Bonds Indicted [guilty on 1/4] [wrist whacked!]


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby Daisy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:

Like it or not he is not been charged with taking steroids.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:56 am

bad hammy wrote:He's the Sotomayor of baseball . . .

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 532#405532

I didn't know about Soto and Mary Decker. You learn something new everyday. Ty Cobbs and Ted Williams weren't exactly known for being cuddly either.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:58 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:

Like it or not he is not been charged with taking steroids.

I'm aware of that. I'm only responding to those who feel that Bonds' records should be expunged.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
bad hammy wrote:He's the Sotomayor of baseball . . .

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 532#405532

I didn't know about Soto and Mary Decker. You learn something new everyday. Ty Cobbs and Ted Williams weren't exactly known for being cuddly either.

And having been in the Bay Area for the time that Bonds was a Giant, either the press is pulling the most massive snow job of all time (including doctoring numerous videos) or Bonds is deserving of his reputation as an asshole. I’d say maybe he’s a sweetheart around his family, but most of the available evidence argues against it.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:32 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh makes an excellent point in defense of Bonds' records:

Like it or not he is not been charged with taking steroids.

I'm aware of that. I'm only responding to those who feel that Bonds' records should be expunged.

Apologies. Didn't catch that.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Bonds performance

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:40 pm

a poster wrote: "...Bonds was also a great player before he became a committed user of what in many sports are PEDs. McGuire was always a really good player - not on the same level and did not have several MVPs that led to him getting contracts with the highest salary in baseball beginning rather far back. I am even unsure of my feelings on Hall of Fame, as I think he would have been in it without the chemical assistance (however, MJ might well have been almost as good, but not as "multi-evented" at OG/WCs)..."

Bonds was great prior to the weight gain, but not a 50 or 55 homer player as were Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, and McGwire even before they were 30. He had generally hit about 35 a year before he bulked up (and 49 once), then hit 73. He would not have done that (actually, no one had, not even Mays, Mantle, Foxx, Killebrew, McCovey, Kingman, Jackson, Greenberg or Ruth). Would have made the Hall, wouldn't have threatened or broken Aaron's career mark.

see:

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... r_best.php

http://mvn.com/outsiderradio/2007/07/23 ... -of-bonds/

http://www.e-sports.com/articles/731/1/ ... Page1.html

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... er_see.php

Bijan C. Bayne
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mcgato » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:12 pm

gh wrote:I don't have time to look this up to confirm, but it's my recollection that even when he was of collegiate MVP status at Arizona State, his teammates nonethless voted him off the team (but the coach would have none of it). Can anybody verify that?

I remember reading about that last year or the year before. I think it was an excerpt from a biography on Bonds. Probably posted on ESPN's website.

As I recall the story, on a trip to Hawaii, Barry and two other players missed curfew bed check. The captain handed out punishment to the players (running laps or some such thing). The other two players accepted the punishment, but Barry refused to do anything because the captain was not his boss. The players met with the coach to complain that Barry was ripping the team apart. The coach said that if the players voted to get rid of Barry, he would do so. The players voted, and only two voted to keep him on the team. The coach said that since it was not unanimous, Barry got to stay on the team.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: Bonds performance

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:04 pm

bijanc wrote:a poster wrote: "...Bonds was also a great player before he became a committed user of what in many sports are PEDs. McGuire was always a really good player - not on the same level and did not have several MVPs that led to him getting contracts with the highest salary in baseball beginning rather far back. I am even unsure of my feelings on Hall of Fame, as I think he would have been in it without the chemical assistance (however, MJ might well have been almost as good, but not as "multi-evented" at OG/WCs)..."

Bonds was great prior to the weight gain, but not a 50 or 55 homer player as were Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, and McGwire even before they were 30. He had generally hit about 35 a year before he bulked up (and 49 once), then hit 73. He would not have done that (actually, no one had, not even Mays, Mantle, Foxx, Killebrew, McCovey, Kingman, Jackson, Greenberg or Ruth). Would have made the Hall, wouldn't have threatened or broken Aaron's career mark.

see:

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... r_best.php

http://mvn.com/outsiderradio/2007/07/23 ... -of-bonds/

http://www.e-sports.com/articles/731/1/ ... Page1.html

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/20 ... er_see.php

Bijan C. Bayne


I completely agree that he would never have made the 700 Club (probably even the religious one :roll: ) much less broken the 754 mark, without PEDs. It just a comment about the two players discussed by someone above. It also expressed my uncertainty on the HoF given that things are tainted; removing anything extra above what he might have done (including stopping at 40 instead of continuing), his record was a HoF one.

I soured on the HR stuff after the McGuire/Sosa contests when the pieces fit together enough to raise big questions about the comparability of the 'playing field'. By the time Bonds was doing the big damage I was not hoping he hit a lot.

Bonds was at the top but saw himself eclipsed by somewhat lessor players and felt the need to exceed, so to speak.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby cullman » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:51 pm

gh wrote:I don't have time to look this up to confirm, but it's my recollection that even when he was of collegiate MVP status at Arizona State, his teammates nonethless voted him off the team (but the coach would have none of it). Can anybody verify that?

I've got nuthin but time and found this article...thanks Google...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... man/060504

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Candy-Armed Barry

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:06 pm

Bonds' MVP, or "Bonds is the G.O.A.T." apologists have contested my columns on a few counts, one interesting one being that he has won eight Gold Gloves. But the ESPN article on his ASU days contains this assertion:

..."There'd be 15 scouts in the stands, and he didn't want them to see that he had no arm."..'

Bonds' Gold Gloves were awarded for playing LF. Manny Ramirez plays left. Frank Howard played in left. Ted Williams played in left. The Reds stuck Pete Rose in left. To argue that Bonds is baseball's greatest ever with "stellar left field play" as a plank in the platform is by definition diminishing- the two thirds of National League outfielders who are charged w/ covering the most ground, and making the most challenging throws, are the RF'ers and the CF'ers. When Bonds teamed w/ Gold Glover Andy Van Slyke in Pittsburgh, it was Van Slyke who was considered a fielding standout.

Griffey (cf) was rated a superior fielder, Griffey was younger, and tabbed by Aaron as most likely to break his record, and Sosa and McGwire captured media attention w/ the assault on Maris' mark. Some sportswriters considered A-Rod the best all-around player. All that had to get to Bonds in the late 1990's.

(red flag- home run production does not spike at age 36)

BCB
Last edited by bijanc on Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Candy-Armed Barry

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:23 pm

bijanc wrote:Bonds' MVP, or "Bonds is the G.O.A.T." apologists have contested my columns on a few counts, one interesting one being that he has won eight Gold Gloves. But the ESPN article on his ASU days contains this assertion:

..."There'd be 15 scouts in the stands, and he didn't want them to see that he had no arm."..'

BCB

Bonds was never a true five-tool player. His own godfather, the Say-Hey Kid himself, has talked about his lack of arm strength. Had he stayed healthy, Ken Griffey Jr. would have likely eclipsed Willie Mays as baseball's GOAT.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:32 pm

Bonds' Gold Gloves were very much in keeping w/ his ability. Having a cannon for an arm is a minor part of being a great fielder. And Bonds was a great fielder in his prime.
gh
 
Posts: 46319
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:43 pm

cullman wrote:
gh wrote:I don't have time to look this up to confirm, but it's my recollection that even when he was of collegiate MVP status at Arizona State, his teammates nonethless voted him off the team (but the coach would have none of it). Can anybody verify that?

I've got nuthin but time and found this article...thanks Google...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... man/060504

cman

A lot of these sociability issues have to be laid squarely at the feet of Bobby Bonds. The behavior being described would not have gone unnoticed by his parents when he was growing up. On the other hand, Bonds is a baseball player, not a diplomat.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Angels in the OF

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:49 pm

gh wrote:

"...And Bonds was a great fielder in his prime.."

Not so much. Great fielders are positioned by their coaches and managers in right or center, not left. Clemente, Mays, Kaline, Maris, Blair, Furillo, Piersall, Rieser, Terry Moore, DiMag, Speaker, Geronimo, Flood, Maddoxx, Evans, Dale Murphy, Pettis, Lofton, Torii Hunter, Carl Crawford all play or played CF or RF.

Name an all-time great major league outfielder (regardless of how they batted) who patrolled left field. Best I recall was Carl Yastrzemski- I'd stop short of calling him great, or ranking him w/ the aforementioned. Left has been tradtionally been reserved for players (nice hitters all) such as Greg Luzinski, Jason Giambi, Berra (when he could no longer play beh. the plate every day), Stargell and Reggie Jackson. There are, beyond arm strength, issues of throwing accuracy, judgement of balls in flight, knowledge of baserunners and situations, the longer throw from right to third, range, speed, and hitting cutoff men.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Angels in the OF

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:10 pm

bijanc wrote:gh wrote:

"...And Bonds was a great fielder in his prime.."

Not so much. Great fielders are positioned by their coaches and managers in right or center, not left. Clemente, Mays, Kaline, Maris, Blair, Furillo, Piersall, Rieser, Terry Moore, DiMag, Speaker, Geronimo, Flood, Maddoxx, Evans, Dale Murphy, Pettis, Lofton, Torii Hunter, Carl Crawford all play or played CF or RF.

Name an all-time great major league outfielder (regardless of how they batted) who patrolled left field. Best I recall was Carl Yastrzemski- I'd stop short of calling him great, or ranking him w/ the aforementioned. Left has been tradtionally been reserved for players (nice hitters all) such as Greg Luzinski, Jason Giambi, Berra (when he could no longer play beh. the plate every day), Stargell and Reggie Jackson. There are, beyond arm strength, issues of throwing accuracy, judgement of balls in flight, knowledge of baserunners and situations, the longer throw from right to third, range, speed, and hitting cutoff men.

BCB

Fielding is considered a different tool than throwing. You just can't put weak arms in right or center. If a guy can field/run but can't throw, you put him in left field. If a guy can throw but can't field/run, you put him in right field. If a guy can do neither you put him in left field. By the way, Reggie Jackson played right field, not left field. Babe Ruth and Sammy Sosa also played right field while Ricky Henderson played left field. Why do you think Bonds won so many Gold Gloves anyway?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

GG

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:34 pm

Reggie played a lot of left before he was a Yank. I think Bonds won a lot of GG's because there weren't many good fielders playing left in the NL in the 1990's. The most contested GG's were in CF and among the RF's. Were he a true five-tooler, he'd have occupied right as Van Slyke, or center.

Being one of the premier LF's in the NL from the late 80's to early 90's was as empty as being one of the top wide receivers in the Big 8 in the 1980's- who was one competing against?

e.g.- What merit is there being one of the top heavyweight boxers during an era when the superior talent is in the middle and lighter weight classifications? It's all relative.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: GG

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:54 pm

bijanc wrote:Reggie played a lot of left before he was a Yank. I think Bonds won a lot of GG's because there weren't many good fielders playing left in the NL in the 1990's. The most contested GG's were in CF and among the RF's. Were he a true five-tooler, he'd have occupied right as Van Slyke, or center.

Being one of the premier LF's in the NL from the late 80's to early 90's was as empty as being one of the top wide receivers in the Big 8 in the 1980's- who was one competing against?

e.g.- What merit is there being one of the top heavyweight boxers during an era when the superior talent is in the middle and lighter weight classifications? It's all relative.

BCB

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I would add that you would be hard pressed to find a better fielding left fielder in the history of baseball that was appreciably better than Bonds in his early years. However, I agree that a left field GG doesn't carry the prestige of a CF or RF GG, but I do believe that a left field GG probably has more prestige than a 1st base or pitching GG.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Like a Bucket of Warm Spit

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:04 pm

jc:

Agreed.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:09 pm

Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

rf

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:14 pm

bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there. The more advanced the baseball, the more sweet-swinging lefties one encounters (and switchers too). And even some of the best righty batters aren't dead pull hitters.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: rf

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:16 pm

bijanc wrote:bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there. The more advanced the baseball, the more sweet-swinging lefties one encounters (and switchers too). And even some of the best righty batters aren't dead pull hitters.

BCB


And when the ball is not traveling that fast, it is easier to get around on it. At 100 mph is goes to right more often, I would think.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: rf

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:33 pm

bijanc wrote:bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there.

Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment. :roll:
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

RF-CF-LF

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:05 pm

bad hammy wrote:

"...Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment..."

I knew that.
:wink:

What kills me is that unlike many followers of track and field, I've heard some baseball fans say, "Bonds was already HOF bound prior to 2000, he still had to meet the ball, he still had to have great plate discipline and supreme hand-eye coordination. Drugs can't improve that. Look at all the walks, and his OBP. No one else is close. Look at his slugging pct."

To which I'd retort- "If (for the sake of argument he took 'em) PED's don't help, then why take 'em?"

(then there'd be the whole, "Well that doesn't help him get around on a 90 mph fastball")

Like fun it doesn't, upper body strength aids speed and power- watch any powerfully built sprinter run the first 20-40 meters out of the blocks- and note how most of those w/ the fastest starts are built.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:37 pm

The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball don't understand physics and/or baseball. Of course PED's improve bat speed. The difference between a 400' home run and a 500' foot home run is greater bat speed. Furthermore, if it takes a batter a few hundredths of a second less to get the bat around, then the batter can wait a few hundredths of a second later before he starts his swing, which means that he can also watch the pitch for a few hundredths of a second longer before he commits to a swing. In addition to this, the biochemist who developed "the clear" claims that it increases an athlete's mental focus.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mcgato » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:51 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:43 pm

mcgato wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.


Is there any scientific data to back up the eyesight claim? Or is it just something that has entered the general consciousness because the writer for Outside claimed that it did?

My empirical evidence that it doesn't would center around the fact that if it did, the Pentagon would have sucked up every available microgram years ago and all fighter pilots/snipers/et al would be on a steady diet. No? This is a substance in limited supply.
gh
 
Posts: 46319
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:36 pm

gh wrote:
mcgato wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.


Is there any scientific data to back up the eyesight claim? Or is it just something that has entered the general consciousness because the writer for Outside claimed that it did?

My empirical evidence that it doesn't would center around the fact that if it did, the Pentagon would have sucked up every available microgram years ago and all fighter pilots/snipers/et al would be on a steady diet. No? This is a substance in limited supply.


I think gh is partially right, but since HGH can be reproduced in large quantities, and there might even be returns to scale, if the pentagon was soaking up large quantities it need not impact the market price much and in fact might reduce it (always the economist). :lol:
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:50 pm

it can? That's not my understanding (not that I'm an expert in the field). I thought one of the great turnoffs of the whole HGH thing (setting aside the not-really-significant world of sports) was that the illegal traffic was diverting a limited resource from people who really needed it. ???
gh
 
Posts: 46319
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:29 pm

HGH is very expensive, but it is not clear that 'diverting' the drug from its proper use is the cause of the high price. In part it is under the category of 'orphan drug'. It is offered by a number of companies and is produced by rDNA methods; my guess is that the production cost is not nearly so high as the price. Some of the docs could probably provide a better read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_hormone_treatment
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby mcgato » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:28 am

gh wrote:Is there any scientific data to back up the eyesight claim? Or is it just something that has entered the general consciousness because the writer for Outside claimed that it did?

I first heard of it from the Outside article. Here is a quick google result:
http://www.drcranton.com/hrt/hgh_body_of_evidence.htm

And there was one other change Meg hadn't expected. She had the beginning of a cataract in her right eye. The progression of the condition not only halted, but in Ruth's opinion her eyesight improved. Assuming that it was human growth hormone that produced this effect, Ruth is not the only person to notice eye improvement after HGH replacement therapy. Dr. Julian Whitaker, a well-known physician and medical writer, reports that his own eyesight improved to such an extent after he began HGH that he seldom needs his glasses anymore. There has been speculation that HGH strengthens eye muscle fibers, contributing to focus and lessening eyestrain.


I'm not a doctor, but my impression is that if you have 20-100 vision, HGH can help get it back closer to 20-20. If you already have 20-20 vision, it isn't going to cause you to see things miles away, or give you X-ray vision.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: RF-CF-LF

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:13 am

bijanc wrote:"Bonds was already HOF bound prior to 2000 . . ."

That part is true . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:23 am

Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:26 am

According to my understanding, this case will be a lot harder to make than the Marion Jones case. When Jones was shown "the clear" by federal investigators, she said that she had never seen or used it before. Bonds, on the other hand, admitted to using it, but claims that he didn't know it was a steroid at the time he used it. Jones lied about "what she did", while Bonds is accused of lying about "what he believed". It will interesting to see how they make that case without Greg Anderson. I also wonder if it would be illegal for Bonds to give Anderson money now that the Feds have decided that they won't be using Anderson as a witness. Maybe law dude can help us out.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:31 am

tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?


I believe the Williams/Fainaru-Wada book lays out the starting point for him, which is either '99 or '00, in direct response to the McGwire/Sosa explosion of '98. There was a specific cause/effect.
gh
 
Posts: 46319
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:42 am

tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?

I wasn't. Just making the statement that he would have been in the HOF for his baseball exploits prior to 2000.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:45 am

And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport.
gh
 
Posts: 46319
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

HOF

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:51 am

gh wrote:

"...And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport..."

True. That said, baseball writers abhor him, and when first eligible in 2012, he's got about as much chance of election and induction as Ted Danson.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:16 am

Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

HOF

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:21 am

Could it be that Gaylord Perry wasn't a pr--ck? The baseball journalists are the gatekeepers to Cooperstown. Ballplayers know that. The writers weren't that enamored w/ Steve Carlton either, but Lefty didn't break the most revered record in team sport.

The indictment (and conviction, should it come) gives the writers an out when Bonds becomes eligible.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:34 am

bad hammy wrote:
tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?

I wasn't. Just making the statement that he would have been in the HOF for his baseball exploits prior to 2000.



Can Pete Rose's career be parsed that way?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests