Hot Piece of Chass

My, oh my, how the time flies. Sorry for the horrific slack job over the last few weeks, people. Discovering the tv show Dexter will do that to you. But much like my favorite prime time serial killer, I'm back to slice up whatever shitty sportswriting that has transpired. What better place to start than with the notorious, multiple-offender Murray Chass? This guy is pissed off that people have the nerve to have an opinion about the stuff he writes on his site published on the world wide web. Let's find out why.

There is nothing in sports that creates the controversy and the debate provoked by voting for the Hall of Fame. More than a week after the results of the latest voting were announced, I was still getting e-mail about the results. Everyone is an expert, fans and bloggers alike. They all know better than the people who actually vote in the election, and they eagerly tell us so.

Kinda comes with the territory, Chassy. Don't consistently post articles on a website (it's not a blog!) and not expect people to comment on what you're saying. If it bothers you so much perhaps you should be posting these articles in a word document, not the internet.

A reader of this site told me in an e-mail that my ballot, which I disclosed before the results were announced, “contains votes for players I do not believe deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and you failed to vote for players who clearly deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.”

Sounds like an intelligent guy--not to mention very level-headed. I would have thrown a few more adjectives in there. I mean, the guy did vote for Jack Morris over Bert Blyleven.

“Clearly deserve” in whose judgment? His, of course. Does that make him right and me wrong? Of course not. Am I right? Yes. Why? Because my opinion counts and his doesn’t. My ballot was one of the 539 counted in the election. He did not have a vote. Therefore, his opinion is worthless as far as the election is concerned.

That's right, everyone. Murray Chass's opinion is correct because he has a vote... So, theoretically, if I had a vote and I voted for Jose Vizcaino (he signed my hat when I was little, ought to be worth a decent amount if he's in the Hall of Fame, right?!), none of the 6 billion other people in the world who do not have a vote could be allowed--nor hold the right-- to criticize, question, or belittle my status as a BBWAA member.

If President Barack Obama decides tomorrow that he wants to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to all Americans, he is right in doing so because he has been placed in that position and all decisions he makes are absent of error.

Makes sense.

That’s the real problem self-proclaimed experts have. They want to be the ones voting, but they don’t have that privilege. It’s their own fault. They chose the wrong profession. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers and salesmen don’t get to vote for the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers do.

I don't think it's so much that they/we want to be the ones voting, it's just that they/we would like it if those incredibly intelligent, righteous, god-like experts already put in the prestigious position of power took more than three hours before the deadline to think about their decision. Is that really too much to ask? They/we don't think so.

When I started out in life, I wanted to be a baseball writer, not so that I could vote for the Hall of Fame. I didn’t know anything about voting then, but it is something that came with the territory.

Awesome. I hope you know that by writing this article you have made it impossible for yourself to ever bitch about any other profession ever again. All of us "self-proclaimed experts" are gonna be on the lookout for when you slip up. Consider yourself warned, sir.

Actually, I don’t believe baseball writers should be voting for the Hall of Fame, though I don’t know of a more qualified group, which is why the Hall maintains its association with the Baseball Writers Association.

You didn't trick anybody here, Chassy. You basically just said that you think baseball writers absolutely should be voting for the Hall of Fame because they are superior beings, and hence the most qualified.

"I don't believe that Albert Pujols should have won the NL MVP last year, though I don't know a more qualified player, which is undoubtedly why he won."

Most of the Hall arguments today seem to be statistics-centered. I get the idea that the stats zealots would draw up charts based on their new-fangled numbers and decide on the basis of the numbers who should be in the Hall of Fame. No thinking necessary.

Dare to dream, right? I have a feeling that you'll do your best to see that such dreams never come to fruition though. I'm curious, what are people supposed to be looking at in terms of qualification for induction? Dominance? Intimidation? How greatly they "stood out among the rest"? None of these things can be accurately determined without the use of statistics, whether you're using Chassy-endorsed stats such as Wins, Losses, and ERA, or more valuable and current statistics such as FIP, WAR, and VORP.

The point is if nobody ever looked at stats the Hall of Fame would be full of guys like Juan Pierre and Bo Jackson... and Derek Jeter would be considered the best defensive shorstop of all time.

Blyleven’s statistics have endeared him to the stats zealots. One of their big numbers is his strikeouts. He had a lot of them, 3,701. Tommy John, who otherwise had similar career statistics to Blyleven’s, struck out 2,245.

Not really sure why Tommy John is all of the sudden thrown into the mix. But okay, I'll play along. Bert Blyleven has the 13th highest Career WAR among pitchers all time (Baseball Projection). He's ahead of pitchers such as Christy Mathewson, Bob Gibson, Nolan Ryan, and Steve Carlton. Yes, he had 3,701 career strikeouts (5th all time). He also finished in the top seven in K/9 fourteen times, had 60 career shutouts (9th all time), and put up an awesome 3.19 career FIP. That FIP is better than Greg Maddux, Lefty Grove, Warren Spahn, Dennis Eckersley, Jim Palmer, and a few thousand other current and former MLB pitchers.

Tommy John is 43rd all time in WAR (Jack Morris was 139th, just fyi) and had a 3.38 career FIP (Morris had a 3.94 career FIP... maybe your argument should have been for him instead of Morris. Granted, Blyleven is still significantly better, but it'd had been less embarrassing for an esteemed, heavenly sportswriter such as yourself to make an argument for John rather than for a player who--had he not pitched one great world series game in 1991--you would not be endorsing so damn persistently).

I think strikeouts get far too much attention and emphasis.

Other than inducing a double-play groundball, there's almost nothing more beneficial for a pitcher and his team. Striking a hitter out reduces the chances of the other team scoring during that at bat by quite a large margin. Let's face it, strikeouts are sexy.

Strikeouts are sexy.

You're sexy.

John, however, was a sinkerball pitcher and got more outs on batted balls and fared just as well as Blyleven. John had a career 288-231 record with a 3.34 earned run average. Blyleven’s record was 287-250 and his e.r.a. 3.31. John retired 57 percent of the batters he faced, Blyleven, with all his strikeouts, 59 percent. Yet in the eyes of the stats zealots, the voters were justified for not electing John but not for rejecting Blyleven.

Do they teach math at the University of Pittsburgh? Hold on, let me check... Interesting. Turns out they do. Yet somehow Mr. Murray here managed to calculate something as simple as Opponents On-Base Percentage COMPLETELY WRONG. If John and Blyleven retired 57 and 59 percent of the batters they faced, then their respective OPP OBP totals would be approximately .430 and .410. That is bad. Perhaps Chass should have spent less time sipping a cola beverage by the jukebox in the diner and more time in the classroom!

Burn.

The arguments will go on incessantly, and the conclusions will be I’m right, you’re wrong. Or is it you’re right, I’m wrong?

The latter...... jackass.

Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Writer

Gwen Knapp of the San Francisco Chronicle decided to write an article about Roger Maris. I decided to write about that article.

This is our 236th post. Let's do this thing.

Every time another slugger of recent vintage becomes linked to steroids, an array of old-timers weighs in on his viability for the Hall of Fame. After the New York Times reported two weeks ago that Sammy Sosa had tested positive in ostensibly confidential screening from 2003, Hall of Fame second baseman Ryne Sandberg said that his fellow ex-Cub did not deserve a place in Cooperstown.

It's true that a lot of ex-ballplayers tend to this, and truth be told, it's getting kinda annoying. To all of the Hall of Famers who are reading this right now (which I'm fairly certain is roughly 68% of all inductees), I beg you to put an end to this trend. We the people all know that each and every one of you were perfect in every way. Nobody ever did anything illegal back in "the good 'ol days." Ty Cobb never bet on baseball or threatened players' careers in the middle of games by constantly going into bases spikes up, Gaylord Perry never rubbed vasoline on the top of his hat, Hank Aaron never took amphetamines. Real ballplayers threw back a bottle of whiskey each day and did pushups till their all-natural muscles couldn't bear to lift them anymore.

We get it. You guys were magnificent, incorruptible creatures. Let's move on.

Mark McGwire's rejection by the voters so far suggests that Sosa, his sidekick from the 1998 home run record chase, can hold off on writing an induction speech. But veterans won't get a say on this generation's integrity or Hall of Fame credentials for at least 15 years. Until then, the call belongs to a group of sportswriters.

In all honesty, I'm not sure if I'd vote Sosa in anyways. His numbers are good, but don't let those 609 home runs fool you too much (that sounds like a downright idiotic statement, I know). It's a tough call. That's a satirical banter for another day, though.

The old-timers, however, do have a solution. The Hall's Veterans Committee can make a statement about steroids and home runs without rushing to judgment or even punishing a single player. In fact, this solution is a feel-good maneuver: Bring Roger Maris into Cooperstown.

That's your "feel-good maneuver"? Complicating an already complicated voting process by letting in a player who isn't even remotely worthy? To whom would this make feel good? Yankee fans? Billy Crystal? Barry Pepper? Can I ask any more questions in a single paragraph? No?

His record of 61 home runs can never be restored. It's impossible, even though the report on Sosa supported a very strong suspicion that no one in major-league baseball ever hit 62 home runs in a season without chemically inflating his muscles.

There's simply not enough proof to strip the statistics from the three men who surpassed Maris a total of six times: Barry Bonds, McGwire and Sosa. But the Veterans Committee can rewrite history, cleaning up some of the damage left by other, very negligent guardians of the game.

I agree, there's not enough proof to strip the statistics and records from McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds. Is there enough proof that Roger Maris is deserving of being inducted into the Hall of Fame? Thus far I have seen no such evidence. The only support for induction that's been given is one season. Better yet, ONE STATISTIC from that season.

The committee has repeatedly rebuffed Maris, whom the sportswriters also snubbed. But his 1961 season deserves a fresh look. Can anyone argue that it isn't more impressive today than it was in the entire 37 years that Maris held the home run record?

Eh, I actually think it would be more impressive if the mark were set today, seeing as the game has expanded quite a bit since the cool whiskey-wielding 60s. Also, it is hilarious--and at the same time extremely aggravating-- that she says Maris has been "snubbed" by the sportswriters. This man has a career WAR worse than Julio Franco, Tony Fernandez, Devon White and even--gasp-- JIM RICE! Yeah, I went there.

So far, Maris' overall career totals have been the impediment to induction. He finished with 275 home runs and a .260 batting average over 12 seasons, numbers that don't warrant a place in Cooperstown.

Numbers.That.Don't.Warrant.A.Place.In.Cooperstown.

Why is this article being written again? Oh, that's right, to convince us that Maris deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.

Maris' claim to a plaque would be that one magical summer. Yes, winning back-to-back MVP awards in 1960 and '61 should count for something, but the 61 home runs are his ticket.

To say that Roger Maris being inducted into the Hall of Fame would be a grave injustice is an understatement. Nay, if Maris were inducted it would serve as the SINGLE GREATEST MOCKERY IN THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS!... Okay, so I followed up an understatement with a slight exaggeration. I'll leave it up to you to find the middle ground.

The committee already has admitted several people with career statistics that don't overshadow Maris'.

I literally just looked up every single non-negro league player ever voted in by the Veterans Committee. Overall, there are roughly about 100 (yeah, it took me a while). Since WARP from BP is the only thing that goes back far enough it will be used as the main tool of comparison. Out of all of those Hall of Famers, I found five with a career WARP3 total less than that of Roger Maris. I will now list those five players, along with a modern day player who's overall career production mirror that same player. Here we go:

Hall of Famer (Modern Day Player)

Tommy McCarthy (Scott Podsednik)
Heinie Manush (Adam Kennedy)
Rube Marquard (A.J. Pierzynski)
Chick Hafey (Cliff Floyd)
George Kelly (Mark Kotsay)

Yup, that's right, voting in Roger Maris would be saying that he is slightly better than an Oakland A's second baseman with a .329 Career OBP and a .260 Career EQA (Kennedy). And for that this man deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.

I grew up listening to Richie Ashburn do Phillies radio broadcasts and knowing that he was my mother's favorite player, so I should be pretty biased. But Ashburn does not belong in Cooperstown any more than Maris does. He was a .308 hitter with a .396 on-base average, and he was a beloved announcer. But he didn't hit for power, didn't steal many bases and never finished higher than seventh in the MVP balloting.

Richie Ashburn... You chose RICHIE ASHBURN. I gave you five perfectly awful-as-shit players, and you decided to settle with Richie Ashburn??? Tommy McCarthy compiled a 15.9 Career WARP3 over 13 seasons. That's right, he averaged a WARP3 of 1.2 per season. In fact, in six of his thirteen seasons he had a negative impact in production (including a season in which he was worth -5.5 wins!). And yet, you did not choose this man. Nope, instead you decided to go with someone who is widely considered to be one of the best centerfielders of all time. Let's see how this comparison holds up:

Career WARP3
Ashburn- 76.2
Maris- 34.6

Best 5 Year Stretch
Ashburn- 35.8 ('51-'55)
Maris- 23.1 ('60-'64)

Career OBP
Ashburn- .396
Maris- .345

Ashburn's five year peak was more valuable than Maris' entire career. Yup, the only way this would have been a good comparison is if back in 1952 little boy Richie had decided to call it quits after his first few seasons in the big leagues. Unfortunately for this article, though, history was not nice to its credibility. There are hundreds of players in the Hall of Fame. A handful of them probably don't deserve to be there, but I am of the opinion that Ashburn is definitely not one of them.

Some people might argue that drugs were around in Maris' day. But even the earliest steroid users lifted weights, a practice most baseball players mocked well into the '70s, saying it would damage their swings.

So now Roger Maris should be rewarded because of a common misconception throughout baseball prior to the 1970s? Okay, I'm cool with that. Although, to be fair, we must now include all the pitchers who didn't throw a split-finger for the first 100 years of baseball, because the pitch had not yet been invented. Let's be just here, people!

My favorite part of the article comes here at the very end: Maris' plus and minuses.

HALL WORTHY?

MARIS PLUSES

Oh man. I'm excited. Are you excited? I'm excited.

-- Did not do steroids

I would venture a guess that there are over 100,000 players that have met this same criteria.

-- Two-time AL MVP (1960, '61)

Eh, that's pretty cool, I guess. But you're still only citing two seasons, and it's debatable whether or not he deserved those MVP's in the first place.

-- 61 home runs in a season, breaking Babe Ruth's record. All who have surpassed Maris have been linked to steroids.

One season. This entire article is basically endorsing Maris' Hall of Fame candidacy on one season. He had a .372 On-Base Percentage in that season.

MARIS MINUSES

Here we go. By now I think I could write a fuckin novel on "Maris Minuses."

-- 275 home runs and a .260 batting average over 12 seasons.

That's the end of the article... I am now going to watch the movie "*61" so that Barry Pepper can make me not hate Roger Maris.

2009 Hall of Fame

Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice











Congratulations Rickey!

MLB Network

You've probably all heard of the MLB Network right now. I was a little skeptical at first, but it turns out it's a pretty cool and interesting show. They have little features such as "Dodger Blue" which tracks the Dodgers World Series Championships, and play rare, historic games such as Don Larson's perfect game. All that stuff is great, the "expert analysts" on the other hand... Well, here's what Jon Heyman had to say regarding Bert Blyleven and the Hall of Fame:

Bert Blyleven doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame... It's not about stats, it's about impact. He made only two All-Star teams, he won more than 17 games only one time. To me, he's a compiler, and not quite to the level of Don Sutton.

I like how he says it's not about stats, and then proceeds to mention how Blyleven only won more than 17 games once in his career. I hate to break it to you, Jon, but wins for a pitcher are a FUCKIN STAT! In fact, it's probably the worst tool for evaluation in all the game of baseball. I'm not a big fan of using "compiling" statistics, but I'll play this game. Blyleven compiled 64 more complete games, 127 more strikeouts, and two more shutouts than Don Sutton--all while throwing in 312 fewer innings. I really don't understand how people can say Sutton is deserving and Blyleven--who was better in virtually every way--is not.

Heyman continued the sentiment "it's not about stats" in reference to his support for Andre Dawson, Jack Morris, and Jim Rice as well. Whatever. If nothing else, this provides more hilarity (albeit frustraion, too) throughout the offseason.

HOF Links

HEY GUYS!!!!!! How the heck are ya? Holy shit it's been a long time! I guess it's because things have been pretty lackluster on the baseball front lately, seeing as every single notable free agent has or will sign with the Yankees. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just find it incredibly boring that this economical situation we're in is even going so far as to effect the multi billionaires that make up the majority of MLB owners. I don't know about you, but I'm ready to get back into the swing of things. I mean, we got the Hall of Fame results coming up, spring training next month, the World Baseball Classic the month after that. I'd say it's finally time to put the holiday lull behind us and get excited for some baseball!

Since Goose already got us started with some HOF talk, here's a few interesting links I came across concerning this year's group. More posts are forthcoming, but I'll let you make of these what you want:

Rob Neyer picks apart the idiocy that is Corky Simpson. A man who--among other things-- chose NOT to vote for Rickey Henderson.

Jerry Crasnick continues to play the all-too-familiar "fear" card in reference to Jim Rice.

Here's a look at how nine writers at the Chicago Tribune voted (all of whom apparently hate Mark McGwire).

Just in case you missed it the first time, "Bad Wax" shows you what it takes to create a truly shitty ballot.

Those are just a few I've come across so far. Hopefully I'll be able to devote entire posts to some golden ones here in the near future. Be sure to also check out Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammel's stat pages to see how incredibly idiotic it is that these three players probably won't even sniff the Hall of Fame this year.

One more day till results! Finally!

Things that Make You Go, "Huh?"

It's that time of year again when baseball writers discuss their Hall of Fame ballots much to the hilarity of many. Some show willingness to use all available tools to do their evaluation while others continue to think that reciting rehashed non-analysis is good enough. To be fair, I understand how hard it could be trying to come up with these ballots. That said, it should not be that hard to not say things like this (from Chicago Tribune writer Dave van Dyck):

Andre Dawson: The consummate pro, a rare six-tool player (counting clubhouse charisma) who could run and throw and hit for power, his 1987 MVP season with the Cubs was the decade's best.

Too bad for van Dyck that Dawson's '87 season wasn't even the season's best. Of those with over 500 PA in 1987, Dawson was 27th in wOBA behind such luminaries as Brook Jacoby and Phil Bradley. Even if one were to include defense, park factors, baserunning, and positional adjustments, his season would still fall short for that season.

But oh those pretty RBI!

*smack*

Oops, nearly fell into that trap. This is not to mention that this was likely not even Dawson's own best that decade.

Come on! 49 dingers!

*punch*

You fool! Boggs hit 24 that year. '87 saw an offensive jump. Then there's that mediocre OBP from the Hawk.

By the way, Happy New Year everyone! :)

Tips On How To Manufacture A Shitty Ballot

Sorry we've been slacking lately. Most of us have probably been busy and/or haven't come across anything worth noting. Fortunately, I'm all caught up on my DVR'd recordings of House and Boston Legal, so I've got some time to kill. Let's talk Hall of Fame!

Bad Wax.

Here is my take, if you took steroids or were linked to steroids in any way shape or form, no way you get in.

Okay, that's fine. I understand a lot of people feel this way, and I can see the sentiment in wanting to keep "cheaters" out of the Hall of Fame. I disagree with this sentiment because I believe the vast majority of MLB players did (or were "linked" to) steroids and it's unfair to just simply reward the players who didn't get caught. But again, I can understand this view and won't fault anyone for having it.

So far, so good.

You need at least 7 years of domination, where you were by far and away (sic) one of the 20 best players in the game.

Ehh.. This is pretty sketchy. I'm not sure that being in the top 20 for seven years is quite up to Hall of Fame standards. I feel like there's quite a few mediocre players out there who can claim this accomplishment.

That's not too bad, though, what else you got?

Automatics are 3000 hits, 500 home runs, 800 stolen bases, 300 wins, 300 saves, or 3000 strikeouts.

-If Billy Buckner averaged 13 more hits a season over his 22-year career, he would have finished with 3,000 hits.

-Seven home runs are separating Fred McGriff from the Hall of Fame.

-Vince Coleman would be in were it not for four more stolen bases a year, despite his .324 OBP and 83 Career Adjusted OPS.

-Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Tony Mullane... so close.

-Congratulations John Franco, Jeff Reardon, Troy Percival, Randy Myers, John Wetteland, Roberto Hernandez(!), Jose Mesa(!!), Todd Jones(!!!), Rick Aguilera, Robb Nen, Tom Henke, Jeff Montgomery, and Doug Jones, you are all deserving of an induction into the Hall of Fame! Also, congratulations to every slightly above average closer in the future.

-Mickey Lolich is pissed he didn't get those extra eleven strikeouts a year.

Ask yourself, would these players really have deserved to be in the Hall just because they reached a subjective, public-induced "milestone"? No. The majority of these players aren't even close. There should be no "automatics" when considering a player for induction. You should never look at any single statistic when evaluating a player's production, because there is no single perfect stat. Bert Blyleven should not be penalized because he failed to accumulate thirteen more wins, nor should Tommy John be rewarded had he collected twelve more. This seems to be a simple concept. I would hope that the BBWAA's apparent recent improvement would transfer over into Hall of Fame standards, although I think that's still probably wishful thinking at this point.

My ballot, were I to submit one, would look like this:

Bert Blyelven
Rickey Henderson
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Alan Trammel

Rickey Henderson will obviously make it easily, I don't see it happening for any of those others this year, though. Unfortunately, I believe Henderson now being on the ballot will cause people to look more dimly upon Raines' case, so he'll probably still have quite a ways to go before he gets any serious consideration. Blyeleven seems to have the best shot out of the other four.

I love this time of year. I can't wait for more and more columns to come out attempting to justify the cases for Matt Williams and Mark Grace because they were true "gamers" and "played the game the right way." I can't wait to hear the reasoning behind a single writer's vote for Jesse Orosco as I sit bewildered at the surprisingly strong support for Mo Vaughn.

Don't worry everyone, the Winter Meetings are coming soon!