Barry Bonds...What If?
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
I have to admit that I am a fan of Barry Bonds. When I was in high
school, a .600 slugging percentage and a .400 on base percentage
would regularly lead the league. I used to think, how can anybody
ever approach .847 (Ruth) and .551 (Williams)? Well, Bonds has
approached and in fact, passed these marks. That alone is worth
the cost of admission.
Now, I am not here to say that Bonds has or has not used steroids.
No one truly knows that except for Bonds himself. But for the sake
of argument, let's assume:
1. Bonds admits to using steriods.
2. He goes so far as to inject himself on national television while
standing in the batters box with steroids.
Then what? Are his records tainted? Sure. Will his records be wiped
from the books? More interesting question.
In May 2002, Ken Caminiti told Sports Illustrated that he used steroids
during his MVP when he hit .326 with 40 home runs and 130 RIBs.
Now, I may be mistaken (and if so, please inform me otherwise), I have
never heard anyone mention that Mike Piazza should be declared the
1996 NL MVP. (Piazza finished second to Caminiti, 392 to 237). Or that
Caminiti's 1996 season stats should be ELIMINATED or even REDUCED.
(And if they were to be reduced due to steriods, how can we ever
quantify such a reduction.) In which case, it appears to me that non-
steriods stats and steriods enhanced will not be officially changed anytime
soon; much less seasonal awards.
Now, I suspect that part of the anger/disdain for Bonds is that his alleged
use of steroids has enable to set these all-time records. Would there be
the same level of disdain towards Bonds (much less any attention being
paid to him) if his alleged use of steriods enabled him to achieve really
good stats, BUT NOT all-time stats, e.g. .350 BA, 50 HR, .700 SLG, .500
OBA.
I think some people would still hold disdain towards Bonds, but not at the
same level as it is. To me, this is nothing more than a distinction without
a difference.
Are we angry at him because he allegedly usedsteroids? Or are we angry
at him because he allegedly used steroids AND set all-time records?
Regardless, Bonds' stats, awards and achievements are likely to remain where
they presently are at.
I have to admit, there is a certain part of me that wishes that it could be
established without ANY doubt (greater than beyond a reasonable doubt)
that Bonds used steroids. I'd be curious to see how MLB would handle the
situation.
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. One final note and by way of analogy. In high school sports, when a team uses
an inelligible player and it is later discovered as such, the team ends up
forfeiting all of its victories. Can you imagine that for the San Francisco Giants?
Their records going from what it is to 0-162 for 2001, 2002 and 2003? Now
that would be something!
school, a .600 slugging percentage and a .400 on base percentage
would regularly lead the league. I used to think, how can anybody
ever approach .847 (Ruth) and .551 (Williams)? Well, Bonds has
approached and in fact, passed these marks. That alone is worth
the cost of admission.
Now, I am not here to say that Bonds has or has not used steroids.
No one truly knows that except for Bonds himself. But for the sake
of argument, let's assume:
1. Bonds admits to using steriods.
2. He goes so far as to inject himself on national television while
standing in the batters box with steroids.
Then what? Are his records tainted? Sure. Will his records be wiped
from the books? More interesting question.
In May 2002, Ken Caminiti told Sports Illustrated that he used steroids
during his MVP when he hit .326 with 40 home runs and 130 RIBs.
Now, I may be mistaken (and if so, please inform me otherwise), I have
never heard anyone mention that Mike Piazza should be declared the
1996 NL MVP. (Piazza finished second to Caminiti, 392 to 237). Or that
Caminiti's 1996 season stats should be ELIMINATED or even REDUCED.
(And if they were to be reduced due to steriods, how can we ever
quantify such a reduction.) In which case, it appears to me that non-
steriods stats and steriods enhanced will not be officially changed anytime
soon; much less seasonal awards.
Now, I suspect that part of the anger/disdain for Bonds is that his alleged
use of steroids has enable to set these all-time records. Would there be
the same level of disdain towards Bonds (much less any attention being
paid to him) if his alleged use of steriods enabled him to achieve really
good stats, BUT NOT all-time stats, e.g. .350 BA, 50 HR, .700 SLG, .500
OBA.
I think some people would still hold disdain towards Bonds, but not at the
same level as it is. To me, this is nothing more than a distinction without
a difference.
Are we angry at him because he allegedly usedsteroids? Or are we angry
at him because he allegedly used steroids AND set all-time records?
Regardless, Bonds' stats, awards and achievements are likely to remain where
they presently are at.
I have to admit, there is a certain part of me that wishes that it could be
established without ANY doubt (greater than beyond a reasonable doubt)
that Bonds used steroids. I'd be curious to see how MLB would handle the
situation.
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. One final note and by way of analogy. In high school sports, when a team uses
an inelligible player and it is later discovered as such, the team ends up
forfeiting all of its victories. Can you imagine that for the San Francisco Giants?
Their records going from what it is to 0-162 for 2001, 2002 and 2003? Now
that would be something!
0
Comments
But his OBP record should stay. He got that record by getting so many walks, by not swinging, so his muscles never came into play directly. That irony would probably be lost, though.
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
<< <i>Even if Bonds admitted to using the steroids, there were no disqualifacation rules about steroids in baseball. Basically, what is done is done. The Bonds haters have to live with it, just like I have to live with the fact that over 50% of the people in this country are happy with the way things are going. >>
Ignorance is bliss?