GatewayRedbirds.com

Jackass gets my vote and its not even close.

Bizzonds.

I voted against Bonds, and I will continue to do so.

IMHO, steroids have nothing or little to do with it.

What has to do with it is Bonds wearing body armor and crowding the plate to take away the inside strike. (shrinking his k-zone) Take the armor off, and he moves away from the plate...and he may not have been the same hitter; or just take the armor off and be a man.

Now, this is all legal in the eyes of baseball, and he took advantage of it (which makes me wonder why others don't)...but I don't care for it.

My vote goes to Stan.

JMHO.

Now, this is all legal in the eyes of baseball, and he took advantage of it (which makes me wonder why others don't)...but I don't care for it.

I don't think that type of body armor is legal anymore. He's been grandfathered into that rule and that's why he's still allowed to wear it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

body armor or not, bonds was/is the better player.

If someone can do a quick analysis of Bonds and Musial over the same age span (without body armor), I would appreciate it.

Too lazy

TimeForGuinness wrote:If someone can do a quick analysis of Bonds and Musial over the same age span (without body armor), I would appreciate it.

Too lazy

Studies have shown that elbow protection inflates OPS+ by about 20%. Take away the steroids, which have been proven to inflate OPS+ by another 32%, and it's obvious that Bonds is basically Eddie Murray.

haltz wrote:

TimeForGuinness wrote:If someone can do a quick analysis of Bonds and Musial over the same age span (without body armor), I would appreciate it.

Too lazy

Studies have shown that elbow protection inflates OPS+ by about 20%. Take away the steroids, which have been proven to inflate OPS+ by another 32%, and it's obvious that Bonds is basically Eddie Murray.

lol

I was just curious.