Bonds hits 714

[IHATEDALLAS'82'87'91]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2452099

[whitskins]

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IndianBaller27]

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
ditto

[SkinsKY]

Well, we all knew it was coming at some point. I don't think anyone thinks anymore of Bonds because of it or less of Babe because of it.

[redskin_rich]

It still took Bonds 300 more games to match Babe, with all the new bat technology, smaller ballparks, dilluted pitching, performance enhancing supplements (legal and illegal) and Babe had very few at bats his first 5 years.

Anyway, give him his due but I don't want him to break Hank Aaron's mark.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Who is Bonds?

[CNYSkinFan]

Unfortunately for Baseball it will be forever tainted. Bonds probably used steroids, we will never know for sure, but we know enough for it to be questioned forever. Bonds brought it on himself yes, but he brought it on baseball as well.

We should be celebrating and hoping he can make it to Aaron's mark. Now I am hoping he will retire before ever getting there.

[akhhorus]

Unfortunately for Baseball it will be forever tainted. Bonds probably used steroids, we will never know for sure, but we know enough for it to be questioned forever. Bonds brought it on himself yes, but he brought it on baseball as well.

We should be celebrating and hoping he can make it to Aaron's mark. Now I am hoping he will retire before ever getting there.

I'm going to preface my statement by saying that I am a Bonds fan. Ive been a fan of him since the Pirates days and I'm still a fan of his. But(I have two points here):

I think it is clear that he did juice, but based on his stats it looks like he only juiced the year he hit 73. That record should have a asterix(but I think Pujols could beat it this year), but if you look at the accusation of that Bonds started juicing in 1997, Bonds' HRs go down(in basically the same number of games) played) for two seasons, then go back to where they were before anyone has him juicing at all. Bonds hit 46 HRs in 1993 in his first year in SF while he still was skinny Bonds. Before he hit the 73 HRs in 2001, the most he had hit after his "juicing" in 1997 was 49 in 2000(which isn't much more than what he hit in 1993). And after 2001, his HR total goes right back down to what they were before the 73(and before his juicing) and his walks don't go significant up until 2004.

2nd point:
There's more evidence that Lance Armstrong juiced than on Bonds. We have trainers of his arrested with blood doping equipment, teammates of his busted for doping, teammates saying Armstrong doped, the report of his B sample testing positive and Armstrong suddenly becoming a cycling force after hooking up with certain trainers and biking the Tour D'France much faster than he ever had. Yet, Armstrong is still the beloved hero and Bonds is scum?

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I'm going to preface my statement by saying that I am a Bonds fan. Ive been a fan of him since the Pirates days and I'm still a fan of his. But(I have two points here):

I think it is clear that he did juice, but based on his stats it looks like he only juiced the year he hit 73. That record should have a asterix(but I think Pujols could beat it this year), but if you look at the accusation of that Bonds started juicing in 1997, Bonds' HRs go down(in basically the same number of games) played) for two seasons, then go back to where they were before anyone has him juicing at all. Bonds hit 46 HRs in 1993 in his first year in SF while he still was skinny Bonds. Before he hit the 73 HRs in 2001, the most he had hit after his "juicing" in 1997 was 49 in 2000(which isn't much more than what he hit in 1993). And after 2001, his HR total goes right back down to what they were before the 73(and before his juicing) and his walks don't go significant up until 2004.
I think you have to consider the actual at-bats more than the games played...for instance, in 1996, when he isn't accused of anything, he hit 42 homers in 517 at bats. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, he hit roughly the same number of HRs (46, 45, 45), in FAR less at bats (403, 390, 373)..and this while getting older and older. He was 32 in 1996 and 40 in 2004. His age cannot be ignored in valuating his production IMO. Up until 2001 his numbers are awesome but plausible..after that they are videogame-esque (look at his averages)..

2nd point:
There's more evidence that Lance Armstrong juiced than on Bonds. We have trainers of his arrested with blood doping equipment, teammates of his busted for doping, teammates saying Armstrong doped, the report of his B sample testing positive and Armstrong suddenly becoming a cycling force after hooking up with certain trainers and biking the Tour D'France much faster than he ever had. Yet, Armstrong is still the beloved hero and Bonds is scum?
I completely agree with you on Armstrong. I'm not saying he is certainly guilty, but I at least have the same amount of doubts on Armstrong that I do on Bonds.

[akhhorus]

I think you have to consider the actual at-bats more than the games played...for instance, in 1996, when he isn't accused of anything, he hit 42 homers in 517 at bats. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, he hit roughly the same number of HRs (46, 45, 45), in FAR less at bats (403, 390, 373)..and this while getting older and older. He was 32 in 1996 and 40 in 2004. His age cannot be ignored in valuating his production IMO. Up until 2001 his numbers are awesome but plausible..after that they are videogame-esque (look at his averages)..

This is true, but his hitting was up across the board in the 21st Century. His batting average went from 320ish-280ish to 320ish-360ish. His ABs went down, and his HRs were up; but his hits across the board were better. And the roids can't be the reason for that. His wearing armor and forcing the balls more outside were the reason for that. The evidence of that was that his strikeouts went down also(even proportional to his ABs), which means he was just hitting the ball better during that time.

I completely agree with you on Armstrong. I'm not saying he is certainly guilty, but I at least have the same amount of doubts on Armstrong that I do on Bonds.

But in the current American sports discourse, Armstrong is still a big hero, although he blatently cheated worse than Bonds did. I think it has to do with their personalities. Bonds is a grumpy misanthrope, Armstrong is engaging and likeable.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

This is true, but his hitting was up across the board in the 21st Century. His batting average went from 320ish-280ish to 320ish-360ish. His ABs went down, and his HRs were up; but his hits across the board were better. And the roids can't be the reason for that. His wearing armor and forcing the balls more outside were the reason for that. The evidence of that was that his strikeouts went down also(even proportional to his ABs), which means he was just hitting the ball better during that time.
He certainly was. In fact I think the "steroids factor" should be looked for more in regards to his age than to his actual numbers. It's true that the 73 HR year was the only abnormal one in terms of HRs and that his hitting was awesome across the the board from then on. But you have to keep his age in mind here.The roids can't specifically help the hitting, but they can help keep the body intact and can help sustain an intense training regime (or allow the body to not necessitate numerous hours of weights) at an age where it should be breaking down for a professional athlete. Either he is an absolutely unique physical specimen, or the fact that his production after turning 37 till he was over 40 is way better than anything before is at least suspicious...

But in the current American sports discourse, Armstrong is still a big hero, although he blatently cheated worse than Bonds did. I think it has to do with their personalities. Bonds is a grumpy misanthrope, Armstrong is engaging and likeable.
It probably also has to do with Armstrong defeating cancer (which is obviously remarkable..don't get me wrong..). But this makes for a huge American hero story, which nobody would dare ruin..

[akhhorus]

He certainly was. In fact I think the "steroids factor" should be looked for more in regards to his age than to his actual numbers. It's true that the 73 HR year was the only abnormal one in terms of HRs and that his hitting was awesome across the the board from then on. But you have to keep his age in mind here.The roids can't specifically help the hitting, but they can help keep the body intact and can help sustain an intense training regime (or allow the body to not necessitate numerous hours of weights) at an age where it should be breaking down for a professional athlete. Either he is an absolutely unique physical specimen, or the fact that his production after turning 37 till he was over 40 is way better than anything before is at least suspicious...

Actually, Roids make you much more likley to get injured and takes longer to recover from injuries such as sprains and bruises. Bonds has played a remarkable number of games, even as he aged. He played one season(the year they went to the World Series) with a slightly torn hamstring. Good training, amazing physical gifts(which are evident) and a singular focus on his hitting(the armor, the different stance) would explain why he's been able to keep his hitting ability so high for so long. I think he juiced up for 2001 to make a run at McGwire's record, but if he was still juicing, his HR totals after that(and before that) should have been abnormally higher than his totals before he isn't accused of juicing(and his slugging percentage drops dramatically after 2001).

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Actually, Roids make you much more likley to get injured and takes longer to recover from injuries such as sprains and bruises. Bonds has played a remarkable number of games, even as he aged. He played one season(the year they went to the World Series) with a slightly torn hamstring. Good training, amazing physical gifts(which are evident) and a singular focus on his hitting(the armor, the different stance) would explain why he's been able to keep his hitting ability so high for so long. I think he juiced up for 2001 to make a run at McGwire's record, but if he was still juicing, his HR totals after that(and before that) should have been abnormally higher than his totals before he isn't accused of juicing(and his slugging percentage drops dramatically after 2001).
I don't know..it seems a bit strange that after having so much success the year he (almost certainly) juiced up, and after seeing his numbers improving dramatically (including his HRs if compared to the number of at bats), he would just stop taking them, at least until the whole Canseco thing broke out (which I don't remember exactly when it happened)..and what really gets me thinking is that he basically followed the exact opposite production curve than anybody else at his age..instead of getting gradually worse, he had an explosion one year, and then basically kept (everywhere except the HRs which went down a bit but were still above his previous output) up a production that was WAY better than anything he had done before (which I could justify at 25..30..35 even..but at 40?)..
You know, the more I think about it, the more, if I were a Bonds fan (I'm neutral on him actually), I would prefer that he had just kept on juicing himself..if your theory is correct, he basically tainted an otherwise absolutely extraordinary career just for one year, in which he got a record that nobody considers legit anymore anyways..that would be REALLY sad..he could have let McGuire keep his record (which is worthless anyways-he was juiced too), and ended up perfectly clean with more than 600 homers, kinda like Willie Mays..and while maybe nobody would have liked him now because of his character, he would be looked upon in 20 years as a legend..

[akhhorus]

I don't know..it seems a bit strange that after having so much success the year he (almost certainly) juiced up, and after seeing his numbers improving dramatically (including his HRs if compared to the number of at bats), he would just stop taking them, at least until the whole Canseco thing broke out (which I don't remember exactly when it happened)..and what really gets me thinking is that he basically followed the exact opposite production curve than anybody else at his age..instead of getting gradually worse, he had an explosion one year, and then basically kept (everywhere except the HRs which went down a bit but were still above his previous output) up a production that was WAY better than anything he had done before (which I could justify at 25..30..35 even..but at 40?)..
You know, the more I think about it, the more, if I were a Bonds fan (I'm neutral on him actually), I would prefer that he had just kept on juicing himself..if your theory is correct, he basically tainted an otherwise absolutely extraordinary career just for one year, in which he got a record that nobody considers legit anymore anyways..that would be REALLY sad..he could have let McGuire keep his record (which is worthless anyways-he was juiced too), and ended up perfectly clean with more than 600 homers, kinda like Willie Mays..and while maybe nobody would have liked him now because of his character, he would be looked upon in 20 years as a legend..

However, Bonds was getting slammed for bulking up since 2001. I don't think he looked at it as tainting a career for a one year record since there was no real rules against roids in baseball until 2004. Yes, there were rules on roids in MLB, but since the union never agreed to any regulations, the league couldn't enforce their rules. If Bonds had known that there would be a crackdown on roids in 2002-2003, then I think he would have passed on the roids and just finished around 700 HRs. And no matter if he just finished with 600ish home runs, he would have questions about him. Sosa finished with 588 HRs and left baseball after last year, but he's still seen as a juicer(and he's the poster boy for it). Or look at McGwire, who gets slammed for roids although he was never tested and was a power hitter for his whole career.

[flave1969]

I find it all slightly perverse the level of coverage this has gotten. As iconic as Babe Ruth is in Baseball, when Bonds hits 715 he will still be 40 behind "Hammerin" Hank Aaron.

In the run up to passing Ruth, Aaron received numerous death rates as well as 1000's of rascist letters. Aaron retired first all time in Home Runs and RBI's and third in Runs and Hits. He seems a little lost in all this hoo- ha.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I find it all slightly perverse the level of coverage this has gotten. As iconic as Babe Ruth is in Baseball, when Bonds hits 715 he will still be 40 behind "Hammerin" Hank Aaron.

In the run up to passing Ruth, Aaron received numerous death rates as well as 1000's of rascist letters. Aaron retired first all time in Home Runs and RBI's and third in Runs and Hits. He seems a little lost in all this hoo- ha.
That's all true. And that's why I agree with the MLB's not celebrating Bonds's 714 (or 715).

[fent]

espn just pointed out that Bonds is being investigated for perjury, presumably for his grand jury testimony. that can't help his case.

[GeneralDisorder]

I got a Barry Bonds Rookie Card:

http://i4.tinypic.com/110w1p2.jpg

Is it worth much...?

[fent]

I got a Barry Bonds Rookie Card:

http://i4.tinypic.com/110w1p2.jpg

Is it worth much...?

oh gawd...

[RedskinRyan]

I got a Barry Bonds Rookie Card:

http://i4.tinypic.com/110w1p2.jpg

Is it worth much...?

LOL! thats great

i dont really care about bons hitting #715. i thought id be mad since all the accusations thrown around him, which i believe hes guilty of, but im actually pretty indifferent to it. it was just a record(or in this case getting 2nd), and they get broken.