The biggest farse in baseball history happened one year ago. In case you don't know it was Bonds breaking the home run record.
Registered User
The biggest farse in baseball history happened one year ago. In case you don't know it was Bonds breaking the home run record.
Registered User
Nah......Bonds could have broke that record clean or roids by swinging his bat with one hand over the years against the pitching Ruth set the record against. Pitchers roided up too....Originally Posted by Reade
Is it right...no, it is the biggest farse in baseball history....no way. One might say Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose, The Mitchell Report, Paul O'Neil, ticket prices, Ventura getting pummelled by Ryan, Joe Morgan, Fox's 'lead off first graphic', and countless more were bigger farces
Registered User
I think thats too much logic for all the Bonds haters.Nah......Bonds could have broke that record clean or roids by swinging his bat with one hand over the years against the pitching Ruth set the record against. Pitchers roided up too....
Is it right...no, it is the biggest farse in baseball history....no way. One might say Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose, The Mitchell Report, Paul O'Neil, ticket prices, Ventura getting pummelled by Ryan, Joe Morgan, Fox's 'lead off first graphic', and countless more were bigger farces
Certifiable
LOL.
Yep.
παραλία
Well...B*nds lived in a different era than Ruth. Training techniques have vastly improved since then. In general, everyone is a better player than in Ruth's day. So, yes, B*nds would have crushed the pitchign from that era.
But, Ruth was more better than his contemporaries than B*nds was his. Ruth hit over two times the home runs as the next best guy in his day. B*nds never did that.
Registered User
That is always an interesting argument. One could easily counter however and state that the game has evolved into a billion dollar business and is much more popular and competitive than ever before. Players look at is as a career and not an extracirricular activity. Because of all that there is less of a drop off in talent from the best to the worst and much more talent spread throughout the league.
o
Yeah, Bonds wasn't as good as Ruth. So what?
E=I*R
But then, Bonds was much better than Ruth in several ways.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
παραλία
So his home run record is a farce...
o
So, because Ruth was a more valuable player, Bonds' home run record is a farce?
Yeah, that makes sense...
Registered User
I think thats the Dodger fan in him speaking. If Bonds didnt have the natural ability before roids, then the record would be a farce.
How do you feel about Clemens, are his records and stats farcical?
o
If you think Barry Bonds, or anybody else's records from this era, are a farce, than you have to admit that this entire era is a farce and none of the records are "valid."
But, I don't think many people would want to admit that, so instead, it's better to just pick a few guys you hate and claim they're farces while completely ignoring the entire era.
Registered User
thats pretty much my point in bringing up clemens. Bonds is just the most prolific because he didn't play nice with the media. And now they can openly try to trash his rep and single him out. While being easier on other prolific hitters and pitchers.
παραλία
I don't ignore the entire era, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in records from this era either.
Baseball is an evolving game. To straight compare stats across 80 years is apples to quasars.
o
Nobody is doing so...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote