Davis addresses PEDs issue straight on

[russ snyder]

Bob Beaman held the long jump record for over 20 years, but it was wind aided at 2m/s, and many questioned it's legitimacy. I see the HR record in the same light, it's just an accurate way of describing an athletic feat. Bonds hit 73 in 162 but he was PED aided. That should be included in his record for accuracy. If Davis hit 62 he could be designated as most post PED testing HR in 162. Ruth should be designated as most HR in 154 G season.

I don't think either one of these examples is an accurate way of describing the "legitimacy" of each of these records. Basically, this accuracy that you are describing is nothing more than public debate. Wind aided or not, Beamon broke the long jump record. PED fueled or not, Bonds hit 73 home runs. Like it or not, despite the wind blowing Beamon through the air or Bonds using PED"s to hit homers like he was playing wiffle ball these were/are legitimate records IMO.

[El Gordo]

I don't think either one of these examples is an accurate way of describing the "legitimacy" of each of these records. Basically, this accuracy that you are describing is nothing more than public debate. Wind aided or not, Beamon broke the long jump record. PED fueled or not, Bonds hit 73 home runs. Like it or not, despite the wind blowing Beamon through the air or Bonds using PED"s to hit homers like he was playing wiffle ball these were/are legitimate records IMO.

If the wind was 2.1 m/s Beaman's record wouldn't have stood. I agree with allqixotics take. It's a matter of categorizing. If the MLB decided to switch to switch to composite bats, because of injury risks from shattered bats, but the increased COR of the new bats created inflated HR records of around 80/162 and lead to more injury due to the increased velocity, so that after a few years they switched back to ash, what would you do with those new "records". The whole thing about "legitimacy" is the wrong debate IMO. That's a buzz word that implies some bogus moral judgment that simply isn't germane, it is simply a matter of properly designating the conditions under which the records were set.

[russ snyder]

Or, some people, perhaps Chris Davis (I don't pretend to know his opinions or beliefs), think that it is nonsense to have a purportedly "legitimate" record that was attained by illegitimate means. That'd be like putting me down in the Guinness Book of World Records as the fastest person ever to run a mile because I was jogging on a treadmill in the back of a pickup truck that was going 100 mph, therefore I ran a mile in 35 seconds. You're violating the criteria of the record, which makes your record in a completely different category of its own, and it can't possibly belong to the category you tried to shoe-horn it into.

It doesn't make logical sense. It makes no kind of sense whatsoever. It's like saying I'm the tallest squirrel in the world. I'm not a squirrel! It's nonsense!

Similarly, the PED users are in a category completely of their own. The fact that their records are, at the present time, included in the official MLB records can't be debated. You can look it up on MLB.com. But does that make the fact that those illegitimate records are officially recorded, acceptable? No. MLB wants for that to be the case. They want to whistle and hope that the public doesn't notice. Or that they'll get bored and talk about something else. Or that PEDs will be made allowable to use and everyone will use them and eclipse Bonds' number. They are trying to shove it under the rug, because the stats were officially recorded during regular season MLB play, and at the time they seemed totally legit.

One thing that Major League Baseball, as an organization, really, really hates doing (especially under Bug Selig, but even before, and probably after his reign) is admitting they were wrong, or that they made a mistake. They would rather obfuscate or downplay their mistake, or go after the people who point it out most loudly. Then, quietly, they'll start tidying up to clean up the mess they made so that it's less likely to happen again in the future (all the PED testing), but in order to avoid the perception that they're admitting that they're wrong, they'll never strike the records from the books, or move them into another category, or even put a red asterisk next to them.

It's all a PR ploy. But don't fool yourself: the records are illegitimate; the way the records were obtained was illegitimate; and the presence of the records on the official books is an affront to the fairness and level playing field that MLB prides itself in maintaining. I don't think they'll ever set it right, but they may prove me wrong. Until then, the home run leaders on the MLB books are miscategorized as being legitimate players having legitimately obtained the records they set, like the guy jogging on his treadmill in the back of a fast-moving pickup truck claiming to be the fastest runner.

There is one more thing I'd like to elaborate on. Some have claimed that, because the rules and parameters and situations of baseball are constantly changing, you may as well throw all the records together. I disagree with this thesis for one major reason: there is a big difference between playing within the rules of your time, and cheating. At the time that Maris hit his homers, or Ruth hit his, they played within the rules of the game they were given. Yes, the pitchers were terrible. Yes, the foul lines were drawn in way more than modern parks. Yes, they had different equipment, traveled differently, made less money, and so on. But did they CHEAT? I find no evidence to support that.

Cheating is when you intentionally and knowingly introduce some element from the external environment into the game, in order to give yourself an unfair advantage over other players, the vast majority of which are playing without the advantage you have taken for yourself, and which the official rules of the game demonstrably do not condone.

PED use is, hands down, cheating. That sets PED use in a completely different category of awful than, say, hitting "cheap" home runs that would be a ground rule double or pop out in foul territory today. I just wanted to make that point.

All of that said, I agree that there are many practical problems to revising the record books in any way. The problems are complex, politically and socially divisive, and involve a lot of ambiguity. Any alteration whatsoever would necessarily involve some degree of arbitrary judgment or subjectivity, since we don't have a complete and exhaustive record of every player who has ever played using PEDs and what stats they might have achieved while doing so.

Even if you were just to rip out the records of the guys who have been scientifically proven to be using, that would be "unfair" (in the sense of maintaining a record of fair play) to the probably dozens of guys who hold various club or franchise or league records for OBP, OPS, RBI, K, etc. and were aided in some way by using PEDs. Why do they get to keep their unclean records on the books just because they weren't proven to be using? It's really a tough judgment call, and any judgment call you make is going to be one that people will debate till the cows come home.

Then again, doing absolutely nothing isn't a great situation, either.

All of this is why fans can, and often do, form their own opinions as to which stats they themselves consider to be legitimate. Note I said legitimate, not official. There's a difference. The official stats are never up for debate; that's just a question of what the record books themselves say at the present date and time. But you can have illegitimate records on the official books. That's the world we live in today.

Good Post. ( I repped you by the way.)

That said, I don't think that your treadmill example is analogous of Bonds using PEDs. he hit the home runs. Many of them were hit against pitchers who were using as well. That was the culture of the game at the time. IMO, it is a legitimate record. You can question the legitimacy of it all you like, however, it is in the books like you so eloquently state.

I disagree that the presence of these records is a PR ploy. they are the legitimate records of a league that allowed PED use for years and years. maybe they did not expect guys to make a mockery of their most sacred record. It probably would not have happened if MLB indeed had the pride in fairness and a level playing field. Unfortunately for the MLB, these are the legimate records of an era that they created and are trying to forget,

[LookitsPuck]

It's not cheating if there weren't tests or rules against.

[russ snyder]

If the wind was 2.1 m/s Beaman's record wouldn't have stood. I agree with allqixotics take. It's a matter of categorizing. If the MLB decided to switch to switch to composite bats, because of injury risks from shattered bats, but the increased COR of the new bats created inflated HR records of around 80/162 and lead to more injury due to the increased velocity, so that after a few years they switched back to ash, what would you do with those new "records". The whole thing about "legitimacy" is the wrong debate IMO. That's a buzz word that implies some bogus moral judgment that simply isn't germane, it is simply a matter of properly designating the conditions under which the records were set.

The composite bat record would stand IMO. That's the conditions that everyone was playing under. It's not the player's fault that hit 80 that MLB approved this equipment. You can change the debate, but you can't change the fact that Bonds' 73 HRs is the legitimate record for MLB.

[El Gordo]

The composite bat record would stand IMO. That's the conditions that everyone was playing under. It's not the player's fault that hit 80 that MLB approved this equipment. You can change the debate, but you can't change the fact that Bonds' 73 HRs is the legitimate record for MLB.

Of course they should stand. You don't get it. They should be so designated that's all. Player X hits hit 80 HR with a composite bat, Bonds hit 73 HR with PED's, Maris hit 61 on nicotine and caffeine.

[russ snyder]

Of course they should stand. You don't get it. They should be so designated that's all. Player X hits hit 80 HR with a composite bat, Bonds hit 73 HR with PED's, Maris hit 61 on nicotine and caffeine.

Of course I get it. My premise is that there should only be one single season record holder regardless of the conditions that they played under.

Why do we need three or four guys sharing one record ?

What I don't get is the need to designate the record. I stated early on in the thread that I disagreed with the asterisk that Frick gave to Maris. Besides, records are made to be broken by great athletes, not designated by fans on message boards.

[El Gordo]

Of course I get it. My premise is that there should only be one single season record holder regardless of the conditions that they played under.

Why do we need three or four guys sharing one record ? What I don't get is the need to designate the record. I stated early on in the thread that I disagreed with the asterisk that Frick gave to Maris. Besides, records are made to be broken by great athletes, not designated by fans on message boards.

Why not? In the interest of fairness and accuracy just have an asterisk that says accrued during the PED era, or a double asterisk that says accrued while known to be on PED's. I 'd say a guy who hits his HR while taking PED's is not necessarily a great athlete.

[russ snyder]

Why not? In the interest of fairness and accuracy just have an asterisk that says accrued during the PED era, or a double asterisk that says accrued while known to be on PED's. I 'd say a guy who hits his HR while taking PED's is not necessarily a great athlete.

Because there is only one person who currently holds the record. Besides, I don't think that your designation plan is really that fair or accurate when it comes to the home run record. Perhaps you should include that Maris played in an era where many players used speed along with the nicotine and caffeine that you mentioned earlier. Further, any record that is deemed to be tainted by steroids should also include MLB's complicity in the explanation. After all, the league did nothing but count the cash as the home mark came under assault year after year in the late 90's and early 2000's.

I just don't think that fans need an asterisk to judge the accuracy of a number. Most of them have watched enough baseball to make their determination of the merits of a record without having the record so defined.

The statement in bold is your opinion. While I don't respect Bonds, I think that he was a great ballplayer and athlete.

[El Gordo]

[/b]

Because there is only one person who currently holds the record. Besides, I don't think that your designation plan is really that fair or accurate when it comes to the home run record. Perhaps you should include that Maris played in an era where many players used speed along with the nicotine and caffeine that you mentioned earlier. Further, any record that is deemed to be tainted by steroids should also include MLB's complicity in the explanation. After all, the league did nothing but count the cash as the home mark came under assault year after year in the late 90's and early 2000's.

I just don't think that fans need an asterisk to judge the accuracy of a number. Most of them have watched enough baseball to make their determination of the merits of a record without having the record so defined.

The statement in bold is your opinion. While I don't respect Bonds, I think that he was a great ballplayer and athlete.

He wasn't much of an athlete at the time he hit 73 HR, certainly not athletic enough to have hit them without PED's. As a pure hitter Miguel Cabrera's numbers for his first 11 years are better than Bond's first 11, when he was a great athlete. Cabrera will never hit 73 HR, even though up till now he is a better hitter than Bonds was. The record for the mile run has increased a total of 30 seconds over the past 100 years. Using that rate if increase as a guide the HR record if not unnaturally aided, would be 67 HR in 2027.

[russ snyder]

[B][/b]

He wasn't much of an athlete at the time he hit 73 HR, certainly not athletic enough to have hit them without PED's. As a pure hitter Miguel Cabrera's numbers for his first 11 years are better than Bond's first 11, when he was a great athlete. Cabrera will never hit 73 HR, even though up till now he is a better hitter than Bonds was. The record for the mile run has increased a total of 30 seconds over the past 100 years. Using that rate if increase as a guide the HR record if not unnaturally aided, would be 67 HR in 2027.

Bravo. Way to bring Miguel Cabrera and the record for the mile run into the discussion. I'll play along for a bit. I'm no Bonds apologist, but it's good to see that you acknowledged that he was once a a great athlete. I'm not going to get into Cabrera vs. Bonds. Both of these guys are great players in their own right.

I guess your comparing the home run record to the mile run is like throwing some more crap against the wall. You know, maybe something will stick. Further, I'd trust your math, but hasn't the record time for the mile run actually decreased in this time frame? I'm not the track expert you are, but I know that Bannister broke the four minute barrier by running it in 3:59 and change. ( I really don't care what the mark actually was. I know that it was less than four minutes.)

You can make any claim you want by using any means necessary. The fact remains that 73 is the record number. It will be until it is broken or if Bonds is stripped of the record,. I don't see these events or your "designation" of the record happening anytime soon.

BTW, I'm done with this discussion. Please feel free to have the last word. Good Night.

[DrungoHazewood]

Using that rate if increase as a guide the HR record if not unnaturally aided, would be 67 HR in 2027.

Except that the pitchers and fielders were getting better at roughly the same rate.