Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Barry Bonds Better Than The Babe?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:11:58 AM

Posted 28 May 2006 - 04:38 PM

Ok, today, Barry Bonds hit his 715th homerun, passing Babe Ruth and claiming the 2nd all-time homerun spot. However, this accomplishment has been dominated by tons of controversy.

The big argument going out here is the un-confirmed rumor about Bonds using steriods for a large portion of his career. IF this is true, does this lessen his accomplishment?

People liken Bonds' steroid use to EQUAL the Babe's lack of african-american players in his league. Bonds' supporters claim that, if Ruth played in the same league today, he wouldn't be able to hit as many homers as he did. Bonds' opponents say that Ruth was the better homerun artist, hitting homeruns steriod-free AND in ball-parks over 450 feet. Stadiums back in Ruth's day were generally larger than today's fields.

So, what's your opinion? Should Bonds be celebrated for his accomplishment, or should Ruth's record officially stand as 2nd best to Hank Aaron?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:09:58 AM

Posted 01 June 2006 - 11:15 AM

If the steroid alligations a proven the let Ruth's record stand as second place. If the steroid alligations are proven false then Bonds deserves the second place spot for homeruns. It all depends on if he used steroids.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people using steroids if they are willing to pay the health prices. I do think that a separate sports league should be created for those that do use steroids (to keep thins fair). I don't know if any of you are familiar with the RPG called Rifts, but take a look at the Juicer O.C.C. class.

Seafox14
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#3 HitSquad

HitSquad

    You're Bleepin' or you're Weepin'


  • Members
  • 1,573 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Momma
  • Local time:10:58 AM

Posted 01 June 2006 - 12:04 PM

Personally, I don't have a problem with people using steroids if they are willing to pay the health prices

I'm just the opposite. :thumbsup:
It sends a bad message to today's youth who aren't capabale of "truly" understanding what the price is.
Kidney, heart, liver problems, aggressive behaviour, spousal abuse, even suicide.
When I say youth, I include late teens and early 20's in that category as well.
You always feel immortal when you're young yet you will also die young.
Nothing has been proven in Bond's case so far so what can you say?
If the allegations end up true, not only should they remove the HR record, he should be banned from the hall of fame. But until then, give him his due.

#4 boopme

boopme

    To Insanity and Beyond


  • Global Moderator
  • 72,240 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ USA
  • Local time:10:58 AM

Posted 02 June 2006 - 05:46 PM

I feel Ruth is still the best. Even if there is no proof of cheating. Bonds and Aaron played in a different game than Ruth for one. A dead ball era when for the first part, until he kept hitting them, HR's weren't the actual goal of the game.
But I feel do to all the different factors, (#games,at bats , walks,sacs, ballpark sizes) all the HR records should be based on # Plate appearances and their HR rate. Therefore all the numbers are off and should be (*)
So for fun here's some projections,move all to Aaron's most At bats

Name .....Games.....At-bats ....HRs..... Rate%
=============================
Aaron..... 3298.....12,364......755.....6.1
Mays ..... 2992.....10,881...... 660.....6.1
Ruth ..... 2503.......8,399......714.....8.5
Bonds..... 2439.......8,335......613....7.4

Projected HRs
======================
Ruth 1051
Bonds 909
Aaron 755
Mays 750
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now with plate appearances the #'s are


PA.....HR.....HR %.....Proj HR
===========================
Aaron......13940.....755.....5.4.....755
Mays.......12493.....660.....5.3.....736
Ruth........10617.....714.....6.7.....937
Bonds......10417.....613.....5.9.....820

Ruth still comes out thas the best of all time
Unless we add in another juicer they say.

McGwire......7660......583......7.6.....1061

Statistics are like a string bikini: What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is crucial.


numbers from Baseball | TrackBack
How do I get help? Who is helping me?For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear....Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

#5 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:58 AM

Posted 02 June 2006 - 07:32 PM

I think ruth was a better player...If Bonds used steriods thats like cheating in a way.Like he wasnt good enough. The Babe didnt need them and nobody does..

#6 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:58 AM

Posted 02 June 2006 - 08:18 PM

Here's my take. Baseball is a very old sport and has passed through many eras. The best comparison that we can hope to (accurately and fairly) generate is a player compared to his peers. In other words, Barry Bonds has played in the steroid era, and can only be compared to other players of the steroid era. What, you think pitchers don't take steroids? Please... (this is sarcasm)

And also, you can't judge a player by how good he is by his rate of home runs. Or by his plate appearances. Baseball is a game of endurance. 162 ( I think) games a year, for as long as Barry Bonds has done is very impressive. Only great players stay in the league a long time. Most players can only play a few years because there bodies can't take it. The records, in this case career home runs, is usually awarded to the player who plays consistently well for the longest. And you mentioned Willie Mayes in your stat thingy. But, lets face it. Willie Mayes and Henry Aaron looked like crap in their final years. They just stuck around. Imagine Jordan on the Wizards, and they were 50 times worse. Example of staying in the league a long time paying off:

So far, Rickey Henderson ranks 4th all-time in games played (3,081), 10th in at-bats (10,961), 20th in hits (3,055), and first in runs scored (2,295) and stolen bases (1,406). His record for most walks all-time (2,190) has since been broken by Barry Bonds. He also holds the record for most home runs to lead off a game, with 81. In 1993, he led off both games of a doubleheader with HRs. At the time of his last major league game, Henderson was still in the all-time Top 100 home run hitters, with 297.

Records are not a measure of how good players are. Ruth did not play against black players. Cy Young pitched on a higer mound than today's pitchers. Bond's plays in a steroid era. How can you compare?
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo

#7 waterfalls

waterfalls

    Malware Exorcist


  • Staff Emeritus
  • 621 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:58 AM

Posted 11 June 2006 - 08:00 AM

I need to preface this by stating that I do not follow baseball.

Having said that, I believe that it should be stressed that Barry Bonds never tested positive for steroids. It became an issue because of the allegation by Jose Conseco as contained in his book. He also made allegations against Mark McGwire, although I don't think the controversy was anywhere near the level as it is with Bonds.

IMO, Conseco's book is simply a vitrolic litany of unsupported claims against people whose careers he can ruin and, therefore, how many books he can sell. He seems to be a bitter person who had less than a stellar career.

From what I understand, the press never cared for Bonds because he didn't/doesn't cater to them. I think it is shameful that he is being castigated for something that has never been proven.

Lastly, from what I understand, steroids may make you stronger, but it doesn't enhance anything else. That is to say, steroid will not help if you can't hit the ball. The same goes for pitchers - steroid won't help if you can't accurately throw the ball.
Take only memories, leave nothing but footprints.

Posted ImagePosted Image

#8 ryan_w_quick

ryan_w_quick

  • Members
  • 488 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:58 AM

Posted 11 June 2006 - 04:39 PM

I need to preface this by stating that I do not follow baseball.

Having said that, I believe that it should be stressed that Barry Bonds never tested positive for steroids. It became an issue because of the allegation by Jose Conseco as contained in his book. He also made allegations against Mark McGwire, although I don't think the controversy was anywhere near the level as it is with Bonds.

IMO, Conseco's book is simply a vitrolic litany of unsupported claims against people whose careers he can ruin and, therefore, how many books he can sell. He seems to be a bitter person who had less than a stellar career.

From what I understand, the press never cared for Bonds because he didn't/doesn't cater to them. I think it is shameful that he is being castigated for something that has never been proven.

Lastly, from what I understand, steroids may make you stronger, but it doesn't enhance anything else. That is to say, steroid will not help if you can't hit the ball. The same goes for pitchers - steroid won't help if you can't accurately throw the ball.


But steroids can effect how far you hit the ball, how fast the pitch is thrown. They also help with recovery time.
A person on steroids may not need to take days off from training, because there bodies can handle a lot more.

And Bonds's current issue is with purgery. They just want to see if he lied when he testified that he never took steroids.
"To do less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." Steve Prefontaine

"The things you own end up owning you." Tyler Durden

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users