Beating a Dead Horse, or Who Belongs in the HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Bill James recently said that five people clearly belong in the HOF but have been passed over for induction. He named Santo, Blyleven, Minoso, and Raines-in no particular order. He did not give the fifth name. I agree with all four.
0
Comments
Bosox1976
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
drugs of choice
NHL hall of fame rookies
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
If the Hall-of-Fame voters thought illegal drug use is enough to eliminate an otherwise deserving player, why did they induct a few drug users just a few years before McGwire became eligible?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The HOF should be reserved for greatness...sadly sometimes it isn't.
If the drugs weren't illegal it couldn't be considered cheating
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I would give Minoso closer to 200 games lost due to segregation based on his minor league stats. So that would give us a player with more playing time and far more defensive value and equal offensive value to someone like Bobby Abreu
If Abreu was the best defensive player at his position during his career, he would certainly be very close to the Hall-of-Fame. By being below average, he falls well short. And that is pretty much the exact difference between Minoso and Abreu. . .
The amount I like someone has very little to do with how well I think they compare with players in the Hall-of-Fame
The one problem I have with invoking the harshest treatment against drug users is with how strongly and for how long baseball management, customers and the press (who vote for the Hall-of-Fame) encouraged drug use. If any of those groups cared about it when McGwire was playing, why didn't they demand testing. The players simply responded to what everyone encouraged them to do
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i> That players felt pressured to do it because they wanted to perform better or gain better livelihoods is not the same thing as anyone "encouraging" them except perhaps in your bizarro world. >>
Imagine if the Olympics decided to eliminate all drug testing and go to the honor system. Think anyone would question that? Why wasn't anyone standing up and questioning it when it was going on in baseball until so long after it became so entrenched?
It isn't only a matter of myself wanting a special place, the Hall-of-Fame started in themselves 40 years ago. . .
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
I think Career WAR totals is a good indication of dominance. Longevity doesn't really factor into it because if you hang around too long you most likely have negative WAR (Maddux's last season was -0.3 and Johnson's was 0) so hanging on too long actually hurts alot of pitchers in this category.
If you look at most pitchers last 3 to 5 years they are averaging negative to 2 WAR. So hanging gets you a few WAR extra but wont make up 30 like the difference between Glavine and Blyleven.
Tommy John who hung on those last 5 years (decent in 87, 2.2 WAR) only accumalated a 0.4 WAR average over those last 5 seasons. Dominant pitchers can have WAR of 6 to 10 in a season. I believe any number over 4 is considered very good.
I don't think Tommy John is a terrible choice for the HOF if you make it for the surgery as well. As just a player to me he falls well short of guys like Pedro or Schilling. Who had shorter careers but more career WAR.
I see him as a player not in the calibre of the best HOFers, but certainly well above the lower rung of players already inducted. He'd fit in just fine.
Baseball "insiders" absolutely knew that there were heavily muscled players earning millions at a job based almost exclusively on physical performance.. They also knew the customers weren't saying anything about it. If either of those groups cared, McGwire would have either been drug free or failing the drug tests. . .
Are you really suggesting the "insiders" didn't know McGwire and Canseco and plenty of others had high muscle mass? Even if they had no clue about specific details, they did know the physics behind what propelled a baseball as well as the history from many other sports that dealt with the drug issue a long time before the 1980s
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Without knowing who or what, I'm extremely confident that I do spend a lot of time around illegal drug users. Just as I am extremely confident that if the NFL, Olympics, cycling or so many other sports did not have a drug testing policy a good number of those athletes would use drugs, too
PAs On Base OBP GIDP 2B 3B HR Slg-BA SB CS Runs RBIs Walks
Gwynn 10232 3955 0.388 259 543 85 135 0.121 319 125 1383 1138 790
Raines 10359 3977 0.385 142 430 113 170 0.131 808 146 1571 980 1330
The careers are extremely similar. Raines had more plate appearances, and reached base more times. Gwynn reached about 3 extra times per 1000 PAs. Gwynn made an extra 117 outs with double plays. Raines had more power even though Gwynn had a higher slugging % (a function of Gwynn's higher batting average). Raines had more extra base hits. Raines huge advantage in walks does not contribute to his slugging %,; Gwynn's advantage in singles does. Raines' runs + RBIs exceeds Gwynn's. Now let's go to stolen bases. Raines stole 489 more bases than Gwynn, but was caught only 21 times more. That is an enormous advantage.
A quick summary:
1. Raines reached base more times than Gwynn
2. Raines had more power than Gwynn
3. Raines accounted for more runs than Gwynn
4. Raines was a far superior baserunner to Gwynn
Gwynn played a more demanding defensive position for part of his career, and I believe was considered to a better defensive player. Gwynn had the batting titles, but Raines reached base virtually as often.
I am not one who believes that If Player A is in then Player B deserves it because he is good as player A. It is quite possible that Player A's induction was a mistake. In this case, though, Player A (Gwynn) received something in the neighborhood of 98% of the vote. In this case I believe Player B (Raines) was every bit as good offensively as Gwynn. Is the difference in defense enough to keep Raines out?
It's too much about the money, selecting as many players as possible to in theory bring in as many paying customers as possible to see their player's plaque in the Hall. I guess the thinking may be the more players in, the more paying customers in. Oh well...I last visited there I guess it was around 7 or 8 years ago and it is still a magnificent place - Highly recommended.
<< <i> I guess the thinking may be the more players in, the more paying customers in. Oh well...I last visited there I guess it was around 7 or 8 years ago and it is still a magnificent place - Highly recommended. >>
until they elect the players who should be in, i'll pass.
<< <i>It's the aspect of cheating, not drug use, that has permanently tainted the legacies of players like McGwire, Bonds and Clemens. >>
Exactly. I can't believe that's apparently so hard for some people to grasp.
Murph took the classy way out, when his playing level did not match his own personal level, he bowed out gracefully. Akin to Schimdt and Griffey Jr. He could have easily tolled around for a couple of years( ala Rose) for personal stats, but he did not.
Being that I grew up watching TBS, I maybe a little biased.
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you really suggesting that the health and legal implications are completely immaterial when it comes to whether they are ok or not?
Are you really suggesting the "insiders" didn't know McGwire and Canseco and plenty of others had high muscle mass? Even if they had no clue about specific details, they did know the physics behind what propelled a baseball as well as the history from many other sports that dealt with the drug issue a long time before the 1980s >>
I certainly care about the well being of my fellow man but I'm not here to tell another person how to live their lives as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. But when they are CHEATING, that's another matter entirely and I'm not sure why you continually want to distort that fact. If you want to start a thread about your thoughts on the matter and frame it how ever you want, go right ahead. But if you want to respond to a point I make that takes the discussion to a place that has no bearing whatsoever as it relates to my original comments, then I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Your posts are just meaningless drivel at that point.
I have no idea what the "insiders" knew and when they knew it. All I ever definitely suggested is that YOU don't know but are purely speculating. Respective insiders within one organization probably knew it at different times and what one organization knew could be year's apart from what another organization knew. I do know that plenty of parents claim they never knew the whole time that a child of their's was on steroids. If a parent doesn't know about their own child (whom they see everyday) using under their very own roof, I darn well don't find the notion of a 60 year old business person (occupied with MANY other things even outside of baseball) not being clued in early in the process when they barely even cross paths with the players.
That you are so convinced and knew right away or at least claim to think so can only lead me to believe (though I might very well be wrong) that you are or have been a user yourself. Or that you have been around many of them. I'm not judging and couldn't less but that might explain why it's so obvious to you. It wasn't so obvious to me, nor the overwhelming majority of fans, and I believe most insiders (at least as early as you think they may have been). Heck, how often have we even seen most baseball players without their shirts on? Let alone be able to presume that it had something to do with steroids. Maybe you did because you're in that world, I don't know. But it wouldn't or didn't cross my mind until it became more and more of a national story.
Let me finally say that I refuse to reward a person for cheating their way into their accomplishments. They stole from their fellow players by doing so and I certainly don't want to reward them further by acknowledging that their accomplishments were legitimate, because as far as I'm concerned, they're NOT. >>
Then why aren't you railing on about Gaylord Perry's HOF induction? This guy was the poster boy for 'cheating' for OVER TWENTY YEARS, and yet almost everyone looks back at his activities with a wink and a smile. Then someone like McGwire loads up on steroids and you'd think the man rapes sheep from the reaction he gets from baseball 'purists'. Ditto for Whitey Ford, who is an ADMITTED cheater. Anyone here screaming about the fact that Ford garnered 77% of the vote when he was finally ushered through the hallowed halls? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
This isn't strictly about cheating at all, no matter what you-- or anyone else-- says on the subject. It's about cheating with drugs, which for some reason is regarded as being ten times more vile than cheating with emery files. Once someone can explain the logic behind this glaring inconsistency I'll start taking some of this tripe seriously.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's the aspect of cheating, not drug use, that has permanently tainted the legacies of players like McGwire, Bonds and Clemens. >>
Exactly. I can't believe that's apparently so hard for some people to grasp. >>
I don't grasp it because from where I sit that just isn't true. At all. As I mentioned in the above post, I've never heard a single person scream about the cosmic injustice that took place when Whitey Ford was inducted, and most people could care less that Gaylord Perry is in the HOF. And I also think it's intellectually shallow to look at the accomplishments of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Juan Gonzalez, Palmeiro, or whoever else and assume that these guys would have been wallowing in the seventh spot of the lineup for their entire careers if they hadn't shot turkey basters full of Winstrol into their backsides.
The question isn't-- or shouldn't be-- whether steriods 'helped them'. The meaningful question is whether they would have been legitimate HOF candidates without chemical assistance, and if the (admittedly guarded) answer to that is 'yes' than any questions about steroid use become largely moot. If a guy like Barry Bonds would have been the third best hitter of his generation without steriods, and only became one of the top five hitters of ALL TIME with steroids, then why shouldn't he still get in? Nobody knows the extent to which steroids improve on-field performance. It's assumed that they do, but what's the magnitude of the effect? Has anyone put forth a scholarly study that even attempts to put a value on this coefficient? If so, I haven't seen it.
Given that, what you-- and anyone else who takes the opinion that 'McGwire (or whoever) shouldn't be in the hall because he's a known steroid user'- are saying is that even though we don't know how much it helped him, or for that matter even if it DID help him, we're going to keep him out anyway because, well, using steroids sends a bad message to America's youth, and besides that we find it kind of icky. Which is fine-- I have opinions on topics that I hold dearly, and they're equally as irrational as the opinion I just articulated. But I'm not going to tarnish a guy's legacy, or dismiss his accomplishments, if I don't know the extent to which the nefarious behavior in question impacted his results. And I'm continually surprised by the number of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people who don't show a similar sense of restraint when evaluating the careers of players who were tagged by Mitchell, or who were even just assumed to fall under the umbrella of his investigation.
I have similar feelings about all this white noise surrounding Albert Pujols and HGH. The question shouldn't be 'is he using it'. The question should be 'does using it make him a better baseball player, and if so to what extent does it improve performance'. If anyone wanted to take some time and do some research they would discover that nobody really knows what the magnitude of the causal effect that HGH use has on athletic performance, or even if it DOES improve performance. You can see as much on the write-up on HGH from The Mayo Clinic, which is one of the finest hospitals in the country.
But has anyone EVER heard this question broached on ESPN? Can anyone remember the last time a talking head on 'Baseball Tonight' asked if it even MATTERED if all these guys are taking HGH? No, and the reason is because the notion that HGH is a red herring doesn't move newspapers off the news stand. Sports is far more dramatic if it's occasioned by a witch hunt. Whether the crimes alleged have actually altered the performance of the players isn't going to keep people interested in the subject, and keeping eyes glued to the TV set is what this issue is all about.
<< <i>if Raines had been a CFer over the vast majority of his career (he played about 160 games at CF) he'd already be in...but since he played a position more associated with a power bat he isn't. >>
Maybe. Although my feeling is that Tim Raines isn't in the HOF because he's black and an admitted cocaine user. If Paul Molitor has used cocaine nobody would have cared. Oh wait....
<< <i>
<< <i>Most people consider the war on drugs more nuanced than slavery. Why not use the Nazis as an example, too?
Baseball "insiders" absolutely knew that there were heavily muscled players earning millions at a job based almost exclusively on physical performance.. They also knew the customers weren't saying anything about it. If either of those groups cared, McGwire would have either been drug free or failing the drug tests. . . >>
You keep declaring this a "drugs" issue as if I'm berating the Steve Howe's of the world. While cocaine, speed and pot are illegal as well, I really don't care if players use those drugs because from a level playing field perspective, they're only hurting themselves. Once again, this is about CHEATING. What part of that don't you get? If you disagree, then that is merely your position and one in which I don't even see the slightest element of coherence but it's your opinion and your right to possess it.
You make all these accusation about insiders and I hear nothing about any shred of evidence (or even a remote articulation of why you think it) than your mere conclusive OPINION on the matter from the over presumptuous perspective that "They must have known". There are players who played during the heart of the era that declare they knew absolutely nothing about what was going on. To think that owners are hanging out in the clubhouse all the time or that players used the ballpark as a rampant place of people just injecting themselves in front of one another is an overactive imagination on your part. >>
Several owners were pulled into Congress in the 1970s about this issue and knew about it then, including one owner who was called on in Congress and who happens to now be the Commissioner. MLB responded by making some drug rules and programs, but none of the rules or guidelines mentioned the word "steroids." Tell me how one gets pulled into Congress to testify about steroids...makes a few drug rules before of this....and somehow forgets to mention steroids in any rule. I don't know that answer, but it is unlikely they forgot or forgot about the issue.
Even if they did not know, which is pretty absurd, that does not make them not responsible.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's the aspect of cheating, not drug use, that has permanently tainted the legacies of players like McGwire, Bonds and Clemens. >>
Exactly. I can't believe that's apparently so hard for some people to grasp. >>
I don't grasp it because from where I sit that just isn't true. At all. As I mentioned in the above post, I've never heard a single person scream about the cosmic injustice that took place when Whitey Ford was inducted, and most people could care less that Gaylord Perry is in the HOF. And I also think it's intellectually shallow to look at the accomplishments of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Juan Gonzalez, Palmeiro, or whoever else and assume that these guys would have been wallowing in the seventh spot of the lineup for their entire careers if they hadn't shot turkey basters full of Winstrol into their backsides.
The question isn't-- or shouldn't be-- whether steriods 'helped them'. The meaningful question is whether they would have been legitimate HOF candidates without chemical assistance, and if the (admittedly guarded) answer to that is 'yes' than any questions about steroid use become largely moot. If a guy like Barry Bonds would have been the third best hitter of his generation without steriods, and only became one of the top five hitters of ALL TIME with steroids, then why shouldn't he still get in? Nobody knows the extent to which steroids improve on-field performance. It's assumed that they do, but what's the magnitude of the effect? Has anyone put forth a scholarly study that even attempts to put a value on this coefficient? If so, I haven't seen it.
Given that, what you-- and anyone else who takes the opinion that 'McGwire (or whoever) shouldn't be in the hall because he's a known steroid user'- are saying is that even though we don't know how much it helped him, or for that matter even if it DID help him, we're going to keep him out anyway because, well, using steroids sends a bad message to America's youth, and besides that we find it kind of icky. Which is fine-- I have opinions on topics that I hold dearly, and they're equally as irrational as the opinion I just articulated. But I'm not going to tarnish a guy's legacy, or dismiss his accomplishments, if I don't know the extent to which the nefarious behavior in question impacted his results. And I'm continually surprised by the number of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people who don't show a similar sense of restraint when evaluating the careers of players who were tagged by Mitchell, or who were even just assumed to fall under the umbrella of his investigation.
I have similar feelings about all this white noise surrounding Albert Pujols and HGH. The question shouldn't be 'is he using it'. The question should be 'does using it make him a better baseball player, and if so to what extent does it improve performance'. If anyone wanted to take some time and do some research they would discover that nobody really knows what the magnitude of the causal effect that HGH use has on athletic performance, or even if it DOES improve performance. You can see as much on the write-up on HGH from The Mayo Clinic, which is one of the finest hospitals in the country.
But has anyone EVER heard this question broached on ESPN? Can anyone remember the last time a talking head on 'Baseball Tonight' asked if it even MATTERED if all these guys are taking HGH? No, and the reason is because the notion that HGH is a red herring doesn't move newspapers off the news stand. Sports is far more dramatic if it's occasioned by a witch hunt. Whether the crimes alleged have actually altered the performance of the players isn't going to keep people interested in the subject, and keeping eyes glued to the TV set is what this issue is all about. >>
How are we to determine whether a player would have been HOF caliber without the aid of steroids? Plus, I've always been of the opinion that these PEDs aid individuals to varying degrees, though all them of materially. Some may see moderate improvement while others may see drastic improvements. Bonds enjoyed the most unprecedented career arc of all time using the stuff.
Are you also of the opinion that when a student cheats on a test, he should be evaluated on how smart he is and how he theoretically might have performed anyway? >>
If the quality of his character is completely irrelevant, then yes-- you should evaluate him based on how smart he is and how he would have performed anyway. And since Ty Cobb (and others) are in the Hall, and moreover considered important members of said institution, I think it's fair to conclude that character counts for very little when HOF candidates are evaluated.
<< <i>Boopotts,
If I'm understanding you correctly, we shouldn't care about people cheating, at least in baseball and in academics, and maybe whatever else in life. If that's your position, you certainly have a right to it. However, I haven't heard anything that has moved me one bit on the issue. >>
Yeah, that's completely not what I said. But thanks for playing.
Edit to add: OK, I'll rise to the bait one more time. I know I shouldn't, but I guess I will anyway. As an aside, it's nice to know that 'nothing has moved you on this issue'. I'd hate to see the streak of twenty million dead-end Internet discussions broken by someone having the intellectual agility to say 'Wow, I'd never thought of it that way before'.
Moving onward:
1) Nobody knows the extent to which steroids helped anyone, and that's a big problem if you're going to keep baseball players' achievements from being recognized by the HOF. There are three steps here: 1) Determine if there's a causal effect. 2) Determine whether the effect on the dependent variable is + or -. 3) Determine the magnitude of the effect. You cannot disregard the importance of the 3rd step, otherwise we'd all be eating 50 lbs. of oat bran every day because it's been shown to 'reduce cancer risk'. The important thing isn't whether steroids increase performance, it's by HOW MUCH they increase performance, and until you can answer that it's dangerous and irresponsible to speculate.
2) What steroid use says about someone's character is not at all relevant here, because the HOF could care less about character. Being a 'good, honest guy' is not one of the criteria for admittance, so we should disregard this concern when discussing the HOF credentials of any particular candidate. Or, alternatively, we should throw at A-holes like Ty Cobb.
There is nothing else in your life where you don't concern yourself with the magnitude of causality. Think about that for a minute. Then ask yourself why these questions of magnitude shouldn't apply to evaluating baseball players.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Most people consider the war on drugs more nuanced than slavery. Why not use the Nazis as an example, too?
Baseball "insiders" absolutely knew that there were heavily muscled players earning millions at a job based almost exclusively on physical performance.. They also knew the customers weren't saying anything about it. If either of those groups cared, McGwire would have either been drug free or failing the drug tests. . . >>
You keep declaring this a "drugs" issue as if I'm berating the Steve Howe's of the world. While cocaine, speed and pot are illegal as well, I really don't care if players use those drugs because from a level playing field perspective, they're only hurting themselves. Once again, this is about CHEATING. What part of that don't you get? If you disagree, then that is merely your position and one in which I don't even see the slightest element of coherence but it's your opinion and your right to possess it.
You make all these accusation about insiders and I hear nothing about any shred of evidence (or even a remote articulation of why you think it) than your mere conclusive OPINION on the matter from the over presumptuous perspective that "They must have known". There are players who played during the heart of the era that declare they knew absolutely nothing about what was going on. To think that owners are hanging out in the clubhouse all the time or that players used the ballpark as a rampant place of people just injecting themselves in front of one another is an overactive imagination on your part. >>
Several owners were pulled into Congress in the 1970s about this issue and knew about it then, including one owner who was called on in Congress and who happens to now be the Commissioner. MLB responded by making some drug rules and programs, but none of the rules or guidelines mentioned the word "steroids." Tell me how one gets pulled into Congress to testify about steroids...makes a few drug rules before of this....and somehow forgets to mention steroids in any rule. I don't know that answer, but it is unlikely they forgot or forgot about the issue.
Even if they did not know, which is pretty absurd, that does not make them not responsible. >>
I personally don't think it's absurd at all. And once again, if you or anyone has legitimate proof that the majority of front offices in baseball were aware of rampant steroid use as early as the early 90s, I'd love to hear it. That a handful of owners may have been called in during the 1970s, where its unclear whether steroids were even discussed or was a minor topic, is far removed from assuming that all front offices knew as far as I'm concerned.
And who said the owners weren't responsible? This isn't about what we should do with the owners. This is about the players we think should or shouldn't be inducted. If it's okay with you and others that we induct cheaters, then those are where your values lie, not mine. >>
Again the Commish, was pulled into Congress to testify about "steroid" use. This is solid evidence at least the Commish knew, who was then an owner. Why would I have to show the majority of the front offices knew? We can turn this around and give you the impossible task of proving the majority did not know.
Now, they might have chose to turn a blind eye, but there really can be no question that they knew. Again, they were called into Congress and responded by making some MLB rules. That is all I was saying. You keep trying to say, how do we know they knew. They were called into Congress and discussed it.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Most people consider the war on drugs more nuanced than slavery. Why not use the Nazis as an example, too?
Baseball "insiders" absolutely knew that there were heavily muscled players earning millions at a job based almost exclusively on physical performance.. They also knew the customers weren't saying anything about it. If either of those groups cared, McGwire would have either been drug free or failing the drug tests. . . >>
You keep declaring this a "drugs" issue as if I'm berating the Steve Howe's of the world. While cocaine, speed and pot are illegal as well, I really don't care if players use those drugs because from a level playing field perspective, they're only hurting themselves. Once again, this is about CHEATING. What part of that don't you get? If you disagree, then that is merely your position and one in which I don't even see the slightest element of coherence but it's your opinion and your right to possess it.
You make all these accusation about insiders and I hear nothing about any shred of evidence (or even a remote articulation of why you think it) than your mere conclusive OPINION on the matter from the over presumptuous perspective that "They must have known". There are players who played during the heart of the era that declare they knew absolutely nothing about what was going on. To think that owners are hanging out in the clubhouse all the time or that players used the ballpark as a rampant place of people just injecting themselves in front of one another is an overactive imagination on your part. >>
Several owners were pulled into Congress in the 1970s about this issue and knew about it then, including one owner who was called on in Congress and who happens to now be the Commissioner. MLB responded by making some drug rules and programs, but none of the rules or guidelines mentioned the word "steroids." Tell me how one gets pulled into Congress to testify about steroids...makes a few drug rules before of this....and somehow forgets to mention steroids in any rule. I don't know that answer, but it is unlikely they forgot or forgot about the issue.
Even if they did not know, which is pretty absurd, that does not make them not responsible. >>
I personally don't think it's absurd at all. And once again, if you or anyone has legitimate proof that the majority of front offices in baseball were aware of rampant steroid use as early as the early 90s, I'd love to hear it. That a handful of owners may have been called in during the 1970s, where its unclear whether steroids were even discussed or was a minor topic, is far removed from assuming that all front offices knew as far as I'm concerned.
And who said the owners weren't responsible? This isn't about what we should do with the owners. This is about the players we think should or shouldn't be inducted. If it's okay with you and others that we induct cheaters, then those are where your values lie, not mine. >>
Again the Commish, was pulled into Congress to testify about "steroid" use. This is solid evidence at least the Commish knew, who was then an owner. Why would I have to show the majority of the front offices knew? We can turn this around and give you the impossible task of proving the majority did not know.
Now, they might have chose to turn a blind eye, but there really can be no question that they knew. Again, they were called into Congress and responded by making some MLB rules. That is all I was saying. You keep trying to say, how do we know they knew. They were called into Congress and discussed it. >>
I don't need to "prove" anything because I'm not the one making accusations here, you are. And as far as I can tell, the basis for that is that some owners discussed the issue with Congress (to which you've provided no elaboration), and from that, we should deduce that the majority of the front offices were completely in the know two decades later about rampant steroid use starting up. From my perspective, that is a HUGE leap in logic. I'm not saying that all owners didn't know of steroids in the 1990s, nor years before that, as most of us did. But that it was a rampant issue in the clubhouse,being used my a significant portion of the players, and that the majority of the front offices were aware that this was a systematic problem across the major leagues is something that you haven't even come close to showing, let alone proving. If you levied that accusation against any specific owner, I believe that would constitute slander. >>
The only accusation I have made, is they knew. Do you understand what the word "knew" means? The fact that owners appeared before congress on this PROVES they knew. To try to say that is slander is a joke or complete ignorance.
You have changed your wording. Earlier you were "I hear nothing about any shred of evidence." Now I have to prove what the majority of everyone knew, apparently through the history of the MLB the last 30 years for you, which of course is an impossible task. So, whatever. Keep changing your words and saying I or Boopotts or whoever is saying this or that, when neither of us said what you are saying.
It does not change the fact, they knew.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The conversation and debate was that the majority of the front offices knew of wide use of steroids among the players. Not that no one in major leagues knew of the existence of steroids. Toward that end, I have not heard "any shred of evidence" that supports that then your flimsy speculative deduction. >>
There you go again...what is my flimsy speculative deduction? I don't believe I have given any opinion in this thread.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
They're not all equal. Some were on the path to the Hall already (like Bonds and ARod), some just refused to deal with their bodies breaking down and having to make the same adjustments that men have had to make since the game's beginning (Clemens and McGwire) and some were just marginal players who pushed to the front of the line and got to a place they couldn't have possibly earned naturally (Sosa and Palmeiro), but they all made the conscious choice to cheat. Cheat on an epic and unprecedented level. Not for a start or a series of games but for year upon year. I can't just wave that away and ignore it.
It's kind of ancillary but one of the things I hate most about these yo yos is that they've skewed the record book and the standards for making the Hall. When all of these numbers were thought to be aboveboard, guys like Murphy, Parker and Dawson all got left in the mirror. People actually claimed and maintained that Sammy Sosa was a dramatically better player than any of them, just based on those raw numbers. That situation is still somewhat in place, as milestones that meant serious consideration just 15-20 years ago are now considered too low for the bar. I hope that the voters continue to adjust their thinking (I know that Rice's election is one that was met with a fair amount of derision but I liked it and I liked Dawson's even more.)
Lastly, I don't see it as a zero sum choice between Murph and The Cobra. I'd like to see them both in.
When you are comparing players to each other from different era's, some have a tremendously unfair advantage in that comparison. I have written about that in length in the population studies, so I am not going to rewrite and support that again.
There is no question that guys like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, etc... achieved God-like performances that were highly aided by the circumstances of their era, and that guys like Schmidt, Murray, or Brett never even had a remote chance to replicate because the era THEY played in had circumstances that simply wouldn't allow it.
Each of those three basically spent time as the respective best hitters of their era, and in all reality were probably not that dissimilar from each other, but rather it was the strong circumstances of their eras that produced results that made it look like one group were God-like, and the other merely outstanding.
Those result altering circumstances were basically out of the control of all those players mentioned above. Are we to blame Ruth because he played in an era filled with punch/judy type hitters and competed against a limited population pool due to the demographics and sociological factors in the U.S.(including a flat out disallowing of minority players), thus allowing him to out homer entire teams? Please, do not argue this point here, because first you are wrong to argue against it
I think what the poster 'baseball' is saying is that guys like BOnds, McGwire, Chipper, that used Steroids, created unfair circumstances to benefit themselves and their status simply by choosing to take a drug...while RUth, Cobb, etc simply played in an era where those circumstances existed beyond their control, while their status was also benefited, it really wasn't from a choice they made.
To me, the big thing it comes down to is what percentage of the league was doing PED's? If it were nearly 100%, then would PED use simply become on of the inherent advantages of the era, much like playing in a league that was whites only? How do we know for sure the percentage?
Then is it like Boo is saying, that you are juding their character then? If steroid use is the norm of the league, then what?
No matter how you unravel all that stuff, it comes down to this for baseball historians...
WHen doing cross era comparisons, the good rule of thumb is to take the numbers achieved from Pre War, and the ones from 1994 and on, with a grain of salt, because compared to the era in-between those two, both of those eras have unfair advantages inherent to the era, that produced results not possible to achieve in 1978.
Since the type of steroids and levels used by these players have known dangerous side affects and strong linkages to heart disease and other potentially life altering or threatening repercusions, no hospital, university, private industry researcher or government institution would grant the money to fund this study.
Secondly it would violate the hypocratic oath for doctors to knowingly engage in a study that could cause serious harm to these individuals.
In lack of "serious and statistical evidence" were are left with conjecture, strong circumstantial evidence and generic trend data showing how statistically abnormal those years were in MLB history.
Data was released yesterday showing run scoring, home runs are at pre 1992 levels. While pitching has gone off the charts in terms or ERA (makes sense right, less runs charged to pitchers).
We will never know the true effects because it can never be fully studied to the level of detail needed to come to a real scientific conclusion.
Tony Gwynn and Tim Raines is not a good comparison.
Tony Gwynn has alot of hardware and a batting average that is with the likes of Gehrig, Williams and Ruth. "enough said" "argument over, period"
Can we please stop trying to compare these two players.
What's next===the Dwight Evans is better than Frank Robinson thread. I'm sure there are a few statistics that would show Evans being better than him in very particular areas.
1105 Runs
1921 Hits
295 Dbls
370 HRs
1274 RBIs
.273 Lifetime BA
.487 SLG
.846 OPS
8x All Star
3x Gold Gloves
War shortened career
Snubbed from the Hall with just 63.4% of the vote in his last year of eligability.
<< <i>Who am I?
1105 Runs
1921 Hits
295 Dbls
370 HRs
1274 RBIs
.273 Lifetime BA
.487 SLG
.846 OPS
8x All Star
3x Gold Gloves
War shortened career
Was his career really war shortened? He wasn't any good until his 3rd year in the bigs (not counting his cup of coffee). He played a slugger's position, and his OPS is in the 180s all time. His OPS ranking is not adjusted for ball park and era. His raw numbers are nice, but not eye popping, certainly not for a first baseman.
Hodges' career OPS+ is tied for 339th all time. See below. His Wins Above Replacement Level (WAR) is 325th (including pitchers). All stats are from www.baseball-reference.com
339.
Harold Baines 120 L
Lou Boudreau+ 120 R
Jose Cruz 120 L
Joe Cunningham 120 L
Chili Davis 120 B
Lenny Dykstra 120 L
Ferris Fain 120 L
Joe Gordon+ 120 R
Mike Greenwell 120 L
Shawn Green 120 L
Johnny Grubb 120 L
Gil Hodges 120 R
Willie Horton 120 R
Jackie Jensen 120 R
Mack Jones 120 L
Wally Judnich 120 L
Chet Lemon 120 R
Shane Mack 120 R
Paul O'Neill 120 L
Vic Saier 120 L
Richie Sexson 120 R
Jimmy Sheckard 120 L
Bill Skowron 120 R
Leon Wagner
<< <i> Darrell Evans was a MUCH better player that is probably the greatest defensive player since the advent of the Gold Glove not to have one. He was one of the five best fielding third basemen of the last 50 years. He just played at the same time as Mike Schmidt. But I can excuse Hall voters for not putting him and his 414 homers in because he was just a .248 hitter (even though he usually had great OBP's) and he just wasn't a star. But I still think you could make a nice argument for a guy with 414 homers, 2223 hits, 1344 runs, 1354 RBI, 1605 walks, 119 OPS+ (almost the same as Murphy and Parker - SURPRISE!), .361 OBP, and was a defensive stalwart and World Series Champion. But he won't get in and never will because he never was famous. >>
I've made the argument for him more than once and I would vote for him if I had a ballot. I loved that guy.
<< <i>Voters now look at guys like Parker and Murphy and Garvey and Dick Allen (well, voters gave up on some of these guys a long time ago) and put their numbers next to guys like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro and laugh. How can they vote for a guy like Parker when his numbers pale to Sammy Sosa's? Steve Garvey won the 1974 MVP with a .312 - 21 - 111 (ba-hr-rbis) performance with 200 hits and 130 OPS+. How do you think those numbers would stack up in Sammy's prime? In 2001 Todd Helton had .336 - 49 - 146 and finished NINTH! Larry Walker hit .350 - 38 - 123 and finished in a tie for TWENTY FOURTH! In 2000 Richard Hidalgo had numbers of .314 - 44 - 122 and finished TWENTIETH! So when this sort of thing is happening year after year and you see eye popping numbers, how can the guys from the recent past get a fair shake? I too was really happy to see both Rice and Dawson make it. I think that there are more deserving players as well. But one of the reasons they got in was that there weren't a lot of other quality candidates on the ballots. When the steroid era players start flooding the ballots it will be interesting to see. >>
Exactly.
I don't believe in penalizing guys from that era who didn't take walks like they should have because it wasn't really part of the culture of the game. I've always found it foolish to retroactively impose those standards on the game of that era. Having said that, I think we all see now that walks and a high OBP are good things and that if you operate on that premise, Dick Allen, in spite of what seems like a shortfall in counting stats for his career, was a truly amazing player and deserves serious HOF consideration.
As for Gil, it's insane that he fell short. In addition to that resumé above, didn't he retire as the career leader in homers among right handed hitters?
No it is not insane to exclude him. He is not even close to being the best player not in the HOF.
He did not retire as the career leaders in HRs among right handed hitters. He had a little less than 70% of the all time leader-Foxx.