Reportedly, the Mets have reached a deal with Jason Bay, formerly of the Boston Red Sox and the Pittsburgh Pirates.Bay has been a perennial offensive force in the National (and more recently) and American leagues. His fielding and baserunning are both subpar, but for the Mets, a team sorely lacking in the power department, Bay seems to be a part of the solution.
* * *
Here's the thing: The Mets shouldn't (nor, I think, do they) think that this is it. The starting rotation last year was weak, when healthy. Importing a pitcher seems to be a necessity if the Mets expect to contend. I thought the pitcher who made the most sense was Jason Marquis. Apparently, either the Mets disagree, or they don't find acquiring another starter necessary.
On that side of the debate stand the facts that:
1. While only winning 70 games, the Mets' pitching overall was not horrendous. They gave up the 9th most runs in the league. Nothing to write home about, but not horrible. 2. Santana is expected to be healthy all year. That should save some runs. 3. Mike Pelfrey, after showing that he has true major league capabilities in 2008 can hardly be as bad (or, really nearly as bad) as he was last year. Also, his strikeouts per nine innings were up (a bit) and his batting average allowed on balls in play were up (a tick), which would both seem to indicate optimisim for 2010. 4. Oliver Perez is not likely to be worth the $12 million that he'll be paid in 2010. He's also not likely to have an ERA over 6.80. (Yes. He was that bad.) There's no question that the amount of walks that Perez dispenses is alarming. However, in 2008 he had a 4.22 ERA. In 2007, he had a 3.56 ERA. I'm not willing to write off this man yet. 5. Jon Niese, who is recovering from that awful hamstring tear, could turn out to be a real stud. Supposedly, he will be ready for Spring Training, and he will, presumably be competing for a spot in the rotation. His numbers in the high minors were quite good. 6. Don't write off John Maine, either. His durability is a question mark - and that may have to be addressed - but not a definite no.
Okay, a lot of things have to go right. Maybe they will. I'm not going to say that I think all the optimism will convert itself into reality - I'm saying it's possible. And, remember, it's not like the Mets can expect to be so bad, even aside from the injuries. Honestly, Mike Pelfrey and Oliver Perez almost have to be much better pitchers this year.
Nevertheless, shoring up the back end of the rotation should be a priority. Chien-Ming Wang, at the right price, is exactly what this club needs. He certainly has the track record of being a much-better-than-effective major league starter. I don't know what was wrong with him last year. Mechanics? Mindset? Whatever. This guy seems to me to be the perfect kind of risk to take.
Also, don't kid yourself - the Phillies have question marks, too. How much does 37 year old Raul Ibanez have left in the tank? Can Cole Hamels turn his game around? What's left in Jaime Moyer's left arm?
You know, there's a really good reason for them to actually play these games!
Editor's Note: Now that John Lackey has been signed, this is partially dated. Partially. There is plenty of good sense in here.
The Mets have problems. Let's not beat around the bush. When the only team you finish ahead of is Washington, you know you have problems. When even Washington has two guys who put up numbers that are pretty clearly better than your best players, you know you have problems*. When your fans are getting excited by Angel Pagan, you have problems. When there are people calling in to radio stations about the Mets, and the biggest compliment they can give the 2009 team is "Luis Castillo really had a good year. He was healthy all year," it might be time to throw in the towel.
*Adam Dunn did not hit exactly 40 home runs this year for the first time since 2004.
Here's the problem with giving up on 2010: This team is too good. I know about the lack of power. I know about the inconsistent pitching. I know about the bizarre defense and the quirky injuries. But about those injuries: Did you know that in 2008 the Mets had 3 players with over 700 plate appearances. The 2009 team's leader was David Wright with 618. The entire team was injured. Even the aforementioned Luis Castillo missed a couple of games when he tripped down the dugout steps.
Jose Reyes, however, is one of the best shortstops in baseball. He played in 36 games. Carlos Beltran is probably the best center-fielder in baseball. He played in 81 games, half a year. Out of the Mets top 5 in plate appearances, two players - Fernando Tatis and Angel Pagan - were supposed to benchmen.
There is a lot of Met-brass-bashing right now on the Mets' failure to sign RHP John Lackey. The sentiment seems to be that, sure the Mets could use Jason Bay and some hitting. But what they need, what they truly require is John Lackey to shore up the tattered pitching rotation.
Which sounds like a reasonable position. Except that it doesn't make any sense.
There are various statistics with which one could measure effectiveness - both pitching-wise and hitting-wise. The one that combines simplicity and accuracy is runs. In 2009, the Mets were 12th (of 16) in the National League in runs scored, 47 runs less than league average. On the other hand, Mets pitchers were 9th in the league in runs allowed, still well below league average (by 30 runs), but closer to the pack. The Mets had weak (or at least far from great) pitching. But that hitting was even worse.
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure why nobody sees this. Maybe it was masked by the excellent batting average (the Mets led the league with a .270 average), but the Mets were a dreadful, horrible hitting team this year. They were last in home runs (by a healthy margin - 37 bombs), and 13th in walks* and slugging percentage.
* Welcome to Queens, Jeff Francoeur.
Oh, well Citi Field is a terrible hitter's ballpark! That's not clear either. The Mets hit more home runs, scored more runs, and hit for a better batting average at Citi Field than on the road. Could that have been a fluke? Certainly. But there's definitely no proof that Citi Field favors the pitchers.
The pitching was so bad last year that it's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't rebound. The hitting, meanwhile, was, in some cases, better than could have been expected. Angel Pagan, Omir Santos, and Jeff Francoeur were all probably better than could have been expected.
So, it seems as though what the club really needs is hitting - even more than it needs pitching. There's another reason that Bay would probably be a better pickup than Lackey: Bay just might be the better player.
The desire to acquire Lackey was simple: We have one really reliable starter (Santana) and even he is coming off an injury. We need another good pitcher. Lackey is the best free agent pitcher out there. Let's get him.
The push that was out there to get Lackey reminds me a little bit of the push a few years ago to get Barry Zito. Barry Zito was considered the best pitcher on the market and everyone said that the Mets should get him. Boras? Who cares about overpaying - WE NEED A PITCHER. The problem with this is that giving someone a reasonable salary will often mean overpaying him (if production should drop). If you overpay in the first place, that'll just make the problem bigger.
Lackey is a very good pitcher. He had one excellent season, 2007, when he placed third in the AL Cy Young balloting, and in every other year since 2005 he has been well above average.
Bay is a really, really good hitter. Perhaps the best way to compare these two is: Bay is a three-time All Star. Lackey is a one-time All Star. Granted, Bay was a Pirate. So, his All-Star appearances don't prove anything. But I think that in this specific instance the comparison works. Bay's career OPS+ is 131. Lackey's career ERA+ is 117.
Additionally, Lackey's excellence seems to be a thing of the past. Oh, he was certainly effective - much more than that - over the past two years. But his best numbers were accumulated from 2005-2007. On the other hand, Bay does not seem to be losing any (or practically any) of his quality. His numbers may have dipped slightly, but they're almost as good as ever.
Over the past two years Lackey has been in the top 10 in the league in a few categories - mostly peripheral (winning percentage), negative (hit by pitch) or practically irrelevant (his 1 shutout this year was good for seventh in the league), though he was 8th this year in Homers per 9 innings.
Bay, in 2009, was 10th in the AL in slugging, 9th in OPS, 6th in runs scored, 2nd in RBIs, third in homers, as well as seventh in offensive winning percentage. In 2008, he split leagues, but his cumulative totals (if accumulated in just the AL) were quite good. 10th in slugging, 8th in OPS, 3rd in runs, 10th in walks, and sixth in offensive winning percentage.
Bay's numbers are probably somewhat inflated by Fenway Park. But you should know that 21 of his 36 home runs this year came away from Fenway Park.
Anyway you cut it, the guy's a darn good hitter. And I think he's the better choice for the Mets (well, at this point, between him and Lackey he's the only choice).
Note: For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Mets didn't go for Jason Marquis. Maybe more on this at some future juncture.
- I understand that the Yankees got Curtis Granderson in part (possibly) to have leverage in contract negotiations with Johnny Damon. I understand that they probably think that Granderson will bounce back in a similar way to Nick Swisher last year. I won't be surprised if he does. I don't understand why they are willing (if they are) to let Melky Cabrera play every day. He's not much of a hitter. He's not that great in the field, at least according to UZR. And the whole team is getting older. They honestly can't expect similar production from all or most of Posada, Jeter, Rivera. Age usually shows. I know Mariano has not broken (or come close), but seriously, do you think he can do it forever.
If they really have limitations on their payroll, I understand the move and the thought that they can live without Damon. But I have trouble believing that. To me, their too complacent. And that may just hurt them in 2009
- I don't know if Daniel Murphy can be a good everyday first baseman in the big leagues. But I don't know why other people think they do. The man, my friends, will turn 25 in April. His best years should be ahead of him. His batting line of.266/.313/.427, while far from spectacular was not far from league average. And that was in his first big league season.
As a frame of reference, I'd like to bring up a different first-year player's batting line. .266/.324/.396, with an OPS+ of 91. Pretty similar. Now this chap was 21, so a straight comparison is certainly not reasonable. But this chap is Carl Yastrzemski, so if Murph can emulate him at all, that's cool.
- I don't really get Wikipedia's sales pitch. They want people to donate money to keep them going. Or do they want money to keep themselves ad-free. I'm all for ad-free. For example, I liked baseball-reference.com better without the ads. But I don't think it's worth any significant (or, perhaps, insignificant,) money to me.
Q: How many times has Carlos Beltran been caught stealing in the major leagues (answer later)?
Power-Speed Number* could be (badly) redefined as Belting-Running Number, or Belt-Run for short. And Carlos Beltran is, in fact, one of the greats in recording that stat. Since he began playing regularly in Kansas City in 1999, Carlos has been in the top 7 in the league in P-S # every single year (except his injury-riddled 2000, 2005 and 2009 seasons). In three of those years, he was in the top 3 in the league. He's never led a league, however, in P-S #.
Or has he? In 2004, Beltran put up the 10th-best (at the time, now it's 11th) P-S # single-season mark ever. Do you see the problem? He was traded halfway through that year, and played the 2nd half in the NL with the Astros. Since P-S # is an accumulating (as opposed to rate) stat, it is nearly impossible for a player who gets traded in mid-season to lead a league in it. Beltran actually came in fourth in the National League – that's how phenomenal he was. But his total number was significantly higher than NL Leader Bobby Abreu and AL Leader Alex Rodriguez.**
* Power-Speed Number is a metric that measures a player's ability at stealing bases and hitting home runs. What you might be thinking is "just add them together," but what that gives you will be often be an utterly dominant player in of the categories who has no real skill in the other (see Wills, Maury). Power-Speed Number takes both into equal account but also gives value to having proficiency in both areas as opposed to just one of the two (i.e. 40 home runs 40 steals nets a Power-Speed Number of 40; 60 home runs and 20 steals nets a P-S # of 30).
** How's that for a little Yankee-bashing. And speaking of the Yankees, I don't really get this rationale about forgetting about Damon and putting Granderson in left. The economy is bad. Long-term contracts are not available to 35 year old outfielders even if they're coming of their best season. So I don't think Damon is going to require more than, say, 2 years. Does anybody really think that 2 years of Cabrera is really preferable to 2 years of Damon.
Melky just finished his fourth relatively full-time year in the majors. He just had what was probably his best offensive year yet. And to be honest, it (in all of its .274/.336/.416 glamour) was not all that good. I know he should be coming into his peak offensive years, but does anyone get the feeling that he's just not that good?***
*** Parenthetically, Melky Cabrera's Baseball-Reference's sponsor for Melky Cabrera says (in part):
"Mike Cameron? Dude, has a career .340 OBP and he's 37. Melky, maybe now that you have a ring people will back off and remember you're 24 (with a career .331 OBP). There's plenty of time for the power to come."
That is so wrong on so many accounts. First of all, Cameron's 36. Second of all, Melky's 25. Thirdly, though he seems to acknowledge it, his bashing of Mike Cameron is dumb because Melky's OBP is worse. And fourthly (though he doesn't deal with this directly), Cameron is much better. In the last 11 seasons Cameron's lowest OPS+ has been 104. Melky has never cracked 100.
What I'm trying to say, is that the guy is a really good (and really consistent) all-around player. And here's the thing: It's not just those two stats. Beltran plays Gold-Glove defense, can take a walk and…
Answer: 38
…the man never, NEVER, gets caught stealing. Beltran has played 1562 games in his career. That's essentially the equivalent of 10 seasons in which he played nearly every game. Per season, that would mean, he gets thrown out less than 4 times a season on average. His steal number per season 28.6. He has done the equivalent of 10 seasons of 28.6 steals and 3.8 caught stealings. That's phenomenal.
His success rate is over 88%. That's the highest in baseball history (min. 200 steals, I think).
I guess I'm trying to say that this guy is a phenomenal ballplayer.
One of the interesting aspects in the game of baseball is the intentional base on balls. It is generally given to a fearsome slugger, illustrating the long-held baseball idea that "it's better to
give four balls for one base than four bases for one ball." Just as an example, Barry Bonds was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004.
Some people feel that it is a cowardly play – there are people out there who favor banning the intentional walk – but I don't really have much of a problem with it. I don't really see how it is a less legitimate part of baseball strategy than the bunt, for example. True, the pitcher is giving up on this hitter – but it's for the greater good. The bunter, similarly, is giving himself up for what he thinks will benefit his team.*
*I'm not calling into question whether or not the sacrifice bunt or the intentional walk is a good play. I'm just saying that they don't offend me with their submission of the battle in attempting to win the war.
The weird thing about the intentional walk, however, is that it is not always given to the most feared hitters out there. It's true that the league leader will usually be the best (or one of the best) hitters in the league.* But it seems that just as often (or perhaps almost as often) intentional walks are granted to the player immediately preceding a really bad one. A lot of the time, what causes an intentional walk is not so much the batter in the box as the one in the on-deck circle.
Case in point: In 2008, David Wright drew 5 intentional walks in 735 plate appearances. Brian Schneider drew 9 intentional walks in 384 plate appearances. Wright, by the way, finished seventh in the MVP voting and won the Silver Slugger. Schneider was lynched by a mob.** Did the opposing teams fear Schneider more than Wright? No. They feared Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado more than the Met pitchers.
* The league leaders in intentional walks (going back to 2000): Bonds (5 times), Vladimir Guerrero (5 times) Albert Pujols (3 times), Ichiro (3 times), Manny Ramirez (twice) Sammy Sosa, Justin Morneau and Nomar Garciaparra.
** Not really.
Eventually, after being bad for long enough, a ballplayer can accumulate a nice chunk of intentional walks. I'm still referring to Brian Schneider, of course. Schneider, in case you didn't know, is 39th in intentional walks among active players! 39th. As in tied with Pudge Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada. He's ahead of (among many others, obviously) Nomar, Alfonso Soriano, Pat Burrell. These aren't young players who haven't accumulated them yet. They're legitimate offensive stars who've been intentionally walked less than Brian Schneider. Others he's ahead of include Jermaine Dye, Johnny Damon, Jimmy Rollins, Jason Bay.
Two others: Derek Jeter, David Wright. Tell me you can't win a bet with that one.
There are some baseball deals that are no-brainers. You know:
Acquire: Babe Ruth
Give up: $100,000
Then you have those baseball deals that make you think that the people doing them have no brains. Like:
Acquire: $100,000
Give up: Babe Ruth
Now, in truth, the Babe was somewhat of a trouble child. And he was reneging on his contract with the Red Sox. But that was some sort of dumb trade.
Not the point at all. The point is that these (or this) kinds of trades are outliers. Nobody argues about Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson. Nobody (especially out of Met fandom) is even discussing Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano*. And the truth is that because they don't inspire any discussion, they're really kind of boring. Not entirely boring. Rob Neyer wrote a book (Rob Neyer's Big Guide Book of Baseball Blunders) which heavily consists of really bad trades. Like Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi. But in general, they're kind of boring. You can make some real arguments about whether trading Aaron Heilman was smart. Not so much with Nolan Ryan.
* Not that anybody's discussing him either, but included in that trade was Joselo Diaz, who, as I recall, was at one time a relatively highly touted Met prospect. In the 5+ years since the Mets traded him he has reached the Major Leagues. For 7.2 innings. And an ERA of 9.39. (He's got a 14.77 minor league WHIP, so I wouldn't really expect to see much of him, henceforth.)
Not that this has to do with anything, but the Albuquerque Isotopes, the Dodgers AAA team, had a nice collection of former Met talent. Doug Mientkiewicz, Shawn Estes**, Scott Strickland, and Claudio Vargas all played for them this year. Mientkiewicz played alright for them, and actually spent part of the year on the Dodgers' bench.
Shawn Estes also pitched well, 3.07 ERA in 73.1 innings. Then something happened. My understanding (and I certainly could be wrong here) is that he thought that he merited promotion to the Dodgers, the Dodgers didn't, and he said goodbye. According to his Wikipedia page, "Estes claimed that he has not retired, but that he is simply unwilling to play AAA baseball."
I think the Mets should get him. I'm not kidding here. That's actually the point I'm too busy to get to because I'm doing a footnote.
Oh yeah, Vargas pitched well in 13 innings and Scott Strickland, who, by the way, has not pitched in the majors since 2005, recorded 32 saves, with a 2.98 ERA in 48 innings.
Now, what's weird about Strickland, who has not had much opportunity at the Major League level (he broke in 11 seasons ago and has 240 innings), is that for the most part he's been quite effective. In every season in which he pitched more than 18 innings, he's had an ERA+ of at least 116. For his career, he's got a 131 ERA+.
But it gets weirder. They can't think that he's just been luck y at the big league level, because without much exception, he's been quite good in the minors, too. He has a minor league ERA of 3.32. Last year, as I said, he had a 2.98 ERA. The year before that (also in AAA, this time with the Yankees Scranton team) he pitched 66.1 innings with an ERA of 3.53. Those ballclubs, especially the 2008 Yankees could have used a good, extra relief pitcher. But for some reason, Scott Strickland didn't get the call.
I don't want to belabor the point, but there's one glaring ballplayer who's getting in my way. LaTroy Hawkins gave the Yankees 41 innings at an ERA of 5.71. He got paid 3.75 million. Meanwhile, Scott Strickland has a 3.53 ERA in AAA. And remember, he's got a bit of a track record, too. His 131 ERA+ is much better than Hawkins' 104. I just don't get it.
Oh yeah, former Mets did pretty well.
** It's pretty cool to go to some great ballplayer who utterly dominated the game (Wagner, Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Pujols)'s Baseball-Reference.com page and see how freaking good they were. I don't even mean intense analysis (in the 7 years from 1910-1916, Walter Johnson had a 1.56 ERA), I'm referring to just glancing at how many of their numbers are in bold (signifying being a leader in that particular category).
Well, you can do the same thing with some less than awesome players. Shawn Estes had led the league in earned runs, walks and wild pitches.
The lesser players are usually cheaper. And worse. Which makes a lot of sense. But when they're a lot cheaper than proven commodities, they just might be worth it.
Take the 2009 Mets. They signed Gary Sheffield, a proven, if aged, slugger, for the minimum major league salary and he led the team in home runs (or tied, anyway). They got some serious bang for their buck. Now I know he was injured a heck of a lot of the time, but he was worth well more than the (relative) pittance that they gave him.
So I can't, for the life of me, figure out why people are against picking up veterans. I'm not referring to the Moises Alou's of the world, who are going to cost a pretty penny (and that's besides the doctor bills). I'm referring to the Gary Sheffields of the world. I don't even remember where it was that I heard this, but it seemed as though there was a big consensus that the Mets needed to forget about the aged. Which I just don't get.
Shelling out money is entirely different. You don't want to give Gary Sheffield (or Julio Franco, or perhaps Alex Cora) a big-money multi-year deal in the twilight stage of his career. But these cheap pickups of proven veterans have got to be good – both for the clubhouse and the diamond.
If the Mets are going to lose, I'd also rather it be with Daniel Murphy than with some aged non-Met. But extending spring training invitations to Edgardo Alfonzo, Shawn Estes and other mere possibilities might just net the Mets the 2010 version of Gary Sheffield.
Mark McGwire has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for three years. He has not been elected. He has not reached 25% in the voting, which is precisely 1/3 of what it takes to be elected. Mark McGwire was a great player. So why would he not not be elected to the Hall of Fame?
There are essentially three reasons that could explain why people would not vote for him:*
1. He was not great enough to merit Hall of Fame election.
2. He was not great for long enough to merit Hall of Fame election.
3. He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election.
Reason 1, I believe, is patently inaccurate. Or impossible. Either way. Just to run down what this guy did: He won a Rookie of the Year award, finished as high as second in MVP voting (he figured in the balloting ten times), was a 12 time All-Star, broke a 37-year old record twice (well, technically only once, but you know what I mean), won a Gold Glove (who knew?) and three Silver Sluggers.** He led the league: in RBIs once, in homers four times, in walks twice, in OBP twice, in SLG twice, in OPS twice, OPS+ four times, and in intentional walks once. Career-wise, he's tied for 12th in OPS+, ninth in slugging, in essence ninth in home runs (he's technically tied for 8th, but it's with A-Rod, so that's kind of irrelevant), and he's in the top 40 in walks and offensive winning percentage. He leads everyone ever in at bats per homer. Nice resume.
*Actually, four, everyone could just love the other candidates more, but that's just complicating matters.
** This, to tell you the truth, stuns me. McGwire won four home run crowns, but only three Silver Sluggers? I know shortstop is not the same as first base, but do you realize that Derek Jeter has more Silver Sluggers than Mark McGwire.
*** Interestingly enough, even though his 61 home run year, 1961, came in a lower scoring era than McGwire's 70 season, Maris's OPS+ is lower, markedly lower, than Mark's. McGwire, in '98, drew 68 more walks than Maris in '61. That probably has something to do with the fact that Mickey Mantle was protecting Maris while Ray Lankford and Brian Jordan were protecting Mac. Just saying.
In terms of McGwire's not being great for long enough, well, there's a question there. Roger Maris, whose record McGwire broke in 1998, is, surprisingly to some casual baseball fans, not in the Hall of Fame. Quite simply, he had some Hall of Fame worthy seasons, but his career numbers don't reach the mark.*** The truth is that this doesn't really seem to be true. Did he have a very long career? No. He had over 2,000 fewer plate appearances than Ted Williams who lost significant time fighting in Europe and Korea. But what's important to remember with McGwire is that he does not only have great seasonal stats (70 HR) and rate stats (10.6 AB/HR, 162 OPS+), but he also accumulated some pretty serious stats (583 HR). Was McGwire essentially a one-dimensional player? Yes. Was he awesome for a rather short period of time? Yes. But when you consider that the man is 9th in career home runs (or 8th), I think it's pretty hard to trash on his longevity.
So, it seems that if you don't think he's a Hall of Famer, you believe that because "He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election." Personally, I think that's pretty darned logical. Rob Neyer doesn't. Neyer says:
There have been, for many years, rules prohibiting corked bats and doctored baseballs, but we know there are players in the Hall of Fame who happily violated those rules. We also know that many, and perhaps most of the great players of the 1970s routinely and illegally ingested stimulants with the express purpose of enhancing their performance.
For me, this is the heart of the matter. Like steroids, stimulants in the 1970s (and afterward) were used as performance enhancers. Like steroids, stimulants were generally against the law, but willfully ignored by the Lords of Baseball. I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me the difference between what Mark McGwire (allegedly) did, and what the superstars of the 1960s and '70s were doing.
I think there are basically two things that are up for discussion here:
1. Pre-Canseco drugs 2. corked bats and doctored balls
I'm not going to even touch upon the amphetamines of the 60s and 70s. My opinion on steroids is simple: You cheated. Period. Why should the fact that others were doing it have relevance? If the players of the 60s and 70s were doing the same type of thing, then they, too, should not be voted for.
Neyer's first argument is "corked bats and doctored baseballs," which are of course expressly against the law. I have three thoughts about this. First, simply, three of the criteria for Hall of Fame election are integrity, sportsmanship and character.* I think a clear argument could be made that known cheaters - of any type - should not be admitted to the Hall, henceforth. But Gaylord Perry is in? So what - that was someone else's mistake. Remember, Freddie Lindstrom's in the Hall, too.
Secondly, and this applies to scuffing but not corking, I think there is an intrinsic difference between scuffing a ball (or corking a bat) and juicing. Scuffing the ball is done on the field, and I think that there is a general perception that anything that is done on the field of play, under the umpire's watchful eye, is legitimate. It's kind of like the phantom double play.
Thirdly, scuffing the ball is a situational thing. So is, to a lesser extent. Sammy Sosa** corked a bat. (Assuming that you believe he used it on purpose,) Sammy Sosa is a cheater. But what did he cheat? Well, he cheated in that at bat. And he probably cheated in a bunch of other at bats. But it's a one-time, or two-time or a twenty-time transgression. He's probably playing legitimately most of the time. When a ballplayer juices, he's changing his body. You lose the whole "Man vs. Man" struggle, because that's not what it is anymore - it's man vs. HGH-man. It's essentially man vs. robot man. More, ethically, you're done. You have illegally and unethically changed your body and there is no going back. Assume with me for a moment that Sammy Sosa used a corked bat just that once and used legal materials the rest of the time. Can that be compared with a fellow who changes his chemical makeup turning him into a Superman?
I think not.
*Please. Do me a favor. Don't take those criteria to tell you that Ty Cobb doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. If you're trying to make a conclusion about a bordrline candidate, those traits should certainly be taken into account. Cobb's statistics are so staggering that I don't think there's any relevance as to the fact that he was of bad character.
That argument is akin to claiming, if the Hall of Fame were to be started right now, that there's no way you could vote Ty Cobb in because he hit fewer home runs than Ben Grieve. There's too much stuff overflowing in the other categories (batting average, a triple crown) to make an argument against his Hall of Fame legitimacy.
** I am obviously using Sammy Sosa because I consider him a good example of someone who corked his bat. Not because I consider him a good example of someone who obviously did not take steroids.
