Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will your change your perspective on Bonds if he had a monster season in 2006?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will your change your perspective on Bonds if he had a monster season in 2006?

    We have to expect a drop-off in Barry's performance regardless of whether or not he was a steroid user during his 2001-2004 seasons. He will turn 42 around the all-star break and he's coming off a season in which he only played 14 games.

    Say he has another outstanding season in 2006: He bats .300, 30-35 HR .450 OBP, and .600 SLG. I would consider this a truly outstanding season given Barry's age and recent down-time.

    Would your perception/opinion of him change at all knowing that he accomplished this without any PEDs?

    I know many people want to throw his recent stats out the window or put and asterik next to it. In my opinion , If he has another great season all that talk should be put to rest.

    What do you think?
    My top 10 players:

    1. Babe Ruth
    2. Barry Bonds
    3. Ty Cobb
    4. Ted Williams
    5. Willie Mays
    6. Alex Rodriguez
    7. Hank Aaron
    8. Honus Wagner
    9. Lou Gehrig
    10. Mickey Mantle

  • #2
    Not in the least. He is what he is.
    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey, I love Barry Bonds. Even though I hate what he did, you can't escape the fact that, even before he juiced up and he weighed like 150 pounds, he was one of the best players ever. I come from the school of thought that steroids can't help you hit a baseball. They can help you hit it farther, but he posseses the amazing eye-hand coordination to be the best hitter ever, with or without steroids.

      Comment


      • #4
        Would Not Prove Anything

        Bonds putting up "normally" great numbers this year at age 41-42 would not prove anything except what has always been known, that even without possible steroid use he was a great hitter. (IF) Bonds took steroids as suspected for a number of years he did so mainly for the drug's ability to help him recouperate in order to sustain the ability to remain highly productive on a consistent basis for longer then would otherwise be normal. As Bonds also would have used the drug to help him bulk up and increase his strength (power), there is no way to ever be certain about the drugs residual effects and its ability to help him maintain that power even when no longer using the drug due to the fact that he still has the huge muscles (strength) he MAY have gained through the long time use of the drug.

        A better way to tell is how often he is able to play and at what consistent level. He was pretty well broken down last season. IF he used steroids, the biggest benefit he would have received from them all that time is the ability to recouperate from the wear and tear much better and stay at such a high level more consistently at his age then without them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Bonds

          With Bonds I do not think that a .300 35 .450 .600 season is going to quiet anyone's suspicions. With Bonds the problem people have is not with the high level of his performance throughout most of his career. The problem is with the increased level of performance at an advanced age and the reasons behind it. The problem is for example the 49 to 73. If Bonds were to be able to play enough games this season and put up numbers such as above, it will not disprove nor stop the suspicion that his possible long-time steroid use is behind the numbers. On the contrary, it may just add fuel to the fire that if not for long-time steroid use and the residual benefits, he would in no way put up such numbers at 42.

          Comment


          • #6
            Maybe, Maybe not.

            Both Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi were both predicted lastyear by many " fans " to produce at a mark bellhorn level. Instead, both produced at a very high level, and in sheffield's case an MVP caliber season. Giambi could of had one, but because of injuries missed some time, but still managed to hit 32 homeruns, walk 108 times, and lead the AL in OBP.

            Obviously, sheffield's production without steroids in 2005 changed many fans perception of him. All of a sudden there's many " sheffield for HOF ? " threads flying around, not only on this board, but many others too.

            As for giambi, well he won comeback player of the year, and is regulary considered an " elite " firstbasemen by many again, though he still has his critics.

            Anyway, My point is all and all giambi and sheffield's elite production without steroids in 2005 speaks volumes about the fans perception on what the drug can actually do for a player. Many have changed their opinion about the drug, some still havent.

            Interestingly enough, Barry's elite production in 14 games lastyear changed some people's opinions of him. Micheal wilbon is one, skipbayless is another, hank aaron is one too. Infact, I havent seen a " let's appreciate barry bonds " article since the 2004 season, and I came across one today.

            http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=ne...3/02/the.rant/

            I personally think Bonds is the second best player ever after ruth, because statistically he is, and Im no baseball purist, so steroids are a joke to me.

            Anyway, If his production nextyear is at a very high level, Yes, I think many will change their opinions of him, and there will be some ( especially babe ruth fans) who never will.

            That's the way it is.

            Comment


            • #7
              Giambi and Sheffield

              With All Due respect "Don't Worry" I think you are not giving the informed fan any credit for intelligence when it comes to Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi. Also, I think it is highly disingenuous to feel that fans will just accept that steroids have not tainted the game simply because of Sheffield's season last year.

              First, I doubt anyone actually felt that both Giambi and Sheffield would produce at a "Mark Bellhorn" level simply because they "supposedly" were unable to continue possible steriod use. What most fans would expect is that neither one would smack 49 let alone 73 Home Runs without steroids and neither of them did. No one has ever argued that they both aren't two of the elites active in MLB today. What those opposed to steroids object to are the (possible) inflated artificial levels of statistical performance of recent times - especially in HRs. In no way does Sheffield's or Giambi's performances last season prove anything other then they had good seasons and did what both are capable of doing with or without steroids. The debate on steroids is the "extra" beyond a player's usual level of performance.

              Also, one would be naive to feel that last year's steroid testing was so stringent as to actually prove positive that neither Sheffield or Giambi still were not using, or for that matter that it didn't matter as they may still have benefited from useage in the past. After all, players that MAY have used did so along with weight training to build strength and muscle. Has Barry Bonds lost his massive muscles even though he may have stopped using the drugs well over a year ago? Just because Giambi came to ST a bit lighter doesn't prove anything. Steroids are not a magic elixer that someone just ingests a pill and wham! they become Captain Marvel. Nor does someone suddenly become poindexter wimp just because they can no longer take the pills. The build up of new muscle and strength is already there and you cannot close the barn door after the horse is already out.

              Also, many experts agree that IF a MLB player benefits from steroid use, he benefits most of all by the drug allowing his body to recouperate better and faster then a player not using the drug. Naturally this would allow any player to perfom at a consistently higher level.

              Sorry, but I don't believe that many fans just suddenly buy that steroids really have not been effecting the game simply because of how Giambi and Sheffield performed "possibly" without them last year. Fans will be watching power numbers and a player suddenly having a dramatic increase in that department, especially near the end of the career, will be met with fan skepticism for years to come - due to steroids and especially Bonds.

              Comment


              • #8
                Steroids and Performance Levels

                I do not feel that fans who are against possible steroid use in baseball are claiming that certain players would not be anywhere near great without steroid use. It is a question of (IF) they knowingly used steroids because they at least thought that the drug would allow them to acheive levels of performance that they couldn't reach otherwise. It is not that certain players are not great players and hitters to begin with. It is that certain players (MAY) have knowingly used an artificial means as a way to inflate their perfomance and numbers to new heights and be considered to have achieved a level of greatness that even past greats could not achieve. Like it or not that mindset on a player's part, that intention, is a form of cheating the game, its history and its record book.

                Of course whether steroids actually do help a player achieve added greatness beyond their normal god given capability is a topic for another thread.

                No one is saying that certain great hitters of today would never have been great hitters if not for steroids. Those who don't like steroids in the game are wondering simply if their greatness hasn't been inflated a bit by the use of an illegal artificial drug induced advantage.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BoweryBoys
                  With All Due respect "Don't Worry" I think you are not giving the informed fan any credit for intelligence when it comes to Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi. Also, I think it is highly disingenuous to feel that fans will just accept that steroids have not tainted the game simply because of Sheffield's season last year.

                  First, I doubt anyone actually felt that both Giambi and Sheffield would produce at a "Mark Bellhorn" level simply because they "supposedly" were unable to continue possible steriod use. What most fans would expect is that neither one would smack 49 let alone 73 Home Runs without steroids and neither of them did. No one has ever argued that they both aren't two of the elites active in MLB today. What those opposed to steroids object to are the (possible) inflated artificial levels of statistical performance of recent times - especially in HRs. In no way does Sheffield's or Giambi's performances last season prove anything other then they had good seasons and did what both are capable of doing with or without steroids. The debate on steroids is the "extra" beyond a player's usual level of performance.

                  Also, one would be naive to feel that last year's steroid testing was so stringent as to actually prove positive that neither Sheffield or Giambi still were not using, or for that matter that it didn't matter as they may still have benefited from useage in the past. After all, players that MAY have used did so along with weight training to build strength and muscle. Has Barry Bonds lost his massive muscles even though he may have stopped using the drugs well over a year ago? Just because Giambi came to ST a bit lighter doesn't prove anything. Steroids are not a magic elixer that someone just ingests a pill and wham! they become Captain Marvel. Nor does someone suddenly become poindexter wimp just because they can no longer take the pills. The build up of new muscle and strength is already there and you cannot close the barn door after the horse is already out.

                  Also, many experts agree that IF a MLB player benefits from steroid use, he benefits most of all by the drug allowing his body to recouperate better and faster then a player not using the drug. Naturally this would allow any player to perfom at a consistently higher level.

                  Sorry, but I don't believe that many fans just suddenly buy that steroids really have not been effecting the game simply because of how Giambi and Sheffield performed "possibly" without them last year. Fans will be watching power numbers and a player suddenly having a dramatic increase in that department, especially near the end of the career, will be met with fan skepticism for years to come - due to steroids and especially Bonds.
                  " Also, I think it is highly disingenuous to feel that fans will just accept that steroids have not tainted the game simply because of Sheffield's season last year. "

                  Never once did I " hint " that sheffield and giambi's elite performance lastyear would change some " fans " perception of steroids " tainting " the game. I simply pointed out that their elite production lastyear changed many's opinion of them, Hence the many recent " sheffield for HOF ? " threads.

                  " First, I doubt anyone actually felt that both Giambi and Sheffield would produce at a "Mark Bellhorn" level simply because they "supposedly" were unable to continue possible steriod use. What most fans would expect is that neither one would smack 49 let alone 73 Home Runs without steroids and neither of them did. "

                  Actually Giambi was deemed as " done " by many, especially since in the start of the season his bat was cold. Sheffield actually didnt take as much heat as giambi because of his elite 2004 performance, and much of the steroid scandal being focused on bonds.

                  http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sports...?event_id=1329

                  Also, I dont know where your getting this " 73 homeruns " from, because both giambi and sheffield never came close to hitting that amount of homeruns. Giambi's careerhigh was 43 in 2000, sheffield's was also 43 in 2000.

                  " In no way does Sheffield's or Giambi's performances last season prove anything other then they had good seasons and did what both are capable of doing with or without steroids. The debate on steroids is the "extra" beyond a player's usual level of performance. "

                  Again, I never said giambi and sheffield's elite performances lastyear " proved " anything, I simply pointed out that it changed some's perception of both of them, and the drug's enhancements.

                  " Also, one would be naive to feel that last year's steroid testing was so stringent as to actually prove positive that neither Sheffield or Giambi still were not using, or for that matter that it didn't matter as they may still have benefited from useage in the past. "

                  Well, MLB'S testing policy was better than most think actually, the suspensions were weak, though players could still take HGH and amphetamines.

                  However, The basic reason players take HGH is to help their connective tissue and ligaments deal with the increased size and stress the steroids aided muscles put on them. And your right again oral is basically useless as it has to get past the digestive and liver functions although sprays and sublingual solutions can allow some absorbtion.

                  So without taking some kind of anabolic steroids with HGH, it wont produce desired results like many tend to believe.

                  " as they may still have benefited from useage in the past "

                  To a certain extent, While I agree that one could maintain a good portion of the muscle obtained by anabolic steroids, without the drug you are more prone to injury, and you cant workout as long. I've sampled some steroids before, including winstrol the one they accuse mcgwire of using, and it's certainly not as easy to workout without the drug then it is with it. The difference could be about 4 hours, which is why anabolic steroid users build muscle quicker.


                  " Just because Giambi came to ST a bit lighter doesn't prove anything. "

                  Giambi came to ST much lighter than he claimed to be, the difference was very noticeable. It had to atleast be 30 pounds. Giambi quit steroids cold turkey, after abusing the hell out of them.

                  Even canseco mentions how giambi over abused steroids, which in the longrun is horrible, hence the many problems giambi faced in the 2004 season. He also was always " bloated " never a perfect specimen like oh let's say a sheffield or mark mcgwire, giambi didnt have the discipline they did. I believe he used to eat a bigmac before every game. Terrible way to take care of your body.
                  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in673138.shtml
                  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/...C-DT9705204233

                  " Has Barry Bonds lost his massive muscles even though he may have stopped using the drugs well over a year ago? '

                  Barry Bonds has always been a gym rat, the lasttime he was " skinny " was probably in the late 80's. Bonds had tipped the scale at 210 in 1993 and maintained that weight for a longtime, I believe in 2002 he was still weighing around that range, before tipping the scale at 230 in 203.

                  " Also, many experts agree that IF a MLB player benefits from steroid use, he benefits most of all by the drug allowing his body to recouperate better and faster then a player not using the drug. Naturally this would allow any player to perfom at a consistently higher level. "

                  Yes, that's exactly what it does, Which is far from the " benefits " many falsely believe the drug provides, like improve a hitters batspeed. Recently I had read a good article about steroids and batspeed, the writer made a great point about more muscle impinging on the range of motion.

                  " Sorry, but I don't believe that many fans just suddenly buy that steroids really have not been effecting the game simply because of how Giambi and Sheffield performed "possibly" without them last year. Fans will be watching power numbers and a player suddenly having a dramatic increase in that department, especially near the end of the career, will be met with fan skepticism for years to come - due to steroids and especially Bonds "

                  Again, I never said that giambi and sheffield's elite production lastyear proved anything, I simply pointed out that it changed many's perception of both of them, especially sheffield, hence all the recent " sheffield for HOF " threads.

                  The simple fact is, The numbers are what they are, the " fans " will choose how to look at the numbers. They also will choose to believe howmuch steroids have " tainted " the game as you say.
                  Last edited by Dontworry; 03-03-2006, 02:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BoweryBoys
                    I do not feel that fans who are against possible steroid use in baseball are claiming that certain players would not be anywhere near great without steroid use. It is a question of (IF) they knowingly used steroids because they at least thought that the drug would allow them to acheive levels of performance that they couldn't reach otherwise. It is not that certain players are not great players and hitters to begin with. It is that certain players (MAY) have knowingly used an artificial means as a way to inflate their perfomance and numbers to new heights and be considered to have achieved a level of greatness that even past greats could not achieve. Like it or not that mindset on a player's part, that intention, is a form of cheating the game, its history and its record book.

                    Of course whether steroids actually do help a player achieve added greatness beyond their normal god given capability is a topic for another thread.

                    No one is saying that certain great hitters of today would never have been great hitters if not for steroids. Those who don't like steroids in the game are wondering simply if their greatness hasn't been inflated a bit by the use of an illegal artificial drug induced advantage.
                    Again, I'm not disagreeing with you.

                    One thing that always bothers me though is how many believe that players in the last decade are the first to actually ever experiment with the drug, which is a 100% naive.

                    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...e_x.htm?csp=34

                    Though he later refuted his statement about others using horse steroids back in the 70's, He never refuted his own admission. So there was indeed a steroid user as far back as the 70's. The drug goes back much further though, as early as the 30's.

                    http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/steroids.asp

                    http://www.localcalgary.com/

                    There was also the use of greenies by many players, including some in the HOF today.

                    I personally think the drug doesnt do much, based on evidence of numbers, and my past usage of the drug, But im not saying that im correct or that im wrong. Im just giving my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BoweryBoys
                      On the contrary, it may just add fuel to the fire that if not for long-time steroid use and the residual benefits, he would in no way put up such numbers at 42.
                      Completely agree.

                      It's about him doing these things at such a late age. If he has a monster year at 42 years old, it will indict him even more imo. It's just not natural. He's already done things that nobody in HISTORY has ever done as such ages. Doing it again at 42 would be the topper.

                      Also, MLB not testing for HGH is still an issue.

                      Originally posted by bronxbommers
                      I come from the school of thought that steroids can't help you hit a baseball. They can help you hit it farther, but he posseses the amazing eye-hand coordination to be the best hitter ever, with or without steroids.
                      Hand eye coordination is nice, but hitting is about more than that. It's about strength, quickness, stamina, timing, and reflexes. Every hitter throughout history has lost these things when they age; they lose these traits naturally. Yet Bonds has not. He actually increased these at a late age.

                      Steroids help, plain and simple, and it's about more than just a 380 foot fly ball turning into a 405 foot fly ball. It's about having more strength which results in increased quickness. Increased quickness results in greater bat speed. More stamina with the added strength means that an August swing feels the same as an April swing. More stamina and quickness means that you're able to wait back on a pitch longer than most players, giving you a split second longer to analyze the pitch speed/break/location before committing. It's a huge advantage.

                      And then you have the HGH which MLB does not test for which is essentially a fountain of youth. You feel younger, it gives you more stamina and energy, improves focus, improves memory, improves mental clarity, improves attention span, improves muscle mass and strength, improves joint flexibility, improves healing, and even improves vision.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A doctor I talked to said Bonds always displayed the symptoms of HGH more than steroids (the swollen head for instance). And, as sated above, HGH helps improve your vision and coridnation.

                        As long as MLB refuses to test for HGH we're no better off than we were in the summer of 98.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Fan's Perceptions

                          My apologies "Don'tWorry" I didn't mean to imply that you were implying anything nor did I infer that. It is just the stupid way I write.

                          It is clear that we don't have any disagreement and actually think very similar on the topic of PEDs. However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. I fault Mr. Bonds for a lot of that.

                          No matter how one feels about exactly to what level that PEDs have effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BoweryBoys
                            My apologies "Don'tWorry" I didn't mean to imply that you were implying anything nor did I infer that. It is just the stupid way I write.

                            It is clear that we don't have any disagreement and actually think very similar on the topic of PEDs. However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. I fault Mr. Bonds for a lot of that.

                            No matter how one feels about exactly to what level that PEDs have effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that)
                            " However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. "

                            Well, sheffield admitted to taking steroids, so everyone knows that he did. His production in 2005 obviously changed some minds about what the drug did for him, and the drug's enhancements.

                            " . I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. "

                            Well it's a bit too early to speculate how this whole thing will unfold. In the past year I've seen some big changes, so who knows what to expect a decade from now. By then anabolics could be sold legally because one may be created that gives desired results without posing a major health risk. Some like myself, Knows that all players from ALL generations have their pro's and their con's, so we see this as part of an " era ". Not everyone thinks like that, but some do.

                            " effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. "

                            I agree with your point there, though the legends who played in the 20's and 30's had the advantage of a segregated league, which many consider " inferior competition ". Today's legends are dominating the entire world. They also face better, more effective relief pitching, and stronger pitchers who also use ( and benefit) from PED'S. So let's not pretend that ruth and company had it that hard, they had their pro's and their con's, just like bonds and company.



                            " Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that "

                            I dont dismiss anybody's accomplishments because of anything, even shoeless joe who participated in by far the worst scandal in sports history.

                            I just know that each player in every era has their pro's and con's, this is the truth.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dontworry
                              " However, I just feel that, though many may have "changed minds" about Sheffield, there are probably just as many who simply feel that he probably used PEDs at some point regardless of how well he still played last year without them. "

                              Well, sheffield admitted to taking steroids, so everyone knows that he did. His production in 2005 obviously changed some minds about what the drug did for him, and the drug's enhancements.

                              " . I think fans of the modern game will just have to accept that many players of today they may greatly respect or admire will always have their accomplishments looked at through a microscope. "

                              Well it's a bit too early to speculate how this whole thing will unfold. In the past year I've seen some big changes, so who knows what to expect a decade from now. By then anabolics could be sold legally because one may be created that gives desired results without posing a major health risk. Some like myself, Knows that all players from ALL generations have their pro's and their con's, so we see this as part of an " era ". Not everyone thinks like that, but some do.

                              " effected the modern game and the stats, Sultan makes some excellent points. At least fans of today should be open to the fact that modern players currently active have certain proper and legal advantages available to them that most players either didn't have or could not take advantage of say in the 20s or 30s. "

                              I agree with your point there, though the legends who played in the 20's and 30's had the advantage of a segregated league, which many consider " inferior competition ". Today's legends are dominating the entire world. They also face better, more effective relief pitching, and stronger pitchers who also use ( and benefit) from PED'S. So let's not pretend that ruth and company had it that hard, they had their pro's and their con's, just like bonds and company.



                              " Add that to all the possible drug use from the 60s and on and maybe some fans should not be so quick to elevate modern MLB accomplishments and so readily dismiss accomplishments of past greats as being maybe not so great. (NOT saying that you or anyone else here does that "

                              I dont dismiss anybody's accomplishments because of anything, even shoeless joe who participated in by far the worst scandal in sports history.

                              I just know that each player in every era has their pro's and con's, this is the truth.
                              When you bring up the 20's and 30's, remember that even though it was segregated, everyone was facing the same competition and circumstances.

                              Today everyone benefits from the offensive environment and the dozens and dozens of other factors that make their world easier. The difference though, is that today some player choose to alter their chemical makeup in order to gain an edge over their peers.

                              I agree with your premise, but keep in mind the difference and why it creates such an uneven playing field within the era, and compared to all other eras.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X