Yeah, but you can trust him on the Clemens thing because reasons.

Estrange wife

Bellatrix?

When you think about all of the crap that McNamee has been involved with or accused of, including sexual assault, dealing drugs, lying to the cops and tampering with evidence as a cop, and how he has apparently skated every time, don't you feel so much safer that the government has no qualms about him running loose while they focus all of their attention on Bonds and Clemens?

#3 - Interesting take. I hadn't heard that before.

Clearly the author speaks Spanish as a first language and thinks Ms. McNamee looks strange.

Estrange wife

Bellatrix?

NOT MY ROGER, YOU BITCH!

Of all the '90s dotcom startups, "e-Strange Wife" may have had the worst business model.

When you think about all of the crap that McNamee has been involved with or accused of, including sexual assault, dealing drugs, lying to the cops and tampering with evidence as a cop, and how he has apparently skated every time, don't you feel so much safer that the government has no qualms about him running loose while they focus all of their attention on Bonds and Clemens?

Maybe this whole trial is just a ruse to keep an eye on McNamee -- kind of like when they send out those fake announcements to fugitives that the fugitives have won a prize in order to trick the fugitives into coming to pick it up.

Apparently on cross-examination today, she called McNamee even more of a liar:

Perhaps the most riveting part of Mrs. McNamee's cross-examination involved an audio recording Clemens played that involved her husband.

After the Mitchell Report came out in December 2007, the McNamee's eldest son (who is diabetic) was sick. Brian Jr. went to the doctor to get bloodwork done, Mrs. McNamee said, and the results were not good. She said she called her husband and left him a voicemail with the news.

According to Mrs. McNamee, her husband never called back and instead called Clemens. Clemens aired an audio recording of that conversation during a press conference. The conversation included Mr. McNamee mentioning his son's illness and saying his son was "dying."

"I heard it and my son heard it," Mrs. McNamee said. She said she was furious.

"Brian didn't bother to call me back. He called Roger and told him my son is dying, which he wasn't. … Now, my son thinks he's dying."

Mrs. McNamee left a message for her husband that she wanted him to "go after" Clemens for playing the recording. She said her husband came back to her home the next night to collect the FedEx box.

Emphasis added.


The question I have is, did the government bother to do any investigation before they decided to persecute Clemens? Well, that's one of my questions. The other one is, is Brian McNamee biologically capable of telling the truth?

Why isn't the jury being told about the date rape drug incident?

I can't believe this thing is still dragging on. And, given that this thing is still dragging on, I can't believe they haven't had to declare a mistrial because the entire damn jury has fallen asleep. My wife and I have sat on a combined 3 juries (1 criminal, 2 civil, all state/county level) and none of the trials lasted more than four days (from opening through closing arguments).

The question I have is, did the government bother to do any investigation before they decided to persecute Clemens?

Hell I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Judge gives Clemens a directed verdict without sending it to the jury, holding that to find Clemens guilty beyond reasonable doubt you have to believe McNamee, and that a reasonable jury could not find McNamee credible.

Is there anyone who now thinks that Clemens would've been better off not confronting McNamee in the beginning, and not openly denying the charges when McNamee first came out with his accusations? Unless you think that the gradual disintegration of McNamee's story is going to have no effect on the judge and jury and no long term effect on Clemens' reputation, I don't see how Clemens loses by his strategy of confrontation.** I know it goes against every lawyer's instinct, and usually it's for understandable reasons, but sometimes in cases like this the best defense is a hard-charging offense.

**Well, he's losing his lawyer's fees and many wasted months, but consider the alternative.

Maybe this whole trial is just a ruse to keep an eye on McNamee -- kind of like when they send out those fake announcements to fugitives that the fugitives have won a prize in order to trick the fugitives into coming to pick it up.

I'll admit it, I laughed.

Unless you think that the gradual disintegration of McNamee's story is going to have no effect on the judge and jury and no long term effect on Clemens' reputation

I wouldn't be surprised to see Clemens found guilty of SOMETHING, sort of like the Bonds verdict. If I'm a juror, having to sit through months and months of this crap (or however long it's been; admittedly, part of why it seems like it's dragging is because it took so damn long just to get to the jury phase), I'd be tempted to try to find him guilty of something just to feel like it wasn't all such a waste of time. I'm not saying I'd actually do that (based on what I know, I can't imagine getting to "beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything that Brian McNamee has ever said in his life), but it wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe this whole trial is just a ruse to keep an eye on McNamee -- kind of like when they send out those fake announcements to fugitives that the fugitives have won a prize in order to trick the fugitives into coming to pick it up.

I'll admit it, I laughed.

I'm still laughing from the time that the DC police filled up half of Washington's National Guard Armory back in 1985 with that "pre-game brunch + tickets" trick. What probably made it irresistible to the fugitives was the fact that the Armory is right next door to RFK Stadium.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Clemens found guilty of SOMETHING, sort of like the Bonds verdict. If I'm a juror, having to sit through months and months of this crap (or however long it's been; admittedly, part of why it seems like it's dragging is because it took so damn long just to get to the jury phase), I'd be tempted to try to find him guilty of something just to feel like it wasn't all such a waste of time. I'm not saying I'd actually do that (based on what I know, I can't imagine getting to "beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything that Brian McNamee has ever said in his life), but it wouldn't surprise me.

This is strictly a layman's POV, but these two cases have one obvious difference. Bonds shut up and so did his trainer / pusher. Clemens angrily and openly denied and confronted, setting himself up for a prosecution. Just from a non-legalistic POV, that's got to be a point in Clemens' favor in the eyes of a lot of people. Of course how many people will react like this is unknown for the time being.

Hell I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Judge gives Clemens a directed verdict without sending it to the jury, holding that to find Clemens guilty beyond reasonable doubt you have to believe McNamee, and that a reasonable jury could not find McNamee credible.

It's not going to happen. A reasonable jury could believe McNamee on the central claim.

Is there anyone who now thinks that Clemens would've been better off not confronting McNamee in the beginning, and not openly denying the charges when McNamee first came out with his accusations? Unless you think that the gradual disintegration of McNamee's story is going to have no effect on the judge and jury and no long term effect on Clemens' reputation, I don't see how Clemens loses by his strategy of confrontation.**

Andy, the climate at the time was such that, once accused, not going on the complete offensive accomplished nothing. Clemens's reputation would have been destroyed had he not responded. Just as it's destroyed now, having responded. Short of a taped confessions from McNamee, or a video showing that he accepted money in exchange for fingering Clemens, the Lupicas and Heymans won't give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. And even then they probably still would not.

Of course, the people claiming that the accused should answer the media/sue/tell Congress were lying when they said this could help earn the accused the benefit of the doubt, but at the time doing nothing didn't help anything.

It's not going to happen. A reasonable jury could believe McNamee on the central claim.

McNamee very well may be telling the truth on the central claim, Clemens juicing and McNamee being his supplier is very plausible, the trouble is how can you not have a reasonable doubt with respect to ANYTHING McNamee says?

If the standard was preponderance, I can see a reasonable fact finder holding their nose and "believing" McNamee, but that's not the standard.

But then again people believe mob turncoats- but you usually need at least some corroborating evidence to make that go down- here the main "corroborating" evidence comes from McNamee as well.

I don't think there's a lick of difference between the potential for personal vindication, or lack thereof, for Bonds and Clemens. And it will always remain the same, regardless of result: Bonds ultimately gets his half-assed felony overturned, or doesn't; Clemens is cleared of all charges, or gets a token conviction, or loses on every count and does serious prison time, or marries McNamee in the judge's chambers, or gets cloned from the soda can DNA and testifies against himself. You could run 10,000 computer simulations on either one of these guys and the end result would always come out the same.

I also expect that this storyline will be revised down the line. But in 2012 it's not merely a case of "it is what it is," it's "it is what it was always foreordained to is."

I wouldn't be surprised to see Clemens found guilty of SOMETHING, sort of like the Bonds verdict.

Exactly like the Bonds verdict, he may well be acquitted (*) on all PEDs-related counts and convicted of lying about being at Canseco's party, or the practices of the Yankees in giving out B-12 shots.


(*) Okay, technically Bonds jury was deadlocked on those counts, but for all intents and purposes it was an acquittal.

Andy, the climate at the time was such that, once accused, not going on the complete offensive accomplished nothing. Clemens's reputation would have been destroyed had he not responded. Just as it's destroyed now, having responded. Short of a taped confessions from McNamee, or a video showing that he accepted money in exchange for fingering Clemens, the Lupicas and Heymans won't give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. And even then they probably still would not.

Of course, the people claiming that the accused should answer the media/sue/tell Congress were lying when they said this could help earn the accused the benefit of the doubt, but at the time doing nothing didn't help anything.

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

I don't think there's a lick of difference between the potential for personal vindication, or lack thereof, for Bonds and Clemens. And it will always remain the same, regardless of result: Bonds ultimately gets his half-assed felony overturned, or doesn't; Clemens is cleared of all charges, or gets a token conviction, or loses on every count and does serious prison time, or marries McNamee in the judge's chambers, or gets cloned from the soda can DNA and testifies against himself. You could run 10,000 computer simulations on either one of these guys and the end result would always come out the same.

I also expect that this storyline will be revised down the line. But in 2012 it's not merely a case of "it is what it is," it's "it is what it was always foreordained to is."

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals? I could be wrong, and I'd be foolish to bet on anything at this point, but if this trial continues as it has, with the main witness against Clemens having his credibility peeled off in pieces one after the other, I'd be very surprised if that doesn't show up at least to some extent in some writers' ballots.

It's about as good a test as you can find, since both Bonds and Clemens are absolute slam dunk HoFers on the basis of their performance, they're first appearing on the ballot in the same year, and both of them have the reputation of being absolute creeps or worse. There's absolutely nothing beyond the way the way their post-accusation narratives have diverged that separates them. If after all this, they wind up virtually tied in percentage, I'll be the first to admit I've read the whole thing wrong. What will you two say if Clemens winds up with (say) 10% more than Bonds?

Exactly like the Bonds verdict, he may well be acquitted (*) on all PEDs-related counts and convicted of lying about being at Canseco's party, or the practices of the Yankees in giving out B-12 shots.

(*) Okay, technically Bonds jury was deadlocked on those counts, but for all intents and purposes it was an acquittal.

Really? Does this have nothing to do with PED's?

On one charge - that Bonds lied by denying that his trainer, Greg Anderson, or anyone other than a doctor had ever injected him with drugs - the vote was 11-1 to convict, jurors said.

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals?

I don't have a clue how Clemens' vote total will stack up in comparison to Bonds' and vice versa. But I'd be shocked if there were five hands out there, ballpoint pens at the ready and poised over the Hall of Fame ballots, quavery and uncertain because they're waiting to see what happens next in court.

As far as sifting tea leaves goes, the ballot is going to be fucked for years. Thus, trying to divine absolute meaning from the coming difference between Bonds' and Clemens' percentages is likely to be a descent into madness. If spitting on an umpire can severely warp a result, the next ballot is going to be a Moebius strip.

Past votes aren't much help in a judgment hunt, either. Jim Palmer was a full 10% ahead of his co-debuting candidate Joe Morgan, but Paul Molitor was deemed just 2% "better" than Dennis Eckersley. I don't need Greg Anderson to take the stand to tell me that's a lie.

Exactly like the Bonds verdict, he may well be acquitted (*) on all PEDs-related counts and convicted of lying about being at Canseco's party, or the practices of the Yankees in giving out B-12 shots.

Yeah. And there was also the count that involved Clemens saying to Congress that he had "no idea" Mitchell's people were trying to contact him, but the judge tossed that out as being covered by the a/c privilege.

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals? I could be wrong, and I'd be foolish to bet on anything at this point, but if this trial continues as it has, with the main witness against Clemens having his credibility peeled off in pieces one after the other, I'd be very surprised if that doesn't show up at least to some extent in some writers' ballots.

I don't think there will be a bit of difference in their HOF votes. They're both lying liars who lied when they lied about not lying about using steroids. And Clemens "stonewalled."

I don't think the Lupicas and Heymans see them a damned bit of difference between them.

----

Side note: I happened to see Bob Costas at Sambuca's last night, here on the upper west side. He wasn't drinking with Mike Lupica, but he was sitting on a life sized replica of a high horse.

I don't know that Clemens and Bonds would have had identical votes in the absence of the steroids issue, but I see no reason to think that they'll be treated differently by the voters. Everyone "knows" that they Did Steroids, and nobody cares whether the jury says otherwise. Andy is the only one who maintains that these questions are still open.

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals?

25. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 07, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4151128)

I don't have a clue how Clemens' vote total will stack up in comparison to Bonds' and vice versa. But I'd be shocked if there were five hands out there, ballpoint pens at the ready and poised over the Hall of Fame ballots, quavery and uncertain because they're waiting to see what happens next in court.

27. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 07, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4151140)

I don't think there will be a bit of difference in their HOF votes. They're both lying liars who lied when they lied about not lying about using steroids. And Clemens "stonewalled."

I don't think the Lupicas and Heymans see them a damned bit of difference between them.

28. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4151231)

I don't know that Clemens and Bonds would have had identical votes in the absence of the steroids issue, but I see no reason to think that they'll be treated differently by the voters. Everyone "knows" that they Did Steroids, and nobody cares whether the jury says otherwise. Andy is the only one who maintains that these questions are still open.

Okay, now we're all on record, and in seven months we'll see who's right. I'll only add that my question doesn't concern the Lupicas and the Heymans, but the unknown number of writers who don't want to vote for juicers, but who also want to be certain about who actually juiced before withholding their votes. Those are the writers whose numbers I'm not so sure of.

Okay, now we're all on record, and in seven months we'll see who's right. I'll only add that my question doesn't concern the Lupicas and the Heymans, but the unknown number of writers who don't want to vote for juicers, but who also want to be certain about who actually juiced before withholding their votes. Those are the writers whose numbers I'm not so sure of.

I don't think any such writers exist. If you (by which I don't mean you personally; I mean a voter) care about steroids so much that you want to see users out, how could you possibly vote for Bonds or Clemens? You've seen more than enough evidence to convince you already that you can't take the chance on them. Clemens's trainer says that he used. What could you possibly be waiting for at trial, short of a Perry Mason style witness-stand confession from McNamee that will never come, and indeed didn't come?

If you (again, a voter) were going to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, you would have already done so when he did all of the things that the Lupicas of the world demanded that he do. (Talk to the media, sue, testify under oath, put your liberty at stake.) Nothing has come out at trial that has moved the needle much one way or the other.

If Alger Hiss had won his perjury case, would he have not been a Soviet agent?

#OT:Controversy

Andy--
I'm delighted to be on record, but for what? My bold prediction was that I don't even have an unintelligent guess what the numbers will be. 44%, 31%, 26%, 12%, who knows? One of them will end up ahead of the other, obviously, but which one and by how much is a mystery. Unless Roger Clemens is found 100% not guilty and then racks up a third more votes that Bonds, I'm not sure what you're going for. What's the magic percentage gap where we could say with confidence, "Oho! I see what they've done there!"? It's not 10% behind; they did 10% to Joe Morgan, and they liked him. And Joe didn't have 6 or 7 legitimate HoFers debuting along with him.

The coverage of Andy Pettitte's testimony -- "He changed his story!!" (when he didn't) -- tells you much of you need to know about the electorate's willingness to keep an open mind. They got pissed because Pettitte's 2012 testimony wasn't what "happened," and could lead to the "wrong" verdict. The story's been written.

I guess my bag of nothing is as bold a prediction as yours -- "I'd be very surprised if that doesn't show up at least to some extent ...[among an]... unknown number of writers" -- but what does that mean? How will we determine "who's right" in seven months? Right about what?

This is what I am saying: regardless of the trial's outcome, Clemens is only going to get what he was always going to get, but I don't know what he's going to get. An absolutely worthless syllogism, but it's all I have.

I don't think any such writers exist.

Gee, I never would have guessed that. Maybe if you repeat it another ten times you'll qualify for a free Big Gulp.

If you (by which I don't mean you personally; I mean a voter) care about steroids so much that you want to see users out, how could you possibly vote for Bonds or Clemens? You've seen more than enough evidence to convince you already that you can't take the chance on them. Clemens's trainer says that he used. What could you possibly be waiting for at trial, short of a Perry Mason style witness-stand confession from McNamee that will never come, and indeed didn't come?

Oh, I don't know, maybe little things like McNamee's ex openly disputing his testimony about the syringes. (What was that line about "an assertion is only an assertion"?) Unlike you, I didn't spend much time poring over the prior statements with a fine tooth comb, because I figured that the cross-examination would begin to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you (again, a voter) were going to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, you would have already done so when he did all of the things that the Lupicas of the world demanded that he do. (Talk to the media, sue, testify under oath, put your liberty at stake.) Nothing has come out at trial that has moved the needle much one way or the other.

I thought Clemens did the right thing, but I guess McNamee's cross-examination hasn't exactly convinced me of his trustworthiness. Isn't this what trials are supposed to demonstrate one way or the other?

And the trial's not over. I'm still waiting to see more. You can just cast your final vote now if you so wish. My skepticism is getting more and more directed at McNamee, but it ain't over till it's over.

If things keep rolling Clemens' way this splendidly, the Rocket could end up with the same general presumption of innocence as the vindicated non-boy toucher Michael Jackson, out-of-town golfer O.J. Simpson, Twinkie victim Dan White, or the LAPD officers who played pattycake with Rodney King.

Andy--
I'm delighted to be on record, but for what? My bold prediction was that I don't even have an unintelligent guess what the numbers will be. 44%, 31%, 26%, 12%, who knows? One of them will end up ahead of the other, obviously, but which one and by how much is a mystery. Unless Roger Clemens is found 100% not guilty and then racks up a third more votes that Bonds, I'm not sure what you're going for. What's the magic percentage gap where we could say with confidence, "Oho! I see what they've done there!"? It's not 10% behind; they did 10% to Joe Morgan, and they liked him. And Joe didn't have 6 or 7 legitimate HoFers debuting along with him.

Gonfalon,

If steroid use weren't an issue---if steroids had never even been hinted at for either of these two---Bonds and Clemens would both be pushing close to 100% on the merits, with only a handful of the usual cranks and "no first ballot HoFers for me" holding out, regardless of who else was on the ballot. There'd be at very most a 1% or 2% difference, and please don't try to pretend otherwise by citing Joe Morgan. Again, this would be if steroids had never entered the picture.

With that premise in mind, then yes, a 10% difference or more in Clemens' favor certainly would mean a reflection of the final outcome of the trial. It sure as hell wouldn't be a reflection of some thoughts that Clemens had an unfair home park advantage, or that he'd pitched in a stronger league. It'd mean that those Clemens yes, Bonds no voters had had their beliefs in Clemens' guilt altered by the trial.

Again, I'm not saying that this will happen, although I can't believe the spectacle of the McNamee story being punctured by his ex won't have any effect, since at the very least it's undermined his claim of verifiable recall.

How many voters will react this way? I don't know. And if only a tiny percentage (fewer than, say, 4%) do, then I'll concede I overestimated the trial's effect.

But if you claim that a 10% edge or more for Clemens would have nothing to do with the way this trial has proceeded up to now**, then I respectfully say you're a pre-emptive spin artist.

**which of course may well change

If things keep rolling Clemens' way this splendidly, the Rocket could end up with the same general presumption of innocence as the vindicated non-boy toucher Michael Jackson, out-of-town golfer O.J. Simpson, Twinkie victim Dan White, or the LAPD officers who played pattycake with Rodney King.

So I guess it's in for a dime, in for a dollar, eh? I guess you're a lot more convinced of Clemens' guilt than I am. Not too much irony there.

It's also funny how Ray and David have spent countless hours arguing how worthless McNamee's testimony and evidence is, and yet the more that their argument looks as if it's about to gain credibility in the courtroom, the more they seem to think that nobody outside the courtroom will listen to their argument!

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

If Alger Hiss had won his perjury case, would he have not been a Soviet agent?

Sure he would, but if Chambers hadn't been able to produce evidence a lot stronger than Brian McNamee has up to now, we wouldn't have known of Hiss's guilt for certain until many years later. In both cases we can only know about evidence that's available to see in the here and now, not evidence that's languishing in some secret Soviet archive that won't be opened for nearly half a century, or in a pumpkin patch in Brian McNamee's farm that McNamee's lost the map to.

Andy, as far as the steroids crusaders are concerned, this trial is simply to see whether the jury realizes that Clemens lied about not using steroids and convicts accordingly. An acquittal will do absolutely nothing for Clemens's Hall of Fame chances.

Oh, come on. It may not do enough, but nothing? As this trial progresses, it's becoming clear to many layman that there is very little on Clemens. Because Anderson refused to testify, Bonds lucked out, and that's apparent. But, with Clemens--if this is the best you got, where's the there there? And that's apparent, too.

Oh, come on. It may not do enough, but nothing?

I didn't say nothing. I said absolutely nothing. And that's what it will do.

As this trial progresses, it's becoming clear to many layman

I think this assumes a level of attention that "many laymen" simply aren't giving this trial. This saga has dragged on for years; the trial has dragged on for weeks. I suspect that the reaction of many, if not most, when the verdict finally comes down will be "Really? I thought that was over weeks (years?) ago." That said, I think the VERDICT might actually affect some voters. A "not guilty" verdict might sway some voters. But a "guilty" on anything - even not directly PED-related - will be reported and interpreted as "proof" that Clemens did PEDs. Recall that's pretty much exactly how the Bonds verdict was reported.

There'd be at very most a 1% or 2% difference, and please don't try to pretend otherwise by citing Joe Morgan.

Eh. I agree with Gonfalon Bubble. You can't be sure enough about these things to ever settle this bet. Unless there's an overwhelming difference.

Baseball writers aren't paying attention to the trial?

Baseball writers aren't paying attention to the trial?

As I said, they're paying attention (not really, but loosely) simply to see whether the jury realizes that Clemens lied about not using steroids and convicts accordingly.

Why do people the outcome of the trial is going to influence Clemens's Hall of Fame voting one way or the other?

Oh, come on. It may not do enough, but nothing?

I didn't say nothing. I said absolutely nothing. And that's what it will do.

Don't be bashful, Ray. Cut out the euphemisms. You know what you really want to say......

IT'S OVER. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OVER.

43:

Because it is dealing, if obliquely, with the issue that is the basis for his advocated exclusion. Isn't that obvious.

Read your first paragraph again. If the jury finds him not guilty, what's the larger conclusion from the trial to be drawn by informed lay people? There's nothing there, that's what. You don't think that will have an effect on the vote? What would then?

Why do people the outcome of the trial is going to influence Clemens's Hall of Fame voting one way or the other?

I hope you're paying more attention to what the writers might be saying in the coming months than you are to your own proofreading.

Read your first paragraph again. If the jury finds him not guilty, what's the larger conclusion from the trial to be drawn by informed lay people? There's nothing there, that's what. You don't think that will have an effect on the vote? What would then?

Morty, Ray's already answered that in # 30 above. He's nothing if not openminded:

a Perry Mason style witness-stand confession from McNamee

Baseball writers aren't paying attention to the trial?

Most Hall-of-Fame voters aren't active baseball writers. And no, I don't think most of them are paying attention to the trial.

Why do people the outcome of the trial is going to influence Clemens's Hall of Fame voting one way or the other?

I think most people have an implicit belief in the American justice system and/or don't like to have to make their own decisions, so, in most cases, many people will treat a jury verdict as defining the truth. There are obvious counter-examples (O.J., that lady down in Florida whose name I've thankfully forgotten), and I think Clemens, if he's exonerated, will be a counter-example for a LOT of HOF voters, but not all of them. If Clemens is found not guilty on all charges, I would expect him to get more HOF votes than Bonds; probably not a LOT more, maybe 30 or so more if I had to pull a number out of my ass?

Most Hall-of-Fame voters aren't active baseball writers. And no, I don't think most of them are paying attention to the trial.

I'd agree with that---for now. But I think we can expect that the outcome of the trial will get considerably more coverage than the day-by-day proceedings, which may well drag on for quite some time in the absence of a declared mistrial. At that point it's all going to be presented in one E-Z narrative which will say to many people that "He did" or "He didn't"-----and I think that which way that narrative points is going to influence a certain amount of previously undecided voters, regardless of how much or how little attention they'd been paying to the trial before the verdict was announced.

If you (again, a voter) were going to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, you would have already done so when he did all of the things that the Lupicas of the world demanded that he do. (Talk to the media, sue, testify under oath, put your liberty at stake.) Nothing has come out at trial that has moved the needle much one way or the other.

All right, for you this is an exercise in poetic flights of cynicism. Nothing there that you mention has to do with the basis for why they think Clemens needed to do all that--McNamee. Now, McNamee has been exploded. If the jury recognizes him for the spent force that he is, surely some writers can connect two dots. But, if it all rests on an assessment of the character of those writers, and you see them as having a witch hunt mentality, okay. Have it your way. We'll see. But, it's still hard to believe no one's views, no one at all, would be affected. But, again, we'll see. Like for other candidates whose eligibility was seen as compromised in some way, we can just keep plugging away. It's been shown that has an effect. People like you, Ray, have had an effect when it comes to changing opinion. Keep it up.

EDITed for clarity.

Read your first paragraph again. If the jury finds him not guilty, what's the larger conclusion from the trial to be drawn by informed lay people? There's nothing there, that's what. You don't think that will have an effect on the vote? What would then?

As Andy identified, I think the only thing that would have an effect on the vote at this point is a confession by McNamee that he made it all up.

What do people think have we learned from the trial? That McNamee isn't trustworthy? No - we did not learn that from the trial. We already knew that. If a voter planning to not vote for Clemens didn't see that before, he sure as hell doesn't care now.

Andy, I don't know what will settle this "bet," aside from Clemens being acquitted and receiving 95% of the vote while Bonds receives 23%.

What do people think have we learned from the trial? That McNamee isn't trustworthy? No - we did not learn that from the trial. We already knew that.

As is often the case, you confuse the first person plural with the first person singular. You have quite an elastic idea of "we".

Andy, I don't know what will settle this "bet," aside from Clemens being acquitted and receiving 95% of the vote while Bonds receives 23%.

Well, you've twice stated that the trial won't affect the voting in the slightest. That's a long cry from 95% to 23%. Are you starting to back off from what you've previously written?

I think that in the case of an outright acquittal (without the Perry Mason scenario), you'll see at least a 10% spread between Clemens and Bonds, perhaps even 15% or 20%. I kind of admire your absolute sense of cynicism about the voters, but I guess I can't quite share it to your extreme. I think that at least 10% of the voters would be influenced by a "not guilty" verdict.

#52 Anybody who didn't know McNamee was untrustworthy before this trial simply hasn't been paying attention. How many people who are actually following the testimony at the trial were not paying attention before? I'd say it's probably a pretty small number.

What's come out now is more confirmation of something anybody actually following this whole saga already knew. McNamee is a lying liar who (as has been noted) may actually be telling the truth (in what, the 4th try at it) about Clemens.

I won't hazard a guess whether McNamee is telling the complete truth, total lies or something in between. Having said that, I don't put a lot of stock in an ex-wife having a different version/memory of an event. I'm married and have lost count of the times my wife had a completely different recollection than I about various things both important and inconsequential. If I were a juror I wouldn't accept the ex-wife's testimony as perfectly accurate and a complete dismantling of McNamee's testimony. Likewise, you can't assume he got all the details perfectly correct. That is the problem with the jury system - jurors are human and often must weigh the truthfulness of several people with conflicted details about an event. Most crimes are not committed on camera or in view of multiple witnesses. We as citizens can only hope all jurors take their responsibilities seriously and we can only pray they get the great majority of cases right.

#52 Anybody who didn't know McNamee was untrustworthy before this trial simply hasn't been paying attention. How many people who are actually following the testimony at the trial were not paying attention before? I'd say it's probably a pretty small number.

What's come out now is more confirmation of something anybody actually following this whole saga already knew. McNamee is a lying liar who (as has been noted) may actually be telling the truth (in what, the 4th try at it) about Clemens.

But the writers I'm talking about are the ones who (a) haven't been paying much attention up to this point, but are now reading about McNamee's contradicted testimony, and (b) will be paying attention in much greater numbers once the jury (or judge's) verdict hits the headlines and the nightly news---which it definitely will. I'm certainly not expecting it to change the minds of the Lupicas or the Chasses, or of the writers who've already announced that steroids won't affect their votes. But those two groups combined don't make up nearly 100% of the voters.

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

Large Bill (#54),

I'd tend to agree with you about the ex's testimony, except that (a) it so completely contradicted McNamee's version, and (b) it also feeds into the emerging narrative of McNamee's past shifting of his tale. Perhaps the jurors will shrug it off as testimony of an embittered ex-wife, but with a jury made of of 10 women and 2 men, I wouldn't necessarily be counting on that if I were the prosecution.

if only a tiny percentage (fewer than, say, 4%) do, then I'll concede I overestimated the trial's effect.

What if it's 7.5%? What is the significance of these arbitrary ranges on a uniquely full ballot, starring a pair of uniquely vilified inner circle candidates heading a uniquely busted process? There is literally no model for this election, and you're postulating an overlay of narrative precision in the exit polls.

At that point it's all going to be presented in one E-Z narrative which will say to many people that "He did" or "He didn't"-----and I think that which way that narrative points is going to influence a certain amount of previously undecided voters

Indeed, "a certain amount." Of an unmeasurable subset of voters who can never be identified. Who, if Clemens finishes 10% ahead of his fellow scoundrel, because 10 is a round numay deserve the entirely speculative credit for putting him there. We can all agree that there will be an amount, and that that amount will have a specific quantitative value. We can be equally positive that it will have had an impact "to some extent." Of course, we shall never know the value, or the extent, or anything at all really, but that's what makes a horse race. And in June 2012, you'd do just as well to find a horse, and ask him what he thinks will happen and why.

By the way, this vote-influencing E-Z narrative you mention. Do we have any idea yet who's going to be in charge of creating and presenting it? Any particular group of people?

I am not a numay, I am a freemay:
Too late to edit, but the screwed-up sentence in the penultimate paragraph is supposed to be "Who, if Clemens finishes 10% ahead of his fellow scoundrel, may deserve the entirely speculative credit for putting him there." The extra 5.3 words between "scoundrel" and "may" are unintended litter.

if only a tiny percentage (fewer than, say, 4%) do, then I'll concede I overestimated the trial's effect.

What if it's 7.5%? What is the significance of these arbitrary ranges on a uniquely full ballot, starring a pair of uniquely vilified inner circle candidates heading a uniquely busted process? There is literally no model for this election, and you're postulating an overlay of narrative precision in the exit polls.

You're making a valiant effort to obscure the point in a sea of trivia, but you tell me this:

----How many writers in the last 40 or 50 years have ever left candidates as insanely qualified as Bonds or Clemens off their ballots? Under normal circumstances, with 10 spots to fill, which other candidates on next January's ballot would be listed AHEAD of Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens? One or two sentimental favorites, perhaps, but each writer's got 10 votes.

----When specific writers who leave super-superstars off their ballot are called upon to explain their omission, how many have given a reason that extends beyond (a) No first ballot inductees for me, no siree; (b) It was an accident; or (c) There was a unique personality problem involved?

And what possible fourth answer do you think might exist to make a significant number of voters differentiate between these two? I can't think of any other than their reaction to the two trials and their two verdicts, but maybe you can.

It's an interesting split we've got here. I'm saying that the outcome of the trial is unknown, but that an acquittal will result in at least 10% more voters marking Clemens' name on their ballots than Bonds. Ray is saying that there's nothing that's come out so far that "we" didn't know long ago, and that barring some "confession" by McNamee, "absolutely nothing" will change wrt the HoF vote for Clemens. And you're pretty much going along with that in spirit.

Oh, and as to your "7.5%" scenario. All that would mean is that while a handful of voters obviously differentiated between Clemens and Bonds, it would show that the trial's outcome had minimal aggregate impact, and that I'd overestimated the effect of an acquittal** on the voting. Under 4% difference and I'd concede the point completely, and over 10% and I'll be looking forward to reading your inevitable spin. I'm sure you'd be able to come up with some beauts.

And one thing to remember, something we'd both agree on: We're all assuming that the great majority of the voters have already made up their minds one way or the other, for reasons falling largely into the two broad categories of "I already know he's guilty and I don't need a jury to tell me that" vs. "I don't care if he juiced, since I only care about statistics."

You're basically saying that all of the voters have already put themselves in one of these two broad categories (allowing for small variants in their reasoning), and I'm saying that at least 10% and possibly more of them are waiting for the outcome of the Clemens trial to make up their minds for sure.

BTW I'll also stick my neck out even more, and say that if Clemens is convicted, the difference between their vote totals will be insignificant---4% or less. And here our difference becomes the clearest, in that you three seem to think that he's already been convicted.

**meaning at least one acquittal and no convictions on any count

Andy,

I think there are too many variables (much of them sound and fury) to ever tease out what the vote totals mean for the HOF election in question. You feel differently, and I could be proven wrong I suppose.

If all voters had to publicly "own" their ballot and give some explanation for it we would have a better chance, but only a chance because even then there would be plenty of weasel words around the explanations.

It is an interesting question, but an unanswerable one I think.

----How many writers in the last 40 or 50 years have ever left candidates as insanely qualified as Bonds or Clemens off their ballots?

Well, earlier you wanted the example of Joe Morgan - a candidate as insanely qualified as Bonds or Clemens - excluded. We can't simultaneously exclude them and count them.

You're now making Gonfalon's point for him.

Andy, one of your mistaken premises here is that Bonds and Clemens were going to receive similar vote totals to begin with. But even if no voter had ever heard of the words "steroids," the candidates were different because -- while both obviously insanely qualified -- Bonds was surly and a lot of the writers didn't like him, while Clemens was a gamer who the writers generally liked. (Yes, there was some silly stuff about Clemens that annoyed the writers, but in general he was in... good standing... with them, unlike Bonds.)

You're also treating the HOF voting percentage as a box score, where we can not only see the final score but can also go in and break down each vote to see the reasons and the voter's state of mind throughout the years, like we can with hits/walks/errors/runs through the innings of a ballgame. That is seriously flawed.

Andy,

I think there are too many variables (much of them sound and fury) to ever tease out what the vote totals mean for the HOF election in question. You feel differently, and I could be proven wrong I suppose.

If all voters had to publicly "own" their ballot and give some explanation for it we would have a better chance, but only a chance because even then there would be plenty of weasel words around the explanations.

It is an interesting question, but an unanswerable one I think.

I agree that it's unanswerable for individual voters, but if 10% or more of these voters all cast their ballots in the same direction, then I think you're getting well beyond the stage of unanswerability.

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

----How many writers in the last 40 or 50 years have ever left candidates as insanely qualified as Bonds or Clemens off their ballots?

Well, earlier you wanted the example of Joe Morgan - a candidate as insanely qualified as Bonds or Clemens - excluded. We can't simultaneously exclude them and count them.

I love Joe Morgan, but he didn't shatter the two most prominent records in baseball to smithereens and win SEVEN MVPs. I'm sure that there were more than a tiny number of stupid writers who simply looked at his career .271 BA and decided to wait until the next time. We've all seen and understand that sort of mentality in more than a few writers, and there's no reason to think that it wouldn't have affected some of their Morgan decisions.

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

Andy, one of your mistaken premises here is that Bonds and Clemens were going to receive similar vote totals to begin with. But even if no voter had ever heard of the words "steroids," the candidates were different because -- while both obviously insanely qualified -- Bonds was surly and a lot of the writers didn't like him, while Clemens was a gamer who the writers generally liked. (Yes, there was some silly stuff about Clemens that annoyed the writers, but in general he was in... good standing... with them, unlike Bonds.)

The idea that more than a minuscule number of voters would deliberately omit the all-time home run champion off their ballot for any reason other than steroids or quirkiness about first ballots is something that I'm afraid exists only in your imagination.

Of course there'll be an easy way to prove your point: If Clemens gets convicted, and he still receives significantly more votes than Bonds. In that case I'll have to admit that you're right, because if that were to happen, only "personality" would have differentiated the two.

You're also treating the HOF voting percentage as a box score, where we can not only see the final score but can also go in and break down each vote to see the reasons and the voter's state of mind throughout the years, like we can with hits/walks/errors/runs through the innings of a ballgame. That is seriously flawed.

Don't worry, Ray, there will be enough writers who will explain their vote when the time comes. We won't have to bring out the tea leaves.

What do people think have we learned from the trial?

1. The rumors of syringes existing with Clemens' DNA and traces of PEDs were true.

2. The rumor that a photograph places Clemens at the Canseco party that Clemens asserted he did not attend is also true.

Those are the main points I've learned. Likewise, McNamee's wife's testimony does two things:

(a) confirms the general unreliability of Brian McNamee;

(b) bolsters chain of custody, and diminishes* claims of fabricated evidence, regarding the syringes.

If you're focusing on (a), then, yes, you're not learning anything from this trial.

* I don't believe it fully dismisses all such claims, but the basic "hey, nobody knew they were there, they probably didn't exist" claims are very weak now.

I love Joe Morgan, but he didn't shatter the two most prominent records in baseball to smithereens and win SEVEN MVPs.

Rickey Henderson is MLB's career leader in runs scored and stolen bases, and there are still 28 writers who didn't vote for him.

Writers believe whatever they want, regardless of what the evidence actually says. That goes double for PEDs - look at Andy Pettitte.

Most of the superstars seem to get between 91% and 98% of the vote, though some slam-dunk HOFers (even by traditional standards) have gotten less than that, such as Mantle.

Stargell, McCovey, Gibson, Morgan, Robinson, Kaline, Snider, Banks, Mathews, Ford, Mantle, Koufax, and DiMaggio all received less than 90%.

Mantle and DiMaggio got 88% (!), and Williams "only" got 93%. Berra got 86%.

Even within vastly qualified candidates, the voting is all over the map.

(b) bolsters chain of custody, and diminishes* claims of fabricated evidence, regarding the syringes.

Does it? She said that it was a different type of beer can than the one McNamee provided, and that the syringes she saw were unused.

Even within vastly qualified candidates, the voting is all over the map.

I think that a lot of this is (a) differences over time (e.g., DiMaggio was elected a year earlier than he would be eligible under today's rules), and (b) specific voter biases (Morgan's low batting average). To better judge this, I think you need to look at players with comparable "slam-dunk" cases who debuted on the same ballot. For example, in 2007, Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn both first appeared on the ballot with >3,000 career hits, >20 yr careers all in one city, and similar reputations as widely beloved high-character guys. Their vote totals differed by 5 votes. In 1999, 300-game winner and strikeout king Nolan Ryan debuted on the same ballot as 3,000-hit good guy George Brett. Their vote totals differed by 3 votes. Absent PEDs, or given similar trial outcomes, I really would expect Bonds' and Clemens' numbers to show that kind of similarity.

Writers, including baseball writers, are mythmakers and storytellers -- that's what they do. They aren't empiricists or rationalists.

Side note: I happened to see Bob Costas at Sambuca's last night, here on the upper west side. He wasn't drinking with Mike Lupica, but he was sitting on a life sized replica of a high horse.

Did someone give him a leg up?

Stargell, McCovey, Gibson, Morgan, Robinson, Kaline, Snider, Banks, Mathews, Ford, Mantle, Koufax, and DiMaggio all received less than 90%.

Mantle and DiMaggio got 88% (!), and Williams "only" got 93%. Berra got 86%.

Even within vastly qualified candidates, the voting is all over the map.

I don't believe any of the listed candidates have been inducted in the past 20 years and most reach back 30+. Voting patterns for the Hall have changed dramatically since the Frankie Frisch Veterans Committee days of the 1970s. I don't think the performance of Ted Williams, in an election 45 years ago tells us much of anything about votes in the future.

Also, DiMaggio's percentage should have a large asterisk. At the time, the five year waiting period was an informal and unofficial rule that many writers stuck too. But Joe D was elected only 4 years after retirement.

Writers, including baseball writers, are mythmakers and storytellers

Absolutely. Up to this point, the myths and stories surrounding Bonds and Clemens are basically the same. Take PEDs out, and you have a 7-time MVP and all-time home run king vs. a 7-time Cy Young winner with >350 wins. Who's going to draw a line between those two stories and say "this one's a Hall-of-Fame story; that one isn't"? Now, add PEDs. Now you have two guys who used PEDs to unnaturally extend their careers and unfairly win the last few of those awards, who then lied about it, and were taken to court for that lying. Again, who's going to draw the line and say "this one's actions were over the line and warrant banishment from the Hall-of-Fame, but this other one's don't"? The only way to get there is if Clemens is cleared of all charges. Now, there's a separation: "this one was found guilty in a court of law; that one was found "innocent" in a court of law."

Stargell, McCovey, Gibson, Morgan, Robinson, Kaline, Snider, Banks, Mathews, Ford, Mantle, Koufax, and DiMaggio all received less than 90%.

Snider and Mathews both had to wait a while for election. Snider debuted with just 17 percent of the vote, Mathews 32 percent.

Snider and Mathews both had to wait a while for election. Snider debuted with just 17 percent of the vote, Mathews 32 percent.

Eddie Mathews HOF vote totals are probably the most inexplicable of any HOF vote totals to me. This is a guy who was almost certainly the best third baseman in major-league history when he retired, hit over 500 home runs, played in 3 World Series, made the All-Star team in 9 different seasons, is mostly associated with one team (only guy to play for them in 3 cities). He's before my time, but what on Earth was the knock against this guy?

Snider and Mathews both had to wait a while for election. Snider debuted with just 17 percent of the vote, Mathews 32 percent.

Thanks. I hadn't realized that.

I love Joe Morgan, but he didn't shatter the two most prominent records in baseball to smithereens and win SEVEN MVPs.

Rickey Henderson is MLB's career leader in runs scored and stolen bases, and there are still 28 writers who didn't vote for him.

That represents an abstention rate of all of 5.2% for a candidate who often had his own "personality" issues, and no matter how visible those two records may be, they ain't 73 or 762.

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

For example, in 2007, Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn both first appeared on the ballot with >3,000 career hits, >20 yr careers all in one city, and similar reputations as widely beloved high-character guys. Their vote totals differed by 5 votes. In 1999, 300-game winner and strikeout king Nolan Ryan debuted on the same ballot as 3,000-hit good guy George Brett. Their vote totals differed by 3 votes. Absent PEDs, or given similar trial outcomes, I really would expect Bonds' and Clemens' numbers to show that kind of similarity.

And of course they would. They're both surly superstars who are among the 5 best position players / pitchers of all time, and arguably even right at the top. In the absence of a steroids question, only a writer with some sort of strange dental implants governing his thoughts would try to differentiate between them.

But even if no voter had ever heard of the words "steroids," the candidates were different because -- while both obviously insanely qualified -- Bonds was surly and a lot of the writers didn't like him, while Clemens was a gamer who the writers generally liked.

There are other differences as well.

Clemens is a pitcher rather than a position player, which might mean a set of different standards, especially since there will be different competition. As ugly as it is to say, race may play a factor.

From the writters who publicly release their ballots, we have learned that there are many ways of looking at PEDs.

1. No effect
2. No effect before explicitly against the rules, some unspecified (disqualify? discount?) effect only after PEDs specifically were against the rules (e.g. Posnanski's POV regarding Manny)
3. Discount but don't disqualify
3a. Discount but don't disqualify for players who tested positive only
3b. Discount but don't disqualify for players with some evidence (with varying degrees of what "some" means)
4. Disqualify
4a. Disqualify for players who tested positive only (are there any voters in this category?)
4b. Disqualify for players with some evidence
4c. Disqualify for players with vague rumors
4d. Disqualify for players who played during the "steroid era"

With all the different ways writers look at PEDs, I think it a fool's errand to try to parse the tea leaves between an acquital for Clemens and a hung jury for Bonds on all PED charges.

I think that Andy fits into a very small subset of 4b that disqualifies absolutely while demanding substantial evidence for specific players. That substantial evidence, however, is not a legalistic BARD or preponderance, but a Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it and even includes silence in response to rumors as evidence. If I understood prior posts, he would vote for Sammy Sosa, but pre-acknowledgment, would not have voted for Mark McGwire based (solely?) on the difference in their Congressional denials.

I do find the sausage making process of both the elections to Cooperstown and the myth building surrounding the players to be fascinating. The way concensus builds over time, sometimes in complete disregard for fact, is a study into itself.

Eddie Mathews HOF vote totals are probably the most inexplicable of any HOF vote totals to me. This is a guy who was almost certainly the best third baseman in major-league history when he retired, hit over 500 home runs, played in 3 World Series, made the All-Star team in 9 different seasons, is mostly associated with one team (only guy to play for them in 3 cities). He's before my time, but what on Earth was the knock against this guy?

Two main reasons for his ridiculously low initial vote total: (1) His .271 lifetime BA in an era where .300 was considered the benchmark; and (2) His best years in the 3 Triple Crown categories all came when he was in his 20's. He never posted 100 RBI or even a .270 BA once he hit his 30's. The last time he seriously contended for an MVP was when he was 27.

Of course much of the reason for that decline---which corresponded with the expanded strike zone and other changes that favored the pitcher---lies with the era, not with Mathews, but that explanation seems much more obvious today than it did back then.

#52 Anybody who didn't know McNamee was untrustworthy before this trial simply hasn't been paying attention. How many people who are actually following the testimony at the trial were not paying attention before? I'd say it's probably a pretty small number.

judging by the astonishment over/ mis-reporting of Petitte's testimony, I'd say that a great number of people following testimony now were not really paying attention before

Thanks, Andy. I guess it makes some sense that by the time Mathews debuted on a Hall of Fame ballot (in 1974), he was 15 years removed from being an MVP candidate (1959). But damn was that a stupid vote.

I think that Andy fits into a very small subset of 4b that disqualifies absolutely while demanding substantial evidence for specific players. That substantial evidence, however, is not a legalistic BARD or preponderance, but a Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it and even includes silence in response to rumors as evidence. If I understood prior posts, he would vote for Sammy Sosa, but pre-acknowledgment, would not have voted for Mark McGwire based (solely?) on the difference in their Congressional denials.

Yes, that accurately sums things up w/r/t Andy, based on his comments over the years.

He's been on a strange crusade to demand evidence from people who think Bagwell used, which, as I've noted, is strange in light of his own approach to McGwire pre-confession. Possibly he's going out of his way to show that he's being Fair to the steroids players, a notion that can't be taken seriously in view of his stance on amps.

I think that Andy fits into a very small subset of 4b that disqualifies absolutely while demanding substantial evidence for specific players. That substantial evidence, however, is not a legalistic BARD or preponderance, but a Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it and even includes silence in response to rumors as evidence. If I understood prior posts, he would vote for Sammy Sosa, but pre-acknowledgment, would not have voted for Mark McGwire based (solely?) on the difference in their Congressional denials.

That's an almost perfectly accurate description of my steroids position, maybe the first one I've ever seen by anyone posting here. The only thing I'd add is that it wasn't just McGwire's silence, it was the combination of Canseco's book along with that silence. Either one of those things by itself wouldn't have turned me against him, and if McGwire had called Canseco a liar to his face and sworn that he'd never juiced, I would almost certainly reserved judgment until it played out further in some venue or another, and either physical evidence or corroborating testimony had been introduced.

4a. Disqualify for players who tested positive only (are there any voters in this category?)

Trying to figure out the thought processes of specific voters with respect to specific players is, as you say, "a fool's errand", but I tend to see the difference in vote totals between McGwire (112, 19.5%) and Palmeiro (72, 12.6%) as including some voters from this group. Granted, they're different enough and, perhaps, borderline enough that it's plausible that 40 voters just draw their in/out line between the two (peak voters v. career voters?), but that's probably the best evidence for possible 4a. types.

Of course much of the reason for that decline---which corresponded with the expanded strike zone and other changes that favored the pitcher---lies with the era, not with Mathews, but that explanation seems much more obvious today than it did back then.

Matthews had other issues than just offensive context

but also, growing up a baseball fan in the 70s, the overwhelming consensus was that the best 3b of ALL TIME was Pie Traynor, Mathews was an afterthought... The first I ever heard/read that Matthews wa sthe best 3B of all time was Bill James, casually noting that Mike Schmidt was going to supplant him

who's going to draw the line and say "this one's actions were over the line and warrant banishment from the Hall-of-Fame, but this other one's don't"? The only way to get there is if Clemens is cleared of all charges. Now, there's a separation: "this one was found guilty in a court of law; that one was found "innocent" in a court of law."

But I still don't think that will matter to very many actual HOF voters. The overwhelming majority of those who think steroids are disqualifying pretty clearly don't hold to a BARD standard in deciding who used and who didn't. They have already decided that there is enough evidence to "convict" both Bonds and Clemens for HOF purposes, regardless of whether there is enough reasonable doubt to keep them out of jail.

Of course much of the reason for that decline ... lies with the era, not with Mathews, but that explanation seems much more obvious today than it did back then.

Yeah, back then the generally accepted explanation for the decline of offense was that the hitters weren't as good as their predecessors.

Thanks, Andy. I guess it makes some sense that by the time Mathews debuted on a Hall of Fame ballot (in 1974), he was 15 years removed from being an MVP candidate (1959). But damn was that a stupid vote.

Sure was, but then in 1974 there wasn't nearly as much unavoidable information available to what I'd call the "casual HoF voter" as there's been in the past 15-20 years. We've still got plenty of ostriches, but there are relatively fewer of them with each successive generation.

I think that Andy fits into a very small subset of 4b that disqualifies absolutely while demanding substantial evidence for specific players. That substantial evidence, however, is not a legalistic BARD or preponderance, but a Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it and even includes silence in response to rumors as evidence. If I understood prior posts, he would vote for Sammy Sosa, but pre-acknowledgment, would not have voted for Mark McGwire based (solely?) on the difference in their Congressional denials.

That's an almost perfectly accurate description of my steroids position, maybe the first one I've ever seen by anyone posting here.

And that position is irrational on its face: you loudly state that you demand substantial evidence while in actuality you accept something far less than that, as McGwire shows.

growing up a baseball fan in the 70s, the overwhelming consensus was that the best 3b of ALL TIME was Pie Traynor, Mathews was an afterthought

I also grew up in the '70s hearing the consensus that Pie Traynor was the best 3B in NL history (I grew up in Maryland, where Brooks Robinson had a LOT of supporters as best ever). I guess that technically answers the question of why Mathews got a low vote total (although "being the best ever" is hardly a requirement for the HOF), but it just sort of leads to the next obvious question: "Why the hell did people think Pie Traynor was better than Eddie Mathews?" (and there, as Andy suggests, I understand .320 > .271)

Of course much of the reason for that decline ... lies with the era, not with Mathews, but that explanation seems much more obvious today than it did back then.

Yeah, back then the generally accepted explanation for the decline of offense was that the hitters weren't as good as their predecessors.

If anyone wants to read the reducto ad absurdum of that POV, he should get a hold of a 1989 book by Bill Starr, Clearing the Bases: Baseball Then & Now, with a foreword by Ralph Kiner and a glowing testimonial by Roger Kahn. I can't render true justice to the book's absolute idiocy with a short summary, but I'd strongly recommend that most of you read it while sitting down on a soft chair with a jar of tranquilizers within your reach.

And that position is irrational on its face: you loudly state that you demand substantial evidence while in actuality you accept something far less than that, as McGwire shows.

I guess to you a graphic description of a player's juicing coming from a player's own teammate, combined with total silence by that player when asked to respond, doesn't meet your standard of convincing evidence. Whatever floats your boat.

But I still don't think that will matter to very many actual HOF voters.

I agree. Somewhere upthread, I guessed the number of such voters would be around 30 (which would be 4-5% of the total vote, I think). I would be stunned if Clemens being found not guilty was enough to get him elected to the Hall of Fame next winter.

#75 The best I can do to explain Matthews is that good as his career was, it was a disappointment. He was so good at 21 that the sky seemed the limit. There was a widespread perception that he was an underachiever and that rarely helps a HOF vote total.

That and (as noted) the cult of batting average.

EDIT: Playing in a tough HR park in his prime also hurt. Memory says he has lowest percentage of HR at home of any hitter with 500+ HR. Only 238 at home. If he'd have played in a neutral HR park and hadn't had to play his decline phase in deabdall II he'd have been around 600 even with the somewhat unusual career arc.

I guess to you a graphic description of a player's juicing coming from a player's own teammate, combined with total silence by that player when asked to respond, doesn't meet your standard of convincing evidence. Whatever floats your boat.

Even if you think that's substantial evidence, you're still left with the untenable position that you are essentially executing someone for jaywalking -- as long as we have really solid evidence that the person jaywalked.

Yet, you don't care about the people who committed parking violations (amps).

#90 People are just weird about third base. I'm an Orioles fan and can't count the number of times I heard people make the case that Brooks Robinson was the greatest of all time.

It's really as simple as Schmidt is the better hitter, Robinson is the better fielder. Third base is a key defensive position so the tiebreak goes to Robinson.

Somehow the huge offensive difference versus the small (nobody is gaining a lot on Schmidt with the glove) defensive difference just doesn't matter.

I remember a greatest 3B "discussion" with some co-workers the day after Schmidt retired. One guy (a Reds fan, so not being a homer) said Robinson as if there could be no argument. I said Schmidt, and it wasn't even close. His reply was, "What, just because he hit more home runs?" It was a short conversation.

One guy (a Reds fan, so not being a homer) said Robinson

I'm guessing old enough to remember the 1970 World Series.

#75 The best I can do to explain Matthews is that good as his career was, it was a disappointment. He was so good at 21 that the sky seemed the limit. There was a widespread perception that he was an underachiever and that rarely helps a HOF vote total.

Mathews wasn't the only one who suffered by comparisons to his own early performances. Mickey Mantle himself was widely viewed as a colossal underachiever after he followed his unofficial MVP performance in the 1952 World Series and a 565 ft. home run the next Spring with a series of seasons where he posted OPS+ numbers of 144, 158 and ####### 180. And then after 1956, when he didn't duplicate his Triple Crown season the boobirds returned for several more years, until 1961 came along and he finally silenced them pretty much for good. I'd be listening to those games on the radio and couldn't believe my ears when I heard all that booing, but that's what can happen when a player that young sets his own bar so impossibly high.

#90 People are just weird about third base. I'm an Orioles fan and can't count the number of times I heard people make the case that Brooks Robinson was the greatest of all time.

It's really as simple as Schmidt is the better hitter, Robinson is the better fielder. Third base is a key defensive position so the tiebreak goes to Robinson.

Somehow the huge offensive difference versus the small (nobody is gaining a lot on Schmidt with the glove) defensive difference just doesn't matter.

Yeah, but what also contributed there was Robinson's being probably the most fan-friendly player in history, and then his magnificent all-around performance in the 1970 World Series, which was pretty much a Brooks Robinson highlight reel with a cast of supporting players. Of course Schmidt was the far more valuable player of the two, but Robinson had the good fortune to reserve his best performance ever (both on offense and defense) in a showcase World Series against the Big Red Machine, and that's the sort of thing that casual fans will remember long after they've forgotten the statistics.