A follow up to my previous post: The Hall of Fame Ballot: returnees
This will be my first and only post about Barry Bonds and/ or steroids issue, barring any new news that happens to come out in the futre. I'm over this whole decade long discussion that always ends up running around in circles. However, with the Hall of Fame ballots mailed out earlier this month, and with Bonds being among the names, I have to post on this.
Unlike my last article, where I broke down each candidate on their Hall of Fame merits, this one I will spend more time discussing all the first years as a whole, as with most of them, the debate centers on the steroid issue. Despite that, each of them have varying stories regarding their career accomplishments and their steroid involvement that obviously could get some in and others out, so let's look at that:
First of all, the following names are obviously not Hall of Famers and won't even get the 5% needed to remain on the ballot in 2014, so let's just get them out of the discussion right away: Sandy Alomar Jr., Jeff Cirillo, Royce Clayton, Jeff Conine, Steve Finley, Julio Franco, Shawn Green, Roberto Hernandez, Ryan Klesko, Kenny Lofton, Jose Mesa, Reggie Sanders, Aaron Sele, Mike Stanton, Todd Walker, David Wells, Rondell White, and Woody Williams.
That leaves six names: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio. Everyone has their own opinions based on how much steroids affected their performances.
Barry Bonds: Widely believed to have started using in the late 90's. At that point, he was already a sure-fire first ballot Hall of Famer, the player of the decade, and one of the all time greats. Following that, his accomplishments make him arguably the best player ever if you take away the dark cloud.
Roger Clemens: Believed to have been clean during his Red Sox years, only believed to have started using when he went to the Blue Jays and had a career resurgence. While whether or not he was a Hall of Famer at that point is more debatable than Bonds, in my eyes he was still a Hall of Famer at that point. His "tarnished" years puts him among the best pitchers ever.
Sammy Sosa: The only guy on this list to have actually tested positive, he'll have the hardest time getting in. While a solid 30/30 player, he never would have come close to being a Hall of Famer prior to hitting 332 home runs over six seasons from 1998-2003.
Mike Piazza: The greatest offensive catcher of all time, Piazza's case may be the most complicated. He denied using steroid, but has admitted to using androstenedione at the time it was a legal over the counter dietary supplement, although if taken a certain way has the same effect as steroids and is now looked at by the FDA and pretty much all sports organizations (including MLB) and doping agencies as an illegal steroid. And while there have been no actual evidence compiled on him, circumstantial or otherwise, he has been implicated by others on multiple occasions, included an off the record admission and other players and writers have said that he was an obvious user.
Craig Biggio: One of the greatest second basemen of all time and not having any implications (although it is suspicious that his power numbers peaked at 38/39), he has the best shot of any of these guys.
Curt Schilling: Schilling shouldn't be a Hall of Famer, with or without the steroid discussion. His vocal bashing of anyone involved in steroid use has enabled him to dodge suspicion, despite the fact that he didn't become a top pitcher until 2001 at the age of 34 and a growth of about 30 pounds during the peak of the steroid era.
I'm not going to get into details about breaking down which years these guys were supposedly clean, which years they were using, or trying to figure out what their accomplishments would be without steroids. I'm simply going to look at the steroids issue and the Hall of Fame as a whole.
Knowing what we know and what we don't know, there are only two rational stances to take on the steroid issue regarding the Hall of Fame voting:
1. Ignore the steroids issue and take all the statistics at face value
2. Omit the entire era.
What is completely hypocritical, is to vote no to some players because they are known/ implicated users while to vote yes on others. What we do know is that steroid use was widespread during the era, and even accepted within baseballs inner circles, both in the clubhouses and front offices, until the public and media became more aware of it's use. It's pretty obvious that there are many stones that have been unturned, and that there are many of these players that haven't been implicated that were also users.
In the upcoming ballots, there are over a dozen players that have never been implicated, busted, or accused that are likely or definitely headed to Cooperstown. You'd be downright stupid to believe that many, if not most of them, were using. The problem is, we don't know which ones were and won't. So if you vote all of them in, while leaving out those that are known/ implicated, you will obviously be voting in some steroid users while leaving others out.
Don't forget that, at one point, everyone believed guys like Rafael Palmeiro, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, David Ortiz, Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and many other now-known users were clean. So how many other users out there do most people still were clean? I already mentioned my suspicions with Biggio and Schilling, but what about others? Ken Griffey had a series of injuries known to be caused by steroid use. Pedro Martinez' career dwindled after they started testing when he was at an age many players reach their prime. Is it too farfetched that Albert Pujols suddenly went from being a non-prospect in the minor leagues to one of baseball's elite players in a little over a year because of steroids? And who knows, maybe steroids helped Cal Ripken break Lou Gehrig's record.
The thing that really irks me are those that concede (as anybody else that isn't completely blinded by their biases) that Bonds would be a definite Hall of Famer without steroids, but aren't voting for him because of the character clause. This is the same Hall of Fame that has included Ty Cobb, the biggest scumbag in baseball history, known racists who caused the blacklisting of black players in the 19th century and those that were openly against integration in the 1940's and 1950's. It includes Mickey Mantle and Jimmie Foxx, whose performance at times was hampered because they were too drunk or hungover to play. It includes Babe Ruth, who took illegal drugs and drank during prohibition. It includes pitchers such as Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Whitey Ford, and others who have doctored baseballs in various ways (which is more cheating than steroids since it actually was against the rules). The character clause is basically an excuse for the writers to say "I didn't like this player, so I'm not going to vote for them, regardless of whether or not they deserve it".
And if you want to get into the hypocrisy, what about all the known amphetamine users, including Willie Mays, Willie Stargell, and Hank Aaron, who took them in an attempt to enhance their performance, even after they were banned by the FDA in 1965? Can someone explain to me how they are any different from steroids? Both are illegal, potentially harmful substances that players took to make them play better on the field. Another example of the hypocrisy.
Where do you draw the line? Do you only leave out those that tested positive and/ or have admitted to steroid use? Under that criteria, all these guys, except for Sosa get in. Do you vote based on circumstantial evidences? Well the truth is, that is subjective, and no matter how damning it may be, who are you to play judge, jury, and executioner? Do you leave off anyone where there is anything about them, being their body mass over the years, their career trajectory, or any other factor? Well in that case, I could make an argument about anyone that would make them look suspicious, so let's just leave them all out.
Perhaps you can leave a borderline Hall of Famer off the ballot because of steroid suspicion. Perhaps you can single out Rafael Palmeiro and Manny Ramirez because they were actually suspended after testing positive. But as a whole, you have to lump the entire era together. Yeah, it may not be fair to the few guys who were clean to be punished for the sins of others. But it's not as unfair as leaving some users off when others get in. But considering how it was such an integral part of baseball culture at the time, the best thing to do is to take everything at face value and ignore the steroid issue altogether.
Which is why Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, and Sosa all belong in the Hall of Fame. Schilling isn't a Hall of Famer just because his numbers aren't good enough. This should be one of the greatest Hall of Fame classes of all time. Instead, there is a good chance that none of these guys will be inducted.
That is the greatest injustice of all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Money does not equal championships
So supposedly, because the Dodgers signed Zack Greinke to a 6 year, $147 million contract, along with their mid-season pickups, are the team to beat in the NL West now?
Not so fast.
To look at the Dodgers, you have to break down their 2012 season into three parts: The start of the season through May 25th, in which the team drastically overachieved, with aging veterans Chris Capuano, Aaron Harang, Ted Lilly, and Mark Ellis performing the best they had in years, guys like AJ Ellis and Andre Ethier playing way over their heads, and Matt Kemp putting up numbers that are out of this world, even for a player of his caliber, got off to a 32-15 start. Then players came back to reality, while others, including Matt Kemp, spent a significant time on the DL. Between their fluke start and and the trade with the Red Sox, the team went 36-43. From August 25th to the end of the season, when everyone was pretty much healthy and they had acquired all the new guys, the team went 18-18. So basically, you're looking at a .500 team going into the off-season.
Does the addition of Zack Greinke turn the Dodgers from a .500 team into playoff contenders? Or more specifically, does Greinke add thirteen wins to the Dodgers to match the Giants 94 wins from 2012?
Not even close.
Greinke's a solid pitcher, but looking at his career performances, he's only had one year, his Cy Young year in 2009, in which he was a true ace. Since then, he's been an above average starter but not much more than that.
And what does Greinke really add to the Dodgers? He's not much better than what they already had at the back end of the rotation. Compare the Dodgers 2012 pitching staff with the 2013, and it's not really all that much better (consider that newly signed Korean free agent Hyun-Jin Ryu will most likely be a non factor at this point):
Look at how the starting pitchers in 2012 performed (combining certain pitchers to make a full season)
Clayton Kershaw 14-9, 2.53 ERA, 229 K / 63 BB, 1.02 WHIP, 150 ERA+Ted Lilly/ Chad Billingsley (33 combined starts): 16-11, 3.45 ERA, 159K/ 64 BB, 1.20 WHIP, 111 ERA+
Aaron Harang: 10-10, 3.61 ERA, 131K/ 85 BB, 1.403 WHIP, 105 ERA+
Chris Capuano: 12-12, 3.72 ERA, 162 K/ 54 BB, 1.22 WHIP, 102 ERA+
Josh Beckett/ Joe Blanton/ Nathan Eovaldi/ Stephen Fife (32 combined starts): 5-15, 4.02 ERA, 143 K/ 62 BB, 1.41 WHIP, 104 ERA+
Now compare those to the 2013 rotation's 3 year averages:
Clayton Kershaw: 16-8, 2.56 ERA, 230 K/66 BB, 1.055 WHIP, 148 ERA+
Zack Greinke: 14-8, 3.83 ERA,194 K/ 54 BB, 1.22 WHIP, 106 ERA+
Chad Billingsley: 11-10, 3.79 ERA, 150K/ 66 BB, 1.34 WHIP, 100 ERA+Josh Beckett: 9-9, 4.25 ERA, 141 K/ 50 BB, 1.26 WHIP, 101 ERA+
Ted Lilly: 9-9, 3.72 ERA, 118K/ 38 BB, 1.12 WHIP, 104 ERA+
Chris Capuano: 9-9, 4.10 ERA, 128K/ 43 BB, 1.29 WHIP, 92 ERA+
Aaron Harang: 10-8, 4.03 ERA, 112K/ 60 BB, 1.43 WHIP, 94 ERA+
Almost every starting pitcher for the Dodgers overachieved in 2012. So because of that, the rotation, even with the addition of Greinke, will be no better in 2013. And that doesn't take into account Greinke's well documented mental problems, that he didn't want to be traded to a large market team two years ago because he didn't think he could handle the pressure, and that he has pitched poorly in every big time game (notably during the 2011 playoffs), and there's a good chance of Greinke being a complete bust in Los Angeles.
So with a decent but vastly overrated rotation and a subpar bullpen (Brandon League as closer, that says it all), the Dodgers are going to have to rely on their "star studded" lineup to carry them to October.
Yeah, good luck with that. Let's break it down to show how flawed it truly is: At catcher, you have AJ Ellis, a career minor leaguer who, after coming out of nowhere to have a stellar first two months in 2012, really slowed down and played pretty poorly the final four months of the seasons with the exception of a decent August semi-resurgance. At first base, you have Adrian Gonzalez, who hit a career high 40 home runs in 2009 has seen a drastic drop-off every year since, going from 40 to 31 to 27 to 18 homers in 2012. At best, you're looking at a 20 home run guy, but realistically another dropoff is more likely, especially now that he's out of hitter friendly Fenway park and the American League. At second base, you have 35 year old Mark Ellis, who was such deadweight in 2011 that the A's cut him mid-season after being with the team for nearly a decade, and other than one good month with the Dodgers last year, has looked pretty much the same. At third base, you have Luis Cruz, a career minor league who performed adequately after not being able to hit minor league pitching for his first decade in professional baseball. Good luck with expecting anything out of him next year. At shortstop, you have Hanley Ramirez who at 29 is a clubhouse cancer that has already been washed up for a couple seasons.
At left field, you have Carl Crawford, who was a "fantasy superstar" (someone who's fantasy baseball value far outweighs their real life value) in Tampa Bay but overall a slightly above average player. This was before he went to Boston and stunk it up, which was before being sidelined from a major injury which we don't know that he'll be back by opening day 2013. Do you really think he'll be of any value in 2013? At right field, you have Mr. April Andre Ethier, who always starts off the season well before being useless the last 2/3 of the season. And even Matt Kemp, the lone superstar in the lineup and one of baseball's elite is coming off a season in which he suffered through multiple injuries. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is.
All in all, can you really look at this team and see a team that will upend the reigning World Series champions two of the last three seasons? Look past the names, and the money, and all they really have is a heavily flawed, heavily overrated team.
Just like the Miami Marlins and Boston Red Sox in recent years, expect for the Dodgers to crash and burn.
Not so fast.
To look at the Dodgers, you have to break down their 2012 season into three parts: The start of the season through May 25th, in which the team drastically overachieved, with aging veterans Chris Capuano, Aaron Harang, Ted Lilly, and Mark Ellis performing the best they had in years, guys like AJ Ellis and Andre Ethier playing way over their heads, and Matt Kemp putting up numbers that are out of this world, even for a player of his caliber, got off to a 32-15 start. Then players came back to reality, while others, including Matt Kemp, spent a significant time on the DL. Between their fluke start and and the trade with the Red Sox, the team went 36-43. From August 25th to the end of the season, when everyone was pretty much healthy and they had acquired all the new guys, the team went 18-18. So basically, you're looking at a .500 team going into the off-season.
Does the addition of Zack Greinke turn the Dodgers from a .500 team into playoff contenders? Or more specifically, does Greinke add thirteen wins to the Dodgers to match the Giants 94 wins from 2012?
Not even close.
Greinke's a solid pitcher, but looking at his career performances, he's only had one year, his Cy Young year in 2009, in which he was a true ace. Since then, he's been an above average starter but not much more than that.
And what does Greinke really add to the Dodgers? He's not much better than what they already had at the back end of the rotation. Compare the Dodgers 2012 pitching staff with the 2013, and it's not really all that much better (consider that newly signed Korean free agent Hyun-Jin Ryu will most likely be a non factor at this point):
Look at how the starting pitchers in 2012 performed (combining certain pitchers to make a full season)
Clayton Kershaw 14-9, 2.53 ERA, 229 K / 63 BB, 1.02 WHIP, 150 ERA+Ted Lilly/ Chad Billingsley (33 combined starts): 16-11, 3.45 ERA, 159K/ 64 BB, 1.20 WHIP, 111 ERA+
Aaron Harang: 10-10, 3.61 ERA, 131K/ 85 BB, 1.403 WHIP, 105 ERA+
Chris Capuano: 12-12, 3.72 ERA, 162 K/ 54 BB, 1.22 WHIP, 102 ERA+
Josh Beckett/ Joe Blanton/ Nathan Eovaldi/ Stephen Fife (32 combined starts): 5-15, 4.02 ERA, 143 K/ 62 BB, 1.41 WHIP, 104 ERA+
Now compare those to the 2013 rotation's 3 year averages:
Clayton Kershaw: 16-8, 2.56 ERA, 230 K/66 BB, 1.055 WHIP, 148 ERA+
Zack Greinke: 14-8, 3.83 ERA,194 K/ 54 BB, 1.22 WHIP, 106 ERA+
Chad Billingsley: 11-10, 3.79 ERA, 150K/ 66 BB, 1.34 WHIP, 100 ERA+Josh Beckett: 9-9, 4.25 ERA, 141 K/ 50 BB, 1.26 WHIP, 101 ERA+
Ted Lilly: 9-9, 3.72 ERA, 118K/ 38 BB, 1.12 WHIP, 104 ERA+
Chris Capuano: 9-9, 4.10 ERA, 128K/ 43 BB, 1.29 WHIP, 92 ERA+
Aaron Harang: 10-8, 4.03 ERA, 112K/ 60 BB, 1.43 WHIP, 94 ERA+
Almost every starting pitcher for the Dodgers overachieved in 2012. So because of that, the rotation, even with the addition of Greinke, will be no better in 2013. And that doesn't take into account Greinke's well documented mental problems, that he didn't want to be traded to a large market team two years ago because he didn't think he could handle the pressure, and that he has pitched poorly in every big time game (notably during the 2011 playoffs), and there's a good chance of Greinke being a complete bust in Los Angeles.
So with a decent but vastly overrated rotation and a subpar bullpen (Brandon League as closer, that says it all), the Dodgers are going to have to rely on their "star studded" lineup to carry them to October.
Yeah, good luck with that. Let's break it down to show how flawed it truly is: At catcher, you have AJ Ellis, a career minor leaguer who, after coming out of nowhere to have a stellar first two months in 2012, really slowed down and played pretty poorly the final four months of the seasons with the exception of a decent August semi-resurgance. At first base, you have Adrian Gonzalez, who hit a career high 40 home runs in 2009 has seen a drastic drop-off every year since, going from 40 to 31 to 27 to 18 homers in 2012. At best, you're looking at a 20 home run guy, but realistically another dropoff is more likely, especially now that he's out of hitter friendly Fenway park and the American League. At second base, you have 35 year old Mark Ellis, who was such deadweight in 2011 that the A's cut him mid-season after being with the team for nearly a decade, and other than one good month with the Dodgers last year, has looked pretty much the same. At third base, you have Luis Cruz, a career minor league who performed adequately after not being able to hit minor league pitching for his first decade in professional baseball. Good luck with expecting anything out of him next year. At shortstop, you have Hanley Ramirez who at 29 is a clubhouse cancer that has already been washed up for a couple seasons.
At left field, you have Carl Crawford, who was a "fantasy superstar" (someone who's fantasy baseball value far outweighs their real life value) in Tampa Bay but overall a slightly above average player. This was before he went to Boston and stunk it up, which was before being sidelined from a major injury which we don't know that he'll be back by opening day 2013. Do you really think he'll be of any value in 2013? At right field, you have Mr. April Andre Ethier, who always starts off the season well before being useless the last 2/3 of the season. And even Matt Kemp, the lone superstar in the lineup and one of baseball's elite is coming off a season in which he suffered through multiple injuries. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is.
All in all, can you really look at this team and see a team that will upend the reigning World Series champions two of the last three seasons? Look past the names, and the money, and all they really have is a heavily flawed, heavily overrated team.
Just like the Miami Marlins and Boston Red Sox in recent years, expect for the Dodgers to crash and burn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)