OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't even know what to say considering Ruth leads or is in the top 5 of every offensive stat you can come up with despite playing significantly less games. If you think hitting 714 home runs while batting 342 lifetime is a one dimensional player I don't know what it takes to be considered great in your opinion.

Ruth leads all players all time in WAR, Offensive WAR and position player WAR. He played 700 less games than Aaron, and 400 less games than Bonds or Mays.

Not to mention he won 20 games in back to back years and has an ERA title. I don't know what one dimensional outside of pitching means.

He couldn't field, he couldn't run, he didn't have a good glove. That's what it means. Don't get so obsessed with WAR, it's an overrated stat that sabermaticians got hard for.

[packs]

As far as I know leading all players all time in WAR means you are the best player on the field at all times. He was also in the top 5 in fielding percentage as a right fielder every year and is 24th all time in assists. I don't know what you're trying to say about his glove.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who said Ruth couldn't field or run?

[71buc]

The greatest players of every generation could compete in any generation. The difference is that the average players have improved in every aspect of the game. This served to make the competition deeper and the quality of the game progressively better.

I really think that if MLB wanted PEDs gone they would punish the team that benefited from the cheating of the individual player. They punished Melky Cabrera but the Giants organization benefited from his use. He played 113 games prior to getting caught. Make all of those games forfeits and there is no WS for the Giants in 2012. Instead they win the World Series and Melky is given a $377,000 share.

[glynparson]

For the overwhelming majority it was not a 365 day a year job, most had to work second jobs because they did not make enough money, this was true of many players even some into the 1950's. This is not supposition but fact and you can choose not to believe it but that does not make it so. You also cant seem to grasp the concept of the minute number of players ruth was able to participate against compared to the globilization of the game. Even with some not playing baseball its borderline racist to not think that the expanding of the game worldwide has not in fact made many baseball players better athletes than in the past. It was also much harder to find all of the best players and many club teams had mlb caliber talent but never got a shot due to never being noticed. It was just a little harder to get around the entire country back then then it is the world today.

[packs]

Originally Posted by glynparson

For the overwhelming majority it was not a 365 day a year job, most had to work second jobs because they did not make enough money, this was true of many players even some into the 1950's. This is not supposition but fact and you can choose not to believe it but that does not make it so. You also cant seem to grasp the concept of the minute number of players ruth was able to participate against compared to the globilization of the game. Even with some not playing baseball its borderline racist to not think that the expanding of the game worldwide has not in fact made many baseball players better athletes than in the past. It was also much harder to find all of the best players and many club teams had mlb caliber talent but never got a shot due to never being noticed. It was just a little harder to get around the entire country back then then it is the world today.

I'm not challenging the point you're making. We're actually making similar points. Your point is that Ruth didn't play against the best. My point is today's athletes aren't playing against the best either.

When Ruth played the best athletes in the country played baseball. Today they don't. My point applies to all professional baseball players in Ruth's time, not just white players. I think the average professional baseball player at the top of their game was better in the past than they are now.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

When Ruth played the best athletes in the country played baseball. Today they don't. My point applies to all professional baseball players in Ruth's time, not just white players. I think the average professional baseball player at the top of their game was better in the past than they are now.

I'm sure some of the best athletes back then wound up as doing something else, because the risk/reward for playing baseball just wasn't worth it. I just don't think that in the olden days, that playing baseball was necessarily the glamorous job that it is today..

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

He couldn't field, he couldn't run, he didn't have a good glove. That's what it means. Don't get so obsessed with WAR, it's an overrated stat that sabermaticians got hard for.

With all due respect, you don't have a freakin' clue what you're talking about. Ruth had an excellent and complete all around game. As for running, you don't hit .342 lifetime if you can't run.

One can only conclude that your source material concerning Ruth is that stupid movie with John Goodman's farcical portrayal.

[EvilKing00]

Ruth was an amazing baseball player probably the best of all time.

but

he didnt work out, he didnt eat right, we wasnt in great shape even when he was young. When i say great shape im comparing him to todays (most of todays) players who work out every day, have a 6 pack, (not of budwiser) bench 300 or so pounds and are all cut up and train every day.

even thought he wasnt any of that he was still the best

but bonds is damn close

[Peter_Spaeth]

The type of training done by today's players is not necessarily conducive to superiority. Guys seem to get injured just swinging a bat -- how many guys have down time due to 'oblique strains' and the like compared to a generation ago, and hamstring pulls, and all sorts of other injuries suggesting overstrengthening and insufficient stretching and flexibility/

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by kcohen

With all due respect, you don't have a freakin' clue what you're talking about. Ruth had an excellent and complete all around game. As for running, you don't hit .342 lifetime if you can't run.

One can only conclude that your source material concerning Ruth is that stupid movie with John Goodman's farcical portrayal.

With all due respect, you must not know shit. Ruth did not have an excellent and complete all around game, you're arrogant for that assumption. To hit .342 he didn't need speed. As an earlier poster stated, the fields were deep. Anyone person could generalize Ruth was not fast, as evidenced by his steals and fielding, which you seem lacking to grasp. He had more triples than steals because of the deep fields. If a player hits at a .342 clip and gets on base nearly every other at bat, wouldn't you think they would run?

No Bonds was complete, 500-500. Unreal

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

With all due respect, you must not know shit. Ruth did not have an excellent and complete all around game, you're arrogant for that assumption. To hit .342 he didn't need speed. As an earlier poster stated, the fields were deep. Anyone person could generalize Ruth was not fast, as evidenced by his steals and fielding, which you seem lacking to grasp. He had more triples than steals because of the deep fields. If a player hits at a .342 clip and gets on base nearly every other at bat, wouldn't you think they would run?

No Bonds was complete, 500-500. Unreal

The "arrogance" of my assumptions is based on conversations with any one of several knowledgeable people who saw Ruth play, one of whom was the sports writer Shirley Povich. So I have no idea from where your assumptions are drawn other than what any one person who is not fully informed can generalize about, with all due respect.

As to my original post, it was, shall we say, overly aggressive. Sorry for that. I'll just say that I feel you are mistaken as to the all around quality of The Babe's game.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

With all due respect, you must not know shit. Ruth did not have an excellent and complete all around game, you're arrogant for that assumption. To hit .342 he didn't need speed. As an earlier poster stated, the fields were deep. Anyone person could generalize Ruth was not fast, as evidenced by his steals and fielding, which you seem lacking to grasp. He had more triples than steals because of the deep fields. If a player hits at a .342 clip and gets on base nearly every other at bat, wouldn't you think they would run?

No Bonds was complete, 500-500. Unreal

You've entirely ignored the other points I made about why Ruth might not have run much.
Especially having Gehrig behind him. Why run and potentially take a run away from yourself?

The era he played wasn't a huge one for running. 1921 one of ruths better years for steals he stole 17 and the Yankees as a team stole 89, about average for that year. This year most AL teams were over 100.

If you are an excellent ballplayer you do know that steals are more about getting a good jump and a good read of the pitcher. There's only ever been a handful of guys where that may not have mattered- Henderson, cloeman, probably a couple more. Brock himself won't credit pure speed.

Steve B
For the record, I only ever made it to modified pitch softball. Probably from a lack of ability to see let alone hit even a lousy fastball. I run like a catcher- A softball catcher.....And I'm damn proud of my 1 career stolen base.
(Two triples too - hey I'm like Babe Ruth!)

[abrahamrudy]

I just can't stand how people have become so self-righteous about steroids, relying on the verdict in the court of public opinion to declare players guilty or innocent. Look, we ALL bear the cross of the steroid era. Nobody here can honestly say that in 1998 they thought Big Mac's popeye arms were real (and if you can, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to unload for a few t205s). Every one of us was glued to the TV that season, watching every on of his 70 and Sosa's 66. We knew or should have known that they were juicing. We ignored it, just as we had ignored it through the late 80s and the entire 90s, because the baseball highs were worth it- titanic home runs, larger-than-life players, skyrocketing attendance, etc... WE need to own up to the steroid era ourselves. WE need to own up to it because it was US, not Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds who sullied the game. They were just entertainers who gave us what we wanted to see. If WE as a fan base have decided steroids are bad (and I believe they are) then WE have a responsibility to make it right; not by lynching the players who did what we wanted them to do, but by acknowledging what we've done wrong: letting the end product justify everything. An exhibit in the Hall of Fame fully treating the steroid era would be a good start: talk not only about Bonds Clemens Conte and McNamee, but on how we were all involved; the intense media coverage that steroids generated, the home run race, etc.; and on the aftermath as well: Ken Caminiti's untimely death and dangerous abuse of steroids by teenage athletes. Just as gambling once plagued the game, steroids plagued the game, and we need to acknowledge that this problem extended far beyond just the few players who happened to be randomly tested in 2003 before anybody gave a hoot who was juicing.

How does this shake out for Clemens and Bonds? I think they should be in the Hall of Fame. There's no shot that people will forget the allegations that swirl around, especially if the Hall of Fame does the right thing and addresses the steroid era. But to pretend that the all time home run leader didn't exist just because he's been found guilty in a post-hoc trial at the court of public opinion is to do a great disservice to the Hall and to baseball. There is nothing to be gained from guessing which great players are or were on steroids. The evidence record is woefully spotty and almost all concentrated in 2003, as though steroids hadn't been in use for decades prior. Steroid era players should be in the Hall, ceteris paribus, and I think there's a good chance that they will be.

[EvilKing00]

I can see a Block Buster movie in the next 10 years comming out! or at least a made for TV movie, lol

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by abrahamrudy

I just can't stand how people have become so self-righteous about steroids, relying on the verdict in the court of public opinion to declare players guilty or innocent. Look, we ALL bear the cross of the steroid era. Nobody here can honestly say that in 1998 they thought Big Mac's popeye arms were real

Your looking at things through 'post-steroid' eyes.

I guess I for one would have bought your bridge, and I bear no crosses related to drugs and baseball.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wasn't McGwire's explanation at the time that he was on a supplement? I remember thinking it wasn't particularly credible, but I don't recall caring all that much either.