Letters to the Editor
-
The only thing I know for certain:
is that last night Alex Rodriguez just became ALOT more popular.
p.s. to "omooex": i think you mean methamphetimines
p.p.s To the earlier writer who mentioned Jordan's physical change..thank you! I thought I was the only one who noticed that! (as well as the only one who thinks he pushed off on that final jumper in the finals against the Jazz :)
-
Hard to Bond with Bonds
I'm a Giants fan. I know there has never been a more fearsome hitter than Barry Bonds, especially during that infamous 5 year span. Remember the bases loaded intentional walk? Think of the kind of numbers he would have if pitchers had pitched to him in the same way they did to Aaron, Mays, or even Ruth. He'd be pushing 1000 home runs.
But still. I don't know about asterisks or legacies. But there will also be something unsettling about the name "Barry Bonds". Sure, it's BALCO and steroids, but it's also how awfully he handled the limelight. I've never seen any athlete who could so reliably say or do the wrong thing at the wrong time. I don't think I'll ever like the guy. But when he stands in and starts flicking that bat around...? There was never anyone more intimidating.
-
Bravo, Gildonicus!
I know this is a bit afield at this juncture of the thread, but asking if Neifi Perez's recent suspension would taint his chase for the "runs created below average" record was laugh-out-loud genius, and I had to applaud that before it disappeared into the ether.
Perhaps if Neifi HAD played it straight, he'd be knocking on the doorstep of--look it up, kiddies--Duane Kuiper or, dare I say it, Bill Bergen hisself. (Sigh) Guess we'll never know how truly bad Perez cudda been!
-
Depends on the sport I guess
Shitheads are heroes in the NFL and NBA because they're shitheads. And old time hockey makes Bonds attitude look like playschool. Guys like Billy Smith might just as soon punch a fan or bite someone as give them an autograph.
And the great Michael Schumacher (Formula 1) hated his own team mates, the pit crews the fans the media everyone. He was famous for wrecking his own mates to get a win.
And Barry Bonds aint got shit in the badass I hate you motherfuckers department on Bill Russell.
Bob Gibson used to threaten to kill people with his pitches. Ty Cobb DID kill someone. With a gun. During a game.
So don't waste your time wondering if nice guys finish last. Generally, they do. And we love the mean sonsabitches who win.
-
Hank Aaron
wasn't the greatest player of his era.
Mays was.
And in his best years so was Mantle.
But Mantle boozed his career away.
And Mays played the majority of his career in a park that was death to hitters of all kinds, but especially right-handed power hitters, at night with the wind blowing in off the bay.
-
A whole lot of replies
T.B. Am I the only one who thinks Bonds was dogging it on the Giants' last road trip so he would return home at 755 and be able to break the record in front of his adoring see-no-evil fans?
If true, that's as despicable as his use of performance-enhancing drugs, and his denial of ever doing so.
Why? I thought performance-enhancing drugs were the scourge of sports and a threat to the lives of our children. But one player coasting on one August road trip for a last-place team is just as bad? What?
I think Bonds was more in a slump than dogging it, though I also think it's pretty clear he wanted to set the record at home. He made no secret of that. Earlier this year the Astros kept running Craig Biggio, who really doesn't even deserve to be in a big-league lineup anymore, out there so he could get his 3,000th hit, which, again, the Astros made clear they simply would not allow to happen on the road. That seems to me worse than what Bonds and the Giants did. Bonds is still the Giants' best hitter, after all, so at least playing him is legit. So am I supposed to believe the Biggio thing is WORSE than steroids? Good golly.
Downpuppy You're wrong that we can't imagine future controversies. Heck, there's an entire genre based on imagining the future.
Am not. Am not am not am not.
Sorry. No, seriously, just because we can imagine future controversies does not mean that all future controversies will have been imagined. One example: For all the imagining H.G. Wells did about the future, some of it very prescient, did he or anyone else in his time imagine the controversy over breast-cancer awareness Web sites being blocked by libraries on their public Internet terminals as part of an effort to prevent kids from seeing hardcore porn?
My bet, and I'd bet a lot on it if it were possible, would be that there will someday be controversies over issues not yet imagined in our time.
michaeljb That's a huge advantage and doesn't quite compare to a drug that basically keeps you from falling asleep in the outfield (OK, I'm being disingenuous here, but you get the point)
That's a huge advantage, though it doesn't quite compare to a drug that, unlike steroids, has been scientificaly proven to enhance performance. (Fixed that for you.)
Damianus Are you kidding? Amphetamines?
Nope.
Amphetamines have been around for decades. It seems that the majority of players - probably including Aaron - used them at one time or another.
So if we just sit tight on steroids, they'll be OK too? I mean, in a couple of decades?
Try as you might, you will find no player of any ability in any era whose productivity has gone up and stayed up on anything like the scale Bonds' has. Even now, when it is increasingly common for players to stay productive into their 40s, no one gets better; they simply manage to slow their decline, or perhaps hold on to what they had for longer.
Emphasis mine. So what you're saying is it isn't just the steroids, right? Because you can't be saying Bonds is the only one who's done steroids. The guy he hit No. 755 off of has tested positive.
You say that Bonds' record is legitimate because, among other things, we don't know what effect steroids have on performance. Actually, we can do just that, at least for Bonds. Look at his performance prior to 1998, then look at his performance since 1998 (not to mention his hat and coat sizes).
Remind me not to vote for you as chief of the FDA. You forgot to say, "Just look at the guy!"
There's little reasonable dispute that Bonds did steroids/HGH and they helped him get bigger. There's no proof they helped him get better. There is, yes, circumstantial evidence. But as you yourself said, where are the other guys who experienced the same kind of quantum leap doing the same drugs?
Would you be so ambivalent about an 85 home run season?
I would be as skeptical as I am now. And I'd be willing and eager to be shown proof that it was caused by steroids.
Honestly, I'm not playing dumb here. I know there's a very real possibility that Bonds' success has been fueled by steroids. I am not saying his success was not fueled by steroids. What I'm saying is there's no proof that the cause of his success has been steroid use, especially because we don't know which or how many of his opponents were also juicing. He started using steroids and his home run totals went up. Also, 9/11 happened. Correlation does not equal causation. Of course it might. I'm saying you can't say, "Of course steroids caused him to hit more home runs. Just look at his home run totals! And his hat!"
Anonymous You want to know how to feel about it King? Look at pictures of Bury from 1988 until 2004. That should pretty much sum up how you should feel.
Look at pictures of Hank Aaron from 1958 and 1974, but I get your point. See above.
dusty1215 His current stats sure as hell aren't even decent. Most guys would be benched with stats like Barroids this year.
What Gildonicus said. You're just being silly there.
As for the press giving him 20 years of grief, I call bullshit on that one. He has always been a ego-laden fuckwit and part time racist.
Agree with you there.