomplished more in the way of enhancing the ability of the average person to research than I, and all of my colleagues, ever have teaching composition. Some of the BBWAA folks must be shell-shocked at how quickly information is ciculating, and how easily folks are able to call a person’s bluff. At this point the BBWAA either adapts, or folks begin to have real reasons to stop caring… I know one more thing: If, and when, Tim Raines isn’t elected to the HOF, a lot of people will be right back on top of this issue!
Did anyone see the names who were voted in? It’s guys like Gammons, Stark, Olney, Verducci, Scott Miller . . . they didn’t “vote internet writers in,” they just gave cards back to some long-time members who had abandoned their print affiliations.
Maury Brown has posted the entire list. It’s simply absurd.
Count me as one of those who is surprised to see Rob Neyer writing on this subject. I’m one of the dozens of people who bought Feeding the Monster, and I really have enjoyed Neyer’s work over the years. Passive-aggressive doesn’t just describe Neyer’s writing on this subject, but on the entire sport in general. It seems to be at a level just above comatose. I’m not sure what happened, though I’ve also been a little confused on the direction baseball has been headed the last ten years. I think the sabermetric “movement” has left everybody feeling a little spent. I’d love for a great writer like Neyer to find his groove again. The HOF discussion just isn’t all that compelling to me. And Neyer has pretty much taken a pass on the PED issue. Not to mention the economics of the sport. Oh well.
It’s worth noting that Jason Whitlock is a card-carrying member of the BBWAA. I bet he hasn’t been to 10 games in the last five years.