"As I've been told repeatedly, you aren't allowed an opinion unless you actually played at at least a college level."
I think you are introducing a straw-man.
Albert Pujols' career OPS has already fallen from 1.037 to 1.025 since joining the Angels.
Following the 2009 season, his career OPS peaked at 1.055. It has decreased by 30 points since. And his OPS from the age of 30 forward is a mere .911.
His on-base percentage during this time, .375, is .052 points lower than his career mark in 2009 (.427), and his slugging percentage during this time, .536, is .092 points lower than his career mark in 2009 (.628). In total, that's a .144 difference in OPS.
Pujols after 42 games -
2011: .259/.332/.407/.739 with 7 HR, 24 RBI2012: .212/.256/.318/.574 with 3 HR, 18 RBI
"They are accomplished sportswriters"
LOL oooh sportswriters, very prestigious people. You're right, they are all knowing and all powerful, while we are mere peasants who require their wisdom and guidance.
You may have quoted my full statement but you are still struggling to comprehend it. "by way of anything other than the stats they put up" Now you have a point about writers being qualified to vote according to what they see on the field, something I already agreed with. HOWEVER, you're whole "they're sportswriters and I worship them" speel is not a solid qualification for them to be the final judge on moral turpitude and THAT'S what I was alluding to. What I said (which clearly went over your head) was that they are fine judges of players' PLAYING careers, but who are they to decide what's right and wrong and what's moral or not? Especially when we're talking about something like steroids, which were not against MLB's rules, but apparently against your hero sportswriter's "rules".
"Who are you?"
I am LetsGoZito.
"HOWEVER, you're whole 'they're sportswriters and I worship them'"...
- I never said this or anything close to it. If you are going to fabricate things and present them as my personal quote, we are through discussing this. I loath a liar.
"What I said (which clearly went over your head) was that they are fine judges of players' PLAYING careers, but who are they to decide what's right and wrong and what's moral or not?"
- Well, let's see... "they" are the professional observers with the most access to these players. Morality is part of the criteria for voters. Did you know this?
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/bbwaa
"Especially when we're talking about something like steroids, which were not against MLB's rules, but apparently against your hero sportswriter's "rules"."
PEDs violate the rules of admission into the Hall as well as the civil law. The sportswriters did not write the rules.
"I am LetsGoZito."
You are a liar and ignorant of MLB.
I am just trying to help you to understand.
Well, how many years of watching game after game, writing article after article, doing interview after interview, day in and day out....
We let a jury decide a man's life in a matter of a few weeks.
"steroids, which were not against MLB's rules"
Yes, they were.
90% of sports writers are straight up idiots (hyperbole). I'm not sure any of the are qualified to make moral judgements about things that were not even against the rules of baseball.
Besides, I bet $100 that Hank Aaron was a juicer.
"PEDs violate the rules of admission into the Hall as well as the civil law. The sportswriters did not write the rules."
That's not at all true. Further, why is it ok for some guys who clearly used PEDs, Pudge, and not others, McGwire?
I'm fine with everyone who got caught and was suspended after they were banned from baseball being ruled out. But Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmiero... these guys were never caught.
Hank Aaron was never caught either.
In the Mitchell Report? Those results were never supposed to be public.
Or was he caught after when testing was introduced?