Another hack.

"Time of My Life". Yep, that was my class' theme. And I didn't go to my reunion this year either.

And I just gotta say:

"Do you remember Rick Astley?
He had a big, fat hit & it was ghastly
He said 'I'm never gonna give you up or let you down'
Well, I'm here to tell you that Dick's a clown."
-- Nick Lowe

Hey now, Astley shares my birthday, hater!


Oh my holy god that posting is so convoluted I couldn't really tell what his ballot was. Boo.

It was:

Blyleven
Rickey
John
Mac
Murphy
Raines
Trammel

its blyvelen
john
henderson
mcgwire
murphy
raines
trammel

Now I feel lazy. Thanks.

i owe shock a coke

"Rick Astley is a pantywaist.
Match my butt with his face.
His teeny tiny two inches of terror
Baby, are gonna scare ya."
-Mojo Nixon

I like Against All Odds, but then, to me it's a nostalgic song from my childhood, not an annoyingly oft-played senior prom theme song.

Another hack.

He swings . . . he misses.

A poster on the blog:

Using Baseball Reference’s Player Game Finder, I found Blyleven lost 36 of these games when giving up 2 or less runs, and he won 211 of these as well. So 211-36 sounds about right to me, if not more lucky that Blyleven didn’t lose more of these games.

Since I have the data, I figured I might as well take a look at how Blyleven compares to other HOF pitchers and candidates when it comes to how well he did when allowing two or fewer runs. As it turns out, the data is rather interesting, if not for the reason the poster suggests:



Blyleven's winning percentage and percentage of no-decisions are right about in the middle of the group (with the caveat that I don't have all of the starts for guys who played before 1960, especially Spahn and Roberts, who I suspect would rank higher if I did), but the percentage of starts in which he allowed two or fewer runs is near the bottom of the group - and that's with the 60 shutouts! Tommy John, with a similar career ERA to Blyleven's, had 14 fewer shutouts but a higher percentage of 2-or-fewer-run starts overall, a worse winning percentage overall in those starts, and many more no-decisions. If you want to make the argument that someone was deprived of 300 wins due to lack of run support, you ought to look in John's direction first.

-- MWE

I have always believed the Hall of Fame is an honor, not a right, but after much consideration I voted for McGwire this time. I would vote for Pete Rose too. I am willing to admit that I’m wrong and should have stronger moral fiber.

Since he'd vote for Pete Rose, too, I'll let his McGwire vote slide. I don't agree with it but at least it's a consistent standard, based solely on statistics.

As of about 6:30, here are the results of his readers' poll.

* Rickey Henderson (96.0%, 1,892 Votes)
* Bert Blyleven (79.0%, 1,540 Votes)
* Tim Raines (71.0%, 1,395 Votes)
* Alan Trammell (58.0%, 1,135 Votes)
* Mark McGwire (53.0%, 1,041 Votes)
* Andre Dawson (26.0%, 510 Votes)
* Jim Rice (24.0%, 471 Votes)
* Tommy John (23.0%, 454 Votes)
* Dale Murphy (19.0%, 366 Votes)
* Lee Smith (17.0%, 324 Votes)
* Don Mattingly (15.0%, 287 Votes)
* David Cone (12.0%, 245 Votes)
* Jack Morris (12.0%, 228 Votes)
* Dave Parker (10.0%, 192 Votes)
* Harold Baines (8.0%, 149 Votes)
* Mark Grace (5.0%, 99 Votes)
* Mo Vaughn (3.0%, 52 Votes)
* Matt Williams (2.0%, 43 Votes)
* Jesse Orosco (2.0%, 32 Votes)
* Ron Gant (1.0%, 23 Votes)
* Jay Bell (1.0%, 18 Votes)
* Greg Vaughn (1.0%, 11 Votes)
* Dan Plesac (0.0%, 4 Votes)

Total Voters: 1,961

well astley in the noose
he hasn't got a use but he's trying
trying to be someone
trying to take it like a man if he can sing in alto.

(wonder stuff)

but i *liked* astley's first album, a lot. it's far better a song than most of the other crappy songs on the manilow cover cd...time after time standing out as well.

and joe pos is right on the songs; i now tell people that the 80s music i like *wasn't* the big hits on the radio, for the most part. never gonna give you up being a huge exception. the covers of i melt with you on tv commercials tend to be awful, for those who care.

(EDIT: manilow doesn't do a terrible job on the jim steinman cover, read 'em and weep. and he does play to his audience..)

I'm going to say something I may regret, but there are times when I, um, kind of like his ballad "Cry for Help" There. I said it.

I, um, kind of like his ballad "Cry for Help" There. I said it.

You're only on the dole for one day and...Jeez, Craig...suck it up!

Good point. I think some time away from the elevators and lobbies of the business world and more time at home with my Ipod will help me restore my musical tastes. Kind of like how Spock went back home to learn to be a Vulcan again.

[now queuing up "Give me Convenience or Give me Death"]

Equating the alleged nature of McGwire's sins to Pete Rose's proven sins is dumb.

1. Rose's have been substantiated. There is no gray area. They exist. They are tangible.

2. Gambling on the game eats at the very heart, the very essence, of a sporting event. The only reason folks REALLY go is because the outcome is in doubt. It is an unknown. Gambling by the participants changes the dynamic. It just does.

Clearly this is a difficult notion to grasp since even a sensible person like JP is confused. But some of us will keep hammering this message until it is understood.

You can have suspense, you can have theatre, you can have drama, you can have a GAME with the partipants using artificial enhancements.

You lose ALL OF THOSE THINGS when the participants gamble. You do. You do. You do.

It just IS.

To claim or argue otherwise flies in the face of everything we know about these matters.

Yeah, I don't want to turn this into a steroids thread, but I just read Joe's blog post (before seeing it was linked here), and internally while reading the McGwire piece, I was saying "All that and there's no proof he used. Say it. Say it!"

As here, I voted there for Raines, Rickah, Lucky Number Blyleven, and McGwire.

My senior class song was "I'll Stand By You", which is better than at least 90% of the songs that I hear were other people's.

Equating the alleged nature of McGwire's sins to Pete Rose's proven sins is dumb.

Poz is finishing up a book on the big red machine. If you put the screws to him, I suspect he would admit that he's a little bit biased on the subject of Pete Rose.

"Do you remember Rick Astley?
He had a big fat hit: it was ghastly.
He said I’m never gonna give you up or let you down.
Well I’m here to tell ya that Dick’s a clown
Though he was just a boy when he made that vow.
I’d bet it all that he knows by now
All men, all men are liars
Their words ain’t worth no more than worn out tires.
Hey Girls, bring rusty pliers to pull this tooth,
All men are liars and that’s the truth."

They don't call him the Jesus of Cool for nuthin'...

Pops:

My animus towards Rose is likely well known to many here. So to those NOT aware I think Pete Rose is a useless waste of skin.

That being clearly stated it does not change the obvious FACT that Rose's actions influenced the outcome of a game. Period. They did. They did. They did.

And no, I don't give a flying rat f*ck that Rose insists he was always betting on the Reds to win. Irrelevant. Everything he did on a game in questions is TAINTED.

And notice I will set aside the absurd notion that Pete Rose, a man who lies while talking in his sleep, is telling the TRUTH about his wagering habits. Please. The man spends a lifetime delivering a series of c*ck and bull stories to anyone within 100 feet and about THIS folks are supposed to believe him?

Are you kidding me? How gullible does one have to be?

One has to be a serious rube to swallow this nonsense............

Equating the alleged nature of McGwire's sins to Pete Rose's proven sins is dumb.

Harvey, I'm not equating the two sins at all. But Posnanski himself says that "the Hall of Fame is an honor, not a right," and I can't see any reason to "honor" a juicer.

By admitting a juicer, you're transforming the HoF into little more than a jazzed up Hall of Merit, based on computer printouts with arguments around the edges of the details. And by those standards, then what disqualifies Pete Rose? If it's all about the numbers, as Posnanski says it now is for him, then good old Pete sure has the numbers.

We've essentially got two big dividing lines here. One separates the Roses from the McGwires, while the other separates the McGwires from the Gaylord Perrys. The first line concerns the association with the game itself---the Roses are banned, while the juicers pay a small penalty and then can resume their careers---while the second line is far more subjective, and concerns only the Hall of Fame.

To this point the Hall of Fame voters have maintained that second dividing line as well, and admirably so IMO. Most Primates disagree, but that's not the issue here.

But Posnanski not only wants to obliterate the second dividing line, but the first one as well. And by doing so, all he's really doing is to take the sort of reasoning involved in absolving juicers---"take away the steroids and he's still got Hall of Fame numbers"---and applying them to Pete Rose. Because take away the gambling and Rose still has 4256 hits. And if you throw out all the games he managed, he still easily makes it on his pre-managing numbers.

Which leaves us with what I noted above: The Hall of Fame as a jazzed up Hall of Merit. Thanks but no thanks. This is one case where I think that the mainstream press has a far better take on the purpose of the Hall of Fame than its critics here.

But if you're going to go that route, then I'm with Posnanski: Let Pete and Shoeless Joe in, too. They've got the numbers.

Andy:

Note I am not advocating anyone's induction.

I am merely pointing out the WIDE chasm that exists between the two situations. There is no bridge wide enough nor strong enough to bring these two distinct situations together.

Conflating the two in any way is an intellectual and moral copout. It's abdicating ANY sense of responsibility.

This approach is WRONG.

o, I was walking around Best Buy the other day, and I ran across the new Barry Manilow CD. I was going to look at the back of it right then but there was a young woman standing there, and while I am very happily married and only have eyes for my Margo, I’m also not about to go look at the back of a Barry Manilow CD with a young woman standing there. Force of habit, I guess.

That's hilarious, and I can't say I've acted differently.

The Morris/Moyer comparison is really eye-opening.

I really had to check Dan Plesac's BBRef page because I couldn't remember him pitching for a single team other than the Brewers. Turns out he pitched for five more teams in eleven seasons, including two stints with the Jays.

Trying to fill out a 10-man ballot:

1. Henderson
2. McGwire
3. Blyleven
4. Raines
5. Trammell
6. Dawson
7. Murphy
8. John
9. Rice
10. Parker

I could maybe get to eight this year, but I'm convinced Rice doesn't belong, and since he's close to election, I'd rather leave him off. If I had a vote and a "policy" of voting for 10, I'd take Rice off (and Parker, since they are similar and I'd lean toward Rice between them) and maybe throw a "hello" to Cone and Jay Bell. I really don't understand how someone could go Rice over Dale Murphy. I guess it's a batting everage thing.

Harvey, I'm also not trying to equate gambling with juicing. That's why I agree with Rose's and Jackson's permanent bans, while I don't have any problem with reinstating juicers to the game once they've served their penalty. And of course unless they're caught, there's no reason to suspend them in the first place.

But that's the standard that baseball as a formal institution needs to enforce. The Hall of Fame is different, in that it brings "honor" into the mix in a way that MLB itself cannot, when it comes to juicers.

And the "bridge" you refer to that certainly is wide enough to carry both Rose and McGwire (and Ripken) across it is called Baseball-Reference.com, the Baseball Encyclopedia, the Baseball Register, or any one of a zillion names it goes by. That's what Posnanski seems to want to be the standard, and while I don't agree with him, it's certainly a defensible position. We use it right here in the Hall of Merit, and the Earth still spins on its axis.

Time After Time. OK, I love this song. Well, I love it when Cyndi Lauper sings it.

There's no reason to think a cover can't be just as good.

First, if any of my posts are construed as an attack on the author himself that is NOT the intent and I apologize if the message is being perceived in that way.

It's the idea that is my focus. Not the person. Particularly one so gracious as to share his thoughts. (However confused and muddled they may be on certain items)

Andy:

I have stated my piece.

I am baffled by anyone passionate about this game providing de facto APPROVAL for behavior that attacks the very foundation of sport itself.

Andy:

I have stated my piece.

I am baffled by anyone passionate about this game providing de facto APPROVAL for behavior that attacks the very foundation of sport itself.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why it'd be a cold day in Hell before I'd ever vote to honor a juicer like McGwire. And while I respect Posnanski's wish to transform the Hall of Fame into a glorified Hall of Merit, I don't agree with it at all. Let both McGwire and Rose be consoled by their numbers alone. There's no "honor" in what either of them did.

But Posnanski not only wants to obliterate the second dividing line, but the first one as well. And by doing so, all he's really doing is to take the sort of reasoning involved in absolving juicers---"take away the steroids and he's still got Hall of Fame numbers"---and applying them to Pete Rose. Because take away the gambling and Rose still has 4256 hits. And if you throw out all the games he managed, he still easily makes it on his pre-managing numbers.

Setting aside for a second the larger debate, that last sentence, Andy, seems to imply that you're adopting one of the misconceptions/myths about Rose: that he only bet on games as a manager. According to the Dowd Report, he bet on games as a player, as well.

Andy-

One could, quite reasonably, hold that Rose's sins are such that he should not be honored in the Hall of Fame (regardless of the ban), while McGwire's sins do not reach such a level. As you say, they are very different things that Rose and McGwire did. As such, it is not necessarily more or less consistent to want the same or different punishment meted out to McGwire and Rose.

I happen to believe that the interests of removing PEDs from baseball (as much as possible) are best served by excluding the known juicers, and I would not vote for McGwire.

But like HW, I think that equating Rose and McGwire makes exceptionally little sense. They both did bad things, but they did very different bad things that can be reasonably judged differently.

2. Gambling on the game eats at the very heart, the very essence, of a sporting event. The only reason folks REALLY go is because the outcome is in doubt. It is an unknown. Gambling by the participants changes the dynamic. It just does.

Clearly this is a difficult notion to grasp since even a sensible person like JP is confused. But some of us will keep hammering this message until it is understood.

You can have suspense, you can have theatre, you can have drama, you can have a GAME with the partipants using artificial enhancements.

You lose ALL OF THOSE THINGS when the participants gamble. You do. You do. You do.

It just IS.

Yes. Please keep saying this. This point needs to be hammered home repeatedly. Rose isn't so much an ethical issue, as it is a self preservation issue for baseball.

It doesn't even matter if Rose is actually really telling the truth this time. There will always be the suspicion that he did indeed bet against the Reds, or on teams that were contenders. Once there is suspicion about enough players / managers, every game is going to be suspected as being fixed.

Soccer leagues in Asia, leagues that used to very popular, with matches being regular sellouts, even though the level of soccer being played was very crappy, have been killed by (the suspicion of) match fixing.

"I can't see any reason to "honor" a juicer."

What if he took mutation-inducing brain-enhancing drugs, and then cured cancer? Would you honor him for the sacrifice of his humanity, or mock him as a freak?

Bear in mind that he can set you on fire with the power of thought.

Setting aside for a second the larger debate, that last sentence, Andy, seems to imply that you're adopting one of the misconceptions/myths about Rose: that he only bet on games as a manager. According to the Dowd Report, he bet on games as a player, as well.

I'm fully aware of that, David. But throw out those games he was specifically alleged to have bet on as a player, too. All of them. And you're still left with a statistically viable Hall of Fame career, at least by the usual BBWAA standards, a line of reasoning which Posnanski now seems to favor.

And it's a line of reasoning accepted by the Hall of Merit as well, of which Pete Rose is a member in full standing, right there between Frank Robinson and Babe Ruth among the rightfielders.

BTW I'm not "equating" gambling with juicing. If I were, I'd favor lifetime bans for first time juicers.

Harvey, I'm not equating the two sins at all. But Posnanski himself says that "the Hall of Fame is an honor, not a right," and I can't see any reason to "honor" a juicer.

By admitting a juicer, you're transforming the HoF into little more than a jazzed up Hall of Merit, based on computer printouts with arguments around the edges of the details. And by those standards, then what disqualifies Pete Rose?

I think Harvey answered that in post #17.

1. Guilt: Rose is definitely guilty. McGwire is not. (That is, the guilt is not definite. You may believe strongly, but he has neither admitted it nor has a smoking gun been found.)
2. Process: Rose has had his. McGwire has not.
3. Threat: Gambling on baseball threatens the essence of the game. Using steroids does not.
4. Rules: Rose broke one. McGwire did not.

In short, the two aren't the same, so no "standard" requires that they be treated the same.

Andy-

One could, quite reasonably, hold that Rose's sins are such that he should not be honored in the Hall of Fame (regardless of the ban), while McGwire's sins do not reach such a level. As you say, they are very different things that Rose and McGwire did. As such, it is not necessarily more or less consistent to want the same or different punishment meted out to McGwire and Rose.

I agree. Matters of "honor" are always going to be subjectively evaluated, and I've never said otherwise. As always, it comes down to who gets to write the dictionary.

--------------------

"I can't see any reason to "honor" a juicer."

What if he took mutation-inducing brain-enhancing drugs, and then cured cancer? Would you honor him for the sacrifice of his humanity, or mock him as a freak?

I'd call him great, but wickedly great.

I'm fully aware of that, David. But throw out those games he was specifically alleged to have bet on as a player, too. All of them. And you're still left with a statistically viable Hall of Fame career, at least by the usual BBWAA standards, a line of reasoning which Posnanski now seems to favor.

That depends on how far back you want to go in investigating Rose's gambling. I remember an interview in which Down stated that he believed that, were he not called off by baseball due to Rose's acceptance of his ban, he would have been able to show that Rose both bet on his team to lose, and bet on his teams dating back to well before his playing career ended - not in the range of a year or two, but significantly longer than that.

It wouldn't be surprising to me to find out that Rose was gambling on baseball for almost the entire length of his career - based on his reputation and actions, he was both that competitive, and that dumb.

He's right on about McGwire.

But wow. Look at the reader's poll as compared to Chris Jaffe's predicted writers voting. The fans are a hell of a lot smarter than the writers. No question.

I think Harvey answered that in post #17.

1. Guilt: Rose is definitely guilty. McGwire is not. (That is, the guilt is not definite. You may believe strongly, but he has neither admitted it nor has a smoking gun been found.)
2. Process: Rose has had his. McGwire has not.
3. Threat: Gambling on baseball threatens the essence of the game. Using steroids does not.
4. Rules: Rose broke one. McGwire did not.

In short, the two aren't the same, so no "standard" requires that they be treated the same.

David, since we've only been over this about 4256 times, I suggest you contact Posnanski directly and try for a new record. I promise I won't be jealous.

1. Guilt: Rose is definitely guilty. McGwire is not. (That is, the guilt is not definite. You may believe strongly, but he has neither admitted it nor has a smoking gun been found.)

McGwire was known to have used androstenedione, which was already banned by international sports as a PED at the time of his use, and which was later added to the list of controlled substances in the US. There's not really any doubt that he used this substance. The only question is how someone wants to consider his use of it, since it wasn't technically against the rules of baseball at the time.

Poz is wasting brain cells with his Barry Manilow diatribe. Obviously those aren't the best songs of the 80s, but it's the best selection of songs from that era for someone in the very narrow musical niche that Manilow occupies. Yes Barry Manilow's music is tripe, but I give him props for being genuine, which is probably what Dylan meant.

Oh my holy god that posting is so convoluted I couldn't really tell what his ballot was. Boo.

This is basically the reason I don't read Posnanski. His columns go on forever.

And then they continue.

Ryan:

One thing about Rose that tends to be forgotten is that the guy was ALWAYS looking to make a buck.

Which is the marker of every player associated with gambling....................

Since he'd vote for Pete Rose, too, I'll let his McGwire vote slide. I don't agree with it but at least it's a consistent standard, based solely on statistics.

The Rose situation is nothing like the McGwire situation.

This is basically the reason I don't read Posnanski. His columns go on forever.

So you don't like long movies, and you don't like long columns, and yet you'll keep on posting in the latest ballitics thread, even as it closes in on the 7000 post mark.

You're a very confusing individual.

Look! A steroid thread! We get to see Andy's arguments about and justifications about how steroids are worse than greenies...because! DNP will soon show up saying how nothing's proven (in spite of McGwire's apparent offer to confess) and it doesn't matter anyway!

Having said that, I have a lot more sympathies for the Black Sox than Rose. The Black Sox threw the World Series, which is awful, but it was common (not accepted) part of the game at that point. You need some money, you throw a game. I do think Landis had to make an example of them. But Black Sox did not know that the consequences of their actions would result in banning. Once again, I think Landis made the right choice, just that the Black Sox are far more sympathetic.

Rose gambled at the time when it was VERY, VERY, VERY clear what the consequences of gambling were. It was in no way common. Rose earned his banishment.

My feelings on McGwire are a bit different. Did he juice? Absolutely. Was drug use an accepted part of the game? Absolutely (be it greenies, steroids, HGH, or cocaine). Was their clear and spelled out consequences for using steroids? No, and in fact, they weren't banned by baseball. Therefore, McGwire has my (real) sympathies and my (hypothetical) vote.

If someone uses steriods, hgh, greenies, cocaine, etc. now, well no sympathies. Their are clear rules (3 strikes, yer out), and clear consequences. So Bonds, McGwire, etc. are in. Palmero, who failed a drug test and seemed to be using them after the rules, is a grey point. Bonds looks to have stopped when they became against the rules, so he gets in. McGwire retired before then, and thus, he gets in.

No one who votes against McGwire for character issues should be voting for Tim Raines. Or Keith Hernandez. Or Darryl Strawberry. You get the picture.

McGwire was known to have used androstenedione, which was already banned by international sports as a PED at the time of his use, and which was later added to the list of controlled substances in the US. There's not really any doubt that he used this substance. The only question is how someone wants to consider his use of it, since it wasn't technically against the rules of baseball at the time.

So, in other words, he used a product that was both legal and allowed by the rules of his sport. How could anyone possibly hold McGwire's andro use against him?

Yeah, I don't want to turn this into a steroids thread, but I just read Joe's blog post (before seeing it was linked here), and internally while reading the McGwire piece, I was saying "All that and there's no proof he used. Say it. Say it!"

I agree with your point, Jeff. But it's worth pointing out that there is evidence that McGwire used. Though the logical problem with concluding that McGwire is guilty is that the sum total of the evidence is Canseco's accusation. That's it. Which is a country mile from anything remotely resembling a conclusive case.

Oh my holy god that posting is so convoluted I couldn't really tell what his ballot was

I love Posnanski's writing and read his columns religiously, but the asterisk-led non-baseball tangents occasionally skew into nauseating self-indulgence. A little less self-conscious quirk would be nice.

So, in other words, he used a product that was both legal and allowed by the rules of his sport. How could anyone possibly hold McGwire's andro use against him?

I'm not holding it against him. I'm just pointing out that McGwire was known to have used a substance considered by the international sporting community to be a PED, and that it has since been added to the list of controlled substances in the US. Simply put, McGwire has been known to use PEDs, and technically fits the definition of a juicer, even without any other admissions or allegations outside of the andro use (or the actual effect of andro use on performance).

But like HW, I think that equating Rose and McGwire makes exceptionally little sense. They both did bad things, but they did very different bad things that can be reasonably judged differently.

Let's assume that McGwire is guilty. Serious question: Did he do a "bad thing" if half the league was doing it and if he broke no rules (indeed, may not have even broken any laws, pre-1990)? If it was the Steroid Era then many, many players must have been doing it.

In any case, the major problem with penalizing McGwire *is that one has to assume guilt*. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

#46 is pretty close to my thinking. Although I shed little tear for the Black Sox.

Basically, it comes down to: pre-2003 or so, steroids were implicitly condoned by the leaders of the sport. I do wish to punish players who were "playing by the rules" of the time, the blame lies not with them but with those who created the toxic environment in which they found themselves.* If we want to put steroids behind us, the first step is to acknowledge and forgive past use, and only penalize going forward.

* it is rarely recognized that, by the commonly accepted trajectory, Bonds is a steroid victim, not a villain. Here he was, late 90's, the best player in baseball, and completely clean, and the roided up competitors were getting the glory. Bonds was then driven to use, in order to keep up; if our concern is that steroids enhance performance and thus force athletes to choose between their health and their career, Bonds should be getting our sympathy, not our scorn.

* it is rarely recognized that, by the commonly accepted trajectory, Bonds is a steroid victim, not a villain. Here he was, late 90's, the best player in baseball, and completely clean, and the roided up competitors were getting the glory. Bonds was then driven to use, in order to keep up; if our concern is that steroids enhance performance and thus force athletes to choose between their health and their career, Bonds should be getting our sympathy, not our scorn.

Bonds was already keeping up with the other alleged users in the late 90s - he was a consistent all-star, and regular finisher in the top 5 OPS/OPS+ standings. The only thing that he wasn't getting at that time was MVP awards, and that was not due to his on-field performance, but due to the unspoken agreement within the BBWAA that no player should ever win more than 3 MVP awards, no matter how great his performance. His use was intended to return him to his place as baseball's greatest player, and not to "keep up".

That being said, I agree with the impression that Bond's use appears to have been at least partially driven by the "everyone else is already doing it" problem.

Bear in mind that he can set you on fire with the power of thought.

Glad you mentioned that. The guy's just aces in my book.

Bonds should be getting our sympathy, not our scorn.

Yeah, good luck with that.

There is some validity to the argument that an athlete should be allowed to do whatever he can to win within the rules and therefore PED usage should not be penalized except under the rules of the time. There were no rules at the time and therefore McGwire should be rewarded for doing his best to compete. That's a fun devil's advocate position, though probably not my position.

"only thing that he wasn't getting at that time was MVP awards, and that was not due to his on-field performance, but due to the unspoken agreement within the BBWAA that no player should ever win more than 3 MVP awards, no matter how great his performance."

Not really. He didn't win MVPs because his 1994-98 were not quite as good as his 90-93, AND because writers don't often give proper credit for players who walk a lot, play in pitcher's parks, and play for losers. What MVP did he not win due to writers deciding "3 was enough"? I do not see any, except 2000, when he was already likely chemically enhanced.

McGwire was known to have used androstenedione, which was already banned by international sports as a PED at the time of his use, and which was later added to the list of controlled substances in the US. There's not really any doubt that he used this substance. The only question is how someone wants to consider his use of it, since it wasn't technically against the rules of baseball at the time.

I don't know what "technically against the rules" means. It wasn't against the rules, period. "Technically" or "nontechnically." Nor was it illegal. Nor does it do anything; it's banned in international sports NOT because it's a PED, but because it's a potential masking agent. (That's relevant in international sports, but was not relevant in MLB at the time because, without testing, there was nothing to mask.) Nor was it illicit; indeed, when McGwire was reported to be using it, the widespread reaction -- among fans, writers, and baseball -- was to condemn the reporter for prying into McGwire's private affairs.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and nothing to "consider."

It would be like punishing Pete Rose for buying scratchoff lottery tickets from the state lottery.

Not really. He didn't win MVPs because his 1994-98 were not quite as good as his 90-93, AND because writers don't often give proper credit for players who walk a lot, play in pitcher's parks, and play for losers. What MVP did he not win due to writers deciding "3 was enough"? I do not see any, except 2000, when he was already likely chemically enhanced.

Ryan has sang this tune before, and I still see absolutely no evidence that there was any such "unspoken agreement with the BBWAA that no player should ever win more than 3 MVP awards, no matter how great his performance."

First, Bonds's MVP awards from 2001-2004 completely invalidate this thesis.

Second, as you note, there was no year from 1994-2000 where Bonds was the clear best player in the league. Piazza had some great years in there (especially 1995-1997), as did Bagwell (1994), Maddux (1994, 1995), Caminiti (1996) and Kent (2000, who I'd have chosen over Bonds). Is it a shock that the writers decided that Sosa and McGwire were more valuable than Bonds in 1998?

Third, Bonds received plenty of MVP votes from 1994-1998 and 2000.

Bonds obviously was a great, great player from 1994-2000. But Ryan's argument simply doesn't fly.

It would be like punishing Pete Rose for buying scratchoff lottery tickets from the state lottery.

My early nomination for analogy of the year.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and nothing to "consider."

It would be like punishing Pete Rose for buying scratchoff lottery tickets from the state lottery.

It's times like this when i almost miss Kevin....

Not that I wholly disagree with DMN's point, juts that Kev's response would be fun in the slo-mo observation of a multi-car pile up sort of way....

First, Bonds's MVP awards from 2001-2004 completely invalidate this thesis.

this could be seen as proof of an "unspoken agreement" too: in order to get the writers to break their agreement and give a fourth or so mvp award a guy would have to have such a mind bogglingly huge season that they couldn't realistically give it to anyone else and maintain credibility. and it was necessary, even for a player of bonds's talent, to take steroids in order to accomplish this.

But wow. Look at the reader's poll as compared to Chris Jaffe's predicted writers voting. The fans are a hell of a lot smarter than the writers. No question.

And yet Rickey still can't get 100%. Talk about baffling.

this could be seen as proof of an "unspoken agreement" too: in order to get the writers to break their agreement and give a fourth or so mvp award a guy would have to have such a mind bogglingly huge season that they couldn't realistically give it to anyone else and maintain credibility. and it was necessary, even for a player of bonds's talent, to take steroids in order to accomplish this.

No, this doesn't work. Ryan's thesis is, and I quote:

The only thing that he wasn't getting at that time was MVP awards, and that was not due to his on-field performance, but due to the unspoken agreement within the BBWAA that no player should ever win more than 3 MVP awards, no matter how great his performance.

"No matter how great his performance."

No, this doesn't work. Ryan's thesis is, and I quote:

you're quite right. missed that somehow.

and for the record, i wasn't arguing ryan's case, just (poorly) playing devil's advocate.

60 - i didn't notice til you mention, but why / when did he leave? was annoying in a maynard sort of fashion...

No, this doesn't work. Ryan's thesis is, and I quote:

The only thing that he wasn't getting at that time was MVP awards, and that was not due to his on-field performance, but due to the unspoken agreement within the BBWAA that no player should ever win more than 3 MVP awards, no matter how great his performance.

And for 70 years, it held true - no performance, no matter how great, was judged to be worthy of that 4th MVP award. As noted, it took Barry Bonds channeling Babe Ruth to finally break that streak. If you want to nitpick about how I forgot to qualify it with "until Bonds 2001-2004", then go ahead. After all, you've got to feed the lawyer in you.

60 - i didn't notice til you mention, but why / when did he leave? was annoying in a maynard sort of fashion...

Has anyone ever seen Maynard and Kevin on the same thread? Hmmm...

EDIT: For readability

60 - i didn't notice til you mention, but why / when did he leave? was annoying in a maynard sort of fashion...

About two months (?) ago, he was suspended for 30 days for being too Kevin, and he hasn't returned.

Oh, he's returned, he just hasn't posted (yet).

And for 70 years, it held true - no performance, no matter how great, was judged to be worthy of that 4th MVP award. As noted, it took Barry Bonds channeling Babe Ruth to finally break that streak. If you want to nitpick about how I forgot to qualify it with "until Bonds 2001-2004", then go ahead. After all, you've got to feed the lawyer in you.

Come on. Yelling "lawyer, lawyer!" isn't actually an argument. I took the time to present a substantive reply in # 58. If you don't want to respond, that's fine, but putting out a content-free reply doesn't further any useful discussion.

And for 70 years, it held true - no performance, no matter how great, was judged to be worthy of that 4th MVP award.

Are there a lot of players who clearly deserved a 4th MVP (after winning 3 prior ones), and were denied it? (What the heck, I'll take a look at it now...)

3-time award winners:
Jimmie Foxx - last award 1938. Finished second in voting behind DiMaggio in 1939, and probably deserved to; tailed off after that.
Joe DiMaggio - last award 1947. Finished second to Boudreau in 1948, and didn't deserve to win; tailed off after that.
Stan Musial - last award 1948. Finished second in the voting each of the next three years. Probably deserved the 1950 award; had arguments in '49 and '51, but the actual winners had tremendous years. Easily could have won in '52, when he finished 5th (although second amond position players). After that, he continued to play excellent baseball, but there was usually someone better than him in the league.
Roy Campanella - last award 1955. Won every award he possibly could have.
Yogi Berra - last award 1955. The voting for Yogi is weird - he won three MVPs, only one of them among his top 5 OPS+ seasons. Anyway, he finished second in 1956 behind Mantle's Triple Crown, and his only other prime-type season came in a year when the Yankees didn't win the pennant (1959).
Mickey Mantle - last award 1962. Got jobbed a couple times before his first one, and a few times between awards 2 and 3 - but only had one year (1964) after his third when he really could have won. Finished second behind Brooks Robinson, who had a higher average, more RBI, and Brooks Robinson's defense.
Mike Schmidt - last award 1986. Only had one really good year left, and even that one wasn't up to his usual standards. Was shafted a number of times, but not after winning MVP #3.
Barry Bonds - "last" award 1993. Was certainly near the top of the league a lot after this, but not necessarily the best guy in any year until 2001.
Alex Rodriguez - "last" award 2007. Missed on his share of deserved MVPs so far, but most of them before he won his first, not after his third.

The only guy who seems to have had a clear barrier to a fourth award is Musial. I'd chalk that up to a few factors - his performance was still great after 1948, but not up to the standards of that ridiculous year; the Cardinals stopped winning; Musial put up very balanced performances, which are always underrated. (His previous wins were probably also a factor, but I don't know that there's an established knee in the curve after the third MVP, if you will.) I would bet that if he'd won the 1944 MVP (which he certainly deserved ahead of Marion), he'd have won his 4th MVP with no trouble in 1948, because he had an absolutely ridiculous season.

All that is to say... it wasn't established that no performance, no matter how great, could win you a 4th MVP award, because nobody had put up a season that would make the writers look like idiots for bypassing him after winning three. Williams and Mays never got the third one; Cobb and Wagner played before the award was handed out, and Ruth had his best years before repeat winners were allowed. Mantle, Schmidt, and A-Rod had a few of those years before their third awards, but none after. And while Musial was probably jobbed a couple of times, he didn't necessarily have one year that would set anyone's alarm bells off. When Bonds had THAT year, he won a fourth (and then some).

By admitting a juicer, you're transforming the HoF into little more than a jazzed up Hall of Merit, based on computer printouts with arguments around the edges of the details.

That is entirely dependent on your view of the seriousness of the offense, an issue that has been discussed ad infinitum.

Just because you think juicing is a huge baseball crime requiring maximum punishment, does not make it so. Not everyone in the universe is required to subscribe to your specific set of moral guidelines.

EDIT -- That came on too strongly. I understand that you are limiting it at this time to the Hall of Fame. Still, the point stands -- there are plenty of people who view steroid use in connection with the so-called "steroid era" as not being as morally blameworthy as Andy does, and far from an automatic disqualifying factor for the Hall of Fame -- without reducing it to a glorified Hall of Merit.

transforming the HoF into little more than a jazzed up Hall of Merit

Not the worst idea I've heard today.

I took the time to present a substantive rebuttal in # 58.

Looking at one person and then declaring that "it isn't so" isn't a substantive reply, especially when you don't provide any deeper analysis into the voting breakdown in those years for Bonds - despite his series of great years, including complete sets of all-star appearances, gold gloves, and silver sluggers (and 40-40 seasons, and 30-30 seasons, and a playoff appearance, and top 5 OPS/OPS+ finishes), he received exactly no first place votes for MVP between 1994-1999. I'd like to look at a better detailed breakdown of the voting myself, but the only summary I can quickly find is that on B-R, which only provides first place votes and total points.

Now, if you want to talk about substantive replies, then Eric J has what I consider to be a damn good one, even though it goes against my position/interpretation.

Stan Musial - last award 1948. Finished second in the voting each of the next three years. Probably deserved the 1950 award; had arguments in '49 and '51, but the actual winners had tremendous years. Easily could have won in '52, when he finished 5th (although second amond position players). After that, he continued to play excellent baseball, but there was usually someone better than him in the league.

And I think the flurry of second place finishes for Musial after his 3rd award (along with some close finishes for some of the others) helps my argument. What were the writers doing, voting for Musial for MVP after he had already received his 3rd award if there was an "unspoken agreement" that no player should ever win more than three? (And why three? Why not two, or one?)

Perhaps there were a few individual voters who felt this way; anything's possible, and voters can be quirky. But you haven't presented anything to suggest that such position was widespread. In 1957 Musial finished behind Aaron 239-230 in the voting. Does that suggest that there was a large portion of the electorate who refused to vote for him? Has any writer ever claimed that there was such an agreement?

The fact that no player won a fourth MVP before Bonds doesn't mean that it was the result of a conspiracy. No player has hit 60 home runs four times, either; does that mean there is some law of the universe against a player hitting 60 home runs four times?

Bonds's later MVP awards really do sink your theory. If ever there was a player who the writers would apply such an "unspoken rule" to, it would be Bonds. Yet, they continued to give him the MVP anyway.

Perhaps the "agreement" to deny players their fourth MVPs was only "unspoken" because it didn't exist.

I think the focus on MVP awards is sort of missing the point. If the stories about Bonds taking steroids were true -- which we know they aren't because Barry is far too swell a guy to pollute the holy temple of his body -- it was the generic loss of glory and attention to players like McGwire and Sosa, not because of MVP awards.

Looking at one person and then declaring that "it isn't so" isn't a substantive reply, especially when you don't provide any deeper analysis into the voting breakdown in those years for Bonds - despite his series of great years, including complete sets of all-star appearances, gold gloves, and silver sluggers (and 40-40 seasons, and 30-30 seasons, and a playoff appearance, and top 5 OPS/OPS+ finishes), he received exactly no first place votes for MVP between 1994-1999.

This borders on being intellectually dishonest. You cut that off at 1999, but he received six first-place votes in 2000, before his late-career surge ever began.

Hell, three writers put him on their ballot in 1998, when he only played 102 games.

This borders on being intellectually dishonest. You cut that off at 1999, but he received six first-place votes in 2000, before his late-career surge ever began.

Wait, wasn't 2000 the Kent year? I always thought of that season as part of the Bonds late-career surge, as it was the year when Bonds' power appeared to take the huge step up - after all, that was the season where he set the new career high of 49 HR (even though his HR spike really dated back to 1999).

For the record, much like you've stated, I'm also of the opinion that Kent probably should have won that season, or at least been a toss-up.

Wait, wasn't 2000 the Kent year? I always thought of that season as part of the Bonds late-career surge, as it was the year when Bonds' power appeared to take the huge step up - after all, that was the season where he set the new career high of 49 HR (even though his HR spike really dated back to 1999).

Bonds's 2000 looked just like his 1994-1997 and 1999, at least on the surface, except that he missed a few more games than normal. Sure, his HR/AB were up. But I don't know why that would sway writers to break their "unspoken rule," given that you've identified the exception to this "rule" as "channeling Babe Ruth." Bonds certainly did not do that in 2000.