 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Raffy and the hall
ironhorse
Raffy and the hall
August 04, 2005 at 06:23PM View BBCode
[color=Black]Ok, we have all been through this.[/color] Very disappointing though. But are we trying him for his moral decision to have taken (knowilly or unknowilly) steriods, or his numbers. Because if it is morals, then Cobb would be out the hall for being a racist which is true. But to say that he does not desevre to be in because he did not "Dominate" his position or his era is really dumb, since about a 1/8 of the players in the hall did not "dominate" their eras or whatever you want to call it. Yaz for example did not dominate the 60's like Mays and Aaron, but yet he is in. Ripken did not domiante like A-Rod, yet he is going in. Gywnn did not dominate the 80's like Dawson and Murphy, yet he too is going in. Get the point. To achieve 500 homers is a hell of a feat that should not be undermined and deserves it's just do as a magic "number" just for the simple reason that it is hard to reach. Do you really think that Manny will reach 500(well, maybe), as well as Frank Thomas? The same goes for 3,000 hits. You can't just go up to the plate and bang out hits and get 3,000. Only about what 26 players have reached 3,000 in the games' long history spanning over 150 plus years. And to say that he does not deserve to get in because he wasn't as productive as the guys he played against is again dumb. How many of those players have actaully reached 3,000 hits and 500 homers, right. Like Murray and Aaron, Raffy was consistent. Because of that, he was able to hang around if you will and reach 500 and 3,000. So what if he did win an MVP, there have been guys that won an MVP and a few rings, but are of lesser talent than Raffy, and aren't in the hall. The game of getting in now is about numbers, and Raffy clearly proven that he has the creds. To judge him for using steriods is one thing, but this is different, honestly. looking at his numbers, lets say for the past 12 seasons, there is nothing glaring about his power numbers, to say the least, as opposed to Bonds and McQuire posting late carreer achievements that made them look like they discovered the fountain of youth. He was as I said before consistent.
DougB
Raffy should not make the hall. He was only a 2nd tier hall guy to begin with and the fact he is a liar and a cheat means that he will not make the hall.
[Edited on 8-4-2005 by DougB]
August 04, 2005 at 06:29PM View BBCode
Facts will becomre more clear with time. Only an idiot would make snap judgements without the facts. So here goes...Raffy should not make the hall. He was only a 2nd tier hall guy to begin with and the fact he is a liar and a cheat means that he will not make the hall.
[Edited on 8-4-2005 by DougB]
ironhorse
August 04, 2005 at 06:33PM View BBCode
ok, you say that, that is your opinion. but tell me something, do you think that bonds will get in. since we all know now that have he did for the past 5 or 6 seasons was with the help of steriods?
ironhorse
August 04, 2005 at 06:34PM View BBCode
You say that he was 2nd tier, but yet Griffey was for a while on top then fell off, should he make the hall?
whiskybear
Keep Raffy out of the Hall.
August 04, 2005 at 06:35PM View BBCode
That post was basically unreadable. And quit making posts that ask for opinions if you just get riled up when people don't line up behind you.Keep Raffy out of the Hall.
skierdude44
Actually, the only proof against Bonds is leaked grand jury testimony which is hardly a reliable source. The rest of the "evidence" implicating Bonds is just speculation and rumor. Unlike Palmeiro he has never failed a drug test.
August 04, 2005 at 06:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse
ok, you say that, that is your opinion. but tell me something, do you think that bonds will get in. since we all know now that have he did for the past 5 or 6 seasons was with the help of steriods?
Actually, the only proof against Bonds is leaked grand jury testimony which is hardly a reliable source. The rest of the "evidence" implicating Bonds is just speculation and rumor. Unlike Palmeiro he has never failed a drug test.
skierdude44
Yes.
August 04, 2005 at 06:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse
You say that he was 2nd tier, but yet Griffey was for a while on top then fell off, should he make the hall?
Yes.
ironhorse
August 04, 2005 at 06:38PM View BBCode
ok dude. first of all you don't have to comment on my opinions, you can simply look past it. secondly, i'm not grilled about a thing. your opinion is your opinion like mine is mine. we are here to express our opinions, no matter how dumb they may be. maybe you need to chill down a little friend, it's not serious.
whiskybear
August 04, 2005 at 06:45PM View BBCode
in tht case yha i like griffey man he was the kid :cool2:
youngallstar
August 04, 2005 at 07:29PM View BBCode
Please correct me if im wrong, and I very well could be, But I think I remember hearing somewhere that Raf is the 4th player in MLB history to have 3000 hits and 500 homers.. Im too lazy to look it up but this would not only put him in the 1st tier but in the fist half of the first tier..
Unclescam777
But with Raffy or anyone else caught cheating then I say no because that actually has to do with the game. But then that brings up another argument, what constitutes as cheating? Spitballs, corked bats, intentionally sliding into the shortstop feet first to break up a double play, etc. The game has changed over the years, so should a player be banned from the HOF if he used a spitball between 1995-2005 because it's now illegal? Should we look down on former players who were allowed to do that? Can we even compare the two?
The subject of cheating in baseball is very complex, especially when you factor in various eras. But to me steroids are cheating and no juicer should be let in. But then one could bring up the argument, what if the player instead of taking roids just spent an extra 2 years in the gym and bulked up from working out harder. Is it any different than steroids other than the time scale?
There can be a lot of arguments from all sides.
August 04, 2005 at 07:43PM View BBCode
My thing with the HOF is "What did you do on the field?" The HOF should judge a player's baseball ability, not his personality off the field. It's not just nice people who can play the game. You gave a good example with Cobb, who was a terrible person. In fact, many players were racist up until minorities became a major part of the game, but this shouldn't exclude them from the HOF. There have also been drug addicts, wife beaters, alcoholics, and a wide range of bad people who could play the game well. Should Mickey Mantle be excluded because he couldn't turn down a drink? I say hell no, the man could play the game better than most, and that's why he deserves to be in.But with Raffy or anyone else caught cheating then I say no because that actually has to do with the game. But then that brings up another argument, what constitutes as cheating? Spitballs, corked bats, intentionally sliding into the shortstop feet first to break up a double play, etc. The game has changed over the years, so should a player be banned from the HOF if he used a spitball between 1995-2005 because it's now illegal? Should we look down on former players who were allowed to do that? Can we even compare the two?
The subject of cheating in baseball is very complex, especially when you factor in various eras. But to me steroids are cheating and no juicer should be let in. But then one could bring up the argument, what if the player instead of taking roids just spent an extra 2 years in the gym and bulked up from working out harder. Is it any different than steroids other than the time scale?
There can be a lot of arguments from all sides.
DougB
August 04, 2005 at 08:05PM View BBCode
Raffy was never a first tier hall of fame candidate. Eddie Murray was 500/3000 when 30 homers was a good year. And even he is not among the top 50 players all-time. Raffy was probably in the top 10 best 1b of all-time but not in the top 5. Mark McGwire was probably a few spots ahead of him. In my opinion, knowing what I know at this time (which is not all that much) neither should make the hall of fame. This is my opinion.
DougB
August 04, 2005 at 08:11PM View BBCode
As a response to the question asked of me... yes I think Bonds will get in. He was on-track as a first tier hall-of-famer before 2000. Maybe he used roids before 2000 and maybe not I don't know. But he won 7 MVP's in all. Please name for me the number of MVP's Raffy won. Don't know? I'll tell you. The answer is zero. OK how about 2nd place? none. OK third place? none. 4th place? none. He did finish 5th once. He had hall of fame numbers as I said. Just not so overwhelming that turning him down would be rediculous. 500 homers ain't what they used to be.
youngallstar
How many Cy Youngs did Nolan Ryan win? Zero.
Should he not have been a first ballot HOF'er?
Or is that comparing apples and oranges? Im inclined to think its not because the MVP is the hitters award and the Cy Young is the pitchers award, for the most part, yes?
One could argue that Nolan's K's put him far and above Palmeiro. But seeing as how Rafy is only the 4th man in MLB history to get 500 homers and 3000 hits I think that puts him possibly in the same ballpark as Ryan.
Your thoughts?
August 04, 2005 at 08:20PM View BBCode
Putting the steroid issue aside for a second..How many Cy Youngs did Nolan Ryan win? Zero.
Should he not have been a first ballot HOF'er?
Or is that comparing apples and oranges? Im inclined to think its not because the MVP is the hitters award and the Cy Young is the pitchers award, for the most part, yes?
One could argue that Nolan's K's put him far and above Palmeiro. But seeing as how Rafy is only the 4th man in MLB history to get 500 homers and 3000 hits I think that puts him possibly in the same ballpark as Ryan.
Your thoughts?
DougB
Raffy = 1 time top 5 in MVP (5th).
That being said Nolan Ryan was really not all that much better than Bert Blyleven. Ryan was a spectacular performer at striking people out and lasting a long time. But he was not the most effective pitcher. I'd rather have Greg Maddux - less flash but better performance.
Ryan belongs in the hall but he's no Lefty Grove. Raffy could have made it. Could have... Maybe he's innocent and he still will make it. Maybe 100 dollar bills will start flying out of my ass.
August 04, 2005 at 08:28PM View BBCode
Nolan Ryan = 6 times top 5 in Cy Young.Raffy = 1 time top 5 in MVP (5th).
That being said Nolan Ryan was really not all that much better than Bert Blyleven. Ryan was a spectacular performer at striking people out and lasting a long time. But he was not the most effective pitcher. I'd rather have Greg Maddux - less flash but better performance.
Ryan belongs in the hall but he's no Lefty Grove. Raffy could have made it. Could have... Maybe he's innocent and he still will make it. Maybe 100 dollar bills will start flying out of my ass.
skierdude44
Even with out steroids (assuming Bonds used steroids) he probably still would have been the only 500-500 man in history. That's gotta be more impressive than 500-3,000.
August 04, 2005 at 08:39PM View BBCode
Originally posted by DougB
As a response to the question asked of me... yes I think Bonds will get in. He was on-track as a first tier hall-of-famer before 2000. Maybe he used roids before 2000 and maybe not I don't know. But he won 7 MVP's in all. Please name for me the number of MVP's Raffy won. Don't know? I'll tell you. The answer is zero. OK how about 2nd place? none. OK third place? none. 4th place? none. He did finish 5th once. He had hall of fame numbers as I said. Just not so overwhelming that turning him down would be rediculous. 500 homers ain't what they used to be.
Even with out steroids (assuming Bonds used steroids) he probably still would have been the only 500-500 man in history. That's gotta be more impressive than 500-3,000.
lvnwrth
But being racist, while certainly reprehensible, was not against the law, or against the rules. All of baseball was racist when Cobb played. That's why we have a Negro Leagues Hall of Fame in Kansas City.
Really not a valid comparision at all.
Ripken was head and shoulders the best shortstop of his era. No one else really comes close. Plus he exuded class, unlike the majority of the current crop of major league stars. And who knows what A-Rod's numbers would have looked like before MLB became a slow pitch softball league? He would have been a great player, no doubt. But there is very little meaningful about any numbers compiled since 1994, IMO. Which brings me to this:
Through 1994, Palmeiro was a .298 career hitter. He had 155 HR. Since age 30 this guy has hit over 400 home runs. His career numbers suggest one of two things, or a combination of the two. Sometime in about 1993 this guy started juicing up; 1990's expansion made pitching so bad that offensive numbers took a huge jump, or BOTH.
No, I don't. Murphy "dominated" from 1982-1987, and even in those "dominant" years, there were seasons where he hit .281 and .265; one season when he slugged .477. Murphy was a vastly overrated player because he led the Braves resurgence in the 1980's and he did it when WTBS was on almost every cable carrier in the country, and ESPN was an upstart network that didn't have a national baseball contract yet.
Dawson "dominated" from 1987 to 1987...or something like that. His 1980's included seasons of .248, .255, and .252; slugging percentages of .409, .444; and OBPs of .301 and .285. Even in his monster 1987 season, his OBP was only .328.
Gwynn, on the other hand, hit .300 every year he played during the 1980's except his rookie year, when he hit .289. His worst OBP, other than his rookie year, was .355, and twice he was over .400. He had 200 hits 4 times, something neither Dawson nor Murphy ever did.
They were very different types of ballplayers, but you're way off base suggesting that Dawson, Murphy were more "dominant" than Gwynn.
You are absolutely right. It should not be undermined. When McCovey or Killebrew or Reggie or Banks or Matthews or Schmidt hit 500+, it meant something. It was a "magic number", as you say. Those guys did it without the apparent aid of steroids or Coors Field.
What Palmeiro has done...and McGwire and Bonds and Sosa and others...does exactly what you are arguing against. It undermines what had previously been "magic numbers" that meant something. Now they mean very little.
Four of the top ten home run hitters who ever played the game have played in the steroids era. The top six single-season home run totals came during the steriods era, as well as 11 of the top 15 single-season totals. Are we to believe that we've just witnessed ten years of the greatest power hitters who ever played the game converging at one point in time? Or are we to believe that something is amiss? Call me a cynic.
Well, if Manny roids out like Palmeiro did and adds 280 home runs after age 32, that puts him at 670, so yes...it's very possible.
Yes, and most have done it without the aid of steroids.
Except Murray and Aaron didn't use steroids.
And steroid-assisted. This is not simply about Palmeiro. This whole era of hitters (and who knows about pitchers) have tarnished their accomplishments by juicing up. They will all still make the HOF - Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and the rest. But there will always be a question about just how good they might have been, au naturel.
August 04, 2005 at 09:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse
[color=Black]Ok, we have all been through this.[/color] Very disappointing though. But are we trying him for his moral decision to have taken (knowilly or unknowilly) steriods, or his numbers. Because if it is morals, then Cobb would be out the hall for being a racist which is true.
But being racist, while certainly reprehensible, was not against the law, or against the rules. All of baseball was racist when Cobb played. That's why we have a Negro Leagues Hall of Fame in Kansas City.
Really not a valid comparision at all.
But to say that he does not desevre to be in because he did not "Dominate" his position or his era is really dumb, since about a 1/8 of the players in the hall did not "dominate" their eras or whatever you want to call it. Yaz for example did not dominate the 60's like Mays and Aaron, but yet he is in. Ripken did not domiante like A-Rod, yet he is going in.
Ripken was head and shoulders the best shortstop of his era. No one else really comes close. Plus he exuded class, unlike the majority of the current crop of major league stars. And who knows what A-Rod's numbers would have looked like before MLB became a slow pitch softball league? He would have been a great player, no doubt. But there is very little meaningful about any numbers compiled since 1994, IMO. Which brings me to this:
Through 1994, Palmeiro was a .298 career hitter. He had 155 HR. Since age 30 this guy has hit over 400 home runs. His career numbers suggest one of two things, or a combination of the two. Sometime in about 1993 this guy started juicing up; 1990's expansion made pitching so bad that offensive numbers took a huge jump, or BOTH.
Gywnn did not dominate the 80's like Dawson and Murphy, yet he too is going in. Get the point.
No, I don't. Murphy "dominated" from 1982-1987, and even in those "dominant" years, there were seasons where he hit .281 and .265; one season when he slugged .477. Murphy was a vastly overrated player because he led the Braves resurgence in the 1980's and he did it when WTBS was on almost every cable carrier in the country, and ESPN was an upstart network that didn't have a national baseball contract yet.
Dawson "dominated" from 1987 to 1987...or something like that. His 1980's included seasons of .248, .255, and .252; slugging percentages of .409, .444; and OBPs of .301 and .285. Even in his monster 1987 season, his OBP was only .328.
Gwynn, on the other hand, hit .300 every year he played during the 1980's except his rookie year, when he hit .289. His worst OBP, other than his rookie year, was .355, and twice he was over .400. He had 200 hits 4 times, something neither Dawson nor Murphy ever did.
They were very different types of ballplayers, but you're way off base suggesting that Dawson, Murphy were more "dominant" than Gwynn.
To achieve 500 homers is a hell of a feat that should not be undermined and deserves it's just do as a magic "number" just for the simple reason that it is hard to reach.
You are absolutely right. It should not be undermined. When McCovey or Killebrew or Reggie or Banks or Matthews or Schmidt hit 500+, it meant something. It was a "magic number", as you say. Those guys did it without the apparent aid of steroids or Coors Field.
What Palmeiro has done...and McGwire and Bonds and Sosa and others...does exactly what you are arguing against. It undermines what had previously been "magic numbers" that meant something. Now they mean very little.
Four of the top ten home run hitters who ever played the game have played in the steroids era. The top six single-season home run totals came during the steriods era, as well as 11 of the top 15 single-season totals. Are we to believe that we've just witnessed ten years of the greatest power hitters who ever played the game converging at one point in time? Or are we to believe that something is amiss? Call me a cynic.
Do you really think that Manny will reach 500(well, maybe), as well as Frank Thomas?
Well, if Manny roids out like Palmeiro did and adds 280 home runs after age 32, that puts him at 670, so yes...it's very possible.
The same goes for 3,000 hits. You can't just go up to the plate and bang out hits and get 3,000. Only about what 26 players have reached 3,000 in the games' long history spanning over 150 plus years.
Yes, and most have done it without the aid of steroids.
And to say that he does not deserve to get in because he wasn't as productive as the guys he played against is again dumb. How many of those players have actaully reached 3,000 hits and 500 homers, right. Like Murray and Aaron, Raffy was consistent.
Except Murray and Aaron didn't use steroids.
Raffy clearly proven that he has the creds. To judge him for using steriods is one thing, but this is different, honestly. Looking at his numbers, lets say for the past 12 seasons, there is nothing glaring about his power numbers, to say the least, as opposed to Bonds and McQuire posting late carreer achievements that made them look like they discovered the fountain of youth. He was as I said before consistent.
And steroid-assisted. This is not simply about Palmeiro. This whole era of hitters (and who knows about pitchers) have tarnished their accomplishments by juicing up. They will all still make the HOF - Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and the rest. But there will always be a question about just how good they might have been, au naturel.
swerve
While I am definitely not defending the juicers. 'Roids technically were not against the rules until recently.
August 04, 2005 at 10:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
But being racist, while certainly reprehensible, was not against the law, or against the rules. All of baseball was racist when Cobb played. That's why we have a Negro Leagues Hall of Fame in Kansas City.
While I am definitely not defending the juicers. 'Roids technically were not against the rules until recently.
barterer2002
August 04, 2005 at 10:41PM View BBCode
They were against the law without a prescription and while you might not be able to walk up to your run of the mill GP and get a prescription, I'd bet that BALCO had a MD on staff that could write you one.
barterer2002
August 04, 2005 at 10:53PM View BBCode
Especially when you add in the cost of house calls these days.
bobcat73
PS. Baseball should not need a rule against something that is forbidden by state and federal laws.
August 04, 2005 at 10:53PM View BBCode
Raffy should not be in the HoF. His late career power numbers during the biggest power era in history exclude him in my opinion. Simply he is a cheater of the worst kind. Cheating by tampering with your gear does not come close to tampering with illegal drugs to get a edge on the playing field to my rather slow mind.PS. Baseball should not need a rule against something that is forbidden by state and federal laws.
lvnwrth
So finding a doctor who is willing to violate his oath, and the law, by writing unnecessary prescriptions somehow absolves the players for their complicity in breaking the law? That might be a good "legal" argument, but it fails the common sense test.
That's like blaming the accountant when he cooks your tax return, you know it, and sign it anyway.
August 04, 2005 at 11:14PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
They were against the law without a prescription and while you might not be able to walk up to your run of the mill GP and get a prescription, I'd bet that BALCO had a MD on staff that could write you one.
So finding a doctor who is willing to violate his oath, and the law, by writing unnecessary prescriptions somehow absolves the players for their complicity in breaking the law? That might be a good "legal" argument, but it fails the common sense test.
That's like blaming the accountant when he cooks your tax return, you know it, and sign it anyway.