Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread

[THAY3R]

He is wondering if a 16 team league with only white people is perhaps similar in talent level/depth to a 30 team league with all races.

[kyleb]

I am so conflicted. I want to change my avatar over to that image that I found, but I really like my dancing indifference-roll face.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
He is wondering if a 16 team league with only white people is perhaps similar in talent level/depth to a 30 team league with all races.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that doesn't account for the possibility that a single black contemporary player, if allowed, could have very well outperformed even Ruth in the same 16-team league with those same best white players.

The simple truth is that it is impossible to ever know how blacks would have performed during that time when they weren't allowed to play.

Comparing the overall talent level as divided by the number of teams from 1927 to 1957 doesn't do much for that black kid in 1927 who never got a chance to prove that he could outslug Ruth when facing the same pitchers and same 16 teams.

We do know, however, how it's stacked up among contemporaries since 1947 when the barrier came down, and it isn't even close.

[kyleb]

The best estimate we have are the years after integration but before expansion. Even then, though, it's not like blacks were exactly welcomed into MLB with open arms until much, much later.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The best estimate we have are the years after integration but before expansion. Even then, though, it's not like blacks were exactly welcomed into MLB with open arms until much, much later.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does your best estimate conclude that if black players had been allowed to play during Ruth's time, they would have dominated the career HR lists by 1947 as opposed to being non-existant?

That wouldn't do much to negate the theory.

Or are these best estimates merely geared to rationalize the fact that Ruth never had to compete against blacks?

The desired answer already being determined, the method of arriving at it only needed to negate the claim?

IMHO, reverse extrapolations and best estimates are for the birds. We don't know how contemporary blacks would have performed at the time as compared to Ruth. It is what it is. It sucks, but best estimates ain't giving the indians their land back, either.

We do know how blacks have performed since 1947, though, as measured against their white contemporaries. 60 years worth of data tells me that the previous 40 would have been a lot different if only some folks had been allowed the chance.

[THAY3R]

Why are you flipping out over this?

There would be a significant difference if Ruth played in a 30 team all white league than the 16 team league he actually played in.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you flipping out over this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mistake my tone, I'm not flipping out. I'm enjoying the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

There would be a significant difference if Ruth played in a 30 team all white league than the 16 team league he actually played in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this negates the fact that Ruth never had to compete against blacks, and if he had, it could have been alot different, likely to his detriment?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean's default position for all of these witnesses is that they are not credible, even if they have testified under oath.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which witnesses testimony have I asserted is not credible?

[ QUOTE ]

The contradiction is that Redbean then turns around and accepts everything Bonds has said as the absolute gospel, assigning Bonds absolute credibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assign Bonds no credibility. There is a difference between me asserting his words as truth, and me debunking your claim to fact that he admitted under oath to taking steroids when he didn't.

Please tell me you see that difference.

[ QUOTE ]

I can't decide if Redbean is just being blinded by his fan worship of Bonds, or if he's being willfully intellectually dishonest.


[/ QUOTE ]

It just has to be one of the two, right? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It can't just be that I pointed out that your assertion of "fact" was in reality, not a fact.

[ QUOTE ]

Either way, I'm fairly amazed that he's convinced anyone that his points are any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only point has been that your assertion that Bonds admitted under oath to taking steroids as fact was indeed false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have asked you several times to address the evidence against Bonds in the Game of Shadows book, and you have either ignored me or dismissed the book as "for-profit." The book contains numerous sourced references to witnesses who said, or testified, that they saw Bonds use steroids or heard him admit steroid use. Your continued dismissal/refusal to address this evidence is a dismissal of that evidence IMO. Please address the evidence in the book.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you flipping out over this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mistake my tone, I'm not flipping out. I'm enjoying the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

There would be a significant difference if Ruth played in a 30 team all white league than the 16 team league he actually played in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this negates the fact that Ruth never had to compete against blacks, and if he had, it could have been alot different, likely to his detriment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say "likely to his detriment?"

14 of the last 20 Cy Young award winners and 34 of the last 40 are white. Blacks are allowed to play today, and they are not dominating a list of the best pitchers in baseball.

Who are these imagined black pitchers who would have dominated Ruth had they been allowed to play? Is there any real evidence that black players would have reduced Ruth's career numbers at all, other than some notion that black athletes just dominate every facet of every sport they are allowed to play?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As for #3, I think there is a mountain of substantial credible evidence that Bonds used steroids and I am pretty sure I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Obviously this is speculation on my part, but the fact that the feds have not YET indicted Bonds does not really mean anything conclusive either way.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds used steroids (what state did you pass the BAR exam in btw?), then you might want to contact someone that works for the government. They've been unsuccessfully trying to get him for years, and I'm sure your help would be appreciated.

I think you're looking for a reason why I, or others, can possibly believe that Bonds didn't use steroids correct? Your main argument seems to be that Bonds hit an extraordinary amount of home runs at a late age. That wasn't the only number of his that increased. Let's look at his batting averages. Bonds has a career average of .298. The numbers from 2001-2004: .328, .370, .341, .362. He only has 1 year higher than any of these 4 and that came in 1993 at .336. Barry won the MVP award in 1993. How could steroids have possibly helped him raise his batting average this much? Perhaps Barry realized that he was aging, would be slower, and compensated by working out and working at his batting.

If Barry Bonds is the scumbag, a liar, and a cheater as you and the media make him out to be, then I only want one answer. Why would he wait until 2000 to begin taking steroids? If he wanted to cheat before then I'm sure he could've.

[/ QUOTE ]

I passed the bar exam in Texas.

My main argument that Bonds used steroids is the evidence presented in the book Game of Shadows and the grand jury testimony. A number of witnesses said they either saw Bonds use steroids or heard him admit using steroids. In the grand jury, Bonds admitted using a substance that was steroids, though he (dubiously, IMO) claimed he thought it was flaxseed oil.

Bonds started cheating in 1999 because he was jealous of the 1998 McGwire/Sosa lovefest, according to the book.

Still waiting on someone to disagree with or counter the evidence in the book.