Registered User
What makes you believe this? All evidence shows that he started using in 00 (or after the 99 season). 99 was his lowest OPS+ since 89. if he took roids in 99 they made him worseOriginally Posted by Iowanic
year OPS+
97 170
98 178
99 156
00 188
01 259
02 268
...
It's obvious that he started either in 00 or in 01 since the big jump came after the 00 season. 01 was the first monster season.
I think walks are overrated unless you can run. If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps, but the guy who walks and can’t run, most of the time he’s clogging up the bases for somebody who can run. – Dusty Baker.
Registered User
That's always been my belief: That he started in 2000. 1997, 1998, and 1999 were off from his 1992-1993 years by a big margin. Thus, it doesn't make sense to me that steroids would have caused him drop off in production, but then all of the sudden start skyrocketing his production at age 36.
Registered User
Pheasant, steroids don't always work right away, sometimes you have to find the right cocktail, and what works for you best. I'll give you an example. Jose Canseco used steroids his entire career, and yet he had up and down years, and many injury plagued seasons. Steroids worked great for him some years, and some years they didn't.
Registered User
Read 'Game of Shadows'
'Nuff said.....
Baseball's Perfect Knight
I wouldn't vote for him. He might receive slightly more votes than other steroid users, as he was damn good before he started breaking the law by possessing and using these hardcore drugs while choosing to make a mockery of the game and giving the sport and its fans the finger through his actions.
About 6 votes sounds good. Maybe 7 or 8.
Congrats Barry!
"Herman Franks to Sal Yvars to Bobby Thomson. Ralph Branca to Bobby Thomson to Helen Rita... cue Russ Hodges."
Registered User
Please elaborate for those of us who haven't read it.
Keep Spraying Maine
Registered User
I've read that he started late in '98 with him having to watch roiders breaking the record. Then in '99 he got injured possibly in part due to gaining some muscle fast, but when he returned his home run rate was at an all time high, he just didn't get his timing back due to the time on the DL.
Join Zap!
He has to go in. Those 2001-2004 numbers are steroid-proof, just like hitting 65+ home runs should be steroid-proof.
Now, when I say "steroid-proof", I am not talking about proof of steroids. I mean the number is so great, that even off the steroids it would be insanely high.
Lou Gehrig is the Truest Yankee of them all!
Registered User
I don't get your point. If you add 30 feet to every batters fly balls then a LOT more becomes home runs. If you add 10% to the speed of every hitters ground balls, then a LOT more become singles. If Bonds followed the 'normal' progression at his age, his OPS+ would not have gone up 38%, it would have gone down 2-10%, and that would diminish not some but a LOT of homers, singles and walks.
Taking a player who has 400 official at bats and converting 30 fly ball OUTS into 30 homers adds 75 points to his batting average and 300 points to his slugging average, plus garners you tons of intentional wallks. Hello, now you are Barry Bonds.
Join Zap!
If a player in his late 30's is hitting 47-73 home runs, batting .360 or .370, and has an OBP of over .550, without those PED's he's still gonna have an amazing year, elite for his age. Bonds would easily have hit .320/.480, and 25-30. Not bad for 37-40.
Would Mac have hit 70 off the juice? No, but would he hit 60? I think so. He hit 49 as a skinny kid in his rookie year way before his prime. 100's and 100's of players juiced, yet only three hit 60.
Lou Gehrig is the Truest Yankee of them all!
Registered User
I agree but even if you discount those years completely he is still a HOFer. after 98 he already had 96 WAR. even if you asume a rapid decline without roids he would have ended with about 110 or so at least (more likely 120) which is still inner circle.
Last edited by dominik; 06-01-2012 at 02:49 PM.
I think walks are overrated unless you can run. If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps, but the guy who walks and can’t run, most of the time he’s clogging up the bases for somebody who can run. – Dusty Baker.
Baseball's Perfect Knight
Bonds would have been great without them... Makes taking them perhaps even more sinister.
"Herman Franks to Sal Yvars to Bobby Thomson. Ralph Branca to Bobby Thomson to Helen Rita... cue Russ Hodges."
Registered User
I think we are arguing two different points. I've never said that Bonds through 1998, assuming he was not using PED's and would have retired, would not or should not be in the Hall. I've never said he was not a top 20 baseball player as of 1998. I simply am not in a crowd that thinks if he WOULD have gotten in anyway, that his cheating should be over looked.
I am in this crowd: he was an adult and for the sake of an extra $120,000,000 and fame, he CHOSE to cheat, well aware of the probable results. He was not tricked, he was not stupid, he was not hypnotized. He deserves to be kept out.
Registered User
Clearly the gallimaufry of illegal drugs the guy was pumping into his system made him one hell of a lot better at hitting the ball.
Age 22-34
.289/.412/.567
Age 35-42
.322/.517/.724
No all time great ever got better from 35-40+, much less becoming better than Babe Ruth was in his prime. He had the right combination of best of his generation talent augmented massively by the perfect cocktail of sundry and insidious substances. And to answer your question, yes, HR numbers and their distances increased dramatically during the 90's.
Great article on the subject
The Tom House information (Rangers pitching coach 85-93) lends even further credence to the gut feeling that guys like Nolan Ryan were juicing, and that widespread use/abuse among MLB players started in the mid-late 80's, when Canseco and others were getting into it. Pete Rose is another....you combine his personality, ethics, and the steroid/thug/criminal company he kept by his side throughout the 80's..... and you look at his unnatural longevity....and it isn't much of a leap.
It probably accelerated in the 90's, and the livelier ball and expansion probably helped things take off from 1993-2002 or so.
The paradox is that steroids are designed to heal and augment, and they often do so....but at the same time illicit use often results in McGwire like "crash and burn" endings to careers. And lives, when these guys are out of the game. With hundreds of illegals available, and cocktails often part of the ordeal, it's a total crapshoot.
We'll be seeing a litany of untimely demises/deaths in the next several decades. Many people.....fans and steroid apologists... will play dumb with causality and turn their heads, like Big Tobacco does; the majority will make the appropriate and fitting connection.
Last edited by csh19792001; 06-04-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Registered User
If Bonds was a .280's hitter with a .410ish OBP before 35, throughout his natural (human) prime!!!.... there is absolutely no reason that he would become a .320/.480/.600+ guy NATURALLY from 35 till after age 40!!
Join Zap!
Well it happens. He's a freak that just kept learning. He would have been the best 35-40 year old hitter ever anyway.
Lou Gehrig is the Truest Yankee of them all!
Ever hear of a guy named Ruth? He had over a 200 OPS+ from age 35-40.
Last edited by willshad; 06-04-2012 at 11:33 PM.
Registered User
In a hurry, took a quick glance at some numbers and will check them later.
Looks like two different worlds, Ruth from age 35 to leaving the game and Barry, from age 35.
I took Babe from 1920 since that was the live ball beginning and the time he became an everyday player.
----------------------Ba.----------OBA.--------Slugging------------OPS+---------AB/HR
Ruth age 25-34------.355---------.488----------.740---------------216----------10.4
Ruth age 35-40------.331---------.472----------.644---------------194----------12.14
Bonds age 21-34-----.288--------.409-----------.559--------------163-----------15.67
Bonds age 35-42-----.322--------.517-----------.724--------------221------------9.05
Is that the same player, before age 35 and after, looks like two different players, the older Barry pushing 40 in some of those years makes the younger Barry.............in prime years, looks just very good, then older Barry goes on another planet.
The older Barry beats out the younger Babe Ruth, a home run just about every 9 at bats..........over an 8 year span. Ruth's best single season AB/HR for one season was around every 9 at bats. Some how Barry maintained that frequency from age 35-42.
Lets put this one to sleep, no one, never happened increased their offensive numbers after age 35 like Barry did from age 35 and not for just one season, some of the best 3 year peaks ever put up and for the last 8 seasons of his career.
Hey guys, this one is easy, no one gets so much better late in career without using chemicals.
Barry was one of the greatest, all around talent but he made a mistake by using, PED's and amphetamines, he put some doubt in some of his numbers.
And one more time, not only PED's but he also failed a test for amphetamines in 2006, he was covering all the bases..
Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 06-05-2012 at 05:55 AM.
Registered User
What makes you say that?
What makes you believe Barry Bonds from 35-42 would have been a better hitter than Ted Williams from 35-42?
Registered User
That's an excellent pun......
Join Zap!
Maybe not better than Williams. What I should have said is best from 35-42 in the past 40 years.
Lou Gehrig is the Truest Yankee of them all!
Registered User
I 'think' I understand your point of view, however I disagree for 3 reasons:
1) In a post you indicated that 100's and 100's of players juiced . This is a popular opinion of course, but nothing backs up this claim. Players WERE tested and ~12%, which was about 100 players, tested positive for anything. We don't know how many were hitters, or how many were good hitters to begin with. So, really, what we can infer from known facts is that only a handful of already good players were juicing. We know who they are (for the most part). If Bonds ended up being the most productive juicer, it only corresponds to the fact that he was among the most productive pre-juicer.
2) Many people try to adjust Bonds performance from steroids, but often people ignore the impact of HGH. Bonds might not have made it to 42 as a player. Assuming he would and then discounting for steroids use, is simply ignoring the HGH use. We are in no position to judge his 35-42 performance against non-users because he used THAT much. He might have gone the way of Stargell, Mays and Foxx, and dropped his OPS+ values down to 120 without HGH (and steroids.) Again, all great athletes have declines, then retire. If Bonds played with OPS+ values of 170, 150, 130, 110, he could have had a reasonably small dropoff of his careeer OPS+ rates and then retired. That's 35-38, not 35-42. Or he may have done 170, 150, 130, 110, 95, 95, with limited play in his last 3 years due to injuries. It's a guess.
3) There is no way to perfectly model Bonds from ages 35-42 without steroids and HGH. However, we do know that at BEST he would be equivalent to his pre-age 35 performance and at worst he would see his skills decline rapidly from age 35 on. (We know this because athletes do not play better after 34 than before.) There are examples of both types of athletes in history (Williams and Foxx, being in stark contrast.) Assuming he would have been like Williams, just not quite as good, or like steroid Bonds, just not quite as good, is a model that some people like to use. This is in error. He would have at BEST been significantly worse than Bonds was actually in the post age 34 years.
There's no certainty that he would have done that well: he could have like MANY ball players dropped 7-12% below his pre 35 performance levels. This is NOT the Bonds we see hitting 73 home runs. It's not Bonds hitting 53 homers. The real adjusted number comes in around high 30's, low 40's. The walks plummet, the batting average drops and we get a season that looks good for Bonds, but not insane. We get an OPS+ of between 170-185, (which is an excellent OPS+), but it's a guess. He just as likely would have been lower than that. It's just reasonable to posit an OPS+ in the later 30's being higher than his career peaks from his 20's.
Last edited by drstrangelove; 06-06-2012 at 03:14 PM.
xFIP?! I laugh at you!
Bonds wasn't a .280's hitter in his prime. I consider Bonds pre-PED prime to be 1990-1998. Bonds hit .305/.438/.600, 181 OPS+ during this time frame.
Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis
http://sfgiants-forum.com/forum/index.php
Registered User
The difference between the roids scandal and Pete Rose, as far as HOF chances go, is this:
Pete Rose gambled on the game. He bet on baseball. Which invites scrutiny - did his gambling affect his objectivity? Did he always try his hardest to win? Or is it a Black Sox kind of thing?
Juiced players, OTOH, I'm sure that despite the roids, they still tried as hard as they could to win. Can you say the same for Pete Rose when he gambled? How do we know Rose didn't throw games? He was the MANAGER when this scandal broke. He had the ability to affect the outcome of the game. His dedication is, therefore, questionable. That is, IMHO, a much less forgivable sin.
As for Bonds? Let him into the HOF if he can get votes. We as fans have NO RIGHT to complain about players who juiced, because if they do something we like or if their games are exciting, we're all too willing to look the other way. We should get off our moral high horse and shut up. The word's out there, nobody's going to be using now, so that's all we have the right to do. Bonds may be a jerk, but at least he played well and tried hard. (Can you say the same for Rose?)
Last edited by Mr. Laser Beam; 06-06-2012 at 03:53 PM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Registered User
I'm beginning to wonder, how some minimize what Barry did late in his career, hit like he never did before, hit like some of the best in some of their prime years could not hit.
All the nonsense, that what it is, pointing out a year where Williams or Aaron had "one of those years" late in their career.
Lets try it one more time, we can probably find a dozen or more great hitters that put up a very good year late in career, key words "a year" not 4 or 5 years like Barry did in late career.
-----------------------------------------AB-----HR----BA.------OBA----Slugging-----OPS+ AB/HR Ratio
Ted Williams 1939-1942 age 20-23-------2104---127---.356------.396-----.642-------190-------15.34
Ted Williams 1946-1949 age 27-30-------2117---138---.349------.481-----.642-------199-------16.56
Barry Bonds 2001-2004-age 36-39-------1642---209---.349------.559-----.809-------256--------7.8
It happened and it is off the chart, late in his career. Here is the older Barry closing in on 40 years of age and one of the greatest Williams, way younger than Barry, can't match Barry all aound for 4 seasons.
In any full season Babe Ruth never held a home run frequency under every 8 at bats, the older Barry does it for 4 seaons.
The only other hitter close to a frequency of every 8 at bats for 4 seasons, mark McGwire, 8.2.
What changed, what turned an aging hitter into superman, a 4 years peak late in career, unmatched by some of the greatest in their prime.
This one is easy, maybe not all steroids and possibly amphetamines, but who could believe he could do it with out using..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks