Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,547 comments Add your comment
David O'Brien
January 9th, 2013
3:29 pm
Great points by Jeff R. at 3:12 p.m.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
3:30 pm
Rtot/yr — Total Zone Total Fielding Runs Above Avg per 1,200 Inn. The number of runs above or below average the fielder was worth per 1,200 Innings (approx 135 games). This number combines the Rtz, Rdp, Rof, Rcatch numbers into a total defensive contribution. Provided by BaseballProjection.com…old man
I’ll take +/- every time.. the ratings usually correspond pretty closely to what many scouts opine
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
3:33 pm
The writers messed up on not electing Morris and Biggio.
Biggio will get there as for Morris, he will be hurt by the sabermetric evaluators.
Its all about power pitching this day in time. The new fangled way of evaluating pitchers helped Bert Blyleven, hurt Jack Morris.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
3:33 pm
I’ll take Upton over Bourn every day and twice on Sunday and I don’t care what the saber metric numbers are…Dadgum
if you mean defensively, then you are in a nationwide minority of one
Shaun
January 9th, 2013
3:33 pm
Never has there been a more uneven playing field since the game was integrated than the one during the Steroid Era.
You have to understand how much steroids changed the game. In the rush to dismiss them, people have thrown out awkward analogies about petroleum jelly, sandpaper, cork, tacks, diet pills from the ’70s, etc. under the catchall category of “cheating.” Stop it. You know what steroids are like? Steroids. Nothing else rises to the level of steroids when it comes to anabolically changing the body so that it can do far more than it ever could do without them. Steroids took hold because they take a player well beyond his natural ability. Caminiti said he felt like “Superman” with steroids; they even improved his speed.
So essentially some cheating is okay, some is not.
I disagree that steroids did more than other things that the voters have never considered much to create an uneven playing field. Maybe as much as some of those other things, but not more.
I would say gambling was much worse, in terms of compromising the game. But much of that was completely swept under the rug because Judge Landis gave harsh punishments to the eight Black Sox, and to his credit, he made sure that no other player would gamble again. But the problem was far more expansive than many fans realize.
Collusion was just as bad, but that was from management side so it doesn’t really come in to play with Hall of Fame voting for players.
I don’t think it’s all that clear how expansive amphetamine use was. There is some indication that it was as widespread as steroid use, if not more so. Even if you don’t think that form of cheating is as bad as steroid use, the indication is that is was going on enough that it shouldn’t be ignored if you are going to choose to apply the character clause to steroid use.
I think some are underestimating how impure the game has been throughout its history, a reason historian types should probably have more of a say in the Hall of Fame voting process rather than reporters and writers, some of which haven’t covered baseball in years, if not decades. I think plenty of voters are ignorant of these impurities in the game beyond steroid use, which is understandable, because it’s not their job to know the history of the game, in and out. Of course the impurity that is going to stand out is the one that got and continues to get the most media attention while they are/were covering the game.
David O'Brien
January 9th, 2013
3:36 pm
There are plenty of things in baseball’s past that were as bad or far worse than steroid use by players, as far as compromising the game’s integrity, fairness and bastardized the game, things that were/are never considered in Hall of Fame voting.
Some writers are more bothered by steroids because it a) makes them look moral and b) it means they can’t just mindlessly look at stats, but they have to consider stats and context and actually have to think through the stats and what’s behind them. — Shaun
That, or they’re smart enough to know that having your head size go from 7-1/4 to 8-plus and slugging .812 with a 1.422 OPS at age 39 is preposterous, and that players shouldn’t be honored for knowingly cheated by pumping their bodies full of illegal steroids and putting on 30-40 pounds of muscle mass while increasing their workout potential and reducing the recovery period between workouts.
I mean, this isn’t the NFL. This is a sport that cares about its statistics and would prefer those stats not be rendered meaningless by performance enhancing drug-fueled, age-defying hitting and pitching machines.
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
3:36 pm
Bagwell should get in the HOF in time also — hope Biggio and Bawell do not have to wait too long.
Tod bad about Murphy — he never really got serious consideration, he was two more good years away from HOF. That would have added another 70 or so HRS and 210 more RBI’s. That might have been enough.
His later yrs dropped the career BA. A great career that the writers threw in the trashbin. Elitist jerks, that is what they are.
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 9th, 2013
3:37 pm
if you mean defensively, then you are in a nationwide minority of one
And over the next 2 years, offensively too.
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
3:41 pm
Hey, the writers messed up on Gil Hodges, so Murphy is not the first guy who got scewed.
Hey, look how long it took justice to be done for Ron Santo — whom I thought was a slightly better overall player than Brooks Robinson — he never got to enjoy it in his lifetime.
Santo was a better offensive player than BR and was the GG standard in the National League in that era.
BR was a great player who was deserving — but Santo deserved the honor in his lifetime.
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
3:45 pm
Gambling and steriods — One was as bad for the game as the other.
The powers that be were asleep at the wheel in the 1990’s so though its on the individuals who used the stuff I blame the powers that be that let it happen just as much.
I hope Buddy Selig never gets in the HOF, the steroid era is as much on him as anyone who used– he could not have known what was going on.
It was allowed to happen till they had to change.
abeeeewright
January 9th, 2013
3:46 pm
Verducci … “Caminiti said he felt like “Superman” with steroids; they even improved his speed.”
And we all know that Caminiti was no p***y. Right, Murph?
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
3:47 pm
Correction — Selig could not have not known what was going on.
Rest assured that a commissioner like Bowie Kuhn would have got his nose to the grind and got to the bottom of it faster than whatever.
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
3:48 pm
Caminitti got away with nothing — was his own undoing.
abeeeewright
January 9th, 2013
3:51 pm
nolie … “if you mean defensively, then you [Dadgum] are in a nationwide minority of one”
Could the Braves put a “Screaming Dadgum” on their caps?
single white dove
January 9th, 2013
3:51 pm
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE WRITERS THAT DID NOT VOTE IN THE MURPH IN THE HALL: YOU YANKEE SCUM! YOU YANKS HAVE MORE HATE FOR THE SOUTH THAN ANYTHING IVE SEEN.
tony austin
January 9th, 2013
3:52 pm
I understand a little about the HOF voting process, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand how a player can get so much better, while he’s retired, that he makes the HOF on his second try, or third try, and so on. If he’s good enough to make it then, he’s good enough to make it now. The voting process needs to be completely overhauled in my opinion.
Shaun
January 9th, 2013
3:52 pm
TennesseePaul and DOB, I’m not saying I care. I think I have a pretty good idea of who the best players are, or at least can find out. I don’t need a group of voters to sanctify those players. I know Tim Raines was better than Jim Rice, for example. I’m just expressing my thoughts on why the Hall of Fame and the voting process is the way it is.
There were PEDs in the game even before steroids. So that justifies steroid (mis)use?
No one is saying steroid use is justified. We are saying PED use is PED use, cheating is cheating. Some are bothered by the inconsistency there. If you are going to brush aside one form of cheating, don’t suddenly be unwilling to accept other forms.
2) Other types of cheating, besides PED use, has largely been ignored if not charming to plenty of voters. Be more specific on your “charming” accusation. And because other types of cheating have been ignored means that steroid cheating should be given a pass?
Gaylord Perry doctored baseballs. The voters eat that up and find it charming.
3) Gambling definitely “bastardized baseball, eroded the implicit fairness of it and disadvantaged those who chose to play fairly.” But there are plenty of Hall of Famers who consorted with gamblers, knew gambling was going on and chose to do nothing. That makes what they did right? And because some bad apples got into the Hall that means others should be permitted in?
It goes back to the issue of inconsistently applying the character clause.
4) Not standing up against rascism also “bastardized baseball, eroded the implicit fairness of it and disadvantaged those who [wanted] to play fairly” (namely the best black players who wanted their chance). Different times, different context, but in, I believe, 1948 the Brooklyn Dodgers took a giant step in ending racial discrimination in the majors by bringing up Jackie Robinson. That’s a huge breakthrough and shouldn’t be downplayed. Major League Baseball helped pioneer the end of racial discrimination in America.
Agreed. The point was about the players (and owners, execs, etc.) who did nothing to stop racism and in fact help advance the institutional racism that existed in baseball prior to Jackie Robinson. Again, inconsistencies in applying the character clause.
I understand you can’t go back and apply the character clause to kick people out of the Hall of Fame. My point is the character clause has never mattered until the steroid era players. So I take the Hall of Fame less serious when there is a clause that the voters ignore until it is inconvenient for them to ignore. How can you take an institution serious when they don’t understand how to apply their own criteria consistently?
I’ll just do my own research in to which players were the best and how good they were, and I hope others do the same, rather than relying on a group that doesn’t know whether they should or shouldn’t apply a clause that’s in their voting criteria.
single white dove
January 9th, 2013
3:53 pm
Jim Rice did not have steller numbers and he is in.
Cliff Fiscal
January 9th, 2013
3:55 pm
Interesting how a non-vote for Murphy for the HOF can be equated with the deepest hate for the South ever seen.
DAP
January 9th, 2013
3:56 pm
yuuup Upton makes 8-9 million next year, then 10 million the following 2 years. It said the Braves can squeeze that into the payroll if need be.
upton is set to make $9.75 mil in 2013, plus he would cost a number of good players in a trade. thats quite a bit more than $8mil.
Utah Dawg
January 9th, 2013
3:57 pm
I now want any piece of clothing with that logo..super cool retro. I am sorry but is there any attempt to disparage the native american. It more glorifies a warrior image from the long ago past. Tell you what, we will remove any reference to native americans from sports in exchange for elimination of native american gaming …because I find gambling offensive and much more damaging to the human spirit than violations of your PC codes.
flange1
January 9th, 2013
3:57 pm
It is hard for me to get upset about the HOF voting. Or MVP voting. Or Silver Slugger voting. OR Gold Glove voting.
As long as there are no specific standards for voting any of these “awards”, voters are going to use there own standards to make the selection.
While I think most voters do try their best to get their votes right, bottom line is all of these “selections” are totally subjective.
In my mind the conversation needs to be more about how to improve the process as opposed to the results.
Cliff Fiscal
January 9th, 2013
3:58 pm
Shaun – I’ll just do my own research in to which players were the best and how good they were, and I hope others do the same, rather than relying on a group that doesn’t know whether they should or shouldn’t apply a clause that’s in their voting criteria.
This all sounds very subjective.
flange1
January 9th, 2013
3:59 pm
Oh, so now players could have stopped racism?
That is one of your best lines ever…..
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:00 pm
Biggio, Bags and Piazza will all get in, I’m fairly certain….DOB
yeah me too, though I think Biggio and Bags should have gotten in this year. This possibly sets up the beginnings of a HOF backlog situation over the next half dozen years or so
Shaun
January 9th, 2013
4:03 pm
That, or they’re smart enough to know that having a head-size go from 7-1/4 to 8-plus and slugging .812 with a 1.422 OPS at age 39 is preposterous, and that players shouldn’t be honored for knowingly cheated by pumping their bodies full of illegal steroids and putting on 30-40 pounds of muscle mass while increasing their workout potential and reducing the recovery period between workouts.
Bonds was still one of the top 20-30 players of all-time, whether he would have used steroids or not. Whether someone is a top player has been pretty much the only criteria for Hall of Fame enshrinement, except of a handful of players who consorted with gamblers (not all) who are not even allowed to be considered.
Should he be honored? Well, the Hall and the voters already decided to honor players who did things as “preposterous” or more so, or maybe less so but still “preposterous.”
I can take it seriously if the voters keep a guy out because they believe he wouldn’t have been a Hall of Famer without PED’s. I can’t take the Hall seriously if the voters are going to decide that certain preposterous acts, which may not actually be any more preposterous than others, are alone enough to keep a player out.
Cliff Fiscal
January 9th, 2013
4:03 pm
How much one wants to factor in or out the impact of steroids seems wholly subjective.
Murph
January 9th, 2013
4:03 pm
Poor Shaun. He’s the only one who gets it. Must be a tough way to go through life.
beekay
January 9th, 2013
4:03 pm
Yuup, I hope we can get one of those guys. I think we are really close to having a Championship team this year. Here in DC they think the Nationals have already won the division….not so fast I say
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:03 pm
Upton makes 8-9 million next year, then 10 million the following 2 years….yuuup
Justin? no he does not. he makes almost 10mil in ‘13 and over 14mil the next two years
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
4:06 pm
Jim Rice did have the .298 career BA and .352 OBP — along with 382 HRS and 1451 RBI.
Had 8 100 RBI yrs — had a tremendous stretch of dominance from 77 to 79 and a dominant yr in 1983. One MVP award.
And he pretty much did an el foldo after his age 33 season
His nomination was deserving.
Murphy was deserving for his complete body of work but that el foldo from age 32 on did it to him as far as HOF. In essence, he was done after 91 at age 35. He played sparingly in his age 36 and 37 yrs.
If only he had two more good yrs. You would be looking at the high 400’s of HRS and close to 1500 RBI’s. 1500 RBI’s is another number that is not thought of but nearly all of the 1500 RBI club is in
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:06 pm
this blog is working pretty good for me so far today, I hope I’m not jinxing it
perhaps all those quotes from irate bloggers I sent in to the feedback address the last 4 days got something going?
Hope it keeps doing well. I know that today is a small sample size…..
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
4:10 pm
My thinking is that Jack Morris will come up short.
Guess good old fashoned wins and finishing what you start is out of style this day in time.
Looking at his whole body of work, the post season added to everything he did do should have put him over the top but guess its going to be coulda woulda shoulda for him as far as the HOF goes.
As said before, the sabermetrics of today will hurt him. It hepled Bert Blyleven cause of the strikeouts and shutouts, it will not help Morris
TennesseePaul
January 9th, 2013
4:11 pm
don’t suddenly be unwilling to accept other forms.
How sudden do you suppose baseball moves? Are these voters who voted in the “cheaters” from the 19th century still around, and “suddenly” voting with the exact opposite opinion? I’d think after 70 years, the term “sudden” is a bit of a stretch.
2:47pm: Starting at the end of last year’s vote, I’ve never cared less about the Hall of Fame than I have since then
3:52pm I’m not saying I care
You seem to be putting an awful lot of effort into something you have twice, in under 1 hour and 15 minutes, professed to not care about.
I don’t care about Brittney Spears. I care so little, in fact, that I have not commented on her until now in the decade I have been on this blog.
Murph
January 9th, 2013
4:11 pm
Bonds was still one of the top 20-30 players of all-time, whether he would have used steroids or not.
OJ was a great football player… do you think he’d get elected to any HoF if he came up for a vote today?
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:13 pm
Shaun – Steroids affected performance far more than things like amphetamines. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Of course, you are wrong about Gaylord Perry…he had trouble getting in, and many writers refused to vote for him, even with 300+ wins and Cy Younbg awards in both leagues. I don’t recall anyone saying it was charming. BTW, he was only thrown out of one game because of suspicion of doctoring the ball (late in his career). You are obviously too young to know, and too lazy to do the homework.
“Consorting with” and knowing gamblers is hardly the same as ACTUALLY gambling, especially gambling on the game. As EVERY baseball player knows, and is constantly reminded (including Pete Rose) Gambling on baseball is THE ONE THING which draws the “death sentence” in MLB…because it directly goes to the integrity of the game. BTW, is Pete Rose in, and I didn’t hear about it?
Racism is inexcusable, and dispicable. However, the players of the preintegration days should, at least, be judged considering the times in which they were playing. I am old enough to know how much opinions have changed since then concerning racism….doesn’t make it right, but is a mitigating factor. (i.e., Raleigh department stores had seperate bathrooms and drinking fountains in the 50’s…no one would even consider such a thing now).
jfp
January 9th, 2013
4:13 pm
Shaun was playing well until you guys gave him a reason to argue. We all know how that ends. At least he’s not like Dentz. We don’t have to worry about arms coteol after a conversation with Shaun, just that it will be lengthy.
DAP
January 9th, 2013
4:16 pm
dale murphy compares favorably to hall of famers andre dawson and jim rice, and ill never understand why he didnt get voted in. not based on the character clause, either. based on his numbers, compared to those two. could it be a racial thing? or maybe because of where they played?
jfp
January 9th, 2013
4:17 pm
nolie, agreed about the blog working better, I’ve been able to post from my phone and that rarely happens
beekay
January 9th, 2013
4:18 pm
We need more Dale Murphy’s, Tim Tebow’s, and RG3’s in the sports world. Class acts that our children can look up to.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:18 pm
cheating is cheating, it is not any worse because one guy cheats better than another, it is the same thing. If there had been PEDS available easily in the 60s and 70s, the guys using speed would mostly have used PEDS.
as for how much it influenced results, the consensus is that most cheated therefor leveling the field at least some. pitchers did it too, not just hitters
Ithink at some point another decade down the road some of these guys like Bonds and Clemens will get in
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:20 pm
Easy to say “cheating is cheating”…especially in (Shaun’s) “black and white” world. There are always gray areas and degrees. Everyone makes their own judgement.
Do you break the speed limit?
Do you park in a no parking zone?
Do you tell 100% truth on your tax return?
Every stolen? Ever lied?
Ever kill anyone?….what if it was in an act of war?
Are current baseball cheaters better than, worse than, or equal to past “cheaters? judgement call.
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
4:22 pm
Dale Murphy was hurt by his fall off after 1987 — there is no other reaonable explanation.
It dropped his batting average and OBP. After 87, he had a career avg of .279. The drop off dropped it by 14 points. And that was pretty much in a 4 yr stretch from 88 to 91 — don’t bother counting 92 and 93 when he hardly played.
Not sure what the OBP was up to 87.
That he did not get many chances in post season hurt too. Though as for where he played — he was on the National network nationwide during his prime so the exposure was there.
Disgusted
January 9th, 2013
4:24 pm
We need more Dale Murphy’s, Tim Tebow’s, and RG3’s in the sports world. Class acts that our children can look up to.
I agree with Murph and RG III. I sure hope RG III gets healthy and right for next yr.
I wish Tebow was a better player. But you are right about them being class acts.
jfp
January 9th, 2013
4:24 pm
Bonds and Clemens probably should get in, but they should and will have to wait.
DS1
January 9th, 2013
4:24 pm
I think if Murph would have hung em up 2 years earlier, he’d have made it into the Hall. Both Dawson and Rice had 2-3 declining years, but not to the degree of Murphy’s numbers.
Too bad, as if I were going to start a team with a 25 year old Murph, Rice or Dawson; I’d hand’s down choose Murph. Much better all around player.
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:24 pm
Bonds and Clemens are different than most of the others for this reason…they both would have been in the HOF without the cheating. Doesn’t mean that they should…or shouldn’t get in. Just adds another wrinkle. I probably wouldn’t vote for either, but then I never liked them much. That influences my opinion somewhat.
RC
January 9th, 2013
4:26 pm
OJ was a great football player… do you think he’d get elected to any HoF if he came up for a vote today?
Probably. He didn’t cheat “between the lines” (or something like that)
I’ve really got one question at this point: Do they still have a ceremony? I’ve got to think that the living HOF members who travel to the induction each year kind of enjoy it, and it’s a great time to catch up with their old contemporaries. With no inductees, will they just have a HOF weekend with none of the other stuff? Or do those old guys have to spend the weekend at home with nothing to do? What about all the hotel rooms and flights that now have to be cancelled? Stinks for the city of Cooperstown, since I’m sure a major part of their economy is based around that weekend.
(I realize that was like 10 questions, but they all derive from the original)
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:26 pm
crimes are not the same as cheating, og course there is hierarchy of crimes , but the moral stand is about cheating. Having seen what went on in baseball in the 70s and 80s with what was then available, the onliest difference is that what they used was not yet as effective, and if better drugs were available they would have been used. just plain human nature.
DS1
January 9th, 2013
4:30 pm
nolie
I’d love to think that if I were a talented athlete, I would have had the courage to not cheat. But I can’t say for a certainty that if put in that situation I’d have done the same as many players.
Narrow is the path, and straight is the way, of which few of us can navigate! We all be sinners in some way or another!
Cliff Fiscal
January 9th, 2013
4:33 pm
nolie -cheating is cheating, it is not any worse because one guy cheats better than another, it is the same thing.
This makes sense. However, while the intent is the same, it appears that one form of cheating (PEDS) arguably might have led to crazier stat lines from the players than other forms (amphetamines, etc.). I mean, consider all of the 60+ home run seasons before the 1998 season verses after. By way of an imperfect analogy, one receives a stiffer sentence if they intend to murder and carry it out verses someone who attempts murder but somehow fails. Same intent, different results, different penalties.
My post is either food for thought or mindless drivel. You decide.
RC
January 9th, 2013
4:33 pm
Bonds and Clemens probably should get in, but they should and will have to wait.
I honestly can see either side of the argument, whether you think they should or shouldn’t get in. But I fail to see any logic in the “make them wait” stance. To me someone either is a HOF player or they aren’t. Period. By the time they come up for election, their playing careers have been over for 5 years, and they aren’t adding to or subtracting from their on-field accomplishments. I guess the argument would be that you are “punishing” a player by not letting them in right away, but aside from being petty, that takes away from the value of the Hall itself. If the player’s accomplishments mean he deserves to be in, put him in. If they don’t, keep him out. Pretty simple. (Admittedly, the standards by which voters can measure accomplishments vary wildly, but that’s a separate argument that doesn’t need to be addressed for my point.)
Jeff R
January 9th, 2013
4:34 pm
Shaun, you expect consistency in a world full of inconsistencies? Ain’t happening in this life. But that doesn’t mean we stop striving to do the right and just thing.
As a Texas highway patrol officer once told me in response to why I was pulled over when other drivers were exceeding the speed limit worse than I: “You’re the one that got caught, son.”
Jeff R
January 9th, 2013
4:37 pm
I can take it seriously if the voters keep a guy out because they believe he wouldn’t have been a Hall of Famer without PED’s. I can’t take the Hall seriously if the voters are going to decide that certain preposterous acts, which may not actually be any more preposterous than others, are alone enough to keep a player out.
See my 4:34 pm comments, Shaun.
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:38 pm
jfp – Never understood about making someone wait. If deserv to get in, they always deserve to get in. If not, then no.
TennesseePaul
January 9th, 2013
4:40 pm
But I fail to see any logic in the “make them wait” stance. To me someone either is a HOF player or they aren’t. Period.
From my understanding, the ballot try a player makes, holds significance with the players. First ballot players are an elite group within an elite group and so on. So, the “make them wait” makes sense to me if take issue with the PED but still think they should be in the hall.
TennBravesFan
January 9th, 2013
4:42 pm
I was looking over the HOF final ballot and the votes that the players received, and it really amazes me. The reason is that I have watched lots of baseball, and feel that I am a fairly good evaluator of talent. At no point in my life, of watching as much baseball as I possibly can, did I ever think that Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammel, Tim Raines, or Curt Schilling would receive more HOF votes on the same ballot than Dale Murphy. I know with at least the pitchers its like comparing apples to oranges, but in my opinion none of those men left a legacy among baseball’s youth like Murphy did.
Murph
January 9th, 2013
4:43 pm
jfp – Never understood about making someone wait. If deserv to get in, they always deserve to get in. If not, then no.
Yeah, the idea of appearing on a ballot 15 times seems crazy. Even Bob Dole and Al Gore eventually got the hint that they’d never get elected and stopped running.
RC
January 9th, 2013
4:43 pm
This makes sense. However, while the intent is the same, it appears that one form of cheating (PEDS) arguably might have led to crazier stat lines from the players than other forms (amphetamines, etc.). I mean, consider all of the 60+ home run seasons before the 1998 season verses after.
I don’t know if it led to “crazier” stat lines, maybe just more noticeable. Look at some of the SB totals from the 70’s and 80’s. Nobody comes close to those today. It could just be changes in the way the game was played.
Another interesting idea is that baseballs from the mid-90’s were actually constructed differently than they had been previously, making them “juiced” so the speak. There is tons of research on this on the internet, some which is “conclusive” in saying they were, some which is “conclusive” in saying they weren’t. The answer probably lies somewhere in between, but it is worth noting that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Here’s one of the articles about the possibility of “juiced” balls that I found interesting:
http://deadspin.com/5937432/was-mlbs-juiced-era-actually-a-juiced+ball-era
Murph
January 9th, 2013
4:48 pm
I don’t know if it led to “crazier” stat lines, maybe just more noticeable. Look at some of the SB totals from the 70’s and 80’s. Nobody comes close to those today.
I think “speed” is just the street name… I don’t think it actually increases your physical velocity when running.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:48 pm
much “cheating” has actually been sanctioned by MLB to some extent, including the juiced ball era which certainly led to altered stats too, and they jumped on the Sosa/Mac bandwagon and hyped it all to hell, and there is no way that many in baseball officialdom were unaware of PEDS use
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:50 pm
nolie – Crimes are not the same a s cheating. Fair enough. And cheating is cheating. Maybe fair enough. Again, everyone must decide for themselves what the guideline is.
Is one “indiscretion” equal to many? Could be. The results may vary.
If a WW II soldier celebrates “too much” in Paris after a lengthy time in combat, and in the excitement of the liberation…well, is that the same as the guy who goes out looking for someone to cheat on his wife with?
Many examples can be made. Cheating is always wrong. Are there degrees…or at least, mitigating circumstances? Tough to say.
Bay Area Steve
January 9th, 2013
4:50 pm
No dog in the fight, but I don’t think whether players of yesteryear would’ve used (and I agree they would’ve) has any bearing on whether those who did should get in the HOF.
tom devine
January 9th, 2013
4:51 pm
Morse just became available at Nats. Would be great addition to left field.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:51 pm
it certainly increases your rteaction time which is a great deal of what baseball is all about Murph. It gives you a surge of energy and boosts your confidence which is another big part of playing well.
but sure PEDS are better, thus the reason the players switched to them when they became available
kinda like that day in the 60s when your pot supplier suddenly showed up with sugar cubes……
Puma
January 9th, 2013
4:52 pm
I think Jeff R’s points make sense – if you are looking for consistency or a standard to measure all players, its not going to happen, nor can it happen. Its a flawed process, but also the only one that makes sense.
There are a lot of different opinions on what it takes to get into HOF and they are as polarizing as anything in politics. That’s why having a widespread vote makes the most sense, at least then the guys that do get it get in by a consensus, whether they are cheaters or not, and whether that cheating gave them HOF worthy stats or not.
With that said, how the hell did Biggio not get in?
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:54 pm
except that there are already a bunch of those users in the Hall Steve, seems unfair to all of a sudden say no more, especially considering the way that baseball behaved the first years of its extended use. They made millions of extra dollars prolly because of it
RC
January 9th, 2013
4:55 pm
Morse just became available at Nats. Would be great addition to left field.
And the Nats know that. Which is why they’d rather trade him to a team that isn’t their top competition in the division.
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:55 pm
nolie – No question, at least in my mind, that Selig and his cronies ignored the PED problem, and reveled in the resulting home run derby. I will never have any respect for him.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
4:55 pm
With that said, how the hell did Biggio not get in?…puma
absofreakinlutely no idea
RC
January 9th, 2013
4:57 pm
nolie – No question, at least in my mind, that Selig and his cronies ignored the PED problem, and reveled in the resulting home run derby. I will never have any respect for him.
I’ll respect them as soon as they give us all back our money for tickets bought during those “tainted” seasons
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
4:59 pm
Bottom line is, voters use their own subjective opinions, when deciding who to vote in…And we each use our own subjective opinions, when judging those choices. Only alternative is to (God forbid) just start using advanced metrics to make the choices. I pray that day never comes.
raleighbravefan
January 9th, 2013
5:01 pm
No rational explaination for snubbing Biggio. Period.
RC
January 9th, 2013
5:06 pm
With that said, how the hell did Biggio not get in?…puma
That’s simple. He used magic to boost his numbers. While magic isn’t explicitly prohibited by the rules, it certainly goes against the spirit of the game. He took playing time from more deserving players who weren’t born to leprechaun parents and granted the gift of eternal boyhood by their fairy godmothers. There’s not other logical explanation. I mean, look at a picture of Biggio from 20 years ago, and look at a picture of him now. His head hasn’t grown AT ALL! He still wears a size 4 3/4 hat! All of us put on a few extra pounds as we age, add a few wrinkles, pick up a grey hair here and there. Biggio still looks like he’s getting ready to go pick up his date for the prom. No way is that natural. And since science has yet to unlock the secrets of aging, magic is the only answer.
njbraves
January 9th, 2013
5:07 pm
Biggio is a classic example of a compiler. How many legit HOF seasons did he have? I’m sure he’ll eventually get in, and that’s fine, but I don’t feel he was one of the greatest baseball players of all time.
kenhotlanta
January 9th, 2013
5:10 pm
raleighbravefan: Rich’s Department store in downtown ATL had separate bathrooms and water fountains until the mid 60’s and separate eating areas and employee breakrooms until 1968. And prolly many other stores and businesses, too, FWIW.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
5:12 pm
I think we might have seen the fact that a certain number of voters just did not quite see Biggio as a first ballot HOFer. kinda like Larkin, after a coupla years he get in with a pretty big margin, same likely for Biggio I guess. Most prolly see him as a HOFer, but some do not want to proclaim him as a member of that “elite of the elite” group mentioned above
what this migh do though ans reach across time and slow some other desering players getting in. we are beginning a time when a lot of no-brainer HOF guys are getting on the ballot, Maddux,Glav,Johnson, Chips on top of some guys like Bags and Bigg and Piazza and maybe Rains etc.
since the writers are not known for voting in a buncha guys in the same year, some of these guys will take longer and perhaps one or two might not get in whowould have made it in slower times. just a thought
Shaun
January 9th, 2013
5:16 pm
No rational explaination for snubbing Biggio. Period.
Well, clearly he used steroid because he played with Jeff Bagwell, and therefore doesn’t deserve induction (sarcasm).
The voters are all too comfortable making moral judgements about steroid use rather than do what they have historically done and just vote on players based on whether they thought they were the top players in the eras in which they played. I have no problem with voters factoring in PED use and keeping a player out if PEDs probably made him a Hall of Famer. All of the sudden a factor in the Hall of Fame voting is the morality of cheating, and I feel uncomfortable with a group of people judging morality, specifically when they aren’t consistent in terms of which forms of cheating are okay and which are not. I do not feel comfortable saying Gaylord Perry’s form of cheating was better or worse or more moral or less moral than Barry Bonds’s form of cheating.
Puma
January 9th, 2013
5:16 pm
njbraves – Biggio compiler – I guess you just proved the point that HOF selection is a subjective process where even the most deserving candidates can be seen by some as undeserving, despite the fact that if you look at his numbers objectively, and in historical context, he is a no brainer.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
5:16 pm
I think Bill James claims that Biggio was one of the 50 best of all time and the recent ESPN top 100 of all time ranked him 90th. He was strong at three positions , not sure I would call him just a compiler
njbraves
January 9th, 2013
5:21 pm
Puma…how is Biggio a no brainer? Because he has 3000 hits? Was he ever one of the 5 or so best players in baseball at any point in his career? I doubt it. Like I said, he’ll eventually get in and I understand why, but he’s far from a no brainer. Greg Maddux is a no brainer.
RC
January 9th, 2013
5:22 pm
He was strong at three positions , not sure I would call him just a compiler
What about a conjurer? That little elf was hit by pitches 285 times in his career, just 2 short of career leader Hughie Jennings. Your telling me a guy who’s 5′11″, 185 pounds (wow, those are seriously his listed numbers?) can take that kind of abuse and still be walking around without some “extra help” in the way of a magic protection spell or two? I don’t buy it for a second.
Oh, and Hughie Jennings? He’s DEAD. THAT’S what happens to a “normal” person hit by that many pitches! (and who was born in 1869)
nolie
January 9th, 2013
5:24 pm
I definitely think Biggio is a no brainer, I have no doubt he will get in and prolly pretty soon.
I Had To Say It
January 9th, 2013
5:24 pm
I love Dale Murphy and loved to watch him play in CF . I wish my kids could have seen him play and emulate his off the field persona as well.
His career numbers just don’t merit a HOF induction. As for Jim Rice, his career numbers were far and away better than Murph’s. Poor Murph played on some absolutely horrendous Braves’ teams which did him no favor, many times in front of mostly empty seats at old Atlanta Fulton County stadium. Murph was the primary reason I went to those awful games.
Disgusted’s summary above says it all.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
5:25 pm
who was it that claimed that Biggio got hit so often because he couldn’t get out of the way? Was that the Murphster?
DS1
January 9th, 2013
5:26 pm
We need a couple more “compilers” for our team………..
Puma
January 9th, 2013
5:27 pm
njbraves – look at his numbers throughout the 1990’s. I would say that between 1994 – 1999 he was one of the top 10 players in the league.
nolie
January 9th, 2013
5:28 pm
I don’t think empty stadiums had anything to do with his lack of votes, he was on TBS across the entire nation every night, I doubt there was a better known player in the 80s
He is my second all time fave Brave, but I would not vote for him I’m afraid
nolie
January 9th, 2013
5:33 pm
I’ll take a young Dave Winfield too DS1, another claimed to be just a compiler
brian
January 9th, 2013
5:38 pm
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/21527445/murphy-lofton-williams-headline-those-falling-off-hall-of-fame-ballot
brian
January 9th, 2013
5:38 pm
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/21527445/murphy-lofton-williams-headline-those-falling-off-hall-of-fame-ballot
njbraves
January 9th, 2013
5:38 pm
.281/.363/.483….Sorry, not a no brainer HOF guy to me. The guy had a heck of a career, but he wasn’t a dominate player.
CB
January 9th, 2013
5:40 pm
Dare we hope this blog is actually fixed?
Murph
January 9th, 2013
5:40 pm
who was it that claimed that Biggio got hit so often because he couldn’t get out of the way? Was that the Murphster?
No, I claimed that getting hit shouldn’t be a stat that works in the hitter’s favor as far as his slash line is concerned.
Being too stupid to duck is not a skill.
njbraves
January 9th, 2013
5:44 pm
Who would you rather have for 15-20 years… Fred McGriff or Biggio? To me McGriff is the easy choice and he’ll never get in the HOF. So Biggio is a HOFer because he had more base hits? Ridiculous.
njbraves
January 9th, 2013
5:44 pm
Who would you rather have for 15-20 years… Fred McGriff or Biggio? To me McGriff is the easy choice and he’ll never get in the HOF. So Biggio is a HOFer because he had more base hits? Ridiculous.
keyLargo.
January 9th, 2013
5:44 pm
SSDD with this blog.
keyLargo.
January 9th, 2013
5:44 pm
SSDD with this blog.
Shaun
January 9th, 2013
5:52 pm
njbraves, Biggio. The fact that Biggio provided that kind of offense at secondbase is a big deal. But McGriff wouldn’t be a horrible selection for the Hall, by any means.
Reality Check
January 9th, 2013
5:53 pm
” doubt there was a better known player in the 80s” – nolie
Nolie, you must not have watched too much baseball in the 80s other than games shown on TBS
There’s a laundry list of 80s players now in the HOF who were better known than Dale Murphy. Yeah, Murph was big in Atlanta and the southeast, and had somewhat of a national following on TBS, but not everybody had cable TV in the 80s and few wanted to watch losing baseball every night. It was rare for the Braves to be on Saturday afternoon (NBC) or Monday Night Baseball on ABC for a national telecast.
The 90s are different story.