From 1998-2002, Sosa hit .306/.397/.649 with 292 homers… But that five-year run supplies the vast majority of Sosa’s case.

From 1978-1978, Rice hit .315/.370/.600 with 46 homers… But that one-year run supplies the vast majority of Rice’s case.

I don't think Matt Pouliot ever advocated electing Jim Rice.

Wow, that's my ballot exactly: except I'd have ten names, and Sosa is the tenth.

Comps for Sosa, OF centered on him in terms of PAs and OPS+, with speed indicators, ranked by WAR Fielding Runs:



Those are career numbers, of course, taking no account of the shape of the career in any case. They mark an interesting descent when arranged that way: every eligible above Abreu is in the HOF, and everyone below is out. (It's interesting to me in these lists how often the Hall voters have a working sense of defensive value among hitters of a rank.)

Well, Raines should be in and Abreu probably shouldn't be, but that's at a level well below Sosa. It is really hard to tell Sosa's career achievement from that of Wheat or Goslin, your basic garden-variety HOF/HOM players. I can't imagine the HOM leaving Sosa out, though he may wait awhile in their backlog.

I think that the logic of TFA, as exposed by Pat Rapper in #1, reveals something interesting about Sosa's case (absent steroid suspicions, of course). Sosa has a decent career case for the Hall, but … but he's a peak candidate! Too much of his value is packed into those five years! Now wait a minute, you try to say, if he was good enough in just those five years to become a decent career candidate, mightn't that be an even better argument for him as a peak candidate? The numbers (as Bill James once observed of some slugging minor-leaguer who couldn't get a callup) are too good. Not just that they invite suspicion of PEDs, but even at face value: anyone who goes around hitting 60 home runs regularly, there must be something invalid there. We can't have that in the Hall of Fame :)

Sosa has a decent career case for the Hall, but … but he's a peak candidate! Too much of his value is packed into those five years!

The first comment I was trying to come up with went something like, "The rest of his peak wasn't as good as the prime of his peak, ergo he doesn't belong." Take out anyone's best five years and -- surprise, surprise, surprise -- they don't like as good of a HoF candidate.

From 1998-2002, Sosa hit .306/.397/.649 with 292 homers… But that five-year run supplies the vast majority of Sosa’s case.

I always hate this argument against Sammy. Most Hof'ers don't have "hall of fame" seasons every single year of their career.

Sosa was very good from 1994 to 1996 as well. All-Star caliber hidden by the work stoppages and a freak injury.

People think Frank Thomas is a HoF'er and you can make the argument that 1991 to 1997 supplies the vast majority of his case as well. Does adding one more season make one a HoF'er?

Sosa is a know abuser of PEDS (pigment enhancing drugs).

more like LOPEDs (lack-of-pigment enhancing drugs)

Sammy are you ok? Are you ok, Sammy?

Look at where Sosa ranks on the career lists… HR: 8th…

I just thought this was funny because it's supposed to be a point against him. Or something.

The bottom line, for me, is that Sosa was an established player who _then_ went on a great five-year peak. And if there is such a thing as a peak argument, it has to be Sosa.

Also:

Rafael Palmeiro, on the other hand, is close enough to the borderline that I don’t mind leaving him off the list…

No. In no universe is Rafael Palmeiro borderline.

If you don't like the phrasing of saying that Sosa didn't do much outside of his peak, then read it as saying that his peak wasn't good enough given the rest of his career. It's the same thing.

I do think that, if you just told me there's a hitting-only candidate who is 190th all-time in OPS+, that would sound to me like a marginal candidate. I think that's tough to argue with. Now if you think that's unfair because Sosa's candidacy isn't really about what he did when he was 20 or 38, and you want to argue that his peak is one of the truly all-time greatest peaks in history, then produce a peak list. I'd genuinely like to see it. I suspect that Sosa isn't going to particularly stand out on it.

Word to the Sosa posts

I don't necessarily have a problem with a ballot that doesn't have Sosa. I do have a problem with a ballot that doesn't have Sosa and doesn't list 10 names. Sosa is, amazingly, only 14th on the ballot in WAR. Of course nobody is going to vote for Lofton so that makes him 13th. Walker, Edgar, Palmeiro, or maybe McGriff deserve the #10 spot on this guy's ballot.

Yes, there are some cheaters on that list: three definites and at least a couple of maybes. I am willing to penalize for steroids. But I can’t see leaving Bonds, Clemens and McGwire out of the Hall.

Did nobody pay attention to the Clemens trial? There is no reliable evidence that Clemens used. Do you really think all those millions of dollars the Feds spent wouldn't have turned up every credible shred? And they still had to go to trial with nothing but McNamee and Pettitte v5 and none of Clemens' "peers" believed them.

If you want to say that for some crazy reason you believe McNamee ... well, that's your prerogative. But you can't claim that as "definite."

The standard at proof in Clemens' trial was "beyond a reasonable doubt." That he wasn't convicted doesn't say there is "no reliable evidence."

From 1996 to 2003, Sammy Sosa hit 403 home runs...or, over an 8 year span, he averaged over 50 homers a year.

Is there any other player in history who's done that?

The problem is Sammy was actually a pretty complete player. A good fielder and baserunner, and also an excellent hitter. The odd thing was he was never really both players at the same time.

Walker was a better hitter, fielder, and baserunner than Sosa. Sosa had more playing time, and their peaks are comparable--Sosa's is a bit better if one insists on using consecutive years.

I'd have Pouliot's ballot with Walker at #10.

If I had a Hall of Fame ballot — and don’t worry, I do not — I’d put down nine names on it this year: Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling and Alan Trammell.

Too bad.

Walker, Edgar, Palmeiro, or maybe McGriff deserve the #10 spot on this guy's ballot.

I agree with Ray and Walt here. You need to list the 10th man and needs to be Palmeiro. Outside of that though, a great ballot.

From 1996 to 2003, Sammy Sosa hit 403 home runs...or, over an 8 year span, he averaged over 50 homers a year.

Is there any other player in history who's done that?

Not even close. But it's partly a fluke. Those 8 years were Sosa's best 8 years. No other possible candidate had their best 8 years in a row. Ruth is second at 373, but his best 8 year run includes a 25 HR season and leaves out 2 50+ seasons. Ruth's best 8 non-consecutive, is 415. Mac's best 8 in a row is 344 and includes 2 9s, while leaving out a 49 and 39. With those he's at 414

Is there any other player in history who's done that?

Maybe not, but that Ruth fella did average 47 HR a year from 1920 to 1931. Adjusting for 162 game seasons bumps that up to 49.

The standard at proof in Clemens' trial was "beyond a reasonable doubt." That he wasn't convicted doesn't say there is "no reliable evidence."

True; but the fact that there was no reliable evidence says that there was no reliable evidence.

Seriously - the evidence was tied to McNamee, who is not credible.

Didn't Clemens throw his wife under the bus and say that steroid evidence tied to him was in fact hers?

Didn't Clemens throw his wife under the bus and say that steroid evidence tied to him was in fact hers?

No.

[20] That certainly seals the case against Sosa :D

Didn't Clemens throw his wife under the bus and say that steroid evidence tied to him was in fact hers?

Yes.

No.

Everyone agreed - including McNamee - that McNamee gave a shot to Debbie.

And nobody said that the HGH Debbie got was Debbie's.

Of course nobody is going to vote for Lofton so that makes him 13th.

This may be true, but I would vote for him over Sosa, Biggio and Palmeiro if I were able to vote.

Lofton over Biggio? Yipes.

No.

Everyone agreed - including McNamee - that McNamee gave a shot to Debbie.

And nobody said that the HGH Debbie got was Debbie's.

Wait, so Clemens wife was using HGH, but Roger wasn't?

In fact, not only was he not using it, but he didn't know his wife was being injected with HGH by his trainer?

Sure.

Sounds like no evidence to me!

In some ways this article goes back to some of the arguments that have played out in the past over 300+ wins (Sutton, etc), 3,000+ hits (Brock), and to a lesser extent 500 homers. While I strongly oppose an automatic election based on an arbitrary milestone, I also don't think players should be so quickly dismissed as a numbers compiler as though compiling good numbers is a bad thing. No, not every 500 home run hitter is the same thing and they are not all inner circle HoF'rs, but they all did a good thing (homer) a whole lot of times. It is very helpful to a team to have a guy ready to play darn near every day and putting up good stats consistently. Koufax gave us an incredibly peak stretch, but no career length to speak of and of course no decline phase. He obviously is a fine HoF choice, but the HoF should also have room for the Don Sutton's who take the ball every 5 days for 20 years and consistently well above average. Likewise, I have a really difficult time casting aside Sosa and Palmeiro, etc with a dismissive comment that they were just compilers. At some point we have to accept there is significant value in compiling good stats.

Walt and others here make good points, in that Sosa isn't particularly high on this year's maxed-out ballot. I tend to favor peak over career, so would put Sosa over Palmeiro, but I see the counterarguments as well. And Walker has a peak case as well, as a better all-round player at his best than Sosa. There's scope for debate at the margins; there's little scope for leaving Sosa out of a Hall with the standards and size of the current one.

none of Clemens' "peers" believed them

I have this vision of the Clemens jury: Koufax, Gibson, Perry, Niekro, Sutton, Palmer, Carlton, Ryan, Maddux, Pedro, and the Unit. Next up at voir dire is Jack Morris, and Clemens's lawyer is arguing that Morris couldn't even carry Roger's ####ing jockstrap.

Wait, so Clemens wife was using HGH, but Roger wasn't?

Why is this implausible?

Wait, so Clemens wife was using HGH, but Roger wasn't?

According to Clemens, yes. And only a fool or a biased observer would find the serial liar Brian McNamee more credible than Clemens.

In fact, not only was he not using it, but he didn't know his wife was being injected with HGH by his trainer?

Sure.

Um, no. Clemens learned of the injection soon after. Again, according to the only credible evidence we have.

Why is this implausible?

Why is it implausible that (fill in every bit of circumstancial evidence against Clemens...bearing in mind that circumstansial evidence is quite often admissable)? It's unpossible!

Seriously...people who try and lump Clemens in with Say,... Wade Boggs...are the same ones who will tell you OJ was innocent. *

*Let's just skip by the "actually" and "technically" follow-ups on OJ.

**And finally..is Pettite a serial liar too? (This is for Ray.)

Why is it implausible that (fill in every bit of circumstancial evidence against Clemens...bearing in mind that circumstansial evidence is quite often admissable)? It's unpossible!

I'm having trouble parsing this, but I always consider both circumstantial and direct evidence. Contrary to what you see on tv and in the movies ("Oh, the evidence against him is merely circumstantial"), circumstantial evidence is often quite strong.

What's your point, though?

Seriously...people who try and lump Clemens in with Say,... Wade Boggs...are the same ones who will tell you OJ was innocent. *

*Let's just skip by the "actually" and "technically" follow-ups on OJ.

I have no idea what this means either.

**And finally..is Pettite a serial liar too? (This is for Ray.)

1. Pettitte is a multiple liar, yes. And a self-confessed one at that. He told multiple lies, most notably his insistence right after the Mitchell Report that he only took HGH on two occasions in 2002. Later he admitted under oath that that was a lie, and that he had taken it in 2004 also. Seriously - what would you call Pettitte, if not a liar? Even he admits he lied. So what is your argument that he isn't a liar?

2. Even so, the fact that he's a liar is irrelevant, because one does not need to call him a liar to believe Clemens - certainly Clemens didn't need to, and, in fact, didn't. Pettitte always left open the possibility that he misunderstood Clemens in the 1999/2000 conversation, both in his 2008 deposition and during Clemens's trial. In fact, after speaking with Clemens circa 2005 during one conversation they had in the clubhouse where Clemens said he never told Pettitte he used HGH, Pettitte accepted that he had misunderstood Clemens. ("I took it for that, you know, that I had misunderstood him.") He didn't _think_ he had, but he accepted that he may have.

In fact, after speaking with Clemens circa 2005 during one conversation they had in the clubhouse where Clemens said he never told Pettitte he used HGH, Pettitte accepted that he had misunderstood Clemens. ("I took it for that, you know, that I had misunderstood him.") He didn't _think_ he had, but he accepted that he may have.

That's how normal people "compromise" with loony ones saying loony things.(*) It was the equivalent of "roll eyes, whatever." Since that typical human response doesn't translate well to the literal world of depositions and the courtroom, it didn't translate well to the literal world of depositions and the courtroom and the Clemens fanboys have taken that mistranslation and further mistranslated it.

I'd still vote for Clemens for the HOF.

(*) "No, Andy. I didn't tell you I'd used HGH, I told you my wife had used HGH." Sure thing, Rog.

SBB, Pettitte could easily have said "No, there is no way I misunderstood him."

But unfortunately for your argument, he didn't.

Once you are spinning evidence that is favorable to Clemens against him, it means that you're basically just making all inferences against Clemens, and you've lost all objectivity. In which case I don't see what value your contributions are, at this point.

Once you are spinning evidence that is favorable to Clemens against him, it means that you're basically just making all inferences against Clemens, and you've lost all objectivity. In which case I don't see what value your contributions are, at this point.

Sure thing.

Best case scenario is that there was a 50% chance, according to Pettitte, that Clemens told him he'd used HGH. The odds are really higher than that, given whose account rings true and whose doesn't, but whatever.

Best case scenario is that there was a 50% chance, according to Pettitte, that Clemens told him he'd used HGH.

Did I say something that contradicted this? I agree with it.

**And finally..is Pettite a serial liar too? (This is for Ray.)

1. Pettitte is a multiple liar, yes

Well i certainly set myself up for that.

Point is:

Even if you believe McNamee and only the Pettitte bits that go against Clemens -- despite their multiple changing stories -- there is no way you can claim that as "definite." In fact, as posters in this thread show, you have to make rather large assumptions and take testimony not at face value to come to even a preponderance of the evidence.

Again, the article named Clemens a "definite" PED user. That requires more than the "where there's smoke there's usually fire" level of evidence especially when the people telling you they saw smoke changed their stories multiple times.

Back to Sosa when you adjust for offensive context I find him remarkably similar to Norm Cash. Both guys with huge offensive peaks, decent careers and better defense than you would expect.

Back to Sosa when you adjust for offensive context I find him remarkably similar to Norm Cash. Both guys with huge offensive peaks, decent careers and better defense than you would expect.

You reach all the way back to Norm Cash to find a comp for Sammy Sosa and don't mention the shared interest in bat-corking? For shame, sir.

No. In no universe is Rafael Palmeiro borderline.

What about the universe where you have to be among the very best players in the game for an extended period of time to be more than a borderling candidate (Palmeiro's best WAR performances, just within his league, for position players only, were 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th) and people are actually penalized for testing positive for AAS and you're a Peak, not a Career, voter?

It is a pretty good ballot... go away and leave Sosa off, and Schilling and Piazza.

Add Palmeiro, Walker and Martinez.

This is one of the few years where I wish they would allow for voting for mroe than ten.

That's a nice ballot, I'd vote for all of them plus 4 or 5 more.

Even if you believe McNamee and only the Pettitte bits that go against Clemens -- despite their multiple changing stories -- there is no way you can claim that as "definite." In fact, as posters in this thread show, you have to make rather large assumptions and take testimony not at face value to come to even a preponderance of the evidence.

We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Next up at voir dire is Jack Morris, and Clemens's lawyer is arguing that Morris couldn't even carry Roger's ####ing jockstrap.

Jack Morris couldn't even carry a printout of the scan of the picture of the map of the city that contains the building which houses the schematics of the building which contains the locker room which has the locker which stores the key to the safe that secures the GPS that contains the directions to drive to the house of the person with the drawer that contains the jockstrap of Roger Clemens.

go away and leave Sosa off, and Schilling and Piazza.

Add Palmeiro, Walker and Martinez.

Those guys over Piazza? Yipes.