Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bull Schmidt!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gooch
    Although I've only read excerpts from his new book, Mike Schmidt seems to defend the steroid-tainted sluggers like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. In TV interviews he also supports them and their possible enshrinement in Cooperstown.
    I don't get it.
    Ahhh, but gotta get it, & read the entire book, Gooch. He doesn't necessarily defend them, as much as trying to relate to why players in general have always done things to get an "edge".

    And he merely states, as far as Sammy & Bonds go, that he, himself, wouldn't condemn them just yet; until something is proven. (This book was written back in November before the new Bonds book came out).
    He does elaborate on Bonds as a player, though. Good points, even if we despise Bonds.

    Raffy? Schmidt says "...probably not ... More likely, he will never be honored for 3,000-5000, but will always be remembered for 'Never. Period.'"

    He'd say yes to Big Mac HOF, basically, because nothing's been proven (and the stuff Mac admitted to taking could be brought at a store -- he had it visible right on his shelf in his locker).

    Reading this book was as if I was sitting at a bar shooting the **** with him myself. The title is misleading, IMO, for it's all really just his humble opinions, based on his own experiences & insights -- with open-minded rationales accompanying them. No controversies, or sound-bite shattering quotes. Just honest and open-minded views. He's not a Bob Feller here.

    And this was certainly not the impression I had gotten reading the stragetically phrased "excerpts", either. Matter of fact, with Hochman's review in the DN (he's always been my favorite columnist), I was expecting less.

    Schmidt makes a lot of really good points in the book. I was surprised at his feelings about the DH, for instance. But upon reading more, it really makes you think. And hard to argue with him, as I thought I would want to.

    He's very articulate and most thorough in conveying the points he wants to make.
    Get a hold on one if y'all can.

    PS While I wouldn't expect Schmidt to remember years and dates for every mentionable event as a Phillie, my only real critique is I wish he'd have chosen a Stan Hochman to write it with. And years were off, and one of his quotes (retirement speech) was inaccurate.
    I saw these instantly, while a Waggoner/Wank didn't catch some things, such as ... Giles wasn't the owner until 1981...

    And I do think Schmidt is being extremely "polite" regarding some people, especially the Phillies Org. (post Ruly).
    I think he went' "mild", not wishing to use his book for "stick-it-to-you" type stuff.

    Again, title and paraphrased "excerpts" = very misleading. Schmidt actually takes a very diplomatic approach to each topic, IMO.
    I get the "I'm not supreme to these present players or anybody" impression throughout.

    If anyone has a question about something, I'll post some of Schmidt's points.

    But I do recommend the book, a quick read at 196 pages. I do think he was rushed for a March release by Harper-Collins (baseball starved fans this time of year) -- and even moreso, "coached" by the publishing people for those "teaser" sound bites in recent interviews; i.e. greenies thing. JMHo, though
    Last edited by FrenchyLefebvre; 03-20-2006, 11:22 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Androctus
      Rose is becoming alot more defensible these days. Rose may have had a gambling problem, may have bet on baseball, may have wagered on his own team, but bottom line is never to my knowledge bet against his team or threw a game, so his actions never really had an impact on the game itself. Doping has taken the sport and turned it into a vague parody of itself.
      Heavy sigh.

      I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.

      What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned.

      Steroids are just another way to get an edge. It's not much different than corking your bat or throwing a spitball. A little different maybe, but not much.

      Pete's ban is just and fair. I think that he should be banned for life from the game, and possibly the HOF as well.

      And before anyone calls me a Rose-hater, he was, and still is, my favorite player of all-time. But he commited the cardinal sin, and he can't be let off the hook.
      "You should enter a ballpark the way you enter a church." - Bill Spaceman Lee

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Androctus
        Oh I understand it was in the owners best ineterest to do nothing. But my real question is that don't most steroids fall under the same category as say, cocaine, in legal terms? In that it is simply just not lawful to have them in your posession, period? (I confess my ignorance in this matter....)
        I believe so, Androctus. Illegal is illegal (that is, if you weren't a baseball player).
        But with ANY illegal drug/action being done by its players (especially stars), baseball's stance has continually been:
        "While these may be crimes against society, they are not rules against baseball and do not undermine the integrity of the game itself."

        Whatever.
        Bet Giamatti's rolling in his grave. When asked to reconcile baseball's drug policy with the sport's stance on gambling back in '89, he replied:
        "I don't think the drug problem has reached that proportion".
        Man, if he could only see this mess now!

        And think about it ... If Vincent/Selig had been commissioner back in 1919, there would be Bookie-Booths alongside every beer stand in all the ballparks. And Odds posted on the scoreboards.

        I blame MLB more than I'll ever blame the players for doing everything within MLB's warped and skewed "legal boundaries" to get an edge to perform better.
        Last edited by FrenchyLefebvre; 03-21-2006, 09:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ashburn1
          Heavy sigh.
          I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.
          What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned.
          Steroids are just another way to get an edge. It's not much different than corking your bat or throwing a spitball. A little different maybe, but not much.
          Pete's ban is just and fair. I think that he should be banned for life from the game, and possibly the HOF as well.
          And before anyone calls me a Rose-hater, he was, and still is, my favorite player of all-time. But he commited the cardinal sin, and he can't be let off the hook.
          Steroids dwarf gambling because it helped a bunch of puffy juiceheads break records otherwise extraordinary in the achievement by great players like Mays, Ruth and Aaron.
          Steroid use by Bonds cost Pujols the MVP in his rookie year an incomprehensible travesty that should create a big enough stink to float Bonds out of baseball.
          If they have proof Bonds used them, they should strip him of the MVP and give it to Pujols, plain and simple...
          Look baseball has screwed Shoeless Joe for years knowing full well he got the shaft over betting.
          Look at his stats from that Series!
          So Rose who got bait & switched in the Giammatti croaking-Fay Vincent deal is finished bidness.
          Last edited by ed hardiman; 03-22-2006, 01:10 AM.
          The Phillies Barstool Lives!

          Comment


          • #20
            [QUOTE=Ashburn1]Heavy sigh.
            I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.
            What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned. Pete's ban is just and fair. I think that he should be banned for life from the game, and possibly the HOF as well
            .QUOTE].

            There's that "integrity of the game" thing again
            Nobody is excusing Rose.

            People questioned the "legitimacy" of games which Rose may have bet on. And people question the "legitimacy" of these homers & records.

            Different ships, different long-splices?

            Don't recall such a cloud of stench surrounding those 4256 hits themselves.

            So it was wrong that they invented that HOF rule (JUST for Rose) in 1991. Wasn't there for the Black Sox all those decades. Heck, Cicotte was NEVER ineligible for the HOF until 1991!

            I agree with Rose staying out of baseball. But the HOF? I don't get how anyone can doubt the legitimacy of those 4256 (or even 4192) hits. And just the way he played the game was most obvious to even the blindest eye.
            Hence, Rose will always come up in discussions like this. Just as Gooden & Howe always came up in Rose ones.
            Sickening, most ironic cycle it's turned into, hasn't it?

            If there were questions & doubt surrounding his on-field play, different story.
            Last edited by FrenchyLefebvre; 03-21-2006, 09:21 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ashburn1
              Heavy sigh.

              I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.

              What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned.

              Steroids are just another way to get an edge. It's not much different than corking your bat or throwing a spitball. A little different maybe, but not much.
              It sheds new illumination over the entire lanscape of the game and the ethics of those who play and produce it. One could argue that Rose's actions, when taken in context, didn't really have a significant impact on the game at all, the damage was done mostly to his own image, not the least of it preventing him from his final and greatest acheivement: enshrinement. It has yet to be seen where he bet against his own team, and if he wasn't throwing games in his position as manager, then the only harm was that it was simply against the rules. No one can contest that, and his ban is just in accordance with those rules. I never disputed that. But there will always be a symapthetic movement to have his acheivements recognized, especially since they fly in the face of all those that have been gained unnaturally.

              Steroids changed everything - how else do you accredit the home run explosion since the mid-nineties? An "edge"? Comparing it to corking is ludicrous. Corking didn't help Greg Nettles hit 70+ home runs a season. Throwing a spitter never allowed Perry to strikeout 300 batters a season. These infractions, even though illegal, have become an amusing footnote in the game's heritage, baseball's "foreign object", if you will. Steroids have had such impact that hallowed records that before seemed unattainable have been shattered again and again in such a brief span their influence is indesputable. Their presence now has become infuriating to all, and the responsibility for it lies apparently equal with the players, the players union, owners, management and MLB, now its up to them to clean up the mess. Some people, however, will never be content till they see 100% testing of all players and all the offenders and their records wiped away.
              Last edited by Androctus; 03-22-2006, 07:04 AM.
              I AM ROSTERDAMUS!!!

              Comment

              Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X