Let's Deal With Barry Bonds.

[leewileyfan]

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

ShoelessJoe: I simply want to note your use of the word now in the above response to me.
Now seems to imply that I have somehow changed my position or perspective. Such is not the case. I posted that IF one wants to explore a player who MIGHT WELL qualify as a multi-season age defier one might explore Ruth 1920-1925 [YOUNG] to Ruth 1927-1932 AGING.

I would also point out that, in historical context of almost 80 years, Ruth benefits from that added context of the passage of time. This green lights some gym training and the behavioral imact of a "good woman."

Bonds has not yet enjoyed such a retrospective landscape, in which all nuanced elements of his life and habits and physical conditioning have been vetted over considerable time. This is a consideration that merits honest, unbiased attention. Barry is still in the glare of the spotlight; allegations against him and his reputation and achievements; legal charges brought against him [and refuted] or in which he was legally vindicated.

Even that which has given him "felon" status is a purely legal offense of obstructing justice. We can conjecture all we like; but it is not perjury. Therefore, no lying under oath is legally upheld. No steroidal cheating is legally documented. No legal barrier erases his achievements; and no legal precedent justifies his banning from HoF considerstion.

That is now a matter of moralizing, conjecture, bias, and subjective conviction.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

ShoelessJoe: I simple want to note your use of the word now in the above response to me.
Now seems to imply that I have somehow changed my position or perspective. Such is not the case. I posted that IF one wants to explore a player who MIGHT WELL qualify as a multi-season age defier one might explore Ruth 1920-1925 [YOUNG] to Ruth 1927-1932 AGING.

I would also point out that, in historical context of almost 80 years, Ruth benefits from that added context of the passage of time. This green lights some gym training and the behavioral imact of a "good woman."

Bonds has not yet enjoyed such a retrospective landscape, in which all nuanced elements of his life and habits and physical conditioning have been vetted over considerable time. This is a consideration that merits honest, unbiased attention. Barry is still in the glare of the spotlight; allegations against him and his reputation and achievements; legal charges brought against him [and refuted] or in which he was legally vindicated.

Even that which has given him "felon" status is a purely legal offense of obstructing justice. We can conjecture all we like; but it is not perjury. Therefore, no lying under oath is legally upheld. No steroidal cheating is legally document. No legal barrier erases his achievements; and no legal precedent justifies his banning from HoF considerstion.

That is now a matter of moralizing, conjecture, bias, and subjective conviction.

OK, the reason I use the word "now" because the focus, not only by me but some others on the board were the years in age 36-40, when Barry's high numbers took off.
OK, I will look at Babe age 20-25 and 32-37 and I doubt I will see a dramatic rise in his offensive numbers.
I question those years because in that span age 20-25, to be considered in three of those years 1920-21-22 Babe played in a different park, as you know the Polo Grounds
Also in two of those years, shorts years. Babe's first game was on May 20 in 1922.
1925, very sick played only 98 games. On return, great loss of weight, his uniform altered to fit him. Not himself.
It appears evident if not for those bad short seasons, Babe Ruth age 20-25 would have much better numbers than Babe age 32-37.
This is another reason I question the accuracy, comparing him age 20-25 to age 32-37.
That was not the real Babe we saw in the years 1920-1925.
There were only two seasons from 1920-1931, twelve consecutive seasons when Ruth failed to hit at least 40 home runs, 1922 and 1925.

[Steven Gallanter]

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.

Ken Griffey Jr. ate his way out of condition. Count the rolls of fat on his neck when he played with Cincinnati. Jr. threw away his career as his leg maladies were symptomatic of his lack of conditioning.

As far as Bonds' body type goes take a look at Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant for comparable transformations over the years.

[toomanyhatz]

Interesting. I've left this thread alone for a few days wondering if it would start moving in a line instead of a circle. I'm now realizing that it's highly unlikely that it'll ever happen.

Moralizing, conjecture, bias and subjective conviction (or innocence) is, I can't repeat this enough, all we have. The legal account is what it is, the Hall of Fame vote when it comes is what it is. Nobody here has any control over that. Bonds' 2001-2004 seasons are, whatever years and whatever persons you care to compare it to, absurdly out of line with expectations. We can debate endlessly about why that is. Being that it's so absurd, I think it can only be a "perfect storm" of shorter fences, better workout regimen, performance enhancement, smaller strike zone and at least a bit of just plain dumb luck.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here- there seems to be a lot of characterizing of people's arguments being done for them, never conducive to a balanced discussion. I'm not sure anybody here disagrees that:

1) Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame based on his numbers up to 1998, whether you ignore the rest of his career or adjust it how you see fit.
2) Whatever our opinion of the legal or moral ramifications, he ingested some kind of substance that changed his physical condition in a way that was advantageous to his performace numbers.

If anyone really disagrees with either of the above, we have a basis to argue. Considering we're not privy to sealed court documents or Bonds' private life nor does anyone that's posted here (to my knowledge) get a Hall of Fame vote, the rest is nitpicking. Please, keep having at it- nitpicking is what debate is often based on, and if we're all able to leave the insults and attacks at each others' intelligence behind, debate is healthy and fun for all.

[leewileyfan]

I will not make excuses for Barry's cheating, but I can't shake the belief that the McGwire/Sosa HR gala of 1998 really got to Barry. Made him believe that he was being passed by lesser hitters on steroids.

He may have heard a lot more than us about other players using. Giambi, Sheffield, I-Rod, Canseco, Rafael, etc. If he really thought much larger numbers of hitters were dirty, he might have rationalized his own cheating.

That will never be an acceptable reason, but perhaps an explanation of how a good man can go so wrong. I still think it was that '98 HR chase that messed him up.

With some heat [not light] being brought to this discussion [now, in November of 2012], I was glad to peruse the thread and come across this post from 2005.

It is a post that shows some thought, consideration of the context of the times and people involved, recognizes the humanity of personal conflict, and the causes for either rationalizing or reasonably deciding a course of action.

We come down on opposite sides of the debate in our conclusions. However, the difference is not a bi-product of personal bias or knee jerk moralizing. The difference lies in yet another nuance of context:

Bill Burgess accepts [as I read this] the absolute authority behind the official MLB stance on Bonds and his achievements as violating MLB rules.

I do not. I argue that, in such an atmosphere of rampant "abuse," MLB must be accountable for its duality in the entire drama. There had been strikes. Attendance and fan attitudes had been diminished by the strikes and their aftermath. MLB NEEDED and WANTED and PROMOTED and ENCOURAGED the drama and the spectacle of the resurgence of home run power. It brought [advertising $$$] eyes back to network television, paid baseball media special coverage; and it brought paying fannies back into stadium seats.

The "rules" were unenforced and unenforceable; and MLB had the added copout of Player Union resistance.

For me, the building blocks piled up against Barry Bonds was smashed away by the MLB two-faced dramatics through the entire episode.

Bill may be closer to Absolute Truth than I [or not]. The beautiful part of it is that we can present cases, rationally and without animus.

As Mike Schmidt once noted, when interviewd on this issue, no he hadn't used steroids, but, in another time and place and circumstance he could not guarantee that altered situations might have provoked altered choices. He lost NOTHING in that position: In fact he earned added respect.

[leewileyfan]

OK, I will look at Babe age 20-25 and 32-37 and I doubt I will see a dramatic rise in his offensive numbers. I question those years because in that span age 20-25, to be considered in three of those years 1920-21-22 Babe played in a different park, as you know the Polo Grounds.

Just suggesting that here you state a predetermination going in, before looking at the numbers. You also bring in Park Factor, which further anticipates support for the bias.

: Also in two of those years, shorts years. Babe's first game was on May 20 in 1922.
1925, very sick played only 98 games. On return, great loss of weight, his uniform altered to fit him. Not himself.

Again, in honest debate, irrelevant. I did not see fit to explore Barry Bonds' playing time of injury status, because I realized that some here, with some degree of justification, might have accused me of making excuses for Barry or gilding the lily in my presentation of data. I hewed to the topic: aging and performance patterns.

:It appears evident if not for those bad short seasons, Babe Ruth age 20-25 would have much better numbers than Babe age 32-37.

IF is a magnificent word indeed. Again, before looking at those numbers, you are inserting modifiers and qualifiers to any conclusion you reach.

:This is another reason I question the accuracy, comparing him age 20-25 to age 32-37.
That was not the real Babe we saw in the years 1920-1925.

Then why bother making the comps at all? My whole point is that Barry Bonds' most vocal and adamant critics make an absolute moral UP or DOWN issue of his records. In their condemnation of Bonds, the recite a litany of proofs against him as a cheater [correct me if I am wrong on any of these]:

1. No MLB player has ever had marked improvements in is offense production in an age regression pattern like that of Barry Bonds. [My most curt response, unsatisfying even to me, is well - now we can't say that anymore. The next one will be the NEXT one]. Underlying that curt response it that professional athletes, with very narrow windows of opportunity and very limited expectations of career longevity, were presented with PRODUCTS hat promised a dramatic change that moved them to consider REVERSING EXPECTATION.

2. HOW MLB chose to confront the player dilema is a matter of promotional, attendance and statistical history.

3. The issue may go back much further than the 1998 line in the sand delineated in this thread. No rational, informed study of this conflict can buy into MLB rectitude and due diligence in making and enforcing rules, while at the same time enjoying several years of highest player performance and fan attendance and penalizing the performers.

4. Who was the real Barry Bonds? Did he accomplish what he did at astonishing levels when he was still a rather young man? In Ruth's day the life expectancy was about 60. Today is surpasses 80. That's a 33.33% increase very directly applicable to the human experience.

Maybe, instead of autopsying Barry's morality, we should be conducting live studies of his physical, neuromuscular, genetic and systemic functions ... along with diarized records of personal habits to model lifestyle enhancement models for future generations.

Bottom line: Barry Bonds is an EXCEPTIONAL individual. He does not fit neatly into regressed patterns of expectation: bless him for that.

[drstrangelove]

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

I admit that if I am comparing 2 players that I look at the total player's performance in hitting, fielding and running, adjust for league and park and position before I make a judgement.

I'm not sure I get your point: I'm obsessed with getting the right answer? Yup, I agree. I have an absolute compulsion for it.

[Los Bravos]

Personally, I'm not really arguing Bonds vs Griffey. I'm just disputing that Ken Griffey is, in any way, shape or form, a "second line" star or "nothing special". Those assertions are absurd.

[drstrangelove]

Bonds						Adj	Lea	Bonds		Ruth						Adj	Lea	Ruth				Bonds	Ruth
Year	Age	Outs	RC	RC/27	PF	RC/27	RPG	Ratio		Year	Age	Outs	RC	RC/27	PF	RC/27	RPG	Ratio				Ratio	Ratio
1986	21	336	64	5.14	102	5.04	4.18	121%		1918	23	225	72	8.64	98	8.82	3.64	242%				121%	242%
1987	22	424	93	5.92	100	5.92	4.52	131%		1919	24	296	128	11.68	95	12.29	4.10	300%				131%	300%
1988	23	402	100	6.72	98	6.85	3.88	177%		1920	25	305	200	17.70	104	17.02	4.76	358%				177%	358%
1989	24	460	92	5.40	96	5.63	3.94	143%		1921	26	353	229	17.52	102	17.17	5.11	336%				143%	336%
1990	25	390	128	8.86	96	9.23	4.20	220%		1922	27	287	116	10.91	102	10.70	4.74	226%				220%	226%
1991	26	395	118	8.07	99	8.15	4.10	199%		1923	28	341	209	16.55	102	16.22	4.78	339%				199%	339%
1992	27	350	148	11.42	100	11.42	3.88	294%		1924	29	348	194	15.05	100	15.05	4.97	303%				294%	303%
1993	28	388	172	11.97	96	12.47	4.49	278%		1925	30	265	75	7.64	98	7.80	5.19	150%				278%	150%
1994	29	284	115	10.93	94	11.63	4.62	252%		1926	31	330	185	15.14	99	15.29	4.73	323%				252%	323%
1995	30	383	134	9.45	95	9.94	4.63	215%		1927	32	368	201	14.75	98	15.05	4.92	306%				215%	306%
1996	31	382	162	11.45	95	12.05	4.68	258%		1928	33	376	173	12.42	98	12.68	4.77	266%				258%	266%
1997	32	403	151	10.12	98	10.32	4.60	224%		1929	34	343	148	11.65	94	12.39	5.01	247%				224%	247%
1998	33	419	153	9.86	95	10.38	4.60	226%		1930	35	363	183	13.61	96	14.18	5.41	262%				226%	262%
1999	34	273	91	9.00	94	9.57	5.00	191%		1931	36	339	184	14.65	95	15.43	5.14	300%				191%	300%
2000	35	349	155	11.99	93	12.89	5.00	258%		1932	37	303	147	13.10	95	13.79	5.23	264%				258%	264%
2001	36	330	230	18.82	93	20.23	4.70	431%		1933	38	326	116	9.61	94	10.22	5.00	204%				431%	204%
2002	37	262	208	21.44	95	22.56	4.45	507%		1934	39	263	86	8.83	94	9.39	5.13	183%				507%	183%
2003	38	266	166	16.85	99	17.02	4.61	369%		1935	40	61	11	4.87	95	5.13	5.09	101%				369%	101%
2004	39	247	203	22.19	101	21.97	4.64	474%				5492	2657	13.06								474%	
2005	40	31	12	10.45	101	10.35	4.45	233%														233%	
2006	41	278	98	9.52	100	9.52	4.76	200%														200%	
2007	42	261	99	10.24	101	10.14	4.71	215%														215%	
		7313	2892	10.68

comp pic.JPG



1) Data for RC/27 outs for each player with park factor and league rate for adjustment.

2) A chart of the calculated ratios for each.

3) You'll note that Ruth has an extraordinary drop in 2 seasons (1922-1925) for reasons that are well known. You'll note that the pattern for Ruth follows the expected pattern. He is clearly NOT as good after the age of 32.

4) You'll note how completely and explainably different Bonds ratios are.

5) Ruth had 9 career "remainder" peaks in his career. That is, he had 9 different seasons where his current year peak was the highest he would ever have for the rest of his career. Peaks were at 25, 28, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. In other words, he was objectively not as productive a hitter as he got older.

6) Bonds peak career year was at 37, almost matched at 39. He had 4 career 'remainder' peaks at ages 37, 39, 40, and 42.

There is ZERO evidence that Ruth's pattern is like Bonds after the age of 33. They are similar up to that point, with Ruth having higher ratios, but otherwise both showing stability.


The Bonds 'curve' is unique in not just baseball but any sport ever outside of steroids. Athletes do not peak at 37-39, not to mention they don't peak hilariously, ridiculously twice as good as their performance in their 20's. Keep in mind that his curve is in the same league where some other players were doing steroids as well.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Just suggesting that here you state a predetermination going in, before looking at the numbers. You also bring in Park Factor, which further anticipates support for the bias.



Again, in honest debate, irrelevant. I did not see fit to explore Barry Bonds' playing time of injury status, because I realized that some here, with some degree of justification, might have accused me of making excuses for Barry or gilding the lily in my presentation of data. I hewed to the topic: aging and performance patterns.



IF is a magnificent word indeed. Again, before looking at those numbers, you are inserting modifiers and qualifiers to any conclusion you reach.



Then why bother making the comps at all? My whole point is that Barry Bonds' most vocal and adamant critics make an absolute moral UP or DOWN issue of his records. In their condemnation of Bonds, the recite a litany of proofs against him as a cheater [correct me if I am wrong on any of these]:

1. No MLB player has ever had marked improvements in is offense production in an age regression pattern like that of Barry Bonds. [My most curt response, unsatisfying even to me, is well - now we can't say that anymore. The next one will be the NEXT one]. Underlying that curt response it that professional athletes, with very narrow windows of opportunity and very limited expectations of career longevity, were presented with PRODUCTS hat promised a dramatic change that moved them to consider REVERSING EXPECTATION.

2. HOW MLB chose to confront the player dilema is a matter of promotional, attendance and statistical history.

3. The issue may go back much further than the 1998 line in the sand delineated in this thread. No rational, informed study of this conflict can buy into MLB rectitude and due diligence in making and enforcing rules, while at the same time enjoying several years of highest player performance and fan attendance and penalizing the performers.

4. Who was the real Barry Bonds? Did he accomplish what he did at astonishing levels when he was still a rather young man? In Ruth's day the life expectancy was about 60. Today is surpasses 80. That's a 33.33% increase very directly applicable to the human experience.

Maybe, instead of autopsying Barry's morality, we should be conducting live studies of his physical, neuromuscular, genetic and systemic functions ... along with diarized records of personal habits to model lifestyle enhancement models for future generations.

Bottom line: Barry Bonds is an EXCEPTIONAL individual. He does not fit neatly into regressed patterns of expectation: bless him for that.

First, why can't we say it anymore, who has spiked at a later age.
OK, you don't seem that age span. We can go to your post # 2776, your words, one might explore Ruth 1920-1925 Young----1927-1932 Aging.

So that what I am doing. First of all you limit me in one way. You don't want to consider that Babe had two short years 1922-1925 and you have to know that his totals for 1920-1925 would be much greater than 1927-1932 if not for the short years, 110 games 1922 an 98 games in 1925. OK, I will give ground on that, consider the numbers alone in the years you gave. OK, no modifiers, just the way you want it, numbers only on Ruth, the years and age that you posted.

Here it is, there is not that much difference, whats the point. When I say Barry exploded in late career and someone than says, what about player A or player B. I take that to mean what Barry did, he was not alone, others have done the same or close to it.

Take a look.

Not much difference. Whats the point, was I supposed to be surprised at what Babe did at an older age, where is it, no spike, no even a blip.

[leewileyfan]

Look, I admire you graphics skills. However, at the bottom line, I can only discuss Barry Bonds' career. From the point-of-view of age-performance-decline expectation, I can point only to four seasons that are legitimately under focus for on-topic debate:

1. the seasons during which Barry Bonds was 36,37,38,39. If you want to toss in the years after those, then clearly, Barry experience a decline period.

2. the unique upward spike in Barry Bonds' offensive performance, especially at ages 36, 37, and 38.

Former exchanges, in which age regression age declines referred to 34-42 really have no relevance here. Babe didn't last that long and Barry notably declined after age 39. It is moot.

We are therefore left with a four season span that allegedly defines a players entire career, because it defies mathematical models of what happened before, and it further violates the sanctity of the models broken.

I have never intended to convert you. You will not convert me. Whatever opportunity any of us, at opposite sides of this fence [or on the fence for that matter] is blunted by fixed parameters of what is truth defining evidence and/or irrefutable presumed fact[s] of which many are unconvinced or only partially persuaded.

If I were a chemist or biologist, a medical doctor or psycho-chemistry brain and kinetics expert, I might be more inclined to pound the table on this. All is know is the resources I do have and what inputs have convinced me that the models, regressions, a moral positions are variably without much merit.

If nothing else, they challenge possibility and human potential on the one hand, and draw moral conclusion on the other.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

So with respect to your post, when will all the comparisons of other greats that keep popping up on the board go away, it never happened, not like Barry.

Those late career numbers padded his total career numbers, never would have happened if he was not a user. It was not all chemical use but it did play a part.

Here it is again. Sometimes I wonder why I spend so much time over the years on this board, when I speak of Barry's explosion late career and then a poster tells me, not that unusual, look at Cobb, Aaron, Gwynn and some others. I answered that post and others late career numbers for them post #2685..................take a look, how much proof is needed.

Well I did look, many times and I did post many times, the numbers. And how does it always end, the greatest in the game are not eevn close to Barry at that age. If you look at the others, there is reall nothing unusual comparing eraly career to age 36-40.

But look at Barry, on another planet.
I'll stick with this thread with comments but none that have to do with late career explosions unless a poster puts up some numbers, not just talk, wasting my time, proving there was never a spike late career like Barry and some seeing but not believing.

I proved my point to be accurate, more than a dozen times on BBF threads, talk is not cheap, talk is worthless, show some numbers.

Anyone out there, show me with numbers a late career spike even close to Barry. Why should I waste time digging for and posting the numbers and then hearing another story.
Show me the numbers...........................any more names

[leewileyfan]

I'll stick with this thread with comments but none that have to do with late career explosions unless a poster puts up some numbers, not just talk, wasting my time, proving there was never a spike late career like Barry and some seeing but not believing.

Earlier in this discussion I recognized, for all to see, your expertise on the life, times and statistics of Babe Ruth. I also suggested that, if you arguments were going to proceed along the lines of expected age necessiteated career decline, you would be wasting your time because we'd already "been there, done that."

Show me the numbers...........................any more names[/QUOTE]

The numbers for Barry Bonds, ages 36, 37, 38 and 39 defy your models. Everybody with half a baseball mental interest knows the numbers. That is the whole point of contention.

You say that Barry, age 36 through age 39 have numbers that prove him to be an unworthy cheat. I say his numbers defy your mathematical [and sabermetric as well, not you in isolation]. I agree. However, you say this breaking of the model is irrefutable evidence of cheating.

I don't know whether you realize this or not: In equating the age models into the irrefutable evidence for steroidal punishable cheating, you have painted yourself into a mathematically precise corner, making it much easier for those of us, comprising the jury that is still "out." I believe that Barry Bonds indeed ingest, by whatever means, supplements to help him with strength, endurance and recovery. The success of that protocol screams out from the numbers.

However, I draw the line on moral judgements and cheating. MLB had no enforceable code. If they had, and if Barry Bonds, at any time after age 35 was suspended, severely fined or threatened with expulsion, and was revealed to have repeated whatever offense that might have been, we would not be having this conversation.

However, you have accepted as a fait accompli the numbers and models game providing all the judge and jury you need.

Therefore, reverting to the numbers, yet again, was a waste of your time. Remember, I didn't waste it for you.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bonds						Adj	Lea	Bonds		Ruth						Adj	Lea	Ruth				Bonds	Ruth
Year	Age	Outs	RC	RC/27	PF	RC/27	RPG	Ratio		Year	Age	Outs	RC	RC/27	PF	RC/27	RPG	Ratio				Ratio	Ratio
1986	21	336	64	5.14	102	5.04	4.18	121%		1918	23	225	72	8.64	98	8.82	3.64	242%				121%	242%
1987	22	424	93	5.92	100	5.92	4.52	131%		1919	24	296	128	11.68	95	12.29	4.10	300%				131%	300%
1988	23	402	100	6.72	98	6.85	3.88	177%		1920	25	305	200	17.70	104	17.02	4.76	358%				177%	358%
1989	24	460	92	5.40	96	5.63	3.94	143%		1921	26	353	229	17.52	102	17.17	5.11	336%				143%	336%
1990	25	390	128	8.86	96	9.23	4.20	220%		1922	27	287	116	10.91	102	10.70	4.74	226%				220%	226%
1991	26	395	118	8.07	99	8.15	4.10	199%		1923	28	341	209	16.55	102	16.22	4.78	339%				199%	339%
1992	27	350	148	11.42	100	11.42	3.88	294%		1924	29	348	194	15.05	100	15.05	4.97	303%				294%	303%
1993	28	388	172	11.97	96	12.47	4.49	278%		1925	30	265	75	7.64	98	7.80	5.19	150%				278%	150%
1994	29	284	115	10.93	94	11.63	4.62	252%		1926	31	330	185	15.14	99	15.29	4.73	323%				252%	323%
1995	30	383	134	9.45	95	9.94	4.63	215%		1927	32	368	201	14.75	98	15.05	4.92	306%				215%	306%
1996	31	382	162	11.45	95	12.05	4.68	258%		1928	33	376	173	12.42	98	12.68	4.77	266%				258%	266%
1997	32	403	151	10.12	98	10.32	4.60	224%		1929	34	343	148	11.65	94	12.39	5.01	247%				224%	247%
1998	33	419	153	9.86	95	10.38	4.60	226%		1930	35	363	183	13.61	96	14.18	5.41	262%				226%	262%
1999	34	273	91	9.00	94	9.57	5.00	191%		1931	36	339	184	14.65	95	15.43	5.14	300%				191%	300%
2000	35	349	155	11.99	93	12.89	5.00	258%		1932	37	303	147	13.10	95	13.79	5.23	264%				258%	264%
2001	36	330	230	18.82	93	20.23	4.70	431%		1933	38	326	116	9.61	94	10.22	5.00	204%				431%	204%
2002	37	262	208	21.44	95	22.56	4.45	507%		1934	39	263	86	8.83	94	9.39	5.13	183%				507%	183%
2003	38	266	166	16.85	99	17.02	4.61	369%		1935	40	61	11	4.87	95	5.13	5.09	101%				369%	101%
2004	39	247	203	22.19	101	21.97	4.64	474%				5492	2657	13.06								474%	
2005	40	31	12	10.45	101	10.35	4.45	233%														233%	
2006	41	278	98	9.52	100	9.52	4.76	200%														200%	
2007	42	261	99	10.24	101	10.14	4.71	215%														215%	
		7313	2892	10.68

comp pic.JPG



1) Data for RC/27 outs for each player with park factor and league rate for adjustment.

2) A chart of the calculated ratios for each.

3) You'll note that Ruth has an extraordinary drop in 2 seasons (1922-1925) for reasons that are well known. You'll note that the pattern for Ruth follows the expected pattern. He is clearly NOT as good after the age of 32.

4) You'll note how completely and explainably different Bonds ratios are.

5) Ruth had 9 career "remainder" peaks in his career. That is, he had 9 different seasons where his current year peak was the highest he would ever have for the rest of his career. Peaks were at 25, 28, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. In other words, he was objectively not as productive a hitter as he got older.

6) Bonds peak career year was at 37, almost matched at 39. He had 4 career 'remainder' peaks at ages 37, 39, 40, and 42.

There is ZERO evidence that Ruth's pattern is like Bonds after the age of 33. They are similar up to that point, with Ruth having higher ratios, but otherwise both showing stability.


The Bonds 'curve' is unique in not just baseball but any sport ever outside of steroids. Athletes do not peak at 37-39, not to mention they don't peak hilariously, ridiculously twice as good as their performance in their 20's. Keep in mind that his curve is in the same league where some other players were doing steroids as well.

Excellent post.

It's similar to one I made earlier, that referenced Ruth's late age years being nothing out of the norm. There were no abnormal spikes like the percentage increase I posted on Bonds. Many thought Ruth was done after 1925, literally. He was in that bad of shape. However, thanks to Artie McGovern and change of lifestyle his decline was graceful and productive.

Again, excellent post but it will not sink in, if nothing has yet.

[White Knight]

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!!

Ken Caminiti ….did… and died from it

Andy Pettite…. Guilty… and how do we know that Mariano Rivera didn’t? Clemens did?... Arod did … maybe Derek Jeter did… All Yankees guilty!!!

"Preliminary news reports indicated he died of a heart attack,[9] but the autopsy results stated that "acute intoxication due to the combined effects of cocaine and opiates" caused his death, with coronary artery disease and cardiac hypertrophy (an enlarged heart) as contributing factors."

Perhaps it contributed, but he had lots of other issues. As for Andy, he didn't "roid", he HGH'd.

[toomanyhatz]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here- there seems to be a lot of characterizing of people's arguments being done for them, never conducive to a balanced discussion. I'm not sure anybody here disagrees that:

1) Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame based on his numbers up to 1998, whether you ignore the rest of his career or adjust it how you see fit.
2) Whatever our opinion of the legal or moral ramifications, he ingested some kind of substance that changed his physical condition in a way that was advantageous to his performace numbers.

I believe that Barry Bonds indeed ingest, by whatever means, supplements to help him with strength, endurance and recovery. The success of that protocol screams out from the numbers.

However, I draw the line on moral judgements and cheating. MLB had no enforceable code. If they had, and if Barry Bonds, at any time after age 35 was suspended, severely fined or threatened with expulsion, and was revealed to have repeated whatever offense that might have been, we would not be having this conversation.

First quote me, second leewileyfan. I'm attempting to demonstrate that we are arguing in circles largely because of what I say above- people's arguments are being characterized on their behalf. I'm happy to argue the definitions of "cheating" and "moral" as much as anybody wants to. But no matter how many times and how many different ways the numbers are presented, that's not where the main argument lies. Never was.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You say that Barry, age 36 through age 39 have numbers that prove him to be an unworthy cheat. I say his numbers defy your mathematical [and sabermetric as well, not you in isolation]. I agree. However, you say this breaking of the model is irrefutable evidence of cheating.

Now I have to come out and defend myself.
No where did I say Barry cheated, I doubt you will find that word in any of my posts. I always maintained it was my belief he was a user and gained from that use.
This is what I said in two earlier posts about his late career numbers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

First quote me, second leewileyfan. I'm attempting to demonstrate that we are arguing in circles largely because of what I say above- people's arguments are being characterized on their behalf. I'm happy to argue the definitions of "cheating" and "moral" as much as anybody wants to. But no matter how many times and how many different ways the numbers are presented, that's not where the main argument lies. Never was.

There should be no talking in circles. It is cut and dry Hatz.

Bonds used PEDs. It's proven, it's known.

Unfortunately for him, he was the best of the bunch, and he routinely took an elaborate cocktail at the perfect time, when he otherwise would have started to decline. He then puts up Ruthian numbers at a ripe age, after we had seen FOR 13 seasons, what he was capable of naturally.

Yes, he was a HOFer through 1998, and as I showed with my projections, more than likely, would have ended up the greatest power/speed combo in history imo. In everyone's top 5 I think.

I'm not judging him as person for taking PEDs. I believe he's a complete ass otherwise, but hell, he had just seen Mac and Sosa do their magic carpet ride and here he is with his third straight year declining in HR (37), yet knowing they are legit. So yeah, he probably thought "I'll show them."

So where are the circles? It's simple. Why not accept what he did, put it into perspective, and move on.

Those people with their heads in the sand, will go on attempting to discredit other players. They will change the subject and not respond to the facts laid out. They will ignore common sense, logic, Bonds' proven 13 year baseline, and over 100 years of baseball history. So be it.

[leewileyfan]

Now I have to come out and defend myself.

For Heaven's sake, will somebody read what I write? Why in the name of all that's good and holy do you have to defend yourself? From me? Hardly.

I disagree with your stand on Barry Bonds in the context of your general post content, stressing your essential default to the argument you find supported in regressed age-pattern performance models. Barry has broken the model. Fine. No matter what I may say that supports individual seasons [or a couple] that break a normal age decline, I will always be confronted that I presented no acceptable SPIKE or that I did not present a sufficient time for a continued spike.

It boils down to Barry Bonds for 4 season [36, 37, 38, 39] although some might say three seasons are the real crux [36,37,38].

:No where did I say Barry cheated, I doubt you will find that word in any of my posts. I always maintained it was my belief he was a user and gained from that use.
This is what I said in two earlier posts about his late career numbers.

If that is you emphatically stated point, what the hell are we debating for? Let me ask you then, directly: Should Barry Bonds' records stand? Should Barry Bonds be an unrestrained candidate for the HoF with the exact time parameters of any other MLB player?

If you ansewr YES to both of those questions, then you and I have no argument at all. If you answer NO, then that sorta puts a spin on your present denial of ever even suggesting in any post ... that he cheated.

Is that fair enough?

[toomanyhatz]

It's simple. Why not accept what he did, put it into perspective, and move on.

Those people with their heads in the sand, will go on attempting to discredit other players. They will change the subject and not respond to the facts laid out. They will ignore common sense, logic, Bonds' proven 13 year baseline, and over 100 years of baseball history. So be it.

Just saying it's the perspective that's the disagreement, not the acceptance of what he did. I think that's pretty universally accepted, even here. I agree that the attempt to discredit others happens, and that it's counterproductive. I find Selig in particular incredibly complicit, but there are still those who made the decision to juice and those who made the decision not to. Not that we'll ever completely know who's who, but I think it's inevitable that those under suspicion will be punished by HoF voters. That being the case, I think it's only fair that those not under suspicion- Pedro, Griffey, etc.- who still performed well in an era during which they voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage- should be conversely rewarded. Ain't gonna happen, but a guy can dream.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Just saying it's the perspective that's the disagreement, not the acceptance of what he did. I think that's pretty universally accepted, even here. I agree that the attempt to discredit others happens, and that it's counterproductive. I find Selig in particular incredibly complicit, but there are still those who made the decision to juice and those who made the decision not to. Not that we'll ever completely know who's who, but I think it's inevitable that those under suspicion will be punished by HoF voters. That being the case, I think it's only fair that those not under suspicion- Pedro, Griffey, etc.- who still performed well in an era during which they voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage- should be conversely rewarded. Ain't gonna happen, but a guy can dream.

You touched on a few things there.

I agree, the vast majority have come to accept what Bonds did. There is however, a group under that acceptance umbrella, who attempt to rationalize and minimize the impact at every turn. They do this in the face of logic, reason, and fact upon fact; and pretend like his late career performance can be explained any way other than PED use. It's tiresome to deal with such a transparent apologist outlook.

You mention Selig. He is not without blame for sure, but remember he did want testing and the players union quickly shot it down. Selig realized it was a lock-out type issue so he didn't press. Fay Vincent sent a memo out to all clubs in 1994 that specifically stated steroids were against the rules of baseball. That's all he could do at the time, and Selig's hands were tied as well, years later. Nevermind steroids were a federal crime lol.

This thread isn't about the HOF. It's not about who else used or didn't use. It's about Bonds. I think we agree on many things and have found some common ground. If the numbers and explanations laid out in this thread have educated you to any degree, then all the better.

[JR Hart]

Just saying it's the perspective that's the disagreement, not the acceptance of what he did. I think that's pretty universally accepted, even here. I agree that the attempt to discredit others happens, and that it's counterproductive. I find Selig in particular incredibly complicit, but there are still those who made the decision to juice and those who made the decision not to. Not that we'll ever completely know who's who, but I think it's inevitable that those under suspicion will be punished by HoF voters. That being the case, I think it's only fair that those not under suspicion- Pedro, Griffey, etc.- who still performed well in an era during which they voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage- should be conversely rewarded. Ain't gonna happen, but a guy can dream.

But that's the whole point all along, we "think" that they are clean. Wasn't ARod the poster boy for clean players, at one time. Except for an illegal leak of grand jury evidence, he still would be. I say that everyone is suspect and that is why it must be written off as another era and everything has just ride. How can we make decisions when we only know a fraction of what happened. This sh*t all started in the 80s for christ sake. I knew college athletes who were taking steroids in the late 70s. I grew up in the same town, where Lyle Alzado played college football. He was taking steroids in the late 60s.

As for Bonds, of course he roided. He and a great many others, most of them unknown. There's been a lot of posts about ignorance and "burying your head in the sand." If anyone thinks that there wasn't hundreds of players who roided, that's ignorance and wishful thinking , so you can hammer on Bonds. I believe Canseco.

Did using roids help Bonds, most likely, but can you prove it? No He always was an amazing talent.

What to do with the roiders? I say nothing. Put them in the hall, if their performance rates and move on. And test. It's another era. It's just too much of a tangled piece of crap to make judgements about anything. That's not a copout. That's reality and being practical. My record book isn't stained at all. And spare the moral outrage. It's my opinion.

[JR Hart]

"Preliminary news reports indicated he died of a heart attack,[9] but the autopsy results stated that "acute intoxication due to the combined effects of cocaine and opiates" caused his death, with coronary artery disease and cardiac hypertrophy (an enlarged heart) as contributing factors."

Perhaps it contributed, but he had lots of other issues. As for Andy, he didn't "roid", he HGH'd.

My post (list of roid "suspects") was tongue in cheek, to make a point that roids (or whatever) were rampant and virtually everyone in that era (which spans about 30 years) is suspect.

[leewileyfan]

:As for Bonds, of course he roided. He and a great many others, most of them unknown. There's been a lot of posts about ignorance and "burying your head in the sand." If anyone thinks that there wasn't hundreds of players who roided, that's ignorance and wishful thinking , so you can hammer on Bonds. I believe Canseco.

With the possible exception of roided as a choice of word here, this gets to the crux of the debate. Don't get me wrong. The entire "dosing," "using," "cheating," and 'roiding" vocabulary, in the media and here in on-line debate makes very disparate mixtures and cocktails and injections all of one kind, a simplistic recipe - like one size fits all. Such is not the case.

There are also comments here that state with total conviction that steroids [again, the generic recipe] = felony offense. There are exceptions and conditions in virtually any law; and the various enactments in this field are no exception.

I fully agree. Barry used performance enhancing concoctions. They apparently worked, with no obvious deleterious side effects. I have no debate with any of that.

My argument is that, during the tiime that Barry was playing MLB, there was no truly authoritative structure in place to fine, suspend, warn, or ban any ballplayer who failed a MLB test to identify and weed out violators.

To this date, I have seen NO documented proof that Barry Bonds ever failed a MLB test for banned steroids or any other compound that was barred from use. I have seen allegations; but the score I have to go by at this point is: Barry 22 - Failed Tests 0. Even ifhe had failed somewhere along the line, where, what and how much was/were the penalties?

[pheasant]

I think that too many people don't understand the horrible impact that steroids have on people's personalities, let alone their health. It's really sad that kids are ruining their lives with that junk. I worked out at a popular gym in my college town. I was shocked at how many people juiced. And never mind the 100 lb increase in bench press over 6 months, despite being nearly plateaued out prior to that. Everybody knows that happens. But what turned my head was the rage these guys had when they were on the steroids. Many of these guys at the gym that were juicing were also assaulting people. Watching these guys smack their heads against a wall in the gym or pick fights with others was quite sad. I literally learned what the phrase "raging on 'roids" was. I'm glad that I never tried them. Unfortunately, a good buddy of mine caved into the pressure and he ended up getting hooked on those stupid steroids. Granted, his bench went from 280 to 400 in under a year. But he went from a mellow and shy 4.0 GPA type kid to kicked out of school in that same time frame. I can see the temptation. But I cannot condone that "poison" in any way, shape, or form.