Pete Rose in the HOF? Yes or no?

in.

 

For betting on a sport? Grow up.

 

Rose has done more wrong in this life than betting on baseball. But still, the burning in hell stuff is a bit much.

 

Buck - only 21 50-home run hitters since 1995 and more guys hitting 20 or 30 home runs? That's my point exactly. That's not exactly skyrocketing of home runs considering --this is an era of juiced balls and bats, all of the new, smaller, more hitter friendly parks, better conditioning and work out regimes, more sophisticated and sport-specific weight training, better athletes because of better training methods and most of all far more watered-down pitching because of expansion.

All of that has far more to do with a spike in home runs than steroids.

How many more home runs would Hank Aaron or Willie Mays have hit if, they got to face most of the No. 4 and No. 5 pitchers of today's staffs, say three games per week? How many more home runs would say, a Willie Stargell have hit if he got to play his career in PNC Park with that short right field fence instead of Three Rivers?

Those things you can't quantify but they offer far more of an explanation as to why this era is so hitter-friendly than steroids.

And one other thing - how many of Barry Bonds, Mark Mcguire and Sammy Sosa's home runs are garden variety "fly balls that simply traveled 25 feet more" because of steroids? Very few, if any. Most are towering shots.

 

*h, I disagree. I've seen MANY, MANY b*mbs fr*m all three that landed a few r*ws up.

 

You mean the ones that end up in McCovey Cove?

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/08/MNBONDSCHART.DTL&type=chart

I'm sorry. I know we're in the business of communication. And I know we're, at least in theory, here for debate.

But anyone who thinks Bonds would be anywhere close to 755 homers without steroids is either a blind fanboy or looking for an argument.

 

Bonds before steroids:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP
86-98 146 509 105 147 31 5 32 93 34 10 104 81 .290 .411

Bonds after steroids:
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP
99-04 136 413 118 136 27 2 49 105 10 2 158 63 .328 .517

 

I'm not so sure if you couldn't point out that the pitching talent is a helluva lot worse than when he first made it to the show.
Only he knows about the steroid issue. If he says no, who is not to believe him? If there was absolute proof instead of innuendo, I'd be prone to say an asterisk should be by his accomplishments.

 

18 homers per year worse? Between the age of 35 and 40, after he's well past his prime?
Sorry.

 

Maybe he became a better hitter because of experience. His average did go up as well as his on base percentage and all of his other numbers.

And assuming those performance enhancing things do add as much power as some of you claim -- who is to say he used steroids -- what if he used Andro or createan (sp?) or other more natural supplements?

 

I also think your stats are very much skewed and I'll tell you why...

His first four years, he hit a total of 84 homers and his best batting average was .283 because, lik emost young players, he wasn't a very disciplined hitter and he was learning how to hit.

From 1990 until 1998 -- which you use as a bench mark year -- he averagred 36 homers a year and hit more than 40 three times. The next six years -- if you take the 73 he hit in the one magical season -- out of it - he only averaged 43, not 49 and hit over forty four times.

His numbers did increase but not nearly as dramatically as you suggest. And I don't know if he'd be close to 755 if we took a lot of other variables out of the equation as well -- and neither do you.