Let's Deal With Barry Bonds.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I don't understand why most members here give Griffey being clean an almost irrefutable status. How can you guys be so sure that he was clean? I'm not saying he used PED, but at the same time, nobody had a back to back 50+ dong season since Ruth last did it in 1928 until Big Mac did it in '97. Then the very next year Griffey accomplishes the exact same feat...

For starters, we can't be 100% certain anyone was completely clean. Just like with Frank Thomas though, to me, Griffey Jr is as close as they come to 100%.

He was known for not being into weight lifting. People who were in and around the Mariner locker room during those years, have all said the same thing. His body style never changed, it was part of his charm and image as "The Kid" and "The Natural".

Griffey showed as a 23 year old, what he could do, hitting 45 HR at a 12.9 AB/HR clip. Then at 24 years of old, he poked 40 HR at a 10.8 AB/HR clip.

The back to back seasons you speak of, came during normal prime seasons, in fact directly smack dab where a typical prime would come, ages 27 and 28. His AB/HR in those 56 HR years were 10.8 and 11.3 respectively. Nothing out of the ordinary from what he proved as a youngster. Furthermore, those back to back 56 HR years were not a huge spike, as they were surrounded by seasons of 49 and 48.

Add to that, there's never been an ounce of doubt or suspicion about him.

Bonds, just like with Sosa, had a natural body type that became grotesquely chemically altered, and they had proven their capabilities on the field; natural 30-40 HR guys give or take a few. From 1997 to 1998, Sosa had an 83% increase in homers and a 34.7% increase in SA.

To put that into perspective, in 1919 Ruth hit 20 of his 29 homers away from Fenway park, had to split focus between pitching and hitting. The next season he blasted 54 HR (29 at home) as a full time hitter, the ball was livelier and trick pitches were outlawed. All that change led to an 86% increase in HR and a 28.9% increase in SA.

[White Knight]

Agreed with this.

Could Griffey be a steroid user? Sure, but until I see evidence that he was, he gets the benefit of the doubt in my book. I see no reason to suspect him any more than beloved players such as Nolan Ryan, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken. Jr, etc.

Ripken is just below a major suspect. He's not Sosa where we all just knew, but I have reason to think he used late in his career with that spike.

[White Knight]

I like walks and OBP but to dismiss Griffey because he doesn't have them in a Bonds like bloated abundance is, again, madness.

"Nothing that special"

He's not even Miggy, let alone guys like Pujols. He's the poster boy of over-ration.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ripken is just below a major suspect. He's not Sosa where we all just knew, but I have reason to think he used late in his career with that spike.

Are you speaking of 1999.
Ba. .340-----OBA .368-------Slg. .584------OPS .952.
Some high numbers for the 38 year old Cal, but only 86 games, a little more than half a season.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Are you speaking of 1999.
Ba. .340-----OBA .368-------Slg. .584------OPS .952.
Some high numbers for the 38 year old Cal, but only 86 games, a little more than half a season.

One half season, from one year constitutes a PED "spike" now?

[White Knight]

Are you speaking of 1999.
Ba. .340-----OBA .368-------Slg. .584------OPS .952.
Some high numbers for the 38 year old Cal, but only 86 games, a little more than half a season.

He turned 39 that year. The home runs spiked to one every 18.4 at-bat, a rate not seen since...well, ever. And the next year he does...one every 20.6 at-bats, another feat not seen since 1991, at 40! Both were shortened too, with injuries. Hmm.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He turned 39 that year. The home runs spiked to one every 18.4 at-bat, a rate not seen since...well, ever. And the next year he does...one every 20.6 at-bats, another feat not seen since 1991, at 40! Both were shortened too, with injuries. Hmm.

Boy if you think that's a red flag, then Bonds, Mac, Sosa and the like, must have seemed like a red hot air balloon to you?

[leewileyfan]

Because in this thread, a large part of the debate continues to be over what adjustment to make to the ages 34-42 when many (I dare say most) people agree that he used PEDs.

:If no one performed better, than a reasonable benchmark would follow that rule. Does that prove it? Well, of course no, not if one wants to be literal. But it gives people a reasonable base line to say, if his age 19-33 was this, then his 34-42 shouldn't (in a reasonable sense) be any more than this.

I am raising this again, not to beat a dead horse, but to revisit the topic because I had initially overlooked the most obvious player for comparison in age sets: Babe Ruth.

Just look up Babe's records in two sets [1920 through 1925, when he was ages 25-30; and then again [1927 through 1932], when he was ages 32 through 37.

We are talking about seasons that took place 80 years or more ago. If we can believe the lore about Babe's carousing with babes, beer and booze and late hours, we might expect to see, not only a normal decline cited here [and often in different presentations and with varying degrees of mathematically regressed models]; BUT we do not.

Babe was done in two years; but that had more to do with lifestyle than regressed age formulation.

Fast forward several generations, in which we have endless documentations of improved nutrition, more knowledgeable training regimens; incorporation of weight and strength protocols, and insert therein a player with a Spartan rigorous workout routine, exhausting to witnesses [including quoted teammates].

You ask for a model for comparison? Babe Ruth, for starters. Furthermore, if these debates can spread to a Cal Ripken on the perimeter, while giving Junior Griffey a complete pass, I find no reasonable basis for discussion. If nothing else, I had always heard that tenency to career threatening injury was one of the side-effects of "enhancing."

[JR Hart]

Let's look at the a list of some roid suspects. I omitted players that we don't care about. Obviously, this list is short by about a thousand or so players that we don't know about......yet... but we'll find them!!


Sammy Sosa… did “just look him” that settles it
Barry Bonds…. did ….the proof is in the stats…. but 23-0 vs the MLB drug test
Jeff Bagwell ..maybe
Ken Griffey …didn’t…but maybe he did… he sure got hurt a lot at an early age
Juan Gonzalez…. Hmm… of course he did
Jeremy Giambi …..admitted that he did. I wonder how many of his 372 career hits that we should discount
Cal Ripken…. suspected on the Baseball Fever board. That means guilty
Mark McGwire … did and fessed up all is forgiven..except by the HOF
Gary Sheffield…. Linked to Balco…means guilty… there is no due process here
Jose Canseco… did and said 75% of players did. He’s been the prophet so far. Why should we doubt him?
Mike Piazza … highly suspected
Wally Joyner… did and played from 1986-2001 That’s a big reach of the steroid tentacles
Ken Caminiti ….did… and died from it
Manny Ramirez…. Still doing it
Albert Belle….he did…we just know that he did
Jim Thome…. No way.. he’s a big horse… but you never know
Brady Anderson… he did… we know it because he hit 51 hrs one year
Louis Gonzalez....he did…. This cheater hit 57 hrs.. that’s the proof
David Justice… denies it…so guilty
Rafeal Palmeiro…. Vehemently said that he didn’t… then did
Alex Rodriquez….the poster boy for “clean” players….OOPS! maybe not
Curt Schilling……big critic of roiders… may protest too much…(see Palmeiro)
Kevin Brown…named in Mitchell report.. so.. guilty
Mike Cameron….”I only did it once in my 17 year career.” Sure Mike?
Marvin Bernard…did.. but he said that he stopped. I believe him?
Miguel Cabrerra…. It wouldn’t surprise me… so guilty
Benito Santiago…. Had syringes in locker.. so.. guilty.. and he played in the 80s. How many layers are there?
Roger Clemens…… deny , sue, defend, protest… adds up to …guilty
Bobby Bonilla….I think that he did….that’s all it takes…so..guilty
Jack Cust… denial… but named in Mitchell report.. supposedly he once told a teammate.. so guilty
Eric Gagne. Duh!!!
Jason Giambi… but he’s sorry!
Jason Grimsley.. guilty, but who cares
Kent Merker, MikeStanton, Denny Neagle…. If they did… and Justice did… how do we know that Gregg Maddux,Tom Glavine and John Smoltz didn’t?.... we don’t!! … all guilty .. all the Braves are guilty!!
GlenAlllen Hill …..more than spiders…guilty
Albert Pujols….obviously…. I think he roids… so guilty
Mo Vaughn… guilty…give back the MVP
Todd Hundley …. We knew that power surge was fake.. guilty
Craig Biggio…. He played during the roid era… why not?
Jerry Hairston, Jr ….. do we care if this scrub used roids or not? yes.. guilty
Andy Pettite…. Guilty… and how do we know that Mariano Rivera didn’t? Clemens did?... Arod did … maybe Derek Jeter did… All Yankees guilty!!!
Miguel Tejada… see Mo Vaughn… and guilty
Pudge Rodriquez…. He did roids… we know it
Frank Thomas….see Piazza… very suspect


Like in Salem, if I say... you are!!!

[drstrangelove]

Boy, were we wrong back then though. I have no idea why so many people rated Jr. so high, he was nothing that special looking back.

Griffey had more WAR than Bonds had by age 30. Does that mean Bonds (with his 3 MVPs) was overrated?

[drstrangelove]

I am raising this again, not to beat a dead horse, but to revisit the topic because I had initially overlooked the most obvious player for comparison in age sets: Babe Ruth.

Just look up Babe's records in two sets [1920 through 1925, when he was ages 25-30; and then again [1927 through 1932], when he was ages 32 through 37.

We are talking about seasons that took place 80 years or more ago. If we can believe the lore about Babe's carousing with babes, beer and booze and late hours, we might expect to see, not only a normal decline cited here [and often in different presentations and with varying degrees of mathematically regressed models]; BUT we do not.

Babe was done in two years; but that had more to do with lifestyle than regressed age formulation.

Fast forward several generations, in which we have endless documentations of improved nutrition, more knowledgeable training regimens; incorporation of weight and strength protocols, and insert therein a player with a Spartan rigorous workout routine, exhausting to witnesses [including quoted teammates].

You ask for a model for comparison? Babe Ruth, for starters. Furthermore, if these debates can spread to a Cal Ripken on the perimeter, while giving Junior Griffey a complete pass, I find no reasonable basis for discussion. If nothing else, I had always heard that tenency to career threatening injury was one of the side-effects of "enhancing."

I don't know what your post is meant to mean. A response to mine?

Ruth in 1920-25 had the two worst seasons of his career from 1918-32 due to 1) a serious infection and 2) a long suspension. Of course there is not much of a drop off if you compare 1920-25 to 1927-32.

Here are the OPS+ just for comparison:

1919 217
1920 255
1921 238
1922 182*****
1923 239
1924 220
1925 137*****
1926 225
1927 225

Of course we'll have to use some fantasy to guess what his stats would have looked like if he hadn't almost died or gotten a lengthy suspension, but I'm fairly sure that no one would imagine a 182 would be reasonable, much less a 137.

We can probably find some players who had serious illnesses at young ages and played 'better' at a later age. Maybe much much better. What does that have to do with Bonds doing what no athlete in any sport has done ever, namely perform better after age 33 than before?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am raising this again, not to beat a dead horse, but to revisit the topic because I had initially overlooked the most obvious player for comparison in age sets: Babe Ruth.

Just look up Babe's records in two sets [1920 through 1925, when he was ages 25-30; and then again [1927 through 1932], when he was ages 32 through 37.

We are talking about seasons that took place 80 years or more ago. If we can believe the lore about Babe's carousing with babes, beer and booze and late hours, we might expect to see, not only a normal decline cited here [and often in different presentations and with varying degrees of mathematically regressed models]; BUT we do not.

Babe was done in two years; but that had more to do with lifestyle than regressed age formulation.

Fast forward several generations, in which we have endless documentations of improved nutrition, more knowledgeable training regimens; incorporation of weight and strength protocols, and insert therein a player with a Spartan rigorous workout routine, exhausting to witnesses [including quoted teammates].

You ask for a model for comparison? Babe Ruth, for starters. Furthermore, if these debates can spread to a Cal Ripken on the perimeter, while giving Junior Griffey a complete pass, I find no reasonable basis for discussion. If nothing else, I had always heard that tenency to career threatening injury was one of the side-effects of "enhancing."

Key words "If we can believe".
I did my home work Lee. Babe had been a project of mine for a lifetime.
Your speaking of the early Babe years.
Babe Ruth might have been the only or one of a very small number of baseball players who yearly in the off season worked out in a gym, Art McGovern's. The first year there was 1926, age 31. Included, statationary Bike, isometrics, handball and more.

Also Babe married Claire in 1929. From 1929 to 1935, Claire put him on a diet, healthier food and getting his rest. Most important, on many road trips Claire traveled with the team so even then he was towing the line, eat right and get your rest.

Thats the difference, your overplaying the young Babe's habits, I'm looking at the whole picture.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am raising this again, not to beat a dead horse, but to revisit the topic because I had initially overlooked the most obvious player for comparison in age sets: Babe Ruth.

Just look up Babe's records in two sets [1920 through 1925, when he was ages 25-30; and then again [1927 through 1932], when he was ages 32 through 37.We are talking about seasons that took place 80 years or more ago. If we can believe the lore about Babe's carousing with babes, beer and booze and late hours, we might expect to see, not only a normal decline cited here [and often in different presentations and with varying degrees of mathematically regressed models]; BUT we do not.

Babe was done in two years; but that had more to do with lifestyle than regressed age formulation.

Fast forward several generations, in which we have endless documentations of improved nutrition, more knowledgeable training regimens; incorporation of weight and strength protocols, and insert therein a player with a Spartan rigorous workout routine, exhausting to witnesses [including quoted teammates].

You ask for a model for comparison? Babe Ruth, for starters. Furthermore, if these debates can spread to a Cal Ripken on the perimeter, while giving Junior Griffey a complete pass, I find no reasonable basis for discussion. If nothing else, I had always heard that tenency to career threatening injury was one of the side-effects of "enhancing."

First place Lee, this whole doiscussion on this board before you were even a member, centered around the years, the player's age 36-40.
I did not set the numbers, I just joined in the discussion.
So I don't know where you come up with age 32-37. Yes probably around the age 32-33 most will taper off some but 36-40 is a better measure.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am raising this again, not to beat a dead horse, but to revisit the topic because I had initially overlooked the most obvious player for comparison in age sets: Babe Ruth.

Just look up Babe's records in two sets [1920 through 1925, when he was ages 25-30; and then again [1927 through 1932], when he was ages 32 through 37.

We are talking about seasons that took place 80 years or more ago. If we can believe the lore about Babe's carousing with babes, beer and booze and late hours, we might expect to see, not only a normal decline cited here [and often in different presentations and with varying degrees of mathematically regressed models]; BUT we do not.

When time permits and I can go into detail on Babe, this one will get shot down just like all the rest.
Another failed attempt by a poster to downplay Barry late career explosion by comparing some others in late career.
It never happened Lee, believe me, batter yet do some research.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Lee, two words, two words that helped Babe maintain some high numbers in the years you mention 1927-1932.

Lou Gehrig, think it over.

From 1927-1932 Babe Ruth had the protection of the guy on deck, second to only Babe Ruth for some years in striking terror in opposing pitchers.

[White Knight]

Griffey had more WAR than Bonds had by age 30. Does that mean Bonds (with his 3 MVPs) was overrated?

You're obsessed with WAR. Forget until age age, just look at their 90' stats alone. You will see it's no contest.

[White Knight]

Boy if you think that's a red flag, then Bonds, Mac, Sosa and the like, must have seemed like a red hot air balloon to you?

I never said those guys weren't extremely suspect before the proof got out. They certainly were.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

When time permits and I can go into detail on Babe, this one will get shot down just like all the rest.
Another failed attempt by a poster to downplay Barry late career explosion by comparing some others in late career.
It never happened Lee, believe me, batter yet do some research.

Why even bother responding to that clown. Clearly, it's a ridiculous and feeble attempt to discredit Ruth, all while having no leg to stand on.

Hell, Ruth was a better hitter in 1919 than Bonds ever was. As Babe aged, he altered his lifestyle and found McGovern, which enabled him to sustain his previously proven performance line and delay his decline as much as possible.

Nothing Ruth did from 1926 on, was beyond what he had already done, and that is the key point. Bonds on the other hand, had a previous career high SA spike of .677 naturally. That is very good. He went from that, to .863 in 2001. That is a 27% increase. And his 46 HR to 73 HR is a 58% increase.

Let's take Ruth's .847 SA as a 25 year old. A 27% increase of that is 1.080.

Care to guess what a 58% increase of his 59 he put up in his prime would be? Just over 93 HR.

Had he put that up in 1931, then yahoo's like this Wiley character would have somethin'. Until then, just pay no mind to his dribble. Ruth's numbers don't need any explanation.

[leewileyfan]

First place Lee, this whole doiscussion on this board before you were even a member, centered around the years, the player's age 36-40.
I did not set the numbers, I just joined in the discussion.

Let's stick to context and current posts on this thread. I have not "accused" you of anything, especially not any accountability for how the thread has evolved. You have concentrated on aging patters, including a certain subscription to mathematically regressed models of expected career decline.

:So I don't know where you come up with age 32-37. Yes probably around the age 32-33 most will taper off some but 36-40 is a better measure.

I came up with the years/ages I did for the very direct and clear reason that those are the years in which Babe played at certain. Would you have expected me to ad lib or project what je might have done if he had played into his 40's?

[leewileyfan]

Lee, two words, two words that helped Babe maintain some high numbers in the years you mention 1927-1932.

Lou Gehrig, think it over.

From 1927-1932 Babe Ruth had the protection of the guy on deck, second to only Babe Ruth for some years in striking terror in opposing pitchers.

Shoeless Joe: Please note that I am taking time to respond to each of these responses of your to avoid the tedium of dredging up debating points as this exchange continues.

I note as well that I am fully aware of your lifetime study and expertise on Babe Ruth. I respect that rigor and discipline [and knowledge of the man and his career. However, context is the key to any discussion:

1. The thread is all about dealing with Barry Bonds.

2. In dealing with Barry Bonds, a word selection which itself connotes a sense of "dealing" being punitive, as in a parental pronouncement: "I'll deal with YOU later!", you have joined in the chorus that returns to models of mathematically calculated aging-performance-decline models that are interpreted by many here as both irrefutable and existentially fixed, admitting of NO evolving outliers of exceptions.

3. In fairness to both sides of any discussion, context again insinuates itself whenever there are document trends in data collection relevant to aging, performance ... like nutrition, hygiene, living conditions, life expectancy.

If one player [2000] plays into his 40s, with a regime strenuously devoted to health, strength, and coordination is to be fairly compared with one who played 80 years earlier:

a. We must deal with data we have, not data that we project.
b. If career ages are not identical, but there is a span that brings both beyond prime age seasons, there is reasonable ground for trend comparison in that both to have an aging pattern even if the ages are not identical. The point being considered is aging, not the numbers on each individual birthday cake.

4. Lou Gehrig. Did you actually believe that I was ignorant of the presence of Lou Gehrig in the "Murderers' Row" batting order? Yes, Gehrig hit clean up and Ruth hit third. Every self evident argument can, and should be, turned on its head to see what "conversely" is revealed.

In one sense, the Babe was "protected" by the presence of Gehrig in the on-deck circle. However, this "protection" can be looked upon as a dual edged sword. One doesn't walk Ruth to get at Gehrig. You have a man, on, and you still have Gehrig coming up. This does not denigrate Ruth; but it does explain a contributing factor to the enormity of his accomplishments. It also should enhance our retrospetive evaluation of Gehrig.

The fact remains that Babe Ruth, in the seasons I cited, violated at least some of the sacrosanct mathematical modeling performance expectations one would have projected for his body, lifestyle and age. No such extended context is ever extended to Barry Bonds.

[leewileyfan]

When time permits and I can go into detail on Babe, this one will get shot down just like all the rest.
Another failed attempt by a poster to downplay Barry late career explosion by comparing some others in late career.
It never happened Lee, believe me, batter yet do some research.

1. You don't have to bother repeating work and posting efforts already done numerous times. Your expertise on Ruth is noted.

2. It DID happen, exactly as I presented it, because I heed context. Your knowledge of Babe Ruth given, the topic is Barry Bonds and dealing with Barry Bonds. The ancillaries of Ruth's personal life I defer to you.

The ancillaries of Barry Bonds' personal life, I do not defer to you or to regressed models of age-performance expectation - simple as that!

[leewileyfan]

Why even bother responding to that clown. Clearly, it's a ridiculous and feeble attempt to discredit Ruth, all while having no leg to stand on.

Can you read? The clown in this thread is an appropriate appelation for any nitwit who repeatedly holds the coats of others who contribute to a discussion, while cheering or jeering from the dark corner of his own mind, seated on a three-legged stool and wearing a pointy hat.

:Hell, Ruth was a better hitter in 1919 than Bonds ever was. As Babe aged, he altered his lifestyle and found McGovern, which enabled him to sustain his previously proven performance line and delay his decline as much as possible.

Did Ruth play for the Devils in 1919? Which Bonds? As for Ruth's personal data, I will defer to Shoeless Joe's expertise.

[QUOTE]: found McGovern, which enabled him to sustain his previously proven performance line and delay his decline as much as possible.

Specifics? Workout routine? Supplements? Was finding McGoevern a good thing? Is it desirable for a professional ballplayer to delay his decline as much as possible? Or, was there is any way that by 1920s-1930s standards there might have been some "cheating?"

P.S. The literate her will realize that I did not accuse Babe Ruth of cheating.

:Nothing Ruth did from 1926 on, was beyond what he had already done, and that is the key point.

I am surprised that you can find the key. However, this is not the key point in a thread dealing with Barry Bonds.

The key points are:

1. Barry Bonds' career and performance;

2. Allegations that Barry Bonds cheated, in some punishable way, at the time of his performance in order to achieve his numbers;

3. Charges that Barry Bonds should be excluded from the HoF;

4. Why those charges do or do not warrant imposition.

:Had he put that up in 1931, then yahoo's like this Wiley character would have somethin'.

Call your broker. Yahoo is making a comeback. [Sultan, indeed!]

: Until then, just pay no mind to his dribble. Ruth's numbers don't need any explanation.

Put a dictionary on your wish list. The word you want is drivel. [We are not discussing either Michael Jordan or a drooling infant here. Numbers, all by themselves, require no explanation, except when applied to some context.

Without context, there is no intelligent discussion.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

1. You don't have to bother repeating work and posting efforts already done numerous times. Your expertise on Ruth is noted.

2. It DID happen, exactly as I presented it, because I heed context. Your knowledge of Babe Ruth given, the topic is Barry Bonds and dealing with Barry Bonds. The ancillaries of Ruth's personal life I defer to you. The ancillaries of Barry Bonds' personal life, I do not defer to you or to regressed models of age-performance expectation - simple as that!

Lee I only commented on Babe's training over the winter months and Claire Ruth keeping him in line was to show, Babe's whole career was not just one wild party and he took better care of himself than some would believe.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Shoeless Joe: Please note that I am taking time to respond to each of these responses of your to avoid the tedium of dredging up debating points as this exchange continues.

I note as well that I am fully aware of your lifetime study and expertise on Babe Ruth. I respect that rigor and discipline [and knowledge of the man and his career. However, context is the key to any discussion:

1. The thread is all about dealing with Barry Bonds.

2. In dealing with Barry Bonds, a word selection which itself connotes a sense of "dealing" being punitive, as in a parental pronouncement: "I'll deal with YOU later!", you have joined in the chorus that returns to models of mathematically calculated aging-performance-decline models that are interpreted by many here as both irrefutable and existentially fixed, admitting of NO evolving outliers of exceptions.

3. In fairness to both sides of any discussion, context again insinuates itself whenever there are document trends in data collection relevant to aging, performance ... like nutrition, hygiene, living conditions, life expectancy.

If one player [2000] plays into his 40s, with a regime strenuously devoted to health, strength, and coordination is to be fairly compared with one who played 80 years earlier:

a. We must deal with data we have, not data that we project.
b. If career ages are not identical, but there is a span that brings both beyond prime age seasons, there is reasonable ground for trend comparison in that both to have an aging pattern even if the ages are not identical. The point being considered is aging, not the numbers on each individual birthday cake.

4. Lou Gehrig. Did you actually believe that I was ignorant of the presence of Lou Gehrig in the "Murderers' Row" batting order? Yes, Gehrig hit clean up and Ruth hit third. Every self evident argument can, and should be, turned on its head to see what "conversely" is revealed.

In one sense, the Babe was "protected" by the presence of Gehrig in the on-deck circle. However, this "protection" can be looked upon as a dual edged sword. One doesn't walk Ruth to get at Gehrig. You have a man, on, and you still have Gehrig coming up. This does not denigrate Ruth; but it does explain a contributing factor to the enormity of his accomplishments. It also should enhance our retrospetive evaluation of Gehrig.

The fact remains that Babe Ruth, in the seasons I cited, violated at least some of the sacrosanct mathematical modeling performance expectations one would have projected for his body, lifestyle and age. No such extended context is ever extended to Barry Bonds.

Again Lee, thats misleading, thats the reason I noted his winter training and Claire's influence on his lifestyle
There was nothing out of the ordinary about Babe's performance in the years you noted 1927-1932 age 32-37.
And again, whats the problem with the age of 36-40, thats where it all started, we want to get into, closer to the declining years, close to 40.
And yes,of course I knew you knew when Gerhig came along, batting after Ruth.
So I had to point that out, for others and the fact that it was a plus for Babe, late 1920's early mid 1930's.
Had Lou not come along some off Babe's stats based on total numbers would have been lower but his OBA and OPS would have been on another planet................give him a walk, and many

[SHOELESSJOE3]

1. You don't have to bother repeating work and posting efforts already done numerous times. Your expertise on Ruth is noted.

2. It DID happen, exactly as I presented it, because I heed context. Your knowledge of Babe Ruth given, the topic is Barry Bonds and dealing with Barry Bonds. The ancillaries of Ruth's personal life I defer to you.

The ancillaries of Barry Bonds' personal life, I do not defer to you or to regressed models of age-performance expectation - simple as that!

Just to make it clear, the words I used in the post you reply to.......my words, "It never happened", words I'vee posted on this board many time. What I mean't, no hitter in the history of the game ever "sustained" such high numbers in late career, none that would even challenge Barry Bonds age 36-40. Not just one year, 5 years. How do we know that, because it would be difficult to fine many hitters, younger and in their prime that challenge Barry age 36-40, so how would they do in later years, closing in on 40.

I did notice you now look at the years for Ruth age 25-30 and 32-37 , I will take a look