Weren't all of these writers previously employed by newspapers?

It is absolutely ridiculous that Rob Neyer would be turned down. Some of the the other writers are solid, but Neyer is easily the best of the bunch.

Allowing hacks like Heyman and Miller in while leaving out a guy like Neyer shows that the BBWAA really don't get it. They are still frightened by "radicals" like Neyer and a number of great writers outside of the big 5 sites.

To me, this really doesn't signal progress. Maybe it leaves the door open for actual progress in the future, but only allowing this small number of writers into the fraternity does nothing. BBWAA needs to make real changes in the near future if they want to stop being the baseball equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.

BTW, who was the other writer that had his/her nomination turned down?

Nevermind, I found out who it was. It was Keith Law.

Neyer and Law, by far the two best writers/analysts of the 18, are the only ones left out. What a joke.

Neyer and Law are also the only two that were not previous members. It was a backdoor way to grandfather people in. Pure joke.

There's a part of me that wants to get indignant about the Times and Plaschke and Simers, but I don't believe either of them are BBWAA members, fortunately.

They may be members, but the paper does not allow them to vote for any awards or for the Hall of Fame.

That's hilarious. Transparent as hell. The two guys who actually know 2+2=4 are left off. Probably because every year, when the BBWAA does something(s) stupid, Rob and Keith shred their decision.

If I remember correctly, there were three ESPN writers who didn't pick Jimmy Rollins or Matt Holliday as their MVP and went with David Wright instead -- Keith Law, Rob Neyer, and Jonah Keri. This is too bad. Hopefully there will be a fuller explanation at some point.

Overall, great to see as the door has been opened.

Neyer and Law were left out? Why am I not surprised.

The crew from ESPN really should decline the invitation to rejoin the BBWAA, and the others should as well. Gammons et al don't need to be confrontational, just make it clear that they value what Neyer and Law bring to the profession and feel they owe it to their co-workers not to insult their contributions.

In 1969, Warren Buffett was about to join the Omaha Club, but turned down the invitation when he found out they did not take Jewish members. "They have their own club," he was told, "and they don't have any gentiles." So Buffett joined Omaha's Highland Country Club, becoming its first non-Jewish member--and setting an example for desegregation. As I've heard the story, the Omaha Club immediately began admitting Jews.

I love the quote at the beginning, Rich.

It is important to remind young people that almost a century ago writers as great as Ring Lardner wrote on baseball for newspapers. Times change, and the great writers of today rarely, if ever, write for papers. Institutions move very, very slowly to recognize change, and the BBWAA is a classic example.

Great story, Brett and a perfectly apt comparison. Such a gesture by Gammons and a few others would have a resounding impact.

And since he would never say it himself, let me just say that Rich should absolutely merit consideration for a vote as well. His body of work over the last few years stands right up there with any writer on the web.

Thanks for the kind words, here and elsewhere. My ESPN colleagues have been supportive, which doesn't surprise me because they're all nice guys. As for my prospective membership, I never expected to become a member anyway. I'm perfectly okay with that, but there should be a place for Keith Law, Joe Sheehan, Steven Goldman, and anybody else who is so obviously qualified to join this proud organization.

Sully, I was just about to ask where Rich's name was on the list. Are there any other notable baseball writers who weren't nominated (even if they're not working for ESPN, SI, etc.)?

BBWAA membership is for writers who cover games at the stadiums. A BBWAA credential gets us access to the press box, the clubhouse, etc. Most of what we do is based on keeping that access and giving out that credential to writers who need it.

I’ve been covering baseball in New York since 1999 and I can never remember seeing Rob at a game. For him, BBWAA membership would be largely useless I suspect.

Via the local chapters, writers who don’t actually cover games are excluded from time to time. Just because somebody wants a card doesn't mean they qualify for one.

While it's amusing that some people think it's a conspiracy, that really had nothing to do with it. ESPN is getting seven memberships. That's probably more than any media outlet in the country other than the NYC papers.

We specifically said that Rob (or anybody else for that matter) would be considered again if there was some compelling reason.

The BBWAA is around to keep the rights of working beat writers for the most part. It's not a social club. I read Rob and Keith and plenty of other people on line. But they're not working beat writers.

Hope that clears it up.

BBWAA membership is for writers who cover games at the stadiums. A BBWAA credential gets us access to the press box, the clubhouse, etc. Most of what we do is based on keeping that access and giving out that credential to writers who need it.

Whatever the original intent of the BBWAA, its most critical function now is its role in voting for both awards recipients and Hall of Fame inductees. From an administrative standpoint, it would not be labor-intensive to separate credentialed BBWAA writers from those who merely are widely read enough and obviously follow the game closely enough to merit a vote for post-season awards and HOF inductees.

I’ve been covering baseball in New York since 1999 and I can never remember seeing Rob at a game. For him, BBWAA membership would be largely useless I suspect.

Rob lives in Portland, Oregon. Should he move so that his voice can be heard for awards and HOF voting?

Via the local chapters, writers who don’t actually cover games are excluded from time to time. Just because somebody wants a card doesn't mean they qualify for one.

I think we can all agree that only influential writers with a baseline track record of quality output would qualify.

While it's amusing that some people think it's a conspiracy, that really had nothing to do with it. ESPN is getting seven memberships. That's probably more than any media outlet in the country other than the NYC papers.

We specifically said that Rob (or anybody else for that matter) would be considered again if there was some compelling reason.

The BBWAA is around to keep the rights of working beat writers for the most part. It's not a social club. I read Rob and Keith and plenty of other people on line. But they're not working beat writers.

Hope that clears it up.

Understood. As mentioned above, there are two simple steps that address all of this.

1) You have "credentialed" and "non=credentialed" members.

2) You come up with criteria for internet writers to qualify so that members can vote for new members based on a clear set of standards.

Re: picking David Wright over Rollins and Holliday, I can't speak for Keith or Rob, but I picked Wright because he was the best player in the National League this season. It's not his fault that Carlos Delgado tanked, that the pitching staff sprung leaks, etc. In fact, Wright was a monster in September especially, thus satisfying the provision of producing when his team needed him most.

As far as BBWAA membership goes, of course Keith and Rob would be highly deserving. But in some ways it's fitting that things turned out the way they did, especially in Rob's case. He started off as the lone outsider voice covering baseball on a daily basis on the Web and rebutting majority views. More than a decade later, even though he writes for the WWL, he's still much more of an outsider than an Insider. To me, that's a good thing. Keep on keeping on, Rob.

What a shame.

Here's a thought:

Essentially, Neyer is a Bill James guy, and Law is a Baseball Prospectus guy. They both come from a tradition that has regularly delivered incisive, biting, funny critiques of the HOF/BBWAA and its practices.

That may have played some role in this as well.

Who is Amy Nelson? I can't remember ever reading anything by her.

Cross-posting from Baseball Primer here...and I trust Bob don't mind (Hi, Conlin!)

I emailed BBWAA president Bob Dutton about the situation...and here is his response.

[i]One of the requirements for membership in the BBWAA is the need to be at Major League ballparks. Several members questioned whether Rob and Keith meet that requirement.

Some board members informally contacted folks at ESPN with this question and were told neither Rob nor Keith regularly attend big-league games and do not need to do so in order to do their jobs.

I can guarantee you that if my supervisors reported that to the BBWAA about me, I wouldn't have a card.

Also, this is how the system works. Newspapers designate candidates for membership. Reporters don't apply on their own. We followed the same basic procedure in adding internet reporters.

One difference: Candidates have always been reviewed each year by a chapter chairman, but since the internet sites were applying through the national office, they were reviewed by the national board of directors.

I've been in contact with Keith and Rob since the vote. Keith said he does attend games on a regular basis and expects to increase his attendance in the coming year.

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt Keith, I hope ESPN confirms this and resubmits his name next year for consideration. If so, I would expect him to be approved.

I haven't heard back from Rob at this point, but if the view on his need was similarly misrepresented, I hope ESPN also resubmits him as a candidate.

Bob Dutton
BBWAA president[/i]

It's going nothing to do with where anybody lives. It's got to do with whether you cover games. Rob doesn't cover games from what I know.

As for anybody being excluded because they're coming fom a Jamesian/BP viewpoint, it's not remotely true. I was at the meeting. It was purely based on our bylaws, not animus. We rip each other all the time. I ripped the Detroit guys who didn't vote for A-Rod.

There are no credentialed/non-credentialed members. We're an organization of writers who cover the sport by attending games. Being in the BBWAA makes that easier. That our awards are well-recognized and that the HoF chooses us to elect members is incidental to our mission. I'd say 85 percent of what we do is dealing with MLB over access and player availability.

Amy Nelson attends games frequently and writes features for ESPN.com. She's a very talented writer.

I pretty much agree with what Sully said above, regarding how the role of the BBWAA has evolved over the years. It pays to be flexible and willing to adjust to change.

If the BBWAA members in charge of the organization's standards honestly think that it's necessary to be regularly in attendance at games in order to properly evaluate baseball, they are sadly out of touch. I would love to have one of them justify how a writer like Neyer essentially "does not belong" because he doesn't attend enough games, but how the handful of current members who won't give Hall of Fame votes to Rickey Henderson and Roger Clemens (and you know there will be some) deserve their spots. Give me a break...

Having read through this thread, and the one at BTF, the BBWAA stance makes sense. The organization does not exist to vote on the HOF (though that is what everyone sees). They exist to allow people access at ballparks.

It would be great if Rob and Keith could vote on the HOF. The way to accomplish that is not to wedge them into an organization who do different things than they do, it is to change the way HOF votes are conducted. In 1936, the BBWAA really were the only sensible people to vote for the HOF. Today there are a lot of people who are qualified, the BBWAA containing many, but not all, of them.

And finally, it is not the writer's fault that they run the HOF vote. The HOF gave them this power, and can take it away. It is to the HOF that your outrage should be directed.

For what its worth, I think I am as qualifed to vote for the HOF as Rob or Keith. But I don't belong in the BBWAA either.

Why does one need to be AT a ballpark? Is it something about the hot dogs, peanuts and cracks of the bats that qualifies one to write about baseball? I don't know if the BBWAA knows this, but there are other ways to view baseball games now.

That said, I agree with Jonah Keri. May Neyer & Law forever be outsiders.

How about a name change then?

Current and Former Beat and Other Miscellaneous Writers of American Cities with Baseball Teams

It would more accurately reflect the organization's membership while having the dual effect of forcing MLB and the HOF to figure out if they want to limit voting privileges to CFBOMWACBT members only.

What about the anonymous dudes who record play-by-play data for every game? By BBWAA's logic they are more qualified for membership than say, David Pinto.

I have no doubt that the BBWAA has a defense so it doesn't *appear* that they targeted Rob Neyer and Keith Law. Their answer, though, is pretty suspect. Let's see a list of ALL the writers who have been granted credentials, as well as those who have lost their credientials because they no longer *needed* to go to baseball games. The Internet allows for easier examination of such claims (even/especially claims made by the media) that wasn't possible in the past. Without even looking at the list, as Rob himself pointed out, there is no doubt assistant editors, editors, etc. who NEVER go to a baseball game who have been granted credentials.

I don't want to get into a pissing match and maybe I've been misinformed, but I've been told that there are baseball editors and assistant editors with BBWAA credentials, and that the BBWAA's membership rolls include an editorial cartoonist in Montreal and a secretary at The Sporting News. So the notion that if you're not a working beat writer you don't have any business in the BBWAA just isn't true. As I said elsewhere, it's a convenient pretext for excluding the wrong sorts of people. With all due respect.

Rob, that could be true. Maybe this is all legit. I'd like to believe it's true. I think you'd like to believe it's true. I just doubt that it is true. I wonder if there's a list posted of everyone who has been granted credentials.

This is all about being able to vote for awards, right?

No, not really. I suspect the majority of BBWAA members aren't eligible to vote for the annual awards, either because they don't cover a particular team or because their employers don't allow them to vote (NY Times, LA Times, maybe more). It's all about having a card that gets you into any ballpark, no questions asked, and it's about getting a good seat in the press box. And it's about excluding these fresh kids with their newfangled statistics that don't make sense.

Wow, any ballpark, no questions asked! That's a nice perk. So you have to go to a lot of games in order to get to go to a lot of games for free? That seems like a Catch-22. Presumably one would have already been covering games for one's local paper as a beat reporter.

I guess there's little hope of an IBBWA (Internet Baseball Writers Association) gaining legitimacy.

"IBBWA (Internet Baseball Writers Association)"

We actually had one going about 4-5 years ago with about 20-25 members...but after a while it petered out.

The mysterious Amy Nelson appears again. Never to be seen until the next Trade Deadline or Winter Meeting.

Hmmm, not all card-carrying members of the BBWAA get to vote on awards? I understand that it's the HOF that has decided that BBWAA members get to vote on new Hall members. Made perfect sense when the Hall was created. It still makes sense, although it would also make sense if they figured out a way to expand the voting members so people such as Rob Neyer are included. Who, however, owns the Cy Young, Rookie of the Year and MVP awards? Is it MLB, who have selected a smaller section of BBWAA members to vote on the awards? Is it the BBWAA?

I don't ever recall seeing Jayson Stark, Jerry Crasnick, Amy Nelson, etc. covering any games. Now, this is not saying that I don't think they should be in the BBWAA, nor is it saying that they never did cover games, but I don't remember it.

And Keith covers minor leagues extensively. Is that just not good enough?

I agree with Rob. It's just a convenient pretext to keep those out that they don't want in. And it's insane.

Mike: The awards belong to the BBWAA.

The litmus test for the BBWAA's assertion of "attending enough games" would be to go to the games and then see if the vote changes. Also, isn't Keith Law w/Scouts Inc.? How would one at Scouts Inc. be, you know, scouting? Going to games perhaps?

The BBWAA sounds really polished with their rebuttals. Too polished....

Why does everyone find Amy Nelson so mysterious?

She's a regular contributor to ESPN.com on baseball.

Amy Nelson archive

Montreal doesn't have a chapter and the only people from a Montreal media organization with a card are baseball writers. I know both of them personally.

I know in the past some editors had cards because papers sent on-site editors to games. No editors vote for anything. Two people from each city vote and they are chosen because they cover the sport. It's not a random drawing of members.

While I'm sure some people would like to believe we excluded Rob or Keith because of what they write, it really had nothing to do with that. Saying we exclude "the wrong sorts of people" is funny given the varied people we have in the organization.

How, say, Joel Sherman covers baseball is far, far different than Dave Anderson. Many of our new members are from Japanese papers. I think it's safe to say we don't have a clue what they write. But they're reporters who are assigned to go the park.

People are missing the point. The BBWAA was started so writers would have a way to work with the clubs on issues of access and player accessability. Because of the BBWAA, there are MLB rules on that sort of thing. Clubhouses open at a certain time, etc. We meet all the time with the people on Park Ave and the MLBPA.

It has nothing to do with whether going to a game is the best way to cover it. We're an organization of people who do go to games. Whether you place value on that or not, that is our job.

BBWAA cards are numbered. I just looked at the list and counted a dozen or so vacancies. Those are writers who for whatever reason were taken out, presumably because they switched beats or whatever.

Here's how you know membership changes: your card number changes every year. I started out in the 700s and I was 445 this season. So 300 people dropped out for whatever reason.

This isn't the old boys club. You want to get in? Have a job that sends you to the park. It's really not any more complicated than that. We weren't founded to vote on awards.

Now people are making stuff up. I would guess that Jayson Stark and Jerry Crasnick attend 75-100 games a year, probably more.

Minor league game coverage has nothing to do with us. I covered the Eastern League for 3 years, I wasn't in the BBWAA. It's an organization for people who cover MLB games.

The awards are done this way: chapter chairman select 2 writers to vote. There are 2 from each city. These are members who cover teams.

HoF voting is contingent on 10 years of membership. If you drop out, you're out. It's really not any more complicated than that.

Scouts Inc. covers MLB, MiLB, and amateur BB.

There are many reporters who cover games who aren't yet members of the BBWAA. They work out credential arrangements with the team PR departments.

Let's say you're starting out as a new reporter and after slogging through two years of covering high school and juco football, the regular beat writer goes on vacation, then your editor sees you in the office and says "Young man, go over to the Big Park and cover the game."

"OK, Chief!" and you're off. If you do a good enough job, maybe you get considered for the beat in a few years. And eventually you get a BBWAA card.

I don't see this as being too much different than a lot of other jobs. You start low, peform well, and then you get promoted. The BBWAA card is there to help you perform your job that you've been promoted to.

Pete,

While you make perfectly reasonable points, surely you see why some people see the exclusion of two highly respected sabrmetrically inclined writers, and they instinctually percieve it as another in a long line of biases against statistical analysis of baseball.

I honestly believe that you aren't intentionally slightying both Rob and Keith (who incidentally are two fantastic writers), it is curious to see names like Jayson Stark and Jim Caple get credentials while Neyer and Law do not. Nothing against Stark or Caple, I enjoy both of their writing very much, but one could easily consider their coverage of baseball to be "lighter" then messrs Neyer and Law, and none of the four are "beat writers".

If the case is simply ESPN is saying that Neyer and Law don't need to be at games, why then do they submit their names for application?

As pointed out to me by a relative who is a card-carrying member of the BBWAA, all of the MLB.com writers ARE NOT members.

Well put Kyle. Well put. Caple really gives this one away. Its a grandfathering move, no more, no less. I'm glad Neyer isn't taking it too hard, he's one of the best in the business, bottom line.

O.K. But wouldn't Neyer and Law with their collective body of work and knowledge represent more than rookie reporters.

Maybe Law doesn't attend as many games as I thought but I bet it's more than enough when compared to some members. I mean, not only is he going to games, he's writing flippin' scouting reports.

I guess if a primary objective is to get access to players and such then the stats/analysts guys are at a distinct disadvantage from the start. Can you see Law asking Varitek what he was feeling when Buchholtz threw his no-hitter?

Pete, appreciate the post. The only way any of us (okay, me) will be satisfied is if I can see a list of ALL members of the BBWAA and their affiliation. I'd also like to see a list of those who have been removed from the list because they have switched jobs, professions, etc. I'm sure it exists. This is not some secret organization, is it, where people need some special knock to get the through the door or to find out who is in the organization? It would take some work, but from there we could see if these are really all working members of the media who need to attend games, and actually are attending games.

I see the note above, posted by one of the board members, from BBWAA President Bob Dutton. In it, Dutton says "One of the requirements for membership in the BBWAA is the need to be at Major League ballparks. Several members questioned whether Rob and Keith meet that requirement." I think and hope you'll understand from that very line why some here (and elsewhere) question if this is a move by at least some members of the BBWAA to keep Rob and Keith out. It reads as if some members went out of their way to make a case against Rob and Keith, and indeed stealthily checked around at ESPN (who I gathered sponsored both in the first place!) to see if they were BBWAA worthy. "Hey, uhh, buddy, by the water cooler. This Rob Neyer guy. Does he need to go to games? Ever seen him at a baseball game?"

How often does the BBWAA exclude well-known baseball writers when their names comes up for admittance? When only two people are left off a list allowing, for the first time, admittance of Web-based writers, and then two of the most respected Web-based baseball writers are EXCLUDED, it makes you pause, especially when you realize they are EXCLUSIVELY Web writers. It makes me pause even more when I realize that these two guys -- Neyer and Law -- represent a select group of journalists who regularly criticize other journalists. It seems suspect...very suspect.

Maybe Mr. Abraham or Dutton can answer this...

What is the exact number of games does a reporter need to attend to be considered? By the exclusion criteria, I'm assuming there is some solid guideline beyond sticking fingers in the wind.

Mike:

By no means do I represent the organization. But keep in mind that the idea of allowing any sort of web-only writers was resisted for years. Heck, we still keep magazine writers out.

As the group has gotten younger, things have changed. We invited five web sites to put forward names. Most gave us 2 or 3. ESPN gave us 9. They would have gone from having nobody to having more than almost any other media organization.

ESPN is at its essence a television network. They need nine employees in a writers organization?

We went back and asked them if all nine people needed cards for access. They said no. It's really that simple. Further, we left open the door for them. If you want to blame anybody, blame ESPN. They're the ones who said Rob and Keith didn't meet our criteria for needing cards.

Honestly, it had zippo to do with what those guys write or who they criticize. It never came up. The guy they criticize probably don't read the newfangled interweb anyway.

Pete, thanks for that explanation. That clears a lot of things up.

However, it also adds to the confusion.

Who, exactly, is in the BBWAA? Just because it was started for a certain reason doesn't mean that its purpose remains the same.

The organization seems to have a lot of power for "300 people dropped out for whatever reaseon." The original purpose of the organization may not have been "to vote on the most authoritative awards in baseball, the ones everyone remembers and cites; and to vote on Hall of Fame membership," but that's a large part of its purpose now, and qualifications for voting on those awards should now be a large part of qualifications for membership to BBWAA.

It isn't enough merely to say, "our qualifications are that you are a reporter who physically goes to MLB games every day and covers them, and that's what they are, so tough," because BBWAA members' decisions affect everyone in the game, from the players to the fans.

"You want to get in? Have a job that sends you to the park" just misses the point of these complaints. To do what BBWAA does (voting on awards and HoF membership, even if this was not the original purpose), it is not necessary to be a beat reporter covering games; in fact, the stress and rigors of that position might even make it harder to make those kinds of decisions. Someone who watches six games at once on MLB.tv and pours over numbers all day, keeping up with the latest developments in statistical analysis, might be more qualified, as long as he or she is not completely alien to and removed from the inner world of baseball.

Pete's last comments made the most sense so far for the reasons that Neyer and Law were not included. I hope that next year ESPN and the BBWAA will realize that having a BBWAA card means more then access at ballparks.

Law however does attend a large amount of games, and as a scout this really does benefit him. Neyer himself did not expect to be included but did vouch for Law.

Pete, valid point. Most of them probably don't read Rob and Keith, although my point is it might only take a few who do and who hold a grudge to short circuit their admittance.

Thanks for showing up and giving the BBWAA point of view.

Mike

The BBWAA membership rules are antiquated to say the least. BBWAA President Bob Dutton conveniently uses them to deflect the criticisms. Is this all about the rules? Does the membership truly see their existence as being about accommodations at the MLB stadiums? Can they not see the value in being out front in having a professional organization that is dedicated to the advancement of the profession? Can they not see that their profession includes baseball writers from many different types?

I appreciate Pete Abraham's perspective and I don't doubt his sincerity, but it, too, reflects a focus on the rules rather than the big picture. Is there a fear to open up the access to the press box? Is there a fear to open access to the voting? The only justification that I see being offered is judging someone's "need" to attend games.

Consider the direction that the print media is heading. I believe the internet writers would be very well served to revisit establishing an organization that would be more relevant than the BBWAA and would eventually have the upper hand. Let them come begging to you.

Tom,
It doesn't seem to me that everything is open as it is. If I understand Pete correctly, not every BBWAA member gets a vote in the awards. Each chapter selects which two from each city get the votes. The BBWAA is not opposed to letting more people have access to the press box, but it's a privilege they've negotiated with MLB. Thus, they don't want to abuse it by giving away membership to everyone that applies. If ESPN had wanted to get Rob & Keith access to the press box, then they could have told the BBWAA that Rob & Keith needed that access, and both would be in. As it was, ESPN decided it wasn't necessary.

It seems like the initial general reaction hinged on the impression that Rob & Keith were rejected. From the comments here, it seems as though this was less a "dark room/overcoats" decision, and more a standard "do you really need this?" type of request. I also think that ESPN should have made it clearer to Rob that they decided he didn't need access. Although I'm sure Rob got a nice feeling from having the online sabermetric community jump to his defense in a pretty convincing fashion. Be careful with that power, Rob. :)

Also, it needs to be clarified that "going to ballgames" isn't the same as me buying a ticket. In the context it was used, "going to ballgames" means "covering a game from the press box".

Please correct me if any of this is incorrect.

First of all I want to thank Mr. Abraham for posting all that information here. Some of the other commenters were starting to get a little edgy, and I would not want to see anyone driven away with borderline personal attacks. I would hope that an enormously wide spectrum of people with different opionions and experiences would post on this site, and especially this thread.

I'll take the BBWAA's word for it for now, that this is all due to baseball game attendance. If Keith Law or another writer with a similar background starts to go to a lot more games and is turned away next time, then maybe we can say something smells.

Also, as far as I know the BBWAA owns the MVP and Cy Young awards, but are only granted the right to vote on the HOF, to clear that up.

I've got a thought.

Pete said, "If you want to blame anybody, blame ESPN. They're the ones who said Rob and Keith didn't meet our criteria for needing cards."

But, from the letter from the president, he said...
"One of the requirements for membership in the BBWAA is the need to be at Major League ballparks. Several members questioned whether Rob and Keith met that requirement.

Some board members informally contacted folks at ESPN with this question and were told neither Rob nor Keith regularly attend big-league games and do not need to do so in order to do their jobs."

I think the question must be asked why Keith and Rob were singled out. Perhaps the reason truly was because some felt they were not at the ballpark enough. But, that seems too naive to me.

Neyer is the best baseball writer out there with Peter Gammons(even though as he has got older he doesn't write as much, but he was my favorite in his internet prime). In my opinion beat writers are completely biased to their own teams while internet writers actually report on all teams. And also why do you need to go to a game to know baseball, it doesn't take a genius to understand the game. Not to mention that the best seat for a game is on your couch with replays and all the angles covered instead of all the distractions of the park and all the other beat writers gorging themselves on free food.

Let's cut to the chase: Are the sixteen new members voting for Blyleven or not? :)

Since we've heard from Rob Neyer on this issue (and congratulations to him for taking the high road on this topic), I was curious to read what Keith Law thought about all this nonsense, especially since I saw some odd quote that amazingly suggested he didn't attend that many baseball games. Anyone who reads Klaw knows this to be false. To make his living, he has to go to games and scout players, for goodness sakes!

Here's Keith's take from his personal, usually non-baseball, blog.

http://www.meadowparty.com/blog/?p=103

I don't think this really is that much different than excluding anyone from membership for their colour, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc

I understand Pete and Bob's point completely on the practical issues but surely i'm not the only one who thinks that it really matters how often a writer uses that accreditation? If they write about baseball and uphold the standards of the profession does it matter if they attend 5 games, 50 games or 150 games?

The point why people are upset is that they see the people they admire be excluded from membership of a professional organisation because they don't write in newspapers seems utterly ridiculous given the number of former BBWAA members Gammons, Olney et all who now write exclusively on the web and in magazines.

This realistically is the future of baseball writing and will only continue to grow. It seems a great shame to me that an organisation so rich in history and whose writers have done so much to display the injustices in baseball and root out stories for fans still deems it suitable to restrict membership through narrow and shortsighted rules and regulations.

If the BBWAA were to open up to the likes of Rob Neyer, Keith Law, Joe Sheehan (both Joes), Will Carroll, Rich Lederer and others that write spectacularly well on the subject of baseball then it would show us that the BBWAA is about baseball and not procedures. After all if membership of the organisation was not a great honour why would so many of us be angered by these exclusions and so many writers want to join?

I'm glad Neyer and Law got left out. I've long stopped caring about the results of the awards or the HoF because the results are ridiculous. If they keep letting in guys like Buster Olney and keeping out guys like Rob Neyer, I'm perfectly justified in continuing to ignore the results of their charades.

BBWAA membership encompasses no criteria for knowledge of baseball history. Therefore votes for the HOF are a sham. BBWAA inclusion of Rob Neyer and Keith Law, while an improvement, will have no significant impact. It is not the BBWAA that needs to be revised, it is the HOF voting process. Voters should have to qualify as experts in baseball knowledge and history. While there will likely be some overlap, this has arguably little to do with being a member of the BBWAA.

Barry:

To get a vote for the HoF, you have to be an active member for 10 consecutive years. Presumably, some baseball history would have been absorbed during that decade. Would you propose some sort of baseball SATs to determine who should vote? OK, who makes up that test?

There is no one way to pick a Hall of Fame. Football has a smoke-filled room and a secretive process involving a small number of writers. We go with a larger, more all-encompassing approach.

The HoF seems happy, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

I think what happened in Nashville was a good first step to getting more writers involved from various forms of media. Let nature take its course here. 15 years ago we had guys lugging around Radio Shack laptops that held 5,000 characters of copy and took AAA batteries.

A big thanks to all our readers and commenters. This was a very thoughtful and civil exchange. I really appreciate Rob's and Pete's participation in this thread. As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant. I am hopeful that the dissemination of this news (hat tip to Repoz and so many others around the web) and the follow-up discussions will help bridge whatever real or perceived gap exists between the baseball writers from the newspaper industry and those of us who use the Internet as our forum.

All of us have more in common that not. I'm sure we can all agree that we love the game of baseball and want to do what's in the best long-term interests of this great sport and its fans.

Thank you all.

Pete,

Good points all. Progress has and will be made.
I admit I am jaded and pessimistic and also recognize this is just my opinion as one member of a broad society and ultimately it surely is up to the HOF and only them to determine what the best system will be. But...If I were king ;-) then yes I would allocate voting rights via a test. I would appoint Bill James to design the test and then anyone who could pass it would get to vote. Writers, players, fans, whomever could pass the test could vote. I would do the same thing for the NFL and let Paul Zimmerman create the test.

Better late than never but to answer Bob's question in comment #1, here is what Tracy Ringolsby wrote in another thread: "I believe there were at least two members approved who were not previously BBWAA members -- Amy Nelson and Dan Wetzel. I may be wrong on that but it wasn't just former BBWAA members being admitted."

Bill James did actually propose a Hall of Fame voting process in his book. I have no idea whether it would work, but he makes the point that there are many qualified people -- former players, managers, executives, scholars -- who could be part of the process. Also, shouldn't someone propose that Bill James himself be a member of the Hall of Fame? Has anyone done more to change baseball thinking in the last 50 years?

This caught my attention: "Many of our new members are from Japanese papers. I think it's safe to say we don't have a clue what they write. But they're reporters who are assigned to go the park."

So, let me get this straight..induction into the BBWAA, an organization for baseball writers, hinges more on whether or not you are assigned to go to the park, than on the actual quality of one's writing? Any person assigned to go to the park is allowed in the BBWAA, even if they're horrible writers?

I would think that the Baseball Writers Association of America should have some grasp of what its members..you know..write about.

This caught my attention: "Many of our new members are from Japanese papers. I think it's safe to say we don't have a clue what they write. But they're reporters who are assigned to go the park."

So, let me get this straight..induction into the BBWAA, an organization for baseball writers, hinges more on whether or not you are assigned to go to the park, than on the actual quality of one's writing? Any person assigned to go to the park is allowed in the BBWAA, even if they're horrible writers?

I would think that the Baseball Writers Association of America should have some grasp of what its members..you know..write about.

Sorry for the double post

Furthermore, Keith Law says in his blog that the options were to either vote for the admission of 16 and the denial of Keith and Rob, or vote for allowing none of the 18 in. Tracy Ringolsby, someone who had a vote, in the comments on Keith's blog, confirms this. If that is not a sham, what is?

It really does amuse me how few people can't accept the fact that the BBWAA's primary purpose is, in fact, getting baseball writers into baseball games, getting them access to players, etc. I doubt it's purpose has changed significantly in the past 50 years. It makes sure writers can do their job.

The awards things is a different matter. Does it make sense that we leave MVP decisions up to beat writers exclusively? Nope. So talk to MLB about it. Or create your own MVP award. Heck, it wouldn't be tough. Bloggers give us their MVP picks every year. All it would take is someone arbitrarily (or otherwise, perhaps by hit?) deciding which blogs they want to count, how much they want to weight the award, and then publish the results. If you wanted to, you could even solicit votes from magazine writers and even a few beat writers if you wanted.

No guarantees anyone would care, but I would be surprised if something along these lines didn't occur and become relevant to people who read baseball stuff on the internet regularly. If you do it well, chances are it'll get linked by the bloggers participating in it, and getting people interested in the first step for it being relevant.

It's also worth noting that the admission into the BBWAA presumably doesn't mean these people will be voting on the MVP or HoF (at least for 10 years on the latter).

Terry Mosher (Aislin) says this:
"An avid baseball fan, Mosher has been a member of The Baseball Writers’ Association of America for over twenty years, which allows him to vote for entries to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y."

Aislin is one Canada's finest political and sports cartoonist. As I understand it, as a sports cartoonist, he's considered a "writer" for the purposes of being able to convey baseball stories via images. Aislin is a fantastically talented person.

According to this list:
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1765&Itemid=111

Aislin is no longer accredited. So, this should stop Neyer's argument on this issue.

Pete Abraham said this:
"Montreal doesn't have a chapter and the only people from a Montreal media organization with a card are baseball writers. I know both of them personally."

Montreal has three, not two, journalists accredited: Jack Todd, Stephanie Myles, and Serge Touchette. Which two does Pete know?

How are Seymour Siwoff and the four Hirdt brothers (sons?) "baseball writers"?

Jerry Izenberg retired from the Star Ledger this past year. How quickly does his accrediation expire?

The plain fact of the matter is that there's no way that all those members satify the conditions that: (a) they write about baseball full-time, and (b) attend some substantial, say 40, number of games every single year. We know, for certain, that the Hirdts are employees of Elias Sports Bureau. If they are in, then why is John Dewan and Dave Smith not in?

Stephanie Myles now writes about Little League competition in baseball:
http://www.athletics.mcgill.ca/varsity_sports_article.ch2?article_id=3329

She also handles CFL, Tennis and other major Montreal sports. I don't know that she actually writes about MLB any more.

I doubt le Journal de Montreal is sending Serge Touchette on the road.

1. Is there a hard and fast rule for number of games attended that must be met in order to qualify for membership? Is it 75? 100? Or is it a vague feeling?

2. Was the number of games attended by other candidates considered, or just the attendance of Keith and Rob?

I assume, Pete, that you can tell me how many games Amy Nelson attends per year? Or Jeff Passan? Or Buster Olney?

Forgot to mention this, Pete - if you were concerned about whether Rob and Keith need the BBWAA credentials to do their job, or were concerned about their regular attendance at MLB games, why didn't anyone just ask them? Or their boss, ESPN's baseball editor? Why would ESPN nominate them for membership and then claim they don't need the membership?

Sorry for the triple post, but Jack Todd is not a baseball writer. How could he be more qualified than Rob and Keith? How many games does he attend per year?

Read his bio here: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/jack_todd.html

Jack was a sports writer at one time for the Montreal Gazette. He then became a news columnist at some point. I think he's back in the sports writing columns. Regardless, Red Fisher (who covers the Montreal Canadiens for the last 50 years) is a sports writer, and he doesn't belong to the BBWAA.

The criteria Dutton specifies is quite clear: writing full-time, professionally about baseball. That means, from Feb to Nov, you've gotta be delivering the goods at least weekly.

Unless the Gazette is sending writers to Toronto on a weekly basis, no Montreal writer should be credentialed as BBWAA. And the Gazette would have no need to send anyone, since they all belong to the same consortium of newspapers which you can see here:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/index.html

And, even in Dutton's own newspaper, there are writers credentialed who do not write full time about baseball.

There's a double-standard here. I don't care that there is, but at least, come out and say it. Don't give us the runaround about Keith attending 30 games instead of 40.