Conan O'Brien: The Last Host of The Tonight Show

Conan O’Brien is back.  He was gone for a while, but he’s back on the air with his revamped show on TBS.  In the interim the show was refashioned to meet Conan’s personal specifications; it was shortened to 30 minutes, the band was jettisoned, and there is no desk.  And his attire is far less formal.

After 25 years on late night television, he has earned the right to shape his show to suit his needs.  He is, after all, The Last Host of The Tonight Show.

Of course, that’s not true literally.  After he was forced out of his Tonight Show gig Jay Leno resumed hosting, eventually turning the job over to Jimmy Fallon.  But Jimmy Fallon is not the successor to Steve Allen, Jack Paar, and Johnny Carson.  The Tonight Show became the most influential job in late night entertainment because its hosts were brilliant, creative innovators who pushed the boundaries of the medium.  Leno and Falllon are just seat-fillers.

It is hard to recall that when Conan O’Brien took on the Late Late Show it was controversial.  He was a little-known comedic entity, perhaps best known for writing an episode of The Simpsons that was pretty good (okay, Marge vs. the Monorail is one of the five best episodes of a show that has produced over 600 episodes).  There was a shaky start, a breaking-in period, but eventually O’Brien established himself as a master of offbeat, idiosyncratic humor very much in the vein of David Letterman.  He bided his time, and when Jay Leno relinquished his seat at the Tonight Show desk he took over, as it had been pre-ordained by an NBC desperate to avoid the embarrassing imbroglio that surrounded the Leno/Letterman battle to succeed Carson.

As detailed in the book The War for Late Night by Bill Carter, NBC had two overwhelming desires: they needed O’Brien to tap into the youth demographic that he appealed to more than Leno, but they also wanted the more conventional Leno to stay on.  They’d both been promised the Tonight Show at 11:30, but there was only one time slot and two of them.

They tried putting Leno on at ten PM, which was widely derided as the Worst Move In the History of Television.  After an embarrassingly prolonged battle, O’Brien was pushed out.  He refused to accept the lie of calling his show “The Tonight Show” but broadcasting it at 12:05, issuing a manifesto calling out the NBC brass, saying, “I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its [the Tonight Show’s] destruction.”  When NBC was focused on ratings and corporate profits, O’Brien’s concern was the reputation of a show that began nine years before he was born.

In the end NBC’s greed cost them Conan O’Brien and a large financial settlement.  Conan had to sign a non-compete clause, but he simply waited it out by going on a nationwide tour which boosted his profile, in the meantime lining up a new show on TBS and not one of the Big Four networks.

The mantle of “host of The Tonight Show” technically reverted to Jay Leno, but not in any real way.  The title actually died when Johnny Carson left, as he proved to be a singular talent incapable of being replaced.  Not even David Letterman would have managed the feat, and it is probably better for him that he was exiled to CBS. 

But Conan O’Brien was the last true successor to Johnny Carson and The Tonight Show, and if his TBS show doesn’t carry the name, it carries on the spirit. O’Brien’s giddy silliness reminds me of the vintage Steve Allen clip when he caught sight of himself wearing a silly hat in a monitor and started laughing uncontrollably (on live TV, I believe).  His travel specials, collected on Netflix under the title Conan Without Borders, capture the quintessence of his persona; he doesn’t take himself seriously, but he does treat others with respect.

I’m not sure what to make of the new format of Conan.  I missed the debut but saw the second episode with the cast of The Good Place.  In the new 30-minute format he had no time to talk with all five cast members, and having everyone lined up facing the audience did not promote conversation.  Not that I’m complaining, but it seemed to me that no one told Jameela Jamil that she’d be sitting on a tall barstool and she spent 10 seconds trying to pull down her short skirt to avoid offending the censors.

But it is a work in progress, and Conan, being a graduate of Harvard, will figure it out.  Somewhere, Steve Allen, Jack Paar, and Johnny Carson are enjoying Conan O’Brien’s jokes.

Mike Mussina and the Hall of Fame

Mike Mussina is in the Hall of Fame.  Sabremetricians everywhere are cheering, because finally, at last, someone with a largely mediocre career was inducted into the Hall thanks to his WAR and not because he ever accomplished anything on a baseball diamond.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those crotchety old men who spend their lives railing against those “analytics” guys and long for the good old days when RBIs meant something.  I did my masters’ thesis on baseball statistics, including WAR.  I have a degree in economics and am perfectly comfortable using math more complicated than multiplying and dividing.  I am glad to admit that RBIs are a context-based statistic that does not truly measure a batter’s value to his team.

But while I believe WAR is a valuable method of evaluating players in trades or forecasting team results, I don’t believe that admission to the Hall of Fame should be based on someone having a WAR over 70.  Sabremetrics are useful evaluative techniques, but abstract mathematics should not be a substitute for evaluating what actually happens in ball games.  It is the Hall of FAME, not Hall of Quantfiably Good.  Which is why I am on record opposing Mussina's Hall candidacy.

Some people seem to want to convert the MVP race to a battle to see who has the highest WAR.  However, if a player plays in a hitter friendly park, his WAR will be downgraded because he wouldn’t have hit so many homers and doubles in a “neutral” ballpark.  Fine, but the fact is that, while he may have been aided by a ballpark’s cozy dimensions or prevailing breeze to right field, a ballplayer DID hit those homers and doubles, driving in runs and helping to win real ball games.  Abstract math is nice, but reality matters.

But back to Mike Mussina.  He is probably a nice guy; for all I know he pays his taxes, reads to his kids at bedtime, and contributes to charitable causes.  He also played major league baseball for 17 years, and in that time he never won 20 games (well, he won 19 in 1995) and he never won a Cy Young Award.  He never led the league in any major statistical category (unless you count “walks per 9 innings” as significant).  He never won Game Seven of a World Series; his career post-season record is 7-8 with a 3.40 ERA.  His career ERA is 3.68, which is the third highest of the pitchers in the Hall (one of the two higher ERAs belongs to Jack Morris, another marginal Hall candidate I’d have voted against).  In 17 seasons he made 5 All-Star teams, meaning that he didn’t make 12 All-Star teams. He won 7 Gold Gloves, but Jim Kaat won 16 (plus 13 more games) and he isn’t in the Hall.

Bill James, the Godfather of Sabremetrics, once wrote a book called “What Ever Happened to the Hall of Fame?”  (the original title, “The Politics of Glory” must have been deemed too grandiose).  In the book he proposed a number of alternate ways of determining Hall membership.  The one I gravitated to was, “Could you write a history of baseball during the player’s career and NOT mention them by name?”  For example, Raphael Palmeiro, once considered a lock for the Hall before failing a steroids test, got 3,000 hits and slugged 500 home runs, but never got any MVP support, only made it to the first round of the playoffs a couple of times, and once managed to lead the league in runs scored but nothing else.  He never led his team to the postseason, and he never produced a season worthy of note.  He had a nice long injury-free career during a high-offense era, but he doesn’t belong in the history books or the Hall. 

There would be no need of mentioning Mike Mussina if you wrote about baseball from 1992-2008.  The word used twice to describe Mussina in his Wikipedia entry is “consistency.”  Consistency is nice, but the Hall of Fame is about excellence.  Mussina was a very good pitcher, but he never stood out in a crowd.

Be that as it may, he is now in, along with Harold Baines.  I really do feel like an old curmudgeon droning on about how pitchers used to throw complete games and good batters used to strike out less than 200 times a season.  I appreciate a god Hall of Fame debate, but with Harold Baines and Mike Mussina in the Hall the wrong side seems to be winning more often.

Know when to pick chalk

I recently wrote about wild card weekend in the NFL, when 3 of the 4 games ended as upsets.  Well, another weekend has passed, and this time all four favored teams won.  What a shock.

The reasons why are obvious, but not to some of the professional prognosticators at ESPN.  Virtually EVERY SINGLE PERSON that I saw forecasting the Rams/Cowboys game picked the Cowboys.  Why?  Oh, they’d talk about how the Rams really don’t have a home field advantage (as if crowd noise explained home field advantage), they were a different team after the Amari Cooper trade, and the match up favored the Cowboys.  But the bottom line was that a 10-6 team that won the weakest of the NFC’s divisions were “hot” because they eked out a two-point victory at home over a mediocre Seahawks team, so of course they should be favored over a 13-3 team that broke countless scoring records during the season.  I suspect an additional factor was that most ESPN talking heads think of the Cowboys as an “elite” franchise even though they have a nearly .500 record over the past several years and haven’t actually WON anything in over 20 years.

Why do upsets dominate wild card weekend, but not the following week?  Let us count the ways.

First, there is a smaller spread of talent on wild card weekend.  The very fact that you have to play on wild card weekend means you weren’t that good during the regular season.  The really good teams get a week off, but usually there are around ten or twelve teams with so-so records vying for the 8 slots on wild card weekend.  There is a ceiling of how good a team can be to play on wild card weekend, but there is no floor; heck, the 7-9 Seahawks qualified one year.  With a smaller gap between the top dogs and the underdogs, some upsets are inevitable.

Second, the teams playing on wild card weekend are playing on an equal basis in one respect; they all played the weekend before.  However, the teams that got a bye on wild card weekend get to have a week off, allowing their players to rest and recover after an arduous football season.  A wild card win might build momentum, but having a rested team counts for a lot more.

The bye week also gives the coaches of those teams additional time to prepare. In cases like Bill Belichick, that extra prep time is deadly.  What Hannibal Smith said in The A-Team Movie fits perfectly: “Give me a minute, I'm good. Give me an hour, I'm great. Give me six months, I'm unbeatable.”  Give Bill Belichick two weeks and you’re toast.

The third reason for fewer upsets the weekend after wild card weekend is that some studies have indicated that home field advantage is more significant for better teams, such as those that avoided having to play on wild card weekend.  Whatever the reason for home field advantage (and as I indicated above, crowd noise is probably only one of a myriad of factors involved) good teams seem to do a better job of taking advantage of them.  Good teams that play outdoors in cold climates are better suited for icy, slippery conditions; teams that play at high altitudes are conditioned to play more effectively with less oxygen; teams that play on turf in domes can take more advantage of the speed and the crowd noises.

By the way, referees used to throw flags and penalize teams for Unsportsmanlike Conduct if the home fans made so much noise the opponents couldn't hear the play calls.  Why don't they do that any more?

It was completely predictable that wild card weekend would see three upsets in four games, while the next round saw four of four favored teams win.  Not that they were all slam dunks; the Saints/Eagles game could have gone the other way but for some fortunate bounces for the Saints.  But many of the sages at ESPN predicted that the Colts would beat Kansas City (based largely on KC’s pathetic history, the resurgent career of Andrew Luck, and the feeble performance of rookie QBs in the wild card round), or the Chargers would beat New England (because Brady’s not the same QB he used to be), or Dallas would beat the Rams (see my first paragraph).  Some even predicted the Eagles would beat the highly favored Saints because of, and I quote, “magic.”

So keep this in mind for future NFL playoffs: look for the upset on wild card weekend, but for the Divisional Round stick with the chalk.

Au revoir, Andy Murray

Just before the start of the Aussie Open, Andy Murray has announced his retirement due to injury. The response from the media and fellow pros has been overwhelmingly positive.  But I won’t miss him.

This is, I admit, manifestly unfair.  I don’t know Andy Murray, never met the guy.  Most of what I dislike him for is outside his control.  I’ve written before about my annoyance at the media's insistence of equating Murray with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovich by calling them the Big Four. 

The first three all have double digit Major wins; Murray had a paltry three.  Lumping them into a single unit was absurd, a case of “Which one of these things is not like the others?”  On top of that, Stan Warwinka also had three majors, so why isn’t it a Big Five?  You can’t include Murray and exclude Warwinka from any consideration of who are the top men’s tennis players.

I also dislike the movement to rename the slope at Wimbledon where people can watch matches on a large TV screen “Murray Mound” from the previous “Henman Hill.”  First, there is the fact that Murray is a Scotsman, not from England, and therefore England embracing him as a national champion smacks of opportunism.  Aussie Pat Cash won Wimbledon, why not count him as the last native Englander to win? 

The main thing I object to is the fact that when Murray won, he was one of the favorites while Tim Henman was barely a top ten player who was never going to win (barring a bus accident taking out half of the men’s top seeds).  Yet every year, for five or six years, he put his country on his back and went one round further than he had any right to expect.  So, let’s keep it Henmen Hill, please (I took a tour of Wimbledon last year, and they mention both names).

The reason that I dislike Murray that he does bear some responsibility for is his attitude while playing.  He doesn’t throw tantrums like Kyrios, Murray always displays decorum, but he doesn’t seem to be enjoying himself.  Maybe you think Roger Federer plays like an inhuman robot, and at times his technique does seem mechanical, but he does on occasion display joy.  Nadal is a grind it out kind of guy, but the same applies to him.  Djokovich had some behavior problems early in his career, but after he tamed them, he lived up to his nickname “Joker.”

Murray never looks like he is having a good time.  He’ll be up two sets to none, miss a tricky backhand, and yell at his racket for missing the shot.  He scowls through every match.  Bill James once said that Rickey Henderson was the only baseball player whom seemed like he would be happier as an auto mechanic if it paid as much as baseball; I feel the same way about Murray and tennis.

So, Murray is the first of the mythical “Big Four” to end his career with an injury.  Nadal’s punishing brand of tennis has taken its toll on him, and Djokovich hasn’t been the same since he held all four majors at once.  Time is even starting to catch up to Federer.  For all the accolades Federer has been given, people do not appreciate how amazing it is that he can play at the ultra-high level he does and NOT damage his body, as Nadal, Djokovich, Del Potro, Warwinka, and every other top 100 tennis player has.

Au revoir, Andy Murray!  Enjoy retirement.  Maybe you can start planning on coaching the British Davis Cup team to a victory.

NFL Playoffs: experience versus youth

It is unusual when fate creates a natural experiment to test an hypothesis that has been long debated, but that is exactly what has happened on this NFL Wild Card Weekend.  Question: how important is experience when playing in the playoffs?  Answer: we just may find out this weekend.

There are four wild card games this weekend.  In each one, the favored team is being led by a neophyte (or nearly) quarterback, while the underdog is led by a veteran QB.  There are other factors that will confound the experiment, such as home field advantage, relative strength of the rest of the teams, coaching competence and experience, and the like.  But in all of the wild card games, it boils down to age and experience versus youth and enthusiasm.

The first game had Indianapolis playing at the Texans’ home stadium, with grizzled veteran Andrew Luck playing against newbie QB Deshaun Watson who was completing his first full season.  According to FiveThirtyEight’s ELO system the Texans were 1 ½ point favorites, but Luck and the Colts pulled out the win.  One vote for experience.

But the Saturday late game was wild card Seattle versus the NFC East champs the Cowboys, matching Super Bowl winner Russel Wilson (who would have won two MVPs if his coach hadn’t made the most boneheaded play call in football history) against the Cowboy’s second year QB Dak Prescott.  Dallas was a one-point favorite and managed to cover the spread with a two-point win.  Chalk one up to youth.

As I write this the LA Charger/Baltimore Ravens game is underway, with the Ravens a 2 ½ point favorite (despite the Chargers having a better record despite being a wild card team).  The Ravens are led by rookie Lamar Jackson, who supplanted veteran (and Super Bowl winner) Joe Flacco, while the Chargers are led by Phi Rivers, who now holds the record for most playoff games played without a Super Bowl appearance.  Oh wait, the game is over, and Rivers and the Chargers won, so two votes for experience over youth.

The final game will be between the Bears’ second year QB Mitch Trubisky making his playoff debut against last year’s Super Bowl MVP, Nick Foals and the Eagles.  Even if the favored Bears win, at least two of the four games will result in upsets by underdog teams lead by a quarterback with playoff experience.  Four is not a large sample size, but it does provide food for thought.

I’ve always been skeptical when a talking head on ESPN says that he’s picking the team with the crafty quarterback over the younger team with the better defense, better offense, and better coach.  But maybe there is something to valuing experience when making post-season picks.  This Wild Card Weekend isn’t a perfect experiment, but it was a fortuitous happenstance that all four games came down to a favored playoff rookie versus a seasoned playoff veteran.

TV Review: Elseworlds

TV Review: Elseworlds

Welcome to the third annual CW crossover event, where all (or some) of the shows in the Arrow-verse (shouldn’t it be called the Berlanti-verse, sort of like Shondaland?) get to meet each other and hijinks ensue.  The firs crossover event had definite problems; they siloed each show’s episode, so it seemed like a party game where The Flash got to produce an hour of television and then Arrow had to take over and make the next hour.  The Flash episode was definitely a Flash episode, the Arrow episode was incomprehensible to those who didn’t watch Arrow, and the Supergirl contribution was literally just the last 2 minutes of a Supergirl episode.  But the whole thing was entertaining and a nice way to package shows that maybe not everyone was watching.

Last year’s crossover event, Crisis on Earth X, solved almost all of the problems that the first crossover had.  It ran like a 4-hour mini-series, with supporting characters from each show popping up in any of the four episodes, and it was magnificent.  The fight scene in episode 1, where Nazis from Earth X attacked the wedding of Barry Allen and Iris West, was beautifully fight choreographed (it helped that Guest Star William Katt, from The Greatest American Hero, was the first person to get zapped by the invading horde).  The bad guys were a real threat, the episodes had both gravitas and humor, and Alex Danvers from Supergirl and Sara Lance from Legends of Tomorrow had the greatest drunken hookup in superhero TV history (punctuated by Mick Rory asking Sara Lance, “So . . . you hit that?” at the end).

This year’s crossover event, Elseworlds, is a step backwards.  It has some fun moments, but the plot never manages to make any sense what so ever, even by the loose logical standards of the Berlanti-verse.  What saves it is the acting; all of the participants seem to get a kick out of stretching their characters and interacting with different actors.  But man does this not make sense.

Let’s start with the premise: geeky psychiatrist Dr. John Deegan (played by Jeremy Davies, so you know he’s not mentally all there) is given a book by a character we subsequently learn is called The Monitor, that allows him to rewrite all of reality.  Does he use this power to sleep with any woman he wants?  Does he make himself the richest man in the world?  Does he burn off his unsightly body fat without diet or exercise?  No, he has The Flash (Grant Gustin) and Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) switch places.

What?  Yeah, I don’t get it.  Since it turns out he’s from Gotham City, why would he even care about the Central City speedster and Star City’s Green Arrow?  If there was an explanation, I missed it.  That said, it never failed to be hilarious to see Steven Amell in The Flash’s bright red superhero costume; it is hard to be broody when dressed in a candy apple red onesie.  Anyway, the two heroes are upset by the arrangement (Barry Allen is Oliver’s friend, but the prospect of his wife waking up next to Oliver Queen freaks him out), so they travel to Earth 38 to consult with Supergirl (Melissa Benoist).  The investigation leads then to Gotham City where Batman is MIA but Batgirl is alive and well and kicking ass.  They go back to Central City, Deegan rewrites the universe again and this time he makes himself Superman, which makes way more sense.

Okay, let’s get to the biggest problem with Elseworlds: the ending.  In order to stop Deegan from rewriting the universe, the good guys decide they have to stop time.  How?  The Flash will one run direction at Mach 7, Supergirl will fly in the other at the same speed, and the Earth’s rotation will stop, freezing time.  Right.  The biggest sin the original Superman movie committed was that nonsense about reversing the Earth’s rotation reversing time.  Ain’t gonna happen.  Then there’s the methodology; how would two superheroes moving rapidly in opposite directions affect the Earth’s rotation?  And given their small mass compared to the Earth, how could they possibly affect the Earth’s rotational momentum, even if they weren’t cancelling out the other’s effect?

Let’s focus on the positive though.  The cast seems to be having a ball, especially Amell who gets to lighten up for a change.  Elseworlds also makes good use of Supergirl’s Superman, Tyler Hoechin, who is criminally underused on that show.  It also introduces two additions to the Berlanti-verse, Ruby Rose’s Kate Kana, aka Batgirl, and Elizabeth Tullock’s Lois Lane.  Batgirl, for whom a new show is being considered, has apparently taken up Batman’s mantle while he is missing and makes an impressive appearance.  Tulloch, who was as interesting as water on Grimm, made a good impression as Lois Lane; lively, smart, fearless and connected to Clark/Superman on an emotional level.  She was a definite improvement over Erica Durance’s overly aggressive portrayal on Smallville.  The show came up for a reason for them to be away for a while (while visiting the Kryptonian outpost Argo City Lois somehow got pregnant, so they will have to go back to Argo City lest the baby’s kicking results in Lois’ death), which takes some pressure off of Supergirl as it always struggled to explain the absence of Superman when crises occurred.  When (not if) they come back, I would welcome a new Superman series with the in the leads (although they won’t top Teri Hatcher and Dean Cain in Lois and Clark).

One other neat thing about Elseworlds is that it maintains The Flash’s almost fanboyish enthusiasm for the 1990 version of The Flash that probably few people remember.  It once again features John Wesley Shipp, the star of that show, as the Flash from an alternate universe (I think Earth 3, but I can’t keep the alternate universes straight).  Shipp has been featured as Barry Allen’s father on the modern version of The Flash, while his 1990 co-stars Amanda Pays and Mark Hamill have reprised their roles as Tina McGee and The Trickster.  Such enthusiasm and attention to detail are no doubt part of the success of the modern version of The Flash.

Elseworlds was a fun way to spend three hours (unlike the past two years, Legends of Tomorrow wasn’t included this time, something they snarkily commented on during this week’s episode), but after the spectacular success of Crisis on Earth X it has to feel like a letdown.  It is still an improvement over the first crossover event.  The final episode of this year’s event ended with a promo for next year’s crossover event, Crisis on Infinite Earths, so let the fanboy speculation start now!

Harold Baines isn't quite a Hall of Famer

So this is what it’s come to, Harold Baines is in the Hall of Fame.

It’s too bad there isn’t a Hall of Pretty Good, because that’s where Baines belongs.  He hit 384 home runs, which sounds like a lot (although far less than 500) until you realize he played for 21 seasons, so it adds up to about 18 per year.  Right . . . Ruth, Mantle, McGuire, Bonds and Baines; peas in a pod.  His 2,866 hits averages out to 136 per year, which isn’t Pete Rose territory.  He once finished in the top ten in homers, and twice finished in the top ten in RBIs.

If anything, there is an argument that players like Baines are traditionally undervalued by Hall of Fame voters.  What do I mean by “players like Baines”?  Basically, jacks of all trades, good average hitters with some pop, good fielders, guys who played a long time because as their skills diminished their leadership and coaching abilities still made them valuable.  Maybe Baines should have to buy a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame, but a guy with 384 home runs should also have done better than maxing out at 6.1% of the votes.

The problem comes in when you have players who played a long time and how it affects counting stats, like home runs and runs batted in.  Because of better conditioning and higher salaries, players now stay in the majors for much longer careers than in past eras.  If you get a mediocre number of some counting stat (say 18 home runs per year) and combine it with an extraordinarily long career (say 21 seasons), you get totals that look more impressive than they actually are.

I’ve made the argument before regarding Rafael Palmiero, whose 3,000+ hits and 500+ home runs would have made him a lock for the hall but for his failed steroid test.  Those were impressive markers when careers lasted 12-15 seasons but spread over 20 they aren’t that impressive.  Baines’ 384 home runs put him at 65^th all time, behind Jim Edmonds, Craig Nettles and Aramis Ramierez, all of who are NOT in the Hall (Edmonds, arguably one of the greatest fielding center fielders of all time, should be, but few players get into the Hall for fielding).  He is 34^th in RBIs, which is bordering on impressive.

I put more stock in how a player was judged by his contemporaries when he was playing.  Palmiero played for 19 seasons and started exactly ONE All-Star game, and only went to a total of five (once as a DH).  So for the bulk of his career he wasn’t considered one of the best at his position.  The same thing is true for Baines, who went to only six All-Star games in a 21-season career.  MVP voting is another key indicator of respect during a career, but Baines came in the top ten in voting only twice, and then it was 9^th once and 10^th once.

The biggest mistakes in the history of the Hall have been made by these Veterans Committees.  In the 1960’s Frankie Frisch was the chair and as a result people like his former teammate Jesse Haines got in despite being woefully unqualified.  It is absurd that Baines can get no more than 6.1% of the votes from the 400-500 or so voters in the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA), but then gets 12 of 16 votes from the Veterans’ Committee and he’s in.

I could also rip the other person to be voted in, Lee Smith, but my objection to him is that closers are vastly overrated, and I am not impressed by guys who only pitch one inning per game (except for Mariano Rivera, Dennis Eckersly and Goose Gossage).  The save is a stupid stat, but Smith did hold the record for most saves when he retired which is one more record than Harold Baines held when he called it quits.

Obviously, the HoF voting needs to be reformed.  How can a player who got 6% of the vote from over 400 voters not get in, then be admitted after getting 12 votes from a committee of 16 (several of whom were former owners and teammates of his)?  Who are we going to believe, the collected wisdom of 500 baseball writers, or a bunch of old baseball guys voting for a buddy?