I’ve never wanted to be part of a minion….until now. As a fan of this column and a true believer in truth, justice, and the American Way (well, part of the “American Way”), I’m pleased as punch to be a member of this minion.

Look at the body of his work- it’s all spewing vitriol and anger. Hate on Bonds, Hate on Clemens, the Bad guys won, getting John Rocker to spew his moron anger. Hell, he even declared himself eligible for the NBA draft, which got him started at SI.
He carries the anger of a young man who got shot down one too many times at Delaware on mug night at the Stone Balloon. Jeff, it’s ok. It’s ok, let it go. She was too good for you anyway……

(2) Shaughnessey is a caricature of himself, and is clearly out of touch. He plays his tune because people expect it from him.

(3) Jon Heyman might be pompous at times, but at least he provides insights and news that others don’t.

I broke your rules Old Gator, because Pearlmans qualities all stem from pompous righteousness and arrogance.

Craig, do you need me to pick up your dry cleaning or get you some coffee? Thanks!

http://dominionstrategy.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/minion.jpg

And that’s before you get to the point that none of these self-appointed judges seem particularly offended at all the guys who popped greenies until this decade who got into the Hall.

With that being said, we all know that any stormtrooper with accurate aim was probably using PEDs, so he wouldn’t be elected to the Stormtrooper Hall of Fame.

Again sir flawed Logic. Had luke been killed by the stormtrooper Sidious would have just found someone else to take Vaders place. if you remember correctly Vader (as Anakin) killed Dooku at Sidious’ request jsut as Sidious requested that Luke “killed vader and take your fathers place at my side”. if you cant get Star wars right you have no shot at baseball.

(please forgive the spelling)

I was just objecting to Bryant’s criticism of the Hall for not providing guidelines that cover PEDs or any other ponderous issues, when the current guidelines are in fact sufficient to cover it. To wit, if MLB doesn’t consider the player ineligible, he’s eligible if he meets all the other terms of Rule 3. He and Pearlman may not like it, but that’s the “roadmap”.

and I agree with jkcalhoun on his reading of the guidelines. they list all the things that exclude you from consideration, or put another way, put you in the pool for consideration. then, assuming a player is in the pool, voters look at everything from a “plus” viewpoint — the more positives you have, the greater your case. if bad character kept you out of the hall, then it would be in the list of things that exclude you from consideration, so you wouldn’t be in the pool to be considered in the first place. and if bad character kept you out, Ty Cobb would certainly NOT have been the first player in the hall.

Pearlman…well, he can be funny on occasion. But he is good way down the path to total tool-dom.

Shaughnessey…yeah, he gets my vote.

But only because you left out Wally Matthews.

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

E. Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

Everyone else — including McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens — is therefore eligible. And there is no provision here for BBWAA electors to impose additional eligibility requirements. So I’m pretty sure my eligibility summary is accurate, as far as it goes (I skipped the playing time and time elapsed since retirement etc., since none of that is under consideration.)

And here’s the second part:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

So, what I think this says is that it’s appropriate to consider character in an evaluation of whether to extend a vote. But it is not, as above, appropriate to exclude consideration of all other factors on the sole basis of a character evaluation. That would be an eligibility decision, and those are governed entirely by rule 3. A player whose character is in question, either during his era, such as Cobb, or subsequently, such as Anson, can still easily be qualified for inclusion on the basis of his ability and contributions to his teams.

So I look at all that and come away with the conclusion that writers who want to exclude Bonds and Clemens on the fuzzy basis of character haven’t got a leg to stand on. No?