What to Asterisk? *

[Grandstander]

Nan

You are making so primary a mistake.....you have simply adopted a position to be contrary, and decided to neglect, or pretend not to understand, the obvious.

You have contributed nothing toward explaining how Barry Bonds, at age 35, could not only play much better than he did in his prime, but much better than anyone has ever played in their primes.

Everything you write....it has nothing to do with solving that problem.

Are you just not understanding what is being discussed here? You are so far off base with your comments.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Nan

You are making so primary a mistake.....you have simply adopted a position to be contrary, and decided to neglect, or pretend not to understand, the obvious.

You have contributed nothing toward explaining how Barry Bonds, at age 35, could not only play much better than he did in his prime, but much better than anyone has ever played in their primes.

Everything you write....it has nothing to do with solving that problem.

Are you just not understanding what is being discussed here? You are so far off base with your comments.

The mistake here is the one being persistently made and repeated by you, adding nothing to the discussion other than you presumptions that you are correct and that others, like me, by default, are wrong or wrong-headed.

"Everything you write" .... shall I take that jab literally? I doubt it since you have little to no idea the sum of everything I have ever written. Moreover, I do not have "that problem," the one in coping with Barry Bonds' performances @> age 35. In fact, as I've already mntioned in this thread more than once, I have earlier outlined players >35 with outstanding years even when comped against outstanding careers. I won't pay twice for that same parcel of real estate; you ignored it once, so I have no reason to duplicate the effort in a vacuum.

There is nothing contrary in acknowledging that a player performing well in consecutive several seasons over age 35 is not unique in the history of the game, especially when the player in question is known for his Spartan workout regimen and rigorous study of the art and science of hitting.

I have actually lent far more informed observations into the dynamics concerned with this topic than you have; and with each post, I have tended to expand upon the base of my arguments.

You, in turn, have done nothing but challenge my attitude [obstinacy], grasp [understanding], fundamentally flawed reason ["primary"] against the presumption of your own undocumented, unsupported infallibility. [Nice work, if you happen to be a Pope].

Because you are convinced that a player should go into decline @ age 35, you expect others to buy into that as a "given."

Since I've already explored the numerous exceptions from 1901-present and have pointed out the nutritional, training and other factors extending life expectancy, vigor, endurance, training recovery, etc., I have no need to repeat them.

P.S. [Added]

from good old Wikipedia:

"Advances in sanitation, nutrition, and medical knowledge made possible incredible changes in life expectancy in the United States and throughout the world, providing subjects for study as well as the need to study them. In the United States, only 50 percent of children born in 1900 could reasonably hope to reach the age of 50; life expectancy today is approximately 77 years of age. But note that there is a big discrepancy between males and females, 73.6 years for men and 79.4 years for women. Life expectancy is lower for African Americans; 67.2 years for men and 74.7 years for women (Hoyert, Kochanek, and Murphy, 1999).

"Life expectancy recovered somewhat, but it is only in recent centuries that it has dramatically increased. These changes are the result of a combination of factors including nutrition and public health, and medicine only marginally. The most important single factor in the increase is the reduction of death in infancy.

"The greatest improvements have been in the richest parts of the world. Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1900 was 47 years. Life expectancy in India at mid-century was around 32, by 2000 it had risen to 64 years. According to the 2006 WHO Report, due to HIV/AIDS and other health related issues today's life expectancy in poorer nations is almost half that of the industrialized, richer nations [1]."

That progression suggests that Bonds should not be regarded as some freak but perhaps as a minor anomaly in a normal progression toward bigger, stronger, longer living, healthier, well nourished human beings. Extremely well trained athletes at he highest levels of competition might well be reasonably expected to match or exceed the progression.

On a more personal note, when i was in grade school the Wonder Bread Company had a much repeated slogan, "Wonder Bread helps build stong bodies 8 ways." By the time I entered the Army, the slogan was, "Wonder Bread helps build strong bodies 12 ways."

At that rate, a Barry Bonds, nourished on Wonder Bread alone, could not be contained in a MLB uniform.

[kflo]

bonds using clear and cream substances i'm sure had nothing to do with his peak.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

bonds using clear and cream substances i'm sure had nothing to do with his peak.

Hark! I hear an echo!

Recognize tongue-in-cheek remarks when you see them, please.

[Grandstander]

nan

The mistake here is the one being persistently made and repeated by you, adding nothing to the discussion other than you presumptions that you are correct and that others, like me, by default, are wrong or wrong-headed

Nothing responsive to the question. What a surprise.

Now, if I know my nans, his next post will be one where he writes something like "You presented no clear question" or "If you present a clear question, then...etc."

Then I will have to write for the third damn time, the same already quite clear question, "How can Bonds not only outperform his own prime during his decline years, but outperform anyobe's prime ever?"

And then you still won't have an answer. It will be more of your unrelated trivia.

You're a bad poster. Why am I bothering with you?

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

nan



Nothing responsive to the question. What a surprise.

Now, if I know my nans, his next post will be one where he writes something like "You presented no clear question" or "If you present a clear question, then...etc."

Then I will have to write for the third damn time, the same already quite clear question, "How can Bonds not only outperform his own prime during his decline years, but outperform anyobe's prime ever?"

And then you still won't have an answer. It will be more of your unrelated trivia.

You're a bad poster. Why am I bothering with you?

The above is truly HILARIOUS for several reasons, which I will list after the prefacing remark that I have honestly tried to debate a topic, NOT make ad hoc, ad hominem attacks:

1. If I know my nan's ... priceless, in that here GS is attempting to affix to me a pattern that is uniquely his own: telegraphing an impending basis for being personally affronted by a poster in disagreement;

2. Without entering a single thought or counterpoint, the typical GS ploy of challenging the poster's lack of meaningful content, when his own is merely a vapid reiteration of his own position ............. suggesting "why don't you get it?

3. The growing exasperation ["third damn time"] suggesting the obstinacy, thickness of an insufferable dolt who just will not comply with the GS canon.

4. The prognostication that whatever response I make will be trivial, unrelated [to what?] and devastatingly unsatifactory ..... [I can hear it now: "This is totally unacceptable!"]

5. "You're a bad poster." This is precious. May I adopt it and somehow work it into an icon or avatar? What force! What presence! What sandbox?

Finally, the mystery of all mysteries: Why you [GS] are bothering with me? If I am indeed such a bad poster, with no grasp of the topic, no sense of context or history, no sensitivity to the aging process and the dynamics of human nutrition, training or life expectancy against long balls in short parks .... why indeed would such an authority as GS continue to pursue this doddering dolt?

I see in my crystal ball GS getting ready to post: "That's it. I'm through with you!" [Exit, stage left, as the injured party, in high dudgeon ... taking bat and ball and going home]. May surprise by exiting, stage right.

[jtur88]

It is easy to rationalize away from this, but I find it troubling that all kinds of things have happened in baseball to enhance peformance, generally without any questions as to the justification of the performance-enhancing attributes. Nobody has found any fault with pitchers pitching from performance-enhancing mounds, batters using bats made from performance-enhancing woods, batters wearing performance-enhancing gloves, fielders using performance-enhancing gloves playing on performance-enhancing infields, andn pitchers getting performance-enhancing surgery implainting performance-enhancing body parts in their arms, allowing players to wear performance-enhancing eyeglasses, equipping teams with performance-enhancing baseballs to meet MLB's performance-enhancing specifications or putting the balls in performance-enhancing humidors. Why, then, is the reaction diametrically and unanimously the opposite, bordering on criminal charges, when players are using performance-enhancing pharmaceuticals?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It is easy to rationalize away from this, but I find it troubling that all kinds of things have happened in baseball to enhance peformance, generally without any questions as to the justification of the performance-enhancing attributes. Nobody has found any fault with pitchers pitching from performance-enhancing mounds, batters using bats made from performance-enhancing woods, batters wearing performance-enhancing gloves, fielders using performance-enhancing gloves playing on performance-enhancing infields, andn pitchers getting performance-enhancing surgery implainting performance-enhancing body parts in their arms, allowing players to wear performance-enhancing eyeglasses, equipping teams with performance-enhancing baseballs to meet MLB's performance-enhancing specifications or putting the balls in performance-enhancing humidors. Why, then, is the reaction diametrically and unanimously the opposite, bordering on criminal charges, when players are using performance-enhancing pharmaceuticals?

well, for one, player abuse of these performance enhancing pharmaceuticals actually tends to actually be criminal.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by kflo

well, for one, player abuse of these performance enhancing pharmaceuticals actually tends to actually be criminal.

Tends to be? Is it, or isn't it? Or is the only criminal act so far involving perjury about using them?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Tends to be? Is it, or isn't it? Or is the only criminal act so far involving perjury about using them?

simple possession is a federal offense in the united states, with a first offense up to 1 year in prison. i put tends to be because other legal jurisdictions have different laws. that authorities tend to more aggressively prosecute the distributors (felony, up to 5 years for 1st offense) doesn't mean it's not criminal for possession and use.

[fabio61]

Once you start putting asterisks out there, it will never stop. You can think of any number of reasons to put one there. Segregation - expansions - longer season - night games - artificial turf - smaller ballparks - height of the mound - the stirke zone - tightly wrapped baseballs - gambling - steroids - jet lag - train travel - fan intereference - umpire corruption - the list goes on....

Unfortunately the damage is done. Everything counts statistically. I don't like it any more than anyone else. But every player believed to have used performance enhancing drugs will have a cloud over their name from here on out. So when some of these guys get elected to the HOF and people start booing and protesting at Cooperstown, and some fans start carving asterisks into their plaques, we will see more things hit the fan.

[nanwynnfan]

Everything regarding steroids and myriad other compounds, related or unrelated, prohibited or permissable, are so clearly and cavalierly defined with an astonishing degree of certainty on these threads, while J.D. attorneys, specializing in the subject [and working both sides of the street] continue to enunciate the endless nuances, applications, state and federal conflicts and enforcement/penalty variations.

Example: Steroid Law - Extended Article Listing

"Far more sweeping federal legislation was close behind. On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, scheduled to take effect 90 days later [Public Law No: 108-358; 118 Stat. 1661 (2004)]. Ratified by the U.S. Congress earlier in the month, the bill expanded the steroid law that had been passed in 1990. The new law also provides $15 million for educational programs for children about the dangers of anabolic steroids, and directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider revising federal guidelines to increase the penalties for steroid possession and distribution.

The law, which took effect as of January 20th, 2005, adds 26 new steroid compounds (five of which are further described by specific chemical isomers) to the previous list of substances that are legally defined as �anabolic steroids� and classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Mere possession of any of these products is now a basis for arrest and prosecution as a federal drug criminal. The new compounds are androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol; androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; *1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. �1-testosterone�); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene; 17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; 17a-methyl-*1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. �17-a-methyl-1-testosterone�); norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone; stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone.

...

"The law also changes the general requisite elements of an anabolic steroid. The �promotes muscle growth� language that precedes the list of compounds [see Legal Muscle for an analysis of the 1990 law] is now removed from the statute. Strangely, an anabolic steroid, under the new law, need not be anabolic.

.... then follows considerations of the direct powers of the Attorney General to interpret vs. the powers of states' attorneys-general ...

... and we are treated to flaws in the 1990 law and revisitation of some suspect supplements ... now OK:

"After a protracted battle on the issue among members of Congress, the law permits the continued sale of DHEA as a dietary supplement by adding it to the list of other excluded hormonal substances (estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids). The law also fixes some of the mistakes and poor draftsmanship of the 1990 law that I pointed out in the original Legal Muscle."

So long as the legal system and the states' rights turf battles prevail, the clock, for me can start only after the new law went into effect. That would be mid-January, 2005 [which happens to open a calendar year in which Barry Bonds was out for surgery].

Anybody caught after all those refinements and redefinitions is a fool or an arrogant ass, deserving of having the book thrown at him, especially post the Mitchell Report.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The stronger you are, the greater your bat speed. The greater your bat speed, the longer you can wait to swing and the more time you may devote to recognizing the type and location of the pitch.

But, Grandstander, this goes against conventional knowledge. The faster you swing, the less often you make contact, and the more you strike out.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Part of one's ranking on the all time lists is composed of how well the player sustained his excellence into the later years of his career. We are denied the true picture for Bonds and Clemens.

We've always been denied a true picture of anyone in history. We don't know what anyone did to help their performance, other than what we're told about. We know Gaylord Perry was a cheater, but he was a good cheater. He was better than Joe Niekro. Still, this doesn't mean that we know that Tom Seaver or Jim Palmer didn't cheat. For all we know, Gaylord Perry also took steroids and bet on his team, but we don't know that. He might have admitted some incidental wrongdoing (which was breaking the rules) to mask greater indiscretions. Maybe he was also a serial killer and was trying to distract people from that fact. You can't judge a player based on what you're told.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The steroid users have crapped on the stats. They have crapped on all those discussions.

You could substitute "steroid users" with other designations throughout history and say basically the same thing. In fact, it's safe to say that the owners have done far more damage to the game than anyone else. They've done things throughout history to muck up the game. And recently, the juiced ball and smaller stadiums has had a greater impact than steroids. Do you think it's the steroid users' fault that pitchers have trouble getting into the 8th and 9th innings any more, and there are 3-4 relievers in most every game? What does that do to the stats? Greg Maddux could have easily won 400 games if he'd pitched in the '60s and '70s. Honus Wagner was hindered by the dead ball his whole career. Hardly any casual fan looks at him as one of the top ten greatest players. That's because he had no flashy records. Mike Schmidt was hindered by playing in the '70s and '80s — one of the worst times since the 1920s for hitting home runs. Schmidt would have flirted with 700 HR in today's environment.

What I don't understand is how people think Griffey and ARod were not helped by the era they play in, but Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc., were helped. Was Mike Piazza not helped? Most career HR by a catcher. Was Jeff Kent not helped? Most career HR by a 2nd baseman. McGwire's got 1B covered. ARod's got his side of the field. Bonds has LF. So are we to believe that among these players, some of them were not legitimate and some were, and we can tell which? Isn't it a little coincidental that ARod and Griffey would come along the same time as Bonds, McGwire & Sosa, but they somehow had no statistical benefit from the time period they played in?

See the attached chart, and notice the difference before '95 and then after.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Further, they are thieves, aren't they? How many of them were able to parlay their artificial performances into larger contracts because they appeared to be legitimate stars? How many who refused to go along with the cheating suffered lower value contracts as a consequence because their performances no longer seemed up to par? How many who did not use, failed to make it to the bigs at all because they were beaten out by the steroid using sluggers?

The answer to the "how many" is the key: we don't know if it's a lot or a little. Plus, we don't know who. And not armed with such knowledge, that's why we have to err on the side of caution. Unless you have a steroid-o-meter to gauge the effect of the drug on certain players' performance.

And if we're talking about using performance enhancing drugs to extend one's career, then I think somebody needs to lift a suspicious eye toward Julio Franco.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Triad

... this goes against conventional knowledge. The faster you swing, the less often you make contact, and the more you strike out.

Triad: Guys like Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Stan Musial and .... Barry Bonds would probably beg to differ with you on that one.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by Triad

But, Grandstander, this goes against conventional knowledge. The faster you swing, the less often you make contact, and the more you strike out.

not sure why you keep getting this wrong. you could argue the harder you swing, the less often you make contact. but better bat speed in itself is an asset. and allows you to make more frequent contact. one of the first things to go that contributes to the decline phase for hitters is bat speed.

Originally Posted by Triad

What I don't understand is how people think Griffey and ARod were not helped by the era they play in, but Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc., were helped. Was Mike Piazza not helped? Most career HR by a catcher. Was Jeff Kent not helped? Most career HR by a 2nd baseman. McGwire's got 1B covered. ARod's got his side of the field. Bonds has LF. So are we to believe that among these players, some of them were not legitimate and some were, and we can tell which? Isn't it a little coincidental that ARod and Griffey would come along the same time as Bonds, McGwire & Sosa, but they somehow had no statistical benefit from the time period they played in?

you seem to want to continue to go back to an argument questioning whether steroids aided players. it did. just move past that line.