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