LittleHurt05 Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Personally I think Bonds is the most deserving and really hope he gets in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) I feel like Piazza is the most deserving of the 2013 class, am I wrong? How is he more deserving than the other juicers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) He may well be the only one of that group in 2013. Sosa, Bonds, Clemens won't because of the steroid stuff. Schilling and Biggio don't seem like first ballot material to me. BGO deserves first ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Personally I think Bonds is the most deserving and really hope he gets in. He likely won't, at least not on his first ballot, which makes me happy. But we both know where this discussion goes, so, might as well leave it there. Some people are very fired-up on this topic. If nothing else, 2013 will be a very interesting test about the steroid era stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:49 PM) How is he more deserving than the other juicers? Does he have the same connection to steroids as the rest of them? I honestly don't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) Does he have the same connection to steroids as the rest of them? I honestly don't remember. He's a guy like Bagwell who's had some whispers about him, but probably less than a connection even than Sosa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) Does he have the same connection to steroids as the rest of them? I honestly don't remember. I don't think he has ever been linked. But according to the eye test, he seems to be one of the most obvious ones IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) I can't believe more than half of the voters still think Raines isn't a HOF. It took me a while to come around on him too, but he belongs. Jack Morris...I don't need stats on him. He belongs. Multiple 20-win seasons, 175 complete games, 3 championships with three different teams, including winning Game 7 of the 91 series. Now with the beefy ballots coming on the next couple years, it will be interesting to see if he goes over the hump next year. I think he made alot of writers and baseball people angry whenhe admitted to changing the way he played due to the cocaine. ie. not sliding going into second because he had a vial of cocaine in his pocket. I think he deserves it so this is the only reason I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I am always intrigued how someone climbs up in the ballots. Their accomplishments have not changed. I think the sending a message stuff about not being a first ballot HoF member is kind of lame, but I understand it. I think their would have been less anti-Bonds stuff if he hit "only" 596 homeruns and not surpassed a couple of non steroid icons. He probably would have had an easier time. If the all-time hits leader can be left out of the hall, I image the all-time homerun leader could to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) I think their would have been less anti-Bonds stuff if he hit "only" 596 homeruns and not surpassed a couple of non steroid icons. He probably would have had an easier time. If the all-time hits leader can be left out of the hall, I image the all-time homerun leader could to. In the middle of the 2002 season, retiring, after his tetrahydrogestrinone fueled 2001 campaign? I think he'd be facing the same thing as McGwire. The only reason people might put Bonds in anyway is that he actually did pass 756, even though he was chemically aided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) I think he made alot of writers and baseball people angry whenhe admitted to changing the way he played due to the cocaine. ie. not sliding going into second because he had a vial of cocaine in his pocket. I think he deserves it so this is the only reason I can think of. Well what do they expect? Cocaine's not cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) I am always intrigued how someone climbs up in the ballots. Their accomplishments have not changed. I think the sending a message stuff about not being a first ballot HoF member is kind of lame, but I understand it. I think their would have been less anti-Bonds stuff if he hit "only" 596 homeruns and not surpassed a couple of non steroid icons. He probably would have had an easier time. If the all-time hits leader can be left out of the hall, I image the all-time homerun leader could to. I think Bonds has a chance to break the steroid player ice later on. The Hall kept Roberto Alomar out pretty much for spitting on an ump one time. Bonds juiced and lied his ass of about it. The one thing that could rescue him is that he supposedly has a pretty easily delineated point in time where he started, and he was already a HOF player when he started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) In the middle of the 2002 season, retiring, after his tetrahydrogestrinone fueled 2001 campaign? I think he'd be facing the same thing as McGwire. The only reason people might put Bonds in anyway is that he actually did pass 756, even though he was chemically aided. Another reason he may get in is that he was one of the best players in the game before he started the PEDs. He was an a@# but a great all around player. Guys like McGwire, palmeiro and Piazza started the PEDs right away so it is unsure how good they could have been without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Another reason he may get in is that he was one of the best players in the game before he started the PEDs. He was an a@# but a great all around player. Guys like McGwire, palmeiro and Piazza started the PEDs right away so it is unsure how good they could have been without them. How do you know for certain that he didn't start PED's in 1984? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) How do you know for certain that he didn't start PED's in 1984? If you watched him play, it was very obvious when he started using them. He went from a lean body and all around athlete to the muscle bound slugger later in his career. The amount of PEDs he used was staggering and changed his body rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 09:46 PM) How is it that people like Brad Radke and Eric Young got votes? They're just courtesy votes. I think most people here would throw Sox players a vote given the chance even if they didn't meet HOF standards. There's no risk of 75% of voters putting these guys in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 05:26 PM) If you watched him play, it was very obvious when he started using them. He went from a lean body and all around athlete to the muscle bound slugger later in his career. The amount of PEDs he used was staggering and changed his body rapidly. And he couldnt' have used any PED's previously to get over an injury or get ready for a season? You have the blood samples? He couldn't have increased the dosages or changed over to the new drug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) They're just courtesy votes. I think most people here would throw Sox players a vote given the chance even if they didn't meet HOF standards. There's no risk of 75% of voters putting these guys in. That's just insanity to me, courtesy votes, really? You should lose your right to vote if you're giving someone a courtesy vote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) And he couldnt' have used any PED's previously to get over an injury or get ready for a season? You have the blood samples? He couldn't have increased the dosages or changed over to the new drug? OK if you going to go down that road then no there is no proof he wasn't on them when he was younger. However, he didn't fit the physical profile and from the ones I've seen and worked with I don't believe he was on them. I guess Sammy Sosa was on them with the Rangers and Sox as well. Palmeiro must have taken them in college when he and Bobby Thigpen fought for ther HR title at Mississippi State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) OK if you going to go down that road then no there is no proof he wasn't on them when he was younger. However, he didn't fit the physical profile and from the ones I've seen and worked with I don't believe he was on them. I guess Sammy Sosa was on them with the Rangers and Sox as well. Palmeiro must have taken them in college when he and Bobby Thigpen fought for ther HR title at Mississippi State. Everyone sorta gives Bonds the benefit of the doubt on his pre-1998 time. I simply don't. If he was willing to cheat after watching the 1998 home run derby, that stain should apply to his whole career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) Everyone sorta gives Bonds the benefit of the doubt on his pre-1998 time. I simply don't. If he was willing to cheat after watching the 1998 home run derby, that stain should apply to his whole career. I'm not saying it doesn't. I wouldn't vote him in. your comment was that there was only one reason writers may vote him in. I stated that some writers may vote him in based on that the fact that he was one of the best players prior to the PEDs or in your cas the perceived PED use. I wouldn't but that is another reason why someone would. Personally, I wouldn't vote him in even if he didn't start using PEDs. He is the absolute worst person I've ever had to work with in my life. I don't hold grudges against anyone but he is the exception to my rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) Everyone sorta gives Bonds the benefit of the doubt on his pre-1998 time. I simply don't. If he was willing to cheat after watching the 1998 home run derby, that stain should apply to his whole career. Excellent point. It's well known that guys in the early and mid 80s were juicing. The guys really started to balloon as the roids got better and better and more plentiful, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if many players juiced well before the perceived steroid era Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I don't understand how players magically acquire more votes each year. The BBWAA is annoying with their "first year HoF" "fifteenth year HoF" s***. A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) Does he have the same connection to steroids as the rest of them? I honestly don't remember. No actual connections that I know of, but also one of the most obvious users in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) Everyone sorta gives Bonds the benefit of the doubt on his pre-1998 time. I simply don't. If he was willing to cheat after watching the 1998 home run derby, that stain should apply to his whole career. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts