Official MLB Baseball Thread

[JB]

Clemens was the most dominant pitcher for a decade before the use. Those players get in just as Pedro will get in despite not having the win number. 300 wins used to be the ticket, but with more rest coming and pitch counts taking place it is no longer the standard for most voters.

For my money, neither guy gets in.

 

[Smallville]

I think with Clemens anything after 1996 is suspect, which would put him way below 300 wins which is an automatic entry into the HOF imo. For Bonds his entry into the HOF will be for his play in the outfield and only slightly on his bat. 8 time gold glove winner all before the HR years and 14 time all star and 7 time MVP split between the HR year. But we will see in about 3-5 years when the ballots start coming in and their percentages.

Are you serious? Then where is Frank White in the Hall of Fame. Arguably the best second baseman ever, 8 gold gloves. Only Alomar has more. Bonds will get in on his bat, IF he gets in.

 

[Vegan702]

He only had 6 or 7 good years in Boston, the rest were after he left Boston and when the steroid use has been brought up.

But you may be right, with the way this years entries ended up, I would be surprised if any of the 3 got in. But if 1 of the 3 got in I would wager Bonds over Clemens or McGwire.

 

[Hanks]

Are you serious? Then where is Frank White in the Hall of Fame. Arguably the best second baseman ever, 8 gold gloves. Only Alomar has more. Bonds will get in on his bat, IF he gets in.

The dude probably hit just above .250 for his career. Definitely not HOF caliber regardless of how many gold gloves he won. That award is subjective as well. Look who won it this year that probably shouldn't have (Michael Bourn, Shane Victorinio?!!)

 

[JB]

My point exactly. If anybody thinks Barry Bonds is getting into the HOF because he was a good fielder and not about his bat, needs to check out who gets in and who wins gold gloves.

 

[Vegan702]

Are you serious? Then where is Frank White in the Hall of Fame. Arguably the best second baseman ever, 8 gold gloves. Only Alomar has more. Bonds will get in on his bat, IF he gets in.

White was ok, but seriously you are comparing White to Bonds? Bonds has a 40 point higher batting average, has 5x the amount of stolen bases White had and of course the HRs, 2x the amount of RBIs, and a lot more hits. So not even factoring in HRs, just the amount of stolen bases is an accomplishment when you figure Bonds wasn't a base stealer the last 7-10 years of his career.

 

[JB]

White was ok, but seriously you are comparing White to Bonds? Bonds has a 40 point higher batting average, has 5x the amount of stolen bases White had and of course the HRs, 2x the amount of RBIs, and a lot more hits. So not even factoring in HRs, just the amount of stolen bases is an accomplishment when you figure Bonds wasn't a base stealer the last 7-10 years of his career.

That is not what he did at all. You said Bonds was getting in because of his glove before the bat. That is ridiculous and Smallville was merely pointing out that a gold glove machine means nothing for the HOF. Now you are going back and comparing their bats.

 

[Vegan702]

That is not what he did at all. You said Bonds was getting in because of his glove before the bat. That is ridiculous and Smallville was merely pointing out that a gold glove machine means nothing for the HOF. Now you are going back and comparing their bats.

I was only pointing out that I don't think Bonds will get in just because of his bat, it will be more of the rest of his game. Maybe I should have put stolen bases in the original post. But then again I didn't think my post would get picked apart word for word and the obvious player that Bonds was without the bat was a great accomplishment would have been apparent in the post. I assumed too much. I am not even a Bonds fan and would vote him in.

 

[JB]

I was only pointing out that I don't think Bonds will get in just because of his bat, it will be more of the rest of his game. Maybe I should have put stolen bases in the original post. But then again I didn't think my post would get picked apart word for word and the obvious player that Bonds was without the bat was a great accomplishment would have been apparent in the post. I assumed too much. I am not even a Bonds fan and would vote him in.

Bonds without his bat = Vince Coleman. Bonds without his bat was a very good player. Perhaps one of the best. But the guy cheated and lied and was an arrogant SOB to anybody around him.

 

[Fourputt]

Just saw a blurb that McGuire has come clean on his steroid use. He admits to being on the drugs when he set the HR record. I personally think that any player who is found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs regardless of his admission, should be ineligible for the HoF, or any other honors. There has to be some accountability.

In my opinion this is a far worse offense against the game than the sort of gambling that Pete Rose did, yet he is a pariah, while McGuire is a hero, slightly tarnished, but a hero none the less. I'm honestly baffled by this sort of double standard. What Rose did off the field may have been wrong, but it can never diminish, nor did it ever affect, what he did as a player, no matter the League's blind adherence to their gambling policy.

The way I see it, McGuire's abuses improved his performance making him a gate draw, thus improving revenues, thus lining the pockets of the League administrators. What Rose did had no financial impact on the League so he's an easier target... no financial considerations to worry about.

The same opinion applies to Bonds, Sosa, and any of the rest of the juiced up crowd. :nono: None of then should be eligible for post career honors, and their records should be expunged from the books.

 

[JB]

Fourputt,
I agree with you except one thing. The MLB players were not doing something against the rules of MLB and Rose was. I agree its completely lunacy that MLB thought that way. I also believe if Rose could have moved past his arrogance 2 decades ago when accused and apologized, he would have been in. But the same can be said for a few others that gambled on the game while playing.

 

[Fourputt]

Fourputt,
I agree with you except one thing. The MLB players were not doing something against the rules of MLB and Rose was. I agree its completely lunacy that MLB thought that way. I also believe if Rose could have moved past his arrogance 2 decades ago when accused and apologized, he would have been in. But the same can be said for a few others that gambled on the game while playing.

Never said that Charlie Hustle was a genius . But his offense did not harm the game. He did not bet on anything where he had an influence on the outcome, unlike the Black Sox scandal, and other sports gambling offenses through the years. He was still wrong, and yes he should have been smart enough and man enough to step up and take his 20 lashes and maybe be in the HoF now.

In my opinion, steroid use, regardless of the rules, did directly impact the performance of those players. Shame on the League for taking the revenue instead of stepping in stopping it at the same time when other sports organizations already had stringent drug testing policies. They had to know that there was a problem long before they did anything about it, and regardless of their tardiness in setting a policy, the records of those players should not stand next to those of players who played with the equipment that God gave them. Putting Bonds and McGuire above Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth in the record books is a travesty.

 

[JB]

Never said that Charlie Hustle was a genius . But his offense did not harm the game. He did not bet on anything where he had an influence on the outcome, unlike the Black Sox scandal, and other sports gambling offenses through the years. He was still wrong, and yes he should have been smart enough and man enough to step up and take his 20 lashes and maybe be in the HoF now.

I think that there is more to it than that. Him betting on games that he managed could be influenced. Like I said, if he had come clean 3 decades ago and told the truth, it would have been over.

 

[TheGasman]

Even though he came out, its still going to be a circus in the Cardinals clubhouse this year. I really dont have a problem with him as its becoming more apparent that a ton of the pitchers were on it too.
MLB has set new rules and they seem to be helping, I really dont see why the media is always bringing up the past.
The good thing is,that despite all of the negative press over the past few years, baseball continues to break attendance and revenue records. Its like that old cliche, nothing is bigger then the game. Hopefully next month when pitchers and catchers report, all of this will be drowned out again.

 

[Fourputt]

I think that there is more to it than that. Him betting on games that he managed could be influenced. Like I said, if he had come clean 3 decades ago and told the truth, it would have been over.

According to all I read during the scandal, he had never bet on the Reds, or on any game he was directly involved in. It was awhile back so I could be wrong, but that's what I recall.

 

[JB]

According to all I read during the scandal, he had never bet on the Reds, or on any game he was directly involved in. It was awhile back so I could be wrong, but that's what I recall.

I could be wrong too Fourputt, but I thought since that time evidence and betting slips showed that he was betting on the Reds.

 

[MO_Hacker]

I thought Rose said he didn't bet on his team, but are we to believe him now? I don't care either way and I didn't care when it was new news.

 

[TheGasman]

Mark is on the MLB network right now doing a one on one with Bob Costas. Good stuff.

 

[StLCardsFan]

Even though he came out, its still going to be a circus in the Cardinals clubhouse this year. I really dont have a problem with him as its becoming more apparent that a ton of the pitchers were on it too.
MLB has set new rules and they seem to be helping, I really dont see why the media is always bringing up the past.
The good thing is,that despite all of the negative press over the past few years, baseball continues to break attendance and revenue records. Its like that old cliche, nothing is bigger then the game. Hopefully next month when pitchers and catchers report, all of this will be drowned out again.

I was glad that this is now out in the open. This would have been a nightmare to have to hear about this stuff every day. He would have been the most interview hitting coach in the history of the world. I would guess that about a week into spring training it will be done and outside of the random a-hole journalist on the road, the topic will be done and everyone can get on with their lives.

We have a World Series to win, we're not here to talk about the past.

 

[MO_Hacker]

Mark is on the MLB network right now doing a one on one with Bob Costas. Good stuff.

I'm trying to watch it but all I can think of is BS, in all this time nobody has asked point blank "Did you use steroids?". Alligator tears, poor me. He should have either come out and admitted it from the start or kept his mouth shut. I don't even care that he used, but he just looks pathetic to me at this point.

 

[TheGasman]

He said he did them earlier in the interview, he said he preferred oral.

 

[Smallville]

He said he did them earlier in the interview, he said he preferred oral.

:quiet:

 

[Ed Settle]

I could be wrong too Fourputt, but I thought since that time evidence and betting slips showed that he was betting on the Reds.

I thought he never beat on the Reds to lose. He always bet them to win. If he didn't bet, it indicated to the bookies that he did not think they would win.
IIRC.

 

[Vegan702]

Bonds without his bat = Vince Coleman. Bonds without his bat was a very good player. Perhaps one of the best. But the guy cheated and lied and was an arrogant SOB to anybody around him.

That is true, but at least he was consistent, an ahole his whole career. I have more respect for someone who is true to themselves then someone who just puts up a front for the media, etc. like most of them do.

 

[Vegan702]

I thought he never beat on the Reds to lose. He always bet them to win. If he didn't bet, it indicated to the bookies that he did not think they would win.
IIRC.

I remember something like that.