Le Batard, Deadspin, the HOF vote

Jr/shotglass mentioned this on the HOF thread, but it probably deserves it's own thread. Da Le Batard gave his HOF vote to Deadspin. The BBWAA is mad and some other sportswriter types are throwing a fit.

Discuss.

 

So if I understand this, Deadspin bought the vote. It then let Deadspin readers fill out the ballot, which, if you look at it, was pretty good if you ask me.

And there's something wrong with that?

Tough tell is Wilbon was joking when he tweeted that he and Kornheiser were going to spank LeBatard for doing this. Obviously they were just going to take him to task for it. But again, why? Deadspin's Joe Bag of Donuts proved he can be as level-headed, if not more, than the gatekeepers.

 

LeBatard did not receive anything for the vote. He says he did it to expose the flaws in the process, and he surely did that. I am not too pleased with his decision to do it, but I understand his reasoning, and the fans got it right. I'm hoping this will lead to substantial reforms after all the fits have been thrown.

 

Why didn't LeBatard just solicit fans himself?

 

I posted this on the HOF thread regarding the content of Le Batard's screed:


I don't agree with Le Batard, particularly this passage:

"I hate all the moralizing we do in sports in general, but I especially hate the hypocrisy in this: Many of the gatekeeper voters denying Barry Bonds Hall Of Fame entry would have they themselves taken a magical, healing, not-tested-for-in-their-workplace elixir if it made them better at their jobs, especially if lesser talents were getting the glory and money."

Is this really how we should make this determination, by comparing players to a hypothetical, fantasy situation we might find ourselves in, and figure out how we would react? What "hypocrisy" does Le Batard see except for that which he has conjured?

He also leaves out some key details. Is the elixir illegal? Does the elixir cause frightening side effects? Does the elixir come with a decades-long track record of being a known no-no in the workplace?

Whatever. A pro athlete could shoot an umpire in the head over a called strike three, and we all know that Le Batard would be the first to rationalize it.


Also, I think that "moralizing" is become too easy of a fallback critique, even though I've used it myself - used it on Alma on this board, for example. Isn't it OK to "moralize" sometimes? Are we never to judge integrity or character or, even taking traits out of the equation, the ethics of particular acts? Why even have a court system then? And, obviously, a HOF vote isn't a court system. But why have rules at all, in any arena, if we're prohibited from levying consequences?

 

Guessing it never really occurred to him until approached by Deadspin, and he saw it as a way to get some publicity.

 

Only comment I'll make: When Deadspin revealed the percentage of votes that Deadspin readers gave to candidates, even Greg Maddux didn't get unanimous support.

 

Fireable offense if I'm his boss at ESPN and he's generating traffic for a major competitor.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

 

Le Batard is unfailingly the athlete's defender, almost to the point of "no matter what." Player = good, any other critic, authority or opposing force = bad.

Not surprised he'd be a "PEDS & the more, the merrier" advocate.

As for the "moralizing," Dick, we're raising generations now that cannot stand the concept of judging or being judged. They've all been given trophies just for showing up. They're made to walk on eggshells over others' feelings at all times as the highest ideal. Some kids feel pressure not to excel lest they separate themselves from the pack and cause others to feel bad (though we tolerate meritocracy in sports, almost exclusively). "Everything is gray and no one truly can walk in another's shoes," so it's all relativism, all the time. Institutions must sublimate themselves to each and every individual, a reversal of times when individuals would want to aspire to the institution's guidelines and ideals.

And while those who see things that way are entitled to their opinions, in my experience, it makes their heads explode that others would dare hold a contrary view. They cannot handle dissent from their staked-out positions.

Well, too bad. We're all being judged. In the big way and in a bunch of little ways. That ought to motivate us, not aggravate us.

 

Dan shouldn't have done this. If he had solicited a public vote on his multiple media platforms, I as a BBWAA member would have no problem with it (others would). But to allow Deadspin to use his anonymity to gleefully imply some writer sold his or her vote to it was sleazy, or being a conspirator in sleaze after the fact, I guess. It's not as if he needed this stunt to get MORE attention. He's on TV every goddamn day.