He was banned, but his records all stand

There is more evidence that David Ortiz used steroids than there is that Roger Clemens used steroids.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense, not to me anyhow. I know, different actors.

Yes but Clemens was a jerk who left town and maybe even mailed it in a bit before he did, while Ortiz was beloved. A tale of two Red Sox.

Oops, silly me, trying to use facts and a consistent standard again.

If you were cheating on your wife, and she accused you of cheating on her without any evidence, would you admit it? No! If you stole money from your employer, and they accused you of stealing without any evidence, would you admit it? No! Without any proof or solid evidence, most will deny it. It's human nature. Heck, some will still deny it when presented with solid evidence.

Most will agree that OJ did it. Why is that? No proof or solid evidence. Is it because he wasn't liked? No. Most were able to use common sense to put together, based on what information was or was not provided, to conclude that he was (most likely) guilty. There are many people found guilty, without a smoking gun.

Like everyone else in this forum, I wish the steroid era never happened. I often think about what numbers Arod, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Ramirez, and many others would have ended up with, without steroids. Again, we will never know, but only God Knows :D

The only player in the HOF from the steroid era that bothers me the most is Pudge Rodriguez.

1. Jose Canseco wrote in his book that he personally injected Pudge with steroids.

2. Jose Canseco and Pudge Rodriguez played for the Texas Rangers from 1992-1994.

3. When asked if he was on the list of 103, Rodriguez responded “Only God knows."

4. He played for the Texas Rangers in the 1990s.

5. His physique varied fairly radically over the years, with it being beefier pre-testing and noticeably smaller once testing was implemented.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 criminalized the use and distribution of anabolic steroids. Steroids finally made it to baseball's banned substance list in 1991, however testing for major league players did not begin until the 2003 season.

https://metsdaddy.com/2016/12/why-i-...van-rodriguez/

Just one mans opinion.

Here are some other good examples:

https://www.businessinsider.com/athl...teroids-2011-9

Interesting that they couldn't find any football players to include. While football also has rules against PEDs, why is it that no one seems to care if players are using them?

The NFL has suspended hundreds of players for PEDs, including stars like DeAndre Hopkins.

I know, but does anyone care when it happens like what is seen in baseball? Has anyone been kept out of Canton because of a PED suspension?

Not to my knowledge. Will agree that the steroid era of baseball gets an extra special amount of hate.

People still relate to baseball players as people generally of normal size and build so when someone develops well beyond that, it doesn't sit well. Nobody expects that of football players who at many positions are of supernatural size and strength.

I think there is also a much greater historical emphasis on numbers and statistics in baseball, and during the PED era, those old numbers were being dwarfed. Most baseball fans knew 61 was the home run record for a season. How many football fans know the rushing or receiving yardage records?

I'm guessing it's a legal matter. If there is no evidence (like a failed test) he would probably sue MLB, would win and make MLB look bad. They can just ignore him and we can all talk about it. It's more important to us than them.

I don't think changing the past is in baseball's bloodline. I really don't expect them to add asterisks or not acknowledge past records because it's steeped in tradition.

There is no asterisk on the 1919 World Series title, for example. And when given the opportunity to right a wrong and award Armando Galarraga a perfect game, they declined to do so even though the call was clearly wrong.

I would say that Lyle Alzado would have had a great chance at the HOF if not for his honesty. His true accounts also completely destroy the idea of the "Steroid Era". He claimed to have begun his steroid use in 1969 at Yankton College.

If they were readily available to a tiny little NAIA college football player in 69'. There was no way on earth that professional athletes somehow never touched them for 15 more years, it's a joke. No one even tested until 2003, it would have been a pure free for all.

What were those five seasons from Koufax? I'll give you three but five "among the elite seasons ever put up by a pitcher"? 1962, he was 14-7 with a 2.54 ERA. That's been done roughly 80 million times in the history of baseball. Roughly :) 1964, you've got a better case but it wasn't a full season.

Koufax was league average outside of Chavez Ravine for his career.

His 2.54 ERA that year led the NL. He led all of MLB that year in hits per nine innings and Ks per nine innings. How many times has all that been done in a single year — which was by far the worst of his miraculous five year run?

Better at home, no doubt, as is almost every Dodger who pitched in Chavez Ravine, but he was NOT league average away.

Career away numbers: 3.04 ERA .652 winning percentage (Pitching largely for a team that couldn't hit it's way out of a paper bag) 1.167 WHIP, over a strikeout per inning and remember those totals are "poisoned" by his lackluster years. In that 5 year stretch they're pretty damn dominant.

My biggest take-away from that poll is that Johnny Bench is REALLY underrated.

Koufax
 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...fewer%20starts.

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest we compare the two on an even playing field then? :confused:



.

Off the top of my head you could compare Judge's numbers to Pujols' at the same age. Or you could do a more realistic projection of Judge's expected path going forward (there would be a lot of imprecision there obviously) and compare it to Pujols' career totals. Or if you don't want to penalize Judge for starting much later, I suppose you could compare 162 game averages, although that will overvalue Judge IMO.

Interesting thoughts Peter. I may have to try to adjust the comparison and see where we get then.



.

He had a career 3.38 ERA outside of Dodger Stadium, which is what I said, NOT "on the road". League Average is perhaps overstating it a bit but "very normal" certainly isn't.

And, no, a 2.54 ERA is not an all-time elite season. Period.

Always thought he was a tad overrated. Yogi is criminally underrated and my man Gary Carter could stand to be rated a bit higher generally when it comes to catchers.

Greatest Living player
 

There is only ONE player on this list that I believe the vast majority of baseball people would agree was the best EVER at his position.

Ricky is not the best outfielder ever, Jeter is not the best shortstop ever Koufax is not the best pitcher ever, etc.

Only Mike Schmidt is almost universally thought of as the greatest third baseman of all time.

That has to count for something when there are only 9 or 11 ( Relief pitcher and DH) greatest of all time by position. And Schmitty is the only one still breathing.

Bench is a close second but check out Yogi's records/stats/awards/rings!

Catcher WAR
Bench 75.1 (1st)
Berra 59.5 (6th)
Carter is 2nd in this metric

Agree! Just like when Jack Clark accused Albert Pujols of using PEDs, without solid evidence. Albert Pujols immediately said he was going to take legal action against Clark, and Clark backed off.

Yes his career home ERA at the Coliseum wasn't great, not sure about his numbers at Ebbets. But EVERYONE'S numbers were awful at the Coliseum.

People also seem to lose track of the fact that Koufax put it all together as a starter around 23 years old and became elite at 24. Perfectly normal ages for a pitcher to "get there" Do we really penalize him for the Dodgers not being able to send him to the minors because of the bonus baby rules?

If he had been able to develop normally maybe his greatness comes out even earlier, who knows. At the very least he doesn't have those first 4 or 5 years weighing down his career numbers because they're in the minors.

Hell there are a number of elite pitchers who don't even start getting their first cups of coffee until about the time he started to put it all together. I just don't see the sense in "punishing" him for career totals that are deflated by those years that should've been spent in the minors.

Also, those years that everyone loves to hate were actually right about league average, not some dumpster fire. So you get a guy who was average from age 19 to age 23-24. I did the work in another thread somewhere but there are tons of HOF pitchers who weren't very good until that 23 -24 year old range, and they NEVER had a 6 year stretch like Koufax's peak. IF you're going to argue against Koufax the better argument is him being done at 30, rather than criticism of his learning years that should've been spent in the minors.


And again I didn't vote for him as the greatest living player.

+1

All good points regarding the bonus baby rules forcing him to pitch in the Majors well before he was developed, and how he actually developed in a normal timeline.

And I also agree he isn't the best living player.

He may not even be the best living left handed pitcher. That may be Randy Johnson--a guy that didn't get going until he was 29, but didn't slow down until his early 40s, while having the highest ERA+ 6x, winning 5 Cy Youngs, leading the League in strikeouts 9x, and winning 3 games in a World Series vs. the Yankees on his way to a WS MVP.

Of course, if Koufax had stayed healthy, he might actually be the best living player.

I remember when Sosa got in trouble for having a corked bat that he used for batting practice...to which he stated that he was just doing that for the fans.

Clearly, he did not understand what you do Peter. One of the strongest draws, IMO, of Baseball, is that any 'average joe' can relate...even dream that he could be THAT guy.

And Baseball is ONLY so relatable on the most level playing field possible.


Totally agree!

He and Schmidt, IMO, are GOATS at their particular position...and so is Rickey...as a leadoff batter.


.

Your list is more than plenty complete in fact it could’ve been just 10 players .. Bench , Bonds , Griffey , Rickey , Koufax , Pujols , Rose , Ryan , Schmidt , Clemens .. oh forgot Palmeiro 😬
and Judge 🙂

And A Rod - Not a single vote considering some crazy ass numbers

And his crazy ass numbers didn’t result in him taking two HR records away
from deserving players who earned them, while using PEDs.

I will never understand the love for Bonds.

Eddie Murray - One of the three most dangerous switch hitters of all time
3255 hits 504 dingers 1917 rbis

(Sorry for the extra posts - fuel by Joseph Magnus Triple Cask)

All of that is completely legitimate but Koufax still played those years so they still count for/against him.

Did he get good at 24 because he figured it out? Or because they raised the mound, increased the size of the strike zone, added two awful teams via expansion, and moved into Dodger Stadium?

Probably some of both, but considering he put up numbers that were far better than most pitchers in the league, it would seem like he figured it out should get more of the credit.

One explanation, and maybe it's BS, is that Koufax with the help of Larry Sherry (I think) learned better mechanics and so developed much better control without sacrificing his speed.

My top 3 living pitchers are Koufax, Maddux and Martinez. Big Unit was a great pitcher, too. When those guys were pitching you expected them to win every time.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Considering he led in ERA+ just twice* in those five years, perhaps the gap over the rest of pitchers isn't quite as large as perceived.

* - yes, leading twice is really, really good. Let's be real clear on that.

I voted for Ohtani. But Bonds, Griffey, and Randy Johnson all have a pretty strong case as well in my eyes.

The next time I get into an argument on this forum, I will try to remind myself that 14 people here voted for Johnny Bench and 16 people voted for Mike Schmidt.

Obviously that helped, but it hardly did EVERYTHING or every average pitcher who came to the Dodgers would've become Koufax. It doesn't explain the precipitous drop in his walk rate. I mean Koufax didn't become Claude Osteen, or even Don Sutton or Don Drysdale, He became KOUFAX. When every hitter in the league this side of Hank Aaron talks about practically giving up when they face him that can't all just be hype and a good stadium.

Willie Stargell - trying to hit Koufax was like “trying to drink coffee with a fork."

Pete Rose - "I couldn't hit my weight against Koufax" (he was 10 for 57 for his career)

Of all the players to single out, and you are going with Bench and Schmidt?

Bench is arguably the greatest catcher ever.

Schmidt is the greatest 3rd basemen ever. He was an elite fielder--and has a career WAR over 100. He won MVP 3x, and finished in the top 10 five other times. His career OPS+ of 148 is in the top 50 ever. He is one of 3 players (with Griffey Jr. and Mays) to win at least 10 Gold Gloves and hit 500 Home Runs. And you are singling out Mike Schmidt as a bad choice?

I agree that Bench and Schmidt are 2 surprising choices to complain about. If I had to pick the result that I found most surprising, it would be the number of votes for Pete Rose. Regardless of his gambling issues, I agree he was a great player, but power hitters usually get thought of more than singles hitters when you talk about the greatest players in baseball.

He is not on the ballot, but Clayton Kershaw's stats compare favorably to many of those who are.

He has the fifth highest winning percentage of any pitcher (210-92, .695), and the players above him either have well under 200 wins (120 at most) or compiled their stats in the National Association. His ERA is the lowest (2.48) of any player in the live-ball era except Mariano Rivera (who pitched half the number of innings). He is fourth all-time in adjusted ERA+ (157) with over 1200 more innings than the three players above him, fifth in WHIP, 3rd in hits per inning pitched, has won three Cy Young awards, and an MVP.

His 162-game average is similar (if not better) than other pitchers with votes:
Kershaw 17-7, 2.48 ERA, 236 strikeouts, 157 ERA+.
Martinez 17-8, 2.93 ERA, 242 strikeouts, 154 ERA+
Koufax 16-8, 2.76, 229 strikeouts, 131 ERA+
Johnson 17-9, .3.29, 279 strikeouts, 135 ERA+
Maddux 16-10, 3.16, 154 strikeouts, 132 ERA+
Clemens 17-9, 3.12, 224 strikeouts, 144 ERA+.

It is better than Ryan's 14-13, 3.19, 246 strikeouts, 112 ERA+.

So, what's the problem? He has been an average (or below average) pitcher in the post-season, so much so that it seems to preclude him from any of these discussions, despite regular season statistics that should put him in the argument for greatest living pitcher (if not player).

I am not saying the post-season should be discounted. He has pitched almost the equivalent of a full season with a 13-13 record and a 4.49 ERA. Not being great in the post-season did not hurt Willie Mays or Ted Williams when we discuss all-time greats, but the sample size is not large for those guys.

I just think that if he had been at least pretty good in the post-season, he would be talked about in far different terms.

The post season absolutely has hurt Kershaw's image -- and rightly so IMO.

I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has been hurt more than Kershaw by their post-season performance.

193 IP with a 4.49 ERA, the consistency of his mediocrity is through a pretty large sample size.