Bonds hit 755 Saturday night off a pitcher who had steroid problems of his own and has just been sent down to AAA (unrelated move, we're told).
So far, no one had mentioned it. Are we that over Barry, or were we just waiting for 756?
Bonds ties Aaron
Discussion in 'Sports Forum' started by TomVols, Aug 6, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
Well, yeehaw for Bonds. All this preposterous reporting and trailing him around and putting him on every sports news show is sickening. Why does baseball get so nutty about "records?"
On the other hand, considering what board this is, I was guardedly amused when I saw the title of this thread indicating that Aaron is tied with bonds. -
* -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Barry, cheated on baseball, cheated on his taxes, & cheated on his wife.
He's a cheater.
The thing is, Babe Ruth hit his home runs while bringing his team several world series chamionships. That and his 100 pitching wins make him the best player, ever. Bonds has played in one world series, and his dismal left fielding, and absence of clutch hitting made sure the Giants never stood a chance of winning.
Hank Aaron may have hit more home runs than Ruth, but he was not a better hitter. Bonds is a scar on baseball, and he can't go away fast enough. -
As for Bonds, I am tired of hearing about it. I will be glad when he breaks the record and we can stop hearing about him so much. I also hope that ARod or someone breaks the record in a few years so it will not belong to Bonds. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I'm absolutely 100% positive.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=ruthba01
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=aaronha01
Especially the average, slugging, & obp.
Aaron took a lot longer, but did get more hits, more doubles, etc, but Ruth was much more valuable to his team, my opinion. -
Thanks.
How do you figure from these numbers Ruth was the better overall hitter?
Aaron has more hits, doubles, HRs, RBI's...
Ruth has more triples, average, OBP, and Slugging...
How does that make Ruth better? -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Because Aaron had to play a lot longer than Ruth to get those hits, but did not come close to his averages. Ruth had 8399 career at bats, Aaron had 12364.
Who was a better hitter, Ty Cobb, or Pete Rose ? -
Ok fair enough, I see your point. No doubt both of them were great hitters.
We can agree on the fact that Bonds is a scar on baseball and we will be glad he is gone. -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
No doubt. And thanx for the questions, I really love going over those old stats.
-
Bonds is one big asterisk in my mind. His record won't stand for long, though. I think A-Rod has a good shot of breaking it - he has the body type that looks like it will stay durable as he gets older. But I'm not much of an A-Rod fan. I'm rooting for Pujols to have a long career and break it - now there is a class act.
-
Now that he's cheated his way to the top of the HR chart, I hope Bonds just goes away.
-
Agreed. I just wish Junior had stayed healthy. He's about to hit 600. He could've really given the record a run.
-
And we know that ARod and Pujols have never taken steroids because.....?????? (They've had as many postive tests as Bonds)
We know that Aaron never took any "greenies" which were so prevalent in Baseball during the 60s/70s because......?????
We know that Babe Ruth would have been just as an impressive hitter if he had to face the best players in the world, instead of doing it in a segregated league, because....????
Its the questions that make baseball what it is. -
We don't. However, we know that Bonds used steroids because he admitted it. Do you remember the cream that he used that he supposedly didn't know what was in it? It was steroids! Bonds used steroids. This is an established fact. Your attempt to smear ARod and Pujols doesn't take away from the fact that Bonds admitted it.
Has Aaron ever admitted to using them? Is there any verifiable evidence of it? Do you have anything to offer other than your guilty-by-association fallacy? If so, please present your sources. Otherwise, what we have here is another smear without supporting evidence.
What does this have to do with anything?
You think the smearing of other player's reputations makes baseball great? -
-
cc beat me to the punch - very similar posts, eh?
-
Sounds like great minds to me. :thumbs:
-
But questions make for debate.
Any player of Ruth's era will have questions about how they would have faired against open competition.
Any player of Aaron's era will have questions about the use of uppers and downers.
Any player of Bonds' era will have questions about the use of steriods...even before MLB started testing for them.
The players are a part of their era in baseball...the rules seldom change, but the records are always changing and questioned when stacked against other eras. -
Page 1 of 2