Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Fuzzy Bear
    Say Hey!

  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    A better example than Mantle would be Dave Parker. In 1977-78, Parker was, arguably, the best player in baseball. He was that good during that time. In 1979 he fell off a bit, but was still one of the best. Around that time he got into cocaine, and from 1980-83, Parker basically took a "time out for drugs". During those years, Parker (A) used drugs to the point where he was just another player, and (B) was part of the crowd that provided a market for Curtis Strong's chemical wares. Parker lost 4 prime years to drugs, and when he came out of his haze, he wasn't the same player.

    If Parker had done steroids, instead of cocaine, the Pirates would have won another pennant, and Parker would be in the HOF.

    I'm not condoning steroids, but steroids DO represent an effort to be the best you can be. Drinking and drugging does not.

    Leave a comment:

  • soberdennis
    Registered User

  • soberdennis
    replied
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    I really don't agree at all.

    Alcoholism and drug abuse wreck lives. Absolutely. However, I don't really believe that it's always (or even most of the time) a bad thing for ballplayers to continue with.

    Giving up drug addiction is an incredibily, impossibly hard thing. Far too distracting to both go through the process of giving up addiction AND actively pursuing a baseball career. It's better to have a hungover player like Mickey Mantle at 80% than to have him in rehab and off the roster.
    Now hypothetically, if Mantle, Grover Cleveland Alexander, or Hack Wilson had sought treatment during their careers, they could have come back even better. Three problems arise though.
    1. Most people don't want to admit they have a problem when they are the age of an athlete. They tend to think they are too young. this is despite the fact many people become Alcoholics or Addicts at a very young age.
    2. Alcoholics Anonymous did not start until 1935, after Wilson and Alexander were past their prime. Mantle could have used it though.
    3. Many celebrities are afraid to show their alcoholism in public. Even though AA membership is confidential, and should not be publicized in Papers or broadcast media, they are afraid it would ruin their careers

    Some ballplayers have sobered up and been even better than before. A couple of my namesakes come to mind-Eckersly and Martinez.

    Leave a comment:

  • flash143817
    Registered User

  • flash143817
    replied
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    I really don't agree at all.

    Alcoholism and drug abuse wreck lives. Absolutely. However, I don't really believe that it's always (or even most of the time) a bad thing for ballplayers to continue with.

    Giving up drug addiction is an incredibily, impossibly hard thing. Far too distracting to both go through the process of giving up addiction AND actively pursuing a baseball career. It's better to have a hungover player like Mickey Mantle at 80% than to have him in rehab and off the roster.
    But what does Mantle at 80% have to do with the steroids and such?

    To use your percentages, steroids would make a player 110% or 120% compared to his usual 100% and alcohol and drugs would make a player 80% like you have noted. Therefore it would be far better, if you are a team trying to win, to have the 'roider than the boozer.

    I understand that Mickey Mantle is one of the greatest players ever so any team would take him over almost any other player, even with the alcohol issues. But if this thread is asking whether you are taking the 'roider or the boozer, you have to evaluate it independent of the players skills and assume both the 'roider and the boozer have identical skills prior to their respective choices.
    flash143817
    Registered User
    Last edited by flash143817; 06-24-2006, 11:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • SABR Matt
    Hunter of Objective Truth

  • SABR Matt
    replied
    Of course this presumes that you can't have Mickey Mantle at 100% because he never STARTS abusively drinking.

    Mantle made the choice to throw his life away...it was a completely selfish, and tema-destructive thing to do, and to deny this is to flat out lie to yourself. Alcoholism isn't a disease you pick up like the common cold...you do it by DRINKING TOO MUCH TOO OFTEN...he had the power to not do that in the first place.

    Leave a comment:

  • ElHalo
    Greek God of Baseball

  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by flash143817
    Agreed completely. Roiding, although morally reprehensible, is definitely an effort to heighten one's performance and therefore help the team win. Narcotic drugs are doing the exact opposite in most cases.
    I really don't agree at all.

    Alcoholism and drug abuse wreck lives. Absolutely. However, I don't really believe that it's always (or even most of the time) a bad thing for ballplayers to continue with.

    Giving up drug addiction is an incredibily, impossibly hard thing. Far too distracting to both go through the process of giving up addiction AND actively pursuing a baseball career. It's better to have a hungover player like Mickey Mantle at 80% than to have him in rehab and off the roster.

    Leave a comment:

  • flash143817
    Registered User

  • flash143817
    replied
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
    I basically agree with this, although I don't condone the use of anabolic steroids at all. But your underlying premise is true. A Roider is at least trying to max out his potential; trying to win. A boozer and a druggie is actively hurting his team, and he knows, or should know this before he drinks/drugs.

    Agreed completely. Roiding, although morally reprehensible, is definitely an effort to heighten one's performance and therefore help the team win. Narcotic drugs are doing the exact opposite in most cases.

    Leave a comment:

  • Fuzzy Bear
    Say Hey!

  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by Lindseynelson
    We, I included, villify the fellows that use enhancers. Well how about all those who did the opposite? 2 examples of many are, Mickey Mantle, drunk half the time by his own admission. Sam McDowell who drank himself out of baseball. How many games were lost by losers and abusers? I'll take a guy trying to win over a bleery eyed talent on instinct every time!
    I basically agree with this, although I don't condone the use of anabolic steroids at all. But your underlying premise is true. A Roider is at least trying to max out his potential; trying to win. A boozer and a druggie is actively hurting his team, and he knows, or should know this before he drinks/drugs.

    Leave a comment:

  • DoubleX
    Just a Fool

  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by Lindseynelson
    Just playing devils advocate. The uproar about "performance enhancing drugs" as an affront to the " integrity of the game" seems specious when you look at guys like Straw and doc who often were in no shape to play and were decieving the fans , the league and their employers. The enhancement users were doing everything available to ENHANCE production, not diminish it.Who are more loyal to the fans, the teammates and the league , the guys doing anything and evrything to improve performance and thus win or the guy who takes the money and gives it 75 or 80 percent?
    And players like Strawberry and Gooden and Steve Howe and others got year long suspensions. There aren't nearly such punishments for steroids use.

    Leave a comment:

  • Lindseynelson
    Registered User

  • Lindseynelson
    replied
    All great posts. I thought maybe we ought to take a look at this from a different angle and I am , as usual, impressed with the responses from all of you.someone pointed out that Mickey hit homeruns hung over but Bonds, Mac and raffy all hit many after " allegedly' using PEDs. How many times did a Mantle of Dave Parker or Keith Hernandez K or not be focused after "partying". Lose a pennant by one game and the stats don't care if it was the last day of the season or a May 5th "meaningless" game

    Leave a comment:

  • MyDogSparty
    Whitaker & Trammell

  • MyDogSparty
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --You can certainly make a good argument that drunks and druggies have worse character and are a bigger detriment to their teams than PED users. Both are the results of selfish behaviors. The former disregards their responiblities in the search for a good time, while the later disregards the law and rules of sport to try and improve performance. Trying to improve oneself is usually a noble effort, but when the method of doing so bends or breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, goes afoul of the law, risks ones health and sets a bad example for young athletes there isn't much nobility left.
    --However, the reason I have a problem with PED users isn't a moral one at all. I can't say for certain I wouldn't make that same choice if I felt it was the only way to make it in the majors or if I felt I was being unfairly overshadowed by users around the league (For that matter I had my own issues with drugs and alcohol in my younger days and might have experienced those types of problems with my baseball career if lack of talent finished it first). The issue I have with PED users is they gain an unfair advantage and (even if you knew who they all were) its hard to evaluate their performance.
    --Are the best players today all PED users? Are some of the best players today who aren't using actually the some of the most amazing players ever, but are being overshadowed by cheaters? How can we place PED users in their proper historical place when comparing them to preceding generations who relied on (mostly) natural methods to achieve their records.
    --Drug and alcohol abuse hurts the team and the player. It is regretable and if some want to condemn players who have seen their careers damaged or destroyed by these problems that is understandable. However, these things do not help players perform. The demerits to their records are already bulit in by the damage they do to the players body. When evaluating Hall of Fame performance or ranking players recreational drug abuse is already accounted for, while PEDs are a very complicated issue.

    Mark, that was a great post!

    Leave a comment:

  • leecemark
    History Mod

  • leecemark
    replied
    --You can certainly make a good argument that drunks and druggies have worse character and are a bigger detriment to their teams than PED users. Both are the results of selfish behaviors. The former disregards their responiblities in the search for a good time, while the later disregards the law and rules of sport to try and improve performance. Trying to improve oneself is usually a noble effort, but when the method of doing so bends or breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, goes afoul of the law, risks ones health and sets a bad example for young athletes there isn't much nobility left.
    --However, the reason I have a problem with PED users isn't a moral one at all. I can't say for certain I wouldn't make that same choice if I felt it was the only way to make it in the majors or if I felt I was being unfairly overshadowed by users around the league (For that matter I had my own issues with drugs and alcohol in my younger days and might have experienced those types of problems with my baseball career if lack of talent finished it first). The issue I have with PED users is they gain an unfair advantage and (even if you knew who they all were) its hard to evaluate their performance.
    --Are the best players today all PED users? Are some of the best players today who aren't using actually the some of the most amazing players ever, but are being overshadowed by cheaters? How can we place PED users in their proper historical place when comparing them to preceding generations who relied on (mostly) natural methods to achieve their records.
    --Drug and alcohol abuse hurts the team and the player. It is regretable and if some want to condemn players who have seen their careers damaged or destroyed by these problems that is understandable. However, these things do not help players perform. The demerits to their records are already bulit in by the damage they do to the players body. When evaluating Hall of Fame performance or ranking players recreational drug abuse is already accounted for, while PEDs are a very complicated issue.

    Leave a comment:

  • ElHalo
    Greek God of Baseball

  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    I can't imagine a Reggie hater like yourself would ever say anything like that.
    I really don't have much of a problem with Reggie the person. It's Reggie the baseball player (and, more specifically, Reggie the Batting Average) that I have a problem with.

    Leave a comment:

  • 538280
    Prophet of Rage

  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    I was with you right up until that last sentence.

    Don't know how many times I have to say this: Sports are entertainment. What's more entertaining... a guy who has the wife, three kids, nicely mown lawn, goes to church every week, speaks softle, and is respectful of others... or David Wells? If the production levels are equivalent, you should ALWAYS go with the guy who makes the bigger spectacle of himself.
    I can't imagine a Reggie hater like yourself would ever say anything like that.

    Leave a comment:

  • FrenchyLefebvre
    Outta Here

  • FrenchyLefebvre
    replied
    Originally posted by bkmckenna
    I was with you right up until that last sentence.

    We don't have to ALWAYS do anything. Pete Rose, Denny McLain, Hal Chase, Steve Howe and Marge Schott, among others, all made spectacles of themselves. I'll go along with Mr. Albright and root for the focused athlete who brings character to his team. I live in the land of Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken. I understand they do it different in New York.
    Do I hear you! I lived in the land of Mike Schmidt (who should have been an Oriole, if not a Cub or Cardinal), who spent his career ... well everybody knows already about his infamous treatment in Philly.
    93's "Macho Row" is still so revered by Phillies fans - even though Dykstra spent the season betting on the games (according to an LA Times article earlier this year quoting his bookie). It went virtually unnoticed - even in Philly. And this was post-Pete Rose!!!!!
    You'd think the '80 or '83 Phillies would be tops in polls of Phillies fans regarding most endearing teams, especially after this, and the obvious that several '93 players were on the 'roids! But ask the same Philly fans about Big Mac, Raffy or Bonds? Hehehehehe.
    It's all about flair and being "gritty". Philly's "blue collar persona" just couldn't "relate" to the milk-drinking, serious-approach to-the-job, nonflamboyant perfectionist in Schmidt. Vince McMahon could have put together the "Macho Row" team of '93. Give me the '80 or '83 squads over them anyday!

    Leave a comment:

  • FrenchyLefebvre
    Outta Here

  • FrenchyLefebvre
    replied
    Originally posted by Lindseynelson
    We, I included, villify the fellows that use enhancers. Well how about all those who did the opposite? 2 examples of many are, Mickey Mantle, drunk half the time by his own admission. Sam McDowell who drank himself out of baseball. How many games were lost by losers and abusers? I'll take a guy trying to win over a bleery eyed talent on instinct every time!
    I, personally, wouldn't compare Mick with players intaking ILLEGAL substances. And Mick did play/hit homers while hunover = despite DISadvantage. JMO.
    Now Dwight the Kite of the '87 Mets is a good one. He's under contract to play for a (favored to win again by a landslide) team; does illegal substances, chills out at Smithers for a chunk of the season, thus leaving the Mets without their ACE pitcher; Mets finish, like, three games behind the Cards in NL East.
    Some would argue that Dwight the Kite cost his team the pennant, as he didn't even have a legitimate (not to mention LEGAL!) injury to warrant missing all that time and costing his team their Ace!
    FrenchyLefebvre
    Outta Here
    Last edited by FrenchyLefebvre; 10-08-2005, 08:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X