Friday, May 24, 2013
MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion
(mlb.mlb.com)
Sutton: Because that’s where the defaced money is.
Read More...The outspoken Sutton—who came up with the Dodgers in 1966 and pitched with them for 16 of his 23 seasons—has his own opinion about everything.
He said in an interview last week that he hates pitch counts.
“I say it with a laugh in my voice when I broadcast: ‘That’s 100 pitches. On the next one, he’s going to turn into a troll.’ At 101, you just disappear. Poof, you’re gone,” Sutton said.
...MLB.com: Did you cheat?
Sutton: No, I never got ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >Which rather nicely mirrors their likely opinion of outsiders with POVs like that. Unfortunately for you, they're the ones with the votes.
Hopefully it would be, and hopefully the voters would react to withhold their services en masse similar to what Richie Phillips advised the umpires union to do some years ago.
The HOF can then view the voters' wails to withhold their votes as either an offer to be accepted or a threat to be ignored.
Then mission accomplished. They vote at the privilige of the HOF. Contra Murray Chass above ("I believe the time has come to relinquish my right as a 10-year member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to vote in the Hall of Fame election."), voting is not a right.
If they admit that they refused to vote for Bonds & Co. on character or steroids grounds -- and thus that they failed to follow the new Ray Rules which no longer have the character clause -- then yes, strip their votes. I doubt the evidence would be hard to find. The writers are in the habit of publishing a confession after breaking the voting rules.
(It's kind of ironic that the same group of people criticizing players for "cheating" and "breaking the rules" don't follow the voting rules that have been laid out for them.)
And he's right.
Remind us why he voted for Morris, then? Because his ballot this year contains flawed reasoning and is open to challenge. If Chass lacks the intestinal fortitude to submit a well-reasoned ballot and defend his considered (if possibly imperfect) reasoning when it comes to players of a more modern era, what makes voting for Morris different?
If a player doesn't fail a test, how can the HOF make a judgement on it?
Who would that include? Bonds? Clemens? Ryan Braun (when the time comes)?
I can understand the HOF saying "Get suspended for violating the rules, you're off the ballot".
Any instructions that cast a wider net than that is just going to leave the voters with the same silly interpretations they have now.
The reverse of that (go by stats and performance only) leaves them open to allowing Rose and Jackson.
It seems that most of the folks pushing for 'clarification' from the HOF are writers who are either not voting (see, e.g. TJ Quinn) or writers who are already witholding their votes against purported steroid cheats. I must have read that line in at least a half dozen ballot articles this year.
Yeah, that's just Andy seeing patterns in clouds.
Pretty sure this can apply to anything ever.
Except that:
1. He's voting, which seems to be so anathema to him.
2. He's making such a judgement RE: Morris.
So his entire post is complete hypocracy.
Of course not. Japan doesn't count.
Well, if he spent at least 10 years in an American POW camp and won an MVP (Most Villified Prisoner) award, then he gets partial credit for Japan.
It seems that most of the folks pushing for 'clarification' from the HOF are writers who are either not voting (see, e.g. TJ Quinn) or writers who are already witholding their votes against purported steroid cheats. I must have read that line in at least a half dozen ballot articles this year.
I was more referring to BTF, but in any event the idea is a complete non-starter, despite the "Ray Rules" and other wet dreams being posted here.
---------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly the point of those who keep pushing for those instructions. They're pissed that their views on steroids don't seem to be shared by 75% of the HoF voters, and knowing that, they want to try to rig the results in their favor.
Pretty sure this can apply to anything ever.
How are the current guidelines rigging anything? According to Repoz's count, you've roughly got a 50-50 split on Bonds and Clemens, which certainly doesn't indicate anyone's being forced to go against their steroid views one way or the other.
The interesting thing is that they've explicitly said that's not the rule. Quoting from the Joe Jackson section on the old FAQ.
In order for Jackson to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, the following criteria must be met:
Since he is deceased, a party acting on behalf of Jackson's estate must apply to the Office of the Commissioner for reinstatement to Major League Baseball.
Should Jackson's estate apply for reinstatement and his eligibility is regained, he would then be a viable candidate for consideration by the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans.
(similarly, if Rose is now reinstated he'd be a VC candidate)
I think they're just pissed they put in all these years, time, and effort to become Baseball Men and get all the rights and privileges that go with that rank, and now that they finally have there are a bunch of punk kids who haven't put in all those years, time, and effort questioning them. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go.
But the simplest clarification it seems to me would be along these lines: "the character clause is intended to refer to violations of baseball rules only. The voters should consider the severity of the rules violation(s) in weighing the character criteria against others."
Writers would then pretend steroid use was against the rules and continue to not vote Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc.
Fay Vincent once doodled a non-binding memo containing a drug catch-all that included steroids, a memo purporting to set out workplace rules that weren't collectively bargained, weren't followed by management, and weren't seen by the players. That ought to be enough.
here's a fresh tweet showing that Morris pitched to the stat:
MLBreports 4:37pm via Web
In his 1st 2 World Series in 84 and 91, Jack Morris was 4-0 with a 1.54 ERA in 5 starts and 41 Innings Pitched #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
...........
[just don't ask what he did after that]
I think they're just pissed they put in all these years, time, and effort to become Baseball Men and get all the rights and privileges that go with that rank, and now that they finally have there are a bunch of punk kids who haven't put in all those years, time, and effort questioning them. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go.
That makes sense, but then what explains all the time, effort and anger spent by so many people here who seem to spend half their waking hours railing against these writers for daring to question their statistical Gods? It's not as if the anger is all in one direction.
What explains all the time you've put in?
Few people would see improvement in their cognitive functions after a major stroke, but we may have found the exception.
Jack Morris has the highest rate of wild pitches per inning of any pitcher who has thrown at least 2500 innings during the foul strike era.
Jack Morris, post-season other than 84/91 world series: 3-4, 51.1 IP, 5.61 ERA #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
Poster boy for stat geek fip love , so Morris must be a pretty good pitcher then.
Morris was, indeed, a pretty good pitcher.
Jack Morris got a hair less than 3/5 of Jimmy Key's career voting total in Cy Young balloting. #JackMorrisAwarenessWeek
(Key is specifically selected as a rough, though far from exact, contemporary, and as someone who also never won the award.)
What explains all the time you've put in?
The great majority of it in the past few years has mainly been spent defending unjustly accused players against the Chasses and the Gumbels, not that you'd ever acknowledge that. With you it's got to be all or nothing, just like a Tea Partier or a hard core Marxist.
The rest of it has been spent wondering why people like you spend so much time worrying about an institution that you've proclaimed time and again is irrelevant. But I'm sure you've got your reasons, just like Don Quixote.
I think the point is silly. You convict players for jaywalking and sentence them to life behind bars for the crime, while "defending unjustly accused players." Pardon me if I find that disconnect appropriately nonserious. It would be like coming to the aid of a black man who is being jumped in the Jim Crow South -- while executing Rosa Parks for sitting in the back of the bus.
Not irrelevant. In the process of relinquishing its relevancy. Thanks to people like you.
What is he saying, Joe McEwing for the HOF?!
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
I know Murray Chass is a lightning rod around here and I disagree with him on plenty of things, but it's inaccurate to say he had a "crappy career" or that he churned out "mediocre work." Murray almost single-handedly pioneered the coverage of the business side of MLB, from the labor wars and collective bargaining agreements to contract negotiations, team sales, and the commissioner's office. If the 65 J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners were whittled down to a "small Hall" 30, Murray should still keep his.
(Before anyone asks, I don't know Murray other than having exchanged a small number of emails with him over the years, none within the past 12 months or so.)
That's a point worth making for those who only know Chass's idiotic blogging, but unfortunately that was then. He's like a HOVG ballplayer who should have hung it up about five years before he did, but instead wound up with a string of 76 OPS+ seasons.
What a tool.
Exactly. People armed with cold, hard facts are actually challenging his subjective opinions!
He is a sad little obsolete man that the world has passed by who can only see sabremterics as a threat to his ability to spout foolish and nonsensical opinions...like his drivel about Jack Morris and the HOF.
He is everyone's grumpy and grouchy old neighbor, complaining about how complicated cell phones are, about this new thing called the Internet, and about these damned kids that won't get off his lawn, and he will never realize that the problem isn't anyone else, it's him.
If he sticks with this ballot next year, it won't just be the worst of the year. A Morris-but-not-Maddux (and Glavine, and Mussina, and Schilling, not even mentioning Clemens or the position players) ballot would have to be a strong contender for worst ballot submitted in the entire history of the Hall of Fame.
Page 2 of 3 pages
< 1 2 3 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.