Great Moments in Hyperbole: Ken Burns

2 Comments

This link goes to a video interview of documentarianite Ken Burns, talking about leadership. Coaches and managers, specifically.

The video is fairly interesting in a big-think sort of way, but I’m having a hard time getting on board with his comparison of Joe Torre during his time with the Yankees and Abraham Lincoln. To be fair, he’s not comparing greatness or anything. Rather, he’s saying that each of them met difficult situations with a certain good humor and/or stoicism depending on what was required at the time.

Why does this break down for me? Because less than a minute before the says that, he notes how everyone in today’s culture — especially baseball — is concerned with money and structures their lives around it in important ways.

I’m not meaning to questions Torre’s bonafides or integrity here, but ask yourself: was Torre’s ability to be, as Burns puts it, “the epitome of sanity,” in New York merely a function of who he is, or did the fact that being the Yankees manager is a glamorous and lucrative gig have anything to do with the kind of garbage he put up with? Maybe it doesn’t matter a whole hell of a lot, but it seems like you had better be a bit more certain about such things before playing the Lincoln-card.

Anyway, that’s not even the most egregious thing Burns said in the clip. That came when he called Torre a “mediocre player.”  I don’t know that I’d vote for him, but on his playing merits alone, he was a borderline Hall of Famer in my view. And in the view of some other smart people who have thought hard about the matter.

The Hall of Fame rejected the BBWAA vote to make ballots public

Getty Images
Leave a comment

Last year, at the Winter Meetings, the BBWAA voted overwhelmingly to make Hall of Fame ballots public beginning with this year’s election. Their as a long-demanded one, and it served to make a process that has often frustrated fans — and many voters — more transparent.

Mark Feinsand of MLB.com tweeted a few minutes ago, however, that at some point since last December, the Hall of Fame rejected the BBWAA’s vote. Writer may continue to release their own ballots, but their votes will not automatically be made public.

I don’t know what the rationale could possibly be for the Hall of Fame. If I had to guess, I’d say that the less-active BBWAA voters who either voted against that change or who weren’t present for it because they don’t go to the Winter Meetings complained about it. It’s likewise possible that the Hall simply doesn’t want anyone talking about the votes and voters so as not to take attention away from the honorees and the institution, but that train left the station years ago. If the Hall doesn’t want people talking about votes and voters, they’d have to change the whole thing to some star chamber kind of process in which the voters themselves aren’t even known and no one discusses it publicly until after the results are released.

Oh well. There’s a lot the Hall of Fame does that doesn’t make a ton of sense. Add this to the list.