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.

Bernie Miklasz boo-hoos for nonexistent #CardinalWay

Can't you just feel the Cardinal Way?
Does it smell like St. Louis teen spirit?/AP photo

I am officially calling bullshite on St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz, and for something besides running flak for Mark McGwire on andro, vs. an AP reporter, in 1998, the Year of Magic Year of Tainted Dreams.

His nonsensery? A column that, in addition to being 2x too long, invokes the mystical Cardinal way in pleading, begging, imploring with tear-stained peepers, for Ozzie Smith and his managerial arch-nemesis, Tony La Russa, to kiss and make up.

Yes, because a feud like that goes against "the Cardinal way." No, really. Read:

The last thing any Cardinals' greats should do is feud; that dishonors what they're representing. That isn't the so-called Cardinal Way. Why should other Cardinals Hall of Famers be made uncomfortable when the old gang gets together just because two guys can't settle some dusty dispute that's 18 years old and inconsequential to their current stations in life? These iconic men should be smiling and happy and proud to stand together as one.

Oh, and then, there's this bit of saccharine on top:

Mr. La Russa ... Mr. Smith ... can we end this?

Can we please have peace in our lifetimes?

Or as Stan "The Man" Musial might put it: Whaddaya say, whaddaya say?

Wow. Invoking St. Stan Musial. I'm just about to cry a freaking storm. If I were diabetic, I'd be in a coma by now.

Yeah, a manager who deliberately stacked the deck from spring training on, against Ozzie and in favor of Royce Clayton, and showed zero clue or sensitivity beyond that about how to handle the retirement year of a Hall of Famer who was, despite an injured 1995, in at least as good of walkoff-year health as Derek Jeter this year, should have Ozzie just give him a big hug and a smooch.

Even worse, Bernie has now doubled down on the stupidity, in a new column:

Tony La Russa boxed himself in back in 1996, when he announced that Ozzie Smith and Royce Clayton would compete for the starting job at shortstop during spring camp. The Cardinals obviously acquired Clayton from the Giants with the plan to use him extensively, but didn't want to be insensitive to Ozzie before the players reported to Florida. The proud Ozzie had other ideas and outplayed Clayton during the spring games. That put La Russa in a real bind. 

So the starting job went to Ozzie, right? Uh, no. Clayton had 531 plate appearances in 1996; Ozzie had 261. I thought it worked out fine, because La Russa and the Cardinals received good play from both shortstops. Clayton ranked among the NL's best shortstops in zone rating. And in his final season Ozzie stayed fresh and vibrant as an occasional starter.

But TLR's allocation of playing time at SS became a prominent side issue that never went away in '96. It was a sore point for Smith and many fans.

Er, this is a selective reading. In reality, when weighted per at bats, Ozzie was better on defensive runs, and about even on offensive runs per the shortstop position. B-R ranks him higher on both WAR and WAA; in fact, Clayton gets a negative. And Fangraphs agrees. There, on net run production, Ozzie's 5 runs ahead of Royce for that year, with half as many at bats.

So, "whaddaya say"? I say that TLR was definitely more in the wrong, and has never fessed up.

Beyond that, as his fellow P-D columnist, Bill McClellan, recently pointed out, and blogged about  by me here, TLR isn't exactly the "Cardinal way" guy anyway. His Cooperstown plaque will have no team logo. He never lived in St. Louis in offseasons or spent significant time there.

Per that link, in an email exchange, Bill referenced Andy Van Slyke, too, speaking of players feuding with TLR. I forgot about the history between him and TLR, over LaRussa's knowledge of Big Mac's roiding. (Oh, a good sabermetric based piece here about how Mac showed TLR should have known.) That wasn't the only tangle they had, though. But, that tangle alone, plus Bernie acting like a 1950s sportswriter in carrying Big Mac's bags, probably is more illustration

The Busch Stadium mound, baptized and exorcised by Waino

And, speaking of McClellan, and Stan Musial, and "whaddaya say," Bernie, why don't you ask if Adam Wainwright and other Cardinal pitchers are going to draw Christian fish symbols on the mound again this year? Since it's been a year-plus since Musial's death, they and Mike Matheny can't claim it's a "6" any more.

Beyond that, it's bullshite like this that make fans of many other teams barf when they hear "the Cardinal way," anyway. So, please, fellow Cardinal-loving bloggers, stop? Bernie Miklasz's column explains to a T why you should stop this. It's arguably more true than the Dallas Cowboys calling themselves "America's Team, but that's about it.

I mean, I lived in St. Louis for two different stretches of my life, my last two years of high school plus first couple of college summers, and a half-decade later, three years of grad school plus a year afterward. Loved the city. Still would like to live there, even at the price of figuring out ways to dodge relatives on religious holidays, speaking of the baptized Cardinals' mound.

(More here on the images, along with additional images. More here on the strongly Christian and clubhouse character background I'm not sure the team ever owned up to who was doing this. They did eventually remove them, which prompted national wingnut talking heads to spout off.)

Related to this, I'm also calling bullshite on any Cardinal blogger who again talks about how TLR had a preference for veterans. Ozzie's final year was just as good as Clayton's 1996, no matter how much TLR tried to stack the deck. Both B-R and Fangraphs say so.

Speaking of Fangraphs, a page linked there shows that the Wiz could do it in the field on grass as well as Astroturf. 

This, between the sheer stupidity and wrongness, and 400 wasted, overblown words, may be the single worst column Miklasz has written since coming to St. Louis 20-some years ago. 

Finally, I'll freely admit to bias on this issue. Said bias includes a sports P1 pic of the Wiz, from a pre-Miklasz P-D, diving into the hole for a patented stop, with Ozzie's autograph perfectly placed on top. I've never met the gentleman (which I perceive him as being), and I'm not saying he's guiltless. But, unless one wants to go past Bernie into Buddhist/hippie/New Ager/Obama Kumbaya land, one person needs to stick his hand out first.

And it ain't Ozzie Smith.

Note for Yankee manager Joe Girardi: If you want a good example of how to handle Jeter's final year, look at Tony La Russa, 1996 model, and do exactly the opposite.

(Update, Feb. 25: Bernie, if you're really worried about the "Cardinal Way," you need to keep an eye on Carlos Martinez, obviously [NSFW].) 

Or, read your office mate Bill McClellan, who politely says STFU about the "Cardinal Way." Re Martinez, he notes:

There is no “i” in team, but there is definitely an “i” in Twitter.

 Got it.

And, NOT gonna "get it" — the Cardinal Way is in book form? 

Seriously, Miklasz at times is starting to sound like one of those 1950s sportswriters who always traveled with the team, often drank with the team and sometimes wenched with the team. Bernie, I'll venture that Mozeliak has a PR position available, or can create one.

Otherwise, Bernie, you can write better than this. You have many a time, before.

If I want to up the facetiousness level, was Garry Templeton flipping off the fans the Cardinal Way? Keith Hernandez snorting coke in the Cardinal dugout? Rumors of players cheating on other players' wives in the 1980s? David Freese and his DWI problems? Not to mention other Cardinal DWI problems, like Tony himself, passed out at the wheel.

Is Tony LaRussa a real #Cardinal? His #Cooperstown move says no

Two St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnists, Bernie Miklasz and Bill McClellan, both weigh in on Tony LaRussa's decision for his plaque in the Baseball Hall of Fame to have no team logo.

Bernie notes that a majority, not just a plurality, of TLR's wins as a manager came in St. Louis, and that other stats say he should go in with a Cardinal logo. Hey, Joe Torre managed in St. Louis and Atlanta, and the Dodgers and the Mets but he's going in with a Yankees marker.

Bill aims for the personal. He says, anecdotally, that TLR wanting to give a hat tip, p un intended to Southside Chicago and the East Bay for his White Sox and A's days? Hardly remembered.

And, there's the issue of just how much of a St. Louisan he was:

A lot of people here see La Russa’s decision as a snub. That thinking has roots. La Russa managed here for 16 years, but never lived here. He never made much of an effort to connect with the community. He acted like the midnight man stuck in the 9 o’clock town.

That attitude stung because St. Louisans have an inferiority complex. There is nothing snazzy about St. Louis. We’re a comfortable shoe of a place. We are always ready to be snubbed.

Bernie Miklasz wrote last week that he does not believe La Russa is snubbing anybody. He knows La Russa, so I’ll defer to him.

Actually, that makes the story a sad one, and La Russa becomes a tragic figure. He thinks the fans in Chicago and Oakland would have been hurt if he went into the Hall as a Cardinal. Truth is, the only fans who care are right here.

Agreed. But, that's not all.

And, as I emailed Bill and Tweeted Bernie, let's not forget about that friendship he developed with Ozzie Smith!

Beyond his refusal to address the Mark McGwire issue in 1998 (helped by a bit of friendly flak from Bernie, too), how he handled Ozzie's last years, including trying to shove him aside for Royce Clayton in an unfair "competition" for shortstop, is his blackest mark on the field as a Cardinal manager.

I think LaRussa's aim was a control freak issue. He felt he had to show Ozzie, the last holdover from the Whitey Herzog days (Tom Pagnozzi was a partial holdover, but not a Whiteyball icon, and Willie McGee had just come back after a six-year peregrination with other teams), whose team it was and that was that. It was a crude gesture as a manager as a control issue, and as a player quality issue, it was simply wrong. Ozzie was the better player.  Check out the 1996 roster; Oz had equal WAR and much better WAA in less than half as many at bats.

In an email exchange, Bill references Andy Van Slyke, too. I forgot about the history between him and TLR, over LaRussa's knowledge of Big Mac's roiding. (Oh, a good sabermetric based piece here about how Mac showed TLR should have known.) That wasn't the only tangle they had, though.

His blackest off-the-field mark is a mix of his own DWI and apparent problems in handing drinking issues of David Freese and several other players, of course, such as Josh Hancock, with his DWI fatality accident.

LaRussa's overall record arguably makes him a Hall of Famer. But, I still can't believe that, between two of his three managerial franchises, he knew so little of what McGwire was doing, which is exactly why he got defensive. It's why I've said he and Torre shouldn't have been voted in the Hall. Not yet.

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?

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

 

#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

 

Clemens, Bonds officially on HOF ballot

Bonds & Clemens together forever in eternity/Yahoo Sports

It's official, baseball fans! Big Head (Barry Bonds) and Batrage (Roger Clemens), along with No Speaka da English (Sammy Sosa) are on the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. How much better will Bonds and Clemens do than Mark McGwire?

Should they be in?

My stance, which evolved but has reached its current position several years ago is a qualified yes.

The qualifications?

Apology and admission of “guilt” from the player concerned.

Admission of “guilt” from Commissioner Bud Selig.

Bonds and Clemens both were HOFers in pre-roiding days. Sosa? Not so sure. Take away the roids and he’s below 500 HRs, below 1,500 RBIs, below .500 slugging and a couple of other things. Ignore the ESPN fluffery for Sosa.

(Big Mac? Definitely not, and I’m a lifelong Cards fan.)

And, that’s the other point. One has to do some reasonable “readjustment” of the career numbers of known or highly-suspected roiders (or PEDers of other drugs like HGH) versus “the field.”

Oh, and while we’re at it? Please, HOF voters, also read some sabermetrics and do NOT induct Jack Morris.

But do elect Jeff Bagwell. And Craig Biggio. And, I’d be OK with Tim Raines. But not Edgar Martinez. And, I’m unsure about Curt Schilling.

Heck, for that matter, given how late in his career his own peak was … maybe Schilling was a roider. He strikes me a bit like the stereotypical homophobe who’s actually “projecting.”

Update, Dec. 1: Per a survey of some voters, it looks like none of the Big 3 are getting in. 

Update, Dec. 4: Mr. Dodger Blue, Tommy Lasorda, says keep them out. Barry Larkin (Dec. 6) agrees with Lasorda.

And, click the  "MLB Hall of Fame" tag for more on other candidates on this year's ballot and my thoughts.

#StlCards manager TLR retires

I wondered about this a week ago, as it looked like the St. Louis Cardinals had a shot to win the World Series. I thought that, even though he had a chance to pass John McGraw into No. 2 on the all-time managerial wins list by staying one more season, Tony La Russa had a chance to go out a winner.

And now he has.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a full roundup of stories, starting here.

Several issues.

GM John Mozeliak mentioned the team's desire to resign Albert Pujols. Given that Pujols was perceived as a TLR player, even a Tony La Russa-babied prima donna (over the post-Game 2 media no-show) will this further decrease the odds The Machine returns? I'd say yes, by 5 percent or so, depending on how soon a new manager is named and who that person is.

La Russa didn't mention his long-time "caddy," pitching coach Dave Duncan. But, given Dunc's wife's health, surely he's moving on, too. In fact, he may already have privately hinted that.

And, theoretically, the Cards have a good lineup in 2012 without Prince Albert. David Freese at 3B for hopefully a full, healthy year. Lance Berkman is your 1B. Matt Holliday, Allan Craig and John Jay are your OF. With Adam Wainwright back, the pitching staff is solid indeed in starters, and Jason Motte, starting the year as closer, is going to get better.

So, Mo could spend the "Pujols money" on stabilizing the middle infield with an A-list SS or 2B. I've previously suggested Jimmy Rollins IF the price is right. But, his initial demand show that the price is currently far from right.

Next, and, it's got to be said ... steroids. More below the fold.

Jim Reeves gets HOF, roiding, Pameiro right

Jim Reeves, formerly of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and now of ESPN, talks in detail about why he's willing to be a "gatekeeper" with his BBWAA vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame and keep out Rafael Palmeiro, along with Mark McGwire and others.

The nut graf, or two, is at the end:

I didn't vote for him. I doubt that I ever will. I can't and won't apologize for doing my job the best way I know how.

What I won't ever do, I hope, is bury my head in the sand and ignore my responsibility as a Hall of Fame voter. I'll quit before it comes to that.

Yes, it may be a tourist attraction and Cooperstown, N.Y., moneymaker above all else, but it is also a shrine to the game.

So Commissioner Bud Selig? Union leader Gene Orza? It's time to really fess up about your knowledge of, or guesses about, roiding.

De-factoring steroids from possible HOF candidates

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.

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. Barry Bonds is. Roger Clemens is.

But, let's have confessions. Not just by the individuals. Bud Selig and Gene Orza need to step to the plate, pun intended, and hit a clean one out of the park.

That said, how much of an influence were steroids, on the batting side?

I'd say they're worth 30-40 percent of the power explosion. The Costa Rican baseballs after Rawlings moved its factor from Haiti? Maybe about the same. So, let's say 70 percent there. Maple bats 10-15 percent?

Continued squeezing of the strike zone? 10 percent? Miscellaneous factors, 5-10 percent.

Anyway, I'd love to hear more thoughts.

Bert made it! - and steroids "made it" too

Bert Blyleven had finally made the Hall of Fame, as has Robbie Alomar. (That said, even with all the years of enlightening more people, it's still sad he got "only" 79 percent, while Alomar zoomed past him, in his second year of eligibility to 90 percent. The biggest "issue" with Alomar is his career negative dWAR. Not sure whether it's more him being overrated by us all these years or more an issue with dWAR.

That said, per complete ballot information at Baseball-Reference.com's home page, it's clear the steroid era's fallout is looming large.

Jeff Bagwell failed to break 50 percent.
Rafael Palmeiro barely broke 10 percent.
Mark McGwire fell back below 20 percent.

Other interestings?

Barry Larkin moved up more than 10 percentage points. He may be there next year.

Jack Morris may have plateaued. (I hope.)

Edgar Martinez may have plateaued, but it's too early to tell.

Rafael Palmeiro lies like a cheap rug

Alleged or believed baseball steroid users have taken different angles in the court of public opinion (and, in the case of Barry Bonds, in the court of legal record, too).

Bonds has simply clammed up. Mark MacGwire gave a semi-apology, semi-tearful, pseudo-tearful or whatever. Roger Clemens got indignant and had a lawsuit backfire on him. Sammy Sosa forgot the English language, then bleached his face white in an apparent attempt to go undercover.

Meanwhile, nobody has lied about the issue as brazenly as Rafael Palmeiro, apparently, who gets more brazen, if anything, now that he's up for the Hall of Fame.

Here's a good example:

"I had no motivation to take steroids because I was at the end of my career."

Really? Canseco alleges he shot you up a full decade before the end of your career.

Raffy then says he doesn't understand why people don't believe him, and cites his own statistics as part of why he's believable.

"I don't want to take anything for granted, but there was a legitimate chance that I was going to get 3,000,"

I'm not arguing that, myself. I don't doubt Raffy would likely have had 3K hits without juicing. What IS in question is the source of a power surge that, throwing out 1991 as an outlier, began in 1993 at the relatively late age of 28, per your career record and actually got MORE unbelievable as you moved into your early, then middle, 30s. From the age of 30-38, Raffy, you hit 38 or more home runs nine straight seasons. Now, you may not have juiced as heavily as Bonds, but ...

These numbers are ... unusual, at the least, especially the homer numbers:

                                                     
Year   Age  Tm 2B 3B HR RBI   BA  OBP  SLG   OPS OPS+
1995    30 BAL 30  2 39 104 .310 .380 .583  .963  145
1996    31 BAL 40  2 39 142 .289 .381 .546  .927  132
1997    32 BAL 24  2 38 110 .254 .329 .485  .815  113
1998    33 BAL 36  1 43 121 .296 .379 .565  .945  144
1999    34 TEX 30  1 47 148 .324 .420 .630 1.050  159
2000    35 TEX 29  3 39 120 .288 .397 .558  .954  137
2001    36 TEX 33  0 47 123 .273 .381 .563  .944  141
2002    37 TEX 34  0 43 105 .273 .391 .571  .962  146
2003    38 TEX 21  2 38 112 .260 .359 .508  .867  117

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/30/2010.

And, as I've blogged before, there's the issue of a healthy star athlete in his late 30s doing Viagra commercials. Is there a reason you might know that much about Viagra? Have to use it?

Interestingly, given Raffy's 3K hits/500HRs and 1,800 RBIs, his OPS+ is "only" 132 and his career offensive WAR ranks only No. 78. Makes you realize, on the OPS+, just how much steroids, and other offensive tweaks, screwed with the era of about 1994-2005.

Bonds 'supports' McGwire

Of course he does. Big Mac has fessed up to roiding, breaking ground for Bonds, should he ever decide to do the same. And, with the lamest excuse for roiding yet, Big Mac has also cleared the way for whatever whopper Bonds wants to tell.

That said, I am eagerly awaiting the whopper that Bonds may eventually decide to pull out of his ass.

Tiger coming back at Bay Hill - or not

Tiger Woods reportedly will return to golfing at Arnold Palmer's event. And Ari Fleischer will advise him on media strategy.

Now other sources say he's not coming back until The Masters, if then. Looks like Ari has flunked his first media management assignment, or else Tiger's agent, Mark Steinberg, whiffed again.

In either case on a return date, Tiger better hope that Ari learned something from how he mishandled Mark McGwire. Or, how he lied for Bush.

That said, Tiger is more genial than McGwire, and less of a bullheaded whatever than Bush.

At ESPN, Gene Wojciechowski is of the same mindset as I am about the hiring of Fleischer. He also has 10 questions for Tiger. One of them:

Did you suffer injuries in the November 2009 car crash near your home and if so, did they require surgery (cosmetic or otherwise) and will they affect your ability to play golf?

The other nine are good, too. The include three about Tiger's exact relationship with Dr. Anthony Galea.

Big Mac, steroids truth still not near each other

Now, I don't blame Mark McGwire for being so mad over his brother's tell-all book that he never wants to see him again. But, continuing to claim he only 'roided to rehab from injury? Uh...

Big Mac McGwire blows it with hometown media

Hey, Mac, were you — or even worse, your reported "handler," the unlamented Ari Fleischer — really dumb enough you thought you could totally control a presser with St. Louis sports media?

Big Mac, deconstructed and translated

Here's why you shouldn't put too much stock into Mark McGwire's "tearful" appearance in front of Bob Costas. This is a great, long, blow-by-blow blog; it's a sarcastic must read!

Jayson Stark says he looked remorseful on Costas' show, but doubts Mac yet gets it, on all the damage he did.

Maybe, per the first link, it took 15 minutes before Mac could force any tears.

Of course, Yahoo's Tim Brown saw through McGwire for offering what he saw as a self-serving, not real, apology even before Big Mac went on Costas.

Oh, and to people like a friend of mine who say they're already tired of the cynics, well, not being cynical enough, in this case, could be seen as "enabling."