91 replies to this topic

[El Guapo]

Pretty sure they did not have a train that went directly to each stadium. Probably had to be on a bus every once in awhile.

[king_tanner]

GeneralGeeWhiz, on Wednesday, September 8th, 2010, 2:16 PM, said:

so if bonds was a sweetheart you would like him? who cares how he was off the field. he is one of if not the greatest player to ever play. its like hating on tiger because of his off the course stuff. you should appreciate a great player for his abilitiets, not his attitude off the field. thats a narrow minded view.

My narrow mindedness comes from him being a complete steroid FREAK, not his personality. His personality is just another reason not to like him. How can you compare him with the greats when he was a complete cheat in his glory years. Yeah yeah he was good before he took steroids, but he made the leap into superstardom because of steroids. All you can compare him with is other players who took steroids. I'll agree that he is the greatest steroid using baseball player of all time, I refuse to call him one of the greats though.If he is one of the greats, Sammy Sosa is one of the greats, AROD!!! Mark McIhavenoneckgwire GREAT! Oh and Rafael Palmeiro... he is the ****ing man. Clemens GREAT. All cheats. If these players are great, why not put Jose Canseco in the hall of fame? Other players cheated in other eras, but not on the level that these guys did.

[timwakefield]

king_tanner, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 1:06 AM, said:

If he is one of the greats, Sammy Sosa is one of the greats, AROD!!! Mark McIhavenoneckgwire GREAT! Oh and Rafael Palmeiro... he is the ****ing man. Clemens GREAT. All cheats. If these players are great, why not put Jose Canseco in the hall of fame? Other players cheated in other eras, but not on the level that these guys did.

Yup, Mark McGwire is about on par with Mickey Mantle, Manny Ramirez is as great as Jimmie Foxx or Lou Gehrig, Jason Giambi is up there with Yaz, and Gary Sheffield was clearly as good as Stan Musial. Except not.

[CaneBrain]

king_tanner, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 1:06 AM, said:

My narrow mindedness comes from him being a complete steroid FREAK, not his personality. His personality is just another reason not to like him. How can you compare him with the greats when he was a complete cheat in his glory years. Yeah yeah he was good before he took steroids, but he made the leap into superstardom because of steroids. All you can compare him with is other players who took steroids. I'll agree that he is the greatest steroid using baseball player of all time, I refuse to call him one of the greats though.If he is one of the greats, Sammy Sosa is one of the greats, AROD!!! Mark McIhavenoneckgwire GREAT! Oh and Rafael Palmeiro... he is the ****ing man. Clemens GREAT. All cheats. If these players are great, why not put Jose Canseco in the hall of fame? Other players cheated in other eras, but not on the level that these guys did.

The bolded is false and Bonds was a superstar well before his head grew six sizes. Other than that I totally agree.

[BigDMcGee]

king_tanner, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

If he is one of the greats, Sammy Sosa is one of the greats, AROD!!! Mark McIhavenoneckgwire GREAT! Oh and Rafael Palmeiro... he is the ****ing man. Clemens GREAT. All cheats. If these players are great, why not put Jose Canseco in the hall of fame? Other players cheated in other eras, but not on the level that these guys did.

LOL @ level of cheating. The reason they didn't cheat to that level, is they didn't have the opportunity to. JFC people are so irrational about steriod use.

[CaneBrain]

BigDMcGee, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

LOL @ level of cheating. The reason they didn't cheat to that level, is they didn't have the opportunity to. JFC people are so irrational about steriod use.

Gaylord Perry wrote a book about how much he cheated......for whatever reason steroids bother people so much more than greenies, spitballs, and everything else.

[BigDMcGee]

CaneBrain, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 10:00 AM, said:

Gaylord Perry wrote a book about how much he cheated......for whatever reason steroids bother people so much more than greenies, spitballs, and everything else.

I've had that debate 1000 times. I think It's a farce that Gaylord is in the hall of fame, and his brand of cheating is deemed lovable, but bonds is the anti christ. You think a guy who went to such extreme lengths to cheat and hide his cheating would have thought twice about taking a pill that made him a better ball player? GTFO.

[king_tanner]

BigDMcGee, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 7:58 AM, said:

LOL @ level of cheating. The reason they didn't cheat to that level, is they didn't have the opportunity to. JFC people are so irrational about steriod use.

I agree, players in different eras would have used steroids if they could have, but they didn't. Steroid users should only be compared to other steroid users. There is no other way of cheating in baseball that gives players more of an advantage than steroids imo.

[BigDMcGee]

king_tanner, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

I agree, players in different eras would have used steroids if they could have, but they didn't. Steroid users should only be compared to other steroid users. There is no other way of cheating in baseball that gives players more of an advantage than steroids imo.

So what? It's the cheating that matters, it's the cheating that is the immoral act. It doesn't matter if one man's form of cheating is more effective. It's the premeditated nature of cheating that is is either right, or wrong, not the success rate of the style of cheating.

[timwakefield]

BigDMcGee, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 3:57 AM, said:

So what? It's the cheating that matters, it's the cheating that is the immoral act. It doesn't matter if one man's form of cheating is more effective. It's the premeditated nature of cheating that is is either right, or wrong, not the success rate of the style of cheating.

Why do you say that? That seems to be entirely a matter of opinion, which is fine, but it sounds like you think it's a hard fact. I believe completely the opposite - that although "cheating" necessitates the breaking of a rule, some forms of cheating alter the game more than others do. Throwing a game or a series, for example, would be the worst form of cheating. The fact is, none of those old-tyme guys did do steroids, and discussing whether or not they would have is pointless.

CaneBrain, on Friday, September 10th, 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

for whatever reason steroids bother people so much more than greenies, spitballs, and everything else.

Anabolic steroids are much more powerful than greenies, by leaps and bounds. I don't think it's fair to compare the two - not only are they completely different drugs with completely different effects, but again one is drastically stronger than the other. Like comparing wine to heroin, they're just not comparable.

[CaneBrain]

timwakefield, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 4:23 AM, said:

Why do you say that? That seems to be entirely a matter of opinion, which is fine, but it sounds like you think it's a hard fact. I believe completely the opposite - that although "cheating" necessitates the breaking of a rule, some forms of cheating alter the game more than others do. Throwing a game or a series, for example, would be the worst form of cheating. The fact is, none of those old-tyme guys did do steroids, and discussing whether or not they would have is pointless. Anabolic steroids are much more powerful than greenies, by leaps and bounds. I don't think it's fair to compare the two - not only are they completely different drugs with completely different effects, but again one is drastically stronger than the other. Like comparing wine to heroin, they're just not comparable.

we've had this discussion before....I think doctoring the ball is far worse than steroids as doctoring the ball is active cheating and steroids is passive cheating. whatever, I just don't think you can throw out the career of Barry Bonds because he took steroids for 40% of it.

[BigDMcGee]

timwakefield, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 3:23 AM, said:

Why do you say that? That seems to be entirely a matter of opinion, which is fine, but it sounds like you think it's a hard fact. I believe completely the opposite - that although "cheating" necessitates the breaking of a rule, some forms of cheating alter the game more than others do. Throwing a game or a series, for example, would be the worst form of cheating. The fact is, none of those old-tyme guys did do steroids, and discussing whether or not they would have is pointless.

There's a fundamental difference between throwing a game, and trying to gain a competitive advantage to win a game. The type of cheating of gaylord perry, the type of cheating of taking greenies.. it wall was to gain a competitive advantage. It's no different than steroids, it's just steroids are more effective. That's the only difference. It should be obvious that purposefully losing isn't cheating, it's fraud. IT's something wholly different.

Quote

Anabolic steroids are much more powerful than greenies, by leaps and bounds. I don't think it's fair to compare the two - not only are they completely different drugs with completely different effects, but again one is drastically stronger than the other. Like comparing wine to heroin, they're just not comparable.

See, you even admit the only difference is how effective steroids are. That isn't difference of morals, it's difference of biochemistry.

[BigDMcGee]

also you should know, what I'm objecting to is the sort of moral outrage guys like tanner have for cheaters, I'm not trying to argue that steroids effect the actual play of the game the same as a scuffed ball. I'm saying your outrage about either act should be the same. ONe shouldn't be lovable, and the other demonizing, it's the same breach of ethics.

[CaneBrain]

BigDMcGee, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 2:05 PM, said:

There's a fundamental difference between throwing a game, and trying to gain a competitive advantage to win a game. The type of cheating of gaylord perry, the type of cheating of taking greenies.. it wall was to gain a competitive advantage. It's no different than steroids, it's just steroids are more effective. That's the only difference. It should be obvious that purposefully losing isn't cheating, it's fraud. IT's something wholly different.

Having read some of Posnanski's back articles.....I think it is very questionable how effective steroids were and how big a part they played in the home run boom.http://joeposnanski....about-steroids/

[Swift_Psycho]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 2:24 PM, said:

Having read some of Posnanski's back articles.....I think it is very questionable how effective steroids were and how big a part they played in the home run boom.http://joeposnanski....about-steroids/

I was actually just reading the article Posnanski discusses not that long ago. Really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting Posnanski's thoughts on it, always nice to get his take on topics like this. Eric Walker's article is full of good info, and this leaped out at me more than anything (Posnanski talking about Walker's findings):

Quote

...steroids “very heavily favor” building your upper body while home run power mostly comes from lower body strength. He suggests that if Barry Bonds added 20 pounds of pure muscle to his whole body, probably no more than 5 or 7 of those pounds would be lower body, and by his math equation the added power would likely be no more than 2 to 4 feet of length. He points out that while the players may have looked bigger and stronger — and no doubt WERE bigger and stronger — it certainly was not the cause of the home run records.

[king_tanner]

BigDMcGee, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

also you should know, what I'm objecting to is the sort of moral outrage guys like tanner have for cheaters, I'm not trying to argue that steroids effect the actual play of the game the same as a scuffed ball. I'm saying your outrage about either act should be the same. ONe shouldn't be lovable, and the other demonizing, it's the same breach of ethics.

I think by cheating so much that you can change your body so drastically to make yourself pretty much look like a monster, is outrageous. I am morally outraged by it. Is that wrong of me? I never said I wasn't against other forms of cheating, but steroids have effected athletes in so many different sports. It hits a spot with me. As a former swimmer, I've competed against other swimmers who I've seen take steroids in locker rooms. I just hate the drug and how it has impacted a variety of different sports for so long, and that some sports are still not clean. Players need to be tested in every sport where steroids can contribute. Yes I'm looking at you professional golfers.

[timwakefield]

My feeling on steroids is - it happened, MLB was definitely complicit or at least more than happy to turn a blind eye when McGwire and Sosa went after Roger Maris, and it's not like anybody was murdering babies. I just don't think they should make it to the HOF, and I'd be kind of surprised if any of them do. Anybody who definitely took steroids that is. Whether or not Gaylord Perry should be in, I really don't know.There is a difference between taking steroids and scuffing the ball though, which is that unless you're throwing every single pitch with a scuffed ball, you're not breaking the rules as often as a steroid user who is cheating just by being on the field.

[BigDMcGee]

timwakefield, on Sunday, September 12th, 2010, 2:05 AM, said:

My feeling on steroids is - it happened, MLB was definitely complicit or at least more than happy to turn a blind eye when McGwire and Sosa went after Roger Maris, and it's not like anybody was murdering babies. I just don't think they should make it to the HOF, and I'd be kind of surprised if any of them do. Anybody who definitely took steroids that is. Whether or not Gaylord Perry should be in, I really don't know.There is a difference between taking steroids and scuffing the ball though, which is that unless you're throwing every single pitch with a scuffed ball, you're not breaking the rules as often as a steroid user who is cheating just by being on the field.

Your'e breaking the rules by stepping on the field with a razor, sandpaper, vasoline or what ever you scuff the ball with .

[BaseJester]

BigDMcGee, on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, 2:16 PM, said:

also you should know, what I'm objecting to is the sort of moral outrage guys like tanner have for cheaters, I'm not trying to argue that steroids effect the actual play of the game the same as a scuffed ball. I'm saying your outrage about either act should be the same. ONe shouldn't be lovable, and the other demonizing, it's the same breach of ethics.

The difference to me is that sandpaper doesn't leave a trail of health problems for young players (the vast majority of whom have no future in professional athletics) who emulate the behavior.

[Mercury69]

If you can hit the ball far and hard enough to murder a baby, that's defintely cheating."Jose Bautista could set a new Blue Jay record for murdering babies, surpassing George Bell's 47 infanticides."