Congrats to Barry Bonds on #755 and A-Rod on #500

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Steroids didn't teach him how to hit a baseball. He did that superbly well before he took his first creme or clear. They probably helped him hit the ball 500+ feet instead of 450 feet. And I'm sure a few that just barely made it over the wall instead of landing on the warning track. Well, no, hit has hit so few that had any doubt that it doesn't matter.

With or without an asterix he's hit a ton of homers and deserves the record.

And congrats also to A-Rod for hitting his 500th career home run, becoming the youngest player ever to do so! A few years from now, if he stays healthy, the record Bonds sets will be second best and the asterix won't matter.

[Channing]

I'm sorry Ozzie - I guess Bonds deserves the record because he physically has the numbers, but I refuse to offer congratulations. Bonds is a phenomenal hitter, but by using steroids (he admitted using the cream and the clear - although he claims he thought they were flax seed oil, despite the fact that the the designer of those drugs said there there is virtually not similarity in texture or taste), and circumstnatially the evidence is overwhelming that he used other steroids, he lost my respect, and I personally cannot wait until the record is broken again

[Jumbo]

Steroids didn't teach him how to hit a baseball. He did that superbly well before he took his first creme or clear. They probably helped him hit the ball 500+ feet instead of 450 feet. And I'm sure a few that just barely made it over the wall instead of landing on the warning track. Well, no, hit has hit so few that had any doubt that it doesn't matter.

You're right. There's no correlation between a guy who had never even hit 50 homers in a season suddenly launching 73 one year at age 37 and his using steroids. Gimme a break.

[g_olaf]

I'm sorry Ozzie - I guess Bonds deserves the record because he physically has the numbers, but I refuse to offer congratulations.

Whatever... let it go and enjoy the game.

[jma4life]

Look, there's little question in my mind that Bonds was knowingly on steroids. That said, I stlll think that it's unfair that he's being targetted while someone like Clemens is rarely targetted for his possible steroid use.

What are your guys' thoughts on Selig's reaction. If you're going to go to the game, shouldn't you at least show some emotion?

[hc5duke]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I didn't want to start yet another thread about baseball. I think they made the Nationals and Rangers territory a bit too large though...

[JasonEvans]

You're right. There's no correlation between a guy who had never even hit 50 homers in a season suddenly launching 73 one year at age 37 and his using steroids. Gimme a break.

I thik the thing people miss is that they get hung up on how steroids would help you hit a ball harder and farther. Actually, I know a sports medicine expert who says the biggest imapct of steroids on Barry was his ability to recover faster and feel healthier while playing a 162 game-season. This guy says the biggest impact he thinks steroids has on baseball is in recovery. He says he suspects a ton of pitchers have been roiding because recovery is so important in that job.

When you look at the rest of Bonds' career, the 73 homers really do stick out like a sore thumb. I mean, he was clearly a guy who could hit in the mid-40s in homers -- he did that a lot. But 73... that just came out of the blue and seems to be one heck of a medical monstrosity.

-Jason "the great pity is that if roids had never entered the picture, Bonds would probably be in the low-700s in homers and would be a national hero today" Evans

[Channing]

Whatever... let it go and enjoy the game.

I do enjoy the game, that doesnt mean I am going just ignore what in my opinion is the biggest blight on the game.

While I am certainly not a sports medicine expert, it seems to me like steroids have a bit bigger impact than quick recovery. All of a sudden guys who had never hit more than a handful of homeruns started hitting 40 adn 50 and 60 homeruns.

The reason Bonds gets so much more scrutiny is because he has just tied the most hallowed record in all of baseball. 300 wins is big, but it is not nearly as big 755. There is also a TON more circumstantial evidence (that I know of) regarding Bonds' steroids use.

[jimbonelson]

lets go alex

[hurleyfor3]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I didn't want to start yet another thread about baseball. I think they made the Nationals and Rangers territory a bit too large though...

Also, the Yankees' territory needs to include more of Connecticut, and the Mariners do in fact have most of Oregon and even Idaho.

[g_olaf]

All of a sudden guys who had never hit more than a handful of homeruns started hitting 40 adn 50 and 60 homeruns.

Never hit more than a handful of homeruns??? He was nearing 500 before he allegedly started to use steroids.

I do think its curious the the pitcher Bonds hit 755 off of once tested positive for steroids.

[Channing]

that statement was not in reference to bonds - it was in reference to guys like Sammy Sosa, Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzales . . . to show that steroids have more effect than mere quick recovery.

Bonds did have a 25 home run jump though with ~200 fewer official at bats between 2000 and 2001.

[jma4life]

Yea, even though Bonds only had one season of an abnormally large number of homeruns with 73 the one year, he then had multiple seasons of mid 40s where he had less than like 400 abs.

I was looking at his stats and in 96 (or maybe 95) Barry had about 45 homeruns in like 600 ab's. In the season after 73, he had roughly that same number in only 390 abs.

So while Barry only had one year where his homerun total really peaked, his homerun rates have been significantly higher than his career average even in those seasons after 73 where he was in the 40's.

[A-Tex Devil]

Steroids allow for quick recovery, but not just in a "baseball" sense. It allows you to lift weights more often and get stronger faster and easier. If you are stronger, the ball you hit to the warning track may start going into the stands. Your bat speed will be faster too.

Still, while steroids are a "blight" to some extent, it's no worse than spitballs and corked bats in my opinion as far as the "integrity of the game." Gambling, stealing signs ala the '51 Giants and AJ Pierszynski (because he's a jagoff) are much more dangerous to the integrity of the game.

Honestly, I'm only against steroids in baseball for the same reason I don't think players should dip in the dugout. Kids will do it too, and that's the main danger. Not some romantic obsession with stats.

As someone said below -- Barry doesn't do steroids or whatever he did, and IMHO I think he has less injury issues the last 5 years. He's hit 5 and 26 home runs the last 2 years. Make that 30 and 30 (which I think is low if he plays the whole season) and subtract 30 from his 73 year if you want and he's still only 1 off of his current pace.

[g_olaf]

Yea, even though Bonds only had one season of an abnormally large number of homeruns with 73 the one year, he then had multiple seasons of mid 40s where he had less than like 400 abs.

I was looking at his stats and in 96 (or maybe 95) Barry had about 45 homeruns in like 600 ab's. In the season after 73, he had roughly that same number in only 390 abs.

So while Barry only had one year where his homerun total really peaked, his homerun rates have been significantly higher than his career average even in those seasons after 73 where he was in the 40's.

ABs isn't the appropriate denominator here... part of the reason for so many HRs in so few ABs is because Bonds gets so many walks. Instead, HRs should be compared to plate appearances.

[Channing]

130 odd intentional walks - i dont think those should count towards his hr rate. those are plate appearances when he never had a chance to swing the bat. Whenever homerun efficiency is discussed it is discussed in terms of 1 hr every 7 at bats or something like that.

[g_olaf]

130 odd intentional walks - i dont think those should count towards his hr rate. those are plate appearances when he never had a chance to swing the bat. Whenever homerun efficiency is discussed it is discussed in terms of 1 hr every 7 at bats or something like that.

Agreed, IBBs should be discounted... of course, in the years he hit 73, he was intentionally walked 35 times. It was 2004 when he was intentionally walked 120 times (a total of 232 walks)

[captmojo]

I'm stunned to know that I was born in Reidsville, Pirates.

[jma4life]

If you counted all plate apperances, you're rewarding guys who swing for the fences all the time and who have no discipline and you're penalizing guys for walking. If Bonds had the plate discipline of someone like Francouer and took the approach that he is going to swing regardless of whether he could draw a walk, then he probably could have averaged another 15 homeruns the last 4 or 5 years. So basically, if you look at plate appearances (even if you ignore IBB's) you're penalizing hitters by including walks.

In my opininion, a guy who hits two homeruns in 10 ab's with ten walks hits homeruns at a better rate than someone who hits two homeruns in 20 at bats with no walks.

Using ab's, player A hits one every ten, player b, every 20. Using plate apperances, players a and b have the same rate. That just doesn't seem right to me.

[Bluedawg]

I found a listing of Baseball Nicknamesthat have been fun to look at. Some of them I hate to admit I've never heard.

There are a ton of classic names on the list like "Joltin' Joe" DiMaggio, or "The Iron Horse" Lou Gehrig, or Ernie "Mr. Cub" Banks, or "Hammerin' Hank" Aaron and one that is not on the list but I love is "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.

However, now they are going to have to add a new name to the list, Barry "The Juiced" Bonds.