Last fall I read a book, The Cooperstown Casebook by Jay Jaffe. Its subtitle tells it all: "Who's in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Who Should Be, and Who Should Pack Their Plaques." The book piqued my interest, esp as those who know me at all, because of my strong belief that Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall.
But the book raised some good questions, made some good points, and provided food for thought. No doubt some of it is controversial, both for and against. And, as usual, I have spent some time, months later, thinking about it.
Has Baseball's Hall of Fame become a "Hall of Very Good" or even a "Hall of Good?" I don't mean to diminish the achievements of any of these players. From a personal level, I realize how skilled they were. In fact, I appreciate the skill levels of even the last players on the benches or in the bullpens. Most people probably don't recognize how good even these players are. Try to remember the best players you ever played with or against. Did any of them play in the Major Leagues?
Back to Jaffe's book. He suggests that, for many people, the Cooperstown as become a Hall of Valuable. Hmmm...... Is that bad? Isn't "value" a large part of "fame?" What about sentimentality, emotion? Do they water down the Hall of Fame?
But the best parts of the book are the analyses of players, "Who's in...Who Should Be...Who Should Pack......" Yes, Jaffe favors he admission of Ted Simmons. Hooray! But we all have our favorites, too. A recent newspaper article about Detroit Tiger Bill Freehan led to questions of why he doesn't have a plaque at Cooperstown. Maybe he doesn't have gaudy stats, but Freehan was an All-Star 11 of the 15 years he played, 11 of his last 13 years. That is, he was the premier American League catcher of his time. I suppose some might say that was because of other, weak catchers of those years. But somebody from then thought he was pretty darn good. And how do we compare players and their statistics with those of different eras? The game changes, from the ball, bats, and other equipment to the height of the pitcher's mound to the way the game is played/managers manage. In reality, the only fair comparison is with others of who played at he same time.
Some of Jaffe's picks are controversial. Yes, Simmons, Freehan, and Lou Whitaker should be in and he is critical of a Hall that doesn't include them. Some, such as Andruw Jones of the Braves and Jack Morris, are maybes. Those who he thinks should be "packing their plaques" include Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, and even Lefty Gomez and Catfish Hunter. No doubt, in some of these instances, election was based on emotion. Think Bill Mazeroski and the '61 Series. I'd guess others had to do with keeping names up front, for instance Rizzuto and Kell as long-time team announcers on radio/television. Did Jim Bunning's tenure in Congress affect his election? That doesn't mean these players aren't Hall worthy, although Jaffe thinks so.
Is longevity a factor? After all, Sandy Koufax had a relatively short career and, in fact, had only five seasons that were outstanding. Of course, during those five years he was probably the best pitcher baseball has ever seen. I recall one Series game, in '63 I think, when he threw a three-hit shutout vs the Yankees, using just his fastball due to an arm problem. And the Yanks knew that, that Koufax was throwing only fastballs. After whiffing for the fourth time, Mickey Mantle returned to the dugout, threw his bat into the bat rack, and swore "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!" Indeed. By the way, I think Koufax is a no-brainer; he is deserving. But what about Nellie Fox? He played all or parts of 19 seasons and was one of the toughest batters to strike out in MLB history. But he wasn't a career .300 hitter and didn't amass 3,000 hits. He accumulated only 35 home runs. Hmmm......
Many now use Sabermetrics to evaluate players. Sabermetrics is an empirical analysis of the game, applying statistics to evaluate players, including those of different years. But, as noted above, the game has changed many times over the years. Ty Cobb led the league in HRs only once and the most he ever hit in a season were twelve. At one time, stealing bases was deemed more important than power hitting. How about the reliance on "relief pitching by committee," with "closers," "set-up men," and, I suppose, "set up men to set up men?"
One final word on sabermetrics and statistical analyses. I think this leaves out some intangibles, things that can't be measured. For instance, sabermetrics, if I understand this correctly, holds that teams should forgot sacrifice bunts, that runners score more often when not sacrificing. But doesn't that discount what could happen, what can't be quantified? If the threat of a bunt is there, all sorts of things happen. Pitchers have added pressure, to throw the ball high. Getting the ball up might make it easier for a potential bunter to hit rather than bunt. After all, unless the defense is stealing the other teams signs, it must prepare for the bunt. There is also added pressure, esp on the infield, which must hurry the play on a bunt. And, with a bunt in question, the defense must move in, playing out of position. Again, with the infield out of position, playing more shallow, if a batter doesn't bunt, how many ground balls would sneak by the fielders into the outfield? There's no way to quantify the "what ifs?"
Regardless, I recommend Jaffe's book. It is well written and provides a lot of food for thought, as well as sometimes evoking anger--grrrrrr!
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
But...
...what if we're wrong?
It's the title of a book I read a while back. The premise, "what if we're wrong," is intriguing/enticing and the opening explanations of it are interesting. The author, Chuck Klosterman, begins with gravity, how 2,000 years of Aristotelian theories about gravity were wrong. The "facts" people believed to be inexorably true were not true. So, then, what things do we believe to be true today aren't true either?
Another book I just finished, Origins, a novel by Dan Brown, is quite different in substance, but still caused me to ask a lot of questions. There again--Questions.
I've actually thought about this, or at least a version of it, for a long time. What of the questions we don't ask. I tell students, often, "I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions."
But what questions aren't asked? Why don't we ask them? I suppose that's for a variety of reasons. The answers to them might be so "self-evident," at least to us, as to render such questions useless or even silly. I suppose that's what people thought for 2,000 years about Aristotle's teachings.
Sometimes they might be uncomfortable questions, the answers upsetting, causing self-doubt, personal and collective, for instance.
And some questions are not asked because of fear. Who wanted to risk the anger and retribution of the Medieval Catholic Church? Doubters faced not only imprisonment or death, but worse--the death penalty of the soul, excommunication. Ask Galileo and others! And today, who wants to be called names, marginalized or ignored, even isolated? After all, we are (at least most of us) social animals.
Amherst historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote that a society's most important members are its critics. Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with men who were not yes-men. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. We have failed to learn from these men. We make it very difficult to practice what they've taught.
As I've written before, it's easier to accept than it is to question. Questioning is an important part of challenging, of scrutinizing. I know, personally, those who question are often marginalized and ignored. It's far easier to be a sycophant (We don't get to use that word often, so I'll take the opportunity!), a bobble head who agrees with whatever is offered. To challenge those in authority, long-held beliefs, etc. takes courage.
Switching gears, I find it laughable to hear members of Congress threaten to cite witnesses before their committees with contempt for lying. Lying! Excuse me for falling into the cliche-ridden trap of politicians and lying, but seriously? Perhaps they should clean up their own house(s) before they start flinging charges around.
I know, I know. "But that's different." Of course it always is. I suppose one might argue that lying under oath is one thing. Just plain lying is another. OK. But don't "just plain lies" also harm people, all of us?
What is particularly galling are the lies euphemistically called "campaign promises." I'm guessing that the candidates know they are telling lies just to garner votes. They have no intentions of following through on their lies, er, promises. And voters seem to have come to accept campaign promises, at least many of them, as lies. As I have asked before, aren't many broken campaign promises prime examples of fraud? And if they are, what aren't the perpetrators prosecuted?
In the same vein, I filled out a local school board survey the other day regarding an upcoming bond and millage election, November I think. I repeatedly indicated I will vote no on both. Even when tossed in with another local bond issue, on which I said I will vote yes, I still said I'll reject the local district's two proposals. At the end, I was asked my reasons. I was pretty blunt and said both the school board and the administration have made poor decisions in the past, have been deceitful if not outright dishonest, etc. I have no confidence in either (which may be redundant because, for the most part, the school board is a rubber stamp for the administration). This is not a question of viewpoint, either. The deceit and/or dishonesty, for decades, has been out there for anyone interested to see. I am certain, beyond doubt, that my survey responses will be ignored. As long as the sycophant/bobble heads continue to vote the way school boards/administrations (and other politicians) want, why would they change?
Last but not least today, I have been reminded of this several times in recent weeks, obliquely if not directly. So-and-so "is not as bad as" another so-and-so. NO! As I noted in the past few elections, Presidential and otherwise, I no longer will "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." NO! Over the course of the past few decades, look where this has taken us. As noted above, as long as voters continue to accept the crap the major parties throw at us, we will continue to be fed crap. It might take an election cycle or two for voters to force parties to change, but it won't if voters don't rise up and say, in effect, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I realize, for many people, times are pretty darn good right now, at least financially/economically. But there is more to life than money.
This is naive of me, I know. But I cling to the precept that character matters, still. Apparently to many folks it doesn't. As long as "the trains run on time" (They didn't, but I'm not quibbling.), all else is fine. Moral fabric is important. And we are losing it quickly, if we haven't already lost it. I can't for the life of me understand how Americans, for a couple of decades now, have accepted poor moral behavior from our leaders in all walks of life merely because "the economy is good." I actually had someone tell me that during the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair. If our leaders, and not just political leaders, can act immorally and unethically, why can't the rest of us? I know that much of this, the immorality and lack of ethics, has been going on forever, but now it occurs openly and we know it. By ignoring or at least dismissing it, we condone it. By extension......
This was driven home a couple of weeks ago while I listened to the radio coming home from class. a caller referred to the Michigan governor's campaign, "...and I'll fix the damn roads!" I found the use of "damn" to be offensive, although most people probably cheered. Anyway, this caller said he was driving down a road with his 5-year old daughter. He hit a sizable pot hole that jarred the car. He was stunned, then angry, to hear his daughter say, "Fix the damn roads!" This came from a five-year old! I know, I know. I'm a prude. Maybe most people think it's cute for a five-year old to use language like this, but not me. Perhaps it's the father's fault; he's said it? But maybe it's the fault of the people who thought it was cute for a candidate for governor to say it.
It's the title of a book I read a while back. The premise, "what if we're wrong," is intriguing/enticing and the opening explanations of it are interesting. The author, Chuck Klosterman, begins with gravity, how 2,000 years of Aristotelian theories about gravity were wrong. The "facts" people believed to be inexorably true were not true. So, then, what things do we believe to be true today aren't true either?
Another book I just finished, Origins, a novel by Dan Brown, is quite different in substance, but still caused me to ask a lot of questions. There again--Questions.
I've actually thought about this, or at least a version of it, for a long time. What of the questions we don't ask. I tell students, often, "I don't have a lot of answers, but I do have a lot of questions."
But what questions aren't asked? Why don't we ask them? I suppose that's for a variety of reasons. The answers to them might be so "self-evident," at least to us, as to render such questions useless or even silly. I suppose that's what people thought for 2,000 years about Aristotle's teachings.
Sometimes they might be uncomfortable questions, the answers upsetting, causing self-doubt, personal and collective, for instance.
And some questions are not asked because of fear. Who wanted to risk the anger and retribution of the Medieval Catholic Church? Doubters faced not only imprisonment or death, but worse--the death penalty of the soul, excommunication. Ask Galileo and others! And today, who wants to be called names, marginalized or ignored, even isolated? After all, we are (at least most of us) social animals.
Amherst historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote that a society's most important members are its critics. Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with men who were not yes-men. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. We have failed to learn from these men. We make it very difficult to practice what they've taught.
As I've written before, it's easier to accept than it is to question. Questioning is an important part of challenging, of scrutinizing. I know, personally, those who question are often marginalized and ignored. It's far easier to be a sycophant (We don't get to use that word often, so I'll take the opportunity!), a bobble head who agrees with whatever is offered. To challenge those in authority, long-held beliefs, etc. takes courage.
Switching gears, I find it laughable to hear members of Congress threaten to cite witnesses before their committees with contempt for lying. Lying! Excuse me for falling into the cliche-ridden trap of politicians and lying, but seriously? Perhaps they should clean up their own house(s) before they start flinging charges around.
I know, I know. "But that's different." Of course it always is. I suppose one might argue that lying under oath is one thing. Just plain lying is another. OK. But don't "just plain lies" also harm people, all of us?
What is particularly galling are the lies euphemistically called "campaign promises." I'm guessing that the candidates know they are telling lies just to garner votes. They have no intentions of following through on their lies, er, promises. And voters seem to have come to accept campaign promises, at least many of them, as lies. As I have asked before, aren't many broken campaign promises prime examples of fraud? And if they are, what aren't the perpetrators prosecuted?
In the same vein, I filled out a local school board survey the other day regarding an upcoming bond and millage election, November I think. I repeatedly indicated I will vote no on both. Even when tossed in with another local bond issue, on which I said I will vote yes, I still said I'll reject the local district's two proposals. At the end, I was asked my reasons. I was pretty blunt and said both the school board and the administration have made poor decisions in the past, have been deceitful if not outright dishonest, etc. I have no confidence in either (which may be redundant because, for the most part, the school board is a rubber stamp for the administration). This is not a question of viewpoint, either. The deceit and/or dishonesty, for decades, has been out there for anyone interested to see. I am certain, beyond doubt, that my survey responses will be ignored. As long as the sycophant/bobble heads continue to vote the way school boards/administrations (and other politicians) want, why would they change?
Last but not least today, I have been reminded of this several times in recent weeks, obliquely if not directly. So-and-so "is not as bad as" another so-and-so. NO! As I noted in the past few elections, Presidential and otherwise, I no longer will "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils." NO! Over the course of the past few decades, look where this has taken us. As noted above, as long as voters continue to accept the crap the major parties throw at us, we will continue to be fed crap. It might take an election cycle or two for voters to force parties to change, but it won't if voters don't rise up and say, in effect, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I realize, for many people, times are pretty darn good right now, at least financially/economically. But there is more to life than money.
This is naive of me, I know. But I cling to the precept that character matters, still. Apparently to many folks it doesn't. As long as "the trains run on time" (They didn't, but I'm not quibbling.), all else is fine. Moral fabric is important. And we are losing it quickly, if we haven't already lost it. I can't for the life of me understand how Americans, for a couple of decades now, have accepted poor moral behavior from our leaders in all walks of life merely because "the economy is good." I actually had someone tell me that during the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair. If our leaders, and not just political leaders, can act immorally and unethically, why can't the rest of us? I know that much of this, the immorality and lack of ethics, has been going on forever, but now it occurs openly and we know it. By ignoring or at least dismissing it, we condone it. By extension......
This was driven home a couple of weeks ago while I listened to the radio coming home from class. a caller referred to the Michigan governor's campaign, "...and I'll fix the damn roads!" I found the use of "damn" to be offensive, although most people probably cheered. Anyway, this caller said he was driving down a road with his 5-year old daughter. He hit a sizable pot hole that jarred the car. He was stunned, then angry, to hear his daughter say, "Fix the damn roads!" This came from a five-year old! I know, I know. I'm a prude. Maybe most people think it's cute for a five-year old to use language like this, but not me. Perhaps it's the father's fault; he's said it? But maybe it's the fault of the people who thought it was cute for a candidate for governor to say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
