The REAL HR KINGS?

[carrsallstars]

Steroids have been around since the beginning of man.

I don't think anyone's debating when steroids were produced...I am just saying that I think if someone gets caught, their records should be disqualified.
Ben Johnson, for one, rescinded his 100m olympic record after getting caught doing drugs...and I believe there are many others.

I also am sure there were records beat by those who cheated that didn't get caught...but it is still my opinion that if you get caught, the record should be rescinded.

I have to think that this makes no sense. PLayer A cheats. Player B cheats. Player C cheats. PLayer A hits a home run off of player B who pitches the ball called for by the catcher, player C. However, only player A cheating matters because he hit more HR's over a certain time period than player D who we don't think was a likely cheater. And we can only penalize the unlucky cheaters who broke records and got more of the spotlight and scrutiny or were unlucky enough to use one of the two distributors that got "caught" and talked to by the Mitchell crew. You think Radomski and McNamee were the only two distributors for all of MLB?

If there was an actual, good drug testing policy in place during this entire mess then I would agree with you. But the reality is this whole thing touched the entire game and we have no way to know who was cheating, what they were using, and who wasn't cheating. And the drug testing still isn't even "good" as there is not testing for HGH. At the least it has been used in baseball since 2000 when Jim Leyritz admitting using it then- so a player could have been using it for the past 9 years straight and never flunked an MLB test.

Also, comparing olympic drug testing and penalties to MLB drug testing and penalties is like comparing security at the white house with security at your local elementary school. Only Manny was dumb enough to get caught ! (Not even he was caught taking steroids, he was busted for a legal prescription from a real Dr. which is on MLB's banned list. Which implies that he was taking that prescription to recover from a steroid cycle)

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Easily the best post in the entire thread.

I thought about having some drawn out post about how people have been cheating since the beginning of the game ("If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin' "), but, well, you've said it better than I could.

Anyways, like I mentioned earlier, the REAL home run kings are in the record books....and neither of their names are Aaron or Maris.

Thanks...I think you're the only person who read it.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Given the responses here, the poll attached to this thread should read: "Do you think all PEDs should be allowed in baseball?".

Clearly many people here think they should be allowed, which is unfortunate. Might as well watch wrestling if I wanted to see guys pumped up on PEDs.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Given the responses here, the poll attached to this thread should read: "Do you think all PEDs should be allowed in baseball?".

Clearly many people here think they should be allowed, which is unfortunate. Might as well watch wrestling if I wanted to see guys pumped up on PEDs.

I consider the home run record holder to be Barry Bonds on both accounts.

Of course, I acknowledge different eras in baseball...IE: current single-season strikeout holder to be Nolan Ryan with 383, not Matt Kilroy's 513 in 1886.

Baseball changes and evolves as technology evolves. Did the record books change when the pitching mound was dropped? It greatly affected both sides of the plate. No. Steroids had an unknown, effect on baseball and we'll never know for sure who used, when they used and when they started.

Someone brought up the statistical anomaly that was Roger Maris and his three "power" years, especially the 1961 season. Does everyone truly realize how these years would be interpreted in this era? Brady Anderson anyone? Luis Gonzalez?

I think we can hope (looking forward) that baseball keeps up on the steroid/PED testing policies and truly tries to keep the game clean but it takes everyone. But, that doesn't mean that we can project current beliefs on the past on a selective basis...as we are doing with home runs.

 

[Anthony K.]

Easily the best post in the entire thread.

I thought about having some drawn out post about how people have been cheating since the beginning of the game ("If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin' "), but, well, you've said it better than I could.

Anyways, like I mentioned earlier, the REAL home run kings are in the record books....and neither of their names are Aaron or Maris.

Thanks...I think you're the only person who read it.

I think so as well.

It seems the most thought out posts generally get scanned over for the shorter, more far sighted posts.

I guess the length of the post scared people away?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Nobody will never be able to create rules and laws dealing with specific FUTURE technology - because we don't know what that specific technology will be and because that's not how laws and rules work. However, we can create rules and laws that make certain kinds of unfair advantages unethical, illegal and wrong.

Technology and alterations to the game (lowering the mound, etc) aren't the problem, the problem is with ethics and lack of professionalism. Players who took PEDs were professional and savvy enough to know what they were doing was wrong, and need to be penalized for it.

I consider the home run record holder to be Barry Bonds on both accounts.

Of course, I acknowledge different eras in baseball...IE: current single-season strikeout holder to be Nolan Ryan with 383, not Matt Kilroy's 513 in 1886.

Baseball changes and evolves as technology evolves. Did the record books change when the pitching mound was dropped? It greatly affected both sides of the plate. No. Steroids had an unknown, effect on baseball and we'll never know for sure who used, when they used and when they started.

Someone brought up the statistical anomaly that was Roger Maris and his three "power" years, especially the 1961 season. Does everyone truly realize how these years would be interpreted in this era? Brady Anderson anyone? Luis Gonzalez?

I think we can hope (looking forward) that baseball keeps up on the steroid/PED testing policies and truly tries to keep the game clean but it takes everyone. But, that doesn't mean that we can project current beliefs on the past on a selective basis...as we are doing with home runs.

 

[ChasHawk]

Given the responses here, the poll attached to this thread should read: "Do you think all PEDs should be allowed in baseball?".

Clearly many people here think they should be allowed, which is unfortunate. Might as well watch wrestling if I wanted to see guys pumped up on PEDs.

I consider the home run record holder to be Barry Bonds on both accounts.

Of course, I acknowledge different eras in baseball...IE: current single-season strikeout holder to be Nolan Ryan with 383, not Matt Kilroy's 513 in 1886.

Baseball changes and evolves as technology evolves. Did the record books change when the pitching mound was dropped? It greatly affected both sides of the plate. No. Steroids had an unknown, effect on baseball and we'll never know for sure who used, when they used and when they started.

Someone brought up the statistical anomaly that was Roger Maris and his three "power" years, especially the 1961 season. Does everyone truly realize how these years would be interpreted in this era? Brady Anderson anyone? Luis Gonzalez?

I think we can hope (looking forward) that baseball keeps up on the steroid/PED testing policies and truly tries to keep the game clean but it takes everyone. But, that doesn't mean that we can project current beliefs on the past on a selective basis...as we are doing with home runs.

I'm sure hitting either in front of or behind Mickey Mantle didn't hurt.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Nobody will never be able to create rules and laws dealing with specific FUTURE technology - because we don't know what that specific technology will be and because that's not how laws and rules work. However, we can create rules and laws that make certain kinds of unfair advantages unethical, illegal and wrong.

Technology and alterations to the game (lowering the mound, etc) aren't the problem, the problem is with ethics and lack of professionalism. Players who took PEDs were professional and savvy enough to know what they were doing was wrong, and need to be penalized for it.

Who can possibly define "unfair advantages"?

If a pitcher and a batter are both taking PEDs, is there an unfair advantage?

If the majority of players are taking (or have taken) PEDs, is that an "unfair advantage"?

To me, PEDs were a level playing field since day two when they were introduced. If Tom House (former MLBer and pitching guru) admits to taking steroids in the 60s, along with his estimations of multiple players per team, was there not an "unfair advantage" that began in the 60s? I know that everyone wants to paint the "Bonds Era" as the "Steroids Era" but it began well before Bonds was in the league. Are there concrete facts to back this up? No, but basic logic dictates this to be true.

Also, to assume that "players who took PEDs were professional and savvy enough to know what they were doing was wrong" is completely oversimplifying the facts. GNCs across America were and are selling products available to you and I, yet they would trigger a positive test in many drug screens. Like most, I don't equate a protein shake at GNC to be the same as a needle in the tail so it could be very easy to rationalize the difference between the two types of positive tests, and easily not think that you are in the wrong.

In regards to your comment about not being able to create laws and punishments about "future technology", yet isn't that what we are trying to crucify Bonds for? If we can only create rules in place for the past and present, why is the Bonds Witch Hunt going after what he accomplished BEFORE the said rules were in place? And again, just because steroids were on MLB's books in 1991, it doesn't mean it was a punishable offense. And for anyone balking at this, why is it that MLB agreed to do anonymous testing so that players could not be punished?

What every player did in the time before steroids testing is whatever they did. We can change rules going forward, but we can never hold people accountable for accepted practices in the past. That's like driving 60 in a 55mph zone last year, the same stretch of road is now 45mph and getting a ticket in the mail for driving 15mph over the speed limit. Sure, going 5 over was "illegal" but it was without punishment.

 

[bballcardkid]

Given the responses here, the poll attached to this thread should read: "Do you think all PEDs should be allowed in baseball?".

Clearly many people here think they should be allowed, which is unfortunate. Might as well watch wrestling if I wanted to see guys pumped up on PEDs.

I enjoy watching football.

 

[hofautos]

Baseball changes and evolves as technology evolves.

The pitching mound being lowered affects all current players the same.
Steroid usage affects only those that used them...that is an "unfair advantage" and IMHO cheating.


Just out of curiosity, do you feel that

A) Bonds cheated
B) Bonds didn't cheat because everyone was doing it?

 

[hofautos]

^^^ I just read your last message, so I guess you believe that Bonds did not cheat. I guess that is the main differentiating factor between the two of us.

Cheat - to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

I believe usage of corked bats or steroids was cheating and you do not. I guess we just agree to disagree.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Baseball changes and evolves as technology evolves.

The pitching mound being lowered affects all current players the same.
Steroid usage affects only those that used them...that is an "unfair advantage" and IMHO cheating.


Just out of curiosity, do you feel that

A) Bonds cheated
B) Bonds didn't cheat because everyone was doing it?

My problem with this entire thing is that well will NEVER know who used and who didn't. Never. Selig seems to like to steer people into the belief that only a select few were using them, but that is crazy, especially when you see that the players who have been "outed" run the full gamut of bench players to super stars.

That said, I would go with:
C) Bonds hit 73 home runs

I do not believe that Barry Bonds (or McGwire, Clemens, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc) is a cheater because he did something with no stated consequences. Just as I would not classify myself as a law-breaker if I drove 5mph over the posted 65mph speed limit. Like it or not, steroids were indeed an accepted practice in baseball. any discussion otherwise is incorrect. If it was truly an unaccepted minority of players using, you'd think the powerful majority (silent when this was going on) would have stepped up to rid themselves of this mythical "unfair advantage."

So again, if the majority were using, was it really an unfair advantage?

People like to bring up the Olympics and removal of medals after someone is found out...baseball does not operate under those accepted practices. By definition, the Olympics are symbols of sportsmanship...professional athletics have never been that (well, perhaps short of golf).

Players caught today, with a well posted and executed list of punishments are indeed to be considered "cheaters" under your definition, but we cannot project current rules and punishments on former actions.

Things like corked bats are completely different than steroid usage simply because of the sets of rules in place. Baseball defined punishments for corked bats 30 years ago, and therefore any usage of an altered bat would indeed be considered "cheating" once it truly became outlawed.

Is Burleigh Grimes a cheater because of the spit ball? Or because baseball "grandfathered" an exemption for him he is not a cheater? He was indeed allowed an unfair advantage, allowing him to have a HOF career by throwing a pitch that had been outlawed league wise for 14 years.

Also, for those who simply want to revert the numbers back to the age that never existed...do you give Barry Bonds zero home runs for his career? Do you take off a percentage? If so what percentage?

A guy like Bonds evolved and got better every year since entering baseball, and yet no steroid usage is implied until 1999 at the earliest, with most assuming it began 2000/01.

We can't make Bonds not exist, nor should we. Just like we can't make Clemens, Palmeiro, McGwire, et al not exist.

 

[ffgameman]

I just don't understand what you guys are talking about:? (edit- posts that talk about asterisks and which HR record is the real one)

Why is 61 the home run record? Babe Ruth hit 60 HR's in a season but his season was shorter than Maris' at 154.

How many HR's did Maris or Aaron hit off of roided up starting pitchers, relief pitchers, or hit to 2B or center fielders that caught balls for outs, etc.?

It annoys me when people talk like the only difference between bonds and Maris was that Bonds took some pills, shots, or creams. Ballpark sizes have changed, huge strikeout totals for hitters are now acceptable, bullpens are tailored to specialty situations (how many relievers were brought in specifically to face Maris for his final two at bats in the game like Bonds had to face?), parks were built at high altitude, more teams were added, players took amphetamines, MLB still has no testing in place for HGH, salaries are orders of magnitude different (how many MLB players have off season jobs to make ends meet nowadays?), players from all over the world and of different nationalities are now in the major leagues, and the pitcher's throwing to Maris and Bonds didn't even pitch from a mound that was the same height! Further, let's take out all of the pitchers that Bonds faced in his career that had Tommy John surgery and replace them with average pitchers to further even the playing field (so no Kerry Wood, Mariano Rivera, John Smoltz, AJ Burnett, Chris Carpenter, Josh Johnson, Billy Wagner, Eric Gagne (who would have had zero career saves) or scores of other throwers. Roger Maris had 42 intentional walks in his career (0 in 1961) and Barry Bonds had 688 (with 35 in his record year and 120 in 2004).

As far as I can tell, if you discount everything above their single season HR totals should be directly comparable. Give me a break.

I think taking steroids is cheating, I think they suck, and I wish MLB didn't have it's head in it A$$ when it came to testing for PED's and acknowledging them as part of the game. But the fact is steroids have been around since the 1950's, yes they were being used in the Olympics well in advance of Maris breaking the single season HR record (type in 1952 or 1954 and steroids and tell me if anything comes back). And anyone who thinks that athletes have not been trying to gain every advantage they possibly can is kidding themselves. It's as old as sport (nice sheep ******** reference above!- I was going to use that one!).

Add in the fact that there are NFL players playing right now in 2009 that have tested positive for steroid masking agents, he fact thta HGH is still not tested for, and the fact that testing for PED's in sports is by nature well behind the development and use of PEDs, blood doping, plasma injection, or whatever else is next and it is clear that the PED era is not, nor ever will be, over.

Wonderful argument, and thanked.

 

[ffgameman]

...
IMHO, When someone is caught cheating, their records should be disqualified.

I could go along with that. But whose records are you disqualifying and why?

Gaylord perry threw spitballs and doctored balls on the mound and he is in the hall of fame- so is he to be kicked out and his records expunged?

I am talking specifically about Bonds and McGwires HR records, because they cheated and I believe their records should be disqualified.
I am not aware of any records that Gaylord Perry or Yount have, but if they own any MLB records, and they got caught cheating in a way that helped them get those records, yes, in my opinion, those records should be disqualified as well.

So, by your logic only those who set records should be punished? That's not very fair.

 

[hofautos]

C) Bonds hit 73 home runs

So again, if the majority were using, was it really an unfair advantage?

.

No debate how many HR he hit.

If they themselves believed that they weren't doing anything wrong, and they didn't believe they had an unfair advantage, why would they adamantly deny it?

They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[hofautos]

...
IMHO, When someone is caught cheating, their records should be disqualified.

I could go along with that. But whose records are you disqualifying and why?

Gaylord perry threw spitballs and doctored balls on the mound and he is in the hall of fame- so is he to be kicked out and his records expunged?

I am talking specifically about Bonds and McGwires HR records, because they cheated and I believe their records should be disqualified.
I am not aware of any records that Gaylord Perry or Yount have, but if they own any MLB records, and they got caught cheating in a way that helped them get those records, yes, in my opinion, those records should be disqualified as well.

So, by your logic only those who set records should be punished? That's not very fair.

I am just saying for the "purpose of this discussion", only those players matter.
I believe any player that is known to have used steroids should have an asterisk next to their stats, and that those stats should be considered tainted, and that any RECORDS that they hold should be considered unofficial.

 

[ChasHawk]

Mike,

I understand your arguement, but take a look at the numbers for a minute.

Barry Bonds
1986-1999
15.68 ABs/HR

2000-2007
9.06 ABs/HR (with most of the league pitching around him)

So not only does a player who's career should be on the down slope because of age, but who
has already been in the league 14 years and shown what he could and couldn't do, improves that
drastically. Not saying you are wrong, but it certainly is worth questioning. Especially when combined
with his "sealed" testimony in which he admitted to taking "something".

 

[ffgameman]

Mike,

I understand your arguement, but take a look at the numbers for a minute.

Barry Bonds
1986-1999
15.68 ABs/HR

2000-2007
9.06 ABs/HR (with most of the league pitching around him)

So not only does a player who's career should be on the down slope because of age, but who
has already been in the league 14 years and shown what he could and couldn't do, improves that
drastically. Not saying you are wrong, but it certainly is worth questioning. Especially when combined
with his "sealed" testimony in which he admitted to taking "something".

I know it's normal for stats to decline with age, but you do occasionally have "ageless wonders". Look at Brett Favre this year.

Not saying he didn't roid up (we all know he did) but throwing that out there.

 

[ChasHawk]

Mike,

I understand your arguement, but take a look at the numbers for a minute.

Barry Bonds
1986-1999
15.68 ABs/HR

2000-2007
9.06 ABs/HR (with most of the league pitching around him)

So not only does a player who's career should be on the down slope because of age, but who
has already been in the league 14 years and shown what he could and couldn't do, improves that
drastically. Not saying you are wrong, but it certainly is worth questioning. Especially when combined
with his "sealed" testimony in which he admitted to taking "something".

I know it's normal for stats to decline with age, but you do occasionally have "ageless wonders". Look at Brett Favre this year.

Not saying he didn't roid up (we all know he did) but throwing that out there.

Two words concerning Favre's performance this year. Adrian Peterson.

 

[hofautos]

Mike,

I understand your arguement, but take a look at the numbers for a minute.

Barry Bonds
1986-1999
15.68 ABs/HR

2000-2007
9.06 ABs/HR (with most of the league pitching around him)

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to suggest here?
I think most of America knows that steroid usage does increase one's performance and unnatural recovery from injury.

Bottom line, for me anyway, is that those that took steroids, did so because they knew the performance increase it gave them, and they did so knowing it wasn't right. If they thought it was legal, and that there wasn't anything wrong with doing them, they wouldn't deny it so adamantly.
They were cheating and they knew exactly what they were doing.