Offering $1000.00 for PROOF that Barry Bonds uses Steroids!
Barry Bonds
come to this group and post that Barry is on 'roids. Well now is your
chance to PROVE it and make a grand.
So if you post the PROOF and it is verified, I will send you a
certified check made out to 'cash' via FedEx.
Please provide the proof so we can right a most terrible wrong.
Thank you.
Rico X. Partay
> My offer stands.
What constitutes "proof"?
> ...if you post the PROOF and it is verified...
Verified by whom?
Proof is something determined by a court of law. I presume
what you are looking for is that stuff called "evidence."
There's a good of that out there, as we all know. I presume
you are not a judge, so how shall we turn the evidence into
"proof"?
The Dave©
Many people do confuse "proof" with "evidence". The ironic part is
that for most of the people who righteously demand "proof", no such
thing is attainable, either literally or figuratively. No evidence,
regardless of how concrete or damning, would be deemed sufficient, thus
it's an empty demand or expectation.
--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Barry Bonds wrote:
>> My offer stands.
>
> What constitutes "proof"?
>
>> ...if you post the PROOF and it is verified...
>
> Verified by whom?
>
> Proof is something determined by a court of law. I presume
>what you are looking for is that stuff called "evidence."
>There's a good of that out there
Actually, no. There isn't. He'd have been convicted of something by now
if there was.
--
Greg Lentz
Sam
"Barry Bonds" <barryb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1127761566.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ROFL!!
This is a very interesting way to tackle the troll and "proof" onus - maybe
the REAL Barry Bonds should do something similar? Might shut a few mouths
when peoples so called "evidence" fails.
Rico X. Partay
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:24:48 -0700, "Rico X. Partay"
> <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Barry Bonds wrote:
>>> My offer stands.
>> What constitutes "proof"?
>>> ...if you post the PROOF and it is verified...
>> Verified by whom?
>> Proof is something determined by a court of law. I
>> presume what you are looking for is that stuff called
>> "evidence."
What I meant to type:
>>There's a good [bit] of that out there.
> Actually, no. There isn't. He'd have been
> convicted of something by now if there was.
I guess we disagree about what constitutes "a good bit"
(assuming you saw past my typo, which it looks like you did).
There is often more than enough evidence to go to trial
but not enough to convict. (Cf. Bill Clinton.) I consider that
still a "good bit" of evidence.
As for disallowed substances, some Olympic athletes have
gotten in big trouble without actually testing positive.
Circumstantial evidence -- e.g. testimony by people about
giving drugs to the accused -- has been enough in some cases
for governing sports bodies to do the administrative
equivalent of indicting and convicting.
Is there enough such evidence in Bonds' case? Maybe not.
But just because he hasn't been indicted for something (forget
about conviction), doesn't mean he's not "proven" guilty in
the eyes of many people, and doesn't mean there isn't enough
evidence out there to get him in trouble, either with the
formal legal system or with MLB, Inc. Sometimes it's just that
a prosecutor (or corporate equivalent) used his discretion and
decided his time was better spent elsewhere.
The Dave©
> > > There's a good [bit] of that out there.
>
> > Actually, no. There isn't. He'd have been
> > convicted of something by now if there was.
>
> I guess we disagree about what constitutes "a good bit"
> (assuming you saw past my typo, which it looks like you did).
> There is often more than enough evidence to go to trial
> but not enough to convict. (Cf. Bill Clinton.) I consider that
> still a "good bit" of evidence.
> As for disallowed substances, some Olympic athletes have
> gotten in big trouble without actually testing positive.
> Circumstantial evidence -- e.g. testimony by people about
> giving drugs to the accused -- has been enough in some cases
> for governing sports bodies to do the administrative
> equivalent of indicting and convicting.
> Is there enough such evidence in Bonds' case? Maybe not.
> But just because he hasn't been indicted for something (forget
> about conviction), doesn't mean he's not "proven" guilty in
> the eyes of many people, and doesn't mean there isn't enough
> evidence out there to get him in trouble, either with the
> formal legal system or with MLB, Inc. Sometimes it's just that
> a prosecutor (or corporate equivalent) used his discretion and
> decided his time was better spent elsewhere.
Lack of conviction is probably the worst standard in determining guilt
or innocence.
The Dave©
> Lack of conviction is probably the worst standard in determining guilt
> or innocence.
Although I should add, that IF they do have something, I wish they'd
get on with it. For no other reason than I'm tired of hearing about
it. I'd rather have a fluury of activity and debate and get it over
with than to have it drawn out with no end in sight.
radiomd
wrote:
> > The Dave) wrote:
> > Lack of conviction is probably the worst standard in determining guilt
> > or innocence.
>
> Although I should add, that IF they do have something, I wish they'd
> get on with it. For no other reason than I'm tired of hearing about
> it. I'd rather have a fluury of activity and debate and get it over
> with than to have it drawn out with no end in sight.
If by "they" you mean the Justice Department et al, they're already
done. And the MLB is done; they have nothing on which to act. Unless and
until new evidence comes to light or new allegations of treason against
baseball arise, it's a dead case.
But at the same time it's a live issue. People are upset, confused, and
motivated to churn it over repeatedly, often without the grounding of
knowledge or the benefit of insight, but also without the responsibility
to uphold the tenets of justice, not being sworn officers of the court.
So I think you have a good bit of flurrying left to weather. I can
certainly back off on this issue if I'm boring you painfully, but I
can't speak for others. I'm sure we'll be right back in the same place
once next season starts and Bonds has two legs to stand on at home plate
again, and he approaches and overtakes the Babe.
The Dave©
> In article <pud_e.23909$522....@fe13.lga>, "The Dave)" <n...@no.com>
Yes, "they" was a deference to the Justice Dept. I knew the Grand Jury
was no longer around, but I was under the impression that "they" still
might take what they had learned and still might press charges, or
whatever. I don't remember any definitive "we will take no further
action" or "we have found nothing wrong" type statements.
radiomd
No charges have been brought against Bonds, so of course he can't be
acquitted. That kind of official closure is unavailable for him, and
officials tend to prefer to keep their options open anyway.
A perjury charge is possible if the government thinks it can demonstrate
he offered intentionally misleading testimony in matter that was
material to the BALCO proceeding. However, it seems unlikely that the
government will be interested in making such a charge now that the
defendants in that case have all pleaded guilty.
Out of the IRS's investigation the possibility has been raised of
charges of tax evasion on undeclared income from the "sale of
autographed baseballs and other memorabilia", but that appears to be an
unrelated matter. It looks appealing to folks who would approve of
Bonds' condemnation by any available means, but I don't think most
people have his taxes in mind when they decry him as a cheater.
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Greg Lentz wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:24:48 -0700, "Rico X. Partay"
>> <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Barry Bonds wrote:
>>>> My offer stands.
>>> What constitutes "proof"?
>>>> ...if you post the PROOF and it is verified...
>>> Verified by whom?
>>> Proof is something determined by a court of law. I
>>> presume what you are looking for is that stuff called
>>> "evidence."
>
> What I meant to type:
>
>>>There's a good [bit] of that out there.
>
>
>> Actually, no. There isn't. He'd have been
>> convicted of something by now if there was.
>
>
> I guess we disagree about what constitutes "a good bit"
>(assuming you saw past my typo, which it looks like you did).
> There is often more than enough evidence to go to trial
>but not enough to convict. (Cf. Bill Clinton.) I consider that
>still a "good bit" of evidence.
And yet, you haven't provided any here, further backing up my statement.
There is no evidence.
--
Greg Lentz
Rico X. Partay
> "Rico X. Partay" wrote:
>> There is often more than enough evidence to
>> go to trial
>> but not enough to convict. (Cf. Bill Clinton.) I
>> consider that still a "good bit" of evidence.
> And yet, you haven't provided any here,...
This sounds like the typical, silly, netnews approach of,
"Do my homework for me because I have never read a newspaper
in my life."
> ...further backing up my statement.
Nope.
> There is no evidence.
Still wrong.
Jamal Bernhard
>>>There is often more than enough evidence to go to trial
>>>but not enough to convict. (Cf. Bill Clinton.) I
>>>consider that still a "good bit" of evidence.
>
>>And yet, you haven't provided any here,...
>
> This sounds like the typical, silly, netnews approach of,
> "Do my homework for me because I have never read a newspaper
> in my life."
And this sounds like the typical, silly, netnews approach of, "I can't
really provide the evidence asked for, so I'll continue to act as if
it's so blantantly obvious that any idiot can see it, in the hopes that
people will actually believe such evidence exists before I'm exposed as
the liar that I am."
Rico X. Partay
> < non sequitur >
If you are saying that you are aware of the evidence that
Bonds used steroids then you are so grossly ignorant it is
hard to believe that you know how to sit up and type.
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Greg Lentz wrote:
>> "Rico X. Partay" wrote:
>>> There is often more than enough evidence to
>>> go to trial
>>> but not enough to convict. (Cf. Bill Clinton.) I
>>> consider that still a "good bit" of evidence.
>
>> And yet, you haven't provided any here,...
>
> This sounds like the typical, silly, netnews approach of,
>"Do my homework for me because I have never read a newspaper
>in my life."
This sounds like the typical "throw out an insult because a Livan
Hernandez sized hole has been punched in my point."
>> There is no evidence.
>
> Still wrong.
Too bad you can't provide any.
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
wrote:
Oh it's too late for that. He's already exposed like Pee Wee Herman.
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Jamal Bernhard wrote:
Yep. I'd say you just described yourself perfectly. Kudos about the
typing though.
--
Greg Lentz
Rico X. Partay
>> If you are saying that you are aware of the evidence
>> that Bonds used steroids then you are so grossly
>> ignorant it is hard to believe that you know how to sit
>> up and type.
Obviously that should read "UNaware."
Jamal Bernhard
> Jamal Bernhard wrote:
>
>>And this sounds like the typical, silly, netnews approach of, "I can't
>>really provide the evidence asked for, so I'll continue to act as if
>>it's so blantantly obvious that any idiot can see it, in the hopes
>>that people will actually believe such evidence exists before I'm
>>exposed as the liar that I am."
>
>
LOL....You call it a non sequitur (do you even know what that means?),
and then you continue to do the exact same thing I describe:
"The evidence is so obvious you must be an idiot not to see it, so I'm
not even going to bother explaining it to you."
Translation:
"I have no evidence, so I'll cover it up by trying to make you look like
an idiot."
You've just done it several times in a row. And, I'm sure you'll reply
to this and do it again.....pathetic.
Makes for good entertainment on my part, though, so keep it up!
Barry Bonds
Look its obvious there is NO Proof ... that is why I started this
stupid thread as a foil to show that even though many suspect, and are
99.999999999% sure of cheating, until Barry Lamar Bonds actually says
he cheated, or is proven to have cheated, he is ...
THE GREATEST BASEBALL PLAYER TO HAVE PLAYED IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES
Well almost, he needs to hit 715, then 756 and throw out a few more
runners at home plate ... then it will be complete :)
See I don't care how many charts, stats, or baseball mojos you post or
Sports Center airs, or someone lists on a baseball blog, until Barry
Bonds is proven or admits to cheating, he is the GREATEST baseball
player to have every lived. And if he has some, mystical unprovable
way of cheating, then the other players of the league need to learn
from Barry or be better ball players.
Now with this generation, "Gen-X" and backward, he will NEVER receive
the praise and honor he deserves. Wait another 20-30 years for the
kids to grow up, and Barry will be a legend. His bubble gum cards and
bobble heads of today, will be worth hundreds of dollars. As the
anti-Barry haters retire and die off, the new blood will be unclouded
and see clearly. They will understand what it took to do the things
Barry did , season after season, year after year ... and they will
honor the man with open arms, open hearts, and open minds ... Barry
understands this ... and that is why we will see 708
launched from Petco Park tonight ... you see when you are the greatest,
there is no being anything else ... and that is part of the reason he
is hated so ... success really is a double edge sword.
Jamal Bernhard
> Look its obvious there is NO Proof ... that is why I started this
> stupid thread as a foil to show that even though many suspect, and are
> 99.999999999% sure of cheating, until Barry Lamar Bonds actually says
> he cheated, or is proven to have cheated, he is ...
>
> THE GREATEST BASEBALL PLAYER TO HAVE PLAYED IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES
With Giambi not on the juice this year and still hitting 31 HRs, and
Barry still putting up numbers even though he has tested negative the
last two years, the question of how much steroids will actually boost
your stats is still a big issue as well. Sammy has obviously fallen off
the map, but even if it shown that Barry took steroids for some period
of time it will never be known exactly what effect that had on his
stats. He has personally showed me the last 2 years that it was probably
not a huge impact.
thisplanetsux
"Barry Bonds" <barryb...@excite.com> wrote:
If anyone wants to ponder the actual circumstantial evidence of
performance enhancement, here's a decent site that's been around for
years that you might find interesting:
Jamal Bernhard
I'd hardly call this site "decent". His "circumstantial" evidence
basically boils down to, "Bonds is doing what no one has done before.
Therefore, he must be doing it illegally." There is no evidence given
other than the numbers that Barry has put up, and he claims that the
numbers themselves are evidence. Then, after all that, he says:
"there are people who believe Bonds is simply an all-natural freak of
nature. Just like there are people who believe that the Russians won
the 1972 Olympic gold in basketball legitimately, that Lee Harvey Oswald
acted alone, that Richard Nixon was not involved in Watergate, that
Ronald Reagan never colored his hair (or didn't lose mental function
until after he left office), that Bill Clinton didn't inhale and/or that
smoking cigarettes is not bad for your health. However, there is a
substantial amount of evidence to the contrary to these positions and
very little evidence to support them. It is almost certain that Bonds
uses performance enhancing drugs and they're probably far more potent
than creatine."
Hmmmm, where is his "substantial amound of evidence to the contrary"? I
certainly didn't see it.
Greg Lentz
<thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 26 Sep 2005 12:06:06 -0700
>"Barry Bonds" <barryb...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> My offer stands. There seems to be alot of "in-the-know" people who
>> come to this group and post that Barry is on 'roids. Well now is your
>> chance to PROVE it and make a grand.
>>
>> So if you post the PROOF and it is verified, I will send you a
>> certified check made out to 'cash' via FedEx.
>>
>> Please provide the proof so we can right a most terrible wrong.
>
>If anyone wants to ponder the actual circumstantial evidence
Clearly, we're struggling with the meaning of the word evidence.
--
Greg Lentz
thisplanetsux
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I'd hardly call this site "decent". His "circumstantial" evidence
> basically boils down to, "Bonds is doing what no one has done before.
> Therefore, he must be doing it illegally." There is no evidence given
> other than the numbers that Barry has put up, and he claims that the
> numbers themselves are evidence.
Numbers are always evidence. Of something. If you buy a Hummer with
cash, it's evidence. Of something. Circumstantial evidence only needs
to support a "reasonable inference". Of something. The numbers
presented support a "reasonable inference" that Bonds became _much_ more
physically strong around 2000 than any prior time in his life. If not
performance enhancing drugs, what? How?
> Hmmmm, where is his "substantial amound of evidence to the contrary"?
> I certainly didn't see it.
Well, I thought it was pretty well spelled out, but let me summarize:
for 14 big league seasons, Barry Bonds was NOT a freak of nature
blasting 460 foot bombs every week or two. In fact he never hit one
ball that far that we know of. In 14 seasons. That is a substantial
body of evidence to weigh in against the, "Bonds is simply an
all-natural freak of nature..." explanation for what he's done since
2000. Again the real question being addressed is how he became so much
more physically strong around 2000. The numbers show he's not been
making more contact, or hitting the ball in the air more (ruling out
better vision or technique), it's just been going _much_ farther than it
ever did before. If not performance enhancing drugs, what? How?
Mike Schilling
"Greg Lentz" <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:p56mj1du38ojstqsi...@4ax.com...
Does anyone recall the Andy van Slyke quote? It was something like "I have
documented evidence that Bonds is on sterods". The d.e. turned out to be
"Just look at him!".
Jamal Bernhard
>>I'd hardly call this site "decent". His "circumstantial" evidence
>>basically boils down to, "Bonds is doing what no one has done before.
>>Therefore, he must be doing it illegally." There is no evidence given
>>other than the numbers that Barry has put up, and he claims that the
>>numbers themselves are evidence.
>
> Numbers are always evidence. Of something. If you buy a Hummer with
> cash, it's evidence. Of something. Circumstantial evidence only needs
> to support a "reasonable inference". Of something. The numbers
> presented support a "reasonable inference" that Bonds became _much_ more
> physically strong around 2000 than any prior time in his life. If not
> performance enhancing drugs, what? How?
You must be kidding. You can't think of any other explanation?
I have no problem inferring that Bonds has become much stronger. But his
*only* evidence for Bonds using illegal substances is that he got
stronger. This is one piece of circumstantial evidence. In order for
circumstantial evidence to convince me that something is "almost
certain" (his words), there better be more than one piece of it.
There are lots of things that could account for Bonds getting stronger.
When did Bonds start lifting weights (and how has his workout changed)?
When did he change his nutritional habits? What did his workout regimen
(including off-season) look like in 1990 compared to 1998? What about
other non-illegal stubstances like creatin? What about him just being a
freak?
I'm not saying he did or he didn't. I'm just saying that the sole fact
that he has gotten stronger in his 30's while others haven't is not
nearly enough to convince me on it's own. Jerry Rice was a freak too,
and everyone was quick to praise his work ethic. But no one does that
with Barry, because they dislike him and want to believe he's guilty.
thisplanetsux
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Jerry Rice was a freak too,
> and everyone was quick to praise his work ethic. But no one does that
> with Barry, because they dislike him and want to believe he's guilty.
Actually Bonds was rather famous for his work ethic, his weight
training, and his strict adherence to diet and good health. His whole
career. People cited those things ad nasuseum back in the late 80s and
throughout the 90s as contributing factors (along with talent) to his
great sustained performance during that time period. That's the essence
of the argument. Did Jerry Rice get stronger, faster or any way
physically _better_ than ever before _after_ age 35? No. Work ethic
didn't help Jerry Rice do that. Bonds stands alone in all of sports
history, and some other explanation needs to be found.
Jamal Bernhard
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:52:21 GMT
> Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Rice was a freak too,
>>and everyone was quick to praise his work ethic. But no one does that
>>with Barry, because they dislike him and want to believe he's guilty.
>
>
> Actually Bonds was rather famous for his work ethic, his weight
> training, and his strict adherence to diet and good health. His whole
> career.
I seem to remember Bonds saying in an interview several years ago
something to the effect that he didn't weight train AT ALL early in his
career.
> People cited those things ad nasuseum back in the late 80s and
> throughout the 90s as contributing factors (along with talent) to his
> great sustained performance during that time period. That's the essence
> of the argument. Did Jerry Rice get stronger, faster or any way
> physically _better_ than ever before _after_ age 35? No. Work ethic
> didn't help Jerry Rice do that. Bonds stands alone in all of sports
> history, and some other explanation needs to be found.
My point is that without any of the details relating to his weight
training, diet, etc. over the course of his career, we have no way to
infer how much effect any changes in these factors might have had. If
you have references from the 80's or early 90's that relate to all of
this, I'd like to see them. While he may have had "good work ethic" at
the beginning of his career, I'm sure his training regimen has changed,
and I'd like to know how. For example, I doubt he was taking creatin at
the start of his career, and we know for a fact that several legal
stubstances like creatin can have a significant impact on strength.
And how do you explain the fact that he has tested negative the last two
years, and yet still continues to be a freak and put up numbers? No,
they are not the same numbers he put up when he hit 73 home runs, but
they are still better than they were when he was younger. How do you
explain that?
thisplanetsux
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> thisplanetsux wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:52:21 GMT
> > Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jerry Rice was a freak too,
> >>and everyone was quick to praise his work ethic. But no one does
> >that >with Barry, because they dislike him and want to believe he's
> >guilty.
> >
> >
> > Actually Bonds was rather famous for his work ethic, his weight
> > training, and his strict adherence to diet and good health. His
> > whole career.
>
> I seem to remember Bonds saying in an interview several years ago
> something to the effect that he didn't weight train AT ALL early in
> his career.
>
>
> > People cited those things ad nasuseum back in the late 80s and
> > throughout the 90s as contributing factors (along with talent) to
> > his great sustained performance during that time period. That's the
> > essence of the argument. Did Jerry Rice get stronger, faster or any
> > way physically _better_ than ever before _after_ age 35? No. Work
> > ethic didn't help Jerry Rice do that. Bonds stands alone in all of
> > sports history, and some other explanation needs to be found.
>
> My point is that without any of the details relating to his weight
> training, diet, etc. over the course of his career, we have no way to
> infer how much effect any changes in these factors might have had.
Again, this was all covered in straightforward fashion by the article
you've already dismissed (not to mention being intuitively obvious to
anyone who thinks about it for more than 10 seconds). There is no amount
of increased physical strength to be added by a finely tuned athlete (as
Bonds clearly was from the day he first stood into a big league batter's
box) by known safe/legal means that will account for the substantial
amount of additional force needed to graduate from driving balls
occasionally 400 feet to driving them routinely 480 feet. It's nearly
TWICE the energy required. Shot putters, long jumpers, basketball
players, boxers, offensive linemen... doesn't matter who... none of
them, no matter how much extra work or nutritional rigor they adhere to
become TWICE as strong in their late 30s!
> For example, I doubt he was taking
> creatin at the start of his career, and we know for a fact that
> several legal stubstances like creatin can have a significant impact
> on strength.
Well we know for a fact that McGwire began taking creatine (plus the
now banned agro) in 1998, and had results. The thing is, the strength
increase for him was not all that significant, as he'd always been
hitting moonshots, and hitting 40+ homers right from his rookie season.
Bonds leap-frogged over him in both distance and number of homers,
after years of not being in the same class as far as power goes. Again,
lots of aging athletes have tried creatine and had positive results.
It's the 'too good to be true' nature of Bonds' improvement that is the
smoking gun. If one other athlete could show the kind of extreme
improvement over his career numbers after age 35 (eg. from Gerald
Williams to Ted Williams) by merely working harder, eating better, and
using legal nutritional supplements like creatine, we wouldn't be having
this debate. That article wouldn't have been written.
> And how do you explain the fact that he has tested negative the last
> two years, and yet still continues to be a freak and put up numbers?
> No, they are not the same numbers he put up when he hit 73 home runs,
> but they are still better than they were when he was younger. How do
> you explain that?
MLB is not even testing for Human Growth Hormone. It requires a blood
test, not a urine sample.
elaich
news:20050928221859.4c6...@yahoo.com:
> There is no amount
> of increased physical strength to be added by a finely tuned athlete (as
> Bonds clearly was from the day he first stood into a big league batter's
> box) by known safe/legal means that will account for the substantial
> amount of additional force needed to graduate from driving balls
> occasionally 400 feet to driving them routinely 480 feet.
Bonds had 500 home runs before supplements were even discussed. Put that in
your pipe, smoke it, and go back to your hole, troll.
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's the 'too good to be true' nature of Bonds' improvement that is the
> smoking gun.
But the problem is not nearly as simple as you're stating it. Many
variables contribute to the distance of a baseball put in flight by the
swing of the bat. The force applied by the bat as swung by the batter is
just one of them. The angle of trajectory matters, the spin of the ball
in flight matters, the elasticity of the ball matters, and the
conditions of the air matter. And because you're talking about frequency
of an specific event, it also matters how frequently you're served
pitches that are susceptible of being driven in a specific way. But
instead of examining all these factors, you've assumed that all but one
have been roughly the same for the entire length of Bonds' career,
allowing you to claim that the remaining factor must be responsible. A
logical fallacy, no?
In fact we know his groundball to flyball ratio dropped lower and lower
over the years leading up to 2001 -- a table was posted recently in the
"Bonds is for real" thread together with the correlation coefficient
between this and his AB/HR ratio, which was high -- and so something
other than just the "force" with which he was hitting the ball was
changing. Something else about the way he was hitting it was too.
Also, you're assuming that his acquisition of new strength corresponds
closely with his improved results. But this is not the case -- he became
massive before the 1999 season, and he didn't start hitting like the Roy
Hobbs until two years later.
In 2001, in the midst of the 73 home run season, the GM of the Padres
Kevin Towers said:
"[Bonds is] hitting more home runs than he did five and six
years ago because the pitching isn't as good and parks are
smaller. What he's doing is very real and very special."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/63f79579
7d50e045?hl=en&
I'm not suggesting that Towers is still as certain of that statement now
as he sounded back then; what I am saying is that the Padres GM tells us
we have to consider that league-wide the pitching wasn't as good and the
conditions of play were no longer the same. So let's consider those
factors before we make our conclusions.
elaich
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
> "[Bonds is] hitting more home runs than he did five and six
> years ago because the pitching isn't as good and parks are
> smaller. What he's doing is very real and very special."
Has anybody considered the impact of the maple bat?
James Farrar
<thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, I thought it was pretty well spelled out, but let me summarize:
>for 14 big league seasons, Barry Bonds was NOT a freak of nature
>blasting 460 foot bombs every week or two. In fact he never hit one
>ball that far that we know of. In 14 seasons. That is a substantial
>body of evidence to weigh in against the, "Bonds is simply an
>all-natural freak of nature..." explanation for what he's done since
>2000. Again the real question being addressed is how he became so much
>more physically strong around 2000. The numbers show he's not been
>making more contact, or hitting the ball in the air more
Wrong. Except for 2004 (and 200+ walks is going to have an effect),
the years since 1998 have seen Bonds hit significantly more fly balls
than years before 1998.
Year G/F
1987 1.13
1988 0.85
1989 1.03
1990 0.83
1991 0.87
1992 0.74
1993 0.75
1994 0.72
1995 0.72
1996 0.71
1997 0.76
1998 0.63
1999 0.62
2000 0.57
2001 0.56
2002 0.65
2003 0.65
2004 0.75
What Bonds did was realise his speed game wasn't going to hold up as
he aged, so he focused on his power game.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
James Farrar
<thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>from driving balls
>occasionally 400 feet to driving them routinely 480 feet
Neither half of that is accurate.
Try "routinely 400 feet to occasionally 480 feet".
A Jaunty One
"thisplanetsux" <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Well we know for a fact that McGwire began taking creatine (plus the
> now banned agro) in 1998, and had results. The thing is, the strength
> increase for him was not all that significant, as he'd always been
> hitting moonshots, and hitting 40+ homers right from his rookie
season.
Has it escaped you that Canseco said he was shooting steroids up
McGwire's butt (and a number of other A's) in the late 80's?
A Jaunty One
"Jamal Bernhard" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>
> I seem to remember Bonds saying in an interview several years ago
> something to the effect that he didn't weight train AT ALL early in
his
> career.
It would not surprise me that early in his career he didn't have much
interests in getting big. I'd think his goal was to be a 5-tool player
instead of a one-dimensional HR hitter. After all, his god father was
Willie Mays, the ultimate 5-tool player. Mays was always considered a
better player than Aaron was even though Aaron had more HRs. It
wouldn't be a stretch at all to think that Bonds used to believe a
5-tool player is more important than being a HR hitter.
There were theories thrown around that after 1998 when Bonds saw all the
fuss created by McGwire and Sosa's HR chase to "save baseball", which
also coincided with Bonds starting to lose a lot of his speed, that he
decided to bulk up.
thisplanetsux
James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:19:23 -0700, thisplanetsux
> <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Well, I thought it was pretty well spelled out, but let me summarize:
> >for 14 big league seasons, Barry Bonds was NOT a freak of nature
> >blasting 460 foot bombs every week or two. In fact he never hit one
> >ball that far that we know of. In 14 seasons. That is a substantial
> >body of evidence to weigh in against the, "Bonds is simply an
> >all-natural freak of nature..." explanation for what he's done since
> >2000. Again the real question being addressed is how he became so
> >much more physically strong around 2000. The numbers show he's not
> >been making more contact, or hitting the ball in the air more
>
> Wrong. Except for 2004 (and 200+ walks is going to have an effect),
> the years since 1998 have seen Bonds hit significantly more fly balls
> than years before 1998.
Sorry, let me point out that it was not the author of the article I
referenced who made that mistake. It was me trying to simplify his
arguments who misspoke that (and I'm sure I've made other mistakes, this
isn't my original research, I hope you've read the entire article
mentioned).
The point he attempts to make is that there is no great overall
correspondence between the G/F numbers and the homer/SLG numbers. Yeah,
more fly balls in 1998, but also one of the lowest HR/AB rates in Bonds'
career that same season. The next season a similar flyball rate, and
also more homers per at bat, but only about equal to his prior career
best in HR/AB. Then, another increase in flyball rate, plus 'boom',
enormous HR/AB increase. And suddenly in 2002, the flyball rate is down
to it's lowest rate in 5 seasons, yet still a massive HR/AB rate without
the 2001-vintage high flyball rate...? Same thing in '03, and then '04
with his old-school .75 flyball rate back in vogue, he's still hitting
the ball out at a 66 home runs per 550 at bat rate??? The point of all
that is to simply say that hitting technique for lofting the ball as an
explanation for the power increase falls short. At times in his career
Bonds had very high HR/AB with lower flyball rate, and very low HR/AB
with high flyball rate...
Rico X. Partay
> If anyone wants to ponder the actual circumstantial
> evidence of performance enhancement...
You're wasting your time. The response here to anything
you say, no matter how clear it is, will be, "Oh yeah? Where's
your proof? See! You can't prove it! I told you so!"
thisplanetsux
Not at all. I'm fairly certain that, just like Bonds, creatine had
little or nothing to do with his home run hitting prowess.
thisplanetsux
radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that Towers is still as certain of that statement
> now as he sounded back then; what I am saying is that the Padres GM
> tells us we have to consider that league-wide the pitching wasn't as
> good and the conditions of play were no longer the same. So let's
> consider those factors before we make our conclusions.
You know, I was with Towers on this at the time. I was a huge Bonds
fan. It's only been from watching the guy play over the years that I've
become convinced he cheated. The article I linked to lays out with
certain numbers what a lot of people, myself included, merely deduced
from visual inspection. He's an older player and should not be so
vastly _superior_ to the steady/aging veteran we watched throughout the
90s. It defies reason.
Jamal Bernhard
>>>Actually Bonds was rather famous for his work ethic, his weight
>>>training, and his strict adherence to diet and good health. His
>>>whole career.
>>
>>I seem to remember Bonds saying in an interview several years ago
>>something to the effect that he didn't weight train AT ALL early in
>>his career.
No response to this?
>>>People cited those things ad nasuseum back in the late 80s and
>>>throughout the 90s as contributing factors (along with talent) to
>>>his great sustained performance during that time period. That's the
>>>essence of the argument. Did Jerry Rice get stronger, faster or any
>>>way physically _better_ than ever before _after_ age 35? No. Work
>>>ethic didn't help Jerry Rice do that. Bonds stands alone in all of
>>>sports history, and some other explanation needs to be found.
>>
>>My point is that without any of the details relating to his weight
>>training, diet, etc. over the course of his career, we have no way to
>>infer how much effect any changes in these factors might have had.
>
> Again, this was all covered in straightforward fashion by the article
> you've already dismissed (not to mention being intuitively obvious to
> anyone who thinks about it for more than 10 seconds).
I've thought about it for a lot longer than that, and it's not obvious
at all to me.
> There is no amount
> of increased physical strength to be added by a finely tuned athlete (as
> Bonds clearly was from the day he first stood into a big league batter's
> box) by known safe/legal means that will account for the substantial
> amount of additional force needed to graduate from driving balls
> occasionally 400 feet to driving them routinely 480 feet.
You're simply exaggerating here. Bonds never "routinely" drove balls 480
feet. He probably hit only 3 or 4 balls that far when he hit 73 homers.
480 feet is quite a shot. I just can't see how you can make this claim
without knowning the details of his workout regimen. How can you
possibly say that increased strength training plus legal substances like
creatin can't have that impact? Some people respond very well to weight
training. If he did not weight train early in his career, then it
doesn't matter how much of a "finely tuned athlete" he was -- strength
training could still have had a big impact.
I'm 35, and I didn't weight train until 2 years ago. In that time I have
put on a lot of body mass and gotten a lot stronger. Sure I wasn't a
"finely tuned athlete" before that, but still I have a much different
body type with the weight training than without. And I don't even take
creatin or other legal "nutritional" supplements.
> It's nearly TWICE the energy required.
Bullshit
>>For example, I doubt he was taking
>>creatin at the start of his career, and we know for a fact that
>>several legal stubstances like creatin can have a significant impact
>>on strength.
>
>
> Well we know for a fact that McGwire began taking creatine (plus the
> now banned agro) in 1998, and had results. The thing is, the strength
> increase for him was not all that significant, as he'd always been
> hitting moonshots, and hitting 40+ homers right from his rookie season.
> Bonds leap-frogged over him in both distance and number of homers,
> after years of not being in the same class as far as power goes. Again,
> lots of aging athletes have tried creatine and had positive results.
> It's the 'too good to be true' nature of Bonds' improvement that is the
> smoking gun.
No, it's circumstantial evidence. A smoking gun would be finding it in
his system. And without more circumstantial evidence than, "No one else
has had this kind of improvement," you will not convince me.
By the way, I assume you believe Lance Armstrong is also on the juice?
The "smoking gun" is that he's done something no one else has.
thisplanetsux
elaich <a@b.c> wrote:
Not really. He was at 445 entering the 2000 season when the murmors
began. He's hit 263 home runs since then. Don't put that in your pipe,
it's a lethal dose!
Jamal Bernhard
> In article <20050928221859.4c6...@yahoo.com>,
> thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's the 'too good to be true' nature of Bonds' improvement that is the
>>smoking gun.
>
>
> But the problem is not nearly as simple as you're stating it. Many
> variables contribute to the distance of a baseball put in flight by the
> swing of the bat. The force applied by the bat as swung by the batter is
> just one of them. The angle of trajectory matters, the spin of the ball
> in flight matters, the elasticity of the ball matters, and the
> conditions of the air matter. And because you're talking about frequency
> of an specific event, it also matters how frequently you're served
> pitches that are susceptible of being driven in a specific way. But
> instead of examining all these factors, you've assumed that all but one
> have been roughly the same for the entire length of Bonds' career,
> allowing you to claim that the remaining factor must be responsible. A
> logical fallacy, no?
One other point: There are two thing from the batter's perspective that
affect this: strength and bat speed. They are not the same thing. If you
have greater strength then you will impart more force into the ball when
making contact at the same bat speed than someone else who is not as
strong. Does anyone know how Bonds' bat speed compares now versus
earlier in his career? That may play a role, too, and there are a lot of
workouts and exercises you can do to focus just on increasing quickness
(i.e., bat speed).
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Exactly. It defies reason. It lies outside our experience. We have no
analog, no precedent.
So in the face of a historical anomaly you're willing to settle for a
back-of-the-envelope oversimplification and label it as "certain"? Not
me. It's not convincing. I'll quote your source:
According to Yale University Physicis Professor Robert Adair
in "the Physics of Baseball", in order to hit a ball 400 feet
under ordinary weather conditions, with optimal trajectory
and spin, a hitter's bat speed must be 76 mph (for a pitched
ball travelling at 85 mph, major league average). To hit the
same pitch 450 feet, his bat speed must be 86 mph, a 13%
increase in speed, requiring 28% more energy to accomplish.
To hit that same pitch 480 feet, the bat speed would have to
be 92 mph, requiring almost 30% more energy than the 450 foot
blow. So the question then is can an athlete already in peak
condition increase his power that much just by altering his
workout and nutrition?
Optimal trajectory and spin. The same pitch. Do you see the fallacy?
Hitting a baseball is hard; small changes in various factors result in
large changes in results. A popup to short right instead of a 410 foot
bomb. A foul back straight back instead of a line drive to right center.
Too quick: a loud foul. Not to mention the variance of the ability and
tendencies of the pitchers faced. And yet your author thinks he's on
comfortable footing treating all this as a simple machine with a single
knob on it -- everything else is repeatable, the only variable is
strength expressable by bat speed.
That falls short of an honest analysis. It ignores the overall frequency
of home runs and the frequency of long home runs throughout the league.
It ignores the changed conditions under which the changed results were
achieved. It ignores the ever-present noise of statistical variance. It
makes no effort to compare the unusual curve of Bonds' careers against
those of other players who have performed well in their late 30s. It
ignores the tendency of power hitters to maintain or even improve their
home run frequency long after other skills have begun to decline.
What it amounts to, frankly, is mythmaking.
Greg Lentz
wrote:
That's cause neither one of you can prove anything. Sucks to be you.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thisplanetsux
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> No, it's circumstantial evidence. A smoking gun would be finding it in
> his system. And without more circumstantial evidence than, "No one
> else has had this kind of improvement," you will not convince me.
> By the way, I assume you believe Lance Armstrong is also on the juice?
> The "smoking gun" is that he's done something no one else has.
No. If in his late 30s, Lance Armstrong started winning the Tour de
France by much wider margins than he ever did before, I'd be suspicious.
Which is not to say I don't believe he juiced, I simply have no
knowledge of cycling or his background, and no real opinion at this
point. I do know what it's like to be over 35 though, and unable to do
all the things I used to do.
You see, it's not only what Bonds has done vs. what everyone else has
done--period. It's also what he's done vs. what Barry Bonds himself has
done--in his prime years. From both angles, he strains credulity.
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You see, it's not only what Bonds has done vs. what everyone else has
> done--period. It's also what he's done vs. what Barry Bonds himself has
> done--in his prime years. From both angles, he strains credulity.
Have you got any data on that? I have.
Bonds AB/HR League AB/HR Bonds HR frequency / NL's
1986 25.8 43.2 1.67
1987 22.0 36.3 1.65
1988 22.4 51.3 2.29
1989 30.5 48.2 1.58
1990 15.7 43.4 2.76
1991 20.4 45.7 2.24
1992 13.9 52.1 3.75
1993 11.7 39.6 3.38
1994 10.6 35.9 3.39
1995 15.3 36.0 2.35
1996 12.3 35.0 2.85
1997 13.3 35.7 2.68
1998 14.9 34.6 2.32
1999 10.4 30.8 2.96
2000 9.8 29.5 3.01
2001 6.5 29.8 4.58
2002 8.8 33.8 3.84
2003 8.7 32.7 3.76
2004 8.3 31.1 3.75
You see a smoking gun there? How about here --
Aaron AB/HR League AB/HR Aaron HR freq / league's
1954 36.0 37.7 1.05
1955 22.3 33.1 1.48
1956 23.4 34.4 1.47
1957 13.9 36.5 2.63
1958 22.3 35.6 1.60
1959 16.1 36.5 2.27
1960 14.8 40.5 2.74
1961 17.7 35.2 1.99
1962 13.2 38.3 2.90
1963 14.3 45.0 3.15
1964 23.8 45.7 1.92
1965 17.8 42.0 2.36
1966 13.7 40.2 2.93
1967 15.4 50.0 3.25
1968 20.9 61.7 2.95
1969 12.4 44.6 3.60
1970 13.6 39.5 2.90
1971 10.5 47.8 4.55
1972 13.2 46.5 3.52
1973 9.8 42.6 4.35
1974 17.0 51.8 3.05
1975 38.8 44.6 1.15
1976 27.1 58.5 2.16
thisplanetsux
radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
> In article <20050929092101.496...@yahoo.com>,
> thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:25:03 GMT
> > radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not suggesting that Towers is still as certain of that
> > > statement now as he sounded back then; what I am saying is that
> > > the Padres GM tells us we have to consider that league-wide the
> > > pitching wasn't as good and the conditions of play were no longer
> > > the same. So let's consider those factors before we make our
> > > conclusions.
> >
> > You know, I was with Towers on this at the time. I was a huge Bonds
> > fan. It's only been from watching the guy play over the years that
> > I've become convinced he cheated. The article I linked to lays out
> > with certain numbers what a lot of people, myself included, merely
> > deduced from visual inspection. He's an older player and should not
> > be so vastly _superior_ to the steady/aging veteran we watched
> > throughout the 90s. It defies reason.
>
> Exactly. It defies reason. It lies outside our experience. We have no
> analog, no precedent. So in the face of a historical anomaly you're
> willing to settle for a back-of-the-envelope oversimplification and
> label it as "certain"? Not me. It's not convincing.
Let me clarify: There are no safe/legal means by which we would expect
to see this transformation. We do have plenty of PROOF that dangerous,
banned substances can be used to assault sports record books (East
German lady swimmers, Ben Johnson, Canseco, Palmeiro, etc.). So,
there is precedent for athletes overcoming nature to perform at
extraordinary levels, lots of it, but none of that is good news for
Barry's supporters. It's the "hard work, clean living, veteran
adaptation" argument for his upswing in performance so late in life that
defies reason. Chemical enhancement by a freak player in a sport that
did not have any testing, is not an unreasonable suspicion.
To me the duck is waddling and quacking. Insisting we do an autopsy and
take DNA samples before declaring it a duck seems more an act of
desperation than reason.
thisplanetsux
radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
> In article <20050929102710.1e6...@yahoo.com>,
> thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You see, it's not only what Bonds has done vs. what everyone else
> > has done--period. It's also what he's done vs. what Barry Bonds
> > himself has done--in his prime years. From both angles, he strains
> > credulity.
>
> Have you got any data on that? I have.
>
> Bonds AB/HR League AB/HR Bonds HR frequency / NL's
> 2001 6.5 29.8 4.58
> 2002 8.8 33.8 3.84
> 2003 8.7 32.7 3.76
> 2004 8.3 31.1 3.75
These are his 4 best ever years, while playing in what is arguably the
most difficult home run park in the major leagues.
>
> You see a smoking gun there? How about here --
>
> Aaron AB/HR League AB/HR Aaron HR freq / league's
1973 9.8 42.6 4.35
Aaron hit in a launching pad his last ten seasons. Darrell Evans and
Davey Johnson both hit over 40 homers there in 1973.
Jamal Bernhard
The implication is so obvious, any moron can see it: Aaron took steroids
in '71 and '73.
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let me clarify: There are no safe/legal means by which we would expect
> to see this transformation.
We wouldn't expect to see it at all. Nothing of that magnitude never
happened before.
Yet, once it did happen, you read one half-baked analysis and think you
understand it? Which one of us is the fool here?
> We do have plenty of PROOF that dangerous,
> banned substances can be used to assault sports record books (East
> German lady swimmers, Ben Johnson, Canseco, Palmeiro, etc.).
There is no precedent for this. Not with the wonderjuice, not without.
Ben Johnson was 27 when he set the world record and stanozolol was
detected in his system. You can't use him to prove your point about
Bonds' unexpected late-career surge.
Bonds' value as measured by Win Shares during the years from ages 35-39
was 121% of what it was previously. Palmeiro's was 69%. I didn't even
bother to chart Canseco's -- he was out of baseball at age 37. My
complete chart for every player who had 400 at bats at age 39 or older
is at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/8c87cc5d
5c7b19b9?hl=en&
and my analysis and suggestion for further investigation is at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants/msg/d57754df
fc8a639e?hl=en&
So there you go. Absorb some data.
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's all you saw in that chart? You missed the fact that both Aaron
and Bonds after turning 35 had their 4 best power seasons as measured by
home run frequency normalized to the league?
And you dismissed Aaron's numbers as the result of a ballpark effect but
completely denied that anything might have affected Bonds' late-career
seasons other than steroids.
There is a word for that: bias. You got it. Now go ahead and flaunt it.
No Such Luck
radiomd wrote:
> In article <20050929110938.705...@yahoo.com>,
> thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me clarify: There are no safe/legal means by which we would expect
> > to see this transformation.
>
> We wouldn't expect to see it at all. Nothing of that magnitude never
> happened before.
>
> Yet, once it did happen, you read one half-baked analysis and think you
> understand it? Which one of us is the fool here?
>
> > We do have plenty of PROOF that dangerous,
> > banned substances can be used to assault sports record books (East
> > German lady swimmers, Ben Johnson, Canseco, Palmeiro, etc.).
>
> There is no precedent for this. Not with the wonderjuice, not without.
>
> Ben Johnson was 27 when he set the world record and stanozolol was
> detected in his system. You can't use him to prove your point about
> Bonds' unexpected late-career surge.
>
> Bonds' value as measured by Win Shares during the years from ages 35-39
> was 121% of what it was previously. Palmeiro's was 69%. I didn't even
> bother to chart Canseco's -- he was out of baseball at age 37.
Which brings up an interesting point. The circumstantial evidence
supposedly proving Bonds "cheated" is that he is doing something that
no one in history has ever done before.
The flip side, of course, is the question which no one on the
Bonds/cheater bandwagon can ever answer. Simply, why do these
performance enhancers have phenominal, and most importantly, lasting,
long-term beneficial effects for Bonds and only Bonds?
Jeanne Douglas
"Rico X. Partay" <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
Yeah, what can we be thinking. How un-American of us to consider someone
innocent until PROVEN guilty and to demand actual evidence to convict
someone.
--
JD
"Baseball is a dull game only for those with a dull mind"--Red Smith
Jamal Bernhard
>>Bonds' value as measured by Win Shares during the years from ages 35-39
>>was 121% of what it was previously. Palmeiro's was 69%. I didn't even
>>bother to chart Canseco's -- he was out of baseball at age 37.
>
> Which brings up an interesting point. The circumstantial evidence
> supposedly proving Bonds "cheated" is that he is doing something that
> no one in history has ever done before.
>
> The flip side, of course, is the question which no one on the
> Bonds/cheater bandwagon can ever answer. Simply, why do these
> performance enhancers have phenominal, and most importantly, lasting,
> long-term beneficial effects for Bonds and only Bonds?
EXACTLY!
We know (supposedly) that lots of other players have taken steroids
and/or HGH and/or other illegal substances. So Bonds' incredible run
where he has done something no one else has cannot be explained by
illegal substances any more than it can be explained by hard work and a
new training regimen. Show me other players who have had such a jump in
productivity late in their careers and then I'll think they're *all* on
the juice. (Sammy is the only one at this point that seems obviously to
have been affected by the new testing policy.)
Unless, of course, you believe Bonds is the only one who's cheated.
radiomd
> Chemical enhancement by a freak player in a sport that
> did not have any testing, is not an unreasonable suspicion.
I forget to say that you are finally correct here. In fact it's a far
more reasonable suspicion than you suggest. And this point actually
undermines your overall argument.
I see that others are jumping on this also while I write, but forgive me
if I make the point in my own maddeningly prolix yet obscure fashion:
before the BALCO scandal broke and steroids in baseball became a matter
for the oversight of Congress (definition 2 of oversight), several
former players stated candidly that 50% of ballplayers were using
steroids, or more.
Including at least 2 MVP's, one as far back as 1988.
By 2001, how many ballplayers do you suppose were not using steroids?
> To me the duck is waddling and quacking. Insisting we do an autopsy and
> take DNA samples before declaring it a duck seems more an act of
> desperation than reason.
There is no duck like this duck.
But there are plenty of quacks like you. Some of them are employed by
the Philadelphia Inquirer, and some hang out on Usenet.
Rico X. Partay
> Yeah, what can we be thinking. How un-American of us to
> consider someone innocent until PROVEN guilty and to
> demand actual evidence to convict someone.
Nobody said anybody was guilty or should be convicted
without being so proven.
What we were talking about, initially, was evidence. The
fact is that there is some out there re Bonds & steroid use.
Whether or not you find it convincing is up to you.
What was stupid was the willful (or pretend) ignorance of
some posters here.
The situation devolved, as it so often does, into what the
purpose of a netnews group is.
Some people think, amazingly enough, that the purpose of
netnews is to provide all their knowledge on a given subject.
Others have two brain cells to rub together and are able
to understand that when someone says something like, There's a
lot of information out there and it's easy to find, it just
might be true, and furthermore that yelling that there is no
such information in the world is really just proclaiming one's
ignorance in a loud voice, and is, in fact, the height of
cluelessness.
Hope this helps.
thisplanetsux
radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
> And you dismissed Aaron's numbers as the result of a ballpark effect
> but completely denied that anything might have affected Bonds'
> late-career seasons other than steroids.
I'm just waiting to hear a theory that makes anywhere near as much sense
as performance enhancing drugs, that's all.
> There is a word for that: bias. You got it. Now go ahead and flaunt
> it.
Everyone has biases. To quote you:
"I have to say that I'm not comfortable ascribing solely to
something I don't understand and whose agency is unclear -- anabolic
steroids..."
That sounds admirably objective until you start trying to come up with
theories about social and economic impacts on baseball careers where
your biases lead you into areas you probably know even less about... My
bias tends toward the simplest and most likely solution.
If you want to equate Henry Aaron aged 35-38 to Bonds aged 37-40 to
dispute a possible chemical basis, then make a thorough case and park
adjust their career numbers. Aaron was only 3rd on his own team in
homers in 1973, his 2nd best HR/AB season. When you normalize vs. the
league and he's playing in the best hitters park, you're making his
numbers look better than they really are. With Bonds it's the opposite.
He's playing in a pitcher's park and his numbers are even better
than they look at first glance if you're normalizing vs. guys who play
in hitter's parks... I think the difference between the two guys will
actually be pretty large. Would you agree, or not?
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:52:52 GMT
> radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > And you dismissed Aaron's numbers as the result of a ballpark effect
> > but completely denied that anything might have affected Bonds'
> > late-career seasons other than steroids.
>
> I'm just waiting to hear a theory that makes anywhere near as much sense
> as performance enhancing drugs, that's all.
>
> > There is a word for that: bias. You got it. Now go ahead and flaunt
> > it.
>
> Everyone has biases. To quote you:
>
> "I have to say that I'm not comfortable ascribing solely to
> something I don't understand and whose agency is unclear -- anabolic
> steroids..."
You've got me there. I prefer to reserve my judgment until I think my
understanding qualifies me to judge, and when I make a judgment I prefer
one I can support with sound analysis. This helps me to avoid stooping
to mere calumny. Mea culpa.
> That sounds admirably objective until you start trying to come up with
> theories about social and economic impacts on baseball careers where
> your biases lead you into areas you probably know even less about... My
> bias tends toward the simplest and most likely solution.
Don't be an ass. I suggested that you can't out of hand rule out that
Bonds is playing now in a league that's not as competitive as it was and
that favors his current skills now more than it once favored the skills
of his youth. That aren't complex ideas; they're not even original --
Towers for example suggested them four years ago. And my review of
career data suggests that they're the most common explanations for prior
late-career success. So how is that in any way biased or unlikely?
Oh, and ballpark effects are a measure of effect on the league norm, not
on specific players. But by all means, pick a method to make the home
run data "ballpark neutral", and if you find a significant variance from
my data, post it.
thisplanetsux
I have to apologize for not understanding the above. In order to
"undermine" my overall argument (that Bonds juiced 2000-2004), you'd
need to disprove it somehow (eg. he passed blood and urine tests back
then), or at least provide compelling evidence for an alternative
explanation to his massive strength increase (me having accepted that as
the most likely reason for it). I don't see either of those in the
above. I guess maybe you're trying to say, how come Canseco and Caminiti
didn't do what Bonds has done? Or maybe, if they're all juiced, Bonds'
achievements aren't tainted? Or what exactly?
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have to apologize for not understanding the above.
I forgive you.
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>> Yeah, what can we be thinking. How un-American of us to
>> consider someone innocent until PROVEN guilty and to
>> demand actual evidence to convict someone.
>
>
> Nobody said anybody was guilty or should be convicted
>without being so proven.
> What we were talking about, initially, was evidence. The
>fact is that there is some out there re Bonds & steroid use.
The fact is you couldn't provide any because you're a jackass troll with
as much brain power as Pedro Feliz has plate discipline.
--
Greg Lentz
James Farrar
<thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:52:52 GMT
>radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
>> And you dismissed Aaron's numbers as the result of a ballpark effect
>> but completely denied that anything might have affected Bonds'
>> late-career seasons other than steroids.
>
>I'm just waiting to hear a theory that makes anywhere near as much sense
>as performance enhancing drugs, that's all.
But you're already totally convinced by the drugs theory.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
James Farrar
<thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:39:34 +0100
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:19:23 -0700, thisplanetsux
>> <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Well, I thought it was pretty well spelled out, but let me summarize:
>> >for 14 big league seasons, Barry Bonds was NOT a freak of nature
>> >blasting 460 foot bombs every week or two. In fact he never hit one
>> >ball that far that we know of. In 14 seasons. That is a substantial
>> >body of evidence to weigh in against the, "Bonds is simply an
>> >all-natural freak of nature..." explanation for what he's done since
>> >2000. Again the real question being addressed is how he became so
>> >much more physically strong around 2000. The numbers show he's not
>> >been making more contact, or hitting the ball in the air more
>>
>> Wrong. Except for 2004 (and 200+ walks is going to have an effect),
>> the years since 1998 have seen Bonds hit significantly more fly balls
>> than years before 1998.
>
>Sorry, let me point out that it was not the author of the article I
>referenced who made that mistake. It was me trying to simplify his
>arguments who misspoke that (and I'm sure I've made other mistakes, this
>isn't my original research, I hope you've read the entire article
>mentioned).
>
>The point he attempts to make is that there is no great overall
>correspondence between the G/F numbers and the homer/SLG numbers.
He's wrong in that too. 0.705 for an r-squared value is good
correlation.
Jamal Bernhard
> I have to apologize for not understanding the above. In order to
> "undermine" my overall argument (that Bonds juiced 2000-2004), you'd
> need to disprove it somehow (eg. he passed blood and urine tests back
> then), or at least provide compelling evidence for an alternative
> explanation to his massive strength increase (me having accepted that as
> the most likely reason for it).
Why does his increase in numbers have to be due solely (or even at all)
to a "massive strength increase"? I think there is no denying that he is
stronger now than he was in the 80's and early 90's -- you only have to
look at him to believe that. But you don't hit 73 home runs just because
you are strong.
Why can't Bonds just have become a better hitter, so that he makes solid
contact more consistently than before? That IN ADDITION TO a strength
increase could explain it. We have no proof that his strength increase
was "massive".
thisplanetsux
This is the first topic addressed in the article you've previouisly
dismissed. He hasn't been making more contact. The ball is going much
further. In 2001, he had one of his lowest contact rates ever
(80%). It's just that every ball he hit seemed to land in the Bay ;)
Jamal Bernhard
The guy was only getting 1 or 2 pitches to hit every game, so you can't
simply look at the contact rate. My point was that you can't hit it in
the Bay without making solid contact, steroids or not. Besides, if Bonds
*were* using, then why wouldn't you expect his contact rate to go up as
well? After all, steroids = more bat speed.
See, all of these sutle arguments are just advancing our point -- that
there are too many factors that affect a hitter's success to just
pinpoint one like "strength increase" as the sole cause for changes in
numbers like the ones Bonds experienced. If you take 15% distance off of
every Bonds home run in 2001 (which is a figure I have heard some people
spout out in terms of how much steroids can help), he still would have
hit at least 60 -- way more than his previous high.
thisplanetsux
Okay, now my head's about to explode. Happy? ;) But still, I think his
conclusion that it's not the G/F that's responsible for the homers is
sound. In 1998 a .63 G/F did nothing for his HR/AB... In 2004 Bonds'
G/F was back to a career typical .75, yet he still blasted homers at a
66 per 550 AB rate.
James Farrar
Taking single data points is always going to get you in trouble.
2004 is the point furthest from the regression line.
thisplanetsux
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> The guy was only getting 1 or 2 pitches to hit every game, so you
> can't simply look at the contact rate. My point was that you can't
> hit it in the Bay without making solid contact, steroids or not.
> Besides, if Bonds *were* using, then why wouldn't you expect his
> contact rate to go up as well? After all, steroids = more bat speed.
You don't need to make even as good contact as you used to, to be a more
productive hitter, if you have more bat speed. Contact that used to
generate warning track fly balls now produces high and deep homers from
the added p/si you apply. More home runs, less outs. It's a bonanza. I
just refer you back to the principle that the simplest answer is usually
the correct one.
Jamal Bernhard
Unfortunately, that principle does not apply very often in the real world.
Richard Booroojian
"Greg Lentz" <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:mdooj15689quhpnqg...@4ax.com...
And that's not a lot.
rb
James Farrar
The simplest answer is that you're a moron.
radiomd
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> thisplanetsux wrote:
>
> > I just refer you back to the principle that the simplest answer is
> > usually the correct one.
>
> Unfortunately, that principle does not apply very often in the real world.
That principle is tps's misapplication of Occam's Razor, which states
that among equally predictive theories, all other things being equal,
you would do well to choose the simplest. Some of us have attempted to
demonstrate that the "simple" theory to which tps subscribes is in now
way predictive, that in fact the "theory" is really an article of faith.
And that's where I think we're going to have to leave it. To each a
measure of faith is given, and tps has received a very generous share of
that particular endowment.
A Jaunty One
"thisplanetsux" <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> This is the first topic addressed in the article you've previouisly
> dismissed. He hasn't been making more contact. The ball is going much
> further. In 2001, he had one of his lowest contact rates ever
> (80%). It's just that every ball he hit seemed to land in the Bay ;)
From '02-'04 he had the lowest 3-year-stretch of strikeout rate in his
career.
year K/AB
1986 0.2470
1987 0.1597
1988 0.1524
1989 0.1603
1990 0.1599
1991 0.1431
1992 0.1459
1993 0.1466
1994 0.1100
1995 0.1640
1996 0.1470
1997 0.1635
1998 0.1667
1999 0.1746
2000 0.1604
2001 0.1954
2002 0.1166
2003 0.1487
2004 0.1099
His K/AB ratio from 1986 up to 2000 was 0.1595.
A Jaunty One
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:26:02 -0700
> "A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>
> >
> > "thisplanetsux" <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
the
> > > now banned agro) in 1998, and had results. The thing is, the
> > > strength increase for him was not all that significant, as he'd
> > > always been hitting moonshots, and hitting 40+ homers right from
his
> > > rookie
> > season.
> >
> > Has it escaped you that Canseco said he was shooting steroids up
> > McGwire's butt (and a number of other A's) in the late 80's?
>
> Not at all. I'm fairly certain that, just like Bonds, creatine had
> little or nothing to do with his home run hitting prowess.
If McGwire's been using steroids his whole career, how can you measure
the effect of creatine on him?
thisplanetsux
"A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
>
> "thisplanetsux" <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20050929091410.578...@yahoo.com...
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:26:02 -0700
> > "A Jaunty One" <SF_G...@PacBellPark.wsc> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "thisplanetsux" <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Well we know for a fact that McGwire began taking creatine (plus
> the
> > > > now banned agro) in 1998, and had results. The thing is, the
> > > > strength increase for him was not all that significant, as he'd
> > > > always been hitting moonshots, and hitting 40+ homers right from
> his
> > > > rookie
> > > season.
> > >
> > > Has it escaped you that Canseco said he was shooting steroids up
> > > McGwire's butt (and a number of other A's) in the late 80's?
> >
> > Not at all. I'm fairly certain that, just like Bonds, creatine had
> > little or nothing to do with his home run hitting prowess.
>
> If McGwire's been using steroids his whole career, how can you measure
> the effect of creatine on him?
Well, of course, I don't know the answer with any certainty.
But from what I've read, creatine is not a hormone (it can't be since
it's taken orally), it does not build any new muscle tissue in the body,
so it's effects should be completely seperate on the body from what
steroids or HGH do. It's my understanding that creatine just helps the
muscles you've already got to work more efficiently. So, theoretically,
you can take steroids, and still see additional strength benefit from
also adding in creatine...
thisplanetsux
Wait before letting this go, let's summarize:
I claim that, all other things being equal, increased strength will
produce more home runs and higher OPS. Am I subscribing to a
'non-predictive' theory there?
I claim that illegal performance enhanching drugs like HGH and
anabolic steroids can increase physical strength in human beings. Am I
subscribing to a 'non-predictive' theory there?
Then, I rely on Occam's Razor to theorize that Bonds' HEAVILY
increased production is most easily explained by his being MUCH more
physically strong. Now here is a bone of contention, because Jamal
and radiomd appear to subscribe to a different theory where some
unknown combination of technique change, legal diet supplements,
workout rigor, changes in the game itself, etc. could explain Bonds'
increased production. That despite significant evidence to the contrary
in regards to technique, no evidence known regarding diet, Bonds
having already been a strong/fit top-flight professional athlete his
whole adult life, and nothing conclusively determined about changes in
the game that might benefit Bonds...
This appears an almost perfect application of Occam's Razor in
that the alternatives to plain old strength increase rely on numerous
complex, unknown, or even dubious factors. The fact that Bonds has
actually been hitting the ball much further since 1999, and could easily
do that by being stronger, is not complex, it's not an unknown, and it's
not dubious as a contributing factor.
Now, finally, I conclude that the most likely source of Bonds' increased
strength is through illegal performance enhancing drugs. This seems not
to be much of a stretch given the magnitude of strength increase, Bonds'
age, and his close association with a man who has confessed to
distributing illegal performance enhancing drugs.
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I claim that, all other things being equal, increased strength will
> produce more home runs and higher OPS.
In the system you're trying to model all other things are not equal. You
rule out a priori all effects other than the one you've pre-selected as
the agent. This is reductionism, but it isn't Occam's reductionism.
Anyway when Felipe retires I'm not going to miss his handling of the
bullpen or his constant lineup shuffling, but I will miss the way he
talks to the press, that is under normal circumstances when he isn't
feeling the effects of satanic radio waves. He can be just so gosh
darned Socratic. Earlier this week he said:
"What is the proof?" Alou asked. "Are they testing people
still, because the guy is still hitting home runs? On the
strength of what is he hitting home runs? How do you
explain that, or have they stopped testing now? He has
hit five home runs in 30-something at-bats. What's going
on now?
This is great.
Greg Lentz
<thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:16:57 GMT
>radiomd <rad...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <433C8A14...@nowhere.net>,
>> Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> > thisplanetsux wrote:
>> >
>> > > I just refer you back to the principle that the simplest answer is
>> > > usually the correct one.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, that principle does not apply very often in the real
>> > world.
>>
>> That principle is tps's misapplication of Occam's Razor, which states
>> that among equally predictive theories, all other things being equal,
>> you would do well to choose the simplest. Some of us have attempted to
>>
>> demonstrate that the "simple" theory to which tps subscribes is in now
>>
>> way predictive, that in fact the "theory" is really an article of
>> faith.
>>
>> And that's where I think we're going to have to leave it. To each a
>> measure of faith is given, and tps has received a very generous share
>> of that particular endowment.
>
>Wait before letting this go
...let's troll some more.
--
Greg Lentz
Jamal Bernhard
> Now, finally, I conclude that the most likely source of Bonds' increased
> strength is through illegal performance enhancing drugs.
If all you had said was this, I might even agree with you. But you (as
well as the original link you posted that started this thread) have made
much stronger statements that I don't agree with -- statements like:
"It is almost certain that Bonds uses performance enhancing drugs and
they're probably far more potent than creatine."
"If not performance enhancing drugs, what? How?"
Saying that something is the most likely explanation does not mean that
it is "almost certain". It is hard for me to explain his performance
without the use of illegal substances, but it is also hard for me to
explain his performance *with* the use of illegal substances, because
others who have apparently used said substances have not seen anywhere
near the improvement that Bonds has shown. I believe that Bonds'
late-career success is due at least in some part to Bonds being a freak.
And, if you are going to believe that *some* of that success is due to
his freak-ness, then why isn't it possible that *a lot* of it is due to
his freak-ness?
So I stick by my original conclusion that while he may indeed have used
such substances, and while it may be the most likely scenario given the
evidence we have, the evidence is too circumstantial for me to believe
it with any certainty.
thisplanetsux
Jamal Bernhard <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> So I stick by my original conclusion that while he may indeed have
> used such substances, and while it may be the most likely scenario
> given the evidence we have, the evidence is too circumstantial for me
> to believe it with any certainty.
Fair enough. Come on over, I've got a row of Boont's lined up in the
fridge for Cain's start vs. Ortiz tonight.
Jamal Bernhard
I haven't seen Cain since his first start -- looking forward to it...
A Jaunty One
So there you go, he hit 70 HRs in '98. The thing is, if he's been using
steroids his whole career, then the effect of creatine would be less
noticeable. But 70 HRs followed by 65, his two highest totals ever,
showed creatine's effect. And don't forget, McGwire's been lifting
weights throughout his career. OTOH, Bonds supposedly wasn't lifting
weights in his younger days, so it's reasonable for him to show *way*
more benefit in strength gains than McGwire. Imagine a guy who was
hitting 35-40 HRs a year without lifting weights. It's not difficult to
see the possible gains he can get by starting a weight training program.
So your argument is how many people start gaining so much muscle mass
after 35? Well, I can also ask you how many elite athletes (instead of
an average Joe) waited till their mid 30s to start lifting weights?
Most of them would've started in their 20s, or even as teenagers. The
ones who never lifted weights until 35 ain't likely to start then. IOW,
he *is* a rare case. So it's really not a stretch to see Bonds' muscle
gain at that age. And of course, Bonds works out harder than most other
athletes, and he gets the best in everything, like nutrition, equipment,
facilities, personal trainers, etc., unlike your average Joe.
So the question is did he really never lifted weights until his mid 30s,
or at least didn't lift weights for the purpose of gaining muscles until
his mid 30s? I don't know that for sure, but if that's the assumption,
then we have an argument.
Note: I'm not claiming he didn't use steroids for sure. What we're
arguing is you can't declare he used steroids for certain either.
A Jaunty One
> fridge for Cain's start vs. Ortiz tonight.
Have you guys noticed some of them A's fans have been watching a lot of
Giants games, and posting in the Giants ng more than in the A's ng?
Interesting, isn't it?
radiomd
thisplanetsux <thispl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you want to equate Henry Aaron aged 35-38 to Bonds aged 37-40 to
> dispute a possible chemical basis,
Actually, if you had been paying attention, it was Aaron 35-39 and Bonds
35-39. But OK.
> Aaron was only 3rd on his own team in
> homers in 1973, his 2nd best HR/AB season. When you normalize vs. the
> league and he's playing in the best hitters park, you're making his
> numbers look better than they really are. With Bonds it's the opposite.
> He's playing in a pitcher's park and his numbers are even better
> than they look at first glance if you're normalizing vs. guys who play
> in hitter's parks... I think the difference between the two guys will
> actually be pretty large. Would you agree, or not?
To see what we can make of this -- apparently you were satisfied to make
your conjecture without actually examining the data yourself -- while
I'm watching Matt Cain I'm glancing at The Home Run Encyclopedia and
Retrosheet.org.
First, about 1973, when you point out that two other players on the
Braves hit more home runs than Aaron in that year, you have forgotten
that we're talking about home run frequency, not home run totals. Aaron
had a much high home run frequency that year than either Davey Johnson
or Darrell Evans, Evans having had 203 more at bats than Aaron and
Johnson 167.
Now, about Fulton County Stadium, from Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus:
From 1969-1974, the Braves and their opponents hit 1.35
homers in Atlanta for every one on the road
<http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2795>
And Aaron showed the same tendency during those years. From the
home/away splits in The Home Run Encyclopedia, I find that he hit 1.37
home runs at home for every one he hit on the road.
If the Launching Pad conferred on everyone the same 35-57% increase in
home run frequency, then a Brave who hits half the time at home would
expect about a 14 or 15% advantage in home run rate relative to the
league.
However, even if you decide you should lop off about 15% of Aaron's home
runs during these years for comparison's sake, you'll still find that
his two very best years for home run frequency relative to the league
occurred when he was 37 and when he was 39 -- and that these two years
are still far ahead of his previous best, when he was 31. At 37, he
would still have hit home runs at nearly 4 times the rate of the league,
even with this "ballpark adjustment". His career curve for power would
still have its same shape as Bonds', with a marked increase in home run
frequency relative to the league in his later seasons in the NL.
As for whether we should similarly adjust Bonds' numbers upward -- as I
mentioned before, it's notoriously tricky to apply ballpark effects to
an individual player, and Bonds' case is not the same as Aaron's in that
there isn't any evidence that his home run park affects him in the same
way it affects the league. Since the park opened he's hit 132 home runs
at home and 131 away. It's possible that his home park may depress his
home run rates somewhat, but how would you decide by how much? I prefer
just to let those numbers stand.
Let's put Aaron's adjusted home run rates relative to the league next to
Bonds' for ages 35 through 39.
Aaron Bonds
35 3.13 3.01
36 2.52 4.58
37 3.97 3.84
38 3.06 3.76
39 3.78 3.75
Or if you want to adjust Aaron's numbers annually according to the
ballpark effect of that year, instead of using a uniform factor based on
the results over all 5 years, you'll find that his age 35 number would
come out slightly higher and his age 36 and 38 numbers would come out
lower. He'd still be even or ahead of Bonds in 3 out of the 5 years,
however.
So no, I do not agree that the difference between the two guys is pretty
large, except that Aaron had a dip at age 36 when Bonds had a spike.
Greg Lentz
They wanted to watch a team that lasted longer in the playoff race.
--
Greg Lentz
A Jaunty One
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:46:11 -0700, "A Jaunty One"
> >>
> >> Fair enough. Come on over, I've got a row of Boont's lined up in
the
> >> fridge for Cain's start vs. Ortiz tonight.
> >
> >Have you guys noticed some of them A's fans have been watching a lot
of
> >Giants games, and posting in the Giants ng more than in the A's ng?
> >Interesting, isn't it?
>
> They wanted to watch a team that lasted longer in the playoff race.
LOL
Barry Bonds
I am glad the Giants' season is over ... did you see how badly Barry
was running towards the end? I wonder why the fans didn't pick up on
the fact that here was a man playing in pain, while most would have
called in sick to work ...
I want a HEALTHY Barry for next year. I think in one season he can
pass he Babe, Hank, Lead the Giants to a World Series win, and then
retire.