PDA

View Full Version : 2011 HOF Class announced today



edabbs44
01-05-2011, 08:35 AM
Figure this will be a hot topic with Barry up for election today. Here's a question...how come Fred McGriff doesn't get more love from the voters?

George Anderson
01-05-2011, 09:43 AM
I am not going to far out on a limb here but it will be Blyleven and Alomar.

Larkin will end up around 58%

camisadelgolf
01-05-2011, 10:07 AM
Figure this will be a hot topic with Barry up for election today. Here's a question...how come Fred McGriff doesn't get more love from the voters?
That's a very good question. For one thing--especially in his 30s--he wasn't often elite. Rather, he was consistently very good. His career high in RBIs was 107. He scored over 100 runs only twice. He never hit 40 home runs in a season. He never came close to 200 hits in a season. He was short of 500 career home runs.

Another thing--and this might be the bigger factor--is that he didn't spend much time playing in big markets. He wasn't flashy.

But if Tony Perez can get voted in, maybe McGriff will eventually make it.

Slyder
01-05-2011, 10:19 AM
He also drug his career out so long after his prime just trying to get to 500 that he hurt other numbers. He hit like Willie Mays in 72-73, unlike Willie, Fred didnt already have it in the bag.

Homer Bailey
01-05-2011, 10:21 AM
HOF % Leaderboard through 132 Full BBWAA Ballots…

93.1 - Alomar
79.2 - Blyleven
67.0 - Larkin
50.0 - J. Morris
46.2 - Raines
40.0 - Bagwell

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/hall_of_fame_ballot_gathering_machine/

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 10:22 AM
He also drug his career out so long after his prime just trying to get to 500 that he hurt other numbers. He hit like Willie Mays in 72-73, unlike Willie, Fred didnt already have it in the bag.

He retired in 2004 after a bad 27 game stint.

2003: started the decline with a .750 OPS.

2002: .273/.353/.505 with 30 HRs and 103 RBI.

2001: .306/.386/.544 with 31 and 102.

I wouldn't say his career was dragged out.

Slyder
01-05-2011, 10:24 AM
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/hall_of_fame_ballot_gathering_machine/

Wow I'm impressed that Larkin is sitting right at the cusp over Morris who I think has been on the ballot a few years. I thought he'd be sitting in the 40-50 range.

Its what 70 to make it?

redsfandan
01-05-2011, 10:45 AM
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/hall_of_fame_ballot_gathering_machine/
I hope that's right. If it falls like that it would set up Larkin nicely to get in next year.

Wow I'm impressed that Larkin is sitting right at the cusp over Morris who I think has been on the ballot a few years. I thought he'd be sitting in the 40-50 range.

Its what 70 to make it?

75%

camisadelgolf
01-05-2011, 11:29 AM
When I consider someone for the Hall of Fame, I ask myself, "Is he one of the best to ever play his position?" And the thing that really bothers me is that apparently a lot of voters would answer 'yes' when asked about Jack Morris. With all due respect to Morris, how the heck did that happen?

Razor Shines
01-05-2011, 11:32 AM
Wow, I can't believe how low Bagwell is. 2nd Greatest NL 1stbaseman of all time?

westofyou
01-05-2011, 11:38 AM
On Hall of Fame day, the BBWAA site got hacked (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/05/on-hall-of-fame-day-the-bbwaa-site-got-hacked/)



Of course since, by definition, the IT experts are computer geeks I’m guessing half the BBWAA membership is leaning over their shoulders insulting them and telling them that they need to get out of their mothers’ basements once in a while as they try to fix the problem. Might make the fix take longer.

Roy Tucker
01-05-2011, 11:51 AM
Wow, I can't believe how low Bagwell is. 2nd Greatest NL 1stbaseman of all time?

Yeah, I feel the same. The guy fits all of my HoF criteria.

But there is this.... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/sports/baseball/05kepner.html

Homer Bailey
01-05-2011, 12:09 PM
When I consider someone for the Hall of Fame, I ask myself, "Is he one of the best to ever play his position?" And the thing that really bothers me is that apparently a lot of voters would answer 'yes' when asked about Jack Morris. With all due respect to Morris, how the heck did that happen?

I'm with you. If a career ERA+ of 105 is HOF material, then there really shouldn't be a hall of fame.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 12:12 PM
Yeah, I feel the same. The guy fits all of my HoF criteria.

But there is this.... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/sports/baseball/05kepner.html

From an espn article


Similarly, in an interview with ESPN, Jeff Bagwell insisted he, too, was clean. Now, Bagwell had never tested positive but has been caught up in the rampant speculation that surrounds players who bulked up during this time.

Bagwell hit a total of only four home runs in the minor leagues—four—and yet went on to become a terrific slugger who also just happened to lift weights with Mark McGwire. He also played with Andy Pettitte and was coached by Rudy Jaramillo.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 12:14 PM
Innuendo and assumptions, the science of the BBWAA

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 12:15 PM
Innuendo and assumptions, the science of the BBWAA

I think there are certain guys you can elevate to probable cause.

RedsBaron
01-05-2011, 12:20 PM
He retired in 2004 after a bad 27 game stint.

2003: started the decline with a .750 OPS.

2002: .273/.353/.505 with 30 HRs and 103 RBI.

2001: .306/.386/.544 with 31 and 102.

I wouldn't say his career was dragged out.

I agree. Perhaps no player's HOF chances were damaged more by the 1994 work stoppage/lock-out/strike than was McGriff. With roughly one-third of the season left to go, McGriff was hitting .318 with 34 HRs and 94 RBI. It is very probable that, but for the strike, McGriff would have hit at least another 7 HRs that season, and those 7 HRs would have given him 500 HRs for his career.
Voters are still trying to sort out what, if anything, to do with regard to players who either used or are strongly suspected of having used PEDs. An argument can be made that McGriff may be entitled to "extra credit" since he was never even suspected of being a PEDs user.
I do not expect Barry Larkin to be elected this year, but I will be shocked and disappointed if he is not elected next year.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 12:23 PM
I think there are certain guys you can elevate to probable cause.

You think they might get their numbers straight.

Bagwell played 2 year in the ML he had 6 HR's not 4. ;)

He had 34 2b's to tie for the league lead

Team leader in HR's that year?

Eric Wedge with 5, league lead Rico Brogna with 21

Methinks that the one year that Bagwell played a full season the ML he led his team in SLG% and was 5th in the league, .43 points more than Bernie Williams. 10 points more than Rico Brogna.

the next year he was a MLB player

RichRed
01-05-2011, 12:36 PM
When I consider someone for the Hall of Fame, I ask myself, "Is he one of the best to ever play his position?" And the thing that really bothers me is that apparently a lot of voters would answer 'yes' when asked about Jack Morris. With all due respect to Morris, how the heck did that happen?

It is pretty baffling. I think he's been elevated to legend status by some, based on a couple of big performances in the postseason.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 12:38 PM
You think they might get their numbers straight.

Bagwell played 2 year in the ML he had 6 HR's not 4. ;)

He had 34 2b's to tie for the league lead

Team leader in HR's that year?

Eric Wedge with 5, league lead Rico Brogna with 21

Methinks that the one year that Bagwell played a full season the ML he led his team in SLG% and was 5th in the league, .43 points more than Bernie Williams. 10 points more than Rico Brogna.

the next year he was a MLB player

Are there any examples of guys who were 35-45 HR guys in the majors who averaged one per 100 ABs in the minors? Or guys who had seasons in the majors with SLG over 300 points than what they did in the minors?

I know he didn't spend much time in the minors, but anyone who puts up a line of .368/.451/.750 4 years after putting up a minor league total of .321/.410/.436 may have some legitimate questions to answer.

I'm not convicting anyone...but these questions are legit.

Interesting Verducci article from 1999:


In the entire 1980s, the 40-homer barrier was crashed 13 times. Last year 13 players hit 40. The demarcation point for the home run explosion is 1993, the first of the two most recent expansion seasons. In the six seasons since then—two of which were shortened by a strike—players have hit 40 or more homers 53 times. That's four more 40-homer seasons than occurred in the previous quarter of a century (1967 to '92). What happened? Take a look at Bagwell, your basic protein-packing, iron-pumping, creatine-chugging, andro-popping, body-armor-wearing '90s kind of slugger, who is 25 pounds of muscle heavier than he was as a Red Sox prospect. How could Gorman have foreseen all that?




Always an avid weightlifter, Bagwell hired a bodybuilder to train him after that '95 season. The trainer, Herschel Johnson, suggested a program to make Bagwell stronger for baseball without adding too much bulk, which might cause a loss in flexibility. "I don't care about that," Bagwell retorted. "I need to get as big as I can and be as strong as I can."

He added 20 pounds that winter through intense weightlifting and a high-protein, low-fat that (heavy on egg whites, tuna, turkey and steak). Bagwell hit 108 dingers over the next three seasons, including a career-high 43 in 1997. His off-season regimen now includes not only Johnson's training but also creatine, the nutritional supplement, and the controversial testosterone-boosting androstenedione. "It may help your workout, but it doesn't help you hit home runs," he says.



http://cnnsi.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=A+self-made+slugger+with+a+screwy+stance,+Houston's+-+07.19.99+-+SI+Vault&expire=&urlID=443671352&fb=Y&url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1016442/1/index.htm&partnerID=289881

oneupper
01-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Bagwell doesn't pass the smell test. Or the duck test.

George Anderson
01-05-2011, 02:04 PM
It is Bert and Robbie.

Barry was at 62%

cumberlandreds
01-05-2011, 02:09 PM
Both very deserving. Depending on who is eligible next year, I would think Larkin would get in at that time.

Caveat Emperor
01-05-2011, 02:10 PM
Barry was at 62%

It's amazing how an unchanging set of numbers can suddenly be more convincing 365 days after the last vote.

Razor Shines
01-05-2011, 02:12 PM
It's amazing how an unchanging set of numbers can suddenly be more convincing 365 days after the last vote.

He works a little harder and he might get in after a couple more tries.

top6
01-05-2011, 02:19 PM
Barry should get in next year, but if he doesn't it's going to be awfully tough over the next few years. But with that many votes, it's pretty much inevitable that he gets in eventually.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 02:26 PM
It's amazing how an unchanging set of numbers can suddenly be more convincing 365 days after the last vote.

I read an interesting thing on this...there are voters who will vote for 10 players every ballot and, when there are inductees, spots will open on their ballot. For example, next year certain voters will have 2 slots open.

HokieRed
01-05-2011, 02:29 PM
I read an interesting thing on this...there are voters who will vote for 10 players every ballot and, when there are inductees, spots will open on their ballot. For example, next year certain voters will have 2 slots open.

But does that mean Lark wasn't already in these voters' top ten?

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 02:39 PM
But does that mean Lark wasn't already in these voters' top ten?

True.

Johnny Footstool
01-05-2011, 02:49 PM
It's amazing how an unchanging set of numbers can suddenly be more convincing 365 days after the last vote.

It's the BBWAA exercising their one remaining power: complete autonomy in selecting HOF recipients. These guys are implemening their own stratification to HOF inductees by selecting certain players on the first ballot and other, not-as-impressive-but-still-qualified players on later ballots. They're like bouncers at a crummy nightclub, creating their own levels of exclusivity in order to inflate their own egos.

camisadelgolf
01-05-2011, 02:56 PM
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/if-alomar-why-not-larkin/

They are the very definition of contemporaries. Larkin began his career two years earlier, but they both retired at the end of the 2004 season, having their careers almost entirely overlap. They are both middle infielders with essentially the same exact skillset. Their career lines are practically identical. Seriously.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/860_335___sgraph_%20_1_5_2011.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/860_335___ograph_%20_1_5_2011.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/860_335___agraph_%20_1_5_2011.png

George Anderson
01-05-2011, 03:04 PM
What is disturbing about the whole voting process is in 1999 Blyleven received 14.1%. If a player has less than a 5% vote total then they are dropped from the ballot for the next year. Blyleven went from being 9.1% away from being dropped from the ballot in 1999 to achieving a vote total of 79.7% in 2011. His vote total difference between his low in 1999 to 2011 is 65.6% This is just dumb.


Hall of Fame
1998 BBWAA (17.5%)
1999 BBWAA (14.1%)
2000 BBWAA (17.4%)
2001 BBWAA (23.5%)
2002 BBWAA (26.3%)
2003 BBWAA (29.2%)
2004 BBWAA (35.4%)
2005 BBWAA (40.9%)
2006 BBWAA (53.3%)
2007 BBWAA (47.7%)
2008 BBWAA (61.9%)
2009 BBWAA (62.7%)
2010 BBWAA (74.2%)

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 03:35 PM
What is disturbing about the whole voting process is in 1999 Blyleven received 14.1%. If a player has less than a 5% vote total then they are dropped from the ballot for the next year. Blyleven went from being 9.1% away from being dropped from the ballot in 1999 to achieving a vote total of 79.7% in 2011. His vote total difference between his low in 1999 to 2011 is 65.6% This is just dumb.


Hall of Fame
1998 BBWAA (17.5%)
1999 BBWAA (14.1%)
2000 BBWAA (17.4%)
2001 BBWAA (23.5%)
2002 BBWAA (26.3%)
2003 BBWAA (29.2%)
2004 BBWAA (35.4%)
2005 BBWAA (40.9%)
2006 BBWAA (53.3%)
2007 BBWAA (47.7%)
2008 BBWAA (61.9%)
2009 BBWAA (62.7%)
2010 BBWAA (74.2%)

Devil's advocate here....what if this is an example of voters becoming more educated through the years?

George Anderson
01-05-2011, 03:39 PM
Devil's advocate here....what if this is an example of voters becoming more educated through the years?

It is possible but if you as a writer haven't taken the time to research every single player on the ballot thoroughly then you aren't doing your job. Once a player is eligible as a writer you should know just about everything about that players career. You should be thoroughly educated about that player in year one and not year twelve

PuffyPig
01-05-2011, 03:40 PM
Devil's advocate here....what if this is an example of voters becoming more educated through the years?

Possible, except this tend has been going on forever I think.

Voters start dumb with many players, and get smarter as time goes on. But at the same time, in the middle of the other player's trend upwards, they start dumb again.

If your reason was true, Larkin would have made it in his first try. He will get in.

redsfandan
01-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Both very deserving. Depending on who is eligible next year, I would think Larkin would get in at that time.

I think Bernie Williams is the best player added to the ballot next year. So, Larkin has a really good shot.

RedsManRick
01-05-2011, 04:11 PM
I was most disappointed in Tim Raines' showing. The guy is a clear no doubter in my book -- 2nd greatest leadoff man since WWII. Just had the bad fortune of being a contemporary of the greatest and playing in Montreal.

Larkin is a given in the next year or two. What really frustrates me is that some deserving guys don't get the attention they deserve in the voting process because the voters didn't give them enough attention while they played. It's not Raines' or Trammel's fault that they were criminally underrated in their own time.

Chip R
01-05-2011, 04:18 PM
It's the BBWAA exercising their one remaining power: complete autonomy in selecting HOF recipients. These guys are implemening their own stratification to HOF inductees by selecting certain players on the first ballot and other, not-as-impressive-but-still-qualified players on later ballots. They're like bouncers at a crummy nightclub, creating their own levels of exclusivity in order to inflate their own egos.

Well put.


It is possible but if you as a writer haven't taken the time to research every single player on the ballot thoroughly then you aren't doing your job. Once a player is eligible as a writer you should know just about everything about that players career. You should be thoroughly educated about that player in year one and not year twelve

Quite true but should we be surprised? This is the same bunch that gave Volquez ROY votes when he was in his 2nd season.

kaldaniels
01-05-2011, 04:28 PM
Is there anyone on the board that you guys can see making a Blyleven-esque rise up the voting over the next say, 8-10 years?

Strikes Out Looking
01-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Is there anyone on the board that you guys can see making a Blyleven-esque rise up the voting over the next say, 8-10 years?

The steroid guys could if say, after Bonds or Clemens possibly get in, the writers feel the wall has been breached -- Mcgwire and Palmerio and others may be able to follow them in. I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying it could happen.

RedsManRick
01-05-2011, 04:53 PM
The steroid guys could if say, after Bonds or Clemens possibly get in, the writers feel the wall has been breached -- Mcgwire and Palmerio and others may be able to follow them in. I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying it could happen.

Agreed. If public sentiment towards the era changes, those guys who are primarily being left off b/c of PEDs will rise pretty quickly.

Joseph
01-05-2011, 04:59 PM
What was Lark's percentage last year?

camisadelgolf
01-05-2011, 04:59 PM
What was Lark's percentage last year?
51.6%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_2010

pedro
01-05-2011, 05:07 PM
Bagwell doesn't pass the smell test. Or the duck test.

Based on what evidence exactly?

I think it kind of sucks that just because a guy decided to work hard and make himself stronger that people assume that he must also be using steroids.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 05:12 PM
Based on what evidence exactly?

Home runs and muscles is about as deep as one can scratch.

Bunch of conjecture from what I see... of course if steroids made you hit HR's I'm still pondering what happened to Hal Morris

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 05:16 PM
Home runs and muscles is about as deep as one can scratch.

Bunch of conjecture from what I see... of course if steroids made you hit HR's I'm still pondering what happened to Hal Morris

No one is saying that steroids is a magic pill. Take two, swig some milk and tomorrow you hit 50 HRs. There is obviously other factors, such as training, to go along with it.

Maybe Morris didn't bust his butt like others did and didn't maximize the effects.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 05:22 PM
Based on what evidence exactly?

I think it kind of sucks that just because a guy decided to work hard and make himself stronger that people assume that he must also be using steroids.

It does suck, but it isn't like the players didn't make their own bed on this one.

Obviously we don't have all the proof and never will. But we also have years and years of historical data and trends to go off of and Bags' career trends are highly suspect. And it sucks for him if he was clean.

But I can say this...many guys who we read all about 10-15 years ago about how much they work out, how brutal their workout regimen was, how crazy into fitness they were, all these guys who were posing without their shirts, all these guys talking up andro and all this stuff, so many have been outed as users.

We have seen so many people with the same types of evidence (either hard evidence or circumstancial) and then when you see someone fit the same criteria, I can't see how we ignore it. I really don't.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 05:23 PM
Obviously we don't have all the proof and never will

So we'll just assume that everyone is a cheater?

pedro
01-05-2011, 05:28 PM
It does suck, but it isn't like the players didn't make their own bed on this one.

Obviously we don't have all the proof and never will. But we also have years and years of historical data and trends to go off of and Bags' career trends are highly suspect. And it sucks for him if he was clean.

But I can say this...many guys who we read all about 10-15 years ago about how much they work out, how brutal their workout regimen was, how crazy into fitness they were, all these guys who were posing without their shirts, all these guys talking up andro and all this stuff, so many have been outed as users.

We have seen so many people with the same types of evidence (either hard evidence or circumstancial) and then when you see someone fit the same criteria, I can't see how we ignore it. I really don't.

Just because some guys that worked out a lot chose to take steroids doesn't mean everyone did. Failing any real evidence I think it's appropriate to give a person the benefit of the doubt rather than make baseless accusations based on conjecture.

Did Bagwell take steroids? Maybe. But none of us have any real evidence on which to base that assumption.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 05:28 PM
So we'll just assume that everyone is a cheater?

Not everyone. Just those who all the signs point directly at.

If the players want to blame someone for causing this, they can look in the mirror. And at the locker next to them. And to their union heads.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 05:30 PM
Just because some guys that worked out a lot chose to take steroids doesn't mean everyone did. Failing any real evidence I think it's appropriate to give a person the benefit of the doubt rather than make baseless accusations based on conjecture.

Did Bagwell take steroids? Maybe. But none of us have any real evidence on which to base that assumption.

We have no evidence on Sammy, except that he forgot how to speak English when he was asked the question. What are your thoughts on him?

Obviously we don't have any hard evidence on Bagwell, but I think we can use our intelligence to make an educated guess.

pedro
01-05-2011, 05:31 PM
Not everyone. Just those who all the signs point directly at.

If the players want to blame someone for causing this, they can look in the mirror. And at the locker next to them. And to their union heads.

You don't have a shred of actual evidence to back up your assertions but yeah, go right ahead.

pedro
01-05-2011, 05:32 PM
We have no evidence on Sammy, except that he forgot how to speak English when he was asked the question. What are your thoughts on him?

Obviously we don't have any hard evidence on Bagwell, but I think we can use our intelligence to make an educated guess.

except that Sosa tested positive in 2003.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4264062

westofyou
01-05-2011, 05:33 PM
Not everyone. Just those who all the signs point directly at.

Sounds kinda storm trooperish to me.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:12 PM
except that Sosa tested positive in 2003.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4264062

With your stance, I'm a little surprised that this would be solid evidence for you. Obviously it is more than my scientific analysis, but I don't think any of us needed this report to validate anything.

By the way, you know who knows a whole lot about who used and who didn't? The guys keeping the users out.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:17 PM
By the way, you know who knows a whole lot about who used and who didn't? The guys keeping the users out.

Seriously???

Where's THEIR evidence?

Witch hunts are sooooo fun!!

pedro
01-05-2011, 06:19 PM
With your stance, I'm a little surprised that this would be solid evidence for you. Obviously it is more than my scientific analysis, but I don't think any of us needed this report to validate anything.

By the way, you know who knows a whole lot about who used and who didn't? The guys keeping the users out.

That's beyond weak.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Sounds kinda storm trooperish to me.

The burden of proof in this court is a lot easier to meet than in real court.

It's wild how many athletes in the past 15-20 years have shattered so many records and done things we have never seen in any sport. I don't think it is a coincidence.

pedro
01-05-2011, 06:21 PM
The burden of proof in this court is a lot easier to meet than in real court.

It's wild how many athletes in the past 15-20 years have shattered so many records and done things we have never seen in any sport. I don't think it is a coincidence.

Well it's obvious who this court's jester is.

I have all the evidence that I need.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:23 PM
Seriously???

Where's THEIR evidence?

Witch hunts are sooooo fun!!

Seriously.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:26 PM
The burden of proof in this court is a lot easier to meet than in real court.

It's wild how many athletes in the past 15-20 years have shattered so many records and done things we have never seen in any sport. I don't think it is a coincidence.

And yet everything that occurred is part of the games history.

You can't wipe out a wide swath of history because it doesn't jibe with what we wanted to occur.

Pete Rose worked out a lot and hung out with steroid users and dealers, I suppose he's a user too?

At least based on what some use as evidence.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:30 PM
Well it's obvious who this court's jester is.

I have all the evidence that I need.

Right.

Let me ask you this...as "unfair" as this might be to certain players, isn't it equally unfair to guys like Sosa and ARod when they get outer and others don't?

I know when my son asks me about the steroid era and who likely used, who was truly great while being clean, I have a good idea of who I will name. And I know what side of the ledger Bagwell will be on.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:32 PM
Right.

Let me ask you this...as "unfair" as this might be to certain players, isn't it equally unfair to guys like Sosa and ARod when they get outer and others don't?

I know when my son asks me about the steroid era and who likely used, who was truly great while being clean, I have a good idea of who I will name. And I know what side of the ledger Bagwell will be on.

Gonna let him in on the Red Juice and Greenies era while you're at it?

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:38 PM
Question:

The 60's - 70's era of pitching dominance is only met with one other era that it occurred (Deadball era) Does that mean that pitchers from that era should be looked at cross eyed too?

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:44 PM
Question:

The 60's - 70's era of pitching dominance is only met with one other era that it occurred (Deadball era) Does that mean that pitchers from that era should be looked at cross eyed too?

I think some numbers from 1968 is viewed somewhat differently than other seasons, no?

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:45 PM
Gonna let him in on the Red Juice and Greenies era while you're at it?

I'm not sure that we are in the same ballpark here.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:46 PM
I think some numbers from 1968 is viewed somewhat differently than other seasons, no?

Don't see anyone stepping on legacy's so carelessly in that scenario.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:48 PM
I'm not sure that we are in the same ballpark here.

Really?

Bowls of pills didn't keep bodies on the field... generating numbers??

Ever do speed?

kaldaniels
01-05-2011, 06:52 PM
For me this HOF/Steroid Era thing is a very tough road to navigate. But I'm not going to begrudge someone for drawing the "enough is enough" line with the Steroid Era.

westofyou
01-05-2011, 06:57 PM
Here are 2 guys who averaged a HR every 41 ab's in the ML

http://reds.enquirer.com/img/photos/1998/07/071798klu1_550x472.jpg

Here's the guy on the right a few years later

http://www.biographicon.com/images/Tedkluszewski.jpg

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 06:58 PM
Really?

Bowls of pills didn't keep bodies on the field... generating numbers??

Ever do speed?

Nope.

Did these substances generate numbers that we never saw before? I understand where you are coming from and don't doubt that there is some validity to this, but I can't sit here and ignore what we witnessed because of speed. If we were able to see the effects of speed the way we saw the effects of steroids, I might feel differently. But I can't give users a break on their video game stats because of some red juice that players may have drank in the 60s.

Caseyfan21
01-05-2011, 07:29 PM
It is possible but if you as a writer haven't taken the time to research every single player on the ballot thoroughly then you aren't doing your job. Once a player is eligible as a writer you should know just about everything about that players career. You should be thoroughly educated about that player in year one and not year twelve

Definitely valid points, George. I guess I am in the same camp as you....I can't figure out how a writer's opinion can change on a guy but I guess that's just how it is. I saw the Chicago Tribune sportswriter Teddy Greenstein put his votes up on Twitter today (Alomar, Blyleven, Raines, Lee Smith and Mattingly). He said Mattingly because he was his all time favorite player and he said he will probably vote Bagwell next year.

After reading that I tweeted back at him and asked him his logic for not including Larkin. His response: "Close call. Numbers prob justify and will give long look next yr"

That just strikes me the same as the above comment George made concerning a writer should do more upfront research. It just irks me a deserving guy like Larkin has to "wait in line" before he will most likely get in next year.

pedro
01-05-2011, 07:29 PM
Nope.

Did these substances generate numbers that we never saw before? I understand where you are coming from and don't doubt that there is some validity to this, but I can't sit here and ignore what we witnessed because of speed. If we were able to see the effects of speed the way we saw the effects of steroids, I might feel differently. But I can't give users a break on their video game stats because of some red juice that players may have drank in the 60s.

why do you even like baseball man?

I mean, really, they're all just a bunch of cheaters. I mean really, you KNOW it. You have the goods. Seriously, what about the guys who didn't turn in the guys that were getting stuff for the other guys? CHEATERS!!!

How could you forgive yourself if you forgave them?

paintmered
01-05-2011, 07:32 PM
I really wish steroids and the HOF weren't so attached at the hip these days. We could actually look forward to Larkin's chances of getting in next year instead.

pedro
01-05-2011, 07:36 PM
I really wish steroids and the HOF weren't so attached at the hip these days. We could actually look forward to Larkin's chances of getting in next year instead.

True that.

I'm fairly certain Barry wasn't a juicer.

OTOH, what about 1996?

Razor Shines
01-05-2011, 07:52 PM
And yet everything that occurred is part of the games history.

You can't wipe out a wide swath of history because it doesn't jibe with what we wanted to occur.

.

At this point this is where I am as well. It happened and baseball let it happen and soaked up the exposure.

You could make an argument that baseball embraced it.....until public opinion swayed.

I say that even Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Bonds...etc should get in. So I absolutely think that guys like Bagwell should be in...someone without any actual evidence against him.

edabbs44
01-05-2011, 09:18 PM
why do you even like baseball man?

I mean, really, they're all just a bunch of cheaters. I mean really, you KNOW it. You have the goods. Seriously, what about the guys who didn't turn in the guys that were getting stuff for the other guys? CHEATERS!!!

How could you forgive yourself if you forgave them?

I think you are taking it a little too far.

jojo
01-05-2011, 09:24 PM
At this point this is where I am as well. It happened and baseball let it happen and soaked up the exposure.

You could make an argument that baseball embraced it.....until public opinion swayed.

I say that even Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Bonds...etc should get in. So I absolutely think that guys like Bagwell should be in...someone without any actual evidence against him.

If Bonds doesn't get in, then just bulldoze the place and build a legit one.

BCubb2003
01-05-2011, 09:26 PM
I say that even Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Bonds...etc should get in. So I absolutely think that guys like Bagwell should be in...someone without any actual evidence against him.

They were certainly famous.

George Anderson
01-05-2011, 09:30 PM
Definitely valid points, George. I guess I am in the same camp as you....I can't figure out how a writer's opinion can change on a guy but I guess that's just how it is. I saw the Chicago Tribune sportswriter Teddy Greenstein put his votes up on Twitter today (Alomar, Blyleven, Raines, Lee Smith and Mattingly). He said Mattingly because he was his all time favorite player and he said he will probably vote Bagwell next year.

After reading that I tweeted back at him and asked him his logic for not including Larkin. His response: "Close call. Numbers prob justify and will give long look next yr"

That just strikes me the same as the above comment George made concerning a writer should do more upfront research. It just irks me a deserving guy like Larkin has to "wait in line" before he will most likely get in next year.

Voting for players because he is your all time favorite player is something 8 year olds do with All Star game ballots. Professional sportswriters whose job it is to analyze and elect the very best players to an elite fraternity called the Baseball Hall of Fame who use the same voting methods of 8 year olds should have their voting privileges revoked..

WebScorpion
01-05-2011, 10:49 PM
It seems logical that you'd set some criteria and when a player is first eligible you'd measure them against that criteria and either vote for them or not for the remainder of their eligibility. That seems reasonable, but that is not human nature. Often our opinions are swayed by discussion...sometimes new facts are introduced, sometimes it's simply another person's valued opinion. You never can tell. Add to that the desire for some voters to discern between 'first ballot' HOFers and regular HOFers, and the desire to punish some players for perceived wrongdoing, and you get a great variance in votes from year to year. On top of all that, some players benefit from a thin pool of candidates during certain years...Tony Perez got in on a thin year and I think Larkin will benefit from a thin year next year. The BBWAA is a very fickle group...always has been, always will. I really don't think it's all that important who gets in and who doesn't, but I do enjoy the discussion of glorious seasons past during the off-season. ;)

Ron Madden
01-06-2011, 03:48 AM
You don't have a shred of actual evidence to back up your assertions but yeah, go right ahead.

Evidence will always be considered by those with an open mind. Evidence doesn't mean anything to those with a preconceived notion.

mth123
01-06-2011, 03:56 AM
At this point this is where I am as well. It happened and baseball let it happen and soaked up the exposure.

You could make an argument that baseball embraced it.....until public opinion swayed.

I say that even Palmeiro, Mcgwire, Bonds...etc should get in. So I absolutely think that guys like Bagwell should be in...someone without any actual evidence against him.

This is how I feel. They should all be in.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 07:19 AM
Evidence will always be considered by those with an open mind. Evidence doesn't mean anything to those with a preconceived notion.

I think we have seen enough to determine what constitutes evidence in this story. Clemens was clean for a while. Same with Arod.

It doesn't take Scotland Yard to detemine who is highly suspect in this case. I think in certain cases, where there is an insane amount of smoke, there is usually fire. This is one of them.

klw
01-06-2011, 08:47 AM
Can someone make the case for Bagwell's inclusion based on his numbers. I looked at his stats and thought he is a little shy. Too short of a run but I am happy to be convinced.

Here's a start
Bagwell v Thomas v mattingly v Belle
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=255&playerid3=547&playerid4=1000802&playerid5=1008261

westofyou
01-06-2011, 09:04 AM
It doesn't take Scotland Yard to detemine who is highly suspect in this case. I think in certain cases, where there is an insane amount of smoke, there is usually fire. This is one of them.

Opinions are like..... everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks.

Let's quit pretending that your opinion is somehow trumps real evidence, if anything it reeks of arrogance at the expense of true knowledge of the situation.

To me it's sad that one player could not be kept out of the hall based on the eras history, not that a player that succeed because of steroids got in because of them.

Cyclone792
01-06-2011, 09:06 AM
Can someone make the case for Bagwell's inclusion based on his numbers. I looked at his stats and thought he is a little shy. Too short of a run but I am happy to be convinced.

Here's a start
Bagwell v Thomas v mattingly v Belle
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=255&playerid3=547&playerid4=1000802&playerid5=1008261

Before Albert Pujols came along, Jeff Bagwell was arguably the greatest first baseman in the history of the National League (along with Johnny Mize). And if you're compared to Johnny Mize, you're a Hall of Famer.

Or put another way: Joey Votto currently has a career OPS+ of 151. If he plays another 1,700 games with a 151 OPS+, he would essentially be Jeff Bagwell. And if Votto put up those numbers, would you need any convincing that he'd be a Hall of Famer? Or would you be arguing emphatically that Joey deserves to be in Cooperstown?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

oneupper
01-06-2011, 09:41 AM
We have this debate almost yearly and I know I come down at an end of the opinion spectrum that isn’t very popular around here. That shouldn’t make me a nazi. Hear me out please.

The facts are that the steroid era happened. Lots of players used, probably more than most of us even suspect. Performances were enhanced (we can debate how much, I’m in the camp that quite significantly) and outcomes were altered. It was a huge fraud, in which using players and baseball authorities alike were complicit or willfully blind.
This fraud is ONGOING, since baseball’s testing and sanction program is a mild deterrent at best.

Like any fraud, there were winners and losers. Among the net winners, the users who managed to enhance their performances. That includes the superstars, the Bonds’, Clemens’, Cansecos etc, And the regular guys, the Alex Sanchez’, Benito Santiagos, etc. These guys had careers, however modest and earned money that they may not have earned otherwise.

This fraud was not victimless. Hundreds of players who chose not to use saw their careers thwarted, shortened and overshadowed due to the actions of the cheaters. Another group, which fell into the trap of trying to catch-up, may suffer serious health consequences (and may or may not have reaped monetary rewards from their use. ).
Fans who paid to see “baseball games” were treated to “freak shows”. (Many enjoyed it, I’m guessing, but most were oblivious to what they were actually seeing)

We don’t have a Delorean to go back and figure out what would have happened if everyone was clean, but I think it is safe to say there was a massive transfer of results (wealth, accolades, etc) from the innocent to the fraudsters.

The fraudsters get to keep the money, the awards, the praise, the feeling of realization. Despite having violated the law, they will face no meaningful punishment from society. The innocent, the never-weres are anonymous and have been forgotten and are living with broken or unrealized careers and future health issues. I’d say that’s kind of unfair.

Now we have the issue of the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, access to the HOF is not a right, but a privilege. Enshrinement is an honor, but not being inducted is not a punishment.

So, what to do about those who participated actively in the massive fraud? I certainly wouldn’t honor them. This is probably the last (or even only) opportunity to make a statement on this issue and I’d hate to see it be one of complacency.

Ah, but how to know who are the fraudsters, absent a confession? You can’t know for sure. Nothing is 100% certain in life. You weigh the evidence, be it circumstantial, anecdotal or even gut feeling or smell and make an educated guess. Hard evidence is lacking, we know and there are few incentives to tell the truth.

In this case, I would even err on the side of caution. I’d prefer to not honor a deserving player, than end up honoring a fraudster. We’re not putting a lethal injection into anyone’s arm here. In the grand scheme of things, there isn’t that much at stake here.
You’ve got fifteen years to reconsider your position if you want. I see no reason hastily send a wrong message to society.

But hey, this is just me. When I was a boy, sometimes they would punish the whole class for what a few kids did if the culprits didn’t come forward. It wasn’t fair, but overall it was effective.

So for me, Bagwell is out, as are McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Nomar , Manny and A-Rod. One less plaque for these guys. Big deal.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 09:42 AM
Opinions are like..... everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone elses stinks.

Let's quit pretending that your opinion is somehow trumps real evidence, if anything it reeks of arrogance at the expense of true knowledge of the situation.

To me it's sad that one player could not be kept out of the hall based on the eras history, not that a player that succeed because of steroids got in because of them.

What is your position on steroids and the HOF?

westofyou
01-06-2011, 09:52 AM
What is your position on steroids and the HOF?

The HOF is a museum that celebrates the history of the game.

It's not celebrating Frank Merriwell like behavior, no Boy Scouts with bad numbers get in, it's a museum that honor the players who succeeded in garnering numbers and press.

Steroids or not.

Now if the HOF has a rule that they won't accept players who were caught red handed (like their gambling rule) I'd have to say that's the way the cookie crumbles.

But they don't... yet... and they certainly don't have a rule that says assumed (but not proven) means you're guilty.

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/01/innocent-until-proven-guilty.html



But the basic concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Are we really going to throw that one away? The concept goes back at least 700 years to the Jean Lemoine, a French Cardinal, who figured that since most people are not criminals they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Are we going to start assuming that most people ARE criminals? And if we are going to assume that ... does that even make them criminals?

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 10:03 AM
But the basic concept of "innocent until proven guilty?" Are we really going to throw that one away? The concept goes back at least 700 years to the Jean Lemoine, a French Cardinal, who figured that since most people are not criminals they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Are we going to start assuming that most people ARE criminals? And if we are going to assume that ... does that even make them criminals?

I think Pos is off here. We aren't assuming that most players are users. We are assuming that most players who put up stats that were outliers were users. There's his flaw.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 10:12 AM
I think Pos is off here. We aren't assuming that most players are users. We are assuming that most players who put up stats that were outliers were users. There's his flaw.

Profiling is profiling.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 10:20 AM
Profiling is profiling.

Since 1961, here are the names of the players who have top 50 single season SLGs:

Barry Bonds
Luis Gonzalez
Albert Belle
Mark McGwire
Manny Ramirez
Todd Helton
Larry Walker
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Sammy Sosa

membengal
01-06-2011, 11:11 AM
Paint...I am pumped about lark's chances in 2012 and am mentally booking my trip to watch the induction.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 11:25 AM
Since 1961, here are the names of the players who have top 50 single season SLGs:

Barry Bonds
Luis Gonzalez
Albert Belle
Mark McGwire
Manny Ramirez
Todd Helton
Larry Walker
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell
Sammy Sosa

The 1930's saw a huge rise in dictatorships around the world, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Emperor of Japan... applying the same logic that you use above I'm guessing that Roosevelt and Churchill were also dictators?

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 11:31 AM
The 1930's saw a huge rise in dictatorships around the world, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Emperor of Japan... applying the same logic that you use above I'm guessing that Roosevelt and Churchill were also dictators?

Nowhere near the same logic.

If I said that all baseball players from that era used PEDs, then you'd be on to something.

Roy Tucker
01-06-2011, 11:53 AM
It's all just unfortunate. The innocent get swept up in the same net as the guilty.

Since there is so little hard facts, its all rumors and innuendo and the occasional nugget of news or anecdote. Very few data points and an awful lot of interpolation and extrapolation from those curves.

And lots of personal bias. For example, I vividly remember fearing Jeff Bagwell as a performer and cursing him every time he destroyed the Reds (and that was a lot). But I highly respected him for his performance and the kind of player he was. I have to battle that bias when trying to determine his PED guilt or innocence.

redhawkfish
01-06-2011, 12:15 PM
I agree completely with oneupper! Very nice post.:thumbup:

pedro
01-06-2011, 12:19 PM
We have this debate almost yearly and I know I come down at an end of the opinion spectrum that isn’t very popular around here. That shouldn’t make me a nazi. Hear me out please.

The facts are that the steroid era happened. Lots of players used, probably more than most of us even suspect. Performances were enhanced (we can debate how much, I’m in the camp that quite significantly) and outcomes were altered. It was a huge fraud, in which using players and baseball authorities alike were complicit or willfully blind.
This fraud is ONGOING, since baseball’s testing and sanction program is a mild deterrent at best.

Like any fraud, there were winners and losers. Among the net winners, the users who managed to enhance their performances. That includes the superstars, the Bonds’, Clemens’, Cansecos etc, And the regular guys, the Alex Sanchez’, Benito Santiagos, etc. These guys had careers, however modest and earned money that they may not have earned otherwise.

This fraud was not victimless. Hundreds of players who chose not to use saw their careers thwarted, shortened and overshadowed due to the actions of the cheaters. Another group, which fell into the trap of trying to catch-up, may suffer serious health consequences (and may or may not have reaped monetary rewards from their use. ).
Fans who paid to see “baseball games” were treated to “freak shows”. (Many enjoyed it, I’m guessing, but most were oblivious to what they were actually seeing)

We don’t have a Delorean to go back and figure out what would have happened if everyone was clean, but I think it is safe to say there was a massive transfer of results (wealth, accolades, etc) from the innocent to the fraudsters.

The fraudsters get to keep the money, the awards, the praise, the feeling of realization. Despite having violated the law, they will face no meaningful punishment from society. The innocent, the never-weres are anonymous and have been forgotten and are living with broken or unrealized careers and future health issues. I’d say that’s kind of unfair.

Now we have the issue of the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, access to the HOF is not a right, but a privilege. Enshrinement is an honor, but not being inducted is not a punishment.

So, what to do about those who participated actively in the massive fraud? I certainly wouldn’t honor them. This is probably the last (or even only) opportunity to make a statement on this issue and I’d hate to see it be one of complacency.

Ah, but how to know who are the fraudsters, absent a confession? You can’t know for sure. Nothing is 100% certain in life. You weigh the evidence, be it circumstantial, anecdotal or even gut feeling or smell and make an educated guess. Hard evidence is lacking, we know and there are few incentives to tell the truth.

In this case, I would even err on the side of caution. I’d prefer to not honor a deserving player, than end up honoring a fraudster. We’re not putting a lethal injection into anyone’s arm here. In the grand scheme of things, there isn’t that much at stake here.
You’ve got fifteen years to reconsider your position if you want. I see no reason hastily send a wrong message to society.

But hey, this is just me. When I was a boy, sometimes they would punish the whole class for what a few kids did if the culprits didn’t come forward. It wasn’t fair, but overall it was effective.

So for me, Bagwell is out, as are McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Nomar , Manny and A-Rod. One less plaque for these guys. Big deal.


What message are we sending by assigning guilt based on a gut feeling?

westofyou
01-06-2011, 12:19 PM
I’d prefer to not honor a deserving player, than end up honoring a fraudster.


That's a pretty Draconian approach to maintaining a museum that covers the history of a game.

A game that has warts all through its past.

pedro
01-06-2011, 12:33 PM
nm

RedsBaron
01-06-2011, 12:40 PM
Now we have the issue of the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, access to the HOF is not a right, but a privilege. Enshrinement is an honor, but not being inducted is not a punishment.



There is a tendency to equate not inducting someone into the Hall of Fame as being equilvalent to convicting someone of a crime. It is not.
Someone is properly convicted of a crime and made subject to a loss of liberty, and in some jurisdictions life, only if the finder of fact is persuaded that the evidence establishes guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The standard of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence," that is, "more likely than not." If a jury or other finder of fact decides that the evidence, ever so slightly, tips against a party, that party can suffer tremendous financial losses, even if the jury has "reasonable doubt" that the verdict is warranted.
Since the players union fought against any testing for PEDs, and the owners looked the other way, absent a confession, we generally will never have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a player used PEDs.
Should the pending criminal matters ever come to trial, neither Barry Bonds nor Roger Clemens should be convicted of perjury unless their guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not agree that it necessarily follows that no player should be denied induction into the Hall of Fame because of suspected PEDs use unless he is shown be to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
What should be the standard regarding proof of PEDs use and denial of admission into the HOF? I'm not sure. Innuendo is surely not enough. However, IIRC, Clemens proclaimed a year or so ago that he didn't "give a damn" about the Hall of Fame. If he doesn't, why should I if he isn't honored with a plaque and ceremony?

oneupper
01-06-2011, 12:56 PM
That's a pretty Draconian approach to maintaining a museum that covers the history of a game.

A game that has warts all through its past.

No one says their stuff can't be there and it can't be talked about. You want to have a an exhibit with the "best of the juicers"?, fine. I just don't like the idea of honoring these guys.
The Black Sox are still part of the history of the game. But Joe Jackson doesn't have a plaque.

RedsManRick
01-06-2011, 12:58 PM
The HOF is baseball's history museum. What happened, happened. Put the best players in the museum and let the fans judge how much acclaim they want to accord to a given player in consideration of era, presumed cheating, etc.

If you want to keep the cheaters out of the HOF, keep them from having HOF worthy careers to begin with. If steroid use is so horrible that it should prevent us from recognizing a player's career long greatness, then why is the first punishment less than a stint on the DL with a bad hangnail?

You can't go back and change history. That the fans, media, and baseball itself were all complicit in letting the steroid era happen is a sad thing. But it did happen. And not recognizing the greatest performers of that era does not make the game better nor the HOF a better museum. I'm all for including Bagwell, Palmiero, McGwire, Bonds, Sosa and any other player whose on field performance merits inclusion. Just put them in a room that has a massive display about the era and its foibles.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 01:02 PM
The Black Sox are still part of the history of the game. But Joe Jackson doesn't have a plaque.
Why does gambling always end up in this argument?

Jackson confessed of participating.

You're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater with your approach to handling the 'steroid era" (an era undefined in length, breadth and participation)

Steroids were available in the 70's, surely unknown users are already in, should we just divide the hall into two areas?

Pre WW2

Post WW 2

pedro
01-06-2011, 01:08 PM
No one says their stuff can't be there and it can't be talked about. You want to have a an exhibit with the "best of the juicers"?, fine. I just don't like the idea of honoring these guys.
The Black Sox are still part of the history of the game. But Joe Jackson doesn't have a plaque.

And you want to include people in the "best of the juicers" because you have suspicions that they are complicit with nothing close to actual proof.

That's pathetic IMO.

oneupper
01-06-2011, 01:16 PM
Why does gambling always end up in this argument?

Jackson confessed of participating.

You're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater with your approach to handling the 'steroid era" (an era undefined in length, breadth and participation)

Steroids were available in the 70's, surely unknown users are already in, should we just divide the hall into two areas?

Pre WW2

Post WW 2

My point is that you can have the history without the enshrinements.

I know I'm a bit radical, but I do think that certain stances taken leave lasting impressions which can be positive for society.

The Black Sox issue left a clear message, at least in my mind, of what would not be tolerated in the game. (when I read about it, OK...I'm not that old).

The writers could do something similar with their HOF voting. It's a small thing, but its something as opposed to nothing.

pedro
01-06-2011, 01:19 PM
McCarthy had a list too.

I know what lesson I learned from that.

Seems some others not so much.

oneupper
01-06-2011, 01:24 PM
McCarthy had a list too.

And thank you for equating destroying a person's life (McCarthy list) to NOT putting a person's plaque in a museum (HOF voting). Really?
C'mon, man. We can disagree nicely about this.

pedro
01-06-2011, 01:26 PM
And thank you for equating destroying a person's life (McCarthy list) to NOT putting a person's plaque in a museum (HOF voting). Really?
C'mon, man. We can disagree nicely about this.

The principle of using innuendo and speculation to smear a persons reputation without any proof is heinous regardless of the consequences. Sorry you don't see that, but it's obvious to me.

jojo
01-06-2011, 02:08 PM
The principle of using innuendo and speculation to smear a persons reputation without any proof is heinous regardless of the consequences. Sorry you don't see that, but it's obvious to me.

Yes. Supposition shouldn't serve as a stepladder to a soapbox....

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 02:59 PM
The principle of using innuendo and speculation to smear a persons reputation without any proof is heinous regardless of the consequences. Sorry you don't see that, but it's obvious to me.

There is innuendo and speculation and there is someone who fits the description of a PED user to pretty much a tee. No one is picking names out of a hat or making baseless accusations.

pedro
01-06-2011, 03:00 PM
There is innuendo and speculation and there is someone who fits the description of a PED user to pretty much a tee. No one is picking names out of a hat or making baseless accusations.

oh please. give it a rest.

you are completely making baseless accusations.

Ron Madden
01-06-2011, 03:00 PM
The principle of using innuendo and speculation to smear a persons reputation without any proof is heinous regardless of the consequences. Sorry you don't see that, but it's obvious to me.

Exactly.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 03:02 PM
oh please. give it a rest.

you are completely making baseless accusations.

Doubtful.

At a minimum, he is an admitted past user of andro which is a steroid precursor and is now banned by baseball and most other sports.

There is so much smoke around him to ignore it makes no sense.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 03:24 PM
There is innuendo and speculation and there is someone who fits the description of a PED user to pretty much a tee. No one is picking names out of a hat or making baseless accusations.

The list of users who were caught doesn't lean solely in the outliers either.

Or is it just convenient to forget that when one is taking someone to the woodshed without firm evidence?

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 03:31 PM
The list of users who were caught doesn't lean solely in the outliers either.

Or is it just convenient to forget that when one is taking someone to the woodshed without firm evidence?

I'm not focused on the user list, I'm focused on the outliers. The list of outliers leans heavily to the user side. Almost tipping all the way over.

Bagpipes is on the outlier list.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 03:32 PM
I'm not focused on the user list, I'm focused on the outliers. The list of outliers leans heavily to the user side. Almost tipping all the way over.

Bagpipes is on the outlier list.

So is Frank Thomas.

Guilty eh?

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 03:47 PM
So is Frank Thomas.

Guilty eh?

I wouldn't be floored if he was, since based on what we know steroid users have taken many shapes and results.

But his history doesn't scream at me the ways other players do/did.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 03:48 PM
But his history doesn't scream at me the ways other players do/did.

I'm thinking you have rabbit ears.

oneupper
01-06-2011, 03:55 PM
The principle of using innuendo and speculation to smear a persons reputation without any proof is heinous regardless of the consequences. Sorry you don't see that, but it's obvious to me.

The consequences of disregarding warning signs are devastating. The PED issue snowballed precisely because there supposedly was "no proof" of anything going on. That buzzing in your ear at night is most likely a mosquito, even if you can't see it.
There's plenty of evidence around. Some is hard and some not so much. I think its a mistake to ignore it, if it doesn't lead to a 100% certified ironclad conclusion. Making decision you're not 100% sure of? That's life.

We're not talking about putting people in jail or denying them their civil rights, here, but rather whether to honor them or not. The writers have that prerogative. I think they should use it.

Can we agree that PED use is a bad thing, or is that up for debate also?

Johnny Footstool
01-06-2011, 04:43 PM
What message are we sending by assigning guilt based on a gut feeling?

It's not just a gut feeling. There are discrepancies in the numbers, and there are close associations with individuals who have been proven to have distributed and used steroids.

I think suspicion is well warranted.

pedro
01-06-2011, 04:48 PM
It's not just a gut feeling. There are discrepancies in the numbers, and there are close associations with individuals who have been proven to have distributed and used steroids.

I think suspicion is well warranted.

Suspicion is fine. Overt accusation and exclusion based on supposition isn't IMO.

I also don't think Bagwell's numbers alone are reason for suspicion.

If everyone wants to throw around accusations how about Larkin's 1996? That was an outlier, in the middle of the steroid era. Let's just call him a juicer too. We're entitled.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 04:50 PM
Suspicion is fine. Overt accusation and exclusion based on supposition isn't IMO.

I also don't think Bagwell's numbers alone are reason for suspicion.

If everyone wants to throw around accusations how about Larkin's 1996? That was an outlier, in the middle of the steroid era. Let's just call him a juicer too. We're entitled.

It isn't Bagwell's numbers alone.

Johnny Footstool
01-06-2011, 04:53 PM
Can we agree that PED use is a bad thing, or is that up for debate also?

That is actually very debatable.

But PEDs and similar substances have been expressly forbidden by MLB since 1991.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1151761/index.htm

Players who violated the rules deserve punishment.

Johnny Footstool
01-06-2011, 04:55 PM
If everyone wants to throw around accusations how about Larkin's 1996? That was an outlier, in the middle of the steroid era.

Yes, we should be suspicious of those numbers, and we should look for other forms of proof.

Question 1: Did he start training with known steroid users and distributors?

RedsManRick
01-06-2011, 04:57 PM
The consequences of disregarding warning signs are devastating. The PED issue snowballed precisely because there supposedly was "no proof" of anything going on. That buzzing in your ear at night is most likely a mosquito, even if you can't see it.
There's plenty of evidence around. Some is hard and some not so much. I think its a mistake to ignore it, if it doesn't lead to a 100% certified ironclad conclusion. Making decision you're not 100% sure of? That's life.

We're not talking about putting people in jail or denying them their civil rights, here, but rather whether to honor them or not. The writers have that prerogative. I think they should use it.

Can we agree that PED use is a bad thing, or is that up for debate also?

Suspicion is justification for investigation, not sentencing. If you're suggesting we should wait until more investigation takes place, well, I'm not aware of any efforts to do so. I'm not sure what magic piece of information is expected to show up which will allow the voters to answer the question. In any event, the complete and utter inconsistency is my biggest complaint. If you don't want to vote in people who might have been using an illegal performance enhancer, I'm fine with that. Just turn in a blank ballot every year because there have been illegal performance enhancers used for the last 40 years and other forms of cheating were pervasive before that.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 04:57 PM
It isn't Bagwell's numbers alone.

It's Barry Larkins 1996, it's JB's 1970 and 1972 season, as he is an ultimate outlier and performed his feats right after Si had broken the story about drugs in sports.


"A few pills—I take all kinds—and the pain's gone," says Dennis McLain of the Detroit Tigers. McLain also takes shots, or at least took a shot of cortisone and Xylocaine (anti-inflammant and painkiller) in his throwing shoulder prior to the sixth game of the 1968 World Series—the only game he won in three tries. In the same Series, which at times seemed to be a matchup between Detroit and St. Louis druggists, Cardinal Bob Gibson was gobbling muscle-relaxing pills, trying chemically to keep his arm loose. The Tigers' Series hero, Mickey Lolich, was on antibiotics.

?"We occasionally use Dexamyl and Dexedrine [amphetamines].... We also use barbiturates, Seconal, Tuinal, Nembutal.... We also use some anti-depressants, Triavil, Tofranil, Valium.... But I don't think the use of drugs is as prevalent in the Midwest as it is on the East and West coasts," said Dr. I. C. Middleman, who, until his death last September, was team surgeon for the St. Louis baseball Cardinals


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082543/index.htm#ixzz1AILX0Snj

BuckeyeRedleg
01-06-2011, 05:02 PM
"A few pills—I take all kinds—and the pain's gone," says Dennis McLain of the Detroit Tigers. McLain also takes shots, or at least took a shot of cortisone and Xylocaine (anti-inflammant and painkiller) in his throwing shoulder prior to the sixth game of the 1968 World Series—the only game he won in three tries. In the same Series, which at times seemed to be a matchup between Detroit and St. Louis druggists, Cardinal Bob Gibson was gobbling muscle-relaxing pills, trying chemically to keep his arm loose. The Tigers' Series hero, Mickey Lolich, was on antibiotics.

?"We occasionally use Dexamyl and Dexedrine [amphetamines].... We also use barbiturates, Seconal, Tuinal, Nembutal.... We also use some anti-depressants, Triavil, Tofranil, Valium.... But I don't think the use of drugs is as prevalent in the Midwest as it is on the East and West coasts," said Dr. I. C. Middleman, who, until his death last September, was team surgeon for the St. Louis baseball

Cheaters. :)

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 05:03 PM
It's Barry Larkins 1996, it's JB's 1970 and 1972 season, as he is an ultimate outlier and performed his feats right after Si had broken the story about drugs in sports.

Bench is an outlier? 1972 he hits 40, and a few other seasons he's in the high 20s and low 30s.

But I'm talking less about outlier seasons in their career, though that is something to consider. I'm talking more about outlier seasons in the history of the game.

Bench's "outlier" 45 HR season in 1970 left him with a .587 SLG. Bagwell's best season had him at a .750 SLG.

Outlier.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 05:08 PM
Bench's "outlier" 45 HR season in 1970 left him with a .587 SLG. Bagwell's best season had him at a .750 SLG.

Outlier.
Bench was catcher, outlier.

Bagwells best season ended in August so in essence it wasn't a complete season.


.292/.425/.725 - Reggie Jackson's line on 8/3/1969.

Outlier

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 05:10 PM
Bench was catcher, outlier.

Bagwells best season ended in August so in essence it wasn't a complete season.


.292/.425/.725 - Reggie Jackson's line on 8/3/1969.

Outlier

I just add it to the smoke stack. Give me one clue, ok. Give me a whole bunch of them together, it makes you wonder.

oneupper
01-06-2011, 05:31 PM
Here's a Link from today, pretty much in tone with the discussion.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/01/06/shunning-steroids-era-stars-ok-opinion-hall/

westofyou
01-06-2011, 05:39 PM
Here's a Link from today, pretty much in tone with the discussion.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/01/06/shunning-steroids-era-stars-ok-opinion-hall/

Then Jane should use her clout to put in a clause that any player who played in the steroid era can't be a HOF player.

First I'd like her to define the time that this era resides in

RedsManRick
01-06-2011, 05:51 PM
Bagwell's 1200 OPS season came in the '94 strike-shortened season. He accrued just 479 PA. In all likelihood, if he were given another 200 PA, those rate stats would have come down a fair bit. Just ask any player who was flirting with a .400 batting average in July. As the sample size decreases, the variability increases.

Bagwell's 1994 season was very impressive, but the guy had a .903 OPS the year before and was just 26 years old. Additionally, part of the reason Bagwell's OPS was so high is because his batting average was so high (.368). Bench hit just .293 ('70) and .270 ('72). Give Bench the extra singles he'd need to hit .368 and his slugging jumps nearly 100 points.

As great as Bench was, he was pretty much your standard power hitter. He didn't walk a ton and was never was a batting title type guy, with a .267 career average. Bagwell hit .297 and averaged 30 more walks and 8 more doubles more per 162 games than Bench. In short, Jeff Bagwell was a better hitter than Johnny Bench.

Of course his best season, in the midst of an overall offensive era (the NL also had just added 2 expansion teams in '93), was significantly better than Bench's.

jojo
01-06-2011, 05:52 PM
Supposition is no different than fact in practical terms when consequences are derived from supposition.

That's scary territory that has driven some of humanity's worst behavior.

RedsManRick
01-06-2011, 05:54 PM
Rob Neyer goes off on the double standard set by ignoring the rampant amphetamine use of past generations and what's going to happen to the ballot in coming years:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday



When Mark McGwire pleaded that he used steroids merely to recover from an injury, and his drug use wasn't performance enhancing but instead performance enabling, he was generally mocked and deserved to be. Because Jim is right: That's a distinction without a real difference. Not to mention the fact that it's reasonable to assume that McGwire continued to use steroids well after he'd recovered from his injuries.

Still, it's probably true that some players, perhaps including McGwire, were able to return to the lineup (or the rotation, or the bullpen) sooner than otherwise because they used drugs illegally. In those cases, the drugs really were performance enablers; the players literally wouldn't have been able to perform, at all, without the drugs.

Amphetamines, though? Those were, for a number of decades, purely performance enhancers. Can any of the hundreds of players who used amphetamines in the 1960s and '70s and '80s and '90s really argue that without greenies, they would have been forced to go to their managers and say, "Sorry, Skip. Just don't have enough energy today. You'd better take me out of the lineup."

I don't think so. Players didn't use amphetamines so they could play. Players used amphetamines so they could play better. And to be completely frank, anybody who tells you different is either lying or foolish.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 06:07 PM
Bagpipes was also putting these numbers in the dome, not Coors. It's been a while, but wasn't that a stadium thatgenerally suppressed power numbers?

And regarding amphetamines, it's obvious that baseball has had an issue with them for a long time. But have we seen legitimate super human performances put up by known users? Like 70 HR seasons and ridiculous pitching performances when over the age of 40? If we can link that sort of stuff then I am all ears. If not, those bringing them up are just reaching for straws.

RedsManRick
01-06-2011, 06:27 PM
Bagpipes was also putting these numbers in the dome, not Coors. It's been a while, but wasn't that a stadium thatgenerally suppressed power numbers?

And regarding amphetamines, it's obvious that baseball has had an issue with them for a long time. But have we seen legitimate super human performances put up by known users? Like 70 HR seasons and ridiculous pitching performances when over the age of 40? If we can link that sort of stuff then I am all ears. If not, those bringing them up are just reaching for straws.

Nolan Ryan? Hank Aaron? Pitchers throwing 300 innings a season. Hitters stealing 100 bases.

And a question, is it the act or the result which makes it wrong? If a guy is roided up but only hits 20 HR, is that ok? Heck, the first guy caught for steroid use was fringe major leaguer and speedster Alex Sanchez. And of course, Edinson Volquez was caught too. I wonder how people will feel around here if he wins 200 games in red.

Did anybody in the 60's and 70's put the time in the weight room and batting cage that guys like Bonds and McGwire did? How many guys are playing drunk these days and need the pick me up? I don't know the answers, but is hitting 70 HR instead of 50 worse than hitting 30 instead 20?

I just don't understand how it can be so black and white to some people when so much is unknown. I'll state again, if you want to keep cheaters out of the hall, keep them from cheating in the first place. From my perspective, the HOF is for the fans, not the players. It does no justice to the fans to present an incomplete history of the game.

jojo
01-06-2011, 06:40 PM
Steroids must make pitchers worse.

TheNext44
01-06-2011, 07:26 PM
Rob Neyer goes off on the double standard set by ignoring the rampant amphetamine use of past generations and what's going to happen to the ballot in coming years:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday

This article misses the main point at hand. The Hall of Fame.

Until someone provides a convincing argument that greenies turned average or very good players into great, Hall of Fame caliber players, then greenies and other drugs that players used should not be involved in this argument over who should get into the Hall of Fame.

Greenies and other drugs players used definitely deserve to be in the PED conversation, just not this particular one.

TheNext44
01-06-2011, 07:36 PM
Not letting someone into the Hall of Fame because there is suspicion that they might have used PED's is not anywhere near the same as even accusing them of using PED's.

i can make a solid logical argument that only people that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, belong in Hall of Fame, actually belong in the Hall of Fame, and any one with even the suspicion of a black mark against them, should not be in. IN other words, I don't have to prove that you don't belong, you have to prove to me that you do belong, and if there is any doubt, I don't want you in.

If I hold this view, I am not slandering you or your reputation, or disgracing you in anyway. i am simply saying that you haven't convinced me yet that you belong to an extremely exclusive club.

pedro
01-06-2011, 07:40 PM
Not letting someone into the Hall of Fame because there is suspicion that they might have used PED's is not anywhere near the same as even accusing them of using PED's.

i can make a solid logical argument that only people that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, belong in Hall of Fame, actually belong in the Hall of Fame, and any one with even the suspicion of a black mark against them, should not be in. IN other words, I don't have to prove that you don't belong, you have to prove to me that you do belong, and if there is any doubt, I don't want you in.

If I hold this view, I am not slandering you or your reputation, or disgracing you in anyway. i am simply saying that you haven't convinced me yet that you belong to an extremely exclusive club.

I'm not trying to demean you but I'm not sure you understand the nature of logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

jojo
01-06-2011, 07:56 PM
This article misses the main point at hand. The Hall of Fame.

Until someone provides a convincing argument that greenies turned average or very good players into great, Hall of Fame caliber players, then greenies and other drugs that players used should not be involved in this argument over who should get into the Hall of Fame.

Greenies and other drugs players used definitely deserve to be in the PED conversation, just not this particular one.

Isn't the vitriol directed at PEDs in part due to perception that they damage the integrity of cherished records?

Playing devils advocate, why is Bonds a pariah for breaking Hanks record when Hank very well may not have broke Babe's record without greenies? Hank was clearly a HOFer but maybe he only hits 690 hrs in a culture without amphetamine use?

But truthfully, I reject the notion that there is a threshold of effect where cheating goes from meh to hall unworthy. If sportswriters are unwilling to reexamine the history of PEDs in baseball and insist upon singling out steroid era players, than sportswriters have no credibility concerning protecting the sanctity of the hall....

TheNext44
01-06-2011, 07:58 PM
I'm not trying to demean you but I'm not sure you understand the nature of logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

No offense.

Only I am not arguing that I know that player X used steriods because he hasn't proven to me that he hasn't. In fact, quite the opposite.

I simply as using the same criteria I would use to put someone in the Hall of Fame as I would use to put someone in jail. In order to put someone in jail, I have to know, beyond a a shadow of doubt, that that person deserves to go to jail, that they are guilty of a crime that deserves jail time as punishment.

likewise, in order to put someone in the Hall of Fame, I have to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they belong, that they have all the necessary qualifications to get in... elite performance over a 10 year period, upstanding character... a good ambassador for the game... whatever my criteria may be. If there is any doubt in my mind about any of these criteria, then you don't get in. Just like if there is any doubt that you committed a crime, you don't go to jail.

pedro
01-06-2011, 08:01 PM
No offense.

Only I am not arguing that I know that player X used steriods because he hasn't proven to me that he hasn't. In fact, quite the opposite.

I simply as using the same criteria I would use to put someone in the Hall of Fame as I would use to put someone in jail. In order to put someone in jail, I have to know, beyond a a shadow of doubt, that that person deserves to go to jail, that they are guilty of a crime that deserves jail time as punishment.

likewise, in order to put someone in the Hall of Fame, I have to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they belong, that they have all the necessary qualifications to get in... elite performance over a 10 year period, upstanding character... a good ambassador for the game... whatever my criteria may be. If there is any doubt in my mind about any of these criteria, then you don't get in. Just like if there is any doubt that you committed a crime, you don't go to jail.

That's not exactly the same thing. What you are proposing is that somehow a player prove to you that he didn't do something in order to gain your approval when in reality there is no way for them to do that.

jojo
01-06-2011, 08:05 PM
Not letting someone into the Hall of Fame because there is suspicion that they might have used PED's is not anywhere near the same as even accusing them of using PED's.
club.

It's not accusing them. Its treating them like they've been convicted....

TheNext44
01-06-2011, 08:06 PM
Isn't the vitriol directed at PEDs in part due to perception that they damage the integrity of cherished records?

Playing devils advocate, why is Bonds a pariah for breaking Hanks record when Hank very well may not have broke Babe's record without greenies? Hank was clearly a HOFer but maybe he only hits 690 hrs in a culture without amphetamine use?

But truthfully, I reject the notion that there is a threshold of effect where cheating goes from meh to hall unworthy. If sportswriters are unwilling to reexamine the history of PEDs in baseball and insist upon singling out steroid era players, than sportswriters have no credibility concerning protecting the sanctity of the hall....

I agree with you on Bonds and Aaron. Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he clearly would have had a Hall of Fame career with or without PED's, just like Aaron would have with or without amphetamines.

Your second point about threshold only matters if you think all cheaters don't belong. I don't beleive that. My views is that nearly everyone cheated in someway or another. I draw the line for not voting for someome for the Hall of Fame, at if their cheating resulted in them having a Hall of Fame career. If there is sufficient evidense of this, the don't belong.

That's why I am against McGwire, but for Bonds. Against Sosa, but for Bagwell. and so on.

TheNext44
01-06-2011, 08:10 PM
That's not exactly the same thing. What you are proposing is that somehow a player prove to you that he didn't do something in order to gain your approval when in reality there is no way for them to do that.

All I am saying is that if there are doubts, he doesn't get in.

For the record, I don't hold this view. My only point is that someone could hold this view without accusing someone of actually using PED's. That withholding someone from the Hall of Fame doesn't have to mean that you think the person is guilty, just that you aren't sure enough to vote them in.

TheNext44
01-06-2011, 08:11 PM
It's not accusing them. Its treating them like they've been convicted....

My point is that it doesn't have to. It could just mean that you have doubts.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 08:49 PM
Nolan Ryan? Hank Aaron? Pitchers throwing 300 innings a season. Hitters stealing 100 bases.

When a game exists for as long as baseball has, there are going to be outliers. When there is an obscene concentration of outliers in a short period of time, something might be wrong.



And a question, is it the act or the result which makes it wrong? If a guy is roided up but only hits 20 HR, is that ok? Heck, the first guy caught for steroid use was fringe major leaguer and speedster Alex Sanchez. And of course, Edinson Volquez was caught too. I wonder how people will feel around here if he wins 200 games in red.

The act is wrong.


Did anybody in the 60's and 70's put the time in the weight room and batting cage that guys like Bonds and McGwire did? How many guys are playing drunk these days and need the pick me up? I don't know the answers, but is hitting 70 HR instead of 50 worse than hitting 30 instead 20?

Would Bonds and McGwire have put that much time in the wieght room w/o the PEDs? Bonds was a stick figure until he supposedly started them up.


I just don't understand how it can be so black and white to some people when so much is unknown. I'll state again, if you want to keep cheaters out of the hall, keep them from cheating in the first place. From my perspective, the HOF is for the fans, not the players. It does no justice to the fans to present an incomplete history of the game.

I agree, the league should be stopping the cheating from happening. But we all know about the mighty union. They didn't want testing. And now the players are paying the price. No one can go back and take away the hundreds of millions they earned, or the awards and the accolades. Maybe this is the only punishment that can be handed down.

And you are right, the HOF is for both the fans and the players. But no one needs the HOF to provide the history of the game. It is a place to reward the legends and for fans to enjoy a place to honor them. If anyone wants to learn about the steroid users, they can Google them on their way to Cooperstown.

Eric_the_Red
01-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Well the good news is we only have 10-20 more years of this same discussion. :rolleyes:

PEDs are against the rules. So is the spitball, stealing signs and corked bats, but there are plenty of players in the HOF guilty of those offenses.

It's the Baseball Hall of Fame, not a vote for saints. If they were the best of their era, put them in. Let the visitors of Cooperstown decide how they stack up against each other.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 10:40 PM
When a game exists for as long as baseball has, there are going to be outliers. When there is an obscene concentration of outliers in a short period of time, something might be wrong.



IP Post WW2, 65 years, 87% of the top innings pitched occur in a 15 year window, 23% of that time frame.

Outlier correct?

Extreme as well.




INNINGS PITCHED YEAR IP
T1 Wilbur Wood 1972 376
T1 Mickey Lolich 1971 376
3 Bob Feller 1946 371 X
4 Wilbur Wood 1973 359
5 Robin Roberts 1953 347 X
6 Steve Carlton 1972 346.1
7 Gaylord Perry 1973 344
8 Gaylord Perry 1972 342.2
9 Phil Niekro 1979 342
10 Robin Roberts 1954 337 X
T11 Sandy Koufax 1965 336
T11 Denny McLain 1968 336
13 Phil Niekro 1978 334.1
14 Wilbur Wood 1971 334
15 Nolan Ryan 1974 332.2
16 Phil Niekro 1977 330.1
17 Robin Roberts 1952 330 X
18 Gaylord Perry 1970 328.2
19 Ferguson Jenkins 1974 328.1
20 Catfish Hunter 1975 328
21 Mickey Lolich 1972 327
T22 Nolan Ryan 1973 326
T22 Juan Marichal 1968 326
24 Gaylord Perry 1969 325.1
T25 Ferguson Jenkins 1971 325
T25 Denny McLain 1969 325
T25 Bert Blyleven 1973 325
T28 Jim Palmer 1975 323
T28 Sandy Koufax 1966 323
30 Gaylord Perry 1974 322.1
31 Andy Messersmith 1975 322
T32 Don Drysdale 1964 321
T32 Juan Marichal 1963 321
T32 Claude Osteen 1969 321
35 Wilbur Wood 1974 320
36 Jim Palmer 1977 319
37 Catfish Hunter 1974 318
T38 Bill Singer 1969 316
T38 Bill Singer 1973 316
40 Randy Jones 1976 315.1
T41 Don Drysdale 1963 315
T41 Johnny Sain 1948 315
T41 Jim Palmer 1976 315
T41 Robin Roberts 1951 315 X
T45 Don Drysdale 1962 314
T45 Bob Gibson 1969 314
T45 Jim Bunning 1966 314
T45 Jim Colborn 1973 314
T45 Bob Friend 1956 314 X
50 Ferguson Jenkins 1970 313
T51 Vida Blue 1971 312
T51 Vern Bickford 1950 312 X
T53 Luis Tiant 1974 311.1
T53 Ferguson Jenkins 1969 311.1
T55 Warren Spahn 1951 311 X
T55 Sandy Koufax 1963 311
57 Bob Lemon 1952 310 X
58 Mickey Lolich 1973 309
T59 Ferguson Jenkins 1968 308
T59 Don Drysdale 1965 308
T59 Mickey Lolich 1974 308
62 Juan Marichal 1966 307
63 Gaylord Perry 1975 305.2
T64 Bob Gibson 1968 305
T64 Sam McDowell 1970 305
T64 Jim Palmer 1970 305
T64 Robin Roberts 1955 305 X
T64 Larry Dierker 1969 305
69 Jim Kaat 1966 304.2
T70 Robin Roberts 1950 304
T70 Steve Carlton 1980 304
72 Jim Kaat 1975 303.2
T73 Dave Goltz 1977 303
T73 Mel Stottlemyre 1969 303
75 Phil Niekro 1974 302.1

Johnny Footstool
01-06-2011, 10:47 PM
Rob Neyer goes off on the double standard set by ignoring the rampant amphetamine use of past generations and what's going to happen to the ballot in coming years:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday

Was there an explicit policy banning greenies?

'Cause there was one banning steroids in the 90's.

edabbs44
01-06-2011, 10:49 PM
IP Post WW2, 65 years, 87% of the top innings pitched occur in a 15 year window, 23% of that time frame.

Outlier correct?

Extreme as well.


IP? Apples and oranges.

westofyou
01-06-2011, 10:58 PM
IP? Apples and oranges.

Salem and witches

westofyou
01-06-2011, 11:02 PM
Anyway, if we run around this subject anymore I'm going to turn into butter.

pedro
01-07-2011, 12:40 AM
Was there an explicit policy banning greenies?

'Cause there was one banning steroids in the 90's.

They were illegal without a prescription

mth123
01-07-2011, 03:56 AM
The HOF is baseball's history museum. What happened, happened. Put the best players in the museum and let the fans judge how much acclaim they want to accord to a given player in consideration of era, presumed cheating, etc.

If you want to keep the cheaters out of the HOF, keep them from having HOF worthy careers to begin with. If steroid use is so horrible that it should prevent us from recognizing a player's career long greatness, then why is the first punishment less than a stint on the DL with a bad hangnail?

You can't go back and change history. That the fans, media, and baseball itself were all complicit in letting the steroid era happen is a sad thing. But it did happen. And not recognizing the greatest performers of that era does not make the game better nor the HOF a better museum. I'm all for including Bagwell, Palmiero, McGwire, Bonds, Sosa and any other player whose on field performance merits inclusion. Just put them in a room that has a massive display about the era and its foibles.

My thoughts exactly.

RedsBaron
01-07-2011, 07:38 AM
1. Those players who are believed not to have used PEDs, such as Ken Griffey Jr., have often been praised for staying "clean." If someone believes that using PEDs in the 1990s and the early part of the 2000s was no big deal, then should a presumably "clean" player such as Junior be praised? If he stayed "clean" then he didn't do everything he could to help his team win.
2. Driving 58 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph is speeding. Driving 85 mph in a 15 mph school zone is speeding. For some reason I don't equate the two offenses. I don't equate stealing signs with PEDs either.
3. There are plenty of rumors and reportedly some admissions that players in the 1960s used "greenies." The difference I see between the use of greenies and steroids and other PEDs is that the use of greenies appears to have at most helped players maintain their performance level whereas more recent PEDs enabled players to signifcantly raise their performance level. If one assumes Hank Aaron used greenies, perhaps that helped him play at his mid-30s near the level he established in his mid-20s, but Hank still reached his peak at an expected age, as his greatest seasons came at ages 23, 25, 29, etc. In the late 1990s and early 2000s we saw suspected PEDs users, many in their mid to late 30s, suddenly far exceed their performance levels that had been established when they were in their natural physical prime.
4. I don't have a lot of sympathy for players who, with their union, fought against meaningful testing for PEDs and now defend themselves for saying there is no definitive evidence that they used PEDs.
5. All that said, in the end, some PEDs users are almost certain to be inducted into the HOF. That being the case, I am not at all happy about some PEDs users getting in while other suspected PEDs users are kept out. Maybe Jeff Bagwell did use PEDs, but mere innuendo is not to me a sufficient basis to keep him out. I am not particularly happy about putting PEDs users in the HOF but I see no good, consistent alternative.

jojo
01-07-2011, 08:10 AM
IP? Apples and oranges.

Exactly. IP wouldn't speak to performance or effect counting stats. :cool:

edabbs44
01-07-2011, 08:27 AM
Exactly. IP wouldn't speak to performance or effect counting stats. :cool:

Do you have a reason as to why IP spiked in that range? I have a reason as to why power numbers spiked in our range.

jojo
01-07-2011, 09:18 AM
Do you have a reason as to why IP spiked in that range? I have a reason as to why power numbers spiked in our range.

Greeny, greeny, greeny bobeanie, meaney, meaney, greeny, greeny?

I don't know.

But PEDS don't explain your outlier completely and they might not even explain the majority of it.

westofyou
01-07-2011, 09:42 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday



I believe Barry Larkin gets in next year. That leaves seven holdovers in 2013 ... who will be joined by Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Craig Biggio, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, and the terribly underrated Kenny Lofton.

That's 13 or 14 candidates with Hall of Fame-worthy statistics. The way things are going, Bonds and Clemens and Sosa and Piazza (the catching version of Jeff Bagwell) will be left out. Schilling should do well because of the bloody sock, and Biggio should do well because of the 3,060 hits ... but will either of them reach 75 percent? Maybe not; the ballot will be so crowded, some voters just won't find room for either player.

The only way to break through this logjam is to start electing more than one or two candidates every year. And the only way to elect more than one or two per year is to reconsider this infantile, a historical, asinine version of morality that seems to have quite suddenly afflicted a huge percentage of the voters.

edabbs44
01-07-2011, 10:05 AM
Greeny, greeny, greeny bobeanie, meaney, meaney, greeny, greeny?

I don't know.

But PEDS don't explain your outlier completely and they might not even explain the majority of it.

Sure.

Even to the most skeptical fan, I can show some statistical correlation between spikes in performance with PED usage. Let me know if you can do the same with the spike in IP and greenies.

RedsBaron
01-07-2011, 10:33 AM
The NFL Hall of Fame voting process is significantly different than that for Cooperstown. IIRC, the NFL every year elects between 4 to 7 nominees, selected from a final list of 15 players plus 2 senior nominees. Voters are 44 in number, made up of 2 members of the media from each NFL city (New York City gets 4 members since it has two teams), plus another dozen "at large" people.
Anyway, every year at least 4 new members are inducted into Canton, no matter what.
One bad thing about the limited number of voters is that it does allow for a small segment of voters to "blackball" a player from induction. I believe this has happened with regards to Ken Stabler.
Steroids and PEDs appear to be a non-issue with voters, probalby because PEDs abuse was largely taken for granted during much of the NFL's history in the 1970s and 1980s.
Betting on the game doesn't keep you out of Canton, either, a la Pete Rose. Paul Hornung has a bust in Canton.

Eric_the_Red
01-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Sure.

Even to the most skeptical fan, I can show some statistical correlation between spikes in performance with PED usage. Let me know if you can do the same with the spike in IP and greenies.

Wouldn't that spike in performance during the PED years (whenever those are esactly) also correlate with expansion (a diluted talent pool, especially pitching) and the construction of more hitter friendly ballparks? Not to mention enhancements in training, conditioning, medicine, etc. that help atheletes perform better, recover faster and generally get stronger/faster?

edabbs44
01-07-2011, 10:46 AM
Wouldn't that spike in performance during the PED years (whenever those are esactly) also correlate with expansion (a diluted talent pool, especially pitching) and the construction of more hitter friendly ballparks? Not to mention enhancements in training, conditioning, medicine, etc. that help atheletes perform better, recover faster and generally get stronger/faster?

Sure, that was the common argument along with the juiced balls. And then when testing started, accused users started coming in to camp 30 lbs lighter, having weird injuries and stats crashed back to earth.

westofyou
01-07-2011, 11:04 AM
Sure, that was the common argument along with the juiced balls. And then when testing started, accused users started coming in to camp 30 lbs lighter, having weird injuries and stats crashed back to earth.
That's some detailed evidence to be shown there, let's not just gloss over it.

IIRC Sosa was accused and came in lighter, who else can we throw in this group?

Injuries as an example of PED use is somewhat iffy. Injuries occur in day to day life, they are the bane of the professional athletes existence, it's a huge part of the game and always has been. Just ask Pete Reiser.

edabbs44
01-07-2011, 11:57 AM
That's some detailed evidence to be shown there, let's not just gloss over it.

IIRC Sosa was accused and came in lighter, who else can we throw in this group?

Injuries as an example of PED use is somewhat iffy. Injuries occur in day to day life, they are the bane of the professional athletes existence, it's a huge part of the game and always has been. Just ask Pete Reiser.


For skeptics, there is a convenient explanation as to why Ivan Rodriguez's nickname, Pudge, no longer fits his now slender and sculptured frame.

Earlier this year, Rodriguez, who is in his second season as the Tigers' catcher, was among several current and former major leaguers whom Jose Canseco accused in his book of using steroids. Canseco said he injected Rodriguez with performance-enhancing drugs when they played together for the Texas Rangers.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/sports/baseball/25pudge.html


Giambi's Weight-Loss Mentor

George Steinbrenner defended Jason Giambi's slimmer appearance and said it was his idea for Giambi to lose weight over the off-season.

''I must confess, I'll take part of the blame for his weight loss, and I resent anybody questioning his integrity,'' Steinbrenner, the Yankees' principal owner, said through his spokesman, Howard Rubenstein. ''He's a true Yankee.''



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/sports/baseball-yankees-notebook-lee-agrees-to-contract-and-seeks-a-role.html

Razor Shines
01-07-2011, 12:04 PM
You could be right, edabbs, but it's also very en vogue now to put on lean muscle instead of bulking up. That you can but just as strong and have less injuries with more flexibility.

Not exactly a new concept but like I said, it's more en vogue now a days.

TheNext44
01-07-2011, 02:18 PM
Sure, that was the common argument along with the juiced balls. And then when testing started, accused users started coming in to camp 30 lbs lighter, having weird injuries and stats crashed back to earth.

Even if they came back lighter, I doubt it would be from stopping use of PED's. It takes years to lose the cosmetic effects of steroids.

However, the bigger, better proof was the immediate and significant decline in home runs and runs scored throughout the large once testing was implemented. We went from a league dominated by home runs and offense, to a league dominated by pitchers, marked exactly by the first year of testing.

Yachtzee
01-08-2011, 06:35 PM
As much as I am against PEDs, my personal bias against Bagwell, and his teammate Craig Biggio for that matter, is all the body armor they got away with using. Those guys could practically camp out on top of the plate with no fear of getting hit. If they wanted to, they could just drop their elbow, let the ball bounce of their armor, and take their base. Bonds too. I'd say PEDs had a lot to do with the surge in offensive numbers in the Steroid era, but so did allowing players to take away pitchers' ability to pitch to the entire plate by wearing a suit of armor into the batter's box.

pedro
01-08-2011, 08:40 PM
As much as I am against PEDs, my personal bias against Bagwell, and his teammate Craig Biggio for that matter, is all the body armor they got away with using. Those guys could practically camp out on top of the plate with no fear of getting hit. If they wanted to, they could just drop their elbow, let the ball bounce of their armor, and take their base. Bonds too. I'd say PEDs had a lot to do with the surge in offensive numbers in the Steroid era, but so did allowing players to take away pitchers' ability to pitch to the entire plate by wearing a suit of armor into the batter's box.

That is certainly a valid and verifiable beef with Bagwell.

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 09:16 PM
From an article from 2008, not sure if I remember reading at the time



Blair, who was recently questioned by federal agents conducting the Roger Clemens perjury investigation, regaled visitors to his Pasadena gym with stories about providing drugs to Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jeff Bagwell and other professional athletes, according to sources. Bagwell, Pettitte and Clemens were teammates on the Houston Astros in 2004 and 2005.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/05/24/2008-05-24_sources_kelly_blair_made_boasts_about_ju.html

Obviously not anything proof positive, but just adds to the pile.

jojo
01-08-2011, 09:51 PM
From an article from 2008, not sure if I remember reading at the time



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/05/24/2008-05-24_sources_kelly_blair_made_boasts_about_ju.html

Obviously not anything proof positive, but just adds to the pile.

Wouldn't that be an initial pebble that may or may not ever be a pile?

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 09:54 PM
Wouldn't that be an initial pebble that may or may not ever be a pile?

If you don't think that his career trajectory, physique trends, statistics, player associations and admissions to use of other questionable substances along with your common sense make up a pebble or two, then sure.

jojo
01-08-2011, 10:22 PM
If you don't think that his career trajectory, physique trends, statistics, player associations and admissions to use of other questionable substances along with your common sense make up a pebble or two, then sure.

Bagwells aging curve is almost textbook and i have yet to see a statistical case that could support your argument. Makes one wonder about the rest of the common sense we're supposed to bow to....

jojo
01-08-2011, 10:25 PM
BTW, Bagwell has unambiguously denied using steroids.

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 10:40 PM
Bagwells aging curve is almost textbook and i have yet to see a statistical case that could support your argument. Makes one wonder about the rest of the common sense we're supposed to bow to....

Maybe his aging curve on the way down is textbook, but not the way up.

Statistics wise, is there really a case that needs to be made? Little power in the minors, goes to a major pitcher's park and becomes an offensive juggernaut as his body transforms from average to WWF like?

http://keymancollectibles.com/baseballcards/images/1991st1.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtdogs//Headline_Archives/BDD_LGRS_9.19.95_bgjd_JBHA_.jpg

jojo
01-08-2011, 10:45 PM
Statistics wise, is there really a case that needs to be made? ]

Uhhhhhhhh.........yes.

TheNext44
01-08-2011, 10:46 PM
From an article from 2008, not sure if I remember reading at the time



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/05/24/2008-05-24_sources_kelly_blair_made_boasts_about_ju.html

Obviously not anything proof positive, but just adds to the pile.

I actually was a defender of Bagwell, since there really was no evidence against him, but considering Pettite is an admitted user and there is plenty of evidence against Clemens, this does throw a shadow over Bagwell.

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 10:52 PM
BTW, Bagwell has unambiguously denied using steroids.

And?

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 10:53 PM
Uhhhhhhhh.........yes.

What would you need to see that isn't fairly obvious?

jojo
01-08-2011, 11:15 PM
What would you need to see that isn't fairly obvious?

Actual substance underlying the generalities.

His aging curve is tangible and not what would be expected for someone on steroids. Stubbs thinks developing power isn't all that weird.

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 11:30 PM
Actual substance underlying the generalities.

His aging curve is tangible and not what would be expected for someone on steroids. Stubbs thinks developing power isn't all that weird.

Instead of looking at the age, look at the years. Take a look at 2003-05 for him, Palmeiro and Sosa. Sheffield as well. Thoughts on the curve? Any coincidence that testing talk was ramping up in these years?

And did Stubbs' HR totals rise along with his muscle mass? If he showed up to ST last year looking like Lattimer and hit 40 HRs, I'd bet that there would be some talk.

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 11:31 PM
And is anyone able to extract the HR leaders from 1994-2003? Would love to see the leaderboard.

jojo
01-08-2011, 11:40 PM
And?

And that kinda trumps the suggestion that his own words convicts him...

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 11:46 PM
And that kinda trumps the suggestion that his own words convicts him...

Has any "name" steroid user admitted to using w/o hard evidence staring him in the face?

jojo
01-08-2011, 11:49 PM
Has any "name" steroid user admitted to using w/o hard evidence staring him in the face?

Has any nonusers admitted to using steroids?

edabbs44
01-08-2011, 11:51 PM
Has any nonusers admitted to using steroids?

Nope, but we have many denials from proven users on record.

jojo
01-08-2011, 11:55 PM
Nope, but we have many denials from proven users on record.

Irrelevant.

TheNext44
01-09-2011, 01:46 AM
BTW, Bagwell has unambiguously denied using steroids.

I agree with you that Bagwell's stats don't suggest that he used steroids, but his dening that he used them is meaningless. Every single PED user who was later caught, at first denied ever using them, some of them while under oath. Everyone accused of using PED's will unambiguously deny that they use them, the guilty and the innocent.

Jpup
01-09-2011, 07:19 AM
http://blog.prorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/jeff_bagwell.jpg

http://www.tireball.com/photos/albums/ausmus_brad/2005-07-28_jeffbagwell.jpg

I believe it's very naive to say Bagwell was clean. I think he should be in the Hall, but the guy was doing something abnormal. BTW, 1994 was a huge aberration in his numbers.

jojo
01-09-2011, 07:25 AM
I agree with you that Bagwell's stats don't suggest that he used steroids, but his dening that he used them is meaningless. Every single PED user who was later caught, at first denied ever using them, some of them while under oath. Everyone accused of using PED's will unambiguously deny that they use them, the guilty and the innocent.

that comment was a direct response to the suggestion that his own words convict him. In other words it pointed to another unraveling thread in the common sense sweater....

TheNext44
01-09-2011, 10:35 AM
that comment was a direct response to the suggestion that his own words convict him. In other words it pointed to another unraveling thread in the common sense sweater....

My apologies. I missed that. Understand your point now.

westofyou
01-09-2011, 11:38 AM
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/features/redsox/photoessay/baberuth.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R2yHiPgsajA/SVVkGV3Eg5I/AAAAAAAAAn8/Ovw8Lol3ETk/s400/babe+ruth+in+ND+jersey,+gehrig+in+SC+1927.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/tomdalekeever/gehrig1.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XWzMeSeJ8Aw/RnhUAsUgs9I/AAAAAAAAAVA/Qcz3GC_BtE0/s320/Lou-Gehrig.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/mmplayersbaseball/RuthAndFoxx3.jpg


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsykiTKLSLj6mnlB8Hj2jK157YWfDZt ljjRe1jOkRGWkm_NK7o

edabbs44
01-09-2011, 11:42 AM
Yeah, yeah....Babe Ruth also put on weight as he got older.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

http://raymannion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/johnlovitzu.jpg

westofyou
01-09-2011, 11:43 AM
Yeah, yeah....Babe Ruth also put on weight as he got older.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

http://raymannion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/johnlovitzu.jpg

It passes as some of the science I've seen in this thread, for sure.

edabbs44
01-09-2011, 11:44 AM
that comment was a direct response to the suggestion that his own words convict him. In other words it pointed to another unraveling thread in the common sense sweater....

I don't believe that his own words convict him. I just think that his admitted use of a steroid precursor back then, which was used by admitted steroid users who also worked out with him, is another piece of evidence.

edabbs44
01-09-2011, 12:48 PM
It passes as some of the science I've seen in this thread, for sure.

Close, but not quite. If you think that those photos resemble the before/after pics for Bagwell, then I'm not sure what to say.

But I feel like the "other side" of this argument is kind of a moving target. I feel like I am either discussing whether or not Bagwell used, whether or not users should be in the HOF, or just posts which are trying to cast reasonable doubt on one line that I have posted.

I feel like there is plenty of evidence to give voters and fans alike to seriously question the legitimacy of his numbers. You seriously don't?

jojo
01-09-2011, 05:18 PM
I don't believe that his own words convict him. I just think that his admitted use of a steroid precursor back then, which was used by admitted steroid users who also worked out with him, is another piece of evidence.

He shopped at GNC so he must've used steroids too?

edabbs44
01-09-2011, 05:48 PM
He shopped at GNC so he must've used steroids too?

No, from what that article said he got everything he needed from the gym.

edabbs44
01-10-2011, 02:13 PM
For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.” When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/10/jeff-pearlman-believes-craig-biggio-was-a-roider/