Part of

« Game chat: Phillies open three-game set with Marlins | Main | Minor notes: Position players upstaging pitchers »

Wednesday, August 08, 2007


Wow, he kinda blew right by his son when he got to home plate, huh?

I have a question, only tangentially on topic, but anyway: With his deteriorating knees and increasingly limited mobility, why was Barry never shifted to first base?

I have to tip my cap to Baseball's All-Time Home Run Cheater.

Not only did he dis his son, it looked like Mays was really uncomfortable with the whole thing.

Matt Murphy hit the lottery. Fortunately, his team didn't last night. Maine & Perez are starting to show signs of deterioration and reverting to their mean...hopefully this begins a prolonged slump.

Barry Bonds = Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader


Ok, if there's an asterisk next to it, I can "respect" it a little more. The shame of it with Bonds is that he was a dominate player without 'roids.

The first couple of responses echo my feeling as it happened. I sat there thinking, he totally just dissed his family! Just brushed them to the side. What an arrogant prick.

Also, one of my friend's step-son was at the game. At least he got to experience that kind of game and will have a story to tell for the rest of his life.

Regarding the anonymous person who mentioned other cheaters, including "Lenny", I assume he means The Dude. I distain everyone he mentioned on that list that cheated with steroids, and their accomplishments merit an asterisk, just like Bonds. Why do people have to bring race into it? I guess it just is that way.

clout wrote: "The much hated Bobby Abreu has got his OPS up to .798 and is on pace to score more than 100 runs and drive in at least 85. He's hitting .285 and is pretty sure to end the season with an OPS over .800."

And Shane Victorino is on pace to score more than 100 runs and knock in at least 60 with more than 40 SBs. He's also playing a significantly better defensive RF than Bobby. And all this for a fraction of the price.

I'm not shedding a tear for the loss of Bobby Abreu.

CJ: I wouldn't mind having him until Victorino gets back.

"Why do people have to bring race into it?"

because, again, when it should have been obvious to every baseball fan in the country that Mark McGwire was using as much PEDs as anyone in the game nobody cared. when a relatively antisocial Black player came under suspicion, all of a sudden it's The End of Baseball As We Know It. I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think it played a big part for a lot of people back then.

"I distain everyone he mentioned on that list that cheated with steroids, and their accomplishments merit an asterisk, just like Bonds."

so who exactly is on that list? you don't know. I don't know. we can list a few names here and there. but would you have guessed that Pedro Felix was using PEDs? what about Ryan Franklin?

unless you're going to give everyone from the last 15-20 years an asterisk for PED use, you can't do it for just Barry Bonds.

Pedro Feliz. stupid typos.

wait, I must be remembering wrong. who's that light-hitting infielder who tested positive?

When McG was knocking them out on a recored pace(along with Sosa), was the 'roid issue even "out there" like it has been the last few years?

WEll, Neifi Perez just got suspended for 80 games for amphetamines, of all things. AS if players of all abilities haven't been using them for at least 40 years.

"Is Mark McGwire on Steroids?" Kate Galbraith, Slate. Tuesday, August 25, 1998.


Alby, that's who I was thinking of...

ae: Neifi Perez?

Am I the only person here who really doesn't give a crap about steroid use? Who doesn't feel that it ruins the purity of the game?

If we really wanted to somehow recapture this lost purity, the laundry list of changes has to include some way to manage the ballooning salaries, the disparities between big- and small-market teams, the elimination of the DH and the Wild Card.

Personally, I think using steroids is stupid, but I don't go in for this whole "put an asterisk next to his record" business. Why? What does it matter that he injected some chemicals we don't like into his blood? Another guy can take slightly different chemicals and mix them up into a power shake, and that's okay because, at a molecular level, the chemicals are slightly different? Another guy can have Tommy John surgery and get another 3mph on his fastball, and that's okay too? Why do you draw the line in the sand at steroids, the forbidden fruit?

Bonds did an amazing thing yesterday and I applaud him. Whether he owes some of his power to steroids is totally irrelevant to me.

Right, forgot about the andro. I'm not McG fan at all, anyway, before and after 70hr and Congress testimony.

Laramie: That's about how I feel. As a friend of mine says, there's no proof steroids make you a better player, as the example of Ryan Franklin ought to prove. Bonds is a great player, and I still don't like him.

I'm kinda with laramie on this one - im actually more bored of the issue more than anything, since the press has been harping on it for years.

Bonds is the evidence. Awesome player prior to steroids, even better after at an increased age. Steroids does increase hand/eye coordination and swing. Couple that with Bonds' god given ability and there ya go.

Steroids are a lot different with pitchers. It would increase a pitchers ability to stay more healthy, perhaps, but they're not going to get some super human strength.

And to compare 'roids and TJ surgery is silly. Most players don't come back with increased velocity. It happens, but not the norm exactly.

Laramie: I couldn't feel any more differently, but of course I respect your opinion. In my mind, I am obviously not even remotely informed enough to know the specifics between what should be allowed and what shouldn't be. However, I do put some weight on the opinions of experts to determine what chemicals are deemed to provide unnatural enhancements.

On the Tommy John note, it might be noteworthy that even the experts who perfected the surgery have noted that they believe it never actually improves the abilities of a player. They simply reinstate the ability that should have been there all along if it hadn't been for overuse.

right steroids doesn't help your hand eye coordination. if it was someone like chase utley and not barry bonds but same allegations people would be falling all over themselves to say how amazing he is. this self righteous crap of put an asterisk next to the record is b.s. just get over it, the record will be broken in like 5 years anyway.

When McGwire was chasing Maris with Sosa, I don't think race played any part. I don't think that people disliked Sosa. I also don't think that fans were knowledgeable about steroids. McGwire admitted to using Andro-whatever and we were told that it was a legal substance. They used to advertise for human growth hormones on the radio. Times were different then and the fans were not up to speed on all of this nonsense. I really think that Bonds' gargantuan growth and superlative numbers at a late age when players' skills are supposed to be deteriorating really brought this stuff to the forefront.

I am amazed that some people still try to argue that steroids do not make you a better ballplayer. I agree that hand-eye and god-given talent are something that can not be injected. However, the strength to compensate for slight mistakes and possibly bat speed seem extremely obvious as potential upsides.

I'm glad Bonds broke the record. It ensures that people who deserve to get hammered over steroid use in baseball (provided the Mitchell investigation turns up anything) get hammered over it.

It's a sad day for baseball, not becasue Bonds broke the record, but because if the investigation turns up nothing baseball could've done something to prevent all this but they spent too much time looking the other way.


roids DOES increase hand eye.

Didn't fans love Sosa too? Look at him now, he's a caricature of himself.

As a journalist/editor/designer, I have to say the Daily News cover headline is outstanding. And the Post's cover is equally engaging.

For those of you who'd like to see more covers, check out, which displays the front pages from all major and minor American newspapers (my rag is on there too, but I'm not particularly proud of it haha).

I'm no doctor, but can someone explain to me how a steroid could improve hand-eye coordination? it's not a neurological drug...

Which paper, Malcolm?

here is an article about some stat-loving nerds who conclude steroids does not improve HR production over the long term, based on stats alone.
this is a pdf informational pamphlet that states that roids do NOT increase hand-eye coordination.

sorry about the non-linkyness....

'roids or HGH can actually help improve your talent by allowing your brain to grasp the concepts of those abilities through repetition. That can be done normally but the users always want the easy way out.

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.

I will say this though, regarding the hand-eye issue. It HAS always amazed me that the dramatically increased muscular structure does not have some negative impact on Bonds' swing. With the swing being such a sensitive, on-again off-again thing for so many players, I would have thought that a totally different body mass might have some significant downsides as well. Again, none of us are even remotely able, I would guess, to answer these questions adequately regarding the actual impacts...

really? i've read a lot of articles about it and most scientists don't believe it helps your hand eye coordination which i agree with since steroids tend to deteriorate your brain. its about strength that leads to quicker bat speed. steroids won't automatically turn you into a hall of famer.

"'roids or HGH can actually help improve your talent by allowing your brain to grasp the concepts of those abilities through repetition."

again, this makes no sense to me at all. these are not neurological drugs. they don't affect the brain.

that's not to say they can't help indirectly by increasing muscle mass and so on, but I don't understand how they can "allow your brain to grasp" anything.

HGH can stimulate the repair and rejuvenation of brain cells. It also affects the proteins produced in the brain for storing our memories. HGH deficiency has been directly related to the impairment of both long- and short-term memory as well as hand-eye coordination. Learning, memory and intelligence all depend on adequate supplies of growth hormone.

The brain and nervous system are made up of cells called neurons. And though they are permanent and never re-grow, HGH can stimulate their repair and rejuvenation. It also affects the proteins produced in the brain for storing our memories. Therefore, learning, memory and intelligence all depend on adequate supplies of growth hormone.

Re: Bonds and race

I think we have to keep in mind that McGuire and Sosa were pre-Camanitti, pre-Canseco, and pre-Congressional hearings.

The reason guys like that (or half the Phillies '93 squad) get a "break" is that while we could speculate, we could still claim plausible deniability about steroids. My friends and I always used to joke about The Dude using steroids, but we didn't have nearly the amount of knowledge we do now.

And the amazing thing is that, even now, if I knew Howard and Utley were juicing (which they aren't) I would still root for them. Ryan Franklin was a convicted cheater, and we still rooted for him (in vain, of course). Hell, I would have delivered the syringe straight to Doug Glanville's locker!

What should be acknowldeged about Bonds is that his record (like ALL records) have to placed in context. Annyone trying to claim the moral highround and completely dismiss Bonds had better do some serious thinking.

All I can say is: Bonds deserves the record, I'm unhappy that a jerk like him has it, and I think the value of the record will be severely diminished because of who holds it.

100 years from now, if people are still playing this wonderful game of baseball, this steroid issue will be just another colorful anecdote that defines an era. Every generation of baseball is completely different, which makes the attempt to compare them numerically a silly and futile task. Ballpark trends, training methods, steroids, spitballs, the DH, and moneyball – these are just a few of the phenomena that have come and gone and come back again and caused the game to slowly evolve over the years. But the essence of the game doesn’t change just because the players take drugs; I haven’t enjoyed the game any differently because of them, and lastly we will never stop players from taking every single competitive edge that they can find. You set up a system where winning is everything and this is a natural byproduct of it. You can’t have one without the other.

On a completely different note...
Can Iguchi play 3B? With this guy playing some seriously good baseball, can we keep him in the rotation when Chase returns?

Steroids may or may not improve hand-eye coordination. Those who say there's no evidence that steroids improve hand-eye coordination are just stating this on faith. There is, in fact, no evidence that steroids DON'T improve hand-eye coordination and I would guess that they do -- at least as it relates to hitting a baseball. Bat speed, after all, is clearly a component of hand-eye coordination, as it relates to hitting a baseball.

Putting the hand-eye coordination issue aside, it wasn't necessarily improved hand-eye coordination that was driving up Bonds' batting average and OBP. Bonds had 35 to 40-homerun power back in the mide-90s. If even half of those extra 33 homeruns in 2001 had been fly-outs, he would have hit .294 instead of .328. And, frankly, I'm being quite generous here by putting the number at one-half. It's probably a lot more than half of those would-be homeruns that would have turned into fly-outs, in the absence of steroids.

Moreover, increased power could easily mean that routine ground outs turn into hard hit base hits past a diving shortstop. Fly outs turn into doubles. And so on. And, of course, while there is no doubt that Bonds always had a great batting eye, his obscene walk totals in the early 2000s were a direct product of his increased power. With 50 to 70 fewer walks per year between 2001 & 2004, I suspect that Bonds' batting averages would have suffered immensely. The fewer ABs you have, the easier it is to sustain a ridiculously high batting average, like the .370 average he posted in 2002.

It depends on which steroids you're taking. If you're talking about classic bodybuilding steroids, like Winstrol or HGH or testosterone, you're right in that the won't help hand-eye coordination, and they're mainly going to just help you get huge.

Bonds wasn't on these. The Clear (or flaxseed oil as claimed he said it was) is claimed by some to be the most powerful steroid known to man. Creator Patrick Arnold said that it does a whole lot more than just get you big. The problem with a lot of the steroid studies is that they focus on the old-school bodybuilding drugs instead of the new, designer things that are on the market today.

If you don't think steroids can help you do anything besides get bigger, look at the other athletes who were on the same things Bonds was. Marion Jones became the face of US Track & Field, after Conte went down, she also fell off the map. Tim Montgomery set the world 100M record - on the Clear (and cream).

If you don't think those steroids can help you hit a ball, look at Bonds's batting average from 01-04. His previous career high was .336 at age 28. Besides that, he had never hit above .312. His ages 36-40 seasons had BA's of .328, .370, .341, and .362.

Rob: probably not and he will probably pinch hit and back up chase.

district: so true - lets not forget emory boards, corked bats, and the alleged "juiced" baseballs of recent history.

I know little about steroids, but if I work out every day, and drink protien shakes every day, in five years I will be really big.
How is that any different from a guy using roids who gets to be the same size, but maybe in only 3 years, other than my hypothetical 2 years of bigness?

Maybe if Balco Bonds had not spent his entire career treating journalists, fans, teammates, and just about everyone else in a condescending and downright surly manner, people would have more of an inkling to offer some support or sympathy to this guy. But no, he's been a royal a-hole at least going all the way back to his college days.

There is no doubt that he enhanced his body with drugs that were illegal to use without a valid prescription at the time he took them (whether or not baseball had banned them, state and national laws with supremacy to anything in a baseball contract were in place).

Bonds was a great player before his head and feet grew a few sizes from the illegal supplements he took. Players do not get better as they get older, and at an age when pretty much every major league player before Bonds began to suffer from noticeable drops in production, this guy's home run totals took off.

Perhaps congratulations would better be offered to the doctors and scientists over the years that developed ways to enhance athletes through creative pharmacology.

Yet another reason for an *....

interesting read. I remember the objections that came out when Barry first started using the body armor.

And his "trainer" Anderson who's in jail right now. He could've exonerated Bonds, but if he did so, he most likely would've committed perjury, b/c in leaked testimony Bonds admitted to taking the stuff ("accidentally", of course).

Sorry to change the subject (and it may have been discussed in the last thread), but how did Durbin earn a save last night? I thought a save was only when the game was within tree runs or the winning run was on deck (or something to that effect). I was surprised to see "W-Moyer; L-Vandenhurk; S-Durbin" this morning.

There's a difference between the questions raised during the McGwire era and this era. And his nothing to do with Race.

There were suspicions about his use. There was Andro and Creatine. Baseball fans and the media were not as savvy about those drugs as they are today. Not unlike our lack of general knowledge on DNA during the OJ Simpson trial. We knew something didn't smell right. But 10 years of watching the CSI's and now our general knowledge of DNA is at the point where we can SOLIDLY POINT THE FINGER.

In 1998, don't forget that Sammy Sosa was as beloved as McGwire. If you meet a racist on the street corner, they see color only (and Sosa would be the same as Bonds in his or her eyes.)

McGwire and Sosa and Palmerio were KILLED... KILLED after the congressional hearings. And Bonds wasn't asked to be there... WHY??? Because he was under GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION!!! A stand-up solid citizen is rarely under that shadow.

When McGwire hit #70, those suspicions were becoming validated. In a "blink" moment, we couldn't rationalize 70 in relation to 61. Then 3 years later, Bonds, the best player in baseball, shatters the mark and hits 73. Well, if 70 wasn't sitting well, then this mark was NOT going to either. While McGwire's appearance was MUCH different than his rookie season it certainly wasn't as DRAMATIC as the physical specimen that Bonds became. (Sosa too!)

And oh yeah, we have MUCH more emprical evidence about Bonds use, with Grand Jury testimony, Balco convictions, "Game of Shadows", Cream and Clear, Reporters spending time in prison because of the story.

WE KNOW MORE about Bonds use. All we have is a bottle of Andro in a locker.

If this was about race... wouldn't McGwire had been elected to the Hall of Fame this year??? The guys voting were mostly WHITE. Why didn't they vote their WHITE hero in to the Hall of Fame????

And McGwire, and Palmerio and Sosa are NO LONGER relevant. It's the same argument Bush supporters use when you criticize the President and their first response, is... "BUT CLINTON...."

Bonds is the story, because HE'S THE ONE TRYING TO BREAK THE RECORD! IF it was McGwire or Palmerio or Sosa who was in San Francisco last night, we'd be doing the same thing. It's 9 YEARS later. WE KNOW MORE than we did then.

Bonds is being treated this way, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. Look at the disdain for CANSECO! If Canseco was in San Fran last night, the same vitriol would be occuring in the media and by fans today.

I'm not saying that there aren't racial implications in how we perceive things. Things that occur on the subconscious level that we aren't sure why we feel a certain way.

But this about EVIDENCE... And it's clear.. Or is it the Cream?

Durbin pitched 3 innings

I think Iguchi does become the everyday 3B when Utley returns, although that may mean 4 or 5 starts a week. Cholly is very big on riding hot streaks and he has shown a remarkable ability to be flexible this year. It's clear that Helms sucks, and I think Cholly would rather have Dobbs as his #1 PH guy.

I would continue to start Nunez when Moyer pitches, Helms once a week against a lefty, and give Guch the rest of the starts. There is no way that he is a worse fielder than Dobbs or Helms, and he is obviously a far superior hitter to Abe.

VOR: The short, simple answer is that working out & drinking protein shakes are not against the law or the rules of baseball. If you're asking why is this so, then the answer is that working out every day & drinking protein shakes don't cause long-term damage to your body. Steroids do.

As someone with libertarian inclinations, I generally don't like laws which prohibit adults from doing harm to themselves. But sports is a different arena. Steroids undeniably improve performance so, if you make them legal in sports, you're basically giving a huge competitive advantage to those who choose to do long-term damage to their body. Those who choose not to do so will largely be left as spectators. That is not what sports are about.

Here's your answer on the saves question:

Rule 10.19 of the Rules of Baseball
The official scorer shall credit a pitcher with a save when such pitcher meets all four of the following conditions: (a) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team; (b) He is not the winning pitcher; (c) He is credited with at least a third of an inning pitched; and (d) He satisfies one of the following conditions: (1) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; (2) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batters he faces); or (3) He pitches for at least three innings.

CJ: I shed no tear for the loss of Bobby Abreu either. I shed lots of tears for what we got in return for him.

Thanks Jacobin. I knew the rest of the criteria, but not good ol' 10.19(d)(3).

Looking at saves of the 3+ inning type, on June 18th, 1961, in the second game of a double-header between the Baltimore Orioles & the Cleveland Indians, the starting pitcher for Baltimore only lasted 1/3 of an inning, giving up 5 runs. Another pitcher was brought in to pitch, and he got the last two out. Baltimore then scored 8 in the next half inning, and Dick Hall entered the game to pitch in the bottom of the 2nd, with Baltimore leading 8-5.

Hall completed the game, giving up just two hits & no walks over 8 innings pitched, earning the longest save in ML history (or, at least, the longest that I could find).

Bonds cheated. Period. It's a fact. Everyone knows it. He's an a$$hole for denying it and for continuing this charade to the point at which he breaks the most hollowed record in team sports.

Do I hate him because he's black? Hell no. I hate him because he's a jacka$$ who not only cheated, but has continued to play instead of crawling under a rock like some of the other cheaters did. I hate him because he continues to lie about it. I hate him because a good man is no longer on top... instead we have Barry Bonds.

I don't care if he's black or white. McGwire is a jacka$$, too... but at least he walked away instead of continuing to cheat fans with his artificial body.

I respect Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn. They did it the right way. Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire cheated. And the game is worse off because of them.

"CJ: I shed no tear for the loss of Bobby Abreu either... "

I don't know if i'm buying that, Clout.

I think Mike Cunningham did an excellent job in his last comment. He sums up the Bonds steroids subject for me.

I agree 100% with clout's statement: "I shed no tear for the loss of Bobby Abreu either. I shed lots of tears for what we got in return for him."

Durbin has taken some heat from Beerleaguers, but I find his recent performances to be a positive for this team. If only Gavin Eaton Crap could turn around his future performances to be a positive.

"And the game is worse off because of them."

how has baseball changed?

One thing that is ridiculous is talking about is how steroids "ruined the purity of the game." What a bunch of crap. This "purity" of baseball in the 1950s and 1960s is an artificially constructed concept by aging caucasian baseball writers who grew up in that era. Nothing more.

Every baseball era has it share of cheats, frauds, liars, etc. You can easily go back to every era of baseball (and history of America for that matter) and point about problematic players/issues.

MG - exactly. Anybody who thinks that this has changed anything is fooling themselves

The New York Post cover page was great and has gotten out of flak out here in SF but the title should have been:

"Selig to Bonds: Drop Dead"

"I respect Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn. They did it the right way."

What way is that? I'm not accusing them of taking PEs, but how do we know that they didn't?

I don't really care because the record never meant anything to me. It's not as if Aaron was the greatest home run hitter of all time, his 755 home runs was really mostly a function of his 12,000+ career at-bats, just as Rose's 4256 hits are a function of his 14,000 at-bats. (Bonds, by comparison, has had just 9,774 at-bats, and Ruth had 8,399... McGwire had half as many career at-bats as Aaron and nearly 80% of his home run total.) No one thinks Rose was the greatest hitter of all time or anywhere close, so why does the home run record mean so much? Besides, pitchers throw harder today, throw pitches that didn't even exist in Ruth's or Aaron's time, use steroids (the guy who gave up the 755th has been suspended for PED's), there are different baseballs, bigger parks (Bonds's home park is a lot bigger than Aaron's or Ruth's), a racially integrated and now international talent pool - I don't see how you can even begin to compare across eras. All we know is that a lot of players took steroids in the past 15 or so years and many others were naturally as strong as Bonds may have become artificially (like a Frank Thomas or a Thome), and Bonds is the only one with 756 home runs. He's the best slugger of our time, just as Ruth and Aaron were the best of theirs.

MG: Great post, as usual. You're definitely in the running for MVP.

from the district: How has it changed? Well, for one thing, we get to talk about steroids all the time instead of the game. Secondly, one of baseball's greatest features was its numbers. The stats mattered. No other sport allowed for the discussion over eras that baseball did. Now, that's being lost. What's the point of discussing 61* or 73*... or 755 or 756*? One of baseball's greatest charms has been damaged by cheaters like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire.


1) When I say the right way, I'm not just talking about whether they cheated. They respected the games and the fans in ways that Barry Bonds never has. They are also a rare breed that played for one team their entire career.

2) Neither Cal Ripken Jr. nor Tony Gwynn have ever been implicated in any kind of investigation, nor have their names ever been mentioned by anyone as having used PEDs. I've never suggested that everyone should fall under suspicion, I just don't think that's fair. I doubt you're arguing that Gwynn and Ripken deserve the same suspicion as Bonds and McGwire.

That's how I feel CJ-tainted numbers. The numbers/stats are what make baseball different than the other sports to me.

Hawk: Dick Hall's feat would have been a save under either end of the rule, in that the lead was only three runs when he entered the game (though I'm not sure what the rules on saves were at the time). What puzzles me is the scorer's decision not to give Hall the win; when the starter doesn't go 5 innings, I believe the win goes to the most effective pitcher, at the scorer's discretion. Again, though, I'm not sure what the rule was at the time.

Another interesting wrinkle to that game -- the Cleveland starter, Gary Bell, only lasted 1 2/3 innings. Bobby Locke (a future Phillie) entered, gave up a home run to the first batter he faced (Marvelous Marv Throneberry), then threw 7 1/3 shutout innings. Quite the bullpen performances for the second game of a doubleheader, eh? Makes a strong case for the managers misidentifying the pitchers who should have started the game...

For longest best relief effort, though not a save, I submit Ernie Shore's nine inning perfect relief effort on June 23, 1917. He relieved starter Babe Ruth, who had been ejected, with no outs, with a runner on first, in the first inning. Ernie got three outs in that first inning including getting the runner erased. He pitched a no hit, no walk, no errors, perfect game.

Lake Fred: Not quite. He faced only 26 batters.

CJ's post that is up a couple spots there is fantastic.

Bonds is a cheater and a$$hole. This is why the record is indeed tainted because the fact is people can say well steroids don't help or they do help or whatever, the fact is we don't know. And Barry atleast attempted to improve his ability ILLEGALLY. I hope the grand jury gets his a$$ in 6 months and then we find out what an arrogant, lying, cheating, son of a bitch type of person he is.

Hank Aaron is still the home run champ in my eyes.

Winning the World Series eclipses any little stat or record in my opinion. The streaks and record chasing is just a fun little side show to me.

VOR: Then you haven't been reading my posts, starting with the day the trade announced.

"Secondly, one of baseball's greatest features was its numbers. The stats mattered. No other sport allowed for the discussion over eras that baseball did. Now, that's being lost."

that's completely absurd. in 1930, an average hitter put up a .300 batting average. somehow, we've managed to get over that. in 1968, an average pitcher had a 2.99 ERA. somehow, we've managed to get over that.

before Babe Ruth, the all-time home run leader had a single season high of 17 HR. somehow, we've managed to get over that. in the 1910s, players regularly hit 20-25 triples. somehow, we've managed to get over that.

Charley Radbourn once started 73 games in a season and won 59. somehow, we've managed to get over that. Cy Young won nearly 150 games more than anyone who pitched after WWII. somehow, we've managed to get over that.

but no, it's Barry Bonds' fault that we can't compare numbers from different eras. that's absurd.

CJ - I agree with your first point.

"I doubt you're arguing that Gwynn and Ripken deserve the same suspicion as Bonds and McGwire."

No, I'm not. And I've never heard them associated with PEDs either. I guess I'm just thinking that all players from the 'steroid era' need to be questioned. And we'll probably never know the complete truth either.

How long does it take for A-Rod to break the record? Anyone?

"I guess I'm just thinking that all players from the 'steroid era' need to be questioned. And we'll probably never know the complete truth either."


"Hank Aaron is still the home run champ in my eyes."

good for you. I also like to pretend that we actually won the 1993 World Series. but then I wake up.

My paper is the Norwich Bulletin, Jason. Sadly, I don't do the front page (I used to be a copy editor and was close to doing A1, but moved out of the desk in January). But we're a very hyper-local rag; you'll never see national wire news on our A1.

MG: Been reading "The Bronx is Burning" lately?

Ah. I see the industry buzzword "hyperlocal" has infected your newsroom as well.

Also, you can compare numbers across eras in sports if you like. Numbers in other sports aren't any less comparable. You can choose to believe that Emmett Smith was the greatest running back of all time or that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the greatest scorer of all time because he's the points king, it's just that basketball and football fans aren't so mindless as to think that comparing counting stats across different eras tells the whole story, whereas baseball fans are. How can you find any meaning in comparing, say, Ruth's and Bonds's numbers when, for one thing, Ruth had the benefit of a 295 ft. right field porch while Bonds plays in a pitcher's park? It'd be like comparing basketball numbers if, in one era, the basket was 11 feet high and in another it was 10.

AE: it's an opinion. Ok, you can believe whatever you want but I believe Barry cheated and that it taints the record.

I don't need a sarcastic answer back to try and prove yor point.

"What puzzles me is the scorer's decision not to give Hall the win; when the starter doesn't go 5 innings, I believe the win goes to the most effective pitcher, at the scorer's discretion."

I believe that rule wouldn't come into play here because the winning run was scored when the second pitcher was in the game.

As for a long save that doesn't include the 3-run rule, I'd offer Joaquin Benoit's 7 inning save on September 3, 2002 (Texas at Baltimore). Benoit entered in the bottom of the 3rd with a 4-0 lead, and he pitched the final 7 innings, in a 7-1 win.

It's more than infected - we're a GateHouse Media paper now, and they're ALLLLL about hyperlocal. And we're barely a newsroom anymore - we used to be Gannett, so we had the Information Center, and now we see ourselves more as an informational depository.

These buzz words have stung us all.

Tray: The reason you can compare is because all players play in vastly different parks over different eras. It's part of baseball's charm. Fenway Park has the Green Monster. Yankee Stadium has the short porch. The list goes on and on. Despite it all, the numbers still matter. Hitting .400 matters. Hitting 61 HR's should still matter. That record would likely stand today if not for steroids.

The records do matter.

Hyperlocal... ha! That's actually a good word in my television newsroom, especially when it comes to weather.

Alby, hawk: Neither rule (scorer discretion on who gets the win; a save going to a pitcher with 3 IP regardless of score) was in effect in 1961. As I recall those changes to the save rule were made in the 1970s.

Um ... how many news people do we have on this site exactly?

I'm a jounralism major at temple if that counts for anything.

do magazines count?

Jason: I'm a News Director at a station in Lafayette, LA.

ae - i completely agree with everything that you just posted on the matter. fans with even a vague idea of the complete history of the game cannot deny that statistics across eras are almost impossible to compare.

two cheers for dropping Charlie "Old Hoss" Radbourne . . . you think they had pitch counts back then?

Jayson Stark on summed this up better then anyone:

Jayson Stark: "What we've lost"
The biggest tragedy of the steroids era is that it has robbed us of the magic -- the magic of the greatest numbers in sports. People used to walk down Main Street -- in your town, in any town -- and hear those numbers rattling around their brains. They knew what 60 meant. And 61. And 714. And 755. They weren't just baseball numbers. They were milestones from our entire culture. You didn't have to be some geeky baseball fan to know them. Women and kids and grandmothers knew them. They were numbers so powerful, you could hear the home run calls in your head if you listened hard enough. No other sport had any numbers like them. And no one should ever underestimate the importance of that. It's because of what those numbers used to mean that No. 756 and the man who hit it are still enough to make that home run a momentous news event. But it's what we've lost that's the bigger story, to me. We've lost the ability to witness these moments and hear our hearts thumping, or feel our emotions flowing. Too many people now are cynical about what just happened and why it happened for these numbers to feel the same again. And not just 756. All of them.

This is an interesting revelation. I can't say I'm surprised. Most posts are well-considered and well-written. Seems like a lot of journalists and lawyers have flocked to Beerleaguer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel