Is Mike Schmidt the greatest player of the last 40 years, relative to the all-timers?

[shag773]

He's the greatest third baseman of all time. But the best player of the last 40 years? I would also say Pete Rose. But Schmidt is in the conversation.

[FedEx227]

Really? What about the steroids?

What about them? I'm not understanding why we can't count those guys as good players.

Trust me, I'm glad they are out of the game but we can't put our head in the sand and not acknowledge great players that may or may not have used. Like NAHSTE said, you can set a date on Bonds' steroid beginnings, you can't really do it with A-Rod but it's still arbitrary. I'm not defending these guys but there was nothing in place to stop them, so they did it. I don't feel comfortable just ignoring them.

[FirstTimer]

I don't understand why we aren't allowed to count the steroid guys?

Because they cheated.

It happened, they played, there wasn't a plan in place to avoid them

US Law>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.MLB rules.

[FedEx227]

In July 2005, Schmidt appeared on Bob Costas' HBO show Costas Now to discuss steroids, and said, "Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that.'"

Look, I'm not defending them or starting steroid argument #2902001 but if you want to just ignore an entire era and discount anything a player did because you thought they were on steroids or tested positive later in their career that's fine, I'm not saying they are clean, I just hate the entire argument.

It happened. Cheating has been apart of baseball forever. Steroids are the highest level of cheating but there were guys on greenies (and still are), it's not the same level but I just don't feel comfortable ignoring everything done by players from 1987-2008.

[Senser81]

What about them? I'm not understanding why we can't count those guys as good players.

Trust me, I'm glad they are out of the game but we can't put our head in the sand and not acknowledge great players that may or may not have used. Like NAHSTE said, you can set a date on Bonds' steroid beginnings, you can't really do it with A-Rod but it's still arbitrary. I'm not defending these guys but there was nothing in place to stop them, so they did it. I don't feel comfortable just ignoring them.

Not singling you out, but its kind of an "about face". When the players were on steroids, people buried their heads in the sand and did not acknowledge it. Now that all this information (albeit some of it is speculative) comes out, and we're told "you can't put your head in the sand and not acknowledge these great steroid players".

So, which is it? Should we acknowledge their greatness but also acknowledge their steroid use...or not acknowledge their greatness and not acknowledge their steroid use? You make it seem as if we should acknowledge their greatness but not acknowledge their steroid use. Hence "about face".

[shag773]

His character can be brought into question, that's fair. But the fact remains he didn't take steroids, and A-Rod and Bonds did. Not sure what your point is.

[FirstTimer]

Look, I'm not defending them or starting steroid argument #2902001 but if you want to just ignore an entire era and discount anything a player did because you thought they were on steroids or tested positive later in their career that's fine, I'm not saying they are clean, I just hate the entire argument.

It happened. Cheating has been apart of baseball forever. Steroids are the highest level of cheating but there were guys on greenies (and still are), it's not the same level but I just don't feel comfortable ignoring everything done by players from 1987-2008.

Good for Schmidt I guess?

Also, Schmidt did play in an era when steroids were being used. Hell, down the road in Pittsburgh the Steelers were juiced out of their minds.


Schmidt played in a time when roids were more than available if he wanted to use them. Him acting as though he played in an era when they weren't is rather dubious

[FedEx227]

Not singling you out, but its kind of an "about face". When the players were on steroids, people buried their heads in the sand and did not acknowledge it. Now that all this information (albeit some of it is speculative) comes out, and we're told "you can't put your head in the sand and not acknowledge these great steroid players".

So, which is it? Should we acknowledge their greatness but also acknowledge their steroid use...or not acknowledge their greatness and not acknowledge their steroid use? You make it seem as if we should acknowledge their greatness but not acknowledge their steroid use. Hence "about face".

Totally acknowledge their steroid use. Those are steroid guys, the 80s and 90s was littered with steroid guys. It's a steroid era to me. I don't want to ignore it and act like it didn't happen and we shouldn't consider it an era of baseball because it absolutely is and it was extremely important to the history of the game.

As NAHSTE mentioned, Bonds talent was already there for years before he became a lab experiment, ditto in my mind for Rodriguez and Ramirez. How do we properly judge them? Only take their numbers from when we THINK they started taking steroids or just wipe them clean? What about pitchers like Clemens? Do we not acknowledge 10 years of awesome pitching because we think he started using steroids in 1998? Just seems too arbitrary and speculative. I'm fine with just straight up saying "Bonds is one of the top five players of all times, even though he took steroids." I honestly don't have a problem with that.

[FirstTimer]

Totally acknowledge their steroid use. Those are steroid guys, the 80s and 90s was littered with steroid guys. It's a steroid era to me.

Then how can Schmidt say that if he played in that era(which he did)..he would have taken them......but he didn't.

As NAHSTE mentioned, Bonds talent was already there for years before he became a lab experiment, ditto in my mind for Rodriguez and Ramirez. How do we properly judge them? Only take their numbers from when we THINK they started taking steroids or just wipe them clean? What about pitchers like Clemens? Do we not acknowledge 10 years of awesome pitching because we think he started using steroids in 1998? Just seems too arbitrary and speculative. I'm fine with just straight up saying "Bonds is one of the top five players of all times, even though he took steroids." I honestly don't have a problem with that.

This.

[FedEx227]

That's fine. I'm not comfortable doing that.

[Senser81]

As NAHSTE mentioned, Bonds talent was already there for years before he became a lab experiment, ditto in my mind for Rodriguez and Ramirez. How do we properly judge them? Only take their numbers from when we THINK they started taking steroids or just wipe them clean? What about pitchers like Clemens? Do we not acknowledge 10 years of awesome pitching because we think he started using steroids in 1998? Just seems too arbitrary and speculative. I'm fine with just straight up saying "Bonds is one of the top five players of all times, even though he took steroids." I honestly don't have a problem with that.

It makes it difficult to judge them relative to all-time players. You can judge them against their peers of the steroid era, but its in a way even more "arbitrary and speculative" to say that Alex Rodriguez was a better player than Mike Schmidt, because not only did they play in different eras, but one guy took steroids and the other didn't.

[NAHSTE]

So basically, the question is "is Mike Schmidt the greatest player named to the MLB All-Time team who played post-1970?"

In which case, sure?

[FedEx227]

Without the ability to add or replace anybody put on that team in 1997.

[Senser81]

So basically, the question is "is Mike Schmidt the greatest player named to the MLB All-Time team who played post-1970?"

In which case, sure?

Would you have Griffey and Bonds on the MLB All-Time Team? If so, who would you replace?

[FedEx227]

Can I put Bonds at DH or do we have to put them at their true positions?