You are here: Home » General » The Goose on Clemens
Shorter Goose Gossage: “As a man whose Hall of Fame credentials are clear from my WAR that splits the difference between all-time legends Javier Vazquez and Al Leiter, let me take the lead in lobbying against Roger Clemens’ Hall of Fame case after his not guilty verdict.”
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Sarasota Law Firms
Need Cash? Sky Loans can
help you! quick and easy money loans.
Bridging Loans
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
This is great:
Of course steroids were around then. And pitchers were the main users.
Obviously the real reason that marginal Hall of Famers want to keep as many users of “performance enhancing” drugs other than those used by Hank Aaron as possible out of the Hall is purely financial: the fewer living Hall of Famers there are, the more they get to charge for appearances and the more likely they are to get a phone call whenever a radio station wants to book a Hall of Famer to be a guest for 15 minutes.
The inclination to slam the door of the club you were just admitted to isn’t unique to Gossage-or the Baseball Hall of Fame for that matter.
These guys have pretty big egos, that entry to the Hall validates.
Heard Reggie say one time that there should be a super select HoF where only the true HoFers would be, as though it was automatic that a lifetime .262 hitter like him would be a charter member.
Please. 563 HRs gets you in the Hall of Fame.
It doesn’t get you into the super select HoF of Jackson’s imagination.
That’s the point.
He think’s he’s in Babe Ruth’s class when he’s a lot closer to Killebrew.
I get what your saying, but you’re taking it a bit too far.
Do we have any idea what Jackson meant? I never heard or read what he said, nor am I sure he meant it the way your taking it.
But Jackson, and Killebrew, are sure-fire, no-doubt, c’mon man, Hall of Famers. That’s all I’m sayin’
Jackson had a career wRC+ of 139. Frank Robinson’s, by contrast, was 155. Heck, Frank Thomas’ was 154.
Offer may not apply to Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Jim Thome, Mark McGwire or Rafael Palmeiro.
Thirteen players have hit at least 563 home runs. Fewer than 50% are currently in the Hall (although several are not yet eligible). I think of these thirteen we’ll end up with 8-9 in, at most; Griffey is the only sure-bet of those not yet in.
(Not counting any later special entries if everyone comes to their senses)
Brilliant!
Goose belongs in the Hall for his hilarious quotes:
On the Krocs: ‘”She is poisoning the world with her hamburgers, and we can’t even get a lousy beer (in the clubhouse).”
On Steinbrenner: “the fat man upstairs.”
He belongs in the Hall for having insisted on pitching to Gibson in Game 5 of the ’84 World Series
And then there’s the upper-deck HR he served up to Brett in the third game of the 1980 ALCS. Clutch!
As a youngster watching that game and rooting against the Yanks, that’s a great memory. Brett was a favorite.
I was there, in the bleachers. I saw it. And for a long time after, Brett was a very frustrated hitter because nobody dared throw him a fastball for a strike after seeing what he did to Goose’s best.
Why the American justice system spends so much time & money on trying athletes who use steriods, etc, is beyond me. You would think the court houses had enough to do. There seems to be a fair amount of crime in the U.S.A. & the resources would be much better spent on real crime.
Really who cares. They are only harming themselves & it is part of the game. People want to see the best & will pay for it. It should come as no shock to anyone that profession athletes take drugs to improve their performance. It might not be sportsman like but really folks its just a game.
Why not leave it up to individual sports associations to deal with the issues.
Given the pollution in our air, the poisoning of ground water, the chemicals in our food, etc. what are a few steriods between friends.
But, but, think of all the children who look up to sports stars as role models. WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
For years I had thought that anyone even suspected of using steroids should not be allowed anywhere near the HOF.
Then, someone asked me about all of the amphetamines used in earlier times – dating back to the 1950′s, maybe earlier, since they were used experimentally on soldiers during WWII.
And “greenies” in baseball may not make a player run much faster, throw or hit the ball harder, or recover faster. But, in a game played pretty much every day in the early spring to early fall (and back then, mostly in the daytime, in sometimes brutal heat and humidity), they can help players have more energy, and be able to concentrate harder, than if they didn’t take them.
So, how were THEY not PED’s?
They’re banned now – same as other PED’s.
So, while I hate to say it, even if someone can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that a player used PED’s, they should be allowed in.
Yes, even my least favorite slugger, and obvious partaker of PED’s – Rafael Palmeiro.
Otherwise, we may have to look at some revered players, and take them out.
Does anyone think that Mantle (my favorite player of all time), with his epic hang-overs, NEVER took a greenie?
And sure, we can still ask Aaron, Mays, Frank Robinson, Koufax, Gibson, and other greats who are still alive today – but how do we know they won’t deny it, or lie to us, like some of the 90′s-00′s PED users did?
So, look at the numbers, and let them fall where they may.
I think I know, in my heart of hearts, that there’s no way that Palmeiro was anywhere near as good a hitter as Mantle.
But, though I can see the obvious spike in Raffy’s numbers, I’ll never know how much amphetamines affected Mantle’s numbers.
So, who am I to say?
Put the ones with the best numbers in, and let history judge the players in “The Steroid Era.”
I used to think I could, but I’ve changed my opinion on that.
Aaron admitted to taking greenies.
I think the primary value of greenies was they prevented a player from falling asleep during a day game after partying all night.
Could have enhanced reflexes too.
Could the argument be made that modern training methods, dietary knowledge, use of supplements, etc., constitute a “performance enhancement” over the storied greats of yesteryear?
Players certainly are bigger than they were back in the day. Heck, check out game footage from the 80s, and you’ll be surprised at how thin most players look (except for Terry Forster, of course). Whether the greater size and (presumably) strength gives one an advantage in baseball is a different question. Plenty of well-built guys (Glenn Bragg, Steve Yeager) never hit for power consistently (or at all, in Braggs’s case).
I was thinking of things like improved rehab/surgeries that make what were once career-ending injuries into surmountable obstacles, or improved nutrition and medical attention that enable an extension of a player’s prime years, or even scheduling and travel improvements that lessen fatigue.
It’s not really fair to compare WAR for a reliever and a starter, though; Goose pitched about 2/3 the innings of those other guys.
Also, Al Leiter has the same career ERA+ as Nolan Ryan.
“It’s not really fair to compare WAR for a reliever and a starter, though; Goose pitched about 2/3 the innings of those other guys.”
I don’t see any reason why the reliever should get extra points for not being good enough to be a starter, especially back in Gossage’s day when there wasn’t the contemporary obsession with late inning relievers.
WAR doesn’t account for leverage. Gossage was pitching in more important innings than your average starter. And this was before closers were limited to just the 9th inning – but they were still important.
Gossage had a better record than Rollie Fingers or Bruce Sutter, who had already been inducted when he got in. It’s fair to say the Hall should have stricter standards for relievers than they do, but the Goose does meet the standards that exist.
Leverage doesn’t make up for getting that many fewer outs. Not even close.
I am extremely indifferent to the leverage argument, or arguments about “clutch” regardless of the sport or position.
But there’s no difference between a close game and a blowout. The teams with the best Pythagoreans are the ones that make the playoffs. That’s why, in the age of “Moneyball,” no one puts any talent in the bullpen.
And the proof is: bullpen pitchers don’t have high WARs!
Does WAR even attempt to reflect leverage? I didn’t think it did. Leverage matters at least a certain amount in terms of a pitcher’s contribution to his team getting more wins (though of course it doesn’t matter as a reflection of a pitcher’s per inning pitched quality). This is why you don’t have your best relievers pitch middle relief in a game you are down by 10. It’s not important enough to keep good pitchers in the pen unless they don’t have the endurance capacity to start, but it’s not nothing.
The only particularly good way to account for “total leverage” is through WPA. That’s not perfect, of course, but at the very least it doesn’t give relievers credit for pitching out of high leverage situations that they created themselves, and will reflect the value of 8 shutout innings in a 6-0 win.
Are you saying that teams with talented bullpens win more 1-run games than those that don’t?
The two teams that spent big money on closers this offseason reaping those big rewards and running away with the N.L. East certainly proves his point though, you have to admit.
The Phillies don’t seem to be doing well after getting Papelbon, or is my sarcasm detector malfunctioning?
Sarcasm.
I’d say the question is whether they win more 1-run games where those talented bullpens mattered.
Lets say you’re Team A with terrible relievers. You pull your starter with a 4 run lead in the 6th. Your relievers only give up 3 runs in 2 innings and you win by 1. By your standards, that’s just as good as Team B, with great relievers, that pulls their starter with a 1 run lead in the 5th and gives up no runs in 4 innings for the win.
Subjective? Maybe.
Gossage was a closer. He played for managers who had the modern obsession with late innings. They sought him out specifically because of that obsession.
To say he wasn’t good enough to start is asinine. Look at the numbers at the peak of his career. From 1977 to 1985 he was great.
1: He started one year and was terrible
2: And ummm no, he was not a “closer,” he was one of the last of the pre-closer relief aces- he was not brought in solely in the 9th with a 3 run or less lead- he was brought in late- 7-9th inning of close games, oftentimes for more than 1 inning
I figured someone would bring this up. A couple of points.
1. As Brien says, there’s no reason to get extra points for being a reliever. If you are a reliever, you need to be one of the very greatest of all-time. Rivera is an easy call for the HoF. Plus his WAR is far greater than Gossage.
2. Leiter was a fine pitcher. So was Bob Welch, who has the same WAR as Gossage. They aren’t HoFers by any stretch. And probably Gossage isn’t either.
3. I wouldn’t have voted in Gossage, but that’s fine, good for him. But he should hardly be the lead person in publicly declaring who and who not should be in the Hall.
“If you are a reliever, you need to be one of the very greatest of all-time.”
Oh, I love new rules!
I’ve always said that relievers should get voted in after every mediocre starter because if they were good enough to be mediocre starters, they wouldn’t have been relievers. Eckersley and Rivera are the only relievers I’d vote for.
As for Clemens, I’d reluctantly vote for him, although he’s a liar, a cheat, and a bully. I’d vote for him because, like Barry Bonds, he was a Hall of Fame talent before he cheated. The not guilty verdict is meaningless in my eyes. The jury did not hear tons of corroborating evidence and were left with the false impression that he had been targeted by a dirt bag trainer.
“I’d vote for him because, like Barry Bonds, he was a Hall of Fame talent before he cheated.”
I find this bullshit to be even more offensive to the senses than the witch hunters, honestly. At least the latter is an ethos beyond “I’m going to decide based on completely arbitrary and non-falsifiable nonsense that I just make up on the fly.”
Let me explain myself then, and let me start out by saying that my position is still evolving on this issue. I would also like to point out that HOF voting is “completely arbitrary”, so I see nothing wrong with throwing out another subjective criteria. I agree that the moralists are full of shit that there is no justification for leaving out players like Bonds, Clemens and ARod. These guys are among the greatest of all time, with or without steroids. And if you read Game of Shadows, its pretty clear that Bonds was a first ballot hall of famer without steroids. But what about the more more borderline players who have HOF credentials only because they juiced? Guys like Palmeiro (remember when he couldn’t hit the ball out of Wrigley) or McGuire, for example. Why should they get in if they were not hall of fame talents but for the steroids? And why should they get in over their peers who didn’t cheat, but whose numbers aren’t quite as good because they played in the steroid era?
While everybody seems to look at this as a black/white issue. I see grey.
How is it that you “see grey” when you must obviously assume that you know who was and wasn’t using steroids/other banned substances and exactly when they were doing it?
But if you do know, why not hold that against the guy? Like McGuire and Palmeiro.
That’s not the same thing as trying to determine which guy was a “real HOFer” without juicing. The only way you can know that is by knowing when they started juicing, and extrapolating stats prior to that. In practice this always turns into “the guy who was the big star was still good enough, the other guy added a whole bunch of stats he would never have had otherwise.”
In other words, bullshit.
Or McGwire even!
Perhaps it is bullshit, but its also bullshit to give such an honor to players whom you believe are frauds. And its also bullshit that Bert Blyleven had to wait all those years and that Andre Dawson got in over many other qualified players.
Yes, its real hard to determine who is a real HOFer without steroids, but to ignore the steroid issue in its entirety seems to be a shirking of a voter’s duties. Why not try?
“Yes, its real hard to determine who is a real HOFer without steroids…”
No, it’s not “hard,” it’s impossible, at least from any sort of objective standpoint.
You are right with some of the guys, but it seems rather evident that McGuire does not get to 500 and does not pass 61 without the steroids. Since he is a candidate solely on account of his fraudulent hr numbers, I wouldn’t vote for him. He should get a pass simply because all the other cheaters didn’t get caught? But I would have voted for Bagwell last year because there has been no evidence linking him to steroids. And I would vote for Piazza next year. And I would vote for Bonds, Clemens and ARod for the reasons already stated.
And, again, you used the word “objective,” although HOF voting is entirely subjective. I’m willing to consider steroids because the voting is in fact subjective. And that obviously well-informed baseball fans can have different opinions is one the great things about the process.
“And that obviously well-informed baseball fans can have different opinions is one the great things about the process.”
There’s nothing in the way of definitive evidence about the exact effect steroid use would have on baseball statistics, so where exactly does one get to be “well-informed” enough to declare that Player X would have not had Hall worthy numbers absent steroid use?
Again, this is just pure bullshitting.
Also, hooray for incorrect use of the word “opinion.”
See Bonds, Barry. We know exactly when he started using from Game of Shadows (1999), and we know what kind of numbers he put up after using at a point in his career when his numbers should have been declining with age. Before using, his best OPS was 1.179 at age 28. After using, he put up a 1.379 at at age 36, 1.381 at age 37, 1.278 at age 39 and 1.427 at age 39. Bonds transmogrified into Babe Ruth at his best, when he should have been declining. And he did it in a pitcher’s park.
The Bonds example is pretty good evidence of the potential impact of steroids on a hitter.
BTW — If I hadn’t read Game of Shadows when it first came out and if I hadn’t followed Bonds’ career so closely from day one, I would probably agree with you 100%.
umm no, there really wasn’t tons of corroborating evidence left out- no wait, yes there was, there was a ton of evidence corroborating that McNamee was a dirt bag that was left out.
Seriously, isn’t anyone actually paying attention?
Other Yankees who admitted receiving steroids and HGH from McNamee were not allowed to testify to that effect (correctly so, I note, due to guilt by association). Nor was Pettitte allowed to testify about his usage, correct?
Just checked, Pettitte testified that he used hgh, but he was not permitted to testify (as he would have) that McNamee had injected him. Testimony from Pettitte that he had been injected by McNamee would surely have constituted corroborating evidence. Nor were other Yankees allowed to testify that they had been injected by McNamee, although other Yankee players had admitted to being injected by him.
If by “other Yankees” you mean “other Yankee.” Knobloch and Pettitte were the only ones. And neither of them said that McNamee gave them steroids, as he claimed he did for Clemens.
And I fail to see how “Andy Pettitte used hGH” is “corroborating evidence” that Clemens did.
That’s not what “corroborating evidence” means.
Of course it is. Testimony from pettitte, knobloch and Stanton that they were injected by mcnamee would clearly corroborate his testimony that he had injected Clemens. Clemens’ defense was that he was targeted by a dirtbag trainer. That defense would have been torpedoed by testimony from other Yankees that they had been injected by same trainer. Correct ruling by the judge, however.
I’m not 100% convinced that relievers have always been guys who could not have cut it as starters (although certainly, the majority of good relievers would either wear out quickly or get waxed the second time a hitter saw them in a game). That assumes that managers make good personnel decisions, that roles are sufficiently flexible as a guy’s career progresses, etc. Once your role is established, you can only pitch to the guys in front of you. And most managers are risk-averse enough that they don’t want to risk trying out a dominant reliever as a starter, since if it backfires they will be in for a heap of criticism at the least.
It’s a lot like efficiency vs. total stats in basketball; it’s often hard to use statistics to figure out if a guy is the best scorer on a team, or just the one who shoots the most.
And I don’t disagree that Al Leiter was a fine pitcher but not a HOFer…it’s just interesting that Ryan is thought of as an all-time great despite only having a couple really dominant years in an eternal career.
Well Ryan had a career FIP- of 84 to Leiter’s 96, and pitched 3,000 more innings than Leiter, which seemss pretty damn relevant to the comparison.
Part of the discrepancy is that Ryan pitched the bulk of his career in Houston and Anaheim, both serious pitchers’ parks, while Leiter played in the launchpad in Toronto for a few years and most of the rest in slightly friendly Shea.
Of course Ryan was superior, but the discrepancy really isn’t what their relative levels of fame would have you believe.
Um…yes it is.
To the tune of 0.1 WAA more per season (and Leiter is way out in front for both WAA and WAR per IP).
One was a Very Good pitcher. One was a Slightly Even More Good pitcher who had an exceptionally long career and was really impressive to watch. I have nothing against Ryan*, but he’s really overrated.
Incredibly overrated pitcher on account of his no-hitters and strike outs. He was no better than Blyleven, but he got on first ballot.
But, but… WAR is a perfect evaluation of player value! That’s how we know Brett Lawrie is the #2 player in all of baseball this year– otherwise, no one would have a clue.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2012-batting-leaders.shtml
Please to be telling me more about how obvious outliers that have already been dissected and accounted wholly invalidates statistics. The global warming deniers need some pointers.
It doesn’t invalidate statistics.
It invalidates a particular usage of a particular statistic.
Not really, because Lawrie is an extreme outlier due to the highly unorthodox shift the Blue Jays have been using. Instead of moving everyone around the infield, they’ve taken Lawrie off of third base and put him on the other side of the infield. It makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it (let the shortstop cover more ground than the third baseman), but it completely messes up the tabulation method for the defensive metrics, as Lawrie is basically being credited for being the rangiest third baseman in history.
The only thing it does is prove that the person trying to say it’s self-evidently absurd and invalidates anything doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
As self-evidently absurd as not taking into account that closers greatly affect the outcomes of a whole lot of games? Tony La Russa says he’s sorry for moving Eck to the ‘pen.
Oh, and Bobby Cox for moving Smoltz. They now realize they were idiots.
Really? Smoltz? Really?
Okay, yes, the Braves did shift the 34 year old Smoltz into a bullpen role after he missed an entire season following Tommy John surgery. I don’t really see how this proves that relieving is more important or harder than starting but, well…BOBBBY COX!!!!!!
Oh, almost forgot, after three seasons of Smoltz being one of the game’s best closers, the Braves…moved him back to the starting rotation. How does that fit your theory?
Posnanski already pretty much disproved that “closers have a great effect on the game,” but okay.
Also Gossage wasn’t a “closer” by today’s definition and usage patterns, so I don’t have any idea what that has to do with anything.
If my memory serves me right, Eck went to the pen because he was no longer a very effective starter.
He had a big ERA-FIP split, but he wasn’t bad, and probably would have done quite well as a starter in Oakland. Big mistake by LaRussa.
This explains why Doug Jones was a closer and not a starter.
By that time Eck was basically a mediocre starter. Yet, he was the best reliever in baseball for several more years.
If memory serves, the A’s weren’t hurting for starters back then.
Two points here:
1. The comment you replied to reads: But, but… WAR is a perfect evaluation of player value! That’s how we know Brett Lawrie is the #2 player in all of baseball this year Pointing out that the statistic can produce an “extreme outlier” like this proves toaster’s point – WAR is not a perfect evaluation of player value.
2. I’m agnostic on the merits of the argument for Lawrie’s value. I’m just pointing out that you made a category error. Nobody claimed that the weirdness of his WAR score refuted statistical analysis. Toaster pointed out that that statistic is imperfect and can produce off-kilter results – which you agree with – and I pointed out that the weirdness invalidates this particular use of WAR – which you have also agreed with.
What? How does the fact that a one-of-a-kind decision by a manager can change the tabulation of a stat such that it produces an easily accounted for outlier invalidate an entire statistical model?
Don’t forget Darwin Barney! With a .693 OPS he must be the 2nd coming of Mazeroski @ 2B.
Shorter calling all toasters, “I am going to ignore Lawrie’s amazing defense in order to make an argument that numbers are stupid.”
As I noted below, Lawrie’s defense surprises me.
As I said above, he’s not playing amazing defense, Toronto’s bizarre shift is messing with the defensive numbers.
Do you watch a lot of Blue Jays games? Or are you just speculating? No snark intended, just curious because his defensive numbers are surprising and I’ve been curious for some time as to how uzr handles extreme shifts.
http://itsaboutthemoney.net/ ;)
Less self-promotionally snarkily, Wyers examined this exact thing at BP recently:
http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/manufactured_runs_who_gives_a_shift_by_colin_wyers/10900943
There really is no way to handle extreme shifts since players are given credit for making plays based on their position (and compared to other players at that position). But if a shift is occassionally putting you in a different effective position, that basically invalidates the assumptions of the metric. The only thing you can do is add another input which is: what position does an observer give a player credit for playing during any given at-bat. But now you have the problem that 1B, 2B, SS and 3B are not clearly distinct and stable positions anymore. Eventually you get to the point where it is like NBA defense and nearly immune to statistical analysis of any sort.
This is true to the extent that teams employ such shifts routinely. I’ve only seen it done for particular hitters with consistent spray patterns heavy to one side or the other of 2B. I Toronto really doing this routinely?
“Is Toronto…”
The BP piece Bryan linked to dated 5/30 says the Jays used a shift 47 times to date. Out of at least 2000 PA, that doesn’t seem like a routine thing to me.
Bryan=Brien. Sry.
Saw that. This just demonstrates why you have to watch the games…
Yeah, I liked the picture of Lawrie in shallow right field.
Lawrie was a 2B prospect with the Brewers, so short RF isn’t that much of a stretch for him.
I know Lawrie well. I’ve been fortunate enough to have owned him in a dynasty fantasy league since he was in the minors, and I reaped the benefits of his 2b eligibility last year.
But if he makes a play in shallow right bc of the shift he gets credit for a play out of zone, which helps his defensive metrics. That needs to be accounted for somehow.
Also, he only has the 25th best WAR at fangraphs.
I realize that was probably a little harsher than i meant it to be.
I’m surprised by Lawrie’s defensive WAR. It’s the bulk of his WAR, as is Barney’s. Lawrie has always been considered a hitter you find a position for and not necessarily a plus fielder.