stephens said:I don't think of it as simply as "doubling output." The game is not a home run contest. If you must pick one stat, then RBI is probably the one to look at in regards to one's effectiveness as an offensive player. (but that of course doesn't tell the whole story as a good hitters mere existence in the lineup helps the stats of those hitting before him because they'll get better pitches than they would have, as teams don't want to walk those players and put them on the bases for the upcoming good hitter).
Anyway, Barry Bonds was not a donkey who won the Kentucky Derby. He was a first round draft pick, who built himself into a consistent .300 hitter, 120rbi guy in the first few years of his career.
Did he use drugs? Sure. As did the pitchers he faces in that era. But to try to credit that for all of his success to drug use is silly. People get better. Even as they get older. There are lots of things I can do now that I couldn't 20 years ago at what should have been my physical peak. Athletes are that way,
too.
You're downplaying the effect drugs had on Bonds. The guy walked 177 times in one of those years. Any pitch in the strike zone had a very high probability of being jacked out of the park.
Being a great player used to mean hitting .300 with more than 20 HR's, 90 to 100 RBI's and winning a gold glove. Bonds was a great player, but with drugs it was turned into a ridiculous exhibition. Credit for that is 100% on PED's.