Monday, January 11, 2010

Keith Law Chat 1/7/10

I'm not here to talk about the past, but I have to. (Catch the McGwire reference there, that is all you will read me write about that subject.) I failed to post a recap of the Brewers related questions/answers from the Keith Law chat at last Thursday the 7th. Luckily, Kyle from BCB let me know he had done one, thanks Kyle. Only one Brewers question in the chat, so I posted some of the good HOF vote related questions. Enjoy!

James (Kenosha,Wi)

In your Matt Holliday signing article you wrote that the Reds are the biggest challenger to the Cardinals. Is that because you don't see the Brewers getting fair value for Prince or your not impressed with their farm system?

(1:15 PM)

Getting fair value for him would mean a rebuild, so it would take them out of contention for a few years. Their system is not strong, especially not in pitching, which is what the big club needs right now. I don't see how they're going to contend with a superior St. Louis club over the next two years without a miracle or two on the pitching staff (like, say, Manny Parra turning into a #2 starter).

Justin (Cheshre, CT)

When are you eligible to vote for the HOF?

(1:10 PM)

Three years short of forever.

Justin (Normal, IL)

What is worse, the "Dawson played on two bad knees so he should be in the HOF" or the "OBP was not widely known in his era" excuse?

(1:12 PM)

The latter one. You think Dawson/his contemporaries didn't realize that OUTS were bad?

Phil S. (NJ)

What do you think of the baseball writer tactic of noting a lack of awards that *they voted on* to invalidate a player's Hall candidacy?

(1:13 PM)

Agreed - rather circular, isn't it? And do you believe the idiots they let vote on those seasonal awards? One guy put Javy Vazquez SECOND on his NL Cy Young ballot!

Gus (New City, NY)

Hello Keith, I could live with Raines and Alomar not getting in to the HOF this year. But can you explain to me how any of the following players even got a vote? Ellis Burks,Eric Karros,Kevin Appier, Pat Hentgen and David Segui. Besides maybe Burks' rookie year, have the words HOF'er ever been used to describe any of these guys ability to play on the MLB level? To me it's more of a joke than a guy like Rice making the Hall. What do you think? Thanks

(1:22 PM)

It's one of several questions raised by the results. What possible argument is there for a vote for Eric Karros? A friend of the writer? A former source? Because he's a good announcer? There are only bad reasons, and some are, to me, ethical violations. You can't make up rules and you can't use the process to fulfill personal obligations.

Jeff (Ann Arbor)

Do you think Andre Dawson and (especially) Jim Rice would have been elected if there wasn't this ideologic war between old school BBWAA voters and the stat-heads?

(1:25 PM)

I believe that Rice was elected as part of a backlash. Some old-school voters didn't like to hear that the way they thought about players their whole lives was wrong. Some clearly don't like - or won't accept - that their monopoly on the transfer of information to readers is over. And some are just clinging madly to RBIs like they're life rafts in an ocean.


Mike S (CT)

Keith, anytime you have a chance to elect the tenth-best player on a HOF ballot, you have to do it, right?

(1:26 PM)

Absolutely, Bill!

Eric (Brooklyn)

It seems to some writers, it's not enough to be great, but you have to be "famous for being great" as well. How else to explain the difference between Alomar and Larkin's results? Larkin was every bit as good and played a tougher position, but he was underrated at the time, so he continues to be.

(1:41 PM)

And he played in a smaller market. I think that counts far more in HoF voting than it does in seasonal awards. Tim Raines spends the 80s as a Met and he's in the Hall by now.

Mike (SF)

You and many others keep advocating Tim Raines as better then Tony Gwynn. This seems an insult to Tony Gwynn. Do you think you could reference other players occasionally instead?

(1:54 PM)

This has to be a joke, right?

No comments: