[nanwynnfan]

With apologies to any mature, sensible and intelligent posters, lurkers or perusers of posts here, I am forced to go to a tangent to address the quoted nonsense below, from the king of same in changing subjects; tossing tangents; and responding to well-prepared responses to arguments put forth by himself with mistresses, Wheaties, Greg Anderson,, etc.


Part 1: "Note that nan elects to ignore addressing all the other evidence and resents only an extremist interpretation placing a favorable spin on everything."

Response: I answered your 35 year old platform [he was 34] for doubt, exposing presumptions of performance, by age, by generation, even by batting type. Nothing extreme, nothing interpreted - mere factual presentations. The only spinning here is by a dervish intent on changing focus and derailing intelligent discussion.


Part 2: "Greg Anderson and Balco? Doesn't count. Testimony from the mistress? She must be a liar. The unnatural changes in Bonds physical shape? Lots of Wheaties I guess."

[Response]: Read my post. I was responding to a GS post re: above; and Greg Anderson and Balco are not related to the concept of age and performance. Their role in this entire chapter is another matter, as is the mistress, of course with no axe of her own to grind.

Part 3: "This is called being in denial. This is called desperation. This is the exposed Wizard of Oz yelling "Ignore that man behind the curtain!" This is called digging yourself into a hole and calling it a tunnel. Why not defend Pete Rose while you're at it?

[Response]: Use of words like "denial" and "desperation" to a composed, calm and factual post are irrelevant, immature, of very questionable intellectual merit and typical. This + the man behind the curtain [much like a favored dragon in the garage tedium] has nothing to do with the subject at hand and is better-suited as grafitto on an elementary school boys' room wall.

Digging a hole and calling it a tunnel fits, for its author, who has dug a childish, churlish hole for himself. The Pete Rose allusion is so pathetic a reach as to warrant more pity than response.

[Here's a side bet, folks. An apology will be demanded of me, as if I somehow were the offender. An affronted GS, if he follows his pattern, will huff and puff, dismissing further communication as beneath his standards].

Back to the thread. This DATA I find astounding, looking at Bonds' post-2001 performance:

Seasons.....................Plate Appearances.......Runs Created......RC/PA

2002 thru 2007 YTD...........2,711...................... 701............. 25.86%

ONE player, in the history of the modern era [1901-2007] has EVER produced runs exceeding that clip, Babe Ruth a virtual tie @ 25.97%, Ted Williams 24.09; Lou Gehrig 23.44%, and Jimmie Foxx 22.23%. Bonds himself thru TYD 2007 is at 21.31%.

This is Bonds AFTER 2001, under scrutiny after the inquiries flew at the end of 2001. However, for the unconvinced, we toss out his 2002, 49 HR season and focus on 2003 thru 2007,

2003 thru 2007.................2,099....................... 515.............. 24.54%

Now, let's really bend over backwards, since the BALCO stuff hit the fan in December, 2003, when Bonds went from close scrutiny to microscopic inspection:

**2004 thru 2007.................1,549.................... 362.............. 23.37%***

***Compare to stars' careers, above, the elite.

**Includes season lost, injury