Give Bonds and McGwire some respect

[frehleyscomet]

I get tired of some people who bash great players like Mark Mcguire and Barry Bonds because of their supposed steroid use. Sure they used but how can we take away their place in history when so many were using at the time? And most importantly, how can we take away their acheivements when some of the other greats who played in different eras are also tarnished. For example, SHOULD WE PUT AN ASTERISK BESIDE BABE RUTHS NAME BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD TO FACE A BLACK OR HISPANIC PLAYER?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I get tired of some people who bash great players like Mark Mcguire and Barry Bonds because of their supposed steroid use. Sure they used but how can we take away their place in history when so many were using at the time? And most importantly, how can we take away their acheivements when some of the other greats who played in different eras are also tarnished. For example, SHOULD WE PUT AN ASTERISK BESIDE BABE RUTHS NAME BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD TO FACE A BLACK OR HISPANIC PLAYER?

Neither did anyone else who played in Ruth's time play against black or Hispanic players. In that time the whole of baseball played under the same conditions, same rule.
When you refer to any player who may have used a substance that was banned they are using a chemical that is believed to enhance performance while there are others who are following the rule and are not using.

Not going to get into a long drawn out debate as to whether or not the substance does enhance performance, we have beat that one to death more than a few times on this board. Besides thats not the question, it's some using and other not using all are not playing under the same condition or rule.

If you question the fact that Ruth may not have been as dominant with integration that could be debated but it's not the same as what you speak of a select number using a chemical that rule folowers are not.

Mac's case a bit different than Bonds, there was no rule in the game banning steroids at that time, if he did use steroids.

[Nutriaitch]

I get tired of some people who bash great players like Mark Mcguire and Barry Bonds because of their supposed steroid use. Sure they used but how can we take away their place in history when so many were using at the time? And most importantly, how can we take away their acheivements when some of the other greats who played in different eras are also tarnished.

1st off, Mcquire is the definition of a one dimensional player. Average at best on D, and if he didn't hit it out the park, chances are he was getting put out.
2nd, if they're so great, why did they need the juice to catch the LONG standing records of guy who didn't?

For example, SHOULD WE PUT AN ASTERISK BESIDE BABE RUTHS NAME BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD TO FACE A BLACK OR HISPANIC PLAYER?

Only recently has the league had a HUGE number of hispanic pitchers. Oh and we added some Asian pitchers in the last decade or so too. So everyone who played pre-early 90s numbers should have asterisks?
I don't think facing black and hispanic pitching would have made a huge difference in Babe's numbers. Someone would have to figure out the average ERA of starters in MLB today broken down by race (whit, hispanic, black, asian) and see how big a difference there is between them. My best guess is that it won't be very big.

[stejay]

I do not bash them. They will get into the HOF, and rightly, stats wise, they should do. I have no problem with this therefore. The only thing that upsets me about Bonds is that he always lies about it. Do what Pettitte did, and embrace the fact that you have taken roids, and people may have more respect for him.

[digglahhh]

Wow, what a novel, and well-reasoned argument, I've never heard that one before...

I think Bonds gets plenty of respect, despite a few ardent detractors, I assume he'll place in the top 10 (maybe pushed to 12th) in the greatest players of all time poll. He's in my top ten, for what it's worth. Even somebody liike Sultan, who is rather upfront about his negative opinions about Bonds only really makes those statements as they relate to Bonds being a top 5 player or so. I think he would admit that a natural Bonds would warrant placement in say, the top 20 or so.

Mac gets less support. One, because he wasn't as good as Bonds, so he's not going to get equal respect no matter what. Two, people are myopically focused and BA and constantly compare him to Kingman, when he's much more like somebody like Killebrew. He'd be misinterpreted if he was clean too. There are people who question his HOF candidacy, even taking the numbers at face value - as ludicrous as that sounds.

[KCGHOST]

Respect is something that is earned not given. Bonds and McGwire elected to forfeit the respect they deserved by their conduct.

[Dodgerfan1]

Only recently has the league had a HUGE number of hispanic pitchers. Oh and we added some Asian pitchers in the last decade or so too. So everyone who played pre-early 90s numbers should have asterisks?
I don't think facing black and hispanic pitching would have made a huge difference in Babe's numbers. Someone would have to figure out the average ERA of starters in MLB today broken down by race (whit, hispanic, black, asian) and see how big a difference there is between them. My best guess is that it won't be very big.

Nutriaitch, you said what I was thinking, and said it much better than I could. Had integration been in effect when Ruth played, it would not have made much of a difference, IMO. There is nothing I can see that shows us that the best black or Hispanic pitchers are significantly more dominating than the best white pitchers. There are more dominant Hispanic pitchers today for the simple reason that there are more Hispanic players in total. Do the math there. I sincerely doubt that would have made any great difference in Ruth's batting totals. Obviously, I could be wrong, but logically, the integration argument vis-a-vis Ruth's career, doesn't seem to be very relevant.

[ipitch]

Give Bonds and Mcguire some respect

You give McGwire some respect...spell his darn name correctly! :cap:

[stejay]

The man who will never ever get his respect back is Clemens after his comments in the media.

[Captain Cold Nose]

You give McGwire some respect...spell his darn name correctly! :cap:

You need to respect me by not stealing my post.

[brett]

Wow, what a novel, and well-reasoned argument, I've never heard that one before...

I think Bonds gets plenty of respect, despite a few ardent detractors, I assume he'll place in the top 10 (maybe pushed to 12th) in the greatest players of all time poll. He's in my top ten, for what it's worth. Even somebody liike Sultan, who is rather upfront about his negative opinions about Bonds only really makes those statements as they relate to Bonds being a top 5 player or so. I think he would admit that a natural Bonds would warrant placement in say, the top 20 or so.

Mac gets less support. One, because he wasn't as good as Bonds, so he's not going to get equal respect no matter what. Two, people are myopically focused and BA and constantly compare him to Kingman, when he's much more like somebody like Killebrew. He'd be misinterpreted if he was clean too. There are people who question his HOF candidacy, even taking the numbers at face value - as ludicrous as that sounds.

Three, McGwire was probably not quite on course for the hall of fame, and had a series of injuries prior to the "changes".

[OleMissCub]

You need to respect me by not stealing my post.

x 3

I was just about to post that.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Three, McGwire was probably not quite on course for the hall of fame, and had a series of injuries prior to the "changes".

Mac did have some injuries but there was a number of seasons before he exploded in the mid 1990s and before that he was not close to the home run hitter he was in the second half of the 1990s.

---------Ab ------home runs
1987-- -557--------49 good year but that was the year MLB HIT 4458- Still he did have a great year.
1988----550--------32
1989----490--------33
1990----523--------39
1991----483--------22
1992----467--------42 a good year.

Come on, this guy exploded in the late 1990s hitting a home run about every 8+ at bats.

There were some years where he had a significant number of at bats early and he was no where near the home run hitter he was in the mid/late 1990s, not even close. It wasn't all injuries in those early years.

[brett]

Mac did have some injuries but there was a number of seasons before he exploded in the mid 1990s and before that he was not close to the home run hitter he was in the second half of the 1990s.

---------Ab ------home runs
1987-- -557--------49 good year but that was the year MLB HIT 4458- Still he did have a great year.
1988----550--------32
1989----490--------33
1990----523--------39
1991----483--------22
1992----467--------42 a good year.

Come on, this guy exploded in the late 1990s hitting a home run about every 8+ at bats.

There were some years where he had a significant number of at bats early and he was no where near the home run hitter he was in the mid/late 1990s, not even close. It wasn't all injuries in those early years.

I'm saying that even if you take his number through '92, he was probably not quite going to go into the hall of fame. He would have needed at least 10 more years on his pace for '87-'92 to get in.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'm saying that even if you take his number through '92, he was probably not quite going to go into the hall of fame. He would have needed at least 10 more years on his pace for '87-'92 to get in.

OK, looks like I missed your point in your earlier post.