Selig to be in attendance when Bonds passes Aaron

Actually, MLB is now denying the decision:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19695092

 

Type blue if you like, but the timing is interesting.

 

'I do have a day job,' says commissioner about witnessing record homer

What a dicksnort.

 

Coulda' fooled me.

 

It demonstrates the general ignorance (expedience?) of the reporting on the issue. Steroids = strength = home runs = Barry Bonds is evil. The reporting has been focused on selling and sensationalism rather than getting at the truth. It's an insult to the intelligence of consumers, which is why there's a huge gap between the public and the media's perception of the issue. It's a better story from a simplistic point of view.

 

I don't know if you'll get everyone to admit it, but I think it does. Mostly because I think the benefit of steroids is much greater for a pitcher than a hitter anyway. Sure, pitchers don't have the day-to-day grind that a player--particularly an outfielder--has, but the wear and tear on their bodies just from the one day of work is much worse.

And the argument has been made that steroids may help hitters keep their swing speed up through the dog days of July and August, when the body is breaking down but doesn't have the adrenaline rush to help (as it does in Sept. and Oct.), but IMO, the benefit of helping a pitcher keep his legs fresher in those months and late into the season is still greater.

I can buy the idea that Barry Bonds is closer to this home run record BECAUSE of steroids. Still, it's entirely possible that Bonds gets close to 700--and maybe more--without them. Look at the stats:

Toss out this season since we haven't finished yet, and Bonds has played 21 seasons. With 751 home runs, he's averaged 35 home runs per year. Take away the "extra" home runs from the five year "steroid" period (2000-2005), and he loses 83 home runs. His total is now at 651. Since we're already assuming, let's give him the 30 home runs he missed out on 2005, when he was injured for most of the season, and he's at 681.

I think it's safe to also assume that Bonds wouldn't have been walked as much had he not been hitting 45 home runs as a 40 year old. In 21 seasons, Bonds averaged 462 at bats per year, meaning that he batted about 2310 times in a normal five season span. However, during the "steroid years," Bonds batted only 2122 times--188 less than a normal five year span. Given that he hit a home run for every 13 at bats, that's about 14 home runs that Bonds missed out on. That moves his career total to 695.

Now, tack on the 17 he's already hit this season, and he's got 712. Throw in 18 more to get to his average season, and he's at 730. Still only a decent season's reach from 755.

And even if you dismiss it all because he wouldn't have maintained those averages, he's still likely retiring ahead of Mays and probably over 700.

I know this theory can be dismissed by Bonds-haters since it's all circumstantial, but so is all the steroid talk. Would Bonds have lasted this long or kept up his averages without steroids (assuming he is guilty)? Who knows? Without the benefit of steroids (assuming he's guilty), would Bonds have stayed in SF and played in a park that's bad for hitters with a huge OF to play everyday, or would he have left for the AL and DH for the rest of his career? Would it be possible for Bonds to exceed his 35 home run average once or twice? Likely.

Bottom line: Barry Bonds is one of the top ten players to ever step on a baseball field--with or without steroids. Few have kept up his level of play with such consistency and such all around greatness. He will never be recognized because of his attitude and because he has become the nationwide scapegoat for the steroids saga that he was only a small part of.

You could almost make the argument that Bonds has benefited more from live balls, smaller ballparks, expansion-era pitching, smaller strike zones, maple bats and the idea that pitchers are scared to pitch inside now more than he ever could have from steroids. But it's a moot point, because the anti-Bonds crowd has already found him guilty.

Is he guilty? I don't know. Is he damn good? Yes. And he deserves to be recognized as so.

Selig is making the right call.

 

CollegeJournalist, a few holes in that argument at first glance.

You can't assume the 30 home runs he missed on in 2005. Injuries are part of the game. Or are you arguing that he only got hurt because he was using steroids? That doesn't really fit the rest of your argument, does it?

The other factors that have aided Bonds like smaller ballparks and expansion were in effect for every hitter of that time period. None of those things were an intentional act to gain an unfair advantage over his contemporaries. That is how they differ from any advantage he gained from using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Bonds is a great player and he was one before he started using illegal drugs to boost his performance. He was the best player in the game when he was a fast, skinny guy playing left field for the Pirates. He may still have ended up as one of the top five or 10 players in the history of the game without any enhancements.

But to sit here and argue that he would still be approaching Aaron's record without an unnatural boost in power during the latter part of his career is absolute nonsense.

And Selig's decision to be in attendance when Bonds passes Aaron, assuming the denials that came out later yesterday are bullshit, is not meant to legitimize what Bonds is doing. It is an historic moment for baseball even if it is tainted by controversy and the commissioner of baseball has to be there.

 

I'm not arguing that Bonds would have been approaching Aaron's record. I'm arguing that it is entirely possible that Bonds could have been past Mays, approaching 700 and/or Aaron's record even without steroids.

The whole thing about 2005 was an assumption--as was assuming Barry would still be playing. But that was the point. After all, since none of us really know the effects of steroids on a hitter, we're assuming that without steroids, Bonds wouldn't have been close. So I twisted it around a little.

And yes, injuries are part of the game. Yet everyone talks about Griffey and if he hadn't been injured. My post was all in theory--had Barry stayed healthy and on his career averages, he could have been over 700 already, even without those five seasons of asinine production late in his career.

Purely hypothetical. That's all. I'm not a huge Bonds fan; in fact, I hated the guy when I was a growing up a Braves fan and he was a Pirate. But I do think Bonds is a great player and I think that some journalists and media-types have taken this "hate on Barry" shit too far. Let the guy enjoy this, for God's sake. Just because he holds the record doesn't mean we have to bow to him as Home Run King.

It is, after all, only a fucking record.

 

No. Wilt Chamberlain's claim of 20,000 women is a fucking record.

The home-run mark is the biggest record in sports, bar none. To say the home run mark is "only a fucking record" is to not understand sports in America.

 

The second part of that is a bit much.

First of all, records mean little in any other sport other than baseball (and perhaps track).

Are there any hallowed football records? Any hallowed basketball records? Golf records? Tennis records?

Other than maybe a rushing record and records for career Grand Slams, nothing sends chills up my spine.

Besides, in many sports categories didn't exist long ago. Blocked shots wasn't an official statistic until the early 70s, so you won't see Chamberlain or Russell among the blocked-shots leaders. So what does the record really mean?

Whether a home run is fair or foul used to be determined by where it landed. Now it's where it passes the foul pole. That took many home runs away from some of the game's greatest hitters (including Ruth).

When the rules of a sport change over time --- as happens in all sports at one point or another --- it makes records an interesting sidelight . . . but nothing to blow a gasket over.

 

It's not a big deal. When its over and done and everybody is all retired. Nobody will remember Selig - except as the ugly doofus that let baseball get away with drugs......and Barry Bonds will be the ALMIGHTY KING of baseball.

Yeah that's right even larger than embittered Hank Aaron and fat sloppy Babe Ruth.

 

Until ARod surpasses Bonds' home run record.