As far as the Bond's situation,it can and will be debated for years.I don't mind discussing it,as long as it doesn't turn into some pissing contest,bitch fest. That being said,I'll offer up my take....
It seems like a tale of two eras in baseball. The late 50s, 60s and early 70s were the golden days of baseball,IMO.The AL had Mantle, Yaz, Killebrew, Kaline, Cash, Colavito, Oliva, Carew and so on.Pitchers? Oh, just some hackers named Koufax, Drysdale, Gibson, Seaver, Marichal, McDowell, Lolich, Tiant, Palmer.Do you realize that in one year--1969 or 1970 I think--the entire 4 man rotation for the Orioles were 20 game winners? Palmer, McNally, Dobson and Cuellar. Now you don't have four 20 game winners in the whole league--maybe not in both leagues.Remember Denny McLain--the last 30 game winner any of us will ever see. You might see another .400 hitter, someone might hit 90 HRs, but no pitcher today gets enough starts to win 30. Especially with the five man rotation,strict/rigid pitch counts etc. Not to mention the fact that years ago,both pitchers and hitters,didn't have the likes of Tampa Bay,Florida, Montreal/Wash etc to pad their average and lower their ERA.
I guess what I'm getting at,is how would today's sluggers have done in that era?Guys like Bonds,A rod,Manny,Pujols etc...
Like I said,seems like a tale of two eras in the game...