Home Run Kings?

[kingcreole]

Just curious as to who everyone here views as the true home run kings.

I also want to view how racist everyone is when very few people vote for Barry Bonds

To this day, Roger Maris and Hank Aaron are still the true kings in my world. Maybe I'm off in La-La Land, but 61 and 755, until broken legitimately, are the standard.

And holy krap, one is white and one is black!?!? No ... can't be.

 

[jagtrader]

Well, Maris had a 162-game schedule when he topped Ruth. Aaron had over 3,000 more career plate appearances than Ruth.

I guess that makes Ruth the home run king. He hit them with greater frequency than any player in history.

 

[EStreetJoe]

If you wanted an option to test racism and double-standards, there would be an option for McGwire and Aaron.

 

[cranberry]

Well, Maris had a 162-game schedule when he topped Ruth. Aaron had over 3,000 more career plate appearances than Ruth.

I guess that makes Ruth the home run king. He hit them with greater frequency than any player in history.

Well, no, that would be Mark McGwire, who hit a home run every 10.61 at-bats. Ruth averaged a home run every 11.76 at-bats. Bonds (12.91) is third and Jim Thome (13.55) is fourth.

 

[jagtrader]

Well, Maris had a 162-game schedule when he topped Ruth. Aaron had over 3,000 more career plate appearances than Ruth.

I guess that makes Ruth the home run king. He hit them with greater frequency than any player in history.

Well, no, that would be Mark McGwire, who hit a home run every 10.61 at-bats. Ruth averaged a home run every 11.76 at-bats. Bonds (12.91) is third and Jim Thome (13.55) is fourth.

Well, we're not counting the steroid players. That's the point of this thread, I think.

 

[kingcreole]

No, you can count steroids players if you want.

 

[Claws for Concern]

Sadaharu Oh and Roger Maris isn't an option?

 

[spnited]

Relative to his era and his competition, Ruth is far and away the all-time home run king.

But the records for home runs in a season and career no longer belong to him.
So my pick in this poll (minus PED's) would be Maris and Aaron.

 

[BTExpress]

Barry Foote and Sixto Lezcano.

 

[Nathan Scott Phillips]

How about Roger Conner and Ned Williamson? This live ball thing is total bull****.

 

[Claws for Concern]

Brady Anderson and Jose Canseco

 

[Oz]

I voted for Bonds and Bonds. Because until he tests positive ...

 

[The Big Ragu]

I voted for Bonds and Bonds. Because until he tests positive ...

I'll accept this. But I am not sure I understand it. The only way that makes sense to me is if 1) you think steroids are a disqualifier, and 2) you have any doubt that he used.

I am assuming you do believe steroids are a disqualifier from your post. But a positive test isn't what would make him a cheat if you do believe that, it's the fact that he used. I personally don't see how anyone can have any doubts that he used, which is why a positive test seems fairly irrelevant to me. Why does it take him being dumb enough to a fail a test to solidify your opinion? What about HGH, which they don't test for? What about the time he was using THG, and there wasn't any test for it (and who knows what else that is unknown and can't be tested for)?

If the testing policy and the ability of the tests to keep up with the users actually was an effective way of discerning who has used and who hasn't, that would make much more sense to me. But hundreds of pro baseball players have likely used and an after-the-fact testing program that still isn't likely to catch 98 percent of the users seems irrelevant to me if you have a ton of other evidence that a guy used.

If you seriously have any doubts that Bonds used, I'll buy the logic, even though I wonder how anyone can have those doubts. Otherwise, I don't get it.

 

[Oz]

I voted for Bonds and Bonds. Because until he tests positive ...

I'll accept this. But I am not sure I understand it. The only way that makes sense to me is if 1) you think steroids are a disqualifier, and 2) you have any doubt that he used.

I wrote that with the thought that it seems like most people are upset he's going to break the record because they feel he has used, which there's good reason to believe. Never mind that supposedly the Steel Curtain Steelers were juiced up on steroids during their time, which would mean there's a chance that other players in that era (like Aaron) might have also used. But we won't ever know, so we go based on numbers and numbers alone.

And if Bonds owns both of the home run records, it would be ridiculous for people to argue against him.

 

[shotglass]

If you seriously have any doubts that Bonds used, I'll buy the logic, even though I wonder how anyone can have those doubts. Otherwise, I don't get it.

Here's what I think you don't get about the stance of people like me.

I don't need very strong evidence in defense of Bonds. I'm going by the legal definition of guilt ... "beyond reasonable doubt."

And that's why I can 75% believe Bonds did use steroids -- and that's still not good enough. I need the smoking gun. I won't throw anybody's entire career under bus for anything less.

 

[Double J]

How about Roger Conner and Ned Williamson? This live ball thing is total bull****.

Well played.

 

[The Big Ragu]

If you seriously have any doubts that Bonds used, I'll buy the logic, even though I wonder how anyone can have those doubts. Otherwise, I don't get it.

Here's what I think you don't get about the stance of people like me.

I don't need very strong evidence in defense of Bonds. I'm going by the legal definition of guilt ... "beyond reasonable doubt."

And that's why I can 75% believe Bonds did use steroids -- and that's still not good enough. I need the smoking gun. I won't throw anybody's entire career under bus for anything less.

As I said, I'll accept it that if you, or anyone else, truly has any doubts. So I understand the stance.

What I don't understand is how anyone can have reasonable doubts. But ultimately that is us looking at something and seeing two different things. I'm not likely to convince you, and I can't you imagine you convincing me of any reasonable doubt.

Whether it is all of the evidence that was presented in Game of Shadows, the obvious and unnatural changes in his physique or his home-run hitting prowess for 2/3 of his career compared to his unprecedented increase in ability that made him better than anyone who has ever played at an age that defies logic, there is no doubt for me.

 

[Ensign Pulver]

I'm going by the legal definition of guilt ... "beyond reasonable doubt."

You hear this a lot, but here's something to keep in mind: There are two legal definitions of guilt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in a criminal court case. "A preponderance of the evidence" is the standard in a civil court case. O.J. skated on the former, but was found guilty by the latter. As far as I'm concerned, the preponderance of the evidence nails Bonds to the wall.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I voted for Bonds and Bonds. Because until he tests positive ...

I'll accept this. But I am not sure I understand it. The only way that makes sense to me is if 1) you think steroids are a disqualifier, and 2) you have any doubt that he used.

I wrote that with the thought that it seems like most people are upset he's going to break the record because they feel he has used, which there's good reason to believe. Never mind that supposedly the Steel Curtain Steelers were juiced up on steroids during their time, which would mean there's a chance that other players in that era (like Aaron) might have also used. But we won't ever know, so we go based on numbers and numbers alone.

And if Bonds owns both of the home run records, it would be ridiculous for people to argue against him.

There is no evidence, and no reason to suspect, that Henry Aaron used steroids. But I can point to a lot of things cast suspicion on Barry Bonds. There is zero evidence that steroid use was prevalent in baseball in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. There is a ton of evidence that they were throughout the 90s and into the present.

 

[Oz]

There is no evidence, and no reason to suspect, that Henry Aaron used steroids. But I can point to a lot of things cast suspicion on Barry Bonds. There is zero evidence that steroid use was prevalent in baseball in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. There is a ton of evidence that they were throughout the 90s and into the present.

Suspicion is one thing, evidence is another. I want iron-clad proof -- like Raffy's positive drug test -- on Bonds. Otherwise, there's nothing more than suspicion, which isn't enough to change my mind.

And considering how you've extended the steroids argument into the present, I'm curious whether you would have the same suspicion about A-Rod, Pujols or any other player who might have a shot at the all-time mark.