Vizquel, Award Voting, and the Importance of Consistency

Those who know both me and my baseball reading habits know that I have a huge non-sexual man crush on ESPN’s Rob Neyer.  His articles are thoughtful, logical, rational, and occasionally humorous.  What’s not to love?  Plus, I very rarely disagree with his opinions.  In fact, I’d probably go as far to say that I agree with him 99% of the time. 

Why do I bring this up?  Today happens to be one of those times where I disagree with him.  Let me start out by saying that I rarely will start an argument where I feel (not necessarily know) that I’m not the smartest guy in the room, or at least on equal footing.  In situations where that criterion is not met, I take the opportunity to observe, listen, and make constructive points where I can.  In any theoretical situation where Rob and I are the same room, I am definitely not the smartest guy in the room—not even close.  Still, I’m going to put my best foot forward (insert Rex Ryan joke here), and give it the old college try.

Yesterday, Rob wrote a tremendous article about Omar Vizquel, and his chances of one day making the Hall of Fame.  When discussing Vizquel’s chances, most writers and fans compare him to another defensive wizard, Ozzie Smith.  Neyer cites numerous reasons why comparing the two is grossly unfair including stolen base efficiency, defensive value, offensive “prowess”, and success in the annual MVP voting.*  He made a pretty convincing, well constructed argument in the process.  His argument was nearly flawless, except for one point, which I’ll get to in just a second.

* Using Sean Smith’s Total Zone rating, Ozzie Smith saved 239 runs in 2573 games defensively.  Omar Vizquel saved 138 runs in 2850 games.  Yes, you read that right.  Smith saved 101 additional runs in 277 fewer games.  That makes the comparison between the two look pretty ridiculous right off of the bat, and we haven’t even gotten to the other two factors.  Omar was great, but Ozzie was in a world of his own.

After posting his article, ESPN cohort Jim Caple, fired back an email arguing that Neyer’s argument was slightly flawed.  Based on the quality of Caple’s argument, Neyer revisited the topic in an article he posted today.  Caple had this to say:

“I realize this was only a small part of your piece but I think you make a faulty argument by equating Hall of Fame voters and MVP voters. I'm not sure there's that much overlap.  The majority of Hall voters (which I hope will include you one day) seldom have an MVP vote because most of us are no longer daily beat writers. I've been a Hall voter for 13 years but have had only one MVP in the past 18 and probably will never get another.

(snip)

You're also holding Omar to the same suspect standard that other voters applied to Blyleven for so long. Just because an MVP/Cy Young voter (who may never have a Hall of Fame vote) doesn't vote for a particular player or pitcher in any particular season doesn't mean we don't value them over the course of a career. This is particularly true with position players.”

Neyer replied:

“I anticipated the Blyleven argument, but didn't address it Monday because I'm not yet comfortable with the million-word blog post. I'll work on that.

Today, I will say that I am absolutely not holding Vizquel to the same standard that other voters applied to Blyleven. For one thing, it's not at all apparent that voters applied any standard at all to Blyleven, who got 14 percent in his second year on the ballot and 80 percent in his last year. What's the standard, exactly?”

(snip)

Bert Blyleven, the suggestion goes, fared poorly in the Hall of Fame balloting for so many years because when he pitched he wasn't considered one of the game's dominant pitchers. Perhaps he wasn't. But Blyleven still managed to finish seventh, fourth, and third twice in the Cy Young balloting.

While I understand Neyer’s point of view, I have to side with Caple on this one.  Neyer spent quite a bit of time discussing how the writers thought so little (and I use that term very loosely) of Vizquel during his career, that the highest he ever placed in the MVP voting was 16^th.  While there is some merit to using voting criteria in one’s argument regarding a player’s Hall of Fame candidacy, I have to wonder if it’s really relevant. 

First of all, the MVP and Cy Young Award voting pool is significantly smaller than the Hall of Fame electorate.  Whereas 500+ writers vote in Hall of Fame elections, only two members from each baseball market in each league vote for the year end awards.  While I’m not suggesting we open up year end awards to all card carrying BBWAA members, I’m merely pointing out that the vote of a few today may one day have a significant influence on a vote by the many.

Secondly, haven’t we already proven that MVP and Cy Young voters are frequently either flawed, inconsistent, or even incorrect in their method of voting?  Do we need to look any further than the 1987/1989 NL Cy Young, 1973/1990/2002/2005 AL Cy Young, 1992/1996/1998/1999 AL MVP, 2006 NL MVP, etc. to see that major mistakes have been made?  Yet, despite these mistakes, we continue to site these awards as supporting documentation for Hall of Fame cases. 

Despite what we’d like to believe, these votes really do matter in the hearts and minds of Hall of Fame voters.  The primary argument of many of Bert Blyleven’s detractors was that he wasn’t one of the most dominant pitchers in his era.  The statistic they most frequently pointed to when justifying their argument was that Blyleven only placed in the Cy Young voting four times in 22 seasons, while never once winning.  Rather than examine the situation further to determine if the voting was correct (in 1973, in particular, Blyleven was the most valuable pitcher in the AL, and should have beaten out Jim Palmer for the CYA), many voters took the award voting at face value.  In other words, a large cross section of Hall of Fame voters (i.e. Blyleven’s detractors) was willing to accept the voting outcome of a very small sample of voters as an indisputable fact, not an opinion. 

Furthermore, despite having numerous seasons during the 1970s in which he was more than qualified to appear on the CYA ballot, the writers left him off entirely.  Why?  His won-loss record wasn’t considered to be good enough.  Obviously, that was during the days where a pitcher’s won-loss record was considered to be the most important statistic in measuring a pitcher’s performance.  We know better than that now, yet many, more than 20% of the Hall of Fame electorate, still held him to that same outdated standard.  It seems a bit unfair.  Yes, he’s in the Hall of Fame now, and that’s a great thing.  It’s obvious that many of the voters decided to re-evaluate Blyleven’s career based on the new statistical information that’s now available.  Still, you have to wonder if there hadn’t been a huge internet campaign constantly singing Blyleven’s praises, would anyone have  re-evaluated the merit (or lack thereof) of those Cy Young votes? 

My point in this nearly 1500 word diatribe is to point out that we need to be consistent in how we view Hall of Fame candidates.  We can’t use one criterion for Player A, and then claim that criterion is unfair to use for Player B.* In a very small way, that’s kind of what Neyer is doing here.  He’s not doing so maliciously.  Unlike most writers, he’s willing to have an open discussion and defend his position or even (gasp) show humility if he finds his thought process was flawed.  For that, I give him a tremendous amount of credit.  Still, I feel it’s unfair to use the voting results of any award (whether the voting appears to be correct or not) as a pro or a con in any player’s Cooperstown case—especially when for several years, many of us pointed out the voting flaws when defending Blyleven’s case.  To me, this is more about consistency, than anything else.

* For example, we can’t tout Greg Maddux’s impressive 355 win total as a reason for him being enshrined into Cooperstown, while claiming Blyleven’s 287 wins are irrelevant because too many things factor into wins that are outside of a pitcher’s control. 

Jeff Bagwell Gets a RAW DEAL from HOF voters

There's a great line at the beginning of the campy 80s flick Raw Deal starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. When his wife throws a cake at his head and misses, Ah-nuld turns to his wife and says, "You should not drink and bake."

Some of the sports writers who didn't cast a vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Baseball Hall of Fame this past week shouldn't drink and vote. I mean that's the only explanation I can think of why they wouldn't have voted for him. They had to have been severely intoxicated.

For 15 years the first baseman known to his teammates as "Bagpipes" dominated the position like no one since Willie McCovey. While 449 HR is impressive, to me what stands out is his SLG of .540 and a lifetime OBP of .408. Furthermore, Bagwell was an incredibly patient batter at the plate especially as his career progressed, walking a league leading 149 times in 1999. While not particularly speedy on the basepads, Bagwell nonetheless managed to score 1,517 runs in his career with the Astros and accumulate 2,314 hits. And even with 1500+ career RBI, Bagwell demonstrated he could hit for average as well, boasting a .297 lifetime batting average.

Aside from winning the Rookie of the Year in 1991 and the MVP in 1994, Bagwell was a solid defensive first baseman and a three time Silver Slugger Award winner. Bill James (you know the Bill James of the New Historical Baseball Abstract) rated him the fourth best first baseman of all time. Let me state that again in Kanye West terms: THE FOURTH BEST FIRST BASEMAN OF ALL TIME! OF ALL TIME!

Why oh why then does this guy get a measly 41.7% of the votes for the HOF????

The answer is of course, steroids, and it is the worst answer since former President Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale. People who make their living as professional writers in newspapers and magazines have apparently forgotten what Connecticut men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun already knows: get your facts right.

But hey, since when in the last twenty years or so has any writer let the facts get in the way of a good story? Well here are some facts I'd like to lay out for the sports writers of America who didn't vote for Bagwell for the HOF because they suspected him of using steroids:

FACT: Jeff Bagwell has never tested positive for steroids.

FACT: Jeff Bagwell has never been linked to the Mitchell Report.

FACT: Jeff Bagwell never hit 50 HR in a season.

FACT: Jeff Bagwell has never been linked to steroid use either directly or indirectly.

It is fairly obvious that the baseball writers in America are clearly jaded over the use of steroids during the 90s and early 2000s. Though even I don't understand that because so many of them obviously turned a blind eye to the problem for years. Let's face it these are the same writers who voted Barry Bonds MVP four years in a row. And now they are taking the moral high ground and directing their misguided effrontery on Jeff Bagwell?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

The writers have nothing more than a hunch when it comes to Bagwell. They are "outraged" over being "duped" during the 90s and 2000s and now they are making other people pay for it. As New York Times writer Tyler Kepner pointed out the whole thing is just intellectually dishonest. If their attitude is that anyone who played during the steroid era shouldn't be in the HOF, then where was their righteous indignation three years ago when they voted Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn into the HOF? They clearly didn't believe either one of them did but what proof do they have? They have nothing more than a "hunch" that Ripken and Gwynn didn't use steroids. For the record I don't think Gwynn or Ripken did steroids but I don't know for sure. Neither do the sports writers, and that is the whole point. This situation cuts both ways. Sportswriters cannot arbitrarily vote someone into the HOF or withhold a vote simply because "they have a feeling." It is disingenuous, illogical, and shows a marked lack of integrity.

You know why I hate the steroid issue so much? It is not because of the players that used them. It is the legacy that the rest of us have to deal with. As a result of their actions, I am forced to write articles like this one defending Jeff Bagwell because too many sportswriters in America are afraid every baseball player is the Boogieman. THAT'S what I hate the most.

The real losers in this whole situation are people like Jeff Bagwell. Unfortunately in this day and age where we have social networking, digital media, and a news station that somehow feels the need to proclaim themselves "fair and balanced," the sordid details of everyone's lives are out there for the world to see. What's worse is that people in the media will spin that information any way they want to. As a consequence the facts get lost in the shuffle and we end up with a ballot like we did on Thursday.

To all the writers who voted for Jeff Bagwell and didn't allow the court of public opinion and various news media outlets to cloud your judgement I say bravo. To the rest of you kangaroo court, morally relativistic, small minded producers of pseudo-intellectual sports pablum I saw good day.

And to "Bagpipes"? Don't sweat it Jeffy-boy, the votes, the votes will be calling you to the glen of Cooperstown someday.

Decision 2011: Blyleven and Alomar Elected to Hall of Fame

The Hall of Fame votes are in.  The 2011 Major League Baseball Hall of Fame inductees will be second baseman Roberto Alomar and starting pitcher Bert Blyleven.  It's been a long and winding road for both inductees.  Blyleven, as we all know, finally gets inducted on his fourteenth ballot.  Rich Lederer of Baseball Analysts, among others, deserves a ton of credit for spreading the word on Blyleven.  Without their tireless efforts, I'm not convinced we'd be talking about his election today.  All I can say is that after reading numerous pro-Blyleven articles (particularly by Lederer) over the ears, my view on the man with the devastating curveball changed forever.

For Alomar, he really should've been elected in his first year on the ballot.  The Hirschbeck spitting incident from 1996 was clearly the only reason he was kept out of the Hall last year.  What else would explain a 17% jump in voter approval?  Alomar, while somewhat overrated defensively, is one of the best offensive players to ever play second base.  His enshrinement solidifies his place in the top five second baseman of all time.

Here are the official results of the 2011 MLB Hall of Fame election.  This list only includes player that will received at least 5% of the total vote in order to maintain eligibility.

Roberto Alomar 523 (90.0%)
Bert Blyleven 463 (79.7%)
Barry Larkin 361 (62.1%)
Jack Morris 311 (53.5%)
Lee Smith 263 (45.3%)
Jeff Bagwell 242 (41.7%)
Tim Raines 218 (37.5%)
Edgar Martinez 191 (32.9%)
Alan Trammell 141 (24.3%)
Larry Walker 118 (20.3%)
Mark McGwire 115 (19.8%)
Fred McGriff 104 (17.9%)
Dave Parker 89 (15.3%)
Don Mattingly 79 (13.6%)
Dale Murphy 73 (12.6%)
Rafael Palmeiro 64 (11.0%)
Juan Gonzalez 30 (5.2%) 

Next year's Hall of Fame "rookie" class looks incredibly weak with Bernie Williams, Javy Lopez, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, and Scott Erickson heading the list.  As a result, I wouldn't be surprised to see Larkin, and possibly either Morris or Bagwell reach the required 75% of the votes required for induction.  After 2012, the competition gets much stiffer with Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Schilling, and Biggio all hitting the ballot for the first time.  Of course, most of those players (like a lot of those in the 2011 class) are surrounded with controversy regarding steroids, so it should be interesting to see how the electorate reacts next go-round.  Still, it seems if Larkin or Morris (especially) expect to be inducted, next year looks to be their chance.

Worst...Ballot...Ever

I've seen some terrible Hall of Fame ballots in my day, but this one...wow...I'm at a loss for words.  ESPN news editor Barry Stanton, who clearly doesn't follow baseball, somehow managed to get a vote.  Instead of voting for obvious Hall of Famers like Blyleven, Alomar, and Bagwell, he decided to make a mockery of the Hall of Fame process.  Well, either that, or the Hall of Fame ballot was presented in a vintage Florida style 2000 Presidential election butterfly ballot.  Was he channeling his inner 80 year old Dade County resident by voting for B.J Surhoff instead of Roberto Alomar?   That's really the only acceptable excuse as far as I'm concerned.   

Without further adieu, here's his Hall of Fame ballot:

Edgar Martinez (the only acceptable candidate on his ballot)
Jack Morris
Don Mattingly
Tino Martinez
B.J. Surhoff

You may now point, laugh, and mock.  Special thanks to Jason of IIATMS for putting together the grid of ESPN's Hall of Fame votes.

 

Hardball Talk's Craig Calcaterra asked the question, "Who is Barry Stanton?"  Check out the link to see what he dug up.  After reading his article, there are two words that come to mind, "plagiarizer" and "homer".

Hey HOF it is ok to be 100% in agreement sometimes

One of the things I find most annoying in life is people who do things just to be contrary. I'm all for individuality and expressing yourself whether it is based on religion, or fashion, or what have you. It is the people who are different that often change the world for the better. I can respect that.

What I can't respect are some the brain dead idiots that cast votes for the Hall of Fame every year. (And no I'm not talking about the moron editor for ESPN who just voted for B.J. Surhoff although he also is a brain dead idiot.) Specifically I'm talking about the people who refuse to vote ANYONE in on the first ballot no matter who they are. The person with the highest percentage ever to get into the Hall of Fame was Tom Seaver with a whopping 98.84% of the vote. Check out some of the following players who were not voted in with 100% of the vote:

Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle

I think that even if you are a casual baseball fan you can agree that there is absolutely no reason that these names don't deserve 100% of the vote. Now granted there are some writers that for whatever reason don't send in their votes. I'm not sure if that affects the voting percentage or not but in either case I think that those writers should have their voting rights taken away from them. Maybe it's not as important to you guys but it is very important to die hard baseball fans and it sure as hell is important to the players vying for the Hall of Fame.

Truth be told maybe I can give a pass once in a while for guys who forget to send in their vote. After all everyone makes mistakes or gets caught up in a family emergency. However, I cannot and will not excuse those writers who continue to not vote for anyone on the first ballot. Basically they are doing it just to be contrary or prove a point, although quite honestly whatever "point" they are trying to make I can't fathom. To me actions like this lend weight to the argument that writers should not be allowed at all to vote for the Hall of Fame. Personally I think it should be exclusively players.

So congratulations Greg Maddux! In January 2014 some writers will think that your 355 wins, 3.16 ERA, 3,371 Ks, and 18 Gold Gloves just aren't quite good enough to vote you in on the first ballot.

And they'll be wrong.

Should WS titles factor in to the HOF??

Increasingly an argument is being made that championships should be a factor when determining hall of fame status. More specifically, if a person is a borderline hall of famer, World Series championships should be a significant factor in the decision process.

The idea that whether or not a player possesses any World Series rings should help determine the legitimacy for the Hall of Fame is just preposterous. First of all championships, in any sport, are a team effort. Baseball isn't the Olympic high jump. A player is not an island. There are so many diverse components that make up a championship caliber team. One strong starting pitcher or one strong clean-up hitter isn't going to help you in October if you have no defense and no bullpen.

When you examine it from a team perspective, championships contributing to hall of fame status just isn't logical. Basically you are saying that if you don't get in it is the eight other players fault and vice versa.

I look at it from the perspective of one of our other contributors who wrote that dominance at the position, and during the era, should determine a player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. That is why I have such a problem with Kirby Puckett being in the Hall of Fame. I don't think you could really call Puckett dominant. In twelve seasons (a short career I might add) he only hit over a 100 RBI three times and hit over 30 HR once. Although he did have an OBP of .360 and a SLG of .477, he never reached 3000 hits and hit just barely over 200 HR. Furthermore, twelve seasons I think is way too short a career to be considered dominant. I honestly believe that if Puckett had never won two World Series and played well in those World Series, he would not be in the Hall of Fame today.

Even now people are trying to make the same argument to get Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame. Granted he won twenty games three times and had a career WHIP of 1.296, but he also has almost 200 losses and his career ERA is a paltry 3.9. Furthermore, he never won a Cy Young and never reached the 2500 mark in strikeouts. Yet because of his dominating performances in the World Series (particularly game seven in 1991) there is always constant talk of him getting into the Hall of Fame. Jack Morris was a very good player for a long time but he was never dominant.

Using championships as a measuring stick for the Hall of Fame should never be a factor even in a last ditch effort. If the deciding factor needs to be whether or not the person won a title, you probably shouldn't even be considering him for the Hall of Fame. That's why I, a Yankee fan, laugh when people think Jorge Posada should be a future Hall of Famer. What the catcher who couldn't throw anyone out at second and was a double play waiting to happen? Emmmm...that's not what I mean by dominant.

I wish I could cast a magical spell around the Hall of Fame committee that would prevent them from taking championships into account when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, I'm not in the dark room making the decisions and drinking the coffee.

Or the Kool-Aid for that matter.

My (Theoretical) Hall of Fame Ballot

Let me start out by saying that this isn’t how I planned on tackling the 2011 Hall of Fame election.  Originally, I’d planned on doing individual posts, both pro and con, on six or seven of the candidates.  After failing to complete three of the articles I had started, I decided to scrap that idea completely.  Instead, I’ve decided to touch upon each of my picks in one article.  Without further adieu, here is my 2011 Hall of Fame ballot.

Roberto Alomar - It’s baffling that Alomar didn’t make it into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.  While it was certainly wrong for Alomar to spit in umpire John Hirschbeck’s face, it’s unfortunate that certain members of the BBWAA felt the need to use their ballot as a means to pass moral judgment on a player who is more than deserving of enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.  Simply put, he was one of the best second baseman in baseball history.  He hit for average, got on base, showed decent power (especially later in his career), had blinding speed, above average range, and had a cannon for an arm.  His 68.2 fWAR is good for ninth best amongst second baseman during the modern era. 

Jeff Bagwell – Based on Fangraph’s WAR, Jeff Bagwell is the third best first baseman of all time behind only Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx.  (Note:  I removed Stan Musial and Pete Rose from that list because their primary positions were in the outfield.)  In fifteen seasons, he put up a triple slash line of .297/.408/.540, a .406 wOBA, and 449 home runs.  He wasn’t just great on with the stick, he was an excellent baserunner, and played Fielding Bible Award quality defense at first base.  Bagwell, unlike some of his contemporaries, has never been linked to steroids.  Still, that hasn’t stopped certain voters from leaving him off of their ballot due to irrational suspicions.  If there’s one (and only one) first baseman that deserves to be elected to the Hall of Fame this year, it’s Bagwell.  Take a look at this WAR graph from Fangraphs:

This graph plots Bagwell's WAR accumulation against Hall of Famers Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey, and sure-Hall of Famer Frank Thomas.  Note how Bagwell finished his career with a higher WAR than the three above named players despite having a much shorter career.  Still don't think he's a first ballot guy?

Bert Blyleven - I’ll be honest.  I can’t really do Blyleven justice.  Well, at least not like Rich Lederer of Baseball Analysts does.  Don’t think Blyleven is a worthy Hall of Famer?  Let’s take a look at the facts:

• He’s 13^th all time, sandwiched between Randy Johnson and Christy Matthewson, in WAR for pitchers with 90.1 wins above the replacement level.  Out of the 17 pitchers behind him (14-30), 12 are already in the Hall of Fame.  Four are either locks or strong candidates (Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, and Tom Glavine).  Only number 30, Rick Rueschel is not in the Hall of Fame.  Also, he finished in the top 10 in pitching WAR, 13 times during his career.  He led the league twice in 1973 and 1981.
• He’s fifth all time in strikeouts with 3701, just ahead of pitchers named Tom Seaver, Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Walter Johnson, and Greg Maddux.
• He’s ninth all time shutouts with 60.  Out of the top 25 all-time in shutouts only Luis Tiant is not in the Hall of Fame. 
• A pitchers number one job is to limit his opponents runs.  He did it better that just about everyone.  He’s 12^th all time in runs saved with 374. 
• His 287-250 record was largely influenced by playing on teams with mediocre offenses.  Blyleven has won AND lost the most 1-0 games since the end of the dead ball era.  His record would be much more appealing if his run support had been league average.  

 Blyleven's time is now.  It's time to drop the charade, and elect him into the Hall of Fame. 

Edgar Martinez –He’s typically hurt for two reasons:  (1) he was a late bloomer who didn’t become a regular in the major leagues until his age-27 season, and (2) he spent the majority of his career as a designated hitter.  Both of these “demerits” are unfair.  Unlike most players in his situation, he was able to overcome his disadvantages due to his immense hitting abilities. 

It’s a fact that Martinez was one of the greatest pure hitters of our generation.  For his career he finished with a .312/.418/.515 triple slash line, a .405 wOBA, and 71.6 fWAR.  Think about that for a second.  He finished with a 71.6 fWAR despite being at a HUGE positional disadvantage (-17.5 runs per 162 games).  In 12 seasons between 1990 and 2001, Martinez topped 4.7 fWAR in ten of them.  The only two seasons he did not top that total was in 1993 and 1994 when he suffered from injuries. 

Mark McGwire – As I’ve mentioned a few times over the last week, I’m not exactly a proponent of the “Character Clause”.  I don’t feel it’s the voters right to place a judgment of morality on another player—especially when the voter is not without flaws himself.  While McGwire has admitted to using steroids, one major question remains.  How much did steroids help his ability to not only hit home runs, but also perform at a high level late into his career?  Those are questions that I can’t answer.  Since I don’t have proof either way, I can only use the information I have at hand, and adjust those numbers for era, league, and park effects.

McGwire is one of the most prolific power hitters of all time having hit 583 (tenth all time) in his career.  In two seasons. he topped 60 home runs; in four, he topped 50; in six, he topped 40.  His .588 slugging percentage is good for eighth all time, and his .394 on-base percentage is good for 79^th all-time.  While McGwire did not accumulate many hits (only 1626 for his career), he was still able to reach base more than 3000 times (in 7660 plate appearances) due to his ability to draw walks (1317 unintentional plus an additional 150 intentional walks).  With 70.6 fWAR, McGwire is one of the best first basemen of all-time ranking 13^th among those who played the bulk of their career at the position.  Based on the numbers, he’s a no brainer selection.

Tim Raines - If Rickey Henderson had never played the game of baseball, Tim Raines would've been a first ballot Hall of Famer.  Raines had a few of things going for him.  One, he had blinding speed.  Two, he was an incredibly accurate base stealer, racking up 808 SBs (fifth all-time) in only 954 chances.   His 85% stolen base percentage is the best out all player with at least 200 attempts.  Three, he had tremendous on-base abilities (.385 career OBP).  This ability allowed Raines to reach base more often than Tony Gwynn.  This fact is often overlooked due to the number of hits and batting titles Gwynn racked up over the years.  Lastly, between 1983 and 1987, Raines was the best player in baseball having racked up a .318/.406/.467 triple slash line with 355 stolen bases and 33.5 fWAR.  Raines was a spectacular player (likely the second best leadoff hitter of all time) that deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

Rosenthal on Steroids, Hall of Fame

Ken Rosenthal is an incredibly smart, well respected baseball writer.  While he's by no means perfect, he's one of the best (if not the best) reporter around.  He researches his articles well, and usually digs up the most reliable of sources to corroborate his stories.  I guess this is why I was so irritated with his most recent article for Fox Sports titled "Steroids Change Game for Hall Voters."  Instead of being based in logical or rational reasoning, Rosenthal prefers to use innuendo, suspicion, and paranoia as his the cornerstones of his argument.

I picked a few passages from his argument that I wanted to comment on.  While I understand if most of you disagree with me (and that's fine--that's the joy of debate), I hope that you'll understand where I'm coming from.  Just to clarify, I do not condone steroid use in anyway. 

The Hall of Fame vote never was simple. Distinguishing between players from different generations never was apples-to-apples. But at least before steroids, the comparisons were baseball comparisons.

Now it’s, “Who did what? For how long? To what extent?” No one knows the answers. It’s likely that no one ever will. But if you believe, as I do, that the questions matter, you can’t help but be torn.

My first problem with Rosenthal's argument is his use of the word "believe."  Beliefs are not fact.  They're not based off of rationality or logic.  They're not truth.  Instead, beliefs are based on faith.  Faith is a flawed entity that exists solely because a person wants (not knows) something to be true.  Rosenthal believes the answers to those questions matter because he want to think they matter--not because they actually do matter.  Rather than doing the research to determine whether his hypothesis holds water, he chooses to make dangerous assumptions.  To him, and most other observers, it seems logical and obvious that steroids would improve a player's ability to hit more home runs.  The correlation between steroid use and home runs does exist.  While this certainly helps his argument, it does not prove it.  As I pointed out yesterday, correlation does not equal causation.  Steroids may have caused the spike in home runs, but it's also possible there could've other reasons contributing to the spike.  Factors like smaller ball parks, improvement in equipment, changes to the composition of baseballs, and/or evolution of strength and flexibility routines are all viable contributing factors, yet he's ignoring these favor in favor of the "silver bullet theory"--steroids.

I’m not comfortable wiping out almost an entire generation of players, not when the use of performance-enhancing drugs — while illegal in many cases without a prescription — was part of the game’s culture.

I’m also not comfortable ignoring the excesses of the era, not when the playing field was uneven. A certain baseball morality was violated. Users had an unfair, and undeniable, competitive advantage.

I'm also not comfortable with wiping out an entire generation of players.  It's both ridiculous and unfair.  That's why, if I had a vote, I would treat all players in the same manner.  We don't know which players did steroids, so I would treat everyone as if they had.  Then, I'd adjust their statistics for era and park factors accordingly.  Is it fair to the non-users of the era?  Maybe not.  But we don't have a way to prove who those non-users were.  Therefore, in the absence of proof, adjusting everyone's statistics is the most fair manner in which to handle the situation.

Furthermore, the playing field has always been uneven in baseball.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a line of distinction between so-called performance enhancing drugs and other forms of cheating like spitballs, corking bats, sign stealing, game fixing/betting, and using greenies for a little extra pep.  Cheating is cheating, and it's has long been part of the sports--not just baseball.  Steroids are just the next step.  Claiming that a "certain baseball morality has been violated" comes off as preachy and sanctimonious. 

Many sabermetricians, in particular, ignore this aspect of the discussion — heaven forbid anyone suggest that their sacred numbers aren’t pure. But the non-users were the true victims of the age.

Reputable SABR/stat guys always adjust statistics for era, league, and park factors.  While analysts might dispute the magnitude of the effect steroids had on the overall numbers during the steroid era, I doubt anyone would claim that the numbers of the era weren't largely overvalued.  It's a fact that hitting 40 home runs was not as valuable in 1999 as it was in 1968.  A 2.50 ERA is far more valuable in 2010 than it was 1918.  Baseball statisticians are aware of these realities more than anyone.

Let’s be clear: This is not a trial by jury. A voter does not need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a player used performance enhancers in determining his choice. The Hall, in fact, invites subjective views, instructing us to consider character, integrity and sportsmanship, as well as a player’s record, playing ability and contributions to the team(s) on which he played.

Rosenthal is right.  This is not a trial buy jury.  Sadly, a voter doesn't need to establish that a player is guilty of using PEDs beyond a reasonable doubt.  Still, this doesn't this make it right?  Should we be passing judgment on certain players based on body type and/or home run totals?  And why are we, as fans and baseball writers, inconsistent in who we decide is either guilty or innocent of this supposed crime  We are making judgments based on weak circumstantial evidence.  Isn't it a bigger crime to keep someone who didn't use steroids out of the Hall of Fame based on mere suspicion, rather than allow someone who did use steroids get inducted?

Yes, the Hall of Fame argument is largely a subjective one, even if objective measures are used.  Yes, the Hall instructs voters to consider character, integrity, and sportsmanship, in addition to on-field performance when casting their votes.  That still doesn't change in the inconsistent manner is which votes have been cast over the years with regards to the character clause.  Ty Cobb, who was a belligerent racist, was elected into the Hall of Fame despite having obvious character flaws.  Gaylord Perry, who openly championed his use of the illegal spitball, is allowed in despite breaking the moral bonds of sportsmanship.   Babe Ruth was a womanizer, cheater, and drunk.  Are these considered to be characteristics of morality and character?  Not to my knowledge!  That's my problem.  Members of the BBWAA have decided that certain aspects of character, morality, and cheating are acceptable, while others are not.  The rules of voting allow the writers to be the morality police, and that shouldn't be their role.  I can't speak for the writers, but I know that I'm certainly not without flaws.   As someone who isn't without flaws, should I really be casting stones at those who have less than savory morals?

Some voters choose to ignore the use of performance enhancers entirely, voting as if the drugs never existed. What they’re saying is, “We don’t know what exactly happened. We can only vote on what we do know.” It’s not an unreasonable viewpoint. But in the end it’s a cop out.

I don't think it is a cop out.  We don't know exactly what happened.  We don't know the true impact steroids had on each player.  We don't know who did or did not use steroids outside of a select few players.  How can anyone make an informed decision based on the facts when we only have a small percentage of the facts available?  It's impossible!  It's not a cop out if you look at the situation rationally.  That said, it's a cop out to assume you know all the answers, while passing moral judgments on players when you don't have all of the available facts. 


Some argue that players from previous eras used amphetamines; those drugs also were performance enhancers. I can’t dispute that. I just feel that steroids created a far greater imbalance. And in the end, a voter’s feelings on the matter, like a fan’s feelings, are personal.

Yes, I understand that you feel steroids had a greater impact on performance than amphetamines, but that's very different from knowing the truth.  Do you see the distinction?  You're making an assumption based on little to no evidence.  I feel that chocolate is better than vanilla, but does that make me right?  No, of course not.  It's an opinion--not a fact.

Furthermore, while I understand the feelings of a voter and fan are personal, maybe that's part of the problem.  You're allowing emotion to influence your vote, rather than rational thought.  Perhaps if you tried to remove your emotions from the process, your votes could become consistent and more objective, rather than purely subjective.


It’s not a matter of being sanctimonious; baseball writers — beat writers especially — are among the least sanctimonious people you will ever meet. It’s a matter, simply, of wanting to do the right thing.

Really?  Let me introduce you to Mike Lupica, Dan Shaughnessy, and Bill Plaschke.

We did not, as a group, do the right thing with our initial reporting on steroids in baseball. Most of us whiffed pretty badly and were rightly criticized for it.

I was among those who failed to properly recognize the problem. I feel a special obligation to pay particular attention to the issue, both in my writing and my Hall of Fame votes.

While I respect his humility in admitting for shortcomings during the steroid era, I don't feel it's appropriate for the writers to hold players accountable after the fact.  Baseball writers had their opportunity to blow the steroid story wide open during the late 1990s and early 2000s.  They chose not to.  Rather than do their job, and report the scandal that was supposedly destroying the sport, they chose to sit on the story out of fear of retribution.  Their lack of courage during that period is telling.  They're just as immoral of hiding the truth as those in the game were of using steroids.  

I think Craig Calcaterra said it best in one of his articles for Hardball Talk earlier today.  The steroid issue and the Hall of Fame have created a "McCarthy Era" type state in baseball where we "blackball" certain players as steroid users despite having little or no proof.  It's a very sad state of affairs.  Hopefully, something happens to change this state of affairs before too many lives become destroyed by BBWAA's witch hunt.  The future success of the Hall of Fame depends on it.

Jack Morris is Not Hall Worthy

There are a lot of arguments going back and forth regarding Jack Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy.  Personally, I'm against it.  The arguments for him being the best pitcher of the 1980s ring hollow to me considering the decade from 1980-1989 is pretty arbitrary.  Why not 1977-1986 or 1983-1992?  The 1980-1989 decade includes the tail ends of great careers by pitchers like Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, and Steve Carlton.  It also removes half of a decade of Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens performances.  If you expanded the ten year span to include 20-25 seasons, would Morris even make your top ten for best pitchers in baseball?  How about top fifteen?  He wouldn't make either of mine.

The arguments about him being a great postseason pitcher don't really ring true either because he was pretty underwhelming during the 1987 ALCS, and incredibly forgettable during the Blue Jays World Series run in 1992.  In fact, he was so bad during the playoffs in 1992, that I would go as far as saying they won the World Series in spite of his pitching performance.  In 1993, he was so ineffective during the regular season, the Jays left him off of their postseason roster entirely.  That's not exactly high praise for a pitcher that supposedly rose to the occasion in the playoffs.  Yes, Game 7 of the 1991 World Series was great, but you can't build a Hall of Fame case out of one game. 

If you're looking for a great analysis of Jack Morris's Hall of Fame case, I strongly suggest you read Dan Szymborski's case against his induction.  (Sorry, ESPN Insider only!)  It's outstanding, and doesn't include a lot of emotional rhetoric.  Hope you enjoy!

Bob Ryan on McGwire, Steroids, and the Hall of Fame

Bob Ryan posted his Hall of Fame column today.  While I don't agree with all of his decisions (voting for Jack Morris), I respect the process in which he made his decisions.  Within his piece, he posed a somewhat unique opinion on the topic of steroids and the Hall of Fame that I thought I'd share with you

I haven’t voted for Mark McGwire in the first four years he’s been on the ballot. I need to hear some serious contrition, but it has not been forthcoming. You call that stuff he was saying during last spring training a meaningful apology and/or explanation? I don’t. “It didn’t enhance performance’’? Stop it

(snip)

Let’s get back to Messrs. McGwire, Bonds, and Clemens for a moment. There is no unanimity of opinion about what to do with these guys. Some voters are of the opinion that if juiced pitchers were throwing to juiced batters, there’s nothing we can do about it now. The numbers are the numbers. Let ’em all in. As time goes on, more and more voters will think that way. And one day in the late teens, I may wake up and say, “You know what? Those guys are right.’’ I’m not ruling out that possibility.

I don't have any problem with Ryan's stance on McGwire.  While I think McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame, I understand his reasoning for not giving him his vote.  He's not saying he'll never vote for him, or other suspected or admitted steroid users; he's saying he wants some actual contrition before making that next step.  We can argue all day about whether or not going on 60 Minutes and giving a tear filled interview shows enough contrition, but some of his comments do show that perhaps he's not being completely honest with himself.  Ryan's point of view is logical and rational.  I can stand by that.  I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone that's open-minded about the possibility to voting for an admitted steroid user, rather than just shut the door and lock it forever.

Unfortunately, several members of the BBWAA don't view candidates of the steroid era in the same manner. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that steroids were the primary cause for the home run spike between 1994-2004 because I honestly don't know the answer.  I can tell you there appears to be a strong correlation between steroid use and power hitting, but that's as far as I can go.  Correlation does not prove causation, and I haven't seen indisputable data either proving or disproving the steroids hypothesis.  Sadly, there are plenty of journalists who prefer raw emotion to rational thought.  Those are the ones who use their Hall of Fame vote to cast moral judgment on players of their choosing without even a basic understanding of how PEDs may or may not have impacted the game of baseball. 

A couple of months back, I read a very interesting (and rather lengthy) study about how changes in the composition of major league quality baseballs may've have contributed to the spike in home runs during the steroid era.  This phenomenon isn't unique to the steroid era as it had happened a few times throughout baseball history including including the "Rabbit Ball" era of the 1920s. the 1977 season, and the 1987 season.  While this hypothesis doesn't disprove the steroid argument, it's convincing and certainly clouds the steroid argument with a shred of doubt.  The idea that steroid use helps improve a player's power output is conventional wisdom.  It's an obvious, logical answer to a complicated question or problem.  Frequently, conventional wisdom, once exposed for all of its flaws, is disproven to be nothing more than a hoax.  This may or may not happen with steroids and power output, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.  

Additionally, I find it to be laughable that people claim to "know" not only who did steroids, but also can measure the impact of PED use without doing a shred of research or objective analysis.  Outside of a few select players, we know very little about who did or didn't use performance enhancing drugs.  We also don't know how many warning track fly balls were converted to home runs as a result of steroid use.  That's impossible to know without a ton of research and statistical analysis.  Considering most fans and writers have a tough time grasping advanced statistics like WAR, wOBA, and UZR (through no fault of their own, mind you), I don't how they could possible "know" the answer to those questions. 

Furthermore, suspecting Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza of using PEDs, while assuming players like Derek Jeter and Ken Griffey, Jr. were clean is not nothing more than an exercise in moral masturbation.  (Note:  I'm not saying any of those players did steroids.  I'm only pointing out the inconsistencies in thought process.)  We don't know that for sure.  There wasn't testing prior to 2004, so why are we pretending to "know" something we actually do not know?  Because we, baseball fans and writers, are angry.  We have to direct our anger at someone.  Pointing fingers at bulky sluggers with high home run totals (like Bagwell and Piazza) is convenient.  Jeter and Griffey, on the other hand, are considered heros "who played the game the right way," and have a true "baseball player's body type."  It's possible they didn't do steroids--perhaps even likely.  But assuming there's no chance they used PEDs is foolish.

All I ask is that everyone keep an open mind regarding the impact steroids have had on the game of baseball.  There's still a huge knowledge gap between what we know, and what we don't know.  Making irrational judgments based on a few weak facts and characteristics is grossly unfair.  We need to wait until we have the full range of facts available to us before we pass judgment on someone we suspect of wrong doing.  If we're going to extend this courtesy to suspected voilent criminals, shouldn't we extend this same courtesy to suspected PED users?

Disclaimer: This is not About Steroids

When Corrye, Chip and I discussed who would write up each of the individual Hall of Fame candidates for the site, I used my first pick on Rafael Palmeiro. I will dismiss all suspense now by saying that my vote for Palmeiro is a NO vote. Per the disclaimer, this has absolutely nothing to do with Palmeiro's steroid use or comically stubborn performance in front of Congress. With the exception of three players, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, and Tony Gwynn, I basically have resigned myself to the possibility that all players have augmented their performance in some manner. I am excluding these three players based on body types that in no way jibe with the use of muscle building chemicals whatsoever. My opposition to Palmeiro is rooted in my opinion of what the Hall out to be, no more no less. I am a Small Hall person who believes that it ought to celebrate those who transcended their peers and their time period and posted truly dominant performances, regardless of how long their respective prime might last. I don't care about accumulated stats or benchmarks including 300 wins, 500 homers, or 3000 hits. Johnny Damon, assuming he can play 3 more years, will have posted a serious of quite impressive numbers (3000 hits, 100 triples, 500 doubles, 250 HR, and 400 stolen bases). However, can you remember any time in the past 20 years that you said to yourself that Johnny Damon was even one of the 20 best players you had seen that year. The same logic that applies to Damon applies to Palmeiro and that is why he receives my no vote.

Rafael Palmeiro's career statistics include 569 home runs, 1835 RBI, and 3020 hits. On face value alone, these numbers sound like the resume of a first ballot HOF. However, if we have learned anything worshipping at the altars of Bill James, Rob Neyer, and Dave Cameron, it is that all statistics have meaning only when placed into context. Palmeiro played during the single greatest offensive explosion the game has seen or is ever likely to see. For example, 15 of the 25 highest single season home run totals occurred during the 14 year period between 1997 and 2010. The question then becomes how does Palemeiro compare to those at his position during his playing career. There were literally hundreds of 1st baseman who played during Palmeiro's career for the sake of brevity I will restrict the comparison to those most likely to receive HOF consideration when their time comes. Rafe's competition for this exercise is Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, and Jim Thome. According to Fangraphs WAR metric, Bagwell is the 7th greatest 1B of all time, Thomas is the 11th, Palmeiro the 15th, and Thome the 17th (although Thome only trails Palemiro by 2 WAR and is rather likely to pass him by the end of this season). If we use Baseball-Reference's WAR calculation, which does not allow us to sort by position, Bagwell is the 57th best player, Thomas the 64th, Thome the 80th, and Palmeiro the 109th. Palmeiro comes in fourth despite the fact that he played as many, if not more, seasons than any player he was compared to in this exercise. The gap is even greater if we cherry pick each of the players 5 greatest seasons by Fangraphs WAR. Bagwell leads the pack with 38.2 WAR, Thomas is 2nd with 36 WAR, Thome is third with 32.2 WAR, and Palmeiro brings up the rear with 31.6 WAR. If we utilize the wRC+ metric from Fangraphs, we see a pronounced difference in the 4 players abilities as a hitter. Thomas is the 10th ranked 1B, Bagwell the 12th, Thome the 16th, and Palmeiro the 58th. This ranking actually places Palmeiro behind such legends of the games as John Kruk, Pedro Guerrero, and the Clark Brothers (Jack and Will). Palmeiro was an above average defensive player evidenced by his +52 fielding runs accumulated according to Fangraphs. This total placed him 2nd in this group behind Bagwell and in front of the defensive black holes that were Thome and Thomas. However, this gap is simply not large enough to cancel out the significantly greater offensive value offered by Bagwell, Thomas, and Thome. In the end, Palmeiro was the inferior player in this comparison.

Palmeiro is a good player who you could count on for 38 home runs almost every year during his prime, although this is somewhat attributable to positive park factors he received from playing in Texas and Baltimore. However, this is more to offensive value than hitting the long ball and as a complete player he was simply not as dominant a force as Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, and Jim Thome. If you cannot dominate your era, you are not a HOF in my book.

Roberto Alomar the Spitting Image of a HOF Player

When people discuss the great baseball players of all time most of them have that one defining moment that encapsulates him as a player. Carlton Fisk hitting the game 6 home run in the 1975 World Series, Kirby Puckett making a clutch catch and hitting a key home run in the 1991 World Series, or Joe Dimaggio hitting safely in 56 consecutive games are classic examples.

Unfortunately, sometimes the opposite is true. A player, no matter how great, is sometimes defined by an infamous incident. Think of how great defensive end Jim Marshall was, but all anyone ever seems to remember about him is the "wrong way" play. Ty Cobb was one of the best hitters ever but many still remember him as being a racist and sharpening his spikes to intentionally hurt shortstops when sliding into second.

Such is the case with Roberto Alomar. Despite being one of the best hitting second basemen ever to play he is most often remembered for "the spitting incident" which occurred on September 27, 1996. Stating that umpire John Hirschbeck uttered a racial slur against Alomar, the second baseman spit into Hirschbeck's face. The issue further escalated when Alomar claimed after the game that Hirschbeck was still bitter about his son dying of ALD. Subsequently Alomar and Hirschbeck reconciled and have since raised money for charity together.

Nevertheless the damage was done and I believe that is why Alomar wasn't a first ballot hall of famer last year. He was only eight votes shy last year garnering 73.7% of the vote. What a joke. The committee ought to be ashamed of themselves for not voting in Alomar on the first ballot.

Numbers don't lie when it comes to Alomar. Check it out:

--12 straight All-Star appearances

--10 Gold Gloves

--4 Silver Slugger Awards

--300 lifetime average

--2,724 hits,

--210 HR

--1,134 RBI

Additionally, Alomar rated an OBP of over 400 five times in his career and batted over 300 nine times. He was also a constant threat on the base pads throughout his career, stealing over 30 bases eight times and scoring over 100 runs 6 times. Add to that over 500 career doubles and 80 triples and you quite simply have one of the greatest hitting second basemen ever.

When you compare him to Cincinnati Red great Joe Morgan, Alomar's numbers are on par and in some instances better. Alomar has a higher lifetime batting average, more RBI, more Gold Gloves, and more doubles. Both have the same amount of World Series titles with an edge going to Morgan on the MVP awards. (Two to Alomar's none). Hell I rate Alomar better just because I haven't had to deal with him in the broadcast booth on ESPN in the last ten years.

In my opinion the verdict should already be in on this one. Alomar may have not been a class act but as a second baseman he was in a class by himself.

My Vote: An emphatic YES

Donny B It's Just Not Meant to Be

I know that the phrase "objective and unbiased Yankee fan" probably sounds like an oxymoron, but in my case it happens to be true. Even the founder of this blog has said that I'm the most rational and non-obnoxious Yankee fan he knows. Coming from a dyed in the wool Red Sox fan that means a lot.

It is with this sense of objectiveness that I can honestly approach the issue of whether or not Don Mattingly belongs in Cooperstown. Mattingly has had his share of supporters and detractors over the last ten years. There seems a kind of bizarre fondness when it comes to Mattingly on the part of Yankee and non-Yankee fans alike. Unfortunately, this attachment often times generates blinders larger than Donny Baseball's sideburns. However, sentiment cannot mask the fact that while Donald Arthur Mattingly was a very good baseball player he was never a lifelong elite baseball player.

On paper Mattingly's career statistics are strong. His lifetime batting average was .307, with 2153 hits, 1007 runs scored, 1099 RBI, and 442 doubles. What's even more impressive is that his 14 seasons he never struck out more than 43 times in a season. In 1985 he was voted the American League MVP. If you compare his numbers to Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett who played at the same time albeit at a different position, in many aspects Mattingly's stats are just as good if not better. Mattingly's career homeruns and RBI are higher than Puckett's and his OBP and SLG are on par as well. Donny Baseball also hit more doubles and Puckett never won an MVP award. (Totally off topic: I personally believe that Kirby Puckett has no business being in the HOF. Just because you win two World Series and make a great catch and a crucial homerun does not make you a Hall of Famer.)

There are some glaring problems with Mattingly's career that makes it difficult to argue in favor of his HOF worthiness however. He only hit 222 HR in his career which is pretty weak considering he played first base, a known power position. Furthermore in five of his fourteen seasons Mattingly failed to reach even double digits in homers. The Hit Man's patience at the plate left something to be desired as well. Throughout his entire stint with the Yankees he never walked more than 61 times in a season. Although he won nine gold gloves the award seemed to be more about reputation rather than skill as time went on.

From '84 to '88 Mattingly was an elite first baseman but afterwards his skills diminished considerably mostly due to injuries. Additionally his career WAR is 39.8 and he only had four seasons with a WAR of 5 or higher. Some could also argue that the fact he never won a championship hurts his chances. I'm not one of those people. To me championships should have nothing to do with whether or not a player gets into the HOF and in recent years this seems to be an annoying trend. But that's a topic for a different post.

Mattingly is one of these guys I classify as a tweener, someone who is just on the cusp of getting into the Hall of Fame. The problem is that it is the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Very Good. People can't vote based on what might have been, they have to go with what the reality is. Sorry Don Mattingly but having a sharp mustache and one MVP season does not get you into the Hall of Fame.

MY VOTE: NO