Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Barry BondsFollow

#27 Apr 15 2004 at 5:35 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
As to this I would say hmmm so it must be coincidence that all our current most profilic home run hitters are big men.

Barry's not that big. Neither is A-Rod or KGJr.
#28 Apr 15 2004 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
His hand-eye coordination wasn't all that impressive before 2001, huh?


well let's see here...

1990: National League Most Valuable Player
1990: National League Gold Glove at OF
1991: National League Gold Glove at OF
1992: National League Gold Glove at OF
1992: National League Most Valuable Player
1993: National League Most Valuable Player
1993: National League Gold Glove at OF
1994: National League Gold Glove at OF
1994 ESPY: Outstanding Baseball Performer
1994 ESPY: Male Athlete of the Year
1996: National League Gold Glove at OF
1997: National League Gold Glove at OF
1998: National League Gold Glove at OF
2001: National League Most Valuable Player
2002 ESPY: Moment of the Year
2002: National League Most Valuable Player
2002 ESPY: Outstanding Baseball Performer
2003: National League Most Valuable Player

Takes some pretty decent hand-eye to win 8 Golden gloves I'd presume...(you can probably disregard the espys though)

Plus how about his batting averages, let's start with 1990:
1990 .301
1991 .292
1992 .311
1993 .336
1994 .312
1995 .294
1996 .308
1997 .291
1998 .303
1999 .262
2000 .306
2001 .328
I would hardly call those dramatically different from his numbers in the present time... as was stated earlier as you age you learn patience and discpline at the plate, or at least you should and Barry has. He was a good hitter before 2001, now he's a great hitter, people love to make barry sound like he hit like alex cora or nefi perez pre 2001.

#29 Apr 15 2004 at 9:04 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Barry's not that big. Neither is A-Rod or KGJr


KG still plays baseball?! How surprising was it to see him start another season with an injury?
#30 Apr 15 2004 at 10:12 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
I would hardly call those dramatically different from his numbers in the present time... as was stated earlier as you age you learn patience and discpline at the plate, or at least you should and Barry has. He was a good hitter before 2001, now he's a great hitter, people love to make barry sound like he hit like alex cora or nefi perez pre 2001.


The numbers were already posted, you'd know that if you bothere to read the thread.

Quote:
From 1986 - 2000:

AB: 7456 Hits: 2157 = Bavg of .289

From 2001- 2003:

AB: 1269 Hits: 438 = Bavg of .345


That's a jump of 56 points at a time when his reactions should be slowing down. Take a look at it again. Before 2001 he was less than a .300 hitter. After 2001, he's hitting .345

The Gold Gloves really don't mean squat since we aren't talking about his defensive abilities, AND its a voted award, not a statistical one. Steve Garvey, one of the worst defensive first basemen in the game won a Gold Glove. Rafael Palmiero won a Gold Glove when he was primarily a DH. So Gold Gloves don't mean **** in this discussion.
#31 Apr 15 2004 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
/nods at Deathwysh

Look, attempting to place an asterick next to Bond's, McGuire's, or Sosa's name is closing the barn door after the horses have run out. What's done is done and the records stand.

What Bonds could do is take the position of "I am firmly opposed to the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs." He'd then go to the Commissioner and offer himself up for a full battery of tests, presumably pass since he's not supposedly using, and then take the stand that MLB needs to be annually and randomly tested for the sake and purity of the game.

He'd in a single act wipe the slate and his reputation clean, erase any animosity he has with the sports journalists, become the leader and spokesman for MLB, and firmly place himself in Cooperstown not just for his on-field accomplishments, but for what he did to improve the game.

The player's union couldn't touch him because of his superstar status and he'd leave the game better than when he started. What better legacy is there than that? It's a win-win situation.

By not doing that, Bonds besmirches his own reputation and leads the general public-- excluding Giants fans, of course --to conclude he is dirty. Until he lays claim to the leadership role he has studiously avoided thus far, Bonds will be a first time vote into the Baseball HoF with an asterick next to his plaque. How sad considering the career he has had.

Totem
#32 Apr 15 2004 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
The numbers were already posted, you'd know that if you bothere to read the thread.


Thank you for pointing that out.

I broke it down on a yearly basis because I think it's important to look at individual years rather than an average, after all the .345 your talking about is a 3 year average and the .289 is a 15 year average.
You can see that his batting averages fluctuate his whole carrer,
from 86-87 a change of +.36 points
from 89-90 a change of +.43 points
from 98-99 a change of -.41 points
from 99-00 a change of +.44 points
from 01-02 a change of +.42 points
from 02-03 a change of -.29 points

nothing seems very out of whack there.

Quote:
The Gold Gloves really don't mean squat since we aren't talking about his defensive abilities, AND its a voted award, not a statistical one. Steve Garvey, one of the worst defensive first basemen in the game won a Gold Glove. Rafael Palmiero won a Gold Glove when he was primarily a DH. So Gold Gloves don't mean sh*t in this discussion


Well we're talking about 8 of them, he must of been doing something right.
#33 Apr 15 2004 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
What Bonds could do is take the position of "I am firmly opposed to the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs." He'd then go to the Commissioner and offer himself up for a full battery of tests, presumably pass since he's not supposedly using, and then take the stand that MLB needs to be annually and randomly tested for the sake and purity of the game.


Absolutly correct, unfortunatly the union will never allow him to do this, although this may be a good time to just do it anyways.
#34 Apr 15 2004 at 11:29 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
Well we're talking about 8 of them, he must of been doing something right.


He may be, but we are not talking about defense here, its not relevant to the discussion.

But you are right about the 3 year vs 15 year span, so let's break it down into three year spans.

age Years ab hits Bavg Avg#hrs
21-23 86-88 1502 388 .258 21.7
24-26 89-91 1609 449 .279 25.7
27-29 92-94 1403 450 .320 39
30-32 95-97 1555 463 .298 38
33-35 98-00 1387 407 .293 40
36-38 01-03 1269 438 .345 54


Everything up to 2001 is prety much what you would expect. He came into the league, and started off slowly (relatively speaking), improved as he physically matured and grew more experienced, maintained a high level of performance until he was about 35.... and then rather than showing a drop off like virtually every other player in the history of the game, he suddenly jumped his batting average up 56 points over his lifetime average to that point, and his average number of homeruns jumped up by 14 over his best previous three year span!

To understand this, you also have to look at what everyone around him was doing as well. We know that offensive production has been on the rise for some time, but took a big jump in 1994, and since 2000 HR's have been completly nuts. Below is listed the batting average for the entire NL from 1987 onward.

87 .261
88 .248
89 .246
90 .256
91 .250
92 .252
93 .264
94 .267
95 .263
96 .262
97 .263
98 .262
99 .268
00 .266
01 .261
02 .259
03 .262

A gradual increase over the years, but Batting Avg, has been pretty steady since 1993. So there was no sudden dearth of quality pitching, there was no great leap in hitting for average overall. Which makes Bonds' performance all the more remarkable (and all the more suspect). I did a brief search through some of the more famous sluggers in baseball history, and couldn't find anything comparable to Bond's surge. Other players have had good seasons late in life, but they haven't strung together three career years like he has, particularly with regards to his batting average.

There's enough evidence to raise suspicion in Bonds' case, but if you don't believe that Bonds performance is enhanced, there's nothing that is going to make you believe it short of a positive test (which is unlikely as such tests are easily avoided or beaten).

Edited, Thu Apr 15 12:30:22 2004 by Deathwysh
#35 Apr 15 2004 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
The thing is, the player's union couldn't stop him, what, with his superstar status and all. They'd have no choice but to roll over and meekly ok it since the majority of the players (who have no juice with the union) would support him. It'd be a fait accompli.

Totem
#36 Apr 15 2004 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
There is no evidence that illegal steroids were used by Barry Bonds. Period.


There's tons of evidence, there's no proof.

Quote:
LOL If that's the measure, Barry is in no way a big man. Not that I will even begin the argument over whether or not football should even be considered a sport.


Well if that's true, then your argument that increased bulk leads to decreased agility holds no water.

Quote:
OJ was convicted in civil court of wrongful death. There was never really a question of whether he did it or not, just a question of guilt or innocence.


There's really no question of Bonds using steroids either, its just a question of guilt or innocence. Hell, professional body builders haven't been able to add the kind of muscle mass that Bonds did in the same amount of time. The only instances of professional athletes, already at full adult growth, suddenly adding large amounts of muscle mass have all been proven or suspected to be the result of steroid use. Baseball hasn't caught anyone doing it because baseball has the flimsiest drug screening policy of any major sport.


Quote:
This one's funny too. A full baseball season is an incredible endurance race. To win his third consecutive MVP, Bonds endured the death of his father, the man who was his rock, to lead his team to a wire to wire NL West title. But it couldn't have been his willingness or ability to endure. It must have been the juice. :)


Comparing a baseball season to something as immediately grueling as the Tour de France is idiotic. Sure the baseball season is long, but baseball (the game) is far and away the least physically demanding of the major professional sports. It is not uncommon for a player (particularly an outfielder) to play an entire game, and never even have a defensive chance. Grueling, its not. Fat old men can (and have) played professional baseball. You'll never see the likes of Gaylord Perry or Mickey Lolich dragging their huge beer bellies around a velodrome.
#37 Apr 15 2004 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
and then rather than showing a drop off like virtually every other player in the history of the game


You make a great point in that post, and breaking it down into the 3 year spans does make your point even stronger, and it's very hard to argue with.
However... I will
Tony Gwynn showed a similar maturation process as shown in these stats:

22-24 .316
25-27 .338
28-30 .319
31-33 .331
34-36 .372
37-39 .344
40-41 .323

As you can see from 34-39 were his best years as far as batting average, so a surge at that age is not unheard of. I will agree however that Bonds' surge is remarkable and does make you question his work somewhat, I just happen not to think that steroids are the reason.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 422 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (422)