My friend Bob Costas left a message for me yesterday. It was a very nice message — Bob is a great guy — but he also had a slight disagreement. Bob and I are very often on the same page when it comes to baseball, but he was reading a small essay I wrote in the magazine this week and he noticed this line:
“(Barry) Bonds and (Roger) Clemens are two of the best who ever played the game. If not for the steroid noise that surrounds them, you could make a viable argument that they are simply the two best ever.”
I should say that my thinking, when I wrote the line, was simply that if you took their numbers and performances at face value, you could make the viable argument that they are the two best ever. Bob, though, read it differently. He thought that I was actually saying without steroids Bonds and Clemens are two of the best ever, perhaps even THE two best ever. This did not bother him so much for Clemens, but it did bother him for for Bonds. He strongly disagrees.
We’ve had similar discussions before, and if I could summarize his thought, I think it goes something like this (and I am reworking this a little bit to get Bob’s opinion more precisely): Barry Bonds in 1998 was a great player. Truly great. But there was no argument to make for him as the best ever. In Bob’s words: He certainly wasn’t Ruth; he didn’t hit like Williams or Musial; as great an all-around player as he was he was not Mays and his career did not have the totality of Aaron. Bob thinks Bonds of 1998 could certainly be in the discussion as one of the 10 or 12 best non-pitchers of all time. But there was no argument for him as the very best. And there is no argument that can be made for him as the very best NOW either without steroids.
I certainly understand Bob’s point, and it’s a strong point. In that context, I agree with him: I don’t think you can honestly call Barry Bonds the best ever unless you take his bulked-up numbers at something close to face value. But Bob’s call did remind me to dig up an old post that I wrote but never published, one I titled: “Barry Bonds was even better than you think he was.” Most of the points in there are not terribly relevant or interesting — hey, there’s a reason I never posted it — but I did find the section I was looking for in there. The section actually brought up the same point Bob brought up: What if Barry Bonds had retired in 1998?
— He was 33 years old at the start of that season.
— He had won three MVP awards, and probably deserved at least two more, maybe even including that homer crazy season of 1998.
— His career numbers up at that point: .290/.411/.556 with 411 homers, 455 stolen bases (he already had become the only man in the 400-400 club),
— He had a career 164 OPS+ then — seventh all time for players with 7,500 plate appearances (behind Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Hornsby, Mantle and Cobb).
— He was 11th on the all-time list for runs created through age 33 — squeezed between Frank Robinson and Willie Mays.
— He had won eight Gold Gloves for his outfield defense, and numbers do suggest he was a marvelous left fielder, perhaps the best defensive left fielder ever.
Not bad. I think the problem is this: Bonds was so genuinely unlikable that people simply did not want to admire him or be awed by him. In fact, if you buy into the accepted narrative — that Bonds bulked up after 1998 largely because he was sickened by the public reaction to McGwire and Sosa — then it was that shortage of credit that pushed him into using steroids in the first place. For so long, Ken Griffey — and not Bonds — was widely seen as the best player in baseball. There is no definitive way to prove this, but I think Barry Bonds was actually A LOT better than Ken Griffey (who is an all-time great). Certainly that’s the story Wins Above Replacement tells …
We’ll use Fangraphs WAR, which is a little kinder to Griffey than Baseball Reference:
1989: Griffey 2.8, Bonds 7.3
1990: Griffey 5.3, Bonds 10.1
1991: Griffey 7.5, Bonds 7.9
1992: Griffey 6.0, Bonds 9.8
1993: Griffey 9.0, Bonds 10.6
1994: Griffey 7.2, Bonds 6.0
1995: Griffey 3.6, Bonds 7.7
1996: Griffey 10.2, Bonds 9.1
1997: Griffey 9.4, Bonds 9.2
1998: Griffey 7.1, Bonds 8.8
Bonds is better seven of the 10 years, and overall has 18 more wins above replacement than Griffey. As mentioned the numbers are even starker the way Baseball Reference calculates them. How about Bill James’ Win Shares?
1989: Griffey 14, Bonds 23
1990: Griffey 24, Bonds 37
1991: Griffey 30, Bonds 37
1992: Griffey 25, Bonds 41
1993; Griffey 29, Bonds 47
1994: Griffey 20, Bonds 25
1995: Griffey 9, Bonds 36
1996: Griffey 28, Bonds 39
1997: Griffey 36, Bonds 36
1998: Griffey 29, Bonds 34
By Win Shares, Bonds was better every single year except 1997, when they were tied. He compiled more than 100 more win shares than Griffey over those 10 years. Obviously you can make your own judgment but it seems to me that Griffey was an amazing player, someone people WERE comparing to the all-time greats in his prime. Bonds was even better.
There’s no way to know how Bonds career would have finished had he not bulked up. You can play all sorts of games — assume 10% deduction per year, tack on the numbers similar player put up at the end of their career and so on. But we’ll never really know. Maybe he would have aged amazingly well like Henry Aaron. Maybe, like Ruth, he would have petered out at 39 or so. Maybe like Mantle he would have been done at 36. There’s no real way to know.
But I think Bob’s statement — Barry Bonds would not even be in the discussion as best ever without steroids — leads to a fascinating discussion. If Bonds had not used steroids, if he had played out his career naturally, where would he be on baseball’s ladder?
I think he would have been viewed by people who work hard to study the game as one of the 10 best to ever play the game. In the last Bill James Historical Abstract, which came out in 2001 and was compiled in the couple of years before that, Bill ranked Bonds 16th all-time, and the third best left-fielder behind Williams and Musial. I’m not sure what this means in the overall rating, but I’d argue that the only players in the history of the game who could match the young Bonds as a hitter, power-hitter, runner and fielder — all four categories — are Willie Mays and Oscar Charleston (with a special exemption for Honus Wagner since he played in a no-power era).
Bob Costas has nightmares about Barry Lamar Bonds nightly. He can’t be expected to have anything non-partisan to say about his greatest fear.
I have the same argument all the time with friends of mine about Bonds. It just seems that people forget how fantastic a player he was before he was on PEDs. Or at least before the generally accepted time we THINK he jumped on the juice bandwagon.
Did anyone ever get pitched around like B.Bonds? Simple answer is ummm. NO. he is the most feared hitter ever. Period. Second. Why is everyone so upset about steroids! They play a game…and it was not against the rules for him to use the enhancements. I for one am glad he used them…as he then provided the most entertaining performance ever on the baseball field.
Baseball-reference “comparables” are not favorable to pre-steroids Bonds in this argument. He goes from Shawn Green to Willie Mays.
I find that hard to believe.
When MLB came up with the “All-Century” team in 1999, Griffey made the team and Bonds did not. I remember this discussion taking place at that time when both of them were viewed as approaching the twilight of their careers.
I don’t think the steroid Bonds can be ignored. For me, the disrepute and disgrace he (and Clemens) brought to the game is such a negative that it warrants taking them out of all discussion of all-time great players. I now have a hard time separating the steroid Bonds from the pre-steroid Bonds. This, in large part, is because of his nonsensical denials makes it hard to know where one starts and the other begins. His bald-face lying comes from a moral character which blends the pre / post-steroid Bonds into one person.
As to Clemens, copy and paste everything I just said about Bonds.
Through age 33 (Bonds, Mays then Aaron
411 HR, .966 OPS, 8100 PA, 103.4 WAR
453 HR, .978 OPS, 7999 PA, 107.3 WAR
481 HR, .939 OPS, 9212 PA, 105.5 WAR
Pre-steroid Bonds rates *extremely* well with Aaron and Mays prior to bulking up.
I think that the sabremetrically-inclined would (for the most part) consider him a top-ten player all-time. I think that he would place much lower outside of that group, for the obvious reason– he was seen as a selfish, aloof, surly malcontent with few redeeming personal qualities.
But his numbers prior to ’99 were very good, and his career prior to ’01 was excellent. Even allowing for much lower “non-steroided” numbers and an earlier and faster decline, he would likely have reached 500 homers and steals, perhaps 550.
I think you can make an argument that Clemens wouldn’t have been the best all time without roids too, probably a better case than bonds. He was amazing, truly inspiring, for most of his career. But the last 10 years, that’s a lot, were a very old rocket with sub 3 and sub 2 ERAs. That’s his version of hitting 72 homers, and honestly, taking roids helps you stay healthy and be strong, and that’s more important for pitching than hitting. Clemens falls out of the top 10 best pitchers ever in my opinion without the roid years (though still in the top 15 or 20).
I mean, at the very worst he was going to wind up as a 500 homer/500 steal guy, with great OBP numbers and a fantastic defensive prime. I don’t see how that is anything but an inner circle hall of famer, with a case for being one of the ten best ever.
Lots of guys bulked up and took steroids during that era. Only one of them did it and then proceeded to completely and utterly break the game of baseball. You don’t OBP over .600 (!!!!) with just a needle.
Frank, in 1999 Griffey was only 29–no one thought he was in the twilight of his career, he was thought to be in his prime, which perhaps explains why he was chosen instead of Bonds (in addition to the charisma gap). As it happens, Griffey was done at 30–he never had another season above 2.0 WAR. But let’s reverse the experiment and try to project was Griffey would have done had he prolonged his career by juicing: an extra 100 homers would put him ahead of Ruth; 150 ahead of Aaron and Bonds. (Though Bonds would always retain the OBP and BB edge.) Food for thought when comparing the two.
Once upon a time I did a write-up on my old blog and used a baseball simulator to try to estimate how a never-juiced Barry might have finished his career. I ran five separate five-year simulations, and then an equal number of “juiced cyber Barry” trials. (I simulated the effects of the steroids by going into the player editor and making him 24 years old again, literally rewinding the clock.)
On average the “clean” Bonds was still a hell of a player – 292/431/594, a season average of 39 homers a season, with a high of 50. Juiced Cyber Barry (as I called him), however, was insane – 317/460/722, averaging over 52 homers and 37 steals per season. And even that falls far short of real life, with Barry Bonds wakling over 175 times per season.
The only place my projections exceeded reality was in total base hits – there’s no way a simulator could predict 200-walk years. Both sim versions of Bonds had more hacks than in real life, resulting in more base hits per year, mainly doubles and triples. The average projections through 2004:
“Clean” BB: 289/415/568; 2725 H, 587 db, 88 tr, 623 hr; 2027 bb, 495 sb
Juiced Cyber BB: 296/423/604; 2859 H, 632 db, 110 tr, 707 hr; 2138 bb, 645 sb
Actual Bonds: 300/443/611; 2730 H, 563 db, 77 tr, 703 hr; 2302 bb, 506 sb
The OBA on the projections is a little off since I don’t have it right in front of me, and my old post is missing stuff like HBP and SF. Also, the “clean Bonds” simulation retired in 2003 twice in my five trials, affecting the final totals you see here. Still…. whoa.
If he would have retired in 1999 Barry Bonds would have been one of the greatest personalities to every play the game. He would have a Jim Brown like aspect to him.
But if you cheat on a test, you fail the whole test. Looking at part of his career without the rest of his career, makes this a foolish conversation.
PS, being the greatest fielding Left Fielder of all time means he should have spent some seasons in Center Field. This is why he falls behind players like Griffey in my book.
“If you cheat on the test you fail the whole test”
Um, fine. I’ll buy that. But it is not the point of Joe’s post nor is it an argument anyone but one or two commenters are engaging in.
And sure, one can make the argument that Bonds should be dinged a few points for being a LFer. But saying that automatically makes him less valuable than Griffey is like saying Williams is automatically less valuable than DiMaggio which would get you laughed out of any non-NY baseball discussion–and unlik Ballgame, Bonds was an excellent defensove CFer
Perhaps all of the various defensive statistics warrant all this great love for Barry Bonds’ excellence as a left-fielder. However, if Costas has nightmares about Bonds nightly I can’t beat that but every time I think of or the subject of the 1992 NLCS game #7 comes up, why does my mind turn to mush just like Barry’s throwing arm when he basically dribbled the ball in from left field and made Sid Bream look like a jackrabbit during his race for home to clinch the ’92 NL pennant.
Yes, it was only one play and Bonds’ defensive skills can’t be judged on that one play alone but it was his final play as a Pirate and the image still stings.
“But if you cheat on a test, you fail the whole test.”
Given that steroid use was tacitly encouraged by the powers that be and that a significant portion of the league (including the pitchers) was using, at worst Bonds took his test open-book.
I agree with Bob. Without steroids I think Bonds was still a Hall of Famer, but would probably be in the 11-25 range overall. He was fantastic player, but that all time great talk didn’t really start until the ‘roids.
Clemens is a little tougher to figure, especially because I don’t think you can put your finger on when he started taking like with Bonds. It seems to me like steroids elongated his career, but didn’t give him a big numbers boost. He would probably still have been an all time great, just with a few years shorter of a career.
I agree with Joe that Bonds was a top 10 all-time player without the juice… And I think this is the thing that has always bothered me most about Bonds and roids. I have a little more sympathy for a minor league player doing whatever he can to have a chance than I do for one of the all-time greats juicing up to make a mockery of the record books.
In Ken Burns’ film, Okrent was talking abou Bonds as an all-time great in 1994. I remember a documentary around that time about Aaron’s record that tagged Bonds as one of the ones who could possibly break it. There’s no question but that Bonds was considered an all-time great by the late 90’s. The only reason to pretend otherwise is personal animus which, unfortunately, many press people have in spades.
Dave–I hardly think Bonds, given his deep background with 1960’s and 70’s baseball juiced “to make a mockery of the record books”. We’ll never know his true motivation, but occam’s razor would suggest Bonds juiced for two reasons, neither of them meant to insult baseball history:
1.) to get better
2.) because other players were doing it
That hardly excuses him, nor does it mean his actions didn’t diminish baseballs records and history. But I find it pretty preposterous to suggest that Bonds did it for the purposes of screwing with baseball history
I think Bonds was so great that without steroids and even with his unpopularity he still would have been a first round Hall of Fame pick.
One of the issues I always have in discussing Bonds, Clemens and any other of the purported PED users is what exactly constitutes a PED. In 2004 Chris Schilling was injected with a shot of cortisone, which is a steroid, which enhanced his performance (since he wouldn’t have been able to pitch without the shot, it obviously enhanced his ability to perform). Should we include Schilling in the list of violators? Should we include all the players in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s who also used cortisone shots to keep playing? Are steroids only considered PED’s if they’re used before an injury instead of to treat an injury? I think the ability to put the careers of Bonds, Clemens and other into the proper perspective needs to start with defining what we are accusing them of actually taking.
I realized I happen to have a copy of Bill James 1993 Player rating book handy. This is coming off Bond’s last year in Pittsburgh. Classic James. Bonds is “Clearly the best player in baseball”. As to Griffey “Has made progress as a hitter every year since he came up, and is now one of the three or four best hitters in the American League”. In “The Politics of Glory”, published by James in 1994, he predicted Bonds would make the Hall of Fame in 2011.
Bonds was pretty darn good before the needles.
Agreed wholeheartedly Gary. Cortisone is a steroid, plain and simple. No one has ever explained, to my satisfaction, why Curt Shilling taking steroids when his body can’t throw any more pitches is different than Barry Bonds taking steroids when his body can’t hit any more home runs.
As for pre-steroid Bonds, think he’s the only guy to approach Willie Mays territory as an all-around player. Less power, more speed on the basepaths.
Seth and Gary, I think in this discussion, common use of the word “steroids” refers to anabolic steroids, which help to build muscle mass. Cortisone is a corticosteroid. You can’t “bulk up” on cortisone–it works differently.
If you want to get technical, cholesterol is a “steroid” too. But I don’t think eating hamburgers is going to keep anyone out of the HOF (insert Prince Fielder joke here).
I’m not saying I necessarily believe the distinction between taking one substance and another to enhance performance is relevant on a moral level. I’m just explaining the distinction people make between the two types of substances. Anabolic steroids and corticosteroids really aren’t comparable in any meaningful way regarding athletic performance.
Kevin, Gary’s just explained how anabolic and corticosteroids ARE comparable, in a meaningful, specific way regarding athletic performance. They both “artificially” improve athletic performance. If your point was that the public doesn’t see it that way, I agree, but that doesn’t mean the public is correct.
personally, I’d rather have Maddux (presumed not guilty of anything illegal) than pre-PED Clemens or post-PED Clemens.
Barry Bonds was the greatest player of the 1990’s, allegedly before his steroid use. His OPS+ after 1998 was 164, which would be the highest of any eligible player not in the hall and rank ninth all time. (The underrated Dick Allen had a 156 and is still at the mercy of the veteran’s committee)
If Barry had retired in after 1998, his career would have been shortened, but he still would have had 1630 runs created. There are only 5 eligible players with more who are not in, and all are recent, with several years before being relegated to the veteran’s committee. Palmeiro (Also a steroid taint, 132 OPS+) Bagwell (Should have gotten in the first year 149 OPS+), Mcgriff (chronically underrated, 132 OPS+) Raines (123 OPS+ over 800 stolen bases, should be in) and Edgar Martinez (DH taint, 147 OPS+)
My point is that if Bonds reaction to the 1998 season had been to quit the game, with a 164 OPS+ and 1630 runs created, not to mention the three MVP’s, he would have already been in the HOF for about 7 years.
I understand and agree with the arguments that Clemens and Bonds were great and Hall-worthy before steroids (or at least before they were really banned). And I think they are eventually going to go into the Hall. I have a little harder time with the idea that since they “earned” the Hall before they started juicing, their alleged cheating (and that’s what it was) is irrelevant. PED use is not irrelevant. It has to be a factor in consideration, and every voter has to decide what line they want to draw. Players who needed that boost to a higher level or a longer career to be considered Hall-worthy may not make it-and probably they shouldn’t. Vote Palmeiro in, but keep out Dale Murphy or Tim Raines?
The problem with PEDs is that nobody appears to know what “performance enhancement” means. Many things enhance performance. Medicine, as described above by Seth, Gary and Michael, can enhance performance. So can strength and weight training. So can good nutrition. So can practice. Are we to ban all of these things because they enhance performance? Of course not. In fact, we fully expect our athletes to practice hard, eat right and undergo strength training. We also expect them to get injured once in a while, and we have a whole prestigious field of study called “sports medicine” where people dedicate their lives to getting athletes back on the field after injury. This is all expected.
So should we allow performance enhancement in the forms of anabolic steroids just because we allow athletes to practice? Of course not.
I think a good way to define performance enhancement is if a drug or supplement alters performance in ways that appear strikingly different from what can be achieved by practice, training and general athletic ability.
Steroids appear to strikingly alter a player’s performance. So do other known PEDs, such as EPO in cycling. This is the issue with PEDs. Barry Bonds performance in his late 30s was strikingly different from what he achieved during his physical prime. It appeared unnatural. And all this does is undermine the integrity of the game because suddenly people don’t believe what they saw. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs, but how many would he have hit without steroids? The answer doesn’t matter, the issue is that the question is being asked by many, many people.
Pro sports are engaging because we expect honest competition. We expect to be seeing the best athletes on the planet trying their best to win. We expect authenticity. But with steroids, what are we seeing? The best athlete ever? Or an artificial product of performance enhancers?
The two biggest sins a player can commit, at least when it comes to the HoF, is to gamble or to use steroids. Both of these activities undermine the integrity of the game such that fans don’t know for sure if what they are seeing is “real”.
That’s the issue with performance enhancers.
Costas is willfully ignoring the fact that every era requires context. The more that comes out, the more it may seem like steroids are baseball’s bathtub gin. In the context of his era, a rational person can indeed argue that Bonds was as dominant as Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Musial, or Mays. We can’t know how many players used it, how much they used it, how many tried it and didn’t get results, how many would have if it weren’t needles, how many just didn’t care about messing with what got them to the big leagues until things went south, and then it would have been ANYTHING to stay in the lineup, especially if no one cared about the consequences, and it was only your own health you were risking. We can never know the extent of steroid usage in the pitchers he faced during his career, or how much it helped any particular individual, just as we can’t know if Mays could excel in the juiced era as he did in his own, or even whether his competitive nature would have led him to use them too. We can’t know if his body would have allowed him to play so long without “red juice”. Why are we willing to accept Warren Spahn’s excellence into his 40’s, or Nolan Ryan throwing no hitters in his 40s with a still powerful fastball and MORE control? I actually feel like steroids may help pitchers more than batters, since it allows the athlete to recover quickly. We hear about how they’re used to train harder and build more muscle, but look at all the relievers who tested positive. It allowed them to be able to pitch more, and probably throw harder, doesn’t that make it harder to hit? I think its possible to argue that even if Bonds can hit a squared up ball 15 feet further than he would without using, if he’s facing more pitcher who can throw a few MPH harder and suffer less injury from it, that’s not easier.
Costas loves Mantle, but isn’t he the poster boy for partying too hard, not training hard, wasting his athletic ability and never being the player he could have been? Bonds worked hard to become the best player, and then tried to stay that way as long as he could.
Actually, I have to wonder if body armor helped Bonds as much as the roids. That’s what Bagwell figured out too – get a pad for your “sore” elbow, who cares if they throw inside?
Did you people not watch Bonds when he was hitting those 73 home runs? I don’t care how many steroids he took, the man still hit 73 home runs against major league pitchers (many of whom were not on steroids). Good god, he was amazing to watch–a wonder to behold. If a pitcher made a mistake, he hit the ball and hit it hard. He didn’t swing at bad pitched, and when he had a pitch to hit he never missed.
Was some of that steroids. Yes. Was a lot of that talent and hard work and an amazing baseball IQ. Of course. Juts being strong doesn’t make you into the greatest offensive force in the history of baseball.
And people, stop talking about this honest crap. If you’re doing everything possible to make yourself a better player, you’re being an honest athlete. Athletes are supposed to get better–the same people who call Bonds “dishonest” would call an athlete “lazy” if he didn’t eat well, exercise, lift weights, take vitamins and protein supplements, etc, etc, etc. People only label steroid users as “cheaters” because it makes them feel better to knock people down.
Hartzdog, “People only label steroid uses as “cheaters” because it makes them feel better to knock people down”? Maybe, but then why have any rules at all? Should the first basemen trip the runner rounding first to keep him from going for extra bases? How about the pitchers-can they bring a tool-kit to the mound? Why not just make it Ultimate Fighting Baseball-anything and everything goes? So, if Verlander is really grooved in one afternoon, get someone to charge the mound and twist his arm?
Bonds was a great player-his accomplishments are extraordinary. That doesn’t mean he didn’t cheat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Linus, I completely agree with you, but the way you compare the two substances has nothing to do with the fact that they are both “steroids.” This comparison could conceivably be made to any other substance that enhances performance in any way, like caffeine, ibuprofen, eye drops, or pine tar. So the fact that cortisone is a “steroid” is totally irrelevant. That’s really the point I was trying to make.
@Mark Daniel – “The two biggest sins a player can commit, at least when it comes to the HoF, is to gamble or to use steroids. Both of these activities undermine the integrity of the game such that fans don’t know for sure if what they are seeing is “real”. That’s the issue with performance enhancers.”
So, you’re one of those who think throwing a game is the same as hitting the ball harder than you otherwise might have? There is no doubt in my mind that Barry Bonds “really” hit 73 home runs in a season.
Biggus Rickus, I would say throwing a game is worse than steroids. In fact, baseball believes this too, because the only players banned from baseball are gamblers. At least steroid users get a couple of chances before they get booted.
But if you look at all the bad things, cheating and otherwise, that baseball players have done, gambling and steroids are the two worst when it comes to Hall of Fame enshrinement.
And we’re talking some bad things, too. Like Ty Cobb’s racism. That never prevented him from the HoF. Cheating in some forms, such as stealing signs or throwing the spitball, haven’t stopped anyone from getting into the Hall. Robbie Alomar spit in an umpire’s face on national TV, yet he sailed into the HoF on his 2nd try. And there are plenty of greenie users in the Hall.
I personally think this is because both gambling and steroids take the “reality” out of the game.
If gambling were prevalent in baseball today, we’d never know whether teams were trying to win, or whether they were on the take. With steroids already having been prevalent, we don’t know whether all those great things we witnessed were natural or chemically enhanced.
The big question that cannot be answered is this – is it humanly possible for a player to hit more than 61 home runs in a season without the use of anabolic steroids?
Nobody can answer this, and that’s the problem.
I think it’s pretty easy to answer: Yes, depending on how tightly the ball was wound and so on. There have certainly been prodigious enough power hitters to pull it off. Someone breaking Aaron’s record without steroids is a much more unlikely proposition because without them, it is unlikely someone would match Aaron’s longevity.
Also, while I understand that many people think using steroids is the second worst thing players can do, I just don’t see it. It improved many people’s enjoyment of the game when those guys were putting up insane numbers. Of course, I don’t care if guys juice in any sport. If you’re willing to take the long-term health risks, more power to you.
If we discount Bonds’s playing time after 1998 (which would probably be the biggest effect of a lack of steroids), I think he still hits a ton of homers, draws a ton of walks, and winds up among the five to seven best players ever.
In this piece, based on the exact uncertainly Joe writes about, I make separate cases that Bonds was the best player ever and that he wasn’t as good as Derek Jeter:
http://replacementlevel.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/jeters-ceiling-and-floor/
Joe, you lost me at “This did not bother him so much for Clemens, but it did bother him for for Bonds. He strongly disagrees.”
I think that’s all you need to know about the integrity of this opinion and on what it’s founded.
My first time here, and I am a great admirer–Mr. Posnanski and I agree, I think, that if God walked the earth, He would look and sound like Vin Scully.
To the issue at hand: Bonds was a demonstrably great player BEFORE steroids. So was Roger Clemens, but I don’t think we could argue as easily for Clemens’s long-term greatness.
As for Bob Costas, I have had to tone down my criticism of him since he went to work for the MLB Network and actually started broadcasting baseball again after several years of not doing so but taking the time to try to sound like he knows more about the sport than anyone who ever lived.
Random thoughts …
* I’ve always thought it ironic that the investigation that brought forth BALCO (because, remember, it wasn’t the MLB that exposed Bonds) also led to “Game of Shadows,” which by documenting when Bonds got fed up and started using HGH also created a clear “pure” zone in his career. In contrast, we simply have no idea when Clemens started using; and despite pretty clear evidence (in my opinion) that Clemens is as dishonest as Bonds, Costas seems more trusting in Clemens. Odd.
* A few years ago, ESPN.com had a quiz in which it posted old excerpts from scouts evaluating MLB’s greats before they were in the bigs and challenging fans to line up the evaluation with the star. One excerpt from a scout talked about a player with great skills but a cocky attitude who took the game for granted and in one game stood on second base with his arms folded. Possible answers in the quiz included Bonds and A-Rod. The correct answer, though, was Ken Griffey Jr. I write that not to imply that Griffey is a Bonds-esque level jerk (Bonds is clearly a first ballot HOFer there). But it’s interesting the way narratives build around players.
* On that note, it’s absolutely maddening to me how many writers and ESPN personalities repeatedly state with declarative fact that Griffey never used PEDs. Not that he was never caught; that he never used. Well, how do we know that? Because Griffey says so? Because his head didn’t become the size of Mars? Griffey was skinny compared to Bonds, yes, but was also the size of numerous sprinters/runners who have been busted for PEDs, and it just so happens that Bonds and Griffey failed the same amount of drug tests: zero. Am I accusing Griffey? No at all. But we need to look at all stars from that era with a skeptical eye. We just do.
Unfortunately, with steroids, because we know there were so, so many that used but we can specifically cast reasonable doubt on only a few (with actual circumstantial or tangible evidence), ALL players are guilty until proven innocent (impossible). Bagwell, Jeter, Pujols, Boone, Tejada, Sosa, Shilling, Gwynn, Posada, Strawberry, Fielder, Hernandez, Ortiz, Biggio, Maddux, Gonzalas, Boggs…(many, many, many others). They are all guilty by association to the era they played in. Since anyone of them easily could have cheated and there is NOBODY who can prove that they didnt, the assumption MUST be made. A players word is definitely not good enough. They are not all liars and dishonest, but a distinction cannot be made. Sad but true.
Wow, this article didn’t go at all the direction I thought it would. I was expecting an argument that Roger Clemens looked like he might be at the end of his career at 33 until he suddenly found “rejuvenation”.
Man, I bet there was a LOT of “bacne” on display in ML lockerrooms in the ‘roid era.
I do find it fascinating to project what the careers of Clemens and Bonds would have been without the juice – but not nearly as much as what Mantle would have done without the knee injury and the drinking, or especially what Ted Williams’ final career numbers would have been if he hadn’t nobly served his country for nearly 5 years (3 of which would have been in the absolute prime of his career) in 2 wars. Even his post service production could have been affected … lots of guys came back from the war nowhere near as effective. Guy was the best or 2nd best hitter of all time, a world class pilot, and a world class fisherman.
I like Bonds underwear and Bonds guy front, they are presents the Bonds great affered. Bonds guy front a great representer the product.