Barkis is Willin’:
One might believe (and personally, I do) that the accusations against Bonds are better-proven than those against Clemens. Brian McNamee has serious credibility issues.
In fairness, the Doyle Alexander deal unquestionably won the 1987 division title for the Tigers (a division title being a bigger deal back then.) Alexander was ridiculous down the stretch, and if they hadn’t had him they would have finished second.
You can’t blame a team that much for a trade that actually wins them a pennant. If they had had John Smoltz instead I’m not even sure it would ever have won them anything, since from then on the team was otherwise pretty bad. One could make a similar argument about the Jeff Bagwell trade; yes, the Red Sox only got Larry Anderson for him, but Anderson immediately helped Boston win the 1990 division title. Had Boston kept Bagwell, they may have lost the 1990 race, and if they still had Bagwell, then their future likely wouldn’t have included Mo Vaughn, who was the MVP the next time Boston made the playoffs. I’m not saying Mo Vaughn was as good a player as Jeff Bagwell or anything, but what pennant did Boston NOT win that they would have won if they’d had Bagwell? Probably 2000. So that’s kind of a flip.
Your point’s valid though - there are a lot of guys on that list who were traded as prospects. But I don’t know how you’d even count the prospects who get traded you never hear from again. I think if the trade legitimately results in short term victory, you have to chalk it up as a decent trade.
I completely agree with you about Alexander/Smoltz–I remember that '87 race well. (Though not perhaps as well as you do.) And your general point about that is a good one–Alexander wins them the division, so on one level it’s absolutely a good trade.
Less sold on Bagwell. While Andersen was good, he didn’t pitch much, so I’m not convinced that trade did a lot to put Boston over the top. Also, while of course you’re not going to play Bagwell and Vaughn together at first base (that’s quite an image), you could trade Bagwell after he has become established (with Vaughn on the way) and get something quite a bit better than Larry Andersen, or trade a young Vaughn when you’re not under pressure to get a decent relief pitcher, and come away instead with someone who’ll last. We’re definitely getting into the realm of speculation, and the Yankees were so dominant at that time that maybe none of it matters, but if I were a Boston fan I’d want that one back and take my chances.
Having said that, I agree that teams often do trade away prospects who never do amount to much of anything after all. I suppose you could look at Baseball America’s lists of prospects over the years and see how many of those who appeared on the list were traded anyway… It just seems to me that a lot of teams these days hold out for massive hauls if they’re going to give up a prospect, or refuse to trade prospects under any circumstances, and I wonder how much of that is the success of high-profile HOF or near-HOF players like Smoltz, Bagwell, etc.
Well at least we know why Schilling didn’t get in, :rolleyes:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/274630/speedreads-curt-schilling-thinks-he-got-snubbed-from-the-hall-of-fame-for-being-a-republican
what a tool, I have never liked this gas-bag, and liked him even less after he got a ring.
I loved Darin Erstad’s reaction to the vote he got.
News for Curt: Many multi-millionaire athletes are Republicans. Shocking, I know.
Well, being a Republican certainly kept Jim Bunning out, didn’t it?
Slam-dunk Hall of Fame case, but damn, that whole US Senator (R-KY) thing just did him in.
IIRC.
Surely that gibbering moron knows that his former teammate Randy Johnson is a republican too. The guy who just managed to get 97% of the evil liberal (???) baseball writers to vote him into the Hall.
So why did Martinez and Johnson get in? They played in the juiceball era. Same with Biggio. And Smoltz. None of them should have gotten in. They were all juicing. Prove me wrong.
Yes, I’m being an ass. Yes, it’s deliberate. The simple fact is that they all should go in. OK, some were obviously guilty. So? Nobody is above suspicion from that era. And without the all-time home run leader and the all-time Cy Young Award winner, it’s more devalued in my eyes than if they’d induct them.
Also, the sportswriters have no credibility. They were there and chose not to report on it, now they’re voting on the suitability of the very people they enabled and acting holier-than-thou about it.
The Hall of Fame is a mess.
There’s more than one pitcher better than Jim Bunning not in the Hall of Fame. He was a borderline case to begin with; long career, durable guy, about 5 really good seasons, but was never one of the top pitchers of his era. He only drew a Cy Young vote once in his career (which isn’t the best measure, since for much of his career it was a one-league award and only first-place votes were given), seven All-Star teams, career 60 rWAR/71 fWAR. I think it’s highly speculative to say that his political affiliation is the main reason for not getting in on the writers’ vote.
Schilling would have a much better case, actually, if the whole concept wasn’t flawed.
Note that the Bill James book from that year, pre-trade, famously projected Bagwell to be the AL batting champion.
In any event, in the AL there really wasn’t any issue-just make Mo a career DH, let him sit there and rake for 10 years or so. But teams seem very reluctant to do that with a defensively-challenged young player who can rake-they’ll give him all sorts of chances to fail in the field before even considering the idea.
Speaking of Jim Bunning, I’ve always found it kind of weird he actually did get into the Hall of Fame. Not that he wasn’t a good pitcher, because he was, but he’s just a strange pick… he’s the kind of guy who usually doesn’t get in. He hit no big time statistical milestones, never won a major award, never set any records, never pitched in a single playoff game, doesn’t have anything eye-popping about his stats. One of his best years he went 17-15 because he pitched for a shitty team. Usually they overlook those guys.
Exactly right- Bunning was a very good pitcher, but not notably better than oh, Rick Reuschel, Jerry Koosman, Andy Pettitte, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Mickey Lolich, Jimmy Key, Dave Stieb, or any number of guys.
I don’t think Bunning was a TERRIBLE choice, I just don’t get why he made it when so many guys with nearly identical stats never got a second look.
I think his second no-hitter, a perfect game, had something to do with Bunning’s election. Of course, it was against the 53-109 NY Mets, but it was only the seventh perfect game in the MLB history. There were far fewer stats to consider back then. Lore and mythology went a long way. I bet Jack Morris would be in the Hall of Fame if he pitched in the same era, with the same accomplishments.
Well, looks like my attempt at sarcasm regarding Bunning was ineffective; sorry about that. FTR, I do not think he was in any way a slam-dunk HOFer. Nor do I think that his political leanings had anything to do with being rejected by the BBWAA or approved by the Vet committee: he had already staked out a position somewhere in the middle of the BBWAA ballot long before he became a member of the US House, let alone a senator. Next time I’ll include a smiley of some sort!
Bunning was an interesting guy, though. His best years were before my time–I saw him once, used as a mop-up man in a Phillies loss to the Cubs in the early seventies–but he wasn’t the kind of guy people slightly older than me Talked About (“too bad you never saw Koufax/Mathews/Mantle/Banks in his prime…”).
One thing about him is that he won 19 games four times–if he’d gotten just one more in each of those four years he’d have had five 20-win seasons, and those round numbers might’ve made a difference in when he got in. Or not. Also, his strikeouts were pretty impressive for his era–I believe that he retired second only to Walter Johnson in K’s lifetime. By the time he got onto the ballot, though, he had fallen behind or was well on the way to being eclipsed by Gibson, Perry, Jenkins, Carlton, and several others, so that no longer stood out as it might have had they voted on him the day after he retired.
But I don’t think his political leanings played any role whatever in keeping him out or putting him in.
Smoltz is also strong republican, comparing same sex marriage to beastiality , making robocalls for Ralph Reed, and donating money to Republican candidates.
For comparison, check out the voting from the gentlemen at Baseball Fever.
The folks at The Straight Dope are a bit stingier than the Baseball Fever guys. Five players reached the 75% threshold there; only three did here. The only guy The Straight Dope was considerably more generous with was Smoltz.
Huh, we had more voters.
I am flummoxed as to why someone would not vote for Randy Johnson.
It’s been a long, loooong time since political or religious conservatives were popular within the world of journalism.
An equally long time since sportswriters tilted rightward.
I regard John Smoltz as a deserving candidate, though not head and shoulders above some of the other contenders.
It’s fine if you’re saying, “Smoltz got more credit than he deserved for being on a perennially strong team.”
It’s fine if you’re arguing, “Mike Mussina was about as good as Smoltz, and if Smoltz got in, Mussina should have, too.”
But SMoltz’s religious and political convictions definitely didn’t help him with voters.
To be fair to Schilling, he said he does not think being a Republican kept him out of the HOF, but that some guys didn’t vote for him because of it. And he may very well be right about that.