Exhibit 1B

From Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe (hat tip to BBTF):

Memo to 30-year-old stat geeks combing through Jim Rice's numbers: Get out of the house and look at the sky one time. I know personal contact frightens you, but let go of OPS for a moment and try talking to someone who saw Rice play, or better yet, played against him.

It's very hard for me to stay calm when I read something like this, so let me see if I can describe how this comment makes me feel in a rational manner.

Mr. Shaughnessy is a long-time writer for the Boston Globe and a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America. It's his belief that Jim Rice, a member of the Boston Red Sox from 1974 through 1989, is worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame.

So far, Mr. Rice has been unable to garner the level of support needed for that honor, though he stands a mere sixteen votes shy with one year remaining in his eligibility. It is highly likely that he will be elected next year, or by the Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee after his eligibility on the BBWAA ballot runs out.

There has been a substantial effort on the part of many in the Internet community to persuade BBWAA voters not to vote for Jim Rice. The effort has not always been conducted with the appropriate level of respect to the BBWAA members or to Mr. Rice himself, but, by and large, those prominent members of the Internet community who have argued against Mr. Rice's inclusion have done so by using objective evidence presented with good intentions and free from personal vitriol if not hyperbole.

There are those in the mainstream media, many members of the BBWAA, who have viewed this effort as offensive, either because it impugns the career of Mr. Rice or because it implies that the BBWAA is not adequately doing its job.

I do not at this time want to address the adequacy of either Mr. Rice's candidacy or the BBWAA. However, a word must be said about the attitude of some members of the BBWAA, such as Mr. Shaughnessy, who have decided that ad hominem attacks represent an appropriate response to the criticism coming from the Internet community.

BBWAA writers are professionals. They are paid to provide a service to their employer: quality baseball writing and reporting. It is shameful that any of them would decide to stoop to the level of an anonymous Internet forum participant when replying to well reasoned criticism about their work or opinions. It is their job to remain above the low level of discourse found in many areas of the Internet.

Furthermore, the knee-jerk reaction to smear every form of analysis that one does not fully understand with grade-school level taunting is behavior not befitting a grown man, let alone one who has access to such a public forum. It is a sad situation, and one increasingly common in all aspects of American life, that allows such blatant anti-intellectualism to be so pervasive. If Mr. Shaughnessy or any member of the BBWAA has an objection to the criticism offered by some of the more visible critics of Mr. Rice's candidacy, he or she would do well to take the time to understand the criticism and refute it with reason rather than stooping to such irrational and immature attacks.

Those who argue against Mr. Rice's candidacy do so with the intention of upholding the standards of the Hall of Fame. Those arguments worthy of response by supporters of Mr. Rice should be countered on the basis of their substance, not who their author was or where they were published.

I hope that this demonstrates to those reading why my respect for mainstream sports media has been almost completely obliterated.

Hall of Fame Postmortem: Bert Blyleven

It's been quite some time since I put a post up, nearly a month. I'm going to go ahead and blame the holidays for most of that, but the fact is that this is the slowest time of the year for baseball. In fact, the only interesting thing going on has been the Hall of Fame voting. I suppose I've missed the boat on that one too, but since I can't argue about it before the vote, I'm going share some thoughts now that the votes have been counted. I'm going to start with Bert Blyleven.

Bert has had a lot of digital ink devoted to his cause over the last few years. In fact, my little blurb here can hardly do justice to the efforts of his other online advocates, most notably Rich Lederer. Rich's work can be found here, here, and here, as well as many other places I'm sure. Rather than replicate all of Rich's work, I instead want to focus on one specific argument.

When people are giving reasons for not voting for Bert, they usually focus on his win-loss record, or his Cy Young voting record, or the fact that he just doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer. I can't do anything about that latter point, and even though I don't really like the first two arguments, I'm going to accept them for the purpose of this discussion.

My question to these voters is this: how can you elect Nolan Ryan on his first ballot and not vote for Bert Blyleven?

Let's take a look at their careers.

Nolan Ryan pitched from 1966 through 1993. During that time he won 324 games (14th all time), struck out 5714 batters (1st all time, more than 1100 more than 2nd place), and threw 61 shutouts (tied for 7th all-time). On the other hand, Ryan lost 292 games (3rd all time), walked 2795 batters (1st all-time, more than 900 more than 2nd place), and gave up 321 home runs (tied for 33rd all-time). In 1999, Ryan received 98.8% of the Hall of Fame vote in his first appearance on the ballot.

Bert Blyleven pitched from 1970 through 1992, missing 1991. During that time he won 287 games (26th all-time), struck out 3701 batters (5th all-time), and threw 60 shutouts (9th all-time). On the other hand, Blyleven lost 250 games (10th all-time), walked 1322 batters (29th all-time) and gave up 430 home runs (8th all-time). Blyleven has been lingering on the ballot since 1998, peaking at 61.9% in 2008.

On the surface, they appear to be very close. So why the disparate vote totals?

As I see it, Ryan breezed into the Hall of Fame for five key reasons:

1. He crossed the magical 300 win mark.
2. He struck out approximately 100,000,000,000 batters.
3. He threw seven no-hitters.
4. He was viewed as a freakish and legendary physical specimen, capable of pitching until he was 46 years old.
5. He felt like a Hall of Famer, probably for the above four reasons.

On the other hand, Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame for five key reasons:

1. He did not cross the magical 300 win mark.
2. He never did well in awards voting, as evidenced by his lack of a Cy Young award.
3. He never threw a no-hitter. (See the edit at the end of the post.)
   
4. He is viewed as a "compiler": some one who has really big numbers only because he played so long.
5. He does not feel like a Hall of Famer, probably for the above four reasons.
   

Allow me to address these points.

Win Totals

With respect to their win totals, Ryan's supporters have always cried that he pitched for a lot of bad teams. It was hard for Ryan to win games, but he did the best he could and won 300 anyway. Blyleven, his detractors say, pitched just well enough to lose. He didn't pitch to the score. If the other team allowed one run, he would allow two. Yeah, he played for bad teams, but a pitcher's job is to get wins.

You all know that I don't buy that for one minute, but let's say that I do. To that I say this: Ryan's winning percentage is 52.6%. Blyleven's winning percentage is 53.4%. Yes, Blyleven won a higher percentage of his decisions than Ryan did. The only reason that he doesn't have Ryan's win-loss record is that he pitched for five fewer years. If wins and losses are your metric of choice, Blyleven is superior to Ryan.

Cy Young Voting

With respect to Blyleven's poor showing in Cy Young voting, his detractors have always used this as evidence that Blyleven was not thought of as a dominant pitcher. Leaving aside the circular logic for a second, what then can you say about Ryan's performance in Cy Young voting? Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young. Ever. How is it that this is a point against Blyleven, but not Ryan? You say that Blyleven was never considered the best pitcher in the league? Neither was Ryan.

Yes, Ryan did finish in the top ten more often than Blyleven, but did he deserve to? Let's look at their careers season by season. Here are their careers, sorted by ERA+ (ERA relative to the league; 100 is average, higher is better):

Blyleven:                    Ryan:
  Year Starts Innings  ERA+    Year Starts Innings  ERA+
1  1973     40   325.0  158     1981     21   149.0  194
2  1977     30   234.7  151     1987     34   211.7  142
3  1984     32   245.0  144     1977     37   299.0  141
4  1974     37   281.0  142     1991     27   173.0  139
5  1989     33   241.0  140     1972     39   284.0  128
6  1985     37   293.7  134     1989     32   239.3  124
7  1975     35   275.7  129     1973     39   326.0  122
8  1981     20   159.3  127     1974     41   332.7  118
9  1971     38   278.3  126     1970     19   131.7  117
10 1976     36   297.7  125     1990     30   204.0  115
11 1978     34   243.7  123     1983     29   196.3  114
12 1970     25   164.0  119     1979     34   222.7  113
13 1972     38   287.3  118     1984     30   183.7  109
14 1987     37   267.0  115     1986     30   178.0  107
15 1979     37   237.3  109     1982     35   250.3  105
16 1983     24   156.3  109     1992     27   157.3  103
17 1986     36   271.7  107     1969     10    89.3  103
18 1980     32   216.7   96     1975     28   198.0  102
19 1982      4    20.3   85     1976     39   284.3   99
20 1992     24   133.0   84     1978     31   234.7   98
21 1988     33   207.3   75     1980     35   233.7   98
22 1990     23   134.0   73     1968     18   134.0   98
23                              1988     33   220.0   94
24                              1985     35   232.0   91
25                              1971     26   152.0   86
26                              1993     13    66.3   85
27                              1966      1     3.0   24

By my count, Blyleven has fully nine seasons in which he had both a better ERA+ and a better innings pitched total than Ryan's equivalent on this list. It isn't until you get down towards the bottom where both pitchers are pitching at or below league average that Ryan has clearly better years. In fact, this transitions well to my next point.

Compiling Statistics

How is it that Blyleven is a "compiler" and Ryan is not? Ryan started 88 more games in his career, and as the above table shows, he had a lot of years where he was a below average pitcher. Blyleven's peak is higher than Ryan's and his career, though very long, is shorter. Sorry, there's just no way to smear Blyleven with this label and not also smear Ryan. Both men contributed quite a few seasons where they were basically average or below average pitchers. Ryan contributed more than Blyleven did. He hung around longer. That's a fact.

The No-Hitters

A large part of why Ryan is perceived as dominant is that he threw seven no-hitters. How much of an edge should this give him over Blyleven? Let's start with a rhetorical question: which event contributes the most to a team's chance of winning a ball game: a perfect game, a no-hitter, or a shutout?

The answer to this trick question is that they all contribute the exact same amount. In fact, while the perfect game is obviously the most impressive accomplishment, a no-hitter is not necessarily more dominant than a shutout. Just ask anyone who saw Pedro in the late 90's: he never threw a no-hitter, but when he threw a shutout, he dominated you. Ask anyone who saw Mike Mussina's near-perfect game if it was less dominating than some of the multi-walk no-hitters that have been thrown.

Yes, Ryan threw seven no-hitters, but that was largely because his philosophy was that he would rather walk you than give you a hit. Look at Ryan's career walk total again. Like his strikeout total, it's almost incomprehensibly massive. Ryan was going to throw the perfect strike or he wasn't going to throw a strike. The price he paid is that he walked an astronomical number of batters and many of them scored. Yes, it got him those no-hitters, but how many shutouts did it cost him?

Bert Blyleven started 88 fewer games than Ryan did. He threw only one fewer shutout. No, he never achieved that odd statistical quirk that is the no-hitter (See edit at the end of the post), but he was even more effective at single-handedly shutting down the opposition. If you have one game to win, and you need your pitcher to throw a shutout to win it, you're going to choose Blyleven over Ryan every time.

Summary

Look, I believe that Nolan Ryan is a surefire Hall of Famer. The man contributed a lot to his teams over a very long period of time. He was a unique pitcher, and he deserves the honor of being a member of the Hall of Fame.

All that being said, Bert Blyleven was better than Ryan. He had a higher peak and he had a very long career. He contributed more excellent seasons than Ryan and fewer below average seasons. That Ryan is perceived as one of the greatest pitchers of all time and Blyleven is not is due only to the fact that Ryan has some nice, large, shiny numbers and Bert Blyleven does not.

No, he wasn't Jim Palmer or Steve Carlton or Tom Seaver. You don't need to be as good as them to be a Hall of Famer. Blyleven is better than many pitchers currently enshrined, and, in my humble opinion, better than Nolan Ryan.

If you're a better pitcher than a guy who gets 98.8% of the Hall of Fame vote, what percentage should you get?

If you're Bert Blyleven, the answer is apparently 61.9%. There just isn't a universe out there where that makes sense.

**EDIT** I am dumb. Blyleven has, in fact, thrown a no hitter, as Bill notes in the comments section. It occurred after he was traded to the Texas Rangers from the Minnesota Twins during the 1977 season, September 22 to be precise. He only walked one man, with two outs in the ninth. This did not break up a perfect game, as a batter had reached on an error in the 3rd. Blyleven eliminated him on a double play. He faced only one more batter than the minimum, while striking out seven. Nonetheless, the general point still stands: Ryan's no hitters are his legacy. Blyleven's no hitter is apparently not part of his. Again, Blyleven was a dominant pitcher. That he is not perceived this way is a problem with our perception of him, not an indication that he was not dominant.

A Hypothetical Scenario

With the players who were named in the Mitchell Report, one of the common refrains is: "They had an opportunity to defend themselves to Mitchell himself, and they didn't take it. Therefore, they are more likely to be guilty."

Allow me to try and apply the same scenario elsewhere to demonstrate why this reasoning is fallacious.

Let's say that you work in a company of 3,000 employees. Management has been concerned for a while that there has been a large amount of theft from the company occurring by employees. To counter this, they hire a well respected investigator, Marge Gitchell, to try and uncover the culprits. Marge immediately sends a company wide email urging employees to talk to her about the large amount of thievery going on in their ranks.

You glance at the email briefly, and then move it to the trash in your email client. It's not really your concern because you don't steal from the company and you don't pay enough attention to your officemates to know if they are stealing either. You feel that you have nothing to add by talking to Marge.

A few months later, you are shocked to find that Marge has listed you on her report as a likely thief. Fellow employees and management are outraged. Heck, it's even on the local news, and everyone wants to know why you didn't defend yourself to Marge while the investigation was ongoing.

What are you going to say?

Andy Pettitte and HGH

Andy Pettitte has admitted to using HGH in 2002 while he was recovering form injury.

I have only a few observations of this subject, which I should note are all going to be influenced by the fact that I personally love Andy Pettitte.

1. Pettitte claims to have taken HGH while injured. Honestly, taking HGH while injured does not bother me in the slightest, provided it is taken with a doctor's approval. In this case, Pettitte does not appear to have received this approval. This is unfortunate, and certainly implies that what he was doing was at least illegal from a U.S. law standpoint, if not a MLB standpoint. Personally, I don't see the difference between taking a drug to help you recover from injury and having surgery to help you recover from injury.
   
2. As far as actually using HGH is concerned, I will simply reiterate that we actually don't know anything about the effects of HGH on athletic performance. In fact the best evidence that we have is that it does not help athletic performance. This is a highly relevant point.
3. In some circles, there has been gloating over that fact that Pettitte, a devout Christian, has been busted doing something illegal in a very public setting. Some people, it seems, like nothing more than to see publicly religious people exposed as being just like everyone else. This is a sad situation. Being Christian means holding yourself to a higher standard. It doesn't mean that you are always going to live up to that standard. That's not hypocrisy; that's humanity. Hypocrisy is holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. In his statement, Andy admits that he "was not comfortable" with what he was doing, and so he stopped. It sounds to me like he was holding himself to the same standard to which he professes to hold others. When violating that standard rightly disturbed his conscience, he quit engaging in the behavior that he felt was wrong. Provided that his account is sincere, which admittedly it may not be, any gloating over the public humiliation of Andy Pettitte exposes both a misunderstanding of what it means to be Christian and a bigoted view of Christianity.

What Roger Clemens should do

Roger probably plans on retiring right now. But he shouldn't. In fact, he should attempt to return at whatever salary for whatever team for one reason: to force Bud Selig to attempt to suspend him.

If Selig chooses not to try to suspend Clemens, Clemens can use this as public talking point #1 that he is not guilty of PED use. If Selig does try to suspend Clemens on the basis of the Mitchell Report, Selig will be forced to fight the players' union. The players' union will drag lawyer after lawyer after lawyer in front of an arbitrator, each saying that the evidence against Clemens is highly suspect and does not warrant a suspension. Clemens would almost assuredly win that fight, giving him public talking point #1 that he is not guilty of PED use.

Plus, he would do this while not being suspended for drugs while he's playing yet another year. Remember, much of Clemens' late career dominance came while MLB had drug testing. If he plays in the National League, he'd probably put up very good numbers, further bolstering his case. He can even make a public show of his lack of positive test.

What does he have to lose?

The Mitchell Report

The Mitchell Report is now big news, and since this is a baseball blog, I suppose I am compelled to comment on it.

I have not read it. I probably will not read it. I just don't find it that interesting. Why?

Well, what did we know before the report came out?

1. There were guys in MLB using PEDs.
2. There was no discernible pattern to the people who did use PEDs. That is, you cannot tell who a PED user is based on their physique, statistics, career path, etc.
   
3. The effect that PEDs have on baseball performance is hard to quantify. We can say for sure that the players taking them thought that they helped.

So now that the report is out, what do we know?

1. There were guys in MLB using PEDs.
2. There was no discernible pattern to the people who did use PEDs. That is, you cannot tell who a PED user is based on their physique, statistics, career path, etc.
   
3. The effect that PEDs have on baseball performance is hard to quantify. We can say for sure that the players taking them thought that they helped.

And that's the rub for me. The Mitchell Report added a few names, most of whom were already suspected or had already been linked. The list of names contains superstars and it contains scrubs. It looks surprisingly like a list of randomly sampled MLB players. It provides no evidence that PEDs help baseball performance.

Most importantly, it must be recognized that even if all of the players on the list are guilty as charged, the list is far from complete. In fact, because it's based largely on the testimony of a few dodgy witnesses, the players tend to be clumped around certain teams with whose players the witnesses did business. The list hardly convicts anyone, but most importantly it absolves no one. The single biggest mistake one could draw from the report would be to assume that these players are the only abusers of PEDs.

Finally, I hope that the idiocy already springing up around the country about Roger Clemens' involvement will quickly cease. People are using these allegations as a way to explain ex post facto why Clemens was able to succeed so late into his career and why his career surged at the various points that it did. This is nonsense.

First, it bears repeating that if Clemens did take steroids, it would have been meaningless if not for his legendary work ethic. The work ethic is not contradicted by steroids allegations. Indeed, it is corroborated. Use of steroids requires a more intensive workout regimen. It is not a shortcut that allows one to work less hard.

Secondly, the dates that he allegedly took them do not mesh well with his career. He reportedly began taking them in 1998, his second otherworldly Cy Young season with the Toronto Blue Jays. Indeed, his 1998 was worse than his 1997. Furthermore, he was all set to retire in 2003 after two seasons being a slightly better than average pitcher when he resurfaced in the National League Central and was again a dominant pitcher. It would be very hard to separate the effects of moving from the American League East to the National League Central from the effects of alleged PED use.

Indeed, the fact that the list is so populated with marginal players is telling in Clemens' case. Rare as it may be, transcendent players do appear every so often. Given the list of PED users in Senator Mitchell's report, it is hard to make the case that Clemens owes his success to illegal drugs.

A tip of the cap

I rag on Peter Abraham a lot, because I use his blog for instantaneous Yankee news, but his analysis often drives me crazy. Therefore, I sort of feel obligated to point out when he writes something with which I wholeheartedly agree.

For all fellow Yankee fans out there, Pete's message is spot on: re-f***ing-lax. The worst thing that can happen to the Yankees, now that Andy Pettite is back, is that they replay last year with the same offense (albeit one year older) and a pitching staff fortified with real pitching prospects instead of the stopgaps that they had to use last year. Panic is not in order, even if the Sox do get Santana.