3. Luke-warm-to-downright-cold rate/counting/SABR stats (outside of HRs/RBI)

Again, we are talking about the BBWAA....

BBREF's similarity score basically compares guys using traditional counting stats, all of Sosa's comps are in except for:
Thome (not yet eligible)
Griffey (not yet eligible)
and Gary Sheffield

I don't see it as any different than a pitcher tearing his labrum, or blowing out his elbow, or a player having a bad back, and being done. Injury is injury, from my point of view. I don't know why sudden vs. chronic should have anything to do with it. It's all deterioration of physical tools.

Out of nowhere medical conditions like Puckett's are fairly rare and the "hero felled by an unpredictable tragedy" fits nicely into the shallow, pro wrestling style morality tales that many writers desperately try to read into sports. On the other hand, guys get injured playing the game all the time, it's just something that happens, the guy just didn't have what it took to make it, etc.

I'm not saying that "this is a more fun story for me to write" is a reasonable or legitimate distinction, but I think that drives a lot of the difference in perception.

So if we applied the Anton Chigurh coin flip test to Sosa -- right and you live, wrong and you get a fatal bullet square to the forehead -- and instead of "heads or tails," the question was "Did Sosa use PEDs as a player?," you'd go with "No"?

If you applied the coin flip for Sosa, I would go with yes. If you applied it to Jeter I would go with yes. You apply it to Nolan Ryan I would go yes. You apply it to Frank Thomas I would go with yes.... Yes I probably don't apply it to Maddux or Glavine, but there aren't many players I would lean towards not having done it.

My favorite player of recent times, Jim Edmonds, I would go with a yes he used. I think everyone would be surprised at how many players used at least for one time in their career.

This article doesn't contain votes that count this year, but is a glimpse of how some future voters from The Sporting News (David Steele, got badge I 2005, votes next year; Ryan Fagan, got badge in 2007, votes for Class of 2017; Jesse Spector, got badge this year, votes for Class of 2023; and Justin McGuire, who I can't find info on). All full ballots, all claiming to support far more than they can vote for.

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2014-01-06/baseball-hall-of-fame-2014-results-ballot-election-candidates

#1096 thetailor - I'd argue Koufax's doesn't deserve any 'credit' because his condition was exacerbated from overuse. He retired early because of a bad arm - this isn't rare. He warrants HOF consideration based on a great (albeit overrated) peak. (tangent - Just took a glance at Koufax vs Johan and I can't see a case for one and not the other in the HOF.)

I suppose if there are doubts that Puckett's injury vs. a degenerative injury should be treated differently, than I guess there would be tepid support at best for classifying Edgar's hamstring tear on #### exhibition turf as something that warrants WAR credit above/beyond a general injury. :)

(tangent - Just took a glance at Koufax vs Johan and I can't see a case for one and not the other in the HOF.)

The extra 100+ innings a year doesn't help Koufax case? The 120 more complete games, meaning his era is taking a hit as he gets tired, which modern pitchers don't have to worry about because of relievers doesn't help Koufax case?

I know that we have to adjust for eras, but by absolute value, an average starting pitcher in todays game is less valuable than an average starting pitcher in the past, and that should be fully acknowledged.

Just took a glance at Koufax vs Johan and I can't see a case for one and not the other in the HOF.

1. Koufax's highest-usage seasons contained 100 more innings than Johan's. This is largely due to changes in usage in the intervening 40 years, but that still provided extra value to the Dodgers.
2. Postseason. 1960s Dodger Stadium or not, an 0.95 World Series ERA will get your attention, particularly when it includes a 3-hit shutout in Game 7 on 2 days' rest. Santana wasn't bad in the postseason, but he wasn't even close to Koufax.

I suppose if there are doubts that Puckett's injury vs. a degenerative injury should be treated differently, than I guess there would be tepid support at best for classifying Edgar's hamstring tear on #### exhibition turf as something that warrants WAR credit above/beyond a general injury. :)

Personally, I don't think any of it should count. If medical issues (of whatever type) keep you off the field, you get no bonus points.

Don't get me wrong, Santana is going to be fully screwed over by the hof votes, (see Kevin Brown) but yes, I think Koufax is clearly ahead of Santana. If the average starting pitcher is worth 2 war today, the average starting pitcher of Koufax era would be worth 3 war. (60 more innings than todays pitchers, and those innings are in higher leverage situations, that the current day pitchers relegate to the bullpen)

3. Luke-warm-to-downright-cold rate/counting/SABR stats (outside of HRs/RBI)

This really is the #1 problem for me. When you look at Sosa's career numbers and big individual seasons compared to the nuts and bolts of those numbers, something is missing. The first half of his career he was a good defender but really not much of a hitter, even when he was having 30/30 seasons he had terrible plate discipline and was basically a net zero base stealer. Then he has a 5 yr. run where he becomes a monster power hitter with much improved plate discipline but he no longer fields or runs.
In fact, even during that 5 yr. peak he really only has one season where he's really among the top two or three hitters in the league and those are the only years where he's even in the top ten.

See the problem with Sosa is, his whole case is based on those 5 yrs. Anybody who judges whether player X did or didn't on a case by case basis is going to look at his career askew. More then any other serious candidate, he's the easiest one to make the case that without ped's, he wouldn't be a HOF type player. It basically comes down to, even if you accept his career at face value, he's really not a no-brainer, so it doesn't take much doubt to knock him out.

Personally, I don't think any of it should count. If medical issues (of whatever type) keep you off the field, you get no bonus points.

Oh, I don't have a problem giving bonus points. And if you're giving bonus points, it makes sense to draw a distinction between athletic injuries and act of god injuries.

Out of nowhere medical conditions like Puckett's are fairly rare and the "hero felled by an unpredictable tragedy" fits nicely into the shallow, pro wrestling style morality tales that many writers desperately try to read into sports. On the other hand, guys get injured playing the game all the time, it's just something that happens, the guy just didn't have what it took to make it, etc.

This is the cynical to look at it, but yes.

Snapper, do you give war credit? And what if a player were injured in war?

For Sosa, those 5 years were really outstanding - he was my 2nd favorite player to watch during that whole period.
I certainly preferred watching Sosa to seeing whether the plate would be 22 or 27 inches wide when Maddux or Glavine pitched (remember the 36" wide plate game? called both ways that day) or to see whether it was the day the ump didn't give Biggio the base when he stuck his elbow pad or shirt into a pitch.

Snapper, do you give war credit? And what if a player were injured in war?

Yes I give war credit. I would view a war wound/injury as extended war credit.

I would view a war wound/injury as extended war credit.

I guess I don't see why you would draw the distinction exactly there, then.

I certainly preferred watching Sosa to seeing whether the plate would be 22 or 27 inches wide when Maddux or Glavine pitched (remember the 36" wide plate game? called both ways that day) or to see whether it was the day the ump didn't give Biggio the base when he stuck his elbow pad or shirt into a pitch.

Oh Oh, the Glavine defenders should be here shortly.

Man, should've waited until after lunch before posting Koufax vs. Santana as not considering Koufax's playoff success (7 fantastic GS) as a notable difference.

Looking at IP/year, Koufax only hit 300 IP 3 times but, just taking their top 6 seasons, Koufax pitched almost 300 IP more. Another clear win for Koufax.
Koufax - 335/323/311/255/222/184
Santana - 234/233/231/228/219/199

What I don't know how to factor in is that Koufax pitched in a much more advantageous era, ballpark, and league (no DH) than Santana. I know that's reflected in WAR (where the two pitchers are close) but an inning in Koufax's era was certainly easier than in Santana's time. Hard to argue that would make up more than a portion of the IP difference.

What smoke? the only smoke is "he felt like one."

The PED treating of Sosa is exactly the reason I have zero respect for the majority of the BBWAA.

The NY Times article is here for those unfamiliar: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sports/baseball/17doping.html?ref=sammysosa&_r=0

My bar for "smoke if not outright fire" in a story like this is simple: Lack of/filing of a libel/defamation suit. I would absolutely agree with you regarding ANY guy outside of the "PED 5" being excluded based solely on innuendo. I have seen very few published ballots which have gone this route for excluding Biggio/Piazza/Bagwell - but I know that those guys ARE out there.

I would view a war wound/injury as extended war credit.

Wait, so you're putting Cecil Travis in the Hall of Fame?

Am I taking crazy pills here? Injuries (including career-ending ones, or death) affect your ability to play baseball. Thus, they are relevant. Being banned from the league because of your skin color, or being "banned" from the league by the government because it's a national emergency and they need you to work another job, do not affect your ability to play baseball. Thus, they are not relevant.

Writers have in the past essentially given credit if an injury/death is sufficiently sudden and/or tragic. But that doesn't actually make sense. Right?

I'm surprised this is even up for discussion. You would have an utterly different HOF if you started giving injury credit.

1100. Gaylord Perry the Platypus (oi!) Posted: January 06, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4631438)
I'm a huge Maddux fan, and I hate to think that he used steroids. But at the same time, I'd love it if at his induction, he confessed to regular steroid use.

Especially if it was in more of an educational lecture/explanation that athletes do a lot of things to keep their bodies in peak condition and able to perform. From vitamins, to exercise; from getting lasik surgery to taking supplements like andro; from taking amphetamines to be alert during day games after night games to getting crazy surgeries to repair bad elbows; from acupuncture to anabolic steroids. Give some historical references to the lengths players have gone to in order to be their best or to recover from the rigors of the game. Go on to say players of recent years should not be penalized any more than Ruth or Mantle or . . . . . . He has the stature to sway a lot of people to reassess their anger towards those players. I doubt he is likely to make this speech, but I can see a future HOF'r doing so after seeing a very qualified teammate fall off the ballot. There has to be a catalyst to make a player argue against the exclusion of players. Biggio can make a plea for Bagwell, but I can't see him making the strong speech on behalf of the PED guys.

My bar for "smoke if not outright fire" in a story like this is simple: Lack of/filing of a libel/defamation suit. I would absolutely agree with you regarding ANY guy outside of the "PED 5" being excluded based solely on innuendo. I have seen very few published ballots which have gone this route for excluding Biggio/Piazza/Bagwell - but I know that those guys ARE out there.

That NY Times article is utter garbage, anyone associated with putting that out there has the journalistic integrity of a 1950's era soviet newspaper.

Gee, it sure would be great if Maddux would ruin a great event for almost everyone by getting on the personal soapbox of BBTF, and completely redirecting the attention from where it should be (the inductees being celebrated) to where it shouldn't be (the candidates not yet inducted).

Writers have in the past essentially given credit if an injury/death is sufficiently sudden and/or tragic. But that doesn't actually make sense. Right?

The point is that they generally are just assuming a natural decline phase for those players. Kirby Puckett is getting credit for being a good(but not peak) career candidate who's career ended rather suddenly. He put up a 130 ops+ (3.9 War) in his last season, with a normal decline you are looking at 3-4 more seasons averaging 2.5 or so war(crossing the 60 war threshold), probably crossing the 3000 hit plateau, while putting up a career average over .315...and a pretty decent post-season resume.

I think that is what the writers are assuming, it's unfair to guys like Dale Murphy who would have likely been a hofer, if he would have had a normal decline phase, but because his decline wasn't normal while Puckett's was sudden, Dale is out and Puckett is in. Add in that Puckett's issue was entirely not "physical" based and he gets the benefit of the doubt. Whether it's fair or not is up for debate, but I can at least see the point of view that makes that decision.

Gee, it sure would be great if Maddux would ruin a great event for almost everyone by getting on the personal soapbox of BBTF, and completely redirecting the attention from where it should be (the inductees being celebrated) to where it shouldn't be (the candidates not yet inducted).

@1123 - you mean like Ted Williams did? Look up his Hall of Fame induction speech.

1123. flournoy Posted: January 06, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4631560)
Gee, it sure would be great if Maddux would ruin a great event for almost everyone by getting on the personal soapbox of BBTF, and completely redirecting the attention from where it should be (the inductees being celebrated) to where it shouldn't be (the candidates not yet inducted).

Not that the circumstances are the same, but would one say the same about Ted Williams making an impassioned speech during his Hall of Fame induction? Former Reds (& one Reds announcer) have made comments about Peter Edward Rose. I have no problem with someone receiving an honor and being magnanimous enough to admit that other men deserve the same honor.

EDIT: rawagman, I suppose I owe you a coke. Dress warmly if you come to collect.

That NY Times article is utter garbage, anyone associated with putting that out there has the journalistic integrity of a 1950's era soviet newspaper.

That is your opinion. I know that my editor always asked me about the strength of my sources before publishing a story, especially if that article could end up in front of a jury. But I never wrote for the NY Times. Maybe they have a different standard...

My bar for "smoke if not outright fire" in a story like this is simple: Lack of/filing of a libel/defamation suit.

That's a terrible standard, the bar for libel of a public figure is too high for that to be an indicator of anything.

The point is that they generally are just assuming a natural decline phase for those players. Kirby Puckett is getting credit for being a good(but not peak) career candidate who's career ended rather suddenly. He put up a 130 ops+ (3.9 War) in his last season, with a normal decline you are looking at 3-4 more seasons averaging 2.5 or so war(crossing the 60 war threshold), probably crossing the 3000 hit plateau, while putting up a career average over .315...and a pretty decent post-season resume.

I think that is what the writers are assuming, it's unfair to guys like Dale Murphy who would have likely been a hofer, if he would have had a normal decline phase, but because his decline wasn't normal while Puckett's was sudden, Dale is out and Puckett is in. Add in that Puckett's issue was entirely not "physical" based and he gets the benefit of the doubt. Whether it's fair or not is up for debate, but I can at least see the point of view that makes that decision.

Agree that this has been the 'norm' and I'm generally fine w/ it. Re: Murphy, his last good season was at 31 where Puckett was strong through 35. But guaranteed that if Dale Murphy had a Puckett-like injury after the 1987 or 1988 seasons, he'd have made it to the HOF.

Maddux making the case for Bonds/Clemens is one thing, he isn't going to play gotcha and flaunt steroid use for the media in order to pander to BBTF fantasists. And it wouldn't have the effect you are dreaming about anyway. He would just be vilified.

Kirby Puckett was really, really famous and everybody loved him. He was the centerpiece of two WS winning teams and he had signature moments in those wins. He was consistently putting-up big numbers in the categories that the voters like and he was winning Gold Gloves in the field. The fact that he was still at the top of his game when tragedy struck made it easy for everybody to extrapolate 3000+ hits, maybe 1500 R/RBI 500-600 2b, 300 HR etc. Oh, and did I mention that he was really. really famous?

My bar for "smoke if not outright fire" in a story like this is simple: Lack of/filing of a libel/defamation suit.

Do you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is for a public figure to bring such a lawsuit? What other fields are you willing to apply this "standard" to? How about politicians?

1127. madduxboy Posted: January 06, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4631578)

That NY Times article is utter garbage, anyone associated with putting that out there has the journalistic integrity of a 1950's era soviet newspaper.

That is your opinion. I know that my editor always asked me about the strength of my sources before publishing a story, especially if that article could end up in front of a jury. But I never wrote for the NY Times. Maybe they have a different standard...

Hmmm, you're asking about the long discredited former employer of Murray Chass and Jayson Blair. Um, yeah they have a different standard than legitimate news outlets.

Look, I think Morris is a terrible HOF candidate. It will be really annoying when he eventually goes in. And the way that people try to pump up his case is often pretty aggravating.

But I think people are being a bit obtuse in some of their objections, too.

And as for game 7 1991 WS. I'm all for postseason being worth something in the voting, but cherry-picking someone's best game or signature moment and weighting it heavily is ridiculous. You could as easily weight his worst start heavily. Nobody else has people arguing for signature moment preferential treatment in the same way - Kirk Gibson was a good player in the 80s with a big signature moment and he's not in, and rightly so. Roger Maris doesn't get in for 1961. I wonder wow far one could take it....Aaron Boone anyone?

As I posted a couple pages ago, it's not just Game 7. It's Game 7 + three all star game starts + opening day starts + being the 'ace' for THREE WS winners + most wins of the 80s + bulldog character. There are VERY VERY few guys who can manage to accumulate so many narrative arguments without actually being a qualified HOFer. Which means that Morris is kind of sui generis, and his eventual induction isn't really going to 'justify' all the other guys who fit part of his profile.

Seriously, how many guys have ever started three all star games? It can't be very many, and I bet most of them are all-time greats. Just doing a quick random search, I found Clemens and Spahn who started 3, while Randy Johnson and Jim Palmer started 4. Drysdale started 5 (!), but Koufax only 1.

Niekro, Mussina, Cone, Blyleven, and Hershiser never did it, while Perry, Seaver, Grove, Gibson, Saberhagen, and Ryan all only started one.

That is your opinion. I know that my editor always asked me about the strength of my sources before publishing a story, especially if that article could end up in front of a jury. But I never wrote for the NY Times. Maybe they have a different standard...

So you are saying that if an article is written, in which EVERYTHING in it is anonymous that we should automatically trust the writer and editor, because they have standards? Wow, what a bunch of self important bs.

1. baseball writers on average have the intelligence of a slug.
2. baseball writers on average have the integrity of a ambulance chasing lawyer.

Why would I trust that those people are being honest? they are self important d-bags that created the entire steroid mess by not displaying one iota of competence or integrity for the greater part of a decade, but now we are all the sudden supposed to trust them, because you once dealt with an editor who ask you a question that relies 100% on your integrity and not evidence? Wow....just Wow.

Their decade of ignoring the problem, forces them to be the ones to earn the trust. Not the other way around.

Seriously, how many guys have ever started three all star games? It can't be very many, and I bet most of them are all-time greats. Just doing a quick random search, I found Clemens and Spahn who started 3, while Randy Johnson and Jim Palmer started 4. Drysdale started 5 (!), but Koufax only 1.

Here you go, list of all star game starters with two or more starts.

I guess I don't see why you would draw the distinction exactly there, then.

Well, if a guy was shot by a mugger, or literally hit by a bus (Roy Campanella), I'd probably give him injury credit too. I think catastrophic injury from a purely external cause is different than medical deterioration.

All ballplayers have their career end because their body parts deteriorate. I don't see why it happening quickly or slowly matters.

I was surprised Puckett was such an easy first ballot election. I was sure he'd need a few to get in due to the short career, even if it was due to an unfortunate situation. The 'bus' test is an interesting one which we rarely get to see but Puckett (like Koufax and Campanella although Campy was a bit old and slowing down) had it happen and people automatically gave him bonus marks. I'm sure a lot who voted for him due to his being such a lovable guy (viewed as a human teddy bear at times) regretted it when the domestic assault and other details became public. Funny to see that Campanella and Puckett both ended after their age 35 seasons, but Puckett was still hitting up a storm while Campanella was in the 80's for OPS+.

What is also funny is that Puckett has to be viewed as the most likely HOF'er to have been on steroids - from 0 HR in 583 PA as a rookie to 4 year two to 31 in his 3rd full season. If that doesn't make one wonder then what would?

My bar for "smoke if not outright fire" in a story like this is simple: Lack of/filing of a libel/defamation suit.

That's a terrible standard, the bar for libel of a public figure is too high for that to be an indicator of anything.

Not really. If you're a public figure you have to prove malice - and the standard would include knowingly publishing false/defaming information. If, as Cardsfanboy says, the Times article is garbage, then a libel/defamation suit makes perfect sense. The truth of the matter is more likely that the discovery process cuts both ways, and this is why you've never seen Bonds file any such suit. IIRC, Clemens defamation suit evaporated very very quickly - and reinstatement was killed on appeal. However, McNamee's defamation suit against Clemens figures to get in front of a jury - and THAT is going to be ugly

Yeah, it will get ugly when McNamee is asked about being fired from the police for tampering with evidence, and about the time he drugged and raped a woman in a hotel pool. Yeah, there's somebody who is likely to be believed -- about as much as the last jury believed him.

The federal government pulled out all the stops to convict Clemens, and their resources, if not unlimited, certainly dwarf anything McNamee can bring to bear. And the feds struck out.

Of course, given that everybody who knows anything about McNamee knows that he is walking scum, I wonder how it would be possible to defame him.

Well, if a guy was shot by a mugger, or literally hit by a bus (Roy Campanella), I'd probably give him injury credit too. I think catastrophic injury from a purely external cause is different than medical deterioration.


Ok. Totally fair.

All ballplayers have their career end because their body parts deteriorate. I don't see why it happening quickly or slowly matters.

Sorry, I don't think the emphasis should be on speed. I think the thing for me is whether or not the injury is caused or exacerbated by athletic effort. If Puckett went blind over the course of 3 years, and his numbers took a nosedive, that seems equally unfortunate to me. The shock of the way it did happen probably did win him extra votes, though.

Gizmo just cited on MLB Hot Stove.

Basically what you are saying, is your definition of proof is the simple fact that it was ever published and not sued. Gotcha...

ESPN ballot dump.

Maddux and Thomas unanimous; Glavine 16 of 17; Biggio 13; Piazza 12; Raines and Morris 11; Bagwell 10; Bonds and Clemens 9

Seriously, how many guys have ever started three all star games? It can't be very many, and I bet most of them are all-time greats. Just doing a quick random search, I found Clemens and Spahn who started 3, while Randy Johnson and Jim Palmer started 4. Drysdale started 5 (!), but Koufax only 1.

Problem with reading too much (or anything) into pitchers and All Star games is that it is not often a matter of being the best pitcher in your league but rather the one whose spot in rotation lined up and had a good first half. Beyond that, starting All Star games, being the opening day starter or starting WS game 1's is meaningless without also discussing how the person performed in those games.

What is also funny is that Puckett has to be viewed as the most likely HOF'er to have been on steroids - from 0 HR in 583 PA as a rookie to 4 year two to 31 in his 3rd full season. If that doesn't make one wonder then what would?

Playing in 2,632 straight games?

Striking out 1,167 batters in 1,060 innings after your age 40 season?

Leading the league with 66 stolen bases as a 39 year old?

I was surprised Puckett was such an easy first ballot election. I was sure he'd need a few to get in due to the short career,

And I would have been surprised if he didn't get in on his 1st ballot. I have no idea what the age of some of the guys who question Pucketts HOF bona-fides. He was huge star, maybe the most popular player in the game for while. I'd like to see who the leading vote getters for the allstar game were in the years he played. He did have six starts so that should tell you something. The fact that he was able to garner so much attention despite playing in such a small market works in his favor.
Sometimes getting into the HOF is more about the fame then the numbers, and I'm not sure if that's so wrong; providing there's a little statistical affirmation.


edit: I wasn't trying to be crass with the age thing so I hope it wasn't taken that way. Not to sound like the Jack Morrites, but I just meant that you had to be there.

I suppose Madduxboy has an explanation for why, using his "standard", President Obama hasn't sued those suggesting he is lying about his place of birth? Or why Bush didn't sue those who said 9/11 was a government plot?

Suing the NYT is no easy task. They aren't bankrupt yet, and a litigant would be tied up for years just trying to get the Times to disclose its source. Pretending that a failure to sue indicates a story is true, is among the most misleading arguments ever made here.

What is also funny is that Puckett has to be viewed as the most likely HOF'er to have been on steroids - from 0 HR in 583 PA as a rookie to 4 year two to 31 in his 3rd full season. If that doesn't make one wonder then what would?

I remember a Detroit sports radio rant about Puckett in May 1986, along the lines of the Tigers guys needed to get on the same stuff he was on.

Yeah, it will get ugly when McNamee is asked about being fired from the police for tampering with evidence, and about the time he drugged and raped a woman in a hotel pool. Yeah, there's somebody who is likely to be believed -- about as much as the last jury believed him.

The federal government pulled out all the stops to convict Clemens, and their resources, if not unlimited, certainly dwarf anything McNamee can bring to bear. And the feds struck out.

Of course, given that everybody who knows anything about McNamee knows that he is walking scum, I wonder how it would be possible to defame him.

Leaving aside the last thing you said, there is something VERY pertinent in looking at who has more to lose. McNamee has nothing to lose - so to speak. BUT, you make (IMO) a huge leap when you compare a criminal trial with a civil action. The standard is FAR different. I am not a lawyer, but many of my friends are, and to a man/woman they thought that the FED case against Clemens was iffy, even with Pettitte's testimony - and once he "partially recanted" the case was dead. HOWEVER, those same lawyers see a real chance that McNamee can win (or at worst get a settlement) in the civil defamation suit. I suppose that Clemens has generational money, and so he can absorb the monetary end of an adverse jury decision - but just the testimony (extra marital affairs, bloody needles, throwing wife under the bus AGAIN) will be enough to reinforce the PED-averse writers from being swayed to vote for Clemens.

Beyond that, starting All Star games, being the opening day starter or starting WS game 1's is meaningless without also discussing how the person performed in those games.

It's meaningless without discussing the quality of the people that they got the decision over. I mean if Morris was pitching on the same team as an in prime Saberhagen or Stieb and he was getting the opening day start, it might have some meaning, but instead he was beating out guys like Dan Petry, Milt Wilcox, a washed up Tanana, Dave Rozema, or Walt Terrell, not really the 90's Braves.

Of course Jack Morris started three all star games, pitched a total of 6 2/3 innings, allowed 3 runs, 11 hits, 2 walks (and even allowed 3 stolen bases) not really sure why anyone is hanging their hat on this as something meaningful for his hof resume.

Striking out 1,167 batters in 1,060 innings after your age 40 season?

I think it's absolutely funny that Nolan Ryan isn't seen as an obvious roider. I feel as certain of his usage as anyone who has ever played the game, including Caminiti and Canseco. Tom House was his coach and Ryan said(in his hof speech)

"While I was [with the Rangers] I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House. And Tom and I are of the same age and Tom is a coach that is always on the cutting edge. And I really enjoyed our association together and he would always come up with new training techniques that we would try and see how they would work in to my routine. And because of our friendship and Tom pushing me, I think I got in the best shape of my life during the years that I was with the Rangers."[5]

Seriously, the flags are all over the place with this guy.

Basically what you are saying, is your definition of proof is the simple fact that it was ever published and not sued. Gotcha...

Nope, I said "smoke, if not fire" - and if we go back to the original post, I was speaking about how the writers might see it (as part of the "cornucopia" the other pieces of which you didn't contest). There is (or at least should be) a clear distinction between reasonable suspicion and guilt by innuendo. You can choose to find the NYT article "innuendo" but the writers have clearly drawn a line to reasonable suspicion.

That NY Times article is utter garbage, anyone associated with putting that out there has the journalistic integrity of a 1950's era soviet newspaper.

It was a 1950's Soviet newspaper. And the 30's and ...

So you are saying that if an article is written, in which EVERYTHING in it is anonymous that we should automatically trust the writer and editor, because they have standards? Wow, what a bunch of self important bs.

I'd just remind you that much of the early reporting in the Watergate scandal relied on anonymous sources - no named attribution. The fact that it was the WaPo publishing the story is what gave it traction. Oh, and there were LOTS of people who said the same thing you just did - including the White House press secretary and the minority leader in the US senate.

1. baseball writers on average have the intelligence of a slug.
2. baseball writers on average have the integrity of a ambulance chasing lawyer.

Yes.

And, you can sub-in "many journalists" for "baseball writers" if you like.

However, McNamee's defamation suit against Clemens figures to get in front of a jury - and THAT is going to be ugly

That's quite a story. If what it reports is true, we're going to see Clemens be hit with accusations not that he cheated on his wife, but that he had lied about his affairs, and that therefore it's more likely that Clemens lied about steroids than that McNamee was lying about Clemens.

Yeah, that really follows. Just like Sammy Sosa's corked bat proves that he juiced.

Somewhere Bill Clinton is reaching for his groin in sympathy. Maybe McNamee will hire Kenneth Starr as his lawyer.

I was around then - big Jays fan in the 80's, saw the whole Puckett growth from no power leadoff hitter to Superman. Remember watching Bob Costas make the bet on TV that he'd name his kid after Puckett if Kirby kept hitting and he did so Costas gave his kid 'Kirby' as a middle name iirc. As I said, Puckett was viewed as a big teddy bear - super lovable, perfect public image. On a side note, he was the only non-white on the Twins at one point iirc. He just was the perfect guy at the perfect time as far as the media was concerned and his big smile and round look made him even more perfect.

Still, his career numbers were not 'put him in now' stuff. 207 HR, 2304 hits, just one batting title, one RBI title. He did lead in hits 4 times. Still, I felt he came up just a bit short and would need time to convince voters. Gary Carter was on his 4th ballot that year, Winfield his first, Whitaker & Gibson & Parrish on their only ballot. 5 guys who'd get in eventually (other than Winfield & Puckett) also on the ballot (Carter, Rice, Sutter, Gossage, Blyleven) plus Jack Morris. Ah well. He was extremely fun to watch and cheer on.

Basically what you are saying, is your definition of proof is the simple fact that it was ever published and not sued. Gotcha...

Bravo.

Mark Purdy's ballot (4): Maddux, Glavine, Smith, Thomas

The Repoz/leokitty/baseballot hybrid tracker is still going strong as well: http://bit.ly/JAuJji

So you are saying that if an article is written, in which EVERYTHING in it is anonymous that we should automatically trust the writer and editor, because they have standards? Wow, what a bunch of self important bs.

I'd just remind you that much of the early reporting in the Watergate scandal relied on anonymous sources - no named attribution. The fact that it was the WaPo publishing the story is what gave it traction. Oh, and there were LOTS of people who said the same thing you just did - including the White House press secretary and the minority leader in the US senate.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. There's a world of difference between saying you have to dismiss those anonymous leaks offhand and saying you shouldn't use anonymous leaks as any sort of conclusive proof.

Mark Purdy's ballot (4): Maddux, Glavine, Smith, Thomas

I feel bad about this, but I really want to know if this got the lowest Tango Score so far.

The fact that it was the WaPo publishing the story is what gave it traction. Oh, and there were LOTS of people who said the same thing you just did - including the White House press secretary and the minority leader in the US senate.

If you watch "All the President's Men", you'll see that the turning point in the plot is when Ben Bradlee's insistence on a second, back-up source for Woodward and Berstein's story is satisfied.

The NYT "List" story is, IIRC, all from a single, anonymous, source. No?

Wow, Purdy's ballot is a Sesame Street one ... one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.

I feel bad about this, but I really want to know if this got the lowest Tango Score so far.

He's tied for the second-lowest spot with Murray at -2. Juan Vene remains the clubhouse leader at -13.

I think it's absolutely funny that Nolan Ryan isn't seen as an obvious roider. I feel as certain of his usage as anyone who has ever played the game, including Caminiti and Canseco. Tom House was his coach and Ryan said(in his hof speech)

That would be worse then finding out that there's no Santa Clause. I think I'd rather find out that John Wayne was gay.




edit: not that there' anything wrong with that.

one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.

Frank Thomas isn't a pitcher?
Tom Glavine never played for Chicago?

Frank Thomas isn't a pitcher?
Tom Glavine never played for Chicago?

Frank Thomas never played in the NL?
Tom Glavine is lefthanded?
Greg Maddux is the only guy I've spoken to?

I'd just remind you that much of the early reporting in the Watergate scandal relied on anonymous sources - no named attribution. The fact that it was the WaPo publishing the story is what gave it traction. Oh, and there were LOTS of people who said the same thing you just did - including the White House press secretary and the minority leader in the US senate.

And evidence came out...that Times article is several years old and no evidence ever came out. BBWAA writers and the NY Times have done absolutely nothing to make any REASONABLE person trust them on this issue. Again, the writers covered this stuff up for a decade and now have the audacity to start pretending like they have a moral bone in their body. They haven't given us any reason to trust them. They have outright LIED to us. (heck take Murray Chass..please.. here is a guy who is claiming he knows about Piazzas use due to confidential sources, but he covered it up for years....so we are supposed to believe him now? And not think that he's a bitter irrelevant scum that is seeing his industry dying thanks to actual people who bother to have a journalistic integrity bone in their body and start blogging.)

Sorry...there is no reason, any human being with a functioning brain should take the New York article seriously. It's pure innuendo and made up crap, there is no reason that anyone should take an article written by anyone who covered baseball in the 90's at face value. They have absolutely proven beyond any doubt, that they are either incompetent or deceivers, either way, there is a trust issue that they have lost.

Gee, it sure would be great if Maddux would ruin a great event for almost everyone by getting on the personal soapbox of BBTF, and completely redirecting the attention from where it should be (the inductees being celebrated) to where it shouldn't be (the candidates not yet inducted).

Yes, much better to keep things the way they are, with candidates not yet inducted hanging like a miasma over the inductees and the writers and the Hall. There's no more celebratory atmosphere on earth than the 2010s Hall of Fame.

That would be worse then finding out that there's no Santa Clause. I think I'd rather find out that John Wayne was gay.

Ehh... an overrated pitcher taking roids to prolong his career and add to his overrated reputation... Not really seeing anything bad about this other than "well no ####, that was obvious...I feel like an idiot for not suspecting him."

I think I'd rather find out that John Wayne was gay.

He tried it once, but it made his Cogburn until he peed a red river.

I think I'd rather find out that John Wayne was gay.

I dunno about that, but there was that time in Brentwood when he came to the the door in a dress.

Wow, Purdy's ballot is a Sesame Street one ... one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.

Not that I think Lee Smith remotely belongs in the hof, but he has 2 300 game winners, the all time(when he retired) saves leader and Frank Thomas, 500+ career homeruns and a guy that is on the short list of one of the greatest offensive peaks of all time. I can see someone who believes in magic numbers not putting other guys on because of PED taint. Although that doesn't justify not having Biggio if he is a magic numbers guy. (unless he's one of those radical ped taint guys...playing with caminiti = dirty)

Gizmo just cited on MLB Hot Stove

Did my name come up?

well, if the gizmo and repoz are right, this means that craig biggio is goin into the Hall and mah Husband FINALLY has to keep his promise he made to take me to cooperstown. he been prayin for a reprieve from the other 3/4 but i got a feelin that this year is the year we gonna fly on an air o plane to go to a museum.

you see men, us grrrls pretty much finally get our way

mwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

With Repoz's latest update, the 145 ballots he has are averaging 9.2 names per ballot. I'm still stunned by that and that this number has pretty much held steady throughout the Gizmo-counting period.

The fact that it was the WaPo publishing the story is what gave it traction. Oh, and there were LOTS of people who said the same thing you just did - including the White House press secretary and the minority leader in the US senate.




If you watch "All the President's Men", you'll see that the turning point in the plot is when Ben Bradlee's insistence on a second, back-up source for Woodward and Berstein's story is satisfied.

The NYT "List" story is, IIRC, all from a single, anonymous, source. No?

IDK how many sources were behind the NYT article. I will certainly defer to those with more experience than I have, but I can't imagine NYT letting a story hit which could realistically result in libel/defamation suits. In the book AtPM (which came 18 months after the original reporting) Bradlee is characterized as insisting on multiple sources, not so much to guard against libel/defamation, as to give his reporters enough ammunition to pursue a worthy story to its logical conclusion. Bradlee did write about this separately in one of his books... and truth be told, he DID get hoodwinked by the writer of "Jimmy's World."

Nobody's perfect.

From the NYT article:

Sammy Sosa, who joined with Mark McGwire in 1998 in a celebrated pursuit of baseball’s single-season home run record, is among the players who tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug in 2003, according to lawyers with knowledge of the drug-testing results from that year.

Note that "lawyers" is more than 1 source, though they may not be multiple independent sources. it is not clear in that regard.

1144. ursus arctos Posted: January 06, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4631649)

ESPN ballot dump.

Maddux and Thomas unanimous; Glavine 16 of 17; Biggio 13; Piazza 12; Raines and Morris 11; Bagwell 10; Bonds and Clemens 9

Zero votes for Sosa. Total 156 votes: 9.18 per ballot for the ESPN crew.

Note that "lawyers" is more than 1 source, though they may not be multiple independent sources. it is not clear in that regard.

That is about as much evidence for Elvis Presley to be alive and hanging out with aliens.. Damnit, I have to believe the world news now too.

Again, the writers covered this stuff up for a decade and now have the audacity to start pretending like they have a moral bone in their body

This is one of the silliest memes in this whole mess. The writers didn't "cover up" anything. You're confusing the fact that the traditional tone in which the narrative baseball, baseball players, and baseball games are discussed in mainstream newspapers -- generally positive, often bordering on mythological -- continued through the Steroid Era, with a cover-up.

Moreover, the writers didn't 'roid. The players did. They bear the first line of responsibility, whatever spin you want to put on the journalism of the times. It wasn't the writers' responsibility to keep the sport clean and Barry Bonds roiding didn't make Murray Chass or Jack Curry less "moral."

So you are saying that if an article is written, in which EVERYTHING in it is anonymous that we should automatically trust the writer and editor, because they have standards? Wow, what a bunch of self important bs.

He said it was smoke, not fire. The NY Times reported that he tested positive in 2003. That doesn't make it so, but it's not nothing. To call it "smoke" is rational. Your reaction not so much.

Note that "lawyers" is more than 1 source

No. Not in my book.

In your book, a dish runs away with a spoon.

Catching up:

1. Sosa, PEDs aside, is an obvious, slam-dunk HOFer. Clear 600 HR and be a popular figure and face of the game for a few years? You're a HOFer. As many have said, it isn't the hall of value, it's the hall of fame and narrative is important. Sure, he'd be wildly overrated if none of us had ever heard of PEDs but he'd be a safe HOFer.

2. There is no there there with Sosa and PEDs. That said, I'd be shocked if he wasn't a user. Just as I'd be shocked Ryan wasn't a user. Just as I'd be shocked about most any player from the 70s, 80s and 90s not being a user.

3. I'd love to see a HOFer make the statements being desired Maddux (or other) make during his HOF speech. Just not at his HOF speech.

4. How old is the Gizmo? Has anyone come close to 100% on the gizmo alone?

5. The very worst thing about PEDs is what it has done to internet discussion of baseball.

With Repoz's latest update, the 145 ballots he has are averaging 9.2 names per ballot. I'm still stunned by that and that this number has pretty much held steady throughout the Gizmo-counting period.

And in a probably-related stat, everyone with a vote is above 5%.

IDK how many sources were behind the NYT article. I will certainly defer to those with more experience than I have, but I can't imagine NYT letting a story hit which could realistically result in libel/defamation suits.

I think the NYT article is clearly smoke. However, if you smelled smoke 11 years ago and haven't yet found fire, it might just be a guy outside your window having a smoke.

OTOH, the quoted sentence is astounding. Have you not paid attention to the recent history of the NY Times?

4. How old is the Gizmo? Has anyone come close to 100% on the gizmo alone?

I know that at least one voter publicly admitted to not voting for Rickey Henderson. That was 2009 and nobody's done better in real voting since him. I don't remember if the Gizmo existed in 2007 or, if it did, if it identified anybody who didn't vote for Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn (Ripken was left off of only 8 ballots; Gwynn was left off of 13).

I am not a lawyer,

It shows. I am.

many of my friends are, and to a man/woman they thought that the FED case against Clemens was iffy, even with Pettitte's testimony - and once he "partially recanted" the case was dead.

That only proves my point. The Feds have enormous resources to bring to bear. All they had to prove was that Clemens did steroids, from any source. It did not have to be Pettitte. It did not have to be McNamee. Any source. And boy, did they look. As is their habit, they went everywhere and looked everywhere, and at the end of the day, still, all they had was the little scumbag McNamee.

HOWEVER, those same lawyers see a real chance that McNamee can win (or at worst get a settlement) in the civil defamation suit. I suppose that Clemens has generational money, and so he can absorb the monetary end of an adverse jury decision - but just the testimony (extra marital affairs, bloody needles, throwing wife under the bus AGAIN) will be enough to reinforce the PED-averse writers from being swayed to vote for Clemens.

You seem to think McNamee isn't going to have to take the stand. Whatever they have against Clemens* pales in comparison to what they have on McNamee. He claims his reputation was tarnished. Wait until the jury gets a load of what the reputation is.


*and if you practiced law, or even read the article, you would know that it is not at all clear that just because the judge allowed discovery, the information will come into evidence. The rules of Discovery are very broad and allows the turning over of a lot of rocks; but at trial, the rules of evidence apply, and they are far narrower.

Tom Haudricourt tweet:

Deciding between putting HOF ballot online tomorrow or wearing suit of raw meat into lion's exhibit at the zoo. Close call.

-- MWE

Mark Purdy's ballot (4): Maddux, Glavine, Smith, Thomas

His 2013 ballot (via leokitty's spreadsheet): Biggio, Morris, Piazza, Raines. He also voted for Lee Smith in 2012 (but not in 2013).

This is puzzling to say the least.

His 2013 ballot (via leokitty's spreadsheet): Biggio, Morris, Piazza, Raines. He also voted for Lee Smith in 2012 (but not in 2013).

This is puzzling to say the least.

Strange, indeed. Here's my best guess. He doesn't think that more than 4 players should be inducted at one time, so he will never vote for more than 4 players. If a player has been on the ballot for a long time and not been elected, then he probably doesn't deserve to be, so he has a bias toward voting for players in their first year on the ballot. He ran into Lee Smith once last year and Lee was pissed off at him for taking him off of the ballot in 2013 and threatened to do grave bodily harm to him if he didn't put him back on the ballot this year. That's the best I can come up with.

Tom Haudricourt tweet: Deciding between putting HOF ballot online tomorrow or wearing suit of raw meat into lion's exhibit at the zoo. Close call.

Must be just Morris.

That's the best I can come up with.

I'm going with Multiple Personality Disorder

Those ESPN writers, breaking it down by writer:

Bryant: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Morris. (4 - that's all. But we already saw his ballot a few pages ago. This means he had almost half of the blank ballot spaces among the full 17 ballots put out by ESPN guys).

Caple: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Morris, Raines, Bonds, Clemens, Trammmell, Edgar

Crasnick: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Bagwell, Schilling, Kent, Mussina

Edes: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Piazza, Morris, Raines, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling

Gomez: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Morris, Trammell, McGriff, Lee Smith

Graziano: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Morris, Raines, Schilling, Mussina, Trammell, McGriff

Knisley: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Kent, Edgar, Lee Smith

Kurkjian: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Morris, Raines, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens,

Matthews: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Bagwell, Schilling, Mussina, L. Walker

O'Connor: Maddux, Thomas, Biggio, Piazza, Morris, Raines, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling

Olney: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Morris, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Palmerio.

Pacarelli: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens,

Roberts: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, McGwire

Rubin: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Morris, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling

Saxon: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Raines, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Kent.

Stanton: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Morris, Trammell, Edgar, McGriff, and Mattingly

Stark: Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Biggio, Piazza, Morris, Raines, Bagwell, Kent, Mussina

O'Connor is the one who left off Glavine. From Knisley-on-down, everyone had Biggio & Piazza except Stanton (no Piazza for him).

The 10 guys Tim Kurkjian voted for were the 10 most popular guys at ESPN. None of the other ESPN writers did that, so Kurkjian is Mr. Concensus at ESPN. Buster Olney came close - you'd have to flip his Palmiero vote for a Raines vote, though. O'Connor is even closer - he voted for ESPN's 11th most popular guy (Schilling) while leaving off Glavine. Saxon is another one that just missed pulling off a Kurkjian-esque ballot - just have to flip Kent and Morris (so, in other words, Saxon has a ballot BTF likes better). Pascarelli voted for only nine guys -- he put nine of ESPN's favorite 10, leaving off Jack Morris.

The anti-Kurkjian (that is to say, the guy that voted for the most guys outside of the ESPN top 10 candidates) is a tie between two writers who voted for four non-concensus candidates. Graziano had Schilling, Mussina, Trammel, and McGriff. Stanton had Trammell, Edgar, McGriff, and Mattingly. Stanton's ballot is probably the oddest.

Graziano and Rubin had the most pitcher-freindly ballot: five pitchers each. O'Connor would've joined them, if he'd put Glavine on.

At 145, Biggio still above 80%.

Looking good for "Lisa Does Cooperstown".

Must be just Morris.

Actually, Haudricourt's ballot from last year is on the BBWAA's website and it's non-terrible: used all 10 slots, either no PED penalty or a fairly high standard for suspicion (he included Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa). It did include both Morris and Smith, and if those two aren't among the guys he drops for Maddux, Glavine, Thomas (et al?) that'd be pretty bad. But he'd have to try awfully hard to put out a more bizarre / less defensible 2014 ballot than Mark Purdy, for example.

1162. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 06, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4631700)

Mark Purdy's ballot (4): Maddux, Glavine, Smith, Thomas



I feel bad about this, but I really want to know if this got the lowest Tango Score so far.

Tango's system

The ballots Tango has scored so far.

Actually, Haudricourt's ballot from last year is on the BBWAA's website and it's non-terrible: used all 10 slots, either no PED penalty or a fairly high standard for suspicion (he included Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa). It did include both Morris and Smith, and if those two aren't among the guys he drops for Maddux, Glavine, Thomas (et al?) that'd be pretty bad. But he'd have to try awfully hard to put out a more bizarre / less defensible 2014 ballot than Mark Purdy, for example.

If he voted for Clemens and Bonds again, he knows that he'll get plenty of backlash...maybe not from here, but BBTF doesn't represent the popular opinion.