Single season HR record

[Therion]

Are the couple of people on this thread who so boldly proposed that we don't know if Ruth or Maris took steroids on something themselves - like crack? Anabolic steroids were not even synthesized until the 1930's, not approved by the FDA until the late '50's, and not widely disseminated - even by physicians - for nearly a decade later.
Amphetamines were in use in this country by the late '30's (even by the military), but still not widely distributed until somewhat later. So, certainly Ruth would not have access, and I find it unlikely that Maris would have either.

Are you being purposely naive?

PEDs have been around for a LOOOONG time. Not specifically steroids but that doesn't mean players weren't cheating. The big four before steroids were strychnine, caffeine (pure, not the pansy doses you get in soda), cocaine, and heroin. The first allegations of using strychnine to enhance performance occurred in 1860 against swimmers from Amsterdam.

But by all means continue living in a fantasy world where old school players were all angels and only modern players ever considered cheating to get ahead.

Well, there were two posts specifically targeting steroids and amphetamines, so that's why those were addressed. The point on strychnine is valid and the 1860 case is certainly worth noting, though the other three drugs are typically not given a consensus view that they offer prolonged athletic enhancement when considered some of the immediate impacts and side-effects they offer (i.e. heart complications even in the immediate).

And, no the point is not that all old school players were saints. Certainly by the late '60's there was notable use of amphetamines in MLB, and it was a problem. So I'm not taking up that argument at all. The point was more that we need not conjure a revisionist history that performance-enhancing drug use was as widely spread during Ruth's time, and to a lesser extent, Maris', as it is today.

The argument was focused more to the point of the previous posts, but your points are certainly valid. And thank you for the naive comment - it's that type of erudition that always ensures to help a healthy dialogue.

I can't really tell if you're being sarcastic. Darn the internets and it's lack of emphasis. In the event that you were being sarcastic (as I suspect) I direct you to the bolded part of your own statements.

Glass houses, my friend

Well put, and I meant the "crack" remark as a play on the topic of drug use. But you are absolutely correct - there is no need for myself or anyone on this board to throw a jab that make be taken personally, even when in jest - and no sarcasm there at all, I mean that genuinely. Truce called, and my apologies :grouphug:.

No need to apologize man :lol: It takes a lot more than that to get under my skin.

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

Just remember that a lot of people have trouble verbalizing what they are trying to say so they resort to very poor examples like "How do you know Babe Ruth didn't use steroids?"

What they really mean is "How do you know Ruth didn't use some form of PED?"

I'm not exactly proud of Bonds or Sosa or McGuire but it's sometimes difficult to cast the same judgment on older players because there just wasn't testing going on for the most part.

To the poll, Bonds owns the record PEDs or not. We can wish it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

 

[bballcardkid]

I haven't read all replies, but...

Luis Gonzalez perhaps? That scrawny little guy that hit 65 dongs is the single season homerun leader.

edited to correct the mistake.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Bonds used steroids, we know that.

We also know his HR totals...and he owns the single season home run record and the all-time home run record.

There is no other valid option.

 

[thenumberonemetfan]

I haven't read all replies, but...

Luis Gonzalez perhaps? That scrawny little guy that hit 65 dongs is the single season homerun leader.

edited to correct the mistake.

Gonzo was juicing too.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Hank Greenberg

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

 

[Therion]

I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

I'm usually not too far from your opinions but this one is just ridiculous. There is no evidence because there was no testing. Nobody is saying everyone was using PEDs. Hell, not everyone is using them NOW.

And you're saying that anyone using steroids before Fay Vincent banned them in 1987 (I think, I'll have to look it up later) is fine? Even though they were already an illegal substance? Your point rings hollow this time.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

I'm usually not too far from your opinions but this one is just ridiculous. There is no evidence because there was no testing. Nobody is saying everyone was using PEDs. Hell, not everyone is using them NOW.

And you're saying that anyone using steroids before Fay Vincent banned them in 1987 (I think, I'll have to look it up later) is fine? Even though they were already an illegal substance? Your point rings hollow this time.

My point is, to say that any player was most likely on something without any shred of evidence is ridiculous. How doesn't that make sense? If someone wants to tell me that Hank Aaron took PEDs, show me the evidence. Simply making a statement does not construe it as truth. And as for judging players within the regulations of their time, I can't begin to understand how that doesn't make sense.

 

[Therion]

I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

I'm usually not too far from your opinions but this one is just ridiculous. There is no evidence because there was no testing. Nobody is saying everyone was using PEDs. Hell, not everyone is using them NOW.

And you're saying that anyone using steroids before Fay Vincent banned them in 1987 (I think, I'll have to look it up later) is fine? Even though they were already an illegal substance? Your point rings hollow this time.

My point is, to say that any player was most likely on something without any shred of evidence is ridiculous. How doesn't that make sense? If someone wants to tell me that Hank Aaron took PEDs, show me the evidence. Simply making a statement does not construe it as truth. And as for judging players within the regulations of their time, I can't begin to understand how that doesn't make sense.

You completely avoided my point so I'll be more clear. If it wasn't against baseball rules but was ILLEGAL, are you saying it's fine?

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

I'm usually not too far from your opinions but this one is just ridiculous. There is no evidence because there was no testing. Nobody is saying everyone was using PEDs. Hell, not everyone is using them NOW.

And you're saying that anyone using steroids before Fay Vincent banned them in 1987 (I think, I'll have to look it up later) is fine? Even though they were already an illegal substance? Your point rings hollow this time.

My point is, to say that any player was most likely on something without any shred of evidence is ridiculous. How doesn't that make sense? If someone wants to tell me that Hank Aaron took PEDs, show me the evidence. Simply making a statement does not construe it as truth. And as for judging players within the regulations of their time, I can't begin to understand how that doesn't make sense.

You completely avoided my point so I'll be more clear. If it wasn't against baseball rules but was ILLEGAL, are you saying it's fine?

I didn't avoid your point, I simply never said it was "fine" to take illegal substances. Obviously, if something is illegal, it is illegal... I'm not arguing that. If baseball allowed players to take PEDs and did nothing when they were caught, then they were within their rights AS A BALL PLAYER. I'm not saying it was right, but it certainly was allowed. So judging players of past eras based on the rules of 2009 is nonsense.

Edit - And also, if people want to make blanket statements like "All those old-time players were on something.", show us the proof... that's right, you can't. Thus making it an invalid point.

 

[scotty21690]

Quite frankly, I don't care....because homeruns are overrated.


I'll agree with TBP though....Greenberg.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Quite frankly, I don't care....because homeruns are overrated.


I'll agree with TBP though....Greenberg.

Homeruns can't be overrated. The point of an at-bat is to get a hit... and a homerun is the best possible hit you could ever get.

 

[scotty21690]

Quite frankly, I don't care....because homeruns are overrated.


I'll agree with TBP though....Greenberg.

Homeruns can't be overrated. The point of an at-bat is to get a hit... and a homerun is the best possible hit you could ever get.

I understand that but there is no love nowadays for the small hit! I love watching Ellsbury because he gets on base with his singles, gets a SB and has a great chance of scoring! He is very fun to watch. Don't get me wrong though I still like watching the longball, as long as it's not hit against my Red Sox. :mrgreen:

Gimme Ty Cobbs career .366 career BA over Bonds 762 homeruns any day of the week.

 

[Therion]

I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

I'm usually not too far from your opinions but this one is just ridiculous. There is no evidence because there was no testing. Nobody is saying everyone was using PEDs. Hell, not everyone is using them NOW.

And you're saying that anyone using steroids before Fay Vincent banned them in 1987 (I think, I'll have to look it up later) is fine? Even though they were already an illegal substance? Your point rings hollow this time.

My point is, to say that any player was most likely on something without any shred of evidence is ridiculous. How doesn't that make sense? If someone wants to tell me that Hank Aaron took PEDs, show me the evidence. Simply making a statement does not construe it as truth. And as for judging players within the regulations of their time, I can't begin to understand how that doesn't make sense.

You completely avoided my point so I'll be more clear. If it wasn't against baseball rules but was ILLEGAL, are you saying it's fine?

I didn't avoid your point, I simply never said it was "fine" to take illegal substances. Obviously, if something is illegal, it is illegal... I'm not arguing that. If baseball allowed players to take PEDs and did nothing when they were caught, then they were within their rights AS A BALL PLAYER. I'm not saying it was right, but it certainly was allowed. So judging players of past eras based on the rules of 2009 is nonsense.

Edit - And also, if people want to make blanket statements like "All those old-time players were on something.", show us the proof... that's right, you can't. Thus making it an invalid point.

I can't prove Ghengis Kahn slaughtered millions of people but I'm pretty sure it's true. And nobody stated that every old time baseball player was using PEDs. In fact, all I said is that it was naive to assume none of them were. Lack of concrete proof does not make something an invalid point.

And to say that one record accomplished use PEDs is fine as long as it occurred before *** date but not after *** date lacks logic if both usages were illegal.

 

[Austin]

Those of you who think Maris might have used steroids, have you seen pictures of the guy?
No bulky muscles; just a regular guy.
How can anyone compare Maris and Aaron and Mays to juiced up giants like McGwire, Bonds and Sosa?
There's no comparison.
McGwire, Bonds and Sosa were all skinny and morphed into monsters.
Maris, Mantle, Mays, Ruth, Aaron, all those guys, they looked the same throughout their careers.
If they used PEDs, it sure didn't change their body type.
And as for the poll, I still consider Maris the HR leader.

 

[abncollectsautos]

Those of you who think Maris might have used steroids, have you seen pictures of the guy?
No bulky muscles; just a regular guy.
How can anyone compare Maris and Aaron and Mays to juiced up giants like McGwire, Bonds and Sosa?
There's no comparison.
McGwire, Bonds and Sosa were all skinny and morphed into monsters.
Maris, Mantle, Mays, Ruth, Aaron, all those guys, they looked the same throughout their careers.
If they used PEDs, it sure didn't change their body type.
And as for the poll, I still consider Maris the HR leader.

as a current and long time steroid user, im here to tell you they dont always make your body huge. the stuff manny as caught taking isnt for adding mass, nor the stuff palmeiro was caught with. the "clear" which bonds admited using isnt for building mass either. i play baseball in a 25 and older league and im here to tell you just because i take stuff considered roids doesnt meani hit 45-80 home runs a year.

do i think maris, mantle, and ruth took anything illegal-yes. was it steroids-no.

did mcgwire, bonds, palmeiro, sosa, brady anderson, gonzalez, piazza, andruw jones, manny ramirez, and caminiti take PED's-i think yes. was it steroids-yes to some

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I heard of some crazy rule change in the old days regarding home runs and foul territory. It apparently used to be that if the ball landed in foul territory - even if it passed the foul pole in fair territory - the hit was ruled a foul and not a home run. I wonder if this has any bearing on the discussion.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":2ywbgnz5]I would like to point out the pointlessness of arguing whether old-time players were partaking in the use of PEDs. If they indeed were, show the EVIDENCE. Simply saying that they most likely were, is NOT a valid point. Second of all, PEDs were not banned by MLB then, so it's moot to even bring it up. Players should be judged within the rules and regulations in which they played in while they were in the league, not our opinions.

I'm usually not too far from your opinions but this one is just ridiculous. There is no evidence because there was no testing. Nobody is saying everyone was using PEDs. Hell, not everyone is using them NOW.

And you're saying that anyone using steroids before Fay Vincent banned them in 1987 (I think, I'll have to look it up later) is fine? Even though they were already an illegal substance? Your point rings hollow this time.

My point is, to say that any player was most likely on something without any shred of evidence is ridiculous. How doesn't that make sense? If someone wants to tell me that Hank Aaron took PEDs, show me the evidence. Simply making a statement does not construe it as truth. And as for judging players within the regulations of their time, I can't begin to understand how that doesn't make sense.

You completely avoided my point so I'll be more clear. If it wasn't against baseball rules but was ILLEGAL, are you saying it's fine?

I didn't avoid your point, I simply never said it was "fine" to take illegal substances. Obviously, if something is illegal, it is illegal... I'm not arguing that. If baseball allowed players to take PEDs and did nothing when they were caught, then they were within their rights AS A BALL PLAYER. I'm not saying it was right, but it certainly was allowed. So judging players of past eras based on the rules of 2009 is nonsense.

Edit - And also, if people want to make blanket statements like "All those old-time players were on something.", show us the proof... that's right, you can't. Thus making it an invalid point.

I can't prove Ghengis Kahn slaughtered millions of people but I'm pretty sure it's true. And nobody stated that every old time baseball player was using PEDs. In fact, all I said is that it was naive to assume none of them were. Lack of concrete proof does not make something an invalid point.

And to say that one record accomplished use PEDs is fine as long as it occurred before *** date but not after *** date lacks logic if both usages were illegal.[/quote:2ywbgnz5]

You can look in historic texts and testimony to know what Kahn did, it's fact. I don't see one single piece of evidence, besides hear-say, proving any Hall of Famer was on PEDs. Show me this evidence and I will absolutely admit that it is true that that certain player used PEDs.

I wasn't even referencing you when I was talking about people making blanket statements about old-timers all being on something. I see statements like that on here all the time and in this thread. It's a ludicrous thing to say when you can't back it up with any evidence whatsoever. If I told you that most of the baseball players of the past huffed gasoline, would I not have to back it up with facts and not simply "I've heard that."???

And yes, I believe it's on MLB and the players' representation for not doing something about PEDs a long time ago. The fact that they didn't is not the players' fault. I think what you are also failing to rationalize, is that it is a case by case basis. If a player has been caught using, he will have to deal with the consequences in a public manner. To label whole eras of players as users is illogical... and that is my ENTIRE point.

 

[abncollectsautos]

i would bet money mantle took a PED. maybe not steroids but something to keep him going through all the pain. even some prescrption pain killers can be considered PED's

 

[sportscardtheory]

i would bet money mantle took a PED. maybe not steroids but something to keep him going through all the pain. even some prescrption pain killers can be considered PED's

If you are of the opinion that painkillers are PEDs, then yes, almost every player is guilty. Are painkillers banned by MLB (I seriously don't know)?