More Bonds

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
*At the moon.* HOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLL

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
Bonds on the 1988 Pirates looks the same as Bonds on the 2001 Giants

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take issue with this one thing. Bonds physical changes are entirely consistent with maturation paired with athletic training. And the excited crowing about his head size, which apparently any one without blinders on can plainly see, to me, is a ridiculous substitute for argument, perhaps the dumbest aspect of this thing, an achievement.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Redbean deserves a custom title for this thread alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Thremp]

RedBean is raping the others in this thread NAMBLA style.

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he's clearly a fantastic poster.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm the nut here,

[/ QUOTE ]
No comment.
[ QUOTE ]
Bonds has never used steroids, and Hank Aaron's late career power surge somehow is evidence of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. One of the main points I take from Redbean's posting is the incongruity of the attitudes and perceptions toward Aaron and toward Bonds.
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, it's now been told to us that clearly documented fact states that Bonds on the 1988 Pirates looks the same as Bonds on the 2001 Giants, how I missed this stuff is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. He looks different, and this is not in dispute. He has put on weight (!!!OMG!!!) See thread for relevence/irrelevence of weight gain. His head size has been disputed and used as "evidence" of steroid use, and was thus addressed.
[ QUOTE ]
Kudos for another 2p2 gem post, complete with someone who is likely 17 years old in Moms basement telling me I have anger issues for commenting on steroid use by someone who has two entire books devoted to the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not once did he resort to a childish personal attack. Maybe because he didn't need to.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Kudos for another 2p2 gem post, complete with someone who is likely 17 years old in Moms basement telling me I have anger issues for commenting on steroid use by someone who has two entire books devoted to the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

lollllllllllllllllllll

[pepper123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kudos for another 2p2 gem post, complete with someone who is likely 17 years old in Moms basement telling me I have anger issues for commenting on steroid use by someone who has two entire books devoted to the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

lollllllllllllllllllll

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.boston.com/sports/basebal...ogs_in/?page=1

[ QUOTE ]
Lapdog38: Hey Curt. This blog is awesome. I mean, I can't believe it's really you. I'm nervous just typing, knowing you are there on the other end. Let me tell you a little about myself. I am 38 years old (pretty cool, huh, 38?) and I have your jersey in XXL (both home and away versions). I'm living at home, in the basement, rent free, and I've got cable and plasma TV. Domino's delivers. I guess you could say I'm living the dream. Anyway, I was wondering if you could tell us who's going to be on the final 25-man roster for the Sox this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

FireStorm is Dan Shaughnessy. That's the only explanation!

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You directed someone to an account of him taking a greenie in 1968-- wouldn't that have been legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if the teammate he got it from prescribed it....but I doubt that's the case.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
in 1968 there were 891 HR's in 54913 AB's, or 1 HR / 62 AB. in 1969 there were 1470 HR's in 65751 AB's, or 1/45. This fell further to 1/39 in 1970. Hank clearly wasn't the only one who experienced a dramatic increase in his home run rate post 1968, on the road, away, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of cherry-picking, I see what you did here....using the aberration in 1968 to give the impression that a drastic change between 68 and 69 was that more meaningful than it appears.

But let's dial it back a little further than just using 1968 only as the "pre-lowering mound" standard, as it was more of an aberration than anything, which obviously enhanced the point you are trying to make.

HR's per AB for the entire NL:

1962: 1 in 38
1963: 1 in 45
1964: 1 in 45
1965: 1 in 42
1966: 1 in 40
1967: 1 in 49
1968: 1 in 62
*mound is lowered*
1969: 1 in 45
1970: 1 in 39
1971: 1 in 47
1972: 1 in 46

Are you seeing a dramatic increase in power over that span because of the lowering of the mound?

OR

Was 1968 just an aberration?

1964-1967 looks similar to 1969-1972 to me, and the mound was 5 inches difference.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

he's def. done a good job of preventing facts in a reasonable way. I'm just not sure the Bonds/Aaron post 35 comparison is as close as he states.

I went back and looked at each guy Top 10 seasons in terms of .eqa (overall hitting effectiveness) and ISO SLG (power, using Davenport translated #'s). in terms of .eqa, Bonds post 35 years constitute his 4 best which are also his 4 "off the charts" years. His 42 and 35 seasons also crack the top 10.

Aaron, meanwhile, had his best years all fall in the more typical age range. his age 36 season was his 6th best, his age 38 season 10th best.

Bonds:

Age EQA

39 0.456
37 0.453
36 0.427
38 0.412
27 0.377
28 0.374
42 0.372
31 0.362
35 0.36
32 0.35

Aaron

Age EQA

29 0.362
25 0.351
24 0.35
28 0.342
30 0.337
32 0.336
36 0.335
34 0.335
23 0.334
38 0.334

in terms of ISO SLG, the story gets a bit better for Aaron.

his top 3 seasons came post 35.

Age ISO SLG

37 0.425
39 0.412
35 0.384
28 0.363
33 0.353
29 0.334
26 0.334
23 0.332
32 0.33
25 0.329

Age ISO SLG

for Bonds, the effect is even more extreme

36 0.553
39 0.49
37 0.459
38 0.448
28 0.418
27 0.415
40 0.404
35 0.395
29 0.376
34 0.375


So, while they both enjoyed power surges late in their career, Bonds was even more pronounced. and in terms of overall hitting, it's not even close between the 2: Bonds best years, easily, came post 35, while this isn't true for Aaron at all.