You're being plagiarized again.
Since he didn't request a contingency to file a law suit I assume that he was being facetious. However, it raises good points once again.
First a look at the article, which appears to have been published Dec. 4, 2014:
THE HALL OF FAME AND THE MEANING OF FOREVER
by Rob Neyer
In one sense, though (and paradoxically), the fact that the Hall of Fame has every legal right (I think) to remove members might actually make it less palatable. Because if the financial factor is removed from the equation, then it can just seem mean...
The Hall owes more to itself, and to its supporters who believe in the institution’s stated mission.
Read the whole thing yourself and try to figure it out. Now some of my much earlier thoughts on the subject.
Friday, September 17, 2010
How about limiting the number of pitchers in Hall of Fame to 50?
First dump some of those already in. Start by deducting the stupid relief pitchers. The Babe (Babe Ruth), of course, stays as a batter. Then, once you get down to 50, ...
If you add a pitcher, you subtract a pitcher.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Blyleven v. Ford
Whitey Ford (.690) has the highest winning percentage of any Hall of Fame pitchers since 1901, excluding those primarily relief pitchers, i.e., part time players. Includes Hoyt Wilhelm and Dennis Eckersley.
Bert Blyleven, elected two days ago, would have the sixth worst, #46 of 51: .534...
If there was a fixed number or percentage of players in the Hall of Fame and someone had to be deducted before a newer, better player could be added then maybe the writers would not elect players like Blyleven knowing that he would only be deducted in the near future.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Great White Father
By the way, Hall of Fame pitcher Pud Galvin used according to Wikipedia:
"Galvin was the first baseball player to be widely known for using performance-enhancing drugs. In 1889, over 100 years before the current steroid controversy in Major League Baseball, Galvin openly used the Brown-Séquard elixir, which contained monkey testosterone."
Any call for Galvin to be deducted from the Hall of Fame? No? Because it was not against the rules in 1889? James Francis Galvin was born Christmas day 1856 in St. Louis, MO.
There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around but let's start with MBL commissioner Bud Selig, the Great White Father in this scenario.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Hall of Fame: "integrity, sportsmanship, character".
And if the Hall insists on considering "integrity, sportsmanship, character" then it needs a provision to deduct people, the OJ rule. Suppose that OJ had been a baseball player? After most of the galaxy concluded that he murdered two people, should the BASEBALL Hall of Fame deduct him?
If yes, then what about violations of "integrity, sportsmanship, character" less than double homicide? What about Kirby Puckett and pre induction indiscretions uncovered post induction? Duke Snider who plead guilty to defrauding the IRS 15 years after his 1980 induction? Same thing for 1986 inductee Willie McCovey a year later than Snider. Has anyone called for the deduction of any of them? What, if any, of this stuff is serious enough to consider? Adultery? Drunk driving? What?
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Hall of Fame Hypocrisy: can it get much worse?
How about people already in the Hall? I addressed this a bit in my previous post. Here's more. Should these people be deducted?
George Brett used an illegal bat to hit a home run. What if that home run broke the season record, the third rail of steroid hysteria for the zealots?
In 1951 Giant manager Leo Durocher had his players systematically steal the catcher's signs. This certainly shows poor character. There's also Durocher's world class foul mouth used to intimidate friend and foe alike.
Gaylord Perry: a golden oldie, mentioned multiple times on this blog for admitting in the middle of his career that he violated game rules by messing with the baseball and being elected with little concern about his character flaw.
Finally, I'll repeat the issue of character of those voting. Who vets them? Who investigates their character?
Monday, January 14, 2013
Honor Code: start with living Hall of Fame members.
Honor Code: a player will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
See my two previous posts. From the most recent:
As far as the Hall of Fame mess, it's not too late to impose an honor code, all of it, including the not tolerating part. Retroactively ...
So maybe Nolan Ryan and Whitey Ford will be the first to take the pledge and honor the honor code. Which Hall of Famer will be the first to do it? Some Hall of Famers are vocal in their disdain for the 2013 rejectees. So step up men and show the right stuff of the greatest generation. Take the pledge or tell us why you won't.
If somehow we fans can get the Hall of Fame and/or the Baseball Writers behind this, the pledge could be a condition for remaining in the Hall of Fame. Yes, we're talking deduction, ejection, removal. If they weren't properly vetted for the requisite "sportsmanship, integrity, character", then kick them the heck out! What kind of Hall of Fame are we running here anyway?
Then we can clean up Dodge and deal with the current candidates by making the pledge a condition for election.
At least that's a scenario to break the logjam. Every media person I have heard simply moans about what a predicament it is, what a conundrum. Well, get off your intellectual ass and DO something about it. My idea is better than your no idea. Do SOMETHING!
Monday, January 21, 2013
Hall of Fame: how about an all new election every year?
|Bill Mazeroski statue|
dedicated Sept. 5, 2010
via Wikimedia Commons
(voters) seem reluctant to embrace my idea of deducting members. I guess the writers don't want to offend anyone, especially the living. Hey, Bill Mazeroski, you're out! This way Maz can feel honored to have been in the Hall at all, just not forever.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Hall of Fame: how about a deduction for every induction? Stop diluting by adding to the bottom.
Maybe that would make both voting baseball writers and non-voting fans think twice about constantly expanding the list of "immortals" downward...
... players are not made immortal but ... they receive what for many if not most of them will be a temporary recognition: that at one time they were regarded as one of the top (here's where you fill in the blank) players of all time ... or maybe just for their era.
It probably makes sense for a fixed number to be established that can naturally increase over time. Let's say the top one percent of the 18,000 or so players. That's 180, a nice manageable number.
Let's say that it is composed of 100 every day players and 80 pitchers.
So for all the knuckleheads who want to induct Tim Raines, Jack Morris, Mike Mussina, blah, blah, blah ... they would have to deduct a like player to make room...
We could apply the same to the J.G. Taylor Spink Award. You know, the one in which the writers since 1962 designate each other a de jure Hall of Famer. You've seen them introduced on TV as Hall of Famer ... What if we freeze their number at 50 and next year when they vote they would also have to vote for someone to be removed? ...
For the Hall of Fame player voting a deduction would require 75% of the vote, same as for induction. Let's say some writers want to replace Catfish Hunter with Mussina. They would need to convince the other writers not only that Mussina was worthy but also that he was better than Hunter.
This is a good test for any system. Who is he better than? Too often the writers are adding to the bottom. This guy is almost as good as another guy who barely has the credentials. To be elected a player should always be better than some like player already in, no matter whether an actual deduction occurs. Stop diluting by adding to the bottom.
Since the writers get to judge the players it seems only fair that the players judge the writers. How about the players vote for the J.G. Taylor Spink Award?
Or maybe we should have likes vote for likes. The writers can continue to vote for each other and the players vote for other players.