Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
So basically modifying body = bad while modifying equipment = comedy gold. Got it.
So basically modifying body = bad while modifying equipment = comedy gold. Got it.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
- Thread starter jen
- Start date
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Typically well thought out. Not all "cheating" is the same. Just as all crime is not the same. There are misdemeanors and there are felonies. Steroid use is a felony.
Typically well thought out. Not all "cheating" is the same. Just as all crime is not the same. There are misdemeanors and there are felonies. Steroid use is a felony.
Last edited:
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
No evidence that's true. At least not to the extent of breaking records. Plenty of evidence on the effect of steroids. The moral equivalency argument here simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
No evidence that's true. At least not to the extent of breaking records. Plenty of evidence on the effect of steroids. The moral equivalency argument here simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Your point here seems to be that cheating so effectively that you break records isn't allowable but cheating with a lesser degree of effectiveness is OK. I don't buy that logic. If cheating is wrong then it's wrong whether you're good at it or just so-so.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Please reread my post. That's not what I said. And not what I meant.
I will repeat it for the slow students: not all "cheating" is the same. Thus, not all "cheating" should be treated the same. Seems fairly obvious to me. To make that point is not to accept that any form of "cheating" is "OK." Just to recognize there's a difference between ends and means.
It's not a matter of being "good" at cheating, it's a question of the outcome of that cheating. Bonds would almost certainly have been in the HOF without 'roids. But in his selfish desire to break Aaron's record, he turned himself into a comic strip character. So much easier than all that time in the gym. Emery boards, saliva, slippery elm, vaseline, cork and all the rest can't accomplish that.
Please reread my post. That's not what I said. And not what I meant.
I will repeat it for the slow students: not all "cheating" is the same. Thus, not all "cheating" should be treated the same. Seems fairly obvious to me. To make that point is not to accept that any form of "cheating" is "OK." Just to recognize there's a difference between ends and means.
It's not a matter of being "good" at cheating, it's a question of the outcome of that cheating. Bonds would almost certainly have been in the HOF without 'roids. But in his selfish desire to break Aaron's record, he turned himself into a comic strip character. So much easier than all that time in the gym. Emery boards, saliva, slippery elm, vaseline, cork and all the rest can't accomplish that.
Last edited:
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
A few things:
1) I'm sure jmh will be neg-repping me in Klingon when this is done, but I have to ask have any of the nerds who's glands start going whenever somebody draws a walk ever actually played organized sports. See, in some situations you need someting called a "hit". Why? Because its tough to advance someone not already on first base with a walk, and really tough to advance them more than one base. Think about if the pitcher is batting behind you with two outs and a runner on 2nd.
2) Yaz was once interviewed about this when Jim Rice was reaching the end of his eligibility and statsnerds were complaining from their mom's basements about how his OPS, GRIT+, NERDBAG, and POINDEXTER ratings weren't up to their own personal standards (again, from a bunch of people who most likely spend most of high school gym class stuffed in a locker). As he correctly explained as a teammate of Rice, his job was to swing the bat, put the ball in play, and make things happen. That's what you do as a cleanup hitter. If Rice decided to dedicate himself to drawing walks, I'm sure he could have done so. One can also imagine the excitement of the 1977 World Series where instead of hitting 3 straight HR's on three straight pitches in the deciding game, Reggie Jackson instead decided to work three walks instead (and I'm pretty sure he swung at a ball outside the strike zone on the last one).
3) Lastly, Pete Rose is a scumbag who broke baseball's cardinal rule. If we're not going to hold him accountable for that by denying the HoF to him, there would be no consequences for his actions, and therefore no reason for anybody else to follow the rules. Steroids have been illegal in baseball since 1991. Anybody using them runs the risk of being permanently barred from the Hall. I hold sportswriters in the same regard as I do conservatives, but for once they're right on this one and have done the job that the nutless commissioner is too chicken to do.
A few things:
1) I'm sure jmh will be neg-repping me in Klingon when this is done, but I have to ask have any of the nerds who's glands start going whenever somebody draws a walk ever actually played organized sports. See, in some situations you need someting called a "hit". Why? Because its tough to advance someone not already on first base with a walk, and really tough to advance them more than one base. Think about if the pitcher is batting behind you with two outs and a runner on 2nd.
2) Yaz was once interviewed about this when Jim Rice was reaching the end of his eligibility and statsnerds were complaining from their mom's basements about how his OPS, GRIT+, NERDBAG, and POINDEXTER ratings weren't up to their own personal standards (again, from a bunch of people who most likely spend most of high school gym class stuffed in a locker). As he correctly explained as a teammate of Rice, his job was to swing the bat, put the ball in play, and make things happen. That's what you do as a cleanup hitter. If Rice decided to dedicate himself to drawing walks, I'm sure he could have done so. One can also imagine the excitement of the 1977 World Series where instead of hitting 3 straight HR's on three straight pitches in the deciding game, Reggie Jackson instead decided to work three walks instead (and I'm pretty sure he swung at a ball outside the strike zone on the last one).
3) Lastly, Pete Rose is a scumbag who broke baseball's cardinal rule. If we're not going to hold him accountable for that by denying the HoF to him, there would be no consequences for his actions, and therefore no reason for anybody else to follow the rules. Steroids have been illegal in baseball since 1991. Anybody using them runs the risk of being permanently barred from the Hall. I hold sportswriters in the same regard as I do conservatives, but for once they're right on this one and have done the job that the nutless commissioner is too chicken to do.
UncleRay
M-A-I-N-E, GooOOO, Blue!
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Now I understand. It's all about homeruns. Since 'roids helped increase homeruns they're bad. But the pitchers who used vaseline and emery boards didn't hit more homeruns because of that cheating, so it's OK. Got it, guys. Keep focused on the long ball. Pitchers aren't everyday players anyway, so they don't matter. Doctoring the ball to help you pitch better, and to make the hitters perform at a lower rate, is OK, since the pitchers weren't trying to hit a homerun. Makes perfect sense now that you explain it.
I'm still having a little trouble with the corked bats, though, and why they are OK. I guess baseball didn't make them illegal because they help drive the ball further? Maybe whoever pushed the rule through was a big wine drinker and wanted to keep wine prices low. See, he was smart enough to know that cork, being the bark of a tree, can't have its production increased by adding another shift down at the cork factory, more has to be grown. But since it is in short supply, cork prices are going up, and he didn't want the price of his favorite plonk going up with George Brett et. al. stuffing it in their bats. But why was George stuffing it in his bats, if not to get an unfair advantage in hitting homeruns?
Now I understand. It's all about homeruns. Since 'roids helped increase homeruns they're bad. But the pitchers who used vaseline and emery boards didn't hit more homeruns because of that cheating, so it's OK. Got it, guys. Keep focused on the long ball. Pitchers aren't everyday players anyway, so they don't matter. Doctoring the ball to help you pitch better, and to make the hitters perform at a lower rate, is OK, since the pitchers weren't trying to hit a homerun. Makes perfect sense now that you explain it.
I'm still having a little trouble with the corked bats, though, and why they are OK. I guess baseball didn't make them illegal because they help drive the ball further? Maybe whoever pushed the rule through was a big wine drinker and wanted to keep wine prices low. See, he was smart enough to know that cork, being the bark of a tree, can't have its production increased by adding another shift down at the cork factory, more has to be grown. But since it is in short supply, cork prices are going up, and he didn't want the price of his favorite plonk going up with George Brett et. al. stuffing it in their bats. But why was George stuffing it in his bats, if not to get an unfair advantage in hitting homeruns?
Another thing to remember about steroids is you tend to not get injured when on them. This is key as playing with an injury, or missing significant time due to injury, is really going to dim your career #'s vs your peers.
For example, take Ken Griffey Jr. Griffey's career followed the arc of what you would expect. Stellar #'s in his prime but when he hit his late 30's his body started breaking down, small wonder given how he played the game. If Griffey was a roid head, not only does he most likely not miss those two years in Cincy, he also plays into his mid 40's. Notice how quickly Bonds' knees started acting up when he had to stop juicing. This is a critical but underreported part of steroid abuse.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Can you get your money back for that sarcasm seminar?
Can you get your money back for that sarcasm seminar?
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I'm rendered incapable of responding because of the sheer cleverness and originality of implying that someone must be a nerd if they disagree with you. Truly, you have reached the pinnacle of middle-school-level discourse.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
duper
Well-known member
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I think the best players in baseball should go to the Hall of Fame. Pretty simple. Thinking about how good players would have been if... is pointless. As is thinking about how ordinary players would have been if...
I think any member of the 1919 White Sox who have earned admission by play should be there. I think a-holes like Cap Anson, Charlie Comiskey, Ty Cobb, and countless others should be there if they have earned it. The all-time hits leader should be there. So should the all-time home runs leader. It is, first and foremost, a museum of baseball. And for better or worse, those guys should be there. There are a lot of great exhibits in the Hall about various issues in baseball, including the Black Sox scandal and the color barrier. There is plenty of room to let people in the future know about the steroid era.
All these years later, we still know that the color line might never have been drawn if it weren't for Hall-of-Famer Cap Anson. The Black Sox scandal certainly wouldn't have happened in the era of free agency because no one would have played any longer than necessary for a lying jerk like Hall-of-Famer Charles Comiskey. But these guys deserve to be there.
As for the cheating argument, I could even support a lifetime ban for certain guys. But I mean a LIFETIME ban, not the permanent ban. There is certainly a logic to not allowing guys like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire to enjoy their day in the sun. But if we go that route, I think each of them should be in once they die, because they are all important parts of major league history. In the end, I think it is appropriate to leave it to the voters.
What I think the Hall of Fame NEEDS, and maybe it has it by now, I haven't been there since the year Ryne Sandburg was inducted, is an exhibit about the steroid era. Point it out, explain it, talk about it, demonize it. But don't pretend it didn't happen, and don't try to hide it.
Edit: And for the record, I won't argue with anyone who believes that these guys should never be allowed in, because while I disagree with this point of view, I definitely understand and respect it.
More Edit: In the meantime, we can all read up on Hank O'Day, Deacon White, and Jacob Ruppert. I don't even think Old Pio remembers those guys.
I think the best players in baseball should go to the Hall of Fame. Pretty simple. Thinking about how good players would have been if... is pointless. As is thinking about how ordinary players would have been if...
I think any member of the 1919 White Sox who have earned admission by play should be there. I think a-holes like Cap Anson, Charlie Comiskey, Ty Cobb, and countless others should be there if they have earned it. The all-time hits leader should be there. So should the all-time home runs leader. It is, first and foremost, a museum of baseball. And for better or worse, those guys should be there. There are a lot of great exhibits in the Hall about various issues in baseball, including the Black Sox scandal and the color barrier. There is plenty of room to let people in the future know about the steroid era.
All these years later, we still know that the color line might never have been drawn if it weren't for Hall-of-Famer Cap Anson. The Black Sox scandal certainly wouldn't have happened in the era of free agency because no one would have played any longer than necessary for a lying jerk like Hall-of-Famer Charles Comiskey. But these guys deserve to be there.
As for the cheating argument, I could even support a lifetime ban for certain guys. But I mean a LIFETIME ban, not the permanent ban. There is certainly a logic to not allowing guys like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire to enjoy their day in the sun. But if we go that route, I think each of them should be in once they die, because they are all important parts of major league history. In the end, I think it is appropriate to leave it to the voters.
What I think the Hall of Fame NEEDS, and maybe it has it by now, I haven't been there since the year Ryne Sandburg was inducted, is an exhibit about the steroid era. Point it out, explain it, talk about it, demonize it. But don't pretend it didn't happen, and don't try to hide it.
Edit: And for the record, I won't argue with anyone who believes that these guys should never be allowed in, because while I disagree with this point of view, I definitely understand and respect it.
More Edit: In the meantime, we can all read up on Hank O'Day, Deacon White, and Jacob Ruppert. I don't even think Old Pio remembers those guys.
Last edited:
UncleRay
M-A-I-N-E, GooOOO, Blue!
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
No. But thanks for addressing what was said. Was that better?
Yes, Shoeless Joe Jackson (and his other teammates) are banned forever. Only an act of the commissioner would overturn it, and nothing Nutless Bud Selig does would surprise me.
For the record, Shoeless Joe was guilty as all hell!
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
"Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning."
- Connie Mack
Guilty of being the best player in the 1919 World Series. Classic case of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Reinstate Shoeless Joe!
"Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning."
- Connie Mack
Jackson dogged it whenever the game was on the line. The beauty of baseball is that all the game were scored, so you can look back at the records to see what actually happened and draw your own conclusions.
For example, it was widely reported Jackson threw out 5 runners during the series. Upon further review, that wasn't the case and he himself was the source of that info. Officially he threw out only one. Also, by the scoring an usual amount of triples were hit to LF by Cincy during the series, which was odd given Jackson's speed and defensive prowess. His hitting in the clutch I also believe was poor. None of this would be enough to hang him if taken in isolation, but coupled with him taking money and knowing the fix was in leaves him....GUILTY AS CHARGED!
Besides, Landis banned the team on the grounds that anybody who even knows a fix is taking place and doesn't report it is gone too. A tough but fair decision in the quest to clean up the game, lest baseball end up having the integrity of boxing matches in the public's eye.
Last edited: