What really pisses me off is how completely unrepentant nearly everyone involved has been. They got off with a slap on the wrist and did the equivalent of, "Neener neener I'm not touching you neener neener!" to fucking everyone, including the fans.
Fuck the Astros, and fuck Manfred for letting them get away with it.
absolutely
for a sport which is seemingly all about 'ethics' and 'unspoken rules' and 30 years later is STILL raking pete rose over the coals, you'd think these stros would be blacklisted forever but that has not seemed to be the case
Instant classic. Like 6 lead changes! Final play with a player pulling a Daniel Jones but scoring anyway due to two errors!
2 errors technically but like everyone involved fucked up there
randy even slipped at the end there before the catcher fucked up, like that was a mess all around
You know just happy for LA finally having something good happen in the city again. Like man its been like a month since the lakers won? I don't know how the city dealt with it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
like i'm all about data and analytics and stuff but Snell was pitching out of his mind, you gotta trust him there
those analytics were compiled from the 'average' pitcher, Snell was definitively not an 'average' pitcher at that point, he was having a career night, you can't apply those metrics to him
they should give the mvp to mookie just to piss off boston fans
Why would that piss off Boston fans? There's not really any ill will towards Mookie there.
its not towards mookie
most red sox fans i know are pissed at the red sox for letting him go in the name of financial flexibility and having mookie do so well now rubs more salt into that wound considering they got cents on the dollar for him
Re: Snell, I wouldn't have pulled him there, but I get the move. Most pitchers, including him are quite a bit worse 3rd time through the order.
Re: Turner, a pretty bad look for baseball and Turner on that. Like the positive test result came back during the game? How does that happen? And then him celebrating maskless with teammates on the field is obviously not good. Hopefully everyone ends up being OK, but that's really not cool.
Congrats to the Dodgers though! They have a really good team and played well. Hats off.
So the Marlins become the first team in the four major (American) sports to hire a GM who isn't a man. Shocking and all that, almost as if being a talent evaluator isn't predicated on being a dude (playing the game of course isn't a prerequisite as examples of non former player GM's abound).
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
MLB is officially recognizing the Negro Leagues as "major leagues" so their stats count towards historical records and what not. Only notable record change is the last .400 hitter in the major leagues is now Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943 instead of Ted Williams' .406 in 1941. But Willie Mays gets a few more hits, Satchel Paige gets a ton more wins, stuff like that. And the recognition in general is just deserved.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+8
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Josh Gibson is my favorite historical player, and has a strong argument for being one of the greatest ever, perhaps second only to Babe Ruth.
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
I'm fine with standards that keep known PED users out. But even beyond that, keep them both out for the same reason Schilling is out: they suck as human beings.
In any event, I don't think there was anyone on the ballot that needed to go in this year.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Doesn't really matter. Baseball is dying and the people in charge of the sport don't seem to care as long as they can milk it while they are alive.
Baseball is America's sport, in more ways than one.
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
I'm fine with standards that keep known PED users out. But even beyond that, keep them both out for the same reason Schilling is out: they suck as human beings.
In any event, I don't think there was anyone on the ballot that needed to go in this year.
So, when are we booting Ty Cobb out of the Hall, then?
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
I'm fine with standards that keep known PED users out. But even beyond that, keep them both out for the same reason Schilling is out: they suck as human beings.
In any event, I don't think there was anyone on the ballot that needed to go in this year.
So, when are we booting Ty Cobb out of the Hall, then?
I'm fine with acknowledging that standards have changed, and are better now than they used to be.
"Ty Cobb's in there, so this piece of shit should be too" is not a very compelling argument.
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
I'm fine with standards that keep known PED users out. But even beyond that, keep them both out for the same reason Schilling is out: they suck as human beings.
In any event, I don't think there was anyone on the ballot that needed to go in this year.
So, when are we booting Ty Cobb out of the Hall, then?
I'm fine with acknowledging that standards have changed, and are better now than they used to be.
"Ty Cobb's in there, so this piece of shit should be too" is not a very compelling argument.
And "The Hall of Fame should be about character as well as performance...as long as you ignore all the people already in it" is not a terribly compelling argument to me. If we're going to say that character is part of the HoF criteria, we should be committing to that and be prepared to start chucking a number of bronze plaques on the recycling heap. Otherwise we're just engaging in pointless inconsistent moralizing.
Eight years ago, on the most top-heavy Hall of Fame ballot in at least half a century, the BBWAA voters pitched a shutout, electing nobody in what was seen by some as a referendum on character, particularly as it pertained to candidates linked to the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. On Tuesday, the writers put up a zero again, capping another election cycle dominated by debates over the significance of the on-and off-field transgressions of candidates, and — for the first time since 2012 — lacking any obviously qualified newcomers to the ballot.
Of the 401 ballots cast, a record 14 were blank. Whether those were done as protests against the notion that anybody from this ballot was worthy of enshrinement, or that in electing a record 22 candidates over the past seven years, standards had gotten too lax — those voters will have to answer that question themselves, if they haven’t already. Their ballots are included in the total, thus making it harder for anybody to reach 75%; had those voters instead made paper airplanes out of their ballots and flown them out the window (does anybody still do that?) the threshold for election would have fallen from 301 votes to 290.
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Draper singles out the character clause as the greatest problem some voters wrestle with and find most quarrelsome, and a lot of thoughtful ladies and gentlemen are considering opting out of the process entirely because of it. Apparently baseball thinks it builds character by virtue of its very existence, and cures people who lack it. It doesn’t. It makes money convincing people that a stick and a ball are more fun to watch than Meet The Press. It has embraced some chemical cheats and not others, some brigands and not others, and some malignant provocateurs. Baseball, quite frankly, couldn’t give a toss about who it hires, enriches, or glorifies, and never ever has. If it lucks into an exemplar of nobility like Henry Aaron, it is perfectly happy to take credit for him years after the fact, and that’s about the end of it. Baseball didn’t give Henry Aaron character. Aaron gave character to baseball.
But here’s the handy hint that makes it all work in the end: Baseball is reaping all it has sown. If the Hall of Fame is becoming less savory, it’s because it started that way with Ty Cobb. All the complaints about Hall of Fame voters are about the Hall itself, which wants to be a place of glorification of the sport while the day-to-day behaviors of the people who run the business of baseball are anything but. It’s the reason why the Hall of Fame can only be a museum. Those who decide who has acceptable character to win notice for playing this sport aren’t good enough to measure it, and if character is the reason for the Hall of Fame, a fair number of current enshrinees are about to be replaced by soda machines.
So maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe the whole trick is just to get people arguing about random names, on the faint hope that nostalgic arguments can be monetized. That, too, is the history of baseball, and there may as well be a museum for it. Maybe there should be a plaque which reads, “You’ll hate some of the people and events memorialized in here, and that’s fine. We have people who come in tonight and wipe your spit off the exhibits so we can open tomorrow. Buy a hat, and keep moving.” There isn’t much romance in that, true, but baseball started this honor-the-dishonorable thing decades ago, all the way down to celebrating how it eliminated the color line that it itself created. It’s rather like putting a tiara on a hagfish and pretending it’s Claire Foy.
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
I'm fine with standards that keep known PED users out. But even beyond that, keep them both out for the same reason Schilling is out: they suck as human beings.
In any event, I don't think there was anyone on the ballot that needed to go in this year.
So, when are we booting Ty Cobb out of the Hall, then?
I'm fine with acknowledging that standards have changed, and are better now than they used to be.
"Ty Cobb's in there, so this piece of shit should be too" is not a very compelling argument.
And "The Hall of Fame should be about character as well as performance...as long as you ignore all the people already in it" is not a terribly compelling argument to me. If we're going to say that character is part of the HoF criteria, we should be committing to that and be prepared to start chucking a number of bronze plaques on the recycling heap. Otherwise we're just engaging in pointless inconsistent moralizing.
If you set the inning limit to 7 and he pitches hitless innings to the cap then its a no hitter.
Also hi the mariners are hitting their suck and I'm playing the new MLB the Show game which mostly has me going "holy shit this guy is on this team? When the fuck did that happen?"
Also Trevor May clearly slipped someone some money to be a better pitcher then like 90% of the mets roster.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
absolutely
for a sport which is seemingly all about 'ethics' and 'unspoken rules' and 30 years later is STILL raking pete rose over the coals, you'd think these stros would be blacklisted forever but that has not seemed to be the case
Instant classic. Like 6 lead changes! Final play with a player pulling a Daniel Jones but scoring anyway due to two errors!
I can barely believe what i just saw.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
2 errors technically but like everyone involved fucked up there
randy even slipped at the end there before the catcher fucked up, like that was a mess all around
heres a video for everyone to enjoy
sucks
Snell could've saved himself
pleasepaypreacher.net
those analytics were compiled from the 'average' pitcher, Snell was definitively not an 'average' pitcher at that point, he was having a career night, you can't apply those metrics to him
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why would that piss off Boston fans? There's not really any ill will towards Mookie there.
its not towards mookie
most red sox fans i know are pissed at the red sox for letting him go in the name of financial flexibility and having mookie do so well now rubs more salt into that wound considering they got cents on the dollar for him
The heats on the Red Sox organization for that move, not Mookie.
Watching him win tonight certainly caused them some pain.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
apparently justin turner was found to be covid positive halfway through the game and that's why he was pulled
there gonna be some questions
Re: Turner, a pretty bad look for baseball and Turner on that. Like the positive test result came back during the game? How does that happen? And then him celebrating maskless with teammates on the field is obviously not good. Hopefully everyone ends up being OK, but that's really not cool.
Congrats to the Dodgers though! They have a really good team and played well. Hats off.
So the Marlins become the first team in the four major (American) sports to hire a GM who isn't a man. Shocking and all that, almost as if being a talent evaluator isn't predicated on being a dude (playing the game of course isn't a prerequisite as examples of non former player GM's abound).
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Edit: From the league itself:
At this point, the folks in Cooperstown need to tell the BBWAA to fuck off, because if they aren't going to take the job seriously, then they shouldn't have it.
Edit: Unsurprisingly, the Defector folks cuts to the chase:
Who do you think should have gone in this year?
Bonds and Clemens (and fuck the Nazi-adjacent con man.)
I'm fine with standards that keep known PED users out. But even beyond that, keep them both out for the same reason Schilling is out: they suck as human beings.
In any event, I don't think there was anyone on the ballot that needed to go in this year.
Baseball is America's sport, in more ways than one.
So, when are we booting Ty Cobb out of the Hall, then?
I'm fine with acknowledging that standards have changed, and are better now than they used to be.
"Ty Cobb's in there, so this piece of shit should be too" is not a very compelling argument.
ED: Switched to better recording.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
And "The Hall of Fame should be about character as well as performance...as long as you ignore all the people already in it" is not a terribly compelling argument to me. If we're going to say that character is part of the HoF criteria, we should be committing to that and be prepared to start chucking a number of bronze plaques on the recycling heap. Otherwise we're just engaging in pointless inconsistent moralizing.
First 3 entrants Kennesaw Mountain Landis, Leo Durocher and the Georgia Peach.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Works for me. Chuck 'em.
Also hi the mariners are hitting their suck and I'm playing the new MLB the Show game which mostly has me going "holy shit this guy is on this team? When the fuck did that happen?"
Also Trevor May clearly slipped someone some money to be a better pitcher then like 90% of the mets roster.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The heat off those takes could power a small city