Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts


9 hours ago, Yoda said:

It isn't just the HR numbers and you're aware of that. You're making a strawman argument so that you can tell yourself you're right. Nobody is arguing that HR total is the only indication. Another indication is physical appearance. Another is simply having occurred during the steroid era. They're pretty important factors. 

The irony here is that I wasn’t the one who brought up the home runs as proof! 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Bonds/Clemens/McGwire contingent belongs in the hall and I expect them to get in at some point, but I think it is pretty clear they used steroids and they benefited from having done so.

I don't think it can be demonstrated exactly how much they benefited, and I further don't think anyone knows exactly how widespread steroid usage was.  I think that fair/reasonable to note these to be the case, but I wouldn't use those facts as a defense in support of putting them in the hall.

Share this post


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

The Tigers could sign Bonds today and he'd lead the team in OPS.  

He for sure wouldn't but it's crazy that this isn't that far-fetched. 

Share this post


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

The irony here is that I wasn’t the one who brought up the home runs as proof! 😆

The irony is that you're completely ignoring the rest of his context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I think the Bonds/Clemens/McGwire contingent belongs in the hall and I expect them to get in at some point, but I think it is pretty clear they used steroids and they benefited from having done so.

I don't think it can be demonstrated exactly how much they benefited, and I further don't think anyone knows exactly how widespread steroid usage was.  I think that fair/reasonable to note these to be the case, but I wouldn't use those facts as a defense in support of putting them in the hall.

Leave it to this guy to both agree and disagree with BOTH sides and be right about everything. And it only took 3 sentences to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect they all did it but the very best showed "exponential" success.... maybe not in the mathematical definition, but a spike.

I also have a theory that going along with the "good pitching will always beat good hitting", that's why we saw such dominance from a few pitchers like Maddux, Pedro, and Randy.  Because they were better, their peak over the rest of the pitchers is even more remarkable because their tides didn't rise like their peers.  So the gap was bigger.  Because of the offensive explosion most pitchers took a beating and their performance suffered.  But the great pitchers of that era didn't have higher numbers so we think of htem as extra better.  If it occurred in a different era then maybe guys like Dave Steib and Frank Viola would have looked a lot better? (Not including Morris!)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yoda said:

Leave it to this guy to both agree and disagree with BOTH sides and be right about everything. And it only took 3 sentences to do so. 

Bill Burr once observed the secret to master level trolling was to **** both sides off with the same statement.

Share this post


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

I suspect they all did it but the very best showed "exponential" success.... maybe not in the mathematical definition, but a spike.

I also have a theory that going along with the "good pitching will always beat good hitting", that's why we saw such dominance from a few pitchers like Maddux, Pedro, and Randy.  Because they were better, their peak over the rest of the pitchers is even more remarkable because their tides didn't rise like their peers.  So the gap was bigger.  Because of the offensive explosion most pitchers took a beating and their performance suffered.  But the great pitchers of that era didn't have higher numbers so we think of htem as extra better.  If it occurred in a different era then maybe guys like Dave Steib and Frank Viola would have looked a lot better? (Not including Morris!)  

Yes, in an offensive environment the best pitchers tend to stand out more and in a pitching dominated environment the very best hitters tend to stand out more.

Share this post


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

Leave it to this guy to both agree and disagree with BOTH sides and be right about everything. And it only took 3 sentences to do so. 

In all seriousness, I don't care that much about the hall or that they 'cheated' / used.

I understand why it irritates many fans more -> much more than it irritates me and that is cool.

It just doesn't impact my enjoyment as a fan and ultimately that is really all I care about.

Somewhat analogous to my attitudes with the potential for a strike.  It sucks there won't be baseball if they strike, but beyond that I don't feel betrayed or let down or taken advantage of (i.e. those being the sorts of things that do invoke a reaction out of me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

In all seriousness, I don't care that much about the hall or that they 'cheated' / used.

I understand why it irritates many fans more -> much more than it irritates me and that is cool.

It just doesn't impact my enjoyment as a fan and ultimately that is all I care about.

I don't care about it either but it's fun to argue about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

You know who is a dad?

 

Barry Bonds.

Dad, yes, but not biological. Sperm donor. Barry's nuts are raisinesque from all the vitamin e he injected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I think the Bonds/Clemens/McGwire contingent belongs in the hall and I expect them to get in at some point, but I think it is pretty clear they used steroids and they benefited from having done so.

I don't think it can be demonstrated exactly how much they benefited, and I further don't think anyone knows exactly how widespread steroid usage was.  I think that fair/reasonable to note these to be the case, but I wouldn't use those facts as a defense in support of putting them in the hall.

Would you Sosa and Palmeiro in the hall?

 

Share this post


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

I suspect they all did it but the very best showed "exponential" success.... maybe not in the mathematical definition, but a spike.

I also have a theory that going along with the "good pitching will always beat good hitting", that's why we saw such dominance from a few pitchers like Maddux, Pedro, and Randy.  Because they were better, their peak over the rest of the pitchers is even more remarkable because their tides didn't rise like their peers.  So the gap was bigger.  Because of the offensive explosion most pitchers took a beating and their performance suffered.  But the great pitchers of that era didn't have higher numbers so we think of htem as extra better.  If it occurred in a different era then maybe guys like Dave Steib and Frank Viola would have looked a lot better? (Not including Morris!)  

 

The best players stood out more, but I don't know that the best had more success than others.  I can't find it now and I am not sure it was even online, but at the time I remember seeing a study breaking the players into tiers and it showed that the bottom quintile of players improved their offense as much during that period as the top players.  

Share this post


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

Would you Sosa and Palmeiro in the hall?

 

Sosa had a short steep peak, but not enough longevity.  I wouldn't put him in there.  Palmeiro is borderline, but I have to to penalize him for testing positive AFTER rules had been put in place and it was clear that PEDs were taboo.   It's kind of a tie breaker.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

In all seriousness, I don't care that much about the hall or that they 'cheated' / used.

I understand why it irritates many fans more -> much more than it irritates me and that is cool.

It just doesn't impact my enjoyment as a fan and ultimately that is really all I care about.

Somewhat analogous to my attitudes with the potential for a strike.  It sucks there won't be baseball if they strike, but beyond that I don't feel betrayed or let down or taken advantage of (i.e. those being the sorts of things that do invoke a reaction out of me).

I feel like it's not my business whether they cheat.  I want to be entertained and it doesn't matter to me whether a player who hits a home run was on steroids or not.  He still got a home run.  The ones who get cheated are the players who stayed clean.  If I was one of them, I would be angry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tiger337 said:

I feel like it's not my business whether they cheat.  I want to be entertained and it doesn't matter to me whether a player who hits a home run was on steroids or not.  He still got a home run.  The ones who get cheated are the players who stayed clean.  If I was one of them, I would be angry.  

The important thing is how meaningful it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shelton said:

The important thing is how meaningful it is. 

That's right.  A walk off home run by McGwire is more meaningful than a three-run home run by Tony Clark in a blowout.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

You know who is a dad?

 

Barry Bonds.

Yes. I remember him dragging them to an interview and then hiding behind them with the "you're going to ask me that in front of my kids?" card. 

Share this post


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

Sosa had a short steep peak, but not enough longevity.  I wouldn't put him in there.  Palmeiro is borderline, but I have to to penalize him for testing positive AFTER rules had been put in place and it was clear that PEDs were taboo.   It's kind of a tie breaker.   

Yeah. Bonds was a HoF player well before he went all crazy. Not the case with Sosa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we find out in an hour if we have baseball or not? (until they vote no then Manfred takes a week to say Yes on a shortened season). There's something to look forward too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,792
    • Total Posts
      3,011,941
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...