Joey Votto Critical of Davis Saying the HR Record Is 61

[MrOrange82]

This thread was about slamming Votto for taking issue with Davis' quotes.

But that's just adding a degree or two of separation, isn't it? IMO, if Davis criticizes Bonds (even if Davis' motives are tinged with "call me the real HR King" aspirations), then power to him. Bonds and his contemporaries deserve the criticism, as do those who continue to use PEDs. Votto, on the other hand...his critiques of what Davis has to say have far less value (again, IMO).

[Stotle]

But that's just adding a degree or two of separation, isn't it? IMO, if Davis criticizes Bonds (even if Davis' motives are tinged with "call me the real HR King" aspirations), then power to him. Bonds and his contemporaries deserve the criticism, as do those who continue to use PEDs. Votto, on the other hand...his critiques of what Davis has to say have far less value (again, IMO).

As I said, I understand a fan agreeing with Davis' comments. I think MLB players generally frown upon publicly slamming former greats. I'm sure Votto's feelings were magnified some by the limited track record/huge success + attention Davis is getting. I don't think Votto's comments were in the best taste, but I don't identify with Davis' comments. In my days as an athlete I was always very much of the opinion that you don't complain about baseball players to non-baseball players.

[MrOrange82]

As I said, I understand a fan agreeing with Davis' comments. I think MLB players generally frown upon publicly slamming former greats. I'm sure Votto's feelings were magnified some by the limited track record/huge success + attention Davis is getting. I don't think Votto's comments were in the best taste, but I don't identify with Davis' comments. In my days as an athlete I was always very much of the opinion that you don't complain about baseball players to non-baseball players.

Eh...I see where you're coming from, but the undercurrent of the Votto/Davis debate isn't rooted solely in baseball decorum, because the subject matter (i.e., the validity of the accomplishments of players who cheated) isn't so rooted. IMO, failing to take a position such as Davis' is somewhat irresponsible (i.e., the message that baseball's brain trust, and also its players, should unequivocally be sending to fans is that cheating, particularly cheating that involves assuming serious health risks, is unacceptable. In that vein, records won with the assistance of illegal substances should be called into question by everyone who associates with them. And this year, Davis might very well "associate" with the HR record. The one that didn't come with a prescription.).

[blid]

"I'm not judging you but your accomplishment is tarnished and I don't recognize it."

Got it.

Sure, why not? You don't have to think people were bad dudes for taking PEDs during an era when ~25% of the league was doing it, and you can think that people like Bonds are still all-time great players -- ie, no judgment -- and yet you can also still think a particular record that was clearly PED-assisted shouldn't set the standard going forward.

I want to defend that sort of position because that pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

[Stotle]

Eh...I see where you're coming from, but the undercurrent of the Votto/Davis debate isn't rooted solely in baseball decorum, because the subject matter (i.e., the validity of the accomplishments of players who cheated) isn't so rooted. IMO, failing to take a position such as Davis' is somewhat irresponsible (i.e., the message that baseball's brain trust, and also its players, should unequivocally be sending to fans is that cheating, particularly cheating that involves assuming serious health risks, is unacceptable. In that vein, records won with the assistance of illegal substances should be called into question by everyone who associates with them. And this year, Davis might very well "associate" with the HR record. The one that didn't come with a prescription.).

So are we throwing out all stats from the "steroid era"? Cal's had accusations of steroid use -- are we no longer acknowledging his consecutive game record?

And how many HRs did steroids add to Bonds' totals? Ballpark? No one knows -- and no one has any clue as to what extent PEDs aided HR ability.

Setting that aside, it's such an odd argument to me. Let's pretend like actual events didn't happen, but only for a certain group of people, while totally disregarding the thing we're penalizing this group for is something lots and lots of others were doing too, and just weren't caught or accused.

[Stotle]

Sure, why not? You don't have to think people were bad dudes for taking PEDs during an era when ~25% of the league was doing it, and you can think that people like Bonds are still all-time great players -- ie, no judgment -- and yet you can also still think a particular record that was clearly PED-assisted shouldn't set the standard going forward.

I want to defend that sort of position because that pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

And I guess I'm more of the mind that the appropriate response to a question like that is "decisions as to records are above my pay grade. I'm just hoping to hit as well as I can and help this team win a World Series. Maybe when I'm looking back at this season I'll be able to put everything into context, but for now I'm just focusing on each game and trying to stay in this hot zone. It sure has been a fun first half, though!"

[MrOrange82]

So are we throwing out all stats from the "steroid era"? Cal's had accusations of steroid use -- are we no longer acknowledging his consecutive game record?

And how many HRs did steroids add to Bonds' totals? Ballpark? No one knows -- and no one has any clue as to what extent PEDs aided HR ability.

Setting that aside, it's such an odd argument to me. Let's pretend like actual events didn't happen, but only for a certain group of people, while totally disregarding the thing we're penalizing this group for is something lots and lots of others were doing too, and just weren't caught or accused.

Personally, I don't lend much credit, in general,to stats from the steroid era. I'm probably in the minority on that point, but, at the least, I'd say that the records of people who've either admitted to using PEDs, or been caught using them, shouldn't count for as much as those whose careers haven't been similarly tainted.

As for the general oddity of the position...it's not odd. We don't catch everyone in anything. And sometimes we even arrest people for things they didn't actually do. It sucks, but it's also the price of erring (correctly, IMO) on the side of discouraging/de-incentivizing bad behavior. Just because lots of other people weren't/aren't caught using PEDs doesn't mean that we shouldn't condemn the practice.

[Stotle]

Personally, I don't lend much credit, in general,to stats from the steroid era. I'm probably in the minority on that point, but, at the least, I'd say that the records of people who've either admitted to using PEDs, or been caught using them, shouldn't count for as much as those whose careers haven't been similarly tainted.

As for the general oddity of the position...it's not odd. We don't catch everyone in anything. And sometimes we even arrest people for things they didn't actually do. It sucks, but it's also the price of erring (correctly, IMO) on the side of discouraging/de-incentivizing bad behavior. Just because lots of other people weren't/aren't caught using PEDs doesn't mean that we shouldn't condemn the practice.

To each his own; I'm always fine with folks having their own opinions.

[MrOrange82]

To each his own; I'm always fine with folks having their own opinions.

Oh please...someone's always wrong on the internet

[Bradysburns]

Everyone has their own opinion. I think those players who defend the Bonds record have their own reasons for it.

Well stated. I personally think Davis is right and Bonds record should get a fat asterisk next to it, as should Sosa's and McGwire's. Either that or legalize steroids in baseball. Seriously, they need to choose, or those "records" mean nothing.

[El Gordo]

Well stated. I personally think Davis is right and Bonds record should get a fat asterisk next to it, as should Sosa's and McGwire's. Either that or legalize steroids in baseball. Seriously, they need to choose, or those "records" mean nothing.

It boils down to the fan's perception of the games integrity. If they continue to see poor umpiring, and the celebration of tainted records coupled with the "crackdown" on PED's, the players recognizing those "records" on one hand while decrying the cheaters who use PED's on the other, the fan's perception of the game's integrity continues to erode.

[Aristotelian]

If it is proven or admitted that a player did steroids, I think they should get an asterisk. Not just to protect the "integrity of the game" but also to serve as a deterrent. Guys might think twice if they know their numbers will not go into the record books.

Unfortunately by that standard Bonds's record still stands. McGwire would have an asterisk.

[El Gordo]

If it is proven or admitted that a player did steroids, I think they should get an asterisk. Not just to protect the "integrity of the game" but also to serve as a deterrent. Guys might think twice if they know their numbers will not go into the record books.

Unfortunately by that standard Bonds's record still stands. McGwire would have an asterisk.

An asterisk wouldn't exclude the record, it would just qualify it. I would have no objection to that. If Bonds had set the record using an aluminum bat instead of PED's, you wouldn't know how many extra HR it added, if any, but it would be a good idea to note the fact.

[DrungoHazewood]

If it is proven or admitted that a player did steroids, I think they should get an asterisk. Not just to protect the "integrity of the game" but also to serve as a deterrent. Guys might think twice if they know their numbers will not go into the record books.

Unfortunately by that standard Bonds's record still stands. McGwire would have an asterisk.

That cannot stand. It would be meaningless from day one. We know with essentially 100% certainty that there are and almost always have been players who used PEDs who will never be caught. In fact, the vast majority of PED users will never be caught. So there would be asterisks on the records of a handful of people unlucky enough to have been caught (or without access to the really good stuff that stayed ahead of the tests) and nothing marking the larger number of records set with assistance but without a failed test or admission.

And you say steroids, but you have to mean PEDs. The only reason I see to exclude some types of drugs and not others would be to keep things nice and tidy, so we wouldn't have to involve guys like Mays and Aaron in the asterisk business.

[DrungoHazewood]

An asterisk wouldn't exclude the record, it would just qualify it. I would have no objection to that. If Bonds had set the record using an aluminum bat instead of PED's, you wouldn't know how many extra HR it added, if any, but it would be a good idea to note the fact.

But what if we have almost 100% confidence that thousands of players had used aluminum bats disguised as wood, and we just applied asterisks to the 50 or 100 we know used the aluminum ones? You've just told the guys who were or are lucky and/or resourceful enough to cheat without getting caught that they're free and clear.

I think it's far better to just let the facts stand, and acknowledge that a lot of players were (and almost certainly continue to) operate outside the rules. We're not sure who they are/were, or what the impact on on the game is/was.