Here's hoping Bonds

[The Voice of Reason]

Just because a guy uses steroids doesn't mean he is going to be all hulked up.

 

And just because a guy is all hulked up doesn't mean he uses steroids.[/quote]

 

Correct. It means he is probably using HGH.

[The Voice of Reason]

Saying that because some pitchers used steroids (to prolong their career or come back from injuries), it somehow cancels out the huge increase in home runs during the steroid era by the cartoon-like characters created by HGH is just plain silly.

 

Bonds home run record will have the same validity as the acomplishments of Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Rosie Ruiz, Danny Almonte, Charles Van Doren, etc.

[Elrhino]

I believe steroids are/were pretty much rampant since the 80's, so it's hard for me to say that Bonds had much of a competitive advantage over a field of athletes who were all using steroids. I don't know if Bonds is the greatest homerun hitter in history, because it's virtually impossible to truly compare eras. (How many of Babe Ruth's homeruns came off of pitchers who were working on their 157th pitch of the game?) What I do know is Bonds is maybe the most unique power hitter in the history of the game. There have been lots of pure power sluggers with big swings who swung off their heals. Bonds is maybe the greatest combination of power and plate discipline that the game has ever seen. Aside from 750 HR's, he's working on his 9th season of OBP over .450. Yes, that's due to a lot of IBB, but even those IBB's were "earned" because pitchers knew that you couldn't pitch around him and get him to swing at bad pitches.

 

That said, I do agree that he's still a jerk of the highest order. But I guess I'm not a typical fan in that I really don't look for sports for heroes and villains. There's too many corrupt politicians and world leaders that are far more deserving of that ire and energy for me to devote it to a meathead athlete.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Elrhino

[NewUserName]

Saying that because some pitchers used steroids (to prolong their career or come back from injuries), it somehow cancels out the huge increase in home runs during the steroid era by the cartoon-like characters created by HGH is just plain silly.

 

Bonds home run record will have the same validity as the acomplishments of Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Rosie Ruiz, Danny Almonte, Charles Van Doren, etc.

 

 

I think you are right about Bonds having the same post record reputation as these others.

 

I think you ought to consider though that expansion in the past has increased HR output, combine that with the smaller parks and there is more to this HR record than just steroids. That and that pitchers are using just as much as hitters.

 

Another thing that I would like to mention is that it is just a personal record. The Oakland As won a WS in 89 with a admitted user on their team. They have not been stripped of their title. If baseball was serious about stopping this games would be forfeited for players using. Owners, GMs, Managers and fans need to be somewhat accountable here also. Most of us here had to at least strongly suspect Sosa back in 98. I sure did. Mike North mentioned it several times if I remember. I surely didnt see Cub fans denouncing Sosa en masse until his production started to slide. If games were subject to be forfeited because of this, we sure would have been on him. So would have Riggleman. The Giants wouldnt put up with Bonds if games were subject to be forfeited, The Yankees wouldnt put up with some of their guys, The Tigers wouldnt put up with their guys and so on and so on.

[The Voice of Reason]

Saying that because some pitchers used steroids (to prolong their career or come back from injuries), it somehow cancels out the huge increase in home runs during the steroid era by the cartoon-like characters created by HGH is just plain silly.

 

Bonds home run record will have the same validity as the acomplishments of Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Rosie Ruiz, Danny Almonte, Charles Van Doren, etc.

 

 

I think you are right about Bonds having the same post record reputation as these others.

 

I think you ought to consider though that expansion in the past has increased HR output, combine that with the smaller parks and there is more to this HR record than just steroids. That and that pitchers are using just as much as hitters.

 

Another thing that I would like to mention is that it is just a personal record. The Oakland As won a WS in 89 with a admitted user on their team. They have not been stripped of their title. If baseball was serious about stopping this games would be forfeited for players using. Owners, GMs, Managers and fans need to be somewhat accountable here also. Most of us here had to at least strongly suspect Sosa back in 98. I sure did. Mike North mentioned it several times if I remember. I surely didnt see Cub fans denouncing Sosa en masse until his production started to slide. If games were subject to be forfeited because of this, we sure would have been on him. So would have Riggleman. The Giants wouldnt put up with Bonds if games were subject to be forfeited, The Yankees wouldnt put up with some of their guys, The Tigers wouldnt put up with their guys and so on and so on.

 

I never said Bonds should be stripped of the record. Just that in my view (and a lot of other people), it will be meaningless. You are right about Sammy, he got a free pass from the media and still does from many Cubs fans.

 

I think you ought to consider though that expansion in the past has increased HR output, combine that with the smaller parks and there is more to this HR record than just steroids. That and that pitchers are using just as much as hitters.

 

There never was an increase before in home runs like there was in the Steroid/HGH era. Shouldn't pitchers "using steroids just as much as hitters," mitigate an increase in home runs by hitters using steroids? Evidently, steroids and HGH helps hitters much more than steroids helps pitchers.

[Elrhino]

I don't care if steroids are in the game or not. If the players choose to endanger their future health by shooting up, that's a shame, but it does nothing to detract from my interest.

 

the players only have a Ken Caminiti-like future to look forward to, so I hope it was worth it for them

 

Steroids were the least of Caminiti's demons.

[Abe Frohman]

Steroids were the least of Caminiti's demons.

 

You are absolutely correct.

[CubinNY]

If I were a betting man I'd bet that Bonds used steriods. However, here is a little food for thought. I'm sure that the Babe didn't use steriods and I think it is safe to assume Aaron didn't use either.

 

I did a little study using descriptive statistics. It is pretty simple and I think even the least numberd minded person could understand it.

 

I took the at bat (AB) and home run (HR) totals for Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, and Babe Ruth a came up with a ratio based on AB/HR. Then I looked at 4-5 year periods in their careers.

 

Here is what I found

 

Aaron

Age          AB/HR
25-30       24
31-36       16
36-41       17

Bonds

Age          AB/HR
25-30       14
31-36       12
36-41       9

Ruth

Age          AB/HR
25-30       11
31-35       10
36-39       13  (Babe was pretty much a broken down player after 38)

 

What do those numbers mean to you? I won't tell you how to think, but to me they show that each palyer got better at hitting HRs as they got older. And stayed pretty much the same for their entire career. The spread from highest to lowest for Bonds and the Babe are pretty similar.

 

Edit: Typo.

 

Edit 2:

 

I want to add that I think Bonds is and was a great HR hitter steriods or not. I also want to add that it is too bad that Boston had Ruth pitching for the first 6 seasons he played baseball. If he were in LF instead of on the mound the HR record would probably be untouchable.

Edited July 20, 2007 by CubinNY

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Where is Bonds 31-36?

[CDBears1259]

Just my .02:

 

I don't know Bonds personally, just what I've seen of him through the media (we all know the media has a tendency for casting people in a certain light, for better or worse) and don't care if he's an a-hole of the highest order. Until he personally offends me, it has no real influence on me or my opinion of him one way or the other and thus I don't care if he breaks the record. As stated before it will possibly be broken by A-Rod (barring any major injury) or someone else anyway, so no big deal. While I certainly don't know any, I do feel bad for kids (adults, not so much) he may have personally upset.

 

The major advantage I see to using steroids in baseball is improving longevity and to an almost irrelevant extent strength. Until they are shown to improve hand-eye coordination, all the indignation is kind of pointless IMO.

[The Voice of Reason]

Balco chemist's views on whether Bonds and Sheffield took steroids.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2948210&type=story

 

 

Patrick Arnold thinks it's clear. Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield took steroids.

 

The chemist known as the creator of "the clear," a previously undetectable steroid distributed by the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, told HBO Sports' Bob Costas that he believes both sluggers took performance-enhancing substances. A report on the interview first appeared on The New York Times' Web site on Tuesday night.

 

Arnold pleaded guilty to distributing steroids in 2006 and was sentenced to three months in prison and three months of home confinement, but as part of his plea he was not required to name those who may have received performance-enhancing drugs.

 

In the interview, Arnold said that he had never met Bonds but Victor Conte, the founder of BALCO, raved about the Giants outfielder's performance on "the program." Arnold was asked if "the program" included steroids.

 

"I have a very strong feeling about it since he was on the program. And like everyone else, the program consisted of the clear," Arnold said, according to The Times.

 

 

Sheffield recently said that he didn't take steroids because "they are something you shoot in your butt."

 

Arnold, the last of five defendants convicted of steroid-distribution charges connected to BALCO, scoffed at that characterization.

 

"That's an ignorant statement," he said, according to The Times. "That's some sort of weird rationalization. No, he took steroids. This is a bona fide anabolic steroid."

 

According to leaked testimony, Bonds and Sheffield told a grand jury that they did not knowingly take steroids, but Bonds is being investigated based on his statements. He testified that he believed he was using flaxseed oil and an arthritic balm.

[Abe Frohman]

Just my .02:

 

The major advantage I see to using steroids in baseball is improving longevity and to an almost irrelevant extent strength. Until they are shown to improve hand-eye coordination, all the indignation is kind of pointless IMO.

 

So are you saying the strength of an individual who already has the hand-eye coordination to play at the Major League level will in no way affect the distance he can hit a baseball?

 

If I understand you right, you are saying that taking anabolic steroids or Human Growth Hormones in order to become stronger and more durable will not tranlate into hitting the baseball harder and further because hitting home runs has nothing to do with size/mass/strength - but everything to do with "hand eye-coordination."

 

Tell me if I am wrong.

 

In addition, the chemist responsible for making "the clear" (an undetectable anabolic steroid used by countless Major Leaguers - most notably Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield) is on the record stating that his drug DOES improve reaction time (hand-eye coordination).

[Soul]

If I were a betting man I'd bet that Bonds used steriods. However, here is a little food for thought. I'm sure that the Babe didn't use steriods and I think it is safe to assume Aaron didn't use either.

 

I did a little study using descriptive statistics. It is pretty simple and I think even the least numberd minded person could understand it.

 

I took the at bat (AB) and home run (HR) totals for Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, and Babe Ruth a came up with a ratio based on AB/HR. Then I looked at 4-5 year periods in their careers.

 

Here is what I found

 

Aaron

Age          AB/HR
25-30       24
31-36       16
36-41       17

Bonds

Age          AB/HR
25-30       14
31-36       12
36-41       9

Ruth

Age          AB/HR
25-30       11
31-35       10
36-39       13  (Babe was pretty much a broken down player after 38)

 

What do those numbers mean to you? I won't tell you how to think, but to me they show that each palyer got better at hitting HRs as they got older. And stayed pretty much the same for their entire career. The spread from highest to lowest for Bonds and the Babe are pretty similar.

 

Edit: Typo.

 

Edit 2:

 

I want to add that I think Bonds is and was a great HR hitter steriods or not. I also want to add that it is too bad that Boston had Ruth pitching for the first 6 seasons he played baseball. If he were in LF instead of on the mound the HR record would probably be untouchable.

 

Those numbers don't clearly show to you that Bonds has a major jump in production post-36 that neither Aaron or Ruth had?

[Abe Frohman]

I think maybe some don't realize that the lower the number, the better.

[CubinNY]

If I were a betting man I'd bet that Bonds used steriods. However, here is a little food for thought. I'm sure that the Babe didn't use steriods and I think it is safe to assume Aaron didn't use either.

 

I did a little study using descriptive statistics. It is pretty simple and I think even the least numberd minded person could understand it.

 

I took the at bat (AB) and home run (HR) totals for Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, and Babe Ruth a came up with a ratio based on AB/HR. Then I looked at 4-5 year periods in their careers.

 

Here is what I found

 

Aaron

Age          AB/HR
25-30       24
31-36       16
36-41       17

Bonds

Age          AB/HR
25-30       14
31-36       12
36-41       9

Ruth

Age          AB/HR
25-30       11
31-35       10
36-39       13  (Babe was pretty much a broken down player after 38)

 

What do those numbers mean to you? I won't tell you how to think, but to me they show that each palyer got better at hitting HRs as they got older. And stayed pretty much the same for their entire career. The spread from highest to lowest for Bonds and the Babe are pretty similar.

 

Edit: Typo.

 

Edit 2:

 

I want to add that I think Bonds is and was a great HR hitter steriods or not. I also want to add that it is too bad that Boston had Ruth pitching for the first 6 seasons he played baseball. If he were in LF instead of on the mound the HR record would probably be untouchable.

 

Those numbers don't clearly show to you that Bonds has a major jump in production post-36 that neither Aaron or Ruth had?

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

[KenCub]

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

Too bad he couldn't stick with "not".

[soccer10k]

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

Um, I think you're looking at your numbers wrong. Bonds went from hitting a home run every 12 AB's from ages 31-35 to a home run every 9 AB's from ages 36-41. How is that not a significant jump? Whereas both Ruth and Aaron hit home runs less often.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

that's a double-digit difference over the course of a season -- I'd call that a major jump considering he probably should have been on the decline

[Soul]

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

Um, I think you're looking at your numbers wrong. Bonds went from hitting a home run every 12 AB's from ages 31-35 to a home run every 9 AB's from ages 36-41. How is that not a significant jump? Whereas both Ruth and Aaron hit home runs less often.

 

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. Looks like Bonds went from 1 every 12ABs to 1 every 9ABs. That's a big time jump in production. And post-35, too? I've never run the numbers league-wide, but I feel like that would be almost in unheard-of territory.

[CubinNY]

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

that's a double-digit difference over the course of a season -- I'd call that a major jump considering he probably should have been on the decline

When Bonds was 36 that was the year he hit 73 since then its been, (37)46, (38)45, (39)45, (40)5, and (41)26 HR/year.

 

Hank Aaron went (36)38, (37)47, (38)34, (39)40, (40)20, (41)12

 

Ruth went (36)31, (37)13, (38)21, (39)17

 

So I wouldn't call that a major jump in production. And its definately not a major jump in production compared to Aaron.

 

Bonds probably used steriods. Bonds also has the benefit of modern conditioning and diet. However, Bonds is a freak of nature Just like Babe Ruth and Aaron. People forget what kind of production they had.

[CubinNY]

I think maybe some don't realize that the lower the number, the better.

I think someone isn't very smart and doesn't bother to look up things for themself.

[soccer10k]

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

that's a double-digit difference over the course of a season -- I'd call that a major jump considering he probably should have been on the decline

When Bonds was 36 that was the year he hit 73 since then its been, (37)46, (38)45, (39)45, (40)5, and (41)26 HR/year.

 

Hank Aaron went (36)38, (37)47, (38)34, (39)40, (40)20, (41)12

 

Ruth went (36)31, (37)13, (38)21, (39)17

 

So I wouldn't call that a major jump in production. And its definately not a major jump in production compared to Aaron.

 

Bonds probably used steriods. Bonds also has the benefit of modern conditioning and diet. However, Bonds is a freak of nature Just like Babe Ruth and Aaron. People forget what kind of production they had.

 

Through his 2000 season (age 35), Bonds had 4 seasons of 40+ home runs out of 15 total seasons. Starting with his 2001 season, Bonds has 4 more seasons of 40+ home runs out of 5 seasons (I'm not counting his 05 season since he only played 14 games). That's a pretty big jump in production.

[CubinNY]

No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases.

 

Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

 

that's a double-digit difference over the course of a season -- I'd call that a major jump considering he probably should have been on the decline

When Bonds was 36 that was the year he hit 73 since then its been, (37)46, (38)45, (39)45, (40)5, and (41)26 HR/year.

 

Hank Aaron went (36)38, (37)47, (38)34, (39)40, (40)20, (41)12

 

Ruth went (36)31, (37)13, (38)21, (39)17

 

So I wouldn't call that a major jump in production. And its definately not a major jump in production compared to Aaron.

 

Bonds probably used steriods. Bonds also has the benefit of modern conditioning and diet. However, Bonds is a freak of nature Just like Babe Ruth and Aaron. People forget what kind of production they had.

 

Through his 2000 season (age 35), Bonds had 4 seasons of 40+ home runs out of 15 total seasons. Starting with his 2001 season, Bonds has 4 more seasons of 40+ home runs out of 5 seasons (I'm not counting his 05 season since he only played 14 games). That's a pretty big jump in production.

 

No its not. it is a natural range in production. Since he was 28 Bonds has had between 33 and 45 HRs/year excludiing the year he hit 73 up until the age of 40.

 

Deciding that 40 HRs is the magic number in terms of productivity is completely arbitrary and nonsensical.

 

I'm done looking up numbers for people, look up Hank Aaron and see how much his production fluctuated.

 

But really, all this is beside the point. People have determiend that Bonds is a bad guy for taking steriods and shouldn't be where he is. That's a crap argument in my opinon. He's a bad guy because he is a jerk. He took steriods more than likely, but so did a lot of other players of his era. He's one of the premire hitters in all of baseball history regardless of whether he took steriods.

[soccer10k]

Hank Aaron in 16 seasons ages 20-35: 6 40+ HR seasons.

Hank Aaron in 7 seasons ages 36+: 2 40+ HR seasons.

Babe Ruth in 12 seasons ages 24-35: 9 40+ HR seasons.

Babe Ruth in 7 seasons ages 36+: 2 40+ HR seasons.

 

As you can see, there's a difference between the productions of Aaron/Ruth and Bonds.

[Soul]

Going from 1HR/12ABs to 1HR/9ABs is a jump in production. That's really all that needs to be said. I'll let others draw their own conclusions about whether they think Barry is a nice guy.