Disgusted with Bonds?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If he had retired after the 1998 season-I think most agree up to that point he was clean right?-do you think he'd have been a Hall of Famer? First ballot?

Likely not 1st ballot. He would have hit 411 homers at that point, been well under .300 for an average (he's .299 right now). He would have likely not been first ballot because the sports writers hate him...don't think that keeps a man out? Talk to Jim Rice. (also short longevity) They have to like you or you are kept off. Sure he would have made the hall, but not a first ballot HOFer. His numbers were too good to ignore at that point.

That being said,
He was a great player before he took the roids...a true 5 tool player, and one of the best all around players to ever play. He tainted his own legacy.
Bonds once argued that steriods can't make a man hit a ball. I have to disagree. From 2000-2004 he batted averaged .341 a season...his career high before steriods? .336. His 2nd career high? .312. He AVERAGED .341 for 5 years. That is a clear indicator that it can help. It helped Bonds by at least .50 points.
He averaged 31.6 homers a season before steroids. 45.4 from 98-04 and 06 and he was injured in 98 and 06 for a massive part of those seasons (05 and 07 only played 29 games total to this point) and he averaged only 135 games per season from 99-06 (not including 05 even though I should, nor am I counting 07). He played in 150 or more games 8 times before steriods...only 1 time since, and he's still putting up massive numbers at such an old age???? So steroids has proven to help a player jump .50+ points in average, and will help them get at least 15 more homers a season. Add those numbers to any of your favorite current players, and I guarentee it makes them an all star if not an MVP. So yes, it can help a players average. It can help all the numbers except play in 150+ games a season consistantly.

[SmootSmack]

Do you think his average has gone up at all due to the fact that he has fewer at-bats because he's being walked more? So instead of batting .400 (2 hits for every 5 at bats) he's now hitting .500 (2 hits for every 4 at bats with a walk). I suppose you're response is probably going to be he's only walking more because he's hitting more homeruns and he's hitting more home runs because he's juicing.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do you think his average has gone up at all due to the fact that he has fewer at-bats because he's being walked more? So instead of batting .400 (2 hits for every 5 at bats) he's now hitting .500 (2 hits for every 4 at bats with a walk). I suppose you're response is probably going to be he's only walking more because he's hitting more homeruns and he's hitting more home runs because he's juicing.

Walking does not help or hurt your average...it will help your OBP. So to answer that question...NO. His average has gone up in part because what used to be a fly ball for an out is now a homer, and partly because his hits are hit with more velocity and baseball being a game of inches, the defenders are not as likely to getting to the ball in time. (ie:reaction time is greatly decreased for defenders.)
So if you're 2 for 4 with 2 walks, you are batting .500. If you're 2 for 4 with 0 walks, you're still batting .500. Walks will not help this. I would actually wager it hurts you because if you are walking that much, you are less likely to get into a routine with the bat, and your swing would suffer. But like I said, walks does not affect your batting average.