Six out of 50 is not 50%. It's only 12%.

Does anybody have a link to the Wonderlic test? I'd like to take it! I like taking tests.

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. If so, maybe they should reconsider how many they are inducting in the first place and make it a bigger class, showing a little more class.

"Another error

Six out of 50 is not 50%. It's only 12%."

I do believe that would be the point of the joke.

... 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.

I'm a day late replying to King's column from yesterday about the injustice of not inducting Buck O'Neil into the Hall of Fame, because the whole topic made me not quite see straight, and I couldn't find my way to the letters link in that condition. I met Buck O'Neil in 1994 when he gave a tour of the Negro Leagues museum in Kansas City to a group of grassroots community development activists I was traveling with. He gave us so much time and told so many stories that we missed the next phase of our site visits, but it was the highlight of my baseball life, and I've had a pretty wonderful baseball life.

Belatedly: King was exactly right about everything, as usual, even about Effa Manley -- I hated myself for it, but I had the same reaction: As proud as I am to see a woman honored, I can't help but wince at the injustice. If her efforts on behalf of the Negro Leagues are good enough for induction, Buck O'Neil should have been first on the list.

But today he's not quite right about the petition to correct the injustice. Hey, just sign the damn thing. Because there is always an element of politics and popularity about Hall of Fame decisions -- and more important, public pressure plays a role too. As hard as it is for me to give San Francisco Giants owner Peter Magowan credit for anything, he deserves credit for mounting campaigns to get a belated induction for Orlando Cepeda as well as broadcaster Lon Simmons. Leaving out Buck O'Neil is one of those boneheaded decisions that can ultimately be corrected.

I ran into Buck in Scottsdale during spring training last year and he was frail but so wildly happy, being mobbed by fans who almost knocked him off his cane (wait, I think that was me), making time for every last one of them. It would be a tragedy to me -- though not to Buck -- if baseball corrected this injustice when it's too late for his fans to enjoy seeing him on that platform in Cooperstown.

Is a real guy. I read his column regularly.

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. And his haircut has always creeped me out a bit. But I really enjoyed every episode, and have to confess I found myself, rugged male that I am, a little emotional and teary-eyes at times, especially during the Jackie Robinson years. The series also served to illustrate to me what a class act Buck O'Neill was (and is). I'm actually stunned he wasn't first on the list for the new induction. A travesty.

This isn't officially the Wonderlic test, but try:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020228test.html

for some sample questions (even though I find ESPN somewhat distasteful, they are good for some things).

I'd sign the petition to get Mr. O'Neil into the Hall, but that would only validate the decision of the seemingly-inbred Lords Of The Heritage Of The National Pastime.

I went to sign the petition, expecting to see hundreds, if not thousands, of names. I was dismayed to see 40 people. Hell, that's about the number of people who posted letters about King's column yesterday, none of whom disagreed with him about Buck being in the HOF. A petition with so few names would seem to me to work against the cause. 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.

You literally meant TEAM chemistry King?

Or were you being sarcastic?

I detected a double meaning in the article when you wrote lines like "...improved chemistry, should hold up, has a positive effect." and "previous chemistry experiments" and "...that it's a product, not the cause, of winning."

For shame, King! I suppose you are setting your expecations low to avert disappointment, but lest readers of your column get the wrong idea: If Bonds can play more than 1000 innings, the Giants will be better than a mediocre team.

Of course, season previews are still to come so I will patiently await King's thought-out counter arguments. But, insert standard injury-disclaimer here, this team could be a LOT better than it was last year and even better than it was the year before that (when it went .562 and finished only 2 games out). The rotation is likely to be strong, and with the help of pitcher-haven Giant's Park there's a chance it could be one of the best overall rotations in the league. And every other season or so Benitez is lights out. And with Alou, Winn, Feliz and Niekro we have a lot of upside offensively as well -- that's at least three, maybe four non-Bonds players who will hit more than 20 HR.

It's not perfect, sure. With Omar and Durham I think the infield will still be solid while the kids learn to play the corners. Outfield... well did I mention that most of our starters are strike-out pitchers that can recover from a dropped fly-ball?

But I think the bottom-line is that, like last-year, our division plain sucks. The defending-champion Padres haven't improved on the team that could barely scrape .500 last year playing most of its games against 4 teams that were struggling to win 70 games. And the Dodger's, well, sure I fear the emotional worst case of all those former Giants playing better than they ever did for us and feasting off of our tears. But in an objective rational discussion it's hard to be that afraid of a bunch of guys you already rejected for your own team. And while they also had big injury excuses last year, it's hard to say that their "if we're healthy" upside is as good as what you get from saying that about Bonds, Schmidt, and Benitez.