MLB 2007

[Spawn's dad]

no. my personal opinion is that most of them have

[bobbob1313]

I get yer points.

 

is your personal opinion that Bonds never took steroids ?

 

It's more my opinion that I don't think it changes much. He was that much better than everyone before he started taking steroids, and he just became even more dominant after he did it.

[MrRain422]

It is a fact that Bonds took steroids, and yes, his physical appearance changed dramatically so it was obvious.

 

However, many other guys have been busted since then, and they didn't look as bloated. Palmeiro sure didn't look like a juicer. We simply cannot know who did steroids and who didn't simply based on who looks like a steroid user.

 

Excluding proven steroid users from the Hall of Fame sounds good on its face, but all it really does is reward the guys who didn't get caught. The fact of the matter is, we don't know how widespread steroid use was/is in baseball (although the evidence suggest that it was very widespread, at least for a few years), and we will probably never know. So all we can really do is evaluate players based on what they did compared to who they were playing with/against.

 

I don't like that any of these guys did steroids any more than anyone else here does, but I've sort of come to accept that, for a few years, steroid use was the norm, not the exception, so we sort of just have to deal with it and move on.

[tongue-tied lightning]

it may not be a valid reason, or a good one, but Griffey's name has never come up in ALL the investigations.

 

I'll cling to the hope he never took them.

[bobbob1313]

It is a fact that Bonds took steroids, and yes, his physical appearance changed dramatically so it was obvious.

 

However, many other guys have been busted since then, and they didn't look as bloated. Palmeiro sure didn't look like a juicer. We simply cannot know who did steroids and who didn't simply based on who looks like a steroid user.

 

Excluding proven steroid users from the Hall of Fame sounds good on its face, but all it really does is reward the guys who didn't get caught.

 

 

 

This guy got caught.

[Spawn's dad]

and like in sports with more stringent testing policies, as athletes stand to get caught more emphasis will be placed on masking agents so as to not get caught. it doesn't end cheating they just cheat better.

[MrRain422]

Griffey simply wasn't better during these times.

 

OPS+ (Basically, it shows how much better than league average the player was in OPS; 100 is average)

Griffey|Bonds

 

172 | 206

170 | 182

120 | 168

152 | 187

164 | 170

149 | 177

138 | 162

 

So Bonds was better than Griffey every single year. Griffey hit more home runs probably, but Bonds' ability to walk 130 times a year (and the fact that he hit for a higher average, had more doubles and triples helps).

 

 

You wouldn't happen to have WARP numbers for these years, would you? I think Bonds probably still comes out on top, but I think that Griffey's fielding probably closes the gap in how good they were, and it's only fair to consider defense when you're evaluating how good a player a guy is, and not just how good a hitter he is.

[Spawn's dad]

[Lammycat]

The fact that very few players (in the scope of things) even get on the ballot for HOF consideration needs to be considered. Of those who are potential HOF ballot candidates, why not omit those proven to have cheated? It's not so much rewarding those who cheated and didn't get caught as it is punishing those proven to have cheated instead of further ignoring the issue.

[bobbob1313]

You wouldn't happen to have WARP numbers for these years, would you? I think Bonds probably still comes out on top, but I think that Griffey's fielding probably closes the gap in how good they were, and it's only fair to consider defense when you're evaluating how good a player a guy is, and not just how good a hitter he is.

 

 

 

 

Bonds still comes out ahead, and there's only one season when they are even.

[MrRain422]

What's the standard of proof for barring them though? Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi were proven to have juiced through leaked Grand Jury testimony. Does that count? We only know about that evidence because someone broke the law in leaking it.

 

The only potential Hall of Famer who has actually failed a test so far is Palmeiro. Not much of a ban on juicers if it's really only effecting one guy (and a guy who will likely simply get left out by the writers anyway, as many of them doubted his qualifications anyway, even before he was caught).

[bjorn_skurj]

Sigh. Bonds could have achieved much of what he has "achieved" without steroids and rightfully be considered one of the greatest to play the game. (Though never the most-loved, because he is apparently the King Shit Asshole.) But he didn't, and if the feds do end up indicting him, he may well get thrown out of baseball and be right down there with Pete Rose.

[bobbob1313]

Sigh. Bonds could have achieved much of what he has "achieved" without steroids and rightfully be considered one of the greatest to play the game. (Though never the most-loved, because he is apparently the King Shit Asshole.) But he didn't, and if the feds do end up indicting him, he may well get thrown out of baseball and be right down there with Pete Rose.

 

Speaking of another guy who should be in the Hall!

 

I guess I'm just not much of a sentimentalist when it comes to the hall of fame. There are so many guys in there who shouldn't and alot more who should be in who aren't for whatever reason (they were assholes, they didn't reach the arbitrary numbers, etc). The Hall of Fame is as much a popularity contest as it is a shows the greatest players of the game's history.

 

 

I mean, we're going to see a guy like Curt Schilling get in most likely, but not a guy like Kevin Brown. Why? Extremely similar overall numbers, and you could argue Brown was a better pitcher, but he won't be considered, and Schilling is likely in. Why? Because of a bloody sock?

[parisisstale]

It's more my opinion that I don't think it changes much. He was that much better than everyone before he started taking steroids, and he just became even more dominant after he did it.

 

No argument that he was the best player in the game pre-steroids and was already a hall-of-famer.

 

But doesn't change much???????

 

He's about to break the most storied records in all of sports!!!!! Nobody would really care if this wasn't going to happen. And you could justifiably argue that he wouldn't have come close to the record without the "enhancements".

[bobbob1313]

No argument that he was the best player in the game pre-steroids and was already a hall-of-famer.

 

But doesn't change much???????

 

He's about to break the most storied records in all of sports!!!!! Nobody would really care if this wasn't going to happen. And you could justifiably argue that he wouldn't have come close to the record without the "enhancements".

 

And there's a good chance nobody's going to make that big of a deal about it when he breaks the record, and most people won't recognize him as "their" home run king.

 

Bud Selig's not even going to be at the game.

 

(I hope Barry breaks it in Miluwakee, personally. Just to see what Bud would do.)

[MrRain422]

Schilling's K/BB is a shit ton better than Brown's. I know that Schilling will get in easy, but I think a fair evaluation of him and Brown puts Schilling as a bordline HoFer, and Brown definately out.

 

And I think Rose's banning from the Hall of Fame is more justified than any hypothetical one on Bonds would be, simply because Bonds's steroid use, while wrong, was not actually against the rules of Major League Baseball. Rose broke the #1 rule in all of baseball over and over and over again. Really, both of them should be in the Hall, but I personally think there's a better case for excluding Rose.

 

Bonds is the face of the steroids scandal for two reasons. 1) He's the best player who has been under scrutiny and 2) He is a gigantic asshole. But neither of these things make his steroid use a worse thing than anyone else's.

 

A-Rod is going to break the record a few years down the road anyway.

[bobbob1313]

A-Rod is going to break the record a few years down the road anyway.

 

And Pujols should be right behind him.

[Reni]

Speaking of another guy who should be in the Hall!

 

I guess I'm just not much of a sentimentalist when it comes to the hall of fame. There are so many guys in there who shouldn't and alot more who should be in who aren't for whatever reason (they were assholes, they didn't reach the arbitrary numbers, etc). The Hall of Fame is as much a popularity contest as it is a shows the greatest players of the game's history.

I mean, we're going to see a guy like Curt Schilling get in most likely, but not a guy like Kevin Brown. Why? Extremely similar overall numbers, and you could argue Brown was a better pitcher, but he won't be considered, and Schilling is likely in. Why? Because of a bloody sock?

 

 

oy, numbers obsessive.......yes, baseball is about numbers - but it IS also about sentimentality. Baseball and many players are something near and dear to the heart of this nation and the world. There are beloved players who may not be the best numbers wise, but have captured the hearts and minds of generations. So, when considering someone into the Hall of Fame, sure numbers mean something, but it also means something to have been the kind of person who has had the masses in their pocket. It does matter.

 

 

You'd be one to argue that the HOF got it right not to induct Buck O'Neil into the Hall of Fame - but him not being inducted (in my mind) is a travesty. There are people out there who bring something to the game that can't be recorded by numbers. And those people are better than 20 Barry Bonds' in my mind. My favorite player of my generation will never make it into the HOF.

 

Yes, I am a sentimentalist. I make no apologies.

 

----

 

I agree with Rocky on the Pete Rose thing - and growing up, I freakin loved Pete Rose.

 

----

 

I hope Bonds gets one HR from Aaron's record and gets indicted and never returns to the game.

[bobbob1313]

oy, numbers obsessive.......yes, baseball is about numbers - but it IS also about sentimentality. Baseball and many players are something near and dear to the heart of this nation and the world. There are beloved players who may not be the best numbers wise, but have captured the hearts and minds of generations. So, when considering someone into the Hall of Fame, sure numbers mean something, but it also means something to have been the kind of person who has had the masses in their pocket. It does matter.

You'd be one to argue that the HOF got it right not to induct Buck O'Neil into the Hall of Fame - but him not being inducted (in my mind) is a travesty. There are people out there who bring something to the game that can't be recorded by numbers. And those people are better than 20 Barry Bonds' in my mind. My favorite player of my generation will never make it into the HOF.

 

Yes, I am a sentimentalist. I make no apologies.

 

I actually think they should've inducted Buck, and I think it was a real mistake to leave him out. Maybe not so much as a player, but as a spokesman for the game he was unparralelled.

 

"God's been good to me. They didn't think Buck was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. That's the way they thought about it and that's the way it is, so we're going to live with that. Now, if I'm a Hall of Famer for you, that's all right with me. Just keep loving old Buck. Don't weep for Buck. No, man, be happy, be thankful."

 

 

I'm plenty sentimental about the game, but not so much the hall of fame. It should be for guys who were leaps and bounds better than their peers. Special consideration should be made to guys like Jackie Robinson who wasn't necesarilly the best player in the league, but who changed the game more than almost any other guy.

 

 

I have to say, I hate the insinuation by many that people who look at the numbers of a player to judge them more so than what they see don't appreciate the game as much. I don't know if thats what you meant by it, but thats how it comes off, and thats how a lot of the so-called "sentimentalists" look at people who look at numbers to judge players. It doesn't change how you appreciate the game, it changes how you study the game, or how you look at the game after the fact. Stats don't tell you what a guy is going to do next, they tell you what he's done already. Thats all.

[MrRain422]

Actually, by most accounts Buck O'Neil was a borderline Hall of Fame player anyway. And seeing as his quality of play was so close anyway, everything else he did more than tips the balance that way. His exclusion is, in my mind, the #1 travesty in the Hall of Fame right now.

[Reni]

"God's been good to me. They didn't think Buck was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. That's the way they thought about it and that's the way it is, so we're going to live with that. Now, if I'm a Hall of Famer for you, that's all right with me. Just keep loving old Buck. Don't weep for Buck. No, man, be happy, be thankful."

 

Of course I have seen that quote - Buck O'Neil was the epitome of grace. What a beautiful soul.

 

Rocky -

[Sir Stewart]

[motion to split off the steriod discussion into a new thread, lest it take over this one]

This went well.

[Lammycat]

"And I think Rose's banning from the Hall of Fame is more justified than any hypothetical one on Bonds would be, simply because Bonds's steroid use, while wrong, was not actually against the rules of Major League Baseball."

 

Again, steroid use has been illegal in baseball since 1991. So it was not only wrong, but can be considered cheating.

 

Also, there's a reason why the HOF is manned by humans and not machines. While stats obviously come in to play, there is the issue of emotion and character that goes into each vote, I'd imagine. This isn't to say that there are guys in the HOF that shouldn't be and guys that probably should be. But much like the flaws of the game, there are flaws in the HOF system.

 

Kevin Brown and Schilling do have similar numbers and both are borderline candidates. I think Schilling has a better shot, but I'll let some of Bill James' handiwork justify the reasoning:

 

http://talkingbaseball.wordpress.com/2005/...e-hall-of-fame/

[bjorn_skurj]

Actually, by most accounts Buck O'Neil was a borderline Hall of Fame player anyway. And seeing as his quality of play was so close anyway, everything else he did more than tips the balance that way. His exclusion is, in my mind, the #1 travesty in the Hall of Fame right now.

I agree with that.

 

Nice outing by Matsuzaka.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Ozzie put Bobby Jenks in during the 8th innning in a tie game. It worked out. I thought that might make the anti-strict-closer-role folk amongst us pleased.