Okay, first, aside from the debate about Barry's steroid use, or lack thereof, which everyone seems to see as the only real issue in the Barry controversy, I'd like to approach the situation a little differently. I think we need to move past the Rhetoric and toward some sort of formula for calculating just how much enhancing powers does steroids have on homeruns. I think this issue will become much more pliable and relevant at Barry's current pace and especially if this isn't his final year in baseball. The bottom line is that the guy could easily hit 40 plus homeruns this year, and then what? According to a new book, Game of Shadows, Barry starting taking steroids at the end of 1998, and by spring of '99 he was visibly bigger. If that is true, lets look at the numbers between 1999 and 2003. The only year that we see a tremendous spike is 2001 when he hit 73. So my question is are we to take 30 homeruns from him that year? Or should we take more, and if we can safely say that Barry would have hit X number of homeruns, then I am saying that what we are talking about could be less that 50 homeruns over those years in total. This number is well in Barry's range at his current pace. The only way I could see Barry's record not being at least remotely valid, even with the steroid use, is if people take a moral position on him, like what they do on Pete Rose. Anyway, what do you guys think?
not sure but i know you cant take a few homeruns and expect everyone to be ok with that. either you reconize what he has done or you dont.
I wonder how many ROIDED up Pitchers did He face? How many did Hank and Ruth Face? Rocket River all things are relative
I still wonder why, since ML is taking care of the steriod policy, why he isn't smaller/weaker now. Shouldn't stopping the use of steroids decrease his strength? Last I checked he is leading the NL in HR's. I'm not doubting that he took steroids, I just question for how long and to what actual effect they had on him.
Well, Rocket, to me, all records are at least somewhat tainted. I mean you could make a case for a juiced-up ball, level of competition, ballparks played in, corked bats, etc. The point isn't to justify factors like an algebra equation so much is it's about how much influence did steroids have on Barry, and at his current pace, I would say very little, excluding 2001. And if the number is as low as I suspect it to be, then Barry would have gotten the record without the use of steroids.
This is my point exactly, while everyone is clamoring around him about his past steroid use, he is on pace for 40 plus homeruns, 4 years removed. What I would love to see Barry do is play another year an shatter the record. Then the record would become almost undeniable.
Barry has the talent to have done that without the steroids IMO. The fact is, he cheated. Ken Lay probbaly coulda been extremely wealthy without the whole book cooking thing, but the fact is he cheated.
ok..but without him testing positive, how can MLB do anything about that? let's assume he cheated..but it can't be proved dispositively. then what? because i think that's where we are...and where we'll be.
My question to you is, do you think he would have done it without steroids? You are saying that he has the talent, well so does Ken Griffey, jr, but he was not even close to getting the record. I understand the moral issue that you are taking. I just want to see if beyond this moral issue, do you think given his current numbers he would have gotten the record or not?
* of course this record came in the steriod era, juiced ball era and just an overall amazing era for hitters.
he doesnt need to test positive. he admitted he took steroids. no I dont think he would have hit 73 HRs in a season, but I think that had he stayed smaller, he could play a few more years and break Hank's record maybe 2 or 3 years from now. He always kept himself in phenomenal shape before the steroids use, and by all accounts was extremely dedicated to the game. There's no doubt in my mind he would have broken Hank's record eventually.
I think the punishment is done. 60 years from now, when our grandchildren are watching baseball two things will be certain: a) A-Rod will have surpassed Barry Bonds in career homeruns and b) everyone will still remember the controversy that surrounded Bonds as he passed Hank Aaron's record. His legacy is forever tarnished. 95% of baseball fans out there know the record is tarnished in some way. I'm just sick of hearing about it and making Bonds out to be this monster when baseball itself turned a blind eye to the obvious juicing of players just so the sport could become more popular after the 1994 strike. Putting an * next to his name or not isn't going to change how the record is perceived. The damage is done.
Well he's being tested for drugs now and he's hitting 338 with 11 HR and 23 RBI's in 77 at bats. Not bad.
how many black/latin american pitchers did ruth face? every generation of baseball has its flaws........this generation's flaw just happens to inflate hitting numbers tremendously.
espn did a pretty hilarious survey the other day marking the difference in the views of white and black people on barry bond's chase http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2861930 percentages are OF a certain race, not a total overall. what's hilarious about this survey is when espn was running it on the air and listing the results, i found myself nodding in agreement. ahh well lol
If Barry wasn't such a d******d maybe more people would be pulling for him. I have read the book mentioned, Game of Shadows, and I think he is a piece of crap. But simply saying to get rid of his records isn't realistic. We will just have to live with it.
