If you had only one vote for the Hall of Fame, who would you pick? The admitted gambler in Pete Rose or the alleged steroid abuser in Barry Bonds? It's the hit king vs the home run king and both men are shrouded in controversey.

If it were up to FOFC who would go to the HOF? Or would either one of them have a shot?

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball. This isn't even close in my eyes, and I pretty much despise Bonds. Let Canseco in before Rose.

I think if you look at Bonds numbers pre 2000 when this whole mess seems to have started he's already a no doubt hall of famer. If he would have retired then he'd have 2010 hits in 6976 at bats for a 288 average with 445 home runs, 460 steals and 3 MVP's. Not to mention 9 gold gloves and 9 all star apperances in only 14 seasons. Maybe a better question would be Sammy Sosa/Rafael Palmeiro/Gary Sheffield vs Pete Rose

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball. This isn't even close in my eyes, and I pretty much despise Bonds. Let Canseco in before Rose.
Yep. Barry, if he was a user (and it seems 99.9% likely he was), was still attempting to help his teams win.

Anyone involved with gambling on their own sport and especially their own team carries the potential to rig the outcome. To me (and I think to most people), cheating to gain a competitive advantage (as is the case with using performance enhancers) is preferable to rigging the outcome of a game.

How can you say one or the other and then give a neither option? :confused:

How can you say one or the other and then give a neither option? :confused:

I said you only get one vote between two guys or you just can decided F it and say neither one should get it and not vote.

Fuck Pete Rose, and the horse he bet to ride in on.

Bonds. Steroid use is comparable to throwing spitballs, and we have several suspected spitballers in the HOF (Perry, Sutton, and I think Whitey Ford, to name three right off the top of my head). It's a minor infraction compared to gambling on the game.

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball. This isn't even close in my eyes, and I pretty much despise Bonds. Let Canseco in before Rose.

Definitely.

Bonds is a cheater. Baseball can, and always has, survived cheaters of various forms.

Screwing with the integrity of the game itself is 1000X worse. Even "betting on your own team" does that (and I believe 100% that the "he only bet to win" theory on Rose is bullshit anyway.)

Both...I kow not an option.
But I have no argument againsst eeither

I would never, never vote Rose into the hall of Fame. (assuming ihad a vote :) )

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball.

That's where I stand, though I'd use the word "sports" instead of baseball.

rose only gambled as a manager, yes?

the way i look at it, rose never cheated on the field. as a manager is one thing, but its a lot tougher to affect a game than if you are out there playing.

bonds cheated during the game.

i vote rose.

the way i look at it, rose never cheated on the field. as a manager is one thing, but its a lot tougher to affect a game than if you are out there playing.

Oh, ok.. .he ONLY dragged the reputation of the results of the games into disripute as a manager... where of course he can't control anything (not lineups, when to pull pitchers, etc).

>4000 hits != >756 homers

Rose supposedly only bet his team to win, right?

While that isn't right, he bet to win, he played to win, he managed to win.

Bonds was jealous of McGuire's bloated arms and stats.

Asterisk them both.

Let them both in the hall of fame.

Place their plaques securely in urinals.

You can probably guess who I voted for.

Neither. They both should rot.

Neither. They both should rot.

Oh, they will...in fact...we ALL will! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Is it not fair to assume that a number of pitchers that Bonds hit these homers against were also on the juice?

Lets take a look at the two issues of weight gain and longevity - Roger Clemens put on similar gains from his rookie season to current day weight and has displayed a similar ability to maintain strong performances far past a normal athlete's peak. Why do I rarely hear steroid allegations and never hear calls to keep Clemens out of the Hall?

Clemens was actually on the decline before he left Boston. The late 90's arrive and at the age of 35 he magically revives himself, dominating again for a number of years before baseball cleans itself up and he again suffers a decline in his abilities.

The same can be said for Randy Johnson. Take a look at his numbers leading up to the mid-90's and then his numbers beyond that, leading up to around 2004-2005 and then his numbers since. For his first ten years from 1988-1997, Johnson threw 300+ K's once. Starting in 1998 (at age 34) he threw 300+ K's for five straight seasons (from age 31-40, Nolan Ryan did not hit 300 K's in any season). Do we hear anything about Johnson?

As an aside, I don't believe that the FDA banned THG until 2003. So even if Bonds was on THG up until 2003, it would be akin to using creatine or protein supplements. How would that make someone ineligible for the Hall?

Rose should be a hall of famer PERIOD

Rose should be a hall of famer PERIOD
Except that he violated the most fundamental rule in competitive sports PERIOD

Since I don't know how gambling can help you become the hit-king I gotta vote Rose

Since I don't know how gambling can help you become the hit-king I gotta vote Rose

+1

Since I don't know how gambling can help you become the hit-king I gotta vote Rose
Gambling damages the core element of sport - the idea that you're witnessing a contest where both teams/contestants are attempting to win and the results aren't jeopardized by someone attempting to fix the outcome.

Cheating, while distasteful, is still done with the intent of trying to win. Gambling could lead to one attempting to sabotage the chances of winning.

Bonds, one of the few best hitters ever, steroids or not.

Rose, roid-meister aside Bonds is just a plain jackazz to 98% of the people I've ever heard or seen him interact with. In his mind he's roids gift to baseball.

Rose supposedly only bet his team to win, right?

While that isn't right, he bet to win, he played to win, he managed to win.


This isn't necessarily true. Betting on individual games could lead you to manage in a fashion that maximizes win potential in one game (excessive use of relievers, bringing back an injured player too soon) but sacrifices the team's long term record.

I went with Rose. I am judging this solely based on on the field performance. Bond's on the field performance was allegedly enhanced by steroids, Rose's wasn't.


I vote Rose, I wish everyone played the game the way he did.

I think if you look at Bonds numbers pre 2000 when this whole mess seems to have started he's already a no doubt hall of famer. If he would have retired then he'd have 2010 hits in 6976 at bats for a 288 average with 445 home runs, 460 steals and 3 MVP's. Not to mention 9 gold gloves and 9 all star apperances in only 14 seasons.

I voted Rose because given the choice he would be it but I totally agree with this argument. I was a Bonds fan ( as much as I could be considering my waning interest in the sport over those years ). I was also a Bobby fan so I was rooting for his son.

The cheating thing though, man that's too much. It would be one thing if it didn't set a huge record but it galls me that one of baseballs most respected records will be in the hands of a cheater ( also, again, if it's never proven that he juiced of course he belongs in the hall ). See, to me, a statistician by nature, I find the records far, far more important to maintain integrity than merely gambling.

Gambling is more about the team's record and while that's pretty much conventionally thought of as the only stat that matters but baseball to me has always been more about the stats than the teams ( I never had a home team growing up ). The stats mean something to me and when I consider the history of the sport I think far more of players than teams.

We have Babe and the Georgia Peach and "lets play two" Banks and the Wizard of Oz.

With teams, not so much. We have the Miracle Mets and the Gashouse Gang and the Yankees as a collective but not as many by far or for the most part as interesting.

In fairness, I did grow up in a very gambling friendly environment ( though I turned out to not enjoy gambling at all ) so it would be odd for me to be too offput by the mere implications of the word.


My grandfather had one of my favorite quotes, btw. Someone was telling him how stupid he was for betting on Jai Alai because everyone knows it's rigged and he said "yes, but how am I supposed to know that the guy I'm betting on isn't the guy that's rigged to win?".


I just realized actually how much this really is my issue because I've always felt Gaylord Perry belonged in the hall and he cheated but he didn't really directly damage the integrity of the game because his cheating did not directly put a tainted record in the books. Bonds, not so much but if he retired one hr shy of Aaron I'd be a Bonds apologist absolutely.

PS:

The cynical part of me wants to think that the people who get worked up about gambling questioning the integrity of the sport to be well, gamblers. Those are the guys who would really worry about stuff like this.

Fact is, I've seen so many unfair sporting results that aren't gambling related that the set of unfair sports results is far bigger than the subset unfair gambling sports results and I really don't think that gambling is over half of the bigger set. Doesn't make gambling right of course but most gamblers don't get to fix games ( which Rose wasn't accused of anyway ) and we should punish those that do but to consider even the promoting for a casino to be a bannable offense is silly.

Yep, this post rambles and is all over the map but I'm submitting anyway. :D

Gambling damages the core element of sport - the idea that you're witnessing a contest where both teams/contestants are attempting to win and the results aren't jeopardized by someone attempting to fix the outcome.



I dunno, aren't all 9 players on both teams attempting to fix the outcome? ;)

I just realized actually how much this really is my issue because I've always felt Gaylord Perry belonged in the hall and he cheated but he didn't really directly damage the integrity of the game because his cheating did not directly put a tainted record in the books. Bonds, not so much but if he retired one hr shy of Aaron I'd be a Bonds apologist absolutely.

This argument is incredibly wierd. I'm not sure how putting a "tainted" record on the books damages the integrity of the game? One can argue that Aaron was on amphetamines, allowing him to recover much quicker, and thus 755 is a tainted record as well, and the Babe should have it instead. Then again, Babe Ruth played in an era when blacks weren't allowed to play, so that's tainted to.

Then again, I really don't see the big deal about steroids (or rather I see it, but I just don't care), so it becomes easy for me. Based solely on numbers, it is easily Bonds (and was so before 2000 as well).

Is it not fair to assume that a number of pitchers that Bonds hit these homers against were also on the juice?

Lets take a look at the two issues of weight gain and longevity - Roger Clemens put on similar gains from his rookie season to current day weight and has displayed a similar ability to maintain strong performances far past a normal athlete's peak. Why do I rarely hear steroid allegations and never hear calls to keep Clemens out of the Hall?

Clemens was actually on the decline before he left Boston. The late 90's arrive and at the age of 35 he magically revives himself, dominating again for a number of years before baseball cleans itself up and he again suffers a decline in his abilities.

The same can be said for Randy Johnson. Take a look at his numbers leading up to the mid-90's and then his numbers beyond that, leading up to around 2004-2005 and then his numbers since. For his first ten years from 1988-1997, Johnson threw 300+ K's once. Starting in 1998 (at age 34) he threw 300+ K's for five straight seasons (from age 31-40, Nolan Ryan did not hit 300 K's in any season). Do we hear anything about Johnson?

As an aside, I don't believe that the FDA banned THG until 2003. So even if Bonds was on THG up until 2003, it would be akin to using creatine or protein supplements. How would that make someone ineligible for the Hall?

Good post. I'll go a step further and make a devils advocate argument and say:

Barry Bonds did not cheat regardless of what he took.

Barry Bonds watched Mcguire and Sosa get huge beyond their build entering baseball, and saw them kill HR records in their chase for 61. Bonds watches them get treated as heroes and thinks to himself, well they are doing it and no one cares, why don't I do it as well? How did Bonds cheat the game when he saw the game celebrate steroids in the chase for 61?

Bonds use of substances that were not properly policed while athletes who took juice were/are celebrated is as much cheating as going 56 mph in a 55 while being passed by all other cars is breaking the law.

For the record, I voted neither, but the "everybody else was doing it too!" argument is not very convincing to me.

Players have been seeking a performance edge through chemical means since they started popping greenies in the '50s. The line Bonds is accused of crossing is no different than any player that used speed to improve their ability to play. I place Barry above real cheaters like Mike Scott (ball scuffer) and Albert Belle (bat corker).

Rose is just a douchebag that violated a rule the penalty for which was posted in every major league club house. Bannination for life (and beyond) is exactly what he deserves.

This argument is incredibly wierd. I'm not sure how putting a "tainted" record on the books damages the integrity of the game? One can argue that Aaron was on amphetamines, allowing him to recover much quicker, and thus 755 is a tainted record as well, and the Babe should have it instead. Then again, Babe Ruth played in an era when blacks weren't allowed to play, so that's tainted to.

Then again, I really don't see the big deal about steroids (or rather I see it, but I just don't care), so it becomes easy for me. Based solely on numbers, it is easily Bonds (and was so before 2000 as well).

I agree that it seems weird and it was pretty much stream of consciousness but here's one difference I see.

Steroids do seem to be a much bigger deal because I perceive that the performance boost given for steroids is far greater than for any other cheat. Maybe that's wrong, I really don't know but that's the perception that I get about them.

Another thing is that it will create a dampening of enthusiasm for records. Really, who cares about Cy Young's win record? It was so inflated that the record itself is meaningful only for the occasional "gee whiz" stat.

Stuff like the home run record, season and career though, look at the excitement caused by these every season. It keeps up interest because it's an exciting record.

That's gone now and not because of a change in the way the game is played but because of a cheater. If steroid use is ever effectively banned from the league you'll see numbers drop back into a more normal range and you'll know that no records are going to be broken and not because of a "gee whiz" story, but of a lousy cheater. That's kinda sad. If course, this isn't exactly threatening the integrity of the game I'll admit but to me, since the numbers are my primary interest, from that viewpoint, I've lost a lot more interest but since I am not a MLB customer it's no loss to them that I'm even less of one now. :)

I used to be though.

For the record, I voted neither, but the "everybody else was doing it too!" argument is not very convincing to me.

Thats understandable, but keep in mind the argument isn't just "everybody else was doing it!" it was that "people were/are doing it and were celebrated for it by those who are suppose to police the rules; despite the obviousness that they were doing it."

Baseball didn't just police poorly, they gave medals to those that were clearly "breaking the rules." How can a person be punished, either in actuality or in public opinion, when they are just following the example of the rules as set forth by those who make the rules?

I went Bonds, but I would have rather said Both.

Rose was a lot more fun to watch.

Bonds. Steroid use is comparable to throwing spitballs, and we have several suspected spitballers in the HOF (Perry, Sutton, and I think Whitey Ford, to name three right off the top of my head). It's a minor infraction compared to gambling on the game.

Steroids is compared to a spitball?

I'll take Rose as a player. Most of his allegations were as a manager, not a player...

This one is easy... Bonds is in.

Rose broke the ONE rule that is plastered on every clubhouse door, you CANT BET ON BASEBALL...PERIOD. Rose is out for good.

Bonds is a AUTOMATIC 1st ballot HOFer, I cant see any logical argument against letting him in. Tell me what rule MLB had in place that he broke???
Show me the test that proves he was on something that was banded by MLB.

If you go by the suspision he was doing something wrong than EVERYONE that has this non proven suspision cant go in either which is totaly rediculas and whould never happen.

At the end of the day unless Bonds comes out and admits he broke a MLB law he will be HR king and HOF 1St Ballot .

Rose, roid-meister aside Bonds is just a plain jackazz to 98% of the people I've ever heard or seen him interact with. In his mind he's roids gift to baseball.

+1

Steroids is compared to a spitball?

I'll take Rose as a player. Most of his allegations were as a manager, not a player...

Rose admited betting on baseball as a player as well, even if he made 1 bet as player and 500000000 as manager doesnt matter. He is cooked.

Rose loves baseball with all his heart (or at least appears to). Bonds sometimes acts like he hates baseball. The right answer is neither, of course. But a hall of fame that had Rose and not Bonds is much, much closer to my idea of a hall of fame than a hall of fame that has Bonds but not Rose - the latter is just a joke and an insult to fans.

This one is easy... Bonds is in.

Rose broke the ONE rule that is plastered on every clubhouse door, you CANT BET ON BASEBALL...PERIOD. Rose is out for good.

Bonds is a AUTOMATIC 1st ballot HOFer, I cant see any logical argument against letting him in. Tell me what rule MLB had in place that he broke???
Show me the test that proves he was on something that was banded by MLB.

If you go by the suspision he was doing something wrong than EVERYONE that has this non proven suspision cant go in either which is totaly rediculas and whould never happen.

At the end of the day unless Bonds comes out and admits he broke a MLB law he will be HR king and HOF 1St Ballot .

So you're cool with Bonds breaking federal laws then?

Bonds is a AUTOMATIC 1st ballot HOFer, I cant see any logical argument against letting him in.

How about, he turns people off of baseball, as opposed to Rose who turned on a generation of fans.

Rose wasn't half the player Bonds was even before Bonds started taking steroids. He was a great player and fun to watch, and would be a deserving first ballot HOFer without the gambling. But he is probably also the most overrated player in baseball history. In addition to having a lot more power, Bonds was a better fielder, got on base more, and was a better base stealer than Rose. The only thing Rose could do better than Bonds was hit for average, and his hits were mostly singles. Bonds more than made up for that by getting walks with his plate discipline.

So you're cool with Bonds breaking federal laws then?

I think the thing that you (along with the rest of society) seem to be forgetting is that THG wasn't banned by the FDA (or any other agency for that matter) until 2003.

So with that in mind, an athlete could have been using the substance under the premise that it was not illegal to do so (either by MLB or federal standards) and upon declaration of its banned status in late 2003, stopped using it.

Following that, we decide to punish the athlete retro-actively for his actions by signaling him out, labeling him a cheater, demand asterisks to any records he sets, and calling to keep him out of the Hall of Fame all because he was rumoured to have used a performance enhancing drug at a time when it was not illegal to use that product, either by baseball or federal standards. Not to mention that at the time he was supposedly using it, everyone else in baseball (and sports) was using it as well.

Am I the only one missing something here?

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball. This isn't even close in my eyes, and I pretty much despise Bonds. Let Canseco in before Rose.


+1

I think the thing that you (along with the rest of society) seem to be forgetting is that THG wasn't banned by the FDA (or any other agency for that matter) until 2003.

So with that in mind, an athlete could have been using the substance under the premise that it was not illegal to do so (either by MLB or federal standards) and upon declaration of its banned status in late 2003, stopped using it.

Following that, we decide to punish the athlete retro-actively for his actions by signaling him out, labeling him a cheater, demand asterisks to any records he sets, and calling to keep him out of the Hall of Fame all because he was rumoured to have used a performance enhancing drug at a time when it was not illegal to use that product, either by baseball or federal standards. Not to mention that at the time he was supposedly using it, everyone else in baseball (and sports) was using it as well.

Am I the only one missing something here?

So he stopped using it in 2003?

Ok.

So he stopped using it in 2003?

Ok.


He has been tested. He hasn't tested positive as far as we know. So the assumption should be that he stopped.

I'm really shocked that the vote is this close - that this many people cannot see how much worse gambling is for integrity of the sport than steroid use.

I'm really shocked that the vote is this close - that this many people cannot see how much worse gambling is for integrity of the sport than steroid use.

the poll question never mentions anything about integrity, Bonds cheated ON the field, Rose didn't.

Who has less integrity in that scenerio?

Anyone who thinks Pete Rose didn't cheat on the field is in denial. And he cheated in a way that is far more harmful to the integrity of the game.

It's debatable whether Bonds actually cheated at all, even if he did use, since baseball did not have a rule (or, at the very least, did not have an enforceable rule with consequences) at the time he is believed to have used. And, as was pointed out, the substance he was accused of using at the time was not specifically illegal until 2003.

Even if Bonds did cheat, the kind of cheating he did helped his team win, just like the kind of cheating Gaylord Perry did helped his teams win. The kind of cheating Pete Rose did may have hurt his team's performance.

He has been tested. He hasn't tested positive as far as we know. So the assumption should be that he stopped.

Baseball's steroid program still isn't nearly comprehensive enough to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's very easy to beat when you can afford cutting edge nutritionists. (Note the only people that have been caught have been fringe players)

Anyone who thinks Pete Rose didn't cheat on the field is in denial. And he cheated in a way that is far more harmful to the integrity of the game.

It's debatable whether Bonds actually cheated at all, even if he did use, since baseball did not have a rule (or, at the very least, did not have an enforceable rule with consequences) at the time he is believed to have used. And, as was pointed out, the substance he was accused of using at the time was not specifically illegal until 2003.

Even if Bonds did cheat, the kind of cheating he did helped his team win, just like the kind of cheating Gaylord Perry did helped his teams win. The kind of cheating Pete Rose did may have hurt his team's performance.

are you a Giants fan, per chance? ;)

I am, but I feel the same way about all the other players who used steroids before 2003. Baseball did not have anything you could really call a rule, so I don't consider them cheaters. They were doing what athletes always do in any sport - exploiting loopholes wherever possible. Before 2003 - not cheaters. After 2003 - cheaters.

are you a Giants fan, per chance? ;)

I'm not a Giants fan or a Bonds fan and I agree with basically what he says(although I do laugh at 'its debatable whether he cheated at all'). I'm very surprised at the results of this poll. There are countless cheaters in the hall of fame that we never question, from people running from 1st to 3rd and skipping 2nd altogether in the early days of the game when there was just one umpire... amphetamines from the 50s on, right? hall of fame pitchers doctoring the ball, this is just the latest, hi tech form of cheating. You're going to have to keep a *lot* of people out if you want to keep everyone out that cheated.

However, gambling on baseball damages the core integrity of the sport. Look at the current NBA scandal? That's some really, really serious shit. When you introduce gambling into the game you no longer have confidence that people are actually doing their best to compete and win, the integrity of the sport is ruined. Steroids has ruined the reputation of baseball in many people's opinions, but gambling harms a sport much, much more.

Baseball's steroid program still isn't nearly comprehensive enough to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's very easy to beat when you can afford cutting edge nutritionists. (Note the only people that have been caught have been fringe players)

Rafael Palmeiro.

Even if Bonds did cheat, the kind of cheating he did helped his team win.

This is an absolutely terrible argument.

I honestly think Bonds loves all of this talk. I dont think anyone doubts he's a HOF player and just like Rose, it's sad that someone would do something like this when they already were a world class player.

Imagine if someone like Junior, whose about at the age where Barry's head and shoe size increased, were to go on the same "routine" that Barry did? Would there be any doubt on who the greatest player ever would be? At least since Bonds?

This is an absolutely terrible argument.

Compared to what Rose did, it's not.

Look, baseball lore is filled with examples of cheating. Besides the spitballers, you've got stories about teams putting spies in the center field bleachers to steal signs and relay them to the hitter. You've got teams turning the infield around first base into a bog in the 60s to keep Maury Wills from stealing. You've got Ty Cobb intentionally trying to injure opposing players with his spikes.

This stuff has always been part of the game, and is very, very different from what Rose did.

Compared to what Rose did, it's not.

Look, baseball lore is filled with examples of cheating. Besides the spitballers, you've got stories about teams putting spies in the center field bleachers to steal signs and relay them to the hitter. You've got teams turning the infield around first base into a bog in the 60s to keep Maury Wills from stealing. You've got Ty Cobb intentionally trying to injure opposing players with his spikes.

This stuff has always been part of the game, and is very, very different from what Rose did.

Just because baseball's hall of fame has always had pitiful standards is no reason to advocate maintaining them.

Compared to what Rose did, it's not.

Look, baseball lore is filled with examples of cheating. Besides the spitballers, you've got stories about teams putting spies in the center field bleachers to steal signs and relay them to the hitter. You've got teams turning the infield around first base into a bog in the 60s to keep Maury Wills from stealing. You've got Ty Cobb intentionally trying to injure opposing players with his spikes.

This stuff has always been part of the game, and is very, very different from what Rose and Bonds did.

Fixed

I see argument here that Sosa was also juiced. I have never heard actual allegations that he was also, other than that he must have been to keep up with McGwire. I thought Sammy got his HR's the old fashioned way... a corked bat.

Rafael Palmeiro.

OK, one idiot that was using something that's been available for at least 3 decades.

It still seems incredibly naive to use negative drugs tests to support someone's innocence when that person has admitted taking masking agents that would make the substances he was taking undetectable under the current MLB tests.

But I'd still put him in the HOF over Rose.

It's worse to make allegations that have no evidence to back them up. There's absolutely no evidence Bonds has taken steroids since the MLB adopted its testing policy. Players have been tested. Some have been caught. HR totals are down. There's more evidence is that it is working than there is that it's not.

That's gone now and not because of a change in the way the game is played but because of a cheater. If steroid use is ever effectively banned from the league you'll see numbers drop back into a more normal range and you'll know that no records are going to be broken and not because of a "gee whiz" story, but of a lousy cheater. That's kinda sad. If course, this isn't exactly threatening the integrity of the game I'll admit but to me, since the numbers are my primary interest, from that viewpoint, I've lost a lot more interest but since I am not a MLB customer it's no loss to them that I'm even less of one now. :)

I don't see the enthusiasm for records gone at all because it is percieved that a "cheater" got them. It wasn't when Aaron was using amphetamines to break Babe Ruth's record. I'm a numbers guy as well, total sabermetic stat-head, but I haven't lost interest in the numbers or the game because, well, this sort of thing has been going on for quite a while (and I'm still not sure how people can say what Bonds has been doing is totally unlike pitchers throwing spitballs or scuffing balls after it was against the rules... is it because it is a chemical instead of actually altering the baseball?).

Besides, in 10 years or so, A-Rod will break Bonds' record. If he's "clean" (whatever that means these days), you think that it'll bring back interest in the numbers?

I don't see the enthusiasm for records gone at all because it is percieved that a "cheater" got them. It wasn't when Aaron was using amphetamines to break Babe Ruth's record. I'm a numbers guy as well, total sabermetic stat-head, but I haven't lost interest in the numbers or the game because, well, this sort of thing has been going on for quite a while (and I'm still not sure how people can say what Bonds has been doing is totally unlike pitchers throwing spitballs or scuffing balls after it was against the rules... is it because it is a chemical instead of actually altering the baseball?).

Besides, in 10 years or so, A-Rod will break Bonds' record. If he's "clean" (whatever that means these days), you think that it'll bring back interest in the numbers?

It's not that it's chemical it's because the level of boost totally puts the statistics out of whack. It's safe to assume that Barry got at least 100 HR's out of his cheating and I don't know if corked bats or scuffing a baseball makes that much of a difference.

The 100 is admittedly a WAG but it's based on the fact that players drop off when his power started so if he's juicing, even if he has a remarkable staying power, he's at least that many down.

I just feel that the level of cheating advantage that steroids gives ( east german swimming team? ) distorts the records enough that to me they become nigh meaningless. Maybe I just don't know enough about amphetamines but I don't believe they caused massive inflation in the cheaters numbers that caused records that surpassed anything that human beings had ever been able to achieve before. I dunno, that to me pretty much how I feel about steroids.

It's one thing if Messala bumps Ben Hur with his chariot and you lose a wheel that's kinda bad but if he's driving a corvette and just blows by him, well, that cheating is really, really hard to accept.

So what you then in take your best guess - I think this guy took steroids. What would his career look like if he hadn't taken them.

With Bonds, he's maybe 600-650 HRs, and 3000 hits (because he wouldn't have been walked as much, he'd probably have that many more hits by now). Certainly, he'd be a first ballot HOFer.

I think it's pretty well established that corked bats don't help. It's also pretty well established that scuffing and foreign substances affect the aerodynamics of the baseball enough to cause extra movement and make it harder to hit, and thus, they do work.

Amphetamines certainly helped players perform when they were tired - so at the very least, they played more and were able to put up more counting stats.

I agree with most of what clintl says and I am a Dodgers fan and certainly not a fan of Barry Bonds.

It's worse to make allegations that have no evidence to back them up.

Anyone who thinks Pete Rose didn't cheat on the field is in denial.

Even Dowd has said that he never thought Pete was betting on baseball during his playing days. Rose deserves to be in the hall for his playing career, without question.

Bonds. Steroid use is comparable to throwing spitballs, and we have several suspected spitballers in the HOF (Perry, Sutton, and I think Whitey Ford, to name three right off the top of my head). It's a minor infraction compared to gambling on the game.

ROFLMFAO

Comparable to spit balls? You're funny!!!!

Since Hall of Fame is on the field numbers and it's opne or the other this should be a no brainer for Rose as his problems occured after he was done playing.

ROFLMFAO

Comparable to spit balls? You're funny!!!!

Why? I agree with him. What would Perry's numbers be like if he never threw a spitball? Far less, I'm positive. Enough that he wouldn't be a Hall of Fame pitcher.

ROFLMFAO

Comparable to spit balls? You're funny!!!!
He's also right.

Even Dowd has said that he never thought Pete was betting on baseball during his playing days. Rose deserves to be in the hall for his playing career, without question.

In my opinion, it's worse that he did it as a manager. A manager has ways of influencing the outcome of a game that players don't.

Look, I was for reinstating Rose and putting in the Hall if he made a contrite, genuinely remorseful confession. His confession, when he finally made it, was anything but contrite and remorseful. It was arrogant, and it confirmed that that he didn't get it.

It's not that it's chemical it's because the level of boost totally puts the statistics out of whack. It's safe to assume that Barry got at least 100 HR's out of his cheating and I don't know if corked bats or scuffing a baseball makes that much of a difference.

The 100 is admittedly a WAG but it's based on the fact that players drop off when his power started so if he's juicing, even if he has a remarkable staying power, he's at least that many down.

I just feel that the level of cheating advantage that steroids gives ( east german swimming team? ) distorts the records enough that to me they become nigh meaningless. Maybe I just don't know enough about amphetamines but I don't believe they caused massive inflation in the cheaters numbers that caused records that surpassed anything that human beings had ever been able to achieve before. I dunno, that to me pretty much how I feel about steroids.

It's one thing if Messala bumps Ben Hur with his chariot and you lose a wheel that's kinda bad but if he's driving a corvette and just blows by him, well, that cheating is really, really hard to accept.


I think you're putting too much of the stats increase on steroids. Yes, they do boost stat levels by quite a bit, but we'll honestly never know how much. The steroid era happened to coincide with shrinking ballparks, a shrinking strike zone (which probably had a bigger impact than steroids), and increased knowledge of health, nutrition, and excercise.

Since Hall of Fame is on the field numbers and it's opne or the other this should be a no brainer for Rose as his problems occured after he was done playing.

Unlike other Hall of Fames, I'm pretty sure that the Baseball HOF's criteria specifically instructs voters to consider "character" (though I couldn't find that criteria in a quick internet search)

I think you're putting too much of the stats increase on steroids. Yes, they do boost stat levels by quite a bit, but we'll honestly never know how much. The steroid era happened to coincide with shrinking ballparks, a shrinking strike zone (which probably had a bigger impact than steroids), and increased knowledge of health, nutrition, and excercise.

I'll agree that this is possibly so but I look at other sports, like the east german womens swim team and the outrageous records they were setting.

Also, it would seem that someone has studied the rise in home runs and knows what the league average is and just how much higher the home run rate has changed for the juicers than the league average.

Bonds is a case where what he's done is not only unusual but unheard of for someone his age. Possible? Sure, but unlikely unaided by steroids because as everyone else keeps saying, the pitchers are juicing too so using that logic, how is it conceivable that he could have done something that no one else has done and done it naturally while those around him juiced? Puzzling.

This issue ( did he or didn't he ) isn't the issue with me though because if we don't get some proof that he cheated there's no way in hell he doesn't belong in the HOF, next to Pete Rose, who should already be there. :)

For those who say cheating is no biggie though , I guess we ought to give Rosie Ruiz her medal back. I mean all she did was cheat and that's no biggie. :rolleyes:

I do want to amend my stand though. I really do thing Bonds belongs in the hall of fame, behind Rose so I stand by my vote, for the impressive career he achieved legitimately but the HR record, that's another issue which I don't like. Still, I can't see that distaste as a disqualifier for the HOF but it should NOT say HR champion on his plaque no matter how many tainted dingers he hits.

If baseball has travelled so far afield from putting an asterisk on a record that was achieved legitimately under the rules of the day to now legitimatizing a cheater and his tainted record (if proven), well, I don't really need to rethink my dislike for baseball as it's been played since '94.

Even Dowd has said that he never thought Pete was betting on baseball during his playing days. Rose deserves to be in the hall for his playing career, without question.

Dowd said that he had no evidence that Rose ever bet against the Reds. We also know that Rose accepted a VOLUNTARY ban from baseball in exchange for the investigation stopping, and that no formal finding would be made. I personally think he bet against the Reds, but that's just my opinion.

And of course, even if he only bet to win, he's essentially betting against them every time he manages a game that he doesn't have any money on.

And of course, even if he only bet to win, he's essentially betting against them every time he manages that he doesn't have any money on.

huh?

huh?

If you have $10,000 on the Reds winning tomorrow night, but you're not betting on tonight's game, you're managerial decisions tonight will reflect that (holding back your best relievers, using tonight as the night to rest your big bat, etc.)

(It might have just been my poor typing and grammar skills - I edited my post to try to make it clearer)

huh?

It's basically what I said earlier in the thread. If he's maximizing his team's ability to win in an individual game that he's betting on, then he's acting against his team's interest in other games. He can overuse relievers, bring back an injured guy too soon, switch to a 4 man rotation to get that ace pitcher going a game earlier. His decisions will still be influenced by his betting patterns, which is exactly what baseball wants to avoid.

Bonds is a case where what he's done is not only unusual but unheard of for someone his age. Possible? Sure, but unlikely unaided by steroids because as everyone else keeps saying, the pitchers are juicing too so using that logic, how is it conceivable that he could have done something that no one else has done and done it naturally while those around him juiced? Puzzling.

You know, we can say the same thing for Roger Clemens. How many pitchers have been this good, this old? Satchel Paige? (don't say Nolan Ryan, he wasn't close to the pitcher Clemens has been since they both hit 40)

In my opinion, it's worse that he did it as a manager. A manager has ways of influencing the outcome of a game that players don't.

Look, I was for reinstating Rose and putting in the Hall if he made a contrite, genuinely remorseful confession. His confession, when he finally made it, was anything but contrite and remorseful. It was arrogant, and it confirmed that that he didn't get it.

As opposed to the continuing lack of a confession/admission from Bonds.
Rose should be in. Bonds is debatable, because you honestly don't know what he would have done if he never was on the juice.

As opposed to the continuing lack of a confession/admission from Bonds.
Rose should be in. Bonds is debatable, because you honestly don't know what he would have done if he never was on the juice.

I disagree with this. He had 411 HR's through 1998, when it's been rumored that he started juicing. Dude was going to the hall no matter what, and that's why I dislike him so much. I have a bit more sympathy for a guy who is struggling for that last roster spot and feels he needs to juice to keep up with the his competition, who are also juicing. However, Bonds didn't need to do that. If he never took steroids, he still would have gone down as one of the greatest players in baseball history.

As for Rose, he should not be in. He knew the rules. He knew how serious those rules were. He broke them and has acted like a complete jerk ever since. If he had shown true remorse, then I think people would be more lenient. Similarly, if Barry Bonds hadn't acted like a prick for his whole career, I think people would be more inclined to believe his story.

Similarly, if Barry Bonds hadn't acted like a prick for his whole career, I think people would be more inclined to believe his story.

I would agree with that.

If he started on The Clear when he was with the Pirates, he could have thrown out Sid Bream at the plate.

Which is an interesting counterfactual. What if Bonds was more like Griffey (the Seattle years)... what would the reaction be to all of this?

Which is an interesting counterfactual. What if Bonds was more like Griffey (the Seattle years)... what would the reaction be to all of this?

Well, he'd be a lot more popular, and this poll would be a landslide.

Surprising poll results. While there is certainly room for debate on the Bonds issue, promoting Rose for the HoF is IMO indefensible. The guy knew the punishment. No way any player banned from the game for life can be feted and allowed to enter the Hall. I just can't see it.

I disagree with this. He had 411 HR's through 1998, when it's been rumored that he started juicing. Dude was going to the hall no matter what, and that's why I dislike him so much. I have a bit more sympathy for a guy who is struggling for that last roster spot and feels he needs to juice to keep up with the his competition, who are also juicing. However, Bonds didn't need to do that. If he never took steroids, he still would have gone down as one of the greatest players in baseball history.


One of the best arguments for disliking Bonds that I've seen. Bonds like the best sports athletes of all time is ultra-competitive. In the end the person Bonds cheated the most his himself, and its something he should have realized if/when he started using. Most likely he saw the chase for 61, saw two guys that appeared to have gotten bigger with the aide of substances, and waned to compete with the best HR hitters of the day on those same terms. He let his ego get the better of him, which wouldn't be a surprise to anyone obviously.

Why? I agree with him. What would Perry's numbers be like if he never threw a spitball? Far less, I'm positive. Enough that he wouldn't be a Hall of Fame pitcher.

Throwing a spit ball increases one's stamina? It allows them to continue to play at a level in which they would not naturally be able to play at for a longer period of time? It quickens their recovery and helpsto avoid the late season fatigue that most players begin to hit at some point? It can help heighten a player's senses and improve vision to 20/10? It is something undetectable on the field (player's aren't injecting themselves right there on the field)? It takes years off of the player's life?


Yeah, I can see just how comparable the two are... :rolleyes:

Throwing a spit ball increases one's stamina? It allows them to continue to play at a level in which they would not naturally be able to play at for a longer period of time? It quickens their recovery and helpsto avoid the late season fatigue that most players begin to hit at some point? It can help heighten a player's senses and improve vision to 20/10? It is something undetectable on the field (player's aren't injecting themselves right there on the field)? It takes years off of the player's life?


Yeah, I can see just how comparable the two are... :rolleyes:

Throwing a spit ball DOESN'T increase performance?! Give me a break. It seems a cute little distinction so that one form of cheating gets pooh-poohed, while another is grounds for a lynching?

Speaking of which, what about players who get eye surgery to increase their vision to 20/10? Isn't that a performance enhancing alteration to one's body? Or should everyone have to get surgery in order to be able to compete at the same level?

Talking about baseball is so much more fun than actually watching baseball. I'll be happy when he breaks the record, and I never have to pretend to care about watching this useless Giants team again.

You know, we can say the same thing for Roger Clemens. How many pitchers have been this good, this old? Satchel Paige? (don't say Nolan Ryan, he wasn't close to the pitcher Clemens has been since they both hit 40)

Very true. Personally, I'd take Paige over Clemens but he is my favorite pitcher ever so it's not a tough decision. :D

Throwing a spit ball DOESN'T increase performance?! Give me a break. It seems a cute little distinction so that one form of cheating gets pooh-poohed, while another is grounds for a lynching?



Wait a minute now, this makes no sense. So, are you saying that you don't believe in degrees of punishment to fit the crime? Manslaughter should be punished exactly the same as first degree murder, because to me clearly a spitball is to steroids like manslaughter is to murder.

Throwing a spit ball DOESN'T increase performance?! Give me a break. It seems a cute little distinction so that one form of cheating gets pooh-poohed, while another is grounds for a lynching?

Speaking of which, what about players who get eye surgery to increase their vision to 20/10? Isn't that a performance enhancing alteration to one's body? Or should everyone have to get surgery in order to be able to compete at the same level?

You're the one who agreed that steroids and spit balls were comparable. I guess now that you see the silliness of that arguement you need to switch to talking about eye surgery?

You're the one who agreed that steroids and spit balls were comparable. I guess now that you see the silliness of that arguement you need to switch to talking about eye surgery?

Barry Bonds never booed Santa Claus, so he's better than any Eagle fan could ever be. Who boos Santa Claus, besides dirty commies?

What I find realy funny for all the BONDS haters is that the pitcher that gave up #755 last night has a POSITIVE TEST for steriods....

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Barry Bonds never booed Santa Claus, so he's better than any Eagle fan could ever be. Who boos Santa Claus, besides dirty commies?

lol, wow that's a great arguement...

I guess if that's the best you've got to bring to the table... :rolleyes:

What I find realy funny for all the BONDS haters is that the pitcher that gave up #755 last night has a POSITIVE TEST for steriods....

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Why is that funny? Lowlife cheating scum has to stick together. ;)

What I find realy funny for all the BONDS haters is that the pitcher that gave up #755 last night has a POSITIVE TEST for steriods....

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


Uh, why is that funny?

You're the one who agreed that steroids and spit balls were comparable.
They are comparable. Adding foreign substances to a baseball (i.e. "spitballs") or doctoring the surface of the baseball ("scuffballs") gives them greater movement and makes them harder to hit, a huge component of successful pitching. Not only that, these methods of adding movement to a thrown baseball are less stressful on the arm - rather than trying to make the ball move by imparting spin on the ball, you add a substance or doctor the surface and throw it much like a fastball.

They are comparable. Adding foreign substances to a baseball (i.e. "spitballs") or doctoring the surface of the baseball ("scuffballs") gives them greater movement and makes them harder to hit, a huge component of successful pitching. Not only that, these methods of adding movement to a thrown baseball are less stressful on the arm - rather than trying to make the ball move by imparting spin on the ball, you add a substance or doctor the surface and throw it much like a fastball.

I'll say it again, maybe a little more slowly this time...

Throwing a spit ball increases one's stamina? It allows them to continue to play at a level in which they would not naturally be able to play at for a longer period of time? It quickens their recovery and helpsto avoid the late season fatigue that most players begin to hit at some point? It can help heighten a player's senses and improve vision to 20/10? It is something undetectable on the field (player's aren't injecting themselves right there on the field)? It takes years off of the player's life?


Yeah, I can see just how comparable the two are...

I'll say it again, maybe a little more slowly this time...

Throwing a spit ball increases one's stamina? It allows them to continue to play at a level in which they would not naturally be able to play at for a longer period of time? It quickens their recovery and helpsto avoid the late season fatigue that most players begin to hit at some point? It can help heighten a player's senses and improve vision to 20/10? It is something undetectable on the field (player's aren't injecting themselves right there on the field)? It takes years off of the player's life?


Yeah, I can see just how comparable the two are...
And I'll say this a little more slowly this time so maybe YOU get it (you condescending fucktwad):

Throwing a spitball (or scuffball) is less stressful and more effective than throwing any other kind of breaking ball - so yes, it does effectively increase stamina, allow a player to play at a higher level longer than they would without cheating, not require as much recovery time. Or did you think that Gaylord Perry was a phenomenal athlete relative to his peers in order to remain an effective pitcher into his mid 40's? A good pitcher, yes, but made even more effective, and able to extend his career by use of spitballs.

As for whether it's detectable on the field or not - who the fuck cares?

The only point you have that holds any weight is the long-term health one - while I don't give a fuck whether an athlete endangers his own life by taking performance enhancers - that's his own decision - I do care whether that use endangers others, whether it be the fellow athlete that feels compelled to juice in order to keep up, or more importantly whether kids emulate these athletes and jeopardize their own health.

All that said, I think that even this point is overhyped - not all steroid use is the same, not all steroids are the same, and not all abuse of steroids lead to the same nasty health effects. Despite much hype to the contrary, it's unlikely that Lyle Alzado's death was caused by steroid abuse.

It's worse to make allegations that have no evidence to back them up. There's absolutely no evidence Bonds has taken steroids since the MLB adopted its testing policy. Players have been tested. Some have been caught. HR totals are down. There's more evidence is that it is working than there is that it's not.

Where is your evidence that Rose managed a game differently because he had money on it? Rose has said that he bet on his team to win every game. He is not on the mound throwing the pitches or swinging the bat. The manager cannot determine the outcome of the game. The players do. Bonds taking banned items (federally banned?) directly influences the outcome of the game. His bat speed improves, power improves, heals quicker from injuries. No question that steroid taking is far worse than gambling.

Do we have to point out the whole "managing his team to win games he's placed a bet on is basically the same as managing his team to lose games on which he hasn't placed a bet" for the 17th time? Can we get a fucking sticky already so people might have a chance of understanding this basic concept?

Where is your evidence that Rose managed a game differently because he had money on it? Rose has said that he bet on his team to win every game. He is not on the mound throwing the pitches or swinging the bat. The manager cannot determine the outcome of the game. The players do. Bonds taking banned items (federally banned?) directly influences the outcome of the game. His bat speed improves, power improves, heals quicker from injuries. No question that steroid taking is far worse than gambling.

It shouldn't matter in my opinion in this arguement anyway. We are talking about two players and their on the field numbers. Unless we somehow believe that Rose's maagerial career is Hall of Fame worthy ;). Rose put his numbers up by hard work and grit. Bonds had the talent and would have been a hall of famer anyway but crossed the line by introducing steroids into the mix and bastardizing his numbers over the last part of his career.

If you are putting someone in the Hall for what they did on the field than I would much rather put someone in the hall who achieved their on field numbers without outside help.

Throwing a spitball (or scuffball) is less stressful and more effective than throwing any other kind of breaking ball - so yes, it does effectively increase stamina, allow a player to play at a higher level longer than they would without cheating, not require as much recovery time. Or did you think that Gaylord Perry was a phenomenal athlete relative to his peers in order to remain an effective pitcher into his mid 40's? A good pitcher, yes, but made even more effective, and able to extend his career by use of spitballs.


Ah yes the fountain of youth spitball. Guaranteed to help you work out more frequently and increase body mass while reducing your recovery time dramatically. Step inside gentleman and buy my snake oil.


As for whether it's detectable on the field or not - who the fuck cares?


Great use of gammar here. It means a lot. It takes more balls to at least attempt to bend the rules when it can be detected. It's like a Mets manager a few years back (Davey Johnson?) who was ejected from the game and then showed up in the dugout in a disguise. It was wrong but you at least had to tip your hat to him.


The only point you have that holds any weight is the long-term health one - while I don't give a fuck whether an athlete endangers his own life by taking performance enhancers - that's his own decision - I do care whether that use endangers others, whether it be the fellow athlete that feels compelled to juice in order to keep up, or more importantly whether kids emulate these athletes and jeopardize their own health.


At least you see that part. But please tell me how the spitball helped anyone shatter records at an alarming pace? Did I miss Gaylord Perry winning 50 games one season or strining out 500 batters in a season? Please show me one stat that shows a player deciding to use the spitball and jumping up to incredible numbers that season. Brady Anderson anyone?

The next piece of the puzzle is that a spitball is not illegal such as using non prescription steroids is. I don't know of anyone in jail for throwing a spitball, or selling petroleum jelly.

dola: on another note, is it just too funny that a player name Gaylord is the most famous player known for using petroleum jelly.... :) Or am I just a sick SoB? Probably the latter.

Rose wasn't half the player Bonds was even before Bonds started taking steroids. He was a great player and fun to watch, and would be a deserving first ballot HOFer without the gambling. But he is probably also the most overrated player in baseball history. In addition to having a lot more power, Bonds was a better fielder, got on base more, and was a better base stealer than Rose. The only thing Rose could do better than Bonds was hit for average, and his hits were mostly singles. Bonds more than made up for that by getting walks with his plate discipline.


No offense dude but you're so full of shit with THIS post it stink all the way to the east coast.

You compare these two players for what they did ON the field and have the...what...sheer blinder-drivin idiocy? to say bonds was better?

Holy shit. Seriously, do you even watch baseball?? You ovbiously have no true concept of its history.

You qualify your comment with "pre-2000" or "before he cheated his ass off" however you want to say it, but the fact is ON the field Bonds didn't have the fortitude to play the game without giving himself an advantage.

Not only did Rose never have any consideration as to having used enhancers of any kind, he played with a passion and a will to win that Bonds has never dreamt of showing, on teh field or off. ROse played every pitch of every game with his entire essence. You don't get a nickname like "Charlie hustle" for dogging it in the outfield and taking 2 of every 3 games off because you're feeling tired.

Now lets look at the real issue that makes Rose a FAR better player than Bonds can ever be. ROse raised the level of play of EVERYONE around him. Bonds? He'd rather get into bitch-slapping fights with his teamates who don't kiss his ass enough.

When it comes to the HoF in baseball it is pretty much a joke, but all other points aside, if these two men showed up on a ballot, Rose gets the vote because he was a far GREATER PLAYER than Bonds in ALL facets of the game beyond hitting for power.

Not only did Rose never have any consideration as to having used enhancers of any kind

Didn't Rose admit to using amphetamines on Letterman?

Ah yes the fountain of youth spitball. Guaranteed to help you work out more frequently and increase body mass while reducing your recovery time dramatically. Step inside gentleman and buy my snake oil.
Ah yes, when confronted with an argument for which you have no good reply, resort to misdirection.

I'll try once more since you still don't seem to get it - steroids/etc. help ballplayers in a multitude of ways (depending on what you use and how you use it). Yes, they can help you get stronger and allow you to work out more frequently.

For a pitcher, it may allow you to generate more velocity and spin on the ball by enabling you to get stronger (as long as you're focusing on leg and especially torso workouts) and it may reduce your fatigue during the season.

Spitballs and scuffballs can have a similar end effect - use of them both increases your effectiveness as a pitcher (by adding significant movement to your pitches) but it also reduces strain on a pitcher's arm because the spitball and scuffball can be thrown with the less stressful fastball release rather than a breaking ball release - in other words, a pitcher can achieve equal or greater success with less physical effort with this method of cheating than they can by not cheating. Less physical effort every game = less recovery time.

So the comparison here is that through different methods, juicing and using spitballs/scuffballs can achieve similar results.

Great use of gammar here. It means a lot. It takes more balls to at least attempt to bend the rules when it can be detected. It's like a Mets manager a few years back (Davey Johnson?) who was ejected from the game and then showed up in the dugout in a disguise. It was wrong but you at least had to tip your hat to him.
I see - so cheating is less of a big deal if it's more easily detected, because the cheater has more "balls"? Sorry, I don't give a shit if it's more easily detected or not. They're both against the rules, they are both attempts to gain a competitive advantage.

At least you see that part. But please tell me how the spitball helped anyone shatter records at an alarming pace? Did I miss Gaylord Perry winning 50 games one season or strining out 500 batters in a season? Please show me one stat that shows a player deciding to use the spitball and jumping up to incredible numbers that season. Brady Anderson anyone?
For whatever reason (probably the easy to detect part) most great pitchers haven't bothered using spitballs/scuffballs, at least until they got older and started losing their stuff. If guys like Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez had decided to boost their arsenals by adding in spitballs/scuffballs, you would've seen outstanding performances get even better.

We don't know for sure whether Mike Scott starting doctoring the ball, but the rumors started at the same point that he transformed himself from average Major League starting pitcher into the best pitcher in the game.

The next piece of the puzzle is that a spitball is not illegal such as using non prescription steroids is. I don't know of anyone in jail for throwing a spitball, or selling petroleum jelly.
I don't really care in this context whether steroids are illegal or not - we're talking about the integrity of the game and the legitimacy of the outcomes. Use of marijuana is also illegal, but I could give a rat's ass whether a player smokes dope in his off-time, because I don't think it's going to give him a competitive advantage.

No offense dude but you're so full of shit with THIS post it stink all the way to the east coast.

You compare these two players for what they did ON the field and have the...what...sheer blinder-drivin idiocy? to say bonds was better?

Holy shit. Seriously, do you even watch baseball?? You ovbiously have no true concept of its history.
Apparently you don't watch baseball or have a clue about it's history.

You qualify your comment with "pre-2000" or "before he cheated his ass off" however you want to say it, but the fact is ON the field Bonds didn't have the fortitude to play the game without giving himself an advantage.
Bonds likely didn't start juicing until 1998 or later. When was Rose not using amphetamines as a player?

Not only did Rose never have any consideration as to having used enhancers of any kind...
*cough* amphetamines *cough*

...he played with a passion and a will to win that Bonds has never dreamt of showing, on teh field or off. ROse played every pitch of every game with his entire essence. You don't get a nickname like "Charlie hustle" for dogging it in the outfield and taking 2 of every 3 games off because you're feeling tired.
Uh huh. Rose started missing games too when he got old, and he probably should've missed more than he did given his reduction in effectiveness.

You know, Willie Bloomquist plays with a "passion" and a "will to win" too - I guess he's better than Bonds also?

Now lets look at the real issue that makes Rose a FAR better player than Bonds can ever be. ROse raised the level of play of EVERYONE around him. Bonds? He'd rather get into bitch-slapping fights with his teamates who don't kiss his ass enough.
Ah, that's why Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, Dave Concepcion, Lee May, Gary Nolan and others were so good - it was because they had Pete Rose as a teammate!

When it comes to the HoF in baseball it is pretty much a joke, but all other points aside, if these two men showed up on a ballot, Rose gets the vote because he was a far GREATER PLAYER than Bonds in ALL facets of the game beyond hitting for power.
All facets of the game eh? You mean like mean like getting on-base/avoiding outs (Rose OBP: .375, Bonds OBP: .444)? You mean like stealing bases (Rose: 198 of 347 attempts, 57.1%; Bonds: 514 of 655 attempts, 78.5%)? You mean like defense (Rose: 2 Gold Gloves, Bonds: 9 Gold Gloves)?

No offense dude but you're so full of shit with THIS post it stink all the way to the east coast.

You compare these two players for what they did ON the field and have the...what...sheer blinder-drivin idiocy? to say bonds was better?

Holy shit. Seriously, do you even watch baseball?? You ovbiously have no true concept of its history.

You qualify your comment with "pre-2000" or "before he cheated his ass off" however you want to say it, but the fact is ON the field Bonds didn't have the fortitude to play the game without giving himself an advantage.

Not only did Rose never have any consideration as to having used enhancers of any kind, he played with a passion and a will to win that Bonds has never dreamt of showing, on teh field or off. ROse played every pitch of every game with his entire essence. You don't get a nickname like "Charlie hustle" for dogging it in the outfield and taking 2 of every 3 games off because you're feeling tired.

Now lets look at the real issue that makes Rose a FAR better player than Bonds can ever be. ROse raised the level of play of EVERYONE around him. Bonds? He'd rather get into bitch-slapping fights with his teamates who don't kiss his ass enough.

When it comes to the HoF in baseball it is pretty much a joke, but all other points aside, if these two men showed up on a ballot, Rose gets the vote because he was a far GREATER PLAYER than Bonds in ALL facets of the game beyond hitting for power.

In a thread full of idiocy, this one wins. Pete Rose isn't close to being the player Barry Bonds is/was - not even a debate. Spouting every cliche you know ("raising the level", "knowing how to win", "passion", "grit") as a substitute for intelligence or understanding - bravo. Pete Rose's had 2 seasons with an OPS+ over 150 - Bonds has had 16! Rose's career OBP - .375 - Bonds .444. In his career, Pete Rose was in the top 10 of his league's OPS just 3 times - consider that.
Bonds was a top-shelf OF for a long time - Rose was good but not at Bonds' level defensively, and was playing 1b by the end of it. Essentially, you could take the best season of Roses' career, and it wouldn't match any of Bonds' 10 Best seasons. To think the two are comparable as ballplayers is akin to comparing Ricky Henderson to Doug Glanville. Rose is a good but highly overrated ballplayer - the quintessential Hustling Telegenic White Guy (to quote BP).

Hard to compare player stats across eras. Rose played most of his career duirng a time when pitching was much more dominant than it is today.

You've also got to wonder how players like Bonds, McGwire and Sosa would have done sans juicing. Back in his Pittsburgh days, Bonds had some "pop", but he certainly wasn't putting 40-60 balls into the seats per season like he did when he "put on a little weight" after moving to the Giants.

If I were a manager, I think I would prefer to have a guy like Rose on my team rather than Bonds.

That said, I think both probably belong in the HOF, despite their multiple shortcomings as people.

Wait a minute now, this makes no sense. So, are you saying that you don't believe in degrees of punishment to fit the crime? Manslaughter should be punished exactly the same as first degree murder, because to me clearly a spitball is to steroids like manslaughter is to murder.

Of course I believe in degrees of punishment to fit the crime. However, in this case it isn't manslaughter and murder. But more like 2nd degree murder and felony murder. ie, there really isn't that much difference in the result. Basically, I agree with what dawgfan has said on the issue. Doctoring of balls allows the pitcher to enhance his performance by uses of substances which were against the rules (though Bonds' steroid use wasn't against the rules of MLB until 2003). Moronic arguments about whether spitballs make players gain more muscles or whatever, aside, they did result in performance enhancement, no doubt. And they did violate the rules.

Hard to compare player stats across eras. Rose played most of his career duirng a time when pitching was much more dominant than it is today.

Well that's why you have stats like OPS+ and Win Shares that equalize stats among eras. And Bonds destroys Rose in those normalized stats.

Hard to compare player stats across eras. Rose played most of his career duirng a time when pitching was much more dominant than it is today.
This is where OPS+ comes in handy, as it allows you to compare how a player did relative to his peers. Rose's best seasons by this measure were '68, '69 where he was 152 and 158. Bonds, from '90 to '98 (generally considered clean years for Bonds) never had an OPS+ of less than 161. Bonds was a better hitter by quite a large margin than Rose, even considering differing eras.

You've also got to wonder how players like Bonds, McGwire and Sosa would have done sans juicing. Back in his Pittsburgh days, Bonds had some "pop", but he certainly wasn't putting 40-60 balls into the seats per season like he did when he "put on a little weight" after moving to the Giants.
Most speculation has Bonds starting to juice after the '98 season when McGwire and Sosa went on their home run chase. Bonds had seasons in '93 and '94 where he was hitting a home run roughly every 11 at bats, a terrific rate and good for 46 HR's in '93. And even if Bonds hadn't decided to start juicing, it was likely he still would've changed his workout routines from emphasizing speed to emphasizing power, so his home run totals would've gone up even without the juice (though not as much as they did).

Of course I believe in degrees of punishment to fit the crime. However, in this case it isn't manslaughter and murder. But more like 2nd degree murder and felony murder. ie, there really isn't that much difference in the result. Basically, I agree with what dawgfan has said on the issue. Doctoring of balls allows the pitcher to enhance his performance by uses of substances which were against the rules (though Bonds' steroid use wasn't against the rules of MLB until 2003). Moronic arguments about whether spitballs make players gain more muscles or whatever, aside, they did result in performance enhancement, no doubt. And they did violate the rules.


I don't know, maybe you're right. I mean after all, once they realized how horrible spitballs were distorting all the league records they illegalized it, well, except for anyone already throwing one, they could keep on doing it.

Well, I'm sure those guys just played hell on the stats and were all hall of famers though, surely. Well, no, actually, only three of them made the Hall of Fame.

Of course, the spitball was deemed so horribly statistic altering that in 1949 and in 1961 they had votes to try and reinstate the spitball. I'm eagerly awaiting the votes on steroids myself as it's pretty clear that the effects of them are only marginally above the super weapon the spitball.

I don't know, it seems we have to agree to disagree on this one but it sure doesn't look like baseball sees too much harm in the spitball and since we have some data to go by it doesn't seem that the spitball, when legal caused too much of a problem statistic wise. Other than that, I guess I see your point.

I voted Neither.

For years, I would've said Rose deserves to get in, and I know this contradicts my performance on the field comment in the Bonds thread, but Pete's made a complete circus out of the Hall of Fame thing and has turned it into a money-making machine.

His primary interest seems to be making more money, not getting in the Hall of Fame, and that, to me, says he doesn't -really- care if he gets in or not.

In a case where there's a legitimate character reason to disbar him (yes, it is part of the Hall of Fame criteria if I remember right), that's enough to keep him out.

Muscles mean everything...that's why Brian Bosworth is considered the greatest NFL player of all time.

How heavy was Ruths bat? It was way heavier than Bonds' ever was. Ruth was way stronger than Bonds ever was; Even in the season he hit 73, I'd say. Bonds is a student of the game, and he had a lot of help from his father at times. FSN Bay Area had a Bonds interview where Bonds credited a lot of his success to the scouting Bobby Bonds had done for him. Of course, Bobby Bonds died a few years back, and Barry continued hitting and reaching base at a great level.

I am a complete and total Bonds homer, but name me one player, steriod-enhanced or not (as if we have any way of knowing for sure who has juiced and for how long), that has had the ability to completely change games like he has. When he steps to the plate, there is a better than fifty percent chance he will be reaching base once the dust settles. How many Brady Andersosagwirepalmeiros can say that?

Bonds didn't just run into 755 fastballs and pop them over the fence because he took steroids and got lucky.

I am a complete and total Bonds homer, but name me one player, steriod-enhanced or not (as if we have any way of knowing for sure who has juiced and for how long), that has had the ability to completely change games like he has. When he steps to the plate, there is a better than fifty percent chance he will be reaching base once the dust settles.


Ted Williams immediately comes to mind.

Higher, career OBP, BA, SLG and OPS for starters.

I'm just saying.

Ted Williams immediately comes to mind.

Higher, career OBP, BA, SLG and OPS for starters.

I'm just saying.

Okay...fair enough.....so, would you consider Bonds in Williams' league?

Okay...fair enough.....so, would you consider Bonds in Williams' league?

Even before the steroids yes IMHO, but as much as I disliked Williams, it's hard to argue against him being maybe the best hitter ever ( Bill James thought so at one time, no idea how he feels now though ) so Williams is top of that league but Bonds belongs in the league obviously.

Do we have to point out the whole "managing his team to win games he's placed a bet on is basically the same as managing his team to lose games on which he hasn't placed a bet" for the 17th time? Can we get a fucking sticky already so people might have a chance of understanding this basic concept?
Maybe you should sticky the fact that Pete admitted to betting on his team to win every single night. Can you understand that basic statement?

I do find the vitrol in this thread to be quite fascinating.

This thread is full of fun.

Great use of gammar here. It means a lot. It takes more balls to at least attempt to bend the rules when it can be detected. It's like a Mets manager a few years back (Davey Johnson?) who was ejected from the game and then showed up in the dugout in a disguise. It was wrong but you at least had to tip your hat to him.


It was Bobby Valentine. One of the funniest things I have see.

Lathum, you might fit in around here (the Cincy area that is) just yet.

I don't really like Rose as a person, but the guy managed some pretty mediocre teams into 2nd place for a number of years... even though he was probably high on cocaine and had a SERIOUS gambling problem. That takes skill. Then you slap on the hits record, and it's a lock. :)

I don't know, it seems we have to agree to disagree on this one but it sure doesn't look like baseball sees too much harm in the spitball and since we have some data to go by it doesn't seem that the spitball, when legal caused too much of a problem statistic wise. Other than that, I guess I see your point.

All cheakiness aside, the spitball DID cause problems "statistic wise", though in the era it was in the statistics were just starting to get going. The spitball was banned in 1920. You do know what the era prior to that was refered to as, right? The Dead Ball Era.

On the wikipedia article on the Dead Ball Era, the spitball is listed as one of the top 3 causes of the Dead Ball Era (along with the Foul Strike Rule and the fact the ball the same one the entire game long). While people like to claim the dead ball era ended because Ruth showed players they could swing for the fences, that doesn't account for the dramatic rise in batting average (about 40 points from 1918 to 1921).

Bonds Stats ... all time records.

HR ... tied for 1st
RBI ... 5th needs 15 to pass Gehrig
Runs ..3rd needs 37 to pass Cobb
Hits ... 35th 32 more to pass Frank Robinson and move into top 30
SB .... 29th
Doubles...14th needs 6 more to pass Ripken
SLG ... 5th 2% points behind Foxx

7-time MVP is 2nd in Major League history
1 of 4 players (joining Jose Canseco, Alex Rodriguez and Alfonso Soriano), to reach 40-40 plateau with his 1996 output
1 of 7 players in Major League history to reach base 5,000 times
13-time All-Star and lone member of baseball's 500 homer/500 steal club, ranks 2nd all-time for extra-base hits (1,398)

Like I said before is probibly the BEST player in the last 30 years and is automatic 1st ballot HOF. cant see what their is to argue about.

Maybe you should sticky the fact that Pete admitted to betting on his team to win every single night. Can you understand that basic statement?

Go ahead and provide confirmation of that. When you do, you'll see that he said he bet on his team to WIN every single night THAT HE BET. You think he made 162 bets a season?

You compare these two players for what they did ON the field and have the...what...sheer blinder-drivin idiocy? to say bonds was better?

Holy shit. Seriously, do you even watch baseball?? You ovbiously have no true concept of its history.
.

It's pretty ballsy to insult someone for having an opinion that probably 95% of baseball fans do, while you're spouting a minority opinion.

Go ahead and provide confirmation of that. When you do, you'll see that he said he bet on his team to WIN every single night THAT HE BET. You think he made 162 bets a season?

And even then, the argument would only work if he bet the same amount every single week, and if he bet on all 162 games in advance. Otherwise, his decisions will still be influenced by money he has on the line.

And even then, the argument would only work if he bet the same amount every single week, and if he bet on all 162 games in advance. Otherwise, his decisions will still be influenced by money he has on the line.

Absolutely, and the people demanding "evidence" of Rose's tainted in-game decision-making are either in total denial or missing the point entirely.

You don't get a nickname like "Charlie hustle" for dogging it in the outfield and taking 2 of every 3 games off because you're feeling tired.



Before you post stuff like that in the future, you might want to check Baseball Reference. During their primes, Bonds and Rose played about the same number of games per year. At Bonds' current age, he is on pace to have more plate appearance than Rose did at the same age - and Rose was playing the least demanding position on the field physically by then.

As for "dogging it in the outfield" - he's 43 years old with bad knees. He doesn't have the range he used to have, but in all the Giants games I've seen this year, I haven't seen him dog it.

So because MLB and the player's union have been ignoring this issue for so long (and IMO, still aren't taking it seriously), fans and HOF writers are basically left with two alternatives in evaluating player records. Both have been expressed in this thread:

(1) Since we have no evidence, we should give players the benefit of the doubt, and should evaluate only the stats and performances we have in front of us.

(2) Since MLB and the players' union have refused to police this, it's up to fans and HOF writers to use their own observations regarding how steroids has effected the performance of individual players.

#1 isn't really fair to guys who have stayed clean - their performances are forever tainted by those who cheated.

#2 isn't fair to those who the public believed used steroids, but didn't. But there's a good chance the the member of people in this pool is zero.

I don't think either is completely unreasonable, since MLB has given us no alternatives. As much as "Bonds has never failed a test", we can't ever sure that even the "clean" guys (Arod, Griffey, Ripken) didn't dabble.

And then there's those who say any pre-2002 use can't be held against players because there was no testing in place. But I'm 95% sure that steroids WERE banned at least since Giamatti (though this "drug policy" wasn't enforced at all until later).

I'm always amused by the logic that this era is evil, as opposed to the innocent, naive young men who came before - do you know how long greenies have been a part of baseball?

I'm always amused by the logic that this era is evil, as opposed to the innocent, naive young men who came before - do you know how long greenies have been a part of baseball?

Or before that, not letting anyone play that wasn't white (which probably has a bigger statistical impact than anything we're talking about in this thread).

Go ahead and provide confirmation of that. When you do, you'll see that he said he bet on his team to WIN every single night THAT HE BET. You think he made 162 bets a season?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402025.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/14/sportsline/main2571286.shtml
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&refer=home&sid=aCneoXjuzGXY
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/special3/articles/0315rose0315.html

Apparently, you can't understand basic concepts.

Or before that, not letting anyone play that wasn't white (which probably has a bigger statistical impact than anything we're talking about in this thread).

I agree. A basic understanding of statistics (and the demographics) ought to make it clear to most people that Ruth played in an era where the level of talent was significantly lower - part of the reason why its hard for me to take pre-1950's baseball (which limited blacks and hispanics) and its records seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402025.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/14/sportsline/main2571286.shtml
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&refer=home&sid=aCneoXjuzGXY
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/special3/articles/0315rose0315.html

Apparently, you can't understand basic concepts.

Rose at first denied gambling on baseball at all. Once that was proven, he changed it to "OK I bet, but only to win". Once people pointed out how that's almost as bad, it changed to "only to win, and every single night". In between, he served prison time for cheating on his taxes.

Rose is a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402025.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/14/sportsline/main2571286.shtml
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&refer=home&sid=aCneoXjuzGXY
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/special3/articles/0315rose0315.html

Apparently, you can't understand basic concepts.
And why exactly does Rose have any credibility left that you believe him and don't think he's changing his story to make himself look a little better?

This guy has changed his story so many times now that it shocks me that anyone takes him seriously.

"I was wrong, but I believed in my team. I had so much confidence in my team, and what did that make me do? I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

Uh, case closed, even if we were to believe Rose is telling the truth (which is quite a leap at this point). This is exactly what we were talking about. Unless he bet on all 162 games in advance, his decisions can still be affected by betting. He can do whatever he wants to win each game and then choose not to bet on the next game if he overuses relievers or gets someone injured. We also don't know if he bet the same amount on each game, which could also be a factor.

Rose at first denied gambling on baseball at all. Once that was proven, he changed it to "OK I bet, but only to win". Once people pointed out how that's almost as bad, it changed to "only to win, and every single night". In between, he served prison time for cheating on his taxes.

Rose is a liar.
*shurg*

If you guys are only going to count hearsay as 'fact' whenever it helps your argument out, more power to you. I'm just stating what the man has said.

*shurg*

If you guys are only going to count hearsay as 'fact' whenever it helps your argument out, more power to you. I'm just stating what the man has said.
Where are we using hearsay? And why exactly at this point should anyone believe anything Rose has to say about his gambling on baseball given how much his story has changed over the years and his ongoing attempts to get himself in the Hall of Fame?

If he started on The Clear when he was with the Pirates, he could have thrown out Sid Bream at the plate.
My grandmother could have thrown out Sid Bream at the plate, and she was confined to a wheelchair, farsighted, and 74 years old at the time. I think that evening in 1992 was what convinced Barry Bonds that he needed some type of enhancement.

A lot of people throw around terms like "innocent until proven guilty", "hearsay", and "lack of evidence" when talking about Bonds and Rose, as if this is a criminal prosecution. None of those concepts apply to the hall of fame, or to public opinion. They're particularlly irrelevant outside a courtroom because there's no "prosecution" formally investigating and handling this case.

If there were, I have no doubt that both Bonds and Rose would be found guilty. (Bonds of using banned substances, both pre- and post- the drug testing era, and Rose of betting both for and against his own team). Since there's no prosecutorial investigation of either, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make a case, from what he have, "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc.

Those criminal legal concepts and terms assume an adversarial process between two sides, when both sides have access to discovery, subpoenas, and other elements of the criminal justice process. Outside a courtroom, it's completely meaningless. People are free to have their own opinions, and use those opinions to keep people out of the hall of fame, etc. - they are not held to any particular burden of proof.

Just had to get that off my chest.

A lot of people throw around terms like "innocent until proven guilty", "hearsay", and "lack of evidence" when talking about Bonds and Rose, as if this is a criminal prosecution. None of those concepts apply to the hall of fame, or to public opinion. They're particularlly irrelevant outside a courtroom because there's no "prosecution" formally investigating and handling this case.

If there were, I have no doubt that both Bonds and Rose would be found guilty. (Bonds of using banned substances, both pre- and post- the drug testing era, and Rose of betting both for and against his own team). Since there's no prosecutorial investigation of either, it's IMPOSSIBLE to make a case, from what he have, "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc.

Those criminal legal concepts and terms assume an adversarial process between two sides, when both sides have access to discovery, subpoenas, and other elements of the criminal justice process. Outside a courtroom, it's completely meaningless. People are free to have their own opinions, and use those opinions to keep people out of the hall of fame, etc. - they are not held to any particular burden of proof.

Just had to get that off my chest.

QFT

Where are we using hearsay? And why exactly at this point should anyone believe anything Rose has to say about his gambling on baseball given how much his story has changed over the years and his ongoing attempts to get himself in the Hall of Fame?

Thank you. We are using the words that Rose himself has used. Only at the point when other's have caught him in a lie, did he change his story. And the he changed it again. And yet you (VPI) believe his final stance, the one where it seems like he only did it for the integrity of the game.

Baaaaaaaaaah.

Rose bet on baseball through a shady bookie character. This opened him up to possible pressure to fix games in return for cancelling big gambling debts or to avoid being exposed by blackmailers.

Rose bet on baseball through a shady bookie character. This opened him up to possible pressure to fix games in return for cancelling big gambling debts or to avoid being exposed by blackmailers.

Yet all of that amounts to jack shit when it comes to the numbers he put up while playing, not something that can be said about what Bonds did.

Rose bet on baseball through a shady bookie character. This opened him up to possible pressure to fix games in return for cancelling big gambling debts or to avoid being exposed by blackmailers.

Good point that isn't brought up very often.

Tim Donahey didn't set out to try to rig NBA games, it happened when he had shady gambling debts that he couldn't get out of. Reason 10,000 that gambling is baseball's ultimate sin, no matter what side you bet on.

If Rose truly bet EVERY game in 1989, he ran into some trouble (since the Reds were well under .500).

If Rose truly bet EVERY game in 1989, he ran into some trouble (since the Reds were well under .500).
Yep - was he really such an inveterate homer that he always bet on his team to win?

And can we really be certain he only started gambling on baseball after he quit playing and was no longer a player or a player/manager?

And can we really be certain he only started gambling on baseball after he quit playing and was no longer a player or a player/manager?

Nope.

There's no way that we know 100% of what Rose did, gambling-wise. The chances that Dowd uncovered EVERYTHING in a limited investigation, (that Rose ended by agreeing to a voluntary ban), are slim to none.

Both. But if not, Barry. Pete is banned from baseball for something others would be banned for had they did it at the same time. Barry, not so much.

Again, I'd like to state that I am not a Rose fan, because the man is a selfish prick who says what he says only to get by.

But if you think that his gambling episode set baseball back further than Bonds and his steroid fueled home run chase, you are mistaken. In Rose's case, fans were pretty sure that this was one maverick guy who essentially tried to fix games for personal benefit (and even that point is in dispute... at best, you can prove that he may not have tried as hard to win when he did not have as much money on the line).

In Bonds' case, he and others like him have brought the entire history and record keeping process into disrepute due to the belief of many fans that he (and others) is/has been juiced. This whole steroid mess has made it impossible for some fans to ever be able to take any records or players seriously again.

Which do you really think has hurt the game more?

In Bonds' case, he and others like him have brought the entire history and record keeping process into disrepute due to the belief of many fans that he (and others) is/has been juiced. This whole steroid mess has made it impossible for some fans to ever be able to take any records or players seriously again.

Which do you really think has hurt the game more?

Whether Bonds or Rose are bad guys or not, whether their personae or methods are detriments to the game or not, I don't think a "statistical sanctity" argument really is a valid one. Statistical purity never existed to begin with. And if anything, the whole steroids controversy sheds light on how contextual statistics really are. The steroids-statistics link discussions promote a new level of understanding for many fans, and these fans are now better equipped to evaluate statistics more critically.

Which do you really think has hurt the game more?

You're trying to compare the entire steroids era with one guy, Pete Rose, I think it's apples and oranges. I guarantee you there's great players today considered "clean" by the public, that aren't. You're making Bonds a scapegoat for an entire generation just because he's the most successful.

I'm not saying what he did is OK because everyone did it, but he does have less individual culpability, because the real "villains" of the steroid era are MLB and the Player's Union. Players will cheat if they can get away with it, throughout the history of baseball. Ted Williams used a corked bat on occasion. Others have mentioned spit balls. None of these things, collectively, have had the effect of the steroid era, but when you break it down to INDIVIDUAL players, the blame is identical.

Whether Bonds or Rose are bad guys or not, whether their personae or methods are detriments to the game or not, I don't think a "statistical sanctity" argument really is a valid one. Statistical purity never existed to begin with. And if anything, the whole steroids controversy sheds light on how contextual statistics really are. The steroids-statistics link discussions promote a new level of understanding for many fans, and these fans are now better equipped to evaluate statistics more critically.

Indeed. So that maybe more folks will realize, say, that Pedro Martinez's 2000 season was more impressive than Bob Gibson's 1968, even though Pedro had a 1.74 ERA compared to Gibson's 1.12. They may learn to compare stats to the league average and then make decisions on the worth of players.

You're trying to compare the entire steroids era with one guy, Pete Rose, I think it's apples and oranges. I guarantee you there's great players today considered "clean" by the public, that aren't. You're making Bonds a scapegoat for an entire generation just because he's the most successful.

I'm not saying what he did is OK because everyone did it, but he does have less individual culpability, because the real "villains" of the steroid era are MLB and the Player's Union. Players will cheat if they can get away with it, throughout the history of baseball. Ted Williams used a corked bat on occasion. Others have mentioned spit balls. None of these things, collectively, have had the effect of the steroid era, but when you break it down to INDIVIDUAL players, the blame is identical.

I don't disagree with any of this... except the idea that I am making Bonds the steroid scapegoat. There are several players who are scapegoats, and Bonds is the most high profile right now, so he is catching the most heat. Deservedly so, in my opinion.

As for the idea that "statistical purity never existed" (by Klinglerware)... in the minds of many, that is not true. The more that this myth is shattered, the more baseball benefits, I think.