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!

Like him or not, he is the best ever

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by creamora, May 17, 2007.

  1. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    I would think that the longer 73 Hr's stands as the record and the lack of people who get even more than 65 continues to grow, the more respect people will have for that record. It is all cyclical. And if Bonds gets to 775 home runs and 30 years from now it is still the record -- the taints and asterisks will fade away
     
  2. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Lost all credibility right here:

    Completed? Just beginning.
     
  3. beefncheddar

    beefncheddar Guest

    The longer 73 stands, the more convinced people will become that it's tainted. Because the thought will be that now that the sport is "cleaned up," nobody can come close to 73.

    The only way that record comes even remotely close to some small bit of legitimacy is if the sport finds a way to convince the public it is clean -- and there are "legitimate" assaults on 73.

    If, all of a sudden, the sport appears "clean" and nobody seems able to hit more than 60 ... well, that's going to speak clearly to how Bonds went about getting to 73.
     
  4. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    I'm not dismissing either and I agree with you - I am a big believer in the fact that each era had its pluses and minuses, advantages and disadvantages and therefore there is no reason -- other than a ridiculously personal and petty attack by a very small-minded group of baseball writers who hate Bonds -- for asterisks or anything of the sort in any era, including the steroid era.

    Further, I heard an excellent interview with Goose Goosage the other day and I would assume he knows what he is talking about when he says that home run has definitely been cheapened, but not because of steroids.

    It has been cheapened by smaller ballparks, by the "new technology" i.e. juiced bats and balls, by the fact that there are far more advanced weight training available so the athletes are bigger and stronger.

    But then he said BUT MOST OF ALL he said because pitching sucks (paraphrase) today. He said guys don't learn how to pitch any more, guys aren't allowed to, because of the ridiculous rules, throw inside and take away the inside of the plate and he said guys aren't taught to pitch any more, they are just rushed through. He said expansion has also diluted the pitching and there are a lot of major league pitchers who shouldn't be there.

    He said when Hank Aaron and others in that era played, the first thing he was thinking about stepping up to the plate was what he would do if he had a ball fired at his head. Now, guys don't even worry about getting hit because pitchers aren't taught to and just don't throw inside (a little chin music) to take control of the at-bat and give the batter something else to think about.

    He used as an example the Red Sox hitting four home runs in a row the other night (a week or two ago now) and asked rhetorically "in the 1970's and before that, do you think the third guy would have had any chance to hit it out of the park?" He said he'd have been knocked on his ass by a high hard one.

    That's why I say this "outrage" over the steroids era is absurd. It is what it is.
     
  5. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    I couldn't disagree more. There will be other guys who hit 60 and clearly a guy like Pujols, even not juiced, is as physically imposing and strong as Bonds ever was -- but the longer nobody like a Pujols or an A-Rod (who is in tremendous shape) reaches 70, the more people will realize that hitting 73, regardless of if you think it was chemically induced (and there is little proof of how much in terms of home runs steroids could add) or not is damn impressive.

    And as the baseball opinion makers continue to change -- i.e. the old and middle-aged white fogeys who now constitute the majority of the baseball writers association and hall of fame committee begin to die off and retire or both -- history will begin to be much kinder to Bonds, to McGuire to anyone who competed in this era.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Zag, Testing policy sucks in baseball, but it has probably curtailed what guys are doing and to what extent. When Bonds hit 73, they weren't testing for anything. They are now. The threat of testing has to be keeping guys from doing the all-out kinds of cheating Bonds was doing by the evidence (Winstrol, insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate, trenbolone, and God knows what else that can't be detected). I wouldn't be surprised if HGH use is rampant, because they are not testing for it. I am sure there are some guys who know how to mask traditional anabolic steroids. But after Rafael Palmiero, for example, I bet the number of guys thinking they could use Stanozolol and avoid detection decreased quite a bit.
     
  7. IU90

    IU90 Member

    Perhaps against players of his era, but that's as much as I'll concede. I was watching some Ruth footage just a couple nights ago and could not believe that fat tub of goo was once considered America's premiere pro athlete. Everything about him--his overweight body, his off-balance swing, his wobbly running style--seems almost cartoonish and is SO far off from today's Major League standards.

    He resembles, at most, your standard beer-swilling local softball legends of today. I just can't see that guy having success against today's big league competition. (Of course, if he played today, weights and steroids might've given him a completely different appearance).
     
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Says the Braves fan.

    All due respect to your baseball knowledge, I saw them both, too. And outside of arm strength, there is definitely a comparison. Bonds just didn't have the arm to play center field.

    If you want to talk about impact because Jones was a center fielder and Bonds was in left, that's fine. But in terms of the skill with which they played their positions, a young Bonds played left field the way a young Jones played center.

    I doubt we'll ever see this one the same way. So I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this one.
     
  9. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    It probably has but by the same token, the mad scientists and cheaters of this world are always one step ahead of the testers -- as an aside you want to talk about unwatchable movie scenes, how about that roid head defensive end from The Program getting his urine replaced the night before a game -- so it will never be clean and I don't think guys in the 1960's and 1970's were clean, either. They obviously didn't have the smorgasboard of performance enhancing drugs we have now, but the bottom line is guys have always been looking for an edge.

    And all of that being said -- nobody else has come close to putting up the numbers Bonds has during this era - which we could say ran from like 1998 to 2004 -- and the further we get from this era, the more people will look at that and say "God damn, even if he was fueled by horse hormones, he was still far and away the best player of his era and thus one of the best of all-time."
     
  10. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Will ARod be the best player ever when he obliterates Bonds' home run record?
     
  11. IU90

    IU90 Member

    No shit. As I understand, the current obsession among the mad scientist steroid designers is making more roid mixes undetectable (or nearly so) by testing. The folks who thinks the steroid era is over are deluding themselves. Like it or not, that part of the game is here to stay.
     
  12. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Are you so sure he is going to? These things are so cyclical he might not.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page