Jump to content

Random Baseball Observations


Recommended Posts

No, to think Griffey would get voted in unanimously. When much better players haven't come close.
Do you think he should get voted in unanimously?
Edit: I can see one scenario where he comes close. The type of voter who wouldn't normally vote for a first-timer is also probably the type of voter who won't vote for McGwire. Maybe he'll vote for Griffey as sort of an eff you to the steroid guys since Griffey is usually considered to be a clean player.
Yeah, but all it takes is one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cardinals and Red Sox  

missed it by that much  

If you root for St. Louis and you're not from the immediate St. Louis metro area, you're a horrible person.

Do you think he should get voted in unanimously?
I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case for why he shouldn't be a hall of famer and therefore he should be.
Yeah, but all it takes is one.
I said close!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case for why he shouldn't be a hall of famer and therefore he should be.
But I've heard a case made that, since there's a precedent that nobody has been unanimously voted in before, it shouldn't happen unless it's for someone that is widely regarded as in the coversation for the best player of all time. I'm not saying I agree, but that's the argument, and occasionally someone's able to make it sound reasonable.
I said close!
What, I'm supposed to read your posts carefully now?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's probably idiotic to wonder if idiotic sportswriters will stop being idiotic.Out of curiosity, what's your list of much better players who haven't come close?
Off the top of my head, Cobb, Williams, Ruth, Mays and Ryne Sandberg
Do you think he should get voted in unanimously?
This is a tough question. I am argued he was not a sure fire hall of famer when he went to the reds, then he was injured so much, but was able to get healthy and string a half a dozen decent seasons together. So his numbers got there because of how long he played (since he was 19) but he really underwhelmed for a good half of his career.I think he is for sure a hall of famer, and when he was healthy he was one of, if not the best player in the league. But I could see the argument that someone could make for him not to be in the hall, although I don't agree with it.This is a really bad answer to a simple question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Off the top of my head, Cobb, Williams, Ruth, Mays and Ryne Sandberg
Cobb: 222 out of 226 votes. 98%Williams: 282 out of 302. 93%Ruth: 215 out of 226. 95%Mays: 409 out of 432. 95%Sandberg: Wait, Sandberg? No way he was "much better" than Griffey; that's ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobb: 222 out of 226 votes. 98%Williams: 282 out of 302. 93%Ruth: 215 out of 226. 95%Mays: 409 out of 432. 95%Sandberg: Wait, Sandberg? No way he was "much better" than Griffey; that's ridiculous.
Sandberg was my herring.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a tough question.
It's actually not. There is no reasonable, rational argument for Griffey not being a first ballot hall of famer. The only argument here is whether or not the tradition of not making it unanimous is worthy of being continued.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm understanding the voting process. If I have a vote on whether Ken Griffey Jr. belongs in the HOF then I would vote yes. Are we saying that some voters would vote 'no' despite the fact they also believe he deserves to be in the HOF just because they don't want him to get in unanimously? If this is the case, I think those people should have their voting privileges removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we saying that some voters would vote 'no' despite the fact they also believe he deserves to be in the HOF just because they don't want him to get in unanimously? If this is the case, I think those people should have their voting privileges removed.
That is exactly what we're saying. It's not simply that they don't want him to get in unanimously, it's that they think if others before him (that were better) didn't get in unanimously, he shouldn't either. And yes, they should have their voting privileges removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, some voters distinguish between "first ballot hall of famers" and others. It's like they're creating their own tiers of hall of famers based on when they got in, percentage of votes received, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, some voters distinguish between "first ballot hall of famers" and others. It's like they're creating their own tiers of hall of famers based on when they got in, percentage of votes received, etc.
the bill simmons pyramid!I have said it before......withholding hall of fame votes to keep obvious players from unanimity is just one of many things that SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS about the baseball hall of fame.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So the Red Sox managed to get to Ubaldo Jiminez for 6 runs, chased him with 2 outs in the 6th inning. He is in line for his 2nd loss (but the score is 6-5 so it's quite possible he'll get a ND), and his ERA ballooned all the way to....1.60, still leading both leagues.

Thanks for this, great article.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Why do you ask?I hate it when people try to compare stuff like PED's or corked bats to scuffing the ball or throwing a spitter. Scuffing the ball takes place on the field of play and I think that's a significant difference. Not that I'm condoning it, but there are degrees here.
This is arbitrary nonsense. First off, cheating is cheating. If you systematically break the rules in order to gain an advantage, I can't possibly see what ethical difference there is in doing it before a game or during it. I also believe that if a spitter ball pitcher like Gaylord Perry had the chance to doctor balls before a game to give himself an advantage, he would have. Because he had no access, he had to wait to cheat until the very first opportunity he could, which was during the game. I don't see why Perry's lack of opportunity to cheat before the game should allow allow his actions to move up the ethical ladder. Secondly, even if I concede that there is an ethical difference, scuffing and spitters don't qualify for being different. If you're scuffing or doctoring a ball, you have to make off the field preparations in order to cheat. Vaseline doesn't just magically appear under the bill of your hat and sand paper in the glove.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is arbitrary nonsense. First off, cheating is cheating. If you systematically break the rules in order to gain an advantage, I can't possibly see what ethical difference there is in doing it before a game or during it. I also believe that if a spitter ball pitcher like Gaylord Perry had the chance to doctor balls before a game to give himself an advantage, he would have. Because he had no access, he had to wait to cheat until the very first opportunity he could, which was during the game. I don't see why Perry's lack of opportunity to cheat before the game should allow allow his actions to move up the ethical ladder. Secondly, even if I concede that there is an ethical difference, scuffing and spitters don't qualify for being different. If you're scuffing or doctoring a ball, you have to make off the field preparations in order to cheat. Vaseline doesn't just magically appear under the bill of your hat and sand paper in the glove.
You have until the end of the segment to retract this post.Cheating is cheating? That's the position you want to take?And did you really just say, "if he could have, he would have?"I also fail to see how making preparations for something is the same as actually doing something.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"I also fail to see how making preparations for something is the same as actually doing something.
The only differences between the spit ball and the corked bat is where the doctoring takes place. I would dearly love for you to explain how doctoring a baseball with a foreign object on the field is ethically superior to doctoring a bat with a foreign object off the field. . Both take foreign objects that are illegal in to be in the field of play, and put them on and in equipment to give a player an advantage. Both require off field preparation, both require subterfuge. I just would love for you to explain to me how they are different. I guess I can see how someone would think steroids are different, because of the drug aspect of it. I don't agree, I still think, as I said before, cheating is cheating from an ethical point of view. That steroids are more effective does not make them more or less ethical than other forms of cheating. But because of the legal status of drugs and what not, I can see how people could find them offensive. But that you'd make a ethical difference between a corked bat and a spit ball seems arbitrary to me. People for some reason view spit ball pitchers as some sort of wily rogue and lovable rascal, when to me they are, particularly ones like gaylord perry, simply systematic and premeditated cheaters. Also, to be clear, I don't care much at all if people cheat or not. If it were up to me, every one would be on steroids, because home runs are awesome.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how you're making any ethical distinction at all between a corked back and a doctored ball. If you can explain how doctoring a ball with a foreign object on the field is more ethical than doctoring a bat off the field with a foreign object, I'm all ears.
So does it change if it's not a foreign object? Like if the pitchers scratches it with his belt buckle?I think there's a difference because when you do it on the field, you're doing it in front of the eyes of the people who are supposed to prevent you from doing these things. What's your take on something like the Hand of God? But if you do it off the field, how do they catch you?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So does it change if it's not a foreign object? Like if the pitchers scratches it with his belt buckle?I think there's a difference because when you do it on the field, you're doing it in front of the eyes of the people who are supposed to prevent you from doing these things. What's your take on something like the Hand of God? But if you do it off the field, how do they catch you?
Do baseball players have belt buckles you can scratch a baseball on? Assuming they do, that makes no difference to me at all, because it's still systematic cheating to gain an advantage. But that's not how spit balls are done, they are either foreign substances rubbed on the ball, or like a tack or sand paper rubbed on it to scuff it. I've never heard of the ole belt buckle maneuver, but it would make no difference to meDrug testing for steroids.. with corked bats, they could be when they break, that's how basically all players have been caught. If you wanted to, you could just install Xray machines in every ball park, and have umpires check all the bats pregame. Also, I think the risk of getting caught doesn't make it more ethical, it just makes it more ballsy and cooler.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do baseball players have belt buckles you can scratch a baseball on? Assuming they do, that makes no difference to me at all, because it's still systematic cheating to gain an advantage. But that's not how spit balls are done, they are either foreign substances rubbed on the ball, or like a tack or sand paper rubbed on it to scuff it. I've never heard of the ole belt buckle maneuver, but it would make no difference to me
Yeah, google "scuff ball belt buckle" and you'll find a bunch of stuff.
Also, I think the risk of getting caught doesn't make it more ethical, it just makes it more ballsy and cooler.
Maybe. I just think it's more "part of the game" when it's on the field. I think this is where vb shows up and says, "Guys, you're arguing semantics."But it's kind of ironic that we're the ones arguing this since we're both in the let 'em juice camp.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, google "scuff ball belt buckle" and you'll find a bunch of stuff.Maybe. I just think it's more "part of the game" when it's on the field. I think this is where vb shows up and says, "Guys, you're arguing semantics."But it's kind of ironic that we're the ones arguing this since we're both in the let 'em juice camp.
Does casual usage of ironic gnaw on vb's tits like arguing semantics does?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also sandberg was a better second baseman than griffey was an outfielder. There, I said it.
I was mostly with you until you said that. COME ON! He was like Willie Mays out there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrSqgIg8A3c'I learned to play outfield from Willie Stargell.' Wait, what???As far as the cheating discussion/argument, I think you kind of are just "arguing semantics," but at the same time I agree more with BigD's assessment that ball-scuffing and bat-corking have the same ethical...whateverness to them. I actually thought Big's strongest point was that doctoring your cap with vaseline is really really similar to filling your bat with cork. In both cases, you haven't cheated yet. You can put all the cork in your bat and vaseline wherever the hell you please...until you take the field. Once you go out there with a pre-doctored bat or a pre-foreign-substanced hat or glove, you've broken pretty much the same rule. The point in space-time when the rule is broken is the instant the pitcher takes the mound with a foreign substance, and the instant a batter steps up to the plate with a corked bat. He doesn't need to swing the bat to be guilty, just as the pitcher doesn't need to use his substance to have broken the rule. Now, as far as doctoring the ball without a foreign substance (such as on a legal belt buckle), that would simply be on-field cheating, by doing something which is vastly against the rules. Like a baserunner slapping the ball out of a fielder's glove and hoping nobody noticed. I think steroids have a whole different "ethical weight" to them, since they are also lawfully illegal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also sandberg was a better second baseman than griffey was an outfielder. There, I said it.
Sandberg could be the 5th best second baseman and Griffey the 8th best outfielder, but that wouldn't mean Sandberg is better than Griffey.Note: numbers randomly selected.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...