SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2015 HOF class; The line forms behind Pedro
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 7, 2015 20:15:28 GMT -5
The point (among other points made) that some have been trying to make, however, is that there have been players throughout history that have cheated, prevented others from competing against them, and taken substances to help them and ultimately pad their stats to the detriment of others. So why are these PED users any different? What makes their form of 'cheating' special and deserving of exclusion from the HOF? One of the problems with that is the clean ones, even on this board, those like my cousin who played for the Sox 10 full years and had very good careers but not great got bashed and named as inferior and even today they get no recognition against those who were also good but may have become great with their PED use so why should fans care at all. It feels apparently the board majority still bashes all the PED users but the clean players on the fringe of being very good still are belated here. I don't see the writers caring either by the way so it goes on and on.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 7, 2015 20:30:14 GMT -5
If you want to say that the preponderance of evidence says that Clemens and Bonds used steroids and that should prevent them from making the HOF, I will think your reasoning is stupid but at least you made a logical argument. It's pretty well known that most pitchers today use some sort of foreign substance on balls, should that disqualify all pitchers? How can the reasoning be stupid and the argument logical? It's well-known by whom that "most pitchers" are doctoring the balls? My personal pet peeve is when voters say they don't know who was using and who wasn't, so they just ignore the whole question. Sure, it can be hard to know for sure about some guys. That doesn't mean you abandon the analysis. Any time you vote for anything you may be faced with difficult questions. It's your job to look at the evidence and make the best decision you can. HOF voters have always had to weigh factors like the players' numbers, the testimony of their contemporaries, the level of competition, etc. The advent of advanced metrics added another layer of complexity, at least for the non-CHB types who care enough to learn them. And now we unfortunately have steroid questions for voters to analyze. They should do their homework and come to a decision, not just say "This is too hard for me." It's a cop out.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 7, 2015 20:35:42 GMT -5
Also two of the biggest cheaters in the games history. Im glad they won't taint the Hall of Fame. Its not fair to the guys like Pedro who played CLEAN. Imagine Pedro's numbers and how it would've extended his career if he used. Who's to say he didn't? These kind of assumptions drive me crazy. We don't know who used, period. When they remove every pre-integration player from the HOF, maybe I'll care about PED users being in there. This is the very definition of false equivalency. While I would agree that it wasn't right for negro league baseball players to not be able to play in the major leagues that is quite different than players and owners cheating to chase the almighty dollar. The former was a cultural abomination.....the latter was totally ego driven.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 7, 2015 20:58:17 GMT -5
May have cheated? His head grew an entire hat size and he had an 11.6 WAR season at age 40? And he had 4 of his best 5 seasons from ages 37-40? He may have cheated? It's not so much that the entire era was cheating, it's that Bonds was cheating so much more than anyone else. I'm surprised he's not dead yet. So is Randy Johnson a no doubt hall of famer? 4 sub 4.00 ERA seasons after the age of 40. Including his age 40 season where he threw 245 innings with a 2.60 ERA. But he's unanimously considered clean because he wasn't in the Mitchell Report? That seems fairly hypocritical to me. Randy Johnson's name wasn't all over doping calendars seized by the feds. His trainer didn't spend time in the can for refusing to cooperate in an investigation. His girlfriend didn't testify that his nuts shrank and his team's trainer didn't testify that his head grew. A few more things about Randy: His DNA wasn't found on needles and cotton balls with traces of PEDs. He didn't have a trainer who had no reason to lie and every reason to tell the truth (staying out of the hoosegow is a pretty good reason) provide graphic detail of his doping habits. He didn't admit that steroids came into his house for his wife's use.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 7, 2015 21:10:13 GMT -5
Who's to say he didn't? These kind of assumptions drive me crazy. We don't know who used, period. When they remove every pre-integration player from the HOF, maybe I'll care about PED users being in there. This is the very definition of false equivalency. While I would agree that it wasn't right for negro league baseball players to not be able to play in the major leagues that is quite different than players and owners cheating to chase the almighty dollar. The former was a cultural abomination.....the latter was totally ego driven. Most of what you say here seems true but there should be a caveat then as to the totally because many users seem to be peer pressure driven and that is alluded to in Pettite's statements about pressure to get back to game ready faster and stay the course...
|
|
|
Post by bball798 on Jan 7, 2015 21:20:20 GMT -5
This is also really silly. As if the Mitchell Report is anywhere close to a comprehensive list of people who used.
Name someone not on that list whom you believe used PEDs and an explanation why you believe that's the case. I'm sure that a good attorney versed in defamation cases will be able to decipher whether or not your assertion includes the requisite malice necessary to proceed with litigation.
Please see my earlier post on Randy Johnson, the man who was just voted into the HOF with no allegations of steroids, but somehow pitched effectively until age 45 including a dominant season at age 40.
|
|
|
Post by bball798 on Jan 7, 2015 21:23:20 GMT -5
So is Randy Johnson a no doubt hall of famer? 4 sub 4.00 ERA seasons after the age of 40. Including his age 40 season where he threw 245 innings with a 2.60 ERA. But he's unanimously considered clean because he wasn't in the Mitchell Report? That seems fairly hypocritical to me. Randy Johnson's name wasn't all over doping calendars seized by the feds. His trainer didn't spend time in the can for refusing to cooperate in an investigation. His girlfriend didn't testify that his nuts shrank and his team's trainer didn't testify that his head grew. A few more things about Randy: His DNA wasn't found on needles and cotton balls with traces of PEDs. He didn't have a trainer who had no reason to lie and every reason to tell the truth (staying out of the hoosegow is a pretty good reason) provide graphic detail of his doping habits. He didn't admit that steroids came into his house for his wife's use. Exactly my point. If people are going to say "Bonds must have done steroids! Look what he did from age 37-40!" then I argue look at what Johnson did from age 40-45. Just because he was smart enough to not get caught, doesn't mean he didn't use.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 7, 2015 21:50:44 GMT -5
Randy Johnson's name wasn't all over doping calendars seized by the feds. His trainer didn't spend time in the can for refusing to cooperate in an investigation. His girlfriend didn't testify that his nuts shrank and his team's trainer didn't testify that his head grew. A few more things about Randy: His DNA wasn't found on needles and cotton balls with traces of PEDs. He didn't have a trainer who had no reason to lie and every reason to tell the truth (staying out of the hoosegow is a pretty good reason) provide graphic detail of his doping habits. He didn't admit that steroids came into his house for his wife's use. Exactly my point. If people are going to say "Bonds must have done steroids! Look what he did from age 37-40!" then I argue look at what Johnson did from age 40-45. J ust because he was smart enough to not get caught, doesn't mean he didn't use.What's exactly your point? That there's no evidence against Johnson but you still think he used? He had a big year in 2004 at the age of 40. After that, he didn't do anything spectacular. Yes, he performed well for a guy over 40 but well within the boundaries of what's possible for a rare, well-conditioned and gifted athlete. Spahn and Ryan each had at least one year better than Johnson's best after 40 and that's just two guys off the top of my head. Moyer might be in the discussion, too. Your bolded argument is silly because it's way too facile. You'd also be right if you said that just because Randy Johnson never got caught cheating on his taxes, shoplifting or having sex with goats we cannot say for sure that he didn't do these things. Of course, we can't prove that he or any other player never used. If a HOF voter believes that PED use if disqualifying, then it becomes his job to examine the evidence and see if there's enough there to deny an otherwise qualified player a check mark. And guys, do we really need to have a debate about whether performance enhancing drugs enhance performance? This board should be better than that.
|
|
|
Post by bball798 on Jan 7, 2015 22:03:58 GMT -5
Exactly my point. If people are going to say "Bonds must have done steroids! Look what he did from age 37-40!" then I argue look at what Johnson did from age 40-45. J ust because he was smart enough to not get caught, doesn't mean he didn't use.What's exactly your point? That there's no evidence against Johnson but you still think he used? He had a big year in 2004 at the age of 40. After that, he didn't do anything spectacular. Yes, he performed well for a guy over 40 but well within the boundaries of what's possible for a rare, well-conditioned and gifted athlete. Spahn and Ryan each had at least one year better than Johnson's best after 40 and that's just two guys off the top of my head. Moyer might be in the discussion, too. Doesn't Bonds fit that too? Bonds best years came after 35 = he used steroids. 5 of RJ's 7 best years according to ERA+, beginning in 1999, came after the age of 35. How is that not even remotely suspicious? Because he wasn't hugely bulky? Not saying he did or didn't. Just saying it's more complex than those named in the Mitchell Report and I think we can all agree there were plenty of people who used and weren't listed or even caught. Moral of the story is, we don't know who used and who didn't, so how can we punish those who were caught when it's very possible that a significant portion of the league was using at the time.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 7, 2015 22:21:49 GMT -5
What's exactly your point? That there's no evidence against Johnson but you still think he used? He had a big year in 2004 at the age of 40. After that, he didn't do anything spectacular. Yes, he performed well for a guy over 40 but well within the boundaries of what's possible for a rare, well-conditioned and gifted athlete. Spahn and Ryan each had at least one year better than Johnson's best after 40 and that's just two guys off the top of my head. Moyer might be in the discussion, too. Doesn't Bonds fit that too? Bonds best years came after 35 = he used steroids. 5 of RJ's 7 best years according to ERA+, beginning in 1999, came after the age of 35. How is that not even remotely suspicious? Because he wasn't hugely bulky? Not saying he did or didn't. Just saying it's more complex than those named in the Mitchell Report and I think we can all agree there were plenty of people who used and weren't listed or even caught. Moral of the story is, we don't know who used and who didn't, so how can we punish those who were caught when it's very possible that a significant portion of the league was using at the time.What happened to after 40? Now it's after 35? Bolded: Again, you're just stating the obvious. The Mitchell report never purported to be comprehensive. In fact, it said: "We identify some of the players who were caught up in the drive to gain a competitive advantage through the illegal use of these substances. Other investigations will no doubt turn up more names and fill in more details..."Second bolded: As I said, it becomes a voter's job to make a decision, player by player. We don't catch every criminal either. That does not stop us from sanctioning those we do catch.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,833
|
Post by wcp3 on Jan 7, 2015 22:43:01 GMT -5
Clemens and (especially) Bonds absolutely belong in the HOF - they were by far the best pitcher and player, respectively, in an area where their league implicitly encouraged them to juice.
Unfortunately for them, baseball writers take themselves way too seriously. You'd think they're voting for the Nobel Peace prize rather than voting for which adults belong in a made-up club.
(Plus, neither guy is known for being a great human being, so I don't feel all that bad.)
|
|
|
Post by bball798 on Jan 7, 2015 22:47:50 GMT -5
Doesn't Bonds fit that too? Bonds best years came after 35 = he used steroids. 5 of RJ's 7 best years according to ERA+, beginning in 1999, came after the age of 35. How is that not even remotely suspicious? Because he wasn't hugely bulky? Not saying he did or didn't. Just saying it's more complex than those named in the Mitchell Report and I think we can all agree there were plenty of people who used and weren't listed or even caught. Moral of the story is, we don't know who used and who didn't, so how can we punish those who were caught when it's very possible that a significant portion of the league was using at the time.What happened to after 40? Now it's after 35? The point isn't that it's a certain age cutoff, just that just because Bonds or anyone had a late career surge doesn't prove they did or didn't use steroids, so it shouldn't be used in a case against them.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 7, 2015 22:48:06 GMT -5
This is also really silly. As if the Mitchell Report is anywhere close to a comprehensive list of people who used.
Name someone not on that list whom you believe used PEDs and an explanation why you believe that's the case. I'm sure that a good attorney versed in defamation cases will be able to decipher whether or not your assertion includes the requisite malice necessary to proceed with litigation.
I think PED use of some kind is plausible for literally every player in the last 70 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 7, 2015 23:06:23 GMT -5
Clemens and (especially) Bonds absolutely belong in the HOF - they were by far the best pitcher and player, respectively, in an area where their league implicitly encouraged them to juice. Unfortunately for them, baseball writers take themselves way too seriously. You'd think they're voting for the Nobel Peace prize rather than voting for which adults belong in a made-up club. (Plus, neither guy is known for being a great human being, so I don't feel all that bad.) They're both terrible. I'm quite surprised people on here are upset they aren't getting in. Doesn't seem to me like the crowd it would bother.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Jan 7, 2015 23:12:18 GMT -5
The point (among other points made) that some have been trying to make, however, is that there have been players throughout history that have cheated, prevented others from competing against them, and taken substances to help them and ultimately pad their stats to the detriment of others. So why are these PED users any different? What makes their form of 'cheating' special and deserving of exclusion from the HOF? One of the problems with that is the clean ones, even on this board, those like my cousin who played for the Sox 10 full years and had very good careers but not great got bashed and named as inferior and even today they get no recognition against those who were also good but may have become great with their PED use so why should fans care at all. It feels apparently the board majority still bashes all the PED users but the clean players on the fringe of being very good still are belated here. I don't see the writers caring either by the way so it goes on and on. I agree, and MLB has compunded the issue by punishing the clean players via MLB's cowardly approach to the HOF ballot. It disgusts me that MLB has self-servingly shortened the eligibility to get Bonds and Clemens out of the public consciousness faster, but has taken no corresponding action (letting the writers have more votes) to lift up the clean players who are also going to be punished by the decreased length of eligibility. The clean guys are already punished enough by, like what happened to your cousin, having their accomplishments diminished next to PED-aided accomplishments. I don't really care whether Bonds and Clemens get in, the HOF will be an awesome place to visit either way. I just think it sucks that deserving guys will be denied because of the rampant cheating and MLB's pathetic response to it.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 7, 2015 23:23:23 GMT -5
What exactly do you mean by clean, and how would you establish that after the fact?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 8, 2015 0:10:52 GMT -5
I agree, and MLB has compunded the issue by punishing the clean players via MLB's cowardly approach to the HOF ballot. It disgusts me that MLB has self-servingly shortened the eligibility to get Bonds and Clemens out of the public consciousness faster, but has taken no corresponding action (letting the writers have more votes) to lift up the clean players who are also going to be punished by the decreased length of eligibility. The clean guys are already punished enough by, like what happened to your cousin, having their accomplishments diminished next to PED-aided accomplishments. I don't really care whether Bonds and Clemens get in, the HOF will be an awesome place to visit either way. I just think it sucks that deserving guys will be denied because of the rampant cheating and MLB's pathetic response to it. This is more of a pedantic thing, but MLB doesn't have anything to do with this. The HOF is an independent organization and it makes the rules with regards to voting, eligibility, etc.
|
|
|
Post by southernredsoxality on Jan 8, 2015 0:35:39 GMT -5
What exactly do you mean by clean, and how would you establish that after the fact?
Reading some of these posts provides a clearer understanding of the mass hysteria that enabled passage of the Patriot Act.
I guess Tiante Twirl and Scaffolds had a baby, and they named it django lol.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 8, 2015 0:44:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 8, 2015 0:46:03 GMT -5
Who cares?! Bonds was an amazing player to watch. A player who dominated his Era. I don't care that he may have cheated. I don't care that many people throughout the history of baseball played without integration or have played on acid, coke or drunk. What matters is the entertainment they have provided to us fans. May have cheated? His head grew an entire hat size and he had an 11.6 WAR season at age 40? And he had 4 of his best 5 seasons from ages 37-40? He may have cheated? It's not so much that the entire era was cheating, it's that Bonds was cheating so much more than anyone else. I'm surprised he's not dead yet. What are you talking about? Sure good chance he cheated, but cheating so much more than anyone else? What do you mean? I just think the assumption that Bonds cheated more then other players is crazy. Please tell me your proof is not just the fact that Bonds head size grew. Did you every think that Bonds 37-40 age seasons were due to his talent? Sure PEDS may have kept him healthy or increased his HR total but he was one of the most talented baseball players ever. He has done things his whole career that other players never did. So why is it so hard to think he would do things when he was older that other players never could?
Have to say I love Chris Hatfield saying "And again, steroids don't make a replacement level player an MVP candidate. Let's stop acting like this is Steve Rogers becoming Captain America using science." Well said.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 8, 2015 8:01:19 GMT -5
"So, a couple of things here. First, demographically speaking, it's hard to imagine many situations other than vying for a spot in the baseball Hall of Fame—an institution that boasts a predominately old, white, and male group of gatekeepers—in which being a Republican would be less harmful to one's chances at success.
Second, John Smoltz is almost certainly not a Democrat. The man once compared homosexuality to bestiality, and gave a bunch of money to Mitt Romney's campaign. Curt Schilling is dumb as hell."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
You would think that the recent struggles of this guys life would've have taught him some humility. It's really cringeworthy to hear him speak like that.
|
|
|
Post by zimmerdown on Jan 8, 2015 8:06:10 GMT -5
I was listening to a couple minutes of this call with EEI but I missed this part^. I heard the beginning of it, when he was going on about how he hasn't even given an ounce of thought to whether he gets elected or not. Its not in my control blah blah blah. He's such a hypocrite and a dumb one at that. I mean, I get that he can't control how the voters will vote and he said (which I agree with) that there is always some podunk reporter who will make waves with his vote just to get attention. The system is definitely flawed, but he wasn't saying it like that. He was trying so hard to be above it all, like he doesn't care one way or another, and has in the past said something along the lines of he is not sure if he would even vote himself in. Then he turns around and specifically names Smoltz as an example of how he has been discriminated against because of his political beliefs. So he's not content to suggest that he's lost HOF votes because he's a Republican, he's suggesting that Smoltz has gained votes and gained entry to the HOF because he is a Democrat and not because of his talent and results. First off, he's wrong, as the Deadspin blog points out. Smoltz isn't a Democrat. Also it just shows what an oblivious hypocrite he is, and what a horrible person he is. Thank you from a Red Sox fan, Curt. I loved you as a pitcher (most of the time). I can't stand you as a person. When you talk about creationism you sound foolish. When you talk about politics you sound uninformed and just repeat what you've been spoon-fed. You can't stand people taking money from the government in the form of welfare, but you have no problem taking money from the government so long as you are a corporation. I loved when you called in to the radio station and accused somebody of using "hyperbole" but you pronounced it "hyper bowl". Sorry to sidetrack the Pedro thread but I had to just get that out. Congratulations to Pedro. The best pitcher by far that I have seen in my lifetime. If I couldn't get to watch every game of his on TV, I was listening on the radio. I loved his heart, his balls, his will, the no fear attitude and the willingness to pitch through injury and still just blow guys away. No one will forget the playoff series against Cleveland, or the 1 hitter in Yankee Stadium, or the time he decked (forget his name though!) from Tampa Bay when he rushed the mound, or the time I was in Fenway and saw him come back with the Mets. I was glad I was there to welcome/thank him, but I was still pissed that he wasn't going to finish his career here. I'm so proud to have him in the Hall of Fame representing the Boston Red Sox. When is the ceremony and who is going to be there?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 8, 2015 9:48:07 GMT -5
Should players that used greenies be in the Hall? Should Ty Cobb, who was pretty much incontrovertibly a despicable human being, be in the hall? As far as I'm concerned, it's a hall of "fame." I get that "integrity" is in the voting guidelines, but so is "sportsmanship" and you get jackasses like Cobb in there, so it's all relative. I'd put Bonds, Clemens, Pete Rose, Joe Jackson,* and the rest in there. Then include on their plaques all the good and bad. * - I understand that the issue with Rose and Jackson is that they're on baseball's "ineligible list" and are thus excluded from Hall voting. Give me a Hall of Fame that when I take my kid to it years down the line, it has every player of significance. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were probably the best hitter and pitcher of their generation. Bonds is arguably the best player ever. It's insane to me not to have them in the hall. And again, steroids don't make a replacement level player an MVP candidate. Let's stop acting like this is Steve Rogers becoming Captain America using science. I can get using steroid suspicions against a fringy candidate as a tick in the "negative" column. I think it's insane to have it be something that keeps clear HOFers out. Nope. But they make a 40 year old play better than he did when he was 28.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Jan 8, 2015 9:55:44 GMT -5
Well I can.
Curt, I don't give a rat's ass about your personal life, except in that I hope you're happy. And I will never judge you, as I personally don't know anything about you. I will continue to ignore reports from reporters with known beefs, and also respect your willingness to share your thoughts even though I don't agree with many of them.
Thanks for choosing Boston over other cities, and foremost, thanks for the title, man!
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 8, 2015 10:25:07 GMT -5
|
|
|