Dan Patrick's making a big deal about the commissioner not committing to being there when Bonds breaks the record. He's right. MLB either couldn't or wouldn't stop Bonds from playing, nor disqualify him. Bonds will break the record, and MLB should get on board and celebrate it. It's time.
It amazes me that there is still a debate about whether he took them or not. HELLO! Get your Bonds blinders off your head. He has ADMITTED to using steroids and just added the "unknowingly" bs line to it. The guy is a cheater. And I think it was Joe Morgan who pointed out that the commissioner wasn't there when Aaron broke the Babe's record, so why should Selig be there for Bonds? What, is he supposed to travel to every game Bonds plays in once he gets close to the record just in case?
The mound was higher when Ruth played, which is a much bigger factor than integration. Look at what happened to the numbers the year baseball was integrated compared to the year the mound was lowered, there is no comparison. Further, Ruth played six years in the deadball era, many as a pitcher, which robbed him of maybe 200-300 home runs.
Ok lets be real for a second, this is baseball's fault period. Baseball is a dirty sport period, it has done little to rid itself of it's drug problems and the records and history that makes it what it is means jack **** right now. Bonds, along with over 50% (atleast) of big league players took/take performance drugs and he is getting singled out. What is funny to me, when the baseball tonight crowd tried to say "hey look it's only a small percent using drugs" when they did the test season where they gave the players a heads up on when they would test them. Freaking 0% of players should of tested positive. In general baseball players are pretty stupid, yeah you will find a Brad Ausmus every now and then but for the most part they are pretty dumb. IMO, this is a good thing, screw the records all they are is historical data of what happened. The only thing they are good for is comparing what certain players did from the same era. Baseball is a good game and they should promote the action of the field before the numbers game. My dream is for an international drug testing 1 strike and your out policy and a salery cap min and max to save the game.
bonds' homerun record is a fraud but at the same time he's a clear hall of famer before '98 or '99 anyway.
We don't only see a spike in 2001. In 1998, he hit 37 HRs in 156 games. In 1999, he hit 34 HRs in *102* games. Had he played a full season, he would have set a career high in HRs. In 2000, he hit a career high 49 HRs. In 2001, he hit a career high 71 HRs. In 2002, he hit 46 HRs despite *198 walks* and had an OPS higher than in 2001. In 2003, he hit 45 HRs in 130 games and just 390 at bats. If you look at his pre-1999 and 1999+ numbers, there's such a clear difference. He had 4 straight years with OPS over 1.280, which is essentially unheard of since Babe Ruth - and which he had never even approached anytime in his career previous to that. It's silly to ignore the fact that it just happens to match when he "accidentally" began using steroids.
while pitching and the dead ball era are definitely things that held ruth back, the mound being higher doesn't seem to have mattered considering the 20s-30s were THE hitting era in baseball history until the 90s-00s came along. the depth of homerun hitters isn't what it is today, but averages, runs, and rbi's were all huge from that time (single season records for all 3 are from that time, iirc), even bigger than today, and after a slow start, the big homerun hitters could hit just as many as today's players. i think the team records for runs scored and runs allowed are also from either 1930 or 1931. if you could hit back then, you could put up some monster numbers, even relative to the roid era, higher mound or not.
while steroids no doubt helped his efficiency reach ridiculous levels, it is interesting to wonder just how many HR's it added, just b/c he got so good that he was essentially walked out of numerous HR chances. not that there's any way to quantify it, or that it even matters, just funny how becoming too good has hurt his homer chances and even made it hard for him to get rbi's.
Did he really admit that he used steroids? I thought he said I took some creme from this dude (that they busted in a steriod ring), and didn't know it was steroids. Did they ever prove that the creme he took had steroids in it...or did he say I took those steroids but didn't know it was steroids? Not trying to be an ass....serious question. Unless what he took was proven to steroids or hr said I took steroids on accident then where is the admittance?
Is Bonds taking steroids this season? He's just as big -- just as ripped -- and he is hitting at an amazing level....again.
Look at league ERAs from 1968 to 1969. In both leagues the ERA went up over half a run. Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA in 1968 winning the Cy Young. He won the award 2 years later, when his ERA was 2 full points higher. Maybe there were just better hitters in that time. Maybe the ball was juiced, but having the mound half again as high definitely has effects.
What was the difference in pitching velocity? Seems like this would be easy to measure. Nolan Ryan used to get up to like 107. Nowadays I don't see anyone get above 97. Were the clocks off then? I don't see roids helping you throw a better curve either. And if the pitchers are on roids, why can't they pitch a complete game?
