What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

[USCTrojan83]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Hand eye coordination is def. key... look at Tony Gwynn! The key is POWER.. and the stats show that Bonds' power increased in 00-05 by an average of 20 more HR's... you can't "ignore" his freak season, b/c it happened. But Steroids increases individual power, and this combined with his AGE (something you keep ignoring) are factors as well.

No one "ignores" Williams' .406 BA when compiling his stats.

I agree they dont...but the fact is pared you still have to see the ball hit the ball peroid....and if you want to say that Bonds needed the extra strength for the 20 HRS and steroids give an increase of 20HRS then that is ludicrous...studies have shown 10-15 feet maybe gained in useing steroids...(ESPN article few months back) I would agree 7-10 HRS but 20 i cant....

Im not ignoring age...i know hes 40+...you decline when skills decline...right? Age is only a number in which we justify why guys stats decline....the real reason is because their skills diminish in part sue to old age and the body wearing down....IMO

[USCTrojan83]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Oh, and yes, others have said it as well as published reports... Many believe when (not if) he breaks Aaron's record it will be another stain on one of the most cherished records in MLB.

Aaron holds the record while having a steady DECLINE in stats... that's saying something, especially compared to (ugh) Bonds.

I was never a Bond *****, but all I have to go by are what I've researched and their stats... and they don't favor Bonds in light of the allegations.

Aaron declined his last 3 years from 40 in 1973 to 20 to 12 to 10...Bods has played 19 years....look man I agree with you he frieking cheated....But In my book hes one of the greatest players ever. and the greatest I ever SAW....

Ill be back man its good discussing this with you...Im at work right now I have a meeting to go to...ill be back in like 30 min

[USCTrojan83]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Oh, and yes, others have said it as well as published reports... Many believe when (not if) he breaks Aaron's record it will be another stain on one of the most cherished records in MLB.

Aaron holds the record while having a steady DECLINE in stats... that's saying something, especially compared to (ugh) Bonds.

I was never a Bond *****, but all I have to go by are what I've researched and their stats... and they don't favor Bonds in light of the allegations.

Aaron declined his last 3 years from 40 in 1973 to 20 to 12 to 10...Bods has played 19 years....look man I agree with you he frieking cheated....But In my book hes one of the greatest players ever. and the greatest I ever SAW....

Ill be back man its good discussing this with you...Im at work right now I have a meeting to go to...ill be back in like 30 min

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Pared if you would read maybe 10 pages back this discussion has been ongoing...I would suggest reading back a little to the beginning and maybe you would have a greater knowledge to the discussion between us...

1st What does Cali have to do with the fact of anything...Im not even a Bonds Guy...I hate the Giants...(Not a dodger guy either) Padre and Angel fan

2nd) The reason I bring up griffey is becuase he was well on his way to breaking aarons record without the use of roids showing the fact there is the possiblility of the record being broken...The other names I bring up had huge years maris 61 HRS...willians .409 AVG year... he called bonds 73 HRS all based on roids which it is not....Many players over the years have had random years with great stats where that type of production wasnt seen...IE maris AVG 39hrs a yr and then hits 61...

Might i remind you BONDS hit 46 HRS in 1993 so I dont think its not possible to do it again in the late 2000's...I think bonds is on roids but i dont think a significant # of HRS were the cause of his roid usage...the guy is a beast and was a great hitter before the steroid controversy...OCE again Pared im nopt arguing the usuage of roids ...

This entire discussion between him and I were because I was arguing in my first ost that there are a lot more to do with increase in hrs IN GENERAL that roid usage
1) smaller parks
2) better fitness (supplements, workouts are taken more seriousl because in the 50-60's working out was somewhat taboo based on the assumed notion that working out would slow you down ie, running and bat speed....
3) Pitching is watered down
4) there were others in my previous posts

Im not delusional but seriously Pared...look back in this thread and read some of the stuff...

My main arguement is NOT THAT bonds didnt take steroids...Im pretty sure he did....But IMO i wont look back and say he tainted the game just based on the fact that he was one of the greatest players iver ever SEEN play roids or not....His hand eye coordination even at his age now is still amazing...Roids do not increase hand eye coordination...strength and possibly bat speed yes not hand eye coordination

Fair enough. But he HAS tainted the records if he was using steroids. I don't see how you can argue that.

And again, Griffey and Bonds aren't comparable... b/c no one with any sort of logic can say Griffey all of a sudden, at the age of 37-41 would be jacking them out at the rate Bonds is... Griffey's prime was obviously in his late 20's to early 30's... and you can sit there, with a straight face, and say Bonds, at the age of 40, is comparable to Griffey at the age of 29???

C'mon...

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Pared if you would read maybe 10 pages back this discussion has been ongoing...I would suggest reading back a little to the beginning and maybe you would have a greater knowledge to the discussion between us...

1st What does Cali have to do with the fact of anything...Im not even a Bonds Guy...I hate the Giants...(Not a dodger guy either) Padre and Angel fan

2nd) The reason I bring up griffey is becuase he was well on his way to breaking aarons record without the use of roids showing the fact there is the possiblility of the record being broken...The other names I bring up had huge years maris 61 HRS...willians .409 AVG year... he called bonds 73 HRS all based on roids which it is not....Many players over the years have had random years with great stats where that type of production wasnt seen...IE maris AVG 39hrs a yr and then hits 61...

Might i remind you BONDS hit 46 HRS in 1993 so I dont think its not possible to do it again in the late 2000's...I think bonds is on roids but i dont think a significant # of HRS were the cause of his roid usage...the guy is a beast and was a great hitter before the steroid controversy...OCE again Pared im nopt arguing the usuage of roids ...

This entire discussion between him and I were because I was arguing in my first ost that there are a lot more to do with increase in hrs IN GENERAL that roid usage
1) smaller parks
2) better fitness (supplements, workouts are taken more seriousl because in the 50-60's working out was somewhat taboo based on the assumed notion that working out would slow you down ie, running and bat speed....
3) Pitching is watered down
4) there were others in my previous posts

Im not delusional but seriously Pared...look back in this thread and read some of the stuff...

My main arguement is NOT THAT bonds didnt take steroids...Im pretty sure he did....But IMO i wont look back and say he tainted the game just based on the fact that he was one of the greatest players iver ever SEEN play roids or not....His hand eye coordination even at his age now is still amazing...Roids do not increase hand eye coordination...strength and possibly bat speed yes not hand eye coordination

Fair enough. But he HAS tainted the records if he was using steroids. I don't see how you can argue that.

And again, Griffey and Bonds aren't comparable... b/c no one with any sort of logic can say Griffey all of a sudden, at the age of 37-41 would be jacking them out at the rate Bonds is... Griffey's prime was obviously in his late 20's to early 30's... and you can sit there, with a straight face, and say Bonds, at the age of 40, is comparable to Griffey at the age of 29???

C'mon...

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

I agree they dont...but the fact is pared you still have to see the ball hit the ball peroid....and if you want to say that Bonds needed the extra strength for the 20 HRS and steroids give an increase of 20HRS then that is ludicrous...studies have shown 10-15 feet maybe gained in useing steroids...(ESPN article few months back) I would agree 7-10 HRS but 20 i cant....

Bonds HR avg. since 2000 w/o the 73 HR season: 46.25

That's still a bit under a 16 HR a season jump... at the age of 36-41.

I've never said he wasn't a great player. I've also never said he didn't have great hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination will only take you so far. But this is not just a "coincidence" with the Steroid allegations... and that's all I'm saying. The record, IMO, is stained for sure.

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

I agree they dont...but the fact is pared you still have to see the ball hit the ball peroid....and if you want to say that Bonds needed the extra strength for the 20 HRS and steroids give an increase of 20HRS then that is ludicrous...studies have shown 10-15 feet maybe gained in useing steroids...(ESPN article few months back) I would agree 7-10 HRS but 20 i cant....

Bonds HR avg. since 2000 w/o the 73 HR season: 46.25

That's still a bit under a 16 HR a season jump... at the age of 36-41.

I've never said he wasn't a great player. I've also never said he didn't have great hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination will only take you so far. But this is not just a "coincidence" with the Steroid allegations... and that's all I'm saying. The record, IMO, is stained for sure.

[glucklich]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Fair enough. But he HAS tainted the records if he was using steroids. I don't see how you can argue that.

And again, Griffey and Bonds aren't comparable... b/c no one with any sort of logic can say Griffey all of a sudden, at the age of 37-41 would be jacking them out at the rate Bonds is... Griffey's prime was obviously in his late 20's to early 30's... and you can sit there, with a straight face, and say Bonds, at the age of 40, is comparable to Griffey at the age of 29???

C'mon...

Heres the thing. Youre argument seems to be predicated on the fact that you SHOULD decline as you approach 40. It further seems to attribute this decline to hand eye reflexes. This not an unsensible observation because this seems to be the way progression has worked historically. But what if its not so much the hand-eye coordination as much as it is losing the muscle structure to act on the hand-eye coordination. If thats the case the you have to consider the affect that constant training may have at the end of your career. Look at Nolan Ryan, he attributes it to his devoted workout regimen. For the same reason 40 may no longer mean what it once used to. Im not saying Bonds did steroids, Im not saying he didnt do steroids but Im throwing the idea out there that the belief that age 40 means X may now be somewhat erroneous.

[glucklich]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Fair enough. But he HAS tainted the records if he was using steroids. I don't see how you can argue that.

And again, Griffey and Bonds aren't comparable... b/c no one with any sort of logic can say Griffey all of a sudden, at the age of 37-41 would be jacking them out at the rate Bonds is... Griffey's prime was obviously in his late 20's to early 30's... and you can sit there, with a straight face, and say Bonds, at the age of 40, is comparable to Griffey at the age of 29???

C'mon...

Heres the thing. Youre argument seems to be predicated on the fact that you SHOULD decline as you approach 40. It further seems to attribute this decline to hand eye reflexes. This not an unsensible observation because this seems to be the way progression has worked historically. But what if its not so much the hand-eye coordination as much as it is losing the muscle structure to act on the hand-eye coordination. If thats the case the you have to consider the affect that constant training may have at the end of your career. Look at Nolan Ryan, he attributes it to his devoted workout regimen. For the same reason 40 may no longer mean what it once used to. Im not saying Bonds did steroids, Im not saying he didnt do steroids but Im throwing the idea out there that the belief that age 40 means X may now be somewhat erroneous.

[USCTrojan83]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Bonds HR avg. since 2000 w/o the 73 HR season: 46.25

That's still a bit under a 16 HR a season jump... at the age of 36-41.

I've never said he wasn't a great player. I've also never said he didn't have great hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination will only take you so far. But this is not just a "coincidence" with the Steroid allegations... and that's all I'm saying. The record, IMO, is stained for sure.

I agree its stained.....and still the 16 hr jump is significant at that age..with skills likely to diminsh in some concern...Either way we look at it Barry's going to break the record as long as his kneee heals in time....Hand-eye coordination like Barry's will get you to the majors and then some....He took roids and he basically admitted to the fact...Saying he didnt "know" until he stopped taking the cream....which is a lie and we all know he knew about it...

This is just another stepping stone for baseball to get over...luckily enough this didnt have the result like the Black Sox Scandal, 94 Strike, and Rose Gambling.

By the way Im dumping your MVP sliders in favor of Jistics'....JK

[USCTrojan83]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Bonds HR avg. since 2000 w/o the 73 HR season: 46.25

That's still a bit under a 16 HR a season jump... at the age of 36-41.

I've never said he wasn't a great player. I've also never said he didn't have great hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination will only take you so far. But this is not just a "coincidence" with the Steroid allegations... and that's all I'm saying. The record, IMO, is stained for sure.

I agree its stained.....and still the 16 hr jump is significant at that age..with skills likely to diminsh in some concern...Either way we look at it Barry's going to break the record as long as his kneee heals in time....Hand-eye coordination like Barry's will get you to the majors and then some....He took roids and he basically admitted to the fact...Saying he didnt "know" until he stopped taking the cream....which is a lie and we all know he knew about it...

This is just another stepping stone for baseball to get over...luckily enough this didnt have the result like the Black Sox Scandal, 94 Strike, and Rose Gambling.

By the way Im dumping your MVP sliders in favor of Jistics'....JK

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Heres the thing. Youre argument seems to be predicated on the fact that you SHOULD decline as you approach 40. It further seems to attribute this decline to hand eye reflexes. This not an unsensible observation because this seems to be the way progression has worked historically. But what if its not so much the hand-eye coordination as much as it is losing the muscle structure to act on the hand-eye coordination. If thats the case the you have to consider the affect that constant training may have at the end of your career. Look at Nolan Ryan, he attributes it to his devoted workout regimen. For the same reason 40 may no longer mean what it once used to. Im not saying Bonds did steroids, Im not saying he didnt do steroids but Im throwing the idea out there that the belief that age 40 means X may now be somewhat erroneous.

No, it's not predicated on a steady decline, but CONSISTENCY...

Everyone who uses players as examples... Ryan, Clemens, (Randy) Johnson... you're using players who have ALWAYS excelled at their craft! They did not all of a sudden break the record for wins by a pitcher or K's in a season by a huge margin.... There's a difference....

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

Heres the thing. Youre argument seems to be predicated on the fact that you SHOULD decline as you approach 40. It further seems to attribute this decline to hand eye reflexes. This not an unsensible observation because this seems to be the way progression has worked historically. But what if its not so much the hand-eye coordination as much as it is losing the muscle structure to act on the hand-eye coordination. If thats the case the you have to consider the affect that constant training may have at the end of your career. Look at Nolan Ryan, he attributes it to his devoted workout regimen. For the same reason 40 may no longer mean what it once used to. Im not saying Bonds did steroids, Im not saying he didnt do steroids but Im throwing the idea out there that the belief that age 40 means X may now be somewhat erroneous.

No, it's not predicated on a steady decline, but CONSISTENCY...

Everyone who uses players as examples... Ryan, Clemens, (Randy) Johnson... you're using players who have ALWAYS excelled at their craft! They did not all of a sudden break the record for wins by a pitcher or K's in a season by a huge margin.... There's a difference....

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

I agree its stained.....and still the 16 hr jump is significant at that age..with skills likely to diminsh in some concern...Either way we look at it Barry's going to break the record as long as his kneee heals in time....Hand-eye coordination like Barry's will get you to the majors and then some....He took roids and he basically admitted to the fact...Saying he didnt "know" until he stopped taking the cream....which is a lie and we all know he knew about it...

This is just another stepping stone for baseball to get over...luckily enough this didnt have the result like the Black Sox Scandal, 94 Strike, and Rose Gambling.

Well, it seems we are on the same page, in a sense... great discussion. It's always nice when people don't have to resort to name calling and such.

By the way Im dumping your MVP sliders in favor of Jistics'....JK

[Pared]

Re: What is your take on the Congress and MLB?

I agree its stained.....and still the 16 hr jump is significant at that age..with skills likely to diminsh in some concern...Either way we look at it Barry's going to break the record as long as his kneee heals in time....Hand-eye coordination like Barry's will get you to the majors and then some....He took roids and he basically admitted to the fact...Saying he didnt "know" until he stopped taking the cream....which is a lie and we all know he knew about it...

This is just another stepping stone for baseball to get over...luckily enough this didnt have the result like the Black Sox Scandal, 94 Strike, and Rose Gambling.

Well, it seems we are on the same page, in a sense... great discussion. It's always nice when people don't have to resort to name calling and such.

By the way Im dumping your MVP sliders in favor of Jistics'....JK