new HOF "impact/era" ballot

[ls7plus]

With reference to the many posts above re when Bonds started, it was rather common knowledge in the very early 2000's that he had announced his intention to do so to a select, inner circle of fellow MLB'ers following the 1998 season, after all the hoopla McGwire and Sosa received in '98. He had some injuries at first (the artificial additives strengthen the muscles, but not the connective tissue), but eventually he and Balco got things straightened out. One hell of a smart hitter, though--used to watch all of his games on the major league pass and never, ever saw him fooled on a pitch!

Best,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

There can be no serious question Bonds used at least after 1998 and that it significantly improved his power numbers.

There is also no serious question he was an elite player prior to that.

How one assesses that in terms of HOF, it's a matter of personal belief. I would put him in, and what's more, I still have a hard time putting roids in one box and speed in another although I understand roids have more of a demonstrable effect on performance.

Nick didn't Ted Williams have something close to a second peak very late? From memory I thought he had dropped off a bit post-Korean War but came back to have a couple of phenomenal seasons including a .388 right at the end? Or was it too short to qualify, or not deep enough beyond the BA?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There can be no serious question Bonds used at least after 1998 and that it significantly improved his power numbers.

There is also no serious question he was an elite player prior to that.

How one assesses that in terms of HOF, it's a matter of personal belief. I would put him in, and what's more, I still have a hard time putting roids in one box and speed in another although I understand roids have more of a demonstrable effect on performance.

Nick didn't Ted Williams have something close to a second peak very late? From memory I thought he had dropped off a bit post-Korean War but came back to have a couple of phenomenal seasons including a .388 right at the end? Or was it too short to qualify, or not deep enough beyond the BA?

Ted hit .388 in 1957 and was the second time he should have won the MVP and they gave it to a Yankee instead.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Actually looking at it now Ted had great seasons right after the Korean War. It was his seasons right before the war that were a little subpar, for him. It's incredible he missed close to FIVE seasons, not to mention almost another full one due to injury, yet amassed the totals he did.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually looking at it now Ted had great seasons right after the Korean War. It was his seasons right before the war that were a little subpar, for him. It's incredible he missed close to FIVE seasons, not to mention almost another full one due to injury, yet amassed the totals he did.

You couldn't expect anything less form the greatest offensive player in the history of the game. He was Babe Ruth and John Wayne rolled into one amazing human.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Actually looking at it now Ted had great seasons right after the Korean War. It was his seasons right before the war that were a little subpar, for him. It's incredible he missed close to FIVE seasons, not to mention almost another full one due to injury, yet amassed the totals he did.

I always figured that his service in the Korean War gave his shattered elbow sustained by running into the wall after a drive hit by Ralph Kiner in the All-Star game (1950?) a real chance to heal--IMHO, based objectively on runs created versus league average runs created per 27 outs, the best ever (the Babe, while a close second in this category, has to be accorded the title of the best player ever when given credit for his ample pitching achievements).

Best wishes always,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There can be no serious question Bonds used at least after 1998 and that it significantly improved his power numbers.

There is also no serious question he was an elite player prior to that.

How one assesses that in terms of HOF, it's a matter of personal belief. I would put him in, and what's more, I still have a hard time putting roids in one box and speed in another although I understand roids have more of a demonstrable effect on performance.

Nick didn't Ted Williams have something close to a second peak very late? From memory I thought he had dropped off a bit post-Korean War but came back to have a couple of phenomenal seasons including a .388 right at the end? Or was it too short to qualify, or not deep enough beyond the BA?

Pete, Ted hit .316 in 1960, after turning 42 in August of that year, with an incredible 29 homers in just 310 at bats! Teddy F___ing Ballgame!! A pinched nerve in his neck in 1959 (he has stated that he couldn't really turn his head around in his stance to the point he was used to to see the pitch!) accounted for his only bad year, 1959.

As you know, best always,

Larry

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nick didn't Ted Williams have something close to a second peak very late? From memory I thought he had dropped off a bit post-Korean War but came back to have a couple of phenomenal seasons including a .388 right at the end? Or was it too short to qualify, or not deep enough beyond the BA?

actually, he didn't have a second peak as much as he just stayed really awesome for a long time. If you look at his couple of "down" years in the middle, they are as a result of small sample sizes due to war service. But even then his power numbers fell off post Korea as he hit more than 30 homers only once after 1951

[hysell]

Larry, the thing that got me watching Barry, was in those years he led league in walks & by a mile? He might get 1 or 2 real good pitches to hit & often did damage with them ? And he often hit behind Jeff Kent & had not much of a hitter behind him to protect his ab"s ? Robert .

[hysell]

Pete you are correct on Teddy baseball , even if you counted the war years! & I also believe Joe {D} ,the Yankee Clipper , also had 3 to 4 fine years at age 32 or older? Sure are a lot of players? For it NEVER , EVER happen in baseball history & this is just some hitters? Would bet, this would also be true for pitchers , also! But they didn"t use WAR stats back then !Robert.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by hysell

Pete you are correct on Teddy baseball , even if you counted the war years! & I also believe Joe {D} ,the Yankee Clipper , also had 3 to 4 fine years at age 32 or older? Sure are a lot of players? For it NEVER , EVER happen in baseball history & this is just some hitters? Would bet, this would also be true for pitchers , also! But they didn"t use WAR stats back then !Robert.

Nick isn't saying guys didn't have good years late, he is saying until recently they did not go into a typical age-related decline, then revive.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nick isn't saying guys didn't have good years late, he is saying until recently they did not go into a typical age-related decline, then revive.

This!

Guys have up and down years, that's the nature of the game. But before the "roid era" no players had their peak years, then started to decline then suddenly posted a second run of peak years (that in some cases were even better than their prime years between age 26-30) the classic "second peak" that seems to be a serious red flag for PED's.

I'm not saying that's the only way to determine roid users either as many of them used simply to stay in MLB or to maintain enough production to be starters. But the simple fact of the matter is that in the history of the game nobody was a better player from 35-41 than they were from 26-30. Then magically a bunch of guys were, and all during the same era.


P.S. you can't just use batting average for this either as it is an incomplete measure of a hitter's production. It tells us nothing about walks nor the type of hits he got.

[packs]

I can't tell from their posts but is that guy suggesting Bonds didn't use PEDs?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

I can't tell from their posts but is that guy suggesting Bonds didn't use PEDs?

I think he's suggesting that since there was no smoking gun he ,and the other big names involved, shouldn't be punished by the HOF voters. My counter was that there IS a smoking gun and that is the statistical evidence.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by hysell

Larry, the thing that got me watching Barry, was in those years he led league in walks & by a mile? He might get 1 or 2 real good pitches to hit & often did damage with them ? And he often hit behind Jeff Kent & had not much of a hitter behind him to protect his ab"s ? Robert .

I agree completely, Robert. As Ted Williams used to say, "when you get your pitch, don't take it, don't swing and miss it, AND DON'T FOUL IT OFF!" And Barry sure didn't! You are absolutely right about the enormous number of walks Barry drew, which are a tremendous factor in creating runs, as seen in Bill James' formula for same. Also, look at the career records of those skilled in both power and drawing walks for some jaw-dropping runs scored totals.

Best regards,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

With reference to the many posts above re when Bonds started, it was rather common knowledge in the very early 2000's that he had announced his intention to do so to a select, inner circle of fellow MLB'ers following the 1998 season, after all the hoopla McGwire and Sosa received in '98. He had some injuries at first (the artificial additives strengthen the muscles, but not the connective tissue), but eventually he and Balco got things straightened out. One hell of a smart hitter, though--used to watch all of his games on the major league pass and never, ever saw him fooled on a pitch!

Best,

Larry

His girl friend said the same thing about timing. All the attention McGwire and Sosa got apparently really pissed him off because he felt (correctly) that he was by far the better player.