MLB Offseason 2014-15: Wait, pitchers and catchers report WHEN?

[Yanks]

Sheffield ... slugger, probably the fastest bat I've ever seen but if you are keeping McGuire out for drugs, then you can't put Sheffield in. (ducks)

The argument for McGwire not getting in isn't because of the drugs, it's because outside of hitting a shit-ton of dingers, he wasn't a particularly good player; his defense was beyond atrocious, he struck out a ton and wasn't a particularly talented hitter. .263 isn't a world-class bat.

10th all time isn't good enough for the hall? the "argument" WAS roids. Come on.

And I'll say it again: Anyone who says the drugs issue should keep Bonds (literally the greatest hitter of all time) and Clemens (literally one of the greatest pitchers of all time) out of the Hall must also support the recall of Mays and Maris, otherwise they're making an intellectually dishonest argument that holds no water.

Please explain. And please don't use that lame 60's version of a 5-hour energy argument. You are suggesting that Mays and Maris did what?

(and of course everyone is a racist)

Nice dog whistle.

He suggested Joe Torre was a racist.... that was him, not me. - and not the only time.

Also, can anyone vote for Papi if Edgar doesn't get in? Interesting question I think.

As I said, Ortiz has already beaten Edgar in everything but a few rate stats. The bigger knock on him is that his peak was only really ten years or so -- he didn't start hitting like a moon monster until his seventh season.

Ten years or so after he started using.... oh, woops. We like Papi.

 

[Timby]

Sheffield ... slugger, probably the fastest bat I've ever seen but if you are keeping McGuire out for drugs, then you can't put Sheffield in. (ducks)

The argument for McGwire not getting in isn't because of the drugs, it's because outside of hitting a shit-ton of dingers, he wasn't a particularly good player; his defense was beyond atrocious, he struck out a ton and wasn't a particularly talented hitter. .263 isn't a world-class bat.

10th all time isn't good enough for the hall? the "argument" WAS roids. Come on.

It really isn't. He hit a shit-ton of dingers and that's the only thing McGwire did particularly well. That's not a Hall of Famer, that's a Hall of I Did One Thing Really Well. Rafael Palmeiro is 12th, and no one is saying he's a Hall of Famer, either. Same thing with Sammy Sosa (8th) -- he wasn't a complete player; his one tool was his power.

Please explain. And please don't use that lame 60's version of a 5-hour energy argument. You are suggesting that Mays and Maris did what?

Mays and Maris were admitted users of amphetamines, which have a demonstrable effect upon performance and reaction time and are now banned by MLB (it's what Chris Davis got popped for back in September). They were performance-enhancing drug users. If you say Bonds and Clemens are out, then you should campaign for their recall.

Ten years or so after he started using.... oh, woops. We like Papi.

Goes to show how much media relations plays a role in player perception. Ortiz almost certainly used (or there was something in the water in the Red Sox clubhouse), but he projects an image of a cuddly, lovable guy, so he's loved. Bonds was only the greatest player ever to hit a baseball, but because he was surly and hated the media, he's a pariah.

 

[Yanks]

Hey Timby, I've been reading up on greenies and roids. Found this interesting quote:

"Pud Galvin who was the first guy to throw a no hitter and is in the hall of fame while ranking 2nd only to CY Young with 6,003 innings pitched and 646 complete games. He was the first baseball player to be widely known for using PEDs. In 1889 over 100 years before the current steroid controversy in Major League Baseball Galvin openly used the Brown Sequard elixir which contained monkey testosterone.
Baseball has always had guys looking for an edge and the golden clean era is a myth.
If an aging America ever begins to lose its short-term memory, it will really be in trouble – because that’s the only kind of memory this country seems to have. There’s a perpetual tendency to believe that whatever is going on at this particular moment is absolutely unique in human history, but will, paradoxically, continue now into the indefinite future. Both assumptions are certain to be wrong, but meanwhile they have sent a passel of chickens scuttling hysterically around the U.S. barnyard. — Louis Rukeyser"

 

[Timby]

I'm not sure what your point is, because I've always said the game has never been clean -- before steroids, there were amphetamines; before (and during) amphetamines there was institutionalized racism; before institutionalized racism there was segregation.

 

[Yanks]

I'm not sure what your point is, because I've always said the game has never been clean -- before steroids, there were amphetamines; before (and during) amphetamines there was institutionalized racism; before institutionalized racism there was segregation.

Not making a point other than to provide the quote. I thought it was funny.

If you haven't read this (I'm not assuming your not well read Timby) it is very enlightening to me.

http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/01/11/‘roids-and-greenies/

I'm also enjoying reading the comments.

...and this article.
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6770/death-match-greenies-vs-roids

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Personally, I think there's a stronger argument that pitchers should be more likely to be excluded for steroids than hitters. Even if one did it for hitters, it really only should factor in for discounting any late career surges. Certainly, Barry Bonds did well enough as a hitter before steroids to make up for anything else.

On the other hand, amphetamines clearly had a huge impact for hitters, which is why banning that has caused a huge decline in hitting across baseball.

 

[Yanks]

Interesting site here. Just found out about it today.

Quazi up-to-date HOF voting tally.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Updated: Jan 5: 9:25 ~ 150 Full Ballots ~ (26.3% of vote ~ based on last year) ~ As usual…BBWAA ballot digging is welcome!
99.3 - R. Johnson
98.0 - P. Martinez
87.3 - Smoltz
82.7 - Biggio
76.7 - Piazza
————————————
66.7 - Raines
66.0 - Bagwell
53.3 - Schilling
43.3 - Bonds
43.3 - Clemens
38.7 - Mussina
28.7 - E. Martinez
24.0 - Trammell
18.7 - Lee Smith
16.0 - McGriff
14.7 - Kent
8.7 - L. Walker
8.7 - Sheffield
6.7 - McGwire
————————————-
4.7 - Sosa
4.7 - Mattingly
1.3 - Pete Rose (Write-In)
0.7 - Garciaparra
0.7 - Delgado

 

[Timby]

1.3 - Pete Rose (Write-In)

Revoke the membership of any writer who does this.

 

[Scout101]

Should be a few of those. Nomar? Had that trajectory, but burned out before he got there. Can't really vote for him. 2% saying Pedro shouldn't be in? Tear up their cards, not sure what they're looking for. Unless they turned in blank ballots, in which case they don't seem to want to vote anyway.

Edgar has to get more. Schilling should be in IMO, but he'll take a few more tries I'd guess. Raines and Bagwell should go as well, I'd think.

They really just need to admit the steroids era happened, let them vote them in, and move on. Clogging the ballot, and getting worse. Can't vote for more than 10, so legit options are dropping off while Bonds and Clemens keep splitting the vote and no one gets in. Or just drop the max 10 rule, and that will also work itself out.

 

[Timby]

They really just need to admit the steroids era happened, let them vote them in, and move on. Clogging the ballot, and getting worse. Can't vote for more than 10, so legit options are dropping off while Bonds and Clemens keep splitting the vote and no one gets in. Or just drop the max 10 rule, and that will also work itself out.

The other problem is last year's rule change knocking eligibility from fifteen years to ten (while grandfathering in the guys who had more than 10 already but less than 15), which is letting chucklefucks throw votes away on Lee Smith and Mattingly while at the same time boning guys like Raines and Mussina, who are just low-profile enough not to stand out when you've got stacked ballots with Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Bagwell, Unit, Pedro, etc. Basically, they changed the rules to limit the time Steroid Era guys will be on the ballot, but what it's really doing is pounding the guys who don't have the PR backing to create a really great narrative around them.

Under the old rules, Raines would have had another seven years of eligibility; now he has two more, 2016 is going to be the year of Junior Griffey, Jim Edmonds and possibly Trevor Hoffman, and he has no chance on a 2017 ballot that has Pudge Rodriguez, Vlad Guerrero and Manny coming up for their first years of eligibility. So, in essence, this rule change has eliminated Raines' eligibility for the Hall despite him being the greatest leadoff man in history not named Rickey Henderson. Anyone who votes for Edgar over Raines is in dire need of a check up from the neck up.

The biggest problem is that the BBWAA is just so completely up its own ass about the Hall of Fame being a sacred cathedral or some shit despite Bill goddamn Mazeroski being in there. I bring this up every year, but there's a website called golferswest.com that has three staff members who covered baseball for a few years like a zillion years ago, and all three of them have Hall of Fame votes, but Vin Scully does not and Dan Le Batard lost his for life because he committed the grave sin of letting Deadspin readers pick for him. That's inconceivable.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

Timby I totally agree with you in regards of Raines. He should be in the Hall, period.

The Yanks have interviewed Willie Randolph for one of their two open coaching positions. I do hope they hire him, got shafted by the LoLMets.

 

[Timby]

Elected today: Unit, Pedro, Smoltz, Biggio. Biggest class since 1955. Can't argue with any of them except Smoltz (who got a huge narrative boost from the Atlanta days).

Lee Smith got more votes than Mussina. Fuck that in the ear.

Edit: Four more people voted for Clemens than Bonds. Literally the only argument anyone can make against their candidacies is OMG STEROIDS, but clearly something else was in play here and that's horrifying.

 

[Scout101]

Really gotta work on some of these voters. 9% said Pedro wasn't worthy? (actually, most of them probably decided he was in anyway, and voted for pet projects, but whatever)

2 voters decided Aaron Boone was a HoF player? 30 people said yes to Nomar? Come on, guys...

Glad to see Schilling making progress, though. Annoying how that works in the BBWAA writers' heads, though. Some of those 'eventual' HoF makers, why are they more eligible in year 8, or 14, than they were in year 1 or 2? It's binary, they're HoF players or not. They aren't playing in the interim, how do they go from low percentages to getting 85% over the years? Whole group has their heads up each other's asses.

 

[Yanks]

Edit: Four more people voted for Clemens than Bonds. Literally the only argument anyone can make against their candidacies is OMG STEROIDS, but clearly something else was in play here and that's horrifying.

What's that Timby?

 

[Yanks]

My revised thoughts on roids and the HOF.

I'll take a stand based on a "side" I'm pretty sure hasn't been discussed. There was and always will be cheating in professional sports. It's laughable to this day that Armstrong's Tour-de-France titles were removed for something that 90% of riders take part in. So, what is the structure in the US to keep things honest in baseball? Is it the owners? -- They knew ROIDS and HGH were being used. Is it the players? -- They new they were breaking rules, even if the MLB wasn't testing. The managers? -- Can anyone honestly tell me that Larussa didn't know his A's were shooting up left and right? Is it Congress' job to ensure the "integrity of the game"? Is it the owners responsibility? If blame is going to be placed, I'm in the camp of placing it where it is deserved. It is the definition of hypocrisy for the baseball writers to "punish" the players who, even if they are just suspected of, used "roids" by not electing them to the Baseball HOF. The JOB of the press is to, in this case the Baseball writers, to be the "watchdog" for their sport. They didn't do that. They turned a blind eye as did everyone else when they knew it was happening. If they are going to now wave the banner for all that is right and keep players out of the HOF because of something they turned a blind eye to, then let no writer that reported during the "era" be allowed in the HOF either. Because PED use was by negligence allowed, I think that the players should be voted in based on their career performance with regard to history and their peers. I don't think steroids should be considered.

Thoughts?

 

[Timby]

My revised thoughts on roids and the HOF.

Because PED use was by negligence allowed, I think that the players should be voted in based on their career performance with regard to history and their peers. I don't think steroids should be considered.

Thoughts?

I'm saving this for posterity for when the Hall of Fame debate comes up five years after Alex Rodriguez retires.

 

[Yanks]

My revised thoughts on roids and the HOF.

Because PED use was by negligence allowed, I think that the players should be voted in based on their career performance with regard to history and their peers. I don't think steroids should be considered.

Thoughts?

I'm saving this for posterity for when the Hall of Fame debate comes up five years after Alex Rodriguez retires.

What do you think about the writer angle?

 

[Timby]

My revised thoughts on roids and the HOF.



Thoughts?

I'm saving this for posterity for when the Hall of Fame debate comes up five years after Alex Rodriguez retires.

What do you think about the writer angle?

I think you're making the issue far more complicated than it actually is. The game has never been clean; just because Gaylord Perry throwing a spitball might be seen as more gentlemanly than shooting Winstrol into your ass doesn't change the fact that Gaylord Perry was a cheater and 77 percent of eligible writers voted him into the Hall. Everyone knew that PEDs became a huge issue starting in the '80s and that there was a widespread problem -- owners, players, writers, fans -- and no one besides Frank Thomas gave a shit. But despite that, the BBWAA is so far completely up its own ass that it treats the issue like a game of No True Scotsman and they're telling people like me that my childhood sports were less valuable than theirs because Back In The Day the Great White Men cheated more honorably or some shit.

The other thing is that I am still firmly of the opinion that a huge percentage, perhaps even a majority, of players today are doping in as-yet-undetectable ways, as evidenced by Nelson Cruz getting a four-year deal a year removed from getting popped in the Biogenesis scandal, which means the Mariners either think he's still using and getting away with it, or that using did not significantly contribute to his success -- in any event, it's not like PEDs have been eradicated from the game.

And the long and the short of it is, once you accept that baseball has never been clean, ever, then you by definition have to either 1) support the election of Steroid Era guys or 2) start campaigning for the recall of Mantle, Mays, Ted Williams, Perry, Schmidt, Aaron, and scores of others.

But, hey, this is the same Hall of Fame that says child molester Bill Conlin is still a "member in good standing," and once convened a special Negro League committee with the intention of putting in Buck O'Neil and the committee wound up putting in a white owner and not O'Neil.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Personally, I think there's an argument a spitball is worse than steroids. After all, a spitball actually killed a guy.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^Ken Caminiti officially died of a drug overdose, although many believe that steroid use contributed to the development of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which likely contributed to his death. When comparing steroids with spitballs, I don't if one is worse than the other; maybe they're just different.

--Sran