Frayed Knot

Lefty Specialist wrote: Admitting Phil Rizzuto was the shark-jumping point. It went from the 'Hall of Fame' to the 'Hall of the Pretty Good'. Which was via the Vet's committee, not the regular process. And it was even worse than that in that it was a vet's committee intentionally stocked so as to get Phil in. Berra, then broadcast partner Bill White, and longtime friend Pee-Wee Reese were added just that year and, I believe, off the committee shortly afterward. Yogi's post-vote call to Rizzuto was reportedly "we got you in". And at the risk of belaboring the point, the advantage of the current system is that, with 400-500 members, no one voting bloc can skew the results the way the old vets committee did with Rizzuto and Mazeroski.

btw, there seem to be two schools of leaving first-timers off the ballot - both of which I disagree with, but here they are: 1) DiMaggio didn't get in on his first shot so nobody gets in This one may be dying out and it was probably more prevalent among NY-area writers, and possibly Italian-American ones as well, who worshipped JoeD to the point where no one else could possibly match his standard. But there was also no five-year rule then, so the first time DiMag was eligible not everyone was convinced he was going to stay retired (he was only, what? 36*?). By year 2 he got more votes but not enough (one guy said that that was the year he married Monroe so why not wait another year - after all, how good a year could one guy stand?) before finally getting elected on the third go around. But the larger point is, that without the five year rule there wasn't any kind of rush to get guys elected which is what led to Joe not getting in the first time around, not because there were those who thought he wasn't good enough. 2) Some writers (and fans too for that matter) have created in their minds a kind of two-tiered Hall where only the greatest of the great deserve 1st ballot entries which puts them into some kind of sacred ring of honor above and beyond the others. This is what leads to the 2nd year jump for most players which, even though it's true that those players don't get any greater with an extra year of sitting on their ass, is ultimately harmless in the long run. * I heard a story just recently that claimed that in Dimaggio's final game he walked off the field mid-inning after failing to get to a ball on defense that he thought he should have (and in his better days, would have) gotten to. I had never heard this before and considering the source--some ESPN discussion involving (what else?) Kobe's new contract that used the Dimag story as an example of "dignified players" who knew when it was time to get out--I tend not to believe it now. But has anyone else ever heard this? oe: the game description at BB-Ref has DiMaggio walking and later scoring in the Yanqui 3rd but then not coming out for the top of the 4th inning. There had been a Boston single to CF in the top of the 3rd but, of course, no description as to whether that hit was catchable by a younger Super-Joe or whether such a hit was the tipping point to his great pride. What is clear if this account is correct is that he certainly did NOT walk off the field mid-inning unless he first took the field in the 4th but was pulled prior to the first pitch in which case it was probably a designed play to get him some applause for the final game of the season. He hadn't played in games #151-153.

I've been thinking about the "watering down" discussion and the 75 percent. (And FK, you know I respect your opinion.) Say that there were set standards for induction -- say 300 wins for the sake of discussion -- and everybody who hit that number was automatically inducted and everyone who did not is not. If the ruling group suddenly said that the new number would be 250 wins, that would be lowering the standards. But we're talking about a percentage of the vote where people casting the ballots have no set criteria, and growing and rather suspect group with varying agendas. But there AREN'T set standards for induction so the threshold remains 75% based on the opinion of those who vote. And, yes, those opinions are going to differ as one man's sure thing is a close miss in another's ballot. What I don't get is the notion being floated here that these opinions were fine all this time but have suddenly changed to some arbitrary nonsense that needs to be corrected because we didn't like the number of people elected last year. The only thing that's changed recently is that the first crop of steroid-era players are coming for consideration and I think that it's going to be a while until that issue all gets sorted out. But, again, the vox populi vote on this issue is going to be just as varied and the two sides (assuming there are only two) just as antagonistic as they are in the BBWAA voice. I'm not saying to open the floodgates, but I don't see the sense in making some people wait 15 years because some people casting ballots don't think more than two people should be inducted in a given year, or they're deciding to take a self-aggrandizing stance. Or, if they're not electing people at all when there are people who are over-qualified on the ballot. (And I certainly don't see the value in electing poor Ron Santo the year after he's dead after debating his candidacy for nearly 40 years. He got screwed.) I don't advocate not voting just for the sake of not voting either. But while stats don't change after retirement sometimes perspectives do so folks are allowed to change their minds from time to time. A tiny minority of voters (we're talking: you can count 'em on one hand kind of numbers) refuse to vote for ANY 1st ballot guys (hence the non-100% head scratchers) and while I presonally think that's stupid I also realize that it makes no difference to the eventual outcomes. Maddux at "only" 97% will still be in. But the majority of voters aren't limited by any self-imposed constraints and sometimes only two votes means that only two in their minds for that year are worthy of a vote. Yes, Santo got screwed ... or he was a guy who was undeserving simply because he fell short in the minds of too many people and then was wrongly inducted because of a sympathy vote. It all depends on how one looks at it and I don't find the latter choice any better than the former.

I agree that it would be better to have a more consistent number of guys getting in each year than it is to have none one season then a bunch the next - but it doesn't always work out that way and rigging the outcome just to make it so would be the worse option IMO. That whole 'well the guys who get X pct eventually wind up with 3/4' is true ... until it isn't and then you have lowered the standard. And let's not lose sight of the fact that coming out of the juice era is the major reason for the lower than normal votes in some cases. That's hardly the fault of the writers or of the way the system is set up and if Deadspin, or anyone else for that matter, seeks to crowd-source the "right" answer from fans they're going to find the same lack of consensus about what to do with known users and abusers that the writers are struggling with. oe: it's not just limited to beat writers. It's members of the BBWAA with at least ten years covering the sport. That includes columnists and the like, and has recently been expanded to include various internet writers, etc.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: My idea to prevent a fiasco like last year from happening again My buddy researched this, and everyone who has finished in the top two has eventually been enshrined, with the exception of Morris and Biggio from last year. So it's not like standards are being lowered unless there is somehow an amazingly rare dearth of qualified candidates. This ensures someone is always enshrined, reduces the effects of stupid writer tricks, and doesn't limit election to two in the case of a stacked year, as have this year. I don't consider last year's result to be a fiasco. Some years there are more than others, I fail to see why this is a big deal. And the idea of allowing players in who fall short of the 75% is pretty much the definition of lowering standards.

Ceetar wrote: I absolutely buy the premise, but then I don't particularly care about the writers "great players" club much anymore. We'll see if that changes this year. So make the case then for how and why recent HoF inductees (or non) have become more "absurd" than in earlier years. And how exactly is the distribution of votes "random"? What this little exercise of Deadspin's sounds like to me is a display of arrogance along the lines of: we and our readers are internet savvy therefore they know better than those stupid sportswriters. It's fine to think that this exercise in crowd-sourcing will be more "correct" (as if there are cut-and-dried right or wrong answers here) but I think they're both inventing then exaggerating the supposed problems with the current system in order for their "fix" to sound better. Of course the BBWAA is already a form of crowd-sourcing, usually containing nearly 500 votes that have to be earned with a minimum of a decade of membership. And even if you want to make the case that as many as 10% of the voters are certifiably insane and all opt to give Greg Maddux's votes to John Franco, the remaining non-insane ones would merely have to vote 'Yea' at slightly above 80% to gain him admittance.

Edgy MD wrote: Meanwhile Deadspin has gone to great lengths [crossout]to empower fans[/crossout] [crossout]to subvert the process[/crossout] [crossout]to make a point that needs making[/crossout] do something. Not that I think their idea is all that subversive and needs to be stopped immediately, but they seem to be basing it all on the idea that the results have become "increasingly absurd" and that it's largely due to the votes being given to "a random subset" of writers. I don't always agree with the results either but I'm not buying their premise here.

HahnSolo wrote: I think Thomas will split votes with Bagwell; That would give those two something else in common to go along with 5/27/68

metsguyinmichigan wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Do the writers have a limit on how many they cast votes for? They act like they do. If you're gonna take some from me it'll be Kent, Clemens and Glavine in that order though all 3 prolly deserve. I believe the limit is 10. It is ten. I oddly have no memory of Ray Durham.

My gut reaction says: Piazza, Maddux, Glavine, Raines, Biggio I could be talked out of Glavine. I could be talked into Frank Thomas, Schilling, Bagwell, Mussina, Kent, Trammel, and of course the Bonds, Clemens, Sosa triumvirate

I guess the only thing to do now is wait for Decker to become a superstar and then count the days until the inevitable 'I can't believe Sandy didn't grab Jaff Decker when he had the chance back in 2013' posts. The details of those posts will vary somewhat but will have several things in common: - they'll blame Jeffie for it - none of the players we would have had to trade for him would have amounted to any good - they'll talk about how if Nelson Doubleday didn't have the team stolen from him that there's no way this opportunity would have slipped away

Memories of Jaff Decker ...

Apparently DBacks reliever Brad Ziegler went all Twitter crazy over the Peralta signing, saying stuff like 'Way to reward PED use owners' and similar missives that probably aren't going to go over well with either camp Jhonny when they meet next season or with the Players Union it would seem. To Ziegler's credit he's not claiming his account was hacked or backing off his statements.

Haren was definitely a tale of two halves in 2013 Nats signed him to a one-year/$13mil FA deal which, while sounding high, had the whiff of a good deal in that if Dan Haren is your 5th starter then you've got a really good staff. And he promptly sucked early on, throwing up a line of: .299/.337/.516 BAA; a 5.61 ERA & 1.42 WHiP, plus 19 HRs before turning it all around starting in July to the tune of: .226/.265/.371; 3.52 & 1.02 and 9 HRs So he takes another one-year deal, this time with a bit of a pay cut, and takes on the whiff of someone destined to finish out his career via a series of short-term deals even though he just turned 33 and he was 'Ace' (or near Ace) material there for a short while. Maybe his biggest selling point is the durability: 9 years in a row of 30 starts or more.

Edgy MD wrote: Can somebody sum up the anti-Cruz argument? It's the naked album cover. I don't see any way of letting that slide.

I suppose it's a better idea than signing Pablo Cruise

I had this one taped a while back but never got through it. Maybe I will in the future but I kind of doubt it. One of the problems is that if you're going to make a light-ish, middle-brow (at-best) comedy it's probably not a good idea to make it almost 2-1/2 hours long.

I remember Decker's name -- and, really, how can you forget the name Jaff? -- from high on the prospect lists a few years back. Sometimes that kind of hype is the result of draft status although in his case he wasn't that high (42nd overall) so looking at his minor league career he probably shot up as a result of his monster season in Low-A ball in 2009 [.299/.442/.515 w/43 of his 107 hits going for XBs]. Walk rates haven't gone down any since then but his BA started slipping (bringing the OBA & SLG with it) as he advanced despite moving to the normally good hitting environments of the High-A California Lg and then AA San Antonio (Tex Lg). Must have been hurt much of 2012 as he got <200 ABs and wasn't very good when he did play. Bounced back somewhat in 2013 at AAA Tuscon [.286/.381/.443] although the HR totals (10 in 350 ABs) are nothing to write home about and maybe that's what the Padres were looking for from him. That he played at least some CF recently suggests maybe he's quicker than that body type indicates.

He can take over now as the AL representative in charge of enforcing player codes. In the NL the rest of the Braves and the Cardinals will continue in their self-appointed roles as keeper of the 'right way to play the game' flame. Yanx, btw, forfeit their 1st round pick for next June. McCann was one of those receiving the qualifying offer from his team.

Brian McCann to the Yanx for five years, vesting option for sixth. Still not yet 30 y/o (will be in February) - he was essentially a full-timer at age 21 so it seems like he's been around longer. Hasn't played as many as 130 games since 2009 although the DH spot will help there. Of course he'll have to compete for time with the others seven DHs on that team.

Mex17 wrote: Although the home/road splits should be considered, I would argue that it makes "baseball sense" to add a 28 year old lefthanded hitter with power and a good OBP who also steals bases and plays Gold Glove defense in leftfield and who is signed for the next four years to the team, particularly when there is a gaping hole in the middle of the lineup and a pretty big outfield to cover. Not arguing against adding Gonzalez (or at least considering it) - am disagreeing with your characterization of him as Franchise Changing/Direction Altering, etc., especially as the H/R splits brings him down much closer to average while they'll be paying him $17-20 mil/yr. Would also be wary of the inclusion of Syndergaard. As far as trades changing the tone (or "perception"), I would direct you to the past acquisitions of Messrs Hernandez, Carter, and Piazza (and take one guess who was opposed behind the scenes on that last one. . .and who insisted upon it and pushed it through). Sometimes it's "sexy" for good reason. Carter & Piazza were not just top flight players but top flight catchers and were joining 88 & 90 win teams. They weren't pr moves trying to remake team images, they were baseball additions to teams already competing. Keith, as mentioned, came remarkably cheaply and Cashen himself admitted that he had no idea what Hernandez would bring to the team from a leadership/intangibles standpoint so such things played no part in why he made the trade. Winning builds pr, not the other way around.

But perception only goes so far and is more a band-aid than a strategy. You should do trades and signings because they make sense from a baseball sense not because they make for good pr and/or temporarily mollify a mob.

Gonzalez is owed $10.5 million for this coming year, so the deal would be a virtual wash budget-wise. -- And after that the tab goes to $16, then $17, then $20 This would be the blockbuster, direction changing, franchise altering, perception improving deal that we need!!! -- Not sure about all that Franchise Altering/ Direction Changing stuff. You'd improve the OF for sure but at the expense of potentially giving up a front of the rotation pitcher. And making moves for 'perception altering' reasons is a tricky road. Do also take into account the Coors factor: Career Splits = .328/.388/.604//992 H; .269/.324/.450//774 A Still a good hitter away from Denver but nothing resembling the monster he is in it. Murphy was all that far below that OPS (733) this year and was over 800 just two years back (809 in 2011).

Shawn/Sean Green x 2

Ceetar wrote: Well yeah, and that includes the appeals process and the procedures involved in that appeal/test. And fighting for that right was what got Braun the poor reputation to begin with. No, claiming that his skating on a technicality was the same as never testing dirty in the first place then being a general asshole about the whole process is what got Braun the poor reputation. Lots of guys have either tested positive or been linked via some other means to PEDs, yet not all of them earned the poor rep that Braun currently has hanging around his neck.