Jump to content

MLB Bans Rookie Hazing


weams

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Quote

The new policy will prohibit "requiring, coercing or encouraging [players from] dressing up as women or wearing costumes that may be offensive to individuals based on their race, sex, nationality, age, sexual orientation, gender identify or other characteristic,"

I find it interesting that they now include all kinds of groups out there that could be offended.  They even include groups that wouldn't have been considered just 5 years ago.  But the one that used to be on most list, but is not included anymore is religion.  I guess it is OK now to offend religions or does that get put down to the "other characteristic."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The new policy will prohibit "requiring, coercing or encouraging [players from] dressing up as women or wearing costumes that may be offensive to individuals based on their race, sex, nationality, age, sexual orientation, gender identify or other characteristic," per Ronald Blum of the AP.

orioles.png

 

But what if dressing up as a male sex organ is a fully accurate representation of a player's gender identity?  And what about those rookies who like dressing as women and look forward to a truly liberating career milestone?  Somebody didn't think this one through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, harp6 said:

I find it interesting that they now include all kinds of groups out there that could be offended.  They even include groups that wouldn't have been considered just 5 years ago.  But the one that used to be on most list, but is not included anymore is religion.  I guess it is OK now to offend religions or does that get put down to the "other characteristic."

I'm sure religion is included in "other characteristics" and wasn't omitted purposely. I'm assuming it may have been overlooked in the memo because it's something that was probably already avoided by teams. 

 

2 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

If any player was offended by this they lack the ability to laugh at themselves among other things. If you paid me the ML minimum I'd dress in anything they wanted and parade through downtown.

Being able to laugh at yourself and being forced to have other people laugh at you are not the same thing. Personally, I can do either...but as with most people, I have a line. This is just trying to make sure that the line isn't crossed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hazing is stupid in a professional work environment.  

I can understand and accept it at the high school and college level, but grown men making millions of dollars a year hazing other grown men who make 500 K a year is a little silly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had a nickel for every misguided, often downright stupid team-building exercise put on by corporate America.  I'd be rich.  

Good riddance to the bullying aspect of mlb hazing and I wouldn't complain if the costumes truly in bad taste went away, expecially if they're seen in public.  Otherwise I fail to see the harm in a little silliness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, harp6 said:

I find it interesting that they now include all kinds of groups out there that could be offended.  They even include groups that wouldn't have been considered just 5 years ago.  But the one that used to be on most list, but is not included anymore is religion.  I guess it is OK now to offend religions or does that get put down to the "other characteristic."

How can you complain about other people feeling offended, when you're acting offended yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

What's next? MLB will make every team sit down in a circle at the end of every game and sing Kumbaya? Stupid. Let people have fun, and if it gets vicious; the club should deal with it. 

I don't know enough about MLB hazing to know how much difference this rule will make in anybody's life, but I do know that, no, this is not what's next. 

I have no problem with many clubhouse pranks but I also have no problem with the rule. Preventing players from doing things that could be offensive or harmful is a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MntneerLegion said:

Wow, I'm completely blown away by all the folks who like this rule.  I guess we're not going to see any pies during post game interviews any more.  Stupid...and I'd bet the players agree.

Uh...what does this have to do with the pies after the games? 

 

This isn't about banning fun. It's about banning tasteless fun (and yet Chief Wahoo is still in existence). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...