Post by: Manedwolf on August 06, 2007, 04:29:21 AM
*, indeed.
Post by: K Frame on August 06, 2007, 06:59:40 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 06, 2007, 08:16:11 AM
Post by: 280plus on August 06, 2007, 11:08:37 AM
Yea, Aaron didn't need to be stickin' no needles in his ass. Bonds doesn't impress me in the least. Want to be impressed? Go to the baseball hall of fame in Cooperstown and see the bat that Ruth used to hit 6 HRs in the World Series. I can't recall whether it was in one game or the whole series, either way THAT impressed me.
Post by: K Frame on August 06, 2007, 11:17:22 AM
Sorry, but the most homers Ruth ever had in one World Series is 4, in 1926.
I think the most home runs ever hit by a player in one World Series game is 3, by Reggie Jackson in 1977. Jackson also holds the record for most homeruns in an entire series, 5, also in 1977.
That information comes from the Baseball Almanac: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rb_ws3.shtml
Wait, Babe Ruth also hit 3 home runs in one game twice -- 1926 and 1928.
Post by: 280plus on August 06, 2007, 01:57:30 PM
Post by: jeepmor on August 07, 2007, 12:50:36 PM
Post by: ArfinGreebly on August 07, 2007, 02:12:11 PM
You know, steroids does not make a man a better hitter.
Stronger, maybe.
But stronger doesn't equal better hitter. (See Tiger Woods "bulk up and putt more poorly" model.)
You still have to hit the ball.
You still have to have the technique to loft it way out there.
Muscle doesn't hit a pitched ball.
You have to have an eye for that, and reflexes, and a keen sense of timing.
None of those come from steroids -- in fact steroids can interfere with all those.
So, does he have an "unfair" bulk advantage?
Maybe.
But bulk doesn't hit balls.
That takes skill.
Post by: Balog on August 07, 2007, 02:25:08 PM
I may play or watch the sport on rare occasions and I enjoy movies and tv shows, but the retards who participate in them have no interest to me.
Post by: K Frame on August 07, 2007, 03:06:23 PM
Barry Bonds put up legitimate Hall of Fame numbers before he was ever accused of juicing.
What he's done, though, is rob his pursuit of one of baseball's most hallowed records of any purpose.
I'll never look at Barry Bonds and see the all-time home run king.
Post by: K Frame on August 07, 2007, 03:07:27 PM
Of all the things I care about in this world, what drug some guy who gets paid to play a sport uses ranks as second to last. Very last? Anything anyone in Hollywood does.
I may play or watch the sport on rare occasions and I enjoy movies and tv shows, but the retards who participate in them have no interest to me.
I may play or watch the sport on rare occasions and I enjoy movies and tv shows, but the retards who participate in them have no interest to me.
So you don't like baseball.
Good for you.
Why don't you and Mtnbkr, who also hates baseball, get together and go to your "Young Communists for the Destruction of Capitals America" meeting now, comrad?
Post by: Balog on August 07, 2007, 03:09:49 PM
Post by: K Frame on August 07, 2007, 03:25:05 PM
I never said I dislike baseball. I said I hate that our culture venerates people who play games or pretend to be other people on film.
Order of borscht and strong black tea up for Balog!
You think it's EVER been any different in the history of man?
People have ALWAYS held up to levels of higher esteem those who excel in their fields.
The Greeks wrote odes to their frigging Olympians, Roman gladiators could be treated like gods, even while they were slaves.
No different at any point in history.
Post by: ONE-SHOT-ONE on August 08, 2007, 06:52:39 AM
it may not make a difference on how many hits but the record is for how many went over the wall, extra mussle would make a difference there!?!?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 08, 2007, 07:00:54 AM
No one is disputing that, Arfin.
Barry Bonds put up legitimate Hall of Fame numbers before he was ever accused of juicing.
What he's done, though, is rob his pursuit of one of baseball's most hallowed records of any purpose.
I'll never look at Barry Bonds and see the all-time home run king.
Barry Bonds put up legitimate Hall of Fame numbers before he was ever accused of juicing.
What he's done, though, is rob his pursuit of one of baseball's most hallowed records of any purpose.
I'll never look at Barry Bonds and see the all-time home run king.
Likewise. I would prefer people look at sports heroes as having developed their natural gifts through lots of practice and hard work.
"Win at any cost, even if you have to cheat" is not something I will celebrate.
Post by: Mabs2 on August 08, 2007, 08:03:53 AM
Post by: K Frame on August 08, 2007, 08:04:37 AM
I, for the record, loathe baseball above all other sports, but I also loathe the others.
We'll alert the media...
Post by: Jamisjockey on August 08, 2007, 09:39:28 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46188
Halloween, anyone?
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 08, 2007, 11:09:20 AM
Quote
steroids does not make a man a better hitter.
Really ? You might be right, but then the question is, why is he taking them (if the rumors are true) ?
From the dreaded and much maligned Wikipedia ( 50 home run club ):
60+ home run club.
number player year
73 Barry Bonds 2001
70 Mark McGwire 1998
66 Sammy Sosa 1998
65 Mark McGwire 1999
64 Sammy Sosa 2001
63 Sammy Sosa 1999
61 Roger Maris 1961
60 Babe Ruth 1927
Anything leap out at you here ?
Post by: K Frame on August 08, 2007, 11:17:48 AM
I think you're missing Arfin's point.
Steroids don't make someone a "better" hitter, they make the individual a stronger hitter, able to power the ball farther and turn flyouts into homers.
A better way of looking at it, I think, would be their batting averages, number of hits, on base percentage, strikeouts etc., during those years as compared to earlier in their careers. Those statistics give a much better indication of the inherent abilities of a hitter.
Post by: roo_ster on August 08, 2007, 11:30:34 AM
Recovery & healing are at the top of the list. Folks like Cal Ripkin are exceedingly rare. Most folks get busted up or just plain need time off to recover, as their muscles get broken down form strenuous activity. As testosterone levels fall over the years, the time needed to recover is longer. Kinda why 'roids are often prescribed to chemotherapy patients.
If the injury is of the muscle or connective tissue, 'roids will help heal you up faster from pulls, tears, sprains, etc.
Strength & power is probably a secondary/tertiary benefit with a lot of athletes that really have no need of monster muscles.
Good luck stopping 'roid use at the pro level. There are boutique formulations that show up on no tests cooked up all the time. If you have the cash, you can have the 'roids.
Also, human growth hormone has come on strong in the last decade. Good luck stopping that one.
The testers/rules-making bodies will always be playing catch up. They will catch only the dumb or those who can not afford the best.
Post by: Silver Bullet on August 08, 2007, 11:48:07 AM
Quote
Steroids don't make someone a "better" hitter, they make the individual a stronger hitter, able to power the ball farther and turn flyouts into homers.
I understand your distinction, but I thought Arfin was stating, in more general terms, that taking steroids does not give one an advantage in results, and that it is therefore not relevant. The ability to hit the ball farther and turn flyouts into homers falls under my "advantage" category.
But, as before, I don't think any of these fellers have been convicted or have admitted to anything, so it might all be moot.
One thing I'm not clear on: was it against the rules of Major League Baseball to take what these guys are alleged to have taken, at the time they took it ? Baseball jumped all over Pete Rose for gambling, they seem to have hoped this issue would just go away.
Post by: K Frame on August 08, 2007, 11:53:21 AM
Frankly, MLB AND the player's union deserves much of the blame for letting this situation get so far out of control. Both simply ignored, or winked at, the restrictions and at allegations that players were using.
MLB, in my opinion, did so because the huge home run totals of the mid 1990s were putting asses in the seats that hadn't been there since the strike and destroyed season. In short, it helped restore the game and they didn't want to interfere with that at that time.
Post by: JohnBT on August 08, 2007, 04:11:29 PM
Anything leap out at you here ?"
Only that Babe Ruth out-homered entire teams. IIRC, one year he out-homered all but ONE team.
"Babe Ruth averaged 44 home runs per season from 1920 through 1934. Over the same number of at-bats, the average American League player hit fewer than six." - googled up at random
1920 - Ruth hit 54. In 2nd place was George Sisler with NINETEEN.
Post by: grampster on August 08, 2007, 05:21:56 PM
I think professional sports is a mirror of the times. We are a cruder, more self centered, oriented crowd today. More games played, more variables. Add in a little science and technology.
My point is that records in sports aren't a benchmark for anything. No context.
The only value that records have are in the context of the times during which they are made. Drop Barry Bonds or any super performer today into the context of the past, living there under the conditions, who knows what they may have accomplished? Babe Ruth might have ate Barry Bonds for lunch. Maybe not. Rocky Marciano may have destroyed Ali. I watched them both fight. I admire both men. They were heroes of their own times. that's good enough for me.
Mr. Bonds is interesting only for the accomplishments he makes in his time. He's never been convicted of using steroids. He's innocent till proven guilty in my book.
Post by: JohnBT on August 09, 2007, 05:51:05 AM
Of course he would have, he wasn't just a little bit better, he was orders of magnitude better than the Hall of Famers he was playing against and the guys were having a career year. And he was hitting a dead ball compared the juiced one Bonds gets to hit.
And the Babe was on his way to the Hall of Fame as a PITCHER when they switched his position to get him in the daily lineup. Lifetime record of 94 and 46 with an ERA of 2.28.
To pick just two years:
1916 - 23 and 12 with a 1.75
1917 - 24 and 13 with a 2.01
Post by: client32 on August 09, 2007, 06:04:51 AM
Only that Babe Ruth out-homered entire teams. IIRC, one year he out-homered all but ONE team.
Are you saying all teams or all but the team he played for?
I don't follow baseball all that much, so this question might be stupid, but shouldn't a pitcher have an inside track when in the batters box. That said, I guess I can understand that they don't take time to practice batting at all, so they never get any good at.
When thinking about Babe Ruth, I have wondered if that didn't help him when batting.
Post by: doczinn on August 09, 2007, 06:17:58 AM
Quote
People have ALWAYS held up to levels of higher esteem those who excel in their fields.
But veneration is reserved for those in the entertainment fields. Idiotic.
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 06:31:29 AM
When it becams evident just how big a draw home run hitters could be, Reach and Spaulding, the ball suppliers for MLB, working in concert with MLB, started improving the manufacture and materials in the balls to give them more pep.
Starting in the middle 1920s the number of true home run hitters skyrocketed as did total home runs per team.
I'm trying to track down lists of the leaders (top 5 or 10) in each league during those years.
For example, though, in 1922 Rogers Hornsby hit 42 home runs.
You also have to consider that some of the early major league parks were ENORMOUS, which also helped cut down on the number of home runs. The Polo Grounds, for example, was 505 feet to dead center.
New parks that were built starting after WW I were often designed to emphasize the home run. Yankee Stadium is a perfect example of this. The right field deck was perfectly suited to Ruth's and Gerhig's power.
Here's a chart that shows the rise in home run totals.
That huge spike starting in 1919 is almost all Babe Ruth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MLB_HR_and_SB_rates.png
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 06:33:08 AM
Quote
People have ALWAYS held up to levels of higher esteem those who excel in their fields.
But veneration is reserved for those in the entertainment fields. Idiotic.Oh?
Jonas Salk, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford...
Just a few of the many non-entertainers who were held up to very high esteem in their lifetimes for excelling in their fields.
Post by: doczinn on August 09, 2007, 06:36:46 AM
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 06:54:45 AM
Yes, some of these people are extremely popular, but at the same time many of them are also routinely targets of really bad press, either through their own making (Brittany Spears, for example) or the gossip/rumor mill.
Post by: doczinn on August 09, 2007, 07:01:02 AM
I didn't say or imply that you venerate them, or that I do, but many millions of people do.
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 07:28:59 AM
That someone sells a million records or makes a couple of hit movies and becomes popular with the general populace doesn't mean that they've risen to, as I said, a God-like status. It simply means that people like them and the work that they do.
Is that so very bad for people to popularize individuals who entertain us, provide us with visceral pleasure?
Is it so wrong that we WANT to be entertained as a break for daily life?
Post by: Mabs2 on August 09, 2007, 08:10:41 AM
I, for the record, loathe baseball above all other sports, but I also loathe the others.
We'll alert the media...
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 09, 2007, 09:23:37 AM
The evidence that it's veneration and not simply popularity of a performer's talent comes from the fact that people who are performers (whether in sports, music, movies, or what-have-you) are being treated as if they are authorities on subjects outside their realm of skill.
For instance: Bono from U2. You can argue over whether he's got amazing musical talent all day long (and if you argued that he was pretty good up until about 1992, and has sucked since then, you'd even be right). But there's no doubt that he and his band have what it takes to sell records. But Bono, a singer, was asked by the General Secretary of the UN to end the Lebanon crisis. Because obviously singing on-stage and managing the geopolitical situation in an unstable region require exactly the same skills.
Almost every actor in Hollywood has loud opinion on politics, and the American public listens. Not because they have sat down and thought out the issue that the actor is talking about, and they find the actor's argument to be cogent, but because they saw Tomb Raider, and they think that anyone with t-shirt padding like Angelina Jolie probably has all of the answers...
When artists, actors, musicians, and sports figures are admired for their art, acting, music, and athletic ability, that's appreciation. When they are assumed to be authorities on subjects outside their skill set, simply because of their fame, that's veneration.
Would anyone honestly care about what Bono things of the Lebanon crisis, if he weren't front man for a multi-million-album band? If he were a paper-hat-wearing burger jockey from Des Moines, would Kofi have asked him to fix the middle east?
Closer to current events: Would there be such nationwide shock and outrage over Michael Vick's alleged dog-fighting ring, if people didn't get so wrapped up in sports figures that they expect them to be better than everyone else?
-BP
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 09:28:50 AM
That's no different today than it was in years past, either.
Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were commentators on social issues of the day fairly regularly. And people listened them.
People listened to Father Caughlin pretty ardently, too, when he'd discuss politics.
And that certainly isn't veneration.
Yes, there are people who listen to what these people have to say.
But there are also people who categorically reject what they have to say at the same time.
There are a lot of people who "listen to voices beamed into their heads by the CIA," too. Does that mean that they venerate the CIA?
Post by: 280plus on August 09, 2007, 04:13:04 PM
So has Springsteen, for that matter.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 04:16:10 PM
No, bono and U2 have always sucked...
-1
Post by: Sindawe on August 09, 2007, 04:50:09 PM
Quote
No, bono and U2 have always sucked...
What are bono and U2?
Post by: cosine on August 09, 2007, 07:10:05 PM
Quote
No, bono and U2 have always sucked...
What are bono and U2?
Bono
U2
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 07:56:54 PM