Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]

He improved. Are his and Bonds increases "eerily similar?" IMO, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, you may not think the numbers are similar when you refuse to acknowledge half of them.

But, glad to see you concede that Hank did, in fact, improve later in his career.....which is kinda the point that got this all started. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
MBP, for what it's worth, I think we've come a long way from your original assertions that Hank's increase was due solely to FCS amidst your calling my assertions "wrong".......

But three quick questions, just to clarify:

1. I originally asserted that their overall HR rate increase from 35-39 vs 30-34 were similar relative to their respective leagues.

Do you now agree this is correct?

2. Despite your objection regarding Home Park "explaining it all", I asserted that Hank's HR rate on the road also increased relative to the league.

Do you now agree this is correct?

3. Considering the right answer to #1 & #2 is "Yes", what left on this issue is there to discuss?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes. The raw numbers were very similar.

2. Hanks HR rate on the road increased by a much smaller amount than his HR rate at home. His HR rate from ages 30-34 was 2.665x the league average. By my rough calculations Aaron's road rate from 35-39 was 3.24x the league average. His home rate was 4.2x the league average at a ballpark that promoted homeruns.

Bonds HR rate from ages 30-34 was 2.58x the league average. His road rate from 35-39 was 3.64x the league average. His home rate from 35-39 was 3.97x the leage average at a ballpark that is arguably deflating to HR's.


So what is left to discuss? That the two are "eerily similar" when you take home ball park into account. That AT&T is deflating to left handers? That none of this by itself is definitive proof of anything?

Do you agree or disagree with these statements:

1)Barry Bonds saw a significantly bigger increase than Hank Aaron when comparing road HR rates to the league average.

2)If both played their home games in neutral stadiums Bonds would have a bigger change in his rates.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">RedBean to manbearpig, 9 days ago:</font>
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you know very, very little about baseball.

Please put up some more statistical arguments so we can enjoy a good laugh, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about having a 'read' on a guy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But lets take a step back and look at Bonds Fly Ball outs. He has a lot more outs to deep right center and center than to dead right. Extrapolate that data out into a neutral ballpark and he hits a lot more HR's to center and right center.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many fly ball outs do you think he hits to a 399' dead center that will translate into homeruns elsewhere on a pure linear foot extrapolation?

And just how easy can you extrapolate based just on the number of feet to the fence, and disregarding every other factor involved?

I mean, after all, Coors Field is one of the bigger parks in the game...it must be hard to hit homeruns, amirite?

Sheesh....I got an idea...

Instead of measuring the number of feet for Bonds flyball outs....and instead of pretending Hank never hit any homeruns in Atlanta.....how about we just count the ones that actually landed over the fence in both cases?

Novel idea...I know...

[/ QUOTE ]

You know better than this. Park Effects have to be taken into account when discussing this.

Seriously, if someone who played in pre humidor Coors Field day hit 80 HR's a season with 55 of them coming at home would you not want to discuss the effect that altitude had?

Figuring out exactly how many home runs Aaron gained because of the altitude at FCS or from the fences being moved in; or how many Bonds gained due to the short right field fence, or how many he lost because of the RCF and CF dimensions or cool temperatures or the wind is above my paygrade.

But the concept has to be in the conversation. Agree?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. I originally asserted that their overall HR rate increase from 35-39 vs 30-34 were similar relative to their respective leagues.

Do you now agree this is correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet....

And on that note, have a good Thanksgiving week, man....I'm off to the shuttle and a trip to South America for the holiday...going to take in some winter ball, eat some turkey, and chase some ass.

Hopefull Mitchell doesn't drop his report while I am gone...it'll be such a shame to miss the massive show of media hypocrisy.

Have a good one. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He improved. Are his and Bonds increases "eerily similar?" IMO, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, you may not think the numbers are similar when you refuse to acknowledge half of them.

But, glad to see you concede that Hank did, in fact, improve later in his career.....which is kinda the point that got this all started. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I compared road HR rate to road HR rate, in relation to the league. Explain to me why this comparison is not useful.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. I originally asserted that their overall HR rate increase from 35-39 vs 30-34 were similar relative to their respective leagues.

Do you now agree this is correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet....

And on that note, have a good Thanksgiving week, man....I'm off to the shuttle and a trip to South America for the holiday...going to take in some winter ball, eat some turkey, and chase some ass.

Hopefull Mitchell doesn't drop his report while I am gone...it'll be such a shame to miss the massive show of media hypocrisy.

Have a good one. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Pick and choose. Pick and choose.

Have a good holiday.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't care either way, but let's not pretend that the asterisk is insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...a fashion designer bought a baseball, and decided to put an asterisk on it.

If anyone is pretending about the significance, it isn't me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I mean, seriously, I don't know about you guys, but I don't usually make a habit of letting a guy who designs women's fall fashions tell me what to think about what happens on the baseball field.

But that's just me....hey...if you'd rather eschew the facts, details, and proof...and instead go with the opinion of the guy who makes your wife's dresses....more power to you.

I'll take what happens on the field.
You guys can have what the fashion designers of the world think about it.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Redbean, I fully respect the fact that the asterisk won't have any meaning for you. However, I think you will agree that nothing anyone says or does on this forum will control how others will perceive its significance.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

Why is Bond's name not coming up in any free agent talks/ rumours, etc. The silence is deafening.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

Lets have a little fun with this before I hang it up for a couple days.

From 1969-74, the league hit 1.35 home runs at FCS for every 1 away from FCS. Aaron's rate was slightly higher, 1.39/1.

From 1964-68, Aaron hit HRs at a rate of 17.5 ab/hr.
From 1969-73, he hit them at a rate of 11.5 ab/hr.

Now lets take out the "jump" he experienced at FCS. This is a dirty way to do it and not 100% accurate, but it could be fun.

From 69-73, Aaron hit 203 HR's. 120 of those came at FCS. If we take 1/3rd of those away we get 163 total HR's.

Which would work out to a rate of 14.3 ab/hr. Still an increase for sure, but not as huge a jump as before. This would be an 18% jump in his rate, while the league rate increased by about 6%.

And we could do the same math and get an increase for Bonds if we are in agreement that AT&amp;T limited him somewhat. Maybe I will get around to that tomorrow.

All of which would further separate Bonds improvement as being much larger than Aarons.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

manbear,

You realize he will ignore every good point you have, then accuse you of saying something you haven't, then claim he has soundly defeated your argument, don't you? Don't you???

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Bond's name not coming up in any free agent talks/ rumours, etc. The silence is deafening.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
manbear,

You realize he will ignore every good point you have, then accuse you of saying something you haven't, then claim he has soundly defeated your argument, don't you? Don't you???

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFLDOT. Of course I realize that. Doesn't take any of the fun away.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
manbear,

You realize he will ignore every good point you have, then accuse you of saying something you haven't, then claim he has soundly defeated your argument, don't you? Don't you???

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats honestly what you think has been going on here? No wonder you get dismantled.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
manbear,

You realize he will ignore every good point you have, then accuse you of saying something you haven't, then claim he has soundly defeated your argument, don't you? Don't you???

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats honestly what you think has been going on here? No wonder you get dismantled.

[/ QUOTE ]
HAHHAA, have you read any points from a unbiased viewpoint. I dont give a [censored] about baseball. I just love arguing for what I view is right.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

Bonds is not evil.

He is one of the best baseball players ever.

He is also a cheater.

And that is sad.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
manbear,

You realize he will ignore every good point you have, then accuse you of saying something you haven't, then claim he has soundly defeated your argument, don't you? Don't you???

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats honestly what you think has been going on here? No wonder you get dismantled.

[/ QUOTE ]
HAHHAA, have you read any points from a unbiased viewpoint. I dont give a [censored] about baseball. I just love arguing for what I view is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I havent read any posts from an unbiased viewpoint, since that is unpossible. However, I am pretty intolerant of dishonest tactics and logical fallacies, and if you think RedBean is leading this thread in those, I dont know what to tell you.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
manbear,

You realize he will ignore every good point you have, then accuse you of saying something you haven't, then claim he has soundly defeated your argument, don't you? Don't you???

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats honestly what you think has been going on here? No wonder you get dismantled.

[/ QUOTE ]
HAHHAA, have you read any points from a unbiased viewpoint. I dont give a [censored] about baseball. I just love arguing for what I view is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I havent read any posts from an unbiased viewpoint, since that is unpossible. However, I am pretty intolerant of dishonest tactics and logical fallacies, and if you think RedBean is leading this thread in those, I dont know what to tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has obviously been some shady logic applied in a few places but seriously, go back and look at what he quotes and responds to. He picks and chooses the parts he wants while ignoring the rest. The majority of which is negative to his POV.

At this point I am just arguing for the sake of arguing. He is obviously not going to change his mind but I enjoy the chase so to speak.

I have been wrong on a handful of occassions in this thread and have learned a ton by doing some research. I still think RB is at least partially dishonest in his arguments and that my general point stands. Which is that the circumstantial evidence points to their being an above average chance that Bonds used some sort of "illegal" PED.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

ESPN reporting that Bonds has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

From the old thread as said by RedBean:

[ QUOTE ]
Our points are rather simple:

Mine:
-Barry Bonds never violated the MLB Steroid Policy.
-Barry Bonds did not admit using steroids in his Grand Jury testimony.
-Barry Bonds has not been indicted, much less convicted of any crime related to steroids.
-Barry Bonds has not been proven to have cheated the game of baseball, as defined by the rules that govern the game.

My points are matter of fact.



[/ QUOTE ]

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not as it seemed.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

I really, really wish he was here right now. Its really not fair that he is out of town and will have a week to come up with some reason why this does not mean anything.

Maybe the Mitchell report will come out soon too and it will just be a pile on.

No, but in all honesty, I do wish he was here. I look forward to his perspective on the matter.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
He picks and chooses the parts he wants while ignoring the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sincere apologies, but you have to realize that there is more written about Bonds on 2+2 than in all of the recorded text in human history from 2000 AD to 1979.

I'm only one man, bro, I try to touch on all the relevant stuff, but I just can't address every single sentence you write.


[ QUOTE ]
He is obviously not going to change his mind but I enjoy the chase so to speak.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually haven't made up my mind, as I've said several times previous....I am refraining from speculation until both sides have a chance to present their case.

[ QUOTE ]

I have been wrong on a handful of occassions in this thread and have learned a ton by doing some research.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have been wrong several times, but I enjoyed our discussions because I could tell you were interested in researching things after being proven wrong, and I could tell you were learning along the way....as opposed to the usual meatheads screaming 'I HATES THE BONDS'....etc

[ QUOTE ]

I still think RB is at least partially dishonest in his arguments and that my general point stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dishonest about what? I said Hank saw a late career power surge....and he did. How on earth is me stating fact interpreted as dishonest?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really, really wish he was here right now. Its really not fair that he is out of town and will have a week to come up with some reason why this does not mean anything.

Maybe the Mitchell report will come out soon too and it will just be a pile on.

No, but in all honesty, I do wish he was here. I look forward to his perspective on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like I'll be around until at least Sunday, and may not be going at all.

As for the indictment, I guess we can keep it in the other thread, and let this one go the wayside now.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

I was reading the story about Bonds' indictment on ESPN.com when I came across this paragraph:

"By the late 1990s, he'd bulked up to more than 240 pounds -- his head, in particular, becoming noticeably bigger. His physical growth was accompanied by a remarkable power surge."

LOL. It was almost as if they wrote that just to piss off Red Bean.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He picks and chooses the parts he wants while ignoring the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sincere apologies, but you have to realize that there is more written about Bonds on 2+2 than in all of the recorded text in human history from 2000 AD to 1979.

I'm only one man, bro, I try to touch on all the relevant stuff, but I just can't address every single sentence you write.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you cant respond to *everything* but the last post of mine you replied to where you intentionally misrepresented my response by only quoting where I said "yes" while leaving out the rest that obviously qualifies that answer is a bit of a sham, dont you think?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is obviously not going to change his mind but I enjoy the chase so to speak.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually haven't made up my mind, as I've said several times previous....I am refraining from speculation until both sides have a chance to present their case.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I have not made up my mind either. But I would say I am leaning towards yes at least as much as you are leaning towards no. Unless this indictment has changed your opinion at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have been wrong on a handful of occassions in this thread and have learned a ton by doing some research.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have been wrong several times, but I enjoyed our discussions because I could tell you were interested in researching things after being proven wrong, and I could tell you were learning along the way....as opposed to the usual meatheads screaming 'I HATES THE BONDS'....etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I have learned a ton by digging through a lot of this stuff. I have enjoyed the argument for the most part even if in the end I don't really care what happens with him.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I still think RB is at least partially dishonest in his arguments and that my general point stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dishonest about what? I said Hank saw a late career power surge....and he did. How on earth is me stating fact interpreted as dishonest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as my first answer to this. You said Hank and Barry experienced "eerily similar" late season surges. I showed you using facts and numbers that they did not. And you just skipped past that without acknowledging it. So while they experienced similar "raw" increases you know as well as I do that is largely irrelevant.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really, really wish he was here right now. Its really not fair that he is out of town and will have a week to come up with some reason why this does not mean anything.

Maybe the Mitchell report will come out soon too and it will just be a pile on.

No, but in all honesty, I do wish he was here. I look forward to his perspective on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like I'll be around until at least Sunday, and may not be going at all.

As for the indictment, I guess we can keep it in the other thread, and let this one go the wayside now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to hear you are not going. I hate when vacations get canceled.

I agree though, we can let this one die as it regards to indictment talk.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know you cant respond to *everything* but the last post of mine you replied to where you intentionally misrepresented my response by only quoting where I said "yes" while leaving out the rest that obviously qualifies that answer is a bit of a sham, dont you think?


[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like you leaving out the homeruns Hank hit at home?

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Bonds Responds
 

LOL @ Game of Shadows movie.

Let's hear casting suggestions!
Pre-BALCO Barry: Wesley Snipes
http://www.cinefile.biz/fan4.jpg
Post-BALCO Barry: Forest Whitaker
http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/wp-con...f-scotland.jpg

Who would you like to see as...
Greg Anderson
http://www.sportable.com/wp-content/...son%5b4%5d.jpg

Victor Conte
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/sport...victor1018.jpg

Patrick Arnold
http://www.ergopharm.net/images/patrick_1.jpg

Jeff Novitzky
http://espn-att.starwave.com/photo/2...a_dirk_195.jpg

Williams &amp; Fainaru-Wada
http://penpressclub.org/images/willi...inaru-wada.jpg

Great interactive fun!

Re: Bonds Responds
 

tom tolbert for greg anderson

mike the mouth for patrick arnold

hitler &amp; stalin for williams &amp; fainaru-wada