"On another level, you can't drink beer in the press box, so who the hell needs that?"
--Dayn Perry, offering his opinion as to why Neyer and Law shouldn't be upset about not becoming BBWAA members at post #215 in the instantly-legendary BTF thread on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There's been a lot posting on this topic (and the no beer in the press box comment truly is a classic). Also, a lot of the posting is by people who profess not to care much about the work of the BBWAA. I have included myself in that camp. The BBWAA does two things that could possibly register at all with baseball fans:
1) Decide what player gets which of the better know post season awards
2) Decides who gets into the Hall of Fame
To many, including me, applying subjective criteria to decision making processes where vast amounts of empirical evidence exists, and could be used in place of mere opinion, is a pretty ridiculous notion. This fact makes the existence of the BBWAA as a “decider” institution (sorry W.) pretty damn anachronistic.
So why doth we all protest too much?
Because it’s fun, probably, and the Mitchell report isn’t due for another few days so what else is there to do. But, to me, rather than arguing about the membership and voting leanings of the BBWAA, I would rather see their function remain the same, but dull some of the consequence of their actions, instead.
Let them vote for MVP and Cy Young award winners, but why make those awards any more consequential than a frivolity? Let them present the award to the winning player, let that player have his interviews and get his picture taken and put the thing on his game room mantle and tell his grandkids about it when he’s 70. That’s cool.
But why oh why a player’s compensation should be based on whether his wins a post-season award that mere mortal schmucks dole out? To me, this is the goofiest thing. Why shouldn’t player contracts be based on measured performance? They absolutely should be, shouldn’t they?
The Hall of Fame question is another beast and I won’t get into that now. I think that institution needs subjective input, but to stand-up for the guys who deserve a second look at inclusion (i.e a subjective voice to act as an inclusive force, not an exclusive one).
Post a Comment