Lynx: Is this the only time they'll be considering any of the players from the Negro League for the Hall? If not, he could get in next time.

The purpose of this project was to be pretty much the final word on the Negro Leagues, to put everyone in who deserved to be in. Here's Dale Petroskey, president of the Hall of Fame, at the announcement press conference: "We viewed this as a one time vote in which players who are worthy of the Hall of Fame would not have to wait another day to have a plaque in Cooperstown. That said, we're also a serious research institution. As more information comes to light down the road, the door is always open to the possibility of perhaps further consideration."

But I don't think there's any new information that's going to come to light about O'Neil. There's no shortage of information on him. It was just a judgment call.

stighary: I refuse to believe... that the gentleman's name is Peter Schmuck. It's just not possible. Clearly, some sort of elaborate joke or performance art piece is at play

Peter Schmuck is a veteran, well-respected baseball writer, who has a pretty good sense of humor about his name, if this letter to Poynter.org is accurate: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=8366

hnutsworth: If you go through the trouble of a petition, and only get a few dozen signers, it sorta indicates that there's really not much support.

Maybe, but then I think the petition's only been up for less than 24 hours. Might give it a couple of days at least.

ol' painless: A quick question, King. What was your opinion of the Ken Burn's 'Baseball' series? I usually quite like his stuff, especially the Civil War one, but often found him a little too sentimental at times.

Treading carefully here because your fellow letter writer, Joan Walsh, above, is my boss and no fan of Ken Burns, but ... I liked "Baseball."

But I didn't love it, and I'm not just saying that in case Joan's lurking. I was a little disappointed by it because of how much I liked "The Civil War," which I'd say I loved. I thought at the time that my lower level of enthusiasm had to do with the fact that I knew more about baseball going in than I'd known about the Civil War going in to that. I found myself thinking about the things the baseball movie left out, or how I'd have said things differently. With the Civil War one, I just soaked it in.

But now, having seen two more Burns movies, the ones about Mark Twain and Jack Johnson, both subjects I know pretty well but not as well as baseball, I have to say I'm sliding toward Joan's opinion and I think it's Burns' style itself that's bothering me. I liked both of those well enough too, but I also found myself, I guess, annoyed by them. That trademark, elegaic, Ken Burnsy tone, the template, worked beautifully for the Civil War. I'm not sure it works for every subject. I felt like he took all the fun and life and jazz and swagger out of Jack Johnson, and did a similar number on Mark Twain. I'd have to go back to the baseball picture to see if that, not familiarity with the subject, was really my complaint about that one. I'm not planning to do that soon, but maybe when my son's older, if he shows some interest in such things.

Official G: You literally meant TEAM chemistry King? Or were you being sarcastic?

I was wondering if I needed to make it clear, and maybe I should have, but yes, I was literally talking about team chemistry.