OT: What To Think of Barry Bonds Now?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Looks more like 9-0 from where I'm sitting, king.

Enjoying this, aren't you, you Blue-hearted bastard

[Vince]

Try living in SoCal.

"Who's got the best record?" "Barry Bonds is a bitch!" "The Giants suck!"

I get a little sick of it some times.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Vince

Try living in SoCal.

"Who's got the best record?" "Barry Bonds is a bitch!" "The Giants suck!"

I get a little sick of it some times.

http://westwoodblues.blogspot.com

Check out the blog- same situation as yours, and one of the funniest blogs I have ever found. Right up there with waiting for boof...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Aadik

http://westwoodblues.blogspot.com

Check out the blog- same situation as yours, and one of the funniest blogs I have ever found. Right up there with waiting for boof...

Some anonymous smart ass designated the slogan of the 2004 Giants to be: "Bonds and Schmidt and bunch of shit."

Nice

SI

[primelord]

After dawgfan mentioned Barry's AB/HR rate in an early post I wanted to take alook at how it compared to some of the other all time home run greats especially in terms of spikes in their career. Here is a look at the AB/HR rates for the top 11 HR hitters of all time.

Name	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
Bonds	25.8	22.0	22.4	30.5	15.7	20.4	13.9	11.7	10.6	15.3	12.3	13.3	14.9	10.4	9.8	6.5	8.8	8.7	4.2	N/A
Aaron	22.3	23.4	14.0	20.0	16.1	14.8	17.7	13.2	14.3	23.8	17.8	13.7	15.4	20.9	12.4	13.6	10.5	13.2	9.8	17.0
Ruth	45.3	61.5	28.8	14.9	8.5	9.2	11.6	12.7	11.5	14.4	10.5	9.0	9.9	10.8	10.6	11.6	11.1	13.5	16.6	12.0
Mays	31.8	N/A	13.8	11.4	16.1	16.7	20.7	16.9	20.5	14.3	12.7	15.7	12.3	10.7	14.9	22.1	21.7	31.0	17.1	23.2
Robinson	21.1	17.9	15.0	15.0	14.7	15.6	23.0	19.6	17.6	11.8	16.0	28.1	16.8	18.8	16.3	18.0	17.8	21.7	13.1	22.3
McGwire	N/A	17.7	11.4	17.2	14.8	13.4	22.0	11.1	9.3	15.0	8.1	8.1	9.3	7.3	8.0	7.4	10.3	N/A	N/A	N/A
Killebrew	15.5	N/A	13.0	14.3	11.8	11.5	11.4	11.8	16.0	14.6	12.4	17.4	11.3	12.9	17.9	16.7	49.6	25.6	22.3	N/A
Jackson	118.0	19.1	11.7	18.5	17.7	20.0	16.8	17.4	16.5	18.4	16.4	18.9	16.0	12.5	22.3	13.6	28.4	21.0	17.0	23.3
Schmidt	N/A	34.0	20.4	15.8	14.8	15.4	14.3	24.4	12.0	11.4	11.4	14.7	13.4	14.7	16.6	14.9	14.9	32.5	24.7	N/A
Sosa	35.5	31.6	32.8	18.1	17.0	15.7	12.5	17.8	9.7	9.9	12.1	9.0	11.3	12.9	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Mantle	22.0	20.1	14.0	10.3	13.9	12.4	17.5	13.2	9.5	12.6	11.5	13.3	19.0	14.5	20.0	24.2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Here is a look at their AB/HR rate broken down into 5 year ranges

Name	25-30	30-35	35-40
Bonds	14.1	12.5	8.0
Aaron	16.0	16.5	12.3
Ruth	10.8	10.5	12.1
Mays	17.3	13.2	20.1
Robinson	16.2	16.4	18.0
McGwire	14.2	8.3	8.4
Killebrew	12.5	13.7	21.2
Jackson	17.7	16.6	19.3
Schmidt	14.4	13.6	17.6
Mantle	12.8	14.9	21.9

I see some interesting things in these numbers. Only two guys improved on their ratio from 30-35 to 35-40 and tha was Bonds and Aaron (to be fair even if he had still been healthy it would have been tough for McGwire to improve much).

And Bonds and Aaron improved by almost the exact same amount. Granted Bonds is hitting quite a few more HR's per at bat, but he was his entire career. A jump like his is certainly rare, but looking at Aaron's numbers it doesn't look like you can say it is impossible without steroids. Unless you think Aaron was on steroids too.

I am not really making an argument that he is or isn't. Just thought the numbers were interesting.

[FBPro]

"Roid-o-matic"

[dawgfan]

Thanks for the numbers primelord. My only quibble with your study is that by using HR per AB, it will inflate the ratios for those batters that walk more often. The most accurate ratio would be HR per plate appearences.

Obviously Bonds and Aaron are proving to be freaks of nature in their ability to retain effectiveness well into their 30's and approaching their 40's. If you look at pitchers, you could also add guys like Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens to that list. The question then becomes, how are they doing this? How much of it is simply good genes? How much of it is taking care of their bodies through good nutrition, stretching, exercise, weights, etc? How much of a role do dietary and other supplements play? How much difference would taking an illegal supplement make over legal supplements?

We can assume that Hank Aaron got by on genes and taking care of himself. With guys like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, we know they take some kind of supplements in addition to rigorous exercise and (in Bonds case at least) probably good genes. Nolan Ryan was notorious for his workouts and his training routines, but he also seems to have been blessed genetically. It's possible he took supplements as well, but I've never heard anyone mention the possibility of illegal ones; same with Clemens.

Bonds has the advantage of playing in an era where homeruns in general have been on the rise for a number of likely reasons - more homerun-friendly ballparks, smaller strikezones, better lumber, possibly fewer good pitchers (though I'm highly skeptical of this argument), tighter-wound baseballs (I'm also skeptical of this argument).

It would be interesting to modify primelord's study to go with HR/PA and then compare individual ratios with the league averages for each season and see how much the individual players were advancing or declining in comparison. I wonder if part of Bonds' increasing HR rates are attributable to the overall increase in homeruns?

As far as the spike in Barry's HR rate in '01, the most obvious historical comparisons are Brady Anderson and Roger Maris. Since Maris played in an era where illegal supplements were not an issue, let's focus on him in comparison to Bonds. Maris' record-breaking 61 HR season had him hitting HR at a rate 29% higher than his previous season. In comparison, Bonds' record-breaking season was an increase of 37%. If you look at a broader range, taking their prior 2 seasons and post 2 seasons and look at how their record-breaking years compare, Maris hit at a 68% higher rate; Bonds at a 40% higher rate. With Brady, the difference between his peak year and his surrounding years is even more extreme. Now, if we really wanted to study this we'd also make park adjustments, comparisons to league averages and look for obvious reasons why their performances might have increased or decreased. One big one often cited with Maris is that his record season occurred in an expansion year. This can't fully explain the spike however, since other power hitters didn't experience nearly the same level of increase (Mickey Mantle, Harmon Killebrew) that season.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Enjoying this, aren't you, you Blue-hearted bastard

Hey, I've always said that I have no problem with Barry hitting 100 HR a season if it means the Giants will finish last.

[Sharpieman]

Yea whens the last time the Giants finished last again?
When is the last time the Dodgers made the playoffs?
When was the last time the Dodgers finished ahead of the Giants?

[Bad-example]

The Giants were at or above .500 for 426 consecutive games until starting 2-3 this season. The last time they were under .500 was June 10, 2001.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Yea whens the last time the Giants finished last again?
When is the last time the Dodgers made the playoffs?
When was the last time the Dodgers finished ahead of the Giants?

When's the last time the Giants won the World Series?

Oh, that's right, they haven't, not since coming to the West Coast.

Look, I ain't tryin' to start a pissing contest here. All I said is I don't care what Barry does, as long as the Giants lose. Let him have the home run crown, fine, just make sure he's in last place when it happens.

[MrBug708]

Only difference between the Giants and Dodgers since 88 is that they both cant win the big one and the Dodgers hit the links sooner then the Giants.

That being said, Barry is gonna get a ton of HR's because he has no protection in the lineup so 3 HR's dont mean much when the Giants are down by 7.

[MrBug708]

Dola

Sack, in a perfect world, Barry Bonds will break the record while sending the Dodgers to the postseason

[oykib]

One problem with comparing Bonds to other players is that great players are not truly similar to other players. One of the defining characteristics of great players is that they are unique.

A better comparison than the one above would compare HR/PA to the standard rates per league year. One of the things about Bonds, Aaron, McGwire, and Ruth is that they all pretty much moved from less favorable environments for homers to more favorable ones as they moved through their careers.

[Sharpieman]

I'm not trying to start anything either, the Giants suck this year and won't make the playoffs, with that said, the Dodgers aren't going anywhere either, they always choke in September. SD will probably win the division

[MrBug708]

Choke in September? You gotta be leading to choke it.....

October is where they havent been good in 16 years (thats a LONG time), but how many teams are good during October?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Vince

Try living in SoCal.

"Who's got the best record?" "Barry Bonds is a bitch!" "The Giants suck!"

I get a little sick of it some times.

Stop us when it's not true

[k0ruptr]

yea and then in SI:
Signs of the apocolypse:
SD clinched the division this week, after sweeping the dodgers.

there is no way that san diego will win the div. they have Fat Head Wells on their team.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by oykib

A better comparison than the one above would compare HR/PA to the standard rates per league year. One of the things about Bonds, Aaron, McGwire, and Ruth is that they all pretty much moved from less favorable environments for homers to more favorable ones as they moved through their careers.

I agree - given differences in eras, it's more instructive to compare players to their contemporaries.

As for players moving to favorable parks, I would agree with the last three, but all studies I've seen have shown PacBell to be a pretty extreme pitcher's park. Not that it's stopped Barry any...

[Vince]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Stop us when it's not true

Ok...then stop with the Barry Bonds sucks line....because that's so far from true it's sick. I'll let you have the other ones, for now

[oykib]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I agree - given differences in eras, it's more instructive to compare players to their contemporaries.

As for players moving to favorable parks, I would agree with the last three, but all studies I've seen have shown PacBell to be a pretty extreme pitcher's park. Not that it's stopped Barry any...

I agree that Pac Bell/SBC is not a good HR park, but Candlestick was also terrible and the difference between Three Rivers and Candlestick was trumped by the timeline. For Bonds it has been less so than the other three. But it's somewhat a factor in the apparent surge in homers for him as he aged as well.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by oykib

I agree that Pac Bell/SBC is not a good HR park, but Candlestick was also terrible and the difference between Three Rivers and Candlestick was trumped by the timeline. For Bonds it has been less so than the other three. But it's somewhat a factor in the apparent surge in homers for him as he aged as well.

I don't agree with that at all. Candlestick was not a bad park for a lefty power hitter. The ball carried pretty well to RF at Candlestick, but not to LF. SBC is the opposite - the ball carries to LF, but dies in RF.

[Ksyrup]

I found this to be an interesting comment from Gammons' latest article:


"Speaking of performance-enhancing drugs, two highly respected scouts offer similar views from observing spring training and April games in this the first full year of drug testing. "The biggest storyline this season is the number of pitchers who have lost velocity, and I mean have huge drops," says one scout. "That designer stuff pitchers had took a bunch of guys out of the independent leagues throwing 85-87 (mph) and got them to the big leagues throwing 94," says the other. "I've seen it all over all spring." Hmmm. Home runs, slugging and doubles are up, velocity down."


I have to admit, now that I think about it, I think I've heard "he's lost velocity" this year, just about as much as I used to hear "he's bulked up or gained X lbs. of muscle" in previous years. The steroids issue seems to focus on the hitters, but they're only one side of the equation.

[sterlingice]

That's a good point, Ksyrup. I've heard a lot of pitcher who have lost velocity (led by Mussina, who is leading my fantasy team into the toilet). Had never really thought about it until you mentioned it. Looks like I missed a Gammons article so it's time to read it. He's not Rob Neyer or some of the BP guys, but he usually has some interesting stuff if you can get past his attitude.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's a good point, Ksyrup. I've heard a lot of pitcher who have lost velocity (led by Mussina, who is leading my fantasy team into the toilet). Had never really thought about it until you mentioned it. Looks like I missed a Gammons article so it's time to read it. He's not Rob Neyer or some of the BP guys, but he usually has some interesting stuff if you can get past his attitude.

SI

I think he has a new column every Monday, so this one just came out.

[dawgfan]

Speaking of pitchers on steroids, did anyone find Mark Prior's comments a little odd when reporters asked him about allegations he might have used steroids? He said something to the effect of "It's obvious I haven't."

I'm not exactly sure why it's 'obvious' he hasn't; the whole reason it was brought up is that some had claimed his heel injury and his difficulty in re-habbing it was possibly a side-effect of steroid use. I have no idea if this is true or not, and I won't speculate on his case on this basis. But what strikes me is his physical stature - has anyone noticed just how big this guy is? He's got massive calfs and very thick arms; no one will ever accuse him of being skinny or scrawny.

My point being, and I'm not saying he is on steroids by any means, but I don't see why he thinks it's obvious that he isn't on steroids.

[Easy Mac]

Cuz he's Mark furcking Prior. How dare someone insult him.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

the Giants suck this year and won't make the playoffs

Even some of the Giants' own fans were writing them off in the early part of the season. Sure glad I never lost faith.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Even some of the Giants' own fans were writing them off in the early part of the season. Sure glad I never lost faith.

You better pray Alfonso doesn't cool off as he's been carrying your team the past month

[Chubby]

Attention All Giants fans: Ignore Montgomery's testimony

[Vince]

See, this is tough. Illegally obtained, second-hand information. How do you judge this? First of all, it's something that Tim said SOMEONE else said. So that's kind of sketchy. But at the same time, why in the hell would he say something like that? To try to get some of the attention off of him?

Also, how do you judge the fact that the info was leaked, and thus obtained illegally?

I'm not trying to claim that Bonds is innocent, or be a homer or anything (though I will admit that I am a fan of Barry Bonds)...just trying to see how an objective observer would look at things.

[dawgfan]

Exactly Vince - Montgomery is claiming he was told this by the BALCO founder. So what we have is hearsay and impossible to prove. There are 2 levels of potential lies here - Montgomery could be lying, and if he's telling the truth Conte could've been lying to Montgomery. What motivation would Conte have to lie about this? Well, potentially quite a bit of motivation - if he was trying to convince world-class athletes to buy his performance enhancers, why not use Barry Bonds as an example of his work whether it's true or not?

I'll reiterate - I'm not convinced Bonds is clean, but neither am I convinced he's been juiced either. This is circumstantial evidence against Bonds, but it's hardly slam-dunk evidence.

[Huckleberry]

His melonhead is much better evidence. Most adults don't gain 3/8 in hat size after the age of 35.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Exactly Vince - Montgomery is claiming he was told this by the BALCO founder. So what we have is hearsay and impossible to prove. There are 2 levels of potential lies here - Montgomery could be lying, and if he's telling the truth Conte could've been lying to Montgomery. What motivation would Conte have to lie about this? Well, potentially quite a bit of motivation - if he was trying to convince world-class athletes to buy his performance enhancers, why not use Barry Bonds as an example of his work whether it's true or not?

I'll reiterate - I'm not convinced Bonds is clean, but neither am I convinced he's been juiced either. This is circumstantial evidence against Bonds, but it's hardly slam-dunk evidence.

So you are saying he lied to the grand jury??? That wouldn't exactly help his case.

Yes it's sticky that it's his grand jury testimony which is illegal to give to the media however, I would have to assume that the paper triple checked this before reporting it.

Remember, they can't say that's his testimony either.

[rkmsuf]

I swear there are those that even if they had documented evidence would claim it was forged. Conte could produce a list and they'd say he put Bonds on there after the fact.

Bonds could testify that he did use and they come up with some crazy theory of how he was forced into a false confession or something.

I just think it's funny how the supporters are taking it all the way to the end. As the curcumstantial stuff mounts and the hole gets smaller they are prepared to ride this one out. It's very possible there will never be enough proof to chisel it in stone but at some point you have to believe in common sense.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

His melonhead is much better evidence. Most adults don't gain 3/8 in hat size after the age of 35.

I've seen this claim many times, yet never with any evidence cited. Can you point to something that backs this up, or is this an unsubstantiated rumor?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So you are saying he lied to the grand jury??? That wouldn't exactly help his case.

Yes it's sticky that it's his grand jury testimony which is illegal to give to the media however, I would have to assume that the paper triple checked this before reporting it.

Remember, they can't say that's his testimony either.

I think it's doubtful that Montgomery lied - I'm just pointing out that there are 2 layers of potential lies when relying on 2nd-hand testimony.

Of the 2, it's much more possible that Conte may have lied. I'm not saying he did, just pointing out that there would've been credible reasons for him to do so.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think it's doubtful that Montgomery lied - I'm just pointing out that there are 2 layers of potential lies when relying on 2nd-hand testimony.

Of the 2, it's much more possible that Conte may have lied. I'm not saying he did, just pointing out that there would've been credible reasons for him to do so.

It's certainly possible Conte lied about that. We won't know until everything becomes public.

However, with all the other circumstantial evidence it looks more and more like Bonds' is juiced every day.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I swear there are those that even if they had documented evidence would claim it was forged. Conte could produce a list and they'd say he put Bonds on there after the fact.

Bonds could testify that he did use and they come up with some crazy theory of how he was forced into a false confession or something.

I just think it's funny how the supporters are taking it all the way to the end. As the curcumstantial stuff mounts and the hole gets smaller they are prepared to ride this one out. It's very possible there will never be enough proof to chisel it in stone but at some point you have to believe in common sense.

Here's this thing though - all anyone has at this point on Bonds is circumstantial evidence, and all of it can be explained by something other than steroids.

I'm neutral on Bonds - I'm extremely impressed with his baseball achievements, and much of what makes him so great has very little to nothing to do with illegal performance enhancers. I also think that Bonds can be a world-class jerk, so from a personal perspective it's hard to really like him.

What I see is something not far removed from a witch-hunt. As I've said numerous times, it wouldn't surprise me if Bonds has been/is still juiced. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk common sense thing either. The article from a SF newspaper linked here a while back showed compelling evidence that a player Bonds' age can be as built as he is without using illegal performance enhancers.

If/when there is hard evidence of Bonds using illegal performance-enhancers, i.e. urine samples testing positive, then I'll agree that it's a slam-dunk thing. Until then we just don't know either way.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Here's this thing though - all anyone has at this point on Bonds is circumstantial evidence, and all of it can be explained by something other than steroids.

I'm neutral on Bonds - I'm extremely impressed with his baseball achievements, and much of what makes him so great has very little to nothing to do with illegal performance enhancers. I also think that Bonds can be a world-class jerk, so from a personal perspective it's hard to really like him.

What I see is something not far removed from a witch-hunt. As I've said numerous times, it wouldn't surprise me if Bonds has been/is still juiced. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk common sense thing either. The article from a SF newspaper linked here a while back showed compelling evidence that a player Bonds' age can be as built as he is without using illegal performance enhancers.

If/when there is hard evidence of Bonds using illegal performance-enhancers, i.e. urine samples testing positive, then I'll agree that it's a slam-dunk thing. Until then we just don't know either way.

I'll refer you to rkmsuf's post.

The only people who can get at the slam-dunk evidence is the courts right now. To simply say "I think it's a witch-hunt because I don't see any concrete in-stone evidence" is a weak argument when it's impossible for such evidence to come out (or at least near impossible, see the testimony).

[Vince]

So Chubby, you're saying that using circumstantial information to form a concrete opinion on something is a good thing?

[Bad-example]

Good posts, dawgfan. I am glad there are people willing to keep an open mind until there is enough information out there to reach a conclusion.

But it clearly does not matter what you or anyone else writes. Chubby has made his mind up that Bonds is guilty.

[rkmsuf]

It's like the head thing. What documented evidence would you like? They certainly didn't measure and record his head size every year but look at the pictures. What conclusion can you draw? His head is just growing due to increased intake of helium because he's taken a side job as a balloon salesman?

[Huckleberry]

hxxp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/2002/year_in_review/steroids/

The executive is speaking of Bonds. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the reference I read that confirmed.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Vince

So Chubby, you're saying that using circumstantial information to form a concrete opinion on something is a good thing?

I'm saying that's all either side has to go on at this point, no?

I say that it points to a "yes, he did it". I don't think I've seen 1 person say "the circumstantial evidence points to him not doing it", the only defense has been "well there's no hard proof".

I can't go out and measure his head, or make him take a piss in a cup and compare it to previous samples. Neither can anyone else.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. And there's a hell of a lot of smoke around Barry on the 'roids issue.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I swear there are those that even if they had documented evidence would claim it was forged. Conte could produce a list and they'd say he put Bonds on there after the fact.

Bonds could testify that he did use and they come up with some crazy theory of how he was forced into a false confession or something.

I just think it's funny how the supporters are taking it all the way to the end. As the curcumstantial stuff mounts and the hole gets smaller they are prepared to ride this one out. It's very possible there will never be enough proof to chisel it in stone but at some point you have to believe in common sense.

Look, I'm not a diehard Bonds fanatic...if something comes along to show me that he did indeed do Steroids, then yeah, I'll admit it. I personally think there's a very good chance that Bonds did in fact do steroids. However, all we have is circumstatial evidence...nothing has been proven. So even though I might THINK something...that does nothing at all to prove it. And since I like Bonds, I'm going to hold out hope that he DIDN'T do it.

Circumstantial - 1) Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. 2) Of no primary significance; incidental.

[rkmsuf]

The fact that Bonds is a complete jerk (at least publically) does influence opinions on this. We don't know the truth and can only guess at this point based on what's presented.

My opinion is he is on some list and that it will be up to the government to force disclosure of all the athletes. This giving up just the track guys is ridiculous and I'd guess there's no court action until the entire list is presented.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Vince

Look, I'm not a diehard Bonds fanatic...if something comes along to show me that he did indeed do Steroids, then yeah, I'll admit it. I personally think there's a very good chance that Bonds did in fact do steroids. However, all we have is circumstatial evidence...nothing has been proven. So even though I might THINK something...that does nothing at all to prove it. And since I like Bonds, I'm going to hold out hope that he DIDN'T do it.

Circumstantial - 1) Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. 2) Of no primary significance; incidental.

But in light of you thinking there's a very good chance he did and also a very good chance there will never be definative proof how can you look at him with anything but skeptism forever?

[Vince]

Chubby - What I'm saying then, is that you are jumping to a conclusion too quickly. Sure, all we have is circumstantial evidence so far. But you've condemned him already. Forming an opinion about him ("I think Barry Bonds did steroids," as opposed to "Barry Bonds did steroids") is all well and good...but "where there's smoke there's fire" is a condemnation that is telling me you've formed a concrete opinion based upon circumstantial evidence, which I think is wrong.

[Vince]

Dola - looking at him with skepticism and being certain of the fact that he did steroids are two very different things.