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.
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (103)
- Is Barry Bonds really getting a “fair hearing?” (90)
- Manny Machado calls $519K salary for 2014 “disappointing” (89)
- Ryan Braun calls himself an “artist,” doesn’t care what fans on the road will shout at him (82)
- Giants players love having Barry Bonds at spring training (82)