Should BBWAA Institute A 'Ryan Braun Rule'?

In the NFL with Brian Cushing a few years back. Won DROY, tested positive for whatever, re-vote, and he still won the award. This would never happen in baseball, because apparently baseball is the only sport over which we get our panties bunched.

Anyway, I voted no in the poll. I would have voted Kemp (writers screwed that one up pretty bad; I didn’t think it was that close at all), but if the premise was that I already voted Braun, I’m not going to change it based on a positive test, particularly one that came in the postseason.

I mean, if a player misses almost a third of the games in a season, it’s going to be very difficult to be the Most Valuable Player just by virtue of playing time.

In a more literal sense, since Braun (or future players in his situation) was thought to be the better player, I fail to see how a drug test changes what happened in season, unless you want to apply a character clause to the MVP award. And this is before getting into the complexities of whet steroids actually do.

Furthermore, a rule like this just seems to complicate things. What if John Doe wins the 2012 MVP, then gets banned two weeks into the 2013 season? Technically, he didn’t test positive during the 2012 season, so does his MVP stand?

I would say no to the rule, but I try and decide on the MVP solely on performance anyway. In any case, I get the feeling Braun won’t be following up on his MVP award any time soon, so I feel no need to institute the rule right now.

Since the BBWAA so frequently gives awards to players who, as it turns out, aren’t the most deserving. It seems reasonable to disqualify a writer from voting for major awards if he’s decided the top spot on his MVP ballot should go to Michael Young.

Braun tested positive in the post-season. Not the regular season, which the MVP award is CLEARLY for. By that logic, if he tested positive in spring training would there be a re-vote?

Now – in the hypothetical case that, let’s say, Braun tested positive towards the end of the season, and the BBWAA decided to do a re-vote, I would agree under the following circumstances. 1) That MLB fully disclose exactly when, where, and under what circumstances the drug test was administered and evaluated, open for full inquiry and disclosure about the scientists, involved, second samples, chain of custody, etc. – and obviously revealing EXACTLY which substance was found in Braun’s system and why that substance is considered to be performance-enhancing. 2) That Braun himself was allowed to fully disclose (if he so wished) the full circumstances of his test – what he took, why he took it, and why he believed that he did not need a medical exemption. 3) That Braun be allowed to cite his previous “clean” tests (if he wished) in order to demonstrate that the positive test was a one-time event. 4) That MLB launch a full investigation into who leaked the confidential report, and institute a policy that says any future leaks will result in immediate termination and (when relevant) fullest prosecution the law allows. 5) That any reporter who reports “leaked” information is subject to sanction by the BBWAA – by a vote of the current membership.

In other words, let’s say Braun took something hormonal for a single week, with a doctor’s prescription, unaware that it would trigger a positive test. That doesn’t mitigate his suspension – a banned substance is a banned substance – but it would give a proper context for re-voters to decide if Braun’s transgression was deliberate, an accident, or an odd technicality. Similarly, reporters need to be discouraged from printing leaked information without knowing more of the facts: a reporter with a vendetta or who needs a scoop could easily spread a rumor that a player has “reportedly” tested positive, knowing that it will be months before the appeal process is played out, putting undue pressure on MLB to remain “consistent” on punishing all alleged users equally as well as putting the player in an uncomfortable position of not being able to talk about the possible suspension or why it happened. Let’s put the writer up for a vote as well: if a majority of his peers agree that “yes, he should have printed the illegally leaked information even though it caused a lot of damage,” then he can stay.

JUST TO MAKE A POINT? Who the fuck do you think you are, Bob Costas? Do you think you’re the God of Baseball because you hold the power to delay or deny a true Hall of Fame player’s being inducted? “Yeah, I’ll show that Barry Bonds a thing or two. He won’t get MY Hall vote until 2014. Hahahaha. Fix his ass. That’ll teach him.” Who the HELL do you think you are, Bob Costas? Who the HELL are you to force me to wait a year to see Barry Bonds’ plaque in the Hall, where it belongs? If he’s a Hall of Famer, I want to see his induction in 2013, and not a second later. I’m 54 years old, there’s an increasing chance I wouldn’t live to see Bonds go into the Hall while you’re just making a point.

The arrogance of these people, the working journalists who ignore, in fact violate at least two long-established rules of journalism ethics by deciding who profits and who doesn’t from their votes, and by themselves making news with their votes. The f**king NERVE of these people.

Come on, you cowards from the BBWAA. Challenge me on this. Gotta be some of you who read this site. Tell me why I’m wrong and you’re right to decide who makes money, and when, and who doesn’t, thanks to your votes.

Throws down gauntlet

Is it wrong to say that I don’t care?

I don’t mean that in a glib or aggressive way, just that whoever gets the MVP is of no importance to me or the team I follow (yeah, clearly not a Brewers or Dodgers fan here!).

Why should I care what the consensus of the subjective view of a group of writers is? I’m sure Ryan Braun cares a lot, and so does Matt Kemp. And a large number of fans of both teams, and team-mates, and other players who hope to win the award.

But the MVP award is as tainted to me as the Hall of Fame vote – because control over it is in the hands of a non-elected, self-rightous clique (although strictly-speaking too many to be a clique) whose opinion is no better than mine.

Honestly, if I ever met a member of the BBWAA I wouldn’t be angry with them, I’d just shrug my shoulders and say something along the lines of “BBWAA? So what. Can you really tell me why your opinion is more important than mine?” and wait for their illuminating reply.

Braun or Kemp? It really doesn’t mean anything to me.

So yes; good for a discussion but where’s the 3rd option: “Don’t Care” or “Too busy looking out for Spring to bother thinking about it.”.

Although a re-vote shouldn’t occur until after the appeal has been finished to give a player a chance to prove his innocence.

I’m not sure this will serve as much of a deterrent from PED use, as I’m not sure the financial benefits of winning the MVP are substantial compared with the financial benefits of using PEDs.

But there’s no reason the behavior needs to be rewarded.

Name it after Ken Caminiti or A-rod, hell even Bonds

exonerated by a technicality, hooray for RB, he is such a nuce guy, whatever fig leaf we have to use, we have to use it.

But no, the games were played, the MVP vote was taken. It’s not like Matt Kemp needs the money or recognition. Let all of it stand.