World Series - Boston Red Sox v St Louis Cardinals - Game Four

Felix Doubront comes up big in Game 4 win

2 Comments

These last few weeks couldn’t have been easy for Red Sox left-hander Felix Doubront. With Clay Buchholz back and ready to pitch in the postseason, Doubront was sent to the pen at the end of the regular season after going 11-6 with a 3.87 ERA in his 27 starts. He didn’t want to make the move, and the Red Sox gave serious thought to leaving him off the postseason roster after he gave up five runs in 1 1/3 innings in his one relief appearance at the end of the season.

Doubront, though, was picked over Matt Thornton for the last spot in Boston’s pen. And for three weeks, he knew he was only going to pitch if things weren’t going very well. He didn’t work in the ALDS. His two ALCS appearances came with the Red Sox down 5-1 and 7-1 to the Tigers. He did, however, pitch 2 1/3 scoreless innings in those games, and the Red Sox came back and won the first of them, thanks to David Ortiz’s eighth-inning grand slam.

In the World Series, Doubront was again on the sidelines for two games, but he got the call in a tight game 3 after Jake Peavy’s early exit and pitched scoreless fifth and sixth innings. He was impressive enough that manager John Farrell bypassed Ryan Dempster and went right back to him in Game 4 tonight. This time, Doubront retired the first eight hitters he faced before giving up a single with two outs in the seventh. Craig Breslow replaced him and allowed the baserunner to come around, ruining Doubront’s perfect postseason ERA. Doubront, though, ended up with the win. He entered with the Red Sox down 1-0 and left with them up 4-1.

Doubront most likely will get a well deserved rest in Game 5 on Monday night, but in barely more than 24 hours, he’s transformed himself from guy who comes into losses to key player in the Boston pen. Of course, he’d still much rather be the key player in the rotation, but he’ll get that chance again next year.

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
6 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.