BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Bob Costas: MVP award should be re-voted if Braun loses appeal

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Bob Costas: MVP award should be re-voted if Braun loses appeal

Looks like Costas “has his faintly disapproving schoolmarm face on” (syte Lipsite)...again.

“No one has ever won an appeal,” Costas said. “The thing is set up and it’s made clear that even if you by your own testimony unknowingly ingest something that trips the test, you are responsible for ingesting it. So I don’t see what his successful defense will be. So he sits out 50 games and it costs him more than $3 million.

“I also do not understand the baseball writers’ position,” Costas said. “I understand the position that you will not be able to go back and yank guys out of the Hall of Fame if it’s subsequently discovered that they used steroids. Or even that you can’t take away A-Rod’s MVP from years ago during a period of time that he has now acknowledged that he was among those who tested positive.

“But baseball ought to have a rule in place like the one football put in a few years ago,” Costas said. “You may remember (Chargers’ linebacker) Shawne Merriman (in 2006) was suspended for using performance enhancing drugs during the year, but he still made the Pro Bowl. Then they put in a rule that said, ‘Look, you can’t make the Pro Bowl or receive an honor in the year you have been sanctioned. Not suspected. Not Jose Canseco wrote a book. Not something that came up in the Mitchell Report. But under our official procedures you tested positive.’ Well, (Braun) tested positive in October of the year he won the MVP. So I think - and I’m not taking a shot at Ryan Braun here, terrific player, seems like a good guy too - but I think you submit it to a re-vote. In which case Matt Kemp would easily win. In fact, if the Dodgers had been contenders, Kemp would have won anyway because he actually had a better year than Braun.”

Repoz Posted: January 31, 2012 at 10:20 PM | 19 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: awards, brewers, dodgers, media, steroids

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.

1. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 31, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4050858)

And what if Matt Kemp is also awaiting the results of an appeal of a positive test that wasn't leaked, and he's sanctioned in March? What's the statute of limitations, and how many times are you going to ask the BBWAA to revote?

2. Champions Table Posted: January 31, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4050861)

Until they give the hardware to Derek Jeter. Duh.

3. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4050870)

I don't have a problem with stripping away an award if that is the rules in advance (I would hope you would give it to the next guy in line and not re-vote), but I am opposed to retroactive punishment.

4. cardsfanboy

Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4050871)

As pointed out in other threads, if the rule had existed before then I could somewhat support it, but after the fact means it's just once again short sighted thinking by the writers and their ilk on the issue of ~~witch~~ roid hunting.

Of course, I personally could never support a rule like this, it's just beyond stupid,(he made it the season without getting caught, he helped his team win, he should be applauded not punished)

5. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4050873)

Then they put in a rule that said, ‘Look, you can’t make the Pro Bowl or receive an honor in the year you have been sanctioned

Unless you are Brian Cushing.

6. Kiko Sakata

Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4050876)

Look, you can’t make the Pro Bowl or receive an honor in the year you have been sanctioned.... Well, (Braun) tested positive in October of the year he won the MVP.

Technically, Braun is going to be "sanctioned" during the 2012 season, not the 2011 season (assuming he loses his appeal, of course). And my understanding is that his failed test came during the postseason, whereas the MVP is a regular-season award. Forget about after-the-fact rule changes (I agree with #3 and #4), if the "Merriman" rule was in effect, I think there would still be a debate over whether it applied to Braun.

7. Bob Tufts Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4050882)

Can we remove any awards given to mariotti and Conlin - or do we only care about the small target market of baseball players?

Short people got no reason.....

8. AJM Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4050883)

Unless you are Brian Cushing.

He never would've won if they re-voted! Wait...

Also, is it true that you can't win an award in the NFL if you fail a test? How can the NFL tell the writers who than can and can't vote for?

9. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4050887)

Is it too late to strip Terry Bradshaw of the 1978 NFL MVP?

10. YR Denies Jesus Montero Posted: February 01, 2012 at 12:18 AM (#4050909)

They should retroactively strip Evander Holyfield of the heavyweight strap and return it to the true champion, Buster Douglas.

11. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: February 01, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4050916)

The Cushing case would seem to be the most comparable, and even that isn't terribly applicable.

First, Cushing was caught after the NFL had put the Merriman rule in place, preventing players from earning honors during the season they tested positive. But Merriman was not punished retroactively.

Additionally, unlike Braun, Cushing's failed test during the regular season in question, though the results were not known until after both the season and the awards voting had taken place.

12. Downtown Bookie

Posted: February 01, 2012 at 03:48 AM (#4050952)

"...I think you submit it to a re-vote. In which case Matt Kemp would easily win. In fact, if the Dodgers had been contenders, Kemp would have won anyway because he actually had a better year than Braun.”

So basically Costas is saying that Kemp should have been MVP, and that the writers should jump at the chance to correct the error that Costas believes they have made.

DB

13. Greg Pope Posted: February 01, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4050999)

I don't see why so many people are basing so much on the appeal. I mean, even if literally everyone on the planet believes that Braun was taking something non-performance-enhancing for his STD, he'll still fail the appeal. So saying that you will penalize* him if he loses the appeal but welcome him with open arms if he wins is just silly.

*Strip MVP, never vote for him again, keep him out of the HOF, whatever.

14. Booey Posted: February 01, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4051125)

So basically Costas is saying that Kemp should have been MVP, and that the writers should jump at the chance to correct the error that Costas believes they have made.

Exactly. And I honestly believe this is the main reason people care enough to say they should re-vote/give it to Kemp, etc. If Braun had been the hands-down, no questions asked best player in the NL, I doubt we'd be seeing these articles.

15. retro-shiite Posted: February 01, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4051130)

This would be a lot easier to deal with if they'd just given Kemp the award in the first place, as they should've.

EDIT: Or, what 14 said.

16. Fanshawe Posted: February 01, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4051186)

Ryan Braun has been a member in good standing of the NL since 2007. The allegations have no bearing on his winning the 2011 NL MVP Award.

17. DiPoto Cabengo Posted: February 01, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4051234)

Merriman's career really nosedived/dove after the steroid thing...unless he's just had a series of bad injuries. Steroids might have helped, then...

18. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: February 01, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4051280)

Reagrdless of what you think of what Costas is saying, if you did take away Bruan's award, wouldn't you simply give it to whoever finished second? There would be no revote.

And to do it retroactively is simply not a good way to do business.

19. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: February 01, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4051282)

Takeaways:
a) Costas apparently doesn't put much stock into an MVP playing for a contender. That's a bit of a surprise.
b) I don't think Costas is necessarily saying that there should be a re-vote this year. I think what he's arguing for is simply a rule closely aligned with the NFL's. Basically, I think there's sufficient leeway to give Costas the benefit of the doubt.

“But baseball ought to have a rule in place like the one football put in a few years ago,” Costas said. “You may remember (Chargers’ linebacker) Shawne Merriman (in 2006) was suspended for using performance enhancing drugs during the year, but he still made the Pro Bowl. Then they put in a rule that said, ‘Look, you can’t make the Pro Bowl or receive an honor in the year you have been sanctioned. Not suspected. Not Jose Canseco wrote a book. Not something that came up in the Mitchell Report. But under our official procedures you tested positive.’

OK, so Costas is advocating stripping a BBWAA award winner if they test positive during the season they won the award. As noted above, Braun actually tested positive AFTER the season, but let's assume Costas is defining "the season" as "Pitchers and Catchers to the conclusion of the World Series" since I think that's how the popular mind would conceive it. (I say this because that leads to the most natural definition of "offseason.)

Well, (Braun) tested positive in October of the year he won the MVP. So I think - and I’m not taking a shot at Ryan Braun here, terrific player, seems like a good guy too - but I think you submit it to a re-vote. In which case Matt Kemp would easily win. In fact, if the Dodgers had been contenders, Kemp would have won anyway because he actually had a better year than Braun.”

I think Costas is simply speculating about what would happen if his proposed rule was in place. It's certainly very, very possible that he means otherwise, but that would be draconian and against the spirit of what he said earlier:

“I understand the position that you will not be able to go back and yank guys out of the Hall of Fame if it’s subsequently discovered that they used steroids. Or even that you can’t take away A-Rod’s MVP from years ago during a period of time that he has now acknowledged that he was among those who tested positive.

Costas isn't arguing for ex-post facto application of his rule on Braun. He's simply illustrating how it would apply, and pointing out that he doesn't understand why the writers' don't do vote for something like that in the future.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Bob Costas: MVP award should be re-voted if Braun loses appeal

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics