tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post9100023138591624120..comments2023-10-31T06:31:41.395-04:00Comments on Bottom of the Barrel: Bill Madden Doesn't Get It, Shouldn't the Integrity Clause Work Both Ways? Bengoodfellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-19233247881933559792013-01-15T18:06:38.174-05:002013-01-15T18:06:38.174-05:00JR,
I'm going to use an analogy:
Lets say th...JR,<br /><br />I'm going to use an analogy:<br /><br />Lets say there's a farmers market with 99 apple stands. I decide I want to sell my apples there as well and I set up shop.<br /><br />After a few years of no complaints, I say "I am an elite apple salesmen here" and point to the fact that I sell a 100 crates of apples every day.<br /><br />The stat only argument says that once I hit a threshold, that's true. That's stupid because the numbers are all relative to something else: how do my apples taste? Am I selling more because they're simply cheaper than the competition? How many apples do my competitors sell?<br /><br />Stats are a start, but they also happen to be absolutely undeniable. Like I said before 4,000 hits is 4,000 hits, but much like inflation with money, are those 4,000 hits relatively the same value as say Pete Rose's hits.<br /><br />Now what you're saying is that if 60 of my competitors sell rotten apples, then my apples must also be rotten and therefore I suck, even though I may have never sold a single rotten apple.<br /><br />Your argument of "you can't catch them all" isn't valid because it's based entirely on circumstantial evidence. You can't use "well if everyone is going 75, you gotta catch the guy going 80" because that's not circumstantial evidence.<br /><br />More aptly, your point is more like saying everyone is doing 75 in the 55, but someone calls the cops and says you're doing 80 and they show up to your house and give you a ticket when your car is parked in your driveway. <br /><br />The danger is that if all you have to show is that there's enough circumstantial evidence and then hide behind the inferred argument of "well most were doing it, so he was probably as well," you're basically grouping every single player into a group and condemning the group, but punishing the individuals.richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-10552584115030356142013-01-15T13:37:05.793-05:002013-01-15T13:37:05.793-05:00"It shouldn't matter how many of the othe..."It shouldn't matter how many of the other players were using."<br /><br />But it does. If you're a traffic cop patrolling a 55 MPH zone, it's easy to ticket the one guy doing 80. But if every car is doing 75, well, you can't ticket everyone. You can only ticket the guys who are really speeding.<br /><br />"Yes, but the overall question remains: how do you decide which are flawed and which are valid?"<br /><br />I judge things as best I can and vote accordingly (if I had a vote).<br /><br />"Not at all, all I'm saying is that "well I think he did steroids and so I'm not voting for him" is dangerous."<br /><br />"Dangerous"? Please explain what you mean, because I don't see any danger to anyone in a vote over sports awards.<br /><br />"(and no, using just stats would be stupid)"<br /><br />But in effect, you're arguing for only stats. Because your admissible criteria for voters seems to be:<br /><br />1) Stats<br />2) Ironclad certainty that the player used PEDs<br /><br />So without #2, we're left with #1.JR Ewing Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15625626214196012794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-52905342849058266902013-01-15T08:35:59.275-05:002013-01-15T08:35:59.275-05:00Anon, thanks. I got him confused with his brother ...Anon, thanks. I got him confused with his brother Phil. Under Murray Chass's idea of who a cheater is then we have evidence Phil Niekro cheated because his brother got caught cheating and Phil used a knuckleball, which relies on movement to strike out hitters. Obviously Phil was a cheater too if you use Murray Chass's "suspicion method" of eliminating players from the Hall of Fame. <br /><br />Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-20082056369372448052013-01-15T08:09:54.787-05:002013-01-15T08:09:54.787-05:00Joe Niekro is NOT in the Hall of Fame.Joe Niekro is NOT in the Hall of Fame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-42659792770190923812013-01-14T19:21:34.827-05:002013-01-14T19:21:34.827-05:00What I should say is that with the "circumsta...What I should say is that with the "circumstantial evidence" being used to keep steroid users out there is no fact. <br /><br />Again, if you can prove someone used PEDs, then there's enough reason to keep him out.richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-90497958918206341852013-01-14T19:18:09.602-05:002013-01-14T19:18:09.602-05:00No precedent for circumstantial evidence exists be...<i>No precedent for circumstantial evidence exists because the PED era seemingly has no precedent in MLB history... Contrast that to the PED era, in which some estimated that over half, perhaps well over half, of all players were using.</i><br /><br />It shouldn't matter how many of the other players were using. Just as it doesn't matter how many players other than Pete Rose were betting on baseball. If you're considering someone like Jeff Bagwell, saying "well he played in an era where people did steroids" should be absolutely meaningless, just as Hank Aaron playing in an era where a lot of players where using greenies didn't affect his eligibility.<br /><br />If you want to say "there's evidence Player X used steroids" that's fine, but to argue that over half the league was doing steroids and therefore everyone should be under suspicion will lead, again, lead to incredibly subjective outcomes. Who is to say that because half the league did steroids, Bagwell shouldn't be in the league because he's a juicer, but Biggio should be in because there's no stigma over him. The fact that over half the league did steroids is irrelevant. You need evidence Player X did steroids and "well other guys were doing them" is not evidence. <br /><br /><i>But just because circumstantial evidence would support a flawed conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't support a valid one.</i><br /><br />Yes, but the overall question remains: how do you decide which are flawed and which are valid? You can't say circumstantial evidence works in the case of Bonds/Clemens, so therefore fuck Jeff Bagwell.<br /><br /><i>Do you insist that every voter adhere to a single standard?</i><br /><br />Not at all, all I'm saying is that "well I think he did steroids and so I'm not voting for him" is dangerous. I think Bonds did steroids, but what if I decide Derek Jeter is too good and therefore did steroids? It's an absolutely arbitrary line of thinking and allows for sportswriters to disguise "I hate this guy" as "I think he did PEDs"<br /><br /><i>I know that they were fairly widespread in the 60's and into the 70's, but for all I know everyone in baseball is still popping greenies like Tic-Tacs.</i><br /><br />So what's the difference? Greenies are PEDs, they're not as performance enhancing as steroids, but they're still PEDs. The fact that people today "for all [you] know" are still being used is irrelevant. It's disingenuous to say circumstantial evidence is good enough to keep steroid users out, but greenies are perfectly okay because people may still be using them.<br /><br />As for my overall point, what I was pointing out was that yes, it led to inconsistent voting. More importantly however, the use of "circumstantial" evidence is a huge problem for me. If you can prove he did PEDs, keep him out, otherwise, you're letting a handful of guys decide that some guy used PEDs because his stats spiked in one year or because he got bigger or some other relatively insignificant thing.<br /><br />As for stats, the thing is that 4000 hits is 4000 hits. Are there circumstances that could effect that? Absolutely and you can make some judgement calls about that (ball park size, talent quality, etc), but at its core, there is an undeniable fact. There is some circumstantial thought around it, but again, at its core there is an undeniable fact. With steroid use, there is no fact, it's entirely circumstantial.<br /><br />(and no, using just stats would be stupid) <br />richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-78933666563329094462013-01-14T18:48:50.518-05:002013-01-14T18:48:50.518-05:00JR, I love a good debate. Never loathe to disagree...JR, I love a good debate. Never loathe to disagree with me. I am wrong at least 0.001% of the time. <br /><br />I'm not really trying to put a "Innocent until proven guilty" tone into it. It's more of my feeling that I don't know Piazza/Bagwell used PEDs. I think and believe they did, but I don't think I can keep them out of the Hall of Fame because of what I think or believe. It's just a personal opinion. It's getting murky when talking about Craig Biggio. I think he used PEDs too. You would be surprised at the players I think used PEDs, and I feel strongly they did, but I just can't stop myself from voting for these guys to get in the Hall of Fame. It seems wrong and I don't want to reward those who got away with it, but I think there has to be a differentiation between those who are accused and those who are caught using. <br /><br />I have like 2 more posts that are somewhat related to this idea coming down the pipe, so feel free to disagree. <br /><br />Snarf, I didn't run over a lady with car today and I could have. I'm proud of myself. <br /><br />Rich, I haven't even thought about it spilling over into other things really. I hope it wouldn't go that direction. <br /><br />I don't think we should adhere to mistakes from the past into the future, but I also wonder why guys like Fred McGriff can't get in if he was clean. I think his numbers justify it. The integrity clause should work both ways. Fine, don't let Bagwell in because he is suspected of cheating (why isn't Biggio in this discussion too is ridiculous to me and shows the flaw in the use of suspecting a player used PEDs. PEDs don't just make a player hit 40 HRs. They can cause a player to hit 20 HRs or a ton of doubles), but shouldn't this mean that Fred McGriff gets in because he played the game with such integrity? <br /><br />At the end of the day, I have no issue with someone not voting for Bagwell if they have an argument other than "I think he used PEDs." I think he did too, but I also think John Smoltz did. <br /><br />I don't think I could get behind statistical measures a player has to reach. That doesn't sound very good to me. It's going to be a long 20 years in regard to HoF voting. Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-33676233005496997962013-01-14T18:31:21.804-05:002013-01-14T18:31:21.804-05:00Rich,
No precedent for circumstantial evidence ex...Rich,<br /><br />No precedent for circumstantial evidence exists because the PED era seemingly has no precedent in MLB history. Pete Rose was one player out of hundreds. The Black Sox were one team out of sixteen. Contrast that to the PED era, in which some estimated that over half, perhaps well over half, of all players were using. To me they are very different situations.<br /><br />"Where one person sees a set of evidence and says "guilty" another could justifiably say that the connection is only made through the bias of the observer."<br /><br />Right - this is why we have a lot of people voting for the HOF. (Not enough, mind you, but that's another topic) When we put all of the votes together, that's when we'll have our answer.<br /><br />"Imagine if people voted someone, say Paul Konerko, MVP because they deemed there to be enough circumstantial evidence to not vote for Cabrera, Trout or any of the other 50 better players?"<br /><br />It would be a terrible vote. But just because circumstantial evidence would support a flawed conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't support a valid one.<br /><br />"Ultimately, the use of circumstantial evidence is arbitrary at best and terrifying at best."<br /><br />"Terrifying"? No. Not when we're deciding something as relatively unimportant as this. In a court of law? Sure.<br /><br />"If you allow the use of circumstantial evidence in disbarring people from the HOF, what level of action justifies its use?"<br /><br />It's a case-by-case situation. For instance, the record suggests that Mark McGwire could not play at a HOF level without PEDs, but Barry Bonds could. At least it does to me; maybe you feel differently. Do you insist that every voter adhere to a single standard? We're all very different people.<br /><br />"For instance, if circumstantial use of steroids is enough to keep someone out of the HOF, then does circumstantial use of amphetamines carry a similar weight?"<br /><br />For me? Probably not, but I don't know nearly enough about the amphetamine issue. I know that they were fairly widespread in the 60's and into the 70's, but for all I know everyone in baseball is still popping greenies like Tic-Tacs.<br /><br />"The only argument one can make given points one and two is that steroid/HGH use is a far greater offense than anything ever seen by the sport. Under that argument, you run into the subjective nature of classifying "cheating." Amphetamines, corked bats, racial segregation, intentionally attempting to injure the opposition, spit balls, nail files, pine tar, etc. where do they rank?"<br /><br />To be honest, I can't say. If I had a HOF vote, I'd make more of an effort to sort these things out. My own view is NOT that "anyone who has ever cheated is ineligible for the HOF". There levels of cheating, many of which are subject to reprisals within the game.<br /><br />"As Ben pointed out, people who we have absolute proof of their cheating are in the HOF, so to use circumstantial evidence to keep others out is an argument so full of bullshit it belongs on a farm"<br /><br />So we are bound to adhere to the mistakes of the past going forward?<br /><br />I think what you are arguing - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that voting against suspected PED users leads inconsistent standards and processes. I don't deny that. So why even have a HOF vote? Let's just all agree to a statistical standard or two and let a computer figure out if the candidate in question met the standards. That way we don't have to exercise flawed human judgment, and everyone who hit 400 home runs gets in, hooray. Or 2700 hits. Or 225 wins, you pick.JR Ewing Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15625626214196012794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-4034777716800737232013-01-14T17:15:18.474-05:002013-01-14T17:15:18.474-05:00JR,
The problem with using circumstantial evidenc...JR,<br /><br />The problem with using circumstantial evidence has three major problems:<br /><br />1) It has never been used to keep a player out of the HOF. If circumstantial evidence of steroid use is enough to keep someone out of the HOF, then you have to start applying that decision to everything: betting, HGH, etc. <br /><br />Pete Rose was not kicked out of baseball because of circumstantial evidence, nor were the Black Sox. To apply this argument now would enable sportswriters to continue to punish modern day players for the reasons of "circumstantial evidence."<br /><br />So it just sets a really bad precedent for the future. <br /><br />2) Circumstantial evidence by its very definition requires some kind of inference to connect the dots. Where one person sees a set of evidence and says "guilty" another could justifiably say that the connection is only made through the bias of the observer.<br /><br />Again, if baseball allows the use of circumstantial evidence in HOF voting, then it has to spill over into other things.<br /><br />Imagine if people voted someone, say Paul Konerko, MVP because they deemed there to be enough circumstantial evidence to not vote for Cabrera, Trout or any of the other 50 better players?<br /><br />Ultimately, the use of circumstantial evidence is arbitrary at best and terrifying at best.<br /><br />3) If you allow the use of circumstantial evidence in disbarring people from the HOF, what level of action justifies its use? For instance, if circumstantial use of steroids is enough to keep someone out of the HOF, then does circumstantial use of amphetamines carry a similar weight? <br /><br />The only argument one can make given points one and two is that steroid/HGH use is a far greater offense than anything ever seen by the sport. Under that argument, you run into the subjective nature of classifying "cheating." Amphetamines, corked bats, racial segregation, intentionally attempting to injure the opposition, spit balls, nail files, pine tar, etc. where do they rank?<br /><br />As Ben pointed out, people who we have absolute proof of their cheating are in the HOF, so to use circumstantial evidence to keep others out is an argument so full of bullshit it belongs on a farm.richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-29610469877182808362013-01-14T15:33:42.335-05:002013-01-14T15:33:42.335-05:00I'm glad Madden wants a gold star for letting ...I'm glad Madden wants a gold star for letting in Eddie Murray. I didn't blow off work today, give me a medal.Snarfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-77122924368721263682013-01-14T14:38:08.852-05:002013-01-14T14:38:08.852-05:00Ben, though I am loathe to disagree with you, I th...Ben, though I am loathe to disagree with you, I think a certain amount of circumstantial evidence is enough to keep certain players out of the HOF. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is not relevant here, as I explained in my latest (real) post at BSBB.<br /><br />That aside, this piece by Madden is fucking awful.JR Ewing Theoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15625626214196012794noreply@blogger.com