Jan 14, 2013, 2:00 PM EDT
Eno Sarris of FanGraphs writes up a media conference call which took place after last week’s Hall of Fame announcement. The primary subject: the response of the powers that be to calls for change to the voting process and stuff. I wasn’t drinking a beverage when I read this passage, but if I would have been, I would have done a major spit-take:
Perhaps the most illuminating question was asked and answered quickly. One writer wanted to know what the BBWAA would say to those writers that were voting on suspicions. O’Connell said he wasn’t aware of any writers that were doing so and hadn’t seen anything on the subject.
Given how many writers have explicitly said that they’re not voting for Bagwell and others based on their suspicion alone — Eno cites several — this can only mean that the guy who basically runs the BBWAA doesn’t read much of his membership’s writing. Awkward.
Or, I suppose, it could mean that he knows his membership is doing ridiculous things and chooses to simply pretend that they aren’t so as to maintain the seemingly preferred BBWAA stance which insists that the current setup cannot be improved upon.
- Astros “making a strong effort” for Phillies ace Cole Hamels 17
- Angels acquire outfielders David Murphy and David DeJesus 22
- Jenrry Mejia gets 162-game ban for second failed PED test 29
- Nationals, Phillies agree to Jonathan Papelbon trade 58
- The Hall of Fame just made a MAJOR change to the Hall of Fame voting process 73
- Royals make another big move, get Ben Zobrist from A’s 86
- And That Happened: Monday’s scores and highlights 49
- The Troy Tulowitzki trade might be the strangest deadline deal ever 40
- The MLBPA is considering withholding cooperation with ESPN, Fox over Colin Cowherd’s comments (157)
- The Cubs are in discussions with the Phillies on Cole Hamels (146)
- Major League Baseball rips Colin Cowherd in an official statement (123)
- Settling the Scores: Wednesday’s results (106)