Bass: My Bengals column was ‘a hack.’ My Hall ballot is bad. I hear you.

My wife suggested last year that I share some of your complaints. So let’s try it again.

Did the Bengals overachieve, or underachieve?

Leading off is a comment left on my column about whether the 2023 Bengals overachieved or underachieved.

“What a hack editorial. All that matters are wins and losses and a deep playoff run. Injuries happen to every NFL team. That’s why the phrase ‘next man up’ exists. They underachieved, it’s not rocket science.” – Subscriber

Be honest: You never read an opening sentence like that and say to yourself, “Wow, this will be pleasant.”

What do you do? Take it personally? Get angry? Ignore the rest? Read the rest assuming it will be stupid? Reply with something witty like, “That was stupid”? Will it help?

Bengals promotion Cincinnati Bengals promote Dan Pitcher to offensive coordinator

Bengals offensive coordinator Who is Dan Pitcher? Cincinnati Bengals promote QBs coach to offensive coordinator

Bengals free agency Tee Higgins, Tyler Boyd among Pro Football Focus' top 10 upcoming free-agent receivers

I tried a different approach. I neutralized “hack editorial” by mentally autocorrecting it to “heck of an editorial,” then re-read the rest. It not only was fun, but it freed me judgmentally. With or without the hack attack, the view fed into the point of the column: You choose how to look at the season.

If you measure success solely by wins and playoff runs, the Bengals underachieved. As @CoachKamC had posted on X (formally Twitter) for that column: “We did not achieve the goal regardless of injuries. This was a SB or bust year and we busted. It happens but this (is) the truth.”

If this is your truth, I can respect that. Every team in every major sport is ultimately judged on wins and losses. The goal is always to win a title, and we as fans are programmed to demand it. Win, and we expect to win again. Come close one year, and we expect to win it all next year. After back-to-back AFC Championship Games, it had better be us again. No excuses. No 9-8.

Is it reasonable?

You decide.

In this unique space, we challenge each other to see our teams and ourselves differently. We ask questions that might serve us.

For instance: In a 16-team conference and 32-team league, is it realistic to expect your team to improve and everyone else to be static? What were the odds of the mostly Joe Burrow-less Bengals making a Super Bowl run, considering each Divisional Round team still had its QB1? Looking back, what would you have considered “success” after the Bengals fell to 5-6? Did they overachieve by winning three straight? Did they underachieve by losing again to Pittsburgh and falling out of the playoff race?

So did the Bengals overachieve or underachieve? Was it both? Neither? Situational? Maybe, as @PChrisBrantley playfully posted, “The Bengals chieved this season.”

There is no right or wrong answer, only your answer and your focus. You can choose to disagree. I can choose to appreciate that I was not called a hack, only what I wrote.

At least the comments went beyond that.

And your baseball Hall of Fame ballot is bad, too

When I posted my Baseball Hall of Fame votes last week, I knew somebody would be unhappy with my ballot. Somebody is always unhappy with my ballot.

“Your ballot sucks.” – @UfcWacko

“Your ballot sucks.” ­– @Itsallgood027

There you have it. My ballot sucks.

“Good try.” – @SantaCruzDad

At least someone appreciates the effort.

I voted for the three players who made the Hall of Fame on Tuesday (Joe Mauer, Adrian Beltre and Todd Helton) and three who did not (Gary Sheffield, Billy Wagner and Jimmy Rollins). I strongly considered three others (Chase Utley, Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran).

Baseball Hall of Fame Baseball Hall of Fame 2024 results: Adrián Beltré, Joe Mauer and Todd Helton voted in

Reds Reds manager David Bell talks Jonathan India, Elly De La Cruz and club's infield plans

“I appreciate the thorough explanations. As a Phillies fan, voting for Jimmy but not Chase perplexes me, as watching both their whole careers, it was clear who the better player was, as Chase excelled in all three aspects of the game. Bone to pick: an average (Hall of Fame) JAWS is really good!” – @Kcw131

I appreciate the appreciation. Seriously. And I appreciate the thoughtful feedback about Rollins and Utley.

This was the first ballot for Utley, whose 45.5 WAR over six years fed into a strong JAWS, but injuries prevented him from maintaining his dominance. As I wrote, “Utley’s overall 64.5 WAR is 15th, below Hall average at second base. His 56.9 JAWS is 12th, right around Hall average.”

Utley did not play enough, or produce at a high level long enough, to earn my vote. This is why he finished with just 1,885 hits. Still, as emphasis grows on a seven-year peak, Utley’s viability grows. Time can breed better perspective and analytics, which I love about the process.

His double-play partner was a late addition to my ballot, not because I am certain Rollins belongs (I had not voted for him previously), but because I want to keep him in the conversation. The Hall needs to be about more than a seven-year hitch, and his career was too good to ignore.

Rollins brings a case more valued before the turn of the century. As Cooperstown Cred pointed out, he is the only major league shortstop with 2,400 hits, 200 homers, 100 triples, 500 doubles and 400 steals. Plus, he won an MVP and four Gold Gloves. If you are asking about advanced analytics WAR, JAWS, OBP and the like, Rollins is no Utley. Their cases are different, but the combination was World Series-class.

“Rollins 🤣🤣.” – @mendez_jose9

If you see his case as laughable, I get it. Rollins is a long shot. Utley debuted with 28.8 percent. But the focus on Utley raised awareness and maybe a few votes besides mine for Rollins, who inched up to 14.8 percent in Ballot 3.

Very few Hall of Fame selections are gimmes. Rollins is debatable. But isn’t the fun in the debate?

And of course, there's Pete Rose

It wouldn’t be a Hall of Fame discussion without Pete Rose coming up.

“Was Mauer's qWARdvoaROI really good enough to belong in the Hall of ‘Writers’(?) No one's wife knows who Joe Mauer is. They know AROD and Manny tho... Want to fix it (?) Start with: Pete Rose ... Barry Bonds.” –@NickTudormore

If you are not into WAR, we don’t have to go there.

My spouse is not really into baseball, and she knows who Mauer is. And Alex Rodriguez. And Bonds. And Rose. But not Manny Ramirez.

Your hyperbole aside, if your point is that the Hall of Fame is not a Hall of Fame without some of the biggest stars, no matter their gambling or PED ties, you are not alone. It comes down to where each voter draws the line.

Unfortunately, the writers had no say on Rose; the Hall disqualified anyone on MLB’s ineligible list before he hit the ballot. We are divided over players connected to PEDs, and now the Contemporary Era Committee has passed on Bonds, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.

Some 400 writers submit ballots each year. It is an honor. The decisions are hard. The decisions should be hard. For 75 percent to agree on a candidate, with so many variables, says something about that player.

Hall voters know who Mauer is. Before him, the only major-league catchers with batting titles were Reds Hall of Famer Ernie Lombardi (two) and Bubbles Hargrave (one); Mauer won three in four years. Now he is a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

I was lucky to have watched him in Minnesota. And I am proud to have voted for him.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Columnist Mike Bass shares, responds to reader complaint mail