[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, Bond's peak years of production, 2000 - 2004, came when he was 35 to 39 years old. Hitting this many home runs so late in one's career is unprecedented:


[/ QUOTE ]

Hank Aaron hit more homeruns in the 5 year period from age 35-39 than he did in the 5 year period from ages 25-29 or 30-34.

Known, proven, or otherwise admitted users of steroids (ie, Canseco, Caminiti, etc) have shown a sharp drop off at these ages.

If anything, the stats show Bonds is a whole lot more like Aaron than being similar to known steroid users.

Also, hitting a lot of homeruns as you get older is not against MLB rules, nor does it constitute a violation of the MLB steroid policy.


[ QUOTE ]
maybe it was sheer skill and luck
but given the huge amount of circumstantial evidence that he used one would assume steroids played a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bonds 1986-1999 used ash bats.
Bonds 2000-present used custom made, maple "SAM" bats.

What factor does this account for, if any?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume some..just like taking roids, lifting weights, etc had a factor. I'd weigh steroids and getting bigger/stronger/recovery time as > than change in wood.

Raf/Canseco/Mark M/Bonds/etc are all tainted and thus their accomplishments should also be. They are the poster boys for the steroid/juice era. They shouldn't be vilified to the point of someone like Pacman/Vick/Rose/ etc but they brought most of the heat upon themselves and in Bonds case made it worse by being such a self absorbed ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that because you think steroids helps hitters and you don't even consider the possibility that it might HURT hitters, and they need to take steroids just to keep pace.

But thats cool, its all made up anyway, no way to determine how much these factors influence the numbers (nor the hundreds of other factors that have changed since Ruth or Aaron's day) so we usually just go by the actual numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.
hence the word tainted not discredited or asterick'd
though i think only an idiot would argue that steroids don't help a baseball player hit more homeruns given the explosion of hr hitters during the steroid era.

red-i think your an idiot because you want everything to be an absolute 100% provable fact in order to take it into consideration..which is nice if your living in never never land but in the real world things are never that cut and dry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, only a moron would think that the birth of Brad Pitt has nothing to do with the economy in China. Ummm...check out the dates for yourself, man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess than the majority of players who doubled if not tripled their HR production simply ran really hot all at the same time during a era when steroid use was widespread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want me to FYP in about twenty other things that have changed during this "steroid era" or can you just recognize how silly your argument is, notice the genius of my Brad Pitt counterargument, and move on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of things have changed but what is the era called
The steroid era..and who are mentioned when this area is discussed...Raf/Bonds/Mark M/sosa/Brady S/Canseco etc

and is this era viewed as a positive or negative?

So its obvious why Bonds and all the other player and their achievements during this era are tainted right? Maybe Bonds didn't even do steroids and it was in fact Arod who was the biggest user..but Bonds achievments are still tainted regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your point is the media and general baseball fans are retarded? Not exactly a hard sell there. This is why I said you can call it tainted or whatever if you want, you just can't call it "steroid-enhanced." Tainted is subjective and based on popular opinion (and therefore trivial and meaningless IMO) while enhanced is at least theoretically demonstrable.