Comments on: It’s the end of the Cy as we know it …

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:52:52 +0000

But this conflict of interest doesn’t benefit Selig or the Brewers, so he might not be as blind as you think.

The only thing that is wrong with the BBWAA voting–and everyone reading a blog already knows this–is the stereotypical, oozing superiority of the crusty old beat reporter. Newspapers are dying, and it’s denizens are frightfully nostalgic. And thanks to all the good work of the ‘basement geeks’ with ‘absolutely no credentials,’ those that aren’t afraid of new acronyms have been swayed.

Embrace the future, BBWAA!

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:31:06 +0000

Please tell me that nobody here really thinks for even half a second that the guy who “avoided” the inherent conflict of interest of owning a team in the league while serving as commissioner of the league by putting the team he owned into a temporary trust run by his daughter will be able to even realize that there’s a potential conflict of interest here, let alone show any interest in doing anything to stop it.

By: tangotiger

tangotiger — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:51:00 +0000

I agree with Chris.

This is similar to People’s “sexiest english-speaking person on the planet” award, voted on by whoever People’s deems worthy.

I’d like the writer’s to vote on the award, and NOT report on the award. Let the rest of the world establish its relevancy. Heck, the reason you have the award is so you have something to report on. Since when are journalists part of the story?

By: Paul White

Paul White — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:12:17 +0000

Snuckles – You may want to re-read my comment.

“…for nearly every Chick Hafey the VC elects while you scratch your head, thereâ€™s a Catfish Hunter or Rabbit Maranville or Herb Pennock that the BBWAA inducted…”

VC – Hafey
BBWAA – Hunter, Maranville, Pennock

Sorry if that’s not clear.

By: Snuckles

Snuckles — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:19:57 +0000

Re: Paul White, post #3:

Not that Catfish Hunter is the apex of the Hall’s membership, but he was voted in by the writers, not the VC.

By: John

John — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:52:53 +0000

I don’t mean to pick, Aaron, but I find your plan woefully lacking. I’d call it “fantasy baseball”, not sabermetric. The categories would have to be weighted, because a stolen base for example is not worth as much as a home run. And runs and rbi are team and lineup dependent. And you’d be double-counting AVG in OPS. And yes, it would have to be park adjusted. And most importantly you’re not accounting for defense at all. And on and on…

But if you wanted to go that route you could use Win Shares, WARP or some other all-inclusive metric. Again, sorry to pile on. No wonder there’s a lot of resentment toward saber-types.

By: Madwoman

Madwoman — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:51:08 +0000

One interesting thing about the Schilling clause: it was reportedly Theo Epstein’s idea. I can’t decide just what message he was trying to send. Another interesting thing: how ready sportswriters are to suggest that their brethren can be bought. BTW, Schilling said the other day that if he got a vote he didn’t think he deserved, he’d either refuse to accept the money or just donate it to charity.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:34:18 +0000

“Thatâ€™s $1 million for writing 12 letters on a piece of paper, and itâ€™s too problematic.”

Since when does “Curt Schilling” have only 12 letters?

By: Jason W

Jason W — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:25:16 +0000

How about we just pay these guys cash. Remove incentives altogether. You’ll be paid based on past performance and future projection. We’ll just keep it simple. If the player’s union insists on ruining the professional game, how will all of these guys make money?

Before you call me old fashioned let me suggest getting rid of the DH and wild card too.

By: Chris Dankberg

Chris Dankberg — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:15:07 +0000

I think you’re right about BBWWA’s perch. It is unique, and these awards are meaningful in large part to the organization. You’re also right that the awards are imperfect, as all awards are. I think it makes sense to protect the quirky institutions that make baseball, baseball. Even if it’s at the expense of Rob Neyer and Joe Sheehan (both fine writers in their own right). So why not change the language in the CBA that currently prohibits incentives based on performance? I believe the origin of the rules is Marvin Miller’s insistence that players be paid on current market value, and not subjected to a pay for performance structure. That’s still a risk, to some extent. But I think most of the fears about ownership have subsided. Guaranteeing Schilling $1 million for reaching his 100th strikeout would have the same impact.