Passan: Baseball is Burning (in which Manfred calls the WS trophy a “piece of metal”

EnochRoot

New Member
Feb 7, 2020
90
Baltimore, MD
I'm all for putting the screws to Houston, but the Dodger players like Turner whining about Houston costing them a title are some delicious tears. A bunch of losers (sorry Mookie).
Why single out the Dodgers? What about the rest of MLB that are taking issue with the Astros? With Manfred's handling of the situation? Are their "tears" "delicious" as well? Are Mike Trout's tears "delicious", too?

And why use the term "delicious tears", anyway? Do you have any skin in this game? Or is it you just like to appear petty?

Just curious. ;)
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Sorry, still not buying it. Ty Law was just inducted into the Hall of Fame. I didn’t see a single mention that his 3 rings might be tainted, or a single reference to Spygate in any article written about him leading up to and after his induction.

When Correa or Altuve or Bregman or whoever else come up on the baseball hall of fame ballot, you can bet your ass that this sign stealing controversy is going to be talked about.
Ty Law won three rings prior to Spygate and was no longer on the team by then (released in 2005, only honorary game captain appearances since), so he's a poor example.

And, yes, it will be when they come up, as it should be. But if all three continue to tear the cover off the ball and have great careers in the intervening time, the sign-stealing stuff won't matter quite as much when it comes time to cast ballots because the empyrical evidence will suggest they did it without needing the advantage. If all three see their careers go into the toilet, they likely will be afterthoughts by the time 5 years have passed since each retires.

I know it's a bad comp, but look at the PED guys and how they are still vilified, even as stances soften within the game and the industry, by the public as being guys who were only able to accomplish what they did because of 'roids. People want to put asterisks next to the records of pretty much all of them, even ones that never failed any kind of drug test once the policy was in place. To the public, they will always, all of them, too a shortcut to greatness and they will never shake it. Even David Ortiz is still lumped in with the steroid users because people are stupid and don't want to ever learn all the facts (like in Spygate and Deflategate). These are the same people who will also say that if the Astros didn't cheat, they probably wouldn't have even made the playoffs, because A + B always equals C for them. The nuance that the Astros maybe won a couple extra games using that competitive advantage (i would be willing to bet less than 5 in the regular season) and the players still had to have the talent to do what they did, foreknowledge or not, or the role that the pitching and defense played in the final scores being what they were. All that goes out the window in the mind's eye of the general public, who can only see that they cheated and they won, so the winning must be only because of the cheating.

So that 2017 title will always be regarded by most casual/uninformed fans as ill-gotten and undeserved and all those who helped to secure it nothing less than the scum of the earth, regardless of what they do for the rest of their careers. Alex Bregman could cure cancer by hitting a home run and people will still call him a cheater and question the legitimacy of the cure.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Ty Law won three rings prior to Spygate and was no longer on the team by then (released in 2005, only honorary game captain appearances since), so he's a poor example.

And, yes, it will be when they come up, as it should be. But if all three continue to tear the cover off the ball and have great careers in the intervening time, the sign-stealing stuff won't matter quite as much when it comes time to cast ballots because the empyrical evidence will suggest they did it without needing the advantage. If all three see their careers go into the toilet, they likely will be afterthoughts by the time 5 years have passed since each retires.

I know it's a bad comp, but look at the PED guys and how they are still vilified, even as stances soften within the game and the industry, by the public as being guys who were only able to accomplish what they did because of 'roids. People want to put asterisks next to the records of pretty much all of them, even ones that never failed any kind of drug test once the policy was in place. To the public, they will always, all of them, too a shortcut to greatness and they will never shake it. Even David Ortiz is still lumped in with the steroid users because people are stupid and don't want to ever learn all the facts (like in Spygate and Deflategate). These are the same people who will also say that if the Astros didn't cheat, they probably wouldn't have even made the playoffs, because A + B always equals C for them. The nuance that the Astros maybe won a couple extra games using that competitive advantage (i would be willing to bet less than 5 in the regular season) and the players still had to have the talent to do what they did, foreknowledge or not, or the role that the pitching and defense played in the final scores being what they were. All that goes out the window in the mind's eye of the general public, who can only see that they cheated and they won, so the winning must be only because of the cheating.

So that 2017 title will always be regarded by most casual/uninformed fans as ill-gotten and undeserved and all those who helped to secure it nothing less than the scum of the earth, regardless of what they do for the rest of their careers. Alex Bregman could cure cancer by hitting a home run and people will still call him a cheater and question the legitimacy of the cure.
How is Ty Law a poor example? Which Patriots players would you say are a good example? Spygate came out in 2007, but the allegation was that it had occurred for many prior years (including the untrue story of the Rams SB XXXVI walkthrough). Since the Patriots were "caught" in 2007, then you can't say any of the 2014, 2016, or 2018 titles were tainted. So which Patriots players will have to deal with being labeled cheaters en route to championships?

And I also dislike the steroids comparison, because it was so prevalent in the game. No one is saying that the Sox 2004 title was tainted because Ortiz and Manny may have been on steroids.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
How is Ty Law a poor example? Which Patriots players would you say are a good example? Spygate came out in 2007, but the allegation was that it had occurred for many prior years (including the untrue story of the Rams SB XXXVI walkthrough). Since the Patriots were "caught" in 2007, then you can't say any of the 2014, 2016, or 2018 titles were tainted. So which Patriots players will have to deal with being labeled cheaters en route to championships?

And I also dislike the steroids comparison, because it was so prevalent in the game. No one is saying that the Sox 2004 title was tainted because Ortiz and Manny may have been on steroids.
Eh, I've heard plenty of people say that certain teams titles may not have been totally legit because of PED use.

And Ty Law is a poor example because that story is untrue (though, to prove my point, Marshall Faulk STILL insists that they lost because the Patriots taped their walkthroughs, something that has been debunked across the board every time its come up) and there was no evidence of cheating going on when he was on the team. The rule change that led to the Spygate incident came about prior to the start of the 2007-2008 season, so anything prior to that was not a violation of the rules. As I recall, the Dolphins also got caught doing it but the Pats were the ones who took the brunt of the punishment because (IIRC) Mangini ran to the league and told the commissioner's office that the Patriots were aware of the change but were choosing to ignore it. It's a little hazy, but I know it wasn't WHAT they did so much as WHERE it took place (e.g., the press box instead of the sidelines or vice versa).

Brady has been quietly labeled a cheater since Deflategate, though not with the same vehemence because the coach's prickly personality and the owners's off-field activities have mostly kept the heat off Tom (also Gronk and Edelman); there are those who still believe the fact that he was suspended means he was guilty of letting a micron of air out of a ball to gain the necessary advantage to win whatever games he won while he was doing it. When he retires and his candidacy comes up for Canton, I'm sure Deflategate, his suspension, and the rest will come up but it won't stop his enshrinement. It's just always going to be a smudge on his rep in some people's eyes. Not for any good reason but because people are dumb and prefer the simplest explanation over anything that requires deductive reasoning.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Eh, I've heard plenty of people say that certain teams titles may not have been totally legit because of PED use.

And Ty Law is a poor example because that story is untrue (though, to prove my point, Marshall Faulk STILL insists that they lost because the Patriots taped their walkthroughs, something that has been debunked across the board every time its come up) and there was no evidence of cheating going on when he was on the team. The rule change that led to the Spygate incident came about prior to the start of the 2007-2008 season, so anything prior to that was not a violation of the rules. As I recall, the Dolphins also got caught doing it but the Pats were the ones who took the brunt of the punishment because (IIRC) Mangini ran to the league and told the commissioner's office that the Patriots were aware of the change but were choosing to ignore it. It's a little hazy, but I know it wasn't WHAT they did so much as WHERE it took place (e.g., the press box instead of the sidelines or vice versa).

Brady has been quietly labeled a cheater since Deflategate, though not with the same vehemence because the coach's prickly personality and the owners's off-field activities have mostly kept the heat off Tom (also Gronk and Edelman); there are those who still believe the fact that he was suspended means he was guilty of letting a micron of air out of a ball to gain the necessary advantage to win whatever games he won while he was doing it. When he retires and his candidacy comes up for Canton, I'm sure Deflategate, his suspension, and the rest will come up but it won't stop his enshrinement. It's just always going to be a smudge on his rep in some people's eyes. Not for any good reason but because people are dumb and prefer the simplest explanation over anything that requires deductive reasoning.
Ok I am confused. Here is your initial statement

The Astros players, much like those who have played for the Patiots throughout the post-Spygate and post-Deflategate years, will be forever branded cheaters and everything they do will be looked at under a microscope

So if Spygate was simply about 2007; and the Pats were caught after one game for breaking the rules in 2007; why would their players be labeled as cheaters? Because of their week 1 win over the Jets? According to you, because the memo came out prior to 2007, and the Pats getting busted after week 1, then the offense was limited to a single game. So why would any players forever be branded cheaters?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
And Ty Law is a poor example because that story is untrue (though, to prove my point, Marshall Faulk STILL insists that they lost because the Patriots taped their walkthroughs, something that has been debunked across the board every time its come up) and there was no evidence of cheating going on when he was on the team. The rule change that led to the Spygate incident came about prior to the start of the 2007-2008 season, so anything prior to that was not a violation of the rules. As I recall, the Dolphins also got caught doing it but the Pats were the ones who took the brunt of the punishment because (IIRC) Mangini ran to the league and told the commissioner's office that the Patriots were aware of the change but were choosing to ignore it. It's a little hazy, but I know it wasn't WHAT they did so much as WHERE it took place (e.g., the press box instead of the sidelines or vice versa).
It was the Jets. The Pats caught them in 2006 and all they did was tell them to knock it off. Then in 2007 the Pats did it to the Jets and Mangini went whining to the league and - boom! - Spygate.

Ok I am confused. Here is your initial statement

The Astros players, much like those who have played for the Patiots throughout the post-Spygate and post-Deflategate years, will be forever branded cheaters and everything they do will be looked at under a microscope

So if Spygate was simply about 2007; and the Pats were caught after one game for breaking the rules in 2007; why would their players be labeled as cheaters? Because of their week 1 win over the Jets? According to you, because the memo came out prior to 2007, and the Pats getting busted after week 1, then the offense was limited to a single game. So why would any players forever be branded cheaters?
Because people are morons. These are largely the same people who think that footballs don't suffer from air pressure loss in cold weather, in total defiance of the actual frigging laws of physics.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Ok I am confused. Here is your initial statement

The Astros players, much like those who have played for the Patiots throughout the post-Spygate and post-Deflategate years, will be forever branded cheaters and everything they do will be looked at under a microscope

So if Spygate was simply about 2007; and the Pats were caught after one game for breaking the rules in 2007; why would their players be labeled as cheaters? Because of their week 1 win over the Jets? According to you, because the memo came out prior to 2007, and the Pats getting busted after week 1, then the offense was limited to a single game. So why would any players forever be branded cheaters?
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you'd met people in your travels.

I'm aware of the timeline surrounding Spygate and that it led to the team ripping off 17 straight wins before stumbling at the finish line. But I'd be willing to bet if you asked someone who had cursory knowledge of that period and mentioned the undefeated season being in the same season as Spygate, that person would assume that the videotaping led to the undefeated season and even if you tried to explain the timeline, said person would probably just assume they kept on doing it right on through, despite what the facts say.

It was the Jets. The Pats caught them in 2006 and all they did was tell them to knock it off. Then in 2007 the Pats did it to the Jets and Mangini went whining to the league and - boom! - Spygate.
Thank you, that makes more sense.

Because people are morons. These are largely the same people who think that footballs don't suffer from air pressure loss in cold weather, in total defiance of the actual frigging laws of physics.
This guy gets it.

I'm not saying I personally believe what I am saying of the Patriots and Astros. What I'm saying is that in the court of public opinion, many of those involved with both scandals were tried, convicted, and sentenced before all the information was even available for public consumption. I think, t4w, you are GROSSLY underestimating how stupid and judgmental the general public is. Not to make this all V&N, but there are people out there that believe that certain vaccines cause certain conditions despite zero actual evidence to prove that, including learned people who just can't wrap their heads around the idea that their beliefs are not the same as actual facts.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you'd met people in your travels.

I'm aware of the timeline surrounding Spygate and that it led to the team ripping off 17 straight wins before stumbling at the finish line. But I'd be willing to bet if you asked someone who had cursory knowledge of that period and mentioned the undefeated season being in the same season as Spygate, that person would assume that the videotaping led to the undefeated season and even if you tried to explain the timeline, said person would probably just assume they kept on doing it right on through, despite what the facts say.



Thank you, that makes more sense.



This guy gets it.

I'm not saying I personally believe what I am saying of the Patriots and Astros. What I'm saying is that in the court of public opinion, many of those involved with both scandals were tried, convicted, and sentenced before all the information was even available for public consumption. I think, t4w, you are GROSSLY underestimating how stupid and judgmental the general public is. Not to make this all V&N, but there are people out there that believe that certain vaccines cause certain conditions despite zero actual evidence to prove that, including learned people who just can't wrap their heads around the idea that their beliefs are not the same as actual facts.
No, I fully get how dumb and judgmental the general public is. I just brought up Ty Law because he was recently inducted into the HoF and literally no one mentioned any shady Patriots shenanigans when he was voted in. DFG might be mentioned when Brady gets in, but everyone will laugh that one off. Whereas with this Astros thing, no one is going to laugh it off.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
This Astros thing? A totally different animal, in every which way. From the upper levels of management all through the coaching staff down to the players themselves - this was a holistic, comprehensive team effort. And it was used in real time, helping hitters *in the moment* know whether a fastball was coming or not.
Yeah the football equivalent would be listening in to the coach-to-QB radio for the opposing team and then signaling the calls in real time to the defense (or vice versa). I certainly don’t think we’ll ever know just how much the scheme helped the Astros but it is fair to say there hasn’t been an on-field cheating scheme of this magnitude on any other of the 4 major sports ever.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
No, I fully get how dumb and judgmental the general public is. I just brought up Ty Law because he was recently inducted into the HoF and literally no one mentioned any shady Patriots shenanigans when he was voted in. DFG might be mentioned when Brady gets in, but everyone will laugh that one off. Whereas with this Astros thing, no one is going to laugh it off.
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of those guys have many years left in the game and were never formally punished, nor will they be. Add 5 years onto however much longer they play and the whole Trashcangate thing may not be as much on people's minds. Guys like Cora, Beltrán, Hinch, etc., will certainly have it brought up if their candidacy is ever considered and it might keep Beltrán out if some voters are on the fence, but it's more likely that when it comes time to vote, a lot of BBWAA people (a group that will have experienced significant turnover by then) will probably go, "eh, they still deserve it" when it comes to the players while the Coras and Hinches and Luhnows won't even get a second look before falling off the ballots.
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,552
Vancouver Island
Manfred, on Sunday: "I think we were slow to appreciate the risk on this topic."

See? He's not completely clueless!

A persistent theme in Ken Rosenthal's (The Athletic) most-recent article is that the Players Union bears something close to equal responsibility for the scandal. Rosenthal appears to (a) let MLB off the hook somewhat for its inaction and (b) softening Manfred's pathetic reaction to this scandal. (Maybe that's the price to pay for access to Manfred?)
Hindsight is 20-20. Unintended consequences, almost by definition, are difficult to forecast. ...

In fairness, Manfred was not alone in failing to see the future clearly. ... The union ... did not directly focus on the threat to the game's integrity.

Looking back, it's easy to say, "baseball should have seen this coming." ...

In baseball, though, things are rarely simple, and conflicting agendas sometimes distract from the most urgent matters. Thus, ... the MLBPA ... did not fully grasp the breadth of the problem. ...

Union chief Tony Clark has sounded occasional public warnings ... But not until [November 2019] ... did anyone on the players' side publicly suggest that illegal sign stealing was creating an uneven playing field.

One pitcher ... said he and other pitchers raised such fears at union meetings after the '16 season. When the same broad rules remained in effect for '17, the pitcher said the lack of action by MLB and the MLBPA was, "frankly astonishing to me."

So, why didn't MLB jump sooner? Why didn't the MLBPA? ...

Maybe it should have happened sooner. But baseball is moving toward a better place.
So: Manfred cannot be blamed for failing to predict the future; players need to speak publicly for their concern to be properly registered with the commissioner's office; and the union can go over the commissioner's head and unilaterally enact sweeping changes to the game. ... Interesting.

Meanwhile, Manfred is desperately trying to rewrite his place in baseball history:
If you think about it when we really became aware that something was going on, it was in 2017. By 2018, we were on the corrective action. When I say we were slow, we were slow by a few months. Look, I don't think that that's the worst reaction time of all time. Do I wish we would have got there a little sooner? Yeah, I do. ...

Look, it's like looking backwards on the steroid thing. You've heard me say this before. The problem with chasing — when somebody else is doing something wrong, at the beginning you're going to be a step behind. That's the way of the world. There's no avoiding that. Do I wish we would have thought through, "Gee, yeah, something bad could happen here?" Of course I do. I hate where we are right now. I think that when we had a reasonable basis to come to the realization we had a problem, I think we were pretty damn quick to get on it.
Manfred claims his reaction to this scandal was only "slow by a few months" and when there was "a reasonable basis" to realize a problem existed, he was "pretty damn quick" to act. But he also says (pretty much in the same breath) that he "really became aware of something" way back in 2017. Even if that knowledge came after the 2017 World Series, that's still two full years before Mike Fiers went public. And, of course, Manfred was spurred to act only because he could no longer ignore the issue. Manfred says he hates where "where we are right now" − but he is to blame, for purposefully ignoring complaints about the Astros from 10-12 teams. (No one has denied that report.) Those complaints gathered dust on Manfred's desk and he never lifted a finger.

Any commissioner will always be an employee of the owners, but Manfred is beyond incompetent and he's digging himself and the game a deeper hole every time he opens his mouth. He's got to go.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Baseball's growing residual anger at the Astros and Manfred's handling of this is going to result in the Sox getting nailed for the PR rebound it will afford Manfred.

Take the over.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Baseball's growing residual anger at the Astros and Manfred's handling of this is going to result in the Sox getting nailed for the PR rebound it will afford Manfred.

Take the over.
I think you're right. I'd bet the over too. And even though it hasn't happened (yet?), I'm already angry about it.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Yeah the football equivalent would be listening in to the coach-to-QB radio for the opposing team and then signaling the calls in real time to the defense (or vice versa). I certainly don’t think we’ll ever know just how much the scheme helped the Astros but it is fair to say there hasn’t been an on-field cheating scheme of this magnitude on any other of the 4 major sports ever.
Once again, the 1951 Giants did the same thing-- they used technology to steal signs and relay the info to batters in real time. Once they started their scheme, they came from way behind the Dodgers to force the famous dramatic playoff series and win the pennant.

It's important to point this out to give the Astros crimes some context in baseball history, that this isn't something new and more outrageous than ever before. It is not. It's been done before and that needs to be kept in mind when talking about it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/stolen-brooklyn-pitcher-recalls-51-sign-stealing-scam-68320868
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,152
Alamogordo
Once again, the 1951 Giants did the same thing-- they used technology to steal signs and relay the info to batters in real time. Once they started their scheme, they came from way behind the Dodgers to force the famous dramatic playoff series and win the pennant.

It's important to point this out to give the Astros crimes some context in baseball history, that this isn't something new and more outrageous than ever before. It is not. It's been done before and that needs to be kept in mind when talking about it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/stolen-brooklyn-pitcher-recalls-51-sign-stealing-scam-68320868
Cool. Suspend them all.
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,552
Vancouver Island
Baseball's growing residual anger at the Astros and Manfred's handling of this is going to result in the Sox getting nailed for the PR rebound it will afford Manfred.

Take the over.
That would involve Manfred consciously compounding his myriad embarrassments so far by exaggerating the extent of the Red Sox's illegal activity (i.e., falsifying MLB's final report, contradicting witnesses (possibly causing such witnesses to speak out publicly, thus exposing Manfred (who has already been shown to have covered up or deliberately downplayed Crane's involvement contrary to the evidence)) or blatantly assigning severe punishments out of proportion to what his own final report says. Which would, in light of everything that has happened in the wake of the Astros' report, be reported far and wide as yet another f-up by MLB.

Manfred is certainly an idiot and clearly far out of his depth, and might react bizarrely, but I don't see that happening. I don't see any PR rebound for Manfred anytime soon - though stepping down as commissioner right now might raise his poll numbers.