More Bonds

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Bonds clearly visible body change is due to steroids


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you asserting that you can positively confirm steroid use by "visible examination"?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is certainly by no means "thin".


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's less than thin, considering the first two grand juries failed to indict citing "lack of evidence to go to trial", and the third grand jury has yet to produce even an indictment.

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're getting some where.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the media should be focusing more on Hank Aaron's admitted greenie use?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think they should never, ever mention it, while at the same time labeling him the "symbol of doing it clean"?

Because that is what SI did.


[ QUOTE ]
would it be fair to say that his position is that Barry didn't take steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be unfair, considering it isn't my position.

My position is that I reserve judgement until I see what both sides have to say, you know, when all the evidence comes out, instead of basing my opinion on the speculation of a handful of biased sportswriters.

[Pudge714]

RedBean,
Are you using HR/AB or HR/PA?
Because if you used HR/AB, HR/PA would be even bigger in Bonds favor since he walked so much.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean,
Are you using HR/AB or HR/PA?
Because if you used HR/AB, HR/PA would be even bigger in Bonds favor since he walked so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using HR/AB, and I agree HR/PA would be more in Bonds favor by far....

But that's the thing, I'm not just selecting the stats or metrics that would best "prove my point". I chose instead to use a mutually agreeable metric of AB/HR, and only when the angry mob doesn't get their result do they begin the cherry-picking and manipulation of metrics in order to show otherwise.

Rather than simply using the stats that favor Bonds and be accused of being disingenious for "including walks"....I am stacking the deck against Bonds by using AB/HR instead of PA/HR, and narrowing the range to what many consider the best 4 seasons in baseball history.

Even at that, we see the HR rate increase relative to the league is still the same as Aaron's.

But I see your point on PA instead of AB's, as oddly enough, when folks want to use EqA to show Bond's late career surge, they have no issues with it being heavily skewed by walks. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

For your benefit, here are the numbers when using PA/HR:


From age 30-34: Hank's rate was 2.60 times league average.
From age 35-39: Hank's rate was 3.51 times league average.
35% increase.

From age 30-34: Bond's rate was 2.27 times league average.
From age 35-39: Bond's rate was 2.97 times league average.
31% increase

Obviously, Hank's 35% increase is greater than Bonds 31% increase.

Also, Hanks PA/HR rate at age 35-39, relative to league average, was 18% more than Bonds at the same age (3.51 vs 2.97).

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]

My position is that I reserve judgement until I see what both sides have to say, you know, when all the evidence comes out, instead of basing my opinion on the speculation of a handful of biased sportswriters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this can be said any better. (Other than misspelling "judgment." [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

The thing is, most people get their opinions from opinion makers in the media, or from the water cooler (from people who get it from media). If most media are implying or openly asserting something, that becomes the status quo. This does not, of course, mean that something is objectively true. (Look at Iraq and weapons and mass destruction.)

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean,
Are you using HR/AB or HR/PA?
Because if you used HR/AB, HR/PA would be even bigger in Bonds favor since he walked so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and RedBean gave us some numbers, but it's not as helpful a number. Maybe something like PA-IBB would be better. Of course HR/PA would be in Bonds favor because he received such careful treatment during his peak years.

[Mojo56]

1st, a mea culpa. While verifying some of Red Beans #'s I realized that I listed Bonds' AB/HR numbers by age when comparing them to Aaron's by year. Bonds actually led the NL 3x before his late career surge so my entire analysis was off base. It was not my intent to deceive, just a stupid error on my part. Red Bean said it was better to compare them against the whole league so in this instance I will agree with him. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I was checking the #'s for the years Red Bean used. Here are Red Bean's #'s:

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.

I came up with: Aaron 30-34 2.71 Bonds 30-34 2.61
Aaron 35-39 3.80 Bonds 35-39 3.86

The increases are: Aaron +40%, Bonds +48.1%. I'm not sure why my #'s are different (maybe rounding plus I took Aaron and Bonds' #'s out of the league #'s which maybe Red Bean didn't do) but to me this is significant. Even if you think it isn't here is some analysis from someone a lot smarter than me:

"According to Clay Davenport, a researcher at Baseball Prospectus, Hank Aaron's best year for home runs - when he had the most homers per at bat - was 1973, when he was 39. His second best was in 1971, at age 37. Willie Stargell had his best seasons after age 37. Carlton Fisk put his best rate in the books when he was 40. Even Ty Cobb had his best home run rate at age 38, though the end of the dead-ball era helped that. It is not uncommon, according to Mr. Davenport, for a slugger to change his mechanics as he ages, swinging for the fences as his ability to run the bases declines.

These are terribly bad examples. First of all, Aaron in 1973, Stargell in 1978 and 1979 and Fisk in 1988 all had one thing in common: none of them were full-time, 500+ at bat players any longer, as they'd been in their primes. It's a lot easier for an older player to improve his production if he has a third to half of the season to rest as opposed to the years when he was playing every day, a fact that has absolutely zero to do with Barry Bonds.

Let's take Stargell first, as he's the most egregious example. Willie Stargell's career best slugging percentages, both absolutely and relative to the league, came at the ages of 26, 31, and 33, well within the normal range. Stargell's home run rate improved slightly in 1978-79, at age 38 and 39, but his doubles - also a key power stat - dropped off sharply from 43 in 1973 to 18 and 19 in 1978 and 1979. Was he really hitting for more power? Also, Stargell had another thing going for him: while he wasn't, strictly speaking, platooned (his backup, John Milner, was also lefthanded), the decline in his playing time allowed him to see a much more favorable mix of pitchers: Stargell had 30.5% of his at bats against lefties in 1978 and 30.7% in 1979, as opposed to 39.5% in 1971 and 33.1% in 1973. For a guy with Stargell's big platoon splits, that's a significant advantage.

Then there's Aaron. If you know the game's history, you already know that Aaron's late-career power surge was an illusion created by the improved offensive conditions of the 1970s as opposed to the 1960s, combined with his move in 1966 into homer-friendly Fulton County Stadium and out of pitcher-friendly Milwaukee County. Aaron hit 52 homers on the road and 37 at home in 1962-63; in 1971 and 1973, those figures were more than reversed to 55 at home and 32 on the road. But it doesn't stop there; with just 392 at bats in 1973 at age 39, the right-handed Aaron saw 44.4% of his at bats against left-handed pitching, up from 30.9% in 1971 and 26.5% as a full-time player in 1969.

Then there's Fisk, whose "best" home run season was 253 at bats in 1988. Do I really need to explain why a catcher might hit better playing half the time? And yes, the right-handed Fisk faced lefties 36.5% of the time in 1988, compared to 22.9% in his actual best season, 1977.

(Ty Cobb, whose career high in home runs was 12 but whose career high in slugging average was at age 24, is not even worthy of discussing at length).

None of these guys - indeed, no other player in baseball history - compares remotely to what Barry Bonds has done, and it does no service to the debate to pretend otherwise. Prior to 2000, Bonds was 34 years old and had a career slugging percentage of .559, with his two best slugging percentages (.677 and .647) coming at age 28 and 29. Since then, he has slugged .781, a 40% improvement on his career average and a 15% improvement over a five-year stretch compared to his career best season. Neither Carroll nor Davenport could find an example anywhere, certainly not outside of guys who straddled the arrival of the lively ball in the 1920s, of an established player who had anything like a 40% improvement in his power numbers from age 35 to 39. (Bonds has also batted .358 over the past three years, compared to batting above .320 just once through age 35, also nothing like a normal aging pattern).

Carroll's argument would have been better served by recognizing the fact that what Bonds has done is totally unprecedented and clearly not unrelated to his dramatic improvement in physical strength in his late 30s. Pretending otherwise does no one any good."

Here is the link to the entire article:
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2...all_yes_st.php

If you broaden the discussion to include another metric, OPS+ you get this from another article:

"Let's take a look at the percentage increase or decrease between these players' OPS+ (OBP plus SLG adjusted for league and park) in the years before age 34 and after, sorted by their pre-34 OPS+:

Name Pre 34 OPS+ Post-34+ % Change
Ruth 212 194 -8%
T.Williams 192 191 -1
Gehrig 184 151 -18
Mantle 175 152 -13
Musial 170 137 -19
Foxx 164 96 -41
Bonds 163 233 +43
Mays 163 146 -10
Robinson 157 145 -8
Aaron 157 151 -4
Ott 156 143 -8
R.Palmeiro 134 134 0

Bonds' dramatic improvement is unmatched by any of the great players with close similarity scores. Indeed, it's not even like Bonds' increase is more than others -- it is diametrically opposed to what the other greats did in their later years. All but one show decreases, where Bonds shows a dramatic increase. Even Aaron, who was very productive in his later years, decreased.

Interestingly, Rafael Palmeiro has managed to stay even in his post-34 career, but he is still far below Bonds' improvement. (Rafi, as we know, apparently takes another substance for "growth", which is legal with prescription.) I think he may be a good example of how better (legitimate) conditioning and preparation can help today's players maintain performance in their later years, but not increase them dramatically. It might also simply reflect the general increase in offense during the recent period."

Complete link here:
http://thenats.blogspot.com/2004/12/...onds-data.html

Another link about OPS+:
http://www.baseballcrank.com/archive...ball_up_up.php

If you want a couple of more reasons why Bonds may have 'surged' check these out:
http://www.itsasurvey.com/artman2/pu...at_Aaron.shtml
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003621797

The change in the ball, if true, would have effected everybody for those years. The body armor one is a new one on me.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
(Bonds has also batted .358 over the past three years, compared to batting above .320 just once through age 35, also nothing like a normal aging pattern).


[/ QUOTE ]
How does steroids effect batting average? I realize the argument of steroids making one stronger and thus able to hit more HRs, increase slugging, which in turn makes him more likely to walk. But I don't get how steroids made him hit for a better BA.

[DrewDevil]

In this specific case, I agree with Redbean. Increased HR output after age 35 is not compelling evidence of steroid use IMO.

There is, of course, tons of OTHER evidence that Bonds used steroids, but Redbean only argues the specific technical merits of specific arguments, not the big picture.

Redbean is an intelligent guy and so he knows Bonds used steroids and has never denied that, choosing instead to offer a well-crafted defense to prosecution.

[FireStorm]

To be honest, DrewDevil does a pretty good job of summing this entire thing up. Fair points. Redbeans statistical analysis is very well presented, and by itself, no, increasing HR rate past 35 is not evidence of steroid use. The obscenely high number of combined pieces of evidence presented are what make it clear that Barroid is a PED abuser, regardless of whether or not Bonds-apologist morons on 2p2 insist. As far as never denying Bonds used steroids, no, he didn't deny it, but his arguments, especially the absurd ones about Bond's body not obviously changing before our eyes, suggest denial, which is idiotic. Also, it's probably fair to say that AB/HR are just a bit too prevalent in this argument, don't you think?

Cut and paste away. Refuting Bond's change in head size is welcome, I could use the laugh.