0 comments Rob Rossi Has Some Strong Opinions Not Necessarily Supported by Facts or His Own Opinion

The Pittsburgh Pirates lost to the Chicago Cubs in the terrible, no-good one game Wild Card playoff. Rob Rossi thinks this is an important offseason for the Pirates, but he also thinks some of the Pirates best players are probably at-fault for this one game playoff loss. Rob Rossi states Gerrit Cole is not good enough and Andrew McCutchen has too many earrings. His takes are all overreactions and a sad attempt to simply blame someone, ANYONE, for the Pirates failings in the ridiculous one game Wild Card playoff.

I'll start first with Rossi's issues about Gerrit Cole just not being good enough for the Pirates. He's a bum and the city of Pittsburgh deserves much than him.

More winning. Less jawing. And better pitching.

The Pirates need all of that in the biggest games from Gerrit Cole. 

While admitting that Gerrit Cole didn't pitch his best against the Cubs, let's also understand that the Pirates scored zero runs. Gerrit Cole could have thrown a nine inning perfect game and the Pirates still would not have beaten the Cubs without the game going to extra innings. So blame Cole, but also understand the Pirates' batters didn't score any runs for Cole. He can't win a game if his offense doesn't score a run.

Cole was horrendous and the reason the Pirates never were in position to win a National League wild-card game they lost to the Chicago Cubs, 4-0.

He needed to stick around for more than five innings.

He needed to not allow a first-inning run, then a two-run homer in the third and a solo shot in the fifth.

He needed more first-pitch strikes. 

Cole could have stuck around for nine innings, allowed zero home runs, and thrown a first-pitch strike to every single better he faced. It wouldn't have mattered because Jake Arrieta gave up zero runs too. 

No, the Pirates didn't go out there and give it to the Cubs. Cole did, though.

His margin for error was not slim. It was none. 

And of course, because his margin for error was none then it is Cole's fault the Pirates lost the one game Wild Card playoff. The fact Cole didn't pitch well was unfortunate. The issue is that even if Cole pitched extraordinarily, it still wouldn't have even mattered. The Pirates were going to lose the game because they couldn't score runs against Jake Arrieta. The fact Gerrit Cole could have given up zero runs and pitched nine innings, yet still not win the game, reflects on his team as much as giving up four runs in five innings reflects on him. 

As soon as he gave up that first run, the Pirates were done. Cole gave up that first run before he recorded an out. 

Doesn't this say something about the Pirates hitters as well? If Cole gives up one run and the Pirates have lost, is it really his fault the Pirates lost because he gave up a run? 

Another postseason blacked-out crowd would have been better off had Cole never stepped onto the mound. Or if ceremonial first-pitcher Bob Walk had stayed on the mound. 

Walk's career postseason record: 1-4, 4.50 ERA, 1.143 WHIP.

Cole's career postseason record: 1-2, 3.94 ERA, 0.875 WHIP.

Seems like Walk wasn't exactly much better than Cole has been in the postseason.

Aces flip the switch. Aces don't flip out.

Cole isn't an ace. He's the Pirates' best starting pitcher. 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH! Tough burn there. Gerrit Cole is only the best pitcher on a team of elite baseball players. That must suck.

There is a big difference. 

A huge difference. The difference being a pitcher isn't considered an ace until he wins a big game and the media anoints him an "ace." Cole was 19-8 this season with 208 innings over 32 starts with a 1.091 WHIP, 2.66 ERA and ERA+ of 148. I don't know, I think I would consider that to be an ace. 

Had the Pirates an ace, they might have played more baseball each of these last three Octobers.

An ace, St. Louis' Adam Wainwright, took them out two years ago.

An ace, San Francisco's Madison Bumgarner, took them out last year.

An ace, Chicago's Jake Arrieta, just took them out again. 

I'm guessing that Rob Rossi knows baseball is a team game. What's funny is the second article I post here from Rossi is where he tears into the Pirates batting lineup for not scoring enough runs in the postseason. So it's Cole's fault that Wainwright, Bumgarner and Arrieta have shut the Pirates out in the postseason over the last three years? The Pirates keep running into really hot pitchers who are able to shut them out. But again, it's more simple to blame Gerrit Cole AND blame the Pirates batting lineup in separate articles. That way no reader gets confused and may think pushing blame on to one person is ridiculous and sees through Rossi's act. His "act" being that he individually blames Gerrit Cole for the Pirates loss in the one game Wild Card playoff, while also blaming the Pirates batting lineup for not scoring enough runs. He has to separate them out so it's harder to see the idiocy of individually blaming Cole.

The Pirates have scored one run in their past three postseason games. Two of those were wild-card contests. The other was on the road in a decisive Game 5 of the division series. 

And of course, this is probably Gerrit Cole's fault too. How come Gerrit Cole can't pitch every playoff game and throw a shutout in every game? He's not an ace if he can't do this. 

Top-end talent is what plays when a season is on the line, and the Pirates aren't competitive at postseason baseball's most important position. 

Which for the purposes of this column is starting pitching. In his next column, Rossi will claim the most important position in baseball is first base, which is why he advocates for the Pirates to trade for a power-hitting first baseman so they can finally win a playoff series and get to the World Series. What's important for the Pirates to succeed will change depending on the point Rossi wants to prove. 

That would be starting pitching.

The Giants.

The Cardinals.

The Dodgers.

The Cubs.

Those clubs can throw aces. Right now. 

Well, the Giants can't throw aces right now because they aren't in the playoffs. Regardless if the Pirates can throw a string of Hall of Famers at opposing teams or a string of pitchers who haven't pitched above Triple-A, it doesn't matter as long as the Pirates offense can't score runs. 

Cole might become one. Cole probably will become one.

Rob Rossi earlier in this column: 

Aces flip the switch. Aces don't flip out.

Cole isn't an ace.

So what's the suggestion by Rossi to fix this? Gerrit Cole isn't an ace, but will probably become one. So he's not good enough for the Pirates right now? What if he turns into an ace next year, you know, since he's probably going to end up being an ace and all? Will he be good enough for the Pirates at that point?

The ridiculousness of saying Cole is not an ace, so the Pirates need to find an ace so they can win a playoff series and then writing, "Cole will probably become an ace" can not be understated. It's a poorly-thought out and constructed column designed only to get a reaction. In that aspect, Rob Rossi has had great success.

He's 25 and has pitched fewer than three full seasons.

He'll be great. 

Great or just the Pirates best pitcher? Because THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!

He just might not be great enough in time for the Pirates to win while Andrew McCutchen is still great. 

Oh by the way, for the purposes of this column Andrew McCutchen IS great. In the next column Rossi writes, McCutchen will no longer be great and he's a guy who needs to start delivering in the postseason. Again, Rossi takes whatever position he needs to take at that very moment without a single thought of how he contradicts himself over time. 

Or even while McCutchen is still a Pirate.

And that's a big problem. 

McCutchen is a free agent after the 2018 season. I have a feeling Cole will be considered an "ace" at that point, but what good is all of this if the Pirates can't score runs? Gerrit Cole may not have been the pitcher for the Pirates that Arrieta was for the Cubs this year, but putting blame on him for the offense's failures is ridiculous. Even if Cole had pitched a perfect nine innings the Pirates still couldn't have beaten Arrieta and the Cubs. 

Rossi then continues writing his Plaschke-esque one sentence paragraphs (perhaps Plaschke is his idol? They seem to have the same reactionary "let's make a huge issue where there isn't one" type of writing style when the local team fails) where he provides some advice to Neal Huntington about the Pirates "reboot" this offseason. Rossi is apparently bothered by the earrings that Andrew McCutchen wears and thinks he's not clutchy.

So no, it won't be easy. But this is what Huntington should do between now and next Opening Day:

• Re-sign J.A. Happ to replace A.J. Burnett as the No. 3 starter. 

Gerrit Cole isn't good enough for the Pirates, but paying up for a 33 year old starter with a career ERA of 4.13, a guy who has never thrown for more than 172 innings in a season (and did it this year in his contract year...that NEVER happens), and has a career WHIP of 1.367 is just a brilliant idea. How could re-signing a career 4th or 5th starter as the Pirates 3rd starter after he has had a career year EVER be a bad idea? There are so many red flags around J.A. Happ in my mind, but I'm not the expert that Rob Rossi is. Gerrit Cole is just the Pirates best pitcher, while J.A. Happ is a third starter. 

• Trade closer Mark Melancon to Anaheim for Hector Santiago, who can become the fourth starter. 

Who give a fuck if the Angels want to do this trade or not? Just fucking do it without the Angels approval. Get Rob Manfred on the phone to approve the trade now. 

• Remind every American League club that Pedro Alvarez's big bat is back. 

Because when requesting the Pirates find more offense, it's good to trade a player with a "big bat" that is still under team control until after the 2017 season. 

"The Pirates need more offense! Trade one of their best home run hitters!"

If only Alvarez could handle a corner infield position.

If only the National League would adopt the designated-hitter rule. 

Two straight one sentence paragraphs. It's not totally infuriating, but is definitely slightly infuriating to me. Don't write like a seven year old writes. Try writing full paragraphs.

If only Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band would get back on the road. 

A baseball sportswriters who loves Bruce Springsteen? I don't believe it at all. Can this be true? Baseball sportswriters rarely love Bruce Springsteen. 

The Pirates can't keep dancing in the dark when it comes to Alvarez. 

GET IT? IT'S A BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN SONG REFERENCE SLIPPED COVERTLY INTO A TAKE ABOUT WHAT A WORTHLESS FIELDER PEDRO ALVAREZ IS! THIS IS PROFESSIONAL SPORTSWRITING PEOPLE, PLEASE STEP BACK!

He can't field, but the light is back on when it comes to his power. 

If only there were a Journey reference in this column I could say if Alvarez goes to San Francisco and hits poorly "When the lights go down in the city and sun shines on the bay" is the time when Alvarez joined the Giants.  

An excellent home run-to-fly ball ratio (HR/FB) is at or above 20 percent. Alvarez is 22.5 percent for his career, and he was 10 percent better than that this past season. 

Well that's certainly not fluky at all. I'm sure Alvarez will continue to hit 10% better than his career average for the rest of his career. American League teams are stupid though. I'm sure they don't care about silly things like "statistics" or the idea of "regression." 

The return might not be great, but Huntington should be able to move Alvarez to an AL peer whose need is a DH. 

Again, just force an AL team to trade for him. Might as well ask Rob Manfred to force this trade through while you are on the phone with him about forcing through the Hector Santiago trade. 

Move on to the answer for the question people are starting to ask. 

"People" being defined as "Rob Rossi and select sports radio callers who are idiots." Two people ask the question and all of a sudden "people" are starting to ask questions. 

Why isn't Andrew McCutchen an MVP-caliber player in the postseason? 

Isn't this article about how the Pirates don't have good hitters in the lineup and they need to improve the pitching staff and their hitting? Well, there is your answer why McCutchen might not hit well in smaller sample sizes against better teams. McCutchen is hitting .321/.441/.357 for his career in the postseason by the way. 

No home runs.

No RBIs.

No big moments. 

He does have six at-bats in 34 plate appearances. His playoff walk rate is 17.6%, while his career walk rate (with a much larger sample of course) is 12.1%. It seems like he either has a better eye in the postseason or he's not getting a ton to hit when he comes up to the plate. 

Criticism of his underwhelming Octobers is fair, deserved and no different than what is directed at the Penguins' Sidney Crosby and the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger. 

Sure, criticize him for his lack of power. It makes sense, but he's still getting on-base. He's just not hitting for power. 

Crosby owns a championship ring.

Roethlisberger owns two championship rings.

McCutchen owns earrings. 

It may be best to go back in time and just delete these three sentences/paragraphs (for Rob Rossi, a sentence is a paragraph apparently), because this is an embarrassment. Andrew McCutchen is by all accounts a really nice guy and Rossi has to make a snide comment about him having "earrings" as opposed to championship rings. What a joke. 

The Pirates have jumped overboard with all their “Ps.”

Pride is great.

Passion is wonderful.

Postseason is fun.

Passable is old. 

And it's all Gerrit Cole's fault! Wait, this isn't the column where Cole is getting blamed? 

(Rossi checks his notes) 

Oh yeah, it's all Andrew McCutchen's fault because he hasn't produced big moments, big hits and has earrings. Well, it's not really his fault, but for the sake of argument and the need for attention let's pretend that it is.

That last “P” word is the best adjective to describe the first basemen and cleanup hitters who have played with McCutchen. 

And this obviously has nothing to do with the Pirates scoring 1 run in their last three postseason games nor does it have anything to do with why Andrew McCutchen hasn't produced big moments. It seems that Rossi's reasoning for the Pirates struggles revolves entirely around the lineup, yet he feels the need to blame individuals because that's what gets the attention. 

As evidence, the prosecution points to the Pirates' lineup for this year's National League wild-card game.

Role player Sean Rodriguez started at first base. Free swinger Starling Marte batted fourth. 

And McCutchen only went 2-4 in the Wild Card game. If he had only hit five home runs, then the Pirates could have won the game and Gerrit Cole wouldn't be such a terrible pitcher. Cole would have gotten a win and become an ace. Andrew McCutchen is holding back Gerrit Cole's development as an ace for the Pirates. 

But, members of the jury, let's not stop at the latest wild-card lineup. 

I don't know why Rossi is doing a "fake attorney" bit, but I'm not playing along. 

In 2014, the Pirates placed Gabby Sanchez at first and Russell Martin in the cleanup spot.

In 2013, Justin Morneau filled both roles. 

Again, perhaps focus more on this and less on Cole and McCutchen's "struggles" in the postseason. It seems the reason for the Pirates not winning a playoff series can be found when looking at McCutchen's supporting cast. 

The prosecution would also like to introduce as evidence a couple of Chicago Cubs from Wednesday night: Kris Bryant, the No. 3 hitter, and behind him, first baseman Anthony Rizzo.

Why, yes, that 1-2 punch in the 3-4 holes did seem to rattle Gerrit Cole after the Cubs' leadoff hitter stole second base and scored in the first inning. 

Yes, Gerrit Cole was so rattled that in 8 plate appearances in the game Rizzo and Bryant managed to go 0-7 with a walk (and yes, I know other Pirates pitchers faced Rizzo and Bryant, but the point is Rossi is introducing these two players as evidence of what "real" #3 and #4 hitters are and they didn't hit as well as McCutchen did in the one game Wild Card playoff). I mean, Cole was scared shitless of these two players. Why can't the Pirates find a #3 hitter and #4 hitter like these two who come up big by not getting a single hit in the one game Wild Card? Instead, the Pirates are stuck with mediocre-ass Andrew McCutchen who struggles at the plate, going 2-4 in the one game Wild Card. 

“Everybody would like to have an anchor in the middle of their lineup in these type of games,” manager Clint Hurdle said Wednesday night. 

But why can't the Pirates just go find guys like this? It should be easy to do. 

They've managed to come this far without answers to two big questions that have been asked at the start, during and at the end of every season since McCutchen arrived.

Who's on first?

Who's batting fourth? 

Notice how this column went quietly from "Why can't McCutchen come up big?" to "Why aren't the players around McCutchen good enough?" Again, Rossi knows blaming McCutchen for not coming up big is a little silly, but he needs to get the attention comments about McCutchen's earrings will provide. 

Huntington has called this offseason “big.” He's underselling it.

It's huge.

Massive. Large. Mammoth. 

It all means about the same thing. They are called "synonyms" and I would think a J-school class probably discussed this at some point. Perhaps Rob Rossi was too busy checking out a classmates' earrings and was distracted during this portion of the lecture.

The Pirates could look to trade with a major league team, but all the best first basemen are going to cost at least a top prospect and probably two.

Probably. 

You are underselling it. It's potentially, perhaps even possibly. 

Huntington could always dangle Marte or Gregory Polanco. 

Oh yes, dangle the free-swinging Starling Marte. He's not good enough for the Pirates, but he's good enough to get a great first baseman back in return through a trade. 

And he should, presuming the Pirates' don't win the rights to Park. Josh Harrison can step into one of the corner outfield spots immediately. 

This is the same Josh Harrison who has slashed .284/.318/.417 with 24 home runs in 1470 at-bats during his career. In the search for a cleanup hitter, it's best to replace a guy who hit 19 home runs last year with a guy who 4 home runs last year. That'll fix everything.

The Pirates have scored two runs in their past four postseason games, all losses.

McCutchen was 1 for 15 with a walk in those games.

He needs protection behind him, not two dreamers in front of him. 

I mean, Josh Harrison could very well be that corner outfielder the Pirates are looking for. Where will he fit in the lineup? Nowhere that Rob Rossi states needs help, because he can't hit cleanup nor can he play first base, but dangle Starling Marte, lose a few home runs in the outfield and then get that great power hitting first baseman the Pirates need so badly. I mean, this great hitting first baseman would have to hit 15 more home runs than Pedro Alvarez hit last year to make up for the loss of Alvarez and Marte (replacing Marte with Harrison in the outfield, 15 home runs are left on the table and then the Pirates trade Alvarez...therefore to replace the power production of Marte and Alvarez the new first baseman would have to hit 15 more home runs than Alvarez did), but I'm sure that won't be an issue. First basemen who hit 40+ homers are easy to find, right? 

Protection is always costly.

Nobody ever regretted paying that cost, though. 

"Nobody" ever regretted paying that cost? You may want to check with the Padres before making this statement. I'm pretty sure they are one of a few teams who have regretted paying for lineup protection. 

Huntington shouldn't hesitate to invest in what remains of McCutchen's prime.

Whatever the cost, it's worth it for the Pirates finally to find that first baseman who can bat fourth. 

And then, once the Pirates find a first baseman who can bat cleanup, this means Gerrit Cole and Andrew McCutchen will no longer be useless bums. Cole will magically turn into an ace and McCutchen will start producing magic moments. It's weird how their teammates improvement will make them individually seen as better baseball players. 

Then let's see what their franchise player can do in a fourth postseason.

He'll probably just hit singles and spend his time on the bench looking online for earrings at fancy jewelry shops in the Pittsburgh area. You know how McCutchen do.

4 comments Jerry Green Thinks Bud Selig Took a Piss on the Common Man with All These Newfangled Changes to Baseball

Jerry Green's default mechanism is to long for the good old days. Everything that happened in sports was better 30-40 (even 60) years ago. Sports are ruined today and the common man has been cut out of baseball completely. Now you may ask, "But Ben, who is this 'common man' that Jerry Green is referring to?" I do not know the answer to that question, but when I find the common man, I expect him to be very upset and ravenous to kick Bud Selig's ass. Because after all, with all of these changes to baseball, Selig left the common man behind. The common man is in a cave, ruing the day that Bud Selig became commissioner and dared to try and think of new ideas, ideas that Babe Ruth and Hank Greenberg would think were absolutely ridiculous, to "improve" baseball. Fortunately, Jerry Green is around to stand up for the common man and remember the good old days when everything was better in baseball. Back when there was racism throughout the game and those silly Mexican players stayed in the country where they belong.

A purist's lament:

Don't you love how sportwriters who long for the old days call themselves "purists"? I'm not sure Jerry Green is understanding that when he refers to the era of Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson as "pure" he also means "there weren't any black players allowed to play the sport and they had their own separate league so this was better." There is definitely a slightly racist tint to this appeal for "purity." When a sportswriter is using the same language that racist organizations use to advocate for the demeaning treatment of those aren't like them, then I would probably reconsider my language if I were a sportswriter. Maybe it's just me. It's racist organizations and baseball writers who long for "purity."

Baseball, once, was the Common Man's game.

Yes, baseball was once a lot of things. It no longer is a lot of things and this isn't a bad thing. Progress doesn't have to be scary.

It was simple: the major-league teams played through the season in what were legitimate pennant races. The eight or 10 teams in the two leagues played games starting in April and finishing in October.

So contract 10 to 14 teams and hold more "legitimate" pennant races? That's the key to making baseball better apparently. Engage fewer fans for a shorter period of time by limiting the number of cities that have baseball teams and making sure fewer teams are in contention. I can't see how this wouldn't work. Brilliant. The common man would love this.

At the end of the schedule, after 154 or 162 games, the team in first place in the American League played the team in first place in the National League. The postseason was confined to an event noted as the World Series. The first team to win four games in the best-of-seven games became what was known widely, as the World Champions.

Things have changed. I don't understand the opposition to change. There should be a separate baseball internet for people who long for the days of purity. That way it helps to keep their internet pure from scary ideas that cause change in sports and those impure fans of sports don't end up reading the disgruntled rantings of those who are afraid of anything new.

This was how Babe Ruth and Hank Greenberg played baseball in a better era.

It still is gripping. The pennant races are still close and the one game wild-card playoff, though contrived and stupid, does provide a sense of theater the sport desperately needs. I wouldn't consider the era in which Ruth and Greenberg played as a better era simply because it was an older era and I hope I never get to the point when I lament the game was better when Trout and Cabrera were hitting the ball all over the field.

Whitey Ford pitching curveballs vs. Duke Snider. Jackie Robinson called safe on a steal of home plate to the wailing of Yogi Berra. Willie Mays running into deep center field to catch Vic Wertz monstrous shot over his shoulder at the Polo Grounds. Ruth calling his shot and then hitting a home run at Wrigley Field. Grover Cleveland Alexander trudging from the bullpen hung-over to strike out Tony Lazzeri with the bases loaded.

Here's the deal though, Jerry. These days are NEVER coming back. Even if Rob Manfred decided that he wanted to only have an American League and National League with no divisions, and the two teams with the best record in each league meet, Whitey Ford will never be throwing curveballs to Duke Snider. Ruth won't ever call his shot again. Willie Mays won't catch a Vic Wertz shot over his shoulder for a second time. Those days are gone. Clayton Kershaw will pitch to David Ortiz. Mike Trout will catch a fly ball off the bat of Bryce Harper. It won't be the same because the past is the past. So if your beef is with the set up of MLB with the three divisions and two wild cards, then that's fine, but it seems your beef is that all of the old players who dead now aren't playing. So well, that's just something you are going to have to get over. They aren't coming back, so enjoy the players now in the lesser era or move on with your life and don't watch baseball anymore.

The Common Man could relate to the ballgames. We all had played baseball. We carried our fantasies. Until the rude awakening, the day that we discovered that we couldn't play.

But we still loved our baseball.

I don't think it's the wild card and expansion that has caused the common man to lose interest in baseball. I think it's a product of a different society and times have changed to where fans like a faster paced game. Society moves on, even if you aren't ready for it to.

Ticket prices were affordable.

Bud Selig isn't the sole cause of ticket prices becoming unaffordable. Inflation, player salaries and the realization that teams can make a shitload of money by raising ticket prices and maximizing profits caused ticket prices to become less affordable. Even so, a ticket to a minor league game isn't overly expensive and it's a great night out with the family or friends. There are options to watch baseball at an affordable price level. Again, it feels like Jerry Green is lamenting a time gone by, not specific things Bud Selig has done.

When I was a kid, a Common Man could cough up 55 cents to sit in the bleachers, a buck 10 for general admission along the first or third base line. And if you brought a couple of peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches in a brown bag, you could watch Ted Williams playing against Joe DiMaggio in a doubleheader.

Good for you. Bud Selig didn't kill Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams. Bud Selig didn't set ticket prices for games, and quite frankly, rightly began to take steps to make the game faster in an era of specialized pitching that has resulted in more pitching changes that slowed the game down.

But best for the purist, the pennant races were real.

They still are real. Just because the pennant races aren't like the pennant races in 1938 doesn't mean the 2015 races aren't real. Remember this night? It sort of felt real, didn't it?

If Major League Baseball still had genuine pennant races, the 2014 standings through the top five finishers — the old-fashioned first division — would have been exactly like this:

American League

Team	Wins	Losses	Pct.	GB
Los Angeles	98	64	.605	—
Baltimore	96	66	.593	2
Detroit	90	72	.556	8
Kansas City	89	73	.549	9
Oakland	88	74	.543	10

National League

Team	Wins	Losses	Pct.	GB
Washington	96	66	.593	—
Los Angeles	94	68	.580	2
St. Louis	90	72	.556	6
San Francisco	88	74	.543	8
Pittsburgh	88	74	.548	8

This would fix everything if there was an Angels-Nationals World Series. Snider versus Ford! Willie Mays catching fly balls and Babe Ruth calling his shot. All of these things would happen again.

Now we're stuck with the debris that Bud Selig left behind.

"The debris" meaning that more baseball fans are engaged in the sport for a longer period of time. What in the hell could Bud Selig have been thinking to try and engage more fans of more teams in the sport for a longer period of time? If only he had set up two leagues and just let the team with the best record in each league play each other in the World Series, the time of games would decrease, tickets prices would plummet, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches would become the national currency for the national pastime again, and fans would come come flocking back to the sport purely for the sake of nostalgia they never actually experienced. It would all happen!

The true pennant races and the genuine standings might have confused the figure manipulators and similar Sabremetric creatures.

Bud Selig is a famed Sabermetrician. And also, calling the pennant races "true" and the standings "genuine" doesn't make it so. I think a real pennant race can involve the wild card as well, and recent history has shown me to be correct.

The traditional World Series — Nationals vs. Angels — might have happened. Mike Trout vs. Bryce Harper was a purist's pipe dream.

Oh, so the World Series involving the team with speed that didn't hit home runs isn't a purist's dream? And here I thought it would be.

Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Williams, DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Satchel Paige, Jackie Robinson, Tris Speaker, Mickey Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Goose Goslin — these are names that reek with tradition.

And nothing says "tradition" like the World Series meeting between a 23 year old and 22 year old who haven't ever appeared in a World Series before, who happen to play on two teams that didn't exist in their current form prior to 2005. THAT is tradition.

But MLB trashed tradition during the power-lusting reign of a commissioner.

Yes, he trashed tradition by moving the Expos to Washington and calling them the "Nationals" and by changing the name of the Angels to the "Anaheim Angels" and then the "Los Angeles Angels," except Jerry apparently longs for the tradition that these teams represent. A tradition that wasn't there prior to Bud Selig becoming the commissioner.

One year, early in his administration, Selig ordered the cancellation of the World Series during a bitter labor dispute with the players union. The next spring he decided the game must go on — with replacement players. Bud wanted to serve up sandlot baseball at big-league prices.

Right, he did want to do this. What has resulted from this strike that happened 20 fucking years ago (though to Jerry, that's like yesterday)? Baseball has had labor peace since that time. Baseball is the only major sport to have labor peace over the last 20 years.

That spring 20 years ago was Sparky Anderson's finest moment in his Hall of Fame career as manager with Cincinnati and Detroit. He refused manage the fake major leaguers in a false season.

Sparky maintained the dignity that Selig lacked.

Except Anderson never really had to actually make this call that he was prepared to make because the union and MLB came to a deal.

Bud went out last month following the weakest World Series in the history of the sport.

He staged a World Series pitting two fourth-place teams. There was Fox TV drooling about the Royals playing the Giants. The Giants' best from April through September, in a 162-game season, had been to tie for fourth in the National League with the Pirates.

The 2014 World Series was the third-lowest rated World Series of all-time. The 2013 World Series, which took place between two teams that had the best record in their respective leagues, is the fifth-lowest rated World Series of all-time. So I think it's just that the World Series has lower ratings due to there being other options on television more than fans don't watch because they want to see teams with the best record in their league play.

He went out boasting and preening that Major League Baseball is thriving. He spoke about the prosperity created during his tenure, more than ever in his sport. He proclaimed that the club owners and the players became richer and richer.

MLB teams are setting attendance records under Bud Selig, so obviously fans are attending the games. The stadiums could be bigger than they used to be, but when claiming the idea that the common man is being left out, the fact a lot of common men are choosing to attend baseball games seems to disprove this idea.

Does the Common Man — the shot-and-beer guy, or the average dude on the assembly line — give a hoot about Mike Ilitch's prosperity?

Don't think so!

No one gives a crap about Ilitch's prosperity, but this goes for every sport that has an extremely wealthy owner. I don't care about my favorite NFL team's owner and whether he makes a ton of money, yet this doesn't mean I'm being shut out from attending NFL games. "The average dude on the assembly line" doesn't give a shit if the owner of any of his favorite teams makes money, no matter the sport, and whether that owner is filthy rich or just really, really rich is irrelevant to this fictional dude (should I call him the "replacement dude" just to irritate Jerry Green's anti-Sabermetric tendencies?). Baseball isn't an outlier regarding this attitude of "the average dude on the assembly line."

Selig went out claiming MLB had created the most powerful drug enforcement policy in professional sports. He says, bursting with ego, that this policy is part of his legacy.

But this is true. MLB has a pretty powerful drug enforcement policy.

The truth is that Selig was tardy leading MLB into drug enforcement. The great home-run explosions — Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa — went on before Baseball ignored steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Baseball reveled in the attacks on Ruth and Henry Aaron and Roger Maris by Bonds, McGwire and Sosa.

This is also true. It's very hard to force through a powerful drug enforcement policy when there isn't a big problem that needs to be addressed. Often, something has to break before it gets fixed. That is what happened in baseball. The player's union wasn't going to agree that a powerful drug enforcement policy was necessary if they didn't see a real reason to have this powerful policy. The Steroid Era allowed both owners and the player's union to see the issue present and the necessity for a powerful drug enforcement policy. So yes, the Steroid Era is on Bud Selig, but without that era it would have been hard for the player's union to see the need for stricter testing. Such is how life works. Things have to get worse before they get better.

We purists, the cadre of remaining traditionalists, shuddered at the obliteration of Ruth's statistics, of Aaron's and Maris' records.

And this is on Bud Selig, but it's not fair to complain he was responsible for the Steroid Era and then take away credit for creating a powerful drug enforcement policy. It's hard to push through change when there isn't a problem that seems to need solving.

Bud went out with self-praise for the sweeping drug suspensions of 13 abusers two years ago, in a dragnet operation. It was based on the testimony from convicted Biogenesis operator Anthony Bosch.

In essence, Bud went out after dealing with a drug dealer.

Now this is very true, but Jerry Green is again choosing to complain about everything Bud Selig did simply because he longs for days that will never come again. Jerry Green complains that Bud Selig didn't clean up baseball in time for records to be broken by PED users and then criticizes Selig for being aggressive in trying to prevent PED users from breaking more long-held baseball records. Jerry wants to blame Selig for not being tough enough on PED users, but then complains Selig was too tough on PED users.

It can't always work both ways. Jerry Green wants MLB to clean up baseball, but not to be too aggressive in cleaning up baseball. It's a travesty that PED users are breaking baseball records, but he doesn't want MLB to be too aggressive in making sure this doesn't happen again. I think Selig went a bit overboard to nail A-Rod, but I also don't blame Selig for being tardy to put in place a strict drug enforcement policy.

He did not leave Major League Baseball. He opted to linger. MLB retained him as commissioner emeritus at a peon's wage of $6 million per year. He gets a drop in salary.

But Bud is still there, after all, hanging around. Imagine, 6 million bucks to point out to Rob Manfred, the replacement, err, new commissioner where home plate is.

Yep, I'm not a huge fan of Selig being allowed to earn all this money for not really doing a whole lot. Still, Selig didn't ruin baseball by introducing the wild card, he simply tried to open up the pennant races for more teams to get fans more engaged. I shudder to think what would happen if fewer teams were involved with pennant races during the month of August and September.

For sure, the Common Man ought to relate to that.

I still don't know who the common man is and I refuse to capitalize it. Jerry Green is very lost if he thinks the way back to baseball prosperity is to have two leagues with the best teams in each league meeting in the World Series. He longs for lower ticket prices, dead players to suddenly come back alive and play again, and for owners to not make a lot of money on the backs of fans. Changing how the playoffs structured won't fix this, so basically Jerry's problem isn't with Bud Selig, but with the passage of time. Perhaps he should take up his beefs with a clock or calendar. 

0 comments Terence Moore Only Likes MLB's Bad Ideas

I think Terence Moore only likes the bad ideas that MLB has. He doesn't like the good ideas MLB has proposed and put into use, like expanded replay (he likes this idea now that it is proven to work), the DH, and various other rule changes. What I consider to be the bad ideas that MLB has, like the one-game wild card and a pitch clock, Terence thinks those are just brilliant ideas. Major League Baseball is looking to institute a 20 second pitch clock to games in order to increase the pace of play. I think pace of play will always be a problem given the increased pitching changes due to increased relief pitcher specialization, but I have a better idea. How about baseball doesn't add a 20 second pitch clock and just enforces the two pace of play rules on the books? Would that be too easy? Rule 8.04 states:

When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.

The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

Rule 6.02(d)(1) states:

The batter shall keep at least one foot in the batter’s box throughout the batter’s time at bat, unless one of the following exceptions applies, in which case the batter may leave the batter’s box but not the dirt area surrounding home plate:

(i) The batter swings at a pitch;
(ii) The batter is forced out of the batter’s box by a pitch;
(iii) A member of either team requests and is granted “Time”;
(iv) A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at any base;
(v) The batter feints a bunt;
(vi) A wild pitch or passed ball occurs;
(vii) The pitcher leaves the dirt area of the pitching mound after receiving the ball; or
(viii)The catcher leaves the catcher’s box to give defensive signals.
 

If the batter intentionally leaves the batter’s box and delays play, and none of the exceptions listed in Rule 6.02(d)(1)(i) through (viii) applies, the umpire shall award a strike without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. The umpire shall award additional strikes, without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch, if the batter remains outside the batter’s box and further delays play.

So rather than put a whole new rule on the books for the umpires to enforce, how about having the umpires enforce the two rules that are already on the books? Why is this hard? Does there need to be a running clock for some reason or is it that the umpires are too scared to enforce Rule 8.04 and Rule 6.02(d)(1) without a buzzer going off after 20 seconds? Do your job. Instead of having a 20 second pitch clock, that's what I would tell the umpires. Do your job and enforce the rules. Terence Moore thinks it's a great idea to have a pitch clock that enforces the rules already on the books. Of course he does.

Sooner rather than later, Major League Baseball will add a 20-second pitch clock to the game, and I will be fine with that.

Of course you will. Good ideas you hate, ideas that will never come to fruition (like the six man rotation) you think will ruin the game, but bad ideas involving a running clock that only reinforces a rule that is already on the books, now that is an idea you love.

This is huge news. Not only the part about the pitch clock, but the fact that I approve of such a thing as The World's Greatest Baseball Traditionalist.

This news is mainly about Terence Moore of course. How does it affect him and what does he think about it? Everything else is unimportant.

I mean, if I don't have a problem with this, then neither will the Players Association, which has to give its nod to rule changes.

Because if Terence Moore approves of something then clearly the Players Association will fall in line. Terence's opinion represents the interests of the Players Association of course.  

The bulk of baseball fans will agree, too.

Two issues here:

1. By Terence stating that he isn't being a contrarian and is agreeing with this rule change, so the bulk of baseball fans will agree too, he is also stating that he believes himself to normally be completely out of step with what the bulk of baseball fans think. Because normally, he wouldn't support this move and the bulk of baseball fans would disagree with him.

2. Simply because Terence Moore is paid by MLB and likes an idea doesn't mean that others will similarly like this idea. It's not a logical train of thought for Terence to have.

I'm also for those other proposed changes to speed up the game that were used this year during the Arizona Fall League.

Terence is moving into the modern age. I'm not sure it's on his own accord or MLB.com is forcing him to not write like baseball peaked in 1976 and it's all downhill from there.

I hear what some of you are saying. These changes would give baseball a different feel from the days of Babe Ruth slugging, Whitey Ford throwing and Lou Brock running.

No, I'm not saying that at all because I would use much, much more modern references than that. Plus, sports have to adapt or die. If baseball is different from when Babe Ruth played the game then that is not a bad thing at all.

I once had that viewpoint. It's just that, upon further review (as in baseball's new expanded replay, which hasn't exactly caused the earth to crash into the sun),

No shit! Really? And here I thought the 3-4 posts I wrote in response to the 3-4 columns you wrote was just me being stubborn and stupidly embracing progress because I like to watch old baseball ideas die.

Here are examples of Terence's dislike for expanded replay.

maybe some of you are as wrong as I was when it comes to this whole time-of-game debate.

I'm very rarely wrong, so I really, really doubt it. There's no need for a 20 second pitch clock because the rules already point out that pitchers and batters must make haste in throwing a pitch or stepping into the batter's box, and gives the umpires a chance to penalize pitchers and batters for taking up too much time. So the umpires just need to enforce the rule on the books, even though I know they seem too scared to do this, rather than have a new rule created with a 20 second pitch clock.

Consider this: 2:31, 2:28, 2:20, 2:57, 2:40, 2:34, 2:44. That's how much time it took to play each of the seven games during the 1955 World Series between the Yankees and the Dodgers.

Yes, but back then there were fewer pitching changes and less specialization among pitchers, so the game moved quicker. Remember how you harp on how pitchers back in your day used to complete the game they started? Well, when pitchers completed the game they started, the game went faster. There are more pitching changes in the modern game of baseball, so the games last longer.

With the addition of a pitch clock (you know, among other things), maybe the average time of Major League games actually will return baseball to those days of yore.

It will not due to the reason I just explained. Pitcher specialization has caused more pitching changes during a game. What could help baseball speed up the pace of play without a 20 second pitch clock is the umpires could grow a pair of balls and just enforce the rules currently on the books and Major League Baseball could back the umpires when they enforce the rules. Would that just be too easy?

It hit a record last season of 3 hours and 8 minutes. That doesn't include the postseason. Take, for instance, Game 2 of the 2014 American League Championship Series between the Royals and the Orioles. It was a nine-inning affair that lasted 4 hours and 17 minutes. By comparison, last year's World Series was swift, when the Royals met the Giants. Most games were completed within three to 3 1/2 hours, but Game 4 went four hours.

Now go back to the length of the games from the 1955 World Series, and tell me again why baseball doesn't need at least a pitch clock.

Because there is already a rule that can and should be enforced which could help speed up the game. Because a pitch clock seems like a trite and ridiculous way to solve the length of games issue.

You can't.

I just did.

Especially since we're in the age of the Internet, social media, 24/7 cable television and Millennials who are obsessed with filling the next millisecond with something different.

People will either enjoy baseball or they don't. It's really simple. Umpires should enforce the rules which can speed up the game and perhaps an idea involving speeding up the process of changing pitchers is the solution. For example, maybe a relief pitcher should not be allowed warm up pitches or maybe umpires can be stricter about the time a manager or pitching coach spends at the mound dicking around waiting for another relief pitcher to warm up. That will increase the speed of the game and won't involve a stupid clock counting down to the next pitch.

But here's the primary reason for both of those things: Bud Selig spent his 22-plus years as Commissioner looking beyond the present toward the future.

Interleague Play. Wild Card teams. Meaningful All-Star Games by giving the winning league home-field advantage during the World Series. Replay reviews, and then extended replay reviews.

Interleague play is a good idea. One game wild card is dumb. Homefield advantage is the All-Star game is increasingly dumb. All replay is a good idea.

So it's a mixed bag.

Once, Major League officials only encouraged umpires, players, managers and coaches to speed things. Those officials went from words to actions during this year's Arizona Fall League, where they tested six possible rule changes.

In 2013, the average AFL game lasted two hours and 52 minutes. The new rules sliced 10 minutes off that time.

These rules decreased the time of a game by 10 whole minutes! So playoff games will now be only a few minutes shy of four hours long! Everything is fixed!

Everything begins and ends with that pitch clock. That's because nobody on the diamond controls the tempo of the game more than the pitcher.

The umpire and the batter also control the tempo of the game at times as well.

OK, the hitter also is a mighty contributor here, but nothing of significance happens in a game until the pitcher takes the mound.

Which is why there is a rule that states: 

When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

I'm not sure what is supposed to happen when there are runners on base. Maybe all bets are off when there are runners on base.

Baseball games have definitely gotten faster since Andy Pettitte retired. It took him approximately three minutes to throw each pitch and at no point did an umpire step in and make him hurry it up. See, that's the part where Terence is correct. Nothing does happen until the pitcher takes the mound, which is why there is an unenforced rule stating the pitcher should not waste time making his next pitch.

Which means the pitcher actually has to be standing on the mound before he can throw. Which means a pitch clock in the Major Leagues would keep a pitcher from doing a little of this and a lot of that before he decides to take the mound.

OR telling the umpires to emphasize to pitchers that they have to speed up how long they take between pitches, tell MLB teams this is happening, and then the umpires would begin to enforce the rule. This is a better idea than having a pitch clock in the bottom right hand corner of the screen during a game distracting the viewer and distracting the fans at the game.

You've seen it. Some guys stand on the mound, shake off their catcher a slew of times and then go back to doing this and that.

I've seen it and the slower pace has become a part of baseball. I'm not going to repeat myself (yes, I am), but baseball emphasizing the rule of 12 seconds between pitches is the best move rather than take the drastic step of creating a pitch clock.

For AFL participants, the pitch-clock rule went into detail as to when the clock would begin in relation to the position of the pitcher and the batter, but this wasn't complicated stuff. A clock was placed in both dugouts, behind home plate and in the outfield. If a pitcher didn't deliver the ball within 20 seconds, the umpire called a ball.

I'm frustrated because this is a circuitous route to solving a problem that doesn't require a circuitous route. Simply use the tools that baseball currently has and see what happens from there. I'm betting if MLB emphasizes the rule and enforces it there will be no need for a pitch clock.

It didn't take many "balls" in that situation for even the traditionally slow pitchers to get the message.

If the umpires would grow some "balls" and just enforce the rule then a pitch clock is unnecessary. Are ballparks going to have a pitch clock within view so the crowd knows when a pitcher is coming close to going over the allotted time span to throw the next pitch?

As for the other time-saving rules from those AFL games, hitters were required to spend the majority of their plate appearances with one foot in the batter's box, and hitters were waved to first base on intentional walks.

So basically, MLB is enforcing Rule 6.02(d)(1) for hitters but find it necessary to create a new rule requiring pitchers to throw a pitch in 20 seconds instead of just enforcing Rule 8.04 that is already on the books. This is non-brilliant, typical MLB thinking.

There was a maximum 2:30 break between innings, and hitters had to enter the batter's box by the 2:15 mark or the umpire would call an automatic strike. If a pitching change wasn't made within two minutes and 30 seconds, the umpire called a ball.

This can be all done in regular season MLB games without a pitch clock. Requiring a pitch clock is trying to invent a complicated device that kills a fly when a simple flyswatter would do the job.

Teams only were allowed three timeouts during games to conference on the mound, and that included extra innings.

I don't like the idea of teams having timeouts, just make sure the mound conferences are speedy.

Now Major League Baseball folks just have to implement it.
And they will.

MLB has had some good ideas in the recent past, but I think this pitch clock is like trying to kill an ant with a shotgun and there has to be a more seamless way to increase the pace of play without adding a timer in which the pitcher has to throw a pitch.

0 comments Bill Madden Has Some Thoughts on an Expanded Hall of Fame Ballot and Will Vote for Mike Piazza Just as Soon as He Can Predict the Future

Bill Madden does not always enjoy new ideas. He is not cool with the Hall of Fame proposal to allow voters to choose 12 candidates on their ballot. Madden, who just a short year and a half ago missed steroids' and their impact on baseball, also won't vote for Mike Piazza to enter the Hall of Fame until he knows for sure that Piazza didn't use steroids. So basically he isn't going to ever vote for Mike Piazza to enter the Hall of Fame, because I can't imagine there will be more information revealed about whether a baseball player who retired five years ago used PED's or not when he played.

I'll start first with Bill Madden's sadness at the baseball Hall of Fame changing the selection process even just a little bit. After all, the process has worked perfectly for 71 years, why should it change now? Other than the Steroid Era presents a problem that Hall of Fame voters admit they aren't sure how to solve and haven't ever had to deal with in the past which some believe is affecting the process, of course. And other than an era of baseball that has changed the way voters consider candidates, nothing has changed from 71 years ago. Change isn't always good, sometimes it's scary when you don't have the energy to adjust to these changes.

No matter how many people the Baseball Writers’ Association votes into the Hall of Fame — Tuesday’s class of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio was the biggest since 1955 — there are always those who want to change the process,

Why change something that is working and causes very little controversy?

even though that process and the way it’s played out over 71 years are why baseball’s shrine at Cooperstown is the only Hall of Fame anybody cares about so passionately.

Yes, people care about the baseball Hall of Fame so passionately because of the process and how voting works. If the Hall of Fame allowed voters to include 12 potential inductees on the ballot it would ruin the process forever. FOREVER, I tell you! If two more players can be placed on a single voter's ballot it would disrupt the delicate balance that currently exists which makes the Hall of Fame voting so flawless.

Johnson, with his 303 wins, 4,875 strikeouts (the second-most ever) and five Cy Young Awards; Pedro, with his three Cy Youngs, five ERA titles and three strikeout titles; “Double Duty” Smoltz, with his 213 wins and 154 saves and 15-4, 2.67 postseason record; and the versatile Biggio, with his 3,060 hits and 668 doubles, the most by a righthanded hitter, were clearly the cream of one of the strongest Hall of Fame ballots ever, and as a result, a lot of eminently Hall-worthy candidates not linked to steroids — such as Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent — suffered the consequences, with vote totals not even approaching 50% when 75% is required for election.

This is pretty annoying. Why should Hall-worthy candidates not receive votes because Johnson, Smoltz, Biggio and Pedro were on the ballot? If Schilling, Kent, and Mussina are all worthy of getting a Hall of Fame vote when the ballot is not as loaded then they wouldn't they be worthy when there is a more loaded ballot? The purpose of voting for the Hall of Fame isn't to elect new members every year, but to elect worthy members when they are worthy. If Curt Schilling is not a Hall of Famer on a loaded ballot, then he isn't a Hall of Famer on a weaker ballot either. His status doesn't and should not change simply because there are considered to be fewer Hall-worthy candidates on the ballot. I know this isn't how many of these moronic voters work, but it's how they should work. The point isn't to save votes for Schilling on a less loaded ballot, but to vote for him if he deserves induction no matter how many other worthy candidates are on the ballot.

On one hand, you still have the diehard fans and other media critics who feel the baseball writers should not have the power to keep the accused or suspected steroid cheats — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Co. — out of Cooperstown

I don't know of any person who has written that Hall of Fame voters should not have the power to keep these suspected and accused steroid cheats out of the Hall of Fame. I've read people opine the voters SHOULD NOT keep these accused and suspected cheats out of the Hall of Fame, but not read these voters lack the power to do. I feel like Bill Madden doesn't even understand the argument the opposition to his point of view is making and he prefers to simply create the argument he believes they are making, in place of being informed.

What’s a mockery is what Bonds did to the home run records and the argument that, well, he was already a Hall of Famer before he started doing steroids.

I think he was.

As if we know exactly when that was, just like we didn’t know Alex Rodriguez was doing steroids all those years with the Yankees — and not just from 2001-2003 with Texas — until he confessed as much to the feds last summer.

Bill Madden pulls out the "We don't know when Barry Bonds started cheating" card. So Bill Madden knows Barry Bonds was cheating, because just look at his statistics, but he isn't able to tell when exactly Bonds started using steroids. Madden has no way of looking at Bonds' statistics and determining what seasons Bonds was clean, but he is an expert at looking at Bonds' statistics and knowing for sure that Bonds was cheating and when. It's funny how that works isn't it? Madden knows Bonds cheated, he just can't tell if Bonds' statistics were affected by it or not.

One would think that Bill Madden could use the same information that accuses of Bonds of using PED's to figure out when Bonds started using PED's and work his career backwards from there. But why would Madden use the same information he uses to indict Bonds in order to figure out whether Bonds was a Hall of Famer prior to his steroid use? It's Madden's job to do the smallest amount of research possible in order to come to the conclusion he wants to reach.

It has been shared in books that Bonds started using steroids after he saw how McGwire and Sosa were able to put up fantastic numbers by using them. So that would be around 1998-1999. A look at Bonds' career shows this to be true. Bonds had normal human numbers until the 2000 season when he all of a sudden exploded and started hitting career highs in home run numbers. So just looking at Bonds' career statistics it can be seen he probably started using PED's in 1999 or 2000. So he was a Hall of Fame prior to using PED's because he would have had 3 MVP awards, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI's, 2010 hits, and 8 Gold Gloves. Assuming that Bonds never used steroids he would have been a Hall of Famer with the statistics he accumulated from age 35 to when he retired. Even if Bonds retired in 1999 and never played again he would have been 40th in home runs all time, which would be even higher if I took the time to remove the other players above him who were suspected or accused of using PED's. Basically, I think Bonds was a Hall of Famer if he never used PED's and posted numbers that regressed like a normal 35 year old would regress.

The point is, it doesn’t matter when or for how long a player cheated. A cheater is a cheater and shouldn’t be bestowed with baseball’s highest honor.

Fine, that's your point of view, but I think if Bonds had never used steroids then he would have been a Hall of Famer. In determining a player's Hall of Fame credentials some voters would consider Bonds' numbers only when he was clean and vote for him anyway. A cheater is a cheater, but if the time when Bonds wasn't cheating is considered then he possibly should be bestowed with baseball's highest honor. He didn't cheat his whole career. It's pretty obvious when looking at his career statistics.

But there is now another faction of critics of the process — among the baseball writers themselves — complaining about the Hall limiting voters to “up to 10” candidates. Writers are venting over not having enough room on their ballot for players such as Mussina, Schilling or Kent, whom they really wanted to vote for but could not because they prioritized 10 other people.

I really fail to see the issue with having 12 candidates on the ballot. As will be pointed by Bill Madden, and pointed out by others, most voters don't even vote for 10 candidates. So what's the harm in responding to the Steroid Era's impact on the ballot by simply allowing voters to choose 12 candidates permanently or even temporarily? Voters will vote for who they choose to vote for. Maybe 4 candidates, maybe 12. No one gets hurt and the ballot gets changed in response to voters who are vexed by the Steroid Era players on the ballot.

Recently, a special committee formed by the Baseball Writers’ Association submitted a request to the Hall’s Board of Directors to expand the ballot to at least 12.

I suspect the request is going to be denied — as it should be.

Yes, because change is bad. The Steroid Era provides a predicament that the baseball Hall of Fame hasn't encountered before, but the Hall of Fame should not adjust the voting process in order to adjust to the predicament. Obviously.

Yes, the ballots in the last two years have been overcrowded with top quality candidates — in successive years, you had three no-brainer first ballot guys, Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz, all of whom were elected — and it has been exacerbated by the continued presence on the ballot of Bonds and Clemens, who would’ve been elected by now had they not been the poster boys for steroid cheating

But no special consideration should be given to deal with this overcrowding and the presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot. Again, this would be a change and the Hall of Fame balloting has done fine for 71 year now without change. Why should an unprecedented situation call for a change now?

Despite the laments of all those writers who wanted to vote for so many of the players who finished way down in the voting, if only they had room, what this election clearly showed is that the overwhelming sentiment of the writers was that those players were not in the same class as Johnson, Martinez, Smoltz and Biggio.

So there is nothing to worry about by increasing the number of candidates who voters can vote for. No unworthy Hall candidates will be elected into the Hall of Fame and those writers who want more room to vote for candidates they perceive as worthy will receive two extra spaces on the ballot. Everyone is happy.

It’s not to say they’re not worthy or will never get in, they just have to wait for a much leaner ballot, quality-wise.

WHICH MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE TO ME AND SHOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO BILL MADDEN EITHER!

If a player is worthy, then why should a lean or heavy ballot matter? A player's Hall of Fame candidacy should be irrelevant to what the rest of the ballot looks like. This infuriates me about the Hall of Fame voting. A player is suddenly deemed worthy of the Hall of Fame if no other quality candidates are on the ballot, but if the ballot is heavy then all of a sudden that player's Hall of Fame resume doesn't look as good, despite the fact nothing at all has changed about his candidacy. All of a sudden, Curt Schilling becomes the skinniest kid at fat camp because OF COURSE they have to elect someone to the Hall of Fame every year. Sure, Schilling wasn't worthy last year, but that's because the players around him were worthy. Now that the ballot is lighter, Schilling's candidacy which hasn't changed at all suddenly looks better to Hall of Fame voters.

And for the record, only 280 of the 540 voting writers, barely more than 50%, used all 10 spots on their ballots. The average was 8.4 spots per ballot.

Then increasing the amount of spots available to use for worthy candidates to 12 wouldn't make a difference at all. It would simply help out the 50% of voters who may want to vote for more than 10 candidates. Bill Madden can't argue increasing the number of spots would hurt or dramatically alter the Hall of Fame and then be all like, "Well, no one even uses those spots anyway." If no one uses the spots, then the Hall of Fame isn't in danger of being hurt or altered dramatically.

For what it’s worth to the “increase the ballot” bunch, 17 players, including the four just elected, will be coming off the ballot next year and, of the 2016 newcomers, only Ken Griffey Jr. could be considered a no-brainer

Which means these brain dead voters will all of a sudden think inducting Curt Schilling is a good idea, since we wouldn't want Ken Griffey Jr. to be standing alone on the podium would we? All of a sudden, Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame. Not based on his career achievements, but based on the lighter ballot.

(The year after, the biggest names are Vladimir Guerrero, Jorge Posada and steroids-tainted Manny Ramirez and Pudge Rodriguez — none of them automatics.)

Vlad should be in. I didn't know Pudge Rodriguez was officially steroid-tainted. He's the Hispanic version of Mike Piazza I guess. I can't wait to see articles about Pudge's regression later in his career as proof of his PED  use, while the fact other Hall of Fame catchers have regressed later in their career due to the wear and tear of the position will be ignored.

So for those voters who couldn’t find room for Schilling, Mussina or Kent this year, that’s at least four spaces that have opened up for you next year.

(Bangs head on the wall)

Vote for these guys, that's fine. Just don't vote for them next year, but not vote for them this year, simply because the ballot is lighter is next year.

And for those who voted for Bonds and Clemens, don’t bother wasting any of your 10 spaces on them anymore. They’re never getting in.

But some voters do want to waste their space voting for these guys. That's the purpose of increasing the spots on the ballot by two. The only reason Bill Madden doesn't want to increase the spots available to 12 is because he knows it is intended to allow voters to vote for Hall of Fame-worthy candidates who are PED users. He's already stated the increase to 12 wouldn't change much because barely 50% of voters put 10 players on their ballot this year anyway.

Now Bill Madden tells his readers why he didn't vote for Mike Piazza. It's because he can't predict the future and what if in the future it turns out Mike Piazza is found to have used steroids? Not that Madden would pay attention to rumors around Piazza of course, but he just wants to be sure no information that probably won't come out ends up not coming out. I'm sure Piazza will get Madden's vote during his last year of eligibility, right? Because that's the final chance for additional information to come out about Piazza's suspected PED use. I'm sure Madden isn't just saying he is waiting for additional information to come out as an excuse to not vote for Piazza based on rumors, innuendo, and bacne.

First of all, I’ve always had my suspicions about Piazza, even though he never tested positive nor was he mentioned in the Mitchell Report.

This doesn't sound like the opening statement of a sportswriter who is definitely open-minded about waiting to find information about Piazza in the future. It sounds like the opening statement of a sportswriter who thinks Mike Piazza used steroids and can't figure out a way to prove it yet. So basically Madden has his mind made up, he just wants to wait to find proof that verifies his conclusion, and then he won't vote for Piazza either way.

Those suspicions were heightened when players who played against Piazza, a number of players, told me he used steroids.

Bitter, angry, competitive opponents stated that Mike Piazza used steroids? If there is a better source for accurate information on a player's PED use then guys who used to play against that player then I don't know what it could be. I'm sure these players wouldn't smear Piazza's name to further their own agenda or discredit Piazza's accomplishments. Competitive athletes would never do that.

Again, there may have been no proof of that, but I do know that those same players didn’t tell me other players were on steroids who weren’t.

How does Bill Madden know which players were on steroids and which weren't? Contrary to what he wants to believe, it's not that easy to tell. I'm sure Madden is one of those who had Jason Grimsley, Jay Gibbons and Francisco Cervelli pegged from the very start. He's the Steroid Whisperer and knows who has and has not used steroids.

Sure, there may be no proof that Piazza used steroids but these players didn't tell Bill Madden other players were on steroids and they weren't. So obviously because these players had never lied before, they would not lie about Piazza. The first lie is always the hardest to figure out by the way.

Nobody ever told me Fred McGriff was on steroids, or Jeff Kent.

Okay, so that means they were definitely clean? Jeff Kent had a few 'roid rage fights with Barry Bonds through the years. I'd have some suspicions about him, but I guess he had no bacne.

So with all of that, I decided to withhold my vote on Piazza, the reason being I did not want to vote somebody into the Hall of Fame who I would then find out two or three years later had, in fact, been a steroids cheat.

See, this is just an excuse. Bill Madden just doesn't want to vote for Piazza because he believes he is a steroids cheat. Madden is waiting for revelations to come out which prove his theory that Piazza used PED's, and if these revelations never occur, he's still not voting for Piazza. You can bank on that.

As far as anyone knew for certain, Alex Rodriguez did steroids only those three years he was in Texas, because that’s what he told us, over and over again. And then five years later, we find out different: It turns out Rodriguez was a huge figure in the Biogenesis doping scandal in Miami, was suspended for a season by Major League Baseball even as he continued to deny publicly that he used steroids, then finally confessed to federal investigators that he was indeed a user during the years he was with the Yankees.

And if Bill Madden can't tell the difference in a two-admitted steroid user and a suspected steroid user then there is absolutely no hope for him. In fact, this comparison to A-Rod simply goes to my conclusion that Madden is hiding behind the whole "I need more information about Piazza's PED use" as an excuse for simply not wanting to vote for Piazza. There's not going to be information that proves Piazza didn't use steroids, so the only information Madden is waiting on is information that proves the conclusion he has already reached. So no matter what happens, Bill Madden is not voting for Mike Piazza. Just say it and don't hide behind the desperate search for new information like you are O.J. trying to find his wife's killers.

That’s why I withheld my vote on Mike Piazza.

So because an admitted steroid user again got caught using steroids then a suspected steroid user shouldn't get a vote? I guess that makes sense to someone who feels strongly that Mike Piazza used steroids. The same lack of benefit of the doubt that Madden is giving Piazza is the reason Madden will never vote for Piazza until he disproves a negative. Just don't hide behind the "I need more information on Piazza's suspected PED use" excuse. If you buy the rumors then your mind is already made up.

Conceivably, I may eventually vote for him.

You probably will not. Conceivably.

Of course my vote may not be necessary anyway, because barring revelations between now and then that he was a steroid user, I think he is going to get elected next year.

Maybe. I'm sure Bill Madden thinks Piazza will definitely get elected into the Hall of Fame if the ballot allows 12 candidates to receive a vote.

With or without my vote.

Probably without your vote. If you aren't going to vote for Mike Piazza just say it's because you think he used PED's. Don't say it's because you suspect he used PED's and are waiting for more information. Your readers aren't as dumb as you think they are. 

I don't like Mike Piazza and I'm tired of seeming like I like him and want to defend him.

0 comments Terence Moore Hates Changes to the Game of Baseball Except the Ones MLB.com Tells Him He Has to Like

As we learned last October, Terence Moore loves the one game Wild Card playoff that MLB added to the current playoff system just last year. It's interesting that Terence likes this one game Wild Card playoff since he hates nearly every other change in MLB since the early 1900's. Terence would probably hate the integration of Negro League players into MLB if Terence weren't himself African-American. Here is a list of changes or adaptations to MLB that Terence has written about not liking:

-The Designated Hitter

-Pitchers who don't pitch complete games

-Baseball players who get hurt when baseball players never used to get hurt

-Instant replay

-Expansion of instant replay

-Instant oatmeal because it has the word "instant" in it

-The word "replay"

-Any improvements to make the umpire's impossible job easier

-Six man rotations

-Modern baseball celebrations

-Anyone who doesn't like Pete Rose, the Big Red Machine or can't accept everything was better back when Pete Rose and the Big Red Machine ruled baseball by winning two (TWO!) whole World Series titles

So I find it very, very, very, very odd that Terence likes the idea of a one game Wild Card playoff. I find it so odd that I think he is simply pretending to like the one game playoff because he works for MLB.com. There's no logical reason a person who doesn't like expanded replay, hates the designated hitter, and doesn't like any changes in baseball over the past 60 years would like the one game Wild Card playoff. But yet, Terence does like the one game Wild Card playoff. He likes it because it makes winning the division relevant again. I think it's good news winning the division is relevant again, but I hate the way MLB has chosen to go about making winning the division relevant again. After 162 games you have a one game playoff? That seems silly to me, but inexplicably Terence likes this idea.

Courtesy of the two Wild Card spots in each league, baseball is about to get crazy through September.

Two years ago the Wild Card finishes in the National and American Leagues were one of the best nights in baseball history. Shockingly, Wild Card and pennant races were exciting prior to the inclusion of an additional Wild Card team.

It's not like baseball pennant races were boring prior to the 2012 season. It is an exciting one game playoff, but it's also sort of contrived excitement. The one game Wild Card playoff manufactures the type of excitement that the crazy end of the 2011 season created more naturally through teams with similar records competing for one playoff spot. The 2012 Wild Card matchup was between the Orioles and Rangers who had the same record (success!) at 93-69 and the 94-68 Braves and 88-74 Cardinals. There was no reason for these two teams to determine who deserved the Wild Card since the Braves had proven over 162 games they were the better team, so what would one game do? I like the idea of a Wild Card playoff, but baseball can "get crazy" through contrivance anytime they want. Let's make the World Series a one game playoff! It puts more emphasis on winning the All-Star Game to gain homefield advantage. 

As I've said on several occasions, I could handle a three game series played at the home park of the team with the better record. I could even handle two games at the field of the team with the better record and one game at the field of the team with the worse record. A one game playoff for a Wild Card spot after 162 games have been played and the teams (most likely) don't have the same record is just stupid to me.

Trust me. Better yet, watch the Pirates, Reds and Cardinals scratch, claw and fight down the stretch in search of becoming kings of the National League Central.

Right, except St. Louis and Cincinnati both know if they don't win the division they always have a chance in the Wild Card game. This makes the 2013 season more exciting compared to 2011 when St. Louis or Cincinnati had to win the Wild Card over 162 games or they didn't make the playoffs at all? So Terence enjoys watching three teams scratch, claw and fight for three playoff spots, as opposed to in 2011 when these three teams would have been fighting for two playoff spots. Winning the division is more important, but there are more playoff spots to go around now, which cuts into the drama on which teams in the National League make the playoffs (as long as the standings stay where they currently are the Cardinals and Reds are way ahead in the Wild Card race).

They'll make this one of the greatest divisional races of all time. That is, if they aren't surpassed by more than a few teams in the American League East and the AL West.

The American League does have better divisional and Wild Card races at this point.

You see, the Rays won't yawn in the shadows as the Red Sox keep doing their thing atop the AL East, and the same goes for the Orioles and the Yankees. As for the AL West, the Rangers now have a three-game lead over the second-place A's, but you just know these two teams aren't finished swapping the top spot. I mean, the Indians are 6 1/2 games behind the Tigers in the AL Central,

These divisional races would be tight and exciting even if MLB didn't have the one game playoff. So the excitement of these races has nothing to do with the new one game Wild Card playoff. The only difference in the races in 2013 and 2011 is that in 2013 one more of these teams knows they are going to make it to a one game playoff with the chance to move to the next round against a division winner. The one game playoff does reward a team for playing well over a 162 games, but the one game playoff also penalizes teams who play well over 162 games but have the unfortunate luck of playing in a division with a strong division leader. The first Wild Card could show themselves to be 5-6 games (or more) better than the second Wild Card but forced to play in a one game playoff for the right to move on to the next round.

For example, last year the Baltimore Orioles would have won the AL Central by winning 93 games, but because they played in the same division as the Yankees they had to play in the one game playoff against the Texas Rangers, who also won 93 games, they had to be in the one game playoff while the 88 win Detroit Tigers won their division and were rewarded for doing so. I'm not against rewarding those win their division, but I also think if you are going to reward a team for playing well over 162 games then the Wild Card playoff needs to be more than just one game. Most of the time the two Wild Card teams aren't going to have the exact same record and I think a three game Wild Card playoff better rewards the Wild Card team who played well over 162 games.

Baseball will never have a completely fair playoff system and I recognize that. I'm for rewarding teams won their division as well. I don't like Terence acting as if the one game Wild Card playoff is a revelation of epic proportions that has changed MLB's playoff system for the better. It's not quite that great. Baseball is a sport that isn't built for one game playoffs (I recognize how a one game playoff between two teams who have the same record has been necessary in the past, since those games only occur if both teams were tied for the division or Wild Card lead) and I think the Wild Card "round" should reflect this and be a three game series instead of a one game "series."

Even if Cleveland fails for a 13th time in 14 games against its northern bullies, it won't be because the Indians have settled to play for a Wild Card spot.

Nobody should do such a thing. Not now.

I get this point of view. There is also an extra Wild Card spot now though. So the Indians don't have to settle for anything, but they know if they are now the fifth best team in the American League (and depending on the record of one of the division winners this second Wild Card team could be anything from the third best team in the American League to the fifth best team) then they get a chance to make the playoffs. So if teams have really settled for the Wild Card (which I don't believe) then they can still settle knowing there is an extra spot available in the playoffs.

Let's just say that it was a simple move by Major League Baseball officials before last season, but it was a brilliant one.

Terence Moore hates most changes to baseball that have taken place over the last 60 years, but he thinks this is a "brilliant" move. This tells me two things:

1. Terence works for Major League Baseball.

2. This change has to be a terrible idea. No move could be described by Terence as "brilliant" if it wasn't an ill-advised and poorly thought out move.

They added a second Wild Card to the playoffs for each league, and they made those teams battle in a single-elimination game for the right to advance further.

I greatly dislike the idea of a one game playoff between two teams that may not have the same record. I hate it. Baseball isn't meant to be played in a one game playoff. It's meant to be played where there is more than one game played between two teams so that a team's full strength (in terms of starting pitching) can be reflected in the outcome of the series.

It was so masterful that those in contention for a playoff berth these days know that it's about winning the division or bust.

But it's not about winning the division or bust because two National League and two American League teams will get a chance to play in a one game playoff in order to go on and play a division winner. There's more emphasis on winning the division now, but more teams have a chance at making the playoffs. So it isn't about winning the division or bust, but more about "winning the division or having to win one more game at which point the playoffs resort back to the previous Wild Card system where the division winner doesn't get a huge advantage."

Well, they should know as much. If not, here's a quick reason why teams should fear becoming just a Wild Card team: "The Outfield Fly Rule," or so it is called among those into chopping and chanting in Atlanta.

What happened in this game in my opinion is irrelevant as to the basic reason why the one game Wild Card playoff should be a three game series. Atlanta did play in the same division as the best team in baseball and won six more games than the Cardinals, which I think shows they were the superior team over 162 games, which is why I think it should be a three game Wild Card playoff. So maybe the game isn't entirely irrelevant. Anything can happen in one game, which is fine, but I'm not sure a one game playoff for the Wild Card is the best way to determine which team moves on to play in the NLDS.

First, a little history. From 1995 through 2011, there was one Wild Card for each league. That team opened the postseason in a best-of-five Division Series like everybody else, and it was unfair for division winners.

I wouldn't call it "unfair" but it didn't reflect what winning the division should mean.

Despite slipping through the back door of the postseason, Wild Card teams won the World Series five times under the old system, and they even took three straight World Series championships from 2002-04.

These Wild Card teams won the World Series three straight times in five and seven game series. It was fair they won because they proved they deserved to win the World Series by beating "superior" teams in long series. I have no issue with winning the division meaning something, but I do have a problem with 162 games being boiled down into one game.

The new system arrived last season. Now the winner of the Wild Card Game advances to a Division Series against the league's team with the best regular-season record.

Too many "ifs" if you're a Wild Card team these days.

There's one extra game a Wild Card team has to win and one extra team in each league gets a chance to qualify for the playoffs. Really, the only big change is more teams are in contention for a Wild Card spot, which means there are fewer "ifs" if you are vying for a Wild Card spot due to there being more Wild Card spots. It's not like teams have been slacking off in the past and not trying to win games since they already have the Wild Card locked up. I'm not sure that's happened.

To hear Braves fans tell it, Simmons' ball was deep enough in left to be called -- well, to be called nothing but a hit by the umpires and official scorer.

Well, it was deep enough to be a hit and not an infield fly rule, but that is not the reason the Braves lost the game. They lost the game because the Cardinals beat them and earned the victory. I will say if the Braves and Cardinals played a three game series we wouldn't be talking about the infield fly rule and could otherwise be talking about the Braves didn't get hits with runners in scoring position and that's why they lost the series 2-0.

The Cards won, 6-3, and those associated with the Braves blamed "The Outfield Fly Rule" instead of their inability to hit in the clutch and a crucial error earlier in the game by retiring third baseman Chipper Jones.

And again, this is the fallacy with a one game playoff. What makes it exciting also can create issues. The Braves didn't lose because of the outfield fly rule, yet that's what's remembered about this game. I believe the Wild Card playoff should be a best of three series.

When it's one and done in the postseason, anything can happen, and much of it isn't good. So most teams in serious contention for making the playoffs do whatever they can to stay away from those Wild Card spots.

This would mean some teams don't try to win their division and I would argue zero teams have ever intentionally tried to not win their division and settled for a Wild Card spot.

I said "most" teams, because for some teams, the more realistic choice is to play for a Wild Card spot. The Orioles, Indians, Yankees and Royals come to mind in the AL, where they currently trail their respective division leaders between 6 1/2 games to 8 1/2 games.

And under the current Wild Card system two of these American League teams know they are going to have a shot to make the playoffs, while under the system pre-2012 only one of these teams would get the Wild Card. This creates more certainty in the mind of these teams that they will have at least one chance to prove themselves in the playoffs, while under the pre-2012 system there was a greater sense of urgency because only one of these four teams had a chance to get the Wild Card. I don't mind the current system, I just don't think it is as spectacular as Terence does and wish it were a three game series for the Wild Card spot.

While Boston did the unprecedented by blowing a nine-game lead for the AL's Wild Card spot, Atlanta surrendered an 8 1/2-game lead for the NL's Wild Card spot. 

There was only one Wild Card in each league back then, but the winner did have a best-of-five series up ahead.

And under the current system the Red Sox and the Braves would have been rewarded for their collapse by getting one more chance to try and win the Wild Card spot, despite the fact their record over 162 game showed they probably didn't deserve to make the playoffs. It's not like the Red Sox and Braves just quit playing hard because they knew they had the Wild Card locked up.

That's opposed to the uncertainty that awaits Wild Card clubs these days.

There was uncertainty pre-2012 as well. Teams didn't know if they were going to win the Wild Card spot and there was one less Wild Card spot available to be had. The idea the one game Wild Card playoff creates more uncertainty seems like a fallacy to me and it creates ratings and drama for these games, which I get is great for the game and exciting to watch, but I don't believe a one game playoff after a 162 game season is how the Wild Card winner should be decided.

I hope MLB.com gave Terence a raise for toeing the party line so well.