BigMac12 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Only Larkin gets to Cooperstown this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Barry Larkin is my all-time favorite athlete in any sport so this is a pretty cool feeling and I need to find way to be in Cooperstown to watch the induction. I watched him everyday for 15 years, he was so much better than people give him credit for. He's the most fundamentally sound and smartest baseball player I've ever seen. I didn't know how spoiled I was until I had to watch Felipe Lopez, Paul Janish, Alex Gonzalaz, and a bunch of other doofs bastardize the shortstop position for the Reds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Barry Larkin is my all-time favorite athlete in any sport so this is a pretty cool feeling and I need to find way to be in Cooperstown to watch the induction. I watched him everyday for 15 years, he was so much better than people give him credit for. He's the most fundamentally sound and smartest baseball player I've ever seen. I didn't know how spoiled I was until I had to watch Felipe Lopez, Paul Janish, Alex Gonzalaz, and a bunch of other doofs bastardize the shortstop position for the Reds.Oh I don't think anyone short changes him. As a kid who really started watching baseball in the '85 - '86 time frame, he was the Reds to me. Other names came and went, but he was always there, and always good. It "hurts" him that he wasn't a flashy player, and he was in a small market, so he may not have had the national profile and endorsements that other lesser players may have, but I don't think that anyone who watched the game would ever deny that he belongs in the HOF. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Barry Larkin is my all-time favorite athlete in any sport so this is a pretty cool feeling and I need to find way to be in Cooperstown to watch the induction. I watched him everyday for 15 years, he was so much better than people give him credit for. He's the most fundamentally sound and smartest baseball player I've ever seen. I didn't know how spoiled I was until I had to watch Felipe Lopez, Paul Janish, Alex Gonzalaz, and a bunch of other doofs bastardize the shortstop position for the Reds.Oh I don't think anyone short changes him. As a kid who really started watching baseball in the '85 - '86 time frame, he was the Reds to me. Other names came and went, but he was always there, and always good. It "hurts" him that he wasn't a flashy player, and he was in a small market, so he may not have had the national profile and endorsements that other lesser players may have, but I don't think that anyone who watched the game would ever deny that he belongs in the HOF.Well I say that because he was a third ballot hall-of-famer and in my mind he's a first ballot guy. Look at this year compared to last year. He got 134 more votes this year than he did last year. What did he do that changed 134 people's minds? Starting working at ESPN? Maybe that extra exposure to the baseball media is what changed it. I think he was short changed because he should've been elected on his first try and if he had played his whole career for the Yankees or Mets, then he would have. I think he's a better all-around player than Derek Jeter, but Jeter is going to get in on his first try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Only Larkin gets to Cooperstown this year.Hey, don't forget about Ron Santo. On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said: Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Brilliant take on the idiocy of anti-steroid voting in the Hall of Fame. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zpqmaowl Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Went with my dad in 2005 to see Sandberg, going again this year for Santo. the worst helmets design to me is the Jacksonville jaguars hamlets from 1995 to 2012 because you can't see the logo vary wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Brilliant take on the idiocy of anti-steroid voting in the Hall of Fame.I've heard that before.Nobody is going to argue that off the field somebody like Mickey Mantle was a better person then Mark McGwire. As a person Mickey Mantle sucked. Alcoholic, womanizer, very insecure, didn't always show up ready to play, crashed wrecked multiple cars while driving drunk. He would be ripped to shreds by today's media.I think eventually it will pass. Let the media go on their moral crusade. Eventually they'll realize nothing will come of it and once that happens then I think you'll see more guys from this generation start to get in.I think the day will come when somebody who is already in the Hall of Fame either admits to or it comes out that they took steroids during their career. I have no doubt there's already at least one player in that did. Wouldn't shock me to find out somebody Paul Molitor was on the juice for much of his career. His statline is very fishy to me. Guy goes from being an injury prone slap hitter for much of the first half his career to all of a sudden just smashing the ball all over the field for the second half. Lets say that I'm right and it comes out. What do you do then? Your really going to kick Paul Molitor out the HOF? If your taking this hard of a stance against the current generation of players that's what you have to do, otherwise you have to start letting people in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think the day will come when somebody who is already in the Hall of Fame either admits to or it comes out that they took steroids during their career. I have no doubt there's already at least one player in that did.You're about 100 years too late. Pud Galvin, MLB's first 300-game winner, retired in 1892, was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1965, and was widely known to have used PEDs for his entire career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think the day will come when somebody who is already in the Hall of Fame either admits to or it comes out that they took steroids during their career. I have no doubt there's already at least one player in that did.You're about 100 years too late. Pud Galvin, MLB's first 300-game winner, retired in 1892, was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1965, and was widely known to have used PEDs for his entire career.I don't think anyone is going to really cite anything from the 1800's as a precedent.Were talking about an generation of underpaid and poorly educated players. The only things owners cared about was whether or not players were taking bribes to throw games. Someone taking PED's then would probably be seen as a good thing because you know that guy is at least trying. The fact that you have a guy on your team that won't show up to the ballpark drunk or stoned would be seen as a victory in of itself. Entirely different era with an entirely different standard on what cheating was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why should the time matter? If you're going to judge everyone in the context of their era, then you'd have to accept that from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, a large number of MLB players used steroids and the league did very little to stop it. At that point, you either have to accept that and vote the prominent users in anyway, or shut out that era entirely because there's an off chance a "good" candidate could have juiced.Then, of course, if you're going to exclude an entire era's worth of candidates because some of them "cheated" at some point during their careers, there's no point to having a Hall of Fame, because cheating has always been and will always be a part of baseball. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why should the time matter? If you're going to judge everyone in the context of their era, then you'd have to accept that from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, a large number of MLB players used steroids and the league did very little to stop it. At that point, you either have to accept that and vote the prominent users in anyway, or shut out that era entirely because there's an off chance a "good" candidate could have juiced.Then, of course, if you're going to exclude an entire era's worth of candidates because some of them "cheated" at some point during their careers, there's no point to having a Hall of Fame, because cheating has always been and will always be a part of baseball.Then there's the debate of whether or not the steroids benefitted the player to the point where it gave them Hall stats. As we've seen in the past, the one's the have been busted have been mediocre quality at best. So, it is a personal judgment call. Since the whole morality of the player is part of the equation, then McGwire and Palmeiro would be off my ballot. Anywho, the game has flaws. Some of its rules are ancient (the gambling one) but I suppose Pete made his case worse by also lying. I think he'd be in by now had he come clean early... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmoehrin Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Anywho, the game has flaws. Some of its rules are ancient (the gambling one) but I suppose Pete made his case worse by also lying. I think he'd be in by now had he come clean early...That's why I have no sympathy for Pete Rose not being in the Hall of Fame. He should have taken a lesson from Richard Nixon and realized that sometimes the coverup is worse then the crime itself. His stubbornness to admit to any wrong doing had as much to do with being kept out as anything else. Then he finally admitted to it in order to sell a book. He lost alot of fans that were on his side when he did that.At this point I really don't care whether Rose gets in or not. Its not going to change my opinion of him as a great player and terrible human being. I also don't think of it as that if you put Rose in you have to put the steroids guys in or vice versa. Apples and oranges to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 That's why I have no sympathy for Pete Rose not being in the Hall of Fame. He should have taken a lesson from Richard Nixon and realized that sometimes the coverup is worse then the crime itself. His stubbornness to admit to any wrong doing had as much to do with being kept out as anything else. Then he finally admitted to it in order to sell a book. He lost alot of fans that were on his side when he did that.Except Nixon never learned that lesson. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Why should the time matter? If you're going to judge everyone in the context of their era, then you'd have to accept that from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, a large number of MLB players used steroids and the league did very little to stop it. At that point, you either have to accept that and vote the prominent users in anyway, or shut out that era entirely because there's an off chance a "good" candidate could have juiced.That's pretty much my take on the matter as well. At this point, the HOF voters have to do one of two things; either judge the "non-testing" era as just that or they have to come right out and say no one from that era gets in. Period. Since there's no way to really know how many players were taking PEDs, the baseball writers should not be in a position to pick and choose based on their own assumptions. It sucks because the players of that era will always have a question mark after their name but I don't know how else you go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.