9 comments Let's Talk A Little Bit About the Baseball Hall of Fame

I tried to ignore the Hall of Fame discussions that went on last week during the Hall of Fame voting. Mostly since I don't enjoy talking about the Baseball Hall of Fame and I feel every discussion just takes us all in circles to where everyone thinks they are right and support their position with really important sounding statistics. I couldn't ignore it after a while though. Hopefully today won't be too spastic for all of you, as I am going to be trying to cover all the articles about the Hall of Fame that I bookmarked and thought were interesting/horrible about the 2010 Hall of Fame voting. We all know only Andre Dawson got in and BotB favorite Bert Blyleven came 5 votes short. I think it is interesting to find out how these voters came to their conclusion of who should be included as a 2010 Hall of Fame inductee.

Let's start it off with Jayson Stark and him going over his ballot.

Dawson hasn't peeled away an ice pack to play a big league game since 1996. Blyleven hasn't broken off one of those legendary curveballs since 1992. So don't ask me why they're still being forced to sweat out these election days after all these years.

If I were the czar of Hall of Fame election rules, we'd be forced to make up our minds within the first five elections -- 10 at the most -- on whether men like this are Hall of Famers.

Apparently Jayson Stark wants a short time period to consider these players. I don't know if I can agree with this. Though 15 ballots does seem like a lot, it also gives the voters plenty of time to consider each candidate's credentials. It also doesn't really hurt anyone to keep a person on the ballot that many years in a row as long as the voters aren't just going to vote someone in the Hall of Fame just to do it (ummm...Jim Rice). It's not like guys who aren't elected their first couple of years on the ballot want OFF the Hall of Fame ballot because they get tired of waiting to see if they made the Hall of Fame.

As for me, I voted for both Dawson and Blyleven, plus all four prominent first-timers (Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff). And since I also vote for Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris and Dale Murphy every year, that means I filled up all 10 spots on my ballot for only the second time ever.

My take? Yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, no, no.

Dale Murphy is my idol but I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame. I named my goldfish after him as a child so I do have a soft spot for him, and if you let Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame, then Dale Murphy has a decent case as well. I don't see their career numbers as being incredibly different from each other. My sportswriting friend Gregg Doyel agrees with me on this issue. (Doyel's comments are in bold italics with different font)

So this is the reality I'm left to contemplate: Dick Vitale is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, but Dale Murphy is eliminated from Cooperstown forever.

This entire column Gregg starts talking about Dale Murphy being in the Hall of Fame and comparing it to Dick Vitale being in the basketball Hall of Fame. Honestly, I just don't get the comparison, so I just ignored it and tried to pay attention to the substance of his column.

They're the ones who have treated Murphy with disdain since Day 1 -- he received just 19.3 percent of the votes in his 1999 debut on the ballot -- and dropped him to 11.5 percent last year. In other words, only 1 in 5 voters ever thought Murphy was good enough, and almost half of them have gone gutlessly into the night. Instead of fighting for Murphy, they're letting him fade away.

I know the entire purpose of the 15 year waiting period is for voters to re-evaluate players from year-to-year, but since 1999 what the hell has a good hitting and fielding player done AFTER the Steroid Era done to deserve less support? In light of all the steroid revelations, shouldn't his numbers look better at this point? I don't see how they don't. There is something wrong in not voting for Mark McGwire because of steroids and his connection to them, but in also not recognizing players who didn't use steroids and put up great numbers. You can't penalize the steroids users for tainting the game and then not acknowledge the statistics those who didn't use PEDs put up.

I really don't think Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame, but I am playing Devil's advocate here.

His vote tally steadily increased until he made it into Cooperstown last year, and I'm not here to tell you Jim Rice doesn't deserve it -- he does. I'm here to tell you Dale Murphy deserves it just as much.

This is what irritates me, players setting the floor for induction and then we compare other players to the original player who is the "floor." Now that Rice has entered the Hall of Fame, advocates for players who are similar to Rice are going to be wanting their guy in the Hall of Fame as well. I don't hate Jim Rice, he is just going to be my whipping boy when discussing Dale Murphy.

Stats can be manipulated any way you want -- Murphy had more home runs than Rice (398 to 382), Rice had a much higher batting average (.298 to .265) -- but Murphy was a more versatile player. He had more stolen bases (161 to 58) and more Gold Gloves (five to none). You can tell me Rice is better. Maybe he is. But better to the point where last year he received 76.4 percent of the votes, and Dale Murphy got 11.5 percent?

This is one of the things that irritates me the most about the Hall of Fame. It is a popularity contest to a certain extent and this actually lends credence to Stark's idea of limiting years a player can be on a ballot to 5 or 10 years. It cuts down on the time a player can hang out there and finally garner enough sympathy. Did Jim Rice really deserve 7 times as much Hall of Fame support as Dale Murphy?

Murphy also won two MVP trophies, and of the 20 ballot-eligible players who won that award more than once, 18 are in the Hall. The only ones left out are Murphy and Roger Maris, who also belongs in the Hall for a combination of results and historical oomph, but I'll let someone else fight that fight.

Because it is a stupid fight. One year Maris hit a lot of homeruns while batting in the same lineup as Mickey Mantle who was nearly as hot at the plate as Maris was in 1961. I don't think a player should be allowed in the Hall of Fame based solely on him breaking the home run record. I don't see how this can be an unpopular opinion. Unfortunately, historical oomph isn't too high on my list of good reasons to put Roger Maris in the Hall of Fame either. He isn't Jackie Robinson.

Maybe individual production looked down in the 1980s because expansion had yet to dilute the talent; there were only 12 National League teams in 1985, compared to 16 today. Or maybe -- and that last explanation was only a theory, whereas this one is a stone cold fact -- the offensive numbers from the 1980s are unfairly dismissed because of the steroid explosion of the 1990s and beyond.

I don't know if it is a "fact" that the 1980's offensive numbers are unfairly dismissed because of the steroid explosion of the 1990's, but it certainly could be true. A fact is something that can't be disputed and can be easily backed up with empirical evidence, while this statement of Doyel's can certainly be disputed.

Schmidt led the 1980s with 313 home runs, just five more than Murphy's 308 -- Johnny Bench led the 1970s with 292, by the way -- but Barry Bonds hit 361 in the 1990s and Alex Rodriguez hit 435 in the 2000s. And those guys cheated.

Home runs are not, and should not, be the sole criteria for voting a player into the Hall of Fame. On it's face this seems convincing, but I would need more information to advocate Murphy's induction into the Hall of Fame. Just looking at Murphy's statistics, I don't know if I could advocate his candidacy.

Murphy drove in 1,266 runs, an impressive number in the 1980s but devalued by today's baseball, where Murphy's RBI total is somewhere between that of Garret Anderson (1,353) and Bobby Abreu (1,187).

RBI's are a factor of a team having runners on base to be batted in. Since Murphy played for some terrible Braves teams, I think we could excuse him for not having as many runs driven in as Garret Anderson and Bobby Abreu, both of which played for some teams that had good hitters in the lineup that got on base and could be driven in.

I don't know if RBI's have been devalued as much since the 1980's as home runs have been. I see it more as a factor of having runners on base to be batted in than a product of steroid usage. Homeruns have been devalued because everyone and their brother was cracking homeruns in the late 90s's, but I haven't really thought for sure if RBI's got devalued over that period. It would make sense since more homeruns seems to also indicate there would be more RBI's, but I would need more proof of it.

But the dominant player from the 1980s -- a guy who hit for power and stole bases (he turned in a 30-30 season in 1983, when that actually meant something) and won five Gold Gloves at a premium position like center field -- is about to slip off the ballot for good.

This is the part where I say Gold Gloves don't really mean much either and then list the players who have multiple Gold Gloves but are actually poor fielders...if I had the energy to list the players in the Hall of Fame who were poor fielders. The point is that guys like Dale Murphy realistically should not be considered 7 times less seriously for the Hall of Fame (through votes accumulated) than Jim Rice. That's a problem I have with the process.

Back to Stark's Hall of Fame ballot:

Alomar was a guy who made plays no one else made, saw things no one else saw and did it all with a Human Highlight Video flair that leaped off the field at you.

Much like spit from Alomar's mouth onto John Hirschbeck? Is that how Alomar's plays leaped off at everyone?

He had a 10-year period (1992 to 2001) in which he LED THE MAJOR LEAGUES in hits.

OMG, ARE YOU SERIOUS???

And the three second basemen in history who can match his career numbers (2,724 hits/.300 average/.371 on-base pct./.443 slugging pct.) all started their careers before 1925.

So how anyone could look at Alomar's career and NOT vote for him is a bigger mystery to me than Stonehenge.

I 100% agree. So naturally Alomar didn't get in the Hall of Fame on his first ballot.

Start with his trophy collection: Larkin's nine Silver Sluggers are second only to A-Rod (10) among ALL INFIELDERS in history. He won three straight Gold Gloves -- while Ozzie Smith was still active.

Offensively, Larkin's .815 career OPS was an amazing 137 points higher than the average shortstop of his era. And, according to Lee Sinins' Complete Baseball Encyclopedia, he created a staggering 488 more runs than the average shortstop of his time -- the highest total of any National League shortstop whose career started after World War II.

I'm pretty sold. Barry Larkin didn't get in either. Jack Morris (I am sorry to his supporters, if Blyleven doesn't get in then Morris shouldn't either. They always pop up in the same conversation as each other. I would take Blyleven before Morris. This is just how I feel) got more Hall of Fame support than Barry Larkin did. 52.3% to 51.6%. I never really thought of Barry Larkin as a Hall of Famer until I actually took a peek at his numbers and read some of the arguments for him. I have to say I think I agree. Since I am a defense hating asshole, I think Barry Larkin should get in if Ozzie Smith gets in. What I mean is that Ozzie Smith was a good defense shortstop, but was also the epitome of "light hitting," so I think Larkin should be in the Hall of Fame if Smith is.

After that, McGriff's numbers looked almost exactly the same for the next decade as they'd looked before (.283/.393/.531 from 1988 to 1992, versus .290/.373/.506 from 1993 to 2002) -- as sure an indication he was clean as you'll get without a drug test. So was it HIS fault that a 35-homer, 104-RBI season was league-leader material in 1992, but made a guy Just Another Slugger in 2001? It shouldn't be. Should it?

For a Hall of Fame snob, I sure do want a lot of guys on the current Hall of Fame list to get into the Hall of Fame. I am pretty torn on McGriff, though I think he deserves it before Murphy and Edgar Martinez.

Edgar Martinez was the greatest designated hitter ever. Let's agree on that within the first two sentences of this discussion, OK?

Great, the guy who played Corky on "Life Goes On" is the most famous actor of all-time with Down Syndrome. It doesn't mean we should start getting a place for him in the Television Hall of Fame (if there is one).

No DH ever ripped off 13 relentlessly great seasons like the 13 Edgar had from 1991 to 2003. Don't even bother trying to find one.

No actor ripped off 4 seasons of great family television like Chris Burke did with his Corky character on the show. Don't even try to find a better actor with Down Syndrome.

But it isn't going to be easy for any DH to make it into the Hall of Fame, and it shouldn't be. A Hall of Fame DH had better be one massively dominating masher.

Absolutely not. A Hall of Fame DH had better be as good of a hitter as other players that are currently in the Hall of Fame. That's all I really ask. I stated my opinion here.

His "counting" stats -- 2,247 hits, 309 homers, 1,261 RBIs -- won't look like anything special to the voters who don't take the time to gaze beyond those columns on the stat sheet or don't take into account that this man wasn't allowed to play every day 'til age 27.

I would LOVE to gaze up from the stat sheet and take a better look at this man and ignore the statistics (which is what Hall of Fame should be based upon) and listen to hyperbolic evidence about how great Edgar Martinez was.

How about those 13 seasons in which this guy was one of the most feared hitters alive?

How about that statistic of "most feared hitter" that has no measurement and therefore no way of actually being used to compare hitters to each other? It's so wonderful to be a feared hitter, in fact that's pretty much how Jim Rice got inducted in the Hall of Fame. He got in on the old "fear factor" that may or may not exist, and even if it did exist really doesn't mean all that much since it is hyperbolic evidence of Martinez's greatness. So basically I am saying I don't buy it.

But if we talk total offensive package, how many men in the entire sport would you rank above Edgar in that time? Bonds and who else? That answer is nobody, friends. Nobody. Do the math. Ask the pitchers. Survey the scouts.

I am going to sit down immediately and write emails to all the pitchers that faced Edgar Martinez to see if they were scared of him and I will see if some of the crusty old scouts that Bill Plascke knows can give me some evidence based on how the ball sounded after being hit by Martinez's bat as to how great he was. Because I have the capability to do this. What a stupid challenge...

Measure it any way you want.

That's the thing, you can't measure how much a player is feared other than walks and how scared pitchers look in replays of old games. I am not denying Martinez was a great hitter, I just don't think he was a Hall of Fame hitter. Merely saying he was a feared hitter isn't going to convince me either.

Danny Knobler agrees that Edgar Martinez is not a Hall of Fame player. (His comments are in bold with different font)

By my count, 24 Hall of Famers spent at least one game as a DH, and 16 of them accumulated a full season's worth of games (130 or more) as a DH during their careers.

Paul Molitor played nearly half his games as, some would say, half a player.

I don't think the debate should be about whether Martinez was a Hall of Fame DH or not, because there are plenty of good players in the Hall of Fame who weren't good fielders but made it in the Hall of Fame on their hitting prowess. Simply because Martinez didn't field very often in his career doesn't mean we should necessarily hold that against him. His hitting numbers have to be up to Hall of Fame standards though. I think the DH argument is a sort of diversion the media has brought up in Martinez's Hall of Fame debate that is clouding the issue of whether he deserves it based on his hitting prowess or not.

I find it fairly relevant that Martinez didn't play in the field often. Defense is a part of the game too. I think we should take what fielding percentages that Martinez did accumulate while he was at third base, or possibly project him as a bad fielder, and see if we would elect him to the Hall of Fame at that point. The bottom line is that a bad fielding, great hitter is going to make the Hall of Fame, so Martinez may need to be set to that hitting standard more than the fielding standard.

Martinez had a career fielding percentage of .952, including a .946 percentage at third base. He wasn't exactly a spectacular fielder for various reasons.

We can elect a DH who was so dominating at the plate that we overlook the fact that he rarely did anything else.

Agreed. A DH has to be one of the greatest hitters of all-time to make the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame should be about what a player did well in relation to his job. If a closer closed games well, and didn't just accumulate saves, he should be in the Hall of Fame. If a player was an great hitter, but he was a fantastic fielder then perhaps he should make the Hall of Fame. It's a combination of job duties for a team and how well that duty was performed that should put a player in the Hall of Fame.

I don't rely totally on stats, but 309 home runs and 1,261 RBI (Martinez's career totals) aren't enough to make him stand out. He made seven All-Star teams, but that puts him in line with Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Tim Raines and Alan Trammell, other outstanding players who have not gotten my vote.

His statistics are impressive but not eye popping and All-Star teams are ever so not relevant to this discussion, since they are essentially popularity contests. They should have little bearing on Hall of Fame candidacy in my mind. I don't think Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall of Fame, because his numbers fall short in my belief of the Hall of Fame standard. If he played third base his entire career, I would probably still believe this.

Then Knobler talks about how he voted for Jack Morris, but not Bert Blyleven, and really that irritates me a little bit and I need to move on so I don't get stuck on this. Now that I have discussed Edgar Martinez, again, let's get back to Stark's Hall of Fame ballot, where he talks about Andre Dawson:

And all you need to know about Dawson's massive impact was that he won one MVP award and finished second TWICE. He won a Rookie of the Year trophy and eight Gold Gloves.

A little note to baseball writers everywhere when discussing a player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame...don't include Gold Gloves because they are a semi-hoax of an award. I also want to mention the Rookie of the Year award is also shared by Dawson with guys like Todd Hollandsworth, Jerome Walton, Marty Cordova, Angel Berroa, Eric Hinske, and Bob Hamelin. That's not exactly great company, and there are more players who eventually faded away who won the Rookie of the Year award, so it doesn't seem like it is a path to Cooperstown.

So obviously, as attractive a candidate as Blyleven's 287 wins, 60 shutouts and dazzling strikeout-to-walk ratio (3,701 whiffs to only 1,322 walks) make him, some voters are still asking the questions I once asked.

Why the hell isn't he in the Hall of Fame?

Why did he make only two All-Star teams?

All-Star teams are popularity contest and pitchers for bad teams don't usually get a whole lot of consideration due to their record.

Why was he a top-three finisher in only two Cy Young elections?

Because the same people who vote for the Cy Young are overwhelming impressed with the statistic "wins" which is completely based on the strength of the team around a player.

How come he had a lower winning percentage (.534) than John Burkett or Charlie Leibrandt?

Because he didn't have control over how many runs his team put up. He can only pitch well, he can't hit the damn ball for his team. Is anyone sensing a trend in my answers to Stark's difficult questions?

Bert Blyleven played for bad baseball teams so that had an effect on his win-loss record. This isn't his fault.

And why, for that matter, was he getting only 14 percent of the vote, back when his career was much closer in the rearview mirror?

Because only now in the "statistical revolution" are people open minded and smart enough to base the Hall of Fame candidacy of a player on things like "wins" or any other statistic that is a team statistic and not an individual statistic.

Bet you didn't know that Juan Pierre has already been thrown out stealing more times in his career (155) than Raines (146) was, even though Raines stole nearly twice as many bases (808-459) as Pierre has swiped.

I bet you I could have easily guessed that. Juan Pierre sucks. The world needs to know this.

Mark McGwire

I vote for him because there's no other fair way to handle the players of his generation. I vote for him because we now know that hundreds and hundreds of players in his era took some kind of PED, and we'll never know exactly who did what, or why.

Unless those people actually admit to using steroids. I wonder what Jayson thinks about Mark McGwire now that he has admitted to using steroids off and on for nearly an entire decade? I don't know how I feel about it. Is it different from A-Rod or any other player's admission because McGwire went on and back off PEDs every once in a while, so it couldn't really have been a mistake he made once, but repeatedly? Or is it all the same thing? I don't really know, but I do know I don't like how Jayson Stark defends McGwire for the Hall of Fame.

And a man who was ALWAYS a feared slugger from day one -- a man who (lest we forget) slugged .618 in his rookie year.

What's with Jayson Stark being hung up on players who are "feared?" Also, the fact McGwire hit the ball well one year when he wasn't on PEDs is no reason to vote him in the Hall of Fame. I am torn on McGwire and have no idea how to handle his candidacy, but I do know being "feared" and how he slugged his rookie year isn't a great way to advocate for him when we should have been looking at his entire body of work.

Just so you know how to compute that, Adam Dunn, Adrian Gonzalez and Jason Bay are among the many folks who have never slugged .618 in ANY season.

So he did better his rookie year when compared to three players who aren't currently on pace to be in the Hall of Fame? Possibly comparing McGwire to actual Hall of Fame players would be a better comparison to justify his candidacy.

Jack Morris

But this is where I remind the lecturers that we're talking about a pitcher who threw a no-hitter, started three All-Star Games, was the winningest pitcher of his generation, made a major impact on three World Series teams and was more than just a man who put on the greatest Game 7 World Series show I've ever witnessed.

I will let someone else take down Jack Morris later, but let's just say...color me not impressed. A lot of pitchers have thrown a no-hitter, All-Star game appearances should not be relevant, and a hyperbolic personal ranking of a pitcher's Game 7 performance doesn't feel solid to me.

So I checked his box for the 10th straight year. I haven't been embarrassed to do that once.

Perhaps he should have been embarrassed to check the box 10 times then...or maybe Jayson doesn't embarrass easily.

Dale Murphy isn't ever going to have a plaque in Cooperstown. I know it. He knows it. But I keep waiting for the PED backlash to restore the luster to the forgotten stars of the '80s.

Those glittering credentials convinced 116 voters to vote for him a decade ago. So I have no sensible explanation for why there were only 62 people voting for him by last year. But I've checked his name for 11 straight years. No reason to stop now.

I will say it again...I can understand not voting for Dale Murphy into the Hall of Fame, but how does he get less votes now than he used to? Just logically I would think with the knowledge we have now about home run totals in the Steroid Era would make Murphy's statistics look even better. I am not necessarily against PED users being inducted into the Hall of Fame, but I don't know if 1980's hitters should be punished because their numbers don't match up well with Steroid Era sluggers' numbers.

I have to say Stark's "I have voted for this person every year and refuse to re-evaluate my decision" stance is very unconvincing overall.

-Bert Blyleven was probably not surprised, but still a little bit upset, about his not being inducted into the Hall of Fame. He wrote a column about it and expressed his dismay in his own recognizable fashion...by talking about himself when he faced Andre Dawson (the only inductee for 2010) and covertly calling the Hall of Fame writers idiots.

I’ve vented in the past about not making it. But getting so close (five votes short) and making such a big leap overall in percentage (from 62.7 percent to 74.2 percent), I have to look at is as a positive. ESPN’s Chris Berman gave me the nickname Bert “Be Home” Blyleven.

Because we all know that anything Chris Berman says is definitely a good omen.

By the way, I am already dreading the Home Run Derby this year during All-Star Weekend when called by Chris Berman. I can hear the "back, back, back" call in my nightmares.

I am very happy for Andre Dawson making it to Cooperstown,

"Congratulations Andre, and now everyone let me mention that I owned Dawson when I pitched against him."

I faced Dawson when I was with the Pirates, and while I did pretty well against him (.195 batting average in 41 at-bats), he did hit a couple home runs off me,

"Oh by the way, that player you just voted into the Hall of Fame...he couldn't hit very well off me. I guess that doesn't make me a Hall of Fame pitcher, but then how is he a Hall of Fame hitter?"

You know Bert is thinking this. I like how Bert writes about the Hall of Fame voting because we all know what he is really trying to type. Here's what Bert really means we he types the following sentences...

I’m very happy for Dawson, but I must admit that when they told me only one player got in to Cooperstown, I assumed it would be Roberto Alomar, a dominant second baseman with the glove and the bat. I thought he would be a lock, and all the experts were expecting him to go right in.

"The experts aren't idiots, the voters are idiots. Robert Alomar not be elected in this year on his first ballot is proof of that. Me not being elected into the Hall of Fame for the past 13 years is further proof these voters are moron. Please vote for me Hall of Fame morons."

I’m sure he’ll be in there next year as he logged only three fewer votes than I did in his first year of eligibility.

"I should have been voted into the Hall of Fame my first year of eligibility as well."

I also think Barry Larkin, who got just more than 50 percent, is a future Hall of Famer as probably the best shortstop of his era.

"Further proof these voters are idiots."

And next year, Rafael Palmeiro, Jeff Bagwell and Larry Walker will be among the new eligible players, and all are deserving.

"I support everyone who is suspected of or found to use PEDs to make the Hall of Fame. I support anyone who supports me being in the Hall of Fame."

It will be a year of anticipation, and hopefully the same voters who selected me will stick with me, and we can convince a few others to join.

"I will send 6 voters a free 'I love to fart" shirt, as well as an unspecified sum of money as long as he/she votes for me. Actually, 6 people just name something you need me to do and I will do it. Murder, robbery, and any other illicit crime I will do it...just put me in the Hall of Fame."

-Craig Calcaterra FJM-style rips apart Jon Heyman's excuse for a Hall of Fame ballot. For fear of repeating what he says, I will just hit some highlights. Read the entire thing though, I promise it is good.

To review, he had Robbie Alomar, Andrew Dawson, Barry Larkin, Dave Parker, Jack Morris and Don Mattingly. Many people took issue with this ballot, myself included. It's a pretty awful one all things considered. Parker? Morris? Mattingly?

I am pretty sure Heyman just pulled names out of a hat. He's the guy who voted for David Segui and Kevin Appier probably. Both of them got one vote...unbelievable. All things considered, I take issue with half of his ballot. Serious issue with half his ballot.

My three favorite parts of Calcaterra's takedown (Heyman in red and Calcaterra's in black):

1. My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the 17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in 1998, followed by 14 percent the next year.

Yet he is a fan of Morris, who got 22.9% of the vote in his first year and 19.6% of the vote in his second. And he spent a paragraph talking about how his mind is changing on Tim Raines, who got 24.3% in his first year of eligibility, but not Heyman's vote. And Don Mattingly, who was last seen hovering at around 16%, and also did not previously get Heyman's vote. And Dave Parker, who continues to get way less than 20% of the vote (and who has a drug history unmatched in the game, which Heyman says should disqualify McGwire).

2. After going on and on about how Blyleven never showed greatness as opposed to the ability to merely compile stats, Heyman says:

Some will say that Blyleven's career was equal to Hall of Famer Don Sutton's but I say it is just short of Sutton's. They both had big totals in other categories but Sutton wound up with 37 more victories, going over the magic 300 mark by 24.

Got that? Stat compilers suck, unless of course they compile long enough to reach some arbitrary number like 300.

This "compiler" argument is pretty much the crux of the argument against Blyleven, along with wins, which are stupid anyway. The anti-argument that can beat the "compiler" argument is exactly what Calcaterra wrote here.

3. Heyman would, and often does, point to winning percentage as a key factor, noting that while his supporters often cite the fact that Blyleven pitched for bad teams, his career winning percentage -- .534 -- wasn't that much better than the teams on which he pitched: .496. What he leaves out is that the difference between Morris' career winning percentage -- .577 -- and the teams on which he pitched -- .547 -- is actually less than Blyleven's. In other words, Blyleven outpitched his teams at a better clip than the supposedly dominant Morris did.

This is a very unfortunate statistic for Jon Heyman. It knocks his "winning percentage" argument against Bert out of the water. The bottom line is that I would have more respect for the anti-Blyleven crowd if they could provide a cogent argument that actually made sense. It hasn't happened yet. Every time they compare guys like Jack Morris or Don Sutton to Blyleven, it just shows the stupidity of the argument because it is based on team statistics like wins and arbitrary numbers like 300 wins that Blyleven never hit. I am open to hearing a reason that can't be fairly rebutted as to why Blyleven should not be in the Hall of Fame.

-Bill Conlin also seems to struggle with the Hall of Fame voting process. I hate to give you guys homework, but I am not going to comment on this. Just read this short takedown of Bill Conlin. This is my biggest problem with the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame voting process. It's so arbitrary and it's arbitrary because the voters make it arbitrary.

Bill Conlin has a self-imposed "I vote for 6 guys rule." That's idiocy. Pure and simple idiocy. What if there are 7 deserving players to be voted for? Why only put 6 players on the ballot when you can put 10 on the ballot? I love baseball and I love the Hall of Fame. I hate the debates, which are only going to get worse as the Steroid Era players start to trickle on the ballot, and I don't mind if someone disagrees with me on who should be a Hall of Fame player. Voting for the Hall of Fame is a serious task (in the realm of sports) and a person voting like he has always voted or refusing to accept new statistical data that should cause him to re-think his position is not acceptable.

The voters need to take this seriously and not make the process more difficult than it needs to be. If a player is deserving, vote for them, but don't vote for a player or not vote for a player because you don't have an open mind. These voters don't have to buy into the statistical revolution or why once thought ideas may not be completely correct, but they also can't dismiss it simply because they refuse to listen to new arguments.

9 comments Karma Is a Bitch

I have talked at way too much length about Brett Favre, so I will make it short today. I almost feel like I am ESPN in the way I talk about him so much, but I have such a strong opinion on him and everything he does. That's why I keep talking about him.

Karma can be a bitch. For further proof that karma is a bitch comes the report that Brett Favre's newest retirement/unretirement has caused a problem in the Vikings locker room.

Sources with knowledge of the Vikings locker-room dynamics say some players believe Tarvaris Jackson gives the Vikings the best chance to win, while other players believe Sage Rosenfels gives the team the best chance to win -- which is one of the new twists to this storyline. In the words of one NFL source, Favre has "little support" in the locker room as Minnesota prepares for its Monday night preseason game against the Houston Texans.

That is pretty much the problem in a nutshell and is it really a surprise at all? Try to relate this to your personal life the best you can. Would you support a Brett Favre-type person who just arrives at your job one day (I know we are bloggers but someone has to have a job who reads this...maybe one person has one) and has things handed to him at work that many others had to work hard for? You would probably have harsh feelings towards this person. What shocks me the most is that Brad Childress did not expect this to happen.

Childress should actually be fired for thinking this quarterback bait-and-switch with the team could work. It's ridiculous. Tarvaris Jackson has been on the team for several years now and probably has built up some respect in the locker room for the way he has handled being yanked in and out of the starting lineup and the criticism he has received from fans and media alike. Sage Rosenfels has not been with the team for a long time but it seems like he has already received some respect from his teammates because they see him as a solid quarterback that could win games if given the chance.

All of a sudden a guy who wasn't with the team in July sweating through training camp and bonding with the team just waltzes into camp and four days later starts the second preseason game and never has to compete for the starting quarterback job. How are there not going to be ill feelings on the part of the Vikings players? Many of them had to work hard to get where they were and while they respect what Brett Favre was at one time, they don't respect how he acts and how he is treated like he is above competing for a starting job.

"I've seen the same reports you've seen," Childress said. "Those are opinions. It's hard to shoot holes in an opinion. It's just that -- an opinion. I certainly don't see it."

If Brad Childress doesn't see the locker room divided over this situation then he should be fired because it is obvious he has lost this team. He is the one who caused this situation and I don't think there is anything he can really do about it now. He can't bench Brett Favre at this point because Favre would pout like a three year old who got his favorite toy taken away, so he has to take the risk that Favre performs well and that earns Favre respect in the locker room...which would make the opposition to Favre starting settle down.

If Favre plays well, it's possible the issue could be silenced and the schism could evaporate.

The bottom line is that Brett Favre is going to throw a stupid interception this year, he is going to have a bad game or two and he probably is going to wear down at the end of the year. Every time Favre throws an interception the opposition to him is only going to strengthen. I don't think the fact the Vikings have an easy beginning to their schedule this year will help because those opposed to Favre being the starter will know Jackson or Rosenfels could have won those games also.

NFL players can respect players who compete and win a job, they can't respect a player who is given special treatment and feels like he is above the rest of those on the roster...which is how Brett Favre acts. Don't think the Vikings players haven't asked the Jets players from last year how Favre acts, they know already. Karma is a bitch and I am glad this move looks like it will blow up in Brad Childress and Brett Favre's face. It should happen that way because the world has a way of working itself out and eventually people end up getting treated the way they treat other people.

Brad Childress has been too focused on keeping his job and Brett Favre has been too focused on making sure he gets the proper revenge on the Green Bay Packers to care about the fact the rest of the members of the Vikings organization just want to win football games.

-Here is more of karma being a bitch. Finally those who seized and made public the list of 104 PED users from 2003 have been properly bitch slapped by a court.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said the players' union had good reason to want to keep the list under wraps, citing leaks of players purportedly on the list.

I am not advocating PED use and those names on the list are cheaters but that making any name on that list was a clear invasion of privacy. The MLB union only agreed to testing on the basis it was private and anonymous...neither of which ended up being true.

"The leaks were crimes," Peters said. "The people who committed the crimes should be investigated and punished."

Yes, though the victims in this situation were not completely innocent, they still had their privacy, invaded not only by the seizing of the list and test results, but also with the unlawful leak to the press. Who really thought the government could be trusted to keep the test results confidential anyway?

Karma didn't hit those who leaked the list of 104 names that hard in this case but at least there is now public recognition that although those people named on the list tainted the game of baseball, the public never had a right to know the names of any of those people on the list. On and on goes the neverending story of PEDs in baseball...

-The Pete Rose situation in baseball has caused a lot of different opinions when it comes to whether he should be in the Hall of Fame or not. I think he has caused many of his own problems by lying and never appearing to completely come clean about his gambling.

Jayson Stark seems to somewhat agree with me on this. He explains why he thinks Pete Rose will never be in the Hall of Fame. He also explains why Pete Rose has always, and will always reaps what he sows.

Twenty years ago Monday, I sat in that ballroom in Manhattan, listening to Bart Giamatti explain why he was banning "Mr. Rose" from baseball for life.

What people tend to forget is that Pete Rose agreed to this lifetime ban from baseball. He didn't fight it at the time and signed whatever documentation that needed to be signed in this case to agree to a lifetime ban from baseball.

But even if Selig somehow changes his mind, even if some future commissioner reopens this case, the living Hall of Famers who make up the Veterans Committee aren't ever electing Pete Rose. Ever.

It's sad that Pete Rose may never make the Hall of Fame because he is one of the better baseball players of the past 30 years, (not THE best or even the second best according to Peter King, that would be his one time teammate Johnny Bench), but Pete Rose caused this situation by gambling on baseball and never really coming clean about what he bet on.

These people haven't elected Ron Santo. Haven't elected Gil Hodges.

I believe they haven't been voted in because they do not deserve it. If you are going to elect Gil Hodges and Ron Santo, you may as well go ahead and elect Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and any other almost-elite player right behind these two. That's a completely different story from Pete Rose because Rose actually deserves to be in the Hall of Fame based on his performance on the baseball field, not based on the fact he played for a large market team and was an excellent player, but not one of the best ever. Yes, I am talking to you Ron Santo and Gil Hodges.

Me, personally? I would vote for Pete Rose -- Pete Rose the baseball player -- for the Hall of Fame. I try to remind people all the time that the Hall's a museum. It's not the Vatican. So I wouldn't nominate the Hit King for sainthood.

I am torn on this issue. There are cheaters, racists, and overall bad people recognized in the Hall of Fame for playing great baseball...despite the fact there is a character clause in the Hall of Fame language necessary for induction. So as a person, I don't really care if Pete Rose makes it or not.

Rose's situation is not a measure of whether he is a nice guy or not, it is a measure of whether he compromised his team's ability to win games by gambling and whether his gambling affected the way he played and managed the game. It goes to the integrity of baseball.

Sure, Gaylord Perry's blatant cheating got him in the Hall of Fame and I am sure there are other players who cheated and were honored by being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Sadly, the fact Gaylord Perry probably threw spitballs and other doctored pitches to the plate doesn't disturb as many people because he was doing that for the benefit of his team. In sports, cheating for your team, while still seen as cheating, is not considered nearly as bad as cheating/betting against your team.

When Gaylord Perry throws a spitball he is cheating, but he is also doing everything he can to make sure his team wins. When Pete Rose gambled on baseball as a manager, we don't know if that affected his team's chances of winning, so he very well could have been betting against his team. We would ask him, but he has lied so many times before and then later changed his story, there is no way we could believe him in my mind.

But it seems absurd to me that the man who got the most hits in the history of baseball doesn't have a plaque with his name on it in the ultimate baseball museum.

I have changed my mind on whether Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame several times. Right now, my mind has centered on the idea he doesn't deserve to make it. He accepted his lifetime ban from the game in return for Major League Baseball making no formal finding with regard to the allegations of gambling. He obviously deserves to make the Hall of Fame based on his statistics but he accepted his punishment 20 years ago that made him ineligible for the Hall of Fame today.

For me, it's not even about whether Pete Rose gambled or not, but the fact he denied it for a period of time and then eventually admitted he did gamble when he was trying to sell a book...that's what gets me. He has never been completely honest and has always tried to use his name as "The Hit King" to get the fan support on his side. I don't even believe him when he says he never bet against the Reds. John Dowd, the gentleman who led the investigation into Pete Rose in 1989, did not believe Pete Rose either when he said he did not bet against the Reds, but he had no proof so the report says there is no proof of Rose betting against the team he managed.

This thing Jayson Stark has about feeling odd the all-time hit king is not in the Hall of Fame is slightly annoying. I get a little tired of Pete Rose and everyone else talking about him as the all-time Hit King. It's tedious and annoys me. I am not arguing he is not the all-time hit king but when you look at the statistics for his career, he was in the top 10 in plate appearances and at bats nearly every year. He's a great hitter who got tons of plate appearances every year. I am not saying this to demean him, I am just commenting he played for a long time and was a great hitter. The hits record is really more about prolonged longevity and batting at the top of the order and there is nothing wrong with that. I just get tired of the media adding in he is the all-time hit king when talking about him.

I don't know why it annoys me when Rose refers to himself as "The Hit King," but it does. Here are some numbers I find as impressive. He had 19 straight years he walked more than he struck out, he wasn't just a singles hitter and had 746 career doubles and 136 career triples, and he had a career batting average of .303 and a OBP of .375. Those are good numbers as well. The "Hit King" thing to be is just a measure of longevity. He was a great hitter and stuck around long enough to get more base hits than anyone else in the history of Major League Baseball.

My friend Willie Weinbaum produced a brilliant piece on Rose for "Outside the Lines" this weekend. In the course of working on that piece, he had long, fascinating, startlingly candid conversations with both Schmidt and Morgan about how hard they worked to get Rose a face-to-face meeting with Selig in 2003.

As dumb as this may sound, this is another reason I don't think Pete Rose should make the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose has had chances to kiss ass, make amends and get back in baseball's good graces but constantly refuses to do so. If he doesn't want it bad enough to make amends, why should he deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? He lied continuously in the beginning about his involvement with gambling and only told the truth to sell books and make himself more money. He wants to be in the Hall of Fame on his terms and that's never happening.

"If it were me," Schmidt said, "and I had lived a lie for 14 years, and I went up to tell the commissioner that I was sincerely sorry for what I've done to my family, to the sport, etc., I probably would be back in baseball now and in the Hall of Fame -- because I would have been a tremendously remorseful individual...My lifestyle would have changed. I would have felt an obligation to change and to become someone that the baseball world would once again learn to love after forgiving me. I would have been that guy. And I don't think Pete has been."

It is not even about learning to love him again. It's about showing remorse and realizing his mistakes. Pete Rose sits back, refuses to apologize or throw himself on the mercy of the Commissioner and uses his good friends Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt to do the begging for him. It's too much for him to do because it would involve "Charlie Hustle" and "The Hit King" to be at the mercy of someone else, which he absolutely refuses to do. The Commissioner and some of the public need to see he is sorry or at least know the entire truth, which I don't think we still know.

I still don't believe he didn't bet against the Reds. I think he did. He was a gambler and the Reds victories and losses is something he could control as the manager, so why would he not affect the outcome in a few games every once in a while? The answer is he would and probably did.

The men in that room actually talked informally, he said, about how Rose should go about holding a news conference to admit what he never could admit all those years: that he'd bet on baseball.

He never held that press conference. He wrote a book instead.

But the men in that meeting also talked about the changes in lifestyle Rose was going to have to make. No more trips to Vegas. No more hanging out at the racetrack. That was going to have to stop.
And, of course, none of it ever stopped. Not then. Not now.

If this is true and Pete Rose is still gambling, this is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to him not being remorseful and not wanting to be in the Hall of Fame enough to earn the honor. He won't change and those against his induction need to see that change.

People in the commissioner's office are still muttering that Rose's first public stop after leaving Selig's office was an appearance at a Vegas sports book. It wasn't quite the reconfiguration of Pete Rose's life they had in mind.

I am repeating myself but Pete Rose won't change, so why should MLB and the Commissioner change their minds? They don't want blood from Pete Rose or for him to sacrifice his first born, they just want to see remorse and know he is changing his ways...which he isn't doing.

"He's being prevented from earning a living in the industry in which he became a king. It would be almost akin to an actor being blackballed."

Yeah, Mike Schmidt, it's not all like that. It's like an athlete being banned from his sport for betting on games while he was a manager, that's what it is like. Being blackballed infers there is no reasoning behind the banning, when there is actual reasoning behind this. Pete Rose could have compromised the integrity of his own team's win-loss record by shaping games to meet his gambling interests. Mike Schmidt should know better than to say a dumbass thing like this.

Instead of a bare-his-soul news conference, Rose couldn't resist the sound of that cash register ringing. When he "told all" in a book, released it on Hall of Fame election week and launched into a book tour instead of a news conference, he was cooked. Forever.

I think that is pretty much the story of Pete Rose and his ban from baseball. He was caught gambling on baseball and when given the chance to tell the truth, he accepted his ban from the game, and when given a chance to come clean and show he had changed, he chose to make some money off his confession. Everytime he has been given a chance to show he has changed as a person and build up goodwill, he has refused to do so.

The Pete Rose situation was never about his performance on the field so the arguments about him being "The Hit King" and all of that don't even matter. It is about:

1. The fact he bet on baseball while managing the Reds.

2. Lied about betting on the Reds while he managed them until he could make a profit at which point he admitted it.

3. Accepted his sentence in the beginning when originally caught gambling.

4. Has never shown remorse and refuses to meet baseball's terms to get back in their good graces.

5. Uses his friends to do his begging for him because he is pride won't let him beg.

6. He still not quit gambling, despite the fact this would really help his case to get back involved with baseball and possibly make the Hall of Fame.

7. All of these things lead many to believe he doesn't really care about making the Hall of Fame or being involved with baseball again.

All 7 of those things are what the Pete Rose discussion is about.

The Hall of Fame really doesn't have a morality clause because of the other shady characters who have been voted in, but being recognized for making the Hall of Fame is an honor any baseball players should want, and Pete Rose hasn't shown he wants it.

6 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Light On The 'Roids Edition

I am going light on the steroids today, even though it seems like every other media outlet is not going light on the steroids. It seems everyone wants to opine on the steroid scandal in baseball, with scandal being defined as A-Rod tested positive while 103 other names were not released. Most of the media is taking great pleasure in being morally horrified in the revelation that A-Rod took steroids, and why would they not, they have a plentiful supply of donuts in the office and the stories write themselves!

1. Jayson Stark thinks that A-Rod is like "Lost" in that more information reveals more questions that need answered.

But there are other important areas where A-Rod failed the credibility test Tuesday.

Could it be that he has lied before and probably would do so again? Everyone wants to be the one to catch A-Rod's new lies. It's like a fun little journalistic game.

For instance, try to glue all these quotations together into one coherent, consistent thought:

• He said at one point that whatever he took, whatever his cousin was injecting into his body, he "didn't think they were steroids."

• But he was still so terrified of anyone finding out, it was "one of those things you try not to share with anyone."

• For "all these years," he said at another point, "I really didn't think I did anything wrong."

• Yet just minutes later, he said: "I knew I wasn't taking Tic Tacs. I knew it was something that could perhaps be wrong."

Sure, taken out of the context of the larger discussion, these quotes do seem to make little sense. Anyone who attempts to think it through for a few minutes can figure out what A-Rod was saying.

-A-Rod knew what he was injecting was not steroids, but he never said they were not PED's or any other type of drug that could enhance his performance on the baseball field. My understanding is there is a difference in steroids and PED's. (I use steroids as a generic word, so please excuse me confusing everyone, because I know there is a difference, I am just too lazy to type anything else.)

-A-Rod probably did not want anyone to find out because he knew what he was taking was not legal or at least would be seen in a positive light by the public.

-A-Rod may not have thought he did anything wrong because, as he said before, the culture of baseball at the time seemed to encourage this type of behavior. If you look at it this way, this quote does seem to make some sense. The culture, and players on his team, encouraged it so he thought he was just keeping up with the rest of the league.

-A-Rod knew he was taking a banned substance and that he should not be taking it though. These quotes make sense if you take five minutes to compare them to what A-Rod has said previously. It seems like every baseball columnist wants to be the lead story on Inside Edition nowadays.

Wallace Matthews sounds like he is threatening A-Rod with his column title, "A-Rod should learn what real suffering is."

Hooton is a man who has suffered the true consequences of steroid abuse, having lost his 17-year-old son, Taylor, to a suicide blamed on steroid-induced depression.

And clearly this is A-Rod's fault. He should have done more to help this kid.

Rodriguez, of course, is a man for whom there is neither truth nor consequences, as he demonstrated again yesterday in his latest shameless and insulting attempt to double-talk his way out of a positive steroid test.

By admitting publicly he is double talking. The press takes every chance they get to try and cut sports athletes down. They are like coyotes waiting for their prey to make one mistake and then they pounce.

From blaming some unnamed "cousin" to claiming not to know precisely what he was taking or if, in fact,

If A-Rod had given the cousin's name, he would have been accused of throwing him under the bus, but if he doesn't give the name he is hiding even more secrets. The guy is not going to win at this point, the press out is out for blood.

"I believe he's sincere when he says he wants to help us," Hooton said. But as yet, there is no financial commitment from A-Rod, no commitment at all other than a little bit of talk in the course of a 35-minute Q&A session in which very little could be believed.

I mean, it has literally been two days since the news conference and a week and a half since A-Rod admitted to taking steroids. Give the man some time to help out charities.

Since there will be no discipline from MLB or the Yankees or the criminal justice system, nor should there be,

Actually there should be. I agree with Gregg Doyel, I think Rodriguez should sue the government or whoever was responsible for leaking this positive steroid test. I have come on the side that this is an invasion of privacy and the only reason A-Rod would not sue is because he doesn't want everyone to remember he got caught, he wants this over with.

He can beat himself up about having tainted his legacy and perhaps compromised his chances for the Hall of Fame. But even that is doubtful, because chances are that in 14 years, after the nine remaining years on his $275-million contract with the Yankees have been paid off and he becomes eligible, all of this will have blown over.

Even if A-Rod hit half of the homeruns from 2001-2003 that he hit when he was on steroids, those numbers would still have been good enough to get him Hall of Fame consideration. I think we can all agree he never should have taken steroids, because like Barry Bonds, he was good enough without them. That doesn't excuse his choice, but it's not like he was a borderline starter in the major leagues before he took the steroids.

A-Rod may well recover from all this, but Don Hooton never will. He still will be without his son, and with the haunting memories and thoughts of what he might have done differently.

I am sorry Don Hooton lost his son but I am not sure how A-Rod ties into this. Hooton did not even do anything wrong as a parent that caused the tragedy, and A-Rod caused his own situation, so to try and lump A-Rod together with Mr. Hooton's son draws a comparison between the two situations I don't see.

Gene Wojciechowski writes his usual crap.

Huh? His "cousin" injected him with what? With "boli"? I'm confused. Is that a steroid or a pasta?

(sound of crickets chirping)

"I screwed up big-time," said Rodriguez during his Tuesday confessional, "but the only thing I ask from this group today and the American people is to judge me from this day forward."

He said judge him, not his statistics, but Gene has never had great listening skills as it is and refuses to hear him or even read the quote.

From this day forward, eh? No problem. But the back of A-Rod's baseball card is now almost completely blank.

Those six full seasons with the Seattle Mariners (and the two other partial seasons there) never existed. Poof go 189 home runs and 595 RBIs from 1994 to 2000.

Being a smart ass can be kind of funny but this is just stupid. It's not like without steroids A-Rod would never have gotten an at-bat in the major leagues and been relegated to the minors for the rest of his life.

A-Rod's 36 homers and 106 RBIs in 2004, his 48 homers and 130 RBIs in 2005, his 35 homers and 121 RBIs in 2006 and his 54 homers and 156 RBIs in 2007 are, as Bluto from "Animal House" referred to frat rat Greg Marmalard, "Dead!" But Rodriguez gets to keep his 2008 numbers (35-103) for two reasons: They were his lowest (and perhaps most believable) combined home run/RBI totals since 1997, and a player needs at least 10 years of service to qualify for the Hall of Fame.

I hate it when Gene asks like that stupid fucking kid you knew when you were 8 years old, the one that would take your basketball, then you would ask for it back, and he would say, "you want it back, then go get it" and throw the basketball down the street. That kid deserved to be punched and I'd like to think he is the smallest guy in an all-male prison right now. That's how Gene is and that was a Bill Simmons type comparison.

Hall of Fame voters are instructed to consider a player's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his respective team or teams. A-Rod has taken the oh-fer in most of those categories.

I could easily make a list of players in the Hall of Fame these guidelines actually pertained to who were voted in regardless. One of them was Ferguson Jenkins and I am sure since Gene seems to be a banner waving Cubs fan he remembers why Jenkins would not pass the moral code for cheating.

You want your baseball legacy back? Earn it. The clock is ticking.

He did it from 1996-2000 and 2004-2007. I am not attempting to defend him but he has never failed a drug test since 2003 and if you look at his numbers from 2001-2003, they are outliers in his career statistics. It is much more fun to not believe him though.

Frank Deford doesn't think A-Rod's admission is bad for baseball.

What we saw with Bonds was that everyone rooted against him, except for the hometown Giant fans, who clasped him to their bosom. Now, we will only see this phenomenon taken to a new power, for the Yankees have infinitely more admirers and, likewise, infinitely more despisers than the Giants (or anyone else).

So baseball will be galvanized with hate against the Yankees and it will create new wonderful rivalries? Not sure I am buying it. If the hate did not start with the other four Yankees and ex-Yankees who tested positive, then it won't start now.

Not only will throngs pay to root for him to hit or not to hit home runs, but all students of the game will spend the next decade or so doubling as baseball theologists, interminably debating whether or not A-Rod should ascend into the Hall of Fame.

This may be great for baseball but very bad for me. I do not want to read "Should A-Rod be in the Hall of Fame" stories for the next 15 years of my life.

2. Now here is a Sophie's Choice for everyone to make:

Jay Mariotti thinks baseball may be too tarnished for fans to enjoy it anymore.

Woody Paige thinks the fans really don't care.

Who to believe? Of course it can't be somewhere in the middle ground because that doesn't make for good journalism. It has to be one of the two extremes. Pick a side at your own caution.

3. Wallace Matthews thinks Derek Jeter may be on steroids. Hey, why not? Just because he has not been a homerun hitter throughout his career doesn't mean he was not all 'roided up.

Let's just accuse everyone and force the players to take lie detector tests.

"We'll go with this so you don't have to address it all the time," he says, his gaze steady, his eyes unblinking. "I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs, never taken steroids. I mean, that's it. You can go down the list, I'm sure there might be more things coming down on a list next week, but let's just cover everything right now.

His eyes are always unblinking. That's why he was the inspiration for the character of Superman and he is the reason Barack Obama got into politics. Obama was just another guy who cared about his community and then one night he saw Derek Jeter's eyes and decided, dammit I need to do something with my life like Jeter has, and there began the journey that started in Chicago and will eventually end in 30 more years when he is named the first Grand Emperor of Neptune.

Jeter's numbers. I guess you can't really base too much on the numbers but it sure doesn't look like Jeter ever used steroids. I greatly dislike Jeter, so I am not defending him.

I understand that Jeter grew up in a strong, two-parent family, with a dad who, as he reminded us yesterday, was a drug-and-alcohol counselor who instilled in his children an aversion to chemical abuse at an early age.

And I know that A-Rod grew up in a single-parent home, without a strong male influence, and gives off every signal of being a grown man in perpetual search of a father figure.

Nothing wrong with a little stereotyping in your spare time. I did not know that being from a single parent home made a person more conducive to using performance enhancing drugs. If this is not true then Wallace has pretty much gone about and stereotyped both players.

I mean, minus a paper cup, a test strip and a private room, how can any of us know for sure when a ballplayer, even one as honorable as Jeter appears to be, is telling the truth.

Well, without a paper cup, a test strip and a private room no one would really know if Wallace Matthews was a drug addict or not. Just because a couple of his co-workers failed a drug test does not necessarily mean he would too. I kind of see what he is saying, but I also don't get why he insists on creating and continuing an aura of distrust around every baseball player.

And even as you feel for guys like Jeter, who probably has done it the right way, you wonder why he and others like him weren't more vocal throughout the "loosey-goosey" era that made the likes of A-Rod tell themselves it was all right to break the law, to cheat and to lie.

That goes for nearly every single player in the major leagues. It's not like it was hidden from everyone.

It's a shame that a player like Jeter has to be asked whether his career has been helped by steroids.

It's a bigger shame that even after his denial, we still can't be sure he is telling the truth.

I guess we just have to assume everyone is telling the truth until they are caught lying. Or we could continue what has already been done and go ahead and release the 104 names on the list. The confidentiality and anonymity is a joke already has it is, might as well compound the problem and see who else was juicing.

4. Ray Ratto, and his mugshot photo that always makes me think he just got caught looking at the neighbor's daughter getting undressed through the blinds calls it Favre Syndrome. I call it You Need to Write About Something Else Syndrome.

No, we're talking about what is rapidly becoming known as Favre Syndrome -- the reflexive revulsion of the sound of someone's name, voice or presence, or the introduction of same by another party.

I have Favre, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots, A-Rod, and steroid Syndrome.

I mean, Favre has done nothing whatsoever in the last two weeks except say he isn't playing any more, and yet he is still being media-flogged to the point of national nausea.

This is what the media does. I am shocked Ratto does not know this.

Why? Two reasons. One, if you're trying to throw yourself on the mercy of the court, you have to stay for as long as the court wants you. Two, if you want there to be no more questions, answer all of them at the time, or pay the price for deferred maintenance.

I get it now, Ray has played me for a fool. Ratto does understand why the media does this, he just thinks that A-Rod has to sit in front of the media for as long as they want him to and answer the same questions over and over again, while the media hopes a couple of his answers don't match up and they can flog him in a column the next day.

Basically the media is going to hold him hostage until he spends more and more time out of his day answering their questions, rather than getting ready for his job, which is to play baseball.

He didn't, because he either didn't want to or because he was advised not to. He thought 35 minutes was enough treatment for Favre Syndrome, and it isn't nearly enough. And now it may be too late.

Because we in the media are going to ride his ass until he gives us everything we want. It turns out Favre Syndrome is not being tired of something, it is the media wanting the same answer over and over again because they can't think of anything else to write about.

5. Rick Reilly gets paid millions of dollars to write columns like this.

I've been able to retrieve every single MVP award that was wrongfully won by every single suspected 'roid ranger over the last 20 years. You can see them all shining on the table next to me. Got the stains off them and everything. Now I'm ready to give them to their rightful owners.

When I first read this column, I thought, "man, this is not as bad as Reilly's usual stuff." Then I realized even his decent columns for him are not good. He is the Barry Zito of sportswriters. He gets paid a ton of money for not a lot of production and the people who signed him should have known a whole lot better.

Let's start by bringing former Red Sox Mike Greenwell up to the podium. Greenie lost the 1988 AL MVP to Jose Canseco, who admitted in his book, Juiced, that he cheated worse than Rosie Ruiz that year to win it.

"Man," Greenwell said when I called him. "I guess I'll just say it's been a long time coming. I even remember telling Jose once, 'Man, I'd love to have your power.' And he said, 'Come to Miami and I'll hook you up!' But I never did."

So Mike Greenwell knew that Jose Canseco was on steroids and he did not tell anyone. That's interesting. It seems to me that those players who lost out on awards to players they knew were using illegal substances can't really complain too much, simply because they did not do anything about it. I realize it is not cool to be a narc or anything, but if you are not willing to stop the problem, then you can't complain about the problem.

"My wife and I were trying to have a baby and she basically said if I went on steroids, she'd kill me." Now he's got two boys. Healthy ones.

Yeah, take that Octo-mom. Mike Greenwell knows that taking substances can affect the health of your baby and that is why his wife never used steroids. He really showed you.

This also serves as a good public service announcement to others. If one of your children is not born healthy, more than likely one of you was on steroids at some point. We can thank Rick Reilly for this knowledge.

Step up here, Mike Piazza.

Really? If I could see the list of 103 other ballplayers not named Alex Rodriguez, I would bet $100 there would be a certain Italian baseball player related to Tommy Lasorda on that list.

Now, for the man of the night. I have a U-Haul of hardware here for Jose Alberto Pujols Alcántara of the St. Louis Cardinals. You already have two MVPs, Albert, and you're about to get three more, since Barry Bonds ripped you off worse than Bernie Madoff to win the award from 2002 to 2004. You hit .335 and averaged 41 bombs those years and yet you finished second behind the clearly creaming Bonds in '02 and '03 and third behind Bonds and Adrian Beltre in '04. We're throwing out Beltre since, while he denies ever using PEDs, he fell off the face of the planet once baseball put in stricter steroid suspensions in 2005.

Sure because Mike Greenwell had a long, storied career that peaked with his best numbers... what do you know, the same year he was second in the MVP race to Jose Canseco. This is quite similar to Adrian Beltre's situation, but for some reason Reilly feels the need to say Beltre was using steroids, while Mike Greenwell was not using steroids because his children are healthy.

If he wasn't cheating, I'm the Queen Mother

I realize Rick Reilly isn't into sports and doesn't watch any, but this is also called a contract year for Adrian Beltre. Other athletes who were not on steroids have had contract years that blow their normal numbers out of the water as well.

There you go, gentlemen. Please accept our belated congratulations. And don't make us regret this later on.

I regret reading Reilly's articles every week.

6. John Henry thinks there needs to be a salary cap in baseball.

Henry's call came exactly five years after he first proposed a salary cap in the wake of the Yankees' trade for Alex Rodriguez after the Red Sox failed in their attempt to obtain him from the Texas Rangers.

At that time, Henry advocated a cap "to deal with a team that has gone so insanely far beyond the resources of all the other teams."

It seems like every time the Yankees outspend the Red Sox for a player the Red Sox want a salary cap implemented. This is kind of interesting.

Lucchino acknowledged that a salary cap could hurt the Red Sox but the Yankees "would be impacted even more."

Which would be his entire point of advocating it.

Big payrolls don't always produce championships.

That is not really the point I would like to make. My point is I can see the league having a salary cap because other teams are not able to compete financially with some teams. I don't think I believe in a salary cap, but I can see where it is not the championships are the problem, but instead teams deserve a chance to keep their own players and they can't do that when one team can significantly outspend another team. The whole league can't be a farm system for two or three other teams...of which the Red Sox are one of those big spending teams.

Still, a salary cap "has proven to be an effective method in other leagues" of providing long-term competitive balance, Lucchino said.

I know the NBA has a different system but the salary cap they use there is an absolute mess in my opinion. I hope if MLB adopts one they look more at the NFL model because it actually makes sense.

New York thinks it has the right to spend after paying at least $110 million in revenue sharing and luxury tax last year.

"As long as we're doing that and giving all this money to other teams in revenue sharing, a staggering amount, we should be able to spend on salaries what we want to," Steinbrenner said. "Because of revenue sharing and because of the popularity nationwide, the Yankees are critical to baseball."

One reason I don't like the salary cap idea is that the Yankees do have a point here about how they do contribute a lot of money to revenue sharing, so they in fairness should be able to spend the amount of money they want. This still doesn't take care of the problem that they are able to buy up any available free agents as soon as they come on the market.

He also said some corporate sponsors left the Red Sox but have been replaced. Overall, the Red Sox, with their passionate fan base, are holding up well.

I like how an Associated Press release says that the Red Sox have a passionate fan base, rather than saying loyal or any other adjective, even neutral papers think the Red Sox have a disproportionately passionate fan base.

They have THE ONLY fan base in Boston, remember that as well. The rest pale in comparison.

"An old adage says [there's] three things money can't buy -- love, happiness and the American League pennant," Lucchino said.

Haha! I guess that is why for as long as I can remember either the team with the highest or second highest payroll in baseball has won the AL East. Haha! That adage makes no sense!

7. Very few things are as exciting as a Woody Paige giving his opinion on what players the Broncos should acquire.

The Broncos will have money for groceries. They recently dumped salaries clearing about $22 million. The NFL is expected to raise the salary cap to around $123 million and the Broncos will have in the region north of $38 million to spend, a majority for the defensive side.

Woody Paige thinks the Broncos have about $38 million to spend on free agents, assuming the salary cap goes to $123 million.

The Broncos' brass has a wish list already. I have one of my own:

Sounds good and I will tally how much all of this is going to cost to see if you can add. (I know it is always dangerous for me to deal with numbers since I rarely get them right, but I refuse to quit.)

With the 12th pick in the first round, the Broncos probably can select USC inside linebacker Rey Maualuga or Boston College nose tackle B.J. Raji (334 pounds).

Ok, I will say these guys will cost about $3 million dollars this year. So they have $35 million left to spend.

I'd love for them to go after free-agent defensive ends Igor Olshansky of San Diego (who played for Nunnely) and Chris Canty of Dallas

I am not sure if Woody wants the Broncos to get all of these players, but since he said "and" instead of "or" I will assume he wants both. I will say they will cost $9 million between them, giving the Broncos $26 million left over.

and I've stated this previously, the Broncos should pursue the Dolphins' Channing Crowder, with a big upside, and Bart Scott from the Ravens.

Everyone knows the best way to build a team is through free agency (sarcasm), so let's continue the spending spree and say both of these guys will cost a total of $12 million between them for next year. That is $14 million left over to spend.

And the secondary will be as critical as usual, without suspects. Only Champ Bailey is assured a spot, and he needs a guy, not a Bly, on the other side. How about Phillip Buchanon of the Bucs, if he doesn't get a franchise label, and a fellow named Domonique Foxworth, who became a starter in Atlanta after being jettisoned by the Broncos?

I really hope Woody wants all of these players, because this is a lot of fun to do and from reading the column it seems like he wants them all. Buchanon and Foxworth will most likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 million to sign. That leaves $6 million left.

The best free-agent safety the Broncos could bring in is Oshiomogho Atogwe from the Rams, and they probably will want to take a run at James Sanders of the Patriots.

Let's just say both of these players are going to cost a total of $6 million and assume Woody Paige has just spent the entire salary cap on the defense and the Broncos still need a running back and to sign their draft picks. Woody Paige GM has just gotten the Broncos in salary cap hell in one year after having $38 million to spend. This is why he is a professional sportswriter, he rebuild and destroy a team in one year.

8. Ross Tucker, fresh from his wonderful analysis on why Carolina should not franchise Julius Peppers again, even though he has never been franchised as of 3:30pm today thinks the Ravens should not overpay for Ray Lewis.

Brilliant analysis and this is why the guys who used to play in the NFL get paid big bucks, just for insights like this one. I bet a lot of people think the Ravens should overpay for Lewis because overpaying for players is smart.

After coach John Harbaugh's and owner Steve Bisciotti's public proclamations, it may already be too late. Bisciotti has even intimated the team will allow Lewis to test the market and then beat any offer Lewis receives to ensure he finishes his career with the Ravens.

This is clearly stupid. Ray Lewis is a great linebacker but just to come out and say they will match whatever he is offered by someone else is dumb. I can't believe the Ravens would come out and say this. Knowing Tucker's previously seen fragile grip on facts, I am not sure I believe this.

I suspect Lewis wants to stay in Baltimore, but is doing everything he can to drive up his value and get the Ravens to pony up. That may be why he's flirting with every team from the Dallas Cowboys to the New York Jets. More power to him, but hopefully the Ravens won't fall for it.

I suspect Ray Lewis is a free agent and is seeing what his value on the free agent market is. Also, I believe players are not allowed to even "flirt" with other teams right now or it is considered tampering.

You may ask, "why should the Ravens not overpay for Lewis?" Let Tucker tell you.

Lewis is one of those rare players whose infectious personality can affect those around him. Ravens defensive tackle Justin Bannan was an average player in Buffalo. Now he is one of the better run-stuffing interior linemen in the league. Lewis had a similar effect on former Bills' defensive back Jim Leonhard.

He makes others around him that much better football players. Interesting. That is a good reason to keep him. Peter King loves himself some Jim Leonhard, so with a recommendation from him, you know you can't go wrong.

Speaking of Leonhard, he is just one of the reasons why the Ravens can't break the bank for Lewis. They have ascending players in their prime such as Terrell Suggs, Jason Brown and Leonhard, as well as underrated and overshadowed linebacker Bart Scott, also a free agent, to worry about.

Ross Tucker infers that Jim Leonhard was an average player at Buffalo and then Ray Lewis' presence made him that much better in Baltimore. So he thinks one of the reasons Lewis should not be resigned is because Leonhard will need to be re-signed. The same guy who was made better by the presence of Lewis and was average without him, needs to be paid, even though he may be average without Lewis. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The Ravens must attempt to keep Lewis in the fold ... but only if the price is right.

Genius. The Titans must attempt to keep Haynesworth in the fold...and be willing to overpay for him. See, that doesn't make sense in the salary cap world we live in. I think everyone would agree you should never overpay for a player.

9. As if anyone needed more proof the Braves front office consists of a group of losers who can't seem to grasp the concept of keeping negotiations private, comes the Ken Griffey, Jr. failure.

It is not a failure in that the Braves needed Griffey, he really would have made no difference, but again the Braves announce they have a player and the player backs out on them. It happened with Furcal, and Burnett was sure to sign with the Braves and then it never happened. The Braves tend to announce things before they actually happen.

Depending on whom you listen to, in fact, Griffey either had reached a deal with the Braves that subsequently fell through, or he never reached a deal but was this close.

Whether you want to believe the Braves who just announce they have players without actual contracts signed or you want to believe the player who never had actually chosen his team. Yeah, whoever you think has more credibility.

"I think everybody in Seattle would like to see him retire in a Mariners uniform," M's president and chief operating officer Chuck Armstrong told USA Today's Bob Nightengale last May. "He was born a Mariner. And I'd like to see him finish up as a Mariner."

Knowing Griffey's injury history, he will most likely finish his career on the disabled list...but I am sure he will wear a Seattle Mariners shirt at some point while he is nursing an injured hamstring.

Now, a team whose outfield combined to hit only 27 homers last season, fewest for an NL outfield since the Los Angeles Dodgers produced only 26 in 1992, swings and misses on Griffey.

If it tells you anything about Griffey, few Braves fan actually wanted him on the team, and the Braves outfield looks absolutely horrible right now in terms of offense. Let's just say a whole lot was not expected from him this year.

Seriously the GM of the Braves needs to learn "Negotiating for Dummies" or something. He has overseen one big negotiation mess after another. Whether it was the Jake Peavy negotiation or even somehow reportedly making Andruw Jones a larger offer than the Texas Rangers and still losing him.

10. Today was one of those days I wish I had some help on this here blog. It took me 8 hours to type this. Mom kept bothering me while I was in the attic typing and it was very annoying.

1 comments Well This Was Certainly Predictable

Let's get straight to it.

Rays play small ball to even Series

It was fun while it lasted for the Rays, all those home runs...

180 of them. Tied for fourth in the American League. It's adorable! Look honey, they think they're a major league team!

No, the real Rays are more like the team we saw in Game 2 of the World Series, a team that scrapes together runs however it can, pulls a surprise or two along the way, holds its opponents down with good pitching and decent defense and, in the end, usually wins.

Tampa Bay fiscal conservatives.

The Rays held off the Phillies in Game 2 of the Series on Thursday night, 4-2, evening the best-of-seven series at a game apiece in a small-ball lover's dream. Tampa Bay scored its first two runs in the first inning on groundouts.

if your dream in baseball is to see a groundout resulting in a run, I'd almost be willing to say you don't really like baseball very much. The execution is fine, but can we not get carried away?

And they saved their best for their last run, in the fourth, when manager Joe Maddon instructed his No. 9 hitter, shortstop Jason Bartlett, to lay down a safety squeeze with leaden-legged Cliff Floyd on third base. That might have been a surprising call to a lot of people. It certainly got the attention of some Rays in the dugout. "When I saw the sign," first baseman Carlos Pena recalled with a laugh, "I said, 'Please, Cliff, do this right.'"

But, in a lot of ways, it was typical Tampa Bay baseball, bold and unconventional, a kind of go-for-broke madness based in solid fundamentals.

solid fundamentals. Squeeze play with 35 year old Cliff Floyd. 1 SB in the past 188 games Cliff Floyd. Yes John, "some people" "might" have been suprised. This is a horrible decision, I don't care what happens, it's a terrible decision. Call me a dogmatic, stuck in the mud, big baseball loving, steroid taking, Barry Bonds adoring fascist, but I believe this is a horrible decision that goes against every fibre of logic in my body.

"It kind of gives us some momentum right there," Bartlett said. "The way Joe teaches it, anybody on third can score, if it's done correctly."

does Joe have a magic wand that can mak Cliff Floyd 30% faster? If not, he can't teach shit. My God Jason, that 9=8 shit has fucked you up completely hasn't it? You're mad as a hatter my boy!

Even Floyd, though, a 230-pound 35-year-old with a history of leg problems? A guy who admits it takes a while to get those old bones started, a guy who Bartlett swears he can hear coming down the line?

"Well, you know, he's not the fastest guy in the world," Thursday's starter, James Shields, said. "But when he needs to run, he can run."

yes, he can run, no one takes that away from him, but James, you are misconstruing my argument. Creating a kind of straw man, if you will. I don't insist that Cliff Floyd be, as you put it, the "fastest guy in the world", just fast, maybe in the top 10% of human beings, not a lot to ask of a professional athlete. I think I'm being far more reasonable than you are giving me credit for.

And on it goes until this whopper of a closing line...

"Big things happen," Pena said afterward, "when you focus on the smallest of things."

Pena immediately followed with "life is like a box of chocolates..."

Meanwhile, at the 'PN

Rays defy baseball logic with Game 2 win

Someday, many decades from now, historians will look back on the first World Series victory in Tampa Bay Rays history.

what did I say about not getting carried away?

...the Rays also could score runs the way they scored them Thursday, in the 4-2 win over the Phillies that evened the 2008 World Series at a win apiece:

By making outs.

Really.

You know, it's a funny thing. We'd be willing to bet that, before Thursday, we lived in a land of 300 million Americans who all believed, as one unified nation, that making outs was the one thing in baseball you would most want to avoid -- with the possible exception of learning that

Scott Boras had signed on to represent your cleanup hitter.
But then, along came this historic baseball event to teach us that we've had it all wrong -- that we've had it all wrong since birth, in fact.

Outs are good.

what about the walk? Or the infield single? Or the blooper? Not an out amongst them. If outs were good, perfect games would be a model of offensive genius. Why do writers feel forced to make ridiculous arguments, or characterisations of the situation? Just say the Rays were clever, creative, took risks down 0-1 at home, pitched extremely well, a point basically ignored in both articles, and got away with one. It shapes up to be a tight, tense series, with many exciting moments, great - this is not the plan of the Rays, the plan is to get hits, not to make outs, and you know this, so just say so.

"That's the cool thing about us," said Rays first baseman Carlos Pena, the resident voice of reason in this group. "We're multidimensional. Even when we're hitting the long ball, we're still thinking small...

this Pena quote is better, so far, so good...

We're mature enough to understand that big things happen when you focus on the smallest of things."

not true! Jut not true! You focus on hitting a bunt, or to the right side of the infield, or whatever, home runs don't just materialise! They don't! If that was the case, Bartlett's bunt would be in the thirty fifth row, but it didn't. When you focus on bunting, or getting the ball on the ground, you don't get extra base hits, no matter what kind of zen spin you want to put on it.

Home runs good.

Outs bad.

Are we clear?

And friends, things don't get much smaller in baseball than outs. So let's review how the Rays scored the four runs in Game 2 that changed this World Series:

• Ground ball to the shortstop.
• Another ground ball to the shortstop.
• A safety squeeze bunt built around a man who might have a tough time outrunning John Daly.
• And a hit that scored one run but got a second runner thrown out at the plate.
That, ladies and gentlemen, was the winning team's entire attack in a World Series game -- one it actually won.

It was all so thrilling, so electrifying, so downright inspirational

bold, conventional, go-for-broke, electrifying, thrilling, fucking inspirational. Go home Ryan Howard! You and your "being good at baseball" buddies have no place here. We have the tear jerking outmakers here and you're just ruining it. My God, these brave men, making outs, they're the heroes, our country thanks them.

"We have to play small ball," said the Game 2 winning pitcher, James Shields. "It's the World Series. That's the way you play the game. That's the way you win championships."

To be honest, other ways exist...

not in my America they don't!

And if the ultimate definition of "whatever it takes" consists of "flashing the squeeze sign twice, even with Cliff Floyd on third base," it's official: The Rays clearly will do anything to score a run.

except getting an extra base hit. What a mood killer that would be huh? Talk about violating team trust.

"To be honest," Pena said, "when I saw that sign, I said, 'Oh, Lord.'"

Why would he have felt a need to speak to powers higher than even Joe Maddon about a move like this? Well, for one thing, this team didn't execute a single successful squeeze bunt all season.

are you kidding me? Has this all been a lie? Is this some kind of joke to you Stark? I believed in these guys and their radical new method of making outs to win baseball games. It would revolutionise the game! And now you spring this on me, that they have been lying to us (effectively!) this whole time?

For another thing, Floyd was the runner on third base. And let's just say that nobody has mistaken him lately for Asafa Powell.

"Hey, I'm slow," Floyd said, at his earnest best. "Let's get that straight."

Said Shields: "I don't want to say he's as slow as a turtle because he did steal a bag this year. It'll probably be the last stolen base of his career, but he did steal one."

So any manager who was willing to give Cliff Floyd the green light to steal a base obviously would be a manager with no fear of giving Jason Bartlett the squeeze sign with Floyd at third base.

I stand by my "fucking idiot" theory.

"That's Joe," Floyd said appreciatively. "He'll do anything to score a run. If I was managing a team, I'd want to manage just like him."

he's 252-286 all-time Cliff.

One more, Danny Knobler (ha!).

After ALCS power surge, Rays return to their quirky, small-ball ways

I'd love to hear the argument that the "ways" they got to this position, AL Champs, was through grounders to second basemen.

The Rays were back to being the Rays. Just as in the ALCS against the Red Sox, they lost a so-so series opener, then bounced back to win the next night by looking much more like themselves.

they hit three home runs in that game, which is it? You can't have it all was. "Rays being the Rays", are we gonna do this for everything now? St.Louis beating Dallas by 20 last week, "well, that's just the Rams being the Rams". This isn't analysis!

Ugh, in the words of the immortal Murtaugh - I'm getting too old for this.