Barry Lamar Bonds

[Milkman delivers]

There's plenty of instances of Bonds being a jerk to fans. There was an ESPN.com spring training article a few years ago that began with an anecdote about Ray Durham arriving and being met by a bunch of fans asking for autographs, and he obliged. When Barry showed up, he yelled or said something to the effect of "Don't you people have lives?" But there's also plenty of stories about him being gracious and kind to people. When I read Jeff Pearlman's Love Me, Hate Me, I would hate Bonds one moment and almost like him a few pages or a chapter later.

 

As for the record...it sucks that it came to this, it's very likely Bonds did use performance-enhancing drugs (I think he did). But he hasn't tested positive, and he wouldn't have even been breaking the rules of the game until 2002. If they put an asterisk next to this record, or wipe it clean, the same has to be done for EVERYTHING from about 1980 to 2004.

 

Pretty sure it was against the rules even before that. They just hadn't come up with a system for testing yet.

[Milkman delivers]

Oh Lord.. you would be ill beyond your past worse illness if I repeated things I saw first hand in Baltimore from '97 to '99. Cal is not so nice. And Brady Anderson... oye. I asked Canseco if he wrote another book to PLEASE out Brady. The things some of these guys do is simply repulsive.

 

So, Ripken is a jerk? I'd heard that.

[Gregory Pratt]

Have you heard about him and Kevin Costner?!?!?!?!

 

Not true. But wouldn't it be amazing if it were?!?!?!?!

[Milkman delivers]

Honest to God, if I had that ball I would destroy it. A sad day for baseball.

 

No you wouldn't. That's millions of dollars in your pocket.

[Milkman delivers]

If I would have caught the ball, I would have given it to Barry for free on the condition that I get to meet him and maybe have dinner.

 

Just being able to say that I caught the ball would be enough for me, and I would never even consider giving the ball to anyone but Barry, so i wouldnt rake him over the coals. Some things in life are priceless, and to Barry that ball is priceless. He earned it, he deserves it, so if I had been lucky enough, I would have just told them to escort me to the dugout so I can hand him the ball.

 

I dont care if he cheated, I dont care about any of it, I dont know 1 person who hasnt cheated in some way shape or form.

 

In the end, if you arent cheating you arent trying hard enough to win.

 

You are a better man than I.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'm not under the impression that the ball will sell for millions.

[DrunkBomber]

I don't know if this is a comment on Bonds, Selig, the game itself, or what...but here's my thoughts.

 

Last night, during the Colbert Report, I tuned in to ESPN2 during a commercial break and saw Bonds up to bat. I decided I'd rather not see it if anything happened. I literally turned the TV away from the Giants game during the at bat where he broke the record.

 

I grew up a fan of baseball. Loved it when ESPN used to show the replays of the old black & white home run derby's from the 60's. Knew the record books quite well. Saw the clip of Aaron more times than I can count.

 

And yet, I had absolutely no urge to either watch the greatest record in the sport be broken or to hear anything about it afterwards.

 

I hate this. All of it. This should be something I would enjoy. Love. Etc. F***ing cheaters and their enablers.

Very well written. This is basically how I feel and I am glad it is over but to me its sad that I had no interest in what was supposed to be the greatest sports record being broken.

 

Maybe I dont care as much because I think ARod will break it but when something of this magnitude happens and people that have been fans of the sport as a whole for most of their lives would rather watch commercials or nothing than this being broken it tells you something.

[witesoxfan]

I wouldn't bet on it, unless he goes from a 30 homer or so a year guy to hitting 49, than 73, than 40 a year while walking 200 times a year and having OPS's in the 1.200 or so range starting at age 37 and into his 40's, all the while having a moutain of evidence connecting him to a state of the art steroid factory and having his shoe size go up by 3 and head size by 1 and a half.

 

To clarify, I mean that about A-Rod. I'm very suspecious of Pujols on the other hand, and there is reason to be.

 

Bonds put up an OPS+ of 205 and 206 in 92 and 93 respectfully, and hit more than 30 homers in 10 of 11 seasons from 1990 to 2000. And he only walked 200+ times one year and walked 198 times another (so essentially 2 200 walk seasons). I really don't understand what his walks have to do with anything, because Bonds has always been the most patient hitter in the game. He drew 556 walks in 4 seasons from '95-'98; that's 140 walks a season. It's not like he randomly started hitting for huge power and drawing walks out of nowhere.

 

And further, to suggest hitters don't get better with age is wrong. Hitters get worse when they break down, which has started happening with Barry, but if anything, hitters get better as they age. Pete Rose hit .331 as a 38 year old and .325 as a 40 year old, Tony Gwynn had arguably the best season of his career in 97 as a 37 year old and hit .332 from 99-01, and Hank Aaron had the highest OPS and OPS+ of his career as a 37 year old, and then went on to put up a 1.045 and a .301 average with 40 homers as a 39 year old.

 

So quite frankly, it's very possible ARod could do that and still be perfectly clean.

 

 

I'm not under the impression that the ball will sell for millions.

 

Then you're naive. Hank Aaron's 755 went for $750K and McGwire's 62nd went for $3.1 million. If you don't think the ball that broke the all time home run record is going to sell for atleast the $3.1 mill McGwire got, then I imagine you are lying to yourself.

[Linnwood]

No you wouldn't. That's millions of dollars in your pocket.

 

 

No, I really would. And there is no way that is going to go for a million, let alone millions.

[witesoxfan]

No, I really would. And there is no way that is going to go for a million, let alone millions.

 

Well this thread will almost undoubtedly be bumped then.

[Gregory Pratt]

Huh.

 

I wasn't being "naive." Just misinformed on the dollar figures. Damn!

 

Yeah, that ball will definitely sell.

[ChWRoCk2]

No, I really would. And there is no way that is going to go for a million, let alone millions.

Y not? The owner is the one selling it, its his price tag isnt it? Set it high and if no one buys lower it.

 

Honestly if I caught it Id have to ask for at least a million, Id love to keep it because its a priceless piece of history but it would prolly just sit on a shelf in my closet collecting dust.

[Texsox]

I don't know if this is a comment on Bonds, Selig, the game itself, or what...but here's my thoughts.

 

Last night, during the Colbert Report, I tuned in to ESPN2 during a commercial break and saw Bonds up to bat. I decided I'd rather not see it if anything happened. I literally turned the TV away from the Giants game during the at bat where he broke the record.

 

I grew up a fan of baseball. Loved it when ESPN used to show the replays of the old black & white home run derby's from the 60's. Knew the record books quite well. Saw the clip of Aaron more times than I can count.

 

And yet, I had absolutely no urge to either watch the greatest record in the sport be broken or to hear anything about it afterwards.

 

I hate this. All of it. This should be something I would enjoy. Love. Etc. F***ing cheaters and their enablers.

 

Could watch as well.

[whitesoxfan101]

witesoxfan's post is a classic of ignorance. First of all, the Bonds 756 has been appraised for 500 k tops, so millions my ass. Second, your post on players and age.....lmao. Do you watch baseball? The reason Bonds OPS+ in his younger years was his total bases were so high due to all of his doubles, stolen bases, speed, and hitters around him on some really good Pirates teams. Doesn't explain his home run explosion in his late 30's and early 40's. But it was a good try.

[Texsox]

I'm no memorabilia expert, but I'm guessing $500,000 will make a nice opening bid.

[AirScott]

Pretty sure it was against the rules even before that. They just hadn't come up with a system for testing yet.

I don't know about that. The NFL instituted its policy in 1987, with suspensions starting in 1989, and the NBA first put in a policy in 1999. Steroids were made illegal in America in 1991, but my source for all this is Wikipedia, so...well, I don't think they were against the rules.

 

No, I really would. And there is no way that is going to go for a million, let alone millions.

It'd go for a pretty penny. But you'd sell the ball. It's easier to say you'd destroy it when you aren't holding a baseball worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Linnwood]

Yeah, I heard several sports memorabilia/auction house guys on NPR's Marketplace say that $500k is where they expect it to go... $3m is wildly unrealistic imho.

 

You, obviously, can choose to believe me or not about destroying the ball. Maybe it is easier for me since I don't have children I have to provide for, but we live a comfortable life... I would have no second thoughts about blowing that thing up.

[jackie hayes]

Bonds put up an OPS+ of 205 and 206 in 92 and 93 respectfully, and hit more than 30 homers in 10 of 11 seasons from 1990 to 2000. And he only walked 200+ times one year and walked 198 times another (so essentially 2 200 walk seasons). I really don't understand what his walks have to do with anything, because Bonds has always been the most patient hitter in the game. He drew 556 walks in 4 seasons from '95-'98; that's 140 walks a season. It's not like he randomly started hitting for huge power and drawing walks out of nowhere.

 

And further, to suggest hitters don't get better with age is wrong. Hitters get worse when they break down, which has started happening with Barry, but if anything, hitters get better as they age. Pete Rose hit .331 as a 38 year old and .325 as a 40 year old, Tony Gwynn had arguably the best season of his career in 97 as a 37 year old and hit .332 from 99-01, and Hank Aaron had the highest OPS and OPS+ of his career as a 37 year old, and then went on to put up a 1.045 and a .301 average with 40 homers as a 39 year old.

 

So quite frankly, it's very possible ARod could do that and still be perfectly clean.

Then you're naive. Hank Aaron's 755 went for $750K and McGwire's 62nd went for $3.1 million. If you don't think the ball that broke the all time home run record is going to sell for atleast the $3.1 mill McGwire got, then I imagine you are lying to yourself.

wite, that is the most absurd thing you've ever posted. And you don't even back it up. You cite a couple exceptions of players having good seasons in their twilights. Btw, you missed the big one, where Williams had a huge year at 38.

 

ONE big year, with an ops+ of 233. Which is much closer to his career ops+ of 190 or so than Bonds' THREE years of 260+ ops+ were to his career ops+ of 180-something (which includes those years, not to mention the piddly 231 ops+ sandwiched in between).

 

Just look at the best single-season ops+ ever -- why aren't there more than a handful of 35+ players from before the steroid era, since hitters get "better as they age"? Why has it been said for ages that players peak between 27 and 31 (depending on who you're listening to)?

 

This is so ridiculous, I have to add -- if you're being sarcastic, kudos. O/w, this is borderline dishonest.

[witesoxfan]

witesoxfan's post is a classic of ignorance. First of all, the Bonds 756 has been appraised for 500 k tops, so millions my ass. Second, your post on players and age.....lmao. Do you watch baseball? The reason Bonds OPS+ in his younger years was his total bases were so high due to all of his doubles, stolen bases, speed, and hitters around him on some really good Pirates teams. Doesn't explain his home run explosion in his late 30's and early 40's. But it was a good try.

 

It's going to get millions. If it doesn't, I'll eat my crow like everyone else, but if McGwire's 62nd went for $3.1 mill, and Hank Aaron's 755th went for $750K sometime in the late 70s to early 80s, what the hell do you think this ball is going to go for? I'd imagine the Giants will do everything in their power to buy that ball, and that may be shelling out as much as $5 mill for it.

 

And I don't question whether I watch baseball. I question whether you understand stats at all. Neither his OPS nor OPS+ would be affected by his stolen base numbers, but nice try. OPS is on base percentage (H+BB+HBP/PA) plus slugging (TB/AB), and OPS+ is adjusted OPS, which is just a number centering around 100 which suggests what a league average OPS would be...tell me, how do stolen bases work into that?

 

Next, don't give any credit to Bonds who, uhhhhhh, led the team in OPS in each of the Pirates' NLCS seasons. But no, it was everyone else around him as to why Barry Bonds was a good player, because without those good players, Barry Bonds doesn't put up good numbers. I'd suggest reading what you type, because it's absolutely ludicrous that you believe that the other players made Bonds perform. It's really not coincidental that the years the Pirates won 3 straight division titles, Bonds put up OPS's .971, .924, and 1.080, and that in 1989 when they sucked, Bonds sucked.

 

And players do become better hitters with age. They get worse when their body breaks down. Why do you think a rookie isn't as good as a 10 year veteran, and why do you think young players ask for advice from older players? Pretty common sense dude. Hank Aaron would still be playing if his body would allow it, but that quite frankly isn't possible. Frank Thomas is probably going to play as long as his leg holds up, and Jim Thome will play as long as his back doesn't leave him hunchbacked. Right? Right?

 

And the home run explosion probably comes from steroids. Or perhaps it was heavy lifting and becoming a better hitter, who knows? All I was suggesting was that Bonds wasn't a nobody or merely a good player in the 90s - like you seem to be trying your heart out to make him out as - but rather he was dominant. He wasn't some "30 homer a year guy" who transformed into a "49, 73, and several more 40 homer seasons with 200 walks." He's been a 35-40 homer a year player all his career up until last season. And that if ARod breaks it or nears it, there will be controversy.

[witesoxfan]

wite, that is the most absurd thing you've ever posted. And you don't even back it up. You cite a couple exceptions of players having good seasons in their twilights. Btw, you missed the big one, where Williams had a huge year at 38.

 

ONE big year, with an ops+ of 233. Which is much closer to his career ops+ of 190 or so than Bonds' THREE years of 260+ ops+ were to his career ops+ of 180-something (which includes those years, not to mention the piddly 231 ops+ sandwiched in between).

 

Just look at the best single-season ops+ ever -- why aren't there more than a handful of 35+ players from before the steroid era, since hitters get "better as they age"? Why has it been said for ages that players peak between 27 and 31 (depending on who you're listening to)?

 

This is so ridiculous, I have to add -- if you're being sarcastic, kudos. O/w, this is borderline dishonest.

 

I'm perhaps twisting words a little bit, but I really believe hitters become better as they age. They get worse when their bodies can't catch up to a 96 MPH fastball or hold up over the rigors of a season. Perhaps that can be interpreted as getting worse with age, but if a guy's body can hold up over those, a person could logically play at a very high level until he is 40-45. Once his bat speed drops or he starts losing strength is when he becomes a worse hitter; that happens with age, but that could be anywhere from 32 years old to 42 years old. That means ARod could be a very good player until he's 44, or he could be out of baseball by 38. It's hard to say, and that's why it's unrealistic to speculate as to whether he will break the record when he isn't even 2/3rds of the way to the record.

[jackie hayes]

I'm perhaps twisting words a little bit, but I really believe hitters become better as they age. They get worse when their bodies can't catch up to a 96 MPH fastball or hold up over the rigors of a season. Perhaps that can be interpreted as getting worse with age, but if a guy's body can hold up over those, a person could logically play at a very high level until he is 40-45. Once his bat speed drops or he starts losing strength is when he becomes a worse hitter; that happens with age, but that could be anywhere from 32 years old to 42 years old. That means ARod could be a very good player until he's 44, or he could be out of baseball by 38. It's hard to say, and that's why it's unrealistic to speculate as to whether he will break the record when he isn't even 2/3rds of the way to the record.

Come on, it's just wrong. Sure, if a player could lose NO ability from 29 to 35, he'd be just as good, but that DOESN'T happen. It's not just "speculation" that a player will slow down after 30, it's biology. And a player sure as hell won't suddenly GAIN massive amounts of quickness, coordination, or sheer power at 35, like Bonds did. ARod could, at best, maintain his production (Williams doesn't look MUCH different late, maybe more inconsistent -- but he wasn't better). But whatever 'smarts' he gains will be offset by the physical decline. Doesn't mean he won't have a lucky year, like Williams and Aaron did. But if he consistently attains unprecedented peaks of production after 35, I for one won't have any doubt about how he accomplished it.

[witesoxfan]

Come on, it's just wrong. Sure, if a player could lose NO ability from 29 to 35, he'd be just as good, but that DOESN'T happen. It's not just "speculation" that a player will slow down after 30, it's biology. And a player sure as hell won't suddenly GAIN massive amounts of quickness, coordination, or sheer power at 35, like Bonds did. ARod could, at best, maintain his production (Williams doesn't look MUCH different late, maybe more inconsistent -- but he wasn't better). But whatever 'smarts' he gains will be offset by the physical decline. Doesn't mean he won't have a lucky year, like Williams and Aaron did. But if he consistently attains unprecedented peaks of production after 35, I for one won't have any doubt about how he accomplished it.

 

Probly true. And I've never questioned that Bonds has done steroids, just merely that nobody really knows what percentage of the MLB is currently or was at one point on steroids and how truly unprecedented it really is, and how much better he really is after the age of 35 then the rest of the game is period. It's an incredible accomplishment, steroids or not.

[jackie hayes]

Probly true. And I've never questioned that Bonds has done steroids, just merely that nobody really knows what percentage of the MLB is currently or was at one point on steroids and how truly unprecedented it really is, and how much better he really is after the age of 35 then the rest of the game is period. It's an incredible accomplishment, steroids or not.

Sure. But it's less incredible than it would be if he had done it clean. Which is why I find the records, especially the hr records, a lot less interesting than I did before. And being much, much better than other 35+ players who also chose to do steroids just strikes me as underwhelming and pretty uninspiring as an accomplishment. Especially for someone who would have been an all-time great, anyway.

[witesoxfan]

Sure. But it's less incredible than it would be if he had done it clean. Which is why I find the records, especially the hr records, a lot less interesting than I did before. And being much, much better than other 35+ players who also chose to do steroids just strikes me as underwhelming and pretty uninspiring as an accomplishment. Especially for someone who would have been an all-time great, anyway.

 

Mere hunch, but I think 35 is understating it quite a bit. We'll probably find out for sure within the next 15-20 years when former MLB players wind up dying prematurely due to heart disease and all kinds of cancers and whatever other problems may arise, but I truly believe 35 is shooting way under the bar. I'd guess 20% is more likely - which is 5 per 25-man roster - and perhaps even higher than that.

 

Speculation leads to nothing really, and I find what Bonds did to be remarkable. Some may not, and that's just a difference of opinion.

[LosMediasBlancas]

Someone said he "broke the greatest American sports record".

True?