There seems to be a correlation with openness and voting for Bonds and Clemens. I have read many articles in which actual voters preview who they are going to vote for and somewhat explain why. It is a guaranteed click from me if I see it somewhere. In reading those articles, I would think that Bonds and Clemens would be landslide picks.
But the HOF tracker and those who analyze this more deeply say that they are not only not going to make it, they are not even making any headway. It seems that most of the people who don't want to explain or want to keep their votes completely secret vote no. I find this interesting, and wonder about why these two things seem to dovetail and what it says about the people on both sides.
1:can you post your newsletter intro to the Baseball 100 at tomorrow’s Next Athletic posting? May reduce by 1 or 2 some of the “are you crazy” posts.
2: I was really expecting (hoping) for a write up on Elizabeth’s experience watching the Chiefs win this year to get to the Super Bowl , similar to last year’s loss to the Patriots. This is assuming she is still in love with Patrick. Maybe you’re saving for the Super Bowl watching experience?
Imagine if the strike hadn't happened in 1994. Imagine if Larry Walker, with his .981 OPS and league leading 44 doubles was part of a postseason Expos appearance, perhaps a pennant, maybe even a World Series ring. In this alternate universe, I think he's in the Hall of Fame already. But, as the song goes, it's just my imagination...
Also Tony Gwynn batted .400 because I say he did. Hey, it's my parallel universe, I can do what I want!
I know and respect your stance on Bonds and Clemens. I strongly disagree for players like Ramirez. Yes, there is an official punishment for PED use, but it's laughably weak. And it's pretty easy to evade the testing since it's not too stringent. There's little question that it's a net positive to use PEDs: the positive effect on your numbers can be massive, and it comes at the cost of one or two short suspensions (or none).
Why is the punishment so weak? I think it's partly because of the PA (which I fully support w.r.t. salaries), and partly because MLB doesn't want its stars banned for multiple seasons in the prime of their career (which is what happens in international sport).
But since the early 2000s, there has been a different punishment as well, effective banishment from the HoF. Testing started, the Mitchell Report hit, PED users were pulled in front of Congress, and documented users started getting black-listed on the HoF vote. I could totally see someone like Bonds/Clemens/Sosa being miffed by all this. After all, if it was such a big deal, why didn't someone do something about it earlier.
But by the time Ramirez was in his prime, it was clear to everyone that baseball, and particularly the HoF, considered PED use to be unacceptable and disqualifying. Maybe it's a fair system: you probably won't get caught, and if you do it's probably no big deal, but kiss your HoF chances goodbye. But it's certainly a system that was well-known to Ramirez when he was caught. Then instead of stopping, he kept using and got caught a second time.
To summarize:
1) Ramirez likely used PEDs consistently throughout his career
2) If he responded the same dramatic way others did, it's likely he would not make the HoF without PEDs
3) At the time Ramirez used, the HoF blacklisting was well-established, and well-known
4) The in-game punishments are not nearly sufficient to deter PED use
Why would HoF voters vote for Ramirez over many other deserving players given all this? Until MLB changes its drug policies, this is a key way to keep them out of the game. Why would we ignore all this for a player who knew the game he was playing?
First off, we don't know that Manny used PEDs throughout his career. He is not named in the mitchell report and he wasn't suspended until 2009 at age 37. He was a brilliant hitter from the time he entered the league and his hitting genius is more than what PEDs have to offer. Yes, some power numbers were probably enhanced. It's hard to say how much though, he seemed to always be around 35 to 45 and never had that monster 50 Hr season.
He obviously broke the rules, but he's not the first in MLB history nor in the hall and he served his time and thats my point. Until MLB does change the rules and have big penalties or makes hall eligibility a penalty then they made their own bed and I good with voting for anyone on the ballot. Selig's in the Hall, LaRussa's in the hall
I don't understand why you have little love for relievers in the Hall. It's a catchall position for six or seven guys on every team and has been for 50+ years. Very much like designated hitter, an actual position for most of 50 years, but somehow not a real player 'cause he never takes the field?
It's the lack of innings. Rivera has only about 1200, Hoffman and Wagner even less. All time starters contribute 3 and 4 times more. Even Koufax and his short career pitched over 2000 innings. Closers in particular come into games in favourable sitiations, often at the start of an inning with the lead and rarely ave to face the same batter twice. Rivera aside, relievers just don't contribute as much value as your above averae starter.
The best DHs contribute considerable value to a teams offence and still get 500 -600 plate appearances like position players. I would say closers are more like pinch hitters or pinch runners. They have value, but they come in for specific situations in a limited capacity and if they are capable of more they become starters or everyday players. The best relievers pitch half or a third the innings of starters. Most starters in the hall pitch better than relievers and they do it over 3 or 4 times more innings thus contributing more to a teams performance. It really just comes down to a question of value.
In the context of the 70s and 80s, sure. But the vastly diminished number of complete games pitched today tells the story of actual usage and value since then. Starting pitchers can throw 100mph pitches with impunity because the 6th through 9th innings are the domain of relievers. Relief pitchers are an integral part of the game and have been for decades.
I agree relievers are integral but they cover those innings by committee and the variance in innings pitched is still true today. This is not meant to diminish the quality of relievers, but just to point out that their role and thus value in terms if winning games is relatively small in comparison to starters. If we're talking in terms of Hall of Fame value just look at the difference with Cy Young contenders vs top relievers. Its about accumulated value over innings. Verlander had 223 ip to Josh Hader's 75ip. Hader seems to be on track to be a great career reliever, but it will take 3 seasons of work for him to do what Verander did in 2019.
Verlander had about equal WHIP, better ERA, about equal ERA+ over 3 times as many innings. Look at Scherzer or DeGrom or any top starter andntheir value is 2 to 3 times the top relievers. If we're looking at the Hall of fame ballot, then I am going to have a hard time finding room on the ballot for a reliever over a premiere starter or position player or great hitting dh
My view is that it's invalid to compare players across positions. Relievers aren't starters. 2nd basemen aren't right fielders. There is more than a sufficient body of retired relievers to compare them to themselves. The game values them, honors them and pays them. Closers have held some of the largest contracts. Set-up men made Mariano possible. Relievers are underrepresented and underappreciated.
It's because almost all relievers are failed starters. Almost all starting pitchers would be better relievers than the actual relievers. It's kind of like treating a basketball 6th man as an equivalent position as 1-5. Only singular talents emerge from either i.e. Mo Rivera or Manu Ginobli.
Best ballot I've seen yet. I feel exactly the same way about PEDs and would vote Bonds Clemens and Manny B Manny everytime. If MLB isn't banning PED players from the ballot and they've served their time and paid their fines then why should anyone else exclude them?
Are people furious with your rankings?
There seems to be a correlation with openness and voting for Bonds and Clemens. I have read many articles in which actual voters preview who they are going to vote for and somewhat explain why. It is a guaranteed click from me if I see it somewhere. In reading those articles, I would think that Bonds and Clemens would be landslide picks.
But the HOF tracker and those who analyze this more deeply say that they are not only not going to make it, they are not even making any headway. It seems that most of the people who don't want to explain or want to keep their votes completely secret vote no. I find this interesting, and wonder about why these two things seem to dovetail and what it says about the people on both sides.
Hi Joe. Nice HoF write up. Two requests:
1:can you post your newsletter intro to the Baseball 100 at tomorrow’s Next Athletic posting? May reduce by 1 or 2 some of the “are you crazy” posts.
2: I was really expecting (hoping) for a write up on Elizabeth’s experience watching the Chiefs win this year to get to the Super Bowl , similar to last year’s loss to the Patriots. This is assuming she is still in love with Patrick. Maybe you’re saving for the Super Bowl watching experience?
Imagine if the strike hadn't happened in 1994. Imagine if Larry Walker, with his .981 OPS and league leading 44 doubles was part of a postseason Expos appearance, perhaps a pennant, maybe even a World Series ring. In this alternate universe, I think he's in the Hall of Fame already. But, as the song goes, it's just my imagination...
Also Tony Gwynn batted .400 because I say he did. Hey, it's my parallel universe, I can do what I want!
I know and respect your stance on Bonds and Clemens. I strongly disagree for players like Ramirez. Yes, there is an official punishment for PED use, but it's laughably weak. And it's pretty easy to evade the testing since it's not too stringent. There's little question that it's a net positive to use PEDs: the positive effect on your numbers can be massive, and it comes at the cost of one or two short suspensions (or none).
Why is the punishment so weak? I think it's partly because of the PA (which I fully support w.r.t. salaries), and partly because MLB doesn't want its stars banned for multiple seasons in the prime of their career (which is what happens in international sport).
But since the early 2000s, there has been a different punishment as well, effective banishment from the HoF. Testing started, the Mitchell Report hit, PED users were pulled in front of Congress, and documented users started getting black-listed on the HoF vote. I could totally see someone like Bonds/Clemens/Sosa being miffed by all this. After all, if it was such a big deal, why didn't someone do something about it earlier.
But by the time Ramirez was in his prime, it was clear to everyone that baseball, and particularly the HoF, considered PED use to be unacceptable and disqualifying. Maybe it's a fair system: you probably won't get caught, and if you do it's probably no big deal, but kiss your HoF chances goodbye. But it's certainly a system that was well-known to Ramirez when he was caught. Then instead of stopping, he kept using and got caught a second time.
To summarize:
1) Ramirez likely used PEDs consistently throughout his career
2) If he responded the same dramatic way others did, it's likely he would not make the HoF without PEDs
3) At the time Ramirez used, the HoF blacklisting was well-established, and well-known
4) The in-game punishments are not nearly sufficient to deter PED use
Why would HoF voters vote for Ramirez over many other deserving players given all this? Until MLB changes its drug policies, this is a key way to keep them out of the game. Why would we ignore all this for a player who knew the game he was playing?
First off, we don't know that Manny used PEDs throughout his career. He is not named in the mitchell report and he wasn't suspended until 2009 at age 37. He was a brilliant hitter from the time he entered the league and his hitting genius is more than what PEDs have to offer. Yes, some power numbers were probably enhanced. It's hard to say how much though, he seemed to always be around 35 to 45 and never had that monster 50 Hr season.
He obviously broke the rules, but he's not the first in MLB history nor in the hall and he served his time and thats my point. Until MLB does change the rules and have big penalties or makes hall eligibility a penalty then they made their own bed and I good with voting for anyone on the ballot. Selig's in the Hall, LaRussa's in the hall
I don't understand why you have little love for relievers in the Hall. It's a catchall position for six or seven guys on every team and has been for 50+ years. Very much like designated hitter, an actual position for most of 50 years, but somehow not a real player 'cause he never takes the field?
It's the lack of innings. Rivera has only about 1200, Hoffman and Wagner even less. All time starters contribute 3 and 4 times more. Even Koufax and his short career pitched over 2000 innings. Closers in particular come into games in favourable sitiations, often at the start of an inning with the lead and rarely ave to face the same batter twice. Rivera aside, relievers just don't contribute as much value as your above averae starter.
But that's the job. That's the game. It evolves. The best relievers, the best DHes are doing their jobs at a HOF level—better than everyone else.
The best DHs contribute considerable value to a teams offence and still get 500 -600 plate appearances like position players. I would say closers are more like pinch hitters or pinch runners. They have value, but they come in for specific situations in a limited capacity and if they are capable of more they become starters or everyday players. The best relievers pitch half or a third the innings of starters. Most starters in the hall pitch better than relievers and they do it over 3 or 4 times more innings thus contributing more to a teams performance. It really just comes down to a question of value.
In the context of the 70s and 80s, sure. But the vastly diminished number of complete games pitched today tells the story of actual usage and value since then. Starting pitchers can throw 100mph pitches with impunity because the 6th through 9th innings are the domain of relievers. Relief pitchers are an integral part of the game and have been for decades.
I agree relievers are integral but they cover those innings by committee and the variance in innings pitched is still true today. This is not meant to diminish the quality of relievers, but just to point out that their role and thus value in terms if winning games is relatively small in comparison to starters. If we're talking in terms of Hall of Fame value just look at the difference with Cy Young contenders vs top relievers. Its about accumulated value over innings. Verlander had 223 ip to Josh Hader's 75ip. Hader seems to be on track to be a great career reliever, but it will take 3 seasons of work for him to do what Verander did in 2019.
Verlander had about equal WHIP, better ERA, about equal ERA+ over 3 times as many innings. Look at Scherzer or DeGrom or any top starter andntheir value is 2 to 3 times the top relievers. If we're looking at the Hall of fame ballot, then I am going to have a hard time finding room on the ballot for a reliever over a premiere starter or position player or great hitting dh
My view is that it's invalid to compare players across positions. Relievers aren't starters. 2nd basemen aren't right fielders. There is more than a sufficient body of retired relievers to compare them to themselves. The game values them, honors them and pays them. Closers have held some of the largest contracts. Set-up men made Mariano possible. Relievers are underrepresented and underappreciated.
It's because almost all relievers are failed starters. Almost all starting pitchers would be better relievers than the actual relievers. It's kind of like treating a basketball 6th man as an equivalent position as 1-5. Only singular talents emerge from either i.e. Mo Rivera or Manu Ginobli.
You wrote a book about Houdini? First I've heard of it. Is it ava6in stores or only through this exciting TV offer?
But seriously, I just finished it. It was really good. Is this the right place to mention that you signed it to "Pat" instead of "Paul"?
Best ballot I've seen yet. I feel exactly the same way about PEDs and would vote Bonds Clemens and Manny B Manny everytime. If MLB isn't banning PED players from the ballot and they've served their time and paid their fines then why should anyone else exclude them?
Because they haven't served their time. That's one reason, anyway. Also, some of them wouldn't have been Hall of Famers without drugs.