BBWAA rules for voters: what are they?

[Mattingly]

I've been curious for some time, what are the rules for writers for the Baseball Writers (BBWAA) to be able to vote? I've heard that they need to have been a baseball writer for 10 years. What are the others? Does this mean that they're a featured baseball columnist, as opposed to a contributing editor for a newspaper?

I'd also like to know, is this only open to newspaper writers? What about magazine writers who also write only about baseball, such as Gammons, Verducci, etc?

For newspaper baseball writers, do they have to write for a newspaper that's close to a baseball town? What if they write for a newspaper that's not too close to a baseball town (say, Fargo, ND)? Can they still vote?

I also presume that it's the same group of writers (550 or so) that vote for HoF inductees that also vote for ROY, CYA, MVP, etc.

If anyone can please offer this info, I'd be appreciative. :)

Thx.

[milladrive]

As I know it, BBWAA members must work for a print newspaper either as a beat writer, baseball columnist, feature writers, or editors. If a writer leaves newspapers for magazines or an Internet column, he can retain his membership in the BBWAA.

Indeed, all members of 10 years or more (discounting NY Times, DC Post, and sometimes LA Times writers) are eligible to vote. You are also correct that it's the same group of members who vote on the various awards. Currently, the number of eligible voters is 575.

I'm unsure about whether or not the writers' affiliation or location has anything to do with membership qualifications, but somehow I doubt it. I think it has more to do with who you know, not what you know or where you are. My guess is that membership is primarily by invite but will be granted if a writer pursues it and can show that he is indeed a professional baseball writer.

One of the problems -- and one of the several reasons the BBWAA gets such flack from the general public -- is that they're a very insular fraternity. What started out as a union in response to mistreatment by MLB owners has become quite secretive, especially as ballplayers' salaries soon outpaced their own by leaps and bounds.

The President of the BBWAA is Peter Schmuck (I kid you not, that's his name), a columnist for the Baltimore Sun. Can't say whether he's approachable or not, though.

[digglahhh]

One of the problems is that once you become a member, your status is cemented. You don't have to continue writing about baseball or even continue to follow it.

Guys like Gammons and Verducci have votes.

[Mattingly]

As I know it, BBWAA members must work for a print newspaper either as a beat writer, baseball columnist, feature writers, or editors. If a writer leaves newspapers for magazines or an Internet column, he can retain his membership in the BBWAA.

Indeed, all members of 10 years or more (discounting NY Times, DC Post, and sometimes LA Times writers) are eligible to vote. You are also correct that it's the same group of members who vote on the various awards. Currently, the number of eligible voters is 575.
So it's only print newspapers? So if someone starts out writing for 5 years as a beat writer for baseball town newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle, LA Times, NY Daily News, Boston Globe, etc, then switches to becoming a baseball columnist (or beat writer) at a magazine, such as Sporting News, SI, I guess they'd keep their voting status, so long as they've been around for 10 years?

Are their changes of being brought in as voting members enhanced if they have more prestigious titles? Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, Mike Lupica, the venerable Yankee hater, is the biggest-name baseball columnist for the NY Daily News. He's also on Sports Reporters on Sundays. I'm presuming that those things would add more "prestige" to a columnist.

What I'm asking is, if a person is a big-name columnist vs a lesser known beat writer for a smaller publication, would the columnist have a greater change of becoming a voting member? I also presume that all members are voting members, as opposed to non-voting members.
I'm unsure about whether or not the writers' affiliation or location has anything to do with membership qualifications, but somehow I doubt it. I think it has more to do with who you know, not what you know or where you are. My guess is that membership is primarily by invite but will be granted if a writer pursues it and can show that he is indeed a professional baseball writer.
Oh, I hadn't realized it was by invitation only. I'd wondered who'd kept track. It's not like someone checks out where your very first MLB article was written, then 10 consecutive years later, you get a letter being invited.

Do people demonstrate their qualifications, such as writing samples, as in forwarding a resume for their various writing jobs? Curiosity got the best of me.
One of the problems -- and one of the several reasons the BBWAA gets such flack from the general public -- is that they're a very insular fraternity. What started out as a union in response to mistreatment by MLB owners has become quite secretive, especially as ballplayers' salaries soon outpaced their own by leaps and bounds.
I also remember something about the resentment. It's been said that a baseball writer (or any other sports writer) is a skinny kid who couldn't actually play the game, so they criticize and judge others who do. Not every NFL writer has coached a team to a Super Bowl like TV's John Madden has.

Even if a writer gets $200,000, he doesn't sell tickets. If a player gets $3-5m, that's considered relatively cheap. I can see the resentment, but only if they wish to compare themselves to the athletes they cover. If that's the case, they should be glad they're not covering boxers or soccer players. :)
The President of the BBWAA is Peter Schmuck (I kid you not, that's his name), a columnist for the Baltimore Sun. Can't say whether he's approachable or not, though.
That last one threw me. I'm still trying to figure out how someone got (and kept) that name. I just wish that their website was a bit more descriptive of what exactly it is that they do.

http://www.baseballwriters.org/

At least here's something relevant and highly useful, I think:

Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) (http://www.baseballwriters.org/HOF_rules.html)

[Mattingly]

One of the problems is that once you become a member, your status is cemented. You don't have to continue writing about baseball or even continue to follow it.

Guys like Gammons and Verducci have votes.
I've never heard of guys who'd stopped writing about MLB altogether and they were still active and voting members. Do you know of any instances of this?

I figured that guys like Gammons and Verducci, being big names, would have votes. Gammons started with the Boston Globe, so I figured that's where he'd cut his teeth. He himself was voted into Cooperstown last year, so he's definitely up there.

I'm not sure what Verducci's background is. Come to think about it, I also wonder if guys like Buster Olney and other espn.com writers would have votes.

Thanks for your help, diggs, and the same to milladrive. :)

[milladrive]

So it's only print newspapers? So if someone starts out writing for 5 years as a beat writer for baseball town newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle, LA Times, NY Daily News, Boston Globe, etc, then switches to becoming a baseball columnist (or beat writer) at a magazine, such as Sporting News, SI, I guess they'd keep their voting status, so long as they've been around for 10 years? ...

...Oh, I hadn't realized it was by invitation only. I'd wondered who'd kept track. It's not like someone checks out where your very first MLB article was written, then 10 consecutive years later, you get a letter being invited.

Do people demonstrate their qualifications, such as writing samples, as in forwarding a resume for their various writing jobs? Curiosity got the best of me.

First, I hope you're not confusing 10 years of writing with 10 years of BBWAA membership. It takes 10 years of membership to vote, but 10 years of writing is not required to become a member.

Also, the "newspaper" thing is most definitely with its exceptions. I can't imagine someone being disqualified for membership simply because they've never written for a newspaper but instead have spent their careers with Sports Illustrated or Baseball Digest. ...But yes, if someone becomes a BBWAA member, then switches publications, they can keep their membership, thus continuing their accumulative tenure.

It's just a guess that it's primarily by invite, but it makes sense. A baseball writer can hypothetically have written one single paid article and be invited to join the organization, while another may have spent his whole life professionally writing about the sport without ever becoming a member. As I say, I think it's who you know. For example, if a writer publishes one article but is friends with another member, he may get an invite when the friend mentions his name to the board. On the other hand, someone can professionally write about baseball their whole lives and never join. BUT, hypothetically speaking, of course, if someone writes for the Bismarck Tribune all his life, knows no one in the org but wishes to become a member, he can contact the org, show that he writes a baseball column for a professionally published newspaper, and technically be accepted based solely on the articles and contacts he gives to the BBWAA.

I don't think "prestige" matters at all. One thing is for sure, however: A writer needn't work in a baseball town to be a member. Jeff Peek, who writes for the Traverse City Record-Eagle in the forests of upstate Michigan, is a longtime member. Traverse City, population of about 15,000 is a good 250 miles northwest of Detroit, its closest MLB town. ...But quite frankly, on the other of the coin, if Mike Lupica is not a member (I don't know for sure that he's not), it would just go to prove how selectively discriminating (aka elitist) they really are.

All members of 10 years or more receive their ballots. Whether they actually submit them or not, though, is anyone's guess. But no matter where they're from, all BBWAA members of 10 years or more are eligible to vote -- unless they work for the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times. Those three newspapers have policies which to disallow their writers from participating in the voting. Perhaps contacting a baseball writer from one of those three papers would shed some insight that a writer from another publication wouldn't share. Just a thought.

As for the salary disparities, there was a time when players and sportswriters earned about the same amount of money. For many years, they'd eat in the same restaurants, drink at the same neighborhood bars, etc. Cobb and Stump made approximately the same pay. It wasn't until free agency and the big money did they begin to segregate themselves from each other more and more. I personally can't say there's a general resentment for each other (each player and writer is different), but I do know that since the disparity began, the general public has grown quite a resentment for both players and writers. We naturally know about the players, but why the writers? Well, for one, while the public can particiopate in the All-Star voting, they're still barred from voting on MVP, ROY, CYA, HOF, etc. The public has grown a huge resentment of this.

Also, as stated, the BBWAA has became decidedly insular, giving the general public very little info about themselves. I mean, just look at their website (for which we all need sunglasses and Demron suits to view). It's basically for members only, and this is just the way they want it. On our own, we could probably come up with a list of about 100 members, but the complete list is available only on their site. Intriguing, ain't it?

[digglahhh]

Mattingly,

To get the best possible answers to the type of questions you are asking, I would suggest that you solicit Freakshow- he is tremendously knowledgeable about all this kind of stuff.

[JamesWest]

That last one threw me. I'm still trying to figure out how someone got (and kept) that name. I just wish that their website was a bit more descriptive of what exactly it is that they do.

]

Peter Schmuck has been around for a long time, I remember reading him in The Sporting News back in the 80s.