|
|
#161
08-30-2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
Not saying that Bonds did or didn't take steroids(or other performance enhancers), BUT the big issue with the CLEAR was that it was undetectable. [/ QUOTE ] "The Clear", aka THG has been detectable through urine sample since 2003, and MLB has been testing for it since the inception of the program. Bonds has not failed any of these tests. [ QUOTE ] Also tests for HGH are still unreliable(NFL doesn't test for it). [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you on HGH, but the majority of substances alleged in the GoS book are easily detectable via urine sample. (Winstrol, Stanzonol, THG, Clomid, etc.) And none of those substances have been detected in Bonds tests since they began testing in 2003. As for HGH specifically, they will never test for HGH in any of the major sports, unless one can be developed that works reliable on urine samples. Samples are being saved in case future tests emerge than can retroactively test. Bonds will not fail these either. As for more reliable testing on HGH, the MLBPA has staunchly disallowed any sort of blood testing. The same guys who are telling the newspapers they want to clean up the game (ie..Schilling, etc) are the same guys who are fighting through their player reps to not allow blood sample testing for banned substances. They caved on Amphetamines, but stood firm on blood tests for HGH. Blame the MLBPA. FWIW, Bonds is the only player who is voluntarily not a member of the MLBPA. Which means, oddly enough, you can lay the blame for the current testing program not being as stringent as the WDA (blood tests) on every single player in MLB, except for Bonds and Kevin Millar (SCAB!). Anyway, as for Bonds specifically...if you postulate that he is "still using but somehow beating the tests", then you'd have ignore the reality of the immense scrutiny he is currently under from the federal government and every investigative journalist with a hope of writing a book.....from his financial habits, his daily routines, etc....it's not like the folks in the Federal DA's office don't have him under a microscope looking for anything and everything he does for the past 4 years. I'm pretty sure he isn't just buying some good stuff from the corner-man in broad daylight. [ QUOTE ] Never testing positive does not mean a guy can't be guilty. [/ QUOTE ] Um, that's exactly what it means according to the rules governing banned performance enhancing substances in Major League Baseball. [ QUOTE ] Look at the other major sports where doping is huge and how long it takes for a guy to slip up and test positive. [/ QUOTE ] I give up, how long does it take before a guy slips up? Two years? Four years? Twelve years? Has this actually been quantified? [ QUOTE ] I think our eyes would truly be opened if the MLB adopted a real testing procedure like track and field or cycling. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, and I wish it would happen, but oddly enough, the players fight it, and major media like SI are too busy trying to crucify Bonds instead of pushing that cause. And how funny would it be if there was more stringent testing, and more and more players started testing positive....but Bonds kept passing tests? What then? Do we poo-poo the strict testing away too, because it doesn't achieve the desired result? Remember, people were happy in 2003 when MLB adopted the current testing, saying then that we would be "surprised at the results". There were smatters of smug opinion pieces from envious hacks cheering along that Bonds had "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide" with the new testing. (Verducci again.) Of course, when their expected results didn't come, they don't change their misguided expectations...instead they attempt to discredit the very testing process they previously applauded. Funny how that works, huh? 
|
|
#162
08-31-2007, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] It wasn't 'normal' when Hank did it either. It was extraordinary. That's why Hank is Hank. "Normal" is a backup second baseman who makes league minimum and 10 years later nobody remembers his name. Barry Bonds isn't normal. That's what makes him Barry Bonds. Babe Ruth wasn't normal. Neither was Ted Williams. Nor Willie Mays. In fact, them not being normal is what made them great....and it's also why we deify them even 50+ years later for being able to excel at hitting a ball with a stick while playing a child's game. <u>But back to the stats....</u> Are you going to completely look past the entire National League following a similar trend in power surge over the same periods? It was a more dramatic surge than seen from lowering the mound in 1968, expansion in 1969, and the introduction of new parks in 1970......COMBINED...and those reasons have been frequently used to explain Hank's surge, and by many in general for citing offensive surges during that period. It's probably the 3rd most significant surge behind the end of deadball and integration.
|
|
#163
08-31-2007, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't arbitrarily choose the years. [/ QUOTE ] You're right. You selectively chose them based on your intended result. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] "Let's see if Bonds started hitting more homeruns throughout the 3 different stages of his career.....and to determine the 3 stages we will examine, we will select them based on the difference in the amount of homeruns he hits." Yeesh. Selection bias, anyone? If your object is to isolate periods and test the difference in power surge over three seperate periods, and then you select the periods based ONLY on the criteria of the exact thing you are testing for...."your desired result"....and you make the selection cutoff "when he started hitting alot of homeruns".........well, um...I wouldn't call it "objective".
|
|
#164
08-31-2007, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
More fun with numbers....
It's been frequently reported by our friends in the sports media, and widely believed by many that "you just don't start hitting homeruns at a higher rate after age 35". So let's do a little examination. CRITERIA: We're going to compare a players At-bats per HR rate over two periods...age 31-34 and age 35-39 and see if it increased or decreased. --- <u>Palmeiro</u> (proven steroid user) Age 31-34: 14.5 Age 35-39: 14.9 declined <u>Canseco</u>(admitted steroid user) Age 31-34: 13.4 Age 35-39: 18.9 (retired age 37) declined <u>Caminiti</u> (admitted steroid user) Age 31-34: 17.85 Age 35-39: 17.90 (retired age 38) declined <u>McGwire</u> Age 31-34: 8.2 Age 35-39: 8.4 (retired age 37) declined <u>Sosa</u> Age 31-34: 11.1 Age 35-39: 18.6 (still active) declined --- <u>Hank Aaron</u> Age 31-34: 16.5 Age 35-39: 11.8 INCREASE! <u>Barry Bonds</u> Age 31-34: 12.8 Age 35-39: 8.2 INCREASE! <u>Ted Williams</u> Age 31-34: 13.41 Age 35-39: 13.35 INCREASE! <u>Cal Ripken</u> Age 31-34: 33.4 Age 35-39: 27.7 INCREASE! <u>Tony Gywnn</u> Age 31-34: 67.5 Age 35-39: 44.5 INCREASE! <u>Ken Griffey Jr</u> (still active) Age 31-34: 16.3 Age 35-39: 15.0 INCREASE! <u>Ryan Sandberg</u> (retired age 38) Age 31-34: 28.4 Age 35-39: 27.0 INCREASE! <u>Carlton Fisk</u> Age 31-34: 32.9 Age 35-39: 19.0 INCREASE! <u>Ozzie FREAKING Smith</u> Age 31-34: 456.4 Age 35-39: 313.25 INCREASE! --- <u>Decreased:</u> Palmeiro (known steroid user) Caminiti (known steroid user) Canseco (known steroid user) McGwire Sosa <u>INCREASED</u> Hank Aaron Barry Bonds Ted Williams Cal Ripken Tony Gwynn Ken Griffey Jr. Ryne Sandberg Carlton Fisk Ozzie FREAKING Smith Interesting, isn't it?
|
|
#168
08-31-2007, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
It's much easier to go from average to good, or good to very good, than HOF to greatest of all-time. [/ QUOTE ] Um....8 of the 10 guys on the "increased" list are in the HOF. The other two are locks when eligible.
|
|
#169
08-31-2007, 05:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
He has a place for sure, but it isn't in the discussion of overall greatness/dominance with Bonds, Ruth, Williams, and Mays. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe that'll help you get my point better. Very few are even close to as good as Bonds. A late-career surge isn't unprecedented in terms of simply getting better, but Bonds didn't just get better, he went from a .340 EqA offensive player to a .425 EqA offensive player. While I agree with most of what you're saying, you're also glossing over Mojo's valid point.
|
|
#170
08-31-2007, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
A guy breaks a hallowed HR record, after having a power surge after age 35, and it is later revealed in a book that he admitted to using illegal performance enhancing drugs around the same time as his power surge. [/ QUOTE ] Question(s) for Redbean: What is the book in which Aaron admitted using illegal performance enhancing drugs, and what drugs did he admit using. and in what sense were they "illegal"? Thanks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
