It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Baseball: Dwight Gooden---Hall Of Famer? Closer than you think!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
For nearly half a century, baseball's all-time gold standard for teen pitching phenoms was Bob Feller. In 1936, the 17-year-old Feller struck out unholy numbers of batters in his first two starts. I believe it was 17K's in his first game, and 18 in the next, and I'm not sure but what the second game wasn't against the now DiMaggio/Gehrig Yankees. When his 14-game, 8-start rookie season was over, he'd pitched 62 innings and struck out 76 batters. Next year, at age 18, he struck out 150 in 148-2/3 innings, and went 9-7 with 150 K's... and 106 walks.

And next year, at 19, he set a still-standing record which nobody is anxious to break: He STRUCK OUT 240 batters in 277-2/3 innings, posted a 17-11 record (the last non-war year he'd fall short of 20 for a long time, AND WALKED A STILL-STANDING RECORD 208 BATTERS. Opponents were terrified to face him, because neither they nor he knew where his fastball was going. He was not so much a young Nolan Ryan as a young Ryne Duren. But MAN, did he rack up some great years:

(a) 1939, 24-9;

(b) 1940, 27-11;

(c) 1941, 25-13;

[1942-1945] Military Service

(d) 1946, 26-15; and

(e) 1947, 20-11.


Now, please realize those are CONSECUTIVE seasons, because the only ones Feller missed in there were seasons during which he was serving his country in what was the one absolutely, no-doubt-about-it, let's-here-ANYONE-try-and-dispute-the-point, justified war in American History: World War II. I know a few goofballs who disagree with me about that, but no mature person of ANY political stripe or ANY reasonable I.Q. could deny that two country's whose sworn goal was world military conquest HAD TO BE STOPPED. Russia stopped the Germans, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives, and with the help of a LOT of supplies from us. WE stopped Japan. And Feller was a genuine hero in all of that madness.

So, it's only natural that for half a century, Feller stood unques-tioned as MLB's all time greatest young pitching phenom. But the problem was that come 1984, that just wasn't true anymore.

In 1984, the NY Mets had a rookie right-hander who ran away with the Rookie of the Year Award. He was an All-Star, #2 (!) in the Cy Young Vote, #2 in ERA, #3 in Wins, #1 in Walks and Hits per Innings Pitched, #5 in W-L %, #1 in fewest hits allowed AND in best strikeouts/IP ratio AND in strikeouts!

And that was as a 19-year-old rookie!

In 1985, now at the ripe old age of 20, he had one of the greatest post-Dead Ball Seasons in all of baseball history. To wit:

He was 24-4; threw 277 innings; gave up 198 hits and 69 walks (less than one runner per inning); struck out 268 (one more K than his and walks combined); had the best NL E.R.A. since Gibson's legendary year in 1968 (1.53); threw 8 shutouts; had about a 4-1 K/BB ratio; posted an Adjusted ERA of 226, the SEVENTH BEST of any post-Dead Ball starter ever.

Gooden was now 20, was by light years MLB's best pitcher, and had a record of 41-13. A longtime Dodger scout was prominently quoted as saying that, for the first time in his career, he no longer found it absurd to think someone might break Cy Young's record of 511 wins. And nobody said he was a lunatic.

And although the QUALITY of Gooden's pitching started to go downhill immediately, his record didn't. When he got his 100th MLB decision, he had the best W-L % of anyone with 100 decisions. When he won his 100th victory, he was ahead of WWII pitcher Spud Chandler (who, in my opinion, shouldn't count) for the best W-L % by a 100-game winner.

Even when Gooden retired, after several years of off- and on-the-field embarrassments, his record was still 194-112, which makes for a .634 W-L percentage--not only vastly better than average, but vastly better than a lot of Hall of Famers and, I'm sure, better than the average Hall of Famer.

Now, I'm sure all the hypocrites who get to vote for the Hall won't even give a thought to Gooden, except to talk about how he COULD HAVE been 436-142, or something. But let's talk about what he WAS. He had a W-L % of .634. Do you know how many MLB starters from after the Dead Ball Era won over 150 (never mind 194) and did better than that in W-L %?

Try SEVEN, and that's cutting a couple of guys some slack:

(1) Pedro Martinez (only 14 years, but is there any doubt?);

(2) Whitey Ford;

(3) Lefty Grove, to date, the greatest pitcher ever;

(4) Roger Clemens (would have to lose incredible number of games to fall below Gooden in W-L %);

(5) Randy Johnson (would have to go 34-32 in next 66 decisions to fall below Gooden);

(6) SANDY KOUFAX--yes, the GREAT KOUFAX, who was only 2 percent, .654 to .634, ahead of Gooden, and while they both pitched in great pitchers' parks, Koufax's was much better a pitcher's park;

(7) MIKE MUSSINA, .638, though he'd better retire soon or he'll fall behind Gooden; and

(8) JIM PALMENT, .638, a pitcher whose Zeta-Jones like narcissism over his good looks, combined with his arrogant and often unpleasant personality, have caused many fans to forget just how GREAT a pitcher he was, and for just how LONG.

OK. Gooden has had a lot of trouble with the law. So have/did some others in the Hall. There is ZERO proof I'm aware of that Gooden ever cheated on the field. And I simply DO NOT THINK off-field misconduct should bar one from the Hall.

On his career stats, Gooden OBVIOUSLY belongs. MANY pitchers with fewer than 194 wins are in, so that shouldn't keep him out, and when you remove that excuse, there are none left, really, except his substance-related lawbreaking. And as to that:

OK, Gooden has a weakness for illegal substances. I was a child of the 60's, and I did a ton of pot, a brief stint with STRONG hallucinogens (long ago), and drank up a storm (as y'all know if you read my mea culpa under "what are you drinking?). The first two didn't hurt me; the booze nearly killed me. But to each his own, and anyway, I don't think nonviolent, and especially nonadjudicated, crimes should keep anyone out of the Hall.

Different story with Palmeiro-->they NAILED him. And Canseco nailed himself. And, well, you know....

But I've said before, I don't think Bonds should be banned, sinced the honest part of his career was FAR more than enough to get him in. With Gooden, all he ever took was cr@p than ruined him, and, not being Babe Ruth, it caught up with him FAST. If he goes to jail, fine. But they haven't taken away Simpson's Heisman, have they? And while he wasn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm quite satisfied by a civil standard, and would bet most of y'all are, too.

So Gooden committed victimless, self-destructive crimes, plus the decided NON-victimless crime of driving while loaded. He should do time for that last one, if it's proven satisfactorily. But he should be put in the Hall, and I mean A.S.A.F.P.

Kirby Puckett acted like a good Uncle Tom for American cameras and interviewers. Whether he really was one or not, I don't know. But for several years, Gooden was a better player than Puckett ever was--and it's hard for a great pitcher to be better than a great CF.

PLEASE raise a hue and cry in Gooden's favor. You may not like him, and you may--like me--feel sick over how he squandered the most enormous talent of any teenage pitcher ever, but the dude clearly belongs in the Hall, which has always asked what a player actually did, not what he might have done.

B.H.N.




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Hello,

This is coming from a former Dwight Gooden, Daryl Strawberry fan, just so you know. Yeah Dwight was a sick pitcher for a number of years, however I think his chances on make the hall are slim to none. He tailed off too quickly. Sandy Koufax also had a short careet but his problems were health related, while Gooden had more control over his decline. Sad thing of course, but Gooden I think will end up at best a footnote in the hall. Great pitcher though, I wish he wasn't there in 86 to beat my Red Sox but so it goes.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Dear Kwyjibo,

I agree with your bottom line result, for reasons which follow, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Hack Wilson was a sick hitter for a number of years, hit more HR's than any National Leaguer has ever hit without steroids or HGH, and holds a probably unbreakable record for RBI's in a season, but he drank himself out of baseball in the year he turned 34 and died penniless at age 48. He's in the Hall, and I think he belongs. I likewise don't think Gooden should be barred because his voluntary drug use took him out prematurely. He should make it, or not, on his stats.

And, for that matter, Koufax is not in the Hall because of his arm problems. He's in the Hall because of what he DID, not what he might have done.

Besides, you're taking one pitcher and comparing Gooden to him. And the one pitcher you're taking is, inning for inning, one of the 20 greatest ever, maybe one of the 10 greatest ever. Koufax was aided tremendously by Dodger Stadium, and was not as godlike as he's made out to have been, but he's Top 10 in "peak value," in my book... albeit only because I greatly discount the feats of Dead Ball Era pitchers, including even Walter Johnson, for reasons I've explained before.

But if you look at the list of Hall of Fame pitchers, you will find many others with fewer wins than Gooden, and a good many of them don't have NEARLY his lifetime W-L percentage.

Now, the Hall has made tons of mistakes and has admitted literally dozens of players who have no business being there. To give but three examples of pitchers who are comically undeserving (not including the self-admitted cheater Gaylord Perry), we have Jesse Haines, Rollie Fingers and Rube Marquard, none of whom was a Hall of Famer on the best day of his life.

So I suppose you could rightfully say that the fact numerous WORSE pitchers are in the Hall is no excuse for admitting Gooden. And you could say that while his W-L % is unquestionably Hall-worthy, he doesn't have enough wins to suit you.

I don't buy that second argument, but:

I admit that I recall his career clearly, and regardless of what his W-L record appears to show, he was never the same phenom again after 1985. He won with Hall-of-Fame regularity, BUT his Adjusted ERA went from 137 as a rookie and an awesome (and historic) 226 in 1985, to never being above 124 again in a complete season (i.e., over 162 innings pitched).

So, despite the flashy W-L percentage--and there's no debating it--he's really a guy who had an incredible two-year start, then was merely good after that. In fact, in one of the most amazing stats you'll ever see, he was 19-7 in 1990 and had an Adjusted ERA of 98, meaning he was 2% worse, in park-adjusted ERA, than the rest of the league. And, like Koufax only not as much so, he benefitted greatly from a very spacious home park.

OK, there's my argument AGAINST Gooden as a Hall of Famer. And as I look at it, I'll grant you it's a better argument than my argument FOR him as a Hall of Famer. But seriously, dude, you can't go around comparing people to Sandy Koufax as an argument to keep them out of the Hall. As of right now--with all due respect to the great Dizzy Dean--the only pitcher clearly greater than Koufax without 200 career wins is Pedro Martinez, who is by FAR the #1 all-time career Adjusted ERA leader, and by an unreal margin. And 3 more wins will take him out of that bracket.

For those who care, among 20th-21st Century starting pitchers with at least 150 wins, Koufax's career Adjusted ERA is 15th, if you include Dead Ball Era pitchers, and 7th if you don't.

B.H.N.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Hi BaseballHistory Nut,

You clearly blew me out of the water with your argument. Quite unexpected and I'll have to put more care into what I say in the future. My baseball knowledge has been hibernating since the Red Sox got swept by the White Sox last fall. Anyway, I'm in awe of your knowledge.

I just want to make a few points. The difference between Hack Wilson being a drunk and Doc being into the yeo is the legality of it. I wouldn't think MLB would want to deal with those issues (BTW, I have nothing against "the devil's dandruff" and don't hold it against Gooden in the least, as it is his decision to make).

Also I only used Koufax as an example because I knew he retired at his peak before putting in more years than he could've. Anyway, bad comparison on my part and if I reply to something in the future I'll put more thought into it.

Thank you



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Dear Kwyjibo,

Hey, Dude, I didn't mean to suggest you had anything to apologize for. Sorry if it came off that way.

I was just remembering in one of the treatises of Bill James (by most opinions, including mine, the foremost living baseball historian--though I sometimes disagree with him) about whether someone belonged in the Hall of Fame. I think it was Ron Santo. There haven't been a lot of great third basemen--for instance, I think Terry Pendleton is the greatest black third baseman in MLB history, and so does James! James ranks Santo #6, and so naturally believes he belongs in the Hall.

James quoted a letter from this woman telling him how wrong he is, and that the Hall is for people like Ruth, Mays, Aaron and Ted Williams. He pretty much tore into her, saying the Hall isn't just for the very greatest players ever, and such a standard has never existed except in the minds of people who know nothing about baseball, etc., etc., etc. And I guess I thought of that when I saw the let's-compare-Gooden-to-Koufax thing.

I tried not to take a hostile tone in what I wrote. If I failed and came off as being personally critical, then it is I who owe you an apology. In sharp contrast to a certain other newcomer who wrote a nasty, vituperative, personal and preposterous diatribe attacking me earlier today, and in the process displayed a unique level of ignorance about baseball (bases on balls are related to slugging percentage, roflmao), there was nothing nasty or personal about anything you wrote.

Sorry if I came across as unduly harsh. I was just trying to say it's not fair to compare someone to Koufax (or Feller or Spahn or Clemens or Maddux or Seaver or Hubbell or, above all, Grove) in terms of whether someone should make the Hall. But I really didn't want to come off the way James did in verbally assaulting that woman.

Well, I've looked back at the post, and I don't think it comes off as a personal attack on you. But if it reads that way to you, then I apologize for that fact. It certainly wasn't my attention. And again, welcome to the site.

Baseball History Nut



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Hey BaseballHistoryNut,

Your tone wasn't hostile in any way, and I'm usually just overapologetic to cover my own ignorance on the topic. I was just trying to point out how much your post owned mine. Not that I'm saying you were trying to make me look bad or anything, I understand if you come off a little defensive when some newb comes in and seems to disregard your well researched thought.

My worries about letting too many people in the hall of fame is overcrowding, if thats even possible. Plus there are different levels of stardom in the hall, if you know what I mean. I'd love to see Gooden in the hall (the mets were my favorite team to be in RBI baseball back in the day). I'm a little against the whole mets team for beating the red sox in 86, but thats just a petty gripe of mine, I don't have anything real against any of the mets. You are definetly right that Gooden put up some outstanding numbers in the 80s, I was just trying to point out he burnt out to quick, although his earlier numbers definetly justify his qualification.

Please don't worry about coming off to argumentive, I can take it. If I'm over apologetic its just my defense mechanism against the much better educated.

-Kwyjibo



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I, too, am concerned about overcrowding in the Hall. The problem is, the place is already ludicrously overcrowded with people who don't belong. Basically, ANYONE who was a starting teammate of Frankie Frisch's in his years with the Giants or his years with the Cards got into the Hall in the years Frisch ran the Veterans Committee. And if you look up the career stats of guys like Fred Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, George Kelley, Ross Youngs, etc., etc., etc., there is absolutely no debating the point on any of them. I can make a better claim for belonging on the US Supreme Court than they can make for belonging in the Hall, and my case is mega-mega-lame.

Lindstrom played 100+ games in all of 8 seasons, had a .351 OBP and .449 slugging percentage (despite playing in THE most offense-fertile part of MLB history, and playing much of his career in the Polo Grounds), and was such a great third baseman they moved him to the outfield in mid-career. And he's one of the BETTER of the above-named players. George Kelley was vastly worse, and is aptly named by James as the worst player--or at least worst non-pitcher--in the Hall.

I don't believe in expelling people from the Hall, even when they are comically unqualified, like the above clowns, or even when they are proven to have thrown games. If you agree with me about that, then we are stuck with an already overloaded Hall containing lots of underqualified individuals.

But--and I'm sure you agree with me here--I absolutely do not believe the past sins of Frankie Frisch and others should dictate the future. Just because a bunch of woefully unqualified guys are in the Hall--the standard joke about Lloyd Waner is that somebody gave the Hall his brother Paul's stats by mistake, and that's how Lloyd got in after Paul did--is no reason why we should continue to elect jokes. There are dozens of players from the 20's and 30's who are in the Hall and don't belong there. That's too bad, and if you're a baseball history nut and purist like me, it's tragic (just like all the cheating in recent years).

But we sure as hell don't have to go on repeating the sins of history, right? And if that keeps Dwight Gooden out of the Hall, then so be it. The fact he was 5 times better than Jesse Haines (a Frisch teammate in St. Louis) or Rube Marquard only underscores what a joke their elections were, right? It's not a reason to perpetuate Hall mediocrity.

One of my very best friends--of some 30+ years now--is a huge baseball fan, and sadly a NYY fan, but not nearly the history fan I am. He went to Cooperstown a couple of years ago, then called me and said he couldn't believe how mediocre the stats of many of the guys were. And it really IS that disgusting, in a good many instances. I just already knew about it. He didn't, and came home like a little kid who'd just learned Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Gooden will probably have the greatest W-L % of any post-1900 pitcher with 150 or more wins NOT elected to the Hall. With that said, however, those Adjusted ERA's are really enough to turn me around. We have enough borderline or downright-joke players in the Hall. We don't need any more.

I retract my first post on this subject, in deference to the all-knowing Adjusted E.R.A. You are correct, my new friend. When I have been proven wrong, I will admit it, and you have shown me the error of my ways.

B.H.N.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Yeah the publicity baseball has received has increased exponentially since way back when it started. It's been better marketed so people have a better idea of who the greats are. I think this lead to stricter guidlines for hall of fame status. Obviously we can't kick out the ones who are already in, regardless of their underqualification by today's standards. Most fans won't recognize or care much about these old-timers.

I never meant to prove you wrong about anything (assuming your last sentence was meant at me). The more I think about it the more I think you are right. You're knowledge of baseball history is astounding. I use to be like you, memorizing baseball digest and being generally obsessed, but then I discovered alcohol and whatnot. I still have some knowledge and I thank you kindly for not going out of your way to show my ineptness.

Last point, do you think Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame? His career is similar to Gooden in that he didn't have that many dominant years but where I live (MA) there are a lot of people hoping he makes it, including me.

THANK YOU



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Dear Kwyjibo,

Well, my quick answer is that Jim Rice is, to me, one of the hardest calls in Hall of Fame history. He had a great three-year peak, and had 406 total bases in 1978. I just looked it up, and that is tied for the 21st most total bases in a single season, ever. And, almost everyone who is ahead of him did it in the run-elevated 1920's or 1930's, or is a modern-day steroid-baller and/or Coors Field-er. Thus, that season was clearly one of historic proportions.

Also, 398 home runs are no mean feat, especially in the 1970's and 1980's, which were a far cry from today. And his career slugging average was over .500, back when that really meant something.

With all of that said, however, there's a lot against him. He burned out very young, only slugging over .500 once and hitting 30 HR's once after his 28th birthday. He was NEVER a person who took walks, and in my personal book, that is a major defect, one of the first things I look at. His career-high in OBP was .384, which I consider ridiculous for a player of his ability, and his strikeout-to-walk ratio was an awful 1,423/670. He never walked over 62 times, but he struck out over 100 times in six seasons. And, although you could find many experts who disagree with me, I think the fact he swung at a lot of bad pitches had a lot to do with his hitting into 315 double plays in a career of just over 2,000 games.

In other words, I really don't know. But the one thing the Veterans Committee will have to keep in mind is this:

Jim Rice's stats may look worse than they truly are, because they came right before the explosion of Steroid Ball. Mike Schmidt won more HR titles than any player in history whose name was not Babe Ruth, yet nobody thinks of him as a great HR hitter anymore, because so many have passed him, he never hit 50, etc.

Well, Mike Schmidt was a GREAT home run hitter playing at a very difficult time for home runs. So was Rice. Obviously Rice was nowhere near the player Schmidt was, but, in a theme reminiscent of our chat earlier tonight, Rice scarcely needs to be as great as the greatest third baseman of all time in order to make the Hall.


Very tough call. Off hand, I cannot think of a tougher call for the Hall of Fame, and I've pondered this guy's Hall prospects a lot over the past 15 years or so. I do know that when he was active, I considered him a really awesome player, and if I had money on the opposing team, I just HATED to see him come up.

More than a few times, it turned out I had good reason to feel that way.

B.H.N.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaseballHistoryNut

Jim Rice's stats may look worse than they truly are, because they came right before the explosion of Steroid Ball. Mike Schmidt won more HR titles than any player in history whose name was not Babe Ruth, yet nobody thinks of him as a great HR hitter anymore, because so many have passed him, he never hit 50, etc.

Well, Mike Schmidt was a GREAT home run hitter playing at a very difficult time for home runs. So was Rice. Obviously Rice was nowhere near the player Schmidt was, but, in a theme reminiscent of our chat earlier tonight, Rice scarcely needs to be as great as the greatest third baseman of all time in order to make the Hall.




Hi BHN,
Great analysis of Rice's qualifications, as I said before I'm biased, being a Red Sox fan. That said, you're comparison of Rice to Mike Schmidt interested me. Quoting from earlyword.blogspot.com...

"(Schmidt) wrote that amphetamine use was common in locker games, the New York Times asked if he'd ever used greenies, and he said, "A couple times in my career I bit on it." Perhaps that admission helped spur a current Phillie to admit anonymously to using them, too, which in turned prompted commissioner Bud Selig to comment on possible speed-abuse in baseball.

Schmidt also admitted: "Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that." en.wikipedia.org...

My point is that do you think Rice deserves more credibility than Schmidt, or is it possible Rice was also using amphetamines, as many players were at the time. I know you're a baseball purist, but I'd say the historical usage of aphetamines was more rampant than the current steroid saga. Competition in sports is Machiavellian, and sports I think can reflect a sickness within society.

Originally, this thread was about Dwight Gooden being in the hall, and I said he shouldn't based on my incomplete understanding of the topic. With the current plight of performance enhancers in the game, I didn't think Gooden would make it into the Hall because it would raise too much controversy. Personally I think he and Strawberry should have there own corner, in fact the hall should organize the players by what vices they had during the game.

All kidding aside, the issue of drugs is very serious and has very serious consequences. Ken Caminiti admitted to using steroids during his MVP year in 1996 (as well as having coc aine and alcohol issues). His death in 2004 was tragic for me. He had the strongest arm I'd ever seen and as a budding third baseman (in little league) I used to really admire him. Sorry if there is no point in this, I really should write better notes before I post.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
This is a point which has touched off a VERY heated exchange here before. Yes, use of amphetamines is illegal, though please don't anyone start comparing them to methamphetamine, because that's like comparing a Rottweiler or German Shepherd to a grizzly bear. (And I should know.)

But greenies have been around for a long, long, long time. They didn't cause people's heads to double in size; they didn't cause people to gain 48 pounds of pure muscle; they didn't cause people to become the size of a large building; and most of all, they didn't cause all sorts of records, including untouchable ones like Ruth's single-season slugging record of .847, or Ruth's career HR/AB ratio of 1/11.76, to fall.

Absolutely preposterous things have happened in the last 15 years, and not only at the hands of Bonds and McGwire. Sosa turned from a mediocre player into a guy who hit 60 HR's repeatedly--WITHOUT leading the league. Jeff Kent turned from a mediocre player into the greatest offensive 2B since Hornsby. And innumerable 2B and SS's suddenly turned into guys with opposite field HR power, when as recently as 1988, players at those positions almost never hit 10 HR's in a season, and CERTAINLY didn't hit the ball 10 or 20 rows deep into the opposite-field seats.

There is no comparing what greenies have done to baseball, to what steroids and HGH have done to baseball. More hitting records, including "unbreakable ones," have been obliterated in the past 10 years than in the 45 years from 1945 to 1990. Steroids and amphetamines may be equally illegal, and amphetamines MAY even be more dangerous (far from clear), but there's no doubt which category has done more to destroy the integrity of the game, turn it into a carnival, and hopelessly compromise the legitimacy of its hallowed records.

And I say that as someone who really did regard those records as hallowed, and who simply will not accept the phony-as-hell records McGwire and Bonds set. No way, not now and not when I draw my final breath.

BHN



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Hi BHN
Sorry to bring up pre-discussed issues. I brought up amphetamines in baseball to make a point about Gooden not having much of a chance at being in the Hall (not that I'm saying I'm right).

I realize the comparison btw. greenies and steroids is flawed. You already pointed out why. I'm curious about greenies because the players who use them don't show any physical signs (big head, added muscle mass). Also it shows how cheating has been part of the game for a long time, and has evolved to the ultimate form of cheating (steroids). I just wasn't aware of this part of the game until recently. I use to think they called Tim Raines "Rock" because of his musical preferences.

I agree that the steroids era has destroyed some sacred records, and has left a dark cloud hanging over the game. It's unfortunate, but ultimately necessary in a Machiavellian way. After the strike in 94, fans didn't really come back to the game until the McGwire/Sosa home run race. So yeah now the records are tainted, but Pujols and A-Rod (despite my dislike for A-Rod) are still putting up monster numbers without chemical help and might restore some legitimacy to the game.

-Kwyjibo



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Well, they're doing so without help as far as we know. A-Rod appears bound for Aaron's record and beyond, and Pujols has exploded onto the MLB scene like none of the past monster youngsters--Foxx, Ott, Mantle, Mathews, etc.

I sure hope those two guys are legit. If they're not, and if Congress found it out despite the best duplicity/complicity of MLB, I think it would have long and painful reverberations for the game. Ditto if Clemens were found out as a phony, since so many experts now consider him the greatest right-hander of all time, and so many fans consider him the greatest pitcher of all time, period.

Don't you agree?

BHN



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
no argument here. My worst fear is Nolan Ryan gets caught up in this somehow. He was my dad's favorite player all time in any sport.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join