2017 MLB HOF ballot released
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
NFL HOF Warren Moon was on a Canadian sports/talk show earlier this week, and during a discussion about steroids, he casually mentioned that he (of course) knew many players who used steroids, and that he knew multiple current MLB Hall of Fame members who used steroids. As with most sport/talk, the hosts are horrible and did not follow up with any other questions, but I was struck by how unequivocal he was with this statement. It was not an "I am sure current HOF players used steroids" or "we can assume that a HOF used steroids" or even "i have heard that current HOF players used steroids". It was (paraphrasing) "I had teammates that I knew used steroids and I know current players in the MLB HOF who used steroids".
David Schoenfield take a stab at projecting every HOF class through 2045. He has 12 Red Sox getting in (or maybe even 13, depending on how you look at it). He acknowledges that this is an impossible task, this is just for fun.
http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/77378/predicting-every-hall-of-fame-class-through-2045
http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/77378/predicting-every-hall-of-fame-class-through-2045
Pud Galvin's use of steroids is unequivocal; it was reported in the newspapers at the time. And Mickey Mantle admitted to taking steroid+amphetamine injections from "Miracle" Max Jacobson (the same "Doctor Feelgood" who gave JFK all sorts of injections in office until the White House physicians intervened).
Babe Ruth's use is probable but not quite as ironclad; he allegedly missed at least one game after getting sick from an injection of sheep testosterone.
I hate the Yankees, but it's a joke that both Bernie Williams and Jorge Posada both fell off the ballot after one year. They were key figures in a dynasty, not just along for the ride. If you're bored sometime, compare Bernie's prime to Tim Raines' prime. You would think that being core players on multiple World Series winners would've earned then some extra credit. But it's just the opposite.
Just saw Stark's article about who he may be voting for next year and he made a case for the possibility of adding Rolen. I personally see him falling short at least to start like maybe a ~40 percent vote guy or less. But if theres an argument for him then Beltre must be first ballot right? I know he's played longer but he creams Rolen in just about every counting stat except triples and is only slightly behind in OBP/OPS. Also has half as many and gold golve 5 to 8. Beltre also has a huge edge in WAR 90 to 70 which when i look at it is 30th all time for position player all time.
You mean like how Bonds went from one of the best contact hitters in the 90s and once he roided up those singles and doubles turned into homers?
Pudge was outed as a user by Jose Canseco. I know it's Jose Canseco, but if it were untrue sue him and clear your name.
Again, the cutoff seems fairly arbitrary. There are definitely steroid users in the Hall of Fame by now so keeping out two of the best players of all time seems petty.
Again, the cutoff seems fairly arbitrary. There are definitely steroid users in the Hall of Fame by now so keeping out two of the best players of all time seems petty.
The BBWAA is in charge of the voting. By definition, everything about this is arbitrary, including your preposterous hypotheticals.
Hey I agree with you, just saying what I think their rationalization is. I tend to believe Canseco. The fact they let Bud Selig in who did nothing to stop PEDs as long as the fans poured in then pretended to have a moral compass when the curtain was pulled back is why I think the whole hall is a joke.
The voting process may be farcical at times, but the museum itself is really well-done and worth a visit. Mostly for the exhibits and history - the hall of plaques is fine, but other than taking a picture in front of your childhood favorite player, it's not really the highlight of the place.
Keep in mind that in addition to being named in the Mitchell report, Bonds had the association with BALCO, and Clemens likely committed perjury when he testified to Congress. And neither one exactly exhibited charm and grace during their respective careers or afterwards. So I can understand why some voters are turned off by the more high profile "cheats". But they'll both probably get in before long.
The Galvin incident took place in a very different world - a world in which we knew a lot less about drugs than we do know and (for example) doctors wrote prescriptions for cocaine and heroin. The fact that it was openly reported in the newspapers seems to show that no one involved felt any shame about it or any desire to hide it. And I think that shame/embarrassment/covering up is a factor in whether a particular action counts as cheating or not. No one admits to stealing signs even though there is no rule against it. Of course, no one is being kept out of the Hall of Fame for stealing signs either.
The specific accusation (in Pearlman's book) was that Bonds declared to Griffey after the 1998 season that he would begin taking "some hard-core stuff," in frustration that (to him) lesser players like McGwire/Sosa were taking PEDs and getting all the attention:
http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=2368395
1998 (his age 34 season) is pretty clearly an inflection point in Bonds's numbers, from all-around power/speed to uber-slugger. Prior to that his career had something like a "normal" arc (though at HOF-level) with a peak between ages 25-28, but instead of a decline into his mid-30s, after 1998 his numbers shot up to video-game levels:
1986-1998: .290/.411/.556/.966, 164 OPS+, 162-game avg: 35 doubles, 35 HR, 38 SB
1999-2007: .316/.505/.712/1.217, 214 OPS+, 162-game avg: 30 doubles, 53 HR, 11 SB
Well, there's also a point at which the US made certain substances illegal to buy/sell without a prescription, and there's a second point where MLB banned certain substances. You can't really equate someone using some kind of snake oil performance enhancer in the late 1800s, and someone deliberately cheating (and breaking the law) to get a proven competitive advantage.
Putting aside for the moment that we have good information about Bonds' usage, would it be that strange for a generational talent to compensate for the loss of speed and agility by adding power to his game? That's a fairly normal part of the aging curve for players. His numbers were superlative but it was an offensive era and he was the league's best hitter. Ted Williams continued to lead the league in OBP and SLG into his late 30s so it's not out of the realm of reasonable expectations.
Even a contemporary like Biggio had a major power spike in his age 38 to 40 seasons. No one accuses him of anything because he doesn't fit the profile, but what's to say he didn't take advantage of PEDs to prolong his career? It's baseless speculation but that isn't really stopping anyone from deciding on who did what and how it specifically helped them. It seems at this point that the writers have largely decided that the act of using steroids isn't the offense, but destroying the records they held near and dear to their hearts is.
Omar Vizquel is going to get a lot of votes this year because he was a light bat, all glove SS like you know, Ozzie Smith so they might as well be the same player. Kill me now because the writers overexaggerating Vizquel's accomplishment are already causing me harm.
And, contrary to it being "pretty clearly an inflection point," his 1999 injury-shortened season was totally in line with the season before. To the point that was being discussed, he was a worthy hall of famer by then (already the only member of the 400/400 club, an 8-time all-star, and 3-time MVP).
Your problem is youre using logic and the people keeping one of the greatest baseball players ever out of the HoF are using emotion. You're going to lose every time.
Steroids only became "cheating' because Reagan didn't like the Russians beating us in the Olympics.
I'd wondered whether I needed to qualify the above with a statement about whether Bonds should be in the HOF, since the assumption would be that those numbers were posted as an argument against it. I was answering the question about when he was accused of starting to take PEDs, since there was a published story about a specific year.
Bonds is absolutely an inner-circle hall of famer, and was already by 1998. 400/400 player, 3 MVPs, 99.6 bWAR by then. It's not close. I don't particularly care about the PEDs.
re: 1999, I think the claim (in that same article and elsewhere IIRC) was that he was still adjusting to the physical effects of using PEDs, hence the injury and only playing 102 games. Whether valid I have no idea. But you're right that his numbers didn't really go through the roof until 2000.
Last edited:
Some players do add power, but I don't think it's particularly normal to have a second career peak with 1.316 OPS, 241 OPS+, and 52 HR/season at ages 35-39.
(His career numbers prior were .968 OPS, 163 OPS+, 32 HR/season—generational, but not break-the-game-of-baseball numbers.)
Posnanski had a good article on this in re: Sosa (apologies if this has already been posted), on the tendency of anti-PED people to oscillate between the "authenticity" argument and the "morality" argument:
http://joeposnanski.com/ballot-13-sammy-sosa/
Last edited:
Meh, I still wouldn't say his numbers went through the roof in 2000, or were out of line with reasonable probability or expectations. He hit his most home runs to that point, but not by a great amount, and it was only his 5th-best OBP, 2nd-best OPS, and tied for 3rd-best OPS+.
Such numbers, which are not far removed from even his last full year are hardly unprecedented at age 35 among elite players. For example, Willie Mays has probably his best year (and won MVP) at age 34; Hank Aaron's best HR, OBP, SLG, OPS, and OPS+ came at 37. Similar thing for Ted Williams at 38.
Obviously what Bonds did starting in 2001 was unprecedented, but 2000 was not particularly curious.
Cumulative WAR by age:
Bonds' spike after age 35 was remarkable even relative to all-time greats like Mays, Aaron, Williams who maintained their numbers and/or had career years into their 30s.
This is debatable. Here's a graph showing year-by-year numbers for one particular statistic for Bonds (blue), Bagwell (orange), and David Ortiz (grey). Can you guess what the statistic is?
HR/FB
1999 was Bonds' age-34 year, i.e., the year the blue line shoots up and doesn't come back down. I think we can call this an "inflection point". Can we prove that it would have looked different without PEDs? Of course not. Is it suggestive? Of course it is.
Bonds and Williams especially don't look particularly different to me.Cumulative WAR by age:
Bonds' spike after age 35 was remarkable even relative to all-time greats like Mays, Aaron, Williams who maintained their numbers and/or had career years into their 30s.
Bonds averaged 37 HR per 162 games until 2000, when he went to 55.5 HR in his 35 yo year.
Aaron averaged 38 HR per 162 games until 1971 (37 yo) when he went to 54.7.
Mays averaged 40 HR per 162 games until 1965 (34 yo) when he went to 53.65.
Ted W. averaged 38 HR per 162 games until 1957. (38 yo) when he went to 46.63.
There was nothing extraordinary about an already generational talent like Bonds's 2000 season.
Last edited:
Well, you're comparing Bonds [already a generational talent] to two players who were not really comparable to him beforehand, and (because they're not available) not comparing him to comparable players like Mays, Williams, and Aaron. And yeah, Bagwell declined quickly. Isn't that starawman? The question is not whether many or most players decline after 34, it's whether not declining or even improving is persuasive evidence of steroid use for an all time great. My belief is that it's not.
And again, I've already acknowledged that post-2001 was unprecedented. But actually, even according to your inapt comparison, only 2001 seems like a great outlier - not much different than Ortiz.
Last edited:
The point is that Bonds had a major and sustained power spike at an age when the best that other players can do is to maintain. Bonds had only one season from age 34 on where his HR/FB wasn't better than his best before age 34. That. Just. Doesn't. Happen. At least, please feel free to show me another example of it happening.
And yes, I know we don't have HR/FB for older players, but we do have ISO. Barry Bonds' age 36-40 ISO is more than 50% higher than the next best in MLB history, Babe Ruth. There are 135 players who are closer to Ruth's age 36-40 ISO than Ruth is to Bonds'. You don't have to deny that Bonds was one of the most talented hitters in MLB history to realize that something there isn't quite right.
As for the comps, perhaps better ones could have been chosen, but I chose Bagwell as a rough contemporary (and someone who has been accused of PED use), and Ortiz as a good example of a slugger who defies aging and retains his power into his late 30s. That's the operative word: "retains", not "significantly increases".
That's YOUR point. Now. And the points keep changing from poster to poster. MY point was that 2000 was not an outlier. His offensive fWAR in 2000 was even lower on a per game basis than 1998. And we have seen other players of his caliber have peak years as late or later I their careers. 2001 was certainly different, and the years later are arguable vis-a-vis someone like Williams. But neither 1999 nor 2000 are clear lines of demarcation IMO.
What would have you have EXPECTED a non-using Bonds to do in 1999 and 2000? You seem to be relying on what seems to me to be the flimsiest of evidence to establish what you believe to be an irrefutable conclusion. And I'm telling you if I were a juror, you haven't come close to proving your case, whether under a criminal or a Goodell standard.
What would have you have EXPECTED a non-using Bonds to do in 1999 and 2000? You seem to be relying on what seems to me to be the flimsiest of evidence to establish what you believe to be an irrefutable conclusion. And I'm telling you if I were a juror, you haven't come close to proving your case, whether under a criminal or a Goodell standard.
Last edited:
Huh? I read this at first as a comparison of their 162-game averages before and after X year—only later realized you're comparing the entirety of their careers prior to X year with that single, cherry-picked outlier year. For straight up comparison of their 162-game average HRs before and after your chosen years, B-Ref gives the following:
(and, NB, this is including the outlier years on the "after" side, in maximum fairness to your argument)
Bonds: 37 HR/yr until 2000, 52 HR/yr after
Aaron: 38 HR/yr until 1971, 37 HR/yr after
Mays: 40 HR/yr until 1965, 30 HR/yr after
Ted W.: 38 HR/yr until 1957, 36 HR/yr after
Any one of those seem unlike the others?
And note again this is using 162-game average—if we used actual HR averages per season the difference would be even more extreme (Bonds 32 HR/yr > 40/yr, Aaron 35/yr > 27yr, Mays 35/yr > 23/yr, Williams 28/yr > 26/yr).
I feel like this has turned into a relatively minor discussion about whether Bonds' 2000 year should count on one side or the other of the boundary where his numbers clearly went through the stratosphere, rather than the original question about whether his late-career surge bears some relation to the claims that he started using PEDs sometime after 1998. I'll happily grant you the point about whether the numbers started going up atypically in 1999, or if it was 2000, or 2001, or whether the upturn was quite so pronounced at the beginning, or rather flatter in the first few years and only more extreme later, etc. etc. etc.—the broader point remains the same.
Edit: Savin Hillbilly beat me to the gist of much of this.
Last edited:
Hank Aaron actually hit 37 per 162 through 34, and 48 per 162 from 35-39. Obvious steroids case.
Bonds hit 45 HR per 162 in the six years before 2001, and 46 HR per 162 in the six years after.
And its not cherry picked. I have repeatedlay stated 2001 was different. We were talking about "clear inflection points."
Bonds hit 45 HR per 162 in the six years before 2001, and 46 HR per 162 in the six years after.
And its not cherry picked. I have repeatedlay stated 2001 was different. We were talking about "clear inflection points."
Last edited:
Jesus. Aaron's 162-game average was 39 HR/year after age 35, higher but not ridiculously so compared to his career before age 34 (162-game avg 37 HR/year).
The part where you strategically omit the three seasons he played after age 39 to bolster your argument? That's what I mean by cherry-picking.
Edit: As stated above, I'm happy to substitute "clear inflection point" for "some slightly less sharply demarcated threshold after which his numbers spiked in unprecedented fashion." Better?
The part where you strategically omit the three seasons he played after age 39 to bolster your argument? That's what I mean by cherry-picking.
Edit: As stated above, I'm happy to substitute "clear inflection point" for "some slightly less sharply demarcated threshold after which his numbers spiked in unprecedented fashion." Better?
Really? You think the fact that a guy who was trotted out there because he was the all time home run king solely to attract fans to an awful Milwaukee team when his skills had clearly deteriorated are the same, and excluding them is cherry picking? Really?
I would give 20:1 that you were not alive when Hank Aaron played his last game. B-ref is awesome!
I would give 20:1 that you were not alive when Hank Aaron played his last game. B-ref is awesome!
Sigh.
I can elaborate in more detail tomorrow all the ways you've tried to shift the goalposts to help your argument (turning a broader discussion about Bonds' late-career performance into semantic nit-picking about whether inflection points are clearer or more diffuse—a point I've repeatedly conceded in the hopes of moving on; reducing the data being discussed solely to HR, and then finessing the selection of years under comparison just so for each player in order to prop up your case; comparing broad swaths of a player's career to single outlier years, as if this were apples to apples; and now, trying to shift this into a debate about Aaron's career rather than about Bonds')—but I feel like we've really lost the thread at this point.
When the discussion is about how one player's dramatic late-career improvement compares historically—even against all-time greats who were able to maintain their performance until exceptionally late in their careers, yet who still did have some eventual age-related decline—then, um, yes, excluding the decline period in these other players' careers is quite literally cherry-picking.
I can elaborate in more detail tomorrow all the ways you've tried to shift the goalposts to help your argument (turning a broader discussion about Bonds' late-career performance into semantic nit-picking about whether inflection points are clearer or more diffuse—a point I've repeatedly conceded in the hopes of moving on; reducing the data being discussed solely to HR, and then finessing the selection of years under comparison just so for each player in order to prop up your case; comparing broad swaths of a player's career to single outlier years, as if this were apples to apples; and now, trying to shift this into a debate about Aaron's career rather than about Bonds')—but I feel like we've really lost the thread at this point.
We're 15+ posts into a back-and-forth precisely about numbers, the very same ones you've tried to manipulate in support of your arguments, and presumably using the same sources—but no, please, my apologies for using resources which were meant to enable meaningful comparisons of players across different eras to, you know, compare players across different eras.
Last edited:
When we're talking about late career performance, it's not cherry picking to discount or discard the end years when a player stuck around beyond his usefulness. If Barry Bonds played until he's 60 and hit 1 home run a year from 50 to 60, it would affect his post-35 numbers, but really wouldn't tell us much about how he performed from 35-39. Discarding Aaron's 40+ years isn't cherry-picking; comparing his 35-39 years with Bonds is a useful apples to apples comparison. You are completely ignoring the fact that Bonds retired on top (for whatever reasons they may have been) rather than suffering the inevitable down years that come at the end. And yet deciding to compare his final years with those of players who followed the nearly universal path. That's why Bonds's trend looks most like Williams's in your above chart; because they both retired at a high level without suffering the inevitable human decline, whenever it came.
Hank Aaron's best three year period of his career OPS+ wise was from 37-39. The point is, it's not unheard of for a player to have late career surges, even to the extent of being arguably the best runs of their career. And I've hardly moved the goalposts. I took issue with clear demarcation in 1999 or 2000, and the numbers bear that out whether you believe it or not.
Hank Aaron's best three year period of his career OPS+ wise was from 37-39. The point is, it's not unheard of for a player to have late career surges, even to the extent of being arguably the best runs of their career. And I've hardly moved the goalposts. I took issue with clear demarcation in 1999 or 2000, and the numbers bear that out whether you believe it or not.
Last edited:
This is why I used HR/FB. You can't use HR/162 as your standard for a guy whose walk rate went from 16.8% through age 33 to 26.7% thereafter.
Look at AB/HR: 13.0 age 27-33, 9.2 thereafter.
This is not hard to see unless you're determined not to see it.
For what it's worth, I have stated earlier that the notion of trying to thread the needle (no pun intended) and determining who used, when they started using and whether they would have been a HoF player without PEDs is something of a fool's errand. And my hypothetical ballot includes both Bonds and Clemens.
Having said this, the proposition that "you can't prove that the PEDs helped him" (or anyone) is a tautology based on the fact that you will never make a statistical case either way until/unless you are able to nail down variables that are unknowable. (Who used, and precisely when they started.)
The reason that some writers will not vote for Bonds and Clemens when they are willing to enshrine others who are reasonably suspected of PED use is simple:
- It is known that Bonds used.
- While not "proven" or acknowledged, it is a virtual certainty that Clemens used.
- The lengths to which they both went to cover up that usage, and the lives they were willing to destroy in the process do not speak well for either man.