The roundtable is back as our editing staff sits down and discusses the biggest stories in baseball from the past week. Three questions that cover everything from potential Hall of Famers to current division races to your favorite play to watch on the ballpark. Here’s this week’s roundtable…
Strike 1: The biggest question with Jim Thome’s 600th home run may have to do with the steroid era. How do we view players that played in the steroid era that were never proven to be using performance enhancing drugs? Does Thome’s rep rise above as clean, or does everyone with impressive numbers from this era need to be viewed with a cloud of suspicion?
Matt Lindner: Guys like Jim Thome and Frank Thomas need to be celebrated even more so than most ballplayers for avoiding the cloud of suspicion when it seemingly enshrouded everyone else around them. Thome in particular has earned his reputation for being who he is – this generation’s blue collar superstar, a genuinely good guy who probably spends his off days helping little old ladies cross the street and/or working on a cure for cancer. All kidding aside, the fact that Thome was able to amass those numbers without resorting to the tactics that others (allegedly) did to help his game makes him a first ballot Hall-of-Famer. As a member of the Indians.
Daniel Moroz: Frankly, I don’t really care that much. Thome hit 600 home runs. That’s pretty awesome. He also walked a ton. Also awesome.
Pat Lackey: I absolutely hate the moral policing that goes on during Hall of Fame voting time, so my stance is that if the writers want to keep Jeff Bagwell out because they think he might have maybe used steroids at some point, then they also have to keep Thome out and they should’ve kept Ripken and Gwynn out as well because they played in the same era. That’s never going to happen, though, and I suspect that in the long run either the deserving guys will make it, steroids or no, or I’ll just stop caring about the Hall of Fame all together.
Garrett Wilson: This whole assuming who is clean and who is not is beyond stupid. Everyone likes Jim Thome, so he must be clean, and he probably is, but we have no proof one way or the other. The opposite case is true as well for many of the suspected but unproven juicers out there. Let’s not forget that a few years ago, Manny Ramirez was a charter member of the “he is great and he doesn’t juice” slugger club. Oops! Look, Thome should get in to the Hall, regardless. As should many of the guys who used are suspected of using steroids. If you want to keep a guy like McGwire out because he admitted to using steroids, fine, but don’t block somebody because you think that they probably might have possibly used steroids, allegedly.
Mark Smith: Whether we like it or not, players with big HR totals will be looked at with suspicion. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is what happens. My guess with Thome is that he’s on the other side of where Bagwell is. Both should be in the Hall of Fame, but there are unsubstantiated steroid accusations for both of them. Thome, because of his reputation as such a standout guy, will be given the benefit of the doubt. Bagwell, who has a slightly surlier reputation with the media, has not been given the same treatment. The moralization and difference with which these players are treated is reprehensible, but there’s no way to really stop it.
Strike 2: Arizona has opened up a 3.5 game lead over the Giants in the NL West? Can they hold off San Francisco for the last month and a half in one of the few remaining races in baseball?
Daniel: Yeah, they can. I think I said previously when the Diamondbacks were in second that they very possibly were the better team anyway, so starting out with a lead just improves their chances.
Mark: It’s starting to look more like it, especially as the Giants continue to deal with injuries and Justin Upton being an MVP candidate. Still time for the Giants, though.
Garrett: Why not? It seems pretty likely that the D’Backs actually are the better team. The Giants can barely score a run right now and have actually now got a negative run differential on the season which is hardly indicative of them being the cream of the NL West crop. The Giants definitely still have a chance since they are a veteran squad that knows how to handle playoff race pressure, something the young D’Backs have not yet experienced.
Pat: Yeah, they certainly can. That Giants’ team can’t hit at all, even with Beltran back in the lineup. The D’Backs pitching isn’t great, but combined with their offense there’s no reason they can’t hold the Giants off.
Matt: San Francisco has been fading mightily since the Beltran trade. In this case, I think the D’Backs’ youth and relative inexperience will actually help them. They’ve never experienced this kind of pressure so really even if they do choke down the stretch, they have no idea what they’d be missing out on to begin with.
Strike 3: We’ve seen two triple plays this week in baseball. If you go to a game, what one singular play would you want to see? Triple play? Walk off home run? Sacrifice bunt? Something else?
Pat: How about a bases loaded, down by two runs, walkoff double or triple? Runners having to come all the way around the bases add just a dash more drama than a run-of-the-mill walkoff homer.
Mark: I went to the game in Cincy in which Uggla hit the winning home run in the top of the ninth. It was awesome. If it was the bottom of the ninth, it would have been awesomer.
Matt: Walkoff home run, and it’s not even close. There are few experiences more aesthetically pleasing at a baseball game than a walkoff homer. From the crack of the bat to the dejected look on the opposing pitcher’s face to the outfielder racing back as far as he can go until there’s nothing left for him to do but look up and watch his night go from cool to crappy in an instant.
Daniel: An Orioles win? Walk-off home run seems pretty good, because of the added benefits (the W). Otherwise maybe an inside the park home run, since it seems like the single play that one could enjoy for the longest amount of time. And mighty exciting, to boot.
Garrett: I’ve got to go with a straight steal of home. Nobody does that anymore and I think it would be pretty exciting to see a guy take off from third unexpectedly followed by the undoubtedly close play at the plate, which is an exciting event in its own right. It is like a 2-for-1 deal on exhilarating baseball action.
