[thehef]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yeah, that is stretching it a bit for me. There is some truth to what you bring up. But for me it is a bit like prosecutors & police adding in trumped up charges or activist exaggerating the affects in order to sway public opinion. Fans want to dismiss the team aspect when they talk about the best pitchers but then want to add it now for their convenience. I'm not of the mindset of blowing up the whole block to tear down the crack house on the corner. I would need a more direct link than simple knowledge of the cheating. Especially considering these are AL pitchers. How much influence would they have to get their teammates to not use an advantage?

Re "stretching it a bit" - just fyi I was speaking more to your 2nd sentence in your comment here...

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

As of now, I would say no to the HOF for the hitters. The pitchers, I'm not sure how the cheating would have affected their performance on the field. If someone had more info for me I would listen and factor that in. But if we knew they were banging the can to help the batters out, then no.

... and not the first. Just answering how it affected the pitchers. I get your "blowing up the block" analogy when it comes to the HOF for pitchers.

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I know you're using it as an example, but do you really think stealing a sign is going to produce a seven run difference in a game? Yeah, the batters knew it was either going to be a fastball or a breaking ball, but they didn't know where it was going to be. Even in the video shared in this thread showing the actual cheating taking place the better struck out. How much difference does stealing signs make? In Manfred's report it even says the Astros stopped the practice in 2018 because they didn't feel like it was actually helping them.

Not condoning the cheating, just questioning how much affect it actually has.

Yes, I'm using the extreme example. I'm sure the system worked better in some games or innings or at-bats that in others. (I'm mean, during the HR contest before the All-Star Game, not all of the grooved pitches get the Niedenfuer-to-Clark treatment.) We'll never know for sure, but Game Five of the 2017 World Series was likely an example of where the system worked pretty well, but not for the first three innings (vs Kershaw). Why not? Well, and I'm just using a combo of speculation and common-sense, but this day and age many of the catchers' signs seem pretty complex even when nobody is on base. So it probably takes a few batters at least, maybe a few innings, before the decoders are pretty sure of what the signs mean. (You don't want your best hitters leaning into what they think is a curbevall when instead it's a high-&-tight heater.) And I would assume the system - which relies on a split-second determination of what the pitch is, a quick communication to the signal-giver, and then the signal itself - works better when there are runners on base because, logically, there is more time between the sign from the catcher and the pitch by the pitcher (because of the pitcher checking the runners on base). So, in this example, the BlackStros might've had to wait a few innings to understand the signs, and then wait to effectively use their signals until there were runners on base (Kershaw, with no runners on base, works pretty quick, going into his windup pretty much immediately after getting the sign from the catcher).

Also, I don't have the stats, but I've heard that the home/away splits for certain players (including those highly-suspected of participating in the scheme), and for the BlackStros overall in the 2017 postseason, when compared to other seasons, etc., paint a pretty convincing picture that the scheme had some success.