More Bonds

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean, I'm curious what your response is if the answer is "yes"

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're also suspicious of Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, and Ken Griffey Jr. in addition to Barry Bonds.....then I don't know what to tell you....pretty good company to be in. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[RacersEdge]

I'm guessing that's ABs/HR - interesting - but I think you need to take into account absolulte levels as well as relative differences - it's different going from 100 MPH to 150 MPH than it is going from 150 MPH to 200 MPH.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
2. At the age of 34 he increases his production over a 6 year period at a rate which is unprecedented for a player of that age.


[/ QUOTE ]

As noted in my post above:

-At the age of 35, Bonds increases his HR rate over the next 5 years at a rate which is similar to Hank Aaron. (a precedent!)
-At the age of 36, Bonds increases his HR rate over the next 4 years at a rate which is slightly more than Hank Aaron. (precedented!)
-At the age of 37, HANK AARON increases his HR rate over 3 years at a rate which is much higher than Bonds, despite Bonds being in the midst of the 3 best seasons in baseball history. (Hank has no precedent!)


See how the "unprecedented" assertion falls apart pretty quickly?

Now I completely understand why you insisted on including age 34. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that's ABs/HR - interesting - but I think you need to take into account absolulte levels as well as relative differences - it's different going from 100 MPH to 150 MPH than it is going from 150 MPH to 200 MPH.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good point, but then you also have to adjust for league averages. Luckily, this has already been done previously in the thread.

From age 30-34: Hank's rate was 2.5 times league average.
From age 35-39: Hank's rate was 3.75 times league average.

From age 30-34: Bond's rate was 2.5 times league average.
From age 35-39: Bond's rate was 3.75 times league average.

[pepper123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RedBean, I'm curious what your response is if the answer is "yes"

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're also suspicious of Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, and Ken Griffey Jr. in addition to Barry Bonds.....then I don't know what to tell you....pretty good company to be in. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, to ask more pointedly.

do you believe that any of these players used performance enhancing drugs? obviously some would be under more suspicion than others, and some who are under a lot of suspicion aren't on your list. what about pitchers?

do you think it matters?

you did a good job defending Barry in this thread, I'm just curious what you personally believe, since I don' think I've seen you actually speculate.

[Gregatron]

"Proof"?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

do you believe that any of these players used performance enhancing drugs?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of those on the list, only Hank has admitted to trying performance enhancing drugs, albeit only once.

I'd have to believe that aside from that, none of them have used illegal substances, in the abscence of any kind of proof otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
obviously some would be under more suspicion than others


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it obvious that some should be under more suspicion, based on an increase in HR rate after 35 years old, when all of them saw an increase in HR rate after 35 years old?

[ QUOTE ]

some who are under a lot of suspicion aren't on your list. what about pitchers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a seperate list that contained Palmeiro, Canseco, Caminiti, McGwire, and Sosa. Their HR rates all declined after age 35.

As for pitchers, considering we were discussing HR rate while batting, we haven't discussed them much. In general, it is a known fact that the majority of players who violate MLB steroid policy are pitchers.

[ QUOTE ]

do you think it matters?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is what it is.

Which is different than what SI tells you to believe it is.

[ QUOTE ]

you did a good job defending Barry in this thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't take credit, the numbers speak for themselves. All I did was cite the factual recording of statistics that were based upon on-field performance.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just curious what you personally believe, since I don' think I've seen you actually speculate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reserve speculation until both sides have had a chance to present their case. Remember, Bonds has been under a gag order preventing him from discussing the Balco case publically since it's inception in 2003, and he is prevented from addressing specific details surrounding the case until it is resolved.

In fact, even if he had indisputable exculpatory evidence in his possession, if he chose to share it publically, he could be imprisoned on contempt of court.

He's prevented by LAW from discussing his side.

Think about that:

On one side, you have several biased sports journalists who have shown a consistent disregard for the truth telling you what to believe.

On the other side, you have a guy who cannot comment on any portion related to the investigation, even defending himself, or else he can be put in jail.

He's a sitting duck in the court of public opinion, and the sports media hasn't wasted a single chance to throw stones knowing they can't be responded too.

It got so bad during one period a year or so ago, I was almost convinced the media was attempting to bait Barry into responding so that he would be imprisoned for contempt of court.

As for my personal belief, it would be rather reckless to speculate when all we've been presented is one side in the biased media, a side that itself was obtained illegally and not even entirely shared, but instead, the media chose which parts to share and which to refrain from publishing.

First and foremost, I am curious why the sports media did not share the potentially exculpatory testimony of Dr. Ting, nor the evidence surrounding Bond's blood work evidence from 1999 and 2001 scopes that was included in the leaked testimony passed onto the GoS authors by the grand jury leak.

They printed the suggestive parts that painted Bonds in a bad light, but why not just show us all the testimony without having to re-package it in their own narrative, leaving out entire chunks that were possibly exculpatory.

I would guess that if that blood evidence contained evidence of steroid use, at the very heart of the timeline alleged, then surely that portion would have been leaked as well, in addition to a simple perjury indictment being a slam dunk.

Instead, the prosecution has admitted themselves that they currently do not even have enough evidence to indict Bonds and proceed to trial unless Greg Anderson gets on the stand and says he gave Bonds steroids and Bonds knew what they were.

Think about that. For them to charge him with perjury, they must prove he knowingly took steroids. Aside from what the GoS authors tell you in their book, the government doesn't believe they have enough evidence to even go to trial and let a trial jury decide if their is enough circumstantial evidence.

The two previous grand juries have both been release without issuing an indictment, and this third one has only been convened to allow Greg to be imprisoned again for refusing to testify and attempt to apply pressure on him to crack.

One has to wonder, if the testimony regarding the blood evidence was presented, and then it was kept from being published by the GoS authors and SI, and the government concedes they currently don't have enough evidence to indict.....one has to wonder if the blood evidence was inconclusive, or at the very most exculpatory.

As the old saying goes, everyone looks guilty when the prosecution rests and before the defense begins.

I'll speculate when all the evidence is known, and refrain from jumping the gun based on any percieved bias like the folks at SI. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Remember, Bonds said, "My time will come."

Statute of limitations expires in about 13 months, and I can assure you that Greg ain't talking in the meantime.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]


"Proof"?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few reasons why the Clemens picture isn't proof of anything:

1. The pigmentation of the skin is white.
2. Even after close scrutinization of the image, one cannot find any evidence of 761 homeruns.
3. Although Clemens is mentioned in the Grimsley report, since Bonds wasn't mentioned, according to the sports media it "doesn't count".

And before anyone counters #1 with "Mark McGwire is white".....don't fool yourselves people. He's GINGER!

---

Now on to Exhibit B:

This is from the cermony last week in which the city of San Francisco celebrated Bond's becoming the HR king, giving him a key to the city and the actual home plate from AT&T from the night he hit 756.



Notice the relative similarity in head size to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Is this potential evidence that the 39 yr old Mayor Newsom may have achieved his elected office through possibly unnatural means?

[Gregatron]

Haha. When I read this:

[ QUOTE ]

A few reasons why the Clemens picture isn't proof of anything:

1. The pigmentation of the skin is white.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were going to go into some effect steroids has on skin pigmentation that I did not know about.

Interesting article

[Mojo56]

I don't give a damn about Roger Clemens, Ozzie Smith or Bruce Bochy when it comes to this thread. I don't read SI and I don't care what Bonds did to change his physique and HR production after the age of 33. This thread was about trying to say that Bonds' HR surge was a "natural and continuous power PROGRESSION". FWIW, I did not 'cherry pick' the age of 34. It is the age the study uses and the one that conforms to alleged PED's. In a previous post I asserted that by looking at only data points you 'could' include Bonds' age 34 & 35 seasons with those from his mid-career phase but as I also said you can group these any way you want but the point remains that what Bonds did was UNPRECEDENTED. As in, never been done before. Your argument seems to be that since Aaron (who is the only one that even comes close to Bonds) did it there is precedent. My argument is that no one has ever done it to the EXTENT that Bonds did. Therefore, what Bonds did was UNPRECEDENTED. Once more here are Aaron's AB/HR #'s from age 30 on:
23.8, 17.8, 13.7, 15.4, 20.9, 12.4, 13.6, 10.5, 13.2, 9.8. THIS looks like a "natural and continuous power PROGRESSION". Trending down (down is good for those new to the discussion), pops back up for a couple of years, hits a new best by 9%, pops back up again, back down to another new best by 15%, pops back up again but not as high as the last time and finishes off with a career best 7% better then before.
Here is Bonds from 30 on:
15.3, 12.3, 13.3, 14.9, 10.4, 9.8, 6.5, 8.8, 8.7, 8.3. Trends down then pops up for a couple of years. He then sets a new best by 15%, then another new best by 6%, then another new best by 34%(!), he then pops back up above his best but still puts together 3 years that are 10-14% better than the 9.8 he established before the insane 6.5. All 6 of his seasons after the age of 33 were better then those before 33. By a lot. His best # from 30-33 was 12.3 and from 34-39 it was 6.5 That is a 47% increase. For Aaron it is 13.7 compared to 9.8 for a 28% increase. Even the most myopic Bonds' fan has to see the difference in these two sets of numbers.