1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bonds: Has the tide turned on the media bullies?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by creamora, Jul 5, 2007.

  1. creamora

    creamora Member

    D-3fan says, "The fans know, with some reasonable doubt still looming, that Bonds has taken steroids. With that said, he's still a freak at the plate and fans dig the long ball. End of argument."

    "Fans did the long ball", kind of sums it up nicely.
     

  2. This is an interesting argument, and one that never occurred to me.
    Ragu? Rebuttal?
     
  3. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    You're right that no-one cared in 1998, but it seems that a lot of people cared when the sheet came up. I think it peaked at the Senate hearings, but there is still a certain resentment that leads the sports-following public to not want players suspected of,, or in the case of Rafael Palmeiro found to have used, performance enhancers in the Hall of Fame.

    Fan polls taken at the time of the last HOF balloting indicate that fans wouldn't have voted McGwire, Bonds, Sosa or Palmeiro in. All four players got less than 50% of the vote in one poll I saw.
     
  4. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Career slugging leaders:
    #1 Babe .689
    #6 Bonds .608
    #24 Willie .557
    #26 Hank .554

    Atbats per homerun
    #1 McGwire 10.61
    #2 Babe 11.76
    #3 Bonds 12.92
    #36 Hank 16.38
    #38 Willie 16.49
     
  5. But, 'yab, the question was about late-career improvement, which is always Innuendo No. 2 in re: Bonds -- The size of his melon is No. 1 -- and buckdub's stats make it look like Aaron had a similar renaissance.
     
  6. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Bonds' numbers are his numbers and it's not going to change. Just to put it in a little perspective, Bonds, Mays and Aaron are similar but not in the Babe's class.
     
  7. Oh, OK.
    No problem.
     
  8. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Thought you'd understand, the only player to win a Home Run Title and an ERA title. Also interesting that Bonds led the league in Home Runs only twice in his career, Ruth had a string of 6 straight. Hank did it 4 times, as did Willie.

    Bonds has 77 career triples, Babe has 136
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    No rebuttal necessary.

    If you are alleging that Hank Aaron was using a laundry list of steroids, HGH and insulin from the ages of 36 to 39, you're pretty much alone. There's no evidence of it. No cartoonish physiological changes in the man, no context of those drugs having infested baseball in the early 70s and nothing Balco-like supporting your allegation. Those also weren't career years for Aaron in the context of his prime years. He didn't suddenly tee off for 73 HRs at the age of 36. Aaron had fewer ABs because as an older man he needed to sit more, and for whatever reason his HR to AB ratio improved slightly for the years you are pointing at (it doesn't compare to Bonds who started to hit HRs almost twice as frequently as he had in his prime).

    Feel free to argue that Hank Aaron's stats were chemically enhanced and argue against the evidence that Bonds' last eight years have been influenced by his obvious drug use. But if you are making that argument seriously, most people are going to see someone making a red-herring argument designed to obscure some other agenda (creamora) or someone deliberately choosing to ignore the obvious.
     
  10. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Bonds numbers post 2000, seem to be that of another player, a better player, an enhanced player
     
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Absent a publicly revealed positive test, and knowing the advances made in body-technology training that have nothing to do with drugs, I'll think nothing adverse about Bonds' late career improvements. In sports with easily measurable standards, numbers have gotten so much better over the decades, so why it would be questioned in team sports miffs me.

    And absent an asterisk, Bonds's stats have to be taken at face value. And even if you assume steroids, a "steroids-type" injury cost him a season, so one can argue he's where he should be, anyway. And even assuming steroids, there no way you can say with confidence how many homers, if any, were ill gotten. And I'll lay stakes against anyone who doesn't think Bonds will make it first ballot.

    And Ragu, a moderator shouldn't go on the attack, as you have with creamora. Disagree with him? Fine. But it's not your place to lead the pack of hounds.
     
  12. Eagleboy

    Eagleboy Guest

    This is the argument one of my buddies made a couple weeks ago that really made me think. I don't recall the whole thing, but the main points of it were that if Bonds was using something, that's not going to make the ball fly out of the park. Instead, on average, perhaps he hit the ball 10-15 feet farther than he did beforehand. That way, deep fly balls/warning track doubles are now in the stands.

    It would be interesting if somehow, someway the distance of every single one of his home runs was available. By taking some kind of statistical average per year/decade, we might then be able to see how much it helped.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page