text:
The Next Six Hall of Fame Ballots
With my recent Hall of Fame kick, I've been looking at this year's ballot and prospective future ballots a lot. And every time, all I can think of is how crazy the ballot will start to look in the future. I just needed to put it all in writing, though, to share my thoughts. I feel like I've written this before, but either way, it wasn't recent enough that I remember doing it, the issue is still relevant, it still shocks me every time.
So, we know that this year has a lot of candidates. As I've said, I'd vote for eighteen if given the choice: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Curt Schilling, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Tom Glavine, Mike Piazza, Alan Trammell, Frank Thomas, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Craig Biggio, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Jeff Kent. We'll probably get one of them elected this year. Some number will almost certainly drop off the ballot, which is really unfortunate.
On that note, this ballot should have been even more crowded. Kenny Lofton and Kevin Brown should be there, too, but both fell off after one go-around unfortunately. Who all will join them in no-man's land next year, not on the ballot but too recent for the Veterans Committee? My guesses would start with Kent and Sosa, but I also wouldn't be shocked about McGwire or Palmeiro. Maybe even Mussina or Walker if we're really unlucky.
Next year, to replace Maddux and whoever else is gone (Jack Morris at least, since this is his 15th year), we'll see Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Gary Sheffield, all of whom have Hall Ratings over 100. I'd also like to give a special mention to Brian Giles-he was a personal favorite growing up, and he was almost certainly better than you remember (even a 98 Hall Rating!). In a world with an unlimited ballot, I'd definitely at least throw him a vote based on those two factors, although I imagine I'd be more or less the only person to do so.
Then we have possibly the weakest ballot of the six upcoming in 2016. I'm not sure who all will fall off after the 2015 vote, but we'll definitely be adding a pair of worthy center fielders in Ken Griffey, Jr. and Jim Edmonds. Edmonds will almost certainly be underrated and may even fall off the ballot in one try, which will be an absolute travesty (and not just because I'm an Edmonds fan). On the note of personal favorites, Jason Kendall will join that year. He's a dead match for Giles, in that he has a surprisingly high Hall rating (87!) and he was another personal favorite. Also, the Hall doesn't seem to have a clear idea of how to deal with relievers, but we'll be getting to of the better ones in recent memory that year with Billy Wagner and Trevor Hoffman. Yes, this is our "breather/catch-up" year. It will also mark Alan Trammell's final year, barring unusual occurrences.
2017 will see an interesting quartet added. Ivan Rodriguez is the surest bet of any of them, but who the hell knows how the voters will go anymore. On top of that, we get the introduction of Manny Ramirez, Vladimir Guerrero, and Jorge Posada. Manny Will bring an interesting and spirited debate, I'm sure. Vlad and Jorge are both more borderline, although again, I wouldn't be shocked if both immediately fall of the ballot because that's how the BBWAA rolls these days.
The 2018 ballot is a doozy, with interesting newcomers just oozing off of it. Chipper Jones will hopefully be elected in his first try. Jim Thome is poised to join the debate that year as well, assuming he doesn't manage a comeback this year. It'll be interesting to see how things go for him, although Frank Thomas this year may be a test case. Also, Scott Rolen, Andruw Jones, and Bobby Abreu are all set to come up in 2018. I'd say all three are worthy. Abreu looks a lot like Tony Gwynn, believe it or not. Andruw Jones is maybe the best fielder of all-time. I've covered Rolen a lot already. He may be my favorite player of all-time (either him, Albert Pujols, or Cal Ripken, Jr.), but even then, his case looks a lot like Ron Santo's. All the worthiness in the world didn't get him elected for decades and decades.
Not helping matters is that 2018 is also the year that Omar Vizquel, Johnny Damon, Chris Carpenter, and Jamie Moyer will all join the ballot. I wouldn't vote for any of them, but I would almost guarantee that they'll all get some level of support. Vizquel is probably the player most likely to inspire heated generational debates that are currently sparked by Jack Morris.
That's the last year that we know for sure, but we already have something of an idea about 2019's additions. Mariano Rivera, Todd Helton, Andy Pettitte, and Roy Halladay have all announced that they won't play in 2014, making them eligible then. On top of that, Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman are free agents who may not garner contracts for next season, but both will deserve a good, hard look upon their appearance on the ballot. I'm not sure I see that happening if the ballot is 30 players deep at this point. Assuming nobody I've mentioned falls off other than the players that age out, we'll easily top that mark, even assuming that the BBWAA actually elects somebody in that span.
Worrying about it this early won't really do anything, but I figured I should bring it up since it was on my mind.
Labels: 2014 Hall of Fame, 2018 Hall of Fame, Brian Giles, Future Hall of Fame, Greg Maddux, Jim Edmonds, Lance Berkman, Scott Rolen, The Hall Ballot Backlog, Upcoming Ballot Apocalypse
Breaking Down This Year's 50 Best Not in the Hall: Which Team Gets Snubbed the Most?
I may as well continue with the Hall of Fame theme I have going on. One thing that I always wonder when filling out my 50 Best Players in the Hall of Fame ballot is if there's any noticeable bias in who gets snubbed from the Hall. Like, whether there's a specific position that the voters overlook, or if certain teams get passed over more often than others. I guess it's also possible it's my bias, but I'd like to think I'm objective in filling this out.
Anyway, if you need refreshing, here's the selection of 50 Players I ended up going with this year. I wanted a quick number to look at for Hall worthiness, so I went with Adam Darowski's Hall Ratings, since 1) that's exactly what they were designed for, and 2) he includes breakdowns of how much of a player's Hall Rating came in each season, with each team in total, and so on.
First, we have the straight number of players each franchise had on the list:
Labels: 50 Best 2013, 50 Best Players Not in the Hall, Boston Red Sox, Detroit Tigers, Houston Astros, Kansas City Royals, New York Yankees, Underrated
My Hall of Fame Ballot, Part 2
I know I've harped on the Ballot backlog enough, but I'm always finding new ways to put it in to number form. For example, take my ballot for the 50 Best Players not in Cooperstown. I said I would put all 50 players in. I've pointed out before how it wouldn't actually water down the Hall, but here's another way to think about it.
Adam Darowski has an objective look at the Hall of Fame in his Hall of Stats and its Hall Rating system. I've explained it enough before, but the highlights: based on Baseball-Reference WAR (rWAR), on a scale like OPS+ (so 100 is Hall minimum, 200 is equal to 2 Hall of Famers worth of value, etc.). My ballot this year had an average Hall Rating of 137.7. That would slide comfortably into 70th place (out of 208) in the real Hall of Fame, which itself only has an average Hall Rating of 132.9 (you can check the numbers from his site if you want, they're available for download).
This year's ballot is even stronger. As I said last time, there are 18 players I would vote for this year. Those 18 average out to a 164.6 Hall rating, nestled nicely between Steve Carlton (167) and Carlton Fisk (158).* Even if you want to throw out Barry Bonds as an outlier, you get 152.9. Bonds and Roger Clemens? 144.1. Bonds, Clemens, and Greg Maddux? 139.1.
*Those two aren't right next to each other, but I liked the symmetry.
Basically, I want to get across that this ballot is incredibly deep. Which is going to make whittling it down to ten for my Baseball Bloggers Alliance ballot even harder. First, which eighteen am I focusing on?
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Curt Schilling, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Tom Glavine, Mike Piazza, Alan Trammell, Frank Thomas, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Craig Biggio, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Jeff Kent
I hate having to ask "Why wasn't this person Hall-worthy?" It feels so negative. Unfortunately, it seems like that might be how I have to go about this part, since I have to cut almost half of the names off. I'll then list any mitigating factors to their negatives, things like titles, extreme stats, or other variables. Let's start:
Labels: 2014 Hall of Fame, Barry Bonds, Baseball Bloggers Alliance, Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Hall of Fame, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Mussina, Mike Piazza, Roger Clemens, Tim Raines
My 2014 Hall of Fame Ballot, Part 1
Continuing my theme of Hall of Fame articles, I should probably write something about my Hall of Fame ballot for the Baseball Bloggers Alliance. Actually, I don't know who all I'm voting for yet, so this would be a good opportunity to sort things out in my head.
So, last year, my ballot was:
Kenny Lofton
Mark McGwire
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Alan Trammell
I also thought that there were four more Hall-worthy players on last year's ballot, in Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Edgar Martinez, and Larry Walker. Thankfully, the voters helped to clear up this logjam by…giving Kenny Lofton less than 5% of the vote so that he fell off the ballot. Thanks, guys!
So with only thirteen worthy holdovers, we look to the newcomers. Now, you probably have some idea of my thoughts on these guys if you read my 50 Best Players not in the Hall of Fame piece for this year. However, I'll give them proper run-throughs now. First, here's every first-year player on the ballot:
Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina, Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, Kenny Rogers, Luis Gonzalez, Moises Alou, Ray Durham, Hideo Nomo, Richie Sexson, Paul Lo Duca, Armando Benitez, Mike Timlin, Sean Casey, Jacque Jones, Eric Gagne, J.T. Snow, Todd Jones
That list is already conveniently sorted by Baseball-Reference's Wins Above Replacement. Now, I know that Wins Above Replacement is not the only thing that matters, but I don't want to do write-ups for all 19 players. I'll just limit it to the top eight, since Moises Alou sits at almost 40 WAR exactly and that seems like as good a cut-off as any. Sorry to the other eleven; if anyone wants me to write why any of those wouldn't get my vote, I'll take them up on it I guess. Now then, the case for each of those eight, in alphabetical order:
Moises Alou: 332 home runs, putting him right in a group with Shawn Green, Mo Vaughn, Boog Powell. 2134 hits. A .303/.369/.516 batting line over 17 seasons, which is good, but becomes a 128 OPS+ in the steroid era. That can be borderline Hall-of-Fame stuff if it comes with good defense, or more plate appearances (Alou didn't even reach 8000), or a difficult position (Keith Hernandez, Sammy Sosa, Jim Wynn, for starters), but Alou comes with none of those. 39.7 Baseball-Reference WAR (or rWAR*); 48.2 Fangraphs WAR (fWAR). Adam Darowski's Hall Rating from the Hall of Stats gives him a 71. NO
Tom Glavine: 305 wins, which is all that a lot of voters need to hear. He also had a 3.54 ERA (118 ERA+) over 22 years, which fits in nicely with players like Bert Blyleven and Gaylord Perry. Didn't strike out as many guys as you might have liked, with only 2607 total and no seasons with over 200. There's definitely Hall-level value in allowing runs at the rate he did over 4400 innings (74.0 rWAR, 64.3 fWAR), and he does bring a pair of Cy Young awards to the table, but he may only be the fifth-best pitcher on the ballot this year. Overall, he has a 149 Hall Rating as well. YES
Luis Gonzalez: He's probably closer than you'd first realize. His 596 doubles are fifteenth of all-time, plus he had 354 home runs on top of that. His .283/.367/.479 line was good for a 119 OPS+; like Alou, that can work if you have some fielding going for you, but being an average corner outfielder won't really do it. He did last a little longer than Alou, though, at 19 seasons. Overall, Gonzalez was worth a solid 51.5 rWAR and 55.3 fWAR, which translates to a 90 in the Hall of Stats. NO
Jeff Kent: Kent is an interesting case. He's the all-time leader in home runs by a second baseman with 377, and for the other common hitter milestone, he has 2461 hits. Not bad. His .290/.356/.500 line means a 123 OPS+, but unlike Gonzalez or Alou, he actually does have some defensive value going for him.
Well, kind of. Having that kind of production from a second baseman is always great…but Kent wasn't exactly a great fielder. In fact, he negated almost all of his value from playing second base by being bad at it (Fangraphs has his fielding at +1.2 runs, combining the two aspects). His other benefit over the other two is that Kent had a much higher peak than either of them, with an MVP award and three other top-10 finishes. Overall, it comes out to a Hall rating of 103, 55.2 rWAR, and 56.6 fWAR. I think Kent is borderline, but his hitting makes me err on the side of putting him in. I'm not really sure why; fielding in such large sample sets is probably much more stable than I'm giving it credit for.
Maybe part of it is assumed regression? Think of it this way: Gonzalez is a 50-win player who was mediocre at fielding, Kent is a 50-win player with atrocious fielding. I don't know how bad Kent was at fielding, but it's a lot easy to assume he wasn't an extreme negative than it is to imagine that any given player wasn't just average (given no prior knowledge). I hope that makes sense? Also, I didn't really see Kent field, so maybe he was awful. Like I said, he's borderline enough that I won't be as upset if he falls off as I was about Kenny Lofton. YES
Greg Maddux: Four-time Cy Young Award winner; lifetime 355-227 record; 3371 strikeouts against only 999 walks (177 of which were intentional); 3.16 ERA (132 ERA+) over 23 seasons; 18 Gold Gloves; 104.6 rWAR (eighth all-time); 114.3 fWAR (fourth all-time); 220 Hall Rating
Greg Maddux is great to write about because it's almost easier to write what about him wouldn't merit induction. I can more or less pick out any of his stats and just list them without context and it'll still be obvious that he belongs. YES
Mike Mussina: He didn't reach either of the major pitching milestones, but he very well could have with two more seasons (270 wins, 2813 Ks). And he went out more or less on top, plus he missed time from the 1994-5 strike. His 123 ERA+ (3.68 ERA) over eighteen years is right in line with players like Juan Marichal and Bob Feller. He had six top-5 finishes in Cy Young voting as well. Also, he was a master of control: since the mound was moved back to 60 feet, 6 inches in 1893, only one player has a higher K/BB ratio (3.58) in over 3000 innings (Curt Schilling, 4.38). His Hall Rating is a solid 163. At 82.7 rWAR, he's between Fergie Jenkins and Bob Gibson (24th). His 82.3 fWAR is between Schilling and Warren Spahn (19th). YES
Kenny Rogers: His 4.27 ERA would be far and away the worst of Hall starters (although it was still a solid 107 ERA+ over twenty years). He didn't even reach 2000 strikeouts (1968), and he didn't have the control of Schilling or Maddux or Mussina, with 1175 walks. Again, there's value to being above average for twenty years (51.1 rWAR, 46.8 fWAR, 96 Hall Rating), but not Hall-level value. NO
Frank Thomas: Like Kent, Thomas did not offer a lot of defensive value. The Big Hurt, however, was a much better hitter overall: 521 home runs, 2468 hits, a .301/.419/.555 batting line, and so on. His 156 OPS+ is tied for nineteenth of all-time. All in all, he was worth 73.6 rWAR and 72.4 fWAR while racking up a 140 Hall Rating. YES
*I had abbreviated this as bWAR in the past for convenience sake, but the general standard over the rest of the internet has been to call it rWAR for its creator, Sean "Rally" Smith. I'll start referring to it as such from now on.
In total, that's thirteen holdovers and five newcomers, so I have 18 people on this year's ballot that I want to vote for. Unfortunately, I only get ten slots. Next time, I will attempt to whittle this group down.
Labels: 2014 Hall of Fame, Baseball Bloggers Alliance, Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame Run Downs, Jeff Kent, Kenny Rogers, Luis Gonzalez, Mike Mussina, Moises Alou, Tom Glavine
50 Best Players Not in the Hall of Fame, 2013
For the last two years, I've participated in Graham Womack's 50 Best Players Not in the Hall of Fame project. So naturally, I had to participate when he announced his fourth edition of the project. This year, I'm taking a bit of a shortcut; I've written about all of these players over the last two years, and I don't want to waste too much time going over old ground. So instead, I'll post my list from last year for reference.
In addition to their names, I'll include their Hall Rating from Adam Darowski's Hall of Stats. As a refresher, that's based on Baseball-Reference's Wins Above Replacement and normalized to a scale like OPS+. So, a 100 rating is the minimum to make the Hall of Stats. For reference, a 150 would be the equivalent of one-and-a-half Hall of Fame careers, a 200 rating would be as good as 2 Hall of Famers mashed together, and so on-you can read more about it at his site.
Anyway, my 2013 list included the following names:
Barry Bonds, 363
Roger Clemens, 293
Curt Schilling, 172
Jeff Bagwell, 164
(5) Larry Walker, 151
Pete Rose, 150
Mike Piazza, 147
Bill Dahlen, 145
Lou Whitaker, 144
(10) Alan Trammell, 143
Bobby Grich, 141
Kevin Brown, 138
Rick Reuschel, 136
Edgar Martinez, 135
(15) Kenny Lofton, 132
Jack Glasscock, 131
Shoeless Joe Jackson, 130
Luis Tiant, 130
David Cone, 129
(20) Tim Raines, 128
Craig Biggio, 126
Graig Nettles, 126
Rafael Palmeiro, 125
Reggie Smith, 125
(25) Buddy Bell, 124
Mark McGwire, 124
Willie Randolph, 124
Dwight Evans, 123
Bret Saberhagen, 121
(30) Sal Bando, 118
Ken Boyer, 118
Dick Allen, 116
Sammy Sosa, 116
Keith Hernandez, 115
(35) Dave Stieb, 115
Deacon White, 114
Ted Simmons, 113
Kevin Appier, 112
Joe Torre, 112
(40) Bobby Bonds, 111
Sherry Magee, 111
Eddie Cicotte, 111
Jim Wynn, 110
Darrell Evans, 106
(45) Tommy Bond, 103
Thurman Munson, 101
Minnie Minoso, 99.8
Bob Caruthers, 96
Ross Barnes, 83
(50) Ezra Sutton, 71
The numbers are a little wonky with some of the older players (Sutton and Barnes retired in 1888 and 1881, respectively), as playing time was very different then (and in Minoso's case, he caught the tail-end of segregated leagues). But that's a pretty solid list.
One of the things that you need to do with this list is indicate how many players on your list you would actually put in the Hall of Fame. The last two years, I've said that I would put every player on my list in the Hall. I've always wondered if this waters down the Hall too much. I finally looked at that a little, though.
For an unrelated project, I examined the Hall of Fame and the best players not in the Hall in a variety of stats; Baseball-Reference's WAR was one. I know it's just one standard, and by no means the end-all, be-all, but: the average WAR of the top 62 hitters not in the Hall of Fame and the average WAR of Hall of Fame hitters is not statistically significant. Now, that doesn't mean it's not lower…but at the same time, I also only added 39 hitters last year rather than the full 63.
Going all the way down to the 60s gets you players like Jim Fregosi, Brett Butler, Bernie Williams, or Bobby Veach… I'm still not quite that far down the list. So the point is, I'm still in the same neighborhood as the actual Hall. I wouldn't be shocked if I was improving the pitchers, given that I'm only adding 13 this year (we'll go over the changes shortly, and it's quite an impressive bunch, with an average Hall rating of over 150).
But now, the big question: what changes does this year bring? Well, first, Deacon White was inducted last year, meaning I can clear him off my list. Joe Torre was just inducted as a manager…but since that was for the class of 2014, it doesn't take effect yet. All the others are in the same place they were last year.
So who takes this one spot? Well, this year's ballot brings five people that I would consider worthy into the discussion. In the format from earlier:
Greg Maddux, 220
Mike Mussina, 163
Tom Glavine, 149
Frank Thomas, 140
Jeff Kent, 103
That's a solid group, to say the least. Maddux takes White's spot by default. Also, if you remember, in my wrap up last year, I was feeling a little uneasy about Sutton and Barnes. I replaced them with Tommy John (106) and John Olerud (103) for a variety of reasons. I realize it was a different time and you have to account for the different playing times, but at the same time, my research about how the Hall has changed over time made me feel more willing to side with more recent players. So those two should probably go into the discussion as well. There are a few more players from my first edition that may also work their way back in to consideration, in particular Wes Ferrell (111), who I had a hard time cutting last year.
On top of that, Adam has revised his Hall system even more, which gives me a little bit of a different perspective on these players. A lot of the changes are to the early days of the baseball and how Hall rating works with regards to playing time and pitching back then; that's why you may notice players like Bob Caruthers and Tommy Bond taking dives compared to where they were last year (the long-short of it: since part of WAR is playing time, and pitchers back then threw so many more innings, Adam's formula was overestimating how valuable they were compared to their peers).
Anyway, I anticipated a hard time deciding who all to kick off to make room for everyone. The starting place would probably be Barnes and Sutton; I was already kicking them off last year, so I may as well start there this year. That frees up two spaces, which probably go to Mussina and Glavine. Tommy Bond is someone I had been meaning to kick off last year, too. I'm not an expert on early baseball, and Adam wrote an interesting piece last year about 19th century pitchers. The biggest takeaway: Bond played in a wildly different time. He's still the all-time leader in K/BB ratio…but he also had no value after the league moved the mound back from 45 feet (!!!). His spot probably goes to Frank Thomas.
Those are really the big moves, actually. Jeff Kent falls into a weird level for me; he's sort of on the level of players like Robin Ventura, Will Clark, and John Olerud…all players who have made my list in the past, mind you. I would support all of them for the Hall, but they're sort of my borderline, and they don't quite make this top 50 list. If, say, we elected 10 players this year and freed up a ton of spots for next year? They'd be first on the list. But right now, they'll have to settle for honorable mentions.
There are two other changes I would make to this list, though. First, Adam's rejiggering of Hall Rating has given me second thoughts. I waffled back and forth on getting rid of Wes Ferrell last year; his combination of pitching and hitting was hard to beat. Bob Caruthers had a similar case, actually. However, Caruthers played much earlier in the history of the game. In the refiguring of innings pitched value for early pitchers, Caruthers dropped quite a bit. I'd be more than willing to swap Caruthers out for Ferrell, especially since they fill a similar niche.
One other player I have second thoughts about every year is Eddie Cicotte. I even marked him on my spreadsheet from last year. He always looks like a good idea, but when I would do my write-up for him, I'd always sort of lose my conviction on him. Also, I've been wanting to fit Tommy John onto the list. This seems like as good a swap as any. Also, it's worth bringing up their Fangraphs WAR, where John is over 75 while Cicotte is below 50. Fangraphs WAR for older pitchers is a little weird for my liking (maybe I just need to get used to it more, who knows; there are just a few pitchers who seem a little higher or lower than I would have thought), but I think that's a pretty comfortable margin to go by.
And…that's about it, really. My list is the same as last year's version, with six changes:
Deacon White (elected to Hall) -> Greg Maddux
Ezra Sutton -> Mike Mussina
Ross Barnes -> Tom Glavine
Tommy Bond -> Frank Thomas
Bob Caruthers -> Wes Ferrell
Eddie Cicotte -> Tommy John
Labels: 2014 Hall of Fame, 50 Best 2013, 50 Best Players Not in the Hall, Baseball Past and Present, Hall of Fame, Lists, Studies
Roy Halladay's Retirement and Cooperstown
I wanted to explain my awards ballot, but a faulty computer and other commitments have eaten into my opportunities to do that. So rather than dwell on older news, I figured that I may as well move on to newer things, especially since Hall of Fame season is coming up. And so, this piece will be about the Hall of Fame.
Not the newly-elected Veterans Committee picks, though. As I wrote last time, all three were deserving, but they only represented about half (or less) of the deserving people on the ballot. Besides, I would just rehash old ground (such as, why was there a vote cap, or why were managers competing with executive and players for induction, or who exactly picked those players anyway). No, I'm going to start looking forward, to recently-retired Roy Halladay's case. What will his debate look like come late 2018?
Let's start like most Hall voters probably will, with pitching wins. Halladay had 203 of them, a rather low total for the traditionally wins-centric BBWAA. 203 ties him with Lew Burdette, Silver King, and Jack Stivetts, not the biggest bunch of names. Right above him are Orel Hershiser and Al Orth, right below him are Charlie Root and Hall member Rube Marquard. Marquard isn't exactly the best Hall of Famer to stake your case on, though.
Winning Percentage paints him a lot better-Halladay is 17th all-time. Everyone above him with as many seasons pitched is in Cooperstown or will be. Pedro Martinez is the will be, in this case, and he makes for a pretty good comp, career-length-wise, and both had a similarly low amount of wins. Pedro was better, but he'll probably serve as an indicator of how Doc's case will fare, if nothing else.
Let's move from the ridiculous to the only kind of dumb; every pitcher with three or more Cy Young Awards is in the Hall (or is Roger Clemens). Doc has two. What has that meant historically? His fellow two-Cy pitchers and their Hall verdict:
Labels: Cy Young Award, Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame Run Downs, Philadelphia Phillies, Pitchers, Roy Halladay, Toronto Blue Jays
Breaking Down This Year's 50 Best Not in the Hall:...


The aim of working on the Inventory and the Catalogue Raisonée of the painter Federico Beltran Masses is to offer a complete vision of his career and a profound analysis of all his know works (paintings in oil, drawings and etchings).
All this will guarantee authenticity of the work to the owners.
The project of the Catalogue Raisonée of the work of Beltran Masses started in the end of 2012. In this stage of the process we find ourselves involved in, any collaboration is valuable.
If you own any painting or have any information about the author that could facilitate our work, it would be highly appreciated. Confidentiallity is guaranteed.


This one is going to be highly entertaining. The Somerville Theater in Davis Square is hosting Zombie Fest: From Dusk Til Dawn this upcoming Saturday night. Be forewarned, this is not for the faint of heart.
From 7pm until 7am (that's right 12 straight hours) they will be showing a veritable marathon of zombie movies. Tickets are $30 bucks at the door or $24 in advance. They've got some good movies lined up. Shaun of the Dead, which was hilarious. 28 Weeks Later, which I haven't seen but I'm sure it's good. And then various other zombie movies which may or may not be good.
But here's the best part: beer and wine is available. Soooo.......kick back, relax, have a drink, and watch a zombie movie (or 6 zombie movies for that matter). Bring your friends cause you're going to need someone to poke you when you start nodding off around 4am.
Brains! We Want Brains! What a coincidence, that's MIT's motto too.
0 Response to "Zombie Fest: From Dusk Till Dawn - 10/6"


The debops.pki role provides a standardized management of the X.509 certificates on hosts controlled by Ansible. Other Ansible roles can utilize the environment created by debops.pki to automatically enable TLS/SSL encrypted connections.
Using this role, you can bootstrap a Public Key Infrastructure in your environment using an internal Certificate Authority, easily switch the active set of certificates between internal and external Certificate Authorities, or use the ACME protocol to automatically obtain certificates from CA that support it (for example Let's Encrypt).
Some operations performed by the debops.pki role are done on the Ansible Controller. However, DebOps roles are not designed to manage the Ansible Controller host directly, so they cannot automatically install the required software.


text:
Progressives and Democrats cannot possibly match the vast financial resources of business and the wealthy and must turn to building powerful, long-term grass-roots organizations. That makes "Working America" the most important political project in America
by staff, June 19th, 2012 5:01 PM EST
A message from Ed Kilgore:
The Democratic coalition is currently engaged in an intense and urgent debate about vastly expanding the scope and role of grass-roots organizing. From Democratic financial contributors to political campaign managers and strategists, the issue has now attained critical importance in the new post-Citizen's United age.
The Democratic Strategist is proud to present the first in-depth look at one of the most important organizations in this field — Working America, the three million member community affiliate of the AFL-CIO. Although little known and less understood, Working America is actually a critical player and extraordinary social "laboratory" for progressive grass-roots organizing in white working class America.
Every participant in the current debate should become familiar with how WA works and what it has been able to achieve.
To read the memo, click here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Rules to promote condo safety could create financial nightmares for owners and associations
New condo safety rules likely to put low-income and fixed-income condo owners in a bind that might end in foreclosure.
By Louis Llovio
| 6:10 p.m. July 8, 2022
Key takeaway: The way the new reserve funding system is set up under new legislation could put a massive burden on individual condominium owners and associations.
Core challenge: Finding the balance between making sure associations have the funds to take care of critical repairs and making sure residents can afford to pay increased fees for reserved funds is not an easy task.
What's next: The wait is on to see if the Legislature will take a look at how reserves are funded or even if there is enough of an outcry to make a change.
The Florida legislature's unanimously approved condominium safety regulations are raising fears that a provision in the law could place too big of an onus on individual unit owners — particularly those in lower or fixed income brackets — who could be forced into foreclosure because they are unable to pay higher fees to meet the new law's requirements.
At issue is a requirement in the legislation, passed in May in response to the collapse of the 12-story Champlain Towers South in Surfside last year, that condominium associations have enough money in reserves to repair structural problems that may arise as well as take care of deferred maintenance.
The problem is how those reserves are to be calculated, which, the way the law is written, could create a massive burden for associations and unit owners, says Patricia Staebler, a state certified appraiser and a reserve specialist. Staebler, whose Sarasota firm Staebler Appraisal and Consulting works with condo associations, points to what she sees as flaws in the new law in hopes that lawmakers will revisit it and make fixes before it goes into effect in two years.
"If you want to summarize, I would say the immediate and short-term action is for the legislature to have a chat with resource providers who are going to teach them," she says. "Item number two, remove all (mechanical, electrical and plumbing) services" from the list of structural components.
Concerns mounting
On its face, and in the opinion of many in the state, including Staebler, the new rules go a long way toward preventing a repeat of the Surfside collapse that killed nearly 100 residents.
What the law did was create milestone inspections for buildings that are more than three stories tall.
The overwhelming majority of condo units in Florida are more than 30-years-old
Age Units
50+ 105,404
40-50 479,435
0-10 46,950
Source: Florida Bar
Most buildings will have to be inspected once it reaches its 30th birthday — based on when it received its certificate of occupancy. For buildings within three miles of the coast, the inspection needs to be done at the 25th birthday.
From then on, inspections have to occur every 10 years.
While most people think of gleaming beachfront condos when they talk about Florida living, 912,376 of the 1.5 million condominium units in the state are more than 30 years old, according to an October 2021 report from the Florida Bar. Of those, 105,404 are more than 50 years old.
The units are governed by 27,588 associations.
The inspections will be done in two parts, with phase one calling for a visual examination of the major structural components of a building and an assessment of its conditions. There is a phase two, but it's not required if there aren't signs of substantial deterioration during the first inspection.
If there is trouble, phase two calls for the person who did the inspection to submit a sealed inspection report with a summary of the findings and recommendations sent to the condominium or association board. Local officials with jurisdiction over the building must also get a copy of the report.
This report has to describe how the building is deteriorating and identify recommended repairs.
Where the concern lies is in the second part of the law, which requires associations and co-ops to have reserve funding in place to pay for issues affecting the structural integrity of a building and for maintenance identified in a structural integrity reserve study. This is a state-mandated study that every building three stories or taller must complete every 10 years in order to create a financial plan for future repairs and maintenance.
The study of common areas has to state how much useful life remains and estimate the replacement cost or the deferred maintenance cost. Plus, it must come with a recommendation for the annual reserve amount.
At a minimum, the study must include an inspection of any item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost topping $10,000. That includes the roof, load-bearing walls, floors, foundation, fireproofing and fire protection systems, plumbing, electrical systems, waterproofing and exterior painting and windows.
Alarm bells
The problem, Staebler says, is lawmakers included the mechanical services alongside the structural items, "which points to a lack of understanding what structural really means and it will increase the financial burden even more."
Among the items she believes lawmakers must go back and remove from the list of services are electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems because they aren't related to the structural components of building.
She says forcing associations to have the funding set aside for future repairs of these items "will lead to extremely high assessments and will bankrupt associations."
"People will lose their homes. Living in condominiums will become unaffordable for the mainstream public."
While this may seem like hyperbole, the reason for sounding the alarm is because the new law calls for associations to set aside funds for the individual components rather than pooling funds.
She uses an air conditioning unit as an example of how the new system will work and why she's worried.
Let's say, she says, an HVAC unit has about a 10-year life cycle and could cost about $10,000 to replace. The way the new law is structured, when the unit is five years old the association will need to have $5,000 in the bank, in an account separate from that of other items, and then add $1,000 each year for the its replacement.
If you break that down by individual components, she says associations will have to raise millions and not be able to touch a penny of that money if something else needs repaired until it's time for the repair or replacement of the individual component.
She has clients who are now scraping by with about $200,000 a year by pooling funds. By requiring component funding, these associations likely need to have $800,000 to $1 million.
Where will that money come from? Unit owners.
"It will not affect necessarily livelihood of the upper middle class and beyond," she says. "But now, when we are talking about the medium income, low medium income condominiums, just imagine what impact that will have on the association and the unit owner."
The majority of Florida condo dwellers fall into that latter category.
The challenge state leaders face as they consider what, if anything, to do about the reserves provision is if money is not set aside for repairs or maintenance beforehand, associations will be forced to pass special assessments in order to address those issues, or emergencies, at the time. Or worse, if the work isn't completed you could one day see a repeat of Surfside.
This creates a Catch 22 for low- and middle-income residents who must pay now or later when in most cases they can't afford to pay either time.
And advisory task force studying condominium laws and safety for the Florida Bar found in October that the effect of special assessments on those with fixed incomes and limited resources creates a financial burden that's difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to carry.
The task force recommends that government agencies — federal, state and local — create programs that offer low interest loans to pay for special assessments. While this may only be a Band-Aid, it could at least help offset the immediate cost to unit owners unable to pay when work is needed.
The solution Staebler offers is to change how the reserves are funded in the new law by removing the mechanical components from the legislation.
Will either happen? Only time will tell.
The Community Association Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based organization, pushed for the legislation and praised the results.
But, as with any new law, sometimes the unintended consequences aren't immediately apparent, and tweaks are needed. With that in mind, the CAI says it will work "closely with policymakers before the bill takes effect in 2024 to be certain the new requirements and directives are workable and practical for Florida's impacted associations."
Pair of lawsuits challenge new insurance crises and condo safety regulations
Balancing act: How can high-dollar condos and affordable housing co-exist?
Condo safety measures approved by state lawmakers
Rules to promote condo safety could keep buyers out of the market
Law industry still grappling with finding employees in 2023
Find the Value
Colony president responds to ruling


text:
What is the dont convention in bridge?
Disturb Opponents' Notrumpa conventional overcall used to interfere with an opponent's one notrump (1NT) opening bid. DONT, an acronym for Disturb Opponents' Notrump, was designed by Marty Bergen, and is therefore also referred to as "Bergen over Notrump".
How do you play don't in bridge?
The strength required for a DONT overcall is influenced by vulnerability and position (direct seat vs. balancing). However, bridge authors generally seem to agree that DONT can be used with light shapely hands.
The Overcalls.
Overcall
2 Spades (normally 6+ cards), weaker than a double followed by a 2 rebid.
What is the Landy convention in bridge?
Landy is a convention for use after the opponents have opened 1NT. A 2 overcall shows at least 5-4 in the major suits and 10+ points. The point count minimum may be relaxed at favorable vulnerability. On the flip side, extra strength is needed for a 5-4 overcall because of the slightly decreased chance of a fit.
What does a 1NT response mean in bridge?
The 1NT response to a one-of-a-suit opener is a "dustbin" bid, a bid for those weak responding hands that have no viable alternative (unable to bid a suit because they lack the strength for a two over- one response). All true – when the opponent on responder's right is silent.
What is a negative double in bridge?
The negative double is a form of takeout double in bridge. It is made by the responder after his right-hand opponent overcalls on the first round of bidding, and is used to show shortness in overcall's suit, support for the unbid suits with emphasis on majors, as well as some values.
See also What is glass ionomer cement in dentistry?
How many points do you need to overcall 1NT?
To bid 1NT as an overcall, you should have 15-18 (or 19) points, balanced with a stopper in the suit opened.
What is Smolen in bridge?
Smolen is a convention used by a responder to a notrump opening bid (or natural notrump overcall). It is used when the responder is 5-4 in the majors (either way). It is used only when the responder has enough strength for game.
What is Astro in bridge?
Astro is a contract bridge bidding convention used to intervene over an opponent's one notrump (1NT) opening bid. The name is derived from the initials of the surnames of its inventors – Paul Allinger, Roger Stern and Lawrence Rosler.
What is Meckwell in bridge?
Meckwell is a method for defending against an opposing strong one notrump (1NT) opening by intervening in the direct and passout seats.
What is McKendrick in bridge?
A) McKendrick is a combined invite/minor suit transfer system over the weak 1NT opening bid… It is an enquiring bid, saying; "Partner please describe your hand"… This is extremely useful when responder holds strong, intermediate or weak hands.
WHAT IS barrier in bridge?
When you open the bidding, with a one-level suit bid, you immediately set yourself a "barrier" which is defined as two of that suit you bid.
Is Double forcing in bridge?
(1) Takeout double. (2) A new suit by the doubler shows a strong one-suited hand. However, this is not forcing.
Overcaller's Rebids.
Jump raise of partner's suit 19-21 points, 4+ card support. Not forcing.
Cue-bid 19+ points, one-round force. No other suitable bid.
See also Where does the money from lottery go?
What does fourth suit forcing mean in bridge?
Fourth suit forcing (also referred to as fourth suit artificial; abbreviated as FSF or 4SF) is a contract bridge convention that allows responder to create, at his second turn to bid, a forcing auction.
Is a new suit by opener forcing?
If opener bids a new suit at the two-level, it is considered semi-forcing if you bid a suit at the one level (ie, forcing unless you have a bare 6-7 points) and is usually played as forcing if you bid at the 2 level (in a new suit).
When should I use 4th suit forcing?
Fourth Suit Forcing should only be used when responder does not have another attractive bid available, such as: Rebidding a 6-card suit. Bidding no-trumps with a stopper in the fourth suit. Making a delayed 3-card raise of partner's major suit opening bid.
What is an unassuming cue bid?
The unassuming cue-bid, or UCB, is effectively the reverse of the. negative double. It is a low-level cue-bid of the opponent's suit that. shows support with your partner's suit and a hand that is strong enough. for a good raise to the next level, at least.
What is the rule of 14 in bridge?
To respond in a new suit at the two-level, you hand should satisfy the Rule of 14: the point-count of your hand added to the number of cards in your suit should get to 14 or more. If you fail the Rule of 14, you have the following options in priority order: a). Respond in a four-card suit at the one-level.
See also What are the constituents of GIC?
How do you respond to a cue bid in bridge?
Responses to a 2 Cuebid (Hearts and a Minor)
Natural, showing a very good diamond suit (usually 6+) since the Michaels cue-bidder will usually hold 5+ clubs, not diamonds. Non-forcing. A natural sign-off. Artificial, and shows game or slam interest in hearts or a minor.
What does DTK mean?
Who won the Montana Lottery?
What team is Richard Jefferson on?
How do you screw in T nuts?
What does it mean to winterize a pool?
When did Dizzy Dean die?
Who was Daniel's daughter in fear the walking dead?
Is every team represented in the All Star Game?
How many thirds make a cup?
What is a Louisiana Sportsman Paradise license?
Is Dustin Johnson married?
What was the DC Lottery Winning Numbers?
What were Gabriela Mistral's poems about?
Does fast Fibre put weight on horses?
Is Twister The movie based on a true story?
Does ShopRite have home delivery?
Who is Peter in Touching Spirit Bear?
What is Margaret Court worth?
Sport [email protected]


Club World. Dallas to London.
I left my last post heading towards gate D15 at Dallas / Fort Worth airport from the Admirals Club. The lady in the BA lounge asked me to be at the gate for 17.30 and the boarding pass indicated that it would close at 17.45 (for a 18.25 departure). That all sounded a little odd, but I arrived at the gate as instructed.
There was a large crowd of people and a tensa-barrier maze with no clear entrance. The staff made a couple of announcements to say that boarding had not started yet, but were doing pre-boards for those people needing help to walk down the jet bridge. However that went on for about fifteen minutes, and it wasn't until 17.45 that regular boarding started, with the calling of first class passengers only. The next called Club World, Gold and Silver card holders and what seemed like the entire gate area moved towards the doors.
I've mentioned this on a number of occasions to some senior people at British Airways, but so far to no avail. The boarding process matters, and there's no consistency of approach, or clear standards that are applied globally. This is one area that I believe the US carriers in general are actually pretty good at. Zone or group based boarding, clearly marked on the boarding pass, can't come to British Airways soon enough.
Safely on board, I settled down into 62B, an aisle seat upstairs. There were two lovely ladies looking after the cabin, and it turned out that there were three seats free in total meaning only 17 of us.
Pre departure water, orange juice or Champagne was handed out. The crew then went around with wash-bags and menus.
For those that haven't been upstairs in a 747-400, it's a great place to be. The aisle is wide, there's only a small number of people, and it's generally pretty quiet.
We pushed back and after a good fifteen minute taxi to the take-off runway, the rumble of the Rolls Royce engines increased and we were on our way back to London.
Thankfully this was one of the versions of the 747 that had the updated in-flight entertainment system. There was a wide variety of films with a highly responsive (if slightly small) touchscreen in front of me.
Hot towels were handed out which unfortunately were the standard British Airways type – very thin and low quality, and unscented.
The crew then started at the front of the cabin, doing a bar round from the trolley. At the same time, they took meal choices. I opted for the goat's cheese starter and then the cod for my main course.
My normal gin and tonic was provided, but having recently flown a number of other airlines recently, I was struck by the difference in presentation and service for the same drink, in the same class between Etihad (left), American (centre) and British Airways (right). Not least the quality of the drink itself. I won't say any more than that, other than let the photos do the talking.
It wasn't long before the food came out.
Again, it was ok; essentially salad and salad with a small, single piece of chocolate lurking in the pink wrapper near the top.
The crew asked what I'd like to drink with the main, and opted for the Sauvignon Blanc. Unfortunately none was loaded so it was a choice between a Californian chardonnay or a Californian chardonnay. I opted for the Californian chardonnay.
The main course was pretty awful. The cod was completely overcooked and try and the rice and sauce were exceptionally salty. However being reasonably hungry I finished it all.
Being pretty tired at this point, I declined dessert and reclined my seat to get some rest for the remainder of the flight.
The one thing that Club World is good for is getting some rest – I slept fairly soundly for the rest of the flight, only being woken up by the Captain stating 40 minutes to landing.
However I was disturbed a couple of times by the lady in the window seat in front of me, stepping over my feet to get in and out of her seat. This is certainly a known design issue with the aisle Club World seats and was remarkably annoying. Thankfully I'm a pretty good sleeper on aircraft so harrumphed a little, turned over and went straight back to sleep.
The crew at that point asked if I wanted anything to eat or drink, however I declined explaining that I'd eat in the Arrivals Lounge instead. I'll be posting a full review of that later.
It wasn't long before the seat belt sign went on for twenty minutes to go, and we arrived at a drab Terminal 5. We were parked next to the fuel farm, opposite T5C, meaning a bus journey in to the main T5 complex.
Down the steps, across the apron and into a packed standing room only bus. Again, unlike Etihad, it was everyone crammed in to as few buses as possible, rather than having separate buses for first class and business class.
After a few minute drive we were deposited at the escalators up to the UK Border and after perhaps five minutes queueing for an eGate, was home and land-side.
Overall, Club World is really falling behind. The hard product is now twenty years old. The food is pretty awful. The drinks service is clearly behind and inconsistent. It's still good for sleeping, provided you get a window, otherwise it's still quite mediocre. BA claim they're investing £400m into the product, but I'm not sure that's enough. Too little, too late.
Next Post: British Airways Terminal 5 Arrivals Lounge "Infinity" baths.


We may not always have a white Christmas here in Northern Ireland but in the studio it's always possible to create the perfect winter scene for some gorgeous baby photos! I held an afternoon of mini-sessions to capture some stunning images of babies and toddlers in my miniature winter wonderland. We had a great afternoon and the kids loved playing with my selection of Christmas toys & props and the sight of their little one sitting in the sleigh really boosted the Christmas spirit with the parents!
We created plenty of gorgeous images and I can't wait to see plenty more snow babies next Christmas!