Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I think that's a gross exaggeration ...

    I know it's one of the mantras of the apologists that "everybody" was doing PEDs in that era. That's just not true.

    When all players were tested in for the Mitchell Report, just 89 (of about 800 players tested) tested positive.
    While I agree with you that certainly not everybody in the league was using PED's, the Mitchell Report isn't a very compelling source to support that point. First, there was no testing in conjunction with the report, it was all based on interviews and review of documents. Second of all, most of the players named in the report were named by Kurt Radomski, a former met employee who distributed drugs throughout the league. It strains credulity to think that one guy would be the supplier for, or otherwise aware of, the majority of users in a national sport, and Mitchell acknowledges as much, noting that there were no doubt other suppliers. Quite a few well known ped users aren't named in the report (including Sosa and Mac). For as much information as he gathered, there was almost certainly a lot going on his investigation didn't touch, and he explicitly states that there was a lot about PED use in mlb that he didn't cover.

    Perhaps a better indication would be the 2003 survey testing, in which a bit less than 7% of the tests came back positive. But that's a highly questionable source as well. On the one hand, mlb has acknowledged there were some (I don't know if they've been specific as to how many) false positives. On the other hand, we know how easily players can mask their use, and Mitchell acknowledges in his report that HGH wasn't even testable. I think it's unrealistic to think that every user came up as a positive test in 2003 (in my opinion, it's unrealistic to think that test was even remotely close to reality).

    So while I don't think everybody was using, I think it was a much higher number than the Mitchell Report or 2003 test would suggest. Did hitters face PED-using pitchers day in and day out during those years? Probably not. But I'd bet it was at least a couple of times a week (including relievers).
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue in the Face View Post
    So while I don't think everybody was using, I think it was a much higher number than the Mitchell Report or 2003 test would suggest. Did hitters face PED-using pitchers day in and day out during those years? Probably not. But I'd bet it was at least a couple of times a week (including relievers).
    This might be a picture of Cubs closer Rod Beck in 1998...



    ...Or it might just be me trying to be funny. I'm not sure.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    This might be a picture of Cubs closer Rod Beck in 1998...



    ...Or it might just be me trying to be funny. I'm not sure.
    Early in the 1998 season perhaps. By the end, his right arm would have been dangling by a thread.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    It's an interesting theoretical debate -- was McGwire a HOF quality player without the PEDs?

    I say theoretical because from my point of view it doesn't matter. Yes, Bonds and Clemens and A-Roid were clearly Hall of Fame quality before they started to cheat. So what? Shoeless Joe Jackson was clearly a Hall of Fame player before he took money to throw the 1919 World Series. Pete Rose was clearly a HOF player before he was proven to have bet on baseball as the Reds manager.

    None of them deserve election.

    The official HOF selection criteria states:

    5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

    I contend that no matter how good any of the cheaters are or would have been without cheating, they did not meet the standards of "integrity, sportsmanship, character" that are required for election.
    I have a tough prosecutor's mentality with respect to those who cheated: "Hang them all and let the gods decide who are innocent." It has a practical application. "The gods" are some special committee (old-timers or whatever) that would make a decision in about 50 years, after all the dust has settled and the guilty players have passed away.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  5. #25
    I've probably mentioned before that I really like Joe Posnanski's writing. He's been writing pieces about the HOF candidates, and today was Edgar Martinez, of whom I'm a huge fan. I thought some might enjoy reading it.

    Heck, Pedro Martinez said Edgar was his toughest hitter even though Edgar only hit .120 against Pedro. 'He would make me throw at least 13 fastballs above 95,' Pedro said. 'I would be breathing hard after that.'
    http://joeposnanski.com/ballot-5-edgar-martinez/
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  6. #26
    Just a reminder -- the 2017 Hall of Fame announcement will be Wednesday at 3 p.m., live on the MLB Network

    My final prediction is that three players will win induction:

    Ivan Rodriguez (in his first year on the ballot)
    Tim Raines (in his 10th and final year on the ballot)
    Jeff Bagwell (in his seventh year on the ballot)

    I think two players will come close, but miss

    Trevor Hoffman (second year)
    Vlad Guerrero (first year)

    Both will make it next year

    PS Once Raines gets in, I would argue the biggest outstanding HOF snub is Mike Mussina (who will get over 50 percent, but will be sixth on the list this year)

  7. #27
    Mussina always struck me as a Bob Welch with a better strikeout ability. If he had pitched in Milwaukee, would he have gotten much attention?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Interesting article on how the HOF voting will change after this year. Starting in 2018, ballots will be made public:

    never again will you have to wonder who the three voters were who left a player as great as Ken Griffey Jr. off their ballots. Never again, theoretically, will you have to wonder what the heck they were thinking.

    Never again can any voter send in a blank ballot -- or a ballot with just one seemingly inexplicable name -- without the whole world knowing about it. If that means the internet erupts with fans demanding that those voters explain themselves, well, that's the deal.

    Never again will you have to wonder who awarded those mysterious Hall of Fame ballots to the likes of Aaron Sele or Todd Stottlemyre or Felix Millan. Oh, it will still be legal to cast the most frivolous vote in America. It just won't be legal to leave America in doubt about who cast it.
    -Jason "I welcome this new era of transparency and hope it will lead to more sanity in the voting - why can't there be some unanimous inductees?" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Chicago

    Not trying to start a war here

    Full disclosure: I'm a Red Sox fan.

    Earlier in the thread, Olympic Fan mentioned Ortiz among those he'd never consider for the HOF because of the 2003 positive test reported in the Mitchell Report. There's reason, I think, to distinguish Ortiz from the host of other folks that some like Oly have disqualified from HOF consideration.

    Ortiz's test was a confidential test at the time and not subject to appeal or re-review. The commissioner himself admitted the test may not have been reliable.

    http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...iled-drug-test

    That's also Ortiz's only purportedly positive test, and in 13 years since the 2003 test, Ortiz never once had a positive test.

    I don't know if I agree with keeping Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa and McGwire (and presumably ARod) out of the HOF because of their PED issues, but I think lumping Ortiz in with those guys is unfair to him.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Full disclosure: I'm a Red Sox fan.

    Earlier in the thread, Olympic Fan mentioned Ortiz among those he'd never consider for the HOF because of the 2003 positive test reported in the Mitchell Report. There's reason, I think, to distinguish Ortiz from the host of other folks that some like Oly have disqualified from HOF consideration.

    Ortiz's test was a confidential test at the time and not subject to appeal or re-review. The commissioner himself admitted the test may not have been reliable.

    http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...iled-drug-test

    That's also Ortiz's only purportedly positive test, and in 13 years since the 2003 test, Ortiz never once had a positive test.

    I don't know if I agree with keeping Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa and McGwire (and presumably ARod) out of the HOF because of their PED issues, but I think lumping Ortiz in with those guys is unfair to him.
    Ortiz should be considered once he's eligible. Doesn't matter who you lump him in with.

  11. #31
    I feel like I was snookered.

    All week, the MLB Network has ben promoting the Hall of Fame induction announcement for 3 pm today. Over and over -- a 3 pm announcement.

    I changed my plans to be in front of the TV at 3 p.m. to see the announcement. I expected some talk first and was prepared for a rehash of the arguments that MLB's "experts" have been spouting for weeks.

    Then I turn on the show and find out the announcement is not until 6 p.m. -- the first three hours is a panel that will once again rehash the arguments for and against the candidates.

    They've done that over and over.

    Anyway, I'm not going to sit in front of the TV and watch the stupendously obtuse Harold Reynolds tell me who should and should not get in the Hall of Fame. I guess I'll get the news off the internet after 6 p.m.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Barry Bonds is one of the three best hitters in baseball history (after Ruth and Williams, right there and maybe a bit ahead of Gehrig). Clemens is one of the five best pitchers in the modern era (I haven't had time to break down Martinez, Maddox, Seaver, Johnson and Clemens, but he's in that mix).

    Clearly, they have the numbers to be first-ballot HOFs.

    BUT THEY TOOK PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS

    Putting them in the Hall would cheapen every record, every accomplishment that we honor. Lance Armstrong dominated cycling for a decade. He's the greatest ever right? So what if he cheated?

    I have no sympathy for the cheaters -- whether we're talking about Lance Armstrong, UNC basketball, Marion Jones, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Barry Bonds or David Ortiz (amazing how the media adoration for the aging slugger left out his PED roots).

    I'll be disappointed and dismayed if the voters let them in.
    Somehow you seem blissfully unaware (or choose to ignore) the fact that MANY Hall of Fame players took speed (dexedrine, other amphetamines) on a regular basis, gobbled it down like candy. That went on
    for DECADES, beginning after WWII. Even some of your deified Yankees (I'm looking at you, Micky, Whitey). Frankly I'm conflicted about who deserves to get in and who doesn't...but if you want to exclude anyone who regularly took "performance enhancing drugs," you'd be excluding a WHOLE lot of current members...same for the requirement you mention of "integrity, sportsmanship and character." Nice words, but overlooked on many many occasions by the Hall.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Bagwell, Raines, Pudge.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    Bagwell, Raines, Pudge.
    Pat myself on the back -- EXACTLY as I predicted Monday .. even down to Hoffman and Vlad barely missing. They will go in next year, along with first-timers Chipper Jones and Jim Thome.

    A few other observations:

    --The vote seems to show a softening on PEDs. Pudge is the first candidate with definite PED allegations (he's named in Canseco's book) to get in. Bagwell, like Piazza last year, is a guy many had suspicions about (because of how quickly he bulked up), but never any evidence. And the two biggest known PED abusers -- Bonds and Clemens -- jumped up to just over 50 percent of the vote. Sosa remained at 8 percent and not much love for Manny, FWIW.

    -- Biggest gain was Edgar Martinez, who jumped 14 points to 58 percent. Biggest drop was Curt Shilling, who dropped under 50 percent.

    -- Biggest surprise to me was Jorge Posada, who got just 3.8 percent and fell off the ballot. Not saying he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer, but he has a stronger case than many of the guys listed ahead of him that will stay on the ballot.

    Next year will be interesting -- with public ballots for the first time, voters will have to defend any crazy votes.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Pat myself on the back -- EXACTLY as I predicted Monday .. even down to Hoffman and Vlad barely missing. They will go in next year, along with first-timers Chipper Jones and Jim Thome.
    We in San Diego hope you're right. Trevor is a local favorite for the obvious reason -- he was a great player -- but also because he could not be a better "community guy." I'd sure love to hear "Hell's Bells" for him at least once more. After the third out in the home eighth with a lead, the stadium would really start to rock.

    https://youtu.be/esuQ_6oiDkw

  16. #36
    Delighted for Pudge. Wish he would go in as a Tiger but totally understand. The video of him accepting the call and getting choked up was very touching.
    Nice to see a good guy get the love.
    Nothing incites bodily violence quicker than a Duke fan turning in your direction and saying 'scoreboard.'

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by weezie View Post
    Delighted for Pudge. Wish he would go in as a Tiger but totally understand. The video of him accepting the call and getting choked up was very touching.
    Nice to see a good guy get the love.

    Pudge figured prominently in one of my all-time favorite baseball highlights -- the play at the plate that ended Game 4 of the 2003 NLDS. Now that is one helluva way to end a playoff series.


    "I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Somehow you seem blissfully unaware (or choose to ignore) the fact that MANY Hall of Fame players took speed (dexedrine, other amphetamines) on a regular basis, gobbled it down like candy. That went on
    for DECADES, beginning after WWII. Even some of your deified Yankees (I'm looking at you, Micky, Whitey). Frankly I'm conflicted about who deserves to get in and who doesn't...but if you want to exclude anyone who regularly took "performance enhancing drugs," you'd be excluding a WHOLE lot of current members...same for the requirement you mention of "integrity, sportsmanship and character." Nice words, but overlooked on many many occasions by the Hall.
    There's a difference between taking speed and taking steroids, both legally and in the effect on performance.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by rasputin View Post
    There's a difference between taking speed and taking steroids, both legally and in the effect on performance.
    Of course there's a difference, I never said there wasn't. I was only responding to Oly's absurd dismissal of ANYONE who took a performance enhancing drug. (His words, not mine).
    And speed is clearly a performance enhancing drug.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    Of course there's a difference, I never said there wasn't. I was only responding to Oly's absurd dismissal of ANYONE who took a performance enhancing drug. (His words, not mine).
    And speed is clearly a performance enhancing drug.
    I don't get your point.

    Where did I ever say that taking speed is okay?

    I stand by my "absurd" dismissal of anyone who took PEDs (or took money to throw a baseball game or bet on baseball).

    (And I've condemned plenty of my beloved Yankees -- especially A-Roid, Giambi and a guy I like Pettite, who would be a borderline HOF candidate had he not joined Clemens in juicing up).

Similar Threads

  1. Baseball Hall of Fame, 2014
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-25-2014, 04:51 AM
  2. Presumed steroid users and the baseball Hall of Fame
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-06-2012, 11:36 AM
  3. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 10:40 AM
  4. Baseball Hall of Fame
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-13-2010, 11:01 AM
  5. Baseball Hall of Fame discussion
    By Angel in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 01:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •