|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 8:59:25 GMT -5
I'll say it again. Barry Bonds never once violated MLB drug policy. I've seen his head -- stark difference between his first HR in 1986 as a 20yr old Pirate, and his 756th in San Fran. But have you seen Peyton Manning's head? Obvious he was on something too. What does a football player have to do with this debate ?oK. Bonds did not violate the drug policy. It seems you acknowledge that he used steroids. So to me if he used steroids which obviously aided his home run stats, that is cheating. Whether or not it did not violate drug policy. You may define cheating differently.I define cheating as breaking the rules. Bonds did not break the rules. Yes steroids existed during Bonds' time and were not available during Aaron's time (maybe in some infant form by the very tail end). Every generation of baseball was different. Spitballs weren't banned until 1930. No one is lobbying to expunge the records of pitchers who utilized this advantage for decades. If it were proven that Cy Young lathered up a ball at any point during is 25 year career, should his wins record be vacated? Obviously not. Joe DiMaggio never had to play against an African American pitcher or fielder when he hit in 56 straight games. Doesn't mean the record shouldn't stand. With regards to Manning, there are a number of prominent football players who were obviously on PEDs. When I was growing up, 'roids were rampant in football even down at the D-III and high school levels. Ridiculous to think that they weren't being used in the NFL during the 1980's,1990's and early 2000's. But because no one cares as much about the "sanctity of individual records" in sports other than baseball, PED users get a pass. Every sport changes over time. You can't compare statistics in a vacuum. Barry Bonds isn't necessarily the best HR hitter of all time simply because he hit the most homers. He obviously played in an era, roids or no roids, where the longball was being hit at record numbers across the board. 200 wins is now turning into the new 300. Joe Flacco has more passing yards than Joe Montana. Bill Chambers of William & Mary's record of 53 rebounds in a college game will never be broken -- doesn't mean there haven't been better rebounders in the last 70 years.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 23, 2021 9:06:48 GMT -5
I have a broader view. I define cheating as gaining an unfair advantage, in this case a major unfair advantage. So we disagree on the definition.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 9:31:50 GMT -5
I have a broader view. I define cheating as gaining an unfair advantage, in this case a major unfair advantage.So we disagree on the definition. The hitters on steroids did not have an unfair advantage against the pitchers on steroids. Note I respect your consistency, however by "your definition" of cheating, pitchers who utilized the spitball (or vaseline ball) before it was illegalized are also cheaters.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Jan 23, 2021 9:47:02 GMT -5
nycrusader2010 You say that Bonds never violated MLB drug policy, particularly after 2003. I would suggest that he was never “proven” to have done so...and there is a difference. When I saw a head shot of him within the last several years, his head size was much closer to the early ‘90s than 2003-2007. The users of PEDs and their “supporters” (e.g. BALCO) are typically way ahead of enforcement authorities in masking their use of PEDs even in a testing environment. Was Bonds’ use of PEDs after 2003 ever “proven”? No. Did he use PEDs after 2003? Many (most?) folks including the BBWAA think “yes”. Seems to me it’s a court of public opinion question...kinda like the OJ case and my observation is that most baseball fans have the opinion that Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, Pettitte et al. did use PEDs after the rule was in place...and, perhaps, more importantly, in a manner that did enhance their performances and stats. Wonder what Fred McGriff’s thoughts are on this.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 9:58:18 GMT -5
Ahhh Fred McGriff -- one of my favorite ballplayers in MLB history. Roids or no roids (who knew who was taking what before 2003 -- we'll never know), he was an ELITE home run hitter during the late 1980's and early 1990's when hitting 35 was the equivalent of hitting 50 just a decade later. The Crime Dog gets screwed because not enough people view him from the lens of this elite power hitter during his early prime --- instead they view him from the lens of the late-career McGriff who was still hitting 35 HR when the league leaders were hitting 65. If he found a way to stick around for another half a season, or if the 1994-95 strike never happened, he gets into the 500 HR club.
Fred McGriff -- Hall of Famer by my definition. I was too young to remember most of his best years but I recall him being a beast on those mid-1990's Braves teams.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 23, 2021 10:07:34 GMT -5
This is stolen off the ESPN website in an article about steroids in baseball
That would mean that steroids were against the rules of the game the day Bonds showed up in San Francisco
----- It's kind of sad in a way. I am of the school of thought that Bonds didn't take steroids in Pitt. SF was the epicenter of the steroid scandal. Bonds left Pitt in his 20's as a two time MVP with multiple gold gloves. He was arguably the best player in the game and on a path for Cooperstown without streroids
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Jan 23, 2021 10:16:56 GMT -5
RIP Henry. He always seemed to be very humble and not a self-promoter and when combined with playing in Milwaukee and then Atlanta never had the NY hype machine going for him like Mays and Mantle and so his steady high level performance was under-appreciated by the larger fan audience. Lots of fact about Aaron making the rounds the last couple of days but this might be the most unique.
If you take away all of his home runs, he would still have over 3,000 hits. No one else who has more than 500 home runs can say that. He was not just a home run hitter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 10:18:17 GMT -5
Let's not forget that players used stimulates " greenies" in baseball for a few decades before Roids.So all those gods from the NYY's were just as guilty as Bonds,Sosa & the like.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 10:22:53 GMT -5
This is stolen off the ESPN website in an article about steroids in baseball That would mean that steroids were against the rules of the game the day Bonds showed up in San Francisco----- It's kind of sad in a way. I am of the school of thought that Bonds didn't take steroids in Pitt. SF was the epicenter of the steroid scandal. Bonds left Pitt in his 20's as a two time MVP with multiple gold gloves. He was arguably the best player in the game and on a path for Cooperstown without streroids But with no testing, there's no way to prove Bonds took steroids until he failed the 2003 "anonymous" test. Anecdotally, if anyone has ever read "Juiced" by Jose Canseco, he alleges that Bonds started taking steroids after the 1998 season. While there's no real reason to doubt Canseco (the accounts in the book are more than anything probably brutally honest), it's kind of tough to base judgements over one's entire career, records and HOF eligibility over allegations and speculation.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Jan 23, 2021 10:24:44 GMT -5
Hate to further de-rail the thread but ... This is stolen off the ESPN website in an article about steroids in baseball That would mean that steroids were against the rules of the game the day Bonds showed up in San Francisco ----- It's kind of sad in a way. I am of the school of thought that Bonds didn't take steroids in Pitt. SF was the epicenter of the steroid scandal. Bonds left Pitt in his 20's as a two time MVP with multiple gold gloves. He was arguably the best player in the game and on a path for Cooperstown without streroids Yeah that. Plus the fact that taking steroids, a prescription drug, for non-medical conditions is in fact illegal in the US. So even if Bonds didn't cheat by violating baseball rules, I'd submit that violating a federal law is a higher level of cheating. And not to go into Dad-mode too much, the fact that "everyone else was doing it" doesn't make it OK.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 23, 2021 10:26:27 GMT -5
. If you take away all of his home runs, he would still have over 3,000 hits. No one else who has more than 500 home runs can say that. He was not just a home run hitter. That is an incredible stat. Most guys either hit for power or average, not both. A .300 hitter with 700+ career home runs (oh and by the way the all time RBI leader) is inconceivable.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 10:28:45 GMT -5
Hate to further de-rail the thread but ... This is stolen off the ESPN website in an article about steroids in baseball That would mean that steroids were against the rules of the game the day Bonds showed up in San Francisco ----- It's kind of sad in a way. I am of the school of thought that Bonds didn't take steroids in Pitt. SF was the epicenter of the steroid scandal. Bonds left Pitt in his 20's as a two time MVP with multiple gold gloves. He was arguably the best player in the game and on a path for Cooperstown without streroids Yeah that. Plus the fact that taking steroids, a prescription drug, for non-medical conditions is in fact illegal in the US. So even if Bonds didn't cheat by violating baseball rules, I'd submit that violating a federal law is a higher level of cheating. And not to go into Dad-mode too much, the fact that "everyone else was doing it" doesn't make it OK. So I'm guessing you were vehemently opposed to Pedro Martinez getting into the HOF, in addition to David Ortiz, who will be on the ballot soon. Why do I feel like the anti-steroid crowd will be silent when Big Papi shatters the DH/steroid era power hitter glass ceiling?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 23, 2021 10:57:52 GMT -5
Hate to further de-rail the thread but ... Yeah that. Plus the fact that taking steroids, a prescription drug, for non-medical conditions is in fact illegal in the US. So even if Bonds didn't cheat by violating baseball rules, I'd submit that violating a federal law is a higher level of cheating. And not to go into Dad-mode too much, the fact that "everyone else was doing it" doesn't make it OK. So I'm guessing you were vehemently opposed to Pedro Martinez getting into the HOF, in addition to David Ortiz, who will be on the ballot soon. Why do I feel like the anti-steroid crowd will be silent when Big Papi shatters the DH/steroid era power hitter glass ceiling? Not this member of that crowd.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Jan 23, 2021 10:58:03 GMT -5
Nope. Not vehemently opposed to any of the steroid users getting into the Hall. Particularly guys like Bonds and Clemens who were likely HOF'ers without the PEDs.
But, actions have consequences. Some think that the consequence for taking the steroids should be no HOF.
My view is that the HOF is a museum and should reflect the history of the sport. Since steroid use was rampant and there is no way to know everyone who was using and who wasn't, the best of the steroid era should be inducted but if there is real evidence of use linked to the player, just be sure it's noted in the player's bio tested positive for PEDs in 2003 pilot testing program, convicted of perjury in Balco trial, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 23, 2021 11:00:36 GMT -5
Doubt that stuff, or anything not positive, will be on any plaque
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 23, 2021 11:14:54 GMT -5
Hate to further de-rail the thread but ... Yeah that. Plus the fact that taking steroids, a prescription drug, for non-medical conditions is in fact illegal in the US. So even if Bonds didn't cheat by violating baseball rules, I'd submit that violating a federal law is a higher level of cheating. And not to go into Dad-mode too much, the fact that "everyone else was doing it" doesn't make it OK. So I'm guessing you were vehemently opposed to Pedro Martinez getting into the HOF, in addition to David Ortiz, who will be on the ballot soon. Why do I feel like the anti-steroid crowd will be silent when Big Papi shatters the DH/steroid era power hitter glass ceiling? I did not know until I looked it up today that steroids were against the rules of baseball as early as 1991. That being said, Gaylord Perry set the precedent so I think some of the steroid boys will eventually go to the HoF
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 11:21:43 GMT -5
Nope. Not vehemently opposed to any of the steroid users getting into the Hall. Particularly guys like Bonds and Clemens who were likely HOF'ers without the PEDs. But, actions have consequences. Some think that the consequence for taking the steroids should be no HOF. My view is that the HOF is a museum and should reflect the history of the sport. Since steroid use was rampant and there is no way to know everyone who was using and who wasn't, the best of the steroid era should be inducted but if there is real evidence of use linked to the player, just be sure it's noted in the player's bio tested positive for PEDs in 2003 pilot testing program, convicted of perjury in Balco trial, etc. It appears we generally agree with each other. My broad opinion: The presence and availability of steroids was a part of the game for probably 2 whole decades. There wasn't just a small "secret club" of a handful of superstars taking PEDs. Likely from the low minors and up (and possibly college and the baseball academies in DR), PEDs were available to the professional ballplayer. Some chose to use steroids, some didn't. I highly doubt that many players eschewed PEDs because of good morals. Remember, steroids come with a long, long list of risks and side effects. In many cases, they were detrimental to players who took them (injuries, psychological effects, Chuck Knoblauch suddenly not being able to throw the ball 45 feet, etc.). Those who DIDN'T take steroids chose that path because they a) didn't see the financial risk/reward of investing in the drugs, b) didn't think they needed them to optimize their skill set at the pro level or c) didn't want to deal with the many negative side effects. Those who took steroids made the choice because they felt that taking on this drug regimen would make them physically more able to play at the highest level in spite of the risks. But like it or not, the use of PEDs was a part of the game, just like greenies were a part of the game in the 1960's, just like segregation was part of the game until 1947, just like the spitball was part of the game until 1930. Ignoring an entire era of baseball history is unjust IMO.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 23, 2021 11:23:02 GMT -5
McGriff is an interesting case. Certainly he was very good but you can debate whether he was great. As far as WAR goes, and we know WAR is not the be-all and end-all, he ranks #31 at first base...behind Mark Texeira and ahead of Norm Cash, neither of whom will make the Hall. For batting similarity he is compares to (1) McCovey-Hall, (2) Stargell-Hall, (3) Konerko, (4) Bagwell-Hall
Back to Henry Aaron--I've got him in top-25 players of all-time
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 11:26:16 GMT -5
So I'm guessing you were vehemently opposed to Pedro Martinez getting into the HOF, in addition to David Ortiz, who will be on the ballot soon. Why do I feel like the anti-steroid crowd will be silent when Big Papi shatters the DH/steroid era power hitter glass ceiling? I did not know until I looked it up today that steroids were against the rules of baseball as early as 1991. That being said, Gaylord Perry set the precedent so I think some of the steroid boys will eventually go to the HoF At least one already is in. Pedro Martinez has a plaque -- and deservedly so. From 1997-1999, he was the most dominant pitcher I've watched play. David Ortiz will be next. Hopefully that will open up the floodgates so that some of the most accomplished athletes of their time can eventually get their due. Note that guys who violated MLB drug policy multiple times (or once but also lied in front of Congress 2 months prior) like Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez and Robinson Cano should not be considered in my book. Not that I would not consider Cano a HOFer with or without PEDs -- and he was my favorite Yankee for a number of years.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Jan 23, 2021 12:48:40 GMT -5
HoF voting, especially in baseball, comes down to likeability and media friendliness for many. If you were a prick to the scribes of the BBWAA like Clemens and Bonds were, they aren't helping you. If you were friendly & accessible like Ortiz, it helps your cause.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Jan 23, 2021 16:40:02 GMT -5
My point about McGriff was not that he should be in the HOF but rather that his stats might have been much greater and perhaps HOF-worthy had he taken steroids. That’s why I wonder what his take would be on the cheaters/alleged cheaters getting in based on PED-enhanced stats and him not.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 23, 2021 18:40:17 GMT -5
My point about McGriff was not that he should be in the HOF but rather that his stats might have been much greater and perhaps HOF-worthy had he taken steroids. That’s why I wonder what his take would be on the cheaters/alleged cheaters getting in based on PED-enhanced stats and him not. 1) While I'm an innocent-before-proven guilty guy (and always liked McGriff) it's impossible to conclude that he never took steroids because there was no testing throughout almost the entirety of his career. Of course he played in 2003 and 2004 and was clean. He retired spring training 2005. 2) His stats may have been better or they may have been worse had he taken PEDs. Steroids aren't a magic bullet. PEDs ruined many great seasons and careers because of injuries resulting from their misuse. With or without steroids, McGriff was an elite power hitter throughout the first half of his career and a very good one most of the second half of his career. I believe he is one of a handful of players who led both the NL and AL in home runs in a season.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jan 24, 2021 9:17:00 GMT -5
Nomar was on a HOF trajectory until he showed up shirtless on the cover of SI totally ripped and then got decimated by injuries that contributed to shortening his career. Many assumed steroids were involved, illustrating they could be a double edged sword.
|
|