But weren't a lot of his injuries the type of injuries that are consistent with PEDs?
You could look at it that way (I don't have a list of the injuries but I know some of them were muscle (hamstrings) and knee related....obviously the broken bones are not) but you could also look at it like the pitcher steroid piece and say if he had used roids to recover he could have grown to 2 times his size like Bonds and then not lost the bat speed....which he so obviously lost as career went on.
I am a Jr fan so am admittedly biased, but one of the things I always liked about him was the belief that he was not a roider. That swing....
But weren't a lot of his injuries the type of injuries that are consistent with PEDs?
You could look at it that way (I don't have a list of the injuries but I know some of them were muscle (hamstrings) and knee related....obviously the broken bones are not) but you could also look at it like the pitcher steroid piece and say if he had used roids to recover he could have grown to 2 times his size like Bonds and then not lost the bat speed....which he so obviously lost as career went on.
I am a Jr fan so am admittedly biased, but one of the things I always liked about him was the belief that he was not a roider. That swing....
But weren't a lot of his injuries the type of injuries that are consistent with PEDs?
You could look at it that way (I don't have a list of the injuries but I know some of them were muscle (hamstrings) and knee related....obviously the broken bones are not) but you could also look at it like the pitcher steroid piece and say if he had used roids to recover he could have grown to 2 times his size like Bonds and then not lost the bat speed....which he so obviously lost as career went on.
I am a Jr fan so am admittedly biased, but one of the things I always liked about him was the belief that he was not a roider. That swing....
And listen, I think that's fair. I feel the same way about Jeter. I just don't get how you can keep people out when you literally have no idea who was using and who wasn't. We know that a few players connected with a few trainers/clinics cheated. There are thousands of trainers and clinics that do the same thing. We want to think Jeter and Griffey were clean, but we don't actually know. The fact is that the majority of baseball was cheating for a significant period of time. It was part of the game. Let them all in.
My point was not saying Griffey used PEDs, its just that was shouldn't give him a free pass just because we like the guy.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Never was on any high horse, I would be the first guy in line if taking a shot every day and lifting weights made the difference between riding buses in the minors and making millions in the pros.
Not sure I would juice if I already was a HoF caliber player and I just had to be the best player...but I never will know, not having been there.
I can certainly clap or root for people I think are doing (or have done) an awesome job w/o the roids though.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Never was on any high horse, I would be the first guy in line if taking a shot every day and lifting weights made the difference between riding buses in the minors and making millions in the pros.
Not sure I would juice if I already was a HoF caliber player and I just had to be the best player...but I never will know, not having been there.
I can certainly clap or root for people I think are doing (or have done) an awesome job w/o the roids though.
Ego is the reason the people who talk about Bonds say he did it. He was upset that McGwire and Sosa were battling for MVP awards even though neither of those two could hold his jock strap as all around players.
Bonds and Clemens should get in.
Tom Brady & Donald Trump, BFF's Fuckus rules all Rob Seattle
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras, as Verducci states at the end. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
And I love discussing "Best of his era"...
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years. So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
And I love discussing "Best of his era"...
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years. So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Yeah, man. No doubt.
Well here is where I get into the whole first baseman thing again. You need a lot more than hits out of a first baseman to make the hall of fame. I like the average and hits, but there isn't anything to go along with it. I think Mattingly who had a shorter career but more power in a similar era has a better resume for the HOF than Grace.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
And I love discussing "Best of his era"...
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years. So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Grace should be a HOFer based soley on creating the "slump buster"!
Alpine Valley 6/26/98, Alpine Valley 10/8/00, Champaign 4/23/03, Chicago 6/18/03, Alpine Valley 6/21/03, Grand Rapids 10/3/04
Chicago 5/16/06, Chicago 5/17/06, Grand Rapids 5/19/06
Milwaukee 6/29/06, Milwaukee 6/30/06, Lollapalooza 8/5/07
Eddie Solo Milwaukee 8/19/08, Toronto 8/21/09, Chicago 8/23/09
Chicago 8/24/09, Indianapolis 5/7/10, Ed Chicago 6/29/11, Alpine Valley 9/3/11 and 9/4/11, Wrigley 7/19/13, Moline 10/18/14, Milwaukee 10/20/14
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
And I love discussing "Best of his era"...
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years. So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Grace should be a HOFer based soley on creating the "slump buster"!
Hahahaha!!!
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
Smith - yes McGriff - probably not Hodges - yes
Cliffy - How could you leave Lee Smith out? How could you say something as preposterous as Hoffman & Rivera should be the only 2 relievers? (They SHOULD get in, no doubt!)
If Mariano Rivera pitched in Lee Smith's era, I don't know that he would've been nearly as dominant as a reliever. Those guys in the 70's & 80's were recording 2 and 3-inning saves nearly every time they took the mound. Today's closers are 9th inning only.
Definitely not taking anything away from Hoffman & Rivera, but conversely you shouldn't take away anything from guys like Smith.
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
And I love discussing "Best of his era"...
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years. So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Grace should be a HOFer based soley on creating the "slump buster"!
Grace created this? I thought it was a longtime thing....
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
Smith - yes McGriff - probably not Hodges - yes
Cliffy - How could you leave Lee Smith out? How could you say something as preposterous as Hoffman & Rivera should be the only 2 relievers? (They SHOULD get in, no doubt!)
If Mariano Rivera pitched in Lee Smith's era, I don't know that he would've been nearly as dominant as a reliever. Those guys in the 70's & 80's were recording 2 and 3-inning saves nearly every time they took the mound. Today's closers are 9th inning only.
Definitely not taking anything away from Hoffman & Rivera, but conversely you shouldn't take away anything from guys like Smith.
Smith and Mo both pitched basically 18 years. Mo is technically 19 but he blew is knee out early in 2012 and only threw 8 innings They both threw essentially the same number of innings in basically the same period of time. Every other number, Mo blows him out of the water.
I just don't think relievers belong in the Hall. 99% of good relievers (including Mo) are only relievers because they were failed starters at some point in their career. There are a few exceptions and sure, Smith is one of them as he was a career reliever, but just because he was very good, doesn't mean he belongs among the games best players ever.
Everyone here knows I think the DH should be universal, but I also think they should have to do something absolutely insane to get into the hall of fame. Basically David Ortiz only and I hate him with my entire being.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
PEDs were not banned in MLB until 2005. Up until then, perfectly legal within the MLB rule book. MLB promoted it with McGwire & Sosa in '98. Baseball viewership declined majorly after the '95 strike. They needed something to revive the sport. Let's juice up the players and let the Home Run Era begin!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Is Lee Smith a HOF'er in your eyes? Fred McGriff? Gil Hodges?
Just curious
I know you didn't ask me, but no to all of the above.
When Lee Smith retired he was the career leader in saves...478? Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing? Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Lee Smith is a no way for me. There has to be an absolutely insane standard for relievers. I think the only two career relievers that deserve to be in are Hoffman and Mariano.
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
Yeah, Im not too sure what to think about the relievers. But if Sutter gets in, no questions asked, with 300 career saves, then how is Lee Smith not a HOF'er? You say only Hoffman and Mariano, and I see exactly where you are coming from. But that said, if Smoltz and Eckersley didn't pad their stats by becoming relievers later in their careers, then neither one is a HOF'er. Yet both became 1st ballot HOF'ers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Well I do think it is asinine that Bruce Sutter is in and think he has no business being there.
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
And longevity should absolutely be considered when voting for the HOF. Right? Then again I go back to Lee Smith, who pitched 18 years, had over 30 saves in 11 years, and twice had 29 saves. If Sutter is in, then Lee Smith should have been 1st ballot, with 95% of the votes.
Well I completely agree that if Sutter is the standard then Lee Smith should be in on a first ballot. If Sutter is the standard for a reliever, then half the closers in baseball are probably hall of famers.
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
There is an article you can find here on the internet from S.I. on Gil Hodges(For some reason it wont let me copy and paste). Anyway it is titled...Time for baseball to right a wrong. It will take you 3 seconds to google and find the article.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
That's fair. Got me on this one. I obviously have the ability to look at statistics and compare eras. I don't think his stats as a first baseman put him in the hall of fame, but I think this does
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Its pretty damned crazy when you read his stats. Right? Mind boggling that Hodges didn't get voted in! When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Yeah, man. I had no clue. 11th then, now 75th! The game has changed.
And I love discussing "Best of his era"...
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years. So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Might as well throw Will Clark in that mix too. Both Grace and Clark do not deserve to be in because their numbers don't support it.
McGwire had the magic 500 number. Remember Baseball is all about numbers.
As for Lee, Eck and Mo? They all deserve to be in as does Rollie Fingers. He was the best long reliever of his generation and had the coolest stash!!!
Comments
I am a Jr fan so am admittedly biased, but one of the things I always liked about him was the belief that he was not a roider. That swing....
My point was not saying Griffey used PEDs, its just that was shouldn't give him a free pass just because we like the guy.
I actually thought of putting that picture at the end of my post.
I also thought of that scene, lol!
Everyone needs to get off their high horses like you're all so much better than any of the MLB players who used PEDs. Again, perfectly legal within the rules of the game at the time. But we, the fans, want to act like we're on some moral/ethical podium when it comes to discussing these players. Give it a break. We all find ways to take advantage of our jobs and make our performance look better than it really is.
Fred McGriff?
Gil Hodges?
Just curious
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Fred McGriff hit 493 Hr's? In an era when everyone was juicing?
Gil Hodges was the considered by many to be the best 1st baseman of his generation. Right? 8 time all-star, 3 time gold glove winner.
If those 3 don't belong, then there is no way in hell that any of the steroid freaks belong either. In my humble opinion.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I could be convinced for McGriff, possibly, his numbers are good, but you need some crazy offensive numbers for a first baseman, in my mind. Take steroids out of it, how would you compare Giambi to McGriff?
Hodges, same as McGriff but worse numbers.
I have issues with the relievers.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I hear you on Smotlz and Eckersley and don't know how I feel about that. On one side they were both very good starters who turned into very good relievers and they had longevity because of it. At the same time, how many players have been that good at both and have had that long careers? I see both sides. I don't see either as a first ballot.
Not sure I would juice if I already was a HoF caliber player and I just had to be the best player...but I never will know, not having been there.
I can certainly clap or root for people I think are doing (or have done) an awesome job w/o the roids though.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I no doubt agree that longevity is a consideration and hear what you are saying. I guess I am just looking at the fact that they weren't career relievers and are getting in on a combination of the two.
Read it, and then tell me Gil Hodges isn't a HOF'er. Because after you read it, you may scratch your head, and wonder how this guy wasn't a 1st ballot HOF'er. His stats, his OPS, where he ranked in career homers when he retired, his World Series appearances, his stats in those World Series games, etc. His numbers compare, or blow away, a TON of players in the HOF.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Bonds and Clemens should get in.
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
Hodges was the best first baseman in baseball for more than a decade. From 1948 to 1959, he led all major league first basemen in home runs, RBI, total bases, extra-base hits, OPS, runs created and times on base.
Pretty wild stuff though.
When he retired, Hodges was 11th all-time in HR's.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Because I bring up someone like Mark Grace...Who was "One and Done" when it came to HOF voting. And I would not consider Grace a HOF'er either. YET, he led all of baseball for most hits in the decade of the 90's. 9 times he hit over .300 and retired with a batting avg. of .303. Won 3 Gold Gloves, and I think was a 3 time all-star. Had over 2400 hits in 16 years.
So he indeed was one of the best 1st baseman of his era, right? Now take away McGuire, the 1st baseman of the 90's, because he was a steroid freak, and where does that leave Grace? Yet nobody in their right mind would say Grace was a HOF'er. They say he was an above average player. But if all the Big Stars were juicing in the 90's, again, where does that leave Grace?
I could talk the baseball HOF, all day long.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Well here is where I get into the whole first baseman thing again. You need a lot more than hits out of a first baseman to make the hall of fame. I like the average and hits, but there isn't anything to go along with it. I think Mattingly who had a shorter career but more power in a similar era has a better resume for the HOF than Grace.
Agreed.
Chicago 5/16/06, Chicago 5/17/06, Grand Rapids 5/19/06
Milwaukee 6/29/06, Milwaukee 6/30/06, Lollapalooza 8/5/07
Eddie Solo Milwaukee 8/19/08, Toronto 8/21/09, Chicago 8/23/09
Chicago 8/24/09, Indianapolis 5/7/10, Ed Chicago 6/29/11, Alpine Valley 9/3/11 and 9/4/11, Wrigley 7/19/13, Moline 10/18/14, Milwaukee 10/20/14
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
McGriff - probably not
Hodges - yes
Cliffy - How could you leave Lee Smith out? How could you say something as preposterous as Hoffman & Rivera should be the only 2 relievers? (They SHOULD get in, no doubt!)
If Mariano Rivera pitched in Lee Smith's era, I don't know that he would've been nearly as dominant as a reliever. Those guys in the 70's & 80's were recording 2 and 3-inning saves nearly every time they took the mound. Today's closers are 9th inning only.
Definitely not taking anything away from Hoffman & Rivera, but conversely you shouldn't take away anything from guys like Smith.
Props to him, indeed, if so!
I just don't think relievers belong in the Hall. 99% of good relievers (including Mo) are only relievers because they were failed starters at some point in their career. There are a few exceptions and sure, Smith is one of them as he was a career reliever, but just because he was very good, doesn't mean he belongs among the games best players ever.
Everyone here knows I think the DH should be universal, but I also think they should have to do something absolutely insane to get into the hall of fame. Basically David Ortiz only and I hate him with my entire being.
Kinda look at those two positions the same way.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
McGwire had the magic 500 number. Remember Baseball is all about numbers.
As for Lee, Eck and Mo? They all deserve to be in as does Rollie Fingers. He was the best long reliever of his generation and had the coolest stash!!!