Sammy Sosa

[Jadow]

I think Sammy is great.

He probably did a ton of roids, one time a sports reporter remarked "If you see Sammy with his shirt off in the locker room, you don't feel like a man anymore."

But you know what, bless him, Sammy rocks. I hope he gets back with the Cubs.

I went to a game in 98 (the year of the big HR chase) against the Brew Crew, and Dammit if Sammy didn't go long in that game!

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ric1287
before steroids - he was a fast, good hitter, and good fielder

after steroids - slow, terrible fielder and hit berry berry many homeruns and brought baseball back into the spotlight.

despite what the league says, steroids brought back and likely saved the game.

Baseball was never in danger of collapsing in the late 90's.

yeah that whole strike thing didnt do anything bad i guess :thumbsdown:

When did I say the strike didn't have any negative effects? It had many. But the league was never in danger of collapsing. Baseball did not need steroids to save the game. Steroids was a temporary fix at best, which has unleashed a whole new set of negative effects today.

While steroid-pumped players playing home-run derby was exciting for a few years, it got very old very fast. Steroids do not win championships. Pitching, defense, and smart hitting wins championships. Barry Bonds is weeks away from breaking the greatest record in all of sports, and almost no one cares. Just like when Sosa left the Cubs, once Bonds retires, the fans in San Fransisco will realize there are more important things in the game than to watch one player continue to play home run derby while the team remains in last place.

 

[ElFenix]

juicer, corker, and he lied to congress. what's not to like?

 

[Regs]

Thank jesus and thank ya juice.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ric1287
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: cubby1223
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ric1287
before steroids - he was a fast, good hitter, and good fielder

after steroids - slow, terrible fielder and hit berry berry many homeruns and brought baseball back into the spotlight.

despite what the league says, steroids brought back and likely saved the game.</end quote></div>

Baseball was never in danger of collapsing in the late 90's.</end quote></div>

yeah that whole strike thing didnt do anything bad i guess :thumbsdown:</end quote></div>
When did I say the strike didn't have any negative effects? It had many. But the league was never in danger of collapsing. Baseball did not need steroids to save the game. Steroids was a temporary fix at best, which has unleashed a whole new set of negative effects today.

While steroid-pumped players playing home-run derby was exciting for a few years, it got very old very fast. Steroids do not win championships. Pitching, defense, and smart hitting wins championships. Barry Bonds is weeks away from breaking the greatest record in all of sports, and almost no one cares. Just like when Sosa left the Cubs, once Bonds retires, the fans in San Fransisco will realize there are more important things in the game than to watch one player continue to play home run derby while the team remains in last place.

You couldn't be more wrong, I was a kid (10-12) at the time of the strike and it killed baseball for me. I had 1000's of baseball cards and I just stopped caring.

You seem to be a hardcore baseball fan. Good for you, but hardcore baseball fans didn't need anything to bring them back. It is the kids and the casual fans that needed something to bring them back to baseball. And I didn't come back until I was 18 or so.

It's the same as the hockey strike, hockey didn't need to convince it's base to come back, it needed to get more people that watched a few games a year to come to the rinks and watch on TV.

With the rise of the NFL if something hadn't happened baseball would have never recovered if not for the roid era.


Also, as a ranger fan he has been playing very well. Average doesn't show it, but look at his RBI's. That shows how well he is hitting with runners in scoring position, which I will take any day over meaningless singles with 2 outs and the game out of hand. He has stepped up to be a team player. The only "show-off" thing you see now is that he still has the hop. Other than that he has been working hard.

Hate him because he did steroids. OK, hate 80% of the players (if not more) from that era. It doesn't change the fact that he still outshone everyone else on steroids, not to mention that the pitchers were pitching faster and healing faster due to steroids and HGH.

Anyone who believes that less than 70-80% of players in that era were on steroids is just dead wrong, if you think that any athelete hitting .250 making less than a million a year looked at Sammy and McGuire and knew they were on the juice but said "no my numbers mean more because I am not" is kidding themselves. I am sure all the players knew what was going on, and I am sure at least most of them tried to help their career and rise to the same level by taking them.

So in conclusion, yes he is a hall of famer, yes he has been an ass but I think the past few years really humbled him (I mean he took a $500k minor league contract for goodness' sakes) and now he is a mediocre player but has really come through in the clutch for a horrible team that really needs him to step up right now.

 

[rh71]

tainted... the game is forever tainted in my eyes... I used to know every player's name - now I can't even name 3 guys from every team.

 

[Compton]

cork and juice FTW!

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: aurareturn
When will people stop watching baseball? The sport is more boring than golf and almost everyone is a cheater.

Wow...you're an idiot.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: aurareturn
When will people stop watching baseball? The sport is more boring than golf and almost everyone is a cheater.</end quote></div>

Ironically, the same could be said (and should be said) about NASCAR.

You mean NECKCAR? The left turn only guys? Agreed.

 

[Printer Bandit]

samosa....yummm!

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Baseball was never in danger of collapsing in the late 90's.

yeah that whole strike thing didnt do anything bad i guess :thumbsdown:

When did I say the strike didn't have any negative effects? It had many. But the league was never in danger of collapsing. Baseball did not need steroids to save the game. Steroids was a temporary fix at best, which has unleashed a whole new set of negative effects today.

While steroid-pumped players playing home-run derby was exciting for a few years, it got very old very fast. Steroids do not win championships. Pitching, defense, and smart hitting wins championships. Barry Bonds is weeks away from breaking the greatest record in all of sports, and almost no one cares. Just like when Sosa left the Cubs, once Bonds retires, the fans in San Fransisco will realize there are more important things in the game than to watch one player continue to play home run derby while the team remains in last place.

You couldn't be more wrong, I was a kid (10-12) at the time of the strike and it killed baseball for me. I had 1000's of baseball cards and I just stopped caring.

You seem to be a hardcore baseball fan. Good for you, but hardcore baseball fans didn't need anything to bring them back. It is the kids and the casual fans that needed something to bring them back to baseball. And I didn't come back until I was 18 or so.

It's the same as the hockey strike, hockey didn't need to convince it's base to come back, it needed to get more people that watched a few games a year to come to the rinks and watch on TV.

With the rise of the NFL if something hadn't happened baseball would have never recovered if not for the roid era.


Also, as a ranger fan he has been playing very well. Average doesn't show it, but look at his RBI's. That shows how well he is hitting with runners in scoring position, which I will take any day over meaningless singles with 2 outs and the game out of hand. He has stepped up to be a team player. The only "show-off" thing you see now is that he still has the hop. Other than that he has been working hard.

Hate him because he did steroids. OK, hate 80% of the players (if not more) from that era. It doesn't change the fact that he still outshone everyone else on steroids, not to mention that the pitchers were pitching faster and healing faster due to steroids and HGH.

Anyone who believes that less than 70-80% of players in that era were on steroids is just dead wrong, if you think that any athelete hitting .250 making less than a million a year looked at Sammy and McGuire and knew they were on the juice but said "no my numbers mean more because I am not" is kidding themselves. I am sure all the players knew what was going on, and I am sure at least most of them tried to help their career and rise to the same level by taking them.

So in conclusion, yes he is a hall of famer, yes he has been an ass but I think the past few years really humbled him (I mean he took a $500k minor league contract for goodness' sakes) and now he is a mediocre player but has really come through in the clutch for a horrible team that really needs him to step up right now.

What am I wrong about? Just because you didn't care about baseball in the mid to late 90's doesn't mean the league was in imminent danger. Anything beyond that is all speculation and we'll be going around in circles playing the maybe & what-if game analyzing what could have happened if not for steroids. But come on, you really think the league would have folded? Not a chance. They may have gone through with contracting a few teams, but not fold the whole league.

As for whether Sosa is a HOFer or not, Mark McGwire was the first test, and the votes are just not on his side. Sosa is not much different from McGwire. If I were running the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose would be inducted before McGwire, Sosa, or Bonds have any remote chance of consideration. But that's just me.

Where does Sosa fit into the Rangers' plans as an organization? He's got a lot of RBIs for a half-season, but history suggest he will fall back down to the average for someone hitting .255 and on-base of .308. The Rangers cannot build around Sosa, he's only going to be in the game another year or two before retiring. He's occupying a roster spot that could better be used to prepare a young player. If the Rangers do not have someone in their farm system that can reproduce Sosa's numbers, then your team is in serious trouble. As a Rangers fan, you've got to be pissed off with the direction the team is taking, do I need mention the trade giving away Chris Young and company? As a fan you've got to demand more of a team than just bringing in Sammy Sosa as a sideshow to bop a few home runs and put a few butts in the seats.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
With the controversy surrounding Bonds, I'm wondering what some of the baseball fans on this forum think of Sosa. Personally, I'm suspicious of his most recent comeback. In 2005, his last Major League season, this guy couldn't catch up with a fastball. Pitchers continually challenged him down the middle of the plate and he was unable to make anything of it.

His stats are here - http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sosasa01.shtml

What we're seeing, though, is an aging guy (38 now) who, all of a sudden can hit again. This is the same guy who certainly lies in the shadow of steroids vis-a-vis his home run derbies in the early 2000s. This is also a guy who was caught corking his bat.

I just cannot believe these doubts are not resurfacing, now that he's "magically" resurrected his career.

he'll never have any credibility.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: thepd7
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: cubby1223
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ric1287
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: cubby1223
Baseball was never in danger of collapsing in the late 90's.</end quote></div>

yeah that whole strike thing didnt do anything bad i guess :thumbsdown:</end quote></div>
When did I say the strike didn't have any negative effects? It had many. But the league was never in danger of collapsing. Baseball did not need steroids to save the game. Steroids was a temporary fix at best, which has unleashed a whole new set of negative effects today.

While steroid-pumped players playing home-run derby was exciting for a few years, it got very old very fast. Steroids do not win championships. Pitching, defense, and smart hitting wins championships. Barry Bonds is weeks away from breaking the greatest record in all of sports, and almost no one cares. Just like when Sosa left the Cubs, once Bonds retires, the fans in San Fransisco will realize there are more important things in the game than to watch one player continue to play home run derby while the team remains in last place.</end quote></div>

You couldn't be more wrong, I was a kid (10-12) at the time of the strike and it killed baseball for me. I had 1000's of baseball cards and I just stopped caring.

You seem to be a hardcore baseball fan. Good for you, but hardcore baseball fans didn't need anything to bring them back. It is the kids and the casual fans that needed something to bring them back to baseball. And I didn't come back until I was 18 or so.

It's the same as the hockey strike, hockey didn't need to convince it's base to come back, it needed to get more people that watched a few games a year to come to the rinks and watch on TV.

With the rise of the NFL if something hadn't happened baseball would have never recovered if not for the roid era.


Also, as a ranger fan he has been playing very well. Average doesn't show it, but look at his RBI's. That shows how well he is hitting with runners in scoring position, which I will take any day over meaningless singles with 2 outs and the game out of hand. He has stepped up to be a team player. The only "show-off" thing you see now is that he still has the hop. Other than that he has been working hard.

Hate him because he did steroids. OK, hate 80% of the players (if not more) from that era. It doesn't change the fact that he still outshone everyone else on steroids, not to mention that the pitchers were pitching faster and healing faster due to steroids and HGH.

Anyone who believes that less than 70-80% of players in that era were on steroids is just dead wrong, if you think that any athelete hitting .250 making less than a million a year looked at Sammy and McGuire and knew they were on the juice but said "no my numbers mean more because I am not" is kidding themselves. I am sure all the players knew what was going on, and I am sure at least most of them tried to help their career and rise to the same level by taking them.

So in conclusion, yes he is a hall of famer, yes he has been an ass but I think the past few years really humbled him (I mean he took a $500k minor league contract for goodness' sakes) and now he is a mediocre player but has really come through in the clutch for a horrible team that really needs him to step up right now. </end quote></div>
What am I wrong about? Just because you didn't care about baseball in the mid to late 90's doesn't mean the league was in imminent danger. Anything beyond that is all speculation and we'll be going around in circles playing the maybe & what-if game analyzing what could have happened if not for steroids. But come on, you really think the league would have folded? Not a chance. They may have gone through with contracting a few teams, but not fold the whole league.

As for whether Sosa is a HOFer or not, Mark McGwire was the first test, and the votes are just not on his side. Sosa is not much different from McGwire. If I were running the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose would be inducted before McGwire, Sosa, or Bonds have any remote chance of consideration. But that's just me.

Where does Sosa fit into the Rangers' plans as an organization? He's got a lot of RBIs for a half-season, but history suggest he will fall back down to the average for someone hitting .255 and on-base of .308. The Rangers cannot build around Sosa, he's only going to be in the game another year or two before retiring. He's occupying a roster spot that could better be used to prepare a young player. If the Rangers do not have someone in their farm system that can reproduce Sosa's numbers, then your team is in serious trouble. As a Rangers fan, you've got to be pissed off with the direction the team is taking, do I need mention the trade giving away Chris Young and company? As a fan you've got to demand more of a team than just bringing in Sammy Sosa as a sideshow to bop a few home runs and put a few butts in the seats.

Without the steroid era the MLB would be the NHL, steady fan base but little to no casual fan draw.

Mark McGuire hit 583 home runs and was a .263 lifetime hitter.

Sammy Sosa is at 602 home runs with a .274 career average. Big difference? No, but he has done something only 5 other baseball players have done, steroids or not. 600 home runs should be automatic, just like 3000 hits.

Put Pete Rose in first, okay I somewhat agree. Problem is he got caught, Sammy didn't.

As for where he fits in the Ranger's plan, we weren't supposed to be rebuilding this year. At least 1 national analyst picked us to win the west, who knew our 1, 2, and 3 starting pitchers would completely tank?

I am pissed at the direction the team is taking, Tom Hicks is an absolute idiot. The jury is still out on Jon Daniels for right now but we will find out in the next year or so if he is just as dumb. But as for the job he is doing this season (I could care less about history), he is the best player on the rangers right now (save Cam Loe in his past 4 starts or Otsuka/Gagne).

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: thepd7
Sammy Sosa is at 602 home runs with a .274 career average. Big difference? No, but he has done something only 5 other baseball players have done, steroids or not. 600 home runs should be automatic, just like 3000 hits.

Put Pete Rose in first, okay I somewhat agree. Problem is he got caught, Sammy didn't.

Do you not understand what steroids has done to the game of baseball? Baseball has always been a game defined by numbers and statistics. Steroids has made all these numbers irrelevant. 500 home runs was the mark of a guaranteed HOFer, and McGwire has already shown this mark is no longer reality. Voters are doing the right thing and looking at the player beyond his raw numbers.

You say it right there - if tomorrow it were somehow definitively proven Sosa used steroids heavily from '98 forward, is he no longer a Hall of Famer? Why not? What would have changed in Sosa's career between today and tomorrow?

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: thepd7
Sammy Sosa is at 602 home runs with a .274 career average. Big difference? No, but he has done something only 5 other baseball players have done, steroids or not. 600 home runs should be automatic, just like 3000 hits.

Put Pete Rose in first, okay I somewhat agree. Problem is he got caught, Sammy didn't.</end quote></div>

Do you not understand what steroids has done to the game of baseball? Baseball has always been a game defined by numbers and statistics. Steroids has made all these numbers irrelevant. 500 home runs was the mark of a guaranteed HOFer, and McGwire has already shown this mark is no longer reality. Voters are doing the right thing and looking at the player beyond his raw numbers.

You say it right there - if tomorrow it were somehow definitively proven Sosa used steroids heavily from '98 forward, is he no longer a Hall of Famer? Why not? What would have changed in Sosa's career between today and tomorrow?

if he was proven to be a cheater, then no he doesn't get in. But if their are no facts, then 600 home runs = in.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: thepd7
Sammy Sosa is at 602 home runs with a .274 career average. Big difference? No, but he has done something only 5 other baseball players have done, steroids or not. 600 home runs should be automatic, just like 3000 hits.

Put Pete Rose in first, okay I somewhat agree. Problem is he got caught, Sammy didn't.</end quote></div>

Do you not understand what steroids has done to the game of baseball? Baseball has always been a game defined by numbers and statistics. Steroids has made all these numbers irrelevant. 500 home runs was the mark of a guaranteed HOFer, and McGwire has already shown this mark is no longer reality. Voters are doing the right thing and looking at the player beyond his raw numbers.

You say it right there - if tomorrow it were somehow definitively proven Sosa used steroids heavily from '98 forward, is he no longer a Hall of Famer? Why not? What would have changed in Sosa's career between today and tomorrow?

He would still be a hall of famer.
Why?
1. It wasn't against the rules
2. If most of the people in the game were cheating, who were the best cheaters? Sosa was definately at the top.

You can't tell me that the majority of players weren't cheating, and since they were and the best numbers came from Sosa, by default he would have been one of the best without steroids too. Therefore, hall of fame.

But it wasn't proven so you don't even have that argument, he's gotta be in. 600 HRs and he is in.