Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stick a fork in bonds, he's done

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

  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    A lawyer's view on the charges against Bonds from Shysterball. I don't know much about the details of the legal system but the article was quite informative.

    http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2008...rand-jury.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Skin & Bones
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    The numbers dont lie. If you had to guess what Bonds would have done without steroids, what would you guess? would you say 69 home runs instead of 73? an .820 slugging percentage instead of .867? an on base percentage of .570 instead of .609? sorry but to me thats just not realistic.
    I'm not sure what this has to do with your arguement that Bonds has been juiced his entire career.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    Mattingly: people in general base their blame, opinions, etc on what they see on .... the news networks …. whether or not more blame can be laid upon one single player is debatable.

    “more blame”… for the same action? how and why does this occur?

    I'm more bothered when someone is accused of eclipsing some of the most revered sports records by allegedly using PEDs than I would be for a lesser-known player.

    curious of the feelings towards a player closer to being able to break records vs those towards an otherwise unremarkable player.

    Rafael Palmeiro …. Clemens …. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a ws championship team? 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.

    ...Dave Parker or Andre Dawson got in? At least in Parker's or Hawk's case, they're presumed clean.

    admitted cocaine user of the pirates? that dave parker?
    lemme see if i have this right: cocaine use is accepted but steroids are not.
    one does not hafta go far to read posters pointing out (in all caps, no less) that steroids are against the law but… so is cocaine.
    to admit parker but deny a steroid user means that we are back to the idea that it is not the action of the individual rather, the result of the action. no?

    I am more upset with when the top names in MLB use.

    ok. but you can't sell that one to the player on the bubble in the minors who lost out to a 25-man player who benefitted from illegal substance use.

    I am more upset with Bonds allegedly taking steroids because he's cracked several major offensive records …. that's how I feel.

    coolio.

    Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

    there is nothing unique… and that’s my point.
    you, on the other hand, by singling bonds out, are one who differentiates.

    Nothing unique of Barry Bonds, as compared to other baseball players? Or nothing unique about his alleged PED usage, as compared to others who are also accused of PED usage, but don't have anywhere near the offensive numbers? If you could please clarify, this would be appreciated.

    you specifically asked about bonds’ behavior. i see nothing that differentiates him from other players… except that his post-number-499-home run bat collection is larger than anyone else’s.
    as far as others differentiating bonds, though, one needs to look no further than jack cust on this one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    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.
    I think that people in general base their blame, opinions, etc on what they see on TV, hear on the radio, read in newspapers and sports weeklies, such as SI, ESPN Mag, TSN, etc. If the vast majority of those sports media outlets, as well as the news networks such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox also focus on Barry Bonds, then I think it's reasonable to say that quite a few people have focused much of their attention upon him.

    Right now, Roger Clemens has gotten the lion's share of attention in a similar way (extensive media focus).

    Whether or not more blame can be laid upon one single player is debatable. I don't have anything "concrete" as to an opinion on this yet, but I'm more bothered when someone is accused of eclipsing some of the most revered sports records (including the most revered of them all, the career HR record) by allegedly using PEDs than I would be for a lesser-known player.
    Rafael Palmeiro …. Clemens …. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a ws championship team? 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.
    I wouldn't quite say that the record books are of more or less value. However, if Palmeiro goes into Cooperstown, he's just another HoFer. Nice guy, people may have wanted to see him get there, but would he really more memorable than if Dave Parker or Andre Dawson got in? At least in Parker's or Hawk's case, they're presumed clean.

    Clemens is the bigger fish because of his stats. If the behavior--PED usage--is the same, then I would dislike allegations of PED usage in both cases. However, I would have more dislike and outrage at the far more accomplished player who'd used this to attain monumental records.
    What kind of behavior are you referring to? What kind of behavior are you referring to as to Barry Bonds that other players have different behavior?

    sorry for the ambiguity on his one, mattingly.
    what i mean is that the numbers and records that have happened along the way are more important, more significant, than the illegal substance use (“the behavior”) of the players. check me if i have this wrong, but your position that [no one] is “really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder [even] on a ws championship team” means that name recognition and numbers / records are what draws your attention and focus.
    i simply do not understand how numbers and records take precedent over the illegal act. the numbers are incidental and secondary. At least, they ought to be to everyone interested in watching a clean sport.
    Let me clarify: you got close and I believe made a reasonable effort to verify what you felt I'd meant. I thank you for asking.

    What I'm saying overall is that, while I'm very concerned when a HS varsity, NCAA or MiLB player uses PEDs of any kind, I am more upset with when the top names in MLB use these.

    I would be more upset with Palmeiro's using steroids than a .250 hitter who's got a career 90 HRs, despite 10 years as a journeyman bench player. That would be because of the more prominent position that Raffy plays.

    I am more upset with Bonds allegedly taking steroids, designer drugs, HGH, etc, because he's cracked several major offensive records, most of which were thought to be secure for years.

    Could I revise my order of importance or priorities in this? Yes, but right now, that's how I feel.
    I'm curious, is there an expectation that if someone questions Bonds that their own motives are to be questioned?

    quite possibly. i guess it all comes down to motive.
    As mentioned, my motive is a fair baseball discussion. Everyone's idea and opinion of "fairness" differs, but I have no interest in considering Bonds "evil" or anything similar. I just don't think that he's achieved those records when he was "clean" of any PEDs. I don't find that to be of any ulterior motives of any kind.
    Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

    there is nothing unique… and that’s my point.
    you, on the other hand, by singling bonds out, are one who differentiates.
    Nothing unique of Barry Bonds, as compared to other baseball players? Or nothing unique about his alleged PED usage, as compared to others who are also accused of PED usage, but don't have anywhere near the offensive numbers? If you could please clarify, this would be appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    wcoab: 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?

    sweet lou: If ANYONE did PEDs, they gained an unfair advantage. I'm not picking on just Bonds. I'm disgusted with the whole scene. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but your statement above seems to condone his usage, or at the very least, dismiss it as acceptable.

    not a correction, lou, but merely another opportunity to say that i do not condone or dismiss.
    i happen to belong to the majority on this one. fans took in games in record numbers after the ped story went public. i wonder if each has been questioned if he condones or dismisses. probably not.

    How many home runs do you think he'd hit WITHOUT PEDs? Think he would have broken Hanks record? Ruth's record? Think he would have played as long?

    you seem to preoccupied (and angered) by the numbers achieved and records set by bonds. i guess i kinda understand the preoccupation with the records long-thought to be the most hallowed of the sport. but for me, those records are by an individual, and are kinda inconsequential in that players play for the ring, not numbers... yet the focus remains on bonds.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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.

    Rafael Palmeiro …. Clemens …. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a ws championship team? 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.

    What kind of behavior are you referring to? What kind of behavior are you referring to as to Barry Bonds that other players have different behavior?

    sorry for the ambiguity on his one, mattingly.
    what i mean is that the numbers and records that have happened along the way are more important, more significant, than the illegal substance use (“the behavior”) of the players. check me if i have this wrong, but your position that [no one] is “really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder [even] on a ws championship team” means that name recognition and numbers / records are what draws your attention and focus.
    i simply do not understand how numbers and records take precedent over the illegal act. the numbers are incidental and secondary. At least, they ought to be to everyone interested in watching a clean sport.

    I'm curious, is there an expectation that if someone questions Bonds that their own motives are to be questioned?

    quite possibly. i guess it all comes down to motive.

    Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.

    there is nothing unique… and that’s my point.
    you, on the other hand, by singling bonds out, are one who differentiates.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Is cortisone injections on the MLB banned list?

    Treatment with steroid injections
    What is cortisone?
    Cortisone is a type of steroid that is produced naturally by a gland in your body called the adrenal gland. Cortisone is released from the adrenal gland when your body is under stress. Natural cortisone is released into the blood stream and is relatively short-acting.
    Injectable cortisone is synthetically produced and has many different trade names (e.g. Celestone, Kenalog, etc.), but is a close derivative of your body's own product. The most significant differences are that synthetic cortisone is not injected into the blood stream, but into a particular area of inflammation. Also, the synthetic cortisone is designed to act more potently and for a longer period of time (days instead of minutes).

    How does the cortisone injection help?
    Cortisone is a powerful anti-inflammatory medication. Cortisone is not a pain relieving medication, it only treats the inflammation. When pain is decreased from cortisone it is because the inflammation is diminished. By injecting the cortisone into a particular area of inflammation, very high concentrations of the medication can be given while keeping potential side-effects to a minimum. Cortisone injections usually work within a few days, and the effects can last up to several weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Skin & Bones View Post
    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.
    The numbers dont lie. If you had to guess what Bonds would have done without steroids, what would you guess? would you say 69 home runs instead of 73? an .820 slugging percentage instead of .867? an on base percentage of .570 instead of .609? sorry but to me thats just not realistic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by Sweet Lou View Post
    Look, this is very simple: If he did PEDs, he gained an unfair advantage. If ANYONE did PEDs, they gained an unfair advantage. PEDS ARE ILLEGAL, REMEMBER?
    I'm not picking on just Bonds. I'm disgusted with the whole scene. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but your statement above seems to condone his usage, or at the very least, dismiss it as acceptable.
    How many home runs do you think he'd hit WITHOUT PEDs? Think he would have broken Hanks record? Ruth's record? Think he would have played as long?
    Under no circumstances would Barry Bonds have had the off-the-wall (and off-the-charts) numbers he had after the 2000 season w/o PED usage. Some people see to want to condone it, but I'm just glad that not everyone has their eyes closed on the issue, thankfully.

    Both Barry and Roger will roast in the same governmental hot seat, be it in front of the US Congress, FBI or whoever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sweet Lou
    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?
    Look, this is very simple: If he did PEDs, he gained an unfair advantage. If ANYONE did PEDs, they gained an unfair advantage. PEDS ARE ILLEGAL, REMEMBER?
    I'm not picking on just Bonds. I'm disgusted with the whole scene. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but your statement above seems to condone his usage, or at the very least, dismiss it as acceptable.
    How many home runs do you think he'd hit WITHOUT PEDs? Think he would have broken Hanks record? Ruth's record? Think he would have played as long?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    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.
    Well, I think that quite a few people put more focus on Barry Bonds as opposed to Rafael Palmeiro, who was caught using the same stuff that Ben Johnson did in the Olympics (1988, I think) because Raffy was struggling to make 500 HRs to likely give him credentials to get into the HoF in the first place. By comparison, anyone thinking that Barry Bonds, before his dramatic 2001 season, wasn't a first balloter, may need to stop reading this.

    Clemens gets more focus as a pitcher than other pitchers because he's won 7 CYAs and 354 wins, just like Bonds has won 7 NL MVPs. It's the "biggest fish in the pond gets the most press" thing.

    Too many guys on a WS team to focus on every single one. Is anyone really going to worry about a weak-hitting all-glove middle infielder on a WS championship team? I don't see any federal inquiries about that type of player.
    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.
    What kind of behavior are you referring to? What kind of behavior are you referring to as to Barry Bonds that other players have different behavior? To me, the word "behavior" can be somewhat vague.
    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?
    What makes you think I'm selling something? You speak more often about Barry Bonds than I do. What exactly would you be selling? I'm here for a baseball discussion. And yourself? What's in it for yourself?

    I'm curious, is there an expectation that if someone questions Bonds that their own motives are to be questioned? It seems you've contributed to quite a few threads over the years on Barry Bonds, so why in the world are you questioning someone else's motives when your own could just as easily be questioned?
    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.
    Please let us know what is so unique about Barry Bonds behavior that differentiates himself from others.
    Last edited by Mattingly; 03-02-2008, 02:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skin & Bones
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SamtheBravesFan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X