Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo
, Bonds had a longer career, wonder how that happened,
Ill take Griffeys injury plagued and unaided 630hr career over Barroids 753*. Plus Griffeys glove in Seattle, no contest.
Best player you ever saw is kind of a subjective statement and personally it wasn't BALCO Bonds.
This is the baseball logic that drives me crazy. How do you know Griffey was clean? In the steroid era I think it's a bold assumption to assume anyone is clean. It is basically selective enforcement. For example some HOF voters want to drag Bagwell's name through the steroid mud. No positive tests, no paper trail and the dude had an insane work ethic in the gym. Why is it fair to assume player X used steroids and player Y didn't?
There is no way concrete way to know someone used steroids without a positive test. It is a logical fallacy to assume steroid innocence or that someone is guilty in the steroid era of baseball.
Since you can't factually say who used and who didn't throughout the league, these random assumption about (insert player name) become a moral argument as opposed to a factual/logical one. All numbers must be viewed on an equal level due to the uncertainty of who used and what effect steroids actually have.
Do I think Barry Bonds used steroids? Yes. Do I care that Barry Bonds or anyone else used steroids? No. Just as a guideline, in Canseco's book, he claimed that 85% of the MLB population had used steroids. While that number is extremely high and impossible to confirm, it sheds light on just how wide steroid usage was throughout the league.
To wrap this up, I'm gonna say what I always say. Am I supposed to villainize Bonds for producing, but not care about Greg Zaun and Todd Pratt (Mitchell Report names) because they weren't very good? Whether someone used steroids or not, all numbers must be taken at their face value because you truly don't know who was/wasn't using and the true effects of steroid usage. It's the only way to keep an argument factual and logical.