I think Kurkjian has it right (check his column on ESPN). I'm not jazzed, and I'm not a bad person for not being jazzed.

But we have indeed witnessed a lengthy and wonderful career of a great, great hitter.

Break out the asterisks...

Congrats to Barry. One of the greatest baseball players I've had the pleasure to watch.

I just finished watching the press conference and Bonds wasn't happy when a reporter asked what he had to say to Greg Anderson if he was watching. I would love to see the Blue Jays make a big splash in the off-season and try to sign Barry Bonds. While Bonds is 43 years old, he's still one of the most dangerous hitters out there.

A-Rod? I'll wait the extra 10 years and root for Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera or Prince Fielder, thanks.

Congrats, Barry.

I don't like calling him by his nickname. I've been calling him Rodriguez since using his nickname might imply that I actually like him.

Knock a few off for the steriods, add a few for the insane number of unintentional intentional walks, it's an amazing accomplishment regardless.

It occurred to me the other day that Barry Bonds strongly resembles a man whose temperament is completely different from his: Pete Rose.

Both Bonds and Rose have single-mindedly pursued a great baseball record, and both have achieved their goal. Rose extended his career past its normal limits to achieve his hit record, and Bonds, allegedly, artificially enhanced his body with steroids and human growth hormone to achieve his. Both men were, from childhood up, allowed to focus solely on sports, which meant that they grew up into deeply flawed people.

Rose has always behaved as if the rules didn't apply to him, and Bonds has often behaved like, it must be said, a self-centered jerk. (Given the way he was raised, there was probably no way he could have avoided becoming a jerk. It's a human tragedy.) And we, as fans, become a little uncomfortable when thinking about both Rose and Bonds's career achievements. They both took it all too far.

Bonds's legacy in baseball will be as the endpoint of, hopefully, a road not taken. He has shown us what a supremely talented player can do when allowed to use all available means to build up his body for baseball. In his peak as a Giant, he was a baseball cyborg - half man, half machine, programmed to be set loose on helpless National League pitchers. He conquered the act of hitting a baseball in a way that has never been done before and, presumably, will never be accomplished again. He deserves to be both honoured and condemned for that.

If you're interested in reading more about Bonds, Jeff Pearlman's "Love Me, Hate Me" is a really good book. It documents some breathtaking displays of self-centeredness (and some examples of Bonds behaving decently on occasion). And Pete Rose's life is well documented in Mike Sokolove's "Hustle".

Two final things:
- I'd hate to have to be a Hall of Fame voter five years after Barry finally retires.
- Under no circumstances do I ever want to see Barry Bonds in a Blue Jays uniform.

"
Knock a few off for the steriods, add a few for the insane number of unintentional intentional walks, it's an amazing accomplishment regardless."
 
And no matter what anyone says, Bonds, love him or hate him is one of the best baseball players of all time. Congratulations Barry and enjoy it while you can. Rodriguez will take it away from you in 8 years or so.

My memory of Hank Aaron will be #715 off Al Downing, and his quick wrists still working miracles in his 40s.  My memory of Barry Bonds will be the great multi-faceted player of the early 90s.  I wish that the Pirates had defeated the Braves one of those years, and went on to win a World Series with Bonds earning the respect that he deserved back then.

Any thoughts in this space on how many career HR's Bonds will end up with?

If he decides to come to the AL and DH next season I think he might have a shot at 800. 

The only good that's come out of 756 is now Barroid can seriously contemplate retirement the next time his achy knees start acting up.  If this proves to be his final season, then so much the better for the sport.

Count me amongst those who view Sadahuru Oh as the real homerun king.

Bonds has a few more milestones to pass before 800. He is:
1 double short of 600.
85 hits short of 3000.
19 RBI short of 2000 (but over 300 behind Aaron).
64 total bases short of 6000 (900 behind Aaron).
45 extra-base hits short of Aaron's all-time record.
34 runs behind Cobb and 83 behind Henderson.

Count me amongst those who view Sadahuru Oh as the real homerun king.

Really? In a league where Karl "Tuffy" Rhodes was a homerun-hitting wonder?

I'd suggest that an analogy of steroid-related subtraction for Bonds would be some caliber-of-pitching-related subtraction for Oh.

My memory of Hank Aaron will be #715 off Al Downing

Aaron's big game. And there's even a Blue Jay connection, though it had no bearing on the homerun.

Chuck, I think the correct link for the #715 game is here.

Count me amongst those who view Sadahuru Oh as the real homerun king.

Really? In a league where Karl "Tuffy" Rhodes was a homerun-hitting wonder?

Not a commentary on the quality of Japanese baseball from 1960-1980, but rather because I hate Barroid that much.  I can't believe I'm the only one. 

I didn't watch any baseball from 1994-1997 because of the strike and the subsequent cartoonish HR derby between Sosa/McGwire/Bonds almost kept me away permanently.  70+ HR in season?  Come on!  Anyone who actually thought that three players could simultaneously put up bent numbers like that without "help" deserves to have their head examined.  FYI, it was the plucky '98 Jays making a WC push in September that brought me back for good.

A final note, in "Built to Win", John Schuerholz claimed that he'd worked out a trade with the Pirates for pre-juice Bonds after the 1992 season only to have it shot down by a furious Jim Leyland.  JS claims that had Bonds joined the Braves he would've fallen in line, done things the Braves way and been a model citizen.  Interesting counterfactual.

Thanks Mike. That correction is good for two reasons. One, the obvious, it corrects my mistake. And two, it doesn't contradict a memory that my link to a Saturday game would otherwise have done. I recall the game being played on a Monday. Though I had been watching the game, I missed the homerun itself because my younger sister had flipped the dial to the Partridge Family.

Many bauxites may not have grown up in a world of one-television households or even know what dials are. But some of us old enough to have lived through those days were the unfortunate victims of the unfathomable charms a wee and wimpy David Cassidy had over pre-teen girls.

It's kind of fun to do an age 31 comparison for Bonds and Aaron.  Aaron had played in Milwaukee in a poor home run environment through age 31, and put up this line.  Bonds had played in either neutral (Pittsburgh) or modestly tough (SF) home run environments without PED enhancement through age 31 and put up this line.  Bonds was the better offensive player, but not likely to end up with the higher home run total because of his later start.  He was most comparable in fact to his godfather, but with a little better plate discipline and a little less pop.

I missed the homerun itself because my younger sister had flipped the dial to the Partridge Family.

Whoa, I am pretty sure that I would not have taken well to that; I was 15 then, so the most likely response would have been a nasty and possibly off-colour comment. 

You're not the only one, jeff mcl.  All the opportunity and natural ability in the world, and that wretch still had to cheat.  Instead of being remembered as one of the game's all-time great hitters, he'll be remembered only as the poster boy for the "anything goes; we gotta get the game back on a paying basis" post-1994 juicer era of major league ball.

Selig's gotta go.

I didn't watch any baseball from 1994-1997 because of the strike and the subsequent cartoonish HR derby between Sosa/McGwire/Bonds almost kept me away permanently.  70+ HR in season? 

Why does this upset you so? The numbers for all sports change during different eras whether caused by a change in rules, change in style of play, drug use, whatever.

Look at the NHL, for instance. How many older fans would have scoffed at all the 70-goal scorers in the 1980's where 50 was once an impressive milestone? Gordie Howe never scored 50 goals in a season. Joey Mullen did. And look at all the 500-goal scorers that played in the 80's. One could choose to rail at the sanctity of certain numbers being bettered during more favourable eras, or just accept that the game changes and that context-free numbers will always be a poor tool to measure players across eras.

If it's the drug use that offends you so, then that's certainly your prerogative, but I sure hope you're consistent. I sure hope you're not a football fan. To my untrained eye, there's more than a little drug use happening there. And I hope amphetamines are not a problem for you, since Willie Mays and his peers were notorious greenie downers.

And if you hate Bonds just, because, well, you do, then so be it. But that's an awully strong sentiment for someone you don't know personally. He may well be the jerk he is portrayed as, but right now, all you can say for sure is that you hate the Bonds caricature that the media has presented to you.

I'm glad you support Bonds and his roid binge breaking the HR record Chuck, that is certainly your right to do so.

Bonds gets all sorts of reactions from me. Watching him hit the last 8 years or so is awe-inspiring, especially when he was at his super-human best. The steroid era, which we are still in (don't kid yourselves), applies as much to pitchers as hitters. So Bonds isn't exactly the only one, and may not even be in the minority. The current policy is only set up to catch the real morons, and I'm constantly surprised when they manage to catch anyone.

The umpiring with Bonds at the plate helped him at times, and was often infuriating. Umps often seemed to be assuming the pitchers would rather just walk him, so anything borderline became an automatic ball. Worst case of strike zone favouring the hitter I can remember. It's gotten better lately, from the few AtBats I've seen, but while he was busily walking 230 times, a lot of pitchers were frustrated in that they seemed to have only two pitch choices : over a good bit of the plate, or ball. Not that a lot didn't pitch around him, but still, it annoyed me.

I do like to keep in mind perspective on his late career run in several ways. For instance, Carlos Delgado is in his age 35 season now, and will probably end they year with 430 HR or so. If he had the HR totals from age 36-39 that Bonds did, he would pass 630 HR.  Another 35 year old, Chipper Jones, would be in the high 500's. If Mantle had managed it, he'd have passed Ruth first. If Griffey Jr. suddenly manages two seasons like that at age 38 and 39, he'll be close to 700 and right on Bonds' pace. 

Of course, Hank Aaron did have a great run at the same time in a pitching era, so it's not like high home run production late in the career is unheard of. It's almost a certainty that if/when someone challenges Bonds' HR record, they will be hitting a lot of HR late in their 30's; it's now almost impossible to challenge the record otherwise. Oh, and count me among the Rodriguez doubters. He's on a great pace, but needs a long healthy productive stretch in his 30's to keep it going, which is a foolish thing to count on.

Gary Huckabay is back writing at BP once in a while. Here's his take on #755.

"Why does this upset you so? The numbers for all sports change during different eras whether caused by a change in rules, change in style of play, drug use, whatever."

Because the change was not a natural evolution. It wasn't Babe Ruth suddenly hitting more HRs than any other team, it was a bunch of guys taking illegal drugs.

"And I hope amphetamines are not a problem for you, since Willie Mays and his peers were notorious greenie downers."

Come on. Greenies are not horse steroids and HGH. Greenies give short-term bursts of energy, they don't make players hit the ball better, they don't make you stronger, they don't replace lost muscle. It's like comparing Red Bull to meth.

So you don't oppose illegal drug use, except when it crosses a certain line?

So you don't oppose illegal drug use, except when it crosses a certain line?

He didn't say that, but you'd be a fool not to acknowledge that Pot is a slightly different drug from Meth.

I remember a long-ago trade rumour that Gillick was close to landing Bonds for a package of Manny Lee and John Cerutti. This could have been complete conjecture from local journalists, but I firmly recall the rumour. At the time, Lee was the next Tony Fernandez, Cerutti an up-and-coming lefty, and Bonds was seemingly stuck at a plateau of .240 20 60 30.

Does anyone else remember these rumours?

I'm not equating the potentially helpful effects of amphetamines, steroids and HGH. I have no idea how they rank. I didn't raise the subject of pot, meth and Red Bull. They have no bearing on this discussion.

Even if we start with the assumption that steroids and HGH are far more helpful than amphetamines, if someone finds illegal drug use disdainful in sports, then so be it, all illegal drug use must be villified. But stick to that position. If Bonds has found a better way to cheat, does that mean that lesser cheaters who came before him now get a pass because their method of cheating was not as efficacious? Is cheating condoned as long as it doesn't go too far?

I'm not stating that these are the positions held by other posters. I'm merely asking. That's why my query to glevin had a question mark at the end.

Ahhh...that's so much better. Barry pushed it out, Beck left town. TO sportswriters (re-writers?) can get back to ragging on the Leaf front office.

The Sosa/McGwire race is what caused Bonds to use drugs according to most accounts. Basically he saw them go nuts, saw that people found drugs in McGwire's locker, then saw nothing but cheering and happy faces. So he had two choices...

1) Continue as is and be viewed as a solid player but not an upper level one as we all thought (at the time) that McGwire and Sosa could both blast past Aaron thus putting any figures Bonds did to shame

2) Compete with the rest of baseball using the same tools as they were using and have a shot at the glory that McGwire and Sosa were getting.

What would amaze me is to find out a large chunk of MLB players _didn't_ do drugs after 1998 and before testing started to be pushed for in '03 (iirc).

For a comparison, if in your office there were a couple of guys getting major pay raises due to kissing the bosses butt while you were stuck as is, and feared getting your pay cut despite working just as, if not harder than, the guys who were doing the kissing up how would you react? Would you start complimenting the boss on his tie even though it looks silly in order to get a raise or would you continue to tell him how ugly it is and get your pay cut?

Drugs in sport are a problem. Back in '98 I wanted to see McGwire blasted by the press when drugs were found. I wanted them to start asking the tough questions and push both him and Sosa then, not years after the fact. Sadly, everyone wanted a hero and those two provided a good story that sold papers, if a little cheating was involved so be it. Now we've gone the other way and will probably see even more of it after Canseco's next book.

To me, Bonds did exactly what all of MLB wanted guys to do and what many, if not most, were doing. Just like I'm certain Aaron did the drugs of his day and Ruth the drugs of his (if any existed that actually helped). Athletes want to win at all costs, and that will always lead to rules being pushed or broken.

So, did I cheer Bonds on during his chase? Yup. I like seeing records broken, seeing the what if's being answered. Bonds provided us with the ability to see someone break records that we all thought could not be approached, let alone broken (single season slg%, OBP for example). He did stuff that was accepted by MLB at the time, via the reaction to McGwire/Sosa (and Canseco to a lesser degree) and showed us the impossible could happen if everything was just right.

Hopefully we'll see better testing to limit drugs in the future and prevent future Bonds from doing what this one did while still getting some new stars finding ways to produce new records.

My fear is what happens as manipulation genetically gets better and better, plus operations such as Tommy John start making players better (as TJ sometimes does). I guess we'll see a whole new set of records and weird stuff on the field producing a game which looks like baseball but is very different ala how the 1880's were drastically different from the 1910's, which were drastically different from the 1930's, which were drastically different from the 1960's, etc.

Don't take this the wrong way, Chuck, but here's my response:

Why does this upset you so? The numbers for all sports change during different eras whether caused by a change in rules, change in style of play, drug use, whatever.

I started watching baseball at age 10 in 1989 and went to as many Tigers games as Jays games (Tiger Stadium being much more accessible from my hometown, Sarnia, than Toronto) and saw some great sluggers over the years.  We saw alot of ball's fly out of that park, but Cecil Fielder's 1990 season was something amazing; he became the first player in 15 years to touch 50 in a season and even Jays fans in the border region were cheering him on.  Sosa/McGwire/Bonds later had better single-season HR totals because they were undoubtedly better athletes--or perhaps even athletes, period--but there is no way on god's green earth you suddenly go from 50 to 70 as the single-season mark of a great slugger in a 6-7 year span that saw no major changes in equipment, rules, etc.  And don't dig up early Babe Ruth numbers if you're tempted.

If it's the drug use that offends you so, then that's certainly your prerogative, but I sure hope you're consistent. I sure hope you're not a football fan. To my untrained eye, there's more than a little drug use happening there. And I hope amphetamines are not a problem for you, since Willie Mays and his peers were notorious greenie downers.

I won't get into a debate about various drugs and their effects, but yes, there is a major difference between Ross Reglebiati's (sp?) drug use and Barry's.   And I hate football.  Anyone here in favour of giving Ben Johnson his gold medal back?

And if you hate Bonds just, because, well, you do, then so be it. But that's an awully strong sentiment for someone you don't know personally. He may well be the jerk he is portrayed as, but right now, all you can say for sure is that you hate the Bonds caricature that the media has presented to you.

Part of the reason I hate this version of Barry was because I was a Bonds fan when I was a kid.  He was the perfect player, a 30-30 man when that meant something, and the Bobby Bo-Barry-Van Slyke OF in Pittsburgh was my favourite in baseball growing up.  Steroid-free Barry would still have been the greatest player of all time hands down.  Cheating to win is one thing and wrong its own way, but cheating for vanity is just pathetic.

"My fear is ...[snip] we'll see a whole new set of records and weird stuff on the field producing a game which looks like baseball but is very different ala how the 1880's were drastically different from the 1910's, which were drastically different from the 1930's, which were drastically different from the 1960's, etc."

It sounds as if what you're fearing is just the games' evolution.

Well, more a fear of how it won't be what it was when I was a kid (which it isn't actually - I was a kid in the 70-80's - 1970 & 1980's for those who think I'm realllly old).

To me the best baseball was league HR leaders in the 30's, batting champs being 330-360, stolen base leaders pushing the 100's, ERA champs pushing the 2.00 mark, save leaders in the 30's, 5 man bullpens, etc.

By the time I'm in my 70's I suspect we'll be seeing even more extreme results than today. Guys hitting 100 home runs, top pitchers with ERA's in the low 1's, a spread in talent that has a handful miles ahead of the rest thanks to their parents giving them the right drugs at the right time as newborns and their parents also being genetically ideal to produce 'superkids'.

As to the time frames, in the 1880's each team had only a couple of pitchers, the 1910's we had 3 man rotations and HR leaders in single digits, 1930's we had high offense due to high averages mixed with power, 1960's the pitchers took over, 1990's were the HR era, 2020's will be ??? I guess we'll all see.

Change is good, but also can be sad. For example, my dad grew up in Scarborough and had his own pony and farms were around where he lived. Things that did not exist included TV, microwaves, computers (let alone personal ones), nuclear power, affordable cars (many still used horses and two car families were for the super rich only), women's & minorities rights were extremely limited, flight was for military and few others, and Babe Ruth was still alive (he was 2 when Ruth retired). Some of those things that changed are good or even great, others are sad (imagine clean air in Scarborough).

As baseball fans we live the dream that we can adjust figures to tell who was the best ever, that players from our youth could've been great today without adjustments, that the greats of yesteryear also could've competed (sans training/drugs/etc.) It isn't true of course, but we like to believe it. Seeing Bonds destroy records, knowing that what he used is mild compared to what is coming creates extra fear that baseball will one day look like football does today - a gang of freaks of nature who entertain us then die off before they reach retirement age.

Evolution is always coming, things are always changing. It doesn't mean we have to enjoy all of it though.

Sheesh, and this from a Bonds supporter :)

I started watching baseball at age 10 in 1989 and went to as many Tigers games as Jays games (Tiger Stadium being much more accessible from my hometown, Sarnia, than Toronto) and saw some great sluggers over the years.  We saw alot of ball's fly out of that park, but Cecil Fielder's 1990 season was something amazing; he became the first player in 15 years to touch 50 in a season and even Jays fans in the border region were cheering him on.  Sosa/McGwire/Bonds later had better single-season HR totals because they were undoubtedly better athletes--or perhaps even athletes, period--but there is no way on god's green earth you suddenly go from 50 to 70 as the single-season mark of a great slugger in a 6-7 year span that saw no major changes in equipment, rules, etc.

Jeff, I started watching in '81 or '82, and have watched a lot of Jays during that time. Just wanted to put up a few comments of my own alongside yours.

First player in 15 years to touch 50? I guess if you mean to actually get to 50, then yes, 1977 and George Foster was 13 years. But (from: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hihr5.shtml), there were also some pretty near misses in the 80s.
1979 - Dave Kingman, 48
1980 - Mike Schmidt, 48
1987 - Mark McGwire/Andre Dawson - 49
1989 - Kevin Mitchell - 47

Then from 1995 - 2002, it was 50+.

What happened in that timeframe? Rockies/Marlins ('93), Rays/Diamondbacks ('98). That's a 15% increase in teams, so, suddenly, pitching rotations in the majors were composed of 20-25% more questionable AAA pitchers.. It's not a straightforward extrapolation, but.. Many guys who would not have been on a roster in 1985 were suddenly everyday players/pitchers. Including pitchers who were HR prone who would not have been playing in a smaller league. Plus, didn't rosters get expanded by 1? And pitching staffs go from 9 to 11? So, a LOT more mediocre pitchers in the league. Some who may not have cracked AAA before. And some ballparks were rebuilt - may have been rebuilt to be smaller and allow more HRs. So, go from 9x26 pitchers = 234 pitchers (obviously not a static number, as they move up an down from AAA, DL, etc) to 11x30 pitchers = 330.

Plus, offense was emphasized. What happened to the stolen base? Why does no one care about SB leaders anymore? Henderson used to steal 100+ in his heighday. Now, 30-40 is a lot but rarely cited as a "huge impact". People are playing for the 3-run-homer, and players are swinging for the fences more (see Deer, Rob). And, then there was the hype once someone got to 55-60. They saw all the press, the "chicks dig the longball" commercials, etc.. I'm sure McGwire/Sosa were aiming for the fences even more than before.

Plus better conditioning, better preparation, video clips, pitching charts, etc.. Eventually, we DO have to see an impact. Going from 50-70 HRs is a 40% increase, but it's not out of the realm of possibility if you add up all the contributing factors, IMHO. ERA has more or less continuously increased, AFAIK. Those extra runs have to be scored somehow..

Look at the NHL: Gary Leeman scored 50 for the Leafs one year. The late 80s/early 90s were wide-open, fire-wagon hockey. Then, all of a sudden, NJ Devils revive the trap (note - again, after expansion), and all of a sudden, offense falls through the floor - a 30-goal scorer is now a solid player.

Lots of things can change - especially after expansion. Note how Foster's 52 came in 1977 - the year the Jays and Mariners joined the AL, and every team lost some players. Maris hit 61 in '61 - an expansion year. In 1960, the leader had 41. Wow, jumping 50% from 41-61. Seems fishy to me!!

Over time, some records can become easier to reach, some harder. 300 wins as a pitcher is now next to impossible. Breaking the all-time K record? Wow, that would be hard to do for a pitcher who came up now.

VW