Quote:
Originally posted by mbn007+Feb 18 2004, 09:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mbn007 @ Feb 18 2004, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by -Maxman@Feb 18 2004, 01:27 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--TomShane
|
Quote:
@Feb 17 2004, 10:36 PM
LOL! Somebody is going to lead the league in homers next year with a whopping 42, just like in the pre-juice stage.
Give my Mets credit though. They suck, but they suck ALL NATURALLY!!!!!
|
Players can get large enough without Roids that I think 50 will be a common occurence. But I do see your point and I certainly welcome it. This whole era is embarrasing and it reaks of ********* in the record books.
I hope that Bonds' testicle's explode before he breaks Hank's record. Hank did it the old fashioned way...never hit 50 in a season.
Graig Nettles once led the league with 32 home runs.
Not to sound like an old man...but when the league leader had 32, that is when home runs actually meant something. Plus movies only cost a quarter. And the milk was delivered to the house. But all of my kids look like the milk man, so maybe things are better today.
|
Hold on..
Nettles led the league in 1976, I believe, with the aforementioned 32 HR's. But movies were still a few bucks even then, not a quarter.
[/b][/quote]
You are right the year was 1976. And they weren't so much movies as they were dancing girls behind a glass screen. I am sure about them costing a quarter though.
LOL.