MLB 2007

[Lammycat]

Pre-1992? It might've been 1993, actually.

[MattZ]

(do people really talk about Giambi juicin' that much anymore?).

 

Us Mets fans do when we run out of things to argue about with Yankee fans.

[bobbob1313]

I'm Tivo'ing the Dice-K game, so I may need to avoid this thread the rest of the afternoon so as not to taint (Heh, "taint") my experience after work.

 

B2: Some good points and I agree that the game is in no way perfect. The era will forever be known as the Steroid Era, indeed, and ownership and the Commissioner's office were major factors in allowing it to thrive for the sake of their wallets.

 

However, using steroids when it was declared against the rules still doesn't gibe with me. I'm from the camp that believes that just because a lot of folks are doing something wrong doesn't make doing it right. I'm not trying to sound pious or anything, either, but it does matter to me if players cheat to that caliber. I can't repect it. I can't shrug my shoulders and chalk it up to "the era" no matter how prevalent it was during the era.

 

Awarding Bonds the title of best hitter of an era when the era cited (and the player cited) was rift with abuses to the sport is redundant in my eyes. Bonds and his "accomplishments" become irrelevant, to a large degree, to me. His blatant denial in the face of evidence certainly doesn't help (do people really talk about Giambi juicin' that much anymore?).

 

It's too bad, too. He is a naturally great hitter. He may not have even needed the drugs to accomplish(or a t least get close) to what he has done while cheating.

 

He was undeniably the best hitter of the generation before the steroid use. Let's assume he started using steroids after the 1998 season, which is what most of the evidence points to. He obviously felt like the only way he could still remain competitive in the game was to follow the lead of numerous other players who had been doing it for longer and who were starting to pull ahead of him. So why not even the playing field for himself? If you are looking at being the highest paid player naturally, and then suddenly a bunch of guys are moving into the realm previously occupied only by you, and they are cheating to get to where you were naturally, don't you think you would do the same thing? From a purely financial point, at that time, the positives of it far outweighed any potential negative, and do you think, when you are talking about tens of millions of dollars any of these athletes cared about the "integrity" of a game that all but supported their steroid use?

 

I'm just sickened by how 2 faced everyone is on this issue. We loved Sammy and Mark in 1998, even though it was absolutely obvious they were juicing, and even when evidence of it was found for McGwire (in the form of Androstenedione, which was legal at the time, but still fishy), but now everyone's come to their senses and is all morally outraged by even the thought of players using steroids. We need to either take a hard lined stance against it or none at all.

 

Either ban every player who played beginning in 1985 and ending in 2005 or don't do anything about it, but don't use this revisionist history crap to make great players who towered over the game seem less impressive. Bonds dominated as much as Ruth or Aaron did, and he did it in a time when the playing field was such that it should have been harder to dominate.

[Spawn's dad]

ok, so who was the best hitter of the generation and how do you know he wasn't on steroids?

[MrRain422]

I really hate Bonds. Really. Hate the guy. But he's easily the best player of my lifetime hands down, steroids or no.

[bobbob1313]

ok, so who was the best hitter of the generation and how do you know he wasn't on steroids?

 

Barry Bonds, and it's not even close. You simply cannot argue this fact. Tony Gwynn would make a good case to be better than him, what with him not looking like a steroid use, and what with him being like nice and stuff, but no. He simply wasn't as good a hitter as Bonds even pre-Steroids (Bonds had won 2 MVP's before steroids were illegal, and according to Book Of Shadows, he didn't use them until 1999).

[cryptique]

It looks like my campaign to prevent the media from using the ridiculous nickname "Dice-K" has failed.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know it's based on the pronunciation of his name. It's still extremely stupid.

[Lammycat]

Two-faced? Revisionist history crap? Who's trying to revise history? Who's touting Sosa and McGwire (and btw, I disagree that it was obvious to everyone at the time(summer of 1998) that they were juiced).

 

A level playing field during the steroids era would be if every player were on the juice from 1994-2004. Not every player was juicing during those year, though, so don't claim it as a level playing field.

 

Blaming the fans as part of the problem is ridiculous, too.

How do I, as a fan, take a "hard-lined stance" against steroid abuses from almost a decade ago? Because ownership/the Commissioner's office turned a blind eye doesn't automatically equate to fans being as keenly aware of any problem, at the time.

 

No one's trying to be morally superior. Just fair.

 

Steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991. So if you go with the best hitter who cheated, you go with Bonds.

[tongue-tied lightning]

Griffey never took steroids, case closed

[bobbob1313]

Two-faced? Revisionist history crap? Who's trying to revise history? Who's touting Sosa and McGuire (and btw, I disagree that it was obvious to everyone at the time(summer of 1998) that they were juiced).

 

A level playing field during the steroids era would be if every player were on the juice from 1994-2004. Not every player was juicing during those year, though, so don't claim it as a level playing field.

 

Blaming the fans as part of the problem is ridiculous, too.

How do I, as a fan, take a "hard-lined stance" against steroid abuses from almost a decade ago? Because ownership/the Commissioner's office turned a blind eye doesn't automatically equate to fans being as keenly aware of any problem, at the time.

 

No one's trying to be morally superior. Just fair.

 

Steroids have been illegal in MLB since 1991. So if you go with the best hitter who cheated, you go with Bonds.

 

But who would you say is the best hitter of the generation, period? Take steroids out of the equation? Is it still Bonds? I'd bet it is.

 

There is simply no way anyone can be punished for their actions ten years ago. I say let Sammy, Mark, Barry, and even Albert Belle into the Hall of Fame.

 

But basically, what I mean by "hard lined" is either let anyone in who has the credentials or don't let anyone in, regardless of credentials. It's the only way to be fair to everyone. You can't pick and choose which players were media favorites and let them in, or which players didn't look like steroid users.

[caliber66]

[motion to split off the steriod discussion into a new thread, lest it take over this one]

[bobbob1313]

Griffey never took steroids, case closed

 

I find it really hard to believe that Griffey never took steroids. And he was never as good a player as Bonds.

[tongue-tied lightning]

Griffey never looked bloated, like Bonds did/does.

Look back at how Bonds was a skinny kid and then ballooned.

 

Injury kept Griffey from being the greatest.

during his prine he was better than the non-roided Bonds, imo.

[Lammycat]

In terms of HOF candidates, personally I'd say no one should be considered who has been factually proven to be using steroids while playing. That seems pretty fair to me, rather than excluding all players or including all players.

 

And I'm pretty much done with this, caliber, but would enjoy discussing the question Earl asked earlier, which is basically my same question earlier: If Bond's wasn't juicing would he still have been the best hitter of this era?

[tongue-tied lightning]

if Bonds never juiced he wouldn't have hit 70 some homers.

[tongue-tied lightning]

from 1993 through 99, Griffey was better

 

when do ya think Bonds started taking steroids ?

[bobbob1313]

In terms of HOF candidates, personally I'd say no one should be considered who has been factually proven to be using steroids while playing. That seems pretty fair to me, rather than excluding all players or including all players.

 

And I'm pretty much done with this, caliber, but would enjoy discussing the question Earl asked earlier, which is basically my same question earlier: If Bond's wasn't juicing would he still have been the best hitter of this era?

 

 

if Bonds never juiced he wouldn't have hit 70 some homers.

 

Ok, according to Book Of Shadows, Bonds started using roids during the 99 season. So we'll exclude everything after 98. Is he still the greatest, lets see:

 

He's at about 411 homers and 450 steals.

I think we can safely assume he could've played another 3 years at his 1998 level of production of 38 home runs and 120 rbi. He swiped 28 bags that year, but I'm going to say he probably would've only averaged about 15 during those three years. So we are looking at an addition of 120 (actual production during those three years: 156). I do think it is reasonable to expect him to stay around that same level of production for those three years, since he was showing no signs of tailing off prior to the steroid use.

 

Now, assuming he doesn't become the Babe Ruth-esque behemoth he did become, he's sitting pretty at about 530 home runs clean. I think it would be safe to assume he'd have lost some speed, but either way, he's be at about 500 steals, making him still one of the few 500-500 men (maybe one of two?), so he's a definite hall of famer, and he's a definite all time great. But let's factor in his insane ability to take a walk, which was still probably his biggest asset prior to slugging like .800 every year. He walked about 130 times on average in the 6 years leading up the his steroid use, and we can only assume it would have continued, so he'd still have that ridiculous OBP.

 

We can expect his slugging to have dropped a little more precipitously in the year following his hypothetical age 35-37 seasons, but I still think Barry would've been capable of at least 2 more years of 25-30 home run production at this time, so lets tack on another 50 home runs, though his speed would be all but gone by now, and there's a good chance he'd have moved to either first base or the aL to DH, but we're assuming he didn't.

 

So he's up to 580 home runs, a far cry from the 702 he was sitting at following this season, but still among the great totals of all time.

 

I think we can safely assume his career would be all but over by this point, with maybe him sticking around for an injury plagued season or two to get himself up to 600 home runs.

 

So we'd be looking at a guy who, completely clean, hit close to 600 home runs, stole close to 500 bases, had a career slugging percentage of roughly .570, and a career OBP of roughly .415.

 

You could argue I was a bit generous, but I think this is perfectly within the realm of possibiliy, and he would've still been in the conversation for greatest hitter of all time, and no doubt would have been the greatest hitter of our time. Toss in his 8 gold gloves, 3 MVP's (all prior to 1994) and there's no question he's still the dominant offensive force of his era.

[bobbob1313]

from 1993 through 99, Griffey was better

 

when do ya think Bonds started taking steroids ?

 

Griffey simply wasn't better during these times.

 

OPS+ (Basically, it shows how much better than league average the player was in OPS; 100 is average)

Griffey|Bonds

 

172 | 206

170 | 182

120 | 168

152 | 187

164 | 170

149 | 177

138 | 162

 

So Bonds was better than Griffey every single year. Griffey hit more home runs probably, but Bonds' ability to walk 130 times a year (and the fact that he hit for a higher average, had more doubles and triples helps).

[Spawn's dad]

Griffey never looked bloated, like Bonds did/does.

Look back at how Bonds was a skinny kid and then ballooned.

 

Injury kept Griffey from being the greatest.

during his prine he was better than the non-roided Bonds, imo.

 

 

diet bloats you. drugs don't. they don't work that way. plus there are a plethora of steroids that do vastly different things. Ben Johnson wasn't bloated and he was juiced to the gills. Ditto Floyd Landis.

[tongue-tied lightning]

 

 

 

this kinda bloated

[Spawn's dad]

It's fine if you want to post pictures. it's still an irrelevant argument as it's not based on anything rooted in reality.

[tongue-tied lightning]

what, it's not a fact Bonds took/takes steroids ?

[Spawn's dad]

 

this guy took testosterone. so based on your 'what they look like' standard clearly Griffey was always clean

[bobbob1313]

 

 

 

Griffey keeps his arms carefully guarded, but I must say he looks much bigger in a Reds uni than a Mariners uniform.

 

FWIW, I met him once before a game and he was huge. Like, huge and jacked.

[tongue-tied lightning]

I get yer points.

 

is your personal opinion that Bonds never took steroids ?