Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, August 24, 2014

David Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career

Hail Barry!

Barry Bonds is one of the players whose careers and reputations have been destroyed by Roidgate. One of the greatest baseball players of all-time, Bonds will likely never be allowed into the Hall of Fame because of his alleged use of steroids. But David Justice, one of the Atlanta Braves’ most celebrated players of all time, says that Bonds should be let in at least on the strength of his pre-juicing days. The former power hitter says that he made it on his own merits for much of his career.

According to David Justice, the league is being petty. They are trying to punish people they think they can catch cheating, instead of acknowledging the accomplishments that have been made while clean.

“Yeah, Barry was probably juiced up from ‘97 to ‘07 ... and that’s bad. But BB was a BEAST from ‘86 to ‘97 ... BEFORE his head expanded 8 hat sizes. ‘I think they should put Barry in ... period,’ [said Justice].”

Repoz Posted: August 24, 2014 at 08:51 AM | 165 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Joey B. "disrespects the A" Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4778052)
Request denied. Neeeeext!
   2. Bug Selig Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4778057)
When I'm making a list of people whose advice I value, I literally never get to David Justice.
   3. PreservedFish Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4778060)
When I'm making a list of people whose advice I value, I literally never get to David Justice.

But how many of those people have been featured as the wise veteran in a true story Hollywood movie?
   4. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4778068)
As I have been saying for years, justice demands that Barry Bonds be in the Hall of Fame.
   5. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4778069)
Wasn't Justice named in the Mitchell Report?
   6. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4778071)
#5 - Yes, Justice was named in the Mitchell Report. Considering that, want to make a guess at his motivation for spewing nonsense like this?
   7. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4778073)
Is the insinuation that Justice is doing this so that he can get into the Hall of Fame?



Kevin?
   8. JJ1986 Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4778077)
Justice also says that Pete Rose should be in the Hall.
   9. Chris Fluit Posted: August 24, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4778084)
Different Justice.
   10. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: August 24, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4778087)
Justice is also blind.
   11. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: August 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4778093)
I don't care what anyone thinks, but Just Ice is the best rap name ever. He deserved a better career.
   12. tshipman Posted: August 24, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4778110)
I wonder why Justice says '97 as the start date.

Bonds stole 37 bases that year, and his numbers are very similar to all previous years.
   13. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 24, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4778126)
If you are a cheater yourself, don't you want to see all cheaters treated well?
   14. bobm Posted: August 24, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4778128)
Barry was probably juiced up from ‘97 to ‘07 ... and that’s bad. But BB was a BEAST from ‘86 to ‘97


Maybe Justice was actually talking about ex-wife Halle Berry. The dates fit. They married in 1992 and divorced in 1997. She sought a restraining order afterwards.
   15. eddieot Posted: August 24, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4778181)
Hall-ee Barry (clap clap clap-clap-clap) Hall-ee Berry (clap clap clap-clap-clap)

Not a Yankee fan but found that chant hilarious....
   16. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 24, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4778225)
Every time I go to Yankee Stadium I am amazed at how classless the fans there are.
   17. Bhaakon Posted: August 24, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4778247)

Every time I go to Yankee Stadium I am amazed at how classless the fans there are.


Isn't there's a giant moat full of sewer alligators between the Fancy Folk and Hoi Poloi?
   18. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 24, 2014 at 08:04 PM (#4778280)
Yankees fans---the only remaining fire hydrants of the politically correct canines.
   19. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 24, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4778317)
I never liked the fans in Philadelphia much either.
   20. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:48 AM (#4778370)
i just dont think we can condone cheating.

i know some people say there was no rules, or they looked the other way.

but when a person is doing something to his equipment or his person that allows him to perform better, that is cheating, no matter how you look at it.

certainly that player can not be compared to someone who did not cheat.

not to say that cheating has not occurred in the past.

one thing (in football) that i found astonishing is that fred biletnikof put some sort of stick-em on his hands.

not a thing one could hide for long - players knew, no doubt refs would have eventually found out.

but as far as i know, nothing was ever said to him.

i know i did not know about it while he was playing, and no mention of it in public - cuz that would have garnered big attention.

for the life of me, i cant figure out why they would have allowed such a thing.

biletnikof was way over-rated. but he had one exceptional quality - he would always catch the ball thrown at him. to think that his one really good attribute was caused by "cheating", it sorta makes me wonder.

if these guys did not think steroids was wrong, how come they all lied about it ?
   21. bjhanke Posted: August 25, 2014 at 01:46 AM (#4778378)
Receivers using stickum on their gloves and hands was VERY common in Biletnikof's time. I'm not at all sure it was illegal at the time. I have a memory, with no time attached, of the NFL having to ban the practice specifically. - Brock Hanke
   22. just plain joe Posted: August 25, 2014 at 08:33 AM (#4778395)
Receivers using stickum on their gloves and hands was VERY common in Biletnikof's time. I'm not at all sure it was illegal at the time. I have a memory, with no time attached, of the NFL having to ban the practice specifically. - Brock Hanke


It wasn't only receivers using the stickum; before it was made against the rules defensive backs used to slather on the stuff as well. I remember a defensive back named Lester Hayes, who played with the Raiders, had enough stickum on his arms that the ball would literally stick to them. By the end of the game Hayes would be covered in mud, grass and the stray hot dog wrapper or two, all stuck to his uniform.
   23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 25, 2014 at 08:54 AM (#4778400)
According to Wikipedia, the rule banning Stickum was actually called the Lester Hayes Rule.
   24. EddieA Posted: August 25, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4778448)
Lester Hayes continued to be All-Pro after the stickum was banned and was all-decade defense team. His use of Stickum shows he was a very smart player (as was Biletnikoff's). It was obvious that it should have been banned, but that is not up to the players. Almost every year in every sport there is some sort of penalty/rule omission that will be taken advantage of that obviously needs to be changed.
   25. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4778479)
Almost every year in every sport there is some sort of penalty/rule omission that will be taken advantage of that obviously needs to be changed.


And if the steroid fiasco has taught us anything it is to punish players we think broke this rule retroactively and harshly, because.
   26. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4778529)
To what extent are players drivers of the is-it-cheating/is-it-serious-cheating discussion? Do player attitudes explain how wrong stickum/spitballs/amphetamines/steroids/gambling are seen to be within the game? It's seemed to me that players themselves, speaking through the union, are pretty hostile to advantage-seeking through PEDs, and that they've showed little sympathy to guys who got caught out.
   27. Booey Posted: August 25, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4778533)
i just dont think we can condone cheating.


I've heard very few people here or elsewhere say that current PED users who get busted under the JDA shouldn't be punished. What I and many others disagree with is the level of punishment that others feel is justified. Why is the issue black and white to so many (especially BBWAA voters), where any violation of the rule results in an immediate and permanent ban from HOF consideration? That's not how rule violations (other than gambling) have ever been dealt with in the past. Since when did drug use become a 2nd cardinal sin in baseball on par with betting on games? People just pulled that out of thin air. A 50 game suspension is a pretty stiff penalty already. It doesn't make sense to me that people feel the need to keep stacking on additional punishments and treat the issue much more severely than MLB itself deems sufficient.

And of course, the above doesn't even apply to Bonds, who did what he did before the crackdown.

if these guys did not think steroids was wrong, how come they all lied about it?


Cuz it was illegal. Same reason players weren't open with the media about greenies until after they retired. Same reasons people (athletes and regular folk) aren't generally open about recreational drug use.
   28. Booey Posted: August 25, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4778541)
It's seemed to me that players themselves, speaking through the union, are pretty hostile to advantage-seeking through PEDs, and that they've showed little sympathy to guys who got caught out.


But players attitudes have changed over time along with everyone else's. Right now being vehemently against PED use is the only socially acceptable attitude for an athlete, so that's what you're going to see from everyone who speaks out. It's in the best interest of any athlete who disagrees to either lie and act SHOCKED!!! or to just keep quiet, else they likely get accused of being a user themselves.

The fact that so many players did use back in the 90's, the fact that very few ever publicly spoke out against it, and the fact that the players union fought tooth and nail against drug testing for so long, tells me that the practice wasn't always frowned upon as strongly as it is now. Like everything else regarding PED's, player outrage seems to be largely retroactive.
   29. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4778571)
PED use is the only socially acceptable attitude for an athlete, so that's what you're going to see from everyone who speaks out.


I think you have to consider that players who don't want to use have very strong career and financial incentives to make sure that those around them aren't using, either. That doesn't have anything to do with social acceptability.

The fact that so many players did use back in the 90's, the fact that very few ever publicly spoke out against it, and the fact that the players union fought tooth and nail against drug testing for so long, tells me that the practice wasn't always frowned upon as strongly as it is now.


There's always going to be a very strong group dynamic against informing on even the worst individuals in any group. That doesn't mean disapproval doesn't exist.
   30. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4778598)
but when a person is doing something to his equipment or his person that allows him to perform better, that is cheating, no matter how you look at it.
That's obviously so silly that you must have meant to say something else. You understand that professional athletes are supposed to do things to their equipment and person to try to perform better, right? We talk about "timelining" when comparing players of the past to the present because the entire history of baseball -- of sport -- is about improving those things. If it's not against the rules, it's not cheating.
   31. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4778599)
if these guys did not think steroids was wrong, how come they all lied about it ?
They didn't. Not until after the witchhunt began.
   32. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4778616)
good discussion and good points.

i did not realize that lots of other players used stick-em. it was highly "advertised" that biletnikof did way later. so it seemed to me that it must not have been enforced, since it is not something that one can get away with.

hi david, perhaps i could have worded it better, but i think everyone besides you knew what i meant.

bats are not supposed to be corked. just because there may or may not have been a rule about them.

this is doing something to your equipment that gives you an advantage that other guys dont have - presumably because you cant keep up with the other guys without doing so.

if it had been the intention of putting corks in the bats, they would have come that way.

i have many times stated that it is ridiculous to try and compare athletes of varying timelines, because of many reasons - equipment being one of them.

but i think it must be extremely obvious that there is something wrong when one guy is using a corked bat or steroids that increase strength, when his opponents are not doing so.

the same logic applies to steroids, etc.

this is what i meant by doing something to his equipment or person.
   33. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4778624)
this reminds me a bit of the irs and the ridiculous tax code. someone takes obvious advantage of some loophole that others dont see.

then 500 more pages are added to the code, so that loophole is closed.

and the offender did not think he was doing anything wrong, because he found a way to at least temporarily get around it.

he knew he should not have done it, in the first place.

and athletes knew that taking steroids or corking their bats was not something they should have done.
   34. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4778724)
bats are not supposed to be corked. just because there may or may not have been a rule about them.
No; bats are not supposed to be corked because there's a rule against doing so. It's purely malum prohibitum. There's nothing wrong with corking bats. If it's not prohibited, then "the other guys" can have the same advantage, if they want to.

but i think it must be extremely obvious that there is something wrong when one guy is using a corked bat or steroids that increase strength, when his opponents are not doing so.
"It's obvious" is not an argument, and it's not obvious at all. We've gone over this so many times that it's probably not worth rehashing at any great length, but every thing a ballplayer does is attempt to get an advantage over his opponents. New nutrition regimen, new training program, new medical procedures, new equipment. Of course, his opponents are free to do the same.
   35. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4778731)
like i said, you are quoting the tax code

try to get away with anything you can by any means possible, as long as you can show that there is not an exact rule which makes it illegal
   36. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4778732)
this reminds me a bit of the irs and the ridiculous tax code. someone takes obvious advantage of some loophole that others dont see.
"Loophole" is Democratic for "I want more of your money." If the tax code says that it taxes A, B, and C, then the tax code taxes A, B, and C. It doesn't tax D unless it says it taxes D; it's not a "loophole" if it doesn't. It's just something that isn't taxed. And if someone does D rather than C in order to avoid taxes, then they aren't doing something wrong, any more than someone who drives 54 in a 55 MPH zone is doing something wrong just because he's avoiding a ticket.

You're absolutely wrong when you say that he "knew he should not have done it." Of course he should have. "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." -- Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory. (In fact, given that government is evil, the fewer taxes one pays, the better for everyone.)
   37. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4778735)
or to use an OBVIOUS quote

letter of the law versus the spirit of the law
   38. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4778741)
when an athlete "cheats" he may still be obeying the letter of the law (steroids are not against the rules of baseball, but illegal to the feds - must be some sort of clue there), but he is not obeying the spirit of the law, which is its only true meaning.

it also reminds me of a little kid giving his parent an excuse that "you didnt tell me i couldn't pull mary's hair. that is not part of the rules that you gave me".

in the olden days the child would have been spanked for misbehaving and trying to use some lame excuse that the parent already knew that the child knew better, but was trying to get away with it.

your thinking forces the parent to cross every t, instead of requiring the child to understand that there are consequences to his actions.

just look around yourself, and see where your logic has gotten us - people are always blaming somebody or something else - they are no longer trained to take responsibility for their actions.

   39. Rusty Priske Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4778746)
I would treat this thread as a parody thread if it wasn't for the fact that so many people agree with the stuff Jimmy is saying.

What you are really doing is moralizing and punishing players for doing things that were tactitly endorsed by the teams.

I agree 100% with steroids being disallowed. I do NOT agree with punishing players who were using them when they were not only allowed but encouraged by the teams.

I also believe that any player who was ever injured while steroids were available used them. It was just the smart thing to do.
   40. JJ1986 Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4778749)
MLB absolutely has to "cross every t" when dealing with players. They're part of a union with a CBA; the parent/child analogy is a terrible one.
   41. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4778772)
the parent/child is a perfect analogy

however, i agree with you, regarding stuff that was tacitly endorsed

the whole damn sports business has gotten way WAY out of hand

as long as baseball was benefitting from all the home runs, and extra attention, they did nothing.

then all of a sudden, when it became inconvenient and they needed a scapegoat, the players got chastised.

i get that part of the argument.

but it only goes to demonstrate the crookedness of the entire system.

when i was on the jv tennis team, i overheard the varisty coach (who also was head coach for water polo, about the dirtiest sport there is) that is was okay to cheat, just make sure that you are smart about it.

i had zero respect for the man after that. cuz i was raised correctly, and knew that was wrong, even if THE SYSTEM was willing to look the other way.

at some point, we gotta act like responsible men, instead of little boys looking to get away with anything that we can.

   42. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4778777)
not sure that you knew, but it was customary for each player to call the lines on his side of the court.

unless you were up high in the tennis system, you did not have the luxury of having linesmen calling high school tennis matches.

when i hit a ball, most of the time i can see the sideline better than my opponent.

but i cant really make a close baseline call.

if it is within a couple inches of the line, the angle is too severe to know for sure.

but if it happens often enough, you start getting suspicious. (if all close calls are always being called long on you).
   43. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4778780)
Jimmy likes Elaine.
   44. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4778793)
even going back to the stickum, that wasnt something that the football fan knew about.

if he had, there would have been a lot of stink raised about it by the fans.

cuz it was wrong. and the whole dang football system knew it.

which is why we fans never knew about it, until way after the fact.

all of us kids in elementary school playing flag football at the park, knew that putting something on your hands that allowed you to catch the ball easier was CHEATING.

and i am now asked to believe that grown adults did not know this ?

give me a break !!!!!
   45. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 25, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4778822)
Just to state the obvious in case it's slipped through above: doing something illegal to improve your odds of winning is cheating as well as illegal. So no ground glass in the visiting team's pre-game buffet, even if it's not forbidden by the rules of the sport.
   46. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4778851)
oh my gosh, i am LOL !!!!
   47. Chone Mueller Posted: August 25, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4778856)
As I recall, the thing with Stickum was pretty well known but mostly ignored as something with more psychological than physical value. Like when a lot of the NFL players started wearing those stop-snoring strips on their noses to improve their breathing. I think the NFL was more concerned with the mess from Stickum than anything else. Getting that stuff wiped off the footballs wasn't an easy task. Even if Stickum hadn't been banned, the modified scuba gloves with tacky exteriors that came along a few years later would have made it obsolete.
   48. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4778895)
interesting - boy, this is sure a can of worms

i stopped following professional sports a long time ago

hadnt heard of the gloves

although the action is no different than the stickum, in the sense that one is being allowed to use something other than their hands to help catch the ball

i view sports in the traditional way in which it was taught - as a discipline that one did to try and improve himself, as well as learn teamwork in team sports.

i am not a fan at all of all this bettering of equipment.

and if it wasnt for professionalism and all this money in sports, it would not occur at anywhere near the clip that it does.

when i improved my play at shortstop, it was because i caught a bunch of grounders, dove for the ball, and improved myself. i did not buy an expensive glove with a huge pocket in it, or some other DEVICE that made my play better.
   49. Booey Posted: August 25, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4778918)
when i improved my play at shortstop, it was because i caught a bunch of grounders, dove for the ball, and improved myself. i did not buy an expensive glove with a huge pocket in it, or some other DEVICE that made my play better.

But what would've been the harm in doing so if all your opponents had access to the same equipment? It wouldn't have been any kind of unfair advantage.
   50. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4778945)
i agree that it would not have been an unfair advantage, if others had the same access.

but anyone can use a better tool. the challenge is to improve one's self.

i dont know about people my age and older (59), but i can tell you that almost without exception, young people all think that today's athletes are better.

like somehow the human race, after being a few million years old, has somehow transformed itself in the past 40 years to be super athletes !!

and every time i turn around, i am finding even advantages that i wasnt aware of (that all these super athletes are using).

i can still recall my dad using his old "fingers-glove", telling me that anyone could catch a ball with a glove with a huge pocket in it !!!

of course, by then those gloves had joined the museum, and i couldnt buy one if i wanted to.

and of course, i didnt want to - since i would have been at a huge disadvantage compared to all the other guys !!
   51. Jimmy Posted: August 26, 2014 at 12:57 AM (#4779117)
it looks like the chargers got caught using it in 2012. must be better than some people thought.

it mentions 2 players of old time (biletnikof and hayes) - both come from the raiders, the dirtiest football team of that era.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/21/chargers-facing-sanctions-for-illegal-use-of-stickum/

just read some of this stuff, and understand why i am so turned off to professional sports

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-wake-of-chargers-stickum-accusations-some-nfl-alums-say-cheating-is-part-of-the-game/2012/10/27/bbf17442-1f02-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_story.html

http://eagleseyeblog.com/2011-articles/my-illegal-use-of-stickumand-other-foreign-objects.html
   52. Bunny Vincennes Posted: August 26, 2014 at 01:38 AM (#4779131)
20. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:48 AM (#4778370)
i just dont think we can condone cheating.

i know some people say there was no rules, or they looked the other way.

but when a person is doing something to his equipment or his person that allows him to perform better, that is cheating, no matter how you look at it.

certainly that player can not be compared to someone who did not cheat.

not to say that cheating has not occurred in the past.

one thing (in football) that i found astonishing is that fred biletnikof put some sort of stick-em on his hands.

not a thing one could hide for long - players knew, no doubt refs would have eventually found out.

but as far as i know, nothing was ever said to him.

i know i did not know about it while he was playing, and no mention of it in public - cuz that would have garnered big attention.

for the life of me, i cant figure out why they would have allowed
such a thing.

biletnikof was way over-rated. but he had one exceptional quality - he would always catch the ball thrown at him. to think that his one really good attribute was caused by "cheating", it sorta makes me wonder.

if these guys did not think steroids was wrong, how come they all lied about it ?


Are you 9 years old?
   53. bjhanke Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:17 AM (#4779143)
Um, Jimmy - I'm not much of a football fan, but even I knew that, when the football Cardinals were in STL, their "possession receiver" Pat Tilley had stickum up to his elbows. Why? Because the TV talking heads talked about it all the time. I'm pretty sure that any serious football fan knew as much as I did. - Brock Hanke
   54. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 06:04 AM (#4779144)
all of us kids in elementary school playing flag football at the park, knew that putting something on your hands that allowed you to catch the ball easier was CHEATING.
You know that every baseball player for, oh, the last 125 years¹ has put something on his hands that "allowed him to catch the ball easier," right? Has every baseball player been cheating? I'm sorry, let me rephrase that: Has every baseball player been CHEATING?




¹ Designated hitters not included.
   55. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 26, 2014 at 07:56 AM (#4779150)
This conversation is surreal.
   56. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 26, 2014 at 08:06 AM (#4779153)
Um, Jimmy - I'm not much of a football fan, but even I knew that, when the football Cardinals were in STL, their "possession receiver" Pat Tilley had stickum up to his elbows. Why? Because the TV talking heads talked about it all the time. I'm pretty sure that any serious football fan knew as much as I did. - Brock Hanke

That's my recollection as well. I wasn't even close to being a "serious football fan" during the relevant period but I still knew players were using stickum. I don't remember whether I learned this from watching the occasional game on TV, reading Sports Illustrated or talking to my friends who were more into football than I was - or all of the above - but it seemed to be common knowledge.
   57. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: August 26, 2014 at 08:19 AM (#4779155)
Jimmy, are you for real?
This is a pisstake right?
   58. Jimmy Posted: August 26, 2014 at 10:13 AM (#4779208)
david,

please try to keep your statements from being ridiculous. that is as much consideration that it deserves. (about players wearing gloves)

using stickum was not well known when i was watching.

lester hayes admits that it helped make his career.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/cheat/news/story?id=2957892

and certainly not about biletnikof. his ability to catch (not drop) passes was highly touted. it would have "stuck" on everybody if it was known that he was using stuff on his hands to help catch the ball.
   59. Jimmy Posted: August 26, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4779216)
i dont recall the name of pat tilley. so i looked him up. he started in 1976. my sports watching curtailed after i finished high school in 1973.

so i dont doubt at some point in time, stickum became known to fans - probably after my viewing days were somewhat over.

but if you do some research, stickum (at least in its earlier use) was strictly an oakland raiders thing. it wasnt widely used.
   60. Jimmy Posted: August 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4779333)
either you live by a code of honor, or you dont.

cheating was something that was viewed as not only wrong, but a clear sign that you did not have the talent necessary to take care of business.

i know sandy koufax stirs a lot of emotions amongst you guys, in that a lot of you think he is overrated.

for those that do, i really wonder if you were actually around to watch him pitch.

he was unbelievably talented. even the best of hitters could look poorly at the plate against him.

and guess what ? unlike bob gibson, don drysdale, and a bunch of other pitchers - he never threw at the batter. he was a very nice person, with a code of honor that would not have allowed him to do that.

but he was also good enough that he simply didnt have to. no one could figure out which pitch of his was more devastating - his fastball or his curve. NO PITCHER that i saw was close to having that sort of pitching talent. he was at the top, all by himself.
   61. Jimmy Posted: August 26, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4779341)
if koufax had been willing to throw at the batters, ala gibson, there is no telling how much more impressive his records would have been.

it is a big difference for a hitter, not being concerned about intentionally being thrown at, which is why lots of pitchers resort to that sort of shenanigans.
   62. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4779343)
either you live by a code of honor, or you dont.

cheating was something that was viewed as not only wrong, but a clear sign that you did not have the talent necessary to take care of business.
Jimmy, do you understand the concept of "begging the question"?
   63. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4779349)
please try to keep your statements from being ridiculous. that is as much consideration that it deserves. (about players wearing gloves)
GIGO. You're the one who claimed, in incredibly broad terms, that trying to improve one's game was "cheating." Offered a chance to walk it back, you instead doubled down.

On the one hand, I would assume that you didn't really believe that wearing a baseball glove was "cheating," even though it in fact fit within your definition of the term. On the other hand, your comments #48 and #50 actually seem to endorse the argument that it was cheating to use a glove. If you do think that, you're a nut; if you don't, you need to explain how using Stickum, at a time period when that was allowed by the rules, was any different.
   64. Rusty Priske Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4779475)
Cane waving.
   65. EddieA Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4779483)
Makes it really clear if you throw all the sinners out, you're left with Jesus (and Koufax).
   66. The District Attorney Posted: August 26, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4779484)
Makes it really clear if you throw all the sinners out, you're left with Jesus (and Koufax).
Two thousand years of beautiful tradition!
   67. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4779487)
i dont recall the name of pat tilley. so i looked him up. he started in 1976. my sports watching curtailed after i finished high school in 1973.


Then how the hell do you know the name Lester Hayes? His rookie year was 1977. And the use of stickum was widely known in Hayes's day. I distinctly remember TV closeups of him with that stuff all over his hands and arm, and the commentators chuckling about it.
   68. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4779488)
Wait. Is jimmy the same guy who claimed that Mickey Stanley was one of the top 3 OF in the 60's?
   69. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4779494)
Let's just say that he's a big Tigers fan.
   70. Ron J2 Posted: August 26, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4779496)
#68 Yeah. Same moron who thinks only his eyewitness testimony matters.

As for PEDS and Kofax, there's butazolidin (bute). It's now illegal to use that stuff on horses, never mind humans.
   71. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 26, 2014 at 10:16 PM (#4779701)
Makes it really clear if you throw all the sinners out, you're left with Jesus (and Koufax).
I thought it was Danny Thompson.

(I know Ron will get the reference.)
   72. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:09 PM (#4779719)
This thread took a turn for the hilarious.

I think you got trolled, David.
   73. AuntBea Posted: August 26, 2014 at 11:34 PM (#4779733)
Learned Hand's full quote says something quite different than what is implied by the quoted portion above (though that is the part always quoted):

... Therefore, if what was done here, was what was intended by section 112 (i) (1) (B), it is of no consequence that it was all an elaborate scheme to get rid of income taxes, as it certainly was. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Congress meant to cover such a transaction, not even though the facts answer the dictionary definitions of each term used in the statutory definition. It is quite true, as the Board has very well said, that as the articulation of a statute increases, the room for interpretation must contract; but the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the separate words, as a melody is more than the notes, and no degree of particularity can ever obviate recourse to the setting in which all appear, and which all collectively create. The purpose of the section is plain enough; men engaged in enterprises — industrial, commercial, financial, or any other — might wish to consolidate, or divide, to add to, or subtract from, their holdings. Such transactions were not to be considered as "realizing" any profit, because the collective interests still remained in solution. But the underlying presupposition is plain that the readjustment shall be undertaken for reasons germane to the conduct of the venture in hand, not as an ephemeral incident, egregious to its prosecution. To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations."


[all emphasis added]

In other words, the intent of the rule, as well as its exact wording, is critical. Following the letter of the law will not necessarily be a complete defense if doing so yields a result clearly unintended by Congress. (At least, that's what happened in this case.) The circuit court assessed a deficiency.
   74. Squash Posted: August 27, 2014 at 12:06 AM (#4779745)
(In fact, given that government is evil, the fewer taxes one pays, the better for everyone.)

Out of curiosity, is there a country out there of decent size that is somewhere close to the ideal for hardcore libertarians? I.e. is there any country, again of reasonable size (no islands in the ocean), that is close to getting it right?

I've never actually heard it formulated what system it is that would represent the ideal libertarian state and how it would function (serious question - obviously a very broad one, but if there are broad strokes I'd be interested to hear them). Let's assume that a country system has to remain in place, because countries aren't going anywhere lacking a serious change in human living conditions, at which point we're all subsistence farmers anyway.
   75. OCF Posted: August 27, 2014 at 12:11 AM (#4779749)
For those of you asking "Was Jimmy the guy who ...?" Yes, he was. For the full spectrum of Jimmy, see the HOM Koufax thread, starting at post 236. For the Mickey Stanley stuff, see the Kaline thread, starting at post 76.
   76. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 12:56 AM (#4779760)
Then how the hell do you know the name Lester Hayes? His rookie year was 1977. And the use of stickum was widely known in Hayes's day. I distinctly remember TV closeups of him with that stuff all over his hands and arm, and the commentators chuckling about it.


my favorite team before i stopped watching were the chiefs. and at that time, the raiders were their biggest rival.

however, i am not sure that i do know lester hayes. if he didnt start until 1977, i doubt i saw much of him, if at all. the raiders dbs were george atkinson, willie brown, nehemiah wilson, jack tatum. at least of what i can recall - we are talking quite a few years ago !!
   77. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:00 AM (#4779761)
i can tell you that they did not advertise stickum, while i was watching.

and while you guys might have considered it to be lester hayes, it was originally fred biletnikof.

who, from my research, is the one that gave it to hayes.

biletnikof was well thought of for his pass catching ability.

i can just see it now - look at the great hands of biletnikof. oh btw, he cheats and wears something on his hands that allow the ball to stick to it.

i am telling you guys that it was not talked about. just who knew, i dont know.
   78. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:03 AM (#4779762)
Wait. Is jimmy the same guy who claimed that Mickey Stanley was one of the top 3 OF in the 60's?


please quote me correctly. i never said this. what i said is that he was THE BEST DEFENSIVE CENTER FIELDER during the time i watched. and i stick by it, BIGTIME.
   79. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:07 AM (#4779763)
david,

your posts about gloves and stickum are simply too ridiculous for me to make a comment.

either you know this already, or you are the nut. and that is my last comment about that particular question.

if that is all ya got, you need to go back to the drawing board.
   80. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:10 AM (#4779764)
many of you guys seem to support the notion of "doing whatever, as long as you dont get caught".

that was not the case amongst fans, in my time.

   81. tshipman Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:32 AM (#4779768)
I love that Jimmy's reply that reads "please quote me correctly" is in fact using the quote feature incorrectly.

   82. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:51 AM (#4779772)
that is the first funny thing i have seen. i am not good with the quote feature yet, for sure.
   83. Baldrick Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:54 AM (#4779773)
Wow. Just read those HOM threads and...wow. No comments other than that.
   84. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 02:25 AM (#4779778)
ocf forgot to mention the mccovey thread, if you want some more wow.
   85. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 03:05 AM (#4779779)
btw, i understand people's surprise about my comments about stanley.

most of you did not see him play, and certainly not as much as i did, so you wouldnt know, other than to consult your bible of statistics.

however, koufax and mccovey are already in everyone's great ballplayers, so i cant think of how i could have said anything too earth-shattering about those players.

other than i saw both of them play MANY, MANY TIMES.

those teams are in my area. and as much as i liked the giants and mccovey, i must have seen him play in at least 100 games over all the years that i saw him. and that is being extremely conservative. that is only like 6 or 7 games in an entire year.

heck, if i just count the dodger-giant games, which were almost always on tv, i saw mccovey more than 100 times.

koufax was so good that i often decided not to frustrate myself, cuz i would be rooting for the other team. he was dang near unhittable. i got to see him in all his great years.

   86. BrianBrianson Posted: August 27, 2014 at 07:03 AM (#4779784)
Has every baseball player been cheating?


If you ain't cheatin', you ain't competin'
   87. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:20 AM (#4779791)
many of you guys seem to support the notion of "doing whatever, as long as you dont get caught".

that was not the case amongst fans, in my time.
Yes it was.

But it's also not what I'm saying here. What I'm saying is that the issue of being "caught" doesn't make any sense, unless there's a rule against it. Rather, the notion is "Doing whatever, as long as there's no rule against it." Stickum was perfectly legitimate in the NFL until 1981. That you were so oblivious that you didn't know about it doesn't change that.
   88. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:43 AM (#4779802)
But it's also not what I'm saying here. What I'm saying is that the issue of being "caught" doesn't make any sense, unless there's a rule against it. Rather, the notion is "Doing whatever, as long as there's no rule against it." Stickum was perfectly legitimate in the NFL until 1981. That you were so oblivious that you didn't know about it doesn't change that.

True. If the activity is illegal, you can argue it is cheating even w/o a specific rule in the sport.

But, if it's legal and within the rules, it can't really be cheating.
   89. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:54 AM (#4779807)
If the activity is illegal, you can argue it is cheating even w/o a specific rule in the sport.


You can argue it, but you can also argue it is not the sport's job to police things.I tend to prefer to let sports have their rules and society its laws and let each take care of its own.
   90. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4779814)
You can argue it, but you can also argue it is not the sport's job to police things.I tend to prefer to let sports have their rules and society its laws and let each take care of its own.

Really? So, you wouldn't view putting sedatives in the other team's pre-game buffet as cheating?
   91. Ron J2 Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:43 AM (#4779834)
Jimmy, here's the thing. You weren't the only person here who saw Stanley play. What's more I know what his contemporary reputation was -- and that he was generally seen as a lesser defender than Paul Blair. Broadly in line with Ken Berry.

In fact Berry is an unusually good comp. You rarely find players that similar. Right down to the number of seasons as the clear regular (4) and number of seasons with 400+ PAs (7), combined with being fine defensive players who didn't kill you with the bat (career 90 OPS+ for Stanley, 91 for Berry).

Now not being seen as Paul Blair's equal as a defensive player is not what you'd call an insult, but the notion that Stanley was seen as an elite player by anybody but Detroit based fanboys is absurd.
   92. Ron J2 Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4779843)
Oh and David's right. I got the Thompson reference. Will the McMeeting Come to Order. One of my favorite Bill James pieces, mocking the Padres stance on refusing to make an offer to Tim Raines because of his past issue with cocaine.

In the second part of the article, the Angel Grumpy tells the Padres that in view of their special relationship with the Almighty they would be allowed to choose any player out of the past and bring him back in his prime.

They reject all of the greats for various character flaws and end up selecting Danny Thompson.

   93. EddieA Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4779854)
So, you wouldn't view putting sedatives in the other team's pre-game buffet as cheating?


It's very likely that baseball has blanket rules against intentionally harming persons or sabotaging opponents equipment. Fair play rules about the quality of the visitor facilities and even pre-field access probably exist. I haven't read about any disciplinary actions about these things but there are likely specified penalties as well.

They reject all of the greats for various character flaws and end up selecting Danny Thompson.


When I was thinking of baseball players eligible for canonization, I thought first of Gehrig and Clemente. I have no idea what they were like with their game face on - just the circumstances of their early deaths make them seem holy.
   94. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4779861)
as i said, some of you go along with "do whatever, if there isnt a specific rule against it"

putting something on your hands to make the ball stick is so far past the point, that if you dont see it, you never will.

they eventually made it illegal - i will let you guys make your own conclusions.
   95. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4779862)
ron,

not sure who "they" is when you make the comparison of blair and stanley ?

but they also say that mays was about the greatest defensive outfielder that ever played, if you listen to all the "theys".

i recall paul blair, cuz he played for the orioles, but not well enough to get down to specifics about him.

so if he is a favorite defensive fielder of yours, i am fine with that.

i have already stated what made stanley so good - the typical tiger fan would never have noticed it. his cap never flew off when he threw the ball. and while he could make diving catches, he was usually just simply there to make what always looked like routine catches.

but it seems pointless to discuss him any further, especially in this thread.
   96. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4779870)
his cap never flew off when he threw the ball.


...

/looks for hidden camera
   97. CrosbyBird Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4779875)
Out of curiosity, is there a country out there of decent size that is somewhere close to the ideal for hardcore libertarians? I.e. is there any country, again of reasonable size (no islands in the ocean), that is close to getting it right?

I don't think any single country is particularly close to the ideal in all ways. You'd have to pick and choose different aspects from different places. The United States is probably the most libertarian country in the first-world, with relatively low taxes and strong protections for speech, gun rights, and religious freedom.

   98. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4779878)
whether we are talking about sports or any other aspect of life, one thing that has become very clear to me is that images (which are almost never accurate) far outlive the reality of a person.

people who had high levels of fame will always seem better or more important than those who didnt.

al kaline is perhaps the best player that no one has ever heard of.

go beyond this forum, and ask a young fan of today who he is - i doubt if even 1 person in 100 would know who you were talking about.

but if he had played in new york, made basket catches, had his cap fly off, and did everything he could to garner attention, he would have been a household name.

or if he dove into first base every time the catcher dropped a 3rd strike. look at how hard that guy tries, even though he got thrown out by 20 feet, and risked getting hurt for the chance in a million that the throw or catch would be bad.
   99. Rusty Priske Posted: August 27, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4779889)
So.... hey, here is an analogy that works...


A while back Bill James proposed a rule that any batter that wears 'body armour' to the plate must keep it on when he runs the bases. No girding up to hit and that discarding it when you reach first.

Let's say that it ten years, MLB adopts that rule.

Now, when evaluating players from THIS era, do you consider any player who removes his batting gear on base a clear cheater?

Should they have had a moral compass that was so advanced that the are able to correclt predict what rules are going to change in the future?

```````````````````

I have a word for players that do everything they can within the rules to win - smart.
   100. Ron J2 Posted: August 27, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4779891)
#93 Clemente through the early 60s had a rep for being soft. And had some run-ins with the press over being called, "Bobby".

Babe Ruth had a few negative things to say about Gehrig -- in particular that the streak hurt the Yankees. He also didn't leave the dugout during the wild brawl that followed Bill Dickey breaking Carl Reynolds' jaw. And we know that's an unforgiveable breach of the code of the game.

James' point is that there's *something* on pretty much everybody. Lefty Grove had a temper and once jumped the team briefly. There's a long list for Ruth ... But sane baseball people will choose to deal with it -- in precisely the same way they'd accept Ty Cobb or well James' point in the article is that you can find something to object to about almost anybody.

The specific thing about Thompson was that he died young, and wasn't well known enough to have much on the record (I suppose you could hold his choice of father in law against him if you wanted to)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-21-2014
(5 - 12:10pm, Sep 21)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(21 - 12:01pm, Sep 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogAthletics out of top wild-card spot, Texas sweeps
(11 - 11:57am, Sep 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3403 - 11:57am, Sep 21)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogLindbergh: Where Dellin Betances’s Season Ranks Historically, and What It Teaches Us About Bullpen Strategy
(1 - 11:48am, Sep 21)
Last: jdennis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(335 - 11:46am, Sep 21)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogCameron: The Stealth MVP Candidacy of Hunter Pence
(5 - 11:42am, Sep 21)
Last: jdennis

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(9 - 11:09am, Sep 21)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogLindbergh: Dellin Betances’s Season & Bullpen Strategy
(5 - 10:50am, Sep 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(318 - 10:42am, Sep 21)
Last: BDC

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(87 - 10:38am, Sep 21)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(295 - 7:40am, Sep 21)
Last: Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-20-2014
(92 - 2:49am, Sep 21)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogEn Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction
(38 - 12:41am, Sep 21)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogEsquire: Martone: The Death of Derek Jeter
(312 - 9:20pm, Sep 20)
Last: Omineca Greg

Page rendered in 0.9606 seconds
53 querie(s) executed