2015 Baseball HOF Voting

[Breeze]

Some very interesting developments in the HOF voting. Here are a couple links that show some early results...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...Xc&output=html

and

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...llecting_gizmo

[Scarecrow]

Interesting take on why Mike Berardino didn't vote for Pedro + Randy...

Voter leaves Randy Johnson off Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 'strategic' reasons | syracuse.com

[molson]

I'd bet people who publicly reveal their ballots are more likely to have voted for more people. I have nothing to back this up.

But, if this voting holds up, it's be the biggest voted-in class since...I'm not sure, but probably the 80s, right? I can't find another 4-person inductee class, but when I go back further the names are a little fuzzier and I can't immediately tell who was voted by the writers and who got in through the veteran's committee.

Edit: I would love to here Jim Alexander's HOF case for Troy Percival.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

But, if this voting holds up, it's be the biggest voted-in class since...

From an SFGate article

Not since 1955, when Joe DiMaggio, Gabby Hartnett, Ted Lyons and Dazzy Vance gained entrance, have four players received the necessary 75 percent of the vote from the BBWAA.

Five were elected at the same time on only one occasion, and that was the initial Hall class of 1936.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Interesting take on why Mike Berardino didn't vote for Pedro + Randy...

Voter leaves Randy Johnson off Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 'strategic' reasons | syracuse.com

I had this very conversation over twitter with a HOF voter - I maintained the shoo-ins should be left off the ballot by the writers who want to vote for more than 10 guys, since leaving Johnson or Martinez off of a few ballots won't make a difference, but a few extra votes for Tim Raines for example may mean the difference between the HOF or dropping off the ballot for others.

Too many writers are stuck with the "How can xyz not go into the HOF unanimously?" mentality and wouldn't even consider not voting for someone they feel is a lock even if it means losing a guy off the ballot who deserves consideration.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Interesting take on why Mike Berardino didn't vote for Pedro + Randy...

Voter leaves Randy Johnson off Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 'strategic' reasons | syracuse.com

There's no group of people more loathsome than HOF voters. ISIS is close, but still second.

[frnk55]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's no group of people more loathsome than HOF voters. ISIS is close, but still second.

No doubt. I remember last year some lady voted for Shawn Green.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's no group of people more loathsome than HOF voters. ISIS is close, but still second.

Eh, just the ones that vote for Bonds & his ilk.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Interesting take on why Mike Berardino didn't vote for Pedro + Randy...

Voter leaves Randy Johnson off Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 'strategic' reasons | syracuse.com

Interesting but not surprising findings from this data:

- 100% of those who voted for Sosa also voted for Bonds and Clemens
- 99% of those who voted for Clemens voted for Bonds
- 98% of those who voted for Bonds voted for Clemens

Hmmm, what mystery reason could be causing this strong correlation?

[Buccaneer]

When is the vote for removing the many undeserving players in the Hall?

[Logan]

Piazza is going to end up falling a few percent short and I'll be pissed again.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Interesting take on why Mike Berardino didn't vote for Pedro + Randy...

Voter leaves Randy Johnson off Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 'strategic' reasons | syracuse.com

Pretty smart and I give him credit for thinking outside the box and sharing his stance publicly.

[Logan]

Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, and Biggio in.

Piazza closest at 69.9%.

[Buccaneer]

I don't agree that was smart. There are only three deserving candidates this year and anyone voting for marginal players like trammel or walker and others to fill up a ballot, should not boast about it.

That's why there should be a culling out because there are many players similar to the mediocre ones already in (esp from the 60s/70s vet committee) that one can make the fallacious argument that if X is in, so should Y. My argument is to remove X from the equation and thus Y is not relevant.

[Buccaneer]

I can also go along with Biggio.

[Easy Mac]

I think Piazza deserves it and will almost certainly be in next year. But like I heard someone say the other day, it took like 8 years for Gary Carter to get it, so it's not like the Hall has been overly welcome to catchers.

[Easy Mac]

Also, is this the last time an Expo makes the hall of fame, since Raines and Walker almost certainly won't get in?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I think Piazza deserves it and will almost certainly be in next year. But like I heard someone say the other day, it took like 8 years for Gary Carter to get it, so it's not like the Hall has been overly welcome to catchers.

Nor, third basemen. The standards for third base seems insanely high. Like they expect third basemen to be better than they really are.

I'm glad to see Raines get a nice jump after last year.

Two guys that it amazes me went off on their first ballot were Whitaker and Lofton. I'm not really sure they belong in the HOF (Whitaker probably, Lofton probably not) but they sure as heck should have been talked about a lot more than they were compared to being a one and done.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Also, is this the last time an Expo makes the hall of fame, since Raines and Walker almost certainly won't get in?

Vladimir Guerrero?

[Warhammer]

The reason I hate the HoF in baseball is how much of the argument comes down to milestones. X reached 3000 hits, he is a HoFer because he got to 3000 hits!

Y is one because he is the only player to hit 250 HRs, 300 2Bs, 2 3Bs, and 900 SFs. Plus, he got 200 SBs.

It takes a different skill set to play catcher, 2B, OF, etc., so why do we always judge players by their batting stats?

[kcchief19]

The milestones are automatic benchmarks. If you get 3,000 hits or 300 wins, it's a litmus test that you you are a no-doubt hall of famer regardless of position.

But here's the current position distribution of he HOF:
Catcher: 16
First base: 21
Second base: 20
Third base: 16
Shortstop: 24
Left field: 21
Center field: 23
Right field: 24
DH: 1
Pitcher: 74

That's a pretty remarkably even distribution. Third base does stand out, because there have been so many great third basemen over the years that maybe they are held to a higher standard.

Catcher might be just as difficult to get in because it's almost impossible for catchers to put up the benchmarks for automatically get in.

I actually think it's easier to get in to the hall from 2nd or SS because the expectation is that you can't hit. So if you can play for 20 years at SS and hit .260, you're in. Do that at 3B, and you're not getting in unless you have Brooks Robinson's glove.

[miked]

Does anyone care that Piazza was a bad catcher?

[rowech]

I actually think it's easier to get in to the hall from 2nd or SS because the expectation is that you can't hit. So if you can play for 20 years at SS and hit .260, you're in. Do that at 3B, and you're not getting in unless you have Brooks Robinson's glove

Tell that to Whitaker.

[FBPro]

Originally Posted by miked

Does anyone care that Piazza was a bad catcher?

Doubtful it's too important.....

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miked

Does anyone care that Piazza was a bad catcher?

Except he wasn't a bad catcher.

[SackAttack]

People who voted for Randy Johnson and not Roger Clemens make me chuckle.

Johnson enjoying his peak in his late 30s is totally reasonable and not at all suspicious, right?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Except he wasn't a bad catcher.

Say a stat that his pitching staff's ERA was a full half run better when he caught than when other catchers caught during the same season.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

People who voted for Randy Johnson and not Roger Clemens make me chuckle.

Johnson enjoying his peak in his late 30s is totally reasonable and not at all suspicious, right?

Yes and no. It's not like there was any big secret as to why he was successful - he was 6'10" throwing sidearm 98 MPH heat and a wicked slider, and given his size and release point his 98 MPH looked more like 108 MPH to batters. Once he dialed in his mechanics enough to repeat his delivery and adjusted his mentality to attack hitters and not nibble, it was game over for hitters. The only thing standing in his way was health.

Now, maybe he used PED's to battle health issues (or somehow forestall them). He had a back issue that would flare up from time to time and was the big reason the M's decided he was risky enough that they were wary about a big-money contract extension in his early 30's and were willing to trade him.

We've certainly learned enough to know that no player from the early '90's on up is immune from suspicion, and his back issues might make him a bit of a red flag, but I'd still say his likelihood of being a PED user is relatively low. His career was dissimilar to Clemens in that once he figured things out, there was no decline along the way other than one year of injury issues in '96. Clemens was awesome, then started a moderately slow decline, then all of a sudden was awesome again after the Red Sox discarded him.

[RainMaker]

I wonder if we'll start seeing larger classes based on the fact that many of these players played during an era of cable TV and ultimately the internet. 30-40 years ago you would never have seen some of these guys ever play. Just have to go by box scores in the local paper.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wonder if we'll start seeing larger classes based on the fact that many of these players played during an era of cable TV and ultimately the internet. 30-40 years ago you would never have seen some of these guys ever play. Just have to go by box scores in the local paper.

I think we will see larger classes. While the advent of TV/internet will play a role in that, I think a larger role will be that the committee has really started to bottleneck the ability for people to get in. With the steroid talk and such, many guys are going to be pushed back until their latter years of eligibility, and then you're going to have guys who 'don't deserve' first few ballot status, but are suddenly running out of time to get in.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Say a stat that his pitching staff's ERA was a full half run better when he caught than when other catchers caught during the same season.

Exactly:

The most important part of a catcher’s job is handling his pitchers and in this area Piazza was superb. Here is one of the most telling statistics. In his career behind the plate, pitchers had a 3.80 ERA when Piazza was catching. If you look at all the other catchers who caught the same pitchers in the same year that Piazza did, they allowed a 4.34 ERA. That’s a major difference, much more important than a few extra bases stolen. (In fact, Piazza’s catcher ERA of 3.81 includes the run value of any extra stolen bases he allowed.)

Craig Wright wrote an excellent article in The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2009 called Piazza, Hall of Fame Catcher. He did a detailed sabermetric study that showed that hitters had a .723 OPS with Piazza behind the plate and a .748 OPS with other catchers. This 25-point differential is highly significant. In further studies that we did in The Fielding Bible—Volume II, we found that Piazza saved at least 20 to 70 runs more than an average catcher defensively, depending on the technique that we used.

I highly recommend checking out the Piazza article by Craig Wright in The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2009. My conclusion is the same as his from that article:

"Mike Piazza was not a defensive liability who made up for it with his bat. The greatest offensive catcher in the history of Major League Baseball was a good defensive catcher as well."

http://www.billjamesonline.com/shoul...hall_of_fame_/

I'm still trying to figure out why Biggio is "clean" and Piazza is not:

Biggio -
HR per year when under age 35: 12.3 (13 seasons)
HR per year when over age 35: 18.8 (7 seasons)

Piazza -
HR per year when under age 35: 34.6 (10 seasons)
HR per year when over age 35: 16 (5 seasons)

[Chief Rum]

I think it's ridiculous that Piazza is not in the Hall.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm still trying to figure out why Biggio is "clean" and Piazza is not

Piazza's bacne reported by Murray Chase. Pretty sure that's it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yes and no. It's not like there was any big secret as to why he was successful - he was 6'10" throwing sidearm 98 MPH heat and a wicked slider, and given his size and release point his 98 MPH looked more like 108 MPH to batters. Once he dialed in his mechanics enough to repeat his delivery and adjusted his mentality to attack hitters and not nibble, it was game over for hitters. The only thing standing in his way was health.

Now, maybe he used PED's to battle health issues (or somehow forestall them). He had a back issue that would flare up from time to time and was the big reason the M's decided he was risky enough that they were wary about a big-money contract extension in his early 30's and were willing to trade him.

We've certainly learned enough to know that no player from the early '90's on up is immune from suspicion, and his back issues might make him a bit of a red flag, but I'd still say his likelihood of being a PED user is relatively low. His career was dissimilar to Clemens in that once he figured things out, there was no decline along the way other than one year of injury issues in '96. Clemens was awesome, then started a moderately slow decline, then all of a sudden was awesome again after the Red Sox discarded him.

Again, Johnson peaked in his mid-late 30s. He won 4 straight Cy Young Awards from his age 35 through age 38 seasons. Three other pitchers have even won three in a four-year span in the National League: Koufax, Maddux and Kershaw.

I'm not arguing that that means that Johnson used. What I'm saying is that for people to vote against Clemens, or otherwise play PED gatekeeper to the Hall, but to vote Johnson in with 98% or whatever of the vote is to ignore that elephant in the room. You talk about Johnson's velocity, size and release point being key to his success, but velocity is one of the things people point to as being a PED benefit for pitchers. If he used, it might have been to recover from injury more quickly, but it might also have been to sustain his velocity into his late 30s. How many pitchers throw 98 at 38?

Clemens' post-Boston career was phenomenal with Toronto; he was a very good, but not elite, pitcher for the Yankees. Their contribution to his Hall of Fame narrative was mostly run support allowing him to rack up gaudy win totals despite the fact that none of his seasons with them were even among his ten best for ERA+, and only once did he significantly underperform his FIP (in 2002, possibly his "worst" season as a Yankee). He rebounded to elite performances after going to Houston.

Again, my point with all of this is not to make the case for "Randy Johnson, undetected PED user," but rather to suggest that voting him in that overwhelmingly on the first ballot while continuing to vote against Bonds and Clemens may not be the principled stand for purity that the voters think it is. We have one guy who was on a bit of a performance yo-yo, going from looking like he was finished to winning four more Cy Youngs, but having periods of dominance and pedestrian performance during that time, and another guy who enjoyed the best 4 1/2 years of his career after switching leagues, during the latter half of his 30s. That's not normal, and to say "this guy was just a freak of nature and there's no way he used so let's vote him in, but THAT guy..." is disingenuous, particularly in light of the fact that rumor has been enough to keep out guys like Bagwell and Piazza so far. Piazza isn't in because ~25% of voters think he may have used based on hearsay and rumor, but Johnson was near-unanimous? Really?

[Logan]

I thought all the Clemens stuff was because he was indicted for lying to Congress and all the McNamee accusations.

[molson]

Ya, it's clear that the writers for whom this is a factor aren't just trying to guess at who was on steroids, they're choosing not to vote for people they perceived to have been huge public embarrassments to the game. Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire. Johnson wasn't even in the Mitchell report, was he?

I still blame the players. They fought against drug testing for years and in terms of HOF voting - they left it to the writers to sort it out. That was their choice. And obviously, writers are going to have different opinions in sorting it out. When you need 75% to get in, those kinds of disagreements mean guys aren't getting in.

It does seem like every year the general mood is that more guys should have gotten in, which tells me the HOF is working exactly as it intends. When a super-majority needs to think someone is HOF-worthy, you should always have that kind of disappointment. The majority of writers think Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell, and Mark Piazza should be in. But that's not enough.

[Easy Mac]

I'm pretty sure Bonds and Clemens aren't in the Hall mainly because they were giant dicks to the media their entire career. The PED use is just a useful explanation so they don't have to say they're so petty.

Johnson was pretty surly to the media, but wasn't universally despised like the other two.

[Lathum]

Piazza not being in as a complete joke. Arguably the best offensive player ever at the position, and if not a close #2. This guilt by association is absurd. If they don't let Piazza in then just shut it down from 1997-2010 and don't let anyone who compiled numbers in that era in.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Exactly:



http://www.billjamesonline.com/shoul...hall_of_fame_/

I'm still trying to figure out why Biggio is "clean" and Piazza is not:

Biggio -
HR per year when under age 35: 12.3 (13 seasons)
HR per year when over age 35: 18.8 (7 seasons)

Piazza -
HR per year when under age 35: 34.6 (10 seasons)
HR per year when over age 35: 16 (5 seasons)

Weren't Biggio's last 7 seasons at Enron?

I always thought Piazza wouldn't get in because he is gay.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Weren't Biggio's last 7 seasons at Enron?

So you're saying he was a crooked accountant?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Weren't Biggio's last 7 seasons at Enron?

I always thought Piazza wouldn't get in because he is gay.

Enron/Minute Maid park opened in 2000, Biggio hit 8 HR that season. From 2001 through 2005, he hit 55 HR at home and 45 on the road - not a huge difference to explain his power surge. Plus, it's not like power was sparse in the decade of the 90s when he was averaging 13 HR a season.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Again, my point with all of this is not to make the case for "Randy Johnson, undetected PED user," but rather to suggest that voting him in that overwhelmingly on the first ballot while continuing to vote against Bonds and Clemens may not be the principled stand for purity that the voters think it is. We have one guy who was on a bit of a performance yo-yo, going from looking like he was finished to winning four more Cy Youngs, but having periods of dominance and pedestrian performance during that time, and another guy who enjoyed the best 4 1/2 years of his career after switching leagues, during the latter half of his 30s. That's not normal, and to say "this guy was just a freak of nature and there's no way he used so let's vote him in, but THAT guy..." is disingenuous, particularly in light of the fact that rumor has been enough to keep out guys like Bagwell and Piazza so far. Piazza isn't in because ~25% of voters think he may have used based on hearsay and rumor, but Johnson was near-unanimous? Really?

I get your overall point, but I disagree with the details. Randy Johnson was the same pitcher in Arizona he was for Seattle after he had matured and figured things out (minus some injury issues in '96 and sulking about his contract situation in '98). His peak was arguably 1995, not anytime in Arizona.

Sure, PED use might have been a way for him to maintain velocity in his mid to late 30's. Except that's not what happened - his velocity declined as he aged as you would expect. That he was so tall and had a release point closer to the plate than just about any other pitcher allowed his fastball to always appear faster than it actually was, and his ability to repeat his delivery and develop remarkable command of his pitches, combined with pitching in an era of ever increasing batter strikeouts and moving to the NL where he faced pitchers instead of DHs allowed his numbers to look superficially better with Arizona, but the only thing he did better there than in Seattle was rack up more innings.

Now, his durability and avoidance of injuries after being traded from Seattle could be an indicator of PED use. But unlike Clemens (and other known/strongly suspected users), you can't point to any point in Randy's career that looks like a clear jump in his performance. It's easy to look at Clemens and think "A-ha, sure looks like he started using in '97"; there aren't any such stark delineations in Johnson's career.

But the biggest reason for the voter attitudes is that we have significant evidence Clemens used, while all we have with Johnson is just the taint of his era and the resulting skepticism.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I get your overall point, but I disagree with the details. Randy Johnson was the same pitcher in Arizona he was for Seattle after he had matured and figured things out (minus some injury issues in '96 and sulking about his contract situation in '98). His peak was arguably 1995, not anytime in Arizona.

Sure, PED use might have been a way for him to maintain velocity in his mid to late 30's. Except that's not what happened - his velocity declined as he aged as you would expect. That he was so tall and had a release point closer to the plate than just about any other pitcher allowed his fastball to always appear faster than it actually was, and his ability to repeat his delivery and develop remarkable command of his pitches, combined with pitching in an era of ever increasing batter strikeouts and moving to the NL where he faced pitchers instead of DHs allowed his numbers to look superficially better with Arizona, but the only thing he did better there than in Seattle was rack up more innings.

Now, his durability and avoidance of injuries after being traded from Seattle could be an indicator of PED use. But unlike Clemens (and other known/strongly suspected users), you can't point to any point in Randy's career that looks like a clear jump in his performance. It's easy to look at Clemens and think "A-ha, sure looks like he started using in '97"; there aren't any such stark delineations in Johnson's career.

But the biggest reason for the voter attitudes is that we have significant evidence Clemens used, while all we have with Johnson is just the taint of his era and the resulting skepticism.

How about Johnson's quote from SI in 2010 or so to the effect that he took all kinds of stuff from GNC and if there had been testing "back then," who knows but he might have gotten popped for PED use? I mean, that's from the horse's mouth. Do we know specifically what he used? No, of course not. Is there reason to believe, based on things he's said and on his performance record, that it's a possibility? Absolutely.

Does that make it hypocritical as shit for him to get 98% of the ballots cast while Clemens, Bonds, etc remain on the outside? Without question. You cannot cherry-pick on this if you're a voter. Trying to exclude the ones who admit to any kind of use or who got caught while letting others in because, well, we can't PROVE anything just makes it more likely that sooner or later you're going to have egg on your face.

Let them in and let the Hall of Fame do the dirty work of explaining their achievements in the context of the era.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

that it's a possibility?

It's a possibility for every single player over the era.


Here's where we disagree at a fundamental level

You cannot cherry-pick on this if you're a voter.

I'd argue that it's the responsibility of the voters to do just that:
apply their best judgment -- since we are, after all, asking them to pass judgment on the career of these players -- and vote accordingly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You cannot cherry-pick on this if you're a voter. Trying to exclude the ones who admit to any kind of use or who got caught while letting others in because, well, we can't PROVE anything just makes it more likely that sooner or later you're going to have egg on your face.

I don't think those voters would claim to have "proof" of anything. And they certainly can't make definitive determinations about who was using and who wasn't, the players union made sure of that. So some users obviously didn't get caught, didn't get attention from the federal government, didn't become public villains. Good for them, they took a risk and it paid off, they cheated their way to the hall of fame. Lots people get away with stuff in all facets of life. I don't see why that means writers are morally obligated to ignore the cheating of Clemens and Bonds. It's not hypocritical to punish the person you're sure is guilty and not punish the one where there's some doubt in your mind. It's going to be an inexact science, and there's going to be differences opinion, but that's the bed the players made, and that's why the HOF wants human voters and not a statistical performance formula. These things matter, and you have to convince a super-majority of this group that you're worthy to get in their little club, you have no entitlement to it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think those voters would claim to have "proof" of anything. And they certainly can't make definitive determinations about who was using and who wasn't, the players union made sure of that. So some users obviously didn't get caught, didn't get attention from the federal government, didn't become public villains. Good for them, they took a risk and it paid off, they cheated their way to the hall of fame. Lots people get away with stuff in all facets of life. I don't see why that means writers are morally obligated to ignore the cheating of Clemens and Bonds. It's not hypocritical to punish the person you're sure is guilty and not punish the one where there's some doubt in your mind. It's going to be an inexact science, and there's going to be differences opinion, but that's the bed the players made, and that's why the HOF wants human voters and not a statistical performance formula. These things matter, and you have to convince a super-majority of this group that you're worthy to get in their little club, you have no entitlement to it.

I wouldnt say they are morally obligated to ignore anything, however, I do think they are morally obligated to make their own judgements if someone used when there is zero evidence they did.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I wouldnt say they are morally obligated to ignore anything, however, I do think they are morally obligated to make their own judgements if someone used when there is zero evidence they did.

Well, Piazza did he get almost 70% of the vote, and there's a great chance he still gets in, and that he gets in faster than Gary Carter did. Plenty of people are voting for him and not Bonds or Clemens. (And that's how I would vote). We're talking about a pretty small number of people making the difference on him. You talked about basically shutting out hitters from that era if Piazza can't get in, and maybe a small number of voters have actually done that. But the vast majority of them agree with you that he's a HOFer. But that's how elite this is - you have to have very broad support, even amongst a group that includes the most passionate steroid-haters. And that's a relevant and significant sub-group. It looks like Piazza will have that support, but not until next year.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Arles

Enron/Minute Maid park opened in 2000, Biggio hit 8 HR that season. From 2001 through 2005, he hit 55 HR at home and 45 on the road - not a huge difference to explain his power surge. Plus, it's not like power was sparse in the decade of the 90s when he was averaging 13 HR a season.

Pretty damn sparse in the Astrodome, where his '90s split was more like 60/100 home/road. In a neutral stadium, Biggio could easily hit five more home runs a year at home.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

How about Johnson's quote from SI in 2010 or so to the effect that he took all kinds of stuff from GNC and if there had been testing "back then," who knows but he might have gotten popped for PED use? I mean, that's from the horse's mouth. Do we know specifically what he used? No, of course not. Is there reason to believe, based on things he's said and on his performance record, that it's a possibility? Absolutely.

There's a pretty big difference between knowingly using PEDs as we can be near certain Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc did and taking GNC supplements that may have had enough traces of stuff in it to cause a positive test under the current rules.

As far as his performance record, again - point to a place in his career that looks like a likely starting spot for PED use. Sure, maybe he started off slowly with such use and as he found it effective, increased his usage such that you can't really see a demarcation line. I'll grant that this is possible.

But it doesn't have anywhere near the smoking gun status of a Roger Clemens situation.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

There's a pretty big difference between knowingly using PEDs as we can be near certain Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc did and taking GNC supplements that may have had enough traces of stuff in it to cause a positive test under the current rules.

As far as his performance record, again - point to a place in his career that looks like a likely starting spot for PED use. Sure, maybe he started off slowly with such use and as he found it effective, increased his usage such that you can't really see a demarcation line. I'll grant that this is possible.

But it doesn't have anywhere near the smoking gun status of a Roger Clemens situation.

Where's the smoking gun year for Clemens? He was all-star/Cy Young level through 92, He was down in '93 but outstanding in '94. He was down in '95 and still Cy Young level from 96-98, then was pretty much around all-star level the rest of his career.