August 02, 2005

I'm guessing he returns in 2006 after spending months on an intense 'weight-loss' program. For the sake of his knee, of course.

posted by dzot at 09:27 AM on August 02, 2005

you have to take everything he says let's just be thankful you don't have to take everything he takes...

posted by mayerkyl at 09:45 AM on August 02, 2005

Just a reminder: He has had 3 surgeries on the same knee in the past 7 months. There is still swelling (according to the MRI). There is fluid on the knee (according to the doctor). There was an infection in the area (reason for last surgery). Unless you've had the same injuries, I think it's a bit petty to assume he must be "faking it" to cover up some sort of "detox" reasoning. However, I do think he should have made this decision earlier in the season. Just announce that he needs to properly heal the knee and that he'll be ready to go in 2006. That said, it's not like the Giants were going to be able to do anything in the playoffs, even if they got there. They are 14 games below .500 right now. I'm not sure even Bonds would be able to make up that difference by being able to play...

posted by grum@work at 10:31 AM on August 02, 2005

Well, he never was one to do himself any favors PR-wise. I'm guessing he'll come back next year long enough to get to 715 homers and move Babe Ruth back a spot on the big list, and then shut it down for good.

posted by chicobangs at 11:09 AM on August 02, 2005

Do you think Bonds knew he would miss the season when he got the Giants to guarantee his contracts for 2005 and 2006?

posted by msacheson at 11:28 AM on August 02, 2005

And thank goodness Aaron's record will remain intact. How many homers do you think he would have hit if he had used any kind of supplements?

posted by trox at 01:06 PM on August 02, 2005

wanna see something funny , look at barry bonds rookie baseball card (thin barry) vs. todays bonds (juice man) his weight was listed at 183 with a thin face /neck and arms and now he's at 230 with a barrel chest and cannons for arms .

posted by evil empire at 01:32 PM on August 02, 2005

>>>If he tries to come back, it will only be to surpass Babe Ruth. I don't think passing Aaron is on his mind so much any more. He just wants to beat the "white guy". I say, "So long and good riddance Barry Bonds." You know I realize that most everyone doesnt like Bonds but this sort of talk is just ignorant. He wants to beat the "white guy"!?? Reading stuff like this makes it easier to imagine what it must have been like for Aaron when he got close to passing Ruth. He must have loved getting all those death threats and all that hatred. Regardless of whether Bonds did steroids or not (IMO he probably did, just as a large percentage of players have), he is still a tremendously gifted hitter.

posted by JohnSFO at 02:29 PM on August 02, 2005

So he wants to come back and beat the white guy. Fine. The 'white guy' hasn't had the record for thirty years, and if Bonds thinks he can diminsh the legend of the Babe by relegating him to third place then he should go talk to Hank about that - The Babe has all the benefit of history and nostalgia, there's no diminishing the myth. I just wish he'd play. I don't miss Barry the person, or at least the person seen and heard in the media, but I do miss Barry the player - he's fucking amazing to watch. So feared.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:01 PM on August 02, 2005

And thank goodness Aaron's record will remain intact. How many homers do you think he would have hit if he had used any kind of supplements? But he did use supplements. He used "greenies" (metamphetamines) to "get up" for baseball games.

posted by grum@work at 03:10 PM on August 02, 2005

wanna see something funny , look at barry bonds rookie baseball card (thin barry) vs. todays bonds (juice man) Pictures don't lie.

posted by smithnyiu at 03:26 PM on August 02, 2005

"Either everybody's guilty, or no one at all." That doesn't make any sense. Care to explain your thinking?

posted by mr_crash_davis at 03:46 PM on August 02, 2005

im trying to pinpoint barrys juicing timeline .....check out this site on his career stats , http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml take notice of years 4 and 5 : 1989 : 159 games played 19 hr's 58 rbi's 32 stolen bases .248 batting average 1990 : 151 games played 33 hr's 114 rbi's 52 stolen bases .301 batting average

posted by evil empire at 04:10 PM on August 02, 2005

take away the homeruns and there are many better pure hitters .

posted by evil empire at 04:19 PM on August 02, 2005

take away the homeruns and there are many better pure hitters . That's just a bit silly... You could say the same thing about Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle (hit 30 doubles ONCE in his career), Willie Mays, Hank Greenberg, Johnny Mize, Ed Ott, Jimmie Foxx, etc. It's part of what makes him a great hitter. And it's not even true: if you check Bonds' stats, he's 19th all-time in doubles. This is a fun game though: "Take away the singles, and Ichiro Suzuki was a terrible batter last year. He batted .058 without them!" "Take away the strikeouts, and Johan Santana was an average pitcher. Without those outs, his ERA was 4.24!" "Take away the assists, and Vlad Guerrero was regular fielding outfielder. His range isn't even league-average!" take notice of years 4 and 5 : 1989 : 159 games played 19 hr's 58 rbi's 32 stolen bases .248 batting average 1990 : 151 games played 33 hr's 114 rbi's 52 stolen bases .301 batting average Well, that's being a little misleading. Why not mention his 1987 and 1988 seasons as well: 25 and 24 HR, and batting .261 and .283 respectively. If anything, 1989 was a dip in his normal progression as a young power hitter. Don't forget that RBI is a product of batting order and teammates more than it is individual talent. Joe Carter racked up 1400+ RBI, and he was barely a league average hitter (7 of his 16 seasons were below the OPS+ 100 level). I guess you could say that Mickey Mantle was obviously using something since he had a similarly large jump from 1955 to 1956.

posted by grum@work at 05:03 PM on August 02, 2005

i used that as a starting point because his numbers increase from then on . as for mantle that was a phenominal year he reached only once again in his career in '61.

posted by evil empire at 05:16 PM on August 02, 2005

grum .... heres a for instance , Rod Carew : both have played 19 years .... carew has a .328 ba compared to bonds .300 carew 3053 hits bonds 2730 , ok now take away each players hr's carew has 2961 hits w/o hr's ... bonds 2027 hits w/o hr's bonds struck out 400 more times than carew . bonds has more doubles and carew has more triples . tony gwynn using same thinking , played 20 seasons gwynn has .338 ba 3141 hits ...minus hr's 3006 hits (only 77 hits the last 2 seasons combined) ...bonds 2027 bonds struckout 996 times more than gwynn and they both are almost even in doubles and triples . wade boggs 18 seasons .328 ba 3010hits ... minus hr's 2892 .... bonds 2027 bonds struck out 683 more times than boggs and are about the same in doubles and triples . to me these are just a few recent examples of pure hitters better than bonds . numbers dont lie .

posted by evil empire at 05:52 PM on August 02, 2005

What grade are you in, kid?

posted by smithnyiu at 07:05 PM on August 02, 2005

grum .... heres a for instance , Rod Carew : both have played 19 years .... carew has a .328 ba compared to bonds .300 carew 3053 hits bonds 2730 , ok now take away each players hr's carew has 2961 hits w/o hr's ... bonds 2027 hits w/o hr's Carew has a .393 OBP, Bonds has a .443 OBP. Take away their home runs (92 for Carew, 703 for Bonds) and AB that were home runs, and Carew has a .388 OBP and Bonds has a .404 OBP. So even when you take away his best tool, Bonds is still more valuable than Carew. Advantage, Bonds. bonds struck out 400 more times than carew . bonds has more doubles and carew has more triples . Bonds had a walked 874 times more than he struck out. Carew struck out 10 times more than he walked. Advantage Bonds There is no way anyone could possibly consider Carew a better hitter than Bonds, even if you take away the HR. The HR is the single greatest achievement a batter can have at the plate. To not include HR when comparing batters is like discounting goals when trying to compare hockey players, completed passes when comparing quarterbacks, or baskets made for a b-baller. tony gwynn using same thinking , played 20 seasons gwynn has .338 ba 3141 hits ...minus hr's 3006 hits (only 77 hits the last 2 seasons combined) ...bonds 2027 bonds struckout 996 times more than gwynn and they both are almost even in doubles and triples . Again, I'm not sure where the value is in discounting the HR. Of course a contact-hitter is going to have a higher average and a lower strikeout count. What I don't understand is how you can seriously consider Gwynn as being a better hitter: Bonds' average season (OPS+ 184) is better than Gwynn's best season (OPS+ 169). wade boggs 18 seasons .328 ba 3010hits ... minus hr's 2892 .... bonds 2027 bonds struck out 683 more times than boggs and are about the same in doubles and triples . Again, you are comparing a contact hitter with Bonds, and trying to insist that batting average is the be-all end-all of rating a hitter. OBP and SLG are better evaluators of overall contribution by a hitter. How about a system that evaluates the entirety of a players offensive contribution (including SB): Runs Created / 27 outs. What it means, is how many runs (on average) an entire team of this player would score in one game against regular pitching. Carew: 6.25 Gwynn: 6.77 Boggs: 7.04 Bonds: 9.97 to me these are just a few recent examples of pure hitters better than bonds . But the most purest form of hitting is the HR. In no way are those players better than Bonds in that sense. They might be better for getting a single, but I'd rather have a batter that gets a strikeout, a walk, a double and a HR every game than a batter who gets 3 singles and a groundout. numbers dont lie . You are right about that.

posted by grum@work at 09:29 PM on August 02, 2005

Bonds is/was a great player-that is a fact. Carew and Gwynn were different types of hitters.. Carew, for example , was a master of the bunt. He ran the bases very smartly. People who played with him talk about his ability to "know" when to steal a base. He had alot of "steals home" which highlights that ability to tun the bases. Still Carew was a great player. Same goes for Gwynn However, the number "dont Lie" and Bonds is right up near the top as the best player ever. I just wish that his off the field behavior would match. The bottom line, for me, is that I really that this whole steroid issue takes away alot of Bond's "historical greatness" We will just never know just how much benefit he got from "Jucing" This goes for everybody who has taken PHD. So while the numbers will stand, Bond's legacy will not live up to his numbers. HOF? of course! But it wont be much to brag about! Stats are a beautiful thing, but they told tell they whole story!

posted by daddisamm at 12:27 AM on August 03, 2005

The 3-singles hitter is probably doing more for his TEAM than the HR hitter is doing. False.

posted by yerfatma at 06:02 AM on August 03, 2005

Grumm, . You were talking "pure hitter " You can't include walks as a hit . Last I knew you need to swing a bat to hit , you don't to get a walk . So throw the walk stat out .

posted by evil empire at 07:34 AM on August 03, 2005

smithnyiu, you're just peeved because he called you out for being "the irigant one."

posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:04 AM on August 03, 2005

I disagree , the phrase pure hitter indeed has the word HITTER in it , a form of the word HIT meaning to strike something . We are not talking On Base Percentage which would include walks , we are talking about hitting .

posted by evil empire at 08:08 AM on August 03, 2005

evil empire, you're grasping at straws. Let's look at another player -- a former one; don't know if you go back this far -- with a good OBP: Mickey Rivers, a classic small-ball hitter. I never saw a pitcher pitch out to Rivers, but he drew a lot of walks. What does that tell you: that when Rivers came up to bat, the pitchers all of a sudden would miss the strike zone by an inch? Hardly: it says, more or less, the same thing that a pitch-out to Bonds says: that the pitcher is thinking, "I don't want to put one in the zone for this guy, because he won't stand there looking at a good pitch, and if he swings, he's likely to get good wood on it." IOW, in both cases -- but in very different ways -- the number of walks is indicative of the pitchers' belief that this is a good hitter. And no, it's not the hit, it doesn't have the word "hit" in it, but on the other hand, these are Major League pitchers and/or catchers and/or managers making the call, and I think they've probably seen these guys hit more than you or I have.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:17 AM on August 03, 2005

Grumm, . You were talking "pure hitter " You can't include walks as a hit . Last I knew you need to swing a bat to hit , you don't to get a walk . So throw the walk stat out . So we can't include home runs (the single greatest achievement by a batter) and we can't include drawing a walk/getting on base (a sign of a good batting eye). You know, once you take away Gretzky's goals and assists, he really wasn't that good of a hockey player. Dont even bother with grum, he loves defending bonds for some reason. As soon as i told him bonds admitted using steriods, i felt like i could feel a part of him dying. Actually, the only time I've felt like a part of me was dying (during a sporting event) was when Norwood went wide-right in 1991, and the Leafs got knocked out of the playoffs by the Kings back in 1993. As for Bonds and steroids, the reason I "defend" him (if you can call it that) is that I despise the very weak arguments put up by some "accusers". "Look at how big he is!" "You can't have a jump in HR like that without being on steroids!" The honest truth of how I feel about Bonds? I think Bonds used a performance-enhancing drug during the off-season between 1999 and 2000. I don't believe he used steroids per se, but was given something by his trainer to help recover from the injuries in the 1999 season (when he only was able to play 103 games). I don't think he took them to get "bigger and stronger", but to help him train in the off-season to recover from those injuries. After recovering from the injuries much quicker, he went and had another great season (one of his best, but not beyond his capabilities). What he took at the time is unclear, but it was definitely not against any rules in MLB at the time (since their weren't any). The 2001 season (73 HR) was a result of maintaining the same training system (including using the same drugs he used to recover from the previous injuries). However, since he didn't have any injuries at the time, it probably gave him a boost in power. After the 2001 season, I believe that he stopped taking the supplements that were provided to him by his trainer (since the HR number sent up a warning signal). He might have been informed (at that time) by his trainer that what he was taking was "suspect". His following seasons (2002-2004) were the result of his astounding batting eye and fear from the pitchers/managers to even challenge him. You'll notice that he dropped back down to 143/130/147 games played (after 153 in 2001), suggesting that his age/injuries were affecting him. There. That's my assumption. Can it be proved? Probably not. That's why I don't trumpet it from the towers every time a thread about Bonds comes up. I believe in facts, not in suppositions.

posted by grum@work at 08:20 AM on August 03, 2005

Lil Brown Bat ...... i havn't missed many Yankee games since '76 so yes im well aware of Mickey Rivers and his bizarre stance . Grum ... All I can say is you listen to any old ballplayers talk "pure hitters" and they would not include home runs and walks ..... If your talking All Around Best at getting on base then yes Bonds is up there , the numbers show that , but the phrase pure hitter is taken out of context here . mbd1 , interllect ? i assume you hit the r by mistake , lol its always a scream when someone screws up typing a word while trying to put others down .

posted by evil empire at 08:34 AM on August 03, 2005

I disagree , the phrase pure hitter indeed has the word HITTER in it , a form of the word HIT meaning to strike something . We are not talking On Base Percentage which would include walks , we are talking about hitting . Three words: Ted Fucking Williams. By most accounts the greatest pure hitter who ever lived. Aw hell, here's a few more for you: Babe Ruth. Lou Gehrig. Mickey Mantle. Hank Aaron. Take a look at their stats. Notice anything? Like that they all took a LOT of walks?

posted by alex_reno at 08:46 AM on August 03, 2005

i'd never get in a battle of wits with someone with an id of yer fat ma .... too deep for me . I agree with you all 100% WILLIAMS ,RUTH ,GEHRIG, MANTLE ,AARON and yes BONDS all are some of the greatest hitters and had alot of walks but this all started with grum calling bonds the greatest "pure hitter" of all time which i said if you take away his hr's he doesnt even match up with carew , gwynn and boggs, all considered pure hitters . That was just a small example , I didnt get into the older players just those closer to bonds era and all had the same years played . It's a matter of proper english and the use of the word hitter wish i can only guess isnt being grasped by all of you .

posted by evil empire at 09:06 AM on August 03, 2005

ok appearantly your teachers didnt get through to you in english class , here you go ... http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/hit these are definitions of the word hit/hitting .... you find anything in there to support your theory and you win .

posted by evil empire at 09:36 AM on August 03, 2005

these are definitions of the word hit/hitting .... you find anything in there to support your theory and you win . Here's a definition for you. There is no art without chaos.

posted by yerfatma at 10:12 AM on August 03, 2005

ok appearantly your teachers didnt get through to you in english class Well, somebody sure taught the average SpoFite more about spelling, punctuation, and diction than you seem to have absorbed...so maybe you ought to lay off criticizing others' use of the language, mmmkay? I also think it's about time that you stopped beating the "hitter" thing to death; half a dozen people have addressed your point, and you haven't responded to anything they've said except to quote a general dictionary definition that doesn't even bear you out. From the baseball-specific section of the very definition that you quote: 5. Baseball a. To execute (a base hit) successfully: hit a single. b. To bat against (a pitcher or kind of pitch) successfully: can't hit a slider. Now, don't you think that that b. definition has enough room to include drawing a walk? I'd say if you get on base, you've sure 'nuff "bat[ted] against (a pitcher or a kind of pitch) successfully". You got on base, and that was the objective; therefore, you were successful.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:17 AM on August 03, 2005

Here's a definition for you. There is no art without chaos. thats not a definition , thats a statement . definitions are found in dictionaries not encyclopedias.

posted by evil empire at 10:24 AM on August 03, 2005

piece of fucking shit bastard who ruined the game forever Damn that's funny. Can you picture that on his tombstone? Remember when he hit his 600th HR? He wrongfooted, one-handed, golfed an 0 and 2 changeup for an opposite field HR. Just a lazy pop fly 5 years ago. He did change his game, and that was wrong. But I don't hate the guy.

posted by smithnyiu at 10:35 AM on August 03, 2005

i thought it was the Snow Belt

posted by garfield at 10:45 AM on August 03, 2005

I've lived in the area 41 years and have never heard it called the rust belt . Well, I grew up in Schenectady and rust belt is exactly what it is. Given that you're at least 41 years old, I'm surprised you haven't heard the term before.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:05 AM on August 03, 2005

i said if you take away his hr's he doesnt even match up with carew , gwynn and boggs, all considered pure hitters . But that's deliberately setting limitations in order to prove your point. The other way to play it is "Take away Carew's, Gwynn's and Bogg's singles, and none of them would compare to Bonds in terms of hitting. Take away all the singles, doubles, home runs and walks, and none of these guys would compare to this guy." Fine, I'll concede: Barry Bonds was not as good as Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs at slapping singles. If you think that's what it takes to make a "pure hitter", then there really isn't much more to talk about. It is snow belt , I've lived in the area 41 years and have never heard it called the rust belt . You are a graduate of Syracuse and you've lived there for 41 years and you've never heard the term "rust belt" (there is the definition of that phrase, found in an encyclopedia, or a generic description found in a dictionary)? I'm a bit shocked by that.

posted by grum@work at 11:07 AM on August 03, 2005

clicking on your site proves my point , western ny .... i and syracuse u. are in central ny .

posted by evil empire at 11:18 AM on August 03, 2005

From grum's link: A heavily industrialized area containing older factories, particularly those that are marginally profitable or that have been closed. I don't see anything in there about "...but not in central New York".

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:04 PM on August 03, 2005

lil brown bat ... look at the map first of all ... everything in red is the rust belt area , now secondly read the text ...The Rust Belt, also known as the Manufacturing Belt, is an area in the northeastern and north-central United States whose economy was formerly based largely on heavy industry, manufacturing, and associated industries. This area is roughly defined as comprising the northern sections of Indiana and Ohio; the northeastern corner of Illinois; the Lower Peninsula of Michigan; the Lake Michigan shoreline of Wisconsin; western New York; at least the western half of Pennsylvania; and the northern part of West Virginia . if you can read this i think you will see it says western ny .... the area shown is around 60 miles from me and 80 miles from s.u. .

posted by evil empire at 02:41 PM on August 03, 2005

Actually what he's trying to say is: if (shithole_1 != shithole_2) { trace ("Pack your shit and move to Florida"); }

posted by smithnyiu at 05:37 PM on August 03, 2005

In recent years, the big city populations in the Rust Belt are decreasing. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and many more are some of the fastest-shrinking big cities in the US, despite attempts to revitalize their downtown areas. Buffalo's in there.

posted by jojomfd1 at 11:33 PM on August 03, 2005

jojo , i know buffalo's in there , syracuse isn't though and that was the arguement . i live near syacuse and buffalo's 60 miles west of me 80 west of syracuse .

posted by evil empire at 07:47 AM on August 04, 2005

I love it here, so say what you will. You don't have to live here, I do and I chose to!! Plus it was someone else that said buffalo wasn't in the definition of the rust belt. Bonds Done For the Rest of 2005 Barry calls it done for 2005 on the advise of his doctors. Lets get back to the origingal posting

posted by jojomfd1 at 09:47 AM on August 04, 2005