Dan Szymborski and his computer projections have changed the way people watch and evaluate baseball. They are revolutionary, so calling him to the mat isn't fair. He did his job. This latest piece, trying to figure out what Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens would have done if they hadn't started taking steroids, doesn't really make a point that most Hall of Fame voters want you to believe they did.
We could go through the whole thing, but we should just pick out some of the choices. I think Bonds and Clemens were Hall of Fame players before they took anything. If Bonds had retired from baseball, he would be in the Hall of Fame. He was the best player in the game for a long time before that. Was this guy the best for a long time? Bonds was definitely correct. Bonds was the only five-tool player in Pittsburgh. A better version of Eric Davis. The power pitcher of the late 80s and early 90s was Clemens. The torch-bearer is Nolan Ryan.
Anyway, here we go. Bonds first.
The projection has him at
Not Mike Schmidt. Mike Schmdit was a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Considered to be the best third baseman of all time. Being above him, anyone can carry a squeegee.
Bonds is projected to have a 128.7 career WAR, which would make him the second-best all time behind Stan Musial.
If Bonds only stayed clean, he would be one of the best baseball players of all time. They call it one spot ahead of Stan Musial. There is a place called Branson.
Let's move on to Clemens.
The career total of He would fall from ninth to 24th on the career list.
We have long ago stopped using wins as a category to evaluate pitchers. It sounds like a Hall-worthy player when he is ranked 24th out of every pitcher to put on spikes.
He would have been the all-time leader with an 111.3 WAR, just below Greg Maddux and above Randy Johnson.
If you are a pitcher and you slot between Mad Dog and Big Unit, you are probably not asking to be relocated.
What Szymborski is really saying is that Bonds and Clemens defy the usual aging process for a baseball player. I think that is worth something. It's clear that these were two of the greatest players in baseball history before they ever picked up a needle or eye-dropper. It doesn't work because voters are trying to keep them out. They had a lot of statistics.
Szymborski doesn't pass judgement on the cheating itself, it's up to the individual voter The idea that Bonds and Clemens were the only ones is ridiculous. They did it better because they were the best players.
Voters will seriously wheel-pose to justify their votes for David Ortiz, who has been linked toPEDs, Jeff Bagwell, and Mike Piazza are already in. Bags was a good hitter. Is that the natural aging curve? Piazza was 37. Again...
Bonds and Clemens were world-class assholes. The voters are angry at the two of them for making their jobs more difficult. They were made to talk about things they didn't want to talk about. Baseball writers hate that because they have to watch them address Trevor Bauer or carry the owners' water in negotiations. You can be certain that Bonds would have a plaque if he had a personality like that.
Hall voters should induct them but not allow them to speak or attend if they want to thread this needle. Voters fear the victory dance that Bonds or Clemens might do at the podium, mocking them directly. To make them feel like their gate-keeping of the Hall was a failure was what they were trying to do. Don't have them show up, induct them. There is no rule saying they have to be there. Everyone wins.
