Brushbacks and Knockdowns: The Greatest Baseball Debates of Two Centuries

[dell71]

If you want to leave Piazza out, fine, but then you also have to concede that you believe there are about two or three Hall of Fame catchers total in your opinion. Bench is the only guy clearly better.

Some guy named Yogi has something to say about that.

Still, Piazza should definitely have been inducted last year.

[Senser81]

I assumed Piazza was already in the HOF. I would change my initial response and say that Piazza is the only guy who CLEARLY should be in the HOF. He was arguably the greatest hitter at his position. I think Bench and Berra were better catchers, but that doesn't make Piazza less deserving of Cooperstown.

[FedEx227]

If you don't let Piazza in you're essentially closing down the position ever getting into the Hall again. As Warner mentioned, he's easily the best offensive catcher of all time and likely won't be eclipsed anytime soon (mostly depending on Mauer's long term future at the position).

[dell71]

If you don't let Piazza in you're essentially closing down the position ever getting into the Hall again. As Warner mentioned, he's easily the best offensive catcher of all time and likely won't be eclipsed anytime soon (mostly depending on Mauer's long term future at the position).

I just can't see Mauer being a catcher for too much longer.

[dell71]

Surprised I haven't seen any love for Jeff Bagwell on this topic.

[Senser81]

Surprised I haven't seen any love for Jeff Bagwell on this topic.

I'm too uncertain about Bagwell's possible steroid use to take a stand on him either way.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Surprised I haven't seen any love for Jeff Bagwell on this topic.

I thought you wanted us to leave out anybody with reasonable steroid suspicions.

I think Bagwell is a borderline top five all time 1B. Also, while common sense tells me he used PED's, he's never been on any lists or been a part of any suspicions. I'd vote for him without a second thought.

[FedEx227]

This is where I really start to hate the steroid debate, can't see how you can leave Bagwell out when he never tested positive or was on any lists, pure speculation for him.

[Senser81]

This is where I really start to hate the steroid debate, can't see how you can leave Bagwell out when he never tested positive or was on any lists, pure speculation for him.

I think you have to vote all the steroid guys into the HOF if they have the stats. It would at least make the voting process simpler.

[FedEx227]

That's always been my stance. Now that we have testing guys that test positive are out, but I'm not going to hold the guys in the unregulated, unchecked 90s to the same level. Maybe 'roids were illegal but head was inserted into sand for a number of years.

[Senser81]

That's always been my stance. Now that we have testing guys that test positive are out, but I'm not going to hold the guys in the unregulated, unchecked 90s to the same level. Maybe 'roids were illegal but head was inserted into sand for a number of years.

Or in Selig's case, ass.

I don't think you can erase just the enormity of history by keeping the steroid guys out. I don't know what baseball gains by that. Even in instances of isolated careers, people still remember Pete Rose and Joe Jackson (in fact, perhaps their banning has made them more relevent over the years). I think MLB's attempt to erase an entire era from people's memories is a mixture of foolishness and unfairness. 30 years from now people will still remember Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, regardless of HOF enshrinement.

[dell71]

I thought you wanted us to leave out anybody with reasonable steroid suspicions.

I think Bagwell is a borderline top five all time 1B. Also, while common sense tells me he used PED's, he's never been on any lists or been a part of any suspicions. I'd vote for him without a second thought.

This is the key part. With the other guys (Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire), suspicions brought them in front of a grand jury, and either failed tests or assertions by shady characters, or even admissions, are all there. We don't have any of that with Bagwell and Piazza. All we really have on them is that they were muscular for baseball players and, in Piazza's case, one writer saying he's definitely a user because he was in the Mets lockerroom and saw that Piazza has "backne". With such flimsy assertions, I feel comfortable leaving them in the conversation.

[dell71]

Still some interesting stuff in this book to discuss.

Since we've already talked about HoF and PEDs, why not swing the conversation into the poster-boy? Yup, let's talk Barry Bonds.

The chapter is actually titled "The Strange Case of Barry Bonds." It essentially becomes a discussion between Michael Humphries of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and the legendary Bill James about whether Barry was using steroids or not. A lot of the argument centered around the age at which Bonds suddenly became a HR machine. Neither would say one way or the other with any conviction, but surprisingly, Bill James leaned towards Barry being a clean player. Again, this book is almost a decade old, so I'm curious as to what Mr. James says now.

However, we're not going to discuss whether he did, or didn't and what impact it did or didn't have. Instead, the author raises another question:

If Barry Bonds had been killed in a plane crash after the 1999 season, would he have been regarded as the greatest ballplayer of his era?

Hmmm...The only other name that usually comes into the discussion of who was the best player of the 90s is Ken Griffey Jr. So was Bonds already better than any of his contemporaries before 2000?

[Warner2BruceTD]

The thing about Bill James, is he is obsessed with proof, almost to a fault. That's what makes him so good at what he does, because he approaches each question with no bias and just looks to either prove or disprove the question. Many times he'll write long essays, pages long, and not even draw a conclusion in the end.

If you recall, James defended the idea that Pete Rose was innocent until basically the day Rose confessed. The long essay on the topic is in all editions of his Historical Abstract, and even now that we know the truth, he still builds a pretty convincing case that Rose didn't bet on baseball. For James, slips of paper that said things like "Montreal 50x" Or "4/5/88 BOS" meant nothing to him without dates, more context, opponents, etc. He combed through the evidence and deducted that there just wasn't enough proof to pin Pete down. Of course he was wrong in the end, but that's just how James operates.

So I don't find it odd at all that James was not ready to brand Bonds a PED user. His mind doesn't work on assumptions, no matter how obvious they appear. He isn't wired that way.

[Goober]

Still some interesting stuff in this book to discuss.

Since we've already talked about HoF and PEDs, why not swing the conversation into the poster-boy? Yup, let's talk Barry Bonds.

The chapter is actually titled "The Strange Case of Barry Bonds." It essentially becomes a discussion between Michael Humphries of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and the legendary Bill James about whether Barry was using steroids or not. A lot of the argument centered around the age at which Bonds suddenly became a HR machine. Neither would say one way or the other with any conviction, but surprisingly, Bill James leaned towards Barry being a clean player. Again, this book is almost a decade old, so I'm curious as to what Mr. James says now.

However, we're not going to discuss whether he did, or didn't and what impact it did or didn't have. Instead, the author raises another question:



Hmmm...The only other name that usually comes into the discussion of who was the best player of the 90s is Ken Griffey Jr. So was Bonds already better than any of his contemporaries before 2000?

In the decade of the 90's:

Bonds: .302/.434/.602, 361 HR, 343 SB
Griffey: .302/.384/.581, 382 HR, 151 SB

Conclusion. Barry was simply amazing. The best I have ever seen.