Jump to content

Tenacious D

2019 MLB Hall of Fame

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, holygoat said:

Of course it would be questioned today. There is a history today that didn't exist in 1961.

It was was not known to exist in 1961, but it is now known that steroids were used back in the 60s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, holygoat said:

Of course it would be questioned today. There is a history today that didn't exist in 1961.

It would be interesting to see a target map of Maris' '61 hrs. On the one hand, altering bats was pretty common then, and Cash pretty much admitted to using at least some number of doctored bats when he hit 361.  But then again you have Joe Mauer's 2009. That was just as much an outlier for him as 61 Hrs was for Maris, but when you look at where they landed, it does just look like Mauer had a lot of really good luck that yr with balls drifting into the 1st row instead of staying on the warning track - it didn't look much like he really was hitting the ball any differently than normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

It would be interesting to see a target map of Maris' '61 hrs. On the one hand, altering bats was pretty common then, and Cash pretty much admitted to using at least some number of doctored bats when he hit 361.  But then again you have Joe Mauer's 2009. That was just as much an outlier for him as 61 Hrs was for Maris, but when you look at where they landed, it does just look like Mauer had a lot of really good luck that yr with balls drifting into the 1st row instead of staying on the warning track - it didn't look much like he really was hitting the ball any differently than normal.

I also think the fact that they both had these seasons in 1961 says something about 1961, that is expansion.  The big hitting of the so called steroids era also came after two sets of expansion which likely diluted pitching considerably.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is as simple as fluky seasons happen, have happened, and always will happen.

People with a confirmation bias use fluky seasons to support their claim of steroid use.  Bottom line is they have no clue either way.  Alex Sanchez of all people used steriods.  We, as fans, simply don't know.

Setting that aside, my issue with the fluke season argument is why did the guy stop taking steroids after the fluke season? I mean, if taking steroids made some 10-15 HR guy suddenly hit 40 HR, I am kinda doubting he would stop taking steroids after the monster season.  So why the power fall off if steroids is the proximate cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tiger337 said:

lol, OK.  It would be disappointing if the old curmudgeon Kaline talked about dingers.  

He’d’of said ******* dingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I also think the fact that they both had these seasons in 1961 says something about 1961, that is expansion.  The big hitting of the so called steroids era also came after two sets of expansion which likely diluted pitching considerably.  

1961 is so very interesting.  I wasn't following closely then (at age 9), I didn't get hooked until June of the next year, but I was aware of baseball because my Dad was a Yankees fan and I'm pretty sure that I saw Roger hit number 61 in a night game (on a school night) on TV (off Tracy Stallard) because some network had pre-empted their regular schedule to follow Roger.  Maybe I'm just imagining that though, someone else can fact-check me.

1961 isn't like 1987 though, the rabbit-ball year in which people like Alan Trammell and Wade Boggs hit ridiculous numbers of home runs compared to their careers before and after.  In 1961, in the American League, only 6 guys including Maris hit 40 home runs, and no one else hit even 30.  Those 6 guys were Maris, Mickey Mantle, Jim Gentile (pronounced genTEEL), Harmon Killebrew, Rocky Colavito, and Norm Cash.

Some more context about 1961 - it was the second year of significant expansion.  In 1960 the NL had added the Mets and the Astros, and in 1961 the AL had added the Angels and the Senators reboot, so in the course of 2 years the quality of major league pitching had been diluted by 25%.

I thought that it would be interesting to look at those 6 guys and compare their home run totals in 1960, 1961, and 1962, and here they are:

Maris 39-61-33  (MVP in '60 and '61)

Mantle 40-54-30 (he'd done 52 before in his ridiculous 1956 season)

Gentile 21-46-33 (1960 was his rookie year.  He had 141 RBI in 1961, never had 100 before or after)

Killebrew 31-46-48 (He was a freak, 40 HR was an average year for him, he was still doing it 9 years later at the age of 34)

Colavito 35-45-33 (He had a 5-year run starting in 1958 of 41, 42, 35, 45, 37).

Cash 18-41-39 (Drove in 132 runs, his only time over 100) 

So you could say that Mantle, Killebrew, and Colavito were performing normally in 1961, and the other 3 were not.  Even so, 1961 is a career high for everyone on the list except Killebrew who was just a sick freak.

Maris had 94 walks, Gentile had 96, and everybody else had over 100 and Mantle's 126 led the league.  Mantle stole 12 bases...and Norm stole 11!  Nobody else had more than 1.  Cash led the league with a 1.148 OPS.  This is astounding - Maris struck out 67 times.  Killebrew had the lowest RBI at 122.  Colavito struck out 75 times, and the highest of his entire career was 89.

You're dying to know - how many home runs did Kaline hit?  19.  Here's a question for you: Q - Besides right field, what do Al Kaline and Kirk Gibson have in common?  A - neither one of them ever hit 30 home runs.  I knew that about Gibson, he would hit 28 HR's and steal 28 bases every year, but I didn't know that about Kaline.  In fact, he hit 20 only 9 times during a 22-year career.

So why did Maris hit 61?  I don't know.  Expansion certainly had something to do with it, and his career arc had a particularly sharp peak from '60 to '62.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

1961 is so very interesting.  I wasn't following closely then (at age 9), I didn't get hooked until June of the next year

Thanks for all the research.   Go to bed you old fart.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Bonds

2. Clemens

3. Edgar

4. Manny

5. Rivera

6. Mussina

7. Larry Walker

8. Halladay 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 12:26 PM, RandyMarsh said:

I think it's unfair to leave out steroid users that already had HOF careers years before they ever used them.  If Cabrera decides to start using them tomorrow and ends up getting busted should he not make the HOF?

No, he shouldn't.  It's not the "Hall of Numbers," it's the "Hall of Fame."  Just putting up numbers is not good enough (at least for me).  If a player tarnishes his playing career by taking steroids, I would not vote for him, regardless if he takes them for one day or for 10 years. A Hall of Famer, at least in my opinion, gets held up to a higher standard than the average player.  Someone who takes the integrity, sportsmanship, and character clause seriously.

We all know who has the best numbers. We can easily look them up.  We don't need a Hall of Fame to tell us that.  Therefore, the Hall of Fame should be reserved for just the elite players.  The best of the best, not only in numbers, but also in character. 

I realize I may only have like 5 players in my Hall of Fame, but so what?  It's my Hall of Fame.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 2:29 PM, tiger337 said:

I didn't say he was guilty.  I just think it's interesting that a player who never hit 40 homeruns in any other season hit 61 in a season.  If that happened today, it would be questioned.

I'm surprised that more people are not accusing Victor Martinez of taking steroids.  He had never hit 30 homers in his career until the age of 35, something that very rarely happens.  Then the way his career ended, broken down with injuries is another sign of steroid use. But no one ever questions it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

No, he shouldn't.  It's not the "Hall of Numbers," it's the "Hall of Fame."  Just putting up numbers is not good enough (at least for me).  If a player tarnishes his playing career by taking steroids, I would not vote for him, regardless if he takes them for one day or for 10 years. A Hall of Famer, at least in my opinion, gets held up to a higher standard than the average player.  Someone who takes the integrity, sportsmanship, and character clause seriously.

We all know who has the best numbers. We can easily look them up.  We don't need a Hall of Fame to tell us that.  Therefore, the Hall of Fame should be reserved for just the elite players.  The best of the best, not only in numbers, but also in character. 

I realize I may only have like 5 players in my Hall of Fame, but so what?  It's my Hall of Fame.  

I agree with the points you make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Mickey Mantle take integrity seriously by being drunk all the time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Did Mickey Mantle take integrity seriously by being drunk all the time?

 

Did being drunk give him an unfair advantage?  

Didn't Miguel Cabrera show up drunk on more than one occasion?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Did Mickey Mantle take integrity seriously by being drunk all the time?

 

If memory serves, I recall Mantle admitting to showing up for a single game with a hangover from he!!. He didn’t finish the game I don’t think and I don’t recall specifics as to why. As I recall he stated he deeply regretted the incident and it was a one time event. Apologies if I’m thinking of another player but I’m pretty sure it was Mantle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Did being drunk give him an unfair advantage?  

Didn't Miguel Cabrera show up drunk on more than one occasion?  

Who cares.... the point is you referenced integrity and I think being drunk all the time at work shows a lack of integrity. 

Your standards not mine.

How do you feel about greenies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Who cares.... the point is you referenced integrity and I think being drunk all the time at work shows a lack of integrity. 

Your standards not mine.

How do you feel about greenies?

For what it’s worth, I think implying that Mantle was “drunk all the time” at work is not a truthful statement, not even close.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Did being drunk give him an unfair advantage?  

 

It might have been unfair to fans who are expecting to see players on their favorite team in excellent physical and mental condition.  I would prefer that players took no substances that altered their performance, but if they have to take a substance I would hope it's one that makes them perform better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1776 said:

For what it’s worth, I think implying that Mantle was “drunk all the time” at work is not a truthful statement, not even close.

 

Right, because the amphetamines woke him up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobrob2004 said:

No, he shouldn't.  It's not the "Hall of Numbers," it's the "Hall of Fame."  Just putting up numbers is not good enough (at least for me).  If a player tarnishes his playing career by taking steroids, I would not vote for him, regardless if he takes them for one day or for 10 years. A Hall of Famer, at least in my opinion, gets held up to a higher standard than the average player.  Someone who takes the integrity, sportsmanship, and character clause seriously.

We all know who has the best numbers. We can easily look them up.  We don't need a Hall of Fame to tell us that.  Therefore, the Hall of Fame should be reserved for just the elite players.  The best of the best, not only in numbers, but also in character. 

I realize I may only have like 5 players in my Hall of Fame, but so what?  It's my Hall of Fame.  

Wouldn't a HoF with just 5 members be boring for fans to visit? 

Do you trust sports writers to determine who has the appropriate character?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Right, because the amphetamines woke him up!

Where is this documented specifically? Did Mantle say this publicly? I know he was pretty open with Costas in the interview he did before his passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Where is this documented specifically? Did Mantle say this publicly? I know he was pretty open with Costas in the interview he did before his passing.

According to the book Cooperstown Confidential, he took a lot of stuff including amphetamines and steroids.  He once got an injection that cause an infection and he missed playing time because of it.

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/book-review-cooperstown-confidential/

 

Quote

For example, Chafets notes Mickey Mantle used to get shots consisting of “a home-brewed serum of thirty to fifty milligrams of amphetamine mixed with multivitamins, steroids, enzymes, and solubilized placenta, bone marrow, and animal organ cells” from a Manhattan practitioner nicknamed “Dr. Feelgood.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the read, interesting. Would you mind sharing your recommendation on a best Mickey Mantle book? Would like to get a really good read on the guy. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oblong said:

I think being drunk all the time at work shows a lack of integrity.

Maybe at your office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Oblong said:

Who cares.... the point is you referenced integrity and I think being drunk all the time at work shows a lack of integrity. 

Your standards not mine.

How do you feel about greenies?

Sure, showing up drunk all the time shows a lack of integrity.  Does it mean they shouldn't get voted into the Hall of Fame?  Maybe.

Stealing a piece of candy and murdering someone are both against the law, but both carry vastly different punishments.  Taking steroids and using a foreign substance on a baseball are both forms of cheating and compromise the integrity of the game, but both carry vastly different punishments.  So it's reasonable that one would be bad enough to not be voted for the Hall of Fame while the other one may not.  

How do I feel about greenies?  Probably as bad as steroids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Wouldn't a HoF with just 5 members be boring for fans to visit? 

Do you trust sports writers to determine who has the appropriate character?  

Sure, a Hall of Fame with only 5 players would be very boring and would make no money at all...and it's all about money.  That's why Bud Selig most likely turned a blind eye on steroid use and many people feel like the players shouldn't get punished for that.

Sports writers hold grudges.  Some won't vote for someone because they refused an interview after a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×