BuffettNews.com

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:They both belong in the Hall Of Fame. They were dominant over their era. That's the real key. Take the numbers for what they were, but what the Mitchell Report is proving is that EVERYONE had the opportunity to cheat. Not all did, but they could if they wanted to. But not everybody who cheated hit over 700 HRs, or won over 350 games.

BUT . . . big but . . . . Curt Schilling said it best . . . he said, "how would my stats look if those guys DIDN'T use steroids . . . "

NOT . . . if Schilling did . . . BUT if other people DID NOT.

That, in my opinion . . . is the REAL key.

How do you elect someone who cheated if their stats effected someone who didn't?

I agree that it is wrong that they did it. Sadly, they were acting within the existing set of rules.....no policy in place until 2003. (Although I've always said that "Illegal in the USA = Illegal in baseball"). But my point, to Mr. Schilling, is that he COULD have done it. Based on the Mitchell report....he EASILY could have. That was my point.

Even if you take Steroids or HGH, you still have to work your A$$ off to succeed.

OK . . . but lets say no hitter ever took HGH or steroids . . . Schilling's, and other pitcher's, ERA's would be better . . . more wins . . . more K's . . .

now, for sake of argument, Schilling does not get into the HOF . . . and ther reason some voter gives is, "Well 50 more K's and 20 more wins would've done it . . ."

is that fair? if Schilling took HGH would he have acheived the numbers needed in this hypothetical example? OR would the balance tip in his favor if the batters never did it?

This is where it gets confusing . . . no doubt you have to work your ass off . . . but is that really fair to say, "Sorry Schilling . . . you just should've cheated. Look at Roger Clemens . . . he did it and he made the HOF." ?

Just want to remind....I do not condone what any of the cheating bastards did. Just pointing it out. I love playing Devil's Advocate.

wonder what we will talk about at Alpine next summer?

We'll have nothing to say to each other....we'll just sit and twiddle our thumbs...

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote: BUT . . . big but . . . . Curt Schilling said it best . . . he said, "how would my stats look if those guys DIDN'T use steroids . . . "

NOT . . . if Schilling did . . . BUT if other people DID NOT.

That, in my opinion . . . is the REAL key.

How do you elect someone who cheated if their stats effected someone who didn't?

I agree that it is wrong that they did it. Sadly, they were acting within the existing set of rules.....no policy in place until 2003. (Although I've always said that "Illegal in the USA = Illegal in baseball"). But my point, to Mr. Schilling, is that he COULD have done it. Based on the Mitchell report....he EASILY could have. That was my point.

Even if you take Steroids or HGH, you still have to work your A$$ off to succeed.

OK . . . but lets say no hitter ever took HGH or steroids . . . Schilling's, and other pitcher's, ERA's would be better . . . more wins . . . more K's . . .

now, for sake of argument, Schilling does not get into the HOF . . . and ther reason some voter gives is, "Well 50 more K's and 20 more wins would've done it . . ."

is that fair? if Schilling took HGH would he have acheived the numbers needed in this hypothetical example? OR would the balance tip in his favor if the batters never did it?

This is where it gets confusing . . . no doubt you have to work your ass off . . . but is that really fair to say, "Sorry Schilling . . . you just should've cheated. Look at Roger Clemens . . . he did it and he made the HOF." ?

Just want to remind....I do not condone what any of the cheating bastards did. Just pointing it out. I love playing Devil's Advocate.

wonder what we will talk about at Alpine next summer?

We'll have nothing to say to each other....we'll just sit and twiddle our thumbs...

can we atleast drink some beer and look at girls?

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:I agree that it is wrong that they did it. Sadly, they were acting within the existing set of rules.....no policy in place until 2003. (Although I've always said that "Illegal in the USA = Illegal in baseball"). But my point, to Mr. Schilling, is that he COULD have done it. Based on the Mitchell report....he EASILY could have. That was my point.

Even if you take Steroids or HGH, you still have to work your A$$ off to succeed.

OK . . . but lets say no hitter ever took HGH or steroids . . . Schilling's, and other pitcher's, ERA's would be better . . . more wins . . . more K's . . .

now, for sake of argument, Schilling does not get into the HOF . . . and ther reason some voter gives is, "Well 50 more K's and 20 more wins would've done it . . ."

is that fair? if Schilling took HGH would he have acheived the numbers needed in this hypothetical example? OR would the balance tip in his favor if the batters never did it?

This is where it gets confusing . . . no doubt you have to work your ass off . . . but is that really fair to say, "Sorry Schilling . . . you just should've cheated. Look at Roger Clemens . . . he did it and he made the HOF." ?

Just want to remind....I do not condone what any of the cheating bastards did. Just pointing it out. I love playing Devil's Advocate.

wonder what we will talk about at Alpine next summer?

We'll have nothing to say to each other....we'll just sit and twiddle our thumbs...

can we atleast drink some beer and look at girls?

Beer, Tequilla, eat some Jambalaya.

I expect the girls to be sitting in our laps...

imho, cheaters should never win, neither would get in.

wonder who those 3 people are who voted for 1 but not the other . . .?

One thing is fairly certain, Clemens and Bonds have played their last MLB game and will both be on the 2012 ballot.

If either were to play again in '08 my bet would be Bonds playing but that is a long shot at best. The mercenary, Clemens.... the only teams who could 'pay' him are NY and Boston and there is zero chance either team would want him.

drunkpirate66 wrote:wonder who those 3 people are who voted for 1 but not the other . . .?

I voted Bonds But Not Clemens but that was just to see who would be first to say "who the hell voted Bonds But Not Clemens"

they were both hall of famers before the steriod use imo...i would put them both in.

BigR-KyParrothead wrote:they were both hall of famers before the steriod use imo...i would put them both in.

and your opinion on how their inflated play might directly effect other players from getting in the HOF?

Both in. If MLB did not have a policy or a testing program why hold it against them. As a result of this report, MLB is still not taking a stance or formulating a credible plan to fight the use of steroids in baseball. So why hold it against the players that were within the guidelines of MLB at the time? And yet no time was taken to investigate amphetamines?????? MLB needs to take an stand and move on!!!!

LIPH wrote:In my opinion, they were both Hall of Fame players before the drug nonsense started so I'd vote for both of them.

a Rare day.. I do not agree with you..

When Bonds first arrived in The City I was going to quite a few games
(lived 2 hours away and went to 47 games one year)
He lazed out fly balls then and it seemed to the Bleacher Creatures most of His
Homers came when the Game was no longer in dispute.
the Cron did a piece on Him the second year He played
in the City by the Bay and something like seventy percent of
His multi base hits were at times when the Giants either were
ahead or behind by four runs or more..

IMHO no hall..

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BigR-KyParrothead wrote:they were both hall of famers before the steriod use imo...i would put them both in.

and your opinion on how their inflated play might directly effect other players from getting in the HOF?

if a pitchers bad stats against bonds, one single player, keeps him out of the hof, then he does not desrve to be there and vice versa for clemens and any potential hof'er he may have faced.


just my opinion

I'm an Altered Boy wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:wonder who those 3 people are who voted for 1 but not the other . . .?

I voted Bonds But Not Clemens but that was just to see who would be first to say "who the hell voted Bonds But Not Clemens"

I voted for Clemens but not Bonds for that exact same reason.

Now we ALL have our own opinions on this matter, but I do hope everyone realizes we're basing our beliefs on the findings of a liberal New England politician, so MAYBE we could wait for further proof.
Maybe.

YEAH, YEAH, I know how Bonds went from 170 pounds to 240 pounds in a few short years-hell, I did too, and nobody is accusing ME of anything.

Wino you know wrote:

I'm an Altered Boy wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:wonder who those 3 people are who voted for 1 but not the other . . .?

I voted Bonds But Not Clemens but that was just to see who would be first to say "who the hell voted Bonds But Not Clemens"

I voted for Clemens but not Bonds for that exact same reason.

Now we ALL have our own opinions on this matter, but I do hope everyone realizes we're basing our beliefs on the findings of a liberal New England politician, so MAYBE we could wait for further proof.
Maybe.

YEAH, YEAH, I know how Bonds went from 170 pounds to 240 pounds in a few short years-hell, I did too, and nobody is accusing ME of anything.

It's because there's a difference between steroids and McDonalds.

I voted both because there is no way to separate who did from who didn't during this era. A lot of who is getting thrown under the bus on this is based on single person testimony. They both have numbers that put them in and, just like the "Dead Ball" era and the "No Minorities" era, this era will be viewed with the eye of "yeah, but..."

Both in.

Both were dominating in their youth.
Both MAY have extended their careers with the aid of Illegal supplements, but
MLB turned the other cheek to any insinuations of inappropriate "conditioning"... so here we are.

Let's face it, the period of '90 to '03 will forever be regarded as the Steroids Era.
We would have to be completely naive to think of it otherwise, and maybe a lot of fans were during these years,
but the press and ownership weren't, and they own a good share of culpability here.

I think that trying to keep these two out, and I'm only speaking about Bonds and Clemens here,
would only be the reaching to the height of hypocrisy.

popcornjack wrote:It's because there's a difference between steroids and McDonalds.

And Burger King.
And Pizza Hut.
And Taco Bell.
And Wendy's.
And HOOTERS.

I voted both because there is no way to separate who did from who didn't during this era. A lot of who is getting thrown under the bus on this is based on single person testimony. They both have numbers that put them in and, just like the "Dead Ball" era and the "No Minorities" era, this era will be viewed with the eye of "yeah, but..."

That's why, upon further review, I think I need to reverse my vote and say yes, they probably both should be enshrined.

and so should Pete Rose.

A Newsday columnist named Wallace Matthews wrote about the Mitchell report yesterday. He was contrasting the treatment Bonds has gotten in the so-called court of public opinion with the treatment Clemens has gotten and claims it's a black/white thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But guess what Wallace, you and your brethren and sistren in the press are guilty of the same thing. How many writers ripped Clemens over the last 10 years the way the ripped Bonds? For that matter, how many writers wrote about any pitchers being juiced instead of just concentrating on the big guys and their home run totals? I don't remember any.

just can't get past 1 thing . . . its not that certain players took steroids or whatever . .. its that it effected other people who didn't.

If a pitcher threw to 500 at bats in his career of people on steroids . . . for guys like Schilling it would probably be more than 500 at bats . . . then that pitcher's stats are not accurate . . . that pitcher might have 200 more K's . . . or his ERA might've been .25 lower for his career . . .

therefore you can't ethically put people into the HOF who are guilty of using steroids because you are weighing and voting against other players who had their stats effected . . . how would not vote in a certain pitcher who might have had 200 more K's but at the same time vote someone in who might have 100 + extra home runs?

You can't.

I'm so sick of all this crap. Why not just lift the ban on <i>"performance enhancing"</i> drugs and make everything legal? If they did do that, in just a few short years, we'd have guys playing into their 50s. Home runs would up to 80+ per season. The increased offense makes the game more enjoyable… If the palyers are actually dumb enough to take this crap and do who knows what to their bodies, well then I say let them.

The only people getting screwed would be the previous record holders who achieved their mile stones legitimately, but since Big Head Bonds already stole the career home run record... Honestly, who gives a sh*t?

BigR-KyParrothead wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BigR-KyParrothead wrote:they were both hall of famers before the steriod use imo...i would put them both in.

and your opinion on how their inflated play might directly effect other players from getting in the HOF?

if a pitchers bad stats against bonds, one single player, keeps him out of the hof, then he does not desrve to be there and vice versa for clemens and any potential hof'er he may have faced.


just my opinion

I meant that if a pitcher had to pitch hundreds of atbats of people taking steroids over the span of his career . . . his stats would be hurt considerably.