Home Sports Talk

2019 Baseball Hall of Fame - Smith and Baines elected

13

Comments

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And softparade, like I said, I understand.

    I nailed it with the mail man didn’t I.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary

    Stats can be misleading especially when you try to convince people that one of the all time greats was not deserving of his accomplishments. You list several players that were not even close to Hunter's talents but since the lesser player has a higher rating in some stat. You claim that is proves your point.

    Lets look at football stats. A stat used since 73 to rate quarterbacks.

    Joe Montana has only the 13th highest QB rating at 92.3. Can you name 13 better QB's ? According to QB Rating Tony Romo is way better at #5 97.1. In fact, Montana must be awful because Chad Pennington had a rating of 90.1 and sits at #14 all time. Also Montana played for great teams and had Jerry Rice at WR. Pennington played on bad teams and didn't have great WR's to throw to but his rating is similar to Montana. The following players are all rated higher than Joe. Phillip Rivers, Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson has the second highest rating of all time at 100.5.

    Dan Marino ranks at #30, Favre at #32, Jim Kelley #40, Staubach #45, Fouts #74, Elway #75 and Unitas #86

    None of them are hall worthy because Matt Schaub ranks at #17, Andy Dalton #20, Carson Palmer #23, Culpepper #24 at 87.8, Jeff Garcia #25 at 87.5 tied with Ryan Tannehill and Alex Smith #27 at 87.3

    In conclusion you should take stats with a grain of salt and use common sense when evaluating how great a player really was.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,801 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JoeBanzai said:
    I would certainly welcome some evidence that supports Blue as a much better pitcher. They look pretty similar to me.

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    Top 10 seasons in the metrics that matter:

    Blue: Hunter - ERA+
    183:144
    142:140
    140:134
    123:114
    121:113
    119:107
    109:102
    108:98
    104:93
    103:85

    Blue wins 10-0

    Blue: Hunter - WAR
    9.0:8.1
    7.7:6.9
    5.8:5.7
    5.0:4.7
    4.7:2.7
    3.6:2.3
    2.9:1.9
    2.7:1.5
    2.1:1.3
    2.1:1.0

    Blue wins 10-0

    Blue:Hunter - WPA
    6.6:4.5
    5.7:3.8
    3.1:3.1
    2.9:2.9
    2.9:2.2
    2.6:1.4
    1.6:1.2
    1.3:0.9
    1.3:0.3
    0.9:-0.4

    Blue wins 8-0-2

    Now, "much" is subjective and if you want to leave off that adjective, I have no objection. But, Blue was better than Hunter; there is no way around that. That Hunter is in the HOF and Blue is not makes no sense at all. The only way to see them as similar is to ignore that Hunter pitched through the deadball era in the late 60's while Blue did not, instead pitching into the much higher scoring 80's.

    They won't be clean sweeps, like with Blue, but Hunter also loses the same comparison to Pappas, McDowell, Tiant, Messersmith, Kaat, John, and a host of others. Do you want to know who beats Hunter 27-3, pitched 400 more innings, had a 4-0 record in the postseason and got 0.9% of the vote in his one and only HOF appearance? Jerry Koosman. Jerry Koosman was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter; in my opinion, a "much" better pitcher than Jim Hunter. Steve Rogers beats Hunter 23-7, for Pete's sake. Rogers also has a career W/L of .510, 21 points greater than the teams he pitched for. Hunter has a career W/L of .574, only 10 points higher than the teams he pitched for. Yeah, I'll say it - Steve Rogers was a better pitcher than Jim Hunter; the fact that he never got a single HOF vote providing zero evidence to the contrary.

    "The metrics that matter" ( if I am getting these numbers correct) WPA Blue was overall less than one game better per year in those 10 years? WOW It balloons to about 1 full game using WAR? Another WOW

    Lets look at WHIP a number I happen to like (and one that's head to head, without mixing in every ham and egger who was pitching at the time);

    Hunter/Blue
    .914:.952
    .986:1.093
    1.009:1.109
    1.114:1.174
    1.125:1.174
    1.127:1.210
    1.128:1.211
    1.135:1.218
    1.192:1.230
    1.194:1.323

    Hunter wins 10-0

    I conceded that Blue had the amazing year in 1971, but then it was 5 years until he had another very good year and another 5 until he had another very good year.

    Hunter had 3 very good years out of four and a fourth at the same time when he was 21-5 with a higher ERA. In his 25 wins he had a 2.35 ERA. Those 5 bad games in 1973 raised his ERA for the year by almost a full run. He also had a good year in 71, in looking at his splits that year his ERA in his wins was 1.74 and losses 5.72. Interesting that when he was "on" he was pretty much unhittable. Blues same season, his best, he won 3 more games and lost 3 fewer with the same team. His ERA+ was 70 points higher. Throw out that one year and your numbers change a LOT.

    Your numbers (and mine too) tell me they were pretty equal. That 5 year period where Hunter won 20 every year was a nice run and people like streaks. What they don't seem to like is a guy coming in and being awesome and then being average for 3 years and then up and down. They wonder why he couldn't "fill in" those average years with better performances.

    Many of the pitchers you mentioned were very very good. Messersmith was good but had too short of a career, McDowell, I heartily agree with you on, he had some dominating years and doesn't get the respect he deserves. Tiant had a couple of great years and several very good ones too. Kaat had a few above average years and was just a good solid pitcher with really no bad years when he was a starter. Kooseman had a great start to his career then kind of petered out and Pappas doesn't look like he really started enough games.

    If you look a little deeper the guys you mentioned (except for maybe McDowell) were NOT as good as Hunter or Blue even though their era+ ( the more I see the "+" the less I like it) are all about the same.

    I am not really on the Catfish Hunter bandwagon, but I am ok with him in and Blue not. Your case is well made for Vida though.

    I can't believe I am still up........goodnight.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    @dallasactuary

    Stats can be misleading especially when you try to convince people that one of the all time greats was not deserving of his accomplishments. You list several players that were not even close to Hunter's talents but since the lesser player has a higher rating in some stat. You claim that is proves your point.

    Your argument is that Hunter is an all time great because...., well, because you just know that he was an all time great. You then erroneously state that I showed several lesser players were better than Hunter because they beat him in "some stat". What I actually did was show that these better pitchers beat Hunter in multiple stats - the stats that measure pitching rather than teammates and ballparks - and that they beat him repeatedly, year after year after year.

    What YOU are doing is grabbing "some stat" - team wins - and using it to show that a lesser player is better than several better pitchers. Could you at least try to make an argument that addresses something that I've actually said? I made a very detailed post that showed how Hunter compares to Blue in ERA+, WAR and WPA. All of those measurements have their advantages and disadvantages - which is why I showed all three - but all of them try to isolate the contribution of the pitcher from the contributions of his teammates, and are adjusted to reflect the relative ease or difficulty of pitching in the time and park that the pitcher found himself in. It's an awful lot of information to simply dismiss without even acknowledging its existence. WHY are ERA+, WAR and WPA inferior to your "common sense"? WHY do team wins capture a pitcher's skill, regardless of the number of runs his own team scores, better than all the stats that say otherwise? If you won't even attempt to address these points then we're not actually debating anything.

    Does it effect your position at all to know that Hunter's ERA in road games was 3.92, and 2.70 at home? Did it mean anything to you when I pointed out that Steve Rogers W/L % was better than his team's by a greater margin than Hunter? Does Vida Blue's clean sweep of Hunter in ERA+, WAR and WPA provide zero evidence that Blue was the better pitcher, or do you give it some weight? Give me a standard that defines pitching greatness that applies generally and wasn't invented just to make Hunter look good (wins before age 30 and crap like that) and I can evaluate that standard. You telling me that Hunter was great despite all of the statistical evidence pointing the other direction isn't getting us anywhere. Give me just one stat that doesn't reflect Hunter's teammates ability (wins) or the difficulty of hitting in Oakland Coliseum (WHIP) that shows Hunter was better than Blue, Koosman, Tiant or any HOF pitcher besides Jack Morris. Just one, and we can move on.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    I proved to you that stats aren't everything. You completely glossed over QB rating. Can you name 12 better QB's than Montana. How about 73 QB's better than Elway. 85 better than Unitas.

    Does it mean anything to you that average QB's have better ratings than some of the best to ever play the game ?

    Hunter is in the Hall of Fame which validates my point. It isn't just because I know. The pitchers you mention will never make the hall ! You haven't proven anything ! The only thing you prove is you lack common sense. Chad Pennington is ranked #14 all time in QB rating but I am not on a sports blog trying to convince people that because this stat ranks him higher than the majority of QB's ever to play the game he is worthy of the hall and all the legends don't deserve their place in history !

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    I proved to you that stats aren't everything.

    I think you actually proved the stats you cited don’t mean everything. For that you would be correct.

    What does QB ratings have to do with anything? It’s just one piece of the puzzle. Same with ERA+, WAR and WPA. If you used just one of these metrics independently you wouldn’t have the whole picture either. Used together the picture becomes a whole lot clearer.

    m

    Walker Proof Digital Album
    Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    @dallasactuary

    Stats can be misleading especially when you try to convince people that one of the all time greats was not deserving of his accomplishments. You list several players that were not even close to Hunter's talents but since the lesser player has a higher rating in some stat. You claim that is proves your point.

    Lets look at football stats. A stat used since 73 to rate quarterbacks.

    Joe Montana has only the 13th highest QB rating at 92.3. Can you name 13 better QB's ? According to QB Rating Tony Romo is way better at #5 97.1. In fact, Montana must be awful because Chad Pennington had a rating of 90.1 and sits at #14 all time. Also Montana played for great teams and had Jerry Rice at WR. Pennington played on bad teams and didn't have great WR's to throw to but his rating is similar to Montana. The following players are all rated higher than Joe. Phillip Rivers, Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson has the second highest rating of all time at 100.5.

    Dan Marino ranks at #30, Favre at #32, Jim Kelley #40, Staubach #45, Fouts #74, Elway #75 and Unitas #86

    None of them are hall worthy because Matt Schaub ranks at #17, Andy Dalton #20, Carson Palmer #23, Culpepper #24 at 87.8, Jeff Garcia #25 at 87.5 tied with Ryan Tannehill and Alex Smith #27 at 87.3

    In conclusion you should take stats with a grain of salt and use common sense when evaluating how great a player really was.

    Why are you comparing football stats to baseball? Apples to oranges and not applicable. There is a reason for skewed qb ratings in favor of modern players. Rule changes. The only significant rule changes in modern baseball have been lowering the mound in 1969 and the introduction of the dh.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @maxdome said:
    @dallasactuary

    Stats can be misleading especially when you try to convince people that one of the all time greats was not deserving of his accomplishments. You list several players that were not even close to Hunter's talents but since the lesser player has a higher rating in some stat. You claim that is proves your point.

    Lets look at football stats. A stat used since 73 to rate quarterbacks.

    Joe Montana has only the 13th highest QB rating at 92.3. Can you name 13 better QB's ? According to QB Rating Tony Romo is way better at #5 97.1. In fact, Montana must be awful because Chad Pennington had a rating of 90.1 and sits at #14 all time. Also Montana played for great teams and had Jerry Rice at WR. Pennington played on bad teams and didn't have great WR's to throw to but his rating is similar to Montana. The following players are all rated higher than Joe. Phillip Rivers, Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson has the second highest rating of all time at 100.5.

    Dan Marino ranks at #30, Favre at #32, Jim Kelley #40, Staubach #45, Fouts #74, Elway #75 and Unitas #86

    None of them are hall worthy because Matt Schaub ranks at #17, Andy Dalton #20, Carson Palmer #23, Culpepper #24 at 87.8, Jeff Garcia #25 at 87.5 tied with Ryan Tannehill and Alex Smith #27 at 87.3

    In conclusion you should take stats with a grain of salt and use common sense when evaluating how great a player really was.

    Why are you comparing football stats to baseball? Apples to oranges and not applicable. There is a reason for skewed qb ratings in favor of modern players. Rule changes. The only significant rule changes in modern baseball have been lowering the mound in 1969 and the introduction of the dh.

    Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth may disagree slightly with your take that rule changes haven’t changed the stats a little.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    @craig44 said:

    @maxdome said:
    @dallasactuary

    Stats can be misleading especially when you try to convince people that one of the all time greats was not deserving of his accomplishments. You list several players that were not even close to Hunter's talents but since the lesser player has a higher rating in some stat. You claim that is proves your point.

    Lets look at football stats. A stat used since 73 to rate quarterbacks.

    Joe Montana has only the 13th highest QB rating at 92.3. Can you name 13 better QB's ? According to QB Rating Tony Romo is way better at #5 97.1. In fact, Montana must be awful because Chad Pennington had a rating of 90.1 and sits at #14 all time. Also Montana played for great teams and had Jerry Rice at WR. Pennington played on bad teams and didn't have great WR's to throw to but his rating is similar to Montana. The following players are all rated higher than Joe. Phillip Rivers, Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Russell Wilson has the second highest rating of all time at 100.5.

    Dan Marino ranks at #30, Favre at #32, Jim Kelley #40, Staubach #45, Fouts #74, Elway #75 and Unitas #86

    None of them are hall worthy because Matt Schaub ranks at #17, Andy Dalton #20, Carson Palmer #23, Culpepper #24 at 87.8, Jeff Garcia #25 at 87.5 tied with Ryan Tannehill and Alex Smith #27 at 87.3

    In conclusion you should take stats with a grain of salt and use common sense when evaluating how great a player really was.

    Why are you comparing football stats to baseball? Apples to oranges and not applicable. There is a reason for skewed qb ratings in favor of modern players. Rule changes. The only significant rule changes in modern baseball have been lowering the mound in 1969 and the introduction of the dh.

    Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth may disagree slightly with your take that rule changes haven’t changed the stats a little.

    I was only speaking of modern rule changes. I understand going further back you have the breaking of the color barier, outlawing of doctored baseball's and the change of composition of the ball itself.

    What changes do you speak of?

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The egregious and rampant steroid and PED use that helped to shatter many statistical records and accomplishments both great and small.

    And the resulting changes to the testing rules.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    The egregious and rampant steroid and PED use that helped to shatter many statistical records and accomplishments both great and small.

    And the resulting changes to the testing rules.

    That is amorphous. When did PED use start? It has never stopped. Players have been using PED since Pud Galvin in the 1890's. Hank himself used. Players have ALWAYS tried to get an advantage/cheat at their respective sports. How do we know which records are clean and not? Others than admitted users or a positive test, we dont even know who used. It is a moving target and impossible to nail down the who's or net effect.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    The egregious and rampant steroid and PED use that helped to shatter many statistical records and accomplishments both great and small.

    And the resulting changes to the testing rules.

    That is amorphous. When did PED use start? It has never stopped. Players have been using PED since Pud Galvin in the 1890's. Hank himself used. Players have ALWAYS tried to get an advantage/cheat at their respective sports. How do we know which records are clean and not? Others than admitted users or a positive test, we dont even know who used. It is a moving target and impossible to nail down the who's or net effect.

    I agree that players have always sought and continue to seek an edge. Too much opportunity and money not to do it.

    What I cannot ignore, however, is that these regimens and the drugs themselves improved dramatically around ‘85 and then again around ‘95. And the statistics bear that out - linger career arcs, less games missed, better season and career totals. There are other factors, too (people often attribute steroid use to hitters only when pitchers derived as much if not more benefit), that contributed significantly to the increase in the numbers in baseball. Many/most of the best players of the era admitted use, had a significant cloud of suspicion around them or failed a test of some kind.

    Again, those most impacted by this are the borderline Hall of Fame players of the 90s who were clean (Will Clark*, Don Mattingly, among others) who now have stats that pale in comparison to their less talented, PED using peers.

    *Oddly enough, Rafael Palmiero and Will Clark played together in college and again in the pros. To hear Clark discuss Palmiero is entertaining, eye opening and fantastic and he’s talked on the subject more than once.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Passer rating is calculated using a player's passing attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns and interceptions. It is the official rating that is approved by the NFL. Tom Brady is considered by the majority to be the GOAT. Mostly because what he has done in the playoffs. Using the approved method of rating by the NFL. Brady is ranked #13 all time in the playoffs. Bart Starr is #1. Matt Ryan, Alex Smith, Mark Sanchez, Russell Wilson, Ken Anderson, Tony Romo and Joe Theisman are all ranked higher than Brady.

    I am just showing how stats can be misleading. It doesn't matter which sport. QB rating is officially adopted by the NFL. The so called Bill James stats or advanced stats or whatever you want to call it are not the official stat's of baseball.

    The most important goal of a professional sports team is to win. When Catfish played. One of the best method's of ranking a pitcher was wins. A 20 game win season was considered a good to great season. Catfish was a winner and out of all the Hall of Fame pitchers in the 70's he was the only won to do this 5 years in a row !

    Since 20 game winners are almost extinct in baseball due to various reason's. The modern stat boy's try to down play wins.

    Wins are wins nothing else matters ! Blue and Holtzman played on the same team but didn't rack up wins at the same rate. Some might claim run support and or home field stats compared to away stats. None of that matters. What matters is the end results. Catfish has the numbers. We can't claim what might of been if so and so played for a better team he would have better numbers. We have to deal with reality !

    Also any player who played on a World Champion team deserves the ring. A gifted ring is a stupid statement !

    Furthermore complete games is a impressive stat. But once again since that is a rarity in today's game the modern stat boy's throw that out too !

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Craig44

    Come on man, steroids changed the game more than any other form of cheating !

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    And yes we do know who used !

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2018 6:34AM

    Brady Anderson’s 50 homer season was as bad as it gets and was the bellwether of stupid stats to come. That speedy string bean shouldn’t have hit 50 in his career. Up until that point, only 12 players had hit 50 in all of MLB history.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    And yes we do know who used !

    Can you please provide a complete and detailed list please? I'm serious, I would like to see it and with proof.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    I proved to you that stats aren't everything.

    You provided evidence (not proof) that some stats can be misleading.

    You completely glossed over QB rating. Can you name 12 better QB's than Montana. How about 73 QB's better than Elway. 85 better than Unitas. Does it mean anything to you that average QB's have better ratings than some of the best to ever play the game ?

    I ignored it because it was off topic. I happen to agree that QB rating is a useless stat when comparing QBs from different eras, but that criticism does not apply to ERA+, WAR and WPA when comparing pitchers from the same era.

    Hunter is in the Hall of Fame which validates my point. It isn't just because I know. The pitchers you mention will never make the hall ! You haven't proven anything ! The only thing you prove is you lack common sense.

    If your point is that because X happened it necessarily follows that X should have happened, then Hunter's presence in the HOF validates your point. But when the open question is whether Hunter deserves to be in the HOF, the observation that he is in the HOF doesn't validate anything. What this says about my common sense I don't know, but it says quite a lot about your command of the basic rules of logic. And I'll agree that I haven't proven anything; what I have done is provide evidence. What I'm asking you to provide is evidence for your position, and no matter how often you repeat "common sense" it will never add up to evidence.

    Your position appears to be that because there exists in one sport a stat that does a poor job of evaluating players at one position in at least one circumstance, it must therefore be the case that all stats in all sports do a poor job of evaluation of all players in all circumstances. At least, that's the position you've articulated. If that's not what you mean, then you need to explain why QB rating is analogous to the combination of ERA+, WAR and WPA, other than they are all stats. If it is what you mean, then you need to explain how you know Hunter was great without referencing any stats at all, since you've declared all of them to be misleading. Despite your denial, you have still provided no evidence at all that your belief is based on anything at all other than "I just know" (which you rephrase as "common sense"). HOW do you know that Hunter was a better pitcher than Vida Blue? It's not a trick question, but you are going to ever more desperate lengths to avoid answering it.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    @craig44 said:

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    The egregious and rampant steroid and PED use that helped to shatter many statistical records and accomplishments both great and small.

    And the resulting changes to the testing rules.

    That is amorphous. When did PED use start? It has never stopped. Players have been using PED since Pud Galvin in the 1890's. Hank himself used. Players have ALWAYS tried to get an advantage/cheat at their respective sports. How do we know which records are clean and not? Others than admitted users or a positive test, we dont even know who used. It is a moving target and impossible to nail down the who's or net effect.

    I agree that players have always sought and continue to seek an edge. Too much opportunity and money not to do it.

    What I cannot ignore, however, is that these regimens and the drugs themselves improved dramatically around ‘85 and then again around ‘95. And the statistics bear that out - linger career arcs, less games missed, better season and career totals. There are other factors, too (people often attribute steroid use to hitters only when pitchers derived as much if not more benefit), that contributed significantly to the increase in the numbers in baseball. Many/most of the best players of the era admitted use, had a significant cloud of suspicion around them or failed a test of some kind.

    Again, those most impacted by this are the borderline Hall of Fame players of the 90s who were clean (Will Clark*, Don Mattingly, among others) who now have stats that pale in comparison to their less talented, PED using peers.

    *Oddly enough, Rafael Palmiero and Will Clark played together in college and again in the pros. To hear Clark discuss Palmiero is entertaining, eye opening and fantastic and he’s talked on the subject more than once.

    How do you know there was a dramatic increase around 85 and 95? Do you have proof? I don't remember any 50 homer seasons during the 1980's.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Bonds bloated head and numbers.

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    To provide a complete list is a waste of time. This topic has been around for years.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    Passer rating is calculated using a player's passing attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns and interceptions. It is the official rating that is approved by the NFL. Tom Brady is considered by the majority to be the GOAT. Mostly because what he has done in the playoffs. Using the approved method of rating by the NFL. Brady is ranked #13 all time in the playoffs. Bart Starr is #1. Matt Ryan, Alex Smith, Mark Sanchez, Russell Wilson, Ken Anderson, Tony Romo and Joe Theisman are all ranked higher than Brady.

    I am just showing how stats can be misleading. It doesn't matter which sport. QB rating is officially adopted by the NFL. The so called Bill James stats or advanced stats or whatever you want to call it are not the official stat's of baseball.

    The most important goal of a professional sports team is to win. When Catfish played. One of the best method's of ranking a pitcher was wins. A 20 game win season was considered a good to great season. Catfish was a winner and out of all the Hall of Fame pitchers in the 70's he was the only won to do this 5 years in a row !

    Since 20 game winners are almost extinct in baseball due to various reason's. The modern stat boy's try to down play wins.

    Wins are wins nothing else matters ! Blue and Holtzman played on the same team but didn't rack up wins at the same rate. Some might claim run support and or home field stats compared to away stats. None of that matters. What matters is the end results. Catfish has the numbers. We can't claim what might of been if so and so played for a better team he would have better numbers. We have to deal with reality !

    Also any player who played on a World Champion team deserves the ring. A gifted ring is a stupid statement !

    Furthermore complete games is a impressive stat. But once again since that is a rarity in today's game the modern stat boy's throw that out too !

    There are so many things wrong with your post. Where to start...

    Again with the misplaced and ineffective football comparison. Who said QB rating is a good stat? Who cares if it is an official stat of the NFL. It seems to be about as bad as BA and that is an official stat of MLB.

    Again with wins. Wins depend on how good your teammates are to a very large extent. They are a team stat. Nothing more. Look, a pitcher can go 8 shutout innings in a 0-0 game and a reliever comes in to "claim" the win when the offense scores one run in the ninth. Another pitcher gives up 6 runs in 5 innings but gets a "win" because his team scored 9 runs in the game. Which pitcher was better? Who deserves the "win"? See how useless a stat it is for evaluating pitchers. I don't care if they have been counting wins for 100 years, it is a lousey stat for evaluating players. That is because it really doesn't evaluate them.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Dallas , football stats are not off topic they prove how stats are misleading . Also Brady passer rating compared to several of his peer group as regards to QB rating in the playoffs is worse than Matt Ryan, Alex Smith, Mark Sanchez, Tony Romo and Russell Wilson. Players in the same ERA. Furthermore , Brady ranks at #5 all time among his peer group during the regular season.

    You haven't proved anything other than your stats are misleading ! Stats used during Hunter's time clearly shows he was one of the best in his era. You are trying to apply modern stats that aren't officially recognized by MLB !

    You and I can agree to disagree ! Let's move on.

  • BrickBrick Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    Collecting 1960 Topps Baseball in PSA 8
    http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/

    Ralph

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Brick said:
    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    It’s an awful thread. Nothing but tail chasing big time tear inducing back and forth boredom. Fascinating in a weird way.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    Dallas , football stats are not off topic they prove how stats are misleading.

    I thought you would attempt to deny what I said, but your position really and truly is that ALL stats are misleading, and don't provide evidence of anything. Wow. Just wow. BTW, "20 win seasons" is a stat. Which, of course, leaves us where we've always been. You have zero tangible evidence that Hunter was a great pitcher but you believe it anyway, and passionately. You should look up the meaning of "religion" sometime, and consider how incredibly sad it is that Catfish Hunter is your god.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Brick said:
    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    Personally, I just feel stats are not the Alpha and Omega that some feel they are. Most often, these advanced stats are one mans way of creating a list that puts ‘his’ guy where ‘he’ thinks he belongs.

    @craig44

    Darrell Evans hitting 40 HR at age 38 after 16 the year before stands out to me.

    How many of these league leaders have a cloud of suspicion?

    Proof? Like smoking gun? I have none. I am not the one man in America with the concrete proof and I am holding out. I also don’t think it’s that hard to identify the difference between a steroid body and a non steroid body, myself. And I have read the ‘lists’ and seen which guys have been on them. And you can Google names on the Mitchell Report - it was leaked...

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And I should just add that I actually have no major problems with the steroid era or it’s players.

    The fact that Bonds and Clemens are not in is a travesty and serves only the embarrassment of baseball. Even more so with Bud Selig going in...

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Brick said:
    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    You should read the thread again if you really think "everyone" is doing that. As a statistician, I would never (because it would be incredibly stupid) say that "statistics are irrelevant". Some statistics do a better job at measuring what they purport to measure than others, and if a statistic is used for a purpose for which it was not intended then it is is indeed irrelevant to that task. But there are statistics that do a fantastic job of identifying individual contributions to creating runs, and to winning games, and they are available for free to anyone who cares enough about understanding baseball to look for them. Those who don't care even a little bit rely instead on "common sense".

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • DarinDarin Posts: 7,086 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @Brick said:
    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    It’s an awful thread. Nothing but tail chasing big time tear inducing back and forth boredom. Fascinating in a weird way.

    The best thing I could say about Dallas in this thread is he is quite prolific.
    Hard to read his posts without nodding off from boredom however.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Brick said:
    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    You should read the thread again if you really think "everyone" is doing that. As a statistician, I would never (because it would be incredibly stupid) say that "statistics are irrelevant". Some statistics do a better job at measuring what they purport to measure than others, and if a statistic is used for a purpose for which it was not intended then it is is indeed irrelevant to that task. But there are statistics that do a fantastic job of identifying individual contributions to creating runs, and to winning games, and they are available for free to anyone who cares enough about understanding baseball to look for them. Those who don't care even a little bit rely instead on "common sense".

    I do not believe them to be irrelevant - just overblown. And easily manipulated.

    Point to ponder?

    My favorite player of all time is Mickey Mantle. This is true for many people and you can cherry pick through his fabulous body of statistical achievement and 'prove' he is the greatest hitter of all time (or ___th, behind Ted/Babe/Ty).

    However, the 'adjustments' that get made (peak value, etc) attempts to isolate a person's contributions in the middle of a team sport. There are elements that can be isolated and give some 'truth' but it pales in comparison when you factor in things besides just stats. A clearer and more comprehensive picture that helps contextualize these ball players better than a formula that ATTEMPTS to adjust for era, park ,mound height, competition, measured against peers etc.

    It's just an attempt. A theory. Some are good, some bad. Some are true but later proven false. They improve thinking and change thinking but a theory is a theory is a theory. Usually biased in the sense that it bends around (or outright ignores) things that are inconvenient to it.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Dallas You are out there. Catfish Hunter is my God ? Really !

    Tangible evidence is based on fact. You claim Catfish was not a good pitcher. Lets look at tangible evidence.

    Hall of Fame member class of 1987, Cy Young Award winner, 8 time All Star, ERA leader 1974, 5 straight 20 win seasons, the Ace pitcher on one of baseball's greatest dynasties, 5 time World Series Championships. Considered to be one of the best pictures in baseball during the 70's. Made the majors at the age of 19. Pitched a perfect game at the age of 22.

    To say he wasn't very good is too ignore tangible evidence !

  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    Also Dallas your comprehensive skills are lacking. I never said all stats are misleading. Stop trying to talk for me. Read before you write !

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    Tangible evidence is based on fact. You claim Catfish was not a good pitcher. Lets look at tangible evidence

    Hall of Fame member class of 1987,

    This provides evidence that some people thought he was great; it does not provide evidence that he was great.

    Cy Young Award winner,

    This provides evidence that some people thought he was great; it does not provide evidence that he was great.

    8 time All Star,

    This provides evidence that some people thought he was great; it does not provide evidence that he was great.

    ERA leader 1974,

    This provides evidence of two things: that Hunter was a very good pitcher in 1974, and that Oakland was a pitcher's park (Hunter's ERA at home was 1.91 but 3.12 on the road). Unless you are claiming that a single ERA title is a HOF qualification (Welcome to Cooperstown, Buzz Capra!!!), it does not provide evidence that Hunter should be in the HOF.

    5 straight 20 win seasons,

    This provides evidence that the teams for which Hunter pitched were very good, and that Hunter pitched a lot of games.

    the Ace pitcher on one of baseball's greatest dynasties,

    And Gene Tenace was the ace catcher on the same dynasty and Dick Green was the ace second baseman; this provides evidence of nothing at all.

    5 time World Series Championships.

    This provides evidence that the teams for which Hunter pitched were very good. Oh, and "Welcome to Cooperstown, Frankie Crosetti!!!"

    Considered to be one of the best pictures in baseball during the 70's.

    This provides evidence that some people thought he was great; it does not provide evidence that he was great.

    Made the majors at the age of 19.

    This made me laugh; not even you are stupid enough to think this provides evidence of greatness.

    Pitched a perfect game at the age of 22.

    This provides evidence that Hunter was great for one game.

    The logical fallacies that you are employing, repeatedly, are the appeal to authority and begging the question. I am asking you to think for yourself. That will no doubt be scary and uncomfortable the first time you try it, but I promise the results will be worth it. Make a case for Hunter that does not rely, in any way, on what other people think. Zero in on what Hunter contributed to his teams, separate from what the others on the same teams were contributing.

    Also Dallas your comprehensive skills are lacking. I never said all stats are misleading. Stop trying to talk for me. Read before you write !

    You came awfully close to saying exactly that - "Dallas , football stats are not off topic they prove how stats are misleading ." You didn't say they prove how "some" stats are misleading, you said they prove that "stats" are misleading. And more to the point, I posted a ton of stats that you have never acknowledged, let alone attempted to demonstrate were misleading. I believe that ERA+, WAR and WPA, especially in combination, provide substantial evidence of pitching ability. As it is, my comparison of Hunter and Blue (and Koosman, Pappas, etc.) stands uncontested. The appearance that you have created is that ERA+, WAR and WPA are misleading because they are stats, and all stats are misleading.

    You can put an end to this cycle, or at least advance it to a point where it is productive if you'll stop hiding and just answer my questions:

    Do ERA+, WAR and WPA provide evidence of pitching greatness?
    If not, why not?

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • maxdomemaxdome Posts: 87 ✭✭✭

    No you are stupid ! As your post clearly indicate.
    I am done with your fake news !
    Also Fosse was the starting catcher on the 73 and 74 squad. Tenace a first baseman and backup catcher.

    Your dribble is a waste of time. I have better things to do ! Good bye.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    @Brick said:
    Quite an entertaining read. It seems everyone here says statistics are irrelevant and use statistics to prove it. Lies, damn lies, statistics.

    Personally, I just feel stats are not the Alpha and Omega that some feel they are. Most often, these advanced stats are one mans way of creating a list that puts ‘his’ guy where ‘he’ thinks he belongs.

    @craig44

    Darrell Evans hitting 40 HR at age 38 after 16 the year before stands out to me.

    How many of these league leaders have a cloud of suspicion?

    Proof? Like smoking gun? I have none. I am not the one man in America with the concrete proof and I am holding out. I also don’t think it’s that hard to identify the difference between a steroid body and a non steroid body, myself. And I have read the ‘lists’ and seen which guys have been on them. And you can Google names on the Mitchell Report - it was leaked...

    Ok, so you admit you have no proof. Can you please describe the difference between a steroid body and a non steroid body? Jorge sosa, Raphael betencourt and palmiero sure looked nothing like mcgwire and Bonds. So how can I tell the difference? There are rumors surrounding Kirby Puckett, he didn't look like anyone on your list. Clemens has a stigma surrounding him despite no failed tests and the U.S. Government's failure to get him on purgery charges. He didn't look like mcgwire. But look at Randy Johnson. He didn't look anything like Clemens, but look at his late career performance. Actually better than Clemens and no suspicions with him.

    So please, let us know what a steroid body looks like so we can all be able to tell the difference.

    Honestly, it seems like you are speaking in hyperbole and conjecture here. You have no more idea than anyone else here, just preconceived notions

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’m really not here to do your work for you, @craig44

    If you care to better identify which players were on steroids, look into it. Read Canseco’s book. Look at failed tests. Search the Mitchell Report. It’s really not too hard. And it’s not too fun as there’s some tough to swallow names. Andy Pettitte being the toughest for me, who said he did it with Roger Clemens. I don’t need much more than that and I also love the new word we got as a result - misremembered. ‘No failed test’ is a bit of a tough defense for me. Works in court but less so in the court of public opinion.

    Again, I’m unbothered by it. Completely. I just don’t ignore it.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,029 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My viewpoint is that the Hall of Fame should exemplify "greatness" and not just "goodness" so to speak.

    Evidently from all the "good" players now in the Hall of Fame, they got there because although they certainly weren't great players, enough HOF voters thought that a long career of piling up stats, can turn a good player into a great enough player to be HOF worthy.

    If stat accumulation of a good player is a parameter for induction into the HOF which obviously it is for some, then that's fine...but that player will never be worthy of the HOF in my view.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The list leaked to bleached report is known to be incorrect.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2018 1:42PM

    It actually says so in that article.

    But there’s enough correct names on there to get a quick start. Then there’s all the Balco names. Again, I’ve read it, I watched it live and it’s been around long enough where I’ve forgotten some too. Dig. Seek. You’ll find.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2018 1:44PM

    "I also don’t think it’s that hard to identify the difference between a steroid body and a non steroid body"

    Those were your words 1951weatiespremium, I just wanted you to explain this to all of us so we can also know who the real steroid users were. It should be easy for you to teach us as you yourself said " i also don't think it's that hard"

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    I’m really not here to do your work for you, @craig44

    If you care to better identify which players were on steroids, look into it. Read Canseco’s book. Look at failed tests. Search the Mitchell Report. It’s really not too hard. And it’s not too fun as there’s some tough to swallow names. Andy Pettitte being the toughest for me, who said he did it with Roger Clemens. I don’t need much more than that and I also love the new word we got as a result - misremembered. ‘No failed test’ is a bit of a tough defense for me. Works in court but less so in the court of public opinion.

    Again, I’m unbothered by it. Completely. I just don’t ignore it.

    I have read cansecos books and all the lists. I followed the Senate hearings, bonds and Clemens court cases as well. As far as Pettite, his testimony was of no value because he recanted. I could care less about the court of public opinion, I am only interested in the truth.

    I used to be a real hard liner on PEDs, but my views are beginning to change. Mostly because we have absolutely no idea about the extent of use, who did/didn't use. The ONLY ones we KNOW for sure used are the few that admitted use and the ones who failed tests. everyone else is just conjecture. We can be pretty sure, almost positive etc about some players, but we don't know.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2018 2:09PM

    @craig44 said:

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    I’m really not here to do your work for you, @craig44

    If you care to better identify which players were on steroids, look into it. Read Canseco’s book. Look at failed tests. Search the Mitchell Report. It’s really not too hard. And it’s not too fun as there’s some tough to swallow names. Andy Pettitte being the toughest for me, who said he did it with Roger Clemens. I don’t need much more than that and I also love the new word we got as a result - misremembered. ‘No failed test’ is a bit of a tough defense for me. Works in court but less so in the court of public opinion.

    Again, I’m unbothered by it. Completely. I just don’t ignore it.

    I have read cansecos books and all the lists. I followed the Senate hearings, bonds and Clemens court cases as well. As far as Pettite, his testimony was of no value because he recanted. I could care less about the court of public opinion, I am only interested in the truth.

    I used to be a real hard liner on PEDs, but my views are beginning to change. Mostly because we have absolutely no idea about the extent of use, who did/didn't use. The ONLY ones we KNOW for sure used are the few that admitted use and the ones who failed tests. everyone else is just conjecture. We can be pretty sure, almost positive etc about some players, but we don't know.

    That’s fair and we seem to agree mostly. I guess the difference is you give the benefit of innocent until proven guilty to ballplayers and I don’t. I assume guilt. That’s my truth. Been around too many pro collegiate and high school athletes as both coach and player.

    As for steroid guys by sight? Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero, ARod, Sosa, Giambi, Pujols - that’s the look. Universally applicable? No. Good enough for most? Yes. Go to the beach and play guess who is on PEDs. Bet you’re better than you recognize. There are other guys on other stuff flying under the radar. I can’t chick up Luis Gonzalez hitting 56 HR to his ‘just having a good season’, though, either.

    Again, I don’t think these guys deserve any punishment. I just think they’ve cheapened the statistics that came before. Still the best players of their era.

    But pointing to Sosa, Bonds or McGwire’s statistical brilliance Is kind of tough to swallow, you know?

    None failed a test (Sosa?) but I have no doubt on any. None.

    No proof and no doubt.

    Odd contradiction - I’ll give you that.

    Can’t help but fell that way.

    PS - One guy I grew up with played for the SF Giants (Scottsdale) and the other finished off an MLB career recently.

    Both had some excellent stories.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A guide...

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @maxdome said:
    No you are stupid ! As your post clearly indicate.
    I am done with your fake news !
    Also Fosse was the starting catcher on the 73 and 74 squad. Tenace a first baseman and backup catcher.

    Your dribble is a waste of time. I have better things to do ! Good bye.

    "I am afraid to try to answer your questions" would have been shorter, and conveyed exactly the same message. Dumb and afraid is a hard way to go through life; I wish you the best.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    @craig44 said:

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    I’m really not here to do your work for you, @craig44

    If you care to better identify which players were on steroids, look into it. Read Canseco’s book. Look at failed tests. Search the Mitchell Report. It’s really not too hard. And it’s not too fun as there’s some tough to swallow names. Andy Pettitte being the toughest for me, who said he did it with Roger Clemens. I don’t need much more than that and I also love the new word we got as a result - misremembered. ‘No failed test’ is a bit of a tough defense for me. Works in court but less so in the court of public opinion.

    Again, I’m unbothered by it. Completely. I just don’t ignore it.

    I have read cansecos books and all the lists. I followed the Senate hearings, bonds and Clemens court cases as well. As far as Pettite, his testimony was of no value because he recanted. I could care less about the court of public opinion, I am only interested in the truth.

    I used to be a real hard liner on PEDs, but my views are beginning to change. Mostly because we have absolutely no idea about the extent of use, who did/didn't use. The ONLY ones we KNOW for sure used are the few that admitted use and the ones who failed tests. everyone else is just conjecture. We can be pretty sure, almost positive etc about some players, but we don't know.

    That’s fair and we seem to agree mostly. I guess the difference is you give the benefit of innocent until proven guilty to ballplayers and I don’t. I assume guilt. That’s my truth. Been around too many pro collegiate and high school athletes as both coach and player.

    As for steroid guys by sight? Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero, ARod, Sosa, Giambi, Pujols - that’s the look. Universally applicable? No. Good enough for most? Yes. Go to the beach and play guess who is on PEDs. Bet you’re better than you recognize. There are other guys on other stuff flying under the radar. I can’t chick up Luis Gonzalez hitting 56 HR to his ‘just having a good season’, though, either.

    Again, I don’t think these guys deserve any punishment. I just think they’ve cheapened the statistics that came before. Still the best players of their era.

    But pointing to Sosa, Bonds or McGwire’s statistical brilliance Is kind of tough to swallow, you know?

    None failed a test (Sosa?) but I have no doubt on any. None.

    No proof and no doubt.

    Odd contradiction - I’ll give you that.

    Can’t help but fell that way.

    PS - One guy I grew up with played for the SF Giants (Scottsdale) and the other finished off an MLB career recently.

    Both had some excellent stories.

    Where I am right now is that I cant stand the hypocrisy of some who cast aspersions on players from one era (1990's-2005 or so) but fawn all over players from earlier "golden" ages who admitted to PED use. There were absolutely players who used in the 1990's. There were also players who used in the 1960's, 1950's, 1940's etc. I am no longer giving those guys a free pass as many do. They were also users.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,801 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dallas

    One additional thing I noticed is that Hunter had a better 2nd half than Blue in 1971.

    You say (correctly) that Hunter had a better ERA at home, but you fail to mention that in his epic season Vida's ERA was twice as high on the road as it was at home.

    My main objection to the "new" stats is that they can be very misleading if used by themselves. In this case Blue had a phenomenal 4 months of pitching that inflates (in my opinion) his career value. I am also wondering how his 6 game performance in 1970 with a ERA+ of 171 affects his final number. Giving him a 171 for pitching well for 38 innings doesn't seem right to me.

    I also seem to remember that Vida had some drug problems, that could keep some people from voting for him.

    I went through you list of pitchers you said were as good as Hunter and only one, Sam McDowell looks better to me.Sam was only a good starter for 10 years though, but he was dominant.

    Milt Pappas is an example of how ERA+ is misleading, he had about three very good seasons spread out over his career.

    Saying repeatedly that some people thought he was good, kind of proves that they were right.

    In doing a little research, I also read that some of your new numbers are also said NOT to be good when comparing one player to another.

    Happy New Year!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,801 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    Where I am right now is that I cant stand the hypocrisy of some who cast aspersions on players from one era (1990's-2005 or so) but fawn all over players from earlier "golden" ages who admitted to PED use. There were absolutely players who used in the 1990's. There were also players who used in the 1960's, 1950's, 1940's etc. I am no longer giving those guys a free pass as many do. They were also users.

    You are woefully mistaken here. Take the time to study the use of steroids in professional sports and you will find that steroids were certainly NOT used in the 1940's, 1950's or for most of the 1960's, and the use in the late 1960's was in Football.

    If you have read Canseco's books as you have claimed, or just looked into steroids on your own, you would know that to be effective steroids have to be taken in a specific way, along with a strenuous exercise program to make a difference.

    Mickey Mantle (possibly) having one injection that may have contained steroids would have zero effect on his body and performance.

    Please name one player from the "golden" era who admitted to steroid use. By the way, Mantle doesn't count.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:

    Where I am right now is that I cant stand the hypocrisy of some who cast aspersions on players from one era (1990's-2005 or so) but fawn all over players from earlier "golden" ages who admitted to PED use. There were absolutely players who used in the 1990's. There were also players who used in the 1960's, 1950's, 1940's etc. I am no longer giving those guys a free pass as many do. They were also users.

    You are woefully mistaken here. Take the time to study the use of steroids in professional sports and you will find that steroids were certainly NOT used in the 1940's, 1950's or for most of the 1960's, and the use in the late 1960's was in Football.

    If you have read Canseco's books as you have claimed, or just looked into steroids on your own, you would know that to be effective steroids have to be taken in a specific way, along with a strenuous exercise program to make a difference.

    Mickey Mantle (possibly) having one injection that may have contained steroids would have zero effect on his body and performance.

    Please name one player from the "golden" era who admitted to steroid use. By the way, Mantle doesn't count.

    I didn't say steroids, I said PED. Amphetamine use was rampant during the golden n age. All the big stars used them, yup, even your hero's. And before you scoff and say "oh, greenies are way different than ....." No, they were performance enhancing period. They were used extensively by fighter pilots in ww2 and most likely it was old teddy ballgame who introduced them to mlb.

    Of course mantle counts. We only know of that one shot, did Mick seem like the kind of guy to do one of anything? That could have been his 600th shot for all we know.

    By the way, Pud Galvin injected monkey testosterone back in the 1890's. This has been going on for a long time. You can put your head in the sand and say it was different all you want, the intent was exactly the same.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

Sign In or Register to comment.