jackie hayes

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:25 PM) Just putting out the info. You always have the choice to ignore it and continue your wet dream. Carry on. Naw, man, now I'm awake. It always ends up a nightmare when you try to pick it up again. He'll tear his rotator cuff or some s*** like that. Three times. In one month. It's just gonna suck now. Everyone thank YASNY for ruining everything.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:14 PM) In the article on the Trib site regarding Rowand signing with the Giants, the GM said that prior to the signing they were listening to offers for Lincecum and Caine, but now that Rowand has signed those two guys are not being traded. Christ, man. After a long, full day of the goddam Mitchell report, did you really have to interrupt this giant, collective soxtalk wet dream? Really?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 05:38 PM) I think your equation is incorrect then. I am not a mathematician, so I can't even begin to create a new equation for you, but I can guarantee you, of every player who made it to the big leagues for 1 day from 1994-2007, this list does not encompass 4.8% of those names. I think you should throw out the career average, and instead, try to find the total number of players on major league rosters from those respective years. That would seem to be far more accurate. Yeah, it would be more accurate. It'd also be a LOT more work... It may have to do with the career length. A career of one month could be categorized as a year, 1.5 years as two years, etc. Or a guy who plays in the majors one year, plays in the minors for two, then gets called up for a week in the next season, could have a "4 year career". That would make the average much higher than it should be. I like back of the envelope calculations so much better...

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) No, what I am saying is that some were "mostly career minor leaguers," meaning that many of them were guys who spent the majority of their careers in the minor leagues. What I was getting at was that you used 26 as an average for players per team. Yet many of these guys were players who had "short stints" in the major leagues, with many different teams, which implies that they were called-up when someone hit the DL, or after the September 1 expansion to the 40-man roster. I think that 26 is not a high enough number considering the expansion of rosters in September. Considering the number of these guys that were primarily career minor leaguers, I think many of them were not steady guys on the 25-man roster. I don't know what a better number would be to use for players/team, but I would think it should be higher than 26. Hmm... Roster expansion only covers a short part of the season, and most teams don't call up more than a handful of players, so I thought 26 was reasonable. It's NOT right (for example) to use the total number of players who play for a team during a year -- those players with short careers bring down the average career length, so that's already accounted for. I was thinking of a world where every player has exactly the average-length career, and then the roster rolls over completely. Obviously this isn't what happens, but because we're only concerned with the total number of players, that shouldn't change the calculation.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 05:03 PM) I can't critique your math, but i bet 4.8% is too high. Considering the call-ups, etc., and the fact that many of these players were mostly career minor leaguers, I'd bet the number is lower. But in terms of players that actaully did test positive in 03' when mlb first began testing, I believe the number was 5-7%. Ah, okay, I was treating them all as major leaguers. But if we replace the numerator with the number of named players who ever played in the majors, should be correct, right? I thought 5% was too high, too. But the calculation looks right... Edit: Are you sure some of these guys were career minor leaguers (as in, never even sniffed the majors)? I was looking at the NYTimes list, which calls them "former and active Major League Baseball players". I counted 78 names (quickly). YAEdit: Actually, looking at the career length study in a little more detail, the average career length has been rising over time, so that for rookies starting between 1968 and 1992, a career lasted 6.85 years on average, which brings the percentage up to 77/(30*26*12/6.85) = 5.6% of all players (Also counting the list more closely -- 77 players on the NYT list.) Higher than I'd thought it would be.

Someone critique this math -- About 80 players named. Average career length is 5.6 years (headline from a google search). 30 teams, about 12 years covered (since the strike), average of about 26 players on a team at a team (considering roster expansions). So the list represents roughly 80/(30*26*(12/5.6)) = 4.8% of all players during the era Is that calculation accurate?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) You are really nitpicking something that is just not that precise - and its that way by design. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a numerical value. You yourself may assign one - but that is just you. I simply see no possible way to assign a percentage to these standards. It makes no sense to me. Let's go by situation instead... Bonds: admitted use, people claim to have sold him stuff, people have seen him use it, all kinds of bizarre medical records, added to the circumstantial stuff like his freakish physical development and the typical side effects... that to me is enough STRONG evidence to feel confident he did it. Therefore, I wouldn't vote him in. Giambi is at a similar level. Sosa: meets all the circumstantial criteria for it, but, there is literally no HARD evidence of him doing so. That is not a STRONG pool of evidence. Therefore, even though I suspect he did it, I couldn't justify using it against him. Therefore, I might vote him in, if everything else warrants it. McGuire: here is where it gets in that grey area. He meets some of the circumstantial criteria. The biggest evidence though, from what I understand, is his no-comment to Congress (there may be more, that's all I am aware of). That alone is SOME evidence, I am not sure I'd call it an amalgam of STRONG evidence. I'm on the fence. I'd want to know more before deciding. Is that a little more clear? No, but that's because you don't want it to be clear. EVERYONE accepts that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means more than 50%, because there is a competing standard that clearly implies anything more than 50%, which is a weaker standard. That at least narrows the field, and the strength of the language suggests that it should be significantly higher than 50%. Yes, it is still uncomfortably vague, and that's something that gets discussed by scholars -- should there be an explicit threshold?, etc. But that's a lot more direction than absolutely none. And it still leaves the question of what YOU think "strong" evidence means. If you were the voter, what would your standard be? You suggest above that some evidence shouldn't be considered ("...I couldn't justify using it against him"). What would you not consider? The problem with not having any notion of a standard, and just going "by situation", is that a person is free to define it up or down depending on the individual being considered. It would clearly be unacceptable if juries across the US convicted blacks at a higher rate than whites in cases with exactly the same evidence. Yet, if we accept your position, there would be no problem with that, since the jurors can determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" however they see fit on a case-by-case basis. Similarly (though obviously much less important), we don't want voters for the Hall determining that there's "strong" evidence against the guy who was a jerk to the press while saying the evidence against another guy, who was real nice to his mother, wasn't really "strong", if there are only trivial differences in the facts. That's even ignoring whether or not it's relevant, and what happens when you find out a guy who's already enshrined was a user. And if it's fair to exclude the people who just happened to have the popular supplier, while putting in dozens who used the more low-key guy. I'm done. I'm just tired of the idea that by selectively picking guys who we really think maybe probably didn't use, we'll get the 'right' guys in, and get a true picture of the era. It's like we want to portray the last 15 years like we wish it had been. We don't know, we'll never know, the whole period and all its numbers are tainted. To reject a guy because someone thinks he was 25% likely to have used while accepting a guy who was only 10% likely to have used seems just ridiculously arbitrary. But hey, whatever. I can't say I have much respect for the HOF to lose.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) Good luck with that happening. Everyone close to the organization, including people in the media, know just how tight mcNamee was with Roger and everyone knows how tight Pettite and Roger are. The stuff in there is pretty damn concrete if you ask me and I'm glad to see Roger finally paying the price. He deserves as much s*** as Barry has gotten over the years. In fact he deserves it times 10 since Barry has had to put up with about 6 years of it by now (deservingly so for the most part). Barry Bonds isn't any different than Rocket....whooo. I still would pay money to see either of them play the game at there prime though Not sure if you meant the stuff on both, but I think the stuff on Pettitte only really says that McNamee knows he used HGH before 2003, when MLB banned it. Not as strong of a claim as everything about Clemens.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) You are looking for a standard that cannot exist. Which I understand, you are probably trying to say means that no standard can be enforced. I disagree. Courts decide to indict or convict all the time on an amalgam of "strong" evidence. Why is that not a reasonable standard for the theoretical me (the one that votes for the HOF) to use to decide on their highly subjective "character"? Courts have standards which mean something to individual jurors. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means, to me, something like 90%. Moreover, I believe beliefs about beliefs exist and are meaningful. While someone else may have a different threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt", it seems clear that it must at least be strictly greater than 50% -- especially considering that other courts have a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is universally considered to be a weaker standard, and which seems to clearly declare a 50% standard. It is a standard on individual jurors' subjective beliefs, but still a standard -- unlike saying there must be "strong" evidence.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:22 PM) I simply cannot see assigning a percentage value. If it were me voting, if there was an amalgam of strong evidence - like there appears to be for Clemens and some others in the Mitchell report, for example - that to me would be enough to not vote him in. Bonds and others have very strong cases against them. Some guys though, its a weaker case. I strongly suspect Sosa, but I have seen zero actual evidence of anything. So I think I'd have to try to keep that suspicion out of my judgement as a voter. Now, if we are talking court of law here, and possible prosecution, then the bar would need to be higher. Is that more what you are looking for? I can't see getting any more precise than that. Sorry, but saying there has to be "strong" evidence, then saying that "strong" can mean whatever you want it to mean, is to demand an empty standard. Of course each case is different. But the standard used to judge each case should be the same, and shouldn't be hopelessly vague, at least in the mind of a voter.

QUOTE(MurcieOne @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:16 PM) Astros must be thrilled that they just traded for Miguel Tejada. They knew. Some of the stuff...I dunno. Like Jack Cust -- basically, 'Bigbie said he said he had tried them.' Um, okay...?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) If some guy with no evidence made a claim and no one refuted it, I'd probably be inclined to believe him just on the grounds that no one spoke up about it. But that would depend on a deeper evaluation; who is the guy making the claim, how credible is he, can he be believed, how would he have come by any information he is giving (i.e. might he actually know something or is he just guessing.) what do my eyes say about the numbers of the person in question, etc. Without an exact scenario it's hard to give you a perfect answer because when you get close to whatever dividing line I'd draw, the answer can become muddled, and you do the best you can with the evidence you have. I'll give you an example. If Canseco said Giambi used but didn't back it up at all (and that was the only information I had), I might believe him because they were teammates. If Canseco said Sosa used, and that was all the info I had (and I didn't see Sosa's body type change, etc.), I might not believe him, because Canseco isn't the most credible source and he wasn't a teammate of Sosa so all he'd have would be hearsay and the same logic I had. So nothing based on hearsay should be considered? Suppose it's a minor clubhouse employee who heard vague rumors that players were using steroids and once saw X use a syringe. X denies having used steroids, but obviously can't refute it so many years later, and can't recall if he ever used a syringe for anything. More generally, how sure would YOU have to be to exclude a player? In percentages, but just based on your own, personal, subjective beliefs.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:43 PM) Except that baseball's HOF has that major difference with other sports': the "character clause". Was this person good for the game? Did they respect it? Those are written (in similar words, I don't know them exactly) as the conditions for entry. And there is nothing objective about those points. They are entirely subjective. I KNOW IT'S SUBJECTIVE. But it is dishonest to say that voters should do something, then refer all clarifying questions to the notion that it's subjective, so one really can't say anything about what they should do. If one believes that all voters should exclude those who they strongly believe used steroids, it still remains to clarify what "strongly" means. (And, yes, these are my words.) If you have absolutely no opinion on that, it means that you are equally happy with someone who'll exclude those with a .0000000000000001% chance of having used (which would surely encompass everyone playing today) and someone who'll exclude those only those with a 99.99999999999999999% chance of having used (which might include Giambi, but basically noone else -- sorry, but certainty in anything is a farce). If that's true, it makes the original statement about what voters should do essentially meaningless. Again, I am talking about personally held, SUBJECTIVE probabilities.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) I believe they should follow whatever standard they believe in. The standard I would personally follow? If a guy had been linked to steroids in some fashion, whether it be a criminal case, the Mitchell Report, a book, whatever, I would take that as evidence and expect the player to have some sort of counter-point to it otherwise I'd believe it. Not sure if I'd trust it if the only book linking a player was the Canseco book, but that would be my thought process. If there's an accusation out there, I want to know about it, what evidence they presented, and what counterpoint the player had made. If the player did like Palmeiro, fluttered around and eventually blamed Tejada, I wouldn't buy it one bit. If the player was accused by a newspaper that presented no evidence and the player fired back hard and that's the only thing we ever heard of it, that's a situation where I might be inclined to believe the player, but I would usually side with anyone who gives a shred of actual evidence. Again, how confident would you have to be? If some guy with no evidence made a claim that could be neither confirmed nor refuted, should a voter support the candidacy or not (assuming he would on the strength of the player's career)?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:26 PM) Nothing in the HOF voting is precise. Its entirely subjective (though yes, stats are involved). This is just more subjective information to consider. As for guys they found about after the fact... it is what it is. Nothing can be done, I suppose. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the process in place. You know very well that one standard looked at by voters is, How does X compare to similar players already in the Hall? As such, I think it very much affects the legitimacy. And as I said to Balta, beliefs are subjective, including beliefs about probabilities. Every voter will have to answer the question I asked, if they take the task seriously and believe they should exclude steroid users. It's not honest to wave it away just because it involves numbers.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) I think there's some benefit in the way the HOF system is constructed here...because they're humans. Humans have the ability to judge things based on the information they have, which is not always complete. If you're trying to construct an algorithm to feed to a computer to determine who goes in and who doesn't, then you can't do it; you need all these arbitrary dividing lines that you're trying to draw. But since the voters are humans, let them decide what they'll use to allow people in and out. People have a habit of being pretty smart sometimes if you let them be. No, that's just a way of avoiding the real issues involved. You said that YOU hoped the voters would exclude everyone but those they strongly believed did not use steroids. You did not say that you hoped the voters would do whatever they wanted to do. So I'm asking, what standard do YOU believe they should use? Probability is SUBJECTIVE -- no need for computers in this.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) Agree they are much better. Disagree about skipping the whole era. As with any situation of analysis, you judge on the data in front of you. The data does not say all were tainted. It does say some people were. Your judgement is effected, for those people. But then more data emerges saying that player X, who was voted in already, used steroids. Can't take him out, and now how do you justify the rest not being in? What is the threshold level of belief to justify excluding someone, anyway? Do you not vote for someone because you believe there is a 75% chance he used? 50%? 25%? 5%?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:45 PM) Hopefully, 30% or so of the HOF voters will be angry enough that this will be exactly what they do with anyone accused. Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. May wind up as the only 2 big bats going into the HOF from this entire era. And I for one wouldn't complain at all. Just think what their numbers might have been had they not been facing juiced up pitching while they were clean. Can't prove that anyone was clean. I mean, I think Frank was, but what does that mean? What the hell do I know? If we want to acknowledge via HOF voting that the game was tainted, I don't think there's any way to do that except to exclude EVERYBODY. Personally, I don't want that, but I think that's the only consistent way to go about it.

Mitchell Report released early!!! http://kissmesuzy.blogspot.com/2007/12/ksk...port-early.html

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) It's the MLB Commish's office. It doesn't have to be legal action as much as the commish being able to come down hard on a leaker. I think the list is probably legit. The Commish's office had the report yesterday, which means all the teams probably had copies yesterday, which means we went from a group of probably 20 people to a group of hundreds to maybe thousands of people who had the list overnight. It's not surprising at all that one of them leaked it. That may be -- it's plausible MLB asked someone to run interference. I just think a legal threat would be pretty weak. But apparently the leaker isn't cowed, since WNBC (?) is sticking to its story.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:34 PM) Look at the recent Hall votes for McG and Canseco. You bet your ass the Hall voters take this into account - in fact I think because Selig lacks testicular fortitude, the HOF voting may be the area MOST impacted by this report. Guys on that list like Clemens may suddenly have a hard time getting in. Yeah, but Clemens and Bonds are much, much better than McGwire and Canseco. If you don't vote those two in, you may as well skip the whole era.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:33 PM) I'm sure that there was some legal action threatened if that statement wasn't put out. Eh... What kind of damages could someone claim would result from releasing names a mere two hours before they're set to be released, anyway? This sounds like legitimate confusion.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) I really wouldn't be surprised if the Mitchell report, if it's producing these kinds of names, doesn't go well beyond Radomski. Yes, but it sounds like there were only a handful of other sources. This is in no way comprehensive, and it would be completely unjustified for any team to cluck about being clean just because they are not much represented on the Mitchell list.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) I really did have a feeling the Sox would come out of this looking ok, if for no other reason than the fact that even a juicer would be scared to shoot up around Frank. It'd have been really nice if our WS team had been 100% clean though. Again, if a player's name does not show up, it doesn't mean he hasn't used steroids. It just means he hasn't used Radomski to get steroids.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) "Brian Roberts" NOW SHUT UP ABOUT HIM!!! If these lists are right, then I find it fairly comforting that Everett seems to be the only guy from the 05 team making an appearance on them. And compared to the Red Sox & Cardinals, who are havinjg guys like Varitek, Trot Nixon, and Pujols making appearances, I think we come off looking pretty good. Looking good, maybe. Doesn't mean we're clean, though.