White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 01-03-2013, 09:53 AM
SephClone89 SephClone89 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 5,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyJohn View Post
Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.
Are you attempting to characterize Telander here? Because it's not clear.
__________________
Attendance Records

2014: 4-8 plus Fenway and HOF weekend
2013: 4-6 plus St. Louis and Milwaukee
2012: 7-4
2011: 6-4 plus NYC parks and Minnesota
2010: 5-6
2009: 2-4 plus Pittsburgh

"Genius is not replicable. Inspiration, though, is contagious, and multiform — and even just to see, close up, power and aggression made vulnerable to beauty is to feel inspired and (in a fleeting, mortal way) reconciled."
--David Foster Wallace, () "Roger Federer as Religious Experience"
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-03-2013, 10:58 AM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 12,930
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMeibalane View Post
2013 HOF Ballot Released

It would be nice for baseball to reward players (Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza) who played the game the right way by enshrining them, as their numbers are good enough.
The reason Bagwell isn't in is because of suspicions of exactly that. Biggio should get it 1st or 2nd ballot.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:54 AM
TommyJohn TommyJohn is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,108
Blog Entries: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SephClone89 View Post
Are you attempting to characterize Telander here? Because it's not clear.
Um, no.
__________________
I am Dabuiek
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:13 PM
SephClone89 SephClone89 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 5,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyJohn View Post

Um, no.
Okay, then do you care to elaborate on your dislike of Edgar Martinez?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-03-2013, 01:22 PM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Roarman View Post
See, now you're starting to get the hang of things. ...
How far you wish to pursue it is completely up to the player, no one forces him to take PEDs. Just like no one forces him to go on a special diet or lift weights or train at high altitude. These are all choices. But no matter what, you are at the very least putting at risk the quality of your later life (and at present in tons of cases) if you have a career of being a professional athlete. That is unavoidable. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball, some more than others, but it's all a risk that comes with the job. And it's completely up to the players to make that choice if it's worth it to them or not. Even without PEDs, that's just the way it is, there's no enforcing that out of pro sports. It's a year round deal for most of these guys now.
You are missling the point. Of course the Hall of Fame is about image, what baseball wants to celebrate about the game. That is why players who violate federal law to gain competitive edge, putting other players in a position where they may have to consider doing so themselves. Working hard and living healthy isn't simply a parallel choice. There are fringe players who use performance-enhancing drugs in an effort to play major league baseball. Performance-enhancing drug use started in the Olympics years ago, and in an effort to keep the games clean, the Olympics have addressed the situation.

There is a difference between letting records stand and celebrating dirty players. Barry Bonds is the all-time home run king, for a season and for a career. The fact that people don't respect his achievements or even Bonds as a human being because of the way he achieved the records is why I would never vote for him to be in the Hall of Fame if I had a ballot. Last season, a suspended player even took himself out of the running for the NL batting title, setting a precedent for records achieved by dirty players not counting, although that was an isolated case that came from a player trying to rehabilitate his image to keep working in baseball rather than a mandate from the commissioner.

Fans care about performance-enhancing drugs affecting baseball. Choosing to violate federal law and deprive yourself of years of quality life is not an option that should be celebrated in the Hall of Fame.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-03-2013, 02:26 PM
russ99 russ99 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,712
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I still think there should be a lesser wing in the HOF, and put Rose and all the steroid guys in there, so they can be recognized for their accomplishments, just not at the same level as the rest of the hall.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-03-2013, 02:30 PM
russ99 russ99 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,712
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
The reason Bagwell isn't in is because of suspicions of exactly that. Biggio should get it 1st or 2nd ballot.
Bagwell got 321 votes last year on his second ballot, and that's 56%. Exit polls for this year's voting give him 68%, still shy of 75% for now. IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

The voters obviously aren't boycotting him like some of proven juicers, like McGuire who's gotten no more than 23%. Clemens and Bonds are exit polling under 50% by comparison.

Last edited by russ99; 01-03-2013 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-03-2013, 03:06 PM
chicagowhitesox1 chicagowhitesox1 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Aurora Illinois
Posts: 1,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SephClone89 View Post
Not positive. Look how long it's taking Bagwell, for instance.
The reason I feel Thomas will be a first ballot is because he was campaigning against steroids since the 90's. There are no links at all that Frank Thomas was using steroids.

Bagwell more than likely used even though he denies. But everyone though the same about Palmeiro for awhile too.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 12,930
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ99 View Post
Bagwell got 321 votes last year on his second ballot, and that's 56%. Exit polls for this year's voting give him 68%, still shy of 75% for now. IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

The voters obviously aren't boycotting him like some of proven juicers, like McGuire who's gotten no more than 23%. Clemens and Bonds are exit polling under 50% by comparison.
He isn't a renown juicer; it's more latent, but the belief is there. He should obviously be in otherwise. One disadvantage BAgwell had, if he's clean, is that he never got the public scrutiny to show he was clean. He just kept quiet. No one publicly accused him, but he sort of needed to go on the offensive. He's not penalized like Palmerio because it's never been proven (and Bagwell never lied about it; he really hasn't said anything about it).
Frank, on the other hand, went out front and said he never juiced, and no one could prove or even suggest otherwise, so I think people believe him. Also, his body never changed, unlike some of the others.

I bet you see Biggio do a heck of a lot better.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-03-2013, 11:24 PM
chicagowhitesox1 chicagowhitesox1 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Aurora Illinois
Posts: 1,028
Default

Last I saw Biggio was at 72 percent so he has a good shot. This is from a site that is tallying up all the votes.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-04-2013, 08:34 AM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
Posts like this make me want to quit message boards completely.
Yeah, I hate it when people have a different opinion than me. We should just stick to insulting them.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-04-2013, 08:54 AM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
The difference is in that there was no rule against any drugs without a prescription until 1991 which was made in regards to the cocaine scandals of the 1980s. Guys who used steroids broke that rule, guys who used amphetamines (like Aaron and Mays) did not. There is also the question of how much a drug enhanced one's performance. The fact of the matter is anabolic steroids is a far greater enhancer than amphetamines. Amphetamines is really akin to drinking a couple of pots of coffee, it makes you more alert and mentally sharper but does not improve your physical performance. Steroids does.
I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them? And why then have requests for ADHD drugs increased exponentially after amphetamines were banned? MLB players conveniently seem to have this disorder at a much higher rate than the general population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/...cing-drug.html
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:17 PM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx View Post
I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them? And why then have requests for ADHD drugs increased exponentially after amphetamines were banned? MLB players conveniently seem to have this disorder at a much higher rate than the general population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/...cing-drug.html
Nonetheless, there is huge difference between stimulants and chemicals that unnaturally increase muscle mass.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:57 PM
chicagowhitesox1 chicagowhitesox1 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Aurora Illinois
Posts: 1,028
Default

Last I saw Biggio dropped to 68 percent so it's looking like nobody will be elected.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:50 AM
TheVulture TheVulture is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx View Post
I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them?
Why did the NFL ban marijuana? Clearly not a performance enhancer, unless you're Fats Waller.
__________________
A bad idea is better than no idea at all- Hawk
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.