@balco758 said:
Maybe it’s me but I don’t see Scott Rolen as HOF worthy. Very high quality player, bat and glove, super Cardinal, probably an awesome guy - just don’t see it.
Rolen won 8 Gold Gloves and had a 122 OPS+. Here's the list of the other 3B to do that:
I am confused at why anyone would question Puckett's inclusion into the HOF.
Dynamic 5 tool player, who did everything exceptionally well, except draw walks, and while he had very good speed. he wasn't much of a base stealer.
A typical year for him was 200 hits with 20 home runs and 40 doubles while scoring and driving in close to 100 runs. Great fielder with a strong and very accurate arm. Near perfect #3 batting order guy and Center Fielder.
Was better than Canseco and Greenwell (but not quite as good as Boggs) in 1988 and was absolutely ROBBED of the MVP in 1992. Seven times in the top 7 in the MVP voting.
He was also a great leader for the Twins. He almost never missed a game. Unfortunately, his career was cut short and he was hitting as well or better than ever when he lost his vision in one eye.
He had a slightly low OB%, but a great SLG.
Why would he be considered a "mistake"? Rolen and Andruw Jones "clearly superior" ? Certainly longer careers, but not superior players.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
Roger Clemens had HGH shipped to him. That isn’t conjecture, as far as I know, that is a fact. This was discussed - heavily - during the trial. I can’t recall if it was to his house, office or weasel looking trainer. But he did order it and said it was for his wife.
Taken on its face, I guess it’s possible. I saw her ‘spread’ in the ESPN body issue and she looked great.
Then I thought more about it. Here’s where I went:
Could I get HGH for my wife ?
Would I want my wife injecting herself?
If I said no, could she get it without me?
Where did the idea that INJECTING HGH would have this type of impact come from, that it was safe and fine to use and that the results would be both tangible and immediate to prepare for an upcoming photo shoot?
Quite simply, my personal answers to these questions may differ from others. But when I apply logic and common sense to this situation, that story very quickly falls apart.
As for Andy Pettitte and Brian McNamee, yes they were made to look foolish by Clemens’ attorney’s. Good attorney’s can do that. But these are two of his closest friends saying he used PEDs. McNamee obviously had incentive to lie but I don’t see that with Andy Pettitte. And it’s been a while but I just couldn’t really couldn’t get past the fact that McNamee was Clemens trainer before Andy’s and provided ‘stuff’ for both Andy and Mrs. Clemens but not Roger?
You are 100% correct that there’s not enough evidence to ‘convict’ in a court of law. That’s a high standard and it was he said, he said mostly. Still enough of the facts of the story came out where I can come to my own opinion on the matter and didn’t just believe the plausible though in many cases logic defying explanations offered in defense of Mr. Clemens.
I mean, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, either, yet I wouldn’t want him dating my sister, either. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Roger Clemens had HGH shipped to him. That isn’t conjecture, as far as I know, that is a fact. This was discussed - heavily - during the trial. I can’t recall if it was to his house, office or weasel looking trainer. But he did order it and said it was for his wife.
Taken on its face, I guess it’s possible. I saw her ‘spread’ in the ESPN body issue and she looked great.
Then I thought more about it. Here’s where I went:
Could I get HGH for my wife ?
Would I want my wife injecting herself?
If I said no, could she get it without me?
Where did the idea that INJECTING HGH would have this type of impact come from, that it was safe and fine to use and that the results would be both tangible and immediate to prepare for an upcoming photo shoot?
Quite simply, my personal answers to these questions may differ from others. But when I apply logic and common sense to this situation, that story very quickly falls apart.
As for Andy Pettitte and Brian McNamee, yes they were made to look foolish by Clemens’ attorney’s. Good attorney’s can do that. But these are two of his closest friends saying he used PEDs. McNamee obviously had incentive to lie but I don’t see that with Andy Pettitte. And it’s been a while but I just couldn’t really couldn’t get past the fact that McNamee was Clemens trainer before Andy’s and provided ‘stuff’ for both Andy and Mrs. Clemens but not Roger?
You are 100% correct that there’s not enough evidence to ‘convict’ in a court of law. That’s a high standard and it was he said, he said mostly. Still enough of the facts of the story came out where I can come to my own opinion on the matter and didn’t just believe the plausible though in many cases logic defying explanations offered in defense of Mr. Clemens.
I mean, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, either, yet I wouldn’t want him dating my sister, either. 😉
Andy Pettitte admitted under oath that he misremembered a 5 year old conversation. as far as Debbie Clemens doing HGH, husbands and wives do lots of things without knowledge of the other party. that should not be so surprising.
you can "believe" anything you want. it doesn't make it so and it doesn't make it true. I would think that if you want to defame someones life work, you would want to have more evidence than simple conjecture.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
@daltex said:
Thinking more about Omar Vizquel's candidacy, I think his career should be looked at like Jamie Moyer's. Both hung around forever, not being great ever, or even very good except occasionally. Moyer received Cy Young votes three times. Vizquel got MVP consideration exactly once. That year he was the fourth best SHORTSTOP. I know he has a following, but he doesn't come close to being borderline.
Two questions. Did you ever play baseball above little league level ? Did you ever watch Omar Vizquel play ? If the answer is no then I understand. He has a following of people who understand baseball is more than who hits the ball the farthest, and know how good he was with the leather. Like best to ever do it level. Think Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith (minus range factor), not a roided out A-Rod. Honestly I think the people voting have never played baseball either. SMH... I'm not saying he belongs in the HOF, but for anyone who doesn't understand why he is considered, then you should study the Short Stop position (hint - it's most valuable one on the diamond) from 1900-1990.
I cannot hit curveball. Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid. Collecting: post world war II HOF rookie 76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals) successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
Roger Clemens had HGH shipped to him. That isn’t conjecture, as far as I know, that is a fact. This was discussed - heavily - during the trial. I can’t recall if it was to his house, office or weasel looking trainer. But he did order it and said it was for his wife.
Taken on its face, I guess it’s possible. I saw her ‘spread’ in the ESPN body issue and she looked great.
Then I thought more about it. Here’s where I went:
Could I get HGH for my wife ?
Would I want my wife injecting herself?
If I said no, could she get it without me?
Where did the idea that INJECTING HGH would have this type of impact come from, that it was safe and fine to use and that the results would be both tangible and immediate to prepare for an upcoming photo shoot?
Quite simply, my personal answers to these questions may differ from others. But when I apply logic and common sense to this situation, that story very quickly falls apart.
As for Andy Pettitte and Brian McNamee, yes they were made to look foolish by Clemens’ attorney’s. Good attorney’s can do that. But these are two of his closest friends saying he used PEDs. McNamee obviously had incentive to lie but I don’t see that with Andy Pettitte. And it’s been a while but I just couldn’t really couldn’t get past the fact that McNamee was Clemens trainer before Andy’s and provided ‘stuff’ for both Andy and Mrs. Clemens but not Roger?
You are 100% correct that there’s not enough evidence to ‘convict’ in a court of law. That’s a high standard and it was he said, he said mostly. Still enough of the facts of the story came out where I can come to my own opinion on the matter and didn’t just believe the plausible though in many cases logic defying explanations offered in defense of Mr. Clemens.
I mean, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, either, yet I wouldn’t want him dating my sister, either. 😉
Andy Pettitte admitted under oath that he misremembered a 5 year old conversation. as far as Debbie Clemens doing HGH, husbands and wives do lots of things without knowledge of the other party. that should not be so surprising.
you can "believe" anything you want. it doesn't make it so and it doesn't make it true. I would think that if you want to defame someones life work, you would want to have more evidence than simple conjecture.
that's just me though.
I am not impugning his life’s work. I have no problem with ANY of them getting in the Hall of Fame and their play on the field certainly makes them worthy candidates.
As for the bolded above? That’s not exactly the whole story. The whole story is that Andy Pettitte told the same story about that old conversation for about five years. When the government sought to prove that Roger Clemens was guilty of perjury in a federal court trial, Andy Pettitte said it was “50-50” that he misremembered, a word invented by Clemens earlier in court proceedings, that conversation. The trade off was that he lost all credibility and, as the key witness in the perjury trial against Clemens, basically stopped any chance of Clemens being convicted and facing jail time.
Now again, I’m offering my opinion here. I’m a total nobody on a message board who is of the opinion that Roger Clemens probably used steroids.
What is a fact is that he was not convicted of perjury, that he was one of the most dominant pitchers in Major League history and that he will be talked about for his greatness for a long, long time.
Again, @craig44, I am sorry for even posting any of this as I can tell you are a Roger Clemens fan. Make no mistake - he was spectacular. And to be honest, he always struck me as a kind of outlaw anyway. Played by his own rules type of player - old school and nasty. So for now, he’s with Barry Bonds, Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the ‘what’s the story’ category that keeps them far more relevant.
Whether he gets to Cooperstown or not, no one will ever forget Roger Clemens and he’s got Cy Young’s, championship rings, records galore and millions upon millions of dollars.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
So Bonds is clean in your eyes.
Got it.
Straw man. nice try. your argument is so seriously flawed as to not even be an argument, but simply your belief.
I am not concerned with your personal beliefs, just evidence. Sadly, you don't appear to have any.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
So Bonds is clean in your eyes.
Got it.
Straw man. nice try. your argument is so seriously flawed as to not even be an argument, but simply your belief.
I am not concerned with your personal beliefs, just evidence. Sadly, you don't appear to have any.
Your argument protecting Schilling also protects Bonds, no strawman needed.
Roger Clemens had HGH shipped to him. That isn’t conjecture, as far as I know, that is a fact. This was discussed - heavily - during the trial. I can’t recall if it was to his house, office or weasel looking trainer. But he did order it and said it was for his wife.
Taken on its face, I guess it’s possible. I saw her ‘spread’ in the ESPN body issue and she looked great.
Then I thought more about it. Here’s where I went:
Could I get HGH for my wife ?
Would I want my wife injecting herself?
If I said no, could she get it without me?
Where did the idea that INJECTING HGH would have this type of impact come from, that it was safe and fine to use and that the results would be both tangible and immediate to prepare for an upcoming photo shoot?
Quite simply, my personal answers to these questions may differ from others. But when I apply logic and common sense to this situation, that story very quickly falls apart.
As for Andy Pettitte and Brian McNamee, yes they were made to look foolish by Clemens’ attorney’s. Good attorney’s can do that. But these are two of his closest friends saying he used PEDs. McNamee obviously had incentive to lie but I don’t see that with Andy Pettitte. And it’s been a while but I just couldn’t really couldn’t get past the fact that McNamee was Clemens trainer before Andy’s and provided ‘stuff’ for both Andy and Mrs. Clemens but not Roger?
You are 100% correct that there’s not enough evidence to ‘convict’ in a court of law. That’s a high standard and it was he said, he said mostly. Still enough of the facts of the story came out where I can come to my own opinion on the matter and didn’t just believe the plausible though in many cases logic defying explanations offered in defense of Mr. Clemens.
I mean, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, either, yet I wouldn’t want him dating my sister, either. 😉
Andy Pettitte admitted under oath that he misremembered a 5 year old conversation. as far as Debbie Clemens doing HGH, husbands and wives do lots of things without knowledge of the other party. that should not be so surprising.
you can "believe" anything you want. it doesn't make it so and it doesn't make it true. I would think that if you want to defame someones life work, you would want to have more evidence than simple conjecture.
that's just me though.
I am not impugning his life’s work. I have no problem with ANY of them getting in the Hall of Fame and their play on the field certainly makes them worthy candidates.
As for the bolded above? That’s not exactly the whole story. The whole story is that Andy Pettitte told the same story about that old conversation for about five years. When the government sought to prove that Roger Clemens was guilty of perjury in a federal court trial, Andy Pettitte said it was “50-50” that he misremembered, a word invented by Clemens earlier in court proceedings, that conversation. The trade off was that he lost all credibility and, as the key witness in the perjury trial against Clemens, basically stopped any chance of Clemens being convicted and facing jail time.
Now again, I’m offering my opinion here. I’m a total nobody on a message board who is of the opinion that Roger Clemens probably used steroids.
What is a fact is that he was not convicted of perjury, that he was one of the most dominant pitchers in Major League history and that he will be talked about for his greatness for a long, long time.
Again, @craig44, I am sorry for even posting any of this as I can tell you are a Roger Clemens fan. Make no mistake - he was spectacular. And to be honest, he always struck me as a kind of outlaw anyway. Played by his own rules type of player - old school and nasty. So for now, he’s with Barry Bonds, Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the ‘what’s the story’ category that keeps them far more relevant.
Whether he gets to Cooperstown or not, no one will ever forget Roger Clemens and he’s got Cy Young’s, championship rings, records galore and millions upon millions of dollars.
I would agree that Pettitte was not a credible witness. That is exactly what I mentioned above.
If there are no credible witnesses, no evidence, no failed test and no admission, what do we have left? we have peoples beliefs and feelings. neither of which are worth much in a discussion like this.
Bonds never admitted his use and never failed a test, as far as I know. So was he clean in your opinion? Yes or no?
there was evidence though. while I don't know nearly as much about the bonds case, I believe there was evidence of his use in the BALCO investigation. He also did admit use in a deposition that was supposed to be sealed, but later came to light.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
So Bonds is clean in your eyes.
Got it.
Straw man. nice try. your argument is so seriously flawed as to not even be an argument, but simply your belief.
I am not concerned with your personal beliefs, just evidence. Sadly, you don't appear to have any.
Your argument protecting Schilling also protects Bonds, no strawman needed.
No admission. No failed test. No hard evidence.
Schilling? I don't think I have mentioned Schilling. I don't know what you are talking about here.
Bonds never admitted his use and never failed a test, as far as I know. So was he clean in your opinion? Yes or no?
there was evidence though. while I don't know nearly as much about the bonds case, I believe there was evidence of his use in the BALCO investigation. He also did admit use in a deposition that was supposed to be sealed, but later came to light.
No. There wasn't. And his obstruction of justice conviction was overturned.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
So Bonds is clean in your eyes.
Got it.
Straw man. nice try. your argument is so seriously flawed as to not even be an argument, but simply your belief.
I am not concerned with your personal beliefs, just evidence. Sadly, you don't appear to have any.
Your argument protecting Schilling also protects Bonds, no strawman needed.
No admission. No failed test. No hard evidence.
Schilling? I don't think I have mentioned Schilling. I don't know what you are talking about here.
You didn't mention Schilling when you said "Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture."?
You used this line to defend Schilling literally a few hours ago.
Bonds never admitted his use and never failed a test, as far as I know. So was he clean in your opinion? Yes or no?
there was evidence though. while I don't know nearly as much about the bonds case, I believe there was evidence of his use in the BALCO investigation. He also did admit use in a deposition that was supposed to be sealed, but later came to light.
No. There wasn't. And his obstruction of justice conviction was overturned.
from espn
According to records prosecutors took from BALCO, Bonds tested positive on three separate occasions in 2000 and 2001 for the steroid methenelone in urine samples; he also tested positive two of those three times for the steroid nandrolone.
A government-retained scientist, Dr. Don Catlin, also said he found evidence that Bonds used the designer steroid THG upon retesting a urine sample Bonds supplied as part of baseball's anonymous survey drug testing in 2003, when the designer drug was not yet detectable. Federal investigators seized them in 2004 from the private laboratory used by Major League Baseball before they could be destroyed, which the players were promised.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
You can pinpoint when Schilling started to use as well, though not as clearly.
In 1996, as a 29-year-old pitcher with about 1000 innings thrown, he was topping out at 8.9 K/9 without even an all-star appearance to his name. We're supposed to believe at the height of the steroid era, a 30-year old pitcher is naturally going to jump up to 11.3 K/9?
Curt Schilling was clearly a PED user.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
So Bonds is clean in your eyes.
Got it.
Straw man. nice try. your argument is so seriously flawed as to not even be an argument, but simply your belief.
I am not concerned with your personal beliefs, just evidence. Sadly, you don't appear to have any.
Your argument protecting Schilling also protects Bonds, no strawman needed.
No admission. No failed test. No hard evidence.
Schilling? I don't think I have mentioned Schilling. I don't know what you are talking about here.
You didn't mention Schilling when you said "Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture."?
You used this line to defend Schilling literally a few hours ago.
I was generalizing the folly that is using statistics to "prove" steroid use. I didn't mean for it to single out Schilling. my mistake.
Bonds admitted using the Clear. I was following BALCO closely as I was living in the Bay Area at the time. There will always be a range of opinions on all of these issues - PED, HOF, character, political views. I can only say this....Bonds and Clemens belong in the Hall.
I hate how these hall of fame threads always devolve into a mob with pitchforks demanding that Gaylord Perry be tossed out of the hall since he admitted to cheating for most of his career to get there.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
Yes I can. This is not a courtroom. I admire your tenacity in defending the guy but there is no way the guy didn't use. Stats are very good circumstantial evidence. There many guys that I believed used that are in the Hall of Fame.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
Yes I can. This is not a courtroom. I admire your tenacity in defending the guy but there is no way the guy didn't use. Stats are very good circumstantial evidence. There many guys that I believed used that are in the Hall of Fame.
again, you can believe anything you want. but that doesn't make it true. you have provided no evidence to the contrary so I don't know where else to go with this.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of using statistics as evidence of PED use, you will have to figure 90% of hall members used as there are statistical abnormalities in nearly every players record.
as an example, did Carl Yastrzemski use PED? check out his statline. went from averaging about 16 homers a year for the first 6 seasons to 40+ for 3 of the next 4 years. He must have used. at least according to you
oh no, no. I have no reason at all to believe Yaz ever used PED. I was just using him as an example of a player with wide swings of production that no one ever hears bandied about as a user. sometimes those big swings in production happen naturally. as I think they did with Yaz. an example of why using statistics as a measure of evidence of PED use Is folly.
@craig44 said:
oh no, no. I have no reason at all to believe Yaz ever used PED. I was just using him as an example of a player with wide swings of production that no one ever hears bandied about as a user. sometimes those big swings in production happen naturally. as I think they did with Yaz. an example of why using statistics as a measure of evidence of PED use Is folly.
I knew what you were getting at and that you didn’t suspect him. I just thought it was funny
Ok, guys. There have been moments of flare ups and political posting, but it has has been brought back to center. Let's please keep it that way. I love the discussion and I am learning from you all. I just want to make sure the thread stays civil. Thanks!
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
Yes I can. This is not a courtroom. I admire your tenacity in defending the guy but there is no way the guy didn't use. Stats are very good circumstantial evidence. There many guys that I believed used that are in the Hall of Fame.
again, you can believe anything you want. but that doesn't make it true. you have provided no evidence to the contrary so I don't know where else to go with this.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of using statistics as evidence of PED use, you will have to figure 90% of hall members used as there are statistical abnormalities in nearly every players record.
as an example, did Carl Yastrzemski use PED? check out his statline. went from averaging about 16 homers a year for the first 6 seasons to 40+ for 3 of the next 4 years. He must have used. at least according to you
That's just silly. Clemens played in the steroid era. Look at the year he had at the age of 42. ERA leader at 1.87 and ERA plus at 226. Gimmie a break.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
Yes I can. This is not a courtroom. I admire your tenacity in defending the guy but there is no way the guy didn't use. Stats are very good circumstantial evidence. There many guys that I believed used that are in the Hall of Fame.
again, you can believe anything you want. but that doesn't make it true. you have provided no evidence to the contrary so I don't know where else to go with this.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of using statistics as evidence of PED use, you will have to figure 90% of hall members used as there are statistical abnormalities in nearly every players record.
as an example, did Carl Yastrzemski use PED? check out his statline. went from averaging about 16 homers a year for the first 6 seasons to 40+ for 3 of the next 4 years. He must have used. at least according to you
That's just silly. Clemens played in the steroid era. Look at the year he had at the age of 42. ERA leader at 1.87 and ERA plus at 226. Gimmie a break.
nothing but conjecture. again, you can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
@baz518 said:
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
well there, I guess you have settled it all now haven't you. we don't need evidence, failed test or admission. just baz518's unwavering belief.
@baz518 said:
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
No doubt they both used and why they are not voted in the hall. However they should be in the hall because it was all the norm at the time.
@JoeBanzai said:
I am confused at why anyone would question Puckett's inclusion into the HOF.
Dynamic 5 tool player, who did everything exceptionally well, except draw walks, and while he had very good speed. he wasn't much of a base stealer.
A typical year for him was 200 hits with 20 home runs and 40 doubles while scoring and driving in close to 100 runs. Great fielder with a strong and very accurate arm. Near perfect #3 batting order guy and Center Fielder.
Was better than Canseco and Greenwell (but not quite as good as Boggs) in 1988 and was absolutely ROBBED of the MVP in 1992. Seven times in the top 7 in the MVP voting.
He was also a great leader for the Twins. He almost never missed a game. Unfortunately, his career was cut short and he was hitting as well or better than ever when he lost his vision in one eye.
He had a slightly low OB%, but a great SLG.
Why would he be considered a "mistake"? Rolen and Andruw Jones "clearly superior" ? Certainly longer careers, but not superior players.
As I said, for the size the Hall is now, Puckett is probably on the right side of borderline. He's not in the top 150 players of all time and probably not in the top 200. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Puckett and Rolen are very similar offensively, and both clearly superior to Jones, but both Jones and Rolen were elite defensive players. I see nothing to indicate that Puckett was even above average. Defense makes a difference.
Oh yes, your further argument that purports to show that the players with more PAs should be penalized for not playing enough is one that I can't comprehend.
@daltex said:
Thinking more about Omar Vizquel's candidacy, I think his career should be looked at like Jamie Moyer's. Both hung around forever, not being great ever, or even very good except occasionally. Moyer received Cy Young votes three times. Vizquel got MVP consideration exactly once. That year he was the fourth best SHORTSTOP. I know he has a following, but he doesn't come close to being borderline.
Two questions. Did you ever play baseball above little league level ? Did you ever watch Omar Vizquel play ? If the answer is no then I understand. He has a following of people who understand baseball is more than who hits the ball the farthest, and know how good he was with the leather. Like best to ever do it level. Think Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith (minus range factor), not a roided out A-Rod. Honestly I think the people voting have never played baseball either. SMH... I'm not saying he belongs in the HOF, but for anyone who doesn't understand why he is considered, then you should study the Short Stop position (hint - it's most valuable one on the diamond) from 1900-1990.
No, and I'm pretty sure I did. I watched a fair amount of baseball in Arlington in the late '90s, but he didn't stand out. I'll grant that he was very good in Seattle, though even then Ripken was better, but very ordinary after his age 26 season. FWIW, I'm working on a Mark Belanger master set. He was better than Smith, but couldn't hit well enough to stay in the lineup as often as Smith could, so Smith looks a little better over 6000 extra innings. Vizquel just wasn't close. Not best ever, not even best in his league for any reasonable period of time. After Seattle he was a serviceable shortstop, with occasional flashes of "good", but his hitting was so bad as to almost always bring him down. 1999 was far and away his best year, and yet he was demonstrably worse than Garciaparra and Jeter, despite their defense.
I have always been in the camp that thinks Puckett was overrated, but that's just as a hitter. His hitting was borderline, maybe even below the HOF borderline, but he was very good on the bases and a fantastic center fielder. Add it all up, and he was definitely a HOF player.
@daltex said:
FWIW, I'm working on a Mark Belanger master set. He was better than Smith, but couldn't hit well enough to stay in the lineup as often as Smith could, so Smith looks a little better over 6000 extra innings.
I am honor bound to interject whenever anyone says any shortstop was "better than Smith". But if the other shortstop is Belanger or Honus Wagner, I only ask that you say in the future that they were "as good as" Smith, not "better than".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
Baseball turned its back on its greatest players of an entire generation and in return, America has turned its back on baseball.
Talk about digging your own grave.
The baseball hall of fame omitting Clemens, Bonds and Rose is the same as the Louvre without the Mona Lisa.
I am done with this discussion. The people cheering on the exclusion of all-time great players to prove some opaque "morality" while attempting to argue for marginal players are proof they have truly lost their way.
For the record, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH you that the Hall of Fame is too watered down at this point. There’s several easy fixes with that.
It’s actually not some opaque morality. That’s a bunch of nonsense. Gambling was illegal at the time and location everywhere Pete Rose placed a bet outside riverboats, Atlantic City and Las Vegas. That’s a crime.
Anabolic steroids, HGH and many other supplements were illegal drugs in the United States unless prescribed by a doctor and to the best of my knowledge I still can’t go to Walgreens and pick some up on any of them.
So I don’t want to hear they weren’t testing and it wasn’t illegal. Yes, in fact, it was illegal. I don’t think the MLB should need to adjust the league charter to cover murder statutes, either, you know? We have, you know, laws.
And I’ll also say there’s a nice compromise available here: a nice, well dimly lit cheaters wing in Cooperstown. A dank little room for Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, Palmiero, Clemens and McGwire to get together and talk about how they fooled us all for the rest of time...
...and in front of the entrance, blocking it, let’s also have monuments to Roger Maris, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. So you’d have to walk past them to go check out the cheaters.
And I have less vitriol for the steroid boys than I do for Pete Rose, who can go do something that is anatomically impossible for most men for all eternity.
you are lumping Clemens in with steroid users. There is no proof he ever used. just one disgruntled former employee with some 5 year old syringes stored inside an empty beer can.
Are you a Clemens fan?
If so, I’m not going to go there.
makes no difference. I don't know as much about other players, ie. bonds, mcgwire, sosa etc, but I very closely followed the Clemens trials. there was no evidence and it should have been tossed before it ever made it to court.
Certainly lots of circumstantial evidence. He threw harder in the 2000 World Series against the Mets than he did 14 years earlier!
fairly common knowledge that the older radar guns read the balls speed as it neared the plate, modern guns read about 8 feet from the pitchers hand.
they clocked Randy Johnson at 100 MPH at 40 years old. I highly doubt he was actually was.
do you care to share all of the other "lots" of circumstantial evidence?
Its honestly not all that interesting to me at this point but I seem to recall his good buddy Andy Petitte testifying that the Rocket admitted to him that he used HGH. In addition, his last two years with the Sox showed a pitcher on the decline with less than great numbers only to find it at the age of 35 and more than double his CY Young total from then. Doesn't pass the smell test. What makes you think that Randy Johnson was definitely clean?
pettitte ended up a terrible witness for the prosecution as he admitted under oath that he did not remember the conversation.
as far as using statistical evidence as evidence of PED use, you are heading down a very slippery slope. there are many, many, many examples of players careers dipping and spiking. as for clemens, the 4 year decline so often spoken about was not in actuality a decline. 1993 was a down year after 7 years straight of averaging 260 innings and 12 CG per season. arm was dead. 1994 was a fantastic season. very well could have won cy young. 1995 was a down year for Clemens, but still well above average. 117 ERA+ and 1996 was a great season except for W/L which was what most looked at then. He lead the league in Ks and had 7.7 WAR.
The narrative that he was "in the twilight" was a false one.
I would guess it was a little friendly witness tampering by the Rocket and his team. I didn't say twilight but he was trending away from being a dominant CY Young pitcher. Lets face it a lot of these late 30s early 40s phenoms of the late 90s/early 2000s have disappeared. There is one logical explanation for that. I would bet my life on it that he used Peds just like I believe Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell did as well. I would guess there were some clean players. My guess would be that players like Ken Griffey Jr. and Chipper Jones were clean but who knows.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
Yes I can. This is not a courtroom. I admire your tenacity in defending the guy but there is no way the guy didn't use. Stats are very good circumstantial evidence. There many guys that I believed used that are in the Hall of Fame.
again, you can believe anything you want. but that doesn't make it true. you have provided no evidence to the contrary so I don't know where else to go with this.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of using statistics as evidence of PED use, you will have to figure 90% of hall members used as there are statistical abnormalities in nearly every players record.
as an example, did Carl Yastrzemski use PED? check out his statline. went from averaging about 16 homers a year for the first 6 seasons to 40+ for 3 of the next 4 years. He must have used. at least according to you
That's just silly. Clemens played in the steroid era. Look at the year he had at the age of 42. ERA leader at 1.87 and ERA plus at 226. Gimmie a break.
nothing but conjecture. again, you can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
Jones and Rolen were elite defensive players. I see nothing to indicate that Puckett was even above average. Defense makes a difference.
Puckett was a great defensive player! I watched his entire career and he was superb, with a great arm. After his first couple of years guys simply quit running on him. More assists than Jones with the same Fielding%. Jones may have been a better defender, but not by much. Both were above the league average and by about the same amount.
He also was adept at leaping up and catching balls that were heading over the fence for home runs. I can't think of a better defensive play than turning a home run into an out. He did win 6 Gold Gloves. Some here seem to think that's a sign of a average, or even bad fielder.
I suppose it's the same with MVP's, Puckett dominates both Rolen and Jones in voting in that area.
Oh yes, your further argument that purports to show that the players with more PAs should be penalized for not playing enough is one that I can't comprehend.
Easy to explain. Do you want your best player to play in 95% of the games or 75%? Rolen missed a LOT of games, so his contributions, while they might have averaged what looks to be great numbers, are actually NOT.
Puckett had 314 Total Bases in the "162 game average", he played 95% of the games, so he actually produced about 298.
Rolen looks almost as good with a "162 game average" of 288, but he actually had about 216 Total bases per year. What he actually gave his team was MUCH less. That's not penalizing a guy for less PA's, it's simply less production.
Using the average when comparing two players who don't play a similar amount of games penalizes the guy who performs at a high level more often. Ridiculous.
If you and I both do the same job and do it well and you show up every day and I take a day off every single week, who's the better worker?
When your best player misses a game it impacts your team in a negative way. The guy who replaces him is going to be WAY worse than your best player.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@baz518 said:
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
well there, I guess you have settled it all now haven't you. we don't need evidence, failed test or admission. just baz518's unwavering belief.
very convincing.
Yeah, I saw them both inject themselves in the Reds visitors clubhouse when I was an attendant... case closed.
They should still be in the HOF, its already full of addicts, gamblers, cheaters, abusers.... it's not the Hall of Humanitarian. Bonds and Clemens were clearly HOFers before/despite juicing.
@dallasactuary said:
I have always been in the camp that thinks Puckett was overrated, but that's just as a hitter. His hitting was borderline, maybe even below the HOF borderline, but he was very good on the bases and a fantastic center fielder. Add it all up, and he was definitely a HOF player.
His OPS+ numbers are better than Jones' and Rolens'
7 times at 129 or above. One time for Jones and three times for Rolen.
10 (best) year average for Kirby is 132.
Rolen's average was 131. He benefits from playing less games and still can't beat Puckett. Could only find 8 seasons where he played more than 128 games.
Jones' average was 119.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Oh yes, your further argument that purports to show that the players with more PAs should be penalized for not playing enough is one that I can't comprehend.
Easy to explain. Do you want your best player to play in 95% of the games or 75%? Rolen missed a LOT of games, so his contributions, while they might have averaged what looks to be great numbers, are actually NOT.
Puckett had 314 Total Bases in the "162 game average", he played 95% of the games, so he actually produced about 298.
Rolen looks almost as good with a "162 game average" of 288, but he actually had about 216 Total bases per year. What he actually gave his team was MUCH less. That's not penalizing a guy for less PA's, it's simply less production.
Using the average when comparing two players who don't play a similar amount of games penalizes the guy who performs at a high level more often. Ridiculous.
If you and I both do the same job and do it well and you show up every day and I take a day off every single week, who's the better worker?
When your best player misses a game it impacts your team in a negative way. The guy who replaces him is going to be WAY worse than your best player.
How does it make any sense to say that Rolen hurt the Phillies more in 1999 when they had to replace him for 50 games than Puckett did the Twins in 1996 when they had to replace him for 162? Or, to put it another way, would you say that Rolen was a better hitter than Puckett (fewer missed games) if he had gotten his 8518 plate appearances in 12 years instead of 17? Rolen missed fewer games between 1996 and 2012 than Puckett did between 1984 and 2000, if that is the way to value it. It makes no sense to say that Puckett was a better hitter BECAUSE he wasn't good enough to play in the majors until he was 24 and was washed up at 35.
@baz518 said:
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
well there, I guess you have settled it all now haven't you. we don't need evidence, failed test or admission. just baz518's unwavering belief.
very convincing.
Yeah, I saw them both inject themselves in the Reds visitors clubhouse when I was an attendant... case closed.
They should still be in the HOF, its already full of addicts, gamblers, cheaters, abusers.... it's not the Hall of Humanitarian. Bonds and Clemens were clearly HOFers before/despite juicing.
Can you clarify the bolded?
That’s a pretty big statement, if it’s not in jest.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@baz518 said:
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
well there, I guess you have settled it all now haven't you. we don't need evidence, failed test or admission. just baz518's unwavering belief.
very convincing.
Yeah, I saw them both inject themselves in the Reds visitors clubhouse when I was an attendant... case closed.
They should still be in the HOF, its already full of addicts, gamblers, cheaters, abusers.... it's not the Hall of Humanitarian. Bonds and Clemens were clearly HOFers before/despite juicing.
Im sure you did.
by the way, I had a perfect view of the grassy knoll back in November of 63.....
@baz518 said:
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
well there, I guess you have settled it all now haven't you. we don't need evidence, failed test or admission. just baz518's unwavering belief.
very convincing.
Yeah, I saw them both inject themselves in the Reds visitors clubhouse when I was an attendant... case closed.
They should still be in the HOF, its already full of addicts, gamblers, cheaters, abusers.... it's not the Hall of Humanitarian. Bonds and Clemens were clearly HOFers before/despite juicing.
Can you clarify the bolded?
That’s a pretty big statement, if it’s not in jest.
he is being ridiculous. I feel confident that Barry Bonds was not injecting himself with PED in front of clubhouse attendants.
How does it make any sense to say that Rolen hurt the Phillies more in 1999 when they had to replace him for 50 games
Don't forget; 34 games missed in 2000, 106 games missed in 2005, 50 games missed in 2007, 47 games missed in 2008 35 games missed in 2009, 29 games missed in 2010, 97 games missed in 2011 and 70 games missed in 2012.
than Puckett did the Twins in 1996 when they had to replace him for 162? Or, to put it another way, would you say that Rolen was a better hitter than Puckett (fewer missed games) if he had gotten his 8518 plate appearances in 12 years instead of 17? Rolen was pretty bad in 2005 and 2007 when he did play.
But he didn't!
IF Rolen got his PA in 12 years he would have been almost as good as Puckett overall, and better in a couple of categories, Puckett would have been better in others. IF can be used for me too, IF Puckett hadn't gone blind in one eye he would have had 3000 hits.
Rolen missed fewer games between 1996 and 2012 than Puckett did between 1984 and 2000, if that is the way to value it. It makes no sense to say that Puckett was a better hitter BECAUSE he wasn't good enough to play in the majors until he was 24 and was washed up at 35.
"Washed up"? the guy went blind in one eye! Rolen was the one washed up at 35!
With an extra 5 years in the majors Rolen could barely surpass Puckett's Total Bases by only 175!!!! A little over one half of a years production.
Rolen got a big head start when he was a great player at the age of 22 and 23, no doubt about that, his two sub par seasons at the age of 36 and 37 were better than a retired Puckett. Rolen was certainly better when Puckett was out of the league.
When they were both Playing Puckett was "far superior". You don't want Rolen "punished" for missing so many games during his prime, but you are OK with "punishing" Puckett for going blind in one eye?
Puckett was a 10 time AS in 12 years Rolen 7 in 17.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Bottom line is Puckett is almost identical to Rolen offensively, and it doesn't matter that Puckett missed his 800 or so games all at once and that Rolen missed his over the course of his career.
@dallasactuary said:
I have always been in the camp that thinks Puckett was overrated, but that's just as a hitter. His hitting was borderline, maybe even below the HOF borderline, but he was very good on the bases and a fantastic center fielder. Add it all up, and he was definitely a HOF player.
@daltex said:
FWIW, I'm working on a Mark Belanger master set. He was better than Smith, but couldn't hit well enough to stay in the lineup as often as Smith could, so Smith looks a little better over 6000 extra innings.
I am honor bound to interject whenever anyone says any shortstop was "better than Smith". But if the other shortstop is Belanger or Honus Wagner, I only ask that you say in the future that they were "as good as" Smith, not "better than".
As I understand it, you like to use RAA to evaluate players. The defensive component of that (for players at the same position) is RField. Puckett's was -14. That doesn't indicate fantastic to me. Jones' was 235, well above Mays and Paul Blair.
I can accept your sentiment regarding Smith, but Belanger leads Smith 241-239, and he did it in 6000 fewer innings.
Comments
Rolen won 8 Gold Gloves and had a 122 OPS+. Here's the list of the other 3B to do that:
Mike Schmidt
I am confused at why anyone would question Puckett's inclusion into the HOF.
Dynamic 5 tool player, who did everything exceptionally well, except draw walks, and while he had very good speed. he wasn't much of a base stealer.
A typical year for him was 200 hits with 20 home runs and 40 doubles while scoring and driving in close to 100 runs. Great fielder with a strong and very accurate arm. Near perfect #3 batting order guy and Center Fielder.
Was better than Canseco and Greenwell (but not quite as good as Boggs) in 1988 and was absolutely ROBBED of the MVP in 1992. Seven times in the top 7 in the MVP voting.
He was also a great leader for the Twins. He almost never missed a game. Unfortunately, his career was cut short and he was hitting as well or better than ever when he lost his vision in one eye.
He had a slightly low OB%, but a great SLG.
Why would he be considered a "mistake"? Rolen and Andruw Jones "clearly superior" ? Certainly longer careers, but not superior players.
Guesses and hunches are not evidence. you can bet anything you like as well, but it is not evidence. as for the "twilight" comment, that was a famous phrase used by Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox at the time to explain why he did resign clemens.
you can accuse anyone you like, but without evidence it is nothing but conjecture.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
using statistics as "evidence" for PED use is folly. just ridiculous. just about every player has had up and down years. I would dare guess I could find "evidence" for PED use in nearly every HOF players resume.
I guess sandy koufax must have used. what about George brett, he must have been on the juice in 1985, ripken in 1991, Puckett had a pretty big power surge. Ryan in his later years, Randy johnson, Tony Gwynn, seaver had a resurgence in the mid 80's. I could go on and on and on.
Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@craig44
Roger Clemens had HGH shipped to him. That isn’t conjecture, as far as I know, that is a fact. This was discussed - heavily - during the trial. I can’t recall if it was to his house, office or weasel looking trainer. But he did order it and said it was for his wife.
Taken on its face, I guess it’s possible. I saw her ‘spread’ in the ESPN body issue and she looked great.
Then I thought more about it. Here’s where I went:
Could I get HGH for my wife ?
Would I want my wife injecting herself?
If I said no, could she get it without me?
Where did the idea that INJECTING HGH would have this type of impact come from, that it was safe and fine to use and that the results would be both tangible and immediate to prepare for an upcoming photo shoot?
Quite simply, my personal answers to these questions may differ from others. But when I apply logic and common sense to this situation, that story very quickly falls apart.
As for Andy Pettitte and Brian McNamee, yes they were made to look foolish by Clemens’ attorney’s. Good attorney’s can do that. But these are two of his closest friends saying he used PEDs. McNamee obviously had incentive to lie but I don’t see that with Andy Pettitte. And it’s been a while but I just couldn’t really couldn’t get past the fact that McNamee was Clemens trainer before Andy’s and provided ‘stuff’ for both Andy and Mrs. Clemens but not Roger?
You are 100% correct that there’s not enough evidence to ‘convict’ in a court of law. That’s a high standard and it was he said, he said mostly. Still enough of the facts of the story came out where I can come to my own opinion on the matter and didn’t just believe the plausible though in many cases logic defying explanations offered in defense of Mr. Clemens.
I mean, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, either, yet I wouldn’t want him dating my sister, either. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Looked at a few more numbers;
In 12 years Puckett had 7831 PA and played in 152 games per year (155 if you ignore his rookie season).
In 16 years (disregarded rookie year when he played just 37 games) Rolen had 8372 PA and played in 125 games per year.
In 16 years (disregarded rookie year when he played just 31 games) Jones had 8664 PA and played in 135 games per year.
If you figure about 650 PA is a good year these two guys sure missed a lot of time in comparison. Rolen played about 1 more year and Jones 1 1/2.
Rolen missed about 23% of his teams games, his OPS+-C would be 94.
Jones was better, but missed 17% for an OPS+-C of 92.
Kirby played in 95% of his teams games, OPS+-C of 118.
I'm just not even seeing superior, much less "clearly superior".
Andy Pettitte admitted under oath that he misremembered a 5 year old conversation. as far as Debbie Clemens doing HGH, husbands and wives do lots of things without knowledge of the other party. that should not be so surprising.
you can "believe" anything you want. it doesn't make it so and it doesn't make it true. I would think that if you want to defame someones life work, you would want to have more evidence than simple conjecture.
that's just me though.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
So Bonds is clean in your eyes.
Got it.
Two questions. Did you ever play baseball above little league level ? Did you ever watch Omar Vizquel play ? If the answer is no then I understand. He has a following of people who understand baseball is more than who hits the ball the farthest, and know how good he was with the leather. Like best to ever do it level. Think Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith (minus range factor), not a roided out A-Rod. Honestly I think the people voting have never played baseball either. SMH... I'm not saying he belongs in the HOF, but for anyone who doesn't understand why he is considered, then you should study the Short Stop position (hint - it's most valuable one on the diamond) from 1900-1990.
Collecting:
post world war II HOF rookie
76 topps gem mint 10 commons 9 stars
Arenado purple refractors(Rockies) Red (Cardinals)
successful deals with Keevan, Grote15, 1954, mbogoman
I am not impugning his life’s work. I have no problem with ANY of them getting in the Hall of Fame and their play on the field certainly makes them worthy candidates.
As for the bolded above? That’s not exactly the whole story. The whole story is that Andy Pettitte told the same story about that old conversation for about five years. When the government sought to prove that Roger Clemens was guilty of perjury in a federal court trial, Andy Pettitte said it was “50-50” that he misremembered, a word invented by Clemens earlier in court proceedings, that conversation. The trade off was that he lost all credibility and, as the key witness in the perjury trial against Clemens, basically stopped any chance of Clemens being convicted and facing jail time.
Now again, I’m offering my opinion here. I’m a total nobody on a message board who is of the opinion that Roger Clemens probably used steroids.
What is a fact is that he was not convicted of perjury, that he was one of the most dominant pitchers in Major League history and that he will be talked about for his greatness for a long, long time.
Again, @craig44, I am sorry for even posting any of this as I can tell you are a Roger Clemens fan. Make no mistake - he was spectacular. And to be honest, he always struck me as a kind of outlaw anyway. Played by his own rules type of player - old school and nasty. So for now, he’s with Barry Bonds, Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in the ‘what’s the story’ category that keeps them far more relevant.
Whether he gets to Cooperstown or not, no one will ever forget Roger Clemens and he’s got Cy Young’s, championship rings, records galore and millions upon millions of dollars.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Straw man. nice try. your argument is so seriously flawed as to not even be an argument, but simply your belief.
I am not concerned with your personal beliefs, just evidence. Sadly, you don't appear to have any.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@craig44
Bonds never admitted his use and never failed a test, as far as I know. So was he clean in your opinion? Yes or no?
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Your argument protecting Schilling also protects Bonds, no strawman needed.
No admission. No failed test. No hard evidence.
I would agree that Pettitte was not a credible witness. That is exactly what I mentioned above.
If there are no credible witnesses, no evidence, no failed test and no admission, what do we have left? we have peoples beliefs and feelings. neither of which are worth much in a discussion like this.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
there was evidence though. while I don't know nearly as much about the bonds case, I believe there was evidence of his use in the BALCO investigation. He also did admit use in a deposition that was supposed to be sealed, but later came to light.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Schilling? I don't think I have mentioned Schilling. I don't know what you are talking about here.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No. There wasn't. And his obstruction of justice conviction was overturned.
You didn't mention Schilling when you said "Minus an admission, a failed test or hard evidence, you sir, have no idea who used. simple conjecture."?
You used this line to defend Schilling literally a few hours ago.
All I know is Schilling isn't a hall of famer and the hall is better off without him in it.
If we're going to exclude all-time greats like Clemens and Bonds then nobody else needs admittance.
I'm done with this discussion. Good luck folks.
from espn
According to records prosecutors took from BALCO, Bonds tested positive on three separate occasions in 2000 and 2001 for the steroid methenelone in urine samples; he also tested positive two of those three times for the steroid nandrolone.
A government-retained scientist, Dr. Don Catlin, also said he found evidence that Bonds used the designer steroid THG upon retesting a urine sample Bonds supplied as part of baseball's anonymous survey drug testing in 2003, when the designer drug was not yet detectable. Federal investigators seized them in 2004 from the private laboratory used by Major League Baseball before they could be destroyed, which the players were promised.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I was generalizing the folly that is using statistics to "prove" steroid use. I didn't mean for it to single out Schilling. my mistake.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Bonds admitted using the Clear. I was following BALCO closely as I was living in the Bay Area at the time. There will always be a range of opinions on all of these issues - PED, HOF, character, political views. I can only say this....Bonds and Clemens belong in the Hall.
I hate how these hall of fame threads always devolve into a mob with pitchforks demanding that Gaylord Perry be tossed out of the hall since he admitted to cheating for most of his career to get there.
Yes I can. This is not a courtroom. I admire your tenacity in defending the guy but there is no way the guy didn't use. Stats are very good circumstantial evidence. There many guys that I believed used that are in the Hall of Fame.
Bonds did admit to using and failed 2 or 3 tests.
again, you can believe anything you want. but that doesn't make it true. you have provided no evidence to the contrary so I don't know where else to go with this.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of using statistics as evidence of PED use, you will have to figure 90% of hall members used as there are statistical abnormalities in nearly every players record.
as an example, did Carl Yastrzemski use PED? check out his statline. went from averaging about 16 homers a year for the first 6 seasons to 40+ for 3 of the next 4 years. He must have used. at least according to you
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Leave Yaz out of this! Lol I kid, I kid.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
oh no, no. I have no reason at all to believe Yaz ever used PED. I was just using him as an example of a player with wide swings of production that no one ever hears bandied about as a user. sometimes those big swings in production happen naturally. as I think they did with Yaz. an example of why using statistics as a measure of evidence of PED use Is folly.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I knew what you were getting at and that you didn’t suspect him. I just thought it was funny
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Ok, guys. There have been moments of flare ups and political posting, but it has has been brought back to center. Let's please keep it that way. I love the discussion and I am learning from you all. I just want to make sure the thread stays civil. Thanks!
Bonds AND Clemens juiced. I don't need statistics or a court of law to declare that the most obvious actually occurred... that's just as real is it gets.
That's just silly. Clemens played in the steroid era. Look at the year he had at the age of 42. ERA leader at 1.87 and ERA plus at 226. Gimmie a break.
nothing but conjecture. again, you can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
well there, I guess you have settled it all now haven't you. we don't need evidence, failed test or admission. just baz518's unwavering belief.
very convincing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No doubt they both used and why they are not voted in the hall. However they should be in the hall because it was all the norm at the time.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
As I said, for the size the Hall is now, Puckett is probably on the right side of borderline. He's not in the top 150 players of all time and probably not in the top 200. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Puckett and Rolen are very similar offensively, and both clearly superior to Jones, but both Jones and Rolen were elite defensive players. I see nothing to indicate that Puckett was even above average. Defense makes a difference.
Oh yes, your further argument that purports to show that the players with more PAs should be penalized for not playing enough is one that I can't comprehend.
No, and I'm pretty sure I did. I watched a fair amount of baseball in Arlington in the late '90s, but he didn't stand out. I'll grant that he was very good in Seattle, though even then Ripken was better, but very ordinary after his age 26 season. FWIW, I'm working on a Mark Belanger master set. He was better than Smith, but couldn't hit well enough to stay in the lineup as often as Smith could, so Smith looks a little better over 6000 extra innings. Vizquel just wasn't close. Not best ever, not even best in his league for any reasonable period of time. After Seattle he was a serviceable shortstop, with occasional flashes of "good", but his hitting was so bad as to almost always bring him down. 1999 was far and away his best year, and yet he was demonstrably worse than Garciaparra and Jeter, despite their defense.
I have always been in the camp that thinks Puckett was overrated, but that's just as a hitter. His hitting was borderline, maybe even below the HOF borderline, but he was very good on the bases and a fantastic center fielder. Add it all up, and he was definitely a HOF player.
I am honor bound to interject whenever anyone says any shortstop was "better than Smith". But if the other shortstop is Belanger or Honus Wagner, I only ask that you say in the future that they were "as good as" Smith, not "better than".
Check out Willie Mays' stats when he was 42.
Jones and Rolen were elite defensive players. I see nothing to indicate that Puckett was even above average. Defense makes a difference.
Puckett was a great defensive player! I watched his entire career and he was superb, with a great arm. After his first couple of years guys simply quit running on him. More assists than Jones with the same Fielding%. Jones may have been a better defender, but not by much. Both were above the league average and by about the same amount.
He also was adept at leaping up and catching balls that were heading over the fence for home runs. I can't think of a better defensive play than turning a home run into an out. He did win 6 Gold Gloves. Some here seem to think that's a sign of a average, or even bad fielder.
I suppose it's the same with MVP's, Puckett dominates both Rolen and Jones in voting in that area.
Easy to explain. Do you want your best player to play in 95% of the games or 75%? Rolen missed a LOT of games, so his contributions, while they might have averaged what looks to be great numbers, are actually NOT.
Puckett had 314 Total Bases in the "162 game average", he played 95% of the games, so he actually produced about 298.
Rolen looks almost as good with a "162 game average" of 288, but he actually had about 216 Total bases per year. What he actually gave his team was MUCH less. That's not penalizing a guy for less PA's, it's simply less production.
Using the average when comparing two players who don't play a similar amount of games penalizes the guy who performs at a high level more often. Ridiculous.
If you and I both do the same job and do it well and you show up every day and I take a day off every single week, who's the better worker?
When your best player misses a game it impacts your team in a negative way. The guy who replaces him is going to be WAY worse than your best player.
Yeah, I saw them both inject themselves in the Reds visitors clubhouse when I was an attendant... case closed.
They should still be in the HOF, its already full of addicts, gamblers, cheaters, abusers.... it's not the Hall of Humanitarian. Bonds and Clemens were clearly HOFers before/despite juicing.
His OPS+ numbers are better than Jones' and Rolens'
7 times at 129 or above. One time for Jones and three times for Rolen.
10 (best) year average for Kirby is 132.
Rolen's average was 131. He benefits from playing less games and still can't beat Puckett. Could only find 8 seasons where he played more than 128 games.
Jones' average was 119.
How does it make any sense to say that Rolen hurt the Phillies more in 1999 when they had to replace him for 50 games than Puckett did the Twins in 1996 when they had to replace him for 162? Or, to put it another way, would you say that Rolen was a better hitter than Puckett (fewer missed games) if he had gotten his 8518 plate appearances in 12 years instead of 17? Rolen missed fewer games between 1996 and 2012 than Puckett did between 1984 and 2000, if that is the way to value it. It makes no sense to say that Puckett was a better hitter BECAUSE he wasn't good enough to play in the majors until he was 24 and was washed up at 35.
Can you clarify the bolded?
That’s a pretty big statement, if it’s not in jest.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Im sure you did.
by the way, I had a perfect view of the grassy knoll back in November of 63.....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
he is being ridiculous. I feel confident that Barry Bonds was not injecting himself with PED in front of clubhouse attendants.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Don't forget; 34 games missed in 2000, 106 games missed in 2005, 50 games missed in 2007, 47 games missed in 2008 35 games missed in 2009, 29 games missed in 2010, 97 games missed in 2011 and 70 games missed in 2012.
than Puckett did the Twins in 1996 when they had to replace him for 162? Or, to put it another way, would you say that Rolen was a better hitter than Puckett (fewer missed games) if he had gotten his 8518 plate appearances in 12 years instead of 17? Rolen was pretty bad in 2005 and 2007 when he did play.
But he didn't!
IF Rolen got his PA in 12 years he would have been almost as good as Puckett overall, and better in a couple of categories, Puckett would have been better in others. IF can be used for me too, IF Puckett hadn't gone blind in one eye he would have had 3000 hits.
Rolen missed fewer games between 1996 and 2012 than Puckett did between 1984 and 2000, if that is the way to value it. It makes no sense to say that Puckett was a better hitter BECAUSE he wasn't good enough to play in the majors until he was 24 and was washed up at 35.
"Washed up"? the guy went blind in one eye! Rolen was the one washed up at 35!
With an extra 5 years in the majors Rolen could barely surpass Puckett's Total Bases by only 175!!!! A little over one half of a years production.
Rolen got a big head start when he was a great player at the age of 22 and 23, no doubt about that, his two sub par seasons at the age of 36 and 37 were better than a retired Puckett. Rolen was certainly better when Puckett was out of the league.
When they were both Playing Puckett was "far superior". You don't want Rolen "punished" for missing so many games during his prime, but you are OK with "punishing" Puckett for going blind in one eye?
Puckett was a 10 time AS in 12 years Rolen 7 in 17.
Puckett was certainly superior to Rolen. He had glaucoma if I remember correctly. He was an impact player for sure
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Bottom line is Puckett is almost identical to Rolen offensively, and it doesn't matter that Puckett missed his 800 or so games all at once and that Rolen missed his over the course of his career.
As I understand it, you like to use RAA to evaluate players. The defensive component of that (for players at the same position) is RField. Puckett's was -14. That doesn't indicate fantastic to me. Jones' was 235, well above Mays and Paul Blair.
I can accept your sentiment regarding Smith, but Belanger leads Smith 241-239, and he did it in 6000 fewer innings.