Official Barry Bonds Thread

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

The reason I have such a hard time is. This is a man that has been raised by the game of baseball, to respect it and love it. I am mean his God father is Willie Mays. And you would think he wouldn't want to do anything to bring shame on him and game, I could be wrong. But I just can't think he would do that, but who knows!

[Misfit]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

The reason I have such a hard time is. This is a man that has been raised by the game of baseball, to respect it and love it. I am mean his God father is Willie Mays. And you would think he wouldn't want to do anything to bring shame on him and game, I could be wrong. But I just can't think he would do that, but who knows!

He may have great respect for the game, I don't know. I am fairly certain though that in Barry's mind Barry comes first. He's an egomaniac, to say the least. To further himself, I think he would risk tarnishing the game of baseball. Especially if a lot of the great power hitters at the time were on junk themselves and not getting caught. If everyone else is doing it it becomes a lot easier to convince yourself that its ok to follow.

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Your friends are what 16 17 or 18.

I can pretty much assure you, I've been around Steroids and illeagal suppliments more than you, and the long term effects are not good.

Again, having been around athletes like this most of my life, I have yet to run across one that didn't know exactly what they were administering.

My age 32 to 35 and they are actually pretty healthy. I know it has bad affect, but that has more to do how long you are on them. My one friend has been on them a long time. Not now, and he is doing great, still pretty big dude. He plays softball and he can't play in some league, because he is too good lol.

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

He may have great respect for the game, I don't know. I am fairly certain though that in Barry's mind Barry comes first. He's an egomaniac, to say the least. To further himself, I think he would risk tarnishing the game of baseball. Especially if a lot of the great power hitters at the time were on junk themselves and not getting caught. If everyone else is doing it it becomes a lot easier to convince yourself that its ok to follow.

I hear you, but I just don't know!

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

I hear what you are saying, but I just know. That is just how I feel. Unless he tested positive that is just how I feel. But I understand what are you saying and agree with it to a point!

Problem is, the stuff he was taking was undetectable, which was why he was taking it.

But if you combine the evidence and just the way his body developed in such a short time, it's pretty obvious. It would take quite an optimist to believe he did not take them.

[Blzer]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Bringing up the shift against Bonds is more a complimant to Pujols than it is Bonds. There is no defense to put on Pujols other than straight-away because he can hit the ball everywhere, be it on the ground and in the air. Bonds hit .360 in 03 with less than 400 at bats, but he slugged over .800. With that kind of slugging percentage, its unlikely he was hitting the ball on the ground much for the shift to have much of an impact on his performance.

And you can't compare an average of .360 in <400 at-bats with a .330 average with >500 at bats. In a simplified example, player X could go 13 for 30 for a .333 batting average while player Y could go 4 for 10 for a .400 batting average. Is player Y the better hitter because his average was higher than player X's? While yes he could be, the sample size is too small and the results too close together to form a real answer. And some may even find it more impressive that player X could maintain a .333 average while putting the ball in play vs the .400 average from player Y who put the ball in play far fewer times.

As for your last comment that Bonds is above this league, the easy rebuttle is that Bonds got that way with steroids. Before steroids he was a good player, but his pre-steroid numbers wouldn't make him better than Pujols. Hitters don't get that much better when their late 30's hit. The 2003 Bonds was largely a product of the steroids he put into his system. As far as best players who obtained their abilities dishonorably goes, he has no eqaul. When one starts to talk about who the best pure (as in, no roids) baseball player of all-time goes they won't be talking about Bonds.

Your statement makes sense, in theory. Now, here's where being a 17 year old is beneficial.

We will do a Two-Proportion Z-Test; or, we will compare the proportions of successfully hitting safely between Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols.



Okay, we have two proportions: p1 (Barry Bonds' 2004 batting average, 135/373 = .362), and p2 (Albert Pujols' 2004 batting average, 196/592 = .331). Our null hypothesis is that they have the same average... meaning that the amount of at bats vs the proportion of their batting averages is pretty much likely to be the same if either/or were the same. Our alternative hypothesis is that we are testing to see if Albert Pujols' average is better, considering both their batting averages with their total at bats. So, statistically, we have:


Ho: p1 = p2
Ha: p1 < p2

x1: 135
n1: 373
x2: 196
n2: 592

p (pooled) = (x1 + x2)/(n1 + n2) = .3430052

If you'd like an actual formula to calculate our Z-value, it is:


Z = (p1 - p2)/sqrt(p(1-p)((1/n1) + (1/n2))


With that, we get a Z-value of .9830246. Going to a Table to get a percentage to compare with our alpha level of 0.05, we will get a P-value of P = 0.83720234.



If P is less than 0.05, we can reject our null hypothesis. If P is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null. Here, 0.83720234 > 0.05, so we fail to reject the null.










What does all of that mean? That, regardless of the smaller amount of at bats that Barry Bonds has in comparison to Albert Pujols, we can say that Albert Pujols clearly does not have an average stronger than Bonds (actually, it's not stronger at all... it's actually weaker), and that the averages are very near similar. If we tested that Bonds' average was greater, we would get a P-value of about 0.163, and while we still fail to reject the null, it is much safer to say that Bonds' average is still stronger than Pujols' average.

I don't care how geeky you guys think I may be; I just statistically proved something, no opinions included.

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Problem is, the stuff he was taking was undetectable, which was why he was taking it.

But if you combine the evidence and just the way his body developed in such a short time, it's pretty obvious. It would take quite an optimist to believe he did not take them.

See this is where I disagree, because he got bigger each year. And that I do know. Each year he got bigger and bigger. One year he was 215 and couldn't hit the inside pitch and so he went back down 200. Then in the next couple of years he keep getting bigger. They talk about about it every year how Bonds put more muscle on each year! And they show the pics of the gradually muscle gain. But people that don't see that, just think of Bonds as always being a stick! But I did witness the muscle gain in about 3 t 5 years!

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

See this is where I disagree, because he got bigger each year. And that I do know. Each year he got bigger and bigger. One year he was 215 and couldn't hit the inside pitch and so he went back down 200. Then in the next couple of years he keep getting bigger. They talk about about it every year how Bonds put more muscle on each year! And they show the pics of the gradually muscle gain. But people that don't see that, just think of Bonds as always being a stick! But I did witness the muscle gain in about 3 t 5 years!

It's not the fact he got bigger. It was the indicators in the way he got bigger than tend to point to steroid use. You've been around steroid users, you should know exactly what I am talking about.

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

It's not the fact he got bigger. It was the indicators in the way he got bigger than tend to point to steroid use. You've been around steroid users, you should know exactly what I am talking about.

I hear what you are saying, but if you are always in the gym you can get pretty big. I put on 25 pounds of muscle in one year! And I didn't take anything! All my friends got Hugh in about 6 month, but they were pretty big to begin though! I still think you can big natural, it just take longer!

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

I hear what you are saying, but if you are always in the gym you can get pretty big. I put on 25 pounds of muscle in one year! And I didn't take anything! All my friends got Hugh in about 6 month, but they were pretty big to begin though! I still think you can big natural, it just take longer!

Again, look at his head, shoulders, legs, quads. Tell me the telltale signs of steroid abuse aren't there.

After looking at all that, and then looking at the mounting evidence, that is very credible, you're honestly going to tell me you believe he did not take steroids?

[Misfit]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

What does all of that mean? That, regardless of the smaller amount of at bats that Barry Bonds has in comparison to Albert Pujols, we can say that Albert Pujols clearly does not have an average stronger than Bonds (actually, it's not stronger at all... it's actually weaker), and that the averages are very near similar. If we tested that Bonds' average was greater, we would get a P-value of about 0.163, and while we still fail to reject the null, it is much safer to say that Bonds' average is still stronger than Pujols' average.

I don't care how geeky you guys think I may be; I just statistically proved something, no opinions included.

I'm not going to call you geeky, because what you just did is what I'll be paid to do once I graduate from college next month (though unlikely for baseball).

I will say your attempt to use a null hypothesis is admirable here, it just isn't really practical. There are far too many factors that go into a player's batting average that just aren't captured in your model. Don't fret though, you just uncovered why so many people are obsessed with baseball statistics, because the game is nearly impossible to accurately predict.

[Blzer]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Steroids are not magic pills or shots that put muscle on while you watch T.V. They do make gains bigger, but if you don't know what you are doing they are worse than useless. Before you take steroids, you need to have a proper diet, and you need to have an exercise routine that your body responds to. Everybody is different. What works great for me might not do squat for you.

You need to learn how to gain muscle before you do the roids. The diet is 75-80% of your gains. You need to eat LOTS of small meals and to take protein shakes. You need, depending on your size and how your body utilizes food, anywhere between 4,500 to 6,000 cal/day, the majority protein, then carbs, with a small amount of fat. You want to eat nutrious food not fast food. You want to keep protein circulating in your bloodstream all the time. Thats what your muscles are built out of.

Your exercise routine is something you have to work on. You need to find out what your body responds to. You have to avoid overtraining. If you can add reps or weight on each exercise you are fine. If you don't you are probably overtraining. You need to work as hard as you can on the exercises you do, half assed effort means half assed gains. You should make squats and deadlifts the major part of your routine.

You also need plenty of sleep. Thats when your body does most of the rebuilding. You'll know when you are doing it right because you'll start making incredible gains.

Bonds still would have had to have those workouts in order to perform.




Of course... what do I know?

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Again, look at his head, shoulders, legs, quads. Tell me the telltale signs of steroid abuse aren't there.

After looking at all that, and then looking at the mounting evidence, that is very credible, you're honestly going to tell me you believe he did not take steroids?

I plead the fifth. But all joking aside, must guys that work out a lot look like that. Most of my friends that don't take steroids have all those qualities! I knew what you meant. I really don't see that much different from my friend Darren and Eric! They both have all those. And I know Eric doesnt do roids, but you make a great point.

Tell you the truth sure he looks like a steroid user! But so do most of my friends!

[keRplunK]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Bonds still would have had to have those workouts in order to perform.

Of course... what do I know?

Your point? He gets paid millions of dollars to keep his body in shape. He was probably already doing everything he could to improve but realized he'd never hit 50 homeruns in a season.

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Steroids are not magic pills or shots that put muscle on while you watch T.V. They do make gains bigger, but if you don't know what you are doing they are worse than useless. Before you take steroids, you need to have a proper diet, and you need to have an exercise routine that your body responds to. Everybody is different. What works great for me might not do squat for you.

You need to learn how to gain muscle before you do the roids. The diet is 75-80% of your gains. You need to eat LOTS of small meals and to take protein shakes. You need, depending on your size and how your body utilizes food, anywhere between 4,500 to 6,000 cal/day, the majority protein, then carbs, with a small amount of fat. You want to eat nutrious food not fast food. You want to keep protein circulating in your bloodstream all the time. Thats what your muscles are built out of.

Your exercise routine is something you have to work on. You need to find out what your body responds to. You have to avoid overtraining. If you can add reps or weight on each exercise you are fine. If you don't you are probably overtraining. You need to work as hard as you can on the exercises you do, half assed effort means half assed gains. You should make squats and deadlifts the major part of your routine.

You also need plenty of sleep. Thats when your body does most of the rebuilding. You'll know when you are doing it right because you'll start making incredible gains.

Bonds still would have had to have those workouts in order to perform.




Of course... what do I know?

Without steriods at his age, he would not have seen anywhere near the gains he saw. The particular ones he was taking are extremely effective.