Here is a curious question.
Assume that Bonds never used steroids: Would he have hit 756 homers in his career?
Here is my breaksown of the numbers.
It is clear from stats and from pictures of him, that he started using steroids right before the 2001 season when he hit 73 homers. Before that, he was averaging 40 homers a season over the previous 9 seasons.
If he kept that average up, he would have hit 240 homers from that time to the end of this year. Guess how many he has hit since then while using steroids? 240.
Now that includes 2005 when he was "injured" and only played in 14 games, so the numbers are a bit skewed. Take out that year, and he would have hit 200 without steroids.
I personally think that was a year he took off so he wouldn't be tested, so I think he actually would have played that year, so I would lean towards counting that year.
However, even if you leave that off, he would be 40 short by the end of this year. He is on pace to hit around 30-35 this year, so it is reasonable to assume that he could keep playing two more years as a DH and get the record if he really wanted to.
Now that also assumes that he would keep hitting 40 homers a year every year, which given his age, is a big stretch.
Anyway, just throwing it out there, and seeing what everyone else thinks.
Do you think that Barry Bonds would have broken Hank Aaron's all time home record of 756 if he had not used steroids?