Comments on: One very shallow Hall of Fame thought

By: ctony1216

ctony1216 — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:41:40 +0000

No throwing a spitball is not the same as injecting yourself with harmful, illegal drugs. One can kill you (see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids#Adverse_effects) The other can’t.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:32:05 +0000

Porcello doesn’t miss any bats. The GB rate is great, but GB become hits more often than FB regardless of defense….that just means he shouldn’t allow many HRs…but even his HR/FB rate is below average….so when guys do hit it in the air they hit it hard. He’s just not an upgrade over what the Orioles already have….and neither is Peralta or Boesh. There is just nothing in there that helps the Orioles. Increasing Machado’s value isn’t the same as making the overall team better. Hardy is a very good defender at SS.

There is just nothing in such a deal that should interest the Orioles….that looks like something a TIger fan would suggest that wants to dump roster dead weight.

By: joegolfer

joegolfer — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:40:58 +0000

Paperlions, I’ve seen your same comment before about how steroids affect the upper body, and that hitting a baseball is using the lower body.
You actually stated once before on a different article (by some unknown calculations that only you know of) that a baseball would travel only about three feet further than normal for steroid users.
I guess that’s why Bonds suddenly started jacking over 70 homers, many of them not into the first row of seats but into the bay.
I guess it’s why so many of Sosa’s homers went not into the basket at the top of the ivy but clear over the fence beyond the bleachers, out into the street where the ballhawks were waiting.
Infamous Olympic sprinting cheat, Ben Johnson, must not have gotten your memo that steroids mainly affect only the upper body, as he ran for a world record time back in his day, though later stripped of his medal.

By: joegolfer

joegolfer — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:26:22 +0000

Darryl Strawberry stated that he took amphetamines, and he stated something to the effect that “the baseball liked like a great big old basketball when it was approaching the plate”.
In other words, it made him a much better hitter than he normally would have been.
That said, we can’t go into the past and punish every suspected ‘greenie’ user.
But we shouldn’t reward current cheaters either. Current PED’s users get suspended a minimum of 50 games the very first time. Bonds used PED’s for years, jacking 73 homers because of it, having a much higher avg because it allowed him to get to balls he normally wouldn’t have caught up to.

By: joegolfer

joegolfer — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:13:57 +0000

Hey lanflfan, sorry to see you get so many thumbs down.
You actually took the time to write a well thought out comment. You can’t cover every possible aspect, as that would take pages and pages.
Too bad Saints97 just doesn’t get it, as your whole point was about not allowing folks who did things to enhance their skill levels artificially (And let’s not hear from the “they took greenies in the 70′s and 80′s bunch”). We can’t change the past. We can change the future, and if that means that steroid users get punished, so be it.
Yes, there are plenty of bad role models for kids in the HOF, Saints97. The man’s point wasn’t about that. It was about not honoring present and future cheaters, as we don’t have a time machine to go into the past and address those prior players and their issues.

By: joegolfer

joegolfer — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:56:47 +0000

Craig’s final statement that one of the leading arguments against voting in Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens and other PED’s users would make less sense than it already does simply doesn’t hold to logical reasoning, even if it suits Craig’s opinions on the topic.
Just because someone slipped thru the net already and got into the HOF while using PED’s doesn’t somehow justify letting other PED users in.
Craig, if we found out that a current HOF’er admitted to betting against his own team because he liked to make money on the side, would it mean that it makes less sense to keep some future person out of the HOF for also betting against his own team?
It’s the exact same logic, simply with a different crime against the game.

By: lanflfan

lanflfan — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:27:19 +0000

saints
I stated “you can’t fix the past”. To expand on that, I do not advocate or believe you can not reach into the HoF and remove anyone/everyone who no longer fits “our” vision using current values (whenever that is, now or in the future). But why does that mean we should continue to elect players of questionable integrity simply because they had great stats without examining HOW they played the game? If that is the case, change the name to the Hall of Awesome Stats, and all you need is a baseline stat adjusted for era.

By: lanflfan

lanflfan — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:12:16 +0000

We have a “Cause and Effect relationship here.

Cause: Pete Rose was caught betting on baseball, which is against the rules. To save face, he cut a deal.

Effect: He is banned from baseball.

Can’t have one without the other, ergo betting caused the ban.

By: jwbiii

jwbiii — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:42:47 +0000

Canseco allegedly tried to extort Magglio Ordonez to keep him out of volume 2, so that is not out of the question.

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:27:27 +0000

He was probably paid-off by said player to keep his mouth shut. And yes I am serious.

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:24:04 +0000

Maybe you guys should be lobbying congress and MLB to “get tough” on scuffing/spitting/corking if it bothers you so much. Players have been doing it since baseball started. Or are you just acting like you care to make some uneven points bout PEDs. Yeah, that’s probably it.

By: fantasymoney

fantasymoney — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:17:05 +0000

Hmmmmmm….I have always thought that Rickey Henderson could have been a steroids user. Rickey was an outstanding baseball player, for many years, who happened to be in prime physical condition throughout his career. He’s never been linked to PEDs and there’s no real reason to believe that he was a user. However, I will never forget something that the Godfather of Steroids, Mr. Canseco, said in and interview directly after the HOF induction ceremony in late July 2009. Only a few days after Rickey and Jim Rice received their plaques, Jose stated that baseball would have a “big problem” on their hands when they find out that there is a HOF member who has used PEDs. Of course, Jose wrote two books published in 2005 and 2008 and has been interviewed countless times on the subject of steroids. This was the first time that I had remembered him ever bringing up the subject of a PED user already being in the HOF. You would have thought that he would have used that subject matter in one of his prior books to sell more copies. Jose took a step back and never named anyone specifically….but I always felt like the timing of his statement was telling nonetheless.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:48:08 +0000

It is cheating. And there is a punishment for it for those who get caught. Just like there is a MUCH more severe punishment for PEDs. They are different forms of cheating with different levels of punishment. It’s not rocket science.

I wasn’t sure if you previous comment was directed towards me, but now I know it was. Are you really this thick? Do you think the reason MLB started suspending people 50/100 games was due to the best interests of the game or that they were concerned with cleaning up PEDs? PEDs got baseball back on to the national stage. People may say they are pissed at the amount of drugs that are in MLB, but they aren’t showing it with record numbers of attendance and revenue.

The reason for the punishments is Congress got involved, and tried to make it a national story when it wasn’t needed. If you think it honestly was in the best interests of the game, why did it take so long to get testing? You seem to be strong on opinions, but lack any facts to back them up.

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:51:36 +0000

My last reply came out about two space up above. We’ve probably worn this out. Have a nice evening. (Seriously).

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:49:34 +0000

I’ll go back to the first thing you said on this thread. No cheating is acceptable. An artificial distinction in punishments doesn’t change that. There is no particular reason to treat one more severely than the other. It is certainly not based on any data they gathered or studies they did. Just a reaction in fear to public opinion.

And a “blind eye” is a pretty benevolent interpretation of what actually went on.

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:35:34 +0000

That about nails it. Scuffing/spitting/corking have never been huge offenses in the eyes of MLB. Now that PEDs have been exposed as rampant in the league, they finally did something about it after years of turning a blind eye. So what is your point. Yes, they are different offense with different levels of punishment. If you have an issue with the severity of punishment for scuffing/spitting/corking, then just come out and say it instead of skirting around the subject and talking about PEDs instead.

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:27:05 +0000

You say PED’s are more serious in the eyes of the league. Why is that?

Nothing to do with the fact that the league used to encourage use sub rosa until it was clear it was unpopular? Now it’s a felony?

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:16:08 +0000

It is cheating. And there is a punishment for it for those who get caught. Just like there is a MUCH more severe punishment for PEDs. They are different forms of cheating with different levels of punishment. It’s not rocket science.

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:09:13 +0000

As soon as you come up for a reason as to why cheating isn’t cheating.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:05:25 +0000

I see what you did there.

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:59:31 +0000

I have no idea what it is you are blathering on and on about. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF because no one on the planet cares about spitballs and scuffing as much as you do. Thank god your take on the subject isn’t widely accepted.

By: stex52

stex52 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:56:16 +0000

In the eyes of the league?

The league actively condoned it until Congress got on their cases. It’s either cheating or it isn’t. Felony/misdemeanor? We already said this wasn’t a legal argument.

Why, in your eyes, is some cheating okay and others not?

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:45:46 +0000

One last time: if someone makes an ignorant, ill-informed decision based on prejudice, which hunting and superstition then I as a researcher, health care worker, and thinking person feel absolutely NO URGE to buy in to what they are selling. Why you choose to buy in to it is your problem, Bradley. Bottom line: altering baseballs improves pitching performance FAR MORE than ‘roiding it improves hitting. I don’t give a tiny mouse turd if you and the rest of the MLB Committee on Sanctimony and Bullshit feel otherwise. Your opinions do not fit the facts and the stance taken is out of proportion to the effect of past cheating.

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:37:16 +0000

Yeah, sorry ’bout that.

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:33:24 +0000

That is not at ALL what we are talking about here. This isn’t a discussion about steroids, dude. This is a discussion about the differences in scuffing/spitting/corking and PEDs. A difference recognized by MLB and HOF voters. We are talking why using Gaylord Perry as an example as to why Barry Bonds should be elected is not logical. They DIDN’T commit the same offense IN THE EYES OF THE LEAGUE THEY PLAYED FOR.

By: jwbiii

jwbiii — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:29:46 +0000

generic, Pud Galvin, 1889.
http://www.history.com/news/baseballs-first-fountain-of-youth

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:21:31 +0000

Know what that means? It means that you comparing the offenses as if they are equal is a logical fallacy.

The difference in punishment couldn’t have anything to do with a Congress headed steroid witchhunt, could it? No, that’s not it. No league has ever overreacted in the face of outside pressure.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:19:40 +0000

Dang, you are so polite…it’s like…you are Canadian or something (e.g. Minnesotan).

By: braddavery

braddavery — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:01:08 +0000

Yes, it’s me who is the dense one. At least I know the difference between misdemeanor and felony. To you it’s all just crime and the punishments should all be the same. lol

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:48:29 +0000

Still missing the point, eh Brad? Shit, but you’re dense. I give up.