The Greatest

Kevin Drum:

ASTERISK WATCH....Barry Bonds has finally hit home run #756. Can we now please go back to ignoring him?

I say: No. The man holds the record for most career home runs and most home runs in a single season. What's more, not only did he hit 73 home runs in 2001, but he also "managed to shatter two of Babe Ruth's longstanding records -- most walks (177) and highest slugging percentage (.863) in a season." That record of walks stood until . . . the next season when he drew 198. Then in 2004, he drew 232 which helped hold him to 45 homers but helped power him to an OBP of .609, a major league record. He had nine different seasons with over 30 stolen bases, plus two 29 SB seasons and a 28 SB season.

He is, in short, the greatest offensive player in the history of baseball. Not being someone who pays much attention to baseball, I don't pay a ton of attention to Bonds, but it's silly for people to just shut their ears and pretend this didn't happen. Yes, it appears that during the period when Major League Baseball had no steroid policy, he took steroids. And the day when MLB invalidates all the other records from the Steroid Era -- rescinds the World Series titles and the division penants, takes back the Cy Young awards and the Golden Gloves, etc., etc., etc. -- I suppose it would make sense to take Bonds' achievements away too. But until that happens, the records are the records and he played better than anyone else.

Comments

He is, in short, the greatest offensive player in the history of baseball.

And he's also experienced the greatest, visible increase in head size in the history or organized sports.

That's also got to be some kind of record.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 8, 2007 12:37 AM

Matt, Kevin isn't saying to sponge his name from the record books like some sort of disgraced Stalin era appratchik, just that we treat him with the respect he has showed us he deserves as person, which is somewhat down below the local hard working box boy at the supermarket. What's the problem with that?

Posted by Counterfactual | August 8, 2007 12:38 AM

Mixed feeling about Barry, but I thought Obama's answer to the Bonds question was weak. I'd have rather seen him just say yes or no instead of trying to have it both ways. Since his excuse was that Bonds hadn't broken the record yet -- true at the time -- I'd guess he'll be asked the same question tomorrow. He has all night to come up with a better response.

Posted by JJF | August 8, 2007 12:41 AM

You cannot call Bonds the greatest offensive player in the history of the game, unless greatness is measured only by raw statistics. If Bonds cheated, he is not the greatest player in history unless all of baseball history has been tainted by offensive players' cheating. The fact that others from Bonds' era have cheated as well does not somehow justify calling Bonds the "greatest offensive player in the history of the game." It justifies only calling Bonds the "greatest offensive player in the steroids era." Your thinking, which is so clear on almost everything, is very muddy on this one.

Posted by RaymondA | August 8, 2007 12:43 AM

They are "Gold Gloves", not "Golden". (Golden Gloves refers to boxing.)

Posted by Thomas | August 8, 2007 12:43 AM

He did something illegal that gave him a huge advantage. Practically every other sport on the planet throws out records created by people doing what he did.

Bonds was great, however I don't quite understand why it's so hard for you to grasp taking steroids taints the record.

This “everyone did it” logic is simply absurd. We'll probably never know precisely how widespread it was... 10%, 20%, 30% of players, but obviously many didn't. The ones that did had an advantage.

Posted by DJ | August 8, 2007 12:46 AM

JJF - Why on God's green earth does Obama need a better answer on the monumentally unimportant issue of Bonds' status? While I completely disagree with Hillary C. that candidates for President should not let the public know what they think about important issues of war and peace, I think that on matters having fundamentally no importance but that are admittedly fun water cooler isues, candidates are often wise not to express an opinion, or "to have it both ways."

Also, as many noted, why did only Obama get the Bonds question? Is there a subtle bias going on that says he, as the African American candidate, has to be the arbiter of whether Henry Aaron or Barry Bonds has the better claim as the greatest offensive baseball player? He's running for President, not the title of Daily Show "Chief Black Correspondent."

Posted by RaymondA | August 8, 2007 12:50 AM

Hear, hear!

DJ: The point isn't whether or not a non-juiced Bonds would have been as good as a juiced Bonds.

It's that it would be stupid to disqualify his records alone, among many, many drug-enhanced careers. Especially since MLB permitted it.

Posted by lowellfield | August 8, 2007 12:55 AM

He is, in short, the greatest offensive player in the history of baseball.

Since you are such a stat geek, I am surprised that you would make such a statement. Counting stats are really not the best measure of offensive production; rate stats are much more useful for comparison. And for total offensive production, OPS+ is a pretty good measure. By that statistic, Ruth and Williams were better offensive players:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 12:59 AM

Facts is facts, and the ones MY cites are impressive.

I think that Barry did roids. I think that people who think this somehow taints him so that his records deserve to be asterisked or overturned are a bit silly.

Read any history of the Green Bay Packers during their glory years in the 60s under Lombardi, or the Steelers in the 70s, or any other sports powerhouse, team-wise or individual-wise, and the drug use is prevalent.

It is not good. I don't like it. But it is what it is. Drugs, whether pain killers, performance enhancers (amphetamines included) or otherwise are part of the game BECAUSE WE DON'T CARE ABOUT IT ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING.

As shown on ESPN.com recenently (sorry, not link, I'll find it), Merriman of the Chargers is faster than Jerry Rice (best receiver in history) and only 10 lbs. lighter than the universally-recognized best offensive tackle ever (it kills me that I can't remember his name for sure, but I think that is Anthony Munoz, sorry if spelling isn't correct).

No drugs there, right. (Merriman was suspended for steroid use, but no one pretends he isn't the best linebacker right now, roids or otherwise. Why the different standard for Bonds?)

Contrarianism aside, I suppose my pathetic take is that we all deserve this mess, but let's not pretend as if there is a pure or more holy alternative out there that we would actually embrace. We want big, bad, fast, strong athletes that do what no normal person can do. We got it, so let's not wring our hands too much.

Posted by abject funk | August 8, 2007 1:03 AM

For one thing, OPS+ doesn't give Bonds any credit for steals, which he had a lot more of than Ruth.

And then there's the theory that baseball in the early 20th century was a lot easier to dominate than it is these days. No single player's ever going to account for half of all major league home runs (or whatever Ruth was up to).

Anyway a single league-adjusted OPS figure doesn't tell the whole story.

Posted by lowellfield | August 8, 2007 1:11 AM

If you have any doubt at all that Bonds is a scumbag & roid user, and would have been unlikely to set the records he did without the drugs, just read this excerpt from Game of Shadows

Posted by crayz | August 8, 2007 1:12 AM

I'm sorry, but I'm not letting this go. The turnaround in Bonds' career was too astounding, the increase in his production at an advanced playing age too freakish, and the even the change in his physique too grotesque and preposterous to just let this slide. Perhaps time and the gradual dribbling forth of confessions will eventually settle the question about exactly what percentage of players juiced during the "steroid era", and also how frequently and intensively. But Bonds is clearly at the most absurdly egregious extreme, and deserves everlasting opprobrium.

I personally favor a statistical death penalty, and lifetime Hall of Fame ban, for every player whose steroid use can be established by Major League Baseball by to some reasonably high standard of evidence. Every ... single ... fucking ... one! It's time to get all Kenesaw Mountain Landis on their assess. I don't care if that means 500 guys either get wiped out of the record books, or double-triple-asterisked into shame and oblivion. McGuire, Palmiero, Sosa ... screw 'em all. Let the last 10 - 15 years go down as a baseball dark age - the age of cheating, lying circus freaks.

It is not true that there was "no steroid policy" during this era. It started as a weak policy, but it still existed. Steroids were a controlled substance and their use was prohibited by MLB going back well before the time when it began to receive a lot of attention and the policy got tougher. It was clearly known by the players that steroid use was proscribed; otherwise more would have admitted using steroids.

Some people during the "steroid era" did not use steroids. Those who did use steroids thus engaged in a competitive tactic that put their colleagues in the MLB "brotherhood" in a position of either taking serious risks with their health or seeing their relative competitiveness diminished and their livelihoods damaged or eliminated - along with the welfare of their families, who depended on that livelihood. It was a scummy thing to do, and they all deserve the black list.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 8, 2007 1:15 AM

He didn't do anything illegal -- he broke neither laws nor baseball policies. If he took steroids, that probably allowed him to recover from injury faster, but unless 'roids improve hand-eye coordination, they likely had little if anything to do with his amazing hitting. [At his peak, I'd bet Arnold Schwartzenegger would have struggled to hit a single home run in batting practice.]

I've seen the arguments that Ruth and Williams were better hitters. That may be right. And when that's the company you're in, it really doesn't matter if you're #1 or #3.

We've seen one of the greatest hitters (Bonds) and pitchers (Clemens) in the history of the game in the last two decades...and they're both pretty clearly jerks. So what? I don't want to have a beer with them, and I don't want to work on a Habitat for Humanity project with them. I want to watch them play baseball. Until they start killing dogs, everything else is just noise.

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | August 8, 2007 1:22 AM

Anyway, once the appropriate adjustments are made, Ruth still holds the record for most single-season and career homeruns:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6454

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 1:24 AM

Nice reference to Kenesaw Mountain Landis, whose racism meant that only his death in 1945 and replacement by a new commissioner could lead to Jackie Robinson's signing in 1946 and his MLB debut in 1947.

May Matt continue to speak truth to herd-like acceptance of the party line.

Posted by hueyplong | August 8, 2007 1:26 AM

Oops. Actually, Lou Gehrig holds the record for most adjusted homeruns in a single season.

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 1:27 AM

Between Ruth, Aaron, and Bonds, history has come full circle. It was race then, and it is race now.

While steroids have tinged Bonds' pursuit, it was race that was the predominant issue when Aaron broke Ruth's mark in 1974. Aaron dealt with hate mail and death threats from racist fans who thought a black man was not worthy of breaking the record set by a white hero, the beloved Babe.
Former commissioner Bowie Kuhn watched Aaron tie the record but was not present for the record-breaker, a slight that bothered many fans of Aaron. Selig is a close friend of Aaron's and offered Bonds tepid congratulations when he tied the record.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7102470?MSNHPHMA

In the case of Bonds, his primary sin is that he didn’t do the black-man-shuffle needed to suck up to the image makers and power brokers in baseball. Instead, he simply went to work and proved that he could do what no other player in the history of baseball could (with or without steroids).

Posted by Justin X | August 8, 2007 1:28 AM

"He is, in short, the greatest offensive player in the history of baseball."

Hello? Sadaharu Oh, anyone? 868 home runs?

Posted by HG | August 8, 2007 1:28 AM

One more thing:

You know what would probably help you more in hitting a baseball than extra strength? Better vision.

Tiger Woods got lasik eye surgery, even though his vision was fine, to help him read greens. I assume some baseball players have gotten 20/10 or better vision, either with surgery or contacts or both.

I'm also guessing that this will never be a big issue, and that steroids is because we've got this weird fixation on drugs of all kinds in this country.

And Dan K., you make a good case...but, Barry's presumably not on steroids over the last couple of years at least...and he's still a hitting god. And buff. I'd like to see the explanation for that from one of his detractors.
[

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | August 8, 2007 1:31 AM

Also, once you do an appropriate steroids adjustment to Bonds' statistics, he falls even further down the list of best hitters of all time. See, e.g.:

http://alamar.blogspot.com/2006/12/orginally-published-392006-at-protrade.html

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 1:39 AM

For all the skeptics, here is a basic article explaining how steroids helped Bonds hit more home runs.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 1:47 AM

But Bonds is clearly at the most absurdly egregious extreme, and deserves everlasting opprobrium.

All games have explicit rules and uncodified rules, and it's the latter that matter. I don't follow baseball, but the few baseball commentators I've read seem to believe that at least a third of MLB players were enhanced. Barry followed the unwritten rules, as did Aaron, as did Ruth. Does anyone really believe the game was cleaner in the past?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 8, 2007 1:51 AM

RaymondA, I agree that the Bonds question is relatively unimportant in comparison to the many serious issues that were discussed in the debate. It just struck me that Obama, and the other candidates too, recite answer after answer that is firm, clear, and decisive, even (or especially) on questions of the gravest matters before the nation, then he gets the Bonds question and he waffles.

If I were scouting the game, I'd say Obama showed he can handle the fastball, but the curveball, not so well.

Posted by JJF | August 8, 2007 1:54 AM

Or very well, JJF...depends on how you look at it...by waffling, Obama didn't interject himself into what could develop into an ugly race and/or steroid issue.

The question had no place in a prez debate. My take anyway...

Posted by G Davis | August 8, 2007 2:24 AM

Calling him the greatest offensive player of all-time is valid, but to claim that about anyone is difficult for several factors. Ted Williams spent his prime years serving in World War II, for example, so his careers totals in stats like RBIs and HRs aren't impressive, but he has the second greatest career OPS in history next to Ruth. Like Bonds, he was a left-handed hitter who spent most of his time hitting in a ballpark that is troublesome for left-handed power hitters (unlike Ruth -- Yankee stadium's shallow right field was designed for him, hence "The House that Ruth Built").

I'm not sure what to make of the whole steroid issue, but it seems to me that just because everyone was juicing doesn't let Bonds off the hook. While I don't think his record should be taken from him for all the reasons MY pointed out (are we going to rescind World Series titles, too?), I do think 'roids would prove more beneficial to power hitters than anyone else. Steroids can help a pitcher throw harder, but that doesn't matter against a juiced Barry Bonds as that has insignificant effect on a pitcher's control, as there is usually some sacrifice of control for speed (Greg Maddux's fastball isn't impressive, but that's OK because he can place a pitch anywhere he wants).

Posted by Matthew Struhar | August 8, 2007 2:27 AM

blah, from the Baseball Prospectus article you linked:

It's notable that A-Rod leaving Yankee Stadium for his home games might actually hurt his chances at the translated career title. That's because park effects are a big part of translating performance, and help the numbers of those players who have to hit in pitcher's parks.

Isn't the whole point of translating statistics to remove these "situational" effects?

Posted by Barbar | August 8, 2007 2:28 AM

He did something illegal that gave him a huge advantage. Practically every other sport on the planet throws out records created by people doing what he did.

Name the illegal thing. (Bonds was not using the conventional things which were banned.) Then name the sport that has invalidated records for something about which they had no real policy.

we treat him with the respect he has showed us he deserves as person, which is somewhat down below the local hard working box boy at the supermarket.

That's insane. Why not the respect of someone who is historically great at his sport? Because he wasn't friendly? Maybe a bit of a dick? I thought his job was to play baseball, and he's stunningly good at that.

I'm always leery of those who throw down the race card, but I have to admit that I have no better explanation for the standards applied to Bonds.

Posted by nolaboyd | August 8, 2007 3:02 AM

I can't stand baseball. seriously matt, don't attempt to even comment on this barbaric sport.

I miss basketball.

Posted by thehova | August 8, 2007 4:18 AM

The thing about Bonds is that he very often, or usually -actually almost all of the time- acts like an up-front and in-your-face unpleasant jerk, who is humorless and very self-important and self-absorbed. And his stories explaining away the drugs are laughable, which grates against his humorless self-important jerkhood. So, this bothers people, and they single him out and get all resentful and protective about the records he's broken, even though lots of other players took performance enhancing drugs as well, and the league didn't care as long as they could make a buck off it and hope it all stayed out of sight.

Other players (including at least one slugger who broke a big record) evaded the rules via technicalities, or didn't get caught, or did things people thought were wrong even if there were no rules, but were jerks in a earnestly jovially hypocritically mean spirited but happy face passive aggressive way. They were willing to perform at least some short ritual self-criticisms and grovelatory prostations in public before they told everyone to go &%$# themselves and not bother them about it anymore. And they bravely talked the walk and earnestly enjoined youth to not make the 'mistakes' they made, even if they weren't going to do squat to atone for their mistakes, or give any fo the money back. So, their cheating doesn't bother people as much.

Baseball fans tend toward extreme sentimentality and subliminal superstition regarding big records, which leads to emotionally unstability, incoherence, and illogic. They also like their heroes spotless and admirable, like in the old days, you know, like Shoeless Joe, Ty Cobb, and Pete Rose. Models for youth etc.

I like baseball, but I think the fan culture is weird sometimes.

Posted by fugattabottit | August 8, 2007 5:07 AM

he should have never been allowed to wear that device on his elbow.

Posted by who cares | August 8, 2007 5:23 AM

SoCalJustice said:
And he's also experienced the greatest, visible increase in head size in the history or organized sports.

That's also got to be some kind of record.
___________________________________________

Yep, that is one big melon all right. Bonds got the record, but the steroid accusations are going to taint it permanently.
Bonds fans may not like it, but that's the way that it is-and the way that it will be.

Aaron is a class act. Bonds could learn a lot from him.

Posted by susan | August 8, 2007 7:24 AM

Whatever his skills as a baseball player, he's a world class asshole, and that trumps his ability to knock a ball around a field.

Posted by Freddie | August 8, 2007 7:32 AM

Ah, the ironic thing about his records, and this one in particular, is that they will forever mark him with a scarlet S. Every time 756(and whatever number he finishes with) is mentioned it will be followed by "steroids".

Maybe it's true that "the records are the records" but what each record stands for is different. 755 was about class, dignity, hard work, constituency, skill, overcoming prejudice, etc... 756 is about steroids, cheating, and a John Merrick sized head.

Pyrrhic victories don't come any purer.

Posted by Twan | August 8, 2007 7:38 AM

Bonds fans may not like it, but that's the way that it is-and the way that it will be.

Not necessarily. If Bonds plays a few more seasons -- and he may well do so -- he may so thoroughly obliterate Aaron's record as to largely obviate the current controversy. I mean, if he pushes well into the 800s the objections about steroids will increasingly become moot.

Posted by Jasper | August 8, 2007 8:00 AM

There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings floating about in the public discussion of this issue, and in the discussion here.

First, I think people should read ">this article to get a clearer sense of the scope and degree of Bonds's steroid use.

Brandon Claycomb says: And Dan K., you make a good case...but, Barry's presumably not on steroids over the last couple of years at least...and he's still a hitting god. And buff. I'd like to see the explanation for that from one of his detractors.

He sure doesn't look buff to me. He now looks like a soggy and bloated caricature of the muscular machine he was just a few years ago. And his hitting, while still very good for a man his age, has declined from god-like status. I assume he has now replaced his steroid-enhanced weight training with vigorous but conventional, non-enhanced weight training. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done late in his career if he had relied on weight training alone.

To the repeated assertions that Bonds did nothing that was either illegal or in violation of baseball rules, I would remind everyone that Congesss declared anabolic steroids a controlled substance in 1990. And Faye Vincent sent a memo back in 1991 that stated:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids."

Bud Selig reaffirmed the policy in 1997. The penalties grew stiffer during the following decade. But the rule had been established much earlier. These players all knew they were breaking the rules, and that steroid purchase and possession was something that had to do in the shadows and with whispers.

Justin X, I remember the Aaron home run chase very well, and there was nothing like this Bonds travesty. I know that Aaron received racist threats, but for the majority of the fans that only increased their admiration for Aaron and their support of his pursuit of the record. And it is grossly insulting to Aaron to suggest he was accepted because he did the "black man shuffle". Aaron was and is a dignified man, but somewhat reticent, was never any sort of ingratiating smiling minstrel, shuffling to the white man's applause.

Along these same line, nice try, gueyplong, with the Kenesaw Mountain Landis racism tie-in. But what I was thinking about was Landis's firm punishment of the Chicago White Sox players who conspired with gamblers to affect the outcome of the 1919 World Series. And as I said, I'm for invalidating the records of all proven steroid users, of whatever race, ethnicity and nationality, including Mark McGuire.

It was mentioned that Tiger Woods got lasik eye surgery to help him read greens. True. But Lasik surgery neither involved illegal activity, nor an activity banned by the PGA. Possession and use of unsubscribed steroids involved both.

And was the game cleaner in the past? No. They were gambling and whoring and boozing and pill-popping in the past. But they weren't doing steroids.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 8, 2007 8:25 AM

Anyone proposing to throw out Mantle's records for amphetamine use? Anyone think Ty Cobb's stolen base records ought not to count, because he used sharpened spikes?

People who complain that he's surely and has a bad attitude need to realize that the sports media treat Bonds much the way that the political mjedia treated Al Gore. They don't like him because of his reserved personality, and portray him in a bad light. The media treated Ted Williams much the same way, back in the day.

Posted by rea | August 8, 2007 8:28 AM

All of the talk about asterisks and cheating is utterly historically illiterate.

What I'd like to know is this: When, exactly, was the golden era when baseball was clean and pure?

During the first two decades of the 20th century, cheating was rampant. Games were routinely thrown, and the 1919 Black Sox scandal was only the most prominent example of this. We know, for instance, that the 1910 AL batting title was crooked, and late-season games were often deliberately fixed for financial reasons. See the Deadball Era FAQ (Section 4: Crooked Games and the Black Sox Scandal) for details on these practices. How, exactly, did all these phony games affect statistics? We don't fully know.

It should also be pointed out here that the notion of "removing" statistics from the record books is absurd. You may be able to do that in track and field, but baseball doesn't work that way since all the statistics are interconnected. If you affect one player's statistics, you also have to adjust the statistics of every opponent he ever faced, whether he was a pitcher or a hitter. This is more or less impossible. Even the 1919 World Series results still officially stand, even though we know that those games were fixed.

Can someone explain to me why steroids are more of a taint on the game than the exclusion of African-American ballplayers up until 1947? What records might Satchel Paige or Josh Gibson hold had they been allowed to play in the major leagues? Should Babe Ruth's records also be removed since he never had to hit against the best black pitchers of his era?

I have a hard time seeing why steroids are more of a travesty than the deliberate throwing of games, or the deliberate exclusion of some of baseball's best players because of the color of their skin.

Are things different because steroids are illegal? During the 1920s, probably a majority of players used a then-illegal drug (alcohol). Amphetamine use has been rampant from the 1950s to today, and until recently no one gave a damn.

The fact is that every era of baseball has been unique. None have been pure or perfect. The late 1990s and early 2000s are no different. People will take into account the era when evaluating batting statistics, just like we take into account the massive pitching mound and huge strike zone when looking at Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968.

Posted by Josh G. | August 8, 2007 8:32 AM

Landis's firm punishment of the Chicago White Sox players who conspired with gamblers to affect the outcome of the 1919 World Series.

Was a gross injustice--the evidence against them was very shakey, and they were acquitted in criminal trials. Joe Jackson hit .375 in the Series he was acccused of throwing . . .

Posted by rea | August 8, 2007 8:36 AM

Baseball "purists" like Bob Costas make me want to hurl. Maybe Bob's next crusade should be to remove Gaylord Perry from the Hall of Fame.

Perry admitted that he threw spit balls and scuffed baseballs his entire career. That's cheating. Sammy Sosa took steroids and was caught with a corked bat. Take his 500-plus homers off the board.

Maybe Babe ruth's records should be expunged because he never had to play against a black athlete. He might not have hit so many home runs had he had to face Josh Gibson.

Maybe Bobby Thompson's "shot heard 'round the world" should be expunged from the record books and the game foreited because the Giants were stealing the catcher's signs to the pitcher. They were and that's cheating.

Maybe Pete Rose should be banned, not because he gambled, but because he and his teammates took "greenies", which he has admitted.

Can't remember who said it: "If you aren't cheating you aren't trying". All the purists should recognize that cheating is one the oldest traditions in baseball.

Posted by Pug | August 8, 2007 8:47 AM

Dan, you make some good points...and some bad ones. While it's true that Bonds is now "only" has an on base percentage of .495, as opposed to the inconceivable .609 of 2004, .495 is itself an incredible OBS, surpassed for the most part only by...Bonds. And the man is old. Players his age don't hit for .495 .569 .277, or anywhere remotely close. Baseball Prospectus lists him as currently the 13th most valuable hitter in baseball at age 42. Your response doesn't begin to explain how Bonds could do this, if so much of his hitting from 1999-2004 was derived from steroid use.

He's one of the best hitters ever, and the arguments against him are largely innuendo. He seems like a jerk to me, but he deserves better.

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | August 8, 2007 8:47 AM

Barry Bonds walk total in 2004 was inflated by the fact that he had no fearsome teammate batting behind him - Ruth had Gehrig, Ortiz has Man-Oh-Manny, but Bonds was easy to pass since the next hitter was never much. And even Jeff Kent was no Gehrig.

Posted by Tom Maguire | August 8, 2007 8:52 AM

Can someone explain to me why steroids are more of a taint on the game than the exclusion of African-American ballplayers up until 1947? What records might Satchel Paige or Josh Gibson hold had they been allowed to play in the major leagues? Should Babe Ruth's records also be removed since he never had to hit against the best black pitchers of his era?

Finally...I'm shocked that it took this long in the thread for someone to make this basic common-sense point. Every white player before Jackie Robinson should have an asterisk because they were the beneficiearies of performance-enhancing racism.

Posted by Tom Hilton | August 8, 2007 9:25 AM

Sorry about the above bungled hyperlink everyone.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 8, 2007 9:34 AM

MLB needed the home run chase to get over the strike. ESPN encouraged the long ball because it's a nice clean highlight for SportsCenter. Bonds, Sosa and McGwire delivered.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 8, 2007 9:44 AM

nolaboyd said:

That's insane. Why not the respect of someone who is historically great at his sport? Because he wasn't friendly? Maybe a bit of a dick? I thought his job was to play baseball, and he's stunningly good at that.
____________________________________________

To be perfectly honest, I think that my sense of outrage about Bonds is precisely that. He is a dick- not a bit of a dick-a big dick.

Aaron was and is a gentleman. He is the kind of guy that you hope will break a record. I hate to see him supplanted by someone like Bonds.

Steroids just make it that much easier to dislike Bonds.

Posted by susan | August 8, 2007 9:57 AM

Was a gross injustice--the evidence against them was very shakey, and they were acquitted in criminal trials. Joe Jackson hit .375 in the Series he was acccused of throwing . .

Jackson confessed to taking money from gamblers. He later recanted this (surprise!) but at least he knew about the fix. The fact that he double-crossed the gamblers wouldn't exonerate him.

And the stats can be misleading. He hit poorly in the five games the Reds won. Someone went through and found that he gave up an inordinate amount of triples in the field. You can throw a series and still look good at times.

Posted by Freedom! | August 8, 2007 9:57 AM

Every white player before Jackie Robinson should have an asterisk because they were the beneficiearies of performance-enhancing racism.

"Performance-enhancing racism" is the single most awesome phrase in the history of baseball (and, possibly, in the history of sports). I tip my hat to you Mr. Hilton.

Posted by NonyNony | August 8, 2007 10:04 AM

MY is wrong about Bonds being the best offensive player ever. You have to look at more than raw numbers, you've got to make some adjustment for era -- for how much better the player is than the competition. Ruth was much farther ahead of his competition.

And if we want to get beyond hitting, yes, Bonds was a better fielder and baserunner than Ruth, but don't forget, Ruth was also a great pitcher.

Posted by too many steves | August 8, 2007 10:04 AM

Matt, I think Kevin Drum's advice strikes exactly the right middle ground. There's really no precedent or objective process to throw Bonds' records out, so for better or worse they should stand. But anyone paying even an ounce of attention knows that his late-career transformation from one of the two best position players of his generation (Griffey being the other) to the greatest offensive player of all time was the result of illegal steroid use. The idea that it all evens out because some pitchers and fielders were juiced too is laughable, the numbers themselves show that. So the best solution is to let Bonds keep playing, record the records, and then let the weight of historical judgment and public disdain take its course--starting now.

Posted by Kevin C. | August 8, 2007 10:07 AM

Two words: no rings

Posted by Nordy | August 8, 2007 10:13 AM

Ruth was much farther ahead of his competition.

Hmm. If someone was that much better than his competition in this era, I know the explanation that would be suggested.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 8, 2007 10:55 AM

He is a dick- not a bit of a dick-a big dick.

Really? What the hell did he ever do to you?

Posted by Barbar | August 8, 2007 11:00 AM

Hi all,
I would rather have ARod than Bonds. I hate the Yankees, don't get me wrong. But if anyone is capable of taking the "greatest player ever" nod away from Ruth, it will be ARod. (Yes, yes, Bonds' lifetime SLG numbers are higher and Bonds used to be good at defense but I'd still take ARod.)

Posted by Chris J | August 8, 2007 11:40 AM

What, you think Ruth was on the 'roids? I think he was just bigger and stronger and more talented than everybody else.

"anyone paying even an ounce of attention knows that his late-career transformation from one of the two best position players of his generation (Griffey being the other) to the greatest offensive player of all time was the result of illegal steroid use"

The first part of that sentence is wrong. Before 1998 (the year that Bonds started juicing, according to "Game of Shadows," and that book is meticously reported), Bonds was already the greatest player of his generation. In 1992 and 93 his OPS+ was 205 and 206. Both of those are better than Griffey ever did (numbers from baseballreference.com). Griffey's best year, in 93, was 172. Bonds did better than that 5 times before he started juicing.

Without any chemical enhancement, Bonds probably would have passed Mays and finished 3rd all-time in home runs. He would have been the greatest player of his era and one of the top 5 hitters of all time. With the 'roids, he became one of the top 3 hitters of all time, and probably had the greatest 4-year stretch of anybody, ever.

Posted by too many steves | August 8, 2007 11:41 AM

I also find the term "performance-enhancing racism" clever and humorous, but I disagree with all attempts to portray disgust with Bonds as a form of racism. It's worth noting that Hank Aaron, a man of genuine class who, having received loads of disgusting racist death threats, would have every reason to be resentful towards white people, has never given any sign that he considered Ruth's record illegitimate, and indeed expressed pleasure in his autobiography that he and Ruth coincidentally ended up tied for second on all the all-time runs scored list. (Henderson and Bonds have since moved Aaron and Ruth down to tied for fourth.) On the other hand, despite his typically classy and dignified attempt to make nice yesterday, it's pretty clear that in his heart Aaron considers Bonds's record to be phony. I don't think it's our place to try to out-PC Aaron.
Nonetheless, I don't consider Bonds the true villain here. The owners and the players union should have cracked down on steroids use long before the McGwire-Sosa fiasco of 1998. The story of Bonds is a story of a man who (like Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, DiMaggio, Williams, Mantle, Jackson, and many other superstars of the past) was a deeply flawed human being, even an out-and-out jerk, but who nonetheless, prior to 1998, had enough respect for the game and the long-term health of his body not to cheat. When he saw lesser players cheating and getting public adulation for it, he snapped and decided it he would cheat too. It really is something of a Greek/Shakespearian tragedy.

Posted by James Kabala | August 8, 2007 12:01 PM

no. MLB never permitted steroid use. they just didn't test for it.

steroids were illegal. therefore, Bonds cheated. nuff said.

his records should be stricken. period.

Posted by Nathan | August 8, 2007 12:01 PM

I'm not sure OPS+ is the right statistic for comparsion, since it's a relative measure and Griffey had many of his best years in the late 1990s when he was statistically overshadowed by chemically enhanced players like Sosa, McGuire, and Bonds.

Posted by Kevin C. | August 8, 2007 12:02 PM

What, you think Ruth was on the 'roids? I think he was just bigger and stronger and more talented than everybody else.

Or he corked his bat. I'm sure there are any number of other ways of cheating of which I'm not aware.

I don't think it's our place to try to out-PC Aaron.

No one's trying to out-PC Aaron. They're making the reasonable point that if a lot of talented people are barred from a game, the game is easier to dominate. There's nothing PC about that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 8, 2007 12:10 PM

Whether Bonds' records are tainted or not, is up for debate. However there are several myths that need to be corrected:

1. Steroids were banned in baseball in 1991
2. The use of anabolic steroids is illegal without a prescription
3. Bonds stands charged with more than steroid use
4. Anabolic steroids (or anabolic drugs) likely improve bat velocity and thus batted ball travel (this one not scientifically proven, however)

http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/08/barry-bonds-and-the-urban-myths-about-steroids/

Posted by GRG | August 8, 2007 12:25 PM

MY,

Comparing players across eras is a little bit more complicated than you seem to realize. The year Ruth set the single season record for home runs he hit more home runs than any other TEAM (excluding the Yankees, of course.)

When you look at the inflation of offensive statistics during the period in which Bonds played, claiming that he is the greatest of all time becomes less of a home run.

I highly recommend the Baseball Prospectus book:
Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game Is Wrong by The Baseball Prospectus Team of Experts and Jonah Keri (Paperback - Mar 1, 2007)

There is an article in this fascinating book on just this topic.

Posted by NAH | August 8, 2007 12:33 PM

...many home runs had he had to face Josh Gibson.

Since Josh Gibson was a catcher, Bonds likely wouldn't have hit many home runs 'facing' him. I'm guessing he would have struggled even putting the bat on the ball.

Posted by Rob | August 8, 2007 12:39 PM

I was there last night and it was nothing short of magical. Bonds got sincerely choked up when he looked up at the sky and invoked his father-- not the obnoxious, cliched god-thanking but an expression genuine love and respect for the man who gave him his name and bequeathed him his talent. Bobby Bonds was by many accounts a troubled man and a ballplayer of great potential and frustrating results, but last night, he was vindicated through a son who stands as the Greatest Ballplayer of All Time. No one, not Ruth, Mays or Aaron, ever had the huge ripple effect on the game of Baseball that Barry has had. All the snark and criticism and outright hatred aside, Bonds emerged from an era of beefed-up players and downsized parks as THE standout, dominant slugger. And much like Clemens, another dominant old-timer touched by steroids controversy, Bonds has outlasted his competitors; unlike Clemens, Bonds has faced a wall of jeers and vituperation that only hushes when he steps to the plate because everyone, EVERYONE, wants to see him hit. It's riveting. Muscles aside, Bonds has the sweetest, most powerful southpaw swing there is. You can't inject that-- it's something you're born with, something in your genes and not your veins, something you inherit but perfect yourself.

Bonds is the greatest of all time, and the haters just don't matter. I was there and I will never forget that night, and if A-Rod or Pujols break it down the road, good for them, but none of them will ever have seasons like Bonds in '01 or '02. Matt, thank you for your post and for pointing out facts that irrational Bonds-haters can't stomach. In the words of Hammerin' Hank, "It is a great accomplishment which required skill, longevity and determination." Mr. Aaron knows; he learned the hard way. And through the racism and scapegoating, he persevered. And no, it's not fair to compare Barry to Hank; they are different players from different eras. But give me the choice, and I'll put Barry at the plate every time. Not because of home runs, but because of this stat: 1.051. That's Bonds's career OPS, Aaron's: .929. If Baseball's a Game of Statistics, Barry is Baseball king. But if Baseball is a game of intangibles, Barry is Emperor for Life.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 12:54 PM

GRH, that was a good article. I'll have to reevaluate some of my thoughts about Bonds.

I still think people are judging him too harshly on too little evidence, though.

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | August 8, 2007 1:09 PM

I agree Brandon; moreover, people in the press are going after him more aggressively than guys like Giambi, who basically admitted it, Palmeiro, who got caught, and Clemens, who was fingered by Grimsley. What is it about Bonds?...

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 1:14 PM

*****No one, not Ruth, Mays or Aaron, ever had the huge ripple effect on the game of Baseball that Barry has had.****

Oh, my goodness.

The ghost of Jackie Robinson, whose entry into baseball caused a ripple across the planet, is shuddering.

***Bonds is the greatest of all time, and the haters just don't matter***

When he wins 24 games & leads the league in shutouts (like Babe Ruth did, which I'm guessing a good percentage of Bonds myrmidons are unaware of) the Bonds-apologists in SF can come to the table and talk...

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 1:17 PM

When Babe Ruth steals 500 bases, we'll talk.

And as far as Robinson is concerned, I was talking IN-GAME RIPPLE EFFECT. Obviously integration was important CULTURALLY but I'm referring to his effect on opponents and teammates- his GAME-CHANGING AURA. Which Robinson didn't have, other than the novelty of his dark features. Ruth had it, Mays and Aaron and Mantle and Williams to a lesser extent. But Barry scared the shit out of opposing players where they'd pitch around him WITH THE BASES LOADED, IN CLOSE GAMES! The walks don't lie-- Barry at his peak was better than anybody ever.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 1:28 PM

Gregorio, are you really saying there's some doubt as to whether Bonds used 'roids and/or HGH? Have you read the Chronicle guys' book, or even the just the excerpts?

Posted by too many steves | August 8, 2007 1:55 PM

I believe Bonds used steroids. I believe it was a baseball-wide epidemic that the owners and sponsors overlooked because it was profitable. I believe Barry used well and wisely; he is still around while Caminiti is dead. It was deadly serious, but 'roids provided the competitive edge Bonds needed to rise out of a sea of roiding pretenders (especially pitchers-- don't overlook them). I have no proof of this. The evidence is considerable. But the complicity of MLB and its sponsors is more glaring. They were the ones responsible. Barry and Giambi and Palmeiro and Clemens and whoever else were doing what they had to do to maximize their potential in a juiced era. Competition, free market, etc. etc.-- Blaming Barry alone is scapegoating. You can't scapegoat the G.O.A.T. motherfuckers.

I'll say it. Steroids don't bother me that much. I think they should be banned and tested for religiously. Players should be suspended and banned accordingly. But to retroactively moralize is selective at best and hypocritical in most cases. Bonds is no gregarious Sosa, but in the end, he is still swatting homeruns as Sosa's pockmarked ass is nibbling at the fringes. If he used them, which he likely did, steroids have been Barry Barry good to him. He deserves credit for using them well, 'cos every user can end up like Caminiti or worse, a Benoit.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:04 PM

Gregorio, are you really saying there's some doubt as to whether Bonds used 'roids and/or HGH?

For the umpteenth time, the issue is not whether Bonds used. The issue is whether his usage materially effected his production. At the very least, if Bonds must endure an asterisk, then so should Ruth for being shielded from black pitching, and for enjoying so many daytime plate appearances.

Posted by Rick | August 8, 2007 2:08 PM

And for all the talk about smaller parks, Barry was hitting in Candlestick and then the considerably hitter-unfriendly China Basin park for half the games. Yes the right field porch is short, but the wind positively screams in off the Bay. I need some 'roids just to survive wind chill.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:10 PM

Rick, I know that's the issue, it just sounded like Gregorio was giving Bonds the benefit of the doubt. Now I see that wasn't the case.

There's been some study of what Bonds would have done without 'riods, and it's still pretty impressive. Just like with Ruth or anybody else, I think you have to judge a guy relative to his contemporaries, and Bonds is awesome.

Posted by too many steves | August 8, 2007 2:15 PM

Yeah, to clarify, I think he used, but I question how important that is to the overall discussion of his greatness. Every era had its qualifying factors. Segregation, Games per Season, WWII, Amphetamines, Steroids. Bonds IS still innocent until proven guilty, but I think more importantly, he is being treated unfairly. To asterisk him would be to asterisk an era and open up a can of worms. I am an admittedly rabid Giants fan, San Francisco native, and Bonds partisan, but I think my reasoning in this is sound.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:20 PM

---When Babe Ruth steals 500 bases, we'll talk.---

Bonds could've probably stolen 700 had he not decided to cheat. That said, Ruth is the greatest player ever, as evidenced by his ability to dominate as a pitcher. Seriously, he was among the best in baseball prior to going to RF.

***believe Barry used well and wisely; he is still around while Caminiti is dead. ***

Caminiti was a coke-head, which destroyed his heart. That Bonds can't play but a few days at a time shows that the juice is damaging his body (I've had his knee surgeries & my knees are stronger than they've ever been thanks to, no joke, weight lifting). There really is no "well" or "wise" use of anabolic steroids and most especially HGH w/o doctor's oversight.

It's okay to accept Bonds' superiority as an athlete while also acknowledging that he's a cheater who deserves scorn for cheating.

****They were the ones responsible. ****

Sheer nonsense. The powers banned steroids and some players still took them. They couldn't test because of the MLBPA refusal to accept that as part of the labor agreement. Goodness, the ones responsible for steroid use are the ones taking steroids.

Well, and Bush or Halliburton. Or Cheney.

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 2:27 PM

Babe Ruth was a good pitcher in an era when hitters were sometimes also pitchers. He cut that shit out once his unparalleled offensive acumen became crystal clear. Invoking that in this day and age is as laughable as pardoning "the powers" who knowingly rode the McGwire/Sosa surge post-strike, enjoying the ratings and ticket sales and allowing the 'Roids to ride on unchecked. Yes the guy with the syringe in his arm makes the decision, and yes the union was complicit, but you make a big enough stink, the dominos will fall. Selig and the Owners could have forced it, but the Big Mac/ Slammin' Sammy show was too vital to Baseball's continued economic resurgence. How much did they know, and when did they know it. Toss in Bush, but the early 90s rangers had a couple questionable players for sure... how much did W know? He talks tough now, but... well, steroids are the LEAST of his crimes.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:34 PM

***Yeah, to clarify, I think he used, but I question how important that is to the overall discussion of his greatness. ****

We can agree on at least this much. He is great, the greatest player of this generation for sure & among the greatest ever. Thing is, he was that before he started juicing.

***Bonds IS still innocent until proven guilty***

He admitted to taking steroids. That case is closed; he cheated. It's just a matter of if people are actually willing to accept the premise that he 'thought' he was taking flaxseed oil (ahem).

**** but I think more importantly, he is being treated unfairly.****

Oh, I don't think so. Mark McGwire is a baseball pariah. Palmeiro was shuttled out of the game. Sosa was out of baseball for more than a year because no team wanted him. Should Giambi approach some hallowed record, he'd start getting the intense treatment, too.

He's getting the props for being a great player and doing something that takes persistence & longevity while pretty much everyone knows that he did it thru cheating and for the rest of his life he'll be wearing a virtual scarlet letter. That's about how it should be, IMO.

A few years after he retires & all this blows down & A-Rod nears his record, Bonds can simply do a mea culpa, throw himself on the mercy of the public and say the magical words "I'm sorry" & shed a tear or two and a lot of folks will begin to forgive. Not many and folks will never forget, but it will get better.

Can't forget the cheating, though.....

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 2:35 PM

Wow, RW, you're becoming more reasonable with each post. That said, Bonds will wear no scarlet letter-- the stigma is in the eye of the beholder. He made the best of a murky era, and emerged as the most dominant offensive force to ever play the game. Did he "cheat?" Depends on your definition. Did he knowingly break MLB rules to gain unfair advantages in his gameplay? I don't believe so. Did he use some risky, illegal shit to get bigger muscles? Most likely yes. To me, that's a big difference.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:40 PM

Forget baseball and all spectator sports. Play ultimate frisbee!

Posted by JB | August 8, 2007 2:42 PM

FROLF!

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:42 PM

****Babe Ruth was a good pitcher in an era when hitters were sometimes also pitchers.****

Oh, come on. The guy won 20 games a few times, had a sub-2.00 ERA and led the league in shutouts. That's a bit more than simply being "also pitchers" (which has no meaning that I can ascertain, anyway). You think Bonds is better than Ruth - that's fine. But to swipe away the accomplishments of someone who would've been a potential Cy Young candidate had the award been in existence is a bit much, don't you think? I mean, it's not like Hank Greenberg, Ty Cobb or Gehrig were able to take the mound, much less dominate there.

***Selig and the Owners could have forced it***

Okay, how? Lord knows I dislike Selig & I certainly cannot defend him, but I'd like to know how you use words to "force" a union to acquiesce on something that they're adamantly against? It took the revelation of Bonds' use & Canseco's book, after all, to change the perception. Should Steinbrenne & Selig have had daily press conferences & slurred their own players with unsupportable charges in public in order to get the players & union to agree to what the owners were demanding all-the-while?

Not being obtuse; the owners tried to implement testing to the policy of banned steroids. The players said no. And it's the fault of the owners? How so?

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 2:45 PM

Two words: no rings

Which of course is not true, unless you think you only get a ring for winning the world series. Bonds was on numerous division winners and two league championship teams.

Posted by rea | August 8, 2007 2:46 PM

***Did he knowingly break MLB rules to gain unfair advantages in his gameplay? I don't believe so.***

If he used steroids, he broke MLB rules.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3

Steroids were banned in baseball in 1991. They just couldn't legally test due to the union's refusal to change the labor agreement & thus the owners/teams' hands were tied.

++++That said, Bonds will wear no scarlet letter-- the stigma is in the eye of the beholder.+++

Trust me, outside of the greater SF area, he's about as popular as Rush Limbaugh is within the SF area. Most of America correlates steroids with Bonds. And, for good reason, IMO.

FYI, I saw him play once: 4-4 with a homer & a steal against Greg Maddux during his heyday and pre-steroids for Bonds.

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 2:51 PM

Bonds singlehandedly powered the Giants to the World Series in '02, but it came down to the things most playoffs do: pitching and defense. And thanks to some bad relief and some deplorable defense, Bonds is World Series ring-less, but you cannot dismiss his 2002 run. He did everything he could to put the Giants in the position to win, but bad pitches and dropped balls kill playoff teams, even ones anchored by superstar sluggers.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:52 PM

Sosa was out of baseball for more than a year because no team wanted him.

Give me a break. Sosa wasn't out of the game due to being shunned for steroids--he was out of the game becasue he hit .221 with 14 HRs and 45 RBIs, and still wanted a big contract.

Posted by rea | August 8, 2007 2:55 PM

ROGER CLEMENS FINGERED BY GRIMSLEY! Hott.

Posted by Gregorio | August 8, 2007 2:57 PM

Sorry, the Orioles didn't resign him after his huge contract ran out (for good reason, he was overpaid) but no major league team offered him a contract. The Nats offered him a non-guaranteed MINOR league contract, but he didn't agree & sat back and waited for a big league team to call....they never did. After deciding that a non-guaranteed contract is better than nothing, he signed & went to spring training with the Rangers this year & made the team.

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 3:12 PM

I always love the Ruth backers. I'm not sure what they're trying to prove. Put Ruth in today's game. Wouldn't stand a chance. Give him the opportunity to grow up in today's America with modern standards for training and diet? Who knows. But statistics from the 20s don't have a lot of bearing.

Posted by mpowell | August 8, 2007 3:36 PM

"He is, in short, the greatest offensive player in the history of baseball. Not being someone who pays much attention to baseball...."

You should have put the second sentence first.

And then not bothered with the first.

You know not of what you write.

Posted by CaseyS | August 8, 2007 3:40 PM

If stats from the '20s don't matter, then why do people care about baseball records? The great thing about baseball is that it's had remarkable continuity, and the changes that have occured can be isolated and controlled for pretty well. Now, Wilt Chamberlain's records -- those are ridiculous. But Ruth's are pretty comprehensible. The guy was an awesome talent. Of course, if you put him in a time machine and put him in a game today with none of today's training or preparation, he wouldn't be that great. So what? What player would take the field using 1920s methods of training and preparation? Maybe David Wells.

Posted by too many steves | August 8, 2007 3:46 PM

***Put Ruth in today's game. Wouldn't stand a chance.***

As if a Democrat sitting in a wheelchair suffering from Polio would stand a chance in an election today.....what are those FDR relics trying to prove when they tout his accomplishments? [/snark]

*****But statistics from the 20s don't have a lot of bearing.****

You & a few dozen other people are probably in agreement.

Posted by RW | August 8, 2007 4:01 PM

And for all the talk about smaller parks, Barry was hitting in Candlestick and then the considerably hitter-unfriendly China Basin park for half the games.

Bonds hit 140 home runs in seven seasons at Candlestick Park (3 Com Park), and he's hit 156 in less than seven full seasons at Pac Bell (AT&T Park).

Posted by kirkaracha | August 8, 2007 4:05 PM

Here is a cool analysis of the swings of Bonds, Ruth, Aaron, and Arod.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-four-greatest-home-run-hitters-of-alltime-a-video-analysis/

Bonds and Ruth had remarkably similar swings.

I think a lot of people have this image of the older, flabby Ruth, but do not know that he was physically impressive as a young player.

http://www.baseballantiquities.com/

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 4:11 PM

Brandon Claycomb
No dice. 'roids don't improve hand-eye coordination, but they allow strength increases that turn fly-outs into homeruns. That said, I find Bonds' achievements, even if tainted pretty remarkable.

Posted by Gus | August 8, 2007 4:34 PM

There seems to be arbitrary and subjective standards about which rules to enforce, as well as the punishment for such violations.

--Babe Ruth used illegal drugs (alcohol and probably cocaine in "patent medicines")!

--Gaylord Perry and the Neikro brothers, among others, used illegal spitballs. How many of their wins have been deducted ?

--Clemens, Gibson and other "power pitchers" deliberately threw at batters' heads, a clear violation of the rules of the game, not to mention the potential harm to batters.

--Sammy Sosa did not invent bat "corking" !

--Let's not forget George Brett's illegal "pine tar" use !

--While steroids are illegal, they augment extensive weight-training and exercise -- merely injecting steroids won't turn David Eckstein into Albert Pujols ! Unlike the foregoing "tolerated" methods of cheating, steroid use doesn't provide an "immediate" advantage for specific play or specific game. The only real issue is the player's health -- doctor's supervision would avoid the notion that "if a little bit is good then a lot must be great".

Posted by H-Bob | August 8, 2007 4:36 PM

After his disastrous 1925 season, Ruth hired a personal trainer and worked out each winter for the rest of his career, which is what kept him an awesome performer through 1933, when he was 38.

Back then, superstars had a big advantage because they didn't have to get jobs down at the loading dock over winter to pay the rent.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 8, 2007 4:37 PM

Bond's supposed achievements are meaningless, because before the 1960's, the baseball season was much shorter than it is now.

Posted by Katherine | August 8, 2007 4:54 PM

mpowell,
that's why you have to compare players to others in their era. Ruth transformed the game almost single-handedly. That's why I find his claim to being the best to have merit. I do agree that not having African-American and Latin players in the game to be a convincing argument against him. As great as Bonds is, I find the fact that Ruth twice hit more home runs than any other team the most remarkable statistic of all. After that, Bonds ridiculous OPS of the 2001-2005 years.

Posted by Gus | August 8, 2007 5:07 PM

Ruth was the greatest and most popular athlete in American history, regardless of race or any other criteria. He changed the game and was more popular than the President or anyone else in America for a whole decade.

Aaron is a model of sportsmanship and a great athlete. Williams and Mantle and Mays and Clemente & a few others were peerless in their own way.

And Frank Thomas and Junior and a couple of other straights are better than this bobblehead bulging all over with juiced-up muscles. After he started 'roids in 2000, this freak of chemistry turned into a machine. And Barry Bonds is disliked even by baseball fans, who think he is a puffed-up egomaniac. Just another asshole like Canseco. Or a dork like Rose.

Hank Aaron had more class in the cuticle on his pinkie than this sport of nature will ever have. Bonds is a CREEPY CRAWLY piece of CRAP!

Posted by daveinboca | August 8, 2007 6:18 PM

I think Ruth still holds the record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched in a WS (17 w/Red Sox). Also, I think Ruth hit his 714 HRs in something like 3,000 fewer ABs than Bonds. There are many reasons to think that Ruth was a better all-around player than Bonds. Is there any disputing that Bonds is the greatest player in any sport to NEVER win a championship?

Posted by Just Karl | August 8, 2007 6:29 PM

Just Karl: Is there any disputing that Bonds is the greatest player in any sport to NEVER win a championship?

It's pretty much guaranteed that a baseball player will always hold that distinction, because of the nature of the game. Baseball is a team sport on defense, but largely an individual sport on offense. No matter how good Barry Bonds or anyone else is, they only get to come up to bat in 1/9 of the team's plate appearances. And no one except the pitcher can truly dominate on defense, and mechanical limitations of the human arm limit him to pitching in 1/4 to 1/5 of the team's games.

It's impossible for a single player to control the field in baseball every game the way that they can in football, basketball, hockey, or soccer.

Posted by Josh G. | August 8, 2007 9:41 PM

So if you agree that Bonds is #1, then who's #2?

Charles Barkley? Greg Norman? Dan Marino? None of these guys played baseball. I'm not buying the idea that baseball players have so little impact. It only takes one swing of the bat to change the course of most baseball games. It takes more than one basket, more than one putt, and more than one pass to win in most other sports. Bonds has no rings because he chokes in the post season.

Posted by Just Karl | August 8, 2007 10:46 PM

Bonds only homered 8 times in 45 at bats in the 2002 postseason. Maybe if he had shown a little more fortitude the Giants would have the Series that year.

Posted by Barbar | August 9, 2007 4:47 AM

Great stuff, thanks for posting. I agree completely. All serious baseball fans should.

Posted by Lgirl | August 9, 2007 11:14 AM

My modest proposal: Stop worrying about individual records in team sports, especially when they have no correlation, or even an inverse correlation, with team success. Leave the veneration of arbitrary statistics to eight-year-old boys.

Posted by Rich | August 9, 2007 1:08 PM

Daveinboca: Bonds is a CREEPY CRAWLY piece of CRAP!

MY, no more letting 5 year olds post. Sorry, petey.

Posted by Gregorio | August 9, 2007 1:19 PM

Ooh, I hope I didn't come back to this thread too late to address some of these responses. B/c this is an issue that has always intrigued me.

What I meant in my post was that Ruth's numbers from the 20s don't tell us very much about what Ruth, growing up today and with modern training techniques, would have done in today's game. There are far too many completely unknown variables involved. Does anyone disagree with that specific statement?

But in general, those old statistics are very interesting. But what do they tell us? Well, we can compare Ruth to other players of his era. Sure. But then we compare players of different eras by comparing their statistics against contemporary (for them) players! Its like running in a circle. How do you know Ruth was good? Because he hit more homeruns than anyone else at the time? Maybe they all sucked. Or were playing in the negro leagues. Or got real jobs that paid them real money. Some statistical corrections- like park effects, make a lot of sense to me when comparing contemporary players. Others, like adjustments for whole periods of players... what does that really mean? I don't think there are any statistical tools that are actually definitive in comparing players of different eras. Not even remotely. Frankly, I think it ultimately just comes down to personal preference. Do you want to compare players on their total offensive production? Or do you prefer to ask how dominant they were amongst their peers? But neither holds any advantage over the other in some metaphysical debate over who the 'better' player was.

Of course, there are always people who think time travelled 25 year old Jim Brown could step into today's NFL and rush for 5 ypc. I don't even know what to tell those people. But for the rest, do you see my point?

Posted by mpowell | August 9, 2007 4:46 PM

Worship not these numbers of the one with big head and small testicles, for the numbers are not excellence. Instead, look where your mind and body unite in a state of grace. Some say spirit must come before skill. Others say skill must come before spirit. They are wrong. Skill and spirit are one. Play ultimate, and may your sex organs maintain consistent mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_(sport)

Posted by JB | August 10, 2007 3:46 PM