|
Post by hchoops on Jan 22, 2020 9:34:38 GMT -5
They were not likable because their cheating gave them a distinct advantage over their peers. The fact that they were great players before they took steroids makes their offenses all the more damning. The comparisons to the spitballers is a false one since the advantages the steroid users received totally outweigh any perceived advantages the spitballers received. and I have never heard that either Drysdale or Ford threw spitters. It is certainly not common knowledge the way that the steroid users is. hchoops - you are no doubt a principled man. And a consistent one at that. While I disagree with you to an extent, I have very much enjoyed your argument. My general opinion is that the HOF writers need to be more consistent. Seems like "steroids" are used as a crutch when it comes to not voting for certain guys for the HOF, when like-ability is really the issue. I also think baseball gets more scrutiny when it comes to steroids than other sports because of the sanctity of the statistics, especially when it comes to home run totals. No one cares about stats in football which is why I think the fan doesn't feel compromised and cheated to the same extent when it is revealed that NFL players took performance-enhancing drugs. A lot more people discuss the growing size of Barry Bonds head over his 20 year career than discuss the head size of Peyton Manning. On a side note, it has been recently hypothesized that 30-50% of NFL players use some form of HGH. And nobody cares! Double standard between the sports. Thanks. Good point about the double standard between baseball and football, but it mostly irrelevant to this argument. Apples vs oranges. The two sports have far too many differences to mention. Cricket has more in common with baseball than football does. I agree that baseball gets more scrutiny because of the sanctity of the stats, but I do not believe that this factor should be a reason to admit blatant cheaters. Bonds would in all fairness have not passed Aaron without the steroids. Add Sosa, McGuire, A-roid. to allow them in would justify their records to history. Fans 50 years from now would consider Bonds the greatest power hitter of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 24, 2020 8:48:51 GMT -5
I look some at the pre-steroid guy. Pittsburgh Bonds probably could have been a 400 home tun guy. Something that used to be a talking point before steroids.
Roger Clemens had 3 Cy Youngs, an AL MVP, and one or two 20 strike out games.
Then I look at Palmeiro. In the five full years before he teamed up with Canseco, he hit 25 home runs once (26). A couple of times not making double digits. Over the next 11 years the only time he failed to hit 35 was in the strike year.
On one hand I see great players who used steroids to become 700 home run/7 Cy Young monsters. On the other hand is a good player who became great because of steroids. I can understand the argument for Bonds or Clemens. I don't think the argument applies to 3000/500 guy Palmeiro
--------------------------------------------------------
As a long time Red Sox fan, if there was a critical, must win game 7, Martinez is on the top guy of Sox I've seen. Tiant would be number 2. Strictly looking at what they did for the Sox, I don't think I'd even put Clemens 3rd
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 24, 2020 10:14:38 GMT -5
Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson are two good examples of ludicrous production increases mid career
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 24, 2020 12:11:27 GMT -5
Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson are two good examples of ludicrous production increases mid career Both not only jumped from very small numbers to 20 home run guys, but on top of that each turned in an outlier 50 home run season
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 24, 2020 16:55:15 GMT -5
Yes, what does it tell you that Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey never reached 50 HR's but Anderson got 50 and Gonzalez 57
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 24, 2020 17:11:19 GMT -5
Tells me, like Hank Aaron, they had great hand-eye coordination and could "snap their wrists" quickly producing great bat speed. . . . . . . Either that or they were on steroids?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 24, 2020 17:32:21 GMT -5
The baseball has significantly changed
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Jan 24, 2020 20:42:11 GMT -5
False comparison. Kaepernick did not cheat Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire and Rodriguez cheated. They should never be in the Hall Not that you need support but just so you know....I agree with you 1,000 percent.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 24, 2020 22:21:43 GMT -5
Yes, what does it tell you that Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey never reached 50 HR's but Anderson got 50 and Gonzalez 57 Steroids or no steroids, it would tell you that comparing statistics in baseball (or any sport) between one era and another is comparing apples to oranges. I think one major reason that Bonds/Sosa/McGwire getting elected to the HOF is such a debate is because specifically when it comes to HOME RUN NUMBERS, baseball fans are obsessed with equalizing statistics across different generations of players. Its pretty well understood that comparing win totals for starting pitchers of two different eras is impossible. No one would make the claim that Cy Young is without a doubt a better player than Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux or Bob GIbson because he had 511 wins and none of the others came close. No one would say that Tony Gwynn hitting .390 in 1994 is less impressive than Rogers Horbsby hitting .420 a century ago because it's well understood that it was a different era. Yet, whenever a power hitter passes another on the all-time home run list, it's viewed differently. hchoops said that Barry Bonds can't possibly be let into the HOF because allowing him in would validate the fact that he is the greatest home run hitter of all-time. Why is this necessarily the case? Bonds was the best power hitter and overall player in his era, the "steroid era", and should be compared to players who played in that time-frame, not to players who died before he was even born. Over the course of a century, the ballparks all changed, the balls have been tightened and loosened multiple times, bullpen strategy has changed, the way hitting is coached has changed, defensive positioning has changed, equipment has changed. Yet when it comes to HR stats, people want to think that the game has remained static for 120 years. Same goes in other sports -- statistics have different meanings across longer periods of time. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points / game in a season. Even with the ridiculous volume-scoring in today's NBA, no one is sniffing that. The NCAA single-game rebound record is 51. Imagine Jehyve Floyd trying to break that record! A bit of a tangent here, but point being you can't paint statistics under one broad brush. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyway, you brought up Brady Anderson. While it wouldn't really surprise me that ANYONE was on steroids at some point between 1980 and 2003, I honestly don't suspect Anderson more than any of his peers. He went from a career high of 21 to all of a sudden breaking out with 50 in 1996, getting moved from lead-off to clean up halfway through the season. After that, he went back to never hitting 30 in a season again. Wade Boggs, on a smaller scale had a year like that somewhat early in his career. He said his swing was just different that year when he incorporated a slight uppercut and when he tried to replicate it the following spring training, he went into a ridiculous slump. He then went back to a more level swing which he stuck with until he retired. He never hit double digit HR again.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 24, 2020 22:29:35 GMT -5
Fine analysis But you omitted the essence of my point about why Bonds, McGuire, Clemens(not a home run hitter), Sosa and A-roid should not be in the Hall is that their blatant CHEATING gave them a major,unfair advantage
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 24, 2020 22:29:58 GMT -5
False comparison. Kaepernick did not cheat Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire and Rodriguez cheated. They should never be in the Hall Not that you need support but just so you know....I agree with you 1,000 percent. May I ask what your opinion would be regarding Roberto Alomar and Pedro Martinez being voted into the Hall of Fame despite testing positive for steroids. And where would you stand on David Ortiz when he becomes eligible?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 24, 2020 22:32:06 GMT -5
Not that you need support but just so you know....I agree with you 1,000 percent. May I ask what your opinion would be regarding Roberto Alomar and Pedro Martinez being voted into the Hall of Fame despite testing positive for steroids. And where would you stand on David Ortiz when he becomes eligible? I would not vote for any of those three.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 24, 2020 22:45:07 GMT -5
Fine analysis But you omitted the essence of my point about why Bonds, McGuire, Clemens(not a home run hitter), Sosa and A-roid should not be in the Hall is that their blatant CHEATING gave them a major,unfair advantage So here is the essence of my opinion. MLB bungled the steroid issue. BIGLY. Turned a blind eye for way too long. Steroid use was rampant in MLB and MiLB for close to two decades. Like it or not, it was part of the game for way too long because of Selig's inaction. But the games were played, seasons were played, postseasons were played, moments were made. History happened. The Hall of Fame is a history museum. The best players from every era are enshrined there. The best players from the steroid era ought to be enshrined there. But instead, we're basically pretending Bonds, Sosa, Clemens and McGwire's accomplishments never happened while Robbie Alomar (a CHEATER!) and Pedro Martinez (a CHEATER!) get voted in. And David Ortiz (a CHEATER!) will get voted in too, trust me. And he should IMO. But if that doesn't open the door for the other guys, then it's clear that the writers are just using "but steroids though" as a crutch to keep guys out that they don't like. They already (rightfully) let Edgar Martinez in just last year, partly IMO to grease the skids for Papi because for years they refused to let Edgar due to the DH stigma. I also am a believer that the guys who VIOLATED MLB Drug Policy while it was enforced starting in 2004 should not get in. So I would NOT vote in Palmiero or Manny. A-Rod a little more of a gray area -- failed the 2003 "anonymous" test with the other 100+ guys, never failed another test but basically admitted and was caught red-handed later on despite never failing a test. He also was punished as a repeat offender when it came to his suspension despite the fact that his "first offense" was the anonymous 2003 test. Totally unrelated but A-Rod's ascent from most hated player in baseball to post-career media darling is one of the most fascinating things I've seen in the sports world. But I digress.........
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 24, 2020 22:48:09 GMT -5
May I ask what your opinion would be regarding Roberto Alomar and Pedro Martinez being voted into the Hall of Fame despite testing positive for steroids. And where would you stand on David Ortiz when he becomes eligible? I would not vote for any of those three. Respect on the conistency.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 25, 2020 7:18:23 GMT -5
Just for discussion, instead of some being inducted, should some former inductees be kicked out?
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 25, 2020 9:49:38 GMT -5
Just for discussion, instead of some being inducted, should some former inductees be kicked out? I don't think there should be guys getting kicked out. That being said, there are guys who have no business in the hall. Don Sutton is my poster child. He was a good pitcher forever, but never a great one. He's in because he won 300 and he did that by winning 15 ish games for 20+ years. He won 20 once. One time finished as high as 3rd in the Cy Young vote. Consistent? Absolutely. Good? Yes. Great and deserving of the hall? I don't think so Totally subjective, and probably obsolete criteria: Back in 1987, I made a game day decision to head to Fenway because Steve Carlton was going to be pitching for the Twins. Even though he was way past his prime I wanted to see him live. Being a guy that people make a special trip to the park to see live is a great line on the hall resume. ------------------------------------------------------------- Never, un-inducted, but Mays and Aaron were banned from baseball for a while. Both took retirement jobs as ambassadors for casinos. While they held those jobs they were banned from baseball and were allowed no greater access to the game than any normal fan buying a ticket. I believe the ban included not participating in any Cooperstown induction events. After some time they quit the jobs and were reinstated.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Jan 25, 2020 12:29:15 GMT -5
Just for discussion, instead of some being inducted, should some former inductees be kicked out? I don't think there should be guys getting kicked out. That being said, there are guys who have no business in the hall. Don Sutton is my poster child. He was a good pitcher forever, but never a great one. He's in because he won 300 and he did that by winning 15 ish games for 20+ years. He won 20 once. One time finished as high as 3rd in the Cy Young vote. Consistent? Absolutely. Good? Yes. Great and deserving of the hall? I don't think so Totally subjective, and probably obsolete criteria: Back in 1987, I made a game day decision to head to Fenway because Steve Carlton was going to be pitching for the Twins. Even though he was way past his prime I wanted to see him live. Being a guy that people make a special trip to the park to see live is a great line on the hall resume. ------------------------------------------------------------- Never, un-inducted, but Mays and Aaron were banned from baseball for a while. Both took retirement jobs as ambassadors for casinos. While they held those jobs they were banned from baseball and were allowed no greater access to the game than any normal fan buying a ticket. I believe the ban included not participating in any Cooperstown induction events. After some time they quit the jobs and were reinstated. I have a ball signed by Carlton and a bunch of his Phillie teammates from the early 70s. My late uncle was a good friend of a guy who pitched for Philly a bit during that period. My uncle would go down to watch them every spring training.
|
|