Official argue about all things Barry Bonds GOAT thread

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]


Right but thats RedBean's point with the graph highlighting expansion. Bonds increases ALSO correspond to rule changes (being liberal with this term, I'm including general things that increased HR across the board like expansion) park effects (smaller parks in general), and luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree that that is a part of it. But is it as big of a factor for Bonds as it was for Aaron? I personally think it is not.

In 1998 there were only 2 new expansion teams. In 1969 there were 4.

In 1969 the strike zone was reduced and the mound was lowered. I dont think there are comparables to the late 90's.

There was a bigger change in hr/500ABs in the years closely following 1968 than there was closely following 97.

[JordanIB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another lie. A test did exist for THG in 2003 but MLB did not test for it

[/ QUOTE ]

MLB began testing for THG in 2003, almost immediately after it was added to the FDA schedule of bannedsubstances....(remember, you were already wrong about that one.) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Tsk tsk, just takes a simple Google search to prove this wrong.... Read article

I'll highlight for you...

The newly discovered steroid THG was not tested for, and baseball cannot retest because the samples weren't saved. But it already has been added to the banned list for next year. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Tsk, Tsk....the FDA added THG in Oct 2003, and the "2004 baseball year" begins in Oct 2003.....

It's all in the details.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Put simply, MLB begin testing for THG as early as Oct of 2003.

Which last time I checked, despite being classified by the CBA as part of the "2004 baseball season"....is most definately still a part of the 2003 calendar year.

After all, why would they have tested in the early part of 2003 when the substance wasn't even illegal.


Nevermind that you originally and incorrectly asserted that it was illegal all along and that MLB didn't test for THG at all....[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Don't sweat being wrong, bro....you seem to get lot's of practice at it....you're still upset about being dead wrong about THG's legality in 2003, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is so regarding testing for it in October 2003, why does an article posted on November 13th talk about testing of it in the future tense, "next year."

For somebody trying to sort out which of you is giving the correct facts, this is confusing.

Please clarify with source.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is "normal." It might happen occassionaly but that doesnt make it normal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Barry Bonds is not a normal baseball player.

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you could quantify the specific effects of the rule changes on the offensive environment you would see that the upward trend would be expected for that period

[/ QUOTE ]

Except when we look at trend of the entire league before and after those changes, it doesn't increase...it decreases.....exactly the opposite of what it did in Hank's case, and exactly opposite of what you say you would "expect".

1962-1968 NL AB/HR: 45.1
1969-1975 NL AB/HR: 46.1

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, what's your view on the credibility of the Mitchell report, as you had previously asked vhawk for his?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was not just for Vhawk, just a general question.

I dont know. Depends on his sources and his methods I guess. If you can track a persons credit card back to a pharmacy that has been implicated in this whole deal I think that is pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you really saying it just depends on whether or not it implicates Bonds?

After all, that is the standard by which many of those with preconceptions are going to judge it's credibility.

It's be interesting to see the media windfall of excuses for the players they coddle, though.

Interesting indeed.

[samsonh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another lie. A test did exist for THG in 2003 but MLB did not test for it

[/ QUOTE ]

MLB began testing for THG in 2003, almost immediately after it was added to the FDA schedule of bannedsubstances....(remember, you were already wrong about that one.) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Tsk tsk, just takes a simple Google search to prove this wrong.... Read article

I'll highlight for you...

The newly discovered steroid THG was not tested for, and baseball cannot retest because the samples weren't saved. But it already has been added to the banned list for next year. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Tsk, Tsk....the FDA added THG in Oct 2003, and the "2004 baseball year" begins in Oct 2003.....

It's all in the details.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Put simply, MLB begin testing for THG as early as Oct of 2003.

Which last time I checked, despite being classified by the CBA as part of the "2004 baseball season"....is most definately still a part of the 2003 calendar year.

After all, why would they have tested in the early part of 2003 when the substance wasn't even illegal.


Nevermind that you originally and incorrectly asserted that it was illegal all along and that MLB didn't test for THG at all....[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Don't sweat being wrong, bro....you seem to get lot's of practice at it....you're still upset about being dead wrong about THG's legality in 2003, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

RB,

You can pretend its me who uses word games when its entirely you. Please read that article and its details. Testing began in the 2004 season, not the 2003 season as you had implied several posts up. You seem to want to argue semantics to hide the point of the post: Bonds' samples were not tested for THG during the 2003 season, meaning if he had been using he would not have been caught that year. The first time he could have been caught was the 2004 season- even if that is Oct-28-03.

THG was not illegal because authorities had no idea it existed. You cannot ban something if you don't know it exists. If your hero Bonds took THG before the 2004 season he may not have been breaking the steroid policy, but he was most certainly gaining an advantage, an advantage that MLB ruled was illegal the moment they found out about it, which is what the entire argument is about. I would also like to find where I said that MLB never tested for THG. Putting words in my mouth again.

Now I am sure you will respond by editing out the parts of my post you cannot answer or refuse to answer, something you do well, but I wish you the best. It was fun debating but I am not going to change your mind, nor you mine. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

There was a bigger change in hr/500ABs in the years closely following 1968 than there was closely following 97.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 1968 itself, much like 1987, was an aberration, and by comparing an aberration in a vaccum to the year following it is disingenous...although you may not have been aware of it.

Take a look at these league AB/HR ratios:

Pre expansion, pre-rules change:
1962-1967: 43.2

the 1968 season: 61.6

Post expansion, post rules change:
1969-1973: 43.99

The 5 years after expansion were a <u>decrease</u> in HR rate as compared to the 5 years prior to expansion, when accounting for the 1968 aberration.

Instead of relying on the one year aberration as the meat of your argument....

Granted, I am limited in my interest to be objective and factual, a constraint that doesn't seem to hinder most (hey samsonh!)....but the same exact argument you are making for a dramatic statistical increase from 1968 to 1969 could be made for a dramatic decrease from 1967 to 1968.....as the 1968 season was an aberration.

Only, there were no significant changes from 1967 to 1968....and your drawing conclusions only from viewing 1968 to 1969 in a vaccum without taking it into context may be a clear cut fallacy of "correlation_does_not_imply_causation".

But then again, if your just here to argue for the sake of arguing with me, like you've said, then you don't really care much about any of this....

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is "normal." It might happen occassionaly but that doesnt make it normal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Barry Bonds is not a normal baseball player.

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you could quantify the specific effects of the rule changes on the offensive environment you would see that the upward trend would be expected for that period

[/ QUOTE ]

Except when we look at trend of the entire league before and after those changes, it doesn't increase...it decreases.....exactly the opposite of what it did in Hank's case, and exactly opposite of what you say you would "expect".

1962-1968 NL AB/HR: 45.1
1969-1975 NL AB/HR: 46.1

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I get a link for these numbers? I am struggling to find anything not in graph form. Then I will respond to your previous couple posts.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, what's your view on the credibility of the Mitchell report, as you had previously asked vhawk for his?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was not just for Vhawk, just a general question.

I dont know. Depends on his sources and his methods I guess. If you can track a persons credit card back to a pharmacy that has been implicated in this whole deal I think that is pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you really saying it just depends on whether or not it implicates Bonds?

After all, that is the standard by which many of those with preconceptions are going to judge it's credibility.

It's be interesting to see the media windfall of excuses for the players they coddle, though.

Interesting indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you read anything about Bonds into that?

I think it could:

1) include Bonds and be credible.
2) include Bonds and not be credible.
3) not include Bonds and be credible.
4) not include Bonds and not be credible.

Like I said, it depends on his sources and methods.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

If this is so regarding testing for it in October 2003, why does an article posted on November 13th talk about testing of it in the future tense, "next year."


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the media is infallible?

Sheesh....

[ QUOTE ]

For somebody trying to sort out which of you is giving the correct facts, this is confusing.

Please clarify with source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarify which one?

- His original assertion that MLB doesn't test for THG?

He's already conceded that they at least began testing for it in the 2004 season.

- His original assertion that THG was illegal by federal law "for at least 10 years".

He's already conceded that THG was not made illegal until Oct 2003.

- The issue discerning between my assertion of testing occuring in 2003 as meaning the calendar year or as a baseball year?

I acknowledge that THG was not tested for during the 2003 season, as it wasn't a banned substance, nor was it illegal under the law.

It was, however, tested for during the 2004 season as he concedes.....the semantical difference being that the 2004 season, in regards to the CBA, begins in Oct of 2003.

Thus, testing began shortly after the substance was made illegal, in the calendar year of 2003, as I stated.

Much like the CBA that established the survey testing in the 2003 season actually took effect on Sept 30th, 2002. The 2002 calendar year.

The CBA defines a "baseball year" as beginning at the end of the previous season's championship event, and extending throughout the offseason, thru spring training, and up until the end of that seasons championship event.


All in all, simply put, we're having a mightily complex and stupid argument over his interpretation of my assertion of testing within a calendar year against his finding a description of events along a baseball year.

Aside from all that, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference either way.

Simply put, and restated for clarity:

It wasn't illegal nor banned during the 2003 season, nor was it tested for during that season, which ended in Oct 2003.

It was illegal and banned during the 2004 season, for which it was tested for during that season. A season which began in the calendar year of 2003.

This is why it gets confusing mixing and matching the CBA definition of "baseball year" with calendar years and the traditional understanding by fans of a "baseball season".

Compund that with the difficulty added when folks are wanting to argue just for the sake of argument and their personal distaste with me.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You can pretend its me who uses word games when its entirely you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't pretend you use word games, christ...it's rather obvious you'd already made two or three patently false assertions with no tact whatsoever. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Testing began in the 2004 season, not the 2003 season as you had implied several posts up.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand the confusion, I was not clear about my meaning the 2003 calendar year, which could easily be confused.

From now on, I won't assume that someone will know "2003" menas the calendar year, and will definitivaly state the context to which I am referring, be it "baseball year", "calendar year", or "baseball season".

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to want to argue semantics to hide the point of the post:


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm arguing semantics? Sheesh....you're giving raking me over the coals because of the difference between a calendar year and a baseball year.


[ QUOTE ]
Bonds' samples were not tested for THG during the 2003 season, meaning if he had been using he would not have been caught that year.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, because THG was not illegal that season, nor was it in violation of MLB steroid policy.

(Remember when you said it was illegal, even though it wasn't? Is pointing out that falsehood "semantics")

Oops...

[ QUOTE ]

The first time he could have been caught was the 2004 season- even if that is Oct-28-03.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly my entire point, aside from getting sidetracked from the semantics of a "baseball year" vs "calendar year".... THG was not illegal during the 2003 baseball year.

[ QUOTE ]

THG was not illegal because authorities had no idea it existed. You cannot ban something if you don't know it exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]

If your hero Bonds took THG before the 2004 season he may not have been breaking the steroid policy, but he was most certainly gaining an advantage, an advantage that MLB ruled was illegal the moment they found out about it, which is what the entire argument is about.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big "if".


[ QUOTE ]

Now I am sure you will respond by editing out the parts of my post you cannot answer or refuse to answer, something you do well, but I wish you the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

You call it "editing out parts I can't respond too"....I call it "responding to the relevant parts, and cutting the noise".

Hey, seriously guy, I'm only one person here....I can expect to respond to each and every one of everybody's points each and every time, no matter how big are small.

If you go through this thread and take a close look, you'll see the points I make moreso than anyone are ignored by the lustful mob with preconcieved notions.

I mean, seriously....just look at what happens in this post when I try to respond to each point....it's unreadable