User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.2903 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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. The District Attorney Posted: April 28, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4118576)No, he isn't.
Anyway, how do I change my party registration?
I don't really understand the science, but isn't it widely accepted that warmer temperatures lead to more run scoring, including more home runs? Now, as #1 says, I'm not seeing the "rise in home runs" that actually needs to be explained over the past two or three years, but if we're talking about going back to what triggered the "Steroid Era", isn't "global warming" one plausible answer?
The difference in temperatures from global warming is a fraction of the difference in temperatures between April and July. While it could have a very small impact, it isn't anything like the rise in home runs that we saw.
And unless something happened in 2002 and again a few years ago, we can't explain why home runs have dropped like they have.
We have a good handle on the affects of weather on ball travel, and the actual temperature change we're talking about is so slight that it just wouldn't make that big a difference. It would just be completely dwarfed by dozens (maybe hundreds) of other factors, juiced balls, juiced players, the popularity of denser in wood bats, new parks, and the addition of teams in high altitude cities like Denver and Phoenix, to name a few.
Besides, I'm don't think the average temperature during actual baseball games is going up. Not only are there way more night games now than historically, but the expansion of the playoffs and the 162 game schedule have pushed the starting date forward from mid-April to (in some seasons) the end of March.
And his theory is that the air is thinner, not that temperatures are higher.
I would agree with you on that. It probably wasn't among the top 10 dumbest things McCarver said that night, let alone "one of the stupidest things ever spoken on a television broadcast".
Well, the award is presented by the HOF, and he gets a plaque in the HOF Library, doesn't he? And gives a speech on HOF weekend? I presume that you don't dispute that the library of the HOF is "in" the HOF, right? Why is it important to people to parse out that the award is not "in" the HOF?
Edit: I just realized that this is the same thing that the Queen bowed to when in her memorial speech about Diana she referred to her as "the people's princess." The Frick award is part of the people's HOF. It's also like people saying that certain kinds of money are "fiat" money when all money is--in the credit era--fiat money.
If I buy a ticket and walk in, does that make me in the HOF?
Maybe. But if you neutralize Jeter's stats to 2000 Coors Field, his career high BA is .390 in 1999 (although he gets to .387 in 2006, and .375 in 2009)
Jeter and glaciers do have something in common
Only until closing time.
Anyway, Frick Award recipients do not get individual plaques in the HOF library; they get their names added to a single plaque. And I can't speak to why "people" want to parse out that Frick Award winners are not "in" the HOF, but I will note that the people who run the HOF make a point of emphasizing that Frick and Spink Award recipients are not inducted into the HOF.
Perhaps so, but most people who hear or read that X is a "Hall of Fame writer" know that he's being honored somewhere within the Hall of Fame, and that if they travel to Cooperstown they'll find his name displayed within the Hall of Fame's library. The Hall of Fame may have its reasons for making it clear that the Frick and Spink Award winners aren't really "in" the Hall of Fame, but in reality it's a pedantic and rather meaningless distinction. Much as it may pain some people, Murray Chass and Bill Madden are more "in" the Hall of Fame than Pete Rose or Jack Morris.
So when I go visit the Hall of Fame, I can call up the paper and they will happily report that I am now in the Hall of Fame?
EDIT: Coke.
Priceless. The Hall of Fame goes out of its way to make it clear that these people are not in the Hall of Fame, and, yet, you conclude that that is a "pedantic and rather meaningless distinction."
These people are not in the Hall of Fame.
No. Chass and Madden are just as out as Rose and Morris. It's a binary thing, Andy. One is either in or out. You can't be half pregnant here.
Americansportscastersonline (there's a url for ya) refers to 1992 Hall of Fame inductee Vin Scully. On April 10/12/15, when he was out for a bit then returned to the booth, ESPN referred to him as an HoF broadcaster. Sporting News also referred to him that way. Officialvinscully.com (which may or may not be official as far as I know) says it is the official site of the HoF Broadcaster.
Now, perhaps if these sites were questioned, they would point out that Scully (and Caray and ...) is in the sportstcasters HoF, the Radio HoF and probably a few more HoFs.
Those guys are all Friends of Dorothy? I really need to keep up with this sort of this. Is there a scorecard somewhere?
By themselves. It's like me "regularly referring" to myself as the sexiest man alive.
My point was about the source of the pedantry. #15 sort of implies that it comes from "people" like the DA (in #13). The reality is that it comes from the directors of the HOF. If "it's their museum, they can do what they want" is an appropriate reaction to Pete Rose, Marc Ecko, etc, etc, then why isn't it appropriate on this issue?
Whereas it's usually Andy saying that about you.
I'm pretty sure that Vin Scully has never referred to himself as a hall of famer, but he is frequently introduced and written about as Hall of Fame announcer Vin Scully.
That would certainly be worthy of the title of "climactic change."
Again: he is written about that way by the people whose self interest is to create and promote that misconception.
---
No. Writing "HOFer" instead of "Hall of Famer" is for convenience. Writing "Hall of Famer" instead of, well, "not a Hall of Famer" is just a lie.
36. RayDiPerna Posted: April 29, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4119020)
That's a pretty neat trick, there. You say two different things in two different posts (themselves in #30; others in #36) and then tie them together with the word "again", in order to imply that you said the same thing both times.
DB
I said the exact same thing in both posts. In the first post, "by themselves" was in direct response to "such writers and broadcasters." In the second post, "the people" was in direct response to the people who "introduce and write about Vin Scully," i.e., "such writers and broadcasters."
And Vin Scully, whose website dishonestly refers to him has having been "inducted into the Broadcaster’s wing of the National Baseball Hall of Fame as the Ford C. Frick Award recipient." There is no "broadcaster's wing." He hasn't been "inducted" into anything -- as the Hall of Fame takes careful pains to point out on its website in the Museum (note: not the Hall of Famers) section:
Scully is an award recipient -- not a Hall of Famer. He's listed as part of an exhibit. He's not in the plaque room. Scully didn't receive 75% of any vote. He wasn't part of some VC induction. He won an award, which is an honor, but doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.
I see. If that's the case, then how do you explain the quote in its full context:
30. RayDiPerna Posted: April 29, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4118908)
Because it seems pretty clear that the "themselves" in your first sentence is meant to equal "myself" in your second sentence. In other words, not some third party.
DB
By a first party, or a third party. In this case, Scully qualifies, as his own website pretends he's a Hall of Fame inductee.
This doesn't add much to the argument, since he did win some kind of election to get the award and for all I know (since I can't find any Frick or Spink award voting results) might well have received more than 75%.
Ford C. Frick is himself a HOFer, of course.
Well, granted, he was on a 10-person ballot voted on by 20 members. So he may well have received "75% of the vote" by happenstance. Or he may not have. The point is that the 75% threshold is irrelevant, as one person (and only one person) wins this award every year, and the "vote" is not the same as an induction vote.
Sheesh. I should think what I posted in #38 from the Hall of Fame's own explanation of the award would have put this issue to rest. "Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee)." That pretty much ends the ballgame. Why are people still arguing the point?
Which one is the Tin Man?
So you're saying that when you used the word "themselves", you really meant "themselves, or some others who are not them".
Thanks for clearing that up.
DB
I'm not arguing the point, I'm arguing the argument. To the extent that I ever was arguing the point, I was arguing your side.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main