Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Both were at the absolute top of their games well before they likely started juicing. Yes.
|
That's what makes it a less than easy choice. Both were pretty amazing even before, and neither was all that popular with the press. Bonds was ..........Bonds. And Clemens played for a long time in Boston where being unpopular with the press is almost required. (The whole "it's not about the money.......unless it's 7 million, then it is" thing didn't help either.
I tried one time to figure out when Bonds started, and found an interesting uptick after a fairly normal string of years. Did a bit of figuring and came to the conclusion that he'd have had the career HR record 2-3 years after he actually got it if he'd stayed straight. If he'd been a bit nicer, he might even have stuck around that long.
One very odd thing was the year after the strike Topps did some computer simulation to extend the stats for an insert. They had Bonds with 70+ and that was probably pre juice.
Clemens I thought had found a novel career end formula. I actually liked the part where he'd play for his hometown team, but only from partway through the year and only home games. I think that was an interesting late career option. From the teams side, who wouldn't want a proven performer for only a few months and heading into the postseason fairly fresh instead of worn down by the long season?
I think eventually they'll be in, and we'll always have the debate about how to compare their eras to before and after.
Steve B