Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stick a fork in bonds, he's done

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    Mattingly: So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

    what i am saying is that i have not placed more blame on one particular player... even those whose performances have won world series trophies.

    Have the other guys shattered the record books like this?

    this has been a very interesting angle - that the record books are of more value than the behavior.

    As to the focus on Bonds, the person who has the greatest records gets the most press.

    well, that is certainly true; they have papers to sell.
    what are you selling? what's in it for you?

    I get the impression that you're already aware of the reason for the scrutiny.

    aware and understand the higher scrutiny, yes.
    understand the reasons for such... no.
    unlike you, for me it is the behavior, not the results of the behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    willshad: [Bonds'] actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books.

    oh, ok. got it.
    to you, bonds is "more guilty" or "more despicable" or "more evil" or whatever because of the numbers and records. that's a curious position to have. i mean, it has been established that others used more substances +/or for longer periods of time than did bonds, yet bonds is your focus... not because of his actions, rather, the results.

    Leave a comment:


  • SamtheBravesFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post

    Hank Aaron's top slg% at 37 and the 2nd best at age 39?
    Aaron had 573 plate appearances in 1971, about 100 less than years past, and 465 PAs in 1973. That may have something to do with his slugging percentages being so high in those years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    His actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books. He has the seasonal record for home ruins, slugging, on base perecntage, as well as many others, and he doesnt really deserve it. It is obvious from looking at his numbers that he wasnt increasing his performance by '1-3%'. how else can he, at age 36 suddenly hit 73 home runs when his career high is 46? thats more like a 60% increase. and it wasnt a fluke season either like Maris. He continued that home run pace to this very day. Never mind that he is currenty 43 and hitting home runs at a pace of one every 10 at bats. Face it, Bonds increased his performance more like 50% from using steroids, especially since he was entering what should have been his decline years.
    WOW, that is self assumption at a record breaking pace.

    How so you explain the ball contact? PED's?

    Hank Aaron's top slg% at 37 and the 2nd best at age 39?

    The assumed PED performance increase vs the extra HR's you are giving Bonds credit for? That kind of performance increase credit isn't in any of the PED articles that I have read. Bonds must have hit a lot of wall scrapers earlier in his career for the extra few feet that PED articles give credit for distance of a batted ball.


    If you take the assumed performance increase of PED's into account for Bonds at face value, you should have to take into account the percentages they state and also the account of how many assumed short career's is caused by PED's at face value, to be fair in a self assumption.
    Last edited by Old Sweater; 03-01-2008, 02:38 PM. Reason: added to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    ^^
    shorter recovery time... increased strength and stamina... how damning.
    an extended career... how dare he... and the hundreds of others!

    this entire time i have not understood the focus on bonds.
    he's just one guy.
    how can his actions be worse than those of others?
    So you're saying that "well, other guys have done it" is a valid argument?

    Have the other guys shattered the record books like this? Isn't Clemens getting badgered also for allegedly doing what essentially others have done (taking PEDs)?

    As to the focus on Bonds, the person who has the greatest records gets the most press. When that person is said to have cheated, the press scrutiny will even further increase, especially if the numbers have increased by a very sizeable amount.

    That's about it in a nutshell, but I get the impression that you're already aware of the reason for the scrutiny.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    His actions are worse, because he was making a mockery of the record books. He has the seasonal record for home ruins, slugging, on base perecntage, as well as many others, and he doesnt really deserve it. It is obvious from looking at his numbers that he wasnt increasing his performance by '1-3%'. how else can he, at age 36 suddenly hit 73 home runs when his career high is 46? thats more like a 60% increase. and it wasnt a fluke season either like Maris. He continued that home run pace to this very day. Never mind that he is currenty 43 and hitting home runs at a pace of one every 10 at bats. Face it, Bonds increased his performance more like 50% from using steroids, especially since he was entering what should have been his decline years.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    ^^
    shorter recovery time... increased strength and stamina... how damning.
    an extended career... how dare he... and the hundreds of others!

    this entire time i have not understood the focus on bonds.
    he's just one guy.
    how can his actions be worse than those of others?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sweet Lou
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    a player can not smack a home run every 12+ swings simply by using something that comes in a jar.
    I don't think anyone is saying that he hit home runs simply by using PEDs. They are saying he increased his recovery time, stamina, and strength, which enabled him to hit MORE home runs than he would have been able to hit without using PEDs.
    He was also able to extend his career, which enabled him to hit MORE home runs than he would have been able to hit without PEDs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    bonds was certainly dialed in.
    a player can not smack a home run every 12+ swings simply by using something that comes in a jar.

    There is an assumed 1-3% PED performance increase compared to some 100% high moral fans and most BBWAA/HOF voters.


    IMO/ Bonds should be a HOF'er but some fans and BBWAA voters don't appreciate the 97% of what Bonds done without the accused PED use with the assumed 1-3% performance increase.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    old sweater: Other players could have taken a bath in the clear/cream and couldn't have done what Bonds did.

    interesting choice of words, os.
    over 6 1/2 years ago a body builder whose training regimen included hgh explained to me me that a person "would hafta take a bath in "clear" to get the benefits that bonds seems to be getting".

    ...but when Bonds came up to bat people start nudging with there elbows or pointing at the TV .... as soon as his at bat was over, they would go back to eating and drinking.

    bonds was certainly dialed in.
    a player can not smack a home run every 12+ swings simply by using something that comes in a jar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Go get em Tigers
    replied
    Lock him up!

    He's a sleaze.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    old sweater: What is the standard considered between ["statistically bettered" and "increased to astronomical levels"]?

    well, it's all arbitrary, i guess.
    but can it be agreed that bonds' numbers improved as none other's?

    what has been forgotten is that while dozens of ballplayers used "clear" / "the clear" and "the cream", no one other than bonds improved statistically the way that bonds did.
    all of the answers are not found in a jar.

    Other players could have taken a bath in the clear/cream and couldn't have done what Bonds did. IMO<.......I have to admit I never cared for Bonds and his arrogant ways but he just one of those players, that you wouldn't run to the fridge to get a snack, when he was in the batters box. I have watched many games at a pool hall where there isn't that many baseball fans but when Bonds came up to bat people start nudging with there elbows or pointing at the TV, when Bonds came up to bat. As soon as his at bat was over, they would go back to eating and drinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockin500
    replied
    well, bonds did get somewhat of a legal victory today. though he did get bad news as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    old sweater: What is the standard considered between ["statistically bettered" and "increased to astronomical levels"]?

    well, it's all arbitrary, i guess.
    but can it be agreed that bonds' numbers improved as none other's?

    what has been forgotten is that while dozens of ballplayers used "clear" / "the clear" and "the cream", no one other than bonds improved statistically the way that bonds did.
    all of the answers are not found in a jar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Originally posted by Skin & Bones View Post
    Old Sweater, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Crawford didn't juice in 2000.



    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...-sxZ3rtE99imEQ
    From the same magazine.

    What he said: In an article by ESPN’s Amy K. Nelson, Crawford admitted to using steroids and hGH during the 2001-2003 season.
    Older article I guess Skin & Bones. The guy really pitch long enough for the subject at hand anyways.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X