Man Bites Blog

“Juan Gone welcomes Santana to the NL”

What’s wrong with this?

1. Spring training games are interleague, so that Santans’s first spring training start was against another NL team was just a 50/50 shot.
2. Juan Gonzalez had spent his entire career in the American League.
3. Gonzalez’s position for this game?  Designated Hitter

I’m not sure getting a home run hit off you by a career AL player in the DH slot in a sping training game is really an apt intro to the National League.

The BBWAA will announce their Hall of Fame selections this afternoon.  Should Mark McGwire be on the list?  Get my take in my latest in Quiblit magazine.

Lots to say, so we’re going to go below the fold… Read the rest of this entry »

Megan McArdle laments that Paul Krugman seems to have given up the opportunity to be an excellent economics writer to be an average news columnist.

Yes, but he has two weekly column in the New York Times!

The discussion reminds of what happened when Alex Rodrigues was traded to the Yankees.  A-Rod had been a shortstop with the Mariners and Rangers, and that position was occupied with the Yankees, so he moved over to third.  Some commentators (I seem to remember Rob Neyer writing a column about this, but I can’t find it) lamented that A-Rod was giving up a chance to challenge Honus Wagner to be the greatest shortstop in baseball history.

Yes, but A-Rod gets to play for the New York Yankees!

In essence, (if you stipulate that Krugman is a great economist and an average columnist, which I’m not really qualified to judge) both Krugman and A-Rod gave up the opportunity for historical greatness in a specialty in relative obsurity for the chance to display other skills on a greater stage and be better compensated for us.  A-Rod could have continued being a shortstop, but that wasn’t the way to maximize his income and exposure.  Krugman could have stayed in economics, but he wouldn’t have reached nearly the same prominence, had as much influence, or I suspect, be paid as much.

A-Rod’s case is slightly different, since he is now the best third basemen in the league.  The “tragedy” of A-Rod’s move is that it breaks up his career, so he will not play shortstop or third base long enough to be considered the greatest at those position.  McArdle’s stance is that Krugman is a middle of the pack columnist.

But wouldn’t almost any of us make that choice?  And don’t we all make that choice every day anyway?  How many of us are doing what we are absolutely best at, or what we would be best at if we did it all the time?  The market rewards certain skills, and the reality is we shape our careers to balance between what we are good at, what we enjoy doing, and what pays the bills

I love C++ and object-oriented programming.  I would estimate I am in the top 1% in terms of ability to use it.  But if I could double my salary and work on an important project in some other technology, say regular C and shell scripting, I would do it, and I don’t think I would hesitate for very long before doing so.

The problem isn’t that Krugman made his choice.  The problem is that the market rewards Krugman more for producing red meat “Bush sucks” columns than it does for economic writing.

Did you drink coffee this morning?

Yeah

Well then, you’re guilty of using a performance enhancing drug! All your accomplishments are now suspect!

Cute.

Let me know how many people go to an early grave from caffeine usage.

Well, it’s probably also true that a lot of the pitchers Bonds faced were using PED’s, so it all washes out.

Ah, the two wrongs make a right argument.

I don’t like it that pitchers are using either. But I haven’t been ordered to stand and applaud for any pitchers for whom there is a similar chain of evidence as there is for Bonds. Any pitchers hit their peak after 35? Any pitchers transform from all-around good pitchers to strikeout specialists in late career? Any pitchers the subject of grand jury testimony?

Two names remotely qualify that I can think of — Curt Schilling and Roger Clemens. Schilling peaked late, and Clemens has had unprecedented longevity. I suspect most of the pitchers who were using fall into the category of guys barely hanging on. My impression is that most effective pitchers walk a very fine line, and wouldn’t want to mess it up.

In any instance, if we stipulate that Bonds used, we have two scenarios:

1. Almost everyone, including pitchers used
2. Bonds is one of the few players that used.

In the first case, baseball becomes a sport I don’t care as much about in general, and am this less inclined to celebrate Bonds’s achievement. In the second case, that would be a reason to discount his record.

To summarize, either Bonds was successful in a game that I find much less appealing, or he had an unfair advantage.

I still think you’re a racist for celebrating McGwire and Sosa but not Bonds

Tough.

Or let me put it another way — are you saying we were wrong to celebrate McGwire and Sosa or wrong the not celebrate Bonds?

If the former, well then maybe we’re a little bit smarter now. A lot more news about PED’s has come out in the last nine years that we didn’t have in 1998.

Should we pretend we don’t know that in order to remain “consistent?”

And this type of argument is especially annoying coming from places like Baseball Prospectus. They would be the first to castigate others for ignoring evidence in order to hold on to some sentimental position — be it the existence of clutch hitting, the myth of The Closer, the importance of hustle, etc. But for Bonds, only smoking-gun proof will do. To fail to avoid the obvious conclusion is to rush to judgment motivated by racism. No, it’s using the brain God gave me.

I am quite sure that if Ken Griffey and Barry Bonds’s fates were reversed — if Bonds has suffered through numerous injuries that last five years while Griffey closed in on the record, we would be celebrating Griffey right now. The rejection of Bonds is about Bonds, not about race.

—-

Which brings me to what I think PED did for Barry — basically it was a fountain of youth for him. What happened to Griffey is what happens to most players as they get older — their bodies start to break down, and they can’t be as effective.

They say that youth is wasted on the young. Bonds changed that equation. As his career progressed, he became smarter and smarter about hitting and the strike zone. Couple that with a body that was not deteriorating, perhaps even getting stronger, and you’ve got a pretty powerful force. In essence Bonds got the benefit of increased wisdom but still has a 27-year old body to execute his new knowledge.

I never said that Bonds owes all his success to pharmaceuticals. What he has done requires a great deal of dedication to his craft and hard work.

I wish we could have seen what he would have done without the help.

First of an occasional series in which I’ll engage in a “dialogue” with someone taking the opposite position. Since I’m writing this, I will ultimately win the debate.

The title is a bit of a joke, since I will try to have my strawman present arguments that are being advanced in the debate, rather than things nobody believes.

So I notice you didn’t make a big deal about Barry Bonds breaking sports’ best known record.
That’s right.

Is it because of the steroids thing?
Yeah, partly.

But there’s no proof that Barry Bonds ever used steroids! And even if they were, MLB didn’t have a policy in place! This is so unfair!

I’m not looking to throw Bonds in jail; I’m just choosing not to go nuts celebrating this accomplishment. Evidence and my own common sense leads me to believe that Bonds’s late career surge was chemically assisted. Conviction may require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but my own approval does not. Nor is my approval coniditioned on what Major League rules or enforcement policies. I am less impressed with Bonds’s accomplishments than I would be if he were not assisted.

What do you care what Barry Bonds does to his own body?

I don’t. But I care about the players at the margins, those who are, to paraphrase Crash Davis, an extra hit a week away from Yankee Stadium.

If we say that chemically assisted performance is just as valid as non-assisted performance, that will remove a reason for players at every level to resist the temptation to juice themselves to the next level. And those players won’t have access to the resources someone like Bonds does, and could end up hurting himself.

But they’re adults who make their own decisions. Are you going to nanny everybody?

Youth sports are increasingly competitive. It does not seem unreasonable that high school or even little league athletes would reach for an edge, even if it comes from a bottle.

More ominously, coaches eager to make a name for themselves could explicitly or implicitly encourage young athletes to improve themselves this way.

Well, that’s their problem. Why should Bonds suffer because some other people might do stupid or unethical things? It’s not like he’s forcing anybody to take drugs.

Bonds is not bigger than the game. The only reason enyone cares about Barry Bonds is that people care about baseball. If Bonds’s actions damage the sport and cause people to care less about baseball, he should take a hit for that. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And I challenge the notion that my withholding my adulation from Bonds is making him “suffer.”

But didn’t you celebrate Mark McGwire’s home run exploits? Doesn’t that make you a racist hypocrite?

Two of the more annoying tics of the sabermetric community are a reflexive dislike for Commissioner Bud Selig and a reflexive defensiveness of Barry Bonds.

Yes, I know it’s a bit of a conflict of interest to have a former owner or a member of an owner’s family in the commissioner’s chair. And I don’t care for interleague play, either.

But it is impossible to deny that major league baseball has boomed under his stewardship, and some of his innovations, like the wild card, have been great successes.

As for Barry Bonds, he undeniably has Hall of Fame talent, but to believe that he has not used performance enhancing drugs requires suspension of disbelief that would challenge the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge. As statheads could tell you, Barry Bonds’s late-career power surge is unprecedented. His career precious to that had shown him as a rare, though not singular, talent.

In any case, both tics are in full display in this piece by Joe Sheehan (the entire article is behind their pay-wall, but you can get the flavor from the opening except).

In a manner that can only be described as “grudging,” Bud Selig did what he should have done three months ago, ending discussion of whether he would attend Barry Bonds’ pursuit of the all-time home run mark with a press release and a flight to San Francisco. As is his wont, Selig put his personal feelings ahead of the game’s best interest, choosing to issue a release that neither honored Bonds nor the moment, and put the controversy that surrounds Bonds—his alleged use of performance-enhancing substances—front and center.

Hmm, would it be better for Selig to bury his head and pretend there’s not a problem? That worked really well back in 1998. And what is in the “game’s best interest” about a commissioner being there in person when a record is broken anyway? The fixation on this issue, like it matters a damn of some businessman is there when sports’ most hallowed record is broken, makes me think there’s some preemptive defensiveness going on.

Think about your memories of other records being broken — Call Ripken passing Lou Gehrig, Pete Rose passing Ty Cobb, Rickey Henderson passing Brock. Do any of those memories remotely involve the commissioner?

The truth is, Bonds’s supporters know that there’s a problem. Which is why they are so desperate for Selig’s imprimatur.

I consider this to be a shame. While it’s an unpopular viewpoint, I stand by my argument that Barry Bonds has not failed a test for PEDs in the four years that MLB has had a program. His testimony before a grand jury—subsequently leaked illegally, and to his detriment—was that he did take substances that were identified later as steroids, but he was told at the time that they were not. His testimony has been interpreted as parsing by some, perjury by others, although statements before the same grand jury by others have been granted full faith and credit. That grand jury inspired two reporters to write a book about Bonds, sourced largely by the illegally-obtained testimony, as well as the accounts of people around Bonds, at least one of whom, ex-mistress Kimberly Bell, can comfortably be described as “scorned.”

The witnesses against Bonds would certainly have more credibility if they were model citizens. But guess what? This was a criminal conspiracy; therefore, the people who would have known about it and are therefore able to testify about it are…. criminals!

If a mob boss is brought down by an informer form his own organization, it doesn’t make him any less a mob boss to point out his accuser’s unsavory past.

Also, were the other statments that were granted “full faith and credit” as incredible as Bonds’s? Sheehan writes “the same grand jury” as if that is the key factor in whether we should believe these statements or not.

Baseball now has a small underclass of players—real players, not anonymous minor leaguers or fringe guys—who have tested positive for performance-enhancing substances, been suspended for that use, and returned to play. In virtually every case, those players go about their business without anyone caring. They’re cheered at home for their good deeds, and ignored on the road. The Indians benefit from the bullpen work of Rafael Betancourt, by far their best reliever this season, and a big reason for their contending status. He’s not reviled in Detroit or Minnesota as a steroid user, not booed and forced to endure the taunts of “Cheater!” or worse. No one cares. The same can be said for Juan Rincon, who is essentially the Twins’ version of Betancourt.

Need more evidence that the game is more than willing to forgive and forget? Ryan Franklin tested positive in 2005, serving a 10-game suspension for his guilt. Last month, the Cardinals signed him to a two-year contract worth $5 million. Last winter, the Mets Guillermo Mota was suspended for the first 50 games of 2007 off a positive test; a month later, the Mets signed him to a two-year contract for, again, $5 million.

Hmmm — none of these players is challenging any of baseball’s most sacred records. Nobody is calling on the commissioner to fly out and give his stamp of approval to these players’ accomplishments.

These players also fit the profile of having received actual sanctions for their abuse. They also do not have a mountain of accomplishments that are now suspect that we are being asked to honor.

And let’s also not forget that Mark McGwire, hitter of 580 home runs, was passed over in his first bid for Hall of Fame induction. In modern times, it is unprecedented that someone with his accomplishments would be passed over. Sammy Sosa continues to climb the home run charts with hardly any attention.

Barry Bonds is probably the greatest baseball player of his generation, with or without the help. Bud Selig has his faults, but has been an able steward of baseball for the past dozen years.

—–

In the last edition of the Baseball Abstract, Bill James laid out what seemed to me to be a somewhat convincing case for reasonable doubt over whether Pete Rose bet on baseball.

A year or so later, ESPN televised a “trial” of Pete Rose, with Alan Dershowitz as the prosecutor. The defense, led by the late Johnnue Cochran called James as a witness, and then Deshowitz carved him up in cross-examination.

I suspect that if Sheehan were subject to similar cross-examination of his defense of Bonds, the results would be similar.

UPDATE: For a look at Bonds without blinders, check out this interview with Jeff Pearlman, who wrote a book on Bonds.

On the “there’s no evidence that Barry ever used” line, Pearlman says:

I read writers like Bill Rhoden and Dave Zirin–guys I respect–and I just don’t understand what the hell they’re doing. They maintain there’s no proof that Bonds used, so how can we condemn him? If we used that mode of thinking in day-to-day life, there’d be no need for juries. You either catch a person in the act of committing a crime or he’s innocent. Factually–and I mean, 100% factually–Bonds used, and the evidence is overwhelming. Game of Shadows, my book, his ties to Greg Anderson and Victor Conte, the expansion (impossible, unless he used HGH or suffers from Acromegaly) of his skull, a former teammlate like Jay Canizaro telling me how Anderson said he can design a steroid cocktail for him that would be just like Barry’s, so on and so on. Every time someone writes that there’s no “proof,” he/she is gifting the designers of masking agents. If we reward and praise the cheaters in sports, what are we saying to the kids who follow the games? What are we saying about decency and integrity?

Celebreate Barry if you want to, but let’s be clear about what you’re celebrating.

Jeff Gordon takes a look at the question of whether Mark McGwire will reach the Hall of Fame, and receives some responses.

To lay my cards on the table, I was here in St. Louis during McGwire’s time. I enjoyed watching him. I remember visiting my parents when the Cardinals were in Philadelphia, and arriving early at a game and watching the show in batting practice — I was practically giddy watching him spray balls into the upper deck of left field at the Vet.

At the same time, I don’t think I quite got caught up in it as much as other folks did. I have enjoyed the Cardinals’ recent run of success much more than the home run chase. I won’t pretend that I always suspected something was amiss — I didn’t, it’s just that McGwire didn’t impress me as possessing a singular talent — he was just a bit bigger and stronger than those who came before him, which I figured was due to improved conditioning techniques. He was the next evolutionary step, rather than a virtuoso. Impressive, yes, but not fascinating as someone like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods is. So, I can’t say I was devastated when he dissembled his way through his congressional hearing, as many around here seemed to be,

Also, I am one of those who think that steroids are a big deal. Not so much because I don’t want sacred records to be tainted, or I think someone like McGwire can’t make his own decisions, but because if steroids become tolerated, they will in essence become required, and I think that will have all sorts of bad effects. But that’s a whole ‘nother post

I can say with coincidence that there is almost no chance McGwire will be elected on the first ballot this time around. No-brainers, and fan and press favorites Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken debut on the ballot, and I’m quite certain the writers are loathe to mar their election with steroid controversy if they can help it.

McGwire has two things going for him:

• Massive power numbers
• Looking impressive racking them up.

He’s got literally nothing else going for him. He won a Gold Glove at first base (as did Rafael Palmeiro in a year in which he was primarily a DH), but was at best an average defensive first baseman. He won one World Series, but that was for a team that probably should have won more than one championship, and (though this is not McGwire’s or his teammates’ fault) there was a damper on that World Seriese win because it came in the aftermath of the earthquake. Other than the record-setting HRs, he never really had a signature moment. He was never identified as a particularly good teammate or leader. His relationship with Sosa during the chase was endearing, but is counter-balanced by how he seemed to regard the attention he received that year as a terrible burden. One of Gordon’s correspondents notes that McGwire had some other impressive non-power numbers, notably on base percentage, but that is somewhat a secondary effect of his power. He got a lot of walks in part because pitchers were afraid that if they put it over the plate, McGwire would put it in the cheap seats.

The power numbers, in a vacuum, would put him in the Hall of Fame, easily. Single-season HR record, 10th all time, easily over the 500 mark. But it wasn’t just that. Hank Aaron and Roger Maris broke home run records, too, and they did so before I was born, but I don’t think there was the buzz about their home runs that there was about McGwire’s. There weren’t thousands of people in the ballpark early to watch them take batting practice. His home runs, at least during his Cardinals days were events. They had, as my wife said, a “flow” to them.

Unfortunately for McGwire, these skills are the ones most easily associated with steroid use, because they are associated with brute strength, and there was a noticeable up tick in them during the period of heavily suspected steroid use. Which is why I don’t buy Buster Olney’s argument (quoted by Gordon) that it is unfair to penalize McGwire because he was given a subpeona and other stars weren’t. He was subpoenaed because he, more than anyone else, rose to prominence using skills that are linked to steroid use.

This may be unfair, and is kind of junk science. You still have to recognize strikes and hit them in order to hit home runs. It’s not like someone with absolutely no skill could shoot himself up to become a major league caliber hitter. Besides, we don’t know exactly what steroids do. Maybe they don’t really help a batter hit baseballs further. Maybe they’re more helpful in allowing a pitcher to throw the ball 95 MPH or make a ball curve. Maybe they allow a fielder to cover more ground. Maybe they help a catcher make accurate throws to second base, or a base stealer to get a better jump. Maybe they help a batter to take an outside pitch the opposite way for a base hit.

But we know what we know, and that is hitters in the late 90’s seemed to be a lot bigger than they were before, and that home run totals went way up. Mark McGwire was bigger and stronger than anyone else, and put up the biggest numbers. So it seems reasonable that he would be a representative for the era, and receive the subpoena.

Thus, it seems reasonable to discount McGwire’s accomplishments relative to those who played in different eras. This is not to judge that McGwire cheated; rather it is to not assume that other players benefited from the homer-friendly environment (which may or may not have included steroids), and McGwire didn’t. If all the offensive accomplishments of the last 10 years are under suspicion, McGwire’s are no exception. And since McGwire’s accomplishments were pretty much exclusively confined to those areas that were generally booming in that era, it seems especially prudent. In other words, to not apply a discount would be to in essence assume that everyone except McGwire was using steroids, which strains credulity.

Gordon recommends discounting McGwire’s home run total by 100, to 483, and then evaluating his career in those terms (I suspect this would include discounting McGwire’s individual history-making seasons, since peak performance is a part of almost any Hall of Famer’s case – there’s a reason Sandy Koufax is in the Hall of Fame in spite of unimpressive win and strikeout totals). That strikes me as a bit crude and arbitrary.

I propose that we look at McGwire’s performance relative to his peers, and compare that to other recent power hitters at corner positions who have or have not made (or are likely to or not likely to) make the Hall of Fame, and ignore the absolute numbers. In other words, Dale Murphy leading the league in home runs with 36 is equivalent to McGwire leding the league with 66. This isn’t entirely fair – 66 home runs have more impact on the team’s performance than 36, but I think this is offset by how McGwire’s high HR totals inflated his walk total, which in turn inflated his on base percentage.

Statistics come from Baseball Almanac

Mark McGwire led his league in home runs 4 times, and hit 58 dingers in 1997 split between the A’s and Cardinals, which would have led either league, so let’s call it 5. He led the league in RBI only once, in 1999. He also led the league in slugging percentage 4 times, and in on base percentage once.

ON THE WHOLE “HAND SUBSTANCE” THING
I’d buy the explanation that Tony LaRussa didn’t want all that “BS” if he were a “you put your best nine guys out there, I’ll put my best nine guys out there, and we’ll see who’s better” type of manager.

But he’s not.

LaRussa, more than any other manager, inserts himself into the competition. He’ll use three pitchers to get the last three outs when his team is up by four runs. He’ll bat the pitcher eighth. He’ll order squeeze plays. He’ll play a .200 hitter in left field because he likes the match-up with the starting pitcher.

This isn’t all about between-the-lines strategy. La Russa gets in the opposition’s head, and makes the other team do stupid things (like, making several throws over to first base when the runner on first is a hulking slugger with a bad hamstring, and one of those throws ends up in right field).

If pitchers looking for every edge is part of the game, then paying the price when caught is as well. If there’s some sort of gentlemen’s agreement that opposing managers don’t press things like this, then part of that agreement should be that players be somewhat skillful in disguising it — i.e. don’t get caught on camera with a giant smudge on your hand. Kenny Rogers made Tony La Russa look like either a moron or a chump. There’s nothing gentlemanly about that.

OLIVER PEREZ MUST NOT BAT
It’s not the be-all and end-all, but in my opiniion, if Mets starter Oliver Perez steps to the plate with a bat in his hand in tonight’s game, the Mets probably win. If not, the Cardinals probably win.

Given how ineffective Perez has been this year, the fact that he’s pitching on short rest, the Mets probably only want to get through three or so innings anyway. So if he bats, it means:

• It’s the first or second inning, which means the Mets have had at least three base runners against Suppan in the first two innings, or
• Perez is mowing down the Cardinals hitters in the first three innings such that Randolph doesn’t feel moved to pinch-hit for him in the third.

Either way, it’s bad news for the Cardinals, whose greatest advantage in this game is the starting pitching match-up.

If I see Perez in the batter’s box, it will mean the Cardinals have failed to capitalize on that advantage.

And then things don’t look so good…