The Unfounded BBWAA Love for Jack Morris

Jack Morris once again failed to gain entrance to Cooperstown today. He finished with 53.5% of the vote, about 150 shy of admission. He probably won't make the jump in one year, and the ballot gets overloaded in 2013 and his last year of 2014, so he's probably going to become a VC hopeful.

Still, Morris finished with the 4th most votes of anyone on the ballot finishing ahead of the far more deserving: Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Larry Walker, and Kevin Brown among others.

Brown is an interesting case because he got less than 5% of the vote making him a one-and-done player. But if you look at it, Brown was a vastly superior pitcher to Morris. Lets look at it, shall we?

Brown threw 3256.1 innings with a 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 901 walks, and 2397 strikeouts for a 64.8 WAR and a 127 ERA+. Morris threw 3824.0 innings with a 3.90 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 1390 walks, and 2478 strikeouts for a 39.3 WAR and a 105 ERA+threw d. In order for Brown to match Morris's innings, ERA, strikeouts, and walks, he would need to make a comeback and throw 568 innings with a 7.48 ERA, walk 489 and only strikeout 81. He would have to be pretty damn awful. Morris also put up lesser stats while pitching in a much easier era. I have tried to find a good article defending Morris, but the best may be Jayson Stark's piece:

"if we look back on Morris' career, it sure looks as though the teams he pitched for, and the people he played with and against, were trying to tell us something.

This man started on Opening Day 14 years in a row (1980 to 1993) -- for three different teams. The only pitcher to start more openers than that since World War II was Tom Seaver (16). Just real aces are allowed to do that. Don't you think?"

He goes on to say that Morris started 3 all star games, and 6 playoff series game ones. His argument seems to be that since Morris's teams/peers viewed him as the man, that he must have really been that good. This is akin to people basing their vote on past Cy Young/MVP/Gold Glove results which are obviously flawed. Yet, this is the BEST argument I've found for Morris. Morris's streak of opening days began in 1980, mostly due to a lack of options. He had a solid, but not spectacular 1979 and was clearly the best starter the Tigers had. Over the next 11 seasons with Detroit, while he did nothing to lose his role as opening day starter, he also didn't do a whole lot to cement the role. The Tigers just didn't ever have anybody jump up and take it from him especially after a great postseason in 1984 when he helped lead the Tigers to a World Series title. After his time with the Tigers, he was a veteran who would have been unhappy with not getting the ball on opening day. Even so, this is not a good way to judge his Hall of Fame merits.

Some writers even had the audacity to vote for Morris over Bert Blyleven. Jon Heyman was one of these. Like Stark, I respect Heyman as a writer. He is great at getting inside information and reporting it. But I flat out disagree with him here. His argument is basically that Morris was perceived as great while he was playing, but Bert was not. While he doesn't come out and say it, his arguments are largely predicated on the flawed statistic of pitchers wins. He talks about pitching to the score and how Blyleven "didn't win all that many more games than he lost".

To me, you either have to have great career totals or several great individual seasons. Preferably both. Morris has neither and thus Heyman champs his career impact, but does not go into career totals or individual seasons. With the exception of the 1984 and 1991 postseasons, Morris was never elite for a distinguished period of time, nor was he good-to-great for a long enough time to build up great career totals. Again, we can't put guys in the Hall of Fame for having a great run or two in the postseason. That's what postseason awards are for. No matter how much you were in awe with game 7 of the 1991 series, it does not make Morris a Hall of Famer.

My thoughts on the 2011 Hall of Fame ballot

I feel very strongly about the hall of fame and who should get in. As I have said, I think the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the very best ever to play the game. I do not want to go to Cooperstown to see the plaques of guys like Jim Rice who are there for some reason made up by sportswriters trying to create a story. People would classify me as a "small hall" guy.

So anyway, here are my thoughts on the 2011 ballot:

The one and dones:

Carlos Baerga
My favorite player for a brief time in the early nineties. He seemed to be on a Hall of Fame track in his early twenties: a switch hitting second baseman with power he was a big part of the Indians Renaissance which also included the elite near HOF caliber talents of Sandy Alomar, Kenny Lofton, Albert Belle, Jim Thome, and Manny Ramirez. He basically fell off a cliff in 1997 when he was only 27. Questions about his living habits and work ethic were brought into question, Cleveland shipped him out of town (for Jeff Kent among others) and he was never the same player.

Brett Boone
A very odd career path. He sucked for most of his twenties only keeping a regular role because his managers liked his professionalism and quality glove. Then out of nowhere he had one of the best 3 year runs I've ever seen from a second baseman with OPS+'s of 153, 114, and 140. Then he went back to sucking. Could never figure any of it out. Put the best of him and Baerga together and you come close to a Hall of Famer. Separate though, no.

John Franco
A closer, and not an especially great one. He is first all time in saves among lefties. I don't put any stock into saves and being a lefty gets him no bonus points. Solid career, not a hall of famer.

Juan González
I hate Juan González. He got a lot of undeserved accolades due to the RBI statistic and playing in Texas. He also always seemed like a me first guy. Turned down a 10 year $140M contract from the Tigers because he did not like hitting in Comerica Park. The Hall has no place for him.

Marquis Grissom
Grissom seemed to have 2 entirely different careers. The first was as a burner who stole more than 70 bases twice in the early 90s. The second was as a solid centerfielder who had speed and power but did nothing outstanding. I remember him being compared to Lofton when they were both coming up. The comparison made a lot more sense back then when I took stock in batting average and stolen bases, but now it seems a bit absurd. Lofton was a better hitter and baserunner, took walks and was an outstanding lead off man. Grissom was not at Lofton's level and was out of place at the top of a lineup mainly due to his lack of walks. Good player, not a Hall of Famer.

Lenny Harris
I could not remember Harris ever being a regular player so I looked. He wasn't. He never got 500 plate appearances in any season of his career. He played for a very long time, for a lot of teams, all of them in the NL where he could pinch hit. He was not an especially good hitter, but was better than a pitcher, I guess. Not sure why he got as many PAs as he did, not sure why his career lasted so long, not sure why he's on the ballot. I'll be surprised if he gets any votes.

Bobby Higginson
I remember Higgy most for his absurd contract that crippled the Tigers of the late 90s/early 2000s (though not as bad as Juan Gonzalez would have). He was a good hitter, but not great for a corner outfielder for most of his 20s, but he fell off very quickly in his 30s and was done at 34 (but still raking in the cash!).

Charles Johnson
I remember him as a good defensive catcher with power and he was for a period of time. He dealt with numerous injuries and was done in his early 30s. Never truly outstanding, and not a long enough career to make much of a hall of fame case.

Al Leiter
I remember Leiter most for being very very wild. I used to call him Leiter fluid for his penchant of walking numerous batters in a row which started a fire. But during his time with the Mets around the turn of the century, he actually had pretty good command as he kept his BB/9 in the low 3s and his WHIP in the 1.20 range. During this time he was one of the better pitchers in the game and had he been more durable, he may have worked his way into a Cy Young race or two. He faded rather quickly as a few MPH meant everything with his mediocre stuff. Great career on guts and guile and has since become a very good broadcaster. Entertaining player, but not HOF level.

Tino Martinez
A first baseman who could hit. This is something that may be a rare commodity on the Pirates of the last two decades, but in baseball as a whole, it is pretty common. I was surprised that he has been out of the game for five years because it seems like he was with the Cardinals a season or two ago. Anyway, no seasons over 150 OPS+ and no OBPs over .400. Tough to make a HOF case for a 1B without either.

Raúl Mondesí
Mondesi was certainly a HOF talent. One of the few "5 tool" players to actually possess all 5 tools, but for whatever reason, he had trouble putting it all together and never became the superstar everyone expected when he was the NY rookie of the year in 1994.

John Olerud
Another player who seemed to have multiple lives. First he was an up and comer with the elite Blue Jay teams of the early 90s. Then after a few down years, he resurfaced as a member of the slick fielding Mets infield of the late 90s. Then he was an important cog in the Ichiro led Mariners team that won 116 games in 2001 and finally he was the first baseman on the 2004 Yankees when Boston came back from a 3-0 deficit to win the ALCS. He is the best of the one and dones and perhaps he deserves a longer look. Not a HOF to me, but he was certainly very good for quite some time. Lifetime OBP of .398. I will most remember him for the Rickey Henderson story.

Kirk Rueter
I remember 2 thinks about Rueter. First that he was nicknamed Woody because he looked like Woody from Toy Story. Second that he was a very effective pitcher despite almost never striking a batter out. In 2002 he threw 204 innings with a 3.23 ERA while striking out only 76 batters. He did this despite not having a very high ground ball rate. It's rather remarkable, but certainly not HOF caliber.

Benito Santiago
He had a very long career donning the tools of ignorance and hitting with some pop. His name will forever be tarnished due to his connection with the BALCO scandal, but he had a long, productive career.

B. J. Surhoff
BJ had a long career lasting 19 seasons and he was productive for much of it, especially with the Orioles of the mid to late 90s. He also ever to play all 8 positions on the field (he never pitched).

The annual No's

Lee Smith
Ok, so he was the saves leader when he retired and some of his contemporaries have also gotten in... So? He only had a few years where he was an absolute stud fireman and my stance on relievers as a whole is basically if they aren't Mariano, and were never a stud starter, they probably don't belong in the Hall.

Fred McGriff
Good hitting first baseman, for a long time. As I said for Tino Martinez, there is a long list of these. Had McGriff done his damage primarily in the 70s or 80s, he'd probably be in, but in the 90s, he doesn't stand out among contemporaries such as McGwire, Bagwell, Thome and Thomas. Will Clark and John Olerud have cases that are just as strong.

Don Mattingly
John Olerud with more power, less plate discipline, and a shorter career. Oh, and he played his entire career in the Bronx. Had he played for the Royals, he may have been one and done.

Dave Parker
Can't figure out why this guy is still on the ballot. He was an out making machine who did not compile great counting totals, only had a few outstanding seasons at the plate, and has a cocaine addiction in his past. Not a hall of famer.

Dale Murphy
One of the annuals I support more than the others, but he fell off a cliff at 32, stuck around too long, and doesn't have the longevity or the peak to merit inclusion.

Harold Baines
The definition of a compiler. Good hitter for a very long time, but never great. No years with an OPS+ over 150 and only one piece of black ink on his player card: slugging percentage in 1984. With no fielding value at all, I feel like no matter how long you were productive, you need at least a few years at the top of the league.

Jack Morris
Ah, my favorite debate for last. Why is Jack still here? Well it essentially boils down to arbitrary designations, mathematical gymnastics and game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Here are the arguments for Jack:

1. He was the winningest pitcher of the 1980. Ah, mathematical gymnastics! Jack's peak corresponded almost perfectly with the 1980s. 1980 was his first full year and he only fell short of 200 innings in 2 seasons: the strike year of 1981 and 1989. He made a ton of starts with very good Tiger teams. Giving him the chance to rack up wins. If we draw the line one year either north or south of the 80s, he is not the leader.
2. He was the ace on three world series winners! Correction, he was the ace on one world series winner.: the 1984 Tigers. And actually the argument can be made that Dan Petry was statistically the superior pitcher that year with a better ERA, better WHIP and only 11 fewer innings. In 1991 Kevin Tapani was clearly the regular season ace, and in 1992 both Jimmy Key and Juan Guzman had better years. His postseason 1984 and 1991 is commendable, but it ignores that he was shelled in the postseason in 1987 and 1992.
3. He pitched to the score. There has never been evidence to back this up. It is generally said about pitchers with high win totals despite their high ERAs. There is another explanation though: good run support.
4. He was a big game pitcher. Bill James did a study last year that concluded that no pitcher beat up on weak teams more in the last 30 years than Jack Morris. Another arbitrary definition that isn't necessarily true.
5. Game 7. Okay, this was a bad ass start that today perhaps only Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee could realistically make today. Morris threw a 10 inning shutout to win 1-0 in what has to be one of the 5-10 greatest games ever pitched. One game however, does not make you a hall of famer or Don Larsen would be in.
   

Morris is clear cut hall of the very good, but he should not be in Cooperstown, especially not so long as Bert Blyleven remains out.

New guys to think about

Jeff Bagwell
149 career OPS+. .408 career OBP, .540 career SLG. Had the dignity to walk away when his arthritic shoulder had gotten the best of him. As a result he falls short of 500 homers and 3000 hits, but his peak is excellent especially 1994 when he posted a 213 OPS+! He walked a lot, hit lots of homers and doubles, and was a surprisingly good base stealer, swiping over 200 bases with over a 70% success rate. To me he's right at the edge. I think I would wait a year, but I could easily see putting him in.

Edgar Martinez
There are only two reasons why Edgar is even up for debate: first that the Seattle Mariners were stupid enough to keep him in the minors until he was 27 even though he tore it up at AAA, and second a horrific injury at the age of 30 that limited him to DH duties for most of his career. Still, he posted a career OPS+ of 147, .418 OBP, and .515 SLG. His peak is even better than Bagwell's posting a line of .329/.446/.574 from 1995-2001 for a 163 OPS+. Alas, much of his value came from the walk which the MSM still doesn't fully appreciate. I think he and Bagwell are a package deal and one has to go with the other. I'd like to see both of them in, but I'm going to wait a year on both.

Kevin Brown
Okay. KJB was an asshole. We get it. Everyone knows it, and his lack of longevity robs him of gaudy counting stats: only 211 wins, under 300 Ks, and no Cy Youngs. By my count, Brown is either the 7th or 8th best pitcher of his era. He clearly trails Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Johnson and Glavine. Which leaves Smoltz, Schilling, and Mussina. I put him almost right on par with Mussina and a touch behind Schilling. He doesn't have Moose's longevity or Curt's peak, but he's right in there. From 1996-2001 he had a 2.53 ERA for a 163 ERA+ while averaging 221 innings a year and this was during the peak of the steroids era. Not saying he 100% belongs, but he's certainly more deserving than Jack Morris. Brown dominated for a solid 5 year period.

Larry Walker
Walker is going to be hurt by the fact that his best years were in Coors field at the height of the steroids era. His numbers will be dismissed as a product of his surroundings and he will likely never get into the hall. But Walker was good before and after his time in Coors and its pretty hard to ignore is outstanding run from 1994-2004 where he hit .33/.422/.614 for an OPS+ of 147. He was also a good fielder with a great arm and an excellent baserunner. Walker is another guy who I can certainly see voting for, but I probably would not. At least not this year.

I'm leaving them out for steroids, but they have HOF numbers
Mark McGwire
Mark admitted it. Good for him (though he says they didn't help). Still, McGwire had two real skills as a ballplayer. He hit homers and took walks. He didn't hit for much of an average (.263 lifetime), he wasn't much of a base runner, or a fielder, and even if we say steroids didn't help him walk more, they definitely helped him hit more homers, and even if that was only the difference between 40-50 and the 60s/70s he was getting to in his peak, he still would likely be under 500. I don't think he'd be in without them. He just wasn't well rounded enough.

Rafael Palmeiro
Palmeiro was a much better all-around player than Big Mac. He could run a bit, he was a very good first baseman for a while, he took walks, struck out little, and hit for a good enough average. But Raffy holds one thing that Mac doesn't and that no one in the Hall does: a positive drug test (that he later blamed on someone else). I cannot in good conscious endorse this man for the hall of fame. He does belong in the hall of fame for the best bold faced lie on capitol hill this side of Bill Clinton.

These guys should be on every ballot:

Bert Blyleven
This is Bert's 15th and final time on the ballot, and it is an absolute crime it has taken this long. I still have yet to see a good reason for this. He has a 3.31 lifetime ERA pitching almost 5000 innings. He is 3rd all time in strikeouts, he has a lifetime WAR of 87.1 (easily the most of anyone on the ballot), and he has better post season numbers than Jack Morris. What exactly is keeping him out? Oh yeah, he has low win totals because he never had great run support. This is a horrible reason to not vote for him.

Roberto Alomar
Alomar is, in my opinion the best second baseman since Joe Morgan, and the second best since WWII. He may have been a bit overrated in the field by his 10 gold gloves, but you sure couldn't tell by watching him as he always seemed to make the play. His 1999 and 2001 seasons are some of the best I have ever seen for a second baseman. He inexplicably fell off a cliff in 2002 at the age of 34 and that prevented him from reaching 3000 hits and being a slam dunk first ballot guy. Still can't understand how anyone could vote for Dawson and not him last year, but someone must have because Dawson got in and he did not. He will this year.

Barry Larkin & Alan Trammell
Larkin and Alan Trammell have very similar cases (in fact they are the #1 comparison for each other on similarity scores) so I'm going to combine them rather than essentially writing the same thing twice. They were excellent all around shortstops at a time when shortstop was becoming more of an offensive position. They both lack the power of Ripken, the flash of Ozzie Smith, and the consistency of Jeter, but in many ways they were comparable in value to those three. Yet those guys will sail in on the first ballot and I wonder if Larkin or Trammell will ever get in. Lou Whitaker also merits consideration here albeit as a second baseman, and he was one and done. There's no question that Ripken had the best career of these five shortstops, but a large part of that was his incredible Iron Man ability to play all the time. Here's how they stack up in total WAR: Ripken 89.9, Jeter 70.1, Larkin, 68.9, Trammell 66.9, Smith 64.6. Closer than many might think. Both Trammell and Larkin were good hitting shortstops and above average fielders with Larkin being better offensively and Trammell better defensively. Both were good baserunners with Larkin having the edge. Both had near MVP caliber seasons 84, 87, and 90 for Trammell, 1996 (and maybe 1995 when he actually won) for Larkin. Both were stars on World Series winners. Neither has gaudy counting stats because they had trouble staying healthy once they reached their mid 30s (but this is normal). I cannot understand how Jeter and Smith can sail in on the first ballot when comparable players like Larkin and Trammell are left out in the cold. Jeter will get in the high nineties when eligible. I'm not sure if Larkin and Trammell will ever combine to reach the 90s and all things considered, they were just as good.

Tim Raines
I've saved perhaps my favorite hall of fame case for last. While it is ridiculous that Blyleven and Alomar are not yet in the Hall, I feel that will change this year. Raines's exclusion however, is equally ridiculous but I do not see him getting in any time soon as he got just 30.4% of the vote last year. The Raines is very clearly the 2nd greatest lead off hitter ever, and argument can be made that Raines is the greatest base stealer ever. He's only fifth all time with 808, but he was only caught 146 times, a success rate of nearly 85%, far better than Lou Brock (75.3) or Rickey (80.8). He took walks at an incredible rate placing him 35th all time and his walks led to him being on base more times than Tony Gwynn despite having more than 500 fewer hits in roughly the same number of plate appearances. People seam to remember Raines mostly for his 90s years when he was a good but not great part time player for the White Sox and Yankees. He still put up good per game numbers, getting on base and running the bases well, but he rarely played enough to even qualify for the batting title making it very hard to stand out. However, during his peak years with the Expos from 1983-1987, Raines averaged 186 hits, 71 steals, 10 triples, 87 walks and a 6.1 WAR per year. Very few players in history have had a peak that good. Raines career totals are essentially the same as Tony Gwynn's with a lot better baserunning and 500 walks instead of 500 singles. Both had injury problems, both were average fielders, both were excellent offensive players. Gwynn sailed in on the first ballot, Raines is still trying to get half way to 75%. It doesn't make sense, but it is the power of high batting averages and 3000 hits.

How to save baseball and a radical re-alignment idea

Baseball is close to broken. Now that the moneyball revolution is over and cash is once again king, the only way small market teams can win is a trade their stars for a truckload of prospects and hope everyone comes up at the same time. The Marlins and Rays are the best examples of this recently but even if a team is smart, it's really hard. Three years ago, the Indians were a budding dynasty with stars like CC Sabathia, Grady Sizemore and Victor Martinez who came up together. A few disastrous contracts later and they're rebuilding. Right now we can divide baseball teams into those with money and those without and those who are smart with their money and those who are not:

Money + Smart (the perennials)
Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cardinals, Angels, Braves

No Money + Smart (the usually good may be greats)
Twins, Indians, Rays, Ms, A's, Rangers (past few years), Marlins, Brewers, Rockies, DBacks (sort of)

Money + Dumb (Pretenders who may catch lightning in a bottle)
Mets, Giants, Dodgers, Tigers, White Sox, Cubs, Astros, Orioles, Jays

No Money + Dumb (the hopeless cases)
Royals, Pirates, Reds, Padres, Nats

With the exception of the Padres, none of the hopeless cases have made the playoffs in the last 15 years. The O's and Jays are dumb and in the division with two juggernauts so they are also essentially hopeless.

Why there's such a huge cash discrepancy:
The NFL is discussing a season without a salary cap which my friends think will turn it into baseball with big teams like the Cowboys, Giants, and Bears getting the motherload of the talent. This is untrue because the vast majority of NFL revenue comes from a lucrative TV contract as well as officially licensed merchandise which is split 32 ways. And since almost every NFL game sells out, the small differences in local revenue would do little to tip the balance of power. This will not work for baseball as the national TV contract pales in comparison to local media revenues, and most teams do not sell out every game.

What to do about it:
Huge local media contracts help teams like the Yankees and Red Sox stay ahead of everyone else, and loyal fan bases like ST. Louis and Philly bring them (while slightly less) enough revenue to stay at the top. Smaller markets don't have this ability. Baseball needs to gobble up all media rights, sell them in each individual market to the highest bidder and split the cash 30 ways. This will help level the playing field a lot, but big markets will still have a cash advantage.

Look, the players union is the strongest in America and barring a long strike there will be no salary cap or salary floor. However, all league revenue generated from the media contracts should have to be spent on team expenses, not owner's pockets. I think this can be a compromise between the sides. But still a salary cap won't happen. Therefore the best way to deal with the big market teams is to introduce more competition. So here's my idea:

Radical Re-alignment:

First and foremost lets get rid of two things that just piss me off: inter-league play and the wild card. We'll shuffle some teams around and make 8 divisions.

Second, we need teams where people watch baseball and have money. I would really like to see a team in Tokyo, but the flight, even from california, is just too long. Therefore, lets add two teams: one in Brooklyn and another in Las Vegas. They will both be AL teams and I suspect they will be successful baseball fan bases. Then we'll suffle teams a bit to make eight four team divisions like the NFL. You will need to win your division to make the playoffs. No more Yankees/Red Sox playoff series. Here's what they will look like:

AL:
Northeast
NY Yankees
Red Sox
Orioles
Brooklyn

Midwest
Tigers
Indians
White Sox
Twins

Central
Royals
Blue Jays
Astros
Rangers

West
Mariners
Angels
A's
Las Vegas

NL
Northeast
Phillies
Mets
Pirates
Nationals

Southeast
Marlins
Rays
Braves
Reds

Midwest
Cardinals
Brewers
Cubs
Rockies

West
Giants
Dodgers
D-Backs
Padres


Yes I know the geography isn't perfect and that it would further dilute the talent pool. But the balance of power is spread out again. You would bring back the great pennant races, and it would create some truly bitter rivalries. I would also like to see them start calling the high strike again and possibly take out the DH. We'll compromise with the union by adding two teams a expanding the active roster to 26 players.

The aftermath of McGwire's admission

Ever since McGwire admitted his steroid use, I have been reconsidering my whole outlook on performance enhancing substances, records, and the hall of fame. First of all, I am among the vast, vast majority who was not in the least bit surprised that Mac used illegal steroids. What does surprise me is the length of time he took them. I always assumed that he was clean during the early to mid 90s and bulked up with them from 96-00 when he had his home run explosion. I don't buy for a second that his home run totals were not substantially aided by the drugs, nor do I think McGwire should be in the hall of fame. McGwires hall of fame case is built on his massive home run, walk, and slugging totals, all of which were blown up with steroids. He has no chance without them and was barely an all star level player. My take is as it has always been: the old standards do not apply to players from the steroid era. You'd better have crazy off the charts numbers, or 10-15 very good years to get in in my book. So guys like Sheffield, Thome, Delgado, Guerrero, Kent, Sosa, Palmeiro, and a few others who would have been locks in the past just don't quite make it for me.

All that being said, the thing that pisses me off about the whole thing the most is how guys like Ken Griffey Jr. get painted as saints. Look, I don't know if Griffey used steroids. He has never been linked to it, or tested positive, or had a season where he just blew up or anything. But to totally dismiss it as impossible and treat the guy like the golden boy of the era doesn't make sense. I think it's very likely that playing in the era he did, Griffey used some sort of performance enhancing substance. That substance could have been a steroid, HGH, amphetamine, or supplement, but in any case, its not entirely natural. And thats ok. In this day an age athletes do anything they can to get an edge as in can be the difference in hundreds of millions of dollars. Anyone who says that they would not have taken drugs that were not banned at the time in order to stay in the majors or make themselves a star is either lying or very stupid. Look at McGwire: he was a good first baseman and a good hitter when he came into the league (emphasis on good) but he could not stay healthy and his career would probably have come to an end much sooner had it not been saved by drugs. Once he started taking the drugs, he probably felt much better and began to see more and more success. Without the possibility of consequences looming, why would he not continue? Ok, it was probably quite bad for his health, we'll find out later on that, but seriously, ask yourself or anyone you know if they would take 50-100 million dollars today in exchange for 10-20 years of your life later. Just about everyone, at least the younger people would say yes even if they won't admit it.

Now, maybe Griffey was a rare breed who was so talented that he could dominate a league full of juiced players based on talent alone. I like to think that Griffey and Bonds were both like this until about 1999. At this point, the paths diverge. Hands down, Griffey and Bonds were the two best position players of the 1990s and its not particularly close. Most people would put Griffey slightly ahead of Bonds, a position I do not share, but for this purpose, it's not important. Here's how I see the situation and where I make my point: Griffey and Bonds were hands down the two most talented players in the league, and along with Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Alex Rodriguez, two of the top 5 most talented players of all time. The difference is Griffey was amazing from day 1 whereas Bonds had to work his way up to stardom. Bonds' workout regime was well documented and it was intense. It was said that he was the only one who could handle what he did. Griffey on the other hand was never know as a workoutaholic. Sure, he'd work on his game: take batting and fielding practice, baserunning drills ect. but as far as I know, he was never much of a weight room or physical conditioning guy the way Bonds was. I think this is a large reason for his injuries in his early 30s. I could be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with athletics and I can tell you that the guys who kept themselves in great shape were much less likely to get injured than those who didn't.

Let's zoom to 2000: Griffey was dealt to Cincinnati and had his last really good full season at the age of 30. 30! Bonds has yet another monster season setting a career high in homers as well as leading the league in OPS+ and walks at the age of 35. Bonds goes on to blow up the next 4 seasons, putting together the greatest 4 year run in the history of baseball. Griffey basically falls off a cliff as he cannot stay healthy, and even when he's on the field, he's not the player he was in his 20s. So my question is which is the greater tragedy? They had essetially equal careers after the year 2000, when Bonds, by any means necessary sought to make himself the most dominant force in the history of the game. And he succeeded. Griffey, after years of getting by on pure talent could not keep himself healthy and in shape to stay successful as he aged. In 2000 if you had asked me which current player has the best chance to break Hank Aarons home run record, my answers would have been Griffey and Sosa. Bonds would not have crossed my mind. Bonds of course was the one who broke the record.

Let's stop making Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens and the rest out to be monsters. They took illegal drugs. It was bad. We get it. But the drugs alone did not make them great players. Steroids really only help you get strong and stay healthy when supplemented with physical fitness. These guys were all workout gurus. Ken Griffey was not. He was a great talent. He wasted some of it. He was not the player he could have been. Not all of this can be blamed on steroids.

If you want to make a player out to be the golden boy of the era, for god sakes, pick Greg Maddux. He is probably the one player who got the most out of his talent in the history of baseball. He was a stand up guy. He was great for 20 years. He may have been the best pitcher ever to live. And he, not Ken Griffey, should be the first unanamous HOF inductee. He won't be, but how can you possibly construct an argument against him?

What to do about the hall of fame.

I grow increasingly disgusted after each HOF article I read in this season of HOF voting. It seems that more and more stupid people have votes and they all seem to be taking the "Political correctness" stand. That is, the lets let everyone in stand. Look, just because people are stupid enough to put player X (cough Jim Rice cough) into the hall of fame doesn't mean you need to put player Y (Andre Dawson) in. Things are getting so watered down in recent years and I've been trying to think of a way to return mystique to Cooperstown.

As you know, I am a "Small Hall" guy meaning that I think it should be reserved for the truly deserving: guys who legitimately dominated the game for a number of years. Not guys who just accumulated counting stats, had a great moment, or were on great teams. I think I have come up with an idea. It's a modified version of Bill Simmons Pyramid Scheme.

Here's how it works: The hall consists of four levels each with their own requirements for enshrinement. The base would of course be the largest and least prestigious. Likewise the top would be reserved strictly for the best of the best of the best: basically the best pitcher for each generation.

The top level (level 4)
The top level of the Hall will be the most exclusive club in sports. One player can be elected every ten years and the player must pass through each of the three lower levels first. Baseball has been around for approximately 150 years which means we can put 15 players into the top level right now. Starting in 2010, we can put in one per decade. It doesn't matter which year the election is held, but elections must be 10 years apart and only one player can go in each time. Anyone in level 3 is eligible to be elected to level 4, and in the year of election everyone on the panel gets one vote, no more, no less.

Level 3
The third level will serve as a sort of waiting room for the top for some players and as a nice resting place for others. This is still an exclusive club, but not near to the level of #4. One player can be elected to this club every five years, and one additional player will be elected every ten years to replace the player headed to level 4. Therefore, the level will grow by one every five year and will start at 30 today. Players from level two are eligible here and committee members may vote for one player for each open spot during level 3 election years.

Level 2
A rung in the ladder for some, a final resting place for others. This is the level where most of the great players who were never at an all time great level will be. One player can be elected to this level every two years and an additional player every five years to replace the player departing to level 3. Anyone in level one is eligible for level two and committee members may vote for one player during each election year. This level will begin with 75 players

Level 1
The level where it is determined if a player is a Hall of Famer or not. This is the easiest level to gain addmitance, but is still limited in members. This level will admit one player per year as well as any other player getting at least 97% of the vote. Basically to get in, you had better be the best in your class or overwhelmingly good (8 players have gotten 97% or more). Level 1 is where all current hall of famers not in one of the upper levels will be dumped. My pick for this year: Bert Blyleven.

Where did it all go wrong? The 2009 Cleveland Indians

The Indians came into 2009 looking good. They finished 2008 on a high note, were loaded with good young players, and were positioned to dominate the weakest division in the game. They seemed to me to be a lock to win it. Here's what I said about them back in March

Ok, the pitching is a bit of a question mark, but they have the reigning Cy Young winner, and the guy who finished 4th the previous year, as well as a guy who won 18 games a few years ago, a guy who dominated in the world series 3 years ago, and lots of AAA stars in the fold. I think it'll be ok, not great, but ok. Where Cleveland will make it up is on offense. Grady Sizemore is the best all around player in the AL and in the top 5 in baseball, he will get help from a certain bounce back from Victor Martinez, the underrated Johnny Peralta, and rising star Choo, all of whom rank in the top 3-4 players at their position in the AL. Newly acquired Mark Derosa, should provide an upgrade at 3rd and bounce backs are likely from Garko and Cabrera, both of whom had great second halves last year. Francisco in left is rather weak, and Hafner at DH cannot be relied upon, so anything out of either one is a bonus, but the risk is low and the reward is high. Cleveland could win as many as 100 games or as little as 80 depending on the big L-U-C-K, but they return all of what was the best team in baseball down the stretch last year, and have added a solid closer and third baseman, so I like their chances.

So what happened?

Well I was right about a lot of things, but none of it was in the pitching. Carmona bombed again, Westbrook threw the same number of innings that I did, Lewis and Reyes combined for less starts than 2008, and the bullpen was worthless. Lee and Pavano proved to be solid, but didn't last the summer with the team. Sowers, Laffey, and Huff have all shown signs of being potentially good major league pitchers, but have also shown signs of being AAAA pitchers.

Lets rewind 10 months back to the hot stove. You're Mark Shapiro, you have $10-20 million to sure up your lineup, rotation, and bullpen. What do you do? I'd go ahead and make the Pavano and Derosa moves again. They were solid low risk, high reward moves that I liked at the time. What you don't do is give a whole bunch of money to Kerry Wood to close games. You did just fine in the regular season back in 2006 with Joe freakin Borowski closing. The closer is monumentally overrated in the regular season.

You have Kelly Shoppach coming off a career year he can't possibly repeat and several teams looking for catchers: Boston, Detroit, New York Mets. You have the best centerfielder in baseball playing right field. And you have bits a pieces that can be used as throw ins if need be.

What do you need: starting pitching, and 1-2 good relievers.

What should you do?

First, I'd move Shoppach. Try to get a few good young arms such as Masterson or Bucholz. Then, and this is going to be very hard to swallow. I would have tried to trade Grady Sizemore for a true ace pitcher. Someone like Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, or Adam Wainwright. Everyone in Cleveland would have hated this, but think about it: you actually IMPROVE on defense, throw in a full season of Choo in right, and you gain back a bunch of offense, and with the money you save, you can go out and sign an Adam Dunn or Bob Abreu to play left and give you a quality lefthanded bat. Then you bolster your rotation and it looks something like: Lee, Ace, Pavano, Laffey, Huff/Sowers. Not great, but definitely good enough in the AL central.

Then the lineup looks like this:

1. Cabrera SS
2. Derosa 2B
3. Choo RF
4. Martinez C
5. Hafner DH
6. Peralta 3B
7. Garko 1B
8. Francisco or Free Agent LF
9. Gutierez CF

Of course this is all based on the idea, that Shoppach could have landed them a few live arms, and that Sizemore could have brought in a true ace pitcher, and that the resulting angry mob wouldn't have killed Shapiro.

Then again hindsight is 20/20, but anyone could see that the team need pitching, had offense to spare, and had a gem defender in Gutz being wasted in rightfield.

Where do we go from here?
Well, its obvious that next year is going to be a rebuilding year. The first step is to higher a manager and a pitching coach with an established track record. Someone like Bobby Valentine would be a nice fit. They need someone who will be hard nosed and not put up with crap from young players. I think a big problem with wedge was that he was too nice. A pitching coach to work with all the young arms is important too. Anyone know what Leo Mazzone is doing???

The good news is that they got a ton back in the Lee, Martinez, and Derosa deals. Its young, but its deep, and should pan out in a year or two. Still, I think they should seek to make more. Lets try to move Peralta, Hafner, Westbrook, and Wood and get anything we can for them. None of them have very high stocks right now, but if they get off to a good first few months they should be movable.

Next year should be all about giving the kids a chance - Florida Marlin style. Laporta, Brantley and Santana should see significant time at the big league level. It's a pivotal season for Carmona and he should spend the winter getting his groove back. There is no excuse for him to bomb again. He dominated for a season, and he hasn't lost much velocity or movement, only command and confidence which with work should return. Masterson, Laffey and Huff should all have rotation spots with the 5th belonging to Westbrook for the time being. Whatever you do, do not make a big splash in a weak free agent market. Barring a small miracle, you are not contending in '10 and should save money and avoid another Dellucci/Hafner albatross contract that will cripple the team for years.

It'll likely be a long year for Tribe fans, but without changing the salary structure of baseball it was unavoidable. However, in the future, they must avoid giving big contracts to guys who are significant health risks and not established stars. Save the money for guys like Lee, Sizemore, and Martinez and let the Hafners, and Peraltas of the world leave as free agents.

Albert Pujols: The GOAT?

Here's something everyone knows: Albert Pujols is good at baseball. He's so good at baseball that he has obliterated the need for discussion on who the best hitter on the planet is. Sure you could argue that Chase Utley, Hanley Ramirez, Joe Mauer, or Zack Greinke are better all around players because they play tougher positions, but there is no one close on the hitting end of things. His career is unbelievable, because he pretty much showed up and 21 and dominated from day one. In all my searching, I have found one guy in history who did that. Some guy by the name of Ted Williams who I hear was pretty good himself.

For shits and giggles hear is a sample season from Albert's career:

118 R, 40 2B, 34 HR, 127 RBI, 72 BB, 69 SO, .314 BA, .394 OBP, .561 SLG, 331 TB, 151 OPS+

Pretty good, huh? Yeah, that's his WORST year. The only year he failed to record an OBP of at least .400, his lowest slugging and his lowest OPS+. If he keeps going like he has for another 8-10 years (and I see no reason why he wouldn't), even allowing for a decline phase, he has a very good chance to do something no one in history has ever done. Albert can be the first player to hit the two major HOF milestones (3000 hits and 500 HRs) with a lifetime OBP of over 400.

Think about that for a second. That's the two HOF clubs, each with 20-30 members, and my personal OBP standard for a superstar of .400. No one is in all 3 clubs. Not Ruth, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Ott, Musial, Bonds, or Mantle. The closest are Musial who missed it by 25 HRs, Bonds who missed it by 65 hits, and Mays who missed it by 16 basis points of OBP.

There are only four players in both clubs: Hank Arron, Willie Mays, Eddie Murray, and Rafael Palmeiro. The first two are considered to be among the top 5-10 players ever. The third is well respected as a solid Hall of Famer, but nothing more, the fourth is tainted by his meteoric rise and subsequent failed drug test.

Albert is also the first player in history to finish in the top 10 in the MVP voting in each of his first eight seasons, and number certain to grow by one with his inevitable 3rd MVP trophy coming in November. He is a few steroid Bonds years and a horrible oversight in 2006 short of looking at his 6th award in 9 seasons.

So, I ask the question: at what point do we start talking about Albert as the greatest player of all time? The Bonds talk started right around the time he turned into superman at the ripe old age of 36, but even Bonds did not have a career that started off as good as Albert's. Some still feel that no one will ever exceed Ruth, Williams or Mantle, but I think if Albert does his thing for 7 more years, he needs to be in that same breath. That would give him 16 straight top 10 MVP seasons and put him somewhere in the neighborhood of 650 homers and 3000 hits with an OBP in the .430 range. Adding further to that he could conceivably end up with 800 homers and 3600 or so hits which is absolutely mind blowing. Granted a lot needs to go right for this to happen, but watch the man hit. If anyone can do it, its him.

The one knock I put on him is that while he has been and absolute model of excellence, he does not have a truly earth shattering season such as Williams in '41 and '57, Mantle in '56 and '57, and Ruth in '20 and '21. He has no 50 homer seasons, no season where he flirted with .400 and no less than half out seasons (.500+ OBP).

In short, Albert is like Federer, Woods, Manning, and Bolt in that he is in all likelihood the best any of us will ever see, and possibly the best ever.