[Mojo56]

I didn't arbitrarily choose the years. That is where there is a break in data points. If you are going to do this exercise then it seems obvious to break out the 1st 4 years of Bonds career. In '90 he became a different type of player. To group '90-'92 with '86-'89 is ridiculous. Whether this was due to physical maturity or a change in his approach at the plate it there for all to see. The next 10 years are very similar. You could even make the case that '99 and '00 should be included in this set. He may have started a new vitamin program after the '98 season but the injury and surgery in '99 could have offset any gains from the new program. Bonds' involvement with Greg Anderson and Balco supposedly began in 2000. You could argue that any program Bonds' undertook at that time took at least a year to take full effect. But really it is irrelevant. I was taking issue with the link provided in the OP which attempts to explain away Bonds' late career explosion by grouping his career into 3 periods (the periods end with the 2004 season which is why I didn't look at the years after that). I really don't care how you group them or whether you group them the fact remains his stats went through the roof AFTER he played 14 seasons. Whether this was due to selling his soul to the devil or an amazing new workout regimen or maple bats or 'juiced' balls or smaller ballparks is moot. The point is that some people are trying to sell the idea that this late career surge is 'normal' when it most definitely is NOT.