Oh my goodness! The baseball season is over three weeks old and I haven't blogged ANYTHING on here since Opening Day! What is WRONG with me? Nothing really; other than the fact that I've been busy with my day job, Tupperware business, weekly blog posts for my local paper, spring break (which included a trip to Nationals Park), kids' activities, and life in general. Oh, and the fact that my Nationals have lost 8 of their last 11 games has been a bit of a downer. Buy I'm a pretty optimistic person, so I won't let their current .500 record get me down.
So what have been some of the surprises so far this year (aside from the Nationals leading the Major Leagues in errors)? First I have to mention the Toronto Blue Jays. They're in last place in the AL East with a record of 8-13 despite having star players like Melky Cabrera (who still hasn't hit a home run), José Reyes (currently on the Disabled List), and last year's Cy Young Award winner R.A. Dickey (who is 2-3 so far with a 4.86 ERA). As much hype as the Blue Jays got during the off-season, you'd think they'd be solidly in first place (kind of like the hype the Nats got... yeah.) Then there's the Yankees, who are 11-8 despite not having Derek Jeter, Curtis Granderson, or Alex Rodriguez in their lineup. And how about that Justin Upton? He's leading the Majors with 11 home runs and is helping the Atlanta Braves maintain first place in the NL East. It's annoying how good he is!
One thing I do want to focus on in today's post is the Designated Hitter. Now if you're a regular reader of this blog, you probably know that I am not a fan of the DH. In fact, I believe I have said before that if I were ever to become Commissioner of baseball, the DH is something I would eliminate. Well in last Sunday's Baltimore Sun, columnist Kevin Cowherd (What is it with that newspaper having columnists with funny last names? First it was Schmuck and now Cowherd?) said that the Designated Hitter needs to be made universal. Is Mr. Cowherd on crack? Does he not like when a pitcher happens to hit an unexpected extra-base hit? Does he not appreciate the double-switch? Does he just want managers to sit there and not manage? I had a hard time digesting Mr. Cowherd's justifications.
First of all, Mr. Cowherd can't tolerate when a pitcher stands there looking at a few fastballs just to end up striking out. Clearly he missed Stephen Strasburg's double a couple of weeks ago or the home run hit by Gio Gonzalez in his first start of the season. Has he seen switch-hitting Carlos Zambrano lately? How about the Rockies' Micah Owings, who in only two seasons has 5 home runs, a .316 batting average, and is often used as a pinch hitter? Clearly not. And what's wrong with the sacrifice bunt? Some pitchers like current free agent Liván Hernandez are masterful bunters. I'm no braniac, but the name Babe Ruth seems to come to mind right about now when thinking about pitchers who could hit... I don't know why.
I do agree with Mr. Cowherd in that having the DH does extend the career of some players (like that of David "Big Papi" Ortiz). But if Ortiz was in the National League, he could still pinch hit; it's not like pitchers always bat for themselves and the guys on the bench never play. Au contraire - this is when the double switch comes in and the game becomes more strategic (which Mr. Cowherd does not appreciate). He just wants to see big-muscled guys hitting home runs instead of having to "watch a pitcher flail away like a blindfolded kid hacking at a piñata. Problem is, being an Orioles fan, he has not seen a lot of National League pitchers who can actually bat. Check out Dontrell Willis, Jason Marquis, and even CC Sabathia - they can all hit. And now that there are interleague games being played almost daily, it's time for pitchers in both leagues to take batting practice and help their teams offensively. Even if it's with a sacrifice fly, a bunt, or a surprising extra-base hit.
Showing posts with label Baltimore Sun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baltimore Sun. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Baseball's Fifty Shades of Gray
Happy new year, my friends! The holidays are over, kids are back in school, and the ballots for the 2013 inductees into the National Baseball Hall of Fame are in. On January 9, the Hall of Fame will announce this year's inductees, which will no doubt cause a lot of controversy and discussion among baseball enthusiasts and non-fans alike.
You see, this year's ballot reflects baseball's "steroid era," featuring players like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens. The list also includes "nice guys" like Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, and Don Mattingly, and 3 Puerto Ricans (Edgar Martinez, Bernie Williams, and Sandy Alomar, Jr). So what makes a player worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame? That's where the gray areas exist.
According to the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA):
"Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." (I copied this right off the BBWAA website).
Baltimore Sun columnist, Peter Schmuck, recently wrote an article in which he said that "Based on any strict standards of ethics or morality, there are plenty of players in the Hall of Fame who must have sneaked in through the back door." So if a player's character is questionable but does not affect the way he plays baseball (is he an alcoholic, a racist, a wife-beater, or does he actively bet on baseball?), should he still be in the Hall of Fame? Again, that's where the gray areas lie (for the record, I don't think Pete Rose should be in the Hall, but that's a whole other blog for another day!). Would the careers of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have been as successful without the steroids? For how many years did they actually use performance-enhancing drugs? Were they considered elite athletes before the alleged drug use began? Yet more questions and more gray areas. It doesn't help their cause that both Bonds and Clemens are idiots, but then again, do you vote for the nice guys as opposed to the asses? If that's the case, then Steve Carlton shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame (and I think he's worthy of being there, despite having played with the Phillies). Schmuck (gotta love that name!), who is a member of the BBWAA but cannot vote because of the policies of his employer (I'd change jobs, if I were him), says he would vote for both Bonds and Clemens, as well as for former catcher Mike Piazza, who was never accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, yet he had big biceps and hit tons of home runs during the same era.
If I were a voting member of the BBWAA (which I hope to someday be!), I would vote for the following players (voters can pick up to 10):
(Craig Biggio was on my original list because he was a catcher, he reached 3.000 hits, and he had boyish good looks, but I agree with Peter Gammons on this one - he just wasn't spectacular enough to be a Hall of Famer. Sorry, Craig!)
So yeah, of the current list of players, I only found 4 of them to be worthy of Hall of Fame status (I know, I'm a hard-ass, but I take my fictitious voting very seriously!). No Sosa, no McGwire (I "mis-remembered" to vote for him), no Bonds, and no Clemens. We'll find out next week if any of my selections were actually chosen by the BBWAA writers; for now, if you're a current baseball player reading this (and there are many of you, I'm sure!), hit the ball hard, be nice to the media, stay healthy, and keep your nose clean. And maybe, just maybe, I'll be voting for you someday!
You see, this year's ballot reflects baseball's "steroid era," featuring players like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens. The list also includes "nice guys" like Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, and Don Mattingly, and 3 Puerto Ricans (Edgar Martinez, Bernie Williams, and Sandy Alomar, Jr). So what makes a player worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame? That's where the gray areas exist.
According to the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA):
"Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." (I copied this right off the BBWAA website).
Baltimore Sun columnist, Peter Schmuck, recently wrote an article in which he said that "Based on any strict standards of ethics or morality, there are plenty of players in the Hall of Fame who must have sneaked in through the back door." So if a player's character is questionable but does not affect the way he plays baseball (is he an alcoholic, a racist, a wife-beater, or does he actively bet on baseball?), should he still be in the Hall of Fame? Again, that's where the gray areas lie (for the record, I don't think Pete Rose should be in the Hall, but that's a whole other blog for another day!). Would the careers of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have been as successful without the steroids? For how many years did they actually use performance-enhancing drugs? Were they considered elite athletes before the alleged drug use began? Yet more questions and more gray areas. It doesn't help their cause that both Bonds and Clemens are idiots, but then again, do you vote for the nice guys as opposed to the asses? If that's the case, then Steve Carlton shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame (and I think he's worthy of being there, despite having played with the Phillies). Schmuck (gotta love that name!), who is a member of the BBWAA but cannot vote because of the policies of his employer (I'd change jobs, if I were him), says he would vote for both Bonds and Clemens, as well as for former catcher Mike Piazza, who was never accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, yet he had big biceps and hit tons of home runs during the same era.
If I were a voting member of the BBWAA (which I hope to someday be!), I would vote for the following players (voters can pick up to 10):
- Curt Schilling (Any pitcher with over 3,000 strikeouts and over 200 wins is Hall of Fame worthy, in my opinion. So what if his video game business went bankrupt and he recently had to fire everyone?)
- Mike Piazza (You know how I love catchers, plus his career batting average over .300, 12 All-Star Game appearances, and Rookie of the Year award in 1993 are not too shabby)
- Don Mattingly (How is it that he's not in the Hall yet? I know he's a Yankee, but he's worthy!)
- Edgar Martinez (Not because he's Puerto Rican, but because of his career .312 batting average, 2 batting titles, and overall consistency. Unfortunately, Edgar was a very quiet guy who played for crappy Seattle teams, so he's not as popular as most nominees. I don't think he'll ever get selected.) :-(
(Craig Biggio was on my original list because he was a catcher, he reached 3.000 hits, and he had boyish good looks, but I agree with Peter Gammons on this one - he just wasn't spectacular enough to be a Hall of Famer. Sorry, Craig!)
So yeah, of the current list of players, I only found 4 of them to be worthy of Hall of Fame status (I know, I'm a hard-ass, but I take my fictitious voting very seriously!). No Sosa, no McGwire (I "mis-remembered" to vote for him), no Bonds, and no Clemens. We'll find out next week if any of my selections were actually chosen by the BBWAA writers; for now, if you're a current baseball player reading this (and there are many of you, I'm sure!), hit the ball hard, be nice to the media, stay healthy, and keep your nose clean. And maybe, just maybe, I'll be voting for you someday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)