Indeed McGwire eventually admitted using.I didn't think we were here to talk about the past
Indeed McGwire eventually admitted using.I didn't think we were here to talk about the past
Sorta kinda. He claimed steroids "only helped him stay healthy," but that he broke records all on his own. Because he had a gift. From "the Man Upstairs," in his own words. Which is kind of ironic; the creator of the universe actually took a personal interest in Mark McGwire - enough to gift him so, while at the same time neutering that gift with a health handicap.Indeed McGwire eventually admitted using.
We can't have a "sack of you know what" in the Hall of Fame, obviously.The Globe writers have collectively published their ballots. As if we needed more evidence Shaughnessy is an attention-seeking clown, he is the only one of them to not vote for Ortiz. He cites the 2003 test as his sole reason. Fuck him.
Just Kent.The Globe writers have collectively published their ballots. As if we needed more evidence Shaughnessy is an attention-seeking clown, he is the only one of them to not vote for Ortiz. He cites the 2003 test as his sole reason. Fuck him.
I've long held that "PEDs!" is often a pretext for self-serious and, ultimately, unprofessional sports writers to not vote for people they just don't like. I'm not saying all anti PED voters are unprincipled, but some (like Shank) certainly are.Just Kent.
And only 2 votes for Manny in the entire edit: paper (forgot about MAzz/Herald)
WTF
If Shaugnessy had to cover Kent for even a half season, he wouldn't have voted for him.Funny that Shank would tie his sail to the biggest of all A-holes on the whole ballot. (And that is saying something on a ballot with bonds, Arod, and Clemens). Makes some sense, Kent is kind of the Shaughnessy of players.
And yet, we don't allow children to vote. . .hmm. . .It defeats the purpose of the ballots if you take away someone's vote because of who they voted for, but that's dumb as fuck.
Define childrenAnd yet, we don't allow children to vote. . .hmm. . .
I don't know why we should assume Kent was clean, either. He has one of those suspicious aging curves where he suddenly gained a lot of power after turning 30. The number of completely clean players who were better in their mid-30s than their mid-20s is small.So it turns out that Shank also handed in a Kent-only ballot last year. In 2020 he only voted for Jeter; in 2019 he only voted for Rivera.
All very on-brand for him of course. But as I pointed out in the main board HoF thread, his rationale for Kent (worthy player not linked to scandal or cheating) ignores Scott Rolen, who had similar offensive #'s and significantly higher career WAR on account of superior defense in the same # of seasons. The only real argument for Kent over Rolen is the one MVP award, but given Rolen's superior glove it's really hard to claim Kent's the better candidate. There's also the fact that Kent was eligible (and just as worthy) the years that Shank only voted for Rivera and Jeter. Shank's trying to appear principled about this, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Kent being on the ballot for the last 8 years and Shank only deciding when there wasn't an obvious Yankee to vote for to vote for him proves that the whole thing is a joke to him.So it turns out that Shank also handed in a Kent-only ballot last year. In 2020 he only voted for Jeter; in 2019 he only voted for Rivera.
All very on-brand for him of course. But as I pointed out in the main board HoF thread, his rationale for Kent (worthy player not linked to scandal or cheating) ignores Scott Rolen, who had similar offensive #'s and significantly higher career WAR on account of superior defense in the same # of seasons. The only real argument for Kent over Rolen is the one MVP award, but given Rolen's superior glove it's really hard to claim Kent's the better candidate. There's also the fact that Kent was eligible (and just as worthy) the years that Shank only voted for Rivera and Jeter. Shank's trying to appear principled about this, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Fixed that for youKent being on the ballot for the last 8 years and Shank only deciding when there wasn't an obvious Yankee to vote for to vote for him proves thatthe whole thing is is a joke to himhe is a joke.
http://www.espn.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/9260558/david-ortiz-boston-red-sox-says-ped-suggestions-discriminatoryBoston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz said on Thursday that he thought a recent Boston Globe column had racially tinged elements in its questioning of whether he has been helped by steroids in his prolific start to the 2013 season.
Yesterday, the guy came to see me and asked some questions about steroids, and when you see the writing, it basically focuses on the fact that I'm Dominican and that many Dominicans have been caught using steroids
Ballot #164 is from Mark Purdy. He drops Schilling (net -20) and Kent (net -2) and submits the first ever public Wagner-only ballot, saying Wagner was "the only name I could check with certainty and enthusiasm this time."
Big Papi update with 170 ballots in @NotMrTibbs's Tracker. According to my model, it's very likely David Ortiz will be a Hall of Famer on Jan. 25: Median = 81.1% 95% confidence interval = 76.0-85.2% elected in 99.3% of simulations
I couldn’t find the most recent data on adderall exemptions, but it seems that, historically, at least 10% of the league is taking it with league approval.I would not be surprised if loads of players are taking "greenies" or Adderall today. It is ridiculously easy to get a prescription for them. They are definitely a performance enhancing drug. It is easier to train longer and harder on those things, you have so much more energy.
And look what happened to him!Chris Davis had a therapeutic use exemption for Adderall but didn’t renew it one year and then got suspended for testing positive.
https://www.mlb.com/news/orioles-chris-davis-suspended-25-games-for-amphetamines/c-94335720
Thats future HOF Chris Davis you watch your mouth.And look what happened to him!
Year | Bonds | Clemens |
2021 |
-23.10% |
-21.00% |
2020 |
-21.20% |
-17.70% |
2019 |
-19.50% |
-16.60% |
2018 |
-20.00% |
-16.10% |
2017 |
-21.90% |
-20.00% |
The O/U should be more like 72.5%. That's still great shape for getting in next year.Ortiz would be in great shape if it weren't for the leaked 2003 test. But even without that, the non-public voters vote for fewer candidates generally-almost all candidates have received a lower share from the non-public block in recent years, and so he wouldn't be a lock. The big question is how the non-public voters view the 2003 test. They also may be less likely to vote for (1) a DH or (2) any player on their first ballot.
Who has the other?Something I just learned (DVR from 1/2 hour ago) from Tom Verducci:
Bonds has 3 of the 4 MLB all-time 30-30-30 seasons (HR/SB/IBB).
LatterWho has the other?
I'm guessing Canseco or Vladdy Sr.
Is being the best player in the 50 year history of the game from 1955-2004 (beginning of enforcement iirc) not enough?Not that it isn't a really impressive distinction to hold, but intentional walks are very era driven. Rules and attitudes about it changed dramatically over the years. They were pretty much unheard of during the deadball era and rules about where the catcher could set up and receive the pitch changed during the 1920s. They also weren't differentiated from unintentional walks in game scoring until 1928 (and weren't adopted as an official stat until 1955). We can rest assured that Ruth wasn't intentionally walked as much in the 1920s as Bonds would be, but it was looked down upon far more from a competitive point of view in Ruth's time. When they started tracking it in 1928, Ruth still had five more otherworldly seasons left him in (his OPS+ from 1928-32 was 206), but he was only intentionally walked 30 times total.
You're absolutely right. Though I think the guy hitting behind Ruth had a bit to do with why he wasn't intentionally walked more often.Not that it isn't a really impressive distinction to hold, but intentional walks are very era driven. Rules and attitudes about it changed dramatically over the years. They were pretty much unheard of during the deadball era and rules about where the catcher could set up and receive the pitch changed during the 1920s. They also weren't differentiated from unintentional walks in game scoring until 1928 (and weren't adopted as an official stat until 1955). We can rest assured that Ruth wasn't intentionally walked as much in the 1920s as Bonds would be, but it was looked down upon far more from a competitive point of view in Ruth's time. When they started tracking it in 1928, Ruth still had five more otherworldly seasons left him in (his OPS+ from 1928-32 was 206), but he was only intentionally walked 30 times total.
Huh? I started off by saying it's a really impressive distinction, and nothing I said had anything to do with PEDs or my stance on Bonds' HoF candidacy. He'd already be in the Hall if it was up to me.Is being the best player in the 50 year history of the game from 1955-2004 (beginning of enforcement iirc) not enough?
Sorry, misread!Huh? I started off by saying it's a really impressive distinction, and nothing I said had anything to do with PEDs or my stance on Bonds' HoF candidacy. He'd already be in the Hall if it was up to me.