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.
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2019 16:30:16 GMT -5
In a way they've done that. The problem is that if you look at the back of Fred McGriff's baseball card and the back of other guys' cards like a Palmeiro, a Sosa, or of course Bonds, it's not going to look as good and it has reflected on McGriff's vote totals. Let me clarify what I'm trying to say - yes Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire - those guys aren't getting votes, but what I'm trying to say is that I was watching MLB network and they put up a graphic that showed McGriff's offensive numbers weren't far off (very comparable) of Bonds numbers until Bonds decided to cheat and become an all-time offensive guy in the league of Williams and Ruth. Compare Bonds' numbers thru 1998 (which are already awesome) and then look at the ridiculously absurd stretch of 1999 - 2004 - how can you honestly take them at face value and just go by the back of the baseball card? Bonds was a slam dunk HOFer before that and would have performed at a HOF level before aging took over, but without his PEDs he wouldn't have been putting up those Ninendo numbers. So because McGriff didn't cheat (or at least there's zero evidence that he did) his numbers got left in the dust and for those who use counting stats to vote, he didn't get a chance to hit his 7 homers during the strike of 1994 to reach the magical 500 mark. Strange, in a way Rice and Baines got boosted because they were considered clean, yet McGriff somehow got hosed. The overall point is that I think there were some honest players who got screwed because of the cheaters. How do you think Mike Greenwell feels about Jose Canseco winning the MVP award in 1988 when it was obvious he was cheating while Greenwell wasn't? Champs, how do you know McGriff didn't at one point take steriods or not either? That's what I mean. I wouldn't be surprised if steriods started popping up in the 80's and becoming a huge problem in the 90's. There's just not a lot of clarity of knowing if a player was on roids or not. Vote them all in. It happened. MLB turned a blind eye to it. Put it to you this way. There's zero evidence McGriff did. Can you say the same about Bonds?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2019 16:32:53 GMT -5
Champs, how do you know McGriff didn't at one point take steriods or not either? That's what I mean. I wouldn't be surprised if steriods started popping up in the 80's and becoming a huge problem in the 90's. There's just not a lot of clarity of knowing if a player was on roids or not. Vote them all in. It happened. MLB turned a blind eye to it. Put it to you this way. There's zero evidence McGriff did. Can you say the same about Bonds? Those Tom Emanski commercials is all I need to put him in the Hall
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 24, 2019 18:41:59 GMT -5
i really don't put much thought about Clemens in the hall one way or the other. I am not really an anti-steroid guy, but it seems to me he benefited after he left the Sox. Plus he was a pitcher and a specious argument can be made they aren't really baseball players, in the truest sense.
Bonds is a different story. He was a sublime baseball player. All the other baggage is secondary, I think he should already be in.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2019 18:45:39 GMT -5
i really don't put much thought about Clemens in the hall one way or the other. I am not really an anti-steroid guy, but it seems to me he benefited after he left the Sox. Plus he was a pitcher and a specious argument can be made they aren't really baseball players, in the truest sense. Bonds is a different story. He was a sublime baseball player. All the other baggage is secondary, I think he should already be in. How’s the guy who starts every play not a baseball player?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 24, 2019 18:53:14 GMT -5
i really don't put much thought about Clemens in the hall one way or the other. I am not really an anti-steroid guy, but it seems to me he benefited after he left the Sox. Plus he was a pitcher and a specious argument can be made they aren't really baseball players, in the truest sense. Bonds is a different story. He was a sublime baseball player. All the other baggage is secondary, I think he should already be in. How’s the guy who starts every play not a baseball player? Hey...I said it was a specious argument. They are a necessary, extremely valuable component to the wonderful game, but there whole role is a lit bit on the periphery of having to do all the other things baseball players have to do day in and day out. They don't play 150 or 160 games...they aren't really required to move in any major fashion when they are in the field.....they don't really hit (or they shouldn't). Just a little jab at them, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2019 19:39:06 GMT -5
How’s the guy who starts every play not a baseball player? Hey...I said it was a specious argument. They are a necessary, extremely valuable component to the wonderful game, but there whole role is a lit bit on the periphery of having to do all the other things baseball players have to do day in and day out. They don't play 150 or 160 games...they aren't really required to move in any major fashion when they are in the field.....they don't really hit (or they shouldn't). Just a little jab at them, that's all. All true, but if you did it by the number of plays they are directly involved in, I bet they put pace the position players even with all the games off.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2019 20:04:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 24, 2019 20:35:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2019 20:35:53 GMT -5
Champs, how do you know McGriff didn't at one point take steriods or not either? That's what I mean. I wouldn't be surprised if steriods started popping up in the 80's and becoming a huge problem in the 90's. There's just not a lot of clarity of knowing if a player was on roids or not. Vote them all in. It happened. MLB turned a blind eye to it. Put it to you this way. There's zero evidence McGriff did. Can you say the same about Bonds? Bonds obviously did, but the gray area is for players like Bagwell and Piazza and maybe countless others who people might not even knew did steriods and are in the HOF right now. There's zero evidence that Bagwell and Piazza did nothing, but just by looking at them, you are even a little suspicious. They looked like body builders holding wooden bats when they came to the plate. This is why I'd rather skip the debate and look at the stats.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2019 20:45:39 GMT -5
There's zero evidence you did nothing also. That doesn't imply there's any evidence that you did. Be careful with the logic thing.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 24, 2019 22:09:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2019 22:09:41 GMT -5
There's zero evidence you did nothing also. That doesn't imply there's any evidence that you did. Be careful with the logic thing. I didn't play baseball and I'm not eligible for the baseball HOF. I don't know what you're implying or even saying. These were players who played in the heart of the steriod ERA. I want them all in too, I'm not against the steriod ERA. Heck, I question even Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson is on steriods when it comes to outside of baseball. That dude is huge now and he was some skinny guy when he first entered wrestling. This same thing happened with Bagwell for instance inside of baseball. Skinny guy to jacked up monster. Sorry if you don't like people questioning it, because it's a very valid question in the ERA they played in.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Jan 25, 2019 6:06:58 GMT -5
Haha yup, only a true snowflake would consider a joke about lynching journalists to be crossing a line. I guess we're calling that a "goofy tweet" now. Yuk yuk...what a knee-slapper. Good thing he didn't kneel during a football game or something truly awful like that instead. Yeah if he did he would face a truly horrifying future of (gulp) making millions out of advertisement without ever risking his body again. America eating their young alright! Let's not beat around the bush here folks, the problem with Schilling isn't what he said or did, it's that he's a notoriously right wing person. It's exactly like the MAGA kid and the native american. It isn't about what you say or do, it's about who you are. It's frustrating that we have to pretend like he did something heinous, use preposterous straw man like comparing it to the NFL situation or false equivalences like comparing a tweet to a player injecting junk on his buttocks until he drops a third ball. Let's call it like it is.
At the risk of keeping this going further, I'll say this and then I'm done... Sorry, but it's definitely what he said and what he did. I don't care that he's a conservative or even that he's a crackpotty kook. I care about the flippant reference to violence against people he disagrees with, which is not something I take kindly to. Sorry if you or others here don't see that or think it's no big deal. I can promise you that if he was a left-wing figure who said "Trump supporters + firing squad = awesome" or something like that, and then tried to pass it off with a "Lol jk, why can't you take a joke?" I would feel the exact same way.
The NFL thing was in response to the previous poster's "This generation is so easily offended" spiel. It's just funny to me what some people will get all up in arms about and what they will let slide with a shrug, that's all...and let's not pretend that, in the scenario I just gave, a lot of the same people defending Schilling now wouldn't be apoplectic and calling for his head if the roles were reversed. If you don't think we should be able to criticize someone for saying vile, arguably violence-promoting things, then so be it, but I hope you're prepared to be consistent about it. Most people aren't.
For what it's worth, I also think he belongs in the Hall regardless of any of that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 25, 2019 12:29:45 GMT -5
Yeah if he did he would face a truly horrifying future of (gulp) making millions out of advertisement without ever risking his body again. America eating their young alright! Let's not beat around the bush here folks, the problem with Schilling isn't what he said or did, it's that he's a notoriously right wing person. It's exactly like the MAGA kid and the native american. It isn't about what you say or do, it's about who you are. It's frustrating that we have to pretend like he did something heinous, use preposterous straw man like comparing it to the NFL situation or false equivalences like comparing a tweet to a player injecting junk on his buttocks until he drops a third ball. Let's call it like it is.
At the risk of keeping this going further, I'll say this and then I'm done... Sorry, but it's definitely what he said and what he did. I don't care that he's a conservative or even that he's a crackpotty kook. I care about the flippant reference to violence against people he disagrees with, which is not something I take kindly to. Sorry if you or others here don't see that or think it's no big deal. I can promise you that if he was a left-wing figure who said "Trump supporters + firing squad = awesome" or something like that, and then tried to pass it off with a "Lol jk, why can't you take a joke?" I would feel the exact same way.
The NFL thing was in response to the previous poster's "This generation is so easily offended" spiel. It's just funny to me what some people will get all up in arms about and what they will let slide with a shrug, that's all...and let's not pretend that, in the scenario I just gave, a lot of the same people defending Schilling now wouldn't be apoplectic and calling for his head if the roles were reversed. If you don't think we should be able to criticize someone for saying vile, arguably violence-promoting things, then so be it, but I hope you're prepared to be consistent about it. Most people aren't.
For what it's worth, I also think he belongs in the Hall regardless of any of that stuff.
I think this is very fair. Used to be a saying....if don't have something good to.say.....dont say it at all. It is a world.where people live double standards all the time He is agent provocateur personified. He is also a.self proclaimed blabbermouth who also fought through some tough health circumstances. I cant remember one thing I have ever agreed with what he has said. His career is borderline HOF, imo, so I don't put too worry into that. I have to give him his props for his run with our hometown team, and that is about it
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 25, 2019 13:53:48 GMT -5
At the risk of keeping this going further, I'll say this and then I'm done... Sorry, but it's definitely what he said and what he did. I don't care that he's a conservative or even that he's a crackpotty kook. I care about the flippant reference to violence against people he disagrees with, which is not something I take kindly to. Sorry if you or others here don't see that or think it's no big deal. I can promise you that if he was a left-wing figure who said "Trump supporters + firing squad = awesome" or something like that, and then tried to pass it off with a "Lol jk, why can't you take a joke?" I would feel the exact same way.
The NFL thing was in response to the previous poster's "This generation is so easily offended" spiel. It's just funny to me what some people will get all up in arms about and what they will let slide with a shrug, that's all...and let's not pretend that, in the scenario I just gave, a lot of the same people defending Schilling now wouldn't be apoplectic and calling for his head if the roles were reversed. If you don't think we should be able to criticize someone for saying vile, arguably violence-promoting things, then so be it, but I hope you're prepared to be consistent about it. Most people aren't.
For what it's worth, I also think he belongs in the Hall regardless of any of that stuff.
I think this is very fair. Used to be a saying....if don't have something good to.say.....dont say it at all. It is a world.where people live double standards all the time He is agent provocateur personified. He is also a.self proclaimed blabbermouth who also fought through some tough health circumstances. I cant remember one thing I have ever agreed with what he has said. His career is borderline HOF, imo, so I don't put too worry into that. I have to give him his props for his run with our hometown team, and that is about it I think there are plenty of candidates more "borderline" than Schilling to be honest. The guy had one of the greatest if not the greatest K/BB ratios of all-time. He didn't take his craft seriously until he got older and when it clicked he pitched like a HOFer for about a decade. Curt Schilling, the person, say what you want. Curt Schilling, the pitcher, should be in the HOF. I don't even have to think twice about that. I remember badly wanting the Red Sox to get him and I was thrilled when they did. I knew they were getting a HOF caliber pitcher to team up with Pedro just like Arizona had done with Randy Johnson. We only saw the tale end of Schilling's greatness. He was awesome with Philly from 1993 on and with Arizona, not to mention how clutch he was in the post-season. So in a way I kind of take issue with the word borderline - I mean was he Johnson, Pedro, Seaver, or Cy Young? No. But he was as good if not better than a lot of pitchers already in the HOF. The question comes down to is he bad enough a human being to negate the greatness he had as a player? For me, the answer is no. Doesn't mean I like what he says a lot of the time, but it's not bad enough (yet) to the point I wouldn't vote for him. Basically I start with having respect for ballplayers as people, and adjust when I see evidence to do so. Unfortunately I don't have much respect for Schilling the person which is too bad. I remember reading about his charity work, his desire to knock out ALS, etc. and being impressed with that, but the overall package of what I've seen from Schilling leaves a lot to be desired. One of things I like to do is meet former ballplayers at banquets, get autographs, photos, ask questions - in other words being a fan. And you can imagine what a thrill it would be to talk to our former Red Sox heroes. I had always wished (when he was playing here) that someday I'd get a chance at a function like that to talk to Schilling. Suffice to say, I really don't have that opinion now. I wouldn't mind talking baseball, and ONLY baseball with him. I do think his baseball insights are interesting, but anything else....not the least bit interested in what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 25, 2019 16:41:28 GMT -5
I think this is very fair. Used to be a saying....if don't have something good to.say.....dont say it at all. It is a world.where people live double standards all the time He is agent provocateur personified. He is also a.self proclaimed blabbermouth who also fought through some tough health circumstances. I cant remember one thing I have ever agreed with what he has said. His career is borderline HOF, imo, so I don't put too worry into that. I have to give him his props for his run with our hometown team, and that is about it I think there are plenty of candidates more "borderline" than Schilling to be honest. The guy had one of the greatest if not the greatest K/BB ratios of all-time. He didn't take his craft seriously until he got older and when it clicked he pitched like a HOFer for about a decade. Curt Schilling, the person, say what you want. Curt Schilling, the pitcher, should be in the HOF. I don't even have to think twice about that. I remember badly wanting the Red Sox to get him and I was thrilled when they did. I knew they were getting a HOF caliber pitcher to team up with Pedro just like Arizona had done with Randy Johnson. We only saw the tale end of Schilling's greatness. He was awesome with Philly from 1993 on and with Arizona, not to mention how clutch he was in the post-season. So in a way I kind of take issue with the word borderline - I mean was he Johnson, Pedro, Seaver, or Cy Young? No. But he was as good if not better than a lot of pitchers already in the HOF. The question comes down to is he bad enough a human being to negate the greatness he had as a player? For me, the answer is no. Doesn't mean I like what he says a lot of the time, but it's not bad enough (yet) to the point I wouldn't vote for him. Basically I start with having respect for ballplayers as people, and adjust when I see evidence to do so. Unfortunately I don't have much respect for Schilling the person which is too bad. I remember reading about his charity work, his desire to knock out ALS, etc. and being impressed with that, but the overall package of what I've seen from Schilling leaves a lot to be desired. One of things I like to do is meet former ballplayers at banquets, get autographs, photos, ask questions - in other words being a fan. And you can imagine what a thrill it would be to talk to our former Red Sox heroes. I had always wished (when he was playing here) that someday I'd get a chance at a function like that to talk to Schilling. Suffice to say, I really don't have that opinion now. I wouldn't mind talking baseball, and ONLY baseball with him. I do think his baseball insights are interesting, but anything else....not the least bit interested in what he has to say. 't that be a I can see your points here. But shouldn't someone being taking their craft seriously from the beginning, be a consideration in and of itself. If you look at his numbers, not really much going on before the age of 30. That is a little weird. Great peak performance, great playoff pitching (controversy alert - was it real blood ? ). Yeah, maybe borderline isn't the right word. 5 or 6 times through the process, probably fair. Add: it is already 6.....well, again, I prove i know nothing.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 25, 2019 21:37:50 GMT -5
I think there are plenty of candidates more "borderline" than Schilling to be honest. The guy had one of the greatest if not the greatest K/BB ratios of all-time. He didn't take his craft seriously until he got older and when it clicked he pitched like a HOFer for about a decade. Curt Schilling, the person, say what you want. Curt Schilling, the pitcher, should be in the HOF. I don't even have to think twice about that. I remember badly wanting the Red Sox to get him and I was thrilled when they did. I knew they were getting a HOF caliber pitcher to team up with Pedro just like Arizona had done with Randy Johnson. We only saw the tale end of Schilling's greatness. He was awesome with Philly from 1993 on and with Arizona, not to mention how clutch he was in the post-season. So in a way I kind of take issue with the word borderline - I mean was he Johnson, Pedro, Seaver, or Cy Young? No. But he was as good if not better than a lot of pitchers already in the HOF. The question comes down to is he bad enough a human being to negate the greatness he had as a player? For me, the answer is no. Doesn't mean I like what he says a lot of the time, but it's not bad enough (yet) to the point I wouldn't vote for him. Basically I start with having respect for ballplayers as people, and adjust when I see evidence to do so. Unfortunately I don't have much respect for Schilling the person which is too bad. I remember reading about his charity work, his desire to knock out ALS, etc. and being impressed with that, but the overall package of what I've seen from Schilling leaves a lot to be desired. One of things I like to do is meet former ballplayers at banquets, get autographs, photos, ask questions - in other words being a fan. And you can imagine what a thrill it would be to talk to our former Red Sox heroes. I had always wished (when he was playing here) that someday I'd get a chance at a function like that to talk to Schilling. Suffice to say, I really don't have that opinion now. I wouldn't mind talking baseball, and ONLY baseball with him. I do think his baseball insights are interesting, but anything else....not the least bit interested in what he has to say. 't that be a I can see your points here. But shouldn't someone being taking their craft seriously from the beginning, be a consideration in and of itself. If you look at his numbers, not really much going on before the age of 30. That is a little weird. Great peak performance, great playoff pitching (controversy alert - was it real blood ? ). Yeah, maybe borderline isn't the right word. 5 or 6 times through the process, probably fair. Add: it is already 6.....well, again, I prove i know nothing. Your point about Schilling prior to 30 is well taken. He was kind of a goof off. Frank Robinson got a hold of him and set him straight and then he ran into Roger Clemens who did the same thing. I think he told Schilling he was wasting his talent. From that point on, to Schilling's credit, he took their words to heart and Curt Schilling, the pitcher, matured. If you're saying he shouldn't get credit because he wasted his baseball youth I can see your point. At the end of the day though he realized things just in time. He wouldn't be the first person that puts it together later, albeit for different reasons that others. David Ortiz's HOF career really didn't start until he was 27. JD Martinez is getting a late start himself. Probably won't be long enough to be a HOFer, but if he had figured it out a few years sooner....it would be interesting to see where his numbers end up.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 26, 2019 4:17:21 GMT -5
I think one of the dumber requirements for the HOF is a 10 year career. Think about it; if Mike Trout has something tragic happen to him and can never play again then he wouldn’t be eligible. If what he’s done already isn’t hall worthy then what are we doing here? And this is coming from a smaller Hall guy. I just want the best players - not necessarily the best careers etc.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2019 18:10:53 GMT -5
I think one of the dumber requirements for the HOF is a 10 year career. Think about it; if Mike Trout has something tragic happen to him and can never play again then he wouldn’t be eligible. If what he’s done already isn’t hall worthy then what are we doing here? And this is coming from a smaller Hall guy. I just want the best players - not necessarily the best careers etc. I am positive they would waive the 10 year minimum in a case like that. The 10 year rule basically establishes a baseline for who gets to be on the ballot.
|
|
|