Posted by Jtpsops on 7/27/2016 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/27/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/27/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):
If you want to argue 500 shouldn't be a benchmark, that's fine, but everyone who hit that mark is in (except Bonds and Palmeiro. Thome will be in when he's eligible).

Not to mention, I would argue that McGwire redefined power in a way that maybe only Ruth has surpassed. His homers were "bigger than the game" for a few years.

I'm not sure Thome will get in. The fact that he was well-liked might get him in near the end of his eligibility. I wouldn't rule it out. But given that his career largely overlapped with McGwire, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Frank Thomas, Jason Giambi, Edgar Martinez, Todd Helton, and Pujols, does he Thome really "feel" good enough to reach the bar for his era? Personally, I'd put Mac, Thomas, and Edgar in as "steroid era" 1B/DH types and Pujols as more of a post-steroid era guy and leave it at that (although if we're gonna talk about post-steroid era, you'd have to assume that Miggy's on his way to the Hall as well). If you wanted one more guy it would be Bagwell or Palmeiro. At another time, Giambi or Thome's numbers would certainly be good enough. But either one of them was basically about the 6th-best 1B/DH in baseball at his peak. I don't see how that's good enough. Heck, for about 2 years Giambi had a pretty strong argument as the best 1B in baseball. But it's 2 years. Outside of that too many guys were better than he was. Thome's best MVP finish was 4th in 2003, and two of the guys who finished below him (Javy Lopez and Helton) probably hit better in retrospect.

In an era in which guys like Gary Sheffield and Lance Berkman won't even merit serious consideration - and seriously, look how good those guys' numbers are if you don't already know - I don't see guys like Thome and Sosa deserving to get in. There were just too many people who were better.

Just my opinion, but I don't think Thome used, and I don't think many people feel he used. He was just a monster of a man, like Frank Thomas.

So he may have been the 5th or 6th best 1B of his ERA, but if the 5 ahead of him are all known or strongly-suspected users, he may get the nod as a guy who put up monster numbers cleanly.

And therein lies the problem with trying to sort out who used, who didn't.

Griffey, Ripken, Pujols, Thome, Jeter, Thomas, etc, etc are given passes. And every one of them could have a case made against them based on circumstantial evidence.

Clemens was CLEARED in a court of law. No one says "Well, I guess he didn't use." In part, I believe, because he was a dick.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2016 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/27/2016 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/27/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/27/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):
If you want to argue 500 shouldn't be a benchmark, that's fine, but everyone who hit that mark is in (except Bonds and Palmeiro. Thome will be in when he's eligible).

Not to mention, I would argue that McGwire redefined power in a way that maybe only Ruth has surpassed. His homers were "bigger than the game" for a few years.

I'm not sure Thome will get in. The fact that he was well-liked might get him in near the end of his eligibility. I wouldn't rule it out. But given that his career largely overlapped with McGwire, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Frank Thomas, Jason Giambi, Edgar Martinez, Todd Helton, and Pujols, does he Thome really "feel" good enough to reach the bar for his era? Personally, I'd put Mac, Thomas, and Edgar in as "steroid era" 1B/DH types and Pujols as more of a post-steroid era guy and leave it at that (although if we're gonna talk about post-steroid era, you'd have to assume that Miggy's on his way to the Hall as well). If you wanted one more guy it would be Bagwell or Palmeiro. At another time, Giambi or Thome's numbers would certainly be good enough. But either one of them was basically about the 6th-best 1B/DH in baseball at his peak. I don't see how that's good enough. Heck, for about 2 years Giambi had a pretty strong argument as the best 1B in baseball. But it's 2 years. Outside of that too many guys were better than he was. Thome's best MVP finish was 4th in 2003, and two of the guys who finished below him (Javy Lopez and Helton) probably hit better in retrospect.

In an era in which guys like Gary Sheffield and Lance Berkman won't even merit serious consideration - and seriously, look how good those guys' numbers are if you don't already know - I don't see guys like Thome and Sosa deserving to get in. There were just too many people who were better.

Just my opinion, but I don't think Thome used, and I don't think many people feel he used. He was just a monster of a man, like Frank Thomas.

So he may have been the 5th or 6th best 1B of his ERA, but if the 5 ahead of him are all known or strongly-suspected users, he may get the nod as a guy who put up monster numbers cleanly.

And therein lies the problem with trying to sort out who used, who didn't.

Griffey, Ripken, Pujols, Thome, Jeter, Thomas, etc, etc are given passes. And every one of them could have a case made against them based on circumstantial evidence.

Clemens was CLEARED in a court of law. No one says "Well, I guess he didn't use." In part, I believe, because he was a dick.

Re Clemens, maybe in part because he was a dick, but mostly because the evidence against him is fairly strong, regardless of whether or not perjury was proven in court.

The fact that a player gets taken to court in these cases is a strong indication. Innocent until proven guilty? Yes, but the government isn't going to waste time going after an athlete unless they have something really concrete against them. Most feel the only reason Clemens got a pass is because of McNamee's reputation. I think he used, but I'm fine if people want to say there's no proof, because technically there isn't.

Posted by all3 on 7/27/2016 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/27/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):
He was very good for a long time, but that does not make him hall of fame worthy.

Like Jeter.

There's a big difference between being very good for a long time as a 1B/OF and being very good for a long time at shortstop.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/27/2016 5:15:00 PM (view original):
The fact that a player gets taken to court in these cases is a strong indication. Innocent until proven guilty? Yes, but the government isn't going to waste time going after an athlete unless they have something really concrete against them. Most feel the only reason Clemens got a pass is because of McNamee's reputation. I think he used, but I'm fine if people want to say there's no proof, because technically there isn't.

Point being, everyone says "If falsely accused, take 'em to court and prove your innocence." So Clemens did. Regardless of the circumstances, he was cleared of any wrongdoing. What good did it do? Now it's "So what? He just got off because the main witness is a piece of ****. He used."

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/27/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/27/2016 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/27/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):
He was very good for a long time, but that does not make him hall of fame worthy.

Like Jeter.

There's a big difference between being very good for a long time as a 1B/OF and being very good for a long time at shortstop.

It's more difficult to last, but good is still only good.
I don't want "Sure he was only good, but he played a long time." in the HOF.
Of course, I don't want "He was great those couple years." in either.
I'm not going to claim there's any benchmark numbers for performance, longevity, or the combo, which does make the argument of who's in and who's out very subjective.
That subjectivity probably results in too many guys being admitted (in all sports).

Personally, I don't care if a guy took steroids. If they want to risk their health to hit more homeruns, or strike out more guys, I have no problem with it. Cheating has always been a part of baseball, from stealing signs, taking greenie, corking bats to taking steroids. Like Mike says, wearing glasses, or tommy john surgery could be considered performance enhancing. Its like if some actress wants to get a boob job in the hopes she'll get more acting roles...what do I care? The guys I don't think should be in the Hall, I don't think should be there because I don't feel they are hall worthy. I thinks Bonds and Clemens should be there. They were on track for the Hall before they started taking steroids. I don't think McGwire, or Palmiero should be there. I don't think they're stats warrant it. Of course, there are a number of guys already in the hall who shouldn't be there in my opinion.

Posted by all3 on 7/27/2016 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/27/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/27/2016 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/27/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):
He was very good for a long time, but that does not make him hall of fame worthy.

Like Jeter.

There's a big difference between being very good for a long time as a 1B/OF and being very good for a long time at shortstop.

It's more difficult to last, but good is still only good.
I don't want "Sure he was only good, but he played a long time." in the HOF.
Of course, I don't want "He was great those couple years." in either.
I'm not going to claim there's any benchmark numbers for performance, longevity, or the combo, which does make the argument of who's in and who's out very subjective.
That subjectivity probably results in too many guys being admitted (in all sports).

as far as Jeter, I think he belongs. He was never the best hitting shortstop, and certainly never the best fielding shortstop, but he was good in both areas and was good for a long time. All his World Series rings don't hurt his cause either.

Anyone who argues against Jeter as a HOFer is an idiot.

Posted by wylie715 on 7/27/2016 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/27/2016 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/27/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/27/2016 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/27/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):
He was very good for a long time, but that does not make him hall of fame worthy.

Like Jeter.

There's a big difference between being very good for a long time as a 1B/OF and being very good for a long time at shortstop.

It's more difficult to last, but good is still only good.
I don't want "Sure he was only good, but he played a long time." in the HOF.
Of course, I don't want "He was great those couple years." in either.
I'm not going to claim there's any benchmark numbers for performance, longevity, or the combo, which does make the argument of who's in and who's out very subjective.
That subjectivity probably results in too many guys being admitted (in all sports).

as far as Jeter, I think he belongs. He was never the best hitting shortstop, and certainly never the best fielding shortstop, but he was good in both areas and was good for a long time. All his World Series rings don't hurt his cause either.

I think Jeter belongs, but I'm a big hall guy. I could see a small hall fan arguing against his inclusion. If you're only putting 4 or 5 players in at each position, Jeter might not make the cut.

If Bagwell isn't making the cut, then McGwire sure as hell shouldn't make it either.

Posted by d_rock97 on 7/27/2016 6:30:00 PM (view original):
If Bagwell isn't making the cut, then McGwire sure as hell shouldn't make it either.

I think the solution to that problem is put them both in. Bagwell, especially, since there's zero PED evidence.

Remember when Bagwell came to his last ST, right after they started testing, and looked like he was wearing his big brother's shirt? That was funny. If you're gonna quit juicing, buy some new clothes.

In my opinion, which means zilch, Bagwell belongs before McGwire does.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/27/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 7/27/2016 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/27/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2016 8:46:00 AM (view original):
LOL. Another article at the bottom of BL's "Steroids make you stronger even if you don't work out" claim.

http://www.startersteps.caitlinburke.com/2014/10/12/caffeine-and-performance/


Seems the folks that write these articles believe caffeine allows you to train harder and longer.

Why is that "LOL?"

Caffeine is great for lifting.

" Caffeine is great for lifting."

BL knows this. Because he knows lifting right?

Do you disagree or are you just being a moron?

I disagree. Obviously.