Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
660 - Mays and A-Rod
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #1
660 - Mays and A-Rod
Disclaimer: I know this thread will date me and I am a die hard baseball fan.

Quick, what was the best tribute that happened from A-Rod hitting his 660 home run. It was the remembering of his tying Willie Mays. Not A-Rod's 660. It was remembering Mays. Watching the talking heads discuss the validity and merit of A-Rod's validity of his 2-time 'roids ban, and him equaling Mays' home run total, well got me angry.

Simply put, A-Rod, on his best day, perfect day, unbelievable day, super-charged 'roid day, A-Rod could not carry Mays jock strap. Where A-Rod has diminished, tarnished, demeaned and used the game, Mays has left a legacy.

Mays was a rookie in 1951 and retired in 1973. To appreciate what Mays (and Aaron) did for baseball you had to watch them play. I was glued to the Saturday afternoon game of the week as a kid. So if one is not at least in their 50's, and able to watch Mays and Aaron play, one cannot even begin to grasp how they played the game and how consistent they were for so many years.

Mays and Aaron were just a few years after Jackie Robinson entered the major leagues and had to overcome many of the extreme prejudices of their day. And they played, without year long 'roid suspensions or juice influenced injuries.

I know this borders on an old fart "I remember when..." statement. To those on CSNbbs who only know baseball from the 'roid years give your self a treat. Check out what Mays did as a player and the impact he had on the game.

A-Rod compared to Mays. No comparison.
(This post was last modified: 05-03-2015 07:59 AM by NewTimes.)
05-03-2015 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


army56mike Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,994
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 380
I Root For: Liberty & UofL
Location: Shepherdsville, KY
Post: #2
660 - Mays and A-Rod
Hank Aaron is the home run king. Those above him are cheaters. Home run hitters in the last decade are cheaters and should not be recognized.
05-13-2015 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #3
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
You don't know which players were/are dirty so it isn't a good idea to paint such a broad stroke against everyone.
05-13-2015 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #4
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
That's a naive statement. Are you talking about the time of Mays and Aaron or McGuire and Bonds. Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and their ilk will never get in the HOF because the baseball writers will not vote them in. The writer's are much closer to the game than casual fans. As roids were not the rage until the 80s, it's not a broad brush, it's a fact as those guys will never get in the HOF but Griffey, Jr. will.
05-13-2015 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


army56mike Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,994
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 380
I Root For: Liberty & UofL
Location: Shepherdsville, KY
Post: #5
660 - Mays and A-Rod
Pete Rose is gonna make it into the HOF before Bonds or Big Mac. As a Cardinals fan, I use to love watching him play and compete directly with Sosa. Then it all came to an end once I found out they cheated.
05-13-2015 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #6
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-13-2015 10:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  That's a naive statement. Are you talking about the time of Mays and Aaron or McGuire and Bonds. Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and their ilk will never get in the HOF because the baseball writers will not vote them in. The writer's are much closer to the game than casual fans. As roids were not the rage until the 80s, it's not a broad brush, it's a fact as those guys will never get in the HOF but Griffey, Jr. will.

Naive, maybe. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These days the athletes have much better training, nutrition, and resources to be better players than before. I would be extremely mad if I wasn't cheating and heard people accuse me just because I hit home runs.
05-14-2015 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #7
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-13-2015 11:07 PM)army56mike Wrote:  Pete Rose is gonna make it into the HOF before Bonds or Big Mac. As a Cardinals fan, I use to love watching him play and compete directly with Sosa. Then it all came to an end once I found out they cheated.
Rose is likely to make the HOF with a new commish. Plus he's paid his dues and finally admitted his betting errors.

The roids record guys will likely require a time period to lapse before they will even sniff the hall. It's still a toss up if they'll ever get in.

Sincere baseball fans are really angry with the falsified records.
05-14-2015 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #8
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-14-2015 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 10:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  That's a naive statement. Are you talking about the time of Mays and Aaron or McGuire and Bonds. Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and their ilk will never get in the HOF because the baseball writers will not vote them in. The writer's are much closer to the game than casual fans. As roids were not the rage until the 80s, it's not a broad brush, it's a fact as those guys will never get in the HOF but Griffey, Jr. will.

Naive, maybe. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These days the athletes have much better training, nutrition, and resources to be better players than before. I would be extremely mad if I wasn't cheating and heard people accuse me just because I hit home runs.
How much more evidence would have to be uncovered before one could say they used performance enhancing drugs to fabricate their records. With 140+ years of professional baseball, and their being a pattern of home runs for the past 90, and with that roid blurp period, and a return to historic home run seasons, it's safe to say those roid times were invalid records.
05-14-2015 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #9
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 10:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  That's a naive statement. Are you talking about the time of Mays and Aaron or McGuire and Bonds. Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and their ilk will never get in the HOF because the baseball writers will not vote them in. The writer's are much closer to the game than casual fans. As roids were not the rage until the 80s, it's not a broad brush, it's a fact as those guys will never get in the HOF but Griffey, Jr. will.

Naive, maybe. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These days the athletes have much better training, nutrition, and resources to be better players than before. I would be extremely mad if I wasn't cheating and heard people accuse me just because I hit home runs.
How much more evidence would have to be uncovered before one could say they used performance enhancing drugs to fabricate their records. With 140+ years of professional baseball, and their being a pattern of home runs for the past 90, and with that roid blurp period, and a return to historic home run seasons, it's safe to say those roid times were invalid records.

So how can you say that Griffey was clean but A-Rod isn't? Obviously A-Rod admitted his guilt but where do you draw the line? What about Derek Jeter? Not a big slugger but played during the time and was teammates with many guilty persons.
05-14-2015 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #10
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-14-2015 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 10:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  That's a naive statement. Are you talking about the time of Mays and Aaron or McGuire and Bonds. Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and their ilk will never get in the HOF because the baseball writers will not vote them in. The writer's are much closer to the game than casual fans. As roids were not the rage until the 80s, it's not a broad brush, it's a fact as those guys will never get in the HOF but Griffey, Jr. will.

Naive, maybe. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These days the athletes have much better training, nutrition, and resources to be better players than before. I would be extremely mad if I wasn't cheating and heard people accuse me just because I hit home runs.
How much more evidence would have to be uncovered before one could say they used performance enhancing drugs to fabricate their records. With 140+ years of professional baseball, and their being a pattern of home runs for the past 90, and with that roid blurp period, and a return to historic home run seasons, it's safe to say those roid times were invalid records.

So how can you say that Griffey was clean but A-Rod isn't? Obviously A-Rod admitted his guilt but where do you draw the line? What about Derek Jeter? Not a big slugger but played during the time and was teammates with many guilty persons.
Neither Giriffey Jr or Jeter have ever been linked to roids. A-Rod has several times, plus lied lots. There're likely many more, hundreds more, or maybe evern thousands more who took roids that helped develop their game, but they were not HOF candidates now with or without roids. My contention is the strong players during that time who are HOF possibilities, who are linked to and cannot disprove their roid usage, don't deserve the HOF.

Baseball more than any other pro sport uses stats specifically the home run both season and total, as the most distinguished records of American sports. With pro baseball starting soon after the civil war, there is a reverence to those records unmatched in any other American sport.

The ironic part is A-Rod, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire and others would have almost assuredly been voted into the HOF without the roid rage usage. As much as Jose Canseco was chided none of players he mentioned in his book have been able to refute his claims.

Jeter and Griffey, Jr, first ballot HOF. The roid guys, likely a 20+ year wait before even a consideration, and then no guarantee of more than a mention much less a HOF election. And there seems to be some justice if this is the case.
05-14-2015 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #11
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-14-2015 07:11 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 10:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  That's a naive statement. Are you talking about the time of Mays and Aaron or McGuire and Bonds. Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and their ilk will never get in the HOF because the baseball writers will not vote them in. The writer's are much closer to the game than casual fans. As roids were not the rage until the 80s, it's not a broad brush, it's a fact as those guys will never get in the HOF but Griffey, Jr. will.

Naive, maybe. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These days the athletes have much better training, nutrition, and resources to be better players than before. I would be extremely mad if I wasn't cheating and heard people accuse me just because I hit home runs.
How much more evidence would have to be uncovered before one could say they used performance enhancing drugs to fabricate their records. With 140+ years of professional baseball, and their being a pattern of home runs for the past 90, and with that roid blurp period, and a return to historic home run seasons, it's safe to say those roid times were invalid records.

So how can you say that Griffey was clean but A-Rod isn't? Obviously A-Rod admitted his guilt but where do you draw the line? What about Derek Jeter? Not a big slugger but played during the time and was teammates with many guilty persons.
Neither Giriffey Jr or Jeter have ever been linked to roids. A-Rod has several times, plus lied lots. There're likely many more, hundreds more, or maybe evern thousands more who took roids that helped develop their game, but they were not HOF candidates now with or without roids. My contention is the strong players during that time who are HOF possibilities, who are linked to and cannot disprove their roid usage, don't deserve the HOF.

Baseball more than any other pro sport uses stats specifically the home run both season and total, as the most distinguished records of American sports. With pro baseball starting soon after the civil war, there is a reverence to those records unmatched in any other American sport.

The ironic part is A-Rod, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire and others would have almost assuredly been voted into the HOF without the roid rage usage. As much as Jose Canseco was chided none of players he mentioned in his book have been able to refute his claims.

Jeter and Griffey, Jr, first ballot HOF. The roid guys, likely a 20+ year wait before even a consideration, and then no guarantee of more than a mention much less a HOF election. And there seems to be some justice if this is the case.

Why should someone have to prove his innocence instead of the accuser having to prove the guilt? A vindictive reporter could be mad that "Player X" rejected an interview and got the reporter fired or something and start a smear campaign. Or the reporter hated "Team Y" and wanted none of their players in the Hall of Fame. And you never know who did steroids. Maybe the shy quiet guy who never caused trouble was heavily using them. Or the fan favorite who was always working in the community. You never know and I'd hate to eliminate anyone just because someone has a vendetta.
05-15-2015 05:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #12
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-15-2015 05:48 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 07:11 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 12:43 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 07:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Naive, maybe. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These days the athletes have much better training, nutrition, and resources to be better players than before. I would be extremely mad if I wasn't cheating and heard people accuse me just because I hit home runs.
How much more evidence would have to be uncovered before one could say they used performance enhancing drugs to fabricate their records. With 140+ years of professional baseball, and their being a pattern of home runs for the past 90, and with that roid blurp period, and a return to historic home run seasons, it's safe to say those roid times were invalid records.

So how can you say that Griffey was clean but A-Rod isn't? Obviously A-Rod admitted his guilt but where do you draw the line? What about Derek Jeter? Not a big slugger but played during the time and was teammates with many guilty persons.
Neither Giriffey Jr or Jeter have ever been linked to roids. A-Rod has several times, plus lied lots. There're likely many more, hundreds more, or maybe evern thousands more who took roids that helped develop their game, but they were not HOF candidates now with or without roids. My contention is the strong players during that time who are HOF possibilities, who are linked to and cannot disprove their roid usage, don't deserve the HOF.

Baseball more than any other pro sport uses stats specifically the home run both season and total, as the most distinguished records of American sports. With pro baseball starting soon after the civil war, there is a reverence to those records unmatched in any other American sport.

The ironic part is A-Rod, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire and others would have almost assuredly been voted into the HOF without the roid rage usage. As much as Jose Canseco was chided none of players he mentioned in his book have been able to refute his claims.

Jeter and Griffey, Jr, first ballot HOF. The roid guys, likely a 20+ year wait before even a consideration, and then no guarantee of more than a mention much less a HOF election. And there seems to be some justice if this is the case.

Why should someone have to prove his innocence instead of the accuser having to prove the guilt? A vindictive reporter could be mad that "Player X" rejected an interview and got the reporter fired or something and start a smear campaign. Or the reporter hated "Team Y" and wanted none of their players in the Hall of Fame. And you never know who did steroids. Maybe the shy quiet guy who never caused trouble was heavily using them. Or the fan favorite who was always working in the community. You never know and I'd hate to eliminate anyone just because someone has a vendetta.
Are you defending those acknowledged who have been accused and never defended themselves, through false acquisition, on the merit that everyone is innocent until formally found guilty?

If so, that's a legalese point that's true. The more valid point is that those accused have accepted the public banishment without challenging the public charges. They are accepting the fact that if they sued to clear their name they could not defend themselves.

A Rods bluster comment on suing the MLB never materialized and it was all show in an attempt to keep the remaining credibility that he has.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2015 11:17 AM by NewTimes.)
05-15-2015 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
army56mike Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,994
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 380
I Root For: Liberty & UofL
Location: Shepherdsville, KY
Post: #13
660 - Mays and A-Rod
My opinion has changed on a few players based on the evidence presented on their probable roid use.
Mark McQuire- I was a big fan and liked the way he played. Now..... not so much.
Raphael Palmeiro- Was a big fan, now..... Not so much.
Roger Clemens- Never really liked him , but massively respected his accomplishments. Now..... there is a question in my mind.
Sammy Sosa- he was a great personality and good for the game..... to bad he cheated his way to the top.
Barry Bonds- never liked him and regularly cheered against him. Will never acknowledge him as home run king or HOF player.
05-15-2015 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #14
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-15-2015 02:08 PM)army56mike Wrote:  My opinion has changed on a few players based on the evidence presented on their probable roid use.
Mark McQuire- I was a big fan and liked the way he played. Now..... not so much.
Raphael Palmeiro- Was a big fan, now..... Not so much.
Roger Clemens- Never really liked him , but massively respected his accomplishments. Now..... there is a question in my mind.
Sammy Sosa- he was a great personality and good for the game..... to bad he cheated his way to the top.
Barry Bonds- never liked him and regularly cheered against him. Will never acknowledge him as home run king or HOF player.
My sentiments exactly. I was mesmerized like most of America when Sosa and McGuire had their false, juiced home run title battle. The media, fans and MLB loved it. It was freakish. It had never happened before where 2 players were exceeding 60 home runs in a season.The 61 home run bar set by Maris in 1961, the true record, was blown away. Seeing the Maris family in attendance watching Big Mac and Sosa falsely vie for the roid record was pure hypocrisy and phoney.

Give the roid record holders their asterisk. They don't belong with the greats who didn't juice.
05-16-2015 05:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #15
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-15-2015 11:16 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  Are you defending those acknowledged who have been accused and never defended themselves, through false acquisition, on the merit that everyone is innocent until formally found guilty?

If so, that's a legalese point that's true. The more valid point is that those accused have accepted the public banishment without challenging the public charges. They are accepting the fact that if they sued to clear their name they could not defend themselves.

A Rods bluster comment on suing the MLB never materialized and it was all show in an attempt to keep the remaining credibility that he has.

If "Player A" gets accused of steroid use by "Reporter Z" because Reporter Z is mad that Player A denied an interview, played for a rival team, or was just generally a mean person, then does it make Player A guilty since someone in the media says that he used steroids? Is that all we have to do these days to prove guilt? And if Player A doesn't fight back because he doesn't want to acknowledge such a ridiculous statement then that means it's true? If so, then I declare that Derek Jeter used steroids. Now he's guilty and it is up to him to prove his innocence. And if he doesn't come here and fight then he must be guilty and he admits defeat. That goes for Ken Griffey, Jr., Cal Ripken, Jr., and Greg Maddux too. I'm sure we'll just end up to agree to disagree again.
05-16-2015 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NewTimes Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,107
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Flames & Canes
Location: Rome, GA
Post: #16
RE: 660 - Mays and A-Rod
(05-16-2015 09:33 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(05-15-2015 11:16 AM)NewTimes Wrote:  Are you defending those acknowledged who have been accused and never defended themselves, through false acquisition, on the merit that everyone is innocent until formally found guilty?

If so, that's a legalese point that's true. The more valid point is that those accused have accepted the public banishment without challenging the public charges. They are accepting the fact that if they sued to clear their name they could not defend themselves.

A Rods bluster comment on suing the MLB never materialized and it was all show in an attempt to keep the remaining credibility that he has.

If "Player A" gets accused of steroid use by "Reporter Z" because Reporter Z is mad that Player A denied an interview, played for a rival team, or was just generally a mean person, then does it make Player A guilty since someone in the media says that he used steroids? Is that all we have to do these days to prove guilt? And if Player A doesn't fight back because he doesn't want to acknowledge such a ridiculous statement then that means it's true? If so, then I declare that Derek Jeter used steroids. Now he's guilty and it is up to him to prove his innocence. And if he doesn't come here and fight then he must be guilty and he admits defeat. That goes for Ken Griffey, Jr., Cal Ripken, Jr., and Greg Maddux too. I'm sure we'll just end up to agree to disagree again.
This is simple. You and I are on different planets on this one. We're not even in the same solar system. I just don't follow how you can make those statements in the what if reporter scenario if you are a knowledgeable baseball fan. If you are a casual fan and I am stepping on your toes for poking at one of your favorite players, I get that. Other than that, I believe most baseball fans would agree with the assertion that those who were listed in the Mitchell report and identified as known users, and with the drastic enhanced offensive production in home runs during the roid days, that specifically named in the report, and likely many others, were cheating during that time using roids.

It makes sense that the most famous, endeared and productive ones of that time would draw the most attention. To declare that Jeter, Griffey, etc... used roids in your example, well that's just an outlandish statement that diminishes credibility of the argument. If they were not mentioned in the Mitchell report, and if there is no evidence or even rumors (none that I am aware of) that they did, then that's a wild yarn without merit.

I guess I've touched a nerve with your continual defense of supposedly clean players during that time and wanting to link them to those mentioned in the Mitchell report. I don't get this. I don't follow your position. I am an bewildered how you could come to that conclusion.

Let's just let this rest. We've made our points. We are solar systems apart in our views. And I don't see any value in additional dialogue. We're as far apart on this as two can be.
05-16-2015 09:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.