Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Right, it was not regarded as lopsided when it was made.  Looking back though, I think May and Helms were overrated and would not be as highly regarded by today's metrics.  And Morgan was a star in Houston by today's metrics although there was no way of knowing how great he would become in Cincinnati.  I still say he was the most exciting player I have seen in his prime.  He could do everything.  He was Mike Trout with style.  

To temper my critique, I could certainly see the huge interest in Lee May, who was an outstanding power hitter in his prime.  

And Morgan didnt have the head-turning stats at the time of the trade, turning on the power and average hitting after he joined the Reds at age 28.

Incredibly, Morgan amassed 27 WAR with Houston by age 27, which is good, but he added over 70 WAR afterwards in the ensuing 13 years, playing as a regular with over 500 PAs almost every season through the age of 40, with an OPS+ over 100 every year, way more BB than Ks, and a WAR of 2.1 or better in 11 of those 13 seasons....including a 5.1 WAR at the age of 38 with the Giants in 1982.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

In Bouton's book he played with Morgan in Houston after he was traded there by the Pilots.  He referenced a story where Pete Rose was thrown out sliding at the plate.  He came back to the dugout and said "If I was black I'd have been safe."  Morgan said "If you were black you wouldn't have needed to slide"

 

  • Haha 3
Posted

 Jayson Stark brought up the 2008 Phillies and asking if they will have a hall of famer.  What about Chase Utley?  I’m listening. He started late. But damn he had a nice stretch. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, oblong said:

 Jayson Stark brought up the 2008 Phillies and asking if they will have a hall of famer.  What about Chase Utley?  I’m listening. He started late. But damn he had a nice stretch. 

Utley is definitely one of those guys that me personally would strongly consider. He was an elite player for several years and for atleast 5 years was the consensus best player at his position.  Had a 5 year peak where he averaged over 7 WAR a season.  

If you're like me who cares more about peak than overall numbers he is definitely worthy. 

Posted
1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Utley is definitely one of those guys that me personally would strongly consider. He was an elite player for several years and for atleast 5 years was the consensus best player at his position.  Had a 5 year peak where he averaged over 7 WAR a season.  

If you're like me who cares more about peak than overall numbers he is definitely worthy. 

Couldn’t the same be said about Kinsler?  He was borderline until he hit a wall with us.

Posted
1 hour ago, oblong said:

 Jayson Stark brought up the 2008 Phillies and asking if they will have a hall of famer.  What about Chase Utley?  I’m listening. He started late. But damn he had a nice stretch. 

I think he's got a decent chance.  He was elite for five years and had enough pretty good years around that to give him some longevity.  On the other hand, he looks similar to Grich who never got in.  Grich was better.   

Posted
34 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Couldn’t the same be said about Kinsler?  He was borderline until he hit a wall with us.

Utley was better.  His top five years were amazing.  

 

Posted

Do the writers relent and let Bonds and Clemens in on the last shot?     Schilling had a nice career, but he's borderline.   Never won a Cy Young.  My guess is that like Jack Morris, he'll get in later.    

Sad thing is that Bonds and Clemens were headed there before the steroids.   Had they admitted it, would they already be in?  

Posted
1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Do the writers relent and let Bonds and Clemens in on the last shot?     Schilling had a nice career, but he's borderline.   Never won a Cy Young.  My guess is that like Jack Morris, he'll get in later.    

Sad thing is that Bonds and Clemens were headed there before the steroids.   Had they admitted it, would they already be in?  

schilling is so much better than jack morris.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Do the writers relent and let Bonds and Clemens in on the last shot?     Schilling had a nice career, but he's borderline.   Never won a Cy Young.  My guess is that like Jack Morris, he'll get in later.    

Sad thing is that Bonds and Clemens were headed there before the steroids.   Had they admitted it, would they already be in?  

For me the MLB HOF doesn't mean much.  When great players are excluded because they might not be good people is rediculous. Being in the HOF is all about accomplishments on the field and  not about a players political views or how many old ladies they helped cross the street.

Pete Rose is one of greatest to play the game and should be in the HOF.  He may have gambled but he bet on himself not against himself where he could rig a game.

Bonds and Clemens used steroids.  So what?  Other players in HOF did too and athletes for generations have used things they thought would increase their performance but were not as obvious as steroids. 

Maybe it's time someone else votes on the HOF instead of the press?

Posted

how do we know Rose never bet against himself or rigged a game?  Because he said so?  Why should we believe him when he's lied repeatedly?

And a player doesn't have to make a bet against himself to help gamblers.   If he bets $10K on the first game but nothing on the second game.... well that's information right there for them to use.  He can say he didn't bet against himself but the gamblers that he owes money to could still credit him.

Betting on your team to win or lose is indistinguishable.  They are the same.  He agreed to the maximum punishment which was a permanent ban.

  • Thanks 3
Posted
22 minutes ago, oblong said:

how do we know Rose never bet against himself or rigged a game?  Because he said so?  Why should we believe him when he's lied repeatedly?

And a player doesn't have to make a bet against himself to help gamblers.   If he bets $10K on the first game but nothing on the second game.... well that's information right there for them to use.  He can say he didn't bet against himself but the gamblers that he owes money to could still credit him.

Betting on your team to win or lose is indistinguishable.  They are the same.  He agreed to the maximum punishment which was a permanent ban.

Again, what Pete Rose accomplished on the field speaks for itself.

There is no evidence what so ever he bet on himself.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Archie said:

Again, what Pete Rose accomplished on the field speaks for itself.

There is no evidence what so ever he bet on himself.  

betting on baseball and your own team as a participant is on the field and game for judgement.

Posted
1 hour ago, Archie said:

Again, what Pete Rose accomplished on the field speaks for itself.

There is no evidence what so ever he bet on himself.  

At the time he was banned, gambling was absolutely forbidden in baseball and for good reason.  The ban of Rose was  justified.  Now, that MLB has partnered with gambling organizations and actively markets the game around gambling, it becomes cloudier. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Archie said:

Again, what Pete Rose accomplished on the field speaks for itself.

There is no evidence what so ever he bet on himself.  

Doesn't Pete have himself  to blame at this point as well? I've never been that interested in the all the gory details of Pete's story but didn't they give him a chance to make a gesture of atonement and he has refused? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Doesn't Pete have himself  to blame at this point as well? I've never been that interested in the all the gory details of Pete's story but didn't they give him a chance to make a gesture of atonement and he has refused? 

He could have gotten off at the time if he'd have come clean and cooperated.  Baseball wasn't out to get him.  Pete was into some very bad shit and didn't want it to come out.  He felt it was better to fight and play victim and do his auto signings at casinos and such.  There's strong indications that Lenny Dykstra did similar things but he admitted to it and baseball worked with him. Don Zimmer too.

Pete smeared Giamatti, Vincent... said he didn't bet on baseball, then it was baseball but not the Reds, but yes, it was indeed the Reds.

Again... when an agreement is and the person agrees to the maximum punishment... doesn't pass the smell test for a guy claiming to be innocent.  

A guy on charge for 1st degree murder facing life in prison accepts a plea deal.... for life in prison.... it means he didn't want a trial and certain details to be exposed.

 

Posted
7 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Do the writers relent and let Bonds and Clemens in on the last shot?     Schilling had a nice career, but he's borderline.   Never won a Cy Young.  My guess is that like Jack Morris, he'll get in later.    

Sad thing is that Bonds and Clemens were headed there before the steroids.   Had they admitted it, would they already be in?  

Will be very hypocritical if the writers vote in Big Papi, who used, and not the others only because he’s a good guy.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...