One of the sad things is that Bonds was great enough without steroids to be considered one of the top players of all time.

I don't know if the vitriol towards Bonds is dispassionate, or influenced by non-baseball factors, but your perspective needs some clarity. Aaron would not have made it to 755 without a ballpark that "cheated", within the rules yes, but it was a park which added several peak years to Aarons career. He may have not passed Ruth without the launching pad. Almost assuredly not, in fact.

And, what about amphetamines? Aaron used them freely, as did many players of that era, all the way up to the present. Against the rules, illegal, yet condoned and promoted by clubs. Steroids were the same. Bonds broke no rule of baseball, whether he did take steroids or not. Neither did any other player who used steroids before they were banned.



And, take a look at the pitchers, especially relievers, that Bonds faced. One look at relievers such as Eric Gagne, and dozens of others, and it is clear that the steroids era is/was one in which both sides raised the bar required to succeed in the MLB.



Lets also not ignore the still-ongoing drugs players take, including untestable drugs such as HGH, which has replaced steroids as the drug of choice. They are illegal and against the rules now, but until the MLB catches a supplier, has not become a scandal.



Stretching the rules has long been a traditional part of baseball, as long as you did not gamble. Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame, cheating or no. I don't want to infer that one bad act allows another, but what is so different about steroids? Both hitters and pitchers took them, while baseball, especially Selig, looked the other way. The best known effect of steroids is the ability to recover from injury, which is the main factor that helped McGwire to hit 70 home runs in a season. Bonds was not an injury-prone athlete, however.



History is dispassionate, and may put some light on this subject. Ballparks are much smaller, hitters stronger, and in 5-10 years, we will see the 500 club become irrelevant.



Steroids may have helped Bonds hit them further, turning more long flys into home runs. It did not help his hand-eye coordination, from any evidence I have seen. The sheer amount of walks (incl. intentional/semi-intentional walks) Bonds has faced in the past 7 years was insane. Despite this, Bonds has kept hitting home runs. He hit a point in his career where he "zoned in". What caused it? If it was steroids, why are there no other examples, when an estimated 80% of players were taking steroids?




I will leave the question of steroids and their overall impact to history, at least another 10-15 years before we have perspective.



I would like to bring up some other factors which may have helped Bonds as much as steroids.

At the end of his career, he:


added weight training to his running/fitness conditioning...

Increased his workout regimen to insane levels,

Reconciled with his father, who was his best hitting coach...

Balanced his swing, perfecting his mechanics...



All at the same time, as he started a steroid regime, which is presumed to be the 1998-99 off-season. Any of the above may have been the factor that raised his prowess above his peers. There is no proof or even compelling evidence steroids was *the* trigger point. It may have been, of course, but it may not have. Look at players who HAVE been caught using steroids, such as Neifi Perez, and you see the steroids problem is indeed widespread, and not a guarantee of success.



Enjoy this athlete in his last year or so, there has not been another hitter like Bonds since Ruth.

Very interesting and well argued points. I would suggest that steroids and HGH are quite different from amphetamines in that they have far reaching effects on the body, changing muscle mass, stimulating growth of fast twitch muscle fibers, etc. Here's an article a couple of years ago in the NYTimes:
''Steroids make your hands faster in that they increase muscle in your forearms and pectorals and numerous muscle sets involved in hitting a baseball,'' said Dr. Charles Yesalis, professor of health and human development at Penn State. ''If you need less time to get around on the ball, you have more time to tell if it's a slider, knuckleball or curve. That makes complete sense.''

When the player does start his swing, the steroids are really put to work. He is able to jerk the bat around faster, creating power from his arms, chest, shoulders and neck. ''It's basic force equals mass times acceleration,'' said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, professor of medicine at New York University, who has spent 20 years studying doping. ''The mass is muscle and the acceleration is the bat speed. There is a collision. The ball is being hit with more force than before and will go farther.'' ....Many athletes on steroids attribute their success to their strenuous workout routines, refusing to acknowledge that steroids often make those routines possible.

''He'll feel like, 'I've earned this because I work out all the time,''' Lans said. ''It's a mind-set people have about success. Someone believes, 'This will get me over the top,' and they do it and then find a way to validate it.''

Given the state of justice in Major League Baseball, the user will probably be punished only by his own body. As he continues to develop, he could lose flexibility and his muscles might become so strong that the tendons will no longer be able to connect them to the bone. Doctors have seen an increasing number of elbow injuries, knee injuries and tendon ruptures, in which the muscle strips completely away from the bone.

''The muscle mass gets so great that the tendons sometimes can't carry the weight,'' said Dr. Robert J. Dimeff, director of sports medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Steroids can assist in the healing process. To strengthen tissue and put more time into rehabilitation, the player will be tempted to begin using again, starting the cycle over.

Steroids help as the years pass, staving off the aging process with more and more muscle. Balls carry farther. Careers extend longer. Numbers reach higher. And the questions grow louder. "

Hank Aaron was on of the greatest right-handed hitters in baseball. Someone made a comment about the 'launching pad" but the truth is Aaron played many of his peak years (1963-1968) when the strike zone was bigger than it is today and ball parks, by an large were getting bigger and bigger. I recall Shea Staduim was in the late 60's and early 70's 341 down the line and 410 to center. Dodger Stadium was bigger. Once I saw him go 0-4 at Shea Stadium in 1968; each shot was right to wall. two to left field and one to left center. My father said all three would have been homeruns at Ebbets field. But that is what is was like during the year of the pitcher. Stadiums were big and the balls seemed stale and dead. As I recall Aaron only his 29 homers that year.

And Atlanta Fulton Stadium was not a hitter's paradise. It had a huge foul ground. Aaron's first year there his average dropped to .279. He had very few strike outs but as he was a contact hitter he would foul out once or twice a game. Aaron was lucky that many of his peak years coincided with Eddie Mathews -hitters always do better in twos and threes- but later in his career the number of intentionl walks he was receiving was also going up.

Now Barry Bonds was a fine player. I saw him come up in 1986. He was a LIGHTLY BUILT player with SOME power but most mostly known for his BASE STEALING (he stole 52 bases one year).

And in seven years with the Pirates he averaged only 25 homeruns a year and hit .300 only two times out of seven years with his highest batting average at .311.

Only once, 1992 did Bonds have over .600 as a slugging average. His greatest home run production was AFTER age 35 and his highest batting average was AFTER age 35.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml

When I saw Bonds again in San Francisco and LA he looked like a monster. He was easily fifty pounds heavier than he was in his mid twenties and it was not a beer gut either. It doesn't bother me one bit that Bonds moved to a better homerun park. What bothers me is that his whole record is unbelieveable and tainted. I used to be the greatest baseball fan in the world. I even was given a signed Barry Bonds photo. I have considered tearing it up (I haven't) but I will not consider framing it or hanging it up. I just makes me unhappy to hear his name. Tonight Penny stuck him out and I was glad but then I turned it off. I was glad to hear the fans booing. I have no interest in hearing him break the record or seeing it. As far as I am concerned he is just cheat and the most honorable thing he could do is resign which he won't do. He doesn't belong in the hall of fame but in the hall of shame. if he is inducted in the hall of fame I will certainly never go there again ( I have been there three times in my life). Poor Roger Maris had to endure an asterisk for many years and as far as I am concerned his record is still the authentic record. All the Steroid boys should have been banned from baseball. They have poisoned the game and ruined it for me and millions of other fans.

Barry Bonds. BOO!!!!

Whenever you compare players from different eras, you have to factor in those players who played much of their prime in the second dead ball era (1963- 68) when the pitchers mound was raised from 10 to 15 inches and the strike zone was raised from the from the belt to the arm pits (previously it was from the belt to the letters). Also ballparks such as the Astrodome, Dodger Stadium, Shea Stadium, and Busch Stadium were built which made home runs much more difficult (the Astrodome was insane as th power gaps were hug and there was no air, the same with Dodger Stadium). The culmination of the Second Dead Ball era was 1968 when there was 335 shutouts pitched in teh majors and 82 1-0 games! Yaz led the AL in batting with a .301 B.A. The NL thanks to its scouting of Black and Hispanic players fared better from 1963 -68, yet how many guys saw their prime years frittered away by playing in that era. After 1968 MLB wisely realized that fans were not going to put up with another "Year of the Pitcher" like they had in 1968 (fittingly the1968 All Star game was a 1-0 NL victory).

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: