MrRain422

He was really dumb to have turned down arbitration.

last bump

The have to know what the country is feeling about him now to understand trends later. It's hard to know how people's opinion of him would be effected by, say, whatever stimulus package ends up being passed without knowing where he stood before it passed.

Sean Casey has retired. Kenny Rogers is likely to.

A little late on this, but if a player took out a gun and shot another player, he would likely be given a lifetime suspension from the game. That's a much larger penalty than the penalty for steroid use during the period in question, or even now. The only reason the degree of penalty came up in the first place though was because someone (sorry, don't remember who and don't feel like scrolling back so far) said that the spitball was excusable for the purposes of the HoF because the penalty for getting caught was so small that it was obviously a small misdeed in the eyes of the game, to which

I also don't appreciate it when players use the "everyone else was doing it" defense. But that doesn't mean I can't consider that myself in evaluating them as players. Some have suggested that Willie Mays used greenies.

Okay, no longer playing Devil's Advocate now. In the time period we're talking about for these 'roids, there was no penalty at all for doing them -- it was less against the rules than throwing a spitball was. This is an issue that I think I can relate to both sides of, though for guys like Bonds who were clear Hall of Famers anyway, I'd definitely let them in. Palmeiro probably not. I think that the guys who, while on steroids, dominated a league that was on steroids, showed themselves to be great players. Some of the more borderline guys I'm not sure about. But I think the fact that it

I think this is true of some free marketers. Certainly some of them aren't concerned with the consequences. There is another group of them for whom those consequences are exactly the point.

To play Devil's Advocate a bit, how do you all feel about Gaylord Perry, not a steriod user but an admitted cheater throughout his career, being in the Hall? Or other confessed cheaters like Whitey Ford or Ty Cobb?

Personally, I do think that racism has played a role in how negatively some people view Bonds -- not as big a role as his own cheating and the way he's a genuine asshole to everyone, but a role nonetheless. So I don't really have objections to him mentioning it. But yeah, you're not the first to suggest that he may be racist, and that could be true even while being a victim of racism himself. I don't have any personal knowledge of him being a racist or not-a-racist so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular issue, since there are plenty of other proven reasons to

Honestly I think it's possible for race to be a factor in them not getting along without either of them really being racist. But point taken. It's certainly possible.

Is Bonds racist? He's certainly an asshole but I don't know that he's racist.

It doesn't happen every year -- I've been in leagues where the standings didn't change much too. But I've seen things change enough too to know that static standings are not inherent to the format. By the way, since Jeff Kent's retirement has already been mentioned, hall of famer? I say yes.

I admire Paul's sense of independence from his party, his ability to build a campaign on genuine grass roots enthusiasm and his apparent sincerity, and I think he's right about a lot of our nations problems but his solutions don't often really make much sense in most areas.

In my experience, roto is much better than head-to-head though I do one of each every year. I've seen huge swings in roto -- if your league standings are set after six weeks, then you're doing something wrong. I've seen teams lead nearly wire to wire only to end up in 3rd. I've seen teams rise from 8th to first in the last few weeks of the season. Head-to-head rewards lucky weeks much more than excellence throughout the season, and if you coasted into the playoffs with a bunch of top end pitchers who are on real life playoff teams, you're likely to get screwed in your fantasy playoffs when

bumpity bump

That's fair if you like the small ball. I wasn't really making an argument in favor of the AL over the NL, was just really pointing out that the excitement of a triple wasn't really a big thing in the NL's favor. There are plenty of reasons to like one league or the other better, the frequency of the triple just isn't one of them. FWIW, I prefer the AL, but mostly because my team plays in the AL so I have more of a rooting interest in AL games. I'm pretty happy to watch a game in either league though (or any other). Which reminds me, the WBC is coming soon!

That pilot is amazing. Truly.

Triples hit by National League teams, 2008: 478 (29.88 per team, most: Arizona - 47, least: Chicago and Pittsburgh - 21). The average NL team hit a triple once every 5.42 games. Triples hit by American League teams, 2008: 408 (29.14 per team, most: Minnesota - 49, least: Seattle - 20) The average AL team hit a triple once every 5.56 games. Triples hit by National League teams, 2007: 505 (31.56 per team, most: Philadelphia - 41, least: St. Louis - 13). The average NL team hit a triple once every 5.13 games. Triples hit by American League teams, 2007: (30.92 per team, most: 433 Detroit - 50

Unrelated to league rules and styles of play, I would also offer that at this particular point in baseball history, there is more talent in the American League. Plenty of awesome players in the NL too, just not as many, and more crappy ones too.

The google search is pretty dubious from both sides. For all we know a lot of those "jim rice nice guy" hits are people saying "Jim Rice is most certainly not a nice guy." And some of the "jim rice dickface" hits could be people saying "Jim Rice is most certainly not a dickface". He had a reputation as a jerk when he played, mostly from the media but also from some of his teammates. I don't know if it means anything, but it's the rep he had.

Not that the RRHoF isn't a joke anyway, but I don't know how they can even think that anyone should take them seriously until the Stooges are inducted.

I didn't say I proved it, just that I addressed it. But if you really want to be a weiner about it, I will concede that I should have said that Rice is generally considered to be a dickhead, not that he is considered to be one by pretty much everyone. Mea culpa. I agree with this.

Sure, that's fine that you don't want to know any more about it, but you're writing it off as if you know everything there is to know. No need to learn about anything that you don't want to but sort of dumb to make such harsh and sweeping judgments about something you admittedly don't know much about. If that's how you wish to read it, but really no one is saying that.

I already addressed this. If Rice was on any team but the Red Sox, his numbers likely wouldn't even be borderline, as they were very much inflated by playing so much at Fenway. If he really said this, then I strongly disagree. Is it fair for us to argue the Hall of Fame merits of Ty Cobb vs. those of his teammate Red Downs? After all, none of us here saw either of them play. Not much to say to cryptique other than....c'mon dude, anyone who claims that they are intentionally being ignorant of something but then continues to argue against it anyway is really reaching. If you