Talk:Barry Bonds

From BR Bullpen

Whoever wrote this biography is an idiot. Even if he did take steroids, biographies are supposed to be indifferent and unbiased. just kidding

--TopGear 02:43, 10 Aug 2005 (EDT)

In discussing Hank Aaron's breaking of Babe Ruth's record, Leonard Koppett compared HR ratios of current (1970's) sluggers and came to the conclusion that the 700-homer plateau "may not be reached again until the year 2000." -From the 1975 Guide He was only off by 4 years. --Just me 23:10, 19 January 2007 (EST)

A decade ago, Bill James used to project career home run totals, and it was Ken Griffey, Jr. who was the player that was projected to reach 800 home runs. Bonds wasn't a factor to get anywhere close because he had peaked in 1992-93 and seemed to be in the decline phase of his career. - Randy 14:18 20 January 2007

The old MVP format looked a bit weird but the current one really doesn't fit the typical table either as it includes years other than those preceding or following Bonds' MVPs. - --Mischa 15:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The old one looked odd because he won so many in a row, but it was consistent with all the other charts. --Jeff 16:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

There are two things that no-one can dispute about about the HR record.

• 1) he did it.
• 2) he didn't violate baseball's steroid policy.

Even if it is proved someday that he used steroids, Bonds didn't violate baseball's steroid policy because MLB had no policy on steroids. When McGwire and Sosa were chasing Maris, baseball needed the excitement after the '94 strike, so it stuck its head in the sand and did nothing about "performance enhancing substances". Like it has done for 100 years, baseball didn't act until it had to. If baseball had been proactive with a steroid policy 10 years ago, we would know who did or didn't use, and any HR records wouldn't be under such suspicion. Baseball will have to live this down because baseball did nothing, not because Bonds did something. --Jeff 23:18, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

(Gets out the soapbox) I understand that there was no policy for steroids in place at the time, but I still think it's wrong that he did it. Maris and Ruth and the rest of 'em did it purely with old fashioned hard work. I can't honestly put Bonds in the same group as them, because he clearly isn't. As far as I'm concerned, he cheated. I was brought up to believe that you work hard to get something, and that you don't take shortcuts. If they could do it the "hard way", why should Bonds (or any other player) who took a quick route to the title be rewarded? They could just have easily have worked hard like the older guys did, and still get the HR crown. Bonds has lost my respect, and frankly I don't care what he does now. Some people still respect pro-athletes these days, and I have none for Bonds. Oaktree_b 19:21, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

My point is basically that baseball screwed up more than Bonds did. Baseball left us in a position of knowing very few of the players who cheated, and speculating on the rest. You can't throw out one guy, because you don't know who else to throw out. Baseball didn't institute a policy when it should have, it only instituted a policy when it was cornered. --Jeff 13:02, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

The Post-Gazette quoted former Bonds teammate Bob Walk, who said that people got away with a lot of sleazy stuff in the 1980s and there were no negative results in popularity from it. Unfortunately, Bonds set his record in an era when people are jaded thanks to Palmeiro, Canseco and Caminiti. - --Mischa 12:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

If there's a link to the wikipedia article at the bottom of the page, then why was half the article copied and pasted here? --Jeff 23:13, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

The link is a very old one. The biographical portion on wikipedia is much longer than what's here. I don't know why someone thought it was worthwhile to lift all these useless and poorly formatted tables from wikipedia, but that's another matter... --Philippe 08:40, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Unbelievable Jeff. You just said "half the article." What? I did not move any PROSE over. All I did was add a few tables. I did not bring over any potentially "inaccurate" information from Wikipedia. Soxrock^Talk/_{Edit list} 16:48, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Again, Jeff, this isn't real "copying" if you consider what that discussion was about. That was about taking actual content (i.e., paragraphs). Stat tables do not really fall into this category. Really, it's not like I copied the entire article word-for-word, I took a few tables. You're making it seem like I violated a major policy. I didn't. If it bothers you so fucking much, I'll just remove the tables. Soxrock^Talk/_{Edit list} 00:54, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Please see My user page. I am not continuing this discussion and I will not be back for a long time. Soxrock^Talk/_{Edit list} 01:18, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Wikipedia vote

Another vote, this one regarding whether we should take some content from Wikipedia articles and add the content into almost-empty stubs. Place 4 tildes under your choice. Thank you Soxrock 17:20, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, take some content

• Soxrock 17:20, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
• Jj137 20:51, 22 September 2007 (EDT) - Maybe some, but not every bit.

No, let's do it ourselves

• --Mischa 17:24, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
• --Jeff 17:30, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
• --Shawn 18:17, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
• --Dugout 18:20, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
• --Chisoxfan 19:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
• -Randy 12:28, 24 August 2007 (EDT) - please, no. The Wikipedia entries are often quite sketchy. We'd be better off taking the few Wikipedia entries that have already been imported here and re-doing them. I've thought of doing that several times, but there are still some empty articles that are a higher priority.

When I get a chance, I'll break out the trial section into a separate article, as it's getting quite long and detailed, and will only expand as the trial continues. --Philippe 09:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)