I do not like to use RAA to evaluate players; for pitchers it works fine, because there is no fielding component, but the fielding measures don't really work (in WAR, RAA, RAR, etc. which are all related). Compare, for example, 1985 to 1991. Puckett was excellent in both seasons but his Rfield in 1985 is +10 and in 1991 it is -1. Rfield is essentially a counting stat; it adds up assists, putouts, etc. and assigns them each a fixed weight and Rfield is the result. If two outfielders have the same number of putouts, assists, etc. and one played fewer innings than the other, then the one who played the fewer innings will have a better Rfield. Sounds reasonable at first blush, but there's more to it than that.
Two important things that changed between 1985 and 1991, for Puckett, is that the Twins pitchers struck out 100 more batters in 1991, and also induced about 50 more ground outs. That leaves a lot fewer outs for the outfielders to make and their assists, putouts, etc. went down accordingly, and therefore so did their Rfield. But the Twins outfielders weren't worse in 1991 than they were in 1985, the Twins pitchers were better.
Rfield will generally catch great seasons (1984) and bad seasons (1993), but it does a poor job on everything in between. That said, while I stand by my statement that Puckett was fantastic in CF, he was not GOAT-level like Jones, Mays and Blair.
And I'm not actually disagreeing with you about Belanger, I am simply honor bound to argue with you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@daltex said:
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.
Thank you. Rolen was NOT "clearly superior" to Puckett.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I’m surprised by the chatter about Puckett. For a first ballot HoFer, he’s on the bottom tier, for sure. But for overall membership, he’s not in the top 5 or even top 10 guys I would suggest we need do-overs for.
As for Rolan, I’m on the fence. Elite defender. I think it comes down to “well, if the bar is now lower, he reaches that bar.” But to say he was clearly superior to Puckett is too much. Thats not clear to me at all. And not to the voters, either, obviously.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m surprised by the chatter about Puckett. For a first ballot HoFer, he’s on the bottom tier, for sure. But for overall membership, he’s not in the top 5 or even top 10 guys I would suggest we need do-overs for.
As for Rolan, I’m on the fence. Elite defender. I think it comes down to “well, if the bar is now lower, he reaches that bar.” But to say he was clearly superior to Puckett is too much. Thats not clear to me at all. And not to the voters, either, obviously.
My original point about Puckett was only that if you say that he was a mistake then you're placing the size of the Hall differently than you would if you were to claim that Brett was a mistake or that Baines was a mistake. None of these is inherently right or inherently wrong, but if you think the right size is above 25 you need to start considering, not necessarily admitting, Brett. If the right size is above 200 you need to start considering Puckett, and if the right size is above 1000 you need to start considering Baines. That's all.
My argument for Rolen is that his hitting is virtually equivalent to Puckett and his defense is much better. Not saying Rolen and Jones should definitely be in, but if you're voting for anyone (on the current ballot) other than Bonds and Clemens you should be voting for Rolen and Jones, too.
On a slightly unrelated note, how on earth did 14% of voters find 10 HoFers on this ballot? Shouldn't they lose their vote?
@MDLB said:
Can they vote instead on which players should be removed ?
No you can't and they never should...once you're in, you're in.
And it is beyond STUPID that the Mr October of pitchers hasn't been elected several years ago. Just because his viewpoints are a little different than their own is no reason keep him out of the HOF.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m surprised by the chatter about Puckett. For a first ballot HoFer, he’s on the bottom tier, for sure. But for overall membership, he’s not in the top 5 or even top 10 guys I would suggest we need do-overs for.
As for Rolan, I’m on the fence. Elite defender. I think it comes down to “well, if the bar is now lower, he reaches that bar.” But to say he was clearly superior to Puckett is too much. Thats not clear to me at all. And not to the voters, either, obviously.
I too was VERY surprised Kirby got in on the first ballot...but now that I've had some time to think it over the fact that he lead one of the lowest market teams possible to two championships in five years is no doubt what put him over the top.
On a slightly unrelated note, how on earth did 14% of voters find 10 HoFers on this ballot? Shouldn't they lose their vote?
There’s no set ‘way to vote’ so many guys do the same thing every year. Some people vote for 1 guy a year, maximum. Some guys vote for ‘no doubters’ only, with no number in mind. Some vote for 5, 10, 12 guys every year regardless of ballot strength.
It’s up to each writer though there seems to be more standardized rules added every few years.
For example, people often cite Joe DiMaggio as a guy who ‘wasn’t first ballot.’ Thats technically true but only because he began to earn votes as early as 1946! With five seasons still to play! In fact, because of the confusion over voting processes at the time, it took 5 years after the Yankee Clipper retired to finally elect him.
Guess how long it takes - in honor of Joe - after you retire now to be considered for election and placed on the ballot?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
My argument for Rolen is that his hitting is virtually equivalent to Puckett and his defense is much better. Not saying Rolen and Jones should definitely be in, but if you're voting for anyone (on the current ballot) other than Bonds and Clemens you should be voting for Rolen and Jones, too.
My response was not to say that Rolen was a bad player. He was a great player.
I felt (and still feel) the comment that Rolen and Jones were "clearly superior players" was ridiculous.
Puckett was a superior defensive player. He deserved the Gold Gloves he won and was the best defensive (that could also hit) CF in the AL until Ken Griffey Jr arrived. Then he became the second best defensive outfielder in the AL,
Even if Rolen was as good as Brooks Robinson defensively, he couldn't have been "much" better than Puckett. I didn't see Rolen play. Eight GG is impressive.
CF is a harder position to play. Not by a lot, but it's tougher.
As far as their hitting goes, Puckett was better, but not by a huge margin. If your basing the evaluation on OPS+ it's going to reward the guy who plays less games per year. Rolen was a better walker, I'll give you that. Puckett hit for a much higher average and a slightly lower SLG.
With an extra 5 years in the league (especially after his great first couple of seasons), Rolen's numbers should Dwarf Puckett's. They are a little better for the most part. Scott really dropped off after 2004, with only 2 good years after he was 30 years old.
I would like to see a line of stats right under the "162 game average" that shows what the player actually did every year, not what he did if he played in every game.
I see many here saying Puckett was a "lower tier" HOFer. I can accept that. I don't see one person who agrees that Rolen was better and certainly none that rate him "clearly superior".
I don't think Rolen is quite good enough to be a HOFer, but it wouldn't bother me if he got in. Jones as well.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Its worth noting that beyond Schilling's desire to play the role of villain (ala Jose Canseco) in his search to find a niche post baseball, backed by his outlandish rhetoric (see also Ken Jennings), he did steal $75 million from the State of Rhode Island that were bonds issued to support a more or less bogus video game company he had attached his name to.
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
@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.
Pure hyperbole, but done to prove points repeated here... it's as obvious as the earth is round (not just from stats, but each situation in totality) and this isn't a courtroom. Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
I personally believe both should be in the Hall, and I wonder if they wouldn't already be in there if both would've 'fessed up and apologized.
@MDLB said:
Can they vote instead on which players should be removed ?
No you can't and they never should...once you're in, you're in.
And it is beyond STUPID that the Mr October of pitchers hasn't been elected several years ago. Just because his viewpoints are a little different than their own is no reason keep him out of the HOF.
I would argue it's not his viewpoints, but his actions that they hold against him. And considering his political views, I would think he'd be the first to understand "personal responsibility". You can believe whatever you want, but once you broadcast your beliefs for everyone to hear... you are completely absent minded if you think people won't judge you. I'd rather Baines and Trammell get in than remove the human element of the voting process... a Hall based on certain benchmarks or metrics would be about as boring as it could get.
Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
Bonds has tested positive three times since the original test.
Clemens has, to my knowledge, never failed a test. Pettitte was not "tricked" into saying we was unsure of the conversation with Clemens. Pettitte never said he saw Roger use, only that he, maybe, admitted to it over the phone.
Bonds' samples were retested using new methods of detection and steroids were found.
The MLB certainly must have samples remaining from Clemens' tests.
His lawyer said "The evidence is going to be that Roger Clemens tested negative for steroids in May of 2003 the first time it was done - and from then on,"
If Clemens used, he sure did it carefully. One would think when he was accused in court of perjury, the prosecution would get his old samples (not from a beer can in someone's car trunk LOL) and retest them.
Bonds is guilty, that's been proven.
Clemens has not been proven guilty...............yet.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@saucywombat said:
he did steal $75 million from the State of Rhode Island that were bonds issued to support a more or less bogus video game company he had attached his name to.
I had never heard this! After doing some research I would say your statement is incorrect.
From Business Insider dot com.
"$75 million loan that was given to Schilling's game studio, 38 Studios.
When the loan was given in 2010, Schilling moved 38 Studios' offices to Rhode Island — and with it, a few hundred employees and their families — with the agreement that 38 Studios would both grow the local economy and repay the loan.
38 Studios folded in 2012, less than two years later, and never released the game it was making (a massive, years-long online game, codenamed "Project Copernicus").
In an unbelievable twist, Rhode Island taxpayers were left holding the bag — as Rhode Island's WPRI reported in May, the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation issued the $75 million loan without properly vetting 38 Studios' finances. The reason given: "Because Rhode Island would be paying us back."
Looks like the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation just handed out taxpayers money. The article goes on to say "Since the bondholders — companies like Transamerica and the USAA — reportedly knew the state of Rhode Island wouldn't default on its loans, and the bonds were guaranteed by the state, they went ahead with the loan agreement even though 38 Studios' financial statements contained several potential red flags.
A number of lawsuits transpired as a result of the loan deal and the closure of 38 Studios. The $2.5 million settlement in this case specifically applies to a lawsuit between the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation and Curt Schilling (plus his business partners); if settled, it effectively ends Schilling's legal involvement with the 38 Studios loan."
Looks to me like the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation stole the money, not Schilling and then they, NOT the State of Rhode Island, sued Schilling and his partners.
I am not a big Schilling "guy", but it would seem he didn't "steal" anything, and his "bogus" company apparently had "a few hundred" employees.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@saucywombat said:
he did steal $75 million from the State of Rhode Island that were bonds issued to support a more or less bogus video game company he had attached his name to.
I had never heard this! After doing some research I would say your statement is incorrect.
From Business Insider dot com.
"$75 million loan that was given to Schilling's game studio, 38 Studios.
When the loan was given in 2010, Schilling moved 38 Studios' offices to Rhode Island — and with it, a few hundred employees and their families — with the agreement that 38 Studios would both grow the local economy and repay the loan.
38 Studios folded in 2012, less than two years later, and never released the game it was making (a massive, years-long online game, codenamed "Project Copernicus").
In an unbelievable twist, Rhode Island taxpayers were left holding the bag — as Rhode Island's WPRI reported in May, the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation issued the $75 million loan without properly vetting 38 Studios' finances. The reason given: "Because Rhode Island would be paying us back."
Looks like the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation just handed out taxpayers money. The article goes on to say "Since the bondholders — companies like Transamerica and the USAA — reportedly knew the state of Rhode Island wouldn't default on its loans, and the bonds were guaranteed by the state, they went ahead with the loan agreement even though 38 Studios' financial statements contained several potential red flags.
A number of lawsuits transpired as a result of the loan deal and the closure of 38 Studios. The $2.5 million settlement in this case specifically applies to a lawsuit between the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation and Curt Schilling (plus his business partners); if settled, it effectively ends Schilling's legal involvement with the 38 Studios loan."
Looks to me like the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation stole the money, not Schilling and then they, NOT the State of Rhode Island, sued Schilling and his partners.
I am not a big Schilling "guy", but it would seem he didn't "steal" anything, and his "bogus" company apparently had "a few hundred" employees.
I don’t think anyone stole money. Schilling is a gamer on and off the field. He started a video game company with an ambitious game in mind. The company - like many - failed. Schilling lost a lot of his personal fortune as well as screwing Rhode Island but their doesn’t seem to have been intent of malice.
Their was good buzz around the company at one point. And I don’t like Curt Schilling.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Curt Schilling was given money by Rhode island by leveraging his fame in that part of the world and by exaggerating the financial prospects of his video game enterprise. He received that money and never paid any of it back. In this white collar context steal makes people uncomfortable, so perhaps fraud, con, etc. The business failed because of Curt Schilling spending like a drunken sailor. This place was practically Entertainment 720, not sure if he employed Detlef Schrempf though.
So maybe more of a Bernie Madoff scenario, he is a crook but his investors could be criticized for not doing their due diligence
Always looking for 1993-1999 Baseball Finest Refractors and1994 Football Finest Refractors. saucywombat@hotmail.com
I am originally from RI and people there hate Schilling for that scheme.... but I think the real problem was the state loaning taxpayer dollars to a private company, and a shaky one at that. I put 90% of the blame on the shady state government.
@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.
Pure hyperbole, but done to prove points repeated here... it's as obvious as the earth is round (not just from stats, but each situation in totality) and this isn't a courtroom. Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
I personally believe both should be in the Hall, and I wonder if they wouldn't already be in there if both would've 'fessed up and apologized.
"enough witness testimony?" what on earth are you talking about. one person. that's all there was.
"circumstantial evidence?" again, syringes in an old beer can? you have got to be kidding me.
there was nothing to the case. nothing at all. you are repeating the same old lazy line you heard from espn.
A lie, when told enough, becomes the truth. that's all there is here.
Dr. James Andrews testified that he saw absolutely no evidence that Clemens used PED, and he examined Clemens for over 20 years. I would say Dr Andrews is an expert, wouldn't you?
You all are rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again, and none of you are ever going to change your minds. Those who want to pick and choose which characteristics are unbefitting of the hall while overlooking the conduct of others?
You all are rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again, and none of you are ever going to change your minds. Those who want to pick and choose which characteristics are unbefitting of the hall while overlooking the conduct of others?
What's the point?
you are more than welcome to leave the discussion.
I don’t think anyone stole money. Schilling is a gamer on and off the field. He started a video game company with an ambitious game in mind. The company - like many - failed. Schilling lost a lot of his personal fortune as well as screwing Rhode Island but their doesn’t seem to have been intent of malice.
Their was good buzz around the company at one point. And I don’t like Curt Schilling.
If you lie in order to get the money, you've basically stolen it. Schilling and company knew they couldn't possibly do what they were claiming they could in order to get the money. Then, shockingly, they didn't deliver. And they misspent the money.
All things considered, I would take Rolen over Puckett primarily because the hitting (OPS-wise) was similar between the two but Rolen was an all time great defensive player.
If I were to make an argument for Puckett though, it was be based on his skill as a hitter. His career BA be is 37 points higher than Rolen and he had 227 more hits in less at bats. I know BA is frowned on these days and that OPS is a better measure of ‘value’. But I would argue that good hitting is more skillful than having an OPS padded by walks and is worthy of consideration when arguing greatness...particularly when there is a difference as striking as 37 points.
You all are rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again, and none of you are ever going to change your minds. Those who want to pick and choose which characteristics are unbefitting of the hall while overlooking the conduct of others?
What's the point?
you are more than welcome to leave the discussion.
I left it long ago. I'm laughing at the same people making the same arguments over and over and nobody coming close to changing their minds.
@DaveSpiwak said:
All things considered, I would take Rolen over Puckett primarily because the hitting (OPS-wise) was similar between the two but Rolen was an all time great defensive player.
Puckett was a 6 time GG winner in Center Field. He was a superb defender. I didn't see Rolen field, I'm sure he was great, so was Kirby.
If I were to make an argument for Puckett though, it was be based on his skill as a hitter. His career BA be is 37 points higher than Rolen and he had 227 more hits in less at bats. I know BA is frowned on these days and that OPS is a better measure of ‘value’. But I would argue that good hitting is more skillful than having an OPS padded by walks and is worthy of consideration when arguing greatness...particularly when there is a difference as striking as 37 points.
BA is a great indicator if the player also has a good SLG, Puckett's was nearly as good as Rolen's .477 to .490.
Rolen hit 1 more HR every year.
Pucket's OB% was nearly identical because of his 200 hits every year, in an additional 4+ years Rolen scored and drove in about 200 more runs.
If Rolen would have produced like that and played 155 games a season his numbers would have crushed Kirby's.
You can't help the club when you're in the tub.
Kirby was also a great leader on those Twins teams. I don't know about Scott.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You all are rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again, and none of you are ever going to change your minds. Those who want to pick and choose which characteristics are unbefitting of the hall while overlooking the conduct of others?
What's the point?
you are more than welcome to leave the discussion.
I left it long ago. I'm laughing at the same people making the same arguments over and over and nobody coming close to changing their minds.
and yet you are still here reading and posting on this thread.
You all are rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again, and none of you are ever going to change your minds. Those who want to pick and choose which characteristics are unbefitting of the hall while overlooking the conduct of others?
What's the point?
you are more than welcome to leave the discussion.
I left it long ago. I'm laughing at the same people making the same arguments over and over and nobody coming close to changing their minds.
and yet you are still here reading and posting on this thread.
Absolutely I am and the posts arguing for and against merely rehashing the same arguments have only made people more entrenched in their positions with absolutely no change in their positions.
To be honest, this thread should be moved over to the sports talk forum. It is out of place here.
@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.
Pure hyperbole, but done to prove points repeated here... it's as obvious as the earth is round (not just from stats, but each situation in totality) and this isn't a courtroom. Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
I personally believe both should be in the Hall, and I wonder if they wouldn't already be in there if both would've 'fessed up and apologized.
"enough witness testimony?" what on earth are you talking about. one person. that's all there was.
"circumstantial evidence?" again, syringes in an old beer can? you have got to be kidding me.
there was nothing to the case. nothing at all. you are repeating the same old lazy line you heard from espn.
A lie, when told enough, becomes the truth. that's all there is here.
Dr. James Andrews testified that he saw absolutely no evidence that Clemens used PED, and he examined Clemens for over 20 years. I would say Dr Andrews is an expert, wouldn't you?
You choose to ignore the most important fact, this isn't a courtroom. I'm not trying to send him to prison... the "evidence" doesn't have to follow courtroom standards. I also believe I said witness testimony AND circumstantial evidence. McNamee, Pettit and his wife all testified or were deposed... don't recall Andrews ever testifying in that trial? Pettite was steadfast in what he said they discussed... until he met with Clemens lawyers, then he was 50/50? His wife admitted they received HGH and that McNamee injected her... more believable Clemens requested him to inject her after experiencing the benefits of HGH, or that she decided on her own and had McNamee do it without Clemens knowing or even being present (on a day that McNamee was at their house)? You also fail to mention that syringe had traces of his DNA and steroids in it. Then there's the butt abscess, and the Canseco party, and the documented lies he and his wife told, and there's Grimsley, and McCready and Roger's ED issues, and.... and...
@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.
Pure hyperbole, but done to prove points repeated here... it's as obvious as the earth is round (not just from stats, but each situation in totality) and this isn't a courtroom. Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
I personally believe both should be in the Hall, and I wonder if they wouldn't already be in there if both would've 'fessed up and apologized.
"enough witness testimony?" what on earth are you talking about. one person. that's all there was.
"circumstantial evidence?" again, syringes in an old beer can? you have got to be kidding me.
there was nothing to the case. nothing at all. you are repeating the same old lazy line you heard from espn.
A lie, when told enough, becomes the truth. that's all there is here.
Dr. James Andrews testified that he saw absolutely no evidence that Clemens used PED, and he examined Clemens for over 20 years. I would say Dr Andrews is an expert, wouldn't you?
You choose to ignore the most important fact, this isn't a courtroom. I'm not trying to send him to prison... the "evidence" doesn't have to follow courtroom standards. I also believe I said witness testimony AND circumstantial evidence. McNamee, Pettit and his wife all testified or were deposed... don't recall Andrews ever testifying in that trial? Pettite was steadfast in what he said they discussed... until he met with Clemens lawyers, then he was 50/50? His wife admitted they received HGH and that McNamee injected her... more believable Clemens requested him to inject her after experiencing the benefits of HGH, or that she decided on her own and had McNamee do it without Clemens knowing or even being present (on a day that McNamee was at their house)? You also fail to mention that syringe had traces of his DNA and steroids in it. Then there's the butt abscess, and the Canseco party, and the documented lies he and his wife told, and there's Grimsley, and McCready and Roger's ED issues, and.... and...
Pettitte testified under oath that he was 50/50. its not as if clemens lawyers had anything on him. he had already admitted his use. I am not sure where you got the information that Pettitte was strong armed into lying under oath. that is your conjecture.
Debbie Clemens use of HGH is not in any way evidence that Roger Clemens used HGH. that is your conjecture.
Of course Mcnamee could have syringes with Clemens DNA present. Many players in the Toronto Clubhouse received both B-12 and pain shots. There is no chain of evidence on that syringe, and the storage method was ridiculous. It was a horrible piece of evidence and I am sure the prosecution regrets using it. Dr. Bruce Goldberger testified it was impossible to rule out cross contamination of medical waste stored in a beer can. Also, that he would never use medical waste to determine a source and that he had never seen the prosecution use evidence like that. He also testified that the physical evidence was the worst he had seen in 30 years of working with trial evidence.
"there is no way roger could have done steroids for enhancement." Dr. James Andrews.
Statement by Andrews to attorney Chip Babcock 2015
There was no evidence of an Abscess. The Toronto team dr. also testified that he never saw or treated an abscess on clemens.
Canseco and other witnesses all said Clemens was never at the party. He was actually golfing during the time of the party.
as far as Mcready and affairs and love life, I don't know how that enters into a PED discussion and I have very little interest in it.
When the Grimsley affidavit was redacted, it was revealed that Clemens name was never on it. There was no link to Grimsley.
@1959 said:
The White Sox were found NOT GUILTY in a court of law....and yet.....
The owners collectively made Landis a virtual dictator of MLB so he decreed that for the Eight Men Out...off with their heads! Well you know what I mean...
@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.
Pure hyperbole, but done to prove points repeated here... it's as obvious as the earth is round (not just from stats, but each situation in totality) and this isn't a courtroom. Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
I personally believe both should be in the Hall, and I wonder if they wouldn't already be in there if both would've 'fessed up and apologized.
"enough witness testimony?" what on earth are you talking about. one person. that's all there was.
"circumstantial evidence?" again, syringes in an old beer can? you have got to be kidding me.
there was nothing to the case. nothing at all. you are repeating the same old lazy line you heard from espn.
A lie, when told enough, becomes the truth. that's all there is here.
Dr. James Andrews testified that he saw absolutely no evidence that Clemens used PED, and he examined Clemens for over 20 years. I would say Dr Andrews is an expert, wouldn't you?
You choose to ignore the most important fact, this isn't a courtroom. I'm not trying to send him to prison... the "evidence" doesn't have to follow courtroom standards. I also believe I said witness testimony AND circumstantial evidence. McNamee, Pettit and his wife all testified or were deposed... don't recall Andrews ever testifying in that trial? Pettite was steadfast in what he said they discussed... until he met with Clemens lawyers, then he was 50/50? His wife admitted they received HGH and that McNamee injected her... more believable Clemens requested him to inject her after experiencing the benefits of HGH, or that she decided on her own and had McNamee do it without Clemens knowing or even being present (on a day that McNamee was at their house)? You also fail to mention that syringe had traces of his DNA and steroids in it. Then there's the butt abscess, and the Canseco party, and the documented lies he and his wife told, and there's Grimsley, and McCready and Roger's ED issues, and.... and...
Pettitte testified under oath that he was 50/50. its not as if clemens lawyers had anything on him. he had already admitted his use. I am not sure where you got the information that Pettitte was strong armed into lying under oath. that is your conjecture.
Debbie Clemens use of HGH is not in any way evidence that Roger Clemens used HGH. that is your conjecture.
Of course Mcnamee could have syringes with Clemens DNA present. Many players in the Toronto Clubhouse received both B-12 and pain shots. There is no chain of evidence on that syringe, and the storage method was ridiculous. It was a horrible piece of evidence and I am sure the prosecution regrets using it. Dr. Bruce Goldberger testified it was impossible to rule out cross contamination of medical waste stored in a beer can. Also, that he would never use medical waste to determine a source and that he had never seen the prosecution use evidence like that. He also testified that the physical evidence was the worst he had seen in 30 years of working with trial evidence.
"there is no way roger could have done steroids for enhancement." Dr. James Andrews.
Statement by Andrews to attorney Chip Babcock 2015
There was no evidence of an Abscess. The Toronto team dr. also testified that he never saw or treated an abscess on clemens.
Canseco and other witnesses all said Clemens was never at the party. He was actually golfing during the time of the party.
as far as Mcready and affairs and love life, I don't know how that enters into a PED discussion and I have very little interest in it.
When the Grimsley affidavit was redacted, it was revealed that Clemens name was never on it. There was no link to Grimsley.
You definitely don't listen, the whole premise of the argument is that this isn't a courtroom... no one here is trying to send him to prison for lying to Congress. Things that weren't admissible in that case count just as much as the things that were, this is public opinion on if he likely used PEDs or not. My argument is that with almost certainty he used. Feel free to believe what you want, but spare me the inaccurate details of a courtroom proceeding. We all know McNamee supplied Pettite with HGH, even though it couldn't be mentioned in the trial... things like that matter.
We all know Pettite testified about what Roger said in 2008 and again in the trial without expressing any uncertainty... until the defense lawyers questioning.
We all know the circumstances around Debbie's "use" that just doesn't add up.
We all know the syringe could have been contaminated, but we all know that his DNA and traces of steroids were found inside it. I assume we all know the science and probability behind that.
We all know Dr Andrews cleaned up Roger's shoulder and saw him sporadically afterwards... but not near enough, especially at the times of alleged use, to make that call.
We all know there was an abscess and it was in his medical record... and that they blamed it on B-12.
We all know that the guy in the picture with Roger, testified they were at that party.
We all know the side effects of steroids, including ED.
Believe what you want, it's good that Roger knows he has some believers out there. Just curious, what do you think OJ Simpson was doing the night of June 12, 1994?
Are you talking about the party? His story was that he was playing golf (corroborated by a sports broadcaster) and may have dropped some people off at Canseco's house after his round, but that he wasn't there at the time of the party.
Are you talking about the party? His story was that he was playing golf (corroborated by a sports broadcaster) and may have dropped some people off at Canseco's house after his round, but that he wasn't there at the time of the party.
My answer was about OJ. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
You definitely don't listen, the whole premise of the argument is that this isn't a courtroom... no one here is trying to send him to prison for lying to Congress. Things that weren't admissible in that case count just as much as the things that were, this is public opinion on if he likely used PEDs or not. My argument is that with almost certainty he used. Feel free to believe what you want, but spare me the inaccurate details of a courtroom proceeding. We all know McNamee supplied Pettite with HGH, even though it couldn't be mentioned in the trial... things like that matter.
We all know Pettite testified about what Roger said in 2008 and again in the trial without expressing any uncertainty... until the defense lawyers questioning.
No, we have no idea how strongly Pettitte accused Roger. It's just as possible prosecution pushed him in an effort to get a big name player. They were certainly motivated to "get" somebody big. Pettitte didn't even say he saw Roger use, just heard him mention it ONE TIME. No thanks.
We all know the circumstances around Debbie's "use" that just doesn't add up.
No we don't. Have you seen some of the photos of he in a swimsuit? She looks like she's very interested in staying fit.
We all know the syringe could have been contaminated, but we all know that his DNA and traces of steroids were found inside it. I assume we all know the science and probability behind that.
No we don't. The expert at the trial acknowledged there were "hundreds of thousands" of white males in the United States who could be a match for the scant amount of DNA found on the needle. Since McNamee admitted to injecting players, the DNA could be from any number of them.
We all know Dr Andrews cleaned up Roger's shoulder and saw him sporadically afterwards... but not near enough, especially at the times of alleged use, to make that call.
No we don't. A doctor who specializes in treating athletes would notice signs of use. We ALL know that.
We all know there was an abscess and it was in his medical record... and that they blamed it on B-12.
No we don't. McNamee said there was an abscess, but three members of the Toronto Blue Jays organization that season, including two trainers, said they did not recall Clemens having an abscess in 1998. "The Times reported that in interviews, former Blue Jays trainer Tom Craig, former team general manager Gord Ash and team physician Dr. Ron Taylor all said they did not remember Clemens being treated for an abscess. Taylor said he believed if Clemens had been treated, it would have been noted in Clemens' medical records."
We all know that the guy in the picture with Roger, testified they were at that party.
>
If Clemens was at the party, proves nothing.
We all know the side effects of steroids, including ED.
Clemens showed no outward evidence of steroid use, not sure how you would know about any sexual issues he might have had.
Believe what you want, it's good that Roger knows he has some believers out there. Just curious, what do you think OJ Simpson was doing the night of June 12, 1994?
Simpson was found innocent despite forensic evidence. As far as I can find the only evidence against Clemens was McNamee's testimony.
There was only one single person who said Roger used; McNamee. He might have been telling the truth, he might have been lying. Prosecutors offer deals to people that can give them "bigger fish".
We all know that.
Bonds' samples have been re-tested since then using new testing techniques, and has failed three tests. Roger has never tested positive then or since that I have been able to find.
I am not 100% sure that Clemens did or didn't use. It would not shock me if he was guilty.
I am 100% sure it has not been proven.
We all know THAT!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'll keep the order of points the same to keep it short(er).
Pettite never expressed doubt about their conversation until he subsequently spoke with Roger and was questioned by his lawyers (alao after Roger said Pettite misremembered).
Thinking more about the likelihood she went behind Roger's back and got HGH on her own, and had McNamee injected her, at her house, when Roger wasn't there, when they both say McNamee was only usually there with Roger.
Dr Andrews cleaned his shoulder in 1985 and didn't see him regularly enough to make that call.
The abscess was in his medical records entered as evidence in the trial. He was treated with antibiotics and ultrasound. What are you talking about?
Party where steroids were discussed doesn't mean much by itself, but in totality it might.
McCready was the source, again not much alone... but since he was cheating with her around the same time of alleged use, adds to the equation.
@baz518 said:
I'll keep the order of points the same to keep it short(er).
Pettite never expressed doubt about their conversation until he subsequently spoke with Roger and was questioned by his lawyers (alao after Roger said Pettite misremembered).
How on earth can you know this? He might have been unsure right from the start. Why would he "snitch" on his ex-team mate in the first place unless pushed by the prosecution? Lastly it was a phone conversation he "misremembered" not a deposition, even if Clemens said he did PEDs, he might have been joking around or who knows what. Even if he admitted using over the phone, that's not even evidence.
Thinking more about the likelihood she went behind Roger's back and got HGH on her own, and had McNamee injected her, at her house, when Roger wasn't there, when they both say McNamee was only usually there with Roger.
You can think about it all you want. She could be lying to protect her husband, she might have wanted to see if HGH could help her to look attractive. Wouldn't be the first person to experiment trying to fight getting older.
Dr Andrews cleaned his shoulder in 1985 and didn't see him regularly enough to make that call.
Again; How on earth can you know this? The procedure could have focused on the shoulder only or he might have done a thorough examination. They had an on going relationship over many years. YOU are the one who said "We all know the side effects of steroids, including ED." We know it but an M.D. doesn't?
The abscess was in his medical records entered as evidence in the trial. He was treated with antibiotics and ultrasound. What are you talking about?
What are you talking about? "Taylor said he believed if Clemens had been treated, it would have been noted in Clemens' medical records." All you are giving is opinions. I would love to see some actual evidence, what I'm seeing are accusations, which is just fine, but you have failed to prove one single accusation. Evidence can be good or bad, Obviously this "evidence" didn't prove much, if anything.
Party where steroids were discussed doesn't mean much by itself, but in totality it might.
Doesn't mean anything by itself.......at all.. Silly to even bring it up.
But almost all of this stuff is silly to be bringing up. Beer can evidence-unsubstantiated. Possible casual mention about PEDs in a misremembered phone call-worthless. Trying to get his wife to turn on him-foolishness. Saying he was guilty of PED use because it was discussed at a party he MIGHT have been at-idiotic.
McCready was the source, again not much alone... but since he was cheating with her around the same time of alleged use, adds to the equation.
McCready was a source of what? He had ED? He had an affair? Did he rape her? Why even bring her into the discussion? We're talking about Clemens doing PEDs and then lying about it. Maybe he is a scumbag that cheated on his wife multiple times and had some problems with ED, again proves absolutely nothing.
Bottom line, other than McManee's testimony which was in the end, not credible, there's not one single shred of evidence here. Just a smear campaign. "The first attempt to try Clemens last year ended in a mistrial when prosecutors played a snippet of video evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible."
Using inadmissible evidence in their zeal to get Roger. Shameful.
OJ was found not guilty.
You didn't understand what I meant when I said "found innocent"?
Here's a quote from the results of the Clemens fiasco;
"Roger Clemens was acquitted Monday on all charges that he obstructed and lied to Congress in denying he used performance-enhancing drugs"
Here's what a juror had to say;
One juror said the panel was troubled by the prosecution's reliance on McNamee.
"The defense showed that McNamee was a liar and once that was done, nothing that he said could hold up," juror Joyce Robinson-Paul told the New York Daily News.
"We felt that when McNamee got angry at Roger Clemens, that he was going for his throat. He even said something like he was going to see Roger Clemens in an orange (prison) suit.
"This after Clemens let him live in his house, after he did everything for him. We felt there was something here, it was vengeance probably," she told the newspaper.
I am definitely NOT a Clemens "guy". in fact he sounds like a POS. Find me something real, and I might be convinced.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I thought I said this wasn't a courtroom? I'm not saying he should have been convicted, the evidence in that case was only relevant to the charges brought... I don't have that restriction. There's a lot the jury couldn't hear, not even that the other players McNamee squeeled on FULLY caroberated his story. In the court of personal/public opinion that stuff matters. I could say the exact same that juror you quoted said, but against Clemens... because imo he is about as decent and honest as Lance Armstrong (before he fessed up).
Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
Bonds has tested positive three times since the original test.
Clemens has, to my knowledge, never failed a test. Pettitte was not "tricked" into saying we was unsure of the conversation with Clemens. Pettitte never said he saw Roger use, only that he, maybe, admitted to it over the phone.
Bonds' samples were retested using new methods of detection and steroids were found.
The MLB certainly must have samples remaining from Clemens' tests.
His lawyer said "The evidence is going to be that Roger Clemens tested negative for steroids in May of 2003 the first time it was done - and from then on,"
If Clemens used, he sure did it carefully. One would think when he was accused in court of perjury, the prosecution would get his old samples (not from a beer can in someone's car trunk LOL) and retest them.
Bonds is guilty, that's been proven.
Clemens has not been proven guilty...............yet.
Do you have sources to back this up? Bonds (Black Player) tested positive 3 times but Clemens (White Player) didn't? Petite (White) was tricked but Greg Anderson (Black) was covering up and went to jail? Funny Bonds doing great things at 43 was a cheating liar but Tom Brady doing great things at 43 has a will to win and a very strict diet! If that isn't laugh out loud funny nothing is!
Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
Bonds has tested positive three times since the original test.
Clemens has, to my knowledge, never failed a test. Pettitte was not "tricked" into saying we was unsure of the conversation with Clemens. Pettitte never said he saw Roger use, only that he, maybe, admitted to it over the phone.
Bonds' samples were retested using new methods of detection and steroids were found.
The MLB certainly must have samples remaining from Clemens' tests.
His lawyer said "The evidence is going to be that Roger Clemens tested negative for steroids in May of 2003 the first time it was done - and from then on,"
If Clemens used, he sure did it carefully. One would think when he was accused in court of perjury, the prosecution would get his old samples (not from a beer can in someone's car trunk LOL) and retest them.
Bonds is guilty, that's been proven.
Clemens has not been proven guilty...............yet.
Do you have sources to back this up? Bonds (Black Player) tested positive 3 times but Clemens (White Player) didn't? Petite (White) was tricked but Greg Anderson (Black) was covering up and went to jail? Funny Bonds doing great things at 43 was a cheating liar but Tom Brady doing great things at 43 has a will to win and a very strict diet! If that isn't laugh out loud funny nothing is!
ridiculous strawman argument. race has nothing to do with this and will only get the thread shut down.
@baz518 said:
I thought I said this wasn't a courtroom? I'm not saying he should have been convicted, the evidence in that case was only relevant to the charges brought... I don't have that restriction. There's a lot the jury couldn't hear, not even that the other players McNamee squeeled on FULLY caroberated his story. In the court of personal/public opinion that stuff matters. I could say the exact same that juror you quoted said, but against Clemens... because imo he is about as decent and honest as Lance Armstrong (before he fessed up).
But put him in the Hall damnit!
you are missing the entire point of this discussion. public perception does NOT equal reality. as Joe said above, this was little more than a smear campaign and people have been parroting ESPN and lester munsons reporting on this for almost 15 years. it is lazy and wrong. your conjecture and beliefs do not add up to clemens or any other player having used PED. that is all you have, your beliefs.
It all boils down to a lie, when told enough becomes the truth.
Comments
I do not like to use RAA to evaluate players; for pitchers it works fine, because there is no fielding component, but the fielding measures don't really work (in WAR, RAA, RAR, etc. which are all related). Compare, for example, 1985 to 1991. Puckett was excellent in both seasons but his Rfield in 1985 is +10 and in 1991 it is -1. Rfield is essentially a counting stat; it adds up assists, putouts, etc. and assigns them each a fixed weight and Rfield is the result. If two outfielders have the same number of putouts, assists, etc. and one played fewer innings than the other, then the one who played the fewer innings will have a better Rfield. Sounds reasonable at first blush, but there's more to it than that.
Two important things that changed between 1985 and 1991, for Puckett, is that the Twins pitchers struck out 100 more batters in 1991, and also induced about 50 more ground outs. That leaves a lot fewer outs for the outfielders to make and their assists, putouts, etc. went down accordingly, and therefore so did their Rfield. But the Twins outfielders weren't worse in 1991 than they were in 1985, the Twins pitchers were better.
Rfield will generally catch great seasons (1984) and bad seasons (1993), but it does a poor job on everything in between. That said, while I stand by my statement that Puckett was fantastic in CF, he was not GOAT-level like Jones, Mays and Blair.
And I'm not actually disagreeing with you about Belanger, I am simply honor bound to argue with you.
Thank you. Rolen was NOT "clearly superior" to Puckett.
It’s a subjective process. Puckett had an infectious and memorable personality and had multiple big moments on the biggest stages.
Based on the stats, I can appreciate the support for Rolen belonging in, but he doesn’t pass my eye test.
For me, Rolen is similar to Matt Williams.
I’m surprised by the chatter about Puckett. For a first ballot HoFer, he’s on the bottom tier, for sure. But for overall membership, he’s not in the top 5 or even top 10 guys I would suggest we need do-overs for.
As for Rolan, I’m on the fence. Elite defender. I think it comes down to “well, if the bar is now lower, he reaches that bar.” But to say he was clearly superior to Puckett is too much. Thats not clear to me at all. And not to the voters, either, obviously.
My original point about Puckett was only that if you say that he was a mistake then you're placing the size of the Hall differently than you would if you were to claim that Brett was a mistake or that Baines was a mistake. None of these is inherently right or inherently wrong, but if you think the right size is above 25 you need to start considering, not necessarily admitting, Brett. If the right size is above 200 you need to start considering Puckett, and if the right size is above 1000 you need to start considering Baines. That's all.
My argument for Rolen is that his hitting is virtually equivalent to Puckett and his defense is much better. Not saying Rolen and Jones should definitely be in, but if you're voting for anyone (on the current ballot) other than Bonds and Clemens you should be voting for Rolen and Jones, too.
On a slightly unrelated note, how on earth did 14% of voters find 10 HoFers on this ballot? Shouldn't they lose their vote?
No you can't and they never should...once you're in, you're in.
And it is beyond STUPID that the Mr October of pitchers hasn't been elected several years ago. Just because his viewpoints are a little different than their own is no reason keep him out of the HOF.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
The museum part has those guys covered...it's being enshrined/inducted that you probably mean. Two VERY different things.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I too was VERY surprised Kirby got in on the first ballot...but now that I've had some time to think it over the fact that he lead one of the lowest market teams possible to two championships in five years is no doubt what put him over the top.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
There’s no set ‘way to vote’ so many guys do the same thing every year. Some people vote for 1 guy a year, maximum. Some guys vote for ‘no doubters’ only, with no number in mind. Some vote for 5, 10, 12 guys every year regardless of ballot strength.
It’s up to each writer though there seems to be more standardized rules added every few years.
For example, people often cite Joe DiMaggio as a guy who ‘wasn’t first ballot.’ Thats technically true but only because he began to earn votes as early as 1946! With five seasons still to play! In fact, because of the confusion over voting processes at the time, it took 5 years after the Yankee Clipper retired to finally elect him.
Guess how long it takes - in honor of Joe - after you retire now to be considered for election and placed on the ballot?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yogi Berra did not get in until 2nd ballot.(1972). none elected in 71, including Berra.
shocked!
My response was not to say that Rolen was a bad player. He was a great player.
I felt (and still feel) the comment that Rolen and Jones were "clearly superior players" was ridiculous.
Puckett was a superior defensive player. He deserved the Gold Gloves he won and was the best defensive (that could also hit) CF in the AL until Ken Griffey Jr arrived. Then he became the second best defensive outfielder in the AL,
Even if Rolen was as good as Brooks Robinson defensively, he couldn't have been "much" better than Puckett. I didn't see Rolen play. Eight GG is impressive.
CF is a harder position to play. Not by a lot, but it's tougher.
As far as their hitting goes, Puckett was better, but not by a huge margin. If your basing the evaluation on OPS+ it's going to reward the guy who plays less games per year. Rolen was a better walker, I'll give you that. Puckett hit for a much higher average and a slightly lower SLG.
With an extra 5 years in the league (especially after his great first couple of seasons), Rolen's numbers should Dwarf Puckett's. They are a little better for the most part. Scott really dropped off after 2004, with only 2 good years after he was 30 years old.
I would like to see a line of stats right under the "162 game average" that shows what the player actually did every year, not what he did if he played in every game.
I see many here saying Puckett was a "lower tier" HOFer. I can accept that. I don't see one person who agrees that Rolen was better and certainly none that rate him "clearly superior".
I don't think Rolen is quite good enough to be a HOFer, but it wouldn't bother me if he got in. Jones as well.
Its worth noting that beyond Schilling's desire to play the role of villain (ala Jose Canseco) in his search to find a niche post baseball, backed by his outlandish rhetoric (see also Ken Jennings), he did steal $75 million from the State of Rhode Island that were bonds issued to support a more or less bogus video game company he had attached his name to.
saucywombat@hotmail.com
Pure hyperbole, but done to prove points repeated here... it's as obvious as the earth is round (not just from stats, but each situation in totality) and this isn't a courtroom. Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
I personally believe both should be in the Hall, and I wonder if they wouldn't already be in there if both would've 'fessed up and apologized.
I would argue it's not his viewpoints, but his actions that they hold against him. And considering his political views, I would think he'd be the first to understand "personal responsibility". You can believe whatever you want, but once you broadcast your beliefs for everyone to hear... you are completely absent minded if you think people won't judge you. I'd rather Baines and Trammell get in than remove the human element of the voting process... a Hall based on certain benchmarks or metrics would be about as boring as it could get.
Bonds did test positive, just because the MLB agreed to keep those results anonymous (making it impermissible in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes with Clemens, not testing positive but enough witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that renders his points of defense totally unbelievable.
Bonds has tested positive three times since the original test.
Clemens has, to my knowledge, never failed a test. Pettitte was not "tricked" into saying we was unsure of the conversation with Clemens. Pettitte never said he saw Roger use, only that he, maybe, admitted to it over the phone.
Bonds' samples were retested using new methods of detection and steroids were found.
The MLB certainly must have samples remaining from Clemens' tests.
His lawyer said "The evidence is going to be that Roger Clemens tested negative for steroids in May of 2003 the first time it was done - and from then on,"
If Clemens used, he sure did it carefully. One would think when he was accused in court of perjury, the prosecution would get his old samples (not from a beer can in someone's car trunk LOL) and retest them.
Bonds is guilty, that's been proven.
Clemens has not been proven guilty...............yet.
I had never heard this! After doing some research I would say your statement is incorrect.
From Business Insider dot com.
"$75 million loan that was given to Schilling's game studio, 38 Studios.
When the loan was given in 2010, Schilling moved 38 Studios' offices to Rhode Island — and with it, a few hundred employees and their families — with the agreement that 38 Studios would both grow the local economy and repay the loan.
38 Studios folded in 2012, less than two years later, and never released the game it was making (a massive, years-long online game, codenamed "Project Copernicus").
In an unbelievable twist, Rhode Island taxpayers were left holding the bag — as Rhode Island's WPRI reported in May, the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation issued the $75 million loan without properly vetting 38 Studios' finances. The reason given: "Because Rhode Island would be paying us back."
Looks like the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation just handed out taxpayers money. The article goes on to say "Since the bondholders — companies like Transamerica and the USAA — reportedly knew the state of Rhode Island wouldn't default on its loans, and the bonds were guaranteed by the state, they went ahead with the loan agreement even though 38 Studios' financial statements contained several potential red flags.
A number of lawsuits transpired as a result of the loan deal and the closure of 38 Studios. The $2.5 million settlement in this case specifically applies to a lawsuit between the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation and Curt Schilling (plus his business partners); if settled, it effectively ends Schilling's legal involvement with the 38 Studios loan."
Looks to me like the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation stole the money, not Schilling and then they, NOT the State of Rhode Island, sued Schilling and his partners.
I am not a big Schilling "guy", but it would seem he didn't "steal" anything, and his "bogus" company apparently had "a few hundred" employees.
I don’t think anyone stole money. Schilling is a gamer on and off the field. He started a video game company with an ambitious game in mind. The company - like many - failed. Schilling lost a lot of his personal fortune as well as screwing Rhode Island but their doesn’t seem to have been intent of malice.
Their was good buzz around the company at one point. And I don’t like Curt Schilling.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Curt Schilling was given money by Rhode island by leveraging his fame in that part of the world and by exaggerating the financial prospects of his video game enterprise. He received that money and never paid any of it back. In this white collar context steal makes people uncomfortable, so perhaps fraud, con, etc. The business failed because of Curt Schilling spending like a drunken sailor. This place was practically Entertainment 720, not sure if he employed Detlef Schrempf though.
So maybe more of a Bernie Madoff scenario, he is a crook but his investors could be criticized for not doing their due diligence
saucywombat@hotmail.com
I am originally from RI and people there hate Schilling for that scheme.... but I think the real problem was the state loaning taxpayer dollars to a private company, and a shaky one at that. I put 90% of the blame on the shady state government.
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
"enough witness testimony?" what on earth are you talking about. one person. that's all there was.
"circumstantial evidence?" again, syringes in an old beer can? you have got to be kidding me.
there was nothing to the case. nothing at all. you are repeating the same old lazy line you heard from espn.
A lie, when told enough, becomes the truth. that's all there is here.
Dr. James Andrews testified that he saw absolutely no evidence that Clemens used PED, and he examined Clemens for over 20 years. I would say Dr Andrews is an expert, wouldn't you?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This argument is hilarious to read.
You all are rehashing the same tired arguments over and over again, and none of you are ever going to change your minds. Those who want to pick and choose which characteristics are unbefitting of the hall while overlooking the conduct of others?
What's the point?
you are more than welcome to leave the discussion.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If you lie in order to get the money, you've basically stolen it. Schilling and company knew they couldn't possibly do what they were claiming they could in order to get the money. Then, shockingly, they didn't deliver. And they misspent the money.
They stole the money, plain and simple.
All things considered, I would take Rolen over Puckett primarily because the hitting (OPS-wise) was similar between the two but Rolen was an all time great defensive player.
If I were to make an argument for Puckett though, it was be based on his skill as a hitter. His career BA be is 37 points higher than Rolen and he had 227 more hits in less at bats. I know BA is frowned on these days and that OPS is a better measure of ‘value’. But I would argue that good hitting is more skillful than having an OPS padded by walks and is worthy of consideration when arguing greatness...particularly when there is a difference as striking as 37 points.
I left it long ago. I'm laughing at the same people making the same arguments over and over and nobody coming close to changing their minds.
Puckett was a 6 time GG winner in Center Field. He was a superb defender. I didn't see Rolen field, I'm sure he was great, so was Kirby.
BA is a great indicator if the player also has a good SLG, Puckett's was nearly as good as Rolen's .477 to .490.
Rolen hit 1 more HR every year.
Pucket's OB% was nearly identical because of his 200 hits every year, in an additional 4+ years Rolen scored and drove in about 200 more runs.
If Rolen would have produced like that and played 155 games a season his numbers would have crushed Kirby's.
You can't help the club when you're in the tub.
Kirby was also a great leader on those Twins teams. I don't know about Scott.
and yet you are still here reading and posting on this thread.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Absolutely I am and the posts arguing for and against merely rehashing the same arguments have only made people more entrenched in their positions with absolutely no change in their positions.
To be honest, this thread should be moved over to the sports talk forum. It is out of place here.
You choose to ignore the most important fact, this isn't a courtroom. I'm not trying to send him to prison... the "evidence" doesn't have to follow courtroom standards. I also believe I said witness testimony AND circumstantial evidence. McNamee, Pettit and his wife all testified or were deposed... don't recall Andrews ever testifying in that trial? Pettite was steadfast in what he said they discussed... until he met with Clemens lawyers, then he was 50/50? His wife admitted they received HGH and that McNamee injected her... more believable Clemens requested him to inject her after experiencing the benefits of HGH, or that she decided on her own and had McNamee do it without Clemens knowing or even being present (on a day that McNamee was at their house)? You also fail to mention that syringe had traces of his DNA and steroids in it. Then there's the butt abscess, and the Canseco party, and the documented lies he and his wife told, and there's Grimsley, and McCready and Roger's ED issues, and.... and...
Pettitte testified under oath that he was 50/50. its not as if clemens lawyers had anything on him. he had already admitted his use. I am not sure where you got the information that Pettitte was strong armed into lying under oath. that is your conjecture.
Debbie Clemens use of HGH is not in any way evidence that Roger Clemens used HGH. that is your conjecture.
Of course Mcnamee could have syringes with Clemens DNA present. Many players in the Toronto Clubhouse received both B-12 and pain shots. There is no chain of evidence on that syringe, and the storage method was ridiculous. It was a horrible piece of evidence and I am sure the prosecution regrets using it. Dr. Bruce Goldberger testified it was impossible to rule out cross contamination of medical waste stored in a beer can. Also, that he would never use medical waste to determine a source and that he had never seen the prosecution use evidence like that. He also testified that the physical evidence was the worst he had seen in 30 years of working with trial evidence.
"there is no way roger could have done steroids for enhancement." Dr. James Andrews.
Statement by Andrews to attorney Chip Babcock 2015
There was no evidence of an Abscess. The Toronto team dr. also testified that he never saw or treated an abscess on clemens.
Canseco and other witnesses all said Clemens was never at the party. He was actually golfing during the time of the party.
as far as Mcready and affairs and love life, I don't know how that enters into a PED discussion and I have very little interest in it.
When the Grimsley affidavit was redacted, it was revealed that Clemens name was never on it. There was no link to Grimsley.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The White Sox were found NOT GUILTY in a court of law....and yet.....
The owners collectively made Landis a virtual dictator of MLB so he decreed that for the Eight Men Out...off with their heads! Well you know what I mean...
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
You definitely don't listen, the whole premise of the argument is that this isn't a courtroom... no one here is trying to send him to prison for lying to Congress. Things that weren't admissible in that case count just as much as the things that were, this is public opinion on if he likely used PEDs or not. My argument is that with almost certainty he used. Feel free to believe what you want, but spare me the inaccurate details of a courtroom proceeding. We all know McNamee supplied Pettite with HGH, even though it couldn't be mentioned in the trial... things like that matter.
We all know Pettite testified about what Roger said in 2008 and again in the trial without expressing any uncertainty... until the defense lawyers questioning.
We all know the circumstances around Debbie's "use" that just doesn't add up.
We all know the syringe could have been contaminated, but we all know that his DNA and traces of steroids were found inside it. I assume we all know the science and probability behind that.
We all know Dr Andrews cleaned up Roger's shoulder and saw him sporadically afterwards... but not near enough, especially at the times of alleged use, to make that call.
We all know there was an abscess and it was in his medical record... and that they blamed it on B-12.
We all know that the guy in the picture with Roger, testified they were at that party.
We all know the side effects of steroids, including ED.
Believe what you want, it's good that Roger knows he has some believers out there. Just curious, what do you think OJ Simpson was doing the night of June 12, 1994?
@baz518
Dude, he was filming Naked Gun 4 3/4.
It’s been proven to be mostly 100% possimpable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Are you talking about the party? His story was that he was playing golf (corroborated by a sports broadcaster) and may have dropped some people off at Canseco's house after his round, but that he wasn't there at the time of the party.
My answer was about OJ. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
No, we have no idea how strongly Pettitte accused Roger. It's just as possible prosecution pushed him in an effort to get a big name player. They were certainly motivated to "get" somebody big. Pettitte didn't even say he saw Roger use, just heard him mention it ONE TIME. No thanks.
No we don't. Have you seen some of the photos of he in a swimsuit? She looks like she's very interested in staying fit.
No we don't. The expert at the trial acknowledged there were "hundreds of thousands" of white males in the United States who could be a match for the scant amount of DNA found on the needle. Since McNamee admitted to injecting players, the DNA could be from any number of them.
No we don't. A doctor who specializes in treating athletes would notice signs of use. We ALL know that.
No we don't. McNamee said there was an abscess, but three members of the Toronto Blue Jays organization that season, including two trainers, said they did not recall Clemens having an abscess in 1998. "The Times reported that in interviews, former Blue Jays trainer Tom Craig, former team general manager Gord Ash and team physician Dr. Ron Taylor all said they did not remember Clemens being treated for an abscess. Taylor said he believed if Clemens had been treated, it would have been noted in Clemens' medical records."
>
If Clemens was at the party, proves nothing.
Clemens showed no outward evidence of steroid use, not sure how you would know about any sexual issues he might have had.
Simpson was found innocent despite forensic evidence. As far as I can find the only evidence against Clemens was McNamee's testimony.
There was only one single person who said Roger used; McNamee. He might have been telling the truth, he might have been lying. Prosecutors offer deals to people that can give them "bigger fish".
We all know that.
Bonds' samples have been re-tested since then using new testing techniques, and has failed three tests. Roger has never tested positive then or since that I have been able to find.
I am not 100% sure that Clemens did or didn't use. It would not shock me if he was guilty.
I am 100% sure it has not been proven.
We all know THAT!
I would respond to @baz518 and how almost everything he said was wrong, but it would sound an awful lot like what Joe just said above.
You got this one right Joe.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
A slight correction. Simpson was found Not Guilty. There is a world of room between that and innocent.
Really?
Well EXCUUUUUSE me.
I'll keep the order of points the same to keep it short(er).
Pettite never expressed doubt about their conversation until he subsequently spoke with Roger and was questioned by his lawyers (alao after Roger said Pettite misremembered).
Thinking more about the likelihood she went behind Roger's back and got HGH on her own, and had McNamee injected her, at her house, when Roger wasn't there, when they both say McNamee was only usually there with Roger.
Dr Andrews cleaned his shoulder in 1985 and didn't see him regularly enough to make that call.
The abscess was in his medical records entered as evidence in the trial. He was treated with antibiotics and ultrasound. What are you talking about?
Party where steroids were discussed doesn't mean much by itself, but in totality it might.
McCready was the source, again not much alone... but since he was cheating with her around the same time of alleged use, adds to the equation.
OJ was found not guilty.
How on earth can you know this? He might have been unsure right from the start. Why would he "snitch" on his ex-team mate in the first place unless pushed by the prosecution? Lastly it was a phone conversation he "misremembered" not a deposition, even if Clemens said he did PEDs, he might have been joking around or who knows what. Even if he admitted using over the phone, that's not even evidence.
You can think about it all you want. She could be lying to protect her husband, she might have wanted to see if HGH could help her to look attractive. Wouldn't be the first person to experiment trying to fight getting older.
Again; How on earth can you know this? The procedure could have focused on the shoulder only or he might have done a thorough examination. They had an on going relationship over many years. YOU are the one who said "We all know the side effects of steroids, including ED." We know it but an M.D. doesn't?
What are you talking about? "Taylor said he believed if Clemens had been treated, it would have been noted in Clemens' medical records." All you are giving is opinions. I would love to see some actual evidence, what I'm seeing are accusations, which is just fine, but you have failed to prove one single accusation. Evidence can be good or bad, Obviously this "evidence" didn't prove much, if anything.
Doesn't mean anything by itself.......at all.. Silly to even bring it up.
But almost all of this stuff is silly to be bringing up. Beer can evidence-unsubstantiated. Possible casual mention about PEDs in a misremembered phone call-worthless. Trying to get his wife to turn on him-foolishness. Saying he was guilty of PED use because it was discussed at a party he MIGHT have been at-idiotic.
McCready was a source of what? He had ED? He had an affair? Did he rape her? Why even bring her into the discussion? We're talking about Clemens doing PEDs and then lying about it. Maybe he is a scumbag that cheated on his wife multiple times and had some problems with ED, again proves absolutely nothing.
Bottom line, other than McManee's testimony which was in the end, not credible, there's not one single shred of evidence here. Just a smear campaign. "The first attempt to try Clemens last year ended in a mistrial when prosecutors played a snippet of video evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible."
Using inadmissible evidence in their zeal to get Roger. Shameful.
You didn't understand what I meant when I said "found innocent"?
Here's a quote from the results of the Clemens fiasco;
"Roger Clemens was acquitted Monday on all charges that he obstructed and lied to Congress in denying he used performance-enhancing drugs"
Here's what a juror had to say;
One juror said the panel was troubled by the prosecution's reliance on McNamee.
"The defense showed that McNamee was a liar and once that was done, nothing that he said could hold up," juror Joyce Robinson-Paul told the New York Daily News.
"We felt that when McNamee got angry at Roger Clemens, that he was going for his throat. He even said something like he was going to see Roger Clemens in an orange (prison) suit.
"This after Clemens let him live in his house, after he did everything for him. We felt there was something here, it was vengeance probably," she told the newspaper.
I am definitely NOT a Clemens "guy". in fact he sounds like a POS. Find me something real, and I might be convinced.
I thought I said this wasn't a courtroom? I'm not saying he should have been convicted, the evidence in that case was only relevant to the charges brought... I don't have that restriction. There's a lot the jury couldn't hear, not even that the other players McNamee squeeled on FULLY caroberated his story. In the court of personal/public opinion that stuff matters. I could say the exact same that juror you quoted said, but against Clemens... because imo he is about as decent and honest as Lance Armstrong (before he fessed up).
But put him in the Hall damnit!
It looks like the discussion has run it's course.
Good debates are fun.
Do you have sources to back this up? Bonds (Black Player) tested positive 3 times but Clemens (White Player) didn't? Petite (White) was tricked but Greg Anderson (Black) was covering up and went to jail? Funny Bonds doing great things at 43 was a cheating liar but Tom Brady doing great things at 43 has a will to win and a very strict diet! If that isn't laugh out loud funny nothing is!
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
And there is the race card. Not sure I was expecting that in this conversation.
ridiculous strawman argument. race has nothing to do with this and will only get the thread shut down.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
you are missing the entire point of this discussion. public perception does NOT equal reality. as Joe said above, this was little more than a smear campaign and people have been parroting ESPN and lester munsons reporting on this for almost 15 years. it is lazy and wrong. your conjecture and beliefs do not add up to clemens or any other player having used PED. that is all you have, your beliefs.
It all boils down to a lie, when told enough becomes the truth.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.