Bonds cheated. Strip him of home run record? - Page 6

Dis · April 26, 2004, 14:56

Babe isn't the best example. that was the start of the modern era of sports superstars.

But I'm sure if you go back to the 19th century you can find good examples. Case in point- no one knows any players names from that century. That shows that they played for the love of the game, not fame or money.

I won't say babe was all about money. I think he liked the fame even more.

Tiamat · April 26, 2004, 15:05

Yes, but you do understand the point that if you are going to play a sport should you not be playing that sport because you love it and enjoy playing it. That should be first and the money or fame should be secondary.

Japher · April 26, 2004, 15:10

Tia, I think in some cases the players do get blinded by the money. But, in most cases I think most of them are just happy to play even though they make only $10-15MM/year... Poor buggers.

Arrian · April 26, 2004, 15:12

Remember where so many major leaguers come from.

If I grew up in the Dominican with little to no money, I might care about the money a bit more than I would if I played ball for Stanford (random example, based on a guy who still makes a TON - Mussina).

-Arrian

DinoDoc · April 26, 2004, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
(hint: because they saw him as a troublemaking pain in the ass)?

The Bambino had the last laugh though.

Boris Godunov · April 26, 2004, 15:49

I imagine laughing was pretty painful when he was dying of throat cancer.

Dis · April 26, 2004, 15:50

I'm still he was still doing it with 2 women at once while he was dying though

rah · April 26, 2004, 16:30

Just one note.
In 1927 Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs.
In 1927 Babe drank a lot of booze
In 1927 Alcohol was illegal
His record should have an * next to it.

DinoDoc · April 26, 2004, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Just one note.
In 1927 Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs.
In 1927 Babe drank a lot of booze
In 1927 Alcohol was illegal
His record should have an * next to it.

If you can show me how alcohol makes people more coordinated and enhances performance.

rah · April 26, 2004, 16:34

If you can show me that steriods makes people more coordinated.

Arrian · April 26, 2004, 16:37

I think it's pretty obvious they make people STRONGER, though, rah. So that when they DO make contact, it goes farther.

-Arrian

DinoDoc · April 26, 2004, 16:37

I don't have to. Coordination is part of performance. Imagine how much better the Babe would have been if he wasn't so much of a drunk.

Arrian · April 26, 2004, 16:38

Or imagine what he might have been had he played in the 80s - he might have been Darryl Strawberry.

-Arrian

Japher · April 26, 2004, 16:40

Quote:

I don't have to. Coordination is part of performance. Imagine how much better the Babe would have been if he wasn't so much of a drunk.

Equipment and Practice also increases performance, those should be banned too... What about all the poor sods who played before the tight stitch ball? Their records should be extrapolated to represent the further flying ball.

Drake Tungsten · April 26, 2004, 16:54

Quote:

Or imagine what he might have been had he played in the 80s - he might have been Darryl Strawberry.

Being like Darryl Strawberry probably would've helped the Babe. When it comes to controlling one's weight, cocaine is a hell of a drug...

rah · April 26, 2004, 16:55

For some people alcohol makes them calmer and could enhance their perforance. I used to bowl better when drinking then not drinking. I'm sure babe thought he was stronger when he drank. Perception becomes reality. You never know. But the point is, he was playing baseball while doing something illegal. (for those that accuse Barry of it)

chequita guevara · April 26, 2004, 16:55

Or who cares. Unless you have proof other than someone's word . . .

rah · April 26, 2004, 17:05

For Barry there is no proof yet. I agree.
I'm with the the it wasn't cheating since baseball didn't outlaw it, crowd.

My comment was for all those that said even though it wasn't technically cheating, it was against the law and immoral so Barry's record should be stripped.
In the 20's what Babe did was illegal and immoral, so his records should be stripped using that arguement.

Arrian · April 26, 2004, 17:07

rah.

The best thing for all concerned, IMO, is to have good rules from now on and enforce them. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

-Arrian

DinoDoc · April 26, 2004, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Equipment and Practice also increases performance, those should be banned too...

Are you seriously trying to come up with comparison between steroid use and practice?

Quote:

But the point is, he was playing baseball while doing something illegal. (for those that accuse Barry of it)

The point is that Bonds was/is using performance enhancing drugs to improve his stats.

Ming · April 26, 2004, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The point is that Bonds was/is using performance enhancing drugs to improve his stats.

Again... first... prove it. While it is clear that he had access to such drugs, and that his body looks like he was taking them, please show the proof that he was actually using them. Oh, that's right... you can't.

And Second... until this year, they weren't against the rules...

I agree that if he gets "caught" this year, and it's proven that he is taking them, that any records or stats from this year shouldn't count... but sorry, I don't believe MLB can take away records from somebody when they can't prove anything, and it wasn't against the rules.

MRT144 · April 26, 2004, 18:33

i knew burlingame was a drug haven. MAAAAAATEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOO!

Guynemer · April 26, 2004, 18:54

This whole situation is ****ed up.

BUT, there is another issue relating to stats that no one ever talks about, and it is really only an issue in baseball.

Every single park is different. And that renders many records, particularly home run records, essentially meaningless.

For instance, imagine if Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron had played in Tiger Stadium for the duration of their careers; they both probably would have topped 800, 850, maybe even 900 HRs. Comerica Park? Take away 20-50.

Especially when one considers how, on average, parks are much smaller today than they were in the '20s, home run records are worthless.

Ming · April 26, 2004, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Especially when one considers how, on average, parks are much smaller today than they were in the '20s, home run records are worthless.

Can you prove that? I always thought it was the other way around.

Guynemer · April 26, 2004, 20:16

Well, I know the original "House that Ruth Built" had a 480ft (or so) centerfield fence... I used to have an old Baseball Encyclopedia that had all the old park dimensions in it... so did the old Front Page Sports Baseball PC game. The old parks were, in general, deeper. I'm sure I could dig up that sort of info online, if I really gave a crap.

Imran Siddiqui · April 26, 2004, 20:43

Quote:

Every single park is different. And that renders many records, particularly home run records, essentially meaningless.

That's why most 'new' stats (which people seem to deride) take into account park factors. Win Shares, OPS+, etc, take into account park and era factors (because some eras have higher or lower batting averages based on trends or the field itself)

Quote:

Especially when one considers how, on average, parks are much smaller today than they were in the '20s, home run records are worthless.

Not totally true. While the House that Ruth Built had a 480ft CF fence, it ALSO had like a 280ft RF fence. Many ball fields were in city blocks which made the LF and RF fences very, very close while the CF was very far back (look at the Baker Bowl for instance).

The SABRmatricians, like Bill James, try to take into account these factors and how they influenced stats.

Tuberski · April 27, 2004, 00:38

How about the fact that Ruth used a 54 ounce bat at one time and a 40 ounce bat when he hit 60 in a season.

Bonds, when he hit 73 was using a 32 ounce bat.

10 ounces makes for a BIG difference in bat speed.

When Babe hit 60 Home Runs he hit 14% of the entire leagues total!

To do that now, you would have to hit 300 homers.

ACK!

Berzerker · April 27, 2004, 00:52

No, steroids only allow more strength training, they don't increase talent, and it's talent that allows Bonds to put wood on the ball. Besides, we'd have to look at all the drugs used by athletes throughout the 20th century and that would include alot of people who used speed/meth/crank which certainly enhances performance on the field, steroids only enhance performance in the gym.

Berzerker · April 27, 2004, 01:05

Should players who weight trained have their records removed because some players didn't or don't lift weights? And I believe steroids don't do anything relevant other than allow muscles to "breathe" more when lifting weights so people can train more. It may be tougher to match the output of a weight trainer on steroids but do you really need to be that muscle bound to hit homers? Nope, it's timing...coordination... On the other hand it is "peculiar" to see so many homers from guys who were using these drugs, so I'm a bit more on the fence... I can't help but see these home run totals in a different light than homers hit by the old timers who weren't using drugs...

Sikander · April 27, 2004, 04:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
I say test every player each week, ban all who use steroids, and wipe the records off the books.

I know none of that will ever happen, but wouldn't it just warm your heart if did?

I agree with this. People should be allowed to compete on a level playing field without endangering themselves with steroids. This issue is one of the reasons that I no longer follow baseball. It just isn't interesting to me anymore. It's more like professional wrestling now. Everyone knows it's not real.