• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Jeter to retire after 2014 season

Interesting, although I think if Mantle could have used Roids to recover from injury, he'd have hit 800+ homers.

Griffey Jr too probably, just w/ his beautiful swing alone.
 
Comparing steroids to greenies seems to be a red herring
 
deacphan said:
so they were using a banned substance by both baseball and us law. much worse than roids then.
Click to expand...

Anyone using steroids after 1990 without a prescription was breaking both US laws and Bowie Kuhn's edict of 1971. Barry Bonds used both steroids from at least 1999 and failed an amphetamine test in 2006.
 
Go said:
Interesting, although I think if Mantle could have used Roids to recover from injury, he'd have hit 800+ homers.

Griffey Jr too probably, just w/ his beautiful swing alone.
Click to expand...

Mantle might have hit 800 hr's if his torn ACL had been repaired after the 1951 season. He played the rest of his career with that tear.
 
WFU71 said:
Anyone using steroids after 1990 without a prescription was breaking both US laws and Bowie Kuhn's edict of 1971. Barry Bonds used both steroids from at least 1999 and failed an amphetamine test in 2006.
Click to expand...

no one argued he didnt cheat. no one's throwing aaron or any other players from the 70s out of the convo because of their illegal drug use. its only my generation of players that you old guys want to throw out. reminds me of james' "old ballplayer" sections from his baseball abstract. everything was purer in your heyday. sorry. it wasnt.
 
My interest in baseball waned when I entered college in 1967. The lowering of the pitching mound in 1969(?) accelerated my disinterest.

I have no illusions about the purity of the game pre steroids - I only object when people claim the juiced players were better than those who didn't have access to the same PED's. Your argument seems to be that the players who used greenies are as guilty as those in later years who used greenies and steroids. Maybe they are, but you're nuts if you don't admit that steroids gave the players of your era an additional advantage.

I think baseball players should be judged against the players of their era and not against the entire history of baseball. Too much has changed over the years to do that, IMO.
 
WFU71 said:
My interest in baseball waned when I entered college in 1967. The lowering of the pitching mound in 1969(?) accelerated my disinterest.

I have no illusions about the purity of the game pre steroids - I only object when people claim the juiced players were better than those who didn't have access to the same PED's. Your argument seems to be that the players who used greenies are as guilty as those in later years who used greenies and steroids. Maybe they are, but you're nuts if you don't admit that steroids gave the players of your era an additional advantage.

I think baseball players should be judged against the players of their era and not against the entire history of baseball. Too much has changed over the years to do that, IMO.
Click to expand...

bonds played against fellow juicers. aaron played against fellow amphetemine users. i don't claim that bonds is better because he did or didnt use steroids. my point is that we have to ignore that when talking about who had the best careers. who knows how much worse ruth looks if he played against blacks/latinos. i just think it's inconcistent to ding both the hitters and pitchers who used with out aknowledging that the entire league played under a different set of circumstances (much like integration, mound height, expansion, changes to parks, advances in medicine, etc.). it's intellectually dishonest to hold one set of circumstances against an era but no others. by comparing players against their peers we get a clearer picture of how much they excelled.
 
but i fully expect people to continue to appeal to steroids as their logical basis for dinging my generation's ball players. i'll just disregard their opinion.
 
deacphan said:
bonds played against fellow juicers. aaron played against fellow amphetemine users. i don't claim that bonds is better because he did or didnt use steroids. my point is that we have to ignore that when talking about who had the best careers. who knows how much worse ruth looks if he played against blacks/latinos. i just think it's inconcistent to ding both the hitters and pitchers who used with out aknowledging that the entire league played under a different set of circumstances (much like integration, mound height, expansion, changes to parks, advances in medicine, etc.). it's intellectually dishonest to hold one set of circumstances against an era but no others. by comparing players against their peers we get a clearer picture of how much they excelled.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making two arguments (one of which I agree with).
 
Jeter is hard to judge. Not a great base stealer but had to bat leadoff cause he hits too many groundballs into double plays. A great fielder with below average range. Absolute money batter when its is on the line.
IMO his greatest asset is being able to play in NY. Surrounded by good to great players in NY helped his #s.
 
silk said:
Jeter is hard to judge. Not a great base stealer but had to bat leadoff cause he hits too many groundballs into double plays. A great fielder with below average range. Absolute money batter when its is on the line.
IMO his greatest asset is being able to play in NY. Surrounded by good to great players in NY helped his #s.
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm not a stat guy like some people on here, but I've probably watched more of his games than anyone and I would guess that he batted second far and away more than leadoff. Early in his career Boggs batted lead-off, then Knoblauch for years after that. Damon batted leadoff for several years, and Kenny Lofton and Brett Gardner each had a year or two leading off as well. The only times he has consistently batted leadoff was later in his career when there hasn't really been another leadoff guy on the roster.
 
jeter has like 20% less pas at leadoff than 2nd, and he is 19th all time in GDPs. that's a weird bone to pick considering he's 10th in hits. when you put the ball in play more times than a handful of guys in history that's bound to happen (especially when you play for a team that's like top 10 or something in runs scored*).

*that would be an interesting analysis: players who scored the most team runs in history. i'd guess some yanks from the 20s at the top. that run scoring environment was insane and those yankees teams were awesome.
 
"I actually kinda believe this. Only because one of my friends claims he knew a girl that went back to Derek Jeter's place one night and proceeded to go down on him. As she performed, Jeter put his hand on her head and said "Yeah Jeets, yeah Jeets," as she kept going. I believe it was a soft "yeah Jeets" as opposed to a screaming bumping "YEAH JEETS." But it's close enough. I never knew if it was true, but if someone unrelated has another "Yeah Jeets" story, it is gaining some validity to me."
 
The whole PED thing baffles me. I can have surgery to put a new tendon in my arm but no drugs.

Bonds and McGwire used PEDs but the PEDs didn't swing the bat.

Clemens not a 1st vote HOL. He called MLBs buff and won. How can he not be a 1st vote in?!
 
deacphan said:
bonds played against fellow juicers. aaron played against fellow amphetemine users. i don't claim that bonds is better because he did or didnt use steroids. my point is that we have to ignore that when talking about who had the best careers. who knows how much worse ruth looks if he played against blacks/latinos. i just think it's inconcistent to ding both the hitters and pitchers who used with out aknowledging that the entire league played under a different set of circumstances (much like integration, mound height, expansion, changes to parks, advances in medicine, etc.). it's intellectually dishonest to hold one set of circumstances against an era but no others. by comparing players against their peers we get a clearer picture of how much they excelled.
Click to expand...

But the difference is that while the entire league played under the same circumstances with integration, mound height, expansion, etc., the entire league did not play under the same circumstances with juicing. If McGuire goes deep off of LaTroy Hawkins because McGwire is juicing and Hawkins isn't, then that is an advantage to McGwire. The mound height was the same for everyone. Similarly, if Jeter is clean but putting up numbers against McGwire and Bonds, then that is a disadvantage to Jeter. Especially at the SS and other traditional nonpower positions, guys like Jeter and Vizquel had numbers overshadowed by juicers like Tejada and ARod. Hell, if you take Bernie Williams' numbers in a vacuum without the juiced OFs of his day that skewed the standard, would he be HOF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top