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).

Sorry, Ray, but if you want to continue that sub-sub-topic, you're going to have to uncover those dozens of past threads all by your little old self. You're enough of a broken record on the actual subject at hand as it is, and there are only so many dead end alleys to visit at a time.

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

We were all old enough to remember the 1970 WS. We were also old enough to remember that outside of his MVP season, Brooksie in a good year didn't hit as well as Schmidt in a bad year.

You brought up the subject of vote totals and treatment of steroids users, etc., but I'm happy to let it drop.

ESPN is reporting the Debbie Clemens testified that her husband was not present when McNamee gave her an HGH shot.

Not exactly surprising (I would have been shocked is she testified otherwise), but still another witness saying McNamee is wrong.

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 haven't broken it down to Clemens and/or Bonds...but most of the BBWAA voters have basically lumped them together.

As it stands, I have...

45 - Will Vote for Clemens/Bonds.

64 - Won't Vote for Clemens/Bonds.

46 - Undecided.

If I had to make a wild, likely completely inaccurate guess, I would say Clemens is probably 5-10% ahead of Bonds at this point. For one he's a pitcher (my anecdotal impression is that pitchers seem to get less hit by the first-year lowball than position players), steroids are seen to have helped pitchers less than hitters so it "doesn't matter" as much, he's white, the writers really hated Bonds, and Clemens didn't break any HR records. So if Bonds debuts at 35-40% (the 25% who vote for McGwire, plus 10-15% who will say he was a HOFer already before he started roiding), then Clemens comes in somewhere around 40-50%. But those are all built-in advantages. And completely speculative of course.

If I had to make a wild, likely completely inaccurate guess, I would say Clemens is probably 5-10% ahead of Bonds at this point. For one he's a pitcher (my anecdotal impression is that pitchers seem to get less hit by the first-year lowball than position players), steroids are seen to have helped pitchers less than hitters so it "doesn't matter" as much, he's white, the writers really hated Bonds, and Clemens didn't break any HR records. So if Bonds debuts at 35-40% (the 25% who vote for McGwire, plus 10-15% who will say he was a HOFer already before he started roiding), then Clemens comes in somewhere around 40-50%. But those are all built-in advantages. And completely speculative of course.

This.

ESPN is reporting the Debbie Clemens testified that her husband was not present when McNamee gave her an HGH shot.

Not exactly surprising (I would have been shocked is she testified otherwise), but still another witness saying McNamee is wrong.

So Debbie is the HGH user, and not her husband. He also apparently didn't know about the injection, but when he found out, he wasn't that upset about another man injecting his wife with HGH behind his back. That's good stuff right there.

steroids are seen to have helped pitchers less than hitters so it "doesn't matter" as much

Tell that to Kevin Brown.

I see Mathews pretty much the same as noted above. He was seen as guy who didn't live up to his potential and was a low-batting average hitter. Mathews may have made enemies, too, because he was super-aggressive, to the point of fisticuffs, or close to them. He was sort of the Bob Gibson/Don Drysdale of everyday players. Not just players resent that.

Same for Mantle with the underachiever tag. As great as he was, his potential to many seemed simply unlimited. Seems for a while many thought he should be hitting .365 every year with 50 home runs, and his refusal to pull in his horns when he had two strikes on him exacerbated the criticism along those lines--that he didn't use his talents in an optimum manner.

Tell that to Kevin Brown.

Kevin Brown got screwed by the BBWAA, but not because of steroids.

Kevin Brown got screwed by the BBWAA, but not because of steroids.

You don't think his inclusion in the "Mitchell Report" had anything to do with him getting "screwed"?

The writers will make a call on Clemens based simply on if the story is "better" (and they can milk more columns and blog hits out of them) if they decide to vote/not vote "why I changed my mind on Clemens" vs "no matter what the courts say, a Cheater is a Cheater".

Hey, writers gotta eat too.

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 haven't broken it down to Clemens and/or Bonds...but most of the BBWAA voters have basically lumped them together.

As it stands, I have...

45 - Will Vote for Clemens/Bonds.

64 - Won't Vote for Clemens/Bonds.

46 - Undecided.

When did those 155 voters say that? Before or during the past couple of weeks?

So 155 voters ~ 27% of the number of voters from 2011.

Of those, we get

Will vote for Clemens / Bonds - 29%

Won't vote for Clemens / Bonds - 41%

Undecided - 30%

So assuming for sake of argument that those 155 voters are representative of the whole, that means that there are a total of about 174 undecided voters out there today, and that if they broke in the same way as the already decided, Clemens/Bonds would get just over 41% of the total vote. And if they split down the middle, B/C would get 44%. That 41% - 44% range seems to me to be a good starting point for where the writers stand today, and we'll see how much that changes if Clemens actually gets acquitted.

If I had to make a wild, likely completely inaccurate guess, I would say Clemens is probably 5-10% ahead of Bonds at this point.

That sounds about right to me. I would guess that even absent any PED controversy, at least a dozen or so sportswriters would be able to convince themselves that Bonds' selfishness and bad attitude were detrimental enough to at least cost him the honor of being a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

My guess is that, without any PED issues, the vote would have come in at something like 97 percent for Clemens, 91 percent for Bonds.

The writers will make a call on Clemens based simply on if the story is "better" (and they can milk more columns and blog hits out of them) if they decide to vote/not vote "why I changed my mind on Clemens" vs "no matter what the courts say, a Cheater is a Cheater".

If that's really the case, why do you even bother acknowledging "the" writers' existence, not to mention ever reading them?

You don't think his inclusion in the "Mitchell Report" had anything to do with him getting "screwed"?

Kevin Brown got twelve votes. Not 12%, but 12 people. Exactly twelve ten-year BBWAA members thought that 3256 innings of 127 ERA+ was worthy of the HOF. That's not something you can explain away with the Mitchell Report. I'm pretty sure that an overwhelming majority of the 569 voters who left him off their ballots never reached the steroid question in considering his candidacy, because they never got past "only" 211 wins.

EDIT: Andy Pettitte currently has ~160 fewer IP and and an ERA+ ten points lower than Brown. He also has PED issues of his own. But he has 243 wins and counting and I'd be shocked if he didn't easily out-perform Brown when his name eventually shows up on the HOF ballot.

I'm pretty sure that an overwhelming majority of the 569 voters who left him off their ballots never reached the steroid question in considering his candidacy, because they never got past "only" 211 wins.

And because of how his career ended, with the post-season flame-out with the Yankees making him look and feel like a "loser".

If I had to make a wild, likely completely inaccurate guess, I would say Clemens is probably 5-10% ahead of Bonds at this point.

That sounds about right to me. I would guess that even absent any PED controversy, at least a dozen or so sportswriters would be able to convince themselves that Bonds' selfishness and bad attitude were detrimental enough to at least cost him the honor of being a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Tom, 5% - 10% would come to a total of about 30 to 60 writers. Even the low end of that is a lot more than a dozen.

My guess is that, without any PED issues, the vote would have come in at something like 97 percent for Clemens, 91 percent for Bonds.

So you're saying that without any PED issues, over 50 BBWAA writers would leave the greatest home run hitter in history (and a 7-time MVP winner) off their ballots, simply because they didn't like him? With all due respect: Bullshit.

He also apparently didn't know about the injection, but when he found out, he wasn't that upset about another man injecting his wife with HGH behind his back.

Well, it's not like he was injecting it with his penis. He used a needle.

Kevin Brown got twelve votes. Not 12%, but 12 people. Exactly twelve ten-year BBWAA members thought that 3256 innings of 127 ERA+ was worthy of the HOF. That's not something you can explain away with the Mitchell Report. I'm pretty sure that an overwhelming majority of the 569 voters who left him off their ballots never reached the steroid question in considering his candidacy, because they never got past "only" 211 wins.

Well, I disagree. I think PED allegations definitely played a significant part in why he received such little support.

EDIT: Andy Pettitte currently has ~160 fewer IP and and an ERA+ ten points lower than Brown. He also has PED issues of his own. But he has 243 wins and counting and I'd be shocked if he didn't easily out-perform Brown when his name eventually shows up on the HOF ballot.

I don't think Andy will get in either. Hell, he may end up like Juan Gonzalez.

Well, it's not like he was injecting it with his penis. He used a needle

It was another man injecting his wife with drugs behind his back. Also, somehow she knew McNamee was able to obtain HGH, but yet Clemens, who worked with McNamee nearly every day, had absolutely no idea about that.

I don't think Andy will get in either.

There's a lot of space between easily out-performing Kevin Brown in the balloting and getting elected.

It was another man injecting his wife with drugs behind his back.

And behind her back too!

There's a lot of space between easily out-performing Kevin Brown in the balloting and getting elected

At most, he lasts a year longer on the ballot than Kevin Brown did.

Alex Rodriguez will probably get in the HOF before both Bonds and Clemens, despite him being an admitted user.

7-time MVP winner

Remember: the folks who vote for this one are the same as the guys who vote for the Hall of Fame. When a guy's as good a baseball player as Barry Bonds, they hold their nose and acknowledge his greatness.

Kevin Brown got twelve votes. Not 12%, but 12 people. Exactly twelve ten-year BBWAA members thought that 3256 innings of 127 ERA+ was worthy of the HOF. That's not something you can explain away with the Mitchell Report.

Rafael Palmeiro got 64 votes in the exact same election despite 3,020 career hits and 569 career homeruns. How many of the 517 voters who left him off the ballot can be explained away by the failed drug test?

Kevin Brown would have done undeservedly poor in Hall-of-Fame voting had he not been named in the Mitchell Report, but the best evidence is that as much as 80% of the HOF electorate at least considers PED use a potential discount/disqualifier and there's simply no way to know how many of those guys would have voted for Kevin Brown but for the PED accusations.

Tom, 5% - 10% would come to a total of about 30 to 60 writers. Even the low end of that is a lot more than a dozen.

Mentioning one factor that might swing a dozen or so votes is not the same thing as saying that a dozen or so votes equals 5% - 10% of the electorate. He was agreeing with a post that listed a number of other factors that also could account for parts of the difference.

So you're saying that without any PED issues, over 50 BBWAA writers would leave the greatest home run hitter in history (and a 7-time MVP winner) off their ballots, simply because they didn't like him?

A dozen "not on the first ballot"-ers and a dozen "selfishness hurt his team"-ers gets you half way there. A couple dozen more votes withheld out of pure hatred/spite would do it. I don't think it's likely, but it's not entirely implausible either.

Kevin Brown would have done undeservedly poor in Hall-of-Fame voting had he not been named in the Mitchell Report...

Uhh, that was my point. If Brown had gotten Palmeiro's vote totals, I wouldn't have said anything. But many pitchers with Kevin Brown-ish careers and no hint of steroid taint have been one-and-done in recent BBWAA elections.

It was another man injecting his wife with drugs behind his back.

I'm not sure how that would work. Wouldn't it have been easier for McNamee to do it in front of his back, so he could see what he was doing?

I'm not sure how that would work. Wouldn't it have been easier for McNamee to do it in front of his back, so he could see what he was doing?

You tell me.

ESPN is reporting the Debbie Clemens testified that her husband was not present when McNamee gave her an HGH shot.

Example of how people/media will spin things to fit their preconceived narratives:

The Chicago Tribune's article on this is headlined "Roger Clemens' wife says she was injected with drug". The first sentence/paragraph then reads, "The wife of former pitching ace Roger Clemens testified in his perjury trial on Friday that she received a shot of human growth hormone from her husband's ex-trainer, who says he also injected the performance-enhancing drug into Clemens[.]", and paragraph four notes that "Debbie Clemens' testimony, on behalf of her husband, was meant to contradict that of Brian McNamee".

Debbie apparently testified that Clemens was at Canseco's house that day, after golfing. Whether he was at "the party" or came after it -- or came as it was wrapping up -- is I suppose a more specific issue.

FWIW I believe he testified in his committee deposition that he wasn't at Canseco's house at all during that time period. But I haven't gone back to check.

Debbie apparently testified that Clemens was at Canseco's house that day, after golfing. Whether he was at "the party" or came after it -- or came as it was wrapping up -- is I suppose a more specific issue.

David mentioned this possibility last page, but between this and the photo with some kid, it looks like he might be found guilty of this charge, which would set up a verdict pretty much parallel to Bonds': guilty of something, but not actual PED use.

When did those 155 voters say that? Before or during the past couple of weeks?

Before. I've been back-tracking as many BBWAA voters as possible to find out how they plan/planned on voting. Most have stuck to their guns and haven't been swayed through any of the legal situations.

I've talked to a few voters who were on the fence about it and they seem to leaning toward not voting for them.

The old-world, Phil Pepe vote will probably destroy them.

I'm guessing Bonds/Clemens pull in around 32-38%

The party aspect is strange because while McNamee says he saw Clemens and Canseco (and someone else?) discussing something, he doesn't even claim to have heard what they were discussing.

The party aspect is strange because while McNamee says he saw Clemens and Canseco (and someone else?) discussing something, he doesn't even claim to have heard what they were discussing.

Yeah, I haven't followed all of this as close as some of you, and I'm not a lawyer, but the party stuff never seemed to have much point/relevance to me except, I suppose, as an object lesson in what a "perjury trap" is and why it's dangerous to walk into one.

Yeah, I haven't followed all of this as close as some of you, and I'm not a lawyer, but the party stuff never seemed to have much point/relevance to me except, I suppose, as an object lesson in what a "perjury trap" is and why it's dangerous to walk into one.

Pretty much, yes.

Clemens could have never taken a steroid in his life yet be convicted of going to Canseco's house as a party was wrapping up.

Well, we can't have people thinking that they can get away with lying to Congress about who they party with.

So you're saying that without any PED issues, over 50 BBWAA writers would leave the greatest home run hitter in history (and a 7-time MVP winner) off their ballots, simply because they didn't like him?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They can kid themselves that they're not really leaving him out of the Hall of Fame, because they can vote for him next year, but yeah, that sounds about right.

The best comparison for Bonds, in a lot of ways, is Ted Williams. Seventy-two voters didn't vote for Ted Williams for the Hall of Fame. Thirty-three voters didn't vote for Willie Mays. Bonds would probably fall somewhere in between those two.

Ted Williams got 282 out of 302 votes in his only year on the HOF ballot.

Ted Williams got 282 out of 302 votes in his only year on the HOF ballot.

My mistake. I confused the listing on BBref for Hall of Fame monitor with total number of votes.

So 20 writers didn't vote for Teddy Ballgame, and 23 didn't vote for Mays. So maybe my estimate for Bonds non-voters is off; maybe it's more like 35.

So maybe my estimate for Bonds non-voters is off; maybe it's more like 35.

In terms of Bonds v. Clemens vote totals, my issue isn't so much the idea that Bonds was disliked in the media and that might cost him some votes even w/o PEDs (35 seems high, but whatever) but more with the idea that Clemens WASN'T viewed the same way. It's hard to remember exactly, because, of course, the PEDs thing has tainted everything, but I kind of thought Bonds and Clemens had similar reputations in the media: ######## who paled in comparison ("character"-wise) to their more beloved but less talented contemporaries, Ken Griffey and Greg Maddux (with Maddux having the added bonus of having a stat-based argument for being Clemens equal anyway).

I think even 20 and 23 instead of 72 and 33 makes your overall point though, Tom, even if it revises your estimates.

20 people did.not.vote. for Ted Williams, and 23 for Mays.

In terms of Bonds v. Clemens vote totals, my issue isn't so much the idea that Bonds was disliked in the media and that might cost him some votes even w/o PEDs (35 seems high, but whatever) but more with the idea that Clemens WASN'T viewed the same way. It's hard to remember exactly, because, of course, the PEDs thing has tainted everything, but I kind of thought Bonds and Clemens had similar reputations in the media: ######## who paled in comparison ("character"-wise) to their more beloved but less talented contemporaries, Ken Griffey and Greg Maddux (with Maddux having the added bonus of having a stat-based argument for being Clemens equal anyway).

I don't think Clemens and Bonds were viewed alike at all. Writers "hated" Bonds (for lack of a better word) and carried on crazed vendettas against him, constantly writing about how he was so Evil.

Clemens simply didn't attract that same ire. Sure, he did some things that annoyed them, like complaining about carrying his own bags (unless that was a myth), getting tossed out of a playoff game, not being the best pitcher on the planet in 1993 and 1995, having a losing record in 1996, taking more money to sign with Toronto, forcing a trade to the Yankees, going several years without winning a World Series, the Piazza beaning, etc...... But on the whole, Clemens was not Bonds. Clemens was nice to the media. He spoke after games. He granted interviews. He generally treated them well.

Clemens wasn't Maddux or Griffey, but he received the media well and they generally were ok with him. It was nothing like it was with Bonds.

Writers "hated" Bonds (for lack of a better word) and carried on crazed vendettas against him

And yet voted him MVP 7 times.

#145, I don't see that as responsive. What is your point? That they did like Bonds, or that they didn't but it wouldn't have affected his HOF vote totals? I presume it is the latter, but still these are separate issues.

they didn't but it wouldn't have affected his HOF vote totals?

This one.

And yet voted him MVP 7 times.

With between 90% to 100% of possible vote totals, no less. Yeah, before BALCO the writers really seemed to go out of their way to deny him awards. The idea that anything but steroids would deny Bonds more than a random scattering of first ballot votes is little more than an assertion that's backed by not a scintilla of tangible evidence.

And yet voted him MVP 7 times.

Many did so begrudgingly. Go back and look at the editorials they wrote about it.

Many did so begrudgingly.

Sure, but absent PEDs, you really don't think they'd have begrudgingly voted him into the Hall? Not that there's any way to test any of this, of course, since BALCO did happen and the media very happily jumped on the excuse they needed to vote against Bonds.

So 20 writers didn't vote for Teddy Ballgame, and 23 didn't vote for Mays. So maybe my estimate for Bonds non-voters is off; maybe it's more like 35.

As routinely gets pointed out on HoF threads, voting in past generations was much more erratic than it's been over the past 20 - 25 years. Not counting the special case of Roberto Clemente, of the top 20 vote getters in HoF history, 15 of them were inducted either in 1936 or between 1989 and today. The five exceptions are Aaron (#5, who broke Ruth's HR record) Mays (#14), Feller (#16), Williams (#18), and Musial (#20). Of the top 10 percentages, only Aaron and Ty Cobb were elected prior to 1989. The point is that writers are far more likely to approach unanimity with superstars today than they were in the 70's and before. Some people like to conveniently ignore this well-known trend, but that doesn't change the facts.

You want a pretty good example of how little media hostility affects HoF votes in the absence of steroids? Steve Carlton got 94.63% on the first ballot, the 10th highest total in history, the highest percentage of any pitcher other than Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan.

And yet voted him MVP 7 times.

Many did so begrudgingly. Go back and look at the editorials they wrote about it.

Yes, and those MVP plaques all came with little asterisks that noted the begrudging, as did Steve Carlton's HoF plaque that came with the blessing of 94.63% of the voters. Barry and Steve have never gotten over those asterisks.

The whole discussion is kind of silly, since it's about what might happen in some alternate universe. You've got your opinion, and I've got mine, and we'll never know who would have been right.

But Carlton kind of helps my point, doesn't he? Carlton's credentials were as strong as Nolan Ryan's - about the same number of wins, Ryan had more K's and no-hitters, but Carlton had four more Cy Young awards. There is absolutely no reason for anyone not to vote for Steve Carlton, other than his legendary hostility with the press. And that was enough to bring his total down to 94.6 percent, while Ryan was up above 98 percent.

The difference between Carlton and Ryan or Carlton and Seaver is roughly the difference between bad press and good press. And that's worth about four percentage points.

And that was enough to bring his total down to 94.6 percent, while Ryan was up above 98 percent.

Carlton actually got 95.6% according to BB-Ref - he was left off of 20 ballots. Ryan was left off of six ballots five years later. I suppose I could see PED-free Clemens out-polling PED-free Bonds by 10-15 votes in an alternate universe.

The whole discussion is kind of silly, since it's about what might happen in some alternate universe. You've got your opinion, and I've got mine, and we'll never know who would have been right.

True that.

The difference between Carlton and Ryan or Carlton and Seaver is roughly the difference between bad press and good press. And that's worth about four percentage points.

Well, with Carlton's corrected total of 95.6%, that brings the difference down to the less than 4% I was talking about to begin with. And while Bonds and Carlton's lack of popularity may be comparable, I doubt if anyone other than Ray is likely to compare Clemens' personal reputation to Seaver's or Ryan's.

I doubt if anyone other than Ray is likely to compare Clemens' personal reputation to Seaver's or Ryan's.

I started watching in 1986 so I wasn't around to experience how Seaver was treated, though I understand he was treated very well. Ryan from 1986-2003 was treated as a god.

So, no, Clemens wasn't treated the same as those two. (Other than by Suzyn Waldman.) But he was far from Bonds. Albert Belle was close to Bonds.

But I've kind of lost your point. I guess it was that the Clemens verdict will significantly alter his HOF vote totals, and I don't think that it will. You are the one person on the planet who seems to think Clemens is on trial to see whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

But many pitchers with Kevin Brown-ish careers and no hint of steroid taint have been one-and-done in recent BBWAA elections.

Pitchers with 3000-3500 IP, ERA+ between 120 & 130 and NOT in the Hall:

Curt Schilling
Kevin Brown
John Smoltz
Eddie Cicotte

I suspect the top 2 will get significantly more votes than Brown

another way, 3000-3500 IP, 200 to 220 wins:

(ranked by OPS+):

Curt Schilling 127
Kevin Brown 127
John Smoltz 125
Eddie Cicotte 123
Carl Mays 119
Billy Pierce 119
Wilbur Cooper 116
Chuck Finley 115
Orel Hershiser 112
Freddie Fitzsimmons 112
Charlie Root 111
Milt Pappas 110
Vida Blue 108
Kenny Rogers 107
Bob Welch 106
Jim Perry 106
George Uhle 106
Tim Wakefield 105
Lew Burdette 99


I think the only players with "Kevin Brownish" careers who are NOT in the Hall are:
Smoltz,
Schilling,
Cicotte (banned) and perhaps Billy Pierce

Expand the parameters a bit and you get:
1 and out:

Dwight Gooden
Saberhagen
Finley
Cone


2 and out:
Hershiser

I guess those were the guys you were thinking of.

I think the only players with "Kevin Brownish" careers who are NOT in the Hall are:
Smoltz,
Schilling,
Cicotte (banned) and perhaps Billy Pierce

Expand the parameters a bit and you get:
1 and out:

Dwight Gooden
Saberhagen
Finley
Cone


2 and out:
Hershiser

I guess those were the guys you were thinking of.

Mussina? He doesn't make your lists because he is at 3562 IP and 270 wins (123 ERA+).

before BALCO the writers really seemed to go out of their way to deny him awards

Weren't two of those MVPs after the BALCO story had already started rolling?

I guess those were the guys you were thinking of.

Well, yeah. I obviously wasn't talking about guys who haven't been on the ballot yet when I said "recent elections." And I guess I should have added a qualifier like "superficially" or something to my "Brown-ish careers" comment. But anyway, how many HOF vote articles did you read where some writer went out of his way to tell us that he'd have voted for Kevin Brown if it hadn't been for the Mitchell Report? This is a guy who was woefully under-rated for most of his career. Like Kiko said, he was always going to get screwed in the HOF voting, roids or not.

Yeah. See the black ink/gray ink, Hall of Fame monitor numbers. They aren't impressive at all. He had the problem of not being liked, but also the writers had a hook to hoist him with their prejudices--he didn't do that which historically got you in the Hall.

Also, see the respective ERA+ and WAR of Brown and Schilling. With the same amount of innings and ERA+, Schilling's WAR is much better--and this isn't even getting into the post-season.

Low 90s sounds about right to me for where a no-roids Bonds would be in his first year on the ballot. Everybody starts at 97-98% regardless from a likely-rotating cast of no-first-year-ers (everybody makes exceptions), 4-5% would dock him for he was a jerk to teammates/me, and there are always a few randoms ranging from I forgot to everybody else is voting for him, he's going to get in, so I don't have to. Clemens probably 94-95% - the aforementioned 2-3% automatic, then a few points for attitude, "quitting" on the Red Sox. Again, pitchers are just held to different standards than hitters, probably because hitters play every day so the writers interact with them more. Clemens wasn't liked, but he was much more liked than Bonds, who was loathed.

I'd say Bonds around 93%, maybe as high as 95.

Yeah. See the black ink/gray ink, Hall of Fame monitor numbers. They aren't impressive at all. He had the problem of not being liked, but also the writers had a hook to hoist him with their prejudices--he didn't do that which historically got you in the Hall.

Yes. Brown got 12 votes - how many could Mitchell have possibly cost him? 5? Maybe 10 at the most? He didn't get voted for because he didn't win enough games, was disliked, was seen as a choker who didn't live up to a ridiculous contract, a mercenary for the same contract, a guy who was stealing money from the Yankees at the end of the contract and disappeared in the middle of the night, no postseason reputation, etc. McGwire started around 20% if I recall correctly, which is around 100-110 votes. If we assume Brown's votes came entirely from this group, which is the best possible scenario for it-was-the-roids, that means that even the writers who give no steroid discount whatsoever didn't think he was a HOFer, by vast majority. It was the lack of wins and the cosmetics.

The idea that Kevin Brown had a reservoir of HOF support that was busted by the Mitchell Report is completely laughable.

In the completely hypothetical PED-free Bonds, I suspect he would have lost some number of votes due to the lack of rings and the reputation as a playoff choker. It seems to me that his failed attempt to throw out Sid Bream and early performances (.200 BA through his first five post seasons) set in stone a reputation that his fabulous 2002 didn't erase in the public mind. Clemens, of course, had a couple of bad performances, including the melt-down where he was thrown out of the ALCS against the A's and the contest for the Yanks in '99 that, according to the prosecution, caused him to shakily demand that NYY employ McNamee, but he also has 2 rings and a 3-0 2.37 line for his World Series efforts. I think that is enough for a couple point difference in results.

Agreed.

Brown has no "story" at all.
Even Mussina has the really good postseason numbers (compare to uber-'clutch' Pettitte) and the '20-wins and retire' cool vibe.

Brown got 12 votes - how many could Mitchell have possibly cost him? 5? Maybe 10 at the most?

Brown wasn't getting elected on his first ballot and probably wasn't breaking 10-15%, but in the very same election over 500 voters didn't vote for Raffy Palmeiro. Surely everybody agrees that several hundred of those were entirely because of steroids. Why is 10 the absolute upper limit for what it could have cost Brown?

But I've kind of lost your point. I guess it was that the Clemens verdict will significantly alter his HOF vote totals, and I don't think that it will.

And if Clemens is acquitted, one of us will be right.

You are the one person on the planet who seems to think Clemens is on trial to see whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Of course I don't, but you're the only person on the BTF planet who thinks that a not guilty verdict will change "absolutely nothing", and that every last writer who cares about steroids has already pre-determined Clemens' guilt or innocence.

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

Writers "hated" Bonds (for lack of a better word) and carried on crazed vendettas against him

And yet voted him MVP 7 times.

With between 90% to 100% of possible vote totals, no less. Yeah, before BALCO the writers really seemed to go out of their way to deny him awards

Weren't two of those MVPs after the BALCO story had already started rolling?

Bonds was called to testify before the 2003 season, so if that's your starting point, then yes, you're right. The #### didn't really begin to hit the fan until the following year, though, which would mean that only one of those MVP's was really post-BALCO.

But whether you choose 2003 or 2004 as a starting point, neither of those dates would add to any argument that the writers were particularly looking to deny Bonds any deserved honors. And of course my initial comment ("Yeah, before BALCO the writers really seemed to go out of their way to deny him awards") was 100% sarcastic.

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

Low 90s sounds about right to me for where a no-roids Bonds would be in his first year on the ballot. Everybody starts at 97-98% regardless from a likely-rotating cast of no-first-year-ers (everybody makes exceptions), 4-5% would dock him for he was a jerk to teammates/me, and there are always a few randoms ranging from I forgot to everybody else is voting for him, he's going to get in, so I don't have to. Clemens probably 94-95% - the aforementioned 2-3% automatic, then a few points for attitude, "quitting" on the Red Sox. Again, pitchers are just held to different standards than hitters, probably because hitters play every day so the writers interact with them more. Clemens wasn't liked, but he was much more liked than Bonds, who was loathed.

I'd say Bonds around 93%, maybe as high as 95.

In the completely hypothetical PED-free Bonds, I suspect he would have lost some number of votes due to the lack of rings and the reputation as a playoff choker. It seems to me that his failed attempt to throw out Sid Bream and early performances (.200 BA through his first five post seasons) set in stone a reputation that his fabulous 2002 didn't erase in the public mind. Clemens, of course, had a couple of bad performances, including the melt-down where he was thrown out of the ALCS against the A's and the contest for the Yanks in '99 that, according to the prosecution, caused him to shakily demand that NYY employ McNamee, but he also has 2 rings and a 3-0 2.37 line for his World Series efforts. I think that is enough for a couple point difference in results.

Both of these statements are completely in line with what I've said, which is that any voting difference of more than a few points following a not guilty verdict for Clemens would indicate that the not guilty verdict accounted for most of the difference.

The hypocrisy of today's testimony from Debbie Clemens is that Hardin has raked McNamee over the coals for changing his story to suit the occasion. And McNamee probably has. But so did the Clemens defense team during Debbie Clemens' testimony.

Clemens swore in his Feb 08 deposition that Debbie was injected in 2003. During that deposition, Hardin said it was because she read a 2003 USA Today article about HGH, which his staff had fortunately been able to find. Then Clemens swore before Congress that it was 2003 -- with eight days in between for Clemens/Hardin to talk to Debbie and make sure the story was 100% accurate (wouldn't want to perjure oneself, after all) -- and it stayed the same. But now the injection apparently happened in 2000. Why the change?

Maybe because Rep. Cummings pointed out the obvious during the 2008 hearing: Andy Pettitte could not possibly have thought Clemens was talking about Debbie using HGH if they talked in 1999 or 2000 and she got injected in 2003. Clemens had to have been talking about himself. Unfortunately, his speaking time expired before Clemens had a chance to answer. But I wouldn't be surprised if Hardin immediately wrote a note on his legal pad: "Got to find a USA Today article on HGH from 2000..." And now a new article has magically appeared.

McNamee changes his story and Hardin paints it as reprehensible. But if Debbie/Roger change their story (and for that matter, Mrs. McNamee, who changed her story from what she told the feds) -- well, that's okay, I guess.

And now a new article has magically appeared.

Sort of like those birth announcements in the Honolulu papers magically appeared.

Jackass.

Comparing Kevin Brown to HOF pitchers on the basis of ERA+ ignores that he had a very large number of unearned runs.

Maybe because Rep. Cummings pointed out the obvious during the 2008 hearing: Andy Pettitte could not possibly have thought Clemens was talking about Debbie using HGH if they talked in 1999 or 2000 and she got injected in 2003. Clemens had to have been talking about himself. Unfortunately, his speaking time expired before Clemens had a chance to answer. But I wouldn't be surprised if Hardin immediately wrote a note on his legal pad: "Got to find a USA Today article on HGH from 2000..." And now a new article has magically appeared.

The sainted Elijah Cummings didn't exactly cover himself in glory that day, having dishonestly misrepresented the certainty of Pettitte's testimony in questioning Clemens during the hearing.

In any case, let's assume Debbie got injected in 2003. And let's assume for the sake of argument that Clemens is innocent. I've noted on a couple of occasions a completely plausible explanation for an innocent Clemens telling Pettitte in 2005 "No, I told you that my wife used HGH."

In 1999/2000 Clemens happens to mention to Pettitte something innocuous about having read a story in the paper about HGH. In 2003 Debbie gets injected. In 2005 Pettitte comes to Clemens and asks Clemens what he is going to tell the media, since Clemens told him previously that he had used HGH.

And immediately Clemens, not immediately remembering the 1999 conversation because it was unremarkable, and knowing that he had never used HGH but his wife had, thinks he told Pettitte in 2003 that Debbie had used HGH. And so Clemens responds, "No, I told you that my wife used HGH."

It's plausible.

McNamee changes his story and Hardin paints it as reprehensible. But if Debbie/Roger change their story (and for that matter, Mrs. McNamee, who changed her story from what she told the feds) -- well, that's okay, I guess.

Well, of course it is. Hardin is advocating for Clemens, not for the government. What did you think, that Hardin was going to start cross examining Debbie?

Anyway, as for the Clemens team changing their story, you seem to ignore that Debbie apparently testified that Clemens was at Canseco's house on the day of the party -- and I can't see how that helps Clemens at all.

Comparing Kevin Brown to HOF pitchers on the basis of ERA+ ignores that he had a very large number of unearned runs.

While I agree that the UER were an intrinsic part of the pitcher he was, I'd still say that that hand can be overplayed. Working strictly by RA+, not ERA+, I've got an equivalent career record for him of 216-146. This compares quite favorably with a several HoF pitchers, such as Drysdale (209-157), Marichal (226-164), or Bunning (238-180). Of course, part if his problem is that even when he had great years, they never seemed to penetrate the general consciousness as the great years they were - such as 1996 (233 IP at a RA+ of 195, or an equivalent record of 20-6). He even had some great years in LA, after he signed the big contract.

Clemens swore in his Feb 08 deposition that Debbie was injected in 2003. During that deposition, Hardin said it was because she read a 2003 USA Today article about HGH, which his staff had fortunately been able to find. Then Clemens swore before Congress that it was 2003 -- with eight days in between for Clemens/Hardin to talk to Debbie and make sure the story was 100% accurate (wouldn't want to perjure oneself, after all) -- and it stayed the same. But now the injection apparently happened in 2000. Why the change?

Who changed their story? Roger said one thing and now Debbie is saying something else. That's a contradiction, not a change.

you're the only person on the BTF planet who thinks that a not guilty verdict will change "absolutely nothing", and that every last writer who cares about steroids has already pre-determined Clemens' guilt or innocence.

No he's not. Well, maybe he is if you mean "every last writer" literally. But as I said upthread, I do think that almost every writer who cares about steroids has already made up his/her mind about Clemens and doesn't really give a rat's ass about the outcome of this trial, because they don't hold themselves to anything close to a BARD standard in determining who they think should be excluded from the HOF. YMMV.

whether you choose 2003 or 2004 as a starting point, neither of those dates would add to any argument that the writers were particularly looking to deny Bonds any deserved honors

Exactly. My rhetorical question was intended as agreement with your sarcastic point.

you're the only person on the BTF planet who thinks that a not guilty verdict will change "absolutely nothing", and that every last writer who cares about steroids has already pre-determined Clemens' guilt or innocence.

No he's not. Well, maybe he is if you mean "every last writer" literally.

In this case I did mean that, otherwise I wouldn't have put the quote marks around his "absolutely nothing".

And BTW what's a "BARD standard"?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry to go all litigator on you.

EDIT: and as for what is and isn't in quotation marks, I think that sort of shows the ultimate absurdity of this whole argument over how many votes are going to change; there's too much noise and too many variables that can't be isolated to ever be able to say with certainty that a "small" difference in vote totals is meaningful or to decide exactly how to explain even a fairly "large" difference in vote totals. So on top of everything else, we're forced to argue about what "large" and "small" mean.

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry to go all litigator on you.

Thanks. Never knew that before.

EDIT: and as for what is and isn't in quotation marks, I think that sort of shows the ultimate absurdity of this whole argument over how many votes are going to change; there's too much noise and too many variables that can't be isolated to ever be able to say with certainty that a "small" difference in vote totals is meaningful or to decide exactly how to explain even a fairly "large" difference in vote totals. So on top of everything else, we're forced to argue about what "large" and "small" mean.

I think we can reasonably start with a premise that absent the steroid question, the difference between Clemens' and Bonds' percentage would be at most about 3 or 4 points, based on the Carlton vote and the virtual ties of Ripken/Gwynn and Ryan/Brett. If Clemens gets acquitted and he gets 10 or more percentage points over Bonds, I don't see how that can possibly be spun as anything other than steroids.

If Clemens gets acquitted and he gets between 4% and 9% more than Bonds, you've got a grey area. But in any case, the simplest way of "knowing" who's right in this (given an acquittal) is going to be by reading the explanations of those writers who voted only for Clemens. There's no way any of us would be able to spin that.

If Clemens gets acquitted and he gets 10 or more percentage points over Bonds, I don't see how that can possibly be spun as anything other than steroids.

I think one could argue equally plausibly that while the difference may well be due to PEDs in general, it is not due to the difference in the outcome of the two perjury trials specifically. And of course, we don't yet have a difference in the outcome of the two trials.

the simplest way of "knowing" who's right in this (given an acquittal) is going to be by reading the explanations of those writers who voted only for Clemens

Unfortunately, voters who explain their votes are likely to be massively outnumbered by voters who don't explain their votes.

If Clemens gets acquitted and he gets 10 or more percentage points over Bonds, I don't see how that can possibly be spun as anything other than steroids.

I think one could argue equally plausibly that while the difference may well be due to PEDs in general, it is not due to the difference in the outcome of the two perjury trials specifically. And of course, we don't yet have a difference in the outcome of the two trials.

That last part's true, of course, but if Clemens is acquitted, how could could anything else differentiate them about "PEDs in general"?

the simplest way of "knowing" who's right in this (given an acquittal) is going to be by reading the explanations of those writers who voted only for Clemens

Unfortunately, voters who explain their votes are likely to be massively outnumbered by voters who don't explain their votes.

I'm not sure how that would affect anything, since there's certainly likely to be a big enough sample size to draw upon. And I doubt that most writers who ordinarily spell out the reasons for their choices would be shy about this one, especially if they split up Clemens and Bonds.

I'm not sure how that would affect anything...

Because a) you can't extrapolate the voting rationales of those who don't share from the expressed reasons of those who do, and b) you can't be sure that the expressed rationales of those who do share aren't at least partly post hoc justifications of decisions already made long before the trials took place.

I'm not sure how that would affect anything...

Because a) you can't extrapolate the voting rationales of those who don't share from the expressed reasons of those who do, and b) you can't be sure that the expressed rationales of those who do share aren't at least partly post hoc justifications of decisions already made long before the trials took place.

IOW heads you win, tails you don't know. Nice move there.

Here's a suggestion: Let's wait until the verdict and then wait until writers post their reactions to it before engaging in any more pre-emptive spinning. And for an even more radical thought, let's wait until the actual vote, which usually gets accompanied by plenty of post-ballot explanations.

Andy, I'm not sure we can rely on post-ballot explanations. I honestly don't think the writers always accurately explain why they voted for or against a player, if they even know.

Not related, but I heard Keith Hernandez interviewed (by Francesa; so shoot me) and he was asked whether in his heart of hearts he is a Met or a Cardinal. Hernandez passed on answering. I'd have guessed he'd answer Met but Francesa was sure he's thinking Cardinal because he won an MVP there and a WS there and played well in the WS.

I guess this is basically the same question as: which team would you put on his HOF cap if he were inducted?

What about Piazza and Mussina? I'd go Dodgers and Orioles.

You don't think his inclusion in the "Mitchell Report" had anything to do with him getting "screwed"?

I genuinely doubt it cost him any votes. Indeed I'm reasonably confident that the vast majority of people who didn't vote for him had no idea he was listed in the Mitchell Report.

He doesn't have a strong traditional HOF case ("only" a 93 on the HOF monitor. That's a range where players generally come up short. Yes, the monitor doesn't adjust for offensive context, but it's not like HOF voters do either) and he was a jerk, so he wouldn't get any kind of break from the voters.

One and done is surprising, so maybe it did cost Brown. No way of telling. I can't think of a voter saying that he would have supported Brown except for the allegations against him.

#157 First I think there's about zero evidence that ERA+ affects HOF voting. May have changed recently.

Second, ERA+ overrates Brown a tad. He gave up more unearned runs than most non-knuckleballers.

EDIT: Cokes all around

IOW heads you win, tails you don't know.

I'm not trying to win anything. The point is that we really won't know. Either way. No matter what. Well, maybe if there's a really big difference (much bigger than the 10% you're using as your arbitrary cut-off), then we'd be on fairly solid ground in saying that at least some of the voters must have put at least some stock in the perjury trial verdicts. But when you're starting with a 60 or so vote swing, and maybe a quarter to a third of them are attributable to some combination on non-steroid-related factors, and only a quarter to a third of the others explain their reasoning, then trying to parse how each remaining voter made his or her decision is just a glorified guessing game. Guessing games are fun, but pretending that the guesses are data-based is not something I particularly care for.

I think our disagreement really is just over the definition of "plenty" in your last sentence. Plenty in terms of a raw number of explanations is not the same thing as a statistically valid sample of the whole electorate and/or subgroup of each different explanation.

What about Piazza and Mussina? I'd go Dodgers and Orioles.

Piazza was better as a Dodger but actually played quite a bit more as a Met. Mussina isn't really debatable IMO.

Kiko Sakata, post #69:
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.

On the same 1999 ballot with Brett and Ryan was Robin Yount, an high-character, 3,000 career hits, 20 yr career all in one city good guy slam dunk case with twice as many MVPs and Cy Youngs as Brett and Ryan combined. He finished a hundred votes behind. That’s -22%.

Jolly Old Andy, post #177:
I think we can reasonably start with a premise that absent the steroid question, the difference between Clemens' and Bonds' percentage would be at most about 3 or 4 points, based on the Carlton vote and the virtual ties of Ripken/Gwynn and Ryan/Brett.

Sure, we can start there. And then we can throw everything else out the window. You’ve got six or seven legitimate candidates jumping onto a ballot that some people already think includes six or seven legitimate candidates. Two are already the two canaries in the coal mine: McGwire and Palmeiro. Over the past decade, the average ballot has listed five names; good luck instantly doubling that. If the BBWAA couldn’t adjust for Robin Yount, on a normal and uncontroversial ballot, what makes you think these ballots will make sense?

I previously cited Joe Morgan as an example of a popular, overqualified, first-ballot electee who’d always gotten substantial BBWAA support in awards voting. Morgan got 10.8% fewer votes than Jim Palmer, another popular, overqualified, first-ballot electee who’d always gotten substantial BBWAA support in awards voting. Again, on a normal and uncontroversial ballot. Yes, the process has clearly changed and Joe Morgan would have gotten more votes had he been on the 2006 ballot. But would he (or anyone) do better on the 2013 ballot?

Steroids are going to do to Hall of Fame voting what they’re thought to have done to the career HR list: render it unrecognizable and impossible to take much meaning from.

Who among us foresaw a 126-vote penalty for spitting? Roberto Alomar lost more votes in 2009 than Mark McGwire got.

Tom N, post #153--
The whole discussion is kind of silly, since it's about what might happen in some alternate universe. You've got your opinion, and I've got mine, and we'll never know who would have been right.

Jolly Old Andy, replying in post #155--
True that.

------

Ray, post #156--
I guess it was that the Clemens verdict will significantly alter his HOF vote totals, and I don't think that it will.

Andy again, replying in post #167--
And if Clemens is acquitted, one of us will be right.

------

Those two replies sum up the rigorous precision behind this snipe hunt.

BTF’s hot and happening new game, “Identify the sole reason for Roger’s total margin of victory over Barry (if any)” makes this site’s annual “predict the playoff rounds” post look like scientific notation. It will never be possible to be proven wrong or right.

I’ve already entered my worthless nag into this phantasmal horse race: that even an innocent Clemens is not going to see a sudden, higher wave of HoF support, and furthermore, that not a person in the world can say with any confidence or authority what his total would have been with an opposite verdict.

My vacuous claim is no less fact-based than yours, Andy: that a sizable chunk of the writers are in suspended animation, waiting to be swayed by the manner in which the case's outcome is portrayed by... the writers. What an epic moral struggle that will be. A faceless 10%, fully prepared to say, “Ooh, that’s an excellent point, self.”

As other posters have noted, more than half of the writers’ ballots are never published or revealed at all. Of the minority that are, a large percentage come without any explanation. Many others come with vague throwaway lines that suggest little thoughtful consideration, and aggravate whichever fans take this seriously.

You jauntily say whatever sample size we do get will be enough. Even though Repoz doggedly collates the pre-vote every year, and then, every year, the real results show players’ actual percentages bouncing both up and down, sometimes by those double digits you place such emphasis on. While other players stay stationary. And that’s just the maddening unpredictability of the math. Simultaneously reading 550 hearts via checkmark is a heckuva leap beyond that.

More than two-thirds of the voters’ motivations and assessments have always been unknowable, and that was without steroids and perjury. If you think you can nonchalantly vault that black hole and alight on a unified field theory of why Roger Clemens got 0 or 15 or 55 more votes than Barry Bonds, you should be working for Rasmussen Reports.

Andy, I'm not sure we can rely on post-ballot explanations. I honestly don't think the writers always accurately explain why they voted for or against a player, if they even know.

And yet OTOH you also keep saying that even if Clemens gets acquitted, none of the writers could possibly have had their minds changed by the verdict. That sure doesn't sound very agnostic to me. Sounds to me like you've got everything figured out seven months in advance, and that neither the verdict nor the workings of a single writer's mind could possibly alter your stance.

Hell, why don't we just ask you to tell us how and why each vote is going to come out right now, and spare us the trouble of actually counting the votes and reading the explanations? After all, that method sure worked beautifully for you last September.

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

The point is that we really won't know. Either way. No matter what. Well, maybe if there's a really big difference (much bigger than the 10% you're using as your arbitrary cut-off), then we'd be on fairly solid ground in saying that at least some of the voters must have put at least some stock in the perjury trial verdicts. But when you're starting with a 60 or so vote swing, and maybe a quarter to a third of them are attributable to some combination on non-steroid-related factors,

But that's nothing but an assertion that's backed not by history, not by any discernible love for Roger Clemens, and not by anything tangible you can put your hands on. It's pure conjecture. Whereas a not guilty verdict that hinges upon whether or not McNamee was likely telling the truth is nothing if not tangible. And yet you're certain that "a quarter to a third" of any switched votes would be attributable to "some combination of non-steroid-related factors", but yet we can't be sure that any of the other switched votes were in reaction to a not guilty verdict. Once again, it's surety about the truly unknowable, and agnosticism even if the writers explain their votes in plain English. I almost half expect you and Ray to take the next logical step and say that any writer who writes that the trial switched his Clemens vote is simply concealing his Yankee / Red Sox / Astros / Texas Longhorns fandom, and that he'd intended to vote for Clemens all along.

(Okay, you're probably not quite at that stage [smile], but I wouldn't put it past Ray.)

I think our disagreement really is just over the definition of "plenty" in your last sentence. Plenty in terms of a raw number of explanations is not the same thing as a statistically valid sample of the whole electorate and/or subgroup of each different explanation.

Again: If, in the case of an acquittal, fewer than 4% or 5% of the voters vote for Clemens but not Bonds (which is what Gonfalon says will happen), my conjecture will be proved wrong. Easy as that.

And if between 5% and 10% of the voters go that way, I'll think that the verdict swayed a fair number of voters, but fewer than I'd have thought. I have no problem admitting that my suppositions could easily prove incorrect. My question is why the three of you are so reluctant to admit the opposite possibility.

And if more than 60 voters mark Clemens' name but skip Bonds, and if you seriously claim that you "don't know" that the trial verdict pushed that number that high, then AFAIC you belong in a 1950's Washington Redskins marching band, because you'd be whistling "Dixie" right along with them.

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

And since Gonfalon's last post does little more than repeat the points of the other two, everything I wrote in response to them would apply to him as well.

My question is why the three of you are so reluctant to admit the opposite possibility.

I did admit the possibility. I just said that it would take more than a 10% difference to convince me of it.

If, in the case of an acquittal, fewer than 4% or 5% of the voters vote for Clemens but not Bonds (which is what Gonfalon says will happen)

I didn't say this.

I also have no desire to be an "opponent" for your vague and conditional prediction. Perhaps I should amend my empty forecast to "We will not see a wave of BBWAA members saying that Clemens' acquittal was the impetus for their yes vote." Not even among the relatively small subset of voters who explain their choices in detail.

Have fun applying empirical certainty to a fraction of an unprecedented ballot that will be distorted by unprecedented anger over an unprecedented circumstance.

Maybe because Rep. Cummings pointed out the obvious during the 2008 hearing: Andy Pettitte could not possibly have thought Clemens was talking about Debbie using HGH if they talked in 1999 or 2000 and she got injected in 2003. Clemens had to have been talking about himself. Unfortunately, his speaking time expired before Clemens had a chance to answer. But I wouldn't be surprised if Hardin immediately wrote a note on his legal pad: "Got to find a USA Today article on HGH from 2000..." And now a new article has magically appeared.

Except that as I pointed out at the time of the 2008 hearing, Cummings simply manufactured that claim by conflating two entirely different conversations. Neither Clemens nor Pettitte said that Clemens said anything about his wife in 1999. In 2005, in a conversation every agrees about, Pettitte asked Clemens about his hGH use. Clemens said, "What hGH use"? Pettitte said, "Remember when you told me you used hGH?" Clemens says, "Huh? I never told you I used hGH. You must be misremembering. I once told you Debbie had used, but not me." [Please note that none of those purport to be exact quotes; I'm just using quotation marks for readability.] Clemens didn't say, "In 1999, I told you Debbie used."

Aw, hell with it; here's the exact Pettitte quote (in 2008): "A ... And I got Roger and just asked him, I said, dude, what are you going to say if anyone -- if any of the reporters ask you if you had ever used HGH? And he said, you know, he said well, what are you talking about? And I said, well, you had told me you had used HGH. And he said, I never told you that. And I said, you didn't? And he said no. I told you that Debbie used HGH. And that's -- that was the end of the conversation right there."


Incidentally, what few people bothered to notice is that Pettitte's (mis-?)recollection doesn't match McNamee's story. The time that Pettitte thinks the conversation happened is different than when McNamee says the hGH use occurred. (There were other differences between the stories of Pettitte and McNamee; McNamee claimed he told Pettitte in 2004 that he had injected Debbie with hGH; Pettitte claims he had never heard anything about it and was shocked in 2005 when Roger told him that Debbie had used.)


EDIT: Partial coke to Ray.

Anyway, as for the Clemens team changing their story, you seem to ignore that Debbie apparently testified that Clemens was at Canseco's house on the day of the party -- and I can't see how that helps Clemens at all.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that Clemens was at Canseco's house on the day of the party. There's a dispute about whether he was at the party. Clemens' nanny testified that Clemens was at the house that day -- but she disputes that there was a party at all. Which would mean that when she saw him there, there was no party going on.

I acknowledge writers existence; how else to mock them. I dont read them or respect their "right" to choose the HOF.

My question is why the three of you are so reluctant to admit the opposite possibility.

I did admit the possibility. I just said that it would take more than a 10% difference to convince me of it.

Fair enough. That's my own threshold for being convinced that it's a significant movement.

If, in the case of an acquittal, fewer than 4% or 5% of the voters vote for Clemens but not Bonds (which is what Gonfalon says will happen)

I didn't say this.

My bad. You said this on the last page, and I should have checked the exact wording before misremembering the implication:

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.

You're saying that there might be a different vote total, even a relatively significant one, but that it won't have anything to do with the trial outcome. I'm saying that this remains to be seen, and I think we can pretty much leave it at that.

Both of these statements are completely in line with what I've said, which is that any voting difference of more than a few points following a not guilty verdict for Clemens would indicate that the not guilty verdict accounted for most of the difference.

This is a ways back, but this doesn't follow. Those scenarios were about a world where roids never entered the scenario for Clemens and Bonds at all - in the real world of course they have, which colors everything. The above COULD be the reason - but there are many, many other factors at work, listed earlier (Clemens is a pitcher so steroids don't matter as much, Bonds cheated to break HR records which obviously ticked a great number of people off, everybody hated Bonds so roids were seen as the ultimate validation that he was a jerk, etc.). As I stated earlier I would guess Clemens is a solid 5-10% above Bonds right now. If Clemens were to be acquitted there would be probably some bump - I have no idea what that is, but I think we can wipe 5-10% off that theoretical bump right now because he's there already.

Here's something I found on Bonds and Clemens, though I'm not sure how accurate it is:

How will Hall of Fame voters treat Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens? In a survey of 90 veteran baseball writers who vote on player inductions, neither Bonds nor Clemens garnered the 75 percent that is required to gain entry into the Hall. Although this is only about a sixth of the writers who usually vote each year, it seems portentous for Bonds, the career home run leader with 762, and Clemens, who has 354 victories and a record seven Cy Young awards. Bonds received 53 votes, or 59 percent, while 28 writers said they would not vote for him and 9 were undecided. Clemens received less support, notching 50 votes, or 56 percent, while 27 writers voted against him and 13 were undecided. Writers were encouraged to give a definitive answer, with the understanding that future developments could change their opinions.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/30895-hof-voters-nix-bonds-clemens