Take Me Out...Yes...It's BASEBALL!

[Patrick]

I agree on the unanimous thing. It's just sort of a hang-up that carried over from a different era. Ichiro, Jeter, Rivera, Griffey, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Maddux, etc. all should have been unanimous, and Pujols totally should be, too.

I can understand the point on the writers voting, but I do see the merit in having people voting who were strict observers and don't have as many personal relationships. No one is going to be objective and everyone has their favorites, of course, but I think having only players voting probably wouldn't lead to a more satisfying result. That doesn't mean players can't lobby, of course, and use their influence to make the case for folks they think should be in the hall. 

[DarthPenguin]

14 hours ago, Patrick said:

I agree on the unanimous thing. It's just sort of a hang-up that carried over from a different era. Ichiro, Jeter, Rivera, Griffey, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Maddux, etc. all should have been unanimous, and Pujols totally should be, too.

I can understand the point on the writers voting, but I do see the merit in having people voting who were strict observers and don't have as many personal relationships. No one is going to be objective and everyone has their favorites, of course, but I think having only players voting probably wouldn't lead to a more satisfying result. That doesn't mean players can't lobby, of course, and use their influence to make the case for folks they think should be in the hall. 

100% agree on all of that. There are always a few players who midway / nearer the end of their career everyone talks about as "surefire first ballot HoFer", even cases like (ignoring the steroids issue) ones like Barry Bonds where the comments were "clear first ballor HoFer, definite inner circle player up there with Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth etc." Players like that, where it is so so so obvious that they should be in should basically always be unanimous in my opinion.

When it comes to the voters i can see the argument for it not being the writers but then unfortunately you run the risk of personal bias amongst players creeping in even more. Using another sport, football, as an example: the Spanish football team used to have an issue in the past where the Barcelona players and Real Madrid players would flatly refuse to pass to each other during games due to rivalries; i live in Glasgow and the rivalry between Rangers and Celtic is rather well known and would lead to similar issues. Journalists seem like the least bad option to me tbh unless it becomes a set of statistical criteria which them removes some of the mystique (eg if it became need to average 2 standard deviations more home runs over a ten year span that players from comparative sample A, plus have metric B plus metric C).

[DarthPenguin]

Also, i am very much looking forward to the season starting in anger soon! Go Mariners!! Though i will be visiting Toronto this summer and fingers crossed i manage to catch Scherzer pitching whilst there!

[KarateKen]

22 hours ago, Patrick said:

I agree on the unanimous thing. It's just sort of a hang-up that carried over from a different era. Ichiro, Jeter, Rivera, Griffey, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Maddux, etc. all should have been unanimous, and Pujols totally should be, too.

I can understand the point on the writers voting, but I do see the merit in having people voting who were strict observers and don't have as many personal relationships. No one is going to be objective and everyone has their favorites, of course, but I think having only players voting probably wouldn't lead to a more satisfying result. That doesn't mean players can't lobby, of course, and use their influence to make the case for folks they think should be in the hall. 

This is pretty much why I don't put a lot of value on awards in sports anymore, too much of that political nonsense.  Not political as in Washington DC, but political aspect inside their own industry.

It makes no sense to me to not allow Rose in, especially with how well connected the sports world has become to gambling.  There are literally advertisements for gambling during the games.  To not put him in at this point is just unreasonable and petty, but I don't put it past people in the sports world to be unreasonable and petty. Especially those in the sports media. 

[Patrick]

I am also turned off by the amount of gambling ads and how it has seeped into the sports. I really, really don't like it. But I also think Pete Rose's worst enemy on his HOF candidacy was himself, unfortunately. I went through a bunch of positions over the years on him. When I was younger, I wanted him to be let him. As I got older, I came to really see himself as someone who really dug himself a hole that was hard to get out of, and he became someone it was hard to advocate for as more and more things came out about him, including the relationship with a minor (which he also handled awfully when it was revealed). Of course, there are plenty of bad people in the Hall of Fame. But then I ask myself: Why does it need one more?

Ultimately, if he makes it in one day, I will consider that to be justified for his playing career, but it doesn't make any sense to me to celebrate it.

[DarthPenguin]

11 hours ago, Patrick said:

I am also turned off by the amount of gambling ads and how it has seeped into the sports. I really, really don't like it. But I also think Pete Rose's worst enemy on his HOF candidacy was himself, unfortunately. I went through a bunch of positions over the years on him. When I was younger, I wanted him to be let him. As I got older, I came to really see himself as someone who really dug himself a hole that was hard to get out of, and he became someone it was hard to advocate for as more and more things came out about him, including the relationship with a minor (which he also handled awfully when it was revealed). Of course, there are plenty of bad people in the Hall of Fame. But then I ask myself: Why does it need one more?

Ultimately, if he makes it in one day, I will consider that to be justified for his playing career, but it doesn't make any sense to me to celebrate it.

He is one of those where you can see both sides really. Also comes down to your perspective on what the Hall of Fame is / what it stands for. If you view it as the shrine to the best players ever where people can remember them / a museum dedicated to the best players ever then i personally think guys like Rose, Bonds, Clemens. McGwire, A-Rod all need to be in as historically speaking they were amongst the best players to have ever played (museums still include exhibits / information on horrendous people and times in history). If you view it as a shrine to the best examples of baseball then those players maybe dont make the cut.

Personally, when people like Ty Cobb are in then you have kinda already removed the moral argument, and with the other players who are in an used corked bats etc. you have removed the cheating argument too, but i can see how some people come down on the other side of the fence.

The ambiguity sorta reminds me of the NBA MVP debate : is it the best player or the most important player to the teams success? Under the former criteria MJ should have basically won it every year in the 90s but using the latter criteria Karl Malone got one etc. Personally i much prefer the way baseball does the CY Young : best pitcher or the way that football does the Ballon Dor : best player. Lot less ambiguity as to what the award means.

[KarateKen]

There were thousands of people with complaints about how MLB TV was not working properly for opening day.  However, if you still wanted to get MLB TV for free you can if you use T-Mobile.  I am not sure of all the details but there is an app you can download as a T-Mobile customer that gives you one year for free.  You have get singed up by April 1. 

[Patrick]

On 3/27/2025 at 4:13 AM, DarthPenguin said:

He is one of those where you can see both sides really. Also comes down to your perspective on what the Hall of Fame is / what it stands for. If you view it as the shrine to the best players ever where people can remember them / a museum dedicated to the best players ever then i personally think guys like Rose, Bonds, Clemens. McGwire, A-Rod all need to be in as historically speaking they were amongst the best players to have ever played (museums still include exhibits / information on horrendous people and times in history). If you view it as a shrine to the best examples of baseball then those players maybe dont make the cut.

Personally, when people like Ty Cobb are in then you have kinda already removed the moral argument, and with the other players who are in an used corked bats etc. you have removed the cheating argument too, but i can see how some people come down on the other side of the fence.

This is reasonable. You can probably shift this meaning over time, too. Like you can decide to start viewing transgressions more seriously. I don't really think of corked bats or pine tar or rosin or any of that stuff the same as I do Ty Cobb's issues or the steroid era. But that's me, we all might have different lines. Ty Cobb was in 1936, so at some point, I think we can stop using that one as an excuse.  I actually don't mind Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, etc. not being in the hall. Ultimately, they did it to themselves. If they get in, it's fine, but it's not exciting to me. Andy Pettitte, who I loved as a Yankee, did it to himself. That's life. Choices and consequences. 

We can also choose to simply value players who didn't get caught up in those things, like many of the names we mentioned recently here: Griffey, Johnson, Jeter, Rivera, Glavine, Maddux, etc. Or even someone like Edgar Martinez, whose candidacy was probably boosted by the fact that he was clean from that.

[DarthPenguin]

The steroid era is a tough one tbh as it is almost impossible to know how many people were on them. It isn't guaranteed that you become massive when you are on steroids (ala the change in Bonds over time) with different substances having different results - just need to look at Tour De France cyclists using steroids / performance enhancing drugs to improve other aspects of fitness. Just because someone was not massive doesn't mean they didn't take something to avoid injury / increase stamina etc.

My personal solution would be to have a "steroid era wing" (not labelled as this but with the years instead) and have the players in that and some exhibits for context. I just keep coming back to the fact that all the players had to compete in the same environment: yes they may have been stronger and able to hit further but defenders may have been faster and able to chase down more hits / jump higher for an above the wall catch; pitchers may have been throwing harder or had more break due to ability to grip harder and impart more spin. In my head it is kinda like baseball having to lower the mound after the absolute domination from Bob Gibson - the mound obviously benefitted him but does it invalidate his numbers ? For me it doesn't.

I do take the argument though that it was self inflicted! Plus it is nice to have halls of fame: it isn't something that we really have over here - plenty of footballers who are club legends and legends of the game but there isn't a museum dedicated to them etc.

[sensei8]

Torpedoes, Away!!

MLB has a new bat. Well, the Yankees seem to have a new bat. Name of the bat??

TORPEDO

This new bat looks like…well…to a Torpedo, in a sense!!

According to reports, this new torpedo bat will increase the frequency of home runs.

My Yankees had a 13 HR weekend; 9 HR’s in one game alone.

Guess what??

The Torpedo bat is completely LEGAL says MLB which means that this torpedo bat can be used in any MLB game.

Batter Up!!

 

Edited yesterday at 05:43 PM by sensei8