Mad About Vlad For Hall Of Fame ... Plus: 'Roidz Boyz' Bonds & Clemens

^

Even with increasing reliance on advanced statistics and technology, Major League Baseball often lives in the past. And that's usually grand, as I'm a 50-something guy with fond memories of eons gone by. Indisputable evidence of the old-schoolness of the game: The Baseball Writers Association of America only accepts Hall of Fame ballots sent via U.S. mail. That's right: No email, no faxes. 

What? They couldn't work out a deal with the Pony Express? Carrier pigeons are on strike?

As a 30-year BBWAA member and a 20-year Hall voter, I dutifully dropped my 2017 ballot in the mail this week, thereby beating the mandate that it be postmarked by Dec. 31. When's the last time you actually mailed something that required it be postmarked by a certain date? For me, it was last year's Hall ballot!

Of course, by necessity, the process of Hall voting also embraces the past. We voters were tasked with analyzing the records of ballplayers who have been out of the game for at least five years. And in the case of the two biggest names on the ballot - Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens - they have been retired for a full decade.

This year, for the first time, the Roidz Boyz got my vote.

Like 99% of intelligent baseball observers, I have no doubt that Bonds and Clemens were big-time juicers. I also have no doubt they were Hall-caliber players. I fully understand and respect why some of (maybe even the majority of) my voting colleagues will continue to ignore the Roidz Boyz. But for me, it's time.

Two years ago in The Baldest Truth, I explained my then-new policy for Steroid Era candidates:

1. If a player is the subject of completely unsubstantiated rumors (think Frank Thomas, who some thought "must be on steroids because he's so big"), I will tune out the noise and consider him as early as his first year on the ballot.

2. If a player is the subject of steroid whispers that conceivably might have merit (think Mike Piazza), I will not consider him as a first-ballot candidate to see if any new information gets fleshed out. If, after a year of additional scrutiny no new information is presented, I will consider him beginning in his second year on the ballot.

3. If a player likely was a steroid cheat but all available evidence showed that he had a Hall-worthy body of work before the juicing began (think Bonds and Clemens), I will consider him but only beginning with his fifth year on the ballot. I want to allow plenty of time before checking that box.

4. If I am convinced that a player could not have compiled his seemingly Hall-worthy stats without him having been a rampant juicer (think Mark McGwire), I will not vote for him because his entire career is a sham.

Simply stated, Bonds and Clemens were two of the best players I saw during my long career as a baseball reporter and columnist. That was the case even before they reportedly started taking steroids. Furthermore, for what it's worth, both have been publicly exonerated - Bonds by the courts and Clemens by Congress.

I suppose I could invoke the "character" clause to keep them off of my ballot. And again, I don't blame others who do just that. But lots of racists and drunks and scoundrels and druggies and cheaters and criminals have been enshrined. Should Cooperstown kick out Ty Cobb? Babe Ruth? Gaylord Perry? The dozens upon dozens of players who practically lived on greenies?

While the Roidz Boyz finally get my votes, a few other tainted former stars do not. I firmly believe that neither Sammy Sosa nor Gary Sheffield would have had Hall-worthy numbers had they not used their tushies like pincushions. As a bonus, Sammy also got caught corking his bat. Cheater, cheater, Flintstones Vitamins eater!

As ballot newcomers, Manny Ramirez and Pudge Rodriguez fall under Rule 2 above. Pudge was the best catcher I've seen and I'll consider him more thoroughly next year. I'm less excited about Manny's candidacy.

Before I reveal all of my choices, let me explain the reasons I didn't check the boxes next to a few other Hall candidates ...

Trevor Hoffman, Lee Smith, Billy Wagner. Because the save is one of the most overrated statistics in the sport, it's not easy for a reliever to get my vote. He had to have been a transcendent figure (like Mariano Rivera), and/or had to have been a good starter at one point in his career (like John Smoltz), and/or had to have regularly recorded multiple-inning saves (like Rollie Fingers). None of the current candidates met any of those requirements. Hoffman has a decent shot at getting in this year, and I don't begrudge him the honor. This is Smith's last year on the ballot and he probably will fall well short. Wagner has only a slightly better chance at being a Hall of Famer than Joe Borowski does.

Jorge Posada. He was a leader and a winner for the Yankees, but he just doesn't have the stats. Other fine players who don't quite have HoF numbers include Jeff Kent, Derrek Lee, Magglio Ordonez and Larry Walker.

Edgar Martinez. Of those who didn't get my vote, he was the toughest omission because he was a heck of a hitter. However ...

His "similarity scores" on BaseballReference.com compare him to Will Clark, John Olerud, Moises Alou, Magglio Ordonez, Bob Johnson, Matt Holliday, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill, Lance Berkman and Ellis Burks. Those guys also were outstanding hitters, but there isn't a Hall of Famer in the bunch. I am willing to vote for a DH (as I showed with my first-ballot vote for Frank Thomas), but Thomas' numbers were considerably better than Martinez's. Edgar never won a pennant and only once did he finish in the top 5 in MVP voting. Mostly, his career stats just aren't strong enough for me; he doesn't rank in the top 120 in HR, RBI or WAR. 

So here are the 7 players who received my check marks on the 2017 Hall of Fame ballot:

Jeff Bagwell

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Vladimir Guerrero

Mike Mussina

Tim Raines

Curt Schilling

I already have talked about Bonds and Clemens. Bagwell, Mussina, Raines and Schilling are repeat selections for me, and I discussed them in detail in my Dec. 24, 2013 post. (Read It.) This is Raines' final season on the ballot and he came pretty close last year, so I hope one of his generation's best table-setters gets in at the final buzzer.

Which brings me to Vlad the Impaler ...

After the ballot was released publicly, my son called to talk about a few of the new candidates. "How about Vlad Guerrero?" My knee-jerk reaction: "Maybe, but I kinda doubt it." That's usually my initial reaction unless a guy is an absolute lock, such as Ken Griffey Jr. last year. It's the classic, instant "does he feel like a Hall of Famer" feeling. After I look into the numbers more, though, a candidate's case sometimes becomes more compelling. Such was the case with Vlad.

For example, I always thought of him as a free swinger who struck out a lot. Well, he was a free swinger ... but he never struck out even 100 times in any season and he fanned significantly less often than all 10 of his BaseballReference.com "similars" - including Hall of Famers Willie Stargell, Jim Rice, Billy Williams and Duke Snider. Meanwhile, his on-base percentage was better than the first three and only .001 lower than Duke's. His .931 OPS ranks 34th all-time.

His 449 HR (38th most in history) are the exact same as Bagwell's total and more than the totals of Rice, Williams and Stargell. His 1,496 RBI put him ahead of Rice, Williams and Snider. Guerrero played 16 seasons - the same as Rice, fewer than his other comparables and one more than Bagwell.  - and he didn't go long past his prime. 

In 2010, his next-to-last season, the 35-year-old Guerrero batted .300 with 29 HR, 115 RBI and an .841 OPS to help the Texas Rangers reach the World Series for the first time in franchise history. He was 11th in MVP voting - the eighth time he finished at least that high. He won the award in 2004 with the Angels and had four other top-6 finishes (two with the Expos, two with the Angels).

Those who say that he was an error-prone (albeit strong-armed) right fielder and that his career batting stats make him a borderline Hall of Fame candidate ... I can't argue too strongly with them. 

It says here, however, that his statistics give him a solid HoF resume - and drop him on the right side of the border. 

Vlad Guerrero gets my check mark, and I will be very curious to see how my BBWAA peers treat him.
^

A Hall of a situation

^
Yes, it was headline-worthy that not one candidate was elected to the Hall of Fame ... but really, was it that big of a surprise?

Even if any of the Royd Boyz do eventually get in, it is not the least bit shocking they were denied on their initial year as candidates. I specifically said I wasn't going to give the likes of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens the special honor of being first-ballot HoFers, and I'm sure dozens (if not hundreds) of my fellow voters felt that way, too.

Craig Biggio also didn't quite make it on the first ballot, but he has an excellent chance next year because there are many, many BBWAA voters who save first-ballot HoF status for only the best of the best.

Other observations:

-- I knew Sammy Sosa wouldn't come close to getting in but I was surprised he received fewer votes than Mark McGwire did. While those two will be linked forever in baseball history, Sosa finished with better numbers and also had more skills than McGwire did.

-- Again, I'm not stunned that Jeff Bagwell didn't get in, but I did think he would get more votes. I was relieved he didn't miss by one, because I already am second-guessing my decision to leave him off my ballot.

-- Don Mattingly received enough votes to stay on the ballot for next year but Bernie Williams didn't. There is zero doubt in my mind that Williams was the better, more important Yankee.

-- Lots of get-a-lifers -- yahoos who spend a good chunk of their time obsessing about the HoF -- said only idiots would refuse to put the Royd Boyz in the Hall on the first ballot while stating we very well might vote for Bonds and Clemens in future years. Well, here's what another first-ballot candidate, Curt Schilling, told ESPN:

"I think it's fitting. If there ever were a ballot or a year to make a statement about what we didn't do as players, this is it."

Schilling went on to say that even players who weren't juicers were complicit in the Steroid Era and deserved to be denied Hall entry. And he went out of the way to include himself among the guilty.

Schilling, who finished just ahead of Bonds and Clemens, got my vote. And now I feel even better about it.

-- Sad to see two guys drop off the ballot: Dale Murphy couldn't get anywhere near enough votes during  his 15 years of eligibility but truly embodied all the great things in sports; and Kenny Lofton, a fine player during his prime who almost surely deserved more than one year as a candidate (he didn't get the required 5 percent of the vote).

-- I sure as heck hope that the one writer who checked the box next to Aaron Sele's name did so as a protest vote.
^

Hall Call: 4 get my vote; most big names don't

^

Being a Hall of Fame voter is never easy for anybody who takes the task seriously. And I do. 

Still, some years are more difficult than others, and this probably was the most challenging -- and most interesting -- ballot I've encountered in my nearly two decades as a BBWAA vote-caster. Between the steroid allegations and the sheer number of qualified first-year candidates, there were numerous tough calls.

Here's how I reasoned with myself as I first eliminated my non-candidates and then ultimately filled out my ballot. 

NOT HALL-WORTHY

SANDY ALOMAR JR. … Highly intelligent future manager, only decent numbers.

JEFF CIRILLO … Solid role player.

ROYCE CLAYTON … Good-fielding shortstop but soft hitter.

JEFF CONINE … Solid player but stats fall short.

SHAWN GREEN … 2,003 hits and 328 HR but lacking run production.

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ … 326 saves but not dominant enough.

RYAN KLESKO … Valuable role player but only decent stats.

JOSE MESA … 321 saves but hardly dominant.

REGGIE SANDERS … Above-average player but only 983 RBI.

AARON SELE … Only 10 W per season and 4.61 ERA.

MIKE STANTON … Mostly a middle reliever and set-up man.

TODD WALKER … Defensive shortcomings and only OK numbers.

RONDELL WHITE … Proved that steroids don't help everybody.

WOODY WILLIAMS … Solid starter but mediocre record and ERA.

IT'S NOT THE "HALL OF GOOD" (OR EVEN VERY GOOD)

STEVE FINLEY … Outstanding outfielder with 2,548 hits, 304 HR and 320 SB but only 2-time All-Star and one top-10 MVP.

JULIO FRANCO … .298 hitter over 23 seasons with 2,586 career hits, but not nearly enough run production.

KENNY LOFTON … One of the best leadoff hitters in recent history but well behind Raines in most categories. 

EDGAR MARTINEZ … Possibly the best DH ever but his career HR (309), RBI (1,261) and slugging (.515) were hardly eye-popping.

DON MATTINGLY … Outstanding player but injuries and lack of run-production during the second half of his career derails his candidacy.

FRED McGRIFF … Hard to argue with most of his numbers, including 493 HR, 1,550 RBI, eight 100 RBI seasons. But only one top-5 MVP vote (and no top-3) and no truly “magic” numbers (2,490 hits, 493 HR, .509 slugging). Also, one of the worst-fielding first basemen I’ve ever seen. Sorry, Crime Dog fans, but I can’t shake the image of so many horrific plays when I covered his time with the Cubs.

LARRY WALKER … He’s close in many categories, and had a strong .965 OPS, but he was not quite dominant enough among his peers. Plus, his huge production at Coors Field skews all of his numbers.

DAVID WELLS … A fat man’s Curt Schilling: good clutch pitcher with a high career winning percentage. But his high ERA, pedestrian WHIP figure and low K total put him behind Schilling and Morris.

BERNIE WILLIAMS … Fine contributor to winning teams but quite short in major statistical categories.

That leaves the following 14 for serious consideration:

Jeff Bagwell

Craig Biggio

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Mark McGwire

Jack Morris

Dale Murphy

Rafael Palmeiro

Mike Piazza

Tim Raines

Curt Schilling

Lee Smith

Sammy Sosa

Alan Trammell

ALMOST, BUT NO

JEFF BAGWELL … Outstanding career numbers but behind Fred McGriff in most categories. His HR total, 449, is not extraordinary for a first baseman. There is steroid talk but no proof, so my decision on this borderline case was tipped by his poor postseason numbers for a Houston team that desperately needed more from its leader to win pennants. The one year the Astros finally made the World Series, they did it without an injured Bagwell. The fact that he got his numbers in 15 seasons (McGriff needed 19), that he played much of his career in the Astrodome (a pitcher’s park) and that he finished in the top-5 of MVP voting three times puts him very close. I could consider him in the future.

DALE MURPHY … One of the great guys and honorable competitors. That his final year on the ballot coincides with the first year of so many infamous juicers, it is very, very tempting to give him a symbolic vote. And he certainly has some impressive accomplishments, including consecutive MVP awards. But his numbers simply fall short in so many areas, including batting average, hits, HR, RBI, OBP and slugging. The clincher: He ranks in the top 50 in only one major statistical category -- strikeouts.

LEE SMITH … He retired as MLB's all-time saves leader (since eclipsed), and that alone warrants serious consideration. However, he benefited greatly from the relatively recent trend in which closers became one-inning specialists. Closers are so specialized, I need a guy to be flat-out dominating in the vein of Rich Gossage, Rollie Fingers or Mariano Rivera to give him my vote.

ALAN TRAMMELL … A super-solid player who helped usher in the era of shortstops making major offensive contributions. Regardless of position, however, I have trouble voting for a guy who had only one 100 RBI season, one 200-hit season and two 20 HR seasons. Not a single one of his career numbers screams “Hall of Fame.” Super-solid is admirable but doesn’t equate to an all-time great.

NO ... WITH ASTERISKS

BARRY BONDS … Statistical no-brainer but steroid use had a major impact on his numbers in the latter third of his career. Game of Shadows, the book that is considered the definitive chronicle of his juicing, said he began using in 1999 after he was jealous of the attention Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire received the year before. If that is true, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, Bonds already had incredible career numbers and was well on his way to a Hall of Fame career. Given all that, I almost surely will vote for him … just not this year. I never have been a voter who emphasized “first-ballot Hall of Famer” as being special, but I will in this kind of case.

ROGER CLEMENS … See my Bonds explanation regarding Hall of Fame numbers before he allegedly started juicing. Unlike Bonds, Clemens was completely cleared by a jury. Still, I’m guessing the true Clemens story has not been told yet, so I’m also going to deny him first-ballot Hall status. As an aside, one could argue that all the talk about him making a comeback next season is another reason to delay his Hall entrance.

MARK McGWIRE … He’s kind of the anti-Bonds/Clemens. His numbers were nowhere near Hall worthy until he started using his keister as a pin-cushion. An amazing 42 percent of his career HRs came during the four-year stretch when he was cheating and lying his head off. Given his one-dimensional skill set, it’s not especially difficult to leave the box next to his name unchecked. He’ll never get my vote, and it’s not just because of the cheating.

RAFAEL PALMEIRO … Although I try not to let steroid allegations alone overwhelm my ballot, I am quite convinced that pretty much his entire career was a fraud. So it’s easy for me to focus on his unimpressive OPS, WAR, slugging and postseason numbers and deny him my vote.

MIKE PIAZZA … For now, I’m going to hold off. There are enough steroid questions -- combined with a WAR ranked 179^th all-time and a five-year fade at the end of his career – to make him less than a first-ballot Hall of Famer in my eyes.

SAMMY SOSA … That he was outed as a steroid cheat by the New York Times probably is damning enough in the eyes of most voters. Even if he never had put needles in his rump, however, the fact that he was caught using a corked bat suggests there is nothing he wouldn’t do to gain an unfair advantage. He was a horrible teammate, too. The juicing puts his career accomplishments in doubt and his lack of character clinches it for me: He’s not deserving of enshrinement, 600-plus homers or not.

AND FINALLY ... MY CLASS OF 2013 SELECTIONS

CRAIG BIGGIO … The steroid whispers are barely audible and not a good enough reason to overlook the rest of his accomplishments. He has the fifth-most doubles ever (No. 1 among right-handed hitters), and also ranks in the top 21 in runs and hits. A multiple-threat player who had 291 HR and 414 SB. Unlike Bagwell, he was the spark plug of Houston’s drive to its only pennant. A multiple Gold Glover at second base who moved to other positions when the Astros had the need. Numbers are almost identical to those of Robin Yount, a first-ballot choice (albeit just barely).

JACK MORRIS … His stats – 254 wins, .577 winning percentage, 3.90 ERA – make him a borderline case. But he was a workhorse for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays, was one of the winningest pitchers in an increasingly hitter-friendly era and had some memorable clutch performances. I unashamedly admit that his 10-inning shutout of Atlanta in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series – probably the most exciting event I ever covered – has influenced my vote. 

CURT SCHILLING … Like Morris, not a slam-dunk choice. Given that he posted only 216 regular-season wins, I wish his ERA had been lower than 3.46. Still, his strikeout total (15^th all-time) and K-to-BB ratio (second ever) are impressive. As fewer and fewer pitchers worked deep into games, his nine seasons of 200-plus innings and 83 complete games also deserve mention. Finally, there was his incredible postseason success: an 11-2 record, the third-best postseason winning percentage ever, a 2.23 ERA and a crucial role on three World Series winners. In five postseason elimination games, he went 4-0 with a 1.37 ERA. How am I supposed to ignore those clutch numbers? I’m not, and I didn't.

TIM RAINES … In a team photo of best leadoff men ever, Raines would be featured prominently. His career numbers generally were more impressive than those of Lou Brock. Reached base more in his career than Tony Gwynn did and had an almost identical OBP. As ESPN’s Jayson Stark pointed out, every eligible player who reached base as many times as Raines did and had as high an OBP is in the Hall. Throw in his base-stealing – fifth ever with 808 and second all-time with a .847 success rate -- and he gets my vote.

So there you have it ...

Biggio, Morris, Schilling and Raines get my check marks; Bonds, Clemens and Sosa don't (though Bonds and Clemens might as early as next year).

Phew! That was exhausting!

^

Hall ballot is all the (roid) rage

^
Just got my Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in the mail.

This is The Big One:

Bonds, Sosa, Clemens and Piazza joining McGwire and Palmeiro in the first real Juicer Central Ballot.

Biggio, Schilling, Bagwell, Morris, Raines are among those also on a ballot packed with legitimate candidates.

I always take this seriously, as it's both a responsibility and a privilege, but will be extra diligent this time around. This is probably the most anticipated ballot in the nearly 20 years I've been a voting BBWAA member.

I'll post again after I've made my decisions.
^

Baseball's enduring steroid stain

^
Lots of people claim to be "old school," but they're not. I am.

Need proof? I get the newspaper every day. Need more proof? I read it, front to back. Need still more proof? I even read the agate pages in Sports!

For all you kids out there, the agate pages are those filled will bits of stats and facts and other minutiae and the print usually is really small. So small that us old-schoolers need good reading glasses.

Oh, and for all you kids out there, a newspaper is ... oh, forget it.

Anyway, something in the bottom right corner of the baseball agate page in today's Charlotte Observer caught my eye. It was a string of items in the This Date In Baseball feature that AP makes available daily. Here is the string:

1988 - Jose Canseco became the first major leaguer to hit 40 homers and steal 40 bases in one season.

2000 - Rafael Palmeiro became the 32nd player to hit 400 home runs.

2001 - Alex Rodriguez hit his 48th home run, breaking the major league record for shortstops.

2001 - Sammy Sosa became the first player to hit three home runs in a game three times in a season.

2006 - Barry Bonds hit his 734th career home run, an NL record.

Yep, in baseball's last quarter century, Sept. 23 was a big day for juicers.

Going forward, it's going to be interesting how the game deals with its history concerning this period.

It's difficult for the game to be proud of its heritage when so many of its major milestones were established by guys who got where they were by jabbing themselves in their keisters with syringes.

I mean, how many records and notable achievements involving home runs from 1985-2005 weren't influenced by steroids?
^

500 HR = HoF? Hardly!

^
For years and years and years, it was accepted that any player with 500 or more career home runs deserved Hall of Fame enshrinement.

That unwritten rule was busted into a zillion little pieces by the Steroid Era. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro have been shunned decisively by BBWAA voters. And there's a better than good chance that all-time longball leader Barry Bonds, as well as Sammy Sosa (whose bat-corking episode represents a second strike against him), will be blanked in this year's balloting.

But what about those who haven't been suspected of juicing? Well, 500 home runs isn't automatic for them, either.

Example: Adam Dunn.

The White Sox whiffer just became the 50th player in big-league history to hit career HR No. 400. He's only 32 years old, he goes for the fences with every swing and he's about the size of the Trump Tower (though not as big as the Trump Ego).

I'll be shocked if he doesn't finish his career with well over 500 home runs.

Unless he suddenly becomes more than a one-tool ballplayer, however, Adam Dunn will not get my Hall vote no matter how many HRs he ends up with. I'm guessing the vast majority of my fellow voters also will reject his candidacy.

He was an embarrassingly bad outfielder in the National League before becoming a DH in Chicago. He lumbers around the bases. He is a strikeout machine. In 2011, he had arguably the worst offensive season in baseball history. He is only a two-time All-Star, with one selection coming despite a batting average near .200. He hasn't been a big-time run-producer. He has never played on a playoff team, a fact he hopes to help change this season.

Only his wife and son believe this to be the resume of a Hall of Famer.

Yep, if unwritten rules actually meant something, they'd be written!
^

Guilty or innocent? That's just one question surrounding Braun

^

What are we supposed to make of the Ryan Braun doping incident?

The give-a-dude-the-benefit-of-doubt and innocent-until-proven-guilty sides of me are happy that, if he really was innocent, he was exonerated.

The born cynic in me -- the one who is still mad at himself for letting down his guard and getting duped by Sammy Flintstone Vitamins and Mark McLiar -- can't help but shake the feeling that Braun got away with the juicing equivalent of manslaughter.

Mostly, I have questions ...

Given that some BBWAA voters didn't cast Hall of Fame ballots for Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez on the mere suspicion of steroid use, will Braun be denied baseball's ultimate honor no matter how great his final numbers are?

Did an innocent Braun have to argue something that made him sound guilty -- a chain-of-custody screwup involving his urine sample -- because it really is impossible to prove one's innocence when one has been charged with doping?

Will his success at beating the charge embolden other ballplayers to try to cheat?

If Braun was guilty, why has he passed every other drug test he was given, including a follow-up test shortly after the one in question detected elevated levels of testosterone?

As with most issues, there are serious shades of gray. Opinions, however, are mostly black and white. Those who want to think Braun is guilty won't change their minds. Nor will those who want to think he's innocent.

Brewers fans will stick with him no matter what, the same way Giants and Cardinals fans who were deceived by Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire still cheer their heroes.

Braun has always seemed to be a decent guy. I want to believe him. It's not easy.

^

Urlacher, Cutler can learn from my new partnership

^

The Bald Truth

Observant folks might notice that, right next to the lead headline of the day here on TBT, there is a new icon announcing that this friendly neighborhood blog is now "A Proud Partner of SportsFanLive.com."

It's true. The site was created about a year ago by David Katz, the former head of Yahoo Sports, and the ultimate goal - besides conquering the world - is to make SportsFanLive.com a go-to place for sports fanatics everywhere. There are blogs from all over the country (soon to include The Baldest Truth) as well as news items, interactive games, polls and oodles of opportunities for fans to find and chat with each other.

Check it out. And do so often. Every time that icon is clicked, I make another $1.2 million dollars!

OK, I'm exaggerating. I barely even get half that much.

In A Rush

Gotta hurry up and finish this thing. I'm planning a busy evening of watching anything but the X Games. Hello, syndicated reruns of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air!

The Balder Truth

Ex-Bears and current Vikings receiver Bobby Wade is catching grief from his former coach and teammates after telling a Twin Cities radio station that Brian Urlacher recently called Jay Cutler a "wussy." (Just trade the "w" for a "p.")

Nice to know that Bobby Wade can catch something. He sure didn't do much catching during his time in Chicago.

But hey, this is a fun story. Do I believe Wade's side of it? Sure, why not? Do I believe that if it's true it will make it impossible for Urlacher and Cutler to coexist, therefore undermining the Bears' title hopes? Nah.

Middle linebackers are supposed to hate quarterbacks. Just about every defensive player on the '85 Bears hated Jim McMahon, and vice versa.

Dat creative tension didn't stop Da Bearsss from winning da big one, my friends.

If I were a Bears fan, I'd worry much more about Cutler's reputation as a choker and a whiner than about whether or not the new QB has to pussy-foot around the old MLB.

Worth A Shot (& A Beer)

Then again, maybe President Obama should just invite Urlacher and Cutler to the White House for a few brewskis.

And Obama should do it sooner than later. A socialist Kenyan Muslim like him won't be able to maintain his grasp on the presidency for long.

THE BALDEST TRUTH

The New York Times is reporting that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were among the 100-plus evil-doers on the infamous (and supposedly confidential) list of ballplayers who tested positive for steroids in 2003.

Ho. And hum.

The Red Sox aren't going to give back their 2004 and 2007 titles. Nobody is surprised by this revelation. And fans sure as hell don't care.

The Times is to be commended for exposing Big Papi, Manny, A-Roid, Shammy and all assorted other juicers. And it should keep doing so as a public service ... even if the public barely can muffle its collective yawn.

No cork-popping for Sammy

^

The List

Sammy and his handlers aren't talking publicly yet, but they already are getting their excuses lined up in a row:

5. It was a mistake. I just picked the wrong drugs, the ones I use for batting practice - just to put on a show for the fans. I like to make people happy.

4. I accidentally took the spiked supplements that Miguel Tejada gave Rafael Palmeiro.

3. No comprende, senor.

2. Have you ever tried to pick up the key to New York City? It's heavy, buddy! I had to do something to get a little stronger.

1. It was A-Rod's cousin's fault!

The Bald Truth

But seriously, folks ... I don't know about you, but I am shocked.

Shocked, I tell you!

I mean, who would have looked at Sammy Sosa back in his 60-plus-homer heyday and thought, "Hey, this guy just might be ingesting more than Flintstones vitamins, his claimed performance-enhancers"?

Sammy was so svelte back then. Not at all Michelin Mannish. His head wasn't the size of a musk melon, only a cantaloupe.

And he was so even-keeled. No 'roid rage with Sammy. No paranoia. No moodiness. He was always about the team. Never about the stats. Never about the money. 

He certainly wasn't the kind of guy who'd panic and react to a slump by corking a bat or anything.

Hey, just because the New York Times says Sammy's name was on the list of 104 juicers - right up the alphabet from A-Roid Rodriguez - in what was supposed to be an anonymous testing back in 2003, does that make it true?

Next thing you know, all these negative nabobs will be saying that Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds were taking steroids, too!

The Question

While giving journalistic props to the Times and to Sports Illustrated (which broke the A-Roid story earlier this year), doesn't it make you squirm just a little knowing that something supposedly done in strict confidence is being leaked to the media drip by drip?

THE BALDEST TRUTH

They are all guilty, every last one. 

From the juicers themselves to the skinniest dude in cleats who never even took aspirin to the managers to the GMs to the union honchos to The Commish.

They all knew it was going on and they all looked the other way.

Nobody's clean. Nobody.

So when the time comes, do those of us with Hall of Fame votes check the box next to Sosa, Bonds, Roger Clemens and their ilk ... or do we refuse to vote for anybody who played between 1983 and 2004, even if it means we have to turn in blank ballots?

From Cra-Z to delusional Sammy

^
The Bald Truth

Word is, Cra-Z Zambrano missed the Cubs' flight to Atlanta because he couldn't afford the CTA fare to O'Hare.

Hey, it went up by a whole quarter not too long ago!

The Balder Truth

Nice job by the White Sox bringing up ballyhooed infield prospect Gordon Beckham.

It was time to dump Wilson Betemit (The Impediment) and to dial back the playing time of Whiffmeister Josh Fields.

The Sox could have gotten away with saying that their 2008 No. 1 draft pick needed "more seasoning" in the minors - which would have been a good way to delay his eventual big-bucks earning potential.

But they are trying to win now ... and really, is there any way Beckham can do any worse than Fields and Betemit?

Not as long as he doesn't wear a blindfold to the batter's box and oven mitts when taking the field.

THE BALDEST TRUTH

Gotta love this nugget from ESPNdeportes.com: Sammy Sosa says he soon will announce his retirement. He also told the Web site he won't allow his legacy to be tainted by all those who say he used steroids.

"Everything I achieved, I did it thanks to my perseverance, which is why I never had any long, difficult moments. I will calmly wait for my induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Don't I have the numbers to be inducted?"

So many reactions, so little time ...

1. Sammy isn't already retired?

2. If Sammy actually used "perseverance" correctly in a sentence - be it a Spanish sentence, an English sentence or a Hebrew sentence - I'll pay Cra-Z's next "el" fare.

3. Sure ... no long, difficult moments at all for Sammy. Unless one counts a week-long suspension for using a corked bat, a trip to the DL after a sneeze-enduced back ailment, permanent banishment from Cubbieland - and corresponding boom-box destruction - after his premature departure from Wrigley Field during the 2004 season finale, numerous strikeout-filled batting slumps, etc., etc., etc.

4. Yes, Sammy certainly has Hall-worthy numbers. And he might want to call his "buddy," Mark McGwire, to chat about exactly what those numbers are worth to cynical, juicer-denying Hall voters.

5. Here's hoping Sammy enjoys his calm wait. His long, calm wait. His 20-year long and ultimately unfulfilling, calm wait. He just might want to accept his invitation into the Corking Hall of Fame, because that's about the only one that figures to come a-callin'.

Cubs No. 31: Right Number, Wrong Call

^

Here are Pitcher X's numbers:

++10 seasons.

++Average of 13 victories per year with .543 winning percentage.

++3.61 ERA.

++One Cy Young Award, 2 All-Star Game appearances.

++One 20-win season.

++Zero seasons of 200 or more strikeouts.

++Zero seasons of 270 of more innings pitched.

++One postseason appearance, going 0-1 with a 13.50 ERA in two starts as his team lost series.

If one is in a generous mood, one would call those results "good." Nothing more, possibly less.

And certainly not worthy of having one's number retired!

Well, congratulations to Pitcher X, a.k.a. Greg Maddux. 

He is going to be celebrated Sunday at Wrigley Field because ... um ... why?

Because the only categories in which he ranked in the Cubs' top 10 all-time were losses, home runs allowed, games started and strikeouts?

No, because he happened to have worn No. 31, that's why.

It's the same No. 31 that was worn by Fergie Jenkins, a true Cubs great whose number should have been retired before Maddux ever threw his first big-league pitch.

What Jenkins did in a Chicago uniform was so superior, Maddux almost should be embarrassed to share the spotlight Sunday. (But really, he has nothing to be embarrassed about because this was the Cubs' call and not his.)

Here are Fergie's facts and figures:

++10 seasons.

++Average of 17 victories per year with .559 winning percentage.

++3.20 ERA.

++One Cy Young Award (and 3 other top-three finishes), 3 All-Star Game appearances.

++Six straight 20-win seasons.

++Four straight seasons of 260 or more strikeouts.

++Seven straight seasons of 271 or more innings pitched, including four straight of 308 or more.

Wow!

And don't forget that while Jenkins was sent packing by the Cubs in 1974, Maddux left on his own accord after the 1992 season. Yes, the Cubs were cheap and stupid. No, I don't blame Maddux for bolting. But it was his decision to go to Atlanta and become an ex-Cub.

Then, when Maddux returned to the North Side in 2004 to join The Greatest Rotation Ever Assembled By Man Or Beast, he proceeded to go 38-37 over the next three seasons with a 4.26 ERA while never helping the Cubs reach the postseason.

Please, the point here isn't to denigrate Maddux. It's to wonder why the Cubs feel the need to include him in the long-overdue ceremony to retire Jenkins' number.

A cynic might suggest that there are racial overtones to the whole thing, given that Maddux is a popular white guy and Jenkins is a black man who was busted for cocaine possession in 1980.

Sorry, but even I'm not that cynical. I choose to give the Cubs the benefit of the doubt and say race wasn't part of the equation. I simply am convinced that the Cubs want to please as many people as possible. I also believe the Cubs still feel guilty about letting Maddux get away to spend the best part of his career in Atlanta.

There's nothing wrong with those reasons from a marketing standpoint, I suppose, but they're hardly reasons to honor a pitcher who ranks 13th on the team's all-time wins list. In their long, inglorious history, the Cubs have honored only four players by retiring their numbers, and now they're going to do so for a pitcher who ranks 30th on their all-time ERA list?

On his Hall of Fame bust, Jenkins' Cubs hat is proudly displayed. Maddux? His Cooperstown bust will be topped by Atlanta's "A." Let the Braves retire No. 31. (In fact, they will in July.)

Yes, a lot of Cubbie fans think Maddux is "classy." OK, so should the team retire the number of every good guy who also was a good ballplayer? Come on down, Shawon Dunston!

Yes, a lot of Cubbie fans from the Harry Caray Era - when the team became a phenomenon and when going to Wrigley became an event - adored Maddux. OK, so should the team retire the number of every fan favorite? Hello, Mickey Morandini!

Frankly, there are a few players not named Maddux that the Cubs could honor with number-retirement ceremonies. 

One could make a darned good argument for Mark Grace, who ranks in the team's all-time top 10 in games, at-bats, runs, hits, total bases, doubles, extra-base hits, RBIs and walks. He also was very popular with fans for more than a decade. It's borderline criminal that the list of those who have gone on to wear Grace's No. 17 includes Bobby Hill, Calvin Murray, Adam Greenberg, John Mabry and Felix Pie. I mean, compared to those nobodies, the latest No. 17, Mike Fontenot, is Hall of Fame material.

(Hey, maybe the Cubs are waiting to retire No. 17 until they can honor both Grace and Fontenot!)

Based on statistics and impact alone, Sammy Sosa is a no-brainer. The stains of steroids, bat-corking, selfishness and petulance make retiring his number tough to justify. Somehow, he deserves having No. 21 worn by wacky Milton Bradley.

How about Kerry Wood? Classy. Charitable. A leader. Loyal. One of the most exciting pitchers of his time. A guy who repeatedly overcame adversity and almost singlehandedly carried the team to its only postseason-series victory of the last century. His proponents could point to his strikeouts and his successful shift to closer - not to mention his four postseason appearances, a figure unheard of in modern-day Cubbieland.

Still, given his history of injuries and his unimpressive victory total, retiring Wood's No. 34 would be a stretch, right?

Well, sure. But he still is every bit as deserving as Greg Maddux.

Juicers Hall of Fame

^
Got a call the other day from USA Today, which was polling BBWAA Hall of Fame voters about A-Roid Rodriguez. The question:

Will I or won't I vote for him when he becomes eligible five years after he retires?

My answer was a reluctant yes.

And not only for A-Roid but for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and, starting next year, Mark McGwire, for whom I hadn't voted his first three years on the ballot. (Sammy Sosa is a tougher sell, because he was caught corking his bat, too.)

What's starting to sink in for me is that the use of performance-enhancing drugs was so widespread from 1985 (and maybe earlier) through 2005 (and maybe later) that I probably either have to vote for every deserving ballplayer or no ballplayer at all, regardless of his stats.

It's obvious that we can't trust any of them. For example, Frank Thomas has denied ever taking steroids and was among the first players to welcome random testing. Then again, he was huge, he was muscular, he was moody and his body broke down, all tell-tale signs of juicing. Now please, I'm not saying The Big Hurt was The Big Syringe. All I'm saying is that we can't be sure.

So do we exclude only the guys named in the Mitchell Report? (Don't forget: McGwire and Sosa were barely mentioned.)

Do we exclude only the Mitchell guys and those whose names are about to be made public from the 2003 testing procedure? (That's what sunk A-Roid, thanks to great reporting by Sports Illustrated's Selena Roberts.)

Do we exclude only the Mitchell guys, the 2003 guys and those we're pretty darned sure took steroids?

Do we exclude only the Mitchell guys, the 2003 guys, the pretty-darned-sure guys and the guys we now suspect are taking HGH and other hard-to-detect enhancers?

Do guys who admit and apologize - even if their admissions and/or apologies are as unsatisfying as A-Roid's was - get dibs over guys who deny? What if the deniers are telling the truth?

Do we throw out two decades of candidates - every darned one of them, from frauds like A-Roid to choir boys like Jim Thome - because even if they weren't users they surely knew juicing was going on in their clubhouses and they chose to ignore it?

Or do we say this:

"Hey, there was the Dead Ball Era, the Live Ball Era, the greenies era, the nearly century-long era that didn't let black men play big-league ball and, from 1985-on, the Steroid Era. The Hall of Fame always has been about how players stacked up against their peers ... and McGwire had to bat against Clemens, Andy Pettitte had to pitch to A-Roid and so on."

The latter is where I'm leaning.

Now excuse me while I go take a long, hot, cleansing shower.

If A-Roid outrages, it'll be a first

^
A-Roid ... A-Fraud ... Ste-Rod ... where does baseball go from here?

At least pro rasslin' is honest about being make-believe.

Seriously, are we supposed to accept as fact any statistic compiled by Alex Rodriguez? Are we supposed to accept any stat by any ballplayer who played from 1985-2005?

Even the guys who contend they're "clean" are guilty - if not by deed than by association.

When Jose Canseco turns out to be the conscience of baseball, the sport is in trouble.

Or maybe not.

Maybe, as I suspect, the vast majority of the paying, viewing, listening and reading public doesn't care who juiced, who didn't and who still might be enjoying the benefits of HGH and other hard-to-detect performance enhancers.

Did the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens allegations convince even 10 people to stop following the exploits of their favorite ballclubs? Five? Didn't think so.

I certainly have difficulty whipping up a good case of outrage when the people who pay these guys' salaries line up to buy tickets and souvenirs and beer. I mean, Sammy Sosa corked his bat and took "Flintstones Vitamins," yet Cubbie fans paid seemingly any price to go to games at the Wrigley Brewtap back then, and they're paying even higher prices now.

So which is it now that A-Roid - the likely all-time home run king before his career ends - probably took slugger's little helpers? Outrage or shoulder shrugs?

Rasslin' with sticks and baseballs ... hey, if everybody's accepting it, I guess it must be OK.

And who knows? Maybe Mickey Rourke can play A-Roid in the movies someday.

Thank you, Michael Phelps

^
The Bald Truth

When Tiger Woods uses profanity in front of thousands of fans, it's not necessarily a bad thing. The same is true of Sammy Sosa corking his bat, Mark McGwire declining to talk about the past and Michael Jordan slugging a teammate.

As for Michael Phelps getting photographed firing up a bong, it could be considered a very good thing ... for us, if not for him.

These cases confirm that our sports heroes aren't gods - and that's rarely bad.

But, some ask, what do we tell our kids?

Well, how about this crazy idea:

The truth.

For example, rather than moan about Phelps sending the message that smoking dope is cool, we can use this as an opportunity to talk to our kids frankly about drug use.

If we're lucky, they might even listen.

The List

Five teaching points provided by the foibles of Phelps (and others):

1. Phelps isn't a god. He's a human being and he's subject to the same human frailties as the rest of us.

Yes, he's very good at what he does - just like millions of others are very good at what they do. He simply happens to do his thing on a public stage. And when he screws up, that takes place on a public stage, too.

2. Actions have consequences.

In Phelps' case, he has lost millions of dollars in endorsements and he suddenly has to repair a once squeaky-clean reputation.

Sounds even worse than getting grounded for a week.

3. Very little in life is black and white. Shades of gray are everywhere.

I often am asked, "Is (insert famous athlete's name here) a good guy?" And I usually answer: "I really don't know." The brief experiences we have with jocks during interviews or autograph sessions tell us little about what kind of people they are. Like the rest of us, they are complex individuals; they do many fine things but they also mess up sometimes.

Few people are all bad, and fewer still are all good.

4. If you think you won't get caught, you're probably wrong.

Cellphone cameras are everywhere. Employers can (and do) monitor workers' e-mail. College recruiters check out YouTube. Everybody's out to make a buck, and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.

Oh, and Moms and Dads have pretty good built-in lie detectors.

5. Smoking dope (or cheating or cursing or fighting or fill-in-the-blank) is wrong.

We won't hurt our kids' sensitive souls by being up-front with them about this kind of stuff. And we might save them some embarrassment (or even their lives) down the line.

The Balder Truth

To recap:

Anytime we can demystify these supposed dieties - and I'm talking about actors and musicians, as well as jocks - it's a good thing.

In an ideal world, all famous people would be ideal role models. But the world isn't ideal, and the people our kids really need as role models are us.

THE BALDEST TRUTH

Regular readers know I rarely sermonize like this. But when USA Today gives valuable space on its editorial page to an "expert" who links Phelps' toking to the actions of insidious creeps such as Mike Tyson and O.J. Simpson, it gets me all fired up.

Clearly, I need something to help me chill out.

Hey, does anybody out there have Michael Phelps' phone number?