Agreed. He was known as a problem drinker and that definitely deteriorated skills and lifespan as he died an early death at 48.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter bucknut74
- Start date
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
Bucklion: "I also thin Johnny VanDerMeer's (can't fricking spell it) back-to-back no-hitters will never be repeated either. I forget the total number of no-hit innings he had in a row, but I think it was over 20."
No question about it. To break that record, you have to pitch three straight no-hitters. Ain't gonna happen. An interesting note about that: Vandermeer's second no-hitter was the first night game ever at Ebbets Field. It was the very, very early days of night baseball and most players had problems seeing the ball being that it was their first night game, and I'm sure (with the technology of the time) that the lights that they did have are no where near as powerful as the ones we have today. So you could say that Vandermeer sort of "lucked into" that record.
And one more for you Reds fans: a record, IMO, that will NEVER EVER be broken: Peter Edward Rose, 4,256 hits. Never ever. In order to break this mark, if you have a 20 year career, you must AVERAGE 213 hits per season. EVERY single season. 213 hits, like clockwork, every single year, for 20 straight years. No injuries. Hardly any days off. No one (aside of Cobb, obviously) is even close to this record: Hank Aaron (who played forever) is third with 3,771: 485 shy of Rose. That's two and half more HOF-caliber prime years that would need to be tacked onto Aaron's illustrious 26 year career to break it.
So after Bonds breaks Ruth and Aaron's marks, baseball will have two unbreakable records tainted by gambling and steroids for the rest of time. Good job, Bud Light and the Comissioner's Office!! Great job on that one!
Luca: "Agreed. He was known as a problem drinker and that definitely deteriorated skills and lifespan as he died an early death at 48."
How do you know so much about Wilson? Are you a Cubs fan?
No question about it. To break that record, you have to pitch three straight no-hitters. Ain't gonna happen. An interesting note about that: Vandermeer's second no-hitter was the first night game ever at Ebbets Field. It was the very, very early days of night baseball and most players had problems seeing the ball being that it was their first night game, and I'm sure (with the technology of the time) that the lights that they did have are no where near as powerful as the ones we have today. So you could say that Vandermeer sort of "lucked into" that record.
And one more for you Reds fans: a record, IMO, that will NEVER EVER be broken: Peter Edward Rose, 4,256 hits. Never ever. In order to break this mark, if you have a 20 year career, you must AVERAGE 213 hits per season. EVERY single season. 213 hits, like clockwork, every single year, for 20 straight years. No injuries. Hardly any days off. No one (aside of Cobb, obviously) is even close to this record: Hank Aaron (who played forever) is third with 3,771: 485 shy of Rose. That's two and half more HOF-caliber prime years that would need to be tacked onto Aaron's illustrious 26 year career to break it.
So after Bonds breaks Ruth and Aaron's marks, baseball will have two unbreakable records tainted by gambling and steroids for the rest of time. Good job, Bud Light and the Comissioner's Office!! Great job on that one!
Luca: "Agreed. He was known as a problem drinker and that definitely deteriorated skills and lifespan as he died an early death at 48."
How do you know so much about Wilson? Are you a Cubs fan?
Upvote
0
Nah. Just read every baseball bio or autobio I could get my hands on as a kid.Sloopy45 said:
Upvote
0
tibor75
Banned
Cooperstown's least qualified
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com
Since the beginning, there have been two avenues to the Hall of Fame. The Baseball Writers' Association of American (BBWAA) has voted on players from the relatively recent past, while first the "old-timers committee," and later the Veterans Committee, were charged with electing deserving players from the game's distant past.
The BBWAA generally has done a fine job, but the same cannot be said of the the Veterans Committee, which made an immense number of selections in the late 1960s and early '70s, when the committee was populated largely by players who had been active in the 1920s and '30s. In other words, they put their old pals in.
The '20s and '30s were particularly conducive to hitting, which meant that good hitters who managed to play for a few years were able to compile superficially impressive batting stats. And when you're looking for a reason to vote for a friend, superficial will do just fine.
So if we're looking for Hall of Famers who really don't belong in Cooperstown, we could easily focus only on players from the '20s and '30s elected by the Veterans Committee in the 1970s. But while we'll mention many of those players in passing, we'll focus on at least a few players from other eras, too. What follows, then, are 10 of the many players whose qualifications for the Hall are something less than convincing.
Jim Bunning
A good pitcher? You bet. But while Bunning won 19 games four times, he won 20 only once. His career as a productive pitcher lasted only 10 years, and in his time he was not considered the equal of contemporaries like Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale or Juan Marichal.
Bunning won 224 major league games, not that many by Hall of Fame standards (just ask Tommy John). Bunning's supporters will tell you that he won 100-plus games in both the American and National Leagues, but what does that mean, really? Isn't it just an accident? Milt Pappas won 209 games, and if he'd been traded to the National League a year earlier than he was, he might have won 100 in both leagues, too.
Earle Combs
Two teams are seriously over-represented in the Hall of Fame: the 1920s New York Giants (who we'll get to later), and the late-1920s New York Yankees. The '27 Yankees are, of course, still widely regarded as the greatest team ever, and a number of merely good players have ridden that reputation to Cooperstown.
A fast center fielder who didn't throw well, Combs didn't win a regular job until he was almost 26, and his tenure as an everyday player lasted only nine years. He did finish with a .325 lifetime batting average, but a lot of guys were hitting .325 in Combs' time.
Other marginal Hall of Famers among the '27 Yankees include second baseman Tony Lazzeri and pitcher Herb Pennock.
Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, Frank Chance
Three players, one poor selection.
In 1910, a newspaperman named Frank Adams wrote the following verse, because his paper had some space that needed filling ...
Baseball's Sad Lexicon
These are the saddest of possible words,
Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
Trio of Bear Cubs fleeter than birds,
Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double,
Words that are weighty with nothing but trouble.
Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
At that time, Tinker and Evers and Chance all starred for the Chicago Cubs, the best team in the National League from 1906 through 1910. It has become fashionable in recent years to downplay the abilities of shortstop Tinker and second baseman Evers (Chance played first base and managed), but the pair probably was the best double-play combination of their era.
Nevertheless, none of the three enjoyed a long career, and none of the three was a productive hitter for more than a few years. Chance and Evers drew decent support when Hall of Fame voting opened in 1936, but neither were elected by the BBWAA. The light-hitting Tinker, meanwhile, drew very little support. However, in 1946 all three were elected as a unit by the old-timer's committee, thanks largely to the poem that made them famous.
Rick Ferrell
One might reasonably argue that catchers are under-represented in the Hall of Fame. But consider that in the years Ferrell was eligible for consideration by the BBWAA, he never garnered more than one vote from the 300-plus voters. Yet in 1984, 14 of the 18 members of the Veterans Committee gave Ferrell his ticket to the Hall.
His qualifications? Well, Ferrell was a pretty good defensive catcher, though he never really was considered the top defensive catcher of his time. He reportedly was particularly adept at handling the knuckleball, and in 1945 his Washington Senators nearly won the American League with four knuckleball pitchers in the rotation.
But Ferrell finished his career with only 1,692 hits; he never scored more than 67 runs in a season; he never drove in more than 77 runs in a season; and he never led his league in anything except fielding average (once).
Chick Hafey
Solid hitter, awfully short career. Hafey played in more than 100 games only seven times. He finished his career with 1,466 hits, exceptionally low for a Hall of Fame outfielder who never hit 30 home runs in a season. Hafey was elected by the Veterans Committee in 1971, a year after his Cardinals teammate Jesse Haines -- another poor choice -- was inducted.
Harry Hooper
Vada Pinson might ask, "Why is this guy in, and not me?"
Hooper played in the same outfield with Tris Speaker, a truly great player. Pinson played in the same outfield with Frank Robinson, a truly great player.
Hooper finished his career with 2,466 hits and a .281 batting average. Pinson finished his career with 2,757 hits and a .286 batting average.
But in 1971 -- the worst year in the history of the Hall -- Hooper had some big advantages over Pinson. One, he'd been featured a few years earlier in Larry Ritter's classic book, "The Glory of Their Times." And two, he was an old ballplayer at a time when the Veterans Committee was electing just about every old ballplayer it could think of.
George Kelly
Kelly was a wonderful defensive first baseman with good power, but his qualifications for the Hall of Fame are not easily found in the record books. He played in 100-plus games in only nine seasons and finished with just 1,778 career hits. His .297 lifetime batting average is not impressive for his time, and he never led his league in on-base or slugging percentage.
Kelly is just one example of the profligacy involving various New York Giants of the 1920s, as we could have filled half this article with his teammates. Speaking of his teammates, two of them -- Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry -- were on the Veterans Committee in the early 1970s, which as we have seen was a period of irresponsible selections. In addition to Kelly, marginal candidates like Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom and Ross Youngs all were enshrined around this time.
Frisch dominated the Veterans Committee, and in addition to arguing for his old Giants teammates, he also lobbied for his old Cardinals teammates, the aforementioned Hafey and Haines. If you want to blame one person for the relatively low standards of the Hall of Fame, then Frankie Frisch is your man.
Chuck Klein
Chuck Klein was a good player, there's no question about that. But as much as any player in the Hall of Fame, he was a product of his home park, Philadelphia's cozy Baker Bowl. From 1929 through 1933, Klein led the National League in home runs four times, and in '33 he also topped the NL in batting average and RBI.
But Klein went to the Cubs in 1934 and became merely a good hitter. He finished his career with 2,076 hits, quite unimpressive for a Hall of Fame outfielder.
Heinie Manush
Manush, an outfielder who played regularly from 1923 through 1936, was a good hitter but not a great one. His .330 career batting average ranks 27th on the all-time list, but he played in a great era for hitters, and in terms of true performance, Manush is comparable to such high-average/medium-power/medium-walks hitters of the '70s like Bill Madlock and Al Oliver, neither of whom have been seriously considered as Hall of Fame candidates. Dwight Evans was a better player than Heinie Manush, and so is Paul O'Neill.
Rube Marquard
Arguably the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame, Marquard finished with 201 victories and a .532 winning percentage, neither of those marks Hall-worthy. He was an excellent pitcher from 1911 through 1913, going 73-28 over those three seasons. But many, many pitchers have been great for three years, and there are probably 50 non-Hall of Fame pitchers more deserving than Marquard.
Elected in 1971 by the Veterans Committee, Marquard likely benefited from his chapter in "The Glory of Their Times."
Lloyd Waner
Lloyd Waner's big brother (and teammate) Paul Waner was one of the better hitters of the 1930s. But Lloyd was mostly a singles hitter, and not even a great one of those. He was essentially Tony Gwynn without the batting average.
There's a story, almost certainly apocryphal, that says Lloyd made the Hall of Fame in 1967 because members of the Veterans Committee were mistakenly presented with Paul's statistics instead of Lloyd's. More likely, the voters were simply impressed by Lloyd's .316 batting average, and thought it would be "nice" if both brothers could be in the Hall.
http://espn.starwave.com/mlb/hof00/s/worst.html
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com
Since the beginning, there have been two avenues to the Hall of Fame. The Baseball Writers' Association of American (BBWAA) has voted on players from the relatively recent past, while first the "old-timers committee," and later the Veterans Committee, were charged with electing deserving players from the game's distant past.
The BBWAA generally has done a fine job, but the same cannot be said of the the Veterans Committee, which made an immense number of selections in the late 1960s and early '70s, when the committee was populated largely by players who had been active in the 1920s and '30s. In other words, they put their old pals in.
The '20s and '30s were particularly conducive to hitting, which meant that good hitters who managed to play for a few years were able to compile superficially impressive batting stats. And when you're looking for a reason to vote for a friend, superficial will do just fine.
So if we're looking for Hall of Famers who really don't belong in Cooperstown, we could easily focus only on players from the '20s and '30s elected by the Veterans Committee in the 1970s. But while we'll mention many of those players in passing, we'll focus on at least a few players from other eras, too. What follows, then, are 10 of the many players whose qualifications for the Hall are something less than convincing.
Jim Bunning
A good pitcher? You bet. But while Bunning won 19 games four times, he won 20 only once. His career as a productive pitcher lasted only 10 years, and in his time he was not considered the equal of contemporaries like Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale or Juan Marichal.
Bunning won 224 major league games, not that many by Hall of Fame standards (just ask Tommy John). Bunning's supporters will tell you that he won 100-plus games in both the American and National Leagues, but what does that mean, really? Isn't it just an accident? Milt Pappas won 209 games, and if he'd been traded to the National League a year earlier than he was, he might have won 100 in both leagues, too.
Earle Combs
Two teams are seriously over-represented in the Hall of Fame: the 1920s New York Giants (who we'll get to later), and the late-1920s New York Yankees. The '27 Yankees are, of course, still widely regarded as the greatest team ever, and a number of merely good players have ridden that reputation to Cooperstown.
A fast center fielder who didn't throw well, Combs didn't win a regular job until he was almost 26, and his tenure as an everyday player lasted only nine years. He did finish with a .325 lifetime batting average, but a lot of guys were hitting .325 in Combs' time.
Other marginal Hall of Famers among the '27 Yankees include second baseman Tony Lazzeri and pitcher Herb Pennock.
Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, Frank Chance
Three players, one poor selection.
In 1910, a newspaperman named Frank Adams wrote the following verse, because his paper had some space that needed filling ...
Baseball's Sad Lexicon
These are the saddest of possible words,
Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
Trio of Bear Cubs fleeter than birds,
Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double,
Words that are weighty with nothing but trouble.
Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
At that time, Tinker and Evers and Chance all starred for the Chicago Cubs, the best team in the National League from 1906 through 1910. It has become fashionable in recent years to downplay the abilities of shortstop Tinker and second baseman Evers (Chance played first base and managed), but the pair probably was the best double-play combination of their era.
Nevertheless, none of the three enjoyed a long career, and none of the three was a productive hitter for more than a few years. Chance and Evers drew decent support when Hall of Fame voting opened in 1936, but neither were elected by the BBWAA. The light-hitting Tinker, meanwhile, drew very little support. However, in 1946 all three were elected as a unit by the old-timer's committee, thanks largely to the poem that made them famous.
Rick Ferrell
One might reasonably argue that catchers are under-represented in the Hall of Fame. But consider that in the years Ferrell was eligible for consideration by the BBWAA, he never garnered more than one vote from the 300-plus voters. Yet in 1984, 14 of the 18 members of the Veterans Committee gave Ferrell his ticket to the Hall.
His qualifications? Well, Ferrell was a pretty good defensive catcher, though he never really was considered the top defensive catcher of his time. He reportedly was particularly adept at handling the knuckleball, and in 1945 his Washington Senators nearly won the American League with four knuckleball pitchers in the rotation.
But Ferrell finished his career with only 1,692 hits; he never scored more than 67 runs in a season; he never drove in more than 77 runs in a season; and he never led his league in anything except fielding average (once).
Chick Hafey
Solid hitter, awfully short career. Hafey played in more than 100 games only seven times. He finished his career with 1,466 hits, exceptionally low for a Hall of Fame outfielder who never hit 30 home runs in a season. Hafey was elected by the Veterans Committee in 1971, a year after his Cardinals teammate Jesse Haines -- another poor choice -- was inducted.
Harry Hooper
Vada Pinson might ask, "Why is this guy in, and not me?"
Hooper played in the same outfield with Tris Speaker, a truly great player. Pinson played in the same outfield with Frank Robinson, a truly great player.
Hooper finished his career with 2,466 hits and a .281 batting average. Pinson finished his career with 2,757 hits and a .286 batting average.
But in 1971 -- the worst year in the history of the Hall -- Hooper had some big advantages over Pinson. One, he'd been featured a few years earlier in Larry Ritter's classic book, "The Glory of Their Times." And two, he was an old ballplayer at a time when the Veterans Committee was electing just about every old ballplayer it could think of.
George Kelly
Kelly was a wonderful defensive first baseman with good power, but his qualifications for the Hall of Fame are not easily found in the record books. He played in 100-plus games in only nine seasons and finished with just 1,778 career hits. His .297 lifetime batting average is not impressive for his time, and he never led his league in on-base or slugging percentage.
Kelly is just one example of the profligacy involving various New York Giants of the 1920s, as we could have filled half this article with his teammates. Speaking of his teammates, two of them -- Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry -- were on the Veterans Committee in the early 1970s, which as we have seen was a period of irresponsible selections. In addition to Kelly, marginal candidates like Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, Fred Lindstrom and Ross Youngs all were enshrined around this time.
Frisch dominated the Veterans Committee, and in addition to arguing for his old Giants teammates, he also lobbied for his old Cardinals teammates, the aforementioned Hafey and Haines. If you want to blame one person for the relatively low standards of the Hall of Fame, then Frankie Frisch is your man.
Chuck Klein
Chuck Klein was a good player, there's no question about that. But as much as any player in the Hall of Fame, he was a product of his home park, Philadelphia's cozy Baker Bowl. From 1929 through 1933, Klein led the National League in home runs four times, and in '33 he also topped the NL in batting average and RBI.
But Klein went to the Cubs in 1934 and became merely a good hitter. He finished his career with 2,076 hits, quite unimpressive for a Hall of Fame outfielder.
Heinie Manush
Manush, an outfielder who played regularly from 1923 through 1936, was a good hitter but not a great one. His .330 career batting average ranks 27th on the all-time list, but he played in a great era for hitters, and in terms of true performance, Manush is comparable to such high-average/medium-power/medium-walks hitters of the '70s like Bill Madlock and Al Oliver, neither of whom have been seriously considered as Hall of Fame candidates. Dwight Evans was a better player than Heinie Manush, and so is Paul O'Neill.
Rube Marquard
Arguably the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame, Marquard finished with 201 victories and a .532 winning percentage, neither of those marks Hall-worthy. He was an excellent pitcher from 1911 through 1913, going 73-28 over those three seasons. But many, many pitchers have been great for three years, and there are probably 50 non-Hall of Fame pitchers more deserving than Marquard.
Elected in 1971 by the Veterans Committee, Marquard likely benefited from his chapter in "The Glory of Their Times."
Lloyd Waner
Lloyd Waner's big brother (and teammate) Paul Waner was one of the better hitters of the 1930s. But Lloyd was mostly a singles hitter, and not even a great one of those. He was essentially Tony Gwynn without the batting average.
There's a story, almost certainly apocryphal, that says Lloyd made the Hall of Fame in 1967 because members of the Veterans Committee were mistakenly presented with Paul's statistics instead of Lloyd's. More likely, the voters were simply impressed by Lloyd's .316 batting average, and thought it would be "nice" if both brothers could be in the Hall.
http://espn.starwave.com/mlb/hof00/s/worst.html
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
Tibbs: "lists that detail how there are plenty of baseball HOF's that clearly don't deserve to be there"
Great list, thanks for posting it. Yeah, there are a ton of guys in the Hall who clearly don't belong. I can give you some modern players that weren't Hall of Famers in my mind:
1. Gary Carter: No MVPs. No batting titles. Never led the league in ANY category but once: 106 RBIs in 1984. A pedestrian three Gold Gloves at a Defensive position over the course of a 19 year career. Lifetime .262 hitter. Topped 30 Homers ONCE. Topped 100 RBIs only four times. Home run total is pretty good for a catcher (324), and he's an 11 time All-Star, but he's NOT a Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination in my eyes.
Gary got in because he worked hard for three years selling himself to the BWAA. Good player for a long time, but he shouldn't be in.
2. Carlton Fisk: I've gone over this with Sears before, so I won't make my case against Fisk again. But, the only way this guy should get to Cooperstown is with a ticket. A slightly above average catcher who hung around for 100 years. Had he not played for the Red Sox, the baseball community would consider him nothing more than another Bob Boone.
3. Eddie Murray: I can't argue with Murray's totals. Anyone with 504 HRs, and 3,255 Hits on his resume SHOULD be in the Hall, but lets face it: Murray was a compiler, plain and simple. Induction should be earned in the prime of one's career, and not the twilight.
Now, as tough as this may be, I'm making my case AGAINST Murray:
a.) You can make a very VERY strong argument that Murray's best season statistically was as a 39 year old DH with the Indians in 1995. He posted his second best season that year in terms of average (.323), and the only other season where he came close to that average was as a 34 year old with the Dodgers in 1990 (.330, which also could be argued as his best season). In neither of these seasons was Murray a centerpiece of a line-up. He wasn't the 3 or 4 hitter for either team, and in '95 he basically feasted on fastballs that pitchers didn't want to throw to the rest of the powerful Indians lineup.
b.) Career Highs: Poke me when one of these numbers jumps out at you: 115 Runs in 1983 (only scored 100+ runs 3 times in a 21 year career, now that's pathetic), 186 hits in 1980, 37 Doubles as a 36 year old in 1992 with the Mets, 33 Dongs in 1983 (only hit 30 bombs five times in his career, and he barely made it each time), 124 RBI in 1985 (ONLY HAD SIX 100 RBI seasons in 21 years), and only topped 100 walks once (107 in 1984) and never ever came close to that mark again. Now those aren't a single season. THOSE ARE MURRAY'S CAREER HIGHS IN EACH CATEGORY OVER 21 YEARS!! Do any of those numbers jump out!??
c.) Awards: Only an eight time All-Star. That also means that in 13 seasons of his career, he wasn't among the top 3 players at his position in his league. By comparison, the only other two guys with 500+ dongs and 3,000+ hits, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, were a 20 time and a 21 time All-Star, respectively. Murray never won an MVP, never won a batting title, and led the league in Homers and RBI ONCE with the pedestrian totals of 22 HR and 78 RBI in the strike-shortened 1981 season.
d.) Twilight of his career: Ask yourself this: If Murray retired in 1993 (age 37) with 2,820 hits and 441 Homers, would he be in the Hall of Fame? Not a chance. He hung around to algae-eat in '95 with the Tribe and have a couple more mediocre seasons to obtain those magic numbers.
e.) Hall of Fame Seasons: Go look at Murray's numbers and tell me how many "sure-fire" HOF caliber seasons there are in Murray's career. 2, maybe 3, maybe FOUR? Not too many.
Great list, thanks for posting it. Yeah, there are a ton of guys in the Hall who clearly don't belong. I can give you some modern players that weren't Hall of Famers in my mind:
1. Gary Carter: No MVPs. No batting titles. Never led the league in ANY category but once: 106 RBIs in 1984. A pedestrian three Gold Gloves at a Defensive position over the course of a 19 year career. Lifetime .262 hitter. Topped 30 Homers ONCE. Topped 100 RBIs only four times. Home run total is pretty good for a catcher (324), and he's an 11 time All-Star, but he's NOT a Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination in my eyes.
Gary got in because he worked hard for three years selling himself to the BWAA. Good player for a long time, but he shouldn't be in.
2. Carlton Fisk: I've gone over this with Sears before, so I won't make my case against Fisk again. But, the only way this guy should get to Cooperstown is with a ticket. A slightly above average catcher who hung around for 100 years. Had he not played for the Red Sox, the baseball community would consider him nothing more than another Bob Boone.
3. Eddie Murray: I can't argue with Murray's totals. Anyone with 504 HRs, and 3,255 Hits on his resume SHOULD be in the Hall, but lets face it: Murray was a compiler, plain and simple. Induction should be earned in the prime of one's career, and not the twilight.
Now, as tough as this may be, I'm making my case AGAINST Murray:
a.) You can make a very VERY strong argument that Murray's best season statistically was as a 39 year old DH with the Indians in 1995. He posted his second best season that year in terms of average (.323), and the only other season where he came close to that average was as a 34 year old with the Dodgers in 1990 (.330, which also could be argued as his best season). In neither of these seasons was Murray a centerpiece of a line-up. He wasn't the 3 or 4 hitter for either team, and in '95 he basically feasted on fastballs that pitchers didn't want to throw to the rest of the powerful Indians lineup.
b.) Career Highs: Poke me when one of these numbers jumps out at you: 115 Runs in 1983 (only scored 100+ runs 3 times in a 21 year career, now that's pathetic), 186 hits in 1980, 37 Doubles as a 36 year old in 1992 with the Mets, 33 Dongs in 1983 (only hit 30 bombs five times in his career, and he barely made it each time), 124 RBI in 1985 (ONLY HAD SIX 100 RBI seasons in 21 years), and only topped 100 walks once (107 in 1984) and never ever came close to that mark again. Now those aren't a single season. THOSE ARE MURRAY'S CAREER HIGHS IN EACH CATEGORY OVER 21 YEARS!! Do any of those numbers jump out!??
c.) Awards: Only an eight time All-Star. That also means that in 13 seasons of his career, he wasn't among the top 3 players at his position in his league. By comparison, the only other two guys with 500+ dongs and 3,000+ hits, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, were a 20 time and a 21 time All-Star, respectively. Murray never won an MVP, never won a batting title, and led the league in Homers and RBI ONCE with the pedestrian totals of 22 HR and 78 RBI in the strike-shortened 1981 season.
d.) Twilight of his career: Ask yourself this: If Murray retired in 1993 (age 37) with 2,820 hits and 441 Homers, would he be in the Hall of Fame? Not a chance. He hung around to algae-eat in '95 with the Tribe and have a couple more mediocre seasons to obtain those magic numbers.
e.) Hall of Fame Seasons: Go look at Murray's numbers and tell me how many "sure-fire" HOF caliber seasons there are in Murray's career. 2, maybe 3, maybe FOUR? Not too many.
Upvote
0
HabaneroBuck
Non-Nike Design
Barry Bonds meets the media.
Break it down for us, Barry.
<!-- begin pagetitle -->Updated: Feb. 22, 2005, 9:27 PM ET
Slugger sidesteps questions, chastises media
<!-- end pagetitle --><!-- begin bylinebox -->Associated Press
<!-- end bylinebox -->
<!-- nb tables --><!-- begin text11 div --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top><!-- begin leftcol --><!----><!-- template inline -->SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Barry Bonds sidestepped a peppering of steroids questions in the very way teams avoid pitching to him -- and did it with the same prickly demeanor that has defined him for years.
<!---------------------INLINE HEADSHOT (BEGIN)--------------------->
Bonds angrily avoided inquiries about his role in baseball's steroid scandal upon his arrival at spring training Tuesday, pronouncing himself weary but ready to resume his pursuit of Hank Aaron's home run record.
He called reporters liars, and pointed to problems in the world he considers much more important than steroids, such as alcoholism and drug abuse.
Bonds was entertaining as usual. Asked directly whether he'd ever used illegal substances, he said:
"I'm not a child. You repeat those things to children and then eventually they tell you. I don't."
Bonds, dressed casually in a black shirt and jeans, was asked whether he thinks using steroids is cheating.
"I don't know what cheating is," he said. "I don't believe steroids can help your eye-hand coordination, technically hit a baseball. I just don't believe it. That's my opinion."
Bonds said the key to his continued success and strength, even in the later years of his career, has been "hard work, that's about it."
Bonds believes he's being scrutinized more since he's closing in on Ruth.
"Because Babe Ruth is one of the greatest baseball players ever, and Babe Ruth ain't black, either," he said. "I'm black. Blacks, we go through a little more. ... I'm not a racist though, but I live in the real world. I'm fine with that."
I want to help Barry out. He seems a little confused, so here goes: we asked whether you have ever used illegal substances. All you have to say is no. The only way we'd trick you into saying yes is if, in fact, you did use steroids.
Cheating is any number of things, but a twenty-year veteran ought to know what cheating is by now. Just say, yeah, using steroids is cheating.
Actually, before, you attributed your performance to hard work and a disciplined lifestyle of food and supplements. You even appeared in a print ad with Jason Giambi for BALCO touting it as a supplier of superior supplements. Now you are saying that it was just hard work?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Break it down for us, Barry.
<!-- begin pagetitle -->Updated: Feb. 22, 2005, 9:27 PM ET
Slugger sidesteps questions, chastises media
<!-- end pagetitle --><!-- begin bylinebox -->Associated Press
<!-- end bylinebox -->
<!-- nb tables --><!-- begin text11 div --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top><!-- begin leftcol --><!----><!-- template inline -->SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Barry Bonds sidestepped a peppering of steroids questions in the very way teams avoid pitching to him -- and did it with the same prickly demeanor that has defined him for years.
<!---------------------INLINE HEADSHOT (BEGIN)--------------------->
Bonds
Bonds angrily avoided inquiries about his role in baseball's steroid scandal upon his arrival at spring training Tuesday, pronouncing himself weary but ready to resume his pursuit of Hank Aaron's home run record.
He called reporters liars, and pointed to problems in the world he considers much more important than steroids, such as alcoholism and drug abuse.
Bonds was entertaining as usual. Asked directly whether he'd ever used illegal substances, he said:
"I'm not a child. You repeat those things to children and then eventually they tell you. I don't."
Bonds, dressed casually in a black shirt and jeans, was asked whether he thinks using steroids is cheating.
"I don't know what cheating is," he said. "I don't believe steroids can help your eye-hand coordination, technically hit a baseball. I just don't believe it. That's my opinion."
Bonds said the key to his continued success and strength, even in the later years of his career, has been "hard work, that's about it."
Bonds believes he's being scrutinized more since he's closing in on Ruth.
"Because Babe Ruth is one of the greatest baseball players ever, and Babe Ruth ain't black, either," he said. "I'm black. Blacks, we go through a little more. ... I'm not a racist though, but I live in the real world. I'm fine with that."
I want to help Barry out. He seems a little confused, so here goes: we asked whether you have ever used illegal substances. All you have to say is no. The only way we'd trick you into saying yes is if, in fact, you did use steroids.
Cheating is any number of things, but a twenty-year veteran ought to know what cheating is by now. Just say, yeah, using steroids is cheating.
Actually, before, you attributed your performance to hard work and a disciplined lifestyle of food and supplements. You even appeared in a print ad with Jason Giambi for BALCO touting it as a supplier of superior supplements. Now you are saying that it was just hard work?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Upvote
0
"I don't know what cheating is," he said. "I don't believe steroids can help your eye-hand coordination, technically hit a baseball. I just don't believe it. That's my opinion."
Might have helped you throw out Sid Bream though, eh shitwad? Bonds is a fraud...period.
Might have helped you throw out Sid Bream though, eh shitwad? Bonds is a fraud...period.
Upvote
0
BuckeyeBlitz04
Senior
Bonds you are not being scrutinized because your black you are being scrutinized because your a cheater! Plain and simple! You're going after one of the most covetted records in baseball and as a true fan of the game, as many of you are here on bp, we want someone with alot more integrity and loyalty to the game than someone like you! You lie and cheat! It's bad for the game! When/If you do break the record I won't be watching!
Upvote
0
my favorite defense from the steroid users is that using steroids dont help you. oh really dipshit? steroids dont help? then why do over 50% of baseball players use them?
Upvote
0
Misanthrope
Banned
Lots of unsubstantiated "facts" being tossed around on this one.
1. The court case is ongoing, Bonds - like Giambi - can't talk about it, which includes directly answering the question.
2. Steroids do not help you hit a curve ball - that takes hand-eye coordination and practice.
3. Taking steroids and sitting on your ass will make you fat - there is lots of work involved.
4. How does anyone know "over 50%" of baseball players use steroids? Where's the proof?
Personally, I believe Bonds did use steroids, but you know what? I honestly don't care. He'll pay the price in the end when his health goes to shit, and what he has accomplished still requires talent and effort most people simply don't have in them.
Give 'em hell, Barry.
1. The court case is ongoing, Bonds - like Giambi - can't talk about it, which includes directly answering the question.
2. Steroids do not help you hit a curve ball - that takes hand-eye coordination and practice.
3. Taking steroids and sitting on your ass will make you fat - there is lots of work involved.
4. How does anyone know "over 50%" of baseball players use steroids? Where's the proof?
Personally, I believe Bonds did use steroids, but you know what? I honestly don't care. He'll pay the price in the end when his health goes to shit, and what he has accomplished still requires talent and effort most people simply don't have in them.
Give 'em hell, Barry.
Upvote
0