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, January 06, 2013

Hall of Famer Rich Gossage no fan of “known cheaters” in baseball

You can’t spell “As Goes Egos Go” without Goose Gossage.

“If they elect known cheaters into the Hall of Fame, I am not sure I would go back. It hurts me to even think about it,” Gossage told The Denver Post. “But cheaters should absolutely not be in the Hall of Fame. You are telling me we are going to reward these guys? Are you (expletive) kidding me? What is going on in this world? Right is right. Wrong is wrong.”

...“If they get in, what does that tell our kids and everybody else? What message does that send?” said Gossage, the only native Coloradan in the Hall of Fame after receiving 85.8 percent of the vote following his career that included 310 saves. “They say there wouldn’t be a Hall of Fame without PEDs? I completely disagree. No cheaters. Period.”

...Gossage will be watching closely. As he repeatedly failed to gain entrance into the Hall of Fame, he began to believe he’d never make it. Now, the idea of never making it back to Cooperstown is becoming similarly unsettling.

“I try not to live in a glass house,” Gossage said. “Who’s to say if I was injured and HGH was available to me that I wouldn’t have taken it. But I didn’t. If I had, I would like to believe I would fess up and suffer the consequences, meaning no Hall of Fame.

“The most sacred records in the game were broken. They aren’t taking those away from them. The only thing left for a paddle is the election to the Hall of Fame. If they get in, then the Hall of Fame wouldn’t mean a thing. I really don’t know how I could go back.”

 

Repoz Posted: January 06, 2013 at 03:19 AM | 164 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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:28 PM (#4340391)
You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.


No we split hairs, because everyone on here is coming from a different point of view. Your simplistic black/white take on the issue is annoying because it's ####### stupid. You don't have any nuance, you don't have any point of view that requires a functioning brain, you say "Roiders are cheaters. Cheaters violate the character/integrity clause and shouldn't go in. Unless of course the cheaters did it in another way than with roids"...

You can't clarify why roids is different than amp users. You can't clarify why the character issue for roiders is a bigger deal than it is for someone like Cap Anson. You don't have a legitimate argument or point of view.


Esoteric gave his point of view and his reasoning. Andy also does that. You on the other hand don't. You don't have a consistent argument. And when you give an argument it says nothing.


Why is roids grossly immoral, but keeping blacks out of MLB not? Why is roids immoral but amps and spitballs aren't? Heck you have been asked multiple times to defend your point of view, and you never do.
   102. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:29 PM (#4340393)
the critical distinction is that amphetamines do not alter a player's permanent baseline the way steroids do.

Let's assume that this is true, though I don't know if it is.

But what if a player takes steroids ONE TIME? Or even two or three times... a small number. Surely this isn't enough to alter his "permanent baseline." Steroids are not a "magic pill," even though it seems to me that many people (sportswriters) still view them as such. They require time, they require repeated use, and they require hard work to have any effect. But I think most of anti-steroids crowd would say that a player who uses steroids even once has "crossed the line."

If, say, Rafael Palmeiro takes one single steroid shot (knowingly or unknowingly) and tests positive for it, does that make him an irredeemable cheater even if he gains no "enhancement" from it? While other guys were popping greenies 162 times a year?
   103. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:37 PM (#4340399)
Man, you guys are funny: is personal insults and hairsplitting really all that you have?

Well, no, but my question to Eso was ignored. Twice.

Actually, have you ever explained your distinction between amphetamines and steroids for HOFers?
   104. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4340400)
OK, this was 80+ posts ago and the thread has swerved a bit. But here is Wilbur Wood's 1975 with Goose Gossage's 1975 removed:

149.2 IP, 210 H, 116 R, 104 ER, 23 HR, 22 BB, 10 K, ERA 6.25, ERA+ 62.

That's quite horrible. Kaat-Gossage (162 IP of 4.22 ERA, good for an ERA+ of 93) is at least worth talking about; Kaat is probably ahead if you don't believe in accounting for leverage.



How about this... here is Wilbur Wood's Jun 10th- August 20th... 19gs, 143ip, 2.89 era, 10 complete games, 2 shutouts and 13-6 record.... 1.196 whip....compared to Gossage 1.81 era and 1.193 whip over 141 ip. Only thing is that Wood then adds another 150 ip. I said maybe, but it doesn't really look like Gossage has much on Wood here.

It's easy to put up good numbers in shorter stretches. For the most part, any great reliever performance you find, is probably equaled or better by a starter at some point in time, for the simple fact that starters are almost always better pitchers on average.
   105. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:44 PM (#4340408)
Only thing is that Wood then adds another 150 ip.

In which he gave up 87 earned runs (5.28 ERA), and had a record of 3-14. Again, I don't see that as helpful at all. And Gossage's ERA is a full run lower than Wood's even in the favorable sample.
   106. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4340413)
I meant the asterisk to be a personal one; not to imply that you would impose your moral judgment on the record book.

Thanks, since it wouldn't have been the first time that my views on this have been conflated with others'. It's pretty obvious that my POV on steroids and the HoF is shared by virtually nobody, as evidenced by the virtual non-existence of writers who've said they'd vote for Clemens and not Bonds.

Still, in the context that jmac raised, wouldn't you agree that 73* does a fairly good job of capturing the starting point of the mass furor over the PED issue? It wasn't just that the record was broken, it was the fact that in 2001 (unlike 1998) a significant chunk of people were suspicious of what they were witnessing.

I can only speak for myself here, but I didn't jump on Bonds's case until the BALCO revelations. In 2001 and for three years after that I was willing to give him the benefit of whatever doubt there was at the time. Hell, back then I was comparing Bonds favorably to Babe Ruth as a position player, and the only knock on him I voiced was his pre-2002 postseason blues.

I also seem to recall that the first significant explosion of general public interest in steroids in baseball came in the wake of the Canseco book and the BALCO revelations, both of which postdated 73 (or 73*) by more than three years. Three and a half years passed by between the Bonds single season record and the first congressional hearings. That doesn't say to me that the record in itself was that much of an impetus, at least until the players who broke the record in 1998 and then in 2001 were both linked to steroids by at least semi-credible third parties. Without the Canseco book and the BALCO revelations I doubt if the steroid issue would have reached the boiling point that it did, though I admit that's just an opinion based on my reading of the chronology. There's no way of knowing it for sure.
   107. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:49 PM (#4340414)
In which he gave up 87 earned runs (5.28 ERA), and had a record of 3-14. Again, I don't see that as helpful at all. And Gossage's ERA is a full run lower than Wood's even in the favorable sample.


Agreed, but that is all he brought to the table. I'm sorry I just don't see how a pitcher who allowed roughly 2 runs per 9 but only pitched two innings an appearance, is as valuable as a guy allowing 4.5 but who goes 8 routinely and throws nearly 300 innings.

Gossage's great year puts him in the conversation, but 150 innnings is a big gap, even if they are all at replacement level, it's still too big of a gap in my opinion. (Of course the 27 inherited runners out of 99 has to be considered as part of the equation)
   108. KT's Pot Arb Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:49 PM (#4340415)
Fair enough, here's a question. Just curious, do you believe Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire would have hit 70+ HRs had they been taking greenies alone, in the absence of other substances?


Mar McGwire hit 49 HR in 150 games at age 23 without steroids. He was a lock to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy long enough, and he almost didn't.

Barry Bonds never devoted himself to weight training until his 30s, and he was still going to be much stronger from doing that even if he didnt take steroids. without them he might have only hit 69 or 70 that season, if MLB HR rates post testing are any guide.

And who brings up placebos like HGH in a PED discussion?
   109. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:53 PM (#4340416)
At SoSH: Probably not, but while there would have been a steroids issue in baseball if Bonds had retired in 1999, there is little doubt in my mind that the intensity of the backlash was fueled for many based on how they feel about Bonds, if for no other reason than Bonds=eyeballs and that always activates the media. As to "evidence" for this, one small piece is the amount of bandwidth devoted to Bonds here. Add that to Pearlman, Game of Shadows, the Ecko Ball, any number of announcers/bloggers who went off on Bonds etc. etc. etc...it is clear that some of this was and is very much "about Bonds", who is one of the most polarizing and talked-about athletes in the history of sports. That is a big part of this story.


Bonds undoubtedly became a big part of the story, his presence likely ratcheting up the anti-steroids intensity and him being ultimately labeled (with Roger playing a supporting role) the face of steroids to the media and the public. All of that is true. But the idea that the steroids frenzy was fueled by anti-Bonds sentiment isn't supported by the facts.
   110. smileyy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:53 PM (#4340417)
He was a lock to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy long enough, and he almost didn't.


If this is true (which I'm also not sure it is), is it ok to take steroids to keep his body performing at his "permanent baseline", but not surpass it?

Hence my entire skepticism of this "performance baseline" thing.

And who brings up placebos like HGH in a PED discussion?


MLB needs to ban the placebo effect.
   111. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4340421)
[97] I'm not sure why performance enhancement, under the guidance of a certified physician, isn't a legal thing.

The hangup lies partly in defining "enhancement", which seems to have two radically conflicting definitions. Baseball already allows a form of steroids (cortisone) for rehab purposes, but to go beyond that I suspect it'd have to be allowed only as long as a player were on the DL. It's a good point you raise, but it's an extremely tricky set of rules to establish to everyone's satisfaction. We've seen that for many years here in our discussions about the nature of the "enhancing" properties of amphetamines.
   112. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2013 at 10:58 PM (#4340422)
He was a lock to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy long enough, and he almost didn't.


He was pretty healthy for the next half-dozen years after his rookie season (the rabbit-ball 1987), and didn't come close to that 49 total during that time frame. I think it's possible, maybe even likely, a healthy* McGwire breaks Maris' record down the road, but he was never a lock.

* Which, of course, may be the bigger question entirely.
   113. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 06, 2013 at 11:01 PM (#4340426)
Gossage's great year puts him in the conversation, but 150 innnings is a big gap, even if they are all at replacement level

They weren't at replacement level; they were below it. Again, the difference between Wood and Gossage's seasons was 149.2 innings at a 6.25 ERA, which is a 62 ERA+; that's far worse than any estimate I've heard of replacement level for pitching. It also doesn't account for Wood's higher rate of allowing unearned runs (which tends to be a thing with knuckleballers).

Try this: If you sort the White Sox pitching staff by worst ERA to best, and add up the worst pitchers until you get to Bill Gogolewski, you get 148.2 innings and an RA of 6.96. Wood-Gossage is almost identical - 149.2 innings, RA of 6.97. So Gossage + the absolute worst pitchers on the staff = Wood.
   114. smileyy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4340428)
[111] Sorry -- by "legal", I meant legal under US laws. (I don't actually know that its not, but I don't think it is).

I'm also not sure its helpful to conflate corticosteroids and anabolic steroids, though I agree (clearly) with the point you're making about rehabilitative vs. enhancing drugs. What is the "permanent baseline" of a player with inflammation issues that can be treated with corticosteroids? At what point should that prescription be made? When he can't walk? Or when he can only OPS 800 instead of 1000?
   115. Squash Posted: January 06, 2013 at 11:08 PM (#4340431)
I just can't get my head around the idea of amps being non-enhancing, that they take you back to 100% and no further. That doesn't square with any other description of them, for either recreational or sports use - no one in the Olympic or cycling or football world would ever describe their efficacy as such.
   116. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 06, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4340441)
I'm also not sure its helpful to conflate corticosteroids and anabolic steroids, though I agree (clearly) with the point you're making about rehabilitative vs. enhancing drugs. What is the "permanent baseline" of a player with inflammation issues that can be treated with corticosteroids? At what point should that prescription be made? When he can't walk? Or when he can only OPS 800 instead of 1000?

If I were a scientist I suppose I could make a stab at that, but in the case of cortisone it's an issue that seems to have been resolved without much controversy for the past 60+ years. Whatever we may think one way or the other about their moral use in baseball, it's clear that anabolic steroids are considered an "enhancement" distinct from any other "enhancement" in general use. And until we (and baseball) can agree on what constitutes a "permanent baseline" of a player's natural talent level, I doubt if we'll be seeing any approval of anabolic steroids for any purposes at all, even if in theory it might be a good idea.
   117. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2013 at 11:50 PM (#4340448)
They weren't at replacement level; they were below it. Again, the difference between Wood and Gossage's seasons was 149.2 innings at a 6.25 ERA, which is a 62 ERA+; that's far worse than any estimate I've heard of replacement level for pitching. It also doesn't account for Wood's higher rate of allowing unearned runs (which tends to be a thing with knuckleballers).

Try this: If you sort the White Sox pitching staff by worst ERA to best, and add up the worst pitchers until you get to Bill Gogolewski, you get 148.2 innings and an RA of 6.96. Wood-Gossage is almost identical - 149.2 innings, RA of 6.97. So Gossage + the absolute worst pitchers on the staff = Wood.


Remember I prefaced it with maybe, but yes I think a pitcher who pitches 300 innings at 5.00 is arguably as valuable as a reliever who pitches 140 innings at 2.00 era. That pitcher going 300 innings, clears up a spot or two on the bench for bats or gloves. That reliever who goes 140 innnings, costs you a bench spot by forcing you to have another pitcher.

I do not fathom there is any scenario that will make me think a 2.00 era reliever over 140 ips, is noticeably more valuable than a starting pitcher who throws 290 innings at 4.50 era.
   118. Depressoteric Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:33 AM (#4340471)
More simply, if you stop taking amphetamines, they stop working. If you stop taking steroids, they stop working. I can't fathom how steroids can be classified as permanent.
Lassus, I didn't mean to ignore this, I simply missed it. That said, I'll admit that my stomach for breaking down the minutiae of these arguments is pretty much non-existent at this point -- it's the sort of debate I guess I'd be okay with having orally, but when reduced to writing (and when argued with the standard Primer-level attention to hairsplitting detail...note that I don't use "hairsplitting" as a negative term, really), this stuff always seems to swiftly devolve into epistemological musings on the nature of truth, fact, belief, etc. etc.

However, since you're a good sport and I don't want you to think I'm intentionally blowing you off, I'll give you my a precis response: the 'permanence' I refer to w/r/t anabolic steroids is directly related to my argument about how they fundamentally alter the baseline, the denominator. Amphetamines may amp you up, temporarily increase (or restore) your mental acuity and focus, but they do not alter your raw physical strength, lift capacity, or bat speed. (They may sharpen one's reflexes, but that's not the same as bat speed, which is a function of strength.) Anabolics, meanwhile, physically alter the body of the user on a semi-permanent basis, allowing them to put on vastly more muscle mass than they otherwise naturally would be able to. Sure, the effect can be labelled "temporary" if one squints enough -- but then this way of viewing things would render EVERYTHING 'temporary', including weight-lifting or nutritional regimes, exercise programs, everything -- hell, life itself is 'temporary' by this reckoning. It strikes me as a parsing of the meaning of the term that avoids the reality that one drug affects someone's brain function for an hour, and the other one fundamentally alters a person's physical body on an ongoing basis.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that I find a lot of the hair-splitting in these arguments tends to devolve into cutesy epistemological dorm-room bull session stuff. (It seriously reminds me of the same 'well but if you look at it THIS way...' tricks I used to play on my buddies in college: "Dude, think about it: if skyscrapers and cars and plastic garbage bags and nuclear waste are create by humans, doesn't that make them just as 'natural' as anything else? Yo, stop bogarting that J, bro.")

And with that, I am well and truly done. Let's be honest with ourselves: NOBODY is going to convince ANYBODY to abandon their strongly-held positions at this point. Let's all just agree that Murray Chass is an ass and call it a day, what say?
   119. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4340476)
And with that, I am well and truly done. Let's be honest with ourselves: NOBODY is going to convince ANYBODY to abandon their strongly-held positions at this point. Let's all just agree that Murray Chass is an ass and call it a day, what say?

[Bangs cue stick butt on floor in demonstration of approval.]
   120. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:48 AM (#4340481)
Talking about the 1975 White Sox is eight times more interesting than talking about steroids.
   121. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:53 AM (#4340485)
David Nieporent is an amazing reader of minds.


Well, when all of the arguments for a certain conclusion are irrational, one looks for reasons why the conclusion was made. And one quickly comes up with things like "the conclusion came first" or boyhood heros.

One then considers that when rational people make irrational arguments, there is a distinct possibility that these people are being dishonest as to their motives.
   122. Dudefella Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:59 AM (#4340488)
FWIW, from personal experience, the idea that amps "just take you back up to 100%" is wrong. I've used amphetamines. Aside from the effects on clarity, stamina, etc., I could run faster and workout harder when I was using than not. And I wasn't coming off the slog of a road trip in August.
   123. Depressoteric Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:09 AM (#4340495)
One then considers that when rational people make irrational arguments, there is a distinct possibility that these people are being dishonest as to their motives.
It strikes me as an altogether unconstructive and uncongenial move to not-so-subtlely float the idea that someone you disagree with holds their anti-steroid position because they are a dishonest liar concealing a secret motive. It just seems rather unfortunate to go straight to attacking someone's character, especially over something so ultimately petty.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm younger than everyone else in this thread (or nearly so at least), so I tire of the "defending boyhood heroes" line. I was born in late 1980. My boyhood heroes were...Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and their contemporaries.
   124. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:20 AM (#4340500)
It strikes me as an altogether unconstructive and uncongenial move to not-so-subtlely float the idea that someone you disagree with holds their anti-steroid position because they are a dishonest liar concealing a secret motive. It just seems rather unfortunate to go straight to attacking someone's character, especially over something so ultimately petty.


The alternative is that you're incapable of forming rational thought, which, judging from the rest of your posting history, doesn't seem to be the case.

The distinctions between amps and steroids for HOF purposes are non-existant, and so the people claiming there are meaningful distinctions come off looking really silly.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm younger than everyone else in this thread (or nearly so at least), so I tire of the "defending boyhood heroes" line. I was born in late 1980. My boyhood heroes were...Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and their contemporaries.


Well, I don't claim to know exactly what motivates people to make ludicrous conclusions. So for you it's not boyhood heros. Big whoop. Doesn't really matter why you're doing it.
   125. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4340505)
I tire of the "defending boyhood heroes" line. I was born in late 1980. My boyhood heroes were...Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and their contemporaries.

Irritating though I find Ray's tendency to invent motives for other posters, I'm going to do it back to him - my suspicion is that he's actually trying to be charitable, because he finds it less insulting to call someone dishonest than to call them irrational.

I find this opinion ridiculous, but it should be noted that this opinion should not be ascribed to anyone who has not actually claimed it, because I AM MAKING IT UP.
   126. Depressoteric Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4340506)
*sigh*

Well, that's a dispiriting way for this conversation to end.
   127. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:50 AM (#4340525)
Eso -

Your argument rests on a specific and falsifiable claim that amphetamines do not enhance athletic ability beyond its "natural" level.

As far as I can tell from searching around on the medical databases, this claim is indeed false. The still-cited classic articles are Weiss and Laties, "Enhancement of Human Performance by Caffeine and the Amphetamines" in Pharmacological Review and Weiss and Laties, "Performance Enhancement by the Amphetamines" in Neuro-Psycho-Pharmacology. In both articles, they show that the performance enhanceming effect of amphetamines in athletic tasks goes beyond simply removing fatigue effects and instead improves baseline performance.
   128. caprules Posted: January 07, 2013 at 02:07 AM (#4340530)
The distinctions between amps and steroids for HOF purposes are non-existant, and so the people claiming there are meaningful distinctions come off looking really silly.


There is a distinction of the legality of the substances, depending on what players are being discussed.
   129. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 07, 2013 at 02:12 AM (#4340533)
Some people talk about the clubhouse culture, rather than the chemical differences. They claim that baseball was more accepting of amphetamines than steroids, because unlike amphetamines, steroids were taken furtively by players who lied and denied it. Here's Tom Verducci from the Q-and-A linked here on Friday:

"I asked [Alex Rodriguez] about steroids in 2002 while working on the Caminiti story. It was in his hotel suite in Chicago after a game one night. He looked at me like I had two heads. Steroids? Gee, why would anybody take them? What do they do? I don’t know anything about it...I walked out of the suite shaking my head about his complete and theatrical lack of knowledge about the worst kept secret in the game. It would be seven years later that we all discovered, by his own admission, that he was loaded to the gills on steroids at that very moment."

Here's an account of Pete Rose's court testimony, under oath, in 1981:

"Under questioning by the doctor's lawyer, Rose was asked: "Are you denying it now that you have ever taken any greenies or Dexamyl?"

He replied: "What is a greenie?" A few questions later, as the lawyer continued to press him, Rose asked again, "What's a greenie? Is that a -- what's a greenie?" He denied in court that day ever having taken any form of amphetamine."

...His denial that he even knew what a greenie was, two years after telling Playboy that he had taken them, was audacious."
   130. DFA Posted: January 07, 2013 at 02:25 AM (#4340539)
This has been a very interesting thread, thanks!

I side in the minority on this one. I understand that greenies may have had the effect of a PED, but it's also true that greenies aren't on trial here. Like many things in life, searching for 100% consistency is as meaningless as counting crows; the world is gray, not black and white. Steroid users cheated the game. The fact that preceding generations of ballplayers did as well does not vindicate them IMO.

In some respects, let's say that Mike Trout started using a non-detectable performance enhancing drug (say drug x), and down the road came out and stated that PED world had evolved and he took advantage of the system because x drug wasn't specifically banned. Should he be commended for beating the system or vilified for cheating the players he played with and against?

If the argument is that greenie users are already in the HOF, is the lesson that the steroids guys should be in the HOF to be consistent, or is it that the previous edition of the BBWAA really let the game down?

I also don't see what the big deal is about Goose saying anything here. A reporter asked him his thoughts and he gave them. Much like we are all doing.
   131. The District Attorney Posted: January 07, 2013 at 02:33 AM (#4340541)
I do agree that anyone who listens to Counting Crows has rendered their career meaningless.
   132. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: January 07, 2013 at 02:38 AM (#4340543)
You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.

Is there any use crying over spilt hairs?
No, I say: no, there is not.

Anyway, nowadays it's more like "LOON" Gossage, amirite?
   133. DFA Posted: January 07, 2013 at 02:53 AM (#4340546)
I do agree that anyone who listens to Counting Crows has rendered their career meaningless.


Everything means nothing to me. Feel better now?
   134. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 03:21 AM (#4340550)
I'm on the side of the angels


And now you're on the list of the ignored. You don't seem to have any interest in actual discussion, and I'm not interested in being preached at by a fundamentalist.
   135. Longshort1 Posted: January 07, 2013 at 04:23 AM (#4340557)
"Glad" to know that now with Bob Feller gone that the HOF will have another curmudgeonly pitcher to rant on about something every year.
   136. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 06:51 AM (#4340562)
It strikes me as an altogether unconstructive and uncongenial move to not-so-subtlely float the idea that someone you disagree with holds their anti-steroid position because they are a dishonest liar concealing a secret motive. It just seems rather unfortunate to go straight to attacking someone's character, especially over something so ultimately petty.
To be fair, some of those people are just retarded.


EDIT: Again, the problem is that when people make arguments that are demonstrably wrong -- factually, I mean, not merely morally -- and continue to make those arguments after their errors are pointed out to them, there are only two explanations: that they are deliberately lying, or that they are incapable of understanding. Someone who says that anyone who uses any PEDs should be banned doesn't make any sense, but might not fit into the above description. But someone who draws distinctions between amphetamines and steroids that are scientifically and logically wrong does.
   137. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 07:12 AM (#4340565)
I side in the minority on this one. I understand that greenies may have had the effect of a PED, but it's also true that greenies aren't on trial here. Like many things in life, searching for 100% consistency is as meaningless as counting crows; the world is gray, not black and white. Steroid users cheated the game. The fact that preceding generations of ballplayers did as well does not vindicate them IMO.
Wait, "steroids users cheated the game" is the "gray" perspective rather than the "black and white" one? And what does the fact that the world is purportedly gray have to do with the issue of whether one should be logically consistent?
In some respects, let's say that Mike Trout started using a non-detectable performance enhancing drug (say drug x), and down the road came out and stated that PED world had evolved and he took advantage of the system because x drug wasn't specifically banned. Should he be commended for beating the system or vilified for cheating the players he played with and against?
First, if it wasn't banned, what difference does it make whether it was detectable? Why is that word there, except to make it sound somehow illicit? Second, he should be commended for playing really well. He didn't "cheat" anyone in the scenario you describe, nor did he "beat the system."
If the argument is that greenie users are already in the HOF, is the lesson that the steroids guys should be in the HOF to be consistent, or is it that the previous edition of the BBWAA really let the game down?
The problem isn't that the "previous edition" of the BBWAA did that, but that the current edition of the BBWAA -- the very same people who are sanctimonious about steroid use -- are defending those earlier players. What you're ignoring is that retroactive morality is always repugnant. It's one thing to say that MLB should ban PEDs, and then people like Rafael Palmeiro who violate that ban should be vilified. It's another to say that people who used PEDs at a time when it was fine should be ex post facto punished. Gaylord Perry might have been a cheater cheater cheater (*), but people who used the spitball pre-ban were not. (Indeed, MLB actually grandfathered them in, recognizing that not only is ex post facto morality repugnant, but that it was unfair to change the rules on players who built their careers in a given way.)


(*) Not really, because he's not Barry Bonds.
   138. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 07, 2013 at 09:14 AM (#4340580)
I side in the minority on this one. I understand that greenies may have had the effect of a PED, but it's also true that greenies aren't on trial here. Like many things in life, searching for 100% consistency is as meaningless as counting crows; the world is gray, not black and white. Steroid users cheated the game. The fact that preceding generations of ballplayers did as well does not vindicate them IMO.
For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent. If you think that PED users did a real bad thing, you don't have to be bound by the failure of the Hall to keep out earlier PED users. In fact, it's a practical certainty that if there haven't been contemporary steroid users inducted yet, there will be within five years. So if you want to keep steroids out of the Hall, but you still want to keep voting for at least some players, you have to accept some inconsistency.

I do disagree with it. I think the extent of the inconsistency is too great to be justified. Inducting only steroid users who were better at keeping their use private doesn't seem like a particularly laudable end. Having the Hall treat one group of PED cheaters so differently than another smacks of generational bias rather than an attempt to set right past wrongs. (I also don't see the necessity of policing PED use at the HoF ballot level. It should be policed among active players, and it's good that it is being so policed. It doesn't seem like something that can usefully be dealt with by the Hall.)

Which relates to a further point, one made by David above. If Manny Alexander and Manny Ramirez "cheated the game" by using PEDs, and you're not making scientifically dubious arguments about amphetamines not really having performance enhancing effects, then you also believe that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle "cheated the game". If there's a sportswriter out there who has devoted a column - or a single column inch - to the argument that the heroes of the golden age of 1950s baseball "cheated the gane", I haven't seen it. Honestly, DFA, I didn't even see you make that claim, though it was implied. It'd be interesting to see it made, full stop, no dependent clauses.
   139. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 07, 2013 at 09:34 AM (#4340588)
Minor points of clarification:

Were all amphetamines (well, the ones players were taking en masse) illegal without a prescription in the 1950s?

Would those condemning amphetamine use condemn them if they were taken with a prescription?


   140. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 07, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4340594)
The pills always required a prescription. An over-the-counter inhalable version was available from the 1930s until 1970. New restrictions on amphetamines were imposed in 1965, but prescriptions were not hard to get. In part because prescriptions were being widely abused-- over half, and by some estimates 90% of amphetamine pills ended up on the black market-- they became a Schedule II drug as of 1971.
   141. base ball chick Posted: January 07, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4340670)
jack

people would condemn any sort of steroid use in any player even if he was given them BY A SPORTS PHYSICIAN under strict supervision to heal seriously damaged muscle. nobody condemns any of the ballpolayers for amphetamine use mfor exactly one reason - THEY DO NOT MAKE LARGER MUSCLES. and you can't convince anti-roiders that male humans can increase muscle size without also doing roids (not including vaginal suppositories or precursors like progesterone or DHEA or androstenedoine) and people absolutely INSIST that 100% of the time, bigger muscle = ballplayer who hits more home runs.

the number of people who think that because mcgwire hit 49 homers as a rookie, he HAD to be using, is very high

i would bet just about any amount of money that no one except jeff pearlman would have a problem if any ballplayer toook ANY substance that permanently improved his performance as a baseball player AS LONG AS it did not increase the size of his muscles.

for example, let's suppose that player X uses, say, saline nose spray and finds out that spraying it in his nose improves his ability to focus on the spin of the ball and that after using the spray for a year, the ability is permanent.

did he cheat?

let's suppose that player Y decides to fix Vitamin C and does weekly butt injections because he found that it strengthened his wrist tendons and back tendons, allowing him to have significnatly increased butt, i mean BAT spead. besides him being an obvious homosex (i mean seriously, isn't that why everyone is so UPSET that androgen injections are, for whatever reason, taken in the BUTT???!!!!! seeing as how you know how Those Peeple are) has he cheated?

let's suppose that player Z lines his jock strap with aluminum foil after giving himself an enema with capsascin powder because he finds that this significantly enhances his alertness and focus and enables him to run faster, field better and singles those balls where the fielders ain't.

should any of these guys have to announce his new discovery that gave him this great advantage to either other players or to the media? all of those things used are available over the counter to anyone who wants them, including toddlers. has anyone "cheated?"

now youse guys might could laugh and say something like IGGNERINT WIMMEN!!!!! but the point is that each one of these guys was specifically TRYING to find something to make himself a better player, some little edge, wasn't NONE of the substances he used illegal (like androstenedione, the Clear, vit B-12). is trying to find any sort of edge not prohibited - is that a bad thing?

should we punish/suspend all the guys who wear those metal necklace thingys because they believe that they help prevent injuries/improve their playing by using cosmic rays/magnetic fields/radioactive spider juice?
   142. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4340681)
126. Esoteric Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4340506)

*sigh*

Well, that's a dispiriting way for this conversation to end.


And better for you to end it there. No need sinking any further into an unsupportable argument.
   143. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4340689)
For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent. If you think that PED users did a real bad thing, you don't have to be bound by the failure of the Hall to keep out earlier PED users. In fact, it's a practical certainty that if there haven't been contemporary steroid users inducted yet, there will be within five years. So if you want to keep steroids out of the Hall, but you still want to keep voting for at least some players, you have to accept some inconsistency.
I'm not really sure I agree with this. There's no legal requirement that the HOF be consistent, obviously -- but I think there's an implicit requirement inherent in the nature of the HOF. This has nothing to do with PEDs; I've made the same argument with voters who argue that the HOF should be radically smaller (or larger, I suppose, but there are really no voters out there making such an argument) than it is now. It's fine to argue that a baseball hof should be restricted to the inner circle players (although I think such a hall would be pretty pointless and uninteresting), but that's not the HOF we have, and voters should not be allowed to dramatically shift the standards at this point. If you want to make it a bit more exclusive, go ahead. Top 12% instead of 15%. (Numbers made up for illustrative purposes.) But to say that half the players from the 1930s belong in the HOF but only inner circle players do today is wrong. In the context of PEDs, I think that means that if you want to say that marginal candidates who you think wouldn't have gotten in without PED use should be excluded, that's one thing. (Though I think it wrongheaded for other reasons.) But to suddenly retroactively apply an automatic wholesale exclusion, no.
   144. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4340710)
The distinctions between amps and steroids for HOF purposes are non-existant, and so the people claiming there are meaningful distinctions come off looking really silly.

There is a distinction of the legality of the substances, depending on what players are being discussed.


And when people thought Sosa was "parsing" his statement before Congress to leave open the possibility that he may have taken steroids legally in the DR, that didn't seem to matter to them.

   145. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4340723)
For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent.


"Requirement"? No, but I think consistency is a major part of the legitimacy, credibility, and respect of the institution.

(And as David said, this applies to issues other than PEDs.)
   146. Ron J2 Posted: January 07, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4340744)
.except for Gaylord Perry and Don Drysdale. They're cool.


And Sisler and Ruth (used illegal bats)

And I have to say that if you're talking "character clause" and you're fine with Juan Marichal but not Barry Bonds you have some mighty screwed up priorities. And yes, I understand that the Roseboro incident cost him votes.
   147. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4340764)
I could hear the voices of many of you out there, pleading with me to keep all the "cheaters" out of Cooperstown. Hey, I'd love to help. But …

Unfortunately, I continue to hear my own voice, asking: "How, exactly?" If you could all just tell me precisely who did what, maybe it might actually be possible to keep the Hall untarnished and pristine. But it isn't possible in this universe.


Jayson Stark.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8814530/jayson-stark-mlb-hall-fame-ballot
   148. Ron J2 Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4340772)
#122 There's a heck of a lot of research on the performance enhancing aspects of amphetamines. I've frequently posted a series of posts (from the usenet Braves group) by Dr. Steve Patterson. While most of it has to do with the safety of steroids, it also includes a mention of a paper that sums up much of the research into the performance enhancing aspects.

Take the right amphetamine in the right amount and you get improved reaction time. While Andy objects that there's no proven link between reaction time and baseball performance that's true of all PEDs. Nobody to my knowledge has studied what any PED does for baseball players.
   149. Dudefella Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4340787)
Ron J2:

I haven't looked into the research, mostly because my amphetamine use was recreational, short-lived, and a long time ago. And what I was using was methamphetamine, which may well have somewhat different pharmacological effects than something like dexedrine. But still, what you cite is consonant with my (admittedly anecdotal, n=1) experience. When I was using, I felt like a superhero. I was faster, stronger, more finely-tuned than when I was not. Even if much of that was a placebo, it was a hell of a placebo.
   150. Bob Tufts Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4340797)
no proven link between reaction time and baseball performance


Tell that to any batter facing a 95-100mph fastball or a fielder getting tensed, coiled and on their toes just before one of 150 pitches in a game. baseball is all about focus and reaction time, which is why people are all upset about the 100 or so therapeutic use exemptions for adderall and ADHD drugs given each year.
   151. cmd600 Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4340799)
Your argument rests on a specific and falsifiable claim that amphetamines do not enhance athletic ability beyond its "natural" level.


I came here to say this after finally getting through most of this thread. Esoteric is a smart guy with some well thought out points. But the hang up here is that people think steroids and amps do two completely separate things. They don't. Guys use greenies to hit the gym harder, etc, and improve that "permanent baseline" the same way they would with steroids.

It's a shame that Esoteric won't be back to respond because the insults came in before the legitimate follow up comments.
   152. Ron J2 Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4340815)
#150 No argument from me. It seems to me that reaction time is at least as important -- and likely more important -- than upper body strength when it come to hitting.

It's just really hard to empirically test this.
   153. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4340914)
For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent. If you think that PED users did a real bad thing, you don't have to be bound by the failure of the Hall to keep out earlier PED users. In fact, it's a practical certainty that if there haven't been contemporary steroid users inducted yet, there will be within five years. So if you want to keep steroids out of the Hall, but you still want to keep voting for at least some players, you have to accept some inconsistency.


And that is perfectly logical. I think the problem a lot of us here have, is people acting like roid use is different than other forms of cheating to the point that there is a bright line separating it. If a voter says "I'm not voting for roiders, and if it was up to me, we would remove all the habitual speed users, the Gaylord Perry's etc from the hall" I would be perfectly fine with their ballot(well not fine, but at least it would be an honest vote)

To think that there is a bright line between roid use and other forms of cheating is absurd.
   154. Squash Posted: January 07, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4340921)
Tell that to any batter facing a 95-100mph fastball or a fielder getting tensed, coiled and on their toes just before one of 150 pitches in a game. baseball is all about focus and reaction time, which is why people are all upset about the 100 or so therapeutic use exemptions for adderall and ADHD drugs given each year.

That's the thing. Improved focus and reaction time clearly aids in the most important and difficult part of the game, hitting, and that's beyond the energy boost. They're performance enhancing, which is why every other sport bans them and why baseball now does too. And I'm on the side that believes steroids were cheating and that players knew it - I just also think that amps were cheating and the players knew it, and you don't get to decide one is terrible and horrible and the other not because the people using one starting hitting a bunch of home runs and the guys using the others starting racking up giant hit totals (seriously, look at the modern hit totals - when did all these guys play?). In terms of visibility in the clubhouse, amps and steroids seem like they were at the exact same level to me - everyone knew they were there, everyone knew they could get them, no one said anything about it. What's the difference between there being a special pot of coffee and everyone knowing they could walk up to any one of 10 guys in the clubhouse and get steroids? Amps were in the coffee because you could take one and reap the effect that day, whereas steroids required hitting the gym for a few months - otherwise you can be damn sure roids would be in the coffee too.

Baseball has clearly stated a position now, which is good. But we can't go back in time and invalidate the records of guys like Mays and Aaron and we don't want to anyway. How many hits should we take away from Mays for games he played which he wouldn't have been able to without amps, or hits he got because his reaction time was jacked up, or sanctimonious writers he was able to avoid who might want to take him down because he played in the pre-mass media days? Lest we forget, Willie is personally a jerk just like his godson. Put them all in the Hall, lord knows no one's going to forget the steroid era, and move on punishing those who do break the now very clear rules to their fullest extent.
   155. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4340922)
Take the right amphetamine in the right amount and you get improved reaction time. While Andy objects that there's no proven link between reaction time and baseball performance that's true of all PEDs. Nobody to my knowledge has studied what any PED does for baseball players.


I can't find it anymore, so it might just be my memory playing tricks on me, but I thought there was one study done where they took a group of people had them swing at a baseball thrown from a pitching machine, then they used some amps and compared the results and it was a noticeable difference. But as I said that seemed like it was nearly a decade ago and I haven't been able to find anything on it through searching so it's probably one of the signs of early onset senility.

It seems to me that reaction time is at least as important -- and likely more important -- than upper body strength when it come to hitting.


I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.
   156. DFA Posted: January 07, 2013 at 03:44 PM (#4340994)
First, if it wasn't banned, what difference does it make whether it was detectable? Why is that word there, except to make it sound somehow illicit? Second, he should be commended for playing really well. He didn't "cheat" anyone in the scenario you describe, nor did he "beat the system."


Hypothetically, let's say player x started blood doping. From what I understand, blood transfusions can increase the oxygen levels in the body. This might be partifular advantageous during a postseason run or prior to the post season. It is a banned practice for Olympicans. I did a brief non-extensive search of the MLB drug testing policy on wiki, but didn't find anything about blood doping. So let's just say this is an example of something that is not banned by MLB. Would you be ok with this?

In the end, there will likely always be some legal PED, as drugmakers are ahead of the regulations and there will always be players who want to get every possible edge. I'm sure that there are players who are using now and simply trying to not get caught. There is no perfect method.

Re: retroactive morality. I'm not trying to defend the BBWAA now or previously. I'm sure that greenies were the PED of days gone by. I'm not here to defend those writers (still voting or not) or those ballplayers. However, I do feel steroid users cheated the game, their opponents and their teammates. Taking a different position than my own is entirely fine. I think it's a completely legit position to chase consistency to whatever end.
   157. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 07, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4341174)
Laugh at me all you want, but I'm not only part of the greater majority but I'm on the side of the angels, and I'm not talking about Anaheim.


!?!!
   158. Dale Sams Posted: January 07, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4341177)
I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.


Sooooo...use a lighter bat?
   159. Bob Tufts Posted: January 07, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4341182)
I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.


According to the work by Alan Nathan at U Illinois, the corking of bats actually results in batted balls going a shorter distance due to the reduction in mass outweighing the increase in bat speed. It appears that singles hitters would benefit most from corking, as the control of a lighter bat would allow them to wait a fraction of a second more to react to pitches and spray singles around the field.

What did Bonds use - a 33 inch 35 oz bat?
   160. The Good Face Posted: January 07, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4341210)
But the hang up here is that people think steroids and amps do two completely separate things. They don't. Guys use greenies to hit the gym harder, etc, and improve that "permanent baseline" the same way they would with steroids.


Confirming this to be 100% true. Good buddy of mine is an amateur bodybuilder, and while he refuses to take steroids or HGH, he's loaded to the gills on all sorts of other supplements, including a constantly rotating lineup of pre-workout products, virtually all of which are cocktails of various stimulants. Pretty much every musclehead at my local gym uses one or more of those supplements as well; there are constant conversations about which one gives you the best pre-workout burst of energy. Hell, I'll use em myself when I'm muscling up for swimsuit season. Stimulants and pumping iron are absolutely joined at the hip.
   161. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2013 at 06:49 PM (#4341221)
I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.

Sooooo...use a lighter bat?
IIRC, in The Physics of Baseball, Adair said exactly that: a lighter bat has exactly the same effect as corking.
   162. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4341241)
Sooooo...use a lighter bat?


It's the psychology of the situation. On top of that getting a lighter bat while maintaining the same dimensions(length, handle width etc) isn't easy. I'm assuming that in today's game corked bats are a lot less common than they were in the past when the bats were beefier.

Many people argue that the one of the largest causes of the explosion of offense was improved bat design, including lighter bats. My argument is that it's not that the bat speed increases or the mass increases on contact with the lighter bat, my argument is that it's easier to make solid contact during a swing because the lighter bat makes it easier to make minute adjustments on the trajectory of the bat.

According to the work by Alan Nathan at U Illinois, the corking of bats actually results in batted balls going a shorter distance due to the reduction in mass outweighing the increase in bat speed. It appears that singles hitters would benefit most from corking, as the control of a lighter bat would allow them to wait a fraction of a second more to react to pitches and spray singles around the field.


Everything I've read has said that the physics is at best a wash on corking versus non-corking when it comes to distance the ball travels. Which is why I think that the advantage of corking is more about making solid contact more consistently, than it is about added power to the bat.
   163. smileyy Posted: January 07, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4341253)
IIRC, in The Physics of Baseball, Adair said exactly that: a lighter bat has exactly the same effect as corking.


Does the placebo effect work on inanimate objects?


Everything I've read has said that the physics is at best a wash on corking versus non-corking when it comes to distance the ball travels. Which is why I think that the advantage of corking is more about making solid contact more consistently, than it is about added power to the bat.


This is the greenies/steroids debate in a nutshell.
   164. Sunday silence Posted: January 11, 2013 at 04:07 AM (#4344803)
if it's cheating, why are all these pennant winners and title holders still up there for the 90s? What kind of sport acknowledges cheating and then lets all the records stand?
Page 2 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
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHoward: David Ortiz shaping up to become first steroid era Teflon slugger
(33 - 6:56am, Jul 30)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-30-2014
(1 - 6:48am, Jul 30)
Last: Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee)

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(22 - 5:38am, Jul 30)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogMelky Cabrera smashed a windshield with a homer
(15 - 5:02am, Jul 30)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogESPN: Twins Sign "Out Of Nowhere" Prospect
(22 - 4:53am, Jul 30)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(18 - 4:23am, Jul 30)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(49 - 4:10am, Jul 30)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogFull Count » Tim Kurkjian on MFB: ‘I’m going to say that Jon Lester is not going to be traded’
(33 - 3:14am, Jul 30)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-29-2014
(62 - 2:54am, Jul 30)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3571 - 2:20am, Jul 30)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1015 - 1:10am, Jul 30)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(59 - 12:58am, Jul 30)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogWhich Players Will Be Most Affected by the Hall of Fame’s New Rules?
(11 - 12:29am, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(13 - 12:02am, Jul 30)
Last: MrC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(508 - 11:02pm, Jul 29)
Last: frannyzoo

Page rendered in 0.8055 seconds
52 querie(s) executed