I’d rather watch PFPs than go to the ER.

I have that same problem with my BB and it’s super frustrating.

I have never encountered a PA that wasn’t a youngish, attractive female. It’s an odd phenomenon.

Guys, I think if I am understanding the BB problem correctly, all you have to do is press the ‘t’ key and it should jump to the top of the list.

I concur with Beau and Grant, and sneer at any indignation towards this. Regardless, Keith, I went to the Hammerheads/Miracle game on Thurs. (quality contest – Revere with GW 3-run doule in bottom 9th). Do David Bromberg or Kyle Winters have any future? Bromberg seemed to have a plus fastball, and fooled Stanton badly in a couple at-bats, mixing curve and change-up, while Winters seemed to have the Miracle off-balance (albeit with what seemed like worse stuff). Thanks.

On BBTN they were talking about Sheffield’s “fear factor” for his hall of fame induction. I’m pretty sure they said he was the most feared hitter since Jim Rice.

TK talked about that in his column, where he also said that getting 500 HR definitively puts Sheffield in the Hall. As if his .315 EqA, .292/.394/.516, 141 OPS+ and 79.7 WARP-3 weren’t good enough with 499 HR.

Keith,

A bit off-topic, but I think we usually see eye-to-eye on matters such as these: do you think Bradley gets a suspension if he was white?

malcom-

Are you implying that some of the decisions MLB makes are tainted by racism??? We live in a post-racial society, man!

(End sarcasm)

The Milledge move seems to make a certain amount of sense to me – they have a logjam in the outfield, he was playing pretty miserably both at the plate and in the field (admittedly in a tiny sample size), he has options, and it’s far better at his age for him to get playing time in AAA than to get stuck on the bench half the time for the big league club – especially if they’re trying to get him to adjust to and improve in center. Meanwhile they can play Dunn, Dukes (who also clearly needs to play every day), and Kearns, and potentially build the trade value of Kearns enough to get something for him midseason, which would make room for Milledge again. The Nationals were obviously very quick, perhaps too quick, to make the decision, but I’m a bit skeptical the decision would be any different with, say, Milledge and Jordan Schaefer switched.

Keith, I agree that the BBRAA loves it some shiny round numbers, but the gist I got from Tim’s column was that 500 was what made him deserving. I could be misreading it, but I’ve got the column in front of me, and it sure looks like he was saying that Sheff’s in, now that he’s got 500.

I’m not sure those are valid examples: Bonds was voted off his 83 ASU baseball team for being a jerk amd they won the title because of him. He has been a jerk his entire life. Being a jerk isn’t a race issue but a human being issue. I’ve heard Reggie Jackson was a jerk too but he is a hero – and BLACK!
Why aren’t blacks playing hockey or Asians football? That could be a culture issue not a racial issue. This is like wondering why the Boxing heavyweight division is awful – perhaps those kids are playing other sports.
Aren’t scrappy and athletic a semantic issue? Would Ryan Freel not be athletic? Or Michael Bourne not scrappy? Why can’t we just use a generic term: replacement level.

I think race is foisted too quickly – the Bradley situation case in point. Charles Barkely is the spokesperson of this – in case you didn’t know, he is black.

Brett Myers and Brian Giles both abused women in public places and their stories lost steam quickly. Dante Bichette once abused his pregnant girlfriend. Everyone was willing to look the other way as long as they produced on the field. Bobby Cox beat his wife. These guys all remained with their teams for a long time. Dmitri Young, Elijah Dukes, Alberto Callaspo, Julio Lugo, Milton Bradley, all non-whites and all shipped out of town shortly after having the same types of issues.

Milton Bradley and Carl Everett before him are two examples of black players being labeled as “angry” due to their history of run-ins with umpires. If they were white they’d be “passionate” or “fiery.” Imagine if Milton Bradley ever stormed out of the dugout to yell at an umpire like George Brett once did. We’d have to hear about how dangerous a person he is. Yet everyone looks back fondly at Brett’s incident.

Switching sports, there have been many, many cases of hockey players leaving the ice to fight with fans over the years and not much of a stink has ever been made. But what happened when Ron Artest and Co. did the same? They were made out to be animals, suspended on a historic scale and ESPN’s coverage made it seem dangerous to attend an NBA game. You cannot convince me that race didn’t play a role in the difference between the two reactions.

Also, I’m sorry if you feel threatened by Charles Barkley but IMO we need more like him to keep checks on the powers that be.

to follow up- I have a unique perspective in that I live in an area where I’m white and everyone else is either black or hispanic. my wife teaches jr high and I’ve spent a bit of time in her classroom. I hear every visit how I’m racist when I ask them to hush when the teacher is talking. before anything else it is a race issue- their failure has nothing to do with them being lazy, rude or just bad at what they do, it is that they are a non-white race. the parents foist this view on their kids and my wife as a teacher. they simply cannot take responsibility and blame race and use that instead of doing the work or being kind or trying to succeed. when I hear how race is a huge issue in sports I think it is those same kids growing up doing the same thing. stand up for your own responsibility and say- I failed. not because I’m this color but because I didn’t do this right. race is such a minor issue I’m actually offended when it is brought up. the example bait above was to show that examples can be cherry picked and blacks, whites and everyone else are held to a double standard in public life. charles barkley, michael jordan, isaiah thomas, are all bad people yet we hero worship them. how many chances has shawn kemp or darius miles had after their failures? talented players are given chances and non talented players aren’t. race isn’t an issue.

Wow, I just saw you post this on a separate thread: “I don’t think Rocker is a good example though as I’m not sure he even did anything wrong. It’s okay to not like people of another race. Maybe it isn’t kosher these days, but believe it or not, it isn’t a crime to say, “I dislike purple people.” That’s more of an issue of the public getting mad about something they have no right to get mad about and the powers that be reacting to save face.”

You don’t think what he said was wrong? You think it’s okay to not like people of another race? Is it illegal? Obviously not. But that hardly makes it right. Not to threadjack from there to here, but it’s clear that your perspective is so biased by your perceptions of people of color that there really is no way to discuss this rationally.

Rocker didn’t do anything illegal. He certainly did something wrong. What he said was offensive to many people. Generally speaking, offending people is wrong, especially when that offense is predicated upon racism, sexism, homophobia, and other biases. You said that it’s okay to not like people because they are a different race. Um, isn’t that okaying racism? Is it a far leap to conclude that you are a racist? You don’t have to openly hate people of another race or go out and take part in hate crimes to be a racist. Your comments are so twinged with racist thought and ideology. I call a spade a spade and a racist a racist. Trust me, I study this as part of my job, and recognizing racism is something I do well. You can hide behind whatever rationalizations that you want, but it doesn’t hide the truth. And, yes, I will attack you, if you present yourself as you did here.

You’re jumping all over the place with your logic. You’re equating disagreement with offense; not liking someone for personal reasons with not liking someone because of his race; defending someone’s right to an opinion with legitimizing that opinion. I really don’t know how to attack your argument, since you keep changing it. Whatever. You just keep on spouting ignorance and racism, refusing to be reflective and recognize the bias and privilege that informs your worldview. Way to keep your head in the sand. I’m done.

Keith: I appreciate your levity. Thank you.

BSK: I’m a little scared that we live in a world where a difference of opinion becomes grounds to attack an individual. I think we’re allowed to disagree and learn from that disagreement. It is clear however you’re not that person and that’s too bad, I did enjoy your thoughts partly because I really thought they were bad. (that last part was meant to be in jest). Honestly, I have no issue with race (you foisted that on me) or you.

1.I don’t think race belongs in many places I find it – The Milton point above.
2. Examples of racism go both ways. It can be anywhere one looks for it.
3. I don’t think you’re a grand arbiter who gets to decide whether or not someones opinion is right or wrong.
4. My defense of someones opinion does not make me a racist or in favor whatever opinion is being defended.
5. Disagreement is okay and not a bad thing. Lets stick to the argument not an attack.
Those are my thoughts (I think) in the thread above.

Bonus: I don’t know everything…yet.

rick- $5 right? so racism is okay (or at least more so) if it comes from a black person? slow, slow process indeed…

Let me give a brief summary of where we are before I respond because you think I’m a racist.
Let me first state that I believe in a marketplace of ideas. That is any idea can be put out there, and the market place will decide whether or not the idea is good or bad. The idea can be insulted, not the individual positing it. Too many people assume the individual should be insulted, and not the idea. Funny how humans work. I’m pretty sure you, Rick, actually work this way.
I think Race is foisted into places where it doesn’t belong. I think Race issues aren’t as front a center as people would like. I think they rarely exist actually.
I asked for some examples where race is present in MLB or sports at all. You stated, and I agree, that marginal players who do bad things are tossed aside while stars are kept. That’s reality for both Black and whites. You just happened to give examples of established white stars and marginal minority scrubs. Then you stated that George Brett in the pine tar incident is compared to Milt. That’s 5$ and an awful example. The rest was answered I think.
The point is that no evidence has been given where race is present. It is all conjecture based on preconcieved notions. I don’t think evidence has been given that says race issues are present. In the market place of ideas I’m not sure my idea is worse than yours. You certainly don’t have any evidence, or any good evidence. If you disagree that’s okay. I’m willing to even say, “i’m wrong”. I just haven’t seen anything that warrants me having to say so, exept for an insult here and there.
Someone then said, “he believes John Rocker should be allowed to have an idea in the marketplace of ideas! He agrees with John Rocker! He’s a bigot!” God Bless that person, but thinking someone has an idea in the marketplace is an okay proposition and agreeing with that idea is a leap I didn’t make.
I just felt I should explain where I come from before you continue to insult me.

With that behind us, I’m not actually sure yours is a real objection, but okay I’ll bite. When you said, “Yes, blacks CAN be racist too, but their racism carries a lot less weight.” It is pretty clear you think racism is okay for black people-just marginalized. If that’s not what you meant, okay. Instead of saying I overreacted or didn’t read carefully, try explaining what you meant clearly the first time or just state what you did mean. I’m actually quite clueless how I was to infer your follow up from your first post.
With that being said, I think my origial response to you stands just fine. And I am willing to say that your idea is absolutely a crock.
Racism is a bad thing – no matter where it comes from. That is my entire point. I’m not denying racism exists an entirety, I’m simply stating that we should judge a person who throws a bottle into the stands, erupts on a regular basis at umpires, who belittles people, as someone who has an anger issue. I’m not sure where race came into the picture, but I’m pretty sure i can point to the incidents where his “angry dude” moniker came along. What is ironic here is that I’m being considered the racist here.

Now again, you’re willing to state that racism towards white people is harmless while racism towards black is harmful? I just want you to be clear on this. If that is what you really believe, then okay. I would very much enjoy a discussion where you defend your position. And I applaud you for admitting that you are a racist. That is courageous especially on this forum. If that isn’t fair to your actual position, please explain.

lordy- this isn’t easy and I’m sure I’m baited at this point but—- rick…then please explain as I’m not clear. I asked you a few times to explain what you mean. if you’re not able- say so. if not willing- say so. it seems clear to me your condoning racism from black people. you said racism is different depending on race…how exactly? I am interested in what you mean but you’re not clear. please be clear. the quote you posted was a question. so…answer it.

To clarify my point for both KLaw and brian:

I never said it was wrong for Rocker to have an opinion I disagree with. I do believe that he is entitled to his opinion. brian is absolutely right that you are entitled to your opinion in this country. Rather, I think Rocker’s specific opinion in this case is wrong. And I think I can say that objectively. I cannot argue that someone who likes green better than blue is objectively wrong. That is a subjective decision. But I feel confident and comfortable saying that racism is objectively wrong. There are some absolutes in this world, and I think this is one of them. There is a fine line between differing opinions of equal validity and differing opinions of unequal validity. And I still maintain that thinking people can make this distinction. Again, no “grand arbiter”. We as a society have arrived at the conclusion that murder is wrong. We can do (and mostly have done) the same with racism. It’s just a matter of being able to recognize the different situations. Remember, in a world where everyone is right, no one is right.

Remember, I’m not arguing that Rocker HAVING the opinion is wrong. He should be allowed to think whatever he wants. But I can his THOUGHT is wrong. A fine distinction.

Rick, I’ll leave you to debate brian at this point. I don’t want to spend the next several weeks explaining privilege.

KLaw- I thought it was you who talked about those things. It’s interesting to here your “insider” perspective on all the non-baseball factors that go into baseball decisions. Just like so much of the rest of the world.

Rick…Okay then I agree with you. But isn’t that like talking about the color of the sky as it falls on you? Racism isn’t acceptable anywhere it comes from right? Why a distinction then? I apologize for assuming the worst in you.

BSK…Thanks for trying to clarify. I still don’t appreciate your attack on me. I am not entirely clear on your point overall as wild inconsistencies flare up to me, but thanks for taking the time. I suppose no one has to be “right”. I might argue that your action “is” and your interpretation of that action concludes right vs wrong. You’re positing a rigid standard of right and wrong, and that doesn’t work. Read Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals and see for yourself. We don’t have to agree though.

Thanks Keith for helping me see Rick’s point. I didn’t get that at all.

I thought you said your views were formed by reading philosophy and religious writings? You’ve never heard of Kant? Please do yourself a favor and read the metaphysics of morals. How did you get through any academia without hearing about Kant or even reading it? Did you go to some cloistered school where reading worldly philosophers is considered heresy? (news flash, he actually argues your position but he is honest about it.) And secondly, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want to read something you don’t agree with. Try to stretch yourself a bit. I assumed that was the point of this but honestly, it dawned on me just now, it isn’t. I’m dissapointed now. You’re a dogmatist and not interesting. My best friends are people I completely disagree with about lots of things. We stretch one another, challenge one another, and allow for other ideas to have merrit. You’re not like that. I’m sorry I wasted my time. You’re a Joe Morgan.

I’d actually really appreciate the line you draw between my POV and me being a racist. I’m not actually sure you’re understanding everything here and have already made your decision.

For shear will of my desire to constantly discuss ideas in the hope furthering my understanding I’ll give you this follow up. I don’t understanding how ethics work. No one does. We guess. There hasn’t been a difinitive book written yet that has ethics pinned down. Smarter people than you and I have tried and made a lot of progress, but we don’t know how morality works. If you think you know I’ll be the first one to shake your hand at your pulitzer ceremony. Since that isn’t happening you can assume you know as much as I…well no…you don’t know who Kant is. You know less than I do about this. I suppose you should at least know that everything written after Kant was really just a response to Kant.

I think you are always going to to face a grand arbiter (from here on out G.A.) because you suppose there is a standard that’s innate in us regarding right and wrong. I’d call this the classic judeo-Christian ethical world view. I’m okay with that but you’ve never said there was a God who creates any sort of understanding of right vs wrong. So with just that I’m going to say for you to have any sembelance of a ethical standard of right vs wrong, you have to posit yourself as that G.A. You think Rocker is wrong. Rocker thinks he’s right. You’re dogmatic and you think you’re right. He’s Dogmatic and he thinks he’s right. This is like the Jews and the Palestinians. Neither will compromise, and they go on fighting. I suppose this might be a bad example because you’re too involved emotionally I think to get the point of the argument. How about if we substitute racism and Rocker for abortion or euthenasia (SP?) or beating a dog or an even better example might be pot/chronic. It only comes down to what you think is right vs what someone else thinks is right. In that case might makes right. Now if you want to assume God, I’d be happy to reply to that argument.

Not sure that you’ll ever care, but the best and easiest introductory book to philsophy I’ve come accross is The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. He is VERY readable and concise. He also wrote a monster 12 volume history of the world that’s apparently very good too. Maybe starting out reading Kant would be a bit much as you’ve got to wade through jargon and old language. Try the synopsis first.