|
|
#211
11-06-2007, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Last I heard I don't recall Williams ever dwarving the EqAs he put up when you're in the supposed prime of your baseball career. In fact, he had higher EqAs three times earlier in his career. Bonds set personal career highs in EqAs three times, with all three times also being the highest EqA in baseball history. Not only did Bonds make history after Age 35, he topped it. Twice. [/ QUOTE ] Please to be not using years when he had 10 and 91 ABs, please. [/ QUOTE ] LOL 
|
|
#212
11-06-2007, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that dropping names of people that attended his party is a funny way to argue that he must not be a bad guy. Lots of famous, rich people have parties where tons of other famous people attend. It doesn't make them good people. [/ QUOTE ] BSF had asked for any example of where Bonds had where he was friendly with teammates, so I posted it in response to him as it was relevant to what he asked. Sorry if it didn't conform to your expectations. Take a number and get in line. [ QUOTE ] I wasn't even close to comparing Barry and OJ. [/ QUOTE ] Riiight...
|
|
#213
11-06-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious: what's your reasoning as to Bonds' unprecedented offensive explosion at age 37 and on? [/ QUOTE ] He's a great baseball player. Unlike other people, I don't feel the need to blame his success on anything.
|
|
#214
11-06-2007, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
My general point wipes out anything you can do to defend Bonds' massive statistical increase. [/ QUOTE ] Let me clarify something....I'm not "defending" Bonds' stats....hell, I am enjoying them, and I'll be the first to cite the same numbers when we're talking about who is the greatest. What I *am* doing, however, is pointing out that no amount of statistical deviation can prove PED use. The numbers are obscene. They are otherwordly. They are fantastically unbelievable in the minds of mere mortals. But, they are what they are, which is proof the man can hit a baseball, and certainly not proof of anything else. Except maybe for those folks who "feel the need" to explain his greatness using their own assumptions rather than just being able to say "damn, he was just that much better than veryone." Have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#216
11-06-2007, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I completely agree that the football players would win. The first clip of rugby I have ever seen was the Youtube clip that was posted. You shouldn't assume things. [/ QUOTE ] Speaking of assuming things, I think the football players wouldn't stand a chance.....so I'm not sure how you are "completely agreeing", when we have different viewpoints. Like I said, I merely posted a historical fact that showed it had happened before. I never concluded that it would happen again, and I personally think it wouldn't be possible. [ QUOTE ] You never said Hank was a habitual user, yet you classified him as a drug cheat. [/ QUOTE ] Using the criteria as defined by the person I was debating, who defined "cheating" as even one-time use, in order to display his own hypocrisy as he quickly backed off that stance when he discovered Aaron himself had once admitted to PED use. [ QUOTE ] I'll give you that the Clear was not illegal, [/ QUOTE ] Nice of you to be so generous, considering you had asserted the opposite until I threw indisputable proof in your face. Funny how that works, huh? [ QUOTE ] Did Bonds violate steroid policy? Maybe not. [/ QUOTE ] There is no maybe. It is indisputable fact that Barry Bonds has not violated the MLB Steroid Policy. [/ QUOTE ] And you wonder how I can call you intellectually dishonest? LOL. Take every point in my post that you cannot answer and avoid it. I likey. I take your avoidance as a yes that Bonds did take steroids.
|
|
#217
11-06-2007, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] unfortunately, a lack of a positive test does not prove innocence, as strange as that sounds. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that a test cannot constitute a negative proof, but only the abscence affirmative proof in the contrary. In short, those who poo-poo the negative tests are relying on the inability of anyone to prove the existence of a negative, in order to hold onto their positions, despite them being in the abscence of any affirmitave proof of their own. [ QUOTE ] if you have no or insignificant tests for the PED in question, the fact that you were tested means little. [/ QUOTE ] FWIW, the tests administered in 2003 & 2004 could detect 'the clear'. [/ QUOTE ] Another lie. A test did exist for THG in 2003 but MLB did not test for it
|
|
#218
11-06-2007, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Let me have a go at cherry picking numbers: [/ QUOTE ] Interesting, you previously asserted that an elite player begins to decline at age 30, and you insisted that we use HR Rate rather that absolute HR totals...... Thus, I used the HR Rate from the 5 seasons beginning at age 30....(comparing ages 30-34 and 35-39.) And now, since they don't line up with your preconceptions....you suddenly want to change the criteria to a start at a different age (32), and suddenly want to shift back to absolute HR totals, rather than using the rate. Sweet.... [ QUOTE ] From 1966 to 1969 (ages 32 to 35) Aaron hit 84 hr's at home and 74 on the road. From 1970 to 1973 (ages 36 to 39) Aaron hit 97 hr's at home and 62 on the road. Please to be explaining. [/ QUOTE ] Same explanation as before: 1. Hank had a more pronounced late career surge at home due to park effects. 2. Hank's road HR rate still increased. (despite you're attempt to disguise this by using absolute totals.) HR Rate using your "cherry picked" time periods. <u>AB/HR on the ROAD:</u> Ages 32-35: 16.47 Ages 36-39: 14.97 Despite your attempts at cherry picking....it's still an increase in HR Rate on the road. Oops... [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. I should have used ab/hr instead of raw numbers. I was busy at the time. I dont dispute your numbers. They are factually correct as far as I can tell. I ran the home numbers for the same period. I did it quickly so feel free to correct me if they are wrong. From ages 32-35, Aaron hit a HR every 13.8 at bats at home. From ages 36-39, Aaron hit a HR every 9.5 at bats at home. The home difference is much larger than the road difference. I think that is clear. What is interesting is that if you take into account what was happening in baseball around 1969 (age 35) there are pretty clear reasons that you would expect someones rates to increase slightly. DUCY?
|
|
#219
11-06-2007, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Let me have a go at cherry picking numbers: [/ QUOTE ] Interesting, you previously asserted that an elite player begins to decline at age 30, and you insisted that we use HR Rate rather that absolute HR totals...... Thus, I used the HR Rate from the 5 seasons beginning at age 30....(comparing ages 30-34 and 35-39.) And now, since they don't line up with your preconceptions....you suddenly want to change the criteria to a start at a different age (32), and suddenly want to shift back to absolute HR totals, rather than using the rate. Sweet.... [ QUOTE ] From 1966 to 1969 (ages 32 to 35) Aaron hit 84 hr's at home and 74 on the road. From 1970 to 1973 (ages 36 to 39) Aaron hit 97 hr's at home and 62 on the road. Please to be explaining. [/ QUOTE ] Same explanation as before: 1. Hank had a more pronounced late career surge at home due to park effects. 2. Hank's road HR rate still increased. (despite you're attempt to disguise this by using absolute totals.) HR Rate using your "cherry picked" time periods. <u>AB/HR on the ROAD:</u> Ages 32-35: 16.47 Ages 36-39: 14.97 Despite your attempts at cherry picking....it's still an increase in HR Rate on the road. Oops... [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. I should have used ab/hr instead of raw numbers. I was busy at the time. I dont dispute your numbers. They are factually correct as far as I can tell. I ran the home numbers for the same period. I did it quickly so feel free to correct me if they are wrong. From ages 32-35, Aaron hit a HR every 13.8 at bats at home. From ages 36-39, Aaron hit a HR every 9.5 at bats at home. The home difference is much larger than the road difference. I think that is clear. What is interesting is that if you take into account what was happening in baseball around 1969 (age 35) there are pretty clear reasons that you would expect someones rates to increase slightly. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] But they arent just increasing slightly, they are increasing slightly IN THE FACE OF predicted decreases do to age. If you expect something to decrease by 10% but instead it increases by 1%, you dont just have to explain the 1% increase.
|
|
#220
11-06-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
What is interesting is that if you take into account what was happening in baseball around 1969 (age 35) there are pretty clear reasons that you would expect someones rates to increase slightly. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I see why....which is what I have been trying to get YOU to see..... since you asserted that it "wasn't normal" for someone to have an increase in power so late in their career. Good thing you finally came around. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Also, what's your view on the credibility of the Mitchell report, as you had previously asked vhawk for his?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
