OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[sayhey24]

Chiming in from the memorabilia side, I think Gil Hodges, Tony Oliva and Cecil Travis should all be in. I agree with Keith Hernandez too -- the greatest fielding player in the history of his position, who was also an MVP and a great hitter. I think his problems are obviously his drug use, the fact that he fell off a cliff at the end of his career, and that he is not your typical first baseman (he hit for average, not for power).

Bill, I love your enthusiasm and your obvious love for the game and your team, but I have to take strong exception to two points you've made.
1 - To compare Dick Allen to Derek Jeter is ludicrous. I love statistics and they are a key part of any Hall of Fame argument, but let's face it, people have to take their nose out of a book when it comes to players that we've been able to see. Derek Jeter is so much more than his numbers -- in his prime he did so many things on the ballfield that are hard to quantify. And he was a winner -- the leader of a team that won multiple championships through different incarnations. Sure those teams included lots of other talent, but Jeter was always a leader. Allen by the way, was by all accounts a terrible teammate and a me-first player (of course he also had to deal with horrible levels of racism that Jeter didn't face). And as for the expansion argument, Allen played through two expansion eras.

And then there's Ryan Braun -- let's be clear on one thing. Ryan Braun absolutely should be considered a pariah. He didn't make "a dumb mistake", he made multiple mistakes, and he made them consciously, thinking of himself over everyone else. He cheated and he blatantly lied about it, and he was willing to ruin an innocent man to try to save himself. He took things to enchance his performance, was a key part of the Biogenesis scandal, and tarnished the game in many ways. My guess is that if he didn't get caught, he would still be cheating and lying. I hope that he is able to rehabilitate himself and make a positive contribution to society, and if that turns out to be the case, he should be saluted for that.

Greg

[Dan Carson]

Almost forgot...

Gavvy Cravath

[Beatles Guy]

Every time Bill posts and makes a case for a player making the Hall of Fame, I become a believer Well written posts with a lot of backup stats. I had never considered Cecil Cooper until his write up a while back, and he definitely made me reconsider Mr. Cooper.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Dan Carson

Almost forgot...

Gavvy Cravath

Gavvy Cravath - see - Cy Williams - see Chuck Klein

see Baker Bowl

[quinnsryche]

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

I agree Tony, but it seems the door has just been slammed shut on all these guys from that period -- Dale Murphy and Trammel are other good examples.
They may be voted in by some old timers committee long after they're gone.
(As I watched Murphy play, I had no doubt he was a Hall of Famer, and I think the numbers back that up -- same for Garvey).

Greg

[MJ]

Lincecum just threw his second no-no. That helps his cause.

[SteveMitchell]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

Tony's top three (while not mine) fit well within the 100+ I would add to make the Hall of Fame truly reflect the 20,000+ who played major league and Negro League baseball. These were the best to ever play the game in nearly 150 years of professional ball and to have 1-2% of them designated as Hall of Fame PLAYERS, to me, seems quite reasonable. In short, the Hall of Fame has got to get beyond Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and other obvious first ballot types.

And I have no problem with the poster after Tony (Kenny Cole) and his comments regarding both Baker Bowl (and player adaptations thereto) and Gavvy Cravath being elected to the HoF.

I enjoy this subject but cannot believe how men who were observed and chronicled by writers of their day as ranking among the all-time greats somehow slip to only Members of the Very Good after leaving as active players.

Great topic, thanks.

Steve Mitchell

[Davino]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Steve Garvey (absolutely STUPID that he's not in)

Ted Simmons (one of the best hitting catchers of all time)

Dave Parker (for at LEAST 10 years one of the most feared hitters of his time)

are my top 3

these are all choices I endorse as well.

[the 'stache]

I'm somewhat torn on Kaat. Yes, he won almost 300 games. Yes, he won 16 Gold Gloves (second most all-time to Greg Maddux). But was he ever the best pitcher in the game, or even in his league?

Here's the problem I have. The Cy Young Award started in 1956. Kaat started his career in 1959. Until 1967, there was just one award. Then there started being an award for each league.

But Kaat, in his 25 year career, only received votes for the Cy Young Award once in his career, in 1975. I'm not saying he only won the Cy Young once. I'm saying that he only got votes--any votes at all--in one year. He was fourth in the '75 AL Cy Young Award. He never received another vote again.

If the voters for that award only thought he was one of the top pitchers one year in twenty-five, how do we put him into the Hall of Fame, which is supposed to recognize he greats of the game?

I looked at all Hall of Fame pitchers that have thrown over 1,000 innings in their career between 1880 and 2014. There are 66 pitchers. I then looked at their ERA +. Kaat's ERA+ is 108. His ERA + would be the 6th worst out of all Major League Hall of Fame pitchers.

I then looked at career WAR. Kaat's 45.3 WAR would be 15th worst.

Next, I looked at career WHIP. Kaat would be 17th worst.

I don't know if those numbers are as reliable as they're purported to be, but it's pretty clear from those metrics, Kaat would be a lower-tier Hall of Famer if here were elected.

I then checked his career averages. Per 162 games played, here are Kaat's career averages:

13 wins, 11 losses, 3.45 ERA, 110 strikeouts

I couldn't help but notice that he only struck out 2,461 batters in 25 years.

Then, I looked at his Hall of Fame statistics



Three out of four metrics, he did not meet the average threshold for a Hall of Famer.

However, one positive would be the most similar pitcher. First is Tommy John, who is not a Hall of Famer. But next are Robin Roberts and Fergie Jenkins, two Hall of Famers. However, Roberts had six straight 20 win seasons where he had a 2.93 ERA. All these years were before the advent of the Cy Young Award. And Jenkins won a Cy Young, finished second twice, finished third twice, and sixth once.

I can see Jim Kaat getting another look, but he's a borderline Hall of Famer in my opinion. A very good pitcher with a few excellent seasons. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he got in, but if I were a voter, I would not vote for him.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I'm somewhat torn on Kaat. Yes, he won almost 300 games. Yes, he won 16 Gold Gloves (second most all-time to Greg Maddux). But was he ever the best pitcher in the game, or even in his league?

Here's the problem I have. The Cy Young Award started in 1956. Kaat started his career in 1959. Until 1967, there was just one award. Then there started being an award for each league.

But Kaat, in his 25 year career, only received votes for the Cy Young Award once in his career, in 1975. I'm not saying he only won the Cy Young once. I'm saying that he only got votes--any votes at all--in one year. He was fourth in the '75 AL Cy Young Award. He never received another vote again.

If the voters for that award only thought he was one of the top pitchers one year in twenty-five, how do we put him into the Hall of Fame, which is supposed to recognize he greats of the game?

I looked at all Hall of Fame pitchers that have thrown over 1,000 innings in their career between 1880 and 2014. There are 66 pitchers. I then looked at their ERA +. Kaat's ERA+ is 108. His ERA + would be the 6th worst out of all Major League Hall of Fame pitchers.

I then looked at career WAR. Kaat's 45.3 WAR would be 15th worst.

Next, I looked at career WHIP. Kaat would be 17th worst.

I don't know if those numbers are as reliable as they're purported to be, but it's pretty clear from those metrics, Kaat would be a lower-tier Hall of Famer if here were elected.

I then checked his career averages. Per 162 games played, here are Kaat's career averages:

13 wins, 11 losses, 3.45 ERA, 110 strikeouts

I couldn't help but notice that he only struck out 2,461 batters in 25 years.

Then, I looked at his Hall of Fame statistics



Three out of four metrics, he did not meet the average threshold for a Hall of Famer.

However, one positive would be the most similar pitcher. First is Tommy John, who is not a Hall of Famer. But next are Robin Roberts and Fergie Jenkins, two Hall of Famers. However, Roberts had six straight 20 win seasons where he had a 2.93 ERA. All these years were before the advent of the Cy Young Award. And Jenkins won a Cy Young, finished second twice, finished third twice, and sixth once.

I can see Jim Kaat getting another look, but he's a borderline Hall of Famer in my opinion. A very good pitcher with a few excellent seasons. I certainly wouldn't be upset if he got in, but if I were a voter, I would not vote for him.

I agree with everything you wrote except that I wouldn't put any stock in the Cy Young voting. For much of his career there was only one Cy Young given for the entire major leagues and voters could only vote for one pitcher. As a result in 1966 when Kaat almost certainly have won the AL award if it existed he lost out to Sandy Koufax who received all twenty votes from the sportswriters.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I looked at all Hall of Fame pitchers that have thrown over 1,000 innings in their career between 1880 and 2014. There are 66 pitchers. I then looked at their ERA +. Kaat's ERA+ is 108. His ERA + would be the 6th worst out of all Major League Hall of Fame pitchers.

I then looked at career WAR. Kaat's 45.3 WAR would be 15th worst.

Next, I looked at career WHIP. Kaat would be 17th worst.

I really like that you are considering how an 'average' HOF'er performed, as opposed to the worst HOF'er for each stat. Too many people would say: "So his WAR is higher than 14 current HOF'ers, his WHIP is better than 16 HOF'ers and his ERA is better than 5 current HOF'ers - obviously, he should be in the HOF."

But I really do like Kaat - out of all the less-than-great-but-better-than-average players in Twins history, and they seem to have more than any other franchise, Kaat and Oliva are at the top.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Gavvy Cravath - see - Cy Williams - see Chuck Klein

see Baker Bowl

Yes, the right field fence was only 280 feet away in the Baker Bowl. However, the dimensions at the Polo Grounds, where the Giants (and the Yankees for a while) played were even smaller in both right AND left field. It was only 279 feet to the left field foul pole and 258 feet to the right field foul pole but I don't hear anyone saying that any of the Giant or Yankee HOFers who played there -- including Mel Ott -- shouldn't have been elected because they got a bunch of cheap home runs at the Polo Grounds that really shouldn't count.

One sign of a good ballplayer is that he adapts to the quirks and characteristics of his home ball park. I don't have too much heartburn over Gavvy Cravath (a right handed hitter btw) figuring out how to take advantage of the Baker Bowl's dimensions and hit to right field anymore than I do the old Baltimore Orioles manicuring their infield to assist them in bunting or right handers taking advantage of the Green Monster's short dimensions.

Lots of people played in the Baker Bowl without leading the league in home runs on multiple occasions. Cravath's production, in particular, was prodigious in a pretty short span of time due to his late start in the majors. He was the Ralph Kiner of his time and if he were to be elected it wouldn't bother me at all.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yes, the right field fence was only 280 feet away in the Baker Bowl. However, the dimensions at the Polo Grounds, where the Giants (and the Yankees for a while) played were even smaller in both right AND left field. It was only 279 feet to the left field foul pole and 258 feet to the right field foul pole but I don't hear anyone saying that any of the Giant or Yankee HOFers who played there -- including Mel Ott -- shouldn't have been elected because they got a bunch of cheap home runs at the Polo Grounds that really shouldn't count.

One sign of a good ballplayer is that he adapts to the quirks and characteristics of his home ball park. I don't have too much heartburn over Gavvy Cravath (a right handed hitter btw) figuring out how to take advantage of the Baker Bowl's dimensions and hit to right field anymore than I do the old Baltimore Orioles manicuring their infield to assist them in bunting or right handers taking advantage of the Green Monster's short dimensions.

Lots of people played in the Baker Bowl without leading the league in home runs on multiple occasions. Cravath's production, in particular, was prodigious in a pretty short span of time due to his late start in the majors. He was the Ralph Kiner of his time and if he were to be elected it wouldn't bother me at all.

The Baker Bowl had a much shorter right field power alley than both the left and right field power alleys of the Polo Grounds. There is no denying that the Polo Grounds inflated Mel Ott's HR totals (though he had a higher BA on the road) but the Baker Bowl inflated Chuck Klein's numbers far more. In 1931 Klein batted .401 at home w/22 HRs but on the road he hit just .269 w/9 HRs and that wasn't even the season he had his biggest disparity. Look at the home/road splits for any of the Phillies left-handed sluggers of the 20s and 30s, Cy Williams, Lefty O'Doul, Don Hurst, and you'll see significant disparities in both HRs and BA.

I agree that as a right handed hitter Cravath deserves credit for adapting his swing to take advantage of the Baker Bowl but it is worth noting that on the road he was just an ordinary HR hitter.

[Beatles Guy]

As for Ozzie Smith, I think what helps him is the era that he played in and the teams he played on. The NL was relatively thin on shortstops in his prime years. He also played on three pennant winning teams and a World Series winner. He was an All Star in 15 of his 19 seasons, which always put him on the national stage.

One stat that everyone seems to forget is his base stealing ability. He had nearly 600 steals for his career, averaging 37 a year. He struck out very little and had nearly two times as many walks as he did strikeouts.

Forgot to mention, he is #1 all time in Defensive WAR, four runs better than #2, Mark Belanger.

[Peter_Spaeth]

if Bill has seriously suggested Cecil Cooper should be in the HOF, he has lost all credibility.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

if Bill has seriously suggested Cecil Cooper should be in the HOF, he has lost all credibility.

I don't think he should be in the Hall, but I do think his career merits another look out of respect.

I'd basically stated that Cooper's chances at Cooperstown were basically wiped out because they didn't play him while he was in Boston. In his first three seasons, he played in 14, 12 and 30 games.

If he'd started playing earlier, I think he'd have had made for an interesting debate. But as great as he was, I don't think he's on that level.

[leaflover]

How could Bill Mazeroski be voted into the HOF and not Dick Groat??

[pbspelly]

I vote with the others for Keith Hernandez. Greatest defensive first baseman ever, and an excellent hitter. I think he gets a bit of a bad rap because of his drug problems mid-career, but he got his act back together and was a beautiful player. The Mets never would have been the powerhouse they were in '86 without him.

A fascinating book of his, by the way, is Pure Baseball, where he comments and dissects two baseball games pitch by pitch.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

0
And then there's Ryan Braun -- let's be clear on one thing. Ryan Braun absolutely should be considered a pariah. He didn't make "a dumb mistake", he made multiple mistakes, and he made them consciously, thinking of himself over everyone else. He cheated and he blatantly lied about it, and he was willing to ruin an innocent man to try to save himself. He took things to enchance his performance, was a key part of the Biogenesis scandal, and tarnished the game in many ways. My guess is that if he didn't get caught, he would still be cheating and lying. I hope that he is able to rehabilitate himself and make a positive contribution to society, and if that turns out to be the case, he should be saluted for that.

Greg

Greg, if you choose to consider him a pariah, nothing I show you is going to change your mind. But I'm going to address your points anyway, just as I have repeatedly in several other discussions before this one. Why? Because if I don't, then the falsehoods printed by ESPN and Yahoo Sports will go unchecked.

I will agree with you on one point. He did make multiple mistakes. One, he used two items that contained banned substances. And, two, he lied about taking them. Beyond that, you are taking creative license. You have no way of knowing if Braun thought of himself above everybody else. That is pure hyperbole. Yes, Ryan Braun let down a lot of Brewer fans, myself included, when he broke the rules, and again to an even greater degree when he lied about what he did. But the media has been completely out of control from the very beginning, printing one inaccuracy, or completely fabricated story, after another. The media and Major League Baseball have both been complicit in their pursuit of Ryan Braun.

TJ Quinn, a writer for ESPN, to the best of my knowledge, is the one that broke the story. Citing "unnamed sources", he wrote an article appearing on ESPN.com that Braun had "tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug." And then, he wrote this:

To affirm the results and strengthen its case, MLB asked the World Anti-Doping Agency lab in Montreal, which conducts its testing, to perform a secondary test to determine whether the testosterone spike resulted from natural variations within Braun's body or from an artificial source. The test indicated the testosterone was exogenous, meaning it came from outside his body.

Now, I am getting these early quotes from a story on Deadspin.com. Deadspin correctly points out that Quinn, while stating Braun tested positive for a PED, never named the drug taken. Keep in mind, too, that this story was broken while Ryan Braun had started what was supposed to be a completely confidential appeals process. Right off the bat, ESPN ignores Braun's right to confidentiality, which was guaranteed by Major League Baseball, by breaking this story. ESPN basically walked all over Braun so they could get higher ratings. And they've been doing it for well over two years now.

Ryan Braun tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone in the fall of 2011. From what I have read, the test was taken right before the end of the Milwaukee Brewers-Arizona Diamondbacks post season series. Braun was one of several players who gave urine samples to collector Dino Laurenzi Jr on this particular afternoon. The levels of T in Braun's urine were reportedly the highest the lab in Montreal had ever seen since Major League Baseball's introduction of the Joint Drug Agreement in 2006. ESPN reported that Braun's T levels were "insanely high".

The New York Daily News:

Milwaukee Brewers star Ryan Braun's original test for performance-enhancing drugs as the playoffs were winding down in October was "insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken.
According to the source, there are also chain-of-custody issues involving the test, which was first performed by Major League Baseball during the playoffs, then sent to the WADA lab. A positive test in MLB is triggered by an elevated level of testosterone to epitestosterone; the trigger point is a 4-1 ratio.

"The argument before the appeals board won't be that the original ratio was so high and doesn't make sense," said the source, "but there will be a defense. It's not something he knew or should have known about."

With me so far? At this point, ESPN has reported that Braun tested positive for a PED (performance enhancing drug), and that his testosterone levels were insanely high.

But both the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reported that Braun had tested positive for a banned substance, not a performance-enhancing drug.

The Journal-Sentinel

"A very good source on the Ryan Braun side of the drug testing controversy assures me that Braun did not test positive for a performance-enhancing drug, as reported by ESPN's "Outside the Lines."

[...]

But my source—and again, this is from Braun's end and not MLB—familiar with the test's findings says the "prohibited substance" was not a performance-enhancing drug or steroid of any kind. And the source says there has "never" been a result like this in the history of the MLB testing program."

Again, with me so far? Braun and his attorneys never challenge why his Testosterone level is so high (though he could have). Instead, they decide to pursue their overturn on procedural grounds. It can be proven when a urine test was given. It can be proven when the sample was dropped off at Fed Ex. It was proven that the collector had been employed in this position for several years, and that they knew that there were several Fed Ex locations within 5 miles of Miller Park, and at least one of them was open 24 hours. Like any good defense team would have done, they pursued the easiest path to a win--and got the suspension overturned on procedural grounds.

Ryan Braun gives his statement at the Miller Park press conference after his appeal is overturned. You said he ruined an innocent man to save himself, correct? Here is exactly what he said in the press conference about the collector (whom he did not name, by the way)

Transcript from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

""So at that point, we start looking into the process. It states in the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment program that all samples shall be taken immediately to FedEx on the day they’re collected absent unusual circumstances. The reason that this is important, typically the only two people in the world who know whose sample it is are us, the donor, and the collector, who receives our urine samples. In my case there was an additional third person, the son of the collector, who just so happened to be the my chaperone on the day that I was tested. The day of the test we had a 1 o’clock game. I provided my sample at about 4:30. There were two other players who provided their samples that day within 10 minutes of mine. The collector left the field at about 5 o’clock. There were at least five FedEx locations within five miles of the stadium that were open until 9 p.m. and an additional FedEx location that was open for 24 hours. There were upwards of 18 or 19 FedEx locations that were open between the ballpark and his house that he could have dropped the samples off at."Why he didn’t bring it in, I don’t know. On the day that he did finally bring it in, FedEx opened at 7:30. Why didn’t he bring it in until 1:30? I can’t answer that question. Why was there zero documentation? What could have possibly happened to it during that 44-hour period? There were a lot of things that we learned about the collector, about the collection process, about the way that the entire thing worked that made us very concerned and very suspicious about what could have actually happened.

What Braun is doing is laying out for the reporters present at the press conference how they went about getting the suspension overturned. He did not "throw the collector under the bus". He didn't "ruin an innocent man to save himself". What he said was entirely accurate. He established that procedures were not followed. He is not insinuating the collector did something sinister. Rather, he is telling the reporters "this guy knew how to do his job. He'd been doing it for years. He knew there were Fed Ex locations close by, as well as on the way home, where he could have dropped the urine samples off. And the collector did not do that.

Is anything Ryan Braun said there not completely accurate? Dino Laurenzi Jr was suspended by his employer because he did not do his job properly, not because of anything Braun did or said. Can you or any of the people who have been claiming character assassination by Ryan Braun show why Laurenzi Jr did not drop off the samples as was required by his job? The verbiage is quite clear, that "all samples shall be taken immediately to FedEx on the day they’re collected absent unusual circumstances". In all the rancor directed at Ryan Braun by his dissenters, I don't recall one person providing an acceptable explanation for why the samples were not dropped off.

Here is part of the statement made by Laurenzi Jr after his name was made public:

"Given the lateness of the hour that I completed my collections, there was no FedEx office located within 50 miles of Miller Park that would ship packages that day or Sunday. Therefore, the earliest that the specimens could be shipped was Monday, October 3. In that circumstance, CDT has instructed collectors since I began in 2005 that they should safeguard the samples in their homes until FedEx is able to immediately ship the sample to the laboratory, rather than having the samples sit for one day or more at a local FedEx office. The protocol has been in place since 2005 when I started with CDT and there have been other occasions when I have had to store samples in my home for at least one day, all without incident.

Apparently, however, there were several Fed Ex locations that could have accepted the package. When they would be shipped to the lab is immaterial. The reason it is so vitally important that the samples be dropped off at Fed Ex is from that point forward, there is no way of identifying who the samples belong to. Braun alluded to this in his statement:

"When FedEx received the samples, it then creates a chain of custody at the FedEx location where he eventually brought my sample to. It would have been stored in a temperature-controlled environment, and FedEx is used to handling clinical packaging. But most importantly, you then would become a number and no longer a name. So when we provide our samples, there is a number and no longer a name associated with the sample. That way there can’t be any bias – whether it’s with FedEx, while it’s traveling, at the lab in Montreal, in any way – based on somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, what team they play for, whatever the case may be. As players, the confidentiality of this process is extremely important. It’s always been extremely important, because the only way for the process to succeed is for the confidentiality and the chain of custody to work.

At this point, Ryan Braun had his suspension overturned, and he was preparing to play baseball. Some point later, a newspaper broke the Biogenesis story. Over time, it came out that Ryan Braun's name appeared on the papers turned over to MLB not once, but twice. Just his name. No amount due, nothing else. And, in fact, one of Braun's attorneys was also listed on the Biogenesis paperwork.

Braun spoke publicly, stating that Anthony Bosch of Biogenesis was hired by his attorneys for questioning. They wanted to gain knowledge about the process he'd gone through with Manny Ramirez. Of course, there was ESPN again stating that Braun is guilty of using PED--again, and that he is lying about why his name appears on the Biogenesis paperwork.

Remember, initially, Bosch supported what Braun said in his statement. He backed up Braun's explanation of why Braun's name appeared. It was only after Major League Baseball threatened to sue Bosch and his employees that Bosch corroborated MLB's assertion that Ryan Braun had used performance enhancing drugs. Only, it had previously been reported by multiple sources that Braun's testosterone spike was not due to a PED.

But Braun was guilty this time, right?

Major League Baseball, if you ask me, resorted to some draconian tactics to achieve their desired end result. They were so angered that independent arbitrator Shyam Das had sided with Braun that not long after the overturn, they fired him.

THEN, Ken Rosenthal had this:

"ESPN, citing sources, reported: “In exchange for Bosch's full cooperation . . . Major League Baseball will drop the lawsuit it filed against Bosch in March, indemnify him for any liability arising from his cooperation, provide personal security for him and even put in a good word with any law enforcement agency that might bring charges against him.”

What could Ryan Braun do? Major League Baseball basically coerced Anthony Bosch, a man with no credibility, to testify in a way that would benefit their ongoing campaign against Ryan Braun. Braun had embarrassed MLB when he got his suspension overturned. Now MLB were going to get the suspension they didn't get the first time around. Faced with information that he has not made public, Braun decided to take his suspension of 65 games to put this behind him. Braun then began working to repair his image.

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

In a first step toward seeking forgiveness and understanding, suspended Milwaukee Brewers slugger Ryan Braun issued a carefully worded yet humble admission of guilt and apology Thursday evening for his use of a banned substance during the 2011 season and deceitful actions afterward. In his public apology, Braun never used the words "performance-enhancing drugs" in detailing what led to his suspension by Major League Baseball from its investigation of the notorious Biogenesis clinic. He was suspended for the remaining 65 games of the season on July 22 and did not appeal the ban.

As was reported by both the Journal-Sentinel and Ken Rosenthall, and subsequently other media outlets, Braun did not test positive for a performance enhancing drug, but a banned substance. And he did not admit to using a PED here...because he didn't use a PED.

Braun's account of what happened:

"Here is what happened," Braun said in his statement. "During the latter part of the 2011 season, I was dealing with a nagging injury and I turned to products for a short period of time that I shouldn't have used.

"The products were a cream and a lozenge which I was told could help expedite my rehabilitation. It was a huge mistake for which I am deeply ashamed and I compounded the situation by not admitting my mistakes immediately."

Greg, you mentioned that Braun was a key part of the Biogenesis scandal, right? How so? Again, his name was listed twice on pieces of notebook paper produced by Biogenesis. No amounts. No drug names next to Braun. And in fact, one of Braun's attorneys was also listed on the sheet with Braun. Did he take PEDs, too?

Again, written by Tom Haudricourt, from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

During its Biogenesis investigation and interviews with clinic operator Tony Bosch, MLB discovered no evidence that Braun purchased testosterone before or after the 2011 season. So, barring the unknown, his account of the time frame of his testosterone use was truthful.

MLB found nothing to prove the assertion that Ryan Braun used a performance enhancer.

At this point, you are going to still think Braun used a PED, Greg. That's fine. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. I am merely providing all of this information because it is important to me that the truth has at least a chance to cut through all the BS that's been printed. I mean, seriously, how many times did ESPN change it's story?

1. Ryan Braun tested positive for a PED.
2. Ryan Braun did not test positive for a PED, but a banned substance.
3. Ryan Braun tested positive for a banned substance used to treat an STD.

Keep throwing them out, and the reading public is going to believe one variation, right?

Then there was the story from Jeff Passan on Yahoo Sports. The one that asserted Ryan Braun contacted Joey Votto, Matt Kemp and Troy Tulowitzki, asking them for public support because collector Dino Laurenzi Jr was an anti-semitic Cubs fan out to get him!

I find it amusing that the original article by Jeff Passan no longer appears on Yahoo Sports. Instead, another article in which Passan both backtracks, and attempts to place the blame on ESPN, appears.

The revised article on Yahoo Sports

Suspended Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun told players around baseball before spring training 2012 that the man who collected his urine that tested positive for synthetic testosterone was anti-Semitic and a Chicago Cubs fan in an effort to gather support throughout the game, sources familiar with the matter told Yahoo! Sports.

ESPN.com first reported that Braun had reached out to fellow players. While Yahoo! Sports previously reported Braun had contacted Joey Votto and Troy Tulowitzki, on Monday they denied having any conversations with Braun about test collector Dino Laurenzi Jr.

Yahoo Sports didn't previously report that, Jeff. You did.

The day after the original article by Passan appeared on Yahoo Sports, both Joey Votto and Troy Tulowitzki flatly denied the conversation ever took place.

Votto says Braun did not reach out to him

ESPN.com and Yahoo! Sports reported that Ryan Braun reached out to Joey Votto, and other stars, before the 2012 season while Braun was dealing with his appeal of his suspension for failing a drug test.
Yahoo’s Jeff Passan reported a source told him Braun was looking for support to back his appeal against a positive drug test. The report said Braun told stars around baseball, including Votto, that Dino Laurenzi Jr., the man who collected Braun’s urine sample, was anti-Semitic and a Chicago Cubs fan.
Votto said he never spoke with Braun.
“As far as a phone call, I have no problem getting AT&T into this if they like,” Votto said. “There was never a phone call. It’s so silly to have to comment on this. That was really odd. I heard about it last night and it really bothered me. There was not that phone conversation.
“I don’t know him well enough.”
Votto further said he would not have done anything if asked.

Cincinnati.com article

Troy Tulowitzki wants Ryan Braun to come clean and explain his suspension

Yahoo! Sports wrote that Braun tried to curry support with players, including Tulowitzki, the Dodgers’ Matt Kemp and the Reds’ Joey Votto, by alleging that Dino Laurenzi Jr., the sample collector, was anti-Semitic and a Cubs fan.

“He never say anything like that to me or asked for my support,” Tulowitzki said after reading the story on Monday.

“I talked to him throughout the whole process. It was more as a friend. It wasn’t anything more than that. He never tried to change my opinion on the subject or anything like that. It was more of me saying, ‘Hey, how is this going? Is this taking a toll on you?’^

So Jeff Passan concocts this story about Ryan Braun. The next day two of the men "unnamed sources" list as being contacted by Braun, Tulowitzki and Votto, come out and basically say Passan is full of it. But, you still see people today stating that Braun tried to assassinate Dino Laurenzi Jr's character by painting him as this Jew hating Cubs fan. It's simply not true. But by printing that article, true or not, the damage was done, and no half-assed pseudo-retraction by Passan is going to fix that. A headline stating "Braun called collector a Jew hating Cubs fan!" is going to grab a lot more readers than "Votto says conversation didn't happen". These media outlets have no form of oversight whatsoever. A player can sue them if they print something blatantly libelous. But that leaves a lot of gray areas for these writers to take their cheap shots, and get away with it.

This Passan story is emblematic of what's been going on with the sports media since the Braun story was first broken. And by the time they're done, you read comments from people, and they're calling Braun a pariah. People saying that Braun is a sociopath, like O.J. Simpson. The quantum leaps people make is just sad.

Yes, Ryan Braun used something he shouldn't have. He broke the rules to try and get healthy.

The Brewers had won 96 games in 2011. That's the most in team history. We finally had a team capable of winning a World Series, something that the Brewers have never done in their 40 year history. And Ryan Braun, playing at well below 100%, knew this was their one chance to win a title with this core of players that had gone through the minor leagues together (Rickie Weeks, JJ Hardy, Prince Fielder, Corey Hart and Braun), as Prince Fielder was surely leaving Milwaukee once the season ends. So, Braun does something dumb. He uses two substances in an effort to expedite the healing of a calf injury that had been plaguing him the entire season, a calf injury so bad that the Brewers sent Braun for an MRI, and considered putting him on the DL. And while he didn't take a performance enhancer as we understand them, he did take something to try and get as close to normal as possible. I suppose that could be looked at as a performance enhancer of sorts. But Ryan Braun did not break the rules to cheat the game, or hit more home runs. He did so to try and get better. He tried to be at the same level he almost always was so he could help deliver a World Series to the city that had embraced him. Ryan Braun had signed a huge $105 million extension through the 2020 season before the 2011 season had even started. So, the assertion that Braun cheated to make more money is completely off the mark. Braun extended his contract, foregoing the chance to make more money as a free agent, because he loved Milwaukee. Braun is very active working with charities in southeast Wisconsin. He started two different businesses in Milwaukee, a clothing company, and a restaurant with friend Aaron Rodgers. In doing so, he created jobs. Braun did all this because he loved Milwaukee. He took two substances he shouldn't have so he could give Milwaukee, a great baseball town, something it hadn't had since 1957.

His actions were wrong. His lying to cover it up was worse. But I don't think his motivation was self-serving at all. And as I said, he deserved the suspension he served at the end of last season. But before you call him a pariah again, Greg, please try to get some facts. Braun is not the self-centered, pampered athlete he's been made out to be. He's actually a good guy. Troy Tulowitzki said that even after all this, he still considers Braun a friend. Do you think he'd say that if Braun was a bad man, or somebody he couldn't respect? Even during the Brewers-Nationals game today, the play by play guy for Washington was talking about Braun. He said "he's a really good guy that made a dumb mistake, and then made an even dumber mistake".

Braun's image has been tarnished. He's been booed enough. He's trying to make amends. He called season ticket holders in the off season, and personally apologized to them. He listened to them when they told him they were angry, and that they felt betrayed. I don't know what else Braun can do besides go out there, and try to handle things the way he always has.

I think he deserves a second chance.