Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Santo calls for veteran vote change...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Santo calls for veteran vote change...

    ESPN

    LAS VEGAS -- Ron Santo, who fell nine votes short of election by the Veterans Committee to the Baseball Hall of Fame, said the process needs to change after the committee failed to elect a new member for the fourth straight time.

    The Veterans Committee, a 64-member panel made up exclusively of all living Hall of Fame players, votes every other year on players from 1943 and after. Santo, who spent 14 of his 15 seasons with the Chicago Cubs and is a longtime broadcaster for the team, led the voting with 39 votes, or 61 percent. But needed to be on 75 percent of the ballots to be voted into the hall.
    ''It's a travesty,'' Santo said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. ''When I saw nobody got in again, I go, 'Whoa, this is wrong.' They can't keep going the way they're going. They've got to put a [different] committee out there.''

    "It'll be eight years now that they've voted and not let anybody in. And personally, I feel like there's a lot of guys that should've been in, not just me," Santo said, according to the Chicago Tribune.
    However, Hall of Fame chairwoman Jane Forbes Clark noted that the goal of the two-stage veterans' process is not to elect someone every time they vote, according to the Sun-Times.
    ''The process was not redesigned with the goal of necessarily electing someone, but to give everyone on the ballot a very fair chance of earning election through a ballot of their peers,'' Clark said, according to the report.
    Santo was an All-Star nine times. He finished his career with 342 home runs, 1,331 RBIs, a .277 lifetime batting average and five Gold Gloves.
    While the post-1943 committee did not elect anyone to the hall, a smaller panel of just 12 members voting on players from 1942 and before did add a member to Cooperstown: New York Yankees and Cleveland Indians second baseman Joe Gordon.
    "They have to change it," Santo said, according to the Tribune. "They're going to still have a Veterans Committee, but it should go back to where it was [in the '90s] when Bill Mazeroski got in. I think they should have a committee of maybe 12 guys that vote, that's the way to do it.

    "Evaluate everyone, but instead of having all the [Hall of Fame] players vote, maybe just a couple players, a couple broadcasters, a couple writers -- a much smaller group. That's how [Joe] Gordon got in."
    Santo said his life would not change because he's not in the Hall of Fame -- but he still believes he belongs in Cooperstown.

    ''Getting in or not getting in is not going to change my life at all. I'm going to be me, and that's it," Santo said, according to the Sun-Times. "But I feel I deserve this. I put up Hall of Fame numbers during the greatest era of baseball for pitchers, and I played with diabetes. Only diabetics can know what I went through. It would have just been satisfying [to be elected].''
    Last edited by MyDogSparty; 12-09-2008, 09:52 AM.
    ?

  • #2
    Obviously NOT putting someone in the HOF via the VC is not a travesty if there are no deserving players but it is a problem is players are deserving but still don't get in.

    Santo has been overlooked year after year despite this board feeling he is one of the deserving players. I wonder, is the vote of the VC starting to speak volumes about what they think of Santo's talent despite what the statistics may show? For all the folks to regurgitate his statistics do you think the VC knows something about Santo's talent that's not accurately shown in the numbers? Do you think the VC is just sick of hearing Santo whine about his omission? Or do you think the VC doesn't look at the important stats and therefore has no clue?

    If the VC is taking this voting seriously I'd like to see a vote by vote justification for keeping Santo and others out of the HOF. Do you think if the VC were held to a higher standard of justifying their vote that they would take it more seriously?
    ?

    Comment


    • #3
      It is time to cease all VC elections. Since they can't get it right why give them more opportunitioes to screw up??
      Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

      Comment


      • #4
        I feel sure that at least a dozen voters, who would be 20% of the electorate, omitted Santo from their votes because they mean to vote No; they doubt that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, or they feel certain he does not. There were more than two dozen nays this year. His own case has become prominent. The pattern of electing no one has become prominent. He was the leader in the 2005 and 2007 votes, and that status was part of the news story both years. If you support the leading incumbent, who also gets the most current attention, you don't vote for anyone else on tactical grounds.

        Further down the ballot, even for second place Jim Kaat who played a bit later and finished second in 2007, there may be a lot of confusion re whom to vote for this year among more than four deserving candidates, both on tactical grounds and on grounds that a recently eligible player deserves to wait. But I feel sure that Ron Santo gets a lot of focused attention on his own merits, not simply anguished comparison with other candidates on the ballot.

        Originally posted by MyDogSparty View Post
        I wonder, is the vote of the VC starting to speak volumes about what they think of Santo's talent despite what the statistics may show? For all the folks to regurgitate his statistics do you think the VC knows something about Santo's talent that's not accurately shown in the numbers?
        [No.]
        Do you think the VC is just sick of hearing Santo whine about his omission?
        Relying on a couple of internet discussion and analysis sites alone, I have not been aware of Santo's "whining" (does that mean references to his diabetes?) nor even aware that he has made any public statement that he knows he should be in.

        I do think it's possible that whinging cost him votes. So I am a little less sure than I was yesterday that most of the honored writers and broadcasters voted for him two years ago. (He lost 18 votes, from 57 to 39, while the number of voters decreased by 18, from 82 to 64.)

        --
        I'm sure it hurts the cause when other critics of the institution focus so much attention on Santo alone. As JFC says again and again, as others echoed two years ago, it isn't the job of the Board to fiddle with the process until a particular person is elected.
        Last edited by Paul Wendt; 12-09-2008, 10:29 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Santo is right, but I'm not sure it's helpful coming from someone with a vested interest in a change.

          Comment


          • #6
            If we do what Santo wants, we risk going back to a Frankie Frisch scenario, which was the absolute nadir of all the iterations of a "veteran's committee". I'm not sure how you avoid that scenario in a 12 man committee, and if you can't prevent it, I wouldn't want to risk it. That said, it's clear the system is messed up, and that Cooperstown has no idea how to fix it.
            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

            Comment


            • #7
              This is a tricky situation. Santo belongs in, but he probably isn't the right person to be telling the HOF that. Someone should do it on his behalf, like Sandberg has already done. Conversely, the purpose of the committee is not to elect someone every year, it is simply to catch the few omissions that have occurred and correct them. There are fewer omissions these days than there used to be, but Santo is one of them. The last thing we want is for the committee to elect undeserving players the way it used to. I don't think it needs to be restructured, just a little more lenient.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Otis Nixon's Bodyguard View Post
                This is a tricky situation. Santo belongs in, but he probably isn't the right person to be telling the HOF that. Someone should do it on his behalf, like Sandberg has already done. Conversely, the purpose of the committee is not to elect someone every year, it is simply to catch the few omissions that have occurred and correct them. There are fewer omissions these days than there used to be, but Santo is one of them. The last thing we want is for the committee to elect undeserving players the way it used to. I don't think it needs to be restructured, just a little more lenient.
                I agree with the idea that Santo isn't helping his case by taking the tack he's taking. Santo also runs the risk of cheapening his own induction. If the VC is changed to where Santo is elected along with some other guys who are questionable, it will reflect badly on Santo. He should have remained silent, and, now that he's spoken up, let's hope he stays silent so that people can forget his statements that, however valid, can't help but appear to be self-serving.

                I would like to propose the following: If a majority of the BBWAA opts to keep a player on the ballot after 15 years, that player is then added to the BBWAA ballot for five (5) more years. Why couldn't Santo be added to the BBWAA ballot and voted on? He's not so ancient that today's writers have no idea of his credentials. Santo deserves a break, but the veterans, for whatever reason, aren't inclined to give it to him. I can't think of a better way to resolve this issue.
                "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                Comment


                • #9
                  What I like of this year vote is see the petit-comitte that run the pre-1943 making an election of someone (Gordon) who was in some moment in the same situation of Santo. They will be probably the real chance for Santo to get in the future once the base year they use to cut the line from the HOF players ballot reach him.
                  The only problem will be that Santo probably won´t be in this world to see that.
                  You have to suffer a revolution to know what are you talking about.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cougar View Post
                    Santo is right, but I'm not sure it's helpful coming from someone with a vested interest in a change.
                    That was going to be my next comment. No kidding. I kind of wish someone from the VC would take up the torch and lead the charge for Santo. It looks and sounds like sour grapes when Santo is the voice for change even though he's right. I hate to hear him tooting his own horn and then throw the diabetic argument out there. In most cases I feel that if you have to campaign to get in then you're not deserving in the first place. He might be an exception to that feeling but I don't think he's helping his cause.

                    I also think he does himself a disservice when he words things like: "It'll be eight years now that they've voted and not let anybody in." There's absolutely nothing wrong with not letting anyone in if nobody is deserving. He should not worry about the fact that "nobody got let in again". The argument should begin with "there are deserving players that didn't get elected again" and then expand from that point on what needs to be done.

                    Every year that he doesn't get in, I am very surprised. The VC has had ample time to digest his candidacy and the fact that he doesn't make it really sends a message as to what the VC thinks of him as a player, at least to me anyway.
                    ?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In my experience, the smaller the voting bloc, the greater the chance of this sort of situation. All it takes is a few self righteous and/or intransigent voters to get past the 25% mark and derail a candidacy. I've seen that happen over and over with the Pro Football Hall. It's a main reason that the much larger pool of voters that decide the regular BBWA ballot is the best choice to get a proper result.
                      "It's like watching a Western. It's slow, so you can watch the chess moves. Nothing seems to happen, but when it goes down, it goes down big." - Howard Bryant

                      3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When talking about how Ron is tooting his own horn or things like that, it is important for folks to realize several things. First, Ronnie loves to talk. Second, he's a broadcaster for THE Chicago Cubs. Thus, his opportunities to be asked about it and to have his opinions heard are more frequent. What I'm saying is that it might look to some like Santo is going out of his own to make his own case, when in reality, it probably has more to do with the increased opportunities he has to have his opinion heard. I'm sure if Dick Allen or Tony Oliva was the radio voice of one of the most popular franchises in the world, you'd probably hear his opinion on the matter more often than others as well.

                        Like someone mentioned earlier, the fact that he is the leading vote-getter the last few years also makes him more notorious and thus the subject of more news stories, etc. He's the poster boy in a sense. So it's not like he brought this all on himself.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah this is obviously someone crying over a situation where they are heavily biased. The system may not be perfect. IMO Santo is not a HOF and even people in his camp aknowledge he is marginal at best. Just because they dont elect someone doesnt mean the system is flawed, in fact, i would be against it if they elected too many people.

                          G Rizzle

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Can a mod correct the title of this thread?? I'm going into seizures looking at that horrific misspelling.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OleMissCub View Post
                              Can a mod correct the title of this thread?? I'm going into seizures looking at that horrific misspelling.
                              Hahaha...I think that's the first time I've had a good laugh since ummm, about 1:00pm Monday. This "election" just makes me (and a lot of others) really angry. I would LOVE to have all of the ballots exposed. Call everyone out...who voted for who? Of course, no way that's going to happen...but it's the only way I could find any satisfaction from yesterday's events.
                              Last edited by BSmile; 12-10-2008, 07:28 AM.
                              Say hello on Twitter @BSmile & Facebook "Baseball by BSmile"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X