More Bonds

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't the real comparison here be other known steroid users? canseco, et al? shouldn't we see if their power rates jumped in their later years?

[/ QUOTE ]

<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

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
No one's using EqA to measure HR production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky for them, then. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Vyse]

AT&amp;T Park is also one of the toughest parks in baseball for left-handed hitters. For Bonds to suddenly have a handful of the best seasons in baseball history after Age 35 in one of the toughest ballparks for a lefty when he already had an established line of performance for a dozen years is obviously suspicious, and that is the point people are making. That doesn't mean it's the same as an indictment on his alleged steroid use, but many of your comparisons are faulty due to that.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
AT&amp;T Park is also one of the toughest parks in baseball for left-handed hitters. For Bonds to suddenly have a handful of the best seasons in baseball history after Age 35 in one of the toughest ballparks for a lefty when he already had an established line of performance for a dozen years is obviously suspicious, and that is the point people are making.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the point is basically, that since he did really good, it must be worthy of suspicion?

Sweet.

[THAY3R]

Redbean : Facts, logic, "Never admitted using, but Hank did, hypocricy ldo"


Retards : He's really good! Ha! See!! He did roids!

[Pudge714]

I love how all these threads should be retitled.
Make statements about Barry Bonds which Redbean will disprove.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
after Age 35 in one of the toughest ballparks for a lefty when he already had an established line of performance for a dozen years is obviously suspicious,

[/ QUOTE ]

People are suspicious because of his increased performance after age 35. Ok.

Let me present to you two mystery players, and tell me which one you would be more 'suspicious':


Player A - EqA
Age 30-34: .314
Age 35-39: .303
Ab/HR Rate: decreased

Player B - EqA
Age 30-34: .300
Age 35-39: .315
AB/HR: increased over 33%!

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]

So the point is basically, that since he did really good, it must be worthy of suspicion?

Sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need acting like an idiot, RedBean. It's not just because there are no comparables in the same stratosphere re: Bonds' late-career production (which you have already admitted), it's everything put together. No need in acting like you don't know what that is.

I'm a Bonds "apologist" as well, if you want to call it that, but there's no need to act like you can't understand why everyone in the world is at the very least suspicious. You can easily argue with validity that Bonds shouldn't be treated the way he has, as if it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he's guilty, but you can't argue with much validity that he shouldn't have any suspicion on him, if that's what you're tryign to imply.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after Age 35 in one of the toughest ballparks for a lefty when he already had an established line of performance for a dozen years is obviously suspicious,

[/ QUOTE ]

People are suspicious because of his increased performance after age 35. Ok.

Let me present to you two mystery players, and tell me which one you would be more 'suspicious':


Player A - EqA
Age 30-34: .314
Age 35-39: .303
Ab/HR Rate: decreased

Player B - EqA
Age 30-34: .300
Age 35-39: .315
AB/HR: increased over 33%!

[/ QUOTE ]

Bonds' EqA since 35:

01: .427 (career high by 50 points)
02: .453 (career high by 26 points)
03: .412
04: .457 (career high by seven points)

Ruth only had two seasons with an EqA better than .400, and they weren't consecutive. Mays never came close. Ted Williams only has two as well. I really don't have to draw you a map, do I?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after Age 35 in one of the toughest ballparks for a lefty when he already had an established line of performance for a dozen years is obviously suspicious,

[/ QUOTE ]

People are suspicious because of his increased performance after age 35. Ok.

Let me present to you two mystery players, and tell me which one you would be more 'suspicious':


Player A - EqA
Age 30-34: .314
Age 35-39: .303
Ab/HR Rate: decreased

Player B - EqA
Age 30-34: .300
Age 35-39: .315
AB/HR: increased over 33%!

[/ QUOTE ]

Bonds' EqA since 35:

01: .427 (career high by 50 points)
02: .453 (career high by 26 points)
03: .412
04: .457 (career high by seven points)

Ruth only had two seasons with an EqA better than .400, and they weren't consecutive. Mays never came close. Ted Williams only has two as well. I really don't have to draw you a map, do I?

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me draw the map.

Bonds&gt;Ruth&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;& gt;Mays&gt;&gt;&gt;Williams