OnlyBucs

373235333B3128353C2F29245D0 wrote: I challenge any Bonds supporter to look at his career stats and not laugh at the ridiculous nature of them.  It is overwhelmingly true that players fall off in their early 30s.  Even more so after 35.  Once in a blue moon, a player will stay respectable in those post 35 years.  Bonds' stats at 35 on are a joke.  There is nothing real or believable about them.  No proof he did PEDs?  Please.


The stat that is the biggest joke for Bonds is the walks.  How can anyone walk 232 times in a season.? a 582 OBA in 2002.  Somehow Bonds was able to play several years with a tiny strikezone.



Hank Aaron hit 47 homers when he was 3740 in 392 at bats when 39.


And that tiny strike zone probably contributed as much to his home run binge as the 'roids did. 


One time I heard Ken Caminiti say that he considered one of the best benefits of steroids was better vision. Once I heard that, it created a entirely new thought about how Bonds could have a 232bb / 41K rate at age 39. Pitchers certainly pitched around him a lot, but it did amaze me how hard it was to get a pitch by him when he swung. Even though Caminiti struck much more often than Bonds, I have always wondered if the steroids did help with vision.

0C0B273026450 wrote: I challenge any Bonds supporter to look at his career stats and not laugh at the ridiculous nature of them.  It is overwhelmingly true that players fall off in their early 30s.  Even more so after 35.  Once in a blue moon, a player will stay respectable in those post 35 years.  Bonds' stats at 35 on are a joke.  There is nothing real or believable about them.  No proof he did PEDs?  Please.


The stat that is the biggest joke for Bonds is the walks.  How can anyone walk 232 times in a season.? a 582 OBA in 2002.  Somehow Bonds was able to play several years with a tiny strikezone.



Hank Aaron hit 47 homers when he was 3740 in 392 at bats when 39.


And that tiny strike zone probably contributed as much to his home run binge as the 'roids did. 


One time I heard Ken Caminiti say that he considered one of the best benefits of steroids was better vision.  Once I heard that, it created a entirely new thought about how Bonds could have a 232bb / 41K rate at age 39.  Pitchers certainly pitched around him a lot, but it did amaze me how hard it was to get a pitch by him when he swung.   Even though Caminiti struck much more often than Bonds, I have always wondered if the steroids did help with vision.


very interesting, I didn't remember hearing this about eye sight but if true that would be big benefit.



I recently found out that I've been nearsighted in one eye and far sighted in the other. Helps to explain all the times a flyball landed right on my head (which explains other things about me).

If they let Bonds interest Hall then they can’t keep any of the roid era out.



Then the Hall has a mess - records and truly GREAT careers made to look meaningless by Sammy Sosa...



Dog Himself (not gigging you Dog on your opinion) believes Bonds becomes the greatest player ever, and that will be true in the eyes of many casual observers and even students of the game. 

464D45494C4D561315625B434A4D4D0C414D220 wrote: I challenge any Bonds supporter to look at his career stats and not laugh at the ridiculous nature of them.  It is overwhelmingly true that players fall off in their early 30s.  Even more so after 35.  Once in a blue moon, a player will stay respectable in those post 35 years.  Bonds' stats at 35 on are a joke.  There is nothing real or believable about them.  No proof he did PEDs?  Please.


We are supposed to be living in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty.  That is rarely the case.  Bonds is an example of that in the baseball world. 




“Proven guilty” does not require “proof”.

I suspect a “simple” criminal trial to consider whether he used steroids would fairly easily yeild a guilt verdict. A perjury trial is a different animal.

Finally, we are ignoring the SI investigation that alleges Bonds was on  performance enhancement drugs by 1998.  I wonder about his entire SF career. 



Maybe the Q should be: was Bonds preformance in Pittsburgh worthy of the Hall of Fame?



I said it above and will again: I suspect the Giants’ action is significantly about “rehabilitating” Bonds’ rep for the Hall. His time is almost up.

6D6A7C747A6D2A265F78727E7673317C70721F0 wrote: If they let Bonds interest Hall then they can’t keep any of the roid era out.



Then the Hall has a mess - records and truly GREAT careers made to look meaningless by Sammy Sosa...



Dog Himself (not gigging you Dog on your opinion) believes Bonds becomes the greatest player ever, and that will be true in the eyes of many casual observers and even students of the game. 


Like I said, I understand both sides of the argument. As of right now, those stats and what he did late in his career does count. They were not erased from the record books.



Technically, Bonds didn't break any baseball rules. He might have broken the law (no jail time, was he ever fined?) and ethics, but baseball allowed this to occur. Is it fair to be punished because it is said to be wrong (opinion) but didn't actually break any rules? He was still awarded MVP trophies by the league during all of this speculation.



This debate will go on forever.

7A71797570716A2F295E677F767171307D711E0 wrote: If they let Bonds interest Hall then they can’t keep any of the roid era out.



Then the Hall has a mess - records and truly GREAT careers made to look meaningless by Sammy Sosa...



Dog Himself (not gigging you Dog on your opinion) believes Bonds becomes the greatest player ever, and that will be true in the eyes of many casual observers and even students of the game. 


Like I said, I understand both sides of the argument.  As of right now, those stats and what he did late in his career does count.  They were not erased from the record books. 



Technically, Bonds didn't break any baseball rules.  He might have broken the law (no jail time, was he ever fined?) and ethics, but baseball allowed this to occur.  Is it fair to be punished because it is said to be wrong (opinion) but didn't actually break any rules?  He was still awarded MVP trophies by the league during all of this speculation.



This debate will go on forever. 


I look at it this way. Let's say my neighbor gets away with stealing money and uses it to by the finest car in town. Everyone comments on how his car is better than everyone else's. We all know he got away with stealing the money that enabled him to buy the car. But now the neighborhood wants to honor the person with the best car. Should we say, "Of course. It's the best car and he never got convicted"? Then we could give OJ an award as the best athlete turned actor who never murdered anyone. Sometimes common sense has to prevail over bottom line stats.

4D606D7C7B6A7D3D3E0F0 wrote: If they let Bonds interest Hall then they can’t keep any of the roid era out.



Then the Hall has a mess - records and truly GREAT careers made to look meaningless by Sammy Sosa...



Dog Himself (not gigging you Dog on your opinion) believes Bonds becomes the greatest player ever, and that will be true in the eyes of many casual observers and even students of the game. 


Like I said, I understand both sides of the argument.  As of right now, those stats and what he did late in his career does count.  They were not erased from the record books. 



Technically, Bonds didn't break any baseball rules.  He might have broken the law (no jail time, was he ever fined?) and ethics, but baseball allowed this to occur.  Is it fair to be punished because it is said to be wrong (opinion) but didn't actually break any rules?  He was still awarded MVP trophies by the league during all of this speculation.



This debate will go on forever. 


I look at it this way. Let's say my neighbor gets away with stealing money and uses it to by the finest car in town. Everyone comments on how his car is better than everyone else's. We all know he got away with stealing the money that enabled him to buy the car. But now the neighborhood wants to honor the person with the best car. Should we say, "Of course. It's the best car and he never got convicted"? Then we could give OJ an award as the best athlete turned actor who never murdered anyone. Sometimes common sense has to prevail over bottom line stats.


Good example.



What if all the neighbors did the same thing, stole money and bought a fancy car?



*Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and countless others have admitted they used amphetamines during their careers. If they used today and were caught, they would be suspended under baseball's rules. There really aren't many that think they should be removed from the Hall of Fame.



*http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/8769 ... -fame-vote