Tuesday, May 21, 2013
JM Catellier: Is Pedro Martinez a First Ballot Hall of Famer?
(www.rantsports.com)
Welcome back, JM Catellier…and his “own unique statistical formula”!
Read More...The average 20th century Hall of Fame starting pitcher has 258.3 career wins. That number is dragged down by Sandy Koufax’ 165 victories, but he can’t be omitted from this exercise as I consider him the best starting pitcher to ever throw a baseball.
Former Boston Red Sox ace Pedro Martinez retired following the 2009 season with just 219 wins and only two 20-win seasons. Is it possible that he’s a first ballot Hall of ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >Has Perry announced his stance on cheaters in the Hall?
No, he's waiting for all of the owners that lost the collusion case to weigh in.
I will resist this easy set up. I WILL RESIST!
Ask Manny Ramirez
When Fergie gets on his high (white) horse, he knows what he's talking about.
His spokesperson, Andy, has already released a statement on behalf of Perry which IIRC was worded something to the effect of "Nyah, nyah, the voters see a clear distinction between the so-called 'cheating' of Perry and the cheating of steroids users."
What the meaningful distinction is, Andy did not elaborate on.
Bowls full of spit openly displayed in the clubhouse.
Gamesmanship?
I'm not putting words in Andy's mouth, but this is the distinction I've always seen drawn. There's a difference between scuffing the ball in plain sight (i.e. gamesmanship, like having too much pine tar on your bat or corking) and PED usage.
As I said, no meaningful distinction.
Steroids use, apparently, is a situation that even in the abstract is unlike any other in MLB history.
Pretty much, and practically every faction of the game agrees -- MLB most recently in the Mitchell Report.
“I heard all these guys were taking all these different pills, but dexedrine and benzedrine are a women’s diet pill. How the hell is that going to help you perform? What the hell do I want to take a women’s diet pill for?
Heh.
There are nothing but meaningful distinctions.
One is done out in the open, with the possibility of detection by on-field arbiters, and a prescribed punishment if the perpetrator is caught. The other is done off the field, with no means of detection once the game has begun and no punishment if detected (at least for pre-testing era roid usage). Along those lines, there's a pretty meaningful distinction between pre-testing roids usage and post-testing usage.
Now what that distinction means is a matter of opinion. Some would view the surreptitious cheating as worse (as there's no means of getting caught, and thus there's no risk). Others think that only that which violates rules specifically laid out in the rules is cheating (a nonsensical idea, but I don't automatically condemn the irrationally held position). Others, maybe even you, think that all cheating is exactly the same, and thus the distinctions make no difference.
But if the latter is true, simply because one doesn't care about the distinctions doesn't mean they fail to exist.
Yes, yes, noooooo.
Everything in this is preposterous, starting with "a" and "the." "Surreptitious cheating?" Steroids is "surreptitious cheating" but hiding vaseline behind freaking ear is not?
"The possibility of detection"? The risk of being caught means that the cheating is more justified? So students who bring cheat sheets into exams are not really doing anything so bad after all?
But steroids users _were_ caught. That's why we're, you know, having this discussion. But nobody cared at the time, just like they didn't care about amps, which makes this crusade absurd.
Detection "on-field" is important, but no detection "on-field" because nobody cared and there is no way to detect steroids use "on-field" is a "meaningful distinction"? What were the umpires supposed to do, conduct a stop-and-frisk of players on the field to search for a vial of a drug that nobody cared whether anyone was using just like amps?
It is "nonsensical" to think that before we deem someone guilty of cheating, we set out rules for them to abide by, as a means of defining what will be considered to be "cheating"? It is "nonsensical" to think that retroactively going back to declare something that wasn't against the rules as "cheating" is unfair? Especially when it was just as "against the rules" as amps were, which was not at all? Would you like one of your kids to be accused of cheating by a teacher who made up the rules as he went along two months later?
Your position is cartoonish. And why is it? Because, as I said, no meaningful distinctions exist.
His spokesperson, Andy, has already released a statement on behalf of Perry which IIRC was worded something to the effect of "Nyah, nyah, the voters see a clear distinction between the so-called 'cheating' of Perry and the cheating of steroids users."
What the meaningful distinction is, Andy did not elaborate on.
I ain't getting into that briar patch again. Trying to explain commonsense distinctions between spitballs and steroids to someone hermetically sealed in a self-contained echo chamber is worse than a waste of time. Not that I haven't wasted a lot of time trying to do so.
Because, as I said
Trying to get past those four words in any discussion with you is like trying to Evel Knievel the Atlantic Ocean. I suppose it's theoretically possible, but the odds aren't very good.
Steroids use happened off the field, outside of the (occasionally) watchful eye of the game's only daily arbiters. Applying vaseline was done on the field. That's what makes the acts different.
I made no judgment on which form was worse. Only that there is a distinction between them (you may start to notice a pattern. But given that noticing #### isn't exactly your strong suit, probably not).
Steroids use could not be identified through on-field detection. That's different than applying vaseline, where there was both the opportunity for detection and a punishment if the rule was found to be broken. That doesn't make one form necessarily better or worse, just different. And different is what the argument was about.
And I'm not part of any crusade, so that little sidenote is irrelevant to me. FTR, I don't see any meaningful difference between steroid use and amp use (the only difference at all is the view the players had of the two acts, though I've come to conclude their position is not supportable).
If this made a lick of sense, I'd respond. It doesn't, so let's move on.
Cheating in baseball (and beyond, but we'll limit it to the diamond here) exists on a continuum. When Derek Jeter pretended he got hit with a pitch when he didn't, he was cheating. He wasn't breaking any written rules, but he was cheating nonetheless. And the only punishment for this rules breaking is a little criticism (or, maybe a fastball to the ribs, if the opponent is douchey enough).
If Jason Heyward kneecaps Stephen Strasburg with a tire iron outside Nats Park before Stras was going to pitch against the Braves*, he is also cheating, though again it's probably not covered in the rulebook.
As for how we deal with steroid use (pre-policy), I don't support any kind of retroactive punishment for the steroids users for a number of reasons, including the fact there was no specific rule against it.
But that's not an absolute. If my kids figure out some high tech way to cheat on a test that the teachers have not yet caught up to (but everyone knows would be against the rules if they were aware of), then damn right I'm not going to whine if they're punished when they're caught.
That doesn't apply to steroids. Any number of interested parties (the commish, the team owners, the media, and, most especially, the non-juicers) had ample opportunity to do something about PEDs long before they did. They failed to do so. Thus, it isn't right to single out one group for punishment when the system itself was corrupt.
Your position is laughably simpleminded. And why is that? Do I really need to answer?
* God and Mike Rizzo willing, though I suspect the latter thinks they're the same guy.
Right, Andy. Spitballs are meaningfully different. Amps are meaningfully different. Steroids in the 60s/70s (Tom House) are meaningfully different. Steroids that Mantle took are meaningfully different. The animal testosterone that Pud Galvin injected was meaningfully different. Babe Ruth's corked bat was meaningfully different.
It's funny how when one starts with one's conclusion, everything that is meaningfully different just flows from there.
Ray: There is no meaningful distinction between spitballs and steroids.
SoSH: Yes there is! There are nothing but meaningful distinctions! <Lists a bunch of distinctions>
Ray: Those distinctions aren't meaningful.
SoSH: Those are distinctions.
Ray: Yeah, but they're not meaningful.
would it make you feel any better if Barry Bonds had applied the clear while on the field?
WHen you saw ball players as big as cows in the 1990s, you dont think that was in plain sight?
If you grant that each is effective, I'd say the difference in percentage of pitches affected is pretty meaningful.
The issue is one of competition, rules and the enforcement of the rules. But we have covered that part of it a bunch.
Stealing signs is trivial to me.
But still cheating (I think). There is this jumble of possible ways to cheat and while something has to be on the far side of the arbitrary line it happens enough with Steroids that it is almost as if there is something else going on :)
It has seemed odd to me how sportswriters can so easily draw the distinctions they have. Steroids = horrible for the game need to condemn those who might have used. Greenies = who cares. Spitballs = fun. Gambling = who cares (not to all writers, but a sizable number).
If you're talking about from the center field bleachers or from a scoreboard, it's a clear ethical violation, and not really quite in any other category, other than perhaps stealing your opponents' scouting reports. But the most famous instance of it came in the Polo Grounds in 1951, and tracers showed no added advantage to the Giants during the time of the alleged offense.
Like steroids, though, it's something that takes place in locations where cameras and umpires aren't generally looking, which IMO puts it in a more serious category than violations that can be (and are) detected by direct observation.
In life we make a series of aesthetic choices -- do I wear wingtips or loafers today? Spread collar or button down? Sandwich or salad for lunch? Bourbon or wine before dinner tonight? These are all arbitrary and based on nothing more than my own personal preference. Larger penalties for some types of cheating is simply an ackowledgement that a majority (or at least vocal minority) have an aesthetic preference for certain types of conduct. As it is a mere aesthetic preference that has CF about 400' away from home rather than 300' or 500', I don't have a problem making other distinctions within the game based on such aesthetics. Suggesting that all decisions must be based on logically consistent principles seems, to me, a hopeless and pointless endeavor.
Not to mention that the "logic" involved is purely asserted in many cases, and that it's based on the personal preferences of the people making them, while these same people are pretending some sort of pseudo-objectivity about the similarities they claim to find among steroids, spitballs and goat testicles.
But OTOH think of the page hits, and think of all the time spent here by lawyers who otherwise might be out there doing more serious harm to the world. It's not a total loss.
Does the grandfathering of some spit ballers indicate a meaningful difference between that rule change and other absolute prohibitions?
Not at all. What you're doing is the equivalent of giving Jeter a 90' baseline, while making ARod run 95'. "Hey! It's just arbitrary! Everything is arbitrary! Weeeee!"
That is cartoonish.
The point of the argument is that there _is_ nothing meaningfully different between one form of cheating (amps or spitballs) vs. another (steroids).
Would you argue that ARod only deserves two strikes because he has a bigger shoe size than Jeter? No. A lack of consistent principles is a problem, and is certainly not something to be celebrated.
That assumes an answer with which I am not in agreement. SoSH has listed a number of distinctions above. I'd add that there is clearly an aesthetic choice between improvement of reaction time versus improvement of strength. That you fail to agree that these clear distinctions aren't meaningful doesn't make it so for others.
Would you argue that 5'5" Jose Altuve deserves a strike zone markedly smaller than 6'5" Jason Heyward?
other than Bobby Thomson's HR...
What't the pt. anyhow? Are you saying that as long as we cant prove there was some advantage than cheating like this is perhaps, unseemly, but not on the same level as steroids?
Amps are a drug that players used to gain an undue advantage.
Steroids are a drug that players used to gain an undue advantage.
See the similarity?
Huh? It's not smaller. Lower-thigh to belt, or whatever.
Steroids are a drug that players used to gain an undue advantage.
See the similarity?
Yes, we all see the similarities, but do you see the differences -- that's the problem.
As a factual matter, MLB has concluded institutionally that steroids provided an unfair competitive advantage, and amps didn't. See, e.g., the Mitchell Report, the relevant provisions of which were quoted herein in another thread. Start with footnote 19.
No.
What "fact" is this? Amps are specifically banned under the joint drug agreement.
Ray: There is no meaningful distinction between spitballs and steroids.
SoSH: Yes there is! There are nothing but meaningful distinctions! <Lists a bunch of distinctions>
Ray: Those distinctions aren't meaningful.
SoSH: Those are distinctions, and here's why they're meaningful.
Ray: They're not meaningful, because I said so.
Let me ask you this: In terms of cheating, do you see a meaningful distinction between pre-testing steroids usage and post-testing steroids?
I do see a lot of similarities. I do, however, see a difference too. Steroids are a drug that, combined with weightlifting, improves strength. Amphetamimes are a drug that improves reaction time. They are different types of improvement and a different aesthetic value judgment can be made between the two. Drawing a distinction between amps and steroids is like the distinction between a hollowed out end cap on a bat versus a corked bat: both are intended to reduce the weight to improve the swing speed; one is arbitrarily prohibited.
If only all players' legs were then the same length, the strikezone would be equal. The fundamental contest, that between the hitter and the pitcher, is arbitrarily measured based on the height of one of the two contestants.
edit: spelling and an analogy.
Mitchell Report. Read what it says about amps.
A plane flies.
See the similarities?
Amphetamines are a scheduled drug, banned as a performance-enhancing drug in most, if not all leagues, nationally and internationally, and by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Anabolic steroids are a scheduled drug, banned as a performance-enhancing drug in most, if not all leagues, nationally and internationally, and by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
See the similarities?
Mitchell Report. Read what it says about amps.
What page was it on? You mentioned it in another thread, and I wanted to read it for myself.
Yes, and if we're talking about what is similar between a plane, a bird, and a cat in regard to the issue of which animals or objects can fly, it would be a meaningful distinction that a cat does not fly.
Yes.
Not sure of the page. Start with footnote 19, which is a nice summary.
And if we were talking about the means by which something flies, and the effectiveness of their flying techniques, and the manner by which they pass through space, the fact that a bird and a plane both fly would be a banal and superficial observation, and obsessing about the fact that both fly would border on clinical.
Mitchell states that amphetamine use is a "problem", allegedly widespread, that (might be serious) and gives specific reasons for not examining it - it is distinct and he doesn't have enough time.
Not sure of the page. Start with footnote 19, which is a nice summary.
EDIT: coke to JJ1986
Moreover, Mitchell says that a "thorough examination" of players gaining an unfair competitive advantage did not require an investigation of amp use.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.