May 20, 2006

Giants fan here: He won't make it unless he goes to the A.L. I'm not a hater, but watching him try to play left field lately has been painful and he can't last another season there. I guess it's all up to him, whether he's willing to find another team (assuming somebody's out there who will pay him what he thinks he's worth and will be willing to put up with all the controversy and general assholishness he brings to the clubhouse).

posted by donpedro at 04:01 PM on May 20, 2006

looks like he had a little "juice" still left in him after that slump

posted by airman at 04:19 PM on May 20, 2006

I think he'll go to an American League team, and be a regular DH. My local sports station hit on this topic earlier this morning. And just like donpedro said, teams would have to factor the attitude and controversy in with their desire to have him. Honestly, I don't think that there are too many teams that would take him. Until the whole steroids scandal is cleared up, I would think that he is not worth much if a trade was being considered.

posted by wingnut4life at 04:31 PM on May 20, 2006

Fortunately for Barry, he hit it in a Bay area park, thus minimizing what could have been an embarrasing situation (Many Houston fans said they would throw the ball back on the field). As a fan of the game, it saddens me that such a huge achievement is tainted by allegations (true or false?) of cheating.

posted by mjkredliner at 04:44 PM on May 20, 2006

*

posted by GoBirds at 05:10 PM on May 20, 2006

(You know, I'd bet the crime rate is going to go up this time next year, because if Barry goes, all this misplaced hate and rage is going to have to go somewhere.) Couldn't have said it better. Not just any type of crime though. Some (not all) of these haters are wife beaters, they snap at their children when sporting events don't go their way. They tend to be verbally abusive to those around them that are smaller and weaker then they are. It's really sad when you put it in perspective. Good job Barry. Good luck with your family, 756, retirement, or whatever you choose to do. The only thing worse than a cheater is a poor sport*, sore loser* crybaby*. They have to blame anyone or anything they can just to take the focus off of why they can't win*. Question: Does the * next to the words in the previous paragraph change their definition in any way? Would anyone feel more comfortable being called those things as long as there was an * next to them? No, you wouldn't. Then why should Barry feel less comfortable being the 2nd all-time leader in home runs just because some non-athletic* couch potato* sports writer wants to put an * next to his record.

posted by Bishop at 05:36 PM on May 20, 2006

Is anyone monitoring the Babe's gravesite for signs of displaced dirt?

posted by everett at 06:25 PM on May 20, 2006

yeah, 2nd place!

posted by Bill Lumbergh at 07:40 PM on May 20, 2006

Yea- the only teams that I can tink of that would sign him are the Yankees (but its a long shot), Boston, the Mets or the Cubs. These teams are on the list largely because the can afford him- but I seriously doubt that they would consider getting him for over $6- $7 million. The only way I could really see Barry play next year is if he took a huge pay cut, and could play 1B. That way, he could be utilized in both areas of the game, and could play in both leagues. I really hope that he never breaks Aarons record though... WAY too controversial for possibly the greatest record in baseball for me.

posted by redsoxrgay at 07:48 PM on May 20, 2006

...you'd be nuts to sign him. He's breaking down, and it aint pretty so i guess i can expect to see him in the bronx next year.

posted by goddam at 08:08 PM on May 20, 2006

We need to give the guy a break. He broke the record of the most legendary man in baseball- That should be worth praising Jesus Jumping Jack Christ, how many Bay-area lackeys does Bonds have on his fucking payroll shilling for him on internet message boards? The man is clearly "not an idiot" and he had to know that the shit he was using wasn't Cortisone or something equally benign. He has no excuse, there will be an asterisk next to his name, even if not officially, at least metaphorically (you can't count on the insular MLB ruling council to do anything that I would respect). I do not often do this, but I think the quality of the intellect of some of the posters in this thread absolutely merits it, so I will also type it as slowly as possible so that they can understand: BONDS WILL NEVER BE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS RUTH, AARON, DIMAGGIO, MAYS, MANTLE, ROBINSON, CLEMENTE, WILLIAMS, OR EVEN PETE ROSE (SERIOUSLY I COULD GO ON) AND I FOR ONE WILL NEVER GIVE HIM HIS DUE. In sum, Barry Bonds is a mendacious, selfish gloryhound who has no love for the game, only love for himself. Bonds has utterly shamed a game that already has enough skeletons in its closet. Go home Barry, you've done enough damage.

posted by insomnyuk at 08:18 PM on May 20, 2006

We need to give the guy a break. He broke the record of the most legendary man in baseball- That should be worth praising Actually, he is now tied for second place. And even though I don't hate him like most do, I'm really friggin tired of all the coverage of him doing nothing this past week leading up to this. Wake me up when he gets to 750. Which he won't. I thought he would when people first started talking about people breaking down, but seeing him this year has been painful. He's got nothing left.

posted by Bernreuther at 08:21 PM on May 20, 2006

Congrats to Barry. Now I'm not a Bonds fan just because he's been hitting homers...I grew up in the Pittsburgh area and used to go to games as a kid watching Bonds, Bonilla, Van Slyke..etc. etc. Used to have the Bonds "slim" version starting lineup figures. Now IF Bonds used steroids...I'm not saying it's right. But I'm not saying it's wrong either. There is no way in hell I can believe that among all the great players in history (of any sport) that he is the ONLY one that would have tried to gain an edge. Just one of the only ones to get caught. My question is...are the balls the same, and are the bats pretty much the same as they were back in the day? The question itself probably doesn't make sense as related to just baseball itself. But I ask that for all sports-related "cheating" issues. In golf...should Tiger have an * next to his name for his monsterous drives when compared to an old-timer? Quite possibly? Golf balls and clubs are far more superior today than they were years ago. The balls themselves are designed to travel further, have better control, etc. etc. So yes they can drive the ball further now...but would Tiger have the same distance if he was using the same exact equipment as they did? I know that not many are going to agree with anything I've said...but when it comes down to it...regardless of whether steroids are used or not...he still has to be coordinated enough to hit the ball in the first place. Steroids won't help give you the coordination to hit the ball...just help hit it harder.

posted by Griff23Jordan at 10:54 PM on May 20, 2006

Is Barry's head shrinking? Kinda got used to the Elmer Fudd look. Well he caught the Babe but he wont last to catch Aaron...that is unless he wants to swim acroos the Bay one legged and thinks he looks good in green and yellow.

posted by HammerStorm at 11:40 PM on May 20, 2006

Many Houston fans seem to be big fat liars. Whatever. The point is that Barry has poisoned his own legacy. I said what I thought here. And, the Oakland fans were courteous, to their credit.

posted by mjkredliner at 12:41 AM on May 21, 2006

BONDS WILL NEVER BE ON THE SAME LEVEL AS RUTH, AARON, DIMAGGIO, MAYS, MANTLE, ROBINSON, CLEMENTE, WILLIAMS, OR EVEN PETE ROSE (SERIOUSLY I COULD GO ON) AND I FOR ONE WILL NEVER GIVE HIM HIS DUE. Before 2001 (and Bonds' assault on the HR record), I'd say that Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Williams, Aaron and probably Musial and Cobb are the only outfielders I'd rank ahead of (or equal to) Bonds (Bill James' book has Bonds as #3 among LF, behind Williams and Musial, and that was back in 2000). Clemente was great, but his legacy as a humanitarian and his untimely death make him seem greater than he was. Robinson (Frank?) is also a good comparison to Bonds, and I should probably list him up there as an equal to Barry (sans juice). Robinson (Jackie?) isn't as good. Pete Rose was a great player, but a lousy human being and really should be despised more than Bonds. Nevertheless, Bonds (before 2001) was still a greater player than Rose. Hell, if that's the case, I've never done anything wrong in my entire life, because I was ignorant of the illegality of my actions. Six years ago, I was given a prescription for some type of antibiotic when I had pretty severe infection. I wasn't sure of the actual contents of the medication, but my doctor told me that I really needed to take it in order to fight the infection. I didn't ask questions about the drug as my doctor was only doing what he felt was right, and even if I did ask, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't know the full details of the chemical breakdown of the medication. When someone who you trust suggests you do something, and you aren't really qualified to ask the right questions about it, and you have no reason to suspect that it is anything but helpful, why should someone be considered "ignorant" in that case?

posted by grum@work at 12:48 AM on May 21, 2006

Six years ago, I was given a prescription for some type of antibiotic when I had pretty severe infection. I just don't get how the two situations are related at all grum. There's no way I believe bonds and anyone else who took the 'clear/cream/whatever' didn't know what was in it. They're athletes at the highest level. There's a lot of ways to defend bonds, and many of them are quite compelling. Blind acceptance of bonds claiming "I didn't know", like he's a child, isn't one of them. It reminds me of the pete rose situation. Even though most people knew rose bet on baseball (some damning him for it, some not caring), there was a small percentage of fans who didn't believe he had. Even though everything pointed to the fact that he was guilty of betting, some people wouldn't believe it, no matter what the evidence, until they heard it from his rose's mouth. I just don't get, at the very least, how any logical person could say they believe the chances are greater that bonds didn't take steroids than did.

posted by justgary at 01:11 AM on May 21, 2006

justgary, a personal admission by Barry Bonds that he did, in fact, knowingly take and use steroids in order to enhance his ability to perform on the baseball field. That would pretty much do it for me. He denies doing them, the guy who runs the lab denies giving them to him. He's never failed a drug test. Ever. And yet, he is presumed guilty because "his head is huge" or "he hits the ball a mile". If he'd tested positive then that would be another thing. But he hasn't. He's never shown any 'roid rage, when was the last time you saw him charge a pitcher? Hot dog on his hitting 714! Hopefully it will take the pressure off of him and he'll start swinging the bat well again.

posted by fenriq at 01:52 AM on May 21, 2006

I just don't get how the two situations are related at all grum. There's no way I believe bonds and anyone else who took the 'clear/cream/whatever' didn't know what was in it. They're athletes at the highest level. "Hey, Barry. How's the recovery from your injury going?" "Not so good. My knees and back are still in bad shape. I just can't seem to get loose, and it's taking a while to get all the strength back." "I've got some flaxseed oil that you can put on your muscles." "Flaxseed oil? What the hell is that?" "It's one of those all-natural cures that's going around. You put it on, and it helps the joints flex easier, and your muscles don't feel so sore and tired after your workouts." "Really? Sounds hokey to me. Ah, what the hell, I'll try it. Those cortisone shots you gave me last season worked well, so I'm pretty sure you know what you are doing." ... Now, I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's really not that hard to imagine that Bonds would take a remedy from his trusted friend and trainer without giving him the 3rd degree about what it was. I just don't get, at the very least, how any logical person could say they believe the chances are greater that bonds didn't take steroids than did. Lots of people think O.J. is innocent. Lots of people think there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

posted by grum@work at 02:25 AM on May 21, 2006

If bonds didn't take steroids then the bonds haters would find something to complain about. It's clear that people dislike him as a person, similar to the way some dislike Pete Rose. This debate could go on forever. There is no convincing the haters to ease up, and there is no convincing the non-haters to hate him. The topic of hating Bonds has gotten so overwhelmingly ridiculous that it would probably be easier to convince a klansman to change his racial views than it would be to convince a Bonds hater to rethink his position. To put that much energy into hating someone for whatever reason is pointless. Hate mail, death threats? Come on people, this guy isn't the president, he's not purposely causing people harm. He hits a ball far with a stick. Stop spending this quality time trying to convince strangers on the internet to hate some guy they don't even know,and go take your damn kids for a walk. Go buy your girlfriend/wife something nice. Perspective people, perspective.

posted by Bishop at 03:40 AM on May 21, 2006

Quite a lively subject...that said, I'd like to toss my two cents in on Barry Bonds. Is he the worst thing that's ever happened to baseball? Hardly. I'd say good ol' Bud Selig and the players union canceling the World Series a few years back makes all of this look downright juvenile. As for shaming the Babe's record, who really cares? I mean, for starters, it isn't a record. The record is 755, and being a Giants fan and having watched Barry's decline this year, he won't reach that number unless he goes to the American League and becomes a DH. The whole steroid thing in regards to Barry has gotten completely out of control. Yes, he broke the law, but then again, so did over half of baseball. Did he break any "baseball" rules? No. And there's no arguing that point. Why Barry is being blamed for the entire steroid era is beyond me but if you look at his career and take away his so-called "steroid" years (last time I checked, a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country. And no, a couple of sportswriters writing a book hardly qualifies as "hard" evidence), he still would have ended up well over 500 HRs, with 500-plus SBs, and would've been a sure-fire Hall of Famer. I read somewhere up the board that he would never compare to the top players throughout history. That's just ignorant and silly. He is easily in the top 5 players of all time. It's not even up for debate. His combination of power, speed and defense is only rivaled by his Godfather, Willie Mays. My top 5 players of all time (hitters only, not pitchers), in order, are: Willie Mays (who would've broke Babe's record first if he hadn't missed time for the Korean War), Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio.

posted by donnnnychris at 06:05 AM on May 21, 2006

I love the kid who caught the ball. When asked if he wanted to meet Bonds he just said he really didn't like Bonds. The reporter asked if he wanted Bonds to sign the ball, "Only if it'll increase the value of the ball."

posted by ?! at 08:58 AM on May 21, 2006

Yes, he broke the law, but then again, so did over half of baseball. Did he break any "baseball" rules? No. And there's no arguing that point. Well, yes there is, because you're wrong. Regardless, that's always been a lame excuse. It's like a child stealing candy from a store and claiming he didn't see a 'no stealing' sign. Why is it that almost all excuses given for barry sound like they came of childhood? "Everyone else was doing it...". Why Barry is being blamed for the entire steroid era is beyond me He's the one breaking the record. Who should we talk about? If palmeiro was breaking the record we'd be talking about him. Where in the thread did you read someone blame barry for the entire steroid era? last time I checked, a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country. Last I checked that was only true in a court of law, of which sportsfilter is not. And no, a couple of sportswriters writing a book hardly qualifies as "hard" evidence I take it you haven't read the book. Hard evidence? That's subjective, but you throwing it out as nonsense makes no more sense than accepting it as unchallenged fact.

posted by justgary at 12:09 PM on May 21, 2006

justgary, I haven't thrown anything out, I'm just giving Barry the benefit of the doubt until some real evidence comes in. . .like, oh, I don't know, a positive test. It's amazing that a couple of sportswriters dig up some dirt and everybody immediately turns it into fact. And how do you know I haven't read the book? Way to jump to conclusions there. I have and I also know who their main sources were, one of whom is a jilted ex-lover with a score to settle with Bonds. I used to be a sportswriter and I know how these guys (and girls) fill in the gaps sometimes to make their theories make sense (and before you even say it, no, I wasn't a sportswriter who did this...but nice try for a comeback). I'm not saying these two did fabricate anything but it happened quite often, from what I saw and heard throughout my experience on the sports beat, so I'm not ready to give them a free pass on all of this "hard" evidence. As for your other point of whether Bonds broke a baseball rule, well, he didn't. You know as well as I do that thing you posted had zero teeth in face of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement, which were the actual rules that everybody followed) back in 1991, so who is rolling out nonsense? I'm not a Bonds fan but I just believe in giving someone the benefit of the doubt until it's proven that he's done all these horrible things that everyone is saying he did.

posted by donnnnychris at 12:48 PM on May 21, 2006

OMG!!!, How can one say they didn’t know they were being JUICED? I've been on three cycles and you GD know you're being juiced. It's the FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH. Not only do you become the "Incredible Hulk", all those aches and pains are now gone and you play ten years younger. So your career Bonds was stretched out by another five years. Believe me, other than one's nuts aching, it was ALL GOOD! I've been on three low dosage cycles using Deca & Test and I had never felt better, I put on ten pounds of muscle in 12 weeks on each cycle. Come on Barry! Give it up and STOP taking us for chumps. Flaxseed, that sh*t is for losing fat, not gaining muscle. All you myopic Bond CS that live by the motto of "If you isn’t cheating, You isn’t trying" are following a cheater & criminal. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act was passed by Congress in the fall of 1990 and became effective on February 21, 1991. The Steroid Act classified steroids as Schedule III substances under the CSA and DEA. Making it as criminal as cocaine, pcp, lsd and heroin. There you go Bond lovers; your master is as good as a junkie criminal in the eyes of the law. Bow down to your MASTER BONDs! -Ex-fellow junkie criminal.

posted by popeye111 at 04:19 PM on May 21, 2006

The only problem we have left is that we know bonds did take steroids, but we'll cover that with the ol' "he had no idea what he was taking" angle. justgary, haha, that is one point I do agree with you. His defense is quite silly. If he did take steroids to the extent he's being accused of then to pass it off as something he wasn't aware of is pretty mind-boggling. I totally agree with your contempt on that one. And no, I don't do PR work for the guy. I just choose to try to not convict him before the fact, that's all. I haven't discounted anything, I've just made a judgment that a lot of the information may or may not be correct or false. I don't ignore the things out there, nor do give them any extra weight. But at the same time they haven't been proven so they are just conjecture and nothing more. There's nothing wrong with coming to a judgment that's not the same as yours I would assume? Anyway, thanks for the give and take. I always like the debates on this site.

posted by donnnnychris at 06:13 PM on May 21, 2006

There's nothing wrong with coming to a judgment that's not the same as yours I would assume? No, not at all. And I respect that it would take a positive test to prove to you he took steroids. I don't have a problem with that. It's not a black and white issue at this point, and I've just gone the other way. The only problem I have with earlier comments is the labeling anyone who believes bond's took steroids as haters (which you never did). I'm about as unfeeling towards bonds as anyone, so it has nothing to do with hate. I also agree with you, steroids or no steroids, bonds is one of the greatest players in the history of the game. It's a shame the whole cloud of suspicion is over his head.

posted by justgary at 06:27 PM on May 21, 2006

this is a discussion on bonds equalling ruth's home run mark. It's not to convince people to hate or not to hate Let me try to clear (no pun intended) something up for you. I experimented with an oral cycle of anadrol. It was a 3 week cycle (this was around 98'). It took my bench from approx. 365lbs for a single and got me over the 405lbs. mark. As soon as I was done the cycle, my strength returned to what was my norm within a few weeks. As you can see, I had a fairly decent bench before I juiced (body-weight 220lbs). Did the juice give me some quick, monstrous strength? Yes. Was it responsible for me benching 365lbs? No. I gave that example to say this, There is no cycle of anything out there that Bonds could take for the entire season. Could he have cycled on and off during the entire season? Sure he could have. Did the juice give him his almost perfect swing? Hell No. Could Bonds hit the ball 400 ft. without juice? Hell yes. Did the juice basically add 50 or 60 feet to his already monstrous home runs? Most likely. Can you take juice without working out? Sure. Does it do anything? Not really (unless it's something like winni or some type of diuretic, then it would knock a few pounds off of you will you sleep). Did juice give bonds the record? No. How can I be sure? Look at the other players getting caught juicing. Where are their records? As far as the hate thing, maybe you don't hate him, but you can't fault people for calling some haters when you see things like; There you go Bond lovers; your master is as good as a junkie criminal in the eyes of the law. Bow down to your MASTER BONDs I hope Bonds fails utterly Shit like that says it all. Do the majority here know Bonds said he used juice (knowingly or unknowingly). Yes. So I don't think you're attempting to convince people of that. I think you're trying to change a few of our opinions of how we feel about it. I don't enjoy the thought that he'll hold the single-season and all-time home run records, especially since a steroid crackdown will make it much more unlikely that someone else will beat him. Would you rather Mark M have the single season record? Are you seriously implying that no one can break the record without steroids? If so, you're implying that Bonds broke it because of steroids. You're also implying that it was set because of steroids. I mean, if it's not likely to be broken with the crackdown on steroids, then it obviously, in your opinion, can not be reached without steroids. Let me make sure I'm clear here. Maris got 61 without juice, Bonds got 73 with juice. Juice only gave him an additional 12 homers? Ruth got 714 without juice, Bonds got 714 with juice. If these numbers are unlikely to be reached with the no more juice era coming, how the hell were they reached in the first place? Easy, Ruth was 1 of the greatest players in the history of the game right? Well; I also agree with you, steroids or no steroids, bonds is one of the greatest players in the history of the game. So we agree, if you're one of the greatest players in history, the more likely you are to set or break records right? If bonds was an average player it would lend more weight to your argument. However when you admit that he is 1 of the greatest ever, it then becomes a matter of opinion. "Yes he's one of the greatest, but in your opinion without the juice there would be no record". "Because he's one of the greatest he would have reached the record with or without the juice".

posted by Bishop at 08:15 PM on May 21, 2006

Bishop, you started out with a quote from me, and then went on to quotes from others. I'm thinking you were talking to me mostly, but either you're talking in circles or you're just talking above my head. Maybe a little of both. So just a few thoughts: Do the majority here know Bonds said he used juice (knowingly or unknowingly). Yes. Every day on tv, the radio, here, I find people who still claim barry didn't do steroids. I've heard mlb players who seem to be unaware of the truth. I think you're trying to change a few of our opinions of how we feel about it. Feel what you want to feel. Assign motive if you must (you do, often), but I couldn't care less about changing what you think of bonds. I do enjoy discussing it, and well, that's what the site is for. Did juice give bonds the record? No. How can I be sure? You can be sure, doesn't mean you aren't wrong. You don't know how many home runs it could have added. I don't know. That's the truth. Look at the other players getting caught juicing. Where are their records? What are you talking about? Did you see mark m at the hearings? You really think he didn't use? His record was broken by bonds. As for others caught, no where have I said it will make an average player great. So we agree, if you're one of the greatest players in history, the more likely you are to set or break records right? If bonds was an average player it would lend more weight to your argument. However when you admit that he is 1 of the greatest ever, it then becomes a matter of opinion. That makes no sense to me. So I'll just clarify my position for you. 1. We know bonds used steroids. Case closed. We don't know if he was aware of it, we don't know if he was deep into it, but we do know at one point bonds did use steroids. 2. Bonds is/was a great player. One of the best ever. He was great before the scandal. Steroids didn't make him great. Could they have helped him reach 714? Sure. How much? Who knows? That, I agree, is opinion. I think it did help him. You probably think it didn't. Fine, we'll agree to disagree. But it's there, and it'll always will be. as well it should. One hundred years from now people will talk about bonds, and hopefully they'll remember him as a fantastic player. And, they'll talk about steroids. The steroid era. Everyone involved, including bonds. I'm o.k. with that, I'm happy with that. Make sure it's out in the open. Let people decide on their own "how much" it helped, or "how wrong" it was. I can live with that.

posted by justgary at 01:06 AM on May 22, 2006

Hey- I just heard that the guy who caught the ball is really dissapointed... the balls not even worth $100,000 according to my local news station. The balls not worth that much because of the steroid allegations- hat really funny

posted by redsoxrgay at 05:25 AM on May 22, 2006

the balls not even worth $100,000 according to my local news station. The balls not worth that much because of the steroid allegations- hat really funny The ball is probably not worth $100,000 because it's the one that tied Babe Ruth, not passed him. A mark 12 runs higher than that, in a game that actively discouraged performance-enhancing drugs the way they do in Olympic sports, could stand for the rest of our lifetimes. So what happens if Pujols hits 74HR this year? Do we have to assume he's on the juice too? Or some new form of PED that can't be detected yet? Truth be told, Pujols breaking Bonds' single season record may be the thing that saves Bonds legacy. It would completely devalue the argument that "he got to 73 because of the steroids", when someone who is supposedly clean did the same thing.

posted by grum@work at 10:35 AM on May 22, 2006

Can't find the article now link 1 Memorabilia experts expect that the asterisk so many baseball fans have already affixed to Bonds' career will shrink what the ball can command on the souvenir market. link 2 Mixed feelings about Bonds, the subject of steroids speculation for years and now the target of a federal perjury investigation, likely will lower the price to levels far below other high-profile hits. "There is obviously a black cloud over this historic home run," said David Kohler, president of SCP Auctions in Laguna Hills, Calif., which specializes in sports memorabilia. "People are not scrambling after Barry Bonds jerseys and balls. Normally, with a historic event like this, we would see a lot more demand." The No. 715 ball is expected to fetch around $100,000 at auction -- if it goes that rout -- far less than the $500,000 some experts say it could have commanded without the controversy surrounding Bonds.

posted by justgary at 11:45 AM on May 22, 2006

Before the steroids controversy, Bonds single season record ball went for $500,000 while McGwire's went for $3 million, so maybe it isn't just the steroids controversy

posted by bperk at 01:33 PM on May 22, 2006

Before the steroids controversy, Bonds single season record ball went for $500,000 while McGwire's went for $3 million, so maybe it isn't just the steroids controversy Actually, it's probably because the guy who bought the McGwire ball (and a bunch of other ones from that season) had WAY too much money, and not enough brains. I'm talking about Todd McFarlane. He had a quest to purchase all the famous baseballs from that year, and overpaid for almost all of them. In the next 7 years, the market for memorabilia has tanked, pretty much in line with how the "dot com boom" deflated. Less dot-com millionaires, less outrageous disposable income. Heck, McFarlane's publishing company has hit on hard times and had to declare bankruptcy... It would completely devalue the argument that "he got to 73 because of the steroids", when someone who is supposedly clean did the same thing. How? Wouldn't it make it worse? If pujols breaks the record, and people believe it was clean, they'll just forget about bonds. I don't see how that that leads to "maybe he was clean" at all. Right or wrong, you'll be reading about pujols doing it the 'right way'. One of the biggest arguments against Bonds' 73HR record is that he HAD to be juiced to get that many HR, and that anyone who has broken Maris' 61 mark is obviously juiced (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa). However, if Pujols breaks the mark (either 61, 70 or 73) then that argument (gotta be juiced to hit that many) falls to pieces. Which, in turn, suggests that Bonds' 73 could have been done without the juice. I'm not saying it was done without the juice, but maybe more of the record could be attributed to Bonds' natural ability instead of assuming that it's all because of the PEDs.

posted by grum@work at 10:50 PM on May 22, 2006

You know, the steroid topic is smokin' hot right now but in a decade or so we'll look back on this time and just lump it all together with the rest of baseball history. We'll include it in the discussion of the pitching years of the 60s (when the mound was higher and created a rash of low batting averages and microscopic ERAs), the dead-ball era in the early 1900s (which, aside from Babe Ruth, produced a ton of high batting averages but not many home runs), and the war years (which produced world champions and individual leaders in hitting and pitching that were devalued at the time because a lot of the stars were off fighting the war). It's a hot topic now but it'll merge into the overall history of baseball soon enough and then we can move on to the next topic, whatever that might be. I gotta say though, it sure is fun to talk about this stuff. Kind of makes life fun, doesn't it?

posted by donnnnychris at 02:52 AM on May 23, 2006