Bonds hits 714

tokyo32590 · May 21st, 2006, 02:47 AM

What do you guys think about this?

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...=.jsp&c_id=mlb

**mavgrad99** · May 21st, 2006, 03:40 AM

who the fock cares? until he gets to 756 it doesnt matter... second place is the first loser anyway

tokyo32590 · May 21st, 2006, 03:46 AM

Hm...this is an interesting forum. What are you guys interested in if not enganging in any actual discussions?

**sucher67** · May 21st, 2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tokyo32590

Hm...this is an interesting forum. What are you guys interested in if not enganging in any actual discussions?

Ok, Tokyo-san, let's discuss:

1. where performance-enhancing substances belong in professional sports.
2. the difference betwen 'illegal'and 'unethical.'
3. what sort of effort Babe Ruth went through to set his record.
4. why baseball in America is losing fans

If you want to have a real discussion, then lets talk about these things, because that's what Mr. Bonds brings to mind for me.

I can't speak for mavgrad99, but his frustration might stem from the above issues.

**aircru** · May 21st, 2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sucher67

Ok, Tokyo-san, let's discuss:

1. where performance-enhancing substances belong in professional sports.
2. the difference betwen 'illegal'and 'unethical.'
3. what sort of effort Babe Ruth went through to set his record.
4. why baseball in America is losing fans

If you want to have a real discussion, then lets talk about these things, because that's what Mr. Bonds brings to mind for me.

I can't speak for mavgrad99, but his frustration might stem from the above issues.

well put and reps.....nobody likes a cheater!!! I guess it's ok to celebrate the milestone....not the man

he is not alone here...corked bats...(Sammy)...even the old bash brothers have shamed me!!

**g_samsa** · May 21st, 2006, 01:09 PM

I think it's generaly accepted that Barry Bonds was a great baseball player before he started on his cheating rampage. He probably never would have hit 700 homers, but he was still a great ball player. I don't follow baseball that much so i can't say what all his stats are, or were, before all this cheating but I heard Joe Torre say the other day that the guy was seriously top-notch even when he entered the league. He was a lock for the hall of fame even before all of this.

So the big question is, why did he feel he needed to sully his reputation (more than what was possible with his bad attitude) with all this speculation when he was already so good and assured a spot in the hall? It's the same thing with Pete Rose. That guy was idolized by millions of americans for his work ethic and tenacity, not to mention his records and stats. Why did he need to throw all that away for a little money?

These guys are type A personalities that are ultra-competitive. They just can't stand not being number one all the time. It drives them to distraction and makes them do stupid things. They become blind to everything except winning and pushing the limits.

John Daly, the golfer, has lost over 10 million gambling. He says he does it because of his competitive nature; he says he loves the thrill. He knows he loses money but he does it anyway. Charles Barkley is the same way. Terrible gambler: great competitor and uber-focused on winning.

The difference with John Daly and Charles Barkley is that they haven't done anything illegal. They use gambling as a way to release their competitive nature.

Pete Rose and Barry Bonds have found self-destructive ways to stay on top. They threw away everything because they couldn't controll their competitive natures.

High performance athletes are unlike most of us in that it's their explosive, competitive nature that gets them to the top in the first place but it's also the thing that is most capable of destroying them. Most of us go through life in a nice middle-of-the-road place that affords us security and peace. Sure, we deviate occasionaly; but, we don't live on the edge like many of these guys.

Sorry for the long response. I figured it was worth talking about.

tokyo32590 · May 21st, 2006, 02:20 PM

Exactly, Barry was a great baseball player far before the steriod alligations which emphasizes why I don't think he took steriouds. You put up an interesting point g_samsa about the type of personality he could have but I still doubt he took them.

tnx4yourhelp · May 21st, 2006, 03:04 PM

the guy who caught it was a 19 year old guy.on cameras when asked if he would give the ball to barry he said he hates bonds and will just sell the ball.at the press conf. bonds said "I don't have any idea why anyone would express any hatred toward any other person that you don't know,".pretty funny.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060521/..._bonds_ball_dc

cheezewhiz · May 21st, 2006, 04:14 PM

why cant we all get a long?
It's called survival of the fittest thanks to testosterone.
Why cant people accept this basic fact of life.
Most creatures have one rule in life - Eat or be Eaten. Thats it. always on guard or die
we on the other hand have the same rule only mixed with a plethera of other crap that confuses our lives.
Get on track and be swift about it

**illiniballfan112** · May 21st, 2006, 05:44 PM

ESPN.com had an intersting article today providing a bunch of scientific evidence and statistics on a multitude of factors that would improve barry bonds performance becausse of the steroids, things like strength, bat speed improvements, eyesight improvements, etc.

usually when great power hitters hit 34-35 years old (like bonds was when he began using steroids), his home runs per at-bat decreases significantly.....bond's went up significantly. so at an age he should've been getting about 1 homer for every 13-15 AB's, he was getting 1 per 8 AB's.

anyways, they ran a bunch of numbers and looked at the statistics of everything (including bond's previous performance, how the steroids effected his average distance per fly ball or homer and how many homers that would've stayed in the park without, how many games he would've missed due to injury, etc) involved with the steroid use.

They came up with the number 616. That's where he'd be today without steroids according to this very convincing article. I was a graduate student and some of the studies they did seem very significant.

There is no denying Bonds is a GREAT ballplayer, and there is also no denying, according to baseball's rules, that he is a CHEATER. it's a shame because he would've been remembered as the greatest hitter of our time and maybe ever even without the 'roids, but now his "legacy" will forever be tainted. you do the crime, you do the time.

on a side note, i really believe with all the studies going on right now regarding testosterone and it's effects on anti-aging and the body once you get older that by the time i am 40 (27 now), taking some form of testosterone in safe doses will be as common as taking a vitamin in the morning. guess i'm opening up another discussion!

**sucher67** · May 21st, 2006, 06:35 PM

I'd like to expand on where illiniballfan112 is heading. If you want to get serious about this debate, then consider forensic statistics. The following is from Gladwell's blog, and it is worth some attention:

"Florence Griffiths Joyner, in 1988. Before that year, her best times in the hundred meters and the two hundred meters were, respectively, 10.96 and 21.96. In 1988, at the advanced (for a sprinter) age of 28, a suddenly huskier FloJo ran 10.49 and 21.34, times that no runner since has even come close to equaling. At the time, people in the track world just rolled their eyes. But since FloJo never failed a drug test, there was nothing they could do. Well, there is something we can do. We can bring in the forensic economists—and any statistical analysis of the career marks of world class sprinters would have told us that marginally world-class 28 year old do not, in the absence of some kind of help, suddenly turn into the greatest runners the world has ever seen.

Bonds falls into the same category. From the moment he started his late career surge, everyone who knew anything about baseball suspected mischief. “Game of Shadows” points out that Bonds had the second, ninth and tenth greatest offensive season in baseball history at the ages of 36, 37, and 39 respectively—and the average age of everyone else on that list (Gehrig, Foxx, Ruth and Hornsby) is 27. No one—no one—turns himself into one of the greatest hitters of all time in his late 30’s. His home run record should have been denied as statistically implausible.

Will raising the bar this way mean we occasionally deny a genuine record? It’s certainly possible. Bob Beamon jumped 29 ft, 2.5 inches at the Mexico City Olympics, and had never jumped more than 27 ft, 3 inches before that, and never again jumped more than 27 feet. No one has ever doubted that Beamon was clean. But it’s a totally weird performance. On the other hand, it was at altitude. Because of the difficulty in hitting the board, long jump performances are highly variable. And the effect of drug enhancement is sufficiently long-lived, that a single anomalous performance in an otherwise quiet career is more statistically plausible than a string of closely-linked anomalous performances in an otherwise quiet career. FloJo had a fantastic year in 1988, which is why she raised so many eyebrows. She wasn’t Beamon. She was Bonds. I think if we’re smart about it, we can learn to distinguish the fluke performances from the phony performances."

From: http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwell...f_shadows.html

**pliny_2001** · May 22nd, 2006, 12:38 AM

It's an interesting idea, but I'm going to be against it for the Bob Beamon reason. Also Steve Reeves: there's a formula that the author of 'The Adonis Comlex' uses to describe the maximum amount of fat-free mass that a person can carry w/o AAS (it's something like a regular person is a 17, they can get up to a 25 w/o AAS, Arnold was a 32 at his peak, etc). In the pre-steroid era, Reeves was a 27. It wasn't a one-off like Beamon, it was instead just an example of a superior athlete like Jesse Owens, Jim Thorpe, or Bo Jackson - some people are just freakishly better than the rest of us.

Has anyone read "Game of Shadows"? Recommended?

Eastwood95 · May 22nd, 2006, 09:46 AM

i really dont care that he took steroids, lying about it and coming up with the lame excuse "I didnt know what I was taking" is what really pissed me off. As far as BABE RUTH goes in the baseball history books, here's a quote from Dayn Perry at Fox Sports:

"Ruth drank heavily and cheated on his wife, he didn't play against the best competition because baseball wasn't integrated, the dimensions of Yankee Stadium favored his home run exploits, etc, etc.

There can be absolutely no doubt that if Ruth played today as he was then, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. His physical limitations (brought on by his eating and drinking habits) would have greatly hampered his effectiveness in today's game, and even if he was to do well enough to hold down a job as a DH or something, he'd get blasted in the media day-in and day-out for his lack of morals. He either wouldn't have been good enough to stick around unless he got in shape, and he wouldn't even have been welcomed for very long by any club with all of the negative press he would've brought with him." end quote

In my personal opinion, Babe Ruth WAS way overrated and wouldnt even make the major leagues today. Plus, there was no drug testing back then, Ruth could have been coked up for every game....who knows. Also, because it was more socially acceptable for 1. Being a drunk 2. Cheating on your wife 3. Being an obese ballplayer, as long as you can hit......these things hardly ever come up when there's a conversation about RUTH. In today's world, he honestly would not measure up.........

**g_samsa** · May 22nd, 2006, 10:03 AM

Wow Eastwood, I really don't agree that Ruth would not have made it today. Kirby Puckett was just as fat as Ruth and look at that guy. Even though the game was not integrated in his time doesn't mean he wasn't playing against talented players; It isn't like the majors were a inferior league. On a seperate note, I don't realy get why it's in fashion to think that the Negro League was a superior tallent pool and the majors were just full of a bunch of red-neck wannabees. Is it possible that both leagues were full of great players and integration was simply a full integration of race AND talent, flowing both directions?

I think it's a mighty big stretch to say that Ruth was way overrated and wouldn't make the majors today. You seem to be assuming that Ruth would not have changed any of his habits to match the times. He was a supremely talented player who was far and away better than the competition (which was also very good) of his time. Don't you think he would have risen to the occasion and taken advantage of modern training techniques (which didn't exist then) and health (which also was not a concern in his time)? If you are going place him in a different time and say he doesn't rate then you must be willing to take todays players and put them in the past to see how they would do. How would Bonds do in 1919 without the aid of drugs, training regimines, suppliments, teams of coaches, etc...? Regardless of race it might be possible that Bonds doesn't rate a second look in Ruth's day. It goes both ways, but I'm willing to say that talent flows both ways and would surely rise to the top given that the players take advatage of available technology and conform to their times and norms.

Eastwood95 · May 22nd, 2006, 11:13 AM

Dont get me wrong, I'm not a PRO Bonds fan, although he is an eight time gold glover and a record 7 time NL MVP, all time & single season & intention MLB walks leader, NL batting title 2002 & 2004, MLB record 13 consecutive seasons with 30+ Home Runs. I'm not saying RUTH wasnt "the top hitter" of his time, or that he wasnt good for the sport, but when the fences were 295', and the overall level of all the players were not nearly as competitive as today, how can anyone argue the Babe as the greatest player of all time? Everyone always mentions his name when the greatest player of all time conversation comes around, I just dont see how.......

In summary, I like what Babe Ruth did for the game, and he did have some impressive accomplishments in his career, but he should not be considered for greatest player of all time.........one question though, how the hell did his fat ass have more triples than stolen bases? That shit doesnt make sense...

BACKGROUNDER: BARRY BONDS

CBC Sports Online | Last updated May 9, 2006

Bonds and the Bambino head-to-head

Barry Bonds Babe Ruth
2757 Games Played 2503
9205 At-bats 8398
2093 Runs 2175
2759 Hits 2873
569 Doubles 506
77 Triples 136
713 Home Runs 714
1865 Runs batted in 2217
506 Stolen Bases 123
2341 Walks 2062
1443 Strikouts 1330
.300 Batting Average .342
.443 On-base % .474
.611 Slugging % .690

**pliny_2001** · May 22nd, 2006, 12:06 PM

The Ruth-v-Bonds discussion is similar to my point in the "Is Auto-racing a Sport" thread -- the records of auto racing, baseball, etc can't be measured from one era to another. You can put todays top milers in old-style shoes and clothes to see if they can beat Roger Bannister, but you can't put Michael Schumacher in a 1932 Alfa for the Mille Miglia. You similarly can't compare Bonds and Ruth - you can only say that Ruth was more dominant in his era than Bonds is in his.

And don't curse the Babe and say that such habits can't make an elite athlete: David Wells pitched a no-hitter so hung-over he couldn't see straight.

**PowerHouse** · May 22nd, 2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mavgrad99

who the fock cares? until he gets to 756 it doesnt matter... second place is the first loser anyway

Quoted for importance.

I dont care what studies have been done, how many calculations there are, no matter how blatantly obvious the signs are until he has tested positive for steriods I cant do anything but give him his props. He is innocent until proven guilty. Like I said in another thead, I do think he has taken steriods but I sure as hell cant prove it.

**mavgrad99** · May 22nd, 2006, 03:06 PM

755... Hank Aaron's number one... at this pace Bonds will be hard pressed to stay healthy and get to that number in two years. He ain't no spring chicken and his body at 41 is telling him that right now, you realized how hard it was to get to 714? He still hasn't passed Ruth either, that is no knock against the man and doesnt even factor in the steriod debate, just the facts assuming he's innocent, I dont think he will last to 756. He won't do it if he stays in the National League either.

**lukebeulah** · May 22nd, 2006, 03:22 PM

Sorry guys, seems like the right place for old Juiced Barry

silent34thunder · May 23rd, 2006, 01:09 PM

I've read the comments that everyone has put up and tend to agree and disagree. I don't believe that bonds has ever taken steroids and he has never been proven to have done so. I simply think that he has taken performance enhancing substances that have aided in his ability to play the game the way he does. It's not uncommon for some sort of performance enhancer to be in any athlete at this day in time, that is what science has allowed us to do the the new age athletes. Is it possible that he may have learned more knowledge of the game as he got older and has put that information to good use? I think he has. As far as home run records, it has always been the bigger guys that have hit the ball further. What is the harm in that? Hell in little league you always have the kid who is bigger then everyone else who is expected to hit the ball further. Bonds has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the sport. Everyday some fitness gooroo gets up and drinks a shake loaded with protein to help gain mass, or someone drinks an energy drink to gain energy and not once have we ridiculed them day in and day out about their daily habits. Regardless of what Barry Bonds has taken in to help with his performance he will always be one of the greatest to play the game and we should leave it at that. Babe was Babe, Barry is Barry.