September 24, 2004


It's always annoying when a jerk achieves greatness, so a pleasure that Jeff Brokaw takes Barry Bonds down a peg.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 24, 2004 9:05 PM

I gave up on Bonds in 1991, when he whined incessantly about not winning the MVP award (which went to a deserving Braves 3rd baseman Terry Pendleton).

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 24, 2004 11:03 PM

In no statistical category did Pendleton come close to Bonds that year. It was robbery, the MSM striking out at someone they did not like. Pendleton had a competent but unremarkable year, he was a good team leader, that's all. Bonds has owned the MVP since his early career and, without any hijinks from the French MSM, could have qualified as MVP in every one of the last 15 years. I don't like Mr. Bonds' personality, but many remarkable people have been off-putting.

Posted by: JimGooding at September 25, 2004 11:26 AM

Having now read Brokaw's piece, I can now see that besides praising the protectionist society to the point of being willing to wear a safety helmet in both his car AND HIS HOME, Orrin Judd knows nothing about baseball, probably product of his geographical missplacement:-)

This Brokaw clown is wrong in so many places, ignorant of so much of baseball history, that, to be frank, his high-school hit-piece does not merit listing on your fine blog. He fails to account for the complete change of the game with middle and late relievers that never give hitters a chance to face tired pitchers not named Pedro. He seems to think it's impossible to add 45 pounds of muscle over a fifteen year period, an assinine statement that defies incredulity. He fails to notice or account for large percentage increases in Bonds's power numbers in the first third of Bonds' career. Etc., etc.

This is a sports version of Orrin Judd becoming intoxicated with the Democratic Underground. Orrin, this is an off day for your usually oustanding postings.

Posted by: JimGooding at September 25, 2004 11:40 AM


Surely you don't deny he's used steroids to add the muscle?

Posted by: oj at September 25, 2004 11:55 AM

There is nothing unusual about the increase in his muscle mass in light of his intensive and scientific lifting routine during the off-season. It is unmatched in sports. Imagine Walter Payton's ruthless training determination coupled with cutting edge concepts of muscle development, diet and reaction technique.

Steroids provide only the ability to add muscle mass quickly, over time the same results can be achieved with intense lifting that allows ample time for recovery and a diet that supports the work done in the gym. Bonds did not suddenly become huge, he became gradually bigger. He was not a whippet one year and bench pressing 500 pounds the next. He has always been one of the most powerful hitters of his era, in all stages of his muscle development. In addition, he has the greatest batting eye ever. He's about to win a batting title at the age of forty. This is simply incredible especially considering a third of his hits this year have been homers.

I don't know whether Bonds has used steroids, but there is zero evidence that he has; and he certainly did not need steroids to become the best ballplayer in several generations.

Posted by: JimGooding at September 25, 2004 8:58 PM

Wow, you're living in a dreamworld. The power explosions of McGwire, Sammy and Bonds all appear to have followed steroid use as their rapid development of abnormal physiques amply attests to. What's interesting though is that none of them could even swing the size bat the Babe used. Hard to imagine what numbers he might have posted using steroids.

Posted by: oj at September 25, 2004 9:08 PM

Orrin, you're embarrassing your bad self. As a rookie, McGwire hit more homeruns than any rookie in history. He was a tremendous slugger at USC as well, one of the greatest in college history. I hearby deny McGwire used steroids. He never even had a power surge that evidences this.

Roger Maris's percentage increase in 1961 over his career average is higher than McGwire's when he hit 70. Was Maris on steroids? Most slugger's have that big year over their average.

McGwire did use Creatine, a testoserone precursor, during the later part of his career. That ain't steroids and there is nothing statistically in McGwire's career to indicate that he used steroid. If you want to know what that kind of statistical marker would look like, look at Brady Anderson's career.

Oh, and as yet another aside on the remarkable Bonds, he's spent his most remarkable years in the best pitcher's ballpark in the majors.

Posted by: JimGooding at September 25, 2004 9:32 PM

Candlestick was a tough park when Mays played there, as were the Polo Grounds and Shea, making his numbers truly remarkable, but it had eased up considerably by the time Bonds got there.

McGwire had his career years at age 35 & 36--that doesn't happen.

Posted by: oj at September 25, 2004 9:38 PM

at 35 yrs hit 49 HR
at 36 yrs hit 46 HR
at 37 yrs hit 41 HR
at 35 hit 44 HR
at 36 hit 35 HR
at 37 hit 47 HR

both, obviously, were steroid freaks; what will you be saying when Tiger Woods wins five majors in his fifties, steroids?

Posted by: JimGooding at September 25, 2004 9:52 PM

Yes, a precipitous decline from Ruth's peak years, which quite predictably came at ages 25-28 after getting in a thousand ab's, as is true for most players (who aren't on steroids).

Aaron's a more interesting case because he did have a second peak after the classic first, but the later numbers aren't as out of line with the earlier as is the case for Bonds or McGwire.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 12:27 AM

I don't know much about this thing you call "baseball," but I wouldn't be much surprised if Tiger fails to win five more majors, period.

Posted by: jsmith at September 26, 2004 10:52 AM

Nor would it be surprising if he were using steroids.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 11:04 AM

Perhaps, but in Tiger's case they'd have to be mind steroids.

Posted by: jsmith at September 26, 2004 2:05 PM

Tiger Woods will win at least ten more majors.

He's young, young, and has time and incentive to wait out his slump.

All that we've seen so far is that he isn't a robot.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 27, 2004 5:41 AM

He's extraordinarily young. And acting like it.

At least ten? Possible. I'd say it's equally possible that he turns into another Marinovich (though certainly more accomplished).

He's got to lose the stubbornness and regain his competitiveness. The Tiger of several years ago wouldn't have shrugged his shoulders when Mickelson, of all people, cleaned his clock in every major.

He needs mind steroids.

Posted by: jsmith at September 27, 2004 8:30 PM