MLB has its 2016 HOF ballot out; #Cardinals chances?

For Jim Edmonds,
is the HOF in the
'Cards' for him?

Here's the ballot, with all the statistical goodies, at Baseball-Reference.

Some hot takes by me while lamenting that the Little Gritmeister won't get 5 percent of the vote ...

First, here's my look at a few top first-year players, looking from what I guesstimate as a voters' point of view.

Remember that voting eligibility has changed; writers removed from active baseball coverage for more than a decade are no longer eligible to vote.

That's a good thing, in general, and will bring sabermetric issues into play.

That said, here we go.

1. Ken Griffey Jr. is a slam dunk, of course.

2. Trevor Hoffman will be a good test of what younger writers think about closers. Billy Wagner will be a lesser test.

3. Jim Edmonds? As a Cards fan, I loved to watch him play, just like Larry Walker,  even if near the end of Walker's career. That said?

Larry Walker: Can
he gain traction?

Walker is a dozen WAR points ahead of Edmonds, and 13 WAA points. I expect Edmonds not to draw more than 30 percent on the ballot. True that he was flashier with the glove than Walker, and played center, not right. Walker has a lot of "black ink" that Edmonds didn't, and Edmonds didn't crack either 2,000 hits or 400 HRs.

Personal thoughts on these and more in a minute. Larry Walker leads me to look at returning players, as my Eckstein joke aside, nobody besides the above, among first year eligibles, is a HOFer or even on the borderline of the borderline.

So, without further adieu?

Selected returning players

1. Pizza Man gets in.

2. Jeff Bagwell stays about where he is. That said, HE will be a good test himself, of what younger, more involved writers believe, or do not believe, about roids-related innuendo.

3. Tim Raines has a slight uptick, but still below 60 percent.

4. Mike Mussina breaks 35 percent, and this will be the start of a generally upward trajectory that gets him in the HOF. That's a prediction, indeed.
5. Alan Trammell falls well short, in his last year of eligibility. Edgar Martinez continues to tread water, with his vote total being a good test case of what younger writers think about career DHs. (That said, he was a semi-career DH; but, pay attention, David Ortiz.) Walker makes a moderate move upward, but stays below 15 percent.

6. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens move to 40 percent, but not more. They will be good tests of what younger, more involved writers believe about roids-related actuality.

At the same time, related to that, I expect Sammy Sosa to drop off the ballot after getting less than 5 percent of the vote. Another former Cardinal, Mark McGwire, may join him, next year if not this.
7. Will Curt Schilling's chances continue to "evolve' (heh, heh) or not?

I'll have more detailed pull-outs on these and other players, many of whom I've addressed in detail in the past, in days ahead.

That said, some snapshots now.

As I said in the past with yet another Cardinal, Lee Smith, closers in general aren't HOFers. Neither of the two current candidates are.

Edmonds? Hall of the Very Good, but not HOFer. (Walker is, though, in my book.)

Piazza, Baggs, Tramm should all have already been in. So should Moose. Raines, I lean yes, but not quite as strongly as the above. Martinez, I lean no, for DH-related reasons.

My thoughts about roiders, and the ideal of more formal confessions from them, MLB, and their managers (including last year's inductees Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre) has been stated on multiple occasions. They shouldn't be in, and neither should the three managers.

Note: I am definitely pretty much of a "small Hall" person. For those who claim that cutoffs for a "small Hall" are arbitrary, ANY such cutoffs are arbitrary. Ditto on the 10-vote rule, which "big Hall" people hate. Whether a rule is imposed from outside, or internally developed, unless you believe in divine command theories of ethics, and your "ethics" extends to rules in general, rules of this nature are arbitrary. That includes yours, because you have an arbitrary cutoff rule for your "big Hall," too.

If you claim you don't, I'll ask you why Eckstein isn't a HOFer. You have arbitrary rules, too.

Deal with it.

I see no divinity running around; as for the arbitrary rules, for the ESPNers and a few others who want a "big Hall"? Start your own, if you don't like the rules of the current voting.

Otherwise, the claim that "but my rule is different" is the surest indicator of special pleading and oxen being gored.

Bud Selig is Commissioner Emeritus Man!

So, former baseball commissioner Bud "Bud" Selig is now "commissioner emeritus" with an additional $6 million a year in retirement slush funds to do whatever he's supposed to do.

Well, he needs a costume, does he not?

I mean, it takes a superhero to hound Alex Rodriguez, while at the same time ignoring Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and others who also reportedly used steroids.

And to simultaneously ignore that your open-roids policy has also led to innuendo against Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and others, innuendo seemingly unfounded.

But, don't cry for Bud-gentina.

He'll not be crying for any part of the mess he left behind.

Maybe he'll earn his $6 million by helping lobby Congress to let minor leaguers be treated like serfs, if he's not too busy still trying to selectively crack down on alleged roiders.

Speaking of minor-league serfs, Rany Jazayerli noted on Twitter:

For the $6M annual pension owners are giving Bud Selig, they could have given every minor leaguer in baseball a raise of about $300 a month.

Bingo.

Or maybe he's going to be trying to apple-polish his "legacy" and become the first commish since Bowie Kuhn to be elected to Cooperstown. After all, rescuing not damsels, but HOF legacies in distress? That's a job for Commissioner Emeritus Man™!

Roger Clemens = Pete Rose

Roger Clemens,
today's
Pete Rose.
(Apologies Rush)

Roger Clemens cheated with steroids, according to Brian McNamee. Craig Calcaterra sets the table, including dueling defamation lawsuits, as a lead-in to noting that Clemens was deposed today in McNamee's suit.

Roger the Dodger and his ace mouthpiece should have dropped their defamation suit long ago, as Craig notes and I agree.

That's why I think the Pete Rose comparison is apt. Both go beyond cocky to outright stubborn, unwilling to face or admit facts and, ultimately, in the end, both look about equally tawdry.

(And, judging by current pictures of Clemens, his hair's going to be Rose level of ugliness soon too.)

More seriously, Hardin really, really doesn’t want this to go to trial. Because:

At one point in the deposition, Emery revisited an issue that has long proved vexing for Clemens. From the start, way back with the publication of the Mitchell report in 2007, McNamee has stated that he also gave performance-enhancers to (Andy) Pettitte and another former Yankees teammate of Clemens’s, Chuck Knoblauch. Neither man has disputed McNamee’s claims — only Clemens has. 

“O.K.,” Emery said in his questioning of Clemens. “Now can — can you think of any reason whatsoever that Andy Pettitte — that Brian McNamee would name Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch and be lying about you but telling the truth about them?” 

Clemens, who won 354 games and seven Cy Young Awards in his 24-year major league career, said he could not provide an explanation.

And, all those gentlemen will be called to the stand, too.

And, this is civil, not criminal. Teh Google seems to tell me that New York State requires just 9 of 12 votes in civil cases.

New commish Rob Manfred — the man who guided Bud Selig on exactly how to put the roiding suspension squeeze on Alex Rodriguez — certainly doesn't want it in court, either.

But, Clemens, who is surely a more two-dimensional modern sports version of an ancient tragic legendary Greek warrior, will make this all stumble to its end.

Getcha popcorn!

New MLB-players roiding agreement even better than I expected

When Major League Baseball, in conjunction with the MLB Players Union, first announced the idea of toughening sanctions to 100 games for a first offense and full season for the second, instead of the current 50 and 100 games, I was in semi-agreement; I liked that, but only without the loophole of just 25 games for an inadvertent test.

I worried about Barry Bonds, who alternated between saying he didn't know what was in the "clear" and the "cream" and that flaxseed oil did it? And Manny Ramirez claiming he had no idea how a woman's fertility drug got in his body? Or Ryan Braun and "chain-of-custody" claims on his first positive test. If a player sees a loophole, he's going to try to drive a Mack Truck through it.

The ESPN link provides two more such examples:

Philadelphia infielder Freddy Galvis was suspended for 50 games in June 2012 for a Clostebol Metabolite, which he later claimed was contained in a foot cream he used. Reliever Guillermo Mota, then with San Francisco, was suspended for 100 games in May 2012 after taking a cough syrup with Clenbuterol.

And, I'm sure we could get more with easy digging.

But ...

The new agreement is in, and it looks like we won't have to worry about "inadvertent" testing.

• Random urine samplings will more than double;
• HGH testing will increase;
• First suspension will be 80 games, second one a full year.

As for the "inadvertent"?

Players will get a chance to appeal on grounds that they weren't seeking a competitive edge. I guess this would be something like Andy Pettitte's use of HGH for healing? Because, with him, what he said rang at least halfway true. That said, per discussion at the NBC link, we don't know that HGH does that much for healing, anyway. And, it looks like, instead of a 25-game ban, it's half of the original.

And there's this:

Additionally, the league and the union are creating a safe harbor of sorts: they have established a program in which players will have year-round access to supplements that will not cause a positive test result. This should reduce confusion on banned over-the-counter substances and reduce the use of the “I got this from GNC and thought it was OK” defense many have raised in the past.

Agreed. Let's hope the commissioner's office pushes this hard, especially in Spanish and outside the US, for Caribbean players to be clean, and to not have excuses.

At the same time, per the full agreement, there's this twist. Even if you don't have a full-year suspension, you're banned from the playoffs for that year. And, lose postseason money; you can get a partial share, but you can't get a full player's share of money. And, can't vote in distribution of postseason shares. (In other words, a suspended Roger Clemens couldn't vote Brian McNamee, or some late-year call-up player, etc., a full World Series share.)

Craig Calcaterra doesn't like it at all. I think it's great, and will make teams be more serious about what individual players are doing. In other words, managers and GMs ... that's you in the Oakland dugout, Tony LaRussa, and you in New York, Joe Torre, and you in Atlanta, Bobby Cox, have one less excuse now, too. Managers can't ignore Jose Canseco and the infamous Canseco milkshakes.

Maybe you can't patrol everywhere, but, if you think you need to tighten up dugout access, that's what you do.

David Schoenfield likes the idea, too.

Finally, new items may be added to the prohibited substances list next week. Stay tuned.

This week in baseball, #roiding and #Cooperstown

While Baseball Writers of America Association Hall of Fame squabbled over if some writers weren't practicing steroid holier than thou stances in discussing the eventual entry, or not, to Cooperstown of the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Pudge Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield and others, I unpacked what was going on behind the scenes.

Part of that is squabbles over the size the Hall of Fame should be — the classic stances being "big Hall" and "small Hall." Yours truly is definitely a small Hall type.

That said, let's proceed to look at what's at stake.

First is how American myth and American reality collide in Cooperstown. Both big Hall and small Hall voters and fans have points to stand on and points to concede here.

Second, if we are going to consider voting some of these players in, I not only say it's not being "holier than thou," I insist there are good reasons for some confession by players (and others). And, here, I look at the degrees of confessional a few players have offered.

Third, I blast out of the water the idea of a "steroid wing" at Cooperstown.

Fourth, contra the wailing of big Hall types about an ever-worsening backlog, I clearly show that if you're a small Haller like me who also has a principled "authenticity" stance on roiding, there really isn't that much of a backlog. And in doing so, upset a few fans of Vladimir Guerrero, at least.

Fifth, I question the authenticity of some big Hallers who pull out the "holier than thou" cries against small Hallers, especially, again, small Hallers with a strong stand on roiding.

A steroid wing in #Cooperstown to satisfy 'Big Hall' nuts?

Jean Jacques Taylor, whom I've never considered that in-depth as a sports writer or columnist, seemingly (note that word) surprises me with this one: proposing a roiders' wing at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

Here's his rationale:

Unless a new voting system is put in place, or society softens its stance on PEDs, or baseball gets some leadership with a different vision on how to deal with the issue, a group of players who dominated the game's annals will be unaccounted for in the Hall of Fame.

That's true enough.

JJT then mentions some the players who would benefit, and I'll give the obvious list: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Garry Sheffield and a few others.

At first, I thought this might be a way around an impasse, especially if tied with my desire to see some sort of apology plus explanation from players.

However, I saw the problems almost right away.

First, the BBWAA has to agree to this. I mean, this would itself require a change in voting system. I mean, you'd have to get voters who agree with Ken Rosenthal's "authenticity" to allow, well, to allow an asterisk to be put on ballots or something.

So, JJT fails Logic 101. See my opening paragraph.

Second, the museum as currently constituted does not have a "Negro League wing." Satchel Paige is in the same room as other folks, despite entry for his Negro League days. Nor does it have a "Veterans Committee wing," much as some BBWAA members might wish.

So, another JJT fail. That said, he's not alone on this one. Former commish Fay Vincent touted it last year. Darren Rovell did the same the year before that. Just because an idea develops steam doesn't mean its a good one.

Third, what about the likes of writers who claim everybody who played later than Jack Morris was a roider, or who spread the taint of guilt by nuttery about the likes of Jeff Bagwell? Are they going to asterisk 9 of 10 ballot votes?

Fourth, what if that gets Bagwell, whom I am confident didn't roid, based on things like his career arc following a normal rise and decline, among other things, elected?

Is he going to accept induction that comes with an asterisk?

Hell no.

Fifth, because of Nos. 1-4, and especially the last, it wouldn't satisfy big Hall types anyway. They want us to falsely believe steroids were no different than amphetamines, stop being purity prima donnas, pretend that those first two issues are the only reasons we don't want roiders in, and just vote them in without an asterisk.

Sixth, by officially designating a steroids wing, and having the BBWAA ballot reflect that, wouldn't voters possibly be committing libel? And I mean that in its legal sense, not its casual usage sense. Albert Pujols suing Jack Clark for comments he made last year on talk radio say that yes, indeed, that's a possibility.

That would include you, too, Bob Nightengale, for suggesting putting asterisks on certain plaques. 

The trouble with being judge and juror as a Hall of Fame voter is that we don't know who was clean and who was dirty. Are you going to keep Bonds out but let Clemens in because Clemens was exonerated in court while Bonds fights his conviction on obstruction of justice? Are you going to let Piazza in and keep out Sosa while both deny taking steroids? 

But, you still want to asterisk certain plaques? Really? Which ones?

Boy, career sports writers, did some of you not take a libel law class in journalism school, if you went there?

All this idea does is prove that former commissioners of baseball can be idiots.

See Bud Selig, including All-Star games deciding World Series home field advantage. 

See Bowie Kuhn and "laundry list."

So, JJT? Go back to your drawing board and blow it up. Then go back to joining 6 million other people in the Metroplex in knowing exactly what's wrong with the Cowboys. And, your seeming surprise? Not.

And, why the hell is he writing this anyway? He NEVER does baseball at the Big Red Satan. Didn't for his last few years at the Dallas Morning Snooze, either, and didn't extremely impress me when he did. (Corrected to note that I forgot he did some baseball stuff at the Snooze.) Did ESPN's big Hall fluffers that pass for baseball analysts put him up to this?

Looking at degrees of PEDing confessionals

A number of MLB players have made some sort of confession or semi-confession about using steroids, human growth hormone or other performance enhancing drugs. The degree of sincerity, and the degree of revelation, of said confessions led me to think about some sort of scoring system.

I was going to slice them into quarter-degrees, as in one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, and fully confessional, taking into account both apparent sincerity and degree of revelation, but thought that was too tight.

Then, when I thought of one-third splits, I realized that nobody has fully spilled the beans on the "revelation" side, so I decided to go back to one-quarter splits.

Finally, I figured stars, like book ratings, would work, and thus devised a 0-5 star system.

That said, here we go:

The anti-confessional (negative stars): Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Who else? Well, add Alex Rodriguez and his mess. Being legally aggressive when past issues get you in trouble lands you here.

The non-confessional, hilarious division (zero stars): Viagra-touting (and why? other than a steroid side effect?) Rafael Palmeiro and English-ability losing Sammy Sosa land here, of course.

The non-confessional, play it straight division (one star): This is players, normally below the All-Star level, and certainly below the Hall of Fame level, who figure, "I got nabbed, I'm not that famous, the issue will go away soon enough." We've had a number of those, and will likely have more. Sadly, we can probably expect them to remain high among Latino players from the Caribbean.

The pseudo-confessional (two starts): Mark McGwire. Hey, I'm a Cards fan. But, I'm also skeptical enough, and sometimes cynical enough (both words in their sociological, not philosophical sense) to see crocodile tears. Given that he didn't talk about his A's years, and thus offered very little on the revelation side, he can't be higher than this. Once he gets honest about those Bash Bros. days (and his college ones, if anything goes back that far) he'll jump at least one star.

The heartfelt but limited confessional (three stars): Andy Pettitte. He seemed heartfelt, indeed. But, given that he's still not broken omerta to talk in detail about why he decided that HGH would help injury recovery, how much he had been tempted before, and other issues, we can't go more than this. You have to have the right personality to pull this off, of course.

The in-depth, but still somewhat lacking, confessional (four stars): Jose Canseco and Jason Giambi. The placing of Canseco here, or anywhere, amy infuriate some and cause head-scratching elsewhere, while Giambi may cause other head scratching since he didn't confess to anything specific.

Trust me. Or don't. What I have written, I have written.

On Canseco, his motivation was fame. He knew he hadn't done enough, even for the "I don't care about roiding" crowd of actual BBWAA voters, general big Hall fans, etc., to support him. So, fame and the opportunity to write cheap books for whatever money he could came to play. That said, because he hasn't given us more detail about his own roiding, and more importantly, about how players after his retirement (since his whole career was in the pre-testing era) beat baseball's steroid tests or tried to do so.

Giambi had less to reveal on the "connections" side, perhaps. But, given that the statue of limitations from the BALCO grand jury has surely expired, it would be nice to hear a bit more.

On the personal side, he sounded relieved that a nightmare was over. I have no doubt of his sincerity. In fact, even if he didn't talk about other potential users, just hearing him talk more about what drove him to use, and related issues, would get him an additional one-half star, at least.

And, per what I said especially under the four-star level, but somewhat in general, this is part of my stance on potential Hall of Famers who have used, or most likely have used.

As I've said before, in discussing what degree steroids contributed to the power surge, I want some sort of confession about doing it, plus some sort of description of HOW you did it, so we can tighten future testing. Yes, that's a partial will o' the wisp, but not totally so. If it were total, then why test at all? Or why ban at all? (I say this to commenters at places like Fangraphs, where I've gotten bashed before.)

Anyway, let's hope we have to have fewer confessions in the future. Let's hope some past confessors look at the A-Rod mess and decide to provide us some further information, so we have teeth to try to make those confessionals less common.

#ARod gets the boot for a year — larger thoughts for him, #Yankees, #roiding

Everybody who's a big baseball fan has seen the news — arbitrator Frederic Horowitz has basically upheld verbatim Bud Selig's original ban on Alex Rodriguez, keeping this year's full suspension, with last year's games that would have contributed to the 2011 now water under the bridge.

(Any blog or newspaper that talks about A-Rod's suspension being "reduced" is technically correct but in reality is guilty of muddied thinking, at best, in my opinion.)

A few broader thoughts.

1. This certainly isn't good news for the Hall of Fame candidacies of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and people down the road like Manny Ramirez, Pudge Rodriguez and others. And, no expansion of the HOF's ballot to more than 10 players is going to change that. Only a successful push by the Jay Jaffes of the world to reduce the hurdle below 75 percent of votes is going to change that. And that will bring a whole raft of other problems.

2. This does get to the HOF's "morals clause." Unfortunately, in its recent election of three managers, one of whom managed A-Rod for a number of years, it's arguable that the Veterans Committee ignored that. I've commented before on my thoughts on the election of Tony LaRussa and Joe Torre in particular.

Some of this ugliness is peculiar to A-Rod, though. His statement that this is part of an MLB plot to get rid of guaranteed contracts in the next collective bargaining agreement is just the latest installment of a narcissism that's massive even by modern, Internet-driven public figure standards.

It's not just A-Rod, though. Look at what Bud Selig did to get the goods on him.

Look at how this unscrupulousness pervades the Caribbean world.

Look at how Bernie Miklasz played cover-up of sorts for Mark McGwire in 1998, and other writers surely did the same. I discuss that in passing here, and am working on a post that's going to look more directly at writers and roiders.

3. But, dirtiness and all, baseball is better than other top sports.

The NFL's a laugh on steroids, comparatively.  That's when it's not being morally disgusting, by commissioner Roger Goodell trying to claim they contribute to CTE.

The NBA? Sure, you can get suspended for a doobie, or other illicit drugs, but when did an NBA player last get suspended for PEDing.

4. Meanwhile, for A-Rod himself?

First, this almost guarantees he won't hit any of the remaining career milestone numbers in his contract that would trigger bonus money from the Yankees.

Second, it could tempt the Steinbrenners to try to void the contract, though I don't think that's likely. The players union would fight that like hell, and Bud knows that, too. He doesn't want another players' strike to be one final black mark on his legacy; after all, it was one players' strike that led to this whole pile of crap we keep stepping into right now.

5. The Yankees? With Omar Infante going to Kansas City, there ain't no free agent 3B, or quasi-3B available, period. Their only desperate hope is to sign Stephen Drew and try to teach him a new position. Or the even more yucky Michael Young. Playing Eduardo Nunez there a full season won't come close to cutting it. Even with the signings of Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann and Carlos Beltran, that team could still be worse, worse indeed, than this year's. If CC Sabathia continues to decline, I guarantee that. And, on lux tax issues, because of details of the suspension, the Yankees still take a $3.2M salary hit, reportedly.

And, one related thought? Defensively, that infield was already looking ugly before this. Given that the splitter is a ground ball pitch when it's not inducing strikeouts, Masahiro Tanaka should definitely prioritize other teams in his free agent search.

I vote 10 in #Cooperstown, uphold principle on #roiding, keep "small Hall"

Here's the 2014 Hall of Fame ballot.

And, in a few brief words, I'll show how I can vote 10 quality players in, not vote in pretty obvious and unrepentant users of performance-enhancing drugs, and still avoid ESPN's Big Hall drooling.

Per previous discussion, most recently updated here, I'm not willing to let the most likely roiders, like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, in without some contrition, not just by them, but lots of others. It's not just the contrition, it's to get info from them on how they did it so we can improve current testing. It's to figure out, like a Roids+ similar to ERA+ and OPS+, approximately how much to adjust their records.

Call me back when that happens.

Meanwhile, the 10? Going by last year's voting rank, for the non-newcomers, followed by them:

1.  Craig Biggio.

2. Jeff Bagwell.

3. Tim Raines.

4. Curt Schilling.

5. Allen Trammell.

6. Jeff Kent.

7. Greg Maddux.

8. Tom Glavine.

9. Mike Mussina.

10. Frank Thomas. 

I've blogged more than once about Jack Morris and his anti-sabermetric career. About Larry Walker and how a non-Coors career would have dinged his counting stats as well as WAR, etc, plus injuries and so forth. About Edgar Martinez in a similar vein, discussing the injuries and games missed, etc., for a DH. Lee Smith falls under my generally being underwhelmed by closers.

Here's my in-depth wrap of last year's candidates, and another of this year's.

Mike Piazza? After reading recently, via CBS, about what Jeff Pearlman quotes him, and quotes other players as saying about him, while I'm not quite in Murray Chass territory, I want to think a bit more.

To ESPN-type fluffers who don't take my stance on roiding? You can easily add Bonds and Clemens by having Kent and, say, Schilling, wait a year. You can then deal with lesser roiders after that.

And, at the same time, this still would put a brake on your fluffing. That's even as Jim Caple flings out yet one more paean to Morris. Good fucking doorknob, give it a rest. Caple should stick to his "Off Base" columns, and by the amount of HOF fluffing ESPN's other writers do, they should become Republican presidential pollsters.

Or, take them out and shoot them. Shoot Jayson Stark twice for being a flip-flopping hypocrite (no, not a repentant mind-changer) on this issue. 

That also said, when ESPN's current staff has people voting for Fred McGriff ahead of Mussina, one realizes that a sports writer is just a lucky man with a big opinion who found a big place to land.

And, Michael Knisley has some very interesting thoughts about some "Name" players who might not stay above 5 percent this year.

Cooperstown Central: Were roids and PEDs the only reason for baseball's power surge?

As Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and a host of other likely, or in some cases vaguely alleged, users of steroids, human growth hormone and whatever else might fall under the aegis of "performance enhancing drugs" await another shot at Cooperstown, we might ask how much roiding really was worth.

How much of an influence were steroids, on the batting side? I say batting because "chicks and Bud Selig dig the long ball," and batters don't have rotator cuffs and Tommy John ligaments to blow out.

I'd say they're worth 35 percent of the power explosion. The Costa Rican baseballs after Rawlings moved its factor from Haiti? Maybe about 17.5 percent. Maple bats another 17.5 percent. Bandbox ballparks, like Philly, Cincy, Denver (the power surge started pre-humidor) and Houston, 15 percent? Umps squeezing the strike zone 15 percent? That puts us at 100 percent.

That said, maybe I need to recalibrate. Baseball Prospectus makes an argument that expansion from 26 to 30 teams bumped the performance of top batters (and pitchers, too). And, per my PEDs+ equivalent of OPS+ and ERA+, provides some specific calibration guesstimates:

Since 1950, there have been seven seasons in which 17 or more players finished with at least six WARP. All seven came within five years after an expansion, even though fewer than half of all seasons since 1950 fit that condition. Excluding strike-shortened seasons of 1981, 1994, and 1995, an average of 15.5 players have posted at least six WARP in the five years after expansion, compared to 11.0 players in all other seasons.

When comparing performances from different eras, we don’t just compare each player’s raw stats, because we understand that those numbers come from different environments. Good analysis instead uses context-neutral statistics, comparing performance to that of an average or replacement-level player. But when “average” or “replacement level” changes—as in the case of expansion eras—should we not also consider that factor?

To estimate the impact of expansion on stars’ statistics, we can compare the performance of the top players before and after expansion. In post-expansion seasons, the top 10 players in baseball have had an average WARP of 7.8; in all other years, their average is 7.4, a statistically significant difference. Using different cutoffs (eg., top five or top 20) yields similar estimates of about .4 wins per season.

Very interesting stuff.

I'm not holier than thou on the issue of steroids in baseball. My take is, how much did roiding, in my estimation, boost a particular suspect player's career. If I think I can reasonably factor that out, AND get some contrition, I will at least be open to voting a player into the Hall of Fame.

For example? Rafael Palmeiro is a "high borderline," still, with 350 HR, 450 2B, and a WAR around 55 or so. Raffy probably goes .360/.500/.860 on OBP/SLG/OPS. 1,500 runs and 1,700 RBIs. Of course, his oWAR might fall below 60. That's the hesitation point. Is Raffy a higher-grade Harold Baines without steroids? I wouldn't argue against that. But, he at least gets consideration. But, I lean no.

Mark McGwire? I estimate that he'd be down to 450 HRs, and would lose a ton of walks, and so lose OBP and lose massively on OPS and OPS+, reinforcing his one-dimensional nature, so a no. Knock his OBP down to .380, his slugging to .550 and then his OPS to .930. His runs fall to 1,100 and his RBIs to 1,300. About 450 HRs. NOT a HOF career. That's a high-grade Dave Kingman or not a lot better.

Other players? As far as prime suspects, and doing some "redacting"?

Sammy Sosa is not a steroid-subtracted HOFer. Gary Sheffield likely is not, either. On the pitching side? Andy Pettitte is not. What he is, if anything, is the current generation's slightly better ... wait for it ... Jack Morris. Actually, he's enough better than Black Jack that he has a halfway legit argument, World Series record aside, for being a HOFer. But I still lean no.

Anyway, if I had a vote? No guilt, no entry. Let's have confessions. Not just by the individuals. Bud Selig and Gene Orza and others from the union need to step to the plate, pun intended, and hit a clean one out of the park.

And, then, we can do something like with OPS+ and ERA+, and make our best guesstimates on how to "neutralize" for steroids.

In short, just as a website like Baseball-Reference makes sabermetric adjustments for different ballparks, different eras, and so forth, I would like more information so we can make a sabermetric adjustment for steroids and human growth hormone, and anything else that was in the "cream" and "clear" that Bonds got from  BALCO. No, it won't be a perfect adjustment, but, it would be some adjustment.

There's other reasons for the contrition. If Bonds, especially, fesses up to details, maybe we get improved testing. Maybe we get better ways of warning high school kids away from this.

#Cooperstown 2014 — what are the chances of various players?

Here's your official 2014 ballot, including the Veterans Committee, via Baseball-Reference.

I've already done one post on the "big five" among newcomers of Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent.

I think all five should be in the Hall, but realism says only the first three make it. Moose doesn't have 300 wins, though he's arguably a better candidate overall than Glavine. Kent's a bit more borderline in general.

So, Maddux, Glavine and Thomas. Who else should get in? Who else will? I think there's a shot for four, as I get ready to walk through other major candidates.

On the other hand, as a CBS story notes, even if we throw out the shutout from last year, since 2005, in only half of the years, have voters put multiple players in the Hall, and 1999 was the last time three or more got in. So, who knows?

More from that piece:

•The last time more than two players made the Hall of Fame in a given vote was 1999, when it was no-doubters Nolan Ryan, George Brett and Robin Yount. Since 1955, the BBWAA has elected a three-man Hall of Fame class just four times. ...

•To compound on the above point, Jack Morris is going to be rallied for by the old-school voters like you wouldn't believe. It's his final attempt and last year his vote jumped from 52.2 percent to 67.7 percent. In his 15th and final go-round, the campaign from his supporters is going to be overzealous and it may work. If it does, that means only one or two of the much more deserving Biggio-Maddux-Glavine-Thomas group makes it -- again, unless the BBWAA voting body takes a massive turn in voting history. 

•Aside from the original class of inductees, the BBWAA has elected a four-man class twice. In 1955, Dazzy Vance, Ted Lyons, Gabby Hartnett and Joe DiMaggio made it while Carl Hubbell, Lefty Grove, Frankie Frisch and Mickey Cochrane were inducted in 1947. Those were in the first 20 years of voting and the voting body has completely changed, so that really has no bearing on this year's ballot. 

The current top candidates match up fine with that 1999 class, setting aside alleged roiders. That 1955 class was actually, outside of DiMag, kind of dog's breath. Lyons probably shouldn't be in. Vance and Hartnett aren't outstanding candidates. 

The 1947 foursome is better, but not fantastic. So, the caveats of CBS' Matt Snyder aside, BBWAA voters need to open up their mental wallets with some sort of psychological crowbar.
That said, here's my thoughts on all the major candidates.

The roiders like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens? I've written before about how I'd like some sort of "contrition," not just from them, but any managers that might have known (including two on the Veterans Committee ballot that should also draw strong scrutiny), Bud Selig, players union members and leaders, etc. After that, I'd judge on a case-by-case basis after making reasonable guesstimates about how much roiding helped. Here's my guesstimates on what to discount from the numbers of a few players. (The two above would then get in; Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa not, and probably not Rafael Palmeiro.)

Meanwhile, to writers, either actual BBWAA Hall of Fame voters, or wannabes? Don't be hypocrites on this issue. Don't be Jayson Stark.

Of course, if Eric Byrnes is right, there's already a roider in Cooperstown. Who is it?

Now, one other holdover first. I want to keep Jack Morris OUT for sound reasons. Here's the most recent post I've done on the man I call the anti-Bert Blyleven.

Next, a few other top holdovers. First, Edgar Martinez. Gar? Hall of Very Good but not quite HOF in my book. Injured too much for a career DH, and counting stats mean something. I've discussed his case in detail before.

Mike Piazza should have gotten in last year, as I said then. Other than the ridiculousness of Murray Chass, has anybody else seriously thought of him as a roider?

Craig Biggio, I also wrote about last year. He certainly has the counting stats, and I thought his "Mr. Clean" image would combine with that for the BBWAA to let him waltz in. Surprisingly, that wasn't the case.

Jeff Bagwell? He also should already be in, as I've said before. He's tainted more than Piazza by roiding, but more in the way of a black cloud than actual allegations. That said, he, like some others, may be hurt by counting stats, including missing both 450 HRs, let alone 500, and 2,500 hits. One could argue that the Edgar Martinez issue applies to him. But, Bagwell is well ahead on WAR, WAA, and several counting stats.

Curt Schilling is on the border, as I've said before. I also said there that I wonder if his PED protestations of innocence are narrowly legalistic.

Larry Walker? Great guy, and I'm a Cardinals fan. But a mix of Coors Field splits and injury issues lead me to say no.

Alan Trammell should have been in years ago. See my discussion here.

Tim Raines: Can he step out from Rickey Henderson's shadow?

Otherwise, if I didn't write about him, first year or returning, he probably shouldn't be on the HOF radar screen. In case you need to look up my thoughts on a borderline returning player, here's my 2013 ballot wrap.

In general, I favor a "small Hall." In fact, I have two blog posts about pitchers and batters currently in the Hall whom I think should be voted back out.

Anyway, I'll wrap things up.

Beyond the three I mentioned, I think one of the four from Mussina/Piazza/Biggio/Bagwell gets in, with one of the holdovers more likely than Moose. I think Bags and Pizza Man are both more deserving, if we're talking about relative entry order, than Biggio. I'll venture, based on last year's vote, that Piazza is the fourth player in. Biggio and Bagwell look at going in together next year.

And, on a bete noire? I predict Jack Morris gets pushed off to a future Veterans Committee that may be dumb enough to vote him in.

#LyinBraun and the #Cooperstown goose egg

ESPN's Jim Caple, in his latest Off Base column, reminds us of the upcoming Major League Baseball Hall of Fame ceremony in Cooperstown, N.Y., this weekend. He mainly reminds us of the fact that, because of concerns over performance-enhancing drugs, a would-be, on paper, stellar class of candidates, including first-time eligibles Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, linked together in PEDing infamy, and deserving first-time candidates Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio and second-timer Jeff Bagwell, that nobody's getting in. Period.

Well, not quite true. Nobody living, off the normal players' ballot is getting in. An apparently racist owner, Jacob Ruppert, is getting in. So are two dead-baller players, Hank O'Day and Deacon White.

It's too late to vote out the likes of Cobb, but that doesn't mean we have to vote Ruppert in. Did he do anything game-changing as an owner, other than fork over enough cash to buy Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox? Arguably not.

That said, Caple does O'Day wrong. He was voted in as an ump first, not a player. If he's a deserving ump, or on the borderline with a "bump" for being a player, let him in. And White? Decent dead-ball stats, especially for a catcher. I won't complain about him.

And, I disagree more with Caple, who's a "big hall" fluffer, that owners, umpires and broadcasters shouldn't go in the Hall. I think we should have discriminating standards, but from the man who thinks a 10-person ballot for players is too small, this is ridiculous.

Anyway, back to the fact that nobody living will be inducted.

What's the big boo-hoo? I, as I've said before, have some regrets for the non-roiders who got excluded, and hope they get in next year. On that blog post, I've got links to the top candidates from this year, with individualized assessments.

But, on the non-roiders who didn't make it, Baggs didn't have 500 HRs, and half of the catchers now in the Hall had to wait at least one year. Curt Schilling has kind of low counting stats and Tim Raines is still in Rickey Henderson's shadow, among other things.

On the roiders?

Especially in light of Ryan Braun's recent plea bargain, I'm glad Bonds, Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire will continue to cool their heels; I'm definitely not a Cardinal homer on Big Mac.

On other non-roiders? At least we won't be seeing Jack Morris getting inducted. Only one more year to keep him out, and with another stat-heavy  (and roiding-heavy?) list of initial eligibles in 2014, people like me may succeed in keeping him out.

So, let's be glad the roiders didn't get in. Let's hope that deserving non-roiders get in, and sooner rather than later. (And, unless we used the HOF version of multiple voting, Caple's idea of expanding the ballot could hurt, rather than help.)

And, what about those who managed roiders?

Theoretically, Tony LaRussa and Joe Torre will be on next year's veterans committee ballot. I don't believe either one's told us all he knew about some of his players. I say keep them out too.  See the poll at right. Or below.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Should Veterans voters treat La Russa, Torre like BBWAA voters on alleged roiders?

Yes   No   Uncertain

 

#ARod, Jayson Stark, and an #ESPN shit-pile of hypocrisy

Jayson Stark/ESPN pic

If you're a baseball fan, unless you've been on a desert hermits' retreat, you've heard about New York Yankees injured former superstar third baseman Alex Rodriguez and his huge, newly-revealed, alleged mega-use of steroids, testosterone, HGH and more.

The scheme clearly rivals Barry Bonds and his alleged BALCO roiding and whatever program. We don't know as much about any "program" of Roger Clemens, but we have a good inkling of what he probably did.

I've been pretty consistent on how this whole era should be handled.

But not everybody.

We turn to, where else? ESPN.

Cue up the Jayson Stark hypocrisy alert.

This week, he wants to make roiders feel more pain. Or alleged roiders. Or possible ones. Or maybe ones:

Not one of those players (A-Rod, Nelson Cruz, Gio Gonzales) has ever tested positive for any PED. But that's irrelevant in a situation like this. The commissioner holds the power to suspend players without a positive test if there is firm evidence that they used, or even possessed, a banned substance. ...

So somewhere along the line, the price these men must pay for this crime has to grow large enough to force them to feel the pain. Two-month suspensions alone aren't enough. In-season blood tests aren't enough. Even public humiliation isn't enough.

And it won't be enough until the suspensions grow longer and the penalties grow stiffer -- because, clearly, the thought of losing 50 games worth of pay isn't scaring the people who need scaring.

Sounds like a great, tough, hardline stance, right?

Three weeks ago, he wanted to vote Bonds and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame.

On Bonds, he says:

There was only one Barry Bonds

So if you prefer to paint a picture of the baseball world that pretends the 1990s, and the first few seasons of this century, didn't happen, you can erase Bonds from that portrait and not vote for him.

Or you can say this man was convicted of a federal felony (obstruction of justice) directly related to PED use and not vote for him for that. 

Or you can say that no one of his generation was more responsible for obliterating the meaning of the history and the records that once made baseball special and not vote for him for that reason.

If you want to take any of those stances, I get it. But to me, the thought of having the ultimate baseball museum try to make us believe that a player this great was invisible is absurd. Absurd.

He's even more directly hypocritical with Clemens:

One of my distinguished fellow panelists, the great Frank Deford, suggested that day that it was the job of voters to keep any player who'd been proven to use PEDs out of the Hall of Fame. So let me ask you: Is Roger Clemens a "proven" user?

The Department of Justice couldn't "prove" that he used HGH, or that he committed perjury when he claimed he hadn't. Right? So you tell me: Is Clemens innocent or guilty?

Again, I understand the argument for both sides. But no one sums up how difficult it is to answer these questions better than the Rocket does. Guilty or innocent? Clean or dirty? Pick your own standard. Decide for yourself. There's no right answer. ...

C'mon, friends. We can't have a Hall of Fame without Roger Clemens in it. Can we? What kind of Hall of Fame is that?

Which is it, Jayson? Do we give them a pass because we can't prove anything, or through the book at them because we just suspect something?

And, no, this isn't apples and oranges. You said more than two-year suspensions are needed. Isn't that, in part, what a barring from the Hall of Fame is?

You know, it would NOT be hypocrisy if you said, "I blew it three weeks ago," or something similar.

But, hey, Jayson, it's called teh Internet. We got your old column right in front of us. If you don't apologize, if you don't admit you've done a 180 course reversal, it IS hypocrisy. A big, steaming shit-pile, just like I said.

Oh, I Tweeted Stark, too. No response. (And no surprise here.)

Here's my take on the breaking story. Shorter version — Yanks are stuck with him and MLB needs to do more about Hispanic/Latino use of PEDs in the Caribbean.

#Stlcards fans - should La Russa be kept out of Hall of Fame?

Now that the dust has settled from no living baseball players being elected to Cooperstown this year, as the black cloud of roiding really started to hit home with the candidacies of Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, et al.

Well, the 2014 ballot will have many great, "clean" players. Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, are all legit first-year entries for the Hall, and I think we'd recognize them all as PED-free.

But there's a twist. In 2014, the Veterans Committee returns to the "modern" era. And Joe Torre and Tony La Russa will be on the ballot as managers.

And, in Oakland, TLR managed the two most notorious known, admitted users in Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. Re Big Mac, TLR has claimed he didn't notice anything, didn't know anything. He's been more circumspect about Canseco. And, per sportswriter Thomas Boswell, via Wezen-Ball, TLR probably DID know "something" was up, already in 1988.)

The fact that La Russa wanted to ink Bonds to a Cardinal contract when he was a free agent after 2007 also points to his total lack of innocence on this issue.

That's why I'd love a, say, Ken Rosenthal to put both of them, La Russa and Canseco, in the same interview room at the same time.

After all, although La Russa wasn't his manager, Canseco then went to Texas. We know about Rafael Palmeiro and PED use, and there's been a lot of suspicion about Ivan Rodriguez.

 Here's my thoughts on likely roiders among players. It applies to La Russa, too. (To riff on Ricky Ricardo, you got some 'splaining to do, and some apologizing, along with the players union, management, and now, I would say, at least one field manager.)

We can make some sort of guesstimate as to how your managerial career might have panned out without the "help." And, making it to three straight World Series in Oakland, then having a juiced Mac welcome a trade to St. Louis, to break Roger Maris' record, might not have happened, either.

(On the players side, with my best guesstimates, Bonds was already a first-round HOFer, Clemens a possible to likely first-rounder, but not guaranteed first rounder, Pudge was a possible HOFer Raffy was not, McGwire was not.)

A friend of mine asked me, What about Torre and his Yankee years? I said Clemens was juicing before that, Andy Pettitte has apologized, and that Torre was probably not aware of Andy. Whether he should have been aware of "Muchie Peachie" and others (Jason Giambi, pre- or post-apology) is a different question. 

That said, Torre might not deserve a 100 percent pass, either.

So, not quite a year from now, we're going to find out how well the Veterans Committee has studied this issue and how much it concerns them. 

And, no, this is not a snarky attack on the BBWAA or anything similar. It's a legitimate issue, I think.

And, managing roiding players aside, how do we judge "borderline" managers? See here for my cry for a WAR for managers.

And, what good is a post like this without a poll?

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Should Veterans voters treat La Russa, Torre like BBWAA voters on alleged roiders?

Yes   No   Uncertain

 

Wow ... nobody elected to #Cooperstown

Wow. Now I can write a more complete post, with the BBWAA votes posted at its website.

And here's a list of vote returns from writers who went public.

And, I have emailed or tweeted every voter with a public ballot, for whom I could find an email address, who voted FOR Jack Morris. If sabermetrics fans had a campaign FOR Blyleven, there can be one against Morris, right?

First, aside from the vote, for the roiders, they have a new enemy, who may reflect many writers' thoughts.  Ken Burns calls them "motherfuckers," as reported via Yahoo. 

That would be you, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, et al. Here's my thoughts on likely roiders. 

Related to that, Jayson Stark asks some of the right rhetorical questions (along with some of the wrong ones, being "big Hall" voter). But it's a start.

And at right, we see the BBWAA thoughts. Both the Bobbsey Twins were below 40 percent. 

Contra Stark, I don't have a problem with that, if the folks in Cooperstown and Bug Selig don't. If they do, and Michael Weiner of the players union does, too, then, it's their problem to start fixing. The writers have spoken about the roiders. Already had on a few.

That said, I think Stark is probably full of crap if he thinks we've already elected a roider. Even Rickey Henderson, thought by some to "fit the profile" on Boswell's comment on Ken Burns' "10th Inning," doesn't. His career takes pretty much a normal non-roider decline, starting at age 34. Eddie Murray had a one-year spike at age 39, but, that is a clear outlier. I've gone back more than a decade and don't see any roiders in the HOF. More ESPN "big Hall" BS.

But, I thought for sure that Craig Biggio, as a hon-roiding "message man" had a good shot this year. I even thought teammate Jeff Bagwell might join him. Why, why is he still waiting? He shouldn't be.

Now, as to that vote?

Biggio is close. He could get in next year, but that stacked 2014 ballot could spell trouble.

At least Jack Morris, the antimatter to Bert Blyleven among sabermetrically smart, didn't get in. He's not close to deserving. With just a 1 percent gain from last year, I don't see him getting in next year, but, we need to keep up a campaign against him.

Tim Raines: Can he get in soon or not? His modest jump may not spell "soon," but should keep him hopeful.

Alan Trammell: Can he step out from Cal Ripken's shadow and get in or not? Wow, he fell. Not good news at all for his last three years on the ballot.

Curt Schilling: His sabermetric stats parallel Bagwell, but  what did voters think of low career counting stats? At nearly 40 percent, and crabbed voters, he did OK, I guess. I want to see 2014, with its ace pitchers on the ballot, and how his numbers do then.

Mike Piazza: Besides "bacne," is catcher durability the biggest PEDs allegation shadow for him? Apparently not that much. I'd venture he gets in by 2016 if not earlier.

More thoughts as I update.

First, readers agree with me. Biggio and Bagwell both crossed 75 percent in the poll here.

Second, will either the Hall, the head of the BBWAA, or Selig make a statement? I doubt it.  Unless, per ESPN, the town of Cooperstown starts to feel the loss of tourist dollars.

Selig? Per another ESPN story, will either he or Michael Weiner/the union listen to Schiling?

"I think as a player, a group, this is one of the first times that we've been publicly called out," Schilling said. "I think it's fitting. ... If there was ever a ballot and a year to make a statement about what we didn't do as players -- which is we didn't actively push to get the game clean -- this is it."

Selig's not crying, not so far:

"Next year, I think you'll have a rather large class and this year, for whatever reasons, you had a couple of guys come really close," Commissioner Bud Selig said at the owners' meetings in Paradise Valley, Ariz. "This is not to be voted to make sure that somebody gets in every year. It's to be voted on to make sure that they're deserving. I respect the writers as well as the Hall itself. This idea that this somehow diminishes the Hall of baseball is just ridiculous in my opinion."

But union head Weiner sure is:

"To ignore the historic accomplishments of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, for example, is hard to justify. Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings -- and others never even implicated -- is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game. Several such players were denied access to the Hall today. Hopefully this will be rectified by future voting."

Well, boo hoo. If you want it fixed by future voting, then you and/or your predecessor, Don Fehr, have to be part of the solution.

And, so do writers themselves. I'll take a look at a few, then offer a wrap-up, below the fold:

#Cooperstown candidacies: My summation of baseball Hall of Fame 2013 odds, merits

My general questions about potential baseball Hall of Fame candidates are along these lines:

1. Should he get in this year? 2. Should he get in at all? 3. Will he get in this year? 4. Will he get in at all? Following are players, linked to Baseball-Reference pages, then linked to my blog observations. 

Jack Morris: He's not close to deserving. No, No, probably not and maybe next year or via veterans vote.

Dale Murphy. Nice guy, but just no. No to all four questions.

Jeff Bagwell: Why, why is he still waiting? He shouldn't be. Yes, yes, maybe, and yes.

Lee Smith: Closers are generally overrated, including Lee. No, no, no, probably not.

Alan Trammell: Let's get him out from Ripken's shadow and get him in. Yes, yes, no, possibly.

Craig Biggio: Non-roiding "message man" has good shot this year. Yes, yes, probably, yes.

Tim Raines: Can he step out from Rickey Henderson's shadow? Yes, yes, probably no, and very  probably yes.

Kenny Lofton: Should a "junior Tim Raines" be in? No, lean no for now, no, probably not.

Edgar Martinez: Sorry, but he didn't do enough for me as a DH. No, no, no, probably.

Larry Walker: Sorry, fellow Cards fans, but injuries and what I see as a real Coors Field effect say no. No, no, no, probably not.

Fred McGriff: The Crime Dog falls short, and a fair degree, in my book. No, he shouldn't get in this year, or future years. And, he won't, on either.

Curt Schilling: He had an impressive peak, but, injuries aside, why was that peak so late? And are his counting stats too low? His sabermetric stats parallel Bagwell, but ... Kind of lean no on No. 1, I am pretty sure yes on No. 2, no, yes.

Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, et al. Here's my thoughts on likely roiders. Especially re the first two, no, no until individuals, union and Selig (and a few older writers) all apologize, no, and yes. 

And, yes, I know the Hall has morals problems already. I know that players used greenies back in the golden days of baseball. Etc., etc. I have written about that here; shorter thoughts are that this is about playing skills boosts and that I don't believe 1960s amphetamines delivered like that.

Mike Piazza: Besides "bacne," is catcher durability the biggest PEDs allegation shadow for him? See above on Clemens/Bonds.

If I had an actual vote this year, then, it would be Bagwell, Biggio, Raines, Trammell and maybe Schilling.

Your thoughts? Please vote in the poll!  

And, how will my predictions, and desires, square with BBWAA writers? Those who have released their votes to the public, as of last week, may be giving hope to Biggio and Bagwell, and also to me on wanting to keep Morris out.

And, why can't writers get one anti-vote, to vote one person OUT of the Hall? 

I am a "small Hall" guy. Contra Morris and Murphy fans who point to, say, Early Wynn or Jim Rice, respectively, there's plenty of people we should vote back OUT of Cooperstown. Here's some pitchers, and some batters, looking just at the modern baseball era, who need the boot.

And, until the BBWAA, the Hall of Fame itself, and, per my comments above, individual players facing allegations, the players union, and Bud Selig and owners all jointly get honest about roiding, voters are going to face a growing backlog of talented players in years ahead.

Oh, and the Veterans Committee will consider, among others, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre as managers.

Soon, I'll have an initial preview post about that 2014 ballot ... including those two managers.

Let's just say that, although I'm a St. Louis Cardinals fan, TLR managed, pre-St. Louis, the two most notorious early roiders in baseball. And, yes, Tony the Pony, you've got a law degree, but both of them have fessed up. No "alleged" needed.

Stay tuned.