With George Mitchell’s report coming out tomorrow at 2:00, we have the perfect opportunity to claim some local bragging rights. How? By competing in a pool, of course. Here are the rules:
You pick up to ten current or former MLB players whom you predict will be outed in George Mitchell’s report tomorrow. For each player you pick who is named in the report, you will win a number of points equalling their lifetime home run totals, or, for pitchers, their lifetime ERA multiplied by 100.
All picks must be submitted by 1:30 EST tomorrow afternoon (Thursday, December 13th).
“Outed” for the purpose of this contest means being named in the report as a buyer/user of steroids, human growth hormone, or any other performance-enhancing drug.
I will be the final judge in any disputes involving the rules.
Wouldn’t picking a pitcher with a higher ERA reward you?
My ten:
-Livan Hernandez
-Eric Gagne
-Mike Hampton
-Jim Thome
-Adam Dunn
-Miguel Tejada (in honour of today’s trade)
-Lance Berkman
-Curt Schilling
-Roger Clemens
-Derek Lee
Would Picking guys who have been previously implicated be cheating? Like Pudge, etc.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a weakness in the methodology, though I think as a practical matter, it won’t have many effects. I’m open to suggestions on this point, though. Maybe take 5 - lifetime ERA x 100?
Nah, that won’t work. You gotta use a counter stat instead of a rate stat to have it make any sense. Your method puts Bobby Thigpen and Tom Glavine on about the same plane and puts Robb Nen ahead of Roger Clemens and Nolan Ryan.
I suggest making it Career Wins * 2 + Career Saves. Or alternatively, Career Wins + Career Saves + (Career Ks / 10). I like the later best.
That way Clemens, Eckersley, Mariano Riviera, Sosa and Barry Bonds are all in about the same ballpark.
Incidentally, it seems unfair if we are allowed to include guys that we know about for sure like Palmiero, Bagwell, Giambi, Canseco, Matthew’s Jr. etc. Plus guys like Bonds who admitted using it unknowingly and guys like McGuire who definitely used substances that would eventually be banned. We need better guidelines!
You’re right, the methodology as proposed sort of sucked. I originally thought including a pitching statistic was a mere formality. At any rate, let’s consider your second suggestion above as adopted.
The X factor is that we don’t know whether these people will be included in the MLB report or not. If they’re not mentioned, they get you no points. Seems like a no-brainer to include them in your list, but… well, it’s a gamble.
You could add a wrinkle by subtracting the point value of players chosen who aren’t in the report, thus giving no incentive to just throw out a bunch of big names.
This is just no fun if we get to pick players who’ve already been caught. I also agree that using ERA for pitchers doesn’t make any sense; wins times 2 makes much more sense. So I’m limiting my picks to players who aren’t known cheats:
Carlos Delgado
Jim Thome
Gary Sheffield
Roger Clemens
Jeff Bagwell (when was he caught? I don’t remember that.)
Ivan Rodriguez
Jim Edmonds
Curt Schilling
Troy Glaus, although I’m skirting my own rule there
Why? You’re taking a gamble that they’ll be named in the report – by no means a given. It could well be a losing strategy to pick the big names who’ve already been outed.