Manny Ramirez Suspended 50 Games by MLB

Manny Ramirez, the popular but mercurial slugger for the Los Angeles Dodgers, has been suspended 50 games for violating Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.
The suspension was announced Thursday afternoon. A statement from Manny Ramirez claims that he received the substance in question from a physician in Florida. He claims that his use was not recreational, and that he was unaware that the drug was banned.
Early reports indicated that Manny would appeal the suspension, and there were even arrangements made for a hearing to be scheduled in Los Angeles. According to ESPN's Peter Gammons, though, Manny backed off at the last minute and declined to appeal. Ramirez has taken public responsibility for using the substance, saying: "LA is a special place to me and I know everybody is disappointed. So am I. I'm sorry about this whole situation. "
There has been no official word on what the substance was that triggered the suspension. But ESPN writers T.J. Quinn and Mark Fainaru-Wada -- famous for writing the Barry Bonds/BALCO expose Game of Shadows -- are reporting that it was hCG, a women's fertility drug. According to the American Pregnancy Association's website, hCG is produced during pregnancy by cells that form the placenta. WebMD states that hCG levels can be tested to determine pergnancy but may also be affected by tumors.
That sounds innocent enough, but it fails to explain what an otherwise healthy adult male such as Ramirez would need them for. T.J. Quinn, speaking on an ESPNews broadcast, states that despite its uses as a female fertility drug, hCG is used almost exclusively by steroid users. hCG helps renew the body's ability to make testosterone. This is made necessary when steroid users have been doping for a certain period of time, inhibiting their body's ability to produce testosterone naturally. Not only does hCG seem to indicate steroid abuse in the vast majority of cases, but the substance itself is banned under baseball's drug policy, since it does enhance the body's testosterone levels.
Despite an official statement both from Ramirez and the MLB, there is some confusion as to how the substance was detected. It may or may not have come as part of baseball's random drug testing. Quinn reports that the hCG wasn't actually detected at first; his sources report that the only abnormality that registered was elevated levels of testosterone. This led investigators to determine what was responsible for the high levels of testosterone, and the use of hCG was indicated, reportedly, through documents uncovered during the process. It was this lack of a smoking gun, so to speak, that fueled speculation that Ramirez would lodge an appeal. His last-minute decision not to has raised some questions, with some speculating that Ramirez feared further incrimination during the appeals process. By declining an appeal, the matter is settled as far as the MLB is concerned.
This revelation has produced an instant outcry from the sports media. Peter Gammons tells us Ramirez's side of the story (in a manner that makes him sound more like Ramirez's agent than a journalist), whereas Fox Sports contributor Ken Rosenthal has nothing but contempt for Manny, not only for using but for getting caught at a time when a player's bodily fluids are under incredible supervision.
Ramirez's suspension casts a harsh shadow over a Dodgers team whose 21-8 record is the best in baseball. Not only that, but the Dodgers recently set a new record by notching 13 straight wins at home to begin a season. They've won seven straight and sit a comfortable 6.5 games ahead of the second-place Giants. Ramirez was the engine behind the Los Angeles offense, hitting .348 with 6 homers, 20 RBI and an incredible .492 on-base percentage. The bulk of the playing time in left field will likely go to Juan Pierre, a prospect that should send a cold chill up the back of Dodger fans.
There are still many unanswered questions surrounding this story. We'll have to keep looking to learn more and get some confirmation of the early reports coming from ESPN and T.J. Quinn. Either way, though, it looks like "Mannywood" will be out of action for nearly two months.

Shut the f*** up about HGH

"There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids." -- Professor Arthur DeVany, "Steroids, Home Runs and the Law of Genius"
Quoted on http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml
"A review of clinical studies among healthy, normally aging individuals found that hGH supplementation does not significantly increase muscle strength or aerobic exercise capacity." --http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617160837.htm ( American Medical Association )
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_48/b3961105.htm
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320132224.htm), Stanford Medical School
The Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney, Australia(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617113743.htm)or
The Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030
Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/nav/tap1/
J.C. Bradbury: http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neither-should-you/
Bradbury's follow-up: http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/rumors-experts-and-human-growth-hormone/
Annals of Internal Medicine: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200805200-00215v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=athletic+performance&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
&
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23677433/
ABC NEWS: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/04/1941168.htm
First-hand comments: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=6916111
Reaction to Newsday article no longer online: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/newsday_doctors_hgh_alone_doesnt_help_athletes/
Where's the on-field proof that they actually work ... : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/opinion/22cole.html?_r=1&ex=1356066000&en=38ae29f2075786cc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
... for pitchers?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042901195.html
And the New England Freakin' Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/9/779).
Pretty much every website that says HGH works is trying to sell it to you.
You better be damn sure about something before you stick a needle in someone's arm.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. --Max Planck
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. --John Kenneth Galbraith
Major h/t to Eric Walker

Integrity? What Integrity?

This article was first published at blogcritics.org. I'm going to be a contributor there under the Sports section, so look for my column there.
The integrity of baseball is not at risk. This may seem like a rash thing to say these days, when pretty much everyone else is claiming the opposite. In the days since Alex Rodriguez's admission of the use of "banned substances," he has made the short list of the most hated baseball players of all time. He — along with Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds — have been publicly blasted for their admissions (and non-admissions) concerning their use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs*). And, in an unscientific poll taken by John Erardi of the Cincinnati Enquirer, none of the accused PED users would win induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
* — It's very important to make the distinction between "steroids" on one hand, and "PEDs," on the other. Steroids are a specific type of performance-enhancer. But not all PEDs are steroids. PEDs refer to any substance giving the user an "unfair" advantage. Most stories on this subject use "steroids" as a catch-all term when they should say PEDs or "banned substances," which refers specifically to those substances outlawed either by law or by the MLB. For the best information about PEDs and steroids as it relates to baseball, read The Juice by Will Carroll.
Baseball columnists everywhere are outraged. In the Detroit Free Press, Drew Sharp argues that you can't call baseball a sport anymore. Bill Madden of the New York Daily News says that the Yankees should just release A-Rod and eat the $270 million remaining on his contract.
The tone of the conversation in the sports media has generally been that A-Rod has forever tainted our most precious institutions and should be severely punished.
To this I say: Phooey.

P***ed off at Slate.com

With the *news* emerging about Alex Rodriguez, I knew I would inevitably read some sports columnist who would piss me off. Actually I read two of them, both at slate.com today.
First was Tim Marchman, whose article on Sunday contained a few bits that set me off. Read his article first, then read the below, which I posted as a comment on the article:

"There was always something inherently implausible about the idea of a 225-pound shortstop playing Gold Glove defense while popping 50 home runs a year."
A-Rod is listed at 6'3", 190 lbs (but I'll give you 225).
Cal Ripken was listed as 6'4 and 225 lbs.
If I am to take you seriously, then Cal Ripken is as guilty as A-Rod. If the standard is baseless inference (factually flawed), then there's more evidence against Ripken, who was even larger than A-Rod when compared to his contemporaries.

A Lesson in Hyperbole

I've kept up with the Roger Clemens fiasco only enough to have a sense of what is going on. Unlike the rest of the mainstream media, I take no delight in crucifying an ex-hero for "letting us all down," especially since the media never really liked him in the first place, which matters more than any PED accusation. I also have no interest in watching someone aggressively and obnoxiously try to force back the tides of suspicion, as if the truth can be defeated by sneers, press releases, and unbelievably inappropriate taped phone conversations. The offensive cult of celebrity and empty controversy is attracting all of the scavengers and hangers-on to be expected where free publicity is to be given away.
So it was with some dismay that I read Howard Bryant's espn.com column today. 

Mitchell

If you live in the Western Hemisphere, you're probably aware that the Mitchell Report came out today. ESPN devoted some 6 hours of coverage to the press conferences of George Mitchell, Bud Selig, and Don Fehr today, interspersed with hotheaded murmurmings of a whole flock of talking heads.
I'm going to save my final assessment of the Mitchell Report until I've had a chance to read the thing (420 pages, but handily available in PDF format). But, inspired by Howard Bryant's thought-provoking column, I'm going to respond to the report's release not with more statements of fact, or alleged fact -- we've had our fill of that today -- but with questions.

Offseason news

There's a lot of news, so let's categorize.

PERFORMANCE ENHANCERS

• A new report has come out listing former Giants third baseman Matt Wiliams, among others, as having received steroids and/or other PEDs. Maybe we can finally, finally admit that the good guys used PEDs, too. And instead of throwing a sportswriter hissy-fit and sulking and pouting in public, let's just accept that our melodramatic, overwraught attempts to cast the PED scandal in black and white terms is infinitely inaccurate.
• George Mitchell has set this Saturday (tomorrow) as the deadline for any new evidence or information to include in the Mitchell Report. My guess is that this means we're going to get the report before Christmas. Ho, ho, freakin' ho.
• This brings me to my next point . . .

COLLUSION

The Anticlimax

The Boston Red Sox swept the Colorado Rockies in 4 games, their second series sweep in past the 4 years. Now the question is what will happen in Boston now that their underdog status is dead and gone. What will replace it? How will the historic behaviors and attitudes of New England sports fans change now that the central narrative of their favorite baseball team has been rendered obsolete?
I think the glory days of Boston fandom (somewhere between 2003 and the present) are over and done. As the Red Sox become the new Yankees, their nationwide fanbase, built upon the David .vs. Goliath myth, will begin to fade. The fire of the core New England fanbase, on the other hand, may subside somewhat, but will not be going away anytime soon. But the Red Sox' national (and international) following may be in jeopardy. As the central narrative of the team changes, the myth/legend that drew so many nationwide fans in the first place will disappear. This may not be the end of the world, but it may be bad news for the team's revenues, which may be cresting after several years of obscene success.
I'm not on the ground in New England to measure the energy of the Red Sox nation firsthand. But I wonder if the truly magical allure of the Red Sox -- which has existed in some form for 50 years, give or take -- has reached its peak. While there is every reason to believe that the Red Sox will be a juggernaut franchise for years to come, I think it's worth noting that in the future, our image of the Red Sox will always be different. And it didn't start when they reversed the curse in 2004 -- it started when they slowly and methodically demolished a lesser team in October. That, my friends, is what the Yankees do, and if the Sox continue to perform like this in October (and there's every reason to believe that they will), they will indeed be the New Yankees.

In other news:

A great day . . . for parity

Today was a great day to be a baseball fan, no doubt. There was excitement all across the National League, as two playoff spots were pursued by four teams. The American League was sewed up a while ago -- it should be Red Sox/Angels and Indians/Yankees in the ALDS -- but the National League came into this weekend with no teams having clinched a postseason berth. The D-Backs and Cubs clinched a spot on Friday, and they will face each other in the NLDS. But the NL East and NL Wild Card came down to today and, amazingly enough, only one race was settled.
The Mets got blistered by the lowly Marlins and lost 8-1, with Tom Glavine getting knocked out of the box in the 1st inning. So the Mets had to hope for the Phillies to lose, which would result in a tie and a one-game playoff tomorrow (it actually could have been even more complicated; if both teams had won today, there was a possible 4-way tie with the Rockies and Padres for 2 playoff spots. I don't even want to contemplate what that would result in; there's never even been a 3-way tie for a postseason spot before, let alone a 4-way tie for two spots).
Instead, the Phillies routed the Nationals and clinched the NL East, their first postseason berth since 1993. The Phillies were 7 games back with just two weeks left in the season and somehow managed to come back -- perhaps the most amazing comeback in baseball history. Which, conversely, makes it one of the worst collapses in history for the Mets, right up with the '64 Phillies, '51 Dodgers, and '95 Angels. The borough of Queens might spontaneously explode with anger pretty soon, so I expect ownership to throw some sacrifical lambs to the crowd (Willie Randolph, first of all) to prevent an armed uprising.

State of the MLB Union . . . AL Central

• The New York Daily News is reporting that Cardinals outfielder Rick Ankiel received a year's supply of HGH from Signature Pharmacy in Florida. This is part of a large-scale steroids/HGH bust involving doctors and pharmacists from New York to Florida. A number of other athletes have been implicated with the sketchy practices of Signature.
  I'm not going to have burst a blood vessel and call for blood tests, a la Buster Olney. I think Jayson Stark offered the most reasoned response to the Ankiel story. The most important thing to remember is that HGH was not prohibited at the time Ankiel received his shipments (circa 2004). MLB may try to find some way to slap Ankiel on the wrist, but without more evidence, there's no way any punishment would survive an appeal. Nor should it. Whatever we feel personally about the HGH story (and the related story concerning Troy Glaus), there is nothing yet to merit any punitive action by the MLB.
• The Pirates have fired GM Dave Littlefield. In other news, word has finally been relayed to the captain of the Titanic that he has been relieved of his duties.

Cleveland Indians (81-60)
My Prediction: 94-68
On Current Pace: 93-69

Selig Doesn't Get It

If Jason Giambi doesn't cooperate/testify before the George Mitchell steroid investigation, he will almost certainly be suspended by major league baseball.
There are two schools of thought on the Giambi suspension. Many reporters and more morality-minded folks see it as a brave move for Selig to finally bring someone down in the "battle against steroid use." I hate to pick on Buster Olney again, but he is one of the more prominent members of this particular lobby. In his blog, Olney claims that "The finish line for a seeming public relations victory is in sight for commissioner Bud Selig."
There is a second school of thought among the columnists and the more sabermetrically-inclined that such a move would not only be a useless display of confused morality, but would also be counter-productive. Olney doesn't see it as a case of confused morality (at least not that I've seen), but he does address the fact that the commissioner's move may be counter-productive. Viz:

Giambi in the Hotseat

My apologies for neglecting the ol' blog. I recently moved into a new apartment and started new job. So I'm pretty tired and very poor.

If you play baseball in New York, it doesn't take much to say something that sends the baseball world into a frenzy. So when Jason Giambi said this to USA Today, you knew the excrement was headed for the fan:

"I'm probably tested more than anybody else. I'm not hiding anything. That stuff didn't help me hit home runs. I don't care what people say, nothing is going to give you that gift of hitting a baseball."
"I was wrong for doing that stuff. What we should have done a long time ago was stand up -- players, ownership, everybody -- and said, 'We made a mistake.' We should have apologized back then and made sure we had a rule in place and gone forward. Steroids and all of that was a part of history. But it was a topic that everybody wanted to avoid. Nobody wanted to talk about it."

In response to this uniquely interesting comment, the baseball establishment has proceeded to light a fire under Jason Giambi.
Part of this is at least understandable. Giambi's comments amount to a tacit admission of steroid use, much stronger than his previous, evasive comments. And so there have been several rumors of possible repercussions. The Yankees are rumored to be considering a way to void Giambi's deal. These rumors popped up when Giambi was first implicated by the leaked grand jury testimony from San Francisco. The fact that the Yankee execs are even somewhat considering this shows just how much spite they have for Giambi and his salary. And of course, I'm sure that everyone was pissed off at his comments and there's more than a little thirst for vengeance here, I would say.

Future HOF classes, Pt. 2

Two quick notes before we start. I apologize for the irregular font and style on my last blog. I don't yet know how to fix it; it looks fine when I compose and preview it, but once I publish it, it goes all wonky. So I apologize if you have to squint to read some of it.
Also, I wanted to make a note about the players I'll be discussing here. The Class of 2010 retired after the 2005 season, and the Class of 2011 consists of the few players I'm pretty sure are retired now that 2006 is over. But with many of these players, there's still the possibility of a comeback. So any years or deadlines must be considered with that in mind.

Class of 2010:
Bret Boone
Kevin Brown
Al Leiter
Tino Martinez
John Olerud
Rafael Palmeiro
Sammy Sosa
Larry Walker

MY HALL-OF-FAMERS:
none


THE REST:
Bret Boone
Career 266/325/442; 252 HR; 3-Time All-Star; 4 Gold Gloves
208 Career Win Shares (T-42nd all-time among 2B w/ Lonny Frey)
18.93 WS/162 G (4th-worst among 2B w/200 WS)
.268 EQA
25 FRAA
.269 eqAVG
.331 eqOBP
.460 eqSLG
-----------------------------
While Bret Boone did have a significant career and certainly ranks at least among the top 60 or 70 second baseman of all time, there's not a shred of a Hall-of-Fame case here.
Boone wouldn't even rate mentioning if it weren't for an unlikely late-career renaissance in Seattle. From 1992-2001, Boone was a good-fielding second baseman with an inconsistent bat; he had some power, but his batting average ranged from awful to acceptable depending on the year. He wasn't a bad guy, but he was only slightly more valuable than Quilvio Veras.
Then, in 2001, Boone exploded and put up MVP-caliber numbers. Previously, Boone's best season was in 1994 with the Reds, when he hit 320/368/491. He zoomed past that in Seattle, hitting 331/372/578, despite the spacious confines of Safeco Field. Combine that with good defense, and Boone finished third in the MVP voting. 2002 was a step back (278/339/462), but he returned in 2003 to post All-Star numbers (294/366/535), finishing 10th in the MVP voting.
Then, Boone fell apart. Every part of his offensive game fell off significantly in 2004, as he finished at 251/317/423. In 2005, he split time between the Mariners and Twins, hitting a wretched 221/290/350. Boone went to Spring Training with the Mets in 2006, but didn't make the team and retired.

As I said, if it weren't for Boone's transformation into an MVP in 2001 and 2003, he wouldn't even merit a mention on the ballot. And though I hate to spread unconfirmed rumors, there were a lot of whispers of steroid use surrounding Boone. Boone was about my size (5'10", 180 lbs.) and yet he was one of the league's best sluggers for a couple years. It came quickly and departed just as quickly -- around the same time baseball starting cracking down on the use of PEDs. Jose Canseco claims to have had a conversation with Boone that suggests he used steroids, but that's not any sort of reliable evidence.
In all fairness, I must point out that a) we have no proof, and b) Boone did show better-than-average power even before he came to Seattle. He wasn't hitting 35+ homers, but in four of his first six seasons, Boone hit at least 12 HR, which isn't bad for a middle infielder still trying to catch on. In the three years leading up to his breakout year in Seattle, Boone hit 24, 20, and 19 HR. So this is not Rafael Belliard we're talking about.
There is certainly cause for suspicion surrounding Boone, but there's nothing remotely conclusive about the evidence against him. But then Boone isn't a Hall-of-Famer even with the big Seattle years, so the point is pretty much moot.

Kevin Brown

Career 211-144; 3.28 ERA (127 ERA+); 3,256.1 IP; 2,397 K; 6-Time All-Star
241 Career Win Shares (T-79th all-time among P w/Dolf Luque, Frank Tanana, & Dazzy Vance)
1069 PRAR (37th all-time)
3.25 eqERA (39th all-time)
-----------------------------
There's no doubt in my mind that if Kevin Brown had stayed healthy, he'd be a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer. But there's a good possibility that he's still a Hall-of-Famer, even though he wasn't always healthy.
The PRAA and eqERA both rate Brown well within the ranks of HOFers. His career ERA is more than 25% better than league average, he threw more than 3,000 innings with more than 2,000 strikeouts and managed 200 wins (if red is the new black, then 200 wins is the new 300 wins).
Even Win Shares rates him pretty well. 79th place doesn't sound good, but a lot of the players above Brown are 19th-century guys with padded numbers. Among 20th-century players, he's tied for 59th-place, which is a lot closer to Hall status. And he's listed among some impressive names; he's tied with Hall-of-Famer Vance, and both Luque and Tanana are borderline Hall members. He rates just behind HOFer Stan Coveleski, Eddie Cicotte, Billy Pierce, Luis Tiant, Carl Mays, and HOFers Jim Bunning and Hoyt Wilhelm. He's just ahead of HOFers Rube Waddell and Herb Pennock, as well as near-misses Rick Reuschel and Jerry Koosman.
In short, Kevin Brown is right in the grey area that separates HOFers from non-HOFers. That makes our job a bit tougher. Does Brown have any qualifications that might push him into Cooperstown?
The biggest, I think, is that Brown was -- at his best -- an elite pitcher. Brown never won a Cy Young, but I think he deserved the 1996 NL award. Brown as only 17-11 with Florida, but he posted a 4:1 BB:k ratio in 233 IP and led the league in ERA by nearly a full run (his was 1.89; Greg Maddux was second at 2.72). Brown's ERA+ was an amazing 214, meaning he was more than twice as good as the league average (Maddux was again second at 162). But Brown finished second in the voting for two stupid reasons: John Smoltz went 24-8, and the Braves won the pennant.
That wasn't the only great season for Brown (although it was his greatest). I have him as the 2nd-best NL pitcher in 1998 (behind Maddux), the 3rd-best NL pitcher in 2000 (behind Randy Johnson and Maddux), and the 4th-best NL pitcher on three occasions (1997, 1999 and 2003).
Everything I've just mentioned -- a high peak, lots of career games and innings -- sounds like a Hall-of-Famer. What are the reasons not to induct Brown?
There are two, really. There's no doubt that from abotu 1995-2003, Kevin Brown was a Hall-of-Fame pitcher. No doubt at all. It's what happened before and after that that taints his candidacy.
Brown made a couple cameo appearances with the Rangers in 1986 and 1988 before catching on for good in 1989. From 1989-1994 with Texas, Brown was a capable workhorse who was solidly above-average. He was never excellent, but he was good, reliable, and durable. At this point, though, he didn't look like an "elite" anything, so the Rangers let him go to Baltimore on a 1-year free agent deal. (It's not surprising that the best pitcher the Rangers ever developed -- 1st round pick , 1986 -- would blossom after he left the team).
But even the Orioles must have been shocked at how well Brown pitched. He was 31 in 1995, but managed his best season yet by far: 3.60 ERA (136 ERA+), 26 starts, 48:117 BB:K ratio.
The Florida Marlins were impressed enough to offer Brown a 3-year contract worth about $13 million. It was one of the masterstrokes that brought them the 1997 World Championship, as Brown was one of the best pitchers in the world from 1996-1998. He even made it back to the World Series in 1998 after being traded to the Padres, although he lost.
After that came The Big Contract and the great unraveling of Brown's Cooperstown case. Long story short, Brown was very good with the Dodgers when healthy, but that was rare, and he was getting money (and perks) far beyond what he was producing on the field. This was one of the first big object lessons in what not to do in contract negotiations: offer 7 years to a 34-year-old.
Luckily for the Dodgers, Brown put together an excellent (and healthy) season in 2003 (posting a 2.39 ERA (169 ERA+) with 185 K in 211 IP. They foisted the last two years of his contract (about $31.5 million) onto the Yankees for Jeff Weaver.
Brown struggled in New York, and this also hurt his Cooperstown chances. He was good in 2004 (4.09 ERA, 110 ERA+), but injuries limited him to 22 starts and 132 IP. Even worse (for the fans, at least), Brown was savaged in the ALCS by Boston, posting a 21.60 ERA that included a dreadful start in Game 7.
Brown came back for 13 starts in 2005 (6.50 ERA), and then called it a career.Is this enough to keep Kevin out of the Hall of Fame? Does his lack of excellence in Texas, his L.A. injuries, and his late-career struggles with the Yankees overshadow his elite performance?That's a very difficult and complex question, and one that I don't think I can reach any consensus on in my own mind. Brown's Hall-of-Fame case looks better to me every time I look at it, but at the same time, I try to approach my Hall "vote" rather conservatively. If I'm really doubtful about someone, I won't endorse them. The great thing about the Hall vote is that you can always change your mind; I have every right to change my mind and endorse Brown next year. But I fear that it won't make a difference either way; Brown probably won't get inducted by the BBWAA.

Al Leiter
Career 162-132; 3.80 ERA (112 ERA+); 2,391 IP; 1,974 K; 2-Time All-Star
153 Career Win Shares
769 PRAR
3.51 eqERA
-----------------------------
Leiter lasted a long time, pitched a lot of games, and was generally good. Unfortunately, he was never great or anything like it. Leiter only had two really good seasons, seasons where he was clearly an All-Star caliber pitcher:

1996 w/FLA: 16-12, 2.93 ERA (139 ERA+), 215.1 IP, 119:200 BB:K; All-Star
2000 w/NYM: 16-8, 3.20 ERA (136 ERA+), 208 IP, 76:200 BB:K; All-Star

Leiter could be a good strikeout pitcher, but he also allowed his share of walks. He didn't allow a whole lot of homers, but the walks typically hurt him. And it should be noted that most of his good seasons came in two big NL pitcher's parks in New York and Miami.
Leiter's low career totals (162 wins, 153 WS) would look better if he'd gotten established earlier in his career. Leiter bounced around with the Yankees and Blue Jays for quite a while before ever pitching a significant number of innings. Leiter's first season as a semi-regular starting pitcher was in 1993 with Toronto, when he was already 27. His first good season was also his last in Toronto: 1995, at age 29.
If Leiter had gotten started earlier, he might have had a more impressive Jamie Moyer-ish career of 200 wins and pitching til' you're 40 (and beyond, for Moyer). Or it's possible that pitching so sparingly in those years saved his arm and enabled him to stay in the majors through his 39th birthday. It's a moot point though; Leiter's not a Hall-of-Famer, he's just a guy who was reliable and gave some good years to his teams.

Tino Martinez
271/344/471; 339 HR; 2-Time All-Star
216 Career Win Shares (T-62nd all-time among 1B w/George Scott)
17.30 WS/162 G
.285 EQA
66 FRAA
.275 eqAVG
.350 eqOBP
.500 eqSLG
-----------------------------
Tino's adjusted numbers make him look like the strongly above-average hitter that he was. His fielding numbers are good, but I always thought he was better than good. He never won a Gold Glove, which was a shame considering who was bringing them home in the '90's. Tino was a good all-around player.
Unfortunately, there's very little great about him. None of Tino's numbers were outstanding, especially when adjusting for the era in offense-heavy era in which he played.
Tino has become more revered in recent years, as his years with the Yankees have slowly become a sort of "Golden Age," especially when compared to the recent Yankees. A lot of this is poor hindsight and sour grapes. Tino's Yankees were good, and they did win in October. But the current Yankees are good, too -- perhaps even better. But since they aren't winning in October, their current players (such as A-Rod) are demonized, while the old heroes are lionized (Tino, Paul O'Neill, Brosius).
This reimagining of history centers around the theory that the old Yankees won because they had good clubhouse chemistry, and the modern Yankees lose because they don't. Not only is clubhouse chemistry about the 86th most important thing for a baseball team, but that's an oversimplification of two very complex eras. Tino was a good guy in the clubhouse, but we shouldn't start raising statues to him simply out of spite for the current Yankees.
I know it sounds silly, but Hall votes have been cast for dumber reasons.

John Olerud
Career 295/398/465; 2,239 Hits; 255 HR; 2-Time All-Star; 3 Gold Gloves
301 Career Win Shares; (23rd all-time among 1B)
21.83 WS/162 G
.309 EQA (T-16th among 1B w/Roger Connor)
154 FRAA (2nd among 1B)
.303 eqAVG (T-10th among 1B w/5 others)
.408 eqOBP (8th among 1B)
.497 eqSLG
-----------------------------
This guy was one hell of a ballplayer. At the plate, he was a poor man's Frank Thomas (the two were almost exact contemporaries), with one hell of a glove at first. He was around for quite a while and had some dynamite seasons in the process.
Olerud's another one of the tough decisions I had to make. I decided not to give him my Hall "vote," and I'll tell you why. John had a couple great seasons; MVP-esque. But for the rest of his career he was good but not great. If he'd had a couple more seasons in between, where he was more than just an All-Star, then I'd support him. But as it is, he's a first baseman whose offense just isn't quite up to par. As you can see above, he ranks very favorably when compared to other first baseman. But I don't think he quite measures up.
John Olerud is better than a lot of guys in the Hall of Fame. But if we want to keep the Hall standards high, we have to be stricter than our forebears. Maybe circumstances will change or I'll just take a different view of the evidence; that's possible. But right now, Olerud's a near-miss.
His greatest hits:

1993 w/TOR: 363/473/599; 24 HR, 200 H, 114 BB
1998 w/NYM: 354/447/551; 22 HR, 96 BB

Olerud finished third in the '93 AL MVP race behind teammate Paul Molitor and Frank Thomas. Molitor was good, but he had no right to finish ahead of Johnny O; he was a DH who didn't hit nearly as well. That's moot, though, because Thomas ran away with the vote, getting all 28 first-place votes. Frank was very good, but he didn't hit as well as Olerud, and his defense was much worse. Frank, however, was playing on a White Sox team that made the postseason for the first time in 10 years. He also hit for more power, which is sexier than Olerud's walks. The Thomas vote is an example of voting for the right player in the wrong year.
As for '98, Olerud was great, but he wasn't to deprive McGwire/Sosa of their collective glory. He finished 13th in the MVP voting, which isn't exactly fair, but there you go.

Rafael Palmeiro
Career 288/371/515; 3,020 Hits; 569 HR; 4-Time All-Star; 3 Gold Gloves
396 Career Win Shares (5th all-time among 1B)
22.66 WS/162 G
.307 EQA (T-21st among 1B w/Fred McGriff)
.292 eqAVG
.379 eqOBP
.550 egSLG (T-17th among 1B w/Roger Connor)
-----------------------------
Point 1: Rafael Palmeiro isn't quite as good as his numbers look. He spent most of his career in hitter's parks in a hitter's era, and therefore we have to take his raw numbers (especially the homers and slugging) with a grain of salt.
Point 2: Palmeiro was so consistent, and around for so long, that the problems suggested in Point 1 are basically irrelevant. Palmeiro was always in the lineup, playing at least 110 games every season from 1988 through 2005. He spent parts of 20 seasons in the majors and compiled at least 550 ABs in 15 of them. Palmeiro may never have been great (he was never the best player in the league, and putting him in the top 5 is debatable), but he was always just behind, and he was around for so damn long that he became one of the most valuable first baseman in history.
His career bears a slight resemblance to that of Eddie Murray. The two are, along with Hank Aaron, the only members of the 3,000 hit/500 HR club. Also, Murray was -- like Palmeiro -- rarely excellent, but so good for so long that he became one of the best first basemen of all time. The big thing that makes the two different is their eras; Murray's numbers are far more impressive than Palmeiro's when you consider the offensive environment in which he played. And Murray was indeed the best player in the league on at least one occasion.Based on these two points, I'm very much inclined to believe that Rafael Palmeiro is a Hall-of-Famer.

But:

Point 3: In 2005, Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids.

Point 3 is, of course, the puzzler. Not only did Palmeiro test positive, but the circumstances surrounding the positive test were ugly and made Palmeiro look very bad. Word leaked out that Palmeiro told baseball officials that he got the illegal substance from then-teammate Miguel Tejada, who claimed it was a vitamin supplement. This made Palmeiro not just a steroid user, but a rat who would try to blame a teammate.
Even more embarassing for Palmeiro was his appearance on Capitol Hill where he swore -- under oath -- that he had never used steroids. He even pointed a stern finger at the Congressmen. Of course, that picture of him pointing a stern finger accompanied every story of his positive test, making him look like a hypocrite and most likely a perjurer.
It's interesting that Mark McGwire, who implied his own steroid use by refusing to perjure himself, has been treated far worse than Palmeiro, who almost certainly did perjure himself (Palmeiro's positive test came after the testimony, but I highly doubt that it was his first time using). McGwire has been continually roasted around the country since his testimony, whereas Palmeiro retired and was mostly forgotten.

This may be off-topic, but I think this illustrates the real reason behind all the sanctimonious McGwire-bashing. Everyone is mad at McGwire because he let them down. They believed in him wholeheartedly, and he "betrayed" them. No one felt very betrayed by Palmeiro, who had never had any sort of national following like McGwire's. He'd also never been the media's poster boy and anointed Golden Child of modern baseball.

It's never a good idea to take out your anger for your own mistakes on others, and yet that's exactly what the sports media is doing to Mark McGwire. Their treatment of McGwire -- when compared to that of Palmeiro -- is illogical and inexcusable.

Back to Raffy: does this new information cast enough doubt on his Hall-of-Fame case to keep him out? I think so, yes -- for now. I stress that. No sportswriter will spend a column talking about what they don't know (humility doesn't sell -- look at Skip Bayless), but it's much more informative to consider everything we don't know about Palmeiro.
We know most of the important circumstances surrounding Barry Bonds' alleged steroid use because of the tireless investigations into his activities. This all despite the fact that there's no smoking gun -- a positive test -- for Barry.
With Raffy on the other hand, all we have is that positive test. The only other information we have is Jose Canseco's claim that Palmeiro was using while they were teammates in Texas. It's a lot harder to dismiss Canseco's allegations these days -- they have a knack for coming true -- but we still have to take them for what they are.
We have no clue what Palmeiro was using or when he started. It was rumored (but never confirmed) that Palmeiro tested positive for stanozolol, a pretty powerful anabolic steroid. This isn't your "designer" drug, it's an old favorite. If Palmeiro's been using that for years, then we could assume a pretty significant boost to his health regimen (thus his great durability).
Of course, it's just as likely that Palmeiro started using late in his career. In fact, it's not unlikely that he started using in his last season or two. After his 2002 in Texas (273/391/571), Palmeiro's quality took a dip down to merely good. This is perfectly normal for a 38-year-old. But look at it from Palmeiro's standpoint; he's nearing 500 homers and 3,000 hits, milestones that would almost ensure his induction into Cooperstown. Everyone in the media is talking about what a borderline Hall candidate he is. And just then, he starts to steadily decline. It sounds like a pretty compelling reason for a player to start using.All this is guesswork, of course. We really don't know enough about Palmeiro's steroid use to make a conclusive judgment in regards to his career. The trouble is that we may never know. Either way, I'm going to go ahead and decline on Palmeiro and take full advantage of the 5-year waiting period after a player's retirement before they are Hall-eligible. It's possible (and even likely) that we won't know any more about Palmeiro then, but I just don't feel comfortable making the decision now. Palmeiro's the toughest case there is: a solid Hall-of-Famer, but not s0 solid that consistent steroid use couldn't make it crumble.
It may not be a wise career move for an analyst to say so, but in regards to Rafael Palmeiro's Cooperstown case:

I don't know.

Sammy Sosa
Career 274/345/537; 588 HR; 2,194 K; 7-time All-Star; 1998 NL MVP
312 Career Win Shares (T-26th all-time among RF w/Larry Walker)
22.56 WS/162 G
.294 EQA
0 FRAA
.273 eqAVG
.345 eqOBP
.552 eqSLG (19th among RF)
-----------------------------
Of course, as I speak Sosa is negotiating a minor league contract with the Rangers in an attempt to return to the Majors. Considering that Sosa is 38, has had a year off, and wasn't particularly good in his last couple seasons, I'm not optimistic about his return. And even if he does return, it's doubtful he'll do anything to improve his career numbers.
I made my case against Sosa's induction in this article written when he went into semi-retirement last Spring. In short, Sosa was only excellent for a couple seasons (1998 and 2001) and wasn't much more than a slugger for the rest of his career. He wasn't around for a very long time, and so his lack of excellence leaves him with not much of a Cooperstown case. Sosa doesn't compare fav0rable to other right fielders in measures of quality and quantity. Realistically, he's a near-miss Hall-of-Famer, along with right fielders such as Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Reggie Smith, Jack Clark, and Bobby Bonds. There's nothing to indicate that Sosa was a better player than these guys, and that's without considering steroids.

Larry Walker
313/400/565; 2,160 H; 383 HR; 5-Time All-Star; 7 Gold Gloves, 1997 NL MVP
312 Career Win Shares (T-26th all-time among RF w/Sammy Sosa)
25.42 WS/162 G
.307 EQA (T-14th among RF w/Tony Gwynn & Babe Herman)
98 FRAA (3rd among RF)
.290 eqAVG
.381 eqOBP (21st among RF)
.544 eqSLG
-----------------------------
Walker was a hell of a hitter and also an excellent right fielder. Walker's raw numbers indicate someone who's a Hall-of-Famer; his rate stats are excellent, and while his career didn't last that long, his numbers would indicate a Hall-of-Famer.
The problem, of course, is that Walker played at Coors Field from 1995-2004, the bulk of his career. Coors Field obviously juiced his numbers by a significant degree. The question is: how much? Can we adjust for the effects of Coors Field and then take stock of his numbers? Yes, we can.
But first, I'd like to dismiss a couple fallacious arguments. One, that Walker's time at Coors Field disqualifies him from the Hall. I doubt anyone will say it quite like that, but when Walker's name shows up on the ballot, you know that a lot of people are going to pass on him just because of Coors. I've written about this before, but I'll say again that we can't just dismiss someone based on their circumstances. We adjust for the circumstances and go from there.
The other argument is that Walker "could hit anywhere," and so we shouldn't "punish" him for hitting in Coors Field. Well, it's true that Walker could hit anywhere. When the Expos made their postseason run in 1994, Walker was hitting 322/394/587 when the strike hit. He'd produced excellent offense the two previous years as well.
The problem is that we have to take into account that Coors Field took this 322/394/587 hitter and in a couple years changed him into a 366/452/720 hitter ('97, his MVP year). Did Walker coincidentally become a truly amazing hitter the same day he arrived at Coors?
Let's look at his road stats. In 1994, Walker's last season with Montreal, he hit 331/401/604 at home and 314/388/575 on the road. That's pretty normal; most people hit slightly better at home, and Olympic Stadium played as a slight hitter's park that year.
In 1995, Walker went to Colorado. He hit 343/401/730 at home. That's a 126-point increase in slugging, which is pretty telling. On the road, Walker hit a strong but more pedestrian 268/361/484. This suggests that Walker, who could hit for average and draw his walks anywhere, wasn't quite the slugger that Coors Field make him look like.
For his career, Walker hit 348/431/637 at home and 278/370/495 on the road. That's a very significant difference. Walker was a very good hitter on the road, but nothing like an MVP, especially considering that this was the 90's. If we take Walker's road numbers and extrapolate them into an entire career, his (normalized) career would look roughly like this.Larry Walker (neutral): 278/370/495, 1,934 H, 336 HR, 406 doublesSo, using this (admittedly rough) measure, we can say that Coors Field gave Walker about 35 points of batting average, 30 points of OBP, 70 points of slugging, 226 hits, 47 HR, and 65 doubles. These numbers come with two big caveats: we're taking his entire career, which includes his early years in Montreal and his final years in St. Louis. It's also true that, even in a neutral environment, players tend to perform better at home than on the road. So Walker's home/road splits aren't quite as significant as they would seem.

However, I think we can see that Coors Field gave Walker a significant boost. This hurts Walker's Cooperstown case, since he's basically a borderline candidate as is. Another damaging facet of his career was his trouble with injuries. Walker started out healthy, playing six full seasons in the majors after a short debut season in 1989. But in 1996, Walker played only 83 games due to injury, and this would prove to be the start of a career-long battle with injuries. After '96, Walker only topped 500 ABs once more in his career. He only topped 130 games 4 times in his last 9 seasons. It shoud be said, though, that while the injuries cut into his playing time, they didn't have much effect on his productivity. Walker's power numbers suffered, but he still managed a .400+ OBP for 8 of his last 9 seasons, finishing 2005 with a .384 mark to break the streak.

Was Walker ever really the best player in his league? There are several ways to measure this. One is Win Shares, which does take ballpark effects into account. Walker's career Win Shares aren't that impressive, putting him in the midst of all the other near-miss right fielders. Was Walker a great player at his peak? According to Win Shares, Walker only topped 30 Win Shares once in his career: his 1997 MVP season. Hall-of-Famers usually have several seasons above 30 Win Shares, which indicates the top 6 or 8 players in the league. So according to Win Shares, Walker was only one of the top NL players in '97, and even then he wasn't tops in the NL; he tied for 5th place with Jeff Bagwell, finishing with fewer Win Shares than Mike Piazza (who should have won the MVP), Tony Gwynn, Craig Biggio, and Barry Bonds.Win Shares suggests that Walker had neither the quantity nor the quality to make it into Cooperstown. What do other metrics suggest? Walker ranks 14th all-time among right fielders in Equivalent Average, which is an encouraging sign. But it's not reason enough to induct him; 14th-best isn't much to brag about by Hall-of-Fame standards, and he ranks behind three non Hall-of-Famers (Darryl Strawberry, Pedro Guerrero, and Jack Clark) and is tied with another (Babe Herman). EQA suggests that Walker was, qualitatively, better than Win Shares give him credit for. But there's nothing here for him to hang his hat on when the voting comes.
WARP3, Baseball Prospectus' all-inclusive measure of a player's value, gives Walker a WARP3 of 106.8. That's quite impressive. Unfortunately, it still doesn't separate him from the pack. He ranks 17th all-time, behind Sam Crawford and Andre Dawson, and just ahead of marginal players Sammy Sosa, Rusty Staub, and Enos Slaughter (who missed time to WW2).

Well, we've been searching high and low for Larry Walker's Cooperstown case, and I just haven't seen it. He got a good boost in quality for Coors Field, and when you take that into account, his career numbers don't seem to merit induction when judged by quality or quantity. Walker was a good player for quite a while, and if he hadn't suffered from so many injuries, he might have made it over the hump and earned himself a plaque. But as it is, I don't see it. Walker was quite excellent, but not any more excellent than Jack Clark or Sammy Sosa.

Class of 2011*:
Jeff Bagwell
Roger Clemens*
Tim Salmon
* -- tentative, based on who may or may not retire

Jeff Bagwell
Career 297/408/540; 2,314 H, 449 HR, 202 SB; 4-Time All-Star; 1 Gold Glove; 1991 NL Rookie of the Year; 1994 NL MVP
388 Career Win Shares (6th all-time among 1B)
29.24 WS/162 G (12th among 1B)
.323 EQA (12th among 1B)
124 FRAA (4th among 1B)
.301 eqAVG (T-17th among 1B w/Steve Garvey & Mike Hargrove)
.413 eqOBP (T-18th all-time w/ Bobby Abreu & Mike Hargrove); (T-5th among 1B w/Mike Hargrove)
.568 eqSLG (14th among 1B)
-----------------------------
There's really nothing to say here. This guy belongs in the Hall of Fame without a second thought. He's one of the 6 or 8 greatest first baseman of all time, if not better than that. His career numbers are impeccable, especially considering that he spent his prime years in the AstroDome. At his peak, he was easily one of the best players in baseball. Not only did he win the 1994 NL MVP, but he probably deserved one or two others (his 1996 season was brilliant and would have won, had not Ken Caminiti proved he was a "gamer" by playing a game while down with food poisoning).
The only thing that will keep Bagwell from getting swept into the Hall with 85-90% of the votes is suspicion of steroid use. But with Bagwell, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he used other than the fact that he was a big guy with a lot of power. There is no circumstantial or even anecdotal evidence of his use, and the only reason to suspect him is because we're all paranoid now. This isn't to say that Bagwell didn't use; he may have. But we're going to need a lot more than that to keep this all-time great out of Cooperstown.

Roger Clemens
Career 348 Wins (8th all-time)
.662 Winning Percentage (348-178) 20th all-time
3.10 ERA
144 ERA+ (T-8th all-time w/Johan Santana)
4,817.2 IP (15th all-time)
4,604 K (2nd all-time)
690 Games Started (T-7th all-time w/Gaylord Perry)
11-Time All-Star
7-time Cy Young Award-Winner (most ever)
1986 AL MVP
435 Career Win Shares (5th all-time among pitchers)
1947 PRAR (1st all-time)
2.58 eqERA (2nd all-time)
-----------------------------
OK, I know that Clemens probably isn't retiring and will most likely be coming back again this season. But I couldn't resist listing his accomplishments. That, friends is the resume of the greatest pitcher who ever lived.

Tim Salmon
Career 282/385/498; 299 HR; 1993 AL Rookie of the Year
233 Career Win Shares (T-56th all-time among RF w/David Justice)
22.58 WS/162 G
.305 EQA (T-19th among RF w/ Gavvy Cravath, Ken Singleton & Paul Waner)
18 FRAA
.285 eqAVG
.391 eqOBP (T-10th among RF w/Vladimir Guerrero)
.524 eqSLG

-----------------------------
Judging broadly by their careers, Salmon isn't too different from David Justice. Both were clearly above-average hitters and decent all-around players. Both were consistently good, although Salmon was more reliable than Justice. And both men experienced premature declines to their careers that cost them a chance at the Hall. (I also have to note the coincidence that Salmon's adjusted OBP is tied with his successor as Angels right fiedler, Vladimir Guerrero).
Salmon was one of the more underrated players on the 1990's for the classic reason that there was no one thing or one number that really stood out, but he was an all-around gem. He's the kind of guy you'd consider to be a perennial All-Star candidate, although oddly enough, Salmon never made an All-Star team. The sponsor of Salmon's page at baseball-reference.com says that Salmon is the best player never to make the All-Star team. I wouldn't know offhand without checking, but he's got to be pretty damn close.
The sponsor also says that Salmon is the best hitter ever produced by the Angels, and that one's a lot harder to argue with. Even long-time stars like Jim Fregosi (Red Sox; expansion draft) and Brian Downing (White Sox, trade) came from outside the system.
That's probably the best way to remember Tim Salmon. He wasn't quite good enough or durable enough to get a plaque in Cooperstown, but Angel fans can always consider him a symbol of the franchise's salad days. He was a classy guy and an all-around gem who earned the nickname "Mr. Angel."


This entry took a lot longer than I anticipated, but that's mainly because it was a lot tougher than I expected, with a lot more thinking involved. But more thinking is usually a good thing, and I feel like I came to a better understanding of these guys through the process. Hopefully you have, too.

There's been some baseball news in recent days that I need to catch up on, and I'll be back soon with my take on that. Until then, happy Saturday.

Ringing in 2-007 with a vodka martini

With the holidays come and gone, there have been some major free agent signings that I haven't gotten a chance to touch upon. I've been enjoying time with my friends and family but now can wrap up the last transactions of the calendar year. Sorry for the delay, but bloggers have lives, too. Well, actually we don't, but . . . you know what I mean.

• The biggest news, of course, is that prize left-hander Barry Zito signed a 7-year, $126 million deal with the Giants. The deal is the richest ever given a pitcher (AAV -- Average Annual Value -- of $18 million), and one of the longest, with only the 8-year deal given to Mike Hampton surpassing it.
  Where to begin? I guess a comparison to Hampton would be most apt. Not that the two situations are really similar -- Zito's going to the easy league and staying in a pitcher's park -- but let's remember the success rate of pitchers signed to contracts this long. It's Zito, Hampton, and Kevin Brown, and boy, that's not good company for young Barry. (I have to mention -- Zito's #1 similarity score through age 28 is none other than Hampton himself; take it for what it's worth).
  Remember that Kevin Brown looked like a safe 7-year investment at the time of the deal. Brown was a good deal older (33 when he signed; Zito is 28), but was also much better and much more reliable. Brown built up a reputation as a solid pitcher with Texas before becoming arguably baseball's best pitcher from 1995-1998, with ERA+ numbers of 136, 214, 150, and 160, consecutively. Brown signed the deal and gave the Dodgers two good years (1999 and 2000) before injuries turned him into Mr. Brittle. After 2000, Brown's seasonal IP were: 115.2, 63.2, 211, 132, 73.1. That 211 was a fine 2003 with the Dodgers that got him traded to the Yankees, where he reverted to form and finished his career in 2005.
  Although their styles of pitching aren't at all similar, and the five-year age difference is a huge difference, I think we can see Zito's deal working out in a similar fashion. Zito likely won't experience his deterioration as soon as Brown did -- the deal runs through his age 35 season -- the net effect may be similar: two good years and a lot of wasted money. Zito isn't remotely as good as Brown was at his peak, so even if he maintains his current value, he won't be worth $18 million a year. And no sane person would bet that much money for 7 years on something as unpredictable as a pitching arm.
  There are three main problems with this deal: 1) Zito isn't nearly as good as the Giants (and the press) think he is, and neither he -- nor any other pitcher -- is worth gambling $126 million on 7 years into the future; 2) Zito's 2006 performance is troubling, indicating a loss of stuff and with ill omens for the future, and 3) Zito's environment won't be as helpful in San Francisco.
  Point #1: Even if Zito maintains his current level of performance for seven years (something no one can safely predict), this deal won't be worth it. Zito is an above-average, durable pitcher who was really good for one season (2003), won a Cy Young Award he didn't deserve, and has been overrated ever since. None the less, he makes 34 starts a year and manages an above-average ERA (his ERA+ numbers since '03: 129, 105, 116, 116). His strikeout rate is above-average, but he also gives up a lot of walks and home runs (Zito has finished in the AL's top 5 in walks allowed every full season of his career but one). So the Giants are paying $18 million per year to an above-average innings-eater.
  This point was summed up well by Keith Law on ESPN Radio. He was asked if he'd ever looked at Zito and seen one of the five best pitchers in baseball. Law answered without hesitation, "No." I would add "absolutely not." He might have been back in 2003 when his fastball and curve were working so well, but not since and most likely not again. Why you would give the biggest contract in history to the tenth of twelfth best pitcher in the AL (and the second-best on your team, behind Matt Cain) is beyond me.
  Point #2: Zito's never really been the same since 2003, and it's not looking good. I'm not a scout (obviously), but most everything I've heard since then has been about the trouble he's had getting the curve over for strikes and the lost zip on his fastball. From what I've seen -- and admittedly I don't see the A's much -- that's pretty accurate. The scouting reports jibe with the numbers, which show that not only is Zito settling back into the "comfortably above-average pitcher," there are signs of trouble ahead. This may not mean serious trouble, but it would certainly make it unlikely that Zito's every going to break through and pitch like an ace again, even though he's sure as hell getting paid like one.
  Point #3: San Francisco isn't really the best setting for Zito. It's not that bad, certainly; it's big and roomy to suit Zito's fly-ball/walk tendencies, and it's in the weak league, which should give Zito a boost in ERA regardless of what he does. Many commentators point out that Zito will be pitching a lot not just in San Francisco, but in other roomy ballparks in Los Angeles and San Diego. That's true. He'll also be pitching a lot in Colorado and Arizona, where pitchers like Zito go to die. Let's not forget that.
  And, as many have pointed out, Zito will not have the benefit of a strong defense behind him, especially in the outfield. The A's have been one of baseball's best defensive teams in recent years, and this was never more true than in 2005, when they had Jay Payton, Mark Kotsay, and Milton Bradley covering ground for Zito. It's a long, long fall down to the level of Barry Bonds, Dave Roberts and Randy Winn. (Roberts isn't bad, but he's got a lot of room to cover.) He also won't have the benefit of Oakland's generous foul territory (a foul out in Oakland is an 8th-row souvenir and a do-over for the hitter in most ballparks).
  But this isn't just an odd fit for Zito, it's an odd choice for the Giants. The Giants, who have already leveraged big money on winning right away, can't really afford to stretch their payroll to the breaking point, and yet they've done exactly that. Zito is an improvement over the other guys in that he's about ten years younger and will be around for more than a year or two, but the benefit of a long contract is also a risk and a weakness; name one team that has ever looked back on a big, long-term deal with anything but regret about the last year or two (or four). You need look no further than Hampton and Brown, or most every other player given a contract in Zito's pay range. The only pitcher who's really justified such a blockbuster contract is Pedro Martinez.
  I'm not a political scientist, and I'm not a scout. But I know two things for damn sure: Dan Quayle is no Jack Kennedy, and Barry Zito is no Pedro Martinez.
  
  What's the bright side for the Giants? The "optimistic" view is that Zito will reverse his downward trend in peripherals and give the Giants solid work. Zito will certainly get a cosmetic boost from moving to the NL, and he could even manage a career year or two and contend for another Cy Young. He won't make the Giants contenders (at least, not by himself), and he won't push them to the World Series (neither Brown nor Hampton made it to the postseason until after they were traded away).
  But it's highly doubtful that Zito's couple of good years will outweight the other 5, especially as he reaches his mid-30's and the risk factor increases exponentially. The Giants have made a big mistake here, and this could prove to be the mortal one for Brian Sabean's career.
• The other "big" pitcher left on the market, Jeff Suppan, signed a four year deal with the Brewers for $42 million. The deal is pretty much in line with what other pitchers have been making this offseason. While I don't think the deal is a big mistake, I have several reservations.
  The big thing that many commentators have pointed out is Suppan, who relies very heavily on his defense, is going to be very disappointed with the "D" in Milwaukee. Think of the confidence Suppan must have had to turn around and see an infield of Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, and David Eckstein. What will he think when he takes a look at Prince Fielder's glovework at first? How will he adjust to the Merry Misadventures of Rickie Weeks at second? Corey Hart isn't bad, but he's not Scott Rolen; and if Bill Hall ends up at shortstop, God help us all. I saw one computation that had Suppan gaining a half-run of ERA simply due to more balls in play turning into hits. Suppan isn't a bad pitcher, and he's done quite well with the Cardinals, but I wonder if the Brewers know what he looks like in translation?
  All that said, I can understand why GM Doug Melvin made this deal. I think he's one of the most competent GMs in the game, and so I can give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows that pitching is his biggest weakness, especially if Ben Sheets is injured again. He's got a lot of major league-ready hitters, but no pitchers ready to step in and fill that #3 role. He sees that the NL Central is soft and weak, and he knows that a team with his payroll doesn't get a lot of chances like 2007. So I can certainly understand the logical reasoning behind this decision.
  I understand it, but I disagree with it. I think Melvin may have been too enamored of Suppan's Postseason Halo and not observant enough to see that his 4.12 ERA last year was an ensemble effort; remove the ensemble, and you're left with a 32-year-old low-strikeout pitcher with a 4.50 ERA. That's not bad, but it's not worth $13 million. Tomo Ohka may not be famous, but he's about 80% as valuable as Suppan at 25% of the price.
  The Suppan deal won't be the biggest disappointment of the offseason by a longshot. But it's a rare misstep for the Brewers, which is unfortunate. I have to admit; I'm kind of rooting for them to shock the world and win the division.
• The Rangers and White Sox completed a semi-challenge trade last Saturday. The Sox sent erstwhile 5th starter Brandon McCarthy to Texas along with minor leaguer David Paisano in exchange for top pitching prospect John Danks and minor league pitchers Nick Masset and Jacob Rasner.
  I'm interested as to why the White Sox made this trade. McCarthy was penciled in as their #5 starter next season, but now that position will be filled by Gavin Floyd, Charlie Haeger, or perhaps even young Danks. McCarthy was a promising young pitcher whose only real achilles heel was home runs, and that's a problem in Chicago (it's also a problem in Texas, but there you go). After making room for McCarthy by trading Freddy Garcia, Chicago GM Kenny Williams has now traded McCarthy away as well. But the more I think about it, the harder it is to determine if the Sox made a good move. McCarthy wasn't the Sox' golden boy; their pitching staff will survive just fine without him. And John Danks is a good-looking young pitcher with a solid minor league track record; his ERAs haven't yet caught up to his strong peripherals, but he's also a 21-year-old at Triple A. He turns 22 in April with the potential to make the big leagues quickly. McCarthy is two years older than Danks, which is a pretty major distinction, especially since he's already spent time in the big leagues; the Sox control Danks for 6 major league seasons starting next year. Maybe that's the determining factor that would make the Sox get rid of a pitcher who could be better and more reliable than Danks. But that's debatable; Danks is good. I guess you could argue either way about which is the better pitcher short-term or long-term, but it seems to me that the White Sox gave up some short-term assurance for a riskier long-term prospect -- but one with (possibly) more potential. And since the Sox are just gambling with the #5 spot, it's not a big deal (at least for now).
  This is, essentially, a challenge trade, with Kenny Williams betting that Danks will mean more to the team than McCarthy. It also weighs toward the Sox in that they're also getting some good spare parts. Nick Masset will be 25 next year and made it all the way to the majors with Texas. There's not a whole lot to get excited about, but even if Masset is just a solid arm, hey -- those have value, too. Rasner is a starter that the Rangers took in the 7th round of the 2005 draft; an organizational soldier, if anything. Paisano, the Sox' other player involved, is also in the low minors. He's got some potential, but it's way in the future.
  As for the Rangers, I guess they feel the opposite; that they'd rather have the short term boost of Brandon McCarthy rather than gambling on Danks. To be fair, McCarthy does have a solid minor league track record and should have no trouble filling in as a #3 pitcher in the big leagues. He's young and healthy, too. The troubling thing for me is his tendency to give up fly balls. That won't do him any favors in Texas, although Chicago is a fair home run park in its own right. I've read a lot of commentary dismissing McCarthy's potential in Texas, but I think this is an overreaction; Texas really isn't much worse than Chicago when it comes to inflating offense, so it's not like McCarthy's pitching on the moon. And these were the same commentators who gave McCarthy high marks as a White Sox starter.
  So who won this deal? I really don't know. There's a lot we still don't know about Danks and McCarthy, and it's likely that the Rangers and Sox know more than I do. There are other factors involved in this as well, particularly concerning Barry Zito. The McCarthy trade was probably insurance in case the Rangers didn't sign Barry (and they didn't, as it turned out). Who knows? Right now, I'm inclined to favor Brandon McCarthy, but then I tend to favor the more proven commodity. Danks has the potential to surprise me and make this trade worthwhile. As it is, I think this is just one of those trades that you have to wait on, at least as far as I can see. I'd be interested to get a good scouting report on all the players involved to see if there's something I'm missing.
• Reports came in today that the Orioles signed free agent Aubrey Huff to a 3-year, $20 million deal.
  Well, we can all debate as to whether or not Huff is worth that much money. I'm not sure, but I think he probably is for a team that really needs a corner infielder/outfielder swing man who hits lefty, especially if you're a contender with a hole to fill.
  For many teams, this signing would be perfectly reasonable. But for the Orioles, it's another in a long line of useless signings that is fast establishing them as one of the most inept franchises in the game.
  The biggest question I had was this: where the hell is Huff going to play? The press releases I found made no specific mention. I ask because there's no spot open in the lineup. First base is filled by free agent Kevin Millar (ugh), third base by incumbent Melvin Mora (look out below), left field by free agent Jay Payton (shall I pack your bats for the road trip, Mr. Payton, or just not bother?), right field by rookie sensation Nick Markakis (stud), and DH by incumbent Jay Gibbons (why overachieve when you can just settle for mediocrity?).
  Where does Huff fit in to this picture? He's not an untalented guy and could even be more useful than several of the guys slotted into the lineup. But unless the O's make a trade, they've just spent $20 million on a bench player.
  With most teams, I would take this signing as a pretty good sign that they're going to trade someone. Few teams intentionally overcrowd their lineup with expensive free agents. But you can never give the O's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to logic and good sense.
• It's been a month since the J.D. Drew deal was announced and, unless I slept through the announcement, the deal still hasn't been finalized. I said before that I think the deal will get done, just because it's in everyone's best interests. But a month of silence can't be ignored.
• The Marlins signed Aaron Boone to a one-year contract worth a little less than a million dollars. This isn't a bad deal for Florida; they could use some backup for Miguel Cabrera at third, and Boone has his uses as a bench player. His days as a starter are probably over, but he's worth a shot off the bench, especially at a rock-bottom salary.
• The Reds traded for Jeff Conine from the Phillies. They didn't give up a lot to get him, mainly just spare parts, and will likely use Conine as Scott Hatteberg's platoon partner at first base. You could do worse than to have Jeff Conine on your team, but I'm still not sure the Reds are aware of what their real problems are.
• The final numbers on Marcus Giles' deal with the Padres: one year, $3.25 million, with a club option worth $4 mil. for 2008. I'm still not sure what Schuerholz was thinking when he cut Giles, but he sure gave Kevin Towers one hell of a Christmas present.
• Big, BIG news on the legal front: federal authorities have subpoenaed the test results from the MLB's confidential substance abuse tests of 2003.
  In 2003, as negotiated in the CBA, baseball initiated a confidential drug testing system to measure the use of steroids in baseball. Although positive tests were high enough to automatically trigger a full random drug-testing policy, they weren't nearly as high as the "25-50%" figures being bandied about in the news.
  The tests were done under the agreement that the results would be confidential; samples would not be linked to individual athletes and no disciplinary action would be taken (the Union, of course, insisted on these parameters).
  Enter the federal government.
  The feds recently raided the lab that held these old samples and also acquired the super-confidential coding system that connected the samples with the players. It seems that in their quest to mount a perjury case against Barry Bonds, they were looking for evidence of a positive steroid test (it's doubtful that the feds were targeting anyone else, except possibly Giambi and Sheffield). Although I don't see what good this raid would do for the government's case. If Bonds tested negative, that really hurts their case. And if he tested positive, so what? Bonds has already admitted to using PEDs, he just claims that he wasn't aware he was using them.
  At any rate, the player's union sued, claiming that the tests were confidential and the government's raid was an invasion of privacy. In a scary ruling, the courts decided against the union. Union head Don Fehr has promised to appeal the ruling, but right now it's very possible that the government can keep the samples and use them as evidence.
  This is a terrible blow for the Players' Union. With the players and the results now linked, the names of the positive tests will come out eventually, and that won't accomplish anything at all except to make a few dozen ballplayers' lives a living hell.
  And I can't help but feel that the Union itself is somewhat to blame. When the Union agreed to the confidential testing, they must have known (I hope) that Major League Baseball has, of course, no power to fight a federal subpoena. The feds could give a damn about a confidentiality agreement between the MLB and the MLBPA; in a criminal case, a subpoena trumps it all. Don Fehr must have known on some level that any assurances he got about confidentiality weren't backed up with any muscle. He should have known that he was about to agree to the systematic documentation of illegal activity among his union members, which would leave him totally vulnerable to federal subpoena, something Bud Selig has no power to control. Was Fehr really so unaware of this danger?
  Fehr's argument is on the basis of privilege and constitutional rights. That's difficult. He agreed to forfeit the consitutional rights of the players so that they could submit to the drug tests. That was fine. But letting other people read the results -- that's an invasion of privacy? The MLB has a right to your urine, but the federal government doesn't have the right to subpoena evidence of criminal activity? What logic is that?
  The more substantive argument is that since the feds seized the samples from a medical lab, they violated the players'/patients' right to medical privacy, i.e. "doctor-patient privilege." But this isn't really a case of a patient and doctor's privileged records. The feds aren't issuing subpoenas for Barry Bonds' latest medical checkup. The MLB and their contracted labs can hardly be granted the same privilege as a "doctor" who deals with the players as patients. Don Fehr disagrees; according to an AP report, Fehr said that if the ruling "is allowed to stand it will effectively repeal the Fourth Amendment for confidential electronic records."
  Strong words. But does the privilege really apply here? However useless the information might be to the feds, and however damaging it would be to the players, is there a legal basis for arguing that the raids violate the 4th Amendment? Hard to see. Among the things I'm not an expert on is constitutional law (most of my knowledge thereof was gleaned from AP US History class and Law & Order episodes). But is there precedent for the government getting subpoena power over employer/employee drug test results? With more and more companies testing employees for drugs, that must have gone before the courts by now. If the precedent was set that the government has no right to those records, then Fehr's case is solid. If the precedent is that an employer/employee confidentiality agreement is no match for a federal subpoena, then his case is toast.
  On a personal level, I consider myself to be a strong supporter of civil liberties. And I'm troubled by the invasive nature of drug testing. I certainly don't want my previous remarks to suggest that I want the government seizing these records. On the contrary. However, given the legal system as it is, there doesn't seem to be a strong legal argument to prevent them from doing so. It's a shame, but then welcome to post-9/11 life.
  And above all, I personally think that Don Fehr should have been ready for this.

We'll end today's entry with those strong words. We've covered a lot of topics, and somehow I've managed to tell everyone about all the things I'm not an expert in. That's not a good way to built a reputation for excellence, and they may revoke my claim to "whiz kid" status.
But that leads me to my next article: my New Year's resolutions (for baseball).

I'll see you then. Have a safe and happy New Year.

Hall of Fame Ballot

2007 Hall of Fame Ballot:
Harold Baines
Albert Belle
Dante Bichette
Bert Blyleven
Bobby Bonilla
Scott Brosius
Jay Buhner
Ken Caminiti
Jose Canseco
Dave Concepcion
Eric Davis
Andre Dawson
Tony Fernandez
Steve Garvey
Goose Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Orel Hershiser
Tommy John
Wally Joyner
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Paul O'Neill
Dave Parker
Jim Rice
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Bret Saberhagen
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Devon White
Bobby Witt

This is the ballot that BBWAA members get to vote on for the upcoming Hall elections. Since I took the opportunity to criticize some of the members voting, I thought at least I'd go ahead and indicate who I would vote for if given the opportunity.

My Hall of Fame vote for 2007:

Bert Blyleven, Goose Gossage, Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire, Cal Ripken, Jr., Alan Trammell

Discuss:
Bert Blyleven

Bert Blyleven isn't in the Hall of Fame because his career Won-Loss record is 287-250. 287 wins is an awful lot (26th all-time, 13th among post-war players) but 250 losses is also an awful lot (10th all-time, 5th among post-war players). I think wins and losses are, by and large, irrelevant, so I'm not going to list that as any evidence for or against Bert.
Bert was rarely the best pitcher in the league; in fact, the only year I think he deserved the Cy Young Award was 1973 with Minnesota, when he won 20 games with a 2.52 ERA and struck out 258 batters in a career-high 325 IP. His ERA+ in 1973 was the best in the league, and he finished 2nd in strikeouts and 4th in innings pitched. But his W-L record was 20-17, whereas Jim Palmer's was 22-9 on a division-winning team. So Palmer won the Cy Young.
What Bert had was amazing durability. And despite the fact that he was only the league's best pitcher once, he was always near the top. He was, in my opinion, the second-best pitcher in the league on three different occasions (1974, 1985, 1989), the third-best pitcher twice more (1978, 1984), and was among the top 5 no less than ten times in his career. Blyleven was an amazingly effective pitcher who just happened to be flying under the radar, missing recognition due to the fact that he never (after '73) had a real breakthrough year.
So we've established that Blyleven reached a level of excellence only attained by very few pitchers. I've charted pitcher performances through the year 1928. The only pitchers I've come across that were among the top 5 in their league at least 10 times are the following: Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, and Warren Spahn. That's an amazing, amazing record. Blyleven was, of course, not as excellent as the likes of Clemens and Grove. But comparing him to Spahn is actually pretty apt. Spahn was, at his peak, better and pitcher longer. But consider these numbers:

Bert Blyleven: 287-250, 4970 IP, 3.31 ERA, 1322 BB, 3701 K, 118 ERA+

Warren Spahn: 363-245, 5243.2 IP, 3.09 ERA, 1434 BB, 2583 K, 118 ERA+

Even I wouldn't have guessed that Blyleven and Spahn had the exact same career ERA, adjusted for era and ballparks. Spahn was more valuable, I'm not letting go of that, but to say that Blyleven is as close as this is amazing.
Once we establish that Blyleven was almost as effective as Warren Spahn, that makes our argument much easier. Combine that effectiveness with 4970 career innings (13th all-time, 7th post-war) and 3701 strikeouts (5th all-time) and it's hard to argue for this man as a true Hall-of-Famer.
But how does Blyleven stack up against other pitchers, especially those that aren't in Cooperstown? Let's take a look:

Career Win Shares:
1. Cy Young (635)
2. Walter Johnson (564)

...

10. Tony Mullane* (401)

...

20. Old Hoss Radbourne (346)

21t Bert Blyleven* (339)

21t Robin Roberts (339)

23. Bob Caruthers* (338)

The only non-Hall of Famer with more career Win Shares than Blyleven is Tony Mullane, who pitched from 1881-1894 in what was a much different era. In fact, almost all of the non-Hall of Famers surrounding Blyleven are 19th-century pitchers such as Mullane and Caruthers. Let's look at Career Win Shares post-19th century (pitchers with careers in both eras will be included)

1. Cy Young (635)

2. Walter Johnson (564)

3. Kid Nichols (479)

4. Pete Alexander (477)

5. Roger Clemens* (435)

6. Christy Mathewson (426)

7. Warren Spahn (411)

8t Lefty Grove (391)

8t Tom Seaver (391)
10. Greg Maddux* (380)
11. Phil Niekro (375)

12t Steve Carlton (367)

12t Gaylord Perry (367)

14. Eddie Plank (360)

15t Bert Blyleven* (339)

15t Robin Roberts (339)

17. Nolan Ryan (334)
18. Ferguson Jenkins (323)

* -- not in Hall of Fame

So Bert Blyleven has more Win Shares than any other modern pitcher not in the Hall of Fame, excluding active pitchers like Clemens and Maddux. You have to go all the way down to Tommy John (289 WS) to find the next eligible pitcher not inducted into the Hall.

Let's illustrate this in short-hand, comparing Blyleven to other Hall hopefuls using traditional and non-traditional stats:

Career WS: Blyleven (339), Tommy John (289), Jim Kaat (268), Luis Tiant (256), Billy Pierce (248)
Blyleven has more career WS than Nolan Ryan, Ferguson Jenkins, Red Ruffing, Bob Gibson, Don Sutton, Jim Palmer, Randy Johnson, Early Wynn, Carl Hubbell, Tom Glavine, Dennis Eckersley, Mordecai Brown, Bob Feller, Burleigh Grimes, and many others
Jack Morris, everyone's "favorite" to enter the Hall, has 225 career Win Shares, putting him behind Frank Tanana, Jerry Koosman, Charlie Hough, Dennis Martinez, Kevin Brown, and Eddie Cicotte. He's tied with Urban Shocker, Tommy Bridges, and Larry Jackson, good pitchers all, but none of them Hall material.
(I don't consider career ERA, because the top 100 is almost entirely 19th-century pitchers).

Career ERA+: Bret Saberhagen (126), Jimmy Key (122), Dave Stieb (122), Bert Blyleven (118), Luis Tiant (114), Tommy John (111), Jim Kaat (107), Jack Morris (105)
The career ERA+ leaderboard is mostly full of relief pitchers and guys with short, productive careers.

Career IP: Bert Blyleven (4970), Tommy John (4710.1), Jim Kaat (4530.1), Frank Tanana (4188.1), Dennis Martinez (3999.2), Jerry Koosman (3839.3), Jack Morris (3824)
Would you believe that Frank Tanana, with his reputation for injuries and brittleness, threw more career innings than Jack Morris? Or that our friend Mr. Blyleven has him beat by over 1000 IP?!

Career K: Bert Blyleven (3701), Mickey Lolich (2832), Frank Tanana (2773), David Cone (2668), Chuck Finley (2610), Jerry Koosman (2556), Jack Morris (2478), Mark Langston (2464), Jim Kaat (2461)
Yet another category where Blyleven laps the field and has Morris licked by over 1,000.

Career WARP3: Bert Blyleven (142), Frank Tanana (111.3), Tommy John (108.7), Luis Tiant (98.7), Jim Kaat (96.3), Jack Morris (89.8), Dave Stieb (89)

Again, Blyleven is head and shoulders above the other candidates. He's closer to Warren Spahn (155.9) than he is to any of the other Hall candidates.

In summary, the only reason to keep Bert Blyleven out of the Hall of Fame is a prejudice against a pitcher with 250 losses. And considering these voters, that will be enough. I just hope that Blyleven gets the honor he deserves in his lifetime.

Goose Gossage

To avoid going on too long about all of these candidates, I'll refer you back to my entry on Bruce Sutter (scroll down to 2nd entry), which also contains my argument for the Goose's inclusion.

Tony Gwynn

This is an easy one. Gwynn ranks as one of the best right fielders of all time by any measure. He doesn't rank among the elite right fielders (Ruth, Aaron, Ott, Frank Robinson), but falls right in line with the second-tier, sure-thing HOFers like Sam Crawford, Al Kaline, and Paul Waner. Gwynn is 12th all-time among RFers with 398 career Win Shares and ranks 10th in WARP3. He'll be elected easily, and rightfully so.

Mark McGwire

Well, I've already argued that McGwire's numbers merit inclusion into the Hall of Fame. So it leaves me to explain why I would induct him despite the preponderance of evidence that suggests he used steroids.
I've spoken about this in many entries already, so I won't go into a long-winded repeat of why I refuse to pass moral judgment on players who did what any of the rest of us would have done. Steroids seem so much dirtier than any of the cheating ballplayers used to do, but I'd suggest that that's mainly an issue of perception rather than anything. Gaylord Perry's spitball was considered cute and charming, even though it was quite obviously cheating and also explicity against the rules (unlike steroid use). There's also a great deal more evidence about the benefits of foreign subtances on the ball than there is about steroid use. For all of the voters (and they will be in the majority) who vote against Mark McGwire, I DEFY you to justify Perry's easy induction into the Hall.

This doesn't even mention the many other forms of cheating utilized by ballplayers in the past. Amphetamines weren't against the rules in the 60's and 70's, but then neither were steroids in 1988. And there's much direct evidence of the beneficial effects of amphetamines on baseball performance rather than steroids. Many baseball players have admitted to cheating, either through corked bats, spitballs, shine balls, or scuff balls, and it hasn't had any effect on their Hall of Fame candidacy. It recently came out that the New York Giants utilized an illegal form of sign-stealing during the 1951 baseball season, but no one is rushing to put an asterisk next to their NL pennant.

What it comes down to is the fact that steroids seem much "dirtier" and immoral than other forms of cheating. And yet there is no practical basis for this impression. Steroids have potent side effects, but so do amphetamines. It's very hard to catch steroid users, but then who knows if your bat is corked until it breaks open? For years, Don Sutton was suspected of doctoring the ball but was never caught in the act of doing it, and thus escaped punishment.

The extreme hatred and distrust of steroid users simply doesn't stand up to any logical test. Steroid use should be taken into account as much as any other form of cheating that enhances a ballplayer's performance. But there's no evidence that it deserves its own hall of shame.

In fact, there's very little evidence as to exactly how much steroids do help ballplayers. This is the crucial question when it comes to Hall of Fame voting: How much?
How much did steroids help Mark McGwire? If we can get past the bizarre, priggish temptation to ban him altogether, we simply have to question how much steroids enhanced McGwire's performance. How much power and productivity did steroids give Mark McGwire?
I don't have any damn clue and neither does anyone else.

This is the big problem. There is no -- repeat, NO way to tell how much McGwire benefited from steroid use. We don't know when he started using, what he was using, how much he was using, or even for sure if he was using at all. And so it's impossible to take his numbers and take into account his steroid use. How many home runs would McGwire have hit without steroids? 500? 450? 400? Or maybe he would have hit 550 or 560 instead of 583? Nobody knows. Everyone says that McGwire wouldn't have hit 583 home runs without steroids, but they have absolutely no evidence to back such a claim.

Everyone has this idea that steroids add home runs by the bunches. It's possible, and even probable that this is true. But the nature of steroids or, more broadly, performance enchancing drugs (PEDs) is such that they defy any precise attribution of success. The only thing we know for sure is that steroids can help add muscle mass and reduce muscle fatigue, enabling the user to exercise more often with less resting. But this does not in itself equal better production on a baseball field. An increase in muscle mass can be beneficial but does not automatically add home runs. If that were true, then baseball lineups would be full of bodybuilders socking 80 home runs per year. Muscle mass is an element of baseball production, nothing more.

But even then, we're stymied unless we know when someone started using and what they were using. If McGwire started using hard steroids (anabolics) in the minor leagues, then we could certainly knock some home runs off of his record. But it's entirely possible that he didn't start using until the end of his career, when he was losing production. It's also possible that he was using supplements which were legal (at the time), such as HGH or andro. It's a very fine line between a legal nutritional supplement and an illegal PED.

The amazing thing about McGwire and steroids is how much we don't know. But trust a sportswriter to refuse to admit that he doesn't know everything. Everyone's already made up their minds about McGwire, and he's not going to get in for several years, if at all.

Me? I think that McGwire was very obviously a Hall of Fame-caliber hitter, and I don't think there's enough evidence about the effects of steroids themselves nor about his own usage to keep him out of the Hall. I wouldn't blame a voter for waiting on McGwire for a few years to see if we can find out more. That's what the 5-year waiting period was designed for. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get any more details about users from that era. In that case, I would cast my vote for McGwire. I'm disappointed that he would look for that extra edge, but he wouldn't be the first cheater in the Hall, nor will he be the last. Until I see evidence that his "cheating" was enough to outweigh his excellent on-field performance, I will cast my vote for his induction.

Cal Ripken, Jr.

Very little to say here. Ripken's either the second- or third-best shortstop of all time, depending upon who you ask (Honus Wagner is the best, hands-down). The difference between the two is academic; he deserves to get swept into the Hall by a landslide vote, and he will.

Alan Trammell

I discussed Trammell about a year ago when I listed the top ten players I would put in the Hall. The short version of my argument is this:

Alan Trammell is a borderline Hall-of-Famer, but I think that he deserves his spot nonetheless. Trammell ranks 15th all-time among shortstops in career Win Shares, which is right on the Cooperstown cusp. He's right behind Ernie Banks and Ozzie Smith, but right ahead of Pee Wee Reese and Rabbit Maranville. He ranks 8th all-time in WARP3, which makes a better allowance for Trammell's offensive production at a key defensive position.
And that's really the key. Trammell wasn't a great hitter (career 285/352/415), but he was well above-average. He was especially valuable at his position, shortstop. During his career (1977-1996), the average shortstop hit 256/311/354. Trammell was miles ahead of that, and he added on fine defense, earning (and deserving) 4 Gold Gloves.

The problem is that Trammell doesn't have any one number that sticks out at you. HOF voters are notoriously short-sighted, in that they won't vote in any player who doesn't have a flashy number of hits, home runs, or RBI. The only exceptions they make are for defensive gems (Ozzie Smith, Bill Mazeroski), or guys who have an inflated reputation due to things like being "clutch" (Phil Rizzuto). Trammell had a broad number of talents, and the sum of those talents was enough to get him into Cooperstown. Unfortunately, HOF voters only vote for one number; they don't have time to consider the whole player. If they did, then guys like Ron Santo, Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, and Trammell's double-play partner Lou Whitaker would get their due.

Near Misses:

Tony Fernandez, Dave Parker

Tony Fernandez

Fernandez was sort of a poor man's Alan Trammell. He, too, had a broad base of skills and was a good hitter for his position (career 288/347/399), though not nearly as good as Trammell. Fernandez was also very solid defensively, with a versatile glove that was very much underrated.
Fernandez never got his due, mainly because his defense was so underrated, and his offense wasn't recognized for being so good for a shortstop. He made up for this by playing for a long time (19 seasons) and racking up 2,276 career hits. He was also hurt by his nomadic lifestyle; he changed teams 9 times during his career, including three tours of duty with the Blue Jays.

Fernandez was a good, underrateed player who had a long and productive career. But he just wasn't quite good enough.

Dave Parker
A lot of people think that Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame. Let's see . . .
Dave Parker: 19 seasons, career 290/339/471 hitter, 2,712 hits, 339 HR, .285 career EQA, 327 career WS

Jim Rice: 16 seasons, career 298/352/502 hitter, 2,452 hits, 382 HR, .287 career EQA, 282 career WS

The reason that Parker and Rice are so close in EQA is that Rice's numbers were heavily inflated by Fenway Park, whereas Parker played most of his games in neutral Three Rivers Stadium. Parker also played longer and was more valuable defensively, playing right field, whereas Rice had the easiest on-field job in baseball in terms of range, playing under the Green Monster. Parker also played much longer and did better in the postseason.

I guess you could make the argument that Rice was better, but the truth of it is that neither man is really good enough for Cooperstown. Rice was underrated during his career, and a grass-roots movement has grown so strong behind him that he is now thoroughly overrated. He may get elected to Cooperstown based simply on the fact that the voters don't understand Fenway Park, even though most of them love the Red Sox.

Parker is tied for 20th all-time among right fielders in Win Shares. That's no so bad, but there's really no other argument to push him ahead of Rice's teammates Reggie Smith and Dwight Evans, both of whom were probably better. Rice is ranked all the way at 31st place among left fielders in Win Shares, behind Sherry Magee, Jose Cruz, Jimmy Sheckard, Luis Gonzalez, Brian Downing, Frank Howard, Joe Jackson, George J. Burns, Bob Johnson, Elmer Smith, and Minnie Minoso. It's a very, VERY tough argument to get Rice past all of these men, most of whom played in much less offense-friendly environments and were significantly more productive on a per-game basis. Rice's 21.86 WS/162 games ranks him 42nd among all 64 right fielders with at least 200 career Win Shares. His lack of overall productivity is not compensated by any per-season greatness. I only have Rice among the top 10 players in the AL 4 times in his career. Only once, in his fine 1978 season, was he in the top 4.

Short takes on the rest of the field:

Harold Baines:
Had an obscenely long career despite the fact that he was never really that good. A career 289/356/465 hitter with no defensive value. Not bad for an All-Star team, but no HOFer.

Albert Belle:
If Albert's career hadn't ended at age 34, I think he would probably have earned his way into Cooperstown. But Albert's attitude and poor relations with his team made him an unlikely pick before the injury. As it is, there's no way he gets in, nor does he really deserve to.

Dante Bichette:

Dante Bichette's career at home: 328/365/573, 177 HR. His career on the road: 269/306/424, 97 HR. Bichette is a couple miles away from Cooperstown, and the fact that he even made the ballot shows how short-sighted the voters are when it comes to taking Coors Field into account. If Bichette hadn't spent the bulk of his career in Colorado, he'd be no more likely to get into Cooperstown than Hal Morris.

Bobby Bonilla:
The perception is that Bonilla was an amazing player in Pittsburgh whose career died after he left. I disagree:

Through his age 28 season (his last with the Pirates), Bonilla was a career 283/357/472 hitter. After that, he hit 275/358/471. That's actually amazingly consistent. Bonilla did suffer a big slump in his first year as a big free agent in New York, and people took that one year to represent his entire career, which in unfair. Granted, his career splits mask the fact that offense in baseball skyrocketed after he left Pittsburgh, so his decline was genuine indeed. It's just been vastly overstated. Bonilla was never as good nor as bad as people thought he was.

Scott Brosius:

A good-fielding third baseman who played eleven seasons and hit 257/323/422. I know that people are biased towards the Yankees, but this is ridiculous. Anyone who ranks Scott Brosius' career as evenly remotely in the same league as Matt Williams or Robin Ventura deserves a vicious, painful wedgie.

Jay Buhner:

A guy who hit really well for several years but not enough to really qualify for Cooperstown. He was a good defensive right fielder, but there's just not enough extenuating circumstances to explain away his 1200 career hits or his 174 career Win Shares (roughly equal to Magglio Ordonez, who's still active). The kind of guy who gets listed on the ballot once as a courtesy and then disappears.

Ken Caminiti:

Well, the steroids would certainly help explain what turned Caminiti from a solid, everyday third baseman into an MVP candidate. Had about 7 good years, but so did about 50 or 60 other third baseman.

Jose Canseco:
Yeah, right. Truthfully, though, Canseco's career hit the skids when he went to Texas. He revived his fortunes with some good years as a DH in the late 90's, but then he was pumped on steroids by his own admission. Didn't deserve a plaque even before the book.

Dave Concepcion:
Dave Concepcion was a truly excellent defensive shortstop. That alone makes people want to put him in Cooperstown. But I'm of the opinion that we should elect the "total player," not just a part of him. So I'm left to point out Concepcion's career 267/322/357 batting line, safely below average. Ozzie Smith, who was a contemporary of Concepcion's, hit 262/337/328 in his career. But he also lasted longer and was more valuable defensively. Ozzie is Dave's best chance of getting into Cooperstown, but I'm not too crazy about Ozzie myself. Dave deserves more credit than he's gotten, but I don't think he deserves to get in ahead of Alan Trammell, or certainly not Barry Larkin, his successor.

Eric Davis:
Davis is a sad story, another one of the guys who would have sailed into Cooperst0wn if he had stayed healthy. He had some amazing seasons in Cincinnati (his best was probably a 293/399/593 performance in 1987 with great defense and 50/56 in steals). But after helping the Reds to the championship in 1990, Davis' career fell of the map. He was able to revive it shortly from 1996-1998, but it's just not enough to get him into Cooperstown. Davis is just the modern Cesar Cedeno, without the violence.

Andre Dawson:
I've been over this before, but in short: no way. Dawson was a good defender, but he was also a right fielder, where good defense isn't quite so important. He's a career 279/323/482 hitter, which doesn't sound much like a Hall-of-Famer. At his peak, Dawson was very good but not great (his 1987 MVP is a joke), and his later years were mostly spent padding out his counting stats at the cost of killing his averages. If people didn't like him and remember him fondly, he'd be on the same bubble as Dave Parker. As it is, he could very well get inducted. But it's hard to compensate for a career .323 OBP, 8 points below the league average for his time.

Steve Garvey:

A guy who got far too famous for his good looks more than his baseball skills and ended up on the fast-track to the Hall. Unfortunately, a paternity suit can be a big setback on the road to immortality. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, but at least it's given people second thoughts about Garvey's desirability as an inductee.
Garvey illustrates the folly of basing your entire opinion of someone on their batting average. The idea back then (which persists today) is that a high batting average is a divine skill, which makes any other shortcomings unimportant.
But that's silly. Garvey was a career 294/329/446 hitter. Yes, he was playing in Dodger Stadium, but that's still quite dismal for a first baseman. Garvey did have some power, hitting 272 career home runs, but that doesn't disguise his .329 career OBP. Garvey was also a good case study on someone whose high batting average masked an inability to take a walk, resulting in a low OBP. If your batting line looks like Garvey's, you'd better be a Gold Glove shortstop if you want to make it to Cooperstown. Garvey was neither.

As it is, Garvey ranks 31st in career Win Shares. He's actually much worse than that when you consider that he played more games than most people surrounding him. His 19.38 WS/162 games ranks 59th out of the 72 first basemen with at least 200 career Win Shares.

Garvey needs to get in line behind Dick Allen, Will Clark, Fred McGriff, Norm Cash, Keith Hernandez, Mickey Vernon, Dave Foutz, Ed Konetchy, Boog Powell, and perhaps 8 or 10 others.

Orel Hershiser
Hershiser was a Hall-of-Fame pitcher from 1984-1989 and was, in my opinion, the NL's best pitcher in 1987, 1988, and 1989. But 5 years does not a career make, or else Mort Cooper, Sam McDowell, Herb Score, and Fernando Valenzuela would be in the Hall. Hershiser did manage to come back and pitch a couple good years with Cleveland in '95 and '96, but that's hardly enough to make his Hall case.

Hershiser was every bit as good as people remember him to be. Unfortunately, it takes a career to get into Cooperstown, not a year.

Tommy John
John doesn't really get a lot of respect. He was considered to be a low-end pitcher who just happened to hang around for a long time. But if you survive 26 seasons and 4710.1 innings, you're probably not a low-end pitcher. John was, indeed, above-average, as measured by ERA+ and RSAA. But I don't think he was above-average enough to get into Cooperstown. Being a good pitcher for a long time is quite an achievement, but you also have to have a really excellent near now and again.

Wally Joyner
Like many people on this list, Joyner got off to a hot start, cooled off, and then experienced a mild career resurgence at the end of his career. But Joyner was never anything like an MVP, and his career was so short and relatively unproductive that he doesn't really merit more than a passing glance.

Don Mattingly
I hate to break it to Yankee fans, but Mattingly just wasn't quite as good as people think. He was good, certainly; I have him as one of the 10 best players in the AL on 4 different occasions. But he was never really the best (his MVP notwithstanding). Mattingly was actually quite similar to his contemporary Keith Hernandez. Both men were reliable hitters who could provide a high average and great defense. But neither man had a well-rounded offensive game; Mattingly rarely took a walk (career .358 OBP) and Hernandez didn't have much power (career .436 slugger, 162 HR). If they had stuck around long enough to compile 3,000 hits and prove their great durability, then they likely would have earned a place in Cooperstown. But both men suffered a sudden end to their careers that doomed them to being just below the Cooperstown cut. (Mattingly at age 34, after 14 seasons; Hernandez at age 36, after 17 seasons).

Jack Morris

See the above entry on Bert Blyleven, where I put Morris well behind him and probably behind other hopefuls such as Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Frank Tanana, Dave Stieb, Luis Tiant and Jerry Koosman. Morris got a lot of wins and a reputation for being a "gamer." Unfortunately, he wasn't able to translate that into really good pitching and has been consistently overrated.

Dale Murphy
Murphy was well on his way to the Hall of Fame as a slugging center fielder with a well-rounded offensive game before he suddenly and inexplicably became ineffective. At age 31, Murphy was coming off a 1987 that saw him tear through the National League, hitting 295/417/580. Granted, he was hitting in a hitter's park in the Year of the Hitter, but it was still a fine performance. After '87, Murphy had a career 279/362/500 batting line and, as an athletic center fielder with good defense, looked like he was going to remain productive for years to come. And if he had, he would have slid right into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.

Except he didn't. In 1988, Murphy hit 226/313/421 with the Braves for no apparent reason. His career deteriorated from there, and he retired in 1993 after a poor half-season with the Rockies. From his 1988 season on, Murphy hit a wretched 234/307/396.

There's very little precedent for an athletic, well-rounded athlete to experience a sudden, dramatic decline in performance at age 31. A player like Murphy should have aged gracefully, continuing his slugging ways into his late 30's, moving to first base as he chased 500 home runs.

But it was not to be. Unfortunately, the career that Murphy did finish up with falls just short of the standards of the Hall.

Paul O'Neill

O'Neill had a good, long, productive career. He finished it by being a team leader on a Yankee dynasty, which is the easiest way in the world to get on the express train to Cooperstown. The problem is that O'Neill was just never really that good, and I doubt he'll get inducted, even with his Yankee credentials.
O'Neill was a career 288/363/470 hitter, which is certainly good, but is by no means excellent for a right fielder in the 1990s. From 1993-2001, O'Neill hit 303/377/492 with the Yankees. Manny Ramirez, however, hit 312/406/594 with Cleveland and Boston. Hell, Rusty Greer of the Rangers hit 305/388/484 over the same period.

So while we might be tempted to look fondly on O'Neill's numbers, there's just nothing significant to set him apart from 20 other right fielders waiting for induction.

Bret Saberhagen
Bret Saberhagen spent parts of 16 seasons in the major leagues and finished his career with a 3.34 ERA and a .588 career winning percentage. Sounds like a Hall-of-Famer, right?
Wrong. Saberhagen has, according to one source, spent more days on the DL than any other player in baseball history. This means that while those 17 years sound like a long time, it was actually a very spotty record. Sabes topped 200 IP in four of his first six major league seasons, and he certainly looked like a future HOFer at the time. But due (most likely) to this heavy workload, he never threw 200 innings again. In fact, for the next ten seasons, he only qualified for the ERA title (min. 162 IP) three times.

Per appearance, Saberhagen was almost effective enough to get into the Hall of Fame. But that's very hard to do with 2,562.2 IP. (Compare that to Dave Stieb's 2895.1, David Cone's 2898.2, or Orel Hershiser's 3.130.1)

Lee Smith

This is a toughie. Lee Smith isn't really as marginal a pitcher as his reputation has become. He was an above-average hurler over the course of his career, and his 3.03 career ERA is above-average. But his career ERA is worse than that of John Franco, Dan Quisenberry, Goose Gossage, Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, Sparky Lyle, Kent Tekulve, and most every other relief ace of his time. This is partially due to the fact that Smith's career was long enough to stretch into the hitting renaissance of the 90's. But it's mainly just an indication that Smith wasn't significantly more effective than these guys. He actually threw fewer career innings than Tekulve and Franco, and more than 500 innings less than Fingers and Gossage.
So there's little evidence that Smith was significantly better than his contemporaries or that he was significantly more durable. It's possible that he provided a good combination of the two, but I just haven't seen any good evidence to put him in the Hall ahead of Gossage or Quisenberry.

Devon White
Uhh . . . okay. White was an excellent defensive center fielder, yes, but he also hit 263/319/419 in his career, despite spending the bulk of it in the hitting-happy 90's. He ranks 67th among all center fielders in career Win Shares, with 207. He's not significantly better than Willie McGee, and neither man should really get serious consideration for the Hall.

Bobby Witt

Witt's career W-L record is 142-157. His career ERA of 4.83 is about half a run below the league average for his time. He did compile nearly 2,000 strikeouts but also racked up 1,375 walks.

There are literally 75-100 pitchers who deserve to be on this ballot ahead of Bobby Witt. And the crazy thing is that I can't find any number or piece of evidence that suggests why the writers would take leave of their senses and put him there in the first place.

Veteran's Committee

The Veteran's Committee will also be voting on possible candidates for induction. Their ballot is gigantic; they've narrowed it down to 200 players and 60 umpires, executives, etc. to vote on. Can you really call that narrowing anything down? The most likely result will be that no one gets inducted, which isn't surprising at all given the panoply of candidates to choose from. The ineffectiveness of the Veteran's Committee is legendary, but let's at least see what they've got to work with.

In the interests of space, I won't list all 260 candidates, but I'll go through and pick out the highlights:

Most Reasonable Candidates (Players): Dick Allen, Sal Bando, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, Ben Chapman, Bill Dahlen, Willie Davis, Wes Ferrell, Curt Flood, Bill Freehan, Jim Fregosi, Junior Gilliam, Joe Gordon, Stan Hack, Gil Hodges, Frank Howard, Jim Kaat, Jerry Koosman, Mickey Lolich, Sherry Magee, Firpo Marberry, Marty Marion, Sam McDowell, Minnie Minoso, Bobby Murcer, Tony Oliva, Billy Pierce, Vada Pinson, Jack Quinn, Ron Santo, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith, Vern Stephens, Joe Torre, Virgil Trucks, Lon Warneke, Joe Wood, Jimmy Wynn

Notice I say that these are the most reasonable, not that I would vote for all of them. If I did have a vote, I'd probably vote for Dick Allen, Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, Bill Freehan, Stan Hack, Minnie Minoso, Ron Santo, and Joe Torre. Maybe more or less, I'd have to review my "records."

Most Reasonable Candidates (Umpires/Executives/Etc.): Buzzie Bavasi, Harry Dalton, Charles O. Finley, Whitey Herzog, John Heydler, Billy Martin, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley, Alfred Reach, Paul Richards, Jacob Ruppert

I'm not as familiar with the names on this list, and certainly don't feel qualified enough to judge the merits of umpires like Steve Palermo and John McSherry.

If I had a vote, I'd be tempted to vote for Marvin Miller and no one else, since I feel that he is most deserving of induction by far. I'd also probably vote for Al Reach. Reach was very similar to A.G. Spalding; he started out as a baseball player (helping the Philadelphia Athletics to the first organized baseball pennant in the 1871 National Association) and later became famous for starting his own business of sporting goods. He's also famous for the Reach Guide, a baseball annual that was one of the first of its kind and is now an invaluable source of firsthand information about early baseball. Reach was also an executive, co-founding the Philadelphia Phillies franchise that still exists today.

It's tough, when dealing with front office executives, to balance the success they had in running their team with their effects on the "outside" aspects of the game. Perhaps I'm prejudiced, but after reading the details of "Gussie" Busch's behavior during the early labor disputes, I wouldn't vote for him for anything (he is on the ballot). There's a similar distaste for Paul Richards; Richards was a talented front-office mind who helped build the Baltimore Orioles out of the remains of the St. Louis Browns. He was also one of the most fiercely anti-union forces in the front offices.

Perhaps the one who causes me the most pause is Walter O'Malley. You could argue that no one, outside of possible Babe Ruth, had as much effect on the game of baseball during their lifetime as O'Malley. I don't think he'll ever get inducted, because the Veteran's Committee is composed of old-timers who probably still carry a big grudge for his moving the Dodgers to Los Angeles. As powerful as O'Malley was and as instrumental a force he was in the modernization of the game (much of it for the better), he was also a significant backroom power in the negative sense, as well. So even there, I've got conflicting emotions.

But nowhere is there more conflict than with Billy Martin. Can I, in good conscience, put someone as odious and personally detestable as Martin into the Hall of Fame? Someone who represents all the ugly, macho violence of baseball? But he was also one of the best managers of all time by any standard. Still, it's hard for me to get past the nature of Billy Martin as a whole. And you could certainly argue that while Martin brought about amazing short-term improvements, he was rarely part of a team's long-term success.

If I had a vote, I'd vote for Miller twice (if I could), and I'd also vote for Bavasi, Herzog, O'Malley, Reach and Ruppert. However, I'd have to do a lot more research before casting any real-life vote. Because many of the men listed on the ballot I know only the bare minimum about.

Also on the Veterans' Committee ballot:

George W. Bush

No, I'm not kidding. This reminds me of a story I read about in Lords of the Realm. A reporter asked a Rangers official, "George really think he runs this team, doesn't he?" The Rangers man answered, "Yes, but don't you dare tell him otherwise."

Calvin Griffith

It's hard for me to see the appeal of Griffith. For years, Griffith complained about the growing salaries of players while he virtually ran the Minnesota Twins into the ground. He got a lot of good press for being the last of the "gentlemen owners" in an era where ballclubs were being co-opted by business executives. But what is it about the way Griffith ran the Twins that you could call a positive? Griffith was a cheapskate, and his team suffered for it. (The joke was that swimming was invented the first time Cal Griffith came upon a toll bridge).
And it may be vaguely irrelevant, but I will never forget the story of when Griffith got drunk at a Minnesota party and remarked that the reason he moved the team from Washington to Minneapolis was because there were so few black people in Minnesota. Except he didn't say "black people." I know that if he kick the racists out of the Hall, it will get mighty empty, but I'll always associate that story with Calvin Griffith.

Bowie Kuhn
It was pretty traditional for a former commissioner to be elected to Cooperstown upon retirement. Judge Landis was. Happy Chandler was. And Ford Frick was. But then Gen. Spike Eckert (the "unknown soldier") came along and shot that theory to hell. His successor, Bowie Kuhn, lasted a lot longer, but really wasn't able to get much backing from the players (naturally), or even the owners. Kuhn was a compromise choice for the position and constantly seemed to be seated in his ivory tower ready to pass judgment on the moral state of baseball while the game's business was in crisis and the very nature of the player-owner relationship was turning explosive. Kuhn's actions were largely ineffective and patronizing, meaning that he got nowhere with either Marvin Miller, who knew that Kuhn had no real power, and the owners themselves, who weren't willing to give Kuhn that power.

Kuhn thought he was Judge Landis and was completely unable to see that the role of the commissioner was changing. This would be a constant disease among commissioners, who (with the exception of the ruthlessly practical Peter Ueberroth) thought of themselves as divine guardians of the only real sport in America (Bart Giamatti, the Ivy League president, was especially poetic about the game). Not until Bud Selig did someone finally realize to cut through the bullshit and just act as the owners' agent in their dealings with the players, as the "CEO of Baseball" so to speak. It's for this reason (among others), that I don't see Kuhn or any modern commissioner getting inducted.

Birdie Tebbetts

Tebbetts was a star catcher who later went on to a long, long career in organized baseball as a coach/scout/manager/whatever. Tebbetts is one person who would benefit from a Buck O'Neil Award to recognize someone's lifelong contributions to the game. I don't know a lot about Birdie's career outside the game, but it certainly deserves a closer look.

Don Zimmer

Well, everybody likes him. Except for Fergie Jenkins and Bill Lee.

That's enough for one day. Tomorrow, we move on to the AL Central and look ahead to the White Sox.