|
|
#222
08-31-2007, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] If MLB had a policy against having a higher EqA than Ruth, Mays, or Williams......I would concede that Bonds were guilty. But taking it for what it's worth, I don't think merely putting up good numbers should be cause for conviction. Back to my original example, which player would you be more 'suspicious' of in their difference after age 35? 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%! Edited to add more info: Player A didn't noticeably gain weight during this time. Player B did. 
|
|
#223
08-31-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
If MLB had a policy against having a higher EqA than Ruth, Mays, or Williams......I would concede that Bonds were guilty. [/ QUOTE ] Now who's making the strawman? I'm not remotely arguing what others in this thread re: Bonds were arguing, so your point is entirely irrelevant.
|
|
#224
08-31-2007, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If MLB had a policy against having a higher EqA than Ruth, Mays, or Williams......I would concede that Bonds were guilty. [/ QUOTE ] Now who's making the strawman? I'm not remotely arguing what others in this thread re: Bonds were arguing, so your point is entirely irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't assert that as your argument, my friend. My apologies if you confused it as a strawman. I am only asserting that Bonds EqA exceeding that of other greats is not on it's face cause for suspicion. Other than suspecting he was better than them. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] BTW, care to address the mystery players?
|
|
#225
08-31-2007, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
I am only asserting that Bonds EqA exceeding that of other greats is not on it's face cause for suspicion. [/ QUOTE ] And if that's what I said, and ONLY what I said, you would have a point. And your "mystery players" are also entirely irrelevant so I will continue to ignore it. You obviously know exactly what I am talking about and simply choose to dance around various points, which is quite disappointing. But whatever. I won't partake in such an activity.
|
|
#226
08-31-2007, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] What Redbean has been saying this entire thread is that you can't use the fact that he's successful as the only proof you have. What you're basically saying is: OMG, the greatest hitter of all-time was better than the second greatest! Might as well say: OMG, no one ever scored more than 200 points in a season--Gretzky did it fouir times. 'roids! or OMG, no one ever averaged more than 40 ppg, yet Wilt averaged 50. 'Roids. IOW, the fact that Bonds (or Wilt or Gretzky) did something no one else did is proof of their greatness, not of anything else.
|
|
#227
08-31-2007, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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 ] What Redbean has been saying this entire thread is that you can't use the fact that he's successful as the only proof you have. What you're basically saying is: OMG, the greatest hitter of all-time was better than the second greatest! Might as well say: OMG, no one ever scored more than 200 points in a season--Gretzky did it fouir times. 'roids! or OMG, no one ever averaged more than 40 ppg, yet Wilt averaged 50. 'Roids. IOW, the fact that Bonds (or Wilt or Gretzky) did something no one else did is proof of their greatness, not of anything else. [/ QUOTE ] Too bad I'm not saying that at all. Wow, can you read? Jesus christ. "... there's no need to act like you can't understand why everyone in the world is at the very least suspicious." "... you can't argue with much validity that he shouldn't have any suspicion on him..." Where do you see me saying Bonds is remotely guilty of anything? Matter of fact, I think I said something closer to the opposite: "I'm a Bonds "apologist" as well, if you want to call it that..."
|
|
#228
08-31-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously know exactly what I am talking about and simply choose to dance around various points, which is quite disappointing. But whatever. I won't partake in such an activity. [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, I have no idea as to exactly what you are talking about. Each time you post, you state that it is either obvious, or that we all know what you are talking about, yet you fail to clearly mention it. If your point is that people are suspicious because Bonds put up legendary numbers, then I agree. If your point is that their suspicions are founded in reality based on the performance of other players who are both known to have taken performance enhancing drugs, and those who are strongly believed to have not, then I respectfully disagree. As for the mystery players, results in white: Player A - EqA Age 30-34: .314 Age 35-39: .303 Ab/HR Rate: decreased Player A did not noticeably gain weight. Player B - EqA Age 30-34: .300 Age 35-39: .315 AB/HR: increased over 33%! Player B did noticeably gain weight. <font color="white">Player A- Rafeal Palmeiro Player B- Tony Gwynn </font>
|
|
#229
08-31-2007, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
Each time you post, you state that it is either obvious, or that we all know what you are talking about, yet you fail to clearly mention it. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Was that really that hard to understand?
|
|
#230
08-31-2007, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
"... there's no need to act like you can't understand why everyone in the world is at the very least suspicious." [/ QUOTE ] Minor quibble here. When have I asserted that I do not understand why people are suspicious? Of course I understand why people are suspicious. It's natural. Envy is a basic human emotion. That, and SI tells them to be suspicious. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Nobody really cares about steroids or saving the children. Otherwise you'd be able to name half the players suspended without having to look it up, and SI wouldn't be doing 4-page pieces on Shawn Merriman without even bothering to mention the word steroid. People are suspicious because Bonds has 761 homeruns. If he were a backup third baseman with a .238 EQA, or a star NFL defensive lineman, nobody would give a rats ass if he chugged liquid steroids by the 5-gallon bucket. [ QUOTE ] "... you can't argue with much validity that he shouldn't have any suspicion on him..." [/ QUOTE ] People are free to have whatever suspicions they want. I am not arguing the validity of them HAVING suspicions. I am merely arguing the validity OF their suspicions.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
