Results 21 to 30 of 46
Thread: HOF voting
-
01-15-2015, 10:09 PM #21
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 1,258
Re: HOF voting
"I told people since he was a rookie that he was a roider." McGwire I mean.
-
01-16-2015, 12:41 AM #22
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 1,016
Re: HOF voting
Roady, do you simply ignore when others present data/evidence to you?
The problem with saying Bonds averaged X HRs during his first 7 years, but then jumped to 46 in his 8th year is that it completely ignores variance. By picking 1993 arbitrarily, you ignore statistics.
From 1986-1992, Bonds hit a HR every 20 AB. From 1993-1998, Bonds hit a HR ever 16 AB. From 1999 (when the majority of individuals believe Bonds started using PEDs) through 2007, Bonds hit a HR every 9 AB.
The 25% improvement from his first seven seasons (age 21-27) to his prime and post-prime (age 28-33) seasons in HR rate falls within normal deviation. The spike during his supposed decline years (34-42) of almost 100% improvement in HR rate is clearly the work of outside assistance. Again, the "spike" in 1993 can be explained through variance.
-
01-16-2015, 07:56 AM #23
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 1,258
-
01-16-2015, 08:26 AM #24
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 1,016
Re: HOF voting
How does the following constitute a personal attack?
Each time that someone shows you that Bonds' HR total in 1993 isn't indicative of PEDs, so much as it's a case of statistical variance, you basically say that his choice to sign with SF somehow correlates with PED usage. When asked for some justification for your theory, you simply state Bonds hit 46 HR in 1993. That's it.
If my comment constitutes a personal attack, then I hope it gets deleted, but I don't believe my directing the comment to you (since you're the most vocal and recent to say Bonds used PEDs from 1993) would be uncalled for.
-
01-16-2015, 09:16 AM #25
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Posts
- 287
-
01-16-2015, 11:26 AM #26
Re: HOF voting
Ok, let’s get away fromPED/Steroid talk just for a moment, and let’s just talk about natural ability vs.cheating. As we are all aware, there are many ways of cheating. But I will agree that what occurred in this era, was very significant in the result of individual player numbers.
Do you honestly believe thereare players (including managers) in the Hall of Fame who haven’t cheated in oneway or another? Do you honestly believe thateveryone in the HOF is there due to only their natural ability?
We’ve had this discussionbefore about pitchers using substances or marking up the ball in order to getan edge (which they still do today). Mostsaid that’s been part of the game. I saythat’s cheating, which can increase their strikeout numbers, in addition toother things; and since they aren’t using their own natural ability to throwthe ball to get that strikeout or out on their own natural ability – it’scheating! Bet those batters will tellyou the same thing!
In a perfect world, it would begreat if everyone did everything based solely on their natural ability. Unfortunately, never going to happen.
Am I trying to justify thePED/Steroid era? No! Just saying!
Do I wish everyone justperformed based on their natural ability? Of course I do!
Regards, Tony
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
~I'm sorry, I can't hear you....my World Series Ring is making too much NOISE! - Alex Rodriguez~
-
01-16-2015, 11:49 AM #27
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 285
Re: HOF voting
I NEVER want to see Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Sheff, Palmero, or any of the Roiders in the HOF. They already tainted our all time statistics in the game, so I don't want them tainting the HOF on top of that. I think Jeff Kent is a definate HOF eventually. All time 2b HR king with 377. 2500 hits. 1500 rbi. 560 doubles. 290 career avg. 350 obp. 500 slugging. One MVP and 5 time all star. Solid playoff numbers too. I think a lot of people in the baseball world don't realize how steller his numbers are. He's got my vote.
-
01-16-2015, 12:04 PM #28
-
01-16-2015, 04:44 PM #29
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 1,016
Re: HOF voting
I won't argue the "Roiders in the HOF" aspect, since that's personal prerogative, but I disagree with Kent in the HOF.
Kent's stats in 2000 were essentially a result of Bonds being in the line-up with Kent. (Beyond that, Kent had the fourth highest WAR among those receiving NL MVP votes.) Having Bonds as a teammate benefited Kent through increased RBI opportunities. If not for Bonds' PED use, Kent wouldn't have had a HOF-level career. I'm not arguing as much against Kent as pointing out that certain players benefited more from PEDs (that they didn't use) than others. Kent falls into this category.
-
01-16-2015, 05:11 PM #30
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 285
Re: HOF voting
That's a bit of a stretch on Kent benefiting from Bonds using PEDS. I mean he was the MVP in 2000 over Bonds, when Bonds was in his 2nd year of Roiding. Kent also had big years with the Astros and Dodgers. He didn't hit 377 HRs and get 1500 rbis because Bonds was using PEDS. Come on.