Davis addresses PEDs issue straight on

[Redskins Rick]

When did MLB regularly start flying to each game, and not taking the train and the bus to the shorter routes?

[isestrex]

So you think PED induced records are legitimate? Like Davis, I was fascinated by the HR heroics of Bonds, McGuire, and Sosa, but the PED use, rightfully IMO, made their feats much less heroic. Obviously, those stats can't be undone by ignoring them, but they can be, and I believe should be, categorized, noted as PED influenced, and be held separate from the legitimate baseball records.

Whether the home runs were legitimately achieved or whether they are the legitimate records?

One can hypothesize using opinions about the former. The latter is one of fact and not up to the whim of fans to determine "the record in my mind" as if we live in a land of relativity where success is determined by how someone "feels".

The record is 73. Barry Bonds actually did hit that many home runs. This isn't something anyone can choose to ignore because they wish it didn't happen.

[DrungoHazewood]

So you think PED induced records are legitimate?

As legitimate as records set in all the varying conditions we accept under the umbrella of MLB. You think Ruth's 54 homers in 1920 are legitimate? He played in a home park with 250-ft foul lines, and faced any number of pitchers who wouldn't make it out of AA today.

[weams]

When did MLB regularly start flying to each game, and not taking the train and the bus to the shorter routes?

But Babe had a party car. That HAD to help.

[Redskins Rick]

But Babe had a party car. That HAD to help.

^5.

Very nicely done.

[DrungoHazewood]

Obviously, those stats can't be undone by ignoring them, but they can be, and I believe should be, categorized, noted as PED influenced, and be held separate from the legitimate baseball records.

How, pray tell, are you going to separate out PED-influenced records from clean ones? Unless maybe you're going to put a * next to all records set since ~1950.

[Tycho Brahe]

How, pray tell, are you going to separate out PED-influenced records from clean ones? Unless maybe you're going to put a * next to all records set since ~1950.

Either one accepts baseball records for what they traditionally have been, or you do not. I despised the steroid era, watching all those records get cheapened, and so I 'fired' baseball in about 1998 until--well, until August of last year, when these wonderful O's got me back on board again (something I thought would never happen).

But though I HATE the steroid-aided records, I understand you cannot carve them out. Otherwise, you'd have four record books: 1870-1899 (baseball's childhood), 1900-1950 (pre-integration era), 1950-present (integration era), with another category carving out for the PED-era of 1990-? (we can argue the date).

Then you have to account for rule changes: strike zone adjustments, pitcher's mound heights, ball 'juicing', spitballers, park dimensions, the DH, number of games in a season, etc.

Man, that's too much work. Just put all those records in there and let the debates begin. Although--who decided 1900 was the starting point? Doesn't this make Hoss Radbourne fans go nuts? ARE there Hoss Radbourne fans?

[DrungoHazewood]

Although--who decided 1900 was the starting point? Doesn't this make Hoss Radbourne fans go nuts? ARE there Hoss Radbourne fans?

I'm a huge fan of 19th century baseball. But there is no rational way to argue that the NL in 1880 or 1890 was anything like the quality of play we see today. Unfortunately there is no bright dividing line where we can clearly say that after X date we have "Major League Baseball". Quality of play increases over time, and continues today. 1900 is a convienent dividing line because of the way we count, but there's not much on the field that separates 1899 from 1901. In fact, 1899 has the advantage of 12 NL teams, vice 1901's 25% expansion to 16.

I think it's best to avoid demarcations in the rule book and accept that the conditions and quality are always moving, usually ahead.

[GoldGlove21]

I am not understanding what you wrote here. Davis said that he believes that Maris holds the record. The length of the season has not changed since them. He may be a traditionalist in that he does not believe that PED users should hold the record, but it does not appear that he is saying anything about the length of the season. I am guessing that what you said is your view point and not what you think Davis' is.

I do not see how the two points matter much. In either case and for whatever reason Davis feels that Maris has the record with 61. A lot of records these days are broken because players play more games. If someone wants to determine the best pace than they should negate the cheaters and go off of homers per number of at bats. I find it funny that anyone would have pitched to Bonds or Maris when they were hot.

[MagicBird]

It's a biblical quotation. It didn't originate from Shakespeare

Agreed, it's a quote from the Merchant of Venice, which is citing Biblical wisdom. A central issue of the play is old testament vs new testament idea of justice.

Its a spin-off from a verse (actually several verses) that talks about the sins of the father being visited upon the children even to the third and fourth generation. Yes its OT - in the Pentateuch.

[WEAVERMAN]

In a great piece by Dan Connolly of The Sun, Chris Davis answer his critics on the question of PEDs.

I applaud Davis for being completely open about his testing as well as the feeling on the matter.

I also find it interesting that he feels Roger Maris owns the true record.

"I think when McGwire and Sosa did what they did in 1998, it was awesome to watch. And then when all the stuff came out with the PEDs and all of that, it was really disheartening," said Davis, who was 12 in 1998. "And if there are people that want to get upset with me saying that 61 is still, in my opinion, the single season record, I'm entitled to my own opinions and own beliefs. I was a fan before I played this game at the big league level, and I think what Roger Maris did is still considered by a lot of people to be the legitimate home run record."

Give 'em hell CD.

[blid]

As legitimate as records set in all the varying conditions we accept under the umbrella of MLB. You think Ruth's 54 homers in 1920 are legitimate? He played in a home park with 250-ft foul lines, and faced any number of pitchers who wouldn't make it out of AA today.

29 home runs at home, 25 away. Look, this and your other post, yes, times were different then and times are always changing. But increasing the number of games in the season by 5% is a firm, concrete thing. I guess I just disagree with you thinking the waters are so muddy that that doesn't matter.

[blid]

But though I HATE the steroid-aided records, I understand you cannot carve them out. Otherwise, you'd have four record books: 1870-1899 (baseball's childhood), 1900-1950 (pre-integration era), 1950-present (integration era), with another category carving out for the PED-era of 1990-? (we can argue the date).

Then you have to account for rule changes: strike zone adjustments, pitcher's mound heights, ball 'juicing', spitballers, park dimensions, the DH, number of games in a season, etc.

You don't have to carve out any time periods or wring your hands about any of that other stuff. You can just take everything as it happened, but toss out the numbers put up by caught cheaters. Easy.

[El Gordo]

A simple designation could be, if Davis were to hit 62, post PED testing, that is post 2004.

[russ snyder]

Whether the home runs were legitimately achieved or whether they are the legitimate records?

One can hypothesize using opinions about the former. The latter is one of fact and not up to the whim of fans to determine "the record in my mind" as if we live in a land of relativity where success is determined by how someone "feels".

The record is 73. Barry Bonds actually did hit that many home runs. This isn't something anyone can choose to ignore because they wish it didn't happen.

The legitimacy of the single season home run record has been a hot button topic among fans since Ford Frick (unfairly IMO) put an asterisk next to Maris' 61 homers because he reached the number after 154 games. Obviously, this record is is one of the sacred cows in sports.

You're right, it is one's opinion whether Bonds record is legitimate or not. Further, the 73 home runs that Bonds hit in 2001 are the legitimate record whether one likes it or not.

I respect Chris Davis and I appreciate that he was let down by his boyhood heroes when he learned of their PED use. However, I disagree with his premise that Maris' record is the "true" home run mark. Like him or not, the record is held by Bonds with 73 home runs.