PDA

View Full Version : Bonds Making Fool of Himself


NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 05:09 PM
Anyone watch the interview with Bonds?

What a clown. It's always the same thing with this guy, so confrontational with the media. He raised his voice a couple times because some reporters were there to do their jobs and ask questions about steroids. There is no reason to have a press conference if you can't speak about the issue that 50% of the media is there for. My favorite part was when a reporter asked Bonds if he ever lied about anything relating to baseball. His response was something to the effect of: Yea, I lied a couple times about where I've hit balls to other players.

:dtroll:

Rocklive99
02-22-2005, 05:18 PM
What a tool, after seeing that, no I have no doubt that he took steroids (other than that cream that "he didn't know he took"). Especially after the part where he questions what cheating is and if steroids will real help. That whole liar thing was so stupid and just made him look like a little kid. Also, trying to bring in alchohol and tobacco, ***? Or the race card? I have a feeling that Hank Aaron had to go through a lot more than you Mr. Bonds. Just the whole response of moving forward and forgetting whatever is in the past (and saying that other sporting events in the past had people cheating) is almost like evidence for me that he's been juicing. Seriously though, he came off as a total you know what, there's no why I want him to be the Home Run King :mad:

MRKARNO
02-22-2005, 05:22 PM
I thought the whole thing was rather funny, but then again I'm one of those in the Pro-Bonds camp and there probably wont be a lot to change that, let along a press conference. There were a few things he said that weren't advisable and Bonds is definitely not a diplomatic person when it comes to the media, but it didn't switch me out of his camp.

His calling the writers all liars wasnt going to win him any freinds in the media, but that's not something he's after.

WSox8404
02-22-2005, 05:26 PM
I thought the whole thing was rather funny, but then again I'm one of those in the Pro-Bonds camp and there probably wont be a lot to change that, let along a press conference. There were a few things he said that weren't advisable and Bonds is definitely not a diplomatic person when it comes to the media, but it didn't switch me out of his camp.

His calling the writers all liars wasnt going to win him any freinds in the media, but that's not something he's after.

Pro Bonds camp? Are you saying you support him and that you belive he didn't take steroids? I am sorry but it is clear as a bell...Bonds is nothing more than a filthy cheater.

MRKARNO
02-22-2005, 05:31 PM
Pro Bonds camp? Are you saying you support him and that you belive he didn't take steroids? I am sorry but it is clear as a bell...Bonds is nothing more than a filthy cheater.

I'm not certain about it and I'm not getting into this argument again. I accept his explanation and only proof to the contrary will prove otherwise. The Balco stuff just wasn't enough for me with the flaxseed oil. I'm giving Bonds the benefit of the doubt and I know and accept that I'm in the minority on this.

NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 05:32 PM
I'm not certain about it and I'm not getting into this argument again. I accept his explanation and only proof to the contrary will prove otherwise. The Balco stuff just wasn't enough for me with the flaxseed oil. I'm giving Bonds the benefit of the doubt and I know and accept that I'm in the minority on this.

If you don't want to get into an argument that is one thing. Of all the players accused of using steroids, no two people are more guilty in baseball then Bonds and Giambi. The simple reason for this is the connections to BALCO.

MRKARNO
02-22-2005, 05:34 PM
If you don't want to get into an argument that is one thing. Of all the players accused of using steroids, no two people are more guilty in baseball then Bonds and Giambi. The simple reason for this is the connections to BALCO.

I dont see Giambi in the same light as Bonds, plain and simple. Unlike Giambi, did Bonds shrink the way Giambi did over the 2003-2004 offseason? No he did not and I think it's because Bonds' workout regimine is that good.

Ol' No. 2
02-22-2005, 05:37 PM
I dont see Giambi in the same light as Bonds, plain and simple. Unlike Giambi, did Bonds shrink the way Giambi did over the 2003-2004 offseason? No he did not and I think it's because Bonds' workout regimine is that good.It's because he's taking stuff that can't be detected by the ridiculously inadequate MLB testing protocol.

Jjav829
02-22-2005, 05:44 PM
It's because he's taking stuff that can't be detected by the ridiculously inadequate MLB testing protocol.
Exactly! He doesn't have to stop taking HGH because it isn't being tested for. He could inject himself 10 minutes before his steroid test and he wouldn't get caught.

As for the title of this thread; well, Bonds was a fool far before his useless press conference.

NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 05:46 PM
As for the title of this thread; well, Bonds was a fool far before his useless press conference.

Yea, no kidding. I just thought it was better to be sweet and to the point. :D:

The Wimperoo
02-22-2005, 05:47 PM
It's because he's taking stuff that can't be detected by the ridiculously inadequate MLB testing protocol.

Ding Ding Ding We have a winnner.

MRKARNO
02-22-2005, 05:48 PM
Personally, I'm just totally sick of the whole topic and I'd rather talk about what's going on between the lines and I think the testing policy will eliminate all but a few people and thus people can start giving their attention to the play on the field. I'm not big into most off-the-field stories and the fact that this story has totally taken over the sport and distracted from what's going on. Now I do recognize that steroids have called into question a lot of records, but there have been other things in baseball history that have affected records MORE than steroids (see: Spitballs, other doctored baseballs, smaller ballparks, extra games in schedule, etc), so let's just fix this mess and move the hell on, like baseball has done with other issues many times before.

NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 05:58 PM
Personally, I'm just totally sick of the whole topic and I'd rather talk about what's going on between the lines and I think the testing policy will eliminate all but a few people and thus people can start giving their attention to the play on the field. I'm not big into most off-the-field stories and the fact that this story has totally taken over the sport and distracted from what's going on. Now I do recognize that steroids have called into question a lot of records, but there have been other things in baseball history that have affected records MORE than steroids (see: Spitballs, other doctored baseballs, smaller ballparks, extra games in schedule, etc), so let's just fix this mess and move the hell on, like baseball has done with other issues many times before.

This is all I'm going to say. Eight players from the 1919 Black Sox were banned for life because of betting on baseball. At the time, there were no rules in MLB against gambling. Kennesaw Mountain Landis was selected by the baseball owners to be the first commisioner of baseball and he took a hard line approach in order to save the integrity of the game. Granted, there was not a players union like there is now, but it would satisfy the majority of baseball fans if Bud instituted some kind of witch hunt to dig out all the users, no matter how long it takes. Since we all know this will not happen, not much use in talking about it.

Landis saved the game from the common problem of gambling being directly related to baseball in the early 1900's. To bad Bud isn't going to do anything to save the integrity of the game...

Hangar18
02-22-2005, 06:22 PM
This is all I'm going to say. Eight players from the 1919 Black Sox were banned for life because of betting on baseball. At the time, there were no rules in MLB against gambling. Kennesaw Mountain Landis was selected by the baseball owners to be the first commisioner of baseball and he took a hard line approach in order to save the integrity of the game. Granted, there was not a players union like there is now, but it would satisfy the majority of baseball fans if Bud instituted some kind of witch hunt to dig out all the users, no matter how long it takes. Since we all know this will not happen, not much use in talking about it.

Landis saved the game from the common problem of gambling being directly related to baseball in the early 1900's. To bad Bud isn't going to do anything to save the integrity of the game...

The Last great commissioner in baseball ...........was Fay Vincent.
Bud Selig was an owner thrust into the position as a figurehead. His Puppet Regime has overseen some of the most Destructive, and Controversial events to ever happen to baseball. The Strike of 94, the AllStar Game tie fiasco, The AZDbacks not wanting to go to the AL Fiasco, the Switching of the Brewers to the NL smacking of Conflict-of-interest further Compounding the problem, the Expos BS, The RedSox being Sold to a team with a Lower Bid BullJive, The Marlins being "Sold" to the former Expos owner, who couldnt afford the Expos in the first place, The Ill Advised Expansion Blunders followed by the Poorly Planned Contraction Blunders, The Tip to the Twins they were being Contracted Bull, which indirectly Resulted in The Messiah becoming a Cub BS, The MLB HYPING incessantly how Baseball was being "Saved" because of Sammy and McGuires "heroics", The using of the ASGame now to "Reward" certain franchises, I can go on and on and on......... Bud is the Worst Commissioner ever. And just proves further
that the owners and Jerry Reinsdorf cant run baseball.

duderanch420
02-22-2005, 09:37 PM
Does anyone know if Victor Conte of BALCO is any relation to Stan Conte the giants trainer?

Brian26
02-22-2005, 09:52 PM
Just saw some clips of the Bonds press conference. What a complete jag-bag.

wsbaseball9
02-22-2005, 09:52 PM
regaurdless of anything steroids cant help your eyes and bonds has unquestionably the best eyes and hand eye coordinatinor in baseball today

Dadawg_77
02-22-2005, 10:08 PM
It's because he's taking stuff that can't be detected by the ridiculously inadequate MLB testing protocol.

No one has test for the stuff Balco was handing out.

Rocklive99
02-22-2005, 10:09 PM
regaurdless of anything steroids cant help your eyes and bonds has unquestionably the best eyes and hand eye coordinatinor in baseball today

Add steroids to the mix, and tada, 73 HR

Dadawg_77
02-22-2005, 10:10 PM
This is all I'm going to say. Eight players from the 1919 Black Sox were banned for life because of betting on baseball. At the time, there were no rules in MLB against gambling. Kennesaw Mountain Landis was selected by the baseball owners to be the first commisioner of baseball and he took a hard line approach in order to save the integrity of the game. Granted, there was not a players union like there is now, but it would satisfy the majority of baseball fans if Bud instituted some kind of witch hunt to dig out all the users, no matter how long it takes. Since we all know this will not happen, not much use in talking about it.

Landis saved the game from the common problem of gambling being directly related to baseball in the early 1900's. To bad Bud isn't going to do anything to save the integrity of the game...

I would say throwing the World Series does a lot more to destory the game and integrity of the game then any thing you can put in your body.

WinningUgly!
02-22-2005, 10:13 PM
Does anyone know if Victor Conte of BALCO is any relation to Stan Conte the giants trainer?

Absolutely no relation.

RichFitztightly
02-22-2005, 10:24 PM
regaurdless of anything steroids cant help your eyes and bonds has unquestionably the best eyes and hand eye coordinatinor in baseball today

Actually, I'm pretty sure helping your eyes is one of the effects of steroids. I seem to have heard/read that somewhere.

Dadawg_77
02-22-2005, 10:24 PM
Anyone remember as a kid, it was said you shouldn't lift weights because you would stiff to play baseball? That theory was basically disproving and baseball players started to lift more weights then ever before in the 90's. There have been players always looking for an edge from the 1900's. Since steroids were invented in 1958, why didn't ball players start using before the 90's? The answer is they didn't lift. So now we have to separate how much did players lifting weights more effect the game in a clean way versus the added benefit of steroids. We can't assume steroids is the reason for all the improved performance, since today's athlete should be able to outpreform yesterday's athlete just due to advances in society.

NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 10:26 PM
I would say throwing the World Series does a lot more to destory the game and integrity of the game then any thing you can put in your body.

I never said anything to disagree with you. The reason the 1919 Sox were brought up was because gambling was not illegal under MLB laws, much like the current situation with steroids.

NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 10:29 PM
Anyone remember as a kid, it was said you shouldn't lift weights because you would stiff to play baseball? That theory was basically disproving and baseball players started to lift more weights then ever before in the 90's. There have been players always looking for an edge from the 1900's. Since steroids were invented in 1958, why didn't ball players start using before the 90's? The answer is they didn't lift. So now we have to separate how much did players lifting weights more effect the game in a clean way versus the added benefit of steroids. We can't assume steroids is the reason for all the improved performance, since today's athlete should be able to outpreform yesterday's athlete just due to advances in society.

Some former players say that steroids have been around baseball since the mid 70's. Also, before that, emphatamines were around before steroids hit the clubhouse...

Fungo
02-22-2005, 10:35 PM
regaurdless of anything steroids cant help your eyes and bonds has unquestionably the best eyes and hand eye coordinatinor in baseball todayHuman Growth Hormones will do that for you

Alanzo
02-22-2005, 10:38 PM
Second whitest-sounding black man I've ever heard... second to Ken Griffey Jr.

Jjav829
02-22-2005, 10:43 PM
Wow. I'm just hearing this stuff for the first time. What a tool! He made himself sound like a really dumbass in this press conference. Just unbelievable crap. Pulling out the I'm-better-than-you card. What is he, Latroy Hawkins now? Good job, Barry. I didn't think it was possible, but you actually made yourself look like a bigger jerk than before. I can't type what I really think about him, but that comes somewhat close.

Fungo
02-22-2005, 10:44 PM
Second whitest-sounding black man I've ever heard... second to Ken Griffey Jr.My vote goes to Tony Gwynn

Dadawg_77
02-22-2005, 10:45 PM
Some former players say that steroids have been around baseball since the mid 70's. Also, before that, emphatamines were around before steroids hit the clubhouse...

Right, baseball has always had cheaters, players looking for that edge.

Jerko
02-22-2005, 10:46 PM
Anybody who can spout off so many "justifications" in so little time IMO is hiding his guilt.

Dadawg_77
02-22-2005, 10:47 PM
Wow. I'm just hearing this stuff for the first time. What a tool! He made himself sound like a really dumbass in this press conference. Just unbelievable crap. Pulling out the I'm-better-than-you card. What is he, Latroy Hawkins now? Good job, Barry. I didn't think it was possible, but you actually made yourself look like a bigger jerk than before. I can't type what I really think about him, but that comes somewhat close.

This shouldn't be a shock, since this is Barry Bonds we are talking about.

NSSoxFan
02-22-2005, 10:48 PM
Right, baseball has always had cheaters, players looking for that edge.

Dadawg, are you trying to support the use of steroids, or at least defend it??

Erik The Red
02-22-2005, 10:51 PM
Hahaha, I just caught his remarks on SportsNite. This guy is hilarious.

Jabroni
02-22-2005, 11:00 PM
My vote goes to Tony GwynnA WINNER IS YUO!!!

MRKARNO
02-22-2005, 11:12 PM
Hahaha, I just caught his remarks on SportsNite. This guy is hilarious.

I have to agree. It was great when he started complaining how people are focusing on him and not on the fact that alcohol is available over the counter. Totally unrelated, yet totally hilarious.

Cubbiesuck13
02-22-2005, 11:16 PM
It's because he's taking stuff that can't be detected by the ridiculously inadequate MLB testing protocol.

Not to mention when they add things they will be testing for a list goes out to all the players.


And for the poster who doesn't think steroids is as bad as throwing a world series, I beg to differ. Throwing the series was awfull but 1. It is a seperate incident not affecting all the games over the season and screwing the chances of other teams to get there. 2. The way the players were being cheated out of money, it was inevitable that some were going to try and strike back. Note- I am not ok-ing what they did. Steroids is much much worse, IMO because it hurts the chances of success for every clean player out there.

Jjav829
02-22-2005, 11:49 PM
I'm watching the full replay of this on CSN right now. Some of this makes me want to smash my head against a wall. This guy doesn't get it. I wanna say that all of the reporters who asked real, hard-hitting questions deserve a pat on the back. Those who asked him softball questions, you just wasted everyone's time. Let someone else cover the press conference next time.

SOX ADDICT '73
02-22-2005, 11:53 PM
regaurdless of anything steroids cant help your eyes and bonds has unquestionably the best eyes and hand eye coordinatinor in baseball today
Yeah, Bonds can make contact. So do a number of guys who manage to hit a lot of fly ball outs. Take the juice away from Barry over the last several years, and how many of his HR would have been simple flyouts? And more than just the HR record, consider the effect this would have on his RBI totals and BA as well.

SABRSox
02-23-2005, 12:12 AM
It's because he's taking stuff that can't be detected by the ridiculously inadequate MLB testing protocol.

Not only that, but the stuff he's probably taking (I assume we're talking about HGH here), if taken with the proper complementary drugs is MUCH more powerful than steroids.

Oh, and he can't shoot up 10 minutes before a test. It takes at least 20 minutes before the HGH naturally combines within growth hormone already in the body and becomes nearly un-detectable.

Foulke29
02-23-2005, 12:14 AM
Career Ending Injury!

And I hope it happens before he can pass Ruth.

Mr. Bonds a fat, drunk, womanizing clown had more class than you and was a better ball player than you too!

**** Barry Bonds!

{MOD EDIT: Please don't evade the language filter}

Cubbiesuck13
02-23-2005, 05:14 AM
Career Ending Injury!

And I hope it happens before he can pass Ruth.

Mr. Bonds a fat, drunk, womanizing clown had more class than you and was a better ball player than you too!

**** Barry Bonds!

That's pretty awfull. I wouldn't wish that on ShaME. I hope he comes back to earth and doesn't hit another homer but I hope he does it healthy.

I just watched it. Wow. Bonds will one day look back on the damage that he did to baseball and will be very sad at what he did to his father's game and to his godfather's game.

ja1022
02-23-2005, 08:27 AM
My vote goes to Tony Gwynn

Seconded.

Baby Fisk
02-23-2005, 08:29 AM
People who feel burdened by guilt will say some incredibly stupid things under pressure.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 08:35 AM
I never said anything to disagree with you. The reason the 1919 Sox were brought up was because gambling was not illegal under MLB laws, much like the current situation with steroids.

But the reason they were thrown out wasn't for gambling. It was for fixing the game, which by definition of game is against the rules.

ja1022
02-23-2005, 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fungo
My vote goes to Tony Gwynn


A WINNER IS YUO!!!


Okay then, I stand corrected. Thirded.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 08:42 AM
Dadawg, are you trying to support the use of steroids, or at least defend it??

No I am saying Baseball and any sport has always had cheaters and people looking for an edge. Today those methods are much better thus increased edge but not any more or less moral then before.

Also, if we are trying to single out the factor steroids has on the game, we would have to figure out how much affect increased lifting of weights had on the game, other better training methods, and better medical care have had on the game. Thus while comparing numbers across eras, we get into shades of gray not black and white as people like to make it.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 08:46 AM
And for the poster who doesn't think steroids is as bad as throwing a world series, I beg to differ. Throwing the series was awfull but 1. It is a seperate incident not affecting all the games over the season and screwing the chances of other teams to get there. 2. The way the players were being cheated out of money, it was inevitable that some were going to try and strike back. Note- I am not ok-ing what they did. Steroids is much much worse, IMO because it hurts the chances of success for every clean player out there.

Fixing a game goes against the very fundantmetal of any game. Cheating while wrong, isn't as fundantmentally wrong as fixing since you are still trying to win.

FireReinsdorf
02-23-2005, 08:47 AM
My vote goes to Tony Gwynn

I remember someone interviewing Gwynn that he sounded a lot like Jackie Robinson.

ja1022
02-23-2005, 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSSoxFan
Some former players say that steroids have been around baseball since the mid 70's. Also, before that, emphatamines were around before steroids hit the clubhouse...

Right, baseball has always had cheaters, players looking for that edge.

For anyone thinking these are recent developments, please read Ball Four by Jim Bouton, and if you can find it, Joe, You Could Have Made Us Proud by Joe Pepitone. People have been looking to get an "edge" for as long as there has been people.

As far as the Bonds interview...same arrogant crybaby prick he has always been.

Jerko
02-23-2005, 08:51 AM
I love the line "I don't know what cheating is". Also funny was when he called everyone liars after admitting he doesn't read what any of them write.

Cubbiesuck13
02-23-2005, 08:56 AM
Fixing a game goes against the very fundantmetal of any game. Cheating while wrong, isn't as fundantmentally wrong as fixing since you are still trying to win.

If one team is loosing on purpose that is only affecting that one match. Taking something that would make you perform better over the course of seasons is affecting every match. Therfore, not a level playing field. That is just my opinion.

D. TODD
02-23-2005, 09:06 AM
Some former players say that steroids have been around baseball since the mid 70's. Also, before that, emphatamines were around before steroids hit the clubhouse... This is very true, amphetamine or "greenies" were handed out like M&M's by trainers, as performance enhancers. They may not have been as effective as someone taking roids, but performance enhancers has long been a part of the game. If Bonds should have an asterisk by his home-run record , then Pete Rose needs one for his hits record, as he defiantly popped greenies throughout his run.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 09:28 AM
This is very true, amphetamine or "greenies" were handed out like M&M's by trainers, as performance enhancers. They may not have been as effective as someone taking roids, but performance enhancers has long been a part of the game. If Bonds should have an asterisk by his home-run record , then Pete Rose needs one for his hits record, as he defiantly popped greenies throughout his run.I don't agree that you can put amphetimines in the same class as steroids. Amphetimines don't make you do anything you couldn't ordinarily do. They don't make you hit the ball farther or throw harder. They just allow you to overcome the exhaustion inherent in playing a normal 162-game schedule. (THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF AMPHETIMENES, SO PLEASE DON'T RAG ON ME ABOUT THAT!)

Steroids, OTOH, make you play beyond your normal ability. That's a fundamental difference. And all the stuff about how it doesn't make you a better hitter is BS. In 2001 when Bonds hit 73 HR he hit .328. Take 50 ft off those HR and half of them would fall for harmless fly balls, lowering his BA to .252.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 09:41 AM
I don't agree that you can put amphetimines in the same class as steroids. Amphetimines don't make you do anything you couldn't ordinarily do. They don't make you hit the ball farther or throw harder. They just allow you to overcome the exhaustion inherent in playing a normal 162-game schedule. (THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF AMPHETIMENES, SO PLEASE DON'T RAG ON ME ABOUT THAT!)

Steroids, OTOH, make you play beyond your normal ability. That's a fundamental difference. And all the stuff about how it doesn't make you a better hitter is BS. In 2001 when Bonds hit 73 HR he hit .328. Take 50 ft off those HR and half of them would fall for harmless fly balls, lowering his BA to .252.

The BS is explaining all those 73 or over half of the home runs by saying he took steroids. At most, I think steroids added 10 homers to his total but we really have no concrete idea on what affect steroids have had on the game. We are only using conjecture to determine the affect at this point. What we know is HGH adds 8.8% of muscle when amount of exercise stays the same. So how many of those 73 home runs could be attributed to 8.8% of more muscle?

D. TODD
02-23-2005, 09:56 AM
I don't agree that you can put amphetimines in the same class as steroids. Amphetimines don't make you do anything you couldn't ordinarily do. They don't make you hit the ball farther or throw harder. They just allow you to overcome the exhaustion inherent in playing a normal 162-game schedule. (THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF AMPHETIMENES, SO PLEASE DON'T RAG ON ME ABOUT THAT!)

Steroids, OTOH, make you play beyond your normal ability. That's a fundamental difference. And all the stuff about how it doesn't make you a better hitter is BS. In 2001 when Bonds hit 73 HR he hit .328. Take 50 ft off those HR and half of them would fall for harmless fly balls, lowering his BA to .252. amphetamines give you energy to preform above your capabilities without them. If you are exhausted from a normal 162 game schedule play through it legally, other players before the "greenie" era was around did not have this chemical option to "juice" for energy. They were illegal drugs if used recreationally, just as steroids are. Both are effective for medicinal purposes but were abused by players to gain the needed boost to preform. The main difference I see is that steroids are a more effective way of giving yourself an edge. If using a performance enhancer should strike down accomplishments then most records would be effected in my opinion.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 10:44 AM
The BS is explaining all those 73 or over half of the home runs by saying he took steroids. At most, I think steroids added 10 homers to his total but we really have no concrete idea on what affect steroids have had on the game. We are only using conjecture to determine the affect at this point. What we know is HGH adds 8.8% of muscle when amount of exercise stays the same. So how many of those 73 home runs could be attributed to 8.8% of more muscle?In the first 5 years of Bonds' career he never exceeded 25 HR and .492 SLG. Beginning in 1990, he never went below 25 HR and never below .514 SLG. So I have to question just when he started juicing. He wouldn't be the first one to have started in the late 80's, but that's another matter.

Taking out 2001, his career best was 49 HR and he averaged 35 HR per season. So that 73 HR in 2001 represents an increase of 24 HR (49%) over his best previous season and and increase of 38 HR (109%) over his average for all other years. I don't know where you came up with 10 extra HR, but it seems just a tad low to me.

Corlose 15
02-23-2005, 10:47 AM
Yeah, Bonds can make contact. So do a number of guys who manage to hit a lot of fly ball outs. Take the juice away from Barry over the last several years, and how many of his HR would have been simple flyouts? And more than just the HR record, consider the effect this would have on his RBI totals and BA as well.

Add in that maybe that hard ground ball makes it up the middle instead of being cut off by the SS or 2B. Or maybe that line drive gets past the RF to the wall instead of being cut off and you have an even bigger difference.

The mere fact that Bonds needs to come up with so many rationalizations screams to me that he's guilty.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 11:02 AM
In the first 5 years of Bonds' career he never exceeded 25 HR and .492 SLG. Beginning in 1990, he never went below 25 HR and never below .514 SLG. So I have to question just when he started juicing. He wouldn't be the first one to have started in the late 80's, but that's another matter.

Taking out 2001, his career best was 49 HR and he averaged 35 HR per season. So that 73 HR in 2001 represents an increase of 24 HR (49%) over his best previous season and and increase of 38 HR (109%) over his average for all other years. I don't know where you came up with 10 extra HR, but it seems just a tad low to me.

First off I wouldn't look at at total amount of home runs. Two reasons, Bonds' walks and flukes happen even to great players. For his first five year, you ignore his age relative to when baseball players generally gain their full power, roughly 25. His SLG was in the .490's in second and third year and had a down year in his fourth. No real appearnace of a unexplainable uptick. Bonds also got a lot more patient at the plate, so he could have been swinging at better selection of pitches or pitchers were avoiding him more in mid 90's. His walk rate went from 13% of his PA to about 20% in his fifth year, now it is 48%.

As for the fluke, well 73 was one. That year 11% of his PA resulted in a home run, the years surrounding that have been around 8%. If you want to look for a break point it is 1999 season where his HR rate jump from mid 5% to 8% and stayed at 8%. His SLG% hides this point as his average was low in 1999. So if we assume this jump is exclusively related to steroid or HGH, then it would repsent 20 home runs. I wouldn't make this assumption so I gave it half.

thepaulbowski
02-23-2005, 11:08 AM
All I can say after watching the pathetic "news" conference is: what a clown, he just doesn't get it. He has the spoiled athlete attitude combined with the now everybody knows I cheated and it is the medias fault I was caught attitude. This guy does not deserve to break Aaron's record. At least Giambi aplogized (even though he could tell us what he was apologizing for.)

Foulke29
02-23-2005, 11:19 AM
In the first 5 years of Bonds' career he never exceeded 25 HR and .492 SLG. Beginning in 1990, he never went below 25 HR and never below .514 SLG. So I have to question just when he started juicing. He wouldn't be the first one to have started in the late 80's, but that's another matter.

Taking out 2001, his career best was 49 HR and he averaged 35 HR per season. So that 73 HR in 2001 represents an increase of 24 HR (49%) over his best previous season and and increase of 38 HR (109%) over his average for all other years. I don't know where you came up with 10 extra HR, but it seems just a tad low to me.

Let's not also forget that Bonds did this at a time when 99.99% of all other baseball players begin to decline in skills due to being on the wrong side of thirty!

Bonds is a bum, and I hope he gets his wish of falling down those stairs - making 703 "his personal best."

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 11:21 AM
Just looking at the numbers

Assumption 1 - The up take in hr rate of Bonds from 98 to 99 was cause entirely by steroids.

Assumption 2 - 2001 season was caused by fluke and should be weighted to his establish late carerr norm.

Assumption 3 - For ease of calc, PA are defined as AB + Walks. The other info will change the numbers but not gap to greatly as a valid comparison couldn't be made with just Walks + AB.

Using these assumptions, I divided his career into two periods, 86-98 and 99-04. With 2001 included and unweighted, Bonds hit HR in 8.53% of his PA from 99-04 and 5.15% for 86-98 for a difference of 3.83%. This uptake represents about 115 home runs. Taking 2001 out of the equation, Bonds his 7.91% of his home runs in PA from 99-04 or 76 Extra. So we have 12 - 19 extra home runs a year from steroids.

Foulke29
02-23-2005, 11:27 AM
No real appearnace of a unexplainable uptick. Bonds also got a lot more patient at the plate, so he could have been swinging at better selection of pitches or pitchers were avoiding him more in mid 90's. His walk rate went from 13% of his PA to about 20% in his fifth year, now it is 48%.

You have to attribute a percentage of those walks - not just intentional - as pitchers not throwing him anything to hit.

It's not that he became more selective - it's that managers decided to stop getting burned by him and instructed pitchers to throw him junk - hoping he'd be a sucker for it.

Whereas, pitchers previously to 1990 probably tried painting the corners a bit more on him.

In the last three years, Bond did not stike out more than 60 times. Previous to that, if he played nearly a full season or better, he struck out less than 80 times only once. It's not that he has a better eye - he's not getting as good of pitches, and that's b/c of the pitchers - not patience.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 11:40 AM
You have to attribute a percentage of those walks - not just intentional - as pitchers not throwing him anything to hit.

It's not that he became more selective - it's that managers decided to stop getting burned by him and instructed pitchers to throw him junk - hoping he'd be a sucker for it.

Whereas, pitchers previously to 1990 probably tried painting the corners a bit more on him.

In the last three years, Bond did not stike out more than 60 times. Previous to that, if he played nearly a full season or better, he struck out less than 80 times only once. It's not that he has a better eye - he's not getting as good of pitches, and that's b/c of the pitchers - not patience.

I think you are undervauling his eye a lot here. Some of his increased walks were cause by people pitching around him, but I don't think all of it was.

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2005, 11:43 AM
I'm not certain about it and I'm not getting into this argument again. I accept his explanation and only proof to the contrary will prove otherwise. The Balco stuff just wasn't enough for me with the flaxseed oil. I'm giving Bonds the benefit of the doubt and I know and accept that I'm in the minority on this.

Totally agree. I can't tell you how many times I have mistakenly used flaxseed oil.

Don't get after me Karno, I'm just having fun. I actually WANT to like Bonds, since he's got incredible talent and because I watched him play in college. However, each day it seems to become more and more difficult for me to like him. Yesterday was just about too much for me. I admire his talent, but wonder how many of his numbers are due to the talent and how many are due to the 'roids. Also, playing the race card just about made me puke. For a guy who's making $18 mil a year and been pampered his entire life to play the race card is an insult to true heroes like Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron who actually had to deal with racism on a daily basis, IMO.

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2005, 11:57 AM
Second whitest-sounding black man I've ever heard... second to Ken Griffey Jr.

Would you, or any of the others who responded to this comment, please explain it further to me? It appears you don't like Bonds, Gwynn, or Griffey because they "sound white." Tony Gwynn is one of my all time favorite players because he was arguably the 2nd greatest hitter of all time and he's a classy guy. Should I not like him because he "sounds white"?

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2005, 12:20 PM
The Last great commissioner in baseball ...........was Fay Vincent.
The AZDbacks not wanting to go to the AL Fiasco

Hangar, I have a question for you, and please don't rip me too badly. I have seen you comment on this in a couple of different posts and I'm wondering why it's such a big deal to you that the D-Backs are not in the AL? I know you said in a different post that since Col and Fla went to the NL, the next two teams should have gone to the AL, but aside from that, what other reason is there that AZ should have gone to the AL? Phoenix had a long history of being a NL town, so to speak. The SF Giants AAA team had been in Phx for decades and all LA Dodger games were on radio in Phx for years and years. Putting them in the NL West created natural rivalries with the Dodgers and Giants. Furthermore, From the time the franchise was awarded to Phx in March of 1995, Jerry Colangelo (managing general partner until last year) made it very clear that he wanted the team to be in the NL. From March 1995 until 1997, Colangelo attended the meetings of all NL teams, but skipped the AL meetings. Now, I understand that it was just his desire and that MLB was under no obligation to grant his wish, but it seems to me that if MLB wanted AZ in the AL, they should have made that clear to him early on in the process, and not let him believe for 2.5 years that he was going to get his wish. Also, don't forget that at the 11th hour, MLB tried to basically screw AZ and Tampa by "raising" the entrace fee by tens of millions of dollars over the fee that was originally agreed upon in 1995.

It's not that big of an issue to me, but I'm just curious as to why you have raised it on more than one occasion. Thanks.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 12:25 PM
First off I wouldn't look at at total amount of home runs. Two reasons, Bonds' walks and flukes happen even to great players. For his first five year, you ignore his age relative to when baseball players generally gain their full power, roughly 25. His SLG was in the .490's in second and third year and had a down year in his fourth. No real appearnace of a unexplainable uptick. Bonds also got a lot more patient at the plate, so he could have been swinging at better selection of pitches or pitchers were avoiding him more in mid 90's. His walk rate went from 13% of his PA to about 20% in his fifth year, now it is 48%.

As for the fluke, well 73 was one. That year 11% of his PA resulted in a home run, the years surrounding that have been around 8%. If you want to look for a break point it is 1999 season where his HR rate jump from mid 5% to 8% and stayed at 8%. His SLG% hides this point as his average was low in 1999. So if we assume this jump is exclusively related to steroid or HGH, then it would repsent 20 home runs. I wouldn't make this assumption so I gave it half.His career average, excluding the "fluke" year of 2001 is 35 HR/hr. If we take this as a baseline rate, then the other numbers are more or less consistent with that. 73 HR in 2001 is proportionate with an increase in HR/PA from 5 to 11%. An increase from 5% to 8% is proportionate with going from 35 HR/yr to about 56 HR/hr, which is just a bit above his actual production in the other years from 2000-2004.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 01:27 PM
His career average, excluding the "fluke" year of 2001 is 35 HR/hr. If we take this as a baseline rate, then the other numbers are more or less consistent with that. 73 HR in 2001 is proportionate with an increase in HR/PA from 5 to 11%. An increase from 5% to 8% is proportionate with going from 35 HR/yr to about 56 HR/hr, which is just a bit above his actual production in the other years from 2000-2004.

Exactly, the effect of steroids is contain in the delta between 5% and 8% not the 8% to 11%. I would disagree with your 35 to 56 home run numbers as you are giving too much weight to his rookie year numbers. Since I think we can agree that player's abilities are on a bell curve, comparing his peak years to rookie years is invalid.

Also one invalid thing I did was compare HR to PA. Since you can not hit home runs when you are walked, I think AB would be more valid. Bonds' career average is 7.73% of his at bats resulted in a round tripper, first five years, 4.50%, years 91-98 7.31%, and years 99-04 11.79. Steroids' affect would be shown in delta between 11.79 and 7.31. Which is 4.48 and given his at bats during that time period would be 110 home runs.

TheBull19
02-23-2005, 01:37 PM
I would say throwing the World Series does a lot more to destory the game and integrity of the game then any thing you can put in your body.

I disagree - whenever I watch baseball on TV my girlfriend always says "why do you want to watch a bunch of millionaire steroid-using ***-***** running around?"
She never asks why I watch a bunch of gamblers.

When I respond, I don't think the sox use steroids, she says "yeah, right"

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 01:40 PM
Exactly, the effect of steroids is contain in the delta between 5% and 8% not the 8% to 11%. I would disagree with your 35 to 56 home run numbers as you are giving too much weight to his rookie year numbers. Since I think we can agree that player's abilities are on a bell curve, comparing his peak years to rookie years is invalid.

Also one invalid thing I did was compare HR to PA. Since you can not hit home runs when you are walked, I think AB would be more valid. Bonds' career average is 7.73% of his at bats resulted in a round tripper, first five years, 4.50%, years 91-98 7.31%, and years 99-04 11.79. Steroids' affect would be shown in delta between 11.79 and 7.31. Which is 4.48 and given his at bats during that time period would be 110 home runs.A 5-7 spike in HR is a fluke. But 20 more HR? I don't think so. He's not the only one to see a sudden jump in HR, and we all know the reasons behind it. Many of these guys were on some kind of steroid for a long time but at a lower level. Then when guys started hitting balls into outer space, they upped the amount they were taking to ridiculous levels - with the observed sudden spike in HR. It would not surprise me if Bonds had been taking something since the early 90's. Also, as they (and the BALCOs of the world) got more sophisticated in their use of this stuff they got a lot more effective. I would say a baseline rate in the mid-30's sounds about right for Bonds. Everything over that is due to flaxseed oil. And 73 is no fluke. It's super-duper flaxseed oil.

TheBull19
02-23-2005, 01:41 PM
I love the line "I don't know what cheating is".

No kidding, Barry?

Clembasbal
02-23-2005, 01:46 PM
Bonds is an idiot and just like Canseco was, he should be blackballed from baseball.

Reporters and the Media hate him, most other players are tired of him - especially Jeff Kent, who is a jerk too so that might not be a credible source. Voters for the HOF should not vote for him...PERIOD. He brought little life back into the game, but McGwire and Sosa were the main two (though I hate Sosa). Bonds came 4 years later and hit 73. Baseball was already back.

Though I do not like this fact - Sosa and McGwire are free from steroid accusations, Bonds should not be protected by baseball...he should be gone.

RANT.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 02:28 PM
A 5-7 spike in HR is a fluke. But 20 more HR? I don't think so. He's not the only one to see a sudden jump in HR, and we all know the reasons behind it. Many of these guys were on some kind of steroid for a long time but at a lower level. Then when guys started hitting balls into outer space, they upped the amount they were taking to ridiculous levels - with the observed sudden spike in HR. It would not surprise me if Bonds had been taking something since the early 90's. Also, as they (and the BALCOs of the world) got more sophisticated in their use of this stuff they got a lot more effective. I would say a baseline rate in the mid-30's sounds about right for Bonds. Everything over that is due to flaxseed oil. And 73 is no fluke. It's super-duper flaxseed oil.

First off you are dead wrong here. He hasn't approached that 15% mark in the years before or following. So that makes me suspect it was a fluke. 5 - 7 home runs is a natural variation, more then 10 is a fluke see Luis Gonzalez, Brady Anderson to name some others. You believe in the conclusion that Barry took steroids and they are completely responsible for any home runs over 35 (which is a ridiculous conclusions) and you are pigeon holing the evidence to fit your conclusion.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 02:33 PM
First off you are dead wrong here. He hasn't approached that 15% mark in the years before or following. So that makes me suspect it was a fluke. 5 - 7 home runs is a natural variation, more then 10 is a fluke see Luis Gonzalez, Brady Anderson to name some others. You believe in the conclusion that Barry took steroids and they are completely responsible for any home runs over 35 (which is a ridiculous conclusions) and you are pigeon holing the evidence to fit your conclusion.Funny you should bring up Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez. As it happens, I think a lot of people attribute Anderson's 50 HR season to the same type of "fluke". And Luis Gonzalez just happend to have his "fluke" in the same year as Bonds. Hmm..

NSSoxFan
02-23-2005, 02:35 PM
Funny you should bring up Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez. As it happens, I think a lot of people attribute Anderson's 50 HR season to the same type of "fluke". And Luis Gonzalez just happend to have his "fluke" in the same year as Bonds. Hmm..

But steroids don't help you do anything in baseball.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 02:50 PM
Funny you should bring up Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez. As it happens, I think a lot of people attribute Anderson's 50 HR season to the same type of "fluke". And Luis Gonzalez just happend to have his "fluke" in the same year as Bonds. Hmm..

Doesn't mean they are right, does it? Wouldn't you expect if those years were related to steroids the effects would be longer lasting then a year?

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 02:54 PM
Doesn't mean they are right, does it? Wouldn't you expect if those years were related to steroids the effects would be longer lasting then a year?Not necessarily. It would depend on how much they took and for how long. Maybe he didn't like having testicles the size of raisins.

Fungo
02-23-2005, 03:43 PM
Would you, or any of the others who responded to this comment, please explain it further to me? It appears you don't like Bonds, Gwynn, or Griffey because they "sound white." Tony Gwynn is one of my all time favorite players because he was arguably the 2nd greatest hitter of all time and he's a classy guy. Should I not like him because he "sounds white"?I think you're reading way too much into this. It's not about liking or disliking anyone. I don't like Bonds, but I'd like to know what exercises he does to make his head get bigger. I like Griffey and Gwynn is one of my favorite hitters of all time. I can't speak for the other posters, but my comment was strickly about the tone of his voice.

Clembasbal
02-23-2005, 03:48 PM
Funny you should bring up Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez. As it happens, I think a lot of people attribute Anderson's 50 HR season to the same type of "fluke". And Luis Gonzalez just happend to have his "fluke" in the same year as Bonds. Hmm..

Just a side note, Brady Anderson was mentioned as 'somebody who probably took steroids" by Jose Canseco in his book. Because he hit 51 HR's total, or something like that, the years leading up to that 50 HR performance.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 03:52 PM
Not necessarily. It would depend on how much they took and for how long. Maybe he didn't like having testicles the size of raisins.

You are really stretching fact in an attempt to prove your point.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 03:53 PM
Just a side note, Brady Anderson was mentioned as 'somebody who probably took steroids" by Jose Canseco in his book. Because he hit 51 HR's total, or something like that, the years leading up to that 50 HR performance.

When did Jose Canseco become a creditable witness for anything?

Fenway
02-23-2005, 03:55 PM
Mike Lupica NY Daily News

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/283656p-243006c.html

We can't get Barry Bonds out, either. No matter how hard we try.


Bonds isn't Jason Giambi, who will do everything in spring training except walk around Legends Field in Tampa with a sign that says, "Please Like Me" as he panhandles for forgiveness. He isn't Alex Rodriguez, the second-best player in baseball after Bonds, going through life constantly saying what he thinks people want to hear from him. Barry Bonds doesn't care what anybody thinks. So he did yesterday what he has done his entire career, and especially the remarkable second half of his career: He dug in and glared out and told everybody to take their best shot. He talked about liars in the media yesterday, knowing full well that the only truth we will ever get about him and steroids is his own version of the truth.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 04:01 PM
You are really stretching fact in an attempt to prove your point.You're entitled to your opinion. To me, calling a 73 HR season a "fluke" when he's averaged only 37 over his career and never hit more than 49 in any other year is a pretty big stretch. Especially since we all know there were "other factors" at work.

Clembasbal
02-23-2005, 04:07 PM
When did Jose Canseco become a creditable witness for anything?

Ok, so my post starts with, "Just a side note" meaning, that I am just stating what I read.

Other than that, what makes you a crediatble witness for anything? Why should I believe your "Fluke" ness?

ja1022
02-23-2005, 04:20 PM
Would you, or any of the others who responded to this comment, please explain it further to me? It appears you don't like Bonds, Gwynn, or Griffey because they "sound white." Tony Gwynn is one of my all time favorite players because he was arguably the 2nd greatest hitter of all time and he's a classy guy. Should I not like him because he "sounds white"?

I responded to the comment and, at least for my part, there was nothing racist intended. Like you, Tony Gwynn is one of my all time favorites as well. In fact, I enjoy listening to the guy. It's something about the cadence of his voice and that kind of drawl he has. Even when you can't see him, you immediately know it's Tony Gwynn. I have no problem with Griffey either. Bonds on the other hand and in my opinion, is a prick. It has nothing to do with sounding black, white or whatever.

Fenway
02-23-2005, 04:23 PM
Jim Rice gives his thoughts on Bonds and other things

http://rope.weei-am.fimc.net/audio/JimRice--2-23-05.wma

Jason Stark from ESPN.com
http://rope.weei-am.fimc.net/audio/022305JaysonStark.wma

also Curt Schilling
http://rope.weei-am.fimc.net/audio/CurtSchilling--2-23-05.wma

and Manny Ramirez
http://rope.weei-am.fimc.net/audio/02-23_MannyRamirez_w_D&C.wma

AZChiSoxFan
02-23-2005, 04:29 PM
I responded to the comment and, at least for my part, there was nothing racist intended. Like you, Tony Gwynn is one of my all time favorites as well. In fact, I enjoy listening to the guy. It's something about the cadence of his voice and that kind of drawl he has. Even when you can't see him, you immediately know it's Tony Gwynn. I have no problem with Griffey either. Bonds on the other hand and in my opinion, is a prick. It has nothing to do with sounding black, white or whatever.

Thanks to you and Fungo for the clarification.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 04:40 PM
You're entitled to your opinion. To me, calling a 73 HR season a "fluke" when he's averaged only 37 over his career and never hit more than 49 in any other year is a pretty big stretch. Especially since we all know there were "other factors" at work.

The year was a 3% higher then any other years where we know "other factors" were playing a role. That to me is a fluke. You are just ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions of the truth.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 04:42 PM
Ok, so my post starts with, "Just a side note" meaning, that I am just stating what I read.

Other than that, what makes you a crediatble witness for anything? Why should I believe your "Fluke" ness?

Other then conjecture of Jose and others, I am saying what the numbers show. I was just stating my opinion of the worth of what Jose says.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 04:43 PM
The year was a 3% higher then any other years where we know "other factors" were playing a role. That to me is a fluke. You are just ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions of the truth.His next highest was 49 HR. My calculator says 73 HR in 2001 is 49% higher.

Cubbiesuck13
02-23-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Jerko
I love the line "I don't know what cheating is".


No kidding, Barry?


Reminds me of a certain ex prez asking what the definition of "is" is.

Dadawg_77
02-23-2005, 09:09 PM
His next highest was 49 HR. My calculator says 73 HR in 2001 is 49% higher.

If you really believe that stat has any meaning then you are complete ignorant of baseball. You can't compare Raw numbers because of variations of at bats from pitchers pitching around Bonds and other variables. The only way to control for these is to use a rate stat. Last year he hit HR in 12% (his average since 1999 is 11%) of his at bats, in 2001 he hit them in 15% of his at bats. Thus a 4% increase in home run rate. By using counting of home runs, you are either ignorant of variations of at bats from year to year and pitchers pitching around Bonds, or you are trying to lie with numbers.

misty60481
02-23-2005, 09:10 PM
I think Barry Bonds is a very scared man--he has dug himself in a hole he cant get out of and is lashing out at the public and media trying to act brave---I think it bothers him that his name probably wont go down in baseball history with Ruth, and Aaron bot with Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe..I think he is scared--

soxfan43
02-23-2005, 09:19 PM
After watching the bonds press conference, he reminds me of michael jackson. hes so messed up in the head he doesn't even realize what he did wrong. bonds is in for a long season with the media

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 10:02 PM
If you really believe that stat has any meaning then you are complete ignorant of baseball. You can't compare Raw numbers because of variations of at bats from pitchers pitching around Bonds and other variables. The only way to control for these is to use a rate stat. Last year he hit HR in 12% (his average since 1999 is 11%) of his at bats, in 2001 he hit them in 15% of his at bats. Thus a 4% increase in home run rate. By using counting of home runs, you are either ignorant of variations of at bats from year to year and pitchers pitching around Bonds, or you are trying to lie with numbers.I may be "completely ignorant of baseball", but I know how to do simple division. In the two years immediately preceeding his 73 HR season he homered in 10% of his AB. In 2001 he homered in 15% of his AB. Let me get out my calculator...Oh, hell, I don't need a calculator. That's a 50% increase. Even if we used your 11% baseline that's still a 36% increase. I'm sure it had nothing to do with anything he was taking, though. Just a fluke.

Cubbiesuck13
02-23-2005, 11:30 PM
After watching the bonds press conference, he reminds me of michael jackson. hes so messed up in the head he doesn't even realize what he did wrong. bonds is in for a long season with the media

I hope it will be a long season for him. I wish I was part of the San Fran media (only time I will ever say that I am sure) to give him a hard time. I would make him miserable. I hope someone does, he deserves it.

MisterB
02-23-2005, 11:37 PM
His next highest was 49 HR. My calculator says 73 HR in 2001 is 49% higher.

Roger Maris' next highest HR total in a season was 39. 61 is a 56% increase over that and more than double his career avg of 30 per 162 games played. A fluke is still a fluke.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 09:23 AM
Roger Maris' next highest HR total in a season was 39. 61 is a 56% increase over that and more than double his career avg of 30 per 162 games played. A fluke is still a fluke.But there is one rather obvious difference between Maris and Bonds, isn't there?

Clembasbal
02-24-2005, 09:23 AM
Other then conjecture of Jose and others, I am saying what the numbers show. I was just stating my opinion of the worth of what Jose says.

I agree that whatever he says has to be taken like a grain of salt. He isn't the most honest, ethical, or moral person in the world.

But, I just have a hard time seeing the other side. I mean they talked a long time about how the ball was juiced, not the players. Maybe that is why seasons happened like they did, more bounce off the bat. But steroids is out there and Bonds is on them...you don't game 60 lbs of muscle in one off-season at the age of 38...or 37...it just doesn't happen.

MisterB
02-24-2005, 02:42 PM
But there is one rather obvious difference between Maris and Bonds, isn't there?

I can think of a few obvious differences. I was just rebutting your assertion that a 20 hr jump for one year cannot simply be a fluke. Maris had a 22 hr jump from 1960 to 1961 without chemical assistance (we assume), so there is a rather visible precedent for that kind of 'fluke'.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 02:48 PM
I can think of a few obvious differences. I was just rebutting your assertion that a 20 hr jump for one year cannot simply be a fluke. Maris had a 22 hr jump from 1960 to 1961 without chemical assistance (we assume), so there is a rather visible precedent for that kind of 'fluke'.A fluke is, by definition, an anomoly that is due to chance and not to some known factor. In Bonds' case, I think we all know what that factor was.

MRKARNO
02-24-2005, 04:56 PM
:tomatoaward

Dadawg_77
02-26-2005, 10:13 AM
I may be "completely ignorant of baseball", but I know how to do simple division. In the two years immediately preceeding his 73 HR season he homered in 10% of his AB. In 2001 he homered in 15% of his AB. Let me get out my calculator...Oh, hell, I don't need a calculator. That's a 50% increase. Even if we used your 11% baseline that's still a 36% increase. I'm sure it had nothing to do with anything he was taking, though. Just a fluke.


You are not accounting for difference of AB per year thus your measurement is wrong.

Ol' No. 2
02-26-2005, 12:52 PM
You are not accounting for difference of AB per year thus your measurement is wrong.I used YOUR 11% and calculated the other percentages the same way. When I counted just HR/yr you didn't like that. Now that I've come up with the exact same percentage increase using HR/AB (which explicitly accounts for differences in AB per year), you don't like that either. Enough already. Go figure it whatever way you want and keep sticking your head in the sand.

Dadawg_77
02-26-2005, 03:56 PM
I used YOUR 11% and calculated the other percentages the same way. When I counted just HR/yr you didn't like that. Now that I've come up with the exact same percentage increase using HR/AB (which explicitly accounts for differences in AB per year), you don't like that either. Enough already. Go figure it whatever way you want and keep sticking your head in the sand.

Lol, my head isn't any sand just want to look at the numbers beside a once over and forming hard opinions based on it. If you had read the thread, what I have said is Bond's record shows a surge in power between 1998 and 1999. I have not said once Bond's didn't use anything, I don't know. But I am trying to measure how his performance improve from whatever he did.

The surge is about 3.5% increase in HR/AB ratio to about 11% for 1999 to 2004. In 2001 15% of his at bats resulted in home runs. Since I don't believe you rationization that HGH or steroids would have only had major affect for one year, I believe the difference between the 11% and 15% hr/ab rate is a fluke. Whether its HGH or something else cause the HR/AB ratio to raise from 7.3% to 11%. Also this doesn't calculate how much stability in the rate could be added by HGH or whatever.

You never address why 2001 should be the standard year instead of an outliner and measuring everything against an outliner is just bad stat work. If you want to take that illogical approach fine, but don't accuse me of having my head in the sand when taking a harder look at what is really happen then relating everything to an outliner.