Today we reveal the Baseball Prospectus staff choices for player enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. Each staff member's ballots may be found later in the article. Here, we present a wisdom-of-the-crowds summary of the results.
A complete list of this year's Hall of Fame candidates can be found here. BP's Hall of Fame voting mirrored the official BBWAA voting: Players had to receive 75 percent of the total votes cast in order to gain induction, and voters were allowed to select no more than 10 candidates per ballot. For this exercise, 33 ballots were cast by the BP team, so a player would have needed to gain 25 votes for induction. Next to each of the BP team's selections we've listed the total number of ballots the player appeared on, as well as the percentage of the vote he garnered.
BP Staff Voting Cumulative Results
Barry Bonds, 31, 93.9%
Roger Clemens, 31, 93.9%
Jeff Bagwell, 30, 90.9%
Craig Biggio, 27, 81.8%
Mike Piazza, 28, 84.8%
Tim Raines, 27, 81.8%
Alan Trammell, 27, 81.8%
—
Curt Schilling, 24, 72.7%
Edgar Martinez, 22, 66.7%
Mark McGwire, 14, 42.4%
Rafael Palmeiro, 9, 27.3%
Larry Walker, 9, 27.3%
Sammy Sosa, 7, 21.2%
Kenny Lofton, 6, 18.2%
Fred McGriff, 3, 9.1%
Sandy Alomar Jr., 1, 3%
Don Mattingly, 1, 3%
Dale Murphy, 1, 3%
- Stephani Bee
- Hudson Belinsky
- Jonah Birenbaum
- Russell A. Carleton
- Derek Carty
- Jason Collette
- Jeff Euston
- Dan Evans
- Nick Faleris
- Mike Ferrin
- Larry Granillo
- Joe Hamrahi
- Jay Jaffe
- Matthew Kory
- Zachary Levine
- Ben Lindbergh
- Chris Mellen
- Ian Miller
- Sam Miller
- Ben Murphy
- Jason Parks
- Harry Pavlidis
- John Perrotto
- Daniel Rathman
- Josh Shepardson
- Paul Singman
- Adam Sobsey
- Paul Sporer
- Doug Thorburn
- Dan Turkenkopf
- Jason Wojciechowski
- Colin Wyers
- Geoff Young
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Sandy Alomar Jr.
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Don Mattingly
- Mike Piazza
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Larry Walker
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Fred McGriff
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Craig Biggio
- Edgar Martinez
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Fred McGriff
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Dale Murphy
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Fred McGriff
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Kenny Lofton
- Edgar Martinez
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Sammy Sosa
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Kenny Lofton
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Curt Schilling
- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
For more about John's Hall of Fame ballot and the reasoning for his selections, check out last week's edition of On the Beat.
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Kenny Lofton
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Kenny Lofton
- Edgar Martinez
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mike Piazza
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Edgar Martinez
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Alan Trammell
- Craig Biggio
- Kenny Lofton
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Mike Piazza
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Kenny Lofton
- Edgar Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Alan Trammell
- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Mike Piazza
- Tim Raines
- Curt Schilling
- Alan Trammell
- Larry Walker
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
How do you leave off Bonds and Clemons but still vote for McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro?
Bottom line though, a vast majority of the BBWAA voters are frigging idiots.
As it turns out, it didn't really matter -- Lofton gets his 5% (I chose to vote as if that matters) with or without me and I was not one of the people who kept Schilling one vote short.
In this case, that means putting on players who I thought were at risk of falling under 5% rather than players who I judged (correctly, as it turns out) were likely to be near-unanimous choices.
Anyone in the Hall who ie revealed as a user should be immediately thrown out.
The initial statement was intentionally too dogmatic but was meant to start debate - which it is doing :-)
"sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
I call bull.
If someone can show me scientific data that shows that steroids DEFINITELY improve practical baseball performance AND amphetamines DEFINITELY don't (or it's "marginal" compared to steroids ... which is ludicrous), that's the only way your point makes any sense at all -- and then it's still a bad one. Otherwise, it's about the rules, and whether people care about rule-breaking.
And please. The 'amphetamines don't matter because "everyone" was doing it' defense applies just the same to steroids, if you listen to the people who say "everyone" was on steroids in the 90s-00s.
So, no, it's not relevant in the slightest.
Pot-kettle-etc.
You're just messing with people, right? It seems obvious that now you're just trying to be confrontational rather than make a coherent argument.
Epo has a huge impact for example.
So their are pros and cons - it's safe to say that amphetamine use didn't drastically affect performance.
We all know what steroids did to baseball in the 'roid era.
We can guess, we can assume, we can imagine ... but we can't know. Saying we can is sheer arrogance.
As to Lance Armstrong, I think the analogy is pretty apt. He cheated, and he knew he cheated (which is why he did everything to hide it), as do the baseball cheaters. There's a reason the Bondses and Clemenses are denying; they know it was wrong. Im not advocating keeping out suspected cheaters (e.g. Piazza and Bagwell), but confirmed cheaters? To not accept the thinking that they should be kept out of the Hall?
Maybe baseball needs to send a lesson to future generations by making an example of this generation, for the long time health if the game. Lets say we do not accept doping and we do not condone it.
Like Mariano, Edgar is the greatest at his role in the history of the game. Perhaps an argument can be made for David Ortiz as comparable, but I think Edgar has the edge. No need to review his stats. Whether seen as raw data or in comparison to his peers, his offense was elite.
There are players in the HOF based primarily on their defense. There are many players in based almost exclusively on their offense, in some cases where their contributions are actually diminished because of poor defense and/or base running. It makes no sense to penalize a player who provides little to no defensive value when we honor those with negative value. I do think the offensive ceiling for a DH to qualify has to be higher than that of a position player, but Edgar crashes through that ceiling.
Imagine picking a starting lineup for the greatest team of all time, only using players who filled the role in real life.
C: Bench (Berra?)
1B: Gehrig (Pujols?)
2B: Morgan (Hornsby? Collins?)
3B: Schmidt
SS: Wagner
LF: Williams (Bonds?)
CF: Mays
RF: Ruth
DH: Martinez
RHSP: Johnson (Clemens? Seaver? Maddux? Pedro?)
LHSP: Grove (Johnson?)
CL: Rivera
See the point? Of the 12 players, he is one of just 6 about whom there could be no debate.
I don't think he was as great a player as any of those because either they were dramatically better hitters (Ruth) or they added significant defensive value to their game (Schmidt). And I also do not like to compare players to less qualified HOFers like Rice or Hafey.
But I think most people accept that McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew and Reggie Jackson definitely belong in the HOF, and none were good defensively. Compare Edgar's offensive numbers to theirs and I think it clear he fits in very neatly with them.
Edgar Martinez spending the overwhelming majority of his career as a DH is in no way a positive.
As a 1B: .337/.453/.625
As a DH: .275/.394/.505
And he had 4,334 PAs as a 1B and 5,698 as a DH, so it's not a question of small sample size at 1 position. Of course, the bigger factor is that much of his time at DH came on the downside of his aging curve, so one must take that into account.
By allowing a ped user in you are effectively condoning it in that youngsters eyes.
I fall on the side of... if you want to keep the "alleged" steroid users out, that's fine, go back and retroactively remove the "alleged" greenie users and the "alleged" spitball throwers nad the guys who "allegedly" corked their bats and the guys who violate the definition of the character clause. Otherwise, vote the best players from each era into the HoF unless there is actual proof they violated current, existing and know rules.
Some dude saying "I stuck a needle in some guys butt and here's the 15 year old needle" isn't proof. Arrest for possesion or a positive test or being caught in the act (spitballs, corked bat, etc) is proof. And yes, as a Cubs fan who loved Sammy at the time, the corked bat incident would weigh heavily on my vote, since he was actually caught using it.
You can't get cancer from using a corked bat which for me is more 'angle-shooting'.
We have to resist the escalation towards kids damaging their health in order to make it in professional sports.
Also what about all the clean ballplayers who never made it to the 'sgow' because their peers were juicing up?
Steroid use is damaging to healt and brings no benefits - that's incontestable.
If you find out your child is using HGH in high school and their answer when questioned is "WELL BARRY BONDS IS IN THE HALL OF FAME!!!!", then you failed as a parent and you've got much bigger problems than the Baseball HOF.
Do i really have to defend the principle of role models?
Miguel Cabrera has had issues with domestic violence, drunk driving, threatening people at a diner with a gun, confrontations with police, etc. He's been arrested multiple times, and if he wasn't Miguel Cabrera he'd probably be in jail. Should he be excluded from future consideration? He's not exactly a good role model for children. Where do you draw the line?
And you're dodging the most important point which is the negative impacts on health of using steroids.
Interesting you bring up HGH becuase numerous studies link this to cancer.
Additionally, I'd like to see your proof that steroids aid performance and do so appreciably more than amphetamines (as admitted amphetamine users are already inducted). Otherwise, it's just conjecture based on small samples. There are misses than hits when it comes to users.
The world is flat you know - prove me it isn't or is the sample size of 1 too small.
Paul Sporer
BP staff
(24912)
I simply asked for some evidence and proof of the adverse health effects you seem so certain of. Legitimate evidence of them, of course.
Shall we move on to "Do cigarettes cause cancer?"
If you can find something proving the positive effects of steroids on baseball that's as concrete as cigarettes and cancer, then feel free. Otherwise, save that kind of trash, you're only hurting yourself with it.
Thanks, that is all we need to know.
I agree that not all steroids help all people equally. But ignoring all other evidence in specific cases with overwhelming visual evidence is not the proper reaction.
"Possible" and "Abuse" being the very important words. Taking a few cycles of anabolic steroids doesn't give you a set of 36Cs and a brain tumor instantly.
If you thing about it all that matters to that young ballplayer is the perception that it improves performance (whether ot not it does)will make him more likely to do it - he won't be reading up on scientific studies - he'll just think it helped bonds hit 73 hr's and they still let him in the HOF on his first ballot.
It's not that difficult surely, Jesus wept!
Do you really mean that?
Even more don't care about the Hall of Fame.
Even more still cheat on their spelling tests.
FTFY!
What about them?
"It's ok even if you get caught, because people will just remember all those moon shot home runs you hit, or your ability to throw hard for longer completely against the previously accepted limits of the human body...that's the history of game, it was great and well, you know,, just do it!......"
Those men already have the fame and the accolades and the money and all the trappings of success. If that's how you choose to view the accomplishments of those men, that's up to you (I'd argue it's an incomplete accounting). But that message is being sent by reality, not us. We're just recording it for posterity.
Also for all that wealth, remember it can be lost as well and you can end up in prison - see Lance Armstrong.
If an athlete shows genuine contritution and plays an active part in discoutraging the future use of ped's - well that may have a bearing...
Are you saying in a roundabout way the steroids had no positive impact on performance?
Imagine using that logic in all aspects of life...
And Dan must have been taking this as a joke. Even though he can't point to any evidence which states steroids improve performance, he still left out assumed user Jeff Bagwell.
I guess I'm glad that he isn't more than a monthly contributor to this site.
I'm guessing there haven't been any regarding squaring up a round ball with a round bat.
And you're right, MAYBE Sanchez would have been worse. But maybe he would have been better. Until there is actual research to suggest that steroids would improve a players baseball ability, you cannot conclude anything. It would be like confirming global warming because "I wore shorts for an extra day or two last summer."
Not voting for "sure-fire Hall-of-Famers" (however you want to define that) because you don't want them to be unanimous is a travesty.
Not voting for s-fHOFers to send a message to the public about how they should feel about an era is ridiculous.
Not voting for s-fHOFers because at this point you are still not completely comfortable with how you view the circumstances of their careers (which is how Dan's ballot reads to me), yeah I can live with that.
It's considerably out of date but still a worthwhile read.
I don't think somebody who succeeded through cheating alone should be enshrined as a baseball "great." But a lot of guys enhanced their indisputable skills in various unethical ways, whether by corking their bats, doctoring the ball, doping, etc. You can't keep them all out.
My problem with Bonds has always been his post-1999 performance. Until then, he was a legitimate Hall of Famer displaying a normal aging curve. Then, for the next eight years, he defied the aging curve that subdued all of his great predecessors. Not Mays, not Mantle, not Ruth, not Aaron, not Musial, not even Williams had the kick that Bonds had after the age of 35. And that at the very time there is strong evidence that he began using PEDs. I just find it hard to believe his unique late-career accomplishments were entirely natural and within the rules. (Same applies to Clemens.)
So based on strong but circumstantial evidence, I'd recognize that guys like Bonds and Clemens earned entrance to the Hall on their natural abilities and professional skill, but I wouldn't reward or revere them for cheating, or accept their accomplishments as 100% legitimate. They wouldn't be on my ballot the first year (or the first 10). Let them wait awhile.
2014 will be real interesting too with a lot of good players who were not attached to PEDs (Thomas, Maddux, Glavine) etc. up for election with a lot of holdovers gumming up the ballot.
Too many intelligent people.
Sort of like voting man as father of year for his good deeds when he cheated on his wife.
However, there is one important aspect to this year's slate of candidates that provides a serious benefit to society: it provides a wonderful example of the misuse of evidence based analysis, i.e., that which we deem the difference between science and the non-sciences. The arguments both for, but usually in opposition to those who are suspected of using "performance enhancing drugs" (the quotes are important) provide ample examples of HNTDS - how NOT to do science. Most examples of HNTDS are in the form of single-data point correlation equals cause, and "it is obvious", but some of the better ones are effect-is-entirely-due-to-one-source.
In the field of science education, we have often spent most of our time educating students on techniques, such as how to pipette, draw force diagrams, etc., and little time on helping them understand what science is and how to conduct it properly. One reason is that easy to access examples are not plentiful. But this year, and particularly this year, we have rich source of examples of where people with absolutely no understanding of biomechanics, physiology and/or pharmacology are spouting on about both one time legal and illegal synthetic and natural fluids which they claim are the source or not the source for a few events that are overly celebrated.
So thank you to this year's candidates to the HoF and those who have written about it. You have made an important contribution to the field of education and science - two areas we should be discussing and celebrating. (Of course while we entertain ourselves with a for-profit profession.)
Barry bonds should be feted as a great athlete by being voted into the HOF.
There are two boundaries: "PED's don't matter for HoF voting" on one side, and "any whiff of PED's = no HoF" on the other. In between those boundaries is a murky grey area of vague options, and my guess is that many of us lie on different parts of that spectrum. Personally, I applied a discount to the numbers of confirmed users, but I also felt that the best power hitters of the generation still deserved enshrinement.
You can disagree with the opinion, but it is a misinterpretation of the results to presume that we are all like-minded individuals forming a united front.
It's like saying that a group of Republicans getting together and discussing their Republican ideas is groupthink. Same for Democrats. Or people that like the same music. If the Pokemon club at my college happens to agree upon a particular strategy, does it make that groupthink?
BP has, and probably generally will be, a group of like-minded individuals that want to put out baseball content based on what they believe. To criticize a group for having similar ideas is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, PEDs absolutely destroyed baseball journalism. Thank God for internet baseball analysis - filling the void left by grandstanding baseball journalists since 1997.
And please spare me all the apologistic notes cited so often; if it wasn't cheating, people wouldn't hide it. And for those that say that there's no proof against Clemens because he wasn't found guilty in court....you must think that Lance Armstrong is innocent as well because he never failed a test.
One more point, because Armstrong has been brought up above. Armstrong was one of the best cyclists in the world before he started cheating -- analogous to Bonds and Clemens. But now he is disgraced -- and deservedly so. I can only be left to conclude that 90+ percent of the staffers here (and a similar number of readers) are convinced that Armstrong belongs in the cycling equivalent of the HOF. I, for one, am glad that the general public disagrees with that.
What was it?
4 legs good, 2 legs bad.
4 legs good, 2 legs bad....
I do think there's some overminusing of comments going on, but consider how few minuses it takes to hide something.
Thank you
This has nothing to do with what the bar is for hiding a comment, and it's not a small group of people. This may end up being both the most commented and minused thread in BP's august history. And what is all the vitriol directed at? The suggestion that confirmed cheaters should be banned from the HOF.
I agree that some of Andrews's comments may be needlessly antagonistic, but I must say that I identify with his general approach much more than the "since steroids didn't help everybody, I refuse to acknowledge that steroids helped some people disproportionately" line toed by too many above.
I didn’t mean to imply that an actual overt movement to opine and express in a collective fashion took place. Rather, when members of any organization/club/ company are involved in a common pursuit on an ongoing basis, there’s a real human tendency to solidify around points of view – not absolutely, but certainly around core thoughts or principles. Otherwise, the people wouldn’t be a true part of that internal community. So, did the BP writers “conspire†to present a united front on their votes? Certainly not. But, they did fall into a pattern driven by one of their core unifying characteristics – sabermetric analysis. By this I mean, a strong preference (orthodoxy?) for judgement based on the statistical over the instinctual/gut/emotional.
As a fan who values both sides of the coin – and frankly see extremely valid arguments on both sides of the black-and-white debate over this year’s HOF/PED debacle – I value exercising judgment that honors both hemispheres of thought. (I do have the best all-time win-loss record in the eight-year old fantasy league that I participate in, so I know something, right? ;-)
I guess what I’m trying to say is, with 33 ballots cast, I would have expected a higher percentage of doubters when it came to Bonds and Clemens specifically. 90+% support levels shows a lower level of diversity of thought than I would expect from a group of lovers of the game.
I am not out to prove I am right, I am merely attempting to more clearly express myself.
PS – this whole string of comments and debate points has been very cool. Perfect example of why I love BP!
1. Steroids have no effect upon perfromance.
2. The effect of steroids can't be quantified.
3. Even if the effect of steroids could be quantified on an individual basis, there is no way to quantify the effect across MLB.
4. Even if we could quantify the effect across MLB, the numbers of users is so small that its not worth worrying about.
5. Even if the numbers of users was large enough to make a difference, both pitchers and hitters were users, so the effect is a wash to the game.
6. Even if steroids did have an effect on the game, isn't it better for the game if we just turn the page and move on?
7. Who Cares?
The next one is going to be that there were so many people useing PEDS that we can't sort it out.
So we've gone from a few isolated cases to everyone was doing it.
1. Steriods are the only effect upon performance.
2. The effect of steriods can be quantified.... by me. (just don't ask to see the math)
3. Player X has big muscles, so he used steroids.
4. Player Y has a acne, so he used steroids.
5. Player Z had an outlier year, so he used steriods.
6. Player Q never tested positive, was never implicated in any report, was never brought before a jury or panel of any kind. His numbers are outstanding. But Mr. Writer knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who thinks he might've juiced. And that's good enough for me.
Paul Sporer â€@sporer
What is the record for most negative votes in a @baseballpro discussion thread, @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi? I think "andrews" is Bondsing it.
Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite
1
Retweet 1
Favorite 8:22 AM - 9 Jan 13 · Details
Tweet text Reply to @sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi
@
Reply to @sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi
Image will appear as a link Add Photo Add location 85Tweet
7h Joe Hamrahi â€@JHamrahi
@sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh Ha! I'm avoiding the comments for a while
Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite
7h Bryan â€@bgrosnick
@sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi If he's "Bondsing" then I have to assume he's using some sort of performance-enhancing drug.
Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite 7h Paul Sporer â€@sporer
@bgrosnick @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??????
Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite
7h Joe Hamrahi â€@JHamrahi
@sporer I know! I hope my son hasn't read the article yet! I may have to bring him to therapy!
Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite
7h Paul Sporer â€@sporer
@JHamrahi LOL. You have a long road ahead. Bc it's not you and your wife raising him, it's the decisions of baseball players.
google Gerald Ratner
You should be ashamed - or more discret ;-)
I'm not even joking. Bill my credit card twice B-pro, you have my permission. Just drive him away.
I don't mind being insulted by idiots like you, it's being insulted by paid BP staffers that i found annoying.
It's been a very long day, but if you want to discuss this with me further, you can always email me at jhamrahi at baseballprospectus.com. I'll be happy to continue the dialogue.
A) One person is allowed to hijack an article's comments with 60+ repetitive replies.
B) That person is mocked publicly by BP staff.
BP should be asking which of these two things is the bigger problem.
(Most) brick-and-mortar stores do not follow "The customer is always right!" when one customer is yelling and making unreasonable demands, even if it is a paying customer. I don't know why businesses whose product is "articles and discussion" would not follow that precedent.
Besides, getting minused constantly adds to the frustration and prompts more posting. andrews really hasn't said anything "worse" than anyone else has said.
If you are suggesting he gets muted or his subscription gets cancelled, I think that sets a dangerous precedent.
That being said, both things you listed are problems and both appear to be resolved as of now... perhaps everyone even learned a bit from it.
I was challenged by numerous members and staff and asked to both defend my statements and to offer proof to support them - partly why i posted so often.
Feelings were running high and I'll admit I was one of several who got a bit carried away - lessons have been learnt.
However, it is more than worrying if the answer to anyone holding a dissenting view is to label them as "unreasonable" and to propose they are silenced.
That being said, don't confuse people saying "slow down!" with people disagreeing with your view. You've started up a lot of posts within this thread and you haven't always replied in line. It is hard to follow what you are saying since one thought will be in one thread, then continued in another thread. If anything, people aren't objecting to your views as much as they are objecting with the way you've gone about it. So, feel free to dissent, but try to be more concise about it.
In terms if my length of service, check my membership number, I've been here a long long time...... peace.
And yeah, I know about the membership numbers :)
Are you suggesting there should be an upper limit on the number of posts that are allowed? And if so, how low would you set the bar?
I'd much rather we let this lie and move on.