As I detailed yesterday, Dan Shaughnessy tried to break the "myth of contention" around the Boston Red Sox in a recent column. He did so with his typical attempt to crap on the team while they were down. I posted this attempt yesterday. It was the June 2 column that Dan posted. Then the Red Sox won a few games in a row and the reactionary, narrative-driven Dan Shaughnessy changed his tune just a little bit. He didn't go entirely positive, but all that "Pablo Sandoval is the next Adrian Gonzalez" stuff is now followed by Dan briefly defending Sandoval. One would think Dan could stay somewhat consistent within a week, but apparently not. Say what you will about Dan. No really, say whatever you will say about Dan, he's a terrible trolling writer. Words feel too insignificant to document how annoying his writing is. So here is Dan's slightly sunny outlook on the Red Sox, based entirely on the team winning a few games (which is why he is overly-reactionary), along with some of the mini-contradictions in this column compared to what he wrote six days earlier.
It was the best inning of the season. It was the best game of the
season. It was a seven-run, eight-hit frame, starting with “Sweet
Caroline,’’ and ending after the Red Sox greeted Oakland’s fifth pitcher
of the inning with “Everything Is Awesome.’’
THE MYTH OF CONTENTION CONTINUES! WHEN WILL THE RED SOX STOP PRETENDING LIKE THEY ARE A FRANCHISE THAT CAN COMPETE FOR WORLD SERIES TITLES?
It was a breakthrough day in every way. The Sox had been 1-26 in games
in which they trailed after seven innings. They had not won three
straight since April 9-11. The victory gave the Sons of John Farrell a
three-game winning streak and kept them out of the cellar of the
American League East by a few percentage points.
Or as Dan wrote in his June 2 column:
And now here we are again. Worst-to-first has become worst-to-worst.
So a breakthrough that will ultimately lead the Red Sox back to being the worst team in the AL again. Naturally.
Best of all, now they get to leave town and play hundreds of miles from the angry fans and nonstop noise of Boston.
Not ironically, the angry fans are angry sportswriters who have started writing the team off and those making the nonstop noise are sportswriters like Dan Shaughnessy who write columns burying the 2015 Boston Red Sox. Dan is basically saying it's great the Red Sox are able to get away from him. It's like Dan knows he's terrible, but still continues to play the role. Dan is one of those creating the nonstop noise.
Boston’s baseball summer was beginning to feel like Deflategate 2
This makes no sense in the context of the Red Sox season, but is an obvious attempt by Dan to be like, "Hey remember that thing that the Patriots are being punished for? Here's a reference to that."
Upstairs in the press box, the sad stories and obits were being prepared.
Obits that looked exactly like this.
They were going to fall flat at the end of the homestand that featured
memorable support from ownership and the front office. They were going
to fall 6½ games out, their largest deficit of the season.
Of course it was early June, but Dan also lives in a world where he thinks the Red Sox have to win the division in order to make the playoffs. So 6.5 games out of the division lead is a disaster because the two Wild Cards don't exist in the fantasy world where Dan Shaughnessy spends most of his time.
Castillo hit his first home run of the season. Dustin Pedroia and Brock
Holt followed with back-to-back singles. Hanley Ramirez made it 4-2 with
a single. After a pitching change, David Ortiz made it 4-3 with a sac
fly. After another pitching change and a Mike Napoli strikeout, Pablo
Sandoval lined a single off the Wall in left, moving Hanley to third.
I like how Dan capitalizes the word "Wall" as if the Green Monster isn't a "wall" but an official "Wall." Maybe Dan is just a big Jon Snow fan and got confused.
The Sox got a much-needed break on Sandoval’s hit. It should have been
caught for the third out of the inning, but Oakland left fielder Mark
Canha gave up, turned, and watched it hit the base of the Wall.
Welp, the Red Sox got lucky on this hit, so it doesn't count as a real base hit. Pablo Sandoval is still, in Dan's own words of course:
looking like Crawford and Gonzalez from 2011
That was the only break the Sox needed. Xander Bogaerts put the Sox ahead with a two-run double and the jailbreak was on.
Now is Xander Bogaerts one of those Red Sox prospects who the team needs to:
stop perpetuating the fallacy of Boston’s amazing scouting and player development.
I'm guessing Xander is a product of this non-amazing scouting and crappy player development, but it also depends on which way the wind blows whether Dan will agree with his own opinion or not.
It gave the Sox a stay of execution from the ever-ready-to-bury talk show circuit.
You, Dan. That is you. You are a crucial leader of the ever-ready-to-bury talk show circuit. So to talk about this circuit in some way like you aren't talking about yourself is very funny for me to read. I know Dan wants to separate himself from those burying the Red Sox, as well as one of the loudest noisemakers in Boston when it's convenient for him, but it's simply not reality.
“This is a momentum-builder for us, no doubt’’ said Farrell. “The way
in which we won . . . it was as big as the win itself. It was a
much-needed win.’’
Dan says to stop celebrating this one meaningless victory. The Red Sox will lose again sometime this season and that will mean they are complete failures again. Dan is laying in wait for this to happen.
Indeed. The victory gave the Sox a 5-2 homestand after a 1-6 road trip.
So this means the Red Sox played well against the Twins? You know, the same Twins that Dan described as having,
no payroll, no star power, and no national following.
They also have a first-place team with the third-best record in the American League.
I can't believe the Red Sox, mythologize the idea they are contenders, beat the Twins since Dan has told me that the Twins are the little team that could. It's unbelievable to me this could occur.
It also validated (for one day, at least) the supportive commentary from
ownership and the front office that had made it a homestand of unusual
urgency
The failures are permanent until proven otherwise, while the success is temporary until proven otherwise. That's how it works for Dan, apparently. Once the Red Sox struggle over a stretch of games, this success against the Twins and A's will be forgotten. Meanwhile, this stretch of struggling will be intentionally magnified by Dan as further proof the Red Sox myth of contention is indeed a fact.
At the beginning of the homestand, Red Sox/Globe owner John Henry had
assured the constituency that the jobs of general manager Ben Cherington
and Farrell were safe.
But hasn't he read Dan's column about the myth of contention that surrounds the Red Sox? This isn't an opinion, but is a fact. John Henry is really messing up by not heeding the wise words of Dan Shaughnessy, even though Dan's words and opinion might change depending on what day it is and the Red Sox record over the last week.
Three days later, Cherington came forward and said the Sox still have
what it takes to win the AL East. He cited progress, and said we need to
be more patient as we wait for this $200 million squad to live up to
its potential and start playing better baseball.
"Fuck patience," says Dan Shaughnessy. What's the point of being patient when there are hot takes to be had which overreact to the Red Sox lack of success during the 2015 season? If the Red Sox can only win the World Series 3 times in 10 years then they don't deserve the patience they are asking for. How can patience be expected when the "myth of contention" is not being acknowledged by Red Sox management?
Ramirez and Sandoval were twin-tower lightning rods at Fenway throughout
the week. Ramirez was called out (by fans and media) for his bowser
tendencies, but was staunchly defended by Cherington.
Ramirez was called out by the media, which is a group that includes Dan Shaughnessy. Dan was already eagerly comparing Ramirez to Carl Crawford and/or Adrian Gonzalez. If you remember from past Dan Shaughnessy posts on this blog, Dan compared Adrian Gonzalez's swing to that of Ted Williams on multiple occasions. Of course, when Gonzalez struggled as a Red Sox, then Dan took every chance he could get to bash Gonzalez for lack of leadership and his many failures as a baseball player and human being. That's just how Dan works. One week he is comparing Hanley Ramirez to previous Red Sox free agents who didn't produce, the next week he's talking about how some have bashed Ramirez, as if he isn't a part of this group.
Sandoval was buried on the bench after a couple of errors and a
hitless week, then came back with two hits Sunday, including the lucky
laser to left.
Go easy on the Panda, folks.
Wait, what? Dan is telling people to go easy on Pablo Sandoval? This is the same Dan Shaughnessy who wrote TWO MONTHS INTO SANDOVAL'S TIME AS A RED SOX the following words,
But many of the Red Sox’ current problems are still rooted in arrogance,
NESN ratings (Messrs. Sandoval and Ramirez are looking like Crawford
and Gonzalez from 2011),
Dan already had Sandoval down as another Red Sox free agent bust two months into his tenure as a Red Sox. Dan explains Sandoval is just another example of:
A lot of big contracts have been given to the wrong people, and it might
be time for the Sox-loving world to stop perpetuating the fallacy of
Boston’s amazing scouting and player development.
But yes, go easy on Sandoval. Dan wouldn't want you to jump to any conclusions about Sandoval's performance or how it may or may not reflect on the ability of the Red Sox to judge talent. That would be crazy to do.
He is the ultimate streak player and he is a veteran who understands the
162-game haul. He is not prone to panic. He’s won three World Series.
Ah yes, the life of a fickle sportswriter who has no beliefs other than he believes he'll overreact to what just happened. One week Sandoval is looking like a free agent bust, the next week he's a veteran who won't panic and brings must needed World Series gravitas to the Red Sox team. It's funny how Dan's story changes as Sandoval's performance changes. But at no point, will Dan take back any of the dumb things he said prior. Never. Just forget about those things Dan said, because he certainly has.
He’s wildly overpaid and may be a burden at the end of his pact, but despite what you have seen he is not a burden today.
Well, I'll look for an update from Dan in the coming weeks after Sandoval is on a 2-for-24 streak at the plate. I'm sure Dan will see him as a burden at that point.
“It feels good to sweep the series,’’ said Sandoval, who always seems to be smiling and sweating.
As soon as Sandoval starts struggling, Dan will see this smiling as Sandoval simply not caring how well he performs because he's gotten paid. Dan will state that of course Sandoval is smiling, he took the Red Sox for millions of dollars and doesn't give a shit anymore. Dan will then explain Sandoval is sweating, not because he's working hard, but because either (a) Sandoval is overweight or (b) he's scared someone will see him for the fraud he truly is.
“I was glad to keep the line moving and I was excited to see my
teammates excited. It’s not how you start, it’s how you finish.’’
As many times as Dan has bashed the Red Sox, then followed it up with silence after being proven incorrect, these are words he should probably heed.
Winning three games in a row is a start. And getting out of town, away from the noise of us, may be just what this team needs.
The noise of "us." So Dan is self-aware to realize he is part of the parade of overreactive idiocy in the Boston media. Wouldn't it be nice if he did something about it rather than continue to write the same crap over and over again? That wouldn't allow Dan to be the troll that he truly is nor would it allow him the pageviews and attention he gets for being so negative. He doesn't care about the integrity of what he writes, as long as it gets attention.
We have the Red Sox.
We have the myth.
I think the only myth being perpetrated here is the myth that Dan Shaughnessy puts in his columns about the Red Sox being failures and non-contenders. Dan is the worst.
Welp, the Red Sox aren't playing well again, so of course Dan is back to ripping them.
Showing posts with label dan shaughnessy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dan shaughnessy. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
2 comments Dan Shaughnessy Gleefully Takes a Piss All Over the Red Sox; Exposes Them For the Failures They Are
Dan Shaughnessy loves to revel in the failures of Boston area sports teams. There is plenty of evidence this is true. Here. Here. Here. And here. So when the Red Sox are struggling he just can't help himself but to rub it in just a little bit and bash the team for even considering they could be a contending team. He's looked stupid in the past when he's bashed the Red Sox and then the team turned out to win the World Series that same year. I'm not sure if that will be the case for the 2015 season, but his trolling and asshole-ish glee at watching the Red Sox fail, all while holding the team to a ridiculous standard by acting like their recent success isn't impressive, is very much annoying to read. His disdain for common sense and hiding behind his telling "the truth" is just one of the many journalistic crimes he commits. Jay Mariotti likes Dan Shaughnessy, so that tells me all I need to know even if I didn't ever read Dan's writing.
So here he is reveling at the myth that the Red Sox are a contending team. You can feel his joy at being able to bash them dripping off the computer screen. He bashed them here on June 2, then the Red Sox starting winning games so he jumped back on the bandwagon, then they started losing games and he bashed them again.
The Red Sox are a myth,
The entire franchise. It doesn't exist. The Red Sox are the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus of professional sports, just created to give fans in the Boston area something to cheer for during the summer.
The myth of the Sox is that they are some kind of perennial playoff contender.
This isn't a myth. Over the last 20 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs 10 times. 50% of the time over the last 20 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs. That's a pretty impressive run of making the playoffs. It could be better, but it could also be worse. The bottom line is going into each season, the Red Sox are contenders to make the playoffs. Dan can argue this is ridiculous based on the eventual outcome of a season, but his protests don't make the fact the Red Sox are consistently playoff contenders false.
You know . . . three championships in 10 years.
Swell.
The only team that can say they have three championships in the last 10 years is the Giants. Before that, it would be the Yankees. Before that, it would be Oakland Athletics in the early 1970's. So the snide, "swell" is misinformed and needless. Three championships in 10 years is impressive, no matter how much Dan wants to downplay it.
But despite the hype, the highest prices in baseball, and the $200 million payroll, the Sox are no longer legitimate contenders. They are not a good team and they have not been a good team for quite some time.
"For quite some time." They won the 2013 World Series. The Red Sox have won 90+ games 11 times in the past 20 years. They have had 3 seasons with a losing record in the last 20 years. All this while playing in a division (the AL East) which had a team from that division make the World Series 13 times since 1990. But yeah, the Red Sox haven't been good for "for quite some time."
Simply because Dan recites a lie doesn't mean this lie becomes the truth.
“When you look at this team — and I tell you we’ve analyzed this team — this is a strong team,” said Henry. “They’ve just played not up to their capabilities.”
What else would the owner say? Would he say he doesn't think they put a good team together? Perhaps after the season is over the owner may say this, but of course he will think the team is strong prior to the season starting and during the season. This quote isn't the result of a delusion, but the result of Henry really believing the Red Sox put a good team together.
The Red Sox bottled some lightning in 2013, but clearly that was an outlier season, one that contributes to the ongoing phony narrative that the cutting-edge Sox are ahead of the curve and loaded with talent throughout the organization.
Ah yes, go ahead and crap on the World Series title in order to make it seem more significant than it was. Dan would really have freaked out if he covered the Red Sox from 1919-1945 when they didn't make the World Series once. The playoff set up was much different then, but the Red Sox were mostly terrible during that time. I imagine how bad Dan would flipped out believing the Red Sox wasted the golden years of Ted Williams' career. He would have gotten off so much bashing them in his column.
Wake up, people. Your baseball team is not smarter than all the other teams. Your farm system is not the best in the majors.
I'm not sure "people" think the Red Sox are smarter than other teams. They just try to use different methods of player evaluation from other teams. It's not them thinking they are smarter. Taking a different road to reach a destination doesn't necessarily mean the road you have chosen is the faster path (you can find that on a fortune cookie somewhere). The Red Sox having faith in the players in their farm system, and not wanting to trade players from that system, is a reflection that they like their own players. It doesn't mean the organization or fans think the Red Sox have the best farm system in the majors.
Your Red Sox are an aggregate 31 games under .500 (267-298) since Sept. 1, 2011. According to the Providence Journal, the 2015 Red Sox entered Tuesday as Boston’s worst baseball team since 1960 in the area of run differential — minus-48 after 51 games.
It's so weird how Dan Shaughnessy uses September 1, 2011 as the cut-off date. I really do believe many of these sportswriters needed to take more statistics courses in college. September 1 is a sort of random cut-off date that intentionally tries to mislead the reader on the Red Sox record during the 2011 season prior to September 1. The 2015 Red Sox aren't a very good team. It doesn't mean the entire organization is fatally flawed.
Despite these inconvenient truths, folks at the top continue to say that all is well. And rest assured the Sox soon will be OK because . . . you know . . . they are loaded with prospects.
Yet another contention by Dan that the Red Sox believe themselves to be "loaded" with prospects, but amazingly he can't seem to include a quote from the Red Sox that supports this belief. It's almost like Dan is exaggerating (or at best, misinterpreting) the Red Sox expectations for their prospects in order to make his point seem stronger.
Asked to characterize the state of his franchise, Henry answered, “From my perspective, it’s never been better. I think we’re as strong throughout the organization as we’ve ever been.’’
Henry says they are "strong throughout the organization," he didn't say they are "loaded with prospects."
“We have a strong commitment to winning,’’ added chairman Tom Werner. “We play for championships . . . It is our intention to play baseball in October every year.’’
Yep, nothing about prospects in that quote. Nothing about having a "loaded" system. The idea the Red Sox organization constantly talks about their loaded system is a fantasy that Dan tells himself in order to make his lies and deceptions seem more real.
Increasingly invisible Sox CEO Larry Lucchino (now “busy” with Rhode Island’s Triple A team and Boston’s 2024 Olympics bid) chimed in with, “We’re in it to win it, to win championships. If that means this kind of manic-depressive kind of course, maybe that’s not so terrible . . . We’re well prepared to be a successful franchise in the next several years.’’
Again, there is nothing said here about being "loaded" with prospects. It's just talk about where Lucchino wants the franchise to go and where he thinks the franchise currently is.
National media folks gushed about the new Red Sox lineup and predicted another worst-to-first season for Boston. Sports Illustrated and USA Today picked the Sox to finish first in the AL East — which, of course, is still possible in the toxic landfill that the division has become.
And when have national experts ever been wrong about anything? Just check out the ESPN experts' predictions for the 2014 season to see how wrong these "experts" were about the World Series participants. Expecting experts to be correct all the time, when that's not close to being the case, and then basing criticism of the Red Sox on not meeting the expectations of "experts" is ridiculous.
Sox starting pitchers mocked the naysayers, wearing T-shirts that said, “He’s the ace,’’ and after Clay Buchholz outpitched Philadelphia’s Cole Hamels on Opening Day, Henry noted to a reporter that the Sox did indeed have an ace starter.
Outpitching Cole Hamels is now turned into a bad thing, because it wasn't a sign of things to come for the entire season.
And now here we are again. Worst-to-first has become worst-to-worst.
Yes, here the Red Sox are "again." The last time they finished in last place of the AL East in consecutive seasons was 1993-1994 and the Detroit Tigers were in the AL East at that point. But yeah, "again" the Red Sox are going to be in last place of the AL East in consecutive seasons. It happens all the time, just as long the fact it hasn't happened in over 20 years gets ignored.
But many of the Red Sox’ current problems are still rooted in arrogance, NESN ratings (Messrs. Sandoval and Ramirez are looking like Crawford and Gonzalez from 2011), an insistence that an ace pitcher is not a good value, and a system philosophy that relies heavily on new metrics.
Except Sandoval and Ramirez are signed to smaller contracts than Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez were signed to, so Ramirez and Sandoval are not quite the burden Crawford and Gonzalez were on the Red Sox payroll. The new metrics have paid off for the Red Sox in the past ten years.
Turning their backs on arcane thinking (and 130 years of baseball history), the Sox are out to prove that a team does not need a true No. 1 starter. Instead, the organization chooses to live on the cutting edge of WAR, VORP, BABIP, DIPS, EqAS, and UZR.
So what? Other teams use these metrics and have success. At no point has any front office that uses advanced metrics stated these metrics are the end-all be-all to determine whether a player is successful or not. This is a constant misinterpretation baseball writers like Dan Shaughnessy (and Steve Dilbeck, Murray Chass, Jerry Green, Terence Moore) have, which is front offices that heavily use advanced metrics still factor in they need good players to be successful. They are simply using different metrics to evaluate players, along with the traditional player evaluation metrics.
OMG. LOL.
STFU.
Alex Speier’s feature on Mookie Betts in the Globe in February informed us that the Red Sox partnered with a technology company to measure how fast a baseball brain works. They developed a proprietary SAT-like testing system to tell them who the good hitters might be. One of the Sox draftees who crushed the neuroscouting tests was Jackie Bradley Jr., who has batted .192 over parts of three big league seasons.
This is compared to human baseball scouts who haven't missed on a prospect over the past 130 years, right? Human scouts are allowed to miss all of the time, but when new technology is used to scout or gather information about a prospect then it has to be correct 100% of the time or else it's considered absolutely useless. So the neuroscouting test didn't accurately show Jackie Bradley's skill level. Real human scouts use metrics that don't correctly evaluate a player's skill all the time.
A lot of big contracts have been given to the wrong people, and it might be time for the Sox-loving world to stop perpetuating the fallacy of Boston’s amazing scouting and player development.
They screw up sometimes. Yes, the Red Sox have missed on players who received big contracts.
There’s a nationwide insistence that no Sox minor leaguers can be dealt to the Phillies for Hamels because the Sox are just too gosh-darned loaded with great prospects.
Well, plus Hamels is a 30+ year old pitcher who is making a lot of money per year. He could end up being one of those big contracts the Red Sox have taken on which continue to perpetuate the fallacy of Boston's amazing scouting. Of course Dan complains the Red Sox have too many underachieving, expensive players and then bemoans they won't trade their prospects for a 30+ year old pitcher who has a large contract. I wouldn't expect him to be consistent in his criticism though.
the sad fact is that the Red Sox have not drafted and developed a big league starting pitcher or an All-Star position player since Buchholz and Jacoby Ellsbury were drafted by Theo Epstein 10 years ago.
What about Anthony Rizzo? (ducks as Red Sox fans throw things at me)
Another question. Shouldn't Hanley Ramirez and Justin Masterson count? They were both considered (and proved to be) ready for the majors when the Red Sox traded them and now they are back on the Red Sox team. I would probably count them both as players the Red Sox developed. Justin Masterson is a big league pitcher while Hanley Ramirez has made an All-Star team.
It’s fitting that the Minnesota Twins are in town this week. The Twins share Fort Myers with the Red Sox, and we feel sorry for them all spring. The Red Sox get all the attention and have all the fans and are nationally acclaimed as the brilliant, big-money franchise, always ahead of everybody else. The poor Twins have no payroll, no star power, and no national following.
They also have a first-place team with the third-best record in the American League.
This is absolutely laughable. With no sense of irony, in a column where Dan Shaughnessy bemoans that the Red Sox are "again" in last place in the AL East, he starts talking about the Twins coming to town. This is the same Twins team that has been last in the AL Central 6 times in the last 20 years. They have been next-to-last in the AL Central 4 times in the last 20 years. They have made zero World Series and one ALCS in that time, along with having a losing record in 11 of those seasons. THIS is the team he talks about as the antithesis of the Red Sox. Why? Because the Twins are currently in first place in the AL Central. Dan pays studious attention to the Red Sox recent history in an attempt to paint them as a failed franchise, while dismissing their successes, yet he pays attention to the Twins record this season and dismisses their recent history by simply not acknowledging it. He's the worst. This is what to expect from Dan Shaughnessy though. He's incapable of being a good writer when it comes to making a point outside of his trolling opinion.
We have the Red Sox.
We have the myth.
The biggest myth overall is that the Red Sox are a failing organization. They may not be succeeding right now, but they have the resources to improve quickly. Of course, when that improvement comes, and it will, Dan is going to forget entirely that he wrote this column. Just like he forgets the variety of other columns he's written bashing the Red Sox. Dan's only purpose as a writer is to serve as a troll and be negative. It gets him attention, which is mostly what he craves. He's horrible.
To add to the hilarity, Dan wrote this column on June 2 and then on June 8 he changed his tune about these Red Sox team. All of a sudden, after a few wins the myth of the Red Sox being contenders may not be a myth. I will have Dan's contradictory column about the Red Sox in my next post. He's the worst. Just the worst. He can't even troll consistently.
So here he is reveling at the myth that the Red Sox are a contending team. You can feel his joy at being able to bash them dripping off the computer screen. He bashed them here on June 2, then the Red Sox starting winning games so he jumped back on the bandwagon, then they started losing games and he bashed them again.
The Red Sox are a myth,
The entire franchise. It doesn't exist. The Red Sox are the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus of professional sports, just created to give fans in the Boston area something to cheer for during the summer.
The myth of the Sox is that they are some kind of perennial playoff contender.
This isn't a myth. Over the last 20 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs 10 times. 50% of the time over the last 20 years the Red Sox have made the playoffs. That's a pretty impressive run of making the playoffs. It could be better, but it could also be worse. The bottom line is going into each season, the Red Sox are contenders to make the playoffs. Dan can argue this is ridiculous based on the eventual outcome of a season, but his protests don't make the fact the Red Sox are consistently playoff contenders false.
You know . . . three championships in 10 years.
Swell.
The only team that can say they have three championships in the last 10 years is the Giants. Before that, it would be the Yankees. Before that, it would be Oakland Athletics in the early 1970's. So the snide, "swell" is misinformed and needless. Three championships in 10 years is impressive, no matter how much Dan wants to downplay it.
But despite the hype, the highest prices in baseball, and the $200 million payroll, the Sox are no longer legitimate contenders. They are not a good team and they have not been a good team for quite some time.
"For quite some time." They won the 2013 World Series. The Red Sox have won 90+ games 11 times in the past 20 years. They have had 3 seasons with a losing record in the last 20 years. All this while playing in a division (the AL East) which had a team from that division make the World Series 13 times since 1990. But yeah, the Red Sox haven't been good for "for quite some time."
Simply because Dan recites a lie doesn't mean this lie becomes the truth.
“When you look at this team — and I tell you we’ve analyzed this team — this is a strong team,” said Henry. “They’ve just played not up to their capabilities.”
What else would the owner say? Would he say he doesn't think they put a good team together? Perhaps after the season is over the owner may say this, but of course he will think the team is strong prior to the season starting and during the season. This quote isn't the result of a delusion, but the result of Henry really believing the Red Sox put a good team together.
The Red Sox bottled some lightning in 2013, but clearly that was an outlier season, one that contributes to the ongoing phony narrative that the cutting-edge Sox are ahead of the curve and loaded with talent throughout the organization.
Ah yes, go ahead and crap on the World Series title in order to make it seem more significant than it was. Dan would really have freaked out if he covered the Red Sox from 1919-1945 when they didn't make the World Series once. The playoff set up was much different then, but the Red Sox were mostly terrible during that time. I imagine how bad Dan would flipped out believing the Red Sox wasted the golden years of Ted Williams' career. He would have gotten off so much bashing them in his column.
Wake up, people. Your baseball team is not smarter than all the other teams. Your farm system is not the best in the majors.
I'm not sure "people" think the Red Sox are smarter than other teams. They just try to use different methods of player evaluation from other teams. It's not them thinking they are smarter. Taking a different road to reach a destination doesn't necessarily mean the road you have chosen is the faster path (you can find that on a fortune cookie somewhere). The Red Sox having faith in the players in their farm system, and not wanting to trade players from that system, is a reflection that they like their own players. It doesn't mean the organization or fans think the Red Sox have the best farm system in the majors.
Your Red Sox are an aggregate 31 games under .500 (267-298) since Sept. 1, 2011. According to the Providence Journal, the 2015 Red Sox entered Tuesday as Boston’s worst baseball team since 1960 in the area of run differential — minus-48 after 51 games.
It's so weird how Dan Shaughnessy uses September 1, 2011 as the cut-off date. I really do believe many of these sportswriters needed to take more statistics courses in college. September 1 is a sort of random cut-off date that intentionally tries to mislead the reader on the Red Sox record during the 2011 season prior to September 1. The 2015 Red Sox aren't a very good team. It doesn't mean the entire organization is fatally flawed.
Despite these inconvenient truths, folks at the top continue to say that all is well. And rest assured the Sox soon will be OK because . . . you know . . . they are loaded with prospects.
Yet another contention by Dan that the Red Sox believe themselves to be "loaded" with prospects, but amazingly he can't seem to include a quote from the Red Sox that supports this belief. It's almost like Dan is exaggerating (or at best, misinterpreting) the Red Sox expectations for their prospects in order to make his point seem stronger.
Asked to characterize the state of his franchise, Henry answered, “From my perspective, it’s never been better. I think we’re as strong throughout the organization as we’ve ever been.’’
Henry says they are "strong throughout the organization," he didn't say they are "loaded with prospects."
“We have a strong commitment to winning,’’ added chairman Tom Werner. “We play for championships . . . It is our intention to play baseball in October every year.’’
Yep, nothing about prospects in that quote. Nothing about having a "loaded" system. The idea the Red Sox organization constantly talks about their loaded system is a fantasy that Dan tells himself in order to make his lies and deceptions seem more real.
Increasingly invisible Sox CEO Larry Lucchino (now “busy” with Rhode Island’s Triple A team and Boston’s 2024 Olympics bid) chimed in with, “We’re in it to win it, to win championships. If that means this kind of manic-depressive kind of course, maybe that’s not so terrible . . . We’re well prepared to be a successful franchise in the next several years.’’
Again, there is nothing said here about being "loaded" with prospects. It's just talk about where Lucchino wants the franchise to go and where he thinks the franchise currently is.
National media folks gushed about the new Red Sox lineup and predicted another worst-to-first season for Boston. Sports Illustrated and USA Today picked the Sox to finish first in the AL East — which, of course, is still possible in the toxic landfill that the division has become.
And when have national experts ever been wrong about anything? Just check out the ESPN experts' predictions for the 2014 season to see how wrong these "experts" were about the World Series participants. Expecting experts to be correct all the time, when that's not close to being the case, and then basing criticism of the Red Sox on not meeting the expectations of "experts" is ridiculous.
Sox starting pitchers mocked the naysayers, wearing T-shirts that said, “He’s the ace,’’ and after Clay Buchholz outpitched Philadelphia’s Cole Hamels on Opening Day, Henry noted to a reporter that the Sox did indeed have an ace starter.
Outpitching Cole Hamels is now turned into a bad thing, because it wasn't a sign of things to come for the entire season.
And now here we are again. Worst-to-first has become worst-to-worst.
Yes, here the Red Sox are "again." The last time they finished in last place of the AL East in consecutive seasons was 1993-1994 and the Detroit Tigers were in the AL East at that point. But yeah, "again" the Red Sox are going to be in last place of the AL East in consecutive seasons. It happens all the time, just as long the fact it hasn't happened in over 20 years gets ignored.
But many of the Red Sox’ current problems are still rooted in arrogance, NESN ratings (Messrs. Sandoval and Ramirez are looking like Crawford and Gonzalez from 2011), an insistence that an ace pitcher is not a good value, and a system philosophy that relies heavily on new metrics.
Except Sandoval and Ramirez are signed to smaller contracts than Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez were signed to, so Ramirez and Sandoval are not quite the burden Crawford and Gonzalez were on the Red Sox payroll. The new metrics have paid off for the Red Sox in the past ten years.
Turning their backs on arcane thinking (and 130 years of baseball history), the Sox are out to prove that a team does not need a true No. 1 starter. Instead, the organization chooses to live on the cutting edge of WAR, VORP, BABIP, DIPS, EqAS, and UZR.
So what? Other teams use these metrics and have success. At no point has any front office that uses advanced metrics stated these metrics are the end-all be-all to determine whether a player is successful or not. This is a constant misinterpretation baseball writers like Dan Shaughnessy (and Steve Dilbeck, Murray Chass, Jerry Green, Terence Moore) have, which is front offices that heavily use advanced metrics still factor in they need good players to be successful. They are simply using different metrics to evaluate players, along with the traditional player evaluation metrics.
OMG. LOL.
STFU.
Alex Speier’s feature on Mookie Betts in the Globe in February informed us that the Red Sox partnered with a technology company to measure how fast a baseball brain works. They developed a proprietary SAT-like testing system to tell them who the good hitters might be. One of the Sox draftees who crushed the neuroscouting tests was Jackie Bradley Jr., who has batted .192 over parts of three big league seasons.
This is compared to human baseball scouts who haven't missed on a prospect over the past 130 years, right? Human scouts are allowed to miss all of the time, but when new technology is used to scout or gather information about a prospect then it has to be correct 100% of the time or else it's considered absolutely useless. So the neuroscouting test didn't accurately show Jackie Bradley's skill level. Real human scouts use metrics that don't correctly evaluate a player's skill all the time.
A lot of big contracts have been given to the wrong people, and it might be time for the Sox-loving world to stop perpetuating the fallacy of Boston’s amazing scouting and player development.
They screw up sometimes. Yes, the Red Sox have missed on players who received big contracts.
There’s a nationwide insistence that no Sox minor leaguers can be dealt to the Phillies for Hamels because the Sox are just too gosh-darned loaded with great prospects.
Well, plus Hamels is a 30+ year old pitcher who is making a lot of money per year. He could end up being one of those big contracts the Red Sox have taken on which continue to perpetuate the fallacy of Boston's amazing scouting. Of course Dan complains the Red Sox have too many underachieving, expensive players and then bemoans they won't trade their prospects for a 30+ year old pitcher who has a large contract. I wouldn't expect him to be consistent in his criticism though.
the sad fact is that the Red Sox have not drafted and developed a big league starting pitcher or an All-Star position player since Buchholz and Jacoby Ellsbury were drafted by Theo Epstein 10 years ago.
What about Anthony Rizzo? (ducks as Red Sox fans throw things at me)
Another question. Shouldn't Hanley Ramirez and Justin Masterson count? They were both considered (and proved to be) ready for the majors when the Red Sox traded them and now they are back on the Red Sox team. I would probably count them both as players the Red Sox developed. Justin Masterson is a big league pitcher while Hanley Ramirez has made an All-Star team.
It’s fitting that the Minnesota Twins are in town this week. The Twins share Fort Myers with the Red Sox, and we feel sorry for them all spring. The Red Sox get all the attention and have all the fans and are nationally acclaimed as the brilliant, big-money franchise, always ahead of everybody else. The poor Twins have no payroll, no star power, and no national following.
They also have a first-place team with the third-best record in the American League.
This is absolutely laughable. With no sense of irony, in a column where Dan Shaughnessy bemoans that the Red Sox are "again" in last place in the AL East, he starts talking about the Twins coming to town. This is the same Twins team that has been last in the AL Central 6 times in the last 20 years. They have been next-to-last in the AL Central 4 times in the last 20 years. They have made zero World Series and one ALCS in that time, along with having a losing record in 11 of those seasons. THIS is the team he talks about as the antithesis of the Red Sox. Why? Because the Twins are currently in first place in the AL Central. Dan pays studious attention to the Red Sox recent history in an attempt to paint them as a failed franchise, while dismissing their successes, yet he pays attention to the Twins record this season and dismisses their recent history by simply not acknowledging it. He's the worst. This is what to expect from Dan Shaughnessy though. He's incapable of being a good writer when it comes to making a point outside of his trolling opinion.
We have the Red Sox.
We have the myth.
The biggest myth overall is that the Red Sox are a failing organization. They may not be succeeding right now, but they have the resources to improve quickly. Of course, when that improvement comes, and it will, Dan is going to forget entirely that he wrote this column. Just like he forgets the variety of other columns he's written bashing the Red Sox. Dan's only purpose as a writer is to serve as a troll and be negative. It gets him attention, which is mostly what he craves. He's horrible.
To add to the hilarity, Dan wrote this column on June 2 and then on June 8 he changed his tune about these Red Sox team. All of a sudden, after a few wins the myth of the Red Sox being contenders may not be a myth. I will have Dan's contradictory column about the Red Sox in my next post. He's the worst. Just the worst. He can't even troll consistently.
Monday, April 20, 2015
1 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He's Close to Breaking MLB Records, So He's Making Things Awkward for the Yankees
Alex Rodriguez is currently in the process of doing something very rude. He's making things awkward for the Yankees by continuing to play fairly well and coming close to breaking MLB records, including Willie Mays' home run record of 660. One would think the Yankees would be happy to have a contributing player like A-Rod, but for legal and financial reasons they are not acknowledging A-Rod's achievements. But don't think Dan Shaughnessy and Bob Raissman haven't noticed that A-Rod is stealing the spotlight by breaking records and don't think they don't see this as another strike against A-Rod. If he had any morality then he would play poorly and not break any records so Shaughnessy and Raissman could rip him for being a complete waste of money. Instead, they don't even get to take cheap shots at A-Rod, so they have to work to find something he's done wrong.
I'll start first with Dan Shaughnessy, who thinks A-Rod is making things awkward for the Yankees playing well and trying to break records. Why does A-Rod insist on the Yankees making things awkward by not recognizing his achievements so they don't have to pay him bonuses for breaking MLB records?
Alex Rodriguez is approaching Willie Mays on the all-time home run list and his own team won’t acknowledge this fact.
For legal and financial reasons. They don't want to pay him when he breaks records, so they want to show they didn't publicize A-Rod breaking records and hope they don't have to pay him.
A-Rod is baseball’s pariah. He is the bubonic plague. Hating on A-Rod is one of America’s favorite parlor games. Even in his own organization.
He's seen as a pariah mostly within his own organization, outside of the Yankees players of course. I've not read anything from a source on the Yankees actual team (it's usually a source in the organization, not the players) that says negative things about A-Rod. Who cares though? Because sportswriters like hating on A-Rod, this means most of America hates him. Dan Shaughnessy speaks for us all.
It’s weird to see him in uniform again. It’s weird to see him in the Yankee locker room, where he dresses next to Jacoby Ellsbury, a tremendous talent who never gets particularly close to his teammates.
I'm sorry not sorry that it's weird. No one cares how you feel, Dan.
The beloved Yankee stars are all gone. Bernie Williams. Andy Pettitte. Jorge Posada. Mariano Rivera. Finally, Derek Jeter. But A-Rod is back. He is back because the Yankees still owe him a giant bag of money ($61 million through 2017). He is back because he served his one-year suspension. He is back because he’s got nowhere else to go.
He is back because, despite all of his cheating and transgressions, he is wanting to help the Yankees win baseball games without making a huge deal about it. A-Rod has not searched out controversy or tried to defend any of his actions. I think the media resents this in a way. They don't want a silent A-Rod, because they can't rip on a silent A-Rod for things he says.
A-Rod wasn’t available for interviews before Friday’s marathon. He bolted past his clubhouse stall once, but couldn’t say anything because his mouth was full of mouthwash.
“That’s his new trick,’’ said a Yankee beat writer. “He’s got the mouthwash going and can’t say anything when he brushes past you.’’
If A-Rod doesn't want to talk to reporters then he doesn't have to. Sorry, that's life. If he wants to do a "trick" by having mouthwash in, that's fine, because he's not obligated to talk to the media after the game. In fact, if I were A-Rod then I would make it a point to not speak with the media that clearly doesn't like me and clearly is going to try and twist my words to mean something they don't or mangle them in such a fashion to where that sportswriter can get a column bashing me out of it.
It is awkward for Hal and Hank Steinbrenner (this is one of those times we could really use Boss George’s bombast).
It's the "If only George Steinbrenner were alive then he would fix everything that's wrong with the Yankees" pining. It's cute and fun, but I don't seem to recall George Steinbrenner always doing a heck of a lot to fix what's wrong with the Yankees and often he was the source of the organization's problems. Revisionist history is something sportswriters love to participate in when they are discussing the Yankees and George Steinbrenner. He has become a symbol for something that he really wasn't when he was actually alive.
It is awkward for Yankee GM Brian Cashman and manager Joe Girardi. It is awkward for A-Rod’s teammates. And it is awkward for the Yankee PR staff, one of the best in the business. They don’t quite know how to acknowledge A-Rod without appearing to celebrate his deeds.
It sucks it's awkward, but the only ones who are making it awkward is the Yankees organization who refuses to acknowledge A-Rod's achievements. They could end the awkwardness and just bite the bullet to celebrate him, but they won't do it.
There was a time when the Yankees were hoping A-Rod would become the all-time home run king. He was like Tiger Woods marching toward Jack Nicklaus’s 18 major titles. A-Rod had a chance to be the first 800-homer guy. And he would do it as a Yankee.
But that was before he got caught cheating and lied. And cheated again. And lied again. And sued everybody, including his own union.
A-Rod did sue his own union. He also was sort of right to do that. MLB used the Biogenesis lawsuit as a way to collect documents and not redress any sort of injury that was alleged in the basis of the lawsuit. That's my view at least. MLB gathered evidence behind the illusion of the Biogenesis lawsuit and MLB also violated confidentiality with leaks in the case. A-Rod doesn't think the union sufficiently defended him in this situation. Saying, "he sued his own union" is a much more salacious way of saying that A-Rod didn't think his rights as a member of the union were being protected like they should be. If your employer was using what you perceived to be bogus means to collect evidence against you, then wouldn't you probably be a little salty if you believe your union didn't protect you sufficiently and defend you against your employer? I know I would.
Now there is no club-sanctioned celebration when he hits a home run. There is embarrassment.
So now there is complaining that A-Rod has done something wrong when he hits a home run.
And it’s going to be really embarrassing sometime soon when he hits his seventh home run of the season and passes Mays for fourth on the all-time list.
This is the same Willie Mays who was a team source for amphetamines, right?
Willie Mays is a baseball treasure, but I always laugh at how the greenie use of the previous generation of baseball players is glossed over. Hank Aaron was passed by Barry Bonds for the home run record. I think we are past the point of being embarrassed when older generation greats have their records passed by players tied to PED's.
A-Rod is owed a $6 million bonus every time he passes these magic markers. It is believed that the Yankees intend to withhold the bonus and take the matter to arbitration.
The Yankees believe that if it can be proven that the milestones are not marketable because they are tainted, the ball club will not have to pay the bonuses.
“We are very, very careful in not marketing these milestones,’’ said a high-ranking Yankee official.
But if the Yankees are admitting they aren't marketing these achievements and they have a clear motive to save money by not marketing these achievements, then why should A-Rod not get his $6 million? Simply because the organization chooses not to market A-Rod's achievement, well that's not his problem. The Yankees signed a contract and if they choose not to market A-Rod, that's great, but it doesn't mean he isn't entitled to the $6 million as designated in his contract.
Again, we have all done things wrong. Maybe even done things wrong twice, but if you put yourself in A-Rod's shoes for a minute then it's easy to get why he wouldn't be happy the Yankees are going to withhold money from his contract for achievements. If my employer withheld money from me after I believe I did my time for a wrongdoing, then I would be unhappy. I understand the Yankees' point of view too. No team wants to market a false record. Well, some MLB teams do and that's their choice.
The only mention was in the daily notes where a small A-Rod section disclosed that he is fifth on the all-time homer list. There was no mention of A-Rod needing five to tie Mays.
A-Rod can no longer play shortstop or third base.
He can still play third base if he needed to. This is why he was practicing fielding ground balls at third base during spring training. Not to steal Chase Headley's job, but to be prepared to play the position if he was needed.
He’s a full-time DH who experimented at first base in spring training. He can’t run. He’s limited.
So, he's a full-time DH like other full-time DH's who can't really do much else outside of hit?
The Yanks have not hit the road yet, so A-Rod has heard a lot of cheers and not many boos.
Unless he's paid attention to the noises coming from the pressbox of course. Sportswriters who love being up on their pedestal are booing A-Rod every chance they get.
That will change Monday night when the Yankees play the Orioles at Camden Yards. The Yankees come to Boston on Friday, May 1. That should be good.
While also slightly ironic given the fact prominent Red Sox players haven't exactly been clean over the past decade.
Maybe that’ll be the weekend that A-Rod hits No. 661 to vault Mays.
I can see the Daily News headline now: “Pay Day Kid Passes Say Hey Kid; Nobody Notices’’.
"Pay Day Kid"? Dan Shaughnessy is calling A-Rod the "Pay Day Kid." Yeah, blame A-Rod for signing a contract that he and the Yankees agreed was his market value. It's all A-Rod's fault and we all know Dan Shaughnessy would never take more money from the "Boston Globe" if they offered it to him. Dan is too good for that, plus he may have already done that but his salary is private.
A-Rod is back. It’s a big bowl of awkward.
It is and it's because the Yankees are working hard to make it that way. I don't not blame A-Rod for his part, but the Yankees signed the contract, the contract hasn't been voided, and so if they don't choose to market A-Rod then that is their choosing. This would all just be easier if A-Rod would stop performing well enough to break MLB records. If A-Rod would just hit .150 and not have an extra base hit then there would be no awkwardness and the media could rip him for his lousy performance. That's what Dan Shaughnessy wants to do anyway.
Bob Raissman has also noticed that A-Rod has screwed everything up by insisting on not playing so poorly and daring to break MLB records. For Bob, he's a little confused that ESPN and Fox are paying so much attention to A-Rod. It's perfectly fine for Raissman to have written about A-Rod three times from March 14 to April 15, but it astounds him when other media outlets try to pay attention to A-Rod. They are just proving his marketability, which is a big no-no.
The lines were strikingly similar. Both were spoken while the camera was on Alex Rodriguez.
“I think there’s a PED fatigue among fans,” Tom Verducci, working with Harold Reynolds and Joe Buck, said Saturday during FS1’s Red Sox-Yankees telecast. “It’s not why they come to the ballpark.”
Less than 24 hours later, Curt Schilling attempted to explain why Yankee fans have quickly gravitated back to A-Rod’s corner. “Part of it too is fatigue. That (Biogenesis/PED) story was fatiguing,” Schilling said early in ESPN’s telecast of the Sunday night series finale. “I think everyone is tired of it. They want to move on, including Alex.”
I think that Tom Verducci and Curt Schilling are both correct. Of course, most sportswriters won't ever realize this because they are too busy taking hardline stances against PED use and continuing to beat the PED horse into the ground. Yes, PED's are an issue (which is why MLB has a drug policy), and yes, those players who take PED's are cheaters. After a while, it's exhausting to talk about it and debate it. This is part of the reason I post these "What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today" posts, to show how these sportswriters dream of different things that A-Rod has done wrong in place of simply writing another column obliterating him for twice getting caught using PED's. There is PED fatigue and sportswriters try to talk around this fatigue by talking about how A-Rod is marketing poison or how he shows up at training camp early AND DOESN'T EVEN TELL THE YANKEES! All these things that A-Rod has done wrong goes back to his PED use, which I am betting the general public is tired of discussing. I know I am. So a villain becomes a sort of anti-hero.
During spring training, commissioner Rob Manfred called on MLB’s national TV partners to help market baseball’s young stars. Yet during the first weekend of the season, the spotlight was on a 39-year-old tainted drug abuser (who Manfred helped bust) returning from a season in exile.
I disagree the focus was on A-Rod. Maybe from the perspective of a sportswriter like Raissman who is paid to cover A-Rod, but as the fan of a team that isn't the Yankees I only heard about A-Rod when I went searching out information about him or read a column from a New York-based sportswriter.
It just wasn’t what the network voices had to say about him. It was what the cameras allowed us see. The coverage did not reach total Love-In status, but pretty close.
Yes, how dare MLB Network talk about A-Rod a lot and choose to keep the focus on what Rodriguez was doing. Don't they know it is the New York media's job to saturate the airwaves with coverage of A-Rod? The New York media are the only ones allowed to discuss A-Rod all the time and at length. It's fine for Bob Raissman to write about A-Rod three times in a month, but when MLB Network discusses A-Rod then they are simply giving the spotlight to someone who doesn't deserve it. Or is it that Raissman doesn't like any coverage of A-Rod that isn't negative coverage?
On Sunday night, a number of Yankees met with kids from the Harlem Little League but ESPN only showed A-Rod speaking with them and signing autographs.
This was an image-softening moment. Team A-Rod could not have orchestrated this heartwarming session any better.
ESPN should have shown A-Rod spitting in the face of these kids and then slipping his phone number to each child's mother in the hopes of having a quickie after the game was over. But NOOOOO, ESPN had to show A-Rod in a light that wasn't negative. That's not allowed.
There also were regular-guy shots of Rodriguez interacting with teammates in the dugout. On Saturday, Fox zoned in on A-Rod awkwardly attempting to play first base — another sympathetic sequence.
Except A-Rod was really being a regular guy in the dugout. It's not like Team A-Rod has forced his teammates to like him. And A-Rod playing first base is a story, like it or not. It seems that Raissman's real issue is any media coverage of A-Rod that isn't considered openly antagonistic or negative. That shows a bias in Raissman's coverage of A-Rod and that he seems to have a sort of an agenda.
It all was food for the “fatigued.” While Rodriguez came off clumsy playing first, Fox’s pictures also told a story of a guy who said he would do anything for his team actually backing up his words — and doing it while risking on-field embarrassment.
How dare Fox show A-Rod playing a position he doesn't normally play! Fox is showing A-Rod helping and this appeases the "fatigued"! Fox should not even have acknowledged who was playing first base.
It's ridiculous when these networks have agendas when covering players. Cover A-Rod in a negative fashion or don't cover him at all. The only agenda Fox should have is an agenda that Bob Raissman agrees with.
Yet all these pictures, all this bright spotlight, plays into another controversy rolling up fast on Rodriguez and the Yankees.
So the general argument being made by Raissman is that the media is on A-Rod's side? This is a real argument being made?
Fox’s MLB reporter Ken Rosenthal, twice on Saturday’s telecast and once on the pregame, detailed how Yankees suits “do not intend” to pay Rodriguez any of the $6 million HR milestone bonuses.
Oh no, look how the media is covering this story. Trying to make the public feel bad for A-Rod because the Yankees signed a contract stating he would get $6 million when he passed Willie Mays on the all-time home run list and now they are trying to renege on this deal. What's the point of mentioning this, other than to get the focus on A-Rod? It's not news, even though every other media outlet has reported it as news and Bob Raissman himself will discuss this story right now.
But the Yankees will contest the payments. In fact, they do not even include his pursuit in the press notes under the heading of “upcoming Yankee milestones.”
As Rosenthal said, they consider Rodriguez, after the PED use and the year ban, “an unmarketable player."
That's better. Feed that A-Rod is unmarketable and don't try to show him in a positive light. Much better.
Buck contradicted the Yankees’ assertion. “To me he is, by far, the most interesting player — good or bad — the Yankees have,” Buck said. “And an organization that has its own television network (Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network), well, people want to know what this guy does. ... Every A-Rod at-bat is an event, whether he’s hitting .300 or zero.”
And yet, Joe Buck insists on continuing to focus his attention on A-Rod. What's the obsession Fox has with Rodriguez? Okay, back to Bob Raissman talking about A-Rod at length.
John Kruk provided evidence after Schilling gushed about how good A-Rod looks and how wonderful it is seeing him back in competition. “Yeah, I’ll bet the Yankees are tickled about it too,” Kruk said sarcastically.
Except, A-Rod does look good after taking a year off from baseball. Raissman can call it "gushing" all he wants. A-Rod took a year off from baseball at the age of 38 and has come back to be a productive player (so far) at the age of 39. It's being acknowledged, regardless of whether Bob Raissman prefer the conversation to be solely a negative one.
And, more importantly, how might any future coverage, with A-Rod as the positive focal point, play into the bonus clause dispute if it ever goes to arbitration?
I like how Bob Raissman claims noticing A-Rod is hitting the ball well, showing him playing first base and saying that fans are tired of the PED discussion is "positive" coverage for A-Rod. Apparently observing his actions on the baseball field and commenting on them is seen as positive coverage, as opposed to being seen as the Fox baseball crew simply doing their job as analysts.
If A-Rod is so “unmarketable,” Dan Shulman, ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” play-by-play voice wouldn’t say the “fans are back in his corner,” would he? Aren’t these fans the ones who would be purchasing Rodriguez milestone merchandise from the Yankees?
The Yankees are only saying he is unmarketable to stick it to him and save a few dollars. That's the only reason they call him unmarketable.
And if A-Rod was so “unmarketable” why would YES be airing promotional spots for the Orioles series featuring A-Rod at the plate?
If A-Rod were unmarketable, would Bob Raissman be talking about A-Rod at every possible opportunity?
And if he continues to drive the ball, how far could Rodriguez juice YES’ ratings, which are expected to take a hit in this Yankees season of ifs? Those numbers will help quantify his marketability, right?
Yes, the Yankees want to save $6 million, so they pretend A-Rod isn't marketable in some form or another. Bob Raissman has already acknowledged why the Yankees are trying to not pay attention to A-Rod breaking records, yet he seems to be confused as to why they aren't acknowledging A-Rod breaking records.
Then again, if his bat cools off, these networks, the ones would gave him such a rousing reception, may experience another form of Alex Rodriguez fatigue.
Which Bob Raissman would love because he doesn't like it when A-Rod gets any attention that isn't negative attention. Simply acknowledging A-Rod is about to break an MLB record or showing him on the field when he isn't failing miserably is seen as "positive" coverage of A-Rod. Raissman will only stand for negative coverage or no coverage of A-Rod at all.
I'll start first with Dan Shaughnessy, who thinks A-Rod is making things awkward for the Yankees playing well and trying to break records. Why does A-Rod insist on the Yankees making things awkward by not recognizing his achievements so they don't have to pay him bonuses for breaking MLB records?
Alex Rodriguez is approaching Willie Mays on the all-time home run list and his own team won’t acknowledge this fact.
For legal and financial reasons. They don't want to pay him when he breaks records, so they want to show they didn't publicize A-Rod breaking records and hope they don't have to pay him.
A-Rod is baseball’s pariah. He is the bubonic plague. Hating on A-Rod is one of America’s favorite parlor games. Even in his own organization.
He's seen as a pariah mostly within his own organization, outside of the Yankees players of course. I've not read anything from a source on the Yankees actual team (it's usually a source in the organization, not the players) that says negative things about A-Rod. Who cares though? Because sportswriters like hating on A-Rod, this means most of America hates him. Dan Shaughnessy speaks for us all.
It’s weird to see him in uniform again. It’s weird to see him in the Yankee locker room, where he dresses next to Jacoby Ellsbury, a tremendous talent who never gets particularly close to his teammates.
I'm sorry not sorry that it's weird. No one cares how you feel, Dan.
The beloved Yankee stars are all gone. Bernie Williams. Andy Pettitte. Jorge Posada. Mariano Rivera. Finally, Derek Jeter. But A-Rod is back. He is back because the Yankees still owe him a giant bag of money ($61 million through 2017). He is back because he served his one-year suspension. He is back because he’s got nowhere else to go.
He is back because, despite all of his cheating and transgressions, he is wanting to help the Yankees win baseball games without making a huge deal about it. A-Rod has not searched out controversy or tried to defend any of his actions. I think the media resents this in a way. They don't want a silent A-Rod, because they can't rip on a silent A-Rod for things he says.
A-Rod wasn’t available for interviews before Friday’s marathon. He bolted past his clubhouse stall once, but couldn’t say anything because his mouth was full of mouthwash.
“That’s his new trick,’’ said a Yankee beat writer. “He’s got the mouthwash going and can’t say anything when he brushes past you.’’
If A-Rod doesn't want to talk to reporters then he doesn't have to. Sorry, that's life. If he wants to do a "trick" by having mouthwash in, that's fine, because he's not obligated to talk to the media after the game. In fact, if I were A-Rod then I would make it a point to not speak with the media that clearly doesn't like me and clearly is going to try and twist my words to mean something they don't or mangle them in such a fashion to where that sportswriter can get a column bashing me out of it.
It is awkward for Hal and Hank Steinbrenner (this is one of those times we could really use Boss George’s bombast).
It's the "If only George Steinbrenner were alive then he would fix everything that's wrong with the Yankees" pining. It's cute and fun, but I don't seem to recall George Steinbrenner always doing a heck of a lot to fix what's wrong with the Yankees and often he was the source of the organization's problems. Revisionist history is something sportswriters love to participate in when they are discussing the Yankees and George Steinbrenner. He has become a symbol for something that he really wasn't when he was actually alive.
It is awkward for Yankee GM Brian Cashman and manager Joe Girardi. It is awkward for A-Rod’s teammates. And it is awkward for the Yankee PR staff, one of the best in the business. They don’t quite know how to acknowledge A-Rod without appearing to celebrate his deeds.
It sucks it's awkward, but the only ones who are making it awkward is the Yankees organization who refuses to acknowledge A-Rod's achievements. They could end the awkwardness and just bite the bullet to celebrate him, but they won't do it.
There was a time when the Yankees were hoping A-Rod would become the all-time home run king. He was like Tiger Woods marching toward Jack Nicklaus’s 18 major titles. A-Rod had a chance to be the first 800-homer guy. And he would do it as a Yankee.
But that was before he got caught cheating and lied. And cheated again. And lied again. And sued everybody, including his own union.
A-Rod did sue his own union. He also was sort of right to do that. MLB used the Biogenesis lawsuit as a way to collect documents and not redress any sort of injury that was alleged in the basis of the lawsuit. That's my view at least. MLB gathered evidence behind the illusion of the Biogenesis lawsuit and MLB also violated confidentiality with leaks in the case. A-Rod doesn't think the union sufficiently defended him in this situation. Saying, "he sued his own union" is a much more salacious way of saying that A-Rod didn't think his rights as a member of the union were being protected like they should be. If your employer was using what you perceived to be bogus means to collect evidence against you, then wouldn't you probably be a little salty if you believe your union didn't protect you sufficiently and defend you against your employer? I know I would.
Now there is no club-sanctioned celebration when he hits a home run. There is embarrassment.
So now there is complaining that A-Rod has done something wrong when he hits a home run.
And it’s going to be really embarrassing sometime soon when he hits his seventh home run of the season and passes Mays for fourth on the all-time list.
This is the same Willie Mays who was a team source for amphetamines, right?
Willie Mays is a baseball treasure, but I always laugh at how the greenie use of the previous generation of baseball players is glossed over. Hank Aaron was passed by Barry Bonds for the home run record. I think we are past the point of being embarrassed when older generation greats have their records passed by players tied to PED's.
A-Rod is owed a $6 million bonus every time he passes these magic markers. It is believed that the Yankees intend to withhold the bonus and take the matter to arbitration.
The Yankees believe that if it can be proven that the milestones are not marketable because they are tainted, the ball club will not have to pay the bonuses.
“We are very, very careful in not marketing these milestones,’’ said a high-ranking Yankee official.
But if the Yankees are admitting they aren't marketing these achievements and they have a clear motive to save money by not marketing these achievements, then why should A-Rod not get his $6 million? Simply because the organization chooses not to market A-Rod's achievement, well that's not his problem. The Yankees signed a contract and if they choose not to market A-Rod, that's great, but it doesn't mean he isn't entitled to the $6 million as designated in his contract.
Again, we have all done things wrong. Maybe even done things wrong twice, but if you put yourself in A-Rod's shoes for a minute then it's easy to get why he wouldn't be happy the Yankees are going to withhold money from his contract for achievements. If my employer withheld money from me after I believe I did my time for a wrongdoing, then I would be unhappy. I understand the Yankees' point of view too. No team wants to market a false record. Well, some MLB teams do and that's their choice.
The only mention was in the daily notes where a small A-Rod section disclosed that he is fifth on the all-time homer list. There was no mention of A-Rod needing five to tie Mays.
A-Rod can no longer play shortstop or third base.
He can still play third base if he needed to. This is why he was practicing fielding ground balls at third base during spring training. Not to steal Chase Headley's job, but to be prepared to play the position if he was needed.
He’s a full-time DH who experimented at first base in spring training. He can’t run. He’s limited.
So, he's a full-time DH like other full-time DH's who can't really do much else outside of hit?
The Yanks have not hit the road yet, so A-Rod has heard a lot of cheers and not many boos.
Unless he's paid attention to the noises coming from the pressbox of course. Sportswriters who love being up on their pedestal are booing A-Rod every chance they get.
That will change Monday night when the Yankees play the Orioles at Camden Yards. The Yankees come to Boston on Friday, May 1. That should be good.
While also slightly ironic given the fact prominent Red Sox players haven't exactly been clean over the past decade.
Maybe that’ll be the weekend that A-Rod hits No. 661 to vault Mays.
I can see the Daily News headline now: “Pay Day Kid Passes Say Hey Kid; Nobody Notices’’.
"Pay Day Kid"? Dan Shaughnessy is calling A-Rod the "Pay Day Kid." Yeah, blame A-Rod for signing a contract that he and the Yankees agreed was his market value. It's all A-Rod's fault and we all know Dan Shaughnessy would never take more money from the "Boston Globe" if they offered it to him. Dan is too good for that, plus he may have already done that but his salary is private.
A-Rod is back. It’s a big bowl of awkward.
It is and it's because the Yankees are working hard to make it that way. I don't not blame A-Rod for his part, but the Yankees signed the contract, the contract hasn't been voided, and so if they don't choose to market A-Rod then that is their choosing. This would all just be easier if A-Rod would stop performing well enough to break MLB records. If A-Rod would just hit .150 and not have an extra base hit then there would be no awkwardness and the media could rip him for his lousy performance. That's what Dan Shaughnessy wants to do anyway.
Bob Raissman has also noticed that A-Rod has screwed everything up by insisting on not playing so poorly and daring to break MLB records. For Bob, he's a little confused that ESPN and Fox are paying so much attention to A-Rod. It's perfectly fine for Raissman to have written about A-Rod three times from March 14 to April 15, but it astounds him when other media outlets try to pay attention to A-Rod. They are just proving his marketability, which is a big no-no.
The lines were strikingly similar. Both were spoken while the camera was on Alex Rodriguez.
“I think there’s a PED fatigue among fans,” Tom Verducci, working with Harold Reynolds and Joe Buck, said Saturday during FS1’s Red Sox-Yankees telecast. “It’s not why they come to the ballpark.”
Less than 24 hours later, Curt Schilling attempted to explain why Yankee fans have quickly gravitated back to A-Rod’s corner. “Part of it too is fatigue. That (Biogenesis/PED) story was fatiguing,” Schilling said early in ESPN’s telecast of the Sunday night series finale. “I think everyone is tired of it. They want to move on, including Alex.”
I think that Tom Verducci and Curt Schilling are both correct. Of course, most sportswriters won't ever realize this because they are too busy taking hardline stances against PED use and continuing to beat the PED horse into the ground. Yes, PED's are an issue (which is why MLB has a drug policy), and yes, those players who take PED's are cheaters. After a while, it's exhausting to talk about it and debate it. This is part of the reason I post these "What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today" posts, to show how these sportswriters dream of different things that A-Rod has done wrong in place of simply writing another column obliterating him for twice getting caught using PED's. There is PED fatigue and sportswriters try to talk around this fatigue by talking about how A-Rod is marketing poison or how he shows up at training camp early AND DOESN'T EVEN TELL THE YANKEES! All these things that A-Rod has done wrong goes back to his PED use, which I am betting the general public is tired of discussing. I know I am. So a villain becomes a sort of anti-hero.
During spring training, commissioner Rob Manfred called on MLB’s national TV partners to help market baseball’s young stars. Yet during the first weekend of the season, the spotlight was on a 39-year-old tainted drug abuser (who Manfred helped bust) returning from a season in exile.
I disagree the focus was on A-Rod. Maybe from the perspective of a sportswriter like Raissman who is paid to cover A-Rod, but as the fan of a team that isn't the Yankees I only heard about A-Rod when I went searching out information about him or read a column from a New York-based sportswriter.
It just wasn’t what the network voices had to say about him. It was what the cameras allowed us see. The coverage did not reach total Love-In status, but pretty close.
Yes, how dare MLB Network talk about A-Rod a lot and choose to keep the focus on what Rodriguez was doing. Don't they know it is the New York media's job to saturate the airwaves with coverage of A-Rod? The New York media are the only ones allowed to discuss A-Rod all the time and at length. It's fine for Bob Raissman to write about A-Rod three times in a month, but when MLB Network discusses A-Rod then they are simply giving the spotlight to someone who doesn't deserve it. Or is it that Raissman doesn't like any coverage of A-Rod that isn't negative coverage?
On Sunday night, a number of Yankees met with kids from the Harlem Little League but ESPN only showed A-Rod speaking with them and signing autographs.
This was an image-softening moment. Team A-Rod could not have orchestrated this heartwarming session any better.
ESPN should have shown A-Rod spitting in the face of these kids and then slipping his phone number to each child's mother in the hopes of having a quickie after the game was over. But NOOOOO, ESPN had to show A-Rod in a light that wasn't negative. That's not allowed.
There also were regular-guy shots of Rodriguez interacting with teammates in the dugout. On Saturday, Fox zoned in on A-Rod awkwardly attempting to play first base — another sympathetic sequence.
Except A-Rod was really being a regular guy in the dugout. It's not like Team A-Rod has forced his teammates to like him. And A-Rod playing first base is a story, like it or not. It seems that Raissman's real issue is any media coverage of A-Rod that isn't considered openly antagonistic or negative. That shows a bias in Raissman's coverage of A-Rod and that he seems to have a sort of an agenda.
It all was food for the “fatigued.” While Rodriguez came off clumsy playing first, Fox’s pictures also told a story of a guy who said he would do anything for his team actually backing up his words — and doing it while risking on-field embarrassment.
How dare Fox show A-Rod playing a position he doesn't normally play! Fox is showing A-Rod helping and this appeases the "fatigued"! Fox should not even have acknowledged who was playing first base.
It's ridiculous when these networks have agendas when covering players. Cover A-Rod in a negative fashion or don't cover him at all. The only agenda Fox should have is an agenda that Bob Raissman agrees with.
Yet all these pictures, all this bright spotlight, plays into another controversy rolling up fast on Rodriguez and the Yankees.
So the general argument being made by Raissman is that the media is on A-Rod's side? This is a real argument being made?
Fox’s MLB reporter Ken Rosenthal, twice on Saturday’s telecast and once on the pregame, detailed how Yankees suits “do not intend” to pay Rodriguez any of the $6 million HR milestone bonuses.
Oh no, look how the media is covering this story. Trying to make the public feel bad for A-Rod because the Yankees signed a contract stating he would get $6 million when he passed Willie Mays on the all-time home run list and now they are trying to renege on this deal. What's the point of mentioning this, other than to get the focus on A-Rod? It's not news, even though every other media outlet has reported it as news and Bob Raissman himself will discuss this story right now.
But the Yankees will contest the payments. In fact, they do not even include his pursuit in the press notes under the heading of “upcoming Yankee milestones.”
As Rosenthal said, they consider Rodriguez, after the PED use and the year ban, “an unmarketable player."
That's better. Feed that A-Rod is unmarketable and don't try to show him in a positive light. Much better.
Buck contradicted the Yankees’ assertion. “To me he is, by far, the most interesting player — good or bad — the Yankees have,” Buck said. “And an organization that has its own television network (Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network), well, people want to know what this guy does. ... Every A-Rod at-bat is an event, whether he’s hitting .300 or zero.”
And yet, Joe Buck insists on continuing to focus his attention on A-Rod. What's the obsession Fox has with Rodriguez? Okay, back to Bob Raissman talking about A-Rod at length.
John Kruk provided evidence after Schilling gushed about how good A-Rod looks and how wonderful it is seeing him back in competition. “Yeah, I’ll bet the Yankees are tickled about it too,” Kruk said sarcastically.
Except, A-Rod does look good after taking a year off from baseball. Raissman can call it "gushing" all he wants. A-Rod took a year off from baseball at the age of 38 and has come back to be a productive player (so far) at the age of 39. It's being acknowledged, regardless of whether Bob Raissman prefer the conversation to be solely a negative one.
And, more importantly, how might any future coverage, with A-Rod as the positive focal point, play into the bonus clause dispute if it ever goes to arbitration?
I like how Bob Raissman claims noticing A-Rod is hitting the ball well, showing him playing first base and saying that fans are tired of the PED discussion is "positive" coverage for A-Rod. Apparently observing his actions on the baseball field and commenting on them is seen as positive coverage, as opposed to being seen as the Fox baseball crew simply doing their job as analysts.
If A-Rod is so “unmarketable,” Dan Shulman, ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” play-by-play voice wouldn’t say the “fans are back in his corner,” would he? Aren’t these fans the ones who would be purchasing Rodriguez milestone merchandise from the Yankees?
The Yankees are only saying he is unmarketable to stick it to him and save a few dollars. That's the only reason they call him unmarketable.
And if A-Rod was so “unmarketable” why would YES be airing promotional spots for the Orioles series featuring A-Rod at the plate?
If A-Rod were unmarketable, would Bob Raissman be talking about A-Rod at every possible opportunity?
And if he continues to drive the ball, how far could Rodriguez juice YES’ ratings, which are expected to take a hit in this Yankees season of ifs? Those numbers will help quantify his marketability, right?
Yes, the Yankees want to save $6 million, so they pretend A-Rod isn't marketable in some form or another. Bob Raissman has already acknowledged why the Yankees are trying to not pay attention to A-Rod breaking records, yet he seems to be confused as to why they aren't acknowledging A-Rod breaking records.
Then again, if his bat cools off, these networks, the ones would gave him such a rousing reception, may experience another form of Alex Rodriguez fatigue.
Which Bob Raissman would love because he doesn't like it when A-Rod gets any attention that isn't negative attention. Simply acknowledging A-Rod is about to break an MLB record or showing him on the field when he isn't failing miserably is seen as "positive" coverage of A-Rod. Raissman will only stand for negative coverage or no coverage of A-Rod at all.
Friday, March 27, 2015
3 comments Despite His Having Four Super Bowl Rings, Dan Shaughnessy Still Thinks He's Smarter Than Bill Belichick
Dan Shaughnessy uses the phrase "The Patriot Way" in this column. I am betting he does this just to annoy people like me. Dan doesn't like that the Patriots refused to pick up the option for Darrelle Revis and then weren't able to sign him in free agency. He makes this clear through snark and discussing how the "system" is more important than the players, as if this strategy hasn't worked for the Patriots in the past. So despite the Patriots having just won a Super Bowl, Dan spends some time being snarky and suggesting he knows what is better for the Patriots then the incompetent Bill Belichick does. After all, it's been a whole couple of months and the Patriots still haven't won another Super Bowl. Dan thinks the Patriots may never win another Super Bowl now that they have allowed Revis to go to the Jets in free agency. Someone should do something about how Bill Belichick is wrecking the Patriots team.
The Patriots just lost their best defensive player.
No, they re-signed Devin McCourty and Chandler Jones is still on the roster. Jerod Mayo is also coming back from injury, so it seems the Patriots still have quite a few guys who can be considered their best defensive player.
Greedy Darrelle is going to New York for a five-year, $70 million contract. He’s going to make $48 million over the first three years of his Jet contract. He’s now got $39 million in guaranteed money coming his way.
Yes, of course Darrelle Revis is greedy for maximizing his market value. We all know Dan Shaughnessy would NEVER take an opportunity to earn more income and maximize his value. Never. Ever. So fuck Darrelle Revis for trying to make as much money as possible during his career. This makes him greedy and not a good businessman.
The clever Patriots would not go for that. They reportedly stopped short at a guarantee of $35 million.
So, if the reports are true, this New England team, flush with cash, lost its best defensive player for $4 million.
The Patriots had around $14 million in cap space around the time that Revis was signed by the Jets. I'm not sure that would count as being flush with cap space. They couldn't afford to sign Revis to the contract that the Jets signed him to. Revis is earning $16 million during the 2015 season. It seemed pretty well-known, at least to me, that the Patriots couldn't keep both McCourty and Revis. Of course, when has Dan allowed reality to seep into his criticisms?
Naturally, you are all OK with this. You are Patriots fans. Your team just won a Super Bowl. You subscribe to a long-standing policy that your team will not pay stupid money for talent. Sure, the Patriots have the money, but that’s not the point.
No, it is the point. The point is that just because the Patriots have the money it doesn't mean they should spend that money.
The point is that players don’t matter. It is the system that matters. The system wins Super Bowls. The coach wins Super Bowls. The owner wins Super Bowls.
The quarterback wins Super Bowls too. At some point when this has been proven incorrect, then I would love for Dan Shaughnessy to point out when. The Patriots have shown they don't have to keep players who have hit free agency as long as they are able to find other players to serve as replacements. Dan is snarky about the system, but it works, so his snark is simply a sarcastic statement of fact.
Your team doesn’t do the foolish things that other teams do. And your team just won the Super Bowl. So who is going to question the Patriot way? Only a fool.
Or someone (namely, a sportswriter named "Dan Shaughnessy") who questions every move Boston-area teams make that don't match the conventional wisdom of what a team should do. Then when he is proven to be incorrect about his questioning of these moves, he simply moves on to the next issue he can gripe about sarcastically.
Clearly, the Jets are idiots. Again.
Maybe. Was the Jets' issue last year at the cornerback position? Partly, but that's a lot of money for a cornerback who the Jets already refused to pay just a few years ago. They may not be idiots, but it's a big investment in one player.
The Patriots rented Revis for one year and they got what they wanted. They won a Super Bowl. So line up and guzzle the Patriots Kool-Aid.
This is Dan's defense mechanism. He gets snarky and says something like, "Well, it worked for the Red Sox didn't it? So every move they make from now on will work, won't it?" in a desperate effort to lower the bar and move the goal posts, while distracting the reader from the fact Dan's upcoming criticism has no validity. No one is guzzling the Patriots Kool-Aid. They won a Super Bowl with Revis. Their plan worked.
Never mind that the Patriots could keep on winning Super Bowls and keep their best defensive player.
Could they though? Really think about that, Dan. Think hard. I'm not sure the Patriots could have kept Revis and McCourty.
It’s more important that they win at the negotiating table. It’s all about the value.
While being sarcastic in an effort to make the Patriots seem as though they are cheap, Dan is missing the point. It is important to win at the negotiating table. Good teams keep an eye on their salary cap situation for this year and 2-3 years down the road. It IS all about value. Losing at the negotiating table is how teams end up with millions in dead money which restricts their ability to make offseason moves that improve the team.
Dan just doesn't understand. Maybe the Patriots are cheap, but it works. Maybe Dan would have a point if it weren't for two small issues:
1. The Patriots' strategy of being cheap has paid off for almost 15 years now. They have been the most successful NFL franchise since 2001 using this strategy.
2. It is all about value at the bargaining table in order to sustain the long-term success of a team.
It’s about the value because the Patriots are not only the best team on the field. They are the smartest. They are the most clever. They are playing chess while the other dimwits are playing checkers.
And now Dan is trying to overstate the case in order to enter the Theater of the Absurd since his opinion in the real world has been proven to sound stupid.
Pity those foolish Steelers and Giants and Ravens and Broncos. And Jets. They do not know how to do business. The Patriots know how to win and they know how to do business.
But it's true. The Patriots do know how to do business. The results on the field support this point of view. The Steelers, Giants, Ravens and Broncos aren't foolish. It's not a zero-sum game like Dan is desperately trying to prove is true. The Patriots aren't smarter than every other team in the same way McDonald's isn't smarter than Wal-Mart, Target or Burger King. They are all successful, it's just they each have a different way of doing business. Target isn't stupid because Wal-Mart is smart. The same theory applies here. The Patriots have a good way of doing business that is proven to be successful. It doesn't mean other NFL teams don't have a good way of doing business themselves.
Everybody in this NFL-crazed nation knew the Patriots were never going to pay Revis $20 million for 2015, with a salary-cap hit of $25 million. But not everybody knew the Jets were going to lose their minds. That’s why they are the Jets.
So the Patriots should have given Revis the money the Jets gave Revis and this would have made the Patriots smart, but because the Jets gave Revis this money then they are losing their minds? I don't even understand the logic behind this comment.
They just added a great cornerback to their woeful, non-contending team. And the smarter-than-everybody Patriots no doubt believe they have a valid tampering claim against New York. It’s all there on tape. We heard Jets owner Woody Johnson gushing about Revis in December. Not cool.
Dan's basic point seem to be that he is going to talk sarcastically about how smart the Patriots are compared to the Jets, while seeming to truly believe the Patriots are smarter than the Jets...or something like that. Maybe not. Maybe the Patriots would have been smart to re-sign Revis, all while the Jets were dumb for re-signing Revis.
So now it’s time to fire up the Patriots media cartel. Time to demonize Revis.
You mean by calling him "greedy"? Or was that Dan making fun of Patriots fans for calling Revis greedy while not actually calling Revis greedy, unless Dan suddenly decides he does think Revis is greedy, in which case Dan was completely serious in calling him "Greedy Revis"?
Has anybody noticed that Revis only had two interceptions last year? Clearly, this guy is overrated. Right? And now we know for sure that he cares only about money. If he really cared about winning football, he would have stayed here for less. But no. Ultimately, Revis showed his true colors. He chose money over legacy. What a loser.
Dan is changing tone here almost as much as I change tone. It's difficult to keep up with. Clearly, he is being sarcastic right now about Revis being a loser. Most NFL players care only about money, it's just Revis is in a position to actually make more money.
If I may stray from the party line for a moment, there might be some legitimate questions here. If the Patriots were willing to make Devin McCourty the highest-paid safety (five years, $47.5 million), in football, why did they draw the line on Revis, who is better at corner than McCourty is at safety?
Perhaps, and this is a point that Dan seems to consistently miss, the Patriots could really not afford to keep both of them. McCourty was cheaper, and while not as talented as Revis, he allowed the Patriots to do something defensively that couldn't be replaced with another safety that was on the market or in the draft. Revis may be a better corner than McCourty is a safety, but it may be easier for the Patriots to replace the production of Revis than it is to replace McCourty's production. There are outside forces which are present and can move a player's value to his current team up or down.
And how are they going to take the hit of also losing Brandon Browner in the defensive backfield?
They may commit fewer defensive holding or pass interference penalties.
Revis changed everything in 2014. In the six seasons after the undefeated season of 2007, the Patriots were good, but never great; not even when they got back to the Super Bowl in Indianapolis against the Giants. They were always good enough to win the AFC East (like signing up for AOL), but they were not good enough to keep good offenses off the field when it mattered.
Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that the Patriots were good, but never great, when they went 72-24 over a six year span. The Patriots were 4-5 in the playoffs during that time and what happened again in the 7th year after the Patriots went undefeated? Oh yeah, they won the Super Bowl. I was always confused by whether the Patriots were good or great and always thought a 75% win rate in the regular season over six years was a pretty great record. It turns out that record is only good. I'm glad Dan Shaughnessy is here to point out the truths as his delusional mind sees them as it relates to a point he is looking to prove.
In 2014, Revis enabled the Patriots to play any kind of defense Belichick wanted. Revis routinely erased the best receiver on the other team. Calvin Johnson. A.J. Green, T.Y. Hilton. Revis got more Pro Bowl votes than any corner in the NFL. More votes than flavor-of-the-year Richard Sherman.
Richard Sherman is still a pretty good cornerback. I will not allow myself to be distracted by Dan Shaughnessy's shot at Richard Sherman based on such an idiotic metric as Pro Bowl votes.
We know the Patriots don’t like to work with a gun at their heads. They like value. They don’t spend to the cap and they don’t like to overpay. Just because somebody else is willing to pay stupid money, why should New England?
It really is a good strategy if an NFL team can continue winning games while using this strategy. Why should the Patriots overpay for a player simply because another team chooses to use this strategy in order to acquire or keep a player? Because acquiring big name players and spending money is exciting and keeps the local beat writers with fresh stories they can write during free agency?
Ordinarily, this thinking works with the Patriots and their fans. It’s “In Bill We Trust.’’ Fans support the team when Wes Welker leaves and when Logan Mankins is traded. Usually, this blind loyalty is rewarded.
Most always this blind loyalty has been rewarded. As long as fans don't hold the Patriots to the absurd standard of "Have they won the Super Bowl every single season?" then the blind loyalty has been rewarded with nearly a decade-and-a-half of sustained success. I can't see in what world there should be criticism of how the Patriots deal with personnel. Regardless of how strong the AFC East has been, the Patriots have won four Super Bowls since 2001 and their strategy on how they value players has proven to work. It's not easy to be as good as the Patriots have been for as long of time as they have been good. Of course, Dan has no perspective and just assumes because the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 more times in the last 14 years, then a different strategy in valuing their personnel would have changed that. He sees the Patriots' way of thinking as the problem surrounding why the Patriots aren't MORE successful, as opposed to viewing this thinking as the reason the Patriots have been this successful. Dan sucks.
It seemed that Revis was different. He was the best player at a crucial position. He delivered a Super Bowl.
You would have thought he was a guy the Patriots could not afford to lose.
When an NFL team says, "We afford to lose this guy" because of that player's perceived value, then that is how teams often end up overpaying for players it turns out they could have afforded to lose, even if they didn't want to lose that player.
But there is no such player. It’s not about any one player. It’s about the system.
Which is a system, that like it or not, has been proven to work for the Patriots.
The Patriots usually win, and sometimes lose, but at the bargaining table the Patriot Way is the only way.
There is no real "Patriot Way," but the Patriots do have a philosophy that seems to work. Dan Shaughnessy, of course, thinks that HIS way is better than the Patriots' way of doing business. After all, the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 times in the past 14 years. That's quite the record of failure. Just imagine how successful the Patriots could have been if they had utilized the Shaughnessy Way of dealing with personnel. They may have created a dynasty over the last decade-and-a-half.
The Patriots just lost their best defensive player.
No, they re-signed Devin McCourty and Chandler Jones is still on the roster. Jerod Mayo is also coming back from injury, so it seems the Patriots still have quite a few guys who can be considered their best defensive player.
Greedy Darrelle is going to New York for a five-year, $70 million contract. He’s going to make $48 million over the first three years of his Jet contract. He’s now got $39 million in guaranteed money coming his way.
Yes, of course Darrelle Revis is greedy for maximizing his market value. We all know Dan Shaughnessy would NEVER take an opportunity to earn more income and maximize his value. Never. Ever. So fuck Darrelle Revis for trying to make as much money as possible during his career. This makes him greedy and not a good businessman.
The clever Patriots would not go for that. They reportedly stopped short at a guarantee of $35 million.
So, if the reports are true, this New England team, flush with cash, lost its best defensive player for $4 million.
The Patriots had around $14 million in cap space around the time that Revis was signed by the Jets. I'm not sure that would count as being flush with cap space. They couldn't afford to sign Revis to the contract that the Jets signed him to. Revis is earning $16 million during the 2015 season. It seemed pretty well-known, at least to me, that the Patriots couldn't keep both McCourty and Revis. Of course, when has Dan allowed reality to seep into his criticisms?
Naturally, you are all OK with this. You are Patriots fans. Your team just won a Super Bowl. You subscribe to a long-standing policy that your team will not pay stupid money for talent. Sure, the Patriots have the money, but that’s not the point.
No, it is the point. The point is that just because the Patriots have the money it doesn't mean they should spend that money.
The point is that players don’t matter. It is the system that matters. The system wins Super Bowls. The coach wins Super Bowls. The owner wins Super Bowls.
The quarterback wins Super Bowls too. At some point when this has been proven incorrect, then I would love for Dan Shaughnessy to point out when. The Patriots have shown they don't have to keep players who have hit free agency as long as they are able to find other players to serve as replacements. Dan is snarky about the system, but it works, so his snark is simply a sarcastic statement of fact.
Your team doesn’t do the foolish things that other teams do. And your team just won the Super Bowl. So who is going to question the Patriot way? Only a fool.
Or someone (namely, a sportswriter named "Dan Shaughnessy") who questions every move Boston-area teams make that don't match the conventional wisdom of what a team should do. Then when he is proven to be incorrect about his questioning of these moves, he simply moves on to the next issue he can gripe about sarcastically.
Clearly, the Jets are idiots. Again.
Maybe. Was the Jets' issue last year at the cornerback position? Partly, but that's a lot of money for a cornerback who the Jets already refused to pay just a few years ago. They may not be idiots, but it's a big investment in one player.
The Patriots rented Revis for one year and they got what they wanted. They won a Super Bowl. So line up and guzzle the Patriots Kool-Aid.
This is Dan's defense mechanism. He gets snarky and says something like, "Well, it worked for the Red Sox didn't it? So every move they make from now on will work, won't it?" in a desperate effort to lower the bar and move the goal posts, while distracting the reader from the fact Dan's upcoming criticism has no validity. No one is guzzling the Patriots Kool-Aid. They won a Super Bowl with Revis. Their plan worked.
Never mind that the Patriots could keep on winning Super Bowls and keep their best defensive player.
Could they though? Really think about that, Dan. Think hard. I'm not sure the Patriots could have kept Revis and McCourty.
It’s more important that they win at the negotiating table. It’s all about the value.
While being sarcastic in an effort to make the Patriots seem as though they are cheap, Dan is missing the point. It is important to win at the negotiating table. Good teams keep an eye on their salary cap situation for this year and 2-3 years down the road. It IS all about value. Losing at the negotiating table is how teams end up with millions in dead money which restricts their ability to make offseason moves that improve the team.
Dan just doesn't understand. Maybe the Patriots are cheap, but it works. Maybe Dan would have a point if it weren't for two small issues:
1. The Patriots' strategy of being cheap has paid off for almost 15 years now. They have been the most successful NFL franchise since 2001 using this strategy.
2. It is all about value at the bargaining table in order to sustain the long-term success of a team.
It’s about the value because the Patriots are not only the best team on the field. They are the smartest. They are the most clever. They are playing chess while the other dimwits are playing checkers.
And now Dan is trying to overstate the case in order to enter the Theater of the Absurd since his opinion in the real world has been proven to sound stupid.
Pity those foolish Steelers and Giants and Ravens and Broncos. And Jets. They do not know how to do business. The Patriots know how to win and they know how to do business.
But it's true. The Patriots do know how to do business. The results on the field support this point of view. The Steelers, Giants, Ravens and Broncos aren't foolish. It's not a zero-sum game like Dan is desperately trying to prove is true. The Patriots aren't smarter than every other team in the same way McDonald's isn't smarter than Wal-Mart, Target or Burger King. They are all successful, it's just they each have a different way of doing business. Target isn't stupid because Wal-Mart is smart. The same theory applies here. The Patriots have a good way of doing business that is proven to be successful. It doesn't mean other NFL teams don't have a good way of doing business themselves.
Everybody in this NFL-crazed nation knew the Patriots were never going to pay Revis $20 million for 2015, with a salary-cap hit of $25 million. But not everybody knew the Jets were going to lose their minds. That’s why they are the Jets.
So the Patriots should have given Revis the money the Jets gave Revis and this would have made the Patriots smart, but because the Jets gave Revis this money then they are losing their minds? I don't even understand the logic behind this comment.
They just added a great cornerback to their woeful, non-contending team. And the smarter-than-everybody Patriots no doubt believe they have a valid tampering claim against New York. It’s all there on tape. We heard Jets owner Woody Johnson gushing about Revis in December. Not cool.
Dan's basic point seem to be that he is going to talk sarcastically about how smart the Patriots are compared to the Jets, while seeming to truly believe the Patriots are smarter than the Jets...or something like that. Maybe not. Maybe the Patriots would have been smart to re-sign Revis, all while the Jets were dumb for re-signing Revis.
So now it’s time to fire up the Patriots media cartel. Time to demonize Revis.
You mean by calling him "greedy"? Or was that Dan making fun of Patriots fans for calling Revis greedy while not actually calling Revis greedy, unless Dan suddenly decides he does think Revis is greedy, in which case Dan was completely serious in calling him "Greedy Revis"?
Has anybody noticed that Revis only had two interceptions last year? Clearly, this guy is overrated. Right? And now we know for sure that he cares only about money. If he really cared about winning football, he would have stayed here for less. But no. Ultimately, Revis showed his true colors. He chose money over legacy. What a loser.
Dan is changing tone here almost as much as I change tone. It's difficult to keep up with. Clearly, he is being sarcastic right now about Revis being a loser. Most NFL players care only about money, it's just Revis is in a position to actually make more money.
If I may stray from the party line for a moment, there might be some legitimate questions here. If the Patriots were willing to make Devin McCourty the highest-paid safety (five years, $47.5 million), in football, why did they draw the line on Revis, who is better at corner than McCourty is at safety?
Perhaps, and this is a point that Dan seems to consistently miss, the Patriots could really not afford to keep both of them. McCourty was cheaper, and while not as talented as Revis, he allowed the Patriots to do something defensively that couldn't be replaced with another safety that was on the market or in the draft. Revis may be a better corner than McCourty is a safety, but it may be easier for the Patriots to replace the production of Revis than it is to replace McCourty's production. There are outside forces which are present and can move a player's value to his current team up or down.
And how are they going to take the hit of also losing Brandon Browner in the defensive backfield?
They may commit fewer defensive holding or pass interference penalties.
Revis changed everything in 2014. In the six seasons after the undefeated season of 2007, the Patriots were good, but never great; not even when they got back to the Super Bowl in Indianapolis against the Giants. They were always good enough to win the AFC East (like signing up for AOL), but they were not good enough to keep good offenses off the field when it mattered.
Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that the Patriots were good, but never great, when they went 72-24 over a six year span. The Patriots were 4-5 in the playoffs during that time and what happened again in the 7th year after the Patriots went undefeated? Oh yeah, they won the Super Bowl. I was always confused by whether the Patriots were good or great and always thought a 75% win rate in the regular season over six years was a pretty great record. It turns out that record is only good. I'm glad Dan Shaughnessy is here to point out the truths as his delusional mind sees them as it relates to a point he is looking to prove.
In 2014, Revis enabled the Patriots to play any kind of defense Belichick wanted. Revis routinely erased the best receiver on the other team. Calvin Johnson. A.J. Green, T.Y. Hilton. Revis got more Pro Bowl votes than any corner in the NFL. More votes than flavor-of-the-year Richard Sherman.
Richard Sherman is still a pretty good cornerback. I will not allow myself to be distracted by Dan Shaughnessy's shot at Richard Sherman based on such an idiotic metric as Pro Bowl votes.
We know the Patriots don’t like to work with a gun at their heads. They like value. They don’t spend to the cap and they don’t like to overpay. Just because somebody else is willing to pay stupid money, why should New England?
It really is a good strategy if an NFL team can continue winning games while using this strategy. Why should the Patriots overpay for a player simply because another team chooses to use this strategy in order to acquire or keep a player? Because acquiring big name players and spending money is exciting and keeps the local beat writers with fresh stories they can write during free agency?
Ordinarily, this thinking works with the Patriots and their fans. It’s “In Bill We Trust.’’ Fans support the team when Wes Welker leaves and when Logan Mankins is traded. Usually, this blind loyalty is rewarded.
Most always this blind loyalty has been rewarded. As long as fans don't hold the Patriots to the absurd standard of "Have they won the Super Bowl every single season?" then the blind loyalty has been rewarded with nearly a decade-and-a-half of sustained success. I can't see in what world there should be criticism of how the Patriots deal with personnel. Regardless of how strong the AFC East has been, the Patriots have won four Super Bowls since 2001 and their strategy on how they value players has proven to work. It's not easy to be as good as the Patriots have been for as long of time as they have been good. Of course, Dan has no perspective and just assumes because the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 more times in the last 14 years, then a different strategy in valuing their personnel would have changed that. He sees the Patriots' way of thinking as the problem surrounding why the Patriots aren't MORE successful, as opposed to viewing this thinking as the reason the Patriots have been this successful. Dan sucks.
It seemed that Revis was different. He was the best player at a crucial position. He delivered a Super Bowl.
You would have thought he was a guy the Patriots could not afford to lose.
When an NFL team says, "We afford to lose this guy" because of that player's perceived value, then that is how teams often end up overpaying for players it turns out they could have afforded to lose, even if they didn't want to lose that player.
But there is no such player. It’s not about any one player. It’s about the system.
Which is a system, that like it or not, has been proven to work for the Patriots.
The Patriots usually win, and sometimes lose, but at the bargaining table the Patriot Way is the only way.
There is no real "Patriot Way," but the Patriots do have a philosophy that seems to work. Dan Shaughnessy, of course, thinks that HIS way is better than the Patriots' way of doing business. After all, the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 times in the past 14 years. That's quite the record of failure. Just imagine how successful the Patriots could have been if they had utilized the Shaughnessy Way of dealing with personnel. They may have created a dynasty over the last decade-and-a-half.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
2 comments Dan Shaughnessy is Livid That UMass is Honoring John Calipari Because of Reasons He Copied and Pasted from Every Other Column Written about John Calipari
We still have one open spot in the fantasy baseball league and if anyone
wants to join then send me an email to bengoodfella@yahoo.com and I
will send you an invite. That will put the league at 10 people and we need one more person before the draft on Sunday.
Dan Shaughnessy claims to be upset that UMass will be honoring John Calipari on the 20th anniversary of Calipari taking the UMass men's basketball team to the Final Four. That's not what this column is about though. It's about John Calipari being slightly shady at UMass and Dan Shaughnessy feeling snubbed by Calipari. This means Dan will go hard at Calipari for his actions at UMass, despite the fact the NCAA cleared Calipari of any wrongdoing by the NCAA. I don't love Calipari, but I think Dan Shaughnessy is more butt hurt by a snub the "Globe" received from Calipari 20 years ago then he is really concerned about UMass honoring Calipari.
Here we are. Kentucky, the No. 1-ranked team in the country — coached by John Calipari — is on the cusp of NCAA history, 31-0 after Saturday’s win over Florida.
Well, all he has to do is roll the ball out to center court and his team wins. Having talented freshmen on the team is just a matter of doing that. Just ask Rick Barnes who couldn't get past the second round of the NCAA tournament with Kevin Durant, and Coach K, who has lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament twice over the last three years with a talented lottery pick freshman on his roster.
Meanwhile, the folks at UMass have decided to retire Coach Cal’s “number,” and this weekend marks the 20th anniversary of him refusing to allow a Globe reporter to visit his home for Selection Sunday.
And that is really what this little temper tantrum/column is about. Dan Shaughnessy and his paper feel jilted by John Calipari. Dan's ego is hurt so he's going to take it out on the big meanies who hurt him.
Sometimes there is not enough space in our newspaper to articulate all the thoughts, and state all the points, that need to be made.
If only Dan had enough pull at the paper to get more room to write all that he really wants to write. Unfortunately, the big meanies at the "Boston Globe" won't allow him more space.
Let’s start with this: John Calipari is a magnetic figure, undoubtedly the greatest college basketball recruiter of the 21st century. He works the NCAA’s cesspool system better than any man alive. He is charismatic. He came to Amherst more than a quarter of a century ago as a Rick Pitino wannabe, but now he has vaulted over Pitino, and created the Brand of Cal.
Notice how Dan at no point mentions that Calipari is a good coach. Since I'm guessing that Shaughnessy watches college basketball starting in March of every year then I will also guess that Dan's knowledge about college basketball is probably gained from everything he sees in March. Even so, he should know that Calipari is a really good coach. It's not easy to get freshmen to play defense and he gets his freshmen to play defense AND give up minutes to other talented players.
He is probably going to win a second national championship with Kentucky this year and is no doubt a swell dancer and would make for a fine dinner companion.
Though Dan wouldn't know if Calipari was a fine dinner companion because Cal snubbed Dan's employer for dinner one time 20 years ago.
But as a Massachusetts taxpayer, I have a problem with UMass “retiring” Coach Cal’s number.
Dan isn't butt hurt by John Calipari snubbing the "Globe," he's just a concerned taxpayer. That's all. Dan's ego isn't the issues, it's that Dan wants to make sure his taxes don't go to a retired jersey for John Calipari.
Really? Bill Cosby’s jersey is not available?
Bill Cosby went to Temple and has no affiliation to UMass, so that's why they aren't retiring his jersey. Wait, this was supposed to be a joke? I guess should acknowledge such a hot take combined with a super burn.
I enjoy how Dan Shaughnessy is equating (allegedly) raping multiple women over a multiple decade-long span of time to Calipari's players accepting cash from an agent or having someone else take the SAT in place of the player. Rape, taking money from an agent or cheating on the SAT, they are all the same thing according to Dan Shaughnessy's moral code of conduct.
Calipari is a man who stretches the rules, and wins. He won at UMass. He won at Memphis. He took both schools to the Final Four, but both appearances were “vacated.’’
While it's not as much fun to be fair to Calipari, if I were being fair, then I would point out the wins at UMass weren't vacated for actions that Calipari took part in. It was Marcus Camby and contact with an agent that got the UMass Final Four vacated. And again, Derrick Rose's SAT score was the issue at Memphis and Calipari was not considered to have committed any wrongdoing. I don't ever deny the smoke that surrounds Calipari, but Dan is giving the appearance that Calipari was accused of wrongdoing in both situations, which isn't the official truth of the situation. Sure, Dan WANTS Calipari to have been found of wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.
They were erased. You know the drill. Ineligible players. Phony SAT tests. The usual. So, while Coach Cal and Pitino are the only coaches to take three schools to the Final Four, Cal’s also got more vacancies than a Days Inn in downtown Detroit.
ZING!
And our state university is going to honor him? Again?
He led the UMass men's basketball team to a level of success they have not experienced since he left the university. The Final Four was vacated, but UMass basketball fans still remember and enjoy Calipari's time coaching the team.
He has a chance to produce the first undefeated college team since Bobby Knight’s Indiana Hoosiers 39 years ago. But it’s impossible to escape the notion that Coach Cal is a glorified AAU bag man.
A lot of NCAA basketball coaches are this way. Coach Calipari has a tight relationship with AAU coaches and guys like Worldwide Wes, but it's not like a respected coach like Bill Self is above shady dealings related to AAU coaches. Recruiting isn't an easy world to stay clean in.
I see Calipari on the bench and I see bundles of cash. I see classroom vacancies. I must be imagining things.
John Calipari does get paid a lot of money, so maybe that's why Dan sees bundles of cash. For all the things that Calipari has been accused of, I'm not sure paying players is one of those things. I don't know if his players go to class, but this sounds like the boring, assumptive criticism that a hack like Shaughnessy would make. It's criticism-by-numbers.
Cal promotes the dribble-drive and gets his one-and-done kids to the NBA.
I hate to ruin Dan's image of Calipari, but his team this year started two juniors, two sophomores, and a freshman prior to Alex Poythress getting injured. Coaches who are thought to uphold the grand tradition of the student-athlete had similar starting lineups this year. Coach K started three freshmen, a senior and junior, while Bill Self started two juniors, two freshmen, and two sophomores at various times through year. Other teams like Wisconsin have seniors starting, but Calipari shouldn't be faulted for helping his players accomplish the goal of making it to the NBA.
He walks hand-in-hand with the fraudulent, sanctimonious governing body that insists we refer to his players as “student-athletes.’’ What a joke.
And of course it is John Calipari's fault that the NCAA is a fraudulent governing body. He could change how the NCAA handles business, but he chooses not to. This is a very typical observation of a sportswriter who watches college basketball for three weeks in a year.
But the joke is on us when UMass chooses to honor Cal during the 2015-16 season, a year that will mark the 20th anniversary of the Minutemen’s one and only trip the Final Four, an appearance that officially never happened.
I really don't care. John Calipari has never snubbed me for dinner.
UMass looks pathetic. It’s bad enough that the school bosses have signed off on a ridiculous, costly, and futile plan to play Bowl Subdivision football.
Watch out for the quick change-of-subject criticism!
In case you missed it, Cal took UMass to the Final Four at the Meadowlands in the spring of 1996 (ironically, the Minutemen were eliminated by Pitino’s eventual national champs from Kentucky), but it turned out that star center Marcus Camby already had turned professional while he was still in school, and UMass’s appearance was officially erased by the NCAA.
It's hard to miss it when this entire article hinges on the reader understanding that Camby took money from an agent and Dan Shaughnessy is desperately trying to do something the NCAA couldn't (or wouldn't...I have no idea which one it is) do, which is tie Calipari to Camby who was tied to the agent.
Coach Cal got out of town before the posse arrived, lying to everyone on his way out the door as he took millions from the New Jersey Nets.
But as was learned from the Bruce Pearl and Jim Tressel situations the NCAA could have imposed a "show-cause" penalty on any team looking to hire John Calipari, meaning he could have gotten punished even after he left town to coach the New Jersey Nets. The NCAA did not impose a "show-cause" penalty. It's a common misconception that Calipari could have left for the NBA and the NCAA would have completely had their hands tied. It was a decision by the NCAA to not impose sanctions on Calipari for any role he played in the UMass-Marcus Camby situation.
Now, Nefarious John is at Kentucky, producing a conga line of lottery picks, some of whom perhaps actually spend several hours on campus.
This is such a lazy criticism, because as we learned from the UNC-CH scandal, there is no way of telling if college basketball players from other high-profile universities attend class either. This whole column is lazy and reeks of by-the-numbers criticism of Calipari without any real in-depth knowledge of each individual situation that is being criticized.
Hardly any of them graduate, of course.
"Hardly" any of Calipari's players graduate. Well, according to Dan's own newspaper the University of Kentucky graduates players at an 82% rate. That's not really considered "hardly" in my world, but I'm looking for the column from Dan that will never happen where he criticizes Bo Ryan, Jim Boeheim, and Thad Matt for their graduation rate below 50%. I'm sure the system is stacked against them though, since we learned early in this column that the NCAA is inextricably tied to John Calipari and he controls every move the NCAA makes.
What good are facts when an opinion can better serve to prove the point that needs to be proven?
And the needy, deprived fans of Kentucky basketball somehow manage to devote their lives to this product. They are OK when a raft of Kentucky players get drafted and Cal announces that it’s the greatest night in the history of Kentucky basketball.
Every college basketball program brags about the players from that school that have reached the NBA. It's a recruiting tool that all schools use. I'm not sure why Dan insists on acting like Kentucky or John Calipari are the only ones who do this. It's probably because Dan pays attention to college basketball for three weeks per year and so all of his non-insights are based on assumptions and opinions that lack a factual basis.
Kentucky fans are defiantly proud of their one-and-done semi-pro players who visit campus briefly on their way to the NBA.
Much in the same way Dan is defiantly proud of being disliked by so many of his readers who view him as a troll who they wish would go away.
But it’s all OK because, you know, Cal is just working within the system. And he is really good at it. The Wildcats are fun to watch (did you see the spectacular comeback against Georgia Tuesday night?). And if you have an 18-year-old son who is one year away from NBA millions, send him to Kentucky.
Or Duke. Or Kansas. Or one of the other top schools in the recruiting rankings. But yeah, blame Kentucky for all of the one-and-done players while pretending Ohio State, Duke, Kansas, and Texas haven't had their share of one-and-done players as well. I've written this 1000 times, but Calipari has stated he isn't a fan of the one-and-done rule, so blaming him for an NBA rule that forces college basketball players to attend college or play overseas for one year is misguided. Dan being misguided shouldn't come as a shock. He comes to the party late and then pretends to have been there the entire time. He writes with 50% of the knowledge he needs and just assumes that knowledge which he doesn't have.
Just don’t insult everybody’s intelligence by calling him a “student-athlete.’’
That's the NCAA calling them student-athletes, not John Calipari's doing.
This week marks the 20th anniversary of Coach Cal barring the Globe from his Shutesbury home on Selection Sunday. The Globe’s UMass beat reporter was the estimable Joe Burris, who had covered the Minutemen for six seasons and wrote stories on 29 regular-season games in 1995.
Now for the real reason that Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like John Calipari. It has less to do with UMass honoring Calipari and more to do with Calipari snubbing the "Globe" from entering his home. Not that Dan would ever write a column based on any biases he has. Of course not.
Calipari was upset because the Globe had reported on the poor grades and academic probation of UMass’s student-athletes — a report that should have served as fair warning that our State U. was sacrificing standards in the name of Final Four glory.
Much like how the "Globe" sacrifices journalistic talent and integrity for the sake of pageviews and name recognition by continuing to employ Dan Shaughnessy.
“The Globe’s not invited,’’ UMass publicist Bill Strickland said 20 years ago. “He did not want the Boston Globe in his home . . . I think he should be entitled to invite anyone he wants to his house. And to keep anyone out.’’
Fair enough.
Oh good, I'm glad Dan finds it acceptable to think that John Calipari can invite anyone into his house that he wants into his home and can keep anyone out of his home that he doesn't want there.
But I found it amazing that Burris — a man worthy of marrying the daughter of Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu — was not allowed in the home of a man who prevailed over a program that disgraced Massachusetts.
Except this is a stupid argument because Calipari had not disgraced Massachusetts at that point, so 20 years ago Burris was simply not allowed in the home of a college basketball coach. At the time, Calipari wasn't presiding over a program that had a Final Four vacated. Hey Dan, remember the whole "Calipari got out of town and took the New Jersey Nets' money before the posse got him" criticism of Calipari you had earlier? Well, Calipari was in town still, so you can't have it both ways. You can't have Calipari run from his disgrace and tell stories about how Calipari was already a disgraced coach while still at UMass.
It was like getting scolded for cheating by Alex Rodriguez.
(Bengoodfella makes wanking motion with his hand)
And now we are honoring Coach Cal.
March Madness, indeed.
And of course, Dan's bitterness towards Calipari has nothing to do with the "Globe" not being invited to Calipari's house and it's certainly not based on a limited amount of knowledge that Dan has based on watching college basketball for three weeks of the season. This is a paint-by-numbers screed against Calipari. It's embarrassing for Dan because he compares John Calipari to Bill Crosby, since rape is on the same moral plane as taking money from an agent, and he clearly didn't put any thought into what he wrote. Of course, much like he criticizes Kentucky for taking pride in their one-and-done players, Dan takes great pride in writing while using as few facts and as many strong opinions as possible. Dan thinks Calipari will do anything to win, all while Dan will write anything to get attention.
Dan Shaughnessy claims to be upset that UMass will be honoring John Calipari on the 20th anniversary of Calipari taking the UMass men's basketball team to the Final Four. That's not what this column is about though. It's about John Calipari being slightly shady at UMass and Dan Shaughnessy feeling snubbed by Calipari. This means Dan will go hard at Calipari for his actions at UMass, despite the fact the NCAA cleared Calipari of any wrongdoing by the NCAA. I don't love Calipari, but I think Dan Shaughnessy is more butt hurt by a snub the "Globe" received from Calipari 20 years ago then he is really concerned about UMass honoring Calipari.
Here we are. Kentucky, the No. 1-ranked team in the country — coached by John Calipari — is on the cusp of NCAA history, 31-0 after Saturday’s win over Florida.
Well, all he has to do is roll the ball out to center court and his team wins. Having talented freshmen on the team is just a matter of doing that. Just ask Rick Barnes who couldn't get past the second round of the NCAA tournament with Kevin Durant, and Coach K, who has lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament twice over the last three years with a talented lottery pick freshman on his roster.
Meanwhile, the folks at UMass have decided to retire Coach Cal’s “number,” and this weekend marks the 20th anniversary of him refusing to allow a Globe reporter to visit his home for Selection Sunday.
And that is really what this little temper tantrum/column is about. Dan Shaughnessy and his paper feel jilted by John Calipari. Dan's ego is hurt so he's going to take it out on the big meanies who hurt him.
Sometimes there is not enough space in our newspaper to articulate all the thoughts, and state all the points, that need to be made.
If only Dan had enough pull at the paper to get more room to write all that he really wants to write. Unfortunately, the big meanies at the "Boston Globe" won't allow him more space.
Let’s start with this: John Calipari is a magnetic figure, undoubtedly the greatest college basketball recruiter of the 21st century. He works the NCAA’s cesspool system better than any man alive. He is charismatic. He came to Amherst more than a quarter of a century ago as a Rick Pitino wannabe, but now he has vaulted over Pitino, and created the Brand of Cal.
Notice how Dan at no point mentions that Calipari is a good coach. Since I'm guessing that Shaughnessy watches college basketball starting in March of every year then I will also guess that Dan's knowledge about college basketball is probably gained from everything he sees in March. Even so, he should know that Calipari is a really good coach. It's not easy to get freshmen to play defense and he gets his freshmen to play defense AND give up minutes to other talented players.
He is probably going to win a second national championship with Kentucky this year and is no doubt a swell dancer and would make for a fine dinner companion.
Though Dan wouldn't know if Calipari was a fine dinner companion because Cal snubbed Dan's employer for dinner one time 20 years ago.
But as a Massachusetts taxpayer, I have a problem with UMass “retiring” Coach Cal’s number.
Dan isn't butt hurt by John Calipari snubbing the "Globe," he's just a concerned taxpayer. That's all. Dan's ego isn't the issues, it's that Dan wants to make sure his taxes don't go to a retired jersey for John Calipari.
Really? Bill Cosby’s jersey is not available?
Bill Cosby went to Temple and has no affiliation to UMass, so that's why they aren't retiring his jersey. Wait, this was supposed to be a joke? I guess should acknowledge such a hot take combined with a super burn.
I enjoy how Dan Shaughnessy is equating (allegedly) raping multiple women over a multiple decade-long span of time to Calipari's players accepting cash from an agent or having someone else take the SAT in place of the player. Rape, taking money from an agent or cheating on the SAT, they are all the same thing according to Dan Shaughnessy's moral code of conduct.
Calipari is a man who stretches the rules, and wins. He won at UMass. He won at Memphis. He took both schools to the Final Four, but both appearances were “vacated.’’
While it's not as much fun to be fair to Calipari, if I were being fair, then I would point out the wins at UMass weren't vacated for actions that Calipari took part in. It was Marcus Camby and contact with an agent that got the UMass Final Four vacated. And again, Derrick Rose's SAT score was the issue at Memphis and Calipari was not considered to have committed any wrongdoing. I don't ever deny the smoke that surrounds Calipari, but Dan is giving the appearance that Calipari was accused of wrongdoing in both situations, which isn't the official truth of the situation. Sure, Dan WANTS Calipari to have been found of wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.
They were erased. You know the drill. Ineligible players. Phony SAT tests. The usual. So, while Coach Cal and Pitino are the only coaches to take three schools to the Final Four, Cal’s also got more vacancies than a Days Inn in downtown Detroit.
ZING!
And our state university is going to honor him? Again?
He led the UMass men's basketball team to a level of success they have not experienced since he left the university. The Final Four was vacated, but UMass basketball fans still remember and enjoy Calipari's time coaching the team.
He has a chance to produce the first undefeated college team since Bobby Knight’s Indiana Hoosiers 39 years ago. But it’s impossible to escape the notion that Coach Cal is a glorified AAU bag man.
A lot of NCAA basketball coaches are this way. Coach Calipari has a tight relationship with AAU coaches and guys like Worldwide Wes, but it's not like a respected coach like Bill Self is above shady dealings related to AAU coaches. Recruiting isn't an easy world to stay clean in.
I see Calipari on the bench and I see bundles of cash. I see classroom vacancies. I must be imagining things.
John Calipari does get paid a lot of money, so maybe that's why Dan sees bundles of cash. For all the things that Calipari has been accused of, I'm not sure paying players is one of those things. I don't know if his players go to class, but this sounds like the boring, assumptive criticism that a hack like Shaughnessy would make. It's criticism-by-numbers.
Cal promotes the dribble-drive and gets his one-and-done kids to the NBA.
I hate to ruin Dan's image of Calipari, but his team this year started two juniors, two sophomores, and a freshman prior to Alex Poythress getting injured. Coaches who are thought to uphold the grand tradition of the student-athlete had similar starting lineups this year. Coach K started three freshmen, a senior and junior, while Bill Self started two juniors, two freshmen, and two sophomores at various times through year. Other teams like Wisconsin have seniors starting, but Calipari shouldn't be faulted for helping his players accomplish the goal of making it to the NBA.
He walks hand-in-hand with the fraudulent, sanctimonious governing body that insists we refer to his players as “student-athletes.’’ What a joke.
And of course it is John Calipari's fault that the NCAA is a fraudulent governing body. He could change how the NCAA handles business, but he chooses not to. This is a very typical observation of a sportswriter who watches college basketball for three weeks in a year.
But the joke is on us when UMass chooses to honor Cal during the 2015-16 season, a year that will mark the 20th anniversary of the Minutemen’s one and only trip the Final Four, an appearance that officially never happened.
I really don't care. John Calipari has never snubbed me for dinner.
UMass looks pathetic. It’s bad enough that the school bosses have signed off on a ridiculous, costly, and futile plan to play Bowl Subdivision football.
Watch out for the quick change-of-subject criticism!
In case you missed it, Cal took UMass to the Final Four at the Meadowlands in the spring of 1996 (ironically, the Minutemen were eliminated by Pitino’s eventual national champs from Kentucky), but it turned out that star center Marcus Camby already had turned professional while he was still in school, and UMass’s appearance was officially erased by the NCAA.
It's hard to miss it when this entire article hinges on the reader understanding that Camby took money from an agent and Dan Shaughnessy is desperately trying to do something the NCAA couldn't (or wouldn't...I have no idea which one it is) do, which is tie Calipari to Camby who was tied to the agent.
Coach Cal got out of town before the posse arrived, lying to everyone on his way out the door as he took millions from the New Jersey Nets.
But as was learned from the Bruce Pearl and Jim Tressel situations the NCAA could have imposed a "show-cause" penalty on any team looking to hire John Calipari, meaning he could have gotten punished even after he left town to coach the New Jersey Nets. The NCAA did not impose a "show-cause" penalty. It's a common misconception that Calipari could have left for the NBA and the NCAA would have completely had their hands tied. It was a decision by the NCAA to not impose sanctions on Calipari for any role he played in the UMass-Marcus Camby situation.
Now, Nefarious John is at Kentucky, producing a conga line of lottery picks, some of whom perhaps actually spend several hours on campus.
This is such a lazy criticism, because as we learned from the UNC-CH scandal, there is no way of telling if college basketball players from other high-profile universities attend class either. This whole column is lazy and reeks of by-the-numbers criticism of Calipari without any real in-depth knowledge of each individual situation that is being criticized.
Hardly any of them graduate, of course.
"Hardly" any of Calipari's players graduate. Well, according to Dan's own newspaper the University of Kentucky graduates players at an 82% rate. That's not really considered "hardly" in my world, but I'm looking for the column from Dan that will never happen where he criticizes Bo Ryan, Jim Boeheim, and Thad Matt for their graduation rate below 50%. I'm sure the system is stacked against them though, since we learned early in this column that the NCAA is inextricably tied to John Calipari and he controls every move the NCAA makes.
What good are facts when an opinion can better serve to prove the point that needs to be proven?
And the needy, deprived fans of Kentucky basketball somehow manage to devote their lives to this product. They are OK when a raft of Kentucky players get drafted and Cal announces that it’s the greatest night in the history of Kentucky basketball.
Every college basketball program brags about the players from that school that have reached the NBA. It's a recruiting tool that all schools use. I'm not sure why Dan insists on acting like Kentucky or John Calipari are the only ones who do this. It's probably because Dan pays attention to college basketball for three weeks per year and so all of his non-insights are based on assumptions and opinions that lack a factual basis.
Kentucky fans are defiantly proud of their one-and-done semi-pro players who visit campus briefly on their way to the NBA.
Much in the same way Dan is defiantly proud of being disliked by so many of his readers who view him as a troll who they wish would go away.
But it’s all OK because, you know, Cal is just working within the system. And he is really good at it. The Wildcats are fun to watch (did you see the spectacular comeback against Georgia Tuesday night?). And if you have an 18-year-old son who is one year away from NBA millions, send him to Kentucky.
Or Duke. Or Kansas. Or one of the other top schools in the recruiting rankings. But yeah, blame Kentucky for all of the one-and-done players while pretending Ohio State, Duke, Kansas, and Texas haven't had their share of one-and-done players as well. I've written this 1000 times, but Calipari has stated he isn't a fan of the one-and-done rule, so blaming him for an NBA rule that forces college basketball players to attend college or play overseas for one year is misguided. Dan being misguided shouldn't come as a shock. He comes to the party late and then pretends to have been there the entire time. He writes with 50% of the knowledge he needs and just assumes that knowledge which he doesn't have.
Just don’t insult everybody’s intelligence by calling him a “student-athlete.’’
That's the NCAA calling them student-athletes, not John Calipari's doing.
This week marks the 20th anniversary of Coach Cal barring the Globe from his Shutesbury home on Selection Sunday. The Globe’s UMass beat reporter was the estimable Joe Burris, who had covered the Minutemen for six seasons and wrote stories on 29 regular-season games in 1995.
Now for the real reason that Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like John Calipari. It has less to do with UMass honoring Calipari and more to do with Calipari snubbing the "Globe" from entering his home. Not that Dan would ever write a column based on any biases he has. Of course not.
Calipari was upset because the Globe had reported on the poor grades and academic probation of UMass’s student-athletes — a report that should have served as fair warning that our State U. was sacrificing standards in the name of Final Four glory.
Much like how the "Globe" sacrifices journalistic talent and integrity for the sake of pageviews and name recognition by continuing to employ Dan Shaughnessy.
“The Globe’s not invited,’’ UMass publicist Bill Strickland said 20 years ago. “He did not want the Boston Globe in his home . . . I think he should be entitled to invite anyone he wants to his house. And to keep anyone out.’’
Fair enough.
Oh good, I'm glad Dan finds it acceptable to think that John Calipari can invite anyone into his house that he wants into his home and can keep anyone out of his home that he doesn't want there.
But I found it amazing that Burris — a man worthy of marrying the daughter of Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu — was not allowed in the home of a man who prevailed over a program that disgraced Massachusetts.
Except this is a stupid argument because Calipari had not disgraced Massachusetts at that point, so 20 years ago Burris was simply not allowed in the home of a college basketball coach. At the time, Calipari wasn't presiding over a program that had a Final Four vacated. Hey Dan, remember the whole "Calipari got out of town and took the New Jersey Nets' money before the posse got him" criticism of Calipari you had earlier? Well, Calipari was in town still, so you can't have it both ways. You can't have Calipari run from his disgrace and tell stories about how Calipari was already a disgraced coach while still at UMass.
It was like getting scolded for cheating by Alex Rodriguez.
(Bengoodfella makes wanking motion with his hand)
And now we are honoring Coach Cal.
March Madness, indeed.
And of course, Dan's bitterness towards Calipari has nothing to do with the "Globe" not being invited to Calipari's house and it's certainly not based on a limited amount of knowledge that Dan has based on watching college basketball for three weeks of the season. This is a paint-by-numbers screed against Calipari. It's embarrassing for Dan because he compares John Calipari to Bill Crosby, since rape is on the same moral plane as taking money from an agent, and he clearly didn't put any thought into what he wrote. Of course, much like he criticizes Kentucky for taking pride in their one-and-done players, Dan takes great pride in writing while using as few facts and as many strong opinions as possible. Dan thinks Calipari will do anything to win, all while Dan will write anything to get attention.
Friday, February 13, 2015
3 comments Roundup of Crazy Hall of Fame Voting From Baseball Hall of Fame Voters
I guess I shouldn't call it "crazy" since everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just be consistent and don't have a stupid opinion, that's all that I ask. I usually do a few posts about Hall of Fame voting and may end up doing a few more before it's all said and done, but felt the need to try my best to condense the crazy voting into as few posts as possible. I will probably fail in doing so. As always, Jon Heyman will probably deserve his very own post. He seems like a nice guy in real life, but his ballot is always very vexing to me. He's a shill for Scott Boras and tends to use bad reasoning for his Hall of Fame selections.
So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.
Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.
Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.
A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.
This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.
I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.
Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?
It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.
So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.
Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.
So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),
How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?
Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),
Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987.
Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.
Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.
You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either.
The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.
It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.
The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’
Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.
Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit.
Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."
Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.
Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.
Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?
I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.
I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.
Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.
My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.
Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.
I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.
In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.
Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.
In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.
Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.
Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.
And that was just the regular season.
A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.
Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.
He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history?
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.
So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.
Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.
Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot.
I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.
In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.
The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given.
Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.
Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.
Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.
Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations of PED use.
There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.
I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.
These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.
But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.
When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.
Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).
Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.
Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.
My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.
Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.
Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.
Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.
So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.
I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.
As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.
cc: Murray Chass
LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.
There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.
I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.
Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.
It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.
It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.
Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!
(looks at Jerry Green)
Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.
As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.
(checks list again)
It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.
(counts up the players listed)
There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?
Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire.
Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.
I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.
Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.
Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.
Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.
So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.
As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.
The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."
Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.
On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)
But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.
Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.
A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.
Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.
A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.
They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.
Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user.
Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?
And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.
So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.
Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.
Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.
So who cares what these people think, right?
But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.
Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.
Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.
Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.
Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.
Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.
Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.
PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.
Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?
So there are guys like him.
There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.
And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,
This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.
no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.
That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.
Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.
Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.
They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.
And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.
If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.
He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"
I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.
Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.
Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.
Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.
Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.
But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.
If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him.
Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right?
Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.
The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.
Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.
But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.
Fall guys. We need them. We find them.
BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!
Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’
Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.
Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time.
Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.
Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.
So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.
Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.
Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.
A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.
This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.
I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.
Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?
It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.
So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.
Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.
So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),
How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?
Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),
Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987.
Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.
Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.
You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either.
The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.
It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.
The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’
Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.
Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit.
Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."
Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.
Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.
Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?
I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.
I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.
Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.
My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.
Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.
I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.
In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.
Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.
In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.
Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.
Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.
And that was just the regular season.
A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.
Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.
He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history?
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.
So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.
Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.
Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot.
I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.
In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.
The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given.
Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.
Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.
Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.
Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations of PED use.
There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.
I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.
These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.
But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.
When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.
Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).
Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.
Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.
My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.
Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.
Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.
Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.
So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.
I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.
As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.
cc: Murray Chass
LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.
There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.
I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.
Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.
It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.
It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.
Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!
(looks at Jerry Green)
Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.
As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.
(checks list again)
It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.
(counts up the players listed)
There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?
Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire.
Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.
I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.
Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.
Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.
Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.
So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.
As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.
The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."
Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.
On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)
But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.
Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.
A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.
Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.
A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.
They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.
Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user.
Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?
And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.
So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.
Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.
Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.
So who cares what these people think, right?
But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.
Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.
Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.
Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.
Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.
Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.
Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.
PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.
Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?
So there are guys like him.
There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.
And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,
This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.
no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.
That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.
Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.
Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.
They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.
And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.
If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.
He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"
I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.
Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.
Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.
Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.
Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.
But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.
If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him.
Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right?
Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.
The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.
Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.
But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.
Fall guys. We need them. We find them.
BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!
Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’
Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.
Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time.
Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.
Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)