New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

756* - Page 2

post #51 of 66
Barry Bonds is a villain. A straight-up bad dude, a nasty man who broke the rules of baseball by using performance-enhancing drugs and lying about it and broke the rules of decency by becoming one of the most unpleasant men in the history of the sport. I met him once, and, even more than Roger Clemens, he gave off an air of superiority and selfishness. I asked him to take a picture, and he told me to "fuck off". Not enough to write a guy off- I'd have to keep in mind his constant attitude, his poor interviews and mistreatment of the press, his bald-faced lies to the Grand Jury and his continued ignorance of the situation involving his jailed trainer.

But this is the greatest record in all of sports, and he's gotten to it with strength, patience and extreme skill. If there were no human element here, than he'd have far more company. Lest we forget, have there been any steroids that immediately give you 500 home run/500 stolen base skill? Because last I checked, Bonds is the only member of that group. By far.

Steroids should be illegal in baseball, and Bonds, to my estimation, is guilty. But fuck if I'm a scientist. Major League Baseball should be taking the fall on this. Their attitude on steroids has been nothing but passive-aggressive bullshit, and the only "cheaters" they've caught have been a few do-nothing scrubs and one Hall of Famer obviously on his way out (Palmeiro). They've rewarded one of the few honest users, Giambi, with threats instead of clemency while sitting back and allowing assholes like Jose Canseco to be the foremost experts on the subject.

This happened on Major League Baseball's watch. A lot of things did. Ty Cobb's racism and clubhouse violence happened on Major League Baseball's watch. Pete Rose's betting happened on Major League Baseball's watch. And guess what? Those men have records that stand as two of the greatest to play this game. You can't erase history. Why would I try? Why would the assholes who paid good money to go see Bonds on this HR tour just to boo do the same? A few steroid allegations, most likely true, but suddenly everyone's a scientist. Say, what steroid is Bonds on, anyway? Can you name it? Then shut the hell up, because MLB can, and they are letting it become a part of baseball history.

Baseball's too old and too great a game to be affected by what Bonds may have been injecting. The true fans have long accepted it. For me, personally, the struggle will come when Alex Rodriguez obliterates the record in the next ten years- Bonds at least was a villain. Rodriguez is a market-tested loser who's doomed to be the overpaid would-be legend on bad teams, a phony with delicacy issues who doesn't have the stones to let his nastiness leak into the public conciousness.

I'm sick of people suddenly becoming steroid experts just because Bonds' body has become some sort of freakshow, as if steroids makes people automatically grow actual muscles. I'm sick of the media, particularly the Post, getting on their high horse about Bonds, as if they had some sort of stake in baseball, as if this was the final straw in a game that has become a pivotal part of the nation for better or worse. I'm just sick of the whining. It's baseball history, and I'm not ashamed about applauding.
post #52 of 66
When Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig's record, it was an incredibly moving event that highlighted baseball's incredible history, and Ripken's ascension among the all-time greats.

#756 should have at least equaled that feeling, but it never came close.
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cow Puncher
In a few years we'll be seeing headlines like "Sociopathic Misanthrope's Steroid Fueled Homerun Record Shattered By Deeply-Closeted Latino!"
"You must spread some more reputation... blah blah blah"
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio Angles
When Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig's record, it was an incredibly moving event that highlighted baseball's incredible history, and Ripken's ascension among the all-time greats.

#756 should have at least equaled that feeling, but it never came close.
QFT.
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KABONG
For me, personally, the struggle will come when Alex Rodriguez obliterates the record in the next ten years- Bonds at least was a villain. Rodriguez is a market-tested loser who's doomed to be the overpaid would-be legend on bad teams, a phony with delicacy issues who doesn't have the stones to let his nastiness leak into the public conciousness.
Yankees fan, huh?
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by stump
Is there ever going to be a HR record without an asterisk now?
Now? I can't even think of a HR record that didn't have an asterisk. Babe Ruth played during the live-ball era, immediately following a period where entire games were played with a single slop covered... I was about to say baseball, but what we now consider to be a baseball and what was called one during that period are drastically different animals. Does anybody really think Ruth hits anywhere near the same number of homers had he played 20 years earlier? Sure, he did legitimize the uppercut swing, mostly due to the fact that he was a pitcher and not dissuaded from the practice like most other hitters of the time (the fear was that the added fly balls caused by an uppercut swing would greatly outweigh any benefits), but the advantages his generation had over the players that preceded them is abundantly clear.

Roger Maris needed every bit of that 162 game schedule to break Ruth's single season record, Hank Aaron needed something like 4,000 extra at bats, and Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both had expansion, juiced baseballs and band-boxes before steroids were ever factored into the equation...

Give me a fucking break.

Baseball changes, eras have never been comparable, and the amount of people feigning outrage is bordering on the ridiculous.

Whatever happened to the simple things in life, like bashing the NL Central.
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNkaholic
Now? I can't even think of a HR record that didn't have an asterisk. Babe Ruth played during the live-ball era...
Babe Ruth was the live-ball era. Random facts -

In 1927, Babe Ruth's 60 home runs accounted for 14% of all home runs in the American League that year. To put that figure in modern perspective, a player would need to hit over 340 home runs in a season to account for 14% of the American League's total homerun output.

After the Red Sox sold him to the Yankees, Ruth single-handedly outhomered the entire Boston team in 10 of the next 12 seasons.
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNkaholic
...cranky ramblings...
I'm pretty sure I was making the same point you were trying to make.
post #59 of 66
I'm also pretty sure it's true of almost any sport you can think of.
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio Angles
Babe Ruth was the live-ball era. Random facts -

In 1927, Babe Ruth's 60 home runs accounted for 14% of all home runs in the American League that year. To put that figure in modern perspective, a player would need to hit over 340 home runs in a season to account for 14% of the American League's total homerun output.

After the Red Sox sold him to the Yankees, Ruth single-handedly outhomered the entire Boston team in 10 of the next 12 seasons.
And those are great facts, obviously a lot of his production had to do with him being the greatest hitter of that, and arguably any era, but the live-ball era is not just Babe Ruth. I mean, Ruth didn't even win the MVP the year he hit 60... that honor went to, wait for it, a teammate of his.

Or how about something a bit clearer:

American League HR totals by year:
1922 - 525
1921 - 477
1920 - 369
1919 - 240
1918 - 96

And this isn't something just reflected in HR totals, one could even point out the rise in overall batting averages, but I digress. Babe Ruth was not a lone anomaly during this era.
post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by stump
I'm pretty sure I was making the same point you were trying to make.
I don't know, I read "Is there ever going to be a HR record without an asterisk now?" as implying that there actually was a point where records existed without "asterisks." I don't buy that implication.
post #62 of 66
There's a difference between an asterisk implying a different era, and one that implies a rampaging cheater.
post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNkaholic
Ruth didn't even win the MVP the year he hit 60... that honor went to, wait for it, a teammate of his.
Who? Gherig?
post #64 of 66
Bingo.
post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNkaholic
Bingo.
No shame in losing out to Gherig.
post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNkaholic
Or how about something a bit clearer:

American League HR totals by year:
1922 - 525
1921 - 477
1920 - 369
1919 - 240
1918 - 96
The only thing clearer is that steroids started escalating in 1919. Bonds is my HERO!

Fucking clown, that guy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports