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.
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 15
- Eduardo Rodriguez dazzles in major league debut 14
- Masahiro Tanaka expected to rejoin Yankees next week 4
- Alex Rodriguez is the all-time AL RBI champion. Sorta. 76
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights 86
- Cardinals GM John Mozeliak: Matt Adams out 3-4 months, possibly the year, with torn quad 60
- Bryce Harper leads in the first round of National League All-Star voting 29
- Buster Olney: The Marlins should hire A-Rod to be their next manager 54