Home Sports Talk
Options

Barry Bonds elected to the Hall of Fame

coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

Ignore list -Basebal21

«13

Comments

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Congrats Barry

  • Options
    MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm in the camp that Bonds was a PED user, therefore, no rah, rah from me.

    The OP should have clarified that he isn't being inducted into THEE HOF, just the Pirates HOF. I seriously doubt that he'll make it to Cooperstown.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    Pirates HOF is now more legitimate than the MLB HOF. Giants should do the same but I wont hold my breath on that one.

  • Options
    estangestang Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭
    edited May 22, 2024 2:56PM

    Well deserved.

    As long as the National Baseball Hall of Fame adorns its walls with a plaque of Bud Selig, guys like Bonds and his contemporaries should be in. Selig was/is a dope - pun intended.

    Enjoy your collection!
    Erik
  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,145 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Mistlin said:
    Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.

    I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.

    The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".

    As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    MCMLVToppsMCMLVTopps Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 22, 2024 4:21PM

    @Mistlin said:

    Please, save the pearl clutching for church.

    I am as entitled to my opinion as you are.
    Save the smarta$$ comments that only display how shallow your thought process is.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    Well at least they are both in the Pirates Hall of Fame.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ruth is rumored to have taken horse steroids. Mantle in fact took greenies, a slang word for amphetamines.

    Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, not debatable, and I don't even like the guy. I have Bonds on my list as the 4th greatest hitter of all time.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 22, 2024 5:09PM

    @stevek said:
    Ruth is rumored to have taken horse steroids. Mantle in fact took greenies, a slang word for amphetamines.

    Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, not debatable, and I don't even like the guy. I have Bonds on my list as the 4th greatest hitter of all time.

    Mantle did more than that. Look up "Dr Feel Good" and Mantles hip infection from steroids. Ortiz was suspended for steroids when testing started but is likeable so hes in. Could write a thesis on all the players that should be removed if people want to apply morals to it.

    I cant never understand other than maybe a recency bias the picking and choosing of who should and shouldnt be in.

    Theres really two simple questions. Is the HOF a museum of the history of the game? If the answer is yes then Bonds, Clemens, Palmerio, Sosa etc should be in. If the answer is no then whats the point of even having having it?

    The other question would be why arent players from the past getting removed for cheating and moral things if thats the standard that generation of players are being denied for?

  • Options
    dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,145 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Options
    bgrbgr Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭

    I remember watching pumpkin head when I was a little kid. It’s not as scary anymore.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,970 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Topics like this which evoke strong, emotional opinions always get interesting. That's why we see responses like "pearl clutching" and "not debatable" as if people think they are the ones who we should look to for the correct answer to a question of inclusion in the MLB HOF. The system has its flaws, but it tends to have worked well over the years. B)

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    Joe Jackson is a wrong that should have been righted a long time ago. Bottom line, in my opinion, he didn't want to rat on his teammates even though they had planned something despicable. For some people, perhaps many, one of the worst things you can be in life is a rat. Close to that is a cheater, and Jackson refused to do either.

    Rose is an entirely different matter, and considering your vast knowledge of baseball, you should know that. Pete directly affected the integrity of the game. The rules on that are crystal clear, and Pete got what he deserved.

    Obviously you don't personally like Barry Bonds. I don't personally like him either. However he well deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. His phenomenal stats cannot be denied.

  • Options
    bgrbgr Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭

    Joe Jackson vs. Chicago American League Baseball Club: Never Before Seen Trial Transcript

    Someone recommended that book in another similar thread. I forget who. I just started listening to it. I couldn’t find it anywhere in print.

    It’s pretty interesting so far.

    As far as bonds and the hall of fame it doesn’t bother me if people discount him because of steroids. It will sort itself out. The history of the game is represented in the hall of fame museum well.

  • Options
    MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,460 ✭✭✭✭✭

    and i'll bet he's pumped! :D

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Pretty cool that Bonds gets to go in with his former coach Jim Leyland.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coolstanley said:
    Pretty cool that Bonds gets to go in with his former coach Jim Leyland.

    Did they ever make up?

    I thought they didn't get along

  • Options
    coolstanleycoolstanley Posts: 2,498 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 23, 2024 5:16AM

    @perkdog said:

    @coolstanley said:
    Pretty cool that Bonds gets to go in with his former coach Jim Leyland.

    Did they ever make up?

    I thought they didn't get along

    They are friends.

    Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!

    Ignore list -Basebal21

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,970 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The problem with sports is that the games are played by humans. The species seems to have an inborn need to dominate each other, that's clear in daily life no matter what the situation or circumstances. Athletes are looking for any edge to beat each other, their only concern seems to be if they can "cheat or lie" without getting caught, but they're gonna cheat and lie. What usually ends up is that athletes aren't judged on IF they cheat or do something unsavory, they get judged on the degree and how much they were able to turn opinion against themselves.

    Someone brought up Gaylord Perry. I figure he made it in despite the fact that he almost certainly cheated because he was such a likeable guy. That swings things in his favor with voters. Pete Rose, on the other hand, will probably never get in because I don't think people like him, he seems to have cultivated a negative personality that goes back into his playing days.

  • Options
    galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,335 ✭✭✭✭✭

    if the Hall was purged it would take you about 5 minutes to go through it

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    I hadn't googled this in many years or really paid attention to it, so some may already know the following about amphetamines in MLB. I was astonished at the number of top hall of famers who are known for a fact or have admitted to using amphetamines. The list includes Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and a number of others.

    Look at George Brett and his over dramatic tirade in the pine tar incident. Come on, an outrage such as that like a rabid dog? That guy was on something for sure, and likely it was amphetamines. Besides that, the pine tar at that level on the bat was technically cheating according to the rules.

    So i guess perhaps some may think that all these greats are "dishonorable" and shouldn't be in the hall? Which would be ridiculous.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @galaxy27 said:
    if the Hall was purged it would take you about 5 minutes to go through it

    It would be the closet of fame, that's how many who would be left after the purge.

  • Options
    DarinDarin Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Mistlin said:
    Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.

    I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.

    The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".

    As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.

    True honor among men has been lost long ago if it ever existed in the first place. All that is left is degrees and instances of honor and dishonor with every man exhibiting both in some capacity.

    It would take an all seeing being to be able to make any definitive declaration of possessing honor in regard to any human.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Darin said:
    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

    @Darin said:
    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

    Darin please, the post has nothing to do with you. Absolutely nothing.

    I stated fact about the pine tar, and likelihood about the cause of his anger to make a point, and that pine tar incident in my view helps to make the point. That's all it was.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Mistlin said:
    Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.

    I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.

    The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".

    As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.

    True honor among men has been lost long ago if it ever existed in the first place. All that is left is degrees and instances of honor and dishonor with every man exhibiting both in some capacity.

    It would take an all seeing being to be able to make any definitive declaration of possessing honor in regard to any human.

    I'll speak for myself only. I have never "hero worshipped" a single sports star inside of sports, in my life. Never have, never will. That includes other often hero worshipped idols such as movie stars, music stars, other celebrities, etc.

    Anybody who does hero worship Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Brett, etc, is fine by me. That's their prerogative.

    That being said, somebody such as Ted Williams and others who gallantly served our country in the armed forces, I do see them as heroes. That list for me includes those who do charity work, etc.

    I do "admire" sports stars for their athletic prowess and game accomplishments. As i do love sports and always will. But what these stars do outside of sports, as long as they obey the law, I really couldn't care less about them. Other than sometimes make fun of them such as the Travis-Taylor silly public antics that they too often do.

    Which is why despite Barry Bonds being a well known obnoxious, arrogant SOB, in my view fair is fair for what he accomplished on the field, and I think he should be in the hall despite the PED use.

  • Options
    1948_Swell_Robinson1948_Swell_Robinson Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Mistlin said:
    Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.

    I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.

    The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".

    As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.

    True honor among men has been lost long ago if it ever existed in the first place. All that is left is degrees and instances of honor and dishonor with every man exhibiting both in some capacity.

    It would take an all seeing being to be able to make any definitive declaration of possessing honor in regard to any human.

    I'll speak for myself only. I have never "hero worshipped" a single sports star inside of sports, in my life. Never have, never will. That includes other often hero worshipped idols such as movie stars, music stars, other celebrities, etc.

    Anybody who does hero worship Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Brett, etc, is fine by me. That's their prerogative.

    That being said, somebody such as Ted Williams and others who gallantly served our country in the armed forces, I do see them as heroes. That list for me includes those who do charity work, etc.

    I do "admire" sports stars for their athletic prowess and game accomplishments. As i do love sports and always will. But what these stars do outside of sports, as long as they obey the law, I really couldn't care less about them. Other than sometimes make fun of them such as the Travis-Taylor silly public antics that they too often do.

    Which is why despite Barry Bonds being a well known obnoxious, arrogant SOB, in my view fair is fair for what he accomplished on the field, and I think he should be in the hall despite the PED use.

    Worship and acclaim are misdirected if it should even be directed to anyone at all. People are people.

    The most admirable are the people who work and sacrifice daily for their families or others without fanfare, acclaim, or massive wealth...yet they keep plugging away every day, even until the very day they die.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @craig44 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    I hadn't googled this in many years or really paid attention to it, so some may already know the following about amphetamines in MLB. I was astonished at the number of top hall of famers who are known for a fact or have admitted to using amphetamines. The list includes Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and a number of others.

    Look at George Brett and his over dramatic tirade in the pine tar incident. Come on, an outrage such as that like a rabid dog? That guy was on something for sure, and likely it was amphetamines. Besides that, the pine tar at that level on the bat was technically cheating according to the rules.

    So i guess perhaps some may think that all these greats are "dishonorable" and shouldn't be in the hall? Which would be ridiculous.

    I couldnt agree more about amphetamines. SO many folks try to downplay greenies and say they really arent PED because for them, it would take the shine off from the heros of their youth. many try to take this "moral high ground" approach that amphetamines were cheating, but just not REAL cheating like hgh or steroids.

    the funny thing is, they dont even have to worry about it. amphetamines were most certainly not against the rules of baseball until the first decade of the 21st century. Willie Mays could take all the greenies and not have to worry one bit about breaking the rules. because he didnt.

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @stevek said:

    @1948_Swell_Robinson said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Mistlin said:
    Any museum without an inclusive history of what it claims to be (in this case, MLB's Hall of Fame being a complete story of the best to ever play the game) is a fraudulent enterprise.

    I'm interested in why you think the MLB HOF claims to be what you say they claim to be. 'Cause they make no such claim.

    The HOF's mission is "to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball." To consider the exclusion of Punkinhead from the HOF to be "fraudulent", one must consider what he did to fall under the category of "excellence" worth honoring. Rosie Ruiz is not in the marathon HOF (if such exists) and Punkinhead isn't in the MLB HOF for the same reason. What Rosie and Punkinhead did wasn't "excellence", it was "cheating".

    As for the other parts of their mission, that Punkinhead fraudulently wiped away the records of honorable men is preserved in the HOF, and people who enjoy baseball have no interest in Punkinhead beyond his historical infamy, so I think the HOF has done exactly what they set out to do.

    True honor among men has been lost long ago if it ever existed in the first place. All that is left is degrees and instances of honor and dishonor with every man exhibiting both in some capacity.

    It would take an all seeing being to be able to make any definitive declaration of possessing honor in regard to any human.

    I'll speak for myself only. I have never "hero worshipped" a single sports star inside of sports, in my life. Never have, never will. That includes other often hero worshipped idols such as movie stars, music stars, other celebrities, etc.

    Anybody who does hero worship Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Brett, etc, is fine by me. That's their prerogative.

    That being said, somebody such as Ted Williams and others who gallantly served our country in the armed forces, I do see them as heroes. That list for me includes those who do charity work, etc.

    I do "admire" sports stars for their athletic prowess and game accomplishments. As i do love sports and always will. But what these stars do outside of sports, as long as they obey the law, I really couldn't care less about them. Other than sometimes make fun of them such as the Travis-Taylor silly public antics that they too often do.

    Which is why despite Barry Bonds being a well known obnoxious, arrogant SOB, in my view fair is fair for what he accomplished on the field, and I think he should be in the hall despite the PED use.

    Worship and acclaim are misdirected if it should even be directed to anyone at all. People are people.

    The most admirable are the people who work and sacrifice daily for their families or others without fanfare, acclaim, or massive wealth...yet they keep plugging away every day, even until the very day they die.

    Perhaps Mother Teresa even did a few "bad" things in her life. Maybe the worst being sticking gum under her school desk when she was in grade school. 😉

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @stevek said:

    @craig44 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    I hadn't googled this in many years or really paid attention to it, so some may already know the following about amphetamines in MLB. I was astonished at the number of top hall of famers who are known for a fact or have admitted to using amphetamines. The list includes Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and a number of others.

    Look at George Brett and his over dramatic tirade in the pine tar incident. Come on, an outrage such as that like a rabid dog? That guy was on something for sure, and likely it was amphetamines. Besides that, the pine tar at that level on the bat was technically cheating according to the rules.

    So i guess perhaps some may think that all these greats are "dishonorable" and shouldn't be in the hall? Which would be ridiculous.

    I couldnt agree more about amphetamines. SO many folks try to downplay greenies and say they really arent PED because for them, it would take the shine off from the heros of their youth. many try to take this "moral high ground" approach that amphetamines were cheating, but just not REAL cheating like hgh or steroids.

    the funny thing is, they dont even have to worry about it. amphetamines were most certainly not against the rules of baseball until the first decade of the 21st century. Willie Mays could take all the greenies and not have to worry one bit about breaking the rules. because he didnt.

    I've never done a single amphetamine in my life and never will. But amphetamines were a plague in my high school. Frankly, it wasn't hard to notice the behavioral difference, especially at parties, when they were on amphetamines.

    I hate to say this but most all in my high school class who have died young in their 40's or 50's, were the prolific amphetamine users. Too coincidental in my opinion, not to be cause and effect.

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    @galaxy27 said:
    if the Hall was purged it would take you about 5 minutes to go through it

    It the "honorable" moral standard was applied you can have the HOF fit in a shipping container with room to spare

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @craig44 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    I hadn't googled this in many years or really paid attention to it, so some may already know the following about amphetamines in MLB. I was astonished at the number of top hall of famers who are known for a fact or have admitted to using amphetamines. The list includes Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and a number of others.

    Look at George Brett and his over dramatic tirade in the pine tar incident. Come on, an outrage such as that like a rabid dog? That guy was on something for sure, and likely it was amphetamines. Besides that, the pine tar at that level on the bat was technically cheating according to the rules.

    So i guess perhaps some may think that all these greats are "dishonorable" and shouldn't be in the hall? Which would be ridiculous.

    The pine tar rule is one of the dumber rules but is a rule.

    But this is basically what a lot of people have been saying. The whole taking PEDs has been around in baseball ever since it grew from just a small niche sport and became a big business over a century ago. Just because there wasnt any testing back then doesnt mean PEDs werent being taken. Guys to this day are still taking things that tests wont catch or can cycle out over the offseason.

    For whatever reason some people and the voters are singling out a single generation of players is getting singled out over the issue other than David Ortiz

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Basebal21 said:

    @stevek said:

    @craig44 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    I hadn't googled this in many years or really paid attention to it, so some may already know the following about amphetamines in MLB. I was astonished at the number of top hall of famers who are known for a fact or have admitted to using amphetamines. The list includes Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and a number of others.

    Look at George Brett and his over dramatic tirade in the pine tar incident. Come on, an outrage such as that like a rabid dog? That guy was on something for sure, and likely it was amphetamines. Besides that, the pine tar at that level on the bat was technically cheating according to the rules.

    So i guess perhaps some may think that all these greats are "dishonorable" and shouldn't be in the hall? Which would be ridiculous.

    The pine tar rule is one of the dumber rules but is a rule.

    But this is basically what a lot of people have been saying. The whole taking PEDs has been around in baseball ever since it grew from just a small niche sport and became a big business over a century ago. Just because there wasnt any testing back then doesnt mean PEDs werent being taken. Guys to this day are still taking things that tests wont catch or can cycle out over the offseason.

    For whatever reason some people and the voters are singling out a single generation of players is getting singled out over the issue other than David Ortiz

    Well on the pine tar, if the batter puts the ball into play, and there's pine tar on it, I would have to believe that it might make the ball a lot tougher to handle, perhaps impossible to handle. Brett constantly violated the rule, the Yankees knew that, and cleverly waited for a perfect time to complain about it. Brett deserved to get the home run taken away from him, even though that correct decision was later rescinded. I guess the commissioner at the time was a Brett fan.

    Amphetamines are without question a performance enhancing drug. Perhaps not as potent as steroids, but a PED just the same.

    Back to Pete Rose. Players using PED's are at least trying to win baseball games. While Rose directly and intentionally interfered with the integrity of the game in various ways to try to cash gambling bets. There is no comparison to Rose doing that and PED users just trying to get physically better and win baseball games.

    Bonds deserves to get in. Rose deserves to stay out.

  • Options
    DarinDarin Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @Darin said:
    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

    @Darin said:
    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

    Darin please, the post has nothing to do with you. Absolutely nothing.

    I stated fact about the pine tar, and likelihood about the cause of his anger to make a point, and that pine tar incident in my view helps to make the point. That's all it was.

    That was my point, you didn’t state facts! You assumed simply from his reaction that he was ‘on something’.
    He’s a fierce competitor, the year is 1983 so he still hates the Yankees, he hits a go ahead home run against the Yankees, then gets called out on a technicality. What should he have done, come out of the dugout and offered the ump tea and crumpets?

  • Options
    Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:

    @Basebal21 said:

    @stevek said:

    @craig44 said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @stevek said:
    So I guess Bonds not being in the MLB Hall of Fame, means that Bill Mazeroski was a better player than Barry Bonds?

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!!!!

    What Bill Mazeroski was was 1,000 times more worthy of honor than Punkinhead. Joe Jackson was a lot better than Mazeroski, as was Pete Rose. But, like Punkinhead, they were dishonorable men.

    So is your standard for the HOF only "honorable men?" if so, admitted cheaters should not be inducted, right?

    what about the case of Rogers Hornsby? he is an admitted cheater. These are his words: “I've been in pro baseball since 1914 and I've cheated, or watched someone on my team cheat, in practically every game.”

    As was Hank Greenberg. He called himself the greatest hitter in history when he knew what pitch was coming.

    Those would be 2 examples of "dishonorable men", no?

    I hadn't googled this in many years or really paid attention to it, so some may already know the following about amphetamines in MLB. I was astonished at the number of top hall of famers who are known for a fact or have admitted to using amphetamines. The list includes Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and a number of others.

    Look at George Brett and his over dramatic tirade in the pine tar incident. Come on, an outrage such as that like a rabid dog? That guy was on something for sure, and likely it was amphetamines. Besides that, the pine tar at that level on the bat was technically cheating according to the rules.

    So i guess perhaps some may think that all these greats are "dishonorable" and shouldn't be in the hall? Which would be ridiculous.

    The pine tar rule is one of the dumber rules but is a rule.

    But this is basically what a lot of people have been saying. The whole taking PEDs has been around in baseball ever since it grew from just a small niche sport and became a big business over a century ago. Just because there wasnt any testing back then doesnt mean PEDs werent being taken. Guys to this day are still taking things that tests wont catch or can cycle out over the offseason.

    For whatever reason some people and the voters are singling out a single generation of players is getting singled out over the issue other than David Ortiz

    Well on the pine tar, if the batter puts the ball into play, and there's pine tar on it, I would have to believe that it might make the ball a lot tougher to handle, perhaps impossible to handle. Brett constantly violated the rule, the Yankees knew that, and cleverly waited for a perfect time to complain about it. Brett deserved to get the home run taken away from him, even though that correct decision was later rescinded. I guess the commissioner at the time was a Brett fan.

    Amphetamines are without question a performance enhancing drug. Perhaps not as potent as steroids, but a PED just the same.

    Back to Pete Rose. Players using PED's are at least trying to win baseball games. While Rose directly and intentionally interfered with the integrity of the game in various ways to try to cash gambling bets. There is no comparison to Rose doing that and PED users just trying to get physically better and win baseball games.

    Bonds deserves to get in. Rose deserves to stay out.

    For the pine tar Brett certainly did use an absurd amount of it for some reason, but its actually a disadvantage to the hitter. You dont want the ball sticking to the bat when you hit it lowering the exit velo. Some corner guys will put a small coating of pine tar in the palm of their glove to help them hang onto balls that are smashed at them. But yea I have no idea why Brett was so infatuated with it

    Completely agree about Amphetamines and everything else thats been used over the last 100+ years

    Agree Bonds definitely deserves to be in. As for Rose I would still put him in with all the info about what he did but keep him banned from baseball.

    Interestingly enough MLB made a decision in 2020 quietly that really flew under the radar. Basically they said that once a player dies they are no longer banned from baseball as the ban only applies to their ability to work in MLB or for the clubs. So Jackson already dead isnt actually banned anymore and once Rose dies the same will apply meaning its entirely up to the HOF whether or not to put them in

  • Options
    DarinDarin Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What I could never understand was why people like Steve thought Brett coming out of the dugout wild eyed and waving his arms was an overreaction. I assume because they’ve never had a competitive nature or are used to losing. Brett has said as mad as he was he never was dumb enough to consider taking a swing at the ump.
    Ty Cobb would have brought a shovel with him out of the dugout and buried the umpire with home plate as a marker.
    I just wonder how many old timers would have taken a swing, I’m guessing more than a few.

  • Options
    galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,335 ✭✭✭✭✭

    when i initially saw the title of this thread i knew this bad boy had serious potential

    then i saw stevek mention Brett and i summarily rang the crap out of the notifications bell

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Rabid dogs have seen this video, and commented that human is crazy. 😆

    https://youtu.be/PDNZw0A29oI

  • Options
    bgrbgr Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭

    But. It was the Yankees. So. Makes sense.

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Darin said:

    @stevek said:

    @Darin said:
    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

    @Darin said:
    Just when I thought Steve and I had formed an uneasy truce, he comes up with an idiotic theory about why Brett must be on something because of his reaction to being called out after hitting a go ahead dinger against his hated rival the Yankees.

    How about stick to facts Steve!
    I’m trying to get through a stress test at the moment and you come up with this? If he was on something a reaction to being called out after hitting a homer doesn’t prove it.
    Figures Steve is going to be the most stressful thing about my stress test.

    Darin please, the post has nothing to do with you. Absolutely nothing.

    I stated fact about the pine tar, and likelihood about the cause of his anger to make a point, and that pine tar incident in my view helps to make the point. That's all it was.

    That was my point, you didn’t state facts! You assumed simply from his reaction that he was ‘on something’.
    He’s a fierce competitor, the year is 1983 so he still hates the Yankees, he hits a go ahead home run against the Yankees, then gets called out on a technicality. What should he have done, come out of the dugout and offered the ump tea and crumpets?

    I, for one, am glad Brett did exactly what he did after the pine tar home run. it was one of the best/greatest sports memories of my youth. I was/am a big george brett fan!

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Notice his teammates trying to get away from him. Nobody wants to listen to that. Sorry Brett fans, your hero George is truly at least a little bit off. Was he on drugs or just naturally weird? 🤣

    Despite all that, he did become the second greatest third baseman of all time

    https://youtu.be/4Qv25_DFR2k

  • Options
    craig44craig44 Posts: 10,777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    Notice his teammates trying to get away from him. Nobody wants to listen to that. Sorry Brett fans, your hero George is truly at least a little bit off. Was he on drugs or just naturally weird? 🤣

    Despite all that, he did become the second greatest third baseman of all time

    https://youtu.be/4Qv25_DFR2k

    hey now, who amongst us hasnt at one point had a little case of the runs...

    George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.

  • Options
    bgrbgr Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭

    One of the few appeals in baseball that was successful.

  • Options
    perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,774 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 24, 2024 7:33AM

    The George Brett pine tar incident was an iconic event

    Love every second of it 😂😂😂

  • Options
    bgrbgr Posts: 736 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:
    The George Brett pine tar incident was an iconic event

    Love every second of it 😂😂😂

    Just so im clear. You’re referring the pine tar incident as the HR against the Yankees and not the pine tar incident in the hotel lobby? I think that one is humorously referred to as “The Royal Eruption”.

    Unfortunately he will not inscribe that with the date but when I asked, tongue-in-cheek, I did get him to laugh.

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, the pine tar incident with Brett is good entertainment. Perhaps like a comedy skit when a multi-millionaire playing a kid's game at a hall of fame level, pretends to be a raging bull over one home run that won't affect anything in his life other than making a fool out of himself.

    The other incident was like a Howard Stern skit. 🤣

  • Options
    stevekstevek Posts: 28,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    @stevek said:
    Notice his teammates trying to get away from him. Nobody wants to listen to that. Sorry Brett fans, your hero George is truly at least a little bit off. Was he on drugs or just naturally weird? 🤣

    Despite all that, he did become the second greatest third baseman of all time

    hey now, who amongst us hasnt at one point had a little case of the runs...

    George hopefully learned a lesson that I learned many years ago. Don't ever order shellfish at any restaurant that is served in a sauce or whatever. I did that once with a shrimp platter, and was throwing up all night.

    Order the shellfish cooked plain, your nose will tell ya if it's safely edible or not. Then dip it in the appropriate tasty sauces available.

Sign In or Register to comment.