User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.5379 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: July 23, 2006 at 01:19 PM (#2108230)Will this myth never be put to rest?
Keith obviously has the upper hand, so why is Mazeroski in? Probably because a) he hit the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" b) he was a hard player that the veterans loved c) his numbers are good for a second baseman d) he was mistaken for Carl Yastrzemski. Your guess is as good as mine. Bill James must get a scorching headache every time he sees that .299 OBP player in the HOF.
(runs...hides)
The big problem that I see is a problem of relative comparison. Let's say that a voter believes that the top 15 all-time players or so at each position should be in the Hall of Fame. Those 15 slots, however, may be filled by steroids users. Mark McGwire's numbers surely put him in the top 7 1B of all-time. Frank Thomas' numbers, however, are more in the borderline realm (say 12-15). I certainly think that Thomas should be a Hall of Famer, but I have a sense now that he may have a tough time. It would strike me as terribly unjust if McGwire and other steroid-using 1B get in ahead of Thomas.
As the story says, a lot of writers are putting stock in the Mitchell report. In a perfect world, the report would provide some clarity. I doubt that this will happen; I suspect that there will be no startling revelations that come out in that report.
Since Frank is a better hitter and has played longer then McGwire, I think you're giving McGwire way to much credit for his defense.
I'm not arguing that McGwire is better than Thomas. I just think that he is perceived by the average writer as being better than Thomas. The home runs and, yes, the defensive position probably feeds this perception.
Perhaps, I'm wrong about this because I notice now that Thomas has a higher Hall of Fame Monitor number than McGwire.
Which 90s 1B eventually make it from the following list?
McGwire
Thomas
Bagwell
Thome
Delgado
Giambi
Palmeiro
With a few more good seasons from Thome and Delgado, I would guess all but Giambi and Palmeiro with McGwire as the wild card.
Ahh, I misunderstood. My bad.
IMO, Thome is in now. Not only is he qualified statistically, he has all the "feared hitter" qualities some of the more old school writers look for.
My take (on who will get in, not should):
Thomas
Bagwell
McGwire (after a while)
Thome (likely, but a lot depends on the next 1.5 years)
McGwire
Thomas
Bagwell
Thome
Delgado
Giambi
Palmeiro
McGwire: yes
Thomas: yes
Bagwell: yes
Thome: maybe
Delgado: no
Giambi: no
Palmeiro: no
It seems weird, but I think only Bagwell and Thomas, maybe Thome (who has helped his HOF chances more than anyone else this year) get in.
BTW, I support a Keith Hernandez for the Hall candidacy. Steroids aside, I see him as generally more valuable than McGwire, both in peak and career (I rank Hernandez's 1979 as one of the underrated great seasons, better than, for instance, either of George Sisler's .400 seasons). I see him with essentially the same type of candidacy and same value as Ron Santo, although in Santo's case, he ranks higher among the lists of all-time third basemen than Mex does among first basemen. I would argue, however, that this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that during Hernandez's time, the were probably more good third basemen than first basemen.
Also, I blame Cito Gaston for ruining the HOF chances for two first basemen: Delgado and Olerud. Olerud is perhaps deserving anyway and should at least get a mention here.
Of course, I don't think there's a chance in hell that Olerud or Hernandez get in.
You lost me. If you set the steroids issue aside, then it's pretty hard to not consider McGwire as one of the top 10 firstbasemen of all time. Is it your position that Keith Hernandez also falls into that category?
And continuing the newfound tradition:
Olerud: no
Hernandez: no
McGriff is an interesting case because part of his career numbers were established in the 80s before the big offensive era started. Based on this, I think that McGriff probably won't make it. I wouldn't be against his making it, but, then again, I guess that I'm a big Hall guy as far as it goes with players from the 70s to the 90s.
It would only delay the other conversation of how the use of steroids is going to impact the HOF votes.
Sooner or later, the voters are going to come eye to eye with a player whose output is going to place them among the best five players ever, where there is a substantial evidence of steroid use, and there is even an argument of a HoF career before the evidence of first steroid use.
McGwire is nice, because its going to let people ease into the decision. They will not have to deal with the red herring of "career without steroid use" and they will not have to deal with a conscience of what to do since they may have already voted one steroid user into the HoF.
McGwire is the absolute perfect test case. His output of HoF note, is the exact type of output that is largely believed to be influenced by steroids.
And by and large, the take on McGwire, including in these forums is very "even handed". There is the moral character question of the taking of the steroids themselves, and there is the moral character question of his performance before Congress. The former is a question that does have to be decided by the writers for a lot of baseball players.
Which is nearly impossible to gauge right now.
Sooner or later, the voters are going to come eye to eye with a player whose output is going to place them among the best five players ever, where there is a substantial evidence of steroid use, and there is even an argument of a HoF career before the evidence of first steroid use.
You know, you can say "Barry Bonds". He's not Voldemort.
I agree that McGwire is a good test case, and I think that Palmeiro will be equally good for other reasons.
I'm not sure McGwire is more qualified than John Olerud or Will Clark even if you leave steroids out of it. He missed enough time that his atrocious defense and baserunning really eat into his value. That's the conversation I'd like to see people have, personally.
Olerud and Clark both had interesting career paths. But to briefly summarize my thoughts on both, just a bit short on career value as well as just a bit short on peak value. If Olerud had another year or two approaching their respective peaks of 1993 and 1987, then they'd have a much, much stronger case. But as it stands, both had too many good-but-not-great years to dillute their cases.
Because of injuries, McGwire was one crappy ballplayer in his late 20s. But what he did at the beginning and end of his career was so great as to offset that horrendous middle chunk. If you take the position that he would never had regained greatness in his final years without some biochemical assistance, then it's reasonable to say that he is not HOF-worthy.
I don't agree with that position mostly because a) no one can quantify with any certainty the effect that PEDs had on his performance; and b) the line between restorative and performance-enhancing is still an ethical blur. If a players receives a cortisone shot so that he can play without pain, that's acceptable--but if he uses a different type of PED to assist in the recovery of an injury, he's a cheat? Some people seem comfortable making that distinction, but I'm still unsure where the line is (or should be) drawn.
For me, yes I agree, such a conversation is difficult at best. My position has been I'll live with the HoF voters. The only conversation I can have is based on what writers have said regarding their vote.
But the conversation among the writers is what I want to see. To that extent, I think this article did a good job. I want to see the decision process of this group. I also don't mind seeing interested fans give their lobby on this position.
You know, you can say "Barry Bonds". He's not Voldemort.
I'm not sure that I am allowed to say those words.
Tim, that's a very interesting claim about Will Clark and McGwire. I'm intrigued. To make the counter-intuitive argument, you have to first square the differential in their Hall of Fame Monitor scores. Without a doubt, Clark should have stayed on the ballot, alas.
McGwire is nice, because its going to let people ease into the decision. They will not have to deal with the red herring of "career without steroid use" and they will not have to deal with a conscience of what to do since they may have already voted one steroid user into the HoF.
Backlasher, I don't understand the last part of that sentence.
Giambi won't get in, because his name will always be synonymous with steroids, but he would have made for an interesting HoF debate if no one had ever learned of the PEDs. Huge peak, but unlikely to reach any major statistical milestones. (Of course, with his resurgence the last couple years, you never know...)
To play devil's advocate on Thome's HOF case...
First, I'm not sure if passing 500 HR is still sufficient to guarantee HOF induction.
Second, given his age and how much time he missed last year, it's very possible that Thome's chances of hitting 40 more homers in his career are less than a "near lock."
Third, why are we so sure that Thome never used PEDs? If evidence ever surfaces that he did use steroids at any point in his career, would that be enough to keep him out of the HOF?
We have had quite a few of them in the past. It probably is about 80% of Andy's posts on the steroids subject.
Backlasher, I don't understand the last part of that sentence.
Jeff mostly articulated it; I'll expand.
The voters are not bound by stare decisis in any way, but they are going to have their own councious and are going to have to deal with their own patterns of logic.
If someone like Voldemort would be up for a vote before McGwire, it is going to be very tough. Judging from previous statements by writers there are those that would not vote for McGwire but would vote for Voldemort.
So if Voldemort were elected and McGwire comes up for a vote, each of those writers and the steroids apologists would have reason that states, "We already let a steroid user in, so I should leave that out of the equation when examining McGwire"
However, if McGwire were excluded and Voldemort were elected, when Jason Giambi comes up for a vote, there is no inconsistency or new rule to craft.
Of course, if the voters vote McGwire into the HoF there is some credence to the position that PEDs are not a major influence on the vote.
McGwire will not face that type of muddying of the water.
Giambi would be a better test case than McGwire, because there would be no excuse of "not proven to have taken PEDs."
As Jeff mentioned the same would be true of Palmeiro.
About Thome, he´ll probably end up with a Hall resume, in my opinion. But I could be convinced either way. McGriff´s outcome could become a nice indicator of his possible HOF fortunes.
I´ve always have a weird admiration for walks and doubles hitters, and as such I hope Olerud gets at least serious consideration. I don´t think he will for the HOF, but what about the HOM?
Theoretical question: what would happen to Olerud if you replaced his 93 season with his 2000 (and viceversa), giving him a more "normal" prime-peak?
Welcome to the forum.
Not much, I don't think. What's keeping Olerud out (IMHO) is not the sequence of seasons, it's that he had too many 2000's (good but not great years for a 1B) and not another 1993 season or two.
It's pretty hard for a 1B from one of the most prolific homerun eras of all-time to make it into the HOF without having broken 25 HRs (much less 30 or 40) once in his entire career. Given that the mainstream media generally fail to fully take into account park effects (which is really Olerud's best defense for the lack of homers), I suspect that a clear majority HOF voters will consider him in the same category as a Will Clark or Mark Grace (both of whom are better comps to Olerud than McGriff, IMHO).
IMHO, the question is really whether or not Olerud will survive his first ballot, not whether he makes the HOF.
If Clark didn't get five percent of the vote, I don't see any way that Olerud will.
Big Brother, Part XXXIV? Hell, I'd pay to watch that.
Who else would we put in the house?
Rockstar would be more my forum though.
Nah, that would be too tame. Ever see the Chappelle sketch that parodies "The Real World?"
He did have another 1993. It was called 1998.
I don't think amazed is the right word. Thome is only in his age 35 season. And he is having a great bounce back.
A lot will depend on whether this is a "last hurrah", or the beginnig of a soft landing that ends with him well up in the 500's. Whether he can avoid injury and put in a few more very solid years.
Take a look at his hit and RBI totals. They are pretty slim for a Hall of Famer, particularly one who never won an MVP, or a ring, and really is not that high on black ink or gray ink. He needs a few more strong years. It is an open question as to whether he gets them.
If Clark didn't get five percent of the vote, I don't see any way that Olerud will.
I could see him getting 5%, just because I found it such a shock that Clark didn't.
So, for instance, I think Palmeiro will make it in the end, although I think he's a borderline candidate - and I said that before the steroid stuff came out.
You really thought Palmeiro was borderline before steroids?
And if he was, I don't see how he gets anywhere close to sniffing election after them.
Right. Like I said earlier, I think the next year and a half are important for Thome.
Re McGwire -- at this juncture, is there a sportswriter in America who does not believe he did steroids? When his ballot comes up, ESPN and FoxSports will be re-running his Congressional testimony like it was the Jeter Face-Plant Web Gem.
McGwire's entire HOF case is that of the great slugger. He had those terrible years. He was nothing of a fielder or runner. His average was .263.
His case is built on the fact that he walked and hit home runs. And for at least the last half of his career, they are going to assume that those home runs came out of a syringe.
I think that is a little unfair. But only a little. McGwire clearly had great talent, and was a legitimate slugger before he over-inflated.
I could spend a page and a half re-iterating arguments about mitigating factors. But in the end, the class of HOF voters, when they get out of bed, kiss BL good morning and go off to work, are going to vote him down.
As for the VC -- that is going to have to wait for an entirely new system, which I have yet to see. I don't know if THIS iteration of the VC will ever vote ANYONE in. For that reason alone, it will have to change. But just when that happens, I don't know.
1998 was a very good year, but by any measure it was a step down from 1993.
I could see him getting 5%, just because I found it such a shock that Clark didn't.
I agree. First ballots can be total crapshoots. I don't know if 75% of baseball writers would say that a Will Clark or Lou Whitaker are HOFers, but a majority would probably agree that they deserve to stick around on the ballot for a few years.
Baseball writers generally do a good job of (eventually) only electing worthy candidates, but relative percentages aren't as helpful as some people seem to want them to be.
If he is voted in, then there would be little to block Bonds, I would think.
I largely agree with your analysis; but I don't think that is a complication.
If he is voted in, there is very little, if anything to block Voldermort. About the only thing that COULD be different is an indictment and a conviction on perjury and tax evasion; slightly stronger evidence of steroid use; or an argument that he was an overall shitty person.
Personally, I don't think either one of these alone SHOULD carry the day. If the writer's in their wisdom say McGwire should go in on these criteria, then it looks pretty inconsistent not to vote Barry in.
And yes, the writers can vote for Barry and not vote for McGwire. The differentiating factor would be the sheer output of the career. And from the early quotes, they may end up doing exactly this.
But I'd still rather they confront the steroid issue with a minimal amount of silly distraction as possible. They are still going to deal with arguments about LASIK, aspirin, or prescribed drugs, but that doesn't really demand too much. Its a rationalization more than an argument; if they use it, its not a case of being duped as much as it is having some level of deniability in saying, we are ok with steroid ball.
Yeah, but those struck me as more micro-level discussions (whether player X gets in); this is more of a macro-level discussion (how voters are going to deal with the steroid mess).
For what it's worth, Bill James had McGwire as the third best 1B of all-time after the 2000 season. Looking at this in the long-run: who would have ever thought that there would be a debate about McGwire, Bonds, Sosa and the Hall? If they don't make it, that's going to be one hell of a gap. How do you explain that to children? (My first "What about the children?!" moment)
Don't kill me for this piece of unsubstantiated gossip (it probably means nothing), but a friend of mine who works in a major newspaper's sports department told me that a team for which one of these 1B played in the 90s was known, along with the A's, as a big juicing team. You see how that affects this discussion and, in a perfect world, that is the kind of information that should come out of Mitchell's Report.
And if he was, I don't see how he gets anywhere close to sniffing election after them.
I really did, and I said so here. You can check it out - there was a big thread on his HOF chances here last summer. I think Raffy will get in in the end, because if the writers don't vote for him, the players will - he's got 3000 hits. Regardless of what happens with the other steroid suspects, it's not going to result in other 3000-hit players being excluded. So a future VC will look at this seeming injustice - and a future VC is likely to be heavily Hispanic, compared to a white media. They'll likely talk about racism, and vote him in.
Just my take.
I was in that thread. I just didn't remember you being one of those people.
Pre-steroids, I just can't see the argument.
Not to be coy, but it's not the Rangers...it's a team that's not mentioned too often and a leading candidate played for them. I should have passed on making any comment about it.
Not to be coy, but it's not the Rangers...it's a team that's not mentioned too often and a leading candidate played for them. Witch-hunting makes me uncomfortable, but it really does make me mad that Bud Selig and MLB have made it a natural instinct.
Nah, you should dish though. If you have information, we are all likely interested.
Setting aside as to whether your assumption that players would vote for him, I'm not sure if the VC will ever get the chance to vote on Palmeiro as the rules currently exist. IIRC, a player needs to get 50% or more from the writers to be eligible for VC consideration. I highly doubt that Palmeiro will be able to garner that much support. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he were quickly dropped from the ballot.
Pre-steroids, I just can't see the argument.
At what point do you believe Palmeiro started using steroids? If it was 1992, then I agree. If it were 2002 (or whatever), then Palmeiro might have a case.
We can make a more informed decision on Bonds because the evidence that establishes that he used steroids also indicates that he didn't start using until late in his career. The only real disagreement is whether Bonds' usage late in his career should taint his pre-steroid accomplishments, or just those years that were boasted by PEDs. To the best of my knowledge, there's no evidence one way or another indicating when Palmeiro first started using steroids.
Will Clark was a legitimately great hitter before the home run explosion and Fred McGriff was right behind him.
Okay. Make one.
Best season:
McGwire 11.7
Hernandez 11.0
Best three seasons
McGwire 11.7, 9.7, 9.5 = 30.9
Hernandez 11.0, 10.3, 10.2 = 31.5
Best five seasons
McGwire 11.7, 9.7, 9.5, 9.5, 8.6 = 49
Hernandez 11.0, 10.3, 10.2, 9.4, 9.3 = 50.2
Career
McGwire 106.2
Hernandez 108.1
I think that he may have meant pre-evidence of steroids use. If he meant that, I agree. If steroids had never existed, it would be very, very hard to keep a 3000 hit-500 HR guy out of the Hall.
I did.
Even if we were to agree that WARP3 was the best available metric upon which to judge players, your data indicate that Hernandez and McGwire were equals, not that the former "was a flat-out better player than McGwire was."
As an earlier post noted, Bill James rated McGwire as the third best 1B in baseball history a few years ago. I'm pretty sure that a) he knows a thing or two about sabremetrics and b) doesn't think that Keith Hernandez and John Olerud are the two players to rate ahead of him.
Of course, I'd rather see all of those guys in the hall than Tony Perez (except Nuschler, whom I always hated). But that ship has sailed.
***
And though I think defense will come pretty close to the bottom of the list when it's time to consider McGwire, he was actually a pretty good defender in his first few seasons, and won a GG that wasn't a complete joke, IIRC (<cough>Palmeiro</cough).
He came to his senses by the 2003 Post Script to the The New BJ Hist BB Annual.
Updated list:
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Jimmie Foxx
3. Johnny Mize
4. Eddie Murray
5. Harmon Killebrew
6. Hank Greenberg
7. Willie Mccovey
8. Mark McGwire
9. Frank Thomas
10. Jeff Bagwell
He admits he screwed up.
He has Hernandez at 16, Palmeiro at 19
Palmeiro won 3, only one of which was a complete joke.
I don't know, I think it seems to indicate that Hernandez is slightly better in most of those categories. Add in consistency, durability (who would you really rather have over a 10-year period?) and dominance of his era and a nod to clutch reputations and I think that's a fairly solid argument that he was flat-out better without even considering steroid use.
Also, I know damn well where Bill James rates them. Have you talked to Bill James lately? He might have changed his mind. I'll ask him.
If we're convinced Big Mac used PEDS, I don't see any rational reason to assume that his use started post-injury. The A's, with Canseco, were notorious and I heard things about USC in the 80s. I agree that witchhunts aren't pretty, but when there are a bunch of guys flying around on brooms, it's hard to avoid.
Anyway, my opinion is that if a writer wants to assume McGwire's testimony is proof of PED use, his entire career goes out the window. I'm torn on others. We have for Bonds various rumors that he started in 98 or 99. It is an interesting question, to me, whether Raffy wouldn't be well advised to come clean, admit his use and say that he started using due to age and fear of loss of skills. That might, in some eyes, legitimize his earlier career.
I don't see a significant difference between the two of the categories. And you still haven't addressed the questions regarding the worth of WARP3.
Add in consistency, durability (who would you really rather have over a 10-year period?)
The question is who would you rather have over the course of their respective careers--taking into account career versus peak values--not who was better over a 10 year period.
dominance of his era
McGwire's career OPS+ is 163, which includes 585 PA of 103 OPS+ in 1991. Hernandez's best year (1979) was "only" 152. 1995-2000, McGwire's lowest OPS+ was 168.
That's awarding a lot of defensive credit to Hernandez for him to even approach McGwire's value at the plate. More so than is reasonable.
FWIW, Canseco says Palmeiro began using when Canseco joined him in Texas.
So for the majority of Palmeiro's career, and all of the his HOF-worthy seasons.
Only if he really did start using in the last couple of years. Coming clean and saying "I used steroids for 13 seasons" won't help much, I don't think. Nor can he risk lying about it, I think; after his Congressional episode, he can't afford to look like a lying scumball again, or he'll enter Pete Rose-territory.
Thanks for posting that -- quite a difference (but that's okay by me as far as James is concerned, I would rather that he correct his mistakes than stick by them out of pride).
FYI (some career Win Shares through 2001):
McGwire 342
Clark 331
Hernandez 311
Mattingly 263
Olerud 242
McGriff was screwed by the strike more than any other player. Not only did it keep him from reaching 500 homers, but it also denied him the one signature season that detractors will say he was missing. In this era, Crime Dogs career highs of 37 homers and 107 rbi's may look pretty small, but in 1994 he was on pace for something like 48 and 130. And, according to OPS+, Freddy had four other seasons where he hit as well or better than he did in '94. People seem to forget just how big of a difference the offensive levels were in 1988-1992 compared to today. And for those of you who think he was never really dominant, remember that he cracked the top ten in MVP voting six straight years (1989-1994), and for seven straight seasons (1988-1994) he ranked in the top four in homers and the top five in OPS. Overall, McGriff posted nine full seasons with an OPS+ over 140, including a 165, a 161, and three 157's. That looks like a dominant peak to me.
I look at McGriff as basically this generations Billy Williams. He belongs in the Hall.
Mike Piazza--loser was traded twice in a week :)
David Cone
Jose Canseco
No. That hasn't been the case for a while. I don't know if there is a minimum BBWAA % anymore.
At any rate, I find it wildly unlikely that the current VC set-up will still be in place by the time Palmerio gets in. They don't hold elections very often, and they don't elect anyone when they do. That's going to create an ever-increasing backlog and accompanying it will be equally rising pressure from fans to put some of their favorites in to Cooperstown. Historically, the Hall of Fame is quite easily swayed by pressure put on it to change their voting habits. Also, Cooperstown really likes being induct new HoFers during their annual induction ceremony broadcast on ESPN. The BBWAA can't always be counted on to do it. The VC has been their insurance. All it takes is one year without an inductions in their induction ceremony, and the VC will be reconstituted really damn quickly.
My hunch is that at some point you'll get something like the old VC, only with Joe Morgan in the Frankie Frisch role. He actually has an official role with the Hall (on it Board?) and does want to see guys put in. My hunch is that instead of letting all HoFers vote, they'll trim it to 10-15 guys (like always) made up (again) of former players, writers, and what-not. The main difference is that this time they'd all be HoFers instead of just some enshrinees mixed with some mortals.
I suspect that Baseball Think Factory's Hall of Merit might be more forgiving of many steroids users - yet also receptive to bids by WClark, McGriff, etc.
We're only up to 1981-82 now after three real years of voting, so it won't be until 'real 2007' that our votes are actually counted for any of those guys. But it will be a lively debate, quite different from the HOF's. There would be a certain irony if some late 1990s sluggers pulled votes from later candidates..
I know it's far from perfect, but we can look at listed weight.
He's listed at 210 at USC, at 215 when he hit the majors, 225 before the 1988 and stays at that listed weight until the start of the 1995 season when he's listed at 250 (which is what he's listed at when he hit 70)
As I've said, there are possible explanations for the rapid weight gain -- the most plausable of which is top athlete with time on his hands. Memory says he hired a famous coach at the same time.
To be clear, I think the timeline supports the notion that he started to use PEDs in an effort to recover from his injury.
Complicating the notion of evaluating the effects of PEDs, I found that in 1993 (IE the last year that he played at his listed 225) McGwire made a radical stance change that eliminated a hole in his plate coverage (and was having a huge year). But then you get into serious sample size issues. Plus listed weight is obviously an imperfect way to track things. It's entirely possible that there's a lag in updating the weights (though Stats has made an honest effort to have listed weight come close to reflecting reality from day one, they're not perfect)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main