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.
Dallas is right on the money here. The analogy of Bonds and steroids and Ruth and Cobb playing in an all-white league is a very poor one, IMO. Blacks couldn't use the same bathrooms or drink from the same water fountains either until the 1960s. Blacks being excluded from baseball was just a reflection of our society at the time and the fact that certain white stars benefitted from such policy is a long stretch from Bonds choosing to inject himself with steroids to cheat.
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.
The point is the advantages Ruth etc had that were clearly of an unethical nature, and clearly those banned guys should have been playing with them...and it no doubt benefitted them and helped them attain cherished records. Those records should be given scorn.
I agree with you guys that in Bonds' case that not all players took enhancing drugs, and it isn't on the exact same degree.
But to absolutely applaud what the Pre War guys did, and absolutely scorn what Bonds did just is not right.
Side note for those that seem to believe Bonds has stopped his use of performance enhancers: I don't think to this day there is a test for Human Growth Hormone, which could well be what Bonds is, and has been, taking for quite a while now.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
1)Bonds used performance enhancing drugs, as admitted and as presumed. 1) Ty Cobb was a racist as actions showed and well presumed.
2)Bonds, along with many other players received a historical benefit as a result of performance enhancing drugs. It is presumed to be the majority of players, and the vast majority of big time sluggers. 2) Ty Cobb, along with every player in his league received a historical benefit for not having a group of MLB ability players not allowed.
3) It was Barry Bonds himself to choose this benefit, and up to the rest of the league to make the same choice. Most chose to use. 3)IT was society and baseball in general that disallowed black players. It was also many players who would overtly or secretly not want black players in MLB. Ty Cobb and his attitude is at the forefront of this. They have a great hand in this awful thing.
4)The palyers in Bonds era who chose not to juice didn't benefit as much. So the problem lies with BOnds and his group? 4)Nobody said you had to be racist during pre war and sit there and accept disallowing of deserving palyers. Everybody ended up benefitting...even the non racists. Many of those players would lose their jobs if they stood up for the blacks, so why would they? It was benefitting them. They are part of the conspiracy! **Revist some your words in the Jackie RObinson/AMerican Indian thread I wrote before
Ty Cobb could have easily made it known that he would welcome all black players into the leauge. He chose not to do that, and instead was part of the problem. All players could have done that. This makes them all part of the conspiracy, and puts a black mark on their records because their records would be different with the inclusion of more of the players that they were CLEARLY shutting out.
To use the excuse of "Oh thats just the way it was" in regard to racism, is not a valid excuse.
CONCLUSION: Bonds was helped as a result of his choice, as were countless others who did the same thing competing against him. Ty Cobb was helped, as a result of his choice to railroad black palyers...along with the heavy influence of others with the same like mind or fear for their job.
They may not have been helped by each of their unethical actions to the same degree relative to their peers, and if there was a scale of 1-10 Bonds may be sitting at 9 and Cobb at 4, BUT everybody gives Bonds total disdain and gets no mention on top 5 lists(though he deserves some), and Ty Cobb is continually referred to as one of the best, and sometimes THE BEST player ever and is always.
Bonds has been lumped as a bad person and in the same vein as O.J. simpson and murderers! That is crazy! Ty Cobb is the one who should be lumped with those guys, not Bonds. Bonds' and his contemporaries actions are primarily self inflicting, while Cobbs and contemporaries are punishing others!
People's heroes die hard, and it is easy to hate the current guy, but some perspective needs to be shed.
Baseball, I'm not getting all high and mighty...actually the ones who are bashing Bonds are!
The fact remains that Ty Cobb and Co. benefitted by not having playes just as good looking on the outside! His attitude was part of that exclusion. There is no doubt it helped him and his contemporaries achieve lofty status.
The fact remains that Bonds and co. took juice, BUT there is a big cloud over two things....1)We don't know exactly how many, but it is well presumed to be the majority, and 2) We don't know exactly how much it even helps! It is quite possible that it only helps one be better at baseball just a bit, or could be a lot. We don't know for sure. If part one is all, then Bonds is just keeping up like everybody else. If part 2 is that it helps only a smidge, then it doesn't even matter.
We do know that a race of viable players were excluded during Pre War. There is no cloud of doubt.
Baseball, you kill me. You say Cobb's racist attitude is fine because that is a sign of the times? Then, isn't Bond's steroid use just a sign of the times too? Also, not all citizens were racists during the 1900's.
Baseball, I don't mind you frowning upon Bonds, but be consistent and use it for the likes of Cobb as well. He deserves just as much scorn and received plenty of benefit on his own personal record(as did all players Pre war receive benefit).
The fact remains that Ty Cobb and Co. benefitted by not having playes just as good looking on the outside! His attitude was part of that exclusion. There is no doubt it helped him and his contemporaries achieve lofty status.
The fact remains that Bonds and co. took juice, BUT there is a big cloud over two things....1)We don't know exactly how many, but it is well presumed to be the majority, and 2) We don't know exactly how much it even helps! It is quite possible that it only helps one be better at baseball just a bit, or could be a lot. We don't know for sure. If part one is all, then Bonds is just keeping up like everybody else. If part 2 is that it helps only a smidge, then it doesn't even matter.
We do know that a race of viable players were excluded during Pre War. There is no cloud of doubt.
The fact remains that Ty Cobb and Co. benefitted by not having playes just as good looking on the outside! His attitude was part of that exclusion. There is no doubt it helped him and his contemporaries achieve lofty status.
You say a TRULY great player for Cobb...Yet again he didn't compete against guys that were blantantly excluded. His greatness would be reduced as a result, so how do you say TRULY, when the league wasn't on the up and up?
" the same vein as O.J. simpson and murderers! That is crazy! Ty Cobb is the one who should be lumped with those guys, not Bonds."
Only complete and total nonsense !! Neither Ty Cobb nor Barry Bonds remotely deserves to be compared/lumped with a murderer ( whether convicted criminally or not) !!!!
Trying to discredit Cobb's baseball achievements because you don't agree with his views, on politics, civil rights, or religion, is absurd !
Before anyone discredits Babe Ruth because he was a heavy drinker, glutton and womanizer, Try to understand this fact, Bonds' and his peers, McGwire, Pujols, and Thome are all among the top 5 most likely homerun hitters of all time. It would seem probable that from the late 80's to now homeruns, are not as difficult to obtain as in the 1920's.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Baseball my argument isn't about cheating. Cheating is a matter of perspective and personal beliefs on what constitutes cheating. It isn't revisionist anything. It is understanding what goes into creating such playes etc...
This is what I initially wrote.....
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 .
Baseball, how cheating is viewed depends, hence no need for me to even include that in the analysis. It is basically a view on how much one distances his peers...guys who have the same benefits/disadvantages as the player in question.
The only thing in question on my initial post is two things 1)Exactly how many players juiced, and 2)How much does juice actually help a baseball player. Those are the two variables that could knock Bonds down the peg in my comparision.
You guys turned it into someting else, and you see what happens?
For those that wish to "dig a little deeper" into racial items....
In Cobb's time the black population in the US was less than 2%, at about .018 In Ruth's time the black population in the US was just over 3%, at about .033, In the late 40s the black population in the US was just over 5%, at about .051. In 1990 the black population in the US iwas about 11%
As is in most cases, no absolute and totally complete conclusion may be drawn, however, one may reasonably assume Cobb was less a benificiary of black absense from the big leagues, than Ruth was, and most likely Ruth less than Williams or Musial were for a portion of their respective careers.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>The only thing in question on my initial post is two things 1)Exactly how many players juiced, and 2)How much does juice actually help a baseball player. Those are the two variables that could knock Bonds down the peg in my comparision.
You guys turned it into someting else, and you see what happens? >>
1) I don't care how many players juiced; 2) I don't care how much it actually helps. I think what's happened is that you are trying to have a debate using premises that nobody else agrees with; either the thread dies or we substitute our own premises:
1) Exactly how much effort should I expend glorifying the accomplishments of a cheater? 2) How much honor should MLB bestow on players that are known to be cheaters? 3) Should I pass on to my children and grandchildren tales of exploits of cheaters?
Now THOSE are the premises that apply to Bonds. I don't understand how any baseball fan can look on Bonds with anything but disgust, just as I wouldn't understand an OJ Simpson fan club (that is NOT to say that their offenses are equal, but that they both crossed the line where decent people don't celebrate their accomplishments anymore - OJ crossed it by a lot more, but they both crossed it.) The HOF absolutely is a better place without Barry Bonds in it; they will make a mockery of their own substance abuse rules if they ever put Bonds in there, and I hope and pray they never do. Because, again, I could not care less how good a player Bonds was - he has rendered that point moot.
And, sorry, but I'm still not buying that there is even a shred of moral equivalence between Bonds and Ruth. And while Cobb may have been a bad person, that had absolutely nothing to do with his baseball accomplishments or the integrity of the game itself. Bonds place in baseball history, deservedly, will be far below Cobb's. Their relative places in the afterlife - which is what you're really arguing - is none of my concern.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Fellas, the cheating aspect isn't even a part of what I am saying.
What I said is that everybody has a differnt view of what constitutes cheating, and what is tolerable. I never gave my view on that. I'm not really concerned about it.
Some don't tolerate it at all....yet amazingly those people tend to do some form of it themselves. Afterall, hypocrisy is the golden rule of our society.
Some might not mind cheating if it is taking from some filthy rich guy who cheats himself...sort of RObin Hood esque.
Some might say I don't care, it is the only way to keep up.
Everybody has their virtues, yet those virtues are usually applied to others and not onself. I never touched upon what mine are, nor care to do.
Dallas, I'm not getting into how I or anyone feels how good/bad cheating/doing roids is. The initial post is all about distancing oneself from the peers who have the SAME variables going for them. The only thing different for Bonds was the How many, and How much. Other than that, it has NOTHING to do what is cheating.
It seems that the biggest thing you guys have against Bonds is that he cheated and broke the law.
I'm not exactly sure when performance enhancers became against baseball rules, and when exactly Bonds used, but if it isn't against the baseball rules and he and everybody else used them, is it really cheating?? See, this is the slippery slope, and I don't care to even bother with it right now.
The second thing was that "well steroids were against the law." So is it now that he broke the law that he is bad?
Cobb had a hand in helping keep black players out...that is cheating too as it is creating unfair circumstances for his place in baseball history, is it not? One can argue all day to how much a hand, but it is just as slippery a slope as Bonds. There can be no conlcusion reached, it is based on one's ethical stance.
Oh, and Cobb broke the law too...
>>>>>>>"TY COBB Crimes: Assault (too many to count), murder It’s impossible to list all Ty’s acts of violence. But here are a few. 1907: Slapped a black groundskeeper; when the man’s wife protested, he grabbed her by the neck. 1908: Assaulted a black laborer; shoved a black chambermaid down the stairs. 1909: Slapped a black elevator operator for being “insolent.” When a night watchman (also black) broke it up, Cobb slashed him several times with a knife. Fined $100. 1912: Pistol-whipped a would-be mugger to death; pummeled a crippled fan. 1914: Threatened a butcher with a gun and pistol-whipped his black assistant. Babe Ruth said it best: “Ty Cobb is a #####.”">>>>>>>>>>>
It seems he broke many laws too. Just because his crimes were different then Bonds, Bonds gets all the hate?
At least Bonds crimes don't directly affect other people to such a harmful degree...and like I said early on, I would much rather have Barry Bonds as my neighbor.
So both Cobb and Bonds have slippery slopes as to what constitutes cheating etc...though to possible varying degrees.
Cobb is the far worse criminal...and the only thing keeping him out of jail was he was famous and his crimes were done to minorities.
Like I said, if one wants to give Bonds disdain for his baseball actions AND personal actiosn, COBB DESERVES THE SAME.
Comparing Ty Cobb and his character flaws to Barry Bonds' use of steroids is a lame analogy, no matter who you slice or spin it, skin. I doubt you'd convince anyone here any different, for good reason. Bonds is a great player, but he cheated, and his legacy will forever be tainted and deservedly so. To suggest that Ty Cobb was even remotely responsible for the exclusion of Black players during his era, and by extension that he somehow is guilty of "cheating" on the same level as Bonds because of that, is ludicrous. But if Bonds needs a defense attorney if and when he is formally indicted by the Feds for lying to a grand jury and his role in the steroids coverup, he ought to look you up, skin. Can't imagine anyone else advocating so ardently for this cheater as you have here!
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.
Grote, there is NO DOUBT that Ty cobb and playres with his attitude have a big hand in the exclusion of blacks.
But what is cheating? I personally don't care if Bond took steroids or not. Good for him. If they are bad, it only hurts himself. He isn't stealing anybody's job as he would still have one anyway. All harm is to him, and to the fans who are boo hooing that he will break a record.
Cobb HURT people, and he and his prevailing attitude are part of the reason why it was whites only.
Whitey Ford cheating by scuffing, Gaylord Perry, and Don Sutton too. They all broke baseball rules...and Bonds really didn't even break a baseball rule. Those guys all did something against league rules that enhanced their performance. Many other players probably did the same, many probably didn't. Many other players took enhancers, some probably did not.
For the first time, I am beginning to see the "witch hunt" term that people have used. RIght now everybody is acting as if Barry Bonds was the only steroid user of his time.
IF everybody admits that Bonds and most others cheated as well, THEN they also have to admit that Cobb had a similar advantage with no blacks.
IF one insists that Bonds is the ONLY one that did roids, then he had an unfair advantage. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which puts Bonds at a 9 and Cobb at a 4 on a scale of 1-10, just like I said before.
So at the very least Cobb deserves at least HALF the disdain of taking advantage of an era inherent advantage as Bonds does. It could be even mor though.
Baseball, you guys brought up the cheating aspect. I stated how the guys were against their peers who have the SAME circumstances! Then you guys brought up cheating being worse than no blacks. I am bringing up Cobb and his hand in no blacks to show that cheating can come in other forms, and REGARDLESS IT IS AN INHERENT ERA ADVANTAGE FOR BOTH!! THat is my main point!
Again, it comes down to HOW MANY, and HOW MUCH it helps with Bonds and roids. There is no question Cobb took advantage of his era advantage of no blacks. How much did Bonds take advantage of his. If 75% had performance enhancers, then he too is doing the company line (as Cobb did the company line with no blacks). CASE IN POINT! Doesn't the story go that Bonds did roids to keep up with McGwire and Sosa roids???? He is doing the company line then, and doing an era advantage.
Also, Whitey Ford, Don Sutton, and Don Sutton cheated too! They too should receive the scorn Bonds does, as without that, they don't do as well.
Finally, if all the players are doing performance enhancers of some sort, then Bonds is just taking advantage of his era much like Cobb and his contemporaries did with no Blacks. It was also brought up Bonds was a bad person as a reason for disdain. Well Cobb was awful.
P.S. Of course Cobb wouldn't be an Abe Lincoln...He was te OPPOSITE. He was blatant racist. Are you going to tell me that this doesn't have an effect on an unwritten policy???? Are you kidding me?
Some of these posters make me sure glad that I don't have to work with them or live anywhere near them. I'm very greatful for this forum and the avenue that allows both right ideas and wrong ideas to be presented. All one has to do is pull up some of the older Pete Rose threads and see how the same arguements were barfed up about the lack of "legal " evidense presented, before "Lying Pete" finally admitted he had bet on his own team. Even to think that he maybe'd had bet on his team to "lose " then used his position to gain some "bucks " is the foundation threat to the "We won without cheating " nature of the game.
Warriors fighting warriors, a battle of brains and or muscle, with the winner at the end. The very thought of a "fixed" fight or horse race, makes me and others lose interest fast. Its not real, its pretend. A fixed baseball or football game , I'm sure has happened many , many times. They are never sold that way. If the fans even suspected, that they were going to a "fixed" or altered gamed, many would think twice before plunking down hard earned dollars to watch a preformance or support this type of game .
The idea that it was okay to sell altered cards or coins was the very reason I decided to join this PSA forum back in December. I remember there were actually people on this very forum , that believed it was okay to sell trimmed cards , recolored cards, cleaned up cards , all sold as "UNALTERED " to the stupid , but trusting , buyer. This is absolutely immoral, deceiving, and in the end will destroy the hobby we love.
The idea that an "altered " preformance, being sold as a "natural "preformance make people like me and Hank Aaron and any other decent person SICK. When the evidense , either by physical or if any of these humans develops a conscience and admits what any moral person already know , then you "cheat lovers " can take some solis in realizing that you were always wrong on this one. It doesn't suprize me as that what happens when you moral compass is broke.
To look at the old Pete Rose thread and see others , wag their finger and tell you there is no evidence Pete bet on his own team. Then when he "fessed" up , to see some of the very posters on this very thread, say " It doesn't matter , if he did it, he still belongs in the HOF. When the "juicers " finally come clean, will these same people posting here pull the the same garbage rational. History sure has a strange way of repeating it self.
There have always been some cheaters in all sports as thats the only way that they can get that edge over the other athletes. Can you imagine telling oneself that "unless I juice up , some other better athlete will do better that me ". Sometimes they get away with it. I've heard it said that "The only thing that evil people need , to succeed , is for good people to do nothing . "
Thank GOD this forum is part of that process.
" In a time of universal deceit , telling the truth is a revolutionary act " --- George Orwell
Many ballplayers have been convicted of speeding, public disorderly conduct, child support deliquency, and many others, I am sure, therefore they have , in fact, broken the law.
Ron Kittle a former major league player, purports that while working for a charity, Bonds said something like " I dont give money for white kids' causes." Perhaps Bonds might be a racist like Cobb is alleged to be. Maybe even more so , as what might have been acceptable in 1910 certainly might not be in 2007.
Ty Cobb may have different views on politics, religion, social issues, and moral values than others. He may prefer Scotch to Rye whiskey, he might like Ragtime better than the Blues, Ty may have enjoyed beef more than fish.
It might be okay gamble in many places, but not in MLB. Roids may be okay in the bodybuilder gym lockeroom, but not in MLB lockerooms.
Does any of the aforementioned really matter in how we should judge a player ??
I feel league leading seasons is a easy and correct way to help evaluate how much better one is compared to his peers.
Adjusted OPS+ is very popular, Cobb led 11 times, Bonds 10. RC ( Runs Created), a bit of an estimate stat, however Cobb led 7 times, Bonds 6. Runs , the way a game is actually determined, Cobb led 5 times, Bonds 1 RBIs, drive in what does really count, Cobb led 4 times, Bonds 1. Hitting titles, Cobb 11, Bonds 2. Total Bases, Cobb led 6 times Bonds 1.
Other stats which are probably less usefull than the above, OB% 9-7 Bonds, Slg% 8 each, HRs 2-1 Bonds, Bonds has led in walks 11 times, Cobb never did. Cobb has led in hits 8 times, doubles 3 times, triples 4 times, and stolen bases 6 times, Bonds never led in any of those.
In 1909 Ty did achieve the hitter's ultimate goal, to win the triple crown. That year he also took the stolen base title, a season of speed and power never seen since.
The abuse of rules or standards in MLB, was not done by Cobb, nor Riuth, nor the fielder who intentionally left his glove on the playing surface in 1935. Times change and rules and standards change, Joe Jackson possibly did abuse them, Pete Rose probably did, Jason Giambi absolutely did, Barry Bonds ????? I'll form a final opinion on Bonds in the years to come.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
That is basically all I did with my initial post...to take into account how far Bonds has distanced the peers that have the same circumstances as he is playing in...thats it. Then I said Cobb etc...also had an unfair advantage for his time.
The point was that Bonds has outdistanced the other juicers to such a great degree, that he has to be mentioned in the same breath as the guys with advantages in other eras.
THEN, everybody started saying he was a cheater, linked him with a murderer etc... Basestealer that is when I brought up the Cobb slippery slop, just as Bonds cheating is a slippery slop. I even tried to avert this stuff with my second post.
Calaban, it has nothing to do wtih being a cheat lover, it is a simple exercise in baseball measurement.
I don't care at all that Bonds did steroids, I don't care at all that Sutton had sandpaper, I don't care at all what Pete Rose did. It is all part of a game. The only thing the roid situation did to me is that it made it a little tougher to get to truth...which is my ultimate baseball goal. But that makes it more challenging! I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ETHICAL ASPECT, AND THAT IS WHY I SAID
"ETHICS ASIDE" IN MY INITIAL POST!
So please save the cheater stuff for somewhere else. If you want to comment about how it may or may not have distanced him unfairly past his peers...compared to that of Cobb and no blacks, GREAT. In fact some people did do that, as I intened to spark.
"Then I said Cobb etc...also had an unfair advantage for his time."
Unfair in respect to the other major league ballplayers? Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, and the rest, NEVER had an unfair advantage over the other 399 major league ball players. They ALL played under the same situations.
Bonds MAY have had an unfair advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers of his era. I use a flexible number, because although Bonds plays in an era with more total major league players, it is hard to select a proper number, as some might have shared the unfair advantage Bonds is percieved by many to have had.
Cobb had no advantage over Nap Lajoie, Ruth had no advantage over George Sisler, however it is claimed, or possible at least, that Bonds had an unfair advantage over Dale Murphy and countless others, who never did any illegal performance enhancing drugs .
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
"Then I said Cobb etc...also had an unfair advantage for his time."
Unfair in respect to the other major league ballplayers? Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, and the rest, NEVER had an unfair advantage over the other 399 major league ball players. They ALL played under the same situations.
Bonds MAY have had an unfair advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers of his era. I use a flexible number, because although Bonds plays in an era with more total major league players, it is hard to select a proper number, as some might have shared the unfair advantage Bonds is percieved by many to have had.
Cobb had no advantage over Nap Lajoie, Ruth had no advantage over George Sisler, however it is claimed, or possible at least, that Bonds had an unfair advantage over Dale Murphy and countless others, who never did any illegal performance enhancing drugs .
Excellent point, and one that clearly illustrates why Skin's analogy between Cobb and Bonds when it comes to "cheating" or otherwise having an unfair advantage is fatally flawed and ill-conceived.
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> I agree with you guys that in Bonds' case that not all players took enhancing drugs, and it isn't on the exact same degree.
But to absolutely applaud what the Pre War guys did, and absolutely scorn what Bonds did just is not right. >>
skin, I appreciate how deep you get into debates of ALL kinds BUT reading the above quote just makes no sense. The Pre War guys you speak of did NOT have the very debatable "unfair advantage" as a choice. Barry Bonds did have a choice..... and THAT is a world of difference. So "ethics aside" to me anyway is not acceptable. Pre War guy had no choice ..... Barry Bonds did .... and this is a big factor that can not be just deleted.
Now you guys are getting back on topic, though I already made the points Grote that you say make the whole thing fatally flawed.
Cobb didn't share an advantage any other contemporary didn't either... a fact I laid out already.
Bonds shared an advantage over an unknown amount of contemporaries...a fact i laid out already.
Which leads to the variable that I had already laid out...
HOW MANY guys juiced, and HOW MUCH does it actually help!
For Pete's sake, I said this many posts ago, and it does not render anything meaningless Grote.
For this aspect alone, it means that Bonds advantage may be at a '9' scale, and cobb's at a '4'.
If 100% of people performance enahnced, then it is an equal type advantage. Presumed estimates put it at over half the league doing performance enhancers, then that is a 50% ish advantage bonds had in the 'cheating' factor...which by the way is less an advantage that Whitey Ford, or Gaylord Perry achieved .
Jaxxr, you were the first guy to bring up a player from another era that didn't share such large advantages as the other two era's did...Dale Murphy.
THat is part of my initial OVERALL point(I point I always adhere to)...some era's had much stronger inherent advantages over others, and as a result have an unfair advantage to set records and be viewed in a stronger historical light. In view of this, all 'records' are unfair to that degree, and to get one's panties all wet because any guy will break records now with more unfair advantages doesn't really matter. Most aseball records are a direct result from unfair historical advantages. Analysts and historians are there to put them into proper perspective...much like the reasons why Ruth out homering every team is more a product of the environment, then him being that much better then every player in history who didn't come close to doing that!!!!
<< <i>Bonds MAY have had an unfair advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers of his era. I use a flexible number, because although Bonds plays in an era with more total major league players, it is hard to select a proper number, as some might have shared the unfair advantage Bonds is percieved by many to have had. >>
Interesting read..... in order for Bonds to have an unfiar advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers, that means NONE of the other players have ever used performance inhancing drugs of any kind, including roids. I DON'T Believe that for one second.
I think the point was made well; Bonds as well as hundreds of other players have used PID's, are they all cheaters? It seems the witch hunt is only for Bonds because he is about to break a record. They treated Maris the same way, he was the wrong Yankee. In this era of Baseball, Bonds is one of the best players. Cobb & Ruth & Aaron were the best of their era.
Next I expect someone to tell me that Arod, Pujols & Gwynn (have you seen how big his head has become?) also are cheaters. I am sure at some time in their lives they have also taken performance enhancing drugs.
Collecting all cards - Gus Zernial
Post Cereal both raw and PSA Graded (1961-1963)
This ridiculous analogy between Cobb and Barry Bonds was one that YOU presented here. You can type in bold face till you're blue in the face, but the truth of the matter is that your analogy was a very poor and ill-conceived one and really has no relevance to any discussion on Bonds and his place in baseball history. You can spin it any way you want, but to start dragging pre-war players into the mix because they didn't do enough to integrate the game of baseball (like they could have if they even wanted to), is just ludicrous.
It seems he broke many laws too. Just because his crimes were different then Bonds, Bonds gets all the hate?
At least Bonds crimes don't directly affect other people to such a harmful degree...and like I said early on, I would much rather have Barry Bonds as my neighbor.
So both Cobb and Bonds have slippery slopes as to what constitutes cheating etc...though to possible varying degrees.
Cobb is the far worse criminal...and the only thing keeping him out of jail was he was famous and his crimes were done to minorities.
Like I said, if one wants to give Bonds disdain for his baseball actions AND personal actiosn, COBB DESERVES THE SAME.
NONE of this makes any sense when you compare what Barry Bonds did by using steroids and what Ty Cobb did, however offensive it may seem. It's a ludicrous comparison, really, unless your intention all along is to compare the two players in a moral/immoral sense, and I'm frankly surprised that you'd even attempt to make it.
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.
Grote, for the last time, I presented my initial post and clearly said "ETHICS ASIDE", because defining what is cheating in regard to performance enhancers or anything else is a big grey area that means many different things to many different people. Hence it is futile to even get into that...as evidence by what transpired.
I brought up the Ty Cobb example to show an element of the grey area or slippery slope. . In my opinion, he is implicit in the conspiracy of keeping out blacks. What, all of a sudden all of you guys don't allow for opinions on a clear opinion matter? You allow for opinion on pure fact matters, but not on stuff like this? This 'cheating' topic is ALL opinion, and that is why I never even wanted to touch it. Several of the first posts went right off topic.
At least there is one board member who was able to wade through the garbage cheating talk that was spewed, and see the main point!......
"Interesting read..... in order for Bonds to have an unfiar advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers, that means NONE of the other players have ever used performance inhancing drugs of any kind, including roids. I DON'T Believe that for one second.
I think the point was made well; Bonds as well as hundreds of other players have used PID's, are they all cheaters? It seems the witch hunt is only for Bonds because he is about to break a record." -262Runner
Our friendly Dalmation hit it on the head. It is an element inherent to his era, much like other era's had elements unfairly favored for theirs. I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE ETHICS OF EACH ELEMENT, just that there was an era element.
<< <i>I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE ETHICS OF EACH ELEMENT, just that there was an era element. >>
See, here we are back at a point I made earlier and you ignored. I get that you don't care about the ethics of this situation. But, other than the ethical component of a Bonds discussion, I don't care to discuss Bonds; Bonds ceased being a baseball player years ago when he chose to become a cheater instead.
Say your son gets an A+ on a chemistry test and you naturally pat him on the back and tell him what a good job he did. Then you find out he cheated and confront him about that. His response - "Everybody was cheating". Now, are you going to take the path that you have taken in this thread with regard to Bonds and pat him on the back again and tell him how proud of him you are that he cheated better than all his classmates? Do "era elements" apply in this situation, too? The fact is, you don't know how good your son is at chemistry - only how good he is at cheating.
I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't care how many other players have been cheating, and I don't care how much cheating has helped Bonds. The answers to those questions are only relevant if you're trying to decide how to evaluate Barry Bonds as a baseball player. But the answer to that question - he's not a baseball player - is already known. What you want to have is a discussion about how much better Bonds was at cheating than his fellow players, and baseball fans simply don't care about the answer. Calling it an "era element" disguises the problem, but the problem remains.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The pertinent school question should be...If there is a drug to make you smarter or your brain work better, would you take it? Would you ignore possible side effects to get smarter? Parents give stuff like that to their kids all the time!
Dallas, if 85% of MLB are doing some type of performance enhancers, are they all cheaters, or is it the environment of the game?
Dalls, if my son cheated on a Chemistry test, and I knew that everybody else cheated as well...my internal response would be you have to do what it takes to succeed, otherwise the world will eat you up. I somewhat grew up with a screw the man attitude, and do what it takes to succeed, because that is how most succesful people have done it. Witnessing and observing life through the years has done nothing to change what my young man eyes saw.
My verbal response to him would be to work as hard as you can, and outwork the other guys. But, in the back of my mind I want to see that he is prepared to do what it takes...as long as it is something that won't get you in jail, or hurt somebody.
I personally am nice and am respectful to every person I see, and never mess with anybody. I expect the same from my sons, and from people that deal with me.
Cheating on tests in school is a poor analogy, because most of the stuff you learn in school is not helpful in your eventual work place. Most of the classes you take in college is just so that they can make more money...under the guise that they want you to have a well rounded education.
The reality is, the only college subjects that really matter are the ones that prepare you for your job. Even those are iffy in some fields, as learning on the job is often your best teacher.
That is one of the rmain reasons why so many people cheat in school!
<< <i>But, in the back of my mind I want to see that he is prepared to do what it takes...as long as it is something that won't get you in jail, or hurt somebody. >>
I honestly hope you don't really feel that way, skin.
Seriously, I wouldn't want my child to achieve by cheating; they would only be cheating themselves.
But that's just me and my opinion...
Edited to add: 100
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
skin, what you believe and what I believe about Bonds or cheating on tests isn't really the point.
If your son cheats on his chemistry tests, then the grade he gets reflects how good he is at cheating, not how good he is at chemistry. {repeat until this truly sinks in.}
Bonds' stats from 1999 on are not baseball stats; they reflect how good he is at cheating. You're trying to have a discussion about how good Bonds has been at cheating while pretending it's a discussion about how good he is at baseball. That's your right, but you really shouldn't act so surprised that others won't play along with the illusion. In the case of your hypothetical son, nobody would pretend that his grades meant anything, let alone start threads about them and I, for one, am simply not willing to pretend that Bonds' stats mean anything.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas, if your assertion is simply that the measurement of Bonds is purely a measurement of how good he is at cheating, then that is assuming that he would be a zero without steroids. IS that accurate?
I think there is a lot of relevant information that may show that steroids are only a minimal help.
It is true that stronger muscles help a hitter, but there has to be a point of diminishing returns in regard to how big your muscles get in making one hit better.
In other words, if Barry Bonds hits the gym hard and only takes *'acceptable' supplements, then he may very well reach his maximum benefit from increased muscles. In this case, the addition of steroids may only make further muscle a non factor.
So to say all he did is a big lie isn't exactly accurate, but rather a very big guess. Looking at the information and results of players, it looks as though that steroids are of the smallest factors among all the reasons for increased offense...and simply not worth the trials it is causing everyone.
*what is/is not acceptable now may change in the future. Beer was once illegal.
I also agree and have stated numerous times in the past that expansion, bandbox ballparks, watered down pitching staffs, etc. are also factors directly responsible for the increase in home runs over the years. None of these factors, however, change the fact that Barry Bonds directly benefitted from the use of steroids and that without them he would most certainly NOT be on the verge of breaking Hank Aaron's record. Steroids enabled him to defy the natural aging process by bouncing back from the normal wear and tear any aging player would suffer from and also turn many fly ball outs into home runs. Steroids may not help a poor hitter turn good, but for a guy like Barry Bonds who was already on his way to the HOF prior to 1999, it made a world of difference. In short, you cannot just discount or ignore the impact of steroids on the career of Barry Bonds by using data that proves that home runs were up in general because of many other entirely different factors like the ones I mentioned above. The all-time home run record is probably the most recognizable record in all of sports, and that is why Barry Bonds is being singled out for scorn, and not for any other reason.
Edit to add: Also, the analogy of prohibition and the use of steroids in baseball might even be worse or less relevant than the analogy between Cobb and Bonds.
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>Dallas, if your assertion is simply that the measurement of Bonds is purely a measurement of how good he is at cheating, then that is assuming that he would be a zero without steroids. IS that accurate? >>
No, that is not accurate. I am saying that the only thing I know for certain about Barry Bonds' stats since 1999 is that they reflect cheating and that there is no way we can possibly know how much is due to what. I will no more guess what Bonds' stats would have been than I would guess what a cheating student's grade would have been - they both get zeroes in my book.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Baseball, If it is indeed a guessing game, then you shouldn't be so vehemetly opposed to anyone who says it is a non factor...if after all it is a guessing game like you just said. You should also not draw a 100% conclusion if you see it as a guessing game.
Dallas, anyone is welcome to give him a zero if they wish.
A good body can be built without any supplements, and that can create plenty enough muscle to reach one's maximum baseball output. A steroid on top of that may just make one spin his wheels in terms of EVEN MORE gain.
Baseball, look at the figures I posted in the other thread, and see how all players saw an increase, and seemingly overnight. Unless steroids were passed out to everybody in 1993/94, there are far more prevailing reasons for the increased output. The impact of steroids is minimal compared to the other factors, absolutely.
The Bonds backers need a little help...usually they have total denial that Bonds even touched a steroid(despite that court documents prove he did). The Bonds bashers go overboard. Neither stance is accurate, and in the true tradition of baseball, a guy will break a record with an advantage the previous record holder(or record chasers) did not have. That is simply par for the course fellas. Calm down and just put it into that context and move on.
Oh, there is a good argument to be made in a case against Bonds...though it is still clouded by how much can be attained from regular weight room work and how much from enhanced steroid use. I may have shared that before.
For someone who bases their opinion strictly on facts and statistics, you sure are making a lot of assumptions
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Barry Bonds, major league baseball player 1986-200? Seven time National League MVP. One of the greatest all-around players in baseball history. Became embroiled in controversy over allegedly using illegal performance enhancing drugs forever clouding his true place in baseball history.
I don't know for a fact that Barry knowingly used steroids, but it sure looks that way.
I would make a comparison to Rose in that these were two all-time greats and that's why so many people are up in arms. They both had it all and threw it away. This is unimaginable for the sports fan who would love to be able to have the ability to compete on the same field, if not the level of excellence these two exhibited. Some of will loyally follow our hero's others will be crushed and angry at their failures.
I think it is a shame.
JB
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
SkinPinch......you may have crossed the line by accusing Pujols of using steroids..... if you knew anything about the man and his childhood, you would not lump Pujols in with the cheaters....very bad decision adding him to this list...
Of all the reasons people say it isn't fair etc...including cheating and so forth, I still haven't seen any reason that is strong.
Basically, if one condems Bonds for cheating the game, then they MUST condem Gaylord Perry to the same degree. I have been saying that it is an era adjustment, and he is doing it just like everyone else. To me, there is one thing that makes it wrong.
If it is an era thing and everybody is doing it, then it is not fair because it is basically forcing competing players to do something potentially harmful to their bodies just to keep up.
But the blame for the steroid use should not solely be laid on Barry Bonds, as he was actually following suit of McGwire and Sosa and co. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the players union for their 'untouchable' attitude.
I don't blame Bud Selig, and as witnessed by the congressional hearings, if you read between the lines he said basically that he tried, but that the union would not budge! Bonds is part of the union, and so is every 'clean' player.
They get everything they want and want no responsibility for their actions, and fandango, I lump Albert Pujols and every other player as part of the problem, and since they all let it go, I have no sympathy for ANY ONE OF THEM FOR BEING A SUSPECT! They all made their bed, and they are all fair game to be under suspicion, period.
If it is an era thing and everybody is doing it, then it is not fair because it is basically forcing competing players to do something potentially harmful to their bodies just to keep up.
But the blame for the steroid use should not solely be laid on Barry Bonds, as he was actually following suit of McGwire and Sosa and co. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the players union for their 'untouchable' attitude.
I don't blame Bud Selig, and as witnessed by the congressional hearings, if you read between the lines he said basically that he tried, but that the union would not budge! Bonds is part of the union, and so is every 'clean' player.
They get everything they want and want no responsibility for their actions, and fandango, I lump Albert Pujols and every other player as part of the problem, and since they all let it go, I have no sympathy for ANY ONE OF THEM FOR BEING A SUSPECT! They all made their bed, and they are all fair game to be under suspicion, period.
Agreed. Though it can also be said that some players arouse higher levels of suspicion than others.
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'm a bit torn on this... first of all, has there been actual proof that Bonds used steroids? I believe that he probably did, but I simply not seen the proof. However, I think one of the main reasons that people just don't like Bonds is that he is a racist and generally just not a nice guy. There have been so many stories proving this and I think the steroids rap was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
And, just some food for thought... can we all agree that he's not doing steroids now? Yet, he is off to quite a start through the first full month of the season.
.333/.511/.762 and on pace for 52 HR and 110 RBI. These numbers are not that far off from his 2001-2004 monster years and I can only assume his OBP will continue to rise if he continues his HR pace. Anyway... just something to think about.
Jim G All-time favorite athletes: Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux. "Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
Two things amaze me more than anything in regards to this.
1) The fact that people still deny that Bonds has used steroids. It is already shown. He used everything from cattle steroids to female fertility drugs. He was the 'sperm' milkshake of steroid users.
2) The fact that people think just because there is a veiled attempt at a testing policy that guys no longer use performance enhancers. They don't even test the blood and have no test that they are using for HGH. All they do is urine testing. The real good test cheaters can get by blood tests...nearly anybody can get by the urine test.
Comments
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.
Dallas is right on the money here. The analogy of Bonds and steroids and Ruth and Cobb playing in an all-white league is a very poor one, IMO. Blacks couldn't use the same bathrooms or drink from the same water fountains either until the 1960s. Blacks being excluded from baseball was just a reflection of our society at the time and the fact that certain white stars benefitted from such policy is a long stretch from Bonds choosing to inject himself with steroids to cheat.
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 agree with you guys that in Bonds' case that not all players took enhancing drugs, and it isn't on the exact same degree.
But to absolutely applaud what the Pre War guys did, and absolutely scorn what Bonds did just is not right.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
1)Bonds used performance enhancing drugs, as admitted and as presumed.
1) Ty Cobb was a racist as actions showed and well presumed.
2)Bonds, along with many other players received a historical benefit as a result of performance enhancing drugs. It is presumed to be the majority of players, and the vast majority of big time sluggers.
2) Ty Cobb, along with every player in his league received a historical benefit for not having a group of MLB ability players not allowed.
3) It was Barry Bonds himself to choose this benefit, and up to the rest of the league to make the same choice. Most chose to use.
3)IT was society and baseball in general that disallowed black players. It was also many players who would overtly or secretly not want black players in MLB. Ty Cobb and his attitude is at the forefront of this. They have a great hand in this awful thing.
4)The palyers in Bonds era who chose not to juice didn't benefit as much. So the problem lies with BOnds and his group?
4)Nobody said you had to be racist during pre war and sit there and accept disallowing of deserving palyers. Everybody ended up benefitting...even the non racists. Many of those players would lose their jobs if they stood up for the blacks, so why would they? It was benefitting them. They are part of the conspiracy! **Revist some your words in the Jackie RObinson/AMerican Indian thread I wrote before
Ty Cobb could have easily made it known that he would welcome all black players into the leauge. He chose not to do that, and instead was part of the problem. All players could have done that. This makes them all part of the conspiracy, and puts a black mark on their records because their records would be different with the inclusion of more of the players that they were CLEARLY shutting out.
To use the excuse of "Oh thats just the way it was" in regard to racism, is not a valid excuse.
CONCLUSION: Bonds was helped as a result of his choice, as were countless others who did the same thing competing against him. Ty Cobb was helped, as a result of his choice to railroad black palyers...along with the heavy influence of others with the same like mind or fear for their job.
They may not have been helped by each of their unethical actions to the same degree relative to their peers, and if there was a scale of 1-10 Bonds may be sitting at 9 and Cobb at 4, BUT everybody gives Bonds total disdain and gets no mention on top 5 lists(though he deserves some), and Ty Cobb is continually referred to as one of the best, and sometimes THE BEST player ever and is always.
Bonds has been lumped as a bad person and in the same vein as O.J. simpson and murderers! That is crazy! Ty Cobb is the one who should be lumped with those guys, not Bonds. Bonds' and his contemporaries actions are primarily self inflicting, while Cobbs and contemporaries are punishing others!
People's heroes die hard, and it is easy to hate the current guy, but some perspective needs to be shed.
The fact remains that Ty Cobb and Co. benefitted by not having playes just as good looking on the outside! His attitude was part of that exclusion. There is no doubt it helped him and his contemporaries achieve lofty status.
The fact remains that Bonds and co. took juice, BUT there is a big cloud over two things....1)We don't know exactly how many, but it is well presumed to be the majority, and 2) We don't know exactly how much it even helps! It is quite possible that it only helps one be better at baseball just a bit, or could be a lot. We don't know for sure. If part one is all, then Bonds is just keeping up like everybody else. If part 2 is that it helps only a smidge, then it doesn't even matter.
We do know that a race of viable players were excluded during Pre War. There is no cloud of doubt.
Baseball, you kill me. You say Cobb's racist attitude is fine because that is a sign of the times? Then, isn't Bond's steroid use just a sign of the times too? Also, not all citizens were racists during the 1900's.
The fact remains that Ty Cobb and Co. benefitted by not having playes just as good looking on the outside! His attitude was part of that exclusion. There is no doubt it helped him and his contemporaries achieve lofty status.
The fact remains that Bonds and co. took juice, BUT there is a big cloud over two things....1)We don't know exactly how many, but it is well presumed to be the majority, and 2) We don't know exactly how much it even helps! It is quite possible that it only helps one be better at baseball just a bit, or could be a lot. We don't know for sure. If part one is all, then Bonds is just keeping up like everybody else. If part 2 is that it helps only a smidge, then it doesn't even matter.
We do know that a race of viable players were excluded during Pre War. There is no cloud of doubt.
You say a TRULY great player for Cobb...Yet again he didn't compete against guys that were blantantly excluded. His greatness would be reduced as a result, so how do you say TRULY, when the league wasn't on the up and up?
Only complete and total nonsense !!
Neither Ty Cobb nor Barry Bonds remotely deserves to be compared/lumped with a murderer ( whether convicted criminally or not) !!!!
Trying to discredit Cobb's baseball achievements because you don't agree with his views, on politics, civil rights, or religion, is absurd !
Before anyone discredits Babe Ruth because he was a heavy drinker, glutton and womanizer,
Try to understand this fact, Bonds' and his peers, McGwire, Pujols, and Thome are all among the top 5 most likely homerun hitters of all time.
It would seem probable that from the late 80's to now homeruns, are not as difficult to obtain as in the 1920's.
This is what I initially wrote.....
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 .
The only thing in question on my initial post is two things 1)Exactly how many players juiced, and 2)How much does juice actually help a baseball player. Those are the two variables that could knock Bonds down the peg in my comparision.
You guys turned it into someting else, and you see what happens?
In Cobb's time the black population in the US was less than 2%, at about .018
In Ruth's time the black population in the US was just over 3%, at about .033,
In the late 40s the black population in the US was just over 5%, at about .051.
In 1990 the black population in the US iwas about 11%
As is in most cases, no absolute and totally complete conclusion may be drawn, however, one may reasonably assume Cobb was less a benificiary of black absense from the big leagues, than Ruth was, and most likely Ruth less than Williams or Musial were for a portion of their respective careers.
<< <i>The only thing in question on my initial post is two things 1)Exactly how many players juiced, and 2)How much does juice actually help a baseball player. Those are the two variables that could knock Bonds down the peg in my comparision.
You guys turned it into someting else, and you see what happens? >>
1) I don't care how many players juiced; 2) I don't care how much it actually helps. I think what's happened is that you are trying to have a debate using premises that nobody else agrees with; either the thread dies or we substitute our own premises:
1) Exactly how much effort should I expend glorifying the accomplishments of a cheater?
2) How much honor should MLB bestow on players that are known to be cheaters?
3) Should I pass on to my children and grandchildren tales of exploits of cheaters?
Now THOSE are the premises that apply to Bonds. I don't understand how any baseball fan can look on Bonds with anything but disgust, just as I wouldn't understand an OJ Simpson fan club (that is NOT to say that their offenses are equal, but that they both crossed the line where decent people don't celebrate their accomplishments anymore - OJ crossed it by a lot more, but they both crossed it.) The HOF absolutely is a better place without Barry Bonds in it; they will make a mockery of their own substance abuse rules if they ever put Bonds in there, and I hope and pray they never do. Because, again, I could not care less how good a player Bonds was - he has rendered that point moot.
And, sorry, but I'm still not buying that there is even a shred of moral equivalence between Bonds and Ruth. And while Cobb may have been a bad person, that had absolutely nothing to do with his baseball accomplishments or the integrity of the game itself. Bonds place in baseball history, deservedly, will be far below Cobb's. Their relative places in the afterlife - which is what you're really arguing - is none of my concern.
What I said is that everybody has a differnt view of what constitutes cheating, and what is tolerable. I never gave my view on that. I'm not really concerned about it.
Some don't tolerate it at all....yet amazingly those people tend to do some form of it themselves. Afterall, hypocrisy is the golden rule of our society.
Some might not mind cheating if it is taking from some filthy rich guy who cheats himself...sort of RObin Hood esque.
Some might say I don't care, it is the only way to keep up.
Everybody has their virtues, yet those virtues are usually applied to others and not onself. I never touched upon what mine are, nor care to do.
Dallas, I'm not getting into how I or anyone feels how good/bad cheating/doing roids is. The initial post is all about distancing oneself from the peers who have the SAME variables going for them. The only thing different for Bonds was the How many, and How much. Other than that, it has NOTHING to do what is cheating.
I'm not exactly sure when performance enhancers became against baseball rules, and when exactly Bonds used, but if it isn't against the baseball rules and he and everybody else used them, is it really cheating?? See, this is the slippery slope, and I don't care to even bother with it right now.
The second thing was that "well steroids were against the law." So is it now that he broke the law that he is bad?
Cobb had a hand in helping keep black players out...that is cheating too as it is creating unfair circumstances for his place in baseball history, is it not? One can argue all day to how much a hand, but it is just as slippery a slope as Bonds. There can be no conlcusion reached, it is based on one's ethical stance.
Oh, and Cobb broke the law too...
>>>>>>>"TY COBB
Crimes: Assault (too many to count), murder
It’s impossible to list all Ty’s acts of violence. But here are a few. 1907: Slapped a black groundskeeper; when the man’s wife protested, he grabbed her by the neck. 1908: Assaulted a black laborer; shoved a black chambermaid down the stairs. 1909: Slapped a black elevator operator for being “insolent.” When a night watchman (also black) broke it up, Cobb slashed him several times with a knife. Fined $100. 1912: Pistol-whipped a would-be mugger to death; pummeled a crippled fan. 1914: Threatened a butcher with a gun and pistol-whipped his black assistant. Babe Ruth said it best: “Ty Cobb is a #####.”">>>>>>>>>>>
It seems he broke many laws too. Just because his crimes were different then Bonds, Bonds gets all the hate?
At least Bonds crimes don't directly affect other people to such a harmful degree...and like I said early on, I would much rather have Barry Bonds as my neighbor.
So both Cobb and Bonds have slippery slopes as to what constitutes cheating etc...though to possible varying degrees.
Cobb is the far worse criminal...and the only thing keeping him out of jail was he was famous and his crimes were done to minorities.
Like I said, if one wants to give Bonds disdain for his baseball actions AND personal actiosn, COBB DESERVES THE SAME.
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.
But what is cheating? I personally don't care if Bond took steroids or not. Good for him. If they are bad, it only hurts himself. He isn't stealing anybody's job as he would still have one anyway. All harm is to him, and to the fans who are boo hooing that he will break a record.
Cobb HURT people, and he and his prevailing attitude are part of the reason why it was whites only.
Whitey Ford cheating by scuffing, Gaylord Perry, and Don Sutton too. They all broke baseball rules...and Bonds really didn't even break a baseball rule. Those guys all did something against league rules that enhanced their performance. Many other players probably did the same, many probably didn't. Many other players took enhancers, some probably did not.
For the first time, I am beginning to see the "witch hunt" term that people have used. RIght now everybody is acting as if Barry Bonds was the only steroid user of his time.
IF everybody admits that Bonds and most others cheated as well, THEN they also have to admit that Cobb had a similar advantage with no blacks.
IF one insists that Bonds is the ONLY one that did roids, then he had an unfair advantage. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which puts Bonds at a 9 and Cobb at a 4 on a scale of 1-10, just like I said before.
So at the very least Cobb deserves at least HALF the disdain of taking advantage of an era inherent advantage as Bonds does. It could be even mor though.
Again, it comes down to HOW MANY, and HOW MUCH it helps with Bonds and roids. There is no question Cobb took advantage of his era advantage of no blacks. How much did Bonds take advantage of his. If 75% had performance enhancers, then he too is doing the company line (as Cobb did the company line with no blacks). CASE IN POINT! Doesn't the story go that Bonds did roids to keep up with McGwire and Sosa roids???? He is doing the company line then, and doing an era advantage.
Also, Whitey Ford, Don Sutton, and Don Sutton cheated too! They too should receive the scorn Bonds does, as without that, they don't do as well.
Finally, if all the players are doing performance enhancers of some sort, then Bonds is just taking advantage of his era much like Cobb and his contemporaries did with no Blacks. It was also brought up Bonds was a bad person as a reason for disdain. Well Cobb was awful.
P.S. Of course Cobb wouldn't be an Abe Lincoln...He was te OPPOSITE. He was blatant racist. Are you going to tell me that this doesn't have an effect on an unwritten policy???? Are you kidding me?
Warriors fighting warriors, a battle of brains and or muscle, with the winner at the end. The very thought of a "fixed" fight or horse race, makes me and others lose interest fast. Its not real, its pretend. A fixed baseball or football game , I'm sure has happened many , many times. They are never sold that way. If the fans even suspected, that they were going to a "fixed" or altered gamed, many would think twice before plunking down hard earned dollars to watch a preformance or support this type of game .
The idea that it was okay to sell altered cards or coins was the very reason I decided to join this PSA forum back in December. I remember there were actually people on this very forum , that believed it was okay to sell trimmed cards , recolored cards, cleaned up cards , all sold as "UNALTERED " to the stupid , but trusting , buyer. This is absolutely immoral, deceiving, and in the end will destroy the hobby we love.
The idea that an "altered " preformance, being sold as a "natural "preformance make people like me and Hank Aaron and any other decent person SICK. When the evidense , either by physical or if any of these humans develops a conscience and admits what any moral person already know , then you "cheat lovers " can take some solis in realizing that you were always wrong on this one. It doesn't suprize me as that what happens when you moral compass is broke.
To look at the old Pete Rose thread and see others , wag their finger and tell you there is no evidence Pete bet on his own team. Then when he "fessed" up , to see some of the very posters on this very thread, say " It doesn't matter , if he did it, he still belongs in the HOF. When the "juicers " finally come clean, will these same people posting here pull the the same garbage rational. History sure has a strange way of repeating it self.
There have always been some cheaters in all sports as thats the only way that they can get that edge over the other athletes. Can you imagine telling oneself that "unless I juice up , some other better athlete will do better that me ". Sometimes they get away with it. I've heard it said that "The only thing that evil people need , to succeed , is for good people to do nothing . "
Thank GOD this forum is part of that process.
Ron Kittle a former major league player, purports that while working for a charity, Bonds said something like " I dont give money for white kids' causes." Perhaps Bonds might be a racist like Cobb is alleged to be. Maybe even more so , as what might have been acceptable in 1910 certainly might not be in 2007.
Ty Cobb may have different views on politics, religion, social issues, and moral values than others. He may prefer Scotch to Rye whiskey, he might like Ragtime better than the Blues, Ty may have enjoyed beef more than fish.
It might be okay gamble in many places, but not in MLB. Roids may be okay in the bodybuilder gym lockeroom, but not in MLB lockerooms.
Does any of the aforementioned really matter in how we should judge a player ??
I feel league leading seasons is a easy and correct way to help evaluate how much better one is compared to his peers.
Adjusted OPS+ is very popular, Cobb led 11 times, Bonds 10.
RC ( Runs Created), a bit of an estimate stat, however Cobb led 7 times, Bonds 6.
Runs , the way a game is actually determined, Cobb led 5 times, Bonds 1
RBIs, drive in what does really count, Cobb led 4 times, Bonds 1.
Hitting titles, Cobb 11, Bonds 2.
Total Bases, Cobb led 6 times Bonds 1.
Other stats which are probably less usefull than the above,
OB% 9-7 Bonds, Slg% 8 each, HRs 2-1 Bonds,
Bonds has led in walks 11 times, Cobb never did.
Cobb has led in hits 8 times, doubles 3 times, triples 4 times, and stolen bases 6 times, Bonds never led in any of those.
In 1909 Ty did achieve the hitter's ultimate goal, to win the triple crown. That year he also took the stolen base title, a season of speed and power never seen since.
The abuse of rules or standards in MLB, was not done by Cobb, nor Riuth, nor the fielder who intentionally left his glove on the playing surface in 1935. Times change and rules and standards change, Joe Jackson possibly did abuse them, Pete Rose probably did, Jason Giambi absolutely did, Barry Bonds ?????
I'll form a final opinion on Bonds in the years to come.
That is basically all I did with my initial post...to take into account how far Bonds has distanced the peers that have the same circumstances as he is playing in...thats it. Then I said Cobb etc...also had an unfair advantage for his time.
The point was that Bonds has outdistanced the other juicers to such a great degree, that he has to be mentioned in the same breath as the guys with advantages in other eras.
THEN, everybody started saying he was a cheater, linked him with a murderer etc... Basestealer that is when I brought up the Cobb slippery slop, just as Bonds cheating is a slippery slop. I even tried to avert this stuff with my second post.
Calaban, it has nothing to do wtih being a cheat lover, it is a simple exercise in baseball measurement.
I don't care at all that Bonds did steroids, I don't care at all that Sutton had sandpaper, I don't care at all what Pete Rose did. It is all part of a game. The only thing the roid situation did to me is that it made it a little tougher to get to truth...which is my ultimate baseball goal. But that makes it more challenging! I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ETHICAL ASPECT, AND THAT IS WHY I SAID
"ETHICS ASIDE" IN MY INITIAL POST!
So please save the cheater stuff for somewhere else. If you want to comment about how it may or may not have distanced him unfairly past his peers...compared to that of Cobb and no blacks, GREAT. In fact some people did do that, as I intened to spark.
Unfair in respect to the other major league ballplayers? Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, and the rest, NEVER had an unfair advantage over the other 399 major league ball players. They ALL played under the same situations.
Bonds MAY have had an unfair advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers of his era. I use a flexible number, because although Bonds plays in an era with more total major league players, it is hard to select a proper number, as some might have shared the unfair advantage Bonds is percieved by many to have had.
Cobb had no advantage over Nap Lajoie, Ruth had no advantage over George Sisler, however it is claimed, or possible at least, that Bonds had an unfair advantage over Dale Murphy and countless others, who never did any illegal performance enhancing drugs .
Unfair in respect to the other major league ballplayers? Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Walter Johnson, and the rest, NEVER had an unfair advantage over the other 399 major league ball players. They ALL played under the same situations.
Bonds MAY have had an unfair advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers of his era. I use a flexible number, because although Bonds plays in an era with more total major league players, it is hard to select a proper number, as some might have shared the unfair advantage Bonds is percieved by many to have had.
Cobb had no advantage over Nap Lajoie, Ruth had no advantage over George Sisler, however it is claimed, or possible at least, that Bonds had an unfair advantage over Dale Murphy and countless others, who never did any illegal performance enhancing drugs .
Excellent point, and one that clearly illustrates why Skin's analogy between Cobb and Bonds when it comes to "cheating" or otherwise having an unfair advantage is fatally flawed and ill-conceived.
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>
I agree with you guys that in Bonds' case that not all players took enhancing drugs, and it isn't on the exact same degree.
But to absolutely applaud what the Pre War guys did, and absolutely scorn what Bonds did just is not right. >>
skin, I appreciate how deep you get into debates of ALL kinds BUT reading the above quote just makes no sense. The Pre War guys you speak of did NOT have the very debatable "unfair advantage" as a choice. Barry Bonds did have a choice..... and THAT is a world of difference. So "ethics aside" to me anyway is not acceptable. Pre War guy had no choice ..... Barry Bonds did .... and this is a big factor that can not be just deleted.
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 you guys are getting back on topic, though I already made the points Grote that you say make the whole thing fatally flawed.
Cobb didn't share an advantage any other contemporary didn't either... a fact I laid out already.
Bonds shared an advantage over an unknown amount of contemporaries...a fact i laid out already.
Which leads to the variable that I had already laid out...
HOW MANY guys juiced, and HOW MUCH does it actually help!
For Pete's sake, I said this many posts ago, and it does not render anything meaningless Grote.
For this aspect alone, it means that Bonds advantage may be at a '9' scale, and cobb's at a '4'.
If 100% of people performance enahnced, then it is an equal type advantage. Presumed estimates put it at over half the league doing performance enhancers, then that is a 50% ish advantage bonds had in the 'cheating' factor...which by the way is less an advantage that Whitey Ford, or Gaylord Perry achieved
Jaxxr, you were the first guy to bring up a player from another era that didn't share such large advantages as the other two era's did...Dale Murphy.
THat is part of my initial OVERALL point(I point I always adhere to)...some era's had much stronger inherent advantages over others, and as a result have an unfair advantage to set records and be viewed in a stronger historical light. In view of this, all 'records' are unfair to that degree, and to get one's panties all wet because any guy will break records now with more unfair advantages doesn't really matter. Most aseball records are a direct result from unfair historical advantages. Analysts and historians are there to put them into proper perspective...much like the reasons why Ruth out homering every team is more a product of the environment, then him being that much better then every player in history who didn't come close to doing that!!!!
<< <i>Bonds MAY have had an unfair advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers of his era. I use a flexible number, because although Bonds plays in an era with more total major league players, it is hard to select a proper number, as some might have shared the unfair advantage Bonds is percieved by many to have had. >>
Interesting read..... in order for Bonds to have an unfiar advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers, that means NONE of the other players have ever used performance inhancing drugs of any kind, including roids. I DON'T Believe that for one second.
I think the point was made well; Bonds as well as hundreds of other players have used PID's, are they all cheaters? It seems the witch hunt is only for Bonds because he is about to break a record. They treated Maris the same way, he was the wrong Yankee. In this era of Baseball, Bonds is one of the best players. Cobb & Ruth & Aaron were the best of their era.
Next I expect someone to tell me that Arod, Pujols & Gwynn (have you seen how big his head has become?) also are cheaters. I am sure at some time in their lives they have also taken performance enhancing drugs.
Collecting all cards - Gus Zernial
Post Cereal both raw and PSA Graded (1961-1963)
This ridiculous analogy between Cobb and Barry Bonds was one that YOU presented here. You can type in bold face till you're blue in the face, but the truth of the matter is that your analogy was a very poor and ill-conceived one and really has no relevance to any discussion on Bonds and his place in baseball history. You can spin it any way you want, but to start dragging pre-war players into the mix because they didn't do enough to integrate the game of baseball (like they could have if they even wanted to), is just ludicrous.
It seems he broke many laws too. Just because his crimes were different then Bonds, Bonds gets all the hate?
At least Bonds crimes don't directly affect other people to such a harmful degree...and like I said early on, I would much rather have Barry Bonds as my neighbor.
So both Cobb and Bonds have slippery slopes as to what constitutes cheating etc...though to possible varying degrees.
Cobb is the far worse criminal...and the only thing keeping him out of jail was he was famous and his crimes were done to minorities.
Like I said, if one wants to give Bonds disdain for his baseball actions AND personal actiosn, COBB DESERVES THE SAME.
NONE of this makes any sense when you compare what Barry Bonds did by using steroids and what Ty Cobb did, however offensive it may seem. It's a ludicrous comparison, really, unless your intention all along is to compare the two players in a moral/immoral sense, and I'm frankly surprised that you'd even attempt to make it.
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 brought up the Ty Cobb example to show an element of the grey area or slippery slope. . In my opinion, he is implicit in the conspiracy of keeping out blacks. What, all of a sudden all of you guys don't allow for opinions on a clear opinion matter? You allow for opinion on pure fact matters, but not on stuff like this? This 'cheating' topic is ALL opinion, and that is why I never even wanted to touch it. Several of the first posts went right off topic.
At least there is one board member who was able to wade through the garbage cheating talk that was spewed, and see the main point!......
"Interesting read..... in order for Bonds to have an unfiar advantage over the other 500 to 550 ballplayers, that means NONE of the other players have ever used performance inhancing drugs of any kind, including roids. I DON'T Believe that for one second.
I think the point was made well; Bonds as well as hundreds of other players have used PID's, are they all cheaters? It seems the witch hunt is only for Bonds because he is about to break a record." -262Runner
Our friendly Dalmation hit it on the head. It is an element inherent to his era, much like other era's had elements unfairly favored for theirs. I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE ETHICS OF EACH ELEMENT, just that there was an era element.
<< <i>I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE ETHICS OF EACH ELEMENT, just that there was an era element. >>
See, here we are back at a point I made earlier and you ignored. I get that you don't care about the ethics of this situation. But, other than the ethical component of a Bonds discussion, I don't care to discuss Bonds; Bonds ceased being a baseball player years ago when he chose to become a cheater instead.
Say your son gets an A+ on a chemistry test and you naturally pat him on the back and tell him what a good job he did. Then you find out he cheated and confront him about that. His response - "Everybody was cheating". Now, are you going to take the path that you have taken in this thread with regard to Bonds and pat him on the back again and tell him how proud of him you are that he cheated better than all his classmates? Do "era elements" apply in this situation, too? The fact is, you don't know how good your son is at chemistry - only how good he is at cheating.
I'll repeat what I said earlier - I don't care how many other players have been cheating, and I don't care how much cheating has helped Bonds. The answers to those questions are only relevant if you're trying to decide how to evaluate Barry Bonds as a baseball player. But the answer to that question - he's not a baseball player - is already known. What you want to have is a discussion about how much better Bonds was at cheating than his fellow players, and baseball fans simply don't care about the answer. Calling it an "era element" disguises the problem, but the problem remains.
The pertinent school question should be...If there is a drug to make you smarter or your brain work better, would you take it? Would you ignore possible side effects to get smarter? Parents give stuff like that to their kids all the time!
Dallas, if 85% of MLB are doing some type of performance enhancers, are they all cheaters, or is it the environment of the game?
Dalls, if my son cheated on a Chemistry test, and I knew that everybody else cheated as well...my internal response would be you have to do what it takes to succeed, otherwise the world will eat you up. I somewhat grew up with a screw the man attitude, and do what it takes to succeed, because that is how most succesful people have done it. Witnessing and observing life through the years has done nothing to change what my young man eyes saw.
My verbal response to him would be to work as hard as you can, and outwork the other guys. But, in the back of my mind I want to see that he is prepared to do what it takes...as long as it is something that won't get you in jail, or hurt somebody.
I personally am nice and am respectful to every person I see, and never mess with anybody. I expect the same from my sons, and from people that deal with me.
Cheating on tests in school is a poor analogy, because most of the stuff you learn in school is not helpful in your eventual work place. Most of the classes you take in college is just so that they can make more money...under the guise that they want you to have a well rounded education.
The reality is, the only college subjects that really matter are the ones that prepare you for your job. Even those are iffy in some fields, as learning on the job is often your best teacher.
That is one of the rmain reasons why so many people cheat in school!
<< <i>But, in the back of my mind I want to see that he is prepared to do what it takes...as long as it is something that won't get you in jail, or hurt somebody. >>
I honestly hope you don't really feel that way, skin.
Seriously, I wouldn't want my child to achieve by cheating; they would only be cheating themselves.
But that's just me and my opinion...
Edited to add: 100
If your son cheats on his chemistry tests, then the grade he gets reflects how good he is at cheating, not how good he is at chemistry.
{repeat until this truly sinks in.}
Bonds' stats from 1999 on are not baseball stats; they reflect how good he is at cheating. You're trying to have a discussion about how good Bonds has been at cheating while pretending it's a discussion about how good he is at baseball. That's your right, but you really shouldn't act so surprised that others won't play along with the illusion. In the case of your hypothetical son, nobody would pretend that his grades meant anything, let alone start threads about them and I, for one, am simply not willing to pretend that Bonds' stats mean anything.
I think there is a lot of relevant information that may show that steroids are only a minimal help.
It is true that stronger muscles help a hitter, but there has to be a point of diminishing returns in regard to how big your muscles get in making one hit better.
In other words, if Barry Bonds hits the gym hard and only takes *'acceptable' supplements, then he may very well reach his maximum benefit from increased muscles. In this case, the addition of steroids may only make further muscle a non factor.
So to say all he did is a big lie isn't exactly accurate, but rather a very big guess. Looking at the information and results of players, it looks as though that steroids are of the smallest factors among all the reasons for increased offense...and simply not worth the trials it is causing everyone.
*what is/is not acceptable now may change in the future. Beer was once illegal.
Edit to add: Also, the analogy of prohibition and the use of steroids in baseball might even be worse or less relevant than the analogy between Cobb and Bonds.
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>Dallas, if your assertion is simply that the measurement of Bonds is purely a measurement of how good he is at cheating, then that is assuming that he would be a zero without steroids. IS that accurate? >>
No, that is not accurate. I am saying that the only thing I know for certain about Barry Bonds' stats since 1999 is that they reflect cheating and that there is no way we can possibly know how much is due to what. I will no more guess what Bonds' stats would have been than I would guess what a cheating student's grade would have been - they both get zeroes in my book.
Dallas, anyone is welcome to give him a zero if they wish.
A good body can be built without any supplements, and that can create plenty enough muscle to reach one's maximum baseball output. A steroid on top of that may just make one spin his wheels in terms of EVEN MORE gain.
Barry Bonds, major league baseball player 1986-200? Seven time National League MVP. One of the greatest all-around players in baseball history. Became embroiled in controversy over allegedly using illegal performance enhancing drugs forever clouding his true place in baseball history.
I don't know for a fact that Barry knowingly used steroids, but it sure looks that way.
I would make a comparison to Rose in that these were two all-time greats and that's why so many people are up in arms. They both had it all and threw it away. This is unimaginable for the sports fan who would love to be able to have the ability to compete on the same field, if not the level of excellence these two exhibited. Some of will loyally follow our hero's others will be crushed and angry at their failures.
I think it is a shame.
JB
Basically, if one condems Bonds for cheating the game, then they MUST condem Gaylord Perry to the same degree. I have been saying that it is an era adjustment, and he is doing it just like everyone else. To me, there is one thing that makes it wrong.
If it is an era thing and everybody is doing it, then it is not fair because it is basically forcing competing players to do something potentially harmful to their bodies just to keep up.
But the blame for the steroid use should not solely be laid on Barry Bonds, as he was actually following suit of McGwire and Sosa and co. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the players union for their 'untouchable' attitude.
I don't blame Bud Selig, and as witnessed by the congressional hearings, if you read between the lines he said basically that he tried, but that the union would not budge! Bonds is part of the union, and so is every 'clean' player.
They get everything they want and want no responsibility for their actions, and fandango, I lump Albert Pujols and every other player as part of the problem, and since they all let it go, I have no sympathy for ANY ONE OF THEM FOR BEING A SUSPECT! They all made their bed, and they are all fair game to be under suspicion, period.
But the blame for the steroid use should not solely be laid on Barry Bonds, as he was actually following suit of McGwire and Sosa and co. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the players union for their 'untouchable' attitude.
I don't blame Bud Selig, and as witnessed by the congressional hearings, if you read between the lines he said basically that he tried, but that the union would not budge! Bonds is part of the union, and so is every 'clean' player.
They get everything they want and want no responsibility for their actions, and fandango, I lump Albert Pujols and every other player as part of the problem, and since they all let it go, I have no sympathy for ANY ONE OF THEM FOR BEING A SUSPECT! They all made their bed, and they are all fair game to be under suspicion, period.
Agreed. Though it can also be said that some players arouse higher levels of suspicion than others.
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.
And, just some food for thought... can we all agree that he's not doing steroids now? Yet, he is off to quite a start through the first full month of the season.
.333/.511/.762 and on pace for 52 HR and 110 RBI. These numbers are not that far off from his 2001-2004 monster years and I can only assume his OBP will continue to rise if he continues his HR pace. Anyway... just something to think about.
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
1) The fact that people still deny that Bonds has used steroids. It is already shown. He used everything from cattle steroids to female fertility drugs. He was the 'sperm' milkshake of steroid users.
2) The fact that people think just because there is a veiled attempt at a testing policy that guys no longer use performance enhancers. They don't even test the blood and have no test that they are using for HGH. All they do is urine testing. The real good test cheaters can get by blood tests...nearly anybody can get by the urine test.