 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » MLB Hall of Fame enters the McCarthy Era
tworoosters
In [url=http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/12/29/jeff-bagwell-a-no-for-this-hall-voter/]this article[/url] Dan Graziano, feature columnist for the NJ Star Ledger and writer for Fanhouse among others, admits that Jeff Bagwell didn't get his Hall of Fame vote because, even though he admits to having no evidence, he "is suspicious" that Bagwell took PEDs.
This illustrates much of what is wrong with the current Hall of Fame process as later in the article Graziano defends his action because "the only standards to which I am beholden are my own."
No, I'm not sure whether or not Bags exploits on the diamond are HOF worthy, he's a close call for me, but I'm damn sure that a "suspicion" of PED use without any evidence is no reason to automatically exclude him
Still later in the article Graziano drops this bomb:
"The withholding of a Hall of Fame vote based on suspicion of illegal activity is not the same as writing a newspaper story accusing someone of illegal activity. I'm not accusing Jeff Bagwell of taking steroids or any other performance-enhancing drug. I'm just saying I'm suspicious. "
Jeff Passan makes some interesting points in his [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AsOmBxVep0CGinxT7Y175vARvLYF?slug=jp-halloffamedecisions123010]recent Yahoo column[/url] when talking about how the Graziano's of the world may view future candidates:
Roberto Alomar: The spit? Roid rage.
Craig Biggio: Played into his 40s ? and with Ken Caminiti and other users.
Tom Glavine: Pitched until he was 42.
Vladimir Guerrero: From Dominican Republic, where they?re easily available.
Randy Johnson: Pitched until he was 45.
Pedro Martinez: Latin American and injury prone.
Albert Pujols: Hugely muscled athlete.
Mariano Rivera: Dominant into his 40s.
John Smoltz: Recovered from major injuries to dominate again.
Ichiro Suzuki: Aging too well.
Frank Thomas: Unnaturally large.
Jim Thome: Massive muscle growth after his rookie season.
Somewhere, hopefully in hell, the former Senator from Wisconsin must be smiling at the thought that peoples careers and legacies can be destroyed via baseless suspicion, "guilt by association" and rumour.
[Edited on 12-31-2010 by tworoosters]
MLB Hall of Fame enters the McCarthy Era
December 30, 2010 at 07:42PM View BBCode
For some time the specter of PED use has been around the Hall of Fame voting but now it's out in the open.In [url=http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/12/29/jeff-bagwell-a-no-for-this-hall-voter/]this article[/url] Dan Graziano, feature columnist for the NJ Star Ledger and writer for Fanhouse among others, admits that Jeff Bagwell didn't get his Hall of Fame vote because, even though he admits to having no evidence, he "is suspicious" that Bagwell took PEDs.
This illustrates much of what is wrong with the current Hall of Fame process as later in the article Graziano defends his action because "the only standards to which I am beholden are my own."
No, I'm not sure whether or not Bags exploits on the diamond are HOF worthy, he's a close call for me, but I'm damn sure that a "suspicion" of PED use without any evidence is no reason to automatically exclude him
Still later in the article Graziano drops this bomb:
"The withholding of a Hall of Fame vote based on suspicion of illegal activity is not the same as writing a newspaper story accusing someone of illegal activity. I'm not accusing Jeff Bagwell of taking steroids or any other performance-enhancing drug. I'm just saying I'm suspicious. "
Jeff Passan makes some interesting points in his [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AsOmBxVep0CGinxT7Y175vARvLYF?slug=jp-halloffamedecisions123010]recent Yahoo column[/url] when talking about how the Graziano's of the world may view future candidates:
Roberto Alomar: The spit? Roid rage.
Craig Biggio: Played into his 40s ? and with Ken Caminiti and other users.
Tom Glavine: Pitched until he was 42.
Vladimir Guerrero: From Dominican Republic, where they?re easily available.
Randy Johnson: Pitched until he was 45.
Pedro Martinez: Latin American and injury prone.
Albert Pujols: Hugely muscled athlete.
Mariano Rivera: Dominant into his 40s.
John Smoltz: Recovered from major injuries to dominate again.
Ichiro Suzuki: Aging too well.
Frank Thomas: Unnaturally large.
Jim Thome: Massive muscle growth after his rookie season.
Somewhere, hopefully in hell, the former Senator from Wisconsin must be smiling at the thought that peoples careers and legacies can be destroyed via baseless suspicion, "guilt by association" and rumour.
[Edited on 12-31-2010 by tworoosters]
Pierzynski
Its really sad that we are entering the era where voters will be swayed by their own biases and prejudices about how someone may or may not have used PEDs during their career.
We all know that the voting process is never un-biased. There are probably many votes that either have or haven't been cast in the past (my Jesse Jackson phrase) because of certain pre-conceived notions that these writers have about players (whether the player in question was deserving of a HOF nod or not)
That list there represents some of my favorite players of the past 20 years and it would be sad to see douches such as Graziano influence public opinion about many great players who played (or still play) their a$$es off day in and day out to provide a great game and great entertainment to us mortals who derive great joy from watching the game that we have grown up loving.
Let's imagine for a minute that our teachers in primary school decided that most of the class was cheating on our tests. In fact, there had been a few of the students caught in the process. Now imagine that paranoia got the best of that teacher and she/he started docking everyone one half grade on every test to compensate for "possible" cheating. And let's suppose that the reason the teacher gave was: "I'd rather withhold the grade based on suspicion than give the grade to the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have."
How sad would that be?
I hope this guy, no douche, gets his voting privileges revoked (if he does vote)
[Edited on 12-31-2010 by Pierzynski]
December 31, 2010 at 09:05PM View BBCode
I agree with you roosters.Its really sad that we are entering the era where voters will be swayed by their own biases and prejudices about how someone may or may not have used PEDs during their career.
We all know that the voting process is never un-biased. There are probably many votes that either have or haven't been cast in the past (my Jesse Jackson phrase) because of certain pre-conceived notions that these writers have about players (whether the player in question was deserving of a HOF nod or not)
That list there represents some of my favorite players of the past 20 years and it would be sad to see douches such as Graziano influence public opinion about many great players who played (or still play) their a$$es off day in and day out to provide a great game and great entertainment to us mortals who derive great joy from watching the game that we have grown up loving.
Let's imagine for a minute that our teachers in primary school decided that most of the class was cheating on our tests. In fact, there had been a few of the students caught in the process. Now imagine that paranoia got the best of that teacher and she/he started docking everyone one half grade on every test to compensate for "possible" cheating. And let's suppose that the reason the teacher gave was: "I'd rather withhold the grade based on suspicion than give the grade to the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have."
How sad would that be?
I hope this guy, no douche, gets his voting privileges revoked (if he does vote)
[Edited on 12-31-2010 by Pierzynski]
tm4559
(roberto alomar was totally awesome.)
January 03, 2011 at 04:33PM View BBCode
the funny thing is, withholding the vote based on "suspicion" of PED use is really no different from giving the vote, based on "would have been a HOFer even without taking the PED everyone is sure a player took." just folks going by what they think or believe.(roberto alomar was totally awesome.)
barterer2002
January 03, 2011 at 05:16PM View BBCode
Robby Alomar is the most overrated defensive player in the history of the game.
dirtdevil
davy concepcion says hello.
(i think you're wrong, by the way.)
January 03, 2011 at 07:21PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Robby Alomar is the most overrated defensive player in the history of the game.
davy concepcion says hello.
(i think you're wrong, by the way.)
tm4559
January 03, 2011 at 07:29PM View BBCode
anything that played a lot and couldn't hit very well, but was in the lineup for the glove was an over rated defensive player. alomar is kind of out of the discussion for the simple reason that he really could freaking hit too.
dirtdevil
January 03, 2011 at 07:32PM View BBCode
as an o's fan of some description, aren't you obligated to defend mark belanger with pistols at ten paces?
tworoosters
What, not Jeter ?
Bart I'm surprised at you.
January 03, 2011 at 07:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Robby Alomar is the most overrated defensive player in the history of the game.
What, not Jeter ?
Bart I'm surprised at you.
tm4559
January 03, 2011 at 07:37PM View BBCode
pfft. he was in the lineup because he was all they had, he could field. but they had boog powell and frank and brooks robinson and they had pitching. when you got that, you put belanger and davey johnson out there and let them do whatever.
tm4559
LOL. i was waiting for it.
January 03, 2011 at 07:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by barterer2002
Robby Alomar is the most overrated defensive player in the history of the game.
What, not Jeter ?
Bart I'm surprised at you.
LOL. i was waiting for it.
dirtdevil
davy hit 40 that one time, though. i don't think belanger hit that many in 20 years.
(davy was probably on the juice. he did, after all, manage the mets.)
January 03, 2011 at 08:14PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
pfft. he was in the lineup because he was all they had, he could field. but they had boog powell and frank and brooks robinson and they had pitching. when you got that, you put belanger and davey johnson out there and let them do whatever.
davy hit 40 that one time, though. i don't think belanger hit that many in 20 years.
(davy was probably on the juice. he did, after all, manage the mets.)
tm4559
[Edited on 1-3-2011 by tm4559]
January 03, 2011 at 08:38PM View BBCode
oh wow, he did that with atlanta. aaron hit 40 that season and he was 39 years old. hank aaron could straighten anybody out.[Edited on 1-3-2011 by tm4559]
tm4559
January 04, 2011 at 02:37PM View BBCode
its been a long time since we had this much fun in sports talk.
dirtdevil
January 04, 2011 at 03:31PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
months, really.
tm4559
January 04, 2011 at 03:57PM View BBCode
i kind of think the hit machine should tone down the cursing. a little.
barterer2002
Come on now TR, Jeter is renowned for not deserving his Gold Gloves while Alomar was generally considered one of the top fielding second basemen of all time.
The truth was that Alomar was an incredible athlete who could cover a great deal of ground which made up for his complete inability to position himself. He could use his athleticism to range far into the hole and make a play that should have been easy had he positioned himself better (see Ripken Cal). If you'll examine his range factor through out his career he was slightly above average but certainly not enough to justify his overrated reputation.
Deke, of course you think I'm wrong because you watched Alomar make those great plays and that taints your opinions of him.
January 04, 2011 at 04:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by barterer2002
Robby Alomar is the most overrated defensive player in the history of the game.
What, not Jeter ?
Bart I'm surprised at you.
Come on now TR, Jeter is renowned for not deserving his Gold Gloves while Alomar was generally considered one of the top fielding second basemen of all time.
The truth was that Alomar was an incredible athlete who could cover a great deal of ground which made up for his complete inability to position himself. He could use his athleticism to range far into the hole and make a play that should have been easy had he positioned himself better (see Ripken Cal). If you'll examine his range factor through out his career he was slightly above average but certainly not enough to justify his overrated reputation.
Deke, of course you think I'm wrong because you watched Alomar make those great plays and that taints your opinions of him.
thatrogue
You get a pass because the new baby is keeping you up at night. But clearly, you are off your game on this one.
January 04, 2011 at 04:28PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevilThe logic problem destroys the chance this had at being funny. We expect more from you, Deke. Just a few weeks ago, you were en fuego.
Originally posted by tm4559
pfft. he was in the lineup because he was all they had, he could field. but they had boog powell and frank and brooks robinson and they had pitching. when you got that, you put belanger and davey johnson out there and let them do whatever.
davy hit 40 that one time, though. i don't think belanger hit that many in 20 years.
(davy was probably on the juice. he did, after all, manage the mets.)
You get a pass because the new baby is keeping you up at night. But clearly, you are off your game on this one.
dirtdevil
have you considered that his positioning was deliberate? knowing he could go that far into the hole allowed him to play farther over, effectively increasing the ground he was able to cover. range factor isn't really that great a metric.
January 04, 2011 at 04:34PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
The truth was that Alomar was an incredible athlete who could cover a great deal of ground which made up for his complete inability to position himself. He could use his athleticism to range far into the hole and make a play that should have been easy had he positioned himself better (see Ripken Cal). If you'll examine his range factor through out his career he was slightly above average but certainly not enough to justify his overrated reputation.
Deke, of course you think I'm wrong because you watched Alomar make those great plays and that taints your opinions of him.
have you considered that his positioning was deliberate? knowing he could go that far into the hole allowed him to play farther over, effectively increasing the ground he was able to cover. range factor isn't really that great a metric.
thatrogue
January 04, 2011 at 04:39PM View BBCode
Aren't there those that say Junior and Edmonds used to leverage positioning to create the need for flashy catches in CF? Didn't Mays, wear a cap that was too small in order to have it fly off when he ran? Defensive showmanship has long been used to make the game more appealing.
barterer2002
For his career Alomar got to 4.97 balls per 9 innings where the league average second baseman during the same years got to 5.06 per 9 innings. Alomar was 1.8% below average
For comparison
Bill Mazeroski got to 5.72 per 9 compared to a league average of 5.29 per 9, or 8.1% above average
Manny Trillo got to 5.70 per 9 with a league average of 5.42 or 5.2% above average
Ryne Sandberg (also a bit overrated) got a 5.31 compared to the league average of 5.21 per 9 or 1.9% better
Frank White got to 5.56 compared to the league average of 5.33 or 4.3% better than average
So while RF/9 may not be the be all and end all of defensive metrics, its extremely odd that a player who was renowned for "getting to balls that others couldn't" didn't get to as many balls as others did.
This reliance on pure athletic skill also contributed mightily to Alomar's rapid decline, especially from a defensive perspective as he reached the mid thirties. Rogue, as a Mets fan, surely you don't think that his year and a half there showed a great defensive player-and that was at age 34 which is very young to have lost it entirely.
January 04, 2011 at 08:08PM View BBCode
Both ideas have merit, however, the question is why, if Alomar was as otherworldly as a defender as he is credited with being, didn't he get to significantly more balls than an average second baseman during his time.For his career Alomar got to 4.97 balls per 9 innings where the league average second baseman during the same years got to 5.06 per 9 innings. Alomar was 1.8% below average
For comparison
Bill Mazeroski got to 5.72 per 9 compared to a league average of 5.29 per 9, or 8.1% above average
Manny Trillo got to 5.70 per 9 with a league average of 5.42 or 5.2% above average
Ryne Sandberg (also a bit overrated) got a 5.31 compared to the league average of 5.21 per 9 or 1.9% better
Frank White got to 5.56 compared to the league average of 5.33 or 4.3% better than average
So while RF/9 may not be the be all and end all of defensive metrics, its extremely odd that a player who was renowned for "getting to balls that others couldn't" didn't get to as many balls as others did.
This reliance on pure athletic skill also contributed mightily to Alomar's rapid decline, especially from a defensive perspective as he reached the mid thirties. Rogue, as a Mets fan, surely you don't think that his year and a half there showed a great defensive player-and that was at age 34 which is very young to have lost it entirely.
dirtdevil
also, the pitching staffs he played behind in toronto were pretty notoriously not ground-ball staffs. after toronto his RF/9 numbers are above league average in BAL, when he played behind some more ground ball staffs, and before toronto in SD also. they didn't drop below league average again until he was into his 30's and even then they weren't substantially below until he got to new york. where, again, he performed poorly at pretty much everything. that's one reason why RF doesn't really tell you all that much on its own.
[Edited on 1-4-2011 by dirtdevil]
January 04, 2011 at 08:38PM View BBCode
there was a lot more about alomar's game in decline during those years than just his defence. after his rookie year, he'd never batted below .282 during any season and was over .300 in 9 of 13, including all 3 of his years with the indians. after he left cleveland he never hit better than .266.also, the pitching staffs he played behind in toronto were pretty notoriously not ground-ball staffs. after toronto his RF/9 numbers are above league average in BAL, when he played behind some more ground ball staffs, and before toronto in SD also. they didn't drop below league average again until he was into his 30's and even then they weren't substantially below until he got to new york. where, again, he performed poorly at pretty much everything. that's one reason why RF doesn't really tell you all that much on its own.
[Edited on 1-4-2011 by dirtdevil]
barterer2002
You are, of course, relying upon your eyes rather than the evidence of statistics. Your statement that Blue Jay pitchers in that time were fly ball is allegorical and either irrelevant or not supported by the data at hand. You'll note that Tony Fernandez was above the league average in range/9, that Manny Lee was right on the league averages as a 2B,and that Alex Gonzalez was up and down but in the end, fairly close to the league average during his time in Tor (and below it afterwards). Homer Bush was significantly above the league average in Tor and even Craig Grebeck were above average.
The only person during the entire decade who played middle infield for the blue jays and appears to have been affected by this issue is Alomar. But I'm sure it's the stats that are wrong.
January 05, 2011 at 12:19AM View BBCode
Listen, I understand that you feel you have to defend Alomar's defensive prowess as a Blue Jays fan.You are, of course, relying upon your eyes rather than the evidence of statistics. Your statement that Blue Jay pitchers in that time were fly ball is allegorical and either irrelevant or not supported by the data at hand. You'll note that Tony Fernandez was above the league average in range/9, that Manny Lee was right on the league averages as a 2B,and that Alex Gonzalez was up and down but in the end, fairly close to the league average during his time in Tor (and below it afterwards). Homer Bush was significantly above the league average in Tor and even Craig Grebeck were above average.
The only person during the entire decade who played middle infield for the blue jays and appears to have been affected by this issue is Alomar. But I'm sure it's the stats that are wrong.
dirtdevil
the only year (93) fernandez and alomar played together in toronto fernandez had a rf/9 that actually dropped almost a full tenth of a point after he came over from the mets at midseason. manny lee was 4.32 in rf/9 at SS in both years he played in toronto with alomar (91/92) compared to league averages in those years of 4.67 and 4.71. that's below league average. lee last played 2B for the jays in 90 (he quite naturally moved to SS when they got alomar) and he was slightly below average that year as well. the 4 jays starters who threw the most innings in 93 (guzman, hentgen, stottlemyre, stewart) were all significantly below league average in gb/fb ratio. homer bush debuted for toronto 5 years after alomar left and grebeck 4 years after (and played on different turf) so they aren't apples to apples comparisions.
that's leaving completely aside the BAL and SD parts of alomar's career (which exactly bookend his toronto years) where he was significantly above league average each year. so either alomar completely forgot how to position himself immediately after arriving in toronto and then remembered it again immediately after leaving 5 years later, or there was something during his time in toronto (pitching staff, playing surface, coaching, whatever) that made that part of his career's defensive metrics different than the other 7 years surrounding it.
so no, i don't feel i'm relying on my eyes rather than stats.
(edited because our squalling daughter interfered with revisions. she's absolutely adorable, but she can be awfully loud.)
[Edited on 1-5-2011 by dirtdevil]
January 05, 2011 at 02:09AM View BBCode
listen, i understand that this is your pet issue, but the stats (even the flawed defensive ones) don't actually back you up.the only year (93) fernandez and alomar played together in toronto fernandez had a rf/9 that actually dropped almost a full tenth of a point after he came over from the mets at midseason. manny lee was 4.32 in rf/9 at SS in both years he played in toronto with alomar (91/92) compared to league averages in those years of 4.67 and 4.71. that's below league average. lee last played 2B for the jays in 90 (he quite naturally moved to SS when they got alomar) and he was slightly below average that year as well. the 4 jays starters who threw the most innings in 93 (guzman, hentgen, stottlemyre, stewart) were all significantly below league average in gb/fb ratio. homer bush debuted for toronto 5 years after alomar left and grebeck 4 years after (and played on different turf) so they aren't apples to apples comparisions.
that's leaving completely aside the BAL and SD parts of alomar's career (which exactly bookend his toronto years) where he was significantly above league average each year. so either alomar completely forgot how to position himself immediately after arriving in toronto and then remembered it again immediately after leaving 5 years later, or there was something during his time in toronto (pitching staff, playing surface, coaching, whatever) that made that part of his career's defensive metrics different than the other 7 years surrounding it.
so no, i don't feel i'm relying on my eyes rather than stats.
(edited because our squalling daughter interfered with revisions. she's absolutely adorable, but she can be awfully loud.)
[Edited on 1-5-2011 by dirtdevil]