Most hated guy in Sports?

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Look at the head in this picture!!!

Karl Malone must be juicing!!

---

It's the same head. Are you trying to distort people's visual image with your words? You can like Bonds all you want but thinking he did not use serious performance enhancers is just stupid.

[Diesel]

Uhm...

Nobody's doubting that you have history degrees? The question is what is the relevance? Are they degrees in Baseball History? for if not, all that it really means is that you are literate in History. And are able to gather data. Hell, every poster on this board with the exception of maybe Grey Mule can gather data (and that's because Mule doesn't have too, he was there)...

The point still remains, with your knowledge of history, why are you so quick to ignore the circumstances of the history of this argument.

The technology of baseball is not getting worse, it's getting better. That's a fact.

Hitters are better. That's a fact.

Pitchers are better. That's a fact.

I would even say that the game has more integrity... Barely. That's my opinion... But History shows that teams were willing to lay down like Sports entertainers back then. SO just like you can call Barry's numbers tainted... how can we trust ANYTHING From that era in baseball?

Get Shoeless Joe and all the rest of them to tell us exactly how much integrity there was in the game back then.

[bumpyphish1]

I am not getting into this argument, but to me, Barry Bonds is deplorable. I have absolutely no respect for anyone who is stupid, naive, or moral-less enough to defend/like this cheating dickhead. That's it. JDU, your ignorance shows. Diesel, while I respect any Hawks fan, I loathe the fact that you genuinely seem to like Bonds and it takes you down a notch in my book.

That's all I am gonna say.

AHF has pretty much done a good job of putting together an argument that you Bonds defenders can't touch without further illustrating your ignorance.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

And for those thinking Ruth was a better hitter:

A personal achievement came in February 1936, when the first Hall of Fame election results were announced. Cobb had been named on 222 of 226 ballots, outdistancing Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson, the only others to earn the necessary 75% of votes to be elected in that first year.

Cobb was considered by sports writers that had watched all of their careers to be THE BEST player in baseball history. He was the first player voted into the Hall of Fame OVER even Ruth.

---

Cal Ripken received a higher % than Ruth or Cobb but wasn't near the player either was so I consider than a pretty suspect criteria for best player ever.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Here's a good way to figure out who was a more feared hitter.

Who is the leader in all time walks? Who is the all time leader in intentional walks?

I'll wait for your answer.

---

I'll do better than that.

Here is a more meaningful stat:

Babe Ruth lifetime OPS: 1.164

Barry Bonds lifetime OPS: 1.052

I think that pretty clearly demonstrates who was the more impressive hitter even including walks received. Moreover, who the hell is going to walk Ruth when he is hitting with the Murderer's Row lineup? Put Ruth into Bonds' shoes with Bonds' crappy teammates and his intentional walk rate would also be through the roof. Conversly, put Bonds on those Yankees teams without steroids and he would not be notworthy for intentional walks.

---

Hilarious that you mention that , because Bonds would probably have AT LEAST 100 more home runs (probably more) if he was on that Yankees team with that line-up.

Pitchers could NOT afford to pitch around him on that team with those players batting before and after him.

Probably the most amazing thing about Bonds is that he has put up these numbers with almost no protection around him his entire career...A few years of Jeff Kent is the best he ever got.

---

Are you, like 14 or something?

Quote:

---

Hilarious that you mention that , because Bonds would probably have AT LEAST 100 more home runs (probably more) if he was on that Yankees team with that line-up.

---

Yeah, I suppose if a great player did steroids and HGH for a decade and somehow went back in time 80 years, he would probably murder the pitching.

Quote:

---

A few years of Jeff Kent is the best he ever got.

---

Guess you've never heard of Matt Williams and Will Clark or Bobby Bonilla, Andy Van Slyke. They could all hit a little.

Quote:

---

Unbelievably clutch...Particularly against the Braves

---

Again, are you 14 or something? Just because he hit a few homers when he was really juiced up a few years back does not mean he is clutch. Nothing he could ever do to us would outweigh his atrocious performance in 2 LCS in a row! Not to mention the whole 104-103 thing. You probably don't remember that.

[Diesel]

I just happen to think that Bonds was a first ballot hall of famer before the steroid allegations and without proof, people have let rumors dictate that Bonds is nothing.

However, here's my agenda.

It's race.

I watch this board go into a tirade about Barry Bonds or T.O. Or even Kobe...

However, Pete Rose, Mark Mcguire, Jason Giambi, Romanoski, Palmerio have all been CAUGHT or admitted and they get not even 2% of the hate that Barry Bonds get.

People say "Well Barry is an a---ole." Have you paid any attention to Bill Romanoski? This guy Spit on people, but people hit people below the belt.. etc, etc...

And there's one more name...

Lance Armstrong.

Cancer diagnosed in 1999. 3% chance to live.

Before Cancer, he had won 0 Tour de France.

After Cancer, he won 7 in a row.

Give me a break.

The only way that chemotherapy makes you a better athlete is the steroids you have to take.

Plus, Armstrong got acquinted with blood doping.

Does anybody say anything about that? NO... Armstrong is a good guy. Cancer Survivor... Even if he used, it's alright.

I just find it interesting to see how people react to black vs. white...

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And for those thinking Ruth was a better hitter:

A personal achievement came in February 1936, when the first Hall of Fame election results were announced. Cobb had been named on 222 of 226 ballots, outdistancing Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson, the only others to earn the necessary 75% of votes to be elected in that first year.

Cobb was considered by sports writers that had watched all of their careers to be THE BEST player in baseball history. He was the first player voted into the Hall of Fame OVER even Ruth.

---

Cal Ripken received a higher % than Ruth or Cobb but wasn't near the player either was so I consider than a pretty suspect criteria for best player ever.

---

That might be a point...if Ripken was in the same class as either one of them. I mean seriously, what does that mean? Surely you are not telling me you consider Ripken's competition to get in on par with Cobb's?

When voters got to select the first class and the first person to go into the Hall, they selected Cobb over Ruth. Lemme repeat this for some of you who aren't seeming to grasp how much people with firsthand knowledge and experience of baseball saw this: They considered Cobb to be BETTER than Ruth. When the two men were in direct competition over which was the better player Cobb won hands down.

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Uhm...

Nobody's doubting that you have history degrees? The question is what is the relevance? Are they degrees in Baseball History? for if not, all that it really means is that you are literate in History. And are able to gather data. Hell, every poster on this board with the exception of maybe Grey Mule can gather data (and that's because Mule doesn't have too, he was there)...

The point still remains, with your knowledge of history, why are you so quick to ignore the circumstances of the history of this argument.

The technology of baseball is not getting worse, it's getting better. That's a fact.

Hitters are better. That's a fact.

Pitchers are better. That's a fact.

I would even say that the game has more integrity... Barely. That's my opinion... But History shows that teams were willing to lay down like Sports entertainers back then. SO just like you can call Barry's numbers tainted... how can we trust ANYTHING From that era in baseball?

Get Shoeless Joe and all the rest of them to tell us exactly how much integrity there was in the game back then.

---

Go back and reread you post. You said "IF you have two history degrees" which definitely sounds as if you are questioning the veracity of my statement.

There are no facts in your post. Its your opinion hitters and pitchers are better in today's game. And you would be wrong. But that is my opinion. There is no factual way to prove that argument.

I don't know where this oddball tanget came about integrity of the game. The game had so much integrity it gave life banishments to one of the greatest players in history in Shoeless Joe along with most of a world championship team. You think they'd do that today?

[TroyMcClure]

All of the white athletes you mention, no longer play.(exception of Giambi) All of the black ones do. Wonder why people would talk about the people who were actually playing? It's not race. It's because they are actually playing.

We are talking about sports here. Lance Armstrong is not involved.

As a white man, I find your highly unintelligent argument offensive. Romanowski played football, which is a nasty sport. He was a journeyman linebacker who you are only mentioning because of the way the media portrayed him. I can't think of a nice thing anyone has ever said about him. Yet, you're saying the opposite. How is it you know of the spitting, if no one was saying it was bad? I thought the media did not portray him badly?

This is the biggest record in sports history. For you to compare Bonds to Romanowski to justify some idiotic point, is really lame.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Barry Bonds is the most hated man in sports and it's not even close. Not even close is a very overused cliche but really it's not close. Barry Bonds is the most hated player in sports history by a wide margin.

Statistically he's the greatest player of all-time yet if you ask any of the 99% of the people who hate him they won't even say he's top 10.

Truth is even if you discount his numbers after 99 he's still a HOFer. He's that good.

And if he was on juice back then, how do you explain his slugging percentage now?

Fact of the matter is he's the most feared player in the history of the four major sports. My proof? The most telling stat of respect/fear in baseball: the walk. Ironically nicknamed BB for short.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Statistically he's the greatest player of all-time yet if you ask any of the 99% of the people who hate him they won't even say he's top 10.

---

Your ability to make a reasoned argument has to be questioned when you make blanket statements like this. It's simply not true. 99%? That is retarded. In fact, the main reason most of us hate him is because he was a top 10 player and was so jealous of Sosa/McGwire that he sold his soul. Not that he ever had one anyway. He was a punk priviledged boy. I'm a Braves fan. I've never liked the man. That doesn't mean I can't judge him objectively.

All I can say, is that in a world where Dominique, Marino, Karl, Stockton, Gwynn, etc. couldn't get a ring, I'm damn glad Barry will never have one. Not that team accomplishments mean anything to Mr. Bonds.

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

Your ability to make a reasoned argument has to be questioned when you make blanket statements like this. It's simply not true. 99%? That is retarded. In fact, the main reason most of us hate him is

because

he was a top 10 player and was so jealous of Sosa/McGwire that he sold his soul. Not that he ever had one anyway. He was a punk priviledged boy. I'm a Braves fan. I've never liked the man. That doesn't mean I can't judge him objectively.

All I can say, is that in a world where Dominique, Marino, Karl, Stockton, Gwynn, etc. couldn't get a ring, I'm damn glad Barry will never have one. Not that team accomplishments mean anything to Me. Bonds.

---

Ok obviously that was an exaggeration.

BTW, you know what that ring argument is why I question if Barry is legit or not.

Remember that Angels/Giants series when the Giants had that colossal collapse?

Perhaps that was the baseball gods trying to tell us something.

[Diesel]

Oh, So now it's because they don't play???

When Mark Mcguire was making his move on #61, he had the whole world applauding him. When Bonds broke the record that Maguire set, there was very little applause?

Listen to the tone of this older article...

Quote:

---

USATODAY's Chuck Johnson and Mel Antonen go head to head in a debate about the likelihood that Barry Bonds will break Hank Aaron's career home record.

Yes

After hitting a record 73 home runs in 2001, Barry Bonds signed a five-year, $90 million contract that assured him of remaining with the San Francisco Giants while pursuing Hank Aaron's career record of 755 home runs.

At the time, Bonds trailed Aaron by 188 home runs and needed to average 37.8 each season over the length of the contract to break the all-time record. Bonds now needs to average 32.6 home runs through 2006. His 46 homers in 2002, 45 last year and National League-best seven homers through 12 games this season are evidence the slugger is not slowing down but instead has accelerated his pace.

Barring injury or other unforeseen circumstances, Bonds not only will breeze past Babe Ruth's 714 for second on the all-time list, but he'll break Aaron's record possibly as early as next season.

Given his current pace, it's entirely conceivable that Bonds will reach 800 home runs by the end of his contract when he'll be 42.

Even if his power production declines during the next two seasons, the six-time NL MVP isn't going to suddenly stop being one of the greatest hitters in the game. Bonds is close enough to Aaron now — 89 homers from 755 — that the question should be: When will he break Aaron's record? — Chuck Johnson

No

Barry Bonds may need only 90 home runs to become the all-time home run king, but when he retires, it will be Hank Aaron's 755 homers that remain standing as the record.

The reasons are plentiful:

• Bonds turns 40 on July 24, and it's a fact the aging process speeds up with each year, even for Bonds. It will be enough to prevent him from hitting a homer every 8.21 at-bats, his pace the last four years.

• Bonds has averaged 160 walks in each of the last four seasons, and though that makes him a slam-dunk to break Rickey Henderson's career walks record of 2,190, it won't help him catch Aaron.

• The highlights of Bonds splashing homers into McCovey Cove seem endless, but in reality, SBC Park is one of the toughest home runs parks in baseball.

• History is not on his side. Aaron is the only player to hit 40 home runs at age 39, with the 1973 Atlanta Braves. After that, his totals dropped to 20, 12 and 10. According to Elias Sports Bureau, the most home runs by a player who was 41 years or older at the end of the season is 29, by Ted Williams in 1960, his final season. Still not convinced? Even Bonds has said the record is unrealistic because time is running out and there is no room for a slump or nagging injuries. — Mel Antonen

---

It doesn't matter if these guys were still playing.. That's BS.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And for those thinking Ruth was a better hitter:

A personal achievement came in February 1936, when the first Hall of Fame election results were announced. Cobb had been named on 222 of 226 ballots, outdistancing Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson, the only others to earn the necessary 75% of votes to be elected in that first year.

Cobb was considered by sports writers that had watched all of their careers to be THE BEST player in baseball history. He was the first player voted into the Hall of Fame OVER even Ruth.

---

Cal Ripken received a higher % than Ruth or Cobb but wasn't near the player either was so I consider than a pretty suspect criteria for best player ever.

---

That might be a point...if Ripken was in the same class as either one of them. I mean seriously, what does that mean? Surely you are not telling me you consider Ripken's competition to get in on par with Cobb's?

When voters got to select the first class and the first person to go into the Hall, they selected Cobb over Ruth. Lemme repeat this for some of you who aren't seeming to grasp how much people with firsthand knowledge and experience of baseball saw this: They considered Cobb to be BETTER than Ruth. When the two men were in direct competition over which was the better player Cobb won hands down.

---

First, HOF voting is not comparative. You could have had 215 voters who thought Ruth was better than Cobb, 7 voters who thought Cobb was better than Ruth and 4 voters who thought neither of them were worthy of the HOF.

Second, HOF voters are not that meaningful a comparison for a number of reasons that can be summed up in this: These guys were so dumb that Cobb and Ruth were not voted into the HOF on everyone's ballot. Multiple voters voted against both of these guys. How reliable can their judgment be?

Third, relying on # of HOF votes to measure greatness would be only slightly better than relying on All-Star votes. Personal likes and dislikes and issues outside of the actual game play a big part in both votes.

Fourth, everytime a major organization has done an actual comparative vote on the greatest player in the game's history (unlike an All-Star or HOF vote) it has been Ruth over Cobb.

Fifth, looking through objective tools like sabermetrics, etc. the numbers go in Ruth's favor.

----

I am not arguing Cobb wasn't great - because he was. In fact, he was significantly better than people credit him today. I think that might be in part because his record was broken by Pete Rose, a singles hitter who wasn't the player Cobb was. Anyway, there is room to disagree on the greatest player in history but I am not persuaded to change my vote from Ruth (and will never be persuaded by HOF, All-Star or other non-comparative votes).

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I just happen to think that Bonds was a first ballot hall of famer before the steroid allegations and without proof, people have let rumors dictate that Bonds is nothing.

---

First, note that Bonds admitted using steroids under oath and that his trainer has been taped saying Bonds used that and more.

Second, check out my posts and you'll see that I credit Bonds as a HOF player without performance enhancing drugs every time. It makes it sadder in a way that he tarnished a sure-fire HOF legacy.

Quote:

---

However, Pete Rose, Mark Mcguire, Jason Giambi, Romanoski, Palmerio have all been CAUGHT or admitted and they get not even 2% of the hate that Barry Bonds get.

---

See my prior posts. All these guys who cheated on the field deserve all the flack that can be mustered. The only difference is that none of them are going to hold a hallowed record in baseball so their longterm impact is not the same as Bonds. (Note that McGuire is dirty as sin on this but has not admitted or been caught with anything and that Rose did not use performance enhancers or cheat as a player).

[Diesel]

Rose admitted to betting on his team to win every night.

While I like the confidence, for years, he denied betting on baseball. Palmero pointed his finger and said " I have never used Steroids"...

You say no records have been effected? Giambi won the 2000 MVP.. doesn't that go in the history books?? What about all the other hardware that goes in the books for Giambi from 2000-2003.

Finally, everybody always says that Bonds said under oath that he used Steroids... Really? It wasn't to congress because he didn't go to congress. So what everybody seems to talk about is what is written in the "Game of Shawdows" book. Grand Jury testimoney is not opened without a higher court opening them up? How could Bonds dispute that? Maybe he can sue the Authors of the book for false allegations?

Quote:

---

Bonds to sue over book detailing steroid use

By Adam Tanner

Published: Thursday, March 23, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Baseball slugger Barry Bonds, accused of using steroids in a book that went on sale on Thursday, will seek a court restraining order and disgorgement of profits from the work, his lawyers said.

The allegations in "Game of Shadows" have already sparked fierce debate over Bonds' place in the record books as he nears Babe Ruth for second place on the all-time home-run list.

In a letter to the agent of authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, attorney Alison Berry Wilkinson said her firm would seek a hearing at 11 a.m. on Friday in San Francisco Superior Court.

"Our client, Barry Bonds, will seek an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against them, as well as Gotham Books/Penguin USA, Sports Illustrated Magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle," she wrote in the letter, a copy of which was posted on the Chronicle's Web site.

"This injunctive action will be brought pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law ... to obtain, in summary, disgorgement of any profits related to or derived from the publication and distribution of the book."

The two authors work for the Chronicle. Sports Illustrated, a Time Warner Inc. company, published excerpts two weeks ago. Gotham Books, a division of Penguin, is part of Pearson Plc.

"We at Gotham Books are shocked that Barry Bonds would take such a foolish step," said Gotham Vice President Lisa Johnson. "Any respected First Amendment lawyer in America knows that his claim is nonsense."

Author Fainaru-Wada told Reuters: "We fully stand by the reporting in the book."

The authors used closed-door grand jury testimony as well as court documents and interviews for their portrait of Bonds as an egotistical player driven by jealousy to use steroids.

DISPUTE OVER GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS

Baseball only set rules against steroids in 2003, and Bonds, the holder of the single season home-run record of 73, has not failed a drug test since. He has nine hits in 13 at bats in spring training this year, including four home runs.

Mike Rains, Bonds' lead attorney, told KCBS radio use of grand jury transcripts was illegal, and said he would also file a contempt motion against the reporters in federal court.

"Should somebody who has made a mockery out of the criminal justice system by not only possessing but illegally using materials to make economic profit, should that be allowed?" Rains told KCBS radio. "This action says no."

The San Francisco Giants have said little about the controversy. "We said this a thousand times -- that we cannot speak on this matter because it's an ongoing legal process," team President Peter Magowan told Reuters.

A key source in the book is a former Bonds lover, Kimberly Bell, who bolsters the steroid case against Bonds and says she received money from the seven-time Most Valuable Player not reported to tax authorities.

---

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Rose admitted to betting on his team to win every night.

While I like the confidence, for years, he denied betting on baseball.

---

Agreed. He is a liar and flagrantly broke the rules as a manager, although not to anyone's knowledge or suspicion as a player.

Quote:

---

Palmero pointed his finger and said " I have never used Steroids"...

---

Like I said, he deserves all the flack to come his way and is a cheater. Notably, like Bonds, he put historically high HR totals post age 35 compared to his prime years.

Quote:

---

You say no records have been effected? Giambi won the 2000 MVP.. doesn't that go in the history books?? What about all the other hardware that goes in the books for Giambi from 2000-2003.

---

I did not say no records were affected. Of course, records are affected every time a cheating player takes a plate appearance. What I said was that baseball has a handful of hallowed numbers that have particular significance to the history of the game. It is a bad thing that cheaters like Giambi, Canseco, and Caminiti cheated their way to MVP awards (in addition to others like Sosa). They deserve all the flack people want to give them. I am not saying that they were better than Bonds or less deserving of criticism than Bonds. I am saying, though, that the historical significance of Bonds' impending HR record is a higher level than what any of these guys did in their career.

Quote:

---

Finally, everybody always says that Bonds said under oath that he used Steroids... Really? It wasn't to congress because he didn't go to congress. So what everybody seems to talk about is what is written in the "Game of Shawdows" book. Grand Jury testimoney is not opened without a higher court opening them up? How could Bonds dispute that? Maybe he can sue the Authors of the book for false allegations?

---

He could only sue the authors of the book if it weren't true. The authors of the book were sent to jail for refusing to reveal their source on this because they leaked actual sworn grand jury testimony. Had Bonds not testified about his steroid use then the authors would not have been sent to jail because they would not have published actual grand jury testimony and refused to reveal their source. Had Bonds not testified about his steroid use, he could have sued and easily won against the authors to either get damages or at a minimum a retraction of the bad and defamatory information. Neither Bonds nor his attorneys have ever even said it wasn't true. He just complained about the fact that it should have stayed a secret but was leaked:

Quote:

---

Mike Rains, Bonds' lead attorney, told KCBS radio use of grand jury transcripts was illegal, and said he would also file a contempt motion against the reporters in federal court.

"Should somebody who has made a mockery out of the criminal justice system by not only possessing but illegally using materials to make economic profit, should that be allowed?" Rains told KCBS radio. "This action says no."

---

There is a simple reason for all this - Bonds admitted it under oath.

[bfwolf]

If memory serves me correctly, Bonds was threatening to take legal action against the Game of Shadows authors, but then backed off quickly once his legal team realized they clearly had no case since these guys were using actual grand jury testimony.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

If memory serves me correctly, Bonds was threatening to take legal action against the Game of Shadows authors, but then backed off quickly once his legal team realized they clearly had no case since these guys were using actual grand jury testimony.

---

Even the action they threatened to take wasn't based on what they reported being untrue. It was based on the idea that grand jury testimony should not be made public and they made it public. The people that committed the crime where the sources who leaked the testimony and the authors were ordered to reveal their sources. They refused to do so and so went to jail to protect their sources.

They would not have had to go if what they leaked wasn't actual testimony and if Bonds never admitted using steroids under oath he could have sued them. Bonds didn't sue them because, of course, he used steroids and admitted it. He would have opened himself up to a lot more bad PR if he had sued them because they could use it as a defense to a defamation action that he actually used steroids and suddenly all his trainers and friends would have to testify under oath about what they knew. He wanted no part of that.

[Diesel]

Even still...

according to the leaked Sworned testimoney, the alleged Steroid took, Bonds didn't know...

Quote:

---

Bonds testified that he had received and used clear and cream substances from his personal strength trainer, Greg Anderson, during the 2003 baseball season but was told they were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by The Chronicle.

---

Quote:

---

"Greg and I are friends," Bonds told the grand jury. "I never paid Greg for anything. ... You're going to bring up documents and more documents. I have never seen anything written by Greg Anderson on a piece of paper."

Bonds testified he had never discussed steroids with his trainer -- not even after federal agents kicked in Anderson's door to serve their search warrant. That was out of respect for Anderson's privacy, Bonds said.

To the prosecutors, the substances Bonds said he was using sounded like "the cream" and "the clear,"

two steroids designed to be undetectable in laboratory testing that Victor Conte, founder of BALCO, is accused of marketing to elite athletes, sometimes with Anderson as middleman.

---