Barry Bonds and his place in history.....
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
The guy juiced, period.
His contemporary sluggers juiced as well, period.
But the fact that he has outdistanced every single slugger from his own time to such a great degree, it is getting very hard to deny Bonds' place among the immortals.
Check out Bonds's OPS+ finishes, and remember, this is a comparison against all the other juiced sluggers too(Giambi, Palmeiro,
Bagwell, Pujols, Arod, Sheffield, McGwire, Sosa, etc.., etc..., etc...).
OPS+ finishes
1st = 10 times
2nd = 3 times
3rd = 2 imes
5th = 1 times
That is out of 19 qualifying seasons!
Players from the first half of the century did not juice, but their outlandish numbers are a result of the environement of the league, as opposed to just ability. Both era's have pumped up the players numbers...from different reasons of course, but nonetheless, I don't take Ruth's outhomering every team at face value either...there are reasons he did that...reasons that are unique to his era. Mike Schmidt, given the same circumstances, would also outhomer many teams as well.
Everybody's all time lists are FILLED to the gills with all the first half century guys, and that should raise eyebrows if you are interested in truth. But if somebody is simply going to take all those numbers at face value and IGNORE the environment which caused them, then you MUST also take these numbers at face value...ethics aside.
Or you can be wise, and dig a little deeper on ALL of them
.
His contemporary sluggers juiced as well, period.
But the fact that he has outdistanced every single slugger from his own time to such a great degree, it is getting very hard to deny Bonds' place among the immortals.
Check out Bonds's OPS+ finishes, and remember, this is a comparison against all the other juiced sluggers too(Giambi, Palmeiro,
Bagwell, Pujols, Arod, Sheffield, McGwire, Sosa, etc.., etc..., etc...).
OPS+ finishes
1st = 10 times
2nd = 3 times
3rd = 2 imes
5th = 1 times
That is out of 19 qualifying seasons!
Players from the first half of the century did not juice, but their outlandish numbers are a result of the environement of the league, as opposed to just ability. Both era's have pumped up the players numbers...from different reasons of course, but nonetheless, I don't take Ruth's outhomering every team at face value either...there are reasons he did that...reasons that are unique to his era. Mike Schmidt, given the same circumstances, would also outhomer many teams as well.
Everybody's all time lists are FILLED to the gills with all the first half century guys, and that should raise eyebrows if you are interested in truth. But if somebody is simply going to take all those numbers at face value and IGNORE the environment which caused them, then you MUST also take these numbers at face value...ethics aside.
Or you can be wise, and dig a little deeper on ALL of them
.0
Comments
Love him or hate him - He is one of the best ever.
<< <i>I do not think it is fair to include A Rod and Pujols in the juiced column along with known juicers such as Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Giambi, and Sosa. Those guys have shown or done nothing to indicate they were juiced. >>
I disagree, Pujols gained 20 to 30 pounds of muscle his first two seasons. I would like to believe Arod is clean. Most of these guys all did some kind a performance drug when they were younger. I don't think PID's do much for a players ability to play better, but rather help them avoid injuries and have longer careers (This is especially true for pitchers).
Another question, we all know Giambi Juiced, why is it he gets a pass in the media? Maybe Bonds should have played for the Yankees, he'd be clean as a whistle then.
Collecting all cards - Gus Zernial
Post Cereal both raw and PSA Graded (1961-1963)
The point is, the degree of which Bonds has outdistanced all these guys on various types of muscle builders, should show he belongs with the other immortals from the first half of the century(most of which have enhanced stats for other reasons).
Please reread the thread, as you didn't quite get the meaning. I am complimenting the skills of the biggest user of all....Barry Bonds. Not sure how that is jealousy. And yes, any player worth his salt does some sort of nutritional supplement. There may be a few outsiders, and not all do steroids, but they certainly do an element of something fairly strong.
Jerry Hairston talks about his name coming up in the HGH scandal, and he strongly denies any use of such thing, and even says what would a guy like me be doing taking steroids....THEN HE SAYS "THE ONLY THING I'VE DONE IS TAKE CREATINE." HuH!?!? If he wasn't interested in getting stronger, and he used that as his alibi for HGH, then why on earth would he be doing creatine then? For the taste?
So basestealer, yes, they are 'all' on something...some stronger than others. Steroid use is but only one factor for the increased numbers, and is actually outweighed by other factors. The players numbers in this era are artifically enhanced due to multiple factors, only one of which being steroids.
The increased hitting numbers of guys from the 20's/30's are also artificially enhanced due to other factors, none of which are steroids, but factors just as strong nonetheless. Yet it is these guys who are on all the ALL TIME lists, and the guys from now get ZERO recognition for such lists. Jealousy? Are you kidding?
I am actually trying to get some of these guys due credit AS COMPARED TO THE SUPPOSED IMMORTALS everybody automatically has...and will probably still have till the end of time. They are there artificially due to the environement, much like these guys. The only difference is an ethical slant.
<< <i>What a shame this thread is, >>
I have to agree, although not for the reasons you gave.
Alger Hiss probably called his mother on Sundays, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is probably kind to puppies and OJ Simpson was a fine running back. At some point, and Bonds passed that point many years ago, it just seems distasteful to me to celebrate the good points of bad people.
<< <i>Jealousy? Huh?
Please reread the thread, as you didn't quite get the meaning. I am complimenting the skills of the biggest user of all....Barry Bonds. Not sure how that is jealousy. And yes, any player worth his salt does some sort of nutritional supplement. There may be a few outsiders, and not all do steroids, but they certainly do an element of something fairly strong.
Jerry Hairston talks about his name coming up in the HGH scandal, and he strongly denies any use of such thing, and even says what would a guy like me be doing taking steroids....THEN HE SAYS "THE ONLY THING I'VE DONE IS TAKE CREATINE." HuH!?!? If he wasn't interested in getting stronger, and he used that as his alibi for HGH, then why on earth would he be doing creatine then? For the taste?
So basestealer, yes, they are 'all' on something...some stronger than others. Steroid use is but only one factor for the increased numbers, and is actually outweighed by other factors. The players numbers in this era are artifically enhanced due to multiple factors, only one of which being steroids.
The increased hitting numbers of guys from the 20's/30's are also artificially enhanced due to other factors, none of which are steroids, but factors just as strong nonetheless. Yet it is these guys who are on all the ALL TIME lists, and the guys from now get ZERO recognition for such lists. Jealousy? Are you kidding?
I am actually trying to get some of these guys due credit AS COMPARED TO THE SUPPOSED IMMORTALS everybody automatically has...and will probably still have till the end of time. They are there artificially due to the environement, much like these guys. The only difference is an ethical slant. >>
I did not mean to change the topic of your thread and I do agree that Bonds has been a great player ever since he was with the Pirates, it is unfortunate that he did not think he was good enough. Now he will not be remembered for the stellar stats you quoted but for his drug use.
Dallas, I don't know if Barry Bonds is a "bad" person, and he certainly should not be put in the same sentence as O.J. He may be rude(though has also shown to be cool to my brother), but a bad person? I save that claim for people that really are bad.
But back to celebrating the ethical portion of people. Would the world be better off if there were more Barry Bonds in it, or my Ty Cobbs? I would rather have Barry Bonds as my neighbor than Ty Cobb.
Everybody was celebrating Jackie Robinson recently, and is Ty Cobb the exact opposite of what people were celebrating?
If people want to get on the ethical side of the argument, and use that disdain for Barry Bonds, then they MUST use the same disdain and never celebrate the people who were actually worse. I was trying to look at it outside that slant, and I did. But one cannot use it to single out one player just because he is going to break a record. Ty Cobb has a record too.
Yes, Ruth and Cobb both cheated too, as they were part of the conspiracy in keeping some of the best players in the world from competing against them. Ruth might not have even had a single season HR record, or all time record, Cobb may not have had the highest lifetime batting average if the other best players in the world were allowed to compete against them.
It sort of like proclaiming yourself the best in your town, but you only allow the kids on your block to compete. That is cheating and just as unfair as Bonds or anyone else doing performance enhancers.
<< <i>Jealousy? Huh?
Please reread the thread, as you didn't quite get the meaning. I am complimenting the skills of the biggest user of all....Barry Bonds. Not sure how that is jealousy. And yes, any player worth his salt does some sort of nutritional supplement. There may be a few outsiders, and not all do steroids, but they certainly do an element of something fairly strong.
Jerry Hairston talks about his name coming up in the HGH scandal, and he strongly denies any use of such thing, and even says what would a guy like me be doing taking steroids....THEN HE SAYS "THE ONLY THING I'VE DONE IS TAKE CREATINE." HuH!?!? If he wasn't interested in getting stronger, and he used that as his alibi for HGH, then why on earth would he be doing creatine then? For the taste?
So basestealer, yes, they are 'all' on something...some stronger than others. Steroid use is but only one factor for the increased numbers, and is actually outweighed by other factors. The players numbers in this era are artifically enhanced due to multiple factors, only one of which being steroids.
The increased hitting numbers of guys from the 20's/30's are also artificially enhanced due to other factors, none of which are steroids, but factors just as strong nonetheless. Yet it is these guys who are on all the ALL TIME lists, and the guys from now get ZERO recognition for such lists. Jealousy? Are you kidding?
I am actually trying to get some of these guys due credit AS COMPARED TO THE SUPPOSED IMMORTALS everybody automatically has...and will probably still have till the end of time. They are there artificially due to the environement, much like these guys. The only difference is an ethical slant. >>
I don't even know where to start. You act as if a guy that denies taking steroids but admits to taking creatine is "guilty as charged", or that there's some malicious intent involved with taking creatine. Do you even know what creatine is? First, let me say that creatine doesn't work. Any gains people make while taking creatine is purely placibo in nature, or the product of the hard work they put into the gym while taking it. It's an over the counter suppliment. I've taken it before--it did nothing for me, like most over the counter suppliments, and I stopped. It is primarily marketed to teenage boys and young men--most bodybuilding fad products are. It's a billion dollar industry. Believe me, if they worked they'd have horrible side effects, and if they did either they'd be regulated by the FDA or banned outright. The only proven product that can actually increase muscle size is steroids in combination with a weight training regimin. So your comparison of creatine to steroids is entirely inaccurate. Because when you go ranting about creatine, then why not include protein suppliments, l-carnatine, glutamine, and the hundreds of other overpriced junk powders people put into their system?
You continue to insist that Barry is the "biggest juicer of all", yet there is absolutely no evidence he's ever taken steroids, short of his perfomance and his size, both of which could very well simply be the result of his hard work and natural skill. It's much easier to convict someone of being a juicer than to go the extra mile and say he's the greatest baseball player of our generation. The negativity is what feeds most people. I wonder why we bother testing for steroids when guys that have NEVER FAILED the test (aka Barry Bonds) are slammed on a daily basis as being users. Or why do we have trials when those found not guilty or never tried to begin with are considered guilty by the general public out for blood? Rafael Palmiero FAILED his steroid test--if you want to talk about players and steroids, start there--start with the guys that actually failed a drug test. If you want buy into that clown Canseco's book that's fine--but that man has absolutely no credibility, and the number of stories he has of injecting guys in the butt in some bathroom stall is enough to make even the most hardcore anti-steroid freak laugh in disbelief.
Another argument, all of the above aside, is how much effect steroids has on one's baseball performance, which many of you believe is so great that records should be stripped. If Jose is right, and 85% of player's juice, then there's no comparative advantage to juicing! And 85% of the players out there aren't superstars, they don't have MLB records, and they aren't going to the hall. A lot of good steroids did the majority of them. Steroids cannot change a person into something they are not. It is at best an enhancer of muscularity and stamina. The baseball skills you learn or or born with cannot be injected by way of a steroid. I also doubt how much homerun hitting is affected by roids, and more importantly steroids shorten lives and careers--most hardcore juicers (especially in the NFL) have 5 year careers at best. Bonds isn't on roids now, I can't believe anyone would even think that he was--with all the publicity and all the testing and scrutiny he's under, he'd be insane to be juicing now. Yet he's still big, his face is still chubby, and he's on pace to hit 62 homeruns this year, and he's 43 years old. At what point will you admit he's clean? Or at the very least admit there's no evidence outside of the media witch hunt that he ever wasn't clean?
The point about Jerry Hairston is that his defense about being implicated in the HGH scandal was that he was not a big muscle guy and that that wasn't his game, and he had basically no intent to get big and take HGH. Regardless of how well creatine works, the point is that HE WAS TAKING IT FOR A REASON...and it is the SAME reason he just said he had no use for HGH. Unless he was taking it because it because of hte taste, his intent was to get bigger/stronger muscles via nutritional supplements. Yet his alibi for not being implicated in the HGH scandal was that getting bigger wasn't part of his game.
Baseball is correct, it is already documented he took all kinds of steroids, even a female fertility drug and a cattle steroid or something. He and his competition have taken a whole lot of stuff, yet Bonds has outdistanced them to one of hte highest degrees in history. He 'cheated'.
Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth also 'cheated' and had very unfair advantages too. THis is the thrust of my point. If Bonds's hitting record is not to be recognized, then Cobb's and Ruth's also have to be treated the same. Some good analysts already put their accomplishments into proper perspective(NOT MANY THOUGH). They too had very unfair advantages that other players in history simply did not have. There is a reason why the vast majority of records and outlandish seasons reside in this era, and the Pre War era.
<< <i>basestealer, what is your problem? I've said many times, and I'll say it again, Bonds ADMITTED he used steroids. He just claims he "didn't know" what they were. If you want to believe that, then fine. But people who have "a mind of their own" can deduce that his trainer and friend willing to spend years in jail rather than talking about Bonds' knowledge of his training regimen would have to be a moron to not think that Bonds didn't. I mean if he truly didn't, what in the world is their to hide if your Greg Anderson? You have your freedom to gain just by giving a few answers to the authorities. Your obviously one of those people that feel you need video tape proof of everything to be convinced, but then you would probably just tell us all with your wisdom how the tape is obviously doctored and what a frame job it must be. Get a clue! >>
You're damn right I require proof of something before I believe it. I don't know how our society has spiraled to the depths of depravity is has, but it's a shame. I do not sit on the edge of my seat watching Inside Edition and barf curse words at every accusation hurled, only to then change my mind the second the media tells me to. You people are like puppets--you require absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing before destroying someone's life other than an accusation! Be thankful our criminal justice system has slightly higher standards, or you'd all be in prison right now.
<< <i>Anyone even casually following the Bonds incident knows that he has admitted it so why do you keep saying that he denies it. He denied it ALL the time prior to his grand jury statement. Then he denied ever "knowlingly" using steroids. That still does not take away from the FACT that he DID USE STEROIDS so I'm not sure why you keep saying that we should be giving him the benefit of the doubt. At least McGwire and Sosa have always denied, not that I personally believe it, especially in McGwire's case. Giambi gave many interviews prior to the whole scandal talking about what a great guy McGwire was and how much he helped him with his "training" regimen and how grateful he was to have known McGwire and be his teammate. You could infer from that whatever you want but with the Creatine and the Andro and McGwire's link to Canseco, it appears that he did use steroids. >>
Bonds admitted that his trainer applied clearcream once, without Bonds knowledge. That's hardly admitting that he used steroids, that's certainly not admitting he used steroids from 1998 to 2004. As for your deduction that Giambi must be using because he got training advice from McGwire--I don't know what to say other than, be thankful you aren't a judge or on the jury for your own criminal trial, or you'd be doomed. I've worked out with many people that juiced, I've seen them juicing right there in the gym in the late 80's! That doesn't mean that I took steroids, nor does it mean that if I received training advice from someone that did, that I must be a user. Steroids do not build muscle--lifting weights builds muscle, steroids only enhances the workouts. Without a solid knowledge of the fundamentals of working out, steroids won't benefit you.
<< <i>As for denying claims, Palmeiro denied it in the most important forum of all and look at what happened to him. Most people who are guilty of anything will DENY it. That's a given. >>
This is very telling of your logic. If a guy admits it, he's guilty. If a guy denies it, he's obviously guilty because all guilty people deny it. So tell me, when is a guy ever innocent? That never crossed your mind. When his numbers suck?
<< <i>As for Giambi himself, I am not trying to defend him but I do appreciate the fact that he is the ONLY ballplayer to have at least tried to apologize to the public for his actions. I certainly don't excuse his role but at least he was willing to come clean to some extent. I thought it very sincere and the only reason he didn't make a better apology was due to all of the legal implications involved. >>
How nice of him. He doesn't owe you, me, or the public any apology. What he puts into his system is his own business. If he gets caught and tossed out of baseball, that's his punishment. Where do people get the idea they are owed an apology? Who is he to you or me? I don't get it.
<< <i>basestealer,
Using your logic, if a criminal denies committing a crime, and there is no irrefutable evidence to prove otherwise, he must be deemed innocent. What eutopic society did you crawl out under from? TONS of people are put in jail everyday with circumstantial evidence. As for Barry having the cream applied once, it still means that HE TOOK STEROIDS. One murder or 10, you're a murderer. And what possible reasonable explanation would clear up the fact that Greg Anderson would rather spend a ton of time in jail then to give a simple interview, WHERE HE HAS BEEN OFFERED FULL IMMUNITY. If Barry is indeed telling the truth, all Anderson would have to say is "Barry knew nothing".
As for Giambi, or any other player, they owe an apology for putting a black mark on the game and swindling those fans who relied on the purity of the game. If that means nothing to you then fine. But it means A LOT to me and to TONS of other fans.
<<This is very telling of your logic. If a guy admits it, he's guilty. If a guy denies it, he's obviously guilty because all guilty people deny it. So tell me, when is a guy ever innocent? >>
When did I ever say that? Quit putting words in my mouth. Bottom line is that just about EVERYONE accused of something will deny it. My point is that you can't take a person at his word when being accused of something. Imagine what our police system would be like if everytime they were investigating crime, they believed a given suspect who claimed his innocence, and left it at "Well, he says he's innocent, I guess that's that!" PLEASE!! >>
Christ almighty--the police have to investigate and find evidence to file charges. Nobody has to speak to the police--in fact suspects never should, EVER speak to the police without an attorney present. Whether charges are filed or not usually depends on the strength of the evidence against the accused, which many times include confessions (not applicable to people that don't talk) The jury or judge must have evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in order to convict. I don't think you know much about our justice system--too much COPS? I'd like to see you, Barny Fife, haul Barry into court on steroids charges, and explain to the jury that your evidence is the following: "He has a bloated face, and he gained 30 pounds over the course of his 20 year career. Oh, and everyone is saying he did it..." Give me a break. If you want to believe that he used steroids, go for it! I don't care. What I didn't want to do was chime in on this thread that I agreed Barry was a great player under the notion as written in the OP that "everyone knows he juiced", because I do not know it, and neither do you. Many may believe he juiced, but it cannot be proven, and for me that means I won't make the accusation. I'm more responsible than that. False charges, malicious accusations, words, witch hunts--they are all damaging to people, more than you will ever know. It's reckless to hurl these unfounded accusations at people as FACT, when it's nothing of the sort. You wouldn't like it if it were done to you, but you probably feel immune since you aren't a 20 million a year ballplayer. But it happens to people like you everyday, although on a lesser scale, and you should be thankful that there are some people still around that reject it, and stand up for the innocent (until proven guilty).
Giambi doesn't owe apologies because Giambi played the game of baseball and made the money he made BECAUSE the fans demanded it. Society has a morbid way of building people up only to tear them down like dogs. If you don't like sports and you don't like professional athletes, just don't support the game. Don't watch them. If you do support the game, then I can't figure out why there's this desperate need to tear everyone down from Ruth to Rose to Raffy--if everyone's a horrible cheater, why bother with it?
<< <i>No one's tearing everyone down, just questioning the integrity of those that left a bad mark on the game. The fact that McGwire was passed over for the HOF should tell you A LOT about what the writers, fans and public think about this issue. >>
Yes, indeed. However, I do not care what the public thinks, or the sports writers. They're impulsive slugs, for the most part.
<< <i>As for "beyond a reasonable doubt", if his trainer opting to spend A LOT of time in jail rather than simply answering some questions where he has full immunity seems "reasonable" to you, then so be it. It is not remotely "reasonable" to me. Besides, you make it sound like he's on trial for murder. He's being judged only in the court of public opinion and I'm expressing mine. Your opinion no more important than anyone else's, here or otherwise. >>
It seems reasonable to me that a friend would honor loyalty above the government's dog and pony show. Bonds trainer is on trial--his jailing was for refusing to testify, so it's not just in the court of public opinion. He has the right to refuse to testify, and he's exercised it. I wish more people would exercise their rights as opposed to freely giving them away.
<< <i>As for Bonds being a great player regardless, I don't deny that. But it is stupid to inject that as part of the steroid discussion. In a recent poll, over 80% of students admitted cheating in school. I knew many such individuals during high schoold and the one's that cheated the best were already some of the smartest students. So if a 4.0 student, who clearly has 4.0 ability is found to have cheated, that must be okay with you because he could have done it without cheating anyhow. >>
You mistake defending innocence with supporting crime. I do not support cheaters. Barry Bonds has not been convicted of anything (I keep reminding you of this but it isn't sinking in?), and he hasn't tested positive for steroids either. The way you're acting and expecting me to act is that if the media and society suddenly decide that cheating on tests is the big issue of the day, then you should be the warrior to root out all cheaters. And since relying on proof and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt isn't enough to satisfy that craving, you would then turn to cannibalistic practices, Lord of the Flies type Judge Dredd justice. Like the Salem Witch hunts, you would drown the witches to see if they were really witches. If they die, they were innocent, if they live they must be killed. The problem is, everyone gets hurt. Don't you see that? If you want to rail against Sosa's corked bat or Palmiero's steroid test, go for it. Those are tangible pieces of evidence. But, "everyone is saying it" is not enough to convict Bonds or anyone.
<< <i>The point is that there is nothing to "convict" here. So if that is your basis for defending him, it is moot because he will never be "convicted" of anything. Once again, it is only for the public court of opinion, which to you is worth nothing compared to your sagacious and all knowing personal opinion.
As for his trainer, it is not AT ALL reasonable for him to not talk if indeed Barry is telling the truth, which you seemed so impassioned with believing. >>
I don't believe Barry is telling the truth. I don't know one way or the other--no evidence exists either way. I do worry about people hurling unfounded accusations though, or convicting people in the court of "public opinion" because the media frenzy tells you to. And again, his trainer has the right to refuse to testify--if he lied under oath he'd get less prison time than he has now. He must have his reasons, and it's his right, and I respect that decision and the exercise of his rights. People are not your personal puppets whereby you can demand they do things at your command--he has shown the criminals in Congress the respect they deserve. That goes for most authority figures and armchair judges/sportsfans. If I were Barry, I wouldn't give dime back to this sport after all this.
<< <i>Didn't Bonds admit to taking the cream which contained steroids? So that means he has taken steroids right? Basestealer I like your argument (world turned to Lord of the Flies) except it should of ended in nuclear war just like my HS debate coach would of taught. >>
YES he did. As did Sheffield. There is no innocence here.
<< <i>Didn't Bonds admit to taking the cream which contained steroids? So that means he has taken steroids right? Basestealer I like your argument (world turned to Lord of the Flies) except it should of ended in nuclear war just like my HS debate coach would of taught. >>
He admitted that clear cream was applied to his person by his trainer (after he allegedly "found out" what it was). Not the same thing as "taken steroids", which would imply he physically took them himself, knowing full well what they were. If Bonds' confession involved any intent on his part, he would have been charged and at the very least punished by MLB.
Now, if anyone wants to get to the root of the steroid issue, you'd be better served to start in high school where this crap really proliferates, as this is where it all begins. Routine testing won't solve anything (I also believe it's an invasion of privacy), because just as testing is scheduled, so are steroid cycles. Furthermore, there are substances out there that are extremely effective that the test won't detect. If steroids were decriminalized and officially allowed in MLB, it would take the steam out of much of this debate, because nobody can argue an unfair advantage or "cheating" when the same substances are available to everyone. You sportsfans have made it clear that subpar performers are unacceptable. That losing is not an option. There is no money, motivation, or avenue for success for the undrugged athlete--and the double edged sword is, you will destroy anyone that does find success, be they juiced or not. There is no easy answer, except perhaps that players should go on strike. Permenantly.
If you truly think I have money "tied up in Bonds" and that my posts here would somehow mitigate my own losses and change the tide, you're crazier than I am. I can't think of a worse investment than sportscards, or Barry Bonds for that matter. Perhaps it's integrity, a sense of justice, or the good side of human nature that strikes this witch hunt as repugnant to me. It would be much easier if I wasn't afflicted with it--I could then just say whatever horrible thing about anyone I wanted to, without consequence or guilt. Jump on every bandwagon that comes down the pike and be gung-ho like a good little marine, until the facts prove the error of my ways, and then rather than remorse over my own bad behavior, I'd just jump on the next bandwagon and do it all over again.
first off, steroids do not make you hit homeruns. It doesn't make you hit the ball at all.
The only thing that allows you to hit the ball is hand-eye coordination, I’m sure Arnold or Frank Zane would not be hitting much in MLB
Steroids allow you to recover quicker and better (as in stronger muscle development) and that's all it does. Everyone talks about McGuire, Sosa, Palmeiro and Bonds taking steroids to hit more Homeruns. The fact is that steroids don’t help that. These guys hit homeruns because they have tremendous talents. However since they took (or allegedly took) steroids they can be in the gym longer, take more batting practice without slowing them down in the game. Therefore shots that might have been fly-outs now turned into homeruns. In that case steroids did help them achieve better stats
BUT - the baseball players that most benefit from steroids (the recovery aspect) are not the batters it's the pitchers. Here's what I'm saying if Pitcher A (not on steroids) pitches 4 innings and throws 100 pitches at 95+ mph he will be sore the next day and possibly require 2 - 3 days rest. Now Pitcher B (on steroids) can throw the same amount of pitches as Pitcher A but he would be able to throw again tomorrow (perhaps not in a game but in practice). Theoretically that gives him 250% MORE throwing practice and game situations at full speed or close to it.
So people who say that Bonds cheated because he took steroids and Aaron and Ruth were fair players need to realize that Ruth and Aaron never took throws from a guy on steroids either. Bottom line - you need to rate players in the era... Ruth was the best of his era, Aaron hit more HRs than anyone in his era and Bonds (in the steroids era) hit more HRs, batted .370 one year had a OBA of almost .700 and has put up numbers that blows everyone (who were also cheating it you want to use the steroids stats) from his era away.
Saying that Bonds is better than Ruth or Aaron is a futile conversation, you can't compare players in different eras. If today’s Bonds with his size and speed even when he was a pirate played when Ruth played he would have hit 1000 HRs and Ruth and Aaron could have wound up with less stats due to the pitching strategies and all race/ethnics and physical improvements of players today.
<< <i>It's not the goverment's job nor yours to regulate what I put into my body. It's my body and it's my heart disease, my liver failure, and my kidney problems. That's the underlying principle here that needs to be strictly adhered to. >>
Thats all fine and dandy if you are some loser hiding in your basement everyday drinking, smoking pot, eating shrooms, smoking crack, and doing steroids to boot. Problem is that the public pays good money to see a game that is nothing if not on the up and up with the American public. So, while it is still not the governments job to regulate what goes in YOUR body but it sure as hell should be SOMEBODYS job. Unfortunately baseball was never willing to do the job until big daddy forced his hand.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
That's actually my point - they did not have the training or the advances in supplement and equipment - if they played in today's game would they:
1 - how would they do given the physical condition (or lack thereof)
2 - would the allure of steroids be too much of a temptation
However todays Bonds (or the one of a few years ago) would rack up 1000 hrs against those pitchers
Glenn Dickey Article
I believe that Bonds has used steroids, yet at the same time I also believe that a lot of other players in his "era" have used steroids and performance enhancers as well. Do I feel as though his statistics are not legitimate? HELL NO!!!!!!! If he was the ONLY person in this time to have used "performance enhancers" then there would be a reason to remove his records. He had to hit off of pitchers throughout his career who were "juiced". He's had to have been robbed of base-hits and homeruns by fielders who were "juiced". He had to compete with them and along side them as well. All of them had the same possibility of using steroids as Bonds did.
In addition, just taking steroids doesn't make you hit homeruns. If taking some injections could turn anybody into a HR hitter, we'd all be in the major leagues right now. You still need skill and ability to hit HRs. If all of his HRs early in his career were squeakers that barely got over the fence, then yeah, maybe it has done something. You can't forget the fact that ballparks have shrunk considerably over the past 20 years and baseball has expanded twice adding four more teams and weakening the pitching pool much more. There are many factors which can make it a lot easier to hit homeruns now a days than years before.
I'm not going to get into any argument here and b*%&h and moan about whether or not these accusations have put a black mark on baseball. Baseball has had a TON more black marks on it in the past. It never was the "pristine" sport that many people seem to believe. There have always been cheaters, liers, corrupt individuals, and far other worse things that have made baseball less "pristine".
<< <i> I believe that Bonds has used steroids, yet at the same time I also believe that a lot of other players in his "era" have used steroids and performance enhancers as well. Do I feel as though his statistics are not legitimate? HELL NO!!!!!!! If he was the ONLY person in this time to have used "performance enhancers" then there would be a reason to remove his records. >>
You are wrong,
Barry Bonds records will be what they will be but you watch. NONE of these guys will be voted into the Hall .... the last line of defense to whack these cheating SOB's. My hope is that the guys who actually are proven to use .... that their horse crap records are laughed at forever more. Regardless if they actually show up in the books. LAUGHED AT, and that is what I do every time Barry Bonds hits a home run. If enough of us LAUGH .... and their are plenty of us ..... then these records will be truly celebrated ONLY when they are broken by a legit player ...
<< <i>I'm not going to get into any argument here and b*%&h and moan about whether or not these accusations have put a black mark on baseball. Baseball has had a TON more black marks on it in the past. It never was the "pristine" sport that many people seem to believe. There have always been cheaters, liers, corrupt individuals, and far other worse things that have made baseball less "pristine". >>
Oh yeah Mr historian? Then what were these "TON more black marks" You are nothing more then a BLOWHARD to offer up that with no references.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Now, WHAT BLACK MARKS are there?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Folks - He ain't doing (PED) what he did 5 years ago and he is still smacking the ball today at 42. >>
I think it is safe to assume EVERYBODY thinks Barry Bonds would have been a HOF'er WITHOUT the juice. He was well on his way until he ball park franked us all ..... plumped while you cook them. However, he is tainted forever more in my and many many other eyes. We all witnessed the near complete ignore job Mark McGwire got this year in HOF voting. I think this is just the begining and rightfully so.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Home runs aside, McGwire was a very ordinary player. He was slow as a turtle, struck out almost 1600 times, had a lifetime .263 batting average, and was not a Gold Glove calibre fielder. To compare him to Bonds, in terms of Hall of Fame worthiness, is just ridiculous. >>
Do you think for one second that Mark McGwire would NOT be in the HOF right now if not for the juice? I am not comparing anybody to anybody. You guys watch as these guys get shut out of the Hall ... at least for a long while if not forever.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Its easy to say they cheated, But the fact is that, it was not illegal or against the rules(when started using).
I dont like cheaters,but I think the only cheaters are the ones that continued using
after the ban. Any use before that has to be overlooked...IMO
Comparison: Pitchers could throw spitters,use sandpaper etc., was legal, then changed the rules to ban.
Do we block them from the hall? I think not.
Larry
In Bonds place in HISTORY is the topic, and he had certain advantages to him that players in other era's did not. He full well took advantage of them, much like the large percentage of his competition. Ethical or not, it was an advantage inherent to his era.
The point is, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb etc... also had advantages inherent to their era that allowed THEM to produced unreal numbers, yet people continually fail to recognize this and ALWAYS top load their all time lists with guys from the Pre War era...in other words, they have no qualms accepting the unfair benefits of Ruth, but have great hesitation on accepting the unfair benefits of Bonds. Why?
They think Bonds cheated is why. That is an ethical point of view. HOWEVER>>>>
Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were also cheaters as they were involved in the biggest BLACK MARK, and worst thing to ever happen to baseball...THE CONSPIRACY OF KEEPING CERTAIN PEOPLE OUT OF THE GAME! That too is an ethical question whether or not Ruth or Cobb cheated, much like it is with Bonds. Regardless of how it is viewed, it is an ugly thing that benefitted both Bonds, and COBB/RUTH. There is no question the attitudes of Cobb etc...are part of the blame of keeping black players out, so he most certainly has a hand in that conspiracy.
So the Pre War era has a large ethical slant leaning over all their records, and Bonds era has the same. Both eras also have other competitive/population type issues that were even larger reasons as to the records and outlandish numbers.
But people, be consistent in your disdain. That same disdain should be held for Cobb too, especially when making your all time lists(which are eye raisingly filled with mostly pre war guys).
1980 Player's Strike
1994 Player's Strike
Pete Rose Gambling
Player Drug use in the 1980's. (See Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, et. al).
Not allowing ANY non-white player to play in the game.
Owners picking up their teams and moving. (A's, Giants, Dodgers, Expos, etc.)
Corked Bats being used by hitters
Vaseline, sandpaper, pine tar being used on the ball by pitchers
etc., etc.
Oh baseball is so pristine and clean and has never done anything wrong. Heavens to mergatroid how can we go on if a player used steroids? Why couldn't he have just used cocaine instead?!!!!!! So softparade, why don't you just go back to jacking-off thinking about how great the Yankees pitching staff in 2007 is and how they will destroy everyone this year and win it all.
Just the addition of a few fleet footed black outfielders would have most likely prevented either one of those two things from happening...not to mention the addition of Satchel Paige and other bona fide black pitchers. Yet those are two of the most revered events in the annals of baseball history, and NOBODY looks at the 'stain' factor that was helpful in both of those being achieved.
One who wishes to put astericks or strip Bonds or McGwire's name from the record books, MUST also use similar judgement to the Pre War players who also had a severely beneficial situation to attain all of their records/performances.
I can agree that Ruth and Cobb would've had a much tougher time putting up the numbers they did if the players around them were more talented. That's obvious.
But I don't like your analogy. Ruth and Cobb put up great numbers playing in the era that they did. Whoever may have been their competition is the same competition that every player in baseball faced at that time, and they excelled.
I think the fact is that Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGwire were more than likely taking steroids but not every player in the league did. That gives them the advantage.
Some took steroids, others didn't. In Ruth's era, everybody played against the same people. There is no unfair playing field there.
Am I making sense or just rambling??
shawn
Ted Williams was a great hitter before baseball intergration, and after as well. Let's take Stan Musial, he was an All star before and after, led the NL in hitting, slugging, and OPS, among various stats, before and after. A great player is usually a great player regardless of the era he played in.
As you know, bsesball now in Bonds' era is number two, to FB in attracting potential athletes, and basketball, soccer, golf, tennis, Etc, have all become MUCH more economically benificial to athletes, black or white, than in the days goneby, thus diluting the concentration of talent . Expansion begun in 1961 has also contributed to the ease of hitting, and Bonds has had several other infuxes of "minor-league" pitchers to feast upon.
In 1920 Ruth hit 54 homeruns, AL runner up George Sisler hit 19, NL leader Cy Williams hit 15. That season only the Yankees , of which Babe contributed to, and the Phillies, hit more HRs collectively than Ruth did by himself !!! Bonds would have needed something like 150 homeruns to even compare to that kind of dominance over ones' peers.
Cobb and Ruth did not have air-conditioned hotel rooms or jet planes to travel in. They did not have personal trainers, diet experts, or publicity advisors, They both smoked and drank booze. The intensity of competetion was far more severe back before free agency and constant switching of teams and allegiances. Players often share the same agent and do commericals together today, would there be any chance the opposition players would conspire with one another to try to deny Ty Cobb of a batting title today, as they did in fact do in 1910 ??
Just for information, the top homerun hitters of all time by fewest at bats per HR; 1 McGwire, 2 Ruth ,3 Bonds, 4 Thome, 5 Pujols, 6 Kiner.
For curent player like Bonds, Arod, or Pedro M., it is probably best to let them finish and actually finalize their numbers, then do some comparions/adjustments with others from that time peroid, before we make any final judgements about their place in baseball history.
<< <i>Some took steroids, others didn't. In Ruth's era, everybody played against the same people. There is no unfair playing field there.
Am I making sense or just rambling??
>>
You are making sense; deciding to use steroids and participating in a league that OTHER people have decided should exclude blacks are not even remotely similar. There was a conspiracy to keep blacks out of baseball, but holding Babe Ruth responsible for it is way out of line.
skinpinch, you're asking about Bonds' place in history and you're being given the answer. You don't seem to like the answer, but it is what it is: Bonds' place in history will be in the same general area as Ed Cicotte's and Pete Rose's. Sure, after the initial laugh or sneer (or gag)at the mention of his name, people may remember he was a fine player, too, but Bonds has defined himself by his actions off the field. And I imagine his early death will cement that definition in place forever.
And to whoever said that steroid use wasn't illegal at the time - yes, it was.