7 comments Advanced Statistics Loses Again to "Being There" To Watch a Player's Brilliance

Advanced statistics loses again unfortunately. Jerry Green show how advanced statistics can't measure things that aren't quantifiable like "being there" to see how great a player is. In your face statistics! You can't measure things that can't be quantified! Where is your statistical-based God now? Go cry in your mom's basement, losers!

I am always amused at articles that say, "Statistics can't measure the grace Player X played the game with" as if there is a way to measure these intangible things and it's only Sabermetrics or advanced statistics that come up short. Yes, those things that can't be quantified will nearly always remain non-quantified. Jerry Green can't measure the grace Clemente played the game with either, even if he saw Clemente play.

Jerry Green thinks Roberto Clemente is better than Willie Mays and somehow this has something to do with advanced statistics disagreeing with his premise. Also Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is prominently involved in Green's reasoning for why Clemente is better than Mays. Okay, then.

The greatest player in the history of Major League Baseball sat in the ramshackle shed of the visitors' clubhouse in venerable Crosley Field in Cincinnati. He fidgeted and twisted his neck and his shoulders, an athlete in perpetual motion. He was attended by a trainer who massaged his shoulders and an interpreter to translate back and forth between English and Spanish.

I did not know that David Eckstein spoke Spanish. You learn something new every day.

Roberto Clemente might not have been the perfect baseball player. But no other player in the game's 140 seasons has been closer to perfection.

140 seasons of baseball. It's the Twitter-versary for baseball, much to the chagrin of Jerry Green, the man who hates technology. 

Not Ty Cobb. Not Babe Ruth. Not Willie Mays. Not even Mike Trout, the Irreplaceable.

It is a personal opinion, arrived at belatedly, that Clemente was the baseball player nonpareil.

This is a personal opinion and isn't fact? In this article, Jerry Green will disagree with his own previous opinion on who the greatest baseball player of all-time was, so it's good to know Jerry recognizes his opinion is an opinion and not a fact, or else he would run the risk of playing loose with facts. We all know those who don't like advanced statistics would never play loose with facts or be blind to facts/realities in order to further their own agenda. 

It is an opinion that might be shared by only few other ancient souls captivated by sports.

Or Pittsburgh Pirates fans. Or people who really believe Clemente is one of the best baseball players of all-time. 

For sure, today's Internet blogging juveniles with their higher-brow obsession with metrics will launch darts at this premise.

I genuinely have no idea what Internet blogging juveniles have to do with whether Roberto Clemente is the greatest baseball player of all-time or not. I'm not sure Jerry Green knows either. He just knows that every single article he writes about baseball must contain one shot at Sabermetrics or advanced statistics. So apparently Jerry believe that Willie Mays is a Sabermetrics God and Roberto Clemente is the lowly, traditional statistics loser who just can't get a fair break from advanced statistics.

Of course, Clemente is 8th all-time in WAR, which just happens to be one of Green's favorite advanced statistics punching bag stats, but like I said, Jerry would never play loose with facts or be blind to reality. Jerry just doesn't care to do the required research. Why do work when you have an opinion? Clemente is 8th all-time in WAR, but Jerry Green has set up a reality where Internet blogging juveniles will launch darts at the premise Clemente is the greatest player in MLB history.

But they did not see Roberto Clemente play with grace and sharpened skills and with pride in his carriage.

No, "they" did not. That's why these metrics only have Clemente as #1 in baseball history in total zone runs for a right fielder. If they respected him more, perhaps he could be higher than that. But no, these same high-brow metrics only have Clemente as #2 all-time in total zone runs for all outfielders. What a bunch of disrespect from a group of people who never saw Clemente play one game in the majors. Because everyone who uses advanced statistics is young. This is a fact, so don't bother arguing with it.

Clemente's major problem -- yearning for acceptance and stature as a ballplayer -- was quite simple.

He played baseball in Pittsburgh.

What follows will show that playing in Pittsburgh wasn't the issue. It was that Clemente played in a time with other flashy athletes and he wasn't a flashy player. So playing in Pittsburgh wasn't the issue as much as the age in which Clemente played and how the media covered athletes at the time. But yeah, Pittsburgh was the entirety of the issue according to Jerry Green. Now Jerry Green will show this is not the entirety of the issue. 

He played in Pittsburgh in an era during which marvelous athletes were publicized and glorified. Television was in its adolescence, still a new medium. Print journalism dominated, and newspapers reached out to cover celebrated athletes.

Pittsburgh was the problem though. Not the media's fascination with "interesting" or flashy athletes. That wasn't part of the issue. 

Namath, Ali – they were the greatest and we the press (still a 1960s word) believed and said so.

They were extroverts and their images were splashed on the covers of national magazines as they were in the daily print press.

And then there was Roberto Clemente. The greatest of all baseball players.

Jerry Green wants everyone to know this is an opinion. Not a fact. Don't be confused and think Jerry Green's opinions are always facts. But he's right, so this opinion may as well be a fact, no matter what those high-brow, WAR-loving assholes who use advanced statistics tell you. 

He played in the same sports era as the wondrous Willie Mays. They were rivals on the field. But Willie had the luxury of playing in New York and then in San Francisco when the Giants moved to California. 

We all know athletes on the West Coast receive all the acclaim that athletes on the East Coast receive. That's why Paul Goldschmidt is widely thought among casual fans to be such a great hitter. 

Willie got the acclaim. We-the-press kowtowed to Willie.

And Roberto was locked in isolation.

Pittsburgh though. Playing in Pittsburgh was the problem. Not the media's coverage of Clemente. It's never the media's fault. 

"If I could sleep, I could hit .400," was one of Clemente's favorite sayings.

If a frog had wings, then it wouldn't bump it's ass on the ground. I can see why Clemente didn't get coverage like Ali and Namath did. He just seemed to lack the ability to be cocky or brag about himself. 

He talked about lacking the acclaim of other ballplayers. Mays, his contemporary and rival, in particular. He talked about his pains and aches and his prowess.

His envy of other ballplayers with more recognition was obvious. But also showing was dignity and charm and elegance and kindness.

This is true, but Jerry isn't doing a great job of proving it as true. 

"Nobody does anything better than me in baseball," was another of Clemente's noted quotes.

Elegance and charm. Dignity. Again, I can see why Clemente wasn't covered like Namath and Ali were covered. If he only had the faith in his own ability to the point of cockiness, then perhaps he could have caught the press's eye with a quote about how great he was. Unfortunately, Clemente wasn't capable of this type of thing. 

We'll never know how much more greatness Roberto Clemente had within him after the day he collected his 3,000th hit for the Pirates in the final game of the 1972 season. He was 38 and planned to continue playing.

If Clemente had just played for a few more years and not died then he could have been further disrespected by those who like new school metrics by ending his career as among the Top 5 players all-time in WAR. What disrespect these young kids give to Clemente. 

The well-known story defines Roberto Clemente. He died in the crash of a cargo plane carrying relief supplies from Puerto Rico to earthquake victims in Nicaragua.

Those of us who then voted in the elections of the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown quickly broke the five-year rule. We voted Roberto into the Hall of Fame in a special election.

I look for Hall of Fame members to disconnect the brakes on the car Jack Morris is driving in the hopes he drives off a cliff so that the groundswell of support and emotion for his career will allow them to break the five-year rule and vote him into the Hall of Fame immediately. They will do ANYTHING to get him in, even if they have to murder the one they love to do it. 

Mays hit more home runs during a longer career than Clemente. Clemente had a higher career batting average, .317 to Mays' .302.

Clemente hit 240 home runs in an 18 year career. Mays hit 660 home runs in a 22 year career. But yes, it was the "longer career" that caused Mays' home run stats to look so much better than Clemente's home run stats. Great comparison to even make it seem somewhat like Mays' longer career had something to do with his having 440 more home runs than Clemente. 

Each was an amazing five-tool player – the non-metric evaluation of baseball player's lasting worth. Clemente and Mays, along with Al Kaline, in those years of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1960s, could hit, hit for average, run, throw and field – the traditional five tools.

I like how Jerry differentiates between the "1960's" and the "early 1960's."

Three years ago, after watching rookie Mike Trout as he devastated the World Series-bound Tigers in three games in Anaheim, I invoked memories of Willie Mays. Trout is the rare five-tool player in today's baseball. Then I claimed that Mays was the greatest baseball player ever, and that Trout was the most accomplished player to enter the game in 40 years.

Upon further review, I dispute myself.

Roberto Clemente entered the game in 1955. Mike Trout entered the game in 2011. It's possible that Jerry's comment about Trout is correct. 

Clemente, without checking the updated sabermetrics, was the greatest. 

You are only making yourself sound ignorant and bitter writing things like this. 

He was a superior hitter to Mays, without the power. He had a stronger arm. They were equal as fielders.

But, can Clemente be a superior hitter "without the power"? Even adjusting for the four year difference in their careers and discounting the last four years of his career, Mays still would have had more home runs by a large margin, more RBI's by a large margin, while only have 74 fewer hits, and a batting average that was 0.15 lower than Clemente's batting average. I'm using traditional statistics, not updated Sabermetrics. Even using Jerry's own favored metrics, I'm not sure his conclusion Clemente was better is correct.  

Roberto did not have the glitz of Mays – nor of Trout, bolstered by his Los Angeles exposure.

We all know the exposure Mike Trout receives from playing on the West Coast for the Angels. 

Clemente had one flaw. He played in Pittsburgh.

Well, that and he wasn't covered by the media like other athletes during his time were covered. But mainly it was the whole Pittsburgh thing though, right? Maybe I'm being too high-brow for Jerry's tastes about all of this. 

0 comments Jerry Green Thinks Building a World Series Winner Begins with a Great Bullpen

I don't want to downplay the importance of a great bullpen in winning a World Series. Obviously a very reliable bullpen is very important when it comes to trying to win a World Series. Jerry Green has overstated the case just a little bit by stating that winning a World Series starts with relievers, while downplaying the importance of starting pitching and failing to even mention good hitting as being important. The World Series just ended with a starting pitcher receiving the MVP award and a great bullpen doesn't serve as much use if the starting pitcher can't hand that bullpen a lead to protect or that team's hitters can't score runs to make up a deficit while the bullpen shuts out the opposing team. Jerry is trying to eradicate some myths, but in the process he creates a few more myths of his own.

Once, way back, conventional wisdom declared that baseball was three-quarters pitching and all the rest consisted of the small segments hitting, fielding, running – and stealing the other team's signs.

Let me define all of the terms that Jerry Green is using here into real language.

"Conventional Wisdom"- One person's opinion on how baseball games are won.

"Stealing the other team's signs"- Cheating, which is now frowned upon from a high pedestal by the baseball media as it pertains to using illegal substances to enhance performance, but stealing the signs of other teams is seen as sly gamesmanship that's just part of the game.

That was the gospel according to Connie Mack, who was the game's leading philosopher a century ago.

"Pitching is 75 percent of the game," Mr. Mack stated, from above the starched collar he wore with his civilian suit as he managed the Philadelphia Athletics to several World Series victories.

See? Conventional wisdom is one person's opinion that Jerry Green agreed with at the time. The gospel of one person magically becomes convention. Weird how that works.

Then along came an upstart named Chris Columbus

And he directed "Home Alone," "Mrs. Doubtfire," two "Harry Potter movies," while writing "Gremlins" and "The Goonies." He had a lot of success during the 80's and early 90's, I get it. I don't see what he had to do with how important relief pitching is in winning a World Series.

and proved that the world was round. As round, well, as a baseball.

Oh, THAT Christopher Columbus. 

Myths were extremely difficult to eradicate.

Most likely because baseball sportswriters are notoriously hard-headed people who refuse to change, adapt to new information and their immediate reaction to learning new information is to mock it's relevance and mock those who are using this new information to arrive at a conclusion the sportswriter doesn't necessarily want to accept. Jerry Green would never do that though, would he?

Never.

Ever.

Not him.

It is the objective of every Major League Baseball general manager to assemble the highest-quality starting pitching staff possible. The idea is to hoard starters. Pamper them. Baby them. Publicize them. Offer them multi-millions so as to lock them up for years into eternity.

I think Jerry is projecting a bit of the Tigers' strategy here. This isn't necessarily the strategy of every MLB GM to baby starters and then give them huge contracts. But yes, if Jerry Green is suggesting that MLB GM's think having a great starting pitching staff is important then that is true. If Jerry is suggesting that GM's would prefer they have a healthy pitching staff, then that is also true.

It is – as the myth remains even in this era of Sabremetric gobbledy-gook – the major method of organizing pitching staffs for supposed World Series contenders.

The Giants just won a World Series on the back of a dominating starting pitcher. The Royals made the World Series on the back of dominating relief pitching. But either way, no team wins a World Series without good starting pitching and good relief pitching. A team can throw together an epically great bullpen, but if the starting pitching can get the ball to the bullpen with a lead or the game close then that team isn't going to win the World Series.

Obviously hitting is important too. Jerry is specifically comparing a team having great starting pitching to a team having great relief pitching. And again, I think he's projecting his experience with the Detroit Tigers in this situation, because they are a team with great starting pitching but a questionable bullpen. I'm not sure the lesson of the 2014 Detroit Tigers is a lesson that stays true from here on out through the history of baseball. Relief pitching is very important, just like starting pitching is very important. To win a World Series, I don't think you start with relief pitching, and you don't use the examples Jerry provides as a reason for why you start with relief pitching.

Add a David Price to a stellar staff of Marvelous Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Anibal Sanchez and Rick Porcello, and the Tigers are a shoo-in to win … and oops!

Jerry is confusing having a good bullpen with having a terrible bullpen. It's not that building a World Series team around the bullpen is the key to winning the World Series, it's that a team with a bullpen ranked 27th in the majors in ERA will struggle to win the World Series. So the Tigers failure to make the World Series can be chalked up to not having a very good bullpen, but this doesn't mean the key to winning the World Series is having a great bullpen. There is a difference. A team doesn't have to build around the bullpen to win a World Series, but that team shouldn't have a terrible bullpen like the Tigers had in 2014 and expect to win the World Series.

I would absolutely not expect Jerry Green to understand any of this.

And now the Washington Nationals are being considered shoo-ins to dominate baseball in this soon-to-open season.

They are perhaps the favorite, but I don't know if they are considered shoo-ins to dominate baseball. Though it is important to know they had a bullpen with the 4th best ERA in the majors and the 18th best batting average against during the 2014 season. So perhaps they are better equipped than the 2014 Tigers (though there is obviously a variance in bullpen performance from one year to another) to win the World Series with their current bullpen. Again, it's not that the Nationals should build around the bullpen to win the World Series, it's just they can't have a terrible bullpen and expect to win the World Series.

How they have a clear shot through the National League with Scherzer added to this stupendous collection of Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, Doug Fister and Gio Gonzales – plus an available sixth starter, Tanner Roark.

"They could climb the ranks as one of the best starting rotations in the era (1969-on) of the lowered mound," glowed NBC's Hardball Talk website.

Which is entirely possible. Notice NBC's Hardball Talk didn't write, "This team is guaranteed to win the World Series this year due to the greatness of the starting pitching staff." But hey, I shouldn't expect Jerry Green to be able to differentiate between a media outlet remarking the Nationals have a great pitching staff and this outlet handing the World Series title to the Nationals before spring training is over.

By decree, the Nats' starting staff now is destined to replace the previous best starting staff ever, the Atlanta Braves' group of two decades ago. How we wowed then about the pitching dominance of the Braves with Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz. Three imposing pitchers destined for the immortality of the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

Yeah, they were pretty good. I wouldn't make the argument that the Braves would have won more World Series titles if they had worse starting pitching and a better bullpen. I'm not sure that would be an entirely accurate conclusion that can be drawn.

That immense starting staff of the Braves – that myth was exploded also.

Nope, not really. The greatness of that staff wasn't a myth. The Braves still had a great starting pitching staff that helped them get to four World Series from 1991-1999.

Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz pitched the Braves of the 1990s to precisely one World Series championship. They contributed to the winning of five NL pennants. And they were involved in four World Series flops.

To be precise, and I know Jerry Green is more interested in proving his point through whatever means necessary as opposed to being precise, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz only were involved with two World Series flops. Maddux wasn't on the pitching staff in 1991 (when the Braves "flopped" by losing in seven games and the last game was an extra inning affair) and 1992 (when they ran into a Blue Jays team with a really good starting pitching staff) when the Braves lost the World Series. He was signed by the Braves as a free agent prior to the 1993 season. Maddux was on the 1996 and 1999 Braves team that flopped in the World Series. So that staff of three pitchers contributed to three NL pennants and two World Series losses. Not four. Two. Let's get it right for the sake of accuracy, though I know Jerry doesn't give a shit about accuracy.

The finest starting staff in history managed to win this single World Series in 1995.

I'm not sure anyone but Jerry Green is arguing this was the best starting staff in history. 

It's not that this glorified starting triumvirate was lousy. It was that the Yankees had Mariano Rivera.

It was that simple in the World Series of 1996 and 1999.

Out came Rivera climbing against the Braves – and slam, it was finished.

And again, Jerry Green is taking part in some revisionist history. Rivera was only the closer for the Yankees during the 1999 World Series. John Wetteland was the Yankees closer in the 1996 World Series with Rivera as the set up guy. Wetteland saved four games in that series and pitched slightly better than Rivera did. Yes, the Yankees had a great bullpen during the 1996 World Series, but it helps the Yankees starters got the ball to the bullpen with a lead in two of those games.

Bullpens are the most important ingredient to any championship baseball.

I mean, maybe. Having a good bullpen is helpful, but I think having great starters is more important than having a great bullpen. Few teams can win a World Series if their bullpen absolutely sucks though. So that's true.

I have no idea how WAR and WHIP and the other contrived statistics factor into winning championships. It really doesn't much matter.

And of course Jerry is going to bring a screed against WHIP and WAR into the discussion. That's all he knows how to do. It's irrelevant to the discussion he wants to have, but it's important that Jerry mention as often as possible that he is terrified of advanced statistics.

Ever since that statistic about Quality Starts came into existence I have mused about quality finishes.

It's called a "hold" or a "save" instead of a "quality finish." I do understand that holds have been around for only 20 years and saves have been around for about 40 years, so they are relatively new, scary statistics to Jerry.

But ordinarily – unless Madison Bumgarner is involved – quality finishes are group efforts. The seventh-inning stopper. The eighth-inning holder. Then the ninth-inning closer.

Sure, except how is the 7th inning stopper, the 8th inning holder, and the 9th inning closer going to stop, hold or close a game out that the starting pitcher (or the hitters) hasn't handed them a lead or kept it a close game so they can stop, hold or close the game? It's almost like baseball is a team game or something. So it does take a bullpen to close out a game, but winning a World Series doesn't begin with a great bullpen necessarily because the bullpen can't hit the baseball and make up for a deficit their team faces. So if the starter has gotten shelled and the hitters haven't hit, then the bullpen isn't much help to win the game until the hitters start hitting. If a team has a great starting pitching staff who hands the bullpen a lead, well then that great bullpen certainly comes in handy more.

The closer catches all the glory. Rivera with the Yankees. Koji Uehara with the Red Sox two years ago.

I bet Jerry can't name the Giants closer during the 2014 season.

Guillermo Hernandez with the Tigers just 31 year ago. Cy Young Award! MVP!

Oh, now come on...how many times have readers been told that Jack Morris won the 1984 World Series all by himself with his super-clutchy pitching and refusal to exit the ball game until he has done every last damn bit of the job he was hired to do? Last time I checked Jack Morris was a starting pitcher. Now all of a sudden when Green doesn't need to make a case for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame, Guillermo Hernandez is the MVP of that World Series and Jack Morris was just lucky to have such a great reliever on his team. It's funny how opinions change when a different point needs to be proven.

But the Nats have the specter of the unknown. In their short history, they have been unable to close out victories in postseason games. Faulty bullpens.

The Nationals have made the postseason twice since moving to Washington. During the 2012 NLDS, when the Nationals lost 3-2 to the Cardinals, the bullpen was directly responsible for one loss in that series. It just happened to be during Game 5 of the series, but otherwise the starting pitching is what won or lost the Nationals the other four games.  

During the 2014 NLDS against the Giants that the Nationals lost 3-1, the Nationals bullpen, which had been pretty good all season, did blow up pretty badly. That wasn't necessarily the case for the Nationals bullpen on the season though. The postseason can be a mean bitch sometimes. So Jerry has a point that the Nationals lost this series because of their bullpen, but I still don't believe this means a strong bullpen is the best way to win the World Series. The bullpen had leads to blow because the starting pitching staff didn't give up runs and the Nationals' hitters scored runs. Starting pitching and hitting are both equally as important as a strong bullpen.

The Dodgers, supposedly, will provide the Nats with ample pursuit. They have Clayton Kershaw, Zack Greinke and Hyun-Jin Ryu as starters. A fine starting trio. Kershaw is unmatched. The best pitcher in baseball.

True, of course. With terrible postseason vulnerability.

And because Kershaw isn't reliable in the postseason then this means he never will be reliable and is worthless to the Dodgers as it pertains to winning a World Series. 

They are damaged much further because their reliable closer, Kenley Jansen, will be on the disabled list well into the season.

Again, there is a difference in a team wanting a good bullpen and having a really shitty bullpen. Obviously a team with a strong pitching staff and a really bad bullpen most likely isn't going to win the World Series. Just like a team with crappy starting pitching and a really good bullpen probably won't win the World Series. This means a team that wants to win the World Series shouldn't have a shitty bullpen, but doesn't mean that having a strong bullpen is the best way to win the World Series. Jerry is confusing the issue. A team that wants to win the World Series needs a reliable bullpen, not necessarily the greatest bullpen ever assembled. 

Then there are the Tigers, who were stopped last October by Baltimore. They entered the 2014 playoffs with the most revered starting five in all of baseball. Same as the year before.

The fact the Tigers bullpen was terrible in 2014 does not mean the starting five pitchers the Tigers had could not have led the team to a World Series title. Baseball is a team game. If the Tigers had a bullpen of Craig Kimbrel, Dave Robertson, Sergio Romo, and Greg Holland with Scherzer, Sanchez, Verlander, Price, and Porcello as their starting rotation, but their offense resembled the 2014 San Diego Padres offense, then they probably would struggle to win the World Series. This wouldn't suddenly mean a great offense is the key to winning the World Series, instead it means a team can't win the World Series with a shitty offense.

During this past offseason, they allowed Scherzer to depart for Washington without a peep of protest. They dealt away Porcello for Yoenis Cespedes, a sometimes powerful hitter who created disenchantment playing in Oakland and then Boston.

The Tigers are getting rid of their vaunted rotation, so that surely means they will win the World Series now! And I'm not sure about the "creating disenchantment" comment from Green. The Red Sox (or at least Ben Cherington) claim this isn't true. Anonymous sources couldn't lie to Bill Madden could they?

The Tigers have yearning for a reliable bullpen for nigh onto a decade.

So perhaps it's not that a World Series victory begins with a great bullpen, but a World Series victory stops without a reliable bullpen? Maybe? Perhaps Jerry is only saying a World Series win starts with a great bullpen because the Tigers haven't even had a reliable bullpen. It's hard to win a World Series without a good bullpen, just like it's hard to win the World Series without good hitting or starting pitching.

Connie Mack's words are still valued in much of baseball.

Brings to mind another slice of conventional wisdom from another Philadelphia manager. The aptly named Danny Ozark, who managed the Phillies back awhile ago.

"Ninety percent of baseball is half-mental."

This has nothing to do with a great bullpen or how to best construct a team that wins the World Series.

So? Where have you gone Jose Valverde?

Where has Valverde gone? Apparently into the shitter because he's had an ERA over 5.00 during the last two seasons, including one year as a member of the unreliable Tigers bullpen that Jerry Green is gnashing his teeth over. A baseball team with aspirations for the World Series has to have a great bullpen, but I don't think a World Series winning team begins with the bullpen to the point Jerry Green is undervaluing the importance of starting pitching (without even mentioning how important good hitting is). 

2 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: David Steele Uses Quotes from Five Years Ago to Advocate for Tim Tebow Edition

I have a huge backlog of links that don't deserve a full post but should be mentioned on this blog in some form. So I thought I would clear them out and share little tidbits of bad sports journalism (or "nuggets" of bad journalism as Peter King would say). As always, the topic of these links bounce around all over the place. It's a real problem when an article doesn't merit a full post here and I will try to rectify that situation.

1. Let's start first with the ex-NFL quarterback who won't go away. That's Tim Tebow. David Steele lets his readers in on a secret. Those people who have coached and worked with Tim Tebow still think he can be an NFL quarterback. No way! And by the way, David takes testimonials from five years go to prove that Tebow can still play in the NFL. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to try and prove Tebow can still be an NFL quarterback in 2015 by using a quote from 2010, prior to the time Tebow confirmed that he indeed is not an NFL quarterback?

Tim Tebow got another look from the NFL Monday, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, and he arrived to his tryout with the Eagles off of workouts with Tom House, the longtime major-league pitching coach who has worked on mechanics with Tom Brady and Drew Brees, among others.

Tom House made Drew Brees and Tom Brady into the quarterbacks they are today, so he can do the same for Tim Tebow. Obviously, the indication David Steele is giving here is really true. 

House, who had worked with the ex-Bronco and Jet before, was complimentary of Tebow, who hasn’t played a regular-season game since 2012 and was last on a roster in 2013 Patriots training camp. “He went from being a little inaccurate and didn’t throw a whole lot of spirals, to throwing very accurate and real good at spinning the ball,” House told the Boston Globe last week.

With all due respect to House and his track record, this all sounds familiar.

Coaches that Tebow has worked with or paid to have work with him think he'll be a good NFL quarterback? I don't believe it. It's not like these coaches have a vested financial interest in reinforcing their ability to turn college quarterbacks into good NFL quarterbacks or anything. No coach would say something in order to increase the perception he is good at his job.

House is the latest in a line of personal coaches Tebow has enlisted to work on his quarterback shortcomings, dating back to his days preparing to enter the NFL out of Florida in 2010.

People Tebow has paid to work with him and improve his ability think they did a good job in improving Tebow's ability. I'm not sure this should be news.

Nevertheless, here’s the list of Tebow tutors and their testimonials.

— “If this guy can’t be a starting quarterback in the NFL, then I was in the wrong profession for a lot of years.” — former NFL head coach Sam Wyche, who worked with Tebow before the draft, February 2010.

Considering Sam Wyche stated this prior to Tebow being drafted and failing out of the NFL, my only takeaway from this is that Sam Wyche was in the wrong profession for a lot of years.

Does David Steele realize using testimonials from BEFORE Tebow was drafted and failed in the NFL serves to only undermine the point he wants to prove that Tebow can play in the NFL? See Wyche made this statement in 2010 and then this statement was proven to be incorrect after that. So, that seems to run counter to the idea Tebow can play the quarterback position well in the NFL.

— “I don't know that I’m the only one who has the sense of Tim’s ability to be developed and become a very good player in the league. I believe in the right environment Tim Tebow will figure this out. He doesn't have explosive arm strength, but he has more than adequate arm strength to throw the ball in the NFL and make all the throws.’’ — then-CFL head coach Marc Trestman, who trained Tebow before the Senior Bowl, April 2010

This quote is from 2010, which is prior to the time Tebow washed out of the league. And again, this is a person with a vested interest in making it seem like Tebow can play in the NFL. Trestman wanted to make it seem like he can improve a quarterback's ability through training that quarterback.

— “I would hope wherever he ends up, they give him an opportunity to play, because if they do, they'll be pleasantly surprised. I think the guy can still play.” — quarterback consultant Steve Clarkson, April 2013

He can "still play"? Why use the word "still" there as if Tebow ever did play well in the past?

Also, Tebow got a shot with the Patriots in 2013, but I'm sure Bill Belichick just doesn't have the right eye for the talent that Tebow showed in training camp. Belichick is well-known for having a poor eye for talent at the quarterback position.

— “Do I think he can play the quarterback position in the NFL? Yeah, no question. Like I told Tim when I found out … that he signed, ‘You're locked and loaded, ready to go.’” — former Heisman Trophy winner and NFL quarterback Chris Weinke, June 2013

Except the Patriots didn't keep Tebow around. Notice how none of these quotes are from 2014 or 2015? There is a reason for that.

— “In shorts, out there on the football field, he changed his motion and he’s very smooth. I’ve got it on film, and film doesn’t lie. What he does when he goes out in a game situation and live bullets, I’m not sure what will happen. I just know he’s a great guy, a hard worker, and this off-season his throwing motion became 100 times better.” — quarterback trainer Dennis Gile, who worked with partner Mike Giovando on Tebow, June 2013

And that's it. Another quarterback trainer swearing that Tim Tebow is an NFL quarterback. This quote is from a relatively recent two years ago. I'm not sure the point David Steele wanted to prove, unless his point was, "Hey 2-5 years ago people who have a vested interest in Tim Tebow succeeding stated he could succeed. That has to mean something as long as you ignore their vested interest and the fact years have gone by where their statements have been proven to be incorrect, right?"

2. Joel Sherman thinks the Yankees dodged a huge bullet by not signing Cliff Lee as a free agent in 2010. Because sure, Lee was great during 2011-2014, but he's injured now. Clearly, Cliff Lee could not have helped the Yankees win any games during that stretch of time from 2011-2014.

The current rotation concerns of the Yankees and Rangers could be worse — Cliff Lee could have accepted one of the two highest total bids in December 2010.

Lee turned down the Yankees’ seven-year, $150 million offer and the six year, $138 million bid of the Rangers — the teams viewed as the strong front-runners — to sign a five-year, $120 million pact with the Phillies.

Cliff Lee's performance from 2011-2014. I'll let you decide if this would have been helpful for the Yankees to have as a part of their starting pitching staff.

2011: 32 starts 17-8 with a 2.40 ERA and 1.027 WHIP
2012: 30 starts 6-9 with a 3.16 ERA and 1.114 WHIP
2013: 31 starts 14-8 with a 2.87 ERA and 1.010 WHIP
2014: 13 starts 4-5 with a 3.66 ERA and 1.377 WHIP

Now, after missing the final two months last year, Lee has received two diagnosis the tear in the region needs surgery. That would end his 2015 season and, since this is the final year guaranteed on his contract, Lee has suggested he might retire if he needs the procedure.

Cliff Lee performed at a high level for three of the five years on his contract during a time when the Yankees certainly could have used another starter during the 2011 and 2012 playoffs, especially since they lost the ALDS 3-2 to the Tigers in 2011.

The Rangers, already with a thin rotation, are likely to lose ace Yu Darvish for the season if he opts for Tommy John surgery. The Yankees’ rotation is shaky in part due to the uncertainty of CC Sabathia. There is, in fact, strong parallels to Lee and Sabathia — both won Cy Youngs for the Indians (Sabathia in 2007, Lee in 2008) and both were extreme lefty workhorses with Sabathia leading the majors in innings from 2005-13 (1,999 ¹/₃ innings) and Lee fifth (1,833 ²/₃), which probably explains why they have broken down.

OR Cliff Lee broke down because he's 36 years old and older pitchers tend to break down more. The fact Lee broke down for 1.5 years of his 5 year contract doesn't mean the Yankees couldn't have used him during the 3.5 years when he was pitching at a high level.

Sabathia tried hard to recruit Lee to the Yankees in the winter of 2010. Maybe the Yankees would have won championships with Sabathia and Lee together or Lee would not have broken down as a Yankee. But in 2015, it sure looks fortunate Sabathia’s recruitment didn’t succeed.

But from 2011-2014, it sure looks like pure stupidity to think the Yankees couldn't have used Lee. Why would Joel Sherman think at all about Lee's past performance though? After all, it's not like the Yankees have ever signed an expensive free agent only to have him get injured.

3. Rick Telander furthers a narrative he wants to further by claiming the guy who worked with Bill James while employed by the Red Sox eschews Sabermetrics.

In 2002, at age 28, Epstein became the Red Sox’ general manager, the youngest in major-league history. He would win two World Series titles in the next five years, ending an 86-year championship drought for the Red Sox.
Here’s the relevance of  this to Theo’s current job as president of the Cubs: Sabermetrics and those algorithms he and his crew punched into computers, which then spat out genius statistical info . . . that stuff is dead as prairie chickens.

Epstein has learned the error of his ways. Sure, his use of Sabermetrics helped to win the Red Sox two World Series titles, but it's all about the humanity for Epstein now.

Well, moneyball is not actually dead — it’s just no more special than a pile of dead chickens.

‘‘Fifteen years ago there weren’t that many teams specializing in the statistical model to succeed,’’ he says. ‘‘You could really get an advantage using it. In the offseason of 2002, into 2003, the Red Sox needed to improve our offense, and we needed to get on base more. So we could sign Davey Ortiz to a one-year deal, Bill Mueller to a two-year deal, and also sign Kevin Millar, whom no one wanted and was going to Japan, based largely on the numbers, on the things you could learn from the statistical analysis.  Now the world is so flat — everyone’s doing that!’’

Oh, that makes sense. Moneyball isn't dead, it's just being so used in such a wide and prevalent manner by every MLB team that it's now become a part of the evaluation process for a team's front office. So by saying Moneyball is dead, what Rick Telander really means is that Moneyball is more alive than it ever has been.

So what does a smart man do to once again move beyond the herd? He goes new age. He looks at the game he loves and sees that a really big part of it has been taken over by the numerical lists he helped make so popular, yet an equally large part of it has seemingly been ignored—the emotional, human part. How’s that for irony, moneyballers?

You certainly told them, Rick. Feel good about yourself and pat yourself on the back---oh, you are already patting yourself on the back. Just carry on then.

‘‘I think the real competitive advantage now is in player development—understanding that your young players are human beings,’’ says Epstein, whose sky-blue shirt and sky-blue cap made this reporter mistake the now-41-year-old at first for a beer salesman. ‘‘Understanding them physically, fundamentally, and mentally — investing in them as people — and helping them progress. And there’s no stat for that.’’

For example, as human beings Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo are really fucking good at baseball. There is a statistic to show this as true.

He finds it embarrassing that he and so many of the front-office people don’t speak Spanish, so a Spanish tutor is coming in two mornings a week to teach it to the brass.

WHERE'S THE STATISTIC SHOWING TO LEARN TO SPEAK SPANISH, MONEYBALLERS? THERE IS NO STATISTIC THAT TEACHES SPANISH. YOUR COMPUTERS ARE USELESS NOW AREN'T THEY? 

‘‘I don’t think everything in baseball — or life — is quantifiable,’’ he says. ‘‘Sure, if you ignore the stats, if you ignore empiricism, if you ignore objective evidence, then you’re a fool.

Rick Telander conveniently ignores this quote when talking about how Theo Epstein has made a change in how he evaluates players. Epstein calls people "fools" for ignoring statistics and other information used by Sabermetricians to evaluate players, but it doesn't fit the narrative so it's useless to Rick.

But if you invest in stats so fully that you’re blind to the fact the game is played by human beings, then you’re just as much of a fool.’’

Amen.

So Theo Epstein evaluates players using a mix of Sabermetrics and scouting by watching the players play? You know, like every other MLB team does. Rick worked hard to paint this as an anti-stats statement by Theo Epstein. The narrative takes precedence over reality.

4. Now Rick Telander gets increasingly depressed about the hiring of John Fox.

On January 10, 2015 when Ryan Pace was hired, Rick was pretty optimistic.

But if you count teams that simply made it to the Super Bowl, the field opens up. Indeed, in the last 16 years, seven other teams have gotten to the Super Bowl and lost. They are the 49ers, Cardinals, Eagles, Panthers, Titans and Falcons. And, almost forgot, the Bears. That makes 18 teams that have played in the Super Bowl since 1999.
 
So is it wrong to ask, Why not us?

The point being: Why not the Bears? Why not soon? Like 2015?

But who cares about the Cardinals? The Bears went 5-11 this season. Can they return to title quality in one year, as chairman George McCaskey said they should? Yes. And, they should.

It can be done.

So what if you’ve got Jay Cutler at quarterback? You win with him, not because of him. Or you dump him and get a young Russell Wilson or a cagey Joe Theismann or Phil Simms or Jeff Hostetler or Brad Johnson.

IT CAN BE DONE! THIS BEARS TEAM CAN TURN IT AROUND IN ONE YEAR! RICK BELIEVES!

Then on January 17, 2015 after the Bears hired John Fox, Rick became a little more pessimistic about the Bears chances of turning it around.

I’ll join the masses and say that the Bears’ hiring of John Fox was a nice thing.
But am I blown away?
 
Not really.

A football team is so much more than its coach, and sometimes folks don’t want to admit this. Mike Ditka has always said that if you don’t have the player talent, you can’t win.

Oh no, now the same players the Bears had a week earlier that could turn it around can't turn it around anymore.

You go, John Fox! But the ferret in that box over there is named Jay Cutler, and he’s yours. Hope you’ve got gloves and a plan.

Oh boy, looks like the Bears may want to get a Russell Wilson (you know, that type of quarterback like Wilson that's just hanging around on a street corner waiting to be signed) or a cagey Joe Theismann type. Rick's depression has begun.

Then two days later on January 19, 2015 Rick hits rock bottom about the John Fox hiring.

John Fox walks and talks like a coach, and, of course, he was one, and he is one again. Your brand new Bears leader, folks, hot off the rails from Denver, where he was the Broncos’ coach as recently as seven days ago — John (no middle name) Fox!
 
Thirteen years of NFL head-coaching success for the man who will turn 60 next month. Hoo-rah.

What happened to signing cagey quarterbacks and winning with the players the Bears have, because IT CAN BE DONE? Where did the happiness go?

Risking such, I just want to say that maybe Fox isn’t perfect. Maybe, that’s all. Nor can I think of anyone better at the moment to take the spot of Marc Trestman, who leaves after a 5-11 season.

It's all over now, baby blue. Cue the Morrissey (not Rick) and start to anticipate the downward spiral from the eternal happiness that Rick felt just nine days earlier.

So let’s get away from groupthink for a moment — that is, Bears fans’ and management’s certitude du jour that a veteran coach who has been to two Super Bowls, winning neither, is a stroke of pure genius. (May I remind you that Lovie Smith, who took the Bears to a Super Bowl and had a final season of 10-6, was run out of town so that the professorial Trestman could go 13-19 in two seasons.)

It is possible, you know — and don’t stone me for simply mentioning it — that Fox is here to chill and run out the skein on a nice, if unspectacular, career. Five more years, and he’s got Medicare, baby!

It says he’s a fairly mellow, bland guy who will bore you to death at news conferences and show that much pizzazz on the field. He’s good at defense, and he’s known as a players’ coach. But he has never made it all the way to the top.

‘‘He drove Elway crazy because he didn’t hold himself, the players or coaches accountable after losses.  He’ll be an improvement in Chicago, but he won’t win a Super Bowl.’’
 
No, this isn’t gospel. Nor am I a prophet. Nor is Shapiro.
 
Just trying to tell it like it might be.

Nine days earlier the future was so bright for the Bears. Then the Bears hired a head coach that Rick Telander admits was probably the best person for the vacant head coaching position and the future suddenly turned cloudy. Weird how that happened when nothing else changed, isn't it?

5. To add to Rick Telander's dismay, he doesn't know what's happened to Bruce Jenner. More importantly, how does Bruce Jenner's gender change impact Rick Telander?

Bruce Jenner and I are the same age — or we will be on Oct. 28, when he turns 66, like yours truly — and I guess that’s as far as the similarities go.
I used to think we had things in common.

Rick Telander does not want breasts. Let's get this out of the way at the very beginning.

I used to idolize Jenner, such as idolization flows from a guy in his mid-20s who follows a white, similar-sized (6-1, 195 pounds — though far more muscular), similar-aged, Midwestern college-educated, long-locked, striving athlete who soon would be an Olympic gold-medal winner in the brutal decathlon and, thus, the ‘‘world’s greatest athlete.’’

I can deal with a lot of things in life. But Jenner, who is, if we believe reports — and our eyes — transitioning to become a woman, throws me for a loop. I’m sorry, it just does. I am who I am. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

Well Rick, Jenner's transition to a woman is mostly about you and how you handle his transition. After all, prior to transitioning Jenner should have at least consulted you on how your memories of him as a decathlete would be impacted by his transition.

If Jenner knows he is a woman long trapped in an incredibly masculine body, then so be it. The extreme plastic surgery, the Adam’s apple apparently shaved, the ponytail, the breasts supported by a sports bra, the nail polish — no man would do that for kicks.

Except for Jay Cutler. He just wants to watch the world burn.

Jenner was featured on the front of a Wheaties box, for God’s sake, the signature placement for the greatest American heroes. But I’ll ask you: Does anybody eat Wheaties anymore? Does anybody notice what’s on the cover of what they eat?

No Rick, nobody eats Wheaties anymore. You know why? Because Bruce Jenner has affected your memories of the past. Much like you, no one else can eat a bowl of cereal without searching inside themselves while eating that cereal wondering, "How can I eat this delicious goodness knowing 40 years ago a man appeared on the front of the box and that man is now a woman? Can women even eat Wheaties? If so, SHOULD women be allowed to eat Wheaties?"

In 1976, Jenner’s gold medal reaffirmed Americans’ belief in our ability to counter communist determinism with democratic freedom. That’s what I felt; that’s what I believed.

Now that Jenner is transitioning to a woman, communism has won. Mr. Putin, build that wall back up. Bruce Jenner is looking for high heels and communism is in style again.

Jenner was somebody I could look up to, a role model so close to me in so many ways, I felt, that he became almost a fantasy. He didn’t just beat a foe, like a heavyweight boxer. He beat the best in the world all at once.

I had the Sports Illustrated cover of him with his jacked arms raised, his fists clenched, his eyes closed in ecstasy, pinned on my wall. The headline read, ‘‘AWRRIGHT!’’

Now when he looks at the headline all Rick reads is "AWASALEONPURSES!"

I’ve seen Chaz Bono.

Rick has one gay friend and one black friend. He counts them. This makes him a non-racist and definitely not a bigot.

But I’m writing this from my perspective, my world. It’s all I know.
 
And I’m dizzy. I’m almost lost.

Bruce Jenner definitely should have thought about Rick Telander's nostalgia and the fate of Wheaties cereal before taking steps to make himself happier.

6. Phil Mushnick warns his readers about "dangerous" basketball. Yep, you guessed it. Much like how Florida Gulf Coast won games by dunking, Phil doesn't like it when amateur athletes dunk. It sends a bad message to the kids.

“Would I have yanked one of my kids for doing that? In a heartbeat.”
Jack Alesi, 62, reckons he has been coaching basketball “since I was 18,” the last 30 years at Brooklyn’s Xaverian High School, the last 20 of those as head varsity boys coach. Friday night, Xaverian plays Christ The King in the Diocesan final.

Alesi is talking about this dunk:

Jarell Martin's amazing dunk captured #LSU @wafb pic.twitter.com/P3C7FDjanJ
— Jacques Doucet (@JacquesDoucet) February 22, 2015

“I’m not one to stifle creativity,” Alesi said Wednesday.

Just don't do any creative or fancy dunks. That's not stifling creativity, it's only standing up for what's right and good about sports. Sports are NOT entertainment.

“If a kid finds it easier to dunk the ball than lay it in, fine by me. Bob Cousy dribbled between his legs to the benefit of his teams. There’s a difference between creative and plain stupid. TV can’t seem to distinguish between the two. It doesn’t even try.

“I wouldn’t try to embarrass that LSU kid, but if ever there was a teaching moment, that was it. Take him out, explain it, put him back in.”

"I'm old and have some weird thing about how you shouldn't use your athleticism to put on a show for those who pay to watch you play basketball. Don't make me uncomfortable by dunking the basketball in a creative manner. This isn't my issue, this is YOUR issue. It was stupid to try that dunk, even though you pulled it off. I'm old, if I haven't made that clear enough. I don't want to stifle your creativity, but just don't do anything creative that the fans might enjoy. Here, have some Wheaties."

Alesi was still flabbergasted and frustrated by the glorious hysteria the deep-thinking ESPN basketball experts, studio anchors and production shot-callers made over LSU forward Jarell Martin’s breakaway slam dunk that was preceded by a between-his-legs, greater degree-of-difficulty move — versus no one — in a tie game Saturday against Florida.

I like how Phil Mushnick goes through life trying to find things to be offended by. It's a bitter, sad life when your only purpose is to complain about how offended you are by the present and continuously long for the past.

“Would these TV guys coach kids to do such a thing, especially in a tie game, instruct them to turn an easy two points into a difficult two points? Do they really believe that that kid made a great play, did the right thing? Really? Honestly?

Did he do "the right thing?" An unpaid amateur athlete chose to dunk in a creative manner during a tie game and it's being couched in terms of "right" and "wrong." Unbelievable.

“I watch what TV has done to this game, and I shake my head. I do. It’s enough to make you cry.”

Cry? Like you would cry over an athlete dunking the basketball in a tie game? That's something you would actually cry about? The only thing shameful or dangerous in regard to this story is how Phil Mushnick and Alesi manage to turn an amateur athlete dunking a basketball into a story about "right and wrong."

7. Want to know why Max Scherezer isn't back with the Tigers? It's because he knew his market value and that hurt Mike Ilitch's feelings.

The pitcher had wiggled out of a bases-loaded jam with two strikeouts and a line drive to center in a critical playoff game. He spun around and bounced off the mound. He pumped his fist toward the heavens. And then he walloped his teammates with a series of monstrous high-5s, shrieking in triumph.

Those were human emotions. Joy in triumph. Max's overwhelming display of his joy was understandable at the moment.

But emotions are common to all people. And some people do not display them as openly as Scherzer did that October afternoon in 2013 when he rescued the Tigers, in relief, from the brink of playoff elimination by the Athletics.

Mike Ilitch is private and he is proud. Winning means just about everything to him. It has since he and Marian, his wife, blended some flour in a pot of water and created a pizza mixture that would turn into heavy millions.

Long story short here, the Tigers made a contract offer to Max Scherzer that he rejected and this made Ilitch upset and sealed that Scherzer would not be back with the Tigers after the 2014 season. Apparently Ilitch is so proud that he doesn't understand how business negotiations work.

One year ago this month, Ilitch approved an offer of $144 million to cement Scherzer to the Tigers for six years.

The offer was rejected. Scherzer, the projected Tiger for life, turned down the money and the security. He and his slick agent, Scott Boras, gambled that there would be more money offered and more security in a year.

Two things:

1. I love how Green calls Boras "slick" because he got the most money possible for his client in free agency. That's pretty much the job Boras was hired to do and he did it well. That's not "slick," that's competent.

2. There was more money and more security offered in a year. So Ilitch doesn't have to offer Scherzer another contract after the $144 million was rejected, but Scherzer gambled and it paid off.

But you don't reject Mike Ilitch. You don't snub him. You don't scoff at Ilitch's generosity.

Haha..."generosity" that ended up being less than Scherzer could make on the open market. I'm not sure I would call that being "generous" more than it would be offering Scherzer a contract which was fair, but not what he ended up being worth on the open market. Scherzer thought he was worth more and it turns out he was right. There's no reason to take it personally.

You don't stamp on Ilitch's ego. Even the best pitcher in the American League, advised by the shrewdest player agent in the business, could never get away with insulting Ilitch.

Except, Scherzer did get away with a bigger contract that had more security.

"I think we've made it clear that we have not been pursuing the situation," Dombrowski told The News' Chris McCosky after Scherzer agreed to sign with the Nationals in January. "We've said it numerous times . . .

"We made a real run at Max last spring and it didn't work."

Ilitch never cared to match the Washington offer. The guess here is if the Tigers had made a matching offer a couple of months ago, Scherzer would have grabbed it. Even if the Tigers came somewhat close the Nationals' jackpot, Scherzer, I reckon, would have grabbed less money in defiance of Boras.

Maybe he would have. I don't know. A pitcher who turns down $144 million certainly sounds like a pitcher who is looking to maximize his value on the free agent market.

My theory is, "Goodby." You don't dare to rankle Mike Ilitch. Farewell!

So hurt feelings caused by a rejected business contract is the reason Scherzer isn't with the Tigers anymore. Scherzer landed with a team that is competing for a World Series title and he got more money and a longer contract than the Tigers offered...Ilitch sure showed him didn't he? 

8. Steve Dilbeck has not been pleased with the Dodgers for hiring Andrew Friedman and his Stats Geek army. So he is taking great pride in the Dodgers' best pitching prospect being sent down to minor league camp. After all, who didn't expect an 18 year old to make the Dodgers' Opening Day roster?

The first cut is the deepest, particularly if you’re one of the four sent out. And especially if you’re been hyped as much as left-hander Julio Urias.

An 18 year old pitcher who has never pitched above A+ ball is expected to be one of the first cuts out of camp. Nothing else would make sense. It's entirely possible for Urias to be a great pitcher one day, but he's 18 years old and Steve Dilbeck shouldn't take such idiotic glee in Urias being sent down.

But Urias, the 18-year-old wunderkind, was one of the first four players reassigned to the minor-league camp Saturday by the Dodgers.

Most of the winter Dilbeck thought Urias should have been traded for a proven baseball player. That's what this is all about. It's about Dilbeck disagreeing with the direction of the Dodgers franchise and doing whatever he can to make it seem like Andrew Friedman is constantly screwing up.

Despite his electric stuff, Urias looked like a teenager who could use some more seasoning in his two spring outings.

This is most likely because he IS a teenager who could use some more seasoning before he's ready to play in the majors. Dilbeck can't believe this is true though. If Urias isn't ready to dominate in the majors RIGHT NOW then he'll never be ready. The Dodgers should just trade him now while his value is still high.

Dilbeck needs to stop being passive-aggressive in his constant assault against Andrew Friedman. This assault against Friedman is based on Dilbeck's dislike of advanced statistics. That's it. So it's come to where Dilbeck is being sarcastic and snarky about an 18 year old pitcher being sent down to minor league camp, as if this means anything long-term for the Dodgers or the 18 year old pitcher. I hate it when sportswriters have agendas.

9. Dilbeck also didn't want the Dodgers to trade Matt Kemp. Despite being a critic of Kemp's in the past, once Dilbeck saw a chance to criticize Andrew Friedman he immediately became Kemp's biggest fan. Now Dilbeck is writing stories about Kemp in order to point out that he wasn't a bad teammate. It's just sometimes his teammates didn't like him. This wouldn't affect the clubhouse chemistry. Steve Dilbeck is going to run Andrew Friedman out of town, no matter what it takes. He blames Friedman for using too many statistics to evaluate players and now he thinks Friedman factored in the human element of having good clubhouse chemistry too much by trading Matt Kemp.

Matt Kemp is mystified, and perhaps some of you are mystified that he would be mystified. He’s not bewildered at his trade by the Dodgers to the Padres, but by the implication that his departure has helped rid the L.A. of some evil clubhouse cancer.

I can't recall anyone in the Dodgers organization saying that Kemp was a cancer, so this implication is being brought up and furthered by sportswriters like Steve Dilbeck. He suggested that Kemp was a cancer and has set about to disprove this as true.

I’d say this was the most overblown Dodgers story of the off-season, but really it has only been propagated by a couple of national baseball writers -- and it takes no imagination to figure out whose ear they have -- and not the local beat writers who actually know the team.

Yeah! The Dodgers players liked Matt Kemp and no one should write differently!

Kemp had a way of strutting and enjoying the spotlight that may have rubbed some teammates the wrong way. But his days of “see how cool I can look playing center field” were well past him.

Oh, well I guess there is that too.

At midseason, when he unhappily had been moved from center to left and was playing something slightly less than every day, he would have been served sharing his thoughts only with management.

“I want to play every day, if it's with the Dodgers, if it's with somebody else,” Kemp said then.

Being unhappy with his role on the team and not wanting to change positions to help the team, these are two things that absolutely would NOT affect how Kemp's teammates liked him. Plus, this is all Andrew Friedman's fault somehow.

Looking back, Kemp told Hernandez, “I kept hearing maybe he's going to platoon. For me, it wasn't something I was able to wrap my mind around. I felt like if I wouldn't have said anything, just let it all play out the way it played out, they would have said I didn't care about playing on the field. But when I said I had to be in there playing every day, they said I was a bad teammate. I don't feel like that makes me a bad teammate. I know my abilities and I know when I'm healthy and I'm on the field, I could have helped my team win.”

So Kemp was just saying that he thought he should play everyday and didn't want to platoon. If he had just kept his mouth shut and not worried about platooning then "they" would have written that he doesn't care about the team because he was willing to put his ego aside for the betterment of the team. Great point. 

That might sound a bit more selfish than many would like, but it’s nothing outlandish, either.

No, but it is the sort of thing that can rankle teammates just a little bit. Kemp was basically saying, "I want to play everyday and I'm better than a guy who platoons in the outfield." I can see how that wouldn't cause Kemp's teammates to clap him on the back and congratulate him on taking one for the team. 

Kemp is only 30 and hopefully has a long career still ahead of him. He actually looks pretty good in a Padres uniform, though looking good was never his problem. And neither was being some grand clubhouse cancer.

I think the only ones saying that Kemp was a clubhouse cancer are those like Steve Dilbeck who want to explain a reason why Kemp was traded away that doesn't deal with his performance on the field. The truth is in the middle, that while Kemp wasn't a great teammate (despite Dilbeck's protests that Kemp wasn't THAT bad, which is enough to piss off a few teammates), nobody should think Kemp was traded because he was a bad teammate. The funny part is that Dilbeck speaks out against Friedman using too many computers and numbers to evaluate players while ignoring the human aspect, but also claims that Friedman only paid attention to the human aspect and ignored the numbers and statistics by trading Matt Kemp. Friedman is too numbers-oriented unless that perception doesn't fit the agenda Steve Dilbeck has. In that case, Dilbeck feels free to flip this perception around to fit whatever agenda he has on a given day.

10. Here is something that isn't bad sportswriting from Bruce Jenkins. He dares to take a measured approach to the use of analytics.

Charles Barkley seems to think there’s some sort of war going on. He fights it alone, well on his way to becoming chairman of the “I don’t get analytics” committee.

He ridiculed analytics as “crap,” apparently not realizing he was also denouncing rebound totals and points per game. As far as his dismissing stat wizards as “people who never played the game,” there’s some truth to that. But if Barkley wants to believe that such NBA icons as Gregg Popovich and Pat Riley don’t conduct extensive studies of advanced metrics, he’s wildly misguided.

The statistical revolution hasn’t taken over the major sports, it merely enhances player evaluation at every level. Every smart executive crafts a harmonious relationship between long-trusted scouts (as in “trust your eyes”) and the volumes of advanced metrics that prove invaluable in analyzing matchups, tendencies and percentages.

This is impossible. It's either one or the other. Just ask Rick Telander. A team either hates or loves advanced statistics. There can be no in between. Ever. Never. No NBA coach or GM would ever admit to use advanced statistics.

Warriors GM Bob Myers, to FM 95.7: “When we make decisions, analytics are never more than 50 percent of the process.”

Dallas coach Rick Carlisle: “There’s a lot of information available, but 'selectively’ is the word. There are tools there that are extremely useful. You just have to make sure you don’t overdo it.”

Houston coach Kevin McHale: “It’s just another tool in the toolbox, and very useful. But the toughest thing in this business is how much does a guy love to play? How much does he love to compete? How tough is he? How is he going to play when someone kicks his ass? What’s he going to do the next day?”

Oh. So Bruce Jenkins is writing that NBA teams use advanced statistics as part of the evaluation process and admit to it? What happened to "either/or" and sportswriters claiming that statistics are ruining the sport? This is happening, lack of evidence be damned.

This is a war that doesn’t exist. Only a fool dares to belittle either side.

Exactly. Maybe when the anti-advanced stats crowd stops belittling the use of these statistics "idiots" like Daryl Morey will feel free to not belittle those who sound ignorant when dismissing new ideas, simply because they are threatened by these ideas. 

4 comments Jerry Green Thinks Bud Selig Took a Piss on the Common Man with All These Newfangled Changes to Baseball

Jerry Green's default mechanism is to long for the good old days. Everything that happened in sports was better 30-40 (even 60) years ago. Sports are ruined today and the common man has been cut out of baseball completely. Now you may ask, "But Ben, who is this 'common man' that Jerry Green is referring to?" I do not know the answer to that question, but when I find the common man, I expect him to be very upset and ravenous to kick Bud Selig's ass. Because after all, with all of these changes to baseball, Selig left the common man behind. The common man is in a cave, ruing the day that Bud Selig became commissioner and dared to try and think of new ideas, ideas that Babe Ruth and Hank Greenberg would think were absolutely ridiculous, to "improve" baseball. Fortunately, Jerry Green is around to stand up for the common man and remember the good old days when everything was better in baseball. Back when there was racism throughout the game and those silly Mexican players stayed in the country where they belong.

A purist's lament:

Don't you love how sportwriters who long for the old days call themselves "purists"? I'm not sure Jerry Green is understanding that when he refers to the era of Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson as "pure" he also means "there weren't any black players allowed to play the sport and they had their own separate league so this was better." There is definitely a slightly racist tint to this appeal for "purity." When a sportswriter is using the same language that racist organizations use to advocate for the demeaning treatment of those aren't like them, then I would probably reconsider my language if I were a sportswriter. Maybe it's just me. It's racist organizations and baseball writers who long for "purity."

Baseball, once, was the Common Man's game.

Yes, baseball was once a lot of things. It no longer is a lot of things and this isn't a bad thing. Progress doesn't have to be scary.

It was simple: the major-league teams played through the season in what were legitimate pennant races. The eight or 10 teams in the two leagues played games starting in April and finishing in October.

So contract 10 to 14 teams and hold more "legitimate" pennant races? That's the key to making baseball better apparently. Engage fewer fans for a shorter period of time by limiting the number of cities that have baseball teams and making sure fewer teams are in contention. I can't see how this wouldn't work. Brilliant. The common man would love this.

At the end of the schedule, after 154 or 162 games, the team in first place in the American League played the team in first place in the National League. The postseason was confined to an event noted as the World Series. The first team to win four games in the best-of-seven games became what was known widely, as the World Champions.

Things have changed. I don't understand the opposition to change. There should be a separate baseball internet for people who long for the days of purity. That way it helps to keep their internet pure from scary ideas that cause change in sports and those impure fans of sports don't end up reading the disgruntled rantings of those who are afraid of anything new.

This was how Babe Ruth and Hank Greenberg played baseball in a better era.

It still is gripping. The pennant races are still close and the one game wild-card playoff, though contrived and stupid, does provide a sense of theater the sport desperately needs. I wouldn't consider the era in which Ruth and Greenberg played as a better era simply because it was an older era and I hope I never get to the point when I lament the game was better when Trout and Cabrera were hitting the ball all over the field.

Whitey Ford pitching curveballs vs. Duke Snider. Jackie Robinson called safe on a steal of home plate to the wailing of Yogi Berra. Willie Mays running into deep center field to catch Vic Wertz monstrous shot over his shoulder at the Polo Grounds. Ruth calling his shot and then hitting a home run at Wrigley Field. Grover Cleveland Alexander trudging from the bullpen hung-over to strike out Tony Lazzeri with the bases loaded.

Here's the deal though, Jerry. These days are NEVER coming back. Even if Rob Manfred decided that he wanted to only have an American League and National League with no divisions, and the two teams with the best record in each league meet, Whitey Ford will never be throwing curveballs to Duke Snider. Ruth won't ever call his shot again. Willie Mays won't catch a Vic Wertz shot over his shoulder for a second time. Those days are gone. Clayton Kershaw will pitch to David Ortiz. Mike Trout will catch a fly ball off the bat of Bryce Harper. It won't be the same because the past is the past. So if your beef is with the set up of MLB with the three divisions and two wild cards, then that's fine, but it seems your beef is that all of the old players who dead now aren't playing. So well, that's just something you are going to have to get over. They aren't coming back, so enjoy the players now in the lesser era or move on with your life and don't watch baseball anymore.

The Common Man could relate to the ballgames. We all had played baseball. We carried our fantasies. Until the rude awakening, the day that we discovered that we couldn't play.

But we still loved our baseball.

I don't think it's the wild card and expansion that has caused the common man to lose interest in baseball. I think it's a product of a different society and times have changed to where fans like a faster paced game. Society moves on, even if you aren't ready for it to.

Ticket prices were affordable.

Bud Selig isn't the sole cause of ticket prices becoming unaffordable. Inflation, player salaries and the realization that teams can make a shitload of money by raising ticket prices and maximizing profits caused ticket prices to become less affordable. Even so, a ticket to a minor league game isn't overly expensive and it's a great night out with the family or friends. There are options to watch baseball at an affordable price level. Again, it feels like Jerry Green is lamenting a time gone by, not specific things Bud Selig has done.

When I was a kid, a Common Man could cough up 55 cents to sit in the bleachers, a buck 10 for general admission along the first or third base line. And if you brought a couple of peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches in a brown bag, you could watch Ted Williams playing against Joe DiMaggio in a doubleheader.

Good for you. Bud Selig didn't kill Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams. Bud Selig didn't set ticket prices for games, and quite frankly, rightly began to take steps to make the game faster in an era of specialized pitching that has resulted in more pitching changes that slowed the game down.

But best for the purist, the pennant races were real.

They still are real. Just because the pennant races aren't like the pennant races in 1938 doesn't mean the 2015 races aren't real. Remember this night? It sort of felt real, didn't it?

If Major League Baseball still had genuine pennant races, the 2014 standings through the top five finishers — the old-fashioned first division — would have been exactly like this:

American League

Team	Wins	Losses	Pct.	GB
Los Angeles	98	64	.605	—
Baltimore	96	66	.593	2
Detroit	90	72	.556	8
Kansas City	89	73	.549	9
Oakland	88	74	.543	10

National League

Team	Wins	Losses	Pct.	GB
Washington	96	66	.593	—
Los Angeles	94	68	.580	2
St. Louis	90	72	.556	6
San Francisco	88	74	.543	8
Pittsburgh	88	74	.548	8

This would fix everything if there was an Angels-Nationals World Series. Snider versus Ford! Willie Mays catching fly balls and Babe Ruth calling his shot. All of these things would happen again.

Now we're stuck with the debris that Bud Selig left behind.

"The debris" meaning that more baseball fans are engaged in the sport for a longer period of time. What in the hell could Bud Selig have been thinking to try and engage more fans of more teams in the sport for a longer period of time? If only he had set up two leagues and just let the team with the best record in each league play each other in the World Series, the time of games would decrease, tickets prices would plummet, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches would become the national currency for the national pastime again, and fans would come come flocking back to the sport purely for the sake of nostalgia they never actually experienced. It would all happen!

The true pennant races and the genuine standings might have confused the figure manipulators and similar Sabremetric creatures.

Bud Selig is a famed Sabermetrician. And also, calling the pennant races "true" and the standings "genuine" doesn't make it so. I think a real pennant race can involve the wild card as well, and recent history has shown me to be correct.

The traditional World Series — Nationals vs. Angels — might have happened. Mike Trout vs. Bryce Harper was a purist's pipe dream.

Oh, so the World Series involving the team with speed that didn't hit home runs isn't a purist's dream? And here I thought it would be.

Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Williams, DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Satchel Paige, Jackie Robinson, Tris Speaker, Mickey Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Goose Goslin — these are names that reek with tradition.

And nothing says "tradition" like the World Series meeting between a 23 year old and 22 year old who haven't ever appeared in a World Series before, who happen to play on two teams that didn't exist in their current form prior to 2005. THAT is tradition.

But MLB trashed tradition during the power-lusting reign of a commissioner.

Yes, he trashed tradition by moving the Expos to Washington and calling them the "Nationals" and by changing the name of the Angels to the "Anaheim Angels" and then the "Los Angeles Angels," except Jerry apparently longs for the tradition that these teams represent. A tradition that wasn't there prior to Bud Selig becoming the commissioner.

One year, early in his administration, Selig ordered the cancellation of the World Series during a bitter labor dispute with the players union. The next spring he decided the game must go on — with replacement players. Bud wanted to serve up sandlot baseball at big-league prices.

Right, he did want to do this. What has resulted from this strike that happened 20 fucking years ago (though to Jerry, that's like yesterday)? Baseball has had labor peace since that time. Baseball is the only major sport to have labor peace over the last 20 years.

That spring 20 years ago was Sparky Anderson's finest moment in his Hall of Fame career as manager with Cincinnati and Detroit. He refused manage the fake major leaguers in a false season.

Sparky maintained the dignity that Selig lacked.

Except Anderson never really had to actually make this call that he was prepared to make because the union and MLB came to a deal.

Bud went out last month following the weakest World Series in the history of the sport.

He staged a World Series pitting two fourth-place teams. There was Fox TV drooling about the Royals playing the Giants. The Giants' best from April through September, in a 162-game season, had been to tie for fourth in the National League with the Pirates.

The 2014 World Series was the third-lowest rated World Series of all-time. The 2013 World Series, which took place between two teams that had the best record in their respective leagues, is the fifth-lowest rated World Series of all-time. So I think it's just that the World Series has lower ratings due to there being other options on television more than fans don't watch because they want to see teams with the best record in their league play.

He went out boasting and preening that Major League Baseball is thriving. He spoke about the prosperity created during his tenure, more than ever in his sport. He proclaimed that the club owners and the players became richer and richer.

MLB teams are setting attendance records under Bud Selig, so obviously fans are attending the games. The stadiums could be bigger than they used to be, but when claiming the idea that the common man is being left out, the fact a lot of common men are choosing to attend baseball games seems to disprove this idea.

Does the Common Man — the shot-and-beer guy, or the average dude on the assembly line — give a hoot about Mike Ilitch's prosperity?

Don't think so!

No one gives a crap about Ilitch's prosperity, but this goes for every sport that has an extremely wealthy owner. I don't care about my favorite NFL team's owner and whether he makes a ton of money, yet this doesn't mean I'm being shut out from attending NFL games. "The average dude on the assembly line" doesn't give a shit if the owner of any of his favorite teams makes money, no matter the sport, and whether that owner is filthy rich or just really, really rich is irrelevant to this fictional dude (should I call him the "replacement dude" just to irritate Jerry Green's anti-Sabermetric tendencies?). Baseball isn't an outlier regarding this attitude of "the average dude on the assembly line."

Selig went out claiming MLB had created the most powerful drug enforcement policy in professional sports. He says, bursting with ego, that this policy is part of his legacy.

But this is true. MLB has a pretty powerful drug enforcement policy.

The truth is that Selig was tardy leading MLB into drug enforcement. The great home-run explosions — Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa — went on before Baseball ignored steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Baseball reveled in the attacks on Ruth and Henry Aaron and Roger Maris by Bonds, McGwire and Sosa.

This is also true. It's very hard to force through a powerful drug enforcement policy when there isn't a big problem that needs to be addressed. Often, something has to break before it gets fixed. That is what happened in baseball. The player's union wasn't going to agree that a powerful drug enforcement policy was necessary if they didn't see a real reason to have this powerful policy. The Steroid Era allowed both owners and the player's union to see the issue present and the necessity for a powerful drug enforcement policy. So yes, the Steroid Era is on Bud Selig, but without that era it would have been hard for the player's union to see the need for stricter testing. Such is how life works. Things have to get worse before they get better.

We purists, the cadre of remaining traditionalists, shuddered at the obliteration of Ruth's statistics, of Aaron's and Maris' records.

And this is on Bud Selig, but it's not fair to complain he was responsible for the Steroid Era and then take away credit for creating a powerful drug enforcement policy. It's hard to push through change when there isn't a problem that seems to need solving.

Bud went out with self-praise for the sweeping drug suspensions of 13 abusers two years ago, in a dragnet operation. It was based on the testimony from convicted Biogenesis operator Anthony Bosch.

In essence, Bud went out after dealing with a drug dealer.

Now this is very true, but Jerry Green is again choosing to complain about everything Bud Selig did simply because he longs for days that will never come again. Jerry Green complains that Bud Selig didn't clean up baseball in time for records to be broken by PED users and then criticizes Selig for being aggressive in trying to prevent PED users from breaking more long-held baseball records. Jerry wants to blame Selig for not being tough enough on PED users, but then complains Selig was too tough on PED users.

It can't always work both ways. Jerry Green wants MLB to clean up baseball, but not to be too aggressive in cleaning up baseball. It's a travesty that PED users are breaking baseball records, but he doesn't want MLB to be too aggressive in making sure this doesn't happen again. I think Selig went a bit overboard to nail A-Rod, but I also don't blame Selig for being tardy to put in place a strict drug enforcement policy.

He did not leave Major League Baseball. He opted to linger. MLB retained him as commissioner emeritus at a peon's wage of $6 million per year. He gets a drop in salary.

But Bud is still there, after all, hanging around. Imagine, 6 million bucks to point out to Rob Manfred, the replacement, err, new commissioner where home plate is.

Yep, I'm not a huge fan of Selig being allowed to earn all this money for not really doing a whole lot. Still, Selig didn't ruin baseball by introducing the wild card, he simply tried to open up the pennant races for more teams to get fans more engaged. I shudder to think what would happen if fewer teams were involved with pennant races during the month of August and September.

For sure, the Common Man ought to relate to that.

I still don't know who the common man is and I refuse to capitalize it. Jerry Green is very lost if he thinks the way back to baseball prosperity is to have two leagues with the best teams in each league meeting in the World Series. He longs for lower ticket prices, dead players to suddenly come back alive and play again, and for owners to not make a lot of money on the backs of fans. Changing how the playoffs structured won't fix this, so basically Jerry's problem isn't with Bud Selig, but with the passage of time. Perhaps he should take up his beefs with a clock or calendar. 

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.