infrared41

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Well, the steroids guys are another matter entirely. That's where the writers have really gotten it wrong. Here is something worth being upset about.

 

All those guys — Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and especially Bonds — not only deserve enshrinement, but they also deserve a formal apology. I can only hope that a committee will come along one day to right that wrong.

Of the players you mentioned, only Bonds was in the HOF discussion before he started juicing. Palmeiro, McGwire, and Sosa were created in a lab. So was the second half of Clemens' career.

A lot of apologists believe that steroids weren't a big deal and didn't make all that much difference in a player's ability, but I know from personal playing experience how much they help. I was prescribed steroids for about a month when I was still playing in 1996. I had more power at the plate, my reflexes were faster, and I had the same amount of energy in the 9th inning that I had in the 1st inning. The steroids made a big difference. I was just some out of shape guy playing in a local league and the roids I was on weren't even the good stuff.

Your boys cheated, their stats benefited a whole lot from their cheating, and now they're paying the price. It is what it is.

2 hours ago, LMU said:

Most of us civilians aren't aspiring to enter the halls of fame of our respective professions.

That's the problem with America today. Back in my day, making the Convenience Store Cashier HOF was something we aspired to.

17 minutes ago, LMU said:

Banks and Trout are apples and oranges.  One was forced to remain on the same team, the other clearly saw how inept ownership was and still took a hometown discount to stay.  If you go era by era, you can’t fault Banks but you certainly can fault Trout.

 

And sure, enjoy the lifestyle and lack of interesting meteorological phenomena that pique your interest but don’t expect that to help your legacy as a player.

So it's fine if us civilians decide to stay somewhere for the lifestyle and weather even though we know things might be better and more lucrative elsewhere, but ballplayers hurt their legacies if they do the same thing?

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

No one with 500 home runs and well in excess of 2000 hits (both of which he will almost certainly reach) is irrelevant. 

Rafael Palmeiro has entered the chat.

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

The HOF should have higher standards than it does.  It should be above simply the "best players".  Otherwise it should be called "the Hall of Best Players". 

On that we are in complete agreement.

To make infrared41's Baseball Hall of Fame & Outlet Store, you have to be at the "holy , that guy was amazing" level. Anything less is just a memorabilia display filled with a bunch of Larry Walkers and Fred McGriffs.

3 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Trout just doesn’t move the needle for me. Even if he did wind up on a more high profile team like the Dodgers, Yankees, or Red Sox, what’s the difference? There’s no doubt he’s a great player, but what does he even do that legitimately garners attention? To me, he’s just a guy on a team.

When did "garnering attention" become a requirement for being a Major League Baseball player?

3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I believe Albert Belle and Kenny Lofton should be in the Hall of Fame.

If we're going by today's standards, I agree. If we're going by my standards, the number of HOFers would drop from the current 346 to about 200 and that's being generous. Belle and Lofton, two of my all-time favorite Clevelands, have no business being in the HOF.

4 hours ago, dont care said:

He had a choice before signing his extension. He has a choice now by demanding a trade. Players have more say now of where they play than they ever had. 

7 minutes ago, dont care said:

He chose perpetual mediocrity, and not even the biggest payday either.

Using your own logic, that was his choice, right?

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Mike Trout just irrationally rubs me the wrong way and I’m mostly just trying to rationalize it (however flimsily). He always has and always will.

I respect your honesty.

16 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Mike Trout is one of the best ever, but can it really be said that he changed the game or shaped its history in any meaningful way since 2011?

We can say that about A LOT of HOF players. Did Craig Biggio change the game or shape its history? How about Larry Walker? Jack Morris? Harold Baines? Todd Helton? Fred McGriff? Alan Trammel? (FWIW, I wouldn't have inducted any of the players I just mentioned.) I mean, we could do this all day.

Off the top of my head, I'd have a harder time coming up with 20 HOF players who did do those things. I'm sure there are plenty, but they don't come to mind as easily as the players who didn't.

All that aside, I'm fine with anyone who has almost ridiculouslyhigh standards for the Baseball HOF . It's nice knowing I'm not  the only one.

2 hours ago, dont care said:

He had a choice before signing his extension. He has a choice now by demanding a trade. Players have more say now of where they play than they ever had. 

And he chose the Angels. I don't have an issue with that.

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

So, how about my idea about referees wearing dragon fursuits?

 

 

They can be far easier to target now, will constantly overheat, and can’t keep up with a play!

The suit may need a little tweaking, but other than that, I like it.

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

It makes him a more engaging player who fits the “fame” and “journalists like him” parts of being in the hall. It also makes him much more marketable, something MLB has lacked for almost 20 years.

Do journalists not like Mike Trout? When did marketability become part of the criteria for the HOF? I've seen plenty of videos of Mike Trout going out of his way to sign autographs for kids and fans. How much more engaging does he need to be?  Now we're blaming MLB's lousy marketing on Mike Trout's personality? C'mon, dude, I've seen you make way better arguments than this one.

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

There's only around 3 teams that can afford his salary unless the Angles eat half of it, and I think we know where he wants to play.  The problem is his health, and he'd have to play the field because said team already has a DH that can't play the field.

 

But it would be nice to see if he can actually perform in games that matter, and in front of crowds that care.  I feel very strongly that he isn't even a HOFer now, because he's had literally zero impact on the sport and not shown that he can play when it matters.  Nothing in this history of MLB would have unfolded any differently had he never been born.  And it's not even about championships at all.

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

And BBTV said his case for not letting Trout in better than I ever could. Why don’t you argue with him?

I added Vet to this post so you don't feel like you're being picked on. Now that we have have out of the way...

You're both wrong. Mike Trout's relevance and his impact on the game have nothing to do with his ability as a ball player. His lack of  "games that matter" can hardly be blamed on him. It takes a team to get to the playoffs. It's not his fault he plays for a organization.  His numbers are his numbers. They are what they are.  We can't cheer players on for taking all the money they can get and then hold it against them when the team they took the money from turns out to be terrible.

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Banks played the vast majority of his career in the pre-playoff expansion era. Mike Trout has only played in the wild card, two wild card, and three wild card eras. It’s an entirely different consideration.

So are we rewarding Banks for being born too soon or are we punishing Trout for being born too late? Unless there's a rule change I don't know about, a home run hit in 1962 counts the same as a home run hit today. Pretty sure that applies to all the other stats too.

5 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

There’s also Mike Trout’s utter lack of a personality. I’m not asking for him to be deranged like Albert Belle, but a show of some emotion or overt wackiness would be an improvement.

And that makes him a better player how, exactly?

40 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I fully agree with this - he is the ultimate “irrelevant superstar.” His loyalty to Moreno has condemned him to never experiencing a moment that truly mattered. Hell, he only played in one playoff series and underperformed in it.

 

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

Kinda like another irrelevant superstar who played his entire career with the Cubs and never experienced a "moment that truly mattered." His name was Ernie Banks. Maybe you've heard of him.

Players get inducted into the HOF for individual achievement. Last I checked, there isn't relevancy requirement.

27 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

35 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

As opposed to his philanthropic endeavors??

He's also said to be a snappy dresser. 

9 hours ago, Cujo said:

Are the Snakes for real -- or the Rox  just really REALLY terrible?

 

It's one game of 162. Let's see where they both are after 20-25 games.

2 hours ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Some things never change in Anaheim eh 

 

They need to trade that poor bastard. Send him somewhere that he'll be of use to a team.

13 minutes ago, Krona said:

The hill I'll die on is the should swap grey, white and brown facemasks depending on combos. Grey with brown jersey/white pants, white with brown/orange & white/orange, brown with white throwbacks & any time the insist on brown pants.

I can live with that.

24 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Only mask the Browns need...

 

 

 

 

Preach, brother.

35 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Why would they need special dispensation to wear an orange facemask??

That's what I thought. It's also why I said "take this with a grain of salt." Maybe I should have used a bigger font and put it in bold.

2 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

 

Yeah Reflog is a Cleveland sports fan account that usually just posts memes. He's not connected to the team and I wouldn't use him as a source for uniform news. Orange facemasks make so sense. Especially since ownership already confirmed a few seasons ago that white was coming back at some point.

White facemasks are already back.

35 minutes ago, fouhy12 said:

Given that the account in question on that Browns facemask lists themself as a parody in their bio, I'm going to assume there is no orange facemask. 

He's also a co-host on a pretty popular podcast in Cleveland. I'm not saying he's right, thus my "take it with a grain of salt" disclaimer, but he's not a guy who just makes things up for engagement. His Browns news is pretty legit.

51 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

I hope that, if this is true, it is only for certain games and not full-time. It might be kind of cool for the Browns to match their facemasks to their pants. 
 

If they are trying to switch to orange facemasks full-time, then that simply proves that Browns still gonna Browns. 

Best I can tell, the orange masks are only going to be an alternate.  For now, anyway.

That said, the Browns are always gonna Browns. 'Twas ever thus.