Imagine if The Babe had the benefit of ste...Er, I mean flaxseed oil and tiger balm.

"We just don't see the same kind of action hero that we saw in the 80's and beginning of the 90's anymore.

Chuck Norris
Sylvester Stallone
Arnold Scwharzenegger
Steven Seagal
Jean Claude Van Damme"

Sure we do. They're just 60+ year old action stars now.

Bonds was so great it made me so happy to see such a level of perfection in a baseball player. OBP of .609? Get out of town.

If Ruth had taken steroids, he'd have been exactly who he was. Steroids didn't make Bonds who he was. The workouts and the discipline did. Ruth wouldn't have done any of that.

Everyone knows steroids aren't some magic pill. They aren't like amphetamines - which affect people without extra effort. Steroids are only some kind of bonus if you make an effort. Steroids are a secondary component, unlike amps, which are a primary.

Wally Joyner, who admitted getting some steroids is unlikely to have benefited from them - he wouldn't have done the workouts. Amphetamines don't require additional work from the user - they just work.

Everyone knows steroids aren't some magic pill. They aren't like amphetamines - which affect people without extra effort. Steroids are only some kind of bonus if you make an effort. Steroids are a secondary component, unlike amps, which are a primary.

If only that first part was true.

I was there for McCovey and even Mays, but the crowd impact for their at bats was nothing like it was for Bonds. Mays was electrifying on the bases and in the field, but at bat Bonds was the one the fans dropped everything to see.

Bonds was the much better player by almost any measurement, but trust me, there was an equal sense of anticipation for Mantle in the first years of his career, when he was reeling off one record-setting blast in one stadium after another. This feeling faded somewhat after 1953**, but after that shot over the LF wall in Griffith Stadium, I doubt if anyone's ever had that anticipatory aura about him before or since, when it comes to sheer distance.

And in the year of the pitcher, of all years, there was briefly a feeling that Frank Howard was capable of almost any distance this side of the moon.

**Even though many of his longest HRs were actually hit after that date.

Double post.

Test.

If only that first part was true.

My apologies, doctor. Please explain.

He wasn't insulting you, Dial. He was saying that not everyone realizes that "steroids aren't some magic pill." I'm pretty sure he was agreeing with your overall point.

Even if he were taking issue with you, your response is obnoxious. In the future, please at least confirm that someone is actually disagreeing with you before going into ******* mode, sir.

My apologies, doctor. Please explain

I was saying I wished Everyone knew that steroids wasn't a magic pill. We on here know it's not a magic pill, but the press and some fans seem to think it is a magic pill that instantly makes you break homerun records.

Edit:I probably should have just copied the first part, but the second part was relevant to the comment so I wanted to include it.

I was saying I wished Everyone knew that steroids wasn't a magic pill.

My bad. My apologies.

Even if he were taking issue with you, your response is obnoxious. In the future, please at least confirm that someone is actually disagreeing with you before going into ******* mode, sir.

Physician, heal thyself.

My bad. My apologies.

No need to apologize, either I didn't read the 'offending' post, or I just don't get what is insulting about "my apologies doctor. Please explain".

I was saying I wished Everyone knew that steroids wasn't a magic pill. We on here know it's not a magic pill, but the press and some fans seem to think it is a magic pill that instantly makes you break homerun records.

It gets worse. Those hicks in other sports also think the magic steroid pill will let you run faster, lift greater weights, buff up the biceps, and even improve your ability to put the shot, whatever the heck that is. I reckon in involves a gun.

Ruth is the greatest of all time, it's really is that simple. The what and whys of it don't matter, the fact is that Ruth dominated the sport at a degree that cannot and will never be duplicated. You can argue timeline, time machines etc, but it doesn't change the fact that Ruth is the greatest MLB player of all time.

The what and whys do matter if you want to illustrate that Ruth wasn't from the planet Krypton, however, which you might conclude if you look at his numbers out of context.

None of this makes any sense. Penalizing him some numbers in a system, while not doing the same for the other player is somewhat a dubious defense of Bonds.

I penalized Ruth in 2 areas where I think the system might be generous to him. That system is much less accurate for older players, because of missing base running and the lack of play-by-play defensive data. I don't think the system is particularly off on Bonds, so why should I need to adjust him downward?

Maybe Ruth was a great defender, but there is a lot of room for error in the pre-TZ rating WAR is using. He was rated as well above average in his 30s, when he wasn't always in such great shape. His simple range factors aren't great. He had great ratings right when he switched to the OF, when you'd think there would be a learning period (as with Braun, for example). I'm sure his arm was strong. What were contemporary accounts of his range?

In terms of base running, Ruth ran often and at a well below breakeven rate in a high offense environment when the breakeven rate would have been high. Just because the entire league was running too much doesn't justify Ruth running so frequently and at a terrible rate (below 50%).

I'm not saying that unadjusted for context Bonds was better, I'm just saying it's close enough to be arguable.

If you add Ruth's value as a pitcher, it's hard to rate Bonds above him.

If you consider only their non-pitching talents, then it depends on era adjustments.

If you consider dominance over his peers, Ruth wins in a walk.

But if you take the level of competition into consideration, that brings Ruth down to Earth, and IMO without Ruth's pitching factor, Bonds passes him. Of course there's absolutely no way of proving this one way or the other, but that's what makes it fun to discuss.

You may be too young, but McCovey in the late 1960s had that vibe, with the massive front shoulder and the relatively toothpick bat.

It is an interesting phenomenon.

Unrelated to the thread, but I suspect that in 2 or 3 years, the Nationals will have a pair of event players: Strasburg and Harper. Every Strasburg start, and every Harper PA will be reason to stay tuned. I've been a baseball fan for nearly 20 years now, and I cannot recall the last time two such players were on the same team.

McGwire (98-99), Bonds (01-04) and Pedro (99-00) are the only "event" players that immediately come to mind during my time as a fan. Rivera and Jeter also qualify, but only during October.

I'm curious, do people view Sosa at any point from 1998-2002 as an "event" player, or do McGwire and Bonds overwhelm him? For example, I think you can make the argument that Sosa's 2001 was better than any season McGwire had (of course, Bonds went bonkers that year...). Thoughts?

McGwire (98-99), Bonds (01-04) and Pedro (99-00) are the only "event" players that immediately come to mind during my time as a fan.

True story:

My buddy and at the time co-worker is a huge Tigers fan, and was a pretty good college pitcher until he blew out his shoulder (he played at BGSU with Orel Hirshiser and Roger McDowell; Jeff Jones, Detroit's pitching coach, was his roommate). Anyway, the first time Clemens was rumored to be retiring (in '96, because he "wasn't any good anymore" (little did we know)) the Sox were coming to Detoit in September, and my buddy and I wanted to see Clemens; he and I got permission to leave work early. The day of the game our boss (being the completely arbitrary person he was) suddenly decided he couldn't spare us, and we couldn't go.

Direct quote from my buddy: "Watch, something stupid will happen like Clemens strikes out 20."

i wonder why those magic steroid pills bonds took didn't make him run any faster or jump any higher. just hit more home runs one year. i wonder why those magic pills didn't work any other year

i know that we're supposed to have these formulas for comparing eras. but really, you can't. too many differences in the quality of competition, too many differences in the ballparks, balls, bats, medical care. barry lamar would have been finished in 1999 if that career year had occurred 40 years earlier - no good surgery.

but mickey would have had better surgery, but his alcoholism just might could have been a much MUCH bigger problem these days

i think that what i personally really hate about the mcgwire/sammy years is that it really solidified and personified the old superstition that you have to be very tall and very muscly to hit homers. that always really irritated me, just like the comics showing superman, who because he's from another planet and is able to leap tall buildings at a single bound and fly through the air without rufflin his hair and can't be shot, knifed or bombed - this guy is drawn with huge muscles wearing tights like a ballet dancer and ???boots???. like what does he need muscles for? and how does he stuff that cape into his business suit without messing up the lines of the suit and how did he get his red boots into business shoes? did he wear socks OVER the boots? and all the other human guys - why do they look skinny out of their tights and do they use steroids to get muscle definition like they got once they take off their skinny clothes and expose their tights?

i think that what i personally really hate about the mcgwire/sammy years is that it really solidified and personified the old superstition that you have to be very tall and very muscly to hit homers. that always really irritated me, just like the comics showing superman, who because he's from another planet and is able to leap tall buildings at a single bound and fly through the air without rufflin his hair and can't be shot, knifed or bombed - this guy is drawn with huge muscles wearing tights like a ballet dancer and ???boots???. like what does he need muscles for? and how does he stuff that cape into his business suit without messing up the lines of the suit and how did he get his red boots into business shoes? did he wear socks OVER the boots? and all the other human guys - why do they look skinny out of their tights and do they use steroids to get muscle definition like they got once they take off their skinny clothes and expose their tights?

Superman's real secret was his beautiful blue hair. Once you realize that, everything else falls into place.

i wonder why those magic steroid pills bonds took didn't make him run any faster or jump any higher

What makes you say they didn't?

For two seasons Frank Thomas was an "event" player.

I'm curious, do people view Sosa at any point from 1998-2002 as an "event" player, or do McGwire and Bonds overwhelm him? For example, I think you can make the argument that Sosa's 2001 was better than any season McGwire had (of course, Bonds went bonkers that year...). Thoughts?

I actually thought about Sosa as I was posting, and besides the second half of the '99 season, I don't remember him being quite as ... spectacular? must see? as McGwire was. The buzz around Big Mac, especially coming off of the record, was just so unbelievably huge.

I really hope Harper/Strasburg develop into must-see players. Baseball is better when there are players like that in the game. Pujols may be there for hardcore fans, but the it's been a while for the casual fan.

Harper? I assume anyone expecting Harper to become an "event" player after a little over a year in pro ball, that person has to be under 18 years old.

I've been a baseball fan for nearly 20 years now, and I cannot recall the last time two such players were on the same team.

I'm a Cubs fan, so I'm biased, and the period in question was unfortunately quite brief, but in 1998, after 20-year-old Kerry Wood struck out 20 Astros in one of the finest games ever pitched that May, and Sammy Sosa hit a record 20 home runs in the month of June, Wood and Sosa were both "event players" for a few months that summer.

Harper? I assume anyone expecting Harper to become an "event" player after a little over a year in pro ball, that person has to be under 18 years old.

As it is, mainstream sports media lavishes Harper with attention, and he's clearly being built up to be a superstar. Of course, he needs to meet those expectations with performance, and I don't think anybody *expects* that of him. As baseball fans, we sure would *like* that of him. Don't you think the game could use a crossover superstar like Jr. Griffey?

I'm a Cubs fan, so I'm biased, and the period in question was unfortunately quite brief, but in 1998, after 20-year-old Kerry Wood struck out 20 Astros in one of the finest games ever pitched that May, and Sammy Sosa hit a record 20 home runs in the month of June, Wood and Sosa were both "event players" for a few months that summer.

Kerry Wood! Yes, he was absolutely in that territory. Come to think of it, so was Mark Prior in 02-03. I hope he makes it back to the majors just for the sappy E:60 episode.

"When Bonds was up during 01-04, the whole ballpark seemed to stop. People would run in from the restroom, stop ordering food, and it seemed like the entire park would quiet down a bit. I have never seen a player like that, and probably never will again."

Bo Jackson was like this, it was amazing. Never been around something like it. McGwire to an extent was like this, but not quite at the Bo level, at least when I was at a game.

i wish i could have watched bo - i kind of sort of remember him from my childhood. such a shame he wasted his awesome baseball career with - wasn't he washing his truck or ironing his shirt or something?

Strasburg was an "event" for like a week or so.

i wish i could have watched bo - i kind of sort of remember him from my childhood. such a shame he wasted his awesome baseball career with - wasn't he washing his truck or ironing his shirt or something?

No. Bo actually had a degenerative hip condition, and as the article says he really shouldn't have been able to play pro sports after having hip replacement surgery, yet he played for 2 more seasons.

True story:
My buddy and at the time co-worker is a huge Tigers fan, and was a pretty good college pitcher until he blew out his shoulder (he played at BGSU with Orel Hirshiser and Roger McDowell; Jeff Jones, Detroit's pitching coach, was his roommate). Anyway, the first time Clemens was rumored to be retiring (in '96, because he "wasn't any good anymore" (little did we know)) the Sox were coming to Detoit in September, and my buddy and I wanted to see Clemens; he and I got permission to leave work early. The day of the game our boss (being the completely arbitrary person he was) suddenly decided he couldn't spare us, and we couldn't go.
Direct quote from my buddy: "Watch, something stupid will happen like Clemens strikes out 20."

Once, I missed attending a no-hitter because of eruptive girlfriend problems. I was fully aware of the fact that no-hitters occur every 1,000 to 1,100 games. The math vexed me. Twelve years later, I got to see a no-hitter after all. It seems that Fate always had definite plans for me in at least two departments: no-hitters (yes) and that woman (nope).

I saw Bonds in Boston the year he passed Aaron. It was amazing listening to the crowd go from a standing boo to a swelling cheer as Bonds launched one just foul down the right field line and then immediately back to booing. I hate y...oh look a pretty home ru...you suck! Just a visceral feel to it all. The general stupidity of the masses is amazing.

Or maybe it was mostly different sets of people doing the booing and doing the cheering. Fans who vacillate between booing and cheering the same player are generally fans of the player's team, but half of a packed ballpark can make a pretty loud noise all by itself.

And sometimes loud, sustained cheers can sound amazingly like booing. That's what we learned from the media, after Bonds hit his 755th in San Diego.

My buddy and at the time co-worker is a huge Tigers fan, and was a pretty good college pitcher until he blew out his shoulder (he played at BGSU with Orel Hirshiser and Roger McDowell; Jeff Jones, Detroit's pitching coach, was his roommate). Anyway, the first time Clemens was rumored to be retiring (in '96, because he "wasn't any good anymore" (little did we know)) the Sox were coming to Detoit in September, and my buddy and I wanted to see Clemens; he and I got permission to leave work early. The day of the game our boss (being the completely arbitrary person he was) suddenly decided he couldn't spare us, and we couldn't go.
Direct quote from my buddy: "Watch, something stupid will happen like Clemens strikes out 20."

A friend of mine is Charlie Manual's nephew. When the Phillies came to town a few years ago, he said he could get tickets from his Uncle and did I want to go? I said "Yes, let's go see Halladay vs Josh Johnson." He said he couldn't make Saturday, but he could go Friday and Sunday. So we did. And missed This game on Saturday.

I remember Bonds in 1993, there were several finishes where he basically ended up in the crowd getting mobbed. That city loves Bonds. If Bonds was seen by most as a prick to the media, I don't believe that was true in SF.

Bonds is a hero in San Francisco, up there with just about any San Francisco athlete in popularity, and a large part of it is because he played a big role in saving the Giants.

I was only a kid when it happened but I recall the Giants signing Bonds as a total surprise and certainly an enormous turnaround for a franchise that was out the door to Tampa two months earlier. That immediately injected new life into the franchise, and I think it set the ball rolling for the passage of the proposition that cleared the way for the Magowan group to build the ballpark.

The Giants went from all but packing the truck for Tampa to suddenly having Bonds and winning 103 games within a matter of months.

Indeed. A huge crowd went to the last game in 1992 (45,000+, only a few hundred off Opening Day), fully expecting it to be the last San Francisco Giants game ever. I remember the pictures of fans (and Will Clark) waving goodbye and crying.

I saw Bonds in Boston the year he passed Aaron. It was amazing listening to the crowd go from a standing boo to a swelling cheer as Bonds launched one just foul down the right field line and then immediately back to booing. I hate y...oh look a pretty home ru...you suck! Just a visceral feel to it all. The general stupidity of the masses is amazing.

Yep. The Duke of Wellington nicely summed it up when someone asked him why he didn't seem to be overcome by all the adulation: the mob that cheers you today will hang you tomorrow.

I remember there being a ton of excitement in Boston for that series, combined with lot of wailing about how awful Barry Bonds is. But that excitement certainly wasn't for Ray Durham or Randy Winn...

i wonder why those magic steroid pills bonds took didn't make him run any faster or jump any higher. just hit more home runs one year. i wonder why those magic pills didn't work any other year

What? After having a pretty normal shape (not size, obviously) for his career arc, he suddenly became better than Babe Ruth at the age of thirty-six. And he kept it up for years.

If your sarcasm is merely based on the fact that he "only" hit 46, 45, and 45 home runs in the years following his 73 homer year, gee, I dunno, maybe the fact that pitchers stopped pitching to him might have had something to do with those, uh, apparently pathetically low home run totals?

The changes in bb-ref WAR wreak very large changes in my post #18 above. The changes seem to include a fairly systematic downrating of sluggers in corner positions (such as Bonds) and and even more massive uprating in starting pitchers.

To have it all in one place, here's the heart of my original post, based on the previous version of bb-ref WAR:

-----

1987 Bonds 5.4 Gwynn 8.1
1988 Bonds 6.2 Gibson 7.3
1989 Bonds 7.7 Clark 9.4
1990 Bonds 9.7 Dykstra 8.3
1991 Bonds 8.3 Glavine 8.0
1992 Bonds 10.0 Maddux 8.4
1993 Bonds 10.6 Rijo 9.3
1994 Bonds 6.4 Bagwell 8.9
1995 Bonds 7.3 Maddux 8.7
1996 Bonds 10.9 Bagwell 8.3
1997 Bonds 8.8 Biggio 9.6
1998 Bonds 9.3 Brown 8.7
1999 Bonds 4.0 Johnson 7.7
2000 Bonds 8.7 Helton 8.8
2001 Bonds 12.5 Sosa 11.4
2002 Bonds 12.2 Johnson 8.5
2003 Bonds 10.3 Pujols 10.9
2004 Bonds 12.4 Beltre 10.1

Total: Bonds 160.6, Other NL 160.4

(I also has AL over that time as 161.7 and both leagues combined as 172.6.)

------

So here's the new version. I've put an asterisk in every position in which the identity of the other person has changed.

1987 Bonds 5.3 Gwynn 7.9
1988 Bonds 5.6 Hershiser 7.7 (*)
1989 Bonds 7.5 L. Smith 8.3 (*)
1990 Bonds 9.4 Dykstra 8.7
1991 Bonds 7.3 Glavine 9.4
1992 Bonds 8.5 Maddux 10.0
1993 Bonds 9.4 Rijo 10.5
1994 Bonds 5.6 Maddux 10.0 (*)
1995 Bonds 6.9 Maddux 10.4
1996 Bonds 8.7 Brown 8.0 (*)
1997 Bonds 7.7 Walker 9.3 (also P. Martinez) (*)
1998 Bonds 7.5 Brown 10.0
1999 Bonds 3.5 Johnson 8.6
2000 Bonds 7.3 Johnson 8.8 (*)
2001 Bonds 11.4 Johnson 10.3 (*)
2002 Bonds 11.0 Johnson 10.8
2003 Bonds 8.6 Prior 8.3 (*)
2004 Bonds 9.9 Beltre 9.0

Total: Bonds 141.1, Other NL 165.7

(Also AL 175.2, both leagues combined 186.3)

So it doesn't come close to balancing now. Part of it is that Bonds's own WAR has gone down by nearly 20; part of it is the ascendance of the pitchers.

Here's another version of the chart, this time with the pitchers removed:

1987 Bonds 5.3 Gwynn 7.9
1988 Bonds 5.6 Larkin 6.4
1989 Bonds 7.5 L. Smith 8.3
1990 Bonds 9.4 Dykstra 8.7
1991 Bonds 7.3 Sandberg 6.5
1992 Bonds 8.5 Sandberg 7.2
1993 Bonds 9.4 Piazza 6.7
1994 Bonds 5.6 Bagwell 7.4
1995 Bonds 6.9 Sanders 6.1
1996 Bonds 8.7 Gilkey 7.2
1997 Bonds 7.7 Walker 9.3
1998 Bonds 7.5 Olerud 7.0
1999 Bonds 3.5 Bagwell 6.9
2000 Bonds 7.3 Helton 8.4
2001 Bonds 11.4 Sosa 9.9
2002 Bonds 11.0 Kent 6.6
2003 Bonds 8.6 Pujols 8.1
2004 Bonds 9.9 Beltre 9.0

Total: Bonds 141.1, Other NL 137.6

(Also AL 154.5, both leagues combined 157.2)

So this is back in balance, but only by excluding pitchers and sticking to the NL. The two highest AL position player performances in this time span were Ripken 11.4 in 1991 and Rodriguez 10.1 in 2000.