Jerry Crawford
by PhoenixFly on Aug 13, 2009 5:42 PM EDT
Email
Print
Glad to see that what happened between Hinch and Crawford really got some attention across the baseball world...
"This is Crawford's second major incident of the month, after Friday's egregious blown call and subsequent outburst against Arizona manager A.J. Hinch. While Crawford has yet to sink that low during this game -- the night is still young as I type this -- the crew's decision to toss Porcello after he hit one batter with a three-run lead and no warning in effect was incompetence at best and cowing to a hostile Fenway crowd at worst. Crawford's involvement in two on-field blowups, both featuring bad umpiring decisions, calls into question his fitness to umpire major league games, especially ones with playoff implications like Tuesday's."
I know, I know. It took the Red Sox getting in a fracas to make it national news. But at least everyone knows we got robbed. Hopefully no one ever has to deal with this guy again. He seems unfit to ump. Corny but if there is a strike three, I think he should be outta here.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I believe Jim (?) already linked this K-Law blog post
Sorry Fly, you’re a tad late. :-P
My brother: Did you see the genre of this song [Wake Up by Arcade Fire]?
Me: Isn't it Alternative?
My brother: No, it was funeral. Most depressing thing ever. I s*** you not. Go look it up.
Me: ::checks iTunes:: That's the album title.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 13, 2009 6:07 PM EDT reply actions
On a related note
I wasn’t going to say anything, but since the topic came up again, I found this intriguing quote discussing an ejected Diamondbacks’ manager
…not a particularly effective field leader of men. He is an introspective, self-conscious Cal/Berkeley fellow, concerned about not coming on too strong in the middle of a rhubarb in which he was undeniably right… decides to stir things up and ends up browbeaten by some second rate ump. Nobody held [blank] back because nobody had to. [blank] held himself back. Being a good man, a paragon of self control, doesnt make a successful major league manager. It really helps to be a man’s man. Confident, decisive, intimidating. Someone you’ll work extra hard for to stay in their good graces, not someone who’ll gush to the press how you remind him of George Brett when you hit .280. An exacting boss obsessively focusing personnel on the collective goal rather than some approachable corporate facilitator cheerfully scheduling your next one on one.If the writing style seems familiar, that’s no surprise – it’s ‘hacks, but he’s not discussing AJ Hinch – that was him talking about Bob Melvin, writing over three years ago. But last week, he then wrote, about Hinch
Instead of demonizing Crawford, secure Diamondback fans should probably just embrace the fact we have an effete manager through 2012. I like AJ, much like I love my gay brother. They’re both smart, unusually thoughtful and speak well. But as Gary observed, AJ appeared ‘visibly shaken’ and his voice was still quavering an hour later in the postgame interview. That’s our fearless leader.A fascinating near-obsession we have here. It seems our managers just aren’t able to live up to ‘Hacks high standards of masculinity when arguing with umpires. Maybe Wally Backman would have reached the exacting level necessary to satisfy his macho demands – y’know, when not getting arrested for spousal abuse…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
Diamondhacks
will be excited that somebody’s reading his blog!
"In the future, I want to be a fossil. Or, at least have my feces be fossilized"
-Pygalgia
I wasn’t going to say anything, buuuuut….
…buuuut maybe "Hacks wants a wifebeater to manage the Dbacks.
No big umbrage with either independent claim, Jim. What’s weak is qualifying the “hey kids, I kinda think Hacks prefers the wifebeater” with the disingenuous notion you’d prefer not to get involved. If you wanna say I prefer the wifebeater, fine. But let me respond, make you look deservedly foolish, and we can move on. That’s what men do, instead of fussing “oh, I dont wanna get involved”, then chastising and castrating (ie banning) people for responding in kind to your defamatory crapola. It’s unsporting, and robs your sites of their considerable potential.
It seems our managers just aren’t able to live up to ‘Hacks high standards of masculinity when arguing with umpires
High standards of argumentative forcefulness, but close enough. My twin observations (Hinch 2009, BoMel 2006) dont contradict one other – they contradict primative insinuations I’m Melvin’s lapdog and/or am particularly predisposed against Hinch. I’m further amused how compulsive threadhogs like TAP and yourself are so quick to characterize two or three posts, written across three years, as an “obsession” or “near-obsession”. This premature “froth” reflects a partisan intolerance for probing favored Diamondback principals, and nada about me unilaterally crossing objective “lines”. Indeed, several dbbp retorts were clearly as (or more) defamatory than anything I wrote. Without, of course, even a hint of equitable sanction.
I can parry uninformed catcalls I’m an anti-semetic homophobe, homosexual (gee, which is it, dbbp?), narrow-minded, the Unabomber, The Jimmy, and my personal favorite, “afraid of levski” – and actually enjoy some of the more creative snark. Until my chitchat’s extinguished for advancing the notion Hinch is effete and for responding in kind to some of dbbp’s reflexive ad hominem blather.
All the same, let me help you and TAP out on your “obsession” angle, free of charge, because I’m so broken up about it and you need all the help you can get ;-) Here’s my even more colorful, early 2007 smear on BoMel you both apparently missed. Sometime between your blowjob “jokes” and crackerjack analysis, feel free to get indignant, and alternatively brand me a hypocritical homo and intolerant homophobe. Of staggering proportions, of course ;-)
More seriously, several things recently came to light, regarding Crawford, Law, Hinch, etc, that would’ve naturally led to my insightful discussion with a few of your readers – but that wont happen now, by fiat ( at dbbp) and by choice (me, here). Interest in my views, while hardly universal, is confirmed by the select few who cant seem to stop talking about me, or stop speaking on my behalf, even after I’m gone. You are, of course, the worst offender. That’s usually how it works. Crude approximations of what I think, from the most vocal detractors, instead of ideas and distinctions from the horse’s mouth. That’s what you’ve always wanted. It’s what you, personally, deserve. Talk amongst yourselves.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Aug 15, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
As on DBBP
Your own words – both here and on your own site – continue to condemn you far more effectively than I could.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Aug 15, 2009 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Glad to see you back, Diamond. I’m probably in the minority, but I wish you contributed more frequently. Although I rarely agree with your unique perspectives, they always prove stimulating. It sure as heck beats the simple minded thinking of the adversary de jour this year.
"Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America."
-- Bruce Catton
by njjohn on Aug 15, 2009 12:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The huh du wha?
NL West TempestTeapot
Nothing matters , and what if it did?
by victor frankenstein on Aug 20, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I wasn't going to say anything, but...
A fascinating near-obsession we have here. It seems our managers just aren’t able to live up to ‘Hacks high standards of masculinity when arguing with umpires. Maybe Wally Backman would have reached the exacting level necessary to satisfy his macho demands – y’know, when not getting arrested for spousal abuse…
I wouldn’t deny that Diamondhacks has a tendency to hyperbole and stridency. On the same note, I wouldn’t deny that many, many people on this blog have the same tendency—including both myself and you, Jim. (His Nazi comments towards you are no different than you trying to link him with supporting wife beaters here.) You seem to have as much of an obsession with one-upping him as he does with you. That’s not the real point, though. I’ve let a lot of the misogynistic “girly” comments and homophobic “jokes” about Lincecum and others pass, despite the fact that it’s incredibly morally offensive (on my part) not to speak up on behalf of some of the most important people in my life (i.e. my gay friends). However, if you’re going to call someone out for exaggerated “macho demands,” it only seems relevant to bring up the note of hypocrisy here. Putting someone down based upon some “joking” sense of his effette manner or appearance certainly raises questions about what’s going on in the minds of those telling the “jokes.” After all, if the person making the comments doesn’t think there is something inherently inferior about femininity or homosexuality, those jokes don’t get made. In fact, they don’t even occur to the person telling them because there is no frame of reference. Maybe ‘Hacks isn’t so alien to the prevailing mindset, after all. Of course, the person who brought up the matter of homphobia before was immediately banned, so…
by azshadowwalker on Aug 15, 2009 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There are a few points here
But I want to make one comment, just from experience – homophobic/feminist/etc. jokes aren’t made because of one’s inherent sense of the other group being inferior. Society creates that sense, and if we sense it, we can then cater to that society by amusing them with jokes. That, or, those few who find enough humor in the fact that worthless, false, and degrading stereotypes are created about entire groups of people when the only thing needed to realize their falsehood is just getting to know people can make jokes in parody of these stereotypes as a way of breaking them down by sharing a laugh at their blatant wrongness. Regardless of how twisted it may be psychologically, no human can deny that this tactic works, and is remarkably useful.
My brother: Did you see the genre of this song [Wake Up by Arcade Fire]?
Me: Isn't it Alternative?
My brother: No, it was funeral. Most depressing thing ever. I s*** you not. Go look it up.
Me: ::checks iTunes:: That's the album title.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 15, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Sometimes
that might be true, but often times that’s not the case. Sometimes even the same joke can be repeated amongst different companies and different reactions will be found.
For harrassment, the idea is to not create a hostile environment for others.
You are both wrong, for I, SOCO, am the BIG Anime Fan!!
Of course
There is a difference between a respectful and intelligent discussion of the topic, for which I am always open, and turning it into a personalized flame-war. For example, taking a discussion of whether an umpire’s reaction was appropriate are not, and twisting it into a platform to attack our manager’s “manliness”.
As for girly/homophobic jokes about Lincecum, you may have missed that I [and commentors in general] do not take *anyone*’s sexuality seriously – heterosexuality comes in for its fair share of pointed humor e.g. my comment about washing out the Gameday Thread with a fire-hose whenever Oeltjen plays, are hardly reverential in tone. I’m all in favor of gay equality. And among other things, that means they get to be legitimate targets for humor, just like every other group in society. Even the Scots – just ask Mike Myers…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Aug 15, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
We
might know that certain people’s comments on Lincecum were in jest, but we also have to think of the lurkers and the first time vistors. What are they supposed to think if the first thing they see is “Hinch must be gay” or “Lincecum has long hair like a girly gay?” I’m frankly suprised we’ve only had one visitor mention it.
It might be a good rule of thumb for anyone here that in the future if a comment is offensive or over the line (of which I, myself, make many), and someone calls them on it, then that ends that particular line of joking. That doesn’t mean it can’t be joked about later, or the comment should be hidden, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to recognize when our jokes have crossed a line.
You are both wrong, for I, SOCO, am the BIG Anime Fan!!
sorry, speaking as an old guy
[sarcasm mode on] the lowest common denominator is the way to go here, else we’ll turn this into a 49ers like board of wine and cheese enthusiasts…geez, how many other groups can I offend in one post while profession my passion for the dbacks ;-) If you start throwing us neanderthals out, just think how poorly your pithy observations will play ithout being able to hoist someone on their own personal petard? [sarcasm mode off]
by the way, I really do like it here
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
+ infinity
Life offends me or so it would seem that is how the political correct crowd sees it. If that is the board I want, I’ll hand out with the boring, kool aide drinking yes men on dbbp.
and that’ll happen when a flock of winged monkeys come flying outta my butt.
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Aug 15, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
What does
that even mean? Is it wrong to acknowledge that things can be offensive to others and to be sensitive to that feeling? I’m not saying don’t say anything, but that if a person asks that a particular sentiment not be conveyed that we oblige.
It isn’t about being “politically correct,” a buzzword that means nothing anymore but is coded to be hateful, or implying life is offensive. It’s about understanding other people’s limits and personal feelings.
You are both wrong, for I, SOCO, am the BIG Anime Fan!!
Don't have a problem with that.
In fact, I think that’s pretty much what we do already. That said, I’m far more likely to take your opinion seriously if you are a regular poster who has shown themselves to be worthy of respect – not someone who apparently joined SB Nation for the sole purpose of labeling us all homophobes. When you try to dictate the terms of conversations in which you are not even taking part…
I am concerned about the potentially-chilling affect of the “Think of the children lurkers!” approach. We must bear in mind that this is the completely-illogical world of sports fandom: here, we don’t hate anyone for the color of their skin, just the color of their jersey… It’s an inevitably adversarial universe and opposing players are going to be the targets. That might be for any reason: hair-style, previous indiscretions, physical traits or simply because they’ve been too good against us in the past e.g. Randy Winn. Smack talk about opposing players is, was, and always will be part and parcel of sports. To be brutally honest, if you have easily-bruised sensibilities, then this fandom is probably not the place for you.
However, what the vast majority of posters – and, by implication, lurkers – on the ‘Pit “get” is that none of this is to be taken seriously. [Except, of course, the divinity of St. Penelope. Question that, and I’m calling down a jihad on you] Applying any form of prior restraint – saying we’re not allowed to joke about X – in the interests of avoiding potential offense would particularly seem to cause more problems than it solves. One of the great things about here, is that we can discuss powder-keg issues where other SB Nation sites have had to forbid the topics entirely. I’d hate to risk losing that.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Aug 15, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed Jim
I have no problem with most of the takes here. Sometimes we get a lil edgy, i.e. is azbombers a racist or is he simply blind to what Justin has done and what we all hope to see him become. I also have to sit back and ask myself do I rag on CY because he’s black or is it because of his BA being below .200. Speaking for myself only, I enjoy the discussions here, I get educated and once in a while, hope to make someone else take pause with a different POV. TBH though, I do have to say when someone calls out the manager for not being butch enough that an unspoken line has been crossed. I think the game of baseball has shown itself to be complicated enough to understand that there is no one way to reach the pinnacle, it takes a LOT of things to go your way to ascend to the top of the heap.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
TBH though, I do have to say when someone calls out the manager for not being butch enough that an unspoken line has been crossed.
I dont happen to share your opinion, but respect it, because you dont make a habit of offending readers, crossing similar “lines”, escalating manageable disagreements between other parties, etc. Like most participants here, you have a personal sense of what’s appropriate and not, and implicitly apply that in good faith, onto everyone including yourself.
I try to do that, but sometimes I’m guilty of pushing things with people who are nicer than me and who probably dont deserve it. In those cases, I think you’ll find I soften up pretty quickly, and on occasion apologize. More often, I lock horns with those pushing aggressive agendas whom I honestly disagree with.
A thoughtful reader opines that I use hyperbole and have strident tendencies, and it’s true. Fair criticism. Examine this thread and locate where Jim has acknowledged similarly leveled criticism. We’ll wait. (that’s a joke, btw).
You probably disagree with much I have to say about the Dbacks, but I’m sure we could have an intelligent, respectful discussion about it, if left to our own devices. We’d argue, acknowledge each other’s points, keep each other in check, learn from each other, and occasionally get out of line. Well, I would, certainly :-) But we’d never be left to our own devices here.
Let me put it this way. If you were running this site, I have a hunch you wouldnt be boasting how you’re open to reasonable, intelligent discussion while tarring someone with my views as “not worthy of respect”, with the “sole purpose” of “labeling us all homophobes”.
At this point, that humorless, unapologetic distortion, that unchecked attitude, is what this is mostly about.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Aug 15, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it's all about Diamondhacks...
Actually, the person to whom I was referring there was pittmonster and her sole contribution.
So much for my “humorless, unapologetic distortion.” This is a perfect example of why you can’t be part of any civilized discussion.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Aug 15, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
I did think you were referring to me, so touche. As I noted at the time, pittmonster is just another in a long line of kerfuffles where, intentionally or not, you’ve offended readers, then exhibited limited or zero tolerance towards those who respond in kind.
Characterizing anyone’s “sole purpose” after banning their speech is the zenith of humorless, unapologetic distortion. My misplaced inference doesnt diminish any of that.
Is that civilized enough for you?
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Aug 16, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
pittmonster was banned from one SB Nation site. She was perfectly free to speak on any of the other 200 or so – but hasn’t posted a single comment on any of them. So your claim that I “banned her speech” is laughable, and in direct contradiction to the facts.
I emailed you privately to request this, but as you chose to ignore that, I have no option but to do so here. You’ve been given more than enough rope, but it’s clear your irrational contempt for me + my opinions is past redemption. If you want to discuss baseball, you’re welcome. Please keep all other topics to your own site.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Aug 16, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that
The essence of a good fan site is disagreement and (as with politics) disagreement between people from the same side are often the most vitriolic. As a committed lurker I can see how the tone and content of some of ‘Hacks comments can offend, but as a general rule I find Jim’s posts produce more “really? are we still making those kind of jokes?” reactions (from me anyway).
Overall though I’d like to see more tolerance of opposing views. I’ve looked around at other SB Nation sites and they seem not only more “unofficial” but more fun. Here’s 2 quotes from Rox Girl (the “Jim” of Purple Row;
Just kidding.., you’ve got your hits and your misses as everybody will, I like having your contrary views to keep the conversation somewhat balanced.
and
this site would be pretty boring if it was all rah-rah let’s root for the Rockies… I really do like the healthy discussions that go on.
Oh Brave New World…
'Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?'
by Arizona via Slough on Aug 17, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I've no problem with contrary views
And would agree entirely with you that (polite) disagreement is the life-blood of any site. However, when debates degenerate from an objective discussion to personalized and off-topic flame-wars, then it ceases to be a positive thing.
I think we are pretty tolerant of opposing views – and, indeed, opposing fans – compared to some SB Nation sites. Maybe less than some, but certainly more so than others: every site has their own standards, with which they feel comfortable. As for ‘more unofficial’, I note that Purple Row enforces Community Guidelines, which includes the following:
There will be zero tolerance for asinine comments… There’s a problem when you start making ad hominem attacks against a baseball player or a member of the community.
That zero tolerance approach seems a good deal stricter than we apply here. I doubt I’ve used the ban-hammer more than a handful of times, outside of obvious spammers. After four and a half years and approaching half a million visits, that doesn’t seem too bad.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Aug 17, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
You could stand
To sound less snarky with your opening sentence. I’ve never spoken to you, and at this time have nothing against you, but it’s the kind of thing that I might say thinking it came across differently and would like to have pointed out to me, so I thought you might want to know. It makes the entire comment sound sarcastic and, well, not “civilized enough” as you’d seem to like. It sets a bad tone.
My brother: Did you see the genre of this song [Wake Up by Arcade Fire]?
Me: Isn't it Alternative?
My brother: No, it was funeral. Most depressing thing ever. I s*** you not. Go look it up.
Me: ::checks iTunes:: That's the album title.
by Dan Strittmatter on Aug 17, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
while were on the subject of hairq
wtf is up with Heltons beard ? I mean cmon bro.
I laugh until my head comes off.
+1
The Grizzly Adam look is so 1970’s
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Aug 15, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Nazis?!?!?
Wow never thought I’d seen an example of Godwin’s Law on this board.
by Spaghetti_Monster on Aug 15, 2009 6:23 PM EDT reply actions
puttputtputt babadap bap BAP
trolling motor/dead issue drum
Personally , I hate the term “lurker”…makes me sound like a fish.
“Troll” will do. And sangria isn’t white.
And while his hair is definitely girly (but not lame) and I’m getting a ton of mileage out of the original reference I carry zero baggage about it.
NL West TempestTeapot
Nothing matters , and what if it did?
by victor frankenstein on Aug 20, 2009 1:21 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
