The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I have an honest question, and I'm going to put my personal distaste for Barry aside here for a minute...

A lot of the argument for Bonds is that "everybody's doing it". People talk about the fact that its the "steroid era" and claim that basically most, if not all, big-time players are using some kind of steroids. My question - how is that a legitimate argument? Does that make it any less wrong or taint a record any less? Because lots of other people are breaking the rules and either get caught, does that somehow make it "less bad" that Bonds is doing it?

I'm just saying, I've seen that a lot in this thread, and I have to say, people talk about Aaron's amphetamines, and the fact that Babe never had to play black players, but it seems to me that steroids would have a much larger effect than any of the other misdeeds or simple circumstances in baseball's past. The ability to grow more muscle faster (coupled with an already great eye for the ball) and recuperate faster would do more than any upper or hot dog ever would, I think.

Like I said, I'm just saying, people shouldn't excuse Bonds as "just another player in the steroid era". Cheating is cheating no matter how many players are doing it. Now, whether he did or not is up for debate, but that's why we're here, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It might not make it any less wrong, but it absolutely taints the record a lot less. If everyone is doing it, it is a completely level playing field, and since a HR is a RELATIVE achievement and not an absolute achievement, as long as there is a level playing field, the record shouldn't be tainted at all.

It would be different if we were talking about 100m dash times or something, something that is an absolute achievement.

[Triumph36]

Edge: Not quite. Here's how the argument for Bonds goes.

1. There's no 100%, rock-solid evidence that he did steroids. There's some circumstantial evidence, to be sure.

2. Even if there were 100% rock-solid evidence, there are many other players cheating, including pitchers. Pitchers cheating should negate the batter cheating, right? It's a level playing field if that's the case - or at least leveler. Since there isn't 100% rock-solid evidence against Bonds, why aren't we also putting an asterisk on every other Hall of Fame player from this era?

[Victor]

"why aren't we also putting an asterisk on every other Hall of Fame player from this era? "

id say the asterisk on bonds' ball is a very good representation of the whole era.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Edge: Not quite. Here's how the argument for Bonds goes.

1. There's no 100%, rock-solid evidence that he did steroids. There's some circumstantial evidence, to be sure.

2. Even if there were 100% rock-solid evidence, there are many other players cheating, including pitchers. Pitchers cheating should negate the batter cheating, right? It's a level playing field if that's the case - or at least leveler. Since there isn't 100% rock-solid evidence against Bonds, why aren't we also putting an asterisk on every other Hall of Fame player from this era?

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is where I get confused. We don't have any rock solid evidence on almost ALL MLB players. We have a very small number who have failed tests. Now, if we are to extrapolate the steroid era to essentially "everybody" without evidence on them, we can't really have it on Bonds, can we?

Basically, it just seems to me that that particular argument is damning to Bonds, but it is often used in conjunction with the fact that he has never failed a test. Just seems like a gap in logic to me. Its late and I'm a bit on the drunk side, so this is just kinda stream of consciousness here...hope its making sense. Basically, pitchers cheating can't be used against them without the failed tests if Bonds cheating can't be used against him without failed tests, you know what I mean?

I really am trying to be objective here - I could care less about 756 or 762 or any of that, just curious at what point using steroids becomes wrong and at what point its "just like everybody else". I guess this debate, if nothing else, makes it crystal clear why baseball has so damn many problems these days.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought i was bored of these threads - nope, they are still awesome. redbean ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured somewhere along the way of arguing the same old tired allegations for 6+ years that I might as well try to make the threads somewhat entertaining along the way for the lurking folks who have to suffer the same freaking topic over and over and over.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, I'm just saying, people shouldn't excuse Bonds as "just another player in the steroid era". Cheating is cheating no matter how many players are doing it. Now, whether he did or not is up for debate, but that's why we're here, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you have a problem with players who slide hard into second then.

[kyleb]

I think the asterisk on the ball will be looked back upon in shame. People will reference the "steroid era" of having no proof whatsoever and curators will say "this is what people thought was happening back then without a single shred of credible evidence."

People who feed the flames of this type of questioning are idiotic and clearly don't understand the concepts of economics very well, though the two often go hand-in-hand anyway.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of the argument for Bonds is that "everybody's doing it". People talk about the fact that its

the "steroid era" and claim that basically most, if not all, big-time players are using some kind of

steroids. My question - how is that a legitimate argument?


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly haven't made that argument. Can't help you on that one.

[ QUOTE ]
Because lots of other people are breaking the rules and either get caught, does that somehow

make it "less bad" that Bonds is doing it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Bonds hasn't broken MLB steroid rules.

[ QUOTE ]
people talk about Aaron's amphetamines, and the fact that Babe never had to play black players,
but it seems to me that steroids would have a much larger effect than any of the other misdeeds or simple circumstances in baseball's past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, not allowing blacks to play is not just a "simple circumstance", and it undoubtedly had much more of an effect on homerun rates than the "steroid era".

In fact, integration had the single biggest effect on homeruns outside of the end of the deadball era...more than lowering the mound....more than later expansions...more than maple bats....more than smaller parks....etc...etc...

You can either take my word for it, or if disputed, I can unload reams of data to bludgeon the point home.

For starters, here is what the career HR list looks like since blacks were allowed to play:

1. Black - 762
2. Black - 755
3. Black - 660
4. Black - 593
5. Black - 586
6. <font color="red">Ginger</font> - 583
7. White - 573
8. Black - 563

Another fun fact:
There are 10 pitchers in the Hall of Fame who played during Babe's time, but were not allowed to pitch against him due to the color of their skin.

Put simply, Babe Ruth came at the right time.... right at the end of the deadball era, and before they let the black folks play. If he's born 20 years earlier or later, he's most likely just George Ruth, noted for having a little pop in his bat, but just another Johnny Mize and nothing like Teddy Ballgame.

714 looked pretty impressive at the time, but it was also the only time in the game that there were players who were talented enough to compete, if not excel further, but not allowed to play because they weren't white.

Does that taint 714? Heck, if we're counting "whites only" numbers, he'd still have an impressive lead over the 2nd place Ginger, and 3rd place Killebrew.

But when they let the colored folk in, they worked that number over.....and we'll never know what may have been if they were allowed to play alongside Ruth.

714 just may have never been "the number" in the first place.....

Like Satchel Paige once said, "Babe Ruth never hit a colored curveball."

Does that make me look at 714 differently than if he accomplished the same against integrated competition?

To be honest, yes, it has an effect.

But does it give me or anyone else the gall to affix an asterisk to his numbers, or otherwise try to diminish the great things he did?

Of course not, because regardless of the circumstances, Ruth hit each and everyone of those homeruns, and me bitching about the color of the pitchers or opposing sluggers isn't going to un-hit any of them.

Baseball eras aren't evaluated in an absolute vaccum, but instead in relative context.

That's why "Hugh Whats-his-name" who hit .440 in 1880-something is "Hugh Whats-his-name" and not "Hugh Household-Name."

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to grow more muscle faster (coupled with an already great eye for the ball) and recuperate faster would do more than any upper or hot dog ever would, I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

You kinda switched gears on me there from Babe Ruth not facing blacks, to Babe Ruth eating hot dogs.

And you completely forgot about the ability to afford personal trainers to condition himself during the offseason, when most players in that era actually went back to work real jobs to pay the bills.


[ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I'm just saying, people shouldn't excuse Bonds as "just another player in the steroid era". Cheating is cheating no matter how many players are doing it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and if he ever happens to violate the MLB steroid policy, he should be disciplined.

The thing is....[i]he hasn't

[kyleb]

How does it feel to get absolutely owned by RedBean? It must suck. At least you learn something, though.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the asterisk on the ball will be looked back upon in shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and if history is our guide, it most likely will repeat itself.

I'm old enough to remember the prevailing public opinion of Hank when his breaking of Babe's record was fresh in the minds of "fans".

No matter how much SI or ESPN tells you how much of a love fest it was....or pretend the hate he got was only from fringe types....that just wasn't the case.

Hell, at times, Hank was abused by Atlanta fans at home.

They wrote articles in the paper about how Aaron was irked at the commisioners lack of acknowledgement for number 700, and not being there for 715, etc.

They said Aaron may have the record, but Babe was still the HR king in their hearts.

They mitigated Aaron's accomplishments in editorials saying he played in a lively ball era, with watered down expansion, and the Babe could've hit 800+.

They speculated even before Aaron broke the record as to who would be the one to break his.....(oddly enough, choosing Johnny Bench as the consensus pick, then in his mid-twenties with about 175 HR's)...and speculated it would be done with more fanfare than the mixed emotions felt with Aaron.

Heck, at one point Bowie Kuhn issued a warning to pitchers that they better not be percieved to "groove" pitches to Aaron in order to help him achieve the record, otherwise they would be suspended for a long time under "Rule 21", and of course, threatened the Braves with sanctions if they held Aaron out on the road to ensure breaking it at home.....as they were nervous as to the reaction on the road.

The sports media now look back 30+ years later, and recount it slightly differently, blaming "others" such as racist fringe types for the Aaron hate, when several of the same folks were early beat writers authoring the very pieces critical of Aaron and mitigating his fresh accomplishments.