Top 10 All-Time Home Run Hitters Options

[impala454]

oh boo hoo ya buncha crybabies. if they didnt think it was wrong they wouldn't have hidden it.

[Epic]

it really seems that everyone who is upset with bonds are the cry babies chuck. seriously, they are the ones making a fuss.

he hasnt' been convicted of anything or found to have broken any rules, so he's cool in my book. He was also damn good at hitting the balls too, that's skill/talent and hard work.

[impala454]

so if he was convicted of using steroids, was it still talent/skill and hard work?

[Epic]

part of it will always be that.

steroids, if he used them, probably helped him get some over the wall, but even still, he was a great hitter.

did you give up on the crybaby statement?

[impala454]

no way. its sad to me that some people can't put two and two together... huge head + abnormal amount of HRs late in his career/age. his comments like "well i didn't know what that stuff was". his fits of rage at reporters all the time. it taints the game just like it does everywhere else (tour de france anybody?)

[Epic]

i just think its funny that people will make a complaint, then get buttsore when someone offers a rebuttal.

not that you were all that buttsore, just as a general principle.

and honestly, some people will always have an unfair advantage. if he did do something that may be ethically amibiguous (i say this because people obviously disagree), but didn't violate any policies or rules, why are we pissed at him for finding loopholes?

[Oasis]

The entire thing is a farce.

And you know, the Homerun Record was put up as high as possible even though it probably didn't even deserve it.

Ok so the Bonds record is tainted because he used what was available in his era to succeed...just as every player has in the past. Each and every era evolves (or devolves) and eras should be judged alone.

It's impossible to compare what Babe Ruth did to what Alex Rodriguez did simply because of era. The main problem with baseball is that the statistics don't change...and frankly that is the only constant.

Calling the homerun record tainted is a farce, just as this marking of the ball. Perhaps Marc Ecko could have purchased a Ty Cobb jersey and screen-printed "PRICK", would the hall accept that?

How about a Mickey Mantle jersey with "ALCOHOLIC" written on it?

Cap Anson bat with "RACIST"?

These same people who believe that the Bonds ball should have an asterisk are the same people who believed that Roger Maris' 1961 season total should have an asterisk.

When will the fans of this game understand the differences between eras?

As far as I am concerned, if the Bonds ball gets an asterisk...every single piece of memorabilia from 1992 to 2005 should be marked with an equally placed asterisk.

Just as every piece of memorablia before 1947 should be displayed with a Klansman's hat, every piece from the 80's with a mound of coke, 60's and 70's should have bottles of green pills for speed.

Oh yeah, let's mark it all up.

[impala454]

ok but being racist or doing coke doesn't help you hit home runs.

but yeah will you're right on the newer guys, except i'd say maybe a little smaller year range... maybe about 94-01. it's just my opinion though. some of you see it as taking advantage of a loophole... steroids were illegal at the time, so while yes, there wasn't a baseball rule against it, I still see it as the players using illegal drugs to improve their performance. maybe some don't have a problem with it, but again imo I think it has no place in professional sports. especially for the example it sets. hopefully we're done with it now that they've cracked down on it some.

[cmac]

regardless of if he used steroids or not, he still had to put the bat on a 100mph fast ball. no easy feat. and steroids don't help eyesight. bonds also has incredible bat speed. i'm not sold that steroids helps that either. it probably helped him muscle some over, but i agree with the adapting argument too.
anyone seen the argument that all that armor he wears on his front arm gave him an advantage too? like robot arms.

[moebary]

the armor just makes him a pussy

[impala454]

your batting average will go up when you hit balls out of the ballpark that normally would have been fly outs.

and pitchers don't throw 100mph. there's barely a small handful that can, and they're closers. and even those pitchers don't reach triple digits all that often. your average starting pitcher is going to be throwing high 80s, low 90s at best.

it's hilarious to me when people argue that he took them but they didn't help all that much, that he was so skilled as a hitter... players don't suddenly become skilled at age 37, after already playing the game professionally for over a decade.

[cmac]

hitting an 80mph ball is no easy feat either.
and bonds was skilled early in his career.
his first several years he was more known as a stealing bases guy, but he could bang out 30 home runs with the pirates too.
he also only had one absurd season in 2001 where he had the 73. the rest has been pretty consistent.

[impala454]

hitting an 80mph ball is no easy feat either.

ok? nobody is saying it is easy. his lifetime average around .290 says he's a pretty good hitter.

and bonds was skilled early in his career.
his first several years he was more known as a stealing bases guy, but he could bang out 30 home runs with the pirates too.

right, and that's pretty reasonable isn't it?

he also only had one absurd season in 2001 where he had the 73. the rest has been pretty consistent.

it wasn't consistent at all. it wasn't just one absurd season. for the first ten years of his career, he barely hit more than 40 homers. and in the last 10, short of him being injured in 05, and the steroid crackdowns in the last couple years, he only hit less than 40 twice (and with far fewer ABs because he was walked so much). it's not consistent with anything, except the other players who's names come up as juicers for that time period too.

are you arguing that you don't think he did steroids or that you don't think the steroids got him home runs?

bob costas on MSNBC talking about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbHQue2q7p8
he was on conan o'brien the other night and said the same stuff...

[cmac]

in the 80s and early 90s it wasn't popular to be bulked up (by weight lifting) in baseball. it was argued that it slowed players down. maybe bonds just starting pumping the iron around 95.
bonds has only hit over 50 once. the 2001 season.
arod has hit over 50 this season and no one has brought up steroids with him.
what's to say barry just isn't/wasn't a good hitter?

i don't know or care if bonds did steroids or not.
if he did, i'm sure it helped. but only to muscle 5 or so more over the wall that otherwise would've been caught in play.
he's still a good and consistent hitter.

[impala454]

in the 80s and early 90s it wasn't popular to be bulked up (by weight lifting) in baseball. it was argued that it slowed players down. maybe bonds just starting pumping the iron around 95.

but pumping iron alone doesn't increase your hat size by a whole inch. or your shoe size by two whole sizes.

bonds has only hit over 50 once. the 2001 season.

but he hit 40+ eight times. when he was 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 years old. you also have to look at his ABs as well. he had nearly 100 fewer ABs in the three following seasons after he hit 73 (because nobody wanted to pitch to him).

arod has hit over 50 this season and no one has brought up steroids with him.

because he's consistently hit a lot of home runs for most of his career. out of twelve real seasons he's hit 40+ homers in 8 of them. and the other counts were 23, 36, 36. also because his head isn't the size of a basketball (not physically anyhow heheh).

what's to say barry just isn't/wasn't a good hitter?

I think he's a great hitter. But the 'roids are what pushed him over the top and bought him his 'record'. My guess is (and the stats would agree) if he'd have never done them, he'd probably have ended up with about a .280 avg, continued to hit 30-35 home runs per season, and probably ended up with 650+ homers anyways, which is an awesome career.

if he did, i'm sure it helped. but only to muscle 5 or so more over the wall that otherwise would've been caught in play.

It was a lot more than 5 or so more. He didn't average 40 homers a game early in his career. for the first 15 years of his career he averaged 31 homers per year. then starting at age 36, in 2000-2004, he goes for 49, 73, 46, 45, 45? that's an astronomical difference no matter what age you are, and he did it as an old man.

he's still a good and consistent hitter.

sure, just not a legitimate record holder imho.