David Ortiz elected to Baseball HOF but…

Let Rose In wrote:

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

He bet on games is team was playing in. That's inexcusable, regardless of who he bet on. People involved in the game can't have an external influence on the outcome.

I get that if he was betting on them to lose. I'm not sure how much more influence he has if he bets to on his team to win v. if he doesn't bet at all and is just a coach trying to win. Does betting on your team to win suddenly make you a better coach and better able win? Regardless, the HOF could still let him in for his performance as a player even with the lifetime ban in the MLB.

You leave a pitcher in regrdless of his pitch count because you have more money on the game, so he can't pitch 4 days later. You burn through your bullpen and guarantee a loss tomorrow. you refuse to play younger players because they won't help you win tonight. There are lots of ways "playing to win" because you have money on the game can be detrimental.

The Indianapolis wrote:

I feel Bonds deserves to be in. He is a first ballot HOFer without steroids. His better than Ruthian statistics are reflective of what happens when a legitimate all-time great goes on PEDs.

What does bother me is guys getting in who never would have produced HOF careers without PEDs. I suspect Ortiz is such a player.

On the last point, that is why Sosa and McGwire aren't in. Part of that is that their pre-PEDs peformance doesn't merit it, and part of that is that their PEDs use made a mockery of the game and was unfair to players who didn't cheat. Bonds transforming himself from a great player on the downslope of his career to the greatest player by far in the history of baseball, just as he transformed his body (as McGwire had), also made a mockery of the game. He surpassed Aaron because he cheated -- that was bad and should be enough to keep him out of the Hall.

I don't know how you can say Willie Mays wasn't a great hitter?? Bonds did hit more home runs than Mays, which I attribute to steroids, but Mays did hit 660 home runs. And he has a slightly better lifetime batting average than Bonds: .301 vs .298. Mays also has more lifetime hits and their RBI totals are very similar.

Regarding Bonds eye for the strike zone, Bonds and Mays both had over 1500 lifetime strikeouts in a similar amount of plate appearances. Also Willie Mays won 11 gold gloves and was on 24 all star teams (though they play 2 all star games for four years), versus 8 gold gloves and 14 all star teams for Bonds.

No doubt Bonds was a great player, it's a shame his career is tainted with steroids.

Oh, and Willie Mays is the oldest living Hall of Famer at 90. Not sure who else I would put in the running for greatest living player if Mays were to pass on.

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

The Indianapolis wrote:

Greatest player of his generation, that is.

Again, that was Griffey, and Bonds knew it, which is why he started cheating. By 94, Griffey had surpassed him, and Bonds was already starting to drop, and he started doping to catch up.

You realize what your saying is nonsense right?

By most accounts Bonds started steroids in 1999

1994: 33 HRs/104 RBIs

1995: 42/129

1996: 40/101

1998: 37/122

Oh yea, he was really fading….fast.

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

The Indianapolis wrote:

Maybe Griffey was. My point is that Bonds' pre steroids career alone was enough to get him in the HOF.

My point is there is no such thing as a "pre-steroids career." It's his career. and it was dropping to the levels of average players, and if it had continued to drop the way it was nobody would have talked about him as the best player of his generation, or anywhere close.

With Bonds you can determine his pre steroids career. It's been said that he was jealous of the attention McGuire and Sosa were getting for "saving" the games after the 98 season so he started taking PEDs in 1999 or 2000. He wouldn't ended up the best player of his generation, but had he retired after the 2000 season season he still would have had HOF numbers.

Pick It Up wrote:

I don't know how you can say Willie Mays wasn't a great hitter?? Bonds did hit more home runs than Mays, which I attribute to steroids, but Mays did hit 660 home runs. And he has a slightly better lifetime batting average than Bonds: .301 vs .298. Mays also has more lifetime hits and their RBI totals are very similar.

Regarding Bonds eye for the strike zone, Bonds and Mays both had over 1500 lifetime strikeouts in a similar amount of plate appearances. Also Willie Mays won 11 gold gloves and was on 24 all star teams (though they play 2 all star games for four years), versus 8 gold gloves and 14 all star teams for Bonds.

No doubt Bonds was a great player, it's a shame his career is tainted with steroids.

Mays and Bonds had almost an identical number of plate appearances (we don’t care about at-bats!). Bonds and Mays had the same # of strikeouts, but Bonds had 1000 more walks (yes, hard to Guatemala the influence of intentional walks) . Mays had an OPS of .940 and Slg of .557 while Bonds was 1.050 and .607.

Bonds was a better hitter….

Gauge somehow became Guatemala. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Giant’s season ticket holder here.

While steroids obviously made Bonds hit the ball farther, it was detrimental in other areas. He became a liability as a fielder as he was less agile from all that muscle mass (Last gold glove in 1998?). His stolen bases tanked as he became slower. Pitchers would walk him and he’d slug around the bases looking like he was on the verge of pulling a hamstring.

The benefits from juicing in some ways were counterbalanced by these setbacks. We didn’t win a world series until he left.

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

carmine9 wrote:

Manny Ramirez had a better career than Big Papi -- and played in the field as well -- and is nowhere getting in whereas Big Papi sailed.

Media always disliked Manny as he did not say what they wanted him to

Manny's entire career peak happened during the steroid boom, and when they finally started testing, he got busted twice. There's zero reason to think any of his perofrmance was ever clean.

He played from 1993 until 2011 and was a great hitter with an unreal eye and a great hitter from 1995 thru 2008. A lifetime .312 hitter with 555 HRs. Did not come close to getting voted into the Hall this year. he was a great hitter from the age of 23 until his hitting declined at the age of 37.

He was caught juicing. AS was Big Papi.

Ortiz played from 1997 thru 2016 and did not become a great hitter until 2003 at the age of 27. He had his best year ever at the age of 40 in 2016, his final year.

He was voted into the Hall in his 1st year of eligibility.

Who looks more like be benefited from juicing. The guy who was great by his 3rd season and great from age 23 thru 36?

Or then guy he did not get great until his 7th year and who's hitting never declined with age, having his best year ever in his final season at age 40?

The Indianapolis wrote:

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

My point is there is no such thing as a "pre-steroids career." It's his career. and it was dropping to the levels of average players, and if it had continued to drop the way it was nobody would have talked about him as the best player of his generation, or anywhere close.

With Bonds you can determine his pre steroids career. It's been said that he was jealous of the attention McGuire and Sosa were getting for "saving" the games after the 98 season so he started taking PEDs in 1999 or 2000. He wouldn't ended up the best player of his generation, but had he retired after the 2000 season season he still would have had HOF numbers.

Again, not true. Bonds OPS was > 1 in the 7 years leading up to his use of steroids (92-98). He was the league leader in 4 of those years. If you want to argue that Griffey was better and would have remained better, it’s a close call, but this idea that of course Bonds would not be the player of his generation without steroids is not supported by the facts. After the steroid use of course, it’s no contest.

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

Let's be clear: Ken Griffey Jr. would have obliterated all of Bonds' accomplishments if the playing field had been level. Bonds and Clemens did what they did because theircareers were declining and they used drugs to achieve levels of fame they ever could have achieved ontheir own..

I beg to differ. Griffey was injured often. He was the baseball version of Ritz.

corked bat wrote:

Giant’s season ticket holder here.

While steroids obviously made Bonds hit the ball farther, it was detrimental in other areas. He became a liability as a fielder as he was less agile from all that muscle mass (Last gold glove in 1998?). His stolen bases tanked as he became slower. Pitchers would walk him and he’d slug around the bases looking like he was on the verge of pulling a hamstring.

The benefits from juicing in some ways were counterbalanced by these setbacks. We didn’t win a world series until he left.

Ok, hello from Section 138 and then 209.

You’re not arguing the Giants were better before or after Bonds are you? The loss in 2002 happened despite Bonds’ awesome performance. The Giants rebuilt for 2010 and on, and those were glorious times, but c’mon, the Giants became relevant again because of him. Without Barry the team wouldn’t even be in SF and we would not have gotten to enjoy the best stadium in baseball. Bonds is the single person most responsible for SF baseball success over the last 30 years.

Wise Old Man wrote:

You realize what your saying is nonsense right?

By most accounts Bonds started steroids in 1999

1994: 33 HRs/104 RBIs

1995: 42/129

1996: 40/101

1998: 37/122

Oh yea, he was really fading….fast.

1994 was the strike year. Those numbers, extrapolated, would be much higher.

From 93-98, his HR average dropped 20%. His batting average had dropped 33 points. his slugging pecentage was down 68 points. He had fewer SBs than he'd had since he was 23. He was 33.

33 year olds whose numbers are dropping that quickly usually disappear within a year or two.

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

You realize what your saying is nonsense right?

By most accounts Bonds started steroids in 1999

1994: 33 HRs/104 RBIs

1995: 42/129

1996: 40/101

1998: 37/122

Oh yea, he was really fading….fast.

1994 was the strike year. Those numbers, extrapolated, would be much higher.

From 93-98, his HR average dropped 20%. His batting average had dropped 33 points. his slugging pecentage was down 68 points. He had fewer SBs than he'd had since he was 23. He was 33.

33 year olds whose numbers are dropping that quickly usually disappear within a year or two.

You chose his best pre PED homerun year 1993 to push your narrative.

Hear are his homerun totals from 1988 thru 1992: 24, 19, 33, 25, 34.

Doesn't really support your claim that the 37 homers in 1998 (pre drugs) shows he was in decline

These are interesting debates but remember the fact that Nixon could have won the election in 1972 without Watergate did not mean he was not going to have to pay a price for it. Just saying…If Bonds deserves to be in the HOF, the argument that he was good enough without cheating is irrelevant to me. That said, I can see the argument for his inclusion.

Bonds hit a lot of home runs for a guy who many pitchers would never give a decent pitch. No one else got anywhere near the amount of intentional walks he did .... and a walk gets you on base.

carmine9 wrote:

fell in love with a clown at a clown show wrote:

1994 was the strike year. Those numbers, extrapolated, would be much higher.

From 93-98, his HR average dropped 20%. His batting average had dropped 33 points. his slugging pecentage was down 68 points. He had fewer SBs than he'd had since he was 23. He was 33.

33 year olds whose numbers are dropping that quickly usually disappear within a year or two.

You chose his best pre PED homerun year 1993 to push your narrative.

Hear are his homerun totals from 1988 thru 1992: 24, 19, 33, 25, 34.

Doesn't really support your claim that the 37 homers in 1998 (pre drugs) shows he was in decline

Thank you. I’ll entertain an argument that Griffey was better 94-98, but to say Bonds was in decline, like some old hobbled guy soon to be out of the game is laughable. I believe he was voted player of the decade (1990s) by the sporting news or some reasonable collection of experts at the time. I remember being at Candlestick for the award ceremony. He closed the 90s as the 1st or 2nd best player of the decade (that line usually merits HOF) and then he became the greatest hitter to ever play. It was of course his crazy power, but his strikeouts dropped, his walks increased. He became unbeatable at the plate, a better hitter and not just a better power hitter.

Griffey was 5 years younger than Bonds. Outside of an injury year, Griffey outhomered Bonds every year from 95-99; his lsugging was much btter most years. I don't put a lot of credence into the difference in OPS because BBs are heavily slanted to sluggers in the NL, because you can pitch around them and eventually get to a pitcher. But Griffey had 4 +1 seasons by age 27. There was no doubt who the best player in baseball was from 1993- 1998, and it wasn't Barry Bonds.