![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Friday, December 13, 2002
Posted
2:49 PM
by Sean
Here's a pretty interesting article at Reason Online arguing - kind of - in defense of steroids in baseball. Not a position you see taken every day.
Here's a pretty interesting article at Reason Online arguing - kind of - in defense of steroids in baseball. Not a position you see taken every day.
Posted
2:32 PM
by Sean
Darin Erstad set records for consecutive errorless chances by an AL outfielder and no one realized it. Figures.
Darin Erstad set records for consecutive errorless chances by an AL outfielder and no one realized it. Figures.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
Posted
1:37 PM
by Sean
The Angels are raising their ticket prices, from a median of $16.88 to a median of $21.28. That's still only the 17th-highest median in the majors. They'll also be experimenting with "variable pricing," i.e. tying price to demand, next year.
The Angels are raising their ticket prices, from a median of $16.88 to a median of $21.28. That's still only the 17th-highest median in the majors. They'll also be experimenting with "variable pricing," i.e. tying price to demand, next year.
Posted
9:29 AM
by Sean
Hi! Do you hate money? Want to exchange it for something incredibly ugly? Have I got a link for you!
Hi! Do you hate money? Want to exchange it for something incredibly ugly? Have I got a link for you!
Posted
9:13 AM
by Sean
When did this turn into the Pete Rose blog? Anyway, John Dowd, who conducted the official investigation into Rose's gambling 13 years ago, now says that he believes Rose bet against the Reds during the time he was their manager, an allegation that has never before been made. Dowd indicates that he thinks that a more extended investigation would have found evidence to support that claim.
This seems to me to be appallingly irresponsible of Dowd. Look, either he's got evidence or he doesn't. If he does, tell us about it and let us be the judges of what it does or does not tend to prove. If he doesn't, he has absolutely no business speculating in public about what he thinks might have been found - it's ridiculously prejudicial and utterly useless from a decision-making standpoint. Dowd's a lawyer. He should know this.
Furthermore, the article seems to imply that the "evidence" we're talking about is that Rose never bet on the Reds when two particular pitchers started (the only one mentioned by name is Mario Soto). But there's a huge difference between not betting on particular pitchers to win and actually betting against your team. Maybe Rose thought those guys weren't very good, and didn't want to lose money on them. Or, granted, maybe he was betting against his team on those days. But "maybe" ain't nearly good enough, because if it is shown that Rose bet against the Reds, I don't think there's any penance he could do that would suffice to make up for it - betting against your team carries with it the presumption that you've tried to lose the game, and there's no coming back from that.
So if Dowd has real evidence, let's see it. Right now, he just looks like an ass.
When did this turn into the Pete Rose blog? Anyway, John Dowd, who conducted the official investigation into Rose's gambling 13 years ago, now says that he believes Rose bet against the Reds during the time he was their manager, an allegation that has never before been made. Dowd indicates that he thinks that a more extended investigation would have found evidence to support that claim.
This seems to me to be appallingly irresponsible of Dowd. Look, either he's got evidence or he doesn't. If he does, tell us about it and let us be the judges of what it does or does not tend to prove. If he doesn't, he has absolutely no business speculating in public about what he thinks might have been found - it's ridiculously prejudicial and utterly useless from a decision-making standpoint. Dowd's a lawyer. He should know this.
Furthermore, the article seems to imply that the "evidence" we're talking about is that Rose never bet on the Reds when two particular pitchers started (the only one mentioned by name is Mario Soto). But there's a huge difference between not betting on particular pitchers to win and actually betting against your team. Maybe Rose thought those guys weren't very good, and didn't want to lose money on them. Or, granted, maybe he was betting against his team on those days. But "maybe" ain't nearly good enough, because if it is shown that Rose bet against the Reds, I don't think there's any penance he could do that would suffice to make up for it - betting against your team carries with it the presumption that you've tried to lose the game, and there's no coming back from that.
So if Dowd has real evidence, let's see it. Right now, he just looks like an ass.
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Posted
9:06 AM
by Sean
5) What is the worst transgression in baseball?
19.7% Betting on baseball games
20.5% Failing to hustle
31.7% Using cocaine
28.1% Using steroids
Total Votes: 48,546
This is just pig-ignorant. For once, Rob Neyer and I are more or less in agreement. The question of whether or not Pete Rose bet on baseball games, or even whether or not he should be reinstated, can be argued. But anyone who thinks that "failing to hustle" is the worst transgression in baseball needs some more time in the womb. You're not done baking yet.
5) What is the worst transgression in baseball?
19.7% Betting on baseball games
20.5% Failing to hustle
31.7% Using cocaine
28.1% Using steroids
Total Votes: 48,546
This is just pig-ignorant. For once, Rob Neyer and I are more or less in agreement. The question of whether or not Pete Rose bet on baseball games, or even whether or not he should be reinstated, can be argued. But anyone who thinks that "failing to hustle" is the worst transgression in baseball needs some more time in the womb. You're not done baking yet.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Posted
9:22 AM
by Sean
Pete Rose and Bud Selig have met to discuss Rose's possible reinstatement. We'll see. Realistically, the ball is entirely in Rose's court. If he admits to betting on baseball, it's a pretty good bet that he'll eventually be reinstated. If he doesn't admit to betting on baseball, it's a certainty that he won't.
One minor point about the article's second paragraph: "The sources said nothing has been agreed to at this point -- including whether or not Rose will be reinstated or regain eligibility for Hall of Fame induction." Major League Baseball actually has no control over who does or does not get into the Hall of Fame. The Hall is run by a private foundation (the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.), and members are selected by those members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America who have been active for at least ten years. Presently, the Hall does not consider persons on MLB's ineligible list as being eligible for induction, but that's strictly their call--not MLB's, let alone Selig's. Technically, the effect of lifting the ban would, in fact, be to restore his eligibility for the Hall of Fame (although see below), but the implication that Selig has any real control over that is false.
Ironically, however, just as Rose may be moving towards removing one hurdle to his induction, another is on the horizon. The rules indicate that, in order to appear on the BWAA ballot, a player must have played at some point in the last 20 seasons. Rose's last year was 1986, meaning that he'd have to be reinstated within the next three years to be eligible for election. Of course, if blows that deadline, he'd still be elected by the Veterans' Committee, but given the contempt with which that particular body is looked upon by a lot of baseball fans, I'd guess Rose would vastly prefer election by the BWAA.
Pete Rose and Bud Selig have met to discuss Rose's possible reinstatement. We'll see. Realistically, the ball is entirely in Rose's court. If he admits to betting on baseball, it's a pretty good bet that he'll eventually be reinstated. If he doesn't admit to betting on baseball, it's a certainty that he won't.
One minor point about the article's second paragraph: "The sources said nothing has been agreed to at this point -- including whether or not Rose will be reinstated or regain eligibility for Hall of Fame induction." Major League Baseball actually has no control over who does or does not get into the Hall of Fame. The Hall is run by a private foundation (the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.), and members are selected by those members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America who have been active for at least ten years. Presently, the Hall does not consider persons on MLB's ineligible list as being eligible for induction, but that's strictly their call--not MLB's, let alone Selig's. Technically, the effect of lifting the ban would, in fact, be to restore his eligibility for the Hall of Fame (although see below), but the implication that Selig has any real control over that is false.
Ironically, however, just as Rose may be moving towards removing one hurdle to his induction, another is on the horizon. The rules indicate that, in order to appear on the BWAA ballot, a player must have played at some point in the last 20 seasons. Rose's last year was 1986, meaning that he'd have to be reinstated within the next three years to be eligible for election. Of course, if blows that deadline, he'd still be elected by the Veterans' Committee, but given the contempt with which that particular body is looked upon by a lot of baseball fans, I'd guess Rose would vastly prefer election by the BWAA.
Monday, December 09, 2002
Posted
11:35 AM
by Sean
“People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” - Rogers Hornsby
It turns out that winning the World Series for the first time is good for an extra three weeks or so before I go into baseball withdrawal. Look, I know a lot of people get off on analyzing trades and off-the-field developments, and I also know that the winter meetings are getting under way. But let me tell you something - I've always been deeply suspicious of people who spend any substantial chunk of time thinking about the business of baseball. In the winter, there's not much else to think about, but dissecting the biggest blockbuster deal ever made is still a piss-poor second to watching the Marlins play the Devil Rays when they're both seventy games out of first place. This is why kids stand in their back yards, whacking balls over the fence and circling imaginary bases to imaginary cheers, instead of sitting in their rooms, slamming down imaginary phones and gleefully announcing the imaginary acquisition of a utility infielder.
Which is also the reason that I don't see the attraction of rotisserie baseball. Or "fantasy" baseball, or whatever they're calling it now. I mean, I understand the urge to compete, and I understand being a baseball fan, but rotisserie baseball seems to combine these two in the most superficial way possible. At its core, rotisserie baseball is more about spotting trends and making business deals than it is about knowing or enjoying baseball, and if you're going to compete at spotting trends and making business deals, why the hell wouldn't you just play the stock market and make yourself some money while you're at it? If you want to really combine baseball and competition, it seems to me that there are better alternatives.
Of course, virtually all of my friends are in rotisserie leagues, and they're generally smarter than I am. So it's probably just me being obtuse.
“People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” - Rogers Hornsby
It turns out that winning the World Series for the first time is good for an extra three weeks or so before I go into baseball withdrawal. Look, I know a lot of people get off on analyzing trades and off-the-field developments, and I also know that the winter meetings are getting under way. But let me tell you something - I've always been deeply suspicious of people who spend any substantial chunk of time thinking about the business of baseball. In the winter, there's not much else to think about, but dissecting the biggest blockbuster deal ever made is still a piss-poor second to watching the Marlins play the Devil Rays when they're both seventy games out of first place. This is why kids stand in their back yards, whacking balls over the fence and circling imaginary bases to imaginary cheers, instead of sitting in their rooms, slamming down imaginary phones and gleefully announcing the imaginary acquisition of a utility infielder.
Which is also the reason that I don't see the attraction of rotisserie baseball. Or "fantasy" baseball, or whatever they're calling it now. I mean, I understand the urge to compete, and I understand being a baseball fan, but rotisserie baseball seems to combine these two in the most superficial way possible. At its core, rotisserie baseball is more about spotting trends and making business deals than it is about knowing or enjoying baseball, and if you're going to compete at spotting trends and making business deals, why the hell wouldn't you just play the stock market and make yourself some money while you're at it? If you want to really combine baseball and competition, it seems to me that there are better alternatives.
Of course, virtually all of my friends are in rotisserie leagues, and they're generally smarter than I am. So it's probably just me being obtuse.