Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

biggentleben

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,657

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by biggentleben

  1. biggentleben
    Certainly knocks down the opportunity to hear excellent jazz down the halls of HOF.
  2. biggentleben
    You honestly believe he was taking it at that point? His closest friends and advisors that have stated that he did use all say that it was in response to 1998's attention to two guys who were obviously bending rules. If you look through 1998, Bonds put up a 164 OPS+, 400+ home runs and 400+ stolen bases, and he won 3 MVPs (should have been 4 in a row) and placed in the top 5 of MVP voting 7 times while winning 8 Gold Gloves (and was renowned as a great fielder, one thing that obviously disappeared after 1998). That player is a HOF player every single day.
  3. biggentleben
    I have a friend whose son's passing has made national news recently. The Vikings, his favorite team since his formative years in the northern suburbs, sent along two items, signed just before the game Saturday...
  4. biggentleben
    I remember Sosa. Not sure about this other guy. Nevermind that both of them have admitted to andro and creatine, both of which were available at your local GNC at the time.
  5. biggentleben
    Note my clarification "as in tested for".
  6. biggentleben
    And Ken Caminiti lost his life due to steroid use. Many players went downhill after reported steroid use, just like many improved. You want to see only those who gained from the drugs, just like only seeing those who are mentally ill and attack someone will confirm a bias someone has against the mentally ill. Neither is correct.
  7. biggentleben
    As easily as someone can claim anyone currently in the Hall is clean...
  8. biggentleben
    Except that every sport has them considered performance enhancers, and they've always been illegal without a prescription in the form that was utilized in baseball. Greenies aren't your old Excedrin. They're concentrated amphetamine, and ABSOLUTELY a performance enhancer. You do realize that there are more evidenced research studies done that find steroids do NOT enhance quick twitch performance (basically hitting or throwing a baseball). There are plenty of other studies that state that steroids actually slow down quick-twitch reactions, so they make a baseball player worse, not better. Not every person responds the same to every drug, but to claim amphetamines are not enhancing and steroids are as a blanket statement is simply incorrect.
  9. biggentleben
    Never said he did. I'm saying if he pitched in the 1960s, no one would EVER consider him a HOF pitcher.
  10. biggentleben
    So you're good with removing Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth from the Hall of Fame, then? Seeing as the racist rules of the game skewed the whole game in their era, they shouldn't be in, and voters should do the job that baseball didn't in that era, right?
  11. biggentleben
    You vote the era. Drug use was rampant from the 40s through the 80s. The best players weren't even allowed to play until the 1940s, so any numbers weren't truly put up against the best the game had to offer. The 90s and 2000s saw the steroid era. The 1960s are considered a major pitcher's era because of the mound height change that was later changed back. Jack Morris pitching in the 1960s doesn't even make a second ballot. You have to go by the era the player played in. If he was, in fact, one of the absolute elite in his era, he's in. If you start to police the game, you need to remove everyone from the Hall because there are no clean players in the Hall. Not one.
  12. biggentleben
    Complete homer pick, but I would LOVE to see Maddux break Seaver's record.
  13. biggentleben
    Then you'd need to dump 90% of the Hall of Famers from DiMaggio to Mantle to Mays for all the amphetamines ("Greenies") taken for over 50 years of the game before they were even outlawed (remember that steroids weren't specifically outlawed - as in tested for - until Barry Bonds was already an easy Hall of Fame choice). Those greenies were illegal in the general public just as steroids have been, and they've actually been proven to improve total performance. There is no such thing as a clean era in the HOF.
  14. biggentleben
    Kalil was not a Vikings pick. He was picked by the Panthers.
  15. biggentleben
    Hate to break this to you, but none of the pro athletes I know feel this way, so either my sample is very anti- your argument, or your argument is invalid and incorrect.
  16. biggentleben
    freshinthehouse said they're not sniffing the playoffs. What is all this playoff talk about?!
  17. biggentleben
    They're playing the 1991 World Series game 7 with Morris and Smoltz in the interview room with Bob Costas. Fun watch, but it's very easy to understand why my fellow Braves fans cannot stand Kent Hrbek and speak of him with four-letter adjectives.
  18. biggentleben
    Who knows what you'll get from Garza as he returns from injury this year, and Samardzija has shown exactly nothing thus far to be called "standout". He is a mid-3s xFIP guy in a league and age when low-3s is expected from top guys and under 3 should be expected of a "standout". He has some solid peripherals, and if he could stretch out some to pitch more and more consistently this season, he could take steps, but he's not there yet.
  19. biggentleben
    Mark Cuban would be great for baseball for the following reasons: he would get Bud out, he would not accept the "old boys club" secret society that is so secretive about the finances of teams, and he would be a driving owner in finally getting certain baseball issues solved (i.e. DH either in both leagues or in neither league - I favor neither, but that's my love for pitching and defense showing through). Mark Cuban would be terrible for baseball for the following reasons: he would remove a LOT of the "gentleman" aspect of baseball, he would be the type of owner who would encourage an on-field fight, and he'd likely set the market even more skewed against small market teams.
  20. biggentleben
    The current ownership team has not built a championship team. They've just torn one apart. They had nothing to do with 1997 or the aftermath.
  21. biggentleben
    Not fact. The current ownership group took over in 2002. The pieces to that 2003 team were already there when they took over. So the current ownership's strategy has won them 87 games in 2009, but other than that, their building has left the organization with a sub .500 record, even with the championship season.
  22. biggentleben
    FWIW, ESPN learned quickly the secret to Barry. He loves guys that he gets to know, and he had a good rep with his own beat writers that had been around a while. That's why Pedro Gomez basically covered Barry for about 4 years for ESPN. So Bonds wasn't a despicable human to all those in the media, just those who came on too strong, too soon. What I don't like about the 'roids argument is that there's no way to know for certain, and on top of that, there's no way to know how much help someone got from taking steroids. Would Barry have topped out at his 1993 levels if he hadn't touched 'roids, because that guy was a world-beater already? Would Clemens have been the guy who left Boston in the early 90s, because that guy was already one of the better pitchers of his generation? How do you measure their achievements versus those who you let in from the same era? Nevermind that there are numerous guys in the hall of fame now who took banned substances in the 1950s and 1960s, but no one said a word when their name came up on the ballot.
  23. biggentleben
    Heck, I'm just happy when someone uses the words "bipolar" and not "manic depressive", and that change was made when my father was in high school (and I was born before Reagan was in office).
  24. biggentleben
    The media basically understands very little about the autism spectrum, but that "very little" is much more than they know about personality disorders. Heck, the common person does not understand much, if anything, about personality disorders. Watch the television, and you'll see stories about multiple personality disorder - something that has no mental health backing and even its closest relative (disassociative personality disorder) removed from the DSM-V, but most people you ask would state that someone in a mental hospital very possibly may have multiple personality disorder. Obsessive compulsive disorder is in the grouping of personality disorders, but it is far different than borderline personality disorder, so there is a wide array of things to know in the area, and believe me when I say the media knows NONE of it. In fact, if they did, there would actually be something to latch onto and "blame" depending on if it was ever diagnosed within the personality disorder family - antisocial personality disorder, whose sufferers typically will commit numerous petty crimes as an essential "need" to fight against rules of society, and a person with this disorder can actually be driven in anger to the point of lashing out physically and violently.
  25. biggentleben
    It's as much for funding as anything else, but that is the classification. Medicare/Medicaid issues weigh heavily into that, based primarily, as Lev referenced, on the most recent DSM. The DSM-V has no announced changes regarding autism and where it falls, so I would wager it will remain classified that way for another decade or more.
×
×
  • Create New...