Barry Bonds quest for HR record

[Tim McG]

Next, I want to see an asterisk next to Eric Gagne's 72 saves....there is no way in hell he wasn't juicing

But....but....you yourself have said that steroids dont help baseball players play better. You've been arguing that point throughout this whole thread, seemingly.

Your point?

What I said was if they are to asterisk Bonds, then they need to asterisk Gagne, too.

Pretty straight forward don't you think?

Nah. Why think?

[Tim McG]

Why did Bonds KNOWINGLY take steroids if they have absolutely no effect on his hitting? Regardless whether they were legal or illegal at the time he took them.

Still waiting on a plausible explanation for this question.

Still waiting.

I have already answered this question: He has already admitted to using "the clear" when it wasn't against MLB rules to do so.

What the hell else do you want....flowers?

[Tim McG]

Well, I don't know about you guys but I don't root for my team because they are loaded with really nice guys who kiss babies and help little old ladies across the street, all right? I want to see wins and championships not a wonderful bunch of guys wearing the same uniform.

And if there is any truth to tell there are far bigger assholes enshrined in the MLB Hall of Fame, for pete's sake....worse than what Bonds had been made out to be.

Lastly, 54% of all fans polled two months ago want to see him do it; 75% of all Blacks want to see him do it. It is only here and in the media I read or hear all the negativity.

So if there is an asterisk to be given, fine. That will not change, alter or in any way, shape or form erase the greatness of this accomplishment. And you guys can bitch and moan all you like....I'll be the true fan enjoying it while you guys grind your teeth over it. Be bitter. It's your loss.

Next, I want to see an asterisk next to Eric Gagne's 72 saves....there is no way in hell he wasn't juicing and I can parade in front of you all of the specious "evidence" you guys have accepted as literal fact, too. Then we need to investigate every single HOf'er, record holder or great baseball player, hell, any sport's athlete, as well. Let's astrisk them all, if you guys are so concerned about the fairness of it all. How 'bout it?

Such foolishness....it's a game, dammit.

You're right there are, were, and always will be plenty of assholes in sports. And of course Bonds is not the only one using steroids, past or present.

That is obvious as hell. He is though, the one about to break Aaron's record, so the spotlight is on him.

Where did you get those numbers at?

In a poll conducted by MSNBC just a few days ago, the numbers are quite different...

MSNBC

This ESPN poll matches your numbers more closely, but you left out the fact that 73% of those polled believe Bonds uses Steroids.

ESPN

I got those numbers from a poll done a couple months a go.

These new polls should suggest to you that the media is attempting to do some damage control.

I mean, think about it, you have a multi-billion dollar organization which has been bitching about Bonds, with no actual proof, what would you do?

Answer: Take another poll which favors your prejudice..

So, should we discount polls about politicians, war, music, and favorite colors?

I mean, what you're saying is that the people reporting and taking these polls are twisting the numbers to make the outcome whatever they want. Or polling to the exact select group that will give them the answers they want. Or maybe they're skipping right over the process of even conducting the poll and just publishing numbers the way they see it.

I'm convinced.

Fuck it, I'm convinced, Barry deserves a break and at this point I don't see why he should even have to hit one more fucking time. JUST GIVE HIM THE TITLE YOU BASTARDS!

BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..

Do you follow politics at all?

Yeah...this kind of thing never happens, huh.

[Aggie87]

Why did Bonds KNOWINGLY take steroids if they have absolutely no effect on his hitting? Regardless whether they were legal or illegal at the time he took them.

Still waiting on a plausible explanation for this question.

Still waiting.

I have already answered this question: He has already admitted to using "the clear" when it wasn't against MLB rules to do so.

What the hell else do you want....flowers?

I'd like you to answer WHY he chose to use them, if they have no effect.

edit - as usual, you answered a question that wasn't asked.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Aggie87

[Tim McG]

Lastly, 54% of all fans polled two months ago want to see him do it; 75% of all Blacks want to see him do it. It is only here and in the media I read or hear all the negativity.

In the 2 month old poll I quoted in Post 13 of this thread, only 37% wanted Bonds to break the record. So your argument that these are "new polls" that are doing damage control is also incorrect.

That would still indicate that "everybody" isn't against him.

Hey, don't bother to reason it out.

Overreact.

It's easier than thinking.

[Tim McG]

Why did Bonds KNOWINGLY take steroids if they have absolutely no effect on his hitting? Regardless whether they were legal or illegal at the time he took them.

Still waiting on a plausible explanation for this question.

Still waiting.

I have already answered this question: He has already admitted to using "the clear" when it wasn't against MLB rules to do so.

What the hell else do you want....flowers?

I'd like you to answer WHY he chose to use them, if they have no effect.

edit - as usual, you answered a question that wasn't asked.

OK...do you follow sports, I mean, at all?

Athletes will look for anything they think will give them the edge over the next guy. Back in the 90s guys fooled themselves into believing steroids somehow enhanced their game. This is patently false and has been proven time and again through those who [like Giambi and Canseco to name a couple] took them, that all they do is make you big....they don't make you good.

Are you asking me to get inside Bonds mind and tell you what he was thinking at the time, or what?

I fail to understand your problem here.

Edited July 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

Athletes will look for anything they think will give them the edge over the next guy. Back in the 90s guys fooled themselves into believing steroids somehow enhanced their game. This is patently false and has been proven time and again through those who [like Giambi and Canseco to name a couple] took them, that all they do is make you big....they don't make you good.

If steroids had no effect on a player's performance, why would MLB care about banning them then? (That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer, though i'm sure you will).

Making one big (i.e. increasing muscle mass) DOES have an effect on the distance a ball travels, and that's why hitters were taking them. It gave them the ability to hit balls further, and turn routine fly-ball-outs into home runs.

Guys like Bonds who could hit home runs anyway, suddenly were able to hit MORE of them due to steroid usage. Canseco and Giambi's numbers are inflated as well. As are Mark McGuire's.

You can deny it all you want, but it's "patently true" to most people who aren't SF Giants homers. As said before in this thread, it's extremely doubtful you'd be sticking up Bonds if his whole career had been spent elsewhere - with the Twins for instance.

[Dan Gould]

Why did Bonds KNOWINGLY take steroids if they have absolutely no effect on his hitting? Regardless whether they were legal or illegal at the time he took them.

Still waiting on a plausible explanation for this question.

Still waiting.

I have already answered this question: He has already admitted to using "the clear" when it wasn't against MLB rules to do so.

What the hell else do you want....flowers?

I'd like you to answer WHY he chose to use them, if they have no effect.

edit - as usual, you answered a question that wasn't asked.

OK...do you follow sports, I mean, at all?

Athletes will look for anything they think will give them the edge over the next guy. Back in the 90s guys fooled themselves into believing steroids somehow enhanced their game. This is patently false and has been proven time and again through those who [like Giambi and Canseco to name a couple] took them, that all they do is make you big....they don't make you good.

Are you asking me to get inside Bonds mind and tell you what he was thinking at the time, or what?

I fail to understand your problem here.

We knew you were hopeless before but this really takes the cake.

Jose Canseco - 462 career home runs, 17 seasons, career OPS+ of 131. Yeah, he struck out a lot. He also took a lot of steroids and played well enough to achieve some very respectable career numbers (when you set aside the fact that he used steroids to do it).

Ken Caminiti - steroid user, MVP winner. No connection there, no, no way.

Rafael Palmiero - 500 homers, steroid user.

Its all coincidence, right? All of it. Its coincidence that after McGuire set the single season homer record, Bonds suddenly decided to start lifting weights like a fiend and use any chemical assistance he could find - but it wasn't because he wanted to become a big power hitter. No not at all. The fact that he became a big power hitter was mere coincidence. Neither cause nor effect.

Barry didn't use steroids because he wanted to be stronger and hit more home runs.

He used them because he'd always had a big head figuratively and he decided it was time that he have a big head literally, too.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Dan Gould

[catesta]

Well, I don't know about you guys but I don't root for my team because they are loaded with really nice guys who kiss babies and help little old ladies across the street, all right? I want to see wins and championships not a wonderful bunch of guys wearing the same uniform.

And if there is any truth to tell there are far bigger assholes enshrined in the MLB Hall of Fame, for pete's sake....worse than what Bonds had been made out to be.

Lastly, 54% of all fans polled two months ago want to see him do it; 75% of all Blacks want to see him do it. It is only here and in the media I read or hear all the negativity.

So if there is an asterisk to be given, fine. That will not change, alter or in any way, shape or form erase the greatness of this accomplishment. And you guys can bitch and moan all you like....I'll be the true fan enjoying it while you guys grind your teeth over it. Be bitter. It's your loss.

Next, I want to see an asterisk next to Eric Gagne's 72 saves....there is no way in hell he wasn't juicing and I can parade in front of you all of the specious "evidence" you guys have accepted as literal fact, too. Then we need to investigate every single HOf'er, record holder or great baseball player, hell, any sport's athlete, as well. Let's astrisk them all, if you guys are so concerned about the fairness of it all. How 'bout it?

Such foolishness....it's a game, dammit.

You're right there are, were, and always will be plenty of assholes in sports. And of course Bonds is not the only one using steroids, past or present.

That is obvious as hell. He is though, the one about to break Aaron's record, so the spotlight is on him.

Where did you get those numbers at?

In a poll conducted by MSNBC just a few days ago, the numbers are quite different...

MSNBC

This ESPN poll matches your numbers more closely, but you left out the fact that 73% of those polled believe Bonds uses Steroids.

ESPN

I got those numbers from a poll done a couple months a go.

These new polls should suggest to you that the media is attempting to do some damage control.

I mean, think about it, you have a multi-billion dollar organization which has been bitching about Bonds, with no actual proof, what would you do?

Answer: Take another poll which favors your prejudice..

So, should we discount polls about politicians, war, music, and favorite colors?

I mean, what you're saying is that the people reporting and taking these polls are twisting the numbers to make the outcome whatever they want. Or polling to the exact select group that will give them the answers they want. Or maybe they're skipping right over the process of even conducting the poll and just publishing numbers the way they see it.

I'm convinced.

Fuck it, I'm convinced, Barry deserves a break and at this point I don't see why he should even have to hit one more fucking time. JUST GIVE HIM THE TITLE YOU BASTARDS!

BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..

Do you follow politics at all?

Yeah...this kind of thing never happens, huh.

Well, I'm sure Bush will be happy to know that his approval rating is much better than recent polls indicate.

Congress should also expect some good news as well.

[Tim McG]

Athletes will look for anything they think will give them the edge over the next guy. Back in the 90s guys fooled themselves into believing steroids somehow enhanced their game. This is patently false and has been proven time and again through those who [like Giambi and Canseco to name a couple] took them, that all they do is make you big....they don't make you good.

If steroids had no effect on a player's performance, why would MLB care about banning them then? (That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer, though I'm sure you will).

Making one big (i.e. increasing muscle mass) DOES have an effect on the distance a ball travels, and that's why hitters were taking them. It gave them the ability to hit balls further, and turn routine fly-ball-outs into home runs.

Guys like Bonds who could hit home runs anyway, suddenly were able to hit MORE of them due to steroid usage. Canseco and Giambi's numbers are inflated as well. As are Mark McGuire's.

You can deny it all you want, but it's "patently true" to most people who aren't SF Giants homers. As said before in this thread, it's extremely doubtful you'd be sticking up Bonds if his whole career had been spent elsewhere - with the Twins for instance.

The MLB outlawed steroids because they are unhealthy and kill the very athlete using them. Some benefit is gained, but not enough to create great hitters out of mediocre ones. In short, steroids do not work...they just make you bigger. The common run-of-the-mill belief is they make you hit HRs. That is total crap. The MLB knows it too because they would have done something about this sooner if they did think steroids cause Hrs. It is total PR to satiate the sporting news media jackals and guys like you who bought it.

Look at Bonds yearly output. He hit 40+ HRs EIGHT times in his career and 20+ HRs ELEVEN times in his career. Now you're going to sit there and tell me that all happened because of steroids? You see, this is where your whole argument falls apart and why it is sheer foolishness to even suggest steroids made Bonds a better HR hitter. Better than what? Better than great? Think of what you are supporting here, Aggie. A first year HS student could see through that pretend argument.

Buddy, we have already argued the whole business about mass vs distance of the ball hit and it has been doubted and/or out right debunked...and not just by me. I am not going to rehash it for you....go back and read it and on this thread.

Blinders on.

Edited July 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Well, I don't know about you guys but I don't root for my team because they are loaded with really nice guys who kiss babies and help little old ladies across the street, all right? I want to see wins and championships not a wonderful bunch of guys wearing the same uniform.

And if there is any truth to tell there are far bigger assholes enshrined in the MLB Hall of Fame, for pete's sake....worse than what Bonds had been made out to be.

Lastly, 54% of all fans polled two months ago want to see him do it; 75% of all Blacks want to see him do it. It is only here and in the media I read or hear all the negativity.

So if there is an asterisk to be given, fine. That will not change, alter or in any way, shape or form erase the greatness of this accomplishment. And you guys can bitch and moan all you like....I'll be the true fan enjoying it while you guys grind your teeth over it. Be bitter. It's your loss.

Next, I want to see an asterisk next to Eric Gagne's 72 saves....there is no way in hell he wasn't juicing and I can parade in front of you all of the specious "evidence" you guys have accepted as literal fact, too. Then we need to investigate every single HOf'er, record holder or great baseball player, hell, any sport's athlete, as well. Let's astrisk them all, if you guys are so concerned about the fairness of it all. How 'bout it?

Such foolishness....it's a game, dammit.

You're right there are, were, and always will be plenty of assholes in sports. And of course Bonds is not the only one using steroids, past or present.

That is obvious as hell. He is though, the one about to break Aaron's record, so the spotlight is on him.

Where did you get those numbers at?

In a poll conducted by MSNBC just a few days ago, the numbers are quite different...

MSNBC

This ESPN poll matches your numbers more closely, but you left out the fact that 73% of those polled believe Bonds uses Steroids.

ESPN

I got those numbers from a poll done a couple months a go.

These new polls should suggest to you that the media is attempting to do some damage control.

I mean, think about it, you have a multi-billion dollar organization which has been bitching about Bonds, with no actual proof, what would you do?

Answer: Take another poll which favors your prejudice..

So, should we discount polls about politicians, war, music, and favorite colors?

I mean, what you're saying is that the people reporting and taking these polls are twisting the numbers to make the outcome whatever they want. Or polling to the exact select group that will give them the answers they want. Or maybe they're skipping right over the process of even conducting the poll and just publishing numbers the way they see it.

I'm convinced.

Fuck it, I'm convinced, Barry deserves a break and at this point I don't see why he should even have to hit one more fucking time. JUST GIVE HIM THE TITLE YOU BASTARDS!

BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..BARRY!..

Do you follow politics at all?

Yeah...this kind of thing never happens, huh.

Well, I'm sure Bush will be happy to know that his approval rating is much better than recent polls indicate.

Congress should also expect some good news as well.

So, basically, things like this happen in the media all the time.

Guilty as charged.

Step down.

Next case.

[Chalupa]

So why is Greg Anderson still in jail???

[AllenLowe]

I prefer monoids - the same brand Phil Spector takes -

[Jazzmoose]

I prefer monoids - the same brand Phil Spector takes -

I'll go the Devo route and stick with mongoloids.

[Dan Gould]

Athletes will look for anything they think will give them the edge over the next guy. Back in the 90s guys fooled themselves into believing steroids somehow enhanced their game. This is patently false and has been proven time and again through those who [like Giambi and Canseco to name a couple] took them, that all they do is make you big....they don't make you good.

If steroids had no effect on a player's performance, why would MLB care about banning them then? (That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer, though I'm sure you will).

Making one big (i.e. increasing muscle mass) DOES have an effect on the distance a ball travels, and that's why hitters were taking them. It gave them the ability to hit balls further, and turn routine fly-ball-outs into home runs.

Guys like Bonds who could hit home runs anyway, suddenly were able to hit MORE of them due to steroid usage. Canseco and Giambi's numbers are inflated as well. As are Mark McGuire's.

You can deny it all you want, but it's "patently true" to most people who aren't SF Giants homers. As said before in this thread, it's extremely doubtful you'd be sticking up Bonds if his whole career had been spent elsewhere - with the Twins for instance.

The MLB outlawed steroids because they are unhealthy and kill the very athlete using them. Some benefit is gained, but not enough to create great hitters out of mediocre ones. In short, steroids do not work...they just make you bigger. The common run-of-the-mill belief is they make you hit HRs. That is total crap. The MLB knows it too because they would have done something about this sooner if they did think steroids cause Hrs. It is total PR to satiate the sporting news media jackals and guys like you who bought it.

Look at Bonds yearly output. He hit 40+ HRs EIGHT times in his career and 20+ HRs ELEVEN times in his career. Now you're going to sit there and tell me that all happened because of steroids? You see, this is where your whole argument falls apart and why it is sheer foolishness to even suggest steroids made Bonds a better HR hitter. Better than what? Better than great? Think of what you are supporting here, Aggie. A first year HS student could see through that pretend argument.

Buddy, we have already argued the whole business about mass vs distance of the ball hit and it has been doubted and/or out right debunked...and not just by me. I am not going to rehash it for you....go back and read it and on this thread.

Blinders on.

You are truly the most ignorant fool on the planet.

They acted on steroids because of health risks?

No, they acted on steroids because Congress took action through the hearings process and embarrassed them, all the while holding the anti-trust exemption over their heads as a cudgel.

MLB knows that steroids don't help hit home runs and would have done something sooner otherwise. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING?

MLB turned a blind eye because while so many players were using steroids, home runs flew out of the park and people flocked their to watch the spectacle.

Let me get this straight though:

Steroid use exploded in the 1990s through the early 2000s.

Home runs and offense in general also exploded.

Records that had not been approached in years were broken multiple times.

And this had nothing to do with steroid use?

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING??

And let's take a look at Bonds' home run totals. Bonds began to use steroids after McGuire and Sosa stole his spotlight in the summer of 1998.

Barry Bonds from 1986 through 1998:

13 seasons, 3 40 homer seasons

411 homers in 6621 ABs for an average of 1 per 16.1 ABs

Barry Bonds from 1999 to today:

8 seasons (I don't count 2005 which was all but entirely lost to knee injuries)

5 40 homer season

343 homers in 3135 ABs for an average of 1 per 9.1 ABs

Barry Bonds achieved these results from the age of 34 on, when every other athlete shows deteriorating skills.

THE PROOF IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE AND YOUR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND IT MAKES YOU A LAUGHINGSTOCK.

[Lyin' Wolf]

Conveniently forgotten by Bonds' apologists with blinders on (or at least those on the board here) is that steroids have been a Schedule II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE since the early 90's.

That makes it against federal law to use or possess them except under the supervision of a licensed physician. The same is true to a lesser extent for human growth hormone which requires a prescription to use or possess.

So, while it is true that there was no specific prohibition of performance enhancing drugs like steroids and HGH, I would think that use and/or possesson of a controlled substance or a prescription drug without a legal prescription would be against whatever code of conduct MLB has in place. The argument that use of steroids is not against baseball rules is rendered moot, IMO, by virtue of the laws governing legal use of these drugs in society as a whole.

Steroid use might not make a bad hitter hit better, but it will make any hitter hit with more power. That means warning track power becomes HR power. It means balls coming off the bad with greater speed - so grounders can make out of the infield faster, line drives into the gap in the outfield get there faster and so on. Thus improvement will be seen in batting average and HRs.

Bonds stats: (apologies to Dan as I did not notice simlar stats in the post directly preceding mine)

Average HRs/season up to age 35 (1999) - 31

Average HRs/season between 2000 and 2004 - 52

Career batting average up to age 35 (1999) - .287

Batting average from 2000 - 2004 = .341

Number of 40+ home run years for the 14 seasons from 1986 - 1999 = 3

Number of 40+ home run years for the 5 seasons from 2000 - 2004 = 5

Average RBIs up through 1999 = 87

Average RBIs from 2000 - 2004 = 108

Slugging percentage (average) through 1999 = .561

Slugging percentage 2000 - 2004 = .782

Clearly, there was a dramatic improvement when players typically level off and/or decline.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Lyin' Wolf

[Dan Gould]

Conveniently forgotten by Bonds' apologists with blinders on (or at least those on the board here) is that steroids have been a Schedule II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE since the early 90's.

That makes it against federal law to use or possess them except under the supervision of a licensed physician. The same is true to a lesser extent for human growth hormone which requires a prescription to use or possess.

So, while it is true that there was no specific prohibition of performance enhancing drugs like steroids and HGH, I would think that use and/or possesson of a controlled substance or a prescription drug without a legal prescription would be against whatever code of conduct MLB has in place. The argument that use of steroids is not against baseball rules is rendered moot, IMO, by virtue of the laws governing legal use of these drugs in society as a whole.

Steroid use might not make a bad hitter hit better, but it will make any hitter hit with more power. That means warning track power becomes HR power. It means balls coming off the bad with greater speed - so grounders can make out of the infield faster, line drives into the gap in the outfield get there faster and so on. Thus improvement will be seen in batting average and HRs.

Bonds stats: (apologies to Dan as I did not notice simlar stats in the post directly preceding mine)

Average HRs/season up to age 35 (1999) - 31

Average HRs/season between 2000 and 2004 - 52

Career batting average up to age 35 (1999) - .287

Batting average from 2000 - 2004 = .341

Number of 40+ home run years for the 14 seasons from 1986 - 1999 = 3

Number of 40+ home run years for the 5 seasons from 2000 - 2004 = 5

Average RBIs up through 1999 = 87

Average RBIs from 2000 - 2004 = 108

Slugging percentage (average) through 1999 = .561

Slugging percentage 2000 - 2004 = .782

Clearly, there was a dramatic improvement when players typically level off and/or decline.

Don't confuse Goodspeak with facts, and don't forget he is the only Bonds apologist on the board.

[Hot Ptah]

I have just read this thread for the first time today, and I am amazed that ANYONE will actually argue that Bonds did not set the records because of steroids.

I would have thought that his few fans would concede that he cheated and set the record because of it, but that since it was not something that got you banned from baseball at the time, that it's too bad if people are unhappy.

I was not prepared to read that ANYONE believes that he did not set the record because of steroids. That defies belief.

[catesta]

There is an outside chance that Goodspeak is actually Barry Bonds.

That would at least explain his kookiness.

[sheldonm]

I have just read this thread for the first time today, and I am amazed that ANYONE will actually argue that Bonds did not set the records because of steroids.

I would have thought that his few fans would concede that he cheated and set the record because of it, but that since it was not something that got you banned from baseball at the time, that it's too bad if people are unhappy.

I was not prepared to read that ANYONE believes that he did not set the record because of steroids. That defies belief.

...amen brother!

[Tim McG]

Uh-huh.

And when he is exonerated, you guys will be running for cover.

[Tim McG]

Don't confuse Goodspeak with facts, and don't forget he is the only Bonds apologist on the board.

Right.

Just like we won't confuse you with the facts about Clinton and your republican get-back for Nixon.

Well argued, Dan.

[Dan Gould]

Don't confuse Goodspeak with facts, and don't forget he is the only Bonds apologist on the board.

Right.

Just like we won't confuse you with the facts about Clinton and your republican get-back for Nixon.

Well argued, Dan.

It wasn't an argument it was an observation, dumb ass.

Consult 70% of the rest of the thread for arguments that you have never come close to refuting in any way, shape or form.

[Tim McG]

Don't confuse Goodspeak with facts, and don't forget he is the only Bonds apologist on the board.

Right.

Just like we won't confuse you with the facts about Clinton and your republican get-back for Nixon.

Well argued, Dan.

It wasn't an argument it was an observation, dumb ass.

Consult 70% of the rest of the thread for arguments that you have never come close to refuting in any way, shape or form.

I see.

Safety in numbers then, eh?

Then tell us why Bush is presdent when the numbers of votes went against him.

It was an argument against my position, Dan.

Observation my rosey red....

Dumb ass.

Edited July 31, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[catesta]

Uh-huh.

And when he is exonerated, you guys will be running for cover.

Anything is possible. After all, OJ is a free man.