Baseball 2013

[alfred russel]

The sport put itself in that position. 
What I don't understand is why after decades of Hall of Fame voting where little account was ever taken about evidence of illegal drug or PED use, the standard has changed all of sudden.

Agreed that the sport put itself in that position, but to use an analogy a store that doesn't lock up and leaves the lights on may be inviting robbery, but the people that walk in and take stuff are still criminals.

I think there is a difference between transgressions that affect the integrity of the game and those that are just immoral or crimes. Throwing games is probably the most serious problem a sports league can have. The steroid issue isn't that bad, but it is still bad. Darryl Strawberry doing Scarface amounts of cocaine doesn't do that.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think there is a difference between transgressions that affect the integrity of the game and those that are just immoral or crimes. Throwing games is probably the most serious problem a sports league can have. The steroid issue isn't that bad, but it is still bad. Darryl Strawberry doing Scarface amounts of cocaine doesn't do that.

PEDs have been ubiquitous in baseball since WW2 and the HOF is full of people known to have used them (e.g. Mantle, Schmidt, Stargell); the only thing that changed in the 90s is that the technology became more sophisticated.

The degree of significance attached to PED use is well illustrated by relative penalties that were in place during the time period the players at issue here were playing:
+ Gambling - lifetime ban
+ Throwing a spitball - automatic 10 day suspension
+ Steroid use, initial violation - referral to treatment, no discipline

It's true that multiple violations could lead to disciplinary action and even explusion (as with Steve Howe) but the message here was clear - MLB did not view PEDs as posing serious risks to the competitive bona fides on the game, as opposed to risks to the game's image generally and player health.  What changed that perception was simply the assault on baseball's most "hallowed" statistical record - the single season HR mark.  If it came out in 1961 that Maris was popping greeenies like a demon (he wasn't - this is hypothetical) perhaps history would have played out differently.

[alfred russel]

PEDs have been ubiquitous in baseball since WW2 and the HOF is full of people known to have used them (e.g. Mantle, Schmidt, Stargell); the only thing that changed in the 90s is that the technology became more sophisticated.

The degree of significance attached to PED use is well illustrated by relative penalties that were in place during the time period the players at issue here were playing:
+ Gambling - lifetime ban
+ Throwing a spitball - automatic 10 day suspension
+ Steroid use, initial violation - referral to treatment, no discipline

It's true that multiple violations could lead to disciplinary action and even explusion (as with Steve Howe) but the message here was clear - MLB did not view PEDs as posing serious risks to the competitive bona fides on the game, as opposed to risks to the game's image generally and player health.  What changed that perception was simply the assault on baseball's most "hallowed" statistical record - the single season HR mark.  If it came out in 1961 that Maris was popping greeenies like a demon (he wasn't - this is hypothetical) perhaps history would have played out differently.

It isn't just the single season home run mark: it is almost every statistic in baseball. It also isn't just a question of how baseball considers the matter on an individual basis (which is tied into labor agreements and lack of certainty regarding guilt or innocence).

The steroid debacle is arguably the second largest scandal the sport has ever had--and imo will have longer lasting effects. I don't see the need to specifically honor people associated with a major scandal on the basis of statistics they generated in part fueled by the source of the scandal. Put them in the museum, but leave them out of the hall, imo.

[sbr]

Is it really a scandal when EVERYONE in the sport (players, player's union, owners, teams, commissioner, media, fans) all knew and condoned it for so long?

[The Minsky Moment]

It isn't just the single season home run mark: it is almost every statistic in baseball.

The fact is that no one cared until after the big single season numbers were put up and then Congress decided to make a circus out of the affair.

Let's take another big number - the record for lifetime home runs.  Hank Aaron broke the record in the early 70s - and he was able to do that because he played over 3000 games and was having 40+ home run seasons into his late 30s.  How did he do that?  Mostly because like say Barry Bonds, he was an incredibly talented natural hitter who trained hard.

But also because like Barry Bonds he took PEDs.  Like most many major leaguers of that day, he took amphetamines to help him maintain focus and concentration and to fight off fatigue.  Poor old Babe just had hot dogs and beer.

Now how many of Aarons 755 homeruns would he have not hit without the boost he got from the greenies?  We will never know; just like we don't know how many of Bonds' homeruns would still have been hit without the juicing.

Writers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s knew all about this.  They knew that baseballs most beloved stars - icons like Mays, Mantle and Aaron - used PEDs as did legions of less distinguished players.  And they kept it quiet.  When Jim Bouton broke the wall of silence and outed Mantle (among others) the reaction wasn't horror at how baseballs greatest idols were using chemical aids to cheat, it was outrage at Bouton for snitching.  And the Commissioner's office reinforced the message by announcing policies that while denouncing chemical use, made it clear through the weak disciplinary consequences that PED use not considered overly consequential as long as the players were discreet about it.

The HOF vote is one of the most egregious examples of closing a barn door too late I have ever seen.  Accepting it requires accepting gross hypocrisy and double standards.  If we are really serious about "character" being an real criterion and about PED use being a scandal akin to the Black Sox, then the current composition of the HOF is a scandalous mockery and an immediate mass purge is required because the Hall is full of PED users, rule breaking cheaters, and persons of low character.  Otherwise all that is happening is a lot of chest-beating writers engaging in moralistic posturing and using the petty authority conferred upon them by the HOF to play to the cheap seats of the gallery and take pot shots at the rich, arrogant talents they once fawned over.

[dps]

It isn't just the single season home run mark: it is almost every statistic in baseball.

Hardly.  Who knows exactly when the "Steroids Era" started, but if you look at single season batting average, with one exception, the top 125 marks of all time are all from more than 20 years ago--most of them far longer ago than that.  (And the exception is the 1994 season of Tony Gwynn, who is hardly a prime suspect for steroids use.)  For most other stats, it's much the same story.  The only exceptions really are home runs and saves (and changes in the saves records are mostly because of how relief pitcher usage has changed).

I don't see the need to specifically honor people associated with a major scandal on the basis of statistics they generated in part fueled by the source of the scandal. Put them in the museum, but leave them out of the hall, imo.

I'd find that position more defensible if we actually knew who did or didn't use steroids.

Poor old Babe just had hot dogs and beer.

Some people are fond of pointing out that steroids usage isn't just against the rules of baseball, but also illegal.  First, that's not technically true--steroids aren't illegal, just controlled and can be legally obtained (though it's probably true that very few if any athletes who are using have obtained their supply legally).  And for the majority of Babe Ruth's career, the beer he drank was illegal, too.

[alfred russel]

It isn't just the single season home run mark: it is almost every statistic in baseball.

The fact is that no one cared until after the big single season numbers were put up and then Congress decided to make a circus out of the affair.

Let's take another big number - the record for lifetime home runs.  Hank Aaron broke the record in the early 70s - and he was able to do that because he played over 3000 games and was having 40+ home run seasons into his late 30s.  How did he do that?  Mostly because like say Barry Bonds, he was an incredibly talented natural hitter who trained hard.

But also because like Barry Bonds he took PEDs.  Like most many major leaguers of that day, he took amphetamines to help him maintain focus and concentration and to fight off fatigue.  Poor old Babe just had hot dogs and beer.

Now how many of Aarons 755 homeruns would he have not hit without the boost he got from the greenies?  We will never know; just like we don't know how many of Bonds' homeruns would still have been hit without the juicing.

Writers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s knew all about this.  They knew that baseballs most beloved stars - icons like Mays, Mantle and Aaron - used PEDs as did legions of less distinguished players.  And they kept it quiet.  When Jim Bouton broke the wall of silence and outed Mantle (among others) the reaction wasn't horror at how baseballs greatest idols were using chemical aids to cheat, it was outrage at Bouton for snitching.  And the Commissioner's office reinforced the message by announcing policies that while denouncing chemical use, made it clear through the weak disciplinary consequences that PED use not considered overly consequential as long as the players were discreet about it.

The HOF vote is one of the most egregious examples of closing a barn door too late I have ever seen.  Accepting it requires accepting gross hypocrisy and double standards.  If we are really serious about "character" being an real criterion and about PED use being a scandal akin to the Black Sox, then the current composition of the HOF is a scandalous mockery and an immediate mass purge is required because the Hall is full of PED users, rule breaking cheaters, and persons of low character.  Otherwise all that is happening is a lot of chest-beating writers engaging in moralistic posturing and using the petty authority conferred upon them by the HOF to play to the cheap seats of the gallery and take pot shots at the rich, arrogant talents they once fawned over.

Most of us use drugs to stay alert in our careers: drinking coffee is a common way to ward off fatigue. Some drug use, even illegal drug use, is tolerated. PEDs are not all created equal. A lot of people look at the transformation of the bodies of players like Bonds and McGwire and think that crosses a line that taking stimulants to stay alert don't. I don't follow why anything short of a bright line standard is gross hypocrisy especially when judging something as subjective as the Hall of Fame.

I also don't see it so much as a character issue as an effect on baseball issue.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan, I think that post deserves a sound track.

[The Minsky Moment]

Most of us use drugs to stay alert in our careers: drinking coffee is a common way to ward off fatigue. Some drug use, even illegal drug use, is tolerated. PEDs are not all created equal.

Unless you're entering The Matrix there isn't a lot of ambiguity about taking the Green Pill.  No one can confuse that with a cup of Joe. 

You are right of course that illegal drug use is often tolerated.  Indeed, steroid use itself was tolerated for many years - including the very period in which Bonds/Clemens/Piazza/Bagwell etc. were performing.  It's not only a double standard, it is a hindsight double standard.

A lot of people look at the transformation of the bodies of players like Bonds and McGwire and think that crosses a line that taking stimulants to stay alert don't.

Brain Downing transformed his body without (as far as we know) touching a needle outside of his yearly flu shot.  With or without steroids, Bonds had an extraordinary training regimen and was going to bulk up no matter what.  So where exactly does the line go

I also don't see it so much as a character issue as an effect on baseball issue.

What is the effect and how does that fit into the HOF criteria?

[Syt]

Best/worst baseball name ever?

http://www.perfectgame.org/players/playerprofile.aspx?ID=346593

[Eddie Teach]

That guy is a high schooler? He looks like a 30-year-old.

[CountDeMoney]

With that name, I expected a Korean.

[Syt]

Hey, katmai, what do you think of Lincecum's new look?



Though it's not as shocking a transformation as Brett Keisel's annual de-bearding.

[katmai]

If it helps him drop his ERA by 3pts i'm all for it!

[sbr]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8914127/jonah-keri-worst-contracts-mlb

The 15 Worst Contracts in Baseball

Mike Trout. Andrew McCutchen. Ryan Braun. We've broken down the 50 most valuable trade assets in baseball, a list stuffed with MVP candidates and colossal bargains.

Unfortunately, many teams aren't lucky enough to have blue-chippers signed to wildly favorable contracts. Worse, some of those teams are carrying players signed to deals that are so miserable, you couldn't give them away for free. We've brought you Grantland's MLB Trade Value Rankings. Time for the Negative Trade Value Rankings.

The players you'll find on this list aren't uniformly bad. In fact, several of them would be great assets to all 30 teams; that is, if their contracts weren't so terrible for their employers. But all of them would attract little to no interest if they were made available for trade tomorrow. In many cases, you'd have to pay the other team just to take these players off your hands (see the sidebar for a full list of Trade Value rules).

Let's meet our albatrosses.

Negative Trade Value Rules

1. Contracts matter. Per FanGraphs, Alfonso Soriano and Josh Willingham were both worth about four Wins Above Replacement in 2012. Debate the specifics of WAR if you wish, but the two players posted similar numbers if you use traditional stats too. But the Twins owe Willingham $14 million over the next two seasons, while the Cubs have committed $36 million to Soriano over that same span. One can debate whether or not $36 million over two years constitutes a big overpay in the current market. But let's just say Soriano was considered for this Negative Trade Value list, while Willingham, by any reasonable standard, is a bargain.

2. We shouldn't speak in absolutes about these players' trade value. Several of the players on this list were either recently signed to the contracts they're now on, were recently acquired in an actual trade by an actual team, or both. As long as Guggenheim Partners and the high-rollingest general manager in the business keep running the Dodgers, we can't be absolutely certain these players would have no takers if they were made available. Maybe the better way to frame it is, "There's a good chance 29 teams not named the Dodgers won't touch these guys."

3. A contract that's expensive is not necessarily undesirable. Matt Kemp and Evan Longoria are both owed well more than $100 million for the duration of their deals. They'd still be huge gets for any other team.

4. We're excluding generic replacement-level players. Sure, no one's going to offer much, if anything, for Greg Dobbs. But you can also cut a player like that with little to no financial repercussions. For a player to have Negative Trade Value, he needs to be a burden on his team's payroll and be unattractive to the rest of the league.

5. Deferred contracts don't count. There are players no longer in Major League Baseball who'll collect big chunks of change from their former employers in 2013. Manny Ramirez will make $8.3 million from the Dodgers in 2013 per Baseball Prospectus's excellent Cot's team-and-player-salary tool. Even long-gone stars like Bobby Bonilla, Ken Griffey Jr., and Gary Sheffield have years of paychecks coming to them. We'll leave those guys alone. Same with players who've been dropped from their former teams with a bunch of cash still owed. So Jason Bay doesn't make the list even though the Mets owe him about $21 million (so the Mariners, paying next to nothing, could theoretically find a trade partner for him), and Chone Figgins doesn't either, because his next employer will also pay him very little, with the Mariners picking up the $8 million left on his tab.
Honorable Mention

Jonathan Papelbon, pitcher, Philadelphia Phillies:
Let's start with the usual arguments against paying big bucks for closers. They have a limited impact on the game, throwing one-third or even one-quarter as many innings as top starters; they have a high attrition rate, whether due to injuries, diminished performance, or both; and good closers usually come from humble beginnings and can thus be had cheap. Eric Gagne was an amateur free agent and a failed starter before he became an elite closer, while Fernando Rodney looked washed up before the Rays signed him for next to nothing and turned him into the 2012 version of Mariano Rivera. Still, with Rivera's season-ending injury last season, Papelbon owns the longest uninterrupted track record of health and success for any closer in baseball, with a seven-year run that includes a 2.32 ERA, a best-in-baseball 2.52 FIP, and a strikeout-to-walk rate of about 5-to-1. If you're a team with money to spend, and you've got a dominant relief pitcher in your sights, giving him a lucrative long-term deal isn't the end of the world.

So what's the problem with the three years and $39 million left on Papelbon's contract (four years, $52 million assuming he hits some very reachable performance markers and sees his 2016 salary vest)? It's the rigid way that managers use closers, with Charlie Manuel one of the game's worst offenders. Whether due to fear of being second-guessed, fear of using pitchers in anything but the most predictable circumstances, or simple inertia, closers get used far more often in easy-to-manage, up-two, bases-empty, ninth-inning situations than they do in tie games with runners on and the game actually on the line. Crashburn Alley ran an excellent post documenting the times Manuel could have and should have used Papelbon in high-leverage situations, only to see the manager save his closer for a save situation and have the Phillies go on to lose instead. This happened seven times. Publication date of that post? June 10.

Until the Phillies start using him in situations where he's actually needed, rather than almost exclusively in spots that nearly any pitcher with a pulse can handle successfully 85–90 percent of the time, Papelbon will remain the $200,000 Aston Martin that never leaves the garage. The reason Papelbon merits only honorable mention is because someone, somewhere, might use him properly if the Phillies ever traded him. In a way, this is more of a tragic waste of resources than an untradeable contract.

Carlos Marmol, pitcher, Chicago Cubs:
Sort of like Papelbon in terms of overpaying a pitcher with a limited role, except the Cubs are only on the hook for one more year at a shade less than $10 million. That and unlike Papelbon, Marmol is not a good pitcher, and has more trouble finding the plate than just about anyone else in the big leagues. Even teams who believe in the mystique of the Proven Closer probably wouldn't touch Marmol at this point.

Alfonso Soriano, outfield, Chicago Cubs:
Now that we're down to the final two years of Soriano's hideous-from-day-one eight-year, $136 million contract, you can close your eyes, squint, and make out a not-that-terrible ending. Soriano cranked 32 homers and was a four-win player in 2012; given the going rate for a win on the open market lies somewhere between $5 million and $6 million, you could theoretically argue that Soriano might be a bargain with two years and $36 million left on his deal. Of course two of Soriano's prior three seasons resulted in numbers barely above replacement level. Moreover, this offseason has featured a glut of available corner outfielders: If Jason Kubel is available for $7.5 million a year (and not exactly attracting an army of suitors), what chance does Soriano have at two and a half times that number?

Mark Teixeira, first base, New York Yankees:
It's hard to know exactly what's happened to Teixeira in the four years since he joined the Yankees. An MVP-caliber player when he first put on pinstripes in 2009, his numbers have fallen precipitously since then. Here are his BA/OBP/SLG:

2008 .308/.410/.552
2009 .292/.383/.565
2010 .256/.365/.481
2011 .248/.341/.494
2012 .251/.332/.475

It might be that Yankee Stadium's short porch has goaded Teixeira into more of an uppercut swing from the left side. Perhaps the leaguewide trend toward defensive shifts has led to more outs, whether due to better defensive positioning or Teixeira overcompensating with a different approach. (Teixeira's batting average on balls in play since 2007: .342, .316, .302, .268, .239, .250 — so either defenses have figured him out, or he's on a hellaciously bad streak.) Or maybe age has slowed his bat, leaving the soon-to-be-33-year-old switch-hitter headed in the wrong direction with four years and $90 million left on his deal. There might be another guy on this team getting a lot more grief for his declining skills and terrifying contract. But the Yankees are stuck with Teixeira at this point, almost as much as they are with that other guy.

You can find the rest of the list through the link, the total article is way over the 20000 character limit and I'm not breaking up into multiple posts for you.  If you are interested it is a good read.

#1 is pretty easy to guess, but there are some other real head scratchers on there.

Not for why they are on the list, but for why in the hell they were offered those deals.