Options
Palmeiro denies strongly!
kuhlmann
Posts: 3,326 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
I guess if nothing can prove him guilty now. he can sue jose canseco. i hope so. i hope he puts him in the poor house.
0
kuhlmann
Posts: 3,326 ✭✭
Comments
<< <i>I guess if nothing can prove him guilty now. he can sue jose canseco. i hope so. i hope he puts him in the poor house. >>
There will be no lawsuits EVER from the Canseco book.
I'll say it again for those in the cheap seats:
THERE WILL BE NO LAWSUITS FROM THE CANSECO BOOK.
If someone were to sue Canseco over allegations in his book, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff proving they DIDN'T use 'roids. That would be next to impossible to prove. You have to know that Canseco (and the publishing company) talked to lawyers thoroughly before this was released to make sure there would be no lawsuits.
1) STEROIDS
2)
okay, one thing
1) STEROIDS
2)
okay, one thing >>
COULDN'T AGREE MORE !!
His first 2031 Ab's in the Majors the man hit a whopping 47 Hr's !
1986 73 ab's 3 hr's
1987 221 ab's 14 hr's
1988 580 ab's 8 hr's
1989 559 ab's 8 hr's
1990 598 ab's 14 hr's
If you think this guy suddenly found a homerun swing by injesting Snickers bars and Gatorade before the game your nuts
P.S If you remember the Cubs traded the guy because they said he didn't have enough power to play 1st base
If never proven then Sosa is single season home run king?? at 66! Mcgwire (i still am a fan of his) its all over his face, we all always knew it. he did them bonds ditto.
Now they have to prove sosa guilty if not then maris still doesnt hold the record.
Do a google search on andro in the 40's and greenies players took back then. so like i said before they is no proof saying players back then didnt take them.
They also stated this has been a problem for 30 years. so now we no players in the 70's took them. this was mentioned today. so i was right about that. I still stand by my saying that they have been around since the 40's!
1) STEROIDS
2)
okay, one thing >>
COULDN'T AGREE MORE !!
You all may be right, but he sure laid it on the line today. If he used, he has set himself up for perjury. On the other hand, if Canseco had spent another 15 minutes testifying, he would've been denying that he had anything at all to do with his book
Sosa too.
Who cares if these guys say they didn't. The PERCEPTION of today's players and of the last 10 years is that they were all juiced up. There is no removing that perception now, it is here to stay.
I don't believe any of the players, or MLB management.
Everyone had reasons to ignore this problem, everyone involved.
One reason and one reason only: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
<< <i>Do a google search on andro in the 40's and greenies players took back then. so like i said before they is no proof saying players back then didnt take them.
They also stated this has been a problem for 30 years. so now we no players in the 70's took them. this was mentioned today. so i was right about that. I still stand by my saying that they have been around since the 40's! >>
Well, I know they were not around when Babe Ruth played. That's enough for me. Even with them around today, I still say Ruth is the greatest of all-time. Without them in Ruth's era only helps him more....and he doesn't even need help.
The only reason BALCO Bonds won't admit Ruth is the greatest ever is becuase he is white. Bonds has always believed that people don't like him because he is black, and that the reason people question him and the steroid use is because he is black. He is hoping enough people will believe that after hearing it so much.
People don't like Bonds because he was always an a**hole. From Day 1. He wouldn't talk to the media for years and suddenly at the end of his career he wants them to embrace him (which they have thanks to the 755 chase - they HAVE to now). When they talk to him about the past greats of the game he always talks about Mays or Aaron, he will rarely mention Ruth unless they ask him directly. It's as if he truly thinks that their were no great white players and that the only greats were all black. If a white player acted like that all the time, whispers would start flowing around that he was a racist.
Bonds also complained that nobody cared when Mcgwire was breaking the single season record about the steroids, or went after him. I disagree. The media was ALL OVER HIM about that bottle of ANDRO in his locker that year, and Mcgwire had to deal with those questions all season long after that event. Bonds was the idiot who got linked to BALCO and that was discovered AFTER his 2001 season, so he did not have to deal any of those distractions DURING 2001, only years after. Plus, last time I checked, Giambi was white, and the press and others have crucified him.
Barry Bonds is too stupid to realize that this has everything to do with the fact that he is on pace to break the biggest record in sports, and nothing to do with his skin color. For Christ's sake, the guys record he will break is also black (Aaron). He is going through NOTHING LIKE WHAT AARON WENT THROUGH IN the early 70's. NOTHING LIKE THAT. I wish Aaron would send some of his old death threat letters to Bonds to show him what it was like to have people truly hate you and root against you because of your skin color.
I am glad to see that Hank Aaron has called Bonds out on this issue already. I hope he is not there the day Bonds hits #756, but I am sure they will pay Aaron enough to be there.
My bottom line is that Babe Ruth is the greatest of all-time and I am glad that most to all sportswriters, analysts, and baseball historians (white and black) have voted this way time and time again over the last 60 years.
well just to point out a fact. that is for certain, could of made a difference is there were no blacks when ruth played.
like it or not that is a huge difference..
Maybe Ruth would have hit against a black pitcher once in a while, do you really think that his numbers would be DRAMATICALLY less because of this?
He stood so far above his peers that it is simply wild speculation to suggest that if blacks pitched, he would have done far worse, or if black hitters were allowed, they would have been as good or better than Ruth was.
Even Josh Gibson's numbers in the Negro Leagues (He is always looked at as the black Ruth) were not as good as the Babe's numbers in MLB. So this is an argument based solely on speculation and "what if?"
I think Ruth would have been just as good, and maybe there would have been some dominant black players as well during that era, but I think Ruth would have still shined as the greatest. He was just too far ahead of his peers, and he was a very big man with the biggest bat in MLB or Negro League history. Nobody then, or since then, has swung a bat as big and heavy as the Babe's. That is a FACT.
This is just another race card played by Bonds as an answer for everything he must account for while he charges past the 755 record.
He wants everyone to forget about Ruth, forget about his attitude problems, forget about BALCO, forget about it all and just give him his respect for doing what he has done.
But he won't give any of that same respect to anyone else, especially if they are white.
He is a loser. A sad loser.
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
It's just that simple.
but the majority of people who defend ruth these days are no way in age alive when he played!
so i cant sit here and say he was the best ever when i didnt see for myself.yes stats say he was the best ever. seeing is believing to me though. believe none of what you hear and half of what you see!
im my era of baseball im 31 years old. bonds is the best i have seen. roids IMO he didnt take till 2001! what about all the mvp's he won before that? and i cant stand bonds. congress mentioned(steroid use) 30 years today so its not just my era it dates back far from that. its a fact now or congress wouldnt have bought it up!
One last thing as for ruth? If he played in this past 10 years at his shape i dont even think he would be a everyday player.
He was hitting home runs at a pace that was DOUBLE that (and more) of his nearest competitor in a dead ball era. Not only that, but he was a 20 game winner as well!
Typical fan says 'the player I'm watching now has to be the best of all time!!!' without any semblence of history. Ruth dominated his game for such a long time, and did so at a clip so far above the nearest competitor, that it's not even close.
I wouldn't even put Bonds in top 5 all time. He's a horrific fielder (always has been)...and don't give me the crap about gold gloves....everyone knows they are a popularity contest (how about Raffy winning a gold glove for 1B when he played all of 30 games there a few years back?).
Hank Aaron was even more dominating than that worthless puke Bonds. A truly class act who simply performed year after year after year, without the cheating that Bonds has used. In addition, Aaron could actually play the field, instead of the liability that Bonds is.
im not bashing ruth but people are so blind to facts that no one wants to talk about!
old timers no matter what sen bunning said today... were around drugs. roids and andro been around since the 40's. greenies is another thing they talk about back then.
coke had actual cocaine in it!
congress stated today roids been around since 70's for sure!
ok im gonna call a player out now! ready for this?? RICKY HENDERSON see the size of his legs when he was breaking the record? roids for sure make you faster! might not help you hit a ball but we know for a fact they make you faster!
am i wrong about saying henderson? i think not!
<< <i>
ok im gonna call a player out now! ready for this?? RICKY HENDERSON see the size of his legs when he was breaking the record? roids for sure make you faster! might not help you hit a ball but we know for a fact they make you faster!
am i wrong about saying henderson? i think not! >>
Dude are you high?
And I don't have to have seen Ruth to appreciate his play. That's the beauty of statistics...they provide a clear, concise commentary on a player's ability.
I am really going overboard accusing henderson? maybe they should call him to this hearing bc he broke a record?
what about that bet axtell whats the problem you a chicken? mets mariners who wins more games?
one more drug comment and i will be like skip and call you out! your like a f@cking hemroid! you got so much to say like your tuff? but you will cower behind your keyboard!
PROVE ME WRONG ABOUT HENDERSON! you cant! PROVE TO ME SOSA PALMEIRO TOOK THEM once again you cant! no one can.
Prove to me ruth would be the man this year in baseball facing pitchers of today! once again you cant!
you state all your issues on opionion not facts!
<< <i>am i high no and i have never been! maybe you would like to let me know how that feels?
I am really going overboard accusing henderson? maybe they should call him to this hearing bc he broke a record?
what about that bet axtell whats the problem you a chicken? mets mariners who wins more games?
one more drug comment and i will be like skip and call you out! your like a f@cking hemroid! you got so much to say like your tuff? but you will cower behind your keyboard!
PROVE ME WRONG ABOUT HENDERSON! you cant! PROVE TO ME SOSA PALMEIRO TOOK THEM once again you cant! no one can.
Prove to me ruth would be the man this year in baseball facing pitchers of today! once again you cant!
you state all your issues on opionion not facts! >>
Man you really need to take your ritalin. As far as Raffy and Sosa, one only need to look at their stats prior to their HR explosions over an extended period of time (in Raffy's case, how about 2000+ AB's? That's a pretty significant sample size). As far as Ricky, how about the fact he was always fast? How about that he's still one of the fastest men in all of baseball, even at 45?
And what have I said that's been 'tough'? I've simply employed stats in my debates. If you want to take them as threats, well, I can't do anything about that.
Good luck with that ADD. Maybe you need to up your dosage.
<< <i>mintluster i dont know how old you are?
but the majority of people who defend ruth these days are no way in age alive when he played!
so i cant sit here and say he was the best ever when i didnt see for myself.yes stats say he was the best ever. seeing is believing to me though. believe none of what you hear and half of what you see!
im my era of baseball im 31 years old. bonds is the best i have seen. roids IMO he didnt take till 2001! what about all the mvp's he won before that? and i cant stand bonds. congress mentioned(steroid use) 30 years today so its not just my era it dates back far from that. its a fact now or congress wouldnt have bought it up!
One last thing as for ruth? If he played in this past 10 years at his shape i dont even think he would be a everyday player. >>
This is the ESPN generation and people like you amaze me. I am 32...Gen X as well, but I know how to read also. I don't compare every player based simply off of what I see them do on TV. Luckily, neither do all of the sportswriters and historians who ALWAYS select Babe Ruth as #1 All-Time.
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1914 19 BOS AL 5 10 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 .200 .200 .300 3 0 0
1915 20 BOS AL 42 92 16 29 10 1 4 21 0 9 23 .315 .376 .576 53 2 0
1916 21 BOS AL 67 136 18 37 5 3 3 15 0 10 23 .272 .322 .419 57 4 0
1917 22 BOS AL 52 123 14 40 6 3 2 12 0 12 18 .325 .385 .472 58 7 0
1918 23 BOS AL 95 317 50 95 26 11 11 66 6 58 58 .300 .411 .555 176 3 2
1919 24 BOS AL 130 432 103 139 34 12 29 114 7 101 58 .322 .456 .657 284 3 6
babe ruth 51 hr's first 6 years! maybe it takes time to get your hitting down.
thats 1110 at bats with 51 home runs!
bonds
1986 21 PIT NL 113 413 72 92 26 3 16 48 36 7 65 102 .223 .330 .416 172 2 2 2 2 4
1987 22 PIT NL 150 551 99 144 34 9 25 59 32 10 54 88 .261 .329 .492 271 0 3 3 3 4
1988 23 PIT NL 144 538 97 152 30 5 24 58 17 11 72 82 .283 .368 .491 264 0 2 14 2 3
first 3 years 1502 at bats 65 home runs. after 6 years way ahead of pace!
sosa
TOT AL 58 183 27 47 8 0 4 13 7 5 11 47 .257 .303 .366 67 5 2 2 2 6
1990 21 CHW AL 153 532 72 124 26 10 15 70 32 16 33 150 .233 .282 .404 215 2 6 4 6 10
1991 22 CHW AL 116 316 39 64 10 1 10 33 13 6 14 98 .203 .240 .335 106 5 1 2 2 5
1992 23 CHC NL 67 262 41 68 7 2 8 25 15 7 19 63 .260 .317 .393 103 4 2 1 4 4
1993 24 CHC NL 159 598 92 156 25 5 33 93 36 11 38 135 .261 .309 .485 290 0 1 6 4 14
took him his 5th year to start hitting them out!
roger maris?? this is weird
275 career home runs 12 seasons 61 in one season?
<< <i>am i high no and i have never been! maybe you would like to let me know how that feels?
I am really going overboard accusing henderson? maybe they should call him to this hearing bc he broke a record?
what about that bet axtell whats the problem you a chicken? mets mariners who wins more games?
one more drug comment and i will be like skip and call you out! your like a f@cking hemroid! you got so much to say like your tuff? but you will cower behind your keyboard!
PROVE ME WRONG ABOUT HENDERSON! you cant! PROVE TO ME SOSA PALMEIRO TOOK THEM once again you cant! no one can.
Prove to me ruth would be the man this year in baseball facing pitchers of today! once again you cant!
you state all your issues on opionion not facts! >>
This issues has been smacked around on these boards for years (not Ricky Henderson, but Ruth as the greatest)
It is IMPOSSIBLE to compare players of eras. To say Ruth could not hit against today's pitchers is TOTALLY A GUESS, and is also PROBABLY THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. None of which you can back up with numbers or facts either, since thats what you keep saying to everyone.
The BEST way to pick the best players of All-Time is to simply look at their careers as a whole (all regular season numbers and playoff numbers) and how that compares to other players of that same era. When you do this (as MANY historians have done), BABE RUTH CLEARLY STANDS OUT AS THE MOST DOMINANT BASEBALL PLAYER EVER. Nobody in his era was even close. This guy hit more homeruns by himself than the entire league, and he did it TWICE. How may other players have done this in ANY OTHER ERA? 0
When Ruth hit 60 Homers in 1927 that was 14% of the League's homeruns that year, for a player to do that today, and dominate his peers the same way, he would have to hit OVER 300 in a season!!!!!
Ruth was the first player to hit 30, 40, 50, and 60 homeruns and this was in a time period during the dead ball era where before Ruth, a guy would win the homerun title with 10 homers in a season.
As a hitter Ruth hit .390 once and ended his career at .342 with 714 Homeruns in around 8,000 at-bats. Bonds passed 8,000 at-bats years ago and it took Hank Aaron something like 12,000 or 13,000 at-bats to hit 40 more homers than Ruth.
And I haven't even mentioned his great years as a Lefty pitcher, helping the Red Sox win 2 titles before winning a boat load with the Yankees as a hitter. Or his countless playoff records as a hitter AND a pitcher (3-0 with a .087 ERA in WS, pitched the longest game in WS history for a pitcher at 16 innings and got the win).
The list goes on...and on....if you are willing to do the research and learn, while recognizing and respecting those past achievements.
The truth is out there, you just need to go find it. Stop waiting around for ESPN to show it to you.
BABE RUTH was a pitcher his first 5 seasons before he became a full-time hitter.
He hit some homers in those pitching years but not many, as he was mostly pitching (and winning 20+ games a season).
He won 2 WS titles with the Red Sox before going to NY and winning several there also.
What is the point of these numbers you posted?
Do you think Bonds or Aaron could pitch? And win 20 games? And post a .087 ERA in the WS? Or throw 16 innings in a WS game??
Do you???? That is exactly what Babe Ruth did.
This is why his career at-bats are so low compared to others, and he still managed to hit 714 Homers in 8,000 at-bats!!!
Go research and tell me how many Homers Bonds or Aaron had when they were at 8,000 at-bats...BIG DIFFERENCE.
Yes mintluster i know the stats of ruth. i know he was the best ever, but like it or not there will always be an argument.
there will be the argument of no blacks back then, and its a valid one.
drugs were not looked on back then ( im not saying ruths time im saying 40's and after) the way they are know.
sen bunning made a statement saying they werent around when he played? well where is his proof? governer arnold s. took them in the 60's and states in his book they were around since the 40's. congress said today this problem has been around for 30 years.
them saying that means jose canseco was the first one to take them in 1988? then why would they go back 30 years?
and i am not waiting for espn to show me the truth. when they do uncover the past 40 years i will be here to say i told you so. its been around for a long time. its just exploded now!
there always has to be a devils advocate though
AB: 12,364 HR: 755 RBI: 2,297 BA: .305 SLG: .555
BARRY BONDS:
AB: 9,098 HR: 703 RBI: 1,843 BA: .300 SLG: .611
BABE RUTH:
AB: 8,399 HR: 714 RBI: 2,213 BA: .342 SLG: .690
This is just breaking down basic hitting numbers. We haven't gotten into the playoff numbers and records and Ruth's pitching numbers and records for 5 seasons. Plus Ruth only won 1 MVP Award because the rules back then would only allow you to win the award once. They changed the rules years later to allow multiple MVP's to a player during a career. So enough already about that MVP award and Bond's having so many of them.
These numbers do not lie in relation to how a specific player stacks up against other players of his era.
This is why no matter how many times baseball historians look at it, no matter how many formulas they use to calculate the numbers and the precentages. They ALWAYS end up with the same pick: BABE RUTH.
And the new tangible to this whole process will be to figure out how to factor in BALCO Bonds illegal steroids and growth hormones, and whatever he took to cheat. How do they account for that???
<< <i>Yes mintluster i know the stats of ruth. i know he was the best ever, but like it or not there will always be an argument.
there will be the argument of no blacks back then, and its a valid one. >>
I agree it is a VALID ARGUMENT. I just won't agree that it carries enough merit to discredit Babe Ruth or suggest that anyone black at that time (Like Josh Gibson) would have been BETTER in MLB.
That is just a wild and crazy guess and cannot be backed up or proven with any stats or tangibles to prove it.
Again, Josh Gibson's numbers in the Negro Leagues alone were not as good as Ruth's in MLB. So ot os far-fetched to me to argue that if blacks played Ruth would have been less dominant or a black player would have been more dominant.
Anyway.....I gotta go to bed.
It was fun. This is why I love Baseball. I can talk about it or debate forever.
Take it easy.
Why is there even an argument that a strong majority (no way 2%) of todays baseball players do not use them? To think they do not is absurd, and to say that Ruth or Mantle may have taken them is even more absurd.
From a simple standpoint, look at some baseball cards from the 60's and 70's. Show me a monster, or some big potato head player. There aren't any.
Maris had a special year in 61. There was expansion, and pitching was thin. It was a special year, and those happen. 1998 was a special year as well, but there was and still is a shadow that hung above it. I believe that both players were assisted by chemicals. Will it ever be proven? Probably not, but perception is reality.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY NO HOW THAT BONDS COULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT BIG SO FAST AT HIS AGE WITHOUT THE USE OF STEROIDS.