Haha, very nice.
Printable View
Haha, very nice.
But for all you know, steroids did help him recover and he would have been hurt even more often and for longer without them. I personally don't think Griffey juiced, but in an era where steroid use is rampant, I think it's naive to assume unequivocally that anybody must be clean.
Besides, he seems like a good guy, but how well does anyone here actually know Griffey?
Yep, that's my exact stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by knicks0929
Um, when did I say that I'm assuming everyone cheated?Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
In fact, I stated the exact opposite in my post above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
"Good thing your guys' opinions aren't facts" seems to be responding to the multiple (in this case, two, me and knicks0929) above you that held the same opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
If I am saying that I think the best way to approach the issue is to assume everyone didn't cheat, how am I saying that it is naive to assume someone didn't cheat? :confused:Quote:
But if its naive to assume someone didn't cheat, logic assumes that the converse would have to be true, which is everyone probably did.
I agree that it's naive to assume unequivocally that somebody didn't cheat. The key word there being "unequivocally". Like you, I don't think that Ken Griffey Jr., or Pedro Martinez, cheated. However, I won't state with absolute 100% positive conviction that they didn't.
nope can't do it, this way people can vote what they feel without the fear of being publically ridiculed....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Anybody who doesn't think Frank Thomas is a Hall of Famer deserves to be publically ridiculed. I don't care!
They deserve more ridicule than anybody when it comes to Thomas.
hehe
good point
which point???:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
there are people, hof voters, that didn't think babe ruth or hank aaron were hall worthy either so is it really so hard to think some might not think frank thomas is hall worthy?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Cy Young only got 76% of the vote. Rogers Hornsby, 78%.
Those people are idiots. I'm sorry, but anybody that does not think Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron is worthy of the Hall of Fame is just stupid and does not deserve to be voting on baseball's great honor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
I think you are all kind of naive.
I don't know for sure if Griffey or Thomas juiced, but I definetly can't say for sure that they didn't. To say a person 'has' to get bigger by using roids isn't accurate either, but that fact was refuted anyhow as Griffey has gotten bigger.
I believe most players juiced in one form or another. Someone said Griffey couldn't have juiced because juice would've gotten him back quicker from injury, but I"d counter saying the juice was the cause of the frequent injurys. Thats not entirely true either of course, juice didn't cause the broken bones but it may not be entirely false though either.
Too many people want to accuse those they don't like and defend those they do. Sure Grif's a nice guy....he also has been reported as someone close to Bonds. In fact I think the story went down as Bonds was pissed because they all new McGwire was juicing, and told Griffey over dinner that he was going to do all he could to catch him. Quite a conversation. Thats all speculation.
Yes Grif had a pretty swing, probably didn't need juice. But neither did Bonds. Thomas has adamently argued against roids.........so has Clemens. One is a fan favorite, one is not.
I believe more people in MLB are using or have used some form of illegal PED than have not. Far more in fact. Caminiti said many years ago that it was rampant! Canseco has said the same and has been found right on most of his statements.
Nice guys or not (bagwell), don't be so quick to defend them. Thats just as wrong as being to quick to accuse.
Yep. As much as a douchebag Canseco is, I think he's spot on in that the majority of players, while maybe not being frequent users on steroid plans and what not, did at least try some form of a PED at some point or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Of course they did... the owners wanted them too. The fans loved it, right up until they were presented with the fact that player actually did. Then of course we all must be anti-drug. Drugs are bad! uga, booga!
Steriods was a reason why there was soo many superstars in the 90's, now there are less, and the ones left are aging. Ken Griffey will go down as one of the most beloved players of this era. I still have his return to Seattle on my TIVO, and went to the first game back...wow is all I can say.
I did :), but it is his son I am talking about :)
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
So grif was a superstar in the 90's, and is one of those left aging. Does that mean you agree he may have juiced?Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
No, I mean that there are not as many superstars anymore as there was in the past, in the past each team had a superstar...Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
If steroids were so prevelant that they caused an "increase in superstars", wouldn't the use of steroids almost "cancel" each other out, considering both pitchers and hitters did steroids? Is there any actual work that shows there were "more superstars" in the 90's than in other times? There may seem like there were more, for a variety of reasons. First, the media is much more prevelant nowadays, making the stars more known. Secondly, offense was up, for reasons beyond simply steroids. An increase in offense causes superficially "better" numbers. "Better" numbers like more home runs leads to a perception that there are more superstars, when in reality, there's usually always a similar number of "superstars"...at least when using "superstars" to mean "the league's best players."Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
I'm going to take a minute and get back to this later, because I'm bored..Quote:
No, I mean that there are not as many superstars anymore as there was in the past, in the past each team had a superstar...
Using that definition, obviously there's more superstars nowaday (and in the 90's) because media exposure is unreal and salaries have skyrocketed.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
Not to mention all the expansion that took place during the 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Superstars:
D'Backs - Brandon Webb
Braves - Chipper Jones
Orioles - Nick Markakis*
Red Sox - Manny Ramirez
White Sox - Jim Thome
Cubs - Alfonso Soriano
Reds - Ken Griffey*
Indians - C.C. Sabathia
Rockies - Matt Holliday
Tigers - Miguel Cabrera
Marlins - Hanley Ramirez
Astros - Lance Berkman
Royals - ...
Angels - Vlad Guerrero
Dodgers - Russell martin
Brewers - Prince Fielder
Twins - Joe Mauer
Yankees - Alex Rodriguez
Mets - Johan Santana
Athletics - Huston Street/Frank Thomas*
Phillies - Chase Utley
Pirates - ...
Padres - Jake Peavy
Giants - Tim Lincecum
Mariners - Ichiro Suzuki
Cardinals - Albert Pujols
Rays - Carl Crawford or B.J. Upton*
Rangers - None
Blue Jays - Roy Halladay
Nationals - Ryan Zimmerman*
There's a couple teams without any clear star/superstar, and some (marked with asterisks) that are extremely debatable. However, I'd imagine that that holds true over all of history - some teams just aren't good. There's easily over 30 superstars, when you account for multiple stars on the same team, which comes out to one per team on average, and I'd imagine that that also holds true throughout history.
Yeah, that too. More players = more superstars.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay