Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,547 comments Add your comment
hebrews11
January 10th, 2013
9:23 am
Although it sounds unlikely, I’d sure love to see Mr. Bourne sporting a tomahawk across his chest next season. He’s definitely a valuable player but not worth a king’s ransom. Mr. Upton could learn left field, no problem. With J-hey that sets up as nice outfield.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
9:25 am
Fredo will negate that pressure-free environment by hitting the guy 4. Since that’s probably the absolute worst lineup slot for Upton, I can practically guarantee that’s where he will hit.
Wren already negated that pressure-free environment by handing him the “largest contract in franchise history.”
In 2009, the Rays lineup piled pressure on BJ due to the new presence and success of Ben Zobrist (149 OPS+), Carlos Pena’s second consecutive year of 30+ HR, another strong showing from Longoria and of course Carl Crawford. BJ turned in an 82 OPS+ season as he tried to make up for all those slackers.
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
9:28 am
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
9:32 am
.310 (around normal) babip
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
10:06 am
CAC top 40…. don’t agree w/ all of it obviously…
1. Julio Teheran
2. Lucas Sims
3. J.R. Graham
4. Sean Gilmartin
5. Christian Bethancourt
6. Alex Wood
7. Mauricio Cabrera
8. Nick Ahmed
9. Jose Peraza
10. Zeke Spruill
11. Edward Salcedo
12. Todd Cunningham
13. Evan Gattis
14. Joey Terdoslavich
15. Tommy La Stella
16. Matt Lipka
17. Bryan De La Rosa
18. Brandon Drury
19. Aaron Northcraft
20. Kyle Kubitza
21. Luis Merejo
22. Luis Avilan
23. David Hale
24. Cody Martin
25. Navery Moore
26. Cory Gearrin
27. Juan Jaime
28. Josh Elander
29. William Beckwith
30. Fernelys Sanchez
31. Daniel Rodriguez
32. Justin Black
33. Carlos Franco
34. Connor Lien
35. Joe Leonard
36. Nathan Hyatt
37. Johan Carmango
38. Chris Jones
39. Blake Brown
40. Ernesto Mejia
Cliff Fiscal
January 10th, 2013
10:27 am
Questions to DOB and/or anyone else: Is there any real dispute as to whether Maddux goes into the Hall of Fame as a Brave verses as a Cub? I always figured it would be as a Brave since his prime years were spent in Atlanta. Also, does the player or Hall choose the particular team?
Thanks in advance, I have an annoying buddy from Chicago who thinks Maddux should go into the Hall as a Cub.
CF-BRAVE-FAN
January 10th, 2013
10:31 am
Just my opinion, oene like we all have – there was a lot of stuff to read in that blog, but I did not see any news. Maybe I missed it – speculation, hearsay, what if, b;ah, blah and more blah. Maybe there is no news to report, I suppose….
RemoW
January 10th, 2013
10:31 am
Cliff Fiscal: The HOF chooses the club. Maddux is is 95% certain to go in as a Brave. He was instrumental in the 14 year run, vs 1 playoff appearance with the Cubs.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
10:31 am
The thing that gets me is the voters seem to think steroids is the first thing that players (and others considered for induction) ever did to cheat the game. It’s saying some forms of cheating and less-than-ideal behavior are more acceptable than others.
This idea that the game and its statistics were once pure until big bad steroids came and ruined it all is false. The game has never been pure and never will be.
The character clause should only come in to play when a player’s behavior was so bad that it actually cost his team wins on the field. Plenty of players have cheated in one form or another, or did other things worse than cheating to shine a negative light on the game.
So I’m all for talking about front officey type stuff. That’s where the brains of baseball truly lie, not in some museum in Cooperstown or within baseball reporters but in the people that actually know baseball, who get paid to evaluate. Those are the type people who should have a much greater say in things like awards and Hall of Fame voting, the people that actually know baseball like no other group.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
10:33 am
Salcedo is 11th? Wow. Either he’s still held in high regard or our 12-40 prospects really stink.
My guess is the latter.
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
10:34 am
It’s saying some forms of cheating and less-than-ideal behavior are more acceptable than others.
You cannot possibly be equating scuffing a baseball and stealing signs with taking steroids.
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
10:35 am
our 12-40 prospects really stink.
13. Evan Gattis would like to speak with you.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
10:37 am
DS1, January 9th, 2013, 10:45 pm … “I’m thinking that it would be poetic justice if Schafer ended up this spring being the player we all thought he might be a few years back.”
It would be a great problem to have for Schafer to “figure it out.” I’m actually rooting for him to be the fourth OF.
I don’t think his bat will ever make him a legitimate LF, and BJ has CF covered for a few years.
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
10:39 am
Henry Schulman @hankschulman
Sean Casey on @MLBNetwork. “I know guys who left the game when amphetamines were made illegal. I have no doubt amphetamines are PEDs.”
Aren’t amphetamines really just a stimulant like caffeine?
Jeff R
January 10th, 2013
10:40 am
I posted this last night in response to comments by Shaun:
I do not feel comfortable saying Gaylord Perry’s form of cheating was better or worse or more moral or less moral than Barry Bonds’s form of cheating.
I do. Perry altered the ball not his body, and the effect of altering one’s body through PEDs more greatly influences performance than throwing spitters. Perry’s annual numbers, though mostly solid to outstanding, were never off the charts like Bond’s numbers.
And not incidentally, when Perry was caught throwing spitters, he was tossed from games (and, I think, fined). Was the penalty sufficient for repeated offenses? No, I don’t think so. Suspensions and stiff fines might have better worked with Perry.
Cliff Fiscal
January 10th, 2013
10:41 am
Shaun – The character clause should only come in to play when a player’s behavior was so bad that it actually cost his team wins on the field.
Interesting! So, if a player decides to hire a hit man and take out stars on the other teams, this should not implicate the character clause. After all, the behavior served to benefit his team and possibly create wins.
Jeff R
January 10th, 2013
10:49 am
Aren’t amphetamines really just a stimulant like caffeine?
I don’t pretend to know the pharmacology, but caffeine is a mild stimulant and an amphetamine is a much more concentrated and intensified stimulant. Depending on the dosage of amphetamine, you’d have to ingest quite a lot of caffeine to come close to the effects of the amphetamine, and even then it may not have quite the same effect given that, I would imagine, caffeine and amphetamine have different chemical properties.
Any pharmacists on the blog who could weigh in?
Murph
January 10th, 2013
10:49 am
The character clause should only come in to play when a player’s behavior was so bad that it actually cost his team wins on the field.
I bet you’re wishing you could edit your previous posts, ’cause this has to be one of the most retarded things you’ve ever posted on here.
Wow.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
10:49 am
The character clause should only come in to play when a player’s behavior was so bad that it actually cost his team wins on the field.
I bet you’re wishing you could edit your previous posts, ’cause this has to be one of the most retarded things you’ve ever posted on here.
Wow.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
10:53 am
The blog is back to its old crashing, double-posting self this morning. Lovely.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
10:53 am
ncscoots, scuffing a baseball is against the rules, no? In a significant way, scuffing balls and taking steroids isn’t any different. But I guess if one form of cheating gets different, possibly lesser, results than another, then it’s okay, regardless of the rules.
Cliff Fiscal, if a player hires a hit man to take out other players, I’m pretty sure he would be put on the ineligible list and the Hall of Fame would be a non-issue. Also, jail time probably wouldn’t help a player contribute to his team.
CB
January 10th, 2013
10:58 am
I must be a real failure in life, I have never double posted.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
10:58 am
It’s saying some forms of cheating and less-than-ideal behavior are more acceptable than others.
No it doesn’t. Once you can comprehend that fact perhaps you can join the rest of society.
Your first step to comprehension will be admitting you care a great deal about the HOF and the HOF voting process.
unbelievable
January 10th, 2013
11:00 am
IMO, Bonds, Clemens, and Rose should all be in the HOF.
Bat Masterson
January 10th, 2013
11:00 am
So I’m all for talking about front officey type stuff. That’s where the brains of baseball truly lie, not in some museum in Cooperstown or within baseball reporters but in the people that actually know baseball, who get paid to evaluate _ Shaun
What’s stopping you. No one is forcing you to go on at length about something you claim not to care about at all.
By the way your baseball player/racism screed regarding players in the Ty Cobb era is ridiculous.
Just a general comment but, every column I’ve read by Jeff Passan leaves me thinking he’s an idiot. I’ve only read a few so I don’t know if it’s bad timing or not.
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
11:00 am
In a significant way, scuffing balls and taking steroids isn’t any different.
If this is truly your position, then I don’t think we have any reason for further discourse on the topic.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
11:00 am
Aren’t amphetamines really just a stimulant like caffeine?
That’s another issue with all this, which performing-enhancing drugs are a big deal and which aren’t? The issue will probably be tougher and tougher to deal with as improvements are made and knowledge is gained about using certain drugs for certain purposes without many harmful side effects. We have cholesterol medicine. If a baseball player took such a drug, to keep his cholesterol down, should that be considered a performance-enhancer. Maybe it’s the ultimate performance-enhancer because it’s keeping him alive to perform. Maybe MLB should outlaw Tommy John surgery, cortisone shots or even ibuprofen which are performance-enhancers.
There’s definitely a line to be drawn there but I’m not sure just labeling something a “performance-enhancer” is enough to outlaw it, otherwise many of us would be doing immoral things to enhance our performance.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
11:02 am
The character clause should only come in to play when a player’s behavior was so bad that it actually cost his team wins on the field.
Egregious assertion. The “character clause” doesn’t exist. There are no “clauses” on the ballot. Second, character should not be used strictly as a parameter for exclusion.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
11:03 am
ncscoots, so scuffing a ball isn’t cheating and using steroids is? Please explain.
DAP
January 10th, 2013
11:09 am
shaun voters seem to think steroids is the first thing that players (and others considered for induction) ever did to cheat the game.
your argument has a false premise, so why dont you start over? try something new. because no one has suggested steroids are the first thing anyone did to cheat the game. no one has said the game was pure until steroids. youre making up the position so you can argue with it.
want to change voting? that could be a good idea.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
11:10 am
In a significant way, scuffing balls and taking steroids isn’t any different.
“Son, listen, if you’re going to steal bubble gum, you might as well take heroin so here’s a needle and syringe. Don’t ever let any one tell you otherwise. Some one gives you lip about your smack, just point out that they lied when they told their wife she doesn’t look fat in her skinny jeans.”
Murph
January 10th, 2013
11:11 am
ncscoots, scuffing a baseball is against the rules, no? In a significant way, scuffing balls and taking steroids isn’t any different. But I guess if one form of cheating gets different, possibly lesser, results than another, then it’s okay, regardless of the rules.
Let’s say that a ball scuffer or spitballer alters the ball 50% of the time, which is likely a very, very high estimate of the amount of times they cheat a game. That’s bad.
Now let’s look at a roider. Every swing they take, every base they run, every fly ball they chase down is affected by their cheating.
That’s not just bad, it’s deplorable.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
11:12 am
you’re making up the position so you can argue with it.
Yes. He does enjoy waling away at the strawmen. He must have despised the scarecrow from Wizard of Oz…. “get him monkeys! rip him to pieces! you’re my heroes!”
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
11:13 am
“There seems to be this tendency by some prominent posters to take last year’s numbers and project them to next year…”
The posters whose baseball acumen is sharp have been saying … expect bounce back towards career numbers for a healthy McCann and for Uggla. Expect an increase in maturity from Freeman and Heyward. Hope Simmons can hit a little.
I know there are posters who are prominent by volume of posts who indicate that the Braves will imitate a vacuum cleaner this coming year. I wouldn’t take much of what they say too seriously.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
11:13 am
That’s not just bad, it’s deplorable.
They’ve embodied cheating.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
11:16 am
TennesseePaul and Bat Masterson, I care that a group of people has influence over those who actually think their say in who does and doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame actually has merit.
Any group that thinks Jack Morris provided more value to his teams than Tim Raines or that Miguel Cabrera provided more value in 2012 than Mike Trout should be discounted. And I’ll do whatever small part I can to make sure people realize this. Because a certain group claims that it is so doesn’t mean that’s the reality. No way a front office would take Morris’s career over Raines’s or the 2012 major league performance of Cabrera over the 2012 major league performance of Trout. Fans should think like the people that actually know these things, the front office personnel, not the people who don’t, a significant portion of the BBWAA. The game will be much more enjoyable if you know which group to pay attention to in your attempts to think critically about the game.
DAP
January 10th, 2013
11:16 am
shaun In a significant way, scuffing balls and taking steroids isn’t any different.
thats stupid too. just stupid.
raleighbravefan
January 10th, 2013
11:16 am
Shaun – Still repeating EVERYTHING you said yesterday? Contrary to what some politicians and a certain TV “news” network seem to believe, repeating a falsehood over and over does not, nor will it ever, make it the truth.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
11:17 am
Seriously, yo. George Brett used too much pine tar on his bat. Throw the cheater out of the HoF!
DAP
January 10th, 2013
11:19 am
It’s saying some forms of cheating and less-than-ideal behavior are more acceptable than others.
it is true that not all forms of cheating are equal, some some are worse than others, in the same way some crimes are more heinous than others. thats actually…obvious.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
11:20 am
Any group that [has a different opinion or point of view than me] should be discounted. And I’ll do whatever small part I can to make sure people realize this.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
11:20 am
Contrary to what
some politiciansevery politician anda certainevery TV “news” network seem to believe, repeating a falsehood over and over does not, nor will it ever, make it the truth.Fixed!
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
11:20 am
Any group that thinks Jack Morris provided more value to his teams
Geebus, some folks of the statistical bent seem to think that Jack Morris in the HOF is equivalent to Rosemary’s Baby being born.
RemoW
January 10th, 2013
11:24 am
It is not about character clause. It is about a drug that makes a joke of long standing stats.
If you are convinced that someone was a HOF pre-steroids (Bonds up to age 35) Then vote them in and cut Bonds stats off at age 35. Same sort of deal with Clemens. Sosa would never be in HOF discussion except for steroids.
But “greenies”, scuffing, spit, Vaseline, cortisone injections, or corking do not make appreciable difference in stats. Anyone of those can be taken away and the player goes back to a ”
normal” player. The magic advantage gone. Not with steroids. Once you take the magic juice the gain is permanent. You can take the drug away but the 40 lbs of muscle stay.
Steroids allowed players to put up numbers that they would never be able to accomplish without the drug. It is very clear that Bond’s on his original career path would have made the 600 HR club. But I doubt he would have touched 700 as he hit the decline phase of his career.
Steroids also created a perception about normal or traditional sluggers that has hurt Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff. McGriff was, for the pre-steroids era, a solid traditional 30+ homer guys. With steroids he was viewed as a lesser hitter, even weak in light of guys like Brady Anderson hitting 50. When in a traditional sense, pre-steroids era, he was on his way to the HOF .
Steroids changed the game and stats in ways that no other drug can touch. It made players so much more then their given talent. One of the great beauties of baseball is the stats, pre-steroids you might run into the statistical anomaly (George Foster 52 HR 1977), but with the length of time stats had been accumulated you average out the statistical norm for a slugger, stealer, slap hitter etc and you get a real clear picture of what an “average” player of that type might do in his career. But steroids made the aberration the norm. Making the traditional superstar or great players look lesser.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
11:24 am
it is true that not all forms of cheating are equal…
What isn’t true is that assessing the difference in cost equates to acceptability. No body likes a cheat of any form and finds that behavior unacceptable. But all forms of cheating are not punishable by equal measure. Some forms result in fines and/or suspensions. Others resulting in banning from the game. But again, the difference in the punishment doesn’t make one form more “acceptable” than others.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
11:24 am
The game will be much more enjoyable if you know which group to pay attention to in your attempts to think critically about the game.
Funny, seems watching the game for the fun of it being a game is the most enjoyable way to watch of all.
Shaun’s wasted life….
Lew
January 10th, 2013
11:25 am
Their say doesn’t have merit? Until they change the way players are elected to the HOF, their say is the ONLY one that has merit.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
11:25 am
The problem with the comparison of amphetamines with coffee is that you fail to realize a player who has drunk so much coffee as to get the high of a Black Beauty will never get on the field to play the games. He’ll start to leave the washroom, and it’s time to return the deposit on the next cup o’ joe.
DAP
January 10th, 2013
11:29 am
as far as jack morris goes, he was a really good pitcher. im just not sure a guy should be a HOFer because he pitched alot of innings. if you didnt know he won 4 WS are was “the ace” on those teams, i dont think youd look at his stats and think he needed to be in.
morris might have been hurt by the fact that apparently he didnt pitch for personal stats, but for team wins. thus, lots of innings, and a relatively high ERA, WHIP, ect, because he “pitched to the score”.
Cliff Fiscal
January 10th, 2013
11:30 am
Murph – Funny, seems watching the game for the fun of it being a game is the most enjoyable way to watch of all.
Nah, it was much more fun in 1991 perusing the stat sheets to figure out who contributed the most in terms of value than to actually watch the Braves chase down the Dodgers and play in one of the best World Series ever.
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
11:30 am
The game will be much more enjoyable if you know which group to pay attention to in your attempts to think critically about the game.
You make an assumption that every baseball fan aspires to be you, LOL. Does it occur that some fans wish only to enjoy the game and that critical thinking isn’t part of their formula for doing so? Why must the universe succumb to your vision and perspective?
unbelievable
January 10th, 2013
11:32 am
Bonds and Clemens were HOF players with ot without steriod use. Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro were not. Pete Rose should absolutely be in the Hall due to his production on the field. If we are keeping players out due to character issues, then their shouldnt be a HOF.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
11:40 am
Ummmmm… anyone else getting the text-only blog page now? I actually like it. No formatting, no ads… hope it lasts.
DAP
January 10th, 2013
11:40 am
10paul What isn’t true is that assessing the difference in cost equates to acceptability.
yup. right on.
unbelievable
January 10th, 2013
11:41 am
There are still plenty of unsigned RH’d relievers. Im surprised no one has signed Soriano just yet.
Bat Masterson
January 10th, 2013
11:42 am
The game will be much more enjoyable if you know which group to pay attention to in your attempts to think critically about the game. _ Shaun
Yeah okay. I used to take your comments here seriously, now I mostly read them as unintentional satire. Cracks me up regardless
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
11:42 am
Bonds and Clemens were HOF players with ot without steriod use.
If I was smart enough to be a top tier student in school, well enough to make the honor’s list, but then decided to cheat to become the overall top student, I doubt I would get to keep prior or receive any new awards.
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
11:50 am
Nah, it was much more fun in 1991 perusing the stat sheets to figure out who contributed the most in terms of value than to actually watch the Braves chase down the Dodgers and play in one of the best World Series ever.
I vividly remember 1993, the year in which I did not calculate third-order wins each day as the Giants and Braves went toe-to-toe like titans versus the gods.
Jeff R
January 10th, 2013
11:52 am
In a significant way, scuffing balls and taking steroids isn’t any different.
Pure malarkey, Shaun, for reasons I stated earlier re: Gaylord Perry.
Brava
January 10th, 2013
11:55 am
Bonds and Clemens were HOF players with ot without steriod use.
Well then, they shouldn’t have made the very poor choice to use them and cheat clean players and baseball fans everywhere.
Bat Masterson
January 10th, 2013
11:56 am
Jeff R @ 11:52
That was ignored because because it’s inconvenient. SOP
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
12:04 pm
Well then, they shouldn’t have made the very poor choice to use them and cheat clean players and baseball fans everywhere.
In fairness, I think the combination of Bonds’ ego and other players’ use of steroids led him to that choice. I believe that he simply couldn’t accept appearing to be a lesser player than those who actually were lesser players than he. I’m not excusing the choice, by the way, just saying that I can understand the motivation.
A man might go down to the crossroads, but he can still walk right past the Devil, even so. The choice is always there.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
12:04 pm
I wonder… when Shaun burns his finger on his microwavable Hungry Man dinner, does he call an ambulance and have himself admitted to the local hospital’s burn center? He must, because a burn is a burn… there is no differentiating between severe and minor burns, there are just burns.
Bourn back to Braves? Rumor mill gets a spin - Atlanta Sports Today
January 10th, 2013
12:09 pm
[...] the blogosphere went about as you’d expect in this age of 2 + 2 = 10. Bourn (above) is Source: AJC: Atlanta Braves – Dave O’Brien Blog Share this: Posted in: Braves Cancel [...]
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:12 pm
Outside of Bourn, are there any FA outfielders waiting to be signed?
I wonder how long it takes for Bourn to sign a deal. This is getting long even by Boras standards.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:14 pm
When Bourn does sign, he will presumably bump some OF onto the trade market. Not necessarily a “premium player” (whatever that is), but an upgrade over what the Braves have.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:16 pm
I cannot understand why sabremetricians don’t form their own Hall of Fame.
Find some land, buy a building, write a governing policy, start electing members.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:17 pm
I’ll chip in a buck to the building fund if it will cause all of the nonsense associated with MVP and HoF to STFU.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
12:18 pm
I do. Perry altered the ball not his body, and the effect of altering one’s body through PEDs more greatly influences performance than throwing spitters. Perry’s annual numbers, though mostly solid to outstanding, were never off the charts like Bond’s numbers.
Does altering the ball have less of an influence than altering one’s body through PED use? That’s an assumption, not necessarily fact.
Ever think that Bonds’s numbers are off the charts and Perry’s were not is because Bonds was the more talented player to begin with? Maybe altering the ball helped Perry as much as PEDs helped Bonds, but the starting point was much different.
You make an assumption that every baseball fan aspires to be you, LOL. Does it occur that some fans wish only to enjoy the game and that critical thinking isn’t part of their formula for doing so? Why must the universe succumb to your vision and perspective?
If you don’t care to understand how the baseball industry, i.e., front offices, thinks about the game, it’s hard to take your opinions about awards voting, Hall of Fame voting and just general views of the game all that serious.
For instance, don’t pretend your view of who should be the MVP have validity if you aren’t interested in determining who teams would choose and think is the most valuable player. I’ll go with the group who knows how to determine and what goes in to player value over a group of baseball reporters. Reporters do a fine job of what they are paid to do, but that doesn’t include determining things like player value. The reporters would be better off relying largely on the people who know how to do this when they are voting for awards and Hall of Fame, etc. If I’m trying to decide which car to buy, I’m certainly going to ask mechanics instead of just relying solely on my own understanding. But a significant portion of the BBWAA doesn’t think this way. They don’t seem to want to admit that they don’t know as much as folks in front offices, so they don’t bother understanding the game in the ways that a front office would.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:20 pm
Would be funny if Wren signed Soriano to a one year contract and then traded him for a scrub.
MFIKY might think the Wren-ster had it in for him to do it twice.
Jeff R
January 10th, 2013
12:20 pm
Bat Masterson, you are correct, sir.
George_George
January 10th, 2013
12:21 pm
Good to have Bat back on blog, but maybe if we all stopped posting the IT guys would fix the darn thing.
Jeff R
January 10th, 2013
12:24 pm
Does altering the ball have less of an influence than altering one’s body through PED use? That’s an assumption, not necessarily fact.
That’s a common sense assumption, and I bet most baseball men (and pro trainers) would back that observation.
Ever think that Bonds’s numbers are off the charts and Perry’s were not is because Bonds was the more talented player to begin with?
Apples and oranges. Different eras, and Bonds was a hitter, Perry a pitcher. And do I think Bonds numbers were off the charts due to his talking PEDs? Absolutely.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
12:24 pm
I wonder… when Shaun burns his finger on his microwavable Hungry Man dinner, does he call an ambulance and have himself admitted to the local hospital’s burn center? He must, because a burn is a burn… there is no differentiating between severe and minor burns, there are just burns.
When it comes to the Hall, why differentiate between one form of cheating and another? I understand if you think PEDs made the difference in a player’s career and pushed him over the boundary and in to the Hall. But I don’t understand if you think the player was already good enough, like Bonds and Clemens. If two players are Hall of Famers regardless of whether they cheated, but one player cheated in a different way than another, what kind of statement are you making by keeping out one of those players that cheated in a form that you didn’t like?
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:26 pm
Shaun … Does altering the ball have less of an influence than altering one’s body through PED use?
Yes.
Shaun … That’s an assumption, not necessarily fact.
No. It’s a fact.
Shaun … “Maybe altering the ball helped Perry as much as PEDs helped Bonds, but the starting point was much different.”
No. It didn’t. PEDs helped Bonds a great deal. Spitting on the ball had a marginal effect for Perry (looked at over his entire career).
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
12:28 pm
When Bourn does sign, he will presumably bump some OF onto the trade market. Not necessarily a “premium player” (whatever that is), but an upgrade over what the Braves have.
A power bat though? can’t really see that one…
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:29 pm
Shaun … “If two players are Hall of Famers regardless of whether they cheated, but one player cheated in a different way than another, what kind of statement are you making by keeping out one of those players that cheated in a form that you didn’t like?”
Nancy Reagan … “Just say ‘NO’ to drugs.”
Cliff Fiscal
January 10th, 2013
12:30 pm
I could be wrong, but didn’t many MLB players and managers back Cabrera for MVP? I read one article where the MVP debate was couched as players and managers verses front office types. So, assuming that is true, there were insider baseball people who trumputed Cabrera over Trout. Not sure what this means except that writers were not the only group on one side of the debate.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:31 pm
TOBF … “A power bat though? can’t really see that one…”
Nor can I. Just saying, better than what we have.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:32 pm
And saying “better than Garret Anderson in the twilight of his career” as if it needed to be said.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
12:33 pm
Apples and oranges. Different eras, and Bonds was a hitter, Perry a pitcher. And do I think Bonds numbers were off the charts due to his talking PEDs? Absolutely.
So Perry’s cheating wasn’t as bad because he played in a different era and he was a pitcher?
No one denies Bonds numbers were almost certainly better because of PEDs. But also no one denies he was almost certainly a Hall of Fame talent regardless of whether he took PEDs. So what statement are the writers trying to make when they keep out a player like Bonds but not a player like Perry? Who are the voters to decide that one form of cheating is worse than another, in terms of Hall of Fame voting, when both forms are considered cheating?
Seems this is all about the voters covering up for themselves because they didn’t do enough questioning and investigating when all of this was going on. Seems their thought process is that they can cover up their own ignorance and laziness by displaying morality.
abeeeewright
January 10th, 2013
12:35 pm
scoots … “A man might go down to the crossroads, but he can still walk right past the Devil, even so. The choice is always there.”
Or, he could become a d**n fine guitar player.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
12:43 pm
what kind of statement are you making by keeping out one of those players that cheated in a form that you didn’t like?
You still fail on this mark as you have yet to comprehend the point.
TennesseePaul
January 10th, 2013
12:45 pm
So Perry’s cheating wasn’t as bad…
Still failing.
crackbaby
January 10th, 2013
12:47 pm
Problem with letting in obvious, and not so obvious, steroid users is it causes you to disregard the best clean players b/c their numbers aren’t as good.
Who were the best clean players of the steroid era? and how will we know…
Murph
January 10th, 2013
12:49 pm
Shaun doesn’t see the difference between throwing a few spitballs a game and a player changing his body so that it’s faster, stronger, better for every AB of a season, multiple seasons in a row.
Nothing you guys can say will make him think differently, so best to stop trying to make him understand. Not gonna happen.
crackbaby
January 10th, 2013
12:49 pm
Bourn was the Braves best leadoff hitter since Otis Nixon, maybe better.
David O'Brien
January 10th, 2013
12:49 pm
Questions to DOB and/or anyone else: Is there any real dispute as to whether Maddux goes into the Hall of Fame as a Brave verses as a Cub? I always figured it would be as a Brave since his prime years were spent in Atlanta. Also, does the player or Hall choose the particular team?
Thanks in advance, I have an annoying buddy from Chicago who thinks Maddux should go into the Hall as a Cub. — Cliff Fiscal
No question in my mind that he’ll go in as Brave, since he pitched more years and won far more games as a Brave than as a Cub, and also won three of his four Cy Young Awards as a Brave.
He was 194-88 with a 2.62 ERA as a Brave, 133-112 with a 3.61 ERA as a Cub.
Only time it even matters which team they go in as a member of is at the induction ceremony when they wear the jersey. There’s no logo or team name or anything else on the player’s plaque in the Hall of Fame.
By the way, the HOF chooses which team he goes in as a member of, not the player. That rule changed about a decade ago.
Luman Harris
January 10th, 2013
12:50 pm
You guys leave Shaun alone.
How many games did Gaylord Perry win because he got a crucial out with a scuffed ball or a spitball? We have no way of knowing.
And since we have no way of knowing … it’s perfectly OK for Shaun to believe that Perry’s cheating was as significant as Bonds’ cheating.
Bat Masterson
January 10th, 2013
12:50 pm
Gracias, George
It is a giant pain to comment here and I have not had the time. Pity
JC Brave
January 10th, 2013
12:51 pm
Can someone please post Keith Law’s Top 25 Under 25?
Thank you in advance.
TheOnlyBravesFan
January 10th, 2013
12:52 pm
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
MLB will announce agreement for random, unannounced in-season hgh blood testing. first major US sport to test for hgh.
Cliff Fiscal
January 10th, 2013
12:53 pm
Thanks, DOB.
George_George
January 10th, 2013
12:54 pm
I just made a request to be a member of FB page DOB/MIB fans. I did so because I am tired of this blogs IT problems. I am not tired of most of the bloggers here. Shaun can be a bit tireing lol. DOB most likely will black-ball me at DOB/MIB, we will see. DOB I promise not to mention your work there. I will post there but not as often.
Murph
January 10th, 2013
12:56 pm
MLB will announce agreement for random, unannounced in-season hgh blood testing. first major US sport to test for hgh.
And in related news, look for HR totals to drop significantly next season…
The Year of the Pitcher, Part Deux.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
12:57 pm
Cliff Fiscal, that’s true. Players and managers seemed to back Cabrera, while front office folks, the folks whose job it is to valuate players, backed Trout. I’ll go with the folks who valuate players when it comes to determining which player was most valuable.
No. It didn’t. PEDs helped Bonds a great deal. Spitting on the ball had a marginal effect for Perry (looked at over his entire career).
That’s an assumption. But it probably is reasonable. However Bonds was a Hall of Fame type player with or without PEDs. So it comes down to whether you want to accept one form of cheating but not others when it comes to the Hall of Fame.
If you are going to keep players out because they cheated, and if you know the cheating (while it made a player’s numbers better), didn’t influence whether he was a Hall of Fame caliber player, it follows that you think some cheating is acceptable and some cheating isn’t.
Barry Bonds cheated. Gaylord Perry cheated. Both were Hall of Fame caliber players, regardless. Actually it’s more likely that cheating made more of a difference in Perry’s career than Bonds’s career in terms of pushing him over the threshold for the Hall, though I don’t think it did in either case. So that only leaves one possibility: That the voters are not willing to accept one form of cheating but are fine with another. Why would this be the case? Probably because of their own guilt in not being able to uncover the steroid use. Perhaps also because Perry’s cleverness in hiding his cheating is seen as more charming and cuter than a steroid users cleverness in getting around any rules that may (or may not) have been on the books to get away with his form of cheating.
Juan
January 10th, 2013
12:58 pm
Babe Ruth eat few hot dog during the games. Does Hot Dog are stimulant?
ncscoots
January 10th, 2013
1:03 pm
If you don’t care to understand how the baseball industry, i.e., front offices, thinks about the game, it’s hard to take your opinions about awards voting, Hall of Fame voting and just general views of the game all that serious.
Don’t worry, no one will force you to stop posting here just because we don’t take you seriously.
George_George
January 10th, 2013
1:04 pm
What ever i JUST DID i DID NOT MEAN TO DO IT.
Shaun
January 10th, 2013
1:06 pm
TennesseePaul and Murph, please explain to me, oh, wise ones, why it is taking a more admirable moral stand to vote against Bonds or Clemens but for Perry. It isn’t because one player cheated and the other didn’t. It isn’t because one would have been Hall of Fame caliber and one wouldn’t have been. If anything Perry is the more likely than Bonds or Clemens to need cheating to help his Hall of Fame case. So why is it? What does it say about the morality of the voters that they find cheating acceptable in certain forms but not others? Is it even about morality or about guilt and trying to cover what the voters perceive as their own sins? Tell me, oh wise ones.