MLB 2021-22 Hot Stove/Picket Line Thread

[goalieboy82]

3 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

If given the option of Schilling or Glavine in a one-game, winner-take-all situation, I'm taking Schilling in a cocaine heartbeat. Zero hesitation about that. It's pretty easy to hate a whole bunch of things about Curt Schilling the person, both then and especially since then, but I've always found his HoF credentials to be pretty much beyond dispute, myself. Pretty sure I wrote a post just like this back around 2014 or '15 as well so this isn't a new perspective.

me too:

that must have hurt.

[tBBP]

Maybe that sock should be in the Hall of Fame. 

 

Switching gears a bit, only because I just saw the list if nominees: how do you guys feel about Scott Rolen? Of course I ain't the biggest baseball guy, but I recall dude's name coming up just about every time Sportscenter was on (back when they actually still cared about covering sports). I don't know his stats, but wasn't he considered one of the best 3Bs in the game at one point? I don't know how that stacks up against other 3Bs in MLB history, though.

[infrared41]

18 minutes ago, tBBP said:

Maybe that sock should be in the Hall of Fame. 

 

Switching gears a bit, only because I just saw the list if nominees: how do you guys feel about Scott Rolen? Of course I ain't the biggest baseball guy, but I recall dude's name coming up just about every time Sportscenter was on (back when they actually still cared about covering sports). I don't know his stats, but wasn't he considered one of the best 3Bs in the game at one point? I don't know how that stacks up against other 3Bs in MLB history, though.

 

If Ron Santo is in then Scott Rolen deserves to be in too. They're basically the same player. That said, I don't believe either one of them is HOF worthy.

 

If I had my way, this discussion would be about all the players I had removed from the Baseball Hall of Fame.

[BBTV]

23 minutes ago, tBBP said:

Maybe that sock should be in the Hall of Fame. 

 

Switching gears a bit, only because I just saw the list if nominees: how do you guys feel about Scott Rolen? Of course I ain't the biggest baseball guy, but I recall dude's name coming up just about every time Sportscenter was on (back when they actually still cared about covering sports). I don't know his stats, but wasn't he considered one of the best 3Bs in the game at one point? I don't know how that stacks up against other 3Bs in MLB history, though.

 

I'll always remember Scott Rolen as a guy that couldn't handle the media and the fans in Philadelphia and demanded a trade to a passive midwestern city, which ended up being St. Louis.  It's one thing if you're a star and want out because the team sucks and isn't committed to getting better, but while he was very good, he wasn't at the level where he could pull a stunt like that at that time, so he pulled the "you guys are meanies!" act.

[SFGiants58]

A guy leaving a city for his mental health shouldn’t be seen as a problem. A lot of people need the right situation to thrive, which was St. Louis for Scott Rolen. Of course, I remember him the most for this:

 

The 2012 Reds, with a healthy Cueto, would’ve won the title that year.

[ManillaToad]

3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Also, Bonds being excluded is pearl-clutching nonsense. People need to get over themselves.

 

Barry Bonds beat his pregnant wife and threatened to kill her. Maybe if he had gotten over himself and not been such a pathetic narcissist both on and off the field he'd be in the Hall right now

[MJWalker45]

6 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

If given the option of Schilling or Glavine in a one-game, winner-take-all situation, I'm taking Schilling in a cocaine heartbeat. Zero hesitation about that. It's pretty easy to hate a whole bunch of things about Curt Schilling the person, both then and especially since then, but I've always found his HoF credentials to be pretty much beyond dispute, myself. Pretty sure I wrote a post just like this back around 2014 or '15 as well so this isn't a new perspective.

I'd probably take Tom. He was a steady presence on those Braves teams and was only eclipsed once Maddux came in to the team. 

 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

A guy leaving a city for his mental health shouldn’t be seen as a problem. 

 

You're definitely not wrong, but when it's your team, it's tough to see that side of it and not look at it as abandonment.  Same thing is going on with Ben Simmons.  But that goes to my argument about Mike Trout - there's some places that for one reason or another are just harder to play in, and accomplishments there mean more than piling up stats where there's no pressure or expectations.  While we've seen that the BFiB are possibly the WFiB, there's no doubt that it's a much cushier situation than playing on the east coast.  Cincinnati even more so.

 

I don't think Rolen is a HOFer.  He was never the best at his position, was only in the MVP discussion once, was an excellent defensive 3rd baseman but never considered among the best of all time, and was never one of those guys that (outside of his initial trade from PHL to STL) was especially coveted by other teams.  

 

He had a good WS in '06, and that counts for something, but he's the perfect example of how it's the HOF, not the hall of the very very good players.  I probably gave him one "very" too many.  He was very good.  That's it.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Scott Rolen is Paul O'Neill level, right?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Normally I'm happy when people I find abhorrent (like Curt Schilling) don't get what they want.

 

However, as a casual observer of MLB, Schilling seems like a guy that should be in. Or at least someone integral to the history of the game while at his peak. I just checked his Wiki, and saw that he was an NLCS MVP and WS MVP almost a decade apart from each other, he has 3,000 strikeouts, he led the MLB in wins twice, NL in strikeouts twice (different years than leading in wins), was a six-time all star, and won three titles.

 

As a human being, Schilling deserves to be shunned from civilised society, and possibly prosecuted for hate speech.  But as a ballplayer, his Hall of Fame case is strong, especially considering the 3000 strikeouts and the postseason excellence.

But he is not quite a shoo-in.  He did lead the league in wins twice, and won 20 games three times.  But his career total of 216 wins is actually rather low for a guy who pitched in the big leagues into his 40s.  This is due to his having been used as a reliever for a couple of years early in his career.  Still, Tom Glavine has almost 100 more wins; and even non-Hall-member Tommy John (another guy who went full wacko after his playing days, but let's leave that aside) has in excess of 70 more wins.

On the other hand, Schilling's case is better than that of Jack Morris, and not far off that of Jim Kaat.

 

7 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Also, Bonds being excluded is pearl-clutching nonsense. People need to get over themselves.

This is absolutely correct.  Bonds not only deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, he deserves a formal apology.  And the same goes for Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and Alex Rodriguez.  We can only hope that the voters who persist in the ugly groupthink that keeps these amazing players out will eventually be supplanted by voters who will correct this error, by means of rejiggering the committees or whatever else needs to be done.

And I will go further:  Pete Rose deserves his place amongst baseball's all-time greats.  Rose knowingly broke a cardinal rule, and so to that extent deserves a punishment that he knew he was risking, namely being banned from baseball.  But it is wrong to dismiss the significant fact that he bet only on his team, never against it.  While betting on one's own team can raise some theoretical objections (e.g.: did Rose perhaps fail to use a pitcher in a game that he hadn't bet on, saving that pitcher for a game that he bet on?), Rose was never actually accused of compromising his team's interests.  Rose's transgressions were were technical in nature, consisting of the violation of a rule; they were not ethical lapses, or betrayals of his responsibility to his team.  While a ban on his working in baseball may be an appropriate response to his having broken the rule on betting, a refusal to acknowledge his great playing career is most definitely not appropriate, especially given the fact that the betting for which he is banned took place after he had retired as a player.  Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame has decided that anyone on baseball's ineligible list cannot be elected; this is fundamentally wrong, and needs to be changed.

For me, as long as the Hall of Fame neglects Rose, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and Rodriguez, it shames itself, and it does a grave disservice to the history that it is tasked with preserving.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

While betting on one's own team can raise some theoretical objections (e.g.: did Rose perhaps fail to use a pitcher in a game that he hadn't bet on, saving that pitcher for a game that he bet on?), Rose was never actually accused of compromising his team's interests.  Rose's transgressions were were technical in nature, consisting of the violation of a rule; they were not ethical lapses, or betrayals of his responsibility to his team.

 

Isn't this a little contradictory?  How could betting on your team not be an "ethical lapse"?  And how could it not influence moves you make?  You're telling me he didn't manage a game he bet on like it was game 7 of the WS at the expense of some other meaningless game?  I get that your point is that he was never directly accused of that and never found guilty of that, but a reasonable person can assume that his bets had to have an impact on his decision making, and therefore the team's interests.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 minutes ago, BBTV said:

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

While betting on one's own team can raise some theoretical objections (e.g.: did Rose perhaps fail to use a pitcher in a game that he hadn't bet on, saving that pitcher for a game that he bet on?), Rose was never actually accused of compromising his team's interests.  Rose's transgressions were were technical in nature, consisting of the violation of a rule; they were not ethical lapses, or betrayals of his responsibility to his team.

 

Isn't this a little contradictory?  How could betting on your team not be an "ethical lapse"?  And how could it not influence moves you make?  You're telling me he didn't manage a game he bet on like it was game 7 of the WS at the expense of some other meaningless game?  I get that your point is that he was never directly accused of that and never found guilty of that, but a reasonable person can assume that his bets had to have an impact on his decision making, and therefore the team's interests.

 

A manager typically tries to win every game.  (Side note: Though I can think of a manager who didn't do that, a manager who definitely hurt his team's interests much more than Rose ever did his team's, even though that manager was never accused of betting during any of his multiple stints with the team.  Aaanyway...)  If any pattern of irregular use of players existed during Rose's time as the Reds' manager, the investigation by John Dowd would have found it, and would have publicised it. 

I feel that I must add here that, even though I don't believe that Rose compromised his team's interests, I certainly do not condone what Rose did; and, as I mentioned, I cannot disagree with his ban from working in baseball.  The rule prohibiting betting on baseball is a good rule which exists for a very sound reason; Rose knowingly broke that rule, and so he should be made to pay the price of forfeiting eligibility to work in the game.

But Rose's bad acts as manager do not erase his great playing career.   His legacy is tainted; but he is not fit to be ignored, especially considering the absence of any evidence of his betrayal of his team's interests.  If he had thrown games or had bet against his team, that would be different — not just in magnitude, but in kind.  Even factoring in his breaking of an important rule, Rose still constitues a positive in baseball history, and he should not be denied an honour that he earned as a player.   

[Dilbert]

Umpire Joe West has officially retired.

[DEAD!]

8 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

Umpire Joe West has officially retired.

 

Of all people... Fergie Jenkins throws a heater...

 

[BBTV]

Screw "cowboy" Joe West.  If you know an umpire's name - and especially if you know their nickname, they're bad.  I'll never forget all the times Harry Kalas, who rarely criticized umpires or opponents, took Joe West to task for being not only bad at his job, but an attention-seeking fake-tough-guy hothead.  Can't believe he lasted as long as he did.

 

Good riddance.

 

 

[LMU]

There’ll be some more drama once the league is up and running again.

 

[TBGKon]

So this has to be an official announcement of delay to spring training report dates right?

 

 

[OnWis97]

So whenever MLB comes back it'll be with universal DH.  It was inevitable. But I mourn the loss of the original game. Yeah, I'm one of "those" fans (and a fan of an AL team, no less). I find the now-former NL game more interesting.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

So whenever MLB comes back it'll be with universal DH.  It was inevitable. But I mourn the loss of the original game. Yeah, I'm one of "those" fans (and a fan of an AL team, no less). I find the now-former NL game more interesting.

 

It'll be one of the few wins the players association gets and one of the few benefits for middle-class free agents.

[mcj882000]

There's a few reasons I prefer pitchers hitting to the DH: for one it kept hitting and scoring down ever so slightly, thus shortening games a tiny bit. One of the pro-DH arguments I've seen is that more scoring will bring fans in, but... will it? Offense in baseball has never been higher than in the last 2-3 years, but attendance and TV ratings keep dropping.  Sure, it's probably not because of longer high scoring games (even if I personally feel the home run is approaching oversaturation), but all that slugging sure isn't reversing the decline!

For another, it means more strategy: in the NL of old, a manager would have to make decisions late in a close game; does he keep his hot starting pitcher in, or take him out for a pinch hitter? Does he keep the pinch hitter in afterwards? If so, who does he take out? In the AL, a manager can get away with leaving his starting 9 in for an entire game with no further adjustments, and I know this because that's what I do in MVP Baseball or The Show.

I also don't think some of us realize - or want to admit - just how much entertainment value there is in watching someone try to do something but fail at it. There's a reason stuff like Jackass, Failarmy, AFV, etc. were and are popular. Watching people be incompetent at something is hugely entertaining, at least in my opinion! And of course that general lack of competence what makes it all the more special when a pitcher does get a hit or even a home run; half of why Bartolo Colon is a legend nowadays is because of that one home run he hit.

There's also an irony inherent to this entire situation, I feel: baseball's first slugging superstar, the guy who almost single-handedly pulled the sport out of the doldrums of the dead-ball era, was a pitcher.  One of baseball's current most popular batters, the reigning MVP and slugging champion, is a pitcher. If baseball had never, ever made pitchers hit, at every level of the game in every part of the world, then two of baseball's most important hitters (including the most important hitter) never would have even gotten a look as a hitter; they would have stayed as just pitchers.

I say this as a baseball fan myself, but the ultimate reality, what its rulers are being forced to come to terms with now, is that baseball just isn't a very exciting sport. 10 guys stand in a field for hours, one of them hits a ball with a stick and a couple of them go chase it. Pitchers hitting was one of those odd quirks of baseball that maybe should have never been a thing at all, yet it was and we put up with it for decades, and now IMO it's part of the sport's charm. Take it and other quirks away and I feel we're losing more than we realize - as one person put it in a tweet I always wind up revisiting, "The best thing about baseball is that it is Strange. any time it gets less Strange, it gets more boring." Take away baseball's quirks, and what are you left with? 10 guys standing in a field for hours.