I wonder if Bonds and Clemens might make the Hall of Fame this year after all

47 Comments

My strong presumption is that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will not make the Hall of Fame this year. I think, at best, they get about 50% of the vote and stay in that limbo-land until the anti-PED crowd’s fever breaks.

But I just read something that makes me wonder if I’m being too pessimistic. It’s a column from Ian O’Connor of ESPN New York in which he takes the “Bonds and Clemens were so good that you have to vote for them even though they juiced” tack. Kind of a “discounter” argument which, while obviously flawed, makes some degree of sense and allows one to differentiate between guys like McGwire and Palmeiro on the one hand — guys who may not have had Cooperstown numbers without PEDs — and Bonds and Clemens on the other, who were gonna make it regardless.

This is somewhat surprising coming from O’Connor, because he has, in the past, given off all the indications of a “PED use = disqualification” kind of guy.  Back in 2010 he demanded that Mets general manager Sandy Alderson offer a public apology for being complicit in allowing “the monstrous steroid culture to grow fangs on his watch.”  Earlier that year he eviscerated Alex Rodriguez as a player who “cheated the game, cheated the fans and cheated himself” and wrote that nothing could “absolve him of his not-so-venial steroid sins.”

I know there is a vast, silent block of Hall of Fame voters who don’t actively write columns and tweet like O’Connor does and who do not, per their job description, think all that much about baseball.  As such, he may not be truly representative of the electorate and thus it may be premature to view O’Connor’s surprising reasonableness about Bonds and Clemens as some sort of harbinger.

But it is interesting. Very, very interesting.

Aaron Judge ties the rookie home run record with his 49th blast

Getty Images
6 Comments

Monday afternoon baseball that isn’t either (a) part of a doubleheader; or (b) on a holiday is always a bit unsettling, but today’s rare Monday tilt gave us a gift in the form of history: Aaron Judge hit his 49th home run, tying the rookie record.

The dinger came in the third inning of this afternoon’s Royals-Yankees tilt. It was the sixth pitch from Jake Junis and left via right field. Mark McGwire also hit 49 with the Athletics in 1987. Judge has the rest of today’s game and five more games after it to hit number 50 and claim the record for himself.

Watch:

Major League Baseball wants you to look at a screen while you’re at the ballpark

Getty Images
5 Comments

During the debate last week involving expanded netting at major league ballparks, the familiar refrain from the anti-netting crowd rung out: “hey, netting wouldn’t be necessary if you simply paid attention!” These folks get particularly upset at the idea of people looking at their phones or other electronic devices during the game, implying — or sometimes explicitly stating — that if you do that you almost deserve to be hit with a 100 mph foul ball.

The problem with that, though, is that Major League Baseball increasingly encourages fans to use their phones during games. You can order your concessions through them now. Fans are encouraged to use the MLB.com Ballpark app for an increasing number of in-game features. And, of course, the video boards — always in the opposite direction of the hitter — are getting larger and larger and contain more and more information that the clubs and the league want you to see.

But it goes farther than that. Or at least it will soon. As this article from TechCrunch makes clear, in the future, Major League Baseball wants you actually watching the game action through your phone or your iPad. It’s an augmented reality feature in which you hold up your tablet and . . .

In essence, it’s a bit like watching TV broadcast in person, with information overlaid on the action as it happens in real-time. The data is gathered from Statcast, MLB’s in-house analytics tool . . . Players on the field, meanwhile, get small, square popups featuring their faces that can be tapped open to offer up personalized player information

Which is kind of cool, actually. Personally I am fascinated with the possibilities of augmented reality. For me it usually comes to mind when I’m out hiking and I want to know what a certain kind of tree is or something (my natural education was sorely lacking as a child), but there are tons of other applications. Even though I probably know more about the players and what’s going on on the field than your average American, I’d still probably use such a product, at least a little bit at a game.

But, of course, there is that safety tradeoff. How can Major League Baseball continue to be hands-off about a netting policy and maintain that fans assume the risk of foul ball injuries while simultaneously encouraging the use of electronic devices that will, necessarily, distract them from directly observing on-field action? Indeed, if they do continue to maintain that paradoxical approach, I’d expect this quote from the article to be used at a trial of an injured fan suing for damages:

“People are already using their phones, and we don’t think this is all that different,” MLB Product VP Chad Evans told us at the event. Of course, in a sport where small spherical objects are regularly projected into the stands at high speeds, it’s a good idea to keep your eye on the field. Perhaps popping up an alert on screen when a ball approaches would be a good start.

That last bit — not the quote, but the article’s suggestion of a warning — is comical given how quickly a ball can make it into the stands. Even fans paying rapt attention can get hurt by fast foul balls. Expecting them to process a warning and then act based on it when instinct often isn’t fast enough is ridiculous.

Cool product, for sure. Like I said, I’d probably even use it on occasion. But the more technology and the more distractions Major League Baseball pours into the game, the more responsibility it will have when those distractions contribute to fan injuries. In light of that, they simply cannot continue to be hands-off with respect to the matter.