Dude, this is AWESOME.

Que es mas macho? Lightbulb, or schoolbus?

Pitching inside, or stealing 2nd when you're ahead...those would have to be the worst.

Richie Ashburn is referred to as "Ashford" and the synopsis on the George Brett pine tar incident makes no note of the actual rule that the umpire flubbed before the Royals had the decision overturned.

The top 10 are all Steve Garvey.

I love that potato story. How can those umps have decided the runner scored? He was tagged out. You want to leave third base because the catcher threw a damn potato over your head, well, hey, that's your own private Idaho, pal.

I love that potato story.

I prefer the lemon in the food-related shenanigans category.

That is pretty cool, but one minor quibble. If you are talking about ethics, as in the code of standards for a professional group, than I don't think this includes the exclusion of blacks. The ethical code was to exclude them, so it cannot be an example of an ethical transgression. The color barrier, of course, was a great moral wrong, but then you have to impose some external standard, independent of the ethics of baseball itself.

For example, many of the things on the list - too much pine tar, Perry, etc. - only make sense in the context of professional baseball. We would not, for example, believe it morally wrong to see someone in their yard putting pine tar on a bat above the legal limit. We would, however, in any context, given a specific moral code, find it wrong to exclude blacks or commit murder.

Ah well, still looks like fun.

Where was a class like this when I was in college?

I didn't see the whole list, but I would imagine that the Black Sox saga and similar game fixing would have to be worse than the garden-variety in-game shenanigans such as sign stealing.

I'm working my way through the list, and it's a lot of fun.

But many of the comparisons are just stupid. How do you "rank" fans of a team waving a noose at an umpire when he comes out of the locker room against Dock Ellis's attempting to hit every batter in the Reds' lineup? And how can you really compare killing an umpire to the Black Sox scandal? THT should have included an option of "this is nothing but apples and oranges," and another option of "neither of these scenarios is particularly unethical." And from what I've seen so far, about half of the choices would fall into one of these two categories.

I think a second, "how serious is this" qualifier for each thing. Even a binary Very/Not Very would be interesting.

That is pretty cool, but one minor quibble. If you are talking about ethics, as in the code of standards for a professional group, than I don't think this includes the exclusion of blacks. The ethical code was to exclude them, so it cannot be an example of an ethical transgression. The color barrier, of course, was a great moral wrong, but then you have to impose some external standard, independent of the ethics of baseball itself.

I was thinking the same thing. I'd have put the color barrier near the bottom of the list.

Pitching inside, or stealing 2nd when you're ahead...those would have to be the worst.

Bunting to break up a no-hitter?

Oh, and this is very awesome. Where were these classes when I was in college?

I agree with the points some have made about neither of the two choices on offer being unethical. For example, right now I'm faced with the option of choosing between 1.) Phantom double plays; 2.) Ron Washington deciding not to further humiliate the Orioles during the 30-3 game by only sending the runners when they were guaranteed to score standing up. Neither of these is particularly unethical at all.

THT should have included an option of "this is nothing but apples and oranges," and another option of "neither of these scenarios is particularly unethical."

Agreed. I've been passing on the pairs where I don't particularly have a problem with either one.

It's an interesting exercise. I seem to be coming down on the side of the most unethical things being ones that occur during/prior to a game (watering the basepaths to slow runners, misdrawing the lines to give your catcher more room to set up outside, pulling an extra ball out of your pocket, pretending to have been hit by a pitch, etc.).

I think a second, "how serious is this" qualifier for each thing. Even a binary Very/Not Very would be interesting.

That will be the net result once the voting is complete.

I agree that some of these scenarios aren't particularly unethical to some. But to others, they may well be. That's the point of the exercise. You can always use the "pass" option.

"That will be the net result once the voting is complete."

Not exactly. You'll have a ranking of things, but the ends of the line won't be calibrated.

That's the point of the exercise. You can always use the "pass" option.

I know some of the other posts were about the voting, but I was talking more about how the material would be presented in an academic context (which, admittedly, wasn't at all clear). The thing itself is fantastic. Are there results from the student survey?

I agree that some of these scenarios aren't particularly unethical to some. But to others, they may well be. That's the point of the exercise. You can always use the "pass" option.

The problem there is that the word "pass" is kind of ambiguous. I read it more to mean "I'll think about it and maybe answer it later" rather than "neither of these scenarios is unethical."

And in some cases, while neither of the choices is seriously unethical, one of them may have been less than perfectly kosher, and so I chose that one as being "less ethical," even though given a choice, I would have chosen "neither." The point is that the wording of their options isn't all that clear.

Not exactly. You'll have a ranking of things, but the ends of the line won't be calibrated.

They will be, because we're going to put it through a "strength of schedule" type of program, much like you would think for college or an unbalanced schedule.

The problem there is that the word "pass" is kind of ambiguous.

Oh well. We couldn't really anticipate all the reasons that someone might pass on a vote.

It's okay by me if you vote for the situation that seems "less than kosher" to you even if you don't think it's actually unethical. We're not screening for items as to whether they're truly "unethical" or not, in your opinion. In fact, some of the scenarios are downright ethical (see Thornton, Andre). This is a relative ranking on an ethical scale. You're asked to pick the situation that seems "less ethical" to you. That doesn't mean it has to pass some test of "unethicalness."

THT should have included an option of "this is nothing but apples and oranges," and another option of "neither of these scenarios is particularly unethical."

That's what I used the pass option for.

You can always use the "pass" option.

Bill James agrees

Just got to this one:

1. Hidden ball trick

The hidden ball trick has been pulled over 300 times at the major league level, including seven times alone in the National League in 1876, and once in the second game of the 1907 World Series. But some players never learn. Take the case of Rafael Bournigal, who was standing on third base on June 28, 1994, when Matt Williams, the Giants' affable third baseman, asked the Dodger base runner to step off the bag so that he--Williams, that is--could give the sack a quick cleaning. Of course, Williams had the game ball hidden in his glove, and quickly tagged the surprised Bournigal out. Just three years later, Williams again nailed Bournigal with the hidden ball trick.

Just how stupid is this Rafael Bournigal? Did all of his pre-strike mental files get deleted in the interim?

didn't ozzie guillen get caught with the hidden ball trick?

I'm actually more interested in incidents of the hidden-ball trick NOT working. Has anybody ever seen it attempted, only to be sniffed out by the baserunner?

[cut because I reread the post I was responding to]

What #26 said.

Is this exercise a test of what is ethical in general, or what is ethical within the realm of baseball?

Just how stupid is this Rafael Bournigal?
I dare any primate to use the moniker "Bournigal, live as a man". I dare ya, I say.

That is pretty cool, but one minor quibble. If you are talking about ethics, as in the code of standards for a professional group, than I don't think this includes the exclusion of blacks. The ethical code was to exclude them, so it cannot be an example of an ethical transgression. The color barrier, of course, was a great moral wrong, but then you have to impose some external standard, independent of the ethics of baseball itself.

"Ethics" in this case has to mean the philosophy of how one lives one's life, otherwise a classroom with any sort of rigor would have used a different word. I imagine that a large part of the exercise is spent in comparing greater moral wrongs with mere transgressions against rules (written or unwritten), with a sideline about whether or not ethics are merely descriptive (i.e., the product of contemporary opinion). Saying that the color barrier is down on the list implies a belief that ethics are descriptive.

Are there results from the student survey?

The professor has cooperated with THT staff so I imagine at some point in the future there will be a comparison of the Carleton students' opinions and those of THT's readership.

What #26 said.

Uh, before he unsaid it and gave the watered-down version in #29.

But many of the comparisons are just stupid. How do you "rank" fans of a team waving a noose at an umpire when he comes out of the locker room against Dock Ellis's attempting to hit every batter in the Reds' lineup? And how can you really compare killing an umpire to the Black Sox scandal? THT should have included an option of "this is nothing but apples and oranges," and another option of "neither of these scenarios is particularly unethical." And from what I've seen so far, about half of the choices would fall into one of these two categories.

D-

I'm talkin'about friendship. I'm talkin'about character. I'm talkin'about-- Hell, Leo, I ain't embarrassed to use the word.
I'm talkin' about ethics.

You guys needed to run this ESPN-style, with a tournament set-up and corporate sponsorship.

And WTF were 6-week courses when I was at Carleton?

Was kinda cool being off all the way from Thanksgiving through New Years though (don't think they do this anymore).

Psst ... nobody tell the fundraisers I've moved to New Zealand.

Was kinda cool being off all the way from Thanksgiving through New Years though (don't think they do this anymore).

They still do. Only top school I know of with a trimester schedule.

And in some cases, while neither of the choices is seriously unethical, one of them may have been less than perfectly kosher, and so I chose that one as being "less ethical,"

I have only used the "pass" once. Fourth one in, I was asked, which is less ethical --

the Gaylord Perry Mudball, or

the Gaylord Perry Mudball.

Frankly, I think it was a trick question.

I was asked to compare Norm Cash's corked bat with Sammy Sosa's corked bat...

They still do. Only top school I know of with a trimester schedule.

Washington and Lee has them, we're not as highly ranked as Carleton, but we're not far behind.

Has anybody ever seen [the hidden ball trick] attempted, only to be sniffed out by the baserunner?

It's pretty unremarkable. The baserunner just stands on the base staring at the fielder until the fielder gives up.

For some of the questions, it's not clear what's to be voted on. For example, there's a question titled "Spy vs. spy" that asks about a Washington trainer uncovering a Highlander scheme to steal signs via binoculars. There are a bunch of similar questions about mechanically-aided sign stealing, so either this one is redundant or it's questioning the activity of the Washington snoop.

And what about that tidbit dealing with the manager's shiny teeth? Is it an ethical lapse to signal by smiling?

Here is one that I was just asked to rank:

Sign stealing was absolutely rampant in the early 20th century. Every team tried to do it, or so it seemed. So teams went to great pains to avoid their signs being decoded. Take the case of George Stallings, Boston's skipper from 1913 to 1920. He was known for his pearly white teeth, and apparently signaled for certain plays by simply opening, or shutting, his mouth. That was a hard sign to decode.

What the hell? Am I to believe that coming up with hard signs to steal is unethical?

Ty Cobb beating up an ump vs grounds crew variable tarp unrolling speed depending on who's winning? Well, beating up someone is unethical, but but so is adultery, tax evasion, and molesting children. Is it baseball unethical?

How about this one:

1. Dark skin

During World War II, many players entered military service, and owners had to be creative to fill out their rosters. Take the case of Tommy de la Cruz, from Marianao, Cuba, who won nine games for the Cincinnati Reds in 1944. Unfortunately for de la Cruz, his skin pigment was dark. The powers-that-be in Major League baseball at the time finally decided that his skin was too dark to suit them. In short order, he was dropped from the Red's team and that was the end of de la Cruz's Major League career.

2. Segregation

No blacks were allowed to play in the organized Major Leagues of baseball from 1887 until Jackie Robinson put on a Dodgers' uniform in 1947.

Are these not the same thing? Or are they suggesting that the first ethical transgression was sneaking a dark skinned man on the field during WWII?

The choice between the Black Sox scandal and A-Rod's going "HA!" on a pop-up must have been tough for some here.

At first, I thought that post said that Ty Cobb beating up an ump was more or less ethical if his team was winning or losing

I had to choose between A-Rod going Ha! and the Hidden Ball Trick. Pretty much the same if you ask me.

Frankly, I've never understood all the hubbub about the 1919 World Series. And who are these Black Sox everyone talks about?

There was certainly an ethical dimension behind the color line. There was no baseball rule that said you could not put a player on the field if he was darker than a certain shade. Every team had the right to field such players. If a team had a responsibility to its fans to put the best team possible on the field, and if the team did not use black players, then that team acted unethically toward its fans, unless it truly believed that no black player could make the team in a fair tryout. None of this reasoning is negated because everyone else acts the same way.

I had to choose between A-Rod going Ha! and the Hidden Ball Trick. Pretty much the same if you ask me.

Yeah, except that the hidden ball trip is cool and the Ha! sucks.

My favorite part about the whole Ha! fiasco was that everyone was going on and on about what a vile cheater A-Rod was, yet the dude who got fooled, Howie Clark, ended up being named in the Mitchell Report.