Baseball Bloggers Bashing Bonds

There are many many bloggers posting on their blogs articles bashing one of baseball's greatest hitters. There are also sports talk show hosts, baseball analysts and so-called experts countrywide, bashing Barry Bonds. I won't reveal any names, but I'll just reiterate the need for baseball fans to analyze Barry Bond's career stats, season to season, as well as compare them to Ruth's. My article, which you can find on the sidebar here, addresses the statistical comparisons between Bonds, Ruth and Aaron. Check out the consistancies between Ruth and Bonds and notice also the fact that Bonds and Ruth in their thirties homered roughly the same amount of times. Note that Ruth and Bonds each had one "fluke" season which highly surpassed their average yearly homerun counts.

Baseball fans, and those bloggers who call themselves true baseball fans, and claim baseball knowledge, should also check out the "fluke" year Pujols appears to be having right now. Pujols is on pace to crack 80 homeruns, and there are no steroids being taken by Him. You can bank on that. It's just the fact that Pujols is locked in, as was McGuire, Bonds, Sosa, and Ruth in their fluke seasons. I'm not saying that hitting record amounts of homers in a season is really flukey, but that there comes times in every players careers where there is a season which is especially productive, or in a pitcher's case, especially dominant. Just look at pitchers like Randy Johnson, Dwight Gooden, David Wells, Roy Holliday, Ron Guidry, heck, you can name a huge list of pitchers who were unhittable in particular seasons. They were locked in. Focused. At a hightime of their careers. Many of them, as Clemens showed us last season, gel at a much older age then others. He's not the only example. Bonds and Ruth weren't rookies in their prime when they hit their highmarks either. I'm kind of waffling back and forth here using pitchers and hitters as examples, but my point here is that no matter the position, or the role, whether it be singles hitter, a slugger like Barry Bonds or Mark Mcguire, a starting pitcher like Roger Clemens or David Wells, or a closer like Dennis Eckersly, there are many players who find their grooves, sort of gel at a time in their careers when the experience of playing plays a huge role in that success. Experience enables certain pitchers to display full knowledge of the craft, singles hitters great experience with reading pitchers and utilizing the field and the player positioning in order to accumulate hits.

Bloggers ignore this key point. The fact that experience played a part in just why Barry Bonds had that 73 homerun season. The fact that He became more and more difficult to get out. Let the walks declare the "focus" I'm talking about. It's not just sudden power, but it's a focal point, an experienced approach to hitting which enables Bonds to not swing at balls out of the strikezone, and force pitchers to either throw strikes or walk him. The ability to foul off two strike pitches until there is a pitch He can handle. The ability to get the good part of the bat on the ball which in itself hits homeruns. Any weak hitter, even a Bud Harrelson, if He got the good part of the bat on the ball would homer. But it helps to have the natural swing which could drive the ball high, angeled in such a way to carry out of the ballpark. That usually requires a little more extension on the swing. Darry Strawberry homered with a soft, smooth swing, and the ball would go 450 ft. No steroids needed. Just a good natural swing and contact.

One talk show host in New York, I won't give his name out but his first name is Steve, and his last name is the plural of a hot season, lol. This host on "The Fan", calls Barry Bonds a very very judgemental and rude name, Barroid. This is not only ignorance of all of the intangibles which go into producing these spectacular baseball careers which players have, but it is also an irresponsible rush to judgement, since no evidence has been presented to support the idea that Barry used steroids throughout his entire career. That would have to be the case to attribute the majority of His homeruns as steroid-induced. The facts we do know of thus far is that Bonds may have began using enhancers back in 98, long after He was on a Ruthian pace, a pace which was lifted higher in His record breaking homerun season.

Although I appear to be rambling on as much as the bloggers do in their blogs, and yes, perhaps what I'm doing is blogging about baseball. To ramble on with certain views about a particular topic sorta relates to the definition of a blog. But that would mean I'm one of few who are blogging for Barry. I'm not onesided here. I'm pretty openminded and am awaiting the investigation to see if what I'm thinking regarding the many intangibles, the many facets which attribute to player's successes is true. That skill, experience and good physical conditioning attributes to these late career successes. But for right now, looking at career statistics of Bonds and Ruth, it appears that I'm correct. That Bonds would've reached 700 homeruns regardless of whether or not He took any enhancers in 98. I've seen sicknesses to certain players like Giambi or worse, Ken Caminati of the Padres. From what I know about steroids, it appears they work alot like healing medications for muscular or joint injuries in the same way that cortizone aids in healing. But in terms of strengthening muscles, I'm not convinced. I realize steroids increases muscle size, but I also realize that strength cannot be injected into a muscle. The muscle must endure rigorous activities in order to establish muscular durability, which is real strength. And as far as steroids creating an alertness, a mental edge, is utter nonsense. Baseball is a sport which requires sober concentration levels, the utmost focus. And we all know that drugs of any sort impair that focus, and not only that, but also impair our motor skills. I'm sure it's the same case with steroids. Steroids probably only relieve pain, and provides an edge in that it takes the pain distraction away from otherwise great hitters. Don Mattingly could've made the Hall, if He had pain killers which worked that way. Anyways, I'm blogging alright, I'm rambling on here. So let me finish up.

Baseball anaylysts, baseball bloggers, baseball announcers or talkshow hosts should evaluate all of the many facets of a particular player's career, and his particular position or role in the lineup. They should evaluate the similarities between hitters as well as the differences. They should read up on the functions of each drug mentioned, and just how each particular drug, be it steroid, cortizone, muscle relaxants, whathaveyou, they should understand the way each drug works as well as their limited functions. Or if they just hate Barry or Mark or Sammy, they should admit it right off hand, and then we will know that their stance isn't an honest one. That it's a biased one, or at least, an opinion presented in attribution to a use of a drug which has yet to be proven or which functions of said drug have yet to be proven to merit such a assumed affect.

Mark C. - (Baseball Etc)

Check Out: Baseball - Mike And The Maddog

Tags for this blog article: baseball bonds ruth bloggers blogs blogging steroids drugs