OT: What To Think of Barry Bonds Now?

[Swaggs]

Bonds is tearing up again this season, with 8 homers and an OPS somewhere near 2.000 right now.

Now, surely he cannot be currently using steroids under the kind of scrutiny he has recently been under.

So, if he has another amazingly historic, MVP season this year, will all the steroid allegations disappear?

[MizzouRah]

Bonds is tearing up again this season, with 8 homers and an OPS somewhere near 2.000 right now.

Now, surely he cannot be currently using steroids under the kind of scrutiny he has recently been under.

So, if he has another amazingly historic, MVP season this year, will all the steroid allegations disappear?
Who said he took them like a crack fiend smokes crack? As long as he keeps working out, he should stay strong. I think he used them for a 'boost' to an already strong body.


Todd

[Glengoyne]

Who said he took them like a crack fiend smokes crack? As long as he keeps working out, he should stay strong. I think he used them for a 'boost' to an already strong body.


Todd
He'd still shrivel up over time.

[MizzouRah]

He'd still shrivel up over time.
I don't think its been that long.


Todd

[MrBug708]

Hey, Bonds can do what he wants, the Giants still blow. Hit's .700 against the Dodgers and his team still is swept. Only this time we didn't have Kevin Elster

[Bad-example]

The Giants blow? Riiiiiight...they have finished ahead of the dodgers 7 years in a row, and when you look at the rosters it looks likely they will make it 8.

[Vince]

I wish I was looking at the same rosters you were, Bad-example.

At the same time, we can't expect the entire Giants team to slump all year. Bonds right now is the only thing we have going for us. Our SPs suck; Bonds' support sucks; our MRs suck; Herges isn't really playing well. If any of these things start to turn it around, we're a team to be reckoned with again. As it is, we're looking pretty pathetic.

[MrBug708]

The Giants blow? Riiiiiight...they have finished ahead of the dodgers 7 years in a row, and when you look at the rosters it looks likely they will make it 8.

And what has that gotten you? I forget, who swept who? Who has the best record in the NL right now? Whose behind the Padres?

[Bad-example]

Um...well it IS early, and looking at the rosters it seems pretty clear to me that the Giants are the better team.

Looking at the dodgers roster, it is hard to see them continuing to score enough runs to win more than 75-80 games. Their pitching is thinner than last year. Expect Bradley to start showing his mental problems sometime before august. Maybe they will bring back Ricky in a deja vu desperation move.

I don't expect the Giants to go all the way this year, but a division title seems a reasonable prediction considering the competition. The dodgers look more like a team with 3rd or 4th place talent.

[Bad-example]

And what has that gotten you? I forget, who swept who? Who has the best record in the NL right now? Whose behind the Padres?

Geeze...the dodgers win 3 games against the Giants and they think they are world beaters. Check back with me when both teams have played enough games to actually mean something. :rolleyes:

[MrBug708]

Um...well it IS early, and looking at the rosters it seems pretty clear to me that the Giants are the better team.

I don't expect the Giants to go all the way this year, but a division title seems a reasonable prediction considering the competition. The dodgers look more like a team with 3rd or 4th place talent.

Two things. The Giants have the best hitter on each team, easy to see. Whose the next best hitter though? I mean, Marquis Grissom is batting in a key spot for the Giants and he was the Dodgers 4th OF 2 years ago. As for pitching, I do hope you are not going to sit there and tell me the Giants have a better pitching staff then the Dodgers? I mean, HELLO, Cy Young award winner?

Dodgers lose Brian Jordan, gain a mature Beltre, healthy Shawn Green, young talent in Bradley, and still have LoDuca.

[sterlingice]

I don't think its been that long.


Todd Anyone have a picture handy of a shrivelled Jason Giambi?

SI

[kingfc22]

Two things. The Giants have the best hitter on each team, easy to see. Whose the next best hitter though? I mean, Marquis Grissom is batting in a key spot for the Giants and he was the Dodgers 4th OF 2 years ago. As for pitching, I do hope you are not going to sit there and tell me the Giants have a better pitching staff then the Dodgers? I mean, HELLO, Cy Young award winner?

Dodgers lose Brian Jordan, gain a mature Beltre, healthy Shawn Green, young talent in Bradley, and still have LoDuca.

Wow. A guy who pitches one inning a game. He's not going to do to much for you once the amenic offense shows up, will he? Sure helped the bums last year huh? How many times were the Dodgers in 1st last year? Umm....Let me check...NONE because the Giants went wire to wire. Enjoy your time in first. I'll get back to you in September when it actually means something. 3 game sweep in SF. congrats. Do you want your World Series rings now or in the mail??

Bonds is awesome and I think he is trying to top his past 3 yrs. to prove to people that he's not on roids.

[k0ruptr]

go barry go. 6 straight games with a homer , you da man, catch ruth, then catch hank

[MrBug708]

He's not going to do to much for you once the amenic offense shows up, will he? Sure helped the bums last year huh? How many times were the Dodgers in 1st last year?

Barry certainly helped you guys win your game. A guy who bats 4 times a game, not going to help you win a World Series ring. Tell me, was Gagne the only decent pitcher on the Dodgers last year? Hear I thought we had a decent pitching staff. Silly me.

Bonds is awesome and I think he is trying to top his past 3 yrs. to prove to people that he's not on roids.

If he's not on them, why does he need to prove?

Do you want your World Series rings now or in the mail??

At least they didnt leave ours next to the Cubs and BoSox's rings....

[k0ruptr]

yawn, stop the bitching and bickering and bow to the stats of barry, and the nice fat era of gagne. the wins and losses should level out, and the giants will take the division again.

[FBPro]

"Roid-man"

[MrBug708]

yawn, stop the bitching and bickering and bow to the stats of barry, and the nice fat era of gagne. the wins and losses should level out, and the giants will take the division again.

So much for "here and now"

[Crapshoot]

I wish I was looking at the same rosters you were, Bad-example.

At the same time, we can't expect the entire Giants team to slump all year. Bonds right now is the only thing we have going for us. Our SPs suck; Bonds' support sucks; our MRs suck; Herges isn't really playing well. If any of these things start to turn it around, we're a team to be reckoned with again. As it is, we're looking pretty pathetic.

and that idiot of a manager who thinks Neifi leading off is a good idea, and Tucker batting 3rd (instead of Bonds)- thus making him more likely to get more AB's. Alou's stupidity is mind boggling right now. Also the GM who decided that wasting a no 1 pick on Tucker when Dustan Mohr/Hammonds/scrub could match that- sigh..

[Young Drachma]

He'd still shrivel up over time.

A la Mark McGwire

[Vince]

Two things. The Giants have the best hitter on each team, easy to see. Whose the next best hitter though? I mean, Marquis Grissom is batting in a key spot for the Giants and he was the Dodgers 4th OF 2 years ago. As for pitching, I do hope you are not going to sit there and tell me the Giants have a better pitching staff then the Dodgers? I mean, HELLO, Cy Young award winner?

Dodgers lose Brian Jordan, gain a mature Beltre, healthy Shawn Green, young talent in Bradley, and still have LoDuca.Well, saying that Grissom was the 4th OF for the Dodgers two years ago speaks more of the Dodgers' depth chart management woes than the Giants' lack of talent. I'm too busy to look up the stats now, but Grissom is much better than you guys gave him credit for.

You're also forgetting that we are supposed to have a healthy Durham this year, a better Alfonzo, and that Schmidt wasn't really expected to be out for the beginning of the season until recently. I'm not saying we're world-beaters...but I think we do have at least comparable talent on our team. I won't even argue the pitching staff...that's retarded. But ours is better than they are playing now for sure, and if Nen can get back to form, Herges can go back to doing what he's supposed to do...middle relief/set-up.

EDIT - I agree almost whole-heartedly with Aadik...batting Bonds fourth is absolutely retarded. And a first-rounder for Tucker was unnecessary...but Tucker does have upside, and we already know that he's at least ML 4th OF capable, which is more than most draft picks for this year.

[SackAttack]

I look at the Dodgers and I see two things:

1) A pitching staff that is pretty clearly not what it was a year ago, but still has the potential to be among the top three staffs in the league.

2) A lineup that's pretty clearly improved from a year ago. Milton Bradley brings a dynamic to the team that they haven't had in a while, and as long as he stays healthy and happy, he's going to be productive. Shawn Green is coming off a shoulder injury, and while I don't know if he's going to put up the numbers he did two and three years ago, he's still a #4 hitter to be reckoned with. Dave Roberts doesn't get on base as often as I'd like, but when he does, he plays havoc with opposing pitchers and defenses. Adrian Beltre has always had a world of talent, but for the first time, he looks like he might be ready to put together a full season instead of just two months. Juan Encarnacion is younger than Brian Jordan, less injury-prone, and you have to believe his production is going to be at least equal to Jordan's (and certainly better than Burnitz's). Izturis is no A-Rod, but he's young, and he's improving. Will he continue to hit .300? I'd take .270. LoDuca should hopefully also put a full season together now that Tracy has a reliable backup option in David Ross to help shoulder the burden.

Don't get me wrong, this offense isn't the 2003 Red Sox, the 1927 Yankees, or even the Indians teams of the 1990s. But this offense also isn't the pathetic display we saw last year, either. They were 26-23 in one-run games, with a total of 574 runs scored. That's ~3.54 runs/game, for those of you doing the math. So far this year, they've scored 59 runs in 12 games (of which they've won 9), good for an average of about 4.92 runs/game. That, incidentally, is about 0.26 runs/game more than the Giants scored a year ago, and the Giants won the West. Losing Brown and Quantrill from last year's staff will absolutely hurt, but if Green continues to regain his form, Beltre finally becomes the hitter everybody's expected him to be, and Bradley continues to draw walks, get some timely hits, and even do things like move the runners over with well-timed groundballs (which he's shown an ability to do so far), the Dodgers almost can't help but be better for it.

Now, all of that said, I look at the Giants, and I see two things:

1) I see a pitching staff that returns three of its starters from a year ago. Schmidt is, and will be, Schmidt. Jerome Williams is young, and should improve with time. Like Schmidt, Reuter is Reuter, but Reuter at his best is fairly average. Ainsworth is gone, and Ponson is an Oriole again, and I think the Giants are going to feel the holes they've left behind. The entire bullpen seems to have gotten something of an overhaul, and honestly, I'm not sure that's a good thing, although we admittedly haven't seen enough of the current crew to know if they'll be better or worse than a year ago, or simply status quo. They could well be better, I'll not deny that, but let's just say if I'm a Giants fan, I'm not optimistic.

2) If the Giants could send Barry Bonds to the plate 8 times a game, they wouldn't have a thing to worry about. They can't, obviously, so the next best option is to surround him with a dangerous supporting cast, much the way the '02 Giants had Aurilia, Kent and Santiago to punish teams who chose to pitch around him. Who've they got this season? Ray Durham is batting .343 with a .425 OBP, and that's a fine start, but let's not forget that his career BA is .279, and his career OBP is .353. If he can maintain his current pace, or at least not stumble too badly, he'll help, but he can't do it alone. If he regresses to the mean, that's a fairly average bat. Nothing to scoff at, but nothing to make pitchers think twice about pitching around Barry, either. Marquis Grissom? The man hasn't had a full-season OBP of even .340 in a decade, and he's on the wrong side of 35. No way in hell he keeps up his current pace. As MrBug said, he was the 4th OF for the Dodgers, but he would have been less than that, even, on a lot of other clubs. That he's a starter for the Giants says something, and it isn't good, IMO. Pierzynski, Tucker, Perez, Snow, Alfonso...all of them are struggling with the bat, and none of them are particularly special. I will grant that that's a Gold Glove defense on the field, but c'mon: the Dodgers had a sparkling defense and near-historic pitching a year ago, and what did that get them?

I'm not going to write the Giants off. Brian Sabean has pulled too many rabbits out of his hat in the last 7 years for me to say with a straight face that the Giants are done just two weeks into April.

By the same token, while I'm enthusiastic about the start LA has gotten off to, we haven't even played 10% of the games yet. I'm not ready to hand them the NL West title, either.

It's a long season, and with the possible exception of the Rockies, none of these teams are in such dire straits that they can be discounted as a division contender. By the same token, none of these teams (particularly the Rockies) have a talent level so clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of the division that they can be expected to run away with it.

But if I had to guess? The Dodgers will scratch out a win the West, the Padres and Giants will duke it out for 2nd (and neither team will be all that far behind LA when the dust settles), Arizona will move quietly into rebuilding mode (they're just too old to do anymore what they have been doing), and the Rockies will continue to be Tampa Bay West, thanks to their horrendous home/road splits.

Just my two cents.

[Crapshoot]

Have I mentioned how much I hate reasonable, logical, intelligent thought out responses from Dodger fans ? :D

[SackAttack]

Well, saying that Grissom was the 4th OF for the Dodgers two years ago speaks more of the Dodgers' depth chart management woes than the Giants' lack of talent. I'm too busy to look up the stats now, but Grissom is much better than you guys gave him credit for.

I just want to revisit this, as I didn't really spend too much time on it in my previous post. Below, I'm going to post, in order, the following numbers for Grissom: batting average, walks, strikeouts, OBP, SLG, and stolen bases for every full season that Grissom has played in the majors:

1991: .267 BA, 34 BB, 89 K, .310 OBP, .373 SLG 76 SB
1992: .276 BA, 42 BB, 81 K, .322 OBP, .418 SLG, 78 SB
1993: .298 BA, 52 BB, 76 K, .351 OBP, .438 SLG, 53 SB
1994: .288 BA, 41 BB, 66 K, .344 OBP, .427 SLG, 36 SB
1995: .258 BA, 47 BB, 61 K, .317 OBP, .376 SLG, 29 SB
1996: .308 BA, 41 BB, 73 K, .349 OBP, .489 SLG, 28 SB
1997: .262 BA, 43 BB, 89 K, .317 OBP, .396 SLG, 22 SB
1998: .271 BA, 24 BB, 78 K, .304 OBP, .382 SLG, 13 SB
1999: .267 BA, 49 BB, 109 K, .320 OBP, .415 SLG, 24 SB
2000: .244 BA, 39 BB, 99 K, .288 OBP, .351 SLG, 20 SB
2001: .221 BA, 16 BB, 107 K, .250 OBP, .404 SLG, 7 SB
2002: .277 BA, 22 BB, 68 K, .321 OBP, .510 SLG, 5 SB
2003: .300 BA, 20 BB, 82 K, .322 OBP, .468 SLG, 11 SB

He hasn't had too many years where his OPS was even .700, and the ones he DID have were primarily due to high triples totals (which I didn't list). He had 10 triples with the Braves in '96, for example, and 4 with LA in 2002, when he broke a .500 SLG for the only time in his career.

I would argue that Grissom's value early in his career, when his speed was still a significant value, made him comparable to Dave Roberts' current value for the Dodgers, except that Grissom's strikeout totals have always been more in line with those of a power hitter (and I don't really consider 15-20 HR/year to be a "power" hitter). As the years have gone by, his walk totals have plummeted, and they were never all that high to begin with. He no longer steals bases with any regularity, so any value he had on the basepaths is more or less negated. He's only average as a hitter, with a .273 lifetime mark, and only two seasons over .270 since 1998.

Is he a decent ballplayer? Sure. But to say that he's somehow something more than what the Dodgers saw in him during 2001 and 2002 is a walk out on a long, perilously thin limb. In recent years, he simply hasn't been a starting-caliber outfielder, except perhaps defensively (and I'm not going to argue that one way or the other). As I say, he's off to a fine start this year, and last year was one of the better years he's had in recent memory, but at his age, that's more because of Bonds' presence in the lineup than any particular resurgence on Grissom's part. He's not going to continue to put up these numbers. It's terribly unusual for ANYBODY to see new life breathed into their career after the age of 35. For the Giants to have not just one, but two such players would absolutely boggle the imagination.

[SackAttack]

Have I mentioned how much I hate reasonable, logical, intelligent thought out responses from Dodger fans ? :D

All part of the service. :D

[Eaglesfan27]

In regards to Bonds and steroids, I don't know if he took them or not. However, I do know with some of the new designer steroids that are available, people can continue to get most of the benefits for up to 9 months after they stopped using them. Particularly, if they have been using them for an extended period of time. I'm sure experts will point this out in the various media outlets as this debate continues. Therefore, Bonds could hit 80 HR's this year, and I don't think it would prove anything about past steroid abuse. For that matter, I'm not sure it would really prove anything about current steroid use, as the designer steroids keep staying ahead of the detection technology.

[Ksyrup]

I'm with Peter Gammons. His HR totals, while amazing, don't interest me as much now as does the possibility that he could hit .400. I'd like to see someone argue that steroids helped him hit .400. The fact that he's going the other way with hits against the shift, is a beautiful thing. He's walking into second base on grounders to 3rd.

So, in my opinion, if he breaks the HR record, that's great, but he'll still have his detractors. If he hits .400, I think he diffuses some of the talk that he's not as great a ballplayer simply because of the possible steroids use.

I'm simply not going to hold any of these allegations against him until I have proof that he did something illegal. And in my mind, the worst thing he's probably done is take supplements that were legal at the time he took them, much like McGwire. I fail to see why that should be held against either of them.

[QuikSand]

And in my mind, the worst thing he's probably done is take supplements that were legal at the time he took them, much like McGwire. I fail to see why that should be held against either of them.

But you're building your conclusion of what you admit to be your own premise. (my emphasis added above) Of course nobody who believes that all he took were legal supplements is railing against him as a cheater.

There are, however, plenty of people who believe that he has taken or is taking substances that are beyond legal supplements - true stroids, growth hormones, and the like. And for the people who think "in their minds" that's what he has done - of course they will hold it against him.

[Samdari]

Bonds is awesome and I think he is trying to top his past 3 yrs. to prove to people that he's not on roids.

How will topping the last 3 years prove he was not on roids? If anything, it will simply fuel speculation. I mean, he has obviously paid one lab to design a new steroid that is undetected by current tests, why can't he be doing it again?

[Huckleberry]

Increased strength can improve batting average. It brings increased bat speed, of course, which when combined with a discerning eye at the plate allows the batter a significant advantage in terms of how long they can get a look at the pitch before they have to start their swing.

[Butter]

In answer to the titular question:

He's a dick.

[Ksyrup]

But you're building your conclusion of what you admit to be your own premise. (my emphasis added above) Of course nobody who believes that all he took were legal supplements is railing against him as a cheater.

There are, however, plenty of people who believe that he has taken or is taking substances that are beyond legal supplements - true stroids, growth hormones, and the like. And for the people who think "in their minds" that's what he has done - of course they will hold it against him.
That's fine, except none of us has anything other than anecdotal proof that he was taking legal OR illegal substances. So holding anything against the guy at this point seems ridiculous, IMO. Putting aside the complicating pressures of the union, you're essentially asking the guy to prove a negative, and an historical negative at that ("I'm not taking them now, and I haven't taken them in the past"). Even if he was in a position to come right out and offer to prove his innocence...how would he do that exactly?

[Ksyrup]

I mean, he has obviously paid one lab to design a new steroid that is undetected by current tests...
And your "obvious" proof is...?

Man, this is like deja vu, only this is truly rank speculation on your part.

[Chubby]

That's fine, except none of us has anything other than anecdotal proof that he was taking legal OR illegal substances. So holding anything against the guy at this point seems ridiculous, IMO. Putting aside the complicating pressures of the union, you're essentially asking the guy to prove a negative, and an historical negative at that ("I'm not taking them now, and I haven't taken them in the past"). Even if he was in a position to come right out and offer to prove his innocence...how would he do that exactly?


What difference does it make if we hold it against him? His he going to get ma dand start crying like a baby? Post our names in a list on his website?

I think he's taken 'roids in the past, I think he still takes him. I think he's convinced himself he's not doing anything wrong. He's probably moved on to the next "untraceable steroid" already.

I would love to see congress for the release of THG tests on the samples they have from last year.

[QuikSand]

That's fine, except none of us has anything other than anecdotal proof that he was taking legal OR illegal substances. So holding anything against the guy at this point seems ridiculous, IMO. Putting aside the complicating pressures of the union, you're essentially asking the guy to prove a negative, and an historical negative at that ("I'm not taking them now, and I haven't taken them in the past"). Even if he was in a position to come right out and offer to prove his innocence...how would he do that exactly?

And I have no problem with the logical argument of "if we can't prove he did something bad, we can't hold it against him" which you advance. That argument holds water to me, and isn't the source of my criticism above.

My criticism above is on your argument that "I personally think what he did was within the rules, and I think it's unfair for people to be mad at him for being within the rules." You presupposed your own opinion in drawing your conclusion about what other people's conclusions should be.

Sitck with "no proof" and I've got nothing to say about it, from a purely logical perspective.

[Chubby]

And your "obvious" proof is...?

Man, this is like deja vu, only this is truly rank speculation on your part.

And YOUR proof is what? :rolleyes:

Neither side of the argument has proof at this point. Simply saying "well he hasn't been caught yet" doesn't make your argument gospel.

[Ksyrup]

It brings increased bat speed...
And so can switching to a lighter bat, or changing your batting stance or the positioning of your hands.

Again, show me proof that any of this happened, and that it affected his production, and I'll be willing to stick a big ole' asterisks next to his name as someone who got caught for doing something illegal and was made an example of (as opposed to someone like Gaylord Perry, who was caught doing something illegal but elected to the Hall of Fame).

[HornedFrog Purple]

I really want to root for Barry Bonds. Honestly.

My thing with him is he still has this grudge with the media over events that happened so many years. The rest of us (the fans) suffer.

When Cal Ripken broke the consecutive starts record, he was so open and said how great of an honor it was and if it wasn't for the guys before him who have been playing this game for 100 years, he wouldn't be there today.

I just don't get that from Barry and that is a shame. Let bygones be bygones, let yourself and the rest of us enjoy what you are doing.

[Ksyrup]

And YOUR proof is what? :rolleyes:

Neither side of the argument has proof at this point. Simply saying "well he hasn't been caught yet" doesn't make your argument gospel.I don't need proof to advocate the status quo. I'm not the one suggesting that his records mean nothing. I'm suggesting that things should remain the way they are now, until proven otherwise. I don't bear the burden of proof.

[Chubby]

And so can switching to a lighter bat, or changing your batting stance or the positioning of your hands.

Again, show me proof that any of this happened, and that it affected his production, and I'll be willing to stick a big ole' asterisks next to his name as someone who got caught for doing something illegal and was made an example of (as opposed to someone like Gaylord Perry, who was caught doing something illegal but elected to the Hall of Fame).

Nobody is saying to asterisk his accomplishments based on speculation, but people are certainly holdit against him until the facts come out.

[Chubby]

I don't need proof to advocate the status quo. I'm not the one suggesting that his records mean nothing. I'm suggesting that things should remain the way they are now, until proven otherwise. I don't bear the burden of proof.

And our side doesn't have to "prove" anything to justify being suspicious of his stats.

[Ksyrup]

I really want to root for Barry Bonds. Honestly.

My thing with him is he still has this grudge with the media over events that happened so many years. The rest of us (the fans) suffer.

When Cal Ripken broke the consecutive starts record, he was so open and said how great of an honor it was and if it wasn't for the guys before him who have been playing this game for 100 years, he wouldn't be there today.

I just don't get that from Barry and that is a shame. Let bygones be bygones, let yourself and the rest of us enjoy what you are doing.
In compeltely understand that, and I think that is precisely why people want to hold the steroids thing against him, absent proof. Hey, the facts may ultimately come out, and he may be the guiltiest of any current or former MLB'er. If so, then he should pay the price. But the fact that he's a bastard (or allows himself to be protrayed as such through the media) doesn't mean we should lessen the burden of proof to conduct a "Leona Helmsley"-type with hunt.

If he's guilty, let someone prove it, and we then we can all revel in the fall of the Big Bastard. If he not, then he's a terrific baseball story, even if he's less than a terrific human being.

[Ksyrup]

And our side doesn't have to "prove" anything to justify being suspicious of his stats.
Being "suspicious?" You (and I'm not referring solely to you here) want MLB to discount his stats and discredit his chase of the HR record. That's "being suspicious?!" Sounds like the decision has already been made on what happened, now you're trying to remedy his wrong-doing.

[Chubby]

In compeltely understand that, and I think that is precisely why people want to hold the steroids thing against him, absent proof. Hey, the facts may ultimately come out, and he may be the guiltiest of any current or former MLB'er. If so, then he should pay the price. But the fact that he's a bastard (or allows himself to be protrayed as such through the media) doesn't mean we should lessen the burden of proof to conduct a "Leona Helmsley"-type with hunt.

If he's guilty, let someone prove it, and we then we can all revel in the fall of the Big Bastard. If he not, then he's a terrific baseball story, even if he's less than a terrific human being.
I don't give 2 shits if he has a grudge against the media. I don't think a lot of fans care about that. The fact that his HR totals and other stats skyrocketed late in his career, in the age of supplements, raises doubts plain and simple. It's not a witch hunt, and besides, we will likely never know as the union will do everything in its power to keep his guilt (if he has done them) quiet.

You never heard anything officially about Jordan's suspension for gambling did you? You think you would hear anything about Bonds? (and Jordan is my fave player but come on)

[Ksyrup]

Nobody is saying to asterisk his accomplishments based on speculation, but people are certainly holdit against him until the facts come out.
Why isn't anyone advocating that we hold the same allegations against Giambi and Sheffield? They've both won MVP Awards, potentially while juiced. Where's the outrage over them? And if it affected their abilities so much, why haven't they put up 70 HRs?

[Samdari]

And your "obvious" proof is...?

Man, this is like deja vu, only this is truly rank speculation on your part.


Uhhh, not on my part - an example of what doubters/haters would say refuting the concept that Bonds having his best season this year somehow proves that he was not on roids in the past.

For the record, I do think Bonds is/has been on steroids, but do not expect anyone to accept it as fact.

[Chubby]

Being "suspicious?" You (and I'm not referring solely to you here) want MLB to discount his stats and discredit his chase of the HR record. That's "being suspicious?!" Sounds like the decision has already been made on what happened, now you're trying to remedy his wrong-doing.
Personally, I don't want his records striken or asteriked as it is now. I DO however want them to test his samples form last year and release the results.

A LOT of people are suspicious yet don't think anything should be done until the facts come out.

[Ksyrup]

You never heard anything officially about Jordan's suspension for gambling did you? You think you would hear anything about Bonds? (and Jordan is my fave player but come on)
Precisely my point. Jordan was a "good guy," so the fans overlooked the fact that he "retired" and played baseball for a year shortly after allegations of gambling surfaced. Here, all we have is similar "facts" - also known as allegations - and people want to "hold it against him." Funny how none of this talk came up with Jordan.

[Chubby]

Why isn't anyone advocating that we hold the same allegations against Giambi and Sheffield? They've both won MVP Awards, potentially while juiced. Where's the outrage over them? And if it affected their abilities so much, why haven't they put up 70 HRs?

Go ahead and strike their records down. Same with Caminiti, Canseco, and anyone else that took them. I haven't heard anything about Sheffield but I think everyone knows Giambi was on them.

I know you gotta defend your favorite player but sheesh, this is getting to "Kodos defending EA" proportions.

[rkmsuf]

Who cares...let them juice. 150 HRs would be cool.

[Chubby]

Precisely my point. Jordan was a "good guy," so the fans overlooked the fact that he "retired" and played baseball for a year shortly after allegations of gambling surfaced. Here, all we have is similar "facts" - also known as allegations - and people want to "hold it against him." Funny how none of this talk came up with Jordan.


The difference is, I believe the NBA had the goods on Jordan and actually DID something about it. To their best player in his prime!

If MLB and the MLBPA has anything to do with it, they will just make Barry retire before the let the facts about his steroid use ever get out. It has nothing to do with being a "good guy", neither league will let their stars get crushed in the public eye if they can help it.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Sosa is still pounding out 40-50 homer seasons and letting cork fly out of bats, but he has been given basically a free pass. When Barry does something, it's totally different.

I believe perception is a part of it as well.

[Ksyrup]

Go ahead and strike their records down. Same with Caminiti, Canseco, and anyone else that took them. I haven't heard anything about Sheffield but I think everyone knows Giambi was on them.

I know you gotta defend your favorite player but sheesh, this is getting to "Kodos defending EA" proportions.
Again, with the "everyone knows he was on them" talk. That's called a conclusion, not a suspicion.

And for the record, I don't really like or dislike Bonds. As a baseball fan, I'm in awe of his production and hope that none of what has been alleged is true. At the same time, it seems to me that he could have been involved with that lab and been receiving supplements that were legal at the time, just as easily as he could have been receiving obviously illegal substances, and in either case, gotten a boost.

My only point is, prove he did something wrong before you accuse him (or anyone else, for that matter). I don't really give a crap that his head looks bigger in 2003 than it did in 1988. That doesn't prove anything. And his connection to the lab and/or trainer may or may not prove damning. At this point, it's certainly not damning enough for me to stop watching him hit HRs because I've concluded that he's on steroids.

[Ksyrup]

The difference is, I believe the NBA had the goods on Jordan and actually DID something about it. To their best player in his prime!

If MLB and the MLBPA has anything to do with it, they will just make Barry retire before the let the facts about his steroid use ever get out. It has nothing to do with being a "good guy", neither league will let their stars get crushed in the public eye if they can help it.
Uh...no facts were ever made public, to my knowledge, about Jordan (if it was even true). They let him "retire" and "unretire," rather than suspend him. You don't think that was cutting him a break? And how did it hurt Jordan? If anything, the two-sport thing made him even more famous. If they really wanted to punish him, they would suspended him and given the reasons. That would have hurt him in his pocket book - right there next to his Hanes.

[Chubby]

Again, with the "everyone knows he was on them" talk. That's called a conclusion, not a suspicion.

And for the record, I don't really like or dislike Bonds. As a baseball fan, I'm in awe of his production and hope that none of what has been alleged is true. At the same time, it seems to me that he could have been involved with that lab and been receiving supplements that were legal at the time, just as easily as he could have been receiving obviously illegal substances, and in either case, gotten a boost.

My only point is, prove he did something wrong before you accuse him (or anyone else, for that matter). I don't really give a crap that his head looks bigger in 2003 than it did in 1988. That doesn't prove anything. And his connection to the lab and/or trainer may or may not prove damning. At this point, it's certainly not damning enough for me to stop watching him hit HRs because I've concluded that he's on steroids.

1st off, you're a Bonds homer defending him and no one else. He "could have been involved in the lab"? Ha, his buddy owns it. His buddy was also his trainer. He delivered stuff to Bonds. Was he dropping off Milky Way bars? His head has ballooned (a side effect of steroids). Just because you want to put blinders on, doesn't mean I or others can't add 2 + 2.

Yeah ok, I'll prove he did it before I accuse him :rolleyes: (runs and gets the "Little Jimmy Home Steroid Testing Kit")

[rkmsuf]

Maybe he plays raquetball with the Balco guy

[Chubby]

Uh...no facts were ever made public, to my knowledge, about Jordan (if it was even true). They let him "retire" and "unretire," rather than suspend him. You don't think that was cutting him a break? And how did it hurt Jordan? If anything, the two-sport thing made him even more famous. If they really wanted to punish him, they would suspended him and given the reasons. That would have hurt him in his pocket book - right there next to his Hanes.

I never said it was made public.

If the NBA had gone public with the gambling stuff (if that really happened) it would have KILLED the NBA. The NBA was only looking out for itself while trying to do the right thing at the same time.

[Samdari]

My only point is, prove he did something wrong before you accuse him (or anyone else, for that matter). I don't really give a crap that his head looks bigger in 2003 than it did in 1988. That doesn't prove anything. And his connection to the lab and/or trainer may or may not prove damning. At this point, it's certainly not damning enough for me to stop watching him hit HRs because I've concluded that he's on steroids.

Just curious, would anything other that an admission of "I took steroids" prove it for you. The head thing, by itself, is not conclusive proof, but the connection to Balco is pretty damning, especially considering that the guy indicted worked with Barry personally. He also gained quite a bit of muscle pretty quickly. Taken together, for most people they move most people's assessment of the did barry take steroids question to "most likely." Is there enough circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Probably not. Is there enough to convict him in the court of public opinion? That seems to be the prevailing opinion.

[Butter]

Asking the average fan to "prove" Bonds was taking steroids is about as asinine as saying that he definitively is/was taking them. It's all conjecture. Bonds could make it all go away with 4 words: "I didn't do it." The fact that he won't further proves my theory: he's a dick.

[Samdari]

my theory: he's a dick.

Now, this I thought had been proven.

[rkmsuf]

Now, this I thought had been proven.

don't call him a dick unless you can produce physical proof of dickness.

[Maple Leafs]

Sosa is still pounding out 40-50 homer seasons and letting cork fly out of bats, but he has been given basically a free pass. When Barry does something, it's totally different.But Sosa is nice to the media, and Bonds is a jerk and makes their jobs difficult. So it's completely different, you see.

[Ksyrup]

Asking the average fan to "prove" Bonds was taking steroids is about as asinine as saying that he definitively is/was taking them. It's all conjecture. Bonds could make it all go away with 4 words: "I didn't do it." The fact that he won't further proves my theory: he's a dick.
I'm not necessarily asking "fans" to prove he was taking steroids - I'm simply suggesting that fans should wait to conclude he's guilty until someone offers proof. However, to the extent people's "suspicions" are couched in terms such as "it's obvious he's taken steroids" - a conclusion, not a suspicion - then yes, I think they should prove why they have come to that conclusion, since they obviously know something the rest of us does not.

I'm suspicious of Bonds and the others, too, but I haven't seen any real proof that he took any illegal substances. There are a number of legal (at the time) substance he could have taken - and gotten from his buddy at BALCO - which would not warrant the accusations and conclusions people are making about him. If it was legal under state and federal law and under baseball's drug policy, then I don't see what the problem is.

And really, my beef has nothing to do with Bonds - as I said, I'm not sticking up for him because he's my favorite player or anything. It really has more to do with sticking up for baseball in general, and the idea that the major league baseball has somehow been compromised by this situation, when nothing has been proven. Will something ultimately come out of all of this? Maybe, probably. But right now, all I see is a bunch of conclusions thrown around with nothing but anecdotal support. And that, above all, is what irritates me.

[rkmsuf]

I'm not necessarily asking "fans" to prove he was taking steroids - I'm simply suggesting that fans should wait to conclude he's guilty until someone offers proof. However, to the extent people's "suspicions" are couched in terms such as "it's obvious he's taken steroids" - a conclusion, not a suspicion - then yes, I think they should prove why they have come to that conclusion, since they obviously know something the rest of us does not.

I'm suspicious of Bonds and the others, too, but I haven't seen any real proof that he took any illegal substances. There are a number of legal (at the time) substance he could have taken - and gotten from his buddy at BALCO - which would not warrant the accusations and conclusions people are making about him. If it was legal under state and federal law and under baseball's drug policy, then I don't see what the problem is.

And really, my beef has nothing to do with Bonds - as I said, I'm not sticking up for him because he's my favorite player or anything. It really has more to do with sticking up for baseball in general, and the idea that the major league baseball has somehow been compromised by this situation, when nothing has been proven. Will something ultimately come out of all of this? Maybe, probably. But right now, all I see is a bunch of conclusions thrown around with nothing but anecdotal support. And that, above all, is what irritates me.

All of this is because there is a simple solution that for some reason baseball and players do not want to entertain. That in and of itself influences a negative opinion.

[Ksyrup]

Just curious, would anything other that an admission of "I took steroids" prove it for you. The head thing, by itself, is not conclusive proof, but the connection to Balco is pretty damning, especially considering that the guy indicted worked with Barry personally. He also gained quite a bit of muscle pretty quickly. Taken together, for most people they move most people's assessment of the did barry take steroids question to "most likely." Is there enough circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Probably not. Is there enough to convict him in the court of public opinion? That seems to be the prevailing opinion.Again, "most likely" is a far cry from "it's obvious he's on steroids." People are not weighing the evidence and taking a wait-and-see approach as to whether he is guilty - they are stating it as fact. People can conclude whatever they want to conclude, but they should be prepared to back up those conclusions. I see the suspicious indicators, as well, and while I might be persuaded that, more than likely, there's fire where there's smoke, I haven't seen anything that comes close to proof.

[Samdari]

Again, "most likely" is a far cry from "it's obvious he's on steroids." People are not weighing the evidence and taking a wait-and-see approach as to whether he is guilty - they are stating it as fact. People can conclude whatever they want to conclude, but they should be prepared to back up those conclusions. I see the suspicious indicators, as well, and while I might be persuaded that, more than likely, there's fire where there's smoke, I haven't seen anything that comes close to proof.

Here's the thing - in this court of public opinion in which Barry is being tried, every person gets to have his own threshold of what constitutes proof that Barry has taken steroids. You seem to be insisting that everyone conform to yours - nobody is allowed to say Bonds is on steroids until a level of proof - which you define - is reached.

For many of us, the increased size, and the fact that it came while he was under the guidance of someone who invented and distributed steroids IS enough proof.

[Crapshoot]

And YOUR proof is what? :rolleyes:

Neither side of the argument has proof at this point. Simply saying "well he hasn't been caught yet" doesn't make your argument gospel.

Cute- but the burden of proof is on the witching hunting accusers.

[Chubby]

Cute- but the burden of proof is on the witching hunting accusers.

I'm not witch hunting anybody.

I'm simply saying that I think he's on 'roids and that I will personally value his stats accordingly.


KSyrup - You say to back up your conclusions. So back YOURS up, where's the drug tests coming back negative? Oh wait, you don't have to back your conclusions up just others that disagree :rolleyes:

[sterlingice]

I'm with Peter Gammons. His HR totals, while amazing, don't interest me as much now as does the possibility that he could hit .400. I'd like to see someone argue that steroids helped him hit .400. The fact that he's going the other way with hits against the shift, is a beautiful thing. He's walking into second base on grounders to 3rd.
I suppose if anyone can do it these days, he can. Tho, if I had to put money on someone doing it, I think it would be on Ichiro or maybe Todd Helton. But it's just so damn tough.

It's my favorite "race" every few years when it comes along (Gwynn and Larry Walker were the last two I remember with decent shot late in the season; stupid 1994 strike wiping out Tony's shot). It's so tough and so grueling. The difference between .300 and .400 looks so miniscule statistically but it would be such an amazing feat if someone could pull it off.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Here's the thing - in this court of public opinion in which Barry is being tried, every person gets to have his own threshold of what constitutes proof that Barry has taken steroids. You seem to be insisting that everyone conform to yours - nobody is allowed to say Bonds is on steroids until a level of proof - which you define - is reached.

For many of us, the increased size, and the fact that it came while he was under the guidance of someone who invented and distributed steroids IS enough proof.
I'm asking that there BE a level of proof. If that's your threshold of proof, then I just saw ants straining to limbo under it.

I mean, I guess I could decide that the fact Kobe was in Colorado during the month in which he was accused of raping a woman constitutes proof "to me" that he's guilty, but that doesn't get us any closer to having an objective discussion as to whether the guy is really guilty or not.

I know an opinion's an opinion - that's fine and dandy, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about objective criteria as to why anyone should conclude he's guilty today. And you've got to give me SOMETHING other than Jerkoff + Muscular + Shady Company = obvious steroid user.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not witch hunting anybody.

I'm simply saying that I think he's on 'roids and that I will personally value his stats accordingly.


KSyrup - You say to back up your conclusions. So back YOURS up, where's the drug tests coming back negative? Oh wait, you don't have to back your conclusions up just others that disagree :rolleyes:
I haven't made any conclusions. I've never said he didn't use steroids. I'm in the "wait-and-see" category. I'm simply asking that those who have made up their minds, show me what objective proof you have.

[Chubby]

And you've got to give me SOMETHING other than Jerkoff + Muscular + Shady Company = obvious steroid user.
Change that to...

increased muscle mass at 40 YO + 2 biggest HR totals after 35 + hat size increases 2 fold + personal trainer just got busted by feds for making and distributing steroids = steroid user

[Ben E Lou]

Why are steroids illegal?

[Butter]

And you've got to give me SOMETHING other than Jerkoff + Muscular + Shady Company = obvious steroid user.

How about Jerkoff + Suddenly Extremely Muscular + Federally Indicted Shady Company = Possible (even likely) steroid user.

What proof short of a positive steroid test would you consider as definitive proof? There are boatloads of damning circumstantial evidence out there, which = more than just occasionally cavorting with shady company.

How many criminals have gone to jail with less proof than what we have for Bonds?

It's very simple. Those who are more likely to hate Bonds will be more likely to believe the accusations are true. Those who are more likely to like Bonds will be less likely to believe the accusations are true. And then there's Chubby and Aadik, who are both in their own little polarized worlds. (I'm kidding)

[Butter]

Why are steroids illegal?

Why is marijuana illegal?

[Ben E Lou]

Why is marijuana illegal?That didn't answer my question, and I asked first. :p

[Chubby]

Why are steroids illegal?

I believe the official reason is because they are damaging to the body like other illegal drugs (butter already gave a smartass reply so I figured I wouldn't :p )

[Chubby]

Dola, and it's not so much that they're "illegal" in this argument. But that they give a unfair competitive advantage to the user and the league has banned them.

[Ksyrup]

increased muscle mass at 40 YO + 2 biggest HR totals after 35 + hat size increases 2 fold + personal trainer just got busted by feds for making and distributing steroids = steroid user
The increased muscle mass and hat size has occurred over a period of years. It did not just happen when he turned 40 (which was last year, after he hit 73 HRs, btw).

In case you hadn't noticed, HRs kinda exploded all around the league after the strike ended. Guys who used to hit 5 HRs a year were hitting 15-20, etc. I suppose they were all on steroids as well, and that MLB couldn't possibly be involved in the scheme to increase the frequency of HRs to try to win back fans.

[Ben E Lou]

I believe the official reason is because they are damaging to the body like other illegal drugs (butter already gave a smartass reply so I figured I wouldn't :p )That's what I thought.

Cigarettes? Legal.
Marijuana? Illegal.
Steroids? Illegal.
Alcohol? Legal.
Cocaine? Illegal.
Skoal/chaw? Legal.


I just don't get it. :(

[Ben E Lou]

Dola, and it's not so much that they're "illegal" in this argument. But that they give a unfair competitive advantage to the user and the league has banned them.Are they legal than? (I'm not sure....)

[Butter]

Why are steroids illegal?

Someone considers them a public health threat. Steroids are potentially very damaging to users.

[Chubby]

That's what I thought.

Cigarettes? Legal.
Marijuana? Illegal.
Steroids? Illegal.
Alcohol? Legal.
Cocaine? Illegal.
Skoal/chaw? Legal.


I just don't get it. :(
Tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups, the others don't.

Unfortunately, that is basically what it boils down to. That's why I'm for legalization of pot (more tax $) but not for legalization of all drugs.

[Ksyrup]

How about Jerkoff + Suddenly Extremely Muscular + Federally Indicted Shady Company = Possible (even likely) steroid user.
Actually, you can stop there. That's about all I was looking for. Words like "possible" and "likely" at least show that you're not jumping to a conclusion. That's been my point from post 1. If you draw a conclusion, let's see the facts.

Given any set of circumstances, a particular outcome is possible or likely, and anyone can form an opinion one way or the other.

[Ben E Lou]

Someone considers them a public health threat. Steroids are potentially very damaging to users.I understand that. All I'm saying is that the same argument could be used for alcohol, all tobacco products, Big Macs, etc. etc. etc.

[HornedFrog Purple]

That's what I thought.

Cigarettes? Legal. (government taxed)
Marijuana? Illegal.
Steroids? Illegal.
Alcohol? Legal. (government taxed)
Cocaine? Illegal.
Skoal/chaw? Legal. (government taxed)


I just don't get it. :(

Make more sense? :)

[Samdari]

I'm asking that there BE a level of proof. If that's your threshold of proof, then I just saw ants straining to limbo under it.

You are kidding right? There is very strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Bonds has used steroids to train. You want to ignore it because you have a hard on for him. People are convicted of crimes with circumstantial evidence all the time. Scott Peterson is about to be.

As far as what has been presented being MY acceptable level of proof, most sports fans believe that Bonds has used steroids (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2004-03-31-andro-sales-limited_x.htm). Perhaps you are the one who needs to reexamine his standards.

I am not suggesting his records be stripped, or that he be banned, or anything. That would require a far higher standard of proof. But, I have seen enough to believe that he did it, and view his records - in my mind - with the appropriate grain of salt.

[Ben E Lou]

Tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups, the others don't.I agree with you there. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. It just hacks me off.

[Chubby]

Are they legal than? (I'm not sure....)

Some are and some aren't I think. At least that's what I get from the news that I read about em. The BALCO stuff is actually a steroid precursor, it's something that makes testerone be created in your body when taken. Up until now, all steroids were "testosterone" or a synthetic equivelent.

The term "steroid" is getting broadened every day. Is that supplement someone got at GNC a steroid? What if it stimulates the production of testosterone?

[Ksyrup]

Dola, and it's not so much that they're "illegal" in this argument. But that they give a unfair competitive advantage to the user and the league has banned them.
But you have to agree that there are certain substances that are or were legal that can have the same effect, right? Wasn't McGwire on andro, and at the time, he wasn't doing anything illegal. So it's possible that Bonds is taking, or was taking, substances that were legal at the time he took them. Which, to me, suggests that he should not be automatically branded a steroid user at this point.

[Chubby]

But you have to agree that there are certain substances that are or were legal that can have the same effect, right? Wasn't McGwire on andro, and at the time, he wasn't doing anything illegal. So it's possible that Bonds is taking, or was taking, substances that were legal at the time he took them. Which, to me, suggests that he should not be automatically branded a steroid user at this point.
I agree.

Like I said to SkyDog, it's not that they are illegal that is the problem. It's that he took something that gave him an unfair competetive advantage, something that was against MLB rules (as far as I know, I hate reading rules excerpts from any league), and it may or may not be illegal (since it's a new substance who knows what it was going to be classified as).

[Butter]

It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. It just hacks me off.

I'm glad it was rhetorical. I thought you were a complete doofus there for a minute. :)

[Samdari]

But you have to agree that there are certain substances that are or were legal that can have the same effect, right? Wasn't McGwire on andro, and at the time, he wasn't doing anything illegal. So it's possible that Bonds is taking, or was taking, substances that were legal at the time he took them. Which, to me, suggests that he should not be automatically branded a steroid user at this point.

I am wondering why this has not gotten more play. I think most of us can separate the "illegal" from "performance enhancing" arguments. Mark McGuire admitted to using andro when breaking the single season home run record. That substance has since come to be viewed as a steroid "precursor" due to its having similar effects as steroids.

I know he did not break either any rules, nor any laws (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion) by doing this, but does anyone besides me now view his accomplishments with a certain amount of skepticism because he attainted them with the aid of a performance enhancing drug?

[Samdari]

I agree with you there. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. It just hacks me off.

That steroids are illegal, or that tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups?

[Ksyrup]

You are kidding right? There is very strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Bonds has used steroids to train. You want to ignore it because you have a hard on for him. People are convicted of crimes with circumstantial evidence all the time. Scott Peterson is about to be.

As far as what has been presented being MY acceptable level of proof, most sports fans believe that Bonds has used steroids (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2004-03-31-andro-sales-limited_x.htm). Perhaps you are the one who needs to reexamine his standards.

I am not suggesting his records be stripped, or that he be banned, or anything. That would require a far higher standard of proof. But, I have seen enough to believe that he did it, and view his records - in my mind - with the appropriate grain of salt.
The funy thing is, I really am not a "fan" of his, other than just being a baseball fan. I just find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people would jump to such conclusions with nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

I don't see it as being particularly strong evidence. And we haven't even gotten into whether his trainer could have been giving him stuff he was told was legal, but turned out not to be (i.e., that Bonds/Giambi/Sheffield weren't told the whole truth about what he was being given). You know, their trainers had something to gain, in terms of additional clients and referrals, by them becoming ripped and putting up such great numbers. I've seen cases where, in a financial context, people's accounts were inflated to suggest a huge rate of return, when in fact that money never existed, but those rates of return were used by the broker to secure additional clients (essentially, a Ponzi scheme). It happens.

And really, if you think about it, how would you or I know if the substance we were taking was truly legal or not? There are plenty of substances that are legal that can increase muscle mass. Getting to a broader point, and away from Bonds, I just don't see the entire steroids issue so cut-and-dried. And maybe that's fueling my skepticism about whether these guys are truly guilty - first, whether they took the stuff, and then, whether they were told the truth about what they were taking.

[Chubby]

I am wondering why this has not gotten more play. I think most of us can separate the "illegal" from "performance enhancing" arguments. Mark McGuire admitted to using andro when breaking the single season home run record. That substance has since come to be viewed as a steroid "precursor" due to its having similar effects as steroids.

I know he did not break either any rules, nor any laws (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion) by doing this, but does anyone besides me now view his accomplishments with a certain amount of skepticism because he attainted them with the aid of a performance enhancing drug?

I do. Same with Sosa, but because they are good guys the media ignores it.

This is differemt than the league or the fans ignoring it, KSyrup (before you take it where I know you will). I think fans for the most part view this whole era with skepticism.

[Ben E Lou]

That steroids are illegal, or that tobacco and alcohol have powerful lobbying groups?Well, both, actually...

[Ksyrup]

I am wondering why this has not gotten more play. I think most of us can separate the "illegal" from "performance enhancing" arguments. Mark McGuire admitted to using andro when breaking the single season home run record. That substance has since come to be viewed as a steroid "precursor" due to its having similar effects as steroids.

I know he did not break either any rules, nor any laws (which is kind of irrelevant to the discussion) by doing this, but does anyone besides me now view his accomplishments with a certain amount of skepticism because he attainted them with the aid of a performance enhancing drug?
I don't, not at all. Should we reconsider the HoF status of guys who threw the spitball, because afterward, it was determined to be an illegal pitch? You play by the rules as you go, and if something is not illegal or otherwise against the rules, I don't see why you should prevent yourself from taking advantage of it.

[Samdari]

I don't see it as being particularly strong evidence. And we haven't even gotten into whether his trainer could have been giving him stuff he was told was legal, but turned out not to be (i.e., that Bonds/Giambi/Sheffield weren't told the whole truth about what he was being given).

I am very willing to believe that this Anderson dude is shady enough to have done exactly that - told his clients he was giving them Zinc while he was really giving him his designer steroid.

But, it really does not matter to me in the context of viewing Bonds' accomplishments. I am not out to judge him as a person (I think he's an asshole, but since he's not my neighbor or coworker, I really don't care), I am simply trying to know whether his accomplishments can be accurately compared with baseball's history. If he was getting a boost from an artificial testosterone enhancing substance, those accomplishments are tainted, whether or not the taker knew he was getting an artificial testosterone boost.

Note, as I say above, the last sentence applies to both McGuire and Bonds.

[Samdari]

Well, both, actually...

You really think anyone should be able to get steroids whenever they want?

[Ben E Lou]

You really think anyone should be able to get steroids whenever they want?Not anyone. Just like any other "bad-for-you" substance, I think there should be an age limit. :p

Make no mistake, I don't think using steroids is a GOOD idea, but I'm not for government telling us what we can and can't do to help or harm our own bodies, either.

[QuikSand]

I'm with SkyDog. I don't see any good argument why government ought to tell us what to do when there is no evidence that there is any societal costs to steroid use. Even though it's a stretch, one might argue that banning drugs is justified because of the irresponsible and dangerous things that people do (like wreck cars) when using those substances -- there's at least some logic to that. But a steroid user generally speaking just kills his internal organs, without really cusing harm to anyone else in a significant fashion.

Seems perfectly appropriate for organized sports organizations to ban them for ther effect, but for them to be legal for public consumption if consenting adults choose to do so. Oddly enough, we seem to have it backwards -- we quickly pass laws to make them illegal for everyone, but then our sports leagues are wishy-washy about enforcement within their own players.

[Chubby]

QS - Depends on if you think "roid rage" has any societal costs :D

[ISiddiqui]

KSyrup - You say to back up your conclusions. So back YOURS up, where's the drug tests coming back negative? Oh wait, you don't have to back your conclusions up just others that disagree

You didn't just blatently use the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative, did you? Please tell you didn't.

[dawgfan]

A few comments:

- I'm with Ksyrup on the idea of the public trying and convicting Bonds in the court of public opinion. Anyone has the right to an opinion that Bonds is taking/has taken steroids/human growth hormones. But to state definitively that Bonds has taken steroids without any direct proof is unfair to him. All we have is circumstantial evidence. Yes, there are a lot of arrows pointing to a conclusion that Bonds took steroids, but no conclusive proof. I have no problem viewing his accomplishments with some skepticism, but I'm reserving final judgement until we get some proof one way or the other.

- Regarding steroids, human growth hormones, steroid precursors, stenediones and other supplements you can get at your neighborhood GNC: I guess I'm not so bothered by the whole steroid controversy. While legally there is a line drawn at steroids and human growth hormones, from an effectiveness standpoint is there really much difference between the illegal supplements and the legal supplements? If player A is taking steroids and player B is using the best legal supplements, how much advantage is player A getting? My understanding (admittedly limited) is that there really isn't a significant difference. The fact that steroids are illegal makes some difference to me, but I just don't see why people get so upset about them in terms of performance enhancement.

- As far as jumps in performance, many people are using poor arguments in saying Barry is on 'roids. They point to big jumps in his homerun numbers as proof; the fact is though that Barry has been hitting homeruns at a very high rate for quite some time now. His rate of homeruns per at-bats started to jump between '90 and '92 and have slowly increased since, with aberrations in '98 (low) and '01 (high). His 73 bombs in '01 are an obvious outlier in terms of statistical results, but they're not really that implausible from a statistical standpoint - plenty of players have had more extreme spikes in their performance (Brady Anderson, Phil Bradley, Kirby Puckett) than Bonds did.

People also point to how he's gotten so big and muscular, as though it happened suddenly. I haven't kept close tabs on his appearence over the years, but it didn't seem that sudden to me. Besides, if you took a guy in good shape already and put him on an intense workout regiment for 5 months, I think you'd see a pretty noticeable change in appearence.

From my own experience, I've watched Edgar Martinez ever since he first came up with the Mariners. He's grown considerably since he first came up as a skinny, slick-fielding third baseman with below-average power. He's also seen his homerun rates grow quite a bit over time. Unlike Bonds, his body hasn't held up as well with age; of course, this might be evidence that Bonds is on 'roids, but it could just be that Barry has been more lucky and just has better physiology.

I don't love or hate Bonds; I admire his accomplishments and think he's one of the top 5 hitters of all-time, and while I'd lose some respect for what he's done if I had proof he used illegal supplements, I wouldn't discount them all that much either. Steroids etc. won't help his hand/eye coordination and they won't improve his plate discipline, which are his best traits. The strength and corresponding bat speed might be helped, but I have a hard time believing they'd add much over legal supplements and methods.

[Chubby]

You didn't just blatently use the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative, did you? Please tell you didn't.
I didn't say prove a negative, I was saying practice what you preach.

[Crapshoot]

How about Jerkoff + Suddenly Extremely Muscular + Federally Indicted Shady Company = Possible (even likely) steroid user.

What proof short of a positive steroid test would you consider as definitive proof? There are boatloads of damning circumstantial evidence out there, which = more than just occasionally cavorting with shady company.

How many criminals have gone to jail with less proof than what we have for Bonds?

It's very simple. Those who are more likely to hate Bonds will be more likely to believe the accusations are true. Those who are more likely to like Bonds will be less likely to believe the accusations are true. And then there's Chubby and Aadik, who are both in their own little polarized worlds. (I'm kidding)


Well, labelling someone a jerkoff based on media reports (that include falisifaction- see Bob Klapisch, world series 2002) that are ridiculously biased are far more polarized isnt exactly my stance. The whole Bonds is a jerk thing is based more on a media tendency towards that rather than anything else- the classic being the painting Kent as a good guy, and Bonds as the bad one. I don't know him enough to make the judgement, but the only impression I've gotten from interviews is that he's a fairly intelligent guy. SI has basically bashed Bonds for 10 years, since the 1994 cover. I don't believe so called fans or mediots with their own incentives are in a position to judge character from shaky knowledge bases...

[Crapshoot]

You didn't just blatently use the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative, did you? Please tell you didn't.

Yup- his perspective is that the contra-positive needs to be disproved- not the negative...

[Chubby]

dawgfan - Brady has already been called out on his alleged steroid use I believe. And do what do you attribute Barry's melon growth? ;)

[Ksyrup]

And the evidence against Brady Anderson is...what, exactly? One season of 50 HRs? Is that it?

Frankly, there's more circumstantial evidence that Brady's gay then there is that he took steroids. And I'm not taking a position on either issue.

[ISiddiqui]

I didn't say prove a negative, I was saying practice what you preach.

No, you told him to prove a negative. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accusers and 'practice what you preach' is just talking silly, because you are saying those skeptical have to prove the negative. That's why it is classical logical fallacy.

[Ksyrup]

*whips out book of cliches*

Practice what I preach? Hey, what comes around goes around. I was just fighting fire with fire. But you should really give peace a chance! Otherwise, I'm going to have to bust out a can of whoop-ass. The end.

[dawgfan]

dawgfan - Brady has already been called out on his alleged steroid use I believe. And do what do you attribute Barry's melon growth? ;)

Really? Brady used steroids for one season then quit? Brady has admitted as such or there's simply rampant speculation with no proof? Was Kirby Puckett using steroids starting in '86? Did Phil Bradley start using steroids in '85?

I could find plenty more examples of extreme spikes in homerun rates for batters in baseball history if I wanted to spend the time searching, and from eras well before steroids were a possibility.

The facts are that the the spike in Bonds' homerun production in '01, while fairly large, wasn't completely out of the range of expected performance based on his previous and successive seasons. Anyone with a good understanding of statistics would recognize this.

As for the size of his melon - are you speculating or do you have hat size measurements throughout his career?

[Ksyrup]

Didn't you know? Kirby used steroids, and that's what made him go blind. And roid rage made him assault a woman in the restroom.

[Ksyrup]

As for the size of his melon - are you speculating or do you have hat size measurements throughout his career?
You know, if I could find a couple of good pictures of John Kruk circa 1987 and 1993, or Tony Gwynn circa 1984 and 1998...I think I could make the case that both of them were on steroids, too.

[Chubby]

And the evidence against Brady Anderson is...what, exactly? One season of 50 HRs? Is that it?

Frankly, there's more circumstantial evidence that Brady's gay then there is that he took steroids. And I'm not taking a position on either issue.

I think Palmer stuck his foot in his mout suggesting that Brady was on steroids. That is all I know of it.

[Chubby]

Yes, I have hat measurements for him. I also have piss samples of every person that has even remotely been accused of being on the juice. I just choose to keep quiet about them.

But then again, because I personally don't have proof it MUST be not true!

[mgadfly]

Not anyone. Just like any other "bad-for-you" substance, I think there should be an age limit. :p

Make no mistake, I don't think using steroids is a GOOD idea, but I'm not for government telling us what we can and can't do to help or harm our own bodies, either.

I think that if I want to sit around in my own house and do steroids, the government should mind their own business.

The problem is that baseball has a right, enforceable via the collective bargaining agreement, to limit what substances players can use. This is a contract between the players and management, and among the players themselves. They all sat down (or their representatives did) and decided that if one person was allowed to use substances X, Y, Z that it would unfairly advantage them. They made a deal not to use such substances. To do so breaches that contract.

For example, I don't think the government should make aluminum bats illegal, but I think any baseball player using one should have, at the very minimum, an asterisk placed next to their stats and their team's victories forfeited.

[Bad-example]

Anyone who insists that Bonds is/was definitely on steroids is talking out of their ass.

Same as anyone that insists that he definitely isn't/wasn't on steroids.

[JeeberD]

Not anyone. Just like any other "bad-for-you" substance, I think there should be an age limit. :p

Make no mistake, I don't think using steroids is a GOOD idea, but I'm not for government telling us what we can and can't do to help or harm our own bodies, either.


I think we just found out how SD got his big ol' butt... ;)

[dawgfan]

Yes, I have hat measurements for him. I also have piss samples of every person that has even remotely been accused of being on the juice. I just choose to keep quiet about them.

But then again, because I personally don't have proof it MUST be not true!

You've been insisting that Bonds must be on steroids, and you throw out his head size as proof of your claim, yet you admit you have no evidence to back up this assertion.

I have no proof that Bonds has taken any illegal supplements and neither do you. It wouldn't surprise me if he has, but I'm not going around insisting it's obvious that he has - you are. I'm asking you to give me something concrete to support this view, but you can't do it - you're relying on anecdotal evidence that may or may not be true.

[Chubby]

You've been insisting that Bonds must be on steroids, and you throw out his head size as proof of your claim, yet you admit you have no evidence to back up this assertion.

I have no proof that Bonds has taken any illegal supplements and neither do you. It wouldn't surprise me if he has, but I'm not going around insisting it's obvious that he has - you are. I'm asking you to give me something concrete to support this view, but you can't do it - you're relying on anecdotal evidence that may or may not be true.
Do you bother to read the posts or just decide that whatever position I take you must take the opposite?

I've said numerous times I believe he has taken and continues to take steroids, I will judge his accomplishments accordingly.

"Going around"? It's a discussion forum, that's what we do. Give our opinions. Unless "going around" means posting in Bonds' threads or topics about steroids.

What am I supposed to give concrete? Nothing short of a piss test will satisfy you or others. Am I going to get Bonds' pee in a cup? Jesus.

Your steadfast absolution that "Until I see proof means he hasn't" is ridiculous. You are insisting that nobody say he takes steroids unless he has absolute proof which no one on this forum will be able to obtain.

I hope you never get robbed or anything. I mean, just because something is missing doesn't mean it was stolen. You have to have absolute proof that someone else took it before reporting it stolen :rolleyes:

[DeToxRox]

steroids are illegal, ok. if bonds is on them, that's illegal and he ought to be suspended or whatever. however i don't think that makes him anything less then superb. besides 73 homers, he hasn't had gawdy numbers like some guys, but he's been consistent with his bat. he just hit .370 for crying out loud. steroids won't help a guys swing, only hinder it, and he keeps getting better as a hitter.

i'd only question his 73 jacks at this point if he was on steroids, but thats just me.

[judicial clerk]

Sky Dog and Quik, I don't think that steroids are illegal. I think, as with many other drugs, it is illegal to use them without a doctor's prescription.

I think the cost to society if steroids, and other pharmaceuticals requiring a prescritption, are used by indviduals without a doctor's supervision, is that they may harm themselves. Arguably, this in and of itself hurts society, and if you consider that, as a result of their injuries, a percentage of the people who harm themselves will need publice assistance to get by, their is a legitimate public interest in restricting access to these drugs.

I agree that there is a double standard regarding alcohol and tobacco products. I also tend to agree with you and take a more "libertarian" view on these issues (let people do what they want as long as they don't hurt someone else) , but I do think there is a public interest in restricting access to dangerous pharmaceuticals.

I would be interested in any of our resident doctors' points of view.

[dawgfan]

Do you bother to read the posts or just decide that whatever position I take you must take the opposite?

I've said numerous times I believe he has taken and continues to take steroids, I will judge his accomplishments accordingly.

"Going around"? It's a discussion forum, that's what we do. Give our opinions. Unless "going around" means posting in Bonds' threads or topics about steroids.

What am I supposed to give concrete? Nothing short of a piss test will satisfy you or others. Am I going to get Bonds' pee in a cup? Jesus.

Your steadfast absolution that "Until I see proof means he hasn't" is ridiculous. You are insisting that nobody say he takes steroids unless he has absolute proof which no one on this forum will be able to obtain.

I hope you never get robbed or anything. I mean, just because something is missing doesn't mean it was stolen. You have to have absolute proof that someone else took it before reporting it stolen :rolleyes:

The irony in your post is rich. Have I read your posts? Yes, and I understood them. Have you read my posts and understood them? Obviously not.

If you were to say "It's my opinion based off of the circumstantial evidence that Bonds has taken steroids" I wouldn't have any issue with you. Instead you keep insisting he has as though you have proof. You don't. Do you understand the difference here? It's your opinion he has taken steroids. Since you have no proof that's how you should couch your statements on the matter, and to insinuate others are blind or idiots for not agreeing with you is a ridiculous stance unless you do have proof.

Now for the part where we test your reading skills. Please point out to me where I've steadfastly maintained Bonds hasn't taken any illegal supplements. No, don't waste your time because you won't find it - I never have. What I've said is, until you show me proof he has I'm not going to insist he has. Of course I have my suspicions about him, but I'm not anywhere close to insisting the accusations must be true, unlike you.

And by the way, fuck you for you condescension.

[Ksyrup]

You can say what you want about him, but...geez. He just hit #9, 7th game in a row. Only pitch near the strike zone in 2 ABs, and he put it in the drink.

[Vince]

:D

[clintl]

It did not just happen when he turned 40 (which was last year, after he hit 73 HRs, btw).

Even that is not correct. He is not 40 yet. That doesn't happen until July.

[Tigercat]

Its amazing how well steroids can improve your hand eye coordination. Sure the Bonds of today may have the best eye for the ball of any modern day baseball player, but its only because he has large roid inflated eyeballs. I want an eyeball size comparison between Pirates Bonds and Giants Bonds!

Edit: Even roids can't improve the ability to spot post mistakes if you are coherent post deficient.

[Vince]

Hand eye coordination, maybe? I like the post though :)

[Crapshoot]

You are kidding right? There is very strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Bonds has used steroids to train. You want to ignore it because you have a hard on for him. People are convicted of crimes with circumstantial evidence all the time. Scott Peterson is about to be.

As far as what has been presented being MY acceptable level of proof, most sports fans believe that Bonds has used steroids (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2004-03-31-andro-sales-limited_x.htm). Perhaps you are the one who needs to reexamine his standards.

I am not suggesting his records be stripped, or that he be banned, or anything. That would require a far higher standard of proof. But, I have seen enough to believe that he did it, and view his records - in my mind - with the appropriate grain of salt.

Lets see- most baseball fans don't understand DIPS, and would oppose it. Most baseball fans think RBI is a relevant statistic, or that pitcher wins mean something in a season. Many fans believe in clutch hitting. Many baseball/sports fans don't make an arguement- the sizeof the masses does not overwhelm their ignorance on many matters.

[Crapshoot]

The irony in your post is rich. Have I read your posts? Yes, and I understood them. Have you read my posts and understood them? Obviously not.

If you were to say "It's my opinion based off of the circumstantial evidence that Bonds has taken steroids" I wouldn't have any issue with you. Instead you keep insisting he has as though you have proof. You don't. Do you understand the difference here? It's your opinion he has taken steroids. Since you have no proof that's how you should couch your statements on the matter, and to insinuate others are blind or idiots for not agreeing with you is a ridiculous stance unless you do have proof.

Now for the part where we test your reading skills. Please point out to me where I've steadfastly maintained Bonds hasn't taken any illegal supplements. No, don't waste your time because you won't find it - I never have. What I've said is, until you show me proof he has I'm not going to insist he has. Of course I have my suspicions about him, but I'm not anywhere close to insisting the accusations must be true, unlike you.

And by the way, fuck you for you condescension.


well said.

[Vince]

Quite a bit late...but excellent posts in the first page of the thread, Josh. I definitely took a long walk out on a perilously thin limb :) Not sure what I was thinking with Grissom...must be my orange-and-black tinted glasses or something...

[sterlingice]

Why are steroids illegal?
As soon as I saw this, I expected to see some response from The Afoci about why is X illegal/legal. I'm starting to think I'm glad it hasn't happened yet but I might have jynxed things.

SI

[Shkspr]

Why is The Afoci legal?

[Ksyrup]

Even that is not correct. He is not 40 yet. That doesn't happen until July.
Yeah, I realized that later after reading Jayson Stark's article on his climb to 755.

[Samdari]

Its amazing how well steroids can improve your hand eye coordination. Sure the Bonds of today may have the best eye for the ball of any modern day baseball player, but its only because he has large roid inflated eyeballs. I want an eyeball size comparison between Pirates Bonds and Giants Bonds!

Edit: Even roids can't improve the ability to spot post mistakes if you are coherent post deficient.

Steroids would not improve his hand eye coordination, and thus not help him decide where to swing. But, if you do not think that increased strength helps him (sorry, helps a batter) hit the ball farther, and thus result in a higher percentage of home runs on the balls he does hit, you do not know enough about physics to participate in the discussion.

It would also help another way. The more power one can generate, the faster they would be able to accelerate the bat, and the longer they could wait before beginning their swing. This additional time could also just plain help one hit the ball. Increased mass of quick twitch muscle will also contribute to the ability to wait a bit longer.

This post in no way intended to accuse Bonds, but to dispense with the ridiculous argument that steroids would not increase HR totals.

[Chubby]

The irony in your post is rich. Have I read your posts? Yes, and I understood them. Have you read my posts and understood them? Obviously not.

If you were to say "It's my opinion based off of the circumstantial evidence that Bonds has taken steroids" I wouldn't have any issue with you. Instead you keep insisting he has as though you have proof. You don't. Do you understand the difference here? It's your opinion he has taken steroids. Since you have no proof that's how you should couch your statements on the matter, and to insinuate others are blind or idiots for not agreeing with you is a ridiculous stance unless you do have proof.

Now for the part where we test your reading skills. Please point out to me where I've steadfastly maintained Bonds hasn't taken any illegal supplements. No, don't waste your time because you won't find it - I never have. What I've said is, until you show me proof he has I'm not going to insist he has. Of course I have my suspicions about him, but I'm not anywhere close to insisting the accusations must be true, unlike you.

And by the way, fuck you for you condescension.

Where have I once said I have proof? Don't waste your time cause you won't find it. Thank you drive though.

It's also your opinion that he hasn't taken steroids, or your opinion that you choose to put blinders on to the facts that surround this controversy. Just as it's my opinion that he has taken them. Yet you continue to be on this "fact finding mission" and want to dismiss any belief without sufficeint justification in your eyes.

I don't HAVE to show proof because (as I've said before, oh wait you know already know then) obviously no one on this board will be able to prove one way or the other.

And by the way, fuck you for continuing to read whatever the hell you want to in my posts instead of what I actually write.

[Butter]

Kirby Puckett has a pretty large head too.

[dawgfan]

Where have I once said I have proof? Don't waste your time cause you won't find it. Thank you drive though.

It's also your opinion that he hasn't taken steroids, or your opinion that you choose to put blinders on to the facts that surround this controversy.

This is beautiful. Are you even reading what you write? You admit you don't have proof in one sentence, then throw out the line that I have blinders on to the facts surrounding this controversy. Which facts are those?

You claim his head size has increased, a possible side-effect of steroids. You state this has happened as though it's a known-fact. I'm asking for some evidence this is actually true. If true, is there anything in particular that makes this more likely to be due to steroid use than any other possible cause.

You state as proof that his 2 highest HR totals "skyrocketed" late in his career. Not exactly true; his rate of homeruns per plate appearences has been on a steady climb his entire career, with a few dips and the notable spike in '01. Neither the dips nor the spike are out of normal expected variability in terms of statistics, though the spike in '01 was on the high end of a normal range. As I've pointed out before, there have been much larger spikes in performance by others in baseball history.

You claim he's gotten much more muscular late in his career. I ask for some evidence this is true, and that he hasn't been gradually getting larger over time (like Edgar Martinez for example), and some reason why any of his muscle gain couldn't be attributed to legal supplements and rigorous weight training.

The BALCO and personal trainer connections are troubling, but at this point still circumstantial.

Obviously there is suspicion surrounding him, and as I've stated repeatedly, it wouldn't surprise me if Bonds has used something illegal. However, unlike you, I'm not going to imply that someone has "blinders" on in regards to this issue - I'm waiting for firm proof, not circumstantial evidence before convicting him. My challenges to you have been to point out very large potential flaws in your arguments that he must be on steroids.

I don't have "blinders" on about the facts in this case. Unlike you, I'm applying critical thinking to the issue to avoid jumping to conclusions. I hope to god you apply more critical thinking if you're ever appointed to a jury to decide someone's fate.

Just as it's my opinion that he has taken them. Yet you continue to be on this "fact finding mission" and want to dismiss any belief without sufficeint justification in your eyes.

I'm not "dismissing" your opinion - I'm challenging aspects of it. You present bits of evidence as 'fact', when in reality much of it doesn't hold up or is unsupported. The only things that we know for certain are this: the connections to BALCO and his personal trainer. Everything else is subject to debate - even if we say his continuing improvement in HR rate throughout his career and his spike in performance in '01 are due to performance enhancements and not growth in his talent combined with smaller ballparks and every other factor that has driven up homerun rates for all of baseball, how do we know it must be illegal peformance enhancers? People claim his head has gotten larger - is there actual proof of this or is it just people grasping for straws? If his head has gotten bigger, are there no other explanations for this than steroid use? He's gotten larger and more muscular over the years, but is it actually true that his growth happened suddenly or is this another urban myth? If he did grow significantly one offseason, is it not possible that the growth could be explained by legal supplements and/or rigorous weight training?

I don't HAVE to show proof because (as I've said before, oh wait you know already know then) obviously no one on this board will be able to prove one way or the other.

Of course you don't have to show proof. However, if you continue to imply that others are idiots or have blinders on if they aren't willing to say he must be on steroids, you're going to continue to not be taken seriously until you do provide proof.

I was happy to continue debating the 'evidence' in this case with you until you started getting condescending - then it got personal.

And by the way, fuck you for continuing to read whatever the hell you want to in my posts instead of what I actually write.

I'm sorry, were you not addressing this to yourself? Because if not, you should be.

[IMetTrentGreen]

i can't wait until the next volume of CHUBBY GETS PWNED

[Crapshoot]

i can't wait until the next volume of CHUBBY GETS PWNED

Happens often enough, doesn't it ? :D

[primelord]

Was Kirby Puckett using steroids starting in '86?
No that is the year the Twins started turning on the blowers when they were at bat. ;)

[primelord]

BTW I am convinced Rogers Hornsby was on steroids in 1922. I mean the guy went from 9 HR's in 1920 to 42 in 22. That guy was juiced up.

[k0ruptr]

babe ruth too man. I dont need any proof, cuz i know already
1918- 11
1919- 29!
1920- 54! MY GOD THATS ROIDS!

and maris, man - 39 homers to 61 (roids fo sho) then he musta stopped using or something cuz he went back down to the 30's

[SackAttack]

Quite a bit late...but excellent posts in the first page of the thread, Josh. I definitely took a long walk out on a perilously thin limb :) Not sure what I was thinking with Grissom...must be my orange-and-black tinted glasses or something...

I've been there. Just search for any of my posts from around the trading deadline last year. I'll give you a hint, in the form of two words:

Rickey. Henderson.

:D

[Bad-example]

I've been there. Just search for any of my posts from around the trading deadline last year. I'll give you a hint, in the form of two words:

Rickey. Henderson.

:D

LOL...you did post some crazy shit around that time. :)

[kingfc22]

Damn, Up 8-0 and still they won't pitch to him. Fucking weak.

[SackAttack]

Hey, you saw the Dodger offense last year. I figured ANY move could only be a good one. I still say Rickey COULD have been successful in the limited role I envisioned for him.

He just wasn't, that's all :)

[SackAttack]

Looks more like 9-0 from where I'm sitting, king.

[Crapshoot]

Looks more like 9-0 from where I'm sitting, king.

Enjoying this, aren't you, you Blue-hearted bastard :D

[Vince]

Try living in SoCal. :(

"Who's got the best record?" "Barry Bonds is a bitch!" "The Giants suck!"

I get a little sick of it some times.

[Crapshoot]

Try living in SoCal. :(

"Who's got the best record?" "Barry Bonds is a bitch!" "The Giants suck!"

I get a little sick of it some times.

http://westwoodblues.blogspot.com

Check out the blog- same situation as yours, and one of the funniest blogs I have ever found. Right up there with waiting for boof... :D

[sterlingice]

http://westwoodblues.blogspot.com

Check out the blog- same situation as yours, and one of the funniest blogs I have ever found. Right up there with waiting for boof... :D
Some anonymous smart ass designated the slogan of the 2004 Giants to be: "Bonds and Schmidt and bunch of shit."
Nice :D

SI

[primelord]

After dawgfan mentioned Barry's AB/HR rate in an early post I wanted to take alook at how it compared to some of the other all time home run greats especially in terms of spikes in their career. Here is a look at the AB/HR rates for the top 11 HR hitters of all time.

<table x:str="" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1512" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 1134pt;"> <col width="72" span="21" style="width: 54pt;"> <tbody><tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" width="72" style="height: 15.75pt; width: 54pt;">Name</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">21</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">22</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">23</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">24</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">25</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">26</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">27</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">28</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">29</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">30</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">31</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">32</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">33</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">34</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">35</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">36</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">37</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">38</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">39</td> <td class="xl22" width="72" style="width: 54pt;" x:num="">40</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Bonds</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="25.8125">25.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.04">22.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.416666666666668">22.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="30.526315789473685">30.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.727272727272727">15.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">20.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.911764705882353">13.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.717391304347826">11.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="10.567567567567568">10.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.333333333333334">15.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.30952380952381">12.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">13.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.918918918918919">14.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="10.441176470588236">10.4</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="9.795918367346939">9.8</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="6.5205479452054798">6.5</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="8.7608695652173907">8.8</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="8.6888888888888882">8.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="4.2222222222222223">4.2</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Aaron</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.296296296296298">22.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="23.423076923076923">23.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.977272727272727">14.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="20.033333333333335">20.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.128205128205128">16.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.75">14.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.735294117647058">17.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.155555555555555">13.2</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.340909090909092">14.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="23.75">23.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.8125">17.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.704545454545455">13.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.384615384615385">15.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="20.896551724137932">20.9</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="12.431818181818182">12.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.578947368421053">13.6</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="10.531914893617021">10.5</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="13.205882352941176">13.2</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">9.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">17.0</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Ruth</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="45.333333333333336">45.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">61.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="28.818181818181817">28.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.896551724137931">14.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="8.481481481481481">8.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.1525423728813564">9.2</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">11.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.731707317073171">12.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">11.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.36">14.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="10.531914893617021">10.5</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="">9.0</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="9.9259259259259256">9.9</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="10.847826086956522">10.8</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="10.571428571428571">10.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.608695652173912">11.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.146341463414634">11.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">13.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.59090909090909">16.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">12.0</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Mays</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="31.75">31.8</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.780487804878049">13.8</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="11.372549019607844">11.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.055555555555557">16.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.714285714285715">16.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="20.689655172413794">20.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.911764705882351">16.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="20.517241379310345">20.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">14.3</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="12.673469387755102">12.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.684210526315789">15.7</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="12.297872340425531">12.3</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="10.73076923076923">10.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.918918918918919">14.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.09090909090909">22.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="21.652173913043477">21.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">31.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.071428571428573">17.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="23.166666666666668">23.2</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Robinson</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="21.068965517241381">21.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.870967741935484">17.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">15.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.96774193548387">15.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.72972972972973">14.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.615384615384615">15.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.952380952380953">23.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="19.586206896551722">19.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.636363636363637">17.6</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="11.755102040816327">11.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.966666666666667">16.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="28.066666666666666">28.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.84375">16.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="18.84">18.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.25">16.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">18.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">17.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="21.681818181818183">21.7</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="13.111111111111111">13.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.333333333333332">22.3</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">McGwire</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.666666666666668">17.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.36734693877551">11.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.1875">17.2</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.848484848484848">14.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.410256410256411">13.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="21.954545454545453">22.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.119047619047619">11.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.3333333333333339">9.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">15.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="8.1282051282051277">8.1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="8.134615384615385">8.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.3103448275862064">9.3</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="7.2714285714285714">7.3</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="8.0153846153846153">8.0</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="7.375">7.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="10.310344827586206">10.3</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Killebrew</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">15.5</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">13.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.258064516129032">14.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.760869565217391">11.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">11.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.444444444444445">11.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.775510204081632">11.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.04">16.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.589743589743589">14.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.431818181818182">12.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.352941176470587">17.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.326530612244898">11.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.853658536585366">12.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.857142857142858">17.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.653846153846153">16.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">49.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="25.615384615384617">25.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.285714285714285">22.3</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Jackson</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">118.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="19.068965517241381">19.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.680851063829786">11.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="18.521739130434781">18.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.71875">17.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="19.96">20.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.84375">16.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.448275862068964">17.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.472222222222221">16.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="18.444444444444443">18.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.40625">16.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="18.925925925925927">18.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.03448275862069">16.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.536585365853659">12.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="22.266666666666666">22.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.589743589743589">13.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="28.357142857142858">28.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">21.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.037037037037038">17.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="23.277777777777779">23.3</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Schmidt</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">34.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="20.388888888888889">20.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.777777777777779">15.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.789473684210526">14.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.368421052631579">15.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.315789473684211">14.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="24.428571428571427">24.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.022222222222222">12.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.416666666666666">11.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.419354838709678">11.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.685714285714285">14.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.35">13.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.666666666666666">14.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="16.636363636363637">16.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.918918918918919">14.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.914285714285715">14.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">32.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="24.666666666666668">24.7</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Sosa</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="35.466666666666669">35.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">31.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="32.75">32.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="18.121212121212121">18.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.04">17.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="15.666666666666666">15.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.45">12.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.833333333333332">17.8</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.7424242424242422">9.7</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.9206349206349209">9.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.08">12.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.015625">9.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.346938775510203">11.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.925000000000001">12.9</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl22" style="height: 15.75pt;">Mantle</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="21.952380952380953">22.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="20.111111111111111">20.1</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.972972972972974">14.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="10.25">10.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.941176470588236">13.9</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.357142857142858">12.4</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="17.451612903225808">17.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.175000000000001">13.2</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="9.518518518518519">9.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="12.566666666666666">12.6</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="11.466666666666667">11.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.285714285714286">13.3</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">19.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="14.478260869565217">14.5</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="">20.0</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="24.166666666666668">24.2</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> <td class="xl23">N/A</td> </tr></tbody> </table>
Here is a look at their AB/HR rate broken down into 5 year ranges

<table x:str="" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="288" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 216pt;"> <col width="72" span="4" style="width: 54pt;"> <tbody><tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" width="72" style="height: 15.75pt; width: 54pt;">Name</td> <td class="xl25" width="72" style="width: 54pt;">25-30</td> <td class="xl25" width="72" style="width: 54pt;">30-35</td> <td class="xl25" width="72" style="width: 54pt;">35-40</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Bonds</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="14.125">14.1</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="12.519148936170213">12.5</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="8.0495495495495497">8.0</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Aaron</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="15.995575221238939">16.0</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16.490566037735849">16.5</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="12.282511210762332">12.3</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Ruth</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="10.823076923076924">10.8</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="10.487544483985765">10.5</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="12.146464646464647">12.1</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Mays</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="17.266009852216747">17.3</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="13.220532319391635">13.2</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="20.099290780141843">20.1</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Robinson</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16.16346153846154">16.2</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16.430167597765362">16.4</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="17.954954954954953">18.0</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">McGwire</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="14.168831168831169">14.2</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="8.3447098976109206">8.3</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="8.3809523809523814">8.4</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Killebrew</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="12.519841269841271">12.5</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="13.729357798165138">13.7</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="21.232558139534884">21.2</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Jackson</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="17.69060773480663">17.7</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="16.649122807017545">16.6</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="19.311594202898551">19.3</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Schmidt</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="14.43859649122807">14.4</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="13.573991031390134">13.6</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="17.569105691056912">17.6</td> </tr> <tr height="21" style="height: 15.75pt;"> <td height="21" class="xl24" style="height: 15.75pt;">Mantle</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="12.779220779220779">12.8</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="14.916666666666666">14.9</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="21.875">21.9</td> </tr></tbody> </table>
I see some interesting things in these numbers. Only two guys improved on their ratio from 30-35 to 35-40 and tha was Bonds and Aaron (to be fair even if he had still been healthy it would have been tough for McGwire to improve much).

And Bonds and Aaron improved by almost the exact same amount. Granted Bonds is hitting quite a few more HR's per at bat, but he was his entire career. A jump like his is certainly rare, but looking at Aaron's numbers it doesn't look like you can say it is impossible without steroids. Unless you think Aaron was on steroids too. :)

I am not really making an argument that he is or isn't. Just thought the numbers were interesting.

[FBPro]

"Roid-o-matic"

[dawgfan]

Thanks for the numbers primelord. My only quibble with your study is that by using HR per AB, it will inflate the ratios for those batters that walk more often. The most accurate ratio would be HR per plate appearences.

Obviously Bonds and Aaron are proving to be freaks of nature in their ability to retain effectiveness well into their 30's and approaching their 40's. If you look at pitchers, you could also add guys like Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens to that list. The question then becomes, how are they doing this? How much of it is simply good genes? How much of it is taking care of their bodies through good nutrition, stretching, exercise, weights, etc? How much of a role do dietary and other supplements play? How much difference would taking an illegal supplement make over legal supplements?

We can assume that Hank Aaron got by on genes and taking care of himself. With guys like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, we know they take some kind of supplements in addition to rigorous exercise and (in Bonds case at least) probably good genes. Nolan Ryan was notorious for his workouts and his training routines, but he also seems to have been blessed genetically. It's possible he took supplements as well, but I've never heard anyone mention the possibility of illegal ones; same with Clemens.

Bonds has the advantage of playing in an era where homeruns in general have been on the rise for a number of likely reasons - more homerun-friendly ballparks, smaller strikezones, better lumber, possibly fewer good pitchers (though I'm highly skeptical of this argument), tighter-wound baseballs (I'm also skeptical of this argument).

It would be interesting to modify primelord's study to go with HR/PA and then compare individual ratios with the league averages for each season and see how much the individual players were advancing or declining in comparison. I wonder if part of Bonds' increasing HR rates are attributable to the overall increase in homeruns?

As far as the spike in Barry's HR rate in '01, the most obvious historical comparisons are Brady Anderson and Roger Maris. Since Maris played in an era where illegal supplements were not an issue, let's focus on him in comparison to Bonds. Maris' record-breaking 61 HR season had him hitting HR at a rate 29% higher than his previous season. In comparison, Bonds' record-breaking season was an increase of 37%. If you look at a broader range, taking their prior 2 seasons and post 2 seasons and look at how their record-breaking years compare, Maris hit at a 68% higher rate; Bonds at a 40% higher rate. With Brady, the difference between his peak year and his surrounding years is even more extreme. Now, if we really wanted to study this we'd also make park adjustments, comparisons to league averages and look for obvious reasons why their performances might have increased or decreased. One big one often cited with Maris is that his record season occurred in an expansion year. This can't fully explain the spike however, since other power hitters didn't experience nearly the same level of increase (Mickey Mantle, Harmon Killebrew) that season.

[SackAttack]

Enjoying this, aren't you, you Blue-hearted bastard :D

Hey, I've always said that I have no problem with Barry hitting 100 HR a season if it means the Giants will finish last. :D

[Sharpieman]

Yea whens the last time the Giants finished last again?
When is the last time the Dodgers made the playoffs?
When was the last time the Dodgers finished ahead of the Giants?

[Bad-example]

The Giants were at or above .500 for 426 consecutive games until starting 2-3 this season. The last time they were under .500 was June 10, 2001.

[SackAttack]

Yea whens the last time the Giants finished last again?
When is the last time the Dodgers made the playoffs?
When was the last time the Dodgers finished ahead of the Giants?

When's the last time the Giants won the World Series?

Oh, that's right, they haven't, not since coming to the West Coast.

Look, I ain't tryin' to start a pissing contest here. All I said is I don't care what Barry does, as long as the Giants lose. Let him have the home run crown, fine, just make sure he's in last place when it happens. :D

[MrBug708]

Only difference between the Giants and Dodgers since 88 is that they both cant win the big one and the Dodgers hit the links sooner then the Giants.

That being said, Barry is gonna get a ton of HR's because he has no protection in the lineup so 3 HR's dont mean much when the Giants are down by 7.

[MrBug708]

Dola

Sack, in a perfect world, Barry Bonds will break the record while sending the Dodgers to the postseason

[oykib]

One problem with comparing Bonds to other players is that great players are not truly similar to other players. One of the defining characteristics of great players is that they are unique.

A better comparison than the one above would compare HR/PA to the standard rates per league year. One of the things about Bonds, Aaron, McGwire, and Ruth is that they all pretty much moved from less favorable environments for homers to more favorable ones as they moved through their careers.

[Sharpieman]

I'm not trying to start anything either, the Giants suck this year and won't make the playoffs, with that said, the Dodgers aren't going anywhere either, they always choke in September. SD will probably win the division

[MrBug708]

Choke in September? You gotta be leading to choke it.....

October is where they havent been good in 16 years (thats a LONG time), but how many teams are good during October?

[MrBug708]

Try living in SoCal. :(

"Who's got the best record?" "Barry Bonds is a bitch!" "The Giants suck!"

I get a little sick of it some times.

Stop us when it's not true :p

[k0ruptr]

yea and then in SI:
Signs of the apocolypse:
SD clinched the division this week, after sweeping the dodgers.

there is no way that san diego will win the div. they have Fat Head Wells on their team.

[dawgfan]

A better comparison than the one above would compare HR/PA to the standard rates per league year. One of the things about Bonds, Aaron, McGwire, and Ruth is that they all pretty much moved from less favorable environments for homers to more favorable ones as they moved through their careers.

I agree - given differences in eras, it's more instructive to compare players to their contemporaries.

As for players moving to favorable parks, I would agree with the last three, but all studies I've seen have shown PacBell to be a pretty extreme pitcher's park. Not that it's stopped Barry any...

[Vince]

Stop us when it's not true :p
Ok...then stop with the Barry Bonds sucks line....because that's so far from true it's sick. I'll let you have the other ones, for now :(

[oykib]

I agree - given differences in eras, it's more instructive to compare players to their contemporaries.

As for players moving to favorable parks, I would agree with the last three, but all studies I've seen have shown PacBell to be a pretty extreme pitcher's park. Not that it's stopped Barry any...

I agree that Pac Bell/SBC is not a good HR park, but Candlestick was also terrible and the difference between Three Rivers and Candlestick was trumped by the timeline. For Bonds it has been less so than the other three. But it's somewhat a factor in the apparent surge in homers for him as he aged as well.

[clintl]

I agree that Pac Bell/SBC is not a good HR park, but Candlestick was also terrible and the difference between Three Rivers and Candlestick was trumped by the timeline. For Bonds it has been less so than the other three. But it's somewhat a factor in the apparent surge in homers for him as he aged as well.

I don't agree with that at all. Candlestick was not a bad park for a lefty power hitter. The ball carried pretty well to RF at Candlestick, but not to LF. SBC is the opposite - the ball carries to LF, but dies in RF.

[Ksyrup]

I found this to be an interesting comment from Gammons' latest article:


"Speaking of performance-enhancing drugs, two highly respected scouts offer similar views from observing spring training and April games in this the first full year of drug testing. "The biggest storyline this season is the number of pitchers who have lost velocity, and I mean have huge drops," says one scout. "That designer stuff pitchers had took a bunch of guys out of the independent leagues throwing 85-87 (mph) and got them to the big leagues throwing 94," says the other. "I've seen it all over all spring." Hmmm. Home runs, slugging and doubles are up, velocity down."


I have to admit, now that I think about it, I think I've heard "he's lost velocity" this year, just about as much as I used to hear "he's bulked up or gained X lbs. of muscle" in previous years. The steroids issue seems to focus on the hitters, but they're only one side of the equation.

[sterlingice]

That's a good point, Ksyrup. I've heard a lot of pitcher who have lost velocity (led by Mussina, who is leading my fantasy team into the toilet). Had never really thought about it until you mentioned it. Looks like I missed a Gammons article so it's time to read it. He's not Rob Neyer or some of the BP guys, but he usually has some interesting stuff if you can get past his attitude.

SI

[Ksyrup]

That's a good point, Ksyrup. I've heard a lot of pitcher who have lost velocity (led by Mussina, who is leading my fantasy team into the toilet). Had never really thought about it until you mentioned it. Looks like I missed a Gammons article so it's time to read it. He's not Rob Neyer or some of the BP guys, but he usually has some interesting stuff if you can get past his attitude.

SI
I think he has a new column every Monday, so this one just came out.

[dawgfan]

Speaking of pitchers on steroids, did anyone find Mark Prior's comments a little odd when reporters asked him about allegations he might have used steroids? He said something to the effect of "It's obvious I haven't."

I'm not exactly sure why it's 'obvious' he hasn't; the whole reason it was brought up is that some had claimed his heel injury and his difficulty in re-habbing it was possibly a side-effect of steroid use. I have no idea if this is true or not, and I won't speculate on his case on this basis. But what strikes me is his physical stature - has anyone noticed just how big this guy is? He's got massive calfs and very thick arms; no one will ever accuse him of being skinny or scrawny.

My point being, and I'm not saying he is on steroids by any means, but I don't see why he thinks it's obvious that he isn't on steroids.

[Easy Mac]

Cuz he's Mark furcking Prior. How dare someone insult him.

[Bad-example]

the Giants suck this year and won't make the playoffs

Even some of the Giants' own fans were writing them off in the early part of the season. Sure glad I never lost faith. :)

[MrBug708]

Even some of the Giants' own fans were writing them off in the early part of the season. Sure glad I never lost faith. :)

You better pray Alfonso doesn't cool off as he's been carrying your team the past month

[Chubby]

Attention All Giants fans: Ignore Montgomery's testimony :D

[Vince]

See, this is tough. Illegally obtained, second-hand information. How do you judge this? First of all, it's something that Tim said SOMEONE else said. So that's kind of sketchy. But at the same time, why in the hell would he say something like that? To try to get some of the attention off of him?

Also, how do you judge the fact that the info was leaked, and thus obtained illegally?

I'm not trying to claim that Bonds is innocent, or be a homer or anything (though I will admit that I am a fan of Barry Bonds)...just trying to see how an objective observer would look at things.

[dawgfan]

Exactly Vince - Montgomery is claiming he was told this by the BALCO founder. So what we have is hearsay and impossible to prove. There are 2 levels of potential lies here - Montgomery could be lying, and if he's telling the truth Conte could've been lying to Montgomery. What motivation would Conte have to lie about this? Well, potentially quite a bit of motivation - if he was trying to convince world-class athletes to buy his performance enhancers, why not use Barry Bonds as an example of his work whether it's true or not?

I'll reiterate - I'm not convinced Bonds is clean, but neither am I convinced he's been juiced either. This is circumstantial evidence against Bonds, but it's hardly slam-dunk evidence.

[Huckleberry]

His melonhead is much better evidence. Most adults don't gain 3/8 in hat size after the age of 35.

[Chubby]

Exactly Vince - Montgomery is claiming he was told this by the BALCO founder. So what we have is hearsay and impossible to prove. There are 2 levels of potential lies here - Montgomery could be lying, and if he's telling the truth Conte could've been lying to Montgomery. What motivation would Conte have to lie about this? Well, potentially quite a bit of motivation - if he was trying to convince world-class athletes to buy his performance enhancers, why not use Barry Bonds as an example of his work whether it's true or not?

I'll reiterate - I'm not convinced Bonds is clean, but neither am I convinced he's been juiced either. This is circumstantial evidence against Bonds, but it's hardly slam-dunk evidence.

So you are saying he lied to the grand jury??? That wouldn't exactly help his case.

Yes it's sticky that it's his grand jury testimony which is illegal to give to the media however, I would have to assume that the paper triple checked this before reporting it.

Remember, they can't say that's his testimony either.

[rkmsuf]

I swear there are those that even if they had documented evidence would claim it was forged. Conte could produce a list and they'd say he put Bonds on there after the fact.

Bonds could testify that he did use and they come up with some crazy theory of how he was forced into a false confession or something.

I just think it's funny how the supporters are taking it all the way to the end. As the curcumstantial stuff mounts and the hole gets smaller they are prepared to ride this one out. It's very possible there will never be enough proof to chisel it in stone but at some point you have to believe in common sense.

[dawgfan]

His melonhead is much better evidence. Most adults don't gain 3/8 in hat size after the age of 35.

I've seen this claim many times, yet never with any evidence cited. Can you point to something that backs this up, or is this an unsubstantiated rumor?

[dawgfan]

So you are saying he lied to the grand jury??? That wouldn't exactly help his case.

Yes it's sticky that it's his grand jury testimony which is illegal to give to the media however, I would have to assume that the paper triple checked this before reporting it.

Remember, they can't say that's his testimony either.

I think it's doubtful that Montgomery lied - I'm just pointing out that there are 2 layers of potential lies when relying on 2nd-hand testimony.

Of the 2, it's much more possible that Conte may have lied. I'm not saying he did, just pointing out that there would've been credible reasons for him to do so.

[Chubby]

I think it's doubtful that Montgomery lied - I'm just pointing out that there are 2 layers of potential lies when relying on 2nd-hand testimony.

Of the 2, it's much more possible that Conte may have lied. I'm not saying he did, just pointing out that there would've been credible reasons for him to do so.

It's certainly possible Conte lied about that. We won't know until everything becomes public.

However, with all the other circumstantial evidence it looks more and more like Bonds' is juiced every day.

[dawgfan]

I swear there are those that even if they had documented evidence would claim it was forged. Conte could produce a list and they'd say he put Bonds on there after the fact.

Bonds could testify that he did use and they come up with some crazy theory of how he was forced into a false confession or something.

I just think it's funny how the supporters are taking it all the way to the end. As the curcumstantial stuff mounts and the hole gets smaller they are prepared to ride this one out. It's very possible there will never be enough proof to chisel it in stone but at some point you have to believe in common sense.

Here's this thing though - all anyone has at this point on Bonds is circumstantial evidence, and all of it can be explained by something other than steroids.

I'm neutral on Bonds - I'm extremely impressed with his baseball achievements, and much of what makes him so great has very little to nothing to do with illegal performance enhancers. I also think that Bonds can be a world-class jerk, so from a personal perspective it's hard to really like him.

What I see is something not far removed from a witch-hunt. As I've said numerous times, it wouldn't surprise me if Bonds has been/is still juiced. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk common sense thing either. The article from a SF newspaper linked here a while back showed compelling evidence that a player Bonds' age can be as built as he is without using illegal performance enhancers.

If/when there is hard evidence of Bonds using illegal performance-enhancers, i.e. urine samples testing positive, then I'll agree that it's a slam-dunk thing. Until then we just don't know either way.

[Chubby]

Here's this thing though - all anyone has at this point on Bonds is circumstantial evidence, and all of it can be explained by something other than steroids.

I'm neutral on Bonds - I'm extremely impressed with his baseball achievements, and much of what makes him so great has very little to nothing to do with illegal performance enhancers. I also think that Bonds can be a world-class jerk, so from a personal perspective it's hard to really like him.

What I see is something not far removed from a witch-hunt. As I've said numerous times, it wouldn't surprise me if Bonds has been/is still juiced. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk common sense thing either. The article from a SF newspaper linked here a while back showed compelling evidence that a player Bonds' age can be as built as he is without using illegal performance enhancers.

If/when there is hard evidence of Bonds using illegal performance-enhancers, i.e. urine samples testing positive, then I'll agree that it's a slam-dunk thing. Until then we just don't know either way.

I'll refer you to rkmsuf's post.

The only people who can get at the slam-dunk evidence is the courts right now. To simply say "I think it's a witch-hunt because I don't see any concrete in-stone evidence" is a weak argument when it's impossible for such evidence to come out (or at least near impossible, see the testimony).

[Vince]

So Chubby, you're saying that using circumstantial information to form a concrete opinion on something is a good thing?

[Bad-example]

Good posts, dawgfan. I am glad there are people willing to keep an open mind until there is enough information out there to reach a conclusion.

But it clearly does not matter what you or anyone else writes. Chubby has made his mind up that Bonds is guilty.

[rkmsuf]

It's like the head thing. What documented evidence would you like? They certainly didn't measure and record his head size every year but look at the pictures. What conclusion can you draw? His head is just growing due to increased intake of helium because he's taken a side job as a balloon salesman?

[Huckleberry]

hxxp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/2002/year_in_review/steroids/

The executive is speaking of Bonds. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the reference I read that confirmed.

[Chubby]

So Chubby, you're saying that using circumstantial information to form a concrete opinion on something is a good thing?

I'm saying that's all either side has to go on at this point, no?

I say that it points to a "yes, he did it". I don't think I've seen 1 person say "the circumstantial evidence points to him not doing it", the only defense has been "well there's no hard proof".

I can't go out and measure his head, or make him take a piss in a cup and compare it to previous samples. Neither can anyone else.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. And there's a hell of a lot of smoke around Barry on the 'roids issue.

[Vince]

I swear there are those that even if they had documented evidence would claim it was forged. Conte could produce a list and they'd say he put Bonds on there after the fact.

Bonds could testify that he did use and they come up with some crazy theory of how he was forced into a false confession or something.

I just think it's funny how the supporters are taking it all the way to the end. As the curcumstantial stuff mounts and the hole gets smaller they are prepared to ride this one out. It's very possible there will never be enough proof to chisel it in stone but at some point you have to believe in common sense.
Look, I'm not a diehard Bonds fanatic...if something comes along to show me that he did indeed do Steroids, then yeah, I'll admit it. I personally think there's a very good chance that Bonds did in fact do steroids. However, all we have is circumstatial evidence...nothing has been proven. So even though I might THINK something...that does nothing at all to prove it. And since I like Bonds, I'm going to hold out hope that he DIDN'T do it.

Circumstantial - 1) Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. 2) Of no primary significance; incidental.

[rkmsuf]

The fact that Bonds is a complete jerk (at least publically) does influence opinions on this. We don't know the truth and can only guess at this point based on what's presented.

My opinion is he is on some list and that it will be up to the government to force disclosure of all the athletes. This giving up just the track guys is ridiculous and I'd guess there's no court action until the entire list is presented.

[rkmsuf]

Look, I'm not a diehard Bonds fanatic...if something comes along to show me that he did indeed do Steroids, then yeah, I'll admit it. I personally think there's a very good chance that Bonds did in fact do steroids. However, all we have is circumstatial evidence...nothing has been proven. So even though I might THINK something...that does nothing at all to prove it. And since I like Bonds, I'm going to hold out hope that he DIDN'T do it.

Circumstantial - 1) Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. 2) Of no primary significance; incidental.

But in light of you thinking there's a very good chance he did and also a very good chance there will never be definative proof how can you look at him with anything but skeptism forever?

[Vince]

Chubby - What I'm saying then, is that you are jumping to a conclusion too quickly. Sure, all we have is circumstantial evidence so far. But you've condemned him already. Forming an opinion about him ("I think Barry Bonds did steroids," as opposed to "Barry Bonds did steroids") is all well and good...but "where there's smoke there's fire" is a condemnation that is telling me you've formed a concrete opinion based upon circumstantial evidence, which I think is wrong.

[Vince]

Dola - looking at him with skepticism and being certain of the fact that he did steroids are two very different things.

[Huckleberry]

By the way, when I said "confirmed" earlier, it was of course more hearsay.

[rkmsuf]

Dola - looking at him with skepticism and being certain of the fact that he did steroids are two very different things.

Terming it a witch hunt is a bit much.

[Ksyrup]

We went through this ad nauseum in another thread a few months ago...

[rkmsuf]

would this be ad ad nauseum then?

[Huckleberry]

Terming it a witch hunt is a bit much.

But I saw him float in water!

We went through this ad nauseum in another thread a few months ago...

But not with grand jury testimony that he received steroids. Ain't it grand?

[Chubby]

Chubby - What I'm saying then, is that you are jumping to a conclusion too quickly. Sure, all we have is circumstantial evidence so far. But you've condemned him already. Forming an opinion about him ("I think Barry Bonds did steroids," as opposed to "Barry Bonds did steroids") is all well and good...but "where there's smoke there's fire" is a condemnation that is telling me you've formed a concrete opinion based upon circumstantial evidence, which I think is wrong.

You disagree, fine. I at least have some things to back up my statement, you do not. You're (and not just you Vince) only defense is "I haven't seen evidence to make me believe he did steroids".

So if a murder trial came down witnesses saying "I saw so and so do it", then you'd vote to acquit because "well there's no hard proof"? Is this the same argument to defend the OJ verdict? "Well, I personally don't see enough evidence that he did so not guilty!" Again, reference rkmsuf's post.

Barry has to prove to me he didn't do it for me to change my mind, same with Giambi and others.

The fact that I personally haven't seen a blood test of his does not preclude me from forming an opinion. It doesn't preclude me from saying "He used steroids". I have never once said "He did and here is hard facts why".

[dawgfan]

It's like the head thing. What documented evidence would you like? They certainly didn't measure and record his head size every year but look at the pictures. What conclusion can you draw? His head is just growing due to increased intake of helium because he's taken a side job as a balloon salesman?

Well, Bonds has to get hat measurements for his cap right? Confirmation from the manufacturer that the cap size in his orders has gone up over the years would be a start. Even then, what does it prove?

Speculation from a front office executive is still hearsay. As for looking at photos, I know enough about human psychology and photography to know that this is hardly evidence. I've looked at a number of photos of Bonds over the years, and his head looks bigger, but not grotesquely so. My head looks bigger now at 34 than it did at 22, and I can assure you I've never taken any steroids or hGH. Bonds does not appear to show the cro-magnon effects commonly noted from hGH use - exaggerated brow, etc. To me, his head just looks wider, which is fairly common as people age.

[dawgfan]

Dola - looking at him with skepticism and being certain of the fact that he did steroids are two very different things.

Bingo - my position exactly.

[Chubby]

Well, Bonds has to get hat measurements for his cap right? Confirmation from the manufacturer that the cap size in his orders has gone up over the years would be a start. Even then, what does it prove?

Speculation from a front office executive is still hearsay. As for looking at photos, I know enough about human psychology and photography to know that this is hardly evidence. I've looked at a number of photos of Bonds over the years, and his head looks bigger, but not grotesquely so. My head looks bigger now at 34 than it did at 22, and I can assure you I've never taken any steroids or hGH. Bonds does not appear to show the cro-magnon effects commonly noted from hGH use - exaggerated brow, etc. To me, his head just looks wider, which is fairly common as people age.

This is the kind of argument I am at least looking for. While I may not agree, it at least contradicts some of the circumstantial evidence. That is all we're (those of us that think he took steroids) are asking for. We don't have to agree with what the "evidence" points to, but at least use that in your argument and not "I don't see anything concrete" which to me, is just sticking your head in the sand. Good points.

[rkmsuf]

Well, Bonds has to get hat measurements for his cap right? Confirmation from the manufacturer that the cap size in his orders has gone up over the years would be a start. Even then, what does it prove?



You can spin whatever you want. Head size in and of itself to my knowledge proves nothing. Neither does muscle mass, general irritability or whatever. Do some before and afters and find 1 comparable ball player in terms of head size increase in the last 100 years. That's the same as you asking me for proof of him being on the juice.

Hey just because Johnny shows lack of motivation, decreased mental abilities, and weight gain doesn't show any proof he's hooked on weed so it's no biggie.

[Chubby]

To counteract an argument that has been brought up before...

I don't think Bonds took them to hit more homeruns, I think he took them for the recooperative affects the steroids have on his body (much like Mac and his andro) which makes him healthy and more able to use his god given ability more often and better. Steroids don't make you see the ball better but being free from the aches and pains that playing a 162 game season at 40 DOES let you concentrate more and hit better since you're playing at a higher level of your ability.

[Ksyrup]

But I saw him float in water!



But not with grand jury testimony that he received steroids. Ain't it grand?
Unconfirmed, second-hand, from someone who has a reason to deflect the flashlight staring straight in his face. Sure.

That might be his true testimony, but even if it is, that's a long way rom saying that his testimony is credible.

[Vince]

You disagree, fine. I at least have some things to back up my statement, you do not. You're (and not just you Vince) only defense is "I haven't seen evidence to make me believe he did steroids".

So if a murder trial came down witnesses saying "I saw so and so do it", then you'd vote to acquit because "well there's no hard proof"? Is this the same argument to defend the OJ verdict? "Well, I personally don't see enough evidence that he did so not guilty!" Again, reference rkmsuf's post.

Barry has to prove to me he didn't do it for me to change my mind, same with Giambi and others.

The fact that I personally haven't seen a blood test of his does not preclude me from forming an opinion. It doesn't preclude me from saying "He used steroids". I have never once said "He did and here is hard facts why".
It might be semantics, because I think you just aren't articulating it like you want to...but my defense is it hasn't been proven to me that he has done steroids, not that I don't believe he has. I pointed out in my last post that I think there's a very good chance he has done steroids of some type.

Chubby, the point is that the things you are 'backing up your statement' with are circumstantial...they might be completely irrelevant. If there was a murder case, and all I had was circumstantial evidence, even blindly compelling circumstantial evidence, in good conscience I could not convict someone. I'm not saying it would be easy for me to do so...but that's the way it works. The whole point is innocent until proven guilty...you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, which is (in my opinion) wrong.

[Chubby]

Unconfirmed, second-hand, from someone who has a reason to deflect the flashlight staring straight in his face. Sure.

That might be his true testimony, but even if it is, that's a long way rom saying that his testimony is credible.

Why? This is a head in the sand argument. So if Conte stands up there and says he sold illegal steroids to Bonds are you going to come back with "Doesn't make it credible testimony. He might have not used them but still bought them". :rolleyes:

At least take some of the evidence and show why you don't think it points to him using like dawgfan did otherwise you give off the appearance of just blindly avoiding the evidence.

[Vince]

Terming it a witch hunt is a bit much.
Well look at it this way. What is a witch hunt? A group of people that have a desire to pin something on someone to watch them go down. The only difference is that we're pretty certain that witches don't actually exist. We aren't as certain that Bonds didn't do it...but a lot of the people that are fighting for and arguing that he DID do it are doing so because they don't like him...they want to see him go down.

Though I don't think it's an entirely accurate statement, it's not too far from the truth, either.

[Vince]

Why? This is a head in the sand argument. So if Conte stands up there and says he sold illegal steroids to Bonds are you going to come back with "Doesn't make it credible testimony. He might have not used them but still bought them". :rolleyes:

At least take some of the evidence and show why you don't think it points to him using like dawgfan did otherwise you give off the appearance of just blindly avoiding the evidence.
Chubby, what if he did give the steroids to Bonds, and Bonds really didn't use them? I don't think he's arguing whether or not Bonds is innocent or guilty, just showing that the evidence is indeed circumstantial.

[Chubby]

It might be semantics, because I think you just aren't articulating it like you want to...but my defense is it hasn't been proven to me that he has done steroids, not that I don't believe he has. I pointed out in my last post that I think there's a very good chance he has done steroids of some type.

Chubby, the point is that the things you are 'backing up your statement' with are circumstantial...they might be completely irrelevant. If there was a murder case, and all I had was circumstantial evidence, even blindly compelling circumstantial evidence, in good conscience I could not convict someone. I'm not saying it would be easy for me to do so...but that's the way it works. The whole point is innocent until proven guilty...you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, which is (in my opinion) wrong.

Vince, the point is you have nothing 'backing up your statement' whatsoever.

Just because there isn't the "Vince standard of proof" does not mean I can't form my own opinion of things. He did steroids, that's my belief. The fact that there isn't enough evidence for you to share that belief is not going to change mine.

Again, at least try and show why things don't point to him using if you want to argue against him taking steroids. Otherwise, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. This might as well be a religion thread when discussing this with you.

[JasonC23]

Why? This is a head in the sand argument. So if Conte stands up there and says he sold illegal steroids to Bonds are you going to come back with "Doesn't make it credible testimony. He might have not used them but still bought them". :rolleyes:

At least take some of the evidence and show why you don't think it points to him using like dawgfan did otherwise you give off the appearance of just blindly avoiding the evidence.
I like how you attack his argument (which, by the way, does exactly what you ask him to do in your second paragraph) by presenting a hypothetical situation and assuming his response. You really proved your point by doing this. :rolleyes:

[Chubby]

Chubby, what if he did give the steroids to Bonds, and Bonds really didn't use them? I don't think he's arguing whether or not Bonds is innocent or guilty, just showing that the evidence is indeed circumstantial.

Then this further supports rkmsuf's argument of some people will not accept anything as "proof" that he took them.

[dawgfan]

You can spin whatever you want. Head size in and of itself to my knowledge proves nothing. Neither does muscle mass, general irritability or whatever. Do some before and afters and find 1 comparable ball player in terms of head size increase in the last 100 years. That's the same as you asking me for proof of him being on the juice.

Hey just because Johnny shows lack of motivation, decreased mental abilities, and weight gain doesn't show any proof he's hooked on weed so it's no biggie.

Look, there are valid explanations for every bit of circumstantial evidence brought up against Bonds.

Has Bonds' head increased in size? Probably. Most people experience an increase in their head size as they age. Whether or not Bonds' has experience unusual head size growth, and more importantly has shown particular kinds of head size growth common to hGH users is open to speculation. Those that are convinced Bonds is juiced are far more likely to see any changes in Bonds' head size as proof, and perhaps exaggerate the extent to which his head may have grown.

Is Bonds physically much bigger than he used to be? No question. Is it possible to be as big as he is at his age and with such a remarkable difference from his younger days without using illegal performance enhancers? Yes it is. In the SF paper article linked here a while back they discussed this and displayed pictures of natural bodybuilders that are around the same age as Bonds and they are much more massive. It's well-known that Bonds switched from speed-training to mass-building training in his early to mid 30's, which would explain the rapid change in his physique. His workout routines have been well-documented.

Bonds has been frequently mentioned in the BALCO case - this is the most damning bit of circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion is the reason the rumors have gone from simply speculation to credible. Still, all we've seen so far is hearsay, and from what I've seen the hearsay can be countered with reasonable explanations for why information might be false.

If this were a trial on whether Bonds has used illegal supplements and this was all the evidence used to prosecute him, I'd find him not-guilty - the evidence simply doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. There are too many credible counter-arguments to the circumstantial evidence given to decisively conclude at this point that he must have used/is still using illegal supplements. The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

[Huckleberry]

The whole point is innocent until proven guilty...you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, which is (in my opinion) wrong.

Why? Are we the jurors for his trial? The "whole point" of innocent until proven guilty is in a court of law, not the court of public opinion, my opinion, your opinion, or his opinion.

[Chubby]

I like how you attack his argument (which, by the way, does exactly what you ask him to do in your second paragraph) by presenting a hypothetical situation and assuming his response. You really proved your point by doing this. :rolleyes:


Have you read this thread? dawgfan's response above was a good argument for why he thinks Bonds may not have taken steroids. I don't agree, but it's a valid argument. That's all I'm asking for. Simply saying "I haven't seen anything to prove to me he took them" is not a valid argument to me. As Vince proved for me, some people will spin anything to say "It doesn't prove he toook them".

[JasonC23]

Again, at least try and show why things don't point to him using if you want to argue against him taking steroids.
I would think that the fact that right now, THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE POINTING AT HIM USING would be good enough, but that's just me. How are we supposed to explain something that doesn't exist?

[Huckleberry]

The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

LOL. I suppose to be sure you would need a seamless video showing the steroids being manufactured, bottled, shipped, delivered to Bonds' supplier, being sold directly to Barry Bonds, his intake of the steroids, and a simultaneously occurring DNA test proving that the man on the video is, in fact, Barry Bonds.

Otherwise there's an explanation.

[Chubby]

Look, there are valid explanations for every bit of circumstantial evidence brought up against Bonds.

Has Bonds' head increased in size? Probably. Most people experience an increase in their head size as they age. Whether or not Bonds' has experience unusual head size growth, and more importantly has shown particular kinds of head size growth common to hGH users is open to speculation. Those that are convinced Bonds is juiced are far more likely to see any changes in Bonds' head size as proof, and perhaps exaggerate the extent to which his head may have grown.

Is Bonds physically much bigger than he used to be? No question. Is it possible to be as big as he is at his age and with such a remarkable difference from his younger days without using illegal performance enhancers? Yes it is. In the SF paper article linked here a while back they discussed this and displayed pictures of natural bodybuilders that are around the same age as Bonds and they are much more massive. It's well-known that Bonds switched from speed-training to mass-building training in his early to mid 30's, which would explain the rapid change in his physique. His workout routines have been well-documented.

Bonds has been frequently mentioned in the BALCO case - this is the most damning bit of circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion is the reason the rumors have gone from simply speculation to credible. Still, all we've seen so far is hearsay, and from what I've seen the hearsay can be countered with reasonable explanations for why information might be false.

If this were a trial on whether Bonds has used illegal supplements and this was all the evidence used to prosecute him, I'd find him not-guilty - the evidence simply doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. There are too many credible counter-arguments to the circumstantial evidence given to decisively conclude at this point that he must have used/is still using illegal supplements. The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

thank you. again, this is all I'm asking for (and I assume the same with others).

I agree, that if this was everything and I was on the jury I'd have to find not guilty but that isn't the case. I don't have to use the same standards as a jury when forming my opinion. As huckleberry said, some people are trying to say that the court of public opinion has the same standards of proof that a court of law has, it does not.

[rkmsuf]

Well look at it this way. What is a witch hunt? A group of people that have a desire to pin something on someone to watch them go down. The only difference is that we're pretty certain that witches don't actually exist. We aren't as certain that Bonds didn't do it...but a lot of the people that are fighting for and arguing that he DID do it are doing so because they don't like him...they want to see him go down.

Though I don't think it's an entirely accurate statement, it's not too far from the truth, either.

So then am I to assume that if this ends up in federal court that the US Government "wants to see him go down"?

This is a legitimate investigation that happens to involve high profile athletes. Terming it a witch hunt is a way for "skeptics" to devalue the importance of truth. Bonds is a high profile guy but not the only one accused.

I have no pity for any of them. They held all the cards and refused to prove they were clean. You can argue whether they should or shouldn't have to prove it but they held the hammer. Now they don't so too bad for them.

Bonds et all should thank their own players association and baseball. They all have themselves to blame for this scrutiny.

[ISiddiqui]

n/m

[dawgfan]

Then this further supports rkmsuf's argument of some people will not accept anything as "proof" that he took them.

Why? Here's a scenario for you - Conte and Bonds have been friends for a while right, boyhood friends even (if I remember correctly)? Let's say Conte was pushing Bonds to use his stuff. Bonds didn't want to, but eventually gave in and let Conte give him the stuff just to satisfy his buddy, but he didn't actually take them. That way he can know he's clean if he's ever tested, and his buddy is able to sell his stuff to other athletes by name-dropping Bonds as a user.

Is that not plausible?

[rkmsuf]

Look, there are valid explanations for every bit of circumstantial evidence brought up against Bonds.

Has Bonds' head increased in size? Probably. Most people experience an increase in their head size as they age. Whether or not Bonds' has experience unusual head size growth, and more importantly has shown particular kinds of head size growth common to hGH users is open to speculation. Those that are convinced Bonds is juiced are far more likely to see any changes in Bonds' head size as proof, and perhaps exaggerate the extent to which his head may have grown.

Is Bonds physically much bigger than he used to be? No question. Is it possible to be as big as he is at his age and with such a remarkable difference from his younger days without using illegal performance enhancers? Yes it is. In the SF paper article linked here a while back they discussed this and displayed pictures of natural bodybuilders that are around the same age as Bonds and they are much more massive. It's well-known that Bonds switched from speed-training to mass-building training in his early to mid 30's, which would explain the rapid change in his physique. His workout routines have been well-documented.

Bonds has been frequently mentioned in the BALCO case - this is the most damning bit of circumstantial evidence, and in my opinion is the reason the rumors have gone from simply speculation to credible. Still, all we've seen so far is hearsay, and from what I've seen the hearsay can be countered with reasonable explanations for why information might be false.

If this were a trial on whether Bonds has used illegal supplements and this was all the evidence used to prosecute him, I'd find him not-guilty - the evidence simply doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. There are too many credible counter-arguments to the circumstantial evidence given to decisively conclude at this point that he must have used/is still using illegal supplements. The golden bullet in this argument would be urine samples. Even then there would be some room for doubt, but it would be enough for me (and most I would suspect) to be convinced.

that's all well and good and 10 yrs ago a similar trial played out.

[Chubby]

I would think that the fact that right now, THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE POINTING AT HIM USING would be good enough, but that's just me. How are we supposed to explain something that doesn't exist?


I disagree, there is no concrete evidence that we are privy too. That does not mean that the courts don't have any.

Again, I don't have to use the same standard of guilt as a courtroom does. To me, there's enough evidence (circumstantial it may be) to say to me that he took 'roids.

[JasonC23]

Have you read this thread? dawgfan's response above was a good argument for why he thinks Bonds may not have taken steroids. I don't agree, but it's a valid argument. That's all I'm asking for. Simply saying "I haven't seen anything to prove to me he took them" is not a valid argument to me. As Vince proved for me, some people will spin anything to say "It doesn't prove he toook them".
So, basically, not accepting circumstancial evidence as the be-all, end-all proof that something has happened means that we're not supporting our side well enough? Why do I have to defend my not accepting circumstancial evidence? Doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" DEMAND that we not accept circumstancial evidence?

[rkmsuf]

LOL. I suppose to be sure you would need a seamless video showing the steroids being manufactured, bottled, shipped, delivered to Bonds' supplier, being sold directly to Barry Bonds, his intake of the steroids, and a simultaneously occurring DNA test proving that the man on the video is, in fact, Barry Bonds.

Otherwise there's an explanation.

Just cuz he had them doesn't mean he took them right?

[Huckleberry]

Doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" DEMAND that we not accept circumstancial evidence?

Yes, it does. BUT WE ARE NOT ON A JURY.

edit - By the way, it is not illegal or wrong for a jury to convict on circumstantial evidence. There is a point where there is so much evidence that, even though it is all circumstantial, no reasonable interpretation would leave the accused not guilty. Hence no reasonable doubt.

[Chubby]

Why? Here's a scenario for you - Conte and Bonds have been friends for a while right, boyhood friends even (if I remember correctly)? Let's say Conte was pushing Bonds to use his stuff. Bonds didn't want to, but eventually gave in and let Conte give him the stuff just to satisfy his buddy, but he didn't actually take them. That way he can know he's clean if he's ever tested, and his buddy is able to sell his stuff to other athletes by name-dropping Bonds as a user.

Is that not plausible?
If a test of Bonds' comes back positive, is it not plausible that someone switched samples to frame Bonds?

Again, if you want to insist on actually being there to see him shoot it in his ass yourself to be convinced that he took them then fine. Some of us don't need that to think he did it.

[Vince]

Vince, the point is you have nothing 'backing up your statement' whatsoever.

Just because there isn't the "Vince standard of proof" does not mean I can't form my own opinion of things. He did steroids, that's my belief. The fact that there isn't enough evidence for you to share that belief is not going to change mine.

Again, at least try and show why things don't point to him using if you want to argue against him taking steroids. Otherwise, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. This might as well be a religion thread when discussing this with you.
The point of my arguments has been this, summed up in one statement:

Circumstantial evidence does not equal proof.

I haven't been trying to prove that Bonds hasn't done steroids. Proving that Bonds hasn't done steroids is about as possible right now as proving that he has. Which is to say, it isn't possible (well, more accurately...it hasn't been done). I'd like to know how I've 'spun' something? I've stated my beliefs, based upon the evidence available. Kind of like you have.

As for Huckleberry, I've never stated that you have to agree with what I'm saying...just trying to show where I'm coming from...WHY I think that Chubby is wrong.

[dawgfan]

So then am I to assume that if this ends up in federal court that the US Government "wants to see him go down"?

This is a legitimate investigation that happens to involve high profile athletes. Terming it a witch hunt is a way for "skeptics" to devalue the importance of truth. Bonds is a high profile guy but not the only one accused.

I have no pity for any of them. They held all the cards and refused to prove they were clean. You can argue whether they should or shouldn't have to prove it but they held the hammer. Now they don't so too bad for them.

Bonds et all should thank their own players association and baseball. They all have themselves to blame for this scrutiny.

When I used the term 'witch-hunt' it wasn't in reference to the BALCO case, it was the fact that so many people really dislike Bonds and as such are eager to jump on the "He uses steroids" bandwagon.

[Chubby]

So, basically, not accepting circumstancial evidence as the be-all, end-all proof that something has happened means that we're not supporting our side well enough? Why do I have to defend my not accepting circumstancial evidence? Doesn't "innocent until proven guilty" DEMAND that we not accept circumstancial evidence?


That's the only evidence we have, how many times do I have to say it? you won't even counter the circumstantial evidence, you just blindly stick your fingers in your ears and say "He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"

Again, we're not on a jury.

[Huckleberry]

I have added a statement to address the circumstantial evidence line of reasoning in an above post.

[Chubby]

The point of my arguments has been this, summed up in one statement:

Circumstantial evidence does not equal proof.

I haven't been trying to prove that Bonds hasn't done steroids. Proving that Bonds hasn't done steroids is about as possible right now as proving that he has. Which is to say, it isn't possible (well, more accurately...it hasn't been done). I'd like to know how I've 'spun' something? I've stated my beliefs, based upon the evidence available. Kind of like you have.

As for Huckleberry, I've never stated that you have to agree with what I'm saying...just trying to show where I'm coming from...WHY I think that Chubby is wrong.

It doesn't have to, I'm not on the jury.

[JasonC23]

Yes, it does. BUT WE ARE NOT ON A JURY.

edit - By the way, it is not illegal or wrong for a jury to convict on circumstantial evidence. There is a point where there is so much evidence that, even though it is all circumstantial, no reasonable interpretation would leave the accused not guilty. Hence no reasonable doubt.
REALLY? NO SHIT?

I don't think anyone's attacking Chubby for having the opinion that Bonds has for sure done steroids. What we are attacking is his follow-up attitude of, "I don't see how anyone can think he hasn't done steroids." We're pointing out that since there is no concrete proof that he has in fact done steroids, that it's plausible that someone could think he hasn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

[dawgfan]

If a test of Bonds' comes back positive, is it not plausible that someone switched samples to frame Bonds?

Again, if you want to insist on actually being there to see him shoot it in his ass yourself to be convinced that he took them then fine. Some of us don't need that to think he did it.

I think the scenario I outlined is far more plausible than trying to explain away a positive urine test. As I said, if a drug test for illegal performance enhancers came back positive on Bonds that's all I need in addition to all the other circumstantial evidence to consider him guilty. I'm not going to pull an OJ supporter "He was framed" kind of argument... ;)

[Chubby]

When I used the term 'witch-hunt' it wasn't in reference to the BALCO case, it was the fact that so many people really dislike Bonds and as such are eager to jump on the "He uses steroids" bandwagon.

This may be why it gets so much media attention to a degree but I don't think that the average fan hates him so much that they want to see him busted for something.

I don't hate Bonds. I think he can be an ass, but who isn't sometimes? To me, as I've stated, all the little things add up to a big thing to me.

[Vince]

So then am I to assume that if this ends up in federal court that the US Government "wants to see him go down"?
If this ends up in court is the hinge of this argument. It's not in court now. So basically, the allegations against Bonds are by people that have a motive to put them there. So far, the only 'evidence' is circumstantial...which would indicate to me that the people making claims based upon something that hasn't been proven probably have an axe to grind.

[rkmsuf]

When I used the term 'witch-hunt' it wasn't in reference to the BALCO case, it was the fact that so many people really dislike Bonds and as such are eager to jump on the "He uses steroids" bandwagon.

I'll agree that he hasn't endeared himself to the public but that's his doing. It's no surprise people are eager for misfortune to befall him. That's just a funtion of him and not really the steriod issue. I'm sure there are many people that would love to see him plunked by a fast ball or fall down the dugout steps.

[JasonC23]

That's the only evidence we have, how many times do I have to say it? you won't even counter the circumstantial evidence, you just blindly stick your fingers in your ears and say "He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"

Again, we're not on a jury.
You are a master of reading into people's posts. Not once have I said what I believe. Again, I'm simply saying that because there is no proof (at this point) that Bonds has done steroids, of course people can have the opinion that he has not.

[Bad-example]

That's the only evidence we have, how many times do I have to say it? you won't even counter the circumstantial evidence, you just blindly stick your fingers in your ears and say "He didn't do it! He didn't do it!"

Again, we're not on a jury.

Gee, how many times does it have to be said before you get it?

NO ONE is claiming he definitely didn't do steroids.

Some of us are simply reasonable enough not to jump to conclusions.

[rkmsuf]

If this ends up in court is the hinge of this argument. It's not in court now. So basically, the allegations against Bonds are by people that have a motive to put them there. So far, the only 'evidence' is circumstantial...which would indicate to me that the people making claims based upon something that hasn't been proven probably have an axe to grind.

He's no different than other superstars. There are always those who want to knock off #1. In this case there appears to be ammunition.

[Huckleberry]

REALLY? NO SHIT?

I don't think anyone's attacking Chubby for having the opinion that Bonds has for sure done steroids. What we are attacking is his follow-up attitude of, "I don't see how anyone can think he hasn't done steroids." We're pointing out that since there is no concrete proof that he has in fact done steroids, that it's plausible that someone could think he hasn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Why is it so hard to make that argument without pulling out the "innocent until proven guilty" red herring?

[Chubby]

REALLY? NO SHIT?

I don't think anyone's attacking Chubby for having the opinion that Bonds has for sure done steroids. What we are attacking is his follow-up attitude of, "I don't see how anyone can think he hasn't done steroids." We're pointing out that since there is no concrete proof that he has in fact done steroids, that it's plausible that someone could think he hasn't. Why is this so hard to understand?
Where have I said that? Quote it for me.

I've said numerous times that dawgfan has given good arguments for why the evidence may not mean Bonds took steroids. I've said I can see how those arguments can be made but I don't agree with them. I've never said "You can't possibly think that."

Sheesh, I posted that Giants fans shouldn't look at the testimony and eveyrone jumps down my throat (big shock there)

[Vince]

Appears to be...