Peter King asked a veteran last week in MMQB how many people he had killed, which was shockingly insensitive, and he revealed that he was always dubious going to rehab was Johnny Manziel's idea. Peter just forgot to mention that going to rehab was not Manziel's idea until he found out the Browns have moved on from Manziel as their quarterback. This week evaluates Troy Polamalu's Hall of Fame chances (Peter spends 25% of MMQB talking about Polamalu...which is a lot of space...but he played for the Steelers so it's space well-spent obviously), talks about the impact of a female official (she might better be able to fit in if sportswriters didn't make such a big deal of her inclusion as an NFL official), and apparently Gary Myers is writing a book about the Brady-Manning rivalry which sounds like a book I'm 100% guaranteed not to read. I get enough of the "IT'S BRADY VERSUS MANNING" during the NFL season. I don't need a whole book about it. The book has "untold" stories, which I wish had stayed that way for a little while longer. Apparently their rivalry changed the NFL. Who knew?
This is for all of you, in the wake of Pittsburgh’s Troy Polamalu
retiring the other day after 12 seasons, wondering if he’ll be a
first-ballot Hall of Famer, or whether it’ll be he or Ed Reed who gets
into Canton first, or whether they might go in together:
This is for all of us? I don't really give a shit if Troy Polamalu makes the Hall of Fame or not. The NFL Hall of Fame vote for Polamalu is five seasons away and even then I probably don't care if he makes it or not. I don't see the need to have a discussion about his candidacy right now. I think it can wait, no?
Over the past 26 years, covering 147 enshrinees to the Pro Football Hall
of Fame, one of the 147 has been a safety. I’m talking a player who
played safety his entire career, not one (such as Ronnie Lott or Rod
Woodson, both of whom played significant portions of their careers at
cornerback) who split time between corner and safety. The one:
Minnesota’s Paul Krause, the league’s all-time interceptions leader.
Peter I'm one of your readers, which means you need to treat me like I am stupid. Explain it in terms that someone who has the IQ of 85 can understand please. TALK DOWN TO ME!
Put another damning way: No safety who has played in an NFL game in the past 35 seasons is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Thank you for making that easy for me to understand. I was so confused previously when you used big words like "significant" and talked about players splitting time between two positions.
Three things really struck me about Polamalu’s retirement:
1. He was good at football.
2. He played for the Steelers his whole career.
3. His hair looked like a huge mane of pubic hair, which sort of disgusted me at times.
1. He’s a unique player in NFL history, a safety/linebacker/cover guy
who blew up people, was as instinctive as they come, and played with the
kind of dignity so few men have consistently shown over long careers.
Wait, what? Polamalu was a safety/linebacker/cover guy? So while Polamalu didn't play another position outside of safety, he was used in a variety of roles? Interesting since Peter just wrote the following as a reason why Polamalu was a pure safety:
Over the past 26 years, covering 147 enshrinees to the Pro Football Hall
of Fame, one of the 147 has been a safety. I’m talking a player who
played safety his entire career, not one (such as Ronnie Lott or Rod
Woodson, both of whom played significant portions of their careers at
cornerback) who split time between corner and safety.
I realize Polamalu played safety his entire career, but isn't it possible that some of the other Hall of Fame voters will see Polamalu in the same way Peter does and not consider him a pure safety due to the variety of roles he played for the Steelers over the years? Peter sees Polamalu as a hybrid defensive player and he is a Hall of Fame voter. Couldn't other Hall of Fame voters see it that way too?
2. I feel we might be in the midst of a golden age for safeties, with
the recently retired Brian Dawkins, Ed Reed and Polamalu leading the
way, and so many top-notch ones in their prime now. Earl Thomas, Eric
Weddle, Kam Chancellor, Devin McCourty to start with … then the group of
new guys who spend part-time doubling as inside linebackers, the way
Arizona did last year with much success. Is that a trend that will
continue?
Probably, as long as NFL teams want safeties that can play in the box and cover tight ends.
the versatility of so many safeties says to me that more and more coordinators are trying to find their own Polamalus.
While understanding that Polamalu was great, let's also not forget that he was allowed to freelance in the Steelers defense at times and as he got older he was out of position more and more often. I feel like this is important to know.
3. Regarding the Hall conundrum: Dawkins will be eligible for election
in 2017, Reed in 2019, Polamalu in 2020. John Lynch has been a
consistent finalist for election recently, but he hasn’t been close yet.
It sounds like John Lynch should have been drafted by a team from the Northeast. If he were a safety with the Jets then I wonder if that would do anything for his candidacy?
The voters for the Hall of Fame—I am one of 46—
What? Peter is a Hall of Fame voter? I had no idea because it has been a few weeks since he mentioned it.
stink at electing safeties. We do. Seven pure safeties have been elected in 53 years. It took the voters until Krause’s 14th year of eligibility to elect the man with the most interceptions in history. Ten NFL
all-decade safeties have not been put in, including four of the five on
the all-decade first or second teams from the 1980s. “We have
completely disregarded the safety position,” said one of the veteran
voters, Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News. He is fed up with the voting at safety and has a couple ideas how to fix it, which I’ll get to in a few moments.
The Hall of Fame voters are going to rectify this issue by pushing through any and every reasonably qualified safety for the next 5-10 years. That will fix this issue and balance out the number of safeties in the Hall of Fame, because there HAS to be balance for each NFL position of course.
I bring this up because so many of you, and so many around the league,
nodded when Polamalu called it quits Thursday and said or thought, “Hall
of Famer. Easy call.”
Oh, we did? I didn't know about this.
You can say he and Reed, and maybe Dawkins, will make it, but now that you know the history, you have to feel a little shaky.
Oh, I do have to feel a little shaky? I wasn't sure how I would feel knowing that a pure safety hasn't elected into the Hall of Fame for the past 35 years. But now I do know that I feel a little shaky. Of course, I also know the Hall of Fame voters are going to try and fix this issue, so I should feel a little bit less shaky, right?
Gosselin’s idea about solving the Canton logjam is an interesting one: When the NFL has its 100th season
in 2019, Gosselin suggests the Hall should have an amnesty year, in
effect. Elect 10 players from the pool of Senior candidates, the old
timers whose cases have been drydocked for years. And elect 10 players
from the modern pool. The one-time 20-man class would clear up a growing
logjam. It certainly would.
I really doubt something like this would happen. The Hall of Fame elect 20 players into a class at one time? I'm all about increasing the amount of players who can get into the Hall in one year, but 20 players in one class seems extreme to me.
I’m not sure it’s the best idea, but I am in favor of getting a slew of
Mick Tingelhoffs considered rather than have them needlessly wait to
hear their names called for years, or decades. Twenty sounds like too
many to me, but the concept Gossellin suggests has merit.
How about the Pro Football Hall of Fame just decides they will elect more than a few players into the Hall on a yearly basis? That way there is no cap and players who the committee thinks are deserving get in during the regular elective process?
Flacco on Polamalu.
That postseason, Flacco and the Ravens went to Pittsburgh for the AFC
Championship Game, and that point got hammered home—brutally, as it
turned out for Flacco—in a piece of education Flacco will never forget.
With less than five minutes left and the Steelers leading 16-14 in as
physical and punishing a game as I’ve covered, Baltimore had a
third-and-13. Flacco knew this could be their last chance. The call was
for a two-man route—one on a deep route across the middle to, hopefully,
clear out Polamalu and one corner; and one on a 15-yard corner stop, as
the Ravens called it, with Derrick Mason running 15 yards and juking
the corner on a timing route, knowing the ball could be coming to a
small window when he turned and looked for it.
One problem: The Steelers were playing Polamalu at linebacker on the play.
He's a pure safety, remember. Will he make it into the Hall of Fame as a pure safety? That's Peter's question as he explains what a hybrid defensive player Polamalu was.
Flacco threw to Mason, and if Polamalu hadn’t been there, the YouTube video six years later makes it look like the ball might have been good enough for a conversion.
In a fantasy world, yes, that would have been a conversion. It seems Peter is trying so hard to tell fictional tales of Troy Polamalu's greatness that he ignores the Steelers cornerback that could easily have stepped in front of the pass and intercepted it if Polamalu had not. The Steelers' corner was right there, ready to pick the pass off. It doesn't mean Polamalu didn't make a great play, it's just an example of how sportswriters like to exaggerate a little bit in order to create legends about athletes. Polamalu's play simply can't stand on it's own, there has to be some sort of exaggeration. I think that Steelers defender was Ike Taylor and he was right there on the play to break it up or intercept the pass.
Flacco said he’ll have great memories of playing against Polamalu. “Now
[that he retired], I’ve got to take a step back and appreciate the games
we played against him and the Steelers. I am a man of few words, and so
is Troy, but I do know I’ll tell my children and grandchildren I was
lucky enough to play in these games, and lucky enough to play against
Troy so many times. Troy’s an example of the right way to do things, on
the field and off the field. Such a great competitor on every play, and
he treats everyone the right way. That’s the right way to handle
yourself. The image he had, the example he set … he just did it right.”
BUT JOE, DID POLAMALU PLAY THE GAME THE RIGHT WAY? YOU WEREN'T CLEAR ENOUGH ABOUT THIS ISSUE!
Polamalu would have made a great baseball player. It seems he played the game the right way, which as we all know is the sole goal of a baseball player, as described by baseball sportswriters.
“What were your conversations like?” I asked. “You get to know him very well?”
Peter always with the hard-hitting questions that readers probably don't care about.
"Did you eat lunch with him? What did he order for lunch? Tell me what you talked about."
It must be the cornball in me. I’ve seen so many of those
Steelers-Ravens games, and seen the intensity and the on-field hatred,
and it appeals to me that the triggerman of the Baltimore offense is so
genuinely respectful of the best man on the other side of the field.
It's almost like they both played in the age of free agency where the guy Flacco hated for the past decade could end up being his teammate the very next year.
Dick LeBeau has played and coached in the NFL for the past 56 years.
He entered the NFL in 1959 as a defensive back for Detroit, playing
opposite Hall of Fame cornerback Night Train Lane, and transitioned to
coaching when his playing career was done. He was Polamalu’s defensive
coordinator with the Steelers for 11 of his 12 seasons.
This, then, is the money quote from LeBeau when I reached him Sunday:
“Troy is a once-in-a-lifetime player. I have never seen an athlete in
the secondary, at any level, do as many things at the absolute highest
level as Troy did. He could play linebacker; he played linebacker more
than people know.
"WILL A PURE SAFETY LIKE TROY POLAMALU MAKE IT INTO THE HALL OF FAME?" PETER KING MUST KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.
I do like how Peter insists Polamalu was a pure safety, but this is the third time it is mentioned that Polamalu essentially played linebacker at certain points too. Dick LeBeau has referred to Polamalu as playing linebacker a lot, yet Peter continues with the "pure safety" line of thought while putting Polamalu in the same conversation as Dawkins, Lynch and Ed Reed.
He was an excellent run player. All the raw material you’d want in a defensive back, he had the best.”
“Are you including all the DBs you’ve seen in your life, going back to your playing days?” I asked.
No Peter, he's a crazy person like you who says a player is the "best" of his lifetime but only means the past 20-25 years. If you recall, a few years ago Peter said Derek Jeter was the best baseball player of his lifetime, then clarified he only meant the last 20-25 years after MMQB readers wrote in astounded at this idiotic comment.
“I do mean to say that,’’ LeBeau said. “Yes I do. I mean to say he has
every skill a defensive back would need to play at the highest level,
all over the defensive backfield.”
Polamalu is the best defensive back of Peter's generation. What Peter means by this is Polamalu is the best safety over the last five years.
It’s not like Sarah Thomas, hired by the NFL last week as a line judge
for one of the league’s 17 officiating crews, is immune to some boos and
some coach-screaming after a call she made that people didn’t like. But
even the biggest crowd for a college game—she said last week she thinks
it was probably 55,000 or so for Utah State-Brigham Young—won’t compare
to the intensity and the spotlight Thomas will face this season when
she becomes the first full-time female official in the 96-year history
of the NFL.
This is the second week that Peter has brought up Sarah Thomas as a new official and discussed how she will fit in with the rest of NFL officiating crews. Maybe she'll fit in better if Peter stops talking about and wondering how she will fit in? Has Peter ever wondered how other NFL officials would be able to stand scorn from large crowds at NFL games? This isn't exclusive to Sarah Thomas, but is an issue any official who is making the jump to the NFL would have to face. So I'm not sure what her sex has to do with having to deal with large crowds who will boo and coaches that will scream at her.
I can see it now: a dedicated camera on Thomas for her first game of the
regular season, by whichever network has the game. It’s history. A good
history—assuming Thomas can handle it.
Which is a huge assumption given that she is a female, will have her period at some point during the season and probably will be over-emotional like all women are during their time of the month. Great point, Peter. Can Sarah Thomas and her girl feelings handle being yelled at?
But this is not North Texas at Middle Tennessee she’ll be reffing. I
want to see Thomas’ reaction the first time Bill Belichick or Bruce
Arians or John Fox screams, “What the %&*# was THAT call?” I used
Belichick’s name the other day in just such a scenario.
Again, why hasn't this been an issue for any of the other NFL officials who have gotten promoted from officiating college football games to officiating NFL games? Not that Peter is a raging sexist, but I've never read anything he has written before about a concern that a male official may not be able to handle being yelled at by NFL head coaches. It sounds kind of sexist is my point.
“I really have not thought of it,” Thomas said.
Oh okay, so Peter really asked Sarah Thomas, "How are you going to handle being yelled at by grown men in a football setting?"
If this is a question based on Thomas officiating at a lower level in college, that's fine, but I don't recall Peter ever bringing this question up to any male officials who have made a similar leap to the NFL. So if the question is being asked because she's a woman, well, that's a little bit sexist. Of course Peter can't be sexist because he has two daughters, much in the same way someone can't be racist because he/she has two black friends.
That’s by far the best answer she could have given. Think about it: If she says, Well,
I have tremendous respect for Coach Belichick, and it would be tough,
but I have worked long and hard to be sure I’m ready for this chance, then
she’s messed up. Why? Because Bill Belichick, to her, now has to be the
same as the coach at North Texas or Middle Tennessee. He’s a coach.
Coaches scream sometimes. You explain, and if they don’t shut up, you
turn away and the game goes on.
Right, which is why the question could have probably survived as being not asked if Peter wouldn't ask the same question to another official.
For now, Thomas must get used to being a symbol as well as an official.
Like it or not, she’s going to be a beacon for women and girls, and not
just in women and girls interested in football or interested in
following her to the NFL. School kids are going to write reports on her.
In fact, they already are. And she is into it.
But if these school kids that are girls don't get a good grade on these reports they write about Sarah Thomas, how will it affect their self esteem? Will a middle school kid that is a female be able to handle the rejection of not receiving a good grade on a report? It's different being a female writing a report in elementary school as compared to being a female writing a report in middle school.
No word yet which referee and crew Thomas will be paired with—my money
is on the terminally patient Peter Morelli’s crew—but in whatever crew,
the ref won’t be the focus, at least in 2015. Sarah Thomas will be.
I hope the NFL is able to pair her with a crew that can support her emotionally when she's on the rag or a head coach has hurt her feelings and she spends most of halftime in the locker room crying. What if she's having a bad hair day or can't get her makeup just right? This is a disaster waiting to happen for sure.
Sarah Thomas will be the focus as long as further attention is drawn to the fact she is officiating NFL games AND she's a woman person.
Two teams will work out Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota this week in Eugene. St.
Louis and San Diego travel to Oregon (on different days) to put Mariota
to work on the field and in the classroom. I absolutely do not expect
the Rams to trade up for Mariota, but in the unlikely event that Mariota
falls to No. 10, I believe the Rams seriously would consider drafting
him. The Chargers’ workout might be a story. It might not be.
Thanks for the reporting. This may or may not mean something. Only time will tell. Once Peter finds out whether it means something or not, he will be sure to tell his readers what it means and how he knew previously that's probably what it meant.
Too early for speculative stuff like this to be anything to take to Vegas.
Here is some speculation that Peter wants you to take seriously if it turns out to be correct, but ignore entirely if it turns out not to be correct because it's just speculation you know.
Jon Gruden favors Mariota over Winston
I'm not sure how Gruden became a QB expert. Maybe he's an expert as long as his track record in the NFL of being a QB expert is ignored. I think this means I'll favor Winston over Mariota.
Melvin Gordon will not get past Baltimore at No. 26
But again, this is just speculation. So just forget Peter wrote this, unless it happens, in which case remember that Peter said Gordon wouldn't get past Baltimore at No. 26.
Randy Gregory’s positive pot test and weighing 235 at the combine scared
off many teams near the top of the draft off—but some of those teams,
after due diligence, are feeling more comfortable with Gregory early in
the round. I get the feeling Gregory’s going to be this draft’s boom or
bust guy
Until it comes time for Peter to talk about Jameis Winston, who will then become the draft's biggest boom or bust guy.
Not that anything’s going to hurt where the
Florida State quarterback will get drafted—he’s still the overwhelming
favorite to go number one—but I would file away this line from attorney
David Cornwell: “He’s ready to be an NFL player on the field. But he’s
not ready to be an NFL player off the field.”...But here’s the thing: If you’re drafting a quarterback number one
overall, you want that player to make it or not based on his ability as a
player, not on some off-field problems. Twelve quarterbacks have been
picked first overall in the past 20 years: Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Sam
Bradford, Matthew Stafford, JaMarcus Russell, Alex Smith, Eli Manning,
Carson Palmer, David Carr, Michael Vick, Tim Couch, Peyton Manning.
Russell was the only real star-crossed guy entering the draft; Al Davis
was in love with his arm strength and overlooked his lack of maturity. I
don’t think any of the 11 others had much that concerned teams off the
field before being drafted—though there was some question about Newton
playing at three schools in college.
Part of the reason Newton transferred from the University of Florida is because he had Tim Tebow in front him on the depth chart, then he went to a community college and was able to transfer to Auburn after that. I remember one big question off the field about Newton were the accusations that he stole a computer during his time at Florida and there were other academic issues brought up. I don't recall the maturity issues surrounding JaMarcus Russell, but I also may not be remembering very well.
What is going on with Ted Wells? This is day 80 of his
investigation into the Patriots and the deflated-footballs allegations.
The AFC title game was 12 weeks ago. I respect the work of Wells and his
staff, but this is getting ridiculous. The marathon bombing trial took
five weeks. The Patriots’ investigation is in its 12th.
Maybe Ted Wells stopped investigating the deflated ball allegations for a while to help O.J. look for the real killers. Or maybe Roger Goodell is more interested in pretending like he cares long enough for the public to not care as much anymore (though I never really cared that much in the first place). I'd say the second line of thought may be more accurate.
“It’s about time.”
—Baltimore coach John Harbaugh, on the NFL, preparing for its
96th season, finally hiring its first full-time female official, line
judge Sarah Thomas.
Yeah, but when Harbaugh starts yelling at Thomas is she going to go into a little ball and start crying about how he was so mean to her? If Thomas is married, will her husband come on the field and get angry at Harbaugh for yelling at her? I just hope John Harbaugh understands that Sarah Thomas will tuck her hair under her hat so that nobody gets distracted by the fact she's a girl and is officiating a man's sport. She'll look like a guy without a ponytail hanging out, but treat her with kid gloves because she is in fact a woman.
“Money wasn’t the first reason to make me want to come here. Even
when I knew [about the contract offer], I was like, ‘I’m not going
there. I don’t give a freak what they give me, I’m not going.’ And then I
realized it was the best for me. This is a team that wants me. Coach
[Rex] Ryan is a winner and he wants to run the ball.”
—Buffalo running back LeSean McCoy, recalling his stunning March
trade from Philadelphia to the Bills to Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia
Inquirer.
This is something Bills fans are probably incredibly eager to read about. LeSean McCoy in no way wanted to be a Buffalo Bill, but then he realized he was on the team anyway and they seemed to want him, so why not? Without other options, outside of holding out, why not be a Buffalo Bill?
“I don’t project trades. But in talking to people, my sense is Mariota is likely to be taken [number two overall.]”
—ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper, the well-coiffed one, on what he’s
hearing about where Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota will be chosen on
April 30.
So Kiper is saying the Titans wouldn't draft Mariota and a team would trade up for him? Maybe the Titans don't like Mariota, but it seems to me like the Titans could draft Mariota #2 and then Mel wouldn't have to project any trades.
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
In the matter of great safeties not playing anymore:
Washington strong safety Sean Taylor played his last football game at 24.
This is an interesting factoid from Peter simply because his history of discussing Sean Taylor is another example of Peter saying stupid shit and then trying to defend it. Peter essentially called Taylor "a disappointment" for the Redskins because he didn't live up to being a franchise safety. Taylor mostly didn't live up to this billing because he was murdered. It had something to do with it. So now Peter is hoping his readers forget that and calls Taylor a "great safety." But just a few short years ago he wrote:
Berry looks like a
top-10 pick, but the team that takes him is going to be picking against
history. Of the five top-10 safeties this decade, none has had
franchise-player impact: Roy Williams (Dallas, eighth overall, 2002), Sean Taylor (Washington, fifth overall, 2004), Michael Huff (Oakland, seventh, 2006), Donte Whitner (Buffalo, eighth, 2006), LaRon Landry (Washington, sixth, 2007).
But I don't know if Taylor, who was out
with a knee injury at the time of his death, would have been the kind
of franchise safety Ed Reed is, because to do so, you've got to stand the test of time.
The point of the item is that even the
great safeties, the highly regarded ones, are such physical forces on
the field that they often don't have long and impactful careers.
Except that wasn't Peter's point. He was hiding behind the whole "great safeties get injured" reasoning for why Taylor didn't make an impact on the Redskins franchise. Nevermind being killed isn't exactly an example of Taylor getting injured. Peter calls Taylor a "great safety" now, but he was a little dubious about Taylor's impact a few years ago.
Then Peter includes a Tweet from Steve Politi (a Tweet that would not embed on this blog for some reason) that says:
This event is my favorite of the year, but so far, it’s been the Masterzzzz.
I'm sorry, CBS can't hear your complaining over the 26% increase in ratings. Boring, but lucrative.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think, with the Masters fresh on your minds, there’s this anecdote from Gary Myers of the New York Daily News, which he unearthed researching his book on the Tom Brady-Peyton Manning rivalry (“Brady Vs. Manning: The Untold Story of the Rivalry That Transformed the NFL,” by Crown Archetype, due out Sept. 22):
There is definitely a market for a book such as this, but I am not that market. Can't we wait until Brady and Manning have been retired for a few years before writing "untold" stories about their rivalry? Maybe a few years from now, perhaps 3-4 years after they have retired, this book should be written so Manning and Brady can be appreciated. For now though, why must there be such immediacy to write a book on how the Brady-Manning rivalry transformed the NFL (I'm not going to argue this point because I haven't read the book, but I'm skeptical of statements like this) when they are both still active players? It sounds like Gary Myers wants to sell some books and appeal to Brady-Manning fans while the iron is still hot and fans are eager to purchase this book while both players are still active. This is as opposed to writing the book 3-4 years after Brady and Manning retire when more perspective could be given on their impact on the NFL. If Myers waited a few years then a better narrative could be written once both players are retired. But I guess writing a better book with perspective isn't necessarily the goal is it?
Tom Brady and Tom Brady Sr. and Rory
McIlroy and McIlroy’s father have a mutual friend. Through the mutual
friend, they set up to play golf together at Augusta National Golf
Club the second week in March. The Bradys and McIlroys, the mutual
friend and his father and another friend and his father played their own
father-son tournament on the Masters course. The night before they
played, the Brady/McIlroy group walked into the restaurant at Augusta
National to have dinner. Seated at another table were Peyton Manning,
Eli Manning, Cooper Manning, Jacob Tamme and John Lynch. Brady and
Manning, who have played many rounds of golf together, chatted for a few
minutes before Brady rejoined his group for dinner. Brady did not know
Manning was going to be there. Brady and Manning were on the course the
next day, but didn’t play together. Brady’s group played three rounds in
two days. Tom went off the first tee with Rory. Not a bad scene.
This story is interesting in that it shows wealthy athletes tend to hang out with each other and in the same places. Also, the Masters is a fun course to play. Otherwise, I'm sure there are better anecdotes in this book about Brady and Manning. There better be.
4. I think there is no more trusted player inside the Cleveland Browns
than Joe Thomas, and no one more team-oriented in all ways. And when he
says (as he did to ESPN Cleveland last week) that Johnny Manziel is
“going to have to prove to the team football is important,” it’s a
damning indictment of the impression Manziel left on the locker room
last season.
(checks watch) Yep, I guess it's the time where Peter King will start to bash Johnny Manziel in as many MMQB's as possible. Why not? It's not like Peter sat down with Manziel and got a chance to judge him for himself prior to the draft, except, you know, he did. At the time, I thought it was a very good performance by Manziel. People don't change their behavior simply because they now have the chance to get paid handsomely for doing what they once did for free. But anyway, it's time to bash Manziel because he's essentially been the same person he was in college and the media wanted to believe he had made this huge change. Bash Manziel for not changing when writers like Peter King wanted him to have changed so badly.
Peter KNEW that going to rehab was not Johnny Manziel's idea. Sure, he never mentioned that prior to last week once rumors of the Browns being unhappy with Manziel started to leak out, but Peter was totally thinking it prior to this.
7. I think I love when guys say dumb
things on social media and immediately claim their account was hacked.
That’s what Darrelle Revis said Sunday after he or the hacker got into
some ugly back-and-forths with fans unhappy with his decision to leave
the Patriots for the Jets. Must be a lot of people out there who know
Revis’ social media passwords. Or not.
Well Peter, not everyone can write something stupid on Twitter and then get away with very little criticism from anyone outside of the fans. When Darrelle Revis says something dumb on Twitter, it gets mentioned by the media (like how Peter just did), but when Peter King says something dumb on Twitter or in MMQB then there is only the fans to mention it and discuss it because Peter's friends in the media certainly will just blow it off as Peter not meaning what he wrote.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Thanks for the invitation, Sports Business Journal, to be a
part of Thursday’s future-of-the-media panel in Los Angeles, with ESPN
heavyweight John Walsh, Jason Whitlock of the new site The Undefeated, Pam Oliver of FOX Sports, and SBJ’s John Ourand.
Isn't it interesting how Grantland was announced and got off the ground within a month and a half, but Jason Whitlock was hired to run his own Grantland-type site almost a year and a half ago, yet the site hasn't debuted yet?
I like the idea of a site dedicated to shine the light on racial issues,
inside and outside of sports, because of how much societal issues
affect the people we write about and you watch. That showed up big last
fall with the Rams players’ personal statements of empathy for those
affected by the strife in Ferguson.
And Peter King knows how those citizens of Ferguson felt, because one time he was pulled over by the police and they thought he was Peter King the Republican Congressman from New York. It was pretty hostile there for a few minutes, but Peter and the cop had a good laugh about it later. Peter got off with a warning for a broken tail light and gained a new reader of MMQB. But for a few minutes, Peter felt he was being discriminated against because he was a Congressman.
d. Maybe I should get into “Game of Thrones.”
Oh no, you should not. You will be very, very confused.
i. It’s hard to believe a modern athlete, such as Mets closer Jennry
Mejia, would use a steroid (Stanazolol, the same one Ben Johnson used to
prep for the Seoul Olympics nearly two decades ago) to get better,
knowing baseball tests for it. It’s an intelligence test, to some
degree, because Mejia knows he’ll be tested. And he obviously flunked
the test.
I'm sure Mejia also thought he had used a masking agent or he wouldn't be tested again for some time. Maybe he is just stupid, but I can't imagine how a human would know something is wrong, know he/she could get caught and then do that stupid thing anyway. It's almost like it's human nature.
m. Coffeenerdness: Java Question of the Week, from the Peet’s barista in
the JFK Airport Terminal 4 coffee shop, after I’d ordered a medium
latte with an extra shot of espresso, paid, and was waiting near the
espresso machine for my drink to come out. “You know this already comes
with two shots, so you’re sure you want a third?” Yes. Quite sure.
Peter probably really said something in response like, "I know how many shots I want. Just give me the third shot and do your job" and then got back to texting Mitch Albom about how service industry workers are morons and continued holding up the rest of the line by not looking up when the barista was trying to hand him the drink.
o. Apropos of nothing: I was waiting for a plane at LAX the other night, and heard “That Smell” by Lynyrd Skynyrd. One of the worst songs ever created. Why did it become popular?
Whaaaaaaaaat? I wouldn't expect a fan of U2 to really appreciate "That Smell." It's not poppy and haughty-sounding enough. Sounds about drug and alcohol addiction don't always have a soaring chorus where fans can raise their arms in the air as a douchebag lead singer smiles knowing each of these morons paid $110 to watch his band perform. "That Smell" is about drug and alcohol addiction, it's not supposed to be a pretty song.
The Adieu Haiku
Troy Polamalu.
His name’s not good for haiku.
I doubt he cares, though.
It gets worse every week. This is one of the worst haikus ever created. Please stop writing these haikus. Do it for the sake of our children's children.
Showing posts with label HOF voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HOF voting. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
1 comments Hey! It's Jon Heyman's 2015 Hall of Fame Ballot!
Completely tired of the 2015 Hall of Fame ballot discussion? Good! Me too! Now here is Jon Heyman's 2015 Hall of Fame ballot. I threatened to cover Heyman's ballot individually last year, and figured I wouldn't threaten this year. I would just do it. Jon Heyman is probably a decent guy, but every year he seems to know who was clean and wasn't clean, then sort of claims he will vote for PED users at some point, but just not this year. Mostly, Heyman uses the logic that these steroid guys will get his vote when the ballot gets lighter, which of course makes no sense. If Bonds/Clemens/etc are Hall of Fame-worthy on a light ballot then they should be eligible on a more loaded ballot. A Hall of Fame candidate should be judged on his qualifications, not based on who else is on the ballot in a given year. Last year Heyman said this:
Next year, I will reconsider them all. But I'm not close to being ready to squeeze a clean guy off the ballot so I can put a steroid guy onto the ballot, as it appears many others are. The result is a ballot I can be proud of (even if it's a ballot sure to draw internet ridicule). Admittedly, mine is not a ballot with the 10 most accomplished, or even, quite likely, the 10 best players.
Integrity.
Sportsmanship.
Character.
They still count. At least they do here.
Like last year, integrity counts until the ballot gets lighter. After that, fuck integrity, let's allow the PED guys into the Hall of Fame.
Here is Heyman's ballot and I do give him some credit for at least breaking down his vote so that everyone who reads what he writes knows who he voted for/didn't vote for and why.
This year's Hall of Fame ballot is maybe the most interesting, debate-evoking and controversial in history, if it's not the most star-packed in decades, and it may be that as well.
It's a packed ballot, so that means PED users are not welcome to receive votes.
Many ballots -- and very likely a majority of ballots -- will be impacted by thoughts of steroid evidence, accusations and even supposition. Many -- and once again, likely most -- voters won't include the "best" (or at least most-accomplished) players on their ballots, with the result being that the lists of great players left off individual ballots may in fact be even better than those included on some ballots.
And that is a shame.
It's a shame that Heyman willingly participates in.
Whatever, this is a whine-free zone.
The writers who did a poor job of investigating steroid usage through the so-called "steroid era" of the late 1980s through 2001 (which is just about everyone, and includes yours truly) probably deserve to have this dilemma on our hands.
Hey! Some self-awareness. Now if only Jon Heyman wouldn't sound like such a lap dog for Scott Boras at times and agree with me on every baseball-related issue then I could like him a lot more.
More to the point, steroid users and abusers still don't deserve admission to Cooperstown. Or at least that is the way I still look at it.
Until the ballot gets lighter of course. Then these steroid users may get a shot from Heyman (no pun intended...ah fuck it, pun intended).
And I reserve the option to change my mind in subsequent years.
I'm not kidding about this. I didn't just make this up. Heyman is going to change his mind when the ballot gets lighter. This makes just no sense to me. I don't understand why Bonds is not good enough on a loaded ballot, but all of a sudden on a lighter ballot his accomplishments look better. Each candidate should be judged on his individual merit, not based on who else is on the ballot.
For today anyway, I'm not comfortable bestowing baseball's highest honor on guys who helped themselves to more accolades, trophies, All-Star appearances, MVPs, and as colleague Cliff Floyd -- a pragmatist and himself a first-time candidate harboring no illusion of making it -- points out, more moolah.
Yes, they did make more money by using PED's. I don't know if that should be a part of the consideration on whether these PED users should be in the Hall of Fame or not.
While a majority of voters see it the same way -- Rafael Palmeiro already is off the ballot for failing to gain five percent of the vote, Mark McGwire is no threat anytime soon, and Bonds and Roger Clemens, shoo-ins based on all-time accomplishments, received only about a third of the vote last year -- there is a very vocal group of fans, followers, bloggers, stat guys and others who prefer to disregard the steroid link.
I'm not sure what "followers" are and how they are different from "fans." Maybe followers are people who follow baseball players around the country and are often called "groupies." So groupies are very vocal about their favorite baseball player getting in the Hall of Fame. And as always, bloggers and stat guys ruin absolutely everything.
Such a stance might make life easier, except for a couple obvious problems.
One issue: Who is culpable, and how culpable?
Great point and rather than answer these questions head-on, Jon Heyman would prefer to just assume some players did or did not use steroids. Since no one knows who is culpable and how culpable they are, it's easier to just base his vote on assumptions and rumors.
That smoke usually came from unusually bad testimony or soft-on-steroid quotes to oddly inflated bodies and statistics
I don't completely understand how a player can have "oddly inflated statistics." Like what, that baseball player shouldn't be as good as he is at baseball? Is this mutually exclusive from having an "oddly inflated body"? Maybe Jeff Bagwell's body isn't oddly inflated, but his statistics are oddly inflated, so he obviously used steroids. What about Dustin Pedroia? His body isn't oddly inflated, but would Jon consider his statistics to be oddly inflated because he doesn't look like he should be as good at baseball as he is? It lacks sense to me how a player can have oddly inflated statistics independent of an oddly inflated body.
(and for one or two over-eager voters, the presence of back acne; this is also an acne-free zone, by the way, as that is no sort of evidence of PED use, as there are many causes of acne).
See, this shows that Jon Heyman does know how to use logic and isn't always over-eager to suspect a player of using PED's. Except, guess what? He still thinks Mike Piazza is "under review" for PED use. Obviously understanding logic and actually using logic are two separate things.
Some played it straight and performed admirably through the steroid era with normal-sized muscles and normal-sized heads, and they deserve extra consideration for competing successfully on an artificially imbalanced playing field. It's consideration they're not necessarily getting. Mussina, Raines and McGriff have yet to crack 50 percent, with only Raines coming close.
Nothing like Hall of Fame voters dismissing the statistics of those who are suspected of using or used steroids and then holding clean players to the standard set by suspected and proven steroids users.
So here are the major queries that come up (my analysis iof the 17 new players on old ballot, and 17 returning players, comes further down) ...
2. How do you know how much steroids and other PEDs helped since there's no way to quantify it?
That's true, and why I assume some stat guys don't want to deal with the issue at all,
"Stat guys" don't want to deal with this because it's almost impossible to accurately assess the impact of steroids on an individual's performance. Players age differently and steroids would have a different impact on every player who used them. So there's no way to quantify it, so "stats guys" don't deal with the issue at all because there is no accurate way to deal with the issue.
3. How can you be against steroid guys when steroids weren't explicitly disallowed until 2002?
While steroids weren't talked about or written about (a great regret) throughout the 1990s, it was understood using them was cheating. Otherwise, guys wouldn't have lied about it, stonewalled the subject the few times it came up or taken a defensive stance about its usage, and even Andro.
So Jon Heyman is against steroid guys because everyone knew it was cheating and guys lied about using them. So because enough players didn't take steroids for it to be understood that steroids were acceptable, Jon Heyman is against steroid users in the Hall of Fame. Which brings up the next question...
4. How can you be so against steroids yet give the greenie-takers of the 1950s and '60s a pass?
That's an easy one.
Is it though? Why is it that "stats guys" are expected to quantify how steroids helped players perform during the Steroid Era, but those who want to ignore "greenie" use in the 50's and 60's aren't expected to quantify how using these drugs didn't help these players perform at a higher level?
Greenies were pervasive throughout the sport, are not muscle builders (sluggers of the era resembled normal folks) and they were so out in the open that it was understood the use was widespread.
Yeah, that just got written. So "greenies" were okay because they didn't build muscle, which doesn't mean they didn't enhance performance, and because EVERYONE used them it was understood that everyone was cheating. So Jon Heyman would have had zero problem with the Steroid Era if every MLB player had been using steroids. Because the widespread use of steroids is just fine and doesn't diminish the game of baseball, but when only a few select players are using steroids it leaves a black mark on the game. This sounds to me like a crappy excuse to not indict current Hall of Famers for cheating due to "greenie" use. The whole "everyone was doing it!" excuse has to be among the worst reasons for any behavior to be acceptable. Though I do find it interesting that Jon Heyman thinks the use of steroids during the Steroid Era wasn't prevalent enough.
7. How can you punish guys even if you aren't 100 percent sure they did steroids?
Toughest question of all.
It wouldn't be a tough question at all if steroid use was just more widespread during the Steroid Era. If everyone was using them and the use of steroids was seen as an unspoken acceptable thing to do, then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would have the red carpet rolled out to them so they could enter the Hall of Fame. But, the issue is that the Steroid Era didn't have enough steroid use, otherwise it would have been fine to cheat.
It's true if someone has failed a test, been convicted of a crime related to steroids, appeared in the Mitchell Report without suing MLB (no one has sued yet) or confessed, it's easier to exclude them. And I don't consider back acne, a corked bat, poor or evasive responses to Congressional questions or even a sudden inability to speak English as proof positive.
Jon Heyman is vaguely referring to Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, and Sammy Sosa here. What do they all have in common? Jon Heyman has not voted for any of these three players to enter the Hall of Fame due to suspicion of steroid use. I mean, what?
So Heyman is all like, "I don't consider bacne, a corked bat or poor responses to Congressional questions as proof positive" of PED use, then doesn't vote for these players due to suspicion of PED use. It's hard for me to wrap my head around this. Then where does his suspicion of Piazza and Sosa come from if not from bacne, poor or evasive responses to Congressional questions or a sudden inability to speak English? Or this part of the "oddly inflated bodies and statistics" that Heyman was talking about? If so, "oddly inflated bodies and statistics" is just another way of creating the same suspicion that Heyman rejects in the paragraph above. He's just taking six of one from the half dozen of the other that bacne or a sudden inability to speak English represent. He's coming off as open-minded, but holding these players to the same standard he rejects, just using different words to get there.
There are fair reasons to be suspicious in some cases, from quotes supportive of steroid guys to physiological changes so extreme they're tough to ignore to other issues that paint a fuller picture.
Heyman relies on more concrete evidence like quotes that can be taken several ways or if a player seems to be getting bigger than he should be getting. He ignores evidence like evasive responses to Congress. Because there's a huge difference in evasive answers to Congress and quotes supportive of steroid guys. One is lying to a Congressional investigation and the other is misleading a sportswriter. Obviously misleading a sportswriter is the more important transgression to focus on.
Why is it OK to presume Sammy Sosa's involvement but not Mike Piazza's or Jeff Bagwell's? None of the three has been proven to have taken steroids by any evidentiary measure.
I don't know that it is right to assume involvement by all three, but Sosa was at least on the leaked report in 2009. There's a little more smoke to go with his fire.
8. How can the steroid guys be excluded considering the Hall is a museum, where the intent is documentation of all baseball history, good and bad?
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. The steroid guys can still be documented throughout the Hall without being inducted. Induction into the Hall is an honor. To say it's just a museum seems like nothing more than a way to avoid the elephant in the room. In other words, a copout.
No, what's a copout is calling the Hall of Fame not a museum and saying these guys can be documented throughout the Hall without being inducted.
(Museum Employee) "Here you see a video showing the race between McGwire and Sammy Sosa to break Roger Maris' record. Both players ended up breaking the record. They are both two of the best home run hitters in MLB history."
(Visitor) "Oh, are they in the Hall of Fame? Can I see their plaques?"
(Museum Employee) "No, they aren't inducted. We have documented all of their great achievements here in the Hall of Fame though."
(Visitor) "If they had so many great achievements then why aren't they in the Hall of Fame."
(Museum Employee) "Well, they have not been elected into the Hall of Fame as of yet because they linked to have used steroids. They disgraced the game by cheating, so they have not been inducted yet. The Hall of Fame voters don't want to reward these players for cheating. We can not celebrate them because of this."
(Visitor) "But you have an entire exhibit about their home run chase. Isn't that rewarding them for cheating too? Isn't this celebrating them?"
(Museum Employee) "I don't know. Ask Jon Heyman. He seems to think it's fine to celebrate the achievements of great players but not induct them into the Hall of Fame. Here he comes. I think he's at the Scott Boras exhibit again. In fact, don't call it a museum to his face. He gets angry."
OK, so without further delay, here's my ballot ...
The Ballot
1. Pedro Martinez: At his best, nobody was better. Used extreme athleticism, a gifted arm and amazing smarts to overcome tiny stature and make an extreme mark.
Considering Martinez's tiny stature, I would say he probably had over inflated statistics, didn't he? How could such a small guy pitch with such power? Obviously a PED user under the "over inflated statistics" reasoning.
2. Randy Johnson: While there aren't many statistical things I would call automatic Hall qualifiers, four straight Cy Youngs (and five overall) might be an exception. A dominating force once he harnessed his incredible talent.
From ages 35-38 his ERA never went above 2.64. That encompasses 1999-2002, which is right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Had an ERA+ of 125 at the age of 43. I would say that's pretty tough to ignore. Clearly a steroid user.
3. John Smoltz: In different seasons he was the best starter and the best reliever.
Recovered from two major arm surgeries to come back and throw just as hard as he did before. I would say that's a red flag for PED use.
4. Tim Raines: Sabermetrics guys were first to point out he belonged, and did so convincingly. I am a convert. The .385 on-base percentage, 808 steals
He used all that cocaine, which obviously helped him steal all those bases.
5. Curt Schilling: Impact counts here, and bloody sock or not, he was the key man in two championships and important in a third.
Curt Schilling as a rookie.
Curt Schilling later in his career.
Wow, quite the physiological change there. Throw in an ERA that never went past 3.26 from 2001-2004 when Schilling was 34-37 years old and that's pretty suspicious. Probably used steroids.
6. Fred McGriff: His OPS was 50 points higher than obvious Hall of Famer Eddie Murray, would have 500 home runs if not for the 1994 strike (he has 493) and was quietly brilliant in the postseason (.917 OPS, even better than his .886 regular-season mark). His consistent ledger and quiet persona probably work against him, as do inflated numbers of steroid guys around him.
While it's annoying that McGriff is measured against PED users but considered clean, look at how McGriff's hat fit him early in his career. It looks a little big on him at the top and around the edges. Compare to how his hat fit later in his career. It's almost like the hat barely fits around the side of his head. His head grew! An obvious sign of PED use.
7. Craig Biggio: This is a tough one because he's more of a complier,
What Heyman said about Raines before voting for him:
even if he was only great his first seven or so seasons, and very good thereafter.
So if a player is great for seven seasons, and then only very good after that, then that's a sign he may not deserve Hall of Fame induction. If a player is very good for a long time, then he's a compiler.
Biggio was on the same team as Roger Clemens, Ken Caminiti, Andy Pettitte and Jeff Bagwell. Yeah, he definitely used PED's because he has quotes where he doesn't call these guys all cheaters.
8. Don Mattingly: He makes it here in his last chance on the ballot for his great peak. He overcame his status as a 19th-round draft choice to become one of the best two or three position players for a half decade, before his bad back sapped his strength.
Let's see, a guy plays well for a short time until injuries derail his career. What's a sign of PED use? When a player suffers an injury and suddenly stops performing at a high level, because PED's can cause the body to eventually break down. Plus, PED's can cause a player to grow hair in odd places, which explains Mattingly's awesome mustache. Is it a coincidence that Mattingly is now retired and he no longer has the mustache? Not at all. Once he retired, he quit taking PED's. So the mustache left too.
9. Alan Trammell: If Barry Larkin was an obvious Hall of Famer for me, why not Trammell? Dave Cameron of Fangraphs correctly points out the difference between Larkin and Trammell (who both had lifetime WARs of 70) is Larkin was a better base-runner and base-stealer (though Trammell wasn't bad on the bases, Larkin was great). That should make everyone take a closer look at Trammell.
Check out this site. It is a coincidence on a site where cheap steroids are offered one of the tags is "Alan Trammell"? I really doubt it. This is clear evidence of his connection to steroids.
Near Misses
10. Mike Mussina: His 3.68 ERA is excusable in the middle of the steroid era (and AL East), though he seemed to only come close to greatness throughout a fine career -- he never won a Cy Young, never led the league in ERA or strikeouts, didn't win a World Series ring and didn't quite finish that no-hitter vs. Boston.
So basically he is Jack Morris without the two World Series rings that denote team and not personal achievement? Heyman voted for Morris by the way.
11. Edgar Martinez: The slash line that topped .300/.400/.500 showed he's a great hitter, one of the best of his era, and there should be no discrimination against DHs. However, he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice (though perhaps he should have a time or two more) and didn't have overwhelming career totals (though maybe the Mariners should have called him up earlier).
So Martinez doesn't make it in the Hall of Fame because he doesn't have the MVP votes or career totals (though the lack of both isn't really his fault, but let's blame him anyway).
12. Lee Smith: One of the most dominant and consistent closers ever was the all-time saves leader when he retired (478 career saves). Maybe it's not fair everyone is compared to Mariano Rivera.
I wouldn't put Lee Smith in the Hall of Fame, but why wouldn't Heyman vote for him again? He's not Mariano Rivera? Almost no closer is.
14. Carlos Delgado: His numbers are exemplary, and frankly closer than you would think.
Don't say it's closer than I would think. You have no idea how close I think Delgado should be to entering the Hall of Fame.
16. Nomar Garciaparra: His lifetime .882 OPS is higher than any Hall of Fame shortstop, including Ernie Banks (and Derek Jeter, for that matter), and his .313 batting average is higher than any post-war Hall of Fame shortstop. But he probably didn't play quite long enough.
Of course, if he played longer than he would be a "compiler" in Jon Heyman's eyes.
Extremely good, not quite great
17. Brian Giles: Impressive lifetime WAR of 50, on-base percentage of .400 and OPS of .902 (five points short of Gary Sheffield), and even in an era of over-inflated stats, that may sway one or two stat-minded voters.
I think Brian Giles used steroids. I wouldn't dismiss him from Hall of Fame consideration based on this, but if Jeff Bagwell should be under indictment then so should Brian Giles. If whispers of Bagwell's use are justification for leaving him out, how about Giles' ex-fiance accusing him of using anabolic steroids? That's right, Jon Heyman doesn't believe such evidence that's whispered unless he decides to listen to the evidence like this that is whispered, but hiding under the guise of seeing Giles' changed physiology.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter unless Jon Heyman decides it matters.
18. Tom Gordon: Very good as both starter and reliever, and also an excellent producer of next-generation ballplayers.
Father to Ben, Alex, Jeff and Flash Gordon. An impressive roster of athletes in that family.
24. Aaron Boone: Terrific gentleman who told the truth and produced one very magic moment.
Aaron Boone was always honest and had a magic moment. Basically, he was the perfect balance between George Washington and a wizard.
26. Eddie Guardado: There's something to be said for the ability to throw every day.
I have thrown everyday since I learned how to throw a ball. Can I be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Or is Jon Heyman's appreciation of my skill to throw everyday probably sufficient recognition?
Worthy on deeds but under review
But NOT under review because of bacne or some other silly thing like a Congressional hearing where he may or may not have lied. These players are under review for much more concrete reasons, namely Jon Heyman's opinion they should be under review based on circumstantial evidence not related to bacne or a corked bat. It's a totally different type of suspicion of PED use, because Jon says that it is.
28. Mike Piazza: All-time greatest hitting catcher is gathering steam despite the steroid specter, and barring a smoking gun will get there at some point.
So what causes this steroid specter if it's not bacne? Just rumors of Piazza's PED use? If so, you may as well just use bacne as your reason, because at least you are giving a reason for not voting for Piazza. I've constantly laughed at bacne being the proof that Mike Piazza used PED's, but dismissing bacne as a reason and then just have general concerns based on a generic "specter" that doesn't ever get described, as if it's porn and Heyman knows it when he sees it, is the same thing as using a bullshit reason like bacne. It's just the bullshit reason isn't given.
30. Jeff Bagwell: A big WAR probably overrates him (is he really the sixth-best first baseman all-time, or second best postwar?)
No, but he is one of the best first basemen of all-time and should be in the Hall of Fame.
but his accomplishments are very impressive indeed and still would be good enough without the specter.
What fucking "specter" is this? Just rumors that Heyman heard in the hallway while making out with Scott Boras beside the lockers? Jon Heyman goes to lengths to prove he's not believing a corked bat or evasive answers are sufficient evidence to prove a player used PED's, but damn if he isn't going to use "the specter" of steroids to keep guys like Bagwell and Piazza out of the Hall of Fame. Not naming this "specter" is engaging in the same bullshit innuendo that Heyman declares he won't be a part of. Does he not get this?
The 'steroid guys'
31. Barry Bonds: The story of taking up steroids only after McGwire and Sosa temporarily surpassed him is quite believable. Wouldn't rule out a vote in the future.
So absent everyone else taking steroids and this making it all right to cheat, Jon Heyman also will give his vote maybe someday to Barry Bonds if the ballot isn't as loaded and Bonds can prove that he only took steroids because others did too. Apparently Jon Heyman is cool with someone doing drugs as long as everyone else is doing drugs too. He must be either have been (a) a lot of fun or (b) no fun at all at parties in college.
32. Roger Clemens: Amazing how he got better after he entered the twilight of his career, isn't it?
I'm sorry, are we talking about Randy Johnson again?
34. Gary Sheffield: His résumé looks like that of a potential Hall of Famer, but his BALCO past combined with a ballot overstuffed with other steroid-linked guys puts him in some jeopardy of failing to get the five percent necessary to make next year's ballot. He is the only 500-homer hitter never to strike out 90 times in a season, as Verducci points out.
Yeah, but the steroids helped him not miss the baseball when he swung at it. This is the type of science you should just believe and not bothering looking up to determine whether it is accurate or not.
The BALCO customer claims he took the clear accidentally, and even if someone believes him, the numbers almost surely were aided by the transgression.
OH, so Sheffield didn't mean to take the clear. Why didn't he say so? Barry Bonds didn't take steroids, his doctor lied to him and told him that he was diabetic. So Bonds thought he needed a shot of insulin everyday to keep him alive, not enhance his performance. How embarrassing!
Also admitted to throwing balls away on purpose (no accident there) so the Brewers would have to trade him, and prevented the Yankees from trading him by proclaiming places he wouldn't want to go when his agent (him) forgot to ask for a no-trade clause, an effective threat in light of his Milwaukee years.
Sheffield was an asshole. There are plenty of assholes in the Hall of Fame. This is irrelevant.
I can't wait until the Hall of Fame ballot gets a little bit lighter. I wonder if Jon Heyman will vote for the PED users and suspected users at that point? They should just tell Jon that everyone else was using steroids and I'm sure he'll let them off the hook like he did those baseball players who used "greenies" in the 50's and 60's.
Next year, I will reconsider them all. But I'm not close to being ready to squeeze a clean guy off the ballot so I can put a steroid guy onto the ballot, as it appears many others are. The result is a ballot I can be proud of (even if it's a ballot sure to draw internet ridicule). Admittedly, mine is not a ballot with the 10 most accomplished, or even, quite likely, the 10 best players.
Integrity.
Sportsmanship.
Character.
They still count. At least they do here.
Like last year, integrity counts until the ballot gets lighter. After that, fuck integrity, let's allow the PED guys into the Hall of Fame.
Here is Heyman's ballot and I do give him some credit for at least breaking down his vote so that everyone who reads what he writes knows who he voted for/didn't vote for and why.
This year's Hall of Fame ballot is maybe the most interesting, debate-evoking and controversial in history, if it's not the most star-packed in decades, and it may be that as well.
It's a packed ballot, so that means PED users are not welcome to receive votes.
Many ballots -- and very likely a majority of ballots -- will be impacted by thoughts of steroid evidence, accusations and even supposition. Many -- and once again, likely most -- voters won't include the "best" (or at least most-accomplished) players on their ballots, with the result being that the lists of great players left off individual ballots may in fact be even better than those included on some ballots.
And that is a shame.
It's a shame that Heyman willingly participates in.
Whatever, this is a whine-free zone.
The writers who did a poor job of investigating steroid usage through the so-called "steroid era" of the late 1980s through 2001 (which is just about everyone, and includes yours truly) probably deserve to have this dilemma on our hands.
Hey! Some self-awareness. Now if only Jon Heyman wouldn't sound like such a lap dog for Scott Boras at times and agree with me on every baseball-related issue then I could like him a lot more.
More to the point, steroid users and abusers still don't deserve admission to Cooperstown. Or at least that is the way I still look at it.
Until the ballot gets lighter of course. Then these steroid users may get a shot from Heyman (no pun intended...ah fuck it, pun intended).
And I reserve the option to change my mind in subsequent years.
I'm not kidding about this. I didn't just make this up. Heyman is going to change his mind when the ballot gets lighter. This makes just no sense to me. I don't understand why Bonds is not good enough on a loaded ballot, but all of a sudden on a lighter ballot his accomplishments look better. Each candidate should be judged on his individual merit, not based on who else is on the ballot.
For today anyway, I'm not comfortable bestowing baseball's highest honor on guys who helped themselves to more accolades, trophies, All-Star appearances, MVPs, and as colleague Cliff Floyd -- a pragmatist and himself a first-time candidate harboring no illusion of making it -- points out, more moolah.
Yes, they did make more money by using PED's. I don't know if that should be a part of the consideration on whether these PED users should be in the Hall of Fame or not.
While a majority of voters see it the same way -- Rafael Palmeiro already is off the ballot for failing to gain five percent of the vote, Mark McGwire is no threat anytime soon, and Bonds and Roger Clemens, shoo-ins based on all-time accomplishments, received only about a third of the vote last year -- there is a very vocal group of fans, followers, bloggers, stat guys and others who prefer to disregard the steroid link.
I'm not sure what "followers" are and how they are different from "fans." Maybe followers are people who follow baseball players around the country and are often called "groupies." So groupies are very vocal about their favorite baseball player getting in the Hall of Fame. And as always, bloggers and stat guys ruin absolutely everything.
Such a stance might make life easier, except for a couple obvious problems.
One issue: Who is culpable, and how culpable?
Great point and rather than answer these questions head-on, Jon Heyman would prefer to just assume some players did or did not use steroids. Since no one knows who is culpable and how culpable they are, it's easier to just base his vote on assumptions and rumors.
That smoke usually came from unusually bad testimony or soft-on-steroid quotes to oddly inflated bodies and statistics
I don't completely understand how a player can have "oddly inflated statistics." Like what, that baseball player shouldn't be as good as he is at baseball? Is this mutually exclusive from having an "oddly inflated body"? Maybe Jeff Bagwell's body isn't oddly inflated, but his statistics are oddly inflated, so he obviously used steroids. What about Dustin Pedroia? His body isn't oddly inflated, but would Jon consider his statistics to be oddly inflated because he doesn't look like he should be as good at baseball as he is? It lacks sense to me how a player can have oddly inflated statistics independent of an oddly inflated body.
(and for one or two over-eager voters, the presence of back acne; this is also an acne-free zone, by the way, as that is no sort of evidence of PED use, as there are many causes of acne).
See, this shows that Jon Heyman does know how to use logic and isn't always over-eager to suspect a player of using PED's. Except, guess what? He still thinks Mike Piazza is "under review" for PED use. Obviously understanding logic and actually using logic are two separate things.
Some played it straight and performed admirably through the steroid era with normal-sized muscles and normal-sized heads, and they deserve extra consideration for competing successfully on an artificially imbalanced playing field. It's consideration they're not necessarily getting. Mussina, Raines and McGriff have yet to crack 50 percent, with only Raines coming close.
Nothing like Hall of Fame voters dismissing the statistics of those who are suspected of using or used steroids and then holding clean players to the standard set by suspected and proven steroids users.
So here are the major queries that come up (my analysis iof the 17 new players on old ballot, and 17 returning players, comes further down) ...
2. How do you know how much steroids and other PEDs helped since there's no way to quantify it?
That's true, and why I assume some stat guys don't want to deal with the issue at all,
"Stat guys" don't want to deal with this because it's almost impossible to accurately assess the impact of steroids on an individual's performance. Players age differently and steroids would have a different impact on every player who used them. So there's no way to quantify it, so "stats guys" don't deal with the issue at all because there is no accurate way to deal with the issue.
3. How can you be against steroid guys when steroids weren't explicitly disallowed until 2002?
While steroids weren't talked about or written about (a great regret) throughout the 1990s, it was understood using them was cheating. Otherwise, guys wouldn't have lied about it, stonewalled the subject the few times it came up or taken a defensive stance about its usage, and even Andro.
So Jon Heyman is against steroid guys because everyone knew it was cheating and guys lied about using them. So because enough players didn't take steroids for it to be understood that steroids were acceptable, Jon Heyman is against steroid users in the Hall of Fame. Which brings up the next question...
4. How can you be so against steroids yet give the greenie-takers of the 1950s and '60s a pass?
That's an easy one.
Is it though? Why is it that "stats guys" are expected to quantify how steroids helped players perform during the Steroid Era, but those who want to ignore "greenie" use in the 50's and 60's aren't expected to quantify how using these drugs didn't help these players perform at a higher level?
Greenies were pervasive throughout the sport, are not muscle builders (sluggers of the era resembled normal folks) and they were so out in the open that it was understood the use was widespread.
Yeah, that just got written. So "greenies" were okay because they didn't build muscle, which doesn't mean they didn't enhance performance, and because EVERYONE used them it was understood that everyone was cheating. So Jon Heyman would have had zero problem with the Steroid Era if every MLB player had been using steroids. Because the widespread use of steroids is just fine and doesn't diminish the game of baseball, but when only a few select players are using steroids it leaves a black mark on the game. This sounds to me like a crappy excuse to not indict current Hall of Famers for cheating due to "greenie" use. The whole "everyone was doing it!" excuse has to be among the worst reasons for any behavior to be acceptable. Though I do find it interesting that Jon Heyman thinks the use of steroids during the Steroid Era wasn't prevalent enough.
7. How can you punish guys even if you aren't 100 percent sure they did steroids?
Toughest question of all.
It wouldn't be a tough question at all if steroid use was just more widespread during the Steroid Era. If everyone was using them and the use of steroids was seen as an unspoken acceptable thing to do, then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would have the red carpet rolled out to them so they could enter the Hall of Fame. But, the issue is that the Steroid Era didn't have enough steroid use, otherwise it would have been fine to cheat.
It's true if someone has failed a test, been convicted of a crime related to steroids, appeared in the Mitchell Report without suing MLB (no one has sued yet) or confessed, it's easier to exclude them. And I don't consider back acne, a corked bat, poor or evasive responses to Congressional questions or even a sudden inability to speak English as proof positive.
Jon Heyman is vaguely referring to Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, and Sammy Sosa here. What do they all have in common? Jon Heyman has not voted for any of these three players to enter the Hall of Fame due to suspicion of steroid use. I mean, what?
So Heyman is all like, "I don't consider bacne, a corked bat or poor responses to Congressional questions as proof positive" of PED use, then doesn't vote for these players due to suspicion of PED use. It's hard for me to wrap my head around this. Then where does his suspicion of Piazza and Sosa come from if not from bacne, poor or evasive responses to Congressional questions or a sudden inability to speak English? Or this part of the "oddly inflated bodies and statistics" that Heyman was talking about? If so, "oddly inflated bodies and statistics" is just another way of creating the same suspicion that Heyman rejects in the paragraph above. He's just taking six of one from the half dozen of the other that bacne or a sudden inability to speak English represent. He's coming off as open-minded, but holding these players to the same standard he rejects, just using different words to get there.
There are fair reasons to be suspicious in some cases, from quotes supportive of steroid guys to physiological changes so extreme they're tough to ignore to other issues that paint a fuller picture.
Heyman relies on more concrete evidence like quotes that can be taken several ways or if a player seems to be getting bigger than he should be getting. He ignores evidence like evasive responses to Congress. Because there's a huge difference in evasive answers to Congress and quotes supportive of steroid guys. One is lying to a Congressional investigation and the other is misleading a sportswriter. Obviously misleading a sportswriter is the more important transgression to focus on.
Why is it OK to presume Sammy Sosa's involvement but not Mike Piazza's or Jeff Bagwell's? None of the three has been proven to have taken steroids by any evidentiary measure.
I don't know that it is right to assume involvement by all three, but Sosa was at least on the leaked report in 2009. There's a little more smoke to go with his fire.
8. How can the steroid guys be excluded considering the Hall is a museum, where the intent is documentation of all baseball history, good and bad?
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. The steroid guys can still be documented throughout the Hall without being inducted. Induction into the Hall is an honor. To say it's just a museum seems like nothing more than a way to avoid the elephant in the room. In other words, a copout.
No, what's a copout is calling the Hall of Fame not a museum and saying these guys can be documented throughout the Hall without being inducted.
(Museum Employee) "Here you see a video showing the race between McGwire and Sammy Sosa to break Roger Maris' record. Both players ended up breaking the record. They are both two of the best home run hitters in MLB history."
(Visitor) "Oh, are they in the Hall of Fame? Can I see their plaques?"
(Museum Employee) "No, they aren't inducted. We have documented all of their great achievements here in the Hall of Fame though."
(Visitor) "If they had so many great achievements then why aren't they in the Hall of Fame."
(Museum Employee) "Well, they have not been elected into the Hall of Fame as of yet because they linked to have used steroids. They disgraced the game by cheating, so they have not been inducted yet. The Hall of Fame voters don't want to reward these players for cheating. We can not celebrate them because of this."
(Visitor) "But you have an entire exhibit about their home run chase. Isn't that rewarding them for cheating too? Isn't this celebrating them?"
(Museum Employee) "I don't know. Ask Jon Heyman. He seems to think it's fine to celebrate the achievements of great players but not induct them into the Hall of Fame. Here he comes. I think he's at the Scott Boras exhibit again. In fact, don't call it a museum to his face. He gets angry."
OK, so without further delay, here's my ballot ...
The Ballot
1. Pedro Martinez: At his best, nobody was better. Used extreme athleticism, a gifted arm and amazing smarts to overcome tiny stature and make an extreme mark.
Considering Martinez's tiny stature, I would say he probably had over inflated statistics, didn't he? How could such a small guy pitch with such power? Obviously a PED user under the "over inflated statistics" reasoning.
2. Randy Johnson: While there aren't many statistical things I would call automatic Hall qualifiers, four straight Cy Youngs (and five overall) might be an exception. A dominating force once he harnessed his incredible talent.
From ages 35-38 his ERA never went above 2.64. That encompasses 1999-2002, which is right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Had an ERA+ of 125 at the age of 43. I would say that's pretty tough to ignore. Clearly a steroid user.
3. John Smoltz: In different seasons he was the best starter and the best reliever.
Recovered from two major arm surgeries to come back and throw just as hard as he did before. I would say that's a red flag for PED use.
4. Tim Raines: Sabermetrics guys were first to point out he belonged, and did so convincingly. I am a convert. The .385 on-base percentage, 808 steals
He used all that cocaine, which obviously helped him steal all those bases.
5. Curt Schilling: Impact counts here, and bloody sock or not, he was the key man in two championships and important in a third.
Curt Schilling as a rookie.
Curt Schilling later in his career.
Wow, quite the physiological change there. Throw in an ERA that never went past 3.26 from 2001-2004 when Schilling was 34-37 years old and that's pretty suspicious. Probably used steroids.
6. Fred McGriff: His OPS was 50 points higher than obvious Hall of Famer Eddie Murray, would have 500 home runs if not for the 1994 strike (he has 493) and was quietly brilliant in the postseason (.917 OPS, even better than his .886 regular-season mark). His consistent ledger and quiet persona probably work against him, as do inflated numbers of steroid guys around him.
While it's annoying that McGriff is measured against PED users but considered clean, look at how McGriff's hat fit him early in his career. It looks a little big on him at the top and around the edges. Compare to how his hat fit later in his career. It's almost like the hat barely fits around the side of his head. His head grew! An obvious sign of PED use.
7. Craig Biggio: This is a tough one because he's more of a complier,
What Heyman said about Raines before voting for him:
even if he was only great his first seven or so seasons, and very good thereafter.
So if a player is great for seven seasons, and then only very good after that, then that's a sign he may not deserve Hall of Fame induction. If a player is very good for a long time, then he's a compiler.
Biggio was on the same team as Roger Clemens, Ken Caminiti, Andy Pettitte and Jeff Bagwell. Yeah, he definitely used PED's because he has quotes where he doesn't call these guys all cheaters.
8. Don Mattingly: He makes it here in his last chance on the ballot for his great peak. He overcame his status as a 19th-round draft choice to become one of the best two or three position players for a half decade, before his bad back sapped his strength.
Let's see, a guy plays well for a short time until injuries derail his career. What's a sign of PED use? When a player suffers an injury and suddenly stops performing at a high level, because PED's can cause the body to eventually break down. Plus, PED's can cause a player to grow hair in odd places, which explains Mattingly's awesome mustache. Is it a coincidence that Mattingly is now retired and he no longer has the mustache? Not at all. Once he retired, he quit taking PED's. So the mustache left too.
9. Alan Trammell: If Barry Larkin was an obvious Hall of Famer for me, why not Trammell? Dave Cameron of Fangraphs correctly points out the difference between Larkin and Trammell (who both had lifetime WARs of 70) is Larkin was a better base-runner and base-stealer (though Trammell wasn't bad on the bases, Larkin was great). That should make everyone take a closer look at Trammell.
Check out this site. It is a coincidence on a site where cheap steroids are offered one of the tags is "Alan Trammell"? I really doubt it. This is clear evidence of his connection to steroids.
Near Misses
10. Mike Mussina: His 3.68 ERA is excusable in the middle of the steroid era (and AL East), though he seemed to only come close to greatness throughout a fine career -- he never won a Cy Young, never led the league in ERA or strikeouts, didn't win a World Series ring and didn't quite finish that no-hitter vs. Boston.
So basically he is Jack Morris without the two World Series rings that denote team and not personal achievement? Heyman voted for Morris by the way.
11. Edgar Martinez: The slash line that topped .300/.400/.500 showed he's a great hitter, one of the best of his era, and there should be no discrimination against DHs. However, he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice (though perhaps he should have a time or two more) and didn't have overwhelming career totals (though maybe the Mariners should have called him up earlier).
So Martinez doesn't make it in the Hall of Fame because he doesn't have the MVP votes or career totals (though the lack of both isn't really his fault, but let's blame him anyway).
12. Lee Smith: One of the most dominant and consistent closers ever was the all-time saves leader when he retired (478 career saves). Maybe it's not fair everyone is compared to Mariano Rivera.
I wouldn't put Lee Smith in the Hall of Fame, but why wouldn't Heyman vote for him again? He's not Mariano Rivera? Almost no closer is.
14. Carlos Delgado: His numbers are exemplary, and frankly closer than you would think.
Don't say it's closer than I would think. You have no idea how close I think Delgado should be to entering the Hall of Fame.
16. Nomar Garciaparra: His lifetime .882 OPS is higher than any Hall of Fame shortstop, including Ernie Banks (and Derek Jeter, for that matter), and his .313 batting average is higher than any post-war Hall of Fame shortstop. But he probably didn't play quite long enough.
Of course, if he played longer than he would be a "compiler" in Jon Heyman's eyes.
Extremely good, not quite great
17. Brian Giles: Impressive lifetime WAR of 50, on-base percentage of .400 and OPS of .902 (five points short of Gary Sheffield), and even in an era of over-inflated stats, that may sway one or two stat-minded voters.
I think Brian Giles used steroids. I wouldn't dismiss him from Hall of Fame consideration based on this, but if Jeff Bagwell should be under indictment then so should Brian Giles. If whispers of Bagwell's use are justification for leaving him out, how about Giles' ex-fiance accusing him of using anabolic steroids? That's right, Jon Heyman doesn't believe such evidence that's whispered unless he decides to listen to the evidence like this that is whispered, but hiding under the guise of seeing Giles' changed physiology.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter unless Jon Heyman decides it matters.
18. Tom Gordon: Very good as both starter and reliever, and also an excellent producer of next-generation ballplayers.
Father to Ben, Alex, Jeff and Flash Gordon. An impressive roster of athletes in that family.
24. Aaron Boone: Terrific gentleman who told the truth and produced one very magic moment.
Aaron Boone was always honest and had a magic moment. Basically, he was the perfect balance between George Washington and a wizard.
26. Eddie Guardado: There's something to be said for the ability to throw every day.
I have thrown everyday since I learned how to throw a ball. Can I be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Or is Jon Heyman's appreciation of my skill to throw everyday probably sufficient recognition?
Worthy on deeds but under review
But NOT under review because of bacne or some other silly thing like a Congressional hearing where he may or may not have lied. These players are under review for much more concrete reasons, namely Jon Heyman's opinion they should be under review based on circumstantial evidence not related to bacne or a corked bat. It's a totally different type of suspicion of PED use, because Jon says that it is.
28. Mike Piazza: All-time greatest hitting catcher is gathering steam despite the steroid specter, and barring a smoking gun will get there at some point.
So what causes this steroid specter if it's not bacne? Just rumors of Piazza's PED use? If so, you may as well just use bacne as your reason, because at least you are giving a reason for not voting for Piazza. I've constantly laughed at bacne being the proof that Mike Piazza used PED's, but dismissing bacne as a reason and then just have general concerns based on a generic "specter" that doesn't ever get described, as if it's porn and Heyman knows it when he sees it, is the same thing as using a bullshit reason like bacne. It's just the bullshit reason isn't given.
30. Jeff Bagwell: A big WAR probably overrates him (is he really the sixth-best first baseman all-time, or second best postwar?)
No, but he is one of the best first basemen of all-time and should be in the Hall of Fame.
but his accomplishments are very impressive indeed and still would be good enough without the specter.
What fucking "specter" is this? Just rumors that Heyman heard in the hallway while making out with Scott Boras beside the lockers? Jon Heyman goes to lengths to prove he's not believing a corked bat or evasive answers are sufficient evidence to prove a player used PED's, but damn if he isn't going to use "the specter" of steroids to keep guys like Bagwell and Piazza out of the Hall of Fame. Not naming this "specter" is engaging in the same bullshit innuendo that Heyman declares he won't be a part of. Does he not get this?
The 'steroid guys'
31. Barry Bonds: The story of taking up steroids only after McGwire and Sosa temporarily surpassed him is quite believable. Wouldn't rule out a vote in the future.
So absent everyone else taking steroids and this making it all right to cheat, Jon Heyman also will give his vote maybe someday to Barry Bonds if the ballot isn't as loaded and Bonds can prove that he only took steroids because others did too. Apparently Jon Heyman is cool with someone doing drugs as long as everyone else is doing drugs too. He must be either have been (a) a lot of fun or (b) no fun at all at parties in college.
32. Roger Clemens: Amazing how he got better after he entered the twilight of his career, isn't it?
I'm sorry, are we talking about Randy Johnson again?
34. Gary Sheffield: His résumé looks like that of a potential Hall of Famer, but his BALCO past combined with a ballot overstuffed with other steroid-linked guys puts him in some jeopardy of failing to get the five percent necessary to make next year's ballot. He is the only 500-homer hitter never to strike out 90 times in a season, as Verducci points out.
Yeah, but the steroids helped him not miss the baseball when he swung at it. This is the type of science you should just believe and not bothering looking up to determine whether it is accurate or not.
The BALCO customer claims he took the clear accidentally, and even if someone believes him, the numbers almost surely were aided by the transgression.
OH, so Sheffield didn't mean to take the clear. Why didn't he say so? Barry Bonds didn't take steroids, his doctor lied to him and told him that he was diabetic. So Bonds thought he needed a shot of insulin everyday to keep him alive, not enhance his performance. How embarrassing!
Also admitted to throwing balls away on purpose (no accident there) so the Brewers would have to trade him, and prevented the Yankees from trading him by proclaiming places he wouldn't want to go when his agent (him) forgot to ask for a no-trade clause, an effective threat in light of his Milwaukee years.
Sheffield was an asshole. There are plenty of assholes in the Hall of Fame. This is irrelevant.
I can't wait until the Hall of Fame ballot gets a little bit lighter. I wonder if Jon Heyman will vote for the PED users and suspected users at that point? They should just tell Jon that everyone else was using steroids and I'm sure he'll let them off the hook like he did those baseball players who used "greenies" in the 50's and 60's.
Friday, February 13, 2015
3 comments Roundup of Crazy Hall of Fame Voting From Baseball Hall of Fame Voters
I guess I shouldn't call it "crazy" since everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just be consistent and don't have a stupid opinion, that's all that I ask. I usually do a few posts about Hall of Fame voting and may end up doing a few more before it's all said and done, but felt the need to try my best to condense the crazy voting into as few posts as possible. I will probably fail in doing so. As always, Jon Heyman will probably deserve his very own post. He seems like a nice guy in real life, but his ballot is always very vexing to me. He's a shill for Scott Boras and tends to use bad reasoning for his Hall of Fame selections.
So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.
Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.
Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.
A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.
This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.
I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.
Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?
It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.
So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.
Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.
So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),
How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?
Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),
Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987.
Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.
Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.
You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either.
The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.
It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.
The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’
Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.
Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit.
Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."
Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.
Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.
Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?
I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.
I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.
Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.
My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.
Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.
I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.
In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.
Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.
In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.
Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.
Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.
And that was just the regular season.
A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.
Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.
He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history?
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.
So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.
Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.
Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot.
I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.
In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.
The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given.
Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.
Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.
Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.
Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations of PED use.
There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.
I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.
These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.
But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.
When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.
Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).
Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.
Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.
My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.
Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.
Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.
Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.
So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.
I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.
As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.
cc: Murray Chass
LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.
There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.
I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.
Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.
It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.
It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.
Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!
(looks at Jerry Green)
Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.
As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.
(checks list again)
It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.
(counts up the players listed)
There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?
Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire.
Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.
I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.
Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.
Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.
Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.
So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.
As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.
The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."
Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.
On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)
But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.
Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.
A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.
Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.
A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.
They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.
Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user.
Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?
And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.
So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.
Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.
Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.
So who cares what these people think, right?
But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.
Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.
Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.
Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.
Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.
Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.
Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.
PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.
Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?
So there are guys like him.
There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.
And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,
This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.
no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.
That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.
Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.
Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.
They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.
And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.
If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.
He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"
I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.
Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.
Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.
Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.
Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.
But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.
If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him.
Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right?
Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.
The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.
Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.
But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.
Fall guys. We need them. We find them.
BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!
Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’
Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.
Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time.
Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.
Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.
So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.
Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.
Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.
A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.
This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.
I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.
Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?
It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.
So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.
Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.
So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),
How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?
Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),
Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987.
Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.
Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.
You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either.
The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.
It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.
The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’
Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.
Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit.
Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."
Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.
Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.
Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?
I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.
I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.
Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.
My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.
Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.
I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.
In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.
Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.
In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.
Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.
Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.
And that was just the regular season.
A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.
Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.
He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history?
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.
So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.
Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.
Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot.
I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.
In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.
The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given.
Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.
Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.
Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.
Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations of PED use.
There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.
I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.
These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.
But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.
When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.
Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).
Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.
Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.
My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.
Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.
Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.
Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.
So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.
I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.
As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.
cc: Murray Chass
LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.
There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.
I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.
Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.
It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.
It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.
Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!
(looks at Jerry Green)
Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.
As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.
(checks list again)
It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.
My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.
For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.
(counts up the players listed)
There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?
Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire.
Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.
I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.
Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.
Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.
Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.
So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.
As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.
The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."
Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.
On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)
But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.
Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.
A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.
Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.
A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.
They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.
Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user.
Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?
And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.
So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.
Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.
Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.
So who cares what these people think, right?
But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.
Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.
Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.
Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.
Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.
Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.
Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.
PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.
Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?
So there are guys like him.
There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.
And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,
This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.
no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.
That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.
Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.
Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.
They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.
And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.
If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.
He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"
I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.
Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.
Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.
Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.
Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.
But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.
If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him.
Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right?
Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.
The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.
Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.
But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.
Fall guys. We need them. We find them.
BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!
Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’
Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.
Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time.
Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.
Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)