Yeah, that's just what we're going to get. And Vegas will be glad to take your money if you choose to cash in on this astute analysis.

I'm sorry, but that's the logical conclcusion a system that weighs character so much. Oh wait you're telling me that the voters don't have a system of any kind and they are constantly contradicting themselves? How dare you, sir.

IMO, players, owners, writers and fans are all blameworthy for not objecting to PED's at the time. But I'm puzzled that so many castigate writers for making moral judgments when BBWAA voters are explicitly told to assess a player's integrity, sportsmanship and character.

As noted, they've never done it before.

I'm also not comfortable with the term "moral" with regard to "integrity, sportsmanship and character" within the context of a sport. It's baseball, not world politics or murder. Nobody was harmed by Bonds hitting so many HR. It was less immoral than speeding. There seems general agreement that genuinely immoral behavior such as racism shouldn't be held against a player, that the character clause only pertains to actions within the game of baseball. I'm fine with that, but let's not call that morality eh? Part of the problem is that many see this as a MORAL issue when it's no more moral/immoral than a bunch of 20-year-old college kids sneaking into a bar.

But, yes, they are asked to assess those three items so, despite a lack of precedent, it's difficult to complain that they're doing what they've been told to do. But what they're told to do is to WEIGH THEM IN BALANCE WITH THE OTHER CRITERIA. There's absolutely nothing in that sentence to suggest that these are of tantamount importance, nothing to suggest they should receive more weight than performance, nothing to suggest that each of the conditions is a necessary condition. And, of course, PED use was not against the rules at the time these players allegedly used them (other than Palmeiro).

In short, a lack of sportsmanship might be enough to disqualify a borderline player. But, even if you think that Bonds was unsportsmanlike, to not vote him into the HOF is to ignore the PERFORMANCE AND ABILITY CLAUSE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Some of the voters are treating this as a violation as severe as the gambling rule. But there is absolutely no reason to think this was any more serious than the use of greenies.

As to post-testing ...

There is now a rule saying that roid and amp use are against the rules of baseball. Violating the rules of baseball does potentially speak to the integrity and sportsmanship of a player within the game. But, along with those rules came the punishment. So not only do we have "time served" but, more importantly, the punishment was games missed:

Roberto Alomar spit in the face of an umpire and was suspended for 10 games (I think it was).
Manny used steroids and was suspended 50 games. (The second suspension was never actually served I don't think ... or did the A's let him serve it then release him?)

OK, so what Manny did was worse and it was conduct detrimental to the team. But it was detrimental to the team for just 50 games. That's serious damage without question -- roughly equivalent to Dick Allen walking out on his team.

And judge it just like that.

I would put Dick Allen in the HoF despite his character flaws but the writers chose not to -- maybe due to character issues or maybe due to the short career or maybe due to the combination. (I'll have to see what the ballot looks like before telling you if I will vote for Manny ... but under normal circumstances, unless you can convince me he was even worse defensively than WAR think, sure)

Note also that the HoF has made it crystal clear that even Palmeiro remains eligible for election. This means that steroid use is not automatically disqualifying for the HoF by the HoF's very standards.

Note also that McGwire was allowed back into the game after his confession and that Giambi and AROD and others have been allowed to continue to play and weren't even suspended. This means that pre-testing steroid use was not even temporarily diqualifying by MLB's standards.

Even the lifetime suspension has appeal clauses and the commissioner has the discretion to limit it to a 2-year ban. Moreover, near as I can tell, it is a lifetime suspension from playing not a lifetime suspension from association with the game (this is not spelled out in detail ... but I'd think it would be if that was included).

So this is the writers -- a group of writers, maybe as high as 50% -- deciding to impose standards that neither the rules of the HoF nor the rules of MLB have applied. To not vote for Bonds and Clemens is to completely ignore the performance, ability and contribution to team criteria. To vote for the HoF is to accept the criteria you are voting upon. Therefore, to not vote for Bonds and Clemens is to vote without integrity.

Even if Bonds flunks that clause there's no way he's not a HOFer unless you're counting those things at 90% of the criteria. In that case be prepared to embrace a David Eckstein, Dale Murphy, Sean Casey HOF.

Yeah, that's just what we're going to get. And Vegas will be glad to take your money if you choose to cash in on this astute analysis.

I'm sorry, but that's the logical conclusion a system that weighs character so much. Oh wait you're telling me that the voters don't have a system of any kind and they are constantly contradicting themselves? How dare you, sir.

Your "logic" here is like Ray's, entirely self-referential. You made a statement that we should "be prepared to embrace a David Eckstein, Dale Murphy, Sean Casey HOF," as if that were likely to happen, and as if rejecting Barry Bonds on character grounds means that every marginal candidate or every joke candidate is somehow the only alternative. Tell that to Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez.

I say that's complete BS, and unless you're as dumb as that statement of yours implies, you couldn't possibly even believe it yourself. But in the 1% chance that your capacity for self-hypnotism exceeds your capacity for predictions, there's always Vegas ready to take your cash.

Sorry, mulkowsky, but our geniuses here have the exclusive BTF copyrght on honesty, and only dishonest people can possibly disagree with their logical© interpretation of everything relating to steroids. You haven't really been initiated into BTF until you're been called "dishonest" by Ray DiPerna.

Therefore, to not vote for Bonds and Clemens is to vote without integrity.

Mulkowsky, I guess I should have added that you're not only dishonest, but you lack integrity. There's no way out other than full confession and repentance, followed by priestly forgiveness, probation, and if you're lucky, acceptance.

You made a statement that we should "be prepared to embrace a David Eckstein, Dale Murphy, Sean Casey HOF," as if that were likely to happen, and as if rejecting Barry Bonds on character grounds means that every marginal candidate or every joke candidate is somehow the only alternative.

Come on, he doesn't mean that at all and you know it. The "be prepared to embrace a David Eckstein, Dale Murphy, Sean Casey HOF," was conditional -- that's what "(I)n that case" means. So "(E)ven if Bonds flunks that clause there's no way he's not a HOFer unless you're counting those things at 90% of the criteria." And if you're counting "character, integrity, and sportsmanship" enough to knock a player with the performance resume of a Bonds or a Clemens out of the HOF, then it stands to reason that there must be some players on the ballot who had such stellar "character, integrity, and sportsmanship" resumes that they are HOFers despite on-field performance that is not close to HOF caliber. You guys ought to be able to argue against each others' positions without pretending that you don't know what each other are saying.

Ray, sorry about that. I was trying to kid, not mock. Should have put a smiley face in there or something. Staub is the opposite of Ichiro when defense and baserunning are considered. I don't know if he was always a terrible fielder, but my memory of him is the old slow pinch hitter for the Mets.

I'll bite: What is the "decent, honest argument" of such, taking into account established precedent?

Where does it say that an individual voter has to be consistent with the 70+ year history of voting by thousands of different writers? Would we want Veteran's Committee members to vote in accordance with precedent? An individual voter should be consistent with their own votes or be willing to logically defend apparent inconsistencies but doesn't need to be consistent with anything else other than the voting rules. As the rules are written, each individual voter is instructed to judge a player on those six criteria, but there is no guidance to voters on how to weigh those criteria against each other.

McGwire hit a lot of fly balls. For whatever reason (steroids, juiced ball, strike zone, global warming, whatever), fly balls were anomalously likely to turn into home runs during McGwire's stint in the league. Here is the breakdown of McGwire's balls in play:

GB 1159 / FB 2171 (416 HR) / LD 818 (68 HR)

Compare this to Sosa:

GB 2649 / FB 2524 (507 HR) / LD 1354 (94 HR)

I'm not sure where you get these numbers but they conflict with b-r. B-R puts McGwire's HR/FB at 22.5% for his career and Sosa at 18.6%. McGwire's 22.5% is higher than anybody I've found yet -- Thome is at 19-20% and even Bonds in his HR-hitting heyday only barely beats Mac at 22.8%. (Numbers don't go back very far but true TTO hitting is fairly new so I'm not sure we're missing many legit candidates.)

Walt: I got these from B-R, under Splits -> Career and then Hit Trajectory (i.e. here for McGwire). Where did you get your BR numbers from?

I feel compelled to point out that OPS does not treat a single and a walk equally. The single and walk raise your OBP by the same amount, but the single raises your SLG by some amount, while the walk leaves it constant. For instance, here are some actual numbers:

Suppose Joe Blow goes 70-for-280 with 20 walks and 62 extra bases, making him a 250/300/400 hitter, 700 OPS. If we turn 10 of his outs into singles, he ends up at 287/333/437 (770 OPS). If we turn 10 of his outs into walks, he ends up at 259/333/415, 748 OPS. To OPS, a single is worth like 1.45 times as much as a walk (the ratio depends on where you start but this example hitter, with fairly typical stats, has it end up at 1.45).

To OPS, a single is worth like 1.45 times as much as a walk (the ratio depends on where you start but this example hitter, with fairly typical stats, has it end up at 1.45).

This is true, but essentially a mathematical coincidence that the impact on OPS approximates the linear weights value. There's nothing structurally in the math that makes that hold true. Start Joe Blow with no extra bases and no walks, so that his OBP = SLG. Then a single is worth 2x a walk. You've discovered an artifact of the fact that typical realistic numbers for SLG are around 1.45x typical numbers of OBP.

I'll bite: What is the "decent, honest argument" of such, taking into account established precedent?

Where does it say that an individual voter has to be consistent with the 70+ year history of voting by thousands of different writers?

Nowhere. But, then, the individual should be honest enough to concede that he's applying different standards to the steroids players than were applied to the amps/spitball/corked bat players.

It's when people like Andy and Mike Lupica try to draw laughable distinctions between the steroids and amps players that I object.

Right, I agree that it's a mathematical coincidence, didn't mean to imply that the math would force the ratio to work out to the lwts value. Just wanted to clarify after various people in the thread asserted that OPS counts a single as 2x a walk.

No edit? Yeah, I misread and was countering the 1x argument which nobody made. 2x is just as wrong though about what OPS thinks about single versus walk. In general, it ends up happily being in the right ballpark.

Many cokes, and never mind.

Re: McGwire's quick exit - IIRC, after the monster seasons in '98 and '99, Mac had half a monster season in 2000 (203 OPS+), injuries pretty much wiping out the second half of the season.

As I recall, Mac at his peak preferred those thigh-high fastballs that he could just crush, but had some difficulty handling high heat. The weird thing is, when we think of how the strike zone changed over the years, we usually think of pitchers like Greg Maddux who adapted to the extra-wide strike zones of many umpires, being able to consistently throw pitches 6 inches off the plate but catch the outside "corner" of many umpires' zones. But, just as the strike zone grew wider, it also became shorter. There were many umpires that just wouldn't call a pitch above the belt a strike. Mac was a batter who feasted on this sort of thing - a couple of high fastballs trying to get him to chase and he would have a 2-0 count and could then sit on the pitch he wanted.

Now, I need some other memories hopefully better than mine to help out here - I think 2001 was the year that umpires said they were going to start calling the high strike again and I think at the beginning of the season they actually were, for the most part. I seem to recall McGwire starting off a lot of at bats that year with 0-2 counts from taking those high fastballs whereas he was previously getting the 2-0 counts and he apparently couldn't adapt. He was also still battling injuries but I think he really got into a funk that he couldn't seem to get out of. I also recall that although Mac may have been a TTO sabr-favorite type of hitter, he didn't actually think that way himself. He appeared to really be bothered by the low batting average and had doubts if he could really hit anymore. I think this played a large role in the decision to retire.

Personally, I think he retired too soon - he probably could have had 3 or 4 more productive years as a hitter, but we'll never know for certain.

When Mark retired I certainly thought he had a bounceback season in him or 3. At that point he probably would have been better off going back to the AL to DH.

As for his 2001 struggles, the strikezone might have hurt a bit but I think the main thing was the injured knee which totally screwed up his hitting mechanics.

Ray, sorry about that. I was trying to kid, not mock. Should have put a smiley face in there or something.

Fair enough. I should probably adjust my sarcasm detector.

I don't understand why McGwire gets labeled a borderline guy so often ('roids aside). 12 AS teams, best AB/HR ratio ever, .394 career OBP, 8th all-time in SLG, 10th all-time in OPS, scores great on Black Ink and Hall of Fame monitor. That's a clear HOF in my book.

Well, let's start with the criteria you used to define him as "a clear HOF." AS teams, an awful criteria for the HOF as they are influenced by all sorts of things other than performance. After that it's ratio after ratio after ratio, all of which ignore playing time. The ratios are nice, great in some cases, but they totally ignore playing time. McGwire is borderline because of a lack of playing time. He's a perfectly reasonable HOF still, because of the ratios, depending on where you fall along the Peak/Prime/Career spectrum and/or where you fall along the Big Hall/Small Hall spectrum, but it's seeing him as anything other than borderline given 7,660 PA's.

An average HOF (an average which inlcudes Catchers who legitimately play less due to the rigors of their position, players who legitimately receive credit for Military Service, 19th C players who played shorter seasons and players excluded by MLB's segregation) has 8,996 PA's. That's two full seasons worth more despite inlcuding the aformentioned categories of players with legitimately lower PA's in the average. So if you look at HOF with similar PA's you'll see a number of 19th C players, some Catchers, some guys who missed time due to Military Service, some questionable VC selections and Kirby Puckett, a poor BBWAA selection, imo. IOW, there are no players elected to the HOF who are "clear HOF" with similar numbers of PA's who don't fall into one of the categories of players who have legitimate claims to lesser playing time. If that's where McGwire falls in terms of career, it seems to be clearly in the borderline to me.

If you look at it in career value terms, WAR puts him in the borderline area, too. He's sandwiched by McCovey above and Helton below, nearer to Keith Hernandez than he is to Eddie Murray, and nearer to John Olerud than Edgar Martinez (those are the next two pairings below and above him in terms of career WAR for 1B/DH). So of the six guys nearest him in WAR, three above and three below, two are in, two are out, one is getting marginal support and one is not yet eligible. Again, this seems to be clearly borderline.

When Mark retired I certainly thought he had a bounceback season in him or 3.

Could be, particularly if he was a DH, as you mention, but history argues against it. I'm assuming by "bounceback" you mean some combination of increased performance and playing time. With that in mind there are only 131 seasons from 1901 forward by a 38 year old with at least 105 OPS+ and 400 PA's, both very slight increases from his last season's 103 OPS+ and 364 PA's. Even with just the very slight improvements, the least bit of a bouncebak, that's very, very few seasons. Still, there are nine players who did at least three times and the DH definitely factored into several of those. I guess it's possible, but I'm sceptical if he really had that much in him.

I guess it's possible, but I'm sceptical if he really had that much in him.

Even if he did, it's not like he'd have added that much WAR. His 105 OPS+ in 364 PA got him a 0.1. It's unlikely he would have added more than 1 or 2 to his career total.

#121 It's also the way the character clause has been applied in the past. I can see one player -- Hal Chase -- who would probably have been elected if not for his character (assuming that Jackson was never in the picture -- that players on the ineligible list simply were never allowed in)

It's arguably been a deal breaker for some guys who were close to the in/out line. Bill Dahlen, Carl Mays, Sherry Magee, Dick Allen come to mind.

It probably delayed Marichal's election, but he made it. It might have cost Alomar a year's wait.

And maybe it was a deal maker for Rabbit Maranville (though this was more about his personal popularity). Can't really think of anybody else. Puckett might not have made it in (or at least not quickly) if he hadn't been so personally popular. Maybe Catfish Hunter.

In other words, in the past if it's been considered at all it was strictly a minor thing.