new hof'ers

[novakjr]

I think I'm gonna have to side with Jonathan on this one.

Now let's put this into perspective for anyone that thinks Bert doesn't deserve to be in. Tell me, nowadays if someone were to tell you that there's a pitching prospect that's gonna give you a 3.31 era, 3701 K's, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts over the next 22 years, what would you say?

[packs]

I don't think its fair to compare taking steroids and altering your body to stealing signs from the outfield or tipping off baserunners.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think I'm gonna have to side with Jonathan on this one.

Now let's put this into perspective for anyone that thinks Bert doesn't deserve to be in. Tell me, nowadays if someone were to tell you that there's a pitching prospect that's gonna give you a 3.31 era, 3701 K's, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts over the next 22 years, what would you say?

I'd say I'd love to have him, that in and of itself, doesn't necessarily make him a HOFer though does it?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I'd say I'd love to have him, that in and of itself, doesn't necessarily make him a HOFer though does it?

How 'bout:
3.54 era, 290 CG, 49 Shutouts and 1756 Ks over 23 seasons?
3.16, 109, 35 and 3371 Ks over 23 seasons?
3.54, 56, 25 and 2607 Ks over 22 seasons?
3.29, 100, 37 and I'm not gonna give this one away with K's in 22 seasons?

[MacDice]

A steroid using pitcher is throwing the ball to a steroid using hitter...does that not neglect the use of the substance.

Originally Posted by MacDice

A steroid using pitcher is throwing the ball to a steroid using hitter...does that not neglect the use of the substance.

I dunno - does it? Everything I've read suggests that steroids may help pitchers endurance-wise but not as much performance-wise. The big names entangled in the steroids scandal have been predominantly hitters - some of the big hitters of the last 20 years - but most of the pitchers named have had pretty ordinary careers.

When Bonds, et al were (allegedly) doing steroids, it's my understanding/belief that they were "enhanced" virtually every at bat, for entire seasons or stretches of several consecutive seasons. Do you think virtually every pitcher they faced was using steroids? Do you think, of the pitchers that were, that they were on the same kind of sophisticated, intense regimen that Bonds was (apparently) on?

Or is it more likely that Bonds was souped-up 100% of the time, while he faced 'roids-using pitchers just 1/5 to 1/3 of the time, and with some or maybe most of those pitchers just dabbling, experimenting or part-timing?

My guess is that if batters and pitchers were both using steroids 100% of the time, the advantage would still go greatly to the hitter. And I don't believe for a minute that 100% of pitchers were users, so if Sosa or A-Rod used all season long, I think they had huge advantages. A level field was improbable if not impossible.

I'm also in the camp that doesn't find steroids in any way comparable to the kinds of cheating baseball has seen throughout history. Finding a cheat that enables you to hit 10-20 more home runs a season, and produce 15-45 more runs for your team, is just huge.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Karl Mattson

I dunno - does it? Everything I've read suggests that steroids may help pitchers endurance-wise but not as much performance-wise. The big names entangled in the steroids scandal have been predominantly hitters - some of the big hitters of the last 20 years - but most of the pitchers named have had pretty ordinary careers.

When Bonds, et al were (allegedly) doing steroids, it's my understanding/belief that they were "enhanced" virtually every at bat, for entire seasons or stretches of several consecutive seasons. Do you think virtually every pitcher they faced was using steroids? Do you think, of the pitchers that were, that they were on the same kind of sophisticated, intense regimen that Bonds was (apparently) on?

Or is it more likely that Bonds was souped-up 100% of the time, while he faced 'roids-using pitchers just 1/5 to 1/3 of the time, and with some or maybe most of those pitchers just dabbling, experimenting or part-timing?

My guess is that if batters and pitchers were both using steroids 100% of the time, the advantage would still go greatly to the hitter. And I don't believe for a minute that 100% of pitchers were users, so if Sosa or A-Rod used all season long, I think they had huge advantages. A level field was improbable if not impossible.

I'm also in the camp that doesn't find steroids in any way comparable to the kinds of cheating baseball has seen throughout history. Finding a cheat that enables you to hit 10-20 more home runs a season, and produce 15-45 more runs for your team, is just huge.

A very solid post Karl!

[MacDice]

If you can build up endurance and build your low body it will help a pitcher performance without a doubt.

If I was a player during that era, I would have used steriods as well. Everybody around you is doing it to get a competitive edge and this is how you make your living to support your family.

I also have a problem punishing these athletes for steriod when MLB and the Players Union basically encouraged it. Why was it NOT banned by baseball? Because both sides were making too much money. Yes, they knew about it and they turned their backs on the problem. Only when the media got a hold of the story did they do something.

[murphusa]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think I'm gonna have to side with Jonathan on this one.

Now let's put this into perspective for anyone that thinks Bert doesn't deserve to be in. Tell me, nowadays if someone were to tell you that there's a pitching prospect that's gonna give you a 3.31 era, 3701 K's, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts over the next 22 years, what would you say?

how about a prospect that would lose 250 games in the next 22 years

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by murphusa

how about a prospect that would lose 250 games in the next 22 years

I might be the only one that thinks this way...But, wins and losses are a somewhat insignificant stat when it comes to a pitcher's true merit and value. The last I knew they don't just hand out Cy Young awards to pitchers with 13-12 records. Oh, wait! Nevermind, it appears that people are finally starting to look past wins and losses when it comes to pitchers. Why's that? Because a pitcher isn't fully responsible for whether a game is won or lost. There's more than just one aspect to baseball, offense and defense. Sometime, even the best defense can lose without any offense and vice versa. A team loses a game as a whole, more often than a pitcher alone does. I've just never seen Bert as the type of guy who lost games for his teams.

Walter Johnson-279 losses in 21 seasons
Cy Young-316 losses in 22 seasons
Phil Neikro- 274 losses in 24 season
Warren Spahn-245 losses in 21 seasons
Nolan Ryan-297 losses in 27 seasons
Steve Carlton-244 losses in 24 seasons.

Based on your logic, are you trying to tell me you wouldn't want any of those guys?

[HRBAKER]

Those are two different questions, sure I would want Blyleven on my team if I knew beforehand what his stats would be. Does the fact that I would want him based on those terrific stats MAKE him a HOFer? No. I am not saying he is or isn't IMO.

edit to add: Let's don't give these guys too much credit, the lion's share who did sterioids didn't do it bc everyone else was, they did it bc of the money being thrown around. Same reason the owners/commissioner didn't stop it. That doesn't make any of them non-cheaters IMO.