The Voice of Reason

I think you are right about Bonds having the same post record reputation as these others. I think you ought to consider though that expansion in the past has increased HR output, combine that with the smaller parks and there is more to this HR record than just steroids. That and that pitchers are using just as much as hitters. Another thing that I would like to mention is that it is just a personal record. The Oakland As won a WS in 89 with a admitted user on their team. They have not been stripped of their title. If baseball was serious about stopping this games would be forfeited for players using. Owners, GMs, Managers and fans need to be somewhat accountable here also. Most of us here had to at least strongly suspect Sosa back in 98. I sure did. Mike North mentioned it several times if I remember. I surely didnt see Cub fans denouncing Sosa en masse until his production started to slide. If games were subject to be forfeited because of this, we sure would have been on him. So would have Riggleman. The Giants wouldnt put up with Bonds if games were subject to be forfeited, The Yankees wouldnt put up with some of their guys, The Tigers wouldnt put up with their guys and so on and so on. I never said Bonds should be stripped of the record. Just that in my view (and a lot of other people), it will be meaningless. You are right about Sammy, he got a free pass from the media and still does from many Cubs fans. There never was an increase before in home runs like there was in the Steroid/HGH era. Shouldn't pitchers "using steroids just as much as hitters," mitigate an increase in home runs by hitters using steroids? Evidently, steroids and HGH helps hitters much more than steroids helps pitchers.

Saying that because some pitchers used steroids (to prolong their career or come back from injuries), it somehow cancels out the huge increase in home runs during the steroid era by the cartoon-like characters created by HGH is just plain silly. Bonds home run record will have the same validity as the acomplishments of Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Rosie Ruiz, Danny Almonte, Charles Van Doren, etc.

And just because a guy is all hulked up doesn't mean he uses steroids.[/quote] Correct. It means he is probably using HGH.

Not everyone at ESPN agrees with Gammons. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2939169

Gammons said on ESPN this morning that he wouldn't be surprised if both Jocketty and La Russa ended up in Cincinnati next year and that Walt is definitely feeling underappreciated in St. Louis.

Come on TT, what about HGH? I think hitters are much more inclined to use HGH than pitchers. How many pitchers put on 75 pounds of bulk like Bonds? You are a stat expert. How do you explain the huge increase in the number of players with over 50 home runs during the steroid era? The huge increase in HR's by players in their mid 30's? I believe Bonds had never hit 50, then he hits 73? I'm not buying the smaller park argument. The huge statistical increase in home runs occured because of the advantages offered to the home run hitters by HGH and steroids. There is no other logical explanation. Yes he belongs in the Hall of Fame but his"accomplishment" of passing Aaron should be compared with those of Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Rosie Ruiz, etc.

Based on what evidence can you say half the guys pitching to him were on roids? The evidence against Bonds is overwhelming (See Game of Shadows)- you're just speculating about the percentage of pitchers on roids to try to help your case.

I don't need a picture of Bonds with a needle in his butt to think he did steroids. I read the Game of Shadows - that was proof enough for me. I can't believe anyone that read that book that doesn't think Bonds is guilty. I agree with Rozner. He deserves to be in Hall of Fame and the Hall of Shame. http://www.dailyherald.com/search/printstory.asp?id=332056

Which one? Sosa for Bell or Sosa for Fontenot?

Your quite welcome. I'm here to serve.

Lofton over Brock? Give me a break. http://www.loubrock.com/Stats.htm You have a break. http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1001458&playerid2=246&playerid3=&position=OF&page=1&type=full WARP3 Lofton 102> Brock 87 Apples and oranges. Brock played several years before the mound was chopped down, with less teams (pre-expansion) and before all the minature stadiums started popping up. Comparing stats from different eras can be misleading.

Lofton over Brock? Give me a break. http://www.loubrock.com/Stats.htm

This is off topic, but Brock sucked horribly with the Cubs, and the fact that he became an early version of Rickey Henderson after he left was bad luck, not a terrible deal. Or one could argue that the Cardinals saw his potential and were smart in convincing him to hit for average and stop swinging for the fences like the Cubs encouraged him to.

The view from a Red Sox fan which believe it or not makes some sense. http:// http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7021902?print=true

That is a play that any MLB catcher should make. My catcher makes both of those plays last night - he's nine years old. Although in Kendall's defense, my catcher is a Little League All-Star.

My catcher makes both of those plays last night - he's nine years old. Although in Kendall's defense, he is a Little League All-Star.

Boooooooo.

At least Kendal has excelled on defense.

Sit down meat!

Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater. Cheater.

easy grounder.

Did he say how good a fielder he was on plays at the plate?

In Kendal's whole Cub career, he's never made a good play at home.

The guy's name is "Skip" - who cares what he thinks.

and then the two of them talked for hours on how important their marriage vows and the "thou shall not commit adultery" commandment were to them.