Baseball HOF

[geauxforbroke]

I'd like to think that, but if you take away the win numbers of those two, then aren't you basically talking about Jack Morris (254), Curt Schilling (216), and Mike Mussina (270)?  Their other numbers are all (fairly) comparable.  Maddux has a considerably lower ERA than all of the rest, (and Morris' is the highest) but they are all in the 3's and Glavine (3.54), Mussina(3.68) and Schilling(3.46) are all within 0.24.

Yep, and I think all of them are HOF worthy.

[Golfingdad]

Yep, and I think all of them are HOF worthy.

Me too! ;)

[billchao]

Completely agree.  I thought the writers learned something when they gave Felix Hernandez the AL Cy Young in 2010.  He had 13 wins, which was good enough for 18th in the AL.  But his ERA was almost a full run lower than CC Sabathias, he pitched almost 80 more innings than Clay Buckholz, and he also led the league in BA against.  I thought the dummies would still give it to Sabathia because he was the only one to break the magical 20-win barrier, but kudos to them for not doing that.

The BBWAA is weird. They gave the Cy Young to Hernandez in 2010 despite his wins (his advanced stats show he was clearly the best pitcher), yet in 2012 gave the MVP to Cabrera because he won the triple crown.

I don't disagree about Biggio. He's borderline HOF to me. I was thinking more about Glavine. As far as your example, it, like everything else, would just depend. If a pitcher had 3 great years, and struggled for the other 17 years of their career while bouncing around to whatever team would take him, then probably not HOF material.

I do feel that Glavine is HOF material. I also feel that Mussina and Schilling were better. I think Glavine got in mostly on those 305 wins, which as stated by others, is a poor way to evaluate a pitcher. If I remember correctly, he struggled mightily to get to 300. I think he would have been in the HOF even if he didn't get it.

Then again, we can't get too analytical with HOF voting. It's obviously a crap shoot anyway.

Yea, exactly. It's completely subjective.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I totally agree.  Is Dianabol the same thing as "greenies?"  (Nope, just googled it and the stuff you're talking about is a type of steroid and the stuff I'm talking about is basically speed)  They always talk about that stuff having been prevalent in baseball all throughout the 70's and 80's (and maybe 60's) yet nobody had a problem with that.  And nevermind the relative performance-enhancement caused by not allowing black players in the league for several decades.  These guys pretend like this little window of time was the only time people tried to gain an edge.

And for the record, I would assume that the "steroid era," as arbitrarily defined by these writers, is going to be circa 1998 through circa 2003.

.  Steroids and greenies just aren't the same.  Here's the home run leaders by decade:

 Duke Snider      1950     326
Harmon Killebrew 1960     393
 
  Willie Stargell  1970     296
 
 
  Mike Schmidt     1980     313
 
 
  Mark McGwire     1990     405
 
 
  Alex Rodriguez   2000     316
 

Really, he was that close. I never found him to be that impressive. He isn't even close to a .300 hitter. Though he does have 3000 hits. It just seem that impressive to me. He never stood out as someone who would be HOF worthy.

Longevity is definitely his strength.  But he was also a 7 time all star (i.e., best at his position in the entire league) and finished 4th, 5th, 10, 12th, and 16th in the MVP voting without being a home run hitter.

In looking at the whole list of voting, it seems like they might just pay a lot of attention to the "magic" numbers.  In Biggio's case, 3000 hits.  In Frank Thomas' case, 500 homers.  Maddux and Glavine both reached the magic 300 win number, whereas Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, and Mike Mussina did not.

Especially when you look at Glavine and Mussina.  Glavine had 91% of the votes and Mussina about 20%.  The difference is that Mussina retired at 39 and Glavine stuck around until he was 42.  Mussina won 20 in his age-39 season--if he stuck around for another 3 years he could have easily reached 300. So the difference between Mussina and Glavine is 3 crappy seasons at the end?  Otherwise they are pretty much identical.  Actually Mussina should get the edge because he didn't get to face a pitcher 3 times a day and pitched his entire career in a division that was historically strong, offensively.

If people are basing HOF based on wins, that is absurd. It is one of the most absurd stats to keep. Baseball is a team sport, that means the only stat that matters for wins is based on teams. The only time wins should be considered for a pitcher is they do a complete game. What if a reliever lets a few guys on base, and the closer saves the game. What if he didn't. Its crazy to say, Oh 300 wins is a benchmark when a lot of wins are outside the hands of the pitcher. Look at Felix Hernandez a few years ago. Had the best ERA in the AL, and won less than 15 games. He had so many games lost like 3 to 2, or 2 to 1. Believe me, I had him on my fantasy baseball team. He should have had 20+ wins if he was on a team with a slightly than better run scoring team. Should Felix be penalized by the HOF committee because his team couldn't produce runs.

One argument I heard in favor of using wins was that it demonstrates consistent success. A pitcher with 20 wins might not be any better than a pitcher with 19 wins, but to get to 300 you have to have been very good for a very long period of time.  So it might not demonstrate the glavine was better than Mussina, but it could still demonstrate that Glavine is HOF worthy and may be valuable when comparing him to Schilling.

So the voters do put too much weight into Wins, but its not as completely useless as some argue these days.

[iacas]

Just felt like it was a reasonable time to remind some of y'all of this thread… which is now dormant almost one year exactly… :D

[MS256]

.  Steroids and greenies just aren't the same.  Here's the home run leaders by decade:

For the record: Nobody said that steroids and greenies were the same. I was talking (and Golfingdad was asking until he Googled it) about Dianabol, which is a steroid.

No doubt steroid effectiveness along with enhanced training and diet effectiveness took athletes miles past the D-Bol days of the late 60s and early 70s. So the only arguments would be that D-Bol wasn't effective enough to count, or that it didn't exist.

Nobody would say that home run totals don't jump when players are juiced but it's also only one factor. Lowering the mound, tighter wound ball, more fastballs, smaller ballparks, and a general move across baseball toward what we used to call "the American League style of play", among other things also factor into homerun totals.

That's why trying to draw a line of demarcation as "the beginning of the steroid era" is impossible.

I used to watch Jack Clark hit ball after ball to the warning track in Busch Stadium that would have all been homeruns in the new ballpark, or even the old one once they moved the fence in. I often wonder how many homeruns he would hit today.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Steroids and greenies just aren't the same.  Here's the home run leaders by decade:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

For the record: Nobody said that steroids and greenies were the same. I was talking (and Golfingdad was asking until he Googled it) about Dianabol, which is a steroid.

No doubt steroid effectiveness along with enhanced training and diet effectiveness took athletes miles past the D-Bol days of the late 60s and early 70s. So the only arguments would be that D-Bol wasn't effective enough to count, or that it didn't exist.

Nobody would say that home run totals don't jump when players are juiced but it's also only one factor. Lowering the mound, tighter wound ball, more fastballs, smaller ballparks, and a general move across baseball toward what we used to call "the American League style of play", among other things also factor into homerun totals.

That's why trying to draw a line of demarcation as "the beginning of the steroid era" is impossible.

I used to watch Jack Clark hit ball after ball to the warning track in Busch Stadium that would have all been homeruns in the new ballpark, or even the old one once they moved the fence in. I often wonder how many homeruns he would hit today.

Yeah, they aren't the same, however it's just weird to me that we are so appalled by the steroid users, yet so OK with all other previous types of cheating.  Why?  Heck, Gaylord Perry was practically celebrated FOR his cheating, not in spite of it.

I also really like this article by Jayson Stark yesterday, specifically, this passage:

Quote:

Not that any of that was a huge surprise. But shouldn't we be looking at the continued exile of those men, and the magnitude of what they achieved, and asking this momentous question:

What kind of Hall of Fame is this?

Is this the Hall of Fame we want to see shining in the Cooperstown sun 100 years from now?

Is this what we want -- a Hall that attempts to pretend that players who just happen to hold some of the greatest records in the entire record book are now invisible to the naked eye?

If we do -- if that's what we really want -- OK, fine. But I, personally, am really uncomfortable with that. I know I'm not alone.

And I hope the people who run this sport and the people who run the Hall understand that one of these years, they're going to have to explain what happened in the PED era somehow. No matter which trail through the wilderness they blaze.

[dsc123]

For the record: Nobody said that steroids and greenies were the same. I was talking (and Golfingdad was asking until he Googled it) about Dianabol, which is a steroid.

I was responding more to the idea that juicers should be allowed in because it wasn't the only time in history that was marked by some form of cheating.  Steroids are simply not comparable.

Nobody would say that home run totals don't jump when players are juiced but it's also only one factor. Lowering the mound, tighter wound ball, more fastballs, smaller ballparks, and a general move across baseball toward what we used to call "the American League style of play", among other things also factor into homerun totals.

That's why trying to draw a line of demarcation as "the beginning of the steroid era" is impossible.

Maybe not exactly, but you can come pretty close.  And since HOF careers span 15-20 years, being off by a year or two doesn't make a difference.  From 1989-1993 there was 1 home run per 0.82 games.  In 1994 it jumped to 1.11 hr/g.  From 1994-2006 it was 1.12 hr/g.  In 2006 you had a couple 50 game suspensions for the first time.  In 2007 it feel to 0.99 and has been 1.03 from 2007-2013.  So home runs jumped about 36% in one year, and stayed there until 2006, when they dropped by about 10%.   I'd say its 1994-2006. This site says its 1992-2006.  HOF careers aren't made on the years 1992 and 1993 alone, so it doesn't really make a difference.

The mound was lowered in 1969.  I think the small parks started long ago, too.  I think the last change to the ball itself was in the 70s.   American league play, weight lifting, nutrition, etc. could all be factors, but that ignores the 10% drop as soon as the 50 game bans went into effect.  Its not like players stopped lifting weights in 2007.

[dsc123]

I also really like this article by Jayson Stark yesterday, specifically, this passage:

I rarely agree with anything Jayson Stark writes but I really take issue with this:  " Is this what we want -- a Hall that attempts to pretend that players who just happen to hold some of the greatest records in the entire record book are now invisible to the naked eye?"

The Hall of Fame is not a record book.  The record book shows Bonds as the All time HR leader and single season leader.  Excluding them from the hall of fame is not pretending that they don't exist.  Its refusing to celebrate and bestow honor upon them because they achieved it by cheating.  Pete Rose isn't invisible, nor is Shoeless Joe.

Why is it desirable to celebrate people who destroyed the greatest records in the entire record book by cheating?  Do we celebrate the achievements of Lance Armstrong or do we scoff at him for being a cheat?  Do we celebrate the money Madoff made?  Of course not.  We don't celebrate people who achieve success by ignoring the laws we are all bound by.

Pretending would be honoring a guy whose achievements were the results of cheating.  I'd rather explain to my kid that the home run king doesn't have a plaque in cooperstown because he cheated to get all those home runs then to show him the plaque as the greatest home run hitter and pretend this never happened.  Whose pretending?

[Golfingdad]

I was responding more to the idea that juicers should be allowed in because it wasn't the only time in history that was marked by some form of cheating.  Steroids are simply not comparable.

Well, this is where we'll have to disagree.  I think they are exactly the same ... in that they are illegal drugs that major league baseball didn't seem to mind their players using, since it seemed to be good for the game at the time.

[Golfingdad]

I rarely agree with anything Jayson Stark writes but I really take issue with this:  "Is this what we want -- a Hall that attempts to pretend that players who just happen to hold some of the greatest records in the entire record book are now invisible to the naked eye?"

The Hall of Fame is not a record book.  The record book shows Bonds as the All time HR leader and single season leader.  Excluding them from the hall of fame is not pretending that they don't exist.  Its refusing to celebrate and bestow honor upon them because they achieved it by cheating.  Pete Rose isn't invisible, nor is Shoeless Joe.

The Hall of Fame is a museum.  Pretending like they don't exist is just weird to me.  I'd prefer they get in, and have it noted on their plaques that they were steroid users or whatever.

Pretending would be honoring a guy whose achievements were the results of cheating.  I'd rather explain to my kid that the home run king doesn't have a plaque in cooperstown because he cheated to get all those home runs then to show him the plaque as the greatest home run hitter and pretend this never happened.  Whose pretending?

Like, say, Gaylord Perry?  How do you explain that one to your kid?  And wasn't Ty Cobb the guy who liked to file his spikes to points so he could injure second basemen when he broke up double plays?

[geauxforbroke]

Well, this is where we'll have to disagree.  I think they are exactly the same ... in that they are illegal drugs that major league baseball didn't seem to mind their players using, since it seemed to be good for the game at the time.

Think about how wrapped up the whole country was during the 1998 season when McGwire and Sosa were battling it out for the single season record. If the league got indisputable evidence that they were using steroids during the last month of the season, do you think they would have blown the whole thing up? Of course not. Baseball is so unbelievably hypocritical: steroids are evil and must be banned from the game, unless they bring in more viewers and result in greater revenues.

I think if things don't change, in 20 years baseball will be about as important on the national stage as the WNBA.

[dsc123]

Well, this is where we'll have to disagree.  I think they are exactly the same ... in that they are illegal drugs that major league baseball didn't seem to mind their players using, since it seemed to be good for the game at the time.

But even if you think that they are equal because they both involve breaking the law, why does that mean they should be inducted?  I don't understand the logic that says that because someone broke a rule once and got into the hall of fame, the hall of fame cannot exclude people who break that rule in the future.  Why is the crime keeping Bonds out rather than letting the guy that used greenies in?  Why let history's black eye prevent future progress?

Second, you make a point that I hear a lot--that MLB was complicit.  But why does it matter whether the Commissioner or the Owners made money off the player's cheating ways?  Why does MLB have to be innocent for the fans or the hall of fame to punish the player?  The player cheated and MLB was complicit.  Why does that mean the fans and the players have to be complicit?

[dsc123]

The Hall of Fame is a museum.  Pretending like they don't exist is just weird to me.  I'd prefer they get in, and have it noted on their plaques that they were steroid users or whatever.

Like, say, Gaylord Perry?  How do you explain that one to your kid?  And wasn't Ty Cobb the guy who liked to file his spikes to points so he could injure second basemen when he broke up double plays?

But they're not pretending they don't exist any more than they are pretending Jack Morris doesn't exist.  They're just not celebrating their achievements.

Doctoring the baseball is not the same as steroids.  That's why one is punishable by a 5 game ban and the other 50 games through lifetime ban.  They're not the same.  Ty Cobb sharpening his spikes probably makes him a bad person, but it also probably didn't add 100 home runs to his career.

[MS256]

Maybe not exactly, but you can come pretty close.  And since HOF careers span 15-20 years, being off by a year or two doesn't make a difference.  From 1989-1993 there was 1 home run per 0.82 games.  In 1994 it jumped to 1.11 hr/g.  From 1994-2006 it was 1.12 hr/g.  In 2006 you had a couple 50 game suspensions for the first time.  In 2007 it feel to 0.99 and has been 1.03 from 2007-2013.  So home runs jumped about 36% in one year, and stayed there until 2006, when they dropped by about 10%.   I'd say its 1994-2006.  This site says its 1992-2006.  HOF careers aren't made on the years 1992 and 1993 alone, so it doesn't really make a difference.

The mound was lowered in 1969.  I think the small parks started long ago, too.  I think the last change to the ball itself was in the 70s.   American league play, weight lifting, nutrition, etc. could all be factors, but that ignores the 10% drop as soon as the 50 game bans went into effect.  Its not like players stopped lifting weights in 2007.

Obviously not, unless you actually believe that people before the 90s didn't use steroids. For me it's not a matter of my opinion that they used Dianabol. I saw them, and in one case (before I even knew there was anything wrong with it) was even jealous of them because I couldn't afford it and had to compete with them.

Ballparks have been getting progressively smaller. Each time a new park is built it's easier to hit home runs. Even in bigger parks fences were brought in so they might attract a homerun hitting free-agent. That has been more responsible than anything else for the shift to American League style of play for all teams, and is no small factor in home run totals.

Gone are the National League teams of the early 80s and before where the main objective was to get on first, steal second (while the hitter was expected to lay off of that fastball right down the middle), hit a ground ball to the right side, and sacrifice fly the guy home. Never again will you see hitters expected to always take the first strike down the middle when trailing by more than a homerun will produce in the last inning.

Shorter fences swung the odds in favor of the home run and the big inning over "small ball". Shorter fences also turned the former punch and Judy warning track guy into a home run possibility. Shorter fences gave incentive to that small ball player to get stronger to have a spot in the evolving game, and to front office personnel to draft the power hitter over the punch and Judy hitter with speed.

From my comments it may sound like I'm defending steroid use or saying it doesn't increase performance. I know all to well that it increases performance dramatically and I absolutely hate people gaining an unfair advantage. My only point is that it can't be determined when it started.

[Golfingdad]

But they're not pretending they don't exist any more than they are pretending Jack Morris doesn't exist.  They're just not celebrating their achievements.

Doctoring the baseball is not the same as steroids.  That's why one is punishable by a 5 game ban and the other 50 games through lifetime ban.  They're not the same.  Ty Cobb sharpening his spikes probably makes him a bad person, but it also probably didn't add 100 home runs to his career.

OK, but are we talking about punishing them because they cheated, or punishing them because of the numbers created by their cheating?  Because if it's just about the fact that they broke the rules, then we've got a double standard because we have lots of known cheaters in the hall already.  But if its just about the numbers gained due to the cheating then fine ... keep McGwire and Sosa out, but Bonds and Clemens were shoo-ins prior to the steroid usage, so shouldn't they deserve to be in for that?

EDIT:  Wow ... there is a whole website devoted to only this topic: http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

[jamo]

.  Steroids and greenies just aren't the same.  Here's the home run leaders by decade:

In a way, amphetamines are worse. You have to work HARD to see the result of any steroid. All you have to do is swallow a pill to see the advantages of amphetamines.

[dsc123]

OK, but are we talking about punishing them because they cheated, or punishing them because of the numbers created by their cheating?

I think its both--their numbers, i.e., qualifications for the HOF are tainted, and because they are "bad."

Because if it's just about the fact that they broke the rules, then we've got a double standard because we have lots of known cheaters in the hall already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But if its just about the numbers gained due to the cheating then fine ... keep McGwire and Sosa out, but Bonds and Clemens were shoo-ins prior to the steroid usage, so shouldn't they deserve to be in for that?

Well, like I said I think its both.  I think the HOF is not something where if you accomplish x you are entitled to induction.  I don't think players who brought such disgrace to the sport should be elected.

But for fun, if it were just about the numbers...Bonds is easy because we know that he started juicing in 1998.  So you can look and see that his 374 HRs (less than half his career total!), 417 SB and .288/.408./.551 up to that point would have made a very good case.  What do you put on his plaque?  3 time MVP or 7? Do you write that he hit 374 legitimate home runs and another 398 after injecting himself with steroids?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

Obviously not, unless you actually believe that people before the 90s didn't use steroids. For me it's not a matter of my opinion that they used Dianabol. I saw them, and in one case (before I even knew there was anything wrong with it) was even jealous of them because I couldn't afford it and had to compete with them.

From my comments it may sound like I'm defending steroid use or saying it doesn't increase performance. I know all to well that it increases performance dramatically and I absolutely hate people gaining an unfair advantage. My only point is that it can't be determined when it started.

Huh?

The "steroids era" is the time when steroids were prevalent.  The existence of a steroid outside that period does not invalidate the concept. The Swing Era was 1935-1946--that doesn't mean no band has played a swing song before or after that time.

But more importantly, unless we're talking about the guys who refuse to vote from anyone from the "steroids era", what does it matter when the era began?  Most voters are excluding the guys who are "known" to have juiced.  So why would a couple of guys using steroids in 1983 have any effect on whether Barry Bonds should be admitted to the HOF?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

Ballparks have been getting progressively smaller. Each time a new park is built it's easier to hit home runs. Even in bigger parks fences were brought in so they might attract a homerun hitting free-agent. That has been more responsible than anything else for the shift to American League style of play for all teams, and is no small factor in home run totals.

How much smaller have stadiums gotten?  7 teams are playing in the same stadium they did before 1990.  8 counting the yankees whose new stadium has the same dimensions since the 70s.  The mets play in a bigger stadium than they did in the 80s.  So do the Padres and Mariners.  The Tigers CF is 20 feet shorter but the rest of the stadium is bigger.  ATT is bigger than candlestick in most places.   Miller park is bigger than Milwaukee County stadium.  PNC is almost identical to Three rivers in size.  The current Busch Stadium is slightly bigger than the last.  The Reds moved the fences in about 5 feet.  Minute maid is shorter in left but 30 feet bigger in center.  Texas' stadium is almost identical.  Those aren't the only ones, just the ones I checked because they're the newer stadiums. http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Dimensions.html

Sure, stadiums are smaller today than in the 20s but if we're comparing 1994-2006 to the 80s, there really hasn't been a major shift.  How many new stadiums opened in 1994 when the home run rate jumped 35%?  Answer: 2.  And one was Texas, which was identical in dimensions to its predecessor.  Jacbos field did not cause home runs league wide to jump 35%.

I think the shift to smaller stadiums was in the 70s.

Gone are the National League teams of the early 80s and before where the main objective was to get on first, steal second (while the hitter was expected to lay off of that fastball right down the middle), hit a ground ball to the right side, and sacrifice fly the guy home. Never again will you see hitters expected to always take the first strike down the middle when trailing by more than a homerun will produce in the last inning.

Shorter fences swung the odds in favor of the home run and the big inning over "small ball". Shorter fences also turned the former punch and Judy warning track guy into a home run possibility. Shorter fences gave incentive to that small ball player to get stronger to have a spot in the evolving game, and to front office personnel to draft the power hitter over the punch and Judy hitter with speed.

This argument completely falls apart when you consider what happened after 2006.  Home runs dropped 10%.  Not gradually.  In one year.  And roughly stayed there.  Its not like there was some resurgence of small ball the past couple of years.