[ Post a Response | The Old Scout Message Board ]
Re: Would like an honest explanation from TM60+
I am going to have to go with Hank Aaron on this topic. This isn't the first time this argument defending Bonds has come up. There have even been absurd theories that Babe Ruth used steroids despite the fact that testosterone wasn't even synthesized until a few years after he retired. There are actually other good reasons why Aaron was successful in his late thirties that have nothing to do with wild theories he was an amphetamine popping machine in his later years. First off, you must realize that there were major rules change from 1968-1969 that dramatically affected the dynamics between pitching and hitting. 1968 was known as the year of the pitcher with Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA, Denny McClain 31 wins and Don Drysdale's 56 consecutive scoreless innings. Yaz led the AL with a .301 average! Due to the dominance of pitching in the late 60s, MLB took two major steps to juice up the offense: 1) the lowered the mound from 15 to 10 inches and 2) the changed the strike zone. The changes had a dramatic affect on offense which explains why Aaron's stats were quite good in his late thirties. In addition the Braves moved to Atlanta in 1966. In 1969 they moved the fences in ten feet. Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta was dubbed The Launching Pad since it was known as a great home run hitting park. That partially explains why Aaron had late career success. Also, Aaron was known for not drinking, smoking or taking drugs. He kept himself in good shape. You are trying to cast aspersions against Aaron to defend Bonds and/ or steroid use in general. There is absolutely no doubt that steroids and other PEDS offer a dramatic improvement in performance in ALL sports. That is a fact. That is why its prevalent in the conference and every upper level sport.