Murphy's Pub: Reflecting on the Minnestoa Loss

Four seconds left, a road win pretty much in hand. For some reason, Minnesota, down three, decides to attack the rim rather than taking a 3. Instead of conceding the layup, Myers Leonard stands his ground, Hollins gets bailed out with a foul (Leonard's fifth), makes the tough layup and hits the free throw. The Illini go on to lose in overtime and fall to 4-4 in the Big 10.

I went through a lot of stages of anger at that call. I was angry that the ref 35 feet away from the basket made a call that is a no call 95% of the time (though contrary to some reports, Leonard was not straight up and it WAS probably a foul). I was angry at Leonard for even bothering to contest the shot (giving up the layup in that situation probably seals the game for the Illini - and by fouling out, Leonard killed the Illini in OT). I was angry at Weber for not effectively telling his team not to foul under any circumstances. And I was angry at this Illinois team for letting a game they should have won get away... again (same thing I was feeling after both the Penn State and Wisconsin games).

Last night's loss got me thinking about the state of the Illinois program and Bruce Weber's tenure at Illinois. Since Dee and Augustine graduated in '06, Illinois has been a bubble team almost every year. Look at the results:

'07 - bubble team, sneak into the tournament as a 12 seed, lose a heartbreaker to Virginia Tech in the first round.
'08 - No postseason, not even good enough to qualify for the NT.
'09 - 5 seed. Lose to Western Kentucky in the first round.
'10 - NIT.
'11 - 9 seed. Lose in the second round to Kansas.

The reality is that Illinois has become a mediocre B1G program and the Illini are heading to the bubble again this year (for the 4th time in 6 years - '08 and '09 the exceptions). Those results are unacceptable and it's time for the program to head in another direction.

Drinking away another loss, here at Murphy's Pub.

Murphy's Pub: A Belated Ode to Brandon Paul's Historic Night

Brandon Paul scored 43 points Tuesday in a shocking upset win over a really good Ohio State team on only 15 field goal attempts. Paul added 8 rebounds and 4 emphatic blocks in the finest individual performance I have ever seen from a basketball player in the Orange and Blue.

Paul has been, at best, extremely inconsistent this year. He put the Illini on his back late in the win over St. Bonnaventure. His defense against John Shurna in the second half of the Northwestern game was a huge factor in the Illini grabbing that crucial road win.

The bad for Brandon Paul? He has been so bad offensively (29% from 3 heading into the Ohio State game, countless random passes to no one throughout the season) that during the Minnesota-Illinois game, I was a part of the Brandon Paul drinking game. Essentially, every time Paul made a mistake, we had to drink. And none of us were feeling good after the game.

But Paul is redeemed. With no shortage of hyperbole, Brandon Paul's performance against Ohio State made him immortal. I have been an Illinois fan for a very long time. I've seen Brian Cook score 20+ in a half. I've seen Dee Brown making 28 footers whenever he wanted against Michigan State in '06. I have never seen someone put together two flawless halves like Paul did on Tuesday. In fact, no one in the Big 10 has seen a game like that since Glenn Robinson was dominating the Big 10 at Purdue in the mid 90s. Someday, years from now, an Illini guard is going to be going crazy. Making threes with hands in the face, getting to the line, putting the Illini on his back. And the announcers will bring up Brandon Paul's night from 2012 as the measuring stick for how good of a game that future Illini is having.

Enjoy it Brandon Paul. Cheers from Murphy's Pub.

The Steroid Era, Ron Santo and the Absurdity of the Baseball Hall of Fame

The Inductees

Barry Larkin and Ron Santo make up the Baseball Hall of Fame (HOF) class of 2012. Barry Larkin was the best shortstop of the 90s and, one could argue, something of a revolutionary player. Larkin played solid defense and had some pop... at shortstop. A position to that point epitomized by the Ozzie Smith’s of the world: light hitting, defensive wizards. Larkin bridged the gap between Ozzie Smith and a generation of shortstops who hit for power. Barry Larkin clearly deserves a place in Cooperstown.

Santo, however, is a different story. Ron Santo was an above average third baseman for a number of years, played excellent defense, and, let’s face it, he was a nice guy who grew in popularity after his time in baseball was done. Prior to the steroid era, there were certain benchmarks that put a player into the Hall of Fame. 3,000 hits. 400 homeruns. Santo didn’t reach either. The most memorable team he played for was the ‘69 Cubs, a team known for giving away a huge lead down the stretch. So he doesn’t hit historical benchmarks, and he doesn’t have that memorable moment that gets him in (see Bill Mazeroski and any other undeserving Hall of Famer who got in on the basis of a mediocre career with a flash of brilliance).

Baseball Reference.com has a wonderful feature where they discuss who a player is most similar to across eras both over the course of their career and by season. Santo’s #1 contemporary per Baseball Reference is Dale Murphy. For each year of his career, the third baseman he projects most closely to is Adrian Beltre. Murphy and Beltre are both nice players, but if they are Hall of Famers, we may as well open the door to anyone that plays decent baseball for a decade. It’s important to note that Santo never received more than 43% of the vote from the writers (75% is necessary for enshrinement) and was elected by the Veteran’s Committee. What does all this mean? It means Santo was enshrined because he was a good guy. He was well liked by his fellow players. His campaign picked up steam in recent years because of the wonderful documentary, This Old Cub and because of Santo’s enormous popularity as a wildly entertaining color guy for the Cubs on WGN.

The Steroid Era

Which brings me to the biggest HOF hot button issue since Pete Rose. What to do about the steroid era. This question will truly come to a head next year when both Bonds and Clemens are eligible for induction for the first time.

Jayson Stark over at ESPN has written some wonderful articles on this subject. Voters ultimately fall into a number of different camps. There are those who won’t vote for anyone from that era, there are those who won’t vote for anyone who ever was linked to steroids, there are those who are going to vote for everyone, and there are those that won’t vote for anyone who tested positive after MLB officially outlawed steroid usage.

If I had a HOF vote, I would vote for who I considered to be the best players of that era. The HOF is, first and foremost, a museum. It’s a museum that tells the story of baseball. There are exhibits to the pioneers of the game, to the individual achievements (see Roger Maris’ 61 home runs while the man himself fails to obtain induction), and to the players that meant something. The museum tells the tale of the greatest players of each and every era. The HOF includes pioneers (Jackie Robinson) and noble, well spoken men (Hank Aaron among others). It also includes cheaters (Gaylord Perry), racists (Ty Cobb), and any number of other shady characters. The HOF should not be a whitewashed exhibit that glosses over the stains on the game. The HOF sells nostalgia, but ignoring the scandals and negative history of the game makes it a representation of what we would like baseball to be rather than what baseball actually is.

In the history of baseball, two deserving men have been denied inclusion to the HOF on grounds beyond what happened on the diamond. Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, on their merits, are the among the best that ever played the game. But they gambled on the game and their punishment is to never have their bust in Cooperstown. Equating the steroid era guys to that is complete and utter nonsense.

So how do you actually grade these guys? Admittedly, past HOF benchmarks cannot be used. 400 homeruns isn’t a reasonable benchmark anymore. Hell, based on the way Rafeal Palmiero has been treated, 500 homeruns is no longer enough. In my mind, the analysis hasn’t changed in 100 years. You get into the HOF in one of two ways. The first, a player is just on another level for a 6-7 year run. Think Sandy Koufax. Think Pedro Martinez. If you have that long of a run of being an elite player, you belong in Cooperstown. The second, you have a long sustained career of excellence. These guys might not have won an MVP award, but they were really good for a really long time with a couple brilliant years thrown in there (see Barry Larkin). If you take the guys from those two columns, you can pretty fairly replicate the baseball players who mattered over an era. To handle the voting in any other way just validates the fact that a large number of the HOF voters are sanctimonious a-holes.


If I Had a Vote

My ballot this year would have included:

Barry Larkin

Jeff Bagwell - 400 HRs and 200 steals. Name me another 1B that can claim that. Top 3 in MVP voting three times (won in the strike shortened 1994).

Tim Raines - loses points with the writers because of his admission that he didn't slide into second in the early 80s because of the vials of cocaine in his back pocket. Raines has the 5th most stolen bases in history (behind Rickey Henderson, Lou Brock, Billy Hamilton and Ty Cobb). Tim Raines was the Moneyball leadoff hitter before Moneyball (.385 career OBP). Raines, as the second best leadoff hitter of the modern era, gets my vote.

Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero - Grouping the two admitted PEDers together. Palmiero fits category 2 (really good for a really long time). Palmiero may have only finished in the top 5 in MVP voting once (5th 1999), but you can't argue with 3,020 hits. Palmiero is in. McGwire was the most feared hitter on the late 90s before Bonds stole the torch. He's absolutely in.

Edgar Martinez - Saving my last vote for my favorite. The argument that Edgar Martinez somehow is barred from the HOF because he was a DH is absurd. Closers are in the HOF and they only pitch an inning a game. If you are allowing specialized players into the HOF, why not a DH? Especially the greatest DH of all-time? And seeing as how Mark Reynolds, Adam Dunn and Ryan Howard all managed to play in the NL, doesn't it stand to reason that if Edgar Martinez had played in the NL between 1995 and 2001, he wouldn't have been able to be a terrible fielding first baseman (his worst season during that time was a .306/.423/.543 with 23 HRs and 116 RBIs)?

Feel free to debate in the comments...

The Lighter Side

Let’s look at some of the absurdities of Hall of Fame voting. One of my favorite things to do every year is look at what ridiculous players are on the HOF ballot. This year? Bill Mueller (you may remember him from his mediocre years on the Cubs) 4 votes. Brad Radke (really?) 2 votes. Eric Young and Javy Lopez (1 vote each - were their mothers awarded HOF votes?). Jeromy Burnitz, Rueben Sierra, Terry Mulholland. All somehow on the ballot. Brian Jordan (you may remember him as the last baseball/football player). And my personal favorite, Tony Womack. Yes, the same Tony Womack who, over the course of his career had a WAR (wins above replacement) of 1.2. That means that for his career, Tony Womack was a little over 1 win better than the average baseball player. Who puts Tony Womack on the HOF ballot? Absurd.

I love the HOF... debate in the comments.