THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I think his approach on Steroids is reasonable. I think if the player is a borderline HOF on their playing merits(Palmeiro, McGwire), use that as a tiebreaker to keep them out of the HOF. In the case of players whose merits warrant HOF (bonds) despite Steroids, don’t keep them out.

You could also do the arbitrary analysis of whether you think the player would have made the HOF without steroids.

I’m wondering if having this glut of “unvotables” may actually help guys like Tim Raines, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, and Bernie Williams. I mean, the approximately 75% of voters who refuse to vote for McGwire are obviously not going to vote for Bonds or Clemens, etc. So who will they vote for? These other guys that may not have the same numbers but have good enough numbers and a clean record. This also gives those voters a chance to “teach them a lesson” or “stick it to the ‘roids guys” by voting in players who appear to be lesser players.

And since 75% is what it takes to gain election, it wouldn’t be surprising is a number of borderline candidates or candidates that the voters don’t really think were great, find themselves getting elected.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if someone like a Javy Lopez ends up getting elected ‘cause 70% of voters decide to place a vote for a ridiculous choice just to vote for a non-roids user that they think will never get in anyway so there’s no harm in giving him a vote.

Whatever the case, the next 5-10 years will be oh so interesting.

I suspect 45% of the voters won’t vote for McGwire because they won’t vote for anyone connected with steroids.  This group won’t vote for Clemens or Bonds either.

Another 25% won’t vote for McGwire because if you take away steroids, he’s probably just a 450-500 homer guy, with a low batting average and little defensive value.  This group will vote for Bonds/Clemens.

Another 25% vote for McGwire, so they will vote for roiders who were better than him.  And another 5% won’t vote for any of these guys, clean or not.  They’ll just pick one candidate at a time who represents what they think a HOF should be, like Jack Morris.

There won’t be a lessor candidate to get 75% of the votes, because the writers will not agree on which ones to support.  Some will go for Morris, some Raines, some Lee Smith, etc.

Biggio will probably get in next year, and my guess is he’ll be the only one.

I hated when Poz conflated Bonds and Palmeiro in the article.  The two men were basically contemporaries.  In MVP voting, Bonds is 1st all time among all players ever.  Palmeiro is 197th.  That doesn’t exactly put them on the same plain, does it?

Breadbaker/4: He didn’t conflate Palmeiro and Bonds. That’s ridiculous. He listed the two of them, plus four other players, and then the catchall “numerous others” to point to the general group of players whose HOF vote totals will be held down by steroid use. Never did he ever say they were on the same plane; and in a very recent post, he characterized Palmeiro as “never a great player” in performance terms. How on earth you took away from this post the idea that Posnanski thinks Bonds and Palmeiro are comparable in performance terms is beyond me.

In the case of players whose merits warrant HOF (bonds) despite Steroids, don’t keep them out.

I’m interested in how people call tell what a player would have done with or without steroids.

I agree that Bonds and Clemens are both HoF caliber “before steroids” due to their individual awards and dominance, but how do you tell for players like McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and a few names that “may” have used steroids. IMO, all 3 would not have a HoF career without steroids, but I don;t know that I can prove it.

Also, what constitutes steroid use? Being listed in the Mitchell report? Having X number of people think you used or might have used? (Bagwell) Having Canseco mention your name? (Ivan Rodriguez) Having too good of years during the latter part of your career? (Edgar Martinez)

I’m asking because the PED issue, using Poz’s method, could be a determining factor for Bagwell, Edgar Martinez, Mike Piazza, Gary Sheffield (unknowingly still counts, right?), etc.

I mean don;t the writers have to take e-v-e-r-y precaution not to elect someone that might have used steroids, because once you elect one user (even by accident), then the flood gates open ... yes, I am being sarcastic, but not without a point.

Basically, the voters would be taking a hardline against steroid users, except for Bonds and Clemens. In other words they have balls, just not very big ones.

Will this extend to David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez, etc?

I think picking and choosing who would have a had a Hof career without steroids and who would not had using undefined criteria just makes the situation messier.

It’s one of those compromises that allows the voters to put up their “holy front”, but not in such a ballsy way that they lose all of their credibility by trying to do something like keep Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens out of the HoF.

"But I will say here that it’s at least possible that not voting in Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and numerous others who dominated the era”

Gee, Anon21, which of these five names is not like the others?  Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, no one is going to say they didn’t “dominate the era”, with stats and careers just a tad better than Griffey, Johnson and Maddux.  McGwire and Sosa defined the post-strike period, “The Summer That Saved Baseball,” to quote the title of a book before certain facts became apparent.  Rafael Palmeiro did not belong in that list.  He’s only in the list because he got to some counting stats, at least one of which he got to notwithstanding he had already failed a drug test.  That’s my point, and it comes directly from those words.  In what way did Rafael Palmeiro belong in that list?  That’s why I wrote what I did, because that sentence included a name that shouldn’t have been in it.

I think there is a very good argument to be made that Sammy Sosa isn’t a Hall of Fame player even without delving into steroids.

Let’s start with his career rWAR of 59.7. That places him below Edgar, Walker, Trammell, and Lofton - not to mention many other bellweather type candidates (Wynn, Dewey, Reuschel, etc.). But there is substantial reason to believe even that WAR total is overstating his case. Sosa, by b-r.com’s clutch measure is the least clutch hitter of the Retrosheet era at -16.9 WPA. Granted, you cannot drop his WAR by 17 wins because of that number, but it does suggest a lack of “clutch” ability for Sosa.

I also am a little suspect of Rally’s fielding metric which has him as 104 runs above average as a corner OF for his career. Once you account for position that leaves him around 0 for defense. That strikes me as being high.

I am also surprised to see he only had one seasons above 6.0 WAR (2001). So if you are one of those who values peak performance highly, Sosa doesn’t grade out well there either. Long story short, I don’t see Sosa as HOF-worthy steroids or not.

#8.

I don’t know how others feel, but I usually take .5 of a player’s clutch and apply it to WAR.  That seems like a reasonable amount, considering how much may be skill-set/approach vs. luck.  Given the large sample sizes of careers like Sosa’s, I am not sure it wouldn’t be better to credit them with .75 clutch.

For the record, I think TZ lines up pretty close to Humphry’s defense for Sosa in “Wizardry”, for what that is worth.

The historical analysis and explanation of the Hall’s quirky evolution is extremely interesting, but Poz’s argument is not a good one, in my opinion.  Essentially he’s urging the voters of the BBWAA to take responsibility for how other people will act and adjust their voting habits--which ipso facto they believe to be good and appropriate--because unintended consequences could result.  But unintended consequences *always* result, whether you are trying to account for them or not.  Modifying your behavior on matters that you consider particularly important in order to account for the response of others is paradigmatic bad faith, which is to be avoided, spiritually, in my opinion.  It’s not dissimilar to all the “Romney is the most electable” and “Gingrich is the most electable” arguments that were made in Iowa.  If I had been at a Republican caucus and someone made that argument to me I would have told them to shove their electability up their bippy.

"I also am a little suspect of Rally’s fielding metric which has him as 104 runs above average as a corner OF for his career. Once you account for position that leaves him around 0 for defense. That strikes me as being high.”

It surprised me when I first crunched the numbers too.  One of the first things I did was check with MGL, and the numbers I had were pretty close to his UZR numbers for the 1990’s.

It makes more sense when you look at when he put up his defensive numbers - all of the positive fielding ratings came before 1998.  Before that year, he was a slim, fast player who was good enough to play center.

Then after 1998, he get bigger, stops stealing bases, and doesn’t play as good on defense.  It all fits logically together.

IIRC, I had Sosa as one of the best fielders in WOWY.  He used to be pretty slim and fast.

Btw: no steroids link to Sosa ever, IIRC.  His link is to McGwire and 1998.  He has admitted to creatine.  But, whatever.  Holy sanctimonious b-llsh!t.

I believe that it was reported that Sosa was supposedly one of the 104 players who tested positive when MLB had the anonymous testing in 2003 to determine if more strict testing was necessary.

At least 8 of the 104 players would NOT have failed the test, and this list is also unconfirmed:

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/2003-steroid-list-anonymous-survey-testing.htm

So, we know someone leaked names on a list, but this list was not 100% representative of contemporaneous illegal PED usage.

Anyway, who cares? As I said, when Bonds came into town AFTER the revelation, the Giants led the league in attendance on the road.

BBWAA made a great living talking about Bonds as a ballplayer, and then a great living talking about Bonds no longer being a ballplayer.

We’re all swimming in the same mud pool.  If you want to swim in a clean pool, go to the kiddie pool (Little League).

If you want to swim in a clean pool, go to the kiddie pool (Little League).

Unfortunately, that pool isn’t very clean either.

Tango - Aside from the obvious physical changes, Sosa also once had a giant bag of cash ($20000) wrapped inside a towel stolen from a hotel lobby when he forgot about it. Is that enough to convict? No. But it helps build a circumstantial case.

There’s also the Manny Alexander connection, which is a bit tenuous, but since Alexander was tested after the steroids were found and came up clean, it’s reasonable to suggest the drugs weren’t his. Of course, at the time Alexander was with Boston, but when the best friend/former teammate of a player who miraculously beefs up and develops a giant, science-project head gets caught with something, it’s suspicious.

Oh, and remember when Sosa forgot English so he wouldn’t have to perjure himself?

I’d say there’s far, far more evidence that he used than that he didn’t, and since we’re not putting him in jail there is absolutely zero need for “beyond a reasonable doubt” here. It’s more likely that some pitcher will toss 12 perfect games in a row than that Sosa didn’t use.

Whether that should disqualify him from HOF consideration is a completely separate argument, and one I’m not interested in. I’m just tired of people defending guys who don’t deserve to be defended.

That we spend any time on knowing any of these details is what bothers me the most.

Tango, just to be clear, I pretty much agree with you as far as the steroids issue is concerned.  Even further, Barry Bonds is my favorite player and has been before he bulked up and still remains so today.  I used the word “supposedly” in my previous post because I don’t think that the evidence against Sosa is anywhere near concrete, but to me that should still qualify as being linked to steroids.  The main reason I care about these details has nothing to do with any specific player, but instead to try and understand just how widespread PED usage was.