Friday, May 12, 2006

In Defense of Barry Bonds

Mark Starr writes about Barry Bonds and is none too kind. So I wrote a letter to him. Yes, I am defending Barry Bonds. But see, the devil is in the details, and the numbers just don't add up. People can hate the man if they want, but please, let's look at the numbers and see just how the add up.

Mr. Starr, Just a couple of quick questions that I wish sportswriters would actually talk about in regards to Barry Bonds. Your dislike of the man is quite clear, which is fine. You don't have to like a guy to appreciate his play. Here are some questions that, it seems, no one is really pondering on. Let's say Barry Bonds took steroids. The devil is in the details. 1. Was it against any baseball rules prior to the year 2003? This is not to say that what he did, if he indeed took them, was ethical, but this is to point out that the real problem pre-2003 was not the players, but the owners of baseball and the players' union, which turned a blind eye. 2. Since 2002, when the BALCO investigations began, all eyes were on Bonds. What kind of seasons did Bonds have in 2002, 2003, and 2004? Did he get tested in those years? Do you think with all the attention focused solely on him he would do anything to get caught? What were his numbers in those three years? Were they not consistent? Did he not hit on average 45 home runs per year at age 38, 39, and 40? What was his batting average? What was his walks? If you make his walk total equal to, say, Albert Puljols and average out the home run total with the extra at bats, would not his home run average be closer to 60? the only reason Barry Bonds did not stay consistent with the higher numbers of home runs like his 73 home run total of 2001 was because he never had the opportunity to have an equal amount of at bats! 3. Last year he had knee surgery. He comes back this year, a year when baseball is supposedly "getting tough" on steroids, and he seems to be hitting pretty decently for an almost-42 year old. What other 42 year old has hit as well as he has? Has he been tested this year? All eyes are on him, remember. 4. If you look at the numbers of all other players who either are suspected of using steroids or who were caught or come clean, how have their numbers played out? Giambi's numbers dropped considerably. Sosa's numbers dropped. Big Mac's numbers dropped. Canseco's numbers dropped. Ken Caminiti's numbers dropped. Palmeiro's numbers dropped. Have any players's numbers who we suspect on steroids remained consistent? 5. Out of all the players suspected of taking steroids, what are the work ethics of each of those players? Are any comparable to the work ethic of Barry Bonds? Do any of the others train like he does? 6. How much do steroids actually help someone hit a ball better? Does it really help the hand-eye coordination? Does it help you see the ball better out of a pitcher's hand? If Bonds truly used steroids, that really does not explain his explosion of home runs, because it does not matter how strong you are. If you cannot see the ball, you'll never hit it, and you'll strike out worse than Cecil Fielder. 7. Finally, where is the line really being drawn? What is out of bounds in regards to what is put inside a human's body to help enhance performance? Like I said, you can hate the guy if you want. I don't care for his personality, but when it comes to playing baseball, he's the best. Dan

3 Comments:

At 6/02/2006 03:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. "Was it against any baseball rules prior to the year 2003?" It was ILLEGAL. Posessing any prescription drug without a prescription is a violation of Federal law. Baseball rules notwithstanding; basebal's rule sshould be considered subordinate to the LAW anyway.

2. "Did he get tested in those years?" Yes, and the express purpose of the designer drugs was that they were UNDETECTABLE by the tests that were in use at the time.

In fact, samples of Barry's blood WERE tested by Balco, while Balco was giving Barry the steroids, to make SURE that he would be able to pass the drug tests. The tests can NOW detect those drugs, but they couldn't back then.


3. He's not hitting all thet decently now. I predict he's no longer on steroids, and his hitting has decreased.

5. "Do any others train like he does?" Who knows if he still trains like he did when he was on steroids. Steroids make you able to train much harder and longer.

7. Steroids are out of bounds. We could create a separate sport devoted to those who want to abuse their bodies, like pro bodybuilding is now, but I don't want to watch that.

 
At 6/24/2006 11:56:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thats alousy comeback lol . u probebly awhite boy

 
At 7/15/2006 07:28:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but when it comes to playing baseball (unquote, ON STERIODS) he's the best."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home