|
|
#244
09-01-2007, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Think about the difference between men's and women's sports. Now imagine if we had a National Football League. Sick. I'm getting hard just thinking about it. [/ QUOTE ] FYP. [/ QUOTE ] GET OUT OF MY HEAD Also, stop being so rational. 
|
|
#245
09-01-2007, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
No jealously here. I'm just not going to accept the BS put forth in the original link.
Red Bean, that was pretty clever how you include Bonds' age 34 season in his 'before' record. How about if we put Bonds' age 34 season where it belongs and then compare him and Aaron by age: Bonds 30-33 13.9 AB/HR Aaron 30-33 16.9 Bonds 34-39 8.5 +38.8% Aaron 34-39 13.0 +23.1% Looks a little different. A previous poster said this thread is arguing "OMG, the greatest hitter of all-time was better than the second greatest!". That isn't it at all. The argument is: 1. One of the greatest hitters of all-time establishes a base-line of production. 2. At the age of 34 he increases his production over a 6 year period at a rate which is unprecedented for a player of that age. 3. Some people assert this is a 'normal power progression'. 4. Others say it isn't. p.s. Red Bean, the Bosworth comparison was pretty bad coming from you. You saw him 'after his career ended'. As far as I can tell Bonds is still playing. Check Bonds out 3 years after he retires and we'll talk.
|
|
#246
09-01-2007, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Anyone who isn't suspicious of a player with a dozen years of established performance that he suddenly dwarves and puts in the greatest baseball seasons of all-time in four consecutive seasons at an age where players are not only not at their peak but usually decline (and if they don't decline they sure as hell don't shatter their previous best seasons) and then has a ton of steroid allegations thrown at him including personal accusations (i.e. Gary Sheffield) would be... pretty naive. There's a fine line between strong suspicions and strong evidence, of course, and I'll give you that and that's why I have no problem rooting for Bonds, but it is what it is.
|
|
#247
09-01-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
How about if we put Bonds' age 34 season where it belongs and then compare him [/ QUOTE ] Considering the common theme was that "players don't have power surges after age 35" I thought the obvious place that age 34 belonged was before age 35. If the assertion had been "after age 34", then I would agree with you that the age 34 season would belong in the after group. But that wasn't the assertion, it's only being changed now once you realized it helped support your argument more to do that. Is the assertion now being changed to players should "normally" decline after age 33? [ QUOTE ] Bonds 34-39 8.5 +38.8% Aaron 34-39 13.0 +23.1% Looks a little different. [/ QUOTE ] So even though they matched closely from age 35-39, you're including age 34 to widen the gap. Do you realize that you're asserting that only when we include years closer to their prime does Bonds gap widen, but when we include only years after age 35, Aaron's numbers improve more. Think about that for a second, and tell me how that shows Bonds is the one that improved more later with age. You do realize that you are including the younger age 34 to widen the gap to emphasize the point that Bonds improved more as he got older, after age 35? Oops. Not to mention, you including a season for Aaron that spanned into a different era with a higher mound and a drastically lower HR rate league wide, but yet still staying within the maple bat/expansion era for Bonds when the league rate was phenomenally high. If you had taken the time to compare them against league averages, you'd have still noticed the exact same 2.5x league rate improving to 3.75x league rate for each of them. But something tells me you weren't looking for an objective result. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] 1. One of the greatest hitters of all-time establishes a base-line of production. 2. At the age of 34 he increases his production over a 6 year period at a rate which is unprecedented for a player of that age. [/ QUOTE ] Hank established a baseline in power production in his first 12 years also, and then he proceeded to have 5 of his 6 best seasons in HR rate after age 35. I also gave examples of 10 other recent hall of famers whose power production increased dramatically after age 35, as compared to their age 30-34 seasons. If that isn't a precedent, then I just don't know. I'm starting to think some of you have your minds made up and rather ignore the reality of the numbers. It isn't unprecedented at all, in fact, among recent Hall of Famers, it has been more the trend than the exception. It's survivorship bias, obviously, but that's usually what makes Hall of Famers who they are....they stayed good for a long time. Average players pack their bags and head home in their mid-thirties. But saying that Biff Pocoroba declined at age 32, along with every other marginal player in comparing Bonds late career surge is disingenious considering when looking at the majority of recent HOFers we see a similar trend. [ QUOTE ] Red Bean, the Bosworth comparison was pretty bad coming from you. You saw him 'after his career ended'. As far as I can tell Bonds is still playing. Check Bonds out 3 years after he retires and we'll talk. [/ QUOTE ] The Bosworth mention is not 'bad', he admitted to using anabolic steroids, and blamed his emaciation on his stopping using them. As for waiting 3 years for Bonds, it's been 4 years since they implemented testing. Which leads us to the most important statistic of all: Bonds steroids tests failed: Age 30-34: n/a Age 35-39: ZERO Click-clack, 761 and counting.
|
|
#248
09-01-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who isn't suspicious of a player with a dozen years of established performance that he suddenly dwarves and puts in the greatest baseball seasons of all-time in four consecutive seasons at an age where players are not only not at their peak but usually decline (and if they don't decline they sure as hell don't shatter their previous best seasons) [/ QUOTE ] Just out of curiosity, are you also suspicious of the majority of other recent HOFers who increased their HR rate at an age when players usually decline? Or just the ones with over 760 homeruns?
|
|
#249
09-01-2007, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Anyone who isn't suspicious of a player with a dozen years of established performance that he suddenly dwarves and puts in the greatest baseball seasons of all-time in four consecutive seasons at an age where players are not only not at their peak but usually decline (and if they don't decline they sure as hell don't shatter their previous best seasons) [/ QUOTE ] Just out of curiosity, are you also suspicious of the majority of other recent HOFers who increased their HR rate at an age when players usually decline? [/ QUOTE ] RedBean, I'm curious what your response is if the answer is "yes"
|
|
#250
09-01-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More Bonds
Since the main point of contention seems to be Bonds having the 4 greatest seasons of all-time at age 36,37,38, and 39. Let's isolate those seasons and compare the increase as seen in Aaron.
After all, how could you argue with me cherry-picking the 4 greatest seasons in baseball history, and using only them for Bonds late career surge? The results may surprise you: Aaron age 30-35: 16.5 Aaron age 36-39: 11.6 +29.7% Bonds age 30-35: 12.5 Bonds age 36-39: 7.9 +36.8% So much for unprecedented. I isolated the selection criteria to correspond with the best 4 seasons in baseball history from Bonds, age 36-39. And when we compare the increase from his previous years we notice it to be at a similar rate to that Aaron enjoyed at the same age. Notice, I didn't cherry-pick Aaron's seasons to produce the best result, as Mojo did....I purposely selected them based on the best 4 year stretch in baseball history put up by Bonds. No selection bias here, I purposely stacked the deck against Bonds by using his best 4 seasons at age 36-39. It's only a 7.1% difference relative to the increase Aaron enjoyed at the same age. Granted, that's a difference in Bonds faor, but it was the best 4 seasons in baseball history from Bonds as compared to a declining Aaron in his late-thirties. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Not to mention.....if I wanted to cherry-pick based on Aaron's stats, I'd bump the selection critieria back one year, and compare their even LATER careers, selecting ages 37-39: Aaron age 30-36: 16.0 Aaron age 37-39: 11.0 +31.3% Bonds age 30-36: 11.1 Bonds age 37-39: 8.6 +22.5% Wow. Almost a 10% difference in increase for Aaron over Bonds at age 37-39. And those 3 seasons of Bonds are considered 3 of the BEST in baseball history! Of course, I wouldn't want to cherry-pick stats like that and be disingenious, much as you Mojo did when he lowered the "late career age" to 34 just to support his emphasis. Instead, I concede the analysis by using ONLY the best 4 seasons of Bonds career, and what many consider to be the best in baseball history...ages 36,37,38,39. And compared to Aaron's relative increase at the same exact ages...there is a 7% difference.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
