Aug 31, 2011, 5:36 PM EDT
I tweeted this randomly a few minutes ago and got some good responses, so I figured I’d throw it out to the whole crowd:
I tire of the argument that goes like this: “Player X should get consideration for Honor Y!”
It could be the Hall of Fame. It could be a postseason award like the MVP or Cy Young. Doesn’t matter. But the argument usually comes in response to me (or someone) saying that a different player should be in or should win.
So I respond: OK, do you think your Player X should win or should get in? And here’s where it kills me: “No, but he should get consideration!”
What does that mean? I mean, yes, I understand that there are downballot votes and that they matter for certain purposes, but if I’ve said I think Jose Bautista is the MVP, should I “consider” another guy? In reaching my decision isn’t it understood that I’ve considered and rejected the other guys? Same with the Hall of Fame: Jack Morris should be considered! Should he be in? “No, but …” Then I guess he’s not worthy of any more consideration is, he?
Yes, this is rather navel-gazey, but I get annoyed at the ____ should be considered stuff. Am I the only one? Am I being a jerk? Am I just simply getting this all wrong? None of those things are mutually-exclusive, of course.
- Giancarlo Stanton sends the Marlins to victory with a walk-off grand slam 14
- Jason Bartlett will retire after 10 years in the big leagues 6
- Pirates acquire Ike Davis in a trade with the Mets 39
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 49
- VIDEO: The Yankees turned a triple play against the Rays 24
- Hank Aaron is getting vile racist hate mail in retaliation for pointing out that racism still exists (244)
- “They Don’t Know Henry” (167)
- Doug Glanville’s story about being racially profiled at his own home (125)
- There is still a racial divide in baseball (112)
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights (96)