Barry Bonds home run record

cr · Post by cr » Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:45 pm

Barry only needs 42 homers to beat Hanks record, and he hits on a average of 45 a season. Do you think that Barry will beat it?

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:55 pm

cr wrote: Barry only needs 42 homers to beat Hanks record, and he hits on a average of 45 a season. Do you think that Barry will beat it?

I'm thinkin' maybe not this year, I don't like the way he's been talkin' about

his knee not being quite right yet. 'Course, maybe that'll work itself out

over time/training but if it doesn't... a thing like that can really throw you

off.

Would be nice if he DID, though, I think.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:55 am

Well.. it depends on how good his BALCO scripts work this year.... bwahahahahahahahahaha

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:14 pm

cr wrote: Barry only needs 42 homers to beat Hanks record, and he hits on a average of 45 a season. Do you think that Barry will beat it?

The question is: If he does, will it be talent or steroids?

What is the consensus now? Did he or didn't he?!

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:38 pm

We make too much of records. You can't compare a feat done in 2004 with something done in the 1970's or the 1950's. Sports technology changes way too much over the years.

Steriods work. Thats why people use them. Years ago I lived in the gym. Saw guys come in, hit the wieghts for a while and then get impatient, get on steriods and in just a few months they would be amoung the biggest guys in the gym.

I think you have to be a little suspect concerning records set by sports figures that use drugs.

Did he or didn't he? don't know but it sure looks bad in my opinion,

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:16 am

Surely his record cannot stand ? Was he clean when he did it. I love baseball, we don't see much of it over here. I would be highly suspicious of his records as to whether they were drug assisted.

Has anyone read Jose Canseco's book yet ?

BTW, excuse my ignorance but would Bonds be elected to Hall of fame ? should he or any other player who has been proven to use steroids be allowed in. If he gets in I am going to lobby for my hero Shoeless Joe Jackson, he may have taken the money but he never threw a game and he tried to give it back!!

From a limey MLB fan

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:38 am

since it has not been proven (yet) whether or not he used steriods, his record and his nomination to the hall of fame aren't (yet) in question.

Bothwell wrote: Surely his record cannot stand ? Was he clean when he did it. I love baseball, we don't see much of it over here. I would be highly suspicious of his records as to whether they were drug assisted.

Has anyone read Jose Canseco's book yet ?

BTW, excuse my ignorance but would Bonds be elected to Hall of fame ? should he or any other player who has been proven to use steroids be allowed in. If he gets in I am going to lobby for my hero Shoeless Joe Jackson, he may have taken the money but he never threw a game and he tried to give it back!!

From a limey MLB fan

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:57 pm

Bothwell wrote: Surely his record cannot stand ? Was he clean when he did it. I love baseball, we don't see much of it over here. I would be highly suspicious of his records as to whether they were drug assisted.

Has anyone read Jose Canseco's book yet ?

BTW, excuse my ignorance but would Bonds be elected to Hall of fame ? should he or any other player who has been proven to use steroids be allowed in. If he gets in I am going to lobby for my hero Shoeless Joe Jackson, he may have taken the money but he never threw a game and he tried to give it back!!

From a limey MLB fan

Bothwell, I don't know how old you are or how long you have been a baseball fan but I think the power aspect which is enhanced by steriods has ruined the game.

Everything is geared to the long ball. When I was young, back in the stone age,

every kid not only knew who was leading the homerun race but who had the most stolen bases, who had the top batting average, who was turning the most double plays.

Most kids nowadays have no idea who gets a gold glove.

One of the sports channels here in the US did a show on how the game has changed just since the 60's and I was really surprised by some of what I heard.

For instance the average length of a game was 1 and 1/2 hrs compare to the 2 and 1/2 or better today . The winning pitcher threw an average of 75 pitches and pitched 7 or better innings much less than today. ( Strike zone was bigger forcing the batter to swing away).

Sparky Anderson was interviewed and said put the strike zone back where it belongs and you would see more bunts, hit and runs, squeeze plays in other words more action.

Guess I'm showing my age huh?

Will he make it to the Hall? Sure. M-O-N-E-Y

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:47 am

I Guess a lot of sports are changed by the mighty $/Ã‚£ whatever your currency is. I suppose the thinking is that the spectacular long hit is better TV than the more nuanced subtle play therefore it means more advertisers.

Over here it has happened to cricket, I am not going to explain how a game that lasts 5 days can still be a draw

but there are subtle things happening all the time, however they have invented oneday and even half day games that are all bish bosh bash so it can fit neatly into the sports schedule.

Of course it may be that I am just a grumpy old fart who thinks everything was better years ago!

RedSoxFan · Post by **RedSoxFan** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm

I think that until there is PROOF that Barry did any kind of steroid, then his record should stand. I have followed baseball for all my life and coach it aswell for a local high school. The question is if he used steroids or not? All I can say is that players all of a sudden having a breakout yera like he did in 2001 when he set the record will always be questioned. Especially when this breakout was in his late 30's almost 40's. Steroids have been around for over 100 years. Although they were not easy to get in the US before 1960, if you had money, you could get them easily.

Lets do a comparison: Barry vs. Ruth

In the early 1900, 1921 to be exact, Ruth hit an amazing 59 homeruns. Followed by 60 in 1927. Before he hit this insaen amount, his previous career high wasnt even 35. So basically thats a jump in 24 homeruns in one year.

Barry hit his career high of 49 homeruns in 2000, breaking his old mark of

45(i believe) Then in 2001 he hit his record 73. Hmmm. thats the exact same numder of increase in homeruns. 24.

Now, like I said before in the early 1900's steroids were hard to find in the US but could be atained by the person who wanted them.

Is it safe to question the Babe too? I would never think that the Babe did this kind of activity but the comparison speaks for itself.

What are your thoughts on that?

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:38 am

I appreciate that the use of drugs in sport has probably been around for years, the problem I find now is that because we all know about it I tend to be suspicious of any "Jump" in performance. Over here I remeber a couple of years ago seeing a couple of our international rugby players in pre season training and the bulk they had put on in the 8 week break was astounding. The people it really hurts are those that really do improve their performance through hard work, they are always under suspicion.

I was never a big track and field fan but I have to say I just cannot bear to watch it now because I just think the guy who wins the 100m just has a better chemist than the next guy.

I think comparing atheletes from different eras is very difficult, although we all love doing it. How would Tyson have handled Ali ? What would the current crop of US footballers been like with minimal padding etc. Very few older sportsmen will admit it but my guess is that they could not compete, in fact one of the few I have heard comment was a famous soccer player over here (Sir Bobby Charlton) who confiede that the pace of the game would mean he would not last past half time.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:37 am

Bothwell wrote: How would Tyson have handled Ali ?
If he couldn't take him, he probably would have bit him. Maybe pulled his hair...? :yh_rotfl

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:16 pm

Red Sox fan, Very ineteresting post. I don't really know what to think about those facts.

I still think the drugs bring something to the game that shouldn't be there whether Ruth used or not.

Bothwell, as usual you make good points.

To me part of the fun of watching sports is the silly thought that, I think, all people have when they watch that if they had just put forth the effort they could be there playiing Pro. Yeah I know it's nonsence but it is a fun harmless fantasy.

The drug issue just adds an aspect to sports that, at least to me, interfers with my enjoyment of watching.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:25 pm

all i can say is that i sincerely hope that barry bonds didn't take steriods, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. if he did, and maintained a personal 'don't ask, don't tell', i'll be pretty disappointed, but *very slightly* less so than if he was blatantly jacking up with hormones.

i guess as much as i like to think of myself as out of the mainstream, a maverick, whatever, i still want to have my heroes. his single season home run record was so awe-inspiring. the looming potential that he could become the greatest home run hitter of all time is very exciting.

if there's an asterisk next to all his records in the history books, i'll be sad.

the one question i have is that by most accounts, those who take steriods not only bulk up muscularly, but also tend to get a 'puffy' appearance to the face - ben johnson was the notable example years ago. and purportedly those taking steriods are prone to rages and violent outbursts. yet the odd thing about barry is that he's never had that puffy appearance, but even more significantly, he's seemed to have become far more calm and gracious as the years have passed - he used to have a reputation as a pretty unlikeable guy. no, he's no willie mccovey now, but he's definitely not apparently going on rages regularly.

just dunno....

RedSoxFan · Post by **RedSoxFan** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:10 pm

anastrophe wrote:

the one question i have is that by most accounts, those who take steriods not only bulk up muscularly, but also tend to get a 'puffy' appearance to the face - ben johnson was the notable example years ago. and purportedly those taking steriods are prone to rages and violent outbursts. yet the odd thing about barry is that he's never had that puffy appearance, but even more significantly, he's seemed to have become far more calm and gracious as the years have passed - he used to have a reputation as a pretty unlikeable guy. no, he's no willie mccovey now, but he's definitely not apparently going on rages regularly.

just dunno....

I hear what you're saying. The thing is that, the drug doesnt have the same effect on everyone who takes it. I knew plenty of guys who have taken them in the past and never had the "puffy face" happen to them. But I know that is a common side effect. And steroids are not only used for bulk, but they can be used for recovery time in pitchers. What they do is accelerate the healing process of the tearing down of the muscles when, you work out or throw 100 pitches. They cause blood clots in peoples arteries and various other places. The question about them causing the people to be more aggressive in a violent nature is, kind of "iffy" Some of the people I knew that took them were totally the same, on the other hand some got more violent. Or some of the people were able to realease that anger on other things so it didn't build up in them. It just depends on who is watching. If Barry is using them, I would assure you he would have some self control in the publics eye.

And if he used them, he should be taken out of any record book. I agree with you it is very exciting, I just dont think that he should be kept in the books if he used during his record run.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:37 pm

RedSoxFan wrote:

And if he used them, he should be taken out of any record book. I agree with you it is very exciting, I just dont think that he should be kept in the books if he used during his record run.
that would pose a problem though. for example, willie mays admitted decades after he left baseball that he used to drink this concoction they called 'red juice' that allegedly had amphetamines in it. his records are still on the books, and regardless of whether he used amphetamines for some portion of his career, it can't take away from some of the incredible feats he performed, like the over-the-shoulder catch. amphetamines, steroids, whatever, they can't take a person who isn't skilled and or gifted in the first place and make them perform as if they were. barry was already a great, hall-of-fame material player long before steriods became an issue, and i seriously doubt he's taken them his whole career - *IF* he's even taken them of course, which still is not confirmed.

RedSoxFan · Post by **RedSoxFan** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:12 pm

anastrophe wrote: that would pose a problem though. for example, willie mays admitted decades after he left baseball that he used to drink this concoction they called 'red juice' that allegedly had amphetamines in it. his records are still on the books, and regardless of whether he used amphetamines for some portion of his career, it can't take away from some of the incredible feats he performed, like the over-the-shoulder catch. amphetamines, steroids, whatever, they can't take a person who isn't skilled and or gifted in the first place and make them perform as if they were. barry was already a great, hall-of-fame material player long before steriods became an issue, and i seriously doubt he's taken them his whole career - *IF* he's even taken them of course, which still is not confirmed.

I didnt mean to make is sound like he used them his whole career. I just mean in recent years, Ill be more accurate on the time frame next time. But, I do agree with you more or less. I do find it hard to believe that he all of a sudden had a jump of 24 homeruns in one year with the amount of walks he had too. Its like every, 7.4(or around there) at bats he hits a homerun..... Either I dont give him enough credit or he used. If it comes back that he never used, then I'll kick myself for ever doubting him. I love baseball and believe in the game so much. It just upsets me when people cheat at it. Like Jose Canseco, he was pround of his cheating. He openly admitts it and would rag on players because he(canseco) didnt have to work as hard.