Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   The head of the MLB players' union says steroids shouldn't keep players from the Hall of Fame. Oh, and he also wants to be on a desert island with Magic Johnson   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 118
    More: Fail, Major League Baseball, Magic Johnson, Hall of Fames, Michael Weiner, Major League Baseball Players Association, Rafael Palmeiro, World Baseball Classic, steroids  
•       •       •

912 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:41 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-12 10:40:45 PM  
Fine, screw it, you guys win.

Station: The problem I have with performance enhancers in baseball isn't that pros do it - they understand the risks, they get paid a lot of money to take them, whatever. The issue was that it was trickling down into amateur levels. Minor leaguers? Ok, not a huge deal I guess. College? Well, it's a little sticky there. High school? Yeah, no good. So even though I think it shouldn't be a big deal, we can't really allow that because it sends the wrong message to all those 99% of people who won't ever make it, no matter how many drugs they do.


Before I move onto all the stupid, this is a good point. Everyone should read it. And because of this, I feel I need to point out that I am in no way advocating anyone use steroids. In general, they're dangerous if you know how to use them, and potentially deadly if you don't. Baseball should absolutely ban steroids...but only for the above reason.

rjakobi: I don't think Raines and K. Hernandez had good enough stats.


What the crap is this. I don't care about Keith Hernandez (though he's better than most people think. Compare him to, say, Don Mattingly), but what in the world is Raines missing?

Cheesus: They should be included, along with some asterisk explaining what went on.


Well, ok, but only if we get an asterisk on Ruth's plaque explaining that he played in an era that not only had a color barrier, but also had a new "juiced" baseball.

Similarly, Bob Gibson needs an asterisk explaining that he played in the lowest offensive era since the 1910's.

TheShavingofOccam123: So I get caught with a pipe and a little amount of weed. I go to prison.


Yes, because bringing up the "War on Drugs" as an example of a rational system makes sense.

azmoviez: Some were now transformed without merit (Sosa)


Seriously? Do you honestly believe that if steroids never existed, Sammy Soda would've been a career minor leaguer or something?

Cheesus: cheated


IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: cheating


JosephFinn: cheated


MFAWG: cheating


Can I get a definition of what cheating is?

Gaylord Perry has already been brought up. But there are a lot of other HOFers who did things that, depending on the definition, may or may not count as cheating. So I'm interesting in hearing why those guys are ok, but THESE guys are bad.

TO EVERYONE:

Some questions for you to consider:

If steroids turn you into a HR hitting machines, why have most of the players that have been caught been sub-part hitters? The first major leaguer to be suspended was Alex Sanchez. He had 6 HR in 1651 PA.

Were steroids responsible for Brady Anderson hitting 50 HR in '96? If so, why did he only hit 18 the next year? That was his contract year. Shouldn't he have kept using?

What the heck was up with Davey Johnson, 1973? Steroids, right?

What about pitchers? What advantage do they gain from steroids?

Here, read this article: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/01/19/iron-fisk/. Why do you think that's wrong?

Finally, some thoughts:

There is very little evidence that steroids help you on the baseball field. They help you add muscle mass, of course, and they can help you rush back from injury a little faster. But it's not clear what the effect of that extra muscle is on the field, and the steroids are nothing compared to other, completely legal medical advancements (is Tommy John surgery cheating? Cortisone shots?).

What tends to be ignored is that we've had era changes like this before. As I previously mentioned, in 1920 or so they changed baseballs, and the new one flew off the bat better. Offense increased. In 1969, they changed the mound height. Offense increased.

I'm being a bit simplistic here, but the point is, none of the above involved any "cheating" by the players.

The article above mentions several of these, but there are a lot of changes that took place in the early 90s that could explain why offense went up. New ballparks. New teams. New bats. There's a decent theory out there that the ball was changed again, just like in the 1920s, but there's no way the league would ever admit that.

Any or all of those can easily explain the increase in offense...and they don't have anywhere near the problems the steroids theory has.

This raises the question: why would the players take steroids? Simple answer: same reason they wear those stupid Phyten necklaces. If you tell a baseball player that you have a product that could make them millions more over their career, most of them are going to use that product. That doesn't mean it's true.
 
2012-04-12 10:46:33 PM  

srhp29: Granolabar: I have to agree with you about Selig. For me the hypocrisy really comes through here. Bonds & Co. were obviously on steroids, everyone knew it. Selig definitely knew it, but he let it slide. Then the whole scandal comes out, blows up, and becomes really toxic for MLB. Today, there's Ryan Braun who, other than a failed test under rather dubious circumstances, shows no obvious signs of steroid use, and was even acquitted by the arbitrators, but Selig wants to nail him to the wall. It just seems a trifle inconsistent.

No, Ryan Braun got off on a technicality. There was absolutely no evidence his sample was tampered with. It tested for what he pissed into it.


They haven't released the reason why he got off. All that we, the public, have is second hand rumors (that may or may not be true). The arbiter never released his statement. All that was released was that they cannot state why, that "it would only make things worse", which means it was likely due to herpes medications or everyone else tested on that day also tested positive (and were exonerated).
 
2012-04-12 10:48:48 PM  

DeWayne Mann: Were steroids responsible for Brady Anderson hitting 50 HR in '96? If so, why did he only hit 18 the next year? That was his contract year. Shouldn't he have kept using?

Brady Anderson was most likely juicing. He went from a scrawny kid to a bodybuilder.

What the heck was up with Davey Johnson, 1973? Steroids, right?


Could have been. Steroids have been around since the 60s.

Lots of pro athletes juice. The NFL, MLB and UFC truly come to mind.
 
2012-04-12 10:54:03 PM  

machoprogrammer: DeWayne Mann: Were steroids responsible for Brady Anderson hitting 50 HR in '96? If so, why did he only hit 18 the next year? That was his contract year. Shouldn't he have kept using?

Brady Anderson was most likely juicing. He went from a scrawny kid to a bodybuilder.


And the rest of my question?

machoprogrammer: Could have been. Steroids have been around since the 60s.


So the steroids era should be defined as...what?

And how about Wally Moses, 1937?

machoprogrammer: Lots of pro athletes juice. The NFL, MLB and UFC truly come to mind.


One of these things is not like the other.
 
2012-04-12 11:18:19 PM  

DeWayne Mann: machoprogrammer: Could have been. Steroids have been around since the 60s.

So the steroids era should be defined as...what?

And how about Wally Moses, 1937?


Valid point.



machoprogrammer: Lots of pro athletes juice. The NFL, MLB and UFC truly come to mind.

One of these things is not like the other.


Which one? All 3 are pro sports where people juice. I could've said MMA instead of UFC, but I was talking about promotions.
 
2012-04-12 11:27:47 PM  
DeWayne Mann:Seriously? Do you honestly believe that if steroids never existed, Sammy Soda would've been a career minor leaguer or something?

No, he would have maybe (MAYBE) been a 30 / 30 guy with an okay average, but certainly not 40+ HR per year or the gaudy RBI numbers.
 
2012-04-12 11:30:13 PM  

machoprogrammer: Which one? All 3 are pro sports where people juice. I could've said MMA instead of UFC, but I was talking about promotions.


NFL: Involves hitting people
UFA: Involves hitting people
MLB: Involves hitting a small white ball with a small wooden stick

Even if steroids help a player hit said small white ball further (which I'm not sold on), there's no way they would help the player to hit the ball more often, and, in all likelyhood, would in fact make contact more difficult. In effect, the "best case" (or, if you prefer, "worst case") scenario for steroids is something akin to changing your swing so it is more of an uppercut (like, for instance, what Joey Bats did).
 
2012-04-12 11:35:32 PM  

azmoviez: the gaudy RBI numbers.


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

i2.kym-cdn.com

Oh. Oh, that was good. I needed a laugh. Ok, now, what were you saying?

azmoviez: No, he would have maybe (MAYBE) been a 30 / 30 guy with an okay average, but certainly not 40+ HR per year


Sooooo...steroids give you 10 extra HRs per year, a few extra base hits (which may or may not be HRs), but cuts your steals in half?

Man, Alex Sanchez was a moron. He could've easily had 200 SBs if not for those blasted steroids! I mean, the negative-40 HRs would be awkward, but that's ok.
 
2012-04-12 11:47:05 PM  
I really can't understand why there was never a civil suit brought against MLB by the fans.
 
2012-04-12 11:49:49 PM  

DavidVincent: I really can't understand why there was never a civil suit brought against MLB by the fans.


What's stopping you?
 
2012-04-12 11:50:06 PM  
At this point I like the Farnsworth approach: mandatory steroid injections. Problem solved!
 
2012-04-13 12:02:21 AM  
If the HoF doesn't induct players because they used steroids then if fails in its role of honoring the greatest players of the game. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds is a joke. Same goes for Pete Rose. There should absolutely be explanations about these players use of steroids or their gambling or whatever along with their achievements, but to exclude them entirely from the history of the game is wrong.
 
2012-04-13 12:06:59 AM  

red5ish: If the HoF doesn't induct players because they used steroids then if fails in its role of honoring the greatest players of the game. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds is a joke. Same goes for Pete Rose. There should absolutely be explanations about these players use of steroids or their gambling or whatever along with their achievements, but to exclude them entirely from the history of the game is wrong.


Pete Rose and BB... apples and oranges
 
2012-04-13 12:11:01 AM  

red5ish: If the HoF doesn't induct players because they used steroids then if fails in its role of honoring the greatest players of the game. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds is a joke. Same goes for Pete Rose. There should absolutely be explanations about these players use of steroids or their gambling or whatever along with their achievements, but to exclude them entirely from the history of the game is wrong.


While I don't disagree on the surface...I'd love to read the text of those explanations.

RockChalkH1N1: Pete Rose and BB... apples and oranges


Yep. Bonds has a much better case for being in the hall, being that he was a far better player.

That's what you meant, yeah?
 
2012-04-13 12:14:42 AM  

DeWayne Mann: red5ish: If the HoF doesn't induct players because they used steroids then if fails in its role of honoring the greatest players of the game. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds is a joke. Same goes for Pete Rose. There should absolutely be explanations about these players use of steroids or their gambling or whatever along with their achievements, but to exclude them entirely from the history of the game is wrong.

While I don't disagree on the surface...I'd love to read the text of those explanations.

RockChalkH1N1: Pete Rose and BB... apples and oranges

Yep. Bonds has a much better case for being in the hall, being that he was a far better player.

That's what you meant, yeah?


Not often you hear a non-Giants fan sing the praises of Barry Bonds.
 
2012-04-13 12:18:27 AM  
DeWayne Mann:Sooooo...steroids give you 10 extra HRs per year, a few extra base hits (which may or may not be HRs), but cuts your steals in half?

If Bonds is any example, yes. Baseball Almanac is down, but yeah, when Barry started his "program" his stolen bases started to decline as he bulked up.

I really don't think Sosa would have been close to a great player let alone a HOF player without steroids... and probably corked bats.
 
2012-04-13 12:19:38 AM  

Granolabar: Not often you hear a non-Giants fan sing the praises of Barry Bonds.


.298/.444/.607, career leader in HRs and walks, 3rd in OPS+, with some decent speed & defense in his younger years?

yeah, that guy SUCKS! I'd much rather have the guy who hit .303 /.375 /.409, and is only the career leader in hits because he kept himself in the lineup long after he was effective.
 
2012-04-13 12:21:48 AM  

azmoviez: DeWayne Mann:Sooooo...steroids give you 10 extra HRs per year, a few extra base hits (which may or may not be HRs), but cuts your steals in half?

If Bonds is any example, yes. Baseball Almanac is down, but yeah, when Barry started his "program" his stolen bases started to decline as he bulked up.

I really don't think Sosa would have been close to a great player let alone a HOF player without steroids... and probably corked bats.


So what happens if you spend your offseason building up muscle the old fashioned way?
 
rka
2012-04-13 12:22:27 AM  

babysealclubber: They shouldn't be kept out. Like it or not, it was an era, it happened, and we saw some pretty cool shiat. Just accept it and try to not let it happen again.


Sure it happened, but why does it mean that players from this era have to be in the Hall of Fame? Is there some sort of quota?

dohrk: How did they cheat? So a pitcher who threw a spitball should not be in the Hall? What is the difference between HGH and greenies? or coke?


If a known spitballer came up for the Hall and I was a voter he wouldn't get my vote. Neither would the pill popper. I didn't vote for Gaylord Perry, not sure why I should be worried about his situation at all when considering the current crop of steroid users.

To think that writers today are bound by the precedents that other writers set 50 years ago is absurd.

I'm not saying throw anyone in jail. No one needs to be fined anymore than current collective bargaining rules allow for. But neither does anyone automatically deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. If in 20 years we see that there are a dearth of players from the 90s-2000s in the Hall of Fame...so what? What does that matter?
 
rka
2012-04-13 12:26:34 AM  

DeWayne Mann: azmoviez: DeWayne Mann:Sooooo...steroids give you 10 extra HRs per year, a few extra base hits (which may or may not be HRs), but cuts your steals in half?

If Bonds is any example, yes. Baseball Almanac is down, but yeah, when Barry started his "program" his stolen bases started to decline as he bulked up.

I really don't think Sosa would have been close to a great player let alone a HOF player without steroids... and probably corked bats.

So what happens if you spend your offseason building up muscle the old fashioned way?


No one has time to do it the old fashioned way. Most people's bodies simply can't handle it without the roids.
 
2012-04-13 12:26:51 AM  

DeWayne Mann: Granolabar: Not often you hear a non-Giants fan sing the praises of Barry Bonds.

.298/.444/.607, career leader in HRs and walks, 3rd in OPS+, with some decent speed & defense in his younger years?

yeah, that guy SUCKS! I'd much rather have the guy who hit .303 /.375 /.409, and is only the career leader in hits because he kept himself in the lineup long after he was effective.


Whoa there chief, I'm not disagreeing. It's just Barry Bonds came across as so personally unlikable, not many non-Giants fans are willing to admit how good he was. Besides, if I read your profile right, you're a BoSox fan, and I've been to Fenway games, you ppl don't like anybody. Boston fans started chanting "Hit him in the head" when their own team was up to bat.
 
2012-04-13 12:28:26 AM  
DeWayne Mann :So what happens if you spend your offseason building up muscle the old fashioned way?

You are implying that hulk like bodybuilders are faster than their more svelte counter parts? I think you get more sluggish and slow (especially over the course of 162 games) depending on the amount of muscle mass gained. No I don't have a ready formula for that.

Can you tell me that without steroids that Sosa would have even been close to 66 HR?
 
2012-04-13 12:34:29 AM  

rka: so what? What does that matter?


It's both inconsistent and dishonest.

The history of baseball is riddled with players using illegal means to try to get an edge. Greenies. Spitballs. Scuffballs. Sign stealing. Corked bats.

Can you seriously say that steroids are worse than all of the above? Because you'd have to be able to to explain why Gaylord Perry is still in the hall, yet Greg Maddux isn't.

Then again, you could start taking players out of the hall. Which of course leads us to this.
 
2012-04-13 12:42:56 AM  
DeWayne Mann:Because you'd have to be able to to explain why Gaylord Perry is still in the hall, yet Greg Maddux isn't.

It hasn't been 5 years for Maddux yet so he's not eligible. He's first ballot as close to unanimous as possible.

Like I said earlier, I'd love to see an amnesty vote. One year, one era, anything goes. They all go in with a giant ? attached to the era. As much as I hate A-Rod, he deserves to be in the hall. Bonds as well. Possibly McGuire. Palmiero, meh. Conseco..... you catch my drift.
 
2012-04-13 12:43:38 AM  

rka: No one has time to do it the old fashioned way. Most people's bodies simply can't handle it without the roids.


But this is my question. I didn't ask "What if you build up THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT of muscle?"

My question, to be even plainer, is this:

Take any given non-muscular player. Clone him two times.

One copy stays the way he is.

One copy builds up muscles without roids.

The final uses roids.

How will their stats differ after a few seasons?

Granolabar: Whoa there chief, I'm not disagreeing.


Oh, I got that. I'm just not being 100% serious at the moment. These things happen when I'm posting in a thread which, as previously noted, seemed designed to troll me.

Granolabar: Besides, if I read your profile right, you're a BoSox fan, and I've been to Fenway games, you ppl don't like anybody.


Yeah, I'm not really the average BoSox fan.

Besides, seems pretty likely that a lot of BoSox players juiced and/or still juice (just like every other team), so it's somewhat hypocritcal to go after Barry for that.

azmoviez: Can you tell me that without steroids that Sosa would have even been close to 66 HR?


I can't tell you anything. There's very little data to back up ANY steroids related claims.

But based on what data there is...yeah, it seems pretty likely that Sosa would be up there without steroids.
 
2012-04-13 12:47:28 AM  

azmoviez: It hasn't been 5 years for Maddux yet so he's not eligible. He's first ballot as close to unanimous as possible.


Well, I was speaking from the perspective of a person in 2032, living in a world where no one from the 90s/00s got into the Hall.

But, ok, Clemens then. He'll be on the next ballot. He getting in?
 
rka
2012-04-13 12:47:32 AM  

DeWayne Mann: It's both inconsistent and dishonest.


Dishonest for whom? Inconsistent with who?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You can hold my feet to the fire to be consistent with myself, but I have no need nor desire to be consistent with people I have never met and many of whom died before I was born.

Again, who was in the Hall before (as it pertained to cheating, steroids, drugs) would not matter to me one whit if I was a baseball writer deciding who should be in the Hall now.
 
2012-04-13 12:49:11 AM  

DeWayne Mann: rka: No one has time to do it the old fashioned way. Most people's bodies simply can't handle it without the roids.

But this is my question. I didn't ask "What if you build up THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT of muscle?"

My question, to be even plainer, is this:

Take any given non-muscular player. Clone him two times.

One copy stays the way he is.

One copy builds up muscles without roids.

The final uses roids.

How will their stats differ after a few seasons?

Granolabar: Whoa there chief, I'm not disagreeing.

Oh, I got that. I'm just not being 100% serious at the moment. These things happen when I'm posting in a thread which, as previously noted, seemed designed to troll me.

Granolabar: Besides, if I read your profile right, you're a BoSox fan, and I've been to Fenway games, you ppl don't like anybody.

Yeah, I'm not really the average BoSox fan.

Besides, seems pretty likely that a lot of BoSox players juiced and/or still juice (just like every other team), so it's somewhat hypocritcal to go after Barry for that. .


Ah, yes. I understand. I'm a Brewer's fan.

Don't get me wrong though, I like Boston fans. They're passionate about their team, which is nice to see.
 
2012-04-13 12:49:18 AM  
DeWayne Mann:But based on what data there is...yeah, it seems pretty likely that Sosa would be up there without steroids.

I suppose there has to be a benchmark year when you knew Sosa was clean. With Bonds it's allegedly 99. If you take that into account, you can see the trend. Is it 100% correlation? No, but I think we can all see what happened. I put pitchers into the same bucket as well. There were far more ~100 mph pitchers in that era. Now guys like Verlander and Chapman are freaks rather than great.
 
2012-04-13 12:56:07 AM  

rka: DeWayne Mann: It's both inconsistent and dishonest.

Dishonest for whom? Inconsistent with who?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You can hold my feet to the fire to be consistent with myself, but I have no need nor desire to be consistent with people I have never met and many of whom died before I was born.

Again, who was in the Hall before (as it pertained to cheating, steroids, drugs) would not matter to me one whit if I was a baseball writer deciding who should be in the Hall now.


Again, to spell it out more clearly:

It's 2032. You take your grandkid to cooperstown. He says "Grandpa, why are there no players from the 1990s/2000s?" and you say...what? "They used steroids, which is cheating, and that's very very bad."

Maybe he accepts that. And he continues going through the Hall. And he gets to Gaylord Perry. And he looks Perry up with his future-iPad, and learns that Perry threw a spitball long, LONG after it was illegal. And he says "Why is Perry in the Hall? Wasn't he cheating?"

You've got two options: Saying that steroids are worse than other forms of cheating (which is dishonest), or saying that the Hall changed its stance on cheating (which is inconsistent).

So, I apologize. I was wrong before. It's not "inconsistent AND dishonest." It's "inconsistent OR dishonest."

My bad.
 
2012-04-13 01:08:50 AM  

azmoviez: I suppose there has to be a benchmark year when you knew Sosa was clean. With Bonds it's allegedly 99. If you take that into account, you can see the trend.


But this raises further questions. Taking a few cues from earlier...

Barry Bonds hit 41% of his HRs after he turned 35 (the year you've identified as him starting to juice).

Carlton Fisk hit 51% of his HRs after he turned 35.

Was Fisk juicing? If so, when should we define the beginning of the steroids era?

If not, can we really use Bonds as evidence for the effect of juicing?

The phrase gets bandied about a lot of fark, but it's really worth keeping in mind: Correlation doesn't equal Causation. If you want to prove that steroids cause these things, you need hard evidence. And there's nothing that comes close to that.

I'm not saying that steroids don't have any effect at all, or anything like that. But it seems (to me, at least) incredibly obvious that they don't do nearly the things that some people believe. My best guess is a similar effect to that of greenies. When I say similar, I don't mean steroids provide the EXACT SAME BENEFITS, because that would be crazy. But I think they change the balance of the game in a similar way...which is to say, somewhat negligible.
 
rka
2012-04-13 01:09:17 AM  

DeWayne Mann: So, I apologize. I was wrong before. It's not "inconsistent AND dishonest." It's "inconsistent OR dishonest."


And so to square that peg you think we should just let in steroid users?

Just so the Hall can be consistent?

Sorry. Don't agree. There are more than two options it's just that most of them don't slavishly cling to consistency when dealing with a Hall of Fame that is over 100 years old. Maybe we shouldn't have allowed black players in the Hall at all so we don't have to explain to our children why they're aren't any Negro members in the Hall of Fame prior to 1962.

You could easily tell Little Billy that the people who voted for spitballers in the past were wrong and that they shouldn't have done that. I don't think that would blow his mind as you speed home at 85 mph in a 75 and you don't get a ticket from the cop that pulled over the other guy.
 
2012-04-13 01:14:54 AM  

rka: you think we should just let in steroid users?


Since I don't think steroids are any more "cheating" than the other things I mentioned, yes, if they were good enough.

rka: they're aren't any Negro members in the Hall of Fame prior to 1962.


You know how I know you don't know what you're talking about?
 
2012-04-13 01:19:43 AM  
I get that it was an era and a Thing that Happened and everyone knew about it, but if they're in the HOF based on cheating and their numbers were artificial, then without steroids would that have achieved that same level of play? Should we be giving out awards because people cheat to do better than others? Unless every single player were juicing, we shouldn't be rewarding the ones who did under the premise that "everyone knew anyways". To argue that they earned a place in the Hall because they put up huge numbers is to ignore a factor largely responsible for those numbers. Future players don't or won't have the "luxury" of steroid abuse to challenge or pass records of steroid users, pinnacles set by HOFers...

I don't know, the whole thing just doesn't sit well with me. They broke the goddamn rules. They should suck it.
 
2012-04-13 01:22:24 AM  
Apropos of nothing:

I love Bill James, but HOF Monitor is COMPLETELY broken for relievers. Jose Mesa has a HOFm of 113. 80th best pitcher HOFm in history, "likely HOFer."

JOSE MESA. THE GUY WHO HAD A SON WHEN HE WAS 13.

So, yeah, makes perfect sense.
 
2012-04-13 01:29:38 AM  

Elandriel: Future players don't or won't have the "luxury" of steroid abuse to challenge or pass records of steroid users, pinnacles set by HOFers...


In 1914, Dutch Leonard had an ERA of 0.96. ~6 years later, a new ball was introduced, dramatically increasing the number of HRs.

Future pitchers didn't have the "luxury" of dead baseballs to challenge or pass that record. Even Gibson, in one of the worst offensive seasons ever, only managed a 1.12.

This is what we mean by "it's an era." Most stats guys take these things into account. Pedro Martinez had an ERA of 1.74 in 2000, but because we can adjust for his era, we can say it was a better season than either Leonard OR Gibson.

Anyway, I'm headed to bed. Y'all are free to call me crazy or whatever for the next few hours.
 
2012-04-13 01:51:01 AM  

machoprogrammer: They haven't released the reason why he got off. All that we, the public, have is second hand rumors (that may or may not be true). The arbiter never released his statement. All that was released was that they cannot state why, that "it would only make things worse", which means it was likely due to herpes medications or everyone else tested on that day also tested positive (and were exonerated).


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/138857174.html

So this story is not true? Someone just made this up that the chain of custody made the test invalid?
 
2012-04-13 01:56:03 AM  

srhp29: machoprogrammer: They haven't released the reason why he got off. All that we, the public, have is second hand rumors (that may or may not be true). The arbiter never released his statement. All that was released was that they cannot state why, that "it would only make things worse", which means it was likely due to herpes medications or everyone else tested on that day also tested positive (and were exonerated).

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/138857174.html

So this story is not true? Someone just made this up that the chain of custody made the test invalid?


It's not made up. But it's not the whole story either. There was more to it, but no one's talking about what else was going on, they won't release the appeal decision documents.. Whatever the whole defense was, I think it must have been pretty compelling to make a panel that never exonerates anyone overturn his suspension.
 
2012-04-13 02:02:58 AM  
It's a shame that many of the best players from the late '80s through the early '00s likely won't be inducted. The fact remains, they were among the best players in the game when they played. I'd be okay if some sort of note was put on the plaques of those players who tested positive or later admitted to the use of PEDs. Guys suspected but never caught is a little more tricky. Hell, you could even create a separate wing or permanent exhibit, entitled "Steroids/PEDs in Baseball" and put all those players in there, along with the Mitchell Report and all the other stuff associated with the period. Simply ignoring a period of about 20 years worth of history seems ridiculous to me. And yet most writers seem inclined to look past the likes of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, etc. What's going to happen when A-Rod or Manny are up for election? Rodriguez is certainly deserving, and you could make a case for Ramirez; Rodriguez was found to have used several years after his monster MVP season, and Ramirez, IIRC, was the first high-profile player suspended under the current policy. I can't envision the writers leaving out A-Rod altogether, but how is that fair, then, to those guys whom I've already listed?

If you insist on omitting those guys, then baseball needs to do a thorough investigation to find out whether each and every player currently in or on the ballot ever used PEDs. And while they're at it, they should go back and look at the use of amphetamines. According to numerous players, those were easier to obtain and were more prevalent for a longer period than were steroids. So do you want to remove any and all players who ever took "greenies" because, after all, those would markedly improve a player's condition compared to simply ingesting lots of caffeine via soda or coffee or even caffeine pills. I'm sure if you go farther back in baseball's history, you'll find other players who were less than honest in playing the game, using illegal means to gain a competitive advantage over their opponents.

Because it's simply impossible to conduct a witch hunt of that magnitude, it seems that it would make more sense to let the guys with the best numbers in, as has always been the case, but if it matters that much, make notes so that everyone who visits Cooperstown in the future is well aware of the past.
 
2012-04-13 02:03:42 AM  
DeWayne Mann:Carlton Fisk hit 51% of his HRs after he turned 35.

That 37 HR fluke year certainly helped post 35. Before you come back with "Bonds only hit 73 once" you know why he never got the chance to do so again. I'd like to see a HR per AB comparison.

Either way you can pull any figure you'd like out, but I think any sane person would agree that steroids/PED assisted a bunch of people in that 20-25 year stretch, illegally/cheating or not, the drugs helped them achieve greater numbers.
 
2012-04-13 03:40:14 AM  

babysealclubber: They shouldn't be kept out. Like it or not, it was an era, it happened, and we saw some pretty cool shiat. Just accept it and try to not let it happen again.


The way to not let it happen again is to keep them out of the Hall, or at least, keep them out long enough for the message to be sent. Make them wait. Make them sit. Make them go through all those long, frustrating years of not getting that phone call. If it's me, I shut them out on the BBWAA ballot, and force the roiders to get in via the Veterans Committee. Let their peers determine when and if they're worthy.

Roberto Alomar had to sit out of the Hall for a year just for spitting on an ump. Juam Marichal sat two years because he beat the shiat out of Johnny Roseboro and would have sat longer had Roseboro not told the baseball writers to let it go. The roiders are going to be sitting a long, long time.
 
2012-04-13 03:45:32 AM  

Cheesus: They should be included, along with some asterisk explaining what went on. MLB let this crap go on for years without thinking about anything but the $$$.


They don't put asterisks on HOF plaques. Being elected to a Hall of Fame- ANY Hall of Fame- is supposed to be the highest honor that profession can ever give you. If you're being given that highest honor, they are not going to asterisk you. They're going to praise you to the moon and that's how they'll remember you.

If you need to be asterisked, you're not a Hall of Famer. Hall of Famers don't need asterisks.
 
2012-04-13 07:18:32 AM  

LegacyDL: Pete Rose.Hall of Fame.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

You used "Pete Rose" in conjunction with "Hall of Fame"!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You funny.

/It ain't happening.
//Get over it.
 
2012-04-13 08:34:51 AM  

red5ish: If the HoF doesn't induct players because they used steroids then if fails in its role of honoring the greatest players of the game. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds is a joke. Same goes for Pete Rose. There should absolutely be explanations about these players use of steroids or their gambling or whatever along with their achievements, but to exclude them entirely from the history of the game is wrong.


The thing is, if you do that then it isn't a Hall of Fame, it is a Hall of Asterisks. Yeah, this guy had these numbers, but....

See, the whole point of having rules against steroids and rules against cheating is so that when it comes time to honor people who have put up big numbers there is an established even playing field upon which their numbers can be evaluated. That is why MLB contracts clearly state what the penalties are for getting caught breaking those rules, including what happens to your HOF eligibility. Note that I said "getting caught", not just doing it. If you do it and never get caught...the rules can not be enforced against you. Is that fair? No, but it is the best that we can currently do. More importantly, it is the way it is. It may not be the way we think it ought to be, but it is the way that it is.

The fact is that the whole reason there is disagreement between baseball fans as to what to do and how to address this problem would never come up if the rules were uniformly enforced according to how they were written. There would be no asterisks, and there would be no argument about who belongs in and who doesn't. If you are caught breaking the rules you are out. Period. Numbers don't save you, so you better weigh the risks carefully and be willing to accept the consequences of your actions without farking whining about it later. You know, be a farking grown-up. But the fact is that baseball has not had a strong commissioner in decades. Any commissioner who has not placed money over doing what is right has been vilified at every turn. So cheaters with good numbers are babied, and treated as if what they did wasn't really as wrong as someone else who cheated but didn't get good results. As a result, the integrity and meaning of the HOF has become less and less every year. Revenue is through the roof, but attendance at the game itself in most markets becomes harder and harder to maintain. The laxity in rule enforcement by the commissioner has cheapened the game, and it now doesn't mean as much to as many people as it used to. It isn't just the HOF that is becoming a joke, it is the entire game.

MLB is headed in the exact same direction as the NFL. By placing revenue as the top priority, the are changing the game in very fundamental ways that make it appeal to less and less people. It is an unsustainable business model, and it will eventually collapse unless it is changed. I applaud any decision which keeps established rule-breakers out of the HOF and out of the game. Yes, cheating has always gone on. Cheating has always been a part of the game. But that doesn't make it right. Rules have also been a part of the game. Consequences for getting caught have always been a part of the game. The only difference is that rules and consequences are supposed to be part of the game by design...cheating is not. And as long as it is addressed with laxity the sport will continue to decline.
 
2012-04-13 09:15:59 AM  

rka: No one has time to do it the old fashioned way. Most people's bodies simply can't handle it without the roids.


How dare players take drugs so that they can do even MORE work than any normal human being would in order to improve themselves in the offseason! This is baseball! You're supposed to be a lazy f*ck!

DavidVincent: I really can't understand why there was never a civil suit brought against MLB by the fans.


Indeed. They should sue for bringing an end to the most fun and exciting era in baseball history.
 
2012-04-13 09:26:47 AM  

DeWayne Mann: So what happens if you spend your offseason building up muscle the old fashioned way?


You won't be able to build it up nearly as fast. Without roids, the most you can gain is 2 lb/month, and that is with incredible genetics. With roids, you could easily double or triple that amount.


Granolabar: srhp29: machoprogrammer: They haven't released the reason why he got off. All that we, the public, have is second hand rumors (that may or may not be true). The arbiter never released his statement. All that was released was that they cannot state why, that "it would only make things worse", which means it was likely due to herpes medications or everyone else tested on that day also tested positive (and were exonerated).

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/138857174.html

So this story is not true? Someone just made this up that the chain of custody made the test invalid?

It's not made up. But it's not the whole story either. There was more to it, but no one's talking about what else was going on, they won't release the appeal decision documents.. Whatever the whole defense was, I think it must have been pretty compelling to make a panel that never exonerates anyone overturn his suspension.


And this.
 
2012-04-13 09:50:09 AM  

DrippinBalls: The cocksuckers who used steroids in MLB should do the sensible thing.... put the barrel in the mouth, pull the trigger. Yea, really.


BOY AM I GLAD YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF THINGS, TOUGH GUY.

But seriously. Advocating anyone to kill themselves over tainted sports statistics is kinda drastic. Were you hugged enough as a child?
 
2012-04-13 10:08:45 AM  
Late to the thread, but....

-What Pete Rose did is worse than what the steroid users did. Really
-Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame

And as for these two comments:

DavidVincent: I really can't understand why there was never a civil suit brought against MLB by the fans.


DrippinBalls: The cocksuckers who used steroids in MLB should do the sensible thing.... put the barrel in the mouth, pull the trigger. Yea, really.


Those have to be trolls. But just in case they aren't..... SHUT THE FARK UP! I'm firmly against steroids in baseball, but you two idiots aren't helping anything
 
2012-04-13 10:27:58 AM  

azmoviez: I'd like to see a HR per AB comparison.


I had a whole big post up and then I accidentally deleted it and I'm an idiot and sorta pissed off.

But here's the upshot:

Bonds went from a HR every 15.5 AB to one every 9, a difference of 6.5

Fisk went from a HR every 25.5 AB to one every 21, a difference of 4.5.

Out of curiosity, I checked Sosa. Before 1998, he hit a HR every 19.4 AB. 1998 to the end, he hit one every 11.9, a difference of 7.5.

And then I checked Ruth. Before 1926 (so, before he was 31), he hit a HR every 12.7 AB. From then on, he hit one every 8.3 AB, a difference of 4.4.

Hank Aaron? Before 1966, 17.8 AB. 66 to the end? 14.8, a difference of 3.

Davey Johnson. Before '73, one HR every 52.9 AB. 73 to the end? 18.7, a difference of 34.2!

Of course, I'm being somewhat disingenuous here (what can I say: I still think this thread was designed to troll me), choosing break points that I know will give fairly large differences (Hank Aaron, btw...really tough. That guy was a machine.) And speaking of differences, using percentages probably make more sense.

But the point still stands: late career power surges are not unknown.

machoprogrammer: You won't be able to build it up nearly as fast. Without roids, the most you can gain is 2 lb/month, and that is with incredible genetics. With roids, you could easily double or triple that amount.


Right, I know. Again, my question was this:

DeWayne Mann: Take any given non-muscular player. Clone him two times.

One copy stays the way he is.

One copy builds up muscles without roids.

The final uses roids.

How will their stats differ after a few seasons?

 
2012-04-13 10:47:58 AM  
I'll come back to MLB when they admit the all time hits leader into the HOF... as he earned every one.

/dying sport
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report