Showing posts with label hall of fame voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hall of fame voting. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
A Few Things On Which Murray Chass and I Agree
My dislike for baseball writer Murray Chass is now well-known. It started in 1997, when I asked him if steroids were a big part of baseball and he dismissed me with a sneer. Now Chass is taking my position (a position I have grown into) steroids users should not be in the Hall of Fame. He also agrees that he shouldn’t have a vote, he’s giving his up. But not before he casts one – or two – defiant votes in favor of Jack Morris.
Let’s start with the steroid users. I’ve made a minor adjustment in my position and I would seek to ban all steroid users from the Hall of Fame. I admit that’s is hard-line, and my strict adherence to this principle may end up being capricious and unfair but it’s better than any other way of voting.
Some voters just say let everyone in, forget steroids, just judge based on performance whether it was steroid-aided or not. I can’t stomach that.
Others say vote in the guys who would have been Hall of Famers based on their pre-steroid performance.
Others want to punish anyone linked to steroids but not cast aspersions on those whose names (if not their bodies) have remained clean.
Here’s why I feel so absolute: It’s impossible to know when players started taking steroids. They’re liars, we can’t believe them. It’s impossible to know how their careers would have turned out fir not for steroids keeping them healthy and prolonging their primes.
It’s not fair to allow those who didn’t get caught or admit it while other better players who did the same thing got left out. If anything, we should let in the admitted users, in hopes to smoke everyone out and to get a better understanding of what exactly went on.
Please don’t tell me: players in the 50s and 60s were using amphetamines. It’s not even close to being the same thing in terms of effect on performance.
Steroids weren’t against the rules. Yes they were. They were against the law. Using illicit drugs was against baseball’s rules. Failure to enforce those rules is shameful, but it doesn’t absolve the rule breakers.
So here’s what I’ve got: Bonds and Clemens are out because they’re known steroids users.
Palmeiro and Manny are out because they failed tests.
Sosa, Bagwell and Piazza are out because of serious suspicions about them. I put Craig Biggio in that group too.
So that could result in an entire era of players, stars from the 90s and 00s, pretty much wiped out of the Hall. I’m ok with that. Hopefully a new breed of stars like Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and Buster Posey will fill those vacancies in the Hall and in our hearts.
Now, if I had a ballot for this year I would cast one vote: for Tim Raines. He was one of the greatest players at his position during his time period. No he wasn’t Rickey Henderson but he was close enough that he warrants induction as well.
I would never vote for Jack Morris. His 3.90 ERA would be one of the worst of any pitcher in the Hall. His career ERA+ (adjusted for park and run-scoring environment) of 105 means he was barely an above-average pitcher. Yes he had a few great postseason games which is nice, but not enough to elevate an above-average pitcher to greatness.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Whom Would You Vote For?
I always get worked up over Hall of Fame voting, especially baseball, even though I say I won't. This year there are a lot of interesting candidates. I don't want to analyze stats on them, just give a quick reaction to them:
Roberto Alomar - YES, best at his position during his era.
Jeff Bagwell - YES, phenenomenal offensive stats. His numbers hold up compared to players over other generations even when adjusted for era. I am pretty sure he was juiced but since his name has never even come up, even I find that hard to hold against him.
Bert Blyleven - NO, good pitcher for a long time, never great, too many negative stats.
Juan Gonzalez - NO, really good for too short a time, and an obvious steroid user.
Barry Larkin - YES, he wasn't quite Cal Ripken but he was second best shortstop during his playing career and that includes an MVP award -- rare for a shortstop.
Edgar Martinez - YES, his offensive stats are beyond compare. If you aren't going to allow designated hitters into the the Hall now matter how good they are, then you shouldn't have the designated hitter. Closers get in, and they only pitch one inning.
Mark McGwire - NO, a marginal Hall of Famer otherwise, but now that we know he cheated, I say no way
Rafael Palmeiro - NO, the only one of these guys actually caught by the testing. It would be impossible to keep someone with his numbers out of the Hall if not for the steroids.
Larry Walker - YES, but for purely selfish reasons
Here's the big problem with how I voted and the way many real Hall of Fame voters are voting: if you keep out known steroid users, what happens if someone you voted in, whom you had no prior reason to suspect of steroid use, later admits usage, do you revoke their induction?
Roberto Alomar - YES, best at his position during his era.
Jeff Bagwell - YES, phenenomenal offensive stats. His numbers hold up compared to players over other generations even when adjusted for era. I am pretty sure he was juiced but since his name has never even come up, even I find that hard to hold against him.
Bert Blyleven - NO, good pitcher for a long time, never great, too many negative stats.
Juan Gonzalez - NO, really good for too short a time, and an obvious steroid user.
Barry Larkin - YES, he wasn't quite Cal Ripken but he was second best shortstop during his playing career and that includes an MVP award -- rare for a shortstop.
Edgar Martinez - YES, his offensive stats are beyond compare. If you aren't going to allow designated hitters into the the Hall now matter how good they are, then you shouldn't have the designated hitter. Closers get in, and they only pitch one inning.
Mark McGwire - NO, a marginal Hall of Famer otherwise, but now that we know he cheated, I say no way
Rafael Palmeiro - NO, the only one of these guys actually caught by the testing. It would be impossible to keep someone with his numbers out of the Hall if not for the steroids.
Larry Walker - YES, but for purely selfish reasons
Here's the big problem with how I voted and the way many real Hall of Fame voters are voting: if you keep out known steroid users, what happens if someone you voted in, whom you had no prior reason to suspect of steroid use, later admits usage, do you revoke their induction?
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Murray Chass is a Fuckin Moron
I have written before about my hatred for New York Times baseball writer Murray Chass. Now the old fool, who is somehow in the Hall of Fame, has embarrassed himself again.
In a recent article Chass ripped Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci for voting against former union leader Marvin Miller for the Hall of Fame.
Only problem is, Verducci voted for Miller. Chass was fed some bad info by Miller himself who was passing along hearsay about who may have voted against him.
Verducci returns fire, repeatedly referring to Chass as “the blogger.” This actually confused me when I was reading it, thinking he was referring to someone else because surely he would use “Chass” on second reference.
But apparently Chass hates bloggers (like all old-school (read: dead) media types) so this insult is likely to cut Chass to the core.
But beyond the petty dispute between sportswriters, and my ongoing hatred for Murray Chass, let me make a quick remark about Marvin Miller.
I do not think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. In order for a non-player to make it, I think his contributions have to be undeniable and his legacy untainted.
Miller was integral in creating free agency, a major victory for the players and for fairness. His biggest legacy is the strong labor union.
The downside of that: the players’ strike of 1994 which led to the cancelation of the World Series, the Steroid Era which occurred in large part because of the union’s resistance to steroid testing and the lack of a salary cap which led to an unbelievable salary imbalance causing the near-death of baseball in about ten markets.
With all those negatives on his legacy there is no way Marvin Miller deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
And neither does Murray Chass.
In a recent article Chass ripped Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci for voting against former union leader Marvin Miller for the Hall of Fame.
Only problem is, Verducci voted for Miller. Chass was fed some bad info by Miller himself who was passing along hearsay about who may have voted against him.
Verducci returns fire, repeatedly referring to Chass as “the blogger.” This actually confused me when I was reading it, thinking he was referring to someone else because surely he would use “Chass” on second reference.
But apparently Chass hates bloggers (like all old-school (read: dead) media types) so this insult is likely to cut Chass to the core.
But beyond the petty dispute between sportswriters, and my ongoing hatred for Murray Chass, let me make a quick remark about Marvin Miller.
I do not think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. In order for a non-player to make it, I think his contributions have to be undeniable and his legacy untainted.
Miller was integral in creating free agency, a major victory for the players and for fairness. His biggest legacy is the strong labor union.
The downside of that: the players’ strike of 1994 which led to the cancelation of the World Series, the Steroid Era which occurred in large part because of the union’s resistance to steroid testing and the lack of a salary cap which led to an unbelievable salary imbalance causing the near-death of baseball in about ten markets.
With all those negatives on his legacy there is no way Marvin Miller deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
And neither does Murray Chass.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Why Pete Rose Will Never Make the Hall of Fame
During the investigation into Pete Rose's gambling Major League Baseball found evidence, or had a strong indication that Rose got in too deep with gamblers and the only way to get out was to fix a game.
That's when Commissioner Bart Giamatti called Rose into his office and decided it would be too damaging for the game if this got out.
So he offered Rose a deal, keep quiet, accept a lifetime ban, apply for reinstatement in year and Giamatti probably assured Rose he would reinstate him.
Unfortunately for Rose, Giamatti died before he could live up to his end of the bargain, and his successors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig, have too much respect for Giamatti to go against what they believed were his wishes.
That’s my theory, but assuming I am wrong about Rose fixing a game (or more than one) there are still a lot of other reasons to keep him out.
1) He lied about not betting on baseball for 14 years. Then he admitted he did bet on games, and on the Reds, and eventually said he bet on the Reds to win every night. But how can we believe him. The fear of another shoe dropping is definitely part of the reason for his Hall of Fame exclusion.
2) He knew the rules, and he knew the punishment, yet he still committed the crime. If you go to live in a Middle Eastern country and you know they chop your hand off for stealing, then you steal something, you deserve to have your hand cut off, even though I think that punishment is too severe. In this case I think the punishment is just right.
3) The Baseball Hall of Fame is not directly run by Major League Baseball. The Hall has a rule not to consider players for inclusion if they are on baseball's banned list. It is very unlikely baseball will ever remove his ban and allow him to become a coach or manager, so unless the Hall changes its rules he'll never be eligible for induction.
Note: Pete Rose says he will never see a Paul Giamatti movie. He says he and Bart Giamatti (father of actor Paul) agreed not to discuss their meeting and he felt betrayed when Giamatti came out with the now famous speech:
"The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is the sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game's greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game."
That's when Commissioner Bart Giamatti called Rose into his office and decided it would be too damaging for the game if this got out.
So he offered Rose a deal, keep quiet, accept a lifetime ban, apply for reinstatement in year and Giamatti probably assured Rose he would reinstate him.
Unfortunately for Rose, Giamatti died before he could live up to his end of the bargain, and his successors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig, have too much respect for Giamatti to go against what they believed were his wishes.
That’s my theory, but assuming I am wrong about Rose fixing a game (or more than one) there are still a lot of other reasons to keep him out.
1) He lied about not betting on baseball for 14 years. Then he admitted he did bet on games, and on the Reds, and eventually said he bet on the Reds to win every night. But how can we believe him. The fear of another shoe dropping is definitely part of the reason for his Hall of Fame exclusion.
2) He knew the rules, and he knew the punishment, yet he still committed the crime. If you go to live in a Middle Eastern country and you know they chop your hand off for stealing, then you steal something, you deserve to have your hand cut off, even though I think that punishment is too severe. In this case I think the punishment is just right.
3) The Baseball Hall of Fame is not directly run by Major League Baseball. The Hall has a rule not to consider players for inclusion if they are on baseball's banned list. It is very unlikely baseball will ever remove his ban and allow him to become a coach or manager, so unless the Hall changes its rules he'll never be eligible for induction.
Note: Pete Rose says he will never see a Paul Giamatti movie. He says he and Bart Giamatti (father of actor Paul) agreed not to discuss their meeting and he felt betrayed when Giamatti came out with the now famous speech:
"The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is the sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game's greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game."
Why Do I Let Myself Get So Worked Up Over Hall of Fame Voting?
The recent induction of Andre Dawson to the Hall of Fame accomplished one thing: it made the induction of Jim Rice not seem so bad.
About the only thing Dawson has going for him is his rare standing as one of the few players with 400 homers and 300 stolen bases. But because counting statistics are so often misleading you should look at the averages, and almost all of Dawson’s are terrible.
His .279 lifetime batting average is one of the lowest in the Hall of Fame and it’s almost Mazeroski-ish when you consider Dawson was an outfielder. I’ve always said batting average is an overrated statistic so let’s look at something that really matters: on base percentage. Specifically, that’s the ability of a hitter to not make an out, a pretty important thing in baseball. He has a lifetime OBP of .323. That’s terrible, also one of the lowest among Hall of Famers. Even his OPS is well below-average.
I think what really drives me nuts is when people get in the Hall of Fame just because they’re not that much worse than someone who is already in. Never was Andre Dawson one of the best players in the game for more than a couple seasons at a time, and none of his stats (other than homers and stolen bases) measure up to the greats of the game.
Even more galling than Dawson’s inclusion is the exclusion of Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez.
Believe it or not, Raines actually has a higher career OPS than Dawson, he had more top seasons than Dawson and is superior to him in almost every area except for home runs and RBI.
And against Edgar Martinez it’s not even close.
For this we’ll use a stat called OPS+ which compares players to the league average and therefore adjusts for differences between eras. 100 is essentially league average, 150 is great. Dawson’s best year was 157, Edgar had 157 once too, was above it 6 other times, including a sick 185 in 1995..
I know the knock on Edgar is that he was mostly a DH, but if you are going to have a position you can’t just exclude everyone who plays it (though the NFL does it with punters). As long as there is a DH in baseball Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall.
And a quick note on the two most prominent pitchers on the ballot. Bert Blyleven doesn’t deserve to get in because he has a lot of negative stats (losses and home runs allowed) and the numbers in his favor (wins and strikeouts) are somewhat inflated by his long career. He never had that many great individual seasons as evidenced by how seldom he received Cy Young votes.
I used to be in favor of Jack Morris getting in because he was one of the top pitchers of the 1980s, until I read that if he did get in, he’d have the highest career ERA in the Hall.
About the only thing Dawson has going for him is his rare standing as one of the few players with 400 homers and 300 stolen bases. But because counting statistics are so often misleading you should look at the averages, and almost all of Dawson’s are terrible.
His .279 lifetime batting average is one of the lowest in the Hall of Fame and it’s almost Mazeroski-ish when you consider Dawson was an outfielder. I’ve always said batting average is an overrated statistic so let’s look at something that really matters: on base percentage. Specifically, that’s the ability of a hitter to not make an out, a pretty important thing in baseball. He has a lifetime OBP of .323. That’s terrible, also one of the lowest among Hall of Famers. Even his OPS is well below-average.
I think what really drives me nuts is when people get in the Hall of Fame just because they’re not that much worse than someone who is already in. Never was Andre Dawson one of the best players in the game for more than a couple seasons at a time, and none of his stats (other than homers and stolen bases) measure up to the greats of the game.
Even more galling than Dawson’s inclusion is the exclusion of Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez.
Believe it or not, Raines actually has a higher career OPS than Dawson, he had more top seasons than Dawson and is superior to him in almost every area except for home runs and RBI.
And against Edgar Martinez it’s not even close.
For this we’ll use a stat called OPS+ which compares players to the league average and therefore adjusts for differences between eras. 100 is essentially league average, 150 is great. Dawson’s best year was 157, Edgar had 157 once too, was above it 6 other times, including a sick 185 in 1995..
I know the knock on Edgar is that he was mostly a DH, but if you are going to have a position you can’t just exclude everyone who plays it (though the NFL does it with punters). As long as there is a DH in baseball Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall.
And a quick note on the two most prominent pitchers on the ballot. Bert Blyleven doesn’t deserve to get in because he has a lot of negative stats (losses and home runs allowed) and the numbers in his favor (wins and strikeouts) are somewhat inflated by his long career. He never had that many great individual seasons as evidenced by how seldom he received Cy Young votes.
I used to be in favor of Jack Morris getting in because he was one of the top pitchers of the 1980s, until I read that if he did get in, he’d have the highest career ERA in the Hall.
Mark McGwire's Steroid Admission
The lying scumbag Mark McGwire finally admits to using steroids.
There are a few reasons why this bothers me.
First he cheated. Fundamentally as a fan that hurts me, even though I know hundreds of others did the same thing.
Secondly, he broke sports most hallowed record under false pretenses.
Third, even in telling the truth McGwire told more lies.
He said he only juiced for health reasons, to help recover from injuries. I guess he doesn't buy the theory that his steroid use led to his body breaking down.
When pressed by Bob Costas he refused to even acknowledge that even if that were the case he still benefitted from the roids.
He said he had been hitting home runs in little league, high school, college the minor leagues and even as a rookie before discovering steroids (supposedly). That may be true, but not that many.
And then he trotted out the old hand eye coordination excuse. Yes its true steroids can't teach you how to hit a baseball traveling towards you at 95 miles per hour. But if you already know how to do that like say a major league baseball player, steroids will help you hit it farther. Even the player with the most natural power and the best hand eye coordination would still hit fly balls to the warning track. But with steroids those balls become home runs.
When asked if he could have hit 70 without roids McGwire said yes. I wish he would have said "I think so, but I never gave myself the chance."
A couple things McGwire said did stick with me.
He said he wanted to tell the truth to Congress that day but his lawyers couldn't get him immunity (a longshot) so he pulled the incredibly incriminating "I'm not here to talk about the past" routine. I've killed him over that for nearly five years but I now realize if you have to show up but you can't tell the truth and don't want to lie "I'm not here to talk about the past" is probably your best choice. Especially since "no hablo ingles" was taken by Sammy Sosa.
In his statement/confession McGwire said "I wish I never played in the steroid era."
That to me seems like his way of saying he felt obligated to cheat because everyone else was. I'm sure he feels had he played in the 60s or 70s he would have been a great home run hitter without ever hearing the word steroids.
But it was his misfortune that he played in the steroid era. And ours too.
There are a few reasons why this bothers me.
First he cheated. Fundamentally as a fan that hurts me, even though I know hundreds of others did the same thing.
Secondly, he broke sports most hallowed record under false pretenses.
Third, even in telling the truth McGwire told more lies.
He said he only juiced for health reasons, to help recover from injuries. I guess he doesn't buy the theory that his steroid use led to his body breaking down.
When pressed by Bob Costas he refused to even acknowledge that even if that were the case he still benefitted from the roids.
He said he had been hitting home runs in little league, high school, college the minor leagues and even as a rookie before discovering steroids (supposedly). That may be true, but not that many.
And then he trotted out the old hand eye coordination excuse. Yes its true steroids can't teach you how to hit a baseball traveling towards you at 95 miles per hour. But if you already know how to do that like say a major league baseball player, steroids will help you hit it farther. Even the player with the most natural power and the best hand eye coordination would still hit fly balls to the warning track. But with steroids those balls become home runs.
When asked if he could have hit 70 without roids McGwire said yes. I wish he would have said "I think so, but I never gave myself the chance."
A couple things McGwire said did stick with me.
He said he wanted to tell the truth to Congress that day but his lawyers couldn't get him immunity (a longshot) so he pulled the incredibly incriminating "I'm not here to talk about the past" routine. I've killed him over that for nearly five years but I now realize if you have to show up but you can't tell the truth and don't want to lie "I'm not here to talk about the past" is probably your best choice. Especially since "no hablo ingles" was taken by Sammy Sosa.
In his statement/confession McGwire said "I wish I never played in the steroid era."
That to me seems like his way of saying he felt obligated to cheat because everyone else was. I'm sure he feels had he played in the 60s or 70s he would have been a great home run hitter without ever hearing the word steroids.
But it was his misfortune that he played in the steroid era. And ours too.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Hall of Fame Voting is a Joke
I could do this every year and maybe I will because every year a bunch of mediocre players get votes for the Hall of Fame. I don't understand how this happens. Is it just a local sportswriter doing something nice for a guy who was nice to him during his career? Either way it's inappropriate and every writer who does it should be stripped of his vote.
Here are this year's vote getters:
Rod Beck 2
Travis Fryman 2
Robb Nenn 2
Shawon Dunston 1
Chuck Finley 1
David Justice 1
Chuck Knoblauch 1
Todd Stottlemyre 1
Brady Anderson definitely would have gotten 1 except the writers are taking a stand against steroids users, remember? But who did Jose Rijo piss off?
Here are this year's vote getters:
Rod Beck 2
Travis Fryman 2
Robb Nenn 2
Shawon Dunston 1
Chuck Finley 1
David Justice 1
Chuck Knoblauch 1
Todd Stottlemyre 1
Brady Anderson definitely would have gotten 1 except the writers are taking a stand against steroids users, remember? But who did Jose Rijo piss off?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
More Stupid Voting
Here are some interesting vote totals from the recent Hall of Fame balloting:
Don Mattingly 64
Orel Hershiser 58
Albert Belle 40
Will Clark 23
Dwight Gooden 17
Willie McGee 12
Hal Morris 5
Ozzie Guillen 5
Gary Gaetti 4
John Wetteland 4
Rick Aguilera 3
Doug Jones 2
Greg Jefferies 2
Walt Weiss 1
Gary DiSarcina 0
Alex Fernandez 0
A few notes based on that list:
1) Mattingly and Gooden both deserve to get in. Despite their relatively short reign of dominance, Mattingly was the best player and Gooden was the best pitcher in the majors for about 6 or 7 years in the 1980s.
2) Albert Belle also deserves to be in.
3) If Hershiser and Jack Morris don't make it, Clemens will be the only HOF starter from the 80s.
4) Who did Gary DiSarcina piss off? Why couldn't he get one friend to toss him a bone? Was Walt Weiss really that much better than him?
5) 5 votes for Hal Morris?
6) 2 votes for Greg Jefferies?
7) The 12 votes for Willie McGee were mistakenly cast for the Ugly Hall of Fame.
Don Mattingly 64
Orel Hershiser 58
Albert Belle 40
Will Clark 23
Dwight Gooden 17
Willie McGee 12
Hal Morris 5
Ozzie Guillen 5
Gary Gaetti 4
John Wetteland 4
Rick Aguilera 3
Doug Jones 2
Greg Jefferies 2
Walt Weiss 1
Gary DiSarcina 0
Alex Fernandez 0
A few notes based on that list:
1) Mattingly and Gooden both deserve to get in. Despite their relatively short reign of dominance, Mattingly was the best player and Gooden was the best pitcher in the majors for about 6 or 7 years in the 1980s.
2) Albert Belle also deserves to be in.
3) If Hershiser and Jack Morris don't make it, Clemens will be the only HOF starter from the 80s.
4) Who did Gary DiSarcina piss off? Why couldn't he get one friend to toss him a bone? Was Walt Weiss really that much better than him?
5) 5 votes for Hal Morris?
6) 2 votes for Greg Jefferies?
7) The 12 votes for Willie McGee were mistakenly cast for the Ugly Hall of Fame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)