1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bonds begins HOF campaign

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Aug 7, 2012.

Page 18 of 26
  1. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, Raines, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Trammell, Martinez
     
    Della9250, Aug 9, 2012
    #205
  2. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty New Member

    yeah, bonds put on 40 in his chest arms and head, boone put on 25 during one offseason in his upper body and ruth put on 40 in his gut. that's a great comparison.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
    Tom Petty, Aug 9, 2012
    #206
  3. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't put in any of the holdovers. I'd be tempted not to vote for any of the first-ballot guys for a a good five to ten years, just to get some perspective behind me on the Steroid Era.

    Down the line, assuming they never get connected to steroids? Biggio and Piazza (and that's a big assumption, especially considering the rumors about Piazza).
     
    bigpern23, Aug 10, 2012
    #207
  4. farmerjerome

    farmerjerome Active Member

    Just my opinion, but I've always thought that steroids were much, much worse than betting. Steroids actually cause physical harm. For me, that's it. Not only does it change the integrity of the game, but it harms you and influences a younger generation to do the same.

    If Bonds gets in, another generation will know that you can cheat and you can still be a hall of famer. We'd know for sure if he was a "pure" hall of famer if he hadn't juiced. That was his fault. No one forced that needle into his arm.
     
    farmerjerome, Aug 10, 2012
    #208
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    As soon as they remove Gaylord Perry, provide concrete evidence of Bonds cheating and definitively prove who has been using PEDs and who has not over the last 30 years or so, that approach might make some sense.

    Sorry, I'll take the guy trying to win over the guy willing to try to lose or not try quite as hard to win because he has money on the game any time.
     
    outofplace, Aug 11, 2012
    #209
  6. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    OOP, is there concrete evidence on anyone? would you agree Palmeiro and Manny?
     
    cjericho, Aug 11, 2012
    #210
  7. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty New Member

    fuck oop. he was good up to 30k posts ... yup, then he just went too fucking far.
     
    Tom Petty, Aug 11, 2012
    #211
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Hell, I went too far long before that.

    cjericho, show me a positive test that isn't tainted or an admission of guilt and I'll buy it. But that is only part of the issue. We're just assuming some guys who are clean who probably aren't. And we've got people assuming guys who are dirty even though there is no real evidence at all by any decent standard.
     
    outofplace, Aug 11, 2012
    #212
  9. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    I don't think either of Manny's 2 tests were tainted. Is that enough? I mean I never saw him take PEDs so I can't be sure but I think I'll go with guilty. Anyone who isn't blind knows guys have used and never failed a test. So does that mean that Manny gets a pass because he was just that dumb or unlucky to test positive.
     
    cjericho, Aug 11, 2012
    #213
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    You just helped back up my point. We know guys have used and not gotten caught. At least not definitively. That is the problem with denying the ones we are sure of, like Manny. Where do you draw the line? Two failed tests? One failed test? None, but a lot of circumstantial evidence?
     
    outofplace, Aug 11, 2012
    #214
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not saying you're wrong. I think this is a debate where either opinion is legit.

    My two questions, though, are 1) Did you see Carew play? I am not sure how old you are. And 2) How much do you weigh Carew relative to his era, vs. Bagwell relative to his era in your opinion.

    A big part of it for me is that Carew in the late 60s and throughout the 70s (when I remember him) was a star of stars. He was also the best pure hitter in baseball during that era.

    Bagwell played in an era of more inflated stats. He was clearly a star and a power-hitting / average machine, especially for for a stretch of 5 or 6 years. But there were always guys who did he things that Bagwell did better. Bagwell's value was that he did a lot of things.

    I know All Star game appearances are not a scientific way of comparing players because they don't necessarily grab the best players any year. But there is a reason why Carew made the game 18 years in row, and Bagwell made it 4 times. It tells you about who they were relative to the eras they played in, don't you think?

    That doesn't answer whether head to head Bagwell was a better player than Carew was. But in a Hall of Fame discussion, it should say something.

    I find it such an odd comparison, in any case, because they were very different as players, in what was expected of them -- a part is that I think of Carew more as a second baseman than a first baseman, even though he played so much first.
     
    The Big Ragu, Aug 11, 2012
    #215
  12. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty New Member

    agreed. carew without a second thought.
     
    Tom Petty, Aug 11, 2012
    #216
Page 18 of 26
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page