Selig considering reinstating Aaron as Home Run King

[NievesNoNO]

You can't just remove one record from the books. Bonds wasn't the only one using, and I also agree there's no guarantee that some of the great players from before "the steroid era" weren't on steroids as well, Aaron included. Maybe instead of trying to redo the past all involved should be trying to secure the future of the game. I still think the current substance abuse policy/system is a joke and an insult to everyones' intelligence.

I know the player's union is strong, but I'm surprised some of the clean players haven't banned together to help push the issue.

[Invader3K]

there's no guarantee that some of the great players from before "the steroid era" weren't on steroids as well, Aaron included.

 

OK, this is getting really old. Why do people on this board need to continually insinuate Aaron may have done steroids when there's never been any real evidence that he did? May as well say, "There's no proof that Babe Ruth wasn't on the juice, either." You can't prove a negative.

[RU Rah Rah]

I wonder if there might be a way to honor/acknowledge Aaron's mark separately as a de facto non-steroid-tainted record. You could keep Bonds on the books but formally honor Aaron's record by calling it something like the "classic home run mark" or something. (That's not a very good idea, but it's better than trying expunge Bonds's HR's.)

[TooLiveBrew]

OK, this is getting really old. Why do people on this board need to continually insinuate Aaron may have done steroids when there's never been any real evidence that he did? May as well say, "There's no proof that Babe Ruth wasn't on the juice, either." You can't prove a negative

 

You also can't prove the positive ('Aaron never abused PEDs'), either. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, and in my own personal case it has nothing to do with how much or how little I respect any given player, Aaron included. Imo it's just naive to operate on the assumption that players shouldn't face skepticism just because there's no proof. There were many PED discussions on this forum where A-Rod was often cited as a clean player. I didn't believe that should be assumed then, and obviously it's come out that he wasn't.

 

Did Aaron abuse 'roids? Who knows? But in either case I don't think it's wrong of anyone to wonder aloud if he did... and I also don't think you're wrong, Invader, for standing up for what you think is more likely too.

[DuWayne Steurer]

If "more than 75%" are or were juicing, is it even *cheating* at that point???

 

There were rumors (however crazy) that players in the 30's were using horse 'roids.

 

John McGraw and his Orioles were known for cutting corners on bases if the ump wasn't looking. They'd grab the belt or trip a runner rounding a base if the ump wasn't looking.

 

17 guys were allowed to throw "legal" spit balls after the rule was changed to outlaw spitballs.

 

There's more than scant suspicion that Phil Neikro cheated almost his entire career, yet he's in the hall with nary a complaint, same for Gaylord Perry.

 

Now I'll go on record as saying none of those things (aside from maybe horse steroids) are as bad as juicing, as none of them have a detrimental effect on a person's health. But people act like cheating doesn't happen, and the cheating from "the good ol' days" is even romanticized.

 

Ban the guys that get caught. Make sure it doesn't happen again, but for crying out loud, there's no way you can pretend something didn't happen.

 

Barry Bonds has more homeruns than any other player in major league history. Sticking your head in the sand and saying "it never happened" doesn't change the unquestionable fact that it did happen.

[rluzinski]

I don't see the point in pretending Bonds didn't hit the most HRs in the majors. He did. If he did it with the aid of steroids, let history judge him.

[NievesNoNO]

OK, this is getting really old. Why do people on this board need to continually insinuate Aaron may have done steroids when there's never been any real evidence that he did? May as well say, "There's no proof that Babe Ruth wasn't on the juice, either." You can't prove a negative.

You're correct there isn't any hard evidence. My point really wasn't that I think Aaron used PEDs, but that there have been and will be cheaters in the game that hold and break records and unless they're going to go back and re-write all of them it doesn't seem to be appropriate to change one.

[NievesNoNO]

I don't see the point in pretending Bonds didn't hit the most HRs in the majors. He did. If he did it with the aid of steroids, let history judge him.

Well said.

[danzig6767]

It is such a weird situation, even if Bud does nothing because the majority of baseball fans have no respect for the record Bonds now holds. I understand why that would trouble Bud very much given the importance so many baseball fans put on records, he hates seeing the most cherished record being in a situation where such a good number of fans flat out reject the legitimacy of the record holder.

 

That said, like others in the thread have stated, how can Bud just start cherry picking what records he wants to change at his discretion? I personally don't think Bonds would have ever caught Hank without the help of steroids so i have a hard time respecting at all the record he now holds, but in the end, he did hit the most home runs.

[endaround]

This is why Selig is a bad commissioner. The NBA can have a ref fix games and in scant time it isn't being brought up because Stern pretends everything is fine even if it isn't. Selig just brining this up means it will be discussed causing problems.

[mothershipconnection]

He could just say that any home runs hit by a player during a season that he was using steroids do not count towards his career totals.

 

I hate Bonds as much as the next guy, and want to see his name erased from record books, but it's just too hard to sort out precisely who was and wasn't using before testing. Now that we have testing, yeah, that would actually be a good idea, to not count stats from seasons in which there was a positive test toward record setting numbers.

[sbrylski]

Bud Selig knew this was going on while it was going on. His outcry is just talk and completely spineless.

 

It is impossible to erase history. I'd love to see them try; It would be hilarious, meaningless, and a shameful way for Bud to earn his $18 million salary. Speaking of money, if it never happened, Bud, give me mine back.

 

An asterisk is just a small pencil mark that the next generation will have to erase, because they won't really care about why its there. Might as well just leave it off, or put it on if it makes you feel good, who really cares? You're going to look at the record book however you think one should look at the record book regardless of any "official decision" made.

 

Lastly, can someone explain to me why the player's union would fight against steroid testing? The hitters do it to keep up with the pitchers, the pitchers do it to keep up with the hitters, and the next generation of players do it so they can be the next generation of players. Seems like nobody is being helped and everyone is being hurt. If I was a player, on steroids or not, I would be 100% for the elimination of steroids from the game. I wouldn't have to take them anymore, and/or my peers wouldn't have an upper hand on me anymore. The only way players can gain advantage from steroids is if a select few were taking them, and if that's the case why is the union only fighting for those select few?

[3Putt]

Plus smaller parks, a more lively ball, diluted pitching and now steroids. Real baseball fans understand that the old home run records were more meaningful. Let them stand. Put Pete Rose in the HOF while you're at it too.

I'm a real baseball fan and I'm not buying this one bit. The average talent of players in baseball in those eras was nowhere near as strong as it is now.

 

I agree that players are better. I was referring to the increase in the number of Home Runs. It's much easier now so comparing old records with big parks, etc vs modern era conditions is impossible. Guys are hitting more home runs in one season than Aaron hit in two.

[Baldkin]

Lastly, can someone explain to me why the player's union would fight against steroid testing?

A few reasons. Steroids meant more money generated, meant more money for the union.

 

Steroids can help prevent, and hurry recovery from injuries. HGH may not be a PED, but its much more for those types of things.

 

Also, any form of drug testing puts MLB on a slippery slope of testing for other drugs (Greenies, cocaine, vicadin... whatever it may be)

[endaround]

Also every single union negotiates drug testing policies and MLB didn't really care enough to negotiate about it.

[crewcrazy]

If Selig starts selectively stripping records, it's the start of a pretty slippery slope. What's next, stripping the Giants of the NL pennant Bonds carried them to?

[Crewin06]

OK, this is getting really old. Why do people on this board need to continually insinuate Aaron may have done steroids when there's never been any real evidence that he did? May as well say, "There's no proof that Babe Ruth wasn't on the juice, either." You can't prove a negative.

Babe Ruth wasn't chasing down a record, Babe Ruth didn't hit the most HR's of his career at age 37 and the most HR's per plate appearance while hitting 40HR's at age 39, Babe Ruth wasn't teammates with a steroid admitter.

 

If you can name me one other player in major league history that hit the most HR's of their career or the most HR's per plate appearance after their 36th birthday while hitting more than 35 HRs besides Barry Bonds I will happily say there is no chance that Hank Aaron took steroids.

 

However the statistical annomally, the fact he was chasing a record, and he was teammates with an admitted steroid user doesn't just make Hank Aaron doing steroids a possibility but in my opinion it is probable.

 

I can understand if people don't think that Hank Aaron did steroids, but the fact someone can't admit it was a possibility just doesn't seem rational.

[Crewin06]

If Selig starts selectively stripping records, it's the start of a pretty slippery slope. What's next, stripping the Giants of the NL pennant Bonds carried them to?

And stripping pretty much every MVP award from 1996-2003.

 

Seriously

1996

Caminitti-Definitely

Juan Gonzalez- Definitely

 

1997

Larry Walker- Thankyou Coors field, probably not

Ken Griffey Jr.- God I hope not

 

1998

Sammy Sosa- more than likely

Juan Gonzalez- definitely

 

1999

Chipper Jones- I doubt it

Ivan Rodriguez- I am pretty sure he was outed as a steroid user

 

2000

Jeff Kent- unknown, I would guess yes

Jason Giambi-definitely

 

2001

Bonds- I would guess yes

Ichiro- I would say no

 

2002

Bonds-definitely

Tejada- definitely

 

2003

Bonds- yes

Alex Rodriguez- yes

 

So from 1996-2003 I would say 11 of the MVP's were definitely on PED's, I would guess one (Kent) more was, and 4 others I would like to believe were not (Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr., Ichiro, and Larry Walker).

 

Do we wipe the MVP award out of the record book?

[rluzinski]

However the statistical annomally, the fact he was chasing a record, and he was teammates with an admitted steroid user doesn't just make Hank Aaron doing steroids a possibility but in my opinion it is probable.

 

Probable? As in above 50% chance?

[Crewin06]

However the statistical annomally, the fact he was chasing a record, and he was teammates with an admitted steroid user doesn't just make Hank Aaron doing steroids a possibility but in my opinion it is probable.

 

Probable? As in above 50% chance?

Yeah IN MY OPINION, I think Hank Aaron did steroids so again IN MY OPIONION, I believe that the chances that Aaron took Steroids are above 50%. I am not so blind as to believe there is a good possibility out there that Aaron did not do Steroids but if I was a betting man I would bet on Aaron doing some kind of Steroid.

 

I can understand if people don't think he did steroids, that is fine but you have to leave the door open for at least a decent possibility.

 

Again find another Home Run hitter to have his highest HR total after the age of 36 and hit at least 35 HR's and I might be swayed to think differently but Aaron at 37 hit the most HRs of his career and did in roughly 100 less plate appearances than a typical season from his age 23-34.

[whizkid]

Are you just choosing to ignore the reasons that make Hank's later year stats less of an anomaly than you state?

1) that County Stadium was a pitcher's park, Fulton County was a big hitter's park so his HRs were suppressed somewhat from age 20 - 31.
2) that the '60s were a big pitcher's period. The league ERA in '68 was 2.99.
3) that the rules were changed after '68 to favor offense.
4) that expansion in '69 diluted pitching

I don't think you can find another HR hitter to match all those circumstances at the same stage of their career.

Guilty by association, House being on the same team, went out with Salem and McCarthyism. If they had been buds, trained together etc. it may carry some weight.

I don't think it's impossible that Hank used performance enhancers but putting the odds over 50%? Hopefully you'll never serve jury duty.

I've seen reports from other players about Willie Mays always having 'red juice' by his locker. Never seen any simliar reports about Hank about juice, greenies etc. You'd think someone might want to get their name in the papers doing so.

[Crewin06]

1) that County Stadium was a pitcher's park, Fulton County was a big hitter's park so his HRs were suppressed somewhat from age 20 - 31.

 

County stadium was 315 and 320 down the lines, 377 to the power alleys and 402 to center.

 

Fulton County stadium was 330 down the lines 375 to the power alleys and 400 to center.

http://www.andrewclem.com...onCountyStadium.html#diag

 

Maybe the ball carried better in Georgia but I doubt it.

 

2) that the '60s were a big pitcher's period. The league ERA in '68 was 2.99.

 

Yeah and the ERA in 1960 was 3.76, in 1961 it was 4.03, in 1962 it was 3.94, in 1963 was 3.37, in 1964 was 3.53, in 1965 it was 3.54, in 1966 it was 3.6 and 3.37 in 1968.

 

In 1969 the league ERA was 3.6, 1970 it was 4.05, 1971 it was 3.46, 1973 it was 3.45 and in 1973 it was 3.66.

 

It seems like the league wide ERA was all over the place regardless of the so called offensive outburst but way to cherry pick one year the ERA was exceptionally low.

 

3) that the rules were changed after '68 to favor offense.

I understand that they were changed in 1968 to favor the offense but Hank didn't just get better from 1968 to 1969. Hank got better years in 1971 and 1973 than he had in either 1969 or 1970 he got better as he got older and as soon as he got pretty much to 714 he fell off a cliff. Even with dillusion and MLB lowering the mound I would think that a 27-32 year old would have better power numbers than a guy in his late 30's.

 

Maybe it was just a perfect storm of circumstances that helped a 39 year old have the best HR per plate appearance ratio of his career. However Frank Robinson played in the same era was a couple of years younger and nothing like that happend to his stats. They remained on course with the typical career curve. Same with Harmen Killabrew who was actually 3 years younger than Aaron when before the 1969 season and had averaged more home runs per year from his age 23 season thru his age 32 season. Willie McCovey is another example of a player who played through this stretch and had a normal career curve for HR's

 

 

4 all time home run greats going through the same time period and only one of their careers don't follow the normal pattern of a normal baseball career? Now you are going to claim that somehow the reason that Aaron's career doesn't follow a normal pattern or any career pattern of any MLB player in the 100 + year history of the sport is because of some of the switches that happend during one of the seasons?

 

Guilty by association, House being on the same team, went out with Salem and McCarthyism. If they had been buds, trained together etc. it may carry some weight.

 

OK so House admitting to being a steroid user saying that about 6 other people on the pitching staff were using steroids and the fact that this coincides with a player on his team accomplishing something that was only achieved by one other player (Bonds) a known steroid user has nothing to do with this discussion? Seriously? It's not guilty by association but rather the fact that Steroids were present and probably easily accessible to Atlanta Braves players.

[Invader3K]

Ultimately it doesn't matter since steroids were perfectly legal at the time, anyway. I just don't find your arguments that he did very convincing. We're talking about the guy who held probably the most prestigious record in sports for like 30 years...if he had used steroids, wouldn't someone have cashed in by now and wrote a book about how the Home Run King did 'roids to beat Ruth's record? I've never heard anyone really even suggest he did so.

 

Also, one thing being ignored is that Aaron did change his approach to hitting later in his career specifically to hit more home runs. This has been stated by himself and many other players.

[Crewin06]

Ultimately it doesn't matter since steroids were perfectly legal at the time, anyway.

 

Wha What? Really it doesn't matter that the present day commisioner is thinking of wiping out a HR record because of Steroids when the old HR record holder actually did steroids(if he did)? If Hank Aaron admitted to using steroids it would be huge press.

 

I just don't find your arguments that he did very convincing.

 

I provided motive, opportunity, and the results that would suggest Steroid use. If I had a smoking gun like a positive drug test, people seeing Hank take them or Hank admitting to taking them this wouldn't be a discussion but a tutorial. Hell I don't even know if Hank used Steroids so I'm not going to try to convince you that 100% without a shadow of a doubt Hank did them. However I hoped that people would realize that there is a pretty good possibility and maybe even probable that Hank took them.

 

We're talking about the guy who held probably the most prestigious record in sports for like 30 years...if he had used steroids, wouldn't someone have cashed in by now and wrote a book about how the Home Run King did 'roids to beat Ruth's record? I've never heard anyone really even suggest he did so.

 

If baseball players are smart only 1 person would really have to know about it. The person you are getting the Steroids from. If it is a trustworthy person that could keep a secret there would be no leak. The place were players get in trouble is telling their mistress, getting it delivered to the house, taking piss tests that aren't supposed to see the light of day, getting the drugs from people under indictment, or taking them with !!%#+%@%@+ like Jose Conseco. If any player operated under the cover your ass approach then I don't believe anyone would ever have been caught.

 

Also, one thing being ignored is that Aaron did change his approach to hitting later in his career specifically to hit more home runs. This has been stated by himself and many other players.

 

Come on. The reason for having the best homerun period of your career in your late 30's and nobody else in the history of baseball can claim the same is because you changed your approach? Nobody else in the history of baseball has thought of this and been successful like you? Like I said before maybe it was just the perfect storm of circumstances, but between similar homerun hitters going through the same period of history and that no other player has had the late career production like him heavily suggests that he had help.

[Invader3K]

I think you're really underestimating Aaron's ability. He was just one of those handful once in a generation truly remarkable hitters. I can't prove he didn't use steroids, just like you can't prove he did. I just think it's dangerous, but also easy, to throw around suggestions like that without any real hard evidence to back them up. Yeah, he hit 47 home runs in '71, but he had several years before that where he hit 40 or more (6 in fact, with several being around 44 or 45 in a season). So his jump in home run production really was not that remarkable.