Tim McG

Dan's comments were about video technology, and your response was yet another defense of Bonds, and his supposed non-use of steroids. Wasn't sure what your point was. Dan's point was about the advances in the baseball game relative to technology. Which is a spin off of a point I had made earlier rebutting his point about the techology advances in golf and how there aren't any to speak of in baseball. My response was that this technology is all about fixing the problems batters face in hitting a baseball is relative to vision and motion. Which has been my point all along relative to steroids not making a batter hit HRs. My secondary point was [since this thread revolves around the use of steroids] that muscle mass will not factor in with this technology. I can't explain it any better than that, Aggie....ya gotta follow along here a bit, my friend.

Again, steroids will not aid the batter here, either. The "fix" comes from the seeing and the physics of motion....muscle mass does neither. He's talking about video technology, not steroids and their clear benefit to HR hitters. What part of the sentence I wrote in my previous post regarding vision and motion didn't you understand? The thread is revolving around the use of steriods and its alleged benefits. Not sure what your point here is.

Because he denied knowing that these were steroids, when it was Bonds who directed Jason Giambi to his personal trainer, Anderson, and it was Anderson who put Giambi on "the cream" and "the clear" and Giambi fully knew what he was taking. He testified that he knew they were steroids. Is it plausible to believe that Greg Anderson told Giambi what he would be taking and not Bonds? So if somebody denies using steriods that automatically means he is....? Giambi isn't Bonds and he still uses HGHs...still no case.

Again, steroids will not aid the batter here, either. The "fix" comes from the seeing and the physics of motion....muscle mass does neither.

Well, he really didn't, because Barry has never admitted that he knowingly used steroids, or cheated on his wife, or cheated on his taxes, or "cheated the sport". I do wish that instead of the abject apology, Schilling had said something like "I misspoke about whether Barry has admitted any of his misdeeds. He has not, but the evidence of his steroid use is overwhelming and in fact he acknowledged that he used "the cream" and "the clear" from BALCO while denying that he knew they were steroids. Its up to others to decide whether his pursuit of Aaron's record is legitimate." Not exactly. He has already admitted to using the "clear" and during the time it was not outlawed by the MLB. Ruth, OTOH, openly drank an outlawed substance during Prohibition. Which is worse? Still no case.

Yes, but 80% of the HoFers present on the dais should get up and walk out when he starts talking. A silent protest of the fact that he cheated to attain the greatest record of all time. I'll take that bet. 48% sez yer wrong, Dan.

from Baroid. Seriously, I can't believe how much time has been wasted to justify or not justify this person. It doesn't take a genius to see he's not the same person he was with the Pirates. That head is so big, it's about to explode, and I'm not about his having a swelled head, even before he started using steroids. I also don't know why Schilling apologiized. He spoke the truth. Truth...? This is the same Schilling with the paint on his sock, right? Oh, I think he has a very good reason to apologize....a big red one.

No, but he averaged 40 per 162 games. 20th lifetime in HR per AB. His 462 is 30th on the total HR list. Hardly an example that helps your case. Not only is it a poor example for his "case" (which is nonexistent) but Canseco is the poster boy for how, in a no testing system, steroids can keep you in the league for 17 seasons. With a .266 career batting average and a severe defensive liability, only Canseco's steroid-fueled ability to hit taters made him a major leaguer. Hey, if Dave Kingman could hang around as long as he did in the pre-steroid era, I don't see where this is much of an argument... We are assummg Kingman didn't use the juice....

No, but he averaged 40 per 162 games. 20th lifetime in HR per AB. His 462 is 30th on the total HR list. Hardly an example that helps your case. Sure it is. Look at his number of strike-outs. Additionally, that's lifetime. In the last few years of his [short] career he, well....sucked, basically. If steroids do so much for you how do we explain this? Besides, if the argument is muscle mass creates bat head speed which makes you hit huge amounts of HRs, this is a perfect example of how it doesn't.

The swing is essentially the same, Aggie. A "weak" hitter is that way because he can't see the ball, can't hit a curve, is in a slump, etc. Anybody in the MLB who can swing a bat well, merely needs to connect with a 90 mph fastball and it will go. How then do we explain the obvious difference in build, one batter to another, large or small build, to the various batting averages throughout the league? Some can hit some can't and I absolutely guarantee you muscle mass has very little to do with it.

Just taking a guess here, but I think it is a little easier to generate speed while swinging a long thin tubular piece of lightweight metal that flexes with your arms entended than a bat made of wood hanging over your shoulders. I don't think you can compare the two games so directly. Beyond that, there's also the fact of massive technological improvements in golf club construction, all designed to allow anyone, large or small, to 'grip it and rip it' 250-300 yards. It is a completely false argument from someone who specializes in them. Same can be said for the baseball equipment. WHAT???? Nothing of any significance whatsoever has changed in the manufacture of wood bats. There is no question whatsoever that golf clubs have changed dramatically in the past 10-15 years. The baseball is juiced up, most players use batting gloves with some sort of sticky substance [no, not pine tar] witch aids in the swinging of the bat, the technology in footwear has advanced all of which aid the batter.

Just taking a guess here, but I think it is a little easier to generate speed while swinging a long thin tubular piece of lightweight metal that flexes with your arms entended than a bat made of wood hanging over your shoulders. I don't think you can compare the two games so directly. Beyond that, there's also the fact of massive technological improvements in golf club construction, all designed to allow anyone, large or small, to 'grip it and rip it' 250-300 yards. It is a completely false argument from someone who specializes in them. Same can be said for the baseball equipment. Dude....you still have to swing the bat/club. You play golf? Ever hit a curve or a splitter? Why can't you concede a simple fact of relative motion and physics? You simply cannot just hand a person a golf club, address the ball and have him hit the thing 300 yards....and I do not care how big he is.

Done. I screwed up the numbers...it's fixed now. It's the first mistake I've made all year

Not exactly. Oldest rivalry in baseball: Giants vs. Dodgers

I'm sure this must to have been mentioned before but if you're stronger, wouldn't it make sense you could possibly swing something (perhaps a bat) a little faster??? I know "stronger" and "faster" are not the same thing but could this be possible??? m~ With all due respect here Guys....you are confusing brut force with timing and bodily motion required to generate speed. Look at your average PGA golfer...most are thin or under tall or over weight. Look at the LPGA, for instance. Michelle Wie is as thin as a stick, but she is out hitting the entire field. Why is that? I think at some point we need to rectify ourselves with these simple facts and how being strong does not equal bat head speed or how far the ball will go. If this were the case then every body builder in the nation would play MLB and all be HR kings or rule the PGA with 500 yard drives.. Case in point: Jose Canseco., aka, Jose CanStrikeOut. The guy is as big as a house and couldn't hit his hat size let alone jack the ball out of the park 755 times.

Done.

Actually, it's [edit] 75% of Blacks according to the ESPN.com want to see him do it according to an article written by Jayson Stark. That's more than half; a majority. 11% don't care so of the total poll population, that would put 48% vs 52%. Not huge by anybody's standards. Seems to me the cheers you hear at opposing team's ballparks when Bonds goes yard, pretty much tell the rest of the story. Most folks are either ambivalent about it or want to see him break the record.

Probably even much lower than that if Hank spoke his true feelings. C'mon. Who knows what he's thinking?

Grandmothers don't play in the MLB. Muscle mass does not generate speed, Boyz....it creates strength. Not the same thing. I'm 52, and I never lift weights, but I can make a racquetball racquet snap with such force in order to get the ball to move 90-100 mph. Sorry, no sale.

Game. Set. Match. Next....

Yes I can, but it will take a Master's Degree in Physiology to explain all of the subtle nuances involved with hitting a baseball. You...? Difference is...I can prove it, you can't.

And how DID you come to your conclusions?? Show me a scientific study that says muscles don't contribute to hitting power, then we can re-examine this. Until then, I'll believe that it does. If there was a universal belief that muscles had no contributing effect to hitting distance, then nobody would care about steroid use by power hitters. Clearly that's not the case in this country, outside of the SF Bay Area. Scientific proof...wha-? Ask any professional golfer or baseball player. G'head, I dare you to. I have. Sports is not a scientific endeavor, big fella. Tell me, Aggie, what "scientific proof" have you offered that Bonds is juicing?

Earlier, your argument was that steroids can't cause increased muscle mass (which in turn increase power, and increase the distance a hit ball travels). Now you seem to be saying "ok I'll admit Bonds was wrong if it can be proven", and putting the bizarre argument about "power not being a contributor to how far a ball is hit" in a secondary mode. You're hedging your bet. As you said, "People just want to believe what they want to believe." It's very clear that includes all of us in this discussion. My argument is and has always been that increased muscle mass does not make you hit HRs. If you were confused as to what I meant, I apologize. But if you scroll back, I am certain you will see that this is my point about the use of steroids. Sure, I believe what I want to believe, but there is a decided difference in how I come to my conclusions about Bonds or anything else for that matter. I expect you to prove it.

I get your point, but thankfully no total weaklings play MLB But I will tell you this: As a golf coach, I have 5'11" skinny teenager on the HS team I help coach who hits 300+ yard drives on a continuous basis. He would be hard pressed to crack a peanut shell. Vision, timing and skill. None of the above...PA announcer here. Been doing this [and football/track] since 1990. Though Lon Simmons is more to my liking as a comparable sounding voice. I try to sound like the deep voiced PA guy the A's had for many years back in the 1980-90s or the PA guy for the Angels during that same time period. It's a great gig...somebody let's me speak through a microphone, play music between innings and nobody tells me to shut-up! Getting paid to watch baseball....sometimes life is good

I fully understand your point, Larsen. The problem I have is not that Bonds shouldnt get an astrisk, it is it needs to be proved first. That's all I'm saying here. The secondary issue is that muscle mass does not make you hit HRs. Vision, timing and skill make that happen. Ask any ballplayer who has hit a HR and they will tell you the very same thing. And I will say this until my dying day. I am around baseball coaches and players all spring long [i announce basball games]...in fact, one of my former students is in the big leagues right now playing OF for the Royals [shane Costa] and not one of them, almost to a man, will tell [except for the hated dodger fans] you a HR is not hit because you're the biggest or strongest guy on the team. Even the former pros I have spoken to say the same exact thing. I believe a man is innocent until proven guilty and a media lynching isn't proof, my friend.