The Call of the Hall

by Valatan on Dec 27, 2006 12:02 PM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

First, does anyone find it somewhat odd that the official Cardinals site's hall of fame coverage is this story? Do you think that there is a more interesting, if perhaps more overcovered, Cardinals-related story regarding the hall of fame elections?

Nah.

Now, one wonders whether or not Mark McGwire should make the Hall of Fame. I think that the question is somewhat more interesting than most do, particularly considering the questions that baseball will have to answer (or has answered) with respect to Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and the slew of people we don't yet know about for certain (I think the case against Clemens* is becoming as strong as that against Sosa, for example). The problem, however, is that baseball will never decide upon a single rule and follow that rule--every Hall of Fame decision will be left up to the whim of the sportswriters with respect to each particular player--the decision is inherently case-by-case.

Although one might make a case that McGwire should be admitted, while Bonds shouldn't (McGwire used androstenone when it wasn't banned by MLB; Bonds likely used various steroids when they were explicitly banned), such arguments are really based upon a very strict interpretation of the rules--not the spirit and logic regarding what, particularly, cheating is. Furthermore, "not being here to talk about the past" is pretty close to an admission of guilt. On the numbers, if McGwire gets admitted, then Bonds definitely should.

So, should Mark McGwire be admitted to the Hall of Fame? I say yes. I say, despite his issues and the allegations, he is still an important part of the story of baseball--he was a dominant player for a long time, and he won a world series with the A's, and was at the heart of baseball's biggest story**. He changed the game, and elevated the level of play amongst his contemporaries. Gaylord Perry is in the Hall, Ty Cobb is in the Hall. There are a lot of unsavory players that did 'everything it takes' to win who made the Hall. The difference is that those players all fundamentally affected the game as it was played in their era. It is hard to argue that Mark McGwire didn't do that.

If we were talking about a player like Rafael Palmiero--a player that was merely very good, and then, with the use of steroids, came to get Hall-worthy numbers--I think there would be much more of an argument. But McGwire isn't a borderline case. He had multiple MVP-quality seasons. He broke records. That 1998 season is part of the story of baseball.

That, for me, is the only meaningful Hall of Fame criterion--can you tell the story of baseball, (or, at least, an individual team) without mentioning this player? If so, then you should probably reconsider sending this player to the realm of immortality. But McGwire (as well as Bonds, Sosa, and Clemens) is a part of the game. He should be in the Hall.

*As an aside, why is it that an overaged, rapidly fattening, surly pitcher who had some freakishly good seasons at an old age so, so much more of a media darling than an overaged, rapidly fattening, surly hitter who had some freakishly good seasons at an old age? I know there's a lot more evidence against Bonds, but really...

**I actually support the induction of Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe for this reason, as well--what they did wasn't pretty, but they did alter the game, and it's strange telling the story of the sport while leaving those players out.

Tweet Comment 75 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Shoeless Joe vs Big Mac

Excellent Post Val.
Great comparison between Jackson and McGwire. I hadn't really looked at the two together and the similarities between their cases before. I think they are both in the same boat in that neither was proven to be guilty but they both look quite suspicious. Unfortunately I think McGwire will suffer the same fate as Jackson and not by allowed entrance into the Hall, where they both deserve to be.

by elderj on Dec 27, 2006 12:14 PM EST reply actions

Thanks

I'm back home with the family, and having access to cable again, I watched <u>Field of Dreams</u> last night, so I had Sholess Joe in my mind.

by Valatan on Dec 27, 2006 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

watched that too

The "rookie- you were good" line still brings tears to my eyes.

Anyway, did Pete Rose ever actually bet against his own team? I haven't found any references to that anywhere.

"...in winter, when there's no baseball... I stare out the window and wait for spring." -Rogers Hornsby

by SleepyCA on Dec 27, 2006 12:57 PM EST up reply actions

rose

they never found that he bet against his team, but what he did do was he didnt bet FOR his team every game, so the gamblers basically took his not betting for them as him knowing they were gonna lose most likely, or at least this is what i have read

there was also speculation that he used the bullpen diferently depending on whether he had bet on that game or not

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Dec 27, 2006 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

in principle

i think that big mac should be left out of the hall, not so much for his own offenses, but rather to keep out the bigger offenders (big head barry, jose conbalco, etc). however, as i don't get a vote for hof entrance, it's pretty much moot, as i think that at least big mac and bonds will eventually be voted in.

for slightly more on my opinions on the matter, check this rabid redbird post

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Dec 27, 2006 12:18 PM EST reply actions

If I had a HOF vote...

(and for the record I do not)

I would weigh the following questions:

-Do you believe - more likely than not - x-player took steroids or hGH?
-Would this player still have been a HOFer if he hadn't taken PEDs?
-Has the player damaged the game to the point where you find him unworthy of Cooperstown?

I think Clemens and Bonds get in - although one could argue Bonds deserves the Pete Rose treatment. If I put my personal dislike for these 2 aside, I can't deny these guys deserve to get in. The steroids issue will indeed keep either of them from being annoited 'the greatest' of all-time.

I think Sosa is an easy 'no'. Palmeiro was the first big name to fail a test - that's going to doom him. Personally, I'm not convinced a clean McGwire would have made it to Cooperstown, so I'd vote 'no' based on that.

by musial6 on Dec 27, 2006 12:22 PM EST reply actions

but

McGwire was a stud hitter his whole life. He has the record for homers by a rookie, and in college ball he was slugging them all the time. The steroids were to prevent injury. getting stronger to prevent injury. He was not a bad player before taking them. I'm almost positive he could've made it without them.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Dec 28, 2006 12:27 AM EST up reply actions

My thoughts....

Let Pete in, but he's permanently banned from baseball, no coaching, not even third base, no front office jobs, no nothing.

If the numbers justify it, let the player in and then put clearly stat on the plaque the facts as we know them.

by Brock20 on Dec 27, 2006 12:27 PM EST reply actions

also, Lee Smith is NOT a HOFer

c'mon now - for a closer to get in he absolutely has to have shown something in the postseason. It's not fair - since big Lee spent most of his career on mediocre teams - but we can't just start letting every closer with tons of saves and a few all-star appearances into Cooperstown.

Eckersley, Sutter, Gossage, Rivera. Other closers need not apply (unless you count Smoltz as a closer - I'd vote him in as well).

by musial6 on Dec 27, 2006 12:29 PM EST reply actions

HOF Common Sense

If MLB had common sense - which they do not - they would end all "moral" debate by simply drawing an official distinction between "banned from baseball" and the HOF.

Those who break explicitly stated rules (gambling on the game) would be banned, according to the rules, from baseball on the field in any capacity. This would include Jackson, Rose and anyone proven to violate steroids under rules deeming banishment.

HOF would be for statistically measured categories only and everyone would be eligible including Jackson, Rose and McGwire.

It wouldn't hurt to have, as has been written elsewhere, honesty on their HOF plaques.

Don't expect MLB to use common sense.

by Hinkster on Dec 27, 2006 12:57 PM EST reply actions

MLB doesnt run the HOF

MLB doesnt run the HOF. the HOF decided on its own to exclude anyone who was banned by MLB.

many of the accomplishments of pete rose are recognized in HOF exhibits. the HOF recognizes his significance in the game, it just chooses not to recognize pete rose the person. i have no problem with that.

by dmb60614 on Dec 27, 2006 2:18 PM EST up reply actions

Baseball writers....

People are always speaking out against McGwire and Sosa's place in the HOF. There are a lot of people out there (including us) who don't and will never have a grasp about how rampant PED use was in MLB. For all we know, the majority of the pitchers McGwire and Sosa played against were on PED's as well. So if you have hitters playing against guys on PED's and pitchers playing against guys on PED's, then who can you blame for this?

Miklasz made a decent point one day is his article about this dilemma. He basically came to one conclusion: Selig is depending on the baseball writers to apply disciple to the players who everyone thought took PED's and, in turn, the writers will determine their place in baseball history.

So....is this right the way to go about it? The BBWAA has always taken pride in their role to keep MLB in check. As a result of this scandal, the BBWAA are pissed because they feel deceived by the owners, the commissioner, and the players. If they're voting for guys to get in the HOF, should they really be making a decision under such circumstances? Do they have too much power in their decision-making?

I think there are a lot more issues here than just did a guy take PED's or didn't he. I think if we keep discussing that issue alone, we'll just be talking ourselves in circles because I truly believe no one will ever find that out for sure.

"What was my favorite championship? The next one." - Tom Brady

by Hot in Herr on Dec 27, 2006 1:00 PM EST reply actions

Trusting the writers?

This is the same group that consistently overvalues wins in the CY voting, and fetishizes HR in the MVP balloting. Should they be the "guardians of the game"?

I like Valatan's notion that the HOF should be about the game's story. You can't tell the story of modern-day baseball without including Curt Flood. Even if he had only been an average player, Jackie Robinson would have deserved to be in the HOF. Statistics tie the generations of the game together, and provide context for current achievements, but they do not constitute the whole of the game.

McGwire (and Bonds and Sosa) should be in--with full disclosure and discussion of the allegations of PED. What an opportunity to tell future generations a cautionary tale about one of the key components of baseball from the late 80s to the early 00s.

by blove121 on Dec 27, 2006 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

What about this...

No, I don't think that the BBWAA should be entrusted 100% with voting for HOF candidates. They should have a say in voting for the new inductees, but I think all stakeholders in the game of baseball should be involved. In my mind, I'm thinking of a system similar to the BCS in college football. The system would be comprised of: the BBWAA, owners, players, coaches, and fans. I have no idea how this would ever get instituted, but the game of baseball deserves better than HOF inductees being voted in solely by the votes of one group.

"What was my favorite championship? The next one." - Tom Brady

by Hot in Herr on Dec 27, 2006 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

national baseball hall of fame and MUSEUM

when most people think of the HOF they just think about the members and the placques, but the HOF is more than that. it is also a museum. it has exhibits and artifacts/memorabilia from many people who were not voted in as members. you do not need to be a member in order to have an exhibit or some other recognition in the HOF museum. there are in fact pete rose artifacts on exhibit in the museum. there should be an exhibit about flood and free agency in the museum (i dont know if there is). that doesnt mean flood should be a member of the hall of fame. you dont need to vote in mcgwire/sosa just to include a cautionary tale of baseball history. you just create an exhibit in the museum without electing them as members.

by dmb60614 on Dec 27, 2006 3:31 PM EST up reply actions

Right, but...

Right, but would you rather give the "Guardians of the Game" title to stat geeks who would rather process raw data and numbers as opposed to actually watching the game? As we all know, stats alone shouldn't be the only measuring stick for a Hall of Famer.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 27, 2006 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

The writers are complicit

when it comes to PEDs. To paraphrase what has been noted on this site before, only one writer who noticed the andro in McGwire's locker wrote about it and several other writers wrote about him writing about it. Guardians of their own self interest, not guardians of the game.

by slochaos on Dec 27, 2006 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

Rose Vs. PED

My problem with using Rose with the PED argument is this.

I know that players who used PED's where trying to win each game. Maybe a little to hard...but they wanted to win each game equally. We know this (as much as we can get into a players head an ass is still an ass)

Do we know this about Rose? We don't know. What I do know is that as manager he wrote his name in the lineup when other, better, players sat. Why? So he could get his hits record. The Reds finished 3 games behind the Dodgers in 1985. What if Gary Redus, Eric Davis, Nick Esasky et al played more games? This is why I don't think he should get in.

And thank you for bringing up how some guys get hammered on (Bonds, Sheff) but others aren't even questioned. Ryan, Clemens, Ripkin, and even Gwynn (Gwynn did have his best season the year Caminiti came over) look questionable if you apply the same standards that are used for Bonds. By the way if having a big head is proof of guilt please tell me why Ripkins huge head isn't enough proof.

by Harknights on Dec 27, 2006 1:16 PM EST reply actions

Well then, what do you think about

Cal Ripken's 1992 season? I think he was in the line-up just to keep his streak alive when he probably would have better served his team by taking an occasional day of rest.

My point is players and managers often do things in their own interests when the team would be better served by other actions. I hardly think that is grounds for banishment from baseball or the hall of fame.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 27, 2006 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

I can't decide whether McGwire, Bonds and Palmero

should get in, but I think they will get in- at least eventually.

On the other hand, rules on gambling and fixing games are much more sacred in baseball. (Baseball's Rule 21, prominently posted in every clubhouse locker room, mandates permanent banishment from the sport for having a gambling interest of any sort on a game in which a player or manager is directly involved.) I don't think Pete Rose or Joe Jackson will get in untill the WWII era writers (e.g. Bob Broeg) I remember back in the '80s I was listening to KMOX's sports open line and a caller suggested Joe Jackson should be in the hall of fame. Broeg went absolutely ape-shit, stating emphatically how rule 21 is posted in every club house (I believe along with nine other rules.)

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 27, 2006 2:00 PM EST reply actions

No HOF for the cheaters

Sets a bad example for kids and such.

Look boys, you can get in the hall of fame no matter how much you cheat and lie and break rules and break laws. Roids are bad, but roids = hall of fame, so do it as long as you don't get caught.

by redbird2006in on Dec 27, 2006 2:09 PM EST reply actions

steroid era

everyone in the steroid era is suspect. i wouldnt vote for a convicted cheater like palmeiro, but i would vote for people i strongly suspected of juicing (like mcgwire). what else can you do? what if i told you i suspect clemens of juicing? do we keep him out as well? at what point do we have enough circumstantial evidence? is the word of jose canseco good enough? if the media turned the spotlight on clemens or griffey jr. would they find enough dirt to tarnish their reputations as well? is it in the best interest of baseball to conduct a 'steroid trial' each time someone of that era is up for election? imo, the best way to handle the steroid era is to just vote for the best players of that era. they are all suspect in my mind. there's little sense in keeping out one suspected cheater but letting others in.

by dmb60614 on Dec 27, 2006 2:13 PM EST reply actions

Closers and the Hall

I still don't think it's right. Maybe a very occasional closer will come along that deserves it, but I really don't think even Sutter should have been in.

99% of closers are failed starters. They have less good pitches, can't get hitters out consistantly (a few times through a line-up), have poor splits, or poor walk rates, control issues, etc.

The voters have decided that great pitchers like Jack Morris or Blyleven aren't worthy. Yet, I have little doubt Morris and Co. would have little problem doing what Sutter, Smith, Rivera, etc. accomplished. I have serious doubts any of those closers could accomplish what Morris or Blyleven have done.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 27, 2006 2:53 PM EST reply actions

Smoltz.

You'd vote for John Smoltz on the first ballot, right?

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 27, 2006 3:41 PM EST up reply actions

Ya, but

he kinda proves my point. He has been a starter for 14/18 seasons. After starting for 12, he transitioned into a closer and was completely dominant...as I'm sure a lot of starting pitchers could be.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 27, 2006 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

BP doesn't like

the Suppan signing...

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5781&PHPSESSID=79f738621bf188b330494ba587d28 695

by RedbirdRay on Dec 27, 2006 3:03 PM EST reply actions

and a very interesting

article at THT defining just what to expect from your back of the rotation pitchers.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

by RedbirdRay on Dec 27, 2006 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Very interesting indeed.

Also provides the not-so-surprising information that the Cards were worse than the NL average at every rotation spot except Carp's.

by nycbirdo on Dec 27, 2006 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

Rose and the Hall

Rose is under a life time ban. So when he passes to the next life the ban will end. He will be in the Hall, but not until after he dies. The last thing I want to see is Pete Rose personally benefitting from his induction. I can see him selling his plague on E-bay.

by nybirdfan on Dec 27, 2006 3:13 PM EST reply actions

Shoeless Joe

I was reading through the posts, waiting until I got done to post just this same thing.

Why couldn't Shoeless Joe Jackson be inducted in to the HOF now? The conditions of his sanctioning are no longer valid and he is definitely deserving of the honor, based on his play on the field.

Oh, the burden of stupid people.

by Solanus on Dec 27, 2006 3:31 PM EST up reply actions

Speaking of 'roids...

I just came across this article. If this happens, and there is a leak of the names, which most likely will happen, there could be quite a few potential HOFers on the list.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/27/D8M9CVDO0.html

by PopUp Rolen on Dec 27, 2006 3:25 PM EST reply actions

I'd almost wager any amount of money on

Roger Clemens being on that list.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 27, 2006 3:51 PM EST up reply actions

Of Course.

If the place is going to elect Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton then Mark McGwire is a shoo-in. Pete Rose should be in but that's another matter entirely.

I'd vote for:

Dale Murphy
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken
Tony Gwynn
Jack Morris
Rich Gossage
Andre Dawson
Bert Blyleven
Jim Rice

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 27, 2006 3:40 PM EST reply actions

we think alike

on the espn poll yesterday that was the exact 9 that i checked as well

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Dec 27, 2006 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

Nice.

I can't believe Jack Morris and Dale Murphy aren't in on the first ballot.

Dale Murphy was hitting for power and average well before the steroid days AND his numbers are in the elite for his era. He averaged 30 HRs and 94 RBIs over 18 seasons along with a career OPS of .815.

The most similar player to Murphy between his age 28 and age 35 seasons?

28 Reggie Jackson (948) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29 Reggie Jackson (944) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30 Reggie Jackson (945) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31 Reggie Jackson (949) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32 Reggie Jackson (950) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33 Reggie Jackson (939) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34 Reggie Jackson (919) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35 Reggie Jackson (917) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/murphda05.shtml

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 27, 2006 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

Donnie Baseball?

Why not Don Mattingly? I never hear outcry about his not being elected, but I am officially outcrying. He was a career .307 hitter and recorded over 1000 runs, 2100 hits and a career .829 OPS. He played only 13 full seasons and was the best Yankee never to win a World Series.Many will disagree vehemently, I think he was one of the top 5 hitters of his era and deserves it.

A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Dec 27, 2006 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

DM

I haven't decided my opinions on Mattingly. I know he was an elite and well respected player and I loved watching him play. His average season was .307/20/100 over 14 seasons. He won an MVP (1985), led the AL in batting (.343 in 1984), and won nine Gold Gloves. I'd lean on voting yes and he'd be my 10th and final choice this year.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 28, 2006 4:22 AM EST up reply actions

I'm so tired of the hypocrisy

of everyone, mostly media, MLB, and fans, surrounding McGwire and the HOF. For years everyone loved the homer and turned their heads away when the subject of steroids were brought up. We were all caught up in '98 and no one thought to question how these players could seemingly homer on command. Now they want to bury these players for it. If they were on steroids in the '90's, we allowed it to happen. We encouraged them -- by doing nothing, by never questioning, by looking the other way -- to cheat and now we have the sanctimony to condemn them for it?

When people like Ty Cobb are brought up, people say "Yes they were bad people, racists, thugs, etc. but they never cheated in the game". What about Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton and the litany of Hall of Famers who used speed, illegally, as a performance enhancing drug? Everyone knew it and we know it today and still, there they are.

If people want to keep McGwire out of the HOF, I'm ok w/ it as long as they also vote against Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Piazza, Thomas, R. Henderson, Sosa, and every other player who might have done steroids during this era. And what about Ripken? Why does no one question how he can play more than 2600 consecutive games during an era where so many were using steroids? Is it not possible? And I'm w/ you Val, how are Bonds and McGwire the devil while the media still anoints Clemens angel status? One word -- hypocrisy! People should deal with this issue honestly -- not just fans but also the media and MLB. MLB's slogan at the time was "Chicks dig the long ball". ESPN and MLB fed the beast and now try to condemn it. Fans act like they are victims. That's laughable. We loved it! The biggest victims are McGwire and Bonds. The feds, b/c they apparently have no one else to prosecute, are trying to prosecute Bonds, not for doing steroids, but for lying about it! Look in the mirror, hypocrite!

by chuckb on Dec 27, 2006 3:52 PM EST reply actions

Mark McGwire took steroids and he has a black

mark for life.

Shawn Merriman took steroids, was suspended, led the NFL in sacks and made the Pro Bowl team. Where is the outcry.

Hypocricy is great.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 27, 2006 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

Great point!

Some are saying he's the NFL Defensive Player of the Year!

That's the other thing, (shame on you hardcore, for getting me re-started), where is all the sanctimony and phony hand-wringing about steroids in the NFL! 60 Minutes did that story a couple of years ago about how many of the Carolina Panthers who played in the Super Bowl were taking steroids or HGH and there was no outrage! We don't care about college and pro football players who take performance enhancing drugs? They aren't cheaters and villains? The NFL has to get up every day and thank God that it's not under the world's microscope the way MLB is!

by chuckb on Dec 27, 2006 4:19 PM EST up reply actions

There are two reasons and two reasons only...

ESPN and SI. If you haven't noticed, both of these tabloids have decreased the size of their baseball reporting crews and increased the size of their NFL crews. I understand why ESPN did it but not why SI participated in this. ESPN has made a great deal of money off the NFL recently and is willing to change its ways to please them(Just look at the show playmakers). As long as they keep the NFL happy, they will be able to continue broadcasting shows like Monday Night Football. Cha-ching.

I find it very deplorable how these two supposedly "Sports-reporting" tabloids have not held the NFL and its players accountable for Merriman, the Carolina Panthers, and every other PED-related story in the NFL that might have been swept under the rug. I also think that our government's special commission on PEDs was very short-sighted in their grilling of the MLB players. How many NFL players did they call up to question?

by elderj on Dec 28, 2006 8:15 AM EST up reply actions

Ricky Williams!

I think that it is hilarious that all these players are taking steroids and HGH and the fact the Williams is suspended for a year for a non-PED. If anything I think that the pot would make him slower. I guess that they are doing all that they can. HA HA HA!

by stl4all on Dec 28, 2006 12:00 PM EST up reply actions

i concur,

as does b. miklasz about a week ago in a column mentioned in an earlier post. it's an excellent read if you haven't yet.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/berniemiklasz/story/2713BF1E7B832BFD862572470 015AE04?OpenDocument

for further evidence: a perusal of this week's sporting news (which features lt as sportsman of the year) reminds us that mac won soty in '97 and shared it with sosa in '98.

let's also remember that he never tested positive, nor admitted using ped's. i'm not for an instant suggesting that he didn't, but bonds and others (palmeiro) have...

by sdesserman on Dec 27, 2006 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Hall of fame cred

I don't have an opinion on the drug question -- let others duke it out. I can't solve the closer problem either. But I have to say what keeps me up more nights as a baseball fan (metaphorically speaking) are the number of position players out there who may well get in -- or have legit stats-based cases to get in -- by virtue of longevity, position, and the general inflation of power. I think of Jeff Kent, say. He hasn't changed the game and the way its story must be told, to invoke Valatan's useful standard. But his Baseball Reference page has his "Hall of Fame Monitor" number at 103. 100 means a "good possibility" of getting in; 130 is a "virtual cinch." (Explanation of how the number's derived: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor)

He'll play a few more years and add to that number. Something about Jeff Kent in the HOF sits wrong with me, and I admit that some of it has to do with personality -- and I can imagine a fan of some other team and with other predilections objecting in the same way to, say, a case being made for our own borderline candidate, Jimmy Edmonds. But for some reason I feel like there are more players these days -- players for whom numbers-based arguments can be mounted -- than there have ever been. Is this my own historical solipsism, or does anybody have a numbers-driven way of thinking about this issue?

by jfs on Dec 27, 2006 3:54 PM EST reply actions

But..

Have you ever seen some of the players that got in a long time ago and were clearly overrated? I hate to say it, but a few old-time Cardinals come to mind.

There really isn't a perfect way of evaluating players. Honestly, I think the Bill James evaluation techniques you linked to where pretty fair. Anything that shows Musial as Top 5 of all time is ok in my book.

by themang on Dec 27, 2006 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

speaking of bill james

i have a book, by bill james, and he talks about those cardinal players you are talking about, and some giant players as well, and he said that the only reason those guys got in was because of frankie frisch

frisch was a leading member of the veterans committee for a very long time, and got in many of his cronies from the cards and giants, it is a good read, the book is called Politics Of Glory,

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Dec 28, 2006 2:29 AM EST up reply actions

On Clemens

What are the allegations (probably better to call them speculations, right?) about Clemens? I haven't heard. Nothing terribly surprising about him retaining his strength as long as he has -- is there? I realize Grimsley said something about him, but... well, who puts much stock in that?

And somebody mentioned Gwynn earlier. Really, fat ol' Tony Gwynn? Seems like he got where he was through freakishly good hand-eye coordination.

The despondent mood the steroid question puts baseball fans in would be a little easier to take if some plausibility were required in suspecting players...

by jfs on Dec 27, 2006 4:09 PM EST reply actions

Just his general size, durability

and that his 2006 hiatus was roughly the same amount of games he would have been suspended for violating the steroids policy.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 27, 2006 4:23 PM EST up reply actions

circumstantial case against clemens

Here is a good article on the circumstantial case against Clemens re: steroid use--
http://baseballistic.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/did-roger-clemens-use-steroids/

by jjray on Dec 27, 2006 6:49 PM EST up reply actions

Big Mac et. al.

I think you have to let these players in, but their legacy of steroid use will follow them. We still talk about Cobb as a jackass, Gaylord Perry as a cheater, among the many other faults -- as much as we recognize the greatness of players in deadball eras. In that regard, we know that their records may be tainted (depending on how you view their tainted competition). No matter what, we will always discuss this era as the steroid era. Yes, players like McGwire and Sosa had (or attemt to continue) hall of fame careers by any statistical measure or intangible impact -- say 20K who showed up just for batting practice.

So I say we celebrate their accomplishments. If we use the simple formula of choosing the most dominate players of any era, McGwire easily, EASILY fits the bill. But we also know that this period brought out a certain ugliness in illegal performance enhancers -- one which we'll judge the era and it's leaders, whether Big Mac is bronzed or not.

by jimstllax on Dec 27, 2006 4:12 PM EST reply actions

Help me with the 25 man roster....

Is this what it looks like:

Opening Day 2007 Roster: (as of 12/27/06)

1B - Albert Pujols
2B - Adam Kennedy
SS - David Eckstein
3B - Scott Rolen
C - Yadier Molina
LF - Chris Duncan
CF - Jim Edmonds
RF - Juan Encarnacion

SP - Chris Carpenter
SP - Kip Wells
SP - Anthony Reyes
SP - Adam Wainwright
SP - Josh Hancock
Closer - Izzy

Bullpen
Josh Kinney
Brad Thompson
Tyler Johnson
Russ Springer
Braden Looper
Randy Flores

Bench
So Taguchi
Scott Spiezio
Gary Bennett
Aaron Miles
John Rodriguez

If so, if the Cardinals were to sign Mulder/Weaver or both, who would be sent down? Assuming Mulder can't go until June, who loses their roster spot to make way for Weaver?

What if the Cards do indeed bring Preston Wilson back to platoon with one of our corner outfielders? Who else gets sent down?

Looking at the bench and bullpen, for defensive reasons: Bennett, Spiezio and Miles have to stay in the big leagues. Rodriguez would more than likely stay, as the only true lefty bat, unless TLR has confidence in Miles/Spiezio to be his go to lefty swap guys. I can't imagine Taguchi being shuttled back and forth between Memphis and St. Louis.

With that starting rotation, we are going to need every one of those arms out of the pen.

Someone help me sort this thing out if we make any other roster moves.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 27, 2006 4:39 PM EST reply actions

Jrod...

is redundant with Duncan and Speez on the roster. He'd be the first to go. I don't even think he'll make the roster out of Florida.

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 27, 2006 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

I think he'd be traded for a AA middle reliever or something if everyone's healthy. Don't forget about Rincon also. Something's gotta give.

by chuckb on Dec 27, 2006 5:37 PM EST up reply actions

Agree on JRod

I think he's the lefty-bat-odd-man-out. Too bad, I like JRod. I think we'd be better served with a bat from the right side...especially one that can sub several positions = Eli.

Out of the pen, I think Hancock is the odd man out.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 27, 2006 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

I like So Taguchi...

...but certainly recognize his defensive shortcomings and lack of anything consistent with his bat.

If he had retired, JRod would more than likely take his spot.

It's frustrating to see John not get a chance to be an everyday Cardinal. Of course, there are only 8 positions for him on the field and all are filled.

I agree with the idea that he'll probably be first to go.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 27, 2006 6:26 PM EST up reply actions

I think you also have to include

Ricardo Rincon in the bullpen mix.

and I may be wrong, but I believe TLR and WJ have all but ruled out Hancock from challenging for a starter position...

2006 World Champs! Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

by BozCardsFanSF on Dec 27, 2006 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

I was basing Hancock

after rewatching the Cardinals 9/25 game in which he was one of the options as the 3rd starter for the Cards.

Am I to believe that if the Cardinals do not sign another starting pitcher, Looper really will win the fifth starters spot by default?

Yikes!

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 27, 2006 6:27 PM EST up reply actions

I would tend to agree with you

Looper doesn't make sense to me, especially when compared to Thompson or Hancock. But I thought the "Standing Pat" article in the Post-Dispatch mentioned that Hancock was bullpen only.

But I can't help but feel the whole Looper as a starter story is a ruse.

2006 World Champs! Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

by BozCardsFanSF on Dec 27, 2006 7:21 PM EST up reply actions

wait

Is Narveson no longer an option?

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Dec 28, 2006 12:34 AM EST up reply actions

Navi

is in the mix too! From reading this blog I have heard he is out of options. I fear he is too good to clear wavers. So either we make room for him or lose him. I hope that Weaver and Mulder both are signed. Then the extra realief pitching can be traded. Hopefully we can pick up outfield help. Maybe the we could get a prospect position player or two.

by nybirdfan on Dec 27, 2006 9:59 PM EST up reply actions

Steroids/HOF

My only fear regarding the whole steroids/HOF thing is that guys like McGwire and Sosa won't get in because it's assumed that they definitely used steroids while a dozen other players get in without any legitimate criticism. I mean, can anyone prove to me that Jeff Bagwell or Roger Clemens didn't use steroids anymore than they can prove that McGwire did?

Furthermore, what are the odds that McGwire gets left out but Bonds gets in based on the logic that Bonds was 'really, really good'?

by Fitz on Dec 27, 2006 5:15 PM EST reply actions

Good post,

but I disagree with your "story of baseball" criterion. If we let in anyone who had a part to play in the grand scheme of baseball history, then we'd immediately have to let in Roger Maris and Curt Flood for example. Hell, a good argument could be made even for Mark Fidrych. The "story of baseball" credential might have some role to play, but I wouldn't call it necessary and certainly not sufficient to induct a player into the Hall.

by Tudor 85 on Dec 27, 2006 6:09 PM EST reply actions

Couldn't agree more

"Can you tell the story of baseball without mentioning this player?" is not, nor has it ever been, a criterion for election to the Hall of Fame. I mean, you can't tell the story of baseball without mentioning Cap Anson -- because he was one of the leading forces in establishing the color line -- but I think that's an argument for his EXCLUSION from the Hall.

In the next post, BozCardsFanSF mentions Rob Neyer's recent article over at ESPN.com. It's a poorly written piece (too much egg nog, maybe?), but his central point is very intelligent. The institution in Cooperstown is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame AND MUSEUM. The museum is the part where you tell the story of baseball; McGwire is already part of that, and always will be. The Hall of Fame part is where you honor the most exemplary players in the game. I'm not sure how I feel about Big Mac being included there -- I lean toward no -- but in all honesty I'd put Kent Bottenfield in the Hall before Joe Jackson.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 27, 2006 9:10 PM EST up reply actions

BTW, to clarify...

I was referring to Neyer's article -- and not BozCardsFanSF's post -- when I said it was poorly written.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 27, 2006 9:12 PM EST up reply actions

Story of baseball

Rob Neyer wrote a column about this very recently (today?). His argument was put the story of baseball in the museum, the Hall is essentially the Hall of Greatness.

2006 World Champs! Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

by BozCardsFanSF on Dec 27, 2006 6:12 PM EST reply actions

Craig Wilson

I don't get why the cards where so hot after the guy last yr(at least thought to be rumored on more than one occasion) now don't make any offers to him? Is he only worth giving prospects for?

I still think hes worth a bench shot as well as huff, Shannon stewart etc...at least we know stewart can play D

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Dec 27, 2006 8:19 PM EST reply actions

I believe

Albert was on the DL. That made a bit of a differance. Now what we need is defensive help in the outfield.

by nybirdfan on Dec 27, 2006 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

good point, then y not

Stewart? his o numbers when healthy simialr to JUan e, but he has more speed and can play better D. Id take a gamble on him.

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Dec 27, 2006 10:55 PM EST up reply actions

i believe

i believe i read an article a few days ago that stewart had a bad foot and may be limited to dh duties this year, sorry dont have a link

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Dec 28, 2006 2:13 AM EST up reply actions

Clemens

The case against Clemens is the nothing near the case against Sosa. When they started testing for 'roids Sosa's career went down the tubes and he wasn't even that old compared to other players who have retained their skills. Clemens meanwhile got "better" after they started testing for 'roids. He's been dominant his entire career. In NY, he wasn't quite as good, but a switch to the NL and only having to pitch 5 or 6 innings each time out made his numbers better. As for the "secret suspension" why would MLB give him special treatment over someone like Rafael Palmerio? There is no real case against Clemens. People are just trying to get dirt on an aging pitcher who continues to pitch well. Do you think Nolan Ryan was on 'roids? He pitched til he was 46.

"The right-hander is throwing up in the bullpen." -Mike Shannon

by DJ87 on Dec 27, 2006 9:07 PM EST reply actions

Re: Clemens

The thing about the Clemens steroids thing is that it has a neat dynamic to it. It's like "Prove that McGwire did...Prove that Clemens didn't."

There's no real reason to ASSUME that Clemens did steroids, but up until the Jose Canseco book there was no real reason to ASSUME that Big Mac did either.

That's whats so ridiculous about the whole thing with the steroids and the HOF. They love taking a moral stand against McGwire and Sosa based on speculation, but the same voters are just as happy to assume that Gwynn and Ripken OBVIOUSLY didn't use steroids. After all, no one did steroids unless Jose Canseco named you.

by Fitz on Dec 27, 2006 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

OT

Can't find if somebody already posted this, but Zito just signed with the Giants for SEVEN YEARS and OVER 120 MILLION. Wow.

by rockin redbird on Dec 28, 2006 1:44 PM EST reply actions

Steroids or not,

I see Mark McGwire as marginal at best as a hall of fame candidate. His game was one dimensional, and as glorious as that one dimension was, it does not push him into a category of one of the greatest of all time. Home runs are truly wonderful things, but that really was all he could do. I'll give him credit for being a good fielding first baseman, but he was not the best of his era. Okay, go ahead and hit me....

by jillsinmo on Dec 30, 2006 12:12 PM EST reply actions

Not really true

McGwire was not one-dimensional. He walked at a tremendous rate, which gave him a career on-base percentage higher than Rod Carew or Joe Morgan. Two-dimensional maybe (b/c, you're right, he couldn't field much and he was a poor baserunner). But a batter has two jobs -- reach base, and move up runners. McGwire was a Hall of Famer by both standards.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Dec 30, 2006 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

Hardly.

You threw the best punch at yourself when you claimed McGwire was a one dimensional player. I couldn't disagree more and ANY meaningful batter metric (OBP, runs created, walks, etc.) will back me up.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Dec 30, 2006 5:10 PM EST up reply actions