Barry Bonds is Hall of Fame Eligible

11/28/12 in MLB   |   AJ_88   |   166 respect

One of the most hated athletes of our generation is now listed on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in his first year of eligibility. Barry Bonds, the home run king with 762 over his storied career, is considered by most to be one of the ringleaders of the steroid era.

Aug 24, 2011; San Francisco CA, USA; San Francisco Giants former player Barry Bonds in attendance before the game against the San Diego Padres at AT&T Park. Mandatory Credit: Kelley L Cox-US PRESSWIREThe question becomes: will voters overlook the steroid era when looking at Bonds resume (or Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa for that matter)? Arguably, Bonds is a Hall of Fame player even before the steroid era had begun, but because he is viewed as tainted or damaged goods by most in the sports media industry, he may not receive the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he doesn't deserve it -- but baseball will be hard pressed to simply erase about a decade from its history. 

Some believe they should just accept it for what it was, the steroid era that is, and accept the truly remarkable performers of the era.  Admit those who deserve the bid to the Hall, and leave those who do not behind. Sosa may not deserve the nod if it had not been for his steroid use and the same may go for Mark Mcguire.  However, both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were dominant forces at their respective positions for years prior to their alleged steroid use. 

Will writers take that into consideration? Or will the voters not allow themselves to look past the fact that most players who have become eligible could be viewed as steroid abusers and therefore non-deserving of the ultimate post-career honor? 

Most assume Bonds won't make it. At least in the first year of eligibility. But will it even be a close vote? Bonds, if not for steroid-linked years, could be considered the best player of all time. There was never a player who drew as much respect at the plate as Bonds did. He set the record for overall and intentional walks in a season. And even when he did see pitches, he managed to hit above .315 at such a constat rate it was remarkable. 

Steroids do not provide a player with increased skill, just power. Bonds may be guilty of steroid use, but he is certainly one of, if not the most skilled player to ever set foot on a baseball field. There is no denying he is a Hall of Famer - but he probably won't get there on his first try. 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/23/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
As usual, you are wrong.

Wow what a surprise.....

1/20/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Nope I have  no problem telling you have no point, or clue. I am sure you will come back with something classless...

As usual, you are wrong.

1/18/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
No, the point is just lost on you.

Let me save you the trouble of responding...  You are going to come back with something like, "You still have noting."

That's all you say.

Nope I have  no problem telling you have no point, or clue. I am sure you will come back with something classless...

1/17/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You still have nothing to say.... fact, you still have no point

No, the point is just lost on you.

Let me save you the trouble of responding...  You are going to come back with something like, "You still have noting."

That's all you say.

1/17/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You keep repeating the same thing over and over yet you have yet to supply any reasoning behind your comment.

You still have nothing to say.... fact, you still have no point

1/16/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Of course you would say that, still no point... so you have nothing. will say you are consistent with having nothing.  

You keep repeating the same thing over and over yet you have yet to supply any reasoning behind your comment.

1/16/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You aren't seeing/admitting this but your comment shows you don't know what an accusation is.

Of course you would say that, still no point... so you have nothing. will say you are consistent with having nothing.  

1/16/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Nope, I am not accusing, it is fact you have nothing.

You aren't seeing/admitting this but your comment shows you don't know what an accusation is.

1/16/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Yes...  Sad that you don't have a single thing to back up what you say.  All you have is accusations that the other person has nothing. 

Nope, I am not accusing, it is fact you have nothing.

1/15/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
SMH... really, that's what you are going with... so sad, just so, so sad.....

Yes...  Sad that you don't have a single thing to back up what you say.  All you have is accusations that the other person has nothing. 

1/15/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Yes...  To you words mean nothing.  Facts mean nothing.  Nothing means anything except your own personal view of the world.

Good luck with that.

SMH... really, that's what you are going with... so sad, just so, so sad.....

1/15/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Blah blah, nothing, blah, blah....... good job keep it up.

Yes...  To you words mean nothing.  Facts mean nothing.  Nothing means anything except your own personal view of the world.

Good luck with that.

1/15/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You see...  This is proof you aren't comprehending the words you "read".  There is a difference between saying "I don't think" and "I thought not".   One is an admission of thought the other is the admission of a lack of thought.  But I no longer expect you to understand that.

You have unwittingly proved me correct yet again.

Blah blah, nothing, blah, blah....... good job keep it up.

1/15/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Agree you don't think and fact, you have proved it for me all a long, that  you have nothing.

You see...  This is proof you aren't comprehending the words you "read".  There is a difference between saying "I don't think" and "I thought not".   One is an admission of thought the other is the admission of a lack of thought.  But I no longer expect you to understand that.

You have unwittingly proved me correct yet again.

1/15/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Care to back that up with facts?

I thought not.

Agree you don't think and fact, you have proved it for me all a long, that  you have nothing.

1/14/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahaha you still got nothing

Care to back that up with facts?

I thought not.

1/14/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
I have everything and you know it.  If I truly didn't you would come back with more than "you have nothing".  You would actually back up what you said with evidence or facts of some kind.

You are just too proud/stubborn/arrogant to admit it. 

hahahaha you still got nothing

1/14/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahaha again you no nothing but I love you can put letters together...... learn the game grasshopper, learn the game.

I have everything and you know it.  If I truly didn't you would come back with more than "you have nothing".  You would actually back up what you said with evidence or facts of some kind.

You are just too proud/stubborn/arrogant to admit it. 

1/14/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
The irony of your comment is so very think.... 

And the hillarious part is you may not even realize it.   ROTFLMAO!

hahaha again you no nothing but I love you can put letters together...... learn the game grasshopper, learn the game.

1/12/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Come back when you wrote something with merit and makes sense you are just yammering on here, Again no point just yammering.

The irony of your comment is so very think.... 

And the hillarious part is you may not even realize it.   ROTFLMAO!

1/12/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
And let's review the evidence you have that led you to your conclusion... 

I disagree with your assessment of Bonds vs. Griffey.   

Then there's...   Well...  There really isn't anything else in the thread that could possibly lead you to your conclusion.  

But then there is you trying to cover yourself by claiming all the facts and evidence I presented (and you didn't, btw) constitute "no point".

You are hilarious!!!   

Come back when you wrote something with merit and makes sense you are just yammering on here, Again no point just yammering.

1/11/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
What a surprise still no point, and the only thing obvious is that you have a low baseball IQ, which prevents you from understanding the game or the players.

And let's review the evidence you have that led you to your conclusion... 

I disagree with your assessment of Bonds vs. Griffey.   

Then there's...   Well...  There really isn't anything else in the thread that could possibly lead you to your conclusion.  

But then there is you trying to cover yourself by claiming all the facts and evidence I presented (and you didn't, btw) constitute "no point".

You are hilarious!!!   

1/11/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Speaking of a lack of surprises...  It comes as no surprise that you are refusing to see the point.  I don't want to say you are too stupid to see the obvious.  So I'm going to stick with the theory that you do indeed see it but are way too stubborn to admit it.

What a surprise still no point, and the only thing obvious is that you have a low baseball IQ, which prevents you from understanding the game or the players.

1/10/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Wow you still have no point, what a surprise.....

Speaking of a lack of surprises...  It comes as no surprise that you are refusing to see the point.  I don't want to say you are too stupid to see the obvious.  So I'm going to stick with the theory that you do indeed see it but are way too stubborn to admit it.

1/10/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Ahh... It's been a little bit since you repeated that.  Got tired of your tactic of misdirection and ignoring direct questions then it seems....

Wow you still have no point, what a surprise.....

1/9/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Blah Blah blah, you still have nothing in your comments but Blah, blah blah, no point just trash.

Ahh... It's been a little bit since you repeated that.  Got tired of your tactic of misdirection and ignoring direct questions then it seems....

1/9/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
My mistake.  I should have added...   "Even though you refuse to acknowledge you doing so." 

Blah Blah blah, you still have nothing in your comments but Blah, blah blah, no point just trash.

1/8/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Proving you know little about baseball and you are lost, not a problem. Glad I can help smiley

My mistake.  I should have added...   "Even though you refuse to acknowledge you doing so." 

1/8/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Thank you for proving me correct yet again.

Proving you know little about baseball and you are lost, not a problem. Glad I can help smiley

1/6/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
LOL no it does not boy you are so lost. hahahahahaha

Thank you for proving me correct yet again.

1/6/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK...  Even in the links you provided it confirms that power come from the lower body.   "Strong legs translate to improved velocity on pitches. Even hitters need strong legs to create power at the plate..."

That is the basic.  All I am on about.  I'm not about to break down the movement of every molecule in a hitter's body.   Other parts of the batter's swing are adjusted to cater to the batter's personal skill set.  No, I am not a coach nor have I ever claimed to be.  But i know the baseball basics.  You act like you are an expert.  But you have yet to produce anything to suggest you are.  What are your hitting and baseball coaching credentials that you should be taken seriously?  I don't expect you to answer.  You haven't in the past.  No reason to think you would now.

Once again...  Find me 10 professional golfers on the tour today who use a baseball swing for their golf game.  The fact that you (sort of) found one doesn't prove anything.  There are a TON of swing styles out there.  Or better yet...  Find two golf pros who teach a baseball style swing to their students.  You won't find them.  They don't exist. 

Once again, you continue to make mistakes and errors.  I never commented on why Bonds went from center to left.  You brought that up.  Even though it had nothing to do with whether Bonds or Griffey was the better player.  Especially since I already conceded Griffey had the edge with the glove.

We both know you have given up defending your original position.   Why keep up the charade?

LOL no it does not boy you are so lost. hahahahahaha

1/6/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahahah again you are full of BS and I tell you again the same links from back a month ago. http://www.livestrong.com/article/449683-the-most-important-muscles-for-baseball/
http://www.baseballfarming.com/HittingBatSpeed-WristSnap.html your power in the wrist without them you have no bat speed no matter how strong your lower body is. Those are two links and I know you can find some more that says power is in the hips and legs but all will tell you that you need strong wrist and forearms.  Lets look at Bonds swing his hips are not open and he is about to snap his wrist then the hips open up for the follow through. The only time the hips open up before hand is when the pitch is inside,unless the ball in down and inside, which is when a player golfs it out, the same swing Ben Hogan uses in wait for it wait for GOLF. You do not teach hitting and you sure do not understand it, and just as I am sure you can find people are there you tell you to keep you back elbow up, or do not take you top hand off or you will lose power. Plus your comment of why Bonds moved to LF is just silly, it had to do with they had a better defensive player in Van Slyke. If Bonds was a better defensive player he would have stayed, Lenny Dykstra did not have a better
arm and where did he play, that's right CF, wow so know so little..

OK...  Even in the links you provided it confirms that power come from the lower body.   "Strong legs translate to improved velocity on pitches. Even hitters need strong legs to create power at the plate..."

That is the basic.  All I am on about.  I'm not about to break down the movement of every molecule in a hitter's body.   Other parts of the batter's swing are adjusted to cater to the batter's personal skill set.  No, I am not a coach nor have I ever claimed to be.  But i know the baseball basics.  You act like you are an expert.  But you have yet to produce anything to suggest you are.  What are your hitting and baseball coaching credentials that you should be taken seriously?  I don't expect you to answer.  You haven't in the past.  No reason to think you would now.

Once again...  Find me 10 professional golfers on the tour today who use a baseball swing for their golf game.  The fact that you (sort of) found one doesn't prove anything.  There are a TON of swing styles out there.  Or better yet...  Find two golf pros who teach a baseball style swing to their students.  You won't find them.  They don't exist. 

Once again, you continue to make mistakes and errors.  I never commented on why Bonds went from center to left.  You brought that up.  Even though it had nothing to do with whether Bonds or Griffey was the better player.  Especially since I already conceded Griffey had the edge with the glove.

We both know you have given up defending your original position.   Why keep up the charade?

1/6/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
The other thread supports the idea that you don't pay attention.  Assuming you didn't know the numbers went in order was absolutely NOT a bad assumption to make.  Especially after watching you not reading and comprehending what was said in this thread.  Therefore, I used it as more examples of your failure to comprehend the world around you.  That is the connection you no doubt will continue to deny.

I know you had said that Griffey was better to begin with

???   What the hell?  I never claimed that.  That was YOUR stance.  You are really losing it now.  You don't even recognize your own comments.

This going back to the Bonds-Griffey thing is no assumption.  It is the core of everything here.  You made your case.  I countered it.  After that, all you did was dish out 2nd grade insults.

I never claimed Jeter was Better than Bonds or Griffey.  What the hell is that all about?  I said that by some people's standards Jeter may have had the better career because he played for teams that won World Series'.  There is nothing wrong with that assessment.  It is subjective based on what a person deems what makes for a good career.  That doesn't make him the better player.  I really don't know a simpler way to put it. 
It seems I have to repeat what I said.  You still aren't getting it.  Stats do not tell you everything.  But they still have a value and do say something.  Here is a slightly new way to put it...  If two people compete in a tennis game or round of golf or any kind of competition for say...  21 times.  If one person wins 9 and the other 12, it may not be enough to decide one player is absolutely for 100% certain is better.  But...  If one person wins all 21 times, it is reasonable to conclude that the 21 time winner was indeed the better performer.  It really is that simple.  Bonds out performed Griffey at the plate in every way imaginable.  Jr was good, but Bonds was better.  Why is that simple concept so difficult for you to grasp?  Could it be because it ruins your original concept that Griffey was better? 

why didn't Tony hit more HRs?

Because Dawson had stronger lower body strength.  Which is where power comes from.   I win.

So you stating that Bonds was slightly below Griffey in defense because he played LF and can play the angles which makes up for his weak arm is a joke, and again shows your low baseball IQ,

Here is the problem with you.  This is a perfect example.  You make this idiotic accusation but you don't back it up with any reasons beyond because you said so.  The fact is, it is indeed 100% fact.  Bonds was quick out there.  He DID play the angles.  HE WAS a very fast player.  The reason he was in left was because of his weak arm.  This was no secret.   It sure would be nice if when you make accusations you actually supply some valid reasons that support it. 

To sum up...  You wasted a lot of space saying things that did NOT support your original assessment.  In fact, nothing you said in your entire post defended your original position nor did it tear down anything I have said in reply.  There was no need to throw in that obvious quote nor was it necessary to throw in the definition of what made for a good center fielder.  I am well aware of that.  It doesn't change the fact that Bonds was a better baseball player than Griffey.  I'm sure you are getting angry because of that by now...

hahahahah again you are full of BS and I tell you again the same links from back a month ago. http://www.livestrong.com/article/449683-the-most-important-muscles-for-baseball/
http://www.baseballfarming.com/HittingBatSpeed-WristSnap.html your power in the wrist without them you have no bat speed no matter how strong your lower body is. Those are two links and I know you can find some more that says power is in the hips and legs but all will tell you that you need strong wrist and forearms.  Lets look at Bonds swing his hips are not open and he is about to snap his wrist then the hips open up for the follow through. The only time the hips open up before hand is when the pitch is inside,unless the ball in down and inside, which is when a player golfs it out, the same swing Ben Hogan uses in wait for it wait for GOLF. You do not teach hitting and you sure do not understand it, and just as I am sure you can find people are there you tell you to keep you back elbow up, or do not take you top hand off or you will lose power. Plus your comment of why Bonds moved to LF is just silly, it had to do with they had a better defensive player in Van Slyke. If Bonds was a better defensive player he would have stayed, Lenny Dykstra did not have a better
arm and where did he play, that's right CF, wow so know so little..

1/5/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
LOL the other thread shows nothing, but of course that is what you bring is a bunch of BS.... funny how you think they connect because instead of asking why I did you assume I just did it because I did not know it went in order.  yes the comment told me I messed up so what again it has nothing to do with this thread, so what if I did not go in order, cry me a river. I know I did not go in order and chose to do it still because I do not troll this site waiting for the perfect number to pop up so I get those athletes in. BOOO HOOO HOOO, get your crying towel and wipes your face and eyes.

No, grasshopper I know you had said that Griffey was better to begin with, you are the one again assuming that I continue, to state how you do not know the game of baseball is because of Griffey Vs Bonds. So you have been wrong so many times just as you are here, you disagreeing about Bonds and Griffey has no bearing on it. Numbers all you have is career numbers and if you did not stand by and repeat it for the 'Of course Bonds stats were better.  It is the only way to accurately measure the skills.', your words then you state how Jeter may have a better career, but he was not a better player. By your own words Jeter would be the better player now you come out saying no stats do not make you a better player. Like everything in this thread you are all over the map just as you were when it came to pitching and hitting.  

No grasshopper, you really have no clue how to hit. Tell me how is it a hitter hits one out to the opposite field and he does not turn on the ball(that means his hips) and the batter weight is on his back foot not his front?



Batters have different stances, so they may begin his swing from a different angle but the good ones and great ones all come through the strike zone the same way. and you saying different shows the lack of knowledge, and low baseball IQ you have. Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose Lee Mazzilli, Joe D. start different but when the bat comes through the zone each one of them is doing the same thing.



As for Posey here look carefully he has his weight on his back foot, not his front as the ball is about to make contact. Draw a line from his shoulders down and you will see it is on his back foot, those who shift the weight to the foot, tend to be out in foot and miss because he lost his balance.



Wow look Ted Williams has the same stance.



Wow Darryl Strawberry has the same stance, his weight is back

People go around teaching that you must put your weight on the back foot because you step with the font foot, this is a timing thing only does not transfer power create power it is to get the batter ready to hit. Joe Dimaggio did not need this step believe it was a wasted movement and just widen his stance, so that his weight was balance, most have a have time and need a movement to say he is ready. Just like Gary Sheffield with his hands that he has done since Little League.

A good batter will have his hips close as he makes contact with the ball, unless the ball is inside which he will then open his hips to get his hands through. 


I know you will argue it and say no that is wrong, because this guy to that one says so, answer me this when they measure the torque which you claim in the most important and gives the hitter the power, is higher on a guy like Tony Gwynn, then say Andre Dawson, why didn't Tony hit more HRs?

That only way you will get fat from cookies, around here would be to steal them from the kid next door, for you have not earn anything here. I offer you a cookie out of pity, no where did it say you earned one...

Corner outfielders are often slower and have less defensive value than the CF. However, there are some important differences between RF and LF. RF's tend to have the best throwing arms of the outfield so they can make the long throw to third base, but often are not as fast as left fielders. Center fielders are generally the fastest and most athletic of the three, because they have to run the farthest in order to field balls in the gaps and back up the other outfielders when balls are hit to them. So you stating that Bonds was slightly below Griffey in defense because he played LF and can play the angles which makes up for his weak arm is a joke, and again shows your low baseball IQ, That is why when the Pirates got Andy van Slyke they moved Bonds to LF Andy was a better defensive player. this is why I tell you over and over you do not know the game and try again not because you disagree with me about Griffey and Bonds, and you assuming that really just makes you look.. well I cannot call you a d.... you will go and tell.

 

"Looking at these two former great center fielders playing in the corners, the assumption is that if they played great center field at one point, they'll play great in the corners,"  said, The Fielder's Bible John Dewan and Ultimate Zone Rating

 

Center field:
Tools in order of one scout's importance are running and fielding, then hitting, throwing and power. Center fielders are the quarterback of the outfield, so they must be able to anticipate and have good range to get to balls hit out there. Pure athleticism and quickness is something you'll find in good center fielders -- enabling them to make those over-the-shoulder catches, or climbing the fence to rob a player of a home run.http://www.allstarbaseball.com/scouting.htm

The other thread supports the idea that you don't pay attention.  Assuming you didn't know the numbers went in order was absolutely NOT a bad assumption to make.  Especially after watching you not reading and comprehending what was said in this thread.  Therefore, I used it as more examples of your failure to comprehend the world around you.  That is the connection you no doubt will continue to deny.

I know you had said that Griffey was better to begin with

???   What the hell?  I never claimed that.  That was YOUR stance.  You are really losing it now.  You don't even recognize your own comments.

This going back to the Bonds-Griffey thing is no assumption.  It is the core of everything here.  You made your case.  I countered it.  After that, all you did was dish out 2nd grade insults.

I never claimed Jeter was Better than Bonds or Griffey.  What the hell is that all about?  I said that by some people's standards Jeter may have had the better career because he played for teams that won World Series'.  There is nothing wrong with that assessment.  It is subjective based on what a person deems what makes for a good career.  That doesn't make him the better player.  I really don't know a simpler way to put it. 
It seems I have to repeat what I said.  You still aren't getting it.  Stats do not tell you everything.  But they still have a value and do say something.  Here is a slightly new way to put it...  If two people compete in a tennis game or round of golf or any kind of competition for say...  21 times.  If one person wins 9 and the other 12, it may not be enough to decide one player is absolutely for 100% certain is better.  But...  If one person wins all 21 times, it is reasonable to conclude that the 21 time winner was indeed the better performer.  It really is that simple.  Bonds out performed Griffey at the plate in every way imaginable.  Jr was good, but Bonds was better.  Why is that simple concept so difficult for you to grasp?  Could it be because it ruins your original concept that Griffey was better? 

why didn't Tony hit more HRs?

Because Dawson had stronger lower body strength.  Which is where power comes from.   I win.

So you stating that Bonds was slightly below Griffey in defense because he played LF and can play the angles which makes up for his weak arm is a joke, and again shows your low baseball IQ,

Here is the problem with you.  This is a perfect example.  You make this idiotic accusation but you don't back it up with any reasons beyond because you said so.  The fact is, it is indeed 100% fact.  Bonds was quick out there.  He DID play the angles.  HE WAS a very fast player.  The reason he was in left was because of his weak arm.  This was no secret.   It sure would be nice if when you make accusations you actually supply some valid reasons that support it. 

To sum up...  You wasted a lot of space saying things that did NOT support your original assessment.  In fact, nothing you said in your entire post defended your original position nor did it tear down anything I have said in reply.  There was no need to throw in that obvious quote nor was it necessary to throw in the definition of what made for a good center fielder.  I am well aware of that.  It doesn't change the fact that Bonds was a better baseball player than Griffey.  I'm sure you are getting angry because of that by now...

1/4/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
It was so long ago and I know you have a very short attention span.  But yes, it was all about Griffey to begin with.  Yes, my evidence was mostly the career numbers.  You insisted the numbers don't tell you anything.  Which is BS, by the way.  To repeat (it seems I have to with you) individual stats don't tell you everything.  But neither do they tell you nothing.  Further, when a player has a few superior stats, the better player is not a cut and dry thing.  But, if a player has better stats in EVERY category, then yes.  That player was indeed the better player.  A better career is not what I'm talking about.  A better career is way more subjective than who the better player was.  Better stats do not necessarily mean better career.  I have made this counter point before and you have yet to address it.  I'm not "yammering" on about the Giants staff of two years ago.  You keep running back to that as if it has something to do with the Bonds Griffey thing.  It doesn't.  It is just a pathetic attempt by you to get the discussion away from your original position you realize you cannot defend.  Further still, the only outside opinions I have brought in are those of people who agree that Bonds was the better player.  I tried to find a writer or even a blogger who felt Griffey was better but I couldn't find any.  And neither could you.

There is no need to get into the science of hitting, pitching or defense because it has nothing to do with your original stance.  Plus, when you did get into it you have shown a keen misunderstanding of some of the basic principles anyway.

Yes, I did bring up what you did in another thread because it showcased what you are doing here.  Failing to understand numbers and failing to understand how the thread was meant to work.  The comment that followed yours even told you you messed up. 
Who you followed here had nothing to do with anything and I have no idea why you decided to share that worthless bit if info.

I could gain 20 lbs from all the cookies I've earned in this thread!

LOL the other thread shows nothing, but of course that is what you bring is a bunch of BS.... funny how you think they connect because instead of asking why I did you assume I just did it because I did not know it went in order.  yes the comment told me I messed up so what again it has nothing to do with this thread, so what if I did not go in order, cry me a river. I know I did not go in order and chose to do it still because I do not troll this site waiting for the perfect number to pop up so I get those athletes in. BOOO HOOO HOOO, get your crying towel and wipes your face and eyes.

No, grasshopper I know you had said that Griffey was better to begin with, you are the one again assuming that I continue, to state how you do not know the game of baseball is because of Griffey Vs Bonds. So you have been wrong so many times just as you are here, you disagreeing about Bonds and Griffey has no bearing on it. Numbers all you have is career numbers and if you did not stand by and repeat it for the 'Of course Bonds stats were better.  It is the only way to accurately measure the skills.', your words then you state how Jeter may have a better career, but he was not a better player. By your own words Jeter would be the better player now you come out saying no stats do not make you a better player. Like everything in this thread you are all over the map just as you were when it came to pitching and hitting.  

No grasshopper, you really have no clue how to hit. Tell me how is it a hitter hits one out to the opposite field and he does not turn on the ball(that means his hips) and the batter weight is on his back foot not his front?



Batters have different stances, so they may begin his swing from a different angle but the good ones and great ones all come through the strike zone the same way. and you saying different shows the lack of knowledge, and low baseball IQ you have. Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose Lee Mazzilli, Joe D. start different but when the bat comes through the zone each one of them is doing the same thing.



As for Posey here look carefully he has his weight on his back foot, not his front as the ball is about to make contact. Draw a line from his shoulders down and you will see it is on his back foot, those who shift the weight to the foot, tend to be out in foot and miss because he lost his balance.



Wow look Ted Williams has the same stance.



Wow Darryl Strawberry has the same stance, his weight is back

People go around teaching that you must put your weight on the back foot because you step with the font foot, this is a timing thing only does not transfer power create power it is to get the batter ready to hit. Joe Dimaggio did not need this step believe it was a wasted movement and just widen his stance, so that his weight was balance, most have a have time and need a movement to say he is ready. Just like Gary Sheffield with his hands that he has done since Little League.

A good batter will have his hips close as he makes contact with the ball, unless the ball is inside which he will then open his hips to get his hands through. 


I know you will argue it and say no that is wrong, because this guy to that one says so, answer me this when they measure the torque which you claim in the most important and gives the hitter the power, is higher on a guy like Tony Gwynn, then say Andre Dawson, why didn't Tony hit more HRs?

That only way you will get fat from cookies, around here would be to steal them from the kid next door, for you have not earn anything here. I offer you a cookie out of pity, no where did it say you earned one...

Corner outfielders are often slower and have less defensive value than the CF. However, there are some important differences between RF and LF. RF's tend to have the best throwing arms of the outfield so they can make the long throw to third base, but often are not as fast as left fielders. Center fielders are generally the fastest and most athletic of the three, because they have to run the farthest in order to field balls in the gaps and back up the other outfielders when balls are hit to them. So you stating that Bonds was slightly below Griffey in defense because he played LF and can play the angles which makes up for his weak arm is a joke, and again shows your low baseball IQ, That is why when the Pirates got Andy van Slyke they moved Bonds to LF Andy was a better defensive player. this is why I tell you over and over you do not know the game and try again not because you disagree with me about Griffey and Bonds, and you assuming that really just makes you look.. well I cannot call you a d.... you will go and tell.

 

"Looking at these two former great center fielders playing in the corners, the assumption is that if they played great center field at one point, they'll play great in the corners,"  said, The Fielder's Bible John Dewan and Ultimate Zone Rating

 

Center field:
Tools in order of one scout's importance are running and fielding, then hitting, throwing and power. Center fielders are the quarterback of the outfield, so they must be able to anticipate and have good range to get to balls hit out there. Pure athleticism and quickness is something you'll find in good center fielders -- enabling them to make those over-the-shoulder catches, or climbing the fence to rob a player of a home run.http://www.allstarbaseball.com/scouting.htm

1/4/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
No, it is not about Griffey which again shows you have no clue what has been going on, and the only thing you have about facts in career numbers which do not mean a player was better, only that he had a better career. As yo giving you data when we use your logic once again you  yammering on here about how the Giants staff was better then the Philles or Braves from the '90s is a complete 180... this is where your lies just pile up, because you use numbers for bonds but not the pitching staff. Then you what bring in someones opinion who tells you you cannot go by how many home runs someone hits or walks, SLG% because there is to many outside variables, but you still hold strong to it. Every other opinion you have gotten is going on to say Bonds career was better, which I have said from the start.


So you are full of crap, I wont even get into the art of hitting, pitching or defense because you have shown over and over with your comments you do not know how it works.

You are the one who brought it up about me posting on another thread. there of course it has nothing to do with anything here. But then that is you bringing up things which has nothing to do with the other again you are a winner for bring up BS.... yay go ML13...

You cookie is sitting here and waiting

So again you have nothing just like it has been from the start, so try again grasshopper. BTW most get better when he/she gets many second chances to do something, with you, you just continue to fall, what a shame.

It was so long ago and I know you have a very short attention span.  But yes, it was all about Griffey to begin with.  Yes, my evidence was mostly the career numbers.  You insisted the numbers don't tell you anything.  Which is BS, by the way.  To repeat (it seems I have to with you) individual stats don't tell you everything.  But neither do they tell you nothing.  Further, when a player has a few superior stats, the better player is not a cut and dry thing.  But, if a player has better stats in EVERY category, then yes.  That player was indeed the better player.  A better career is not what I'm talking about.  A better career is way more subjective than who the better player was.  Better stats do not necessarily mean better career.  I have made this counter point before and you have yet to address it.  I'm not "yammering" on about the Giants staff of two years ago.  You keep running back to that as if it has something to do with the Bonds Griffey thing.  It doesn't.  It is just a pathetic attempt by you to get the discussion away from your original position you realize you cannot defend.  Further still, the only outside opinions I have brought in are those of people who agree that Bonds was the better player.  I tried to find a writer or even a blogger who felt Griffey was better but I couldn't find any.  And neither could you.

There is no need to get into the science of hitting, pitching or defense because it has nothing to do with your original stance.  Plus, when you did get into it you have shown a keen misunderstanding of some of the basic principles anyway.

Yes, I did bring up what you did in another thread because it showcased what you are doing here.  Failing to understand numbers and failing to understand how the thread was meant to work.  The comment that followed yours even told you you messed up. 
Who you followed here had nothing to do with anything and I have no idea why you decided to share that worthless bit if info.

I could gain 20 lbs from all the cookies I've earned in this thread!

1/4/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK...  Here is the real problem...   You keep saying I don't know baseball.  And the one and only reason you have for that conclusion is I disagree with your conclusion that Griffey Jr. was better than Barry Bonds.  Such an absolute thought with so very very flimsy logic.  And here is the kicker...  When I explain the reasons why I think Bonds is better what is your response?  Is it with facts?  No.  Is it with emperical data?  No.  Your response has constantly been "you don't know baseball".  You repeat this over and over and over no matter what new comment I throw out there.  You refuse to discuss.  You ignore anything that counters your narrow view.

Great that you follow Jess.  Thank you for that extra special insight into your life.  You have to know that has zero to do with anything said here.  Still doesn't explain your lack of understanding for what that thread was about.  Just as it parallels your lack of understanding for what makes for great hitting.

Where's my cookie? 

No, it is not about Griffey which again shows you have no clue what has been going on, and the only thing you have about facts in career numbers which do not mean a player was better, only that he had a better career. As yo giving you data when we use your logic once again you  yammering on here about how the Giants staff was better then the Philles or Braves from the '90s is a complete 180... this is where your lies just pile up, because you use numbers for bonds but not the pitching staff. Then you what bring in someones opinion who tells you you cannot go by how many home runs someone hits or walks, SLG% because there is to many outside variables, but you still hold strong to it. Every other opinion you have gotten is going on to say Bonds career was better, which I have said from the start.


So you are full of crap, I wont even get into the art of hitting, pitching or defense because you have shown over and over with your comments you do not know how it works.

You are the one who brought it up about me posting on another thread. there of course it has nothing to do with anything here. But then that is you bringing up things which has nothing to do with the other again you are a winner for bring up BS.... yay go ML13...

You cookie is sitting here and waiting

So again you have nothing just like it has been from the start, so try again grasshopper. BTW most get better when he/she gets many second chances to do something, with you, you just continue to fall, what a shame.

1/3/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Problem is you do not know the game of baseball simple fact. So yes I will say try again, I know it is hard because you do not have a high baseball IQ... No you have stated the same over and over and shown how little you know of the players and theirs abilities and you have no clue about hitting or pitching. Still continue to be wrong and tell lies if it makes you happy.

Again you are so wrong and truly sad. I happen to follow Jess the FanIQ moderate (who wanted to add Cortez Kennedy) but did not think she would be there to do it. Sorry I am not creeping around here like someone to be able to put these players on the page. hahahahahahahaha but this is what I expect from you lies and bunch of trash. Way to go ML31!!!! You now get a cookie!!!!!

OK...  Here is the real problem...   You keep saying I don't know baseball.  And the one and only reason you have for that conclusion is I disagree with your conclusion that Griffey Jr. was better than Barry Bonds.  Such an absolute thought with so very very flimsy logic.  And here is the kicker...  When I explain the reasons why I think Bonds is better what is your response?  Is it with facts?  No.  Is it with emperical data?  No.  Your response has constantly been "you don't know baseball".  You repeat this over and over and over no matter what new comment I throw out there.  You refuse to discuss.  You ignore anything that counters your narrow view.

Great that you follow Jess.  Thank you for that extra special insight into your life.  You have to know that has zero to do with anything said here.  Still doesn't explain your lack of understanding for what that thread was about.  Just as it parallels your lack of understanding for what makes for great hitting.

Where's my cookie? 

1/3/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are completely confused here.  All your posts have repeated "try again" over and over again no matter how many different things I write.

You truly do live in your own little word, don't you?

BTW...  Great job of showcasing your inability to read and count in that Numbers thread.  At least I can say you are consistent!

Problem is you do not know the game of baseball simple fact. So yes I will say try again, I know it is hard because you do not have a high baseball IQ... No you have stated the same over and over and shown how little you know of the players and theirs abilities and you have no clue about hitting or pitching. Still continue to be wrong and tell lies if it makes you happy.

Again you are so wrong and truly sad. I happen to follow Jess the FanIQ moderate (who wanted to add Cortez Kennedy) but did not think she would be there to do it. Sorry I am not creeping around here like someone to be able to put these players on the page. hahahahahahahaha but this is what I expect from you lies and bunch of trash. Way to go ML31!!!! You now get a cookie!!!!!

1/3/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
If you had a high enough baseball IQ I would not have to say try again.... so continue to repeat yourself and I will continue to say try again.

You are completely confused here.  All your posts have repeated "try again" over and over again no matter how many different things I write.

You truly do live in your own little word, don't you?

BTW...  Great job of showcasing your inability to read and count in that Numbers thread.  At least I can say you are consistent!

1/3/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Do you have anything beyond "try again"? 

Of course not.  God forbid you actually use some kind of verifiable fact or data.

If you had a high enough baseball IQ I would not have to say try again.... so continue to repeat yourself and I will continue to say try again.

1/3/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
There was no attempt, for I would have to bring you up to my, which would do no good because then I would have to carry you..so yet again you must try once more.....grasshopper

Do you have anything beyond "try again"? 

Of course not.  God forbid you actually use some kind of verifiable fact or data.

1/3/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Weak attempt to drag me down to your level....   "grasshopper".

There was no attempt, for I would have to bring you up to my, which would do no good because then I would have to carry you..so yet again you must try once more.....grasshopper

1/3/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
I know, as well as you do, that you do not know the game of baseball... so try again grasshopper

Weak attempt to drag me down to your level....   "grasshopper".

1/3/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You know you were being negative.  You were the one who said "nope" to the possibility you might hear the voice of reason one day in the future...

I know, as well as you do, that you do not know the game of baseball... so try again grasshopper

1/3/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Who is being negative, truth is plain as day, you do not know the game of baseball.... So try again grasshopper.

You know you were being negative.  You were the one who said "nope" to the possibility you might hear the voice of reason one day in the future...

1/3/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
That's too bad.  Don't be so negative.  You may not believe it now but you may yet hear the voice of reason one day.

Who is being negative, truth is plain as day, you do not know the game of baseball.... So try again grasshopper.

1/2/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahaha. nope, try again grasshopper....

That's too bad.  Don't be so negative.  You may not believe it now but you may yet hear the voice of reason one day.

1/2/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You don't know what voice it is because you don't recognize the voice of reason.  But perhaps one day you will...

hahahaha. nope, try again grasshopper....

1/2/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Not sure which voice in your head is telling you to write that, but it is funny..... hahahahahaha wait till the others catch up and hear the lies.

You don't know what voice it is because you don't recognize the voice of reason.  But perhaps one day you will...

1/1/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You and I both know you are telling this to yourself.  You HAVE to. 

Not sure which voice in your head is telling you to write that, but it is funny..... hahahahahaha wait till the others catch up and hear the lies.

1/1/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
It seems I must continue to tell you that.

You and I both know you are telling this to yourself.  You HAVE to. 

1/1/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You just keep telling yourself that.

It seems I must continue to tell you that.

1/1/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
I cannot get tired of something that has never happen... tell some more lies..... hahahahaha

You just keep telling yourself that.

1/1/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Do you ever get tired of proving me correct?

I cannot get tired of something that has never happen... tell some more lies..... hahahahaha

1/1/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
LOL you know nothing of the game, so you do not have a high baseball IQ. You have only shown you can google and repeat other peoples thoughts. hahahahahahaha So again you do not have anything worth talking about.

Do you ever get tired of proving me correct?

1/1/13   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You keep proving me right at every turn.  I got you right.  Nothing works for you unless it agrees with you.

You have shown you know a few names from the past and you might know basic rules of the game...  (9 innings, fair/foul, etc) but beyond that you have yet to demonstrate any deep comprehension of the game.

Care to actually address things I said with, oh I don't know....  Facts or evidence?   No?  I thought as much.

LOL you know nothing of the game, so you do not have a high baseball IQ. You have only shown you can google and repeat other peoples thoughts. hahahahahahaha So again you do not have anything worth talking about.

12/31/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahahahaha... you are right it is not good enough, and the statement about being 'think things through rationally' well that is not you. So try again, for I may be funny at least I know the game of baseball.

You keep proving me right at every turn.  I got you right.  Nothing works for you unless it agrees with you.

You have shown you know a few names from the past and you might know basic rules of the game...  (9 innings, fair/foul, etc) but beyond that you have yet to demonstrate any deep comprehension of the game.

Care to actually address things I said with, oh I don't know....  Facts or evidence?   No?  I thought as much.

12/31/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
It's plenty good for anyone who can think things through rationally.

I'll save you the trouble of responding.... 

You are going to tell me it's not good enough.

You are too funny.....

hahahahahaha... you are right it is not good enough, and the statement about being 'think things through rationally' well that is not you. So try again, for I may be funny at least I know the game of baseball.

12/31/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Nope still not good enough, please try yet again......

It's plenty good for anyone who can think things through rationally.

I'll save you the trouble of responding.... 

You are going to tell me it's not good enough.

You are too funny.....

12/31/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
I consider someone who thinks .909 is better than 1.051 telling me my arguments aren't good enough as confirmation they actually are.

Nope still not good enough, please try yet again......

12/31/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Yea still not good enough, try again..... hahahhahahahahhaha

I consider someone who thinks .909 is better than 1.051 telling me my arguments aren't good enough as confirmation they actually are.

12/31/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
And you prove my point for me yet again.  

Yea still not good enough, try again..... hahahhahahahahhaha

12/30/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahahahah No you don't, so try again..... hahhahahahahah.....

And you prove my point for me yet again.  

12/30/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Yeah...  I have nothing but physics, physicians, baseball writers, coaches and a number of links to people in the know that support most of my comments.  As opposed to the multiple of evidence you presented like...  Because you said so.  And...  You calling me childish names.  And...  You just claiming I have nothing.  How can I compete against THAT?   You got me there...

hahahahahah No you don't, so try again..... hahhahahahahah.....

12/30/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahahahahahaha, nope you still have nothing... now it is true you know a lot about telling lies, this thread is full of them from you. hahahahahahahahaha, so that's strike 2... do not get three.....
(Edited by ML31)

Yeah...  I have nothing but physics, physicians, baseball writers, coaches and a number of links to people in the know that support most of my comments.  As opposed to the multiple of evidence you presented like...  Because you said so.  And...  You calling me childish names.  And...  You just claiming I have nothing.  How can I compete against THAT?   You got me there...

12/29/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You just keep telling yourself that.  Repeat the lie often enough it will become the truth for you.

hahahahahahahaha, nope you still have nothing... now it is true you know a lot about telling lies, this thread is full of them from you. hahahahahahahahaha, so that's strike 2... do not get three.....

12/29/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahahahah you have never had anything... but keep trying..........hahhahahahahah this is still not good enough.

You just keep telling yourself that.  Repeat the lie often enough it will become the truth for you.

12/29/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
That's because you haven't offered anything new.  You haven't even responded to the arguments and facts presented against your viewpoint.

We both know you have nothing.  Why keep up the charade?

hahahahahah you have never had anything... but keep trying..........hahhahahahahah this is still not good enough.

12/28/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Nope you still have nothing....Cannot even said good try, just like everything else you have written on here.

That's because you haven't offered anything new.  You haven't even responded to the arguments and facts presented against your viewpoint.

We both know you have nothing.  Why keep up the charade?

12/28/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
The cliched response of the person who knows they have nothing to support their accusations.

Let me know if you actually want to support what you have to say with anything besides "because I said so."

Nope you still have nothing....Cannot even said good try, just like everything else you have written on here.

12/28/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You have not said anything worth rebutting, you are just not ..... well, truth be told, you are just not that knowledgeable to respond back too, so much goes over your head.

The cliched response of the person who knows they have nothing to support their accusations.

Let me know if you actually want to support what you have to say with anything besides "because I said so."

12/28/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
It should be noted that absolutely nowhere in your response did you actually address any of my rebuttals.  Thus cementing the idea that even you yourself are incapable of defending your own ideas and positions.

You have not said anything worth rebutting, you are just not ..... well, truth be told, you are just not that knowledgeable to respond back too, so much goes over your head.

12/28/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You keep saying I am wrong because you know nothing about the game.  I can get you the best made glove out there it swill not make you a better fielder......hahahahahahah try again with something better

You are so out of your league, being the best baseball mind out there, please as I said before my 10 niece has a better baseball mind then you, there is no sarcasm here hard face truth. I know you I know it is above your head and you will not be able to follow what I just said, no dot to dots, or color by numbers today.... wait yea my bad I am sure you would not be able to follow those steps either.  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

It should be noted that absolutely nowhere in your response did you actually address any of my rebuttals.  Thus cementing the idea that even you yourself are incapable of defending your own ideas and positions.

12/28/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Sorry to have to keep telling you you are wrong but....  You are wrong about the glove.  A better glove will indeed make you a better fielder.  Some time ago when I played I myself have been in the field with a crappy glove.  Changed to a better one and guess what?  I was holding onto more flies with the superior glove.  Better equipment can make a difference.  You never played any kind of sport, did you?

Again..   Goof ball sentence that makes no sense...  "I knew it would be way over head to where there is no in the world which break down for you to understand."    There is no WHAT in the world?  And is there a "will" missing in there?  I shouldn't have to guess your intended meaning this much.  I hope you don't actually speak as bad as you write.  You wouldn't be able to hold down even the most menial of jobs....

So...  You refuse to cite your sources.  I expected as much.  If you don't, you statements cannot be considered valid.

Hogwash that all those golfers claim they use a baseball swing.  The burden of proof is on you here.  Not only did you make the accusation but it is impossible to prove those people didn't say it because they DIDN'T say it!  If they did, you must show where.  I'm guessing this is likely a concept way beyond your ability to deal with.

Of course you know how to teach the game.  You keep telling me how you are the greatest baseball mind out there.  All those who are actually paid to be involved in the game are wrong.  Only you are the grand master of all things baseball...  (he says with words dripping with sarcasm)

You keep saying I am wrong because you know nothing about the game.  I can get you the best made glove out there it swill not make you a better fielder......hahahahahahah try again with something better

You are so out of your league, being the best baseball mind out there, please as I said before my 10 niece has a better baseball mind then you, there is no sarcasm here hard face truth. I know you I know it is above your head and you will not be able to follow what I just said, no dot to dots, or color by numbers today.... wait yea my bad I am sure you would not be able to follow those steps either.  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

12/28/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
A new glove or better glove will not make you a better fielder so yet again you are wrong. Steroids is not like equipment, OK I knew it would be way over head to where there is no in the world which break down for you to understand.  

Cited the article when you admit you were my 5th grade English teach I will worry about citing things.

Yes they all agree and use a baseball swing check it again. Prove a link that says they do not, I all ready gave you Ben Hogan book.

Foolish, you have shown many signs of being...... still you come on here saying more and more things that are..........


My powers, magical, that is funny hahahahahahahahah and fantasies.... hahahahahahaha well, I do know how to hit and teach the game of baseball, instead of just running my mouth as someone here...

Sorry to have to keep telling you you are wrong but....  You are wrong about the glove.  A better glove will indeed make you a better fielder.  Some time ago when I played I myself have been in the field with a crappy glove.  Changed to a better one and guess what?  I was holding onto more flies with the superior glove.  Better equipment can make a difference.  You never played any kind of sport, did you?

Again..   Goof ball sentence that makes no sense...  "I knew it would be way over head to where there is no in the world which break down for you to understand."    There is no WHAT in the world?  And is there a "will" missing in there?  I shouldn't have to guess your intended meaning this much.  I hope you don't actually speak as bad as you write.  You wouldn't be able to hold down even the most menial of jobs....

So...  You refuse to cite your sources.  I expected as much.  If you don't, you statements cannot be considered valid.

Hogwash that all those golfers claim they use a baseball swing.  The burden of proof is on you here.  Not only did you make the accusation but it is impossible to prove those people didn't say it because they DIDN'T say it!  If they did, you must show where.  I'm guessing this is likely a concept way beyond your ability to deal with.

Of course you know how to teach the game.  You keep telling me how you are the greatest baseball mind out there.  All those who are actually paid to be involved in the game are wrong.  Only you are the grand master of all things baseball...  (he says with words dripping with sarcasm)

12/27/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
No no... Yet again you are not understanding.  Although it didn't show up in this post, there have been other posts where your misspellings and strange syntax makes understanding what you are writing nearly impossible.  So I have asked you to slow down your typing and take a good, hard look at what you are writing.  That's all.

So...  Ben Hogan Phil Mickerson, Sherry Smith, Anthony Uriso all agree on what?  Certainly not using a baseball swing for golf.  If so, how about providing a link to something that confirms what you are claiming?  Given your history it would be foolish to accept things based only on your say so.

In reality, I did read it.  I felt the writing looked familiar and it was.  Word for word one of the articles I came across when I was looking up the Fay Vincent resignation and the events of his term as Commissioner.  You never cited where it came from and wrote it as if it was generated from yourself.  We both know that was not the case.  Again, please show me where Vincent told owners they were free to violate the collective bargaining agreement by imposing steroid tests for players....  (he asks knowing nothing will come of it)

Yet again with the circles...  Yes. I did say a new driver helped my drives.  All that does is suggest new equipment helps.  Like a new glove can help a fielder catch.  Steroids are NOT like new equipment.  If they were, they would be magic.  It seems you believe in magic and other fantasies....

A new glove or better glove will not make you a better fielder so yet again you are wrong. Steroids is not like equipment, OK I knew it would be way over head to where there is no in the world which break down for you to understand.  

Cited the article when you admit you were my 5th grade English teach I will worry about citing things.

Yes they all agree and use a baseball swing check it again. Prove a link that says they do not, I all ready gave you Ben Hogan book.

Foolish, you have shown many signs of being...... still you come on here saying more and more things that are..........


My powers, magical, that is funny hahahahahahahahah and fantasies.... hahahahahahaha well, I do know how to hit and teach the game of baseball, instead of just running my mouth as someone here...

12/27/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
I will slow it down for you because I no you have a hard time following dots. Ben Hogan Phil Mickerson, Sherry Smith, Anthony Uriso all agree, again do some reseach. You have no clue what hitting is about, and no you did not read what I wrote in some article. Every thing above the memo was part of it, again do reseach on it.


Now stay with me because you are falling way behind in class.... you said you new golf clubs helped you play better.. I said steroids is like someone getting good clubs,

No no... Yet again you are not understanding.  Although it didn't show up in this post, there have been other posts where your misspellings and strange syntax makes understanding what you are writing nearly impossible.  So I have asked you to slow down your typing and take a good, hard look at what you are writing.  That's all.

So...  Ben Hogan Phil Mickerson, Sherry Smith, Anthony Uriso all agree on what?  Certainly not using a baseball swing for golf.  If so, how about providing a link to something that confirms what you are claiming?  Given your history it would be foolish to accept things based only on your say so.

In reality, I did read it.  I felt the writing looked familiar and it was.  Word for word one of the articles I came across when I was looking up the Fay Vincent resignation and the events of his term as Commissioner.  You never cited where it came from and wrote it as if it was generated from yourself.  We both know that was not the case.  Again, please show me where Vincent told owners they were free to violate the collective bargaining agreement by imposing steroid tests for players....  (he asks knowing nothing will come of it)

Yet again with the circles...  Yes. I did say a new driver helped my drives.  All that does is suggest new equipment helps.  Like a new glove can help a fielder catch.  Steroids are NOT like new equipment.  If they were, they would be magic.  It seems you believe in magic and other fantasies....

12/27/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
No, I did not claim you wrote the memo yourself.  The memo was part of an article you copied.  I know.  I read it before you posted it.  I never claimed I did ask you for the source.  I only asked you to give credit to what you are copying. I knew you copied it because I had just recently dug up and read the article.

Nowhere in the memo does he give owners the power to test players for anything more than had already been agreed upon in the current collective bargaining agreement.  If you disagree then cite it. 
Steroids had been on the banned substance list for some time before they were allowed to test for them, btw.  But that is all owners could legally do without player consent.  They couldn't even outline a punishment structure.  Which was moot anyway because they weren't allowed to test for banned substances. 

I'm getting a little tired of having to interpret what you write...  Please slow down and think.  I am guessing you said that owners were found guilty of stealing from players?  That never happened.  Where are you getting this garbage from?  Please tell me I interpreted your misspellings and awful syntax wrong...

Yes.. You quoted me but my words do not support your comments at all.  You aren't using what I wrote in the context in which the words were written.  There is no evidence steroids improve baseball ability.  A better glove will help players field better than any drug will.  There is a more correct analogy.
Hitting for power does indeed come from below the waist.  In this article it reports that "...upper body strength is not the foundation of a great power hitter...".   There are many more articles on power hitting that confirm this.  Yes, quick wrists can help a bit, but true power hitting originates from below.  Once you learn that we can have a more informed discussion.

It's fine that you found a player who utilized a baseball style swing in golf.  But that is not a generally accepted principle among golf pros.  There are precious few who would advocate a baseball style swing.  Find 10 other big time golfers who utilized a baseball type of approach and you might have something to discuss on that subject.  One player does not cut it.  Chi Chi Rodriguez had a very unorthodox swing.  But there isn't a pro out there who would advocate a player swing like his either.

Of course baseball hitters are on their back leg.  That is fundamentally different from a golf swing.  Look at the finishing pose of golfers.  They are ALL on their front foot.  Even the most unorthodox swings end up there.  Golf power does not come from lower body strength like baseball power does.  Hence, the different swings.

Please learn to read and comprehend what I write.  I get very tired of having to correct your constant mistakes.  I NEVER said baseball swings are a weight shift.  That is a golf swing.  Pleading with you to get things right seems to be a fools errand. 

Is your check swing question rhetorical?  I'm guessing it's not...  No one hits one out on check swings because no power is generated from a swing cut short.  All the potential energy is used to stop the swing instead of continuing it.  Your next question about players hitting balls out when jammed I cannot answer as I do not have data on that subject.  But I would guess it doesn't happen very often and then only under very unusual circumstances.

BTW...  it is foolish to use specific player examples when talking about hitting fundamentals.  People tend to have differing elements to their swings that caters to their own skills.  That being said, the basic fundamentals of the transfer of power remain constant.  Mel Ott lifted his front foot.  But he still transferred strength from below the waist into the swing.  Jo DiMaggio had a more level and smooth swing.  But he still transferred power from the lower body into his swing.  Ted Williams had far above average eye sight.  Which helps hitting a billion times more than any drug will.  Including your magic steroids.  Notice how players who get the LASIK surgery have all started to hit better?  Talk about your performance enhancers....

You can pretend you are the hitting guru here but your comments continue to betray you.  Why would I go run to your mommy?  I don't blame her for your ignorance on this subject.

A final settlement of the three collusion cases was reached in November 1990. The owners agreed to pay the players $280 million, with the MLBPA deciding how to distribute the money to the damaged players.


At that time, then-commissioner Fay Vincent told the owners: 'The single biggest reality you guys have to face up to is collusion. You stole $280 million from the players and the player are unified to a man around that issue, because you got caught and many of you are still involved" Later, Vicent would blame baseball's labor problems of the early 1990's, including the 1994-94 strike on a player anger at what he called the owners theft from the players. Marvin Miller largely agreed with Vicent's sentiments, saying Ueberroth and the owners' behavior was "tantamount to fixing, not just games, but the entire pennant races, including all post-season series." Before you say some kywag remark, no those are not my words, I am not claiming to have written them in such a way. You are so out of your league it is to funny, and I know you have a hard time following, it is to bad no one can break it down any better. I tried to use the KISS method for you.

12/27/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
No, I did not claim you wrote the memo yourself.  The memo was part of an article you copied.  I know.  I read it before you posted it.  I never claimed I did ask you for the source.  I only asked you to give credit to what you are copying. I knew you copied it because I had just recently dug up and read the article.

Nowhere in the memo does he give owners the power to test players for anything more than had already been agreed upon in the current collective bargaining agreement.  If you disagree then cite it. 
Steroids had been on the banned substance list for some time before they were allowed to test for them, btw.  But that is all owners could legally do without player consent.  They couldn't even outline a punishment structure.  Which was moot anyway because they weren't allowed to test for banned substances. 

I'm getting a little tired of having to interpret what you write...  Please slow down and think.  I am guessing you said that owners were found guilty of stealing from players?  That never happened.  Where are you getting this garbage from?  Please tell me I interpreted your misspellings and awful syntax wrong...

Yes.. You quoted me but my words do not support your comments at all.  You aren't using what I wrote in the context in which the words were written.  There is no evidence steroids improve baseball ability.  A better glove will help players field better than any drug will.  There is a more correct analogy.
Hitting for power does indeed come from below the waist.  In this article it reports that "...upper body strength is not the foundation of a great power hitter...".   There are many more articles on power hitting that confirm this.  Yes, quick wrists can help a bit, but true power hitting originates from below.  Once you learn that we can have a more informed discussion.

It's fine that you found a player who utilized a baseball style swing in golf.  But that is not a generally accepted principle among golf pros.  There are precious few who would advocate a baseball style swing.  Find 10 other big time golfers who utilized a baseball type of approach and you might have something to discuss on that subject.  One player does not cut it.  Chi Chi Rodriguez had a very unorthodox swing.  But there isn't a pro out there who would advocate a player swing like his either.

Of course baseball hitters are on their back leg.  That is fundamentally different from a golf swing.  Look at the finishing pose of golfers.  They are ALL on their front foot.  Even the most unorthodox swings end up there.  Golf power does not come from lower body strength like baseball power does.  Hence, the different swings.

Please learn to read and comprehend what I write.  I get very tired of having to correct your constant mistakes.  I NEVER said baseball swings are a weight shift.  That is a golf swing.  Pleading with you to get things right seems to be a fools errand. 

Is your check swing question rhetorical?  I'm guessing it's not...  No one hits one out on check swings because no power is generated from a swing cut short.  All the potential energy is used to stop the swing instead of continuing it.  Your next question about players hitting balls out when jammed I cannot answer as I do not have data on that subject.  But I would guess it doesn't happen very often and then only under very unusual circumstances.

BTW...  it is foolish to use specific player examples when talking about hitting fundamentals.  People tend to have differing elements to their swings that caters to their own skills.  That being said, the basic fundamentals of the transfer of power remain constant.  Mel Ott lifted his front foot.  But he still transferred strength from below the waist into the swing.  Jo DiMaggio had a more level and smooth swing.  But he still transferred power from the lower body into his swing.  Ted Williams had far above average eye sight.  Which helps hitting a billion times more than any drug will.  Including your magic steroids.  Notice how players who get the LASIK surgery have all started to hit better?  Talk about your performance enhancers....

You can pretend you are the hitting guru here but your comments continue to betray you.  Why would I go run to your mommy?  I don't blame her for your ignorance on this subject.

I will slow it down for you because I no you have a hard time following dots. Ben Hogan Phil Mickerson, Sherry Smith, Anthony Uriso, Tiger Woods, Nancy Lopez, John Daly all agree, and there is so many others,  again do some research. You have no clue what hitting is about, and no you did not read what I wrote in some article. Every thing above the memo was part of it, again do research on it.


Now stay with me because you are falling way behind in class.... you said you new golf clubs helped you play better.. I said steroids is like someone getting good clubs, IT MAKE NOT MAKE A BAD GOLFER GREAT, BUT WILL MAKE A GREAT GOLFER BETTER, JUST LIKE STEROIDS WILL NOT MAKE A BAD PLAYER GREAT BUT WILL MAKE A GREAT PLAYER BETTER. Just as it did you, you sucked and it made you better, not good or great but better.

I know so much more then you about not only hitting but baseball in general, and my mother would tell what stop all that yammering, put your boy pants on and go home if my daughter has been a little rough on you. If you had a clue what you were talking about my little girl would not make you cry, and then send you home to be cuddle.The word ignorance cannot even be used on you for you are beyond being ignorant, more of a.... wait I forgot you will ran and go tell on me..... hahahahahahahahah Go learn the game of baseball, I all ready know there is no chance you will learn the art of hitting. Ben hogan and Ted Williams in not enough..... you are a joke, to think you know anything about hitting, and well it looks like golf is in there too. hahahahahahaha

12/27/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
No, I did not claim you wrote the memo yourself.  The memo was part of an article you copied.  I know.  I read it before you posted it.  I never claimed I did ask you for the source.  I only asked you to give credit to what you are copying. I knew you copied it because I had just recently dug up and read the article.

Nowhere in the memo does he give owners the power to test players for anything more than had already been agreed upon in the current collective bargaining agreement.  If you disagree then cite it. 
Steroids had been on the banned substance list for some time before they were allowed to test for them, btw.  But that is all owners could legally do without player consent.  They couldn't even outline a punishment structure.  Which was moot anyway because they weren't allowed to test for banned substances. 

I'm getting a little tired of having to interpret what you write...  Please slow down and think.  I am guessing you said that owners were found guilty of stealing from players?  That never happened.  Where are you getting this garbage from?  Please tell me I interpreted your misspellings and awful syntax wrong...

Yes.. You quoted me but my words do not support your comments at all.  You aren't using what I wrote in the context in which the words were written.  There is no evidence steroids improve baseball ability.  A better glove will help players field better than any drug will.  There is a more correct analogy.
Hitting for power does indeed come from below the waist.  In this article it reports that "...upper body strength is not the foundation of a great power hitter...".   There are many more articles on power hitting that confirm this.  Yes, quick wrists can help a bit, but true power hitting originates from below.  Once you learn that we can have a more informed discussion.

It's fine that you found a player who utilized a baseball style swing in golf.  But that is not a generally accepted principle among golf pros.  There are precious few who would advocate a baseball style swing.  Find 10 other big time golfers who utilized a baseball type of approach and you might have something to discuss on that subject.  One player does not cut it.  Chi Chi Rodriguez had a very unorthodox swing.  But there isn't a pro out there who would advocate a player swing like his either.

Of course baseball hitters are on their back leg.  That is fundamentally different from a golf swing.  Look at the finishing pose of golfers.  They are ALL on their front foot.  Even the most unorthodox swings end up there.  Golf power does not come from lower body strength like baseball power does.  Hence, the different swings.

Please learn to read and comprehend what I write.  I get very tired of having to correct your constant mistakes.  I NEVER said baseball swings are a weight shift.  That is a golf swing.  Pleading with you to get things right seems to be a fools errand. 

Is your check swing question rhetorical?  I'm guessing it's not...  No one hits one out on check swings because no power is generated from a swing cut short.  All the potential energy is used to stop the swing instead of continuing it.  Your next question about players hitting balls out when jammed I cannot answer as I do not have data on that subject.  But I would guess it doesn't happen very often and then only under very unusual circumstances.

BTW...  it is foolish to use specific player examples when talking about hitting fundamentals.  People tend to have differing elements to their swings that caters to their own skills.  That being said, the basic fundamentals of the transfer of power remain constant.  Mel Ott lifted his front foot.  But he still transferred strength from below the waist into the swing.  Jo DiMaggio had a more level and smooth swing.  But he still transferred power from the lower body into his swing.  Ted Williams had far above average eye sight.  Which helps hitting a billion times more than any drug will.  Including your magic steroids.  Notice how players who get the LASIK surgery have all started to hit better?  Talk about your performance enhancers....

You can pretend you are the hitting guru here but your comments continue to betray you.  Why would I go run to your mommy?  I don't blame her for your ignorance on this subject.

I will slow it down for you because I no you have a hard time following dots. Ben Hogan Phil Mickerson, Sherry Smith, Anthony Uriso all agree, again do some reseach. You have no clue what hitting is about, and no you did not read what I wrote in some article. Every thing above the memo was part of it, again do reseach on it.


Now stay with me because you are falling way behind in class.... you said you new golf clubs helped you play better.. I said steroids is like someone getting good clubs,

12/26/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Great that you know how to cut and paste.  Next time you quote a source, don't act like it was yours.  I read all that including the memo.

Yes you said quote your source as shown above, but then you go on about accusing me as if I wrote this memo on my own, so no you did not just ask for the source of the article as you state, which can from Don Weiskopf. Like I said you research sucks really look and you will see how in the memo he told the owners they can test for steroids, and punish those who took, them, handing out, or even had knowledge and cover for them. the owners did not pay much attention to the memo in 1991 for they believe it was a issue for football not baseball and many were still up[set with Fay for him siding with the players, where the owners were form guilty in stealing money from them. so knowing that the owners did not back him in doing more on steroids he knew there was little chance of getting MLBPA to agree to the stronger testing. Friends no you blew that a long time ago with comments about about me being that dumb, or ignorant.

"Your golf analogy makes no sense.  In actuality, good clubs will make you a little better.  I know.  I play the game and I'm not very good.  I got a new driver and hit the ball a bit better." your words which is what I said over and over steroids enhances a players ability it is why is does not take someone who had none and make them great.  POWER DOES NOT COMES FOR THE LEGS IN BASEBALL, this is why I said yo do not know the art of hitting and have no clue. Joe Dimagio had no step nor did he have a lot of torque and still hit HRs. Bonds your favorite watch him swing and you will see in his later years he had little torque going on, but in both cases because of the power in their wrist and forearms balls jumped out. It is the same McGwire was out in front on the pitched he hit to break Maris record. Ben Hogan studied Ted Williams swing and used it when he played.
In the same interview Hogan told Sietz:

"I rolled the face of the club open away from the ball. That cupped the left wrist. Coming down, the face was moving so fast I couldn't turn it over and hook [this statement is identical to what he wrote 30 years earlier in the "This is My Secret" article]. I was rotating the club like a baseball bat, and the faster I could rotate it, the more distance I got. Training myself, I would roll the face open as fast and as far as I could. With this technique, I could hit the ball straight and farther." Ben Hogan. 

"Well I had the pleasure of meeting him once, and let me show you something." He took that three-iron and took a stance like a baseball player at the plate. And he said, "Now let me show you how he swung." Now Williams was a left hander, but Hogan's swing was just like Ted Williams' and you got the feeling that Hogan could have been good at hitting the baseball. With each swing, he started going down six inches at a time, repeating the same swing each time, while saying to us, "Do you see what I'm doing?" Then he said, "You swing a golf club the same way you swing a bat in baseball." Ben Hogan talking to his son Mitch and Bob Wynne, you can read it in "I remember Hogan." by Mike Towle


Look at all the power hitters and you will see them on his back leg, they are not on his foot leg unless he was fooled by a pitch and still the hands are back and good and great hitters can still hit the ball and drive it because his hands are back. Only fools teach to transfer weight to the front foot, for most hitting instructors do not teach this because it gets a better to start moving his head. The front leg is to be firm and creates resistances for the body to propel the bathead you can sit here and try to argue hitting all you want but you have been dead wrong. Hips with the torque produce the power for HR hitters, why is it that no one has hit a ball out with a check swing? Now many players have been fooled on the ball or jam and never got the hips open completely but still drove the ball out for a HR or down the line foul still past the outfield fences? Now we can look at the hitter who can drive to ball to the opposite field and you will see how the hips do not open up the same way but again the hitter is driving the ball 370 feet or more, even with less torque. It old belief is the same as the one which says you must pick up your lead front and step forward, which again Joe D show not to be true and he hit HRs too. You no nothing about hitting and have a lack of knowledge of baseball, but you can run and tell mommy on me. Ted Williams talks about it in his book the Science of hitting BTW

No, I did not claim you wrote the memo yourself.  The memo was part of an article you copied.  I know.  I read it before you posted it.  I never claimed I did ask you for the source.  I only asked you to give credit to what you are copying. I knew you copied it because I had just recently dug up and read the article.

Nowhere in the memo does he give owners the power to test players for anything more than had already been agreed upon in the current collective bargaining agreement.  If you disagree then cite it. 
Steroids had been on the banned substance list for some time before they were allowed to test for them, btw.  But that is all owners could legally do without player consent.  They couldn't even outline a punishment structure.  Which was moot anyway because they weren't allowed to test for banned substances. 

I'm getting a little tired of having to interpret what you write...  Please slow down and think.  I am guessing you said that owners were found guilty of stealing from players?  That never happened.  Where are you getting this garbage from?  Please tell me I interpreted your misspellings and awful syntax wrong...

Yes.. You quoted me but my words do not support your comments at all.  You aren't using what I wrote in the context in which the words were written.  There is no evidence steroids improve baseball ability.  A better glove will help players field better than any drug will.  There is a more correct analogy.
Hitting for power does indeed come from below the waist.  In this article it reports that "...upper body strength is not the foundation of a great power hitter...".   There are many more articles on power hitting that confirm this.  Yes, quick wrists can help a bit, but true power hitting originates from below.  Once you learn that we can have a more informed discussion.

It's fine that you found a player who utilized a baseball style swing in golf.  But that is not a generally accepted principle among golf pros.  There are precious few who would advocate a baseball style swing.  Find 10 other big time golfers who utilized a baseball type of approach and you might have something to discuss on that subject.  One player does not cut it.  Chi Chi Rodriguez had a very unorthodox swing.  But there isn't a pro out there who would advocate a player swing like his either.

Of course baseball hitters are on their back leg.  That is fundamentally different from a golf swing.  Look at the finishing pose of golfers.  They are ALL on their front foot.  Even the most unorthodox swings end up there.  Golf power does not come from lower body strength like baseball power does.  Hence, the different swings.

Please learn to read and comprehend what I write.  I get very tired of having to correct your constant mistakes.  I NEVER said baseball swings are a weight shift.  That is a golf swing.  Pleading with you to get things right seems to be a fools errand. 

Is your check swing question rhetorical?  I'm guessing it's not...  No one hits one out on check swings because no power is generated from a swing cut short.  All the potential energy is used to stop the swing instead of continuing it.  Your next question about players hitting balls out when jammed I cannot answer as I do not have data on that subject.  But I would guess it doesn't happen very often and then only under very unusual circumstances.

BTW...  it is foolish to use specific player examples when talking about hitting fundamentals.  People tend to have differing elements to their swings that caters to their own skills.  That being said, the basic fundamentals of the transfer of power remain constant.  Mel Ott lifted his front foot.  But he still transferred strength from below the waist into the swing.  Jo DiMaggio had a more level and smooth swing.  But he still transferred power from the lower body into his swing.  Ted Williams had far above average eye sight.  Which helps hitting a billion times more than any drug will.  Including your magic steroids.  Notice how players who get the LASIK surgery have all started to hit better?  Talk about your performance enhancers....

You can pretend you are the hitting guru here but your comments continue to betray you.  Why would I go run to your mommy?  I don't blame her for your ignorance on this subject.

12/26/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Ahh...  The insult free responses did not last beyond the one post.  Too bad.  Was hoping it might be a trend... 
As I said, more than just the memo was pasted and you never gave credit to the article you copied.

No, the owners could not test for anything without the consent of the MLBPA.  What planet have you been on?  The MLBPA has all the power.   Owners can't take a dump without getting MLBPA approval.
The memo merely states he wanted to add steroids and a few others to the banned substance list.  But he could not force players to adhere to testing unless they agreed to it.  It's not that hard to understand.
The players always lose out to the owners in strikes?  Where the hell have you been?  The MLBPA is the most powerful player association there is.  They haven't caved to ANYTHING the owners have wanted.  I just gave you a short list of things owners have wanted over the years that they lost out to the players on.  Things the owners either REALLY wanted to add or things they REALLY DIDN'T want to happen.  And they did NOT get their wish.  What fantasy world are you in where MLB owners still have any kind of power whatsoever?
Do I really have to go through the holes in your argument?  I have done so already.  Looks like we are back to the circular argument...  (sigh)
It's flawed because for one thing, sprinting is not baseball.  Next, there is no reason to think Johnson wouldn't have won without the drug.  And next, ignoring the names, if generic runner A wins every race (not some as you are trying to twist the analogy to) over runner B, then runner A clearly is better than runner B even if you think runner B has all the superior skills.  Those skills you saw didn't seem to help when it came to actual printed results.  Or "statistics", if you will.

Your syntax is screwed up...  I have no idea what the hell this "Steroids does affect baseball and golf people who seems to accrue it does not needs to go back to school and take Human Anatomy," means.  Your sentence structure and spelling skills seem to just as accurate as your ability to rate baseball players.
And what the hell does "straight repairs damage quick" mean?  Slow and and think about what you are writing. 

You have no idea what constitutes a golf swing either it seems.  A golf swing and a baseball swing are two very different things.  Power for a golf swing comes from a controlled transfer of weight from the back foot to the front.  Baseball power comes from torque generated from the legs.  Quick wrists can help catch up to some pitches, but quick wrists don't provide much power at all.  But we have been through this and you refused to perceive it then.  I have no reason to think you will now.  I don't think you will even make an attempt to argue the concept.  If you do, you will simply call me a name and just repeat your original concept.  Thus showing how weak your position truly is.

I did indeed in another thread say I could not confirm or deny what the other person said as I did not feel like doing the research.  You should try admitting you don't know something when you really don't.  It gives credence to your comments.  However since then I have done a little checking and I did discover that no, Vincent did not give owners the OK to begin steroid testing in 1991.  He merely wrote a memo saying he wanted to and did not pursue the matter further because he knew it wouldn't go anywhere.  We wouldn't keep going round and round if you would spend more than one post actually addressing what was said instead of continuing to repeat the same tiresome and flawed arguments over and over again.

Great that you know how to cut and paste.  Next time you quote a source, don't act like it was yours.  I read all that including the memo.

Yes you said quote your source as shown above, but then you go on about accusing me as if I wrote this memo on my own, so no you did not just ask for the source of the article as you state, which can from Don Weiskopf. Like I said you research sucks really look and you will see how in the memo he told the owners they can test for steroids, and punish those who took, them, handing out, or even had knowledge and cover for them. the owners did not pay much attention to the memo in 1991 for they believe it was a issue for football not baseball and many were still up[set with Fay for him siding with the players, where the owners were form guilty in stealing money from them. so knowing that the owners did not back him in doing more on steroids he knew there was little chance of getting MLBPA to agree to the stronger testing. Friends no you blew that a long time ago with comments about about me being that dumb, or ignorant.

"Your golf analogy makes no sense.  In actuality, good clubs will make you a little better.  I know.  I play the game and I'm not very good.  I got a new driver and hit the ball a bit better." your words which is what I said over and over steroids enhances a players ability it is why is does not take someone who had none and make them great.  POWER DOES NOT COMES FOR THE LEGS IN BASEBALL, this is why I said yo do not know the art of hitting and have no clue. Joe Dimagio had no step nor did he have a lot of torque and still hit HRs. Bonds your favorite watch him swing and you will see in his later years he had little torque going on, but in both cases because of the power in their wrist and forearms balls jumped out. It is the same McGwire was out in front on the pitched he hit to break Maris record. Ben Hogan studied Ted Williams swing and used it when he played.
In the same interview Hogan told Sietz:

"I rolled the face of the club open away from the ball. That cupped the left wrist. Coming down, the face was moving so fast I couldn't turn it over and hook [this statement is identical to what he wrote 30 years earlier in the "This is My Secret" article]. I was rotating the club like a baseball bat, and the faster I could rotate it, the more distance I got. Training myself, I would roll the face open as fast and as far as I could. With this technique, I could hit the ball straight and farther." Ben Hogan. 

"Well I had the pleasure of meeting him once, and let me show you something." He took that three-iron and took a stance like a baseball player at the plate. And he said, "Now let me show you how he swung." Now Williams was a left hander, but Hogan's swing was just like Ted Williams' and you got the feeling that Hogan could have been good at hitting the baseball. With each swing, he started going down six inches at a time, repeating the same swing each time, while saying to us, "Do you see what I'm doing?" Then he said, "You swing a golf club the same way you swing a bat in baseball." Ben Hogan talking to his son Mitch and Bob Wynne, you can read it in "I remember Hogan." by Mike Towle


Look at all the power hitters and you will see them on his back leg, they are not on his foot leg unless he was fooled by a pitch and still the hands are back and good and great hitters can still hit the ball and drive it because his hands are back. Only fools teach to transfer weight to the front foot, for most hitting instructors do not teach this because it gets a better to start moving his head. The front leg is to be firm and creates resistances for the body to propel the bathead you can sit here and try to argue hitting all you want but you have been dead wrong. Hips with the torque produce the power for HR hitters, why is it that no one has hit a ball out with a check swing? Now many players have been fooled on the ball or jam and never got the hips open completely but still drove the ball out for a HR or down the line foul still past the outfield fences? Now we can look at the hitter who can drive to ball to the opposite field and you will see how the hips do not open up the same way but again the hitter is driving the ball 370 feet or more, even with less torque. It old belief is the same as the one which says you must pick up your lead front and step forward, which again Joe D show not to be true and he hit HRs too. You no nothing about hitting and have a lack of knowledge of baseball, but you can run and tell mommy on me. Ted Williams talks about it in his book the Science of hitting BTW

12/26/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Look dummy, I took it out of the 1991 memo so there is no way I sat there and said it my own words, that is why it said season.

"Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions:" any fool would understand that, well except for you. I am not going to rewrite Fay memo when I can copy and paste it.

If the owners wanted to test for PEDs in 1991 or earlier they could have even if the it is why in the 1991 Fay memo was saying they had the right to test for steroids. Just like every strike that happens the players lose out if the owners really want something done. His hands were tied because he upset many of the owners siding with the players about the owners stealing money from them.

No my examples are not full of holes because of the simple fact you mention runners and I gave you an example of 3 runners which Runner A was the better runner till PEDs got involved. If runner A was winning for 4 years then got serious hurt and then after runner B began winning it would go down as runner A being the better runner till he got hurt. If he did not get hurt history says he would have continue beating runner B. Flaws is in how you like to twist things were the lies just jump out as you speak.

Steroids does affect baseball and golf people who seems to accrue it does not needs to go back to school and take Human Anatomy, it builds muscle mass and gives you straight repairs damage quick, and in sports like baseball and golf where the wrist are very important knowing that and how to strengthening your forearms and wrists you can drive the ball further. In baseball strengthening your legs give you an advantage in the field and on the bases especially as the season drags on. It is why the golf clubs are a good comparison to taking steroids, and I know you disagree, but like I said you have show lack of knowledge in so many aspect of baseball, it stop being funny weeks ago.

I am not going to argue with you about testing for steroids, you saying you did not know enough to deny or confirm, and seeing how your research has really sucked in other things, it is not worth the time nor effort going around and around with your sorry excuses and taunts on it.

Ahh...  The insult free responses did not last beyond the one post.  Too bad.  Was hoping it might be a trend... 
As I said, more than just the memo was pasted and you never gave credit to the article you copied.

No, the owners could not test for anything without the consent of the MLBPA.  What planet have you been on?  The MLBPA has all the power.   Owners can't take a dump without getting MLBPA approval.
The memo merely states he wanted to add steroids and a few others to the banned substance list.  But he could not force players to adhere to testing unless they agreed to it.  It's not that hard to understand.
The players always lose out to the owners in strikes?  Where the hell have you been?  The MLBPA is the most powerful player association there is.  They haven't caved to ANYTHING the owners have wanted.  I just gave you a short list of things owners have wanted over the years that they lost out to the players on.  Things the owners either REALLY wanted to add or things they REALLY DIDN'T want to happen.  And they did NOT get their wish.  What fantasy world are you in where MLB owners still have any kind of power whatsoever?
Do I really have to go through the holes in your argument?  I have done so already.  Looks like we are back to the circular argument...  (sigh)
It's flawed because for one thing, sprinting is not baseball.  Next, there is no reason to think Johnson wouldn't have won without the drug.  And next, ignoring the names, if generic runner A wins every race (not some as you are trying to twist the analogy to) over runner B, then runner A clearly is better than runner B even if you think runner B has all the superior skills.  Those skills you saw didn't seem to help when it came to actual printed results.  Or "statistics", if you will.

Your syntax is screwed up...  I have no idea what the hell this "Steroids does affect baseball and golf people who seems to accrue it does not needs to go back to school and take Human Anatomy," means.  Your sentence structure and spelling skills seem to just as accurate as your ability to rate baseball players.
And what the hell does "straight repairs damage quick" mean?  Slow and and think about what you are writing. 

You have no idea what constitutes a golf swing either it seems.  A golf swing and a baseball swing are two very different things.  Power for a golf swing comes from a controlled transfer of weight from the back foot to the front.  Baseball power comes from torque generated from the legs.  Quick wrists can help catch up to some pitches, but quick wrists don't provide much power at all.  But we have been through this and you refused to perceive it then.  I have no reason to think you will now.  I don't think you will even make an attempt to argue the concept.  If you do, you will simply call me a name and just repeat your original concept.  Thus showing how weak your position truly is.

I did indeed in another thread say I could not confirm or deny what the other person said as I did not feel like doing the research.  You should try admitting you don't know something when you really don't.  It gives credence to your comments.  However since then I have done a little checking and I did discover that no, Vincent did not give owners the OK to begin steroid testing in 1991.  He merely wrote a memo saying he wanted to and did not pursue the matter further because he knew it wouldn't go anywhere.  We wouldn't keep going round and round if you would spend more than one post actually addressing what was said instead of continuing to repeat the same tiresome and flawed arguments over and over again.

12/25/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Great that you know how to cut and paste.  Next time you quote a source, don't act like it was yours.  I read all that including the memo.

Vincents hands were indeed tied as the collective bargaining agreement did not expire until after the 1994 season.  The bargaining process would not begin until 1994.  Vincent's memo was circulated in 1991.  Owners did not "bush" it off.  Vincent himself could not pursue enacting anything in that memo because, and it says so in the article you cut and pasted from, they were in the middle of an existing contract and there was too much mistrust on Fehr's side to get the MLBPA to open up renegotiation.

What you said about owners getting what they want just isn't true at all.  They desperately wanted a salary cap.  None exists.  Before that, they desperately didn't want the reserve clause to vanish.  It's gone.  They didn't want players to have free agency.  It's here.  They were against arbitration.  The list of what MLB owners want that they don't get is very long.  Unlike every other sport, MLB is the only one where the players have all the power.  In the NHL and especially the NFL, players have very little say in what goes on.  

Make no mistake...  It wasn't the owners who kept players from getting tested.  It was the MLBPA.  MLB owners brought drug testing to the bargaining table in every contract negotiation since the early 90's.  It has always been one of the first things to be taken off as the players never wanted it.  In fact, in 2001 owners unilaterally agreed to testing in the minor leagues of players not on the 40 man ML rosters.

I did not claim that Bonds was faster than Mantle.  Saying who was the "greatest" ever is a purely subjective comment anyway.  However, that being said, it is fairly obvious that some players are clearly better than others.  No one is arguing that Reggie Jackson was better than Babe Ruth.  It's obvious by the numbers alone that Ruth was by far the superior hitter at the very least.  The discussion only gets foggy when players of far greater caliber than Jackson are mentioned up there with Ruth or even Ted Williams and Ty Cobb.  No need to lecture me on the differences in the game from today vs the past.  I am well aware of the changes in getting hit.  Although it still happens often today.  But equipment has changed...  How pitchers are used has changed...  Game strategy has changed.  Etc.

The runner thing was an analogy.  I wasn't talking about Lewis and Johnson specifically.  But again, your example is full of holes. 

Comparing steroids to a finely tuned set of golf clubs just doesn't fly because their effect is not universal across sports.  They may indeed be of great help for some sports...  Like in the American football where size and mass can be used to great effectiveness.  But not in others like baseball or golf which is not so much about brute force and more about controlled skills.  The only aspect of steroid use that the consensus currently is that can affect all athletes in all sports is the recovery factor.  There is currently no evidence they make baseball players better baseball players.

I am pleased to be wrong in predicting your response would be a put down.  You actually addressed issues with new comments and thoughts.  Bravo for that.

Enjoy your Christmas.

Look dummy, I took it out of the 1991 memo so there is no way I sat there and said it my own words, that is why it said season.

"Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions:" any fool would understand that, well except for you. I am not going to rewrite Fay memo when I can copy and paste it.

If the owners wanted to test for PEDs in 1991 or earlier they could have even if the it is why in the 1991 Fay memo was saying they had the right to test for steroids. Just like every strike that happens the players lose out if the owners really want something done. His hands were tied because he upset many of the owners siding with the players about the owners stealing money from them.

No my examples are not full of holes because of the simple fact you mention runners and I gave you an example of 3 runners which Runner A was the better runner till PEDs got involved. If runner A was winning for 4 years then got serious hurt and then after runner B began winning it would go down as runner A being the better runner till he got hurt. If he did not get hurt history says he would have continue beating runner B. Flaws is in how you like to twist things were the lies just jump out as you speak.

Steroids does affect baseball and golf people who seems to accrue it does not needs to go back to school and take Human Anatomy, it builds muscle mass and gives you straight repairs damage quick, and in sports like baseball and golf where the wrist are very important knowing that and how to strengthening your forearms and wrists you can drive the ball further. In baseball strengthening your legs give you an advantage in the field and on the bases especially as the season drags on. It is why the golf clubs are a good comparison to taking steroids, and I know you disagree, but like I said you have show lack of knowledge in so many aspect of baseball, it stop being funny weeks ago.

I am not going to argue with you about testing for steroids, you saying you did not know enough to deny or confirm, and seeing how your research has really sucked in other things, it is not worth the time nor effort going around and around with your sorry excuses and taunts on it.

12/24/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:

In June 1992, the MLB owners met for their quarterly business meetings. During the meetings there was a bitter internal battle between Vincent and the triad of Richard Ravitch, the owners' chief labor negotiator; White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf; and Brewers owner Bud Selig. The latter failed in their efforts at convincing Vincent to eliminate a major portion of his power by abandoning his labor roles. This dispute was strictly an American League effort. Many National League owners were either furious about this closed door conference with Vincent (or didn't even know it was taking place). After the botched attempt to strip Vincent of some of his powers, Selig approached the National League owners to present an explanation for this unusual activity. As he began presenting his case, Selig was interrupted and told that his attempt to strip the commissioner's best-interests clause, which empowers the commissioner to act in the best interest of MLB, was not appreciated and that they (the National League owners) would not participate in such a meeting. Vincent had used the best-interest clause to intervene and halt the 1990 baseball lockout, thus saving the season. Some of the owners, specifically Selig and Reinsdorf, strongly resented Vincent's actions, in 1991 he had sent the memo out saying we can test for any drugs

Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions:
• The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by major league players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game.
• In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the uniform player's contract. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
• MLB recognizes that illegal drug use has become a national problem, and that some players and baseball personnel may fall victim to drugs. Baseball will not hesitate to permanently remove from the game those players and personnel who, despite our efforts to treat and rehabilitate, refuse to accept responsibility for the problem and continue to use illegal drugs. If any club covers up or otherwise fails to disclose to this office any information concerning drug use by a player, that club will be fined $250,000, the highest allowable amount under the Major League Agreement.
• MLB believes that its testing program is the most effective means available to deter and detect drug use. For admitted or detected drug users, testing will be a component of that individual's after-care program for the balance of his or her professional baseball career.
• This office will continue to search for positive and constructive methods of dealing with drug use. While baseball will attempt to treat and rehabilitate any player or personnel who falls victim to a drug problem, we will not hesitate to impose discipline, especially in those cases involving repeated offenses or refusals to participate in a recommended and appropriate course of treatment.
• If any club has a question about any aspect of the drug use program, please contact Louis Melendez, Associate Counsel, Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee.

 The owners bushed it off, about the drug testing for most of them did not see it as a problem, Fay hands were not tied he all ready new going into labor talks the owners did not want the testing, there was no vote nor was there an order. Fay knew it would have to come up in the next labor talks and it only can up there because, at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2002, Senators Byron Organ (D-ND) and John McCain (R-Ariz) tell Commissioner Bud Selig and MLB Players Association executive director Don Fehr that a strict drug testing program at the Major League level must be negotiated during collective bargaining for a new Basic Agreement, which is about to expire. Up to this point, no MLB player can be tested for drug use without probable cause. Fehr tells the committee that the Congress should enact laws to ban over-the-counter sales of performance-enhancing substances.  

Fay's down fall was doing what he thought was best for MLB which the owners did not agree with many thing Fay had done and was trying to do, not like Gary Bettman of the NHL who is going along doing what the owners what. In any labor dispute if the owners really want something 9 out 10 times they get, so if the owners truly back Fay back in 1991 it would not have taken till 2002 and the US Senate committee to get testing of PEDs.

Bonds faster then Mantle you are crazy, you are right about looking at Ruth or Josh, and many other great players out there which none of us lived to see, there is no way way to say he was the greatest without looking at old film and seeing what was printed to get an idea of what type of player and of them were. Still bottom line there is no way you can sit there and say who was the greastest player of all time. Besides the way players looked at hitting pitching had changed too, you do not see pitchers go out there and throw at hitters they way the once had (Cole Hammels I know hit Bryce Harper), but there is not that fear crowding the plate and take pitches away for pitchers which gives the batter an advantage.



As for the runner thing again you are wrong even in the ESPN documentary it showed Carl Lewis beat Ben Johnson till Johnson started talking steroids, which then Lewis lost race after race. The one he won was where Johnson messed up the cycle, steroids play a big role like it or not, and yes it is hard to sit and say well this guy would have done this or that with or without steroids, unless you take a player and see where he is for 6-8 years without and then pump him with steroids and see how his career goes after that, most people will be torn on the subject. I have seen this many times which is why I said steroids is like a well made golf set. It will not make a average player play great but will make a great player play better.

Merry Christmas to you and your family may Santa Claus bring you gifts of love and happiness.
(Edited by ML31)

Great that you know how to cut and paste.  Next time you quote a source, don't act like it was yours.  I read all that including the memo.

Vincents hands were indeed tied as the collective bargaining agreement did not expire until after the 1994 season.  The bargaining process would not begin until 1994.  Vincent's memo was circulated in 1991.  Owners did not "bush" it off.  Vincent himself could not pursue enacting anything in that memo because, and it says so in the article you cut and pasted from, they were in the middle of an existing contract and there was too much mistrust on Fehr's side to get the MLBPA to open up renegotiation.

What you said about owners getting what they want just isn't true at all.  They desperately wanted a salary cap.  None exists.  Before that, they desperately didn't want the reserve clause to vanish.  It's gone.  They didn't want players to have free agency.  It's here.  They were against arbitration.  The list of what MLB owners want that they don't get is very long.  Unlike every other sport, MLB is the only one where the players have all the power.  In the NHL and especially the NFL, players have very little say in what goes on.  

Make no mistake...  It wasn't the owners who kept players from getting tested.  It was the MLBPA.  MLB owners brought drug testing to the bargaining table in every contract negotiation since the early 90's.  It has always been one of the first things to be taken off as the players never wanted it.  In fact, in 2001 owners unilaterally agreed to testing in the minor leagues of players not on the 40 man ML rosters.

I did not claim that Bonds was faster than Mantle.  Saying who was the "greatest" ever is a purely subjective comment anyway.  However, that being said, it is fairly obvious that some players are clearly better than others.  No one is arguing that Reggie Jackson was better than Babe Ruth.  It's obvious by the numbers alone that Ruth was by far the superior hitter at the very least.  The discussion only gets foggy when players of far greater caliber than Jackson are mentioned up there with Ruth or even Ted Williams and Ty Cobb.  No need to lecture me on the differences in the game from today vs the past.  I am well aware of the changes in getting hit.  Although it still happens often today.  But equipment has changed...  How pitchers are used has changed...  Game strategy has changed.  Etc.

The runner thing was an analogy.  I wasn't talking about Lewis and Johnson specifically.  But again, your example is full of holes. 

Comparing steroids to a finely tuned set of golf clubs just doesn't fly because their effect is not universal across sports.  They may indeed be of great help for some sports...  Like in the American football where size and mass can be used to great effectiveness.  But not in others like baseball or golf which is not so much about brute force and more about controlled skills.  The only aspect of steroid use that the consensus currently is that can affect all athletes in all sports is the recovery factor.  There is currently no evidence they make baseball players better baseball players.

I am pleased to be wrong in predicting your response would be a put down.  You actually addressed issues with new comments and thoughts.  Bravo for that.

Enjoy your Christmas.

12/24/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
I guess I should stop being stunned at how often you are wrong.  I never claimed owners backed Vincent.  They voted 18-9 (one abstention) to oust him as Commissioner.  I said I hadn't heard of any order from the Commissioner's office during his reign to start steroid tests.  He did want to start testing for a wider array of substances, including steroids, but his hands were tied regarding that issue as they were in the middle of a contract and the issue could not be brought up until negotiations began for the next one. 
Owners were unhappy with Vincent for a variety of other reasons including feeling he was being too accommodating to the MLBPA, how he planned to distribute expansion fees and the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, forced National League realignment.  (The proper thing to do, IMHO BTW)

Those are the facts involving the Vincent affair.  But I suspect you will just tell me I'm wrong (without explaining why of course), and/or throw more childish jibes my way.

In June 1992, the MLB owners met for their quarterly business meetings. During the meetings there was a bitter internal battle between Vincent and the triad of Richard Ravitch, the owners' chief labor negotiator; White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf; and Brewers owner Bud Selig. The latter failed in their efforts at convincing Vincent to eliminate a major portion of his power by abandoning his labor roles. This dispute was strictly an American League effort. Many National League owners were either furious about this closed door conference with Vincent (or didn't even know it was taking place). After the botched attempt to strip Vincent of some of his powers, Selig approached the National League owners to present an explanation for this unusual activity. As he began presenting his case, Selig was interrupted and told that his attempt to strip the commissioner's best-interests clause, which empowers the commissioner to act in the best interest of MLB, was not appreciated and that they (the National League owners) would not participate in such a meeting. Vincent had used the best-interest clause to intervene and halt the 1990 baseball lockout, thus saving the season. Some of the owners, specifically Selig and Reinsdorf, strongly resented Vincent's actions, in 1991 he had sent the memo out saying we can test for any drugs

Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions:
• The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by major league players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game.
• In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the uniform player's contract. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
• MLB recognizes that illegal drug use has become a national problem, and that some players and baseball personnel may fall victim to drugs. Baseball will not hesitate to permanently remove from the game those players and personnel who, despite our efforts to treat and rehabilitate, refuse to accept responsibility for the problem and continue to use illegal drugs. If any club covers up or otherwise fails to disclose to this office any information concerning drug use by a player, that club will be fined $250,000, the highest allowable amount under the Major League Agreement.
• MLB believes that its testing program is the most effective means available to deter and detect drug use. For admitted or detected drug users, testing will be a component of that individual's after-care program for the balance of his or her professional baseball career.
• This office will continue to search for positive and constructive methods of dealing with drug use. While baseball will attempt to treat and rehabilitate any player or personnel who falls victim to a drug problem, we will not hesitate to impose discipline, especially in those cases involving repeated offenses or refusals to participate in a recommended and appropriate course of treatment.
• If any club has a question about any aspect of the drug use program, please contact Louis Melendez, Associate Counsel, Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee.

 The owners bushed it off, about the drug testing for most of them did not see it as a problem, Fay hands were not tied he all ready new going into labor talks the owners did not want the testing, there was no vote nor was there an order. Fay knew it would have to come up in the next labor talks and it only can up there because, at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on June 18, 2002, Senators Byron Organ (D-ND) and John McCain (R-Ariz) tell Commissioner Bud Selig and MLB Players Association executive director Don Fehr that a strict drug testing program at the Major League level must be negotiated during collective bargaining for a new Basic Agreement, which is about to expire. Up to this point, no MLB player can be tested for drug use without probable cause. Fehr tells the committee that the Congress should enact laws to ban over-the-counter sales of performance-enhancing substances.  

Fay's down fall was doing what he thought was best for MLB which the owners did not agree with many thing Fay had done and was trying to do, not like Gary Bettman of the NHL who is going along doing what the owners what. In any labor dispute if the owners really want something 9 out 10 times they get, so if the owners truly back Fay back in 1991 it would not have taken till 2002 and the US Senate committee to get testing of PEDs.

Bonds faster then Mantle you are crazy, you are right about looking at Ruth or Josh, and many other great players out there which none of us lived to see, there is no way way to say he was the greatest without looking at old film and seeing what was printed to get an idea of what type of player and of them were. Still bottom line there is no way you can sit there and say who was the greastest player of all time. Besides the way players looked at hitting pitching had changed too, you do not see pitchers go out there and throw at hitters they way the once had (Cole Hammels I know hit Bryce Harper), but there is not that fear crowding the plate and take pitches away for pitchers which gives the batter an advantage.



As for the runner thing again you are wrong even in the ESPN documentary it showed Carl Lewis beat Ben Johnson till Johnson started talking steroids, which then Lewis lost race after race. The one he won was where Johnson messed up the cycle, steroids play a big role like it or not, and yes it is hard to sit and say well this guy would have done this or that with or without steroids, unless you take a player and see where he is for 6-8 years without and then pump him with steroids and see how his career goes after that, most people will be torn on the subject. I have seen this many times which is why I said steroids is like a well made golf set. It will not make a average player play great but will make a great player play better.

Merry Christmas to you and your family may Santa Claus bring you gifts of love and happiness.

12/23/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Hahahahahahaha numbers do lie again a fool you says it doesn't is just a fool.... and no the owners did not back Fay and then soon after he tried to pushed it the owners voted a no confidence vote in Fay and had him removed. Try again.
(Edited by ML31)

I guess I should stop being stunned at how often you are wrong.  I never claimed owners backed Vincent.  They voted 18-9 (one abstention) to oust him as Commissioner.  I said I hadn't heard of any order from the Commissioner's office during his reign to start steroid tests.  He did want to start testing for a wider array of substances, including steroids, but his hands were tied regarding that issue as they were in the middle of a contract and the issue could not be brought up until negotiations began for the next one. 
Owners were unhappy with Vincent for a variety of other reasons including feeling he was being too accommodating to the MLBPA, how he planned to distribute expansion fees and the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, forced National League realignment.  (The proper thing to do, IMHO BTW)

Those are the facts involving the Vincent affair.  But I suspect you will just tell me I'm wrong (without explaining why of course), and/or throw more childish jibes my way.

12/23/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK...  Now I know you aren't actually reading what was written.  I did indeed use the runner analogy at least twice before.  And yes, runner B was superior than runner A in every measurable way.  Including the most important way...  B won every single race.  Yet given all that, you still insist runner A is better.  The drug use is immaterial.  A...  There is no evidence it helped the runner win the race and B...  There is no evidence runner B wasn't using anything himself.  Further still...  The race we are looking at isn't judged at the half way or even 3 quarter mark.  It is judged on where the runners are at the finish.  I'll admit, there was a time when it looked as if Griffey was the better player.  Not by much, but it did seem that way.  But, in the end, when the entire career is evaluated it is obvious to even the most ignorant of individuals that Bonds was indeed the better player.

Of course I used the stats.  I'm attempting to prove a case.  You do that with actual measured data and empirical evidence.  You think Griffey was better because he "did things on the field no one else did".  Well, that is a stretch.  You haven't seen every other player in the last 50 years.  Not only that, but it's a VERY subjective comment and you have no evidence beyond your say so to back it up.  On my side, not only do I have what MLB scouts have said, not only did I use other people's list of the greatest players (Bonds was always ahead of Griffey) but the actual raw numbers solidify the comments and lists.  "Because I say so" is not a viable argument.

I already gave you that Griffey was better in the field, but Bonds was great too.  Again, I have to repeat the same comments over and over because you NEVER address them...  Bonds was slightly behind Griffey with the glove.  When you consider how much better he was at the plate, that takes past Griffey.  And again (for the 3rd time now) hitting balls others couldn't doesn't make someone the better hitter.  Again, Pablo Sandoval does that on a regular basis.  Case in point, the two HRS he hit off Verlander in the world series.  (There are others but that is the most recent example AND against the games best pitcher)   But no one is claiming Pablo is better than Griffey or Bonds because of it.  I have a mountain of stats you blow off yet Griffey does something Sandoval does and he is the greatest?  Puhleese. 
I never said you can't use stats.  Prove it.  Cite me.  Don't worry...  I know you won't.  Proof isn't your M.O.  I said that no one stat tells you everything.  But neither do the stats say nothing.  And the more stats you can add the more clear a picture you can paint of the player.  I know the posts can be long but try and keep your ADT at bay and read the entire thing before responding.

So..  It's stupid to judge players by their career numbers.  Interesting.  And it's perfectly fine to play the "what if" game when evaluating players.  OK then...  I am not familiar with anyone who does that but you knock yourself out.   I am NOT playing the "what if" game.  Please learn to read.  I never rated Mantle based on what he could have done had he not been hurt.  That is what you do.  I rate Mantle based on what he ACTUALLY did.  Injury and all.  I don't make guesses.  I go with facts.  Actually, you CAN rate the greatness of players based on their numbers.  Look at Babe Ruth's numbers.  I never saw him play but those numbers are so monumental, so much better than everyone around him, he HAD to be great.  But, I guess you don't think Ruth was that great since all you have are numbers and a little grainy black and white footage of him doing things players do today all the time.  (except put up those amazing offensive #'s...  But Shhh!)
What did Mantle do better than Bonds?  No way to prove he played the field better.  Bonds was obviously faster.  Bonds hit for higher avg.  Bonds got on base more.  Bonds did everything at the plate better.  I'd even say that even though Mantle was known for hitting homers of distance, Bonds, who hit more homers overall, probably had a longer overall flyball average distance.  No way to prove it.  That is just a guess on my part.  But at least I admit when I am making guesses.  You present your guesses as fact.
It is so obvious that you have an over inflated opinion of yourself and you think you know more about the game than you do.  You don't.  You don't admit when you are wrong.  You don't bother to read posts.  You ignore anything that goes against you.  You are the one who is unaware of baseball history.  You likely do not know that owners have wanted to do drug testing on players since the '80's but the MLBPA has stopped them every time they tried.  They wanted to expand their drug testing from rec drugs to steroids in the late 80's and early 90's.  But again, the MLBPA blocked every effort.  So don't preach to me about how I don't know.  I do. 

I enjoy a good argument or discussion.  But I would appreciate you NOT responding unless you actually add something.  Please, use actual facts and data.  Try to actually respond to what was said instead of repeating the same drivel I addressed multiple times over the last 20 posts.  With most people, that is not too much to ask.

What tape are you referring to?  The numbers don't lie either, btw. 

Hahahahahahaha numbers do lie again a fool you says it doesn't is just a fool.... and no the owners did not back Fay and then soon after he tried to pushed it the owners voted a no confidence vote in Fay and had him removed. Try again.

12/20/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
finally acknowledges the runner analogy???? Come back to reality for it was never brought up before. Runner B was not more consisted nor did Runner be beat runner A while he was clean, but it does work with your running around with Bonds after runner B started using steroids how funny he was able to beat runner A. I am glad you can see how that works in running,


You have not brought anything up except for career stats it is why I call you a dummy, because that is all you have. Bonds did not play the field better, could not hit pitches which Griffey or Jackson could.All I can do is point out how Griffey did things better the tape does not lie and all you have is career stats which again a dummy would say he had better stats so he was a better player. Especially you who is the beginning of all this brought of a link which said you cannot compare hitting by the career stats because of all the variables which are included, then out the side of your other mouth you stat THIS IS WHY I CAN SAY HE IS THE BEST.

You do not understand hitting or how to rate a player while in the field or running the bases. Then you go on to make more stupid comments like you are judging Manlte's total career numbers to tell me how great of a player he was, and claim that I play the what if game.....  problem is you are playing the what if game saying what if he did not have knee injuring and drinking problem his numbers would have been the same. Still the bottom line you cannot judge a players greatness by his career numbers and only a foll would continue to say that, if you had really seen Micky play and knew what to look for again you would have notice Micky could do things in the field which Bonds never could. Hit balls further then Bonds even after taking steroids and was faster down the line and stolen bases are you serious, you cannot use those numbers but I know you, you will and again a dummy comes out and say you can.


Just with you when you claim dumb things and with the sorry logic we used it for the Giants pitchers against the Philles pitchers it would have shown you were also wrong there because the Philles pitchers have a better career stats, just as you do not know that 1991 memo put out by Fay Vincent which did not have the backing of the owners to do more drug testing for steroids... You lack of knowledge of the game and its history shows you are just a fan, but is just asinine when you want to jump up and down whining about a player being better. Stay in school and learn the game, and with that you may get to know it better but you will never understand what it takes to set players apart while you stand close minded in thinking final career number dictate how good you are. As I said from the start you have been wrong in every thing you have stated while talking about of both sides of your mouth, and if you are not following I am saying you have just sprouted lies in you comments to validate your reasons why you believe what you do.

OK...  Now I know you aren't actually reading what was written.  I did indeed use the runner analogy at least twice before.  And yes, runner B was superior than runner A in every measurable way.  Including the most important way...  B won every single race.  Yet given all that, you still insist runner A is better.  The drug use is immaterial.  A...  There is no evidence it helped the runner win the race and B...  There is no evidence runner B wasn't using anything himself.  Further still...  The race we are looking at isn't judged at the half way or even 3 quarter mark.  It is judged on where the runners are at the finish.  I'll admit, there was a time when it looked as if Griffey was the better player.  Not by much, but it did seem that way.  But, in the end, when the entire career is evaluated it is obvious to even the most ignorant of individuals that Bonds was indeed the better player.

Of course I used the stats.  I'm attempting to prove a case.  You do that with actual measured data and empirical evidence.  You think Griffey was better because he "did things on the field no one else did".  Well, that is a stretch.  You haven't seen every other player in the last 50 years.  Not only that, but it's a VERY subjective comment and you have no evidence beyond your say so to back it up.  On my side, not only do I have what MLB scouts have said, not only did I use other people's list of the greatest players (Bonds was always ahead of Griffey) but the actual raw numbers solidify the comments and lists.  "Because I say so" is not a viable argument.

I already gave you that Griffey was better in the field, but Bonds was great too.  Again, I have to repeat the same comments over and over because you NEVER address them...  Bonds was slightly behind Griffey with the glove.  When you consider how much better he was at the plate, that takes past Griffey.  And again (for the 3rd time now) hitting balls others couldn't doesn't make someone the better hitter.  Again, Pablo Sandoval does that on a regular basis.  Case in point, the two HRS he hit off Verlander in the world series.  (There are others but that is the most recent example AND against the games best pitcher)   But no one is claiming Pablo is better than Griffey or Bonds because of it.  I have a mountain of stats you blow off yet Griffey does something Sandoval does and he is the greatest?  Puhleese. 
I never said you can't use stats.  Prove it.  Cite me.  Don't worry...  I know you won't.  Proof isn't your M.O.  I said that no one stat tells you everything.  But neither do the stats say nothing.  And the more stats you can add the more clear a picture you can paint of the player.  I know the posts can be long but try and keep your ADT at bay and read the entire thing before responding.

So..  It's stupid to judge players by their career numbers.  Interesting.  And it's perfectly fine to play the "what if" game when evaluating players.  OK then...  I am not familiar with anyone who does that but you knock yourself out.   I am NOT playing the "what if" game.  Please learn to read.  I never rated Mantle based on what he could have done had he not been hurt.  That is what you do.  I rate Mantle based on what he ACTUALLY did.  Injury and all.  I don't make guesses.  I go with facts.  Actually, you CAN rate the greatness of players based on their numbers.  Look at Babe Ruth's numbers.  I never saw him play but those numbers are so monumental, so much better than everyone around him, he HAD to be great.  But, I guess you don't think Ruth was that great since all you have are numbers and a little grainy black and white footage of him doing things players do today all the time.  (except put up those amazing offensive #'s...  But Shhh!)
What did Mantle do better than Bonds?  No way to prove he played the field better.  Bonds was obviously faster.  Bonds hit for higher avg.  Bonds got on base more.  Bonds did everything at the plate better.  I'd even say that even though Mantle was known for hitting homers of distance, Bonds, who hit more homers overall, probably had a longer overall flyball average distance.  No way to prove it.  That is just a guess on my part.  But at least I admit when I am making guesses.  You present your guesses as fact.
It is so obvious that you have an over inflated opinion of yourself and you think you know more about the game than you do.  You don't.  You don't admit when you are wrong.  You don't bother to read posts.  You ignore anything that goes against you.  You are the one who is unaware of baseball history.  You likely do not know that owners have wanted to do drug testing on players since the '80's but the MLBPA has stopped them every time they tried.  They wanted to expand their drug testing from rec drugs to steroids in the late 80's and early 90's.  But again, the MLBPA blocked every effort.  So don't preach to me about how I don't know.  I do. 

I enjoy a good argument or discussion.  But I would appreciate you NOT responding unless you actually add something.  Please, use actual facts and data.  Try to actually respond to what was said instead of repeating the same drivel I addressed multiple times over the last 20 posts.  With most people, that is not too much to ask.

What tape are you referring to?  The numbers don't lie either, btw. 

12/20/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
I'm not the one who emphasized "were".  You busted that one out.  It's hilarious that you blame me for your own inability to communicate.

Walks, hits, SB's, etc all contribute to playing baseball.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that a player who has superior numbers in every stat ever created is indeed the better player.  A player could have the best raw talent ever (like Bo Jackson as you love to reference) but if that skill does not actually come out on the baseball field, that player simply cannot be considered one of the best players even in his own time let alone EVER.  (Again...  Like your Bo Jackson)

Great that you finally acknowledged the runner analogy.  The next step is to connect it to what you are doing when comparing baseball players.  Once again....  You are saying runner A (who consistently loses to runner B) is better than B because runner A has great skills B does not have.  Except you are ignoring the fact that in spite of those skills, runner B consistently beats runner A on the track.  That is what we have here with Bonds and Griffey.  You claim Griffey is better because he has better skills yet on the baseball field Bonds measures up to be superior to Griffey in every way possible.

You know you are wrong.  You know I have successfully deflected the only two points you have ever brought up.  You never rebutted any comment I made that countered yours.  All you did was turn to insults.  When the debater uses personal attacks that person has absolutely nothing on their side.  You know it.  I know it.  Why not just drop your charade?  There is no shame in being wrong.  It just proves you are human.

finally acknowledges the runner analogy???? Come back to reality for it was never brought up before. Runner B was not more consisted nor did Runner be beat runner A while he was clean, but it does work with your running around with Bonds after runner B started using steroids how funny he was able to beat runner A. I am glad you can see how that works in running,


You have not brought anything up except for career stats it is why I call you a dummy, because that is all you have. Bonds did not play the field better, could not hit pitches which Griffey or Jackson could.All I can do is point out how Griffey did things better the tape does not lie and all you have is career stats which again a dummy would say he had better stats so he was a better player. Especially you who is the beginning of all this brought of a link which said you cannot compare hitting by the career stats because of all the variables which are included, then out the side of your other mouth you stat THIS IS WHY I CAN SAY HE IS THE BEST.

You do not understand hitting or how to rate a player while in the field or running the bases. Then you go on to make more stupid comments like you are judging Manlte's total career numbers to tell me how great of a player he was, and claim that I play the what if game.....  problem is you are playing the what if game saying what if he did not have knee injuring and drinking problem his numbers would have been the same. Still the bottom line you cannot judge a players greatness by his career numbers and only a foll would continue to say that, if you had really seen Micky play and knew what to look for again you would have notice Micky could do things in the field which Bonds never could. Hit balls further then Bonds even after taking steroids and was faster down the line and stolen bases are you serious, you cannot use those numbers but I know you, you will and again a dummy comes out and say you can.


Just with you when you claim dumb things and with the sorry logic we used it for the Giants pitchers against the Philles pitchers it would have shown you were also wrong there because the Philles pitchers have a better career stats, just as you do not know that 1991 memo put out by Fay Vincent which did not have the backing of the owners to do more drug testing for steroids... You lack of knowledge of the game and its history shows you are just a fan, but is just asinine when you want to jump up and down whining about a player being better. Stay in school and learn the game, and with that you may get to know it better but you will never understand what it takes to set players apart while you stand close minded in thinking final career number dictate how good you are. As I said from the start you have been wrong in every thing you have stated while talking about of both sides of your mouth, and if you are not following I am saying you have just sprouted lies in you comments to validate your reasons why you believe what you do.

12/19/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
hahahahah, you are so stupid, 80 yr Mantle..... blow more smoke, no wonder you are still in the high chair.

DUMB as walks, hits, total bases stolen bases stolen% has nothing to due with hitting prowess, and yes stupid if a runner A was to lose to runner B people would claim he was better ask Carl Lewis he would be the first to agree that Ben Johnson was better then him.... a 5 yr old would know that a player would can catch field balls which another player could not, and make throws to any bases on the field more accurate then the other is a better defensive player. The same for hitting prior to getting injury player A is out shining player B in your own words "A would be better than B".


I can say this most people on here knows more then you do, about baseball. You have been wrong on this thread for the very first comment.

You are dismiss, run along now.
(Edited by ML31)

I'm not the one who emphasized "were".  You busted that one out.  It's hilarious that you blame me for your own inability to communicate.

Walks, hits, SB's, etc all contribute to playing baseball.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that a player who has superior numbers in every stat ever created is indeed the better player.  A player could have the best raw talent ever (like Bo Jackson as you love to reference) but if that skill does not actually come out on the baseball field, that player simply cannot be considered one of the best players even in his own time let alone EVER.  (Again...  Like your Bo Jackson)

Great that you finally acknowledged the runner analogy.  The next step is to connect it to what you are doing when comparing baseball players.  Once again....  You are saying runner A (who consistently loses to runner B) is better than B because runner A has great skills B does not have.  Except you are ignoring the fact that in spite of those skills, runner B consistently beats runner A on the track.  That is what we have here with Bonds and Griffey.  You claim Griffey is better because he has better skills yet on the baseball field Bonds measures up to be superior to Griffey in every way possible.

You know you are wrong.  You know I have successfully deflected the only two points you have ever brought up.  You never rebutted any comment I made that countered yours.  All you did was turn to insults.  When the debater uses personal attacks that person has absolutely nothing on their side.  You know it.  I know it.  Why not just drop your charade?  There is no shame in being wrong.  It just proves you are human.

12/19/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are playing the "what if" game.  Except you are limiting it to only Major Leaguers.  It seems that even you can't justify extending your "what if" reasoning to minor leaguers.  Do you know what "were" means?  It's a past subjective of "be" and has no bearing on your talent assessment.  It is assumed we are comparing players to when each of them played.  Not comparing an 80 year old Mantle to a 30 year old Bonds.  And yet again you ran to the ridiculous "hitting pitches Bonds could not" argument.  Which is impossible to prove for older players (unless you saw them which I'm gambling you haven't) and even if true it doesn't make the player better.  I repeat (again, going in circles because it seems you want to...) Pablo Sandoval its pitches most players cannot for extra base hits all the time.  Including against the current best pitcher in the game on the games most visible stage.  But only the most ignorant of people would claim because of that he is better than Bonds or any other Hall of Fame caliber player. 

Still more circles...  It's more than just home runs and walks.  Its hits.  Total bases.  Stolen Bases.  Stolen Base %.  Batting avg.  Slugging %.  WAR.  OPS.  OBP.  It's every stat that measures hitting prowess.  Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.  You constantly speak about childish behavior but most 5 year olds know that if runner A  finishes behind runner B in every single race runner B is better than runner A. 

How about doing something different like actually addressing what is said here instead of running back to ignorant comments that have been addressed multiple times?  I think it is because you have nothing to back up your position so you just keep repeating the same unsupportable comments and keep insulting me but not what I say.  It's the classic tactic of the person who refuses to admit they cannot support a word they say and are just too stubborn to admit it.

And for the 4th time...  I'd like to know what baseball related industry pays for your vastly superior and dead on baseball evaluations and opinions...  You seem to claim you know more than anyone else involved.  It is reasonable to think you are getting paid for those superior skills...  Please share...

hahahahah, you are so stupid, 80 yr Mantle..... blow more smoke, no wonder you are still in the high chair.

DUMB as walks, hits, total bases stolen bases stolen% has nothing to due with hitting prowess, and yes stupid if a runner A was to lose to runner B people would claim he was better ask Carl Lewis he would be the first to agree that Ben Johnson was better then him.... a 5 yr old would know that a player would can catch field balls which another player could not, and make throws to any bases on the field more accurate then the other is a better defensive player. The same for hitting prior to getting injury player A is out shining player B in your own words "A would be better than B".


I can say this most people on here knows more then you do, about baseball. You have been wrong on this thread for the very first comment.

You are dismiss, run along now.

12/18/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Wow you are really slow stand with the class, I cannot draw you a picture, for I am sure after reading all your draw comments which 90% is nothing but smoke you still would not see things clear.

If I was playing what Ifs I would have went with Mike Darr would have been better seeing how I did not say anyone would have been better, instead I clearly said they were the magic word "WERE" meaning while they played these players out play Bonds with not only hitting pitches Bonds could not, but also make plays in the field which Bonds still could not.

So because went on and hit more HRs or got more walks does not make him a better player. A 5 year can understand this which is a shame why you cannot follow the bouncy ball.... So learn the game really go out and learn it, while at go and understand not one time did I say would have been better, so there is no way I can be playing the what if games.  I know you will not get it, have someone help you with it so you will stop saying something that did not happen, for this is almost as bad as when you sit and contradict yourself over and over.

You are playing the "what if" game.  Except you are limiting it to only Major Leaguers.  It seems that even you can't justify extending your "what if" reasoning to minor leaguers.  Do you know what "were" means?  It's a past subjective of "be" and has no bearing on your talent assessment.  It is assumed we are comparing players to when each of them played.  Not comparing an 80 year old Mantle to a 30 year old Bonds.  And yet again you ran to the ridiculous "hitting pitches Bonds could not" argument.  Which is impossible to prove for older players (unless you saw them which I'm gambling you haven't) and even if true it doesn't make the player better.  I repeat (again, going in circles because it seems you want to...) Pablo Sandoval its pitches most players cannot for extra base hits all the time.  Including against the current best pitcher in the game on the games most visible stage.  But only the most ignorant of people would claim because of that he is better than Bonds or any other Hall of Fame caliber player. 

Still more circles...  It's more than just home runs and walks.  Its hits.  Total bases.  Stolen Bases.  Stolen Base %.  Batting avg.  Slugging %.  WAR.  OPS.  OBP.  It's every stat that measures hitting prowess.  Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.  You constantly speak about childish behavior but most 5 year olds know that if runner A  finishes behind runner B in every single race runner B is better than runner A. 

How about doing something different like actually addressing what is said here instead of running back to ignorant comments that have been addressed multiple times?  I think it is because you have nothing to back up your position so you just keep repeating the same unsupportable comments and keep insulting me but not what I say.  It's the classic tactic of the person who refuses to admit they cannot support a word they say and are just too stubborn to admit it.

And for the 4th time...  I'd like to know what baseball related industry pays for your vastly superior and dead on baseball evaluations and opinions...  You seem to claim you know more than anyone else involved.  It is reasonable to think you are getting paid for those superior skills...  Please share...

12/18/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You are still reverting back to the "what if?" argument.  All the talent in the world means nothing if it does not come out on the field.  Mantle is a perfect example.  Here was a guy everyone saw had fantastic natural skills.  Great power and very fast.  He got hurt and it limited what he could do.  He was still amazingly good.  But the fact remains the knee injury his first year kept him from being what he could have been.  So you are arguing that Mantle was better than Bonds because of what he COULD have done.  And I am saying Bonds was better than Mantle because of what he ACTUALLY did.  Your player assessment is relying far too much on potential rather than what the player actually accomplished on the field.  Which, in the end, is the best way to evaluate a player.

So please tell me...  Do you work for an MLB team's scouting department?  Are you the head of the group at Baseball America who rates players?  What very high level in the game of baseball are you?  Who at MLB writes your paychecks? 

Wow you are really slow stand with the class, I cannot draw you a picture, for I am sure after reading all your draw comments which 90% is nothing but smoke you still would not see things clear.

If I was playing what Ifs I would have went with Mike Darr would have been better seeing how I did not say anyone would have been better, instead I clearly said they were the magic word "WERE" meaning while they played these players out play Bonds with not only hitting pitches Bonds could not, but also make plays in the field which Bonds still could not.

So because went on and hit more HRs or got more walks does not make him a better player. A 5 year can understand this which is a shame why you cannot follow the bouncy ball.... So learn the game really go out and learn it, while at go and understand not one time did I say would have been better, so there is no way I can be playing the what if games.  I know you will not get it, have someone help you with it so you will stop saying something that did not happen, for this is almost as bad as when you sit and contradict yourself over and over.

12/18/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You can without question compare a player who had been injured to someone which has had good fortune and played a career with far less injuries. We are not talking about a rookie which got hurt and never pan out and shown the skills you had seen in the minors. With Bo even thou his career was cut short, you can see the skills he had in chasing down balls and making plays which seem impossible for not only average players but know good defensive players. Even playing football from 1987-90, as a hobby not complete seasons those close to football will tell you he was one of the greatest RB to ever play the game. no he does not have the numbers because his career was cut short, but did could do things very few others could. Griffy shown the same thing for many more years prior to getting serious hurt. The same goes with while they were healthy ABs which they had you can see them drive balls most players were lucky to hit and if did little rollers in the IF. So to sit here and tell me you cannot is flat silly it is not like I am telling you Mike Darr would have been one of the greatest because he was a top minor league player and if it was not for him getting killed in spring training. We are not going just by potential. Just as Micky Mantle who you want to dismiss, not only could he do things in the outfield which Bonds could not, the power he shown is not match nor is the speed which he shown running the bases. He lack of believing he would live a long life so he went out and destroyed his life by drinking and party with his reckless ways. so his Carrier number are not there but you had enough to see the talent which he played with was better then Bonds, Strawberry who you completely dismiss, had all the true talent needed to be a great, but got into drugs and did not have that fire within him to take his talent to anther level. So it is why I said from the start I would have love to see what he would have done if he had said any from all of that. It is also why I did not rate him above, because he had the natural skill but not the hunger that Bonds possesses.


You do not get this for some reason it is way over your head in understanding you can evaluate talent and see where a player stands, but still that does not mean career wish that player had a better career. Bonds had a better career, and a lot of people will sit and say he was better for they did not see Griffy at his best, or Mantle, Jackson is just a name they heard about but really never seen play, you can tell when yo have people claiming Dion Sanders was better because he played in a baseball game and football game on the same day. Most of these people do not understand the art of hitting or playing defense.

You are still reverting back to the "what if?" argument.  All the talent in the world means nothing if it does not come out on the field.  Mantle is a perfect example.  Here was a guy everyone saw had fantastic natural skills.  Great power and very fast.  He got hurt and it limited what he could do.  He was still amazingly good.  But the fact remains the knee injury his first year kept him from being what he could have been.  So you are arguing that Mantle was better than Bonds because of what he COULD have done.  And I am saying Bonds was better than Mantle because of what he ACTUALLY did.  Your player assessment is relying far too much on potential rather than what the player actually accomplished on the field.  Which, in the end, is the best way to evaluate a player.

So please tell me...  Do you work for an MLB team's scouting department?  Are you the head of the group at Baseball America who rates players?  What very high level in the game of baseball are you?  Who at MLB writes your paychecks? 

12/18/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
I explained the difficulties in rating injured players vs healthy players.  Yet you failed to address it.  Instead, you act as if I do what you do...  Make wild accusations with nothing to back them up.  You think comparing such players can be done accurately.  Fine.  Explain where my reasons fall apart.  Until you do, it is just you being you.  Ranting on and on about how no one knows as much as you.

You still haven't told me what you do for MLB.  Like I said...  No way the only person on Earth who could accurately assess player talent isn't involved with baseball in some way...

You can without question compare a player who had been injured to someone which has had good fortune and played a career with far less injuries. We are not talking about a rookie which got hurt and never pan out and shown the skills you had seen in the minors. With Bo even thou his career was cut short, you can see the skills he had in chasing down balls and making plays which seem impossible for not only average players but know good defensive players. Even playing football from 1987-90, as a hobby not complete seasons those close to football will tell you he was one of the greatest RB to ever play the game. no he does not have the numbers because his career was cut short, but did could do things very few others could. Griffy shown the same thing for many more years prior to getting serious hurt. The same goes with while they were healthy ABs which they had you can see them drive balls most players were lucky to hit and if did little rollers in the IF. So to sit here and tell me you cannot is flat silly it is not like I am telling you Mike Darr would have been one of the greatest because he was a top minor league player and if it was not for him getting killed in spring training. We are not going just by potential. Just as Micky Mantle who you want to dismiss, not only could he do things in the outfield which Bonds could not, the power he shown is not match nor is the speed which he shown running the bases. He lack of believing he would live a long life so he went out and destroyed his life by drinking and party with his reckless ways. so his Carrier number are not there but you had enough to see the talent which he played with was better then Bonds, Strawberry who you completely dismiss, had all the true talent needed to be a great, but got into drugs and did not have that fire within him to take his talent to anther level. So it is why I said from the start I would have love to see what he would have done if he had said any from all of that. It is also why I did not rate him above, because he had the natural skill but not the hunger that Bonds possesses.


You do not get this for some reason it is way over your head in understanding you can evaluate talent and see where a player stands, but still that does not mean career wish that player had a better career. Bonds had a better career, and a lot of people will sit and say he was better for they did not see Griffy at his best, or Mantle, Jackson is just a name they heard about but really never seen play, you can tell when yo have people claiming Dion Sanders was better because he played in a baseball game and football game on the same day. Most of these people do not understand the art of hitting or playing defense.

12/17/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
LOL no it is not impossible to rate those who have been injured to those who did not.

for people like you yes, but as it has been shown over and over you don't truly know the game of baseball.

I explained the difficulties in rating injured players vs healthy players.  Yet you failed to address it.  Instead, you act as if I do what you do...  Make wild accusations with nothing to back them up.  You think comparing such players can be done accurately.  Fine.  Explain where my reasons fall apart.  Until you do, it is just you being you.  Ranting on and on about how no one knows as much as you.

You still haven't told me what you do for MLB.  Like I said...  No way the only person on Earth who could accurately assess player talent isn't involved with baseball in some way...

12/17/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Injured players are impossible to rate against the non injured ones.  The only way you could claim they were better is to assume they would have kept playing at they level they did before they were hurt.  Again, that is 100% guesswork.  You have no idea how they would have performed.  So, all we have are the results of what actually happened on the field vs guesses on what would have happened "IF".  Further still... Bonds wasn't immune from the disabled list.  Particularly late in his career. 
Go dig up the stat about Griffey hit his homers further against higher rated pitchers.  Prove it.  Until then, it is just you rambling hogwash.  And even if correct, a season or two of that still isn't enough to prove he was better at the plate.  Not by a long shot. 
Here's the thing...  Bonds had such good vision he wouldn't swing at ball outside the strike zone.  He just wouldn't.  He had the best eye at the plate.  Griffey may have occasionally tomahawked high fastballs out of the yard, but that skill doesn't make him the superior hitter.  Pablo Sandoval hits bad pitches out of the park all the time.  Look at the two he hit off the games current best pitcher in the WS.  Neither were strikes.  And both were in two very different locations.  But I'm not sitting here claiming because he can hit pitches other players can't he's better than Bonds.  Far from it. 
Funny how you use a Bleacher Report article for your own means...  When he ranks the players overall he's an idiot.  But when he ranks OF arms he's all of a sudden smart?  Besides...  We all know Bonds had a below average arm.  If he did make that list it would completely discredit the BR.  Bonds was a great outfielder not because of his arm.  But because of his speed and ability to catch and be quick about retrieving balls.  Often turning doubles into singles. 
Further still...  What he said about Griffey may have been so.  But there is no way to prove it.  There is nothing but conjecture to support it.  And even the writer says his injuries kept him from being one of the greats.  Thus undermining your position.
You say stats don't tell you how good a player is...  But they actually do.  No one stat tells you everything but neither do they say nothing either.  But when all the numbers are analyzed and put in the proper context...  They tell you a great deal about the player.  Most baseball minds understand this.
You say no one knows how Bonds career would have been without the steroids.  True.  But then, by that same reasoning... No one knows what Griffey would have done had he not got hurt late in his career.  Nor do we know he himself didn't take steroids as well.  For all we know the only reason he played as long as he did was due to steroids.  You deny it all the time but the steroid argument is a classic slippery slope. 
Stats tell a great deal about hitting prowess.  Fielding #'s still leave a lot to be desired.  Still very difficult to rate.  Not so hitting.  For reasons I already went over.  Notice that I don't laud Bond's 8 Gold Gloves as that is the most subjective award there could possibly be.  Further, I already conceded Griffey's superior glove work.  That being admitted to doesn't change that Bonds was VERY good in the field himself.
It's also hilarious (and not unexpected) that you don't agree with the award winners.  Obviously no one knows the game as well as you do.  Only you should name the winners each year.  Forget about the writers...

Tell me again...   You work for Major League Baseball at some very high level, right?  How could they let the best and ONLY great assessor of baseball talent waste away?

LOL no it is not impossible to rate those who have been injured to those who did not.

for people like you yes, but as it has been shown over and over you don't truly know the game of baseball.

12/15/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You do not seem to get it, players who were injury and had his career cut short were still great players, people who you are talking about saying they are not are looking for a way to judge who should be in the HoF. So yes, many players are going to be over looked, because of his lack of time in the ML or great productive years because of it. IT is why I have said over and over Bonds had a better career numbers, he was not a better ball player. We can go back and look at each game he had played and really break it down, yo will see how Griffey was the better defense player, which even this year he hit the ball further off more pitchers who were ranked in the 5 at the time. He also could hit pitches out which Bonds could not on a regular bases, these are things you cannot find by reading stats and why people who are writing theses blags are gong out saying Bonds is great.   Even with your look into things from the Bleacher report done this year of the 40 best outfield arms in MLB history, Bonds does not make the list his team mates Van Slyke and Wilson from the Pirates are in there who were better then he was. Jackson is rated higher then Bonds and even talked about him making  impossible plays a  routine, and with a cannon for an arm runners were kept at bay. Then has Griffey at #12 talking about how is he would have stayed healthy, and how he made the impossible possible and look easy.  

"Had he only been able to stay healthy, we could be talking about the greatest player in the history of the game—before he got injured, there was no better player in the game."

You are not going to see through stats how great player truly is, which is why people argue all the time who was a better HR hitter with Ruth, Gibson, Aaron, and then throw Mantle in there for hitting it the furthest.


Yes bob Costas and Bonds had words, because even Costas has an issue when someone whose career, was not headed into the HoF on the first ballot, for taking steroids and making his career last longer and which added to the boost in numbers. No one knows how long Bonds would have lasted if he had not taking steroids, I am sure his number would not have jump and stayed the way they did if it was not for the steroids.


You still do not know the game, but I am glad you can read stats and make assessment of players ability, which again is showing how you truly do not know the game. There is way to much stats cannot show you and the formulas most people use really lose the value of the player in it. Just look at the MVP, Cy Young, and ROY every year. Most of the times it is the wrong player who wins.

No question you are a fan, but that is all you are. and you have shown over this last year or so how bias you are when it comes to players of the Giants.

Injured players are impossible to rate against the non injured ones.  The only way you could claim they were better is to assume they would have kept playing at they level they did before they were hurt.  Again, that is 100% guesswork.  You have no idea how they would have performed.  So, all we have are the results of what actually happened on the field vs guesses on what would have happened "IF".  Further still... Bonds wasn't immune from the disabled list.  Particularly late in his career. 
Go dig up the stat about Griffey hit his homers further against higher rated pitchers.  Prove it.  Until then, it is just you rambling hogwash.  And even if correct, a season or two of that still isn't enough to prove he was better at the plate.  Not by a long shot. 
Here's the thing...  Bonds had such good vision he wouldn't swing at ball outside the strike zone.  He just wouldn't.  He had the best eye at the plate.  Griffey may have occasionally tomahawked high fastballs out of the yard, but that skill doesn't make him the superior hitter.  Pablo Sandoval hits bad pitches out of the park all the time.  Look at the two he hit off the games current best pitcher in the WS.  Neither were strikes.  And both were in two very different locations.  But I'm not sitting here claiming because he can hit pitches other players can't he's better than Bonds.  Far from it. 
Funny how you use a Bleacher Report article for your own means...  When he ranks the players overall he's an idiot.  But when he ranks OF arms he's all of a sudden smart?  Besides...  We all know Bonds had a below average arm.  If he did make that list it would completely discredit the BR.  Bonds was a great outfielder not because of his arm.  But because of his speed and ability to catch and be quick about retrieving balls.  Often turning doubles into singles. 
Further still...  What he said about Griffey may have been so.  But there is no way to prove it.  There is nothing but conjecture to support it.  And even the writer says his injuries kept him from being one of the greats.  Thus undermining your position.
You say stats don't tell you how good a player is...  But they actually do.  No one stat tells you everything but neither do they say nothing either.  But when all the numbers are analyzed and put in the proper context...  They tell you a great deal about the player.  Most baseball minds understand this.
You say no one knows how Bonds career would have been without the steroids.  True.  But then, by that same reasoning... No one knows what Griffey would have done had he not got hurt late in his career.  Nor do we know he himself didn't take steroids as well.  For all we know the only reason he played as long as he did was due to steroids.  You deny it all the time but the steroid argument is a classic slippery slope. 
Stats tell a great deal about hitting prowess.  Fielding #'s still leave a lot to be desired.  Still very difficult to rate.  Not so hitting.  For reasons I already went over.  Notice that I don't laud Bond's 8 Gold Gloves as that is the most subjective award there could possibly be.  Further, I already conceded Griffey's superior glove work.  That being admitted to doesn't change that Bonds was VERY good in the field himself.
It's also hilarious (and not unexpected) that you don't agree with the award winners.  Obviously no one knows the game as well as you do.  Only you should name the winners each year.  Forget about the writers...

Tell me again...   You work for Major League Baseball at some very high level, right?  How could they let the best and ONLY great assessor of baseball talent waste away?

12/15/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK...  I'll give you Costas.  Even though there has been a small war of words in the press between Bonds and Costas.  The two have an animosity towards each other such that I would normally dismiss anything either says about the other.  Next...  None of the links authors claim Griffey was the better player.  If you think any of them actually did rate Griffey higher then please cite where.  If so, it creates a paradox in that how can someone rank a player as a better player when that someone doesn't think it he was the better player?  It makes no sense.  So please, get off the idea that they agree with you.  They don't.  Just stop it. 
And again, (circles, here we come) I'm not playing the "what if" game here.  If Bonds was never injured think of how much better he too could have been.  There are a lot of players where injuries hampered them.  I'm not evaluating the players based on what they COULD have been.  I was evaluating them on what they actually DID.
Bo Jackson made plays in the outfield that only a few have done?  I watched Gregor Blanco make a number of plays in the outfield this year that were very much like the best Jackson made.  Please...  He was an above average outfielder at best and he never did harness his talent.  So again, please stop with the Bo Jackson thing.  He was never that good a major leaguer.  Natural talent with no practice may work great on a gridiron.  But on a baseball field, raw talent isn't enough to make a player great for any length of time.  Bonds and Griffey worked hard to be great players.  Jackson, by his own admission, didn't.

Of course people blew off players who didn't play much.  How could any player be among the greats if they didn't play?  One or two great seasons and then an injury does not make a player great.  BTW...  Joe DiMaggio only played 13 seasons and is considered among the greats.

I already mentioned you would blow off the MVP awards as idiot writers not voting the way you would vote.  You are so very predictable.

To say that Griffey could hit balls Bonds couldn't is so laughable...  I have to think that this is just all a rouse...  No one could be that dim.  I will give you that Griffey could indeed cover more ground and was a little better in the field.  But Bonds was no slouch whatsoever and was well above average in the field.  In fact, he played the corners so very well that players rarely ran on him.  Pretty high praise for someone with a below average arm.  That, combined with his massive superiority at the plate makes him the better player.

Again, I'd appreciate you pointing out what exactly what it was I doubled back on.  You mention the links but I didn't write those articles.  All they were were player assessments.  Player assessments that disagree with yours.

Once again, the entire world is wrong and you are the only one who is right.  Again, you are the guy that says sprinter Jones is better because he has the superior tools and I say sprinter Smith is better because Smith has beaten Jones in every race.  You evaluated the talent based on what you think a player COULD do...  I evaluated the player based on what he actually DID.

Still waiting for you to find anyone to agree with your player assessment....

You do not seem to get it, players who were injury and had his career cut short were still great players, people who you are talking about saying they are not are looking for a way to judge who should be in the HoF. So yes, many players are going to be over looked, because of his lack of time in the ML or great productive years because of it. IT is why I have said over and over Bonds had a better career numbers, he was not a better ball player. We can go back and look at each game he had played and really break it down, yo will see how Griffey was the better defense player, which even this year he hit the ball further off more pitchers who were ranked in the 5 at the time. He also could hit pitches out which Bonds could not on a regular bases, these are things you cannot find by reading stats and why people who are writing theses blags are gong out saying Bonds is great.   Even with your look into things from the Bleacher report done this year of the 40 best outfield arms in MLB history, Bonds does not make the list his team mates Van Slyke and Wilson from the Pirates are in there who were better then he was. Jackson is rated higher then Bonds and even talked about him making  impossible plays a  routine, and with a cannon for an arm runners were kept at bay. Then has Griffey at #12 talking about how is he would have stayed healthy, and how he made the impossible possible and look easy.  

"Had he only been able to stay healthy, we could be talking about the greatest player in the history of the game—before he got injured, there was no better player in the game."

You are not going to see through stats how great player truly is, which is why people argue all the time who was a better HR hitter with Ruth, Gibson, Aaron, and then throw Mantle in there for hitting it the furthest.


Yes bob Costas and Bonds had words, because even Costas has an issue when someone whose career, was not headed into the HoF on the first ballot, for taking steroids and making his career last longer and which added to the boost in numbers. No one knows how long Bonds would have lasted if he had not taking steroids, I am sure his number would not have jump and stayed the way they did if it was not for the steroids.


You still do not know the game, but I am glad you can read stats and make assessment of players ability, which again is showing how you truly do not know the game. There is way to much stats cannot show you and the formulas most people use really lose the value of the player in it. Just look at the MVP, Cy Young, and ROY every year. Most of the times it is the wrong player who wins.

No question you are a fan, but that is all you are. and you have shown over this last year or so how bias you are when it comes to players of the Giants.

12/14/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Try this again because I know you are really slow, all of the links (which yes I have read prior to you placing them here, and did again because you had) talks about his career number which every one of them used other opinions to come up with his conclusions. They said the same I said over and over Bonds had a better career, but that does not make them a better player. Bob Costas talked about Ken Griffey Jr this past season  went onto to say he was the best player in baseball and if injuries had not plaque him, Griffey  would have broken Aaron record before Bonds, just look at what he did with the injuries. It is the same thing said about Bo Jackson he hit the ball further and made plays in the outfield which only a few have done, could do which surpass bonds in both departments. If he did not get injured he would be up there as one of the greatest. The problem with you and a lot of people you do not know what to look for in a player to rate them and as your 4 opinions stated used only player with a certain number of really good years to be included, so better players who got injured were not consider or took a slide. Just as most do not understand what an MVP award should be awarded for, so using that as a main criteria for you to rate a player greatest is laughable.

I know you will wait because all you have is Bonds having better career number as for true baseball people will tell you that in their prime and earthly most would take Griffey over Bonds for his upside, he could hit picthes and catch balls that Bonds could not and make it look so easy.


Now getting back to your double talk all these opinions you want to throw out there goes against the first link you had which goes into saying you cannot judge HRs, and hit SLG% OBP% because of all the varieties, so which side of the road are you really on?

OK...  I'll give you Costas.  Even though there has been a small war of words in the press between Bonds and Costas.  The two have an animosity towards each other such that I would normally dismiss anything either says about the other.  Next...  None of the links authors claim Griffey was the better player.  If you think any of them actually did rate Griffey higher then please cite where.  If so, it creates a paradox in that how can someone rank a player as a better player when that someone doesn't think it he was the better player?  It makes no sense.  So please, get off the idea that they agree with you.  They don't.  Just stop it. 
And again, (circles, here we come) I'm not playing the "what if" game here.  If Bonds was never injured think of how much better he too could have been.  There are a lot of players where injuries hampered them.  I'm not evaluating the players based on what they COULD have been.  I was evaluating them on what they actually DID.
Bo Jackson made plays in the outfield that only a few have done?  I watched Gregor Blanco make a number of plays in the outfield this year that were very much like the best Jackson made.  Please...  He was an above average outfielder at best and he never did harness his talent.  So again, please stop with the Bo Jackson thing.  He was never that good a major leaguer.  Natural talent with no practice may work great on a gridiron.  But on a baseball field, raw talent isn't enough to make a player great for any length of time.  Bonds and Griffey worked hard to be great players.  Jackson, by his own admission, didn't.

Of course people blew off players who didn't play much.  How could any player be among the greats if they didn't play?  One or two great seasons and then an injury does not make a player great.  BTW...  Joe DiMaggio only played 13 seasons and is considered among the greats.

I already mentioned you would blow off the MVP awards as idiot writers not voting the way you would vote.  You are so very predictable.

To say that Griffey could hit balls Bonds couldn't is so laughable...  I have to think that this is just all a rouse...  No one could be that dim.  I will give you that Griffey could indeed cover more ground and was a little better in the field.  But Bonds was no slouch whatsoever and was well above average in the field.  In fact, he played the corners so very well that players rarely ran on him.  Pretty high praise for someone with a below average arm.  That, combined with his massive superiority at the plate makes him the better player.

Again, I'd appreciate you pointing out what exactly what it was I doubled back on.  You mention the links but I didn't write those articles.  All they were were player assessments.  Player assessments that disagree with yours.

Once again, the entire world is wrong and you are the only one who is right.  Again, you are the guy that says sprinter Jones is better because he has the superior tools and I say sprinter Smith is better because Smith has beaten Jones in every race.  You evaluated the talent based on what you think a player COULD do...  I evaluated the player based on what he actually DID.

Still waiting for you to find anyone to agree with your player assessment....

12/14/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
How can I say anything different if you don't respond to what I counter with?  

Did you click on the links I provided?  NONE of them claimed Griffey was the better player.  If they did, Griffey would be ranked higher than Bonds.

Again, you are missing the concept.  It is not just the opinion of the bleacher report.  The bleacher report guy is just ONE writer from a much much larger group.  It is the opinion of EVERYONE!!  Why don't you go you and find me writers or bloggers who agree with you?  I have yet to find any.

Go on.  Do something different...  Go find some folks who agree with you and provide links.  It could be just some random bloggers if you can't find any legit writers or learned individuals.  And try to come up with evaluations done AFTER 2010 when both players were through so a fair take can be made.

Take your time.  I'll wait.

Try this again because I know you are really slow, all of the links (which yes I have read prior to you placing them here, and did again because you had) talks about his career number which every one of them used other opinions to come up with his conclusions. They said the same I said over and over Bonds had a better career, but that does not make them a better player. Bob Costas talked about Ken Griffey Jr this past season  went onto to say he was the best player in baseball and if injuries had not plaque him, Griffey  would have broken Aaron record before Bonds, just look at what he did with the injuries. It is the same thing said about Bo Jackson he hit the ball further and made plays in the outfield which only a few have done, could do which surpass bonds in both departments. If he did not get injured he would be up there as one of the greatest. The problem with you and a lot of people you do not know what to look for in a player to rate them and as your 4 opinions stated used only player with a certain number of really good years to be included, so better players who got injured were not consider or took a slide. Just as most do not understand what an MVP award should be awarded for, so using that as a main criteria for you to rate a player greatest is laughable.

I know you will wait because all you have is Bonds having better career number as for true baseball people will tell you that in their prime and earthly most would take Griffey over Bonds for his upside, he could hit picthes and catch balls that Bonds could not and make it look so easy.


Now getting back to your double talk all these opinions you want to throw out there goes against the first link you had which goes into saying you cannot judge HRs, and hit SLG% OBP% because of all the varieties, so which side of the road are you really on?

12/14/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Yes I did repeat myself, for you have not say anything different, final stats is what you are looking at to determine who was better, which all four of those opinions did, and with each one claims Griffey was a better player, but due to injuries his number where not as great, which knocked him down on that person's list. Well, expect the professors who said email me and where you disagree and we  can talk about it. 

you still do not know the game and this is more proof of it as you took the word of the Bleacher report wow... and these guys went against the theory of you other one which talked about how hitting and steroids.


So yes your data is other people opinions what is new there.

How can I say anything different if you don't respond to what I counter with?  

Did you click on the links I provided?  NONE of them claimed Griffey was the better player.  If they did, Griffey would be ranked higher than Bonds.

Again, you are missing the concept.  It is not just the opinion of the bleacher report.  The bleacher report guy is just ONE writer from a much much larger group.  It is the opinion of EVERYONE!!  Why don't you go you and find me writers or bloggers who agree with you?  I have yet to find any.

Go on.  Do something different...  Go find some folks who agree with you and provide links.  It could be just some random bloggers if you can't find any legit writers or learned individuals.  And try to come up with evaluations done AFTER 2010 when both players were through so a fair take can be made.

Take your time.  I'll wait.

12/14/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Bleacher report is no different then those that write on here, it could be you doing the bleacher report, it does not give you any real insight into how to play the game. It is like saying Stephen A. Smith knows football and because he said Arron Rogers in better then Brett Farve it must be true, or Skip Bayless saying Lebron cannot finish in the 4th qrt, or Westbrook cannot play point guard.

Lehigh mathematics professor are you serious, these are the same people who cannot get the BCS right. The highest weighted criteria for hitting was MVP voting, so again you are taking from people around the country who in their minds thinks deserves MVP with no clear standard of what MVP is. MVP was not meant, for the player with the highest stats instead one who meant most to his team which looking at the last 20 years it has not been that way 98% of the times. Just because you won the MVP did not mean you were the best player in baseball that year.

Motown come read it dummy "I consider their accomplishments up to this point then assumed healthy reasonable, finish to their careers." and he had Griffey 40th on the list stated injuries is what brought him down. This guys opinion even thou you claim he is a Bonds hater, is about the player's accomplishments not who is the better player.... it is telling you who had the better career. As the last sentence in he statement about Griffey, "He may not finish his career as one of the top ten, but that doesn't not mean he isn't among the best ever" now this guy claims A-rod is average on the defensive side but rates him 24th on his list, showing you he has more importance on offensive stats. Stats seen on paper does not show you how well rounded one player is.


Baseball Guru again goes into how he rated the players he was looking at stats in the prime of careers and then put in some assuming formula for time missed, those who stayed to long and opt out early.


The issue with you in this is the same as before I have said countless time Bonds numbers were better then Griffeys which is what all 4 of these opinions are stating, no different then I what I have said. Now again get into the art of hitting and knowing how that works and which batter could do what where and none of these opinions can touch it nor can they go into which outfield could make catches in the outfield, throw the ball to what bases the actuate or from what distance. It does not show because of a certain player in the outfield how runners dared not to run on even if that field was moving back at the time close to the wall, instead being in short left field which an average player could hold someone. This is why you so easily dismiss Bo Jackson even thou he could run down balls in the outfield which Bonds could only dream of and throw the ball to any of the four base from deep center with 95% accuracy. You both up stealing bases going back and looking at the times Bonds ran was on catchers who were known not to have a strong arm and pitchers who were very slow to the plate, and a lot of times with a runner on third or with two outs and the pitcher was just going at the hitter not minding the runner. 

The whole argument you have again is Bonds stats were better and that is the same things which are being echo by these people whose opinions you bring in here. Everything you bring will say the same thing Bonds had a better career, he did not get serious injured and like it or not steroids help in that and prolonging his career 4-5 years.

So yes, I will say it again Bonds had a better career that Griffey, no questions Griffey's was slammed with injuries that shorten his performance on the field, if he would have taken medicine (steroids) he could have healed faster, for it is known that is what steroids do, besides build muscle mass and energy. We can go back and look at the film where even Bo Jackson can be thrown in there where ball hit in the outfield Jackson and Griffey could run them down and make the plays which Bonds would not have been able too. Yes, Bonds could catch, but in no way run down the balls as Jackson, or Griffey, and others. Then go into how Jackson, Griffey showing off how they held b/r and runners because of not only the strenght of his arm but the accuracy of the throw compare to Bonds. Bonds loses out on both, and you talked about power, Bonds average distance for HRs was 370 while Griffeys was 430 and Jackson 440.

Now because you like to throw these opinions out the ones you have here would contradict the one you had who was explaining hitting and steroids with Bonds earlier. That is the issue with you which I cannot help you, for you  talk out of both sides of your mouth and because you do not know the game, which is shown in the lack of knowledge of hitting and pitching I cannot turn on the light and show you were you are wrong.  So as I am glad you can read and no how to use GOOGLE, you are still wrong in who the better player is, but I will say it again Bonds did have a better career, with the use of steroids which helped him in more then one way. So you can throw up other peoples opinions of you is great but look at the formula that she/he are using to get the results.  
(Edited by ML31)

I absolutely knew you would blow off the examples.  There are plenty more but I'm sure you will find fault with them as well.  Apparently only you know about baseball and no one else comes close.  Please tell me..  Do you work for some sort of MLB scouting bureau?  Are you employed by Baseball America?  I'm sure you have to be the highest paid evaluator of talent out there since everyone else in the world is wrong about players.

This is an old story but you are completely missing the point of the links.  I'm probably wasting my time explaining to but here goes...  The point is that normally evaluating players is a very subjective thing.  It is possible to list 5 players and have 10 different rankings from 10 different people.  But in this case, I dug around and found not one writer or blogger place Griffey ahead of Bonds.   The overwhelming consensus is that Bonds was indeed the better player.  This is not a case of handpicking 5 idiots who think 2+2=8.  I went out of my way to find lists with Griffey ahead of Bonds.  I couldn't find one.  So...  Either your evaluation is biased and based on faulty ideas or EVERYONE else in the world is wrong.  Which do you think is most likely?

Of course Bonds stats were better.  It is the only way to accurately measure the skills.  What you are doing (and I'm simplifying this down for you) is claiming sprinter Jones is better than sprinter Smith because Jones' smooth running style and fundamentals are superior...  Even though sprinter Smith consistently runs every race faster.

I've already addressed the better career thing.  That cannot be argued.  That's even more subjective than who the better player is.  Player stats can be measured.  The better career is more heavily weighted on what the individual person values.  One could argue that Derek Jeter had a better career than Bonds.  Yet Bonds was clearly the better baseball player.  I'm not arguing the better career.  I'm saying Bonds was the better player.   As far as who had the better career between Bonds and Griffey?  In my view it's too close to call.  Both players got to play for their favorite team.  Both players made a ton of money.  Neither won a team title.  So that could easily go either way.

Injuries are no excuse.  You can't say "what it" when it comes to evaluating who was better.  If one player actually did it while the other struggled with injuries that's just too bad.  Yes, Bonds on the 'roids probably returned to the field a little faster than he would otherwise had.  But for all we know, Griffey used them too.  It is a slippery slope to bash a player and not another for steroid use.  It was what it was.  Just accept that most players were using something under the table and move on.  Oh, and guess what?  Most players TODAY are using something under the table.  That will never change as long as the money is there.

Bonds ran down fly balls with the best of them.  You rag on his D but the reality it was quite good.  He was fast.  He ran down flys many other could not.  And he made up for his lack of arm strength (that's why he played left, BTW) by playing the corners and cutting down angles better than anyone else.  Was he as flashy as Griffey or Bo Jackson?  Nope.  But was better at fielding than Bo and was a hair behind Griffey at it.  I'd also be curious where you get stats for average home run distance.  Didn't think those numbers went too far back. 

It is ironic that you claim I speak out of both sides of my mouth.  Of course, you gave no examples of me doing such.  That is expected from you.  But you claimed that steroids helped Bonds hit for more power and yet his home run distance is less than Jackson and Griffey.  I guess that is statistically possible but it seems extremely unlikely.  Further still... NO ONE is claiming Bo Jackson was a better baseball player than Bonds.  There have been players who hit more towering homers than Bonds.  There have been players who stole more bases than Bonds.  There are a few players who got on base better than Bonds.  There are players who fielded balls better than Bonds.  But there was NO ONE who did all those things better than Bonds.  Not sure why you don't understand this....  Especially if you are as baseball savvy as you like to present yourself.

12/14/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Forgive me for actually coming up with data to support my conclusion....  We both know you will ignore it and just repeat yourself....

Yes I did repeat myself, for you have not say anything different, final stats is what you are looking at to determine who was better, which all four of those opinions did, and with each one claims Griffey was a better player, but due to injuries his number where not as great, which knocked him down on that person's list. Well, expect the professors who said email me and where you disagree and we  can talk about it. 

you still do not know the game and this is more proof of it as you took the word of the Bleacher report wow... and these guys went against the theory of you other one which talked about how hitting and steroids.


So yes your data is other people opinions what is new there.

12/14/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
It's obvious to even the dimmest of minds that my conclusion on this matter trumps yours.  All you have is "because I am wright".  And the unsubstaniated, "You don't know baseball". 

I gave the the facts.  The stats.  And now I give you the fact that I am not alone in my assessment...

I've been trying to find someone..  Sportswriter, blogger...  Someone somewhere who shares your opinion of Griffey being better than Bonds.  Can't find one.  Every list I see, be it top hitters or top players overall has Bonds ahead of Griffey. 

A mathematics professor at Lehigh University came up with this...

The BleacherReport writer made his opinion when he came up with the 50 best players all time.  Bonds was #5.  Griffey didn't make his list.

This guy at Motown Sports revival comes closest to you in that he acknowleges Bonds steroid use and hates him for it, but still ranks him as #5 player all time.  Griffey is not on the list.

Baseball Guru.com ranks Bonds better...

That is just 4 opinions sure.  But there are TONS more ranking Bonds better than Griffey.

Bleacher report is no different then those that write on here, it could be you doing the bleacher report, it does not give you any real insight into how to play the game. It is like saying Stephen A. Smith knows football and because he said Arron Rogers in better then Brett Farve it must be true, or Skip Bayless saying Lebron cannot finish in the 4th qrt, or Westbrook cannot play point guard.

Lehigh mathematics professor are you serious, these are the same people who cannot get the BCS right. The highest weighted criteria for hitting was MVP voting, so again you are taking from people around the country who in their minds thinks deserves MVP with no clear standard of what MVP is. MVP was not meant, for the player with the highest stats instead one who meant most to his team which looking at the last 20 years it has not been that way 98% of the times. Just because you won the MVP did not mean you were the best player in baseball that year.

Motown come read it dummy "I consider their accomplishments up to this point then assumed healthy reasonable, finish to their careers." and he had Griffey 40th on the list stated injuries is what brought him down. This guys opinion even thou you claim he is a Bonds hater, is about the player's accomplishments not who is the better player.... it is telling you who had the better career. As the last sentence in he statement about Griffey, "He may not finish his career as one of the top ten, but that doesn't not mean he isn't among the best ever" now this guy claims A-rod is average on the defensive side but rates him 24th on his list, showing you he has more importance on offensive stats. Stats seen on paper does not show you how well rounded one player is.


Baseball Guru again goes into how he rated the players he was looking at stats in the prime of careers and then put in some assuming formula for time missed, those who stayed to long and opt out early.


The issue with you in this is the same as before I have said countless time Bonds numbers were better then Griffeys which is what all 4 of these opinions are stating, no different then I what I have said. Now again get into the art of hitting and knowing how that works and which batter could do what where and none of these opinions can touch it nor can they go into which outfield could make catches in the outfield, throw the ball to what bases the actuate or from what distance. It does not show because of a certain player in the outfield how runners dared not to run on even if that field was moving back at the time close to the wall, instead being in short left field which an average player could hold someone. This is why you so easily dismiss Bo Jackson even thou he could run down balls in the outfield which Bonds could only dream of and throw the ball to any of the four base from deep center with 95% accuracy. You both up stealing bases going back and looking at the times Bonds ran was on catchers who were known not to have a strong arm and pitchers who were very slow to the plate, and a lot of times with a runner on third or with two outs and the pitcher was just going at the hitter not minding the runner. 

The whole argument you have again is Bonds stats were better and that is the same things which are being echo by these people whose opinions you bring in here. Everything you bring will say the same thing Bonds had a better career, he did not get serious injured and like it or not steroids help in that and prolonging his career 4-5 years.

So yes, I will say it again Bonds had a better career that Griffey, no questions Griffey's was slammed with injuries that shorten his performance on the field, if he would have taken medicine (steroids) he could have healed faster, for it is known that is what steroids do, besides build muscle mass and energy. We can go back and look at the film where even Bo Jackson can be thrown in there where ball hit in the outfield Jackson and Griffey could run them down and make the plays which Bonds would not have been able too. Yes, Bonds could catch, but in no way run down the balls as Jackson, or Griffey, and others. Then go into how Jackson, Griffey showing off how they held b/r and runners because of not only the strenght of his arm but the accuracy of the throw compare to Bonds. Bonds loses out on both, and you talked about power, Bonds average distance for HRs was 370 while Griffeys was 430 and Jackson 440.

Now because you like to throw these opinions out the ones you have here would contradict the one you had who was explaining hitting and steroids with Bonds earlier. That is the issue with you which I cannot help you, for you  talk out of both sides of your mouth and because you do not know the game, which is shown in the lack of knowledge of hitting and pitching I cannot turn on the light and show you were you are wrong.  So as I am glad you can read and no how to use GOOGLE, you are still wrong in who the better player is, but I will say it again Bonds did have a better career, with the use of steroids which helped him in more then one way. So you can throw up other peoples opinions of you is great but look at the formula that she/he are using to get the results.  

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Come back after you learn the game.

Forgive me for actually coming up with data to support my conclusion....  We both know you will ignore it and just repeat yourself....

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Come back after you learn the game.

It's obvious to even the dimmest of minds that my conclusion on this matter trumps yours.  All you have is "because I am wright".  And the unsubstaniated, "You don't know baseball". 

I gave the the facts.  The stats.  And now I give you the fact that I am not alone in my assessment...

I've been trying to find someone..  Sportswriter, blogger...  Someone somewhere who shares your opinion of Griffey being better than Bonds.  Can't find one.  Every list I see, be it top hitters or top players overall has Bonds ahead of Griffey. 

A mathematics professor at Lehigh University came up with this...

The BleacherReport writer made his opinion when he came up with the 50 best players all time.  Bonds was #5.  Griffey didn't make his list.

This guy at Motown Sports revival comes closest to you in that he acknowleges Bonds steroid use and hates him for it, but still ranks him as #5 player all time.  Griffey is not on the list.

Baseball Guru.com ranks Bonds better...

That is just 4 opinions sure.  But there are TONS more ranking Bonds better than Griffey.

12/13/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
And what evidence do you have to support that ridiculous theory?  Apart from disagreeing with you, the one all knowing baseball oracle...  The one who advises every baseball executive and scout on talent....

You must work for MLB in some capacity, right?  After all...  No one knows talent as well as you do.

Come back after you learn the game.

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Learn the game to where you can hold your own against my 10yr niece and then you can move up to the kiddy's table and we will see how things go from there; As you stand right now to much goes over your head.

And what evidence do you have to support that ridiculous theory?  Apart from disagreeing with you, the one all knowing baseball oracle...  The one who advises every baseball executive and scout on talent....

You must work for MLB in some capacity, right?  After all...  No one knows talent as well as you do.

12/13/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
And you have not explained what made my comments not worth "wild".  Accusations with nothing to back them up cannot be considered valid.

Learn the game to where you can hold your own against my 10yr niece and then you can move up to the kiddy's table and we will see how things go from there; As you stand right now to much goes over your head.

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You still have not said anything worth wild, nor do you know the game, which is why you are in the high chair.

And you have not explained what made my comments not worth "wild".  Accusations with nothing to back them up cannot be considered valid.

12/13/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Wow...  Just....  Wow.    All I said was "700"?    Look, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt here but come on...  You can't possibly be that dumb.  I like a good discussion.  Even enjoy a good argument.   But you can't have one if the other person just pretends entire comments never existed. 

You still have not said anything worth wild, nor do you know the game, which is why you are in the high chair.

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You have not said anything to rebut. All you kept saying is 700 so yes you had failed a long time ago. I cannot even say good try, to what you have done.

Wow...  Just....  Wow.    All I said was "700"?    Look, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt here but come on...  You can't possibly be that dumb.  I like a good discussion.  Even enjoy a good argument.   But you can't have one if the other person just pretends entire comments never existed. 

12/13/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Well, it seems trying to get you to respond to rebuttals with any kind of reason, fact, or even bringing anything new to the discussion is certain to end in failure.

You have not said anything to rebut. All you kept saying is 700 so yes you had failed a long time ago. I cannot even say good try, to what you have done.

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Yet again you failed.. try try again. Just like from the start you are still wrong. Back to your room and think it over so more.

Well, it seems trying to get you to respond to rebuttals with any kind of reason, fact, or even bringing anything new to the discussion is certain to end in failure.

12/13/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Ahh...  So he returns to the tactic of attempting to discredit the person rather than the evidence itself.  Many who are unable to support their position resort to that.  And you have made that play often. 

Further...  You have once again made allegations with no evidence whatsoever to back them up.  You think I'm lying.  Fine.  Tell me what I am lying about and then back it up with reasons why you think it a lie.  Spouting off "you have been wrong since the start of this thread" with nothing to back it up with makes you look to be confused at best.  Stubborn at worst. 

In the interest of getting out of this circular argument, do you have anything new to bring to the table?  Like an actual rebuttal supported with...  Oh I don't know...  FACTS?

Yet again you failed.. try try again. Just like from the start you are still wrong. Back to your room and think it over so more.

12/13/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Yes, Smoke, I have to just call you Smoke for you just keep blowing smoke, tell us another lie, as I said before you are like a child you has been caught lying and does not know when to stop. Do you are staying in the high chair no kiddy's table for you and you may have to sit in your room in time out for the constant lies, for you have been wrong since the start of this thread.

Ahh...  So he returns to the tactic of attempting to discredit the person rather than the evidence itself.  Many who are unable to support their position resort to that.  And you have made that play often. 

Further...  You have once again made allegations with no evidence whatsoever to back them up.  You think I'm lying.  Fine.  Tell me what I am lying about and then back it up with reasons why you think it a lie.  Spouting off "you have been wrong since the start of this thread" with nothing to back it up with makes you look to be confused at best.  Stubborn at worst. 

In the interest of getting out of this circular argument, do you have anything new to bring to the table?  Like an actual rebuttal supported with...  Oh I don't know...  FACTS?

12/13/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Well, eventually you are kind of correct.  Yes, this is going round and round because you have constantly ignored what was said in rebuttal to your conclusions.  It goes like this...  You say something.  I counter what you said and offer up evidence to support why.  You ignore or just blow off said evidence and just repeat your comment again.  The genesis behind the circle here is you.

Your quotes from me do not support your claim.  Check again. You constantly claimed that a single (as in ONE) stat does not make a player better. And I agreed entirely.  But EVERY stat is more than a single stat. That DOES say something.  Learn the language better and you won't make that kind of mistake.  And in case you decide to be stubborn about it...  Go ahead and tell me where in the comment "when a player leads another in EVERY category...  Then yes...  That player is better." does it mean a player with a single better stat is the better player?

I'm very curious about how you are going to spin that one...

PS...  It really is hilarious that the person who thinks an OPS of 1.051 is worse than an OPS of .907.  But that is just one stat.  This person also thinks that 762 homers is not as good as 630.  But wait, that is just two stats.  How about thinking that 5271 total bases is better than 5976?  Wait, that is just 3 stats.  This person also thinks that winning 1 MVP and finishing 2nd another time is better than 7 MVP's and 2 2nd place totals.  Wait, that is just idiot sports writers voting.  This person also thinks that 184 SB's with a success rate of .727 is better than 515 SBs with a success rate of .784.  And there are a ton more where that came from.  It is not just one or two stats.  It is an avalanche of data that supports it.  Dude, it is obvious to even the most simple mind that you are 100% on the wrong side of this discussion.  I don't think you are that stupid.  I have a hard time thinking anyone is.  I think you are intentionally playing ignorant to all of this just because you are too proud to admit you are wrong.   Please, either admit to it or at least come up with something new to support your case.  At least then you would take the thread out of this endless loop....

Yes, Smoke, I have to just call you Smoke for you just keep blowing smoke, tell us another lie, as I said before you are like a child you has been caught lying and does not know when to stop. Do you are staying in the high chair no kiddy's table for you and you may have to sit in your room in time out for the constant lies, for you have been wrong since the start of this thread.

12/12/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
I cannot rebut when you don't anything to, you just go round and round.

Wait you never claim a higher stat makes you a better player, . " I guess based on evidence like knowing that 700 is more than 600 I just don't understand reason.  Gee...  You sure got me there.", "when a player leads another in EVERY category...  Then yes...  That player is better." you did not say this. That's right it is what you do make statements and then say I did not claim that, dude you lie and contradict every thing you say.

Of course you laugh people who true do not understand something laugh at because it is beyond their level, I am happy you are laughing for you have all ready shown you do not know what it takes to be a hitter or even a power hitter, and pitching well you are just as lost.
(Edited by ML31)

Well, eventually you are kind of correct.  Yes, this is going round and round because you have constantly ignored what was said in rebuttal to your conclusions.  It goes like this...  You say something.  I counter what you said and offer up evidence to support why.  You ignore or just blow off said evidence and just repeat your comment again.  The genesis behind the circle here is you.

Your quotes from me do not support your claim.  Check again. You constantly claimed that a single (as in ONE) stat does not make a player better. And I agreed entirely.  But EVERY stat is more than a single stat. That DOES say something.  Learn the language better and you won't make that kind of mistake.  And in case you decide to be stubborn about it...  Go ahead and tell me where in the comment "when a player leads another in EVERY category...  Then yes...  That player is better." does it mean a player with a single better stat is the better player?

I'm very curious about how you are going to spin that one...

PS...  It really is hilarious that the person who thinks an OPS of 1.051 is worse than an OPS of .907.  But that is just one stat.  This person also thinks that 762 homers is not as good as 630.  But wait, that is just two stats.  How about thinking that 5271 total bases is better than 5976?  Wait, that is just 3 stats.  This person also thinks that winning 1 MVP and finishing 2nd another time is better than 7 MVP's and 2 2nd place totals.  Wait, that is just idiot sports writers voting.  This person also thinks that 184 SB's with a success rate of .727 is better than 515 SBs with a success rate of .784.  And there are a ton more where that came from.  It is not just one or two stats.  It is an avalanche of data that supports it.  Dude, it is obvious to even the most simple mind that you are 100% on the wrong side of this discussion.  I don't think you are that stupid.  I have a hard time thinking anyone is.  I think you are intentionally playing ignorant to all of this just because you are too proud to admit you are wrong.   Please, either admit to it or at least come up with something new to support your case.  At least then you would take the thread out of this endless loop....

12/12/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
So...  Essentially no change.  No actual argument from you.  No actual rebuttal to anything I said.  No facts to back up your position.  Just more nonsense about me not knowing what I am talking about and not even backing that up with examples.  That seems to be your MO.

So...  Going by your own definition of fool it seems I still don't qualify as I never claimed that a higher stat makes a player better. 

Thanks for the laughs, BTW.  Your ignorance has been made all the more entertaining because of it's accompanying arrogance. 

I cannot rebut when you don't anything to, you just go round and round.

Wait you never claim a higher stat makes you a better player, . " I guess based on evidence like knowing that 700 is more than 600 I just don't understand reason.  Gee...  You sure got me there.", "when a player leads another in EVERY category...  Then yes...  That player is better." you did not say this. That's right it is what you do make statements and then say I did not claim that, dude you lie and contradict every thing you say.

Of course you laugh people who true do not understand something laugh at because it is beyond their level, I am happy you are laughing for you have all ready shown you do not know what it takes to be a hitter or even a power hitter, and pitching well you are just as lost.

12/12/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
With your lack of knowledge of he game you cannot even use ignorance as an excuse. There is no attacking listen to what you write you do not know the game or players as well as you think. You have nothing and brought nothing to this whole thing, you can say it is flawed, and as I said before using your own argument then you were dead wrong on saying the Giants pitching staff was better the the Philles. so work on your math, but learn the game one day it may even make sense to you.  

NOPE a person is a fool if they continue to say that a higher stat make a player better the another.

So...  Essentially no change.  No actual argument from you.  No actual rebuttal to anything I said.  No facts to back up your position.  Just more nonsense about me not knowing what I am talking about and not even backing that up with examples.  That seems to be your MO.

So...  Going by your own definition of fool it seems I still don't qualify as I never claimed that a higher stat makes a player better. 

Thanks for the laughs, BTW.  Your ignorance has been made all the more entertaining because of it's accompanying arrogance. 

12/11/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Ignorance sure looks like it is bliss.  Or do you suffer from dementia?   We have already been through the numbers thing.  It was already addressed.  Your argument was addressed.  Flawlessly at that.  Your response was not to address what was said but rather to just tell me what table I should be sitting at. 
If you are truly confident with your position one would think you would actually address the comments rather than attacking the person who delivers them.

Some pretty heavy hypocrisy going on when you throw the term "fool" around.

With your lack of knowledge of he game you cannot even use ignorance as an excuse. There is no attacking listen to what you write you do not know the game or players as well as you think. You have nothing and brought nothing to this whole thing, you can say it is flawed, and as I said before using your own argument then you were dead wrong on saying the Giants pitching staff was better the the Philles. so work on your math, but learn the game one day it may even make sense to you.  

NOPE a person is a fool if they continue to say that a higher stat make a player better the another.

12/11/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Good job CPT Obvious, you caught me I responded to my own post. 

You still have a lack of knowledge of baseball, but you knowing 700 is more then 600 I can tell you passed math, wont your parents be proud.

I know you are slow at this slow yet again better numbers does not make you a better player, only a fool would claim such a thing.

Ignorance sure looks like it is bliss.  Or do you suffer from dementia?   We have already been through the numbers thing.  It was already addressed.  Your argument was addressed.  Flawlessly at that.  Your response was not to address what was said but rather to just tell me what table I should be sitting at. 
If you are truly confident with your position one would think you would actually address the comments rather than attacking the person who delivers them.

Some pretty heavy hypocrisy going on when you throw the term "fool" around.

12/11/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Yeah...  Well I'm not the one responding to his own posts.

And sure.  I guess based on evidence like knowing that 700 is more than 600 I just don't understand reason.  Gee...  You sure got me there.

What else you got, detective?

Good job CPT Obvious, you caught me I responded to my own post. 

You still have a lack of knowledge of baseball, but you knowing 700 is more then 600 I can tell you passed math, wont your parents be proud.

I know you are slow at this slow yet again better numbers does not make you a better player, only a fool would claim such a thing.

12/11/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
dude you are laughable, as you continue to show your lack of knowledge in baseball, there is no debating myself, again here is you blowing more smoke out there. Common sense and reason eludes you so much as we can all tell in the things you write on here about baseball. So thank you for playing but you still must sit at the high chair, you are not even ready for the kiddy's table. Maybe in a few years.

Yeah...  Well I'm not the one responding to his own posts.

And sure.  I guess based on evidence like knowing that 700 is more than 600 I just don't understand reason.  Gee...  You sure got me there.

What else you got, detective?

12/11/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
In addition to not being able to support your personal attacks, it seems you are also debating your position with yourself.  I hope the side that supports reason wins out of the side that support emotion based evaluations.

dude you are laughable, as you continue to show your lack of knowledge in baseball, there is no debating myself, again here is you blowing more smoke out there. Common sense and reason eludes you so much as we can all tell in the things you write on here about baseball. So thank you for playing but you still must sit at the high chair, you are not even ready for the kiddy's table. Maybe in a few years.

12/11/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
We have been down the route all ready, you have been shown and told over and over, and as always you go off somewhere else and do not stay with the subject. Not worth doing again.

In addition to not being able to support your personal attacks, it seems you are also debating your position with yourself.  I hope the side that supports reason wins out of the side that support emotion based evaluations.

12/11/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Yes you are it is in your writing glad you can see it. Admitting your issue is the first step.

We have been down the route all ready, you have been shown and told over and over, and as always you go off somewhere else and do not stay with the subject. Not worth doing again.

12/11/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Yes you are it is in your writing glad you can see it. Admitting your issue is the first step.

That's hilarious... 

This should be good for another laugh...    Why don't you tell me exactly what I have been hypocritical about?

(he asks expecting something stupidly funny)

12/11/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You were saying something about coming back with nothing at all?


Can you say "hypocrite"?

Yes you are it is in your writing glad you can see it. Admitting your issue is the first step.

12/10/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Wow what a surprise you come back and say nothing at all, just more blowing more smoke.

You were saying something about coming back with nothing at all?


Can you say "hypocrite"?

12/10/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
It was quite as overt but you are still relying on personal attacks rather than on facts that support your case.   Your only argument in favor of Griffey is that I don't know what I'm talking about.  You have still yet to produce anything to suggest that in the end, when all is said and done...  That Griffey was a better player than Bonds.  You need something more than, "because I know everything and I say so".  Most people require evidence. 

I did see the Bo documentary.  He was a great athlete no question.  But Bonds was still the better baseball player by far.  Bo wasn't even one of the best baseball players when he played.  He was raw, unrefined talent.  He had potential.  But, and here his one of the many places your assessments of players fall apart...  Superior potential does not = superior player. 

Griffey did have some superior seasons. sure.  But what you continue to fail to comprehend is a few better seasons does NOT make a player better.  When all is said and done, and you look at the entire picture, taking everything into consideration there is absolutely no question Bonds was the superior hitter and even the better player overall. 

All set for you to come back with more insults and put downs...  Maybe some half truths but that's about as far as you can go...

Wow what a surprise you come back and say nothing at all, just more blowing more smoke.

12/9/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Facts are all out there you just refuse to see them, we both know Griffey outshine Bonds before bonds took steroids, yes Bonds had better career number again does not make him a better player and only a fool would go on thinking it does. now you have lost seat at the kiddy's table, you are now going to be put in a high chair. Stating 5, the Philles still had better starting rotation, for one, and for two, NO  you did say CAIN, LINCECUM AND SANCHEZ Were better then LEE and Hamel and CAIN AND LINCECUM were Better then HALLADAY, so once again you have lied, but seeing ho0w we knew you would because that is your MO. blow a bunch of smoke out there so that hopefully others will not see the truth and stay away from the point. The point of this whole bar was a better player, and the facts smacked you in the face, you just insist on talking about career stats as if it makes you a better player, saying that if someone got injured then that makes him a less better player then someone else which is completely stupid.


You started out with nothing and now you even lost your seat at the kiddy's table. What a shame. Watch BO on ESPN, because even there they will show you are all the stars came out to watch Bo hit because know could believe that he was hitting the ball that far no matter where the pitch was and making the plays in the outfield which on Bonds best day he could not do, stealing bases I wont get into because at one time Kevin McReyonlds held the record for the most consecutive stolen bases without getting caught. That did not make him the best base stealer or the great player, and only a dope would bring stuff like that up.

Had a player complain once in a basketball game why aren't I playing more coach, I had less fouls then Tommy, so I am playing better defensive. The coach responded with just because you had less fouls did not mean you were playing better defense, just as scoring more points did not mean you were playing better offense.  Now I know this player by the look on his face and yes I asked later if he knew what the coach meant and he had shaked his head no, and you are a lot like this little girl who seemed so lost on how to judge the value of player. You what to throw out numbers and deny steroids had anything to do with, and disclaim when both Griffey and Bonds were not on the same playing field prior to Bonds' used of steroids were Griffey out did Bonds even while getting serious hurt is just laughable. Just as is was you talking almighty about Sanchez saying ask the Padres how good he is when they were one of the worst hitting teams in the league, just because he threw a no-hitter. Sad, just sad, how not only do you say these things you really believe them.  

It was quite as overt but you are still relying on personal attacks rather than on facts that support your case.   Your only argument in favor of Griffey is that I don't know what I'm talking about.  You have still yet to produce anything to suggest that in the end, when all is said and done...  That Griffey was a better player than Bonds.  You need something more than, "because I know everything and I say so".  Most people require evidence. 

I did see the Bo documentary.  He was a great athlete no question.  But Bonds was still the better baseball player by far.  Bo wasn't even one of the best baseball players when he played.  He was raw, unrefined talent.  He had potential.  But, and here his one of the many places your assessments of players fall apart...  Superior potential does not = superior player. 

Griffey did have some superior seasons. sure.  But what you continue to fail to comprehend is a few better seasons does NOT make a player better.  When all is said and done, and you look at the entire picture, taking everything into consideration there is absolutely no question Bonds was the superior hitter and even the better player overall. 

All set for you to come back with more insults and put downs...  Maybe some half truths but that's about as far as you can go...

12/8/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Interesting...  So...  Bonds is not better than Griffey even though he out does Griffey in EVERY offensive category....  But Rose, Biggio, Brett, Aaron, Molitor and Ripken are better because they hit more doubles than Bonds.   You know Chief...  That is so unbelievably effed up I don't even know where to begin. 
Further...  Who said anything about Aaron sucking?  It sure didn't come from me.  Aaron is one of the all time greats.  But by your logic, I guess he sucks.

No one here was talking about basketball either.  That analogy is falling on deaf ears.

If a player has better numbers in one or a few categories, that does not necessarily make him the better player.  But when a player leads another in EVERY category...  Then yes...  That player is better.  No question.  You seem to forget too that I saw most of Bonds' games once he came to SF.  I have never seen a more disciplined hitter in my life.  And his #'s reflect that.  It was amazing that he did what he did while rarely getting pitched to.  If you want to dredge up old arguments (that aren't even relevant) then at least try to get them right.  I said the Giants starting 5 was better than the Phillies starting 5 at the time.  And I stand by that today. 

It's amusing that your comments are filled with insults and put downs.  Which is exactly what people who know they are wrong but refuse to admit it do.  As if insulting the light will make it stop.  News flash:  It doesn't work.  With every post you discredit yourself more and more. 

Now I just have to sit back and let you cry more about what an idiot I am.  I wonder if you will have new put downs for me in your next post?  We both know you don't have any facts....

Facts are all out there you just refuse to see them, we both know Griffey outshine Bonds before bonds took steroids, yes Bonds had better career number again does not make him a better player and only a fool would go on thinking it does. now you have lost seat at the kiddy's table, you are now going to be put in a high chair. Stating 5, the Philles still had better starting rotation, for one, and for two, NO  you did say CAIN, LINCECUM AND SANCHEZ Were better then LEE and Hamel and CAIN AND LINCECUM were Better then HALLADAY, so once again you have lied, but seeing ho0w we knew you would because that is your MO. blow a bunch of smoke out there so that hopefully others will not see the truth and stay away from the point. The point of this whole bar was a better player, and the facts smacked you in the face, you just insist on talking about career stats as if it makes you a better player, saying that if someone got injured then that makes him a less better player then someone else which is completely stupid.


You started out with nothing and now you even lost your seat at the kiddy's table. What a shame. Watch BO on ESPN, because even there they will show you are all the stars came out to watch Bo hit because know could believe that he was hitting the ball that far no matter where the pitch was and making the plays in the outfield which on Bonds best day he could not do, stealing bases I wont get into because at one time Kevin McReyonlds held the record for the most consecutive stolen bases without getting caught. That did not make him the best base stealer or the great player, and only a dope would bring stuff like that up.

Had a player complain once in a basketball game why aren't I playing more coach, I had less fouls then Tommy, so I am playing better defensive. The coach responded with just because you had less fouls did not mean you were playing better defense, just as scoring more points did not mean you were playing better offense.  Now I know this player by the look on his face and yes I asked later if he knew what the coach meant and he had shaked his head no, and you are a lot like this little girl who seemed so lost on how to judge the value of player. You what to throw out numbers and deny steroids had anything to do with, and disclaim when both Griffey and Bonds were not on the same playing field prior to Bonds' used of steroids were Griffey out did Bonds even while getting serious hurt is just laughable. Just as is was you talking almighty about Sanchez saying ask the Padres how good he is when they were one of the worst hitting teams in the league, just because he threw a no-hitter. Sad, just sad, how not only do you say these things you really believe them.  

12/7/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
It is easy to put you back in place at the kiddy's table, you do not know baseball that well. Put you in your place when you first stated Bonds was better. Again you do not know base ball, nor do you know how to rate a player. Rose, Biggio, Brett, Arron, Molitor Ripken, are just few who hit more doubles then Bonds Gwynn hit more triples, hit I wont even get into because you are so lost. WALKS, just he has the most lets party, did so in less games then a lead off man Ricky Henderson and in third is Ruth who played 483 games less then Bonds, but then going by your article you can not judge BA HRS, SLG% WALKS because of the pitchers you face, and how each umpire calls the game, the balls used, and many more things, or  is that only an excuse for people who use steroids? Oh yeah Hank Arron must have sucked, we should remove him from the HoF, I believe he lead the league in hitting into double plays 3 or 4 seasons shame on him, and those voted him in. Must not have that good because of that. SMH.....

Just as most people believe Michael Jordan is the best the ever played basketball, and do you what Mike does not have the most points, or the highest FG%, 3FG%, or Assists, Rebounds or Games played, and why do people still say he was the best? Numbers cannot show you who was the best that is why you are lost and it is easy to put you in your place because when you type something out it really shows your lack of knowledge of not only the game but how the players played the game.

Bonds had better career numbers, WOW serious that does not make him better then one other person to play the game.You come on here and claim that Lincecum and Cain are better then Lee, but by your own retarded logic, because Lee has more Wins CG, SHO and SO, beat Licecum in WHIP and just higher then Cain, so by going straight stats Lee is the better pitcher hands down between him, Cain and Licecum. I will not throw Jon Sanchez in the debate because it was just stupid that you had even mention hos name in the conversation about the better pitcher. You even had Sanchez better then Cole Hamels.

Still with that awesome logic you have my nephew has to be smarter then Albert Einstein because he got better grades in high school WOW you did it you solve the answers to life, the better the the better the person. hahahahahahah you are to much. You are like a child who has been caught lying, you just not know when to stop because you have all ready been caught and you are way out of your league. So again learn the game of baseball, realize there is more to stats in judging how great a player was, and saying he has the best number just make you look silly. Remember players who had his career cut short because of injuries or death, does not someone with better numbers was a better player, just they had a better career. Anyone who says different because they should not be walking the streets alone. SO DON'T BE A FOOL, STAY IN SCHOOL!!!!!
(Edited by ML31)

Interesting...  So...  Bonds is not better than Griffey even though he out does Griffey in EVERY offensive category....  But Rose, Biggio, Brett, Aaron, Molitor and Ripken are better because they hit more doubles than Bonds.   You know Chief...  That is so unbelievably effed up I don't even know where to begin. 
Further...  Who said anything about Aaron sucking?  It sure didn't come from me.  Aaron is one of the all time greats.  But by your logic, I guess he sucks.

No one here was talking about basketball either.  That analogy is falling on deaf ears.

If a player has better numbers in one or a few categories, that does not necessarily make him the better player.  But when a player leads another in EVERY category...  Then yes...  That player is better.  No question.  You seem to forget too that I saw most of Bonds' games once he came to SF.  I have never seen a more disciplined hitter in my life.  And his #'s reflect that.  It was amazing that he did what he did while rarely getting pitched to.  If you want to dredge up old arguments (that aren't even relevant) then at least try to get them right.  I said the Giants starting 5 was better than the Phillies starting 5 at the time.  And I stand by that today. 

It's amusing that your comments are filled with insults and put downs.  Which is exactly what people who know they are wrong but refuse to admit it do.  As if insulting the light will make it stop.  News flash:  It doesn't work.  With every post you discredit yourself more and more. 

Now I just have to sit back and let you cry more about what an idiot I am.  I wonder if you will have new put downs for me in your next post?  We both know you don't have any facts....

12/7/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Yeah...  I guess the player with more home runs in fewer plate appearances, higher BA, higer OBP, higher OBS scored more runs, hit more doubles & triples, stole more bases, with the higher SB success rate, fewer K's, WAY more walks, higher slg% and grounded into fewer double plays than another player just isn't as good.

Well...  You put me in my place.

It is easy to put you back in place at the kiddy's table, you do not know baseball that well. Put you in your place when you first stated Bonds was better. Again you do not know base ball, nor do you know how to rate a player. Rose, Biggio, Brett, Arron, Molitor Ripken, are just few who hit more doubles then Bonds Gwynn hit more triples, hit I wont even get into because you are so lost. WALKS, just he has the most lets party, did so in less games then a lead off man Ricky Henderson and in third is Ruth who played 483 games less then Bonds, but then going by your article you can not judge BA HRS, SLG% WALKS because of the pitchers you face, and how each umpire calls the game, the balls used, and many more things, or  is that only an excuse for people who use steroids? Oh yeah Hank Arron must have sucked, we should remove him from the HoF, I believe he lead the league in hitting into double plays 3 or 4 seasons shame on him, and those voted him in. Must not have that good because of that. SMH.....

Just as most people believe Michael Jordan is the best the ever played basketball, and do you what Mike does not have the most points, or the highest FG%, 3FG%, or Assists, Rebounds or Games played, and why do people still say he was the best? Numbers cannot show you who was the best that is why you are lost and it is easy to put you in your place because when you type something out it really shows your lack of knowledge of not only the game but how the players played the game.

Bonds had better career numbers, WOW serious that does not make him better then one other person to play the game.You come on here and claim that Lincecum and Cain are better then Lee, but by your own retarded logic, because Lee has more Wins CG, SHO and SO, beat Licecum in WHIP and just higher then Cain, so by going straight stats Lee is the better pitcher hands down between him, Cain and Licecum. I will not throw Jon Sanchez in the debate because it was just stupid that you had even mention hos name in the conversation about the better pitcher. You even had Sanchez better then Cole Hamels.

Still with that awesome logic you have my nephew has to be smarter then Albert Einstein because he got better grades in high school WOW you did it you solve the answers to life, the better the the better the person. hahahahahahah you are to much. You are like a child who has been caught lying, you just not know when to stop because you have all ready been caught and you are way out of your league. So again learn the game of baseball, realize there is more to stats in judging how great a player was, and saying he has the best number just make you look silly. Remember players who had his career cut short because of injuries or death, does not someone with better numbers was a better player, just they had a better career. Anyone who says different because they should not be walking the streets alone. SO DON'T BE A FOOL, STAY IN SCHOOL!!!!!

12/7/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Again you have nothing..... continue with your sad try at what nothing... 1.051 does not make you better player, I understand how hard it is for you, not knowing how the game works, so when you learn the game come back.

Yeah...  I guess the player with more home runs in fewer plate appearances, higher BA, higer OBP, higher OBS scored more runs, hit more doubles & triples, stole more bases, with the higher SB success rate, fewer K's, WAY more walks, higher slg% and grounded into fewer double plays than another player just isn't as good.

Well...  You put me in my place.

12/7/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Says the person that thinks an OPS of 1.051 is worse than .907...

Again you have nothing..... continue with your sad try at what nothing... 1.051 does not make you better player, I understand how hard it is for you, not knowing how the game works, so when you learn the game come back.

12/7/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Of course you still have nothing to say, I can not discredit when you had nothing to start with. Learn the game first then come back andf talk

Says the person that thinks an OPS of 1.051 is worse than .907...

12/7/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Actually, Bo Jackson getting hurt and not performing as good as another player DOES mean he wasn't as good.  You are arguing that the extremely subjective measure of potential is the only way to judge players against each other.  I, on the other hand, am basing my player evaluation on real life measurable RESULTS from over an entire CAREER.


With every comment you make you discredit yourself further. 

Of course you still have nothing to say, I can not discredit when you had nothing to start with. Learn the game first then come back andf talk

12/7/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to baseball.


Again I know you are not staying with the class, NO ONE SAID CAREER.... just because some one had a better career does not mean they were a better player. Bo Jackson getting hurt and not being able to play does not mean he was not better then Bonds, nor does players who got involved in drugs and screwed his career. You are not getting this, when a 6yr can understand it.

Even when using a persons career you still do not understand how hitting or pitching works so you are still lost.

Actually, Bo Jackson getting hurt and not performing as good as another player DOES mean he wasn't as good.  You are arguing that the extremely subjective measure of potential is the only way to judge players against each other.  I, on the other hand, am basing my player evaluation on real life measurable RESULTS from over an entire CAREER.


With every comment you make you discredit yourself further. 

12/7/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
I am aware that no one stat tells you everything.  But the stats aren't meaningless either.  They do tell a part of the tale.  Use a number of different stats and how a player did becomes a little less foggy or subjective.  Subjectivity does play a role of course.  But it's pure foolishness to blatantly ignore the stats rendering them 100% worthless.

It is pitifully obvious that what little I do know is a crapload more than what you know.  At the very least, I know that to evaluate a player's career one must examine HIS CAREER!!   

You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to baseball.


Again I know you are not staying with the class, NO ONE SAID CAREER.... just because some one had a better career does not mean they were a better player. Bo Jackson getting hurt and not being able to play does not mean he was not better then Bonds, nor does players who got involved in drugs and screwed his career. You are not getting this, when a 6yr can understand it.

Even when using a persons career you still do not understand how hitting or pitching works so you are still lost.

12/6/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
As I said before you have no clue how to rate a player, total numbers do not tell you what kind of a player someone was. Of course you would think A-rod would be close to Bonds. You have shown your lack of knowledge of baseball over and over, you are like the guy who continues to say he is an umpire and complain about the rules and how MLB do not enforce them Like letting runners take off his helmet while running the bases and not calling him out. As he is wrong with the rules you are of the players who play the game. Continue to leave in your dream world of which player is better when the numbers and everything else that goes into judging proves you wrong.

I am aware that no one stat tells you everything.  But the stats aren't meaningless either.  They do tell a part of the tale.  Use a number of different stats and how a player did becomes a little less foggy or subjective.  Subjectivity does play a role of course.  But it's pure foolishness to blatantly ignore the stats rendering them 100% worthless.

It is pitifully obvious that what little I do know is a crapload more than what you know.  At the very least, I know that to evaluate a player's career one must examine HIS CAREER!!   

12/6/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Feel free to continue to think Griffey was better.  The numbers don't support it but hey...  Knock yourself out.

Hard to tell...  It sounds like you are claiming Mantle, Mays, Rose, Gwynn, Clemente, Banks, Robinson and Strawberry were all better than Bonds while McGwire, Snyder & Rodriguez were not.  Funny because Rodriguez and Mays are the only players I think one might be able to make a very good case for comparing to Bonds.  The others, Bonds was clearly better. 

As I said before you have no clue how to rate a player, total numbers do not tell you what kind of a player someone was. Of course you would think A-rod would be close to Bonds. You have shown your lack of knowledge of baseball over and over, you are like the guy who continues to say he is an umpire and complain about the rules and how MLB do not enforce them Like letting runners take off his helmet while running the bases and not calling him out. As he is wrong with the rules you are of the players who play the game. Continue to leave in your dream world of which player is better when the numbers and everything else that goes into judging proves you wrong.

12/6/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Blah, Blah, Griffey was a better player then Bonds, and I know a lot more then you think I do.

Micky Mantle, Willie Mays,  Pete Rose, Tony Gwynne, Roberto Clemente, Ernie Banks, Frank Robinson, Strawberry had more talent and would have loved have seen what he would have done without the drugs, but I would not put him above Bonds but real close. McGuire came into the league and hit 49Hrs looked as if he would set the majors on fire, but he was not the ball player Bonds was either. Yes I know some did not hit the ball as far as Bonds, instead they were a better pure hitter, and got them on the defense and running the bases. Duke Snider just missed being on the list. As for players that came up in the '90s, I do not see anyone really standing above Bonds even at A-rods best, I wold not rate him above Bonds neither would I rate Pujols above Bonds as a all around player.

Feel free to continue to think Griffey was better.  The numbers don't support it but hey...  Knock yourself out.

Hard to tell...  It sounds like you are claiming Mantle, Mays, Rose, Gwynn, Clemente, Banks, Robinson and Strawberry were all better than Bonds while McGwire, Snyder & Rodriguez were not.  Funny because Rodriguez and Mays are the only players I think one might be able to make a very good case for comparing to Bonds.  The others, Bonds was clearly better. 

12/6/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Not naivety.  Reason.  Unless Ken Griffey Jr personally confided in you and you two were close enough that he wouldn't lie to you... You have no idea what he may or may not have used.  It's presumptuous and even arrogant to claim otherwise.  Don't try and tell me that you and Griffey are best buds. 

Your 2nd paragraph was completely laughable and not even worth addressing.

So the Griffey argument is dead.  Is there any other player (apart from Bo Jackson) you think was better than Bonds in the last 50 years?

Blah, Blah, Griffey was a better player then Bonds, and I know a lot more then you think I do.

Micky Mantle, Willie Mays,  Pete Rose, Tony Gwynne, Roberto Clemente, Ernie Banks, Frank Robinson, Strawberry had more talent and would have loved have seen what he would have done without the drugs, but I would not put him above Bonds but real close. McGuire came into the league and hit 49Hrs looked as if he would set the majors on fire, but he was not the ball player Bonds was either. Yes I know some did not hit the ball as far as Bonds, instead they were a better pure hitter, and got them on the defense and running the bases. Duke Snider just missed being on the list. As for players that came up in the '90s, I do not see anyone really standing above Bonds even at A-rods best, I wold not rate him above Bonds neither would I rate Pujols above Bonds as a all around player.

12/6/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
It is not naive to say I do know, and beyond you to think you know what I know, my family and I have been in baseball a long time thank you. I have great reason why you compare Bonds without using to get a fair comparison to another player.

Only people who go out there and say well you don't know if he used or he is guilty are guilty people or those who are fighting on the side of people who are guilty. When you go to school for anatomy come back and let me know how the body reacts to steroids. there is tale tale signs 

Not naivety.  Reason.  Unless Ken Griffey Jr personally confided in you and you two were close enough that he wouldn't lie to you... You have no idea what he may or may not have used.  It's presumptuous and even arrogant to claim otherwise.  Don't try and tell me that you and Griffey are best buds. 

Your 2nd paragraph was completely laughable and not even worth addressing.

So the Griffey argument is dead.  Is there any other player (apart from Bo Jackson) you think was better than Bonds in the last 50 years?

12/6/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Except that when evaluating players you blow off entire portions of their careers for no good reason.  And I honestly do not see how anyone could claim that Bonds was not the best player in the last 50 years.  The numbers are just better than anyone else.  I'd say A-Rod possibly comes close.  But he didn't have Bonds plate discipline.  Nor did Griffey.  Both are sure fire Hall of Famers.  But neither were as good as Bonds.

I think you are mistaking the comments about Page to be more like it was better than they expected to see from a player of his advanced age.  Big difference.

You mean what goes for Bonds goes for all you suspect of using steroids.  Don't know why you don't suspect Ryan of it.  He is a prime candidate.  Oh that's right...  You have excuses for him and any other player who displayed a "steroid-esque" stat surge or played well late in their careers when most other players skills deteriorate. 

I never accused Griffey of using.  I just said you have no way of knowing he didn't.  Steroid use does not always involve giant muscles.  Look at Ryan Franklin.  How bulked up did he get?  Palmerio?  No one thought he used until his positive test.  Therefore, there is no reason to think any player, including Griffey, was clean.  In fact, it would probably be safe to think that the majority of players in the late 90's to early 2000's were using some form of chemistry.   It is naive and reckless to claim that you KNOW any player never used.  The cold hard fact is...  You don't know.  It's unbecoming to act like you do.

It is not naive to say I do know, and beyond you to think you know what I know, my family and I have been in baseball a long time thank you. I have great reason why you compare Bonds without using to get a fair comparison to another player.

Only people who go out there and say well you don't know if he used or he is guilty are guilty people or those who are fighting on the side of people who are guilty. When you go to school for anatomy come back and let me know how the body reacts to steroids. there is tale tale signs 

12/6/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
I have been evaluating  players' career for a long and know what I am looking at. Just as I said I would vote for Bonds for the HoF but in no way was he the greatest player in the 50 years.

There is no excuses, what goes for Bonds went for all those who took steroids, no bias no hate for any of the players. Because MLB looked the other way I do believe Bonds, McGwire and Sosa should be in the HoF despite the use of steroids; When it is A-rods turn he should get in too.

you make nothing but excuses and as for Page even at the end of his career he was still throwing as hard as he had when he started. People which had faced, talked about how fast his ball was still in his 40s, , yes his control was not as good, I was talking about how hard he was still throwing. I should have know you would have taken it another way, because we were talking about those who pitched into his 40s, and still throwing hard.


Wow going after and saying Griffy used serious, when taking steroids you have physical changes then cannot be hidden so yes I can say for certain that he was not. Of course someone who is just naturally that good must be using because your player was, which in your mind would justify your stance on how good you believe Bonds was. Truth still lies Griffey was better and did it without steroids.

Except that when evaluating players you blow off entire portions of their careers for no good reason.  And I honestly do not see how anyone could claim that Bonds was not the best player in the last 50 years.  The numbers are just better than anyone else.  I'd say A-Rod possibly comes close.  But he didn't have Bonds plate discipline.  Nor did Griffey.  Both are sure fire Hall of Famers.  But neither were as good as Bonds.

I think you are mistaking the comments about Page to be more like it was better than they expected to see from a player of his advanced age.  Big difference.

You mean what goes for Bonds goes for all you suspect of using steroids.  Don't know why you don't suspect Ryan of it.  He is a prime candidate.  Oh that's right...  You have excuses for him and any other player who displayed a "steroid-esque" stat surge or played well late in their careers when most other players skills deteriorate. 

I never accused Griffey of using.  I just said you have no way of knowing he didn't.  Steroid use does not always involve giant muscles.  Look at Ryan Franklin.  How bulked up did he get?  Palmerio?  No one thought he used until his positive test.  Therefore, there is no reason to think any player, including Griffey, was clean.  In fact, it would probably be safe to think that the majority of players in the late 90's to early 2000's were using some form of chemistry.   It is naive and reckless to claim that you KNOW any player never used.  The cold hard fact is...  You don't know.  It's unbecoming to act like you do.

12/5/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK...  Looking back it seems I misread your "better career" comment a number of posts down.  That being said, it doesn't take away from any of my other comments about Bonds being the better player.  Which is very hard to dispute.  The numbers show it to be the case.  And you know it.  That is why you try and remove more than 2/3 of the players career.  It's the only way you can support your case.  And even if you do that it is not as cut and dry as you say.  But I'm not going to entertain that.  Careers are judged based on their entire content.  Not a portion of it.  I can say the exact same thing about Griffey.  For all we know he used too.  You want to play the "what if?" game?  Then let's take numbers away from him too.  If steroids are as magic as you think, let's take all of Griffey's stats down to make up for it.  And please, don't insist he never did anything because there is no way you would know.

Your golf analogy makes no sense.  In actuality, good clubs will make you a little better.  I know.  I play the game and I'm not very good.  I got a new driver and hit the ball a bit better.  Just like a better glove will make a baseball player a little better in the field.  Further, there is no proof steroids made Bonds play better.  Why would the drug only affect some players but none of the hundreds of others who used?  Was Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, et al the only ones who used them correctly?  Puhleese....

How is the study biased?  The numbers are the numbers.  They were not fudged or faked in any way.  So you are claiming that before steroids existed players NEVER had their skills diminish over time?  Obviously you never read much of the study.  It did address the era issue you just brought up.Your theory is full of holes.

I never claimed pitching was hitting.  I claimed that power for both comes from the same source. I find it funny that you keep calling me the "idiot" here. You are the one who is not understanding the physics behind the transfer of power from body to bat to ball.  Power does indeed come from the legs.  There are plenty of sites to confirm this.  I'd but one up here but you never bothered with the other link I put up so I have no reason to think you would check out another link that suggests your preconceived notions are wrong.  Forearms and strong wrists is just as important as eyesight when it comes to making contact.  But power to consistently drive the ball comes from a proper transfer starting with the legs.

Of course, I should have figured you would come up with an excuse for everyone else who had similar state surges.  Maris was quite the "flash in the pan".  Funny how rare such a huge stat surge is...  And of course, no one pitches like Ryan did because of their "bad habits".  Nice.  You know, all this does is further discredit anything you have to say on the matter.  How do you know Bonds didn't have good training habits?  And again, you are completely ignoring the very real possibility that Griffey used as well.
You also need to be really sure of what you write.  Page pitched late but he was nowhere near what he was in his prime by any means.  He got by but those seasons in his 40's were pretty much him at almost his worst.

To be honest, I am actually quite floored that you can be so right on when it comes to interleague play and the expanded playoffs but so amazingly off base when it comes to evaluating a player's career.

I have been evaluating  players' career for a long and know what I am looking at. Just as I said I would vote for Bonds for the HoF but in no way was he the greatest player in the 50 years.

There is no excuses, what goes for Bonds went for all those who took steroids, no bias no hate for any of the players. Because MLB looked the other way I do believe Bonds, McGwire and Sosa should be in the HoF despite the use of steroids; When it is A-rods turn he should get in too.

you make nothing but excuses and as for Page even at the end of his career he was still throwing as hard as he had when he started. People which had faced, talked about how fast his ball was still in his 40s, , yes his control was not as good, I was talking about how hard he was still throwing. I should have know you would have taken it another way, because we were talking about those who pitched into his 40s, and still throwing hard.


Wow going after and saying Griffy used serious, when taking steroids you have physical changes then cannot be hidden so yes I can say for certain that he was not. Of course someone who is just naturally that good must be using because your player was, which in your mind would justify your stance on how good you believe Bonds was. Truth still lies Griffey was better and did it without steroids.

12/5/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Look that shows you how dumb you are, wher you cannot even read what is written. NOT ONE TIME DID I SAY WHO HOW A BETTER CAREER. Inside this whole thing has been about you saying he was the best in the last 50 yrs which is not true. Griffey was a better player and you cannot go by total stats for some players do not last as long. In bonds case if it was not for the steriods who knows how long or what stats he would have had. I know you live in this dream that steriods did not prolong his career.

Yes you can look at a 1/3 of a players career when yo uare looking at how he played without taking steriods, again in you dream world, some how we ignore this fact and say it did not help. Calling me ignorant, while making statements that steriods does not help, does not make you ingnat just stupid. As the saying goes in golf good clubs will not make you a better player, but a better player can do great things with good clubs. Bonds was good steriods made him better.

No it does not put the steriods era into prespective, it gives you a bias view for those who want to believe that steriods does not help a player. Look at all those who took steriods and continue to play after they stopped taking why did each playhers numbers dropped off big time. In your theory along with this article it should not have happen instead a player should have lost some power but not enough to take notice. Again we are not talking about a different ear when the balls were being called different or baseball decided to use a tighter ball. Just like many things you ramble on about on here you are way off base with the truth.

Power comes in the legs are you serious pitching is different then hitting you idiot Mantle, Strawberry, Kiner, Doby, Allen, Mays did not have hudge legs instead they had powerful forearms and wrists which is where the power comes from, which Mantle and Mcwire used to hit HRs out with one hand. Hank Aarron and even your boy Bonds look at the size of their wrist and you will see how big it is. Look at the work out they do and you will see how much they work on their forearms and wrists. Of course you have strong legs and hips and well a strong body core, but the most important is the wrist and forearms, which steriods helps out big time. Again you have no clue what it takes to be a home run hitter, which is why I said I can pick that article apart because of the lack of knowledge going in hitting it has in it.

Come please know the game of baseball before you come on here taking a stance on something you clearly do not know, please read what a home run hitter needs before coming here talking about how steriods does not help.

Maris wow again shows how stupid you are he was a flash in the pan, had one incrediable one, and one good season prior and after it, that does not make you are steriods you dope, Ryan really again I do believe Page pitched late in age and still had a blazing fast ball too. So did other pitchers who also pitched way more innings then the jokes we have now, because again of bad habits tearing up the players arms. Again you without realizing it it showing how steriods did influeence Bonds and yes other players, but we are on Bonds. His numbers inproved with it and dropped because of he came off it, it was not he had one great year, no instead he was on it for a long time. Yes he did want to play longer but of course enough experts pointed to all the other players who were on steriods for a great lenght of time how each players productivity had dropped off and

http://www.livestrong.com/article/449683-the-most-important-muscles-for-baseball/

http://www.baseballfarming.com/HittingBatSpeed-WristSnap.html

OK...  Looking back it seems I misread your "better career" comment a number of posts down.  That being said, it doesn't take away from any of my other comments about Bonds being the better player.  Which is very hard to dispute.  The numbers show it to be the case.  And you know it.  That is why you try and remove more than 2/3 of the players career.  It's the only way you can support your case.  And even if you do that it is not as cut and dry as you say.  But I'm not going to entertain that.  Careers are judged based on their entire content.  Not a portion of it.  I can say the exact same thing about Griffey.  For all we know he used too.  You want to play the "what if?" game?  Then let's take numbers away from him too.  If steroids are as magic as you think, let's take all of Griffey's stats down to make up for it.  And please, don't insist he never did anything because there is no way you would know.

Your golf analogy makes no sense.  In actuality, good clubs will make you a little better.  I know.  I play the game and I'm not very good.  I got a new driver and hit the ball a bit better.  Just like a better glove will make a baseball player a little better in the field.  Further, there is no proof steroids made Bonds play better.  Why would the drug only affect some players but none of the hundreds of others who used?  Was Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, et al the only ones who used them correctly?  Puhleese....

How is the study biased?  The numbers are the numbers.  They were not fudged or faked in any way.  So you are claiming that before steroids existed players NEVER had their skills diminish over time?  Obviously you never read much of the study.  It did address the era issue you just brought up.Your theory is full of holes.

I never claimed pitching was hitting.  I claimed that power for both comes from the same source. I find it funny that you keep calling me the "idiot" here. You are the one who is not understanding the physics behind the transfer of power from body to bat to ball.  Power does indeed come from the legs.  There are plenty of sites to confirm this.  I'd but one up here but you never bothered with the other link I put up so I have no reason to think you would check out another link that suggests your preconceived notions are wrong.  Forearms and strong wrists is just as important as eyesight when it comes to making contact.  But power to consistently drive the ball comes from a proper transfer starting with the legs.

Of course, I should have figured you would come up with an excuse for everyone else who had similar state surges.  Maris was quite the "flash in the pan".  Funny how rare such a huge stat surge is...  And of course, no one pitches like Ryan did because of their "bad habits".  Nice.  You know, all this does is further discredit anything you have to say on the matter.  How do you know Bonds didn't have good training habits?  And again, you are completely ignoring the very real possibility that Griffey used as well.
You also need to be really sure of what you write.  Page pitched late but he was nowhere near what he was in his prime by any means.  He got by but those seasons in his 40's were pretty much him at almost his worst.

To be honest, I am actually quite floored that you can be so right on when it comes to interleague play and the expanded playoffs but so amazingly off base when it comes to evaluating a player's career.

12/5/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
You call me the fool but your comments show precisely how ignorant you are to the situation.  First, you cannot judge a career based only on less than 1/3 of it.  You judge it based on 100%.  Your assessment that Griffey was better is based on small portions of a career.  It renders your argument pointless.  Using your same reasoning you could argue Joe DiMaggio was the greatest hitter ever because during his hitting streak he hit .408.  Of course there were seasons where players had better years than Bonds.  He didn't win 22 MVP's you know.  But we are talking about entire careers here.  Not small pieces of them.
Why are you ignoring the numbers that actually reflect on the entire career?  Last time I checked, Bonds played from 1986 to 2007.  Not just to 1993.  Tell me...  What is the better OPS...  1.051 or .907? 
You also undermine yourself with a multitude of errors.  Bonds wanted to play longer but no one would sign him.  His bat was still effective but he really could no longer field his position.  DH?  He wasn't that interested plus, teams didn't want to pay and put up with his act.  Besides, skills have to ebb away eventually.  Even to a great hitter like Bonds.  You are demonizing him for losing his skill just like it happens to every player. 
He also never claimed he took any steroid at all.  (at least knowingly).  Yet another item you claimed as fact that was actually a fabrication.
BTW...  I guess Roger Maris was on steroids too...  Just look at how his home runs jumped up.  Then he must have stopped using because look at how far down they crashed.  Same for Nolan Ryan.  No one could pitch as late in life as he did without steroid help.  Come on... 
McGwire was always a big home run hitter.  He holds the rookie record.  It's not surprising that when finally healthy he put together more big homer years.  Big muscular arms do nothing for power.  If you knew what you were talking about you would know this.  Power comes from the legs.  Lower body strength also helps one throw harder and farther.  Clemens and Ryan worked diligently on lower body strength their entire careers because of this.  But guess what?  That same lower body increase that Bonds had seemed to be very selective on what elements of the game it helped him with.  He never thew the ball any better.  You'd think that even without focusing on throwing the added strength would have done something there...   It didn't.  His speed diminished with age as well.  Didn't seem to help in that department either.
You obviously have not read the article or even a portion of it.  It does an excellent job of putting the "steroid era" into perspective.  People like yourself who think steroid is a magic pill that turns average players into supermen would do themselves some good to read and digest what is said there.

Look that shows you how dumb you are, wher you cannot even read what is written. NOT ONE TIME DID I SAY WHO HOW A BETTER CAREER. Inside this whole thing has been about you saying he was the best in the last 50 yrs which is not true. Griffey was a better player and you cannot go by total stats for some players do not last as long. In bonds case if it was not for the steriods who knows how long or what stats he would have had. I know you live in this dream that steriods did not prolong his career.

Yes you can look at a 1/3 of a players career when yo uare looking at how he played without taking steriods, again in you dream world, some how we ignore this fact and say it did not help. Calling me ignorant, while making statements that steriods does not help, does not make you ingnat just stupid. As the saying goes in golf good clubs will not make you a better player, but a better player can do great things with good clubs. Bonds was good steriods made him better.

No it does not put the steriods era into prespective, it gives you a bias view for those who want to believe that steriods does not help a player. Look at all those who took steriods and continue to play after they stopped taking why did each playhers numbers dropped off big time. In your theory along with this article it should not have happen instead a player should have lost some power but not enough to take notice. Again we are not talking about a different ear when the balls were being called different or baseball decided to use a tighter ball. Just like many things you ramble on about on here you are way off base with the truth.

Power comes in the legs are you serious pitching is different then hitting you idiot Mantle, Strawberry, Kiner, Doby, Allen, Mays did not have hudge legs instead they had powerful forearms and wrists which is where the power comes from, which Mantle and Mcwire used to hit HRs out with one hand. Hank Aarron and even your boy Bonds look at the size of their wrist and you will see how big it is. Look at the work out they do and you will see how much they work on their forearms and wrists. Of course you have strong legs and hips and well a strong body core, but the most important is the wrist and forearms, which steriods helps out big time. Again you have no clue what it takes to be a home run hitter, which is why I said I can pick that article apart because of the lack of knowledge going in hitting it has in it.

Come please know the game of baseball before you come on here taking a stance on something you clearly do not know, please read what a home run hitter needs before coming here talking about how steriods does not help.

Maris wow again shows how stupid you are he was a flash in the pan, had one incrediable one, and one good season prior and after it, that does not make you are steriods you dope, Ryan really again I do believe Page pitched late in age and still had a blazing fast ball too. So did other pitchers who also pitched way more innings then the jokes we have now, because again of bad habits tearing up the players arms. Again you without realizing it it showing how steriods did influeence Bonds and yes other players, but we are on Bonds. His numbers inproved with it and dropped because of he came off it, it was not he had one great year, no instead he was on it for a long time. Yes he did want to play longer but of course enough experts pointed to all the other players who were on steriods for a great lenght of time how each players productivity had dropped off and

http://www.livestrong.com/article/449683-the-most-important-muscles-for-baseball/

http://www.baseballfarming.com/HittingBatSpeed-WristSnap.html

12/5/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
You are a fool there is no question about it, BONDS as a Pirates hit .275 117HRs and OPS of .883, no where looking like he is headed to the hall. Compared to Griffey in Seattle (KINGDOME) he hit  .290 417HR and .927 and that includes the last two years of his career when he hit like crap, or we can take his stats as a Red, he hit .270 210HR and .876 OPS, that is with 3 years of having a serious injury and he still had a better OPS and more HRs and well his ave was just below Bonds.  So to claim Bonds was the best over the last 50 years is foolish and to go by career total with your article to back it up is even more foolish, as it has been shown that when a player comes off the steroids his body breaks down and so all of the power stats he had drop big time. Look at Bonds when he came off and he tried to play two more years his numbers dropped then look at A-rod his numbers did the same thing. Yes, a person can work out and hit the ball further or take steroids which gives not only the upper body but the lower body strenght and those who can all ready hit helps them out, and at no time did I say Bonds could not play, he is just not even close of being the best player over the 50 years. He claims he did not start taking steroids till he saw Sosa and McGwire going at in '98 please you can look how his body went through physical changes in the '90s which is when he started taking them He upped it just like many other players did in the mid and late '90s.

Yes I have read that article before and there is a lot of things wrong in there.

First when Mark broke Roger Maris' record hit a line shot over the LF fence with one arm, you cannot sit there and say if he did not take steroids he would have been strong enough to hit that out. No he was not prior to the steroids but with them he was strong enough to break the record using one arm.

The picture below shows Barry Bonds at a position that every hitter should try to pass through. Notice how his hands are rotating with, and just ahead of, his back shoulder and how his back elbow is tightly pinched. That is a hard position to get to, much less hold, because you are fighting centrifugal force.

What the steroids seemed to have done is they improved Barry Bonds' upper body strength, and in particular the strength of his biceps, and improved his ability to get to, and hold, the position above. That improved the compactness, and thus the efficiency, of his swing.
 

You call me the fool but your comments show precisely how ignorant you are to the situation.  First, you cannot judge a career based only on less than 1/3 of it.  You judge it based on 100%.  Your assessment that Griffey was better is based on small portions of a career.  It renders your argument pointless.  Using your same reasoning you could argue Joe DiMaggio was the greatest hitter ever because during his hitting streak he hit .408.  Of course there were seasons where players had better years than Bonds.  He didn't win 22 MVP's you know.  But we are talking about entire careers here.  Not small pieces of them.
Why are you ignoring the numbers that actually reflect on the entire career?  Last time I checked, Bonds played from 1986 to 2007.  Not just to 1993.  Tell me...  What is the better OPS...  1.051 or .907? 
You also undermine yourself with a multitude of errors.  Bonds wanted to play longer but no one would sign him.  His bat was still effective but he really could no longer field his position.  DH?  He wasn't that interested plus, teams didn't want to pay and put up with his act.  Besides, skills have to ebb away eventually.  Even to a great hitter like Bonds.  You are demonizing him for losing his skill just like it happens to every player. 
He also never claimed he took any steroid at all.  (at least knowingly).  Yet another item you claimed as fact that was actually a fabrication.
BTW...  I guess Roger Maris was on steroids too...  Just look at how his home runs jumped up.  Then he must have stopped using because look at how far down they crashed.  Same for Nolan Ryan.  No one could pitch as late in life as he did without steroid help.  Come on... 
McGwire was always a big home run hitter.  He holds the rookie record.  It's not surprising that when finally healthy he put together more big homer years.  Big muscular arms do nothing for power.  If you knew what you were talking about you would know this.  Power comes from the legs.  Lower body strength also helps one throw harder and farther.  Clemens and Ryan worked diligently on lower body strength their entire careers because of this.  But guess what?  That same lower body increase that Bonds had seemed to be very selective on what elements of the game it helped him with.  He never thew the ball any better.  You'd think that even without focusing on throwing the added strength would have done something there...   It didn't.  His speed diminished with age as well.  Didn't seem to help in that department either.
You obviously have not read the article or even a portion of it.  It does an excellent job of putting the "steroid era" into perspective.  People like yourself who think steroid is a magic pill that turns average players into supermen would do themselves some good to read and digest what is said there.

12/5/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Better be sure of yourself before you start throwing around the "fool" label.  It is foolish to say "just look".  That is not proof.  That is a guess.  A guess that is ruled by emotion and wishes rather than actual facts.  How about some proof that Bonds hit the ball further once he started using?  (late 90's is the consensus, BTW.  Not '93)  Regarding the better career...  That is subjective and depends on what you value.  Like how much money was made.  Or how beloved a player was.  Or how many games teams he was on won.  Or even titles won.  All of which is different for everyone.  I was arguing not who had the better career but who was the better baseball player.  More muscle does not translate into more home run distance. There is also no evidence steroids slows down muscle breakdown.  The only thing the evidence shows on how steroids could help a baseball player is help to speed up recovery from injuries.  Baseball is not about mass.  A linebacker in the NFL using could significantly improve his play.  But to just doesn't help a baseball player.  Where timing and form is just as important as bat speed.  Further...  How do you know when he stopped taking?  Impossible to tell just by offensive stats.  And who knows?  Maybe he never did...

I did show you the facts.  Do you want the link?  Just go to baseball-reference.com and look up Bonds and Griffey's numbers.  insisting an OPS of .907 is better than 1.051 doesn't help your case any.  Now you are saying that Bo Jackson was a better player?  Are you kidding me?  Jackson might have had the potential to be but again, I don't play the "what if?" game.  Jackson never realized what he might have been.  He had zero plate discipline.  As a player he oozed talent but it was unrefined.  He needed a lot of work and never did it because he insisted on playing in the NFL.  His less than 8 years if play produced an unimpressive .309 OBP and an equally unimpressive .784 OPS.  He never won a gold glove and had a .962 fielding avg.  Not bad but not impressive either.  He did rob the occasional home run leading people to think he was a little better than he was but that was about it.

Dude..  Get real.  I gave you the numbers.  You are the one who is refusing to perceive them.  All you have done was speak about your bias and what you wish were true.  You have not dished up one bit of certified fact to back up your claim.  I dished out undeniable facts.  And here is a link to an excellent study on the matter.  Not that you will read any of it or give what it says a fair shot...  But here it is.... 
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

You are a fool there is no question about it, BONDS as a Pirates hit .275 117HRs and OPS of .883, no where looking like he is headed to the hall. Compared to Griffey in Seattle (KINGDOME) he hit  .290 417HR and .927 and that includes the last two years of his career when he hit like crap, or we can take his stats as a Red, he hit .270 210HR and .876 OPS, that is with 3 years of having a serious injury and he still had a better OPS and more HRs and well his ave was just below Bonds.  So to claim Bonds was the best over the last 50 years is foolish and to go by career total with your article to back it up is even more foolish, as it has been shown that when a player comes off the steroids his body breaks down and so all of the power stats he had drop big time. Look at Bonds when he came off and he tried to play two more years his numbers dropped then look at A-rod his numbers did the same thing. Yes, a person can work out and hit the ball further or take steroids which gives not only the upper body but the lower body strenght and those who can all ready hit helps them out, and at no time did I say Bonds could not play, he is just not even close of being the best player over the 50 years. He claims he did not start taking steroids till he saw Sosa and McGwire going at in '98 please you can look how his body went through physical changes in the '90s which is when he started taking them He upped it just like many other players did in the mid and late '90s.

Yes I have read that article before and there is a lot of things wrong in there.

First when Mark broke Roger Maris' record hit a line shot over the LF fence with one arm, you cannot sit there and say if he did not take steroids he would have been strong enough to hit that out. No he was not prior to the steroids but with them he was strong enough to break the record using one arm.

The picture below shows Barry Bonds at a position that every hitter should try to pass through. Notice how his hands are rotating with, and just ahead of, his back shoulder and how his back elbow is tightly pinched. That is a hard position to get to, much less hold, because you are fighting centrifugal force.

What the steroids seemed to have done is they improved Barry Bonds' upper body strength, and in particular the strength of his biceps, and improved his ability to get to, and hold, the position above. That improved the compactness, and thus the efficiency, of his swing.
 

12/4/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
This is where you are a fool saying proof is not there you hit the ball further. Look how far he was hitting the ball prior to taking Steroids compare to after. The ball traveled a lot further, no one said any where that Griffey had a better career, so as for comparing Griffey and Bonds over 22yrs is another stupid thing and the only reason is because over the same period of time which neither (BONDS) took steroids Griffey outshine Bonds big time. So not does Steroids give you more muscle mass which makes you stronger it slows down the muscle breakdown as the body gets older. which is why we seen Bonds numbers drop big time once he came off the Steroids.


SHOW THOSE FACTS YOU, you live in a dream world claiming that steroids did not help Bonds out, just as you come off with something stupid about this number being less then that blah blah blah because you have nothing to back up you insane theory that Bonds was better. Hell Bo Jackson was superior to Bonds in power, defense, and speed the only thing Bonds had on Jackson, was that he was a better contact hitter.

You are the type of person who would claim the sky is black during the day, because when you close your eyes, all you see is black, meanwhile everyone else can see the blue sky right in front of them. You have no avalanche of fact of evidence, just your opinion, and as the saying goes opinions are like asses everyone has just more crap comes out of some more then others. So continue to sprout out crap for you have nothing else.

Better be sure of yourself before you start throwing around the "fool" label.  It is foolish to say "just look".  That is not proof.  That is a guess.  A guess that is ruled by emotion and wishes rather than actual facts.  How about some proof that Bonds hit the ball further once he started using?  (late 90's is the consensus, BTW.  Not '93)  Regarding the better career...  That is subjective and depends on what you value.  Like how much money was made.  Or how beloved a player was.  Or how many games teams he was on won.  Or even titles won.  All of which is different for everyone.  I was arguing not who had the better career but who was the better baseball player.  More muscle does not translate into more home run distance. There is also no evidence steroids slows down muscle breakdown.  The only thing the evidence shows on how steroids could help a baseball player is help to speed up recovery from injuries.  Baseball is not about mass.  A linebacker in the NFL using could significantly improve his play.  But to just doesn't help a baseball player.  Where timing and form is just as important as bat speed.  Further...  How do you know when he stopped taking?  Impossible to tell just by offensive stats.  And who knows?  Maybe he never did...

I did show you the facts.  Do you want the link?  Just go to baseball-reference.com and look up Bonds and Griffey's numbers.  insisting an OPS of .907 is better than 1.051 doesn't help your case any.  Now you are saying that Bo Jackson was a better player?  Are you kidding me?  Jackson might have had the potential to be but again, I don't play the "what if?" game.  Jackson never realized what he might have been.  He had zero plate discipline.  As a player he oozed talent but it was unrefined.  He needed a lot of work and never did it because he insisted on playing in the NFL.  His less than 8 years if play produced an unimpressive .309 OBP and an equally unimpressive .784 OPS.  He never won a gold glove and had a .962 fielding avg.  Not bad but not impressive either.  He did rob the occasional home run leading people to think he was a little better than he was but that was about it.

Dude..  Get real.  I gave you the numbers.  You are the one who is refusing to perceive them.  All you have done was speak about your bias and what you wish were true.  You have not dished up one bit of certified fact to back up your claim.  I dished out undeniable facts.  And here is a link to an excellent study on the matter.  Not that you will read any of it or give what it says a fair shot...  But here it is.... 
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

12/4/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
All of that stuff does matter because your one complaint about Bonds is that he took advantage of modern science.  A modern science that thus far, has no proof it actually helps players hit the ball further than normal.  I just took the argument to the next step.  Why not take the modern science and apply it to Honus Wagner?  Stan Musial?  Mickey Cochrane?  It's a slippery slope you are on.  Further, there is no evidence Griffey never used a banned substance either.  And if he did or didn't, it wouldn't change what he did on the field.

I am not looking at just one part of a career.  I am judging the career as a whole.  Using pieces of it to make your case just doesn't work.  I can do that and say that based on the games of September 7th, 1993, Mark Whiten was the greatest home run hitter of all time.

Really?  Bonds didn't hit more more power?  Let's look... Both played 22 years.  Bonds had 1,302 less plate appearances.  Meaning Griffey had a little more opportunity to have better numbers.
HRS:  Bonds 762.  Griffey  630.  Bonds 132 more homers and hit them more frequently.
Total Bases.  Bonds 5976.  Griffey: 5271.  Bonds had 705 more total bases in with fewer PA.
Slg:  Bonds: .607.  Griffey .538.  Bonds .069 higher. 
OPS:  Bonds 1.051.  Griffey .907.  Bonds .144 more.
OBP.  Bonds .444 (#6 ALL TIME!)  Griffey:  .370.  (#268 all time)
Bonds was intentionally walked 688 times and God only knows how many were of the unintentional variety.  Griffey?  246.  Yes, that speaks loads about who was hitting next but a difference of 442 is very significant.
Given all that, you still think Griffey was the better hitter?  Please tell me you are kidding around here...

Why would Griffey on roids (assuming he wasn't already) have a longer career than Bonds, who was also on them?  Makes no sense.  'Roids didn't extend his career.  They didn't keep him from getting hurt either.  If anything, they got him back on the field a little faster but Griffey STILL had 1300 more plate appearances.  So the idea that Griffey would have been better is ludicrous.  Besides, it is entirely possible Griffey was on them too.  You don't know he wasn't.  None of us do.

The bases loaded IW is not all I've got.  It was just a nice bit from a huge arsenal of reasons why Bonds was superior.  BTW...  Of those 5 IWs to Dawson in the game, how many came with the bases loaded?  None?  Thought so.  You named every player who got the IW with the bases loaded.  Doesn't happen often, does it?  Not only that, but I bet you could not come up with the circumstances for the IW.  I recall the Bonds one.  And know EXACTLY why it was done.  I cannot speak for the Hamilton one or any other the others though. 

Even without the bases loaded IW, there is still a planet sized avalanche of evidence to show why Bonds was clearly the superior hitter.  But none of that has ever swayed you it seems.  Forget about the facts.  Just go with what you wish were true.  In your world 607 is less than 538, 762 is less than 630 and 1051 is less than 907.

This is where you are a fool saying proof is not there you hit the ball further. Look how far he was hitting the ball prior to taking Steroids compare to after. The ball traveled a lot further, no one said any where that Griffey had a better career, so as for comparing Griffey and Bonds over 22yrs is another stupid thing and the only reason is because over the same period of time which neither (BONDS) took steroids Griffey outshine Bonds big time. So not does Steroids give you more muscle mass which makes you stronger it slows down the muscle breakdown as the body gets older. which is why we seen Bonds numbers drop big time once he came off the Steroids.


SHOW THOSE FACTS YOU, you live in a dream world claiming that steroids did not help Bonds out, just as you come off with something stupid about this number being less then that blah blah blah because you have nothing to back up you insane theory that Bonds was better. Hell Bo Jackson was superior to Bonds in power, defense, and speed the only thing Bonds had on Jackson, was that he was a better contact hitter.

You are the type of person who would claim the sky is black during the day, because when you close your eyes, all you see is black, meanwhile everyone else can see the blue sky right in front of them. You have no avalanche of fact of evidence, just your opinion, and as the saying goes opinions are like asses everyone has just more crap comes out of some more then others. So continue to sprout out crap for you have nothing else.

12/3/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
I am not sure how you are bringing things up off subject, we can always bring up former platers through out baseball and say yes think how great he would have been with modren medince, or travel, lights, knowlege on diet and exerise, like Mantle with his knee injury, (nothing about him being a drunk) and the fact he had a winter job instead of having the training facilties to take advantage of in theoffseason. None of that matters nor is that what we are talking about. Griffey was injured and took the propper medince to get better and rehap, with the legal use what ever he was given. where as Bonds did not, and abused the use of Steriods.

 Bonds did not hit with more power, nor was he a better hitter, look at the first 8 years of both of their career not only was Griffey a better hitter he hit for more power (more HRs and hit them further) and did it without Steriods. you have been wrong from the start with saying Bonds is the best in the 50 yrs. Flat out Griffey was supprior to bonds in Hitting, Power, Speed, and as a defensive outfielder. Hands now any GM, manager would have taking Griffey over Bonds for the same amount of money, and for the same year prior to Griffey getting seriously injured. with you little rant about Mantle, if griffey decided to use RIODS like Bonds, he could have had a longer and more prodictive career, just as when Bonds stop taking the RIODS his numbers dropped big time not only in Hrs but his batting average. You can lie to yourself and say that Bonds was better but the numbers do not lie, and Griffey did not only match Bonds, but was better in his years in Seattle then Bonds with the Pirates, because when he went to the Giants he was taking RIODs and his numbers are tainted from then on out.

IBB withthe bases loaded are you serious that is what you are going with, then Andre Dawson must be the most feared batter to ever played the game seeing how he is the only player to be IBB 5 straight times in a game so was he more feard then Bonds? Besides bonds is not the first to be IBB walked with bases loaded. Mantle was so fear when Maris hit 61 hrs in  a season not once was he IBB because Mantle hit behind him. SO WHAT you still have not point. You hade Abner Dalrymple, Nap Lajoie, Del Bissonette, Bill Nicholson, and Josh Hamilton, who all of them has beed IBB walked with the bases loaded. I am sure you do not know half of these players, they were not some big time hitter still IBB with the bases loaded, so that does not make you so feared. 

 

 

All of that stuff does matter because your one complaint about Bonds is that he took advantage of modern science.  A modern science that thus far, has no proof it actually helps players hit the ball further than normal.  I just took the argument to the next step.  Why not take the modern science and apply it to Honus Wagner?  Stan Musial?  Mickey Cochrane?  It's a slippery slope you are on.  Further, there is no evidence Griffey never used a banned substance either.  And if he did or didn't, it wouldn't change what he did on the field.

I am not looking at just one part of a career.  I am judging the career as a whole.  Using pieces of it to make your case just doesn't work.  I can do that and say that based on the games of September 7th, 1993, Mark Whiten was the greatest home run hitter of all time.

Really?  Bonds didn't hit more more power?  Let's look... Both played 22 years.  Bonds had 1,302 less plate appearances.  Meaning Griffey had a little more opportunity to have better numbers.
HRS:  Bonds 762.  Griffey  630.  Bonds 132 more homers and hit them more frequently.
Total Bases.  Bonds 5976.  Griffey: 5271.  Bonds had 705 more total bases in with fewer PA.
Slg:  Bonds: .607.  Griffey .538.  Bonds .069 higher. 
OPS:  Bonds 1.051.  Griffey .907.  Bonds .144 more.
OBP.  Bonds .444 (#6 ALL TIME!)  Griffey:  .370.  (#268 all time)
Bonds was intentionally walked 688 times and God only knows how many were of the unintentional variety.  Griffey?  246.  Yes, that speaks loads about who was hitting next but a difference of 442 is very significant.
Given all that, you still think Griffey was the better hitter?  Please tell me you are kidding around here...

Why would Griffey on roids (assuming he wasn't already) have a longer career than Bonds, who was also on them?  Makes no sense.  'Roids didn't extend his career.  They didn't keep him from getting hurt either.  If anything, they got him back on the field a little faster but Griffey STILL had 1300 more plate appearances.  So the idea that Griffey would have been better is ludicrous.  Besides, it is entirely possible Griffey was on them too.  You don't know he wasn't.  None of us do.

The bases loaded IW is not all I've got.  It was just a nice bit from a huge arsenal of reasons why Bonds was superior.  BTW...  Of those 5 IWs to Dawson in the game, how many came with the bases loaded?  None?  Thought so.  You named every player who got the IW with the bases loaded.  Doesn't happen often, does it?  Not only that, but I bet you could not come up with the circumstances for the IW.  I recall the Bonds one.  And know EXACTLY why it was done.  I cannot speak for the Hamilton one or any other the others though. 

Even without the bases loaded IW, there is still a planet sized avalanche of evidence to show why Bonds was clearly the superior hitter.  But none of that has ever swayed you it seems.  Forget about the facts.  Just go with what you wish were true.  In your world 607 is less than 538, 762 is less than 630 and 1051 is less than 907.

12/3/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
Sorry but he was indeed the best.  If you want to rag on Bonds for steroids then why stop there?  Why not rag on any player who used any kind of modern medicine?  Think about how great Mickey Mantle could have been had he had access to today's medicine and surgeries?  That knee injury could have been healed and for all we know Mantle would be the home run kind.  I don't rate players on what might have been or what medicine helped and what didn't.  That's a very slippery slope.  Bonds was the best.  Hands down.  He hit better than Griffey and hit with more power than Griffey.  Bonds was even intentionally walked with the bases loaded.  That's how feared a hitter he was.  Bonds did what he did with no protection in the line up for the most part.  He did what he did with the bat with pitchers not even throwing strikes to him!  His OBP and OPS dwarfs Griffey's.  He was a ton better at the plate.  Griffey was only better than Bonds in the field.  And even then, not by much.  As Bonds' 8 gold gloves attest to.

I am not sure how you are bringing things up off subject, we can always bring up former platers through out baseball and say yes think how great he would have been with modren medince, or travel, lights, knowlege on diet and exerise, like Mantle with his knee injury, (nothing about him being a drunk) and the fact he had a winter job instead of having the training facilties to take advantage of in theoffseason. None of that matters nor is that what we are talking about. Griffey was injured and took the propper medince to get better and rehap, with the legal use what ever he was given. where as Bonds did not, and abused the use of Steriods.

 Bonds did not hit with more power, nor was he a better hitter, look at the first 8 years of both of their career not only was Griffey a better hitter he hit for more power (more HRs and hit them further) and did it without Steriods. you have been wrong from the start with saying Bonds is the best in the 50 yrs. Flat out Griffey was supprior to bonds in Hitting, Power, Speed, and as a defensive outfielder. Hands now any GM, manager would have taking Griffey over Bonds for the same amount of money, and for the same year prior to Griffey getting seriously injured. with you little rant about Mantle, if griffey decided to use RIODS like Bonds, he could have had a longer and more prodictive career, just as when Bonds stop taking the RIODS his numbers dropped big time not only in Hrs but his batting average. You can lie to yourself and say that Bonds was better but the numbers do not lie, and Griffey did not only match Bonds, but was better in his years in Seattle then Bonds with the Pirates, because when he went to the Giants he was taking RIODs and his numbers are tainted from then on out.

IBB withthe bases loaded are you serious that is what you are going with, then Andre Dawson must be the most feared batter to ever played the game seeing how he is the only player to be IBB 5 straight times in a game so was he more feard then Bonds? Besides bonds is not the first to be IBB walked with bases loaded. Mantle was so fear when Maris hit 61 hrs in  a season not once was he IBB because Mantle hit behind him. SO WHAT you still have not point. You hade Abner Dalrymple, Nap Lajoie, Del Bissonette, Bill Nicholson, and Josh Hamilton, who all of them has beed IBB walked with the bases loaded. I am sure you do not know half of these players, they were not some big time hitter still IBB with the bases loaded, so that does not make you so feared. 

 

 

12/2/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
No way Bonds was a step better then Griffey Jr. take away the Steroids and who knows what kind of a career Bonds would have had, which is why people have an issue voting him in the hall the first time around. Questions there is nothing but question about the guy, not only was he not the best  in the 50 years, without taking the steroids who knows what would have happen in his career and he still may not have made it to the hall the first time around.

Sorry but he was indeed the best.  If you want to rag on Bonds for steroids then why stop there?  Why not rag on any player who used any kind of modern medicine?  Think about how great Mickey Mantle could have been had he had access to today's medicine and surgeries?  That knee injury could have been healed and for all we know Mantle would be the home run kind.  I don't rate players on what might have been or what medicine helped and what didn't.  That's a very slippery slope.  Bonds was the best.  Hands down.  He hit better than Griffey and hit with more power than Griffey.  Bonds was even intentionally walked with the bases loaded.  That's how feared a hitter he was.  Bonds did what he did with no protection in the line up for the most part.  He did what he did with the bat with pitchers not even throwing strikes to him!  His OBP and OPS dwarfs Griffey's.  He was a ton better at the plate.  Griffey was only better than Bonds in the field.  And even then, not by much.  As Bonds' 8 gold gloves attest to.

12/2/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
No.  I could have expanded it further to be one of the best all time.  But there is no question he was the best player in the last 50 years.  The man could nearly do it all.  The only part of his game that comes up short is throwing.  But his defense was stellar even with that shortcoming.  Griffey Jr was great too.  But Bonds was a step above.

No way Bonds was a step better then Griffey Jr. take away the Steroids and who knows what kind of a career Bonds would have had, which is why people have an issue voting him in the hall the first time around. Questions there is nothing but question about the guy, not only was he not the best  in the 50 years, without taking the steroids who knows what would have happen in his career and he still may not have made it to the hall the first time around.

11/30/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

scquwi1 wrote:
Best play in the last 50 years, is pushing it a little far, he was not even the best of his era.

No.  I could have expanded it further to be one of the best all time.  But there is no question he was the best player in the last 50 years.  The man could nearly do it all.  The only part of his game that comes up short is throwing.  But his defense was stellar even with that shortcoming.  Griffey Jr was great too.  But Bonds was a step above.

11/30/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

ML31 wrote:
This may not translate nationally but 6 BBWA members who write for the Bay Area New Group revealed if Bonds would be checked on their ballots.  5 of the 6 said they plan to vote for him.  And the one who said he wasn't going to did not rule out voting for him in the future.

I hope he gets in.  It would be a shame if the best player in the last 50 years didn't make it on his first ballot just because of writer spite.

Best play in the last 50 years, is pushing it a little far, he was not even the best of his era.

11/29/12   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

This may not translate nationally but 6 BBWA members who write for the Bay Area New Group revealed if Bonds would be checked on their ballots.  5 of the 6 said they plan to vote for him.  And the one who said he wasn't going to did not rule out voting for him in the future.

I hope he gets in.  It would be a shame if the best player in the last 50 years didn't make it on his first ballot just because of writer spite.

11/29/12   |   scquwi1   |   1227 respect

@JJH857-Not sure how you can say he is the greatest player anyone of us has ever seen??? He was good but not the greatest, Griffey Jr. was better then Bonds especially when he was with Seattle. He did that all without RIODS.


With all that said, I agree Bonds should get in as well as Clemens, McGwire was a dominant force for the A's prior to steroids in 6 years 22Hrs was his lowest total hitin those 6 yrs. and hit over 30HRs 5 times in that period and 40HRs  twice, still holding the Rockie HR record with 49. Has over 70 BB each of those season because he was suck a force pitchers were afraid to challenge him then all before the RIODS McGwire of 1993 and beyond. He was on the road to the Hall then and got serious hurt in 1993 and started using just to get healthy in reap and well the rest is history. It is not McGwire was a one hit wonder prior to RIODS Era. Just as Pete Rose should be in the HoF these players will not make it.


Sosa did nothing before he started taking the RIODS, to show he was even headed in the direction of the HoF, still I am on the fence I would vote for him. No I am not sold on the 76% cure of him belonging he should be mention, with all those who cheated did so while those in charge knew about it and allowed it.

11/29/12   |   AJ_88   |   166 respect

That was my point -- clearly this guy deserves the HoF nod. He's the BOAT. But the guys voting will make him wait bc of his link to steroids.

11/29/12   |   Dan_B   |   1067 respect

I'd vote for him and think he belongs, but the wing-nuts who vote for the HoF probably will make him wait a year.

11/29/12   |   jjh8857   |   322 respect

The fact that you even list this as a question is such a joke.  Of course he should be in.  He's the greatest player any of us have ever seen play.