Deadspin is trying to buy a Hall of Fame vote. It’s a fantastic idea.

9 Comments

Viva chaos: Deadspin is trying to buy a Hall of Fame vote from someone.

After correctly observing how screwed up and ridiculous the spectacle of watching people moralize and over-think come Hall of Fame vote time is, Tim Marchman lays out his plan:

The sensible thing to do would be to just stop paying attention to this raging trash fire, but we don’t think that’s enough. We’re going to seize some small, symbolic bit of power and turn it over to the public. We’re going to buy a Hall of Fame vote.

If you’re a 1o-year member of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, we want to give you cash in exchange for allowing Deadspin’s readers to fill out your ballot. We’re not entirely sure what the market value of a vote is, so we’d like you to contact us—at marchman@deadspin.com, or in the comments below—and name a price, so that we can start negotiations.

I think it’s a hoot. Sure, it’s corrupt, but it’s no more corrupting to the process than it is to have people who have never covered baseball — or who haven’t covered baseball since the 70s or whatever — voting on Hall of Fame candidates. It’s no more unseemly than the appalling game of character assassination that Hall of Fame voters have engaged in in recent years when it comes to guys who they suspect of PED use, but either can’t or won’t tell us why. Or can’t make a coherent case for why it matters.

But most of all it’s fun. And fun is one thing the actual, un-bought-and-paid-for Hall of Fame voters have taken out of the process in recent years. They’ve done so by talking down to baseball fans and claiming that what we thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated on the baseball field was, in reality, horrible. By acting as if their task in filling out a ballot is some awful dark night of the soul. About how how utterly serious it is and how they wish they didn’t have to make such hard choices. Well, don’t. Take $150 form Deadspin and let people who actually like sports vote on the thing.

Or write a column about how Deadspin’s offer is obscene and a disgrace to journalism. That will be just as fun, actually. Indeed, now that I think about it, I’d rather see that.

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
6 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.