Skip to content

‘Tis the season for people acting incredibly dumb

Dec 17, 2013, 8:50 AM EDT

I guess Tracy Ringolsby is in some argument, real or imagined, with someone about Hall of Fame stuff. Because that’s the only time you see idiocy like this:

Probably worth noting that Ringolsby didn’t think wins were important back when Bert Blyleven was on the ballot. He routinely left him off his Hall of Fame ballot* despite the fact that he had many more of those all-important wins than Jack Morris, who Ringolsby wrote a column supporting last night. His reasoning: Morris was “dominant” and Blyleven was not. No word if he ever was concerned that MLB was going to change the post-season formant, ignoring wins and losses because they aren’t important, and use “dominance” for standings. UPDATE: Ringolsby informed me that he did, eventually, vote for Blyleven. Apologies for the error.

In any event, here’s a tip: if making whatever point you’re trying to make requires you to be impossibly dense, be it real or feigned, maybe there’s a better way to make that point. Or maybe it’s just a dumb point, full-stop.

  1. largebill - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:10 AM

    He gets even dumber in his responses to people on twitter. Someone disputed the “best pitcher of the 80′s” nonsense by mentioning his lack of CY support. Ringolsby responded to that by asking “How many MVP’s did Eddie Murray win?” Talk about apples to oranges. Murray’s HoF case was not based on claiming to be best of a decade because his team won a lot of games. Murray was not a borderline candidate who would need supporters to make up crap to fool other voters.

    • pinkfloydprism - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM

      I could not resist pointing out to him that Murray was MVP runner up twice, while Morris never finished 2nd. Oh, and the 3k/500 thing counts too.

      • largebill - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM

        Exactly. If a player is not a high peak/dominant type then those various milestones come into play. Morris’ problem is he had neither a high peak nor exceeding an impressive milestone.

  2. paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    If a person cannot distinguish the difference between team wins and the number of times a pitcher leaves after pitching 5 or more innings after which the bullpen never relinquished the lead, then that person should not be allowed to vote for the HOF, or the MVP, or CY, or president, or mayor, or, well, anything. Pitcher wins do not equal team wins and they most certain do not equal good performances.

    Jack Morris most certainly was not “dominant” in any way shape or form, he just pitched a lot, and did so slightly better than your average pitcher. If Jack Morris was dominant, then so was Dennis Martinez, and Frank Tanana, and dozens of other guys that never got serious consideration in HOF voting.

    • Bob Loblaw - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:44 AM

      See paper, this is where the stat guys can piss of the old-school guys and the overall stats that we look at become way too important. Morris definitely had periods of extended dominance during his career. But he also was the kind of guy who would get killed in a game or two and because he never came out, he must have had more 6-8 run games than anybody, which would definitely kill his overall seasonal numbers. Just checking out a couple of his seasons, he would have 25 or so starts where he gave up 3 or less runs, and then have 4 or 5 game stretches where he would give up 5+ runs in every game. That’s where the old school guys get the “he was dominant” story while we see the overall numbers and see an ERA of 3.50 and say he was nothing more than average.

      Now, I agree that the old school guys overrate him and I don’t think he is a hall of famer by any stretch. But to say he “most certainly was not dominant in any way shape or form” is very unfair.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:00 AM

        Morris definitely had periods of extended dominance during his career

        When though? Morris’s best stretch by ERA+ is ’85 to ’87 when he put up:
        55-30, .647 win%; 3.33 ERA, 125 ERA+ over 790 IP; 7.1 K/9, 3.2 BB/9, 2.18 K/BB

        That’s his best stretch. Now let’s look at some other recent pitchers on the ballot and just off it:

        [career numbers]
        Kevin Brown: 211-144, .594 win%; 3.28 ERA, 127 ERA+; 6.6 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 2.66 K/BB
        Mussina: 270-153, .638 win%; 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+; 7.1 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 3.58 K/BB
        Cone: 194-126, .606 win%; 3.46 ERA, 121 ERA+; 8.3 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 2.35 K/BB
        Schilling: 216-146, .596 win%; 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+; 8.6 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 4.38 K/BB

        These guys career numbers are almost as good, if not better than Morris’s best seasons.

        Now let’s break down those three years a little more. Let’s look at the number of times he gave up more than 3 runs in a start.

        ’85 – 35 total starts, 9 with more than 3 runs including one game where he gave up 8 runs and WON
        ’86 – 35 total starts, 15 with more than 3 runs including 3 games where he gave up 6 ER and won
        ’87 – 34 total starts, 13 with more than 3 runs. not a lot of luck here getting wins with bad outings

        So 37/104 starts he wouldn’t even qualify for a “quality start”. And that’s dominant? I’m not going to go into any “pitching to the score arguments” about when the runs occurred because that’s already been debunked.

      • Bob Loblaw - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM

        Well, I meant in-season dominance. I guess if we want to say extended dominance means at least a full season, then yeah, I’d agree with you on that.

        Even still, giving up 3 or less runs in 26 of 35 games is pretty impressive (1985) I wouldn’t count wins ever, so I don’t care that he won giving up 8 runs. And I am sure there are many pitchers you can do this with, so I’m not even saying this approach is the be-all end-all. I’m just looking at it from the old-school person’s perspective and trying to figure out why they all seem to think this guy was so dominant.

        Just looking at 1985-1987 a different way…

        1985 he gave up 2 or less runs in 18 of 37 starts

        1986 he gave up 2 or less runs in 17 of 35 starts (10 total shutouts and an 8 game stretch where he threw 6 shut outs and a game where he gave up 1 run) Matter of fact, from 6/25 to 8/11 I’d be willing to bet he was as dominant as anybody in history over an 11 game stretch (11 GS, 1.19 ERA 90 innings) This is even with one of his 5-ER clunkers in there.

        1987 he gave up 2 or less runs in 14 of 34 starts

        Again, I am not by any stretch arguing Morris’s hall candidacy. I’m just saying that he has had periods of dominance over the course of his career. He just never had a complete dominant season because he has at least 5 or 6 games a year where he got hammered. And to me, that is what separates him from a Hall of Famer. But I can also see where the old schoolers are coming from. They just don’t like to look at the whole pitcher and blame those 5 or 6 games a year on “pitching to the score” which is ludicrous.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        Bob Tewksbury had periods during which he was more dominant than Morris ever was….so what? Saying someone was a dominant pitcher doesn’t mean it happened for a year or two, it means that he was dominant for a majority of his career. Morris is nothing like a HOF candidate. He was below average as often as he was dominant….but he always pitched a lot.

        Morris also pitched during a pitcher friendly ERA, and he never posted an ERA below 3.00. He was never dominant for even a single season. The difference between solid pitchers and dominant pitchers is that dominant pitchers are consistently dominant. Morris was not a dominant pitcher.

      • Bob Loblaw - Dec 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

        First off, you are acting as if I am saying Morris should be in the HOF. He should not. However, I still say he was far more dominant than you give him credit for. But I believe we apply dominance in two different ways. To me, if a guy has 25 dominating starts, but was horrible the other 10, upping his season ERA to 3.50, then I have no problem saying that he was dominant much of the year but stunk the rest. You seem to always look at seasonal numbers. That’s cool. Do I think he was dominant enough to make the hall? No way. He stunk too often to make it into the hall. But he was also dominant often enough so that I can see where someone old school can say he should be in the hall. I’d disagree but I would not call that person stupid or crazy.

      • rje49 - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM

        lions, good thing you mentioned Tewksbury. If I had a HOF vote, I’d vote for him!

        By the way, did you know Tewks is my ex’s cousin?

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM

        Of course I knew that Tewks was your cousin. Sorry about the ex thing though.

        /s

  3. nymets4ever - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:13 AM

    lol, Awesome job there out of Tracy. Love how the pencil-necked Sabermetric worshippers conveniently get a lifetime snark license, but it’s somehow the end of the world when old-school baseball men fight back. Haha

    • kyzslew77 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:20 AM

      10 points deducted, you forgot to mention that all Sabermetric “worshippers” live in their moms’ basements.

      • lawson1974 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:35 PM

        And that most of them couldn’t throw a ball from 3rd to 1st if their life depended on it.

    • cur68 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:22 AM

      Dunce

    • nategearhart - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:23 AM

      The problem isn’t that he cracked wise, the problem is that his statement is beyond stupid.

      • nymets4ever - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:26 AM

        And defensive metrics aren’t? What about a stat (WAR) that has two entirely different ways of being measured? What about BABIP and FIP, which are somehow considered fail-proof predictors of success or failure, yet are routinely outperformed by players? Sabermetrics isn’t the bastion of truth it’s made out to be.

      • kyzslew77 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM

        What about ERA? Does that have enough truth in it for you? Because Morris did not have a very good career ERA.

      • nategearhart - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM

        See, THAT at least is a decent conversation starter (though I’ll ignore the “fail-proof predictors” strawman). Ringolsby seems to be operating under the assumption that someone out there uses WAR in place of team wins and losses, which is ludicrous.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM

        What about a stat (WAR) that has two entirely different ways of being measured?

        How far is it from Citi Field to YSIII? Let me know if you are using miles or kilometers. How much beer does a standard cup hold in Citi Field? Let me know if you are using ounces or milliliters. What’s the average weight of a rider on the 7 train? Let me know if you are using pounds or kilograms.

        There mere fact that there are different ways to measure something isn’t a rebuttal.

        What about BABIP and FIP, which are somehow considered fail-proof predictors of success or failure, yet are routinely outperformed by players?

        No, they aren’t. And no one ever says this.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:33 AM

        nymets4, you should probably just be quiet now rather than continue to say things that are either irrelevant or simple false. The fact that 2 stats have the same abbreviation is irrelevant. No one things that BABIP or FIP are fool- or fail-proof, what they are, are important concepts that improve understand of skill and predictability and repeatability of results.

        Sabermetrics isn’t about truth, it is about understanding. If you know know the difference between the two, you should probably just be quite until you do.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:35 AM

        Goddamn, I think I just won the most typos in a short post award of the day.

      • clydeserra - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:40 AM

        No. No one has ever claimed WAR (f or b) is “fail proof.” Only opponents of WAR claim that proponents say that.

        They are however, fool-proof. In that fools will never understand what things like WAR are. And you proved the point again.

        (PS The meaning of Pitcher of batter BABIP has been controversial for many years now. No two people can agree on what it tell us about past or future performance.)

      • Bob Loblaw - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM

        clyde, i will disagree with you writing “no one” because the comments are riddled with people who will quote WAR and tell you that this person is a HOFer and that person should not be a HOFer using WAR alone. Believe me…I read the comments almost every day, although I don’t always comment. And it is always frustrating when you will have someone say “Player A had a career 58 WAR while player B had a 53 WAR so player A was better period.” Even some postings by Aaron, Matthew and sometimes DJ will be solely based on WAR.

      • cur68 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:58 AM

        1) What about WAR? Well, WAR isn’t relied on solely by anyone who knows what they’re doing. Besides, fWAR is different from b-ref’s rWAR by how big a part the calculator feels defence plays in performance. Its a relatively small difference between the two.
        2) BABIP gives you an idea of the role of luck in a player’s performance: its better than BA, which has no way to account for luck, good or bad
        3)FIP is MILES better than ERA. It isolates pitcher performance independent of the fielding behind him. ERA cannot do that.

        These are simple concepts. If you can’t grasp them and see why they’re better than the traditional counting stats, then you really are a dunce.

      • nategearhart - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:00 AM

        Bob, it helps to think of WAR as shorthand for what a plethora of numbers will tell you. If players are being compared and their strengths/offerings pretty much come down to hitting, power, speed, then their WAR is really a pretty good shorthand indicator of who was more valuable (as hard as it can be to believe, when home runs are so much sexier than stolen bases and OBP). Now if there are factors like 1B/Catcher defense involved, well, WAR still has some kinks to work out. It is to be hoped that the actual awards and HOF voters, when looking at a player’s WAR, are digging deeper to see what actually led to that WAR (Posnanski is a good example of one who does).
        So anyway, very few people are saying that WAR is the be-all-end-all…after all, that WAR had to come from SOMEWHERE, ya know? It’s just a down-and-dirty way to look at what a player really brought to the table.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM

        But who had the better war, Peter O’Toole or Humphrey Bogart?

        Bogie had his own band.

        Pete had his own camel.

        Both were winners and losers with the ladies…..

        Very difficult to determine.

      • largebill - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM

        nymets4ever,

        No one claims that advanced statistics are perfect. We pretty much all agree that they are a work in progress. That has nothing to do with Morris’ case. No advanced stats are necessary to see he was just slightly above average. If a player is an average good ball player then they need to have the longevity to pass the basically automatic milestones like 300 wins. If we say Morris should get in based on win total (254) then a whole lot of pitchers deserve a second look.

      • halfthemoney - Dec 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM

        paperlions, according to Brian Kenny, advanced statistical analysis IS the truth. At least according to the MLB commercial when he states that advanced stats tell the true story.

    • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:29 AM

      Do you have this level of bile for materials scientists that have created the materials that make nearly everything in your home that isn’t wood?

      How about the the medical researchers without which you probably wouldn’t exist?

      How about the physicists that are responsible for all electronics?

      Do you disdain all types of knowledge or just that knowledge that points out that you could understand baseball better than when you were 8 yrs old if you cared to?

    • zzalapski - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      This coming from the same person who thinks re-signing Mike Pelfrblearrrgghh for two years and $11 million is “not bad“. I would suggest that’s indicative of a condition found in the DSM-IV, but that would be an insult to people with actual mental disorders.

      In any event, his/her commentary on anything baseball-related should not be taken seriously. The support for Ringolsby’s latest logic train wreck is not surprising.

    • DJ MC - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      Snark is only effective when you are right. When you are wrong, it just makes you sound dumb.

      And I’d much rather have a pencil-neck than a rock-head.

      • halfthemoney - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        My rock-head can beat up your pencil-neck.

      • halfthemoney - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be a total A$$. I read the comment and all I could think of was the bumper sticker that reads “My kid can beat up your honor student”.

      • DJ MC - Dec 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM

        It’s OK. I laughed.

    • raysfan1 - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM

      @nymets4ever,
      Please be aware that the most condemning stat that will keep Jack Morris out of the Hall of Fame is not a “sabermetric”–it’s ERA. Morris had a 3.90 career ERA. If he were to get into the Hall, that would be the worst career ERA of any pitcher in the Hall by a significant margin.

      Interestingly, the “sabermetrics” that you crack wise about actually do not paint him in as harsh a light.

      • babyfarkmcgeezax - Dec 17, 2013 at 12:21 PM

        Is nymets4ever not allowed to crack wise about sabermetrics?

      • raysfan1 - Dec 17, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        *evil laugh*

  4. kyzslew77 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:19 AM

    I don’t know, I heard MLB is going to change the rules for Cy Young voting and make it an automatic win (retroactively) for every opening day start any pitcher ever made. That would lock up Morris’s spot in the Hall, wouldn’t it?

  5. genericcommenter - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:26 AM

    I don’t know about you guys, but I always ignore “loses” any way.

  6. yahmule - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:32 AM

    Ringolsby is the Monfort’s lapdog. He sits there in his stupid cowboy hat and makes excuses for their ineptitude.

  7. chacochicken - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    I like my sportswriters like I like my doctors. I don’t want cutting edge information and peer reviewed methodical testing, no, I want a three martini chain smoker who doesn’t wash his hands and recommends a poultice or suggests I use get a tapeworm to lose weight. The kind of doc that answers a question with “you don’t want to live forever, do you?” I bet Tracy picked his doctor by asking what he shot at the golf course.

    • DJ MC - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM

      Don’t forget leeching to balance the humors.

  8. Old Gator - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    Why should traumatized athletes be the only ones to leave their brains to science? Why don’t spawrtsrighters?

    What?

    Oh.

    Yeah, it didn’t occur to me that science probably wouldn’t want them in the first place.

    Well, Igor is still out there shopping for bargains…..

    • raysfan1 - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM

      UFO just found one, from a late sportswriter named “Abbie” something…

      • raysfan1 - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:49 PM

        ?! UFO? That was supposed to be Igor. Wonder what I typed that autocorrect turned it into UFO instead of Igor.

        Anyway, it was supposed to be a Young Frankenstein reference, not a Bill Lee reference.

  9. pastabelly - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    I do believe in clutch. I do believe in rewarding longevity. I don’t think either of those things are good reasons to dump on the saber guys in much the same way I am not crazy about the saber guys thinking John Farrell is an idiot for playing Gomes over Nava in the ALCS and WS. Voting for Morris over Blyleven is just plain stupid. I think that was a case of the old school folks riding something hard and rolling Morris into the HOF on the momentum of their campaign. Those same Morris nuts probably also will not vote for Schilling because they “don’t like him”.

  10. cohnjusack - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand.

    Win – Team: When one team finishes the game with more runs than the other.

    Win – Pitcher:
    ——-Starter – When pitcher throws at least five innings and leaves the game with the lead that is subsequently not relinquished by the bullpen.
    ——Reliever – Let’s not even get into the absurdly ridiculous ways a reliever can win a game. Some fun examples include: entering a game with a five run lead, give up that lead, but then having the offense gain it back before another pitcher enters the game. The reliever “won” the game by giving up 6 runs in one inning. The starter “wins” nothing.

    Calling two very different things the same name doesn’t make them the same.

    • Jeremy T - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:21 AM

      The ridiculous example for a reliever win would (hopefully) not actually happen, since the official scorer has some discretion in cases like that. That actually may make the stat itself even more meaningless, though.

    • bpearse230 - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      I’m not on any side of this argument. But isn’t it possible that wins were more reflective of individual performance prior to the age of bullpen specialization? (Jack Morris AVERAGED 8 IP per start over 10 years). As far as the lack of individual awards go, how many CY Young Awards did Nolan Ryan win? People on this board act like there’s only one way to look at everything.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        Nope, they are a composite of a pitchers ability, his bull pens ability (even during Morris’ era), the quality of his defense, and the quality of his offense. Morris won so many games in large part because during his career he was on teams with fantastic offenses.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM

        Partially yes, in that more of the pitching is thus the direct responsibility of the starter.

        However, pitcher wins still is dependent on how the other 8 guys all play. If they commit errors and thus let in unearned runs or fail to hit/score, the pitcher still “loses” despite pitching well.

      • cohnjusack - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM

        Probably MORE reflective, but still not terribly reflective at all. Nolan Ryan famously lead the league in ERA in 1987 while going 8-16. Bill Gullickson was a 20-game winner…and he was a mediocre good pitcher in 1991.

        In any circumstance, pitcher wins are enormously tied in with offensive and defensive performance of your teammates. You can be a great pitcher, but if you’re team can’t score any runs, you’re not going to win many games (Cliff Lee in 2012 for example).

        Jack Morris spent most of his career with the big offense, good defense Tiger teams, and later with the back-to-back WS title winning Blue Jays. In that time, he amassed 254 wins. So what? That ranks 44th all time…Jaime Moyer has more, he’s not going to the Hall. That’s just 9 more than Dennis Martinez…he’s not going to the Hall. And if Morris goes in with 254, he’ll be going in with, by far, the highest ERA of any HOF pitcher.

        So, let’s remember with these Jack Morris HOF argument. 1: Wins in any era are a very flawed stat on which to judge a pitcher, 2: He has 254…not 354 wins. Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, and Jaime Moyer have more or are just a little bit behind…why are wins not such a big deal in their case, but are with Morris?

      • Kevin S. - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM

        Jack Morris never averaged 8 IP/GS over ten years. Jack Morris never even averaged 8IP/GS over one year (although he did come close a couple times).

      • halfthemoney - Dec 17, 2013 at 7:41 PM

        I agree. Some, however, would disagree even if a pitcher struck out 27 and hit a homerun.

  11. Taz - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    Isn’t it already decided by WAR? Considering a “replacement level” team is .500, generally speaking the teams with the most wins above .500 make the playoffs.

    (Not absolute thanks to divisions, but you get the idea.)

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      Replacement isn’t .500 though, it’s way below. Per b-ref:

      Sports Reference sets replacement level at .294 or (48-114). This change was made in March of 2013 after deciding with FanGraphs.com to set a single replacement level between our sites. We also smoothed out the changes in replacement level between the two leagues where before the change from one decade to the next had been stepwise.

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

      • Taz - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        Whatever replacement level is, the teams with the most wins above it make the playoffs.

      • Jeremy T - Dec 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM

        Not always. bWAR translates directly to runs. I can’t remember what fWAR translates directly to, but it’s a similar idea in that it’s attempting to measure actual ability, with luck taken out of the equation.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        Not always.

        Also both versions of WAR are context neutral, so two hitters who go 1 for 3 with a BB and a HR will have the same offensive WAR, but if one hits a 3R walk off HR in the 9th vs a guy who hit a solo shot in the first could have their respective teams’ outcome be entirely different.

      • halfthemoney - Dec 17, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        Luck? Jeremy T, there is no luck in sabermetrics!

  12. babyfarkmcgeezax - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    Craig acts dumb all year round. Asking his readers where his popcorn is, as if they would actually know, was 74 times dumber than this tweet.

  13. obvious0troll - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    Who’s the bigger idiot? The person who tweets an obviously trolling snarky comment or the person who takes said obviously trolling snarky comment literally and writes a blog post on it?

    • yahmule - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM

      The person above me.

      BOOOOOOM!

      Roasted!

    • paperlions - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM

      Except, of course, knowing Ringolsby, this is not trolling or snark, he believes what he wrote.

    • pdowdy83 - Dec 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      Snark is supposed to be whitty and sarcastic while still making a point. Ringolsby did not acheive any of that. He simply came off ignorant and looking like he has no understanding of the other side of his argument whatsoever. Hence why people called him out.

  14. tmohr - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    He’s wrong about Morris, but at least he’s right about the country music of today.

    • yahmule - Dec 17, 2013 at 2:58 PM

      A true, if not particularly new observation.

  15. mayorrobford - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    Another article about a BBWAA member?
    Not interested
    Just like I’m no longer interested in Cy Young, MVP, ROTY or HOF articles.

    Maybe you guys should just like you know….ignore them? Write about baseball while ignoring anything that these idiots are a part of…..? Just saying that they are not worthy of discussion and many of them are casual know-nothing buffoons, and the few that are knowledgeable and part of their messed up system are doing nothing to fix it so screw them too.

    • mayorrobford - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM

      I would love it if the people here voted for their own MVP and Best Pitcher yearly while completely ignoring the BBWAA versions.

      Yes I’m 100% serious
      If change is every going to happen it’s going to happen because the public has completely turned on the BBWAA and the HoF.

      Criticizing them while still keeping them relevant never will

  16. jeffchadwick - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    I want to hate Tracy Ringolsby, but he pretty much always votes for Alan Trammell, so there’s that.

  17. gloccamorra - Dec 17, 2013 at 11:37 AM

    Ah, that dead period after the GM meetings and before Christmas. The writers still have to put out columns, though. I just wish they’d stick to the old, “Christmas wish list” for teams. At least then you knew it was fantasy.

  18. PanchoHerreraFanClub - Dec 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

    Am I missing something? Does’t the “W” in WAR stand for wins?

  19. lawson1974 - Dec 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM

    WAR is the silliest , most useless stat in modern sports.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5036)
  2. K. Uehara (4390)
  3. T. Wood (3713)
  4. G. Springer (3581)
  5. J. Kubel (3359)
  1. M. Machado (3342)
  2. T. Walker (3083)
  3. H. Rondon (3077)
  4. D. Pedroia (3003)
  5. J. Reyes (2979)