|
Post by Seattle Slough on Aug 8, 2007 18:45:32 GMT -4
well, pete rose was a shoe-in before he got caught betting on baseball which he was a player-manager. He still isn't in because of that. All his stats were pre-betting stats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 18:59:36 GMT -4
Pete Rose wasn't the best gambler in a long line of managers gambling. He was the only one.
Bonds is the best of an era of steroids. Gaylord Perry was the best spitballer of all time - he obviously cheated, but he's in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 8, 2007 20:06:23 GMT -4
Pete Rose wasn't the best gambler in a long line of managers gambling. He was the only one. You're right. Pete sucked as a gambler. Rumor has it that he's lost millions to his gambling habit. Too bad the other managers didn't make bets with him, because they would have made a fortune off him. With of course the obvious point being that Pete didn't set his hit record by placing bets. Ballplayers have been, are, and will be ostricized for what they do off the field... IF (and I emphasize "if") it taints the game of baseball. It doesn't even have to be illegal. In fact, the 8 White Sox players were found innocent in a court of law... right before baseball said "we don't care what the court says... YOU'RE BANNED!" And the rule doesn't have to exist when you committed the action for you to be penalized for it. The Black Sox rule was written after they were found innocent. The Hall of Fame rule was written years after Pete agreed to the ban from baseball, but just months before it was obvious that the writers were going to elect him into the Hall of Fame. MLB is notorious for ostricizing whoever they deem necessary, and whenever they deem necessary, to protect the game. And this is the catch 22 that it all comes down to. Either you admit he did steroids, which leads you to find as many mitigating factors as you can to reduce his foul. Or you deny that he did steroids, which begs the question of how he accomplished the record when so much of the oposition he faced was on steroids.
|
|
|
Post by J-Sav on Aug 9, 2007 0:37:16 GMT -4
These are Barry's homeruns in chronological orders, from 1986-2007. 16,25,24,19,33, 25, 24, 34, 46, 37, 33, 42, 40, 37, 24, 49, 73, 46, 45, 45, 5, 26, 22. To say Barry was not consistent is a crock of shit. He was always a HR hitter, just look at his stats. Is there no way that he could gotten better with age? Didn't Roger Clemens become a better pitcher when he got older. Baseball is not a contact sport where you have to been in the best physical shape of your life to play like Fooball, or basketball. Even with the stats that Barry hit 40% of his HR compared to Aaroons 26% could be attributed to today's medicine where athletes have better doctors and more advanced medicine and knowledge than in 1974. And like stork said, How many HR's did barry hit because of steriods. There is no way to tell. The point is that we're trying to make is that Barry did do steriods, but it doesn't matter because he was clearly far and above the best in the era, and people who understand the game of baseball understands that Barry knowlegde of the game and plate discipline was the reason why he hit the HR more than roids. There were players convicted of roids who couldn't hit the baseball out of the infield, but Barry gets on the flak because people could not understand how good Barry Bonds was.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 9, 2007 1:43:31 GMT -4
Your post begs so many questions, geez... where to start?
If steroids didn't help Barry, then why did Barry take steroids? If modern medicine could have made Barry a better player as he aged, then again, why did Barry take steroids? If Barry's knowledge of the game and plate discipline was the reason why he hit the HR, then again, why did Barry take steroids?
When you acknowledge that Barry took steroids, then all you can do is list mitigating factors to reduce the seriousness of his actions. But no mitigating factor can explain why Barry took steroids.
Here's another stat for you. Today Ken Griffey Jr is 37 years, 8 months and 18 days old. He has hit 589 HRs to date. Do you know what the odds are that he will go on to hit another 167 home runs in his career are at his age? They're quite small. Even with all today's modern medicine, baseball players' skills decline at his age. For many, rapidly declining. Hank Aaron went on to hit 116 HR after he was Griffey's age today. But that also included moving to the AL for two years where he DHed. So perhaps if Griffey went to the AL and DHed he would have a shot at hitting 51 more HRs than Aaron did after the same age. But you know what, by most experts opinions, it ain't going to happen for Griffey unless something significant happens to him (say steroid use or something).
Now why is Griffey's situation important. Because when Bonds was 37 years, 8 months and 18 days old, Bonds only had 567 HRs. That's right. Griffey is 22 HRs ahead of Bonds at the same age, yet no one believes Griffey has a shot unless he starts doing steroids too. Players don't improve their skills at the age Bonds improved. There is a huge (and yes it is a HUGE) spike in Bonds slugging numbers after he turned 36 (despite your attempt to say Barry was consistent). The spike is uprecendented in major league baseball history. Even with the modern medicine you mention, other players don't have similar spikes in their careers. If they did, then people would be giving Griffey a great shot hitting 756 as well. It's not like Griffey has to catch up to Barry. He's already ahead of him at the same age. All Griffey needs is that modern medicine spike in his performance... <cough>STEROIDS<cough>.
|
|
|
Post by sativa417 on Aug 9, 2007 7:07:39 GMT -4
other than the year bonds hit 73 what spike is their in his HR numbers? The 3 years after 73 he hit 46, 45, and 45. That's on par with what he was doing before the 73. Also you'll notice his BA went up. If you're BA goes up that means you're hitting better and will therefore increase your HRs. Steriods might make you stronger, but last I checked, it doesn't improve your swing mechanic or eye for the ball. Also, as he got older he lost his speed. No longer a threat to steal bases he obviously had to rededicate his game to his hitting. Which could explain the improvement in BA and HRs. Ken Griffey JR. is a bad example to use. Had he never had the injuries you might have a point, but he's been plagued with one injury after another. Bonds has remained relatively healthy except for the one year. I'm not a Bonds fan boy. I haven't even kept up with baseball much. I could be completely wrong, but this is just MO. If he did take them why would he? One, to improve healing. If he was aching or had small nagging injuries I imagine the steroids would increase healing time. Two, a mental thing. If other people are doing it he might have felt he needed to. Yes, I know that sounds dumb, but how often is that the case? At least at first. Lastly, look at Roger Maris. He hit 39 HRs, then 61, then back to 33. Yes, it was at a younger age, but it shows how players can have one huge year out of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Aug 9, 2007 7:54:53 GMT -4
It doesn't really matter to me. Did he or didn't he hit those 756 homeruns? Is that number made up? No, he did hit them all and even if he took steroids he wasn't caught doing it so they all count. Until proven guilty, he should be considered innocent. I don't really care about Bonds or baseball but I just hate when people try to diminuish others success. If someone is rich, he must have done something illegal. If someone's good, he must have taken stuff. The record is either good or it doesn't count at all. No record is tainted. It's like high school. If you cheated during a test and got an A, if you weren't caught it still counts. It's not like it's a big deal anyway. From what I've read, A Rod will beat that record in like 5 years. Probably then someone will point that A Rod took some stuff at some point in his career and they will be probably right cause all professional athletes don't just drink milk in the morning but it doesn't really matter either. Players should be tested for whatever you don't want them to take. If they aren't or if aren't caught, then it counts. Only Bonds probably knows the truth and that's all that really matters. He knows if he's a fake or not and he's the one that has to live with it.
|
|
|
Post by "Three Time" on Aug 9, 2007 8:38:16 GMT -4
It doesn't really matter to me. Did he or didn't he hit those 756 homeruns? Is that number made up? No, he did hit them all and even if he took steroids he wasn't caught doing it so they all count. Until proven guilty, he should be considered innocent. I don't really care about Bonds or baseball but I just hate when people try to diminuish others success. If someone is rich, he must have done something illegal. If someone's good, he must have taken stuff. The record is either good or it doesn't count at all. No record is tainted. It's like high school. If you cheated during a test and got an A, if you weren't caught it still counts. It's not like it's a big deal anyway. From what I've read, A Rod will beat that record in like 5 years. Probably then someone will point that A Rod took some stuff at some point in his career and they will be probably right cause all professional athletes don't just drink milk in the morning but it doesn't really matter either. Players should be tested for whatever you don't want them to take. If they aren't or if aren't caught, then it counts. Only Bonds probably knows the truth and that's all that really matters. He knows if he's a fake or not and he's the one that has to live with it. there is no doubt really that he took stuff... IMO i dont blame him. there were no rules against it at the time and most everyone else was doing it. People arent pissed that nefi perez has tested positive 3 times to steriods bc he sucks. The entire steriods/HGH stuff is Bud's fault. Nobody elses but his. The debate lies in if you think Bonds is a better homerun hitter than Ruth/Aaron/Gidson so on. He has the record partly bc he took some stuff but also bc he is a hell of a player.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 9, 2007 9:50:44 GMT -4
other than the year bonds hit 73 what spike is their in his HR numbers? The 3 years after 73 he hit 46, 45, and 45. That's on par with what he was doing before the 73. Actually, no it's not. It's not even close. Only three times in Bonds first 13 seasons did he fail to get 500 or more at bats. In those 13 seasons he hit one HR for every 16.1 at bats. During those three seasons you mentioned he averaged only 410 at bats per season, and hit one HR for every 7.8 at bats. Of course the obvious response to this is he drew a lot more walks then he used to get. People who defend Bonds will say it's becuase he just got better at judging the strike zone. But everyone who paid attention to baseball knows the pitchers weren't giving him anything to hit. It's not like Bonds was being pitched to the same way he was being pitched to for his first 13 years. After he went on steroid, pitchers started throwing him junk, because they'd rather walk him than give up the home run. The spike is the ungodly rise in his slugging percentage (which has nothing to do with how many walks he got). When a pitcher actually gave him something to hit, he did far more with it than he'd ever done in his career before. You just assumed that his batting average went up BECAUSE his swing mechanic or eye for the ball improved. Why are you making that assumption? You do realize that if what normally would end up being a fly ball out is hit just a little harder, it's turned into a homerun... a hit... which increases your batting average. You do realize that if what normally would end up being a ground ball out is hit just a little harder, it gets through the infield faster... for a hit... which increases your batting average. Hitting the ball harder will increase your batting average. Or something that could improve his hitting. And this is what people defending guilty people do. They take all the evidence peice by peice and address them all seperately. "Evidence A can be explained by 'ABC', and evidence B can be explained by 'DEF', and evidence C can be explained by 'GHI', and evidence D can be explained by 'JKL', blah, blah blah". Then ask them "Can you explain why evidences A,B,C, and D all occured at the same time?" And they'll say "Happenstance". Then tell them "Do you know that evidences A,B,C, and D all occuring at the same time can be simply explained by steroid use?" and they'll respond "Why are you trying to crucify him?" It was Sun Tzu in Art of War who said, "Every war is won before it's fought." People trying to defend Barry are fighting a losing battle. It's a lose/lose situation before they even decide to believe he did or didn't do steroids. If he did them, they have to prove steroids aren't the reason for his accomplishments, which begs the question of why he did them (which even you in your answer said the reasons are "dumb"). If he didn't do them, they have to prove all the evidence surrounding him is just circumstancial. Has he been caught? No. Does that mean he didn't do them? No. The fact that he hasn't been caught does not eradicate all the evidence that points to him doing them. Which is why Griffey is a great example. If steroids increase healing time, and Griffey is plagued with injuries, then Griffey, a guy who is already ahead of Bonds at the same age despite all the injuries, would easily be able to duplicate what Bonds did with the help of steroids. The fact that most people think Griffey can't do what Bonds did is because Griffey is not on steroids. So many people use the "everybody's doing it" mitigating factor. It's amazing how often it's used despite how many people acknowledge how dumb it is. Yes, at the age of 26, Maris had a huge HR year. He was only 26, and it was in a year when league exansion occured. The majors had 25% more teams than they had before. Everytime MLB expands there's a spike in offense by the established sluggers as they're frequently facing pitchers who were no better than AAA the year before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 12:24:10 GMT -4
If Bonds did steroids, and everyone else did steroids - then why haven't more people hit 700 homers? or even 600? Because steroids had a profound effect on Barry that they didn't on any other player? No, it's because Bonds is the best. He's the best player in the era - hands down. Whether or not he's a better player than Hank Aaron is a question that we'll never be able to answer. Just like we'll never be able to answer the question of who is better between Wilt and Shaq. Or between Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. Or Johnny U and Payton Manning. It's impossible to compare players from era to era.
Also, I'd like to know how many homers Hank hit due to popping greenies before each game? He likely started the trend in the minors so he wouldn't have any spike in numbers - but being able to take pills that make you alert and ready to play through pain throughout a 162 game season probably added quite a few late season and late career homers for Aaron. But no one mentions that. Why? Because the media tells us to hate Bonds since he's a jerk to them, and the media tells is to like Aaron because he's a nice guy to those who interview him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 12:33:23 GMT -4
Another factor is the ballpark these guys played in. Aaron had a pretty normal park - but in Ruth's days it was under 300 feet down both lines. Bonds plays in one of the best pitchers parks in baseball history.
Another thing about Ruth. Any ball that bounced over the fence was considered a home run before 1931, when they changed the rule to make that a ground rule double. I wonder how many balls Ruth bounced over the short right field fence in Yankee stadium that counted as homers? But we don't care about that either. We just care that Bonds is mean to the media - so he must be a mean person, and we don't like him.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Aug 9, 2007 12:53:54 GMT -4
I don't care that bonds is mean to the media. We can easily compare this to bonds vs. griffey. If griffey took steroids he would be breaking whatever bonds sets, because he would have stayed healthy like bonds did. I think that steroids had a a part in him hitting the ball farther, but mostly keeping him healthy. I don't think he would have been healthy with out steroids, griffey has been hurt every year since leaving the mariners. After MLB cracked down on steroids, bonds can't play as many games and hasn't been healthy, he even missed almost a full year and had 5 hr's.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 9, 2007 13:07:14 GMT -4
Everyone else didn't do steroids. A lot of them did, but it's not everyone. As for your claim of why we haven't seen more people hit 600 and 700, 40% of the players above 600 HRs had their careers during the steroid era. 32% of the players bettween 500 and 599 HRs had their careers during the steroid area. 45% of the players between 400 and 499 HRs, from the same steroid era. We are seeing players reach these milestones at a higher rate than before. Then you've got guys like the Ken Camaniti's and Jason Giambis who clearly spiked their HR totals with the use of steroids, but also became huge victims of steroid side effects. Are they going to 700 HR's? Of course not due to their health falling victim to steroids, but they obviously hit more home runs while on steroids than they would have hit without them. Again, please stop it with insinuation that Bonds is being singled out. Sosa tainted the game with what he did. McGwire tainted the game with what he did. Palmeiro tainted the game with what he did. There's a hole slew of HR hitters in the game that tainted their accomplishments by the use of steroids. To even suggest that it's nothing more than a conspiracy by the media against Bonds is ludicrous. The amount of heat he gets corelates to the size of the accomplishment. Obviously Bonds gets more heat than Ken Camaniti did, but both Ken's and Barry's actions taint the game of baseball equally, and should be vilified for such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 13:19:03 GMT -4
I don't care that bonds is mean to the media. We can easily compare this to bonds vs. griffey. If griffey took steroids he would be breaking whatever bonds sets, because he would have stayed healthy like bonds did. I think that steroids had a a part in him hitting the ball farther, but mostly keeping him healthy. I don't think he would have been healthy with out steroids, griffey has been hurt every year since leaving the mariners. After MLB cracked down on steroids, bonds can't play as many games and hasn't been healthy, he even missed almost a full year and had 5 hr's. This is a ridiculous statement. You cannot say for sure that Bonds would have gotten hurt if not for steroids. Griffey is an injury prone player - steroids don't cure a torn hamstring, they just help your body recover from normal wear-and-tear from the game. Also, Bonds hasn't been hurt for the past couple of years after steroid testing, and wasn't hurt his entire career before the steroids spike. He's taking more days off now and resting more because that's what old baseball players do. People forget that he's 43 years old, not on roids anymore, and still doing what no other 43 year old could ever dream of. Take a look at Aaron's plate appearances after he turned 40. 379, 535, 296 Bonds: 51 (missed year due to knee surgery), 482, 385 (through 99 games this year) Julio Franco never got more than 400 AB's after 40. Guys play less when they get old - it has nothing to do with roids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 13:23:45 GMT -4
Everyone else didn't do steroids. A lot of them did, but it's not everyone. As for your claim of why we haven't seen more people hit 600 and 700, 40% of the players above 600 HRs had their careers during the steroid era. 32% of the players bettween 500 and 599 HRs had their careers during the steroid area. 45% of the players between 400 and 499 HRs, from the same steroid era. We are seeing players reach these milestones at a higher rate than before. Then you've got guys like the Ken Camaniti's and Jason Giambis who clearly spiked their HR totals with the use of steroids, but also became huge victims of steroid side effects. Are they going to 700 HR's? Of course not due to their health falling victim to steroids, but they obviously hit more home runs while on steroids than they would have hit without them. Again, please stop it with insinuation that Bonds is being singled out. Sosa tainted the game with what he did. McGwire tainted the game with what he did. Palmeiro tainted the game with what he did. There's a hole slew of HR hitters in the game that tainted their accomplishments by the use of steroids. To even suggest that it's nothing more than a conspiracy by the media against Bonds is ludicrous. The amount of heat he gets corelates to the size of the accomplishment. Obviously Bonds gets more heat than Ken Camaniti did, but both Ken's and Barry's actions taint the game of baseball equally, and should be vilified for such. 2 players hit over 600 homers from this era. 2. Griffey may make it 3 soon. If Bond's accomplishment were diminished then there would be a slew of guys over 600, and a few even in the 700's. But he's 150 homers ahead of anyone else of this generation. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
|
|