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.
|
|
Bonds Indicted [guilty on 1/4] [wrist whacked!]
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.
I'm aware of that. I'm only responding to those who feel that Bonds' records should be expunged.
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.
Apologies. Didn't catch that.
Bonds performance
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 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.
Re: Bonds performance
I completely agree that he would never have made the 700 Club (probably even the religious one  ) 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.
I've got nuthin but time and found this article...thanks Google... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... man/060504 cman
Candy-Armed Barry
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.
Re: Candy-Armed Barry
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.
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.
Angels in the OF
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
Re: Angels in the OF
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?
GG
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
Re: GG
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.
rf
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
Re: rf
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.
Re: rf
Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment.
RF-CF-LF
bad hammy wrote:
"...Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment..." I knew that. 
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
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.
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). 
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. ???
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
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
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.
Re: RF-CF-LF
That part is true . . .
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.
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.
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests |
|