<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gallery of Greatness (at least for now)</title>
	<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/</link>
	<description>People don't think it be like it is, but it do.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 07:36:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Cliffy</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-929</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-929</guid>
					<description>Aren't you being a bit hypocritical?  First, you rage against the machine for defining relative levels of HOF worthiness... then, you suggest that we need to approach our GoG by defining relative levels of HOF worthiness.

Either a guy is a HOFer/GoGer, or he's not.  If you have issue with of the group I listed (outside of those already questioned), then name them - but if your only concern is that "not everyone is as good as Babe Ruth", well... then aren't you wasting our time?

If you'd like, and I don't think it's a bad idea fwiw, we can have the added aspect of ranking our GoGers.  Now, it would be mostly subjective - especially wrt hitters vs. pitchers vs. non-players (so perhaps we rank within those classifications, but then... what about the fact that Ruth was great hitter *and* a great pitcher?).  I guess we'd all submit our rankings, then take the averages to arrive at the "official" GoG rankings - and perhaps as each new guy is added, we submit individual rankings, and then take the average to "officially" slot him?  I dunno... we can discuss the mechanics of that more.  But perhaps ranking them would be an interesting and fun exercise - and at the very least, would address your concern that someone might have the audacity to put Robin Young on par with Babe Ruth (although, admittedly, I've personally yet to meet this fictional individual).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aren&#8217;t you being a bit hypocritical?  First, you rage against the machine for defining relative levels of HOF worthiness&#8230; then, you suggest that we need to approach our GoG by defining relative levels of HOF worthiness.</p>
<p>Either a guy is a HOFer/GoGer, or he&#8217;s not.  If you have issue with of the group I listed (outside of those already questioned), then name them - but if your only concern is that &#8220;not everyone is as good as Babe Ruth&#8221;, well&#8230; then aren&#8217;t you wasting our time?</p>
<p>If you&#8217;d like, and I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a bad idea fwiw, we can have the added aspect of ranking our GoGers.  Now, it would be mostly subjective - especially wrt hitters vs. pitchers vs. non-players (so perhaps we rank within those classifications, but then&#8230; what about the fact that Ruth was great hitter *and* a great pitcher?).  I guess we&#8217;d all submit our rankings, then take the averages to arrive at the &#8220;official&#8221; GoG rankings - and perhaps as each new guy is added, we submit individual rankings, and then take the average to &#8220;officially&#8221; slot him?  I dunno&#8230; we can discuss the mechanics of that more.  But perhaps ranking them would be an interesting and fun exercise - and at the very least, would address your concern that someone might have the audacity to put Robin Young on par with Babe Ruth (although, admittedly, I&#8217;ve personally yet to meet this fictional individual).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: shtiny</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-925</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-925</guid>
					<description>My biggest issue with the HOF voting is that there has never been a unanimous selection.  I don't understand how some writers have left off certain players on the first ballot.... with logic like, if Ted Williams wasn't a unanimous selection, then how could I possibly vote for Cal Ripken on the first ballot.  

Since we are starting from scratch, I would propose not automatically initiating the 40 or so guys you list above, but rather allow players access based upon merit.  Surely Robin Yount is not the same type of HOF as Babe Ruth, and it is insulting to induct them at the same time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My biggest issue with the HOF voting is that there has never been a unanimous selection.  I don&#8217;t understand how some writers have left off certain players on the first ballot&#8230;. with logic like, if Ted Williams wasn&#8217;t a unanimous selection, then how could I possibly vote for Cal Ripken on the first ballot.  </p>
<p>Since we are starting from scratch, I would propose not automatically initiating the 40 or so guys you list above, but rather allow players access based upon merit.  Surely Robin Yount is not the same type of HOF as Babe Ruth, and it is insulting to induct them at the same time.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Cliffy</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-915</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-915</guid>
					<description>Fwiw, I'll be very interested to see the discussions on guys like Shoeless Joe, PR, and Curt Flood - for various reasons... but those three are not in Cooperstown, and I'm intrigued to see what our collective decision is on the three of them.  Related to Flood somewhat is Marvin Miller as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fwiw, I&#8217;ll be very interested to see the discussions on guys like Shoeless Joe, PR, and Curt Flood - for various reasons&#8230; but those three are not in Cooperstown, and I&#8217;m intrigued to see what our collective decision is on the three of them.  Related to Flood somewhat is Marvin Miller as well.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Cliffy</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-914</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-914</guid>
					<description>Neumann... you'll note the approach Tank and I have taken in nominating players - please feel free to do the same with Curt Flood.  BA should do the same with PR.  And Danny can do the same with what I'm sure is a litany of underappreciated Milwaukee Brewers and Braves.

As for Landis, can we agree that he's not going into the GoG for his judicial record - but rather his candidacy is based solely on his resume as baseball commissioner?  Now his judgments as commish are clearly worthy fodder, but my point is that his non-baseball judgments are moot.  In short, I'd put Jim Brown into Canton in a heartbeat for his performances on the football field - and rightfully ignore his performances on the silver screen (which were, um, less than historically great... although "Dirty Dozen" remains among my all-time favorite movies, fwiw).  

Let's stick to the *relevant* data supporting - or refuting - the candidacy of each nominee please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neumann&#8230; you&#8217;ll note the approach Tank and I have taken in nominating players - please feel free to do the same with Curt Flood.  BA should do the same with PR.  And Danny can do the same with what I&#8217;m sure is a litany of underappreciated Milwaukee Brewers and Braves.</p>
<p>As for Landis, can we agree that he&#8217;s not going into the GoG for his judicial record - but rather his candidacy is based solely on his resume as baseball commissioner?  Now his judgments as commish are clearly worthy fodder, but my point is that his non-baseball judgments are moot.  In short, I&#8217;d put Jim Brown into Canton in a heartbeat for his performances on the football field - and rightfully ignore his performances on the silver screen (which were, um, less than historically great&#8230; although &#8220;Dirty Dozen&#8221; remains among my all-time favorite movies, fwiw).  </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s stick to the *relevant* data supporting - or refuting - the candidacy of each nominee please.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tank</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-908</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-908</guid>
					<description>Well, Neumann, go ahead and nominate Flood in a stand-alone post using your shiny new login and password.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Neumann, go ahead and nominate Flood in a stand-alone post using your shiny new login and password.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tank</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-907</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:56:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-907</guid>
					<description>I have essentially the same issue with Landis - if we agree that eliminating the color barrier was an unambiguous good, then the fact that Landis took it upon himself to preserve it has to be weighed against any positive contribution he may have made to the sport. Then there's the issue of Shoeless Joe...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have essentially the same issue with Landis - if we agree that eliminating the color barrier was an unambiguous good, then the fact that Landis took it upon himself to preserve it has to be weighed against any positive contribution he may have made to the sport. Then there&#8217;s the issue of Shoeless Joe&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Neumann</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-905</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:19:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-905</guid>
					<description>I would humbly submit the name of Curtis Flood to be added.  Was a darn good player (had some gold gloves, was an all-star) and had a huge impact on the fundamental structure of the game.  Sadly, had his playing career cut short because he was blackballed for challenging of the player reserve system and making those going after him very, very, rich.

I also suggest we remove Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis.  Yes, he cleaned up baseball after the black sox scandal.  But, he was a truly awful judge:  scores and scores of his ill reasoned and capricious rulings were overturned, he got Jack Johnson banned from boxing over a racial charge, he kept blacks out of baseball and he used really specious anti-trust reasoning against standard oil while not applying any of that same reasoning when the federal league sued MLB on the same grounds and ended up screwing them and the players.

Basically, I think he was a terrible little tyrant who was bad for justice and bad for baseball players.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would humbly submit the name of Curtis Flood to be added.  Was a darn good player (had some gold gloves, was an all-star) and had a huge impact on the fundamental structure of the game.  Sadly, had his playing career cut short because he was blackballed for challenging of the player reserve system and making those going after him very, very, rich.</p>
<p>I also suggest we remove Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis.  Yes, he cleaned up baseball after the black sox scandal.  But, he was a truly awful judge:  scores and scores of his ill reasoned and capricious rulings were overturned, he got Jack Johnson banned from boxing over a racial charge, he kept blacks out of baseball and he used really specious anti-trust reasoning against standard oil while not applying any of that same reasoning when the federal league sued MLB on the same grounds and ended up screwing them and the players.</p>
<p>Basically, I think he was a terrible little tyrant who was bad for justice and bad for baseball players.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: boorad</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-904</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-904</guid>
					<description>Pete is gone...  You can't edit the page?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete is gone&#8230;  You can&#8217;t edit the page?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Cliffy</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-902</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-902</guid>
					<description>Agreed - and I see you've begun with the guy that is, at *worst*, the second-best pitcher in the history of the game.  I'll start addressing the ones you had questions on above.

And yes... Tank and I do welcome input from others.  And yes BA, you're allowed to comment on someone other than PR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed - and I see you&#8217;ve begun with the guy that is, at *worst*, the second-best pitcher in the history of the game.  I&#8217;ll start addressing the ones you had questions on above.</p>
<p>And yes&#8230; Tank and I do welcome input from others.  And yes BA, you&#8217;re allowed to comment on someone other than PR.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tank</title>
		<link>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-901</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/gallery-of-greatness-at-least-for-now/#comment-901</guid>
					<description>Makes sense to me. 

Maybe nominations should be made in the main blog page to allow debate in the comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Makes sense to me. </p>
<p>Maybe nominations should be made in the main blog page to allow debate in the comments.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

