White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Old 01-12-2013, 12:23 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendu View Post
Every drug comes with consequences, even steroids. Speed freak, roid rage, etc. The fact is that players were popping greenies to gain a competitive advantage. Sure, the effect is not the same as steroids but the intent was the same. This is the mental gymnastics I was talking about before where we can excuse one type of cheating but not another.

This interview with Tom House about the drug culture, which included steroids, in the 60s and 70s is eye-opening. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."
No it's not, the intent for taking steroids was that it would make you bigger and stronger. The intent for taking greenies was that it would make you more alert and able to perform for double headers or in the dog days of August. Tom Verducci said it best when he said the comparison between greenies and steroids is the difference between "performance enablers" and "performance enhancers." Greenies didn't enhance an athlete's performance the way that steroids did.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 01-12-2013, 12:37 PM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
No it's not, the intent for taking steroids was that it would make you bigger and stronger. The intent for taking greenies was that it would make you more alert and able to perform for double headers or in the dog days of August. Tom Verducci said it best when he said the comparison between greenies and steroids is the difference between "performance enablers" and "performance enhancers." Greenies didn't enhance an athlete's performance the way that steroids did.
That isn't really accurate though. Greenies allowed players to play more games back to back, doubleheaders, and longer during the season than if they didn't take them. To me that sounds an awful lot like enhancing your talents. Watching the collapse of the Sox' offense over the final 2 weeks of the season makes you wonder how it would have been had greenies not been banned.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 01-12-2013, 12:51 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx View Post
That isn't really accurate though. Greenies allowed players to play more games back to back, doubleheaders, and longer during the season than if they didn't take them. To me that sounds an awful lot like enhancing your talents. Watching the collapse of the Sox' offense over the final 2 weeks of the season makes you wonder how it would have been had greenies not been banned.
So does coffee and Red Bull. Greenies allowed you to be more alert and meant that you didn't need a day of rest possibly, but they would not transform a .230 slap hitter into a 25 HR guy the way that steroids did. If you couldn't catch up to a guy's fastball, greenies wouldn't suddenly enable you do that, nor would they enable you to go from throwing 90 to 96. Steroids did.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-12-2013, 12:57 PM
sox1970 sox1970 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,950
Default

Greenies will help you get on the field, and feel good for the game, but they won't put muscle on a good player and make him great by hitting 40-50-73 homers.

I don't have a problem with Clemens and Bonds getting in someday, but I would have to use some common sense and intuition as well.

The thing that bothers me the most is when somebody says, "If they put up the numbers, put them all in". Meaning McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro. Uh, no. I would not vote for players that I thought got to those former HOF benchmarks if I thought they got there only because of steroids. They shouldn't put in 30-40 players from the 90's just because they put up the numbers, while the 70's and 80's players are underrepresented in the Hall. That would be like saying, "If only Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez did steroids instead of blow, they could be Hall of Famers right now".

I'm all for some forgiveness for the sake of the Hall itself, but when it comes to the former benchmarks that automatically get you in the Hall, I wouldn't pay attention to that. A guy's career WAR from the steroid era is meaningless to me.

Last edited by sox1970; 01-12-2013 at 01:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-12-2013, 01:06 PM
Hendu Hendu is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Old Town
Posts: 3,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
No it's not, the intent for taking steroids was that it would make you bigger and stronger. The intent for taking greenies was that it would make you more alert and able to perform for double headers or in the dog days of August. Tom Verducci said it best when he said the comparison between greenies and steroids is the difference between "performance enablers" and "performance enhancers." Greenies didn't enhance an athlete's performance the way that steroids did.
If we are talking about the NFL, OK. But baseball is a game of timing and endurance, not pure strength.

Greenies allowed players to play more games and rack up stats. It's also no coincidence that stolen base numbers were so high during that era.

Regardless - the intent is the same and that's all that really matters. Players were taking illegal substances to gain a competitive advantage, whether it's greenies or steroids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sox1970 View Post
I'm all for some forgiveness for the sake of the Hall itself, but when it comes to the former benchmarks that automatically get you in the Hall, I wouldn't pay attention to that. A guy's career WAR from the steroid era is meaningless to me.
Agreed. Home runs have been devalued; 500 is no longer a lock even for a clean player.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-12-2013, 02:06 PM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendu View Post
If we are talking about the NFL, OK. But baseball is a game of timing and endurance, not pure strength.

Greenies allowed players to play more games and rack up stats. It's also no coincidence that stolen base numbers were so high during that era.

Regardless - the intent is the same and that's all that really matters. Players were taking illegal substances to gain a competitive advantage, whether it's greenies or steroids.

Agreed. Home runs have been devalued; 500 is no longer a lock even for a clean player.
Agreed completely.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:23 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendu View Post
Every drug comes with consequences, even steroids. Speed freak, roid rage, etc. The fact is that players were popping greenies to gain a competitive advantage. Sure, the effect is not the same as steroids but the intent was the same. This is the mental gymnastics I was talking about before where we can excuse one type of cheating but not another.

This interview with Tom House about the drug culture, which included steroids, in the 60s and 70s is eye-opening. "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."
Not excusing, I hate excuses in my own life and in the cosmic sense. Just comparing. If people want to believe the "red juice" made Willie Mays a great player, let them. If he did take it he failed miserably to halt his late in career decline. A sad sight to behold for us fans back then. As for Tom House, I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores but IMO he is a BS artist when it comes to this issue. Not here, but if we ever meet I will tell you exactly why I feel that way. Whatever he took it failed miserably too. He was at best a journeyman pitcher. You think it is "mental gymnastics" and an attempt to excuse behavior that occurred in a supposedly more pristine and innocent era. I think it is dumb as hell to say a popgun is as powerful as a bazooka. That is all. No excuses. Just hard reality.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-12-2013, 09:00 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendu View Post
True, it's not a direct affiliate of MLB but if Selig banned players from baseball they wouldn't appear on the ballot. Otherwise, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe would have gotten more consideration.



Yes on both counts. Firstly, reporters no longer have gentleman's agreements to hide the dark sides of players. And with social media, we have more access to players than at any point in the history of MLB. Josh Hamilton, for example, can't go to a bar without somebody reporting it, whereas Mickey Mantle was able to play games while drunk or Babe Ruth popped into bars in between double headers and nobody made a big fuss.

Secondly, other than this steroids issue, who has been kept out of the HOF due to the character clause? Rose and Jackson don't count as they both have lifetime bans. Tim Raines probably gets in eventually despite playing an entire season with vials of cocaine in his back pocket...
Players are not voted into the Hall of Fame if fans don't respect them, regardless of their numbers. Joe Jackson was technically eligible for the Hall of Fame throughout his lifetime. He didn't become ineligible until he was long dead. I don't know that more than one writer ever voted for him. Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame because his lack of integrity led to his lifetime banishment and a rule change that would make Joe Jackson tehnically ineligible.

Ferguson Jenkins was late in getting to the Hall of Fame because a drug possession charge that had nothing to do with baseball. Hal Chase, considered by many to be the greatest first baseman in the early years of the 20th century. His dead-ball batting numbers aren't impressive today, but Babe Ruth (who copied Joe Jackson's swing) considered Chase the best first baseman he ever saw. Character issues assured he would never get more than 5 percent of the vote.

It isn't so much that Hall of Famers have to be of the highest moral character, but that if players are considered to have been bad characters in the context of their baseball careers, that if fans do not respect them as representing the best of the game, they aren't going to get in. That is one of the reasons Dick Allen will never get into the Hall of Fame. Except for White Sox fans who remember an incredible 1972 and a little bit of 1973, he is not respected as representing what is great about the game, not the game of baseball anyway. And as a White Sox fan who was betrayed by Allen when he quit the team, I wouldn't have voted for him if I had a vote.

I don't know of anyone in the Hall of Fame who was not respected by fans when he was voted in, although there are people who only look at numbers who don't believe some are worthy. The Hall of Fame is supposed to what is great about the game. And that isn't Barry Bonds.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:31 PM
RKMeibalane RKMeibalane is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 17,394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Players are not voted into the Hall of Fame if fans don't respect them, regardless of their numbers. Joe Jackson was technically eligible for the Hall of Fame throughout his lifetime. He didn't become ineligible until he was long dead. I don't know that more than one writer ever voted for him. Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame because his lack of integrity led to his lifetime banishment and a rule change that would make Joe Jackson tehnically ineligible.

Ferguson Jenkins was late in getting to the Hall of Fame because a drug possession charge that had nothing to do with baseball. Hal Chase, considered by many to be the greatest first baseman in the early years of the 20th century. His dead-ball batting numbers aren't impressive today, but Babe Ruth (who copied Joe Jackson's swing) considered Chase the best first baseman he ever saw. Character issues assured he would never get more than 5 percent of the vote.

It isn't so much that Hall of Famers have to be of the highest moral character, but that if players are considered to have been bad characters in the context of their baseball careers, that if fans do not respect them as representing the best of the game, they aren't going to get in. That is one of the reasons Dick Allen will never get into the Hall of Fame. Except for White Sox fans who remember an incredible 1972 and a little bit of 1973, he is not respected as representing what is great about the game, not the game of baseball anyway. And as a White Sox fan who was betrayed by Allen when he quit the team, I wouldn't have voted for him if I had a vote.

I don't know of anyone in the Hall of Fame who was not respected by fans when he was voted in, although there are people who only look at numbers who don't believe some are worthy. The Hall of Fame is supposed to what is great about the game. And that isn't Barry Bonds.
I know a number of people (myself included) who think little of Ron Santo due to all of his whining about the HOF.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-13-2013, 01:46 AM
Hendu Hendu is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Old Town
Posts: 3,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
Not excusing, I hate excuses in my own life and in the cosmic sense. Just comparing. If people want to believe the "red juice" made Willie Mays a great player, let them. If he did take it he failed miserably to halt his late in career decline. A sad sight to behold for us fans back then. As for Tom House, I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores but IMO he is a BS artist when it comes to this issue. Not here, but if we ever meet I will tell you exactly why I feel that way. Whatever he took it failed miserably too. He was at best a journeyman pitcher. You think it is "mental gymnastics" and an attempt to excuse behavior that occurred in a supposedly more pristine and innocent era. I think it is dumb as hell to say a popgun is as powerful as a bazooka. That is all. No excuses. Just hard reality.
It's more accurate to say it's comparing a musket to a machine gun. Sure, one is more modern and more effective, but they both had the same purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-13-2013, 05:15 AM
Bob Roarman Bob Roarman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
Not excusing, I hate excuses in my own life and in the cosmic sense. Just comparing. If people want to believe the "red juice" made Willie Mays a great player, let them. If he did take it he failed miserably to halt his late in career decline. A sad sight to behold for us fans back then. As for Tom House, I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores but IMO he is a BS artist when it comes to this issue. Not here, but if we ever meet I will tell you exactly why I feel that way. Whatever he took it failed miserably too. He was at best a journeyman pitcher. You think it is "mental gymnastics" and an attempt to excuse behavior that occurred in a supposedly more pristine and innocent era. I think it is dumb as hell to say a popgun is as powerful as a bazooka. That is all. No excuses. Just hard reality.
No excuses except for, as I mentioned, trying to label it as some other imaginary tier of cheating, some lesser form. "Performance enablers". Or pop guns compared to bazookas. Tom House described exactly what the reality of all PEDs have become, and it's something I've said over and over, they've become part of the competition. But nooo, he' a bull**** artist because they didn't "work" for him. What if working for him means it made him into a journeyman pitcher when otherwise he may not have been in the MLB at all? It's not just the stars or the players who became stars because of PED use, it's all types of players. It became part of the game.

And again, try to dodge it all you want, there's a whole generation of players who cheated and among them Hall of Famers. And if numbers aren't one of the main reasons behind getting into the Hall of Fame (which I don't agree with at all but just for the sake of argument) but character and knowing what we know about players and their "respect" for the game is, well we better get ready to hate and remove a whoooolle bunch of players from the Hall of Fame. Because we should by now about how widespread drugs were in that era, that was the culture. Why isn't anyone arguing for an asterisk on that era? Why isn't there an asterisk next to Cal Ripken's Iron Man record? At what point does all this boil down to, okay, everyone within the game knows about it,they knew about it back in the 60s, they know about it now, no one really did anything until **** started blowing up in people's faces, it wasn't until people OUTSIDE the game started finding out about it that things changed. So what's the point of singling out this guy or that guy when everyone was complicit in letting things go the way they did?

But no, that's raining on the self-righteous parade against these more recent cheating ball players! We don't want their sorry cheating asses next to other "lesser", sorry cheating asses already in the Hall of Fame! That would be spitting on the sanctity of the game, dragging it through the mud! Can't have that! This revisionist history people have of baseball, it's mind boggling to me. Steroids saved baseball.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:59 AM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKMeibalane View Post
I know a number of people (myself included) who think little of Ron Santo due to all of his whining about the HOF.
Among baseball fans, they are in the minority, just as those of us who think little of Bert Blyleven, who whined about not being in the Hall of Fame, are in the minority. It took a long time for Santo to get into the Hall of Fame, and oddly enough he didn't get in until he stopped whining. He never got strong support in the BBWAA vote, not anywhere near the levels his supporters believed he should have received.

And with Santo it was just about being a jerk. It's true, he was seen shooting up in the clubhouse, but the intent of injecting insulin was not to unnaturally increase muscle mass in an unhealthy, immoral and, if prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, criminal way.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-13-2013, 02:32 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Roarman View Post
.
Steroids saved baseball.
Absolutely. Look what PED's did for cycling. Bring them back. While we're at it cut the hypocrisy. Next year we can have frenzied fans yelling "Barry! Barry!" at his induction ceremony. The same for Roger and Sammy, although I suppose Sammy will bring an interpreter for his induction speech. Maybe one of them will be big enough to acknowledge Tom House for his trailblazing efforts. Let's not stop there. Pete Rose needs to get enshrined soon too. Let's have a special wing for Chick Gandil, Sport Sullivan, Abe Atell and Arnold Rothstein. Once upon a time gambling saved baseball. So much work to do. Then on to basketball. Jack Molinas, for starters needs to be recognized for his contributions.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-14-2013, 07:42 PM
JoeYoung JoeYoung is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
Absolutely. Look what PED's did for cycling. Bring them back. While we're at it cut the hypocrisy. Next year we can have frenzied fans yelling "Barry! Barry!" at his induction ceremony. The same for Roger and Sammy, although I suppose Sammy will bring an interpreter for his induction speech. Maybe one of them will be big enough to acknowledge Tom House for his trailblazing efforts. Let's not stop there. Pete Rose needs to get enshrined soon too. Let's have a special wing for Chick Gandil, Sport Sullivan, Abe Atell and Arnold Rothstein. Once upon a time gambling saved baseball. So much work to do. Then on to basketball. Jack Molinas, for starters needs to be recognized for his contributions.
Teal not needed here
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-14-2013, 07:55 PM
Bob Roarman Bob Roarman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,299
Default

You don't have to like it, but that's just the reality of what happened. Those home runs, Sammy vs. McGwire, you could probably throw in Ripken's record as well. All PED fueled saviors of the game.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.