Bonds voted to All Star team
 

With a huge surge in the last few days, Barry Bonds overcame almost a 200,000 vote gap to make the NL starting squad...this is only right imo! The game is in SF and this will be the year he breaks the record...glad to see it!

Im not going to watch the game for sure now that Bonds is a starter. He is a disgrace to baseball and the human life form in general. Maybe a AL pitcher will hit him with a pitch and he will be out for the rest of the year.

I find your remarks disgraceful...wishing injury to someone is indefensible! Bonds has yet to be charged or even formally accused of wrongdoing...he may end up being the steroid king, or he may not but he will end up the all time home run king, he deserves to be in this game and to deny him would be a disgrace to baseball. People "KNOW" he's guilty...thank god, in this country we depend on facts rather than what folks "KNOW". I think your attitude, that because you don't like someone, they deserve misfortune is at the base of many of society's problems!

Somer: that is Nascars standard emission coming out! Bonds might be cleared but I think that after all is said and done ARod will be the HR King!

Timm,
Might well be...but I just don't get all the hate, it's a sport for goodness sake! Bonds, like every other person, is innocent until proven guilty and his record speaks for itself...he just hit 751 today, having an excellent season!

I know that Bonds is ego-centric and generally rude, but it's his bat that wiil get him in to HOF!

Not to mention his speed and glove (514 SB's, 8 Gold Gloves).

I don't wish harm on anyone, however, I do think that Bonds, breaking the record, etc. does not add anything to the game. I think it takes away from the game. That's the way the entire thing lands with me.

Call it a record, and I would say it will go down as one. However, what respect will this record have? What integrity does it have? Not with the few, but with the many. Personally, I don't think one can hang their hat on the fact that Bonds hasn't been formally charged or convicted. While it's true that one is innocent until proven guilty, the fact is there is no actual and formal crime that he can be guilty of as far as I see it. There is no environment or infrastructure in which Bonds can be tried or convicted. You cannot un-ring a bell. Who can bring charges against him? Prosecute and try him? Let's not confuse cause and effect -- and being that there is no law to break, guilt will be absent.

I think all of this is more due to a complete lack of oversight on the part of MLB, and now -- I am sorry to say -- perhaps Congress. I also think there is a complete farce as it relates to the governing body of MLB and the fact that they refuse to enforce any resemblence of rules, regulations, policies, etc. This is all part of the problem -- not part of the solution.

Eric

If the "known" use of amphetemines was overlooked by MLB for decades,and the recent use(10 yrs) of steriods and HGH can't be brought to closure by Mitchells lame investigation,then it's best to enjoy the sport for what it is....cheering for players that do something we can't do.

I doubt that anyone is under more scrutiny in sports these days than Barry Bonds. I don't think he could get away with using ANYTHING these days. Yet here he is, into his 40's and STILL with 17 hr's thus far this season. The other day, he even stole another base. I think it's great as well as deserving for him to be on the all-star team and I can't wait till he breaks the record. This is how I look at it. It is alleged that Bonds started with the steroids after watching McGwire and Sosa go crazy in 1998. Through that season, he had hit 411 career homers. He proceeded to hit in the upcoming seasons.......34 (in 102 games due to injury), 49, 73, 46, 45 and 45. So let's say that he was on something during that time and if he hadn't been, he would only have hit 35 per season during that stretch. That 35 per season average, certainly not unrealistic based on what he was doing up until that point, would give him 210 more homers. That would put him at 621. The next season he only played 14 games and only hit five. In a full season, give him another 25. That would put him at 646. He came back to hit 26 last year. That's 672 and he's got 17 this year which would be 689. It's not hard to see how he could be at the 700 mark, give or take a few, without taking anything at all. Now, I know some are wondering if projecting him to hit 35 a season during that six-year stretch might be giving him too much? I don't think so. During that stretch, he went from 35 to 40 years old. How many homers did the other two guys that have hit the 700 mark hit during those same age years?

Aaron:
797 games and 223 home runs, averaging 37.2 per year and hitting one every 3.57 games.

Ruth:
713 games and 198 home runs, averaging 33.0 per year and hitting one every 3.60 games.

So giving Barry 35 a year and 210 total in the six-year stretch after he is alleged to have started the steroid use is not giving him too much. But do people know that between 35 and 40, Ruth went over 40 hr's three times, including hitting 49 one season? Or how about that Aaron did it three times also, including setting his career high with 47 at age 37? Aaron was actually more productive from 35-40 than he had been from 30-34.

All of this is to say that it's very conceivable that Barry could still be right around the 700 mark or maybe even over 725. He probably wouldn't be nearing Aaron's record at this point though but could conceivably have done so with the completion of this year and by playing next. For me, the record is not tainted at all. And one thing that people forget is that he spent quite a few years in Pittsburgh and playing at Candlestick, neither of which were the easiest parks to hit home runs in. The dimensions of the park Barry plays in now have been one of the reasons his numbers have gone way up but nobody looks at that. Nobody recognizes the fact that Ruth was hitting to a right field fence that was under 300 ft away while the fence in Pittsburgh was around 335 ft or so. If Barry could have spent his entire career in Yankee Stadium, he might be around 850 home runs non-steroids and 1000 if he's actually been on them.

KG: good theories.....one of my points being that if steriods were so rampant(and we do know that players used them)then why not the rush to stardom for the regular players? Instead of the Mendoza line at .200, we'd have had the Billy Russell line at .300!

bonds is a conundrum for sure. there's innocent til proven guilty, and there is the admission from the man himself that he used creams and the like, but 'didn't know' what they contained.

as for the record. it seems every major record is always called into question when there is a chance it has fallen, or will fall. seems that whenever a large-mouth bass is caught that will threaten a very long standing record, there are immediate accusations of weighting the fish. when someone shot a huge buck that might be the new record, immediately people started with accusations. it's the same in this situation.

i'd imagine that when (if?) secretariats records in the derby and belmont fall, you'll have howls of protest--look at when monarchos ran a few years ago for example!


they say records are made to be broken, but sometimes it's not very popular. people tend to shy from change, maybe this has something to do with it. but then, maybe bonds being very unpopular doesn't help. he's hard to cheer for to begin with.

All good points in the past few posts...bottom line: Bonds would be in the HOF (assuming he has used roids) without them. He is the best player of my lifetime, you can argue the best ever...gold gloves, stolen bases AND power. We may never know the truth...but why is Bonds the one everybody wants to point fingers at? Ruth drank like a fish, Ty Cobb was a racist pig...the HOF isn't for nice guys, it's to honor achievement in the sport.

obviously the HOF is for on field only, as plenty would be kept out due to off the field antics.
why is bonds getting the attention? because he's the one getting ready to break the record. people tend to put athletes on pedestals, the longer they've been gone, the higher the pedestal. if bonds record stands long enough, i'd imagine the next to break it will get a lot of scrutiny as well. a-rod looks like he may threaten it, he certainly isn't a favorite son.

No, but over at Yahoo Sports today is an article talking about A-Rod breaking the record and it takes shot after shot at Bonds...the article comes right out and says that baseball will be overjoyed if A-Rod breaks the record. To me it's sad, this should be a special time in baseball...just this year we've had several accomplishments, Biggio's 3000 hits, Sosa's HR's and the best...the Rocket hitting 350 wins. Should be a great time to be a fan and yet...

yeah, it should be. i agree with that. as for a-rod, i doubt he'd get any real praise, he's not much more liked than bonds.
now ken griffey jr on the other hand....

i tell you, if the media takes a dislike to you, look out.

Because if everyone was using them then the best players would still be the best players, no? Most of the minor leaguers that have been suspended for using steroids are pitchers.

I think this makes it easier for the writers to tee off on him. I'm not passing judgement either way but it is easier to be negative about a bad guy than a good guy.

Just look at the Lance Armstrong situation. There is virtually no chance that he did what he did and was clean since the entire biking world was doping and the fact he was prescribed EPO during his cancer treatment. But he was a sympathetic figure who raises money for cancer. People are certainly more willing to give him a pass than Barry.

If this makes you a bad guy then half the people on DT are scum

Chuck, you beat me to it, but I was going to mention that Bonds has probably faced a lot of pitchers that are on the juice.

Juice, equipment, stadiums ... it's very difficult to compare one era to another. Aaron had a number to shoot at and so does Barry. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I give Bonds credit he can flat hit the ball.

Now now, just making a point that the HOF isn't about a guy's personal life. Ruth was known as quite the party animal, I have no problem with that...his life, but there are lots of guys who have had "issues" in the HOF. People single out Bonds unfairly imo...I know it has to do with the record and his dealings with the media and fans but still...this is a great accomplishment and since baseball did (and still has done) nothing to address roids, they should celebrate it! To date, there is no more hard evidence known to the public linking Bonds to roids than Ruth or Aaron.

He is a tremendous player that is a prick. He doesn't even try to act like a nice guy. But his achievements are monumental even if you want to downgrade them because of the era he did them in. Though anyone who thinks he is a better hitter than Babe Ruth needs to look at the numbers again

how many games did it take ruth and aaron to get their records? how many seasons? and how many games a year did they play? certainly not 160-odd like now.
not that it matters. najran shares the mile record with dr fager, who carried a lot more weight...

bonds is definitely not concered with PR. no doubt he dries his tears with hundred dollar bills! i'd rather there not be a cloud of suspicion about it, but his own words and actions have contributed somewhat to that.

how much grief did aaron get on the way to breaking ruths' record? i do remember when ripken broke gehrigs string of starts, people started complaining when he kept starting and adding to his record-i found that bizarre. and that was for a much more popular player. there's no pleasing some.

Too many intangibles to try to compare and numbers can be thrown out to favor them all. But Ruth was so far ahead when he was playing, I think that speaks volumes.

can't help wondering if the training regimens, sports medicine know-how, etc, was available to ruth, what could he have accomplished?

You make some great points. I honestly believe that if he hadn't hit 73 he would not be nearly as big a villian. If he had hit 59 that year, he would not be liked but I just think that he would not be as hated. that one year just kind of looks out of whack which makes people more leery of him.

Not to be picky but 2 points. Aaron benefited from a rule change in 1969 when the mounds were lowered which may have aided him during his 35-40 years along with playing in a stadium with very favorable HR conditions. Ruth's later years were also spent in an envirorment where there were many more HR's hit than when he was in his 20's.

Though Ruth was damn good in 1920 hitting 54 HR's to 19 for runnerup George Sisler, his 1921 season was amazing. He hit 59 HR's, had 171 Rbi's, scored 177 runs, had 44 2b's , 163bs, 457 total bases, hit .378, had an .512 On base average, walked 145 times and created 233 runs. All in an era where the second leading home runs for a team was Philadelphia with 82.

BTW- they were playing in the Polo Grounds during those years, not Yankee Stadium.

Of course both Ruth and Aaron were finished as players after 40, where Bonds continues to be a productive player in a weak lineup

Exactly...Ruth never faced a slider or split finger fastball, never faced dominant closers etc.
Ruth...2503 games, 8933 ab, 2873 hits, 506 doubles, 136 triples, 714 hr, 2213 rbi, 2174 runs, 2062 bb, 1330 so, unknown sb (couldn't find), .342 ave
Bonds...2934 games, 9704 ab, 2901 hits, 597 doubles, 77 triples, 751 hr, 1972 rbi, 2196 runs, 2512 bb, 1517 so, 514 sb, .299 ave.

Of course his opponents would have had the same advantages.

He also played in a league with 8 teams not against AAA pitchers like today. And dont forget that the spitball was still legal for some pitchers to throw. If you compare them to the players of thier eras there is no doubt who the superior player is.

But throw in the training advantages and the DH, Ruth might have had that highly coveted consecutive start streak.

Oh I agree...really impossible to compare players from different eras...now Bonds and Aaron makes a bit more sense!

For some reason Aaron never seems to get his due when people talk about great players. When talikng about the greatest player you hear Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Williams, DiMaggio, Bonds, but rarely hear people making a case for Aaron. I guess the fact that most of the other guys played in NY and Aaron played in the midwest and South may have something to do with it. Buth he was crushing the ball during the 60's when Pitching was king. You would have to think that all things being equal, if he played in the same time period that Bonds did that he could have had much better numbers, maybe 800 HR's.

yeah, that's true.

And I have a feeling that Babe may not have cared for healthy eating and working out.

lol

yeah, you have a point there as well! but isn't beer healthy? made from grain!

Its amazing after they started testing for steroids that Bonds' numbers have gone down. I forgot he will use injuries and age for an excuse.

Do you think he was faking?

Chuck, good point. I think you touched upon a very common and blurred aspect. It's an exercise in futility to compare Ruth to Bonds or Ruth to any player of the "modern era" so to speak. It's simply a comparison of data and opinion, with no real substantial base. On the other hand, comparing an Bonds to, let's say, Willie Mays is much more palatable. There will still be variables that are at play, but it's more feasible. I have always been a fan of Aaron, and I came to know him in recent years through some mutual friends.

IMO, there is an element of shame that a record like Aaron's will be broken by "a" Barry Bonds. Aaron was the model of consistency. I could be wrong on some of my stats as I am going on memory here -- however, I think Aaron only led the league in HR's 4 or 5 times. He hit 30 plus about 15 or so times and never hit 50 in a season (I don't think). But he hit 40 about a half dozen times and just kept hitting 30 plus time and time again over a career that didn't reach 25 years.

Hank Aaron was, and still is a class act and a real gentleman.

On another note, I recently saw an interview with Willie Mays, where they asked him about Bonds (his godson). Mays refused to comment on the steroid issue. But when they asked him about Bonds possibly being considered one of the all-time greats, his standing when stacked up against some of the all-time greats, etc. -- including Mays -- Mays was very quick to answer and was very definitive.

Mays talked about fielding, hitting, throwing, running, and the categories that people would tend to look at when rating or ranking the all-time greats. The interviewer asked how Bonds would stack up against Mays himself. Mays said Bonds couldn't throw with or run with him, when both were in their prime. I forget what he said about fielding, but I seem to vaguely remember that Mays gave himself the edge there as well. I would think that Mays would get the call there. Mays spoke about his problems with his knees later on in his career (Mays played for several years after he should have, wanted to, etc.). Mays said Bonds was a 'stronger' hitter and that he (Mays) didn't have the body, or the ability to 'muscle' or "power" the ball like Bonds. Mays didn't take anything away from Bonds, but he certainly didn't let anyone think Bonds is or should be considered a better player.

It was a very good interview.

Eric

They've gone down some but not a whole lot. He is by far the best offensive player in baseball still. His OBP is OVER .500 and his slugging percentage is well over .600. He is still the best. HE doesn't look right but the numbers are still ridiculous. I dont' know if he used, is still using or whatever. I would say yes. I cant' believe he would still be using and what he is doing this year if he isn't using proves how good he is. At whatever age he is to still be putting up his numbers is amazing. I would assume he used steroids like perhaps at least 40 percent of the players did is my guess on how many used in the 80s and 90s into this century.

I don't know that I'd agree that there would be no doubt that Ruth is the superior player. The superior hitter, maybe. But he couldn't run the bases or play the field nearly on Bonds' level. Also, I would say that a better way to put it is that there is no question who the most dominant player of their era was. I doubt that there's ever been a player in any sport that's been more dominant over his peers than Ruth was over his.