Talk Amongst Yourselves: Bary Bonds Should Have His Records Removed

by Kevin

April 21st, 2006

I got nothing today, chat amongst yourselves. Today’s topic: should Barry Bonds have his records removed by MLB?

Categories: General |

24 Comments

Paul Tomblin April 21st, 2006
Shouldn’t they wait until he’s actually been caught doing something against the rules? We lefties are supposed to be all about due process, right?
Kevin April 21st, 2006
But he ha slready amditted to using steorids, even if it was inadvertent.
Ted April 21st, 2006
I think he would have to be banned from baseball first, and that is a long way from happening.
tgirsch April 21st, 2006
Certainly you’re looking at asterisks. Problem is, you’d open up pandora’s box, because McGwire’s single-season home run record is also tainted in this manner. (Even though it wasn’t banned at the time, he was openly using a performance-enhancing substance.)
leantotheleft2006 April 21st, 2006
Remember, steroids in the MLB were not illegal to 2003. Even if Bonds did use them-it wasn’t agianst the rules. I’m from Pittsburgh and I remember Bonds back then when he was a Pirate. Bonds is the greatest player ever.
Brooklynite April 21st, 2006
If we’re going to put asterisks next to the accomplishments of players who achieved their feats through the use of legal but unfair means, don’t we have to slap a star on Babe Ruth’s various records? After all, segregation shielded him from facing some of the best pitchers of his day.

And once we do that, we’ll have to go back and put an asterisk next to Hank Aaron’s home record, saying “Josh Gibson might have beaten this, if he’d been given the chance.”

Meh. Let ‘em play the games, and write down what happens. Save the arguments about legitimacy for the barroom.
tgirsch April 21st, 2006
Brooklynite:

I agree, sort of, but also sort of disagree. Babe Ruth couldn’t help the era that he played in; everybody who played at that time faced those same odds, and he still stood above the rest (except in terms of human decency). Bonds, McGwire, and others are different in that they got an unfair advantage even over their fellow players.

And while Bonds’ steroid use may not have been against MLB rules, wasn’t it against US law? That has to factor in.

If someone was actively cheating (and I think performance-enhancing substances certainly qualify as “cheating,” whatever the rules might say), that’s different in kind than talking about differences in era, thin pitching, or whatever.
Ted April 21st, 2006
Baseball has banned illegal drugs for quite some time (ask Doc Gooden), so if steriods were illegal outside of baseball, they were illegal within as well.
Brooklynite April 21st, 2006
Babe Ruth couldn’t help the era that he played in; everybody who played at that time faced those same odds

Well, not everybody, TG. Not Josh Gibson, for one. And if steroid use wasn’t against the rules, how can we construe the advantage from their use as unfair?

If we’re going to take any use of an illegal substance as cause for throwing out stats, what about all the drinking Ruth did during prohibition? Say the Babe took a drink before games to steady his nerves — isn’t that the use of an illegal performance-enhancing drug? And we haven’t even started talking about the rampant amphetamine use of generations past yet.

No. There’s no way to do this. The games are the games. The records are the records. Once you start culling the record-books, there’s no non-arbitrary way to stop.

Just say no.
Fred April 21st, 2006
Brook: After all, segregation shielded him from facing some of the best pitchers of his day.

Fred: That certainly is a presumptive racist statement. How do you know that other pitchers were better? Your assumptions are based on your prejudices since there is no way to know who was better since they didn’t play each other.
Kevin April 21st, 2006
Fred

Just as a matter of probablity, it is unlikely to a ridiculous degree that all the best pitchers of the time were white. Since the integration fo baseball, there has NEVER been an era when all the best pitchers were white. Add to that the success the one million and twleve year old Satchel Paige had when he finally made it to MLB, and I think that Brook’s statement is justified.

Brook

Actually, I think all the records before integration should come with just such an asterick.

The point about alcholhol is interesting and does give me pause. I think, though, that the differnece of degree is sufficient enough to matter here, but I am no longer 100% sure in my contention that Bond’s records need to go.

leanleftin2006

That is the shame of it: Bonds never needed the juice. He was the best all around baseball player for close to a decade, and a sure fire hall of famer.
SistaSmiff April 21st, 2006
I love Barry Bonds and baseball in general. If he doesn’t lose something for the steroid thing, then Pete Rose needs to be put in the Hall of Fame tomorrow.
Jilly April 21st, 2006
I think stats in baseball are overrated.
There’s stats creep since the early 90s.

http://jeffbrokaw.net/archive1/000873.html
Brooklynite April 21st, 2006
To expand on what Kevin said, Fred, Satchel Paige put together a 6-1 record in 1948, his rookie season in the majors, along with a 2.48 ERA. In 1952 he went 12-10 for a truly lousy team, and made the All-Star squad.

Why is this relevant to Babe Ruth? Because Paige was 41 years old at the start of his rookie season with the Indians, and 45 when he made the MLB All-Star team for the first time.

Paige threw his first no-hitter in the Negro Leagues in 1932, at the age of 26. Babe Ruth hit .341 that year, and hit 41 home runs. Ruth didn’t retire until 1935.
Lee April 21st, 2006
Should all batting records after 1968 should get an * because they were achieved with a pitching mound that was lowered 5″, thanks to Bob Gibson?
Fred April 21st, 2006
Kevin: Just as a matter of probablity, it is unlikely to a ridiculous degree that all the best pitchers of the time were white. Since the integration fo baseball, there has NEVER been an era when all the best pitchers were white. Add to that the success the one million and twleve year old Satchel Paige had when he finally made it to MLB, and I think that Brook’s statement is justified.

Fred: There you go again. Arguing against something I didn’t say. It is certainly likely that not all of the best pitchers were white. I never said they were. I said no one can state for sure. Since the whites didn’t play against the blacks and blacks didn’t play against whites, it is racist to assume that Babe Ruth could not have been as good against black pitchers. We’ll never know for sure. You are free to make your assumptions based on race, of course.
tgirsch April 21st, 2006
Brook:

As I say, your objections are relevant, but I still think steroids and other such performance-enhancing substances are different in kind. Hell, if anything, alcohol is a performance-inhibiting substance.

But I think you’re conflating a couple of different questions: the question of whether or not something was against the rules and the separate question of whether or not it was fair. Of course, segregation was supremely unfair, but even it was at least even across the league.

Here’s the important difference: Segregation (and mound height, etc.) makes it invalid to compare players from that era to a later, non-segregation era. But things like steroids make it unfair to compare players even against others of their own era. Every pitcher in the modern majors has to pitch from a lower mound. Not every player takes steroids.
Brooklynite April 21st, 2006
The whites and blacks did play against each other, Fred. They played against each other in exhibition games, and many of the Negro League players who were banned from MLB played in the majors after 1947.
Ted April 21st, 2006
Fred, you go after the silliest things. Assume blacks and whites are equal when it comes to pitching - a pretty accurate assumption I believe. Also assume 10% of population was black during the period in question (this is too trivial for me to look up actual statistics). By banning blacks, 10% of the top pitchers are unavailable to fill out the rosters, thus lowering the overall quality of pitching staffs. Simple, basic, irrefutable concept.

If you can’t grasp this, what if only pitchers named “Honus” were allowed to pitch. Can you see how this would diminish the pitching talent, without making racist assumptions?
Brooklynite April 21st, 2006
Here’s the important difference: Segregation (and mound height, etc.) makes it invalid to compare players from that era to a later, non-segregation era. But things like steroids make it unfair to compare players even against others of their own era. Every pitcher in the modern majors has to pitch from a lower mound. Not every player takes steroids.

My head is swimming. If it’s invalid to compare players from different eras, then why do we keep track of Bonds breaking Aaron’s record, or whether Aaron broke Ruth’s?

We do compare players from different eras. We do it all the time. All of the most important records in baseball involve such comparisons. And when we make such comparisons, pre-1947 players’ statistics are artificially inflated by segregation.

And while I’m causing trouble, I assume we’re going to kick Gaylord Perry out of the Hall, and toss all his records too, right?
zak822 April 24th, 2006
Bonds has not been caught breaking any rules. Therefore any and all records should stand. Complain about the rules if you want to, but the truth remains-he didn’t test dirty.

This is a media driven witch hunt. The sports media has never liked Bonds because he does not court them and frequently shows open disdain for them. Now they want their pound of flesh. This is a witch hunt and character assignation. And that’s all this is.

First, catch him dirty.
tgirsch April 24th, 2006
Brooklynite:

That’s not exactly what I meant by comparing eras, but point taken. But again, I think you miss my main point. Players can’t help the era in which they play, so to the extent that this is true, their records are legitimate and should stand. Steroids are different in kind because they give some players in a given era an unnatural unfair advantage over their contemporaries. These players all face the same pitchers who pitch from the same mound height, play by the same rules, etc., yet some use artificial and possibly illegal crutches to gain an unfair advantage. That’s a bit different than a simple “yeah, but player X played when the mound was 5″ higher than when player Y played…”

Our disagreement, I think, is this: You seem to argue for an all-or-nothing approach, wherein either all records must stand (in your view) or all must go. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I think a practical approach can be taken, where clearly if player X cheated, we can make a note of that and account for it. I don’t think it’s a choice between throwing out ALL the records or letting all records stand.

There will always be barroom disagreements, and inequalities from one era to the next, and that’s part of what makes baseball fun. But if indeed Bonds did cheat (and I strongly suspect he did), I don’t see any reason we should overlook this and give him equal treatment to the Aarons of the game.

And screw Gaylord Perry.
Ted April 25th, 2006
Zak822 “This is a witch hunt and character assignation. And that’s all this is.”

I think Zak822 is on to something. It all comes down to lack of character. Bonds has no character but you can’t blame him because his was assigned to someone else.
dean conner May 2nd, 2006
hi