It has sig line potential.
Does anyone have cites for these supposed increases in head & shoe size? Because Bonds’ may not have.
Bonds’ record is LEGiT
Sure it is. It’s just that it’s not really a Major League baseball record.
Instead, he holds the Pharmaceutical Industry Home Run Record.
Sailboat
To quote my son, the Err Apparent:
“Go Twins! And take the Vikings with you!”
According to this, it may have been the Giants equipment manager. And if true, is there anyone on Earth whose shoe size jumped from 10 1/2 to 13 from ages 35-40 or whatever? Is there any other explanation for this?
An anecdote to add into the pile - my husband has been taking inhaled steroids for his asthma for about six years now, and his head has also grown a hat size or two. Apparently, steroids really do make your head grow. For what it’s worth.
Any other, er, uh, “growth effects”? Just curious…
Been coughing a lot lately, have you?
No. This is BBQ Pit, not GD or GQ.
Steroid use would not improve ligaments and tendons, but would likely make them more vulnerable to injury.
Nice. I’m in complete agreement.
Not under credited, it’s just that the record next to his name has an asterisk next to it, and that can’t be forgotten. Record breaking is a fundamental number in which athlete measures athlete. Because of the steroid use, it cannot be said with certainty Bonds is a better baseball player than Aaron, and I think deep down THAT is what pisses off the anti Bonds faction.
It wasn’t my intention to suggest that is what he does. Rather, I feel he uses body armor as one tool to help him “take the inner half of the plate.” It’s very clear to anyone who watches Barry Bonds that his “batting stance” puts him into the strike zone in a significant manner. Why this doesn’t produce many HBPs for him is probably a combination of several factors. One, is that maybe, despite his being in the strike zone, pitchers have no desire to hit him because they are aware he will just be awarded a free base, so instead they play his game and pitch on the outer part of the plate, where it is easier to hit home runs for Barry. Barry also has amazing vision and reflexes, so it’s also quite possible he’s just better at moving out of the way than other players–when it is possible to do so (you can’t always avoid a pitched ball, of course.)
Is Bonds a dick? Ask his teammates. I haven’t seen the hit or a replay of it, but everyone is commenting on the fact that nobody bothered to come out of the dugout and congratulate him. If that is not correct, my apologies.
Does he use steroids? Given that his head now looks like a pumpkin, he either juices or is the victim of a voodoo attack.
It can’t be said with certainty that Hank Aaron is a better player than Willie Mays, even though he hit 95 more home runs… in fact, most people will agree Mays was a better player.
Hitting more home runs thank Hank Aaron doesn’t mean Barry Bonds is a better player, and his record being helped by steroids doesn’t mean he’s not better. Hitting more home runs means he hit more home runs. The record is simply a statement of fact; Barry Bonds hit more home runs than anyone else in the major leagues. That’s it.
When this is all blown over, this era - the 1990s and this decade… will be remembered as an age when many power hitters used steroids and, due to many other factors, home runs were hit at an abnormal rate. Baseball fans will discount the home run totals because they will understand that, in context, a 45-homer season isn’t a big deal in 1998, whereas it was a much bigger deal in, say, the early 80’s. Baseball fans understand that a guy with a 2.75 ERA in 1968 wasn’t really that great a pitcher, and they understand a guy who hit .306 in 1930 wasn’t really a particularly good hitter. They’re going to realize that an era when one guy could hit over 60 homers three times and not even lead the league in homers in any of those years was an era when homers were easily come by. They’ll look at that and say “Yeah, Bonds hit 789 homers. But how many would Willie Mays have hit if he’d played then? Like, 900!”
That’s one more of the many cool things about baseball.
It’s not correct.
It’s amazing how many people are willing to simply parrot incorrect information about someone they don’t like.
Why would that be a factor?
Bonds has been awarded a free base, both unintentionally and intentionally, more often than any other player in the history of baseball. If pitchers aren’t hitting him, i don’t think that concern over putting him on first base is the major determining factor.
I think this is all exactly right.
One question i have, though, is how the sabermetric guys will work out their era-adjusted figures for this period. After all, as far as i can tell, all their other era-adjusted calculations are based on the assumption that all players played under the same conditions. So, if you played in the dead ball era, every player from that era played with a dead ball. And if you played when the mound was higher, then every pitcher pitched from a higher mound and every hitter faced a higher mound.
With steroids, though, it’s probably wrong to assume that every player is taking them. This doesn’t mean, of course, that era-adjusted figures can’t be arrived at. It simply means that, when looking at those figures, it might not be clear if someone’s figures are good (for the era) because he was a particularly good player, or because he was juiced.
Does that make sense?
You have to wonder at this point, what price Bonds has paid for his artificial enhancements.
The long-term effects of whatever magical substances he’s been ingesting (Steroids? HGH? Bee pollen?) will have a chance to manifest themselves.
Based on what we know about anabolic steroid use, the outlook for his health in upcoming years is not rosy.
Maybe he’ll beat the odds and live to a ripe, healthy old age. But I’d bet against it.