[nanwynnfan]

Opening day, 1999, Barry Bonds was 34 years old, not quite having reached that presumed hit-the-wall age at which careers are expected to have crumbled, or at least begun their decline.

Whatever bodily ransformation Bonds had undergone between the end of the 1998 season and spring training 1999, it hadn't done Bonds too much good: He experienced, for the second time in his career, a season abbreviated in playing ime by injury. He hit 34 HR's. Heck, he'd hit 46 HR's six seasons earlier; and he'd hit 42 at age 31 and 40 at age 32.

Returning to regular play the next year, 2000 - now 35, he hit 49 HR, nothing really off the charts in the context of his career to date.

Now, back to the focus of the post to which I'm responding. In fairness to all players, past and present, if you are going to presume 35 is the career wall; and if you're going to measure HR output, you'd better also check those spray hitters to note any extra authority to those lesser hits. Better check on those pitchers, too.

Here's a cross section of players from various generations, and some highlight seasons they enjoyed ... I've taken the leeway to include players @ late 33, almost 34 and up; because Bonds was 34 in 1999.

Player.....................AGE........HR.........S LG%

Hank Greenberg.........35.........44......... .604
Ted Williams..............38........38......... .731
Stan Musial...............36........38......... .612
Babe Ruth.................35........49......... .732
Rogers Hornsby..........33........39......... .679
Johnny Mize..............35.........40........ .564
Andres Galarraga........35.........47........ .601
Ty Cobb...................38.........12........ .598
Tris Speaker..............35.........17........ .610
Willie Stargell.............33.........44........ .646
Harold Baines.............40.........25........ .533
Willie Mays................34.........52........ .645
Gary Sheffield............34.........39........ .604
Gary Gaetti...............36.........35......... .518
Reggie Sanders..........35.........31......... .567
Jeromy Burnitz...........35.........37......... .581
Steve Finley..............39.........36......... .490
Vinny Castilla.............36.........36......... .403

It's a deliberate mixed bag, where HR production is part of the picture, slugging is a big consideration, and age is the main factor. Age 35 is not an infallible predictor of performance failure; and players can have career years @ 35 and well beyond. The guys I've listed, and the seasons I've selected,
each contain elements that mark a departure from earlier career history, say Tris Speaker's 17 HR at age 35.

In the context of the larger topic of this thread, the amazing things to note, if one takes the time to weave isolated facts into a bigger picture are that:

1. The first MLB approach to steroids pretended to be concern for player welfare, because of the horrible bodily side effects and intermediate damage to musculature, bone and ligament stability, genetal miniaturization and proclivity to injury. These very points are the focus of a current [2007] tv commercial widely telecast to warm youngsters of the damaging effects of steroids.

2. Barry Bonds at 43 is performing at batting rates [in terms of PA and/or AB] that would be on a HoF track, projected over an entire career. He has had, over a 21 year career two seasons partially lost to injury [pre-steroid suspicions & pre-Balco] and one season almost totally wiped out, over age 40 AND probably as the most scrutinized player in the history of the game.

If Barry Bonds is the insufferable, arrogant S.O.B. his critics love to portray, then that long-term trait can't immediately be traced as a side effect to "cheating." Why? Because he was a ******* without any outside stimulus.

If is it assumed that steroids [now I am using the generic] test body structures to points not naturally maintained; and if the counter-indications of overdeveloping sets of muscles beyond the structural strength to support them, then how amazing is it that a 43 year old body can continue to function at such a prodigious rate?

When it comes to a survey of Barry Bonds' career, one thing is very clear: He had ONE singular season that was an outlier to the rest of his career context, NOT a streak of years, but a one season anomaly. The STRONGEST argument available to the naysayers is that solitary isolated 73 HR season.

In the context of the rest of Bonds entire career, how many of those 73 HR's would you say, as a condemner, marked the man? If Ken Griffey, Jr. can hit 56 HR's in two seaons, back-to-back, might Bonds have been expected to be capable of 50, 52, 54.

Now we have new questions. Given Bonds entire career as the sole context, how many extra HR's MIGHT "cheating" have added to his record? 21, 23, 30? How many feet of aggregate distance would 30 "cheating" HR's have afforded him at, say, 25' per "cheat?" Are we talking 25'*30 HR = 750'? A tiger Woods 3-iron? Does the collective benefit fit a sensible risk-reward protocol? It's at leat questionable.

No. Bonds is a healthy critter, beyond expectation, and clearly under a microscope at least since the 2002 opener. In December, 2003, the scrutiny screws were turned even tighter. Has his career collapsed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 YTD? No. Did he cheat during THOSE years? He'd have to have been inane or stupid, and he's neither].

Bottom line for me: Barry Bonds, at 37 years of age,was in condition comparable to that of Ted Williams in 1957, keen eyes at their peak, plate discipline well-honed, stroke in the groove, filled out by natural aging process; BUT, in Bonds' case, enhanced by weight training [with three specialized trainers]. nutritional supplements and weight-training supplements of a nature NOT defined and NOT punishable under existing MLB posted rules, regulations or penalties.

That Bonds had a career season is undeniable. As I said earlier, neither his age nor his career track record could argue against reasonably high expectations from a 37 year old with a Spartan workout ethic, because baseball has a history littered with outstanding seasons by the Serutan crowd.

The debate actually boils down to how many HR's the naysayers would ALLOW Bonds to have hit, without raising doubts or accusations. I'd bet if Barry had hit 54 HR's instead of 73, we wouldn't be having this discussion, hat sizes notwithstanding.