Asterisks, windbags & fools in high places

[kflo]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

How can anyone look at the circumstances here and conclude anything other than ...Bonds did steroids?

and that those steroids had a significant impact on his production.

[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.

[Grandstander]

Note that nan elects to ignore addressing all the other evidence and presents only an extremist interpretation placing a favorable spin on everything. 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.

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?

[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

[Grandstander]

As noted, incredible desperation.

[kflo]

mlb didn't have a reasonable testing policy until 2005, and not until canseco and congress did it have a high profile. they were all relatively in the "clear" until then.

bonds career:

Year	AB/HR
1986	 25.8 
1987	 22.0 
1988	 22.4 
1989	 30.5 
1990	 15.7 
1991	 20.4 
1992	 13.9 
1993	 11.7 
1994	 10.6 
1995	 15.3 
1996	 12.3 
1997	 13.3 
1998	 14.9 
1999	 10.4 
2000	 9.8 
2001	 6.5 
2002	 8.8 
2003	 8.7 
2004	 8.3 
2005	 8.4 
2006	 14.1 
2007	 11.7

[1Perry]

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].

So which was Raffy? Insane or stupid and what makes Bonds so much brighter?

[kflo]

we have age and performance, PLUS physical changes, PLUS bonds own confession PLUS grand jury testimony from others, PLUS bonds convicted trainer. you can't use the oj defense of attempting to pick apart (rationalize) each individual issue. when looked at together, you're not even left with reasonable doubt.

[nanwynnfan]

"mlb didn't have a reasonable testing policy until 2005, and not until canseco and congress did it have a high profile. they were all relatively in the "clear" until then."

kflo: Rather than prove anything else, you just made my case for me. Case closed. End of debate.

If they were in the clear, there is no just retroactive punishment or penalty of any kind through the 2004 season.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

"mlb didn't have a reasonable testing policy until 2005, and not until canseco and congress did it have a high profile. they were all relatively in the "clear" until then."

kflo: Rather than prove anything else, you just mad my case for me. Case closed. End of debate.

If they were in the clear, there is no just retroactive punishment or penalty of any kind through the 2004 season.

i only made your case for you if your case was that it was easy to cheat and get away with it then.

i don't think that's your case though.

ask mark mcgwire if there's no retroactive punishment or penalty.

[Nimajneb]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

"mlb didn't have a reasonable testing policy until 2005, and not until canseco and congress did it have a high profile. they were all relatively in the "clear" until then."

kflo: Rather than prove anything else, you just mad my case for me. Case closed. End of debate.

If they were in the clear, there is no just retroactive punishment or penalty of any kind through the 2004 season.

I think most everyone here has been open in saying that we hold players to a higher standard than MLB has chosen...

[nanwynnfan]

"I think most everyone here has been open in saying that we hold players to a higher standard than MLB has chosen..."

Everyone here, I take it, is the sum of posters on this board, perhaps best measured by the number of members who have taken the time to post to this thread.

However, that "we" is miniscule to the fans who have been flooding into stadiums, at considerable out of pocket expense each trip, or the millions more who have had eyeballs glued to sets as the final leg of the drama unfolded. Those fans want to be part of history in the making; and, at the bottom line, they suspend all disbelief for a share of those "moments." That has always been a common denominator among baseball fans, going back to Hank Greenberg's and Jimmie Foxx's assaults on Ruth's 60 HR record; the .400 watch in 1941 with Ted Williams, and again with TSW in 1957.

It was the daily vigil seeing how far DiMaggio would go with hit hit streak and the M&M HR race in the early '60s in NYC. It was a rather bulky looking Clemens racking up #300.

Player personality, reputation with the fans and media, all fade into oblivion, as do their "supplement" habits, as with McGwire-Sosa and their dueling tape measures a few years back

Fans are fickle; but fans LOVE to see records fall, and to be part of it.

As I said, kflo made my case for me; and whatever we post here, the records have been set and were "in the clear" just as kflo wrote ... and with no pun intended within the quotes.

[unreal654]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Fans are fickle; but fans LOVE to see records fall, and to be part of it.

"In the poll by ABC News and ESPN, 37 percent said they are rooting for Bonds to break Aaron’s record, while 52 percent said they hope he falls short and 11 percent had no opinion."
SOURCE: MSNBC.com

I don't think the fans agree with you.

[Nimajneb]

"Sure he's a cheat, but cheating sells..."

You're not increasing my enthusiasm for statistical feats, Bonds or the game of baseball, nan. The game will survive steroids just fine, but the fans want it clean.

[nanwynnfan]

Look, guys, have it each your own way. I'm no missionary and I didn't set out to make converts, just have an honest discussion. Many missionaries have wound up in pots, I've read; and I've no desire to to join them, even metaphorically.

I'm not going to spend time responding to polls of fans and their rooting "feelings" at the moment. Besides, like it or not, that poll's majority is now sadly disappointed. I sincerely hope it doesn't spoil their weekend.

Personally, I'm happy for Bonds; and I believe he represents a HR recordholder, all time, as well as anyone, simply because of his career performance, overall. I've heard in some media that even Hank Aaron's classy bow to Bonds' achievement was filmed weeks in advance, and only after some very heavy negotiations. [I would love to know what THAT involved, but won't lose sleep over it].

There's always a fly in the ointment, especially if one looks for it. I'm bowing out now. It's been fun. My daughter started debating this with me last night, so I guess THAT will be continued over the weekend, good-naturedly, I'm hoping.