- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Baseball Hall of Fame ballot out today....felt dirty looking at it..who gets in?
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:46 pm to ZTiger87
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:46 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
Wouldn't it have been more likely that he started juicing around 93 with Caminiti (known juicer) Bagwell and Luis Gonzalez (alleged juicers) all on his team?
dont forget about Steve Finley, as well as Jay Bell. BUt i dont think these guys juiced until they got with Gonzo in AZ.
Finley also played in San Diego with Caminiti, so there is a pretty good chance they are all friends and all talked in the offseason
0
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:51 pm to molsusports
quote:
mitchell report was a long time after steroids were first a major part of baseball
I dont see your point.
quote:
well sure (in retrospect) but Brady Anderson, Gary Sheffield, Raf Palmiero etc went largely unnoticed as probable PED users at the time
anderson went unnoticed? lol
Look, Sammy Sosa went unnoticed too. Everyone was eating it up at the time.
But it's easy to look back and pinpoint who some of the guys were using.
Yes, it is retrospect, I am not trying to look in any other light.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:55 pm to Baloo
quote:
Alex Sanchez. 1st player caught juicing. He was tiny speedster with no power. If he was juicing, everyone was juicing. And there is no body type to a juicer. It's ridiculous to think so.
Bingo. It was all throughout baseball. If the PED Era deserves an asterisk, so do many others. You can't compare apples to apples in baseball eras, IMO.
That being said, I've always liked Bonds. Ever since he was scrawny and with the Pirates. The fact still remains that he is the only member of the 500/500 Club, much less the 400/400 Club. Truly a remarkable ballplayer... PED's or not.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:55 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
24, 26 and 21 HRs. He had just hit 20 a few years before, so we aren't talking a massive jump.
He hit 20 HR five times in 16 seasons, then hit 20 HR 3 of his last 4, which also had his 2 highest HR total seasons. I agree, the Dome did cost him a few HRs though.
quote:
So he plays an entire year in the OF and decides he needs to juice?
Maybe he was already juicing. It isn't a magic elixir that guarantees 20+ HRs. Or maybe after his 1st year in the OF he felt he was lacking in some areas?
quote:
Wouldn't it have been more likely that he started juicing around 93 with Caminiti (known juicer) Bagwell and Luis Gonzalez (alleged juicers) all on his team?
Maybe he did? 1993 was his first 20 HR season and when he became more of a power hitter. Hmmmmm
88-3
89-13
90-4
91-4
92-6
93- 21
94- 6 (injured)
95- 22
96- 15
97- 22
98- 20
99- 16
00-8
01- 20
02- 15
03- 15
04- 24
05- 26
06- 21
07- 10
This post was edited on 11/28/12 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:56 pm to GynoSandberg
Caminitii supposedly never juiced until his MVP season in 1996.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 2:58 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
mitchell report was a long time after steroids were first a major part of baseball
I dont see your point.
At some level all serious baseball fans knew steroids/PEDs were a major part of baseball from the late 80s thru at least the mid 2000s (and probably still today).
At some level those fans and members of the media rejected users of PEDs as being cheaters - but they generally did not apply the same logic to the players they had personal affinity for.
Going back retrospectively to see how hypocritical almost everyone was on the subject is probably a healthy exercise IMO - but picking out individuals for special condemnation is probably just going to be a more refined form of hypocrisy on the subject.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:00 pm to molsusports
I can agree with that.
its fun to talk about looking back. trying to pin point who used and who didnt.
the media is a whole different story. Im just trying to stay in the message board realm.
its fun to talk about looking back. trying to pin point who used and who didnt.
the media is a whole different story. Im just trying to stay in the message board realm.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:03 pm to Lester Earl
Biggio FB% numbers climbed those years he hit 20+ HR, while his HR/FB% also climbed up a bit its not that much higher than his career numbers. Sounds like he just tried to start lifting the ball a little more
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:05 pm to barry
quote:
not that much higher than his career numbers.
define "career numbers"
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:09 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
define "career numbers"
numbers for his career
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:11 pm to barry
wasnt he a 20 HR hitter most of his career though?
he was a scrawny little catcher his first 4-5 years then he moved and bulked up and all of a sudden started hitting balls out of the pitching friendly astrodome.
i could see how those numbers would match up, he was a pretty strong hitter for most of his career.
what were his numbers from 88-95 compared to his career numberS?
he was a scrawny little catcher his first 4-5 years then he moved and bulked up and all of a sudden started hitting balls out of the pitching friendly astrodome.
i could see how those numbers would match up, he was a pretty strong hitter for most of his career.
what were his numbers from 88-95 compared to his career numberS?
This post was edited on 11/28/12 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:14 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
i could see how those numbers would match up, he was a pretty strong hitter for most of his career.
Yea i agree with you. I'm simply stating that his increased HR numbers at the end of his career appears to be because he was hitting more FB. 10-20% more. His HR/FB% jumped a little bit but not enough to be statistically relevant. Totals HR are a decent indicator but HR/FB are a much more telling stat IMO.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 3:27 pm to Lester Earl
Here is his isolated power(slug-avg, another better indicator than just straight HR) through his career. His late career bump isn't bad at all when you lay it out with his career.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 4:37 pm to GynoSandberg
quote:
e hit 20 HR five times in 16 seasons, then hit 20 HR 3 of his last 4, which also had his 2 highest HR total seasons.
From 93 on he consistently hit 15-20 HRs a season. 94 (strike shortened) and 2000 (injury) were the only seasons he didn't hit 15+ HRs. Like I said before, going from 15-20 to 24 & 26 isn't much of a jump.
quote:
Maybe he was already juicing. It isn't a magic elixir that guarantees 20+ HRs. Or maybe after his 1st year in the OF he felt he was lacking in some areas?
Maybe, but if he juiced then it really only helped him hit a few more HRs.
quote:
Maybe he did? 1993 was his first 20 HR season and when he became more of a power hitter. Hmmmmm
Which was my point. If he juiced than it was probably early on in his career. That said, he never had injury problems which seemed very common in juicers. And this is the first time I've ever heard of Biggio being linked to steroids.
quote:
Biggio FB% numbers climbed those years he hit 20+ HR, while his HR/FB% also climbed up a bit its not that much higher than his career numbers. Sounds like he just tried to start lifting the ball a little more
He drew fewer walks as well. I think he just became a bit more aggressive trying to get to 3000 hits.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 4:47 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
this is the first time I've ever heard of Biggio being linked to steroids.
many fans associate bagwell and biggio (and to some extent caminiti). the assumption among many is that caminiti definitely juiced, bagwell almost definitely juiced and biggio probably juiced
the only one who ever admitted it was caminiti tho
Posted on 11/28/12 at 4:56 pm to CQQ
quote:
as he ever actually tied to steroid use?
No
Neither was Bagwell, FWIW.
Biggio should be a first ballot. Might not be, but 3000 hits are 3000 hits.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 5:00 pm to elprez00
quote:
Biggio should be a first ballot. Might not be, but 3000 hits are 3000 hits.
Biggio won't be a first ballot HOF because Sandy Alamor wasn't IMO.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 5:07 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Piazza is definitely in
thats what he said
Posted on 11/28/12 at 5:09 pm to barry
quote:
Biggio won't be a first ballot HOF because Sandy Alamor wasn't IMO.
huh? What does Biggio have to do with Alomar? And I'm hoping you meant Robby Alomar, who was probably held out on the first ballot for the spitting incident.
Posted on 11/28/12 at 5:27 pm to Baloo
"not on the first ballot" issue----what is the general unwritten criteria for not voting for one on the first ballot but then on a future ballot? if his stats (or whatever criteria) say he is HOF worthy, then he should be voted in immediately as his stats will not change from first year eligible to next. still, i do understand that there is some "significance" places on when one is voted in
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News