Any player cards you dont collect because of morals

[clydepepper]

First, I only collect Baseball, so, many of those mentioned previously, aren't in my 'arena'.

I do discriminate against PED users - the sole exception being journeyman catcher Geff Zaun, who actually did 'call his shot' in the 1999 Hall-of-Fame game I attended in Cooperstown.

I also will never collect Rose or any other cheaters...as, in doing so, IMO, dishonors the legacy of those who did not cheat.

Besides, I'd go broke trying to collect EVERYBODY.


.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The only player I will not collect is Tony Gwynn and I will admit my reason is beyond silly.

I am so anti Tony Gwynn that when a great hobby friend was excited and sent me a picture of his new game used Tony Gwynn bat. My return email only said "if you ever bring him up again we can't be friends". He has never sent me a email about getting another Tony Gwynn item.

Please share your reasoning...I have always thought Gwynn was a good guy.



.

[todeen]

this whole thread makes me think of this quote: "The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana."

Personally, I cannot live in a B&W white world, and believe most of us live in gray. Perhaps it's because I'm a teacher, I have to walk into class every day forgetting and forgiving the stupid idiotic things my students (mostly male) do every day. Teenage boys must only have 100 working brain cells, and middle school boys only half that amount.

So, when it comes to cards, I don't usually think of a players value to society. I also came to maturity during the steroid era, so that probably taints my opinion as well.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by todeen

I wanted to buy some Nazi coinage once, and my mother heard about it and gave me a rebuke. I'm a historian, and to me I see a historical artifact. But I passed them up and haven't ever bought any.

I think a similar question to sale of Nazi items is: why are serial killer books and shows so popular? I imagine collecting items of evil and watching items of evil have many similar characteristics.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

I would think they are probably popular because they are exciting, the opposite of the banality of evil if we may keep the comparison; evil at it's most visceral. Many are the most extreme type of mystery, that with the highest stakes and consequences. The element of the unknown, oftentimes in the identity of the killer and in the bizarre compulsions driving the tragic act, certainly seems to appeal to many. I think history shows us that every people in every time and of every faith and of no faith have been fascinated with death, the cost we all eventually must pay to enjoy life. People are interested when they hear something shocking. The vast, vast majority see the villain of the piece as the villain of the piece, and while interested there is no element of support for the actions of that evil. If watching horror movies made one a monster, nobody could still be alive.

I have read true crime books. I see nothing immoral in having done so. I have a large library of history books, almost all of which contain material greatly objectionable to current orthodoxy. Some of them contain Nazi's and their symbols. One of them is about a serial killer in Berlin under the Nazi regime, even. I once had a friend of a friend at a gathering at my place get upset and storm out because of the "Nazi flag" on my living room table, which after investigating what they were on about, turned out to be the book jacket to William Shirer's book I was reading that week (and is very anti-Nazi). I have read Mein Kampf in its entirety. History, genuine inquiry into it, is not the study of things one likes or their party finds amenable to their narrative, as nobody states but most seem to clearly desire. My collection of history cards contains some good and some bad and mostly grey. I will never understand the increasingly popular view that that which is bad or negative in the narrative is offensive, and that that which is offensive needs to be censored, whether formally or informally, kept from public view, or curated out of collections, and only a very ill-defined and constantly shifting world view ever be permissible to seriously engage with, which often includes individuals who did great evil as well but are amenable to the narrative.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by todeen

I wanted to buy some Nazi coinage once, and my mother heard about it and gave me a rebuke. I'm a historian, and to me I see a historical artifact. But I passed them up and haven't ever bought any.

I think a similar question to sale of Nazi items is: why are serial killer books and shows so popular? I imagine collecting items of evil and watching items of evil have many similar characteristics.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

its probably about timing..give it 200 years..and there will be more nazi buyers etc

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I do discriminate against PED users - the sole exception being journeyman catcher Geff Zaun, who actually did 'call his shot' in the 1999 Hall-of-Fame game I attended in Cooperstown.




.

Gregg Zaun, you conflated him with Geoff Zahn, who laid an egg for the Cubs when they traded a disgruntled Burt Hooton for him.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Gregg Zaun, you conflated him with Geoff Zahn, who laid an egg for the Cubs when they traded a disgruntled Burt Hooton for him.

You are correct...oops! I remember the event more than the name.


.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

I couldn’t possibly agree more…. Cheers to you for taking a personal stand.

And related, I occasionally see posts of late 1800’s card sets which include incredibly racist caricature images of African American baseball players, etc. I just can’t imagine how there is joy in collecting cards that perpetuate inages like this. Clearly some do, and to each his own, I guess. I just don’t get it

Thanks Jeff. For me, the issue hits too close to home.
BTW, I agree with your related comment about early cards with racist caricatures of ball players. I dare say that most would not see any joy in collecting those particular cards. I do understand though, that there may be some historians or completists that would purchase these items (I can appreciate a financial motivation to sell a complete set if it brings more $$, so maybe there is the feeling of a need to add a card that might be offensive to some, in order to get that additional financial gain).

This has been an interesting thread. I've learned some things I never knew before. I hazard to guess that another interesting thread might be this: Would you draft or do you currently carry any unethical or immoral players on your fantasy teams!! Now I'm sure that would open a can of worms!

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

As a set collector I collect all cards in any set I collect...the good, the bad and the ugly. I guess I could feel a little guitly about buying a fantasy 1959 Ed Bouchee card

Al, don't shame the centerpiece of my pervert autograph collection.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Please share your reasoning...I have always thought Gwynn was a good guy.



.

Maybe for his batting battles with Boggs?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Maybe for his batting battles with Boggs?

LOL, that and his beyond amazing late in life insanely huge increase in batting average from age 33-37. His huge production increase made Barry Bonds increase look like Barry had never even heard of PEDs.

Weirdly couldn't care less about anyone else's huge increase in production late in their careers.

I said it didn't make sense.

[packs]

I feel like Tony probably got better because pitching got worse as his career went on.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I feel like Tony probably got better because pitching got worse as his career went on.

That is beyond laughable to me. The 5 years he was age 28-32 his batting average averaged .318 in what is the prime years of most athletes. Then the 5 years from age 33-37 he averaged .369 over the years most are seriously declining.

If this wasn't good guy Tony Gwynn would adding 51 points to their batting average in their later years be totally ignored? If it was bad pitching the entire league average should have went through the roof.

and that is all I have to say on the subject.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is beyond laughable to me. The 5 years he was age 28-32 his batting average averaged .318 in what is the prime years of most athletes. Then the 5 years from age 33-37 he averaged .369 over the years most are seriously declining.

If this wasn't good guy Tony Gwynn would adding 51 points to their batting average in their later years be totally ignored? If it was bad pitching the entire league average should have went through the roof.

and that is all I have to say on the subject.

I have no interest in Gwynn being clean or dirty, but for the record, the league did go through the roof in 1993, Gwynn’s age 33 season. We went from 3.88 runs per game to 4.49, batting averages jumped 12 points, OPS jumped 42. They stayed high for a number of years after, 1993 marks a significant leaping point in NL offense.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is beyond laughable to me. The 5 years he was age 28-32 his batting average averaged .318 in what is the prime years of most athletes. Then the 5 years from age 33-37 he averaged .369 over the years most are seriously declining.

If this wasn't good guy Tony Gwynn would adding 51 points to their batting average in their later years be totally ignored? If it was bad pitching the entire league average should have went through the roof.

and that is all I have to say on the subject.

Why is it laughable? One of those 28 to 32 seasons he hit 313 but also led the league in hitting and led the league in hitting the next season too.

National League average ERA from 1988 to 1992:

3.45
3.49
3.79
3.68
3.50

National League average ERA from 1993 to 1997:

4.04
4.21
4.18
4.21
4.20

Tony Gwynn was not everyone. He was one of the most talented hitters of all time. Pitching did get worse so why wouldn't an already elite hitter not get better?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is beyond laughable to me. The 5 years he was age 28-32 his batting average averaged .318 in what is the prime years of most athletes. Then the 5 years from age 33-37 he averaged .369 over the years most are seriously declining.

If this wasn't good guy Tony Gwynn would adding 51 points to their batting average in their later years be totally ignored? If it was bad pitching the entire league average should have went through the roof.

and that is all I have to say on the subject.

Obviously your insinuation is he was taking PEDs or doing something else along the lines of cheating. If PEDs, I've seriously asked this question before. Knowing how PEDs apparently effect muscles and strength, please explain then how taking them can have such a dramatic effect on someone's batting average, but as is the case with Gwynn, seemingly no such dramatic effect on his hitting home runs, which seems to be the one constant similar factor among all PED using players other than pitchers. I've never come across anyone yet that can provide a reasonable or logical explanation as to how increased strength alone can also so dramatically increase one's eyesight, hand-eye coordination, and the like, that are tremendous factors in helping with a player's batting average.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Why is it laughable? One of those 28 to 32 seasons he hit 313 but also led the league in hitting and led the league in hitting the next season too.

National League average ERA from 1988 to 1992:

3.45
3.49
3.79
3.68
3.50

National League average ERA from 1993 to 1997:

4.04
4.21
4.18
4.21
4.20

Tony Gwynn was not everyone. He was one of the most talented hitters of all time. Pitching did get worse so why wouldn't an already elite hitter not get better?

Wouldn't posting the actual batting average during that time be WAY more relevant since that is what is being discussed. ERA is for pitchers.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Wouldn't posting the actual batting average during that time be WAY more relevant since that is what is being discussed. ERA is for pitchers.

Are you suggesting there's no link between worse pitching and an elite hitter's rising batting average? Does rising league average ERA not indicate pitching declined as his career went on?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Are you suggesting there's no link between worse pitching and an elite hitter's rising batting average? Does rising league average ERA not indicate pitching declined as his career went on?

There is a link but if we are just using things with links why not total bases?

[packs]

I feel like you think I'm being arbitrary but there was a statistical decline in pitching because pitching got worse. It makes sense that an elite hitter would get better if the average pitcher is worse. I don't see why that's laughable. That's what I would expect to happen.

[BobbyStrawberry]

I never collected his cards anyway, but I'm guessing there aren't too many Felipe Vazquez collectors on here. He's one guy I'm not interested in collecting....

[G1911]

If the claim is that “pitching got worse”, then using ERA makes sense. It’s the standard criteria of effectiveness for pitchers, and the core claim made was about pitchers.

I don’t think pitching just gets worse one year, I think we’re seeing the growing effect of steroid proliferation and expansion.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

I feel like you think I'm being arbitrary but there was a statistical decline in pitching because pitching got worse. It makes sense that an elite hitter would get better if the average pitcher is worse. I don't see why that's laughable. That's what I would expect to happen.

I don't think you're being arbitrary, but did you ever realize and consider that the NL expansion and addition ot two more teams, the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, just happened to also occur in 1993, the exact same year you noted the NL change in average ERA? Pitching may not have necessarily gotten worse, but obviously became more diluted due to the expansion. Also, the continuing and possibly expanding use of PEDs, and maybe a particular new PED coming out around that same time, could also be a contributing factor to the increasing ERAs. Hey, if nothing else, simply adding the Colorado Rockies with their mile high altitude and thin air into the NL is going to have at least a small impact on the overall NL average ERA, don't you think?

[Chuck9788]

Originally Posted by JustinD

As an example that few may know of this sick tradition, feel free to read about Nap Lajoie -

So I did some research on the lynching of Richard Robertson (above article).

Robertson was arrested and jailed in January 1909, for allegedly shooting and killing Deputy Philip Fatch.

The altercation occurred after two deputies, including Fatch, arrived at Robertson’s home to arrest him on a warrant for assault. Robertson, a carpenter working on a home in downtown Mobile, had been accused by two white plumbers – also working on the same home – of assault.

Robertson fled the deputies, and all three exchanged gunfire. Robertson was shot and transported to jail.

I am in no way justifying a barbaric lynching (or the accepting of hanging ropes as gifts). I'm only pointing out that this was not an "innocent" man that hung that day.

[packs]

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't think you're being arbitrary, but did you ever realize and consider that the NL expansion and addition ot two more teams, the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, just happened to also occur in 1993, the exact same year you noted the NL change in average ERA? Pitching may not have necessarily gotten worse, but obviously became more diluted due to the expansion. Also, the continuing and possibly expanding use of PEDs, and maybe a particular new PED coming out around that same time, could also be a contributing factor to the increasing ERAs. Hey, if nothing else, simply adding the Colorado Rockies with their mile high altitude and thin air into the NL is going to have at least a small impact on the overall NL average ERA, don't you think?

Did you consider I might have thought of all those things and that's why I said pitching got worse as Gwynn's career went on? From 1992 to 1997 the NL average ERA went from 3.50 to 4.20, that is a significant rise and I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't indicate a decline in pitching. You said pitching was diluted, same thing. If the average pitcher is worse and there are more bad pitchers than good pitchers, why wouldn't it stand to reason that an elite hitter would have a higher batting average against weaker competition?

I don't see where the controversy lies with Gwynn.

[Cliff Bowman]

In 107 AB’s against Greg Maddux, Gwynn hit .415 against him. I don’t think Gwynn cared who was pitching.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Did you consider I might have thought of all those things and that's why I said pitching got worse as Gwynn's career went on? From 1992 to 1997 the NL average ERA went from 3.50 to 4.20, that is a significant rise and I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't indicate a decline in pitching. You said pitching was diluted, same thing. If the average pitcher is worse and there are more bad pitchers than good pitchers, why wouldn't it stand to reason that an elite hitter would have a higher batting average against weaker competition?

I don't see where the controversy lies with Gwynn.

Seriously still on ERA.
Here you go.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/bat.shtml

[packs]

I don’t see how this helps your cause either. Average batting average went from 252 in 1992 to 264 in 1993. Very clearly demonstrating a decline in the quality of pitching and average players hitting for a higher batting average.

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by Chuck9788

So I did some research on the lynching of Richard Robertson (above article).

Robertson was arrested and jailed in January 1909, for allegedly shooting and killing Deputy Philip Fatch.

The altercation occurred after two deputies, including Fatch, arrived at Robertson’s home to arrest him on a warrant for assault. Robertson, a carpenter working on a home in downtown Mobile, had been accused by two white plumbers – also working on the same home – of assault.

Robertson fled the deputies, and all three exchanged gunfire. Robertson was shot and transported to jail.

I am in no way justifying a barbaric lynching (or the accepting of hanging ropes as gifts). I'm only pointing out that this was not an "innocent" man that hung that day.

Respectfully, I'm sure the folks who did the lynching probably felt the same way that day... for me, it's irrelevant.

I'd also like to add that the topic on this thread has been so thought provoking for me as a collector. As someone earlier joked, they'd be happy to take cards off my hands of some of the sketchier HOF members, it's honestly something that has crossed my mind over the last day or two.

And thanks to all who have kept the conversation civil - lots of adults here, which is nice (and sadly rare these days)

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don’t see how this helps your cause either. Average batting average went from 252 in 1992 to 264 in 1993. Very clearly demonstrating a decline in the quality of pitching and average players hitting for a higher batting average.

If we can debate using the same statistics over the same periods it would be way easier. I see no reason for me to debate something I never brought up like ERA.

Another HUGE thing you and others seem to overlook. In my very first post I clearly stated my reason was "beyond silly". How do you argue against that?

[G1911]

I'll take folks' Speakers, Hornsby's and Ansons, just to help them out. I will even pay with the preferred US bill denomination picturing the person they are least offended by. I will vow to forever keep these items out of the view of impressionable children. I don't know if Marty Bergen ever had a real card but I'll take him too if he did.

[Exhibitman]

I was at a show one time when a dealer I'd often bought from used a very specific ethnic slur to describe a certain politician. I walked away in disgust and will never, ever do business with him again. Outright public racism is a line I don't cross in business dealings.

As for players I do not collect because of morals, there are a few subjects I am not interested in having in my PC. Michael Jackson fits the bill.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I was at a show one time when a dealer I'd often bought from used a very specific ethnic slur to describe a certain politician. I walked away in disgust and will never, ever do business with him again. Outright public racism is a line I don't cross in business dealings.

I’ve had some negative dealers, but that’s a new one.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I never collected his cards anyway, but I'm guessing there aren't too many Felipe Vazquez collectors on here. He's one guy I'm not interested in collecting....

...or John Wetteland

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If we can debate using the same statistics over the same periods it would be way easier. I see no reason for me to debate something I never brought up like ERA.

Another HUGE thing you and others seem to overlook. In my very first post I clearly stated my reason was "beyond silly". How do you argue against that?

Ben- I don't think your reason is 'beyond silly', though perhaps stubborn...and we all do that.

As far as comparing BAs from different ERAs, even short ERAs, it goes against your believe as the earlier ERA's BAs (1988-1992) were in the 250s, while the later ERA's BAs (1993-2008) were all in the 260s...except for dipping to .259 one season.

So...there...BAs from different ERAs can be used in the same argument.

Now, THAT's 'beyond silly'!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Ben- I don't think your reason is 'beyond silly', though perhaps stubborn...and we all do that.

As far as comparing BAs from different ERAs, even short ERAs, it goes against your believe as the earlier ERA's BAs (1988-1992) were in the 250s, while the later ERA's BAs (1993-2008) were all in the 260s...except for dipping to .259 one season.

So...there...BAs from different ERAs can be used in the same argument.

If you want to make sense on this subject with me it will NOT work. Plain and simple BLEEP Tony Gwynn and absolutely NOTHING posted will even remotely change my opinion.

I do agree that league ERA went up and so did batting averages, so what it was not even remotely close to 51 points by an over the hill guy gaining a lot of weight around the mid section. For you guys that know nothing about PEDs and only believe they make you look like Jose Canseco please remind me of that muscle bound Lance Armstrong guy.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

...or John Wetteland

Definitely

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If you want to make sense on this subject with me it will NOT work. Plain and simple BLEEP Tony Gwynn and absolutely NOTHING posted will even remotely change my opinion.

I do agree that league ERA went up and so did batting averages, so what it was not even remotely close to 51 points by an over the hill guy gaining a lot of weight around the mid section. For you guys that know nothing about PEDs and only believe they make you look like Jose Canseco please remind me of that muscle bound Lance Armstrong guy.

...and THAT's stubborn.

...and there's nothing wrong with that.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

...and THAT's stubborn.

...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Thank you Sir for understanding.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

...or John Wetteland

Had to google that one; wish I hadn't.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I’ve had some negative dealers, but that’s a new one.

It was so very casual the way he said it that I just knew he was a frequent user of the term. White man of a certain age from a certain region of the country, not the most surprising thing that might be said, but still shocking to hear it said in public.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If you want to make sense on this subject with me it will NOT work. Plain and simple BLEEP Tony Gwynn and absolutely NOTHING posted will even remotely change my opinion.

I do agree that league ERA went up and so did batting averages, so what it was not even remotely close to 51 points by an over the hill guy gaining a lot of weight around the mid section. For you guys that know nothing about PEDs and only believe they make you look like Jose Canseco please remind me of that muscle bound Lance Armstrong guy.

It's an interesting point, and I think most are looking at it too simply.

But to try and be brief...

Point for - If someone who hits a lot of fly balls gets stronger, you get more HR.
If someone hits a lot of line drives or hard ground balls gets stronger, you probably get a higher BA... Because the ball gets past the infielders more quickly.

Point against - Batting (or so I'm told) has a fairly large mental component, guessing or "knowing" what pitch is coming next. A player might just get better at that as they get older.

Midway point- speaking of getting older, not everyone ages the same. I remember all my friends complaining about aches and pains on a ski trip in our mid 30's. I had none. That stuff didn't really catch up to me until around 40, maybe even a bit later. Did Gwynn just not age and have the typical 30's aches and pains? No way of knowing, but it's possible.

Lances PEDs were not strength related, but more along the lines of assuring better oxygen usage in the body. He was supposedly helped by a complicit cycling governing body AND Nike. None of them got any punishment at all.

[G1911]

I have no idea if Gwynn used. Just as Boggs power rose in 1987 when the leagues power jumped, so did Gwynn’s average. Not necessarily something wrong.

Definitely one of the best hitters I’ve ever seen, all the way until the end, when he was fat and had a hard time staying in the lineup. His Topps cards maxed his weight at like 220, which seemed awfully generous. Considering that he struck out 20 times a year or so, always made contact, and was obese, his GDP are not nearly as bad as I’d have expected.

[steve B]

And that's just a big part of it.
I'm not aware of anything that would improve the raw hitting ability.
A 90mph fastball from a machine that's not trying to fool me is essentially invisible to me. The best I get is seeing a bit of a blurry spot halfway between me and the machine.
I suspect Gwynn could not only see a LOT more, and could choose where he made contact so the ball would more likely be in a gap instead of right to someone.

I was just pointing out that Bens idea isn't entirely insane. It hopefully isn't true.

It could just as easily be a bit of the "Boggs or Gwynn" debates popular back in the day.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by steve B

I was just pointing out that Bens idea isn't entirely insane. It hopefully isn't true.

I wasn’t commenting on your post, just stating I do not know and have not seen any evidence he did. If his average increase during the steroid era is evidence than he did, then so too is Boggs power tripling.

Whether he did or not, I’m not sure an odd personal hatred for a player is really under the umbrella of morals

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

And that's just a big part of it.
I'm not aware of anything that would improve the raw hitting ability.
A 90mph fastball from a machine that's not trying to fool me is essentially invisible to me. The best I get is seeing a bit of a blurry spot halfway between me and the machine.
I suspect Gwynn could not only see a LOT more, and could choose where he made contact so the ball would more likely be in a gap instead of right to someone.

I was just pointing out that Bens idea isn't entirely insane. It hopefully isn't true.

It could just as easily be a bit of the "Boggs or Gwynn" debates popular back in the day.

I am sure you are not someone with a lot of first hand PED knowledge so you wouldn't. At least you unlike most understand there are different types of PEDs because of your Lance Armstrong response. Most like to believe all they do is make you huge like Jose Canseco. Then they don't realize the same PED works different for everyone. Ever hear of that great MLB HR hitter Ozzie Canseco?

It is a great thing but most are so clueless with PEDs they defend their heroes from the early days by saying amphetamines are like drinking a few cups of coffee. LOL, if those cups are 5 gallons each and they downed them in less than a minute then maybe.

I have still yet to hear anything that is not completely laughable to me on why or how someone could raise their batting average 51 points over a 5 year period from age 33-37. If there is even a single batter besides Tony that did that over those same 5 years please post who it was. The era went up so there has to be others besides a ageing overweight guy right.

To go to Steve and his example of him hitting a fastball. I am willing to bet if he spent some time working in the cage he would slowly get a little better. Now if we give Steve some PEDs to increase his energy, focus, and recovery time. I would bet over the exact same time period the improvements would be on a completely different level.

This is an example of what PEDs really do. Pretend you just got done doing whatever it was that was the most physical work you have ever done in your life. You are extremely tired and at that point it is even hard to think properly. Now if on PEDs you would have done the exact same thing in half the time, wouldn't be tired at all, and still mentally sharp as a tack.

They also sure seemed to help Barry Bonds hit a baseball for a much higher average during his short stint on them. Why wouldn't they do the same for Tony?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am sure you are not someone with a lot of first hand PED knowledge so you wouldn't. At least you unlike most understand there are different types of PEDs because of your Lance Armstrong response. Most like to believe all they do is make you huge like Jose Canseco. Then they don't realize the same PED works different for everyone. Ever hear of that great MLB HR hitter Ozzie Canseco?

It is a great thing but most are so clueless with PEDs they defend their heroes from the early days by saying amphetamines are like drinking a few cups of coffee. LOL, if those cups are 5 gallons each and they downed them in less than a minute then maybe.

I have still yet to hear anything that is not completely laughable to me on why or how someone could raise their batting average 51 points over a 5 year period from age 33-37. If there is even a single batter besides Tony that did that over those same 5 years please post who it was. The era went up so there has to be others besides a ageing overweight guy right.

To go to Steve and his example of him hitting a fastball. I am willing to bet if he spent some time working in the cage he would slowly get a little better. Now if we give Steve some PEDs to increase his energy, focus, and recovery time. I would bet over the exact same time period the improvements would be on a completely different level.

This is an example of what PEDs really do. Pretend you just got done doing whatever it was that was the most physical work you have ever done in your life. You are extremely tired and at that point it is even hard to think properly. Now if on PEDs you would have done the exact same thing in half the time, wouldn't be tired at all, and still mentally sharp as a tack.

They also sure seemed to help Barry Bonds hit a baseball for a much higher average during his short stint on them. Why wouldn't they do the same for Tony?

They could do the same for Tony Gwynn. 1) Is there any evidence that Gwynn did in fact use steroids? 2) What does this have to do with morals, if other players use does not stop one from collecting them?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I wasn’t commenting on your post, just stating I do not know and have not seen any evidence he did. If his average increase during the steroid era is evidence than he did, then so too is Boggs power tripling.

Whether he did or not, I’m not sure an odd personal hatred for a player is really under the umbrella of morals

Never said it was.

To be fair Wade only had that power for one year at age 29 making him at or really close to his physical peak. He didn't magically do that for 5 years in a row near the end of his career.

To make something a little clearer. I hate Tone Gwynn the ballplayer. Tony Gwynn the man outside of baseball was a great man who I respect. Silly ain't it.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never said it was.

To be fair Wade only had that power for one year at age 29 making him at or really close to his physical peak. He didn't magically do that for 5 years in a row near the end of his career.

To make something a little clearer. I hate Tone Gwynn the ballplayer. Tony Gwynn the man outside of baseball was a great man who I respect. Silly ain't it.

I compare Boggs' big power year (weird) with that of Bert Campaneris...but not that of Brady Anderson. LOL


.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am sure you are not someone with a lot of first hand PED knowledge so you wouldn't. At least you unlike most understand there are different types of PEDs because of your Lance Armstrong response. Most like to believe all they do is make you huge like Jose Canseco. Then they don't realize the same PED works different for everyone. Ever hear of that great MLB HR hitter Ozzie Canseco?

It is a great thing but most are so clueless with PEDs they defend their heroes from the early days by saying amphetamines are like drinking a few cups of coffee. LOL, if those cups are 5 gallons each and they downed them in less than a minute then maybe.

I have still yet to hear anything that is not completely laughable to me on why or how someone could raise their batting average 51 points over a 5 year period from age 33-37. If there is even a single batter besides Tony that did that over those same 5 years please post who it was. The era went up so there has to be others besides a ageing overweight guy right.

To go to Steve and his example of him hitting a fastball. I am willing to bet if he spent some time working in the cage he would slowly get a little better. Now if we give Steve some PEDs to increase his energy, focus, and recovery time. I would bet over the exact same time period the improvements would be on a completely different level.

This is an example of what PEDs really do. Pretend you just got done doing whatever it was that was the most physical work you have ever done in your life. You are extremely tired and at that point it is even hard to think properly. Now if on PEDs you would have done the exact same thing in half the time, wouldn't be tired at all, and still mentally sharp as a tack.

They also sure seemed to help Barry Bonds hit a baseball for a much higher average during his short stint on them. Why wouldn't they do the same for Tony?

I do have minor firsthand experience with two drugs classed as PEDs, Ritalin and .... amphetamines! (adderall)
To the point that when my ADD doc asked about how the new dose went, I told her it made me feel like a Ballplayer. Then had to explain about 70's baseball and "greenies" -The capsule for that dose was in fact green.

A small dose of either isn't like a cup of coffee. And it's qualitatively different from 8 cups of coffee which was my normal work morning before treatment. (day 1 with a tiny bit of ritalin plus the usual 8 cups..... Yikes. They could have warned me. I did get a TON of work done that day. )
Both for me had a sort of diminishing effect over time.

I don't have access to a 90mph cage anymore, and haven't since the 80's but I can say that the "fast" cages still give me a lot of trouble. Those I think are around 70?
I don't know if "seeing" hours of 90mph pitches daily would help me see the ball better, but I have doubts. The problem wasn't the timing, but literally not having any idea where the ball was.

ADD and focus is a weird thing. Accelerants make focus easier and much sharper in general. And adrenaline is exactly that. things that are even mildly exciting, like getting to see a 90mph pitch. Actually help focus. (at least for me, for someone with more distractibility it may have less effect) One of the books I read said that a lot of first responders, EMTs etc have it, and ended up in professions where that adrenaline driven focus meant they could be very good.