Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

crixus

HOF - Big Papi In, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa & Schilling Miss Again

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Bob said:

 It's crazy how much steroids help performance. I knew a kid who I used to go to the gym with in college from South Dakota and he did steroids in HS after his junior year football season. He went from being a run of the mill varsity player (honestly a very very average natural athlete) to all state and played at Black Hills until he quit presumably because he could not continue to take roids in college. I have wrestled kids on roids. The gains in strength and speed is unreal. I also know a kid from Cheyenne that was lineman of the year in WY that did roids. He went from being a good player to a +++++ing monster. Anyone who thinks steroids is OK is crazy. After you get on roids you are not the same person/athlete at that point. It's extremely dishonest and wholly unfair to those that do not use them.

Do you know what an anecdote is? Jesus H. There’s a reason Bond won 7 MVPs. He’s not in because he’s a dick. 

And what about all of the baseball executives who turned a blind eye and are already IN the HOF? Bud Selig anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

This is a goofy take. Baseball isnt football, swinging a bat and controlling a baseball arent pure power displays. Thats why not just anyone cant hit .300...

There are lot of pure power guys who will never see the hall. 

More strength equals better bat speed, more bat speed equals the ability to wait longer to swing, which equals better contact and more hits, especially more extra base hits. I'm not buying steroids wouldn't help immensely in baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NevadaFan said:

Do you know what an anecdote is? Jesus H. There’s a reason Bond won 7 MVPs. He’s not in because he’s a dick. 

And what about all of the baseball executives who turned a blind eye and are already IN the HOF? Bud Selig anyone. 

The people that took the steroids and those that allowed it are morally bankrupt and should not be in the HOF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob said:

More strength equals better bat speed, more bat speed equals the ability to wait longer to swing, which equals better contact and more hits, especially more extra base hits. I'm not buying steroids wouldn't help immensely in baseball.

Tell me that you don't know anything about baseball without admitting that you don't know anything about baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

This is a goofy take. Baseball isnt football, swinging a bat and controlling a baseball arent pure power displays. Thats why not just anyone cant hit .300...

There are lot of pure power guys who will never see the hall. 

I dunno. I disagree with Bob on the HOF take, but baseball is a sport that reveres individual stats more than any other sport. And juicing does two things - more power and quicker injury recovery. Both of those inflate the stats. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

I dunno. I disagree with Bob on the HOF take, but baseball is a sport that reveres individual stats more than any other sport. And juicing does two things - more power and quicker injury recovery. Both of those inflate the stats. 

Sure, now choose who was on it and who wasn't for the last 30/40 years. Also look at Bonds numbers up to 1997/8. You can see in his numbers he took it probably around 99/00 and from 2001 he was basically inhuman. My point is with a sport like baseball you have to already be hall of fame level to get these results. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

I dunno. I disagree with Bob on the HOF take, but baseball is a sport that reveres individual stats more than any other sport. And juicing does two things - more power and quicker injury recovery. Both of those inflate the stats. 

I don’t claim to know what roids do for performance. I know they help people generate muscle mass more quickly. But in baseball teams are going to identify your weakness and exploit it. You can’t hit a fastball, you’re going to see fastballs. Can’t hit a curveball, you’re going to see a ton of them. The biggest, strongest players aren’t necessarily the best. And, it wasn’t a handful of players using them. It was a pretty good percentage. So there’s that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AztecSU said:

Sure, now choose who was on it and who wasn't for the last 30/40 years. Also look at Bonds numbers up to 1997/8. You can see in his numbers he took it probably around 99/00 and from 2001 he was basically inhuman. My point is with a sport like baseball you have to already be hall of fame level to get these results. 

Yea, I mean Bonds is the ideal example of someone was was gonna be in the hall no matter what. But the stat heads like @NVGiant might be able to point to a couple people whose only case to be in there is a couple stats or an especially long career? I dunno, maybe not.

I personally believe you add the best from each era and include stuff in the hall that contextualizes it. Otherwise you're ignoring history. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Tell me that you don't know anything about baseball without admitting that you don't know anything about baseball.

ha ha. I played. If you don't think being stronger, faster, having more strength in your hands and grip and being able to swing the bat faster doesn't help immensely, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

Sure, now choose who was on it and who wasn't for the last 30/40 years. Also look at Bonds numbers up to 1997/8. You can see in his numbers he took it probably around 99/00 and from 2001 he was basically inhuman. My point is with a sport like baseball you have to already be hall of fame level to get these results. 

And that goes back to what I said about setting rules/standards. It would work but it wouldn’t. You’d have serious controversy for 100’s of years on who was deserving or not based on new rules.  It just won’t work. There was just too much sauce running around to make anything fair. 

I think the Hall will always be a dog and pony show and the MLB likes it that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

In a way, steroids saved baseball after the lockout.  

Was going to say the same thing. The hypocrisy is that MLB enjoyed a rebirth and an amazing renewed interest in their sport while America was busy watching one the most riveting summer/fall 1v1 battles ever between Sosa and McGuire.

Then they shunned these guys like they were the plague after letting them help save the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bob said:

More strength equals better bat speed, more bat speed equals the ability to wait longer to swing, which equals better contact and more hits, especially more extra base hits. I'm not buying steroids wouldn't help immensely in baseball.

“Letting the ball get deep” is a relic of the past. Tatis has the best exit velo and it has NOTHING to do with muscle mass. That dude was born to play baseball just like Bonds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NevadaFan said:

“Letting the ball get deep” is a relic of the past. Tatis has the best exit velo and it has NOTHING to do with muscle mass. That dude was born to play baseball just like Bonds. 

Are you trying to say steroids don’t help? If they didn’t why were the players taking them?

As far as the HoF if the numbers are the only thing that matters, put all the cheaters in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Yea, I mean Bonds is the ideal example of someone was was gonna be in the hall no matter what. But the stat heads like @NVGiant might be able to point to a couple people whose only case to be in there is a couple stats or an especially long career? I dunno, maybe not.

I personally believe you add the best from each era and include stuff in the hall that contextualizes it. Otherwise you're ignoring history. 

There are a few guys like that. Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris are two recent examples that come to mind. Then there is Harold Baines, who got in through the veterans committee. Baines was rewarded for a good (not great), long career, and given extra credit for potential that was never fully realized because of injuries. His inclusion bugs me.

Interestingly, both Bonds and Clemens would have been easily inducted into the hall of fame had they died in an offseason plane crash, as Roberto Clemente did, rather than start using PEDs in the years that they allegedly started using.

The fact that the writers just voted in Ortiz, who was in the Mitchell Report, and chose to ignore Clemens and Bonds shows that some are selectively applying this new moral clarity that they have now — but did not have when they were glorifying the home run surge in the summer of 96. The very glorification that compelled Bonds to start using, if the account in the Game of Shadows is to be believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bob said:

The people that took the steroids and those that allowed it are morally bankrupt and should not be in the HOF

Bob. I hope you have a big red marker and a lot of ink.  We then need to look at just about every major sport on the planet.  As long as incentive(mostly $$) is tied to human performance in sports, there will be PEDs, legal and illegal. Is it moral? Probably not but human nature itself isn't about being fair, especially in a society where winning is everything. 

At the end of the day, sports is entertainment with flaws and as long as fans buy beer, tickets, shirts, jerseys and hot dogs and enjoy the game, the rest doesn't matter big picture. If people were so outraged over these things, it wouldn't make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m conflicted by this whole PED thing.  Plenty of players from the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s were selected to the Hall of Fame even though they relied heavily on amphetamines to get them though the day-to-day challenges of a long baseball season. Obviously a different form of Performance Enhancer but a PED nonetheless.

I really think guys like Bonds and Clemens are more that deserving for having been the best of their era, regardless of the PED stuff.

By the way, I have an amphetamine story to share to show you how powerful they were. My college roommate played professional baseball. I was driving back to Tucson from the east coast and stopped to see him play in Omaha. I had 36 hours to get to Tucson after a game. My roommate reached into the medicine kit of his baseball roommate and said “Take this.” I did. And I drove 36 straight hours from Omaha to Tucson, stopping at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon to catch a sunrise before heading to Tucson. Them baseball greenies were STRONG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I dunno. I disagree with Bob on the HOF take, but baseball is a sport that reveres individual stats more than any other sport. And juicing does two things - more power and quicker injury recovery. Both of those inflate the stats. 

I don't think anyone can reasonably question that steroids help. Recovery is a big part of that. Not just during the season but in offseason workout regimens. But the unspoken part of the steroids era was the increased velocity of pitchers juicing. They threw harder in the juiced era than ever before, and higher velocity matched with good contact made the ball go farther. Simple physics.

Funny thing is instead of juice, pitchers are now using technology-aided training to improve movement efficiency with the sole purpose of generating more velocity. The result is pitchers throw harder on average than the pitchers in the steroid era. Combined with the change in hitting philosophy that emphasizes launch angles and discourages soft contact, today's hitters are hitting more home runs than the steroid guys could ever dream of.  

There were 6,776 home runs hit in 2019, most ever. Last year, there was 5,944 hit. In 96, the summer of Sosa and McGwire, there was a record 4,962 home runs hit. The high during the steroids era was in 2000 when there was 5,693.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...