Talk:Barry Bonds/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

even though this article is lengthy it lacks breadth and does not cover many topics such as: autographing sales, relations and views by the press, personal life, correlation of stats with drug use, charitable role, strategy in minimiziing errors in fielding, pirates career and workout ethic. for these reasons the article is also POV stressing only the sf giants stats Anlace 15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nearly nothing about Bonds's career with the Pittsburgh Pirates in this article. Any Pirates fans out there wanting to correct that? - Abisai

• Sure, the Pirates fans enjoy talking about having let Bonds get away, just like Twins fans enjoy talking about
  Wahkeenah
  11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed someone wrote that Bonds won Rookie of the Year in 1986. I fixed it to show that he did not in fact win that award and finished 6th in Rookie of the Year voting that season.

i removed the POV portion:

• "It has been suggested by some observers that Bonds' disdain for his fans, in conjunction with his behavior off the field, has negatively impacted his professional reputation (and, by extension, baseball's). This thesis is arguable, but the fact remains that much less was made of his record-breaking home-run streak than was made of McGwire's, and the 2002 World Series -- in which he was the star -- garnered the worst ratings of any World Series in the history of television."

This needs major work. Kingturtle 01:02 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is a phenomenon that should be discussed though. People are happy about Ruth, and to a somewhat lesser extent, McGwire, but generally seem to be much less happy about Bonds. --Delirium 11:26, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

This is not a racial issue at all. Compare the love people have for Kirby Puckett to the disdain they show for Barry Bonds. This is an issue of one being a great, positive person, vesus the other being a self-centered, lying boor.

Good agent he had. He was a good ballplayer and an outwardly garrulous guy. Great and positive are both a stretch. Or does the smoke and fire supposition only apply to "lying boors"?--Buckboard 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stretches or not, they are both the same race, and the point is the public in general embraced and loved Kirby and can't stand Barry. If you actually believe Barry isn't both a liar and a boor then you're hiding your head in the sand.

But you have to look at the steroid issue as a major contributor to why people are less happy about Barry Bonds. Although steroids have not been proven to be used by Bonds, there are allegations and these allegations tarnish his baseball reputation. As for Mark McGwire, he is also under scrutiny for the use of steroids and after the March 17th Congressional hearing in which he decided to "not talk about the past" people have also thought less of him. These are the major reasons on why people are less happy with Bonds and McGwire rather than Babe Ruth.J8J3B

Go back and read old Rick Reilly columns in Sports Illustrated pre-dating the steroid mess. He's been in the "people have also thought less of him" category--vehemently so--going back to his Pirates days.--Buckboard 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reason that the 2002 World Series got the worst ratings is probably due to the fact it was a battle between Anaheim and San Francisco, two California cities.Kwikstah

From an independent baseball fans point of view, I thought he was great with the Pirates, but after he became such a late bloomer with serious home run power right after McGwire/Sosa, with a huge increase in helmet size and body size, it certainly raised ethical questions with me.

McGwire is being kept out of the Hall of Fame because he's white. He has a negative public image now because of his race. See how silly this really sounds?

SF Chronicle ....if someone wants to incorporate it into this article. Kingturtle 02:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SAN FRANCISCO Mar 25, 2006 (AP)— A judge denied Barry Bonds' bid to block the authors and publishers from making money on a book claiming the San Francisco Giants slugger used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs, and said Bonds' suit against them has little chance of success. Bonds' attorneys argued that the authors, publisher Gotham Books, the San Francisco Chronicle and Sports Illustrated, which published excerpts of the book, should be held liable for publishing "illegally obtained grand jury transcripts."

there is no indication Bonds intends to challenge the assertions made in the book in court through a libel suit, only challenge the fact that the documents used as sources were obtained illegally. Anthonymendoza 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Substance Abuser... That is what bonds is... But you have to give him credit, since he was tested positive for steroids he has still hit homeruns, not as many, but he has hit some.

• He has NEVER tested positive for steroids. *Yes he has - Bonds failed amphetamine test in 2006 and originally blamed it on a teammate.
  Wahkeenah
  23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Baseball has not had a steroid testing program for too long. Never testing positive doesn't mean he never used them

No, but he didn't test positive this season, with testing, and still hit 26 home runs at age 42 in limited playing time. No other player has ever put up the numbers he did last year at his age. This article needs to mention that as well.

• Wrong again. He did test positive this season for amphetamines in 2006. But you can keep your defense of Barry, I have already figured out that you probably won't change your mind until you actually see barry shoot steriods into himself.

• Amphetamines are NOT steroids. Amphetamines are often used to keep you awake or fight off fatigue. You can think of it like caffeine or coffee, but more powerful. In fact Amphetamines were taken for many years (like the last 30 years or so) by many famous baseball players in the past. Yet nobody is complaining about their amphetamine "fueled" records. Its obvious that various posters have no idea what steroids are or are very confused and need to study more. Bonds has never tested positive for steroids.

The fact that Bonds has hit 26HRs at age 42 (and coming off of injury) and may hit over 30HRs at 43 is remarkable and a demonstration that he is a superior talented athlete.

i find it interesting that there are people calling for Bonds to be stripped of his awards, but none of those people are calling for Ken Caminiti to be stripped of his MVP. Kingturtle 17:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And no one's asking for players who took greenies in the 1960s to be kicked out of the game.

Or the HoF pitchers who threw shine balls, spit balls and scuff balls.

Or for Cal Ripken's streak to bear an asterisk because he had access to cortisone shots and Lou Gehrig didn't, or the pitchers who had previously-career-ending injuries repaired with Tommy John surgery to have their statistics capped at the point where they were injured...

Moral : If you're a superstar athlete, don't be a curmudgeonly, black, superstar athlete. -- GWO

Oh please, don't start with the race thing. It's old and if anything just perpetuates racial tension. Give it up. Besides, we all know that the beloved Hank Aaron is the all time home run king. If it's all about race why isn't anyone picking on this TRUE Black superstar athlete? Loomis51 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• If there is nothing wrong with Bonds taking steroids, why doesn't he admit he has??
• It is a more complicated issue than you are making it out to be. First of all, I have never heard anyone call for that. I have only heard calls for "asterisks", which is not new at all, see Maris (and even Ichiro, more recently). That being said, possibly the reason is that Caminiti is dead. Taking an award from a dead man would not look good for MLB. Also, remember that steroids, at that point in time, were NOT illegal in terms of MLB. Everyone forgets that. So really, you could argue much better that spitballer's stats/awards should be astrascized (?) than Bonds', Giambi's, Caminiti's, etc. Zellin 20:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone could make a reasonable argument that we should allow steroids in the game. The poster was just arguing against putting asterisks on records. Kwikstah
  • "We"? Congress's incorrect assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, MLB is a private organization and as such has every right to set its own rules without outside interference. Kurt Weber 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • Aside from Caminiti being dead, and the pseudo-legality of steroids in his time, the simple fact is that he didn't achieve anywhere near as much as Bonds. The reason you don't hear people "calling" for Caminiti to be stripped of his MVP is.... why would anyone use him as a talking point? People pay more attention to the controversy surronding Bonds' accomplishments because they are much more noteworthy - not because he is black. Also, GWO, there's a difference between a player who uses legal medical technology and a player that cheats. Ridiculous argument, not everything in this world is about race, don't try so hard to make it out to be.
      • While steriods were not "against the rules", per MLB guidelines, they need not have been, as they were, and are, a federally regulated controlled substance. The use, distribution, or dispensation of steroids is regulated per the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. In this case MLB did not even say that steroids were within the rules; they didn't say anything at all. Even if MLB had explicitly said the use of steroids were within the rules, it would still be a moot point. While it is true that MLB is a private organization, they do not have the right to set rules that contradict local, state or federal law. Even if state and local laws allowed for steroid use (which they don't), the federal law would trump them all(see the DEA's shameful prosecution of medical marijuana users if you need this substantiated).Levi P. 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonds has not been found guilty of steroid use - nor has be been indicted. There is only an article written by a newspaper that claims a source leaked grand jury information. Kingturtle 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a lifelong SF Giants fan (48 years) who saw Mays, McCovey, Marichal, Cepeda and even Felipe play in person (but not Bonds--have not been a Californian since 1965), I think factors other than race is in play regarding the steroid allegations. Bonds has long been held in scorn by many fans for his churlishness towards the media, and by media extension, the fans. The steroid mess is manna from heaven for the Barry haters. That he "brought it on himself" is inarguable--except that he long ago chose to "go his own way" and has stuck to it, despite enormous pressures to act like baseball's Michael Jordan. Secondly, a great deal of this feud is between Bonds and the SF Chronicle--which has its own axe to grind. Just some things to keep in mind when editting articles. The chips shall fall where they may.--Buckboard 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole racism idea is BS, and I'll tell you why. The reason people don't like Bonds is not because he's black, it's because he's really arrogant. People don't appreciate that, lets think back to 1998. Mark McGuire hit 70 homeruns, everyone loved him, was it because he's white? No, it's because he wasn't an arrogant jerk. Remember Sammy Sosa? He also his a lot of homeruns in 1998, and everyone loved him too. Was it because he was a dark-skinned latino? No, it's cause he wasn't an arrogant jerk.—The preceding

should there be a section in the main article about the brewing controversy as to whether Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. or is it too early for that? Anthonymendoza 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter how much Barry Bonds Make? whats the point if you can't say who in MLB took steriods in which is probably the majority why should certain players be singled out. Strip Mark Mac of his home Runs!

What's the point of removing the quotation marks around the first letter of every piece of trivia if we're just going to leave the trivia unchanged? It has clearly been doctored, as the first letter of each spells out "STEROIDS."

I am going to remove it. If someone would like to rewrite it in a fair way, feel free to put it back in, but for now it shouldn't be there.

Jwadeg 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the book "Game of Shadows" described as a "conspiracy theory" book? Even wiki states that this is widely regarded as having a negative connotation.

Because it is? That said, I agree that the phrase is POV and needs to be changed.--Buckboard 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be slanted towards Bonds having used steroids. Particularly the references to Game of Shadows. That book is a subject of a dispute. Some baseball fans think it is fact while others don't believe it, so it can't be quoted as fact here.

15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)~

While I agree with you that steroid allegations can't be quoted as fact, I disagree with some of the changes you've made to the article.

* The line "is notorious for his alleged involvement with performance enhancing drugs" is problematic (due to the word "notorious"), but a variant of it needs to be included in the lead section, as the lead section is supposed to be a brief form of the entire article.

* The section on being "tarred with negative notoriety" strikes me as perfectly reasonable. I don't see that as POV at all. In fact, the phrase "retroactive hostility" was an excellent one, in my opinion.

* To mention Game of Shadows as fact would be wrong (and the wording of the passage you deleted was poor). However, to not mention Game of Shadows at all is equally wrong.

* your removal of the "link spam" was a good one. Totally agree there.

Admission of the controvery doesn't qualify as being "slanted." Denial of controversy does. After your alterations, the steroid controversy is so invisible in the article that I would argue it now has a "didn't do steroids" slant. Jwadeg 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored much of what was removed, with some adjusments to the language to hopefully make it more neutral in its point of view. I'm still not comfortable with the section on "Game of Shadows," and think that the anonymous user is right that it is misleading (even in my rewritten form). But some inclusion of the book is necessary at this time, as it is such a hot issue. Jwadeg 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cacophony 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cacophony, I think the inclusion of Game of Shadows is fair. This section isn't reporting the contents of the book as verified facts, but merely reporting the existence of the book and what is inside. -DSZ

Does ballball really want to clean up its act? Are they afraid someone will lead the major league in homers with 38 dingers, a clear indication that steroids (and HGH) made a very real difference. I don't know why more individuals and experts are not asking ---"Why are they not?" akula1957

Blood tests for hGH are still in development - while hGH is on the IOC's banned substances list, there is still no approved test being used for it at present time. Either way, this isn't directly relevant to the Bonds entry. -Dan Szymborski

I'm not quite sure why you would argue that human growth hormone is not relevant to this article - Bonds has clearly been accused of taking HGH (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/07/sportsline/main1378997.shtml, for example).--Rkstafford 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the disclaimer that began "All information within this section is highly debated..." for several reasons. 1) It is factually incorrect, as there is very little info contained within the section that is disputed at all. The existence of the Grand Jury testimony is not in dispute. Barry Bond's reaction to the testimony is not in dispute; 2) the section is already, appropriately, under the heading "Controversy", so there is no need to further instruct the reader that the section is controversial. I was going to go on but think the fact that the section is factually incorrect, in addition to being redundant, suffices. Levi P. 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the rumored perjury charges be mentioned [1] or should we wait until if/when they are confirmed?Patken4 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added a small blurb about the potential charges. If they are too POV, feel free to change it as you see fit. Patken4 01:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the sections "2005 injury problems" and "2006 season his last?" are unnecessary.

"2005 injury problems," due to its size, gives a ridiculous amount of attention to his injury year. It's nearly as long as the "Resurgence" section, which deals with Bonds's five most productive seasons. I think that the section on 2005 should either be rewritten into a more general section on his recent troubles, or removed altogether. Devoting so much time to month by month updates on what was arguably Bonds's least eventful season seems pointless (March, May, August, and September updates are all given in the section).

"2006 season his last" just seems frivolous. It seems to me that any active baseball player's consideration of retirement should be dealt with in a line or two, not an entire section. Again, it could easily be collapsed into a rewritten section on his recent troubles. But it doesn't need its own heading.

Jwadeg 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Someone added 'he hates his kids' to the end of the "2007" article. Seemed slightly off topic so i removed it."

I dont see any discussion about the asterisk that has been placed by Bond's home run total. But if Major League Baseball doesn't have one, wikipedia shouldnt have one. I'm taking it off.

This really isn't anything we can measure objectively. Just stick to the facts, boring as that may seem (this is any encyclopedia, not an op-ed column).

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words Cacophony

00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Legacy section: "Bonds can easily be mentioned in any discussion of who is the greatest of all time, a short list that may only be six names deep (with Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Willie Mays). Any of the aforementioned players may have excelled beyond Bonds accomplishments in any single category (hitting, fielding, etc...) but when considering the total on-field contributions of a player for home runs, hits, stolen bases, walks, fielding, Bonds is arguably the best ever. Bonds is the greatest left handed batter of his time. Unfortunately, new controversies regarding his accomplishments have arisen; these threaten to give him an entirely different legacy than his numbers would suggest." I think this badly needs to be cleaned up for POV, and if there's any source for that "top 6 of all time" that needs to be cited, because I'm sure a lot of people could argue other names that should be on that list. --Maelwys 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can he pitch too? Didn't think so.

"Statistically speaking, Bonds (along with Babe Ruth and Ted Williams) is typically regarded as one of the top three hitters in the history of the game." This really isnt true and should be changed. Bonds is a career .300 hitter which is nowhere near "top 3" territory. Ruth and Williams, for example, are both .344 career hitters. Bonds is one of the best POWER hitters ever (depending on the whole steriod thing) but one of the best HITTERs ever, not even close.

The best measure of hitting skill isn't batting average its on base percentage were Bonds ranks 6th all time. The only people ahead of him on the list played during the color barrier which is at the least just as big an asterick as steroids if not more. Bonds is clearly one of the greatest if not the greatest hitter of all time.

Did he get to play in a league that didn't let people outside of his own race play?

Didn't think so

OBP is hardly the end all be all of hitting. But even if it was, you just pointed out that he is 6th all time. Which of course contradicts the statement in the article that he is often regarded as top 3 all time. Also, by mentioning Ted Williams its pretty clear that the originaly author was reffering to pure hitting ability, as Williams is renown for being a fantastic all around hitter. Bonds isnt a fantastic all around hitter. In fact he isnt even the best int he game right now (Pujols and Ichiro are outclass him in that, just to name a few) so to say he is regarded as one of the best hitters of all time isnt really accurate. Power Hitter, definatly. But as a hitter in general, he isnt anything all that special (relativly speaking).

What should be regarded as the end-all-be-all of hitting is OBPS, and I think you will find that Bonds ranks rather well in that category (4th All-time behind Ruth, Williams and Gherig). You will also find that Bonds ranks 2nd all-time in runs created, behind only Ruth. Furthermore, the man ranks among As long as it can be argued that Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of all time, why shouldn't that be included in his legacy section?

Someone edited the page and put up pictures that had nothing to do with Barry Bonds. I put up an editing block. CubsFan2006 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the future, please revert to the correct version, and then edit the page. —Viriditas | Talk 22:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just put in a request at

WP:RPP. —Viriditas | Talk

22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

CubsFan - just so you know, only Administrators should place an editing block. Please refer to

policy. --mtz206

17:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not simply add unsourced material back in. Find a source first. Simishag 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what's going on in this paragraph?

In a 2005 interview with MLB.com, Bonds stated that he could play into 2007 if he remains healthy and if he is close to Aaron's 755 homeruns, although he also noted that he might retire before then if he is able to win a World Series title. [[2]

First of all, where's this first interview? Second of all, when did it occur? The second part has a citation of an article from 06/23/2005. When in 2005 did the first interview occur? Metros232 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, nevermind, it was fixed now. Metros232 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The final paragraph under the Balco Scandal has no business being in an encyclopedic source. Bonds' statistics are already on the page in the proper section and the years of likely steroid use are also in the proper section. Deciding which of the steroids years are "fully juiced" (whatever that means) and then adding the statistic for those years together constitutes original research. This paragraph should be deleted.

--DSZ 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

JDG is continually reverting to include a paragraph that has no business being in an encyclopedia entry. Barry Bonds' stats are on record on the page, as are the differing accounts of his steroid use. There's no reason for stats from 2000-2004 to be added together as a seperate point as it is pure speculation, not to mention vague (what is fully juiced? was he partially juiced before and after? slightly juiced? mostly juiced?). The article itself doesn't even agree, containing accounts that Bonds was using in 1999, which is not included in JDG's original research and there's nothing sourced that would indicate an endpoint of this subset of seasons. How does the community feel about this?--DSZ 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I removed 2 paragraphs (see [3]) on the grounds that they were uncited and constituted original research. JDG restored those edits (see [4]) a few hours later, along with the edit comment "anymore pro-Bonds pov deletions and I petition for page freeze." While that comment doesn't rise to the level of a threat, to me it indicates an unwillingness to compromise on this issue, as does the fact that JDG keeps adding this content back in. The collection of data about the purported "juiced," "fully juiced" and/or "non-juiced" years smells like

WP:OR to me: a new, statistical synthesis clearly aimed at proving steroid use by comparing numbers during the periods in question. At the very least, it needs to be cited, and even then I don't think it belongs unless Bonds' injuries are discussed as well (which, incidentally, seems to me a lot better circumstantial evidence than on-field performance). Simishag

04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dan Szymborski and Simishag have a skewed view of what "Original Research" is meant to express in Wikipedia guidelines. There is no rule against taking agreed-upon facts and linking them in plain ways to give the reader a clear view of the controversy. The paragraph of mine they keep deleting is not even an original expression of these facts and their implications-- it is simply a clear distillation of what many sports writers, other journalists and millions of baseball aficionados have put together by themselves. In seeking to supress this clear description of the matter at hand they are in effect pursuing a course of POV editing in undue favor of Mr. Bonds' contentions... Sadly I am quite ill and can't keep monitoring this page, and I don't foresee bringing these two editors to mediation. Perhaps one or two other fair-minded editors will take up the cause (and by "fair-minded" I do not mean "anti-Bonds", I mean "pro-honesty" and "pro-clarity"). JDG 04:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule about taking agreed-upon facts, but this subset of years is not agreed upon. What is the source for "1999-2004" being Bonds' fully-juiced years? Why not 1998-2003? Or 1999-2006? There's no generally agreed-upon date for the start of his steroid use or for the ending (if ever) of his steroid use. So what does it add to what an encyclopedia entry? The facts of his steroid use and statistics are outlined in the article. I find you bringing up the "anti/pro-bonds" stuff to be quite puzzling - your paragraph hasn't been deleted multiple times by different people because it's Anti-Bonds but because it's not suitable as-written for an encylopedia. DSZ 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a rule against precisely that. Examine

WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F a bit more closely, in particular bullet points 5 and 6. Note also the requirement for citing sources in both of those points, which you have not addressed. You claim that these are "plain" and "clear" conclusions, but I disagree. A statistical analysis of Bonds' career, which purports to show that Bonds was a better player while "juiced," is not the kind of thing that can be done in 1 or 2 paragraphs without resorting to external sources. There are any number of other variables which need to be accounted for, and any number of counter-arguments to your analysis, which is why we don't do that sort of thing here. Incidentally, I've been through similar arguments recently on NBA player pages, in which a user, who was clearly a fan with an agenda, has added data that, while factual, is presented in an obviously biased way. Simishag

04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The obvious thing that user needs to do is to find a source that says the same thing. Maybe the recent book about Bonds, et al., would be a good place to quote from.

Wahkeenah

04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

--DSZ 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's too much detail for the lead anyway. The lead should mention that Bonds is at the center of a scandal, but it should not go into salacious details. Simishag 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bonds' may be indicted within week SAN FRANCISCO - Barry Bonds' legal team is preparing for the San Francisco slugger to be indicted as soon as next week and has begun plotting his defense. Attorney Laura Enos told The Associated Press on Friday that Bonds, second on the career home run list, could be charged with tax evasion and perjury.[5]Anthonymendoza 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's all a conspiracy.
  Wahkeenah
  15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's not.

I removed it. The "please note" that Bonds hasn't actually been indicted is POV, and unnecessary as it makes it clear in the paragraph above that he hasn't been indicted. There doesn't seem to be any need to "remind" readers that he hasn't been convicted of anything. Also, the line about the lead prosecutor potentially leaking information doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not Bonds perjured himself or commited tax fraud; seems to be in there as just a knock on the prosecutor. I think the line about the alleged girlfriend could stay, but as it stood there was no source to support it. Oh, and in a minor edit, I changed the tag for "US Attorney's Office" because it was linking to the US District Court page.JCO312 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

These events have lead some to questions the MLB's motives in regards to this issue. Specifically, some feel that the MLB is hoping an indictment of Bonds would shift attention a way from what many believe is the rampant abuse of steroids and other illegal performance enhancing substances in Major League Baseball.

this paragraph makes no sense, besides being blatantly POV. MLB has nothing to do with the ongoing investigation. and how would an indictment "shift attention away" from the steroids issue, since if Bonds is charged with perjury, it would be for lying to a grand jury about using steroids. wouldn't an indictment further bolster the impending report by George Mitchell? this paragraph should be removed. does anyone disagree?Anthonymendoza 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think this is speculation and should be removed. It's certainly unsourced, not to be illogical - I would think that MLB would be much happier if this all just quietly went away, like various amphetamine and cocaine bombshells in the past. DSZ

I created this template Template:Barryhr. Since the number of his home runs appear in several differnt articles you only need 1 edit every time he hits a home run.--Coasttocoast 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

cool! ....except you will also have to figure out a way to make statyear= change with it. Kingturtle 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

god willing he doesnt hit another.

You forgot the *

Ok theres about 15 different places where I inserted this template, including 4 in this article. So instead of edit something 15 times every time he hits a hr, we can just edit the template and it will get updated in all the articles.--Coasttocoast 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

there has been some recent changing of the intro regarding barry bonds' status as one of the top 3 hitters of all time. i believe its generally accepted that ruth, williams and bonds are the 3 best but some people like to edit in other hitters. we should reach a consensus and people's thoughts on the matter should be listed below. --Bucsrsafe 17:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• When Bonds averages over .400 during a stretch of his career, like Hornsby did, then you can argue for putting him in the top 3 or 4.
  Wahkeenah
  18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a saber-geek here, but valuing batting average over slugging percentage is POV. I don't think it's arguable that Bonds is one of the best power hitters of all time, but as to what makes the best overall hitter ... unless you think the term "hitter" immediately connotes "for average", which I wouldn't necessarily say is the case. Woodshed 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the average, he smacked lots of home runs as well. And Ted Williams learned from him, so he apparently had something going for him. The fact is, you can't really rank them purely statistically, because there are other factors. And saying definitively that someone is in the "top 3" is too close to call. Top 10, top 20, maybe.

Wahkeenah

20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ok guys, my turn to chime in. bonds has it all, as does ruth and williams. they were power hitters and could hit for average too. bonds is a .300 hitter for his whole career. this hornsby guy was good but he didnt hit that many home runs. at the end of the day, statistically speaking ruth, williams and bonds are the top 3. how many mvps did hornsby win, was it 7? i think we could change the intro to saying statistically speaking that bonds, ruth and williams are the 3 best, but putting in "pure base hit" men like hornsby and cobb is just rubbish. these 3 and maybe aaron stand above all else as overall hitters in that they could do everything. thoughts? --Bucsrsafe 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing for your personal viewpoint in the article, which is against wiki policy the last time I checked (the flip side of the guy who insisted on correlating Bonds' years of suspected steroid use with his stats). Hornsby wasn't just a "pure base hit" guy like Cobb was, he was a one-man wrecking crew, the closest thing the National League had to Ruth.

Ruth i believe has 7 mvp's Crazymotherfunk 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, just one: 1923. See
  MLB Most Valuable Player Award. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆
  14:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Grandizer5 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This page needs serious cleaning-up. Citing the minutae of Barry's stats (while impressive) in the body article isn't necessary. There's a table at the end of the page for that. Plus, we don't do it for any other player, why Barry? Plus the tone is excessively laudatory and slightly POV.The Invisible Man 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hence the attempt by some user(s) to try to declare him one of the top 3 hitters of all time.
  Wahkeenah
  19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite correct Wahkeenah. And before anybody starts accusing me, I've got nothing against Barry personally (actually I've always been a fan), but cramming the stats into the body of the article not only makes it difficult to read, it makes it look sloppy. The table on Barry's stats at the end of the article pretty much covers everything we need know.The Invisible Man 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree completely. I find it surprising that it covers his career so closely, but doesn't even mention personal details, like the fact that his father was a MLB player too (Bobby Bonds). Or if it does mention it, it's buried in the morass of stats and I couldn't find it- usually that sort of info is presented at the beginning of the article. --DarthBinky 15:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm on this page also, but I think it might be futile at the moment. I've been watching for the last two days while people add the same trivial facts over and over again, and some of them in several places. Things like HR #733 was hit off such-and-such pitcher to tie the NL record, and then 734 was hit... blah blah. Why not another separate article for "list of Barry Bonds' career home runs"? (That's half-sarcastic.) Isn't there a WP: standard that begs you to ask the question "who's going to care in ten years?" On an unrelated topic, I notice that under "teams", Barry's infobox doesn't list the Giants. I dare say either this needs added, or the infobox needs changed to read "PRIOR teams". -- dakern74 (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • He doesn't play for the Giants, the Giants play for him.
        Wahkeenah
        04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, of course. My bad. Maybe we should include that fact but with, oh I don't know, say, an asterisk of some type. -- dakern74 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole artcile seems like hagiograhy. Time will out the facts. TrulyTory 12:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Saint Barry. King of the Juice. The Immaculate Deception. etc.

Wahkeenah

13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How the hell could someone that has never tested positive in his excellent playing career, be on steroids. It makes no sense to hide it for this long. Tigersfan1992 04:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, the Steroids Barry took were designed to be UNDETECTABLE given the current tests. Furthermore, baseball only recently started testing for steroids and it's no coincidence that Barry Bond's body has completely fallen apart since baseball started testing.

And he'll never tell, nor will his supplier, who is willing to risk jail time for contempt of court rather than spill the beans on Barry.

Wahkeenah

05:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

even if barry did use steroids, is it such a big deal? steroids dont make you more talented at baseball, they make you hit the ball further, barry certainly had no problem hitting long balls in the mid 90's either. maybe steroids meant a few more landed in mccovey cove but the man would be one of the greatest hitters of all time, steroids or no steroids. steroids dont make you hit better for average either, because you take steroids, it doesnt mean you can get singles easier, he battled .370 in 2002, an amazing achievement. he might have taken steroids but he was still strong enough to hit a huge number of home runs anyway, people talk about it like he would have been rubbish if it werent for the supposed steroids he took. even if he did take them, it doesnt make you a better ball player, it means you can hit it harder and further, so a few more long balls into the cove for the canoists to chase, those balls would have been homers with or without steroids, it doesnt make a difference. greatest hitter of all time, most feared hitter of all time, most prolific hitter of all time, one of the best all around players of all time, all those accolades belong to #25 of the giants, no question. --Bucsrsafe 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• For one thing, it's against the rules. For another, it's dangerous and allowing it encourages others to engage in dangerous behavior. Also, it doesn't just help with the long ball, it helps a player "feel better" all season... like a addictive drug, right up until the time it all crashes, which we're starting to see with Barry now.
  Wahkeenah
  17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

well it wasnt against the rules before 2003 actually, mlb didnt ban steroids. it might help a player recover quicker but it doesnt make players more talented, barry bonds is a special ball player, always has been and always will be, it just doesnt matter, all this backlash against him is just jealousy and because people dont like the man anyway because of his persona. its funny how mlb refuse to acknowledge him passing ruth, yet they were loving it when sosa, bonds and mcgwire were whacking homers and bringing fans back to a sport in which interest was declining. barry is not doing well now because the man is 43, who was the last ball player that you saw could still be among the best at 43? thought as much, there isnt really one. to be fair the man is still batting 250 and has had 17 homers and 50 rbi's, thats not an awful season, his knees are giving in, yet he can still play the game. the man is a true legend, anyone who says against that is just misguided. steroids can only do so much and help power mainly. mcgwire is a prime example, he was a pure power hitter who was obviously beefed up on steroids. he couldnt hit for average like bonds can do or defend like bonds could do. steroids didnt make him better in either of those fields, baseball isnt just about home runs like people who are anti-barry seem to think it is. --Bucsrsafe 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

actually it was against the rules. Players are prohibited to take illegal drugs. Barry Bonds was taking illegal drugs. He was breaking the law.

Also if steroids warrents an asterick, then babe ruth deserves one as well because he didn't have to compete all of the best players due to the color barrier.

You all need to start signing your posts to keep them separate. Use 4 tildes to do that. Bonds has never been proven to have taken steroids or any other illegal substances. FYI, I am NOT a Bonds supporter. He comes across as a jerk, which is just my personal opinion, and is probably a cheater, which has NOT been proven.

Guys, this discussion is getting a little off point. We're not here to judge what Bonds did or what Bonds didn't do but to maintain an encylopedia entry. Things such as the in-game legality of steroid use prior to the change in the CBA (for example, the Howe and Hoyt cases pretty clearly established what MLB could and could not do - the drugs banned and the punishments had to be specifically negotiated into the CBA - just being illegal wasn't enough to allow MLB to take action) that aren't specific to Bonds really don't belong here. Of course, I just broke that rule, too!DSZ 04:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is just venting. The problem comes when certain users start putting stuff in the article asserting that Bonds is or was a steroid user, which so far remains suspected by many, but proven by none.

Didn't Bonds testify that he took steroids "unkowingly" in his grand jury testimony? 128.6.78.50 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Grand jury testimony is secret. Were you there?

Wahkeenah

17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was leaked, and he didn't deny his statements. There's a reason his trainer refuses to say anything, including that Barry never took steroids. He doesn't want to incriminate himself further and by saying Bonds didn't take steroids, he would likely have gotten more time for perjury. Please don't be ignorant. No human being peaks athletically at age 40.

• You should sign your posts, with 4 tildes (~). The fact that it was leaked means it is inherently unverifiable, since the "leaker" could have made it up. Refusing to talk is not proof of guilt. And you're probably right about all of this. But unless there is actual evidence, the article can't make the claim that he's a steroid user.
  Wahkeenah
  23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any claims or edits to the article. I was just stating a standpoint in the discussion forum. 128.6.78.50 17:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Steroids are illegal without a prescription in the United States. What does it matter whether baseball makes them illegal or not. They are still illegal.

Regardless of steriods or not, this guy is good. And really who cares, professional sports are entertainers. Get some bigger muscle so you can hit the long ball, it makes it more exciting. But that doesn't mean it'll make him see better to hit the dang ball. If thats the case, everyone be taking it.

I think most everyone agrees Bonds is very good, and Bonds probably cheated. Beyond that, there is much we don't know and never will know. The article reflects this. We don't need to bicker about whether cheating is right or not (which is a silly) or whether Bonds would have been a great player without steroids or not. Celedor15 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that Barry Bonds appeared in Backyard Baseball 2001 and Backyard Baseball 2003? I have been playing the

There is a Barry Street located near the world's first oil refinery in Bradford, Pennsylvania. Most people have some interest in the place, and Mr. Bonds is probably no exception. 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) beadtot

"However, some are questioning whether or not this is a true NL home run record because of interleague play." User:SamtheBravesFan 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many more than that are questioning the legitimacy of the home runs. However, the call is Major League Baseball's, not ours, and MLB regards (1) player statistics as belonging to the league the team is defined to be "in", regardless of interleague play; and (2) every one of Bonds' home runs to be legitimate, as he has never failed a steroids test. That's not to argue that both points will remain so forever.
  Wahkeenah
  17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A few reminders (as I see them). This talk page is only for discussing the article and not necessarily everything about Barry Bonds. There's no objective way to rank Barry Bonds among the all-time best hitters of the game. Which stats you chose and what weight you give to them depends on personal opinion. It's a bit like asking who the best-looking hitter in history is. You could look at things like height, weight, distance between the eyes (sorry bizarre example) but when it comes down to it you're left with someone's opinion, even if it is the opinion of more than one person.

FWIW Bonds has never tested positive for steroids. Mglovesfun 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right on all counts.

Wahkeenah

23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no section on Early Life here? I could have sworn before there was info about his high school days at Junipero Serra in San Mateo and more detail on his college years. Also there is little mention of his father.

• Feel free to improve on that situation.
  Wahkeenah
  20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the times on base record in the other records subsection official? The given total seems to be lacking. Does reaching by error or fielders choice count as a time on base?TonyTheTiger 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe not. Reaching on errors and fielders choices are both treated as failure to reach base in batting average and on-base percentage calculations. If you were measuring some sort of "absolute" streak of times on base you might count them, but such a record would be unofficial, I think. Zakath 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think the proper term should be reached base safely not times on base despite the popular On Base Percentage term.TonyTheTiger 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be added, any opinions? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Bonds&oldid=80149811

This has led to allegations of racism [6] among the media due to preferential treatment of Jason Giambi (who is white) who admitted to knowingly using Steriods [7].

GrandWizard 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As the one who removed this the first time, I should say that I don't mind the mention about Giambi all that much. My real objection was adding the fact that Bonds is black to the very first sentence of the article. I don't think that adds any value, and might be likely to stir up more controversy, at least among editors. If it could be mentioned down in the same section in the same way ("Bonds (who is black) yadda yadda Giambi (who is white)"), then I think it's a valid addition. Either way, thanks for checking here and attempting to build consensus before just starting an edit war. A refreshing change. -- dakern74 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth including, but we need an actual allegation of racism over this issue. The first link GrandWizard provided (San Diego Tribune) never mentions Giambi; it's about Bonds' statement that Boston was a racist city. The second link also doesn't support the allegation of racism. If we can source it though, then I'd say put it in. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegation of racism provided here ..

Victim of Racism http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2392019 I don't believe that Balco should be included in the first paragraph, but since it is, vicimization may very well be necessary as well. In terms of him being black, I believe that it is as important to list him as an African American athlete, just as Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson are black, and Jim Thorpse is native american. GrandWizard 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. Just make sure that whatever you add (you should do the honors) indicates that Torii Hunter, a centerfielder for the Minnesota Twins and a contemporary of Bonds, is the one who raised the allegation (rather than a vague "some believe" type of phrasing). Good work. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

feel free to add in the Torii Hunter to the part of the sentence. You could also substitute Mr Hunter for Dave Stewert whom was a baseball star. GrandWizard 03:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I took out the link to the San Diego Trib (Bonds saying Boston was a racist city), and a link that pointed to reader comments on Bonds' treatment. I also converted the two remaining links to {{cite news}}. Looks good right now. Ultimately, that graf probably should leave the intro for the Controversy section. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe we should start putting additional references or articles concerning Bonds and the controversy surrounding him. Such as the article

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/02/MNG80A523H1.DTL

I also find it very unusual that the Jason Giambi article barely touch's on Balco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Giambi#BALCO_Scandal . Even Mark McGwire has a short controversy section in comparison to Bonds. Irony?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McGwire GrandWizard 05:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Giambi article, at a quick glance, is a mess. I saw a lot of

original research in there. I'm going to stick with this article for a while until we clean some of it up. As for the link you included, what does that article tell us that isn't currently cited in the article? It appears to be much more about Giambi (and would make a nice citation in his article) than about Bonds. What did you see there that you thought was new? | Mr. Darcy talk

05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Greg Anderson is going back to jail. will he serve a year in prison or testify? 74.140.208.88 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for information on the "U.S." nickname, but didn't find any. —The preceding

When was the change made for it to say "Former Teams" for the team info...its on every baseball player page and I think it's AWFUL. It should have never changed...if a player is on a team current I think it should still say (2005 - Present) or whatever year they joined...I can just see SO much confusion on years people arrived (with the whole trading thing...or arriving to play the year after) and i just think it was a terrible change. So yeah...when was this made? :( ChopAtwa 09:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a small section for Game of Shadows due to its importance in the Bonds history for a couple of reasons: it needs one due to its importance, the SI cover in the article only passes fair use criteria if it depicts the issue's mention in the article, and it seemed odd to reference a totally obscure book (Love Me, Hate Me) and not the more famous one.

Someone posted a question on the help desk about the number of succession boxes on this page, and I agree it's unusual. Of course we're dealing with an unusual athlete here, so I'd merely suggest that a list of his awards be made with links to the relevant awards (e.g. Player of the Month), where users can easily search for their sportsmen and find more info (eg the players who got the award in the two previous months). Xiner (talk, email) 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it me or does it seem like every spring training he sounds even more gay? —The preceding

I fourth that.70.240.148.161 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)GoldenIrish

Just compare his rookie year pictures to his current pictures. That can't ALL be because he "works out alot". The man is a steroid abuser and a cheater, plain and simple. Jmlk17 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a messageboard, it is an encyclopedia. The whole point of the discussion page is to discuss how to make the article better not write trivial gossip and banter.--Hndsmepete 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard that Barry and Reggie are related and I am an avid baseball fan. I am fairly certain they are not first cousins. Distant cousins?

Check [8] —siroχo 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All the other sources say they are distant cousins, including this one with quotes from Reggie Jackson - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070707/sp_nm/baseball_yankees_bonds_dc If they were first cousins, we'd be hearing all about it right now, and we're not. Celedor15 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently came to the entry to learn about Barry Bonds, a baseball player and find myself in a completely unsane series of off-the-wall discussions in the talk section designed to further certain POV instead of trying to get away from POV itself - I was wondering if this is the regular stuff of discourse 'twixt wannabe editors who won't accept the notions of neutrality, etc. in their contributions?

For example, the spam sort of edit ("son of Gary Coleman" - "gay stripper") got eliminated minutes after its placement and that's encouraging - BUT the business about "3 greatest hitters..." keeps being tinkered with unsuccessfully as the editors mistake a prohibition on POV for a call to simply amend (or simply re-insert) blatant POV violations.

69.19.14.22 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Under accomplishments, under the number of MVPs, there is this paragraph about how Ruth got robbed and could've won five MVPs in a row possibly. It seems it only exists to say Ruth was better than Bonds. Maybe this would belong on Ruth's page, but not here, I feel. Unless someone can give a major reason it belongs on Bonds' list of accomplishments, I say everything after about the second sentence of it goes. Truce m3 12:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Its says in this article that steroids were not outlawed by baseball.

"The steroids he is accused of taking were not outlawed by baseball at the time he allegedly took them;"

Thats not entirely true. Steroids were added to the banned substances list in 1991 by then commisioner Fay Vincent. He sent out a memo to all owners outlining it. That memo was then re-circulated by Bud Selig in 1997. They were against the rules of baseball, baseball just didnt test for them until 2003 because they couldnt reach an agreement with the players union. And without an agreement with the players union any testing would be impossible.

You can read aforementioned memo's here; http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm

I followed the reference for the following:

In a 2005 interview with MLB.com, Bonds stated that he planned to play in 2007 if he remains healthy and if he is close to Aaron's 755 home runs, although he also noted that he might retire before then if he is able to win a World Series title ^{[citation needed]}. ^[1]

But I couldn't find anywhere where Bonds said he'd retire if he won a series, so I removed that part of the sentence. Feel free to re-add if you can source this information! Audiodude 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the 'Major League Career' section read "In 1986, Bonds finished 6th in Rookie of the Year voting, hitting 5 home runs and stealing 7 and 1/3 bases. He hit 10 home runs in his sophomore season, along with 3 and 4/50 stolen bases and 9 RBIs." These statistics are way off, according to the Baseball Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=bondsba01). I'm changing them to what they should be. biggins 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulking up is one thing, but no one's skull keeps growing past around age 18. Someone should post a timeline of pictures with this mans head to show what doing roids does to you.

No, they shouldn't. MLB has the most strenuous testing policy in sports and Bonds has never tested positive. The only "proof" that he took steroids is an alleged grand jury leak. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Faithlessthewonderboy 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Under the MLBPA section it mentions Barry Bonds' "Alias'", if you will in video games due to the fact that he is not a part of the MLBPA. In one part it says his name for "All-Star Baseball 2006". This is clearly a false statement because Acclaim (makers of the ASB franchise) were forced to stop making the franchise after ASB '05 due to bankruptcy. I forget what the name was, but regaurdless, it should be noted.

you might like to mention that he became the first national league player to get 40 and 40 and the second person in history..........

Msjayhawk 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Holds record for single season on-base percentage with a .609 average, slugging .863, and walks 232.

Msjayhawk 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It says he's trailling Julio Lugo by four runs, instead of the correct Hank Aaron.

If you're going to lock the page, maintain the basic intelligence to keep TRACK OF THE F**KING PAGE. Change it.

There's also a "most womanlike voice" comment that, although hilarious, is incorrect.

Seriously, if you people are going to LOCK the page, instead of keeping the page open and letting people do what they do, at least make the smallest effort to see what it has become. Otherwise, open it back up.

The community should be ashamed of itself for letting this page get to this point. This is embarrassing. Kids use this page and pages like it to get information on their favorite people and baseball players. Whoever is responsible should be ashamed. Please fix the content ASAP. Pathetic. beach 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Barry Bonds is nothing but a Prima donna. The man is a joke. Just look at the way he carries himself. He is a clown, always making faces and his mouth always open. He's a typical fool.

He played for the Prince WILLIAM Pirates, not Prince Island

I'm pretty sure Barry doesn't live "in San Francisco with his wife and son 'Tim'...".

After the commissioner's office rejected Bonds' one-year, $15.8 million deal because it contained a personal-appearance provision, the team sent revised documents to his agent, Jeff Borris. Who stated that "At this time, Barry is not signing the new documents."[

I find it interesting that the pages are so narrowly focused on Major League baseball...there ARE others that play baseball, after all, beyond the US. Bonds might break the US career home run record...but that isn't the WORLD career record.

If you took the time to even read then you would've saw that the records are all referred as an MLB record. The pages focus on Major League Baseball because Bonds is a player in the MLB. The US record IS the World record, because the fields are much smaller in Japan & the Japanese record is always being disputed because of that.

Actually, no they aren't. It says world record. And the US record being the world record is YOUR opinion. 'Always being disputed' means there is no consensus.

There is a reason that the best players from around the world come to the US to play in Major League Baseball. With all due respect to Sadaharu Oh, MLB are the only records that matter. Faithlessthewonderboy 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro, mostly by moving things to other sections. The old intro was too long, causing vital information (like the BALCO scandal) to be buried deep in the intro after a litany of statistics that really can be summarized with "great player." The new intro functions much better in terms of

I have reverted the introduction back to the long-standing version. I think that there needs to be some consultation among users before the intro is changed so radically, rather than a "revert-war" starting. I think that the intro is a little wordy, but it is also important to show that Bonds is held so highly in terms of simply statistics, for some, he is statistically the greatest player of all time and this has to be established in the opening part of the article. Before sweeping changes are made, they need to be discussed. Bucsrsafe 11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This can be established without the inclusion of every statistic. The point of the intro is to quickly cover the major aspects of the subject. For Bonds, this means basic biographic information, a note that he holds many impressive records with mention of his most famous (his home runs), and the BALCO scandal. To put the mass of statistics in the intro is unnecessary - such material should be covered in the body of the article, and only briefly summarized in the intro (See

Phil Sandifer

12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this article for intro/main text balance. The introduction of an article is not the main text of it. It is a summary, designed to overview and encapsulate the subject for a new reader. I would agree with a consensus that there is a section on achievements -- the intro merely needs to say he has many achievements, mention one or two of the biggest. Detailed stats are not a sensible intro matter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly and vociferously that the intro is much better short and sweet, and on the grounds of