Bonds

[The Commissioner]

It seems to me in reading the threads here at BBF that many baseball fans are in denial about Barry Bonds. Those who love him seem to be in denial that he ever used steroids or growth hormones. Those that hate him seem to be in denial that he is among one of the games' all-time greats. Me, personally, I'm in the middle. I think he is one of the games greatest players ever and I also think he juiced. I just wanted to see how the breakdown was amongst members here.

[rockin500]

It seems to me in reading the threads here at BBF that many baseball fans are in denial about Barry Bonds. Those who love him seem to be in denial that he ever used steroids or growth hormones. Those that hate him seem to be in denial that he is among one of the games' all-time greats. Me, personally, I'm in the middle. I think he is one of the games greatest players ever and I also think he juiced. I just wanted to see how the breakdown was amongst members here.
i think he juiced some. how much is a pointless debate. and he hit his juiced homers off of juiced pitchers.

[Williamsburg2599]

Is the question is he one of the "greatest players ever" before PEDs?

and he hit his juiced homers off of juiced pitchers

True, but when they interviewed the inventor of "the clear" on HBO, he said that research shows it can even improve hand-eye cordination too. Now, it's up to you if you believe this, but it certainly is food for thought.

[Skin & Bones]

Is the question is he one of the "greatest players ever" before PEDs?



True, but when they interviewed the inventor of "the clear" on HBO, he said that research shows it can even improve hand-eye cordination too. Now, it's up to you if you believe this, but it certainly is food for thought.

You have a link?

[Williamsburg2599]

You have a link?

No, unfortunately. But if you have comcast on-demand and HBO, it's one there. I'll try to find a transcript of the interview. I'm certain he said that though. I remember Costas saying if that was true, then the whole "pitchers were juiced too" argument could be thrown out. The video of it was on Youtube, but HBO took it off.

[Skin & Bones]

No, unfortunately. But if you have comcast on-demand and HBO, it's one there. I'll try to find a transcript of the interview. I'm certain he said that though. I remember Costas saying if that was true, then the whole "pitchers were juiced too" argument could be thrown out.

Well, it really can't be thrown out, since some pitchers have said steroids have giving them more break on their breaking pitches. Not to mention Amphetamines is said to increase Hand-Eye-Coordination.

[Williamsburg2599]

Well, it really can't be thrown out, since some pitchers have said steroids have giving them more break on their breaking pitches. Not to mention Amphetamines is said to increase Hand-Eye-Coordination.

Well, I found it, and Costas said it threw out the "doesn't help you hit" argument, not the pitchers argument. My mistake. Anyways, here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2948210 . It's in the video on the right.

[mwb]

For the poll, I'll select "Other" if I can.

As far as steriod use is concerned, there are still investigations going on so the truth may come out eventually. Mr. Bonds may be silent or defend himself to the end but if the evidence is there, his denials will mean nothing.

As far as his greatness, that will depend on the investigations too. If he's been clean, I think he is one of the greatest. Even if he has cheated, depending on the extent of it, he still could have been one of the greatest.

[Skin & Bones]

Well, I found it, and Costas said it threw out the "doesn't help you hit" argument, not the pitchers argument. My mistake. Anyways, here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2948210 . It's in the video on the right.

Ok, thanks.

[Elvis]

It seems to me in reading the threads here at BBF that many baseball fans are in denial about Barry Bonds. Those who love him seem to be in denial that he ever used steroids or growth hormones. Those that hate him seem to be in denial that he is among one of the games' all-time greats. Me, personally, I'm in the middle. I think he is one of the games greatest players ever and I also think he juiced. I just wanted to see how the breakdown was amongst members here.

Aw, Comish, you shoulda left the option to view who votes what. I wanna see who's drinkin' the Kool-Aid.:coffee

[Elvis]

i think he juiced some. how much is a pointless debate. and he hit his juiced homers off of juiced pitchers.

Suppose I cheated on an exam, given by a professor who gave preferential grades to girls in short skirts. Does that make my score any more legit? Does a juiced pitcher make Bonds cheating-enhanced *records* any more legit?

[rockin500]

Suppose I cheated on an exam, given by a professor who gave preferential grades to girls in short skirts. Does that make my score any more legit? Does a juiced pitcher make Bonds cheating-enhanced *records* any more legit?
sure, why not?

[digglahhh]

Suppose I cheated on an exam, given by a professor who gave preferential grades to girls in short skirts. Does that make my score any more legit? Does a juiced pitcher make Bonds cheating-enhanced *records* any more legit?

Nice try, but the juiced pitchers argument would be tantamount to "the curve" on the test, not your raw numerical performance. The argument is a mitigating factor in terms of the relative accomplishment, i.e. a grade curve.

And I didn't know you took my class, is it that obvious...:crazy

[Ubiquitous]

Suppose I cheated on an exam, given by a professor who gave preferential grades to girls in short skirts. Does that make my score any more legit? Does a juiced pitcher make Bonds cheating-enhanced *records* any more legit?

Are you saying you took the test in a short skirt?

[Elvis]

sure, why not?

Care to explain how? Why would it? It doesn't make sense; anymore than it would make sense to be less guilty of a speeding ticket if you were going 120 MPH if the cop that stopped you was known for illegally hiding behind a shrub to catch you. How would that make your speed any more legal? :shrug:

[MudvilleMike]

Aw, Comish, you shoulda left the option to view who votes what. I wanna see who's drinkin' the Kool-Aid.:coffee

Me too, LOL!

[digglahhh]

Care to explain how? Why would it? It doesn't make sense; anymore than it would make sense to be less guilty of a speeding ticket if you were going 120 MPH if the cop that stopped you was known for illegally hiding behind a shrub to catch you. How would that make your speed any more legal? :shrug:

It doesn't. But, I'm sure you see the slippery slope of your argument. There are rules that any investigating body needs to follow too. The endpoint of such an argument leads to the abolition of many of our most sacred civil rights.

If you are walking down the street and a cop arbitrarily stops you and searches you illegally, finding a bag of weed, that doesn't make the weed legal. It does, however, make the stoppage and seizure illegal. There's far more collateral damage in the "ends justifying the means" approach, than there are strategic targets hit.

[Elvis]

It doesn't. But, I'm sure you see the slippery slope of your argument. There are rules that any investigating body needs to follow too. The endpoint of such an argument leads to the abolition of many of our most sacred civil rights.

If you are walking down the street and a cop arbitrarily stops you and searches you illegally, finding a bag of weed, that doesn't make the weed legal. It does, however, make the stoppage and seizure illegal. There's far more collateral damage in the "ends justifying the means" approach, than there are strategic targets hit.

But I like slippery slopes...

http://www.mrfs.net/trips/2002/Switzerland/Jungfrau/sledding.jpg

:hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

[MudvilleMike]

For the poll, I'll select "Other" if I can.

As far as steriod use is concerned, there are still investigations going on so the truth may come out eventually. Mr. Bonds may be silent or defend himself to the end but if the evidence is there, his denials will mean nothing.

As far as his greatness, that will depend on the investigations too. If he's been clean, I think he is one of the greatest. Even if he has cheated, depending on the extent of it, he still could have been one of the greatest.

He cheated, but he's still one of the greatest. Heck, he was one of the greatest before he cheated.

[TonyStarks]

Before maybe 1998 Bonds was on pace to be a sure-fire HOF.
He wasn't happy with that...he wanted more and took it to the next level trying to one-up McGwire and Sosa feeling he was a better player than both.

I gotta say, I was the biggest one of the biggest Bonds fan during his Pirates days and early on with the Giants. But today I simply cannot stand the man and loathe him and the mockery he's made of the game....with his "I've never tested positive" tall-tale story. He knows that he cannot test positive for HGH because the steroids test can't detect it.

The inventor of the "clear" had his HBO interview and said that both Bonds and Sheff both knew what they were doing but both still believe themselves when they say "I didn't know what I was taking".

Maybe MLB should add Polygraphs as part of the PEDs/Steroids test? :crossfingers: (I know that's extreme and MLBPA would never allow it...but I honestly wouldn't be against it)

You know I wonder how Bonds felt during that Press-Conference last night. Sitting there smiling...probably thinking how he's got all the nay-sayers fooled.
I didn't watch the entire conference, I actually muted it when it came on but did ONE reporter ask him about PEDs?

[rockin500]

Care to explain how? Why would it? It doesn't make sense; anymore than it would make sense to be less guilty of a speeding ticket if you were going 120 MPH if the cop that stopped you was known for illegally hiding behind a shrub to catch you. How would that make your speed any more legal? :shrug:
well in your hypothetical, the whole test thing wasnt on the level to begin with. ;) digglahhh said it best, though.

[MudvilleMike]

Before maybe 1998 Bonds was on pace to be a sure-fire HOF.
He wasn't happy with that...he wanted more and took it to the next level trying to one-up McGwire and Sosa feeling he was a better player than both.

I have mixed feelings about this. Bonds was a heck of a lot better than McGwire (and especially Sosa) and others who were essentially cheating him. He was kind of damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

[Skin & Bones]

Before maybe 1998 Bonds was on pace to be a sure-fire HOF.
He wasn't happy with that...he wanted more and took it to the next level trying to one-up McGwire and Sosa feeling he was a better player than both.

I gotta say, I was the biggest one of the biggest Bonds fan during his Pirates days and early on with the Giants. But today I simply cannot stand the man and loathe him and the mockery he's made of the game....with his "I've never tested positive" tall-tale story. He knows that he cannot test positive for HGH because the steroids test can't detect it.

The inventor of the "clear" had his HBO interview and said that both Bonds and Sheff both knew what they were doing but both still believe themselves when they say "I didn't know what I was taking".

Maybe MLB should add Polygraphs as part of the PEDs/Steroids test? :crossfingers: (I know that's extreme and MLBPA would never allow it...but I honestly wouldn't be against it)

You know I wonder how Bonds felt during that Press-Conference last night. Sitting there smiling...probably thinking how he's got all the nay-sayers fooled.
I didn't watch the entire conference, I actually muted it when it came on but did ONE reporter ask him about PEDs?

Two flaws here.

Bonds allegedly started using steroids in 1999, not 1998. I don't know where this 1998 myth started, but it was never written in Game of Shadows that Bonds used banned drugs during the 1998 season. It all started in 99.

And Patrick Arnold said he BELIEVED Bonds and Sheffield used steroids, not that they actually did.

[Yankee Legend]

There is no undisputable evidence against him and for a long time he was the most dominant player in baseball. There is no reason why he's not amongst the top 10 all-time.

[Dogdaze]

There is no undisputable evidence against him and for a long time he was the most dominant player in baseball. There is no reason why he's not amongst the top 10 all-time.

I agree Bonds is one of the top 10 all time best, and although I do suspect he cheated after 1999, I still feel he's one of the all time greatest players. Thats not to say I excuse him if he cheated!

Anyway, I just noticed this article where Brian Johnson said it's "hard to dispute" that his former teammate Barry Bonds cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7093698?MSNHPHMA

OOPS!!! I just noticed someone had already posted the article on a seperate thread, oh well!

[YankeeDJW]

I think he's one of the greatest all time, but I don't want him in the HOF until Pete Rose gets in, because in my opinion, Bonds has done more to disgrace them game then anyone else, especially Rose. Since HOF selections is apparently based on more than numbers right now, I don't want Bonds in. Of course there is no concrete evidence against Bonds, so he'll probably be a first ballot shoo-in.

[NYMets523]

I think he took some drug just looking at him 10+ years ago to now. He's still one of the best players ever.

[philipthegreat]

Althoguh I believe he took steroids before taking steroids he had some brilliant years and aome MVP's.

[PVNICK]

I think he used. I put him as one of the greatest ever but only in a broad sense. Before 1998 he was in the mix as gretest LF with Williams and Musial which to me makes him one of the greatest ever, but he was not, as he is now, in the mix for greatest ever period.

[Skin & Bones]

I think he's one of the greatest all time, but I don't want him in the HOF until Pete Rose gets in, because in my opinion, Bonds has done more to disgrace them game then anyone else, especially Rose. Since HOF selections is apparently based on more than numbers right now, I don't want Bonds in. Of course there is no concrete evidence against Bonds, so he'll probably be a first ballot shoo-in.

I'll never understand this logic.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Let's play with numbers.

Let's say that Barry doesn't bulk up with banned PEDs after his '98 season, and, starting in '99, has only half the power, half the speed and plays half the games that he actually has.

What would his numbers look like?

Well, through '98, Barry had 1898 G, 1917 H, 403 2B, 411 HR, 1357 BB, 445 SB, .290/.411/.556, 163 OPS+.

That's without the benefit of PEDs, apparently. Basically the same hitting ability as Willie Mays in 2 fewer seasons. I guess people forget how great Barry was through the '98 season, so I'm here to remind them.

His number afterwards would look like this:
530 G, 449 H, 50 2B, 85 HR, 250 BB, 20 SB, 132 OPS+

Career totals: 2428 G, 2366 H, 453 2B, 496 HR, 465 SB, 154 OPS+. It is highly unlikely that he would finish 4 homers shy of 500. In short, Barry would finish with Mel Ott's career numbers, more or less.

I dunno ... is that pretty fair?

[Skin & Bones]

Let's play with numbers.

Let's say that Barry doesn't bulk up with banned PEDs after his '98 season, and, starting in '99, has only half the power, half the speed and plays half the games that he actually has.

What would his numbers look like?

Well, through '98, Barry had 1898 G, 1917 H, 403 2B, 411 HR, 1357 BB, 445 SB, .290/.411/.556, 163 OPS+.

That's without the benefit of PEDs, apparently. Basically the same hitting ability as Willie Mays in 2 fewer seasons. I guess people forget how great Barry was through the '98 season, so I'm here to remind them.

His number afterwards would look like this:
530 G, 449 H, 50 2B, 85 HR, 250 BB, 20 SB, 132 OPS+

Career totals: 2428 G, 2366 H, 453 2B, 496 HR, 465 SB, 154 OPS+. It is highly unlikely that he would finish 4 homers shy of 500. In short, Barry would finish with Mel Ott's career numbers, more or less.

I dunno ... is that pretty fair?

I don't think it's fair, given that I think Barry would of aged very well regardless of steroids. Power/Speed guys have been known to age very well, and add to the fact that Bonds was a workout freak who took very good care of himself, and I think even without BALCO he could have been a very good old player. Would he have been the modern day Babe Ruth? No, could he have been as productive as an old Hank Aaron, and maybe even better? I believe so. I say even without the juice he surpasses Willie Mays in career homeruns, but doesn't reach 700. And this isn't adjusting for the fact that he did indeed face juiced up pitchers both pre and post 99.

[fenrir]

Bonds admitted to taking steroids so its a fact he used them. before 2000 he did hit 434 homeruns and won 3 mvps so the dude was great. but he cheated, and he doesn't deserve the record, period.

[Ubiquitous]

For the 49th millionth time Bonds did not admit to using steroids. It never ever happened. He may very well have, and probably did but he did not admit to it.

[fenrir]

read it and weep http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594

[Ubiquitous]

Gee I've never ever come across that before. . . .
Once again Bonds never ever said he used steroids.

[fenrir]

from the article..."Barry Bonds testified to a grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer who was indicted in a steroid-distribution ring, but said he didn't know they were steroids, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday."

he claims he didnt know they were steroids LMAO.

[Ubiquitous]

Nor has anyone else proven that what he took was steroids. Bonds said on the stand that he never knowingly or unknowingly took a steroid. Obviously that could very well be a lie but not once has Bonds admitted to taking steroids nor has anyone ever linked what he took to being a steroid. The newspaper articles that ran the story inferred it, hence the false belief that Bonds admitted to it, but it never happened.

previous discussions (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36525)

[west coast orange and black]

that espn article contains a dozen or more quotes attributed to bonds, but curiously, none of ‘em contain phrasing that is an admittance to using.

"The article contains the sentence “Bonds told a U.S. grand jury that he used undetectable steroids known as ‘the cream’ and ‘the clear,’ which he received from personal trainer Greg Anderson during the 2003 season."

q: why this sentence and not bonds’ own words – an admittance, a confession?
a: because bonds has not ever admitted to using.

the internet is a bathroom wall.
if one looks hard and long enough, just about anything can be found.

[west coast orange and black]

true statement: bonds said that he didn't know if the substances contained steroids.

truer statement: no one knows whether they were steroids or not.

whatever substances bonds used are gone. they no longer exist.
it is impossible for the feds or anyone else to know or even claim to know just what ingredients, exactly, the liquid and cream substances contained.

if one believes that bonds used, more power to him.
but if one believes that bonds used because of an article, and not the transcript of bonds' testimony, he'll believe just about anything.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

from the article..."Barry Bonds testified to a grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer who was indicted in a steroid-distribution ring, but said he didn't know they were steroids, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday."

he claims he didnt know they were steroids LMAO.

Are those Bond's exact words? This statement implies that Bonds didn't know the substances he used were steroids at the time he used them but discovered at a later time that they were. Did Bonds ever admit to such a thing?

[Ubiquitous]

Are those Bond's exact words? This statement implies that Bonds didn't know the substances he used were steroids at the time he used them but discovered at a later time that they were. Did Bonds ever admit to such a thing?

No.....................

[west coast orange and black]

wags: This statement implies that Bonds didn't know the substances he used were steroids at the time he used them but discovered at a later time that they were. Did Bonds ever admit to such a thing?

no, he did not.
if there was an admittance by bonds in his testimony that quote would have been printed fairly often by now. and, bonds has not ever admitted to such after his testimony to the feds.

[538280]

Care to explain how? Why would it? It doesn't make sense; anymore than it would make sense to be less guilty of a speeding ticket if you were going 120 MPH if the cop that stopped you was known for illegally hiding behind a shrub to catch you. How would that make your speed any more legal? :shrug:

It doesn't make it legal, but the point that your argument is missing is that in baseball the hitters face the pitchers. When PEDs are taken (on both sides) they are taken so that, whatever side the player is on, he can dominate the other side. If Bonds is taking PEDs and the pitcher he is facing is taking the same thing, it doesn't make what either player did legal, but it does mean that, in that matchup, they aren't gaining enhancement against each other, because both are taking it. The argument "the pitchers are using too" is that if both are using it, then neither side is benefitting over the other side. The argument is not that pitchers using it makes it legal. Sorry if this has already been said.

To answer the poll, yes, I think Bonds, before he ever touched a PED, was one of the best to ever play the game. He started using PEDs in 1999. He was already by far the best player of a whole decade, had won three MVPs and IMO deserved 6 or 7. He was already one of the best all around players the game had ever seen, probably the best power/speed man of all time, perhaps the best fielding Left Fielder (he had won more GGs than any other LF), and arguably on pace to be the best LF of all time-and yes even before he went on his 2000-2004 run. He going to be a top 10 player for sure and to be honest in my opinion probably even top 5. He was a better player than Hank Aaron ever was with or wihout PEDs, IMO.

[Williamsburg2599]

It doesn't make it legal, but the point that your argument is missing is that in baseball the hitters face the pitchers. When PEDs are taken (on both sides) they are taken so that, whatever side the player is on, he can dominate the other side. If Bonds is taking PEDs and the pitcher he is facing is taking the same thing, it doesn't make what either player did legal, but it does mean that, in that matchup, they aren't gaining enhancement against each other, because both are taking it. The argument "the pitchers are using too" is that if both are using it, then neither side is benefitting over the other side. The argument is not that pitchers using it makes it legal. Sorry if this has already been said.


The problem is that we don't know if PEDs effect the batter and pitcher the same.

[Skin & Bones]

The problem is that we don't know if PEDs effect the batter and pitcher the same.

Maybe they help a pitcher more, or maybe they help hitters more. Regardless, we know that both benefit immensly from them.

[Williamsburg2599]

Maybe they help a pitcher more, or maybe they help hitters more. Regardless, we know that both benefit immensly from them.

But the point he was trying to make was it levels the playing field Hitter on PEDs Vs. Pitcher on PEDs doesn't nessicarly equal Hitter not on PEDs vs. Pitcher on PEDs.

[Skin & Bones]

But the point he was trying to make was it levels the playing field Hitter on PEDs Vs. Pitcher on PEDs doesn't nessicarly equal Hitter not on PEDs vs. Pitcher on PEDs.

Yeah, I understood that.

[538280]

But the point he was trying to make was it levels the playing field Hitter on PEDs Vs. Pitcher on PEDs doesn't nessicarly equal Hitter not on PEDs vs. Pitcher on PEDs."

I understand that, I was just explaining the flaw in Elvis' argument against the "pitchers use too" argument. Elvis said that it's still illegal, but I don't think that covers the point being made with the "pitchers use too" argument.

[Elvis]

It doesn't make it legal, but the point that your argument is missing is that in baseball the hitters face the pitchers. When PEDs are taken (on both sides) they are taken so that, whatever side the player is on, he can dominate the other side. If Bonds is taking PEDs and the pitcher he is facing is taking the same thing, it doesn't make what either player did legal, but it does mean that, in that matchup, they aren't gaining enhancement against each other, because both are taking it.

If this was the case, then Bonds numbers shouldn't have spiked. The point you're making is that since some of the pitchers Bonds faced were doping, then that "washes" Bonds doping and that his 755 homers is a legit number (My only argument). However, if it was a wash, then why did offensive numbers across the board go through the roof, while pitching numbers went the other way or not improved at all? How is it a wash when the outcome is so lopsided? If both sides were doping, but Bonds' advantage was still paramount, then the whole point doesn't make sense. Also, unless ALL of the pitchers Bonds faced in every game since 1999 were doped, then again, the point is no good.

[ESPNFan]

If this was the case, then Bonds numbers shouldn't have spiked. The point you're making is that since some of the pitchers Bonds faced were doping, then that "washes" Bonds doping and that his 755 homers is a legit number (My only argument). However, if it was a wash, then why did offensive numbers across the board go through the roof, while pitching numbers went the other way or not improved at all? How is it a wash when the outcome is so lopsided? If both sides were doping, but Bonds' advantage was still paramount, then the whole point doesn't make sense. Also, unless ALL of the pitchers Bonds faced in every game since 1999 were doped, then again, the point is no good.

Exactly. Not only would the effects have to be the same for both pitchers and hitters but eveyone would have to be using for there to truely be a level playing field.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the best the pitcher can do with any given throw is achive an out while a batter can score a run.

[Skin & Bones]

Exactly. Not only would the effects have to be the same for both pitchers and hitters but eveyone would have to be using for there to truely be a level playing field.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the best the pitcher can do with any given throw is achive an out while a batter can score a run.

By achieving an out, they are preventing runs.

[ESPNFan]

By achieving an out, they are preventing runs.

Depends on what kind of out it is. A sac fly scores a run and its still an out right?

[Skin & Bones]

Depends on what kind of out it is. A sac fly scores a run and its still an out right?

Sure. But what if the pitchers steroid induced fastball made the (presumbly) clean hitters homerun turn into a sac-fly? Then they are still preventing runs.

[ESPNFan]

Sure. But what if the pitchers steroid induced fastball made the (presumbly) clean hitters homerun turn into a sac-fly? Then they are still preventing runs.

No your missing my point here. I wasn't making a clean vs. PED argument about outs vs. HRs. It was simply a comparison about on who could make the most impact on any given pitch. When a pitcher throws the ball the best he can hope for is to induce an out. When a batter swings at a pitch he can score a run. Based on a best case outcome the hitter can have more of an impact on a game on any given pitch and needs to execute successfully with far less frequency to make an impact.

Now when you couple that with PEDs it becomes even more to a hitters advantage. When a ball leaves a pitchers hand, jucied or not, even if it is a perfect pitch exactly where he wanted to throw it there is still a chance a batter could hit it. Now if a Juiced hitter makes good contact with a ball, there is nothing anyone else can do about it except turn around and watch it leave the park.

[Skin & Bones]

No your missing my point here. I wasn't making a clean vs. PED argument about outs vs. HRs. It was simply a comparison about on who could make the most impact on any given pitch. When a pitcher throws the ball the best he can hope for is to induce an out. When a batter swings at a pitch he can score a run. Based on a best case outcome the hitter can have more of an impact on a game on any given pitch and needs to execute successfully with far less frequency to make an impact.

And by inducing that out he is preventing runs, even if it's a sac fly. Had the pitcher let up a triple, double, or even a single, he lets another man on base, thus increasing the chances of the other team scoring more runs.


Now when you couple that with PEDs it becomes even more to a hitters advantage. When a ball leaves a pitchers hand, jucied or not, even if it is a perfect pitch exactly where he wanted to throw it there is still a chance a batter could hit it. Now if a Juiced hitter makes good contact with a ball, there is nothing anyone else can do about it except turn around and watch it leave the park.

True, then again, maybe not. A juiced up pitcher who is already benefitting from the recovery aspect of steroids is not out there everyday, unlike a position player who has to field, run the bases, and hit. So not only is the pitcher rested, but his endurance is greatly enhanced due to the added benefit of steroids. So I would argue that a juiced up pitcher goes out on the mound stronger and more confident than a juiced up hitter goes to the batter's box.

[Westlake]

We are now at 12 threads about the same player on the FIRST PAGE of Current Events.

[Elvis]

We are now at 12 threads about the same player on the FIRST PAGE of Current Events.

BBF = Barry Bonds Fever