HOF -> Bonds & clemens
 

Interesting article on the hof

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin....1790600514/amp

If you had a vote, would u vote bonds and or clemens into the hof?

I voted yes for both. Clemens is my second all time favorite player so I am very biased. Barry was such a super star that they would cut from the game on TV to show his at bats when he was putting up video game #'s.

Both were at the absolute top of their games well before they likely started juicing. Yes.

That's what makes it a less than easy choice. Both were pretty amazing even before, and neither was all that popular with the press. Bonds was ..........Bonds. And Clemens played for a long time in Boston where being unpopular with the press is almost required. (The whole "it's not about the money.......unless it's 7 million, then it is" thing didn't help either.

I tried one time to figure out when Bonds started, and found an interesting uptick after a fairly normal string of years. Did a bit of figuring and came to the conclusion that he'd have had the career HR record 2-3 years after he actually got it if he'd stayed straight. If he'd been a bit nicer, he might even have stuck around that long.
One very odd thing was the year after the strike Topps did some computer simulation to extend the stats for an insert. They had Bonds with 70+ and that was probably pre juice.

Clemens I thought had found a novel career end formula. I actually liked the part where he'd play for his hometown team, but only from partway through the year and only home games. I think that was an interesting late career option. From the teams side, who wouldn't want a proven performer for only a few months and heading into the postseason fairly fresh instead of worn down by the long season?

I think eventually they'll be in, and we'll always have the debate about how to compare their eras to before and after.

Steve B

I voted NO for both, even though they WERE 'at the absolute top...' 'well before they likely started juicing.'

Making a decision like this is a slippery slop regardless of which way you vote.

I have always thought that the actual Hall-of-Famers should have votes.

Truly, they would be the best judges on who should be in and who should not be in.

Pete Rose WAS a lock...Rafael Palmeiro WAS a sure thing - where do you draw the line?

The rules that are in place are for everyone, not just the desperate border-line Major Leaguers searching for some way, any way, to stick around.

My opinion has not changed over the last 18 years...since the 'Home Run Race' and I admit I got into that!

I bet a lot of folks willing to vote for Clemens and Bonds are not willing to admit their own hypocrisy during that same time period.

Again, a very slippery slop.

I believe that Joe Jackson was guilty, though he may not have been sure of what had been asked of him. Still guilty...we're all grown-ups here.

I never really though Piazza or Bagwell were juicing - they did not have sudden spikes in their numbers, but rather, were very steady throughout their careers until age or injury lowered their production.

I think the same about Jim Thome and, especially Jr. Griffey.

IMHO
Their 600+ Home Runs are 100% legit.
As was Greg Maddux's 355 Wins and Nolan Ryan's 5,714 Strikeouts.

Being in the Hall of Fame is an honor not a right. It's bad enough, we can't look at the All-Time Lists the same anymore...those responsible should not be rewarded for that.

McGwire lied to Mrs. Maris's face and a great man like Hank Aaron deserves better than to be thought of as second to a spoiled and arrogant jerk who stood on the shoulders of greater men who are not mentioned nearly as often as he.

Couldn't agree more. Nobody is taking anything from these guys. They have their records, their awards, their millions of dollars, their fans (apparently, as so many are willing to forgive and refuse to hold them accountable for their actions) and they aren't banned from the game and can hold jobs in baseball. Why bestow the greatest honor the game has to give on these guys when they tarnished it by cheating? I see a lot of people say "I don't condone cheating..." followed almost immediately by "but they should be in." Anyone who thinks they should receive this honor is absolutely condoning cheating, because that's saying it's ok to cheat as long as it makes you really, really good. It's hero worship and it's sickening. These guys made the conscious decision to cheat. Let them lie in the bed they made. The Olympics strip cheaters of their medals, and have done so for years, it's embarrassing it took baseball as long as it did to address the issue.

Oh, and thinking these guys were HOFers before using is pure speculation. Nobody knows when they started using, period. And nobody knows what they would've done had they not used. The idea that Topps or anyone thinks they can extrapolate the stats is ridiculous. Look at Don Mattingly, sure fire future HOFer until his back gave out, then he stuck around and had subpar seasons (by his standards, many players would've killed for a down Mattingly year) and now his HOF chances are non-existent. Nothing saying the same wouldn't have happened to Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Manny, etc. We don't know, we'll never know, and the players that cheated are to blame for that.

No to both, I hope they never even get close.

Why was it ok to use amphetamines?

Because it was just like drinking a cup of coffee. ;):confused::eek::D Seriously Peter I have seen morons use that excuse. I would say because that was their favorite era and their favorite players took them so that gives them a free pass.

Also Raymond if there was a way to prove it I would bet everything I own your list of clean players has more than 1 steroid user on it.

Ben I suppose one could make fine distinctions and say steroids are more powerful, or have a more direct effect or whatever, but turning a blind eye to the era of "greenies" whilst condemning all steroid partakers does seem a bit inconsistent.

They do different things but very similar at the same time.

Steroids let you instantly recover from insane workouts.

Amphetamines let you do insane workouts without getting tired.

Now stack the 2 so you can do insane workouts without getting tired and recovery instantly and you have a winning combination.:)

Who said it was? Without getting into the actual scientific differences between amphetamines and metabolic steroids, I'll just say that Mickey Mantle's head didn't grow 3 cap sizes. The whole amphetamine debate didn't surface in earnest until the PED era, long after those players' careers were over and most were already enshrined. It was an attempt to make steroid use seem ok, by deflection. And yes, there are different levels of cheating and intent goes a long way IMO. I don't think the players in the 60s thought "I'll take these little pills and jack 50 home runs so I'll be ridiculously rich one day." Insane workouts? Those guys' idea of an insane workout was picking up two women at the bar at 2am when they had a noon start the next day. Bonds and company were far more malicious in their cheating and I do think that matters. When you hear stories of A-Rod hiring someone to destroy documents and things like that, it tells you these guys absolutely knew what they were doing was completely wrong. All that aside, even if it was conceded that Mantle, Aaron, or whoever is lumped into the greenie era were cheaters, but got away with it, does that just give us all carte blanche to knowingly and willfully admit all future cheaters? Two wrongs making a right? Is Bonds being a petulant, spoiled brat because Sosa and McGwire were grabbing the headlines the kind of lore the HOF should preserve for future generations? Because if he goes in, that is an important part of his story and should be right there on his plaque. I understand there are two distinct camps when it comes to this matter but regardless of what mistakes were made previously, I feel there should be real consequences to these players' actions.

Each generation has done what it can to gain an edge, and used what was then available. If anabolics were readily available to the Mantle and Mays generation, I have little doubt many of that generation would have used. I think it's fantasy to pretend those guys somehow were morally superior.

Baseball didn't have a drug policy prior to 1971, so those guys weren't breaking the rules. Fay Vincent sent a memo to all clubs in 1991 stating that steroids were illegal. So, anyone using them after that were cheating and should be barred from the hof. Personally, I would hold those from 71-91 to the same standard, but I can see a grey area. As far as guys using supplements like Andro, Baseball didn't suspend those guys, so they were saying they weren't cheating at that time and they should only be punished if they used after those substances were actually banned.

I will also add this. Steroids are known to cause serious health problems. Especially in youngsters. Anphetamin doesn't unless they are abused. Those players who used steroids caused a lot of kids who looked up to them to harm themselves. To me that is far worse than the cheating.

As long as there is competition the competitors will look for an edge. This includes PED's, greenies, sand paper, etc.
If a player cheats only once that player is still a cheater. That said how many cheaters are already in the HOF?
Just sayin

The best explanation I ever herd went something like this: Amphetamines were taken with the intent of being able to perform the way you normally would. Steroids were taken with the intent of performing better than you ever could.

The way steroids was explained to me by an ex weightlifter/wrestler (Who claimed to be clean ) Was very close to that. He said that they made the recovery quick enough that you could work out pretty hard every day instead of needing light days or days off, essentially doubling or tripling your training time.

Steve B

So {ALL} HOFers that didn"t play vrs blacks,how great can there stat"s be?They were great only vrs {WHITE} players!So let's throw there stats out ,to!Then there is not many HOFers left! I do not think Jim Thome or Griffey used,if Griffey did, it just didn"t work for all the years he missed,did it!Robert.

Again, in my mind the arguement isn't amphetamines versus steroids, or the spitball or whatever form of cheating comes up. My arguement is that whether or not people already inducted cheated, why exacerbate the problem by admitting more cheaters? Nobody ever claimed Mantle, Mays, etc were cheaters prior to their election. That came up years later. So if we'd like to address that problem, then we need to discuss baseball deciding to get in the business of stripping awards and achievements, a la the Olympic committee. Since that is never going to happen, the issue really is do we continue to elect cheaters even with the benefit of hindsight.

I think both should get in.

Heres a letter i wrote a while back to the hof

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2014/01...-of-fame.html/

I know if I had my future and my reputation linked to the 'extras' I knowingly took, I would also use some of my Big Money on the very best masking agents available.

But, if you gain forty pounds of fat-free muscle after the age of 35, something's definitely not right.

Another important point - which shouldn't matter, but does - Hall of Fame elections are also popularity contests....and we are talking about two of the all-time biggest jerks. There will be no biographies of these guys long after they're dead saying that they were, in fact, not that bad. These were two arrogant bastards who feel they are better than the Game.

How many times does that lesson have to be learned?


.

The "greenies" argument falls apart under cursory statistical analysis. IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL, not one single player had a second career peak after age 32. Between 1994 and 2006 something like 28 players had second career peaks after age 32. (not to mention all the players who were able to stay in MLB because of PED's where otherwise they'd have been out of the game)

That era is reflected in the power surges, the statistical anomalies and the eye test that it was bad for the game and unnatural. I think Bonds and Clemens are in because they were already HOF'ers even if they retired before their 2nd peak. The rest???? well, I'd say no. Most of em wouldn't have reached their levels of performance without them.

as far as the tired Pete Rose argument is concerned, he gambled on games, he lied about it, and has consistently shifted the truth until it was financially fortuitous for him to half ass tell it. (new books) Not to mention HE AGREED to his punishment. (and he's probably one of the top 3 or 4 most overrated players of all time due to his lack of power, late career collapse and mediocre glove)

I see it very simply, voters didnt want to vote for "them" cause they cheated...

cheating is cheating. Roids, greenies, scuffing balls, corking bats, etc

Who was the best of each era?

Hof is a museum of the history of the best players in each era.

Wasnt bonds one of the best in his? Did he do roids? Yes.

Did piazza? As a huge met fan, I dont know, maybe.

Rose ,overrated ?
 

Ok, NICK , we all know the Rose story by now ! Why do we even have a gambling rule in baseball ? Answer is, owner Charles Comiskey , cheap ass ! That"s why ! Paying other HOFers like Eddie Collins $ 15,000 in 1915 , holding out other stars ,so they would not reach there bonus ! For starting the problem & what price did he pay, he is a HOFer ? Please! P.Rose on the overrated part ,There is a white {of} ,that played in New York , you {MAY] want to put on your list { ?} Now for the Rose thing ,He holds MLB records, that may NEVER get broken !,he is the only player to be a ALL*STAR at 4 PO"S 2b,of,3b & 1b .Lack of power , so is Cobb overrated for hitting less HR's than Rose did , I think not! A mediocre glove? He has a career fielding pct .991 in the of ,top 10 all-time ? Like he is in most stat"s ? SH also,which a lot of people can not do!No body played harder?You are big vrs PED/drug users , Rose cheated the Reds,They cheated all of baseball by your arguments & I think your reaching on the Bonds/Clemens remark about HOFers before they used ,when ever that was?Robert.:eek:

If you think this you should listen to Dock Ellis describe the effects and the locker room culture of the era in the No No: A Dockumentary film.

Also, if anyone thinks that steroids were non-existent in major sports in the 70s when the East Germans had a systematic doping program in place since 73' is delusional to me. The money and importance of performance was enough to have had players experiment, esp after the 76 Olympics. Lyle Alzado was open about taking them his entire career starting in college in 1969'. If a college kid could find them, a Pro sure as heck could. Yes, not saying they did, but The Mick, Clemente and even Aaron all had ample opportunity.

Hell, Pud Galvin is the first admitted anabolic juicer in 1889!

I think neither should be, but I will add this. The enhancement received by Bonds was staggering compared to Clemens. Bonds's head looked like a pumpkin in his steroid years, and his body was twice the size when he was younger. When Clemens was 20 yrs old, he was leaner and struck out 20 in a game. Both have question marks, but Bonds is a much larger issue IMO compared to what his career would have been without the huge help....

As an aside, Barry Bonds surely is the greatest player in history who never acquired a nickname (other than a few late career sarcastic ones).

Probably because nicknames tend to be endearing terms and Bonds was never thought of with much regard. Wouldn't surprise me to hear a story of a teammate trying and Bonds being a humorless dick about it.

Chris Berman gave him a nickname - Barry "US" Bonds.

Bonds was a HOF even prior to PED use


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Neither - Never.

Yeah but you know what I mean.

I'd put them both in in a heartbeat. I'd also make sure the plaque notates the era and why this was such a hot debate for such a long time.

I voted yes to Clemens . I don't think they had enough against him. Just Brian
Aka some crazy guy who kept old used syringes in a coke can in his basement
For years . You can take his word I choose not to .

Bonds for most of us is the greatest baseball player we will ever see or seen .
But yes he cheated .

Greenie 100% helped enhance a players performance. Even a placebo has positive effects. The Peds that a lot of the players use also were not illegal at the time of use so I don't see the point in that.

As whole picture what is the hall of fame with out the all time hit king , homerun leader , cy young leader ? It's a joke and in turn makes all of the honors held in the wall that much less meaningful .

there is a rule because people threw a world series, end of story. their reasons for it are unimportant

Pete Rose is overrated, I'm sorry. He took 2804 more plate appearances to garner 67 more hits. His career wRC+ (weighted runs created the most accurate hitting stat we have as it weighs the type of hits and is adjusted for park and league, with an average score being 100) of 121 is not even good enough for the top 300 all time (whereas Ty Cobb's 165 is good enough for 8th all time so clearly Cobb is not overrated) Rose not only gambled and lied, he kept lying and used it to his advantage to magically come clean when it was profitable for him to do so. He's a scumbag. He's a HOF player but not "inner circle" and I think the best thing to do is wait for him to die then let him in.


P.S. fielding percentage? really? that's like the most worthless statistic in the world because it doesn't account for range. a statue with inability to move could have a 1.000 fielding % if it never made an error, but it would be a far worse fielder than a player who created more outs but made a few errors along the way.

Steve Garvey??

hahaha! nice!

I was thinking more along the lines of Adam Dunn, but your's works too!

That's the thing with fielding % it really doesn't tell us much about how good a defender a player is. Let us compare 2 SS's from 2016 :

Player A had a fielding % of .991

Player B had a fielding % of .982

if that's all we looked at one would say player A was the better defender, BUT!

Player A had 180 put outs and 389 assists (along with 86 double plays) in 1163 innings with 5 errors with 3 defensive runs saved and an ultimate zone rating per 150 games of 11.4

Player B had 198 put outs,337 assists and 76 double plays in 1045 innings with 10 errors with 18 defensive runs saved and a UZR/150 of 25.1

so, upon a deeper dive into the numbers we see that Player B had a far better defensive year than Player A with 15 more DRS in 118 less innings.

(Player A is Jose iglesias, Player B is Andrelton Simmons)


remember UZR and DRS account for positioning at the start of the play, range covered and the % chance that play is made (they are put in tranches based on %)

For an even more eye opening expose' of the mediocrity of fielding %, career SS rating since 1871 have Troy Tulowitski #1 with a career fielding % of .985 Ozzie Smith is 14th with a .978 (behind Cal Ripken! lol)

I don't know if anyone has posted the link to this particular article, but it makes for some interesting, then humorous reading.


http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/p...-each-mlb-team





.

Thanx for the link! Good article! (and i agree with most of their picks think Jack Morris ends up coming up short as his regular season results are kinda mediocre for a HOF pitcher. I tend to think his performance in 2 or 3 playoff games, while epic, are not enough to cover up a long career of slightly above avg performance)