Wednesday, December 12, 2012
2013 Results: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza and Biggio are elected to the Hall of Merit!
(bbtf)
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have been elected to the Hall of Merit!
The timing for our first year electing 4 candidates could not have worked out better, since class of 2013 is the strongest in terms of electees that we’ve ever had. The top of the 1934 ballot included Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, Pop Lloyd, Smokey Joe Williams and Cristobal Torriente, but only 2 were elected.
Bonds and Clemens were each unanimous at 1 and 2. I believe that’s the first ...
Read More...
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 12 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›I think there is a perception that Bonds was some speedy light hitter before roids made him a home run machine, while we all still remember a scrawnier Clemens striking out 20 Mariners, and besides, pitchers don't hit home runs.
This is clearly wrong. One can certainly make a very serious argument for Bonds w/o PED. Bonds was a 9 WAR player in 1998. A reasonable projection from there would be for him to lose 1 WAR per season going forward. That would put him at replacement level at age 42, and a total of 45 WAR -- 23 less than the 68 he actually racked up. Take away 23 WAR and that puts Bonds at 149, vs. Ruth's 172. Any reasonable timeline adjustment will close that 15% gap. I can't imagine anyone seriously doubts that the players of Bond's era were at least 15% better than Ruth's peers. Obviously, one can reject timelining and prefer to judge players only in relative terms. But if we're talking about who was simply the best ballplayer on the field, even a PED-free Bonds has a strong claim to make.
One can quibble around the edges, but there's nothing inherently crazy about that line of argument. Too bad that Bonds never gave us a chance to test it.
The math is fuzzy, and Bonds is in the gray area. But I don't think his peak gets to Mays without the PEDs.
That's a hugely optimistic assumption.
Bonds had 116 WAR through age 35. At ages 36+, Hank Aaron put up 22 WAR, Willie Mays 27.7.
To assume Bonds gets 45 WAR in those ages w/o roids is wildly optimistic.
AND IF BONDS HADN'T BEEN BLACKLISTED HE WOULD BE PAST 900 HR BY NOW
WHIFFEY IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR!
since Mays was using greenies throughout the 1960s, his WAR totals aren't exactly pristine.
AND IF BONDS HADN'T BEEN BLACKLISTED HE WOULD BE PAST 900 HR BY NOW
WHIFFEY IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR!
Bull-####. You don't top your best previous performance (in a HoF career) at ages 36-39.
There is nothing comparable in the greenies Mays and Aaron took to whatever Bonds was doing in the early 2000's. Every other great player in history was below their peak and in decline in those ages.
Obviously you can if you're juiced to the gills on designer anabolics.
Given Bonds stonewalling on the issue I don't think it's unfair to assume he was taking steroids and similar agents from the time he was in high school.
Well, yes. Then and only then.
My estimate credits Bonds with 21 WAR for age 36+, less than either Aaron or Mays. How is that "wildly optimistic?" Not to mention that I'm crediting him with a grand total of 1 WAR in his age 41-42 seasons, when he actually produced 8. That's quite an imputed PED benefit, even if you ignore the fact there was testing by then (IIRC).
The math is fuzzy, and Bonds is in the gray area. But I don't think his peak gets to Mays without the PEDs.
I realize that the following includes Bonds' 1999, which means it encroaches on the popularly accepted drug timeline, but it makes the symmetry cleaner so what the hell:
through age 34:
Bonds -- 8534 PA; 163 OPS+; 445 HR; 423 2B; 65 3B; 460 SB
Mays -- 8637 PA; 163 OPS+; 505 HR; 375 2B; 118 3B; 276 SB
Mays is way ahead when you figure in defense, of course, but as offensive players I think the peaks match pretty nicely. And Mays had six more excellent season without steroids; I don't see why it's unreasonable to think that Bonds could have as well. In my mind, Bonds is actually pretty easy to figure a rough steroid adjustment for -- ding him around 100 HR and 300 walks and you're just about there.
He was at 116 WAR through 35, you're giving him 149 total, so that's 33 WAR at 36+ (my mistake on the 45).
Where are you getting 21?
Hey, it's Friday morning, and we have some irrational Bonds fanboys around here. Mea culpa.
Interesting counter-factual: what if the natural state of the league is its performance in 2011, and without steroids, Bonds' first part of his career would have been accomplished in a lower offensive environment, making his totals even more impressive compared to league.
What if, due to a higher than natural replacement level, steroids actually cost Bonds 1 WAR per year during his career?
Ug.
That's an interesting question.
Does Bonds' greenie use count as a double dose of injesting, or is it kind of concurrent thing?
The most frustrating thing about the steroid issue in general is that it pissed all over the legacies of almost every player in the league. Baseball dragged its feet for a decade, now everyone was suspect.
My total should be 140, rather than 149 (was counting age 33 twice). Which is a pretty conservative estimate -- I doubt players decline as fast as -1/yr starting at age 34.
OK.
Sure they do. They get hurt, and miss chunks of seasons.
And salaries rose post-free agency so that players would be able to work out year round and get better in their profession. So, can we therefore blame Marvin Miller's success as the leader of the MLBPA for year-round workouts and the use of steroids while training?
Unless, of course, your name's Charles Arthur "Dazzy" Vance.
Bob Costas.. i was a fan of Bob Costas once, but in the last 20 years or so i have never allowed him in my mind's eye to step into the elder statesman he seems to want to occupy. he has become arrogant and I for one will not allow him to be my moral compass on matters such as Barry Bonds. He so CLEARLY dislikes Bonds, it pretty much strikes me as bordering on unprofessionalism when he gets into it. i dunno. i know he's just a fan, too, but..
i just don't like Bob Costas anymore. what his mouth produceth smelleth.
Hank Aaron's career highs in home runs, OBP, slugging and OPS+ came at the age of 37.
You chose your bands and words very wisely.
Hank Aaron's 4 year period with the most HR's - ages 35-38 - 163 (44, 38, 47 - a career high - and 34. He also hit 163 HR's from ages 26-29.
Coke to Tom
Bonds' fundamental mistake is clear: he should have worn his cap backwards.
Bonds and steroids are one of those "just so stories" that one should be cautious about.
Uprecidented levels of performance (for age and compared to established level of talent) aren't evidence of anything unless you can demonstate there's something unique to Bonds.
Unless, of course, your name's Charles Arthur "Dazzy" Vance.
He didn't really pitch in MLB before age 31.
I disagree. In my view, to use legal terminology, such unprecedented levels create a rebuttable presumption that PEDs cause the improvement.
Hank Aaron's career highs in home runs, OBP, slugging and OPS+ came at the age of 37.
You chose your bands and words very wisely.
Hank Aaron's 4 year period with the most HR's - ages 35-38 - 163 (44, 38, 47 - a career high - and 34. He also hit 163 HR's from ages 26-29.
Yeah, b/c HR are the best measure of value.
WAR age 26-29 Aaron 36.4, Mays 36.1, Bonds, 35.3.
Bonds was a great, great player.
WAR age 36-39 Aaron 19.8, Mays 19.3, Bonds 47.4.
Bonds cheated like a mother-######, injecting every designer drug known to man.
If he had played clean Bonds would be a consensus top 7-12 batter of all time. Instead, he's a despicable farce.
Concur.
1. Did not take steroids.
2. Did work out like a mad man.
Steroids don't do anything unless you are a weightlifting demon, and it sure seems like Bonds was exercising at age 38 in a way he was not at age 28.
Snapper, I thought the Steroid Era was related to chicks digging the long ball and long flyballs becoming front row home runs, thereby cheapening the game, the record book, and causing young children and Costas and Lupica to cry themselves to sleep with images of the "pure" Maris and Aaron in their head.
Carlton Fisk starts weightlifting in his late 30's and hits 37 HR's at age 37, 11 above his previous high. Rebuttable presumption?
Yeah, b/c HR are the best measure of value.
Not to mention that much of Aaron's improvement can be directly attributed to changing his home park from County Stadium to The Launching Pad, and to expansion and the lowering of the pitcher's mound.
And then you've got the degree of the improvement, which nobody who keeps dragging up these late career Aaron / Bonds comparisons ever seems to mention. I feel like a Fact Checker in the wake of a Sarah Palin speech in listing these numbers for the umpteenth time, but WTH maybe at some point it'll sink in. And remember, these are era-adjusted stats, not raw numbers:
Age 26-30 OPS+
Aaron: 155, 161, 170, 179, 153
Bonds: 160, 205, 204, 183, 168
Age 35-39 OPS+
Aaron: 177, 148, 194, 147, 177
Bonds: 188, 259, 268, 231, 263
If he had played clean Bonds would be a consensus top 7-12 batter of all time. Instead, because he used steroids and put up some remarkable numbers before MLB banned them, he's a top 3 batter of all time (only Ruth and Williams ahead of him).
He had a 9.3 WAR in 1998 and finished 8th in the MVP - Sosa who won was 6.5 and McGwire 7.2 so even pre-juice he was much better then the biggest juicers in the game.
Not to me.
Are you saying, if you were picking a team to play under neutral conditions (either everybody or nobody gets the good drugs) you're taking Bonds over Willie Mays? Over Mantle, Wagner? Hell, I might take Pujols.
And how do you know that was "pre-juice"?
As you must know, you just made the other side's point -- nobody's late-career performance can be attributed to any single factor, Bonds included. I'm sure you won't mind, since this is not something that you have disputed in the past.
Why would you have to conclude that?
Uprecidented levels of performance (for age and compared to established level of talent) aren't evidence of anything unless you can demonstate there's something unique to Bonds.
Not sure what this means.
I still find it pretty shocking that Bonds' average OPS+ from ages 36-39 is better than any other player has put up in a single season. If you just look at slugging percentage (to ignore the intentional walks), it would have been the third highest of all time, behind Babe Ruth's two best seasons.
And in the 90's - smaller ballparks, strike zones the size of postage stamps, juiced baseballs, another two rounds of expansion....and the advent of year round physical training by the players.
Even if Bonds was already using, and even if Sosa wasn't, the fact still remains that Bonds was outperforming a league full of other players who were using.
Bonds was a great, great player.
WAR age 36-39 Aaron 19.8, Mays 19.3, Bonds 47.4.
Bonds cheated like a mother-######, injecting every designer drug known to man.
If he had played clean Bonds would be a consensus top 7-12 batter of all time. Instead, he's a despicable farce.
I'm kind of here as well. Being a top 10 player of all time wasn't enough for him, he had to be bigger than that. Well screw him. I'm a fan of baseball, not a lawyer, and he doesn't pass my smell test. I'll be the first to admit it's as much aesthetic as anything else. (I probably would have had a hard time with Babe Ruth in 1921 too.)
But here's the deal: he chose to act in a certain way and the rest of the world has to choose how to react to that. That guy might need a heap of evidence before pointing a finger, this other guy think Bagwell's arms are evidence, and another guy doesn't think anything is wrong and no evidence is called for. Bonds chose a freaky route and in so doing risked the support of conservative fans in order to court the adulation of many others. Here it is Barry, just like you could have expected. There isn't going to be a clean close to this for anyone.
So what? You didn't make any stipulation to that effect in your initial formulation of the rule. You just said "top your best previous performance (in a HoF career) at ages 36-39" - which Vance did. His age 37 and age 39 seasons are the two highest ERA+ campaigns of his career, and his age 36-39 seasons are, by far, the highest four-year stretch of (B-R) WAR at any point in his career.
Because people are arguing that player X's improvement in a relative measure of performance are due to PEDs. If other players are also using PEDs, then their performances are altering the baseline against which player X is being measured, meaning that at least some fraction of his improvement cannot be entirely attributed to the PEDs.
In this discussion, I think it is important to make clear when you are comparing "hitters" (which half of the comments here are doing) or "players" (which the other half of the comments are here are doing).
Page 1 of 12 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.