Here we go - Bonds, Clemens, Sosa on the Hall of Fame ballot

[gp956]

Um, not getting 100% meant that some idiots didn't put Babe Ruth on the ballot. I'm just sayin'.

Not necessarily. It may well have been a practical consideration to get great players, long retired, into the HOF before their eligibility ran out. Wasn't there, though. So I can't speak for them.

 

[gp956]

I expect this argument, but choose to agree to disagree. I see your point, and cannot argue against it.

However...

While there was not a rule against PEDs, it was still against the integrity of the game. Thus, a meaningless 1 year protest ban. I applied the same ban to McGwire in his first year, but he has been on my ballot ever since. Like I stated earlier, there is a special aura about guys who got in on their first try. I am denying this honor for the "big" guys of this era. My opinion and personal stance.

Bonds and Clemens will be on my ballot until they get in, after 2013.

Define "integrity of the game" for me?

 

[msgkings322]

Not necessarily. It may well have been a practical consideration to get great players, long retired, into the HOF before their eligibility ran out. Wasn't there, though. So I can't speak for them.

Only 5 players were inducted that first year: Cobb, Johnson, Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson.

None of them got 100% of the ballots cast. Cobb had the most with 98%.

1939 Induction Ceremony | Baseball Hall of Fame

Why don't you learn about early HOF balloting before you automatically argue with me on this.

 

[tzill]

And so they should. Nolan Ryan comes to mind, I bet his career WAR wasn't that hot, he lost a lot of games and walked a ton of people. And yet any HOF without him in it would be total bullshit.

You'd lose that bet. 77.4 -- that's pretty elite. 65th all time.

 

[msgkings322]

You'd lose that bet. 77.4 -- that's pretty elite. 65th all time.

I guess I would, yeah. When he was losing games he often still had a very good ERA+. Is a lifetime ERA+ if 112 awesome or just very good?

 

[gp956]

Can't buy this argument. Isn't caffeine, or consulting a nutrionist, or advanced weight training, or microfracture surgery likewise "against the integrity of the game?"

I say no: the "integrity of the game" comes into play when guys cork bats, throw spitballs, BET ON THE GAMES, etc. Not what they do off the field to their bodies to get into the best position to win. Unless those things are banned by the rules of baseball. And until 2004, PEDs weren't banned.

All of this, but speaking to the bolded part specifically. There used to be a bias against bulking up in baseball. What the steroid era really taught us was the benefits of strategic body building. And all of that benefit can be achieved without taking banned substances.

 

[gp956]

Only 5 players were inducted that first year: Cobb, Johnson, Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson.

None of them got 100% of the ballots cast. Cobb had the most with 98%.

1939 Induction Ceremony | Baseball Hall of Fame

Why don't you learn about early HOF balloting before you automatically argue with me on this.

You don't realize this supports my comment?

 

[gp956]

You'd lose that bet. 77.4 -- that's pretty elite. 65th all time.

BB-Ref has him at #23 All-Time.

 

[calsnowskier]

Define "integrity of the game" for me?

First, let's assume, for argument sake, that these guys DID take PEDs, even though Bonds, at least, never did fail a test (publicly).

PEDs, and specifically steroids, have been in the public eye since at least the early 80s with Matuszak (sp?) and the whole NFL thing. It was then a big thing in international sports in the 90s with track&field and cycling. It was generally accepted (right or wrong) to be "cheating", even if baseball turned a blind eye to it. Is it cheating? What is the difference between doctor-supervised PED use and LASIK surgery, for example? But that is another discussion.

The fact is, in the realm of sports, PED use is/was considered cheating.

Enter "integrity of the game". Enter Cobb, Niekro, etc.

It is valid for you to not respect a 1 year protest. That is cool. I am ok with that. I also realize (and have stated it numerous times here to stress the point) that it is meaningless. A payer is either in or he is not. I am making the distinction myself between a first-ballot HOFer and other HOFers.

The HOF is subjective. This era particularly will highlight that fact.

 

[tzill]

I guess I would, yeah. When he was losing games he often still had a very good ERA+. Is a lifetime ERA+ if 112 awesome or just very good?

Well, he's kind of an outlier, given the length of his career (27 years). He had 7 years above 120, led the majors twice (81, 87). He also had six years of 5+ WAR , which is pretty fucking amazing. If he had had, say, a 15 year career of 112 ERA+, probably not HOF. But since WAR is an accumulative metric (i.e. not an average metric) it really favors long careers. And Ryan had a looooooong career.

He's a no brainer, and WAR captures that.

 

[tzill]

BB-Ref has him at #23 All-Time.

For pitchers. 65th for all players. Either way -- elite and slam dunk HOF.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And I'm curious, once you get a vote do you get to keep it for life or until you give it back? Or can you be removed from voting?

Turning to wikipedia :

National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Five years after retirement, any player with 10 years of major league experience who passes a screening committee (which removes from consideration players of clearly lesser qualification) is eligible to be elected by BBWAA members with 10 years' membership or more. From a final ballot typically including 25–40 candidates, each writer may vote for up to 10 players; until the late 1950s, voters were advised to cast votes for the maximum 10 candidates. Any player named on 75% or more of all ballots cast is elected. A player who is named on fewer than 5% of ballots is dropped from future elections.

 

[tzill]

First, let's assume, for argument sake, that these guys DID take PEDs, even though Bonds, at least, never did fail a test (publicly).

PEDs, and specifically steroids, have been in the public eye since at least the early 80s with Matuszak (sp?) and the whole NFL thing. It was then a big thing in international sports in the 90s with track&field and cycling. It was generally accepted (right or wrong) to be "cheating", even if baseball turned a blind eye to it. Is it cheating? What is the difference between doctor-supervised PED use and LASIK surgery, for example? But that is another discussion.

The fact is, in the realm of sports, PED use is/was considered cheating.

Enter "integrity of the game". Enter Cobb, Niekro, etc.

It is valid for you to not respect a 1 year protest. That is cool. I am ok with that. I also realize (and have stated it numerous times here to stress the point) that it is meaningless. A payer is either in or he is not. I am making the distinction myself between a first-ballot HOFer and other HOFers.

The HOF is subjective. This era particularly will highlight that fact.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gp956]

Am I the only one that is NOT completely enamored with WAR? I mean don't get me wrong, I think it's a very useful metric, but.....

I don't have much of a problem with the theoretical foundation of WAR. But I don't like the defensive metrics currently incorporated into the calculation.

There's also the danger of dumbing down an understanding of the game by resolving a complex calculation into a single cardinal number, which I find troubling. After all, an understanding of the number system is orders of magnitude more ubiquitous than being able to look at a hitter's build and stance and having a good idea of where his holes are.

 

[tzill]

I don't have much of a problem with the theoretical foundation of WAR. But I don't like the defensive metrics currently incorporated into the calculation.

There's also the danger of dumbing down an understanding of the game by resolving a complex calculation into a single cardinal number, which I find troubling. After all, an understanding of the number system is orders of magnitude more ubiquitous than being able to look at a hitter's build and stance and having a good idea of where his holes are.

This. The shortcoming of WAR is the defensive calculation. That said, it's pretty useful shorthand. But it's only shorthand.

 

[calsnowskier]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not arguing if they cheated by the letter of the baseball law. Everyone agrees they did not. Even if they had, they were not caught, so they didn't.

I was arguing integrity.

Big difference.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I don't have much of a problem with the theoretical foundation of WAR. But I don't like the defensive metrics currently incorporated into the calculation.

There's also the danger of dumbing down an understanding of the game by resolving a complex calculation into a single cardinal number, which I find troubling. After all, an understanding of the number system is orders of magnitude more ubiquitous than being able to look at a hitter's build and stance and having a good idea of where his holes are.

That's my problem with it. It can be very useful, but it doesn't tell the whole story and many times you just have to look at the whole picture and figure it out for yourself.

 

[calsnowskier]

This. The shortcoming of WAR is the defensive calculation. That said, it's pretty useful shorthand. But it's only shorthand.

This. WAR is a great stat. But I think too many people use it as an end-all, be-all.

 

[tzill]

I am not arguing if they cheated by the letter of the baseball law. Everyone agrees they did not. Even if they had, they were not caught, so they didn't.

I was arguing integrity.

Big difference.

Respectfully, you were asked to define "integrity of the game." You defined it with a fallacy. Can't do that. You can say "in my opinion" or "I think that" but you can't DEFINE it that way.

FWIW, I don't think you can define "integrity of the game" in such a way that supports your contention. Bottom line: your opinion is that steroid users and suspected users tainted the game. That's fine. But it's not a universal given (i.e. a "definition").

Also, my opinion is a lot closer to yours than others, but I can't leave someone out of the Hall for it. Baseball had replete opportunities to negotiate with the MLBPA to get testing included in the CBA in the 90s and didn't get it done. Blame can be placed on both parties but the bottom line is that until 2004, PEDs were not cheating by the rules of baseball.

 

[gp956]

First, let's assume, for argument sake, that these guys DID take PEDs, even though Bonds, at least, never did fail a test (publicly).

PEDs, and specifically steroids, have been in the public eye since at least the early 80s with Matuszak (sp?) and the whole NFL thing. It was then a big thing in international sports in the 90s with track&field and cycling. It was generally accepted (right or wrong) to be "cheating", even if baseball turned a blind eye to it. Is it cheating? What is the difference between doctor-supervised PED use and LASIK surgery, for example? But that is another discussion.

The fact is, in the realm of sports, PED use is/was considered cheating.

Enter "integrity of the game". Enter Cobb, Niekro, etc.

It is valid for you to not respect a 1 year protest. That is cool. I am ok with that. I also realize (and have stated it numerous times here to stress the point) that it is meaningless. A payer is either in or he is not. I am making the distinction myself between a first-ballot HOFer and other HOFers.

The HOF is subjective. This era particularly will highlight that fact.

Steroids were demonized when the eastern block countries started kicking our asses at the Olympics. "My god! those soulless fucks force their athletes to take drugs. You see! With communists, people are tools of the state!" Really, every moral argument stems from this - whether people realize it our not.

Nevertheless, to your "integrity of the game definition". It's the players who define what the integrity of the game is. And they resisted steroid testing for years with full knowledge of who was doing them. Owners were told in 1988 that significant numbers of players were using steroids. Also no action. The pressure to ban steroids came from outside the game. Not from the inside.