IMO Griffeys downfall was one of the worst things to happen to baseball in my generation. After the steroid era and a tainted HR king, would have been great for the sport if a clean superstar could have passed Aaron
The steroid era imo ruined the historical importance behind the achievement of hitting 500 HR's..... It would be good for baseball if someone broke Bonds' mark clean.......the way Aaron wanted to go down. Eclipsing Aaron was pretty much handed to Griffey on a silver platter......but that shipped sailed after series of injuries after joining the Reds.
If this discussion took place in the pre-steroid era......the 500 HR mark and 3,000 hits would be 50-50 in my book. I remember the McGwire-Sosa HR chase in '98 was a big cultural phenomenon......it became bigger than the sport itself. But you'll never see that kind of interest in the record again.....unless a clean player can stay as consistent as Bonds was through his 40's to break his record. When Bonds hit 73 HR's in 2001....that was his only season where he hit at least 50 in one season.
JJ, you know baseball is all about the numbers. No way in hell should the record books be erased. If Selig even whispers that he better be clinging to life on his death bed.
If you want to keep saying 500 home runs is the standard then 600 home runs is super impressive...and super rare.
All the arguments that half of those in the 600 club are juicers..completely makes your case for saying 3000 hits as the more impressive achievement irrelevant. Both are great achievements, without a doubt. However, 3000 bloopers are far less impressive than 600 long balls, IMO. Again, while we argue all of this..its all based on our opinion. No one is more right than wrong in this. I'll stand by 600 HRs being a bit more impressive than 3000 hits anyday. Even if you want to take the steroid users out of it.
