RIP Bobby Cox, still getting a roiding pass

The long-time Atlanta Braves (and shorter-time Toronto Blue Jays) manager, voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame a number of years ago, has died at the age of 84.

And, he continues to get a pass on his managing of alleged, certain in my opinion in one case for sure, steroid-using (or other PED-using) players. The two managers voted in with him, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre, have faced much more scrutiny (while pumping out much more denialism). Cox hasn't.

Indeed, ESPN's own story, at the top link, doesn't even mention this, though at that very place, Rick Reilly mentioned all three, and the hypocrisy, when they were voted into Cooperstown.

Why? Maybe it's because, other than the borderline case of Gary Sheffield, Cox didn't manage any clear HOFers, or players with dramatic performances? (As a St. Louis Cardinals fan, I don't think Mark McGwire is a HOFer even with his PED-influenced numbers, but he did have dramatic performances.) But, outside of Barry Bonds, Torre managed both Roger Clemens and A-Rod. Even deducting for the enhancements, all three continue to be shut out by veterans committees in the first two cases, after the BBWAA took a 10-year pass. A-Rod is likely to face the same fate.

Yet the trio of denialist managers plus former commissioner Bud Selig are all in Cooperstown.

It's a big steaming pile of shit.

I think Cox knew, as much as La Russa and Torre, even if Atlanta wasn't as much of a "locus" as Oakland's dugout or that of the Yankees. (The Texas Rangers became another node when Jose Canseco went there but they've not had a HOF manager until Bruce Bochy, who will go in with a Giants hat. And, the Mac/La Russa Cardinals being a possible node has also flown under the radar screen because, of course, that's not the Cardinal Way.)

Riffing off Reilly, by the early 2000s, all three were managerial elder statesmen. Certainly they were after their 2013 elections. Yet all engaged in denialism both before and after. Denialism extends to fans in the case of Cox, per a post on Reddit's r/mlb, where my comments to this end have been massively downvoted.

And, no, "not too soon," either, no more than with a takedown or semi-takedown obit of a politician. 

No, Jim Edmonds didn't roid, Reddit fucktard

On my blog post two days ago about how Juan Soto is NOT NOT NOT a "generational talent" wirth $500 million, the fucktards came out hot and heavy on Reddit r/MLB, where I posted this. People talking about the short right field porch at Yankee while ignoring OPS+, WAR, etc. are park-neutralized. People claiming fielding for a corner OF is overrated. People ignoring just how bad he is in the field. People claiming that, at just at age 25, they can project out his post-30 aging curve.

And, when I pointed out Jim Edmonds as a comp on some issues, on the issue of fielding and other things, one fucktard insinuated Edmonds was roiding.

Said chud posted an old piece from r/baseball that he claimed was support, as shown at left. It doesn't. Yes, the cutoff is 4 WAR, not 7, which Edmonds had.

That was after me posting a LONG list of people who were above 10 WAR when they got older, off this B-Ref page with every WAR value, in order, by player, age and season. I went with age-30, instead of 34, because that's where he originally started from, a blanket statement that everybody declines after 30. No they don't. Beyond that? Small sample size on his part.

I earlier than this mentioned that Dwight Evans had fully half his WAR from age 30 on. Chud didn't like that either.

Chud got butthurt in addition because I included pitchers, even tho his chart backs me up!

Beyond that, I'd never before heard insinuations about Edmonds roiding, so he's full of shit right there. He and others have been blocked and I am posting this there.

Let's go back to that B-Ref all time piece on WAR.

We will of course exclude Bonds and Clemens. A-Rod, Sosa, Jason Giambi, also excluded.

But, we will go back more than a decade. And, we'll look for EIGHT not seven or more WAR by decade, because the B-Ref list is top 500 and ties, and cuts off above 8 WAR. I'll still start at age 30, because that was the chud's cutoff line.

We'll list them by decade, in order of WAR, etc., starting with the 1980s.

1980s: 10.1. Steve Carlton, 35, 1980; Mike Schmidt, 8.9, 30, 1980; Lonnie Smith (really) 8.8, 33, 1989 (waiting for him to be accused of roiding); Rickey Henderson, 8.7, 30, 1989; Wade Boggs, 8.4, 31, 1989;

1990s: Cal Ripken, 11.5, 1991, 30; Rickey Henderson, 9.9, 31, 1990; Larry Walker, 9.8, 30, 1997; Craig Biggio, 9.4, 31, 1997; Kevin Brown, 9.1, 33, 1998; Randy Johnson, 8.6, 31, 1995; Randy Johnson, 8.6, 35, 1999; Mark Langston, 8.5, 32, 1993;

2000s: Randy Johnson, 10.5, 38, 2002 (OOPS! 3 Randy Johnsons of 8 WAR or above, age 30 or older, and two of them age 35 or older); and make that FOUR; Randy Johnson, 9.5, 37, 2001; Ichiro Suzuki, 9.2, 30, 2004 (maybe Johnson got roids from Seattle-days A-Roid, then that permeated the clubhouse?); Bret Boone, 8.8, 32, 2001; Curt Schilling, 8.5, both ages 34 and 35, 2001 and 2002 (he obviously got them from Randy, when both were with the D-backs)

2010s: Jacob deGrom, 9.9, 30, 2018; Zack Greinke, 9.5, 31, 2015; Cliff Lee, 9.0, 32, 2011; Max Scherzer, 8.7, 33, 2018; Roy Halliday, 8.6, 34, 2011;

2020s: Aaron Judge, 10.5, 30, 2022.

OK, let's sum it up.

From 1980s on, modern baseball, after first two rounds of expansion and more?

TWENTY-FOUR players at EIGHT not SEVEN WAR or more, age 30 or more. That was the chud's cutoff!

Even if we go age 34? Seven seasons EIGHT WAR or above.

Sidebar? As posted there?

All the TEN WAR seasons, post-30, age 31 or later, non-roiders:

Honus Wagner, 11.5, age 34. Bob Gibson, 11.5, age 33. Willie Mays, 11.0, age 33. Gaylord Perry, 11.0, age 33. (The ball was enhanced, he was not.) Lefty Grove, 10.6, age 36. Rogers Hornsby, 10.6, age 33. Babe Ruth, 10.5, both age 35 and 36. Dazzy Vance, 10.3, ages 33 and 37. Babe Ruth, 10.2, age 33. Steve Carlton, 10.1, age 35. Bob Gibson, 10.1, age 34. Carl Hubbell, 10.1, age 33. Cy Young, 10.1, age 35. Lefty Grove and Nap Lajoie, 10.0 age 31. 

Chud was butt-hurt by facts.

And, moderators got butt-hurt by me refusing to back down, and deleted it.

Does NFL great Richard Sherman have the onset of CTE? Or was it the booze talking? (updated and expanded)

I could have sworn that the original linked to Sherman as well as anybody else. Sometimes, it seems, that when you've done the name links already, then you post a player photo, by URL, right next to the link, it deletes the player's link. 

So, not meaning to look like a troll, but, this is being reposted for that reason. And, with updates. (And, according to Pro Football Reference, the original DID have the link as well.) But, I still like the update.

Richard Sherman, former All-Pro corner for the Seahawks at peak Legion of Boom, then on to the 49ers and now looking to maybe come back to Seattle, was recently arrested for DWI and domestic abuse. He has pled not guilty.

At Ken Silverstein's Washington Babylon, Jon Jeter speculates his actions are signs of the onset of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, something affecting ever-more retired NFL players who suffered repeated concussions, and some just-retired players, even.

He notes Vincent Jackson and Phillip Adams, rough peers of Sherman's, committed suicide earlier this year. He also cites Aaron Hernandez, Junior Seau and Dave Duerson as other examples of relatively young players with CTE.

To me? It is "interesting and possible." I would certainly like to see a brain scan, if Sherman's had one.

On the other hand, whether as a one-time or short-term reaction to a  marriage going bad and child custody issues, or a longer-term problem, maybe it's just that Sherman was drunk off his ass. If it's a shorter-term issue, getting past the divorce may help. If not? Maybe he needs help in quitting alcohol. 

I mean, Ken Stabler and other players had booze problems (as well as drugs) while playing. Brett Favre probably washed down his Vicodin with a shot or four. And, let's not even start with Joe Namath. Though not violent, other symptoms of his drunkenness could certainly be seen as similar to CTE. And, looking into the NFL's long-ago past and minority players, from the pre-helmet era? Today, we might say Jim Thorpe had CTE. Or, we might say he was an alcoholic drinker. (Or, we might say he was both and the issue is somewhat chicken and egg.)

And, baseball? Maybe Mickey Mantle wasn't that kind of drunk, but Billy Martin was. Somebody in the days before batting helmets could have argued that one too many beanballs had their effect. Or, on the mound side, look at the antics of Rube Waddell. Or, even more modern, and wearing a batting helmet all the time, how much did booze add to the effect of speedballs on Ken Caminiti, who also eventually committed suicide? Lastly, with the old-timers, don't forget Jim Thorpe may have taken a beanball or two as well as a head-on tackle or two.

After all, pro athletes are as bad as society in general in still not wanting to admit how booze can be, in many ways, the world's most dangerous drug (with possible exception of nicotine). 

I've just scratched the surface, as an article like this shows. Combine booze with roids (I'm not saying Sherman does that, but I'm not saying he doesn't), and you have a potential for going full OC.

And, taint NOTHING new. Some historians theorize that Viking berzerker warriors used a mix of booze and magic mushrooms.

That said, whether Jeter is right or wrong, the whole piece is worth a read.

He comments on other sports issues, including noting Scottie Pippen was right in insinuating Phil Jackson a racist, complete with the goods on Phil, for example. (That still doesn't mean that Pippen wasn't generally full of crap last month, from being butt-hurt about  Michael Jordan to being wrong about Toni Kukoc taking that shot.)

On the larger issue of racism on pro sports? I have no doubt it's still there. At the same time, I also don't doubt that it's getting better.

And, on the larger issue of denialism of alcohol problems, both inside and outside of pro sports? I have no doubt it's still there. And, I don't know that it's necessarily getting better. And, I'm not just talking players. Boorish fan behavior in the past few months is surely fueled in large part by booze.

Joe Morgan has numbskulls' panties in a wad

Hall of Fame second baseman, and sometimes clueless TV baseball color guy, Joe Morgan, released a letter this morning urging voters not to elect roiders. Red Satan has more.

He got a lot of flack, most of it partially to totally undeserved. (Why B-Ref has him in an Astros hat, I don't know. B-Ref's normal policy has been to do cap photos by team WAR, not games played, and his numbers were a lot higher with the Reds.)

First was that he was clueless about roiding.

Second, that he might be speaking out of turn about teams pushing players in HOF votes. Don't know how much is team-related, but do writers push players? You bet your ass they do.

Third and related was that he is a hypocrite about greenies. Wrong. I've covered that one in depth, contra many people before this dust-up. People like Jeff Passan are wrong on that, wrong on the hypocrisy charge, and wrong on the story framing of smart young bucks like them having to clear up clueless stupidity of old coots. (Oh, Passan is now joining in with a few ESPNers and others to say he'll no longer vote. Good! He is also a Big HOFer, I think; another reason for him not to vote.)

Third was that there are roiders in the Hall already. Like Reggie Jackson, per my speculating on speculating? (If it wasn't Nolan Ryan.) Or racists like Cap Anson? And alleged but actually not racists like Ty Cobb? (People citing him in this conversation only show their cluelessness in the face of revelations that most the racism claims against Cobb were made up, primarily to sell books.)

So? Two wrongs don't make a right.

And, if you're willing to blink here, what cheating do you NOT find acceptable?

That said, if Morgan was implying there are no roiders in the Hall at this time, he is possibly wrong. So half wrong for easy tabulation.

Fourth was the insults claiming the fourth-greatest 2B ever, by JAWS, himself was unworthy of Cooperstown.

Next was his strong opposition to Ryan Sandburg in the Hall. Ryno wasn't bad, but as 2B JAWS shows, he wasn't a slam dunk. So, Joe was half-wrong.

Reality? Let Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens fess up. And Bud Selig as commish. And managers Joe Torre, Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox, as I have blogged before. Then, a truth and reconciliation committee. (Oh, and Mark McGwire still isn't a HOFer, and I say that as a Cards fan.)

So, of five issues, including, indirectly, the Ryno one, I'll give Joe two totally rights, two half rights, and three-quarters right on amphetamines in baseball. (Oh, and also contra Passan and other Gen X and younger kids? Diet-pill level amphetamines were legal even after steroids were banned.)

That's 3.75 points out of 5, or 75 percent. Re the Sandberg issue, I'll give Morgan a boost for, overall, being a "small hall" guy, also contra some of the oldsters at ESPN and many of the young bucks like Passan. So, bump him to 80 percent — a decent B grade.

And, I see that dumbshits at Deadspin have joined the greenies-related pile-on.

(I would like to have somebody directly ask Morgan the Byrnes-Boswell angle and see what he says about the possibility of a roider already being in Cooperstown.)

And, Buster Olney's got his panties in a wad over all this, per the header.

First, Buster, the 10-player limit's been in place for long before roiding.

Second, the Hall making a conscious decision, or semi-conscious one, about roiders is NOT "gerrymandering."

Third, to Passan, who also says the BBWAA in general wants both the 10-player cutoff expanded to 15 AND all writers' ballots to be made public?

First, there were people wanting a larger ballot before the "backlog." NO, NO, NO. This itself shows that the BBWAA has too many Big Hall writers still in its ranks. Like Passan. Like much of ESPN.

On the transparency issue? Canton for pro football, and Springfield for basketball don't release their writers' ballots either, as far as I know.

Passan's almost making some of ESPN's baseball writers look tolerable.

Finally, if Passan says he knows there are roiders in the Hall — how does he know?

Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Pudge Rodriguez make Cooperstown; it's about time

Baggs at bat. Photo via Wikipedia.

For Baggs, it's been more than long enough. The man who ranks sixth all-time among first basement on Jay Jaffe's JAWS system gets in on the seventh ballot. He should have been in about six ballots earlier.

Less than 500 homers in the era of roiding and baseball expansion hurt him, even as many voters didn't look at his on-base percentage and other issues. Relatively early retirement for a first baseman also hurt.

But, he's now in. As is Rock Raines, in his 10th and final year of eligibility, with both getting above 85 percent and Ivan Rodriguez, who has had the occasional suspicion or two of PEDing, just sneaking in at 76 percent. (For the record, I personally believe the Jose Canseco allegations about putting a needle or three in Pudge's butt.)

Rodriguez will, unless I'm overlooking or unaware of something, be the first in Cooperstown with a Texas Rangers hat.

Trevor Hoffman just missed. Vladimir Guerrero, who is not a HOFer in my book (see below) got too damned close. He's certainly less deserving than Larry Walker.

Expansion of note to commenter below, re Vlad vs Larry. It's laughable how even ESPN staffers ignore that OPS+, in Walker's case, is both park-neutralized and era-neutralized. Ergo, if you know sabermetrics, there IS no "Coors Field effect."

Believed users of performance-enhancing drugs Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, while moving up in vote percentages, still fall well short, both still short of 55 percent.. With commish-ex Bud Selig now in, plus three likely knowing managers of roiders, in managers Tony La Russa and Joe Torre managing multiple users, and the third, Bobby Cox, managing at least one suspected user,  I'm softening somewhat on voting players in. No reason they should be screwed more than the commish and managers who profited. The above two were HOFers anyway. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, among others, are not. Manny Ramirez, with multiple testing violations, is not.

Speaking of Canseco, Mr. Header Homer himself has weighed in on today's vote.

Also not in, and not on the ballot, of course, is Pete Rose. Interestingly, Bert Blyleven, himself a HOFer, recently said he thinks roiders hurt baseball more than Pete and his gambling.

Finally, with Edgar Martinez moving above 50 percent, voters may be softening up somewhat on where to vote career or near-career DHs. That said, he has just two years of eligibility left, and is a borderline case for a power position. And, Mike Mussina also broke 50 percent, which may reopen the debate on "compiler" pitchers.

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.

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.

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!

It's once again time to swat down the David Ortiz Hall of Fame claims

Craig Calcaterra at NBC is the latest to get on my wrong side regarding David Ortiz and the HOF, with this, over Ortiz's bitching about an official scorer's ruling:

Let’s ... focus of the pettiness of a guy with a Hall of Fame resume throwing a little temper tantrum over a scoring call that will matter not one iota in the course of this season let alone his career.

Is Ortiz already a member of the "Hall of Very Good"? Yes.

Hall of Fame? No. As I said in comments there:

Right now, in my opinion, he’s borderline … or even borderline of borderline. Barely at 2K hits, yet to hit 1,500 RBIs, despite playing AL and almost all at DH. Never has broken 7 WAR in a season per B-Ref, and only once, 4 WAA.

So, nice, but not huge.

I then linked to Jay Jaffe's JAWS list for first basemen, where he's only 33rd. I then noted:

Of the 1B ahead of him on JAWS, who aren’t yet in the HOF, there’s a number who will likely not get there at all. Keith Hernandez, Todd Helton, John Olerud, Will Clark, Mark Teixeira (yes), Fred McGriff, Norm Cash, Dolph Camilli (yes!). 

I added that this did NOT include PEDers like Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. And yes, with Ortiz's name having been on a certain list linked to the New York Times, and his stats zoom when going from Boston to Minnesota, we (at least those of us who consider this a factor in general) have to take that into account, too. (As for the reality of that factor, I say it's at least "possible.)

Other people then trotted out the "but the World Series" arguments. I countered:

Don Larsen. Kirk Gibson. David Freese. Luis Gonzales.

All great WS performances. All arguably more outstanding than any single WS performance. Freese will be lucky to enter the front doors as a guest with paying double admission. Gibby’s never going to be there (and never made an All-Star team). Ditto for Larsen (and Gonzales, off the ballot after his first year this year).

If you just want “Hall of Very Good” types, I can specifically go there for a few more. Joe Carter. Bill Mazerowski who shouldn’t be in there.

So, not yet, at least, a HOFer. And, for a 1B/DH, where you carry an extra offensive burden to qualify, not THAT close.

As for what he does need to qualify? I said, assuming he plays his two guaranteed years, with enough ABs that his first optional year vests, and then, enough ABs in 2016 his second option year vests:

If he could do his, say, 2010 slashes of .270/.370/.530/.900 (rounded the slugging up 1 percentage point for nice numbers) the rest of this year and the next, and, for his last two, produce, say .255/.350/.500/.850, he’ll probably have a solid case. But, right now, he’s not even on that lower pace this year.

A finish-out like that?

He's likely be at about 2,600 hits, 1,800 RBIs, 510 HRs on counting stats. On sabermetrics, we'll give him 135 on career OPS+,  20 on career WAA and 51 on career WAR. That's allowing for his games played to decline a bit each year.

The WAA is still low in my book, but 1B/DH is a tough competition slot. On JAWS, he'd jump four places, to No. 29.

So, four years from now, at his position, he's not a slam dunk.

And, per yet another commenter on Craig's link, he may be pissed, and scrapping for base hits by scorer's change of mind, because he's not even close to what I noted:

He’s hitting .190/.301/.413 in the month of June and .163/.290/.327 over the last thirty days. Ugly numbers.

Not too good.

Counting stats aren't everything, but, if he finishes below 2,500 hits and below 500 HRs, I don't see him getting in.

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.

Baseball looks to toughen roiding penalties

I agree with the general 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.

But, with the loophole of reducing an inadvertent test to 25 games? Nuh-uh.

But ...

Update, March 28: 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.

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?

Beyond a current case, like the Cardinals' new shortstop, Jhonny Peralta, there's been plenty of other players who originally claimed his bad test was inadvertent. Remember Barry Bonds, who alternated between saying he didn't know what was in the "clear" and the "cream" and that flaxseed oil did it? Remember Manny Ramirez claiming he had no idea how a woman's fertility drug got in his body? I'm surprised that Roger Clemens didn't claim that Brian McNamee mistook his butt for his wife's, as part of his claims. Sammy Sosa suddenly lost his command of the English language before Congress; would have made a good excuse as to not understanding his "personal trainer."

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.

Look at 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.

That, in turn, leads to the question of burden of proof. Will an individual player have to prove his use was inadvertent, or will MLB have the burden of proof in showing it was deliberate?

As it is, all major sports have too liberal of loopholes for Adderall.

So, if that's the official "tradeoff" on the issue, unless the "inadvertent" is league-friendly, no thanks. Let's keep the current agreement.

Albert Pujols shows how to deal with explicit steroid rumors

First, let me stipulate that I think a lot of MLB writers who accuse other writers of being the "steroid morality police" or whatever are full of it.

Their claims that steroids are no more game-changing than amphetamines, the "greenies" of baseball's 60s and 70s, have been refuted by none other than Jim Bouton, who of course played at the height of that era.

Second, I believe that such protestations are in part a smoke screen for their true agenda, which is a "Big Hall" Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

That said, back to the header.

Jack Clark, a few months back, on a St. Louis talk radio station, shot his mouth off about how he believed Albert Pujols had been taking steroids, and how he had word-of-mouth comment to that effect.

Clark has brought Pujols’ situation up at least twice already on the air. The first time, after Slaten said last Friday that he long has believed that Pujols “has been a juicer,” Clark jumped in before Slaten finished his thought and said, “I know for a fact he was. The trainer that worked with him, threw him batting practice from Kansas City, that worked him out every day, basically told me that’s what he did.”

Clark then talked about a conversation he had about a dozen years ago with Mihlfeld, who has worked as a conditioner with several major-league organizations. (Both men were with the Dodgers then, and Pujols was early in his career.)

Mihlfeld “had told me what he was doing with ‘Poolie’ — threw him batting practice, worked him out, shot him up, all that stuff,” Clark said on the air.

Oops.

So, Pujols sued him. (The radio station smartly apologized before a suit could be filed against it, and fired Clark. His co-host, Kevin Slaton, has a long St. Louis history of jerkery.)

And, now?

Clark has issued a public retraction.

Per the story, there's this part, which also goes to Clark's credibility, or something:

In October, Pujols sued Clark in St. Louis County over the comments Clark made during an August broadcast of his local sports talk radio show, “The King and The Ripper.” The program, which aired on WGNU (920 AM), has since been canceled.

Well, out of work, he was even more worried about finances, I'm sure.

That said, most steroid accusations are just a touch more subtle than Jack Clark's. Even Murray Chass' "bacne" comments about Mike Piazza probably don't translate to possible legal liability.

And, some of the rumors are around because circumstantial evidence seems to support them.

I mean, nobody looked at Hank Aaron at the age of 36 and said, "Hey, his head is getting bigger" (that's you, Barry Bonds) or "How is he hitting so many homers at his age?"

That said, while Aaron, unlike Bonds, had no unusually late peak, he did have an unusually long continued period of excellence. Everybody who knows much about him passing Babe Ruth knows he never hit more than 47 homers in a year. He also, after his rookie season, never hit less than 24 until he turned 40, and only twice hit under 30 after his age-22 season until 40.

I'm not saying anything other than "genes" or whatever. It's still interesting.

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.

Is Bud Selig the best baseball commish ever? Uhh, maybe?

Jayson Stark says its a clear yes.

Craig Calcaterra says only if you allow for caveats.

He notes most of the commissioners were fairly poor material. Of the top two who weren't, Bart Giamatti died in office after a short tenure and the owners eventually ran off Fay Vincent for being too independent.

He also notes Bud got in office by leading the palace coup against Fay, though acknowledging that eventually led to some degree of revenue sharing and other things.

I'm with Craig on this. I don't know for sure, but I think either Giamatti or Vincent might have handled the revenue sharing better.

As for Stark's "purist alert"? I'm not a fan at all of the second wild card. And, even though it helped the Cardinals in 2011, I'm not totally a fan of the first. (Bob Costas' idea is just the three division winners, with the best getting a first-round bye. I'd be OK with four teams from each league with one more expansion to 32 teams, which would have the side benefits of reducing the number of interleague games and getting rid of year-round interleague play.

Oh, yes, that's another non-purist thing I don't like.

As for his successor? I'd like to see something done with local-level TV revenue sharing. Not a lot, but a slice. In exchange, let's put in a poor man's floor as well as a lux tax ceiling, requiring every team in baseball to have a minimum salary level. You go below that, and you lose revenue sharing money. If you as an owner fall below it a second time, you get booted off any ownership committees.

At the same time, let's make a small portion of the lux tax also go to revenue sharing. Let 80 percent of so of it go to its other current obligations, but dump a few $$ in the revenue sharing tank.

As for the ghost in the machine? I think Selig has led MLB to the best policy, and policing, of any American team sport. But, could he have done more sooner? I also say yes.

And, I didn't even mention letting an All-Star Game end in a tie, then later deciding the ASG would be used to set home-field advantage in the World Series. On that one, if we have year-round interleague play, why not just use best record instead of the old alternating-years system?

As for all the new stadiums? Yes, they're beautiful. And with baseball attendance and other things, they're at least smaller economic whales than football stadiums.

That's of importance with how Baseball Public Enemy No. 1, Jeff Loria, hosed Miami-Dade County on new stadium costs. And how current Braves ownership may wind up doing the same with the willing connivance of the Cobb County Commissioners Court.

Per Craig, isn't this like choosing the best hockey player in Nicaraguaa?

#MLB & #roiding — are writers who say 'we didn't know' in willful denial?

My answer to that is yes, and I'll get there in just a minute.

Following this year's Baseball Hall of Fame election, Grantland's Bryan Curtis came out with a great piece titled, simply, "The Steroid Hunt."

It's chock full of links to stories from sportswriters going back 20 or more years. Its ground zero is Thomas Boswell, sports columnist for the Washington Post, commenter on Ken Burns' "Baseball" documentary, and for purposes of this blog post, inventor of the phrase "Canseco Milkshake," part ot the colorful contribution to the steroid mess by Jose Canseco when with the Oakland A's.

Boswell knew. But, as a columnist and not a beat writer, especially in a city that didn't have an MLB franchise at that time, there was not a lot he could do, especially when his sports editor whouldn't pick up the cudgels.

And, that's half the problem right there.

Keith Olbermann, at least, in one of the linked pieces, is totally honest about it, when he says "We all knew." He then regrets he didn't tell the story earlier and better.

And, then he talks about the clubhouse culture of all those beat writers and their editors. And, team-focused columnists, too; perhaps Boswell was lucky that the Nationals weren't yet in Washington and nobody from the Baltimore Orioles, well, nobody outside of Brady Anderson, if only for one season, was raising eyebrows.

Like, sadly, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Bernie Miklasz, identified in Curtis' piece as running some pretty willing interference for Mark McGwire.

The first of Wilstein's McGwire stories was pure Chevy commercial Americana. ("'Americans love power,' McGwire says. 'Big cars. Big trucks. Big people.'") The second was a preview of the doping journalism that would characterize the next 15 years of baseball writing. It's worth noting that from Wilstein's original question — how'd you get so big? — he was only able to put together a partial answer. But he got further than anyone else.

"I thought it was rock-solid reporting," said T.J. Quinn, who was covering the Mets for the Bergen County Record, "and that [Wilstein] was a victim of a clubhouse mentality that oozed up to the press box." The clubhouse code says that all secrets of the locker room must remain there. La Russa — again coming to his player's defense — tried to ban the AP from the clubhouse.

In an odd twist, several writers joined La Russa's crusade. ...

But the harshest blowback came from the St. Louis media. When the New York Post asked a local photographer to take a picture of McGwire's locker, the Post found that the photographer had ratted out the paper to the Cardinals. Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz, also working with the permission of the team, attempted to re-create Wilstein spotting the andro. Miklasz stood several feet from McGwire's locker. With Grassy Knoll precision, he announced in his August 24 column that he had to "intentionally look, and look hard" to read the label.

Wilstein dryly suggested that this was because Miklasz was too short.

I wasn't as skeptically minded about life in general then as today. And McGwire had been big enough when he first started with the A's, long before his Cardinals days. I only regret that Curtis doesn't have a link to the Miklasz column embedded. The Post-Dispatch's website, with the paper owned by a penny-stock company cheap enough to use Town News as its website host, returns zip on searches between Aug. 23 and Aug. 26, 1998.

So, when you see a sportswriter accusing "the rest of us" about being holier than thou over roiding? It's most likely defensiveness.

So, they can bite me.

Buster Olney had better never again bust Murray Chass over "bacne" when he wrote about it himself in 2002.

And Bud Selig needs to stop being self-righteously silent when players were openly talking about juicing, that same year.

And, players and GMs were going on background about it way back in 1995.

If there's a failure, it's of columnist types like Miklasz, who claimed andro was legal in 1998 (yes in baseball, no in football and in the NCAA, which he didn't say), to educate the public. And, maybe in 1995, the Internet was slim pickings, but it wasn't by 1998.

There's also a failure by columnists when they say, "It's no different than greenies," the amphetamine pills of an earlier age.

Olbermann calls bullshit on that, with the help of a man at Ground Zero of that era — Jim Bouton:

And then the bottle of “andro” showed up in McGwire’s locker. I can remember that week hearing the late baseball writer Leonard Koppett tell me on my show that nobody cared, that it wasn’t cheating, that it was nothing worse than vitamins or maybe, maybe, “greenies.” To his eternal credit, the author and former pitcher Jim Bouton not only disagreed, but got it exactly right. Some day, he says in the interview, baseball will have to reckon with years and years of records that will be artificially inflated, distorted beyond all measure, by the effects of a drug that lets you keep working out when the guys next to you – or before you, chronologically – have to drop the barbell.

Bingo.

And Bob Costas, whose judgment I will always respect, says, via Ken Rosenthal, that it's an issue of "authenticity." For those who claim this is just like "greenies," like Jeff Passan and others, again, no. Bob and Ken are, I think, coming from where Bouton is: it's not a cheating issue, it's an issue of how much it made some players inauthentic. And amphetamines, while they may have taken the edge off jet lag (or hangovers) didn't actually increase performance from a baseline level.

There's one related issue, not touched on by Fangraphs' Dave Cameron in a 2014 vote wrap-up piece, where he says that Hall of Fame voting, and possible changes to the system like expanding the ballot, is all about logic. Nope. The old "big Hall" vs "small Hall," which is definitely a matter of opinion, drives a lot of this debate. The issue of not voting for some alleged or actual roiders, and the worries about the "gridlock" it causes, are of less concern for we small Hallers. They're still of some concern, but certainly not the same degree.

So, to big Hallers getting hot under the collar for that reason? Sorry.Especially as I suspect that with some writers, it's not willful denial, it's just an other attempt to get a Big Hall nose under the tent flap.

As for Deadspin? It's opening a HOF vote to fans was pretty good. It's NSFW take on the Cubs mascot was, well, OK; the mascot could have been mocked in other ways, too. Its claim that Anthony Bosch could have, theoretically, been injecting A-Rod with nothing but distilled water? Laughably lame if satire, incredibly stupid if true. I don't buy into everything about how this was handled, but that's .... crap and nothing but. And, yeah, Deadspin has a large posse of contributors, but, I lost respect for it, as far as a repository of serious sports news.

And, as for big Hall writers who worry about the Murray Chass types and what they might be doing with potentially unfounded accusations? Well, a good lawsuit can address that. After Jack Clark ran off his mouth about Albert Pujols, El Hombre sued him. And, judging by his latest response, The Ripper is running scared.

On the plus side? Jon Paul Morosi notes that all the discussion over baseball's hall, and the lack of it for other sports, is a good thing. I generally agree. I'll add that, in the NFL's case, it reflects how unserious Roger Goodell is, and Paul Tagliabue before him, about addressing steroids in that league. It also addresses how unserious NFL-first fans are about that issue. Finally, it addresses problems with the NFL's voting process, where a mandatory minimum number of candidates MUST be elected each year.

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?

Baseball, steroids, apple pie and #Cooperstown : American myth vs American reality

Note: What follows is adapted from a recent newspaper column.

The ongoing brouhaha over how to address steroid use in potential Hall of Fame candidates has, as I've noted more than once before, a "big Hall" versus "small Hall" angle to it.

And, as I've noted once before, I'm a small Hall person. Also, I’m a St. Louis Cardinals fan first, a National League fan second, and a baseball fan third. (That explains why I expect DH candidates to at least meet 1B standards on batting on Hall eligibility, if not even a bit higher.)

Seeing the Cardinals just miss on another World Series ring, then address a couple of issues with a free agent signing at shortstop and a trade to shore up the outfield, while looking forward to a passel of talented young pitching arms getting another year of experience, means I’m definitely ready for  pitchers and catchers to start warming up at the beginning of spring training, just a few short weeks away.

At the same time, that Cardinal free agent signing leads to talk about the Hall of Fame vote.
That free agent, Jhonny Peralta, was just coming off a Major League Baseball suspension for having tested positive for the use of performance-enhancing drugs. And, concerns over the use of PEDs have kept all-time home run leader Barry Bonds and top pitcher Roger Clemens out of the Hall.

It’s a mess. We know, beyond failed tests, that some players have used steroids and human growth hormone for a competitive edge. A couple, like Houston Astros and New York Yankees teammate to Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, have made some sort of confession. So, too, has one potential Hall of Famer, former Cardinals basher Mark McGwire. And, arguably, Jason Giambi made the most forthright confession of all. (See here for my "degrees of confession" post.)

This all said, the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is a place that is built on innocence and dreams. As a Cards fan, I'll admit that I loved watching the 1998 season. And, some part of my thinking of Roy Hobbs and "The Natural" while doing so.

That innocence and dreams? That's true whether you're a big Hall or a small Hall person. In fact, part of how the symbol fulfillment of those dreams are viewed is what drives the intensity of some big Hall vs small Hall disputes.

I’ve never been there, but I saw a traveling exhibit in Dallas several years ago. And, for a diehard baseball fan, the materials are about nostalgia, innocence, wistfulness and more.

Those materials are also about mythmaking.

Diehard fans know that Abner Doubleday didn’t invent baseball, and that he didn’t even live in Cooperstown, N.Y. in 1839. Alexander Cartwright doesn’t necessarily have a better claim, though.

We do know baseball evolved from the English game of rounders. That said, Google’s Ngram feature and other things show “base ball,” written as two words as it was well into the 19th century, could be found in books in the late 1700s. 

And, those books were written in England. Indeed, the father of King George III of American Revolution fame, Frederick, Prince of Wales, is reported to have taken his cuts, according to recent findings.

In other words, baseball may not be quite so all-American as an old car commercial claimed. We’ll assume apple pie still is, even if hot dogs come from European sausages and not all Chevy parts are made inside U.S. borders.

Today’s baseball is big business for owners and players alike. Fans in seats starting in the middle 1990s showed that. Of course, amphetamines, though likely of a lot less help, were around in baseball’s picket-fence days of the 1950s and ’60s. And, Gaylord Perry then revived the spitball to an art form, followed by Don Sutton earning the nickname Black and Decker.

So, baseball’s innocence has been itself a myth. Even Terence Mann and Iowa cornfields can’t totally erase that. That's why they're a "Field of Dreams," not a "Field of Reality."

At the same time, for Peralta and thousands of other Latino ballplayers from the Caribbean, it's a myth precisely because it's big business. It's part of the myth of upward mobility. And if, especially to counteract poorer childhood diets and lesser-quality athletic facilities than American youth, if they think that steroids, HGH, and other drugs are part of the price to pay on that altar of myth, they will, no less than an African-American kid in a ghetto will badger his mom for Air Jordans, if they're more than just a status symbol.

And, maybe that’s why it is America’s game, still, in a sense. It's about business. Upward mobility. Immigration, with more non-American players than the NBA and far more than the NFL.

Football’s never had the same mythos around it. Its violence doesn’t speak of innocence. And, modern concussion worries may dull its shine. (However, is it much wonder that Canton, Ohio, home of the NFL Hall of Fame, while not as small as Cooperstown, is nowhere near the size of a big city?)

But baseball has a mix of mythmaking, nostalgia, heavy-duty capitalism, timelessness, and dreams realized and spoiled, to fit the bill. A summer day is languid enough to "play two," per Ernie Banks' plea. Give me a Hebrew National, with a side of St. Louis specialty toasted ravioli, both made in America, to go with. And, a wish that more younger people today would learn to appreciate more of that timelessness.

As for the Hall of Fame? A "steroid wing" is not the answer.

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.