Poll - Greatest Living Player

[Peter_Spaeth]

So do we vilify Bonds more because he happened to play in a generation which had better drugs available?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So do we vilify Bonds more because he happened to play in a generation which had better drugs available?

I think he is villified more because he 1) violated the record books, 2) is an egotistical ass, 3) it's a popular virtue signal opinion pushed by the media that's easy and requires no nuance or thought, which is almost always the kind of simple idea that gains traction and 4) if you vilify past generations of players too, then you lose the frame of comparison that makes what the roids generation did a sin; meaning the anger isn't justifiable and can't be. The bad guys can't be everyone, a tractionable narrative requires an easily identified group that is bad and one that is good.

While better drugs were available in 2001 than in 1971, steroids were a thing well before then. Baseball players of that time were not taking the best designer drugs of that time. They were popping energy pills to stay going, not working with advanced laboratories to push the bounds of sport.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think he is villified more because he 1) violated the record books, 2) is an egotistical ass, 3) it's a popular virtue signal opinion pushed by the media that's easy and requires no nuance or thought, which is almost always the kind of simple idea that gains traction and 4) if you vilify past generations of players too, then you lose the frame of comparison that makes what the roids generation did a sin; meaning the anger isn't justifiable and can't be. The bad guys can't be everyone, a tractionable narrative requires an easily identified group that is bad and one that is good.

While better drugs were available in 2001 than in 1971, steroids were a thing well before then. Baseball players of that time were not taking the best designer drugs of that time. They were popping energy pills to stay going, not working with advanced laboratories to push the bounds of sport.

Yes, that's what I was getting at before, the simplistic narrative of the evil roiders and our clean heroes of yesteryear who built their muscles chopping wood and hauling ice or whatever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Note the date.

Fed Proc
. 1981 Oct;40(12):2689-92.
The amphetamine margin in sports
V G Laties, B Weiss
PMID: 7286248
Cite
Abstract
The amphetamines can enhance athletic performance. That much seems clear from the literature, some of which is reviewed here. Increases in endurance have been demonstrated in both humans and rats. Smith and Beecher, 20 years ago, showed improvement of running, swimming, and weight throwing in highly trained athletes. Laboratory analogs of such performances have also been used and similar enhancement demonstrated. The amount of change induced by the amphetamines is usually small, of the order of a few percent. Nevertheless, since a fraction of a percent improvement can make the difference between fame and oblivion, the margin conferred by these drugs can be quite important.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note the date.

Fed Proc
. 1981 Oct;40(12):2689-92.
The amphetamine margin in sports
V G Laties, B Weiss
PMID: 7286248
Cite
Abstract
The amphetamines can enhance athletic performance. That much seems clear from the literature, some of which is reviewed here. Increases in endurance have been demonstrated in both humans and rats. Smith and Beecher, 20 years ago, showed improvement of running, swimming, and weight throwing in highly trained athletes. Laboratory analogs of such performances have also been used and similar enhancement demonstrated. The amount of change induced by the amphetamines is usually small, of the order of a few percent. Nevertheless, since a fraction of a percent improvement can make the difference between fame and oblivion, the margin conferred by these drugs can be quite important.

The dispositive point for me is that amphetamines were not banned by the MLB until 2006. As such, suspected greenie users who ended their careers before 2006 were never cheaters.

Steroids, however, were banned in 1991. Prosecutors determined that Bonds tested positive in 2000. As a cheater, Bonds won 4 MVP awards and hit 317 home runs.

The argument that everyone did roids when Bonds did roids and therefore Bonds played on a level playing field rings hollow. If everyone playing the game is caught cheating at the game (which is patently untrue), then I'd argue that none of them are great.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bk400

The dispositive point for me is that amphetamines were not banned by the MLB until 2006. As such, suspected greenie users who ended their careers before 2006 were never cheaters.

Steroids, however, were banned in 1991. Prosecutors determined that Bonds tested positive in 2000. As a cheater, Bonds won 4 MVP awards and hit 317 home runs.

The argument that everyone did roids when Bonds did roids and therefore Bonds played on a level playing field rings hollow. If everyone playing the game is caught cheating at the game (which is patently untrue), then I'd argue that none of them are great.

Agree with this. The more modern steroid users were violating known rules and skirting testing protocols. Some of them lied before Congress. And they changed their bodies at near comical rates. Ultimately a false comparison to what happened in the past. Presumably almost all players have used performance enhancing drugs at some level if they drink coffee. The more modern cheaters took things to an extreme that has rightfully earned the vile they have received.

[ClementeFanOh]

Carter and bk400- Thank you for the lucidity, it helps to combat the
deliberate obfuscation we've been seeing from the usual suspects. A few
closing points:

1) This debate is NOT about evil roiders versus real heroes. THAT is the
simplistic view and it's wrong.

2) The original post question asked for the greatest living MLB player. It is
obvious that such a person, whoever he is, should possess statistical
gravitas and some measure of respect by those involved. This
person doesn't need to be "perfect", a saint, or everyone's favorite. The
person certainly cannot be someone whose first impression nearly always
comes back to duplicity for personal gain. That person can be termed
sneaky, successful, or opportunistic- but "great" isn't the word.

3) For those who think it's cool or mature to choose Bonds, it may be worth
the time to ask yourself if you truly think he best represents this
sport you claim to adore. If you truly can't think of anyone else, you are
the problem. He's sludge at the bottom of the barrel in this conversation.

4) For what it's worth, I thought Bonds was an excellent player before his
head grew and his power numbers mysteriously skyrocketed. I'm sure
many of you thrilled to his latter career exploits. I did not. You got duped
or, at barest minimum, knew it was fake and played along by excusing it
somehow within yourself. This doesn't make Bonds great, it makes the
entire chapter/era rather sad. Bonds doesn't give a rip, he laughed all the
way to the bank (and people STILL defend it).

Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

The dispositive point for me is that amphetamines were not banned by the MLB until 2006. As such, suspected greenie users who ended their careers before 2006 were never cheaters.

Steroids, however, were banned in 1991. Prosecutors determined that Bonds tested positive in 2000. As a cheater, Bonds won 4 MVP awards and hit 317 home runs.

The argument that everyone did roids when Bonds did roids and therefore Bonds played on a level playing field rings hollow. If everyone playing the game is caught cheating at the game (which is patently untrue), then I'd argue that none of them are great.

So I ask again: is it the cheating people object to or the performance enhancement, or some of each? If (hypothetically) a player has a medical exemption to take HGH, are we OK with that?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So I ask again: is it the cheating people object to or the performance enhancement, or some of each? If (hypothetically) a player has a medical exemption to take HGH, are we OK with that?

I object to the cheating. Performance enhancement activities that are not prohibited by the overseers of the game, are in my view, fair play.

And yes, if a player has a medical exemption to take HGH (like Lionel Messi did as a youth player with a hormonal deficiency), I would be fine with it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, that's what I was getting at before, the simplistic narrative of the evil roiders and our clean heroes of yesteryear who built their muscles chopping wood and hauling ice or whatever.

Or lifting plows, if you're Jimmie Foxx! But I suppose a game of nostalgia will always be nostalgic, even in the wrong ways.

A clean narrative is a red flag for bullshit. Every era has its sins, and it is also true that few eras have bastardized the record book as the steroid one did. Erasing eras one doesn't like is pointless virtue signaling and performance must always be kept in context of time and place. In time and place, Bonds absolutely dominated the game as it existed when he played like no player has since Babe Ruth. While I don't like him or what he has come to represent, fairly or not (and some of it is definitely unfair; he started juicing after Sosa and McGwire and many others, he is not the progenitor or the cause), reality doesn't care about my feelings one bit. I have greatly reduced interest in baseball after the 60's and basically no interest after the early 2000's, but that doesn't mean the legends of black and white are actually greater or better.