On Mark McGwire and Steroids

This really isn't a big surprise. In a perverse way, McGwire's refusal to neither acknowledge nor deny steroid-use before Congress years ago actually has, in retrospect, made him look like the most decent guy on the panel. No feigned ignorance a la Sammy Sosa; no snide, arrogant confidence of a self-proclaimed savior, like Canseco; no finger-pointing, like Rafael Palmeiro. Everybody on that panel ended up posturing in some way, save for McGwire, whose silence ended up being the most honest and decent position taken that day.

Of course, there will be self-righteous indignation, and while some writers may finally respect him for coming clean, I suspect many more will become even more self-righteously indignant. And for those who do become indignant, well, Rob Neyer has a couple of good questions for them.

For my money, he belongs in the Hall of Fame. It's fairly commonly accepted, and probably more accurate than not, that a lot of people used steroids in the 90s. As they say, it was just part of the "culture," and while you may or may not like that part of the culture, if somebody was still one of the greatest sluggers of all time within that culture (a culture that, let's not forget, saw at least as many pitchers as hitters using PEDs), well, then you were among the best of your era, and should be in the Hall. As many sane people have pointed out, it's not like PEDs weren't common in other forms prior to the 90s, and to say that players had an "advantage" in the 90s is kind of absurd for two reasons: first, if hitters and pitchers were using PEDs, doesn't that kind of re-level the playing field (albeit at a possibly higher level)?; and B) where do you draw the line on keeping people out who had "unfair advantages?" Willie Stargell used greenies - did he have an unfair advantage? Bob Gibson had a higher pitchers mound - did he have an unfair advantage? Babe Ruth never had to face Satchel Paige - did he have an unfair advantage?

Of course, these questions won't prevent the indignation of some, and they won't get McGwire into the hall of fame. But anybody who thinks this is a major strike against one of the greatest sluggers of his era, well.....I can't wait to watch you twist yourselves into pretzels once Bonds and Clemens are Hall-eligible.

Does the Baseball Hall of Fame Voting Need Reform?

I realize I'm about a year late in getting to one of Erik's resolutions for this blog, but I'd like to go ahead and add a little more on the Hall of Fame. There has been some controversy over the decisions of the BBWAA to elect Andre Dawson alone, let Bert Blyleven and Robbie Alomar fall short, not elect Tim Raines, etc., controversy and outrage in which I myself have participated. While I think this year was particularly silly, I don't think it's so much a year-to-year basis, and rather, a broader institutional problem: the voters of the baseball Hall of Fame simply misunderstand their role, overestimate their importance, or just aren't that familiar with what constitutes "greatness."

A perfect example of these traits is Howard Bryant, an ESPN writer who's just begun his voting in the Hall of Fame process. ESPN published a dual-article series of pros and cons of reforming the voting system between Rob Neyer and Howard Bryant. Neyer briefly explains why there should and will be reform, though his arguments do occasionally have problems. Neyer feels there should be a "culling" of the herd, but believes that this will inevitably lead to lowering the quality of the inductees. Admittedly, that is possible, but A) isn't there debate already that there are some in the Hall who are undeserving (including some who feel Dawson shouldn't be in)?; and B) but given how culling the field of people who don't actually pay attention to baseball hasn't been tried, there's no way to say the quality of inductees will decline with certainty. It's just one of those things you won't know until it happens. Beyond that, though, I agree with Neyer for the most part, and think his observation that the ballots that see Clemens and Bonds on them will lead to some real hand-wringing on the part of the writers and are a potential flashpoint for reform.

Howard Bryant's article is far more interesting, detailed, and ultimately flawed. Bryant stakes out the non-reform angle. His overall argument is, obviously, that there doesn't need to be any reform to the system; it works fine, and this year wasn't an abberation. However, his logic supporting his arguments falls woefully short in a number of regards.

Bryant first suggests that the most recent outrage is a bunch of hullabaloo about nothing, and that bloggers and fans need to calm down. However, he himself doesn't seem to understand the complaints us "non-writers" have. He belittles both technology (via blogging) and statistical analysis as it now exists, declaring that both have "hijacked" the process. The speciousness of this argument should be clear. I'm not sure how bloggers have hijacked the process, since we don't get to vote. And as for the statistics, Bryant strangely points to things like OPS+ to argue that baseball has gotten too burdened with numbers. This is just patently silly; fans and baseball wonks alike are constantly working to find better ways to quantify just what a player adds to a team in numerous facets; OPS+ is just one of these numbers, and I think you can strongly argue that OPS+ does tell us much more about a player's overall worth across the Majors than RBIs, home runs, or runs. That's not to say the latter are useless (and I don't know any serious baseball fan who thinks the older stats are useless); it's simply to suggest we can gain an even better understanding of how well players play, and new metrics are a great way to do that. Bryant may not like it, but those stats exist and are used, not just by wonks, but by GMs and coaches. If writers like Bryant want to refuse to use the statistical analysis available, it's their problem, not the stats'.

Bryant also tries to defend voters' particular choices this year. In the case of Edgar Martinez, he brushes off Martinez's stats glibly, declaring that "Yes, Edgar Martinez joins Rogers Hornsby, Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Stan Musial as the only players to have a .300 batting average, 500 doubles and a .400 on-base percentage, but would anyone in his or her right mind actually choose to start a team with Martinez over any of those players?" What? What does that have to do with anything? The Hall of Fame Ballot isn't about picking the greatest player ever at each position if you were fielding a dream team; under that logic, there would only be 10 (11 if you allowed for a relief pitcher; 12 if you allowed for the DH) that would be in the Hall. Worse, this kind of "reasoning" not only does nothing to strengthen Bryant's argument; it actually reifies the worst perception of the Hall, i.e., that old-timey guys are always better than more recent players. This just reinforces a foolish and worse-than-useless "golden-age" type nostalgia that ignores facts like whites-only leagues probably mattered more than they want to acknowledge.

Likewise, saying, "well, they didn't elect anybody between 1942 and 1947, either!" is also painfully specious: A) there was a war going on for much of that time, and baseball fell to the wayside, and B) what kind of argument is "we voted just like they did 62-67 years ago!" Again, this does nothing to actually explain why reform isn't necessary; nor does Bryant's comment that DiMaggio didn't get in on the first ballot provide any useful argument. Anybody with half a brain and an understanding of baseball would know that Joe DiMaggio was a first-ballot hall of famer if there ever was one; suggesting that the screwups of previous generations of journalists makes the screwups of this generation of journalists isn't exactly the kind of convincing argument you want to make to support your case. Indeed, these arguments, like Bryant's "argument" about Martinez, don't do anything to explain why there doesn't need to be reform to the system. The game has changed, and the analysis has changed; yet Bryant feels the writers' duties themselves don't need to change. The BBWAA should stay just the way it's always been, right or wrong, and really, what kind of institution of any sort want to be just like it was 60 year ago? Even the Catholic Church has overseen reforms at a faster pace than the BBWAA.

Bryant's article is actually quite useful in one very important way: it shows just how unseriously many of these journalists take the voting, and how undeserving they are. Bryant is certainly not alone, and his article, while naive, just reflects and reifies the stodgy attitudes of many voters. I don't think anybody would suggest that being a voter makes you all-powerful, all-wise, or a sacred keeper of anything; yet that is exactly how some act, and in doing so, changes in the game and the greatness of some players is unecessarily, foolishly, and even arrogantly overlooked. Ultimately, Bryant ends up demonstrating exactly why reform in the voting process needs to happen. Too bad that wasn't his intention.

...UPDATE: In the thread to Bryant's article, commenter raynor54 points out something else problematic with one of Bryant's arguments:

What a surprise: yet another sportswriter did not do his research on the Hall of Fame before writing an article about it.

Why wasn't Cy Young elected on the first ballot? Because the ballot that passed on him was the first ballot in Hall of Fame history, and the voters had 60+ years of baseball history from which to select candidates. Imagine trying to pick the best players since World War II; there's no question a few all-timers would get squeezed just because of the sheer volume of them.

And the reason that no players were elected from 1942-47 (aside from WWII bringing a lot of things to a screeching halt) is because the Hall of Fame worked under different rules back then. Not only were there a lot of players to choose from, but there was also no waiting period for voting on retired players - heck, active players were allowed to receive votes. DiMaggio wasn't elected on the first try because he received his first HOF vote in 1945 - a full 6 years before he retired. Also, while he wasn't elected on the first ballot after retirement, he did make it in 1955 - 4 years after he retired, instead of the normal 5-year wait that was put in place in 1954.

It's worth noting that a guy who didn't do his basic research for his article and either A) knows very little about baseball and/or B) is a terrible researcher, is also a proud voter for the Baseball Hall of Fame. If that's not dysfunctional, I don't know what is.

Time to Grant Jay Mariotti a Wish!

Jay Mariotti, who in the best of circumstances is an insufferable, self-righteous attention-whore, once again flaunts his despicable qualities:

I didn't vote for anybody in the baseball hall of fame this year. Ya know why? To me...the first ballot is sacred. I think Roberto Alomar is an eventual Hall of Famer, not the first time. Edgar Martinez, designated hitter, eventually, but not the first time. Same goes for maybe Fred McGriff. As far as Blyleven and Dawson...if they haven't gotten in for years and years I cannot vote them in now. Ripken, Rickey Henderson and Gwynn. They are true first ballot Hall of Famers, but I didn't vote for anybody, throw me out of the Baseball Writers. I don't care.

It shouldn't have to be said, but to just touch upon the problems here - yes, some people (for example) are first-ballot hall of famers. To suggest Roberto Alomar wasn't, when he was one greatest second basemen ever, stretches the bonds of credibility. But to vote for nobody? "Absurdly indefensible" and "painfully stupid" don't even begin to describe it. This is arrogant, self-important preening from an incredibly little man. James Bailey perhaps put it best:

If Mariotti doesn’t want to vote, take the privilege away from him. He’s doing nothing but lowering the percentages of the players up for election, making it tougher for them to reach the required 75 percent. Who appointed this arbitrary, unprincipled king of principles gatekeeper? And does he imagine if we were voting for writers that he would even make the ballot?

We all know this is just a publicity stunt. Mariotti is nothing if not a spotlight hound. He’s not the only writer to take a “principled” stand with a blank ballot over the years, and he’s not the only one who ought to have their voting rights re-examined. But he’s certainly the most annoying.

I couldn't possibly agree more. And maybe, if they strip him of his vote, it will get the attention of some of the other members of the idiot squad in the BBWAA.

More Thoughts on This Year's Baseball Hall of Fame Ballots

-First, I would reiterate that Dawson absolutely should be in. As Rob Neyer reminds us, though, he shouldn't be the only Expo, nor perhaps even the first (though Dawson's window was smaller). There are a lot of indefensible denials on the part of the BBWAA (that only got more indefensible this year - more on that in a second), but not having Raines in the Hall is stupid. One of the greatest hitters, runners, and producers in his era, and that's what the Hall should be to me - the best of your period. And Raines was unquestionably one of the best of his era.

-Secondly, yes, Blyleven and Alomar seem locks next year. As the BBWAA site itself put it, "For the first time in BBWAA balloting, two candidates failed to gain election by fewer than 10 votes," with Blyleven falling five short and Alomar eight shy. The case for Blyleven was made years ago, and while he will almost certainly get in next year, that doesn't make the ongoing ignorance or stubbornness of some minority of the BBWAA less frustrating. And Alomar was, simply put, one of the three greatest all-around second-basemen - offense, defense, he just had it all. The fact that he didn't get in on the first try says nothing about him, and plenty about the ignorance, blindness, and unnecessarily codger-y attitudes among many of the participants of the BBWAA.

-Just in the last few days (in no small part thanks to our always-good commenters), I've also really been persuaded as to why Dale Murphy should be in. I never really thought he didn't belong; he just never really entered the equation (and I admit that I was a kid for much of his most productive period, and I didn't really pay as much attention to the NL. Only Greg Maddux in the early 90s would really get me looking in the direction of the non-DH half of baseball). That said, it's just not going to happen barring some miraculous shift on the part of the BBWAA; in his 11th year on the ballot, he still only has 11.7% of the voters behind him. He absolutely belongs in there, but it will probably be up to the Veterans' Committee, and even they don't always make sound decisions.

-I'd harp more on Edgar Martinez's low showing, but I don't need to get my blood pressure up or go into too much detail (since I'm sure I'll have years to re-argue this case). I've said most of what I feel now more coolly and clearly elsewhere. For now, I'll simply leave it at the fact that, while I understand the "he never fielded" argument, I just don't think it holds. He was one of the best hitters of his era of players at any position, and that alone should be worth getting in. And for those who still insist that, by not fielding, he wasn't a full baseball player, Jayson Stark does a great job disarming the importance and validity of that argument, as well as other myths that will work against Martinez's favor.

-I'm still not sold on Jack Morris or, to a lesser extent, Alan Trammell. Yes, Morris had what was probably the first performance that I knew, even as a kid, was really really special. Jayson Stark made a compelling opening argument for Morris, but it's not enough, to me. I know these things are always intangible, but to me, Morris unquestionably belongs in the "Hall of Really Good." But he just doesn't strike me as one of the best of his era. As for Trammell, I'm surprised how few defenses on him I've really seen from some of the better baseball writers (which I suppose may indicate just how they're voting on him). A career OPS+ of 110 does seem mighty good, and looking just at his numbers, Trammell seems like a legitimate case, but I'd really like to see some wonk-ish breakdowns that make strong arguments as to why he does or does not belong in, and those have been few and far between.

-I always enjoy seeing the names who will never be on the list again because they didn't get the minimum 5% of the votes, so for those of you who had high hopes for Andres Galarraga, Robin Ventura, Ellis Burks, Eric Karros, Kevin Appier, Pat Hentgen, David Segui, Mike Jackson, Ray Lankford, Shane Reynolds, or Todd Zeile, I'm sorry - save the craziest veterans committee selections ever, your guys are toast.

-To sum up, it's pretty clear that Blyleven and Alomar will be getting in next year, and that will be good then. The DH argument was almost certainly a strike against Edgar, but 22% is a respectable start, I suppose. It would be nice to see both McGwire and Murphy get in (perhaps together), one in recognition of his skills during the steroids era, and the other in recognition of how good he was in the pre-steroids era, but McGwire's going to continue to wait, and it's looking increasingly likely that Murphy will only get in if the Veterans Committee puts him in someday. No matter who seems a lock in, and who seems locked out, the fact that guys like Raines, Blyleven, Alomar, Martinez, Murphy, McGwire, and perhaps even McGriff have to wait another year, while Andre Dawson goes in all on his lonesome, is pretty ridiculous. Regular commenter Aaron put it best: "if there's a group of people who understand the thing they're supposed to do professionally less well than the BBWAA understands evaluating baseball players, I don't want to know about them."

At Least There's a Montreal Expo...

Andre Dawson is the sole inductee for 2010. An excellent (and way-overdue) choice, but Bert Blyleven is once again unfairly denied. Also, Robbie Alomar should have been an obvioius first-balloter. And as I've said elsewhere, Edgar Martinez should be in, too - the DH is a real position, and Martinez was the best ever. Voters need to get over it. A thrilling day for Dawson, but he should have company.

I'll have more later.

Hall of Fame Ballot for 2010 Induction

Baseball came out with its inductee-nomination list for Hall of Fame induction in 2010. Newcomers to the list include Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, in addition to players who were good enough to make the list and nowhere near good enough to even sniff the Hall (Ellis Burks and Kevin Appier, for example).

Firstly, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven absolutely belong in the Hall, and hopefully, this question is rectified this year. I also would put McGwire in - maybe not this year, but eventually. As has become increasingly apparent, steroids were simply part of the game for 15 years, and while I hate that fact, hatred won't undo it; if as many people "juiced" as it now seems, then there's still no denying that McGwire was one of the best at that time.

As for the newcomers, Alomar should be a lock for certain; he was, simply put, one of the greatest all-around second basemen ever, a marvel to watch at the plate and in the field. I imagine some still hold it against him for the John Hirschbeck incident in 1996, but Hirschbeck forgave Alomar a long time ago; baseball writers hopefully have done the same.

I would also put Edgar Martinez in. I'm tired of the stupid "there should/shouldn't be a DH" argument. It's been over 30 years, and it's a part of the game, whether people like it or not. I just can't justify keeping a position that is legitimate within the rulebook out of the Hall of Fame, and there is absolutely no question that Martinez was the greatest DH ever up to this point. Even if you don't like that he never played in the field, it's just really hard to deny the power of his numbers (he's one of eight players who has career stats of over 300 homers, 500 doubles, a career BA of over .300, on-base percentage of .400, and slugging of .500; certainly, those aren't definitive stats, but neither are they anything to shrug off). Additionally, it was in no way his fault that Seattle let him spend years languishing in the minors just because Jim Presley was occupying third base. I suspect of the newcomers who stand a legitimate chance of eventual election, Martinez will be the most controversial, but for my money, he should be in.

If you'd asked me 5 years ago if McGriff should be in the Hall, I'd say no way. He was very good, but not great, and really, that quest for his 500th homer was kind of sad. But five years' perspective, particularly in light (again) of the steroids issue, have changed my stance somewhat. I'm still not sure he should get in, but his name has never been tied to steroids, and his figure certainly didn't seem to indicate his abuse of PEDs. It may be an inconsistency on my part (and somebody may eventually make an argument that makes me change my mind), but to my way of thinking, for the past 20 years, whether a player used PEDs shouldn't enter into the equation of election, but if players didn't use them, that actually should be considered. Put another way - McGwire's numbers were ridiculous, even with the PEDs, and he was amazing in the 90s (and much better than David Segui, who also used steroids); however, Dawson's (or perhaps McGriff's) numbers were so close without PEDs, I think there's also a case to be made there for their numbers without PEDs. This isn't to say I absolutely believe McGriff should get in; it will take convincing. But I'm not nearly as unconvinced now as I was five years ago.

Being a Cleveland/AL guy from Ohio, I was aware that Barry Larkin was in Cincinnati, and that he was apparently very good, but I just don't know if he was that good. I do look forward to statistical breakdowns on him, and analysis, and debate. Still, he's the second-best second-baseman in this year's eligible class; if Larkin gets in, I may or may not be OK with that, but I think Alomar belongs in first.

It will be fun to watch the debates erupt over this, hopefully breaking the monotony known as "football and basketball season" between now and spring training. I don't think it will end up this way, but if it were up to me, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Mark McGwire, Roberto Alomar, and Edgar Martinez would be getting into the Hall of Fame in 2010.

Reward Joe Jackson, Not Pete Rose

I am well aware of the weaknesses of the Baseball Hall-of-Fame: some players in who probably shouldn't be there; others (hello, Andre Dawson?) who absolutely should be in but are not. It's a give-and-take, and while it demonstrates the problems with halls of fame in anything, it's still an institution that I overall respect and enjoy.

However, if Selig does go through with this, all of that will be out the window. I hate Pete Rose with the heat of a thousand suns. He sucked for years in an effort to get that hit record. Unlike P.E.D. use up until recently, gambling was actually against the rules. Rose blatantly violated the rules; he knew he was doing it, and didn't care. When called on it, he lied repeatedly. The crap he offered probably played no small part in the death of Bart Giamatti, who was a great Commissioner; as an added bonus, we were bridled with Selig, who's had as many horrible missteps as he's had good ideas. "Lowlife" only begins to scratch the surface in describing Rose. It's not that the Hall of Fame or reinstatement will suddenly give validity to Rose's records and stats - they're valid with or without that recognition. It's that readmission would say, "you may be an unpardonable, destructive, arrogant, egotistical ass who is one of the worst people to happen to baseball in recent memory, but it's ok - we'll still give you what you want, even though you have gone out of your way to not deserve it." In short, it would reward a man who deserves no more rewards than what he has received. It may open the road for Joe Jackson to get in (something that should have happened decades ago), but that's a small consolation compared to indulging Rose before he dies. And that would be a sad, sad day for baseball.

The 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame Inductions

Erik asked, and he receives. I give you the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame Class.

Rickey Henderson is no big surprise. I know a lot of people out there who still hate Henderson for his showboat antics and his bragging, but look: when you stole that many bases (back when they were more impressive and arguably more important to how baseball was played in terms of run-manufacturing), get over 3000 hits, and have a career OPS+ of 127, I'm sorry, but you've not only earned your way into the Hall of Fame - you've backed up all of that bragging. Was he the greatest player ever? No, but certainly the greatest threat on the bases ever, and probably the greatest threat at the top of the order. And personally, while I never had any ill will against Rickey, the fact that he was willing to keep playing in independent leagues for minimum money until his body just didn't let him play says a lot about his love of the game, something people presumed he never had when he was boasting in the bigs. Sure, that kind of character-thing has no bearing on the Hall of Fame, but there's no question he's deserving of a first-time guy, and I'm happy to see this.

I'm also happy to see Jim Rice in. Over the past several years, around this time of year (or any quiet time in the non-baseball season), journalists would get into the debate of whether Rice (along with Andre Dawson and/or Bert Blyleven) belonged in, and I was pretty strongly convinced on all three early on in that debate. The actual revelations about the steroid era threw the accomplishments of those men into even greater relief. I'm thrilled Rice made it in (and on his last try, too), and can only hope that Dawson and Blyleven are soon to follow.

And another former Cleveland Indian great gets in through the Veteran's Committee. Although Joe Gordon's been dead for 31 years, it's an interesting pick - Gordon was on the last Cleveland World Champion team (way back in 1948.....*sigh*). I'm not quite sure what led the veterans' committee to pick him now - I suppose it was all those MVP awards, and an OPS+ of 120 is impressive, but a .268 career batting average with only one year even above .284 (in 1943, when he hit .322) is certainly not impressive. Still, any Cleveland Indian (it doesn't matter if his best years with the world's greatest manifestation of evil) entering the Hall of Fame is nice; a member of the 1948 World Champion Cleveland Indians is particularly bitter-but-sweet.

And in the totally random category, I want to know who thought Jesse Orozco was Hall-worthy. Definitely one of the better "what the hell?" picks in recent memory.

Congrats to Henderson, Rice, and (posthumously) Gordon.