American League Silver Slugger Predictions

by JohnBowen

Tonight (11/2/11), the Silver Sluggers will be announced at 7 PM EST. Yesterday, I announced who my picks should be for the National League – now onto the Junior Circuit.

Catcher: Alex Avila (Detroit Tigers)

Stat Line: .295/.389/.506 (143 OPS+), 33 2B, 19 HR, 82 RBI

Alex Avila enjoyed a break-out season for the American League Central champion Tigers. The all-star hit finished seventh in the league in OPS+ and fifth in on-base percentage while catching 132 games behind home plate. This last tidbit is why Avila edged out Texas’s Mike Napoli who mostly caught but appeared in less than half as many games behind the plate.

Other Candidates: Mike Napoli (TEX), Carlos Santana (CLE)

First Base: Miguel Cabrera (Detroit Tigers)

Stat Line: .344/.448/.586 (181 OPS+), 48 2B, 30 HR, 105 RBI

Just when it looked like legal problems were going to bring down Miggy’s career, he responded with arguably his most productive season, leading the majors in doubles, batting average, and on-base percentage. He really kicked it into high gear in the second half, hitting .385 to lead his team in a sprint to the American League Central crown, which they won handily.

Other Candidates: Adrian Gonzalez (BOS), Paul Konerko (CHW)

Second Base: Robinson Cano (New York Yankees)

Stat Line: .302/.349/.533 (129 OPS+), 46 2B, 28 HR, 118 RBI

This one was basically a toss-up with rival second baseman Dustin Pedroia. In the end, I let the slugging in silver slugger do the talking; Cano edged Pedroia by 9 doubles, 7 home runs, and about 60 points of slugging percentage. Laser Show definitely had the better overall year, but Cano gets credit for swatting a bigger stick.

Other Candidates: Dustin Pedroia (BOS), Ben Zobrist (TBR)

Third Base: Evan Longoria (Tampa Bay Rays)

Stat Line: .244/.355/.495 (139 OPS+), 26 2B, 31 HR, 99 RBI

At first glance, this award should probably go to Adrian Beltre, who also won the gold glove. Beltre’s batting average and slugging percentage were far better, and he accumulated more in the way of counting statistics. Dig a little deeper though; compare Beltre’s home ballpark to Longoria’s (Beltre hit just .271/.297/.440 away from the hitter’s paradise in Arlinton). Then compare their two lineups. Considering these two factors, Longoria’s accomplishments get a major leg-up, which is why I selected him as an upset for this award.

Other Candidates: Adrian Beltre (TEX), Kevin Youkilis (BOS)

Shortstop: Jhonny Peralta (Detroit Tigers)

Stat Line: .299/.345/.478 (123 OPS+), 25 2B, 21 HR, 86 RBI

After spending parts of eight seasons as a Cleveland Indian, Jhonny Peralta was traded to division rival Detroit, where he resumed his normal duties as shortstop. Interestingly, the man who displaced him at shortstop in Cleveland is his chief competition for the American League silver slugger at shortstop. Peralta edged his former teammate in all rate statistics; the only question now is whether or not he’ll move to third base again to accommodate a possible Jose Reyes signing.

Other Candidates: Asdrubal Cabrera (CLE), Yunel Escobar (TOR)

Outfield: Jose Bautista (Toronto Blue Jays)

Stat Line: .302/.447/.608 (181 OPS+), 24 2B, 43 HR, 103 RBI

After shocking the world with 54 home runs (having hit 59 in his career to that point), Jose Bautista transformed himself from the league’s most prolific home run hitter to its most dominant hitter overall. Joey Bats led the big leagues in home runs for the second straight year, while also leading all of baseball in walks, slugging percentage, and OPS+.

Outfield: Curtis Granderson (New York Yankees)

Stat Line: .262/.364/.552 (138 OPS+), 26 HR, 10 3B, 41 HR, 119 RBI

Before the 2010 season, the then-reigning World Champion Yankees landed Curtis Granderson in a 3-way deal involving the Tigers and Diamondbacks. The main Yankee losses were stud defender Austin Jackson, and pitching prospect Ian Kennedy. For the year Kennedy had, Brian Cashman could easily have looked like a dunce, but Granderson may have (at least, temporarily) salvaged his reputation. Granderson led the American League with 136 runs scored and 119 RBI while finishing second to Jose Bautista with 41 dingers.

Outfield: Jacoby Ellsbury (Boston Red Sox)

Stat Line: .321/.376/.552 (146 OPS+), 46 2B, 32 HR, 105 RBI, 39/54 SB

After missing most of the 2010 season with a rib injury, hopes were not high for Jacoby Ellsbury coming into the 2011 season, but he put together an MVP-caliber campaign nonetheless, amassing a Major League-best 364 total bases, joining the 30-30 club, while placing third in the league in doubles and fifth in home runs.

Other Candidates: Alex Gordon (KCR), Josh Hamilton (TEX)

Designated Hitter: David Ortiz (Boston Red Sox)

Stat Line: .309/.398/.554 (154 OPS+), 40 2B, 29 HR, 96 RBI

It’ll be interesting to see how valuable the American League will feel Ortiz’s stock is in the 2011-2012 offseason. Ortiz suffered through down years in 2008 and 2009, but had a resurgent 2010 and was back on top of all DH’s in 2011. Big Papi placed fourth in the American League in both on-base percentage and slugging percentage in what could be his final season as a Red Sox.

Other Candidates: Michael Young (TEX), Victor Martinez (DET)

Recent Posts

477 Responses to “American League Silver Slugger Predictions”

  1. Jim Says:

    If Youklis is John’s honorable mention, then the state of slugging AL third basemen is pretty abysmal.

  2. John Says:

    Anyone I’m forgetting? Reynolds was considered a candidate by MLB network lol.

  3. Cameron Says:

    Not really. I think Beltre’s winning that one hands-down.

  4. Cameron Says:

    Not saying Longoria doesn’t deserve it, but a guy ain’t batting .244 and winning it.

  5. Raul Says:

    OPS+ likes David Ortiz more than Jacoby Ellsbury.

  6. Raul Says:

    I’ve got nothing to say.
    I just wanted to point that out.

  7. John Says:

    146 from a CF is obviously way more valuable than 154 from someone who never plays the field.

  8. Chuck Says:

    Ellsbury’s gold glove is a bigger joke than Jeter’s was last year.

  9. John Says:

    Man, Chuck hates Jacoby Ellsbury.

  10. brautigan Says:

    Chuck: I have to agree that Ellsbury is not very deserving of a gold glove, but there is no comparison when it comes to Jeter and his defense. Jeter alone proves the Gold Gloves are a joke and I for one never take them seriously. Nice for someone to take home the hardware, but it is a joke. Hell, Mark Buehrle just has to walk on the field and he earns a Gold Glove (just like Jim Kaat did years before him). It’s a good thing Brett Gardner didn’t win one or you’d be having a coronary.

  11. brautigan Says:

    Man, sorry to hear that Mateo Alou passed away.

    I remember that bat of his in the late ’60’s. It had a handle that blossomed out at the end, so it really didn’t have a handle. He didn’t need it, he always choked up on the bat.

  12. Chuck Says:

    “It’s a good thing Brett Gardner didn’t win one or you’d be having a coronary.”

    He didn’t deserve one, either.

    Matty Alou?


    He was my favorite of the family

  13. brautigan Says:

    Yeah, I heard that this morning and that was exactly my response to.

    When I would come down to Arizona for Spring Training, I would bring my Matty Alou cards just in the event I’d run into him. In all the years I was down there, I never did see him. All the autographers down there would tell me how nice he was to them, unlike Felipe, who was pretty aloof and I never did see Felipe sign for anyone.

    So long Matty, you were one heck of a singles hitter.

  14. Chuck Says:

    ESPN affiliate in Phoenix said this morning that Larry Bowa is the “on-paper” favorite for the Cubs job.

  15. Raul Says:

    Matty Alou got his first hit on September 26, 1960 — a pinch-hit RBI single off Dodgers pitcher Larry Sherry.

    His first homer came on May 15, 1961 in a pinch-hit appearance (he relieved Willie Mays in CF) off Cubs pitcher Joe Schaffernoth.

  16. John Says:

    Obviously, defensive stats should only be taken with a grain of salt.

    But Brett Gardner’s dWAR in 2011 was 6th all-time for an outfielder.

    Sandwiched in between an Andruw Jones season, and a Ken Griffey Jr. season.

    That said, it’s pretty heartwarming to see Alex Gordon win the award in his first full season as a LF, after what he’s been through.

    Now that the league has seen his arm, I doubt he’ll ever have another opportunity to put up 20 assists again.

  17. John Says:

    “His first homer came on May 15, 1961 in a pinch-hit appearance (he relieved Willie Mays in CF) off Cubs pitcher Joe Schaffernoth.”

    How awesome is that? “One day, the skipper needed me to take Willie Mays’s spot in the order. “

  18. Chuck Says:

    “But Brett Gardner’s dWAR in 2011 was 6th all-time for an outfielder.”

    That’s nice.

  19. Bob Says:

    Now for the real question: Alabama or LSU?

  20. Chuck Says:

    I’ll take the home team, Bob.

  21. Bob Says:

    Fair enough.

  22. brautigan Says:

    As a Duck fan, I’m rooting for LSU.

    If Oregon can win out, that makes for an outside chance they can go back to the National game and get another crack at LSU.

  23. brautigan Says:

    Matty Alou broke a 34 year old record in 1969 with 698 at bats, breaking Woodie Jensen’s record of 696 at bats.

    The at bat records are as follows:

    Tom Brown 660 1892
    Jack Tobin 671 1921
    Rabbit Maranville 672 1922
    Lloyd Waner 681 1931
    Jo-Jo Moore 681(T) 1935
    Woodie Jensen 696 1936
    Matty Alou 698 1969
    Dave Cash 699 1975
    Willie Wilson 705 1980
    Jimmy Rollins 716 2007

  24. Cameron Says:

    I don’t know much about college sports, but I know the Tigers are usually a better team than the Crimson Tide.

    …And produce busts for anyone drafted to KC.

  25. Chuck Says:

    Matty Alou got the “short” end of the stick when it came to the family gene pool.

    Both Felipe and Jesus were in the 6′2″, 6′3″ range and pushed 190-200 pounds.

    Matty was listed at 5′8″, 168.

    He was also the only lefty in the group.

    I remember when he played for the Yankees and they would put him at first base (Felipe was the primary first baseman that year..1973)..Graig Nettles made a throwing error and when he was questioned after the game by the media said something about “it’s tough to throw to the first baseman when you can ‘t see him.”

    Alou also has a WS ring with the 1972 A’s.

    RIP, Matty.

  26. Raul Says:

    It was going to happen sooner or later…

    Among first-timers in this year’s HOF voting, no one figures to make much of an impression besides a few votes for Bernie Williams.

    Barry Larkin will make it this year after getting 62% last year.
    Behind him, the leading vote-getters are Jack Morris (53.5%), Lee Smith (45.3%) and Tim Raines (37.5%).

    My guess is that only Larkin gets elected. We’ve talked a million times about Tim Raines and whatever you may think of him, you would have to admit it is unlikely he jumps ahead of 2 players.

  27. Cameron Says:

    Morris and Smith are about to drop off fairly soon aren’t they?

  28. Lefty33 Says:

    I think Morris has three more years and Smith has five.

  29. Lefty33 Says:

    The only other guy that I think may get a few votes that is new to the ballot would be Salmon.

  30. Cameron Says:

    More than 5% maybe, but I don’t think he’ll make a noticeable dent.

  31. John Says:

    I’m slightly surprised that Smith never made it (I certainly don’t see him getting in anytime in the next 5 years).

    For his first 5 or so years on (generally, pretty weak) ballots, he was the all-time saves leader.

    I don’t think he’s worthy, but it seems like it would almost be a formality to induct a player based on what was perceived to be an important statistic.

    “The only other guy that I think may get a few votes that is new to the ballot would be Salmon.”

    I think he’ll get some token votes from LA area voters, which I have no problem with. He wasn’t great enough for the Hall, of course, but it’s an absolute travesty that he was never an all-star, so some sympathy love is arguably warranted. Don’t think he’ll see 5% though.

  32. John Says:

    The Veteran’s Committee selections are up. I’ll post a quick blurb about those.

  33. Chuck Says:

    Thanks, JB.

  34. Mike Felber Says:

    Morris would be a big mistake. Smith would not be my choice but understandable, Williams & Salmon were not good enough. And we all know that Raines belongs in! Or rather we have have fought that to a fair thee well.

  35. Cameron Says:

    You know what John, if Juan Rodriguez could get 5% while he was more juiced than Tropicana, Tim Salmon can see 5%.

  36. Cameron Says:

    Juan Gonzalez, my bad. Juan Rodriguez is probably some random benchwarmer who sucks.

  37. Bob Says:

    Jack Morris 3824 innings pitched.
    Lee Smith 1289.1 innings pitched.
    Jack Morris 2478 strikeouts.
    Lee Smith 1251 strikeouts.
    Jack Morris had 175 complete games and 28 shutouts
    Lee Smith had no complete games and no shutouts.
    But somehow Smith is superior to Morris????????????????? Fail to see it.

  38. Bob Says:

    The Jays released Adam Loewen. Somebody will take a flier.

  39. Cameron Says:

    Adam Loewen… Dude couldn’t cut it as a major league pitcher or an outfielder.

    …Can he catch?

  40. Mike Felber Says:

    You cannot compare total @s of a starter to a reliever. In both their rate stats, & how good they were relative to their roles, Smith is better. He may be voted in for his record, for historic reasons. Unlike Mo, I would not put him in. But Morris was a good & valuable pitcher who neither had the peak nor career value to approach the HOF. It has been endlessly shown how he had great run support, & did NO better under pressure, did not “pitch to the score”. Except for one famous game, he was not very good overall in the post season.

    All you need to see is his 105 ERA +. Not brought down due to a very long career, & his peak was 125. Also, those #s if anything may be bumped up by the nature of the defense behind him. Similar to Catfish in having the 105 ERA +. Though hunter was both less consistent & better in his 2 peak years.

  41. Chuck Says:

    “I don’t think he’s worthy, but it seems like it would almost be a formality to induct a player based on what was perceived to be an important statistic”

    By whom?

    If Lee Smith gets in, then they damn well better put in Lenny Harris.

  42. Bob Says:

    Mike, I am not arguing for Morris to be in the HOF. I am showcasing the deplorable mentality of those who somehow view Smith as a HOFer. Downright deplorable.

  43. JohnBowen Says:

    “By whom?”

    Well, Eric Gagne won the 2003 MVP, and as late as 2008, Brad Lidge and K-Rod got first place MVP votes.

  44. brautigan Says:

    It would be cool if Salmon did get into the Hall of Fame. I have a gazillion Salmon autographs and his rookie Rawlings bat.

    That said, Tim Salmon belongs in the hall of fame as much as Phil Linz. Well, at least Linz’s harmonica is in the hall of fame!

  45. Chuck Says:

    Two weeks ago, Bryce Harper was hitting .091 with no extra base hits and one RBI in 8 games.

    Since then, he’s on an 11 game hitting streak going batting .395 (17-for-43) with 3 doubles, 1 triple, 5 home runs, 19 RBI and 8 runs scored. He has multiple RBI in five straight games, and homer is four of his last five (five of six, has one today) and has moved into fourth place in the league in RBI and his homer today would have tied him for the league lead, excepting Mike Olt of Surpise hitting is seventh in the same game, and has his avg. over .300 for the first time this year.

  46. Chuck Says:


    Stupid for one year is one thing, stupid for eternity is something else entirely.

  47. JohnBowen Says:

    Fine, Bruce Sutter’s in the Hall of Famer.

  48. Bob Says:

    Mike, you said outside of one game Morris was not good in the post-season. Please check his 1984 post-season.

  49. Chuck Says:


  50. JohnBowen Says:

    Is anyone going to talk about Morris’s ‘87 or ‘92 post-season’s?

  51. Bob Says:

    I am not trying to sway people on Morris for the HOF, just trying to demonstate that he is superior to Lee Smith. The fact that he was a starter his whole career, while Smith was not should be ample evidence.
    Is it not???????????

  52. JohnBowen Says:

    Oh, I agree with that.

  53. Bob Says:

    Furthermore, Mike made a contention that outside of one game 7 in 1991 was his only solid game in the post-season. I thought that could be refuted.
    Am I wrong?????????

  54. brautigan Says:

    ….and I do recall Bruce Sutter getting a lot of 3 inning saves.

    If memory serves me, Lee Smith had a few of those in his early Cub career.

    You just don’t see 3 inning saves anymore unless it’s a mop up.

  55. Bob Says:

    Well Morris had 175 complete games, and you rarely see those anymore. Including a 10 inning one!!!!!!!!!

  56. Bob Says:

    And that 10-inning one was the antithesis of a mop up.

  57. JohnBowen Says:

    “You just don’t see 3 inning saves anymore unless it’s a mop up.”

    I don’t even have a problem with that. 3 IP is a lot to ask out of a guy that you might need tomorrow and the day after.

    But Sutter had games where he came in during the 7th inning and diffused the situation. That’s the way your ace reliever should be used, even if you take him out after 3 outs. Not dicking around till the ninth when it might be too late.

  58. Cameron Says:

    Sutter used to be a relief ace, but from what I remember his years as a Cardinal was what pioneered the one-inning save.

  59. Chuck Says:



    Postseason performance should not be a consideration for the HOF.

  60. JohnBowen Says:

    Jack Morris also had a career 105 ERA+ and career-best 133.

  61. JohnBowen Says:

    @59, fine, whatever, but make it consistent.

    If you’re going to make a case for 1991 – Game 7, you can’t ignore THE VERY NEXT YEAR when he had an atrocious post-season.

  62. Cameron Says:

    I dunno Chuck, I think it should be a small consideration. Just a small one, though. Andy Pettitte may be the best to ever pitch in a postseason, but that doesn’t change the fact he’s not good enough in the regular season to tip the scales for me.

  63. Cameron Says:

    No one remembers Jack Morris in ‘92 because he still got his ring, John. Remember, people are made of stupid.

  64. JohnBowen Says:

    “Andy Pettitte may be the best to ever pitch in a postseason, but that doesn’t change the fact he’s not good enough in the regular season to tip the scales for me.”

    Andy Pettitte, Regular Season: 3.88 ERA
    Andy Pettitte, Post-Season: 3.83 ERA

  65. JohnBowen Says:

    Oh, I posted a Veteran’s Committee thing, if anyone’s interested. Under “News”

  66. Cameron Says:

    Yeah, but he still pitched fairly well besides, evidenced by the fact he leads the postseason in damn near everything.

    Quantity over quality, I know, but it’s still a hell of a feat.

  67. brautigan Says:

    “Andy Pettitte may be the best to ever pitch in a postseason”.

    That may be news to Babe Ruth and Whitey Ford.

  68. Bob Says:

    Mike, I am not making a case for Morris. I just felt that I hadf to refute this belief that Smith is greater than Morris. Hope I did it, cause I am done on this issue…until tomorrow!!!
    And just a reminder, I did not bring up the post-season factor ( For good or for bad) I merely RESPONDED to a claim I thought was erroneous. Have a good night.

  69. JohnBowen Says:

    I actually agree with 59, and I’m intrigued as to why Chuck feels this way.

    I agree because, if a player has radically different numbers in the post-season than in the regular season, it’s not because they’re “gamers” or “clutch” or conversely “chokers.” It’s because you’re looking at a tiny sample of 20 or fewer games.

    If Pettitte gets traded to the Royals after 1997, he retires as a terrible post-season choker.

    But because he started FORTY TWO post-season games in THIRTY post-season series, the numbers regressed to his normal level of play, as one would expect.

    Same thing with Jeter. He’s not abnormally good in the post-season, with the Yankee magic and mystique. He’s a terrific hitter, with numbers basically identical to his regular season numbers.

    But a guy like Ted Williams with 7 games? Screw you Teddy Ballgame. You hit .200 and ARE A CHOKER.

  70. Mike Felber Says:

    And Teddy ballgame had a wrist strain then was better in his role. He had better rate stats,, even considering an adjustment for relievers. How close they are in any WAR, WARP or other total value system shows you that. Now due to his role, he did not pitch enough innings to add as much value as Morris.

    I think it is appropriate to give *some* dispensation for guys who cannot rack up the IP to add enough value. But I still need to weight more heavily what they actually do-even though it is not their fault they only have 1/3 or 40% of a typical healthy starter.

    I apologize for misspeaking: I meant that Morris was not very good overall besides that 1 game in the PS.

    John, I feel a bit differently than you. Absolutely sample size & random factors mean that we cannot weight the PS very heavily, & it does not represent clutch play. But is should be a small factor, & with the extra rounds, it should mean a little more. Someone like Mo, it is 2 seasons of work for him, gotta factor it in.

    Bob, I know you did not argue about the PS. I am saying that Smit

  71. JohnBowen Says:

    The two conclusions possible from post-season play are:

    1) It was a small sample size
    2) It was basically the same as how he always was.

    Check out Reggie “Mr. October” Jackson: .278/.358/.527 in 77 games. So, he averaged like 36 HR per 162 games instead of the 32 he normally averaged.

  72. Mike Felber Says:

    It is not bludgeoning orphans, so i cannot use the world deplorable, but yes, closers like Smith are undeserving of the Hall. I respect your argument Chuck where you would deny even Mo, but my postulated adjustment-like we give catchers-for their role means I would put in the best ever. But in support of your position, while he is borderline in career value/WAR, you could argue he never had enough IP to have a high peak. True in absolute terms. I just find his effectiveness enough to allow him in.

    Cameron, you need to admit you are stunningly wrong on Petitte. He is the same good pitcher in the PS. That he provided much quantity is special credit to him: he was on teams that kept getting through many PS rounds! Many are much better than him in the PS, as above. Schilling had 133 IP, a 2.23 ERA, & under 1.000 WHIP! You want over 200 IP? Glavine & Smoltz were better than A.P.

    If Petitte was an all time great pitcher & just pitched as well in the PS, that could be argued to be a hell of a feat. But Andy was a usually very good pitcher whose career had moderate length, 3055 IP, & not the peak value to justify the Hall.

    John is right, you do not become the best due to circumstances outside of your control giving you more opportunities than most everyone else.

  73. Chuck Says:

    “I actually agree with 59, and I’m intrigued as to why Chuck feels this way.”

    Is the post-season a consideration for MVP?

    Cy Young?


    Curt Schilling had a handful of pretty good seasons, and if he didn’t pitch alongside Randy Johnson, he’d probably have a Cy or two.

    Johnson won the Cy Young’s because he was the better pitcher over the season..35 starts..250 innings.

    Not because he painted his sock red and limped around on National TV.

    Does the postseason matter for Maddux?

    Ernie Banks?



    Shouldn’t for anyone.

  74. Raul Says:

    I think a few years ago Chuck said Curt Schilling will get in the Hall of Fame……for about $16…like everyone else. LOL

    Or whatever the admission price is…

  75. Mike Felber Says:

    Whoops, my #70 was cut off. I meant that Smith was much better per IP & in his role compared to Morris. His role could not allow the IP to accomplish the same in terms of contribution to the team. So it is almost a philosophical query re: what constitutes “better”. I would say Smith was better but not able to add as much total value.

    Chuck would not put Mo in. I give enough role dispensation-as most all due for Catchers-that i would. In WAR< he is about borderline in career value already. Though Chuck could fairly say that he did not have enough IP to rack up the peak value of a normal HOF guy. I agree, but would not demand that of a guy who can only average 78 IP per 162 games.

    Less recently, though last year he was almost as good as ever. How long can he keep that up? He turns 42 on 11-29.

  76. Mike Felber Says:

    Is not the HOF supposed to include everything in its considerations? Weighted properly. Though the “Fame” aspect is not literal, that is a big part of the game, 7 the HOF should be an overview of everything.

    You hate Schillings personality way too much to be objective Chuck. Forget about how a Yankee fan might denigrate a Sox. One performance should mean little, but there is no indication he was showboating by being the ultimate Red Sock!

    He had a handful of excellent seasons-where his WAR was at least 6.0. And a few others that were a notch below that. So tell me then: why is his 128 ERA + not pretty closely indicative of his overall skills as a pitcher?

    And WHAT pitcher, with any defense behind him (which can sometimes make ERA + look better or worse than it is). Has about as many IP & a comparable ERA + that you would NOT believe belongs in the Hall?

    I’ll supply one for you. Kevin Brown, who has comparable career/peak value & besides the PED question, is also deserving of the Hall.

    Can you describe anyone else who has around a 128 ERA + who you personally think does not belong?

  77. JohnBowen Says:

    “Is the post-season a consideration for MVP?”

    So? Coaching experience isn’t a consideration for MVP, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a consideration for managing.

    I dunno. We agree, but for completely different reasons.

    Curt Schilling was a phenomenal pitcher and his post-season success simply doesn’t shock me that much. I’ll bet he had a couple 19-game stretches in his career where he had a 2.23 ERA and 0.968 WHIP.

    The best argument against him is that he only had 9-200 IP seasons and 7 30-start seasons. He did a lot, but he was sure hurt a lot.

  78. Mike Felber Says:

    True John. Though breaking it down by season he seems to have added enough value to be a true HOFer

  79. JohnBowen Says:

    It’s interesting – this discussion about added value.

    In 2001, Pedro Martinez made just 18 starts for 116.2 IP. But he still finished 6th in the league with 4.6 WAR because he was so much more dominant than everyone else when he was out on the mound.

    If (hypothetically, of course) a guy put out, say, 10 seasons like that, and another 4 or 5 decent full seasons, that would put them in 70 WAR territory.

    But I don’t think I’d vote for them for the Hall of Fame.

    Schilling’s on the borderline because a lot of those strikeouts, wins, WAR, etc were put up in partial seasons. Guy pitched in parts of 20 seasons, but started 30 games just 7 times. 1996, 2003…those were good looking seasons when he was out there, but he didn’t exactly rack up a lot of IP.

  80. Lefty33 Says:

    “The best argument against him is that he only had 9-200 IP seasons and 7 30-start seasons. He did a lot, but he was sure hurt a lot.”

    And that he is a douche bag that has made a ton of polarizing comments while playing and since he has retired while popping in with Cowherd and a few other ESPN whacks.

    You know as well as I do that numbers and “value” do not mean nearly as much when you are dealing with a guy who is a fringe on the fence non-guaranteed 1st ballot guy like Schilling.

  81. Lefty33 Says:

    Personally when I think Schilling I think of guys like Saberhagen, Hershiser, Blue, and Tiant.

    Guys who are were very good solid pitchers but quite honestly didn’t do enough and/or didn’t do it long enough.

    Part of Schilling’s “mystique” is that whole breaking the curse in ‘04 thing.

    Nobody was talking HOF about him before that and since then he’s become the patron saint of New England baseball. It’s 100% revisionist history.

    Outside of his 3 1/2 years in Arizona where he was actually dominant in two of them he’s was a good pitcher but good Lord don’t mistake a 3.95 ERA in Boston while giving up over a hit per inning pitched to be stellar or HOF.

    Like John said, he only made 30 or more starts seven times.

    That is NOT a HOF starting pitcher.

  82. Lefty33 Says:

    “Can you describe anyone else who has around a 128 ERA + who you personally think does not belong?”

    Sparky Lyle

    Doug Jones

    Kent Tekulve

    Roberto Hernandez

    Lee Smith

    Tim Hudson

    Sal Maglie

    Brandon Webb

    John Franco

  83. Cameron Says:

    I don’t even think Webb has the ten year career needed, does he?

  84. Lefty33 Says:

    Hell no.

    He’s got maybe five or six.

    But, Mike asked for anyone. So he got a bunch and there are plenty more.

  85. Cameron Says:

    Oh definitely. A 128 OPS+ ain’t that great. Maybe over 20 or 25 years it might be enough if he had a shitload of Ks or something, I dunno. Guys like them, not that great.

  86. JohnBowen Says:

    “And that he is a douche bag”

    Don’t care.

    “that has made a ton of polarizing comments while playing”

    Not relevant.

    “and since he has retired while popping in with Cowherd and a few other ESPN whacks.”

    Even less relevant.

    “Outside of his 3 1/2 years in Arizona where he was actually dominant in two of them”

    …you’re a Philly fan. You’re telling me that he didn’t have dominant years in Philly? I mean, his W/L wasn’t great, but that’s just a silly way to evaluate someone.

    The lack of enough full seasons is a reasonable argument. Him saying controversialish things? Not so much.

  87. JohnBowen Says:

    “Oh definitely. A 128 OPS+ ain’t that great.”

    I assume you mean a 128 ERA+.

    And 128 is what Bob Gibson did.

  88. Cameron Says:

    >> Thank you for spotting the typo. I’ve been having some pretty laughable ones today.

    And “Maybe over 20 or 25 years it might be enough if he had a shitload of Ks or something, I dunno. Guys like them, not that great.”

    1) That 128 should have an asterisk by it, because it’s a raw ERA of 2.91
    2) I think 3,117 counts as my “shitload of Ks” qualifier.

  89. JohnBowen Says:

    “1) That 128 should have an asterisk by it, because it’s a raw ERA of 2.91″

    That doesn’t make any sense. The whole point of ERA+ is that 2.91 on-top of a tall mound against 93 lb dudes is like 3.46 in an era when gentlemen poured steroid shakes on-top of their steroid-o’s.

    Not saying that Schilling is on par with Gibson. Gibson pitched way way way more. But on a per-inning basis? 128 ERA+ is outstanding over a long career, period.

    “2) I think 3,117 counts as my “shitload of Ks” qualifier.”

    Curt Schilling could never do that. Curt Schilling was not man enough to accumulate 3,117 K’s. Curt Schilling was a little bitch with – wait for it – 3,116 K’s. No joke.

  90. Cameron Says:

    Eh, I personally think Schilling is a fringe candidate. Forgive me for not actually reading. I thought we were still on Jack Morris and his non-candidacy.

  91. JohnBowen Says:

    “Eh, I personally think Schilling is a fringe candidate.”

    Fringe, borderline, ehhh.


  92. Cameron Says:

    Trust me, knowing Schilling’s insane political ramblings, fringe is a much better word.

  93. Mike Felber Says:

    Leftyyy—> you took what I asked wholly out of context. I said shortly before the quote you used:

    And WHAT pitcher, with any defense behind him (which can sometimes make ERA + look better or worse than it is). Has about as many IP & a comparable ERA + that you would NOT believe belongs in the Hall?

    None of the examples you used qualified. Surely all here agree that relievers are not REMOTELY comparable when they have similar ERA +. They have soooo many fewer IP, & the context of when they come in & the advantages of being fresh against hitters later in a game makes their achievements in ERA + easier & in way less IP.

    Tim Hudson is the only interesting guy you brought up for my question. He still does not come close to qualifying as responsive to my challenge, since as of now Schilling has almost 1/3 more IP. But it is worth looking at-given age & recent performance, I think he will likely fall short. Since he is unlikely to put yp many near peak years. If he ages as well as Curt, who was much better from his 30’s, then he will be arguable for the HOF.

    Cameron (& everyone): over a significant # of IP a 128 ERA + is a Prima Fascia case for the HOF. You would need to show some unusual mitigating factors to deny a guy fairly: mainly that his DIPs was somewhat worse, aka that excellent fielding effectively lowered his ERA +.

    Of course the point of ERA + is that era & ballpark is adjusted for.

  94. Mike Felber Says:

    How Curt got attention for a HOF vote is irrelevant, as of course is his personality. Unless he does something that violates the basic ethos of the sport, like ‘19/Pete Rose. We would have to take out many of the very greatest players ever if we applied this litmus test. To start, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Cobb-bye!

    John, 9 200 IP years sounded very good & a lot for Curt-so looking him up, he only had 5. But 3 of those were 300! Anyway, I like your example a lot. The hypothetical guy you referred to, that never put up better than a 4.6 WAR (for the sake of argument we will assume that the WAR version is accurate), but puts up 70 over a career…Meaning that for years he was just below what we would call an all star.

    I would say he is close, but not quite good enough. Part of this is how much you value a peak-to me it is 1st amongst equals in this & decent quality longevity. Since we are measuring HOW good folks are, & the game is measured & rewarded in seasons.

    So WHO is a good test case for me to counter with for consideration? I will say Lou Whitaker. Sweet Lou is barely short of 70 WAR on, & about 5 points higher on fangraphs. I liked John Q’s use of career WAR & best 7 years-I might add a smaller weighted best 3.

    He had 3 years around 6.5 or so (in either system), otherwise his highest is around 5.3 or 5.5. He was very consistent, but his peak is low for a HOF man. To me I could accept arguments before or against him. I would tend to grant him admission. Carlton Fisk is a fairly similar case, with a bigger gap between WAR systems. Whether he belongs depends to me on what break you may give catchers, and CERTAINLY the real intangibles of how he handled pitchers.

    So John, would you put in Sweet Lou &/or Pudge?

  95. Mike Felber Says:

    In 72 I forgot to ad the word “no”: that Petitte was on teams that kept playing many PS rounds is NO special credit to him.

    I will remind all that Schilling had 5 years with significantly higher WAR than John’s hypothetical p/t Pedro (minimum of 6). More in FG WAR: I am a bit shocked that on Curt has an 86.1 WAR! How defense/unearned runs must account for that!

    Still John, I have shown that C.S. has a significantly better peak than P/T peak Pedro-bot. AND you sensibly count PS accomplishments. Even if you do not weight them more heavily, is this not also worth about a Pedro in ‘01 season?

    So with this & a peak clearly higher than P/t Pedro-bot, can I convince you that he is better than a borderline HOF case?

  96. Mike Felber Says:

    Well, Gibson pitched significantly more, not tremendously more like a Neikro, Ryan, Carlton…A bit over 600 IP more than Schilling. Additionally he had a better peak, of course especially ‘68.

    I will add that besides a big defensive advantage, the only way a guy with a 128 ERA + with well over 3000 IP does not deserve the HOF or is borderline is if he was remarkably consistent but had an unusually low relative peak. And even so, he would likely need to have only around a max of 3500 IP or so.

    More like 4000 IP he would acquire enough career value anyway top warrant the Hall.

  97. Raul Says:

    I’d vote Mike Mussina before I vote Curt Schilling.

    Plus, I suspect Schilling of being a juicer.

  98. Lefty33 Says:

    “Don’t care.”

    Whether you do or not it’s part of why he won’t be inducted.

    “Not relevant.”

    Actually yes it is.

    You seem to again naïvely think that HOF voting is like the BCS where you just stick a bunch of numbers into an algorithmic formula and presto out pops the “correct” answer.

    Doesn’t work that way.

    For every biased writer in New England that thinks he’s the greatest two more outside of New England think he’s a jerk off and they will make sure he’s not inducted.

    “you’re a Philly fan. You’re telling me that he didn’t have dominant years in Philly? I mean, his W/L wasn’t great, but that’s just a silly way to evaluate someone.”

    He spent nine and a half years in Philly.

    He was hurt and started less than 30 times in four of those years.

    He had an ERA over four in ‘93 and recieved a ton of run support.

    Outside of that he had three years in Philly the I would consider dominant ‘92, ‘97, and ‘98 and the rest he was either hurt, or above average but sure as hell not HOF caliber.

  99. Lefty33 Says:

    “None of the examples you used qualified”

    Of course not Mike they never do.

    “You would need to show some unusual mitigating factors to deny a guy fairly: mainly that his DIPs was somewhat worse, aka that excellent fielding effectively lowered his ERA +.

    No I don’t need to show that.

    You said: “Can you describe anyone else who has around a 128 ERA + who you personally think does not belong?”.

    Not 128 + for starting pitchers only or for guys with over a certain number of innings pitched or for guys that practice zen yoga at 3am after a keg-party, just 128+ and you were wrong because plenty of guys at/around/and over 128+ are not HOF caliber pitchers.

  100. Lefty33 Says:

    “Plus, I suspect Schilling of being a juicer.”


  101. Chuck Says:

    Don’t try and turn this site into BR, Mike.

    ERA+ is not an argument for the HOF.

  102. Chuck Says:

    Neither is being an asshole.

  103. Lefty33 Says:

    “Carlton Fisk is a fairly similar case, with a bigger gap between WAR systems. Whether he belongs depends to me on what break you may give catchers, and CERTAINLY the real intangibles of how he handled pitchers.”
    Fisk is not a similar case. The debate is long over.
    He’s been inducted. He belongs like it or not. DONE.
    “I’ll supply one for you. Kevin Brown, who has comparable career/peak value & besides the PED question, is also deserving of the Hall.”
    Except for that little detail of him accumulating most of his numbers via juice.
    Brown has nothing comparable because he is a known user and no doubt would have been a far worse pitcher w/o illegal substances.
    “How Curt got attention for a HOF vote is irrelevant, as of course is his personality.”

    Sorry Mike wrong again.

    Things on the periphery matter.

    If Pete Rose doesn’t lie for 20 years and make a mockery of the whole sport and of his legacy he’s a HOF player years ago.

    Because he decided to piss into the wind he’s out and will remain out until he’s likely either dead, a sympathetic closet Reds fan, or Marge Schott’s ghost is made Commissioner.

    Schilling’s mouth will matter and you are equally naive to think that when he cocks off on ESPN with his “opinion” that the people that matter, aka not you or me, the BBWAA writers don’t pay attention and don’t think that the ones outside of New England are not rubbed the wrong way.

    You and John keep making the same assumption apparently that people are not doing the voting and that voting is done by computer.


    Imperfect people with imperfect biases vote and that’s why things like that matter especially to a guy that is not a slam dunk inductee.

    If a guy like, as an example, Randy Johnson were to say what Curt has said it doesn’t matter because his record speaks for itself and is far superior.

    Short of burning crosses on the White House lawn, he a 100% lock.

    Schilling is not.

    His record, including his personal “intangibles”, will get a full scrubbing and the more you scrub the more you see that he looks a lot like Bret Saberhagen with more K’s then he does a HOF pitcher like Johnson.

    I agree that down the road 10-12 years when all of the 1st ballot automatic guys like Johnson, Maddux, Glavine, Griffey, etc. get inducted then maybe guys like he and Mussina will get their turn.

    Until then he’s not going anywhere except into that fringe bin with guys like Morris, Pettite, and Mussina of guys who might get in on a 14th or 15th ballot sympathy vote or in a year like 2012 where the ballot sucks but they have no chance any other way.

  104. Bob Says:

    “or Marge Schott’s ghost is made Commissioner.”


  105. Chuck Says:

    Spot on, Lefty.

    As usual.

  106. JohnBowen Says:

    “Not 128 + for starting pitchers only or for guys with over a certain number of innings pitched”

    That certain number being somewhere between 3261 and 3884.1?

    “If Pete Rose doesn’t lie for 20 years and make a mockery of the whole sport and of his legacy he’s a HOF player years ago”

    We aren’t seriously comparing what Schilling did to what Rose did, are we?

  107. Lefty33 Says:

    “That certain number being somewhere between 3261 and 3884.1?”


    Not sure what Bob Gibson has anything to do with Mike’s incorrect statement.

    He said give him anyone around 128+ that doesn’t belong and I said there are plenty. But then of course, he has to backpedal and add qualifiers when his statement was proven totally non-factual.

    “We aren’t seriously comparing what Schilling did to what Rose did, are we?”

    While obviously the details are wildly different, the basic premise is the same.

    If you act like a dick and flaunt it over and over voters remember and a grudge will be held regardless of numbers, “value” or anything else especially when you are a boderline non-lock canidate like Schilling is.

  108. Cameron Says:

    “Short of burning crosses on the White House lawn, he a 100% lock.”

    Another nail in Schilling’s coffin. He’s a can of gas away from it sometimes, I swear.

  109. JohnBowen Says:

    “He said give him anyone around 128+ that doesn’t belong and I said there are plenty. ”

    You gave him relievers and guys with 6 full years or less of experience.

    Among guys with over 3000 IP, Schilling’s 128 ranks him…12th.

  110. JohnBowen Says:

    I mean, if Mike asks for someone with above a .440 OBP who doesn’t belong in the HOF, and you give him Eddie Gaedel then sure…technically you’re right.

  111. Lefty33 Says:

    “You gave him relievers and guys with 6 full years or less of experience.”

    Let’s try some reading comprehension John.

    Mike asked for what?

    Say it with me……anybody

    Not for guys with over 3000 IP or guys with over 10 years or guys that can play Hungry Like a Wolf on a piccolo but anybody.

  112. brautigan Says:

    Mike: I found a satelite map of the field where I hit that homerun I estimated to be about 500 feet. Well, you know how the saying goes…….

    It looks like after measuring the “homerun” using the satelite map, it appears that my “guesstimate” was off. You pretty much knew that I think. I mean, looking across the river, it looked like another field away!

    So, after measuring it using the satelite, I hate to inform you that it wasn’t 500 feet. But, it was still a blast. I got it down to between 455 feet to 462 feet. Not 500, but still got bragging rights, especially since I hit it with a wood bat and it was during a playoff game.

  113. JohnBowen Says:

    Is this that home run that got you a college scholarship?

    460 foot HR with a wooden bat in a high school playoff game…cheers to Braut, that’s awesome.

  114. Mike Felber Says:

    That IS a remarkable blast Brautigan. Kudos for you honesty, but ~ 460′ is still huge, especially in HS with a wood bat! Jenkinson considers anything over 450″ of historic note.

    Lefty: I did not “backpedal” at all. I pointed to the FACT that you did not meet my criteria. I explicitly said around the IP Schilling threw-then when I reiterated the statement a few words later I just did not retype that. Anyone fair & logical would say you did not supply a single counterexample.

    Being sarcastic & acting like I then added, or ever had, a host of condictions is patently absurd. It was very simple: a certain # of IP & a certain ERA +.

    Chuck, once again you supply a premise absent evidence. WHY is ERA +, given that minimal contest, not a valid HOF argument? It is not even a complex set of secondary stats or system. Not that stats that you do not like define what is valid here or at all.

  115. Mike Felber Says:

    Also Lefty, that Schilling’s conduct will hurt his HOF chances is fine to note, but it is NOT a counterargument to what I was saying. Once again you shifted the terms of debate. Which was how worthy Schilling is, not how likely to make it.

    I am surprised by how a couple of your comments lack attention to detail. That Fiosk is in does not remotely address whether he is worthy. You supply arguments that are just not relevant to the questions at hand. Neither does Brown being a juicer. I am the 1st to say that this is a valid concern. I am clearly referring to their stats, & said that Brown’s use is another (fairly disqualifying) matter.

    Like Raul I am liberal & thus especially not sympathetic to Curt’s political bias & crazy talk. But some of you need to either take your personal feelings out of a clinical assessment of whether someone is worthy-the argument was never about whether he will make it but whether he ius worthy-or make your ego ABOUT being unbiased, fair & rational.

    Case in point: Curt has raged about steroids & PEDs. Sure, he, anyone in MLB, you or I-COULD have used. But what cause, what actual even suggestive evidence, does anyone have to suggest that he is a massive hypocrite & liar?

    If you do not have anything that is reasonable, your credibility as sensible when emotionally invested is severely compromised.

  116. JohnBowen Says:

    Like 46% of Americans, Schilling supported John McCain in the 2008 election.

    He’s had conflicts with notable dicks Pedro Gomez, Don Shaughnessy, and Jon Heyman.

    Big deal. So he doesn’t just dance like a monkey.

  117. Bob Says:

    What Sox player has not had a feud with CHB?

  118. Lefty33 Says:

    “Also Lefty, that Schilling’s conduct will hurt his HOF chances is fine to note, but it is NOT a counterargument to what I was saying. Once again you shifted the terms of debate. Which was how worthy Schilling is, not how likely to make it.”

    Who cares how worthy anyone is if they are not viable candidates.

    Schilling is a fringe canidate w/o his big mouth let alone with.
    It only comprimises him more.

    Fisk is in. To debate the worthiness of a candidate after they are already in is stupid. It’s done and over with. Whatever you think is irrelevant, he is a HOF player.

    “I am surprised by how a couple of your comments lack attention to detail.”

    Coming from you that’s funny.

    “But some of you need to either take your personal feelings out of a clinical assessment of whether someone is worthy-the argument was never about whether he will make it but whether he ius worthy-or make your ego ABOUT being unbiased, fair & rational.”

    There you go again Mike.

    Telling everybody what they should and shouldn’t do again.

    And you wonder why people get uncivil with you sometimes.

    “I am clearly referring to their stats, & said that Brown’s use is another (fairly disqualifying) matter.”

    But Brown’s stats are non-comparable because no one knows how much worse of a pitcher he would have been if he would have pitched clean.

    It’s like me trying to race Usain Bolt with a pair of Acme jet-powered skates on.

    Sure I can put up times like him but you can’t compare the two because he is, best we know, clean and I’m cheating.

    “But what cause, what actual even suggestive evidence, does anyone have to suggest that he is a massive hypocrite & liar?”

    For starters his lack of durability. I’ll let you connect the rest of the dots.

  119. Mike Felber Says:

    I will even throw it open to the 2 parties who are not likely to be biased here. Read my comment # 76 Brautigan & Cameron. The last & certainly THIRD to last paragraphs are the relevant ones.

    Cameron if anything may be biased against my argument, since he does not like Schilling, describes his comments as insane, & I said he was very wrong about Petitte. STILL he is fair minded & likely to be rational, & Brautigan has no horse in this race.

    What do you folks think is fairly interpreted by a reasonable person re: my inquiry in post # 76? That anybody at all with a 128 ERA +, say with a fraction of a season under their belt or a modern closer, qualifies as disproving what I asked?

    Or that I clearly indicated 1st that their IP must be comparable to Schillings?

  120. Chuck Says:

    “But what cause, what actual even suggestive evidence, does anyone have to suggest that he is a massive hypocrite & liar?”

    Game 6, 2004 ALCS.

  121. Chuck Says:

    “Can you describe anyone else who has around a 128 ERA + who you personally think does not belong”

    Dizzy Dean.

  122. Mike Felber Says:

    Lack of durability shows that PEDs are likely? That makes no sense. Tons of pitchers are done when Schilling was excelling, often due to injury. Also, PEDs allow many to function & recover better-before breaking down with stereotypical injuries. Schilling shows none of those patterns, nothing of any specificity.

    I merely said what was rational Laetfy, there was nothing out of line there. We ALL say how the other “should” consider an argument. And I have said many times that the uncivility has been pervasive-amongst a few. It has NOT been especially rife with me, I stated some have actually been more moderate to me when called, & nobody has been a jerk in response to such a moderate statement.

    So I “wonder” about nothing like that. Fisk being in the HOF is not at all the point. Whether his case is academically comparable to Schilling, same with Brown, is. IF someone sets those terms, & explicitly says that their being in the HOF & using PEDs is NOT what is being considered: it is very valid to ask.

    If you do not choose to engage, fine. But to say that others cannot or should not because you only want to consider candidates on their real life odds-THAT is being repressive.

    You also have shown nothing like a lack of attention to detail on my part. Just saying “I’m rubber, you are glue” is not an argument. It is actuually an example of the lack of detail I am talking about.

  123. Mike Felber Says:

    Thanks Chuck, but you are proving my point with Dean. Look what I wrote JUST before asking for the 128 + ERA. And I have said it a few times since: looking for com parable IP of course.

    He does not even have 2000 IP! His lack of longevity & sustained excellence is the reason many like us would not quite have him in the HOF. Schilling has well over 50% more IP just in the regular season.

    And you did not show why that game 6 shows him a liar & hypocrite.

  124. brautigan Says:

    First inning, one out, runner on first and the coach called a hit and run. First pitch fastball low in the strike zone and when I connected, it felt like I hit a grape. I remember running as hard as I could to first and the first base coach was laughing and saying “you don’t have to run”.

    I hit a home run in college that might have been further, but it was with a metal bat (I hated those damn things). I looked up that field on the satelite imaging, but it is no longer there. Besides, I have no idea where that one landed. The one I hit in high school, that was easy to gauge because it landed in a tree across the river and this local newspaper boy found it and showed me where it landed.

  125. brautigan Says:

    Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax….two hall of fame pitchers whose careers were cut short due to injuries. I can understand why they both are in, and I can understand why there are objections to their inclusion.

  126. Bob Says:

    I think he is implying the injury to his ankle was a lie.

  127. brautigan Says:

    Bob: Nothing a tampon couldn’t have fixed.

    I think Kirk Gibson’s homerun was much more hall of fame worthy than Curt’s bloody sock.

  128. Bob Says:

    Or at least the severity of his injury.

  129. Lefty33 Says:

    “It has NOT been especially rife with me,”

    “You also have shown nothing like a lack of attention to detail on my part. Just saying “I’m rubber, you are glue” is not an argument. It is actuually an example of the lack of detail I am talking about.”

    No of course not Mike never you and your holier than thou attitude.

    What have you shown? Zero.

    “And I have said many times that the uncivility has been pervasive-amongst a few.”

    You included.

    Going back to post #76 Mike let’s not revise history:

    You said: Can you describe anyone else who has around a 128 ERA + who you personally think does not belong?

    I answered you in post #82.

    You said: I’ll supply one for you. Kevin Brown, who has comparable career/peak value & besides the PED question, is also deserving of the Hall.

    I answered you already but just to rehash, sure Brown has a comparable ERA + but number one who said ERA + means a hill of crap as an end all be all HOF pitching metric and two Brown achieved his numbers via juice.

    Without juice Brown is probably Sergio Mitre.

    At least use a guy like Saberhagen who was more likely clean from a PED standpoint.

  130. Raul Says:

    Lefty is likely comparing Curt Schilling to Jim Rice.

    Both were/are fringe candidates who did not help themselves with their personalities and treatment of others.

    One could argue that if Jim Rice had Willie Stargell’s reputation, he would have been elected far sooner. Doesn’t mean he would have been more deserving…just would have been elected earlier.

    Similar thing can be said about Curt Schilling — assuming he is forced to wait.

    I do lean to the left. I do think Schilling is a jerk and idiot and politically I disagree with him. But personally, I don’t hold that against him for the Hall of Fame.

    I simply think he was a juicer and his career wasn’t as consistent as a guy like Mike Mussina. That Schilling is a jerk wouldn’t make me keep him out, but it’s not helping him either.

    I think Randy Johnson was a jerk and I have no problems with him getting in.

  131. Bob Says:

    Brautigan, thanks for that thought.

  132. Lefty33 Says:

    “Lefty is likely comparing Curt Schilling to Jim Rice.”

    Or Blyleven

  133. JohnBowen Says:

    ““Lefty is likely comparing Curt Schilling to Jim Rice.”

    Except that Schilling, as a player is about 1,000x more deserving than Rice. And also, Rice got in eventually.

    “I simply think he was a juicer and his career wasn’t as consistent as a guy like Mike Mussina. ”

    Why do you suspect him of being a juicer any more than Mussina.

    I agree that Mussina is a better candidate.

  134. Chuck Says:

    “And you did not show why that game 6 shows him a liar & hypocrite.”

    C’mon, Mike, really?

    Google’s a great tool, you know.

    Nice if you did your own research once in awhile and stop asking us to support everything.

    You’re single, right?

  135. Bob Says:

    I thought he had a pet cat. I know Cameron does. Speaking of which, Cameron how is your suitcase living pussy cat doing. How many of its 9 lives are complete?

  136. Chuck Says:

    We’ve had the Schilling discussion before here, Mike, more than once.

    You seem to have a selective memory to things.

    I don’t know what was on Schilling’s sock..ketchup, red sharpie, BBQ sauce, lipstick..I do know it wasn’t blood.

    At least not Schillings blood.

  137. brautigan Says:

    “Except that Schilling, as a player is about 1,000x more deserving than Rice”.

    But Rice was such a FEARED HITTER.

    Criminy, I get tired of these HOF arguments……but it seems to be the straw that stirs. And I do get caught up in them as well.

  138. Raul Says:

    Because in his mid-30s, nothing about Schilling suggested he would go anywhere near the Hall of Fame and then he puts together some outstanding seasons.

    He was also rumored to be a juicer, and while not concrete evidence, I kinda don’t buy the notion that everyone brought in front of that Congressional Hearing was found to be a steroid user. All of them — except Schilling. Yeah right.

    That he speaks against it vehemently means nothing. He could have wagged his finger at Congress for all I care.

    Unlike some of you, I don’t need a needle with his DNA on it. And I don’t have to prove my belief about him to a jury in a US Court. I’m fairly confident Schilling juiced. And I’m pretty sure Obama is not a Muslim.

  139. JohnBowen Says:

    “I don’t know what was on Schilling’s sock..ketchup, red sharpie, BBQ sauce, lipstick..I do know it wasn’t blood”

    You weren’t there.

    You don’t know shit.

  140. Raul Says:

    Frankly I don’t care about Schilling’s sock.
    Even if it was blood, so what? He was so doped up he couldn’t feel anything anyway. You think it’s impressive to bash your head on a rock if you’re so high on angel dust you think you’re in a pixie land reality and stones feel like cotton balls?

    Still not as impressive to me as Jeter diving into the stands against Boston and coming up with a bloody face. THAT was ballsy.

  141. Raul Says:


    I have to say that Tim McCarver wasn’t nearly as annoying this past World Series as in the past.

  142. Raul Says:


    Part of me is a really disgusted that we’re going to be discussing the worth of Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols this winter. Two men who will make upwards of a combined 500 million dollars at a time when this country is broke and so many poor people are struggling.

    It’s crazy the salaries these athletes make.

  143. Chuck Says:

    Hitting the sauce a little early John?

  144. Bob Says:

    Remember, Raul that 500 million will be spread out over 7-8 years, not one. And I think it will be closer to 400 million, although I am saddenend to read about Highland Park Michigan removing all their street lamps due to money. Sad

    Although your overall point of athletes being overpaid is valid.

  145. Bob Says:

    And John, if you are, outstanding. I am jealous. It is Friday. So without further ado: TGIF!!!

  146. John Says:

    Lol no, not drunk.

    And if we didn’t all commit hours and dollars to baseball every year, they wouldn’t make all this money. They perform a rare skill. Supply and demand baby. Get over it.

  147. Bob Says:

    Since Braut brought up the tampon thing, some jokes to tell your friends at happy hour, or during the college football game tomorrow night.

    Q. What is 6.9?
    A. Sex interupted by a period!!!
    Q. Name 2 brave men who have been shot in a theatre?
    A. Lincoln, and the guy who sat in front of Pee Wee Herman!!!

  148. brautigan Says:


    I blame the agents. The agents have been the worst thing for professional sports. What do they contribute?

    I kept thinking about how Scott Boras got $25 million for his work on the Texas-Arod deal. How much did the Texas Ranger fans benefit by paying that scuzzball $25 million? That could have gone a long way in player development, scouting, etc., but it was all money pissed away because the “advisor” knew how to stick it to MLB.

    Back when Portland had a team, this guy approaches me and asked me what I thought of this certain player, and I told him exactly what I thought. He thanked me and I asked him who he was. He said he was the player’s agent, so I peppered him with questions. He told me he has six clients, that all but one were in the minor leagues and he was not going to take on any more than six because then he couldn’t deliver what he had contracted. He told me what kinds of things he did, like getting his clients shoes, bats (and other equipment) and trying to find endoresements. But he also did a lot of encouraging his clients because as we all know, a season in the minors is a long, hard grind. I totally appreciated this guy, which made me totally put the hate on the Hendricks brothers, Jeff Moorad, and of course, Boras.

  149. Chuck Says:


    RIP Bob Forsch.

  150. brautigan Says:

    Bob: I am about 2 hours away from starting in on some Sapphire gin. Getting my game face on for Washington-Oregon tomorrow night. I HATE the Huskies (not so much the players, but the Husky fan. Bow down to this ass hats!)

  151. Chuck Says:

    So, Jemille Weeks is the only untouchable player on the Oakland roster?

    And Happy Birthday to the real Tito Francona.

  152. Chuck Says:

    Don’t forget, AFL Rising Stars game, tomorrow night, MLB Network, 8pm EST.

  153. brautigan Says:

    Damn. I always like Forsch. I knew his brother Ken, but never met Bob. That really sucks.

  154. brautigan Says:

    Chuck: May have to pay someone to TIVO that one. I, and millions others will be watching LSU-Alabama.

  155. Bob Says:

    Braut: Enjoy the gin.

  156. brautigan Says:

    Thank you…I’ve already started the salivating.

  157. JohnBowen Says:

    “I blame the agents. The agents have been the worst thing for professional sports. What do they contribute?”

    Well, the ballplayers with the rare physical skills who are generally lacking in the art of negotiation have a “demand” for guys who can negotiate on their behalf.

  158. Chuck Says:


    When I’m retired, I’ll be splitting a $2 gallon of Boone’s Farm with Cameron, all the while fighting over whose turn it is to sleep on the park bench or under it.

  159. JohnBowen Says:

    That was a weird thing to say.

  160. Chuck Says:

    So was #139.

    Point in either?

  161. Chuck Says:

    For those who might be interested in hearing me make an ass of myself, I am scheduled to be on Mike Silva’s radio show on Sunday, somewhere around 8pm EST.

    I’ll post an update once the time is finalized.

  162. Mike Felber Says:

    Weird can be good, & Chuck showed a healthy sense of modesty & absurdity!

    Now if I can jus’ talk reason to him on a couple of other thaaangs. Chuck: there is no reason to assume that I do not know arguments nor use google. I am asking for your evidence, since I do not see any that amounts to anything persuasive. I never claimed it was the most amazing thing-but no reason to believe that it was a bloody fraud. I recall the discussion,s & I see nothing I forgot: there was no good reason to believe he faked blood OR juiced.

    Raul, of course he COULD have lied, but that means nothing. Nor that he could have been honest in front of Congress is unlikely: recall many declined testimony, they could not be subpoenaed, & being outspoken against PEDs it makes sense he would be there & clean.

    You are overstating Curt’s performance quality before his mid 30’s. He easily had all star years at 25, 30, 31-& other times when he did not pitch enough or well enough to be that good. He DID age very well. But he neither blew away anything he ever did before, nor blew up in size.

    Do you not think that it is at all likely that a an athlete with modern training can put together more consistency from 34-37 than any 4 year span before, then be good but reduced at 39 & 40?

    If so, you are too cynical. That is not good evidence that he cheated, it shows he stayed healthy & in shape/trained well. Sure, he could have used. But you are not presenting an argument that shows that he likely is a lying fraud.

  163. Raul Says:

    “Supply and demand baby. Get over it.”

    John, you’re a smart guy…but you know damn well supply and demand is far too simple an explanation for these salaries.


  164. JohnBowen Says:

    If there were 150,000 people out there who could hit the ball as well as Pujols, or for that matter, Betancourt, then player salaries would be 5 figures like most people.

    Guess what…the supply is quite low.

  165. Raul Says:

    I don’t have to convince you that Schilling was a juicer, Mike.

    I believe he was.
    You don’t.

    That’s perfectly ok with me.

  166. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty in post #129.

    I have never been uncivil here, let alone cursing & denigrating anyone. Present anything I have ever written as evidence.

    Saying I showed nothing is empty of any evidence. You elide all details. When you quote me & ignore what I wrote just before about a 128 ERA + needing to be in comparable IP to Schilling, you either are purposely ignoring the context, what I clearly asked, or repeatedly cannot get a very basic & clear argument.

    I never said ERA + is a definitive stand alone statistic for HOF entry. Again: it is very good, & unless you can show unusual defensive support that mitigates how a pitcher performed, or a lack of decent/Schilling-like longevity, it is VERY LIKELY that the guy belongs in the Hall. Only other condition that might mitigate against it is moderate longevity, not great, AND great consistency & very little peak.

    So with well over 3000 IP, it is HARD to find anyone with a 128 ERA + who even does not qualify due to these other conditions! Nobody has done so here.

    Brown is a great example. Because I am NOT talking about whether he does not deserve it due to PEDs (though I think you overstate how much they gave him, you cannot know). I am fine with disqualifying him due to use. The carefully delineated question was: just given his performance, was he like Schilling &/or good enough for the HOF?

    And clearly he was. Not considering the juice.

  167. Mike Felber Says:

    You do not need to do anything Raul. But you are not presenting a case-beyond that he COULD have used. Not showing he likely did at all.

    That is pretty good Chuck. Sure, tell me where I can hear it in NYC or on the net. If I am around i will listen to the show.

  168. Chuck Says:

    “there was no good reason to believe he faked blood OR juiced.”

    Of course there is. Just because YOU can’t find any reason, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.


    Honest question.

    How many pitchers have been elected to the HOF, to any extent, on ERA+?

  169. brautigan Says:

    John: It is a game we’re talking about. Someone makes $5 million a year playing a game? IT’s not like these guys are curing cancer or HIV.

    I made a post earlier in the year (and don’t think I’m hating on Carl Crawford, because I am not, I like Crawford…..I wish he had a better year, but on to my point:), by Carl Crawford’s 39th at bat, he made more money in those 38 at bats than I have in my entire life.

    You say “supply and demand”, then I can say find two people in the world that can do a better job than me of talking a guy off of a ledge, or stop him/her from putting a bullet in his/her brain. Find them, I dare you. You can’t. So, if supply and demand is that big of a deal, I’d have a better contract than Crawford.

    But they play a game. Man, I hate the agents. I remember telling Herm Winningham that I was a mental health worker and he asked, “Do you make about $300,000 a year?” I mean, what planet to these people rotate on? (I told Barry Bonds that I worked in mental health because he was giving me a bad time about asking for his autograph) and I told him I work hard and this is my hobby. The bastard had the gall to say “you need mental health”. The gloves have been off between me and Barry ever since. And I let him know each and every time I saw him after than.

  170. Chuck Says:

    I loved Bobby Bonds.

    I think if I ever met Barry I’d ask him how come he turned out to be such an asshole and his dad was such a great guy.

  171. Bob Says:

    I wonder about the difference myself.

  172. JohnBowen Says:

    “You say “supply and demand”, then I can say find two people in the world that can do a better job than me of talking a guy off of a ledge, or stop him/her from putting a bullet in his/her brain. Find them, I dare you. You can’t. So, if supply and demand is that big of a deal, I’d have a better contract than Crawford.”

    Maybe it’s a sad commentary on our society, but the *demand* is higher for men who hit balls a long way or throw very fast.

  173. brautigan Says:

    True that JB, true that.

    I have a Bobby Bonds signed bat. One of my favorite treasures. He was always nice to us fans……and then there is Barry.

  174. Chuck Says:

    There’s something wrong with Barry, like he’s bi-polar or something.

    Did you guys catch the Bob Costas interview with Reggie Jackson on MLBNetwork last week?

    I had forgotten how articulate he is. I read somewhere his IQ is north of 150.

    Smart dude.

  175. Cameron Says:

    Barry has Raging Jackass Disorder.

    …That and he’s also the US government’s answer to Godzilla, but that’s a whole ‘nother story.

  176. Raul Says:

    Reggie does come off as a smart man.

    He seems so small these days. You look at him in the 1970s and he looked like a monster.

  177. Mike Felber Says:

    You say so Chuck, but you do not present evidence, & acted like I should know whatever unsubstantiated rumor or what YOU consider evidence.

    The way a site like this works, or any productive discussion, is to make your case & address the other guy’s points. I can’t help it if you refuse to say anything as to why Schilling faked that PS incident.

    We do not know the extent to which ERA + has effected HOF voters. Though we know ERA has always been a very prominent way for pitcher’s to be evaluated, & certainly even the old school guys often make at least rough mental adjustments for park & era.

    It is just one way to evaluate a pitcher. But combined with IP, & especially compensating for variations in defensive support, it is a very good one. As is DIPs.

  178. JohnBowen Says:

    Sure Mike, but some people prefer to look at: “was he feared” ? Did he “have a glare.” Did he look good in a uniform?

    And, also important: was he an obedient dog for the media.

  179. Bob Says:

    Mike, goggle Doug Mirabelli Bloody sock. have a good night.

  180. Mike Felber Says:

    But I believe he was never listed as above 6′ 200. Some guys like Dick Allen-smaller than that-giev the impression of size more than others. Whether due to proportions, being cut, a barrel chest, or whatever.

    If there is money huge to be made in baseball, then the quality & great players deserve to make a great deal of it. Otherwise they are being ripped off.

    Brautigan, you are like the guy we have sen in many movies talking down the guy on the edge? And you can/have done that in hostage situations?

  181. Raul Says:

    Yeah, I’m sure you guys think Nomar was clean, too.

  182. brautigan Says:

    Reggie’s a pretty cool guy. He is his own man, and after all that has been said and written about him, it is no wonder he comes across as “standoffish”. When I lived in Pacific Grove, I’d see him around and you knew he was knowledgeable about many things unrelated to baseball.

  183. JohnBowen Says:

    “While also making a point to affirm that the substance on Schilling’s sock was undoubtedly his own blood, Mirabelli did acknowledge that there was likely a misunderstanding in a past dialogue with Thorne after the commentator had also admitted as much”

  184. brautigan Says:

    Yes. And yes.

  185. brautigan Says:

    LOL. Maybe Barry is right. My wife calls me a “baseball stalker”.

    Baseball is so in my blood. I lobbied Nike hard for a job convincing major league players to wear Nike gear, but they had 3 guys employed doing that and they have not had any job turnover since 1985 (can you blame them?). So I’ve begun to lobby them for a job doing that with minor leaguers. How cool is that?

  186. brautigan Says:

    I should add that I’ve been bugging Nike for 10 years, but I just thought of the minor league angle. :)

  187. Mike Felber Says:

    Nike is pretty evil though, right Braut? It would get you making much money doing what you love, but you have moral objections to players making so much-yet in those cases it is just money that otherwise would be going to essentially the Plutocracy. With Nike you are actively promoting & benefiting a Co. (admittedly one of many, but particularly egregious) that makes massive profits in part by subjecting folks to inhuman wages & working conditions-mostly through 3rd world subcontractors. These Cos sometimes are guilty of great environmental depredation to, like Coke & various local water supplies.

    Is not avoiding helping & drawing profit from groups that exploit desperately poor folks & harm there nation the better place to draw a moral line? I would also say this to any big athlete considering endorsements.

  188. Mike Felber Says:

    That is why I wanted the Schilling bloody sock details. The incident does not impact the HOF worthiness case. But I wanted to see what evidence is used against his character in the relevant point of being a liar.

    Has not human history taught us that so much opinion is malicious or ill understood rumor? This is a great example. Do we really have a reason to believe that both parties LIED when they said it was likely a misunderstanding? There is no cause to think anything was likely covered up instead.

    But the vast majority of folks who do not like someone-an athlete, politician, celebrity-will strongly tend to believe the worst. Instead of being emotionally neutral enough to suss out the facts.

    A mouth & nutty opinions have noting to do with how good or how honest a man is.

  189. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 166 –
    “I have never been uncivil here, let alone cursing & denigrating anyone. Present anything I have ever written as evidence.”

    You HAVE been highly arrogant, pompous, and holier than thou more than anybody probably in the history of this site and no I’m not your research boy.

    The record speaks for itself clear enough as it is.

    “Saying I showed nothing is empty of any evidence.”

    What you have shown so far is empty of anything substantive, period.

    “When you quote me & ignore what I wrote just before about a 128 ERA + needing to be in comparable IP to Schilling,”

    When I responded to you directly about that in post #86 you had said nothing about innings up to that point.

    “I never said ERA + is a definitive stand alone statistic for HOF entry”

    But that’s all you’re bringing on Schilling as your proof of “worth” and that’s weak.

    “So with well over 3000 IP, it is HARD to find anyone with a 128 ERA + who even does not qualify due to these other conditions! Nobody has done so here.”

    But that doesn’t make him “worthy” of being a HOF pitcher.

    It’s the same tired argument that John makes where if you take two stats and put them together and say viola “No One Has Done This Before So Hence He Must Be A HOF Player” shtick doesn’t wash with me, several people on this site and most importantly with BBWAA membership.

    “The carefully delineated question was: just given his performance, was he like Schilling &/or good enough for the HOF?”

    But since Brown was a big time user his number are skewed.

    You cannot take drug use out of the equation because he did it.

    It’s not rumor or innuendo, its fact.

    Like Chuck said, try Google it’s an amazing tool for finding your own answers because clearly you’re too lazy and just want everyone that disagrees with you to “prove this” or “prove that”.

    To hell with that.

    Stop reading the Cliff Notes and actually do some real investigating yourself.

  190. Lefty33 Says:

    Let’s take it a step further Mike.

    To me Curt Schilling is no different than Saberhagen with more K’s.

    Sure it’s not a totally fair comparison because Schilling pitched 700 more innings but since you like to make leaps with assuming then I can do the same.

    Look at Schilling’s versus Saberhagen’s career 162 game average:

    15-10 15-10
    3.46 ERA 3.34 ERA
    221 IP 226 IP
    83 CG 76 CG
    20 SHO 16 SHO
    128 ERA+ 126 ERA+
    1.137 WHIP 1.141 WHIP
    8.3 H/9 8.6 H/9
    1.0 HR/9 0.8 HR/9
    2.0 BB/9 1.7 BB/9
    8.6 SO/9 6.0 SO/9

    Schilling has no CYA.

    Saberhagen has 2 CYA.

    Schilling was a WS MVP.

    Saberhagen was a WS MVP.

    Schilling was a two time TSN NL pitcher of the year.

    Saberhagen was a two time TSN AL pitcher of the year.

    Other than the K’s which are a by product of the differential in innings and of the two of them simply being different types of pitchers they look pretty much the same.

    Yet Saberhagen was done in one ballot with a 1.3% vote and you think that other than getting a push from biased New England writers that Schilling is going to be 73.7% better?

    OK, if you say so.

  191. Cameron Says:

    Once more, Jim Thome is a Philly.

  192. Lefty33 Says:

    If he can give them anything at 1B until Howard comes back then that’s gravy and maybe they can keep Mayberry in LF.

    Amaro has finally done something right with upgrading the bench.

  193. Cameron Says:

    I doubt this is their 1B solution and he’s probably there to solidify the bench.

  194. Chuck Says:

    “The way a site like this works, or any productive discussion, is to make your case & address the other guy’s points. I can’t help it if you refuse to say anything as to why Schilling faked that PS incident.”

    You know what you are on this site, Mike?

    You’re like a six year old who sat in on a Harvard Law final exam.

    This isn’t BR.

    You’re out of your element.

    You learn by listening and observing, not by talking.


    I’ve had two 2004 Red Sox players tell me Schilling faked the whole thing.

    I don’t think I need to justify it to you.

    If I say it, then accept it or don’t, but don’t question me.

    You’re not qualified.

  195. Cameron Says:

    I’ll just call Schilling’s BS on the Mirabelli statements. I know how PR works. Mirabelli let it slip and then everything else afterwards is how every major issue always gets covered up. It’s the same way I can tell that Herman Cain sexually harrassed those two women despite his claims (well, that and the deatails on the Restaurant Association’s personnel reports, but Public Relations and Human Resources are two TOTALLY different departments and cover fuckups in different ways).

    But Chuck, don’t be so hard on Mike. Sure he’s a bit of an inoffensive “let’s all be nice to each other” type, but I like the positive attitude he brings. Try not to scare him off.

  196. Cameron Says:

    And hell Chuck, I’m qualified to talk about how much on this site? You don’t try and drive me off. 8P

  197. Chuck Says:

    “The way a site like this works, or any productive discussion, is to make your case & address the other guy’s points.”


    This isn’t BR with a bunch of stat heads sitting around jerking off to their copies of Moneyball.

    Curt Schilling used steriods.

    You don’t believe it, fine, but four years ago you were the same guy who bitched us all out because you didn’t believe McGwire did either.

    Schilling’s an asshole.

    If you don’t think that impacts HOF voting, then Albert Belle and Richie Allen would beg to differ.

    Randy Johnson gave Joe Garagiola an ultimatum when he was GM, “him or me.”

    Johnson and Schilling were neighbors for three years and never spoke to each other except at the park.

    Didn’t know that, did you?

    The DBacks had a 2001 WS reunion a couple of weeks ago, you should have seen the camera shots in the dugout with his teammates treating him like he was a leper.

    Ten years later he’s still the most hated man in Arizona.

    ERA+ plus sucks, the fact 25% of the top 25 on the career list are relievers should prove that beyond question.

    You question my knowledge about Schilling’s sock, or Lefty’s opinion of the HOF voting process (after all, his brother in law is a BBWAA member), and yet you take with blind faith WAR and ERA+ and all that other sabermetric bullshit at face value and without question?

    You do more tricks and flips than the main attraction at SeaWorld.

  198. Cameron Says:

    “Schilling’s an asshole.”

    You have no idea. He was one of those crazy tea party assholes before it became cool to be one. He’s like some lunatic fringe hipster.

  199. Raul Says:

    I’m listening to the Stones.
    Too in the zone to be irked by Curt Schilling’s douchebaggery.

  200. Cameron Says:

    What album, Raul? Haven’t dug out my collection in ages and this is a good ex…

    Fuck it, it’s gonna be Sticky Fingers anyway.

  201. Raul Says:

    Sticky Fingers

  202. Chuck Says:

    “Fuck it, it’s gonna be Sticky Fingers anyway.”

    “This isn’t BR with a bunch of stat heads sitting around jerking off to their copies of Moneyball.”

  203. Cameron Says:

    …Kudos on the callback joke, Chuck. Would not have made that one.

  204. Cameron Says:

    And I forgot to call it a brick joke as is proper use. I’m a bad comedian.

  205. Jim Says:

    Schilling, this months Tim Raines. The only HoF Schill should be in is one for flapping jaws.

  206. JohnBowen Says:

    “Johnson and Schilling were neighbors for three years and never spoke to each other except at the park.

    Didn’t know that, did you?”

    Wow, that’s totally relevant in some way!

    “ERA+ plus sucks, the fact 25% of the top 25 on the career list are relievers should prove that beyond question.”

    If you make no effort to put it into the proper context, than sure it sucks. But no one thinks that 1,000 innings at 145 is more impressive than 3200 at 128. But it’s hilarious to me that you insist that Curt Schilling did steroids when there’s literally no evidence, I mean, none. How about Randy Johnson. Wasn’t he pretty fucking dominant in his late 30’s? Not gonna accuse him of steroids, are ya?

    No, because unlike Schilling, he’s never had a fight with your hero, Don fucking Shaughnessy.

  207. Chuck Says:

    “No, because unlike Schilling, he’s never had a fight with your hero, Don fucking Shaughnessy.”

    It’s DAN, numbnuts.

  208. JohnBowen Says:

    Sorry to offend your bro.

  209. Cameron Says:

    …You know I just realized I have no clue what Schilling’s big out pitch was? To get to the 3,000 K mark, you need a good out pitch. I know Randy’s was Mr. Splitty the Slider, but what was Schilling’s?

  210. JohnBowen Says:

    Also, Schilling had stitches in his ankle.

    Why is it so incredibly implausible that one of them broke, thus leaking blood? That seems like something that would totally happen.

    Also, Schilling has done crazy amounts of charity work. But he votes Republican! ASSHOLE!

  211. JohnBowen Says:

    “Look at Schilling’s versus Saberhagen’s career 162 game average:”

    Saberhagen had roughly 25% fewer IP than Schilling.

    So, that’s irrelevant.

  212. Chuck Says:

    Why would you assume I know Dan Shaughnessy?

    You do realize I live 3500 miles from Boston, right?

  213. Cameron Says:

    “Why is it so incredibly implausible that one of them broke, thus leaking blood? That seems like something that would totally happen.”

    Except I’ve found evidence of it being faked. I’ve seen enough coverups to know that Doug Mirabelli let the cat slip and he’s covering his own ass.

    And Schilling’s probably a nice guy and I do love his work for charity. In fact, he’s working on a video game where the setting’s being written by RA Salvatore and the art done by Todd MacFarlane. That’s awesome and I’m getting that on day one.

    Assholes can still do nice things. I’ve got buddies paying my property tax for me and I’m a fairly big asshole.

  214. JohnBowen Says:

    @212, all this Schilling being a total asshole nonsense basically pertains to his interactions with people who are assholes.

    He started his own blog to interact with his fans, and the media (naturally) took huge exception to it. BE A MONKEY AND DANCE WHEN WE TELL YOU TO, SCHILLING.

  215. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty, you have shown no evidence of arrogance. And I bet you say holier than thou & pompous because I critique verbal abuse, personal attacks, & petty temper tantrums. Calling someone on these things is not uncivil. You just do not like it. According to your logic the guy who tries to help any cause is the bad guy. That makes no sense. And you have been told here from, & about folks who departed due to this attitude.

    You are not being a “research boy” when asked to support claims like this. EVERYONE here is asked such things, especially when they see no evidence presented. Especially if it a personal claim: you are being lazy by not checking if anything i say can support your claim.

    I use Google all the time & bring some of the research to the table. But whether from there or my a priori knowledge, you may complain about length. You are sometimes not looking to be informed, consider a case dispassionately. When one of us asks for info, it usually means that there are many possible arguments, the person may have made no argument of substance, & evidence is needed for anybody to be convinced.

    You must mean have meant your post # 84: you did not write #84. That is a trivial error, compared to that in the post in question, my # 76, I 1st was very explicit in listing IP, & I COPIED the quote in my 1st response to you. # 93. From the start I was clear, & immediate called you on your error. Politely. If I had made the same mistake, i would have said “Whoops, I missed that, sorry”.

    I am doing nothing like finding too quirky stats & saying he is unique in reaching those milestones, thus belongs in the Hall. ERA + with IP is a very good overall way to look at how good a pitcher is. Better when I threw in qualifiers: looking at defensive run support, what is the level of peak, & asking for any other qualifiers. Chuck & you could find no comparable examples.

    I mentioned WAR & DIPs, & could give you a slew of other pitching stats you are familiar with. But you have had enough trouble focusing on what i said, & the qualified ERA + is a very good case.

    You have no idea what i am saying about Kevin Brown. I knew all about the steroid use, have indicated I did: you just have not paid attention to what I wrote! And you fail to grasp that I am NOT saying Brown is worthy for the Hall. You should know how I feel about PEDs. To review a specific belief, unless a player both 1) admits & apologizes for usage, & 2) we have a good idea he would have been good enough absent PEDs, then I don’t want a guy (like Brown) in the HOF.

    I keep saying that I used Brown as an example of what WOULD be HOF worthy, not considering PEDs. This is a healthy mental exercise, & you keep changing it to what is possible for him/what he deserves. That is not what I argue. You shift the terms of debate to something I do not even disagree with.

  216. Chuck Says:

    Keep it up John, and I’ll install a Breathalyzer on your laptop. Blow more than a .05 and the only site you can log onto will be Bleacher Report.

  217. JohnBowen Says:

    Are we still on this? One again, Lefty’s response to Mike was like this:

    Q: Can you name me one player with a career OBP above .430 who doesn’t belong in the HOF
    A: Eddie Gaedel! Stupid!

    We shouldn’t need every word explained. Some things are implied.

  218. Chuck Says:

    Understanding Mike, that while the number of regular users here is less than what was on BR (not by much), we are, in baseball terms, MUCH smarter, let’s wipe the slate clean and start over.

    And understanding ERA+ to be a weak arguing point, why do you view Kevin Brown as a HOF worthy pitcher?

  219. JohnBowen Says:

    “And understanding ERA+ to be a weak arguing point”

    It’s not a weak arguing point.

    Tell me, Chuck, how do you assess the HOF worthiness of a pitcher?

    W/L record? How they look in a uniform? Whether or not they had a glare?

  220. Chuck Says:

    “We shouldn’t need every word explained. ”

    I agree.

    So, why do we still have to?

  221. Chuck Says:

    Formula for ERA+

    Adjusted for park factor.

    Why multiply by 100?

    Nothing in the formula proves or shows where the park factor is adjusted.

    My mind is open, John.

    Enlighten me.

  222. Raul Says:


    Do you think Nomar Garciaparra juiced?

  223. JohnBowen Says:

    “Why multiply by 100?”

    So that we don’t have to worry about a decimal point.

    The actual formula is Park Factor *(lgERA/ERA), where park factors are scaled out of 100. So if you pitch in Coor’s Field (Park Factor of like 115), it helps your ERA+, like IT FUCKING SHOULD.

    It doesn’t really matter that 100 is there, since every pitcher is on the same scale.

    Want to get rid of the 100? Fine, Curt Schilling sits at 1.28. Which is still 12TH ALL TIME IN A TIE WITH BOB GIBSON (who obviously pitched way more and was better).

  224. JohnBowen Says:

    @222, do you think Randy Johnson was juiced? Why or why not?

  225. Raul Says:

    Don’t answer a question with a question.

    It’s a very simple yes or no.

    Do you think Nomar Garciaparra juiced?

  226. JohnBowen Says:

    Gut reaction, yeah.

    Also, who cares?

  227. Mike Felber Says:

    Chcuk, you presume to tell me to sit back 7 listen like a 6 year old? lol.

    THAT is highly arrogant. You have shown nothing about me being “out of my element”. Let me share some FACTS with you.

    1) I did not question Lefty’s knowledge of who is LIKELY to be voted into the HOF.

    2) Both of you conflate my arguments about what should be with predictions. That is not paying attention to what I repeatedly write.

    3) I did not say that Curt’s personality did or would not effect his popularity & HOF ballot.

    4) I NEVER said Big Mac did not use PEDs. I said I did not see convincing EVIDENCE he did, that I know weight lifting well & know some folks who can naturally get his size. Until he clammed up before Congress.

    5) In DETAIL I have presented questions & objections about how accurate WAR is, even linking a long B-R thread where I had detailed issues 7 inquiries into the discrepancies between different versions. I also have qualified ERA + by providing several contextual factors, like defense & IP.

    This stuff above was clear & incontrovertible. You have argued against Straw Men, repeatedly messing up what I say. Check any of these statements.

    Got all that straight? Good, moving on:

    4) You absolutely gotta be kidding re: “don’t question me”. That is an absurd statement. We are all here questioning each other, hopefully politely, all the time. That is the nature of critical thinking & productive conversations.

    5) Now you act all huffy & give personal stories that I, & nobody here, have/has no way of confirming. I just do not know about those cases. Maybe those who hate Schilling made it up, maybe it is true.

    But there is no decent cause for you to act all offended that I would ask for evidence-if you have personal sources tell us before, & if you cannot reveal them fine.

    But you should not dare to be wounded or take umbrage that someone would dare ask WHY you believe something where there is no public evidence!

  228. Cameron Says:

    Nomar juicing? Eh, probably. Guy isn’t good enough for the Hall even before adjusting for that, though.

  229. Mike Felber Says:

    Cameron, why would you think i would be scared away by anyone or anything? I have been here for years. I have seen some appalling psychodramas, from recent implied death threat if you reveal the top secret info i could send you, to…Well, much fun & enlightening talk. I used to confront drug dealers & tell them you might as well sell guns to the Klan with the effect crack has on the community-to trigger a conscience, when walking around my area.

    Anyway, you did not show a reason why the guy was covering up a truth rather than it was a sock-misunderstanding. Could be, but there is no compelling reason to assume that. With Cain, there is a different reason. Forget the # of accusers, like A-Rod, he has a bunch of inconsistent stories about que pasa around those incidents, retractions & minimizations of his “mistakes”. had MANY more commenters-just check its last threads & count. Chuck & many others praised it, & this extreme you-are-a-nerd-who-never-played-or-a-played-&-watch-baseball-trope is really dumb. Many folks overlap, this demonization of folks who like *different* stats than you is really dumb.

  230. Cameron Says:

    “But you should not dare to be wounded or take umbrage that someone would dare ask WHY you believe something where there is no public evidence!”

    To be fair, he did say “google doug mirabelli bloody sock”.

    …I did. Knowing how shit gets covered up, it shows all the classic signs. Don’t always agree with Chuck, but he provided some pretty solid evidence on that one.

  231. John Says:

    One time, I overheard Chuck mention that he participated in an all-dude orgy.

    Actually, no, that’s a load of crap. But see how easy it is to just say shit, even if its totally made up?

  232. Cameron Says:

    KC got into trade talks with Atlanta. The original deal Atlanta wanted was Jurrjens and Prado for Cain and Myers.

    …I REALLY like Atlanta’s offering side, but DM said, “We can work with you, but no way are we letting go of Wil.” I knew I liked Moore.

  233. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty in #190. It is fair to credit many more IP, AND to expect that if you have the same meaningful & adjusted rate stats, the guy who played longer did more, & almost certainly had a higher peak.

    The awards? Almost all know that how many awards one wins is a really bad arbiter of quality. The best guy often does not get it, due to team POPULARITY: & even when they do, your best year might be when there is either an outlier guy, or nobody else stands out.

    Also, though Schilling has the far superior Post Season record, this is a small factor re: who added how much value. AKA, who was better.

    You cannot just add up stats without 1) seeing how much they mean to an overall argument about performance, & 2) ADJUSTING them for context.

    But I AGREE with the main conclusion: that they were similar quality pitchers. Fangraphs has a much bigger gap than, they rely on DIPs, so the big SO/9 difference favors Schilling.

    But accepting your rough comparison, which mirrors the difference is mostly in that 3 solid years of all start quality pitching.

    So Saberhagen was about as good (unless Ks are prioritized in a formula or otherwise), good enough at his peak, but did not have a long enough peak. Though i do not think that he was that far short.

  234. Mike Felber Says:

    Cameron, now2 I wonder if you have gotten into the Special Reserve stash. ;-)

    Chuck did not offer that citation, Bob did (post #179).

    Biut more importantly, that is by definition solied evidence. You have not shown me even how it is more likely to be a coverup as opposed to a misunderstanding. Granted it COULD be. But let’s look at innumerable counterexamples.

    One: guy says he’s working late, tired, not making love to his wife, forgets some anniversary…Tons of guys fitting that profile have been cheating. And tons have been stressed at work & innocent.

  235. Mike Felber Says:

    Typo: I meant by definition NOT solid evidence. But my near miss in forming the word “soiled” evidence is also apropos to my meaning.

  236. Chuck Says:

    So, are you going to answer #218 or not?

  237. Mike Felber Says:

    Sure my man-I was just busy answering so much else! Getting my stated opinions right would have saved me a lot of time in corrections, thus your answer would have been more forthcoming.

    I already rejected the premise that ERA + is flawed. Considering IP, especially evaluating defense & peak value in ERA +, it is one very good shorthand for how good a pitcher was.

    But actually, my answer was clearly implicit already. On several levels: I said no by agreeing with Lefty on the PED issue. And saying he does not make my oft stated criteria for a juicer means he is out. Again: to admit & apologize unambiguously. And to clearly, or by decent available evidence, to have been good enough without PEDs.

    If you mean if we pretend that he never used, was his performance good enough to deserve the HOF? Absolutely. Enough career value, & an excellent peak.

  238. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 211 – Nice factual retort John.

  239. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 193 – Thome is definetly part of the solution at 1B.

    I think you see him platoon with Mayberry depending on the pitcher.

  240. John Says:

    @238, how dare I use facts!

    @239, The Philles will trust him with a glove?!

  241. Lefty33 Says:

    “Chuck & many others praised it, & this extreme you-are-a-nerd-who-never-played-or-a-played-&-watch-baseball-trope is really dumb. Many folks overlap, this demonization of folks who like *different* stats than you is really dumb.”

    Actually it’s not dumb because many people on that site/Bleacher/xyz fan blog or wherever will admit to not watching the games and then claim to understand what happened by looking at the acronyms.

    You cannot understand context by just looking at sheets of numbers.

    Example: Mike Schmidt wins his last GG in ‘86.

    His Fld% went down the prior three years and then all of a sudden at 36 it shoots up again? Why?

    Because even with a messed up shoulder (rotator cuff) that he should have had surgery on he figures out that by bouncing throws on the turf at the Vet and the six other NL stadiums with turf he could save his shoulder and increase his throwing accuracy at the same time.

    By doing that he gets two more years out of his shoulder until he finally breaks down in ‘88 and misses 54 games then finally has surgery after the season.

    You can’t figure that out by the acronyms.

  242. Mike Felber Says:

    True Lefty. I would never suggest that just reading & applying formulas can you know everything useful about the game. Though it can correct some huge misconceptions folks have through fandom, selection bias, senseless preconceptions…Some are guilty of believing that they know all by the #s. Though some could have read about Schmidt’s strategy, there are many examples you can posit to prove the value of direct experience.

    Though if we did not count, I guarantee you that those observing folks would have a skewed idea of who even put up the best raw stats.

    It is a matter of degrees: the black & white view of folks, & those who are stat heavy as clueless is silly. I have read a long time, & it does not seem like most are merely # crunchers. Their reminiscences/personal bios shows much of that.

    Too bad that shoulder surgery did not fix the issue. It does not seem like just aging that had him not up to snuff & retiring before too long in his last year.

  243. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 238 – More like how dare you stick with talking points instead of facts.

    ERA, ERA+, WHIP, CG, and SHO are all similar but yet Schilling is a slam dunk and Saberhagen is a 1.3% one time ballot guy?

    Apparently you are blinded by the ‘04 Red Sox Curse “mystique” of where Schlling can do no wrong and is the Patron Saint of New England Baseball.

    Other than innings and K’s they are the same pitcher.

    What proof/reasoing do you have other than you saying it’s irrelevant which in and our itself is thin, weak, and well…irrelevant?

  244. Lefty33 Says:

    “@239, The Philles will trust him with a glove?!”

    Depending on what they do in LF and what happens with Howard, yes.

    If they go into the season with Mayberry as the starting LF Amaro is not going spend another roster spot on a 1B type player.

    Now if they go out and get say Cuddyer who can play five positions then that’s different but as of today the answer is yes.

  245. Mike Felber Says:

    I know you are asking John Lefty, but I believe we have both essentially said the same thing. That the large % of difference in IP makes a large difference. it amounts to 3 more excellent years.

    More if you evaluate through DIPS is seems, since the big K distinction helps a lot. But even if you say nah, they were only 2 points apart in ERA + 7 that reflects their pitching quality…

    Schilling just did significantly more. Add in the PS only as if it was regular season. No need for invoking a WS drought ending talisman. If Saberhagen could have stayed more healthy &/or pitched well like Curt after 35, he would be a Saber-Favorite! Or a Saberhagen hagiography! No Saberhagen hatin’!

    Now I have pushed it a ‘lil too far. He is not disliked by the so called nerds, he just did not do quite enough for the Hall. I think it tends to be harder to be as hearty when you are thin rather than a strapping power pitcher. At least as a power pitcher. Cone & Martinez are examples.

  246. Lefty33 Says:

    “Too bad that shoulder surgery did not fix the issue.”

    Like Carlton in ‘85-’86, Schmidt was rushed back by the organization and after the surgery he was useless in the field and his swing had changed for the worse.

    Plus Giles was trying to push him out to save $$$$.

    The Phillies were last in ‘89 in payroll.

  247. Mike Felber Says:

    Dang that is harsh. This is the flip side of complaints about rich or spoiled athletes. Amongst the best players finished off by greedy owners.

    Thanks for the information Lefty.

  248. Lefty33 Says:

    “Schilling just did significantly more.”

    Other than innings and K’s no he didn’t and that’s the point you and John keep overlooking.

    Innings while a good point is not end all be all since you don’t have to be great to pitch that many innings. You just have to hang around and be mediocre, crafty, or gritty.

    Guys like Doyle Alexander, Kenny Rogers, and David Wells threw more innings than Schilling and no one is confusing them with being a HOF pitcher.

    And while the strikeouts argument is more compelling you still have guys that are only 300 K’s behind him that have little/no chance like Lolich, Tanana, and Mussina.

    Also his career ERA of 3.46 barely gets him into the top 400.

    Only eight HOF pitchers have a worse ERA than that.

    Out of those eight, one has pitched in the last 40 years (Eckersley) and six of the eight are VC picks so they cannot count in the same context due to the farcical nature of that voting process during that time.

    I’m not going to bring Wins into the equation because even though Schilling pitched on a fair share of winning teams I agree that while pitchers don’t totally control wins they certainly do with ERA.

    Sorry but I’m not buying the tired old arguement of one stat combined with another equals HOF induction. It doesn’t wash with me, there is no proof behind it, and it’s just made up BS.

    A guy like Blyleven didn’t reach 300 and was made to wait for 14 ballots because he shot his mouth off for years and, because like it or not they exist, he didn’t hit the magical 300.

    He put up numbers that are superior in most ways to Schilling and from a compilation standpoint crush Schilling.

    He took 14 trys. Schilling if he’s lucky is on the same track.

    Saberhagen has a similar WHIP, ERA+, H/9, BB/9, HR/9 and has almost the same number of CG and SHO.

    Yes he did it for less time but when he pitched he was more efficent than Schilling and other than K’s did more than Schilling in less time.

    Schilling is not worthy of 73% more HOF ballot votes than him nor is he worthy of anything more than what Blyleven got at best.

    Neither you nor John have brought or can bring an argument that justifies this ridiculous idea that Schilling is a slam dunk HOF pitcher.

  249. Lefty33 Says:

    “Amongst the best players finished off by greedy owners.”

    Same reason that Giles was so quick to cut Carlton when he was the owner/GM in ‘86.

  250. Mike Felber Says:

    You keep confusing what will likely happen with what we think should. The latter neither of us addressed. For the record I think he will have a hard time for the reasons you described, & you are perhaps slightly pessimistic about his chances. But not far off. John thinks he is a borderline candidate, me that he is certainly deserving. BOTH of us are talking about what should be, not predictions.

    I have argued at GREAT length, including here, on how underrated Blyleven was. Yes, I rate him higher than Curt: he was very good at his peak, & given longevity too was a near great pitcher.

    Any stat argument is “made up”. There are occasions when a stat is accurate & comprehensive enough that barring unusual circumstances, a guy should easily qualify for the Hall. You can take OPS + & PA too. Enough of the two it is very hard for someone not to produce enough value for the Hall. You would have to have minimal peak &/or a historically terrible glove to NOT deserve the HOF with certain relevant #s. Runs created, OW%, batting wins are all other good measures. It is NOT a magical formula, just that there are certain ways to measure value x chances that tell most of the story.

  251. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty, I think you must know that using raw ERA is highly misleading. Given that Statistic Lefty Grove was not a historically great pitcher. Though James had him 2nd all time, he led the league in ERA 9 times, & he was highly effective by any measure of average value over a good length career.

    So his 128 ERA + is pretty accurate, as is Saberhagen at 126. Neither have defensive factors that significantly alter that #. IF Ks are very valued as helpful to the team, he becomes better. If a guy plays his whoile career in the steroid era, especially in places like Boston, a 3.46 ERA is excellent indeed.

    I see B.S. as about as “efficient” as Schilling. When you factor in the value of Ks, but NOT the elevated status given to it by DIPs/fangraphs, how is Schilling not at least as good? The point is that his amount of good IP/seasons easily exceeds B.S. No pun intended. :-)

    Glad you brought up Moose. He is the best of the other hurlers you mention in post #248. You think he has little chance of the HOF? I disagree. Whether folks look at his adjusted #s, WAR, or over value traditional stats like W/L, he should be recognized. And is deserving.

    The argument that he does not deserve 73% more votes is an interesting one, philosophically. See, there is a category error in thinking that a player is endorsed as so much greater when one gets few votes, & another might be inducted. Voters could easily see them as I do: B.S. almost as good over a career as Schilling (regular season, but Schilling offering almost 1/3 more IP! Meaning that much more value.

    So a binomial vote does not mean that the longer career guy is ruled many times better, but one is seen as falling just short, another clearly worthy. That is a fair way to see it.

  252. Raul Says:

    Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez…potentially Clemens, Mussina, Rivera, Hoffman, Schilling, Smoltz…

    How many pitchers are people going to elect from 1 generation?
    The line will be drawn somewhere.

  253. Lefty33 Says:

    “Lefty, I think you must know that using raw ERA is highly misleading.”

    What’s misleading about having an ERA higher than any pitcher ever inducted except for Wynn and Eck? Wynn got to 300 and Eck was a much better pitcher than Schilling when his entire body of work is compiled.

    Pretty simple.

    “You think he has little chance of the HOF?”

    He’ll get there but it’ll take a loooooooong time.

    “Voters could easily see them as I do: B.S. almost as good over a career as Schilling (regular season, but Schilling offering almost 1/3 more IP! Meaning that much more value.”

    But a lot don’t think that way and won’t vote for Schilling in ‘13.

    I could name one BBWAA member that works for Tribune who’s not voting for Schilling and he knows a dozen guys that work for Tribune/ESPN/Gannett who are not voting for him because of everything I’ve told you.

    Believe what you want but just do me a favor and when Schilling is not inducted in 2013, 2014, etc. don’t forget where you heard it and don’t be upset when I throw it in your face.

    Good Night!

  254. John Says:

    Apparently pitching at the heght of the steroid era doesn’t count for shit, according to Lefty.

  255. Lefty33 Says:

    “How many pitchers are people going to elect from 1 generation?”



    Personal Bias with No Chance


  256. Lefty33 Says:

    “Apparently pitching at the heght of the steroid era doesn’t count for shit, according to Lefty.”

    Not when you’re taking them yourself.

    Kettle, meet Pot.

  257. John Says:

    Evidence, meet nothing.

    Sincerely, thisonlyappliestopeopleipersonallydislike.

  258. Lefty33 Says:

    “Evidence, meet nothing.”

    Well what do you know, just like your argument for Schilling’s induction.



  259. JohnBowen Says:

    “Guys like Doyle Alexander, Kenny Rogers, and David Wells threw more innings than Schilling and no one is confusing them with being a HOF pitcher.”

    Because they pitched worse.


    Or: peoplewhoknowwhentheyhavebeendefeated

    “Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Martinez…potentially Clemens, Mussina, Rivera, Hoffman, Schilling, Smoltz…”

    I mean, what’s a generation?

    Clemens started in ‘84. Rivera…10 years later. Halladay (who Lefty, not Raul, mentioned)…not till 4 years later.

    I would say Clemens, Martinez, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine are all automatics.

    Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina…borderline, but I’d vote them in.

    Brown…borderline, but I’d vote him out.

    Rivera, Hoffman…Rivera, yes, because he has been a machine…every other 1 inning closer, even Hoffman, who I like…no.

    All those guys encompass around 30 years of baseball, so I don’t feel bad about inducting all of them, even if they shared the year 2000.

  260. Lefty33 Says:

    “Or: peoplewhoknowwhentheyhavebeendefeated”

    By your sorry ass argument?

    Which was……..oh that’s right “because you said so”.

    Bout time you threw in the towel.

    “I mean, what’s a generation?”

    Usually it’s defined as 25 years.

    I mentioned Halladay because if he continues on the same path he’s the last guy I can see as a lock.

    The talent level drops tremendously in the pitching department after him.

    I’d vote for him before cheats like Brown and Clemens.

  261. JohnBowen Says:

    “By your sorry ass argument?”

    Of “pitching well.” What a sorry ass argument!

    “I’d vote for him before cheats like Brown and Clemens.”

    Honestly, don’t care.

    Halladay’s in, easily, first of all.

    Clemens won 3 Cy’s before he allegedly used the stuff, first of all.

    Secondly, who cares? He made his balls smaller for my personal amusement. Kudos, dude.

    Kevin Brown should’ve won 2 Cy Youngs. Don’t give a shit if he used the same advantages as everyone else, he was dominant.

  262. Lefty33 Says:

    “Don’t give a shit if he used the same advantages as everyone else”

    Like Schilling!

    Night John it’s been fun. See you in a few days.

  263. JohnBowen Says:

    “Like Schilling!”

    Equally as much evidence as Johnson!

    But Johnson was (amazingly) more likable. So he’s innocent!

    Yay logic!

  264. Mike Felber Says:

    Alright, its not quite Lincoln-Douglas level debate here now!

    John, I agree with most of your HOF inductions, & the closer policy. But while the morals clause that is featured prominently in the HOF texts can fairly be disregarded for most private conduct, guys that violated both the letter & spirit of not only US law, but baseball rules, which warped the game’s balance of power & kept others from doing as well or often even getting any place in MLB-Why should they be in unless they were not only good enough clean, but fully repentant? And MANY did not lie & cheat.

    Lefty, in post #248 you referred to Mussina as amongst those who had little or no HOF shot. I expressed surprise, now you list him as a lock. Was #248 a mistake?

    Sure, throw it in my face-except I did not argue that he would make it in those years. He will, & I would broadly guess sooner than you think-but you still are not separating what I am saying from HOF predictions that I did NOT make.

    I so not know that Eckersly was as good as Schilling. More impressive in having success in dual roles, that transition & playing 24 years? OK. But in terms of value added, not so sure his lower WAR & less sustained peak do not describe him fairly. Also his IP are virtually identical to Curt’s.

    But Lefty, you gotta get over the ERA as an absolute value thing. Pitching in a large run scoring environment, the steroid era, means that ERAs are not comparable. And home parks mean something too. When I was a kid Palmer & Seaver were about equally celebrated. Even though they were from the same ERA, Seaver proved way better: CONTEXT is everything. Run support, defenses behind them & stadiums made a large difference.

    Moose had a 3.68 ERA. 123 ERA +. That is the same as Marichel in a totally different era, nearly the same IP. Now Juan had a much better peak, but barring big defensive differences-which seem to be absent-his 2.89 represents right around the same level of AVERAGE career pitching efficacy as Moose with 3.68. If we had them in more extreme pitcher & hitter parks, the “equivalency” values of ERA could be even larger.

    Difference is, Moose was very consistent, & Juan had 6 of his 7 years from 25-31 where with excellent pitching & heavy IP, he created most of his value.
    The variation in ERA’s for the same career value pitchers would be more extreme with deadball era pitchers-ask my avatar.

    So since peak greatness means a lot, Juan was easily a better pitcher. But over their career their value is very comparable.

  265. JohnBowen Says:

    “ut while the morals clause that is featured prominently in the HOF texts can fairly be disregarded for most private conduct, guys that violated both the letter & spirit of not only US law, but baseball rules, which warped the game’s balance of power & kept others from doing as well or often even getting any place in MLB-Why should they be in unless they were not only good enough clean, but fully repentant?

    Honestly, just giving my personal opinion (and I’m a guy who believes every drug known to man should be legalized).

    “That is the same as Marichel in a totally different era, nearly the same IP. Now Juan had a much better peak, but barring big defensive differences-which seem to be absent-his 2.89 represents right around the same level of AVERAGE career pitching efficacy as Moose with 3.68. If we had them in more extreme pitcher & hitter parks, the “equivalency” values of ERA could be even larger.”


    These are true qualifications for the Hall of Fame.

  266. Mike Felber Says:

    Lol! Well he did have the “bat”, ask another John, Roseboro. But that goes way beyond being a “gamer”. G’nite John.

  267. JohnBowen Says:


    It’s morning.

  268. Chuck Says:


    Wil Myers 5-5 yesterday

  269. Chuck Says:


    You’ve provided nothing to support Brown’s HOF candidacy. If you were a BBWAA voter, and could NOT consider PED’s or ERA+, why is Brown such a slam dunk for you?

    And I’ll ask you the same question about Schilling, excepting you can’t consider his postseason record.

    Put some effort into this, Mike.

    Pretend I live on Mars and I’m just visiting Earth, and you have one shot to convince me they are both worthy.

  270. Raul Says:

    Who the hell gave you the idea that Randy Johnson was more likeable than Curt Schilling?

    They were both jerks.

  271. Chuck Says:

    If baseball ceased to exist today, and the BBWAA had ONE ballot only to consider every active player, Mariano would be the only pitcher selected.

    I’m not talking retired guys, they’d be on a separate ballot, I’m just talking the actives.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Halladay made it, but I don’t think he would.

  272. Chuck Says:


    True that.

    And how much of an asshole must you be when Randy Johnson looks like Mother Theresa compared to you?

  273. Bob Says:

    Chuck, to be fair to Mike, he said he disagreed with your position that the post-season should not be a consideration. You and John see eye-to-eye on this. Mike differed, and I blindly assumed that the post-season is/was fair game.
    Been mulling it over for the last 2 days.

  274. Chuck Says:

    OK, so, then is Greg Maddux not a HOFer because of HIS postseason?

    Or Ernie Banks because he never PLAYED in the postseason?

    Can’t have it both ways.

    If you can’t consider it for one, you can’t consider it for anyone.

  275. Bob Says:

    remember, I never thought about it until 2 days ago. I always assumed the post-season was fair game for everybody, assuming their team was good enough for October.
    I concur a great player should not be denied by a shit showing or two, but an interesting player could get a boost or get rear-ended by his October showing. On the surface, does not seem viciously hypocritical.

  276. Chuck Says:

    Nothing Schilling did in the postseason could be considered for individual season awards like MVP or the Cy Young, so why should the rules change when talking about something much more meaningful and significant.

    It’s a regular season body of work.

    And besides, it’s almost a given great players perform better under pressure situations, so you’re almost counting it twice.

    Considering his postseason, Schilling is borderline at best.

    Take it away, he gets in the same way you and I do.

    He buys a ticket.

  277. JohnBowen Says:

    “And besides, it’s almost a given great players perform better under pressure situations, so you’re almost counting it twice.”

    Fair point, once the sample sizes are expanded. Frankly I don’t see why it matters whether or not post-season series are counted for MVP voting. Different things.

    “OK, so, then is Greg Maddux not a HOFer because of HIS postseason?”

    Greg Maddux, Regular season, one of the best ever: 3.16 ERA
    Greg Maddux, Post-season, choker: 3.27 ERA

    Maddux is evidence that if a pitcher makes 200 or so IP in the post-season, his numbers will simply regress to his normal seasons numbers.

    I just gotta say about the steroid thing…if Curt Schilling were a nice guy who had a pleasant accent and got along with everyone…would you then think that he was a steroid user?

    Cuz really, you’re just saying: Player X is a jerk, therefore I’m gonna accuse him of steroid use.

    Sammy Sosa and Frank Thomas. One of these guys was a likable man. The other was clean.

  278. Bob Says:

    And the one who used roids also used a corked bat.

  279. Bob Says:

    And Frank Thomas was likable away from the field

  280. Bob Says:

    John, I misread your last sentence.

  281. JohnBowen Says:

    @279, I thought Thomas was supposed to be a huge jerk?

    Or maybe he just didn’t get along with the media, which I suppose is the same thing as being a jerk to some people.

  282. Chuck Says:

    “I just gotta say about the steroid thing…if Curt Schilling were a nice guy who had a pleasant accent and got along with everyone…would you then think that he was a steroid user?”

    You don’t really think the only reason I’m accusing Schilling of steriod use is because I think he’s an asshole!?


  283. Raul Says:

    Jason Giambi was, by almost universal agreement, one of the nicest players in Major League Baseball. I think the only player I’ve heard better things about was Sean Casey. And there wasn’t a doubt in my mind that Giambi was a juicer.

  284. Bob Says:

    I recall Thomas guest starring on ‘Married with Children” ( Raul’s favorite show I think)
    Of course he gets pissed when he can’t take a break from playing records, so he grabs a bat, qand his bosses relent. Tten he says ‘ Where the hell is Saberhagen with my lasagna. Good episode. the owners of Al’s league are all strip club owners.
    1. The Buffalo Busoms
    2. The New Jersey Naynays
    3. And of course the San Francisco Guys

  285. Chuck Says:

    Giambi’s still juicing.

    Thanks to the geniuses who put together the drug testing program, if you voluntarily admit to using, you can’t be re-tested again.


  286. JohnBowen Says:

    Wow, that seems like a weird loophole.

    Of course, Giambi has a weird way of juicing.

  287. Bob Says:

    I shit you fuckers not!!!!! The Orioles are close to naming Dan Duquette their new GM.

  288. Cameron Says:

    “And the one who used roids also used a corked bat.”

    Fun fact, corked bats are LESS effective at hitting the ball than wood bats. Lower density, poor transfer of energy, wood’s weaker after the drilling. There’s many reasons why they’re bad ideas besides being illegal.

  289. Cameron Says:

    The only reason Duquette’s getting the job is because they wouldn’t let Tony LaCava start firing people.

    …And everyone else told them to fuck off.

  290. Cameron Says:

    Huh, the Giants are willing to move Jonathon Sanchez.

    The Royals are already working on acquiring Jair Jurrjens (and Martin Prado), do you think that the Royals could conceivably land those two and Sanchez without giving up any top-shelf prospects? Honestly, I think we can. Jurrjens and Sanchez would give us two starters that don’t suck.

    …Which brings up to two rotation spots manned by someone confident. I love Duffy, but he’s allergic to the strike zone.

  291. Bob Says:

    Seriously, should I do an article; Thinking outside the box. The Orioles hire Duquette? I know other sites will beat me to the punch with commentary, and I am not starting it today. College football.
    if you guys want me to do one, I could have it in Chuck’s mailbox around lunchtime Tuesday. Will that be too little, too late?

  292. Cameron Says:

    Sure, we could use more articles.

    And here’s my response. The only reason the Orioles hired Dan Duquette is because he’s one of the two guys that returned Baltimore’s phone calls, and the other wanted to actually try and fix shit. Peter Angelos, once again scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  293. Lefty33 Says:

    “I just gotta say about the steroid thing…if Curt Schilling were a nice guy who had a pleasant accent and got along with everyone…would you then think that he was a steroid user?”

    For me it wouldn’t matter because to a point you have to assume that everybody short of Jaime Moyer and Craig Counsell used in some capacity and Schilling’s career has a lot of the classic PED signs.

    Until 30 years old he is a back end of the rotation zit on the ass of baseball that has a 52-52 record, hasn’t thrown 1000 innings, or struck out more than 189 batters in a season after parts of nine seasons.

    Now all of a sudden at 30-31 he suddenly becomes a 300 K a year guy.


    You know who else had the same amazing turnaround in ‘97-’98?

    Clemens when he started juicing those same years in Toronto.

    Schilling had issues with his shoulder and elbow throughout his career and there would be obvious benefits to him using.

    It’s is not a natural career arc for a guy to suddenly become a 300 K a year pitcher at 30-31 when he had shown nothing resembling that before then.

    It’s also too convenient that every time he’s injured he comes back with a career year.

    Hurt: ‘94-’96

    Career Years: ‘97-’98

    Hurt: ‘99-’00

    Career Years: ‘01-’02

    Hurt: ‘03

    Career Year: ‘04

    Current testing policy goes into effect during ST of ‘05 and he becomes an average pitcher again.

    I’m not saying that he juiced non-stop throughout his career like Clemens did after ‘97 but to say there is no evidence other than “people not liking him” is very ostrich-like.

    We have seen guys start off as one type of player only to magically change into another during their 30’s just to get named/be highly suspected as a user.

    Just because he hasn’t been named yet doesn’t mean he’s clean and just because he’s says he was clean; well we’ve seen that charade before.

  294. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 290 –

    Jurrjens is also allergic to staying healthy.

    Nice pickup if it’s cheap.

  295. Cameron Says:

    Last couple of years he’s been, but he was a decent workhorse before that. He’s two years removed from 34 starts and 210+ innings. It’s a gamble. Right now the talks are stuck at us saying not to Jurrjens and Prado for Cain and Myers.

    I’d say no to that, too, but I hope we can at least talk them out of Jurrjens. We don’t really need Prado, but ANY starting pitching is a godsend for this team, and we can’t get shit in free agency.

    I know we probably won’t get both Jurrjens and Sanchez. Hell, we’ll probably get neither. Just an offseason fanboy dream, y’know? Tell me you haven’t had those before.

  296. Lefty33 Says:

    “we can’t get shit in free agency.”

    KC has a bad rap as not ebing committed to winning and Glass won’t spend money.

    Bad combo.

    “Tell me you haven’t had those before.”


    I’m doing the same thing with Philly hoping they sign Cuddyer.

    Too many teams involved and price will probably get ludicrous but I’m dreaming just like you.

  297. Cameron Says:

    Glass is willing to increase payroll this year actually. We only fielded about a $30-$40MM last season after shaving shit. We might head back to our old $75MM mark for the right players.

    I’m saying we can’t get shit because after CJ Wilson (who we can’t afford) and Yu Darvish (who we also can’t afford), there’s pretty much nothing that profiles past an innings-eating #3.

  298. Mike Felber Says:

    I did supply a comparison of Brown to Schilling Chuck, including ERA +, & alluded to his peak value. I just did not go into detail-which you had not asked for then. It makes no sense that anyone like the writers should not or will not consider ERA +: just making mental adjustments for era & park does an approximation. But I can give you more detail shortly.

    First, since it is faster when pressed for time, the post season.

    1) Stats do not count in the post season since few players can play there, & it would be wholly unfair, a very unlevel playing fi9eld, to count them. But those games count, are MORE important than regular season games in their consequence. Of course they should count for assessing how good a player is.

    2) Even if you had been right about Mad Dog-& you were not-there is limited credit or blame that can be accrued due to the sample size. With the wild card/extra round, it means relatively more for some. But Curt is worthy without it, & The Professor could have hardly been bad enough to nudge his fitness for the HOF. It really would only be a tiebreaker when a guy is close.

    3) Great players do NOT, repeat do NOT, do better in pressure situations. recall those doing better or worse in a small sample size is due to random factors. It may SEEM that way due to selective memory/bias/fandom, AND that great players tend to do-great.

    We had a detailed assessment & thread here I will search for if necessary. Kerry could easily tell you the same thing. Recall that when we looked at players over a CAREER over late & close situations, there was little variation from their mean performances. Mantle varied enough, over 10%, in the 2 kinds of situation monitored that his performance MIGHT be considered “clutch”. This thread used OPS +. Though Mantle had only 93% of his own NORMAL OPS + in the post season.

    4) Which for hitters is likely about average. Since only the better pitchers tend to appear in the post season, offense is a bit depressed on average. Clearly some games especially at say Arlington, are exceptions.

    5)Schilling was well above his normal season performance, that is NOT typical. His 3.46 ERA is an excellent 128 ERA +. But during the P.S. ALL during the steroid era, he rocked a 2.23 over 133 IP! And had a WHIP under 1 a game. All I say is that should be looked at as adding the value of one superb more than 1/2 a season.

    To elaborate upon #3, Mays is an example. He had 99% of his usual OPS + in the clutch, like late & close, RISP situations. That is virtually the same as his normal production. Besides our admiration for him allowing selective memory in how we recall or weight performance, he simply was about as great as he always was in “clutch” situations.

    More later.

  299. Chuck Says:

    The Royals really don’t need to spend money now that they have a competent GM.

    The Royals are loaded, and are doing a good job in bringing the kids along and staggering them so they all don’t hit arbitration/free agency at once.

    In five years, maybe even less, they’ll be the next dynasty.

    And it’s not like the Rays, where they are loaded at one position and weak everywhere else.

    KC has a potential All-Star at every position and in some cases more.

    They can afford to trade anyone, really.

    Obviously guys like Montgomery and Colon are untouchable, but they can make something work with just about any team.

    Anthony Seratelli leads the AFL in hitting yet is blocked by Eric Hosmer. You don’t think teams are noticing?

  300. Cameron Says:

    Actually, I think Colon is the ceiling of what’s touchable for us. I think we’re willing to try to land impact players. There’s a difference between going out and spending to try to add pieces. We’d be increasing payroll. We used to operate around $70MM or so pretty regularly and for guys like Prado and Jurrjens (a $10MM increase), we’d be willing to do so again.

    But, bar none, our priority has to be the rotation. That fucking horrendous rotation pretty much was the only thing keeping us from contending. With young guys like Jurrjens and Sanchez on the market, we have the available payroll, expendable prospects, and competitive outlook where we can and should be aggressive.

  301. Mike Felber Says:

    You are right that Curt’s pattern COULD be a users, but it is not as suspicious as many others who never showed near the potential early, & usually bulked up dramatically. Especially in the early daaaaze when usage was not so refines, & attempted to be disguised, by taking things that helped but minimized bulk. Curt at 25 had a 150 ERA + & a WHIP under one. He had the potential.

    Saberhagen tended to have injuries & setbacks, then come back with excellent years. The Big Unit: he had a BIGGER discrpency in pre & poist 30 pitching quality than Schilling, largely due to a greater peak! He did nothing much at all before 29, was superb at 30, & his BEST years (considering rate stats & IP) were 4 between 34 & 38, & at 40!

    Modern training allows some to have a later peak clean. Without things like weight training, energy & strength will naturally decrease earlier.

    Schilling had only 93 IP in ‘05, he was not healthy enough to have a good year. His last 2 were good, though you would not expect a power pitcher to be AS good at 39 & 40.

    It is unreasonable to assume a modern player with his career pattern & a consistent body from early in the steroid era must have juiced. And unfair. If so, the Big Unit must have been dirty.

    Also, there is NO evidence that most everyone juiced. Used anytime, even dabbled? Estimates range from 20 something to about 80%. It MAY have been the majority at least dabbled. It may well have been 1/3, or 2/3, realistically. And less who used for long periods.

    Still a great amount, & it warped the balance & integrity of the game. That is still far from everyone juicing except a couple of players.

  302. JohnBowen Says:

    Mike, you don’t get it.

    Curt Schilling didn’t get along with reporters.

    Therefore he used steroids.

    See?! It’s so clear!

  303. Raul Says:

    Mike, you really do have blinders on when it comes to Schilling and other steroid users.

  304. Raul Says:

    Shut up, John.

    That’s not even close to what anyone said here @ 302.

  305. Raul Says:

    Joe Frazier has liver cancer.

  306. Bob Says:

    That is sad.

  307. Chuck Says:

    STFU John.

    You’re so clueless.

    Schilling got along with most of the media, he played them like a puppet for his entire career.

    There are some who saw through his act, but for the most part he was a good interview and never turned down the red light.

    Everyone else hated his guts.

    Despite your naivete, people do hold grudges.

    There are a lot of HOFers who weren’t good with the media; Williams, Carlton, etc who had no trouble getting in, because their standing as players couldn’t be overlooked or questioned.

    Randy Johnson is exactly like that.

    Schilling isn’t in Johnson’s class as a player, and his phony-bullshit attitude is going to cost him votes, regardless of how well he was liked/disliked by the media.

  308. Mike Felber Says:

    Wow, sorry about Smokin’ Joe.

    The guy who has a pixxa shop across the street from me was 9-2 as a fighter, wants to get back in & train all the time, but is always working now. He took a many hour flier down to see Joe at his Philly gym on a whim. They spent several hours talking, Joe gave him a pair of gloves! Then after he left, Joe runs out to offer him gloves…Apparently his short term memory is kind of shot.

    Watch Frazier-Ali 3. Even forgetting the inhuman ring temperature, that was maybe the greatest battle ever. At least by heavyweights. Ali was pissing blood for a while after that, supposedly just about to have the gloves but off when Frazier’s corner quit, despite his protests.

    Frazier would not talk to Futch for a good while after that. He could hardly see anything, & who knows what have happened-he still had a chance-but Frazier would have had zero hesitation to die in the ring.

  309. Mike Felber Says:

    He will lose votes, & has wacky ideas & can be obnoxious, & of course Johnson was better, nobody says otherwise. Though he did have an interesting & independent voice with his innovative internet posts, & nothing I heard convinces me he is a phoney.

    Andy Rooney died Raul, at 92.

    Of course Lefty fed me a veritable Field Day opportunity when using Schilling’s aging/performance pattern to confirm he was cheating. His teammate Johnson was an obvious & dramatic counterexample. How about Nolan Ryan?

    Also did not change his body visibly. MORE extreme in that he had some of his best years-certainly per IP-from 40-44! And better than anything he had done in years, back to his outlier season at age 30!

    He had the highest Ks per IP he EVER did, before the mid ’90’s offensive & K explosion. Led in K’s 4 straight years, K per 9 for five straight years! This was UNPRECEDENTED, & since, even Clemens had his last excellent performance, a 1/2 year only, at 43. And he did NOT have personal record K/9 rates.

    So by the faulty logic that the ONLY thing likely to account for late career resurgences, even with modern training & freakish talents, is drugs:

    Then Johnson & Ryan must have been using PEDs. Instead of it being possible, but no reason to assume that this is the only way they could be great so late.

  310. Raul Says:

    I found Andy Rooney to be a grouchy, inconsiderate asshole.
    I don’t feel bad about his passing — as callous as that may be about me.

  311. Cameron Says:

    Actually Chuck, what I hear about Schilling is contradictory. His teammates hated him, people who know him personally and his family love him, reporters love him…

    Something tells me he might be a good guy, but just an awful teammate because he was so focused on his own performance and pretty much said fuck the team. Certainly not a new phenomenon.

  312. Cameron Says:

    “I found Andy Rooney to be a grouchy, inconsiderate asshole.”

    I kinda liked Andy Rooney. He was like America’s crotchety old grandpa.

  313. Mike Felber Says:

    I know you dislike him. I never knew why you made that KKK crack, or why you found him worse than a curmudgeon. If he was inconsiderate, i am unaware of why. Most saw him like Cameron.

  314. Cameron Says:

    I can buy that he’s an asshole. Certainly seems like he could be one pretty easily. But assholes can be nice to people.

    I used to live in the buckle of the bible belt. Believe me, just because you can be nice to people and do good things doesn’t stop you from being a raging douchebag. Why do you think I bolted for KC? Fucking Kansas, man…

  315. Chuck Says:


    You said exactly what I did.

  316. Raul Says:

    I frankly saw no way that Andy Rooney benefited society in any way and his removal from television is probably a small step in the right direction.

  317. Cameron Says:

    I’m not saying Andy Rooney was a good thing. He was a curiosity like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. I watched him basically to go “Wait, he said what now?”

  318. Raul Says:

    People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck should be sent to the Gulag and forced to work to death in that Siberian hell hole — simply because that sort of stupidity, hate and general douchebaggery should not be allowed to spread.

  319. Cameron Says:

    Actually, I give Limbaugh some credit. Unlike Rooney and Beck, what he puts on is largely an act to increase viewership. While I don’t agree with his political philosophy, he’s one of the more intelligent republicans out there. Kinda reminds me of Gore Vidal. But he goes out there, says stupid shit, and gets all that attention because… Well, let’s face it, crazy sells a whole hell of a lot more than intelligent.

  320. Chuck Says:

    I think Lefty’s call of Schilling having a Blyleven type wait is pretty accurate.

    The 3000 strikeout plateau still has meaning, probably moreso than 500 homers or 300 wins.

    Schill is like Biggio in the sense with 150 fewer K’s or hits we’re not even having this discussion.

    He wasn’t a great pitcher. His strikeouts are more a product of four minor league hitters on every roster and everyone swinging for the fence and not that he was good or dominant.

    It is what it is.

  321. Cameron Says:

    I think Bert’s better than Schilling, but you’re probably about right. Honestly, I think the injuries are gonna hurt him more than anything. Figure in all the time he spent lost to injury and he potentially could have been a 300-3,000 club member and this conversation is meaningless.

  322. Raul Says:

    Without the steroids he’s done by 36.
    Picture a white Hideki Irabu.

  323. Chuck Says:

    Schilling pitched for 20 seasons and averaged 221 innings per.

    What injuries?

  324. Cameron Says:

    ‘94. ‘95. ‘96. ‘03, ‘05, that and probably spending ‘92 as a reliever rather than a starter.

  325. Chuck Says:

    Schilling’s 95th all time in innings pitched.

    He has fewer innings than Eckersley.

    He’s fifteenth in K/9.

    Seven guys ahead of him are relievers and a couple of others, like Hideo Nomo, have NO shot at the Hall, so it’s a meaningless, irrelevant stat.

    Schilling has 216 wins.

    He was a good pitcher.

    He was far from great.

  326. Cameron Says:

    As a whole, yeah, I’d probably agree. He doesn’t stack up against the all-time best in a career perspective. He also had a relatively short peak of three non-consecutive years (interrupted by an injury in ‘03), but in those years… Man, if you needed to win a game, the only other guy you could count on for that level of performance was the guy in front of him in that rotation.

  327. Mike Felber Says:

    Man Raul, you are harsh. Limbaugh & Beck can be hateful & ignorant, but I get the impression you would really send ‘em to the Gulag! You realize that is just what the far right accused the far left of doing, & some did. Leftists denied the worst sins of Stalin & others like Castro for years. not that the latter was as bad or did no good, but there is massive hypocrisy on all sides-amongst some.

    You do that to the opposition, or to an extent even indulge that kind of hate instead of responding rationally & systematically: you become more like the Bad Guys. Hate is toxic.

    And I do not see what is so bad about Rooney-even if you do not find him loveable, he did not seem worse than cranky. People were amused by his harmless & human complaints, that benefited society. He did some truth telling about triviality & hypocrisy-that has some value.

    Hearing a radio report now. Frazier does not have much time left at all. Wow.

  328. Chuck Says:

    Can’t use injuries as an argument Cameron when you have a 20 year career.

    Injuries cost Mattingly a HOF career, and maybe Albert Belle.

    Not a factor with Schilling.

  329. Chuck Says:

    Frazier beat Ali three times.

  330. Cameron Says:

    Fair enough. He lost out on a fair amount of playing time, including about… I think six or so seasons from working as a reliever than a starter, but I can see where you’re coming from here.

    And I think it wasn’t injuries that cost Belle his career so much as being a raving douchebag.

  331. Chuck Says:

    “I think six or so seasons from working as a reliever than a starter”

    Non-descript pitcher trolls along as a non-descript reliever for the first part of his career, then discovers a “magic potion” and becomes an All-Star starting pitcher.

    Happens all the time, right?

  332. Cameron Says:

    Being a nondescript starter is being better than a nondescript reliever. Let’s face it, if you take a guy who has some potential as a starter against a weak rotation and decide to stick him in the bullpen, you’re just hurting the guy. *coughaaroncrowcough*

  333. Mike Felber Says:

    OK, Curt Schilling. Pay attention Chuck! ;-)

    He is not an all time greatest. He was great at his peak, & to me clearly HOF material. Now as for your challenge. 1st, it is whack that you do not want me to use ERA +. preventing runs being scored is the BEST way to measure how good a pitcher does. So I will use what a sensible person would to start: that a 3.46 career ERA in the heart of the steroid era is very good. And that looking at parks & his defense support enhances that a bit-sue to park factors.

    You say he was 15th ALL TIME in K/9, it is actually 17th. But you have TOTALLY misread the significance of that. That a bunch of those ahead of them are relievers means that they did not have more than a fraction, maybe around 1/3 max, of his 3286 IP! And they came into games fresh when hitters did not have a good look at him.

    Those ahead of or anywhere NEAR him on this list who are not relievers, who are NOT slam dunk HOFers? Let’s look at their IP & DIPs, shall we. The MAIN, some say ONLy, thing a pitcher controls are HRs, Ks, & BB. These are at least the overwhelming largest ways that pitchers create value-& how they combine or prevent them to prevent runs efficiently.

    Those who are anywhere near him on the K/9 list & are not no-brainer HOF guys either have MUCH less IP, much higher walks, or both. Sudden Sam? Both, including a 4.7 BB/9 rate! Nomo also falls WAy short on both scores. Cone is #25 in K/9, & I think most of you will agree he is at least CLOSE to a HOF guy-& he had 3.5 BB/9.

    Curt Schilling, not pitching in favorable parks, his career spanning the steroid era, had exactly 2.0 BB/9. 2.0. That is excellent indeed.

    He led the league twice, was #2 twice, then 3…Let’s look at WHIP.

    11 times in the top 6, twice #1, twice #2.

    HR/9 was 1.0. Not as good, but not so bad for his era. And remember this, like ALL the above stats, are not park adjusted.

    His DIPs mean that on fangraphs his WAR is 86.1! Now, I will to err on the conservative side, I will remain agnostic as to whether that might be accurate, or closer than Except to note that this is what you get when you look at the value of the 3 meain things a pitcher can control: K’s, BBs, & HRs. Adjusted for era.

    Nonbody denies that his peak is at least adequate for the HOF. His longevity-2 strike shortened seasons-as decent, not high. In WAR, MUCH lower than Fangraphs, he is 69.7 for a career, a CLEAR HOF man, unless a guy had a really minimal peak. Does not apply to Curt.

    Lastly, we do NOT need the post season to make an argument that he is deserving. But I will say that the HOF is SUPPOSED to be about all games that count! So many will give it disproportionate value due to the stakes. I am being conservative, & recognizing random factors.

    But no way 133.1 IP with a 2.23 ERA & 0.968 WHIP w/great peripherals in the heart of the steroid era & against the best teams should not be worth as much as it would be in a regular season! That must be worth at least close to 5 wins/a 5 WAR.

    So John & Cameron: given what Curt did in total contributions, especially the 3 factors that are most all of what a pitcher can control, & how that added up to the RUNS he prevented-that SHOW why he had a 128 ERA +…

    Will you reconsider labeling Schilling as a borderline HOF guy? If necessary I can compare him to all the guys with similar or worse meaningful stats that you WOULD say clearly belong in the HOF.

  334. Cameron Says:

    Eh, not really Mike. He was good, and he had a hell of a peak… But it was a short peak. It would’ve been a four year stretch where he was hall-worthy if not for getting hurt in 2003. It takes more than one great stretch to separate you from a career of being good.

  335. John Says:

    Mike, those are irrelevent statistics! Look at wins and friend-making ability (FMA/9). Thats how you tell if a guy was great!

  336. Cameron Says:

    FMA/9 I’m pretty sure the career low was Albert Belle’s -121.7

  337. Chuck Says:


    Leaning more on the south side, but borderline.

  338. Mike Felber Says:

    You address almost none of my of my details Cameron. I argued at length how his total contributions easily were HOF worthy. You want to focus on peak?

    He had 5 years of 6.0-7.3 WAR, using, which again is much lower than the DIPs based Fangraphs WAR. 5 more years where he was 4.3-5.4, basically an all star. If you use John Q’s formula for peak value-which goes as long as any other criteria for peak value I have ever seen, 7 years: he clearly is HOF caliber.

    That skips his post season “peak” would be around another All star year, given the weight of his rate stats. I seriously doubt you would say we should not consider that with at least the weight of the regular season. Chuck’s position in disregarding the PS is as extreme as folks who consider those who have just a very few great {S games or IP as a major factor.

    Also, total good years creates most all value. It means little if those years are more divided up, like Clemens, or strung together.

    Though if somehow you need another stretch, the 4 years from ‘93-’96 were very good too.

    Also logically, IF someone had a decent enough IP for the Hall, even with relieving, & you say he had a hell of a peak, AND his career value, in WAR & DIPS (K/9, BB/9, HR/9) is HOF material…

    That means his peak, measured in seasons, should be considered long enough. Do the math.

  339. Cameron Says:

    Great quotes about Reggie Jackson.

    “I’ve never tried a Reggie Bar. I had one. I unwrapped it and it told me how good it was.”
    -Catfish Hunter

    “I was shocked, I always thought it’d be Reggie.”
    -Anonymous Ex-Temmate when asked for a reaction to the OJ Trial

    “The best thing about being a Yankee is getting to see Reggie Jackson play every day. The worst think about being a Yankee is having to see Reggie Jackson play every day.”
    -Graig Nettles

  340. Chuck Says:


    Add something to the discussion, or go finish your nappy.

  341. Mike Felber Says:

    I did not think you would address my details Chuck. I will just point out that my avatar, pitching the vast majority of his IP in the dead ball era, had a higher BB/9 than Schilling. No, I am not saying the latter is about as good as maybe the greatest ever. Just that his IP, K/9, BB/9, & HR/8, all adjusted for parks & era, are clearly HOF material. Forget about the post season if you *unfairly) like.

    Why do you think Frazier won all 3? Because Ali “cheated” by grabbing Jow behind the head so much in 2? I could see that. But in 3, though not Frazier’s fault, his corner forfeited. Do you think that Frazier was ahead on points through the 14th round?

  342. Chuck Says:

    “I did not think you would address my details Chuck”

    Why should I?

    Do you think you taught me something?

    I was only interested in your opinion minus ERA+ or postseason, and I’m not surprised at how difficult you found the challenge.

    “Do you think that Frazier was ahead on points through the 14th round?”


  343. Mike Felber Says:

    Aright, I taught you nothing, because your mind is closed. This is evidenced in that you have no substantive response at all. Nor the slightest reason to assume that i had any difficulty in this ‘challenge”.

    1st free moment to give you the details, all about what a pitcher can control 7 adjusted for context/era, I gave you a complete case about a more than adequate peak & career value to justify the HOF. In response you give me nothing.

    Oh, I forgot that you assume he was juicing-you gave me an opinion absent any rationale or backing evidence. And ignored my very detailed description of Johnson & Ryan having more extreme “aging patterns”. And Johnson not very good at all until about 30.

    Just admit what everyone here knows: you are wholly incapable of being objective about Schilling due to hating him.

  344. John Says:

    “I was only interested in your opinion minus ERA+ or postseason, and I’m not surprised at how difficult you found the challenge.”

    Translation: I just wanted to know why you thought Curt Schilling should be in the hall of fame, besides all his accolades for the hall of fame.

    Seriously, we’re now discounting ERA+, WHIP, K/9…

    Do you care about anything besides pitching wins, or niceness?

  345. Chuck Says:

    No, Mike, it’s because I knew all that stuff already.

    Otherwise, why would I ask you?

    “Just admit what everyone here knows: you are wholly incapable of being objective about Schilling due to hating him.’

    You know, you can really be an asshole if you want. John and Shaun are rubbing off on you.


    Why would I “hate” someone I don’t even know?

    “Oh, I forgot that you assume he was juicing-you gave me an opinion absent any rationale or backing evidence.”

    It’s not an assumption.

    “And ignored my very detailed description of Johnson & Ryan having more extreme “aging patterns”. And Johnson not very good at all until about 30.”

    Not true. You weren’t talking to me, you were talking to Lefty.

    Not my discussion.

    End of discussion, too.

    I have a ballgame to cover.

    Later, ladies.

  346. Cameron Says:

    Guys, you can’t convince everyone to join your side. At some point it goes from having a discusioon to just coming across as preachy. You’re really starting to come across as a “Why won’t you believe me because I’m so obviously right? Why won’t you open your silly little closed mind and just admit that I’m your intellectual superior and bow down to me?”

    …Or, like Check said, being an asshole. He wanted to leave well enough alone, you beat a dead horse.

  347. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 298 – “Curt at 25 had a 150 ERA + & a WHIP under one.”

    As a non-overpowering, non-K orientated pitcher like he became 10-12 years later when 99% of players are in a natural decline not the other way around and yet he some how doubles his SO/9?

    Like you want to always preach Mike, context.

  348. Lefty33 Says:

    @301- “The Big Unit: he had a BIGGER discrpency in pre & poist 30 pitching quality than Schilling, largely due to a greater peak! He did nothing much at all before 29, was superb at 30, & his BEST years (considering rate stats & IP) were 4 between 34 & 38, & at 40!”

    Again Mike context.

    Johnson was always a power pitcher that struck out a lot of guys and his issues revolved around increased control and better mechanics after Ryan set him straight.

    Schilling was NOT a power pitcher when he broke into the league but became a 300 K a year power pitcher in his 30’s.

    “a consistent body from early in the steroid era must have juiced”
    Schilling’s body was not consistent from when he broke into the league.

    He was listed as 205 or 200 when he broke into the league, 230 by 2000 with the Phillies, and had unofficial estimates of him being 250+ by the time he was done with the Red Sox.

    Look at picture of Schilling on his rookie card action shots around ’87-’90 and then compare it with ’05-’07.

    Big difference. Poor example.

  349. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 344 & 335 & 302 –

    Excellent trio of posts there John.

    You brought so much to the discussion.

    It’s posts like these that lead people to leave the site.

    Stupid, pointless, and they bring zero to this discussion on to any discussion.

  350. Cameron Says:

    You know what, as contentious as these talks have been, I’m in a hell of a good mood right now. UFC 138’s being broadcasted for free. First fight was kind of a let down (Etim won with a lucky choke 17 seconds in), but these things are such a spectacle that it’s kinda hard not to love it. Even if it’s a crap card like tonight, they treat it like the best show on earth.

    …Having Bruce Buffer helps the atmosphere a lot.

  351. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 323 – Schilling was injured quite often.

    He did minor league rehab assignments in ‘91, ‘94, ‘96, ‘00, ‘03, ‘05, ‘07.

    He missed parts of eight or nine season with ankle, elbow, shoulder, and back issues.

  352. Cameron Says:

    Watching my first bantamweight fight tonight. Little dudes can fuckin’ fly, man.

  353. Cameron Says:

    And the main event of the night is done by doctor stoppage. You don’t see that call thrown out too often. But the way the fight was going on… Chris Leben took a cut right on the edge of his left eye. That thing was bleeding like a motherfucker.

    That’s one thing that can make a good MMA fight really hard to watch. In boxing, the blood just gets on the face and occasionally on the other guy’s shoulders if they clinch in an MMA fight, the blood gets EVERYWHERE. These two guys were fucking painted red after all the grappling and submission attempts. I almost had to turn the TV off.

  354. Cameron Says:

    So, this is Bud Selig’s last year as Commissioner of MLB and he’s not expected to come back. Who do you think replaces him? If you ask me, it’s Joe Torre. He’s the most public executive in MLB’s office, always being the first to give his words to the press and is at all the major events already. It seems like the guy was groomed to take over from day one.

  355. Chuck Says:


    I talked to a couple of Royals scouts at the Rising Stars tonight.

    The Royals are absolutely not converting Jeremy Jeffress into a starter. They do, in fact, view him as Soria’s eventual replacement.

    Which, as you know, I’ve already stated.

    And, Wil Myers is really good at baseball.

  356. Cameron Says:

    Thanks for the good news. I know that was the intention behind his demotion to Omaha last year and they got the notion out of their system.

    And yes, Myers is. What’s his ETA looking like, 2013?

  357. Chuck Says:

    I don’t know. Kinda makes the Francoeur extension look stupid, though.

    Makes sense, though.

    Give him a month or so back in AA to start the season, then have him finish the season in Omaha.

    A good season, he’s the opening day rightfielder in KC in 2013.

    Ball just jumps off his bat. Ridiculous.

    He’s listed at 6′3″, 205, but I don’t think he’s that big, at least weight wise.

  358. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 354 – The main plus, depending on your view point with Torre would be that he is clearly old school and he no doubt would keep things very much as they are currently in terms of labor issues, rules, etc.

    The main negative with Torre is that he’s 71 and who knows if the owners want someone who is clearly only going to be holding the job down as a placeholder or someone who is younger and could hold the job down for 25-30 years.

    Perosnally I would like to see someone younger that would hopefully tweek a few things but also keep most things fairly steady and consistent.

    Costas? Andy McPhail? Rob Manfred?

    The job needs someone with Selig’s salesmanship skills but foremost someone who will be able to keep the string of labor peace going.

  359. Cameron Says:

    Possibly. He looks big, but pretty lean, porbaly not 205. Then again, I don’t look 220, so who knows?

    I just don’t want him rushed. They rushed Alex Gordon and look how long it took to get him to fix that fuckup.

  360. Cameron Says:

    I don’t know anyone young enough to hold that position long term in the MLB’s office… Except maybe Kim Ng, but I don’t think she’s got the resume to do it. She hasn’t been working that long and I don’t think she’d be too well received.

    Then again, I look at Torre and the guy’s looking good out there in his appearances. No major health problems as far as I can tell either. Bar a heart attack or an aneurysm, they might be able to get ten years out of the guy.

  361. Lefty33 Says:

    Selig made it twenty years so who knows.

    Personally I like Manfred for the job.

  362. Cameron Says:

    Manfred might be a better candidate and can hold the job longer, but I’m just going by the guy who’s getting himself out there the most.

    But as long as it keeps labor peace, I don’t give a damn who it is. We haven’t missed a game since ‘94. Keep it that way.

  363. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty made some good points. I’ll address Chuck 1st-strarting by replying to Cameron.

    Chuck is particularly un likely to be convinced. Arguing can be fun in its own right. Making & hearing points & different perspectives, at least if you struggle to fairly represent your side. I did not say Chuck was close minded due to not agreeing-he dismissed what I said absent addressing virtually any of the metrics.

    If there is ANY evidence that Schilling used, it has not been presented. I would lose a great deal of respect for him if he was such a massive hypocrite, & I think it UNLIKELY he was. With others like Big Mac I said it was possible, but before the Congressional debacle, there was no evidence.

    Now Chuck: you MUST know that tons of folks leverage personal animus against those they do not know. By all indications you seem to feel that for Curt, & Raul would-does-readily admit hating many he does not know (Larussa, Rooney…)

    I am not at all being an asshole when I merely observe that 1) you seem to hate him, given comments about his presumed lies/fakery/him being hated by so many/cheating…The tone did NOT seem like clinical opinions.

    2) If you do have withering contempt for the man, like almost all, you are likely to be biased.

    3) Not addressing my details reinforces that impression of bias.

    You already “knew” what I said? You mean that you knew EXACTLY, his WAR on different sites? Or even that his DIPs, meaning also WAR makes him look much better than You knew his exact career peripheral rates?

    Even if you did, you must have asked because you could not know exactly what I would claim, what examples I would use re: just what would constitute good evidence for me.

    You are right I was addressing Lefty. But since we have long talked about such things, I assumed you read my comments to him too, out of general interest & curiosity. If not, that is O.K.

  364. Cameron Says:

  365. Raul Says:


    There’s tons of evidence for all the debates here. Steroid users, Tim Raines, etc.

    You and John just choose to belittle and ignore most of the things you disagree with because you aren’t holding the smoking gun in your hand.

    Here’s a tip: Most of the time, you don’t catch the thief with the bag of money in his hand. Doesn’t mean he never stole it.

  366. Lefty33 Says:

    Did you get that last line from a fortune cookie Raul?

    I like it.

  367. Mike Felber Says:

    Lefty, I did not realize the extent to which Schilling grew. Bulking up is natural from early 20’s, especially with modern weight training. But I did not know we are talking about *maybe* 50 lbs. He was 6′5″, & I usually saw him listed at 230. Also, how much was muscle is an open question. At my peak, I had been about 70 lbs heavier than my average weight in my 20’s. And I put on a lot of muscle, but more than 1/2 was fat.

    But about him not being a power pitcher-he really was not at all so? He did not double his K/9 rate, though in a funny twist, that early excellent year at 25 he had his lowest rate ever (not counting 14.2 IP to start). He had rates of 8.8 & 8.9 while still in his 20’s! So he could bring the Ks, though his control was less: are you really sure he could not bring the heat? I’ll look into it.

    But it gets too muddy to well diagnose cheating from such fact. How can we reliably separate natural maturation, great weight training, & other factors from juicing? let’s take big Mac. His absolute distance increased in his 30’s, that is very unusual. But would that have been impossible or highly unlikely just by bulking up? He hit 49 dingers as a fairly skinny rookie.

    None of it is good evidence. I am no great athlete, never took anything, never had any trainers, & I went from fairly lean with decent strength to quite bulky (& overweight, which I could have shed if I wanted to) with a 19″ arm. Imagine someone with top genetics & technology…

  368. Mike Felber Says:

    Good illustration! I’ll just keep flogging away.

    Raul, I never ignored anything, & any arguments & facts brought to my attention I scrupulously address. It is not “belittling” to be skeptical when their is only weak circumstantial evidence. And sometimes folks respond with no evidence.

    What if Big mac had never used? It would not mean that my case was better. I said there was no good reason to know either way. That he WAS guilty shows that many here were right. But-& this is an important point-were they right because he MUST have been using, or “coincidentally right”?

    He could well have been guilty, but unless someone shows that nearly all who bulked up were guilty, I submit there was no good evidence. A 49 HR rookie (top natural talent) who works out like a fiend may well be natural.

    Or Canseco might also have shot him up in the ass. Looks like the latter was true.

  369. Cameron Says:

    “What if Big mac had never used?”

    And right here is where you pissed away all your credibility. No one here will ever take you seriously again.

  370. Lefty33 Says:

    “So he could bring the Ks, though his control was less: are you really sure he could not bring the heat? I’ll look into it.”

    Depends on how you define bringing the heat.

    90-93 early in his career versus 95-98 plus a split later on.

    Sure he put up 8.8 and 8.9 but he also put up 6.3, 7.1, 5.8, 7.6, and 7.2 right around it.

    Anyway Mike, Cameron’s link in #364 says it all and I think we should just agree to disagree in this “who’s dick is bigger” contest and leave it alone because in the immortal words of Dave Mason “We Just Disagree”.

    One final piece of reading for the evening.

    In case you didn’t know the backstory as to what changed Johnson during the ‘92 into superstar material have a look.

  371. Mike Felber Says:

    Oh, how could I miss this? Still Shilling for Schilling’s skills, not swill. Say that 5 times fast.

    He is SECOND ALL TIME in Ks/BB! 4.383. He was #1 5 times, & in 2002, over 259.1 IP, he had an unreal 9.576.

    So another angle is with a decent steroid era HR/9 rate, a pitcher with OK career IP & this K/BB ratio is very likely to deserve the HOF: & I will go further. Without looking at defense, it is likely that the already high 128 ERA + underrates him, at least a bit. As Fangraphs/DIPS seems to show.

    Second, all time. Now how many of you knew that, hmmm?

  372. Cameron Says:

    Interesting piece there Lefty.

    Though I don’t exactly know how one goes about asking the guy you’re facing off with for advice. Granted, I started working on my pitching LONG after my playing days were over, but how do you just walk up to the opposing pitching coach and ask “Hey, can you give me some pointers?” Just seems like an invitation to get laughed at.

  373. John Says:

    @371, I believe the consensus is that K/BB, like everything else besides # of wins and “niceness”, is irrelevant.

    Look, I don’t even care that much about Schilling. He was like the 7th best pitcher of the last 25 years. He’s borderline.

    Here’s a good argument against him:

    Despite playing for parts of 20 years, he only made 30 starts 7 times. He had about 6 dominant years (1992, 1997-1998, 2001-2002, 2004) interspersed with a bunch of Ben Sheetsian 20ish start seasons where he was very good, but still, just 20 starts.

    Here are some bad arguments:

    - He was a meanie
    - Strikeouts, ERA, ERA+, WHIP, K/BB, and WAR are all irrelevant statistics.
    - He might’ve faked the bloody sock thing
    - He only won 216 games
    - He seems like the kind of guy who must have done steroids

  374. Cameron Says:

    Once again,

  375. John Says:

    Yeah, fuck it.

    Any article suggestions?

  376. Mike Felber Says:

    Does not have to be an ego battle Lefty. It’s just fun to advocate & kick things around. Though some of those years in few IP, & I do not know that this degree of increased heat is so unusual: I really need to check that. I know for SOME increased muscle adds speed. Thanks for the link, I have heard some tell of that story, I’ll hit it now.

    Cameron, you are showing some serious reading comprehension issues.

    I have said at length many times about him using, when I 1st thought he did (Congressional lack of testimony, again described just above. “What if” is clearly a hypothetical academic question, explicitly speaking to what it would have proved-or not. It does NOT suggest he may not have used, which again, I accepted before he confessed.

    And almost immediately after you misinterpreted my statement, I wrote:

    “That he WAS guilty shows that many here were right”.

    Some joke about John’s sobriety because he makes funny statements, but c’mon, it is very clear what I meant.

  377. Cameron Says:

    No, you ask what if in situations where the question has some merit. Not when a guy who had a long history of injuries and was damn near out of baseball somehow found a magical way to be healthy and had a career renaissance at age 34 and beat the standing home run record by nine. There’s statistical anomalies and then there’s red flags the size of Texas.

  378. Mike Felber Says:

    Ah, I thought you missed something again, like confusing Chuck’s post with Bob’s.

    He had a 196 & 200 OPS + at 31 & 32, in 104 & 130 games. It is reasonable to believe that the only way a guy can recover from his injuries is PEDs? And in the expansion year he feasted particularly on weak pitching, as did many, like the M & M boys in ‘61.

    What you are saying is that all the folks who soberly reserved judgment when there was no direct evidence,if they disagree with your personal interpretation, have no credibility & will never be taken seriously again.

    First, that is absolutely untrue of the tons of reporters & commentators who either at least did not declare him a liar & cheater without evidence. Which was MOST of them. Old school baseball guys & SM men. Hindsight is 20-20.

  379. Cameron Says:

    With the extent of his injuries? As McGwire himself put it, near retirement and on the verge of being out of baseball by thirty? Yeah, I can safely assume he’s on steroids. That, or he got injected with sci-fi nanobots.

    And to say that most reporters and commentors have no credibility and shouldn’t be taken seriously is kind of an obvious statement, but that’s just because of the fact that most reporters either report the bare facts, which any jackass can do, or put their own spin on things and immediately shift if from reporting into op-ed, which is not news. The only opinion you really need is your own. It can be influenced by others, yes, but you can’t just take the gospel of others blindly. I lived in places rampant with religious zealotry, I’ve seen the horrors of blind dogma firsthand.

  380. Cameron Says:

    Also, new gravatar.

    Not even gonna have you guys try to guess who it is. It should be pretty goddamn obvious.

  381. Cameron Says:

    I just learned the title of Graig Nettles’ autobiography is Balls. …Fucking classy.

  382. Mike Felber Says:

    PEds are not the only way to recover from injuries, they are one of innumerable things modern medicine can do. I do not think you have the medical kowledge to say that his situations was hopeless without drugs. But the very cynical & presumptuous thing to believe is that everyone who disagrees with you loses all credibility. That is a real problem.

    It is not at all obvious that most who write or speak of the game have NO credibility at all. It is remarkably negative & cynical. If you said many, that would be a different story entirely.

    Also, if an opinion is clearly labeled as such, it is completely proper, traditional, & correct mode of working. Of course one should not blindly take opinions as Gospel. But nobody suggests that, nor that the consensus is better.

    But in order to for the most reasonable opinion, one should carefully consider all opinions. Too many never challenge their own biases of fandom, perception, & illogical & often unconscious assumptions.

  383. Cameron Says:

    I don’t base McGwire’s injuries off my knowledge, I’m using his words. His injuries were so bad the only way to stay on the field was through steroids.

  384. Mike Felber Says:

    There is a logical disconnect there. Yes, he thought he would be, or likely would be, out of baseball. That does not mean that there might not be a way to have him salvages-that Big Mac himself would not know about at the time, not being a Dr: & sometimes Dr’s do things other Dr’s do not think likely or possible. Great surgeons, & sports medicine folks are chief amongst them. Or he could supplement his recovery program with cheating!

    But that statement itself does not show that a clean way could not be found. Now, I have no problemo if you just disagree that a clean way was at all likely to be found. Though what seems quite mistaken, intolerant & extreme is that any & all who disagree with YOU lose all credibility! And apparently forever. A statement like that ironically impacts credibility-not about this matter, but in judging other’s competency while enthroning your own.

    The pizza guy across from me said Joe Frazier thought he won all 3 fights with Ali. While fighters are prone to this bias, he can make a real case. Ali won the 2nd likely due to being allowed to cheat a lot, clinching & dragging Joe’s head down, then hitting, or on the break.

    In #3, Ali won fair & square, but because Frazier’s corner threw in the towel. Joe was very upset. They were both very damaged-& reports were that Ali was about to quit. Even if he had not, & given his closing ability & Joe nearly blind, it is unknown who would have won in one more round.

  385. Cameron Says:

    Eh, it’s possible that he could’ve come back healthy, but not with those numbers. A guy coming off two years that combined for 74 games hits 39 homers in a season still cut short by injuries? Then 58? Then 70? Then another 65? Sure everybody back then had so much power that a guy Craig Counsell’s size could hit 30 homers, but everyone was on steroids back then.

    I’ll fully acknowledge that I can put some of this using knowledge I have looking back at the steroid era. However, it was easy to think everyone then was clean. We hadn’t seen widespread steroid use in the league before then. No one really knew the effects that steroid use could have on a league as a whole and nobody thought “hey, these guys might not be clean”. There was no precedent. And the steroid thing is still fresh in everyone’s mind and may cloud their judgement. I’m not always the first to blame steroid use on guys and just wait for evidence. Like how the guys said Jason Giambi is still juicing earlier. Well, it doesn’t fucking show. The guy’s barely a bench presence in Colorado these days. If he’s still juicing now, it has to be out of habit or something. Makes no sense.

    But you give me those raw numbers that McGwire put up. 27 games, 47 games, then 39 homers in only 104 games, I might think something’s fishy. Guy that banged up shouldn’t see his power ceiling immediately returned.

    …Then, you know, 70 home runs on 152 hits. When you’re H/HR ratio is almost 2/1, something’s up.

  386. Mike Felber Says:

    Again, the main point was your highly uncharacteristic extreme & unsupported view that all who disagree with you have no credibility, forever. That damages perception of your judgement.

    Look, adding ‘roids was the most likely way that he could have done all that. But a man who hit a record 49 HRs clean as a lean rookie could very conceivably add power naturally through training. And maybe recover from bad injuries with state of the art treatment & rehab. I amend my statement: hindsight can be distorting too. We overgeneralize & make assumptions not in evidence sometimes.

    Hoss used to say everyone knew that folks were using & truned a blind eye, which was false. It is also untrue that nobody thought many were unclean. The perceptions varied & were muddy. Also, NOT everyone used. It may or may not have been a majority who used sometime in their career. We really still have a large degree of uncertainty.

    Thinking something MIGHT be fishy is very distinct from knowing. And even with our knowledge of PEDs now, it is unclear exactly how prevalent & who could achieve what naturally.

    A player COULD have 70 HRs on 152 hits naturally in an expansion year. But ‘roids help a lot. Helped him have power & talent beyond what he ever did.

    Giambi I thought was dirty when he 1st said he had lost only 4 lbs., when he clearly had shed much more weight & muscle. I did not know about the Giambi loophole. He could be using, don’t see it likely. Though what is effective & at what point in a career is unknown. Guys vary in what works, just like, for example, most get results from Creatine, but some are non-responders.

  387. Chuck Says:


    Yesterday was a 15 hour day for me, so if I said anything out of line, I apologize.

    That said, I’m starting to find your attitude somewhat offensive, as displayed with your condescending question in #371.

    I have seen your website, and if I were to comment there, I would take, at face value, everything you say as gospel because you are in your element, and certainly know more about what you do for a living than I do.

    I would not question you, per se, feeling like, as an “expert” in your field, that what you are saying can’t, or shouldn’t, be questioned.

    It’s like when you were in college and your professor is speaking, you listen and take what he says as truth because the expectation is of him being a qualified instructor with years of experience.

    Maybe five years after graduation and you have a couple of years of your own experience under your belt you come to realize he was full of shit, but that’s only because your own knowledge improved.

    You don’t know me from a hole in the ground.

    You also don’t know Bill James or Bill Jenkinson.

    Yet you take what THEY say without question, and talk to me like the beggar outside your apartment building.

    I find it simultaneously funny and offensive that you would ask me (and Lefty) to cite sources, knowing full well if the tables were turned you would feel the exact same way.

    Let me put it another way.

    I know with 100% certainty Jeff Bagwell used steriods. My sources are infallible.

    You’d have to have the IQ of a turnip to even ASK me for “evidence”, much less have the expectation of an answer.

    I could walk into a room and find you tied to a chair with a masked man holding a .44 to your head, and the only way I could save your life would be to name my sources.

    Guess what?

    Nice knowin’ ya.

    Just like with Bonds and McGwire, if you need Schilling or Bagwell to admit to steriod use before you believe it, then that’s on you.

    When I asked you to support Schilling for the Hall without certain sabermetrics, I knew you couldn’t.

    Like Lefty said, when cornered, you start spouting acronyms, which doesn’t prove your expertise, it actually dis-proves it.

    This isn’t Baseball Reference, of Fangraphs or Baseball Prospectus.

    If you want to participate in a 500 comment thread surrounding the variances in the different formulas of WAR, that’s where you go.

    Not here.

    The BBWAA has been electing Hall of Famers for 75 years. WAR has existed for, what, ten?

    You stat heads rip the BBWAA like they ran over your dog, yet WAR justifies their election record.

    It’s NOT the other way around.

    The sabermetric movement within baseball has passed, like Friday’s Mexican dinner you had.

    Even Billy Beane fired his stat department recently and replaced them with scouts.

    Did YOU know that?

    (Rhetorical question, I already know the answer to that one, too).

    I’ll make you a deal, Mike. (One I know you won’t accept, but it doesn’t hurt to ask)

    Invest a couple hundred bucks in season tickets next year for the Staten Island Yankees or Brooklyn Cyclones, and go watch forty or fifty games.

    If, a year from now, you can honestly say you didn’t learn anything from the experience, I will reimburse you for the tickets.


  388. John Says:

    Right, Chuck.

    Other teams are totally following the Mariners’ incredibly successful “fuck obp” model.

  389. Cameron Says:

    I know Beane fired his stat department and replaced him, but I think that was a thing of necessity. Stat guys work on the guys already in the system, see what they need improvement on (which may be the reason there’s a bunch of seemingly ridiculous metrics), and relay the information back to the organization to let them know what they need to tell the player to work on.

    …But you need a good system for that to work with. I can name you four A’s prospects that aren’t total trash and that’s about it. They didn’t fire the number crunchers because it wasn’t working (if Oakland had better scouting, they may have done some good), but they need to restock that joke of a system.

  390. Raul Says:

    LOL @ 388


  391. Cameron Says:

    No, it was about giving Jonah Hill a chance to break typecasting or something.

  392. Raul Says:

    My uncle, before he moved back to DR in the late 1990s lived in Kissimmee, Florida.
    I think the team is gone but back then the Astros had a minor league affiliate, the Kissimmee Cobras and he’d go out to games all the time and knew a lot of the players.

    Years later when Ken Caminiti came clean about his drug and steroid use, I asked my uncle if he knew about it. He did. He knew a lot of guys were juicing. He’d been living in Florida since like 1988 or 1989 and had seen it for years.

    That was good enough for me. I didn’t need Caminiti’s admission or a package with his name on it.

  393. Chuck Says:

    In the ten years since Moneyball, Oakland has been at or above the league in OBP four times.



    I’m not hanging my hat on that sample size.

  394. Cameron Says:

    It looked good in theory, Chuck. Getting a bunch of guys who were patient at the plate and could draw walks after getting into pitch counts? That’s great.

    Getting a bunch of guys who can get deep into pitch counts and can draw walks, but were so inept with the bat they didn’t know what to do when they did get a good pitch? Not so much.

    Theory =/= Parctice

  395. JohnBowen Says:

    Still not getting the point.

    It’s as if you guys think Beane’s an idiot because he didn’t just get Pujols or Cabrera or someone else who hits .330/.450/.600.

    The Mariners have ignored the numbers, and have missed the playoffs for 10 years straight with a payroll around 50% higher than Oakland’s, so well done. Twice in that time, they’ve lost over 100 games, 5 times they’ve lost over 90.

    Good thing they didn’t let Bill James nerd up their shit.

  396. Cameron Says:

    I… John, look at the talent Oakland has drafted. Like their first rounders since 2001.

    2001 – Bobby Crosby, Jeremy Bonderman, John Rheinecker
    2002 – Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton, John McCurdy, Ben Fritz, Jeremy Brown, Stephen Obenchain, Mark Teahen
    2003 – Bradley Sullivan, Brian Snyder, Omar Quintanilla
    2004 – Landon Powell, Richard Robnett, Danny Putnam, Huston Street
    2005 – Cliff Pennington, Travis Buck
    2006 – No Pick
    2007 – James Simmons, Sean Doolittle, Corey Brown
    2008 – Jemile Weeks
    2009 – Grant Green
    2010 – Michael Choice
    2011 – Sonny Gray

    They’ve had four years of solid top-round picks… But these guys couldn’t scout for shit, I’m sorry. Beane said, “Holy shit, bust after bust after bust and the guys who ARE good only play well after I trade them. …I need new scouts.”

  397. Chuck Says:

    No, John, you don’t get the point.

    And, for the record, I don’t think anyone here believes Billy Beane’s an idiot.

    He didn’t write Moneyball, either.

    I’ll bet you anything John that Seattle makes the postseason again before Oakland does.

    Bill Bavasi screwed the Mariners, he traded off Griffey and ARod, and Jay Buhner and Edgar Martinez retired all pretty close to each other, and they had no one in the system to replace them.

    In four or five years, the Mariners will be playoff contenders, while Oakland will be in it’s fifteenth consecutive re-building year.

    Maybe, John, Beane has finally realizing “nerding up their shit” doesn’t work, and hiring scouts is the only way to get back to respectability.

    All which matters is learning your lesson, how long it takes eventually becomes irrelevant.

  398. JohnBowen Says:

    “In four or five years, the Mariners will be playoff contenders, while Oakland will be in it’s fifteenth consecutive re-building year.”

    No, they won’t.

    You ignore the numbers, and they bite you in the ass.

    Try this number, for example: Zero.

    That’s the number of times the Mariners have made the playoffs since 2002.

    “while Oakland will be in it’s fifteenth consecutive re-building year.”

    You’re really bad at math.

    Or maybe you view an ALCS appearance as a rebuilding year.

    Who knows.

  399. Chuck Says:

    OK, John, whatever.

    Have it your way.

    When the franchise at the forefront of the sabermetric movement publicly denounces them and goes back to a more traditional model, the writing’s on the wall.

    Sabermetrics are dead.

    Then, a week later, one of the leading sabermetric blogs in the industry shuts down.

    The two instances aren’t related, but they’re not coincidental, either.

    It’s like when you got dumped by your last boyfriend; you kept texting and calling and stalking his job before you realized it was over.

    If you need a shoulder to cry on, we’re here for you.

  400. JohnBowen Says:

    “Sabermetrics are dead.”

    No. It’s not. You can’t just say something over and over again and hope it comes true.

    Jim Hendry, the most old-school guy there is, was fired for failing epically with a gigantic payroll. Omar Minaya was likewise fired a year ago, a replaced with Billy Beane’s mentor.

    The Cubs hired one of the most sabermetric thinking GM’s in the game, and will probably be World Champions for the first time in over 100 years within the next five.

    And when he does that FOR THE SECOND TIME, you’ll still say he had nothing to do with it.

    “Then, a week later, one of the leading sabermetric blogs in the industry shuts down.”

    You might be retarded.

    BBref’s blog closing was a business decision. Had nothing to do with “sabermetrics being dead” which again, it’s not.

    So, the writers started another blog, which already has a pretty substantial following.

    You think FJM was shut-down because of the death of sabermetrics? LOL.

  401. Raul Says:

    Seattle’s struggles have nothing to do with sabermetrics or not-sabermetrics and everything to do with the fact that they didn’t develop their farm system.

    And the Cubs’ failures have nothing to do with sabermetrics either. This is a team that was insanely unlucky and should have been in a World Series. Then they took gambles on Fukublowme and Soriano because the scouting system was horrible.

    It always comes down to scouting. Always.

  402. JohnBowen Says:

    “Then they took gambles on Fukublowme and Soriano because the scouting system was horrible.”

    You shouldn’t need scouts to tell you that signing a LFer with a .320 career OBP is a bad idea.

    “This is a team that was insanely unlucky and should have been in a World Series.”

    Sure, Raul.


  403. Mike Felber Says:

    Chuck, it is fine, though thanks for teh carefully constructed words. And thanks for the offer: I do not doubt i would learn some things, just like merely watching without using critical thinking & stats correctly reinforces biases.

    But you misperceive a couple of things. I am only be playful when I said ” Now how many of you knew that, hmmm?” C’mon, that was only kidding around-even if I had addressed it to you, can you not see that would be no more than fond teasing?

    Also, while I do not do art for a living, if there was a Web Site where the merits of distinct artists & genres were debated, I could claim more expertise than you: but it would not be rational or proper to do so without citing evidence. Many folks in a field who are EXPERT have opposite views.

    I SEEk to carefully consider what you say, but it would be foolish for anyone to merely take anything as Gospel, even when said in good faith. The problem was that you often supply no evidence, & when I question that, THEN you say you have inside knowledge. We all should ask the other why,& I never suggested you were making up ANY of what you know.

    Of course, the sources you know could be wrong or lying. I neither expect you to change your mind if you get things on what only YOU know, & can consider whether it is on a reliable authority, nor that I should not ask you for explanations.

    Notice I never did asl you to reveal sources. Though if the argument you supply is merely or mostly all something nobody can know or check out, there is no way I can address that, or be persuaded. I CAN consider that you may have good info I do not, but I do not have any good reason to know.

    You asked me to not use ERA +, & I did. I had no difficulty meeting your requests-you did not say use no rate stats. WAR was only a small part of what I used-you could take it out completely & I made my case on things the picther controls & lead to runs scored-BB, Ks, & HRs, & how those are combined to allow runs or not, over a career & per season value.

    I hope you understand that nobody knows & recalls all stats, & i was merely being giddy discovering that Curt was 2nd only to a 1874-1884 pitcher in K/BB. It DOES seem remarkable to me that he could even beat all relievers over (many barely so) over 1000 IP in this! That is indeed impressive.

  404. JohnBowen Says:

    Mike, the only statistics you’re allowed to use are wins, and friendliness.

    Everything else is bogus.

  405. Raul Says:

    if you think that 2003 NLCS wasn’t some lucky shit, so be it.

  406. JohnBowen Says:

    Yeah, Steve Bartman left Prior in for too long, Steve Bartman gave up multiple RBI doubles, Steve Bartman made an error on a double play ball.

  407. Raul Says:


    you’re such an asshole

  408. Mike Felber Says:

    Just sometimes it seems that way John!

    I can understand anyone who hears good info from a source as evidence, it just is increasingly difficult to know/accept that the further you are removed from this. So if an Uncle you trust sees a shootin’ up himself, yeah, I would accept it. Also good is a confirmation from the player himself. If he gets it from observation or hearing it from someone, that is much more dubious. And anyone else getting that from you getting it from your Uncle…

    Like a game of telephone the reliability & accuracy of facts degrades over distance removed from the source & direct observation.

    Also, for the record, I do not care if folks call each other “retard” or something if they are friends & clearly being roughly humorous. Long as it is NOT motivated by contempt, & mutually OK with both parties. Trouble is that this is hard to communicate & establish online, & most often similar language communicates real disdain &/or malice.

  409. Bob Says:

    John, you asked the group for article ideas. Feel free to submit one on the Orioles most recent hire if you want. Otherwise I will have mine to Chuck on Tuesday. I never said how I feel, however the title should be this.


  410. JohnBowen Says:

    Haha sounds good.

    Maybe when the Orioles finally have a stud pitcher, he’ll declare him in the twilight of his career just because he has a 10-13 record.


  411. Mike Felber Says:

    Going to OWS. In the leather coat I got free there. To meet a guy who responded to an ad for a volunteer Graphic Design Director position. Happened to have the same name as me (unrelated). So I put him in & he now has big ideals to help OWS.

  412. Chuck Says:

    Just don’t bring up ERA+, and you’ll be fine.

    Good luck, Mike.


  413. Bob Says:

    John, is that yours or mine? And Mike, OWS? REALLY? Gonna spend time with asswipes who vandalize a McDonalds over no free fucking french fries?

  414. Raul Says:

    No, he’s going to spend time with people who are protesting the bankers who bribe and control your shitty “elected” government and whose policies have systematically reduced this nation to shit.

  415. Bob Says:

    Raul, you honestly believe that? With the stories coming out about their behavior?

  416. Raul Says:

    Do I believe that bankers employ lobbyists that bribe politicians into creating shitty bills and repealing regulations that allow those bankers to engage in criminal activity that has destroyed this country and increased the income gap between the very rich and everyone else?

    Yes. I most certainly do.

  417. Raul Says:

    Frankly, America needs more protests. More riots.

    I could give a damn if someone’s flower shop gets busted as collateral damage.
    I could give even less of a damn if McDonalds has a few broken windows. That company is one of the worst in the world.

  418. Bob Says:

    So then Barney Frank and Chris Ddod repealed laws??? I thought they created bullshit thresholds for Mac and May

  419. Bob Says:

    I meant Chris Dodd. Sorry

  420. Raul Says:

    The Dodd/Frank thing was actually a decent piece of legislation that has been systematically watered down to garbage.

    If you don’t think Wall Street had a hand in making sure the teeth were removed from that legislation, well…I admire that kind of gullibility.

  421. Raul Says:

    Hey Cameron,

    Do go into hiding.
    Your Chiefs really fucked me today.

  422. Bob Says:

    And the Dolphins may have fucked themselves from the #1 pick.

  423. Cameron Says:

    Trap game, man. All I can really say.

  424. Raul Says:

    I’m a fins fan and bet against them in my pool.
    What the hell happened to that home field advantage? Playing in KC used to be impossible.

  425. Raul Says:

    true @ Bob.

  426. Bob Says:

    I am a Fins fan myself.

  427. Raul Says:

    we’re some sad men, bob.

  428. Cameron Says:

    For the most part, it’s still hard as fuck. But we came across an overtime game on short rest and we thought “Hey, we can do this”, and had a light practice schedule this week so everyone could get properly rested up, except with a little rust built up.

    In short, we got trapped.

  429. Bob Says:

    Boy we are. I was born in 1972 and therefore believe that the Dolphins of that year are the best of all-time. Love Bobby Fisher and mark Spitz as well. Both made that year awesome!!!
    And despite being born in Connecticut and having a father who loves the Patriots, I will detest the Patriots as long as Bill Bill-I-Cheat cocahes the team. And that bothers me, because I would love to root for Tom Brady, having spent 15 years in Michigan,j

  430. Cameron Says:

    Is it sad it took me this long to get a gravatar of an actual Royal?

  431. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 408 – That’s a nice double standard Mike.

    You’ve already written thousands of words towards posts of mine for calling people the exact same thing but John gets a free pass when if anything his posts over the last two days have been non-stop pedantic, idiotic, and vitriolic.

    @ 404 – Like I said you’ve brought so much to the table in the last two days acronym boy. Keep bringing your “intelligent” and timely posts.

    “The Cubs hired one of the most sabermetric thinking GM’s in the game, and will probably be World Champions for the first time in over 100 years within the next five.”

    You’re funny.

    “Jim Hendry, the most old-school guy there is, was fired for failing epically with a gigantic payroll. Omar Minaya was likewise fired a year ago, a replaced with Billy Beane’s mentor.”

    That doesn’t man that Saber-voodoo equals winning or that scouting equals losing.

    Poor example.

    “No. It’s not. You can’t just say something over and over again and hope it comes true.”

    Seems to be the entire crux of your Raines and Schilling argument.

  432. Raul Says:

    ESPN has a blog from Buster Olney about how the Mets should trade David Wright on its MLB main page.

    I think we were discussing this…in 2010.
    That’s what I love about ESPN. They’re on the cutting edge, my friends.

  433. Chuck Says:

    “ESPN has a blog from Buster Olney about how the Mets should trade David Wright on its MLB main page.”

    All that proves is Buster reads Dugout Central.

    None of these “experts” has ever had an original thought.

    Well, except Olney.

    He admitted to making up the Pujols/Howard trade rumor in 2010 to fill column space.

    ESPN should have fired him.

    Rob Neyer said, “Moneyball is the most influential baseball book ever written” and ESPN fired him, and shipped Keith Law to Arizona for being a tool, so I don’t understand the double standard.”

    Watching Lance Berkman and Chris Carpenter openly laugh at his questions during the NLCS postgame interviews should tell anyone watching just how credible and respected he is.

    Same with Rosenthal, he was almost unwatchable during the ALCS and World Series.

  434. Cameron Says:

    To be fair, if Rosenthal interviewed me for anything I’d probably laugh at him too. It’s hard not to look like a tool in a bowtie. I know they’re for good causes, but still…

  435. JohnBowen Says:

    “That doesn’t man that Saber-voodoo equals winning or that scouting equals losing.”

    Who said anything about scouting equaling losing? When you do things like sign an OBP-murderer to a 100+ million dollar contract, you deserve the consequences that you have coming to you. In other words, being fired for being stupid.

    As far as the “saber-voodoo” equaling winning, the Rays (among others) might have to disagree.

    “Rob Neyer said, “Moneyball is the most influential baseball book ever written” and ESPN fired him”

    Uh, you think that’s why they fired him?

    I’ll remind you that they fired Joe Morgan (at last) because he kept saying stupid fucking shit on the air.

  436. Mike Felber Says:

    How did your radio interview go Chuck? Sorry I could not hear it. That sounded like a pretty nice honor.

    Lefty: I can understand how you can feel that way. Let me clarify. 1st, i was not only referring to you at the time: you had just been…Unpleasant recently, & we you engaged me about it for a while. To EVERYONE’S credit, folks have been better.

    I NEVER had the politically correct opinion that nobody should ever use a bad word. Context is everything, & as I have said different ways, guys like to take the piss out of their friends. John or Chuck will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not feel that either felt that statement was meant with acrimony. Like Raul saying LOL you are an asshole shortly thereafter.

    Though the former is a borderline case, if only due concern over stigmatizing the retarded. I taught them for several years. Or, at least they TOLD me I was the instructor. ;-)

    Honestly, John & Chuck have reached a more than grudging respect, & they rarely mean to be mean to each other now. Thus if their intent is not malicious, & it comes across that way, not as real disdain, then fine & dandy. I do not think I will be seen as too charitable or naive about the nuances of intent here.

  437. Cameron Says:

    ESPN proves both sides have raving idiots. SABR has Rob Neyer and old-school thought has Joe Morgan.

  438. Cameron Says:

    Initial reports are coming out that Joe Frazier has lost his battle to liver cancer and passed away. More on it when I can find it.

  439. Chuck Says:

    “I’ll remind you that they fired Joe Morgan (at last) because he kept saying stupid fucking shit on the air.”

    Um, you think that’s why they fired him?

  440. Cameron Says:

    For generally being a terrible announcer and being a walking comedy goldmine?

    …To be fair, he was that way for ages and he never got fired.

  441. Mike Felber Says:

    Bob, I did not hear about that particular story. I do think destroying property or rioting is very wrong & hurts the very cause they represent. But you have a very distorted view of what is the usual conduct & intent of OWS folks.

    There are always extreme & unbalanced folks in any movement, say amongst either the Tea or major party. Especially in a movement that is so open to everyone, & is very young & not completely defined yet. But the VAST majority of folks down there would not support the actions you describe. And virtually none of the organizers there. It is overwhelmingly a non-violent & often thoughtful protest.

    Today I spent a good 5 hours there. Then a long walk home. I will try to sum up what is going on there without being quite as long winded as I often am.

    Last I heard, a few weeks ago, they were in 950 cities around the world. Think about that. There are tremendously difficult conditions & life prospects fueling this sense of outrage, hope & dedication to a better world. The disparity of wealth is a few times what it was only about a generation ago. Corporations are “people” & vested with so much privilege & loopholes, like tax, that it amounts to Corporate warfare. Regulations are eviscerated, jobs outsourced to virtual slave labor oversees, top Executives make obscene amounts of $ even when they screw up & are fired, lobbyists have great influence to the detriment of the freedom & economic opportunity of the middle class, unions & blue collar folks are becoming obsolete, public benefits & chances for advancement-education, health care, community services-beaten up. Our public monies, our tax $, end up supporting a Plutocracy. The poor? really screwed.

    Then the bailout, I believe some variant of which was necessary, benefits the very folks whose conduct was from deeply irresponsible to CRIMINAL. Personally I like Obama’s general character, intelligence & decency. But he appointed the very Wall Street Oligarchy to dominate his Cabinet, & his fundamentally decent impulse to compromise has allowed him to be utterly used & co-opted.

    OWS is a true people’s movement. They have a General Assembly that spends hours addressing tons of issues. They have a living Constitution that is amongst its products, Google it or ask me for the reference. It largely deals with proposed legislation that controls the abuse of citizen rights, monopolies, trade issues that control rape of the environment, worker & human rights.

    The square is filled with tent & tarps. There are also some tables, books/library, this time I did not see the big screen projection or large computer. They have a “people’s Microphone” where the group yells back whatever a speaker says, since amplification is not allowed. They have drummers at one side, nearby a tree/shrine area to contemplate or meditate w/various talismans left,& they feed folks well, for free. Thanks for the meal OWS!

    Also free clothing, anyone can take or leave what they like. I helped man it for a while when one character went to scope out a disturbance. Now talking to a bunch of folks & observing, I do see that there are some frayed nerves, & there are some psychologically marginal folks attached to it.

    But please understand that the impression created by this, or a a negative news report, or say a TV report where you see criminal activity by minorities…This is far more memorable than noticing or counting all the civil, considered, peaceful folks sharing idea(l)s, being creative, soaking up the vibe. It is akin to the selection bias effect we discussed in baseball.

    OWS is overwhelmingly a force for good. Even the freedom to protest in a meaningful way has become greatly restricted. Hopefully they will select the best of their causes & formally organize as a party or have the influence to effect those with power to significantly change the system &/or effect the Presidential election. Even the ability to get the 2 big ones to support the right thing, or the chance to be have influence or be on the ballot as a 3rd party, is limited & anti-American.

    Thanks for listening. It is fair to say of the movement: This is What Democracy Looks Like.

  442. Chuck Says:

    “How did your radio interview go Chuck? Sorry I could not hear it. That sounded like a pretty nice honor.”

    It went OK, thanks. As what usually happens, a last minute schedule change turned me from a fifteen minute segment to five.

    You can listen to the archive here, I come on about the 45 minute mark.

  443. Cameron Says:

    Chuck, another fun comparison question just because I really like both these guys. Which AL West shortstop prospect looks like the better player to you, Grant Green or Nick Franklin? Both these guys look like studs.

  444. Mike Felber Says:

    Apparently there are a lot of erroneous reports.

    My pal who met with him on a road trip whim & was so graciously entertained for hours, & gifted with boxing gloves called Marvis Frazier & wanted to send him a bottle of wine as thanks. No thanks, he had trouble with drink & diabetes. But he may well have won all 3 fights w/Ali: if they were handled properly.

    Cannot even completely blame Ali for his illegal grabbing: it is automatic for many to do so when under pressure. The referee failed to do his job. And in 3, frazier may well have been able to win, he seemed ahead on points. They were just both so damaged, & Joe could barely see…

    Anyone who has not see that Thrilla in Manilla fight, 120 something Fahrenheit at ringside, should watch it on if you have any interest in boxing. Or Frazier’s perfect, leaping left hook to knock Ali down in the 15th of their first fight. Epic battles.

    Frazier’s heart was 2nd to no-one, ever. Chuck will like this phrase that bears repeating. Mike Tyson is a Mile wide & an inch deep. Frazier is a mile wide & a mile deep.

  445. Cameron Says:

    Erroneous reports are to be expected when you check internet reports, Mike. Guys post stuff early to jack up post counts by scooping other news sites on the story. Chances are those reports were written days, if not weeks, ago.

    Same thing happened with Steve Jobs. When he died, guys posted stuff they had pre-written just to get traffic to their websites (hit counts and ad revenue are major reasons for this). One site, can’t remember which, that got the first scoop with a pre-posted story got so much traffic that they ended up accidentally DDOSing themselves with the traffic.

    …By the time their servers came back online, Jobs legitimately died and the more reputable news sources posted their stories and the traffic died instantly. It’s a skeevy practice, but it generates money.

  446. Raul Says:

    Pretty sure I read that Frazier fought most of his career with a bad eye.

  447. Mike Felber Says:

    Duhhh, where is it exactly, which link do I click on?

  448. Mike Felber Says:

    He did, he disguised it.

  449. Cameron Says:

    Pffft, Rocky Balboa had a detached retina AND brain damage and it didn’t stop him from going the distance with the reinging heavyweight champ despite being retired for years, being in his late fifties, and had the mobility of a vat of tar. …Wait, that only happened because Hollywood is run by idiots.

    Seriously though, Smokin’ Joe was a badass. 29 fight winning sreaks are impressive no matter how you cut it.

  450. Mike Felber Says:

    The sleazy media fiction practices are a good thing to report Cameron, thanks.

    I am a sucker for the Rocky franchise. But they did not define his age beyond being in his 50’s, & according to the movie his brain damage had magically cleared up. Well the brain has proven to be more plastic than previously known. And how much capacity did balboa have to lose?

    Seriously, the quality of the competition in Joe’s day was higher. That is unusual when most all sports advance, but the best would be prospects go to other sports. Heavyweights to wrestling, football, basketball…relatively few want such a grueling sport. MMA has also eaten boxing’s lunch.

    My Pizza shop friend-I respect his knowledge, (9-2 as a boxer, trained at famous Gleason’s Gym) but I think he overstates how poor things are today. He disdains Klitchko, said he is afraid to get hit, thinks you could take any very large pro athlete & train him for a year & beat Kiltchko..I think that is a little absurd. He thinks he could beat him if in shape-an average height Italian dude who used to be 320 lbs., & is now overweight-then said you could Mike if you trained…

    That is when i knew he was way over the top. Um, now, any random guy who has no athletic history beyond having some muscle, even if well trained, would get creamed going against a top heavyweight.

  451. Cameron Says:

    His brain damage got magically fixed for three movies in a row Mike, you just learn to stop questioning it and enjoy the ride.

    Although you wanna do something interesting? Re-watch Rocky 5 knowing this. Rocky was supposed to die after the street fight with Tommy Gunn at the end of the movie because his brain damage had gotten that bad. Basically at the end of the fight, he just walks off… Then collapses and dies. There’s production stills of it, but I don’t think the footage ever was shown. Pretty sure that ending got cut because it was too dark.

    …But that ending would’ve made the movie a hell of a lot better.

  452. Cameron Says:

    And MMA is usually a more intense fight, but it’s MUCH shorter. At most a fight can go twenty-five minutes (five five minute rounds, and that’s only for title fights or main events, all other fights are three five minute rounds), but these guys have a much longer longevity and less long-term damage because the weighted open-finger gloves deal less blunt force trauma and these guys suffer practically none of the brain damage boxers do. The real damage in boxing comes from the fact those gloves turn the force of a punch into a much bigger thing and fuck your brain up a lot. MMA, you’re just getting punched in the face and the momentum stops there.

    Though there’s the tradeoff that while MMA is healthier for you long-term, it is MUCH harder to be a good mixed martial artist than a good boxer because there’s a fuckload more to gameplan and train for. Every bit of training for a mixed martial artist is pretty much cross-training by default, and there’s no one style that’s going to guarantee you victory. Ridiculous amounts of training and planning go into those fights, much more than the length of the actual fight shows.

  453. Cameron Says:

    Case in point on how much you need to diversify in MMA, Kimbo Slice. The guy was a great amateur fighter and mainly focused on boxing. The guy has ridiculous punch power, the kind that can knock eyes out of sockets. However, as soon as he made it to the UFC, it was clear that stand-up striking was his only gameplan. As soon as anyone took him to the ground with some wrestling or submission, the fight was pretty much over because Kimbo was absolutely clueless and got humiliated.

    Kimbo would be a great boxer. Great chin, Drago-like punching power, but it’s ridiculous how one-dimensional he is.

    And if you want a good middle ground between the two, watch K-1 kickboxing. Their heavyweight division’s got guys like Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic, Bob “The Beast” Sapp, and Alistair “Demolition Man” Overeem. They can get pretty brutal and it’s still largely boxing, traditional gloves and all. They’re just allowed to kick each other in the head as well, and one good kick (especially Cro Cop’s high left) can end a motherfucker instantly.

  454. Mike Felber Says:

    You know a lot about this Cam. I saw Sapp’s youtube challenges to Tyson though. He seemed like the bad guy trying to get at a retired Tyson, gassed very easily, like a steroid case.

  455. Cameron Says:

    To be fair, Sapp isn’t much better. Guy’s a retired football player who went to K-1 as a fallback. He’s a burly motherfucker, but long past his prime. It’d take him longer to get gassed than Tyson, but not much.

    Sadly, Overeem is competing with UFC right now so he might not show up at too many K-1 events while under contract. I think Cro Cop’s back with the organization though. Just watch the guy fight. His fighting is summed by with one line he said. “Right leg hospital, left leg cemetery.”

  456. Cameron Says:

    Mike, if you’re interested in looking into MMA more, I can provide you a fight to watch that could be more your speed, given you’re a boxing fan. Look up Forret Griffin vs. Stephan Bonnar, the finale of the first season of The Ultimate Fighter. Some fight fans don’t like it because it’s not a very technical fight, mostly a stand-up slugfest.

    …Which is why I’m recommending it to you, that fight’s pretty much the prefect jumping-on point.

  457. Mike Felber Says:

    Thanks, I’ll check it out now Cam.

    I meant that SAPP was gassed very easily. If it was boxing rules, Tyson would still win.

  458. Cameron Says:

    Under K-1 rules, Sapp would have the advantage without question. Under standard boxing rules… I dunno, Tyson’s been out of it for a while, I don’t know the kind of shape he’s in. And for how Tyson would hold up… I dunno. While Sapp’s not a spring chicken, he’s 8 years younger than Tyson and still an active competitor.

    And how much does Tyson weigh? Because Sapp tips the scales at 341.

  459. Raul Says:

    Tyson was fat but he did lose some weight.
    In his prime, Tyson was in the low 200s, and probably around 220 later on.

    My guess is today he is around 250.

  460. Cameron Says:

    So Sapp, a super heavyweight still in active competition would pretty much be guaranteed to barrel through Tyson, a retired guy who is outweighed by 90 pounds, like a tank. The Beast hits like a motherfucker, man.

  461. Mike Felber Says:

    Well, he was right around 217 or so in his prime. Then in some later fights, in the 230’s. You have some good points Cam, but he can box, & unless it was all Sapp playing the Sap or “heel” for the cameras, his provocations towards Tyson made the latter seem sympathetic.

  462. Mike Felber Says:

    Maybe, maybe not. At least if Tyson trained for it. Size & strength is a distinct advantage, but it has diminishing returns at when you get beyond a certain heavyweight size in boxing. Do you think that Sapp could be competitive today as a straight boxer, even with (as so often has been said for years), the heavyweight division is not in great shape?

  463. Cameron Says:

    Sapp’s pretty much a straight boxer as is. Guys his size aren’t exactly great at throwing kicks. The only real super heavyweight (by K-1 standards) who can throw a good kick is Alistair Overeem. However, while Sapp and Overeem are the height (6′5″), Overeem is trained in straight kickboxing and Muay Thai, so he’s actually well trained in use of his legs. Sapp is pretty much a straight puncher. A guy who’s near 350 pounds is gonna be able to land body kicks at best, but Sapp has a very weak leg game. His strategy is being 350 pounds and having biceps the size of your head.

    TL;DR Sapp IS a straight boxer.

  464. Cameron Says:

    Just for fun, let’s do a tale of the tape for this hypothetical fight.

    Bob “The Beast” Sapp
    Age: 37
    Nationality: USA
    Height: 6′5″
    Weight: 341 lbs.
    Reach: 82″
    Record: 10-13

    “Iron” Mike Tyson
    Age: 45
    Nationality: USA
    Height: 5′10″
    Weight: 250 lbs.
    Reach: 71″
    Record: 50-6, 2 No Contests

    While the records are disparate, Sapp’s still eight years younger and has six inches of height, ninety pounds of weight, and eleven inches of reach on Tyson.

  465. Cameron Says:

    Seven inches of height, my bad. Can’t do math at two in the morning.

  466. Mike Felber Says:

    Looking at Sapp more, he is fun ’cause of his size & swarming power. But tons fo commenters remark how he has no technique or mechanics, like he is a 5 year old flailing away, & of course the Cro Copp beating comes up. I get that this was a rare & painful injury Sapp sustained. I do not begrudge him, though he does seem to win by being so much bigger & stronger than opponents, & if folks could take him deep, he gets gassed. It is very hard to have much endurance when you are that big. If he was 260 or even 300 max. he would have more speed to utilize technique he could develop. Seems like he overwhelms men fast, cannot begrudge him that.

  467. Cameron Says:

    That’s the way to beat Sapp, man. He’s big, get him tired until he gets sloppy and you can get him open. At the same time though, if you let him get close, you’re fucked because that’s an angry side of beef landing haymakers on your face.

    For the record, if this was Sapp vs. Tyson while Tyson was still active, this would undoubtedly be in Tyson’s favor. But this is Tyson with, what, most likely seven years of ring rust by the time he’d get in the ring for this fight? Sapp may have bad cardio, but he’s still in the ring fairly regularly in K-1, NJPW, and also a fair amount of MMA fighting (11-8 record). Guy’s not in great shape, but he’s gotta look better than Mike.

  468. Mike Felber Says:

    Sapp’s record is that bad?

    Tyson was listed at 5′11 1/2. While shorter fighters may seem more likely to have their height exaggerated, I met him & he seemed virtually about my 6′ even height. 3 reasons he looks smaller. As Raul said, if you are bulky compared to skinny, you look shorter. Hence his relative 2″ shorter many think is taller than him. Two, he fought in a crouching style. Lastly, he fought guys taller than himself, sometimes like Mitch Green 6′ 5″.

    You would expect Sapp to win if it is MMA or kickboxing. Tyson would easily finish him off if they were fighting in their primes. The comparison now seems a little silly: Tyson is retired & not training. But I still think he would have a shot in Marquis de Queensbury rules.

  469. Cameron Says:

    Well, K-1 doesn’t meet as often as most boxing associations. He’s also been in a good handful of MMA fights and there’s several month breaks in between those fights. Then there’s his commitments to NJPW and that’s a big time consumer, too. I just listed his boxing record. If you want to lump his MMA record in there, his overall fight record is 21-21.

    Sapp’s not dedicated into one organization because he’s constantly getting booked between places like K-1, Strikeforce, NJPW. The dude’s fucking loaded between all of his commitments.

  470. Mike Felber Says:

    I was not talking about the frequency or # of fights, just how poor his record is.

    the ring rust, age, all of that is relevant. But what is indisputable is that Tyson as a fighter in his sport was vastly more successful. If they boxed when Tyson was active, the only way Sapp has a chance is if Tyson was at a low point & in poor shape.

  471. Cameron Says:

    I know, but I just wanted to try and explain that record a little bit. Figuring in his other fights, he’s a .500 fighter and then there’s other commitments thrown in. He’s better than the record looks, though he’s not exactly a premier fighter. Cro Cop kicking his goddamn head off despite being outweighed by 120 pounds and had 8 inches less of reach pretty much proved that.

    And I do agree that Tyson in his prime makes the whole conversation pointless. The ring rust makes it an even playing field.

    …I kinda want this fight to happen. Could you imagine the interviews and press conferences? They’d be gold.

  472. Mike Felber Says:

    Well…I can see the circus appeal. But Tyson really has finally matured, & is not interested in fighting. Not that these things are the same. i would rather see the best guys out there fight than 2 guys who could take 99.999 + whatever of the world, but not great amongst top heavyweights in their sports.

  473. Mike Felber Says:

    I’ll steal a quote from a comment about a Marciano fight:

    “Debate is what fuels the mystery of life and makes it exciting and worth living. Think about it. What events in history were not fueled by quarrel, debate, challenge, a fight, an argument, passion for one’s views? Life would be mundane and dreadful if it were not for such hypotheticals that stir the emotions and get people on their feet and off their asses”.
    tryandlike 4 days ago

  474. Chuck Says:

    “Which AL West shortstop prospect looks like the better player to you, Grant Green or Nick Franklin?”

    The A’s have moved Green to the OF. He’s played CF and RF so far in the AFL.

  475. Raul Says:

    I wonder if Ali will or has made the effort to see Frazier now that his illness has been disclosed to the public.

  476. Lefty33 Says:

    @ 432 & 433 -

    I’ve seen the same type of “rumors” about Wright + the Mets eating some of his salary to the Phillies in exchange for Brown, May, and another prospect/future 1st round pick.

    While I don’t think that will happen, if it does then son of a bitch if the Phillies haven’t become the 2005 Yankees in their attempt at liquidating everyone in the franchise that has value under the age of 30.

  477. Mike Felber Says:

    I wondered the same thing Raul.

Leave a Reply