The REAL HR KINGS?

[RL24]

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.

I can help you out a little here... according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: cheat
b : to violate rules dishonestly


Cheating is pretty cut and dry. There was a rule that said "You're not allowed to use steroids" and if you violated that rule, you cheated. I always see people's argument that everybody was doing it, and it reminds me of what my dad always asked me... "If everybody was jumping off a bridge would you jump just because they were all doing it?" Just because everybody was doing it doesn't make it not cheating.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

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 don't doubt for a second that Bonds took steroids. Not even a moment where I thought since 2001 that he wasn't on something. But, numbers can be manipulated in any way.

2000-2007 include some insane walk years which great skew the AB/HR numbers, including some unfathomable intentional walk numbers. For example, in 2004 Bonds had 617 plate appearances, yet amazingly only 373 at-bats due to 232 walks (including 120 intentional walks).

Also, we still can't overlook that Bonds skills were indeed evolving consistently throughout his career. It's unfortunate that so many people clouded over Bonds early in his career while concentrating on Griffey. Griffey basically entered the league in full stride (a la Pujols), but Bonds improved every single season since his first.

No doubt that his increased strength (and head size) helped him get more balls over the fence, but his plate discipline was always increasing as was his intelligence regarding match-ups. Players reported Bonds sitting in the dugout calling pitches when he wasn't even on deck. Basically showing off.

A guy like Babe Ruth didn't start declining until he reached 38, so clearly bucking the trend is possible.

Finally, if you look at Barry Bonds career stats, there is really only one stat that just jumps out as an anomaly and that is the 73 HR in 2001. Outside of that, everything really seems in line with his career.

Bonds used steroids or some any other number of PEDs, but he is still, without a doubt, the greatest hitter I have ever seen. (Note: I will change that to Pujols in a few years at his rate.)

 

[hofautos]

I don't discount that bonds was good...and he may have well been able to break some records without use of steroids. Unfortunately no one will ever know because his stats ARE tainted. No one will ever know what he was capable of without steroids. It's possible his career could have been cut very short without them.

The only thing we can say with certainty, is that he took steroids and that steroids improved his performance and his ability to heal quicker.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Accountability is at the core of this argument. In order to take this view, one just wouldn't be big into accountability, personal or otherwise.

Baseball players are highly professional and get paid as such, and don't need to be told whether what they're doing is wrong or unethical. If there's a question about their actions, then what they're doing is most likely wrong and the players know it and so would we.

Do you think it fair for Cyberdyne Systems to create replacement cyborg arms that would enable pitchers to throw 150 mph? Seems pretty obvious to me.

What constitutes an unfair advantage isn't particularly complicated.

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"?

...

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Accountability is at the core of this argument. In order to take this view, one just wouldn't be big into accountability, personal or otherwise.

Baseball players are highly professional and get paid as such, and don't need to be told whether what they're doing is wrong or unethical. If there's a question about their actions, then what they're doing is most likely wrong and the players know it and so would we.

Do you think it fair for Cyberdyne Systems to create replacement cyborg arms that would enable pitchers to throw 150 mph? Seems pretty obvious to me.

What constitutes an unfair advantage isn't particularly complicated.

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"?

...

Are you speaking of Tommy John surgery? Surely that isn't a natural process at all...harvesting of tendons, drilling into bone, reworking the locations of ligaments in throwing arms. Yet over 10% of current MLB pitchers have had this procedure done.

That said, if MLB allowed cyborg arms and only one pitcher had one...that wouldn't be an unfair advantage. If the majority of players had cyborg arms, that would not be an unfair advantage.

Again, the phrase "unfair" relates directly to the percentage of players using, along with accepted rules and punishments.

During the 90s, there was absolute silence from ALL PARTS OF BASEBALL about steroids. Sure, there was a do-nothing rule on the books but no one dare enforce it because of the revenue and surge in the game's popularity. So if everyone benefited from doing nothing about a silly rule, how can it be cheating?

Where was Hank Aaron clamoring about usage? Bud Selig? Congress?

Silence.

Until of course when cherished records were being broken, talk about convenient. It's a joke. You're either up in arms about cleaning up the game, or your accepting it as commonplace. And that's what everyone did.

Accepted practices simply cannot be considered "unfair." So you're right, "unfair" isn't complicated.

 

[carrsallstars]

I like this thread.

200lbhockeyplayer- I like your posts and you saved me many lines of typing as I agree with a lot of what you have said.

I think I differ in that, as I stated, I think taking steroids (PEDs, whatever) is cheating. It doesn't matter how many people are doing it.

This entire thing gets so complicated because the owners were exploiting the players for money.

In my opinion the end result is that the steroid era is unfair to those that did not use PEDs. COuld they have broken records? Could they have performed better and earned more money? WOudl some have made the major leagues even but did not because a roider took their roster spot? Tough things to deal with.

However, it is also unfair to those that did use PEDs. Owners to players: "Now you guys better not take substances that will harm your body, have unknown long term side effects, make you rich, make you famous, and all that stuff. It's against the rules, you know. But we won't test you for it, OK?- so go hit some HR's and put fannies in the seats and we won't ask about it" You can't be a mining company and put huge bonuses out there for whoever goes the farthest out in the mine and then say you are blameless when people start dying.

You take a player like Ricky Bones or Glenallen Hill and he might have a choice of being out of baseball or taking some pills or shots to earn another year or two of paychecks for his family when the only skill you have is playing baseball. That's an easy decision. Once you get a certain amount of players doing it it becomes much easier to rationalize on an individual level- if he is doing it then why shouldn't I?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I wasn't alluding to TJ surgery, but if TJ were that much of an advantage all pitchers would have it done. Clearly TJ isn't unnatural enough to be against the rules set by the MLB, and it doesn't cause the bodily harm PEDs can.

I hear you, but just because some people do something illegal and get away with it doesn't make what they did ethical or fair...unless the rules and accountability to them are unimportant. I hope this isn't what you're saying!

There are always consequences to breaking the rules - and getting caught - of any meaningful authority or institution, sometimes those consequences and the enforcement of the rules don't happen right away.

Are you speaking of Tommy John surgery? Surely that isn't a natural process at all...harvesting of tendons, drilling into bone, reworking the locations of ligaments in throwing arms. Yet over 10% of current MLB pitchers have had this procedure done.

That said, if MLB allowed cyborg arms and only one pitcher had one...that wouldn't be an unfair advantage. If the majority of players had cyborg arms, that would not be an unfair advantage.

Again, the phrase "unfair" relates directly to the percentage of players using, along with accepted rules and punishments.

During the 90s, there was absolute silence from ALL PARTS OF BASEBALL about steroids. Sure, there was a do-nothing rule on the books but no one dare enforce it because of the revenue and surge in the game's popularity. So if everyone benefited from doing nothing about a silly rule, how can it be cheating?

Where was Hank Aaron clamoring about usage? Bud Selig? Congress?

Silence.

Until of course when cherished records were being broken, talk about convenient. It's a joke. You're either up in arms about cleaning up the game, or your accepting it as commonplace. And that's what everyone did.

Accepted practices simply cannot be considered "unfair." So you're right, "unfair" isn't complicated.

 

[hofautos]

I like this thread.

200lbhockeyplayer- I like your posts and you saved me many lines of typing as I agree with a lot of what you have said.

I think I differ in that, as I stated, I think taking steroids (PEDs, whatever) is cheating. It doesn't matter how many people are doing it.

This entire thing gets so complicated because the owners were exploiting the players for money.

In my opinion the end result is that the steroid era is unfair to those that did not use PEDs. COuld they have broken records? Could they have performed better and earned more money? WOudl some have made the major leagues even but did not because a roider took their roster spot? Tough things to deal with.

However, it is also unfair to those that did use PEDs. Owners to players: "Now you guys better not take substances that will harm your body, have unknown long term side effects, make you rich, make you famous, and all that stuff. It's against the rules, you know. But we won't test you for it, OK?- so go hit some HR's and put fannies in the seats and we won't ask about it" You can't be a mining company and put huge bonuses out there for whoever goes the farthest out in the mine and then say you are blameless when people start dying.

I agree with everything above. I even stated that I believe those that admit should be forgiven, and that I dont' consider myself above it.
I just think that the asterisk should stay, and that the "official" HR records should belong to Aaron and Maris.

PS- I still like Manny too!


--------------
I personallly respect, accept an apology, and forgive anyone who admits steroid usage. I understand why they were not forthcoming given their situations. I understand the pressure and even understand the action of using the steroids in the first place, and I am not above any of it. I just believe the previous records should be restored (and in my mind, they are restored, regardless of MLB or anyone else's opinion).

 

[RL24]

That said, if MLB allowed cyborg arms and only one pitcher had one...that wouldn't be an unfair advantage. If the majority of players had cyborg arms, that would not be an unfair advantage.

Again, the phrase "unfair" relates directly to the percentage of players using, along with accepted rules and punishments.

Wait what? I usually follow ya, but you lost me on that one. According to your theory, if there are 10 teams competing in the Harvard-Yale Regatta, and only one team has a motor on their boat... that's not an unfair advantage because only 10% of the boats have motors and rest are using oars?

The one pitcher with a cyborg arm would have an unfair advantage over everybody else, even if he is only one pitcher. Hell, even if Sidd Finch was real he would have an unfair advantage, although god gave him the advantage over the regular old barely throw 100 MPH pitchers.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

That said, if MLB allowed cyborg arms and only one pitcher had one...that wouldn't be an unfair advantage. If the majority of players had cyborg arms, that would not be an unfair advantage.

Again, the phrase "unfair" relates directly to the percentage of players using, along with accepted rules and punishments.

Wait what? I usually follow ya, but you lost me on that one. According to your theory, if there are 10 teams competing in the Harvard-Yale Regatta, and only one team has a motor on their boat... that's not an unfair advantage because only 10% of the boats have motors and rest are using oars?

The one pitcher with a cyborg arm would have an unfair advantage over everybody else, even if he is only one pitcher. Hell, even if Sidd Finch was real he would have an unfair advantage, although god gave him the advantage over the regular old barely throw 100 MPH pitchers.

My point is that if the MLB were to allow for cyborg arms, even if only one pitcher had a cyborg arm...it simply couldn't be considered an unfair advantage. Would it be an advantage? Certainly, just not "unfair" as any team or pitcher could get a mythical cyborg arm.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

You're saying that cyborg arms wouldn't produce an unfair advantage because the rules didn't explicitly state cyborg arms are against the rules. In other words, anything goes - nothing is illegal or unfair until the rulebook says it is illegal or unfair.

My point is that if the MLB were to allow for cyborg arms, even if only one pitcher had a cyborg arm...it simply couldn't be considered an unfair advantage. Would it be an advantage? Certainly, just not "unfair" as any team or pitcher could get a mythical cyborg arm.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

You're saying that cyborg arms wouldn't produce an unfair advantage because the rules didn't explicitly state cyborg arms are against the rules. In other words, anything goes - nothing is illegal or unfair until the rulebook says it is illegal or unfair.

My point is that if the MLB were to allow for cyborg arms, even if only one pitcher had a cyborg arm...it simply couldn't be considered an unfair advantage. Would it be an advantage? Certainly, just not "unfair" as any team or pitcher could get a mythical cyborg arm.

No, not at all.

If an American League team didn't bat a DH, and batted their pitcher...would the opposing team have an "unfair" advantage? No. It would probably be an advantage, but clearly not "unfair."

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

OK, I think you're saying then that everyone should be allowed to have cyborg arms, and that any advantage is fair. Are you then saying that there should be no rules concerning what is considered fair or unfair? I'm not sure.

You're saying that cyborg arms wouldn't produce an unfair advantage because the rules didn't explicitly state cyborg arms are against the rules. In other words, anything goes - nothing is illegal or unfair until the rulebook says it is illegal or unfair.

My point is that if the MLB were to allow for cyborg arms, even if only one pitcher had a cyborg arm...it simply couldn't be considered an unfair advantage. Would it be an advantage? Certainly, just not "unfair" as any team or pitcher could get a mythical cyborg arm.

No, not at all.

If an American League team didn't bat a DH, and batted their pitcher...would the opposing team have an "unfair" advantage? No. It would probably be an advantage, but clearly not "unfair."

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

OK, I think you're saying then that everyone should be allowed to have cyborg arms, and that any advantage is fair. Are you then saying that there should be no rules concerning what is considered fair or unfair? I'm not sure.

You're saying that cyborg arms wouldn't produce an unfair advantage because the rules didn't explicitly state cyborg arms are against the rules. In other words, anything goes - nothing is illegal or unfair until the rulebook says it is illegal or unfair.

My point is that if the MLB were to allow for cyborg arms, even if only one pitcher had a cyborg arm...it simply couldn't be considered an unfair advantage. Would it be an advantage? Certainly, just not "unfair" as any team or pitcher could get a mythical cyborg arm.

No, not at all.

If an American League team didn't bat a DH, and batted their pitcher...would the opposing team have an "unfair" advantage? No. It would probably be an advantage, but clearly not "unfair."

Not sure I get he disconnect here.

What I am saying, based upon your concept of cyborg arms, is that if MLB allowed cyborg arms and yet only one team had a pitcher with a cyborg arm...that single cyborg arm would not give that team (or player) an unfair advantage. It would probably be an advantage, but not one that could be construed in any way as "unfair."

Rules and execution of rules as to what is "fair" are completely valid, however we cannot have it both ways. Baseball knew for years that it had a steroid problem, even putting an insignificant rule on the books in 1991, yet they continually chose to do nothing about the problem. Well, until some of baseball's "cherished" records were about to be broken.

Baseball execs, the media, the fans, the GMs, and the players are not idiots and yet nobody made a peep about cleaning up the game until records were being broken. Every single team had players that used, and we'll never know how many used, nor when steroids first entered baseball. People have a fantasy belief that it began with Canseco and only became a problem in the mid to late 90s, but that is jaded in my opinion.

If each and every team had players using PEDs, was there ever an unfair advantage? I can't make that call, but I'll say this...crying for "fair" in professional athletics is kind of a stretch for me across the board.

Of course, if every home run Barry Bonds hit during the 73 season was hit off of pitcher also on steroids, would that negate any perceived "unfair" advantage? Perhaps Bonds was robbed of additional home runs by a center fielder who used and was able to snare a home run. Does that count?

Where does it end? Or should it just end with the guys who chased and caught a record.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Thanks, I think I see now. You're saying we should probably assume everyone cheated, including the baseball execs when they ignored the problem before their eyes. The widespread problem made a mess impossible to sort out and everyone's guilty.

I'd like to think that we, the fans, are the governing body for baseball execs, it does certainly seem reasonable to hold the execs and everyone accountable. It does seem reasonable to punish everyone, nobody or just specific players.

I tend to think it is up to the governing body to set a statute of limitations on rule infractions. Some rules are serious enough so that there is no statute of limitations associated with them. But there needs to be some kind of punishment so that the behavior exhibited does not resurface again...and punishment probably should extend to the execs in a manner consistent with how the players are punished. I think lack of punishment encourages a repeat performance.

OK, I think you're saying then that everyone should be allowed to have cyborg arms, and that any advantage is fair. Are you then saying that there should be no rules concerning what is considered fair or unfair? I'm not sure.

You're saying that cyborg arms wouldn't produce an unfair advantage because the rules didn't explicitly state cyborg arms are against the rules. In other words, anything goes - nothing is illegal or unfair until the rulebook says it is illegal or unfair.

My point is that if the MLB were to allow for cyborg arms, even if only one pitcher had a cyborg arm...it simply couldn't be considered an unfair advantage. Would it be an advantage? Certainly, just not "unfair" as any team or pitcher could get a mythical cyborg arm.

No, not at all.

If an American League team didn't bat a DH, and batted their pitcher...would the opposing team have an "unfair" advantage? No. It would probably be an advantage, but clearly not "unfair."

Not sure I get he disconnect here.

What I am saying, based upon your concept of cyborg arms, is that if MLB allowed cyborg arms and yet only one team had a pitcher with a cyborg arm...that single cyborg arm would not give that team (or player) an unfair advantage. It would probably be an advantage, but not one that could be construed in any way as "unfair."

Rules and execution of rules as to what is "fair" are completely valid, however we cannot have it both ways. Baseball knew for years that it had a steroid problem, even putting an insignificant rule on the books in 1991, yet they continually chose to do nothing about the problem. Well, until some of baseball's "cherished" records were about to be broken.

Baseball execs, the media, the fans, the GMs, and the players are not idiots and yet nobody made a peep about cleaning up the game until records were being broken. Every single team had players that used, and we'll never know how many used, nor when steroids first entered baseball. People have a fantasy belief that it began with Canseco and only became a problem in the mid to late 90s, but that is jaded in my opinion.

If each and every team had players using PEDs, was there ever an unfair advantage? I can't make that call, but I'll say this...crying for "fair" in professional athletics is kind of a stretch for me across the board.

Of course, if every home run Barry Bonds hit during the 73 season was hit off of pitcher also on steroids, would that negate any perceived "unfair" advantage? Perhaps Bonds was robbed of additional home runs by a center fielder who used and was able to snare a home run. Does that count?

Where does it end? Or should it just end with the guys who chased and caught a record.

 

[hofautos]

no matter how you slice it, people who used steroids had an unfair advantage over those that elected to play by the rules.