Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by Geronimo, Apr 5, 2004.
By hitting 661. I predict April13.
Tomorrow! The dudes awesome.
Where's his '*'? No way he's not juiced...
The dudes on steroids.
I was hoping that it would not become a thread about steriods. I guess I was naive.
Yes, I guess you were, because you cannot talk about Bonds hitting home runs and breaking records without taking into account the means with which he did it. There needs to be separate listings for those who set records out of their own ability and hard work, and those who used chemicals for that extra edge. It's not the ball thats juiced, its the players.
I was neither praising nor condenming him. Just specualting on when the event might occur. I am not sure how you intend to separate achievements in the manner you describe. It is not clear at this time who did or did not use steroids. Therefore I would hate to be in charge of making those calls.
In any event. Yet another dumb thread from me. Lets just move on.. I guess.
..longer schedules, talent dilution, not enough pitching, etc, etc...
The excuses keep getting longer and longer.
Ever see the workout routine these guys are on? I don't think steroids are really going to make all THAT much of a difference - especially since it would appear to INCREASE the odds of connective tissue injuries because of too much muscle mass pulling on the same amount of bone and ligaments.
Yes, and I remember what non-Cardinals fans had to say about Mark McGwire a few years ago, and as much as it pains me to say it, look at the problem he had with injuries over the years, and especially toward the end of his career.
steroids or not, you still have to be talented to hit a 95 mph major league pitch.
Hit one, yes, takes talent. Crush one, takes strength. Crush 70+, takes some 'roids.
I was going to flame you all, but I've got too much going on in my life to bother. End result is, he didn't take them and he will be proven clean when this all comes out. I was doubtful this winter (hence my new "skinny Bonds" avatar), but I'm no longer concerned.
I'm sad that people can't enjoy this moment, but that is how sports are these days. :shrug:
Bum Bonds is on the juice so the record is tainted IMO. He was a skinny twerp when he was in Pittsburgh.
Not that it matters a whole lot but I won my own pool. Thsanks for the congratulations. Anybody want tomorrow's Lotto numbers?
Nobody has proven that bat speed is increased with 35 pounds more muscle mass in your body (what Bonds was alleged to have put on).
Steroids doesn't help your eyesight. In fact, it would make you LESS patient and could have an impact in making you strikeout more becuase of the known mood-swinging side-effects.
McGwire had injury problems throughout his career so it's not surprising that he had injury problems late in his career.
Personally, I think steroids are a tempest in a teapot when it comes to baseball.
Bonds' batting average, going over the last few years, has been rising and, again, steroids won't do that. But when you conenct more often, if you have power, you'll hit more home runs.
With the exception of '99 where he only played 102 games hitting .262, Bonds has go from .294 in '95 to .341 in '03 (with a .370 spike in '02). THat's not steroids. That's learning your pitchers.
I'm not saying he didn't take steroids. I'm saying that if he did, IT DOESN'T MATTER. If raw strength was the only thing that mattered, guys like Sam Horn and Mo Vaughn (to pick some ex Red Sox examples) would be HoF candidates.
It depends. Jim Rice's HR production fell off as he got older and loat physical strength. In fact prior to his last 5 years I would have said he was a shoo in fr the hall. Now I doubt it.
It si not all that matters. but it may be a factor.
I can't help but think that Barry's difficulties with the reporters are being turned against him full force, as if the men covering his career for all these years are glad to have a chance to make him pay for being so difficult. You say bosh? Really. Let me ask you this; if Bonds had hit only 53 home runs in 2001 instead of 73, would there be so much speculation that he's a cheat? His home run totals, year by year, would thus look like this....
16, 25, 24, 19, 33, 25, 34, 46, 37, 33, 42, 40, 37, 34, 49, 53, 46, 45
Instead of this....
16, 25, 24, 19, 33, 25, 34, 46, 37, 33, 42, 40, 37, 34, 49, 73, 46, 45
One little change, and presto, there's no evidence of cheating. I've heard, the argument that McGwire didn't demonstrate any evidence of cheating, because his yearly home run totals didn't show the type of distortion that Barry's do. Well, I wonder. Because Barry hit 20 more home runs than he "should have" in 2001, a year in which, by the way, more home runs were hit than ever before, he is now the subject of a non-stop onslaught of negative publicity, the likes of which a baseball player hasn't seen since Ted Williams retired. I wonder if he almost wishes he hadn't broken the record.