or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Barry Bonds one back of Bambino
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barry Bonds one back of Bambino

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
Bonds hit his 713th today. Anyone care? I heard someone yapping on ESPN radio today that he thinks Bonds will actually retire during the season this year, leaving Henry Aaron's record untouched.

As much as I believe Bonds is (or was) chemically enhanced, I don't see anyway that MLB can take away whatever record he sets; he's never been proven to have used 'roids, and they weren't specifically against the rules for the longest time.

He still sucks.
post #2 of 81
Quote:
He still sucks.

So does McGwire..

And Sammy...

And Raffi...
post #3 of 81
The thing is that even if he breaks the record, people will always say that the Bambino was better because he was not on roids.
post #4 of 81
ODOREATER: Similar things could be said of Ruth to lessen his feats. For example, some of the best players were not allowed to play in Ruth's era due to their color.
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by bachbeet
ODOREATER: Similar things could be said of Ruth to lessen his feats. For example, some of the best players were not allowed to play in Ruth's era due to their color.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that people are still going to say Ruth is better than Bonds.
post #6 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
The thing is that even if he breaks the record, people will always say that the Bambino was better because he was not on roids.
No, Ruth was better because he had a near-HOF pitching career, and if he hadn't moved to 1B he would have made it as a pitcher.

Everyone plays under the rules of their day. Ruth didn't play in an integrated league and didn't have any night or west coast games; Maris had 162 games to hit his 61; Barry has hGH, which is still legal. BTW, Aaron had his best season at age 37.
post #7 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
The thing is that even if he breaks the record, people will always say that the Bambino was better because he was not on roids.


Remember we dont have The Bambino's records on film like we have most of the modern homerun kings. For all we know many of the things Ruth hit werent true HRs (some voices do say this) the way we know them. Im not saying thats the case but you can see how if people wanted to detract they could rewrite that stat.

A lot of guys are on steroids (or were) a lot of guys didnt hit 713 HRs.

Bonds is just a bitter bitter guy, but he still is a lot of fun to watch hit.

Dusty Baker ruined his only chance to win a ring.
post #8 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
No, Ruth was better because he had a near-HOF pitching career, and if he hadn't moved to 1B he would have made it as a pitcher.

Everyone plays under the rules of their day. Ruth didn't play in an integrated league and didn't have any night or west coast games; Maris had 162 games to hit his 61; Barry has hGH, which is still legal. BTW, Aaron had his best season at age 37.

Although to the Hall of Fame's credit, Negro league players are now being inducted.

I wonder what it wouldve been like to have Josh Gibson and babe Ruth on the same team. Would make a fantastic counter factual movie or book.

Also remember that Ruth didnt have the type of conditioning, training or diet that the modern sluggers get.

Baseball, which should be what's good about America, unfortunately often exposes what is bad about it.
post #9 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Film_Noir_Buff
For all we know many of the things Ruth hit werent true HRs (some voices do say this) the way we know them..

If you mean the fact that for part of Ruth's career a ball that bounced into the stands was scored a HR - that was investigated some time ago. Guys went through every single one of the Babe's HR, not one was a bouncer.

The things baseball fans do in the winter

Seriously, non-BB fans, and even many who are fans, would be amazed at how thoroughly recorded & studied the history of the game is.
post #10 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by howbah
If you mean the fact that for part of Ruth's career a ball that bounced into the stands was scored a HR - that was investigated some time ago. Guys went through every single one of the Babe's HR, not one was a bouncer.

The things baseball fans do in the winter

Seriously, non-BB fans, and even many who are fans, would be amazed at how thoroughly recorded & studied the history of the game is.
No kidding, we can be a wacky lot. Couple of resources: www.baseballthinkfactory.com and www.baseball-reference.com, in addition to the much maligned baseballprospectus.com.

I'd have to go back into the history of the rules of the game, but I'm fairly sure a ball caught on a bounce was an out for as long as a ball that bounced over the wall was called a homerun. Remember that the walls that balls were bouncing over were often more than 500 feet from home plate.

Tom
post #11 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by howbah
If you mean the fact that for part of Ruth's career a ball that bounced into the stands was scored a HR - that was investigated some time ago. Guys went through every single one of the Babe's HR, not one was a bouncer.

The things baseball fans do in the winter

Seriously, non-BB fans, and even many who are fans, would be amazed at how thoroughly recorded & studied the history of the game is.

No, I simply meant we will never be able to see for ourselves. I think baseball scoring and records were done just fine, and yet we still havent the footage of Ruth we have of every other slugger in baseball history. Im not attacking Ruth, I happen to be a Yankees fan and something of a baseball fanatic myself. All Im saying is he is the only slugger we really dont have a lot of footage of, even the Iron Horse is better recorded. Its only significant to show that a detractor can get his say about anyone whether its Bonds on steroids or the Babe on film.

I like this website

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/
post #12 of 81
I've always thought it was odd that ballparks don't have standardized dimensions. A homer in one field is an out in another and a ground-rule double in another? Weird.
post #13 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
The thing is that even if he breaks the record, people will always say that the Bambino was better because he was not on roids.
...
LL
post #14 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret
I've always thought it was odd that ballparks don't have standardized dimensions. A homer in one field is an out in another and a ground-rule double in another? Weird.
That's part of the charm of the game.
post #15 of 81
I'm still amazed at the lack of credit given to Hank Aaron.
His were some of cherished baseball cards as a kid. But the press seriously overlooks him. Even if Bonds beats them both, if history treats him the same way they did Aaron, he will be all but forgotten.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Barry Bonds one back of Bambino