More Bonds

[Thremp]

Steeroids don't make ur head git big. Duh.

[Jack of Arcades]

All RedBean is saying is that the evidence used by people to say Bonds did steroids like his power surge and his body changes is either overblown or outright made up, and that much of the reporting on this issue is biased against Bonds.

He's never said Bonds has never done steroids. He's never said Hank Aaron did steroids. He's saying the evidence is thin.

[THAY3R]

BUT DUDE JUST LOOK AT HIS HEAD AND TELL ME HE DIDNT DO STEROIDS

[THAY3R]

<insert evidence about steroids not increasing head size>


LOL I BET YOURE JUST BLACK IN LOVE WITH BARRY STUPID RACIST JUST LOOK AT HIS HEAD ITS DOUBLED LOLOLOL

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
BUT DUDE JUST LOOK AT HIS HEAD AND TELL ME HE DIDNT DO STEROIDS

[/ QUOTE ]

IT WAS IN ESPN!!(*!*&@^!(*@(!(*!@!

[FireStorm]

The evidence is certainly by no means "thin". The reason reporting is supposedly biased against Bonds is obv because he is the #1 name connected with steroid use and due to his previous media-unfriendly history. Do you really think the media should be focusing more on Hank Aaron's admitted greenie use? And if he's continually telling us that "evidence" is overblown or outright made up, would it be fair to say that his position is that Barry didn't take steroids? Seems pretty idiotic to say, yes, he took steroids, but all the evidence is a lie and doesn't prove it.

[Gregatron]

You refute arguments by addressing them directly, not making general statements about them that amount to little more than "ZOMFGLMAOROFLBBQ!!!!!~!~!@!!!!111111` THAT IS TEH SO WORNG!!!111"

I am by no means convinced that Bonds is clean, as I have stated above. But that is not the issue here.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You point out Aaron never led the league in AB/HR until he was 37 but you didn't mention that he was in the top 10 10 times by age *33 Did you not post this because it doesn't help your case?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Number of times in the top 10" is a comparitive metric judging their rates against players of their own time.

But my question is...why stop at just 10?

Let's do the whole league!

Which brings us back too this:

From age 30-34: Hank's rate was 2.5 times the entire league.
From age 35-39: Hank's rate was 3.75 times the entire average.

From age 30-34: Bond's rate was 2.5 times the entire league.
From age 35-39: Bond's rate was 3.75 times the entire league.


Oops!

[ QUOTE ]

Your whole argument comes down to comparing AB/HR rates by age and then comparing it to the league average.


[/ QUOTE ]

Considering we're debating the relative increase in their AB/HR rates as they got older, I'd say it's just about the only way to meaningfully quantify it.

[ QUOTE ]

Since Aaron and Bonds both increased at the same rate (as long as you cherry pick the years )


[/ QUOTE ]

By "cherry picking" if you mean that I am using the same length of period before and after the line of demarcation to determine the basis for comparision, then yeah, color me guilty.

(For example, 5 years prior to 5 years after. Etc.)

You, on the other hand, insist on using arbitrarily hand-picked periods such as 2 yrs here vs 6 yrs after, or age 34 for some things and 35 for others, based solely on whether or not they support your point.

And you say I'm cherry-picking?

Ya...um...ok.

Christ man, we've broken it down using age 34, age 35, age 36, and age 37 as the demarcation lines, comparing periods of exact same length, and the results are consistent.

Hell, in one example, I even just took the 4 best years in baseball history (Bonds '00-'04) and showed how the increase over league average prior to that time was comparable to Aaron's.

How can you say I am cherry picking years when I purposefully selected only the best 4-year span in baseball history to use as my basis for Bonds late career surge?

Truth is, the only time you get the results to support your claim is when you cherry-pick odd length years in your basis of comparision, based solely on the ones that produce your favorable results.

[ QUOTE ]
you say that what Barry did was 'normal' because Hank did it too.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said what Barry did was "normal".

In fact, several times in this very thread I've said Barry Bonds is not normal.

I readily concede it was extraordinary.


[ QUOTE ]
Hank was a consistent HR hitting machine his entire career. Emphasis on consistent. Barry was a great player who suddenly became a GREAT HR hitter.


[/ QUOTE ]

All I have on my side of are those goofy things like numbers, facts, and stats.

They are apparently no match for your anecdotal analysis.

Oops!


[ QUOTE ]
What I can't see is how anyone can look at the career trajectory of both men and say "they look the same to me".


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said "the same" in regards to career trajectory. Granted, their increases relative to league average are uncannily similar, as pointed out yet again above.

But besides that, please understand that I am merely pointing out that there *is* a precedent for a player having a power surge after age 35.

Several people prior to this thread had asserted "you don't start hitting more homeruns after 35" and many assume it is "unnatural" if a player was to do so.

I've systematically shown examples of over 10 recent Hall of Famers who had increases in HR rate after age 35, as well as using Hank Aaron as the perfect example that a precedent exists of a player can have a post-age 35 power surge.

<u>Let's boil it down to this:</u>

Uninformed Theory: Before Barry Bonds, no one had a power surge after age 35, it just isn't natural. There is no precedent.

I introduce these Facts:
1. Hank Aaron's best season by HR rate came at age 39.
2. Five of Hank's six best seasons by HR rate came after age 35.
3. As many as 10 recent HOFers had increases in their HR rate after age 35.
4. Relative to league average, Bonds and Aaron's HR rate increased at the exact same rate from ages 30-34 to 35-39.

Conclusion ?
Based on that alone, would you say there <u>is</u> or <u>isn't</u> a precedent for a player hitting HR's at an increased rate after age 35?

My entire point?
Claiming that a player hitting HR's at an increased rate after age 35 to be unprecedented is actually an uninformed fallacy. It's happened alot, and in the case of Aaron and Bonds, it happened at just about the exact same rate relative to league average.

[SL__72]

Ahh, game over.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. If you take AB/HR out of the equation, RedBeans entire brilliant analysis comes apart *just a bit*.


[/ QUOTE ]

I readily concede that if we remove the factual recording of actual HR rate as the basis of comparision, then my analysis completely falls apart as all we have left is the anecdotal analysis of a biased mob.

[ QUOTE ]
Aaron happened to have a small period of years at career end where his AB/HR increased.


[/ QUOTE ]

The english language is a very powerful tool. I like how you used it here to anecdotally mitigate Aaron's HR rate after age 35 to "inconsequential", and at the same time magnify the same increase in Bonds career as a disproportionate crime against nature.

Nevermind the numbers show an exact similarity in both men's increases relative to league average.

[ QUOTE ]
while having a head that doubled in size, although I'm the only one on this forum who apparently realize this.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, more patently absurd assertions, instead of looking at facts and numbers and stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
It's also rather idiotic to assess that Bonds and Aaron are both steroid users due to Aaron spitting out a greenie once while Bonds is a walking chemical factory.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I can interrupt you and your strawman's debate for a second, I'd like to point out that neither player has violated the MLB policy in place at the time in regards to steroids.