Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stick a fork in bonds, he's done

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

  • Lock him up!

    He's a sleaze.

    Comment


    • 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.
      "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.
          "He can get 10 hits in five at-bats." -Joe Torre, exasperated after seeing Ichiro hit a routine ground ball to shortstop and cross first with an infield single.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • ^^
            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?
            "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.
                Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting. 2007-11 CBA
                Rest very peacefully, John “Buck” O'Neil (1911-2006) & Philip Francis “Scooter” Rizzuto (1917-2007)
                THE BROOKLYN DODGERS - 1890 thru 1957
                Montreal Expos 1969 - 2004

                Comment


                • 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

                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    46 wins to match last year's total

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                      Comment


                      • 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.
                        "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
                          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.
                          Very well could be Sam. But that is still the way percentages work. Pretty darn good one's to, at that age, or any age, for any amount of AB's over 200.

                          Add the two together and it isn't that bad either.

                          Comment


                          • The "Tainted Records" Claim
                            The broad term "performance-enhancing drugs" comprises two classes: those that improve strength and those that fight fatigue and improve alertness. The first class includes all the substances currently the focus of public attention, especially steroids and human-growth hormone; the second notably includes "greenies"--amphetamines--a serious drug of long-standing abuse whose significance has been largely ignored in the current furor. Though there is a brief discussion of stimulant substances on the detailed medical-effects page of this site, from here on references to "PEDs" will mean the strengthening PEDs.


                            What to Seek and How to Measure It
                            To search for possible effects from PED use, we first need to understand what PEDs might or might not do for players. No one has ever claimed that any PED improves visual acuity or reflex response speed; all that PEDs can possibly do is increase muscularity. In baseball terms, that means power--the distance balls are hit. If PEDs have a discernible effect in baseball, then that effect must be on power, and only on power.

                            To properly measure power levels in baseball, we need something that is independent of other performance data. We cannot, for example, simply count home runs--for a batter, a league, or all of major-league baseball--because home-run figures can change substantially with no change in power. To understand that, realize that power determines how far a ball will go when struck well; for a given level of power, with all other factors constant, a certain proportion of all hits will be home runs. Still keeping all else fixed, more power means more home runs, less means fewer. But suppose all else is not constant. Suppose, for example, that the strike zone as called by umpires were to change materially one way or the other over time (which has actually happened, as with the rapid and substantial 2001 expansion); clearly, the number of hits gotten would also change materially. So, even with no change in actual power, batters would get materially more or fewer home runs as a consequence.

                            Moving from a straight crude count to a rate measure is no improvement. If hits were to go up for reasons unrelated to power--as, for example, by strike-zone size changes--so would the rate of home runs as measured by home runs per plate appearance or home runs per at-bat. (So also, we must remember, would total scoring.)

                            To successfully measure power per se, what we need to do is relate well-powered balls to hit totals. We could use the ratio of home runs to hits, and that works pretty well. But not all "well-powered" balls necessarily leave the yard: doubles and triples are also, to some extent, indicators of power. Thus, the best measure of sheer power is Total Bases per Hit, a figure aptly known as the Power Factor.


                            Here is a raw PF graph of all of major-league baseball for the entire "modern" (post-1800s) era, from 1900 through 2007 inclusive. The main page on this topic has a much larger image of the graph, but this reduced version is in a way even more useful, in that long-term trends are more obvious. Let's begin with a quick tour through the seasons to see what it shows.

                            Two things quickly become obvious: one, that for most of the century there appears to be a fairly steady upward trend to power; but two, that at certain points there are sudden discontinuous jumps. (That is even ignoring the expected dips and jumps that represent the starts and ends of WW I and WW II, which are labelled on the graph.) Those discontinuities separate readily recognized distinct eras in the game. The slightly upslope red lines represent the long-term averages of the years that they span, smoothing out the minor year-to-year zigs and zags.

                            Those discontinuities are extremely important to an understanding of power results, so let's look more closely at them.


                            http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

                            Best info on hitting I've found so far. At least there is some research about PED claims.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
                              Very well could be Sam. But that is still the way percentages work. Pretty darn good one's to, at that age, or any age, for any amount of AB's over 200.

                              Add the two together and it isn't that bad either.
                              I agree. Aaron played very well in those circumstances too. That's all my point was; that's the way the percentages bounce.
                              46 wins to match last year's total

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
                                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.

                                Wrong. Bonds used substances since....middle school. At least in Willshad's opinion.

                                The guy doesn't like Bonds, so I doubt you'll convince him other-wise.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X