I don't know the requirements for consideration or enshrinement for journalists into Cooperstown, but it seems to me that James has been acting in the role of "journalist" or "sportswriter" (depending on how those terms are defined by MLB and the Hall) for more than long enough to deserve conseration in that regard.

Maybe I am wrong here, but it seems to me that James' contributions to the game started with his research and writing and his research and writing are what got him made the job as an executive in the first place. His influence as a front-office guy isn't why he deserves to be in the Hall assuming that he does, in fact, deserve it. Yeah, he has helped construct some good-to-great Red Sox teams and he did finally help get the Sox that World Series championship, but that record would still put him behind John Schuerholz and Brian Cashman and I am not sure that anyone is clamoring for either of those guys to be enshrined. It wasn't James' skills at taking a lot of money and spending to form a contender that have made him influential; it was his writing and analysis that did it and he was going those things a LONG time before Theo Epstein ever called him to offer him a gig.

Gavin Fritton

Admittedly, the Kings' problems are deeper than their coach. Losing Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic, and Bobby Jackson (among others) leaves them as one of the less talented teams in the West. However, both the Trailblazers of the late 80s and the Kings of the early 2000s had two things in common: both teams were loaded for bear, and both consistently came up short in the playoffs. (And the Warriors... well, they've shown the ability to stink with any coach... why pay more for a coach of Adelman's pedigree?)

Both teams consistently lost the close games. Whether it was a lack of clutch shooters in the Kings' case or the ability of the Blazers to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, those problems ultimately have to lie with Adelman.

In the past, King, you've bemoaned the fact that the coaching fraternity in the NBA has remained closed to minority candidates. However, Rick Adelman is one of a number of title-less coaches (such as George Karl and Mike Dunleavy, to name a couple more) whose perpetual employment is at the cost of these same candidates.

Technically, there is no writers' wing or broadcasters' wing of the Hall of Fame. Those people, while "hall of fame caliber" in their fields, are the recipients of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award and the Ford Frick Award, respectively. To actually be _in_ the Hall of Fame, you have to get in through the BBWAA or Veterans Committee elections (or other similar processes over the years, including the special election held this year to admit the 17 people associated with the Negro Leagues and its predecessors).* King is calling for the full-blown admission of Bill into the Hall, not just the Spink Award, and I am all in favor of it.

The Spink Award is described on the HoF website as "named after the late founder of The Sporting News, [it] has been voted upon annually since 1962 when Spink himself was the recipient of the inaugural honor. The award honors a baseball writer (or writers) 'for meritorious contributions to baseball writing'." Clearly Bill would be eligible for it, but looking at past recipients, as far as I can tell, all have spent significant portions or all of their careers as daily sportswriters, covering their local teams for a newspaper. Some are also known as authors, such as Grantland Rice, Damon Runyon, Ring Lardner, Leonard Koppett, etc., but most have put in their time as a beat writer. I suspect that the BBWAA, consisting as it does entirely of people who work as reporters, editors, or columnists who covers baseball for non-Internet-only outlets (sorry BaseballProspectus.com), would not consider Bill for the Spink Award. The actual Hall of Fame may be his only way in to Cooperstown without paying admission. (Well, if I saw him in line, I would gladly pay for him!)

Anyway, with Henry Chadwick out there as a precedent, there should be little to stand in the way of his admission. Well, except for the fact that 75% of people generally can't agree on anything, let alone adding someone to join their exclusive club. I fear Bill James (and Marvin Miller) will only be admitted by a special election outside the bounds of the current Veterans' Committee structure. But the Hall did it for 17 people this year; for all the reasons King cited, they can and should do it again for Bill (and Marvin).

*To be a "member" of the Hall of Fame, you just have to pay $40, and you also get free admission for a year, a membership card, and a yearbook! Shouldn't they come up with a better name for that--"supporter" instead of "member," maybe?

60 of 82

3 of 7

Bill James would likely point out that Coaches, like players, have traits that can make them good or bad for your situation. Rick Adelman is no exception.

James was fond of examining the traits of the managers and attempting to figure out whether a given tactic was particularly effective, for example. Along the way he'd note particularly strong tendencies in more subjective terms: This guy will always use a speedy second baseman to lead off, even if the guy doesn't have a good on-base percentage. This guy uses his bullpen early. Gene Mauch plays small ball, is it effective or is he trying to be a genius at the expense of winning games? And so on.

Which brings us to Rick Adelman. If Basketball had a real analog to James (rather than a handful of wannabes who seem to regard "the pure stat" as their holy grail), we could examine Adelman's game in more detail. The short version of things, though, would go something like: Develops talent well. Solid regular season records, but a history of postseason blunders. Questionable in-game tactician.

Those are cool traits to have around, but not for every team. Maybe the Maloof brothers have decided that Rick is not the coach for a mature team that needs to play for a championship. Maybe they've realized that they could have done better by making that choice a couple of years ago.