More impressive milestone: Clemens or Bonds?

Question

Roger Clemens - 350 wins?
Barry Bonds - 756 HR?

I believe it is Roger's 350 wins. First of all, he didn't do it with steroids. Second, he had to pitch when a lot of baseball players were jacked up with steroids! To get to 350 wins would be very tough. What do you think?? Oh, here are two pictures---

1. Barry Bonds rookie card
2. Barry Bonds now

http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/03/Barry-Bonds-rookie-card.jpg
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040417/040417_barry_bonds_hmed_5p.h2.jpg

Those pictures are just to make a point. Anyways, who do you think has the more impressive milestone?

Answer 1

I just don't get how you can make all of these claims against Bonds and just assume Clemens never took any performance enhancing drugs. I don't like Bonds at all, but everyone is pretty much suspect at any point in time.

Answer 2

I don't know if I would try to conclude that Clemens had no involvement with Steroids, that may be pushing the boundries of common sense.

However, I will say as time moves on, winning is harder, hitting home runs is easier.

I am not sure (off hand) how many people are between 373 and 350, but I recall that 373 is the 3rd highest total in ML history.

That being said, even though we know at this point that Bonds did do something (trying to hush the grand jury leak with confidence instead of libel is a definitive indication of this), even without Steroids, 756 isn't as impressive in the 90's-2000's than it was with Aaron in the 50's-70's.

The average player hits 20 home runs now-a-days. Bonds average of 34 home runs per year is mere 85% better than the average player.
Hank Aaron hit 37 per hear when the average was around 12.

With games starting going down from the high 40's - low 50's in Cy Youngs time, to the 40's in Johnson's to the low-mid 30's in Clemens time, it's easy to see the path to 350 wins is more difficult.
We can't blame Clemens for baseball as a whole pitching 33-35 starts per year.

Clemens making it to 350 is a more phenomenal achievement.

Another note, if the home run rate comtinues to climb, even gradually, we will see a player break the 1000 home run mark.

It could be Arod, it could be Pujols. Howard's 58 home runs in his 2nd year (which would be a ML record for 2nd year players by the way) is awfully impressive. If he could avoid a sudden down turn early in his career the way Mark Teixiera has experienced it, he 'could' do it.

Answer 3

350 wins even though i am an outfielder pitchers cant play as long as the fielding players cuz of there shoulders, elbows, and all parts of there legs giving out on them during the end of there career. But even though 756 career home runs is a GREAT Rogers milestone is way better cuz hes been pitching for at least 20 years

Answer 4

Has to be Bonds, hands down, and I am not a fan of his. 748 homeruns, 513 stolen bases, 1.052 OPS, and 608 SLG, nobody is even close to these overall numbers. By the way, if he plays another year he could reach 3,000 hits and that is after he has had almost that many walks because pitchers won't pitch to him. Don't get me wrong, Clemens is in an elite group himself but his accomplishments don't come close to the monster created by Bonds. As a pitcher Clemens is great but compared to all other offensive numbers, put up by any other player ever in the history of baseball, Bonds is astounding.

Answer 5

Much as I hate Bonds, I'd have to go with him. No one has hit that many, while a number of players have done 350 wins, albiet not in 45 years. But a number have come close.. Maddux could get 350, Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, and Sutton all COULD have if they had been a little luckier. I can't think of anyone who could have hit as many home runs as Bonds, with the possible exception of Ken Griffey minus injuries. Maybe A-Rod will be up there in 5-10 years. But yeah, Barry used steriods to do it without a doubt and it does cheapen the accomplishment.

Answer 6

Clemens is the best pitcher of the post-war era. A few people come close, but he stands alone.


Bonds had essentially a few freak years surrounded by a career essentially equivalent to that of Hank Greenberg. That's not a bad thing, but if we don't trust his peak years (for obvious reasons) then he has no place in discussions of the greatest of all time, or even the greatest in the post-war era.

Answer 7

Who says he did it without steroids... if you believe he is clean then you are hopelessly naive. Cmon last year a 44 year old pitcher with an era in the twos is that a joke? His body has changed remarkably as well. Given this I would say Bonds Because he is actually taking the top spot in his category and with all the walks and people who pitched around him hell he could have reached 800 hr. But both these guys are losers because they used steroids. Dont let ESPN be all your knowledge think for yourself..

Answer 8

A pitchers job is 10 times harder then a hitters job. I love Barry and I know he is innocent, but Roger is a great picther. He can only get 1 win a game, while Bonds can get 2 or 3 home runs a game. Not to mention that Pitchers only pitch 2 games a week. And he can hold the other team to 1 run, but if he doesnt get any help from his team batter wise, then he still loses. Its much harder to get 350 wins then it is to get 756 home runs.

Answer 9

Roger's milestone because bonds is on steroids but Bug Seilg would never suspended bonds because all the fans would leave. Everybody noes he is on steroids just look at his head, it grew ten feet

Answer 10

i would like to say that both milestones are impressive. another thing is i don't think either of these guys did steroids, people can get big without roids. with that in mind, bonds' milestone is a little bit more impressive because he is actually taking the lead with his 756th hr.