K-Town

Sosa is a convicted cheater "cork". McGwire is not. As far as McGwire being "one-dimensional", I believe he's won one more Gold Glove than Sosa has, and his career OPS+ is 34 points higher than Sosa, and his career on-base-percentage (not a power stat) is 50 points higher than Sosa. McGwire was no more one-dimensional than Sosa. I am not a mod but I have had enough of your trolling on this board. IMO, It is time for you to go. This whole thread is about McGuire not Sosa. Actually, it's about "McGwire", not "McGuire". I'm sure the mods don't think I'm trolling. If I were trolling, I'd be bagging on the Cubs, which I'm not. I've said that Sosa has been treated unfairly. Other than Sosa (who doesn't even play for your team anymore), I haven't mentioned any Cubs or former Cubs. As for the thread being about McGwire, that's fine. Another poster brought up a comparison between McGwire and Sosa, so I commented on it.

Sosa is a convicted cheater "cork". McGwire is not. As far as McGwire being "one-dimensional", I believe he's won one more Gold Glove than Sosa has, and his career OPS+ is 34 points higher than Sosa, and his career on-base-percentage (not a power stat) is 50 points higher than Sosa. McGwire was no more one-dimensional than Sosa.

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone here agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy. I think it's fair to call this whole thing a witch hunt. Fair or not, that's the reality. And it isn't just here, that's just the way life is. There are reasons that certain players are suspected. Many writers believe, rightly or wrongly, that players who supplemented their careers with performance enhancing drugs, whether legal or not, do not belong in the HOF. So, when they encounter a player who they believe or suspect has done this, they are going to want answers before allowing that player admission. It may not be fair, but it is reality. And yes, because some players were never suspected, they will get by with much less scrutiny. I have alot of trouble basing a guy's HOF eligibility on terms like "believe" and "suspect".

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone on NSBB agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy, this whole thing is a witch hunt. edit - Vance, I'm not saying you agree with this. It's because guys like Mac and Sosa are easy targets. God forbid a guy like Wojo would have to go against the grain a little, or dig a little deeper. Just go with what the media has already convinced the public, rather than looking for NEW information

I never said it's just about Mac. I think that he's treating Bonds & Sosa unfairly, also. (although Sosa got CAUGHT cheating, so his integrity is pretty much toast).

This writer is obviously angry that Mac didn't give him a juicy story to write last March. He also doesn't understand his own logic. Mac didn't say "I refuse to talk about the past". He said I'm not here to talk about the past, meaning that he wasn't going to play the little Congressional propoganda game. When every other HOF candidate is scrutinized the same way, then Wojciechowski can make this argument. Until then, it's flawed logic....... and the only people who can follow it are the ones that are desperate to take a shot a Mac, regardless of how silly it sounds.

Players have "peak" or "fluke" seasons quite often. It's not as much a rarety as you would think. Do I think Eckstein will drop all the way to his career norms? Maybe not, but i'd think the safer bet is that he'll perform closer to his career norms than his 2005 numbers. Right, but when Womack caught fire hitting in front of guys like Pujols and Edmonds, and Eckstein caught fire hitting in front of guys like Pujols and Eckstein, and even Abraham Nunez caught fire hitting in front of guys like Pujols and Edmonds, you have to begin to wonder if there's a reason for it.

I just find it hard to believe that Eckstein's numbers last year were entirely a fluke. I have to believe that having Pujols and Edmonds looming behind him meant that he saw a few more good pitches. Like I said, there are alot of different ways to look at it, and I don't think you can pick a clear-cut favorite, at this point.

I totally understand where you're coming from. I don't believe that last year is the only thing that should be considered. Career OPS+ Eckstein: 89 Pierre: 87 Last year's OPS+ Eckstein: 98 Pierre: 84 Long-term and short-term, Eckstein has been better, from that standpoint. Of course, that doesn't include Pierre's stolen base factor, which is relevant. I guess it depends on what you want out of your lead-off hitter. Personally (as a Cardinal fan) I don't necessarily want my lead-off hitter stealing a base, because then Pujols may not see any pitches. There are lots of ways to look at it. Judging from the past, I'd say that it's a toss-up as to who will be the better lead-off hitter in 2006. One thing's for sure....... for the money I'll take Eckstein, but that's an entirely different issue.

Pierre's career numbers are skewed because he played in Colorado. That's why I used OPS+ numbers, which reflect park factors. Pierre performed pretty much as last year as he's performed (on average) for his career. "Three year averages" are good, but they're not everything. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Pierre is as good as Eckstein, but to imply that it's a "no brainer" that he'll probably be better is blind reasoning, in my opinion. Pierre's numbers are hardley affected by playing in Coors field. That is a good one. He is a slap hitter. He rarely hits triples even in Pro Player and Coors. I wish Slappy wasn't on the Cubs but I'd take him over ADHD boy any day as a leadoff hitter. Even "slap hitters" are benefitted by playing at Coors. The main reason is that breaking pitches don't break, therefore giving hitters a better look at them.

Pierre's career numbers are skewed because he played in Colorado. That's why I used OPS+ numbers, which reflect park factors. Pierre performed pretty much as last year as he's performed (on average) for his career. "Three year averages" are good, but they're not everything. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Pierre is as good as Eckstein, but to imply that it's a "no brainer" that he'll probably be better is blind reasoning, in my opinion.

I think there's lots of reasons to assume he'll be as good and likely better. Three-year averages are often a better indicator than looking at just one season. When looking at the three-year averages of Eckstein and Pierre, you'll notice that Pierre has a higher average 303 to 276, a higher OBP 354 to 344, and a higher SLG 378 to 354. In addition, Pierre adds a threat on the bases that Eckstien doesn't. Assuming both players perform closer to their three year average which is just, if not more likely than to focus on one season, then there isn't one area in which Eckstein outperforms Pierre. Considering that Pierre pretty much performed right around his career averages last year, I wouldn't expect much improvement. Eckestein? Hard to say. Some might say that the change of scenery and a better approach has helped him. Others might say he got "lucky". :wink: Could go either way, in my opinion.

Your comparing Pierre's worst year to Eckstein's best Actually, Pierre had a pretty typical year. 2005 OPS+ = 84 Career OPS+ = 87 2005 steals = 57 Career average = 52 Eckstein definitely had his best year ever, but I'm guessing there are probably reasons for it. The Cards' mentality of not being afraid to take a walk seemed to rub off a little. Furthermore, Eckstein will still have a very good offense around him, so that should help him keep his numbers in good shape. Like I said, I expect the gap between the two to close, and Pierre MIGHT even end up having the better year, but there's not much reason to assume that he'll be much better, or even as good as Eckstein.

Eckstein had 28 Win Shares last year, comared to 14 for Pierre. Eckstein's VORP was 40.1, compared to Pierre's 20.6. That's not to say that Pierre won't rebound, and be just as good as Pierre, but there's a pretty healthy gap to close between the two, and it seems like a real stretch to say "it's a pretty safe bet that Pierre will have a better line than Eckstein" in 2006.

Not for a guy who is only in his first season of arbitration. Dontrelle who is also in his first year signed for 4.35 million. I don't think anyone would argue that Dontrelle didn't pitch better than Prior last season. So, considering Prior should make a little less than Dontrelle, the figures look about right. (edited to make thoughts clear) OK. that makes sense, then. Prior's been a real bargain for the Cubs, even with the unfortunate injuries.

Don't those dollar figures seem pretty low for Prior?

:roll:

I wasn't referring to McGwire's response. Basically, I was saying that it doesn't make any sense to question him about solving the steroid problem in 2005. He retired 4 years ago. He was there for a Congressional pony show, and I don't blame him for being offended by it.

So now we're going to compare a double-murder case to a game of baseball? Interesting, but OK. I never said it was a "Congrssional conspiracy". I said it was a propoganda stunt. If you don't believe it was, then you're in the minority. McGwire retired in 2001. What does he have to do with cleaning up the game TODAY? It would be like the moderators of this message board saying "I'm going to clean up this message board, and I'm going to start by asking TheVoiceOfReason if he made any inappropriate posts back in 2001". Frankly, there's no connection, and nothing to gain from it.

Baseball didn't need to embarrass ex-baseball players in order to help. They could have helped without hand-picking big-name players, and dragging them through the mud. If they needed names, then why wasn't Clemens there? Why wasn't Bonds? Why wasn't Bagwell? Why wasn't Pujols? They had an easy target for their mud-slinging mission. McGwire fit into their agenda, so they used him. It was a farce. As for Andro........ he wasn't asked about it. And, he wasn't there to play Congress' little games. And he didn't. K-Town - You are wasting way too much time with your McGwire conspiracy/persecution theory. Shouldn't you be out trying to help OJ find the "real" killer? :?: :?: :?: I don't get it.

You're right. All those things could be relevant. Some even believe that the drug scandal is what has kept Dave Parker out of the Hall. Albert Belle seems to have been penalized for being a total jackass, while Ralph Kiner gets in with a shorter career and similar numbers. The voters have never been consistent. That's a proven fact. What does seem clear is that most, if not all, voters seem to take their task as keeper of the gates to baseball's Valhalla serious business. They would rather err on the side of caution in not letting someone in than be too generous with admission. (The old vet committee was a different animal, however.) I think they believe, or many do, that since a player is on the ballot for 15 years, there isn't the urgency to make sure everyone who may be deserving gets in on their first try. They also have seemed to use the HOF to make statements as well. What seems abundantly clear is that today's voters want to make a statement about the "steroid era." This is especially true of older voters who have watched the records of Maris and others fall to chemically enhanced athletes. You can say, "unless you're prepared to interogate every athlete, leave McGwire alone," but my guess is that such rhetoric would fall upon deaf ears with the HOF voters. As I've mentioned earlier, they set their own standards and are accountable to no one. My guess is that they don't see the black issue or the amphetamine issue or the cocaine issue in the same light as they do the steroid issue. Is that fair? I guess each individual will have to answer for themselves. And, yes, though, I think they will end up leaving McGwire alone. Which means he won't be sharing that podium with Gwynn and Ripken in 2007. Will he be there in 2008 and beyond? I don't know. That may depend more on McGwire than anything else. Oh, I agree that they'll "make a statement" (they do, every chance they get). I just disagree with it.

He may not get the opportunity........... you're right. My guess is that the sun will still shine on he and his family at their California home, even if he doesn't get into the HOF. He'll be fine. Why would anybody ask him that, at a HOF ceremony? Unless it's going to be standard for them to ask ALL inductees, then it wouldn't be appropriate, and I think he'd be wise to tell them to kiss his .......". I gurantee that if he goes in, someone (and probably more than one) will ask. And I guarantee you that he'll politely tell them to go pester someone else, because he's not interested in making them famous by giving them something to print in their paper. They're wasting their time, if they ask him. And I think many voters will withhold a vote until he answers them. So, my guess is before he's elected, we'll have the answers. And my guess is that, at some point, Mark McGwire won't give two hoots what the voters think about him. If they're going to be THAT hypocritical, then I don't think he wants their vote, anyway. If that means not being in the HOF, then life goes on for him. Like I said, the sun will still shine on he and his family in California. That's what matters to him. The HOF? If it means that he has to be somebody's "scoop" in the newspaper, then I think he'll pass.

I think the difference is that to many, this isn't "off the field problems." When looking at his record, and the records of many others, people want to know did substances contribute and if so, try to determine the effects. This isn't the same as Wade Boggs extra-martial affairs which weren't and shouldn't have been mentioned during or around the time of his induction. Those had nothing to do with what he was being recognized for. If a player took steroids while playing baseball and putting up HOF numbers, then it would be relevant to the other factors of his induction. Fine. The fact that blacks weren't allowed to play is also relevant. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't have to face the best players in the world, like today's players do, is relevant. Players who used cocaine and amphetamines surely had their game altered by those drugs. Until you're prepared to interrogate EVERY player about EVERYTHING, then leave McGwire alone.

He may not get the opportunity........... you're right. My guess is that the sun will still shine on he and his family at their California home, even if he doesn't get into the HOF. He'll be fine. Why would anybody ask him that, at a HOF ceremony? Unless it's going to be standard for them to ask ALL inductees, then it wouldn't be appropriate, and I think he'd be wise to tell them to kiss his .......". I gurantee that if he goes in, someone (and probably more than one) will ask. And I guarantee you that he'll politely tell them to go pester someone else, because he's not interested in making them famous by giving them something to print in their paper. They're wasting their time, if they ask him.

Baseball didn't need to embarrass ex-baseball players in order to help. They could have helped without hand-picking big-name players, and dragging them through the mud. If they needed names, then why wasn't Clemens there? Why wasn't Bonds? Why wasn't Bagwell? Why wasn't Pujols? They had an easy target for their mud-slinging mission. McGwire fit into their agenda, so they used him. It was a farce. As for Andro........ he wasn't asked about it. And, he wasn't there to play Congress' little games. And he didn't.