Baseball: Bonds HR

#710 tonight

The best player this generation will ever see.
Only 5 more.

Number 710 belted tonight.

Aww... Hoot beat me 2 it.

[Edited on 4/25/2006 by GiantsFan]

Quick question, how devestating would it be if Bonds breaks the record? The age of innocence has been blown away, so is it something that should be easily acceptable?

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
Quick question, how devestating would it be if Bonds breaks the record? The age of innocence has been blown away, so is it something that should be easily acceptable?

There is no age of innocence. MLB has cheated forever. You can start with Ruth, Mays, Aaron.

There is a difference between simply breaking the law (as Ruth did during Prohibition) and doing something that is expressly against the rules of baseball--taking steroids--and can potentially give one an advantage over those who abide by the rules. Did drinking alcohol in Ruth's day make anyone a better baseball player? No, only a lunatic would claim that. But has steroids enhanced some players' games? Certainly, although I don't think the advantages are as great as some people claim they are. "Cheating" implies an unfair advantage. If a person has a list of the answeres to a test when he goes to take that test, then he is cheating. If he smokes pot before taking a test, then it is not cheating because the act does not produce any unfair advantage. Thus, the player is innocent of cheating.

Thank you, Kwy and BtB. You can take up the hopeless task of trying to argue with this gratuitously irascible, always-spoiling-for-arguments, irrational [12-expletives-deleted]. I really am done.

The day-long argument BtB and I got into is something we both regret, and had done everything possible to forget, until it was dug out of archives to resurrect Bonds-bickering here, immediately upon H-word's return. But I will say this:

I knew, throughout that entire day, that I was up against a very formidable debating opponent. He was in over his head on the general subject matter of baseball--and later said so himself--but he's a very, very intelligent guy who can handle himself anywhere intellectually, I would guess.

But arguing with an intellectually dishonest nitwit, who comes here with "spoiling-for-a-fight" written all over nearly every post he makes, and who posts the most illogical writing I've seen from a presumptive adult, is unwise for a person like me who is 6'2", 269 pounds (a 65-pound LOSS, if anyone wants to congratulate me :party- smiley-018, 53 years old, and needs not to get worked up by such bullsh*t.

Kwy, you might ask him for PROOF Mays and Aaron cheated with stimulants. He's made that allegation here a skillion times, and produced exactly zero evidence in support of it. Aside from being defamatory, it's really lame argument.

And BtB, your post will guarantee you a tsunami of non-linear nonsense you'll go crazy trying to reply to in a linear and respectful manner. Of course, it won't take long for you to cease feeling a need for respectfulness.

Back to your question, Kwy: If I stay focused and avoid this nonsense, it shouldn't bother me at all. Even ignoring the fact that Babe Ruth lost 5.25 prime years to the Dead Ball Era and Fenway then had no bleachers in right field (something like a 488-foot shot), numbers as comically tainted as Bonds' career power stats shouldn't bother me at all. God knows I laugh when I hear that McGwire, not Ruth, now has the career HR/AB ratio record.

What I think galls me are all the racist remarks Bonds has made about Ruth, and the seemingly inevitable prospect of the additional ones he will make when he gets to 715. He DID say, remember, that he "broke" Ruth's slugging and on-base records (obviously he meant single-season), and he'll get Ruth's 714 HR's, too, so he won't have to hear about him no more. He might want to review, among many many more, the ones I posted in that multiple choice thread a week or so ago....

Anyway, get ready for further (and ceaseless) replies. You guys have just bought into a neverending and really exasperating process. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

BHN

Thanks for the warning, BHN. I have already noticed the accusations without evidence. There is a difference between agitating and simply arguing in a respectful manner. Yes, I crossed that line once before, but I don't plan to do it again.

By the way, congratulations on the weight loss. I'm 6'1", 235, but would like to get down to 220. I'm 20 years younger than you are and wondering how to do it.

Ruth used illegal Crawford bats, 4 pieces of wood glued together. This is fact. AL Commisioner Ban Johnson banned ruths bats. And you claim to know bb history? Mays, Aaron used greenies. This is documented. It's sad that some that claim to know bb history, know so little, or refuse to acknowledge that they cheated. Keep living in your fantasy world, where Bonds is the only cheat. BHN, you sound like a 10 year old. Always name calling.

I've heard rumors about Aaron taking greenies and Mays taking a substance called "red juice," but I've had trouble finding hard evidence that any of it is true. I agree there has been cheating in baseball for a long time, and this is a very complicated issue that seems to be pretty divisive. Anyway, I don't mind enganging in conversation with anyone, I'll probably annoy them before they get to me.

Artice on topic that is pro-Barry: www.msnbc.msn.com...
"What Bonds and these others did was deeply rooted in the game. Pete Rose and most players of his generation couldn't take batting practice without first downing a handful of greenies - amphetamines. Willie Mays kept a bottle of red juice in his locker - the same stuff as greenies, but in a liquid form. We can'tt say Hank Aaron was clean, because we don't know what stimulants he took, if any. We can't vouch for anyone's purity."

BtB, there he is, in all his truculent, warmongering glory.

As for the weight loss, do it SOON. It's both a lot harder when you're older and a lot harder on your health. It may be harder to sustain, too, but I'm hoping not.


Meanwhile, a brief note to the misanthropist:

I doubt the validity of your claim. I've only read FOUR Ruth bios, one of them about 5 times, and never seen a thing about this b.s.

But assuming you're not making that up out of thin air, you may know some of Ruth's stats. You may know that he was one of the greatest players in baseball history from ages 35 thru 39, and that Bill James has recognized this fact. So if--and again, I doubt it, but if--some line of bats he'd used was banned and he had to stop using them, it obviously had little effect.

Here's something you probably don't know. From 1918 through 1931--that's a 14-year span for the math-challenged among us--Ruth had 2 years in which he was suspended for huge parts of the season (1922 and 1925), and he led the league in HR's in ALL of the other 12 years during that span, and in slugging in all 12 PLUS one of the other 2. So, even though he'd by then put on a ton of weight, he still led the league in HR's and slugging at age 36, with Gehrig and Foxx as competition.

At ages 37, 38 and 39, his OBP were .489, .442 and .448, and his slugging percentages were .661, .582 and .537. Yep, the lack of those bats just destroyed the old Babe. He must have been cheating up a storm, and the commissioner's confiscation of bats just ruined him.

Personally, I shudder to think what HE'D have done with steroids in his late 30's....

I'm sure it's obvious to everyone who reads these threads which of us, by a huge margin, knows more about baseball history. You go right on and trot out your SABR formulae. As I told BtB during a discussion he initiated over flaws in the RunsCreated stat, the fact SABR members are such slaves to their stats is exactly why I'm not a member, and never will be.

PLEASE GO AWAY.

BHN

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
I've heard rumors about Aaron taking greenies and Mays taking a substance called "red juice," but I've had trouble finding hard evidence that any of it is true. I agree there has been cheating in baseball for a long time, and this is a very complicated issue that seems to be pretty divisive. Anyway, I don't mind enganging in conversation with anyone, I'll probably annoy them before they get to me.

Artice on topic that is pro-Barry: www.msnbc.msn.com...
"What Bonds and these others did was deeply rooted in the game. Pete Rose and most players of his generation couldn't take batting practice without first downing a handful of greenies - amphetamines. Willie Mays kept a bottle of red juice in his locker - the same stuff as greenies, but in a liquid form. We can'tt say Hank Aaron was clean, because we don't know what stimulants he took, if any. We can't vouch for anyone's purity."

I have a problem with that last part, Kwy. It's putting the burden of proof ON AARON, and that's not how it works in this country. He should be presumed innocent unless there is at least SOME circumstantial evidence of his "guilt." It doesn't have to be Mt. Everest, like with Bonds, but I'm just asking for something, because to date I'm unaware of anything at all. And what you posted just says, in essence, that he hasn't proven his innocence.

That's not his duty. I'd also like to know the author's authority for the comment about Mays' red juice.

I don't have anything emotionally tied into this. If those guys did this--as I'm SURE Mantle did, per the reports of how widespread this was in "Ball Four"--so be it. I'm just tired of a certain person's ceasely regurgitations of bald allegations, you know?

Yet again, HOOTIE has failed to produce any tangible evidence or even a valid argument. BHN never said Bonds was the only cheat, just the one with the biggest numbers and the only one who can potentially break Hank Aaron's HR record.

I did a little research and found that Ruth used a laminated bat--now legal--when there was a shortage of ash wood. Yes, those bats were banned by the commissioner, but they in no way provided an unfair advantage. As for the amphetamine accusations, those drugs were not illegal when Aaron and Mays may have used them. And although that might provide some advantage in overcoming pain, in the long run they just prevent someone from realizing the extent of their injuries.

You'll have to do better than that, HOOTIE.

Sorry, my intention was to point out that the only evidence I could find implicating Mays and Aaron came from dubious sources. I only posted the quote from that site because I thought it was self evident that there is no case against either player and that it is all pure conjecture (a witch hunt, in a way). The whole article is pretty good and I'd be interested to hear what you think of it if you get the time to read it, although I realize you might not agree with the author of the piece.

Kwyjibo

I don't make stuff up, nor do i need too. Ruth had illegal Crawford bats. The Commisioner was forced to take action.
Dave Henderson found Ruths corked bat in a display.

Jon Milner says Mays turned him on to greenies. Milner claims Mays turned many players on to them. Mays had his bottle of red juice right in his locker for all to see. Back then, there wasn't hack reporters like now. This is all easily found on Google. I'm not going to show you. You are the supposed history nut.

As far as Bonds guilt, MLB has so much evidence, Bonds is still playing. Never suspended. You fail to adhere that Bonds has passed drug tests from (03-05), the 3 years MLB steroid policy was in effect, and every player is tested randomly every year. If MLB had hard evidence, they wouldn't let Bonds play. Bonds has now hit 97 hrs under the policy, while testing clean.

I'm done with this, as some would rather close their eyes, then admit the truth.

As we all noticed, you have failed to make any point. Are you claiming those bats gave Ruth an unfair advantage? Are you saying Mays was the player he was because of greenies? Of course you aren't, because those would be flawed arguments that would be swatted away like an irritating fly.

Birds, and steroids weren't illegal under MLB rules in the years in question (98-02). The CBA, Collective Bargaining Agreement made sure of this, until caving in after 2002. Bonds broke no MLB rules. Selig has no recourse. Bonds is still playing.

Thank you for telling us what we already know.

Originally posted by BirdstheBest
As we all noticed, you have failed to make any point. Are you claiming those bats gave Ruth an unfair advantage? Are you saying Mays was the player he was because of greenies? Of course you aren't, because those would be flawed arguments that would be swatted away like an irritating fly.

They wouldn't have banned them had they been fair bats.
Greenies of course aid a player. Why do you think the players union fought to keep them in MLB? Greenies weren't banned till this year. This isn't red bull, it's a drug that can kill. Players popped pills because they needed the boost to play that day. Many ex players from Chad Curtis to Mike Schmidt have said the same thing.

Hey hopefully you're not done yet, I found the evidence you're referring to here: www.post-gazette.com...

"During the trial of caterer Curtis Strong, Pirates Dale Berra and Dave Parker testified that they got greenies from teammates Willie Stargell and Bill Madlock, two of the leaders on the Pirates' 1979 World Series team.

In addition, John Milner testified he took a stimulant called "red juice," which he found in the locker of Willie Mays when they were with the New York Mets.

"The great one. Yes," Milner said. "I don't know what kind of speed it was, but it kept your eyes open."

Stargell, Madlock and Mays denied using stimulants and were later exonerated by the commissioner's office. There is a statue of Mays outside San Francisco's ballpark and one of Stargell outside PNC Park.

"In his 1984 book "The Wrong Stuff," former Red Sox pitcher Bill Lee said stimulants were an antidote to hangovers and fatigue.

"Amphetamines weren't being used for kicks, they were being used to sober up," Lee wrote. "A player did not gulp down greenies with the expectation that it would enhance his performance. He did it to get his pulse going on the morning after the night before.""

Ok, so my question on this issue is do you feel that there is a degree of severity to cheating? For example, it was stated that amphetamine use was more for hangover cures and restlessness (which doesn't excuse it, as it was a Federal Crime, just not banned in baseball). Do you not see a difference concerning steroid use. There's evidence cheating has been around forever, but does that mean that all stats from "the era" are meaningless (are all stats meaningless?)? Sorry if this was rambling and came off as too defensive, I'll edit it when I'm more coherent

Thank you, Kwi. That was the quotation I was looking for.

"Amphetamines weren't being used for kicks, they were being used to sober up," Lee wrote. "A player did not gulp down greenies with the expectation that it would enhance his performance. He did it to get his pulse going on the morning after the night before."

Notice, these drugs were NOT used to enhance performance. And again, all the evidence is hearsay.

HOOTIE, Ruth's laminated bat, which is now legal, was banned by the commissioner. There was no rule specifically making it illegal. Yet again, you have failed to prove your point--or even make one, for that matter.

[Edited on 5/21/06 by BirdstheBest]