The Actual Top 20 Lifetime HR Leaders (OT)

[clydepepper]

By the way, I do not own cards of anybody I believe to have used.

I do, however, own plenty of Jr. Griffey and Thome

...and that goes for pitchers too...don't own any Clemens cards, but I have a lot of Pedro!

Just trying to keep integrity in my hobby.

hope this thread gets some book sales for you, Greg

[71buc]

I watched Jr. from day one of his career in Seattle. He played the game the right way. He never had the second prime of a Barry Bonds. Was he a petulant Prima Donna, absolutely, a juicer, no way. This is the danger of PEDs everybody is suspected even without evidence. When you compare Griffey to a known steroid user like Sosa according to www.baseball-reference.com you can see that Sosa compared well to some above average players. However from age 32 through 38 he was comparable to a future HOF member named Griffey Junior. Junior is the only HOF caliber player Sosa compares to at any age. Other than a juiced Sosa, and Cedeno, who posted ridiculous numbers early in his career, Junior was comparable to the legends of the game throughout his career at virtually every age . If you give PEDs to an above average player he will perform like a PEDs legend. You give them to an supremely talented and genetically gifted athlete like Bonds and you create a monster.


Most Similar by Ages Sosa

21. Jack Clark (972) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Lloyd Moseby (967) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Chili Davis (961) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Curt Blefary (967) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Jim Wynn (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Jim Wynn (947) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Tony Conigliaro (952) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Dale Murphy (937) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Darryl Strawberry (949) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Jose Canseco (914) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Dale Murphy (895) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Ken Griffey (867) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Ken Griffey (908) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Ken Griffey (915) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Ken Griffey (906) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Ken Griffey (904) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Ken Griffey (869) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Most Similar by Ages Griffey

21. Mickey Mantle (960) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Cesar Cedeno (955) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Mickey Mantle (936) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Mickey Mantle (935) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Miguel Cabrera (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Frank Robinson (954) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Frank Robinson (944) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Frank Robinson (919) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Frank Robinson (906) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Frank Robinson (916) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Frank Robinson (923) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Frank Robinson (915) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Sammy Sosa (908) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Sammy Sosa (915) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Sammy Sosa (906) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Sammy Sosa (904) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
37. Frank Robinson (886) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Frank Robinson (887) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

By the way, I do not own cards of anybody I believe to have used.

I do, however, own plenty of Jr. Griffey and Thome

...and that goes for pitchers too...don't own any Clemens cards, but I have a lot of Pedro!

Just trying to keep integrity in my hobby.

hope this thread gets some book sales for you, Greg

Forensic analysis of baseball cards is one way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[GregMitch34]

The argument that players should just be compared to others in their era is fair--if the playing field, so to speak, is level. But it's not when, let's say, half of the stars are cheating and the other half not. So yes, you could say--Barry Bonds was a somewhat better slugger than Sammy Sosa. And on the unproven side, you could say Jim Thome was a somewhat better slugger than Fred McGriff. To me it's sad that this is the only valid measure. Others don't seem to be bothered by it.

As for Griffey having a "normal career trajectory"--true, he peaked in what should be his peak age. But no one before the PED era except the Babe ever averaged 52 HRs a year for four years, during those peak years, as Griffey did. And then he fell apart with one injury after another, starting when he was only in his early '30s--which didn't happen with most of the previous superstars.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Are amphetamines PEDs? Or only drugs that build muscle?

[GregMitch34]

Amphetamines do little to improve performance--beyond getting you "back on the field" and "up for the game." Of course, they still should have been rooted out but you don't see odd years for hitting in the 1970s and 1980s pre-steroids. Ironically, that was the argument used to defend steroids (McGwire and others said this)--they only help them "recover from injuries" faster and "get them back on the field." I guess they had nothing to do with the routine 50 to 70 home run years.

[dabigyankeeman]

Steroids artificially enchance your abilities. How about Lasik eye surgery? That totally artificially enhances your ability to see, it makes you like a bionic man. You usually no longer need glasses (and all the problems they bring like sweat and condensation), and sometimes your vision is way better than it would ever be normally.

How about Tommy John surgery? You are totally artificially moving stuff around in the body and creating a bionic arm with something that was not supposed to be there in the first place.

Lets face it, with those and other new legal drugs, the players of today have tremendous ways to make their bodies better than the players of years ago.

I also believe that a very high pct of players in the steroid era were on something, steroids, testosterone, HGH, etc. Way more than people think.

Its very tough for us to make a judgement as who is good or "clean" and who isnt. Soon, drugs will be developed that will be virtually un-detectable.

And now what about this latest story about A-Rod being allowed to use certain drugs by MLB???

To me, put everyone with the right numbers in the HOF, and if you want, put a line at the bottom that this player played in the steroid era.

[MattyC]

In a hypothetical scenario, what if a big HR like one by Maris or Mantle in 1961, or a great hot week by a Frank Robinson in his triple crown year or a Carew in his .388 year-- what if any of those feats was the result in part of amphetamine usage?

The point regarding amphetamines is not to compare their degree of effect to modern drugs. The point is that an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage; the degree of advantage is a separate issue.

Then there is also the issue of whether a substance was or wasn't on a "banned list" when taken.

Each fan will have their own view on these complex topics and how to parse players' achievements between eras, and of course to each his own.

Ultimately, for this baseball fan, the salient point here is that the era and the potency of its drugs should not lower the level of proof needed to cast aspersion on a man's achievements.

In essence the underpinning logic there would be that the performance alone is evidence of guilt; and with there being PEDs of one form or another in each era, that same logic opens a door to saying any player in any era with elite performance was on the PEDs of his time. Hence my objection to lumping Griffey in with those who have either admitted to taking steroids or failed drug tests.

[clydepepper]

As for Griffey having a "normal career trajectory"--true, he peaked in what should be his peak age. But no one before the PED era except the Babe ever averaged 52 HRs a year for four years, during those peak years, as Griffey did. And then he fell apart with one injury after another, starting when he was only in his early '30s--which didn't happen with most of the previous superstars.[/QUOTE]


Griffey's injuries did not occur just to age and normal wear and tear. He broke his wrist early on due to the way he played his position which is one of the most physically demanding positions anyway you play it. The late-career leg injuries were all the results of effort, not 'coming down' off something. Accumulating injuries almost always come with age...unless you're chemically altered.

Griffey and bonds had almost exactly the same advantages (over Aaron and Mays, etc.), but Griffey took the road less traveled, the (morally) right one.