A sad day for baseball...
May 9, 2006 at 5:41 PM Post #91 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller
Call me the "tater" of the bunch but has anyone actually Proven that Bonds used or is using steroids?

I've seen all the proof I need that he's a jerk but none that would ever,in a million years,convince me(or a jury) that he is a user. Show me the results of a drug test or perhaps something in the ways of sworn testimony(from a credible witness) implicating Bonds. Does'nt this whole issue belong in the courts? If Bonds really is a user,he's a criminal and not just a cheat. If the further charge of his involvement as a sort of "medium" between players and the drug maker and sellers is true,he should be prosecuted as a major dealer and not just a casual user.

I'm all for throwing the big book at this jerk if it can be proven he used steroids,until that time,I think we all need to take a step back.



Bonds testified before Congress that he used steroids on an ongoing, regular basis at a company called BALCO in California.
 
May 9, 2006 at 5:51 PM Post #92 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy
Bonds testified before Congress that he used steroids on an ongoing, regular basis at a company called BALCO in California.


Bonds never confirmed actual use of what he knew to be steriods. He called them "supplements". I say drug test him and arrest him on the spot if he tests positive. I'd love to see that nit-wit in jail.
 
May 9, 2006 at 6:23 PM Post #93 of 158
It seems to me that a GREAT player should be able to help his team be great, whether through leadership, inspiring play, or encouraging other good players to want to play along side him. This is where I feel Bonds fails. Why would a teammate want to play alongside such a jackass that is a disgrace to baseball? If I were on his team, I would do anything I could to be traded away. Negativity in the press, a bad record, poor management, whatever the reason, I would be out as quickly as possible. The guy won't even sign his last HR ball for an active serviceman. What a worthless scumbag. Too good for his own fans...

I guess you could also blame it on the team owners and management. To have such a so called great player as Bonds in your lineup and not be able to make a winning team with him there is difficult to understand. I feel for you bay area fans. You don't have any good teams to cheer for now that the 49ers really stink.

You can say all you want about individual numbers and being a HoFer, but I'm sure that any player like Bonds, Karl Malone and John Stockton, anyone who is a great player but hasn't won a championship, would trade those stats for that any day. I think this is a perfectly valid argument, and one that is overlooked. He should have won a world series by now...
 
May 9, 2006 at 6:29 PM Post #94 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by incognitoedleon
He has won several Gold Gloves. Since he has always had a weak throwing arm he may not be a great all around outfielder. However, I don't think he wasn't ever mediocre defensively (except this season).

EDIT: I know we're veering off into a lot of directions, but why didn't Ruth still start and play the rest of the games when he was not in the OF? Back then, they didn't believe in rest as much as they do now.



Gold Gloves have always been more about reputation then actual ability in my opinion but he was a good outfielder back in the day but he hasn't won one since 1998. He's been pretty atrocious for the past couple of years.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask in your second question. Can you please clarify. Does your question have to do with him being a DH (which wasn't around back then) or more to do with why he didn't pitch when he wasn't in the outfield?
 
May 9, 2006 at 6:36 PM Post #95 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller
Call me the "tater" of the bunch but has anyone actually Proven that Bonds used or is using steroids?

I've seen all the proof I need that he's a jerk but none that would ever,in a million years,convince me(or a jury) that he is a user. Show me the results of a drug test or perhaps something in the ways of sworn testimony(from a credible witness) implicating Bonds. Does'nt this whole issue belong in the courts? If Bonds really is a user,he's a criminal and not just a cheat. If the further charge of his involvement as a sort of "medium" between players and the drug maker and sellers is true,he should be prosecuted as a major dealer and not just a casual user.

I'm all for throwing the big book at this jerk if it can be proven he used steroids,until that time,I think we all need to take a step back.



bonds1.jpg
url

040417_barry_bonds_hmed_5p.h2.jpg
bondsindc.jpg


He used to look like Eddie Murphy, now he looks like the guy from Green Mile. And look a the size of his HEEEEED.

160_barry_bonds_060307.jpg


He IS lying...

050506-bonds.jpg
 
May 9, 2006 at 6:55 PM Post #97 of 158
The only obvious solution is to resurrect Ruth and and have a final show down.

Ruth didnt take roids and he hit home runs because the pitchers didnt take roids aswell.

I imagine if barry bonds didnt take steroids he would never be able to keep up with those doped up pitchers.

This is only the beginning imagine the beast of steroided man that is going to take to break the home run records now and in the future...
 
May 9, 2006 at 7:00 PM Post #98 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by felixkrull6
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask in your second question. Can you please clarify. Does your question have to do with him being a DH (which wasn't around back then) or more to do with why he didn't pitch when he wasn't in the outfield?


Sorry, I meant the latter. By start, I meant as a starting pitcher. I believe they went by 4 man rotations back then. So why didn't Ruth pitch once every fourth game, and play the other 3 in the OF?
 
May 9, 2006 at 8:04 PM Post #99 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by incognitoedleon
Sorry, I meant the latter. By start, I meant as a starting pitcher. I believe they went by 4 man rotations back then. So why didn't Ruth pitch once every fourth game, and play the other 3 in the OF?


The majority of Ruth's pitching was while he was in Boston for the first four or so years of his career. After that, he was traded to the Yankees his pitching career pretty much came to a stand still and he became the dominant hitter that he's known as today.
 
May 9, 2006 at 8:19 PM Post #100 of 158
OK, I only read the first few and the last few posts, so I apologize if I'm being redundant here, but here goes.

Firstly, Barry Bonds may well indeed be using steroids, but what about the other 300 or 400 players? It's because he's the best player of this era that he has become the scapegoat for the steroid problem. His problems are compounded by the fact that he disdains the media, who in turn villify him and destroy his public image. Barry Bonds is a man who has never hit his wife, assaulted someone, or squandered his money on drugs, booze, and women, which can't be said about roughly 70% of the league. Yet the players who do any or even all of these things are often revered and all their faults are swept under the rug. Why? They're nice guys. They give interviews. The press displays them in a positive light, and if they are finally caught, it's displayed as a valiant struggle against his "demons".

That being said, no one can say whether Barry Bonds or Babe Ruth is better, because they played completely different games. People forget that Babe Ruth played in the live ball era (then again, he is the one who christened it). ERAs and AVGs were sky-high with the advent of more expansion teams (watering down the pitching talent) and higher-quality baseballs.

Barry Bonds plays in the steriod era, where every other hitter is juiced up in some shape or form. Barry Bonds has passed every single drug test he's ever taken, but of course there is the possibility that he's on something that is, for the moment, undetectable. Also, my dad was an acquaintance of Bobby Bonds, Barry's late father. My dad was shocked to see Bobby about four years after he retired -- he had gained about twenty pounds in pure muscle and his neck was as thick as a linebacker's. Bobby explained that it was a Bonds family gene; around the age of forty (give or take about five years) the Bonds men always bulk up. Now, could Barry have just gotten lucky and had the gene kick in around thirty-six? It's certainly a possibility, and my dad had no reason not to believe Bobby. Why would he retire, wait four years, and then begin to take steroids? It's not even worth discussing. Also worth mentioning is that Bobby stayed out of the public eye for a long time, and by the time he began being discussed in the news again (because of Barry's exploits), he had developed cancer and his body was reduced to its previous form, so not many people knew about the years that he was as big as Barry is now.

All things aside, Babe was the undisputed king of his era, and Barry is the undisputed king of this era. Babe hit 54 home runs when only one other team managed this feat. Barry certainly isn't doing anything like that, but he has been shattering age-old records. He broke Babe's "untouchable" single-season SLG record, he shattered the old OBP record, he broke the single-season HR record, he shattered the single-season IBB and BB records, and even at the ripe old age of forty-two, he has every single pitcher in the league pissing his pants when he steps up to the plate. There has not been a hitter this downright feared since the Babe.

There is no "best" of all time -- just that elite echelon of players who were the best of their times. But Babe and Barry were the only players to redefine the way the game was played in their respective eras. Babe brought about the "home run hitter", and Barry brought about whole new pitching strategies -- he was walked intentionally with the bases loaded when the other team was only winning by two, and this was before Bonds became the monster that he is today. Plain and simple, he puts the fear of God in the pitcher.

Well, that was a bit of a tangent, and maybe the longest first post here on Head-Fi ever.
biggrin.gif
Anyway, hello everyone.
wink.gif
 
May 9, 2006 at 8:25 PM Post #101 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08
The majority of Ruth's pitching was while he was in Boston for the first four or so years of his career. After that, he was traded to the Yankees his pitching career pretty much came to a stand still and he became the dominant hitter that he's known as today.


Yes, but I was just wondering why he stopped pitching. Was the Yankee rotation strong enough that they didn't need him or did personally choose not to pitch regularly anymore.
 
May 9, 2006 at 8:32 PM Post #102 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by nibiyabi
All things aside, Babe was the undisputed king of his era, and Barry is the undisputed king of this era.


I disagree.. On both accounts. I hardly think the ability to hit home runs translates into the "king" of a certain era. To me it takes a lot more than that. Home runs, batting average, sacrifices (I can't remember the last time Bonds bunted to move the runner over), stolen bases, a great glove in the field, along with a great arm. If you're going to make someone a king of an era, they need to be a complete player that can do all the things above along with being a great role model and a great teammate.

Two guys that comes to mind are Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle. Fundamentally sound players who loved the game and went out there and gave it their all, day in, day out. Even though I don't like him, I'd have to say Alex Rodriguez is shaping up to be a lot better candidate for king of this era than Barry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by incognitoedleon
Yes, but I was just wondering why he stopped pitching. Was the Yankee rotation strong enough that they didn't need him or did personally choose not to pitch regularly anymore.


Honestly, I'm not sure why he stopped pitching. My guess is the Yankees saw more worth in his bat than his pitching arm. I'm not too keen on the pitchers of that era, but it's very possible they already had a strong rotation.
 
May 9, 2006 at 9:04 PM Post #103 of 158
Quote:

Originally Posted by incognitoedleon
He has won several Gold Gloves. Since he has always had a weak throwing arm he may not be a great all around outfielder. However, I don't think he wasn't ever mediocre defensively (except this season).

EDIT: I know we're veering off into a lot of directions, but why didn't Ruth still start and play the rest of the games when he was not in the OF? Back then, they didn't believe in rest as much as they do now.



Bonds is the only left fielder in my recent memory that has won the Gold Glove. It always goes to a guy playing center (A. Jones, J. Edmonds, T. Hunter, etc.) or a guy playing right (Ichiro).

In general, at the major league level, left fielders are regarded as your "weakest" outfielder - they don't need the range of the centerfielder and they don't need the arm of a rightfielder. A case could be made that they need to have slightly more mobility than a rightfielder, since most hitters are righties and are likely to pull the ball slightly towards left, however. The longest throw leftfielders make from is from the corner or the gap to home - in which they'd be hitting the cut-off man, anyway.

I always thought it was testament to Bonds' defensive abilities that he won multiple Gold Gloves as a left fielder.
 
May 9, 2006 at 9:43 PM Post #104 of 158
WOW! Bonds is the KING of his era? I thought to be a king you had to RULE over something and atain the top tier of your profession, IE win a CHAMPIONSHIP? Bonds is no king, just as Malone will never be considered to be the best power forward to play the game because he never overcame Jordan.

Any pitcher who has
A. a teeny strike zone
B. to pitch to an armored terminator freak like BB
C. to pitch to a home run factory like BB
is going to become cool like Billy Madison. Advantage - Ruth
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top