Tigers likely playoff bound in spite of Washburn

Leave a comment

Thanks to playing in baseball’s worst division the Tigers look headed to the postseason despite Jarrod Washburn posting a 7.33 ERA in eight starts since arriving via trade with the Mariners, but now his status for the playoffs is in doubt. That is, if the Tigers even wanted him stepping on the mound in October.
Washburn allowed four runs in the first inning of yesterday before exiting with pain in the left knee that has bothered him for much of the season. As manager Jim Leyland put it after an ugly 11-1 loss: “Right now, it doesn’t appear he’s pitchable.” No structural damage has been found via multiple MRI exams, but Washburn made it clear that something significant is wrong:

It’s just as bad, or maybe a little worse, than it’s been. The pain has been pretty bad, but it’s never swelled up. And today after just one inning, it swelled up pretty bad. I don’t know if something else got hurt in there or what. It’s definitely not getting better. I’ve tried to pitch through it, and I’m not helping the team at all.



We’ve tried everything. I don’t know if there’s anything more that we can try from a treatment standpoint or medication or shots or things like that. We’ve tried everything we can to try to get the pain out of there and put it at a tolerable level. Just nothing’s worked right now.

Detroit’s rotation is a mess right now and the Tigers have lost six of their last eight games despite playing the lowly Royals and Blue Jays, but ultimately they’ll probably limp into the playoffs with or without Washburn. And once there the Tigers can take advantage of the drawn-out postseason schedule to lean heavily on Justin Verlander, Edwin Jackson, and Rick Porcello in the rotation and Fernando Rodney, Brandon Lyon, and Ryan Perry in the bullpen.
Washburn has been a complete bust and Detroit has just the 10th-best record in baseball at 77-67, but barring a total collapse they’re headed to the playoffs and have the top-end talent to make a deep run once their lack of rotation depth is no longer a major factor.

Great Moments in Not Understanding The Rules

screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-10-02-33-am
Leave a comment

Bill Livingston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is a Hall of Fame voter. In the past he has voted for players who used PEDs, but he’s never been totally happy with it, seeing the whole PED mess as a dilemma for voters.

On the one hand he doesn’t like voting for users and doesn’t like harming those who were clean by shifting votes away from them, but on the other hand, he doesn’t want to pretend history didn’t happen and that baseball hasn’t been filled with cheaters forever. What to do?

This year he decided to abstain altogether. A fair and noble act if one is as conflicted as Livingston happens to be. Except . . . he didn’t actually abstain:

Major league baseball will confer bronzed immortality on a few players Wednesday when the results of the national baseball writers’ balloting for the Hall of Fame will be announced.

I had a 2017 ballot. I returned it signed, but blank, with an explanatory note.

A blank ballot, signed and submitted, is not an abstention. It’s counted as a vote for no one. Each “no” vote increases the denominator in the calculation of whether or not a candidate has received 75% of the vote and has gained induction. An abstention, however, would not. So, in effect, Livingston has voted against all of the players on the ballot, both PED-tainted and clean, even though it appears that that was not his intention.

This is the second time in three years a Cleveland writer has had . . . issues with his Hall of Fame ballot. In the 2014-15 voting period, Paul Hoynes simply lost his ballot. Now Livingston misunderstood how to abstain.

I worry quite often that Ohio is gonna mess up a major election. I guess I’m just worrying about the wrong election.

Hall of Fame voters are making news, not exercising democratic rights

Cooperstown
Associated Press
3 Comments

Last month the Baseball Writers Association of America voted to make all Hall of Fame ballots public beginning with next year’s vote for the 2018 induction class. In the past 24 hours or so, as this year’s Hall of Fame voting period comes to a close, a lot of folks have been talking about that. Most notably in Jayson Stark’s piece over at ESPN regarding next year’s brave new public world.

Stark is pro-transparency on the ballots, as are the vast majority of BBWAA members who voted on the public ballot measure (it passed 80-9). Not everyone Stark quotes in his article is on board with it, though:

“I’ve already seen a lot of people change their votes from one year to the next,” said one of the strongest dissenters to this decision, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. “People have changed their votes based on public opinion.”

Two other sources in the story, Scott Miller of Bleacher Report and a voter who asked to remain anonymous equated their Hall of Fame vote with democracy and invoked the sanctity of the secret ballot. “The No. 1 reason I was against this rule is that in this country, it’s a democracy, and everyone has a vote on different things. And I hate to see a blanket rule that forces everyone to go in one direction,” Miller said. Here’s what the anonymous guy said:

“To me, a secret ballot is a fundamental of democracy. You should be able to vote your conscience without having to explain your vote. But once it’s public, you’re open to public pressure. And that’s not what we want in a democracy. We’re not elected representatives. We’re chosen to be part of a voting group.”

This is ridiculous of course. Voting for the Hall of Fame is not exercising democratic rights. It is making news and making history. Hall of Fame voters are making decisions which will fundamentally alter baseball history and which matter greatly to a large number of baseball fans. They are not advancing their own or society’s interests at the ballot box the way citizens do on election day. Despite the fact that the form of their action here is, technically speaking, a ballot, they are making news in the same way a GM makes a news with a trade, the commissioner makes news with a rule change or a team makes news by winning a World Series.

Would any of these voters — who are credentialed members of the media, by the way, and like to style themselves as truth-seeking members of the Fourth Estate — accept silence from the people who make the news on the beat they cover? Would they be content if the newsmakers whose acts they chronicle demanded anonymity the way they themselves do now? Of course they wouldn’t. And if they got the same silent treatment they’d prefer to give, they’d write one of those petulant little columns they love about players who “duck the press” after a game.

Suck it up, journalists. Act the way you expect the newsmakers you cover to act and own your decisions. Don’t pretend for a moment that you’re not the subject of, and not the reporter of, the story when Hall of Fame season comes around.