More Bonds

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Bonds actually led the NL 3x before his late career surge so my entire analysis was off base.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

[ QUOTE ]

Aaron 30-34 2.71 Bonds 30-34 2.61
Aaron 35-39 3.80 Bonds 35-39 3.86

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) .


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the difference is in the rounding. I rounded to two decimals when figuring the league, then the player, then the rate times the league.

I also didn't remove their numbers from the league as a whole. I also only used the National League.

[ QUOTE ]

but to me this is significant


[/ QUOTE ]

Even using your numbers:

One player went from 2.7 to 3.8 times the league.
The other went from 2.6 to 3.9 times the league.

That isn't a significant difference when using the metric to show that a post age-35 power surge is not unprecedented.

You see it for yourself. The increase in Bonds HR rate relative to the league after age 35 is definately preceded by a strikingly similar increase from Aaron.


[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basic assertion here is that it was easier for Aaron to achieve a higher HR rate because he was "no longer a 500+ AB guy" late in his career, he had a "third to half a season to rest", and it has "absolutely zero to do" in Bonds case because it is implied he stayed at "everyday 500+ at bat levels".

Hmm....let's look at something real quick:

<u>Age 35</u>
Aaron - 147gms 547AB
Bonds - 143gms 480AB

<u>Age 36</u>
Aaron - 150gms 516AB
Bonds - 153gms 476AB

<u>Age 37</u>
Aaron - 139gms 495AB
Bonds - 143gms 403AB

<u>Age 38</u>
Aaron - 129gms 449AB
Bonds - 130gms 390AB

<u>Age 39</u>
Aaron - 120gms 392AB
Bonds - 147gms 373AB

Oops!!!

<u>Age 35-39 yearly average:</u>
Aaron - 137gms 480AB
Bonds - 143gms 424AB

<u>Assertion:</u>"none of them were full-time, 500+ at bat players any longer"
<u>Fact:</u> Aaron averaged 480AB's from age 35-39, surpassing 500+ twice, and missing it nearly a third time with 495. He also average 563 plate appearances during this time. He had more AB's than Bonds at every comparable year in age.

<u>Assertion:</u>"he has a third to half of the season to rest"
<u>Fact:</u> Aaron averaged 137 games played from age 35-39. He never missed anything close to half a season, nor even a third of a season during this time. Bonds average 143, or 6 games more per year.

<u>Assertion:</u>"a fact that has absolutely zero to do with Barry Bonds."
<u>Fact:</u> Apparently what serves as a "reason" for Aaron doesn't apply to Bonds equally. (even when it is falsely asserted in Aaron's case).

As a matter of fact, what is being asserted in favor of Aaron is actually only true of Bonds, not Aaron, when looking at ages 35-39

Aaron had 500+ ABs twice (plus one near miss).
Bonds hasn't had 500+ AB's since age 33.

Also, Aaron never "rested" by missing a third or half of a season.
But, Bonds missed over a third in 1999, and well over half in 2005.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

What other evidence would that be, the stuff laid out in the GoS book?

The same book where several second-hand and third-hand sources have either recanted or refused to testify to the same effect under oath?

(Kim Bell recanted her story as told to GoS authors, the second-hand account of the Griffey/Bonds dinner convo was directly refuted by Griffey, who was present, several sources cited in the book have been noted in various media reports as being either "uncooperative" or flat out refusing to repeat their fanciful tales under oath, etc.)

As for the leaked testimony, the same evidence that the GoS suthors have in their possession, rather than show it to you in full and original form, they chose to paraphrase and present it in a narrative format that is suggestive of Bond's guilt?

Why do you think they didn't release everything that had been leaked to them? Do you not question why there is evidence that exists that they chose not to show you because it didn't serve their purpose?

Question for you....if their is "TONS of evidence", why do you figure it has been impossible for the Govt to even score an indictment, much less a conviction?

The first two grand juries didn't find enough evidence to even proceed to trial!

Remember, you argued a month ago that Bonds admitted under oath to using steroids, when in fact, it was nothing of the sort, and since then, even the GoS authors have conceded that Bonds stood firm in his denial in the GJ testimony.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what he did. He hasn't been given the opportunity to present his side of the story under penalty of law.

I am intelligent enough to reserve judgement until at least both sides have a chance to tell their story.

I do know that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy, he hasn't been convicted of any crime, and when the farce that is this investigation ceases and he is free to discuss it, we may just be surprised at what he has to say and what he can prove. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]

Hmm....let's look at something real quick:

<u>Age 35</u>
Aaron - 147gms 547AB
Bonds - 143gms 480AB

<u>Age 36</u>
Aaron - 150gms 516AB
Bonds - 153gms 476AB

<u>Age 37</u>
Aaron - 139gms 495AB
Bonds - 143gms 403AB

<u>Age 38</u>
Aaron - 129gms 449AB
Bonds - 130gms 390AB

<u>Age 39</u>
Aaron - 120gms 392AB
Bonds - 147gms 373AB

Oops!!!

<u>Age 35-39 yearly average:</u>
Aaron - 137gms 480AB
Bonds - 143gms 424AB



[/ QUOTE ]I'm a huge Bonds supporter, but this is misleading because Bonds's huge walk numbers depress his ABs. Plate appearances is more meaningful:

<u>Age 35</u>
Aaron - 639 PA
Bonds - 607 PA

<u>Age 36</u>
Aaron - 598 PA
Bonds - 664 PA

<u>Age 37</u>
Aaron - 573 PA
Bonds - 612 PA

<u>Age 38</u>
Aaron - 544 PA
Bonds - 550 PA

<u>Age 39</u>
Aaron - 465 PA
Bonds - 617 PA

<u>Age 35-39 yearly average:</u>
Aaron - 564 PA
Bonds - 610 PA

Still supports your argument as the only significant difference is at age 39.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The obscenely high number of combined pieces of evidence presented are what make it clear that Barroid is a PED abuser


[/ QUOTE ]

Please to be listing this evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
the absurd ones about Bond's body not obviously changing before our eyes, suggest denial, which is idiotic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman says "hi!".

As for me, I've never denied Bonds body has changed from age 20 to age 40. It definately has.

So has mine.

So has Cindy Crawford's.

That doesn't always mean steroids are in use.

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You've previously asserted Bonds "enormous head that doubled in size"....but you still haven't addressed the fact that he actually wears a size that varied between 7.25 and 7.375 his entire career.

Please to be telling me your head size, just out of curiosity.

I wore a 7.375 in high school, I wear a 7.5 comfortably now. I also haven't used any steroids. Of course, I don't have anywhere close to 762 homeruns, either.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Still supports your argument as the only significant difference is at age 39.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only used AB's because the author of the article chose to cite them instead of PA's.

I agree PA's are a much more accurate measure of how often someone steps into the batter's box versus how much they "rested". (ldo)

And I wasn't so much comparing them to Bonds, as pointing out the blatant misguided assertion in the article:

<u>Assertion:</u>"none of them were full-time, 500+ at bat players any longer"
<u>Fact:</u> Aaron averaged 480AB and 564PA from age 35-39.

<u>Assertion:</u>"a fact that has absolutely zero to do with Barry Bonds."
<u>Fact:</u> Bonds averaged 424AB and 610PA from age 35-39.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but look at it this way: people like you say there is TONS of evidence. So RedBean asks for it. You list Argument A. He defeats it. You give Argument B. He defeats it. You give argument C. He defeats it, and you say, "Sure, argument C might be wrong, but there are A, B, C, so many arguments! He is obv guilty!"

Its a common tactic, just keep bringing up more and more arguments, no matter how terrible they are and no matter how often they are defeated, because it gives the impression that there must be SOMETHING there. 10 arguments can't all be wrong, and if you repeat them over and over, 40 arguments cant all be wrong! And look at the Bonds apologists, they just keep making excuses over and over again! They keep using the same tired excuses!

See where I'm going?

[kyleb]

Exactly. The fact that there are 10 poorly constructed arguments is not indicative of guilt by volume.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. The fact that there are 10 poorly constructed arguments is not indicative of guilt by volume.

[/ QUOTE ]

But its a fantastic debate tactic and works well to convince most people.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but look at it this way: people like you say there is TONS of evidence. So RedBean asks for it. You list Argument A. He defeats it. You give Argument B. He defeats it. You give argument C. He defeats it, and you say, "Sure, argument C might be wrong, but there are A, B, C, so many arguments! He is obv guilty!"

Its a common tactic, just keep bringing up more and more arguments, no matter how terrible they are and no matter how often they are defeated, because it gives the impression that there must be SOMETHING there. 10 arguments can't all be wrong, and if you repeat them over and over, 40 arguments cant all be wrong! And look at the Bonds apologists, they just keep making excuses over and over again! They keep using the same tired excuses!

See where I'm going?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with much of what you said, but saying that there is tons of evidence is not the same thing as saying there is absolute incontrovertible proof. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bonds used steroids---especially on an interweb message board. Please keep that crucial distinction in mind.

Redbean demands absolute proof of any evidence that Bonds used steroids, but he is not held to the same standard. For example, he has made several assertions calling the Game of Shadows book into question... but he has not made a detailed, sourced, point-by-point refutation of all of the detailed, sourced, point-by-point pieces of evidence in the book. I don't demand that he does so, because this is just a flippin' internet board. But that's what he demands from anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Redbean is certainly good at calling evidence into question, but I don't agree that he has "defeated" point A, point B, point C, etc. He simple challenges the evidence as a defense attorney might. For example, he keeps referring to the GoS authors as "biased" and mentioning that the book was made "for profit," but of course, even if those assertions are true, it doesn't mean the evidence in the book is false.

And in our long, ridiculous argument about whether Bonds admitted using steroids, even the great Redbean admitted it was "highly likely" that the substance Bonds used was a steroid. His contention was simply that I could not prove to his level of satisfaction that Bonds had "knowingly admitted" using steroids.

Redbean knows Bonds used steroids, and almost every Bonds supporter on this board has said they know Bonds used steroids. They just want to argue the technicalities of whether it's been "proven" to a sufficient burden of proof by a sufficiently worthy authority. The actual argument--that Bonds used steroids--gets lost in the technicalities, semantics, and the minutiae.

Great debate tactic, but a little disingenuous IMO.

See where I'm going?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but look at it this way: people like you say there is TONS of evidence. So RedBean asks for it. You list Argument A. He defeats it. You give Argument B. He defeats it. You give argument C. He defeats it, and you say, "Sure, argument C might be wrong, but there are A, B, C, so many arguments! He is obv guilty!"

Its a common tactic, just keep bringing up more and more arguments, no matter how terrible they are and no matter how often they are defeated, because it gives the impression that there must be SOMETHING there. 10 arguments can't all be wrong, and if you repeat them over and over, 40 arguments cant all be wrong! And look at the Bonds apologists, they just keep making excuses over and over again! They keep using the same tired excuses!

See where I'm going?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with much of what you said, but saying that there is tons of evidence is not the same thing as saying there is absolute incontrovertible proof. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bonds used steroids---especially on an interweb message board. Please keep that crucial distinction in mind.

Redbean demands absolute proof of any evidence that Bonds used steroids, but he is not held to the same standard. For example, he has made several assertions calling the Game of Shadows book into question... but he has not made a detailed, sourced, point-by-point refutation of all of the detailed, sourced, point-by-point pieces of evidence in the book. I don't demand that he does so, because this is just a flippin' internet board. But that's what he demands from anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Redbean is certainly good at calling evidence into question, but I don't agree that he has "defeated" point A, point B, point C, etc. He simple challenges the evidence as a defense attorney might. For example, he keeps referring to the GoS authors as "biased" and mentioning that the book was made "for profit," but of course, even if those assertions are true, it doesn't mean the evidence in the book is false.

And in our long, ridiculous argument about whether Bonds admitted using steroids, even the great Redbean admitted it was "highly likely" that the substance Bonds used was a steroid. His contention was simply that I could not prove to his level of satisfaction that Bonds had "knowingly admitted" using steroids.

Redbean knows Bonds used steroids, and almost every Bonds supporter on this board has said they know Bonds used steroids. They just want to argue the technicalities of whether it's been "proven" to a sufficient burden of proof by a sufficiently worthy authority. The actual argument--that Bonds used steroids--gets lost in the technicalities, semantics, and the minutiae.

Great debate tactic, but a little disingenuous IMO.

See where I'm going?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is, its impossible to defeat your arguments if by defeat you mean disprove. I cannot PROVE that what you are saying is incorrect, because it is impossible. All I can do is discredit your arguments, which is what RedBean has done. Since he hasn't 100% disproved them, for some reason you (and I mean you in the general sense, this isn't a personal attack on you) think you can add up the 3% uncertainty here, the 5% uncertainty there, and add them all together to make a whole bunch of uncertainty. Thats not the way it works, but it does seem to convince a lot of people.

FWIW, I do think Bonds probably used steroids, and I also don't care, but it isn't a dishonest tactic to be really nitpicky about it, IMO. The reason it isn't dishonest is because of the very large ramifications of being guilty of steroid use. If most fans felt the same way as I do about steroids, i.e. that they are no big deal and everyone does them and its a level playing field, then I wouldn't be nearly as nitty about this. I'd just say, Yeah, Bonds probably did them, no big deal. But that isn't the atmosphere we have. We're in a situation where if Bonds is convicted he might actually be kept out of the HoF or Selig might do something crazy like take away his records. These are very serious consequences, so I think it is very legitimate to be a huge nit.