24 MLB Season Thread

[infrared41]

48 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Bonds beat his pregnant wife and maybe held a guy prisoner, Clemens has the horrible Mindy McCready situation, and Pete Rose transported a minor across state lines with intent to fornicate. There are more visceral moral reasons beyond roids or betting to keep them out.

 

No argument here, but my point was about steroids. That said, I'm certainly open to a broader discussion on morality. 

[FiddySicks]

Whatever frustration I may have with Mike Trout and his career (because I think baseball fans generally should feel this way) isn’t really directed at him, but at the goddamn useless ass Angels. For how bad some teams have been forever, really nobody has been more inept in the last half century than they have. Like, they’re an absolutely USELESS franchise, and outside of one miracle run, have basically nothing to show for their time in the bigs 
 

Actually, I think the Angels winning in 02 was one of the worst things that’s happened since the turn of the century. Not only did they beat my team (which is mostly irrelevant, but so damn annoying), but it seemed to wipe away so many years of ineptitude from everyone’s minds. Like, this team was so dog worthless that Disney bought them on a short sale and made a movie about how they could only win with the help of God’s direct servants.  Then they back into that title, sell to a moron, and he gets to do the same inept dance everyone else did with this team yet had like a two decade buffer because of that stupid trophy. 
 

I’ve NEVER seen an organization coast on the accomplishments of one single fluke run quite the way they have. It probably saved that stupid franchise from being where the A’s are right now. That’s so frustrating.
 

The Angels and A’s are in a surprisingly similar situation when it comes to being the secondary AL team with a decomposing stadium. Maybe I’m being hopelessly optimistic, but I feel like had the A’s picked up a win somewhere along the lines instead of the Angels, that may have forced the hand of some of this Bay Area money when it came to funding a stadium. Instead the Angels get that buffer instead of the A’s and don’t do with it. 

[SFGiants58]

That reminds me that, when contraction was on the table, Disney would agree to contract the Angels and the A’s would move to Anaheim to replace them. Honestly, not a bad idea in hindsight.

 

Edited March 31 by SFGiants58

[FiddySicks]

16 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

That reminds me that, when contraction was on the table, Disney would agree to contract the Angels and the A’s would move to Anaheim to replace them. Honestly, not a bad idea in hindsight.

 

One of the problems is that Southern California politics (specifically, Orange County politics) are just as much of a snake pit as Bay Area politics. Something is going to eventually have to give with Angels Stadium, as it’s the same age as the Oakland Coliseum. When that time comes, then what? Do they think it’s going to be any easier to find the land and bilk the tax payers for a new park? And you can talk about how So Cal potentially has more of a pool of big money to pull from when the time comes (I find that claim to be dubious at best), but… Why? Like, for what reason would anyone want to fund a project with the Angels at the main tenant? Who does that work for other than whoever owns the Angels? 
 

I’m just starting to see a future where both parts of the state give off the shocked pikachu meme look as both of their AL teams set up shop somewhere dumb because they couldn’t extort more taxpayer money from here. 

[infrared41]

Just now, FiddySicks said:

One of the problems is that Southern California politics (specifically, Orange County politics) are just as much of a snake pit as Bay Area politics. Something is going to eventually have to give with Angels Stadium, as it’s the same age as the Oakland Coliseum. When that time comes, then what? Do they think it’s going to be any easier to find the land and bilk the tax payers for a new park? And you can talk about how So Cal potentially has more of a pool of big money to pull from when the time comes (I find that claim to be dubious at best), but… Why? Like, for what reason would anyone want to fund a project with the Angels at the main tenant? Who does that work for other than whoever owns the Angels? 
 

I’m just starting to see a future where both parts of the state give off the shocked pikachu meme look as both of their AL teams set up shop somewhere dumb because they couldn’t extort more taxpayer money from here. 

 

Wasn't Angels Stadium renovated not that long ago?

[FiddySicks]

42 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Wasn't Angels Stadium renovated not that long ago?

Yes, it was. In 1997. Two years after the Coliseum in Oakland was. For basically the same reason, but in reverse. Both stadiums are almost 60 years old, so a lot of the structural/foundational issues are going to be similar. 

[The_Admiral]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

All those guys — Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and especially Bonds — not only deserve enshrinement, but they also deserve a formal apology.

 

I'm so sorry that you violated federal law. It was so wrong of me that you did that.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

5 hours ago, infrared41 said:

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 didn't say that steroids didn't help those players. They certainly did help them.

 

And there's nothing wrong with that.  If those players' performances had been enhanced by taking vitamins, or by excersise and a good diet, no one would complain. There is no fundamental difference between those things and the use of steroids.

 

And before anyone claims that the difference is down to natural versus artificial, consider the absurdity that athletes in other sports have been banned for re-injecting their own blood, with no foreign substances involved.

 

Also, let's remember that Willie Mays used amphetamines, and that Babe Ruth almost certainly used cocaine. This does not diminish their accomplishments one bit, just as the greatness of Bonds and Clemens and the others is undiminished.

 

 

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Bonds beat his pregnant wife and maybe held a guy prisoner, Clemens has the horrible Mindy McCready situation, and Pete Rose transported a minor across state lines with intent to fornicate. There are more visceral moral reasons beyond roids or betting to keep them out.

 

Likewise, I consider Karl Malone my least favorite NBA player ever. The guy molested and impregnated a seventh grader when he was 19, and he got to have a Hall of Fame career in spite of his crimes.

 

Irrelevant.

 

(By the way, since you brought up Pete Rose, I'll mention that Rose, unlike the steroids guys, actually did do something wrong. To ban him from working in baseball from that point on is appreciate. But what is inappropriate is to ignore his brilliant playing career by keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, as all of the substantiated gambling accusations are from after he had retired as a player.)

 

We could certainly find something contemptible about every single pro athlete. While it's perfectly sensible to criticise a pro athlete — or anyone else — for his or her bad behaviour, we should be intellectually honest enough to recognise the greatest players purely on the basis of their performance, while understanding that doing so amounts to no endorsement of any other action those players have taken during their lives.

 

 

1 hour ago, The_Admiral said:

I'm so sorry that you violated federal law. It was so wrong of me that you did that.

 

Please do not pretend that that indefensible law is some kind of moral standard. From the standpoint of morality, laws on "controlled substances" are an abomination.

 

 

The important point is that the function of a hall of fame is to provide an honest recounting of a sport's history by recognising its greatest players — no matter whether those players were good people or bad people. For the Baseball Hall of Fame to refuse to include the home run king and the hit king is shameful. This is offensive to me as a fan of baseball history. Until Bonds and Rose, and all the other unjustly denied players, are granted the recognition that they earned, the Hall of Fame will be disgracing itself.

[McCall]

6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I didn't say that steroids didn't help those players. They certainly did help them.

 

And there's nothing wrong with that.  If those players' performances had been enhanced by taking vitamins, or by excersise and a good diet, no one would complain. There is no fundamental difference between those things and the use of steroids.

 

And before anyone claims that the difference is down to natural versus artificial, consider the absurdity that athletes in other sports have been banned for re-injecting their own blood, with no foreign substances involved.

 

Also, let's remember that Willie Mays used amphetamines, and that Babe Ruth almost certainly used cocaine. This does not diminish their accomplishments one bit, just as the greatness of Bonds and Clemens and the others is undiminished.

 

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

(By the way, since you brought up Pete Rose, I'll mention that Rose, unlike the steroids guys, actually did do something wrong. To ban him from working in baseball from that point on is appreciate. But what is inappropriate is to ignore his brilliant playing career by keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, as all of the substantiated gambling accusations are from after he had retired as a player.)

 

We could certainly find something contemptible about every single pro athlete. While it's perfectly sensible to criticise a pro athlete — or anyone else — for his or her bad behaviour, we should be intellectually honest enough to recognise the greatest players purely on the basis of their performance, while understanding that doing so amounts to no endorsement of any other action those players have taken during their lives.

 

 

 

Please do not pretend that that indefensible law is some kind of moral standard. From the standpoint of morality, laws on "controlled substances" are an abomination.

 

 

The important point is that the function of a hall of fame is to provide an honest recounting of a sport's history by recognising its greatest players — no matter whether those players were good people or bad people. For the Baseball Hall of Fame to refuse to include the home run king and the hit king is shameful. This is offensive to me as a fan of baseball history. Until Bonds and Rose, and all the other unjustly denied players, are granted the recognition that they earned, the Hall of Fame will be disgracing itself.

You have officially jumped the shark.

[Cujo]

13 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and especially Bonds — not only deserve enshrinement, but they also deserve a formal apology.

 

[SFGiants58]

I can’t wait for his defense of Altuve, Springer, and Beltran.

 

Quote

Like, for what reason would anyone want to fund a project with the Angels at the main tenant? Who does that work for other than whoever owns the Angels? 

Not many. They’re not the only baseball team in the area and the Dodgers are much more embedded in the local culture than the Angels ever were/will be. Disney had the right idea trying to court the Orange County demographic (by force due to funding renovations with public money), but even then it felt half-hearted. The Angels as a main tenant are never going to be worth it to Greater Los Angeles or Orange County.
 

We can joke about the Mets, White Sox, and A’s all we want, but the Angels really are the most useless “second team” in all of baseball. Hell, the Clippers have more to show for their existence in the past 15 years than the Angels.

[ManillaToad]

 

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

To ban him from working in baseball from that point on is appreciate. But what is inappropriate is to ignore his brilliant playing career by keeping him out of the Hall of Fame, as all of the substantiated gambling accusations are from after he had retired as a player.

 

The HOF doesn't allow people banned from baseball to be inducted. Pretty reasonable rule

 

 

[The_Admiral]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Please do not pretend that that indefensible law is some kind of moral standard. From the standpoint of morality, laws on "controlled substances" are an abomination.

Yeah, thou shalt not stand in the way of my oxycodone habit.

[SFGiants58]

And once again, Pete Rose has excused himself from society by transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of sex. In other words, he should be treated the same way we treat people like Lorne Armstrong.

 

 

It’s the funniest moment with a guy wearing a Red Sox cap.

[Cujo]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I can’t wait for his defense of Altuve, Springer, and Beltran.

 

George Springer? Can you even make a case for that guy? Even had he not been a part of the 2017 Black Sox, he's not sniffing Cooperstown.

 

Altuve has a case for the HOF. But has no shot of getting in, even if he finishes with Babe Ruth numbers. You cannot exclude the HGH guys, who knowingly did something that was frowned upon but was not against MLB rules at the time, but turn around and allow Astros* hitters in, who actually broke MLB law.

[SFGiants58]

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

We could certainly find something contemptible about every single pro athlete. While it's perfectly sensible to criticise a pro athlete — or anyone else — for his or her bad behaviour, we should be intellectually honest enough to recognise the greatest players purely on the basis of their performance, while understanding that doing so amounts to no endorsement of any other action those players have taken during their lives.

Those are perfectly reasonable reasons to exclude somebody. Hardly easy to blow off beating up your pregnant wife or the horrors that Mindy McCready went through.

 

If Clemens did get inducted, I’d want the whole crowd chanting Mindy’s name and for people to remember him as the man who destroyed her life and not the baseball player he was. He should get the Jimmy Snuka treatment, where he’s a monster first and a good athlete second.

 

There’s intellectual honesty and then there’s the basic human desire to kick monsters out of prominent places. I know to side with the latter more often than not.

[infrared41]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I didn't say that steroids didn't help those players. They certainly did help them.

 

And there's nothing wrong with that.  If those players' performances had been enhanced by taking vitamins, or by excersise and a good diet, no one would complain. There is no fundamental difference between those things and the use of steroids.

 

And before anyone claims that the difference is down to natural versus artificial, consider the absurdity that athletes in other sports have been banned for re-injecting their own blood, with no foreign substances involved.

 

Also, let's remember that Willie Mays used amphetamines, and that Babe Ruth almost certainly used cocaine. This does not diminish their accomplishments one bit, just as the greatness of Bonds and Clemens and the others is undiminished.

 

Having used vitamins, amphetamines, and cocaine (as well as a few other illegal substances) when I was playing, I can tell you from experience that those things do not enhance your ability in any appreciable way. Having used steroids when I was playing, I can tell you from experience that they enhance your ability in pretty much every appreciable way. That's the difference.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I can’t wait for his defense of Altuve, Springer, and Beltran.

 

Happy to oblige.

 

The Astros did nothing that is not done by every single other team — including the crybaby Yankees.  Stealing signs is absolutely part of the game. The 1951 Giants used high-powered binoculars.

 

 

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

[Pete Rose] should be treated the same way we treat people like Lorne Armstrong.

 

Here is where this mindset gets dangerously divorced from reality. Armstrong mainly used his own blood. Even people who get squeamish about steroids should be able to acknowledge that using one's own blood is unobjectionable.

 

 

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Hardly easy to blow off beating up your pregnant wife or the horrors that Mindy McCready went through.

 

No blowing-off is taking place. When the question is whether those players are good people, those facts form the basis to conclude that they are not. Those bad acts have nothing to do with the question of whether the players in question were amongst the greatest players ever — the answer to which is an unequivocal "yes". The essential point here is that ranking those players where they belong amongst the greatest ever neither ignores nor excuses those players' bad behaviour.

 

 

4 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

The HOF doesn't allow people banned from baseball to be inducted. Pretty reasonable rule

 

It's an unreasonable rule, as it plays "let's pretend" with the facts of history. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, banning Pete Rose from working in baseball on account of his gambling was appropriate. But acting as though he does not have a playing record but deserves recognition is a crime against history — especially considering that the gambling that got Rose banned from baseball happened after his playing career was over.

 

 

3 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

Yeah, thou shalt not stand in the way of my oxycodone habit.

 

Straw man alert! 

 

To say that a substance should not be illegal is not the same thing as promoting its use. (But you knew that.) Note that there are legal things that are best avoided, most notably tobacco.

 

I do not speak hypothetically; the person whom I loved most died at age 39 from the ravages on her body caused by the abuse of heroin and cocaine (as well as tobacco), substances which I would recommend to nobody.

 

Indeed, I wouldn't even recommend the use of steroids, on account of the risk of cancer, as happened to Lyle Alzado.

 

Still, a person has a fundamental right to put into his or her own body that which he or she chooses to put there. This acknowledgment of one's sovereignty over one's own body provides the incontrovertible moral basis for opposing prohibition of even the most dangerous substances.

 

 

2 hours ago, infrared41 said:

Having used vitamins, amphetamines, and cocaine (as well as a few other illegal substances) when I was playing, I can tell you from experience that those things do not enhance your ability in any appreciable way.

 

Well, the players from the 1960s would definitely disagree with you about amphetamines. Those players were convinced that "greenies" helped them recover from injuries and deal with fatigue. Jim Bouton wrote about this.

 

While I have not used cocaine, plenty of people whom I know have used it. And they say that that drug gave them the ability to overlook certain types of pain. So it is safe to say that the use of that drug allowed ballplayers to play when they otherwise would not have been able to play.

 

[The_Admiral]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Still, a person has a fundamental right to put into his or her own body that which he or she chooses to put there.

 

Not really.

[FiddySicks]

So, we have to remember that when you break it down, the hall of fame is really nothing more than a glorified museum that sniffs it’s own farts way too hard. Them just leaving the steroid guys/Pete Rose/etc out completely is in essence them practicing a bit of revisionist history, and therefore shouldn’t really be taken seriously by anyone anyway. 
 

They could absolutely include these guys in some way, shape, or form, while also doing the work to explain some of the context of that particular era or issue. But the thing is, that would take a little bit of work on their parts, and it would severely diminish the time they have to be old cranky codgers whining about the “sanctity” of a child’s game where you hit a cow skin ball with a wooden stick. 
 

Bonds and Rose are the hit kings in Major League Baseball, and that’s not going to change because a bunch of liver spotted octogenarians have covered their eyes and ears and have refused to process it. 
 

They could so easily clear up a lot of this controversy by actually putting in the effort to curate the era in which all of this happened. No no, they don’t want to face it. They would rather let all of this bull:censored: drag on for decades out of spite. I almost think they keep the controversy up just to keep themselves in the spotlight. Just grasping at any straw they can to keep what little relevance they have left.