PDA

View Full Version : If the great Ryan Howard hits 62 home runs...


chaerulez
09-03-2006, 10:44 PM
...would you consider him the true home run king? I would. There isn't any reason other than "anyone could be doing it" to think he's juicing. I think the great majority of this board agrees that McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds are cheaters. I hope Howard gets 62+ so that more people recognize how good he is. He reminds me of a left handed Frank Thomas, except less pure hitting and more power. That's one of the reasons I don't think he could be on steroids, he's just a naturally big guy like Thomas. Usually people with those big bodies end up in the NFL, but I think Ryan chose the right sport...

Chips
09-03-2006, 11:17 PM
No, Howard will be the home run king when he hits 74 homers.

The Dude
09-03-2006, 11:18 PM
No, Howard will be the home run king when he hits 74 homers.

Exactly. Unless they wipe out that 73 from the record books...it stands as the record.

1951Campbell
09-03-2006, 11:21 PM
No, Howard will be the home run king when he hits 74 homers.

Yes.

However, I will be more impressed with Howard's accomplishment if he hits 62.

Chips
09-03-2006, 11:23 PM
Exactly. Unless they wipe out that 73 from the record books...it stands as the record.

I can't see them wiping out the record.

RKMeibalane
09-03-2006, 11:54 PM
No, Howard will be the home run king when he hits 74 homers.

And I'm convinced that he'll do it. After the rampage he's been on this season, there's no doubt in my mind, unless teams stop pitching to him altogether and walk him three hundred times each season.

BiggestFan14
09-04-2006, 12:31 AM
Why would I celebrate him being in fourth place for single season homeruns? Go for 74. :bandance:

The Dude
09-04-2006, 12:33 AM
And I'm convinced that he'll do it. After the rampage he's been on this season, there's no doubt in my mind, unless teams stop pitching to him altogether and walk him three hundred times each season.

He will begin to see less and less quality pitches if he keeps up his dominance and he may get a lot more walks as well so 300 isn't out of the picture.:redneck

buehrle4cy05
09-04-2006, 12:58 AM
If not for Howard's slow start in April he would likely be on track to hit 74 this year.:o:

If Howard hits 62 and there is no evidence of HGH/steroid use against him, I'll consider him the leader in that category.

ondafarm
09-04-2006, 01:08 AM
...would you consider him the true home run king? I would. There isn't any reason other than "anyone could be doing it" to think he's juicing. I think the great majority of this board agrees that McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds are cheaters. I hope Howard gets 62+ so that more people recognize how good he is. He reminds me of a left handed Frank Thomas, except less pure hitting and more power. That's one of the reasons I don't think he could be on steroids, he's just a naturally big guy like Thomas. Usually people with those big bodies end up in the NFL, but I think Ryan chose the right sport...

I would consider him the home run king.

IlliniSox4Life
09-04-2006, 01:22 AM
Regardless of who the "real king" is, I will respect him more.

ChiSoxRowand
09-04-2006, 02:44 AM
there's no doubt in my mind, unless teams stop pitching to him altogether and walk him three hundred times each season.

Which is what they will do

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 03:41 AM
asterisks are stupid. I'm not saying the Maris thing is similar at all to the Bonds or McGwire thing.

What I AM saying is that when Maris hit 61 there wasn't anyone around who thought the asterisk was a bad idea (besides those close to Maris). Even 20 years later everyone thought it was asinine.

I think it's still a little too early to decide what records "count" and which do not.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 03:42 AM
And I'm convinced that he'll do it. After the rampage he's been on this season, there's no doubt in my mind, unless teams stop pitching to him altogether and walk him three hundred times each season.

No doubt in your mind?

Wasn't there a time when Griffey was considered a LOCK to break Aaron's record.

What about when Ben MacDonald was considered a perennial Cy Young hopeful.

Or even better--Mark Prior

balke
09-04-2006, 09:53 AM
Howards going to have 200 K's this season. I am still more impressed with Pujols. Its nice that this is Howards season, but Pujols will probably be more dominant in coming seasons. Howard may always get more HR's though, because he gets so many K's, pitchers aren't afraid to go right at him.

chaerulez
09-04-2006, 10:12 AM
Howards going to have 200 K's this season. I am still more impressed with Pujols. Its nice that this is Howards season, but Pujols will probably be more dominant in coming seasons. Howard may always get more HR's though, because he gets so many K's, pitchers aren't afraid to go right at him.

I've always thought a high strike out rate was okay if you at least walked a fair amount. Howard's OBP this year is .400, and while there maybe some IBB that caused that, I think that's still impressive. Pujols is still a more complete hitter, he gets the walks without the strikeouts and his career average is .330. Hell, Pujols is a one in a generation type hitter. If he manages to stay injury free the next ten years or so, his career stat sheet will look amazing.

slavko
09-04-2006, 12:08 PM
Let me try to understand: We know for a fact that 8 extra games were on the schedule for some of the seasons, but that doesn't matter. We can't prove that anyone did anything illegal, but that does matter. Sorry, I still don't understand.

NonetheLoaiza
09-04-2006, 12:57 PM
I'll have more respect for him, which is alot more important (at least in my eyes) than having your name in the record book.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 01:51 PM
Let me try to understand: We know for a fact that 8 extra games were on the schedule for some of the seasons, but that doesn't matter. We can't prove that anyone did anything illegal, but that does matter. Sorry, I still don't understand.

It even goes beyond that. Even working under the assumption that we know Bonds and McGwire and Sosa juiced (a fair assumption for the upcoming years), it still doesn't account for the fact that asterisking is dangerous (or any such behavior). History has a way for accounting for things and changing public opinion. After 1919, very very few people would have disagreed with Landis' decision to ban the 8 Sox from baseball. But now we have a large contingent saying it wasn't necessarily a good move, that Joe Jackson DIDN'T do what he was said to do, and so on.

But there's no way to undo that ban. There's no way to undo Maris' asterisk. He died with that on his head. It's like what Buckner said when the Red Sox fans "forgave" him in 2004--he didn't do anything he needed to be forgiven about.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin does anyone really consider Giambi and Caminitti MVP's? But what are you going to do? Go back and take them away? Are we going to look at footage of last year's ND/USC game and since Bush pushed Leinart obviously on the last play retroactively award the game to Notre Dame?

No. That's not the way things work. If Howard's clean (and he almost certainly is) most people are going to respect him more than Bonds. But he hasn't hit 74 HR. We may as well just wipe out every record in baseball history since it has extenuating circumstances...

Asterisking is stupid.

Nellie_Fox
09-04-2006, 05:30 PM
One thing to remember: if he approaches #62, he won't be under anywhere near the pressure that he would have been had the "better living through chemistry" boys not already put the record so much past 61.

Think about it. There won't be a hoard of reporters following the Phillies from city to city, asking Howard the same questions day after day. ESPN won't be cutting to live coverage of every at-bat. It's not the same.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 06:30 PM
One thing to remember: if he approaches #62, he won't be under anywhere near the pressure that he would have been had the "better living through chemistry" boys not already put the record so much past 61.

Think about it. There won't be a hoard of reporters following the Phillies from city to city, asking Howard the same questions day after day. ESPN won't be cutting to live coverage of every at-bat. It's not the same.

Exactly. And that's exactly why Maris' asterisk was bull****--Ruth may have had 8 less games, but Ruth didn't have to get beat down by reporters every ever-loving day, sent hate mail, threatened, booed, heckled, on his way to 60.

Trav
09-04-2006, 07:06 PM
I don't feel comfortable saying that anyone is free of chemical agents at this time. I doubt I ever will. If Howard is PED-free then it is a shame that the guys before him screwed up and ruined it for him. I don't just blame the cheaters, I blame the players who didn't use but refused to speak up about it. So if Howard hits 100 homers and submits to a spinal tap I would just feel bad that a generation of players ruined the sport for fans and future players alike. In my opinion, Maris is the home run champ. But my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 07:16 PM
I don't feel comfortable saying that anyone is free of chemical agents at this time. I doubt I ever will. If Howard is PED-free then it is a shame that the guys before him screwed up and ruined it for him. I don't just blame the cheaters, I blame the players who didn't use but refused to speak up about it. So if Howard hits 100 homers and submits to a spinal tap I would just feel bad that a generation of players ruined the sport for fans and future players alike. In my opinion, Maris is the home run champ. But my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.


What if, for example, when Bonds and McGwire and Sosa were juicing, EVERYBODY in baseball was juicing. Then what would the situation be? Or what if only 75% or people were? Or 50%?

This is why it's hard to determine what's going on. How about the '80's when Gooden was on coke. Does coke help you throw a baseball? It could...

Trav
09-04-2006, 07:31 PM
What if, for example, when Bonds and McGwire and Sosa were juicing, EVERYBODY in baseball was juicing. Then what would the situation be? Or what if only 75% or people were? Or 50%?

This is why it's hard to determine what's going on. How about the '80's when Gooden was on coke. Does coke help you throw a baseball? It could...

What would the situation be? The same as it is right now: I don't trust that any of the players were clean. I hope that the Sox were/are but there is a big doubt in my mind about some of them.

I'm just glad that I didn't have to grow up idolizing these players. When I was younger I fell in love with baseball watching guys that are either old or out of the game now. There is little doubt that my favorite players were clean when it comes to PED. If I were 8 or 10 right now I wouldn't be a baseball fan. And for a sport that is droping in popularity, I don't see any relief on the way.

As for "regular" drugs, I think that the general public can forgive a recreational drug user faster than a guy who is doing drugs trying to cheat. If Gooden was snorting coke trying to gain a few more MPH on his fastball he is dumber than I thought.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 07:37 PM
What would the situation be? The same as it is right now: I don't trust that any of the players were clean. I hope that the Sox were/are but there is a big doubt in my mind about some of them.

I'm just glad that I didn't have to grow up idolizing these players. When I was younger I fell in love with baseball watching guys that are either old or out of the game now. There is little doubt that my favorite players were clean when it comes to PED. If I were 8 or 10 right now I wouldn't be a baseball fan. And for a sport that is droping in popularity, I don't see any relief on the way.

As for "regular" drugs, I think that the general public can forgive a recreational drug user faster than a guy who is doing drugs trying to cheat. If Gooden was snorting coke trying to gain a few more MPH on his fastball he is dumber than I thought.

All I'm saying is this is the danger of trying to retroactively make decisions regarding things that have happened in the past.

It's sad that we'll never know what was going on, and that we'll never be able to trust anyone...but I don't know what that adds up to. You just have to take the steroid era with a grain of salt...just like you have to take the 1960's when umpires were ordered to call a wide strike zone with a grain of salt.

Just because the strike zone was wide doesn't mean that Koufax and Gibson weren't incredibly talented. That's the only way to look at things.

Chips
09-04-2006, 07:42 PM
All I'm saying is this is the danger of trying to retroactively make decisions regarding things that have happened in the past.

It's sad that we'll never know what was going on, and that we'll never be able to trust anyone...but I don't know what that adds up to. You just have to take the steroid era with a grain of salt...just like you have to take the 1960's when umpires were ordered to call a wide strike zone with a grain of salt.

Just because the strike zone was wide doesn't mean that Koufax and Gibson weren't incredibly talented. That's the only way to look at things.

Retroactively taking away records and statistics would open up a huge can of worms. Bonds hit 73 jacks, he has the record.

FarWestChicago
09-04-2006, 07:45 PM
It's sad that we'll never know what was going on, and that we'll never be able to trust anyone...but I don't know what that adds up to.What it adds up to is nobody but 'roid lovers give a **** about what was once one of the most prestigious records in all of sports. I can't believe you guys are arguing about this. The bottom line is the single season HR record is meaningless, a joke. There is nothing to care about.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 07:55 PM
What it adds up to is nobody but 'roid lovers give a **** about what was once one of the most prestigious records in all of sports. I can't believe you guys are arguing about this.

This is the time I grew up in baseball. This is the time period I learned to play baseball. This is the time period I care about and I'm just trying to make some sense of it--you can't just say the time period in baseball you grew up watching was bull****. But then again you can't embrace steroid users either. What else can I do but try to understand how to view this unfortunate time in baseball.

I had the strike, then I had the white flag, then i had steroids...it was rough growing up in the '90's

soxinem1
09-04-2006, 07:56 PM
Howards going to have 200 K's this season. I am still more impressed with Pujols. Its nice that this is Howards season, but Pujols will probably be more dominant in coming seasons. Howard may always get more HR's though, because he gets so many K's, pitchers aren't afraid to go right at him.

He's walked nearly 80 times already, and the K's may well decrease as he learnes the pitchers more. I don't think he'll be a high average/low K guy like Albert, but he is fun to watch.

I hope he does get 74, and passes Barriod up in his career total too.

Soxfanspcu11
09-04-2006, 08:07 PM
If Howard hits 62, he will be the new home run king.

There is a reason that Marris's record stood for so long, it's damn near impossible to beat. Of course a bunch of roid freaks beat it, but that doesn't mean anything to me. I don't count their "records" as records. As far as I'm concerned, ALL of their stats should be done away with.

Marris is the homerun king, and I hope Howard doesn't break it. But it will be interesting to see him come close.

Chips
09-04-2006, 08:09 PM
If Howard hits 62, he will be the new home run king.

There is a reason that Marris's record stood for so long, it's damn near impossible to beat. Of course a bunch of roid freaks beat it, but that doesn't mean anything to me. I don't count their "records" as records. As far as I'm concerned, ALL of their stats should be done away with.

Marris is the homerun king, and I hope Howard doesn't break it. But it will be interesting to see him come close.

Weird, I didn't know that 62 was a higher number than 73. :rolleyes:

FarWestChicago
09-04-2006, 08:14 PM
Weird, I didn't know that 62 was a higher number than 73. :rolleyes:We all know you don't care about cheating. This may come as a shock to you, but some people do. 73 is totally meaningless, worthless. Essentially, there is no single season HR record anymore. You can run around and brag about how your boy has his name in the record book, but nobody cares.

:barrybonds

Chips has my back!

Chips
09-04-2006, 08:21 PM
We all know you don't care about cheating. This may come as a shock to you, but some people do. 73 is totally meaningless, worthless. Essentially, there is no single season HR record anymore. You can run around and brag about how your boy has his name in the record book, but nobody cares.



Chips has my back!
Actually, I do care about cheating. But there was no steroid policy in place when Bonds hit his jacks in 2001. Besides the laws of the United States, what rules did he break that would take away his home run record?

And for the record, I don't like Barry Bonds, I despise the man, but until somebody hits 74 jacks, Barry has the record.

:bashbro

He is the only roid guy who can safely say "Chips has my back!"

ilsox7
09-04-2006, 08:22 PM
Besides, the laws of the United States, what rules did he break that would take away his home run record.



:?:

Chips
09-04-2006, 08:23 PM
:?:

****, I ****ed up my comma usage.:redface:

ilsox7
09-04-2006, 08:24 PM
****, I ****ed up my comma usage.:redface:

Either way, are you trying to say that b/c he broke US law but did not break a specific baseball rule that it's OK?

FarWestChicago
09-04-2006, 08:28 PM
And for the record, I don't like Barry Bonds, I despise the man, but until somebody hits 74 jacks, Barry has the record.And nobody cares. It's as relevant as who the WWE champion is.

Chips
09-04-2006, 08:29 PM
Either way, are you trying to say that b/c he broke US law but did not break a specific baseball rule that it's OK?

Let's say a player gets 300 hits in a seaon and he gets a DUI, he is breaking the law, should his record be taken away.

Probably not the best analogy, but steroids were not banned by baseball in 2001, the record should stand.

Trav
09-04-2006, 08:33 PM
Let's say a player gets 300 hits in a seaon and he gets a DUI, he is breaking the law, should his record be taken away.

Probably not the best analogy, but steroids were not banned by baseball in 2001, the record should stand.

No it isn't. And a silly topic gets even worse...

ilsox7
09-04-2006, 08:37 PM
No it isn't. And a silly topic gets even worse...

Exactly. A crappy analogy does not justify it. I'm done with this.

SoxFanPrope
09-04-2006, 08:49 PM
Let's say a player gets 300 hits in a seaon and he gets a DUI, he is breaking the law, should his record be taken away.

Probably not the best analogy, but steroids were not banned by baseball in 2001, the record should stand.
It shouldn't matter if it wasn't banned by baseball in 2001. Baseball is not its own principality that gets to choose what rules they get to follow on their own. It's illegal to use steroids without a doctor's prescription in the United States. MLB is not allowed to get around that, no matter what is in their own rule book.

Soxfanspcu11
09-04-2006, 08:54 PM
Let's say a player gets 300 hits in a seaon and he gets a DUI, he is breaking the law, should his record be taken away.

Probably not the best analogy, but steroids were not banned by baseball in 2001, the record should stand.

:?: ***??

And 62 is a higher number than 73, when the 73 shouldn't be in the books in the first place.

Gregory Pratt
09-04-2006, 09:18 PM
I'd like someone to hit sixty two and prove that you don't need steroids to do it. Sorry Sammy, and Barry and Mark.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 10:31 PM
It shouldn't matter if it wasn't banned by baseball in 2001. Baseball is not its own principality that gets to choose what rules they get to follow on their own. It's illegal to use steroids without a doctor's prescription in the United States. MLB is not allowed to get around that, no matter what is in their own rule book.
Um, well....if Nolan Ryan hits Robin Ventura with a pitch and Robin Ventura charges the mound, does Robin Ventura go to jail?

If Juan Marichal hits John Roseboro on the head with a baseball bat in one of the most vicious acts in sports history, does he go to jail?

No. And by the same token, if Dwight Gooden does cocaine, or if a player gets a DUI, like Chips said, and there isn't a provision in baseball's rules for that, does that effect his baseball career?

not really....

That's not to say I'm excusing Bonds...but to act like MLB doesn't have their own rules that apply individually to baseball is erroneous
.

Chips
09-04-2006, 10:35 PM
Um, well....if Nolan Ryan hits Robin Ventura with a pitch and Robin Ventura charges the mound, does Robin Ventura go to jail?

If Juan Marichal hits John Roseboro on the head with a baseball bat in one of the most vicious acts in sports history, does he go to jail?

No. And by the same token, if Dwight Gooden does cocaine, or if a player gets a DUI, like Chips said, and there isn't a provision in baseball's rules for that, does that effect his baseball career?

not really....

That's not to say I'm excusing Bonds...but to act like MLB doesn't have their own rules that apply individually to baseball is erroneous
.

:thumbsup:

SoxFanPrope
09-04-2006, 10:37 PM
Um, well....if Nolan Ryan hits Robin Ventura with a pitch and Robin Ventura charges the mound, does Robin Ventura go to jail?

If Juan Marichal hits John Roseboro on the head with a baseball bat in one of the most vicious acts in sports history, does he go to jail?

No. And by the same token, if Dwight Gooden does cocaine, or if a player gets a DUI, like Chips said, and there isn't a provision in baseball's rules for that, does that effect his baseball career?

not really....

That's not to say I'm excusing Bonds...but to act like MLB doesn't have their own rules that apply individually to baseball is erroneous
I don't think you are excusing Bonds at all.

Your point about Nolan Ryan is well taken. I do not know of the Juan Marichal baseball bat thing, if it is as you say it was then he should have been arrested.

As far as Gooden, c'mon - he was suspended numerous times. MLB does test for things such as cocaine/marijuana.

Chips
09-04-2006, 10:41 PM
As far as Gooden, c'mon - he was suspended numerous times. MLB does test for things such as cocaine/marijuana.

And all of Gooden's statistics are still on the books even though he broke the law.

jdm2662
09-04-2006, 10:42 PM
In my book, Roger Maris is still the single season home run record holder.

Of course, like just about everything in life, what I think means pretty much nothing.:D:

SoxFanPrope
09-04-2006, 10:45 PM
And all of Gooden's statistics are still on the books even though he broke the law.
I'm not saying any statistics should be erased.

Regardless of the steroids or not, Bonds hit the 73. You can do whatever you want to erase it, nobody is going to forget it. And I agree with you, until MLB says that the 73 is not the record, it stays the record. I think it is unfortunate, but it is the way it is.

ilsox7
09-04-2006, 10:46 PM
And all of Gooden's statistics are still on the books even though he broke the law.

I encourage those people, such as yourself, who are trying to analogize a random breaking of the law and a breaking of the law which is the proximate cause of a player illegally achieving greater on-field success to read some about proximate cause.

The analogies of comparing Gooden's cocaine use or some random player's DUI to a player's illegal use of steroids is a flawed analogy at best when you take into account the concept of proximate cause.

I'm not saying this to be an ******* or anything. You just simply cannot make the comparisons that some folks are trying to make here. They may seem legitimate on the face of things, but they are too simplistic.

fquaye149
09-04-2006, 10:51 PM
I encourage those people, such as yourself, who are trying to analogize a random breaking of the law and a breaking of the law which is the proximate cause of a player illegally achieving greater on-field success to read some about proximate cause.

The analogies of comparing Gooden's cocaine use or some random player's DUI to a player's illegal use of steroids is a flawed analogy at best when you take into account the concept of proximate cause.

I'm not saying this to be an ******* or anything. You just simply cannot make the comparisons that some folks are trying to make here. They may seem legitimate on the face of things, but they are too simplistic.

No. You're absolutely right--the analogies don't carry over. But Chips' point was there wasn't a rule on steroids on the books when Bonds broke the record. I personally don't know if that's true, but if it is, it seems a tad unfair to ex post facto punish him.

That said--Bonds knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was wrong. Therefore he deserves whatever he gets in terms of public sentiment. I'm just saying that wiping the record off the books isn't the right thing to do.

Unfortunately I think West is completely right--nobody cares about this record anymore, and won't until somebody like Howard hits 74.

ilsox7
09-04-2006, 10:57 PM
No. You're absolutely right--the analogies don't carry over. But Chips' point was there wasn't a rule on steroids on the books when Bonds broke the record. I personally don't know if that's true, but if it is, it seems a tad unfair to ex post facto punish him.


The rule was not on the books of MLB. But it was on the books of our nation. Combine that with the fact that the illegal use of steroids was a proximate cause of more home runs and there is a pretty good argument for wiping records clean. I am not saying that is what should be done, but to claim that it's not possible b/c MLB did not specifically ban something that the country we live in already banned is a reason NOT to wipe the record clean is faulty logic.

I take the position West described. The HR record simply is not what it was only a decade ago. No cleaning of any record books can change this. It is what it is.

Chips
09-04-2006, 10:59 PM
No. You're absolutely right--the analogies don't carry over. But Chips' point was there wasn't a rule on steroids on the books when Bonds broke the record. I personally don't know if that's true, but if it is, it seems a tad unfair to ex post facto punish him.

That said--Bonds knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was wrong. Therefore he deserves whatever he gets in terms of public sentiment. I'm just saying that wiping the record off the books isn't the right thing to do.

Unfortunately I think West is completely right--nobody cares about this record anymore, and won't until somebody like Howard hits 74.

Of course, our analogies suck. Getting a DUI doesn't make one a better ball players, steroids do.

Exactly on the bolded part

And I don't care for the record too much anymore either. It's no longer as pretigious as it once was, but it's still Bonds' until someone hits 74.

Nellie_Fox
09-05-2006, 01:41 AM
It's no longer as pretigious as it once was, but it's still Bonds' until someone hits 74.I may be in the minority, but I'm a big baseball fan who, if asked earlier today (before reading this thread) what the MLB homerun record was, I swear I'd have said "I dunno, seventy something." That's how completely unimpressed I was by the accomplishment.

CLR01
09-05-2006, 02:18 AM
I don't feel comfortable saying that anyone is free of chemical agents at this time. I doubt I ever will. If Howard is PED-free then it is a shame that the guys before him screwed up and ruined it for him. I don't just blame the cheaters, I blame the players who didn't use but refused to speak up about it. So if Howard hits 100 homers and submits to a spinal tap I would just feel bad that a generation of players ruined the sport for fans and future players alike. In my opinion, Maris is the home run champ. But my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.



^^^^

downstairs
09-05-2006, 09:35 AM
Actually, many people have studied the effects of steroids on actual stats. Of course it is not an exact science... but they can assume that the ball will travel X feet farther on most hits.

Even with a liberal assumption of the effect, you'd be surprised how many home runs these guys would have hit without steroids.

Some estimate that Bonds 73 would be something like 65-68. McGwire's 70 would be something like 60-65.

Yeah, I detest Bonds, McGwire for all they've been proven to do... and I can make assumptions on things that have not been proven.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that steroids turned Bonds from a 35 home run season into a 73 home run season. It's just not logical. He didn't have 40+ home runs that were just over the fence.

Baby Fisk
09-05-2006, 09:43 AM
Baseball's HR record was rendered meaningless by The Cheaters.

D. TODD
09-05-2006, 10:52 AM
No, Howard will be the home run king when he hits 74 homers. I agree 100%.

ilsox7
09-05-2006, 11:06 AM
Actually, many people have studied the effects of steroids on actual stats. Of course it is not an exact science... but they can assume that the ball will travel X feet farther on most hits.

Even with a liberal assumption of the effect, you'd be surprised how many home runs these guys would have hit without steroids.

Some estimate that Bonds 73 would be something like 65-68. McGwire's 70 would be something like 60-65.

Yeah, I detest Bonds, McGwire for all they've been proven to do... and I can make assumptions on things that have not been proven.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that steroids turned Bonds from a 35 home run season into a 73 home run season. It's just not logical. He didn't have 40+ home runs that were just over the fence.

And how did these studies account for the fact that players on steroids don't fatigue as much as or for as long as players not on steroids? A baseball season is a grind. It's not all (or even mostly) about adding an extra 15 feet to a fly ball, making it a HR. It has a lot to do with recovery time from day to day.

slavko
09-05-2006, 12:17 PM
Exactly. And that's exactly why Maris' asterisk was bull****--Ruth may have had 8 less games, but Ruth didn't have to get beat down by reporters every ever-loving day, sent hate mail, threatened, booed, heckled, on his way to 60.

Proving that it's possible to rationalize away an elephant in the living room. By the same logic, Maris didn't have to woo-woo all those women, drink himself into frequent stupors, or bear the awesome burden of being the greatest hero in a time of great heroes.

chaerulez
09-05-2006, 12:27 PM
Let me try to understand: We know for a fact that 8 extra games were on the schedule for some of the seasons, but that doesn't matter. We can't prove that anyone did anything illegal, but that does matter. Sorry, I still don't understand.

Are you serious? The grand jury testimony by Bonds and Giambi aren't proof they did steroids? The book, Game of Shadows, doesn't proof anything to you about Bonds? Or when McGwire refused to answer any question at the Congress hearing under oath, you think he did that just because he didn't have the answers? After Palmerio claimed he had never taken steroids and then was caught in a testing and then threw Tejada under the bus, you still think you can't proof anyone did anything illegal? It's one thing to be a steroid apologist, but to be completely ignorant of the situation is a different situation.

slavko
09-05-2006, 12:38 PM
Are you serious? The grand jury testimony by Bonds and Giambi aren't proof they did steroids? The book, Game of Shadows, doesn't proof anything to you about Bonds? Or when McGwire refused to answer any question at the Congress hearing under oath, you think he did that just because he didn't have the answers? After Palmerio claimed he had never taken steroids and then was caught in a testing and then threw Tejada under the bus, you still think you can't proof anyone did anything illegal? It's one thing to be a steroid apologist, but to be completely ignorant of the situation is a different situation.

I'm only serious enough to make a point, the point being that we can forget one difference-maker, but not the other when it suits our purposes. Of course I believe, the key word being believe, that performances were artificially enhanced. I have eyes and ears, as you do. When it's proven that they were, the key word being proven, the records can be expunged. (What HR records do Palmeiro and Giambi hold?) Bonds saying his "liniment" was steroids is not the same as injecting it into your butt.

chaerulez
09-05-2006, 12:41 PM
Actually, many people have studied the effects of steroids on actual stats. Of course it is not an exact science... but they can assume that the ball will travel X feet farther on most hits.

Even with a liberal assumption of the effect, you'd be surprised how many home runs these guys would have hit without steroids.

Some estimate that Bonds 73 would be something like 65-68. McGwire's 70 would be something like 60-65.

Yeah, I detest Bonds, McGwire for all they've been proven to do... and I can make assumptions on things that have not been proven.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that steroids turned Bonds from a 35 home run season into a 73 home run season. It's just not logical. He didn't have 40+ home runs that were just over the fence.

Steroids had EVERYTHING to do with changing him from a 40 HR guy. It made him stronger so not only did he get the close fly balls to go over for a HR, but because of his new strength he could swing later than he previously could and still get HRs. Meaning, he could sit on pitches until he got one he liked, which is why his batting average and walk totals ballooned up as well.

I think some people misunderstood what I was asking when I started the topic too. I wasn't asking if they should wipe out the record books or anything of that sort, but if personally people would feel Howard really has the record. I understand there is no way to tell if Howard is clean or not (thank you MLB for not testing for HGH), but there is no evidence to suspect him of anything, and I'm glad others recognize that he could accomplish something no one else has with the aid of chemicals.

D. TODD
09-05-2006, 12:45 PM
Um, well....if Nolan Ryan hits Robin Ventura with a pitch and Robin Ventura charges the mound, does Robin Ventura go to jail?

If Juan Marichal hits John Roseboro on the head with a baseball bat in one of the most vicious acts in sports history, does he go to jail?

No. And by the same token, if Dwight Gooden does cocaine, or if a player gets a DUI, like Chips said, and there isn't a provision in baseball's rules for that, does that effect his baseball career?

not really....

That's not to say I'm excusing Bonds...but to act like MLB doesn't have their own rules that apply individually to baseball is erroneous
. Exactlty !!

fquaye149
09-05-2006, 12:59 PM
Proving that it's possible to rationalize away an elephant in the living room. By the same logic, Maris didn't have to woo-woo all those women, drink himself into frequent stupors, or bear the awesome burden of being the greatest hero in a time of great heroes.

Sure. That's why the record stood for Maris, that's why the asterisk was completely bull****--there's a lot of things that were different in 1961 than in 1927. If we are going to start asterisking we are going to have to take into account the differences in eras (for instance, no blacks playing in 1927, no night games, but easier travel methods in 1961)

Thanks for proving my point.

Nellie_Fox
09-05-2006, 03:28 PM
Just to straighten this out for the umpteenth time, the "asterisk" is a myth. There were two separate homerun records listed; one, most homeruns in a 154 game season, the other the most homeruns in a 162 game season. There was never an "asterisk" next to Maris's record.

chaerulez
09-05-2006, 04:13 PM
Just to straighten this out for the umpteenth time, the "asterisk" is a myth. There were two separate homerun records listed; one, most homeruns in a 154 game season, the other the most homeruns in a 162 game season. There was never an "asterisk" next to Maris's record.

Yes, the whole asterisk thing comes from one of Maris' baseball cards I believe. Which isn't a record book. In a strange concidence, Tom Verducci wrote this article today:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/09/05/howard.record/index.html

And he makes a great point, people are talking about how you can't wipe out the records? Track and field has no problem with wiping out records. Baseball should follow suit.

Trav
09-05-2006, 05:14 PM
Just to straighten this out for the umpteenth time, the "asterisk" is a myth. There were two separate homerun records listed; one, most homeruns in a 154 game season, the other the most homeruns in a 162 game season. There was never an "asterisk" next to Maris's record.

That is good to know. I think that was the right way to go about it. Maybe they should have a separate stat for Bonds: Most homers during the Steroid Era.

slobes
09-05-2006, 05:39 PM
I think Bonds cheated. If Howard hits 62 HRs in a season, it will be an incredibly amazing feat. I think that his performance will be more impressive than Bonds's performance. However, I will acknowledge Bonds as the single season HR record holder until MLB decides to take it away officially.

slavko
09-07-2006, 01:28 PM
Sure. That's why the record stood for Maris, that's why the asterisk was completely bull****--there's a lot of things that were different in 1961 than in 1927. If we are going to start asterisking we are going to have to take into account the differences in eras (for instance, no blacks playing in 1927, no night games, but easier travel methods in 1961)

Thanks for proving my point.

It's proven in your head, that's for sure. Not in mine, however. Some of the "facts" prove either or both. Choose the ones you like, thank you, and have a nice day.

fquaye149
09-07-2006, 03:26 PM
It's proven in your head, that's for sure. Not in mine, however. Some of the "facts" prove either or both. Choose the ones you like, thank you, and have a nice day.

THAT'S THE POINT. Christ. The point all along is you can't compare eras. I'm not saying Maris is better in 1961 than Ruth in 1927. I'm not saying the opposite. I'm saying THINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAT GIVE EACH AN ADVANTAGE IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

THEREFORE you CANNOT try to COMPARE DIFFERENT ERAS. You MUST take records as they are, with a grain of salt because DIFFERENT ERAS ARE DIFFERENT ERAS.

Ay-yi-yi. Reading continues to be a skill. Asterisking is stupid. This debate is stupid. Care about the record or don't, it's your perogative. I agree with West and the myriad others--the record doesn't mean as much to people any more and rightly so. Bonds is a cheater. Fine.

That doesn't mean it's not a record.

fquaye149
09-07-2006, 03:27 PM
Just to straighten this out for the umpteenth time, the "asterisk" is a myth. There were two separate homerun records listed; one, most homeruns in a 154 game season, the other the most homeruns in a 162 game season. There was never an "asterisk" next to Maris's record.

Thanks. I did not know that. But even so, my point remains--choosing to acknowledge different "records" in such away is not much different from what I called "asterisking"

fquaye149
09-07-2006, 03:32 PM
Yes, the whole asterisk thing comes from one of Maris' baseball cards I believe. Which isn't a record book. In a strange concidence, Tom Verducci wrote this article today:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/09/05/howard.record/index.html

And he makes a great point, people are talking about how you can't wipe out the records? Track and field has no problem with wiping out records. Baseball should follow suit.

Where do you draw the line though?

Do you take away Giambi's MVP (I'd like to). Do you make the SF Giants of '02's accomplishments null meaing that they didn't win their division, or the NL, and make the players who were on the 2002 Angels play the runners up (and redo the entire NL playoffs with the 2nd place NL west team?)

Do you make Ty Cobb the record holder in base hits? Or do you make Ty Cobb the record holder in base hits but then do an exhaustive research on his life to determine irrefutably whether he did throw that alleged baseball game and if he did wipe out his accomplishments?

Do you overturn Don Denkinger's call and replay that world series? How about the 2005 ALCS if it's determined Eddings did **** up?

I'm not trying to be obstinate...I just wonder what you think will be gained by this and trying to give you an idea why most people are against retroactively wiping out accomplishments

Tekijawa
09-07-2006, 04:07 PM
I think we are looking at it all wrong, let me give you something to think about... Howard plays in Philadelphia. Do you think the Fans would boo him off the field the last day of the season if he only made it to 61?:?: :o:

fquaye149
09-07-2006, 04:56 PM
I think we are looking at it all wrong, let me give you something to think about... Howard plays in Philadelphia. Do you think the Fans would boo him off the field the last day of the season if he only made it to 61?:?: :o:

If it were cold enough they would pelt him with snowballs. I don't know if that's worse than booing or better