Buck Compton said:

---

I will set up a poll next year, where anyone on TexAgs/Friends/Family can submit their ballot. It'll be interesting to see the results and who we as a group would elect.

---

I think I did that 2-3 years ago. I can try and find it.

Buck Compton said:

---

I will set up a poll next year, where anyone on TexAgs/Friends/Family can submit their ballot. It'll be interesting to see the results and who we as a group would elect.

---

https://texags.com/forums/53/topics/2700456

Quote:

---

Here is our TexAgs voting update.

Ken Griffey, Jr. 100.00%
Mike Piazza (69.9%) 100.00%
Roger Clemens (37.5%) 90.91%
Barry Bonds (36.8%) 90.91%
Jeff Bagwell (55.7%) 81.82%

-------------------------------

Trevor Hoffman 72.73%
Tim Raines (55%) 54.55%
Curt Schilling (39.2%) 45.45%
Mark McGwire (10.0%) 45.45%
Sammy Sosa (6.6%) 45.45%
Billy Wagner 36.36%
Edgar Martinez (27%) 36.36%
Alan Trammell (25.1%) 36.36%
Mike Mussina (24.6%) 36.36%
Lee Smith (30.2%) 27.27%
Jeff Kent (14%) 18.18%
Fred McGriff (12.9%) 9.09%
Larry Walker (11.8%) 9.09%
Gary Sheffield (11.75%) 9.09%

---

Quote:

---

I'm not holding DH against Martinez, but if you're not going to field, you sure as hell better be truly elite at batting (a la Ortiz), and while I think he was really good (great OBP & OPS, lower HRs, lower RBIs, etc.). Not a single one of the BR similar batters are in the HOF. He was never truly a feared hitter, which is what you have to be as a DH.

---

Ortiz
.286 BA
541 HR
1768 RBI
.931 OPS
141 OPS+
55.4 WAR

Martinez
.312 BA
309 HR
1281 RBI
.933 OPS
147 OPS+
68.3 WAR

Also, remember that Martinez played his entire career in very pitcher-friendly parks (Kingdome/Safeco), whereas Ortiz spent the bulk of his career in Fenway.

David Ortiz has a massive problem. He has that failed drug test hanging around his neck. He swears he didnt know about the failure until it got leaked and he swears he didnt knowingly take anything. I dont believe either statement for a minute. He was stupid enough to get caught.

If the writers cant get past Bonds and Clemens, who I think we can all agree were doing it massively and never got caught, and they put in Ortiz then all hell will break loose. Bonds and Clemens will come off the ballot before Ortiz goes on so one way or the other their candidacy will be decided. Everyone likes Ortiz. They will all want to put him in. So they better figure out a way to get Bonds and Clemens in first.

Frank Thomas alleges Ivan Rodriguez & Jeff Bagwell were PED users

Frank Thomas calls out Hall of Fame elects: You know you 'cheated'

The Hall of Fame is full of guys who popped greenies all the time. Are they cheaters since they're now on the banned substance list?

iBrad said:

---

The Hall of Fame is full of guys who popped greenies all the time. Are they cheaters since they're now on the banned substance list?

---

Frank Thomas is one of those. He admitted to using amphetamines for an energy boost. He needs to keep his fat mouth shut.

He put on a good 40 pounds in his career.

Played until he was 40 years old


Dropped 42 HRs at 35 years old.

Questionable.

Dropped all those bombs in Oakland Coliseum too...... Shut the **** up frank. You were in no way first ballot worthy either, but you Sucked the right dick apparently

There isn't anything suspicious simply by hitting 42 home runs at age 35, or playing by until you're 40 unless we're also now going to start questioning whether guys like Babe Ruth were also on the juice.

The Babe's 60 home run season came at age 32 having not hit more than 46 home runs since he was 26. He hit 41 homers as a 37 year old and 34 as a 38 year old and played until he was 40.

Hank Aaron put on weight. And his best home run season was 47 home runs in just 139 games at age 37.

Careful now.

Mr.Bond said:

---

Dropped all those bombs in Oakland Coliseum too...... Shut the **** up frank. You were in no way first ballot worthy either, but you Sucked the right dick apparently

---

He also hit about .270 and well below his career average that year.

You can hit some home runs in Oakland. It's the foul territory that's a problem for hitters more than the outfield. Keep the ball fair.

Willie Mays' best home run season was hitting 52 as a 34 year old in San Francisco at Candlesrick Park.

Let's keep this in the somewhat modern era.

Players since 1985 that have hit 40+ at the age of 35
McGwire - 65
Bonds - 49
Galarraga - 47
Cruz - 43
Thomas - 42
Thome - 42

It appears to be 4 known users along with Thomas and Thome.

If I add in 36-year-olds you can add Palmeiro to the list, another user.

Old guys who hit a lot of home runs usually = steroids unless there is a unique situation.

Quote:

---

Let's keep this in the somewhat modern era.

---

Because the modern era's smaller ballparks, warmer weather, superior training and dietary awareness, etc. have really made it tougher for sluggers to have a long, successful career?

You forgot Pujols.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Let's keep this in the somewhat modern era.

---

Because the modern era's smaller ballparks, warmer weather, superior training and dietary awareness, etc. have really made it tougher for sluggers to have a long, successful career?

---

You a huge Frank Thomas fan or something? I think the pitching is light years better... did you see the list of players that accomplished what he did at that age?

I don't necessarily think he did, but he admitted to anphetamine use. Then claims to be a "real" HOF-er and above reproach.

What makes guys the historical PED examples isn't hitting 40 home runs when they're "old." It's spiking up to over 70, or 65, or in Sammy's case, over 60 3 times in like 5 years.

They're truly feats never done without the technology and advancements of their time.

But for a lot of the other guys, you mostly can't tell anything from their statistical profiles. Which is what makes this war on PED users so tenuous.

Buck Compton said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Let's keep this in the somewhat modern era.

---

Because the modern era's smaller ballparks, warmer weather, superior training and dietary awareness, etc. have really made it tougher for sluggers to have a long, successful career?

---

You a huge Frank Thomas fan or something? I think the pitching is light years better... did you see the list of players that accomplished what he did at that age?

I don't necessarily think he did, but he admitted to anphetamine use. Then claims to be a "real" HOF-er and above reproach.

---

Where'd I say I thought Thomas was clean or not?

Apply my argument to defending Bagwell, if you want. He also had a fairly rare home run season or two that wasn't matched in the modern era by many unconfirmed users.

Quote:

---

did you see the list of players that accomplished what he did at that age?

---

I did. Did you?

The only thing we can really say about guys hitting so many home runs now/in the past 15-20 years is an observation about the historic number of guys doing it. That can raise a suspicion that some are using PEDs. But can't tell you who exactly, just based on the profiles.

The Babe put up rare numbers for his time. Is it this board's opinion he was on 1920 PEDs? Or do we think he was just really good?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Buck Compton said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Let's keep this in the somewhat modern era.

---

Because the modern era's smaller ballparks, warmer weather, superior training and dietary awareness, etc. have really made it tougher for sluggers to have a long, successful career?

---

You a huge Frank Thomas fan or something? I think the pitching is light years better... did you see the list of players that accomplished what he did at that age?

I don't necessarily think he did, but he admitted to anphetamine use. Then claims to be a "real" HOF-er and above reproach.

---

Where'd I say I thought Thomas was clean or not?

---

You have 8 of the 14 posts since Thomas was brought up. Just figured you had some axe to grind.

There are other indicators beyond "hit 60 multiple times" though - I think that argument is disingenuous.

Buck Compton said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Buck Compton said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Let's keep this in the somewhat modern era.

---

Because the modern era's smaller ballparks, warmer weather, superior training and dietary awareness, etc. have really made it tougher for sluggers to have a long, successful career?

---

You a huge Frank Thomas fan or something? I think the pitching is light years better... did you see the list of players that accomplished what he did at that age?

I don't necessarily think he did, but he admitted to anphetamine use. Then claims to be a "real" HOF-er and above reproach.

---

Where'd I say I thought Thomas was clean or not?

---

You have 8 of the 14 posts since Thomas was brought up. Just figured you had some axe to grind.

There are other indicators beyond "hit 60 multiple times" though - I think that argument is disingenuous.

---

I'm grinding my axe on crappy statistical analysis.

There are other indicators. But they're the primary indicators and considering I'm talking about what we can take from statistical profiles, they're the indicators.

Frank probably should have kept his mouth shut considering the business around amphetamines. But I think he's largely looking for fair treatment to all players by the voters, not some ace to grind with Pudge or Bagwell. He said let Bonds in if we're letting users in.

I think? we can all agree PED standards don't seem to be equally applied to every player on the ballot?

He said he thinks someone who didnt do it would be screaming "I didnt do it" and so he's decided hes doing that....either because he thinks thats what he should do or because thats what he thinks makes him look less guilty.

Because screaming "I didn't do it" worked wonders for Clemens.

And with regards to PEDs, let's not forget that these guys were putting up numbers against pitchers using them, too.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Frank probably should have kept his mouth shut considering the business around amphetamines. But I think he's largely looking for fair treatment to all players by the voters, not some ace to grind with Pudge or Bagwell. He said let Bonds in if we're letting users in.

I think? we can all agree PED standards don't seem to be equally applied to every player on the ballot?

---

How so? To this point, I think the voters as a group have seemed to arrive on a consistent stance. To this point, they do not let known users in. There is not any direct evidence (or really any evidence other than people's perception) tying Bagwell to PED use, and with Pudge, there was hearsay rumor and nothing else. There is direct evidence tying Bonds (and many of the others who are not in) to using PEDs.

yep, ol' Frank needs to shut his mouth.

his 2006 season in Oakland at age 38 just screams you-know-what.

as posted above...one of the hallmarks of 'roid users is/was doing amazing things past the age of 35. That's a major, major, major red flag. And in Thomas' case it was at age 38

Quote:

---

as posted above...one of the hallmarks of 'roid users is/was doing amazing things past the age of 35. That's a major, major, major red flag. And in Thomas' case it was at age 38

---

Frank Thomas hit 39 home runs that season. Its a false positive for steroids unless you're willing to go after, say, Hank Aaron who hit 40 home runs in 120 games at age 39.

Again, are you going to explain Willie Mays' career high 52 home runs at age 34 by steroids? Babe Ruth hitting 46, 41, and 34 at age 36, 37, and 38 was steroids?

Should I treat Jeff Bagwell's 39 home runs at age 35 as a major, major red flag? (He wasn't over 35 so just two "majors")

How about Cy Williams hitting 41 as a 35 year old in 1923? He led the major leagues with 30 home runs as a 39 year old in 1927.

Do you think Carlton Fisk and Reggie Jackson were in on the early steroid technology in the early 1980s?

Fisk hit 37 home runs at age 37. It was a career high by 14 home runs.

Jackson hit 39 home runs at age 36 (in Anaheim).

So let's compare Bagwell (rumored user) to Thomas.

HR/AB over their career.



While neither is normal, Bagwell has one big spike in 94 when he won the MVP, but you can see his totals went up, peaked and started down as he aged. Nothing really screams foul play. He did not have an uncommonly long career. His prime is between the ages of 26 and 32.

Thomas, on the other hand, had the same look (somewhat normal) over his first ten years. At 31 years old you can see his decline has happened. But at 32 he rebounds and from 35-37 he is hitting as well as he did from 25-28 years of age. I wonder how he does that.

Never said Bagwell had the same profile. Simply pointing to the slipperiness of line drawing about age or a single season total.

It is just one of many red flags along the way. Thomas has them just like so many in that era.

Quote:

---

But at 32 he rebounds and from 35-37 he is hitting as well as he did from 25-28 years of age.

---

Except you forgot to mention that Thomas hit 18 and 12 home runs as a 36 and 37 year old because couldn't stay healthy.

And that erodes the red flag of steroids extending good health into one's latter years.

Then he took steroids and hit 39

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

But at 32 he rebounds and from 35-37 he is hitting as well as he did from 25-28 years of age.

---

Except you forgot to mention that Thomas hit 18 and 12 home runs as a 36 and 37 year old because couldn't stay healthy.

And that erodes the red flag of steroids extending good health into one's latter years.

---

Who's to say he isn't completely shot at 36 if he's not on the juice?

aggie1906 said:

---

It is just one of many red flags along the way. Thomas has them just like so many in that era.

---

The era saw an unmatched number of big time sluggers...but you're yet to identify anything there weren't some naturally amazing sluggers among that bunch, the same way every era had---I would suggest---naturally amazing sluggers.