It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Baseball: Roberto Clemente

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:25 AM
BHN, we will let Clemente rest. We are close. Except we disagree on the runs/rbis issue. Had Clemente had 1 more rbi in 67, he wins the crown. Big deal. One rbi crown or none. You value runs/rbis more then me. They are too team dependent. Unless you homer, you are at the mercy of your teammates to get either. Chances are as much a factor as talent in getting them. Clemente lead in runs created that year, which is worth much more then a rbi crown imo.

As far as my top 10



I believe in two standards, career and peak. Aaron had the career, but Mays, Mantle beat him in peak. Aaron did play in the launching pad. I saw Aaron play, Mays, Mantle too. Started watching in 67, the last year of a triple crown. Bonds is by far the best player i have ever seen.

We disagree alot on Bonds, and i see no chance of closing that gap. One, Bonds has never been suspended 1 game for roids. I don't care if he admitted to it, or others claim he did, whatever. MLB has never suspended him.

Two, there's no proof roids has helped anyone in bb. Can anyone prove Bonds hit 1 more homer, 25 more, 100 more? Funny Bonds gets picked on, but how much did roids help Benito Santiago, Randy Velarde, Marvin Benard, Alex Sanchez, Ryan Franklin, Michael Morse, to name a few? You could make a good case, alot, if not all the guys i mentioned, didn't improve at all, in fact quite a few declined.

Three, the whole roids issue is a joke, overrated. Makes headlines, but no proof on just how much, if any it helps, and who has taken them. Roids have been around MLB for 30 years. Fans just don't know it. And pitchers have been suspended as much as hitters, kind of evening the playing field, if a advantage exists. Mlb has cheated forever. The HOF is full of cheaters. Ruth was caught with a corked bat. GPerry you noted. Aaron, Mays, Mantle were greenies popping, otherwise called (uppers) (amphetamines). MLB to this day refuses to ban greenies. It's cheating. MLB didn't ban roids to just lately. They turned their back on it, and in fact encouraged it, by this action. It took Congress stepping in for MLB to act. If you ever watch Bonds bat, his who game is his eyes (best i ever have seen), and his short compact swing. He won't swing at balls, pure and simple. And he takes the Ted Williams approach (the only one imo), wait for a pitch to drive, then drive it.

But some assine writers will punish Bonds come HOF voting time. Just like the same guys have and will butcher some mvp/cy awards.

You want to debate the mvp/cy of this year?


posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:21 PM

Ah, well, you see, you witnessed ALL of the portion of Aaron's career where he was fattening up on cheap HR's in the Launching Pad, and NONE of the portion where he was getting killed by County Stadium. That has to skew your perception of him.

I simply do not get the Honus Wagner thing, but you've sure got Bill James on your side. I don't think Wagner can carry Tris Speaker's jock, and I note even James admits there were many people who, at the time, felt Speaker was a better player than Ty Cobb. I understand that Wagner was an outstanding defensive SS, and Cobb a mediocre CF, but Cobb's and Speaker's career totals in XBH speak for themselves, and outside of James, I've never heard anyone suggest Wagner was nearly the defensive standout Speaker was. As for Cobb, he was SO much better a hitter and base runner that Wagner's edge in the field just doesn't, IMO, seem all that relevant.

I'm aware that Wagner, although he played until age 43, never tasted the sweet fruit of the live ball. But Cobb played as if he didn't, and Speaker didn't hit loads of HR's either, both men preferring to stick with "real (dead) baseball." And they faced MUCH tougher competition, because in Wagner's time, baseball was considered a disreputable way to make a living, and we'll never know how many potentially great players never got to MLB.

I'm one of the few who can see an argument for Mantle over Mays, starting with the big disparity in OBP and the gigantic disparity in double plays grounded into. I'm not old enough to remember clearly the years when Mantle was obviously better. But I've pored over their stats and I think Mays has to go first. From the late 50's on, Mays was a MUCH better CF and baserunner, and his hitting averages were far better from 1963-1968, Mantle's last six years. In fact, I think there's a much better case to be made for rating Musial over Williams (see James book circa 1988, in which James did precisely that) than there is for putting Mantle over Mays.

As for proof on how much steroids helped Bonds, did you read my last post??? How much more proof do you want? No position player gets dramatically better than ever after his 36th birthday, let alone 5 times as good as he ever was, hitting HR's literally twice as often, and doing it in one of baseball's absolute worst HR parks, while magically gaining huge amounts of muscle (including, it seems, in his skull). How much proof does one want? I know that's all "circumstantial evidence," but contrary to the nonsense one hears on TV, circumstantial evidence is just as valid in court as "direct evidence."

Finally, I'm only "singling out" Bonds because you brought him up as the #2 player of all time. Even then, I've often taken care to point out that I find McGwire's King Kong act and Sosa's magic transformation from pretty good to down right awesome every bit as incredible. And there is a former MLB pitcher, now hanging on in Japan, with whom I've played poker on the Net and who tells me I wouldn't believe it if I knew how prevalent steroids and HGH are. He oughta know.

Do steroids make it any easier to HIT the ball? Maybe not.

Do steroids make it any easier to hit the ball A LONG WAY? Obviously. And to compare that to a single episode of a corked bat (Sosa, Ruth), or taking of amphetamines (which I don't see as remotely comparable, and which I don't recall anyone's linking Mays to, anyway), seems very unfair, if not naive.

Just look at the steroids freaks. They look like some of these N.F.L. players who are 6'1" (a fraction of an inch shorter than me), 330 pounds (even heavier than me), and almost all muscle. That just isn't natural.

I think transmogrifying oneself into a grizzly bear is a uniquely malignant form of cheating, without parallel in baseball history. And please realize, unlike the vast majority of baseball fans I know, I'm actually willing to CUT BONDS SLACK, credit him with those pre-2000 years (or maybe those pre-2001 years), and say he belongs in the H.O.F. on the basis of those years. I wouldn't let McGwire, Sosa or Palmeiro within 10 miles of the Hall.

Baseball History Nut

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:59 PM
There is no proof roids have helped anyone. Why didn't all the guys i mentioned, and hundreds more, not have any jump in stats? Bonds hit 46 hrs way back in 92. Maris hit 61, when he never was close again (38). Did Maris juice? Greenies are rampant. I highly doubt Mays never took any. Every player in the player's union is responsible, since they have never banned them. Cheating is cheating. One is not worse then the other. Sosa. McGwire, Palmeiro all deserve HOF. Roids weren't banned by MLB till recently. So if they took them, they broke no rule in MLB, till MLB banned them. McGwire hit 49 his rookie year, crushing the old hr rookie record. He was a skinny kid. The HOF is full of cheaters, and bb i itself has always had it. There are many forms. Roids get the headlines.

Mantle Mays close. I prefer Mantle because his peak was much better. As far as Wagner, he had more career win shares then Mays or Aaron, and he crushes both in peak. I have no problem with Cobb over Wagner. Cobb was a bit better hitter, but not alot. Wagner played a critical position (ss). He lead in OPS 8 times, runs created 7. That's crazy for a ss. Speaker was greatly underated. I think Aaron with the hr record gets overrated a bit. I just don't see him close to top 5.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:05 PM
i am sure that in our over 85,000 posts that is the first one that has used the word transmogrifying.......

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:22 PM
(WARNING: This is long, even by my standards.)

I think there's overwhelming evidence steroids have helped players, most obviously including the 3 I'm talking about. Being a Giants fan (despite Bonds' loathsome personality), I'm well aware of his 1992 season, but it doesn't hold a candle to what he's done since the start of 2001. I'm sure you realize that. His on-base in 1992 was .456. From 2001-2004, it was .515, .582, .529 and .609, respectively. His slugging in 1992 was .624. From 2001-2004, it was .863, .799, .749 and .812. In 1992, he created 135 runs. From 2001-2004, he created 210, 186, 153 and 184.

Not even close.

So let's not pretend Bonds' 1992 MVP year makes his recent gargantuan figures legitimate. It doesn't. His figures in 1992 were those of a genuinely great player having a great year. This post-36th bithday stuff is for people who believe in the Easter Bunny.

Maris didn't juice. The suggestion has never been made, nor am I aware of ANY steroid presence in baseball then. 1961 was an expansion year in which there were suddenly 25% more pitchers in the AL than the year before. THAT is why Maris suddenly exploded, and even then, Mantle clearly had a better year than Maris. Whether Maris took "greenies" I don't know, but how a basic stimulant is supposed to make one vastly better, I also don't know. It sure ain't like turning yourself into Godzilla.

I absolutely, 100% agree with you about the blame for the steroid travesty. MLB wanted increased revenues, and a moral coward like Selig didn't care about the integrity of the game, its most hallowed records, etc., so they were willfully blind to these frauds. The Players' Union, meanwhile, let their own greed and lust for fame blind them not only to their sullying of the game's integrity, but also to what a great many players were doing to their long-term health. The latter, I suppose, was the players' decision to make (some widows will disagree in a few years), but the former wasn't. I'd like to see a whole lot of them, starting with Selig and Fehr, locked up if smoking guns can be found to prove they deliberately and knowingly turned blind eyes to specific violations of federal drug laws.

Your memory of McGwire as a young player is inaccurate. I am also an A's fan, and his first home run was hit over the 440 sign in CF of old Tiger Stadium. I was half-heartedly watching the game, in September of 1986, because the A's were long gone from the pennant race. When I saw this very tall, right-handed white guy hit one that far, I assumed it was Dave Kingman (whose career was about to end, as it turned out), but as the player rounded the bases, I noticed his shoulders were too broad to be Kingman's. Even as a rookie, McGwire was a powerfully built, broad-shouldered kid... though nothing like the B-movie monster that was to come.

I am one of the very few people I know who agree that Mantle/Mays is a close call on a career level. Almost everyone I know thinks it's Mays in a slam dunk. I've already given two of what I think are the three reasons supporting Mantle: (1) he hit into well less than 1/2 the double plays Mays grounded into, which is a difference of a lot of outs; and (2) he had a MUCH better on-base %. The third reason is HR %. But for the last 9 or 10 years of Mantle's career, there was SUCH a big difference on the bases and in the outfield. Also, Mays played longer and wound up with significantly bigger career totals. Of course, the oft-overlooked fact that favors Mantle in that respect is that Mays also wound up making over 2,100 more outs than Mantle, a good many of which were the result of all those DP's.

So I can't fault you for putting Mantle ahead of Mays. I can, and do, disagree with you. But it's one of those questions where neither answer can properly be dubbed "wrong."

On Wagner: I want to thank you for being the first person, including Bill James, to offer any real justification for James' enormously high rating of him. Leading in runs created 7 times, and OPS 8 times, is enough to make anyone who's not a butcher in the field an all-time great, and Wagner was anything but a butcher. Also, although we obviously both know it's a hugely overrated stat, I believe Wagner is tied with Gwynn for the second most batting titles. Vastly overrated or not, that's not nothing.

On the other hand....

I think that hitting records before about 1905 or 1910 need to be discounted quite a lot, and that pitching before 1920 needs to be discounted IMMENSELY. Exhibit A in favor of the latter thesis is Walter Johnson, whom James has now decided to rate as the #1 pitcher, much to my dismay. Please note how much Johnson's career nose-dived in 1920, when the live ball came in. His Adjusted ERA's for his last 8 seasons bear scant resemblance to what he had done in that gargantuan park before then. And his biography, written by his grandson for the apparent purpose of refuting James' rating of Grove as #1, talks over and over about what great fielders Johnson had. Obviously the guy thrived on the dead ball, and was a fraction of his former self with a real baseball.

James wrote at great length in a previous book--while explaining his then-position that Grove was #1 at pitcher--about how different Dead Ball pitching was, and how little the pitcher had to try for most of the game. Boy did that change when the live ball came in and any pitch could get hit to, or over, the wall. So I think I'm on pretty solid ground in enormously discounting the feats of Johnson, Young, Nicholls, Matthewson, etc.

All of this doesn't necessarily mean we toss out hitting records in the Dead Ball Era. Cobb, Speaker, Lajoie, Collins and Wagner were SO much better than the average bum that their hitting cannot be ignored. But I think hitting in the 1910's was a lot more competitive than it was in the 1900's, and I'd ask you to note that Wagner's career OBP and slugging are far below Cobb's and Speaker's figures in those categories, even if you cut off Cobb and Speaker after 1919. Only Speaker's slugging percentage is close. And using those figures ensures Cobb and Speaker don't benefit unfairly from their "live ball" years.

Anyway, Wagner's best years came shortly after the NL had split into the NL and AL, and when I believe a lot of would-have-been great players didn't play at all, because it was considered a disreputable and unseemly profession. Had he been born 10 or 20 years later, I would take his stats a lot more seriously. Ditto Nap Lajoie, who barely makes my Top 5 at 2B. (Morgan, Collins, J. Robinson, Hornsby and Lajoie, the most oldie-heavy position on any of my lists. I agree with everything James says about Hornsby, PLUS I think being a world-class a.h. is something that SHOULD be counted against a player, when it resulted in his being traded annually despite awesome numbers, so I also put him behind Robinson. Also, for the benefit of people under 55, I note that when I was about 6, and first started reading baseball history stuff, the overwhelmingly prevailing view was that Collins, not Hornsby, was the greatest 2B ever.)

On Aaron, I think he gets UNDERrated because: (1) people didn't see or don't realize how much he got hurt in County Stadium in his prime years--James has said he thinks Aaron would have hit over 60 HR's, probably more than once, but for that park; (2) he gets almost zero credit for being a great right fielder (ditto Kaline), probably because he played at the same time as Clemente; and (3) he had an excellent 240-73 ratio of SB/CS. His biggest weakness, to me, is that he never drew 100 BB, and not until he was 35 did he draw over 80.

But Aaron doesn't just own the HR record. He owns the extra base hit record by a mile. He owns the RBI record by a good margin. He's tied with Ruth for 3rd in runs scored, and is first by more than a literal mile in total bases. He is second only to The Big Guy in runs created. Although not thought of as a fast man, he's got the seventh best power/speed number of all time.

James ranks Aaron as the 12th best player, and the 10th best MLB player, of all time in his giant book. I think it's the most indefensible position he's taken. Your list apparently does not include Negro League players, and the only MLB player James puts ahead of Aaron that you don't is Walter Johnson. I'm obviously with you, in a real big way, on that one.

But I think you and James are selling Aaron too short by putting some of those other guys ahead of him. You could start, for instance, by reading what James has repeatedly written about Ted Williams' repellent and malignant personality... one which doubtless explains why those great teams won no Series and one pennant.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:02 PM
We disagree on evidence helping players. For every Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, there are 5 to 10 times more who didn't show any improvement. So roids only helps a small percentage? That's not proof. Besides, only Palmeiro was deemed in the wrong (suspended). if MLB never suspended you, they can't come in after the fact (writers HOF vote), and now play judge and jury.

I don't know why people think Mays is a slam dunk over Mantle. Mantle buries Mays in peak, and only Mantle getting hurt probably stopped him from beating Mays in career counting numbers.

Career OPS+
Mantle 172
Mays 156

best 3 years (peak)
Mantle 223/210/206
Mays 185/176/175

career rc/27
Mantle 8.78
Mays 7.86

Years leading league in OPS+ and runs created

Mantle 8
Mays 6

runs created
Mantle 6
Mays 6

sb success %
Mantle 80.1%
Mays 76.6%

Win Shares best 3 and 5

Mantle 51/49/48
Mays 43/41/40

Mantle 216
Mays 197

Mantle really beats Mays quite easily in peak, which i value quite a bit. Mays played 400+ more games which adds value to his counting stats. It's too bad Mantle got hurt, he would be top 3 no doubt.

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 12:49 AM
Dear Hootie,

(Are you ready for some agreement?)

And it's not just the osteomyelitis. The damage to his throwing arm in 1958 or 1959 was profound and also hurt him badly.

Before those two things, Mantle was the same sort of multi-dimensional player Mays was. As James once wrote, Mantle was a "very good CF" with "blinding speed," while Mays was a "very very very good CF." That difference is MAYBE worth 5 to 10 runs a year on defense, certainly no more.

Mantle didn't steal many bases, which is a big one in Mays' favor, but nobody got tons of SB's back then. Mantle also got suprisingly few doubles (top five only one time). But on a far more meaningful note, it's just incredible that through his first 13 seasons, Mantle hit into a total of 66 double plays. (!!) I don't think people realize how huge that is.

Of course, almost every great former player has a "what if"? What if Mays hadn't lost 1.5 seasons to military service? What if Ruth hadn't spent 5+ seasons hitting a dead baseball, and playing in Fenway when it was something like 488 to RCF? What if Williams hadn't spent so much time in the military, and lost another full season to injury? What if Aaron's best seasons hadn't been spent in County Stadium? What if Foxx hadn't been a drunk? What if Gehrig hadn't... well, you know. And on and on.

But Mantle's case is poignant. His injuries, his osteomyelitis and his having to play his last several years in post-expansion 1960's seasons hurt him terribly. I do not agree with the idea of simply disregarding career totals, and Mantle surely cast part of the dye with his ceaseless hedonism, but the injuries you mention and the disease I keep trying to spell (
) tore him up a lot worse than all the drinking.

And contrary to common perception, he didn't fall to pieces at the end. His on-base percentages for his last three seasons were .389, .391 and .385--all of which are better than the CAREER on-base %'s of Mays or Aaron. But by then, the Yankees had finally bowed to reality and put him at first base, while Aaron was still a great RF and Mays was still at least a very, very good CF.

James said, I think in the big book in 2000, that he'll never be sure which of those two guys was better. I've already told you I grew up on Willie Mays, with the Giants first playing in S.F. when I was five years old, and me knowing full well how lucky I was. My memory is replete with images of Mays making outrageous, impossible catches, like the final out on the one-hitter Marichal pitched in 1960 in his major league debut.

Mays lost 1.5 years to the military, and still made a run for Ruth's HR record. He was, or seemed, superhuman... and he stayed that way for a very long time. Without steroids. He didn't hit colossal HR's like Mantle, or for that matter McCovey. As he himself said, he hit them just far enough to get them in the seats.

Anyway, I've set forth loads of reasons to rate Mays ahead of Mantle in my various posts. And, to be fair, I've given the best reasons I can think of to rate Mantle ahead--including the rarely-cited double play factor, which doesn't get nearly the weight it should, given how many outs are involved. I think Mays should be rated ahead of Mantle, but I'm the first to admit I may not be sufficiently impartial.

I DO think, however, that Oscar Charleston clearly should be rated ahead of Mantle, since he had all of Mantle's attributes and a lot more. I've read enough about Charleston to know that, if given the choice, I would take Oscar Charleston over him. (See my posts, and James' writings, on Charleston.) Mays vs. Charleston is not so clear, on the other hand.

Baseball History Nut

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 01:35 AM

Originally posted by HOOTIE
Clemente might be overrated, but i thik the reply on him was a bit misleading. His career oba of .359 isn't mediocre. The league avg during his 18 years was .327. Clemente played 14 of his 18 years facing pitchers on a high mound, in a terrible park , and in a poor scoring environement. True he didn't walk enough, and have Aaron power, but he still was great. From age 28 on, he never had a ops+ under 135. His early years (his 1st 5), hurt his overall numbers. Even James ranks Clemente as the 9th best RF ever. Clementes overall win shares, his peak years (3 and5), are very good ops+ wise and win share wise. And i have even heard some former pitchers say he was the best they faced (i don't agree there) Aaron/Mays. And for the record, runs and rbis are team dependent. Clemente in 67 did lead the NL in runs created.

You asked me where I got the notion some people rate Clemente so (preposterously) high as the Top 10 or Top 20 players ever....

In his big 2000 book, Bill James compared his Top 100 total players ratings to those of: (1) The Sporting News list; (2) the SABR List; (3) The Total Baseball list; (4) The Faber list; (5) the Maury Allen List; and (6) The Ritter/Honig List. (See page 358.)

A few pages later, in generously ranking Clemente as the 74th greatest player of all time, including Negro Leaguers, James says Clemente was "rated by the consensus of the other sources as the 13th greatest player of all time...." (See p. 366.)

So there you have it. Normally reputable sources buying into group hysteria and hagiography. It's a bad joke, and in a way, it's condescending and insulting to Clemente.

Baseball History Nut

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:55 PM
after much thinking on the moving Ichiro to center field question i decided to post it on a Mariners forum to see if others shared my opinion which is, if you watch Ichiro on a regular basis you will see that he doesn't dive or run into walls chasing flies, his reasoning is that he can't contribute if he is injured, so i feel that it is his style of defense that keeps him out of center. Apparently he has said that he would move to center field but only if they gave him notice during the off season so he had time to prepare....

on the other board opinions ranged from "he is as self centered as Bonds, just quieter about it", to that is where his arm is most valuable, at times the discussion got quite heated...bottom line seems to be that Ichiro just doesn't want to play center field and the M's aren't about to force him to move

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:50 PM
Thanks for the research.

A personal comparison to Bonds is really harsh, and I find it hard to believe Ichiro is THAT big a jerk, quiet or otherwise. It's like people who compare Bonds to Cobb. Bonds may be a world-class jerk (hell, no "may" be), but he's not Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby.

If Ichiro's said he'd do it with notice, why don't the Mariners give him notice right now, and let him have a full off-season to get accustomed to center field? Or is the consensus that even with a full off-season to practice, he'd still be sufficiently disoriented and/or upset that it would affect his offensive game? I'll grant that nobody would want to upset his offensive game, but it's surely a sad comment about such a deeply respected player if that's what would happen.

Baseball History Nut

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by toejam
since we don't know when Barry started using, we have no way of telling how many of his stats are skewed or to what extent, although the numbers indicate otherwise he could well have been dirty his entire career, there is no way to delete the affected hits, homers, etc. from the good ones so i say throw them all out, this goes for Sheffield, Giambi, and anyone else who tests postive. While HGH wasn't specificaly banned by baseball at the time no one knew it existed, it is possible that we still would not know of it's existance if it wasn't for the track coach who turned some of it in.

I agree that baseball turned a blind eye towards the problem until it was backed into a corner, the strike did a tremendous amount of damage and it needed something to get it back in the spotlight and fannies back into the seats. monstrous home runs served it's purpose very well.

Playing pro baseball or any pro sport is a dream very few of us will ever know, it is a privilege not a right, for the athletes to put themselves above the game and the fans is to me the worst of abuses, pro sports need to take some drastic steps to restore their integrity and the players and their unions should recognize this and realize that it is in everyones best interest to clean up the mess.

On today, there is a very long series of articles about steroids in baseball. One of them is titled "Long-Distance Call," and pertains to the 470th home run of Barry Bonds' career, which he hit on June 7, 2000. The ball travelled 493 feet. And a guy named Bill Jenkinson, who studies "historically significant" home runs--i.e., those of over 450 feet--went bonkers about it, because Bonds had only hit THREE of his previous 469 home runs more than 450 feet, and all of those were wind-aided. Now, at age 36, with negligible wind (3-5 mph), Bonds had hit one for the ages.

Jenkinson has made a life's work of studying these things, and he knew at once something was way wrong, since long-distance home run hitting is something which a player reaches his peak at when he's about 26. Uncommonly taller sluggers, like Frank Howard and Willie Stargell, may wait until age 28 to peak, but NOBODY peaks at anywhere near age 36, so Bonds had no business suddenly hitting by far the most awesome home run of his career.

Since then, Bonds has hit THIRTY home runs of 450 feet or longer.

As I've said before, I believe I take a second seat to nobody when it comes to hating Bonds. But this evidence, in my view, makes it pretty clear when Bonds began juicing. In the process, it legitimizes his career through the end of the 1999 season--the EXACT point through which, according to Bill James, Bonds was the 16th greatest baseball player of all time, and the 14th greatest MLB player of all time.

As damning as this guy's evidence is in terms of proving Bonds' guilt after 1999--and I think it's REAL damning--it pretty much exonerates Bonds before the year 2000, doesn't it? So are we to exclude him from the Hall of Fame on the grounds he juiced from 2000 on, and thereby overlook the monumental career he legitimately had prior to that?

I don't think so. That's like imposing a morals clause on the Hall. If we're going to do that, a hell of a lot of people, starting with the two guys with the highest batting averages ever, are going to get thrown out.

NOTE TO TOEJAM: This really shouldn't be under the "Is Roberto Clemente Overrated?" thread. Could you please start a new thread, with your comments about uncertainty re when Bonds started juicing, and my comments prior to that, and this message, and title it something like "Bonds, steroids and" I'd love to see what others think about this HR-distance expert's findings and their ramifications for Bonds' legitimacy, both post-1999 and pre-2000. I think many would say, if polled, Hey, the dude cheated full time for six years at a minimum, so screw what he did before! And as long as they're willing to throw Perry out of the Hall, I'm not certain they're wrong. I just don't agree with them.

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 05:29 PM
i don't see any way to move posts to another thread, we will just have to branch this discussion off into the one that i started....i will ask TRD if there is a way to move posts and add them if there is

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in