What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** OFFICIAL *** Barry Bonds : MLB All-time HR Leader (1 Viewer)

' said:
Love him, hate him, loathe him...

Steroids or not...

He is one of the best offensive players ever to play the game...

Follow in his pursuit of one of the most hallowed records of the game of baseball...
Click to expand...
:yucky: Screw that #######.

 
http://sports.iwon.com/news/04032007/v7859.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -Barry Bonds sat down in the dugout to address the media swarm for opening day, then realized he'd forgotten his own tape recorder and ran back to the clubhouse to retrieve it.

"Can you all wait?" he said with a smile Tuesday before the San Francisco Giants hosted the San Diego Padres. "You all got some patience? I'll be baaack!"

He needed the device in case he decided later to post anything from the interview on his Web site, www.barrybonds.com.

Bonds was light and breezy before the game on a glorious Bay Area day that perfectly matched the slugger's mood. If his pursuit of the home run record is weighing on his mind, Bonds sure isn't showing it.

The 42-year-old star - cheered loudly during pregame introductions, when he waved and tipped his cap in every direction - begins the season with 734 homers and needing only 22 to pass Hammerin' Hank's career mark of 755. Bonds mentioned his kids and how they know about Aaron and what could happen, saying "Oh, yeah, my kids know."

"I'm going to have fun this year," Bonds said. "Enjoy each day - or try to at least."

For Bonds, holding an impromptu news conference before an opener was quite a change. He insists that being healthy to start a season gave him more to talk about from the get go in 2007. He was limited to 14 games all in September during the 2005 season following three operations on his troublesome right knee - and even last year wasn't at full strength to start the year.

"I wasn't playing the year before," Bonds said. "Last year I was still coming off injury. Not a lot to talk about aside from injuries. ... I was hurt. It wasn't fun, not the best of times. I thought I could do more."

New Giants manager Bruce Bochy plans to communicate regularly with Bonds about when the slugger might need a day off to rest, but Bochy has said there will be times Bonds plays in day games following night games - not always Bonds' practice in previous years when he was ailing.

Bonds appeared in 130 games in 2006 and isn't ready to say whether he will be on the field more often this year.

"I don't know if I have to," he said. "Do I have to? Let the year dictate that. ... I'm 42, not 22. I will get out there if my body allows me."

Bochy has no plans to limit Bonds now, especially considering the way the seven-time NL MVP was running the bases and chasing down balls in left field all spring without problems. He had a productive winter of workouts at UCLA.

"He's fine to go nine innings," Bochy said. "His legs feel good. This isn't spring training anymore."

As far as the nasty treatment Bonds is sure to receive on the road all season, he says he doesn't care a bit. It's been happening for years and even more so now as he faces accusations about his alleged steroids use and the possibility he could be indicted by a federal grand jury on perjury charges.

"The crowds, that don't bother athletes," he said. "Not doing your job bothers athletes. ... I'm glad they're supporting, whether they're booing or cheering."

Bonds had to cut off his dugout session, and did so politely.

"Thank you, guys. Have a nice day," he said, making his way to the field to take batting practice.

And No. 25 was off to work, officially beginning what he hopes will be a historic season featuring not only the home run record but also the Giants' return to being a division contender.

 
The man already had his place in baseball history all sewn up prior to inflating himself. It's a tragedy, really.

 
He had seven HRs during Spring Training and looks like his legs are back under him this season. Bud Selig should start making his travel plans now so he be unavailable, because the record looks almost certain to fall this season.

 
Well I am one that is rooting for him. Everyone needs to get over the fact if he did or did not use steriods.

Till you can prove who did or did not use then everyone else is under the same microscope as Barry.

It will always be known as the steriod era. and nothing that we can do will change it. When the Commish and owners of MLB turn the blind eye so they can make a ton of money then it is something that we will have to accept.

Just like the 70's and 80's when players used amphetamines we do not knock down what they did.

 
greenroom said:
Well I am one that is rooting for him. Everyone needs to get over the fact if he did or did not use steriods. Till you can prove who did or did not use then everyone else is under the same microscope as Barry.It will always be known as the steriod era. and nothing that we can do will change it. When the Commish and owners of MLB turn the blind eye so they can make a ton of money then it is something that we will have to accept. Just like the 70's and 80's when players used amphetamines we do not knock down what they did.
Click to expand...
Demonstrating a poor knowledge of amphetamine use and performance. Any pharmacologist who's reviewed the literature will tell you that most skills are not enhanced by their use. Steroids have obvious benefits.And, if you're still in the dark about whether he cheated or not, you're deliberately not paying much attention.Oh yeah, and you're rooting for a colossal #####. Hope that's working out for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
greenroom said:
Well I am one that is rooting for him. Everyone needs to get over the fact if he did or did not use steriods. Till you can prove who did or did not use then everyone else is under the same microscope as Barry.It will always be known as the steriod era. and nothing that we can do will change it. When the Commish and owners of MLB turn the blind eye so they can make a ton of money then it is something that we will have to accept. Just like the 70's and 80's when players used amphetamines we do not knock down what they did.
Click to expand...
Demonstrating a poor knowledge of amphetamine use and performance. Any pharmacologist who's reviewed the literature will tell you that most skills are not enhanced by their use. Steroids have obvious benefits.And, if you're still in the dark about whether he cheated or not, you're deliberately not paying much attention.Oh yeah, and you're rooting for a colossal #####. Hope that's working out for you.
Click to expand...
Well its working out the same as you. Since it does not impact you or me who the heck cares? So are you willing to put all records on hold during this period?? IF not then shame on you. It is impossable to know who or who did not use steriods. Do I believe the he used HELL YES. Is he the only top player to use them HELL NO. So unless you plan on just voiding out all of the records and team stats during this period then you have to go with what you have.If so then you cannot put Roger Clemons, M. Rivera or Randy Johnson into the Hall of Fame. Plus who the hell are you to say that your thoughts of Barry Bonds are more important than mine??
 
greenroom said:
Plus who the hell are you to say that your thoughts of Barry Bonds are more important than mine??
Click to expand...
When did I say that? It's always important to have the guys in the minority view swinging his fists with his head in the sand, defending a turd, like Bonds. I never suggested your thoughts weren't important.
 
cobalt_27 said:
greenroom said:
Plus who the hell are you to say that your thoughts of Barry Bonds are more important than mine??
Click to expand...
When did I say that? It's always important to have the guys in the minority view swinging his fists with his head in the sand, defending a turd, like Bonds. I never suggested your thoughts weren't important.
Click to expand...
The way you express your opinions makes you seem like a bigger turd than Bonds. HTH.
 
cobalt_27 said:
Demonstrating a poor knowledge of amphetamine use and performance. Any pharmacologist who's reviewed the literature will tell you that most skills are not enhanced by their use. Steroids have obvious benefits.
Click to expand...
Considering the obvious benefits, you'd think there would be at least one scientific experiment proving that steroids have a statistically significant effect on improving baseball playing ability.
 
Chase Stuart said:
cobalt_27 said:
Demonstrating a poor knowledge of amphetamine use and performance. Any pharmacologist who's reviewed the literature will tell you that most skills are not enhanced by their use. Steroids have obvious benefits.
Click to expand...
Considering the obvious benefits, you'd think there would be at least one scientific experiment proving that steroids have a statistically significant effect on improving baseball playing ability.
Click to expand...
And where would they find enough players to admit to using steroids to base the scientific experiment on?
 
Chase Stuart said:
cobalt_27 said:
Demonstrating a poor knowledge of amphetamine use and performance. Any pharmacologist who's reviewed the literature will tell you that most skills are not enhanced by their use. Steroids have obvious benefits.
Click to expand...
Considering the obvious benefits, you'd think there would be at least one scientific experiment proving that steroids have a statistically significant effect on improving baseball playing ability.
Click to expand...
So, you're suggesting that steroid use isn't associated with muscle mass?No, that can't possibly be it. So, you might concede that it's related to muscle mass. But, maybe you might argue that muscle mass doesn't help baseball-related skills, like hitting a ball farther.No, that probably isn't it, either. I doubt you'd argue that.So, maybe it's that you could argue that added muscle mass comes at the expense of speed (i.e., swing speed) or agility. I imagine for some, this is a possible consequence.The absence of evidence is not evidence for the absence of the phenomenon. I don't know if there is or isn't a scientific study on baseball, per se. But, we do know how anabolic steroids and HGH improve performance and strength in other areas. The fact that it hasn't been studied in baseball is interesting, if that's indeed the case (I haven't looked at the literature). But, if you're denying that it offers a benefit because no one has studied it, it might be worth checking your premises, first.
 
commisholio said:
cobalt_27 said:
greenroom said:
Plus who the hell are you to say that your thoughts of Barry Bonds are more important than mine??
Click to expand...
When did I say that? It's always important to have the guys in the minority view swinging his fists with his head in the sand, defending a turd, like Bonds. I never suggested your thoughts weren't important.
Click to expand...
The way you express your opinions makes you seem like a bigger turd than Bonds. HTH.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I'm happy you feel this way. I'd rather be considered a "turd" by a turd than by someone I respect.
 
cobalt_27 said:
commisholio said:
cobalt_27 said:
greenroom said:
Plus who the hell are you to say that your thoughts of Barry Bonds are more important than mine??
Click to expand...
When did I say that? It's always important to have the guys in the minority view swinging his fists with his head in the sand, defending a turd, like Bonds. I never suggested your thoughts weren't important.
Click to expand...
The way you express your opinions makes you seem like a bigger turd than Bonds. HTH.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I'm happy you feel this way. I'd rather be considered a "turd" by a turd than by someone I respect.
Click to expand...
;) Edit: Harsh words for one of your favorite posters on this board. I had forgotten how quickly you move to personal attacks when your opinion is challenged. Such a charming personality trait.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
commisholio said:
cobalt_27 said:
commisholio said:
cobalt_27 said:
greenroom said:
Plus who the hell are you to say that your thoughts of Barry Bonds are more important than mine??
Click to expand...
When did I say that? It's always important to have the guys in the minority view swinging his fists with his head in the sand, defending a turd, like Bonds. I never suggested your thoughts weren't important.
Click to expand...
The way you express your opinions makes you seem like a bigger turd than Bonds. HTH.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I'm happy you feel this way. I'd rather be considered a "turd" by a turd than by someone I respect.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Edit: Harsh words for one of your favorite posters on this board. I had forgotten how quickly you move to personal attacks when your opinion is challenged. Such a charming personality trait.
Click to expand...
Spare me. You were the first to make this personal.If you forgot, I bolded your first post.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fla\/\/ed said:
And where would they find enough players to admit to using steroids to base the scientific experiment on?
Click to expand...
cobalt_27 said:
So, you're suggesting that steroid use isn't associated with muscle mass?

No, that can't possibly be it. So, you might concede that it's related to muscle mass. But, maybe you might argue that muscle mass doesn't help baseball-related skills, like hitting a ball farther.

No, that probably isn't it, either. I doubt you'd argue that.

So, maybe it's that you could argue that added muscle mass comes at the expense of speed (i.e., swing speed) or agility. I imagine for some, this is a possible consequence.

The absence of evidence is not evidence for the absence of the phenomenon. I don't know if there is or isn't a scientific study on baseball, per se. But, we do know how anabolic steroids and HGH improve performance and strength in other areas. The fact that it hasn't been studied in baseball is interesting, if that's indeed the case (I haven't looked at the literature). But, if you're denying that it offers a benefit because no one has studied it, it might be worth checking your premises, first.
Click to expand...
If you were to argue that using steroids would help bodybuilders create a better physique, I wouldn't disagree. Even if there have been no official tests that would satisfy the scientific method, the existence of a Natural Olympia and a Mr. Olympia illustrates the real dichotomy between natural bodybuilders and drug using bodybuilders. If you were to argue that steroids usage by NFL offensive lineman is performance enhancing, I wouldn't argue despite there being less evidence there.But no one suggests that taking steroids makes you a better baseball player. Everyone agrees that taking steroids makes you a better bodybuilder. Some steroids promote durability, but on the other hand, we're often told that the dangers of steroid use include serious injury risk. Further, being "bulky and massive" is good for a bodybuilder or an offensive lineman, but not so good for an outfielder.

The media has written 100,000 times over how steroids makes you a better player without a shred of evidence. That's largely what the media does, but it doesn't make it correct. I'm not a physical scientist or a doctor or an expert of steroids. I certainly can't claim with any degree of certainty that steroid usage makes a good baseball player into a better baseball player. I'm not saying it does not, but an awful lot of people who have no idea what they're talking about have really made it hard to be objective about this issue.

(In the answer to FlaVVed's question, steroids aren't illegal everywhere. A double blind experiment could be run in one of those countries in order to get some actual, useful evidence on the subject. That hasn't been done, though.)

 
Chase Stuart said:
Fla\/\/ed said:
And where would they find enough players to admit to using steroids to base the scientific experiment on?
Click to expand...
cobalt_27 said:
So, you're suggesting that steroid use isn't associated with muscle mass?

No, that can't possibly be it. So, you might concede that it's related to muscle mass. But, maybe you might argue that muscle mass doesn't help baseball-related skills, like hitting a ball farther.

No, that probably isn't it, either. I doubt you'd argue that.

So, maybe it's that you could argue that added muscle mass comes at the expense of speed (i.e., swing speed) or agility. I imagine for some, this is a possible consequence.

The absence of evidence is not evidence for the absence of the phenomenon. I don't know if there is or isn't a scientific study on baseball, per se. But, we do know how anabolic steroids and HGH improve performance and strength in other areas. The fact that it hasn't been studied in baseball is interesting, if that's indeed the case (I haven't looked at the literature). But, if you're denying that it offers a benefit because no one has studied it, it might be worth checking your premises, first.
Click to expand...
If you were to argue that using steroids would help bodybuilders create a better physique, I wouldn't disagree. Even if there have been no official tests that would satisfy the scientific method, the existence of a Natural Olympia and a Mr. Olympia illustrates the real dichotomy between natural bodybuilders and drug using bodybuilders. If you were to argue that steroids usage by NFL offensive lineman is performance enhancing, I wouldn't argue despite there being less evidence there.But no one suggests that taking steroids makes you a better baseball player. Everyone agrees that taking steroids makes you a better bodybuilder. Some steroids promote durability, but on the other hand, we're often told that the dangers of steroid use include serious injury risk. Further, being "bulky and massive" is good for a bodybuilder or an offensive lineman, but not so good for an outfielder.

The media has written 100,000 times over how steroids makes you a better player without a shred of evidence. That's largely what the media does, but it doesn't make it correct. I'm not a physical scientist or a doctor or an expert of steroids. I certainly can't claim with any degree of certainty that steroid usage makes a good baseball player into a better baseball player. I'm not saying it does not, but an awful lot of people who have no idea what they're talking about have really made it hard to be objective about this issue.

(In the answer to FlaVVed's question, steroids aren't illegal everywhere. A double blind experiment could be run in one of those countries in order to get some actual, useful evidence on the subject. That hasn't been done, though.)
Click to expand...
Steroids helps build muscle mass.Muscle mass makes you stronger.

Strength is a key component to certain baseball skills.

Therefore, steroids can make one a better at certain skills related to baseball (i.e., hitting the ball farther, running speed).

Of course, there is an interaction between (a) natural talent and (b) steroid use. I could take steroids, and it might help me hit it closer to the warning track, but wouldn't ultimately help me become a great ballplayer. McGwire's build wasn't natural to be a sprinter, so it's doubtful he picked up much speed. But, give a good hitter steroids, he becomes a monster. Give a good sprinter steroids (as the U.S. and Canadian track teams reveal), they become faster.

As a quick aside, pick of "Game of Shadows" if you haven't already. It details the known science related to steroids pretty well.

Barry Bonds was one of the 3 best players in his time before steroids. He always had (and still seems to have) great eye-hand coordination. But, prior to taking steroids/HGH, he wasn't this good. And, neither was Caminiti, Sosa, Canseco, McGwire, et al. Anabolic steroids makes you stronger. And, as a hitter, particularly with leg strength, getting more torque on the ball helps it travel farther.

I don't know why skepticism about this abounds because there hasn't been a baseball study in the scientific literature. You accept this in football, why not for hitters in baseball?

Just because people hate Barry Bonds and folks want to see him hung out to dry (and, thus, might lack objectivity), doesn't dismiss the fact that steroids are performance enhancing for certain skill sets related to baseball.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember reading that what he was taking was also helping his vision. :bag:

Anyway, I hope he doesn't break it.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Chase Stuart said:
Fla\/\/ed said:
And where would they find enough players to admit to using steroids to base the scientific experiment on?
Click to expand...
cobalt_27 said:
So, you're suggesting that steroid use isn't associated with muscle mass?

No, that can't possibly be it. So, you might concede that it's related to muscle mass. But, maybe you might argue that muscle mass doesn't help baseball-related skills, like hitting a ball farther.

No, that probably isn't it, either. I doubt you'd argue that.

So, maybe it's that you could argue that added muscle mass comes at the expense of speed (i.e., swing speed) or agility. I imagine for some, this is a possible consequence.

The absence of evidence is not evidence for the absence of the phenomenon. I don't know if there is or isn't a scientific study on baseball, per se. But, we do know how anabolic steroids and HGH improve performance and strength in other areas. The fact that it hasn't been studied in baseball is interesting, if that's indeed the case (I haven't looked at the literature). But, if you're denying that it offers a benefit because no one has studied it, it might be worth checking your premises, first.
Click to expand...
If you were to argue that using steroids would help bodybuilders create a better physique, I wouldn't disagree. Even if there have been no official tests that would satisfy the scientific method, the existence of a Natural Olympia and a Mr. Olympia illustrates the real dichotomy between natural bodybuilders and drug using bodybuilders. If you were to argue that steroids usage by NFL offensive lineman is performance enhancing, I wouldn't argue despite there being less evidence there.But no one suggests that taking steroids makes you a better baseball player. Everyone agrees that taking steroids makes you a better bodybuilder. Some steroids promote durability, but on the other hand, we're often told that the dangers of steroid use include serious injury risk. Further, being "bulky and massive" is good for a bodybuilder or an offensive lineman, but not so good for an outfielder.

The media has written 100,000 times over how steroids makes you a better player without a shred of evidence. That's largely what the media does, but it doesn't make it correct. I'm not a physical scientist or a doctor or an expert of steroids. I certainly can't claim with any degree of certainty that steroid usage makes a good baseball player into a better baseball player. I'm not saying it does not, but an awful lot of people who have no idea what they're talking about have really made it hard to be objective about this issue.

(In the answer to FlaVVed's question, steroids aren't illegal everywhere. A double blind experiment could be run in one of those countries in order to get some actual, useful evidence on the subject. That hasn't been done, though.)
Click to expand...
Steroids helps build muscle mass.Muscle mass makes you stronger.

Strength is a key component to certain baseball skills.

Therefore, steroids can make one a better at certain skills related to baseball (i.e., hitting the ball farther, running speed).

Of course, there is an interaction between (a) natural talent and (b) steroid use. I could take steroids, and it might help me hit it closer to the warning track, but wouldn't ultimately help me become a great ballplayer. McGwire's build wasn't natural to be a sprinter, so it's doubtful he picked up much speed. But, give a good hitter steroids, he becomes a monster. Give a good sprinter steroids (as the U.S. and Canadian track teams reveal), they become faster.

As a quick aside, pick of "Game of Shadows" if you haven't already. It details the known science related to steroids pretty well.

Barry Bonds was one of the 3 best players in his time before steroids. He always had (and still seems to have) great eye-hand coordination. But, prior to taking steroids/HGH, he wasn't this good. And, neither was Caminiti, Sosa, Canseco, McGwire, et al. Anabolic steroids makes you stronger. And, as a hitter, particularly with leg strength, getting more torque on the ball helps it travel farther.

I don't know why skepticism about this abounds because there hasn't been a baseball study in the scientific literature. You accept this in football, why not for hitters in baseball?

Just because people hate Barry Bonds and folks want to see him hung out to dry (and, thus, might lack objectivity), doesn't dismiss the fact that steroids are performance enhancing for certain skill sets related to baseball.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is you're just speculating. Maybe steroids have hurt lots of hitters, but we don't know about it. Remember when Garciaparra appeared on the cover of SI all ripped and muscular, and his "perfect physique" and "added muscle" would make him into a mega mega super star? Well he's declined ever since. Lots of players have declined, and maybe we just don't hear about them.At 25, Pat Burrell slugged .544. Over the next four years -- the prime of his career -- he's slugged about 75 points lower than that. Why? Maybe he started taking steroids and declined as a player? Maybe not. We have no idea. Just like you have no idea what taking steroids does to baseball players.

I know you're a big fan of the scientific method. I know you believe in rigorous statistical analysis. Yet you throw it all away with this subject. Maybe steroids makes a great hitter into a monster hitter -- but maybe it doesn't. What would you point to as evidence that steroids make you into a better baseball player? Do you know when Bonds, Sosa and McGwire (none of whom have ever failed a steroids test, btw) started and stopped taking steroids? Can you them compare their post and pre steroid careers? Of course not.

Mike Schmidt was a noticeably better player in his 30s than his 20s. What does that make him? Harmon Killebrew had his career year at age 33 after a subpar year at age 32. Juicer? These isolated witch hunts with Bonds, MacGwire and Sosa based on little evidence get us nowhere. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, steroids make you bigger. But being bigger doesn't make you a better baseball player; or at least, it's not as facially clear as being bigger makes you a better wrestler or bodybuilder. Certainly bulk and mass at the cost of flexibility and speed could hinder a player's game.

 
From what I have seen, certain steroids increase the body's ability to heal and heal quickly. That helps to stay in the lineup, but it also helps build muscle because the muscle can be worked and toned with the ability to heal better and faster.

Now that may or may not help the ball travel farther, but I am curious as to how much more muscle helps a batter. As I see it, the batter still needs to judge the pitch, have enough bat speed to get through the zone, and still needs to contact the ball just so to get it out of the park.

In theory, wouldn't more muscle mass lead to slower bat speeds? And how would steroids iimprove a player's vision and timing in order to hit the meat of the bat?

I'm not totally trying to defend Bonds, but there have been other mooses that have played baseball and none of them have hit 700 some odd home runs.

 
Chase Stuart said:
I know you're a big fan of the scientific method. I know you believe in rigorous statistical analysis. Yet you throw it all away with this subject.
Click to expand...
As are you with the scientific method. Why are you willing to throw it all away in regards to football when there isn't a single scientific study demonstrating the benefits steroids provide to becoming a better football player? Aren't you "throwing it all away"?Besides, I don't think I'm throwing anything away. This is always going to be the issue with inferential statistics, in that one has to make interpretations based on the data. My god, what more do you need with Bonds? I mean, seriously. What more do you need? Maybe you're unaware of the evidence. Maybe Game of Shadows hasn't circulated your reading rotation. Maybe you hold out the same skepticism for McGwire, Sosa, Canseco, Palmeiro and Caminiti as you do for Bonds. But, at some point, isn't it poor science to neglect the obvious?Might steroids hurt some individuals? Of course. Could it work to their detriment? Absolutely. I just don't see how, given the evidence we have before us, any rational denial of its performance-enhancing effects can be made.
 
David Yudkin said:
From what I have seen, certain steroids increase the body's ability to heal and heal quickly. That helps to stay in the lineup, but it also helps build muscle because the muscle can be worked and toned with the ability to heal better and faster.

Now that may or may not help the ball travel farther, but I am curious as to how much more muscle helps a batter. As I see it, the batter still needs to judge the pitch, have enough bat speed to get through the zone, and still needs to contact the ball just so to get it out of the park.

In theory, wouldn't more muscle mass lead to slower bat speeds? And how would steroids iimprove a player's vision and timing in order to hit the meat of the bat?

I'm not totally trying to defend Bonds, but there have been other mooses that have played baseball and none of them have hit 700 some odd home runs.
Click to expand...
So, what are you saying? If you're trying to argue that Bonds was a great player, and has always had great eye-hand-coordination, you'll get no argument from me. If you're trying to argue that he would've hit 700 HRs without steroids, I might or might not take issue with that...it's a reach, though, to suggest that his HR hitting ability, pre-1999) would have allowed him to reach that number.

If you're trying to suggest that, maybe Bonds never used steroids because increased muscle mass would lead to slower bat speed...

Sigh.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Chase Stuart said:
I know you're a big fan of the scientific method. I know you believe in rigorous statistical analysis. Yet you throw it all away with this subject.
Click to expand...
As are you with the scientific method. Why are you willing to throw it all away in regards to football when there isn't a single scientific study demonstrating the benefits steroids provide to becoming a better football player? Aren't you "throwing it all away"?Besides, I don't think I'm throwing anything away. This is always going to be the issue with inferential statistics, in that one has to make interpretations based on the data. My god, what more do you need with Bonds? I mean, seriously. What more do you need? Maybe you're unaware of the evidence. Maybe Game of Shadows hasn't circulated your reading rotation. Maybe you hold out the same skepticism for McGwire, Sosa, Canseco, Palmeiro and Caminiti as you do for Bonds. But, at some point, isn't it poor science to neglect the obvious?Might steroids hurt some individuals? Of course. Could it work to their detriment? Absolutely. I just don't see how, given the evidence we have before us, any rational denial of its performance-enhancing effects can be made.
Click to expand...
What would your take on steroids be if we gave it to 100 players, and their total number of win shares in season N-1 and season N remained the same? What would your take be if we gave it to 100 players, their total number of win shares remained the same, but five players saw huge increases in win shares and five players saw large decreases in win shares (with the other 90 consisting of normal random variation)?
 
I love baseball. I really do. There's something magical about the baseball season that I just can't explain in words. That's why this Barry Bonds thing feels like a kick in the stomach to me. I kinda wish Barry had that same love of the game. I wish he knew that he's the modern day version of the midget that Bill Veeck sent up to the plate. He's a joke. He's like the Sanjaya of baseball, moving on to the next week while Hank Aaron gets voted off.

Why does Barry even want this record? He did most of the damage while on the juice, so it can't be for personal pride. He's got more money than he'll ever need, so it's not that extra 100K a year he'll get for autograph shows with "the all time home run king". It's not like he'll suddenly go from being villified to being idolized once he breaks the record. He'll always be known as a juicer. I wish he could explain to me why he wants the record, because I just don't get it. I guess being a juicer that has the all time home run record beats being just a juicer. That's the only thing that makes sense.

So go on Barry. Keep your little circus running for another season. Your WWWF / Jerry Springer-like travelling show seems to have some fans. The rest of us, the ones that realize that baseball is more than stats, will continue shaking our heads and waiting for the day you ungracefully retire.

 
Statorama said:
I love baseball. I really do. There's something magical about the baseball season that I just can't explain in words. That's why this Barry Bonds thing feels like a kick in the stomach to me. I kinda wish Barry had that same love of the game. I wish he knew that he's the modern day version of the midget that Bill Veeck sent up to the plate. He's a joke. He's like the Sanjaya of baseball, moving on to the next week while Hank Aaron gets voted off.

Why does Barry even want this record? He did most of the damage while on the juice, so it can't be for personal pride. He's got more money than he'll ever need, so it's not that extra 100K a year he'll get for autograph shows with "the all time home run king". It's not like he'll suddenly go from being villified to being idolized once he breaks the record. He'll always be known as a juicer. I wish he could explain to me why he wants the record, because I just don't get it. I guess being a juicer that has the all time home run record beats being just a juicer. That's the only thing that makes sense.

So go on Barry. Keep your little circus running for another season. Your WWWF / Jerry Springer-like travelling show seems to have some fans. The rest of us, the ones that realize that baseball is more than stats, will continue shaking our heads and waiting for the day you ungracefully retire.
Click to expand...
Very well said and I agree 100%.To answer your question I would have to say . . . . . EGO.

 
cobalt_27 said:
David Yudkin said:
From what I have seen, certain steroids increase the body's ability to heal and heal quickly. That helps to stay in the lineup, but it also helps build muscle because the muscle can be worked and toned with the ability to heal better and faster.

Now that may or may not help the ball travel farther, but I am curious as to how much more muscle helps a batter. As I see it, the batter still needs to judge the pitch, have enough bat speed to get through the zone, and still needs to contact the ball just so to get it out of the park.

In theory, wouldn't more muscle mass lead to slower bat speeds? And how would steroids iimprove a player's vision and timing in order to hit the meat of the bat?

I'm not totally trying to defend Bonds, but there have been other mooses that have played baseball and none of them have hit 700 some odd home runs.
Click to expand...
So, what are you saying? If you're trying to argue that Bonds was a great player, and has always had great eye-hand-coordination, you'll get no argument from me. If you're trying to argue that he would've hit 700 HRs without steroids, I might or might not take issue with that...it's a reach, though, to suggest that his HR hitting ability, pre-1999) would have allowed him to reach that number.

If you're trying to suggest that, maybe Bonds never used steroids because increased muscle mass would lead to slower bat speed...

Sigh.
Click to expand...
It is clear to me Bonds took something to go from Regular Sized Joe to the Incredible Hulk. I would hope most people would conclude that as well. If you ever saw pictures of him in college or as a rookie he was a twig. The issue then becomes how long was he using and what impact it had.For argument's sake, let's say he started juicing in 2000. Certainly no one knows for sure when he started or stopped (if he's stopped). I pick that line in the sand because that's when his HR totals jumped up, and it's highly unusual for a player to start getting a lot more power starting at 35 years old.

In his prior 4 seasons, Bonds had averaged 38.25 home runs. If we allocate that amount for the years 2000-2004, that's 191 home runs. Bonds in actuality hit 258 home runs over that span.

Very loosely, my argument would be that with the advent of his "special sauce" that he probably hit 60-65 more home runs than if he stayed at the pace he was on pre-juicing.

Without the juice, IMO, Bonds would be chasing 700 home runs about now instead of the HR record.

In Bonds defense, with a better work out and exercise routine he may have been able to do slightly better by staying in better shape, but IMO that might get him an extra couple of HR each year . . . certainly not the extra 13-14 that he averaged in that time frame.

For the Bonds detractors, it is also true that the juice extended his career and he could have either left the game altogether by now or had a slow burn and saw his stats go down like almost everyone else did at his age. Certainly that's a valid point, but as a superstar I'll give him the high side of maxing out at about 700 HRs.

 
Statorama said:
I love baseball. I really do. There's something magical about the baseball season that I just can't explain in words. That's why this Barry Bonds thing feels like a kick in the stomach to me. I kinda wish Barry had that same love of the game. I wish he knew that he's the modern day version of the midget that Bill Veeck sent up to the plate. He's a joke. He's like the Sanjaya of baseball, moving on to the next week while Hank Aaron gets voted off.Why does Barry even want this record? He did most of the damage while on the juice, so it can't be for personal pride. He's got more money than he'll ever need, so it's not that extra 100K a year he'll get for autograph shows with "the all time home run king". It's not like he'll suddenly go from being villified to being idolized once he breaks the record. He'll always be known as a juicer. I wish he could explain to me why he wants the record, because I just don't get it. I guess being a juicer that has the all time home run record beats being just a juicer. That's the only thing that makes sense.So go on Barry. Keep your little circus running for another season. Your WWWF / Jerry Springer-like travelling show seems to have some fans. The rest of us, the ones that realize that baseball is more than stats, will continue shaking our heads and waiting for the day you ungracefully retire.
Click to expand...
Wanting to win the world series down?
 
Best player in my generation. Wish him luck.

Babe was still the greatest power hitter in the history of th game, whether or not he's 1st, 2nd or 3rd on the HR list.

Statorama - do you have the same apparant contempt for pitchers that don't quite follow all the rules? Why is Barry singled out more then any other hitter in this post '94 era?

The current power era in baseball is a factor of many things, the increased use of performance enhancing materials being one of them. But has it hurt the game? I mean, really hurt the game? The only thing that is falling are records - numerical platforms of achievement which we use to measure a player's worth over time.

But before the whole Bonds attack on Ruth, and before we had a huge number of guys attacking the 500 HR level, just about every baseball writer and fan agreed that it's impossible to measure players from different eras. It's a nice exercise, but it's impossible.

And because of that, some things are true and obvious. Babe Ruth's 700 HR's are very very different from Barry Bond's 700 - not even considering HTH and other drugs. It's just a different game now. That Ruth managed to accomplish something that only 2 other players did, one due to a long and very distinguished career, and the other due to amazing talent and ability and a little help from his "friends" should say something more about Ruth then Bonds.

Who cares if the records fall? As you said, the magic of baseball is there - and it's more then just numbers. If you want to get technical, then Ruth's 60 HR's in a season shouldn't be the ultimate goal, so much as hitting more HR's then most other teams combined, because that's what he did.

People need to find another source for their forced contempt.

 
As the most successful player in the steroid era, Bonds is the natural target for the majority of the criticism. Bonds is the guy the rest of the baseball world is watching. If he gets away with it, and is heralded as the greatest hitter of all time, then what is to stop others from doing it as well?

There are plenty of great hitters that don't juice up, which is what bugs me about Bonds in particular. The dude was always a great player, there was no need for him to tweak up. A guy like Alzado needed it to be great. A guy like Caminitti needed it to be great. Bonds didn't need it to be great. It sucks that any baseball conversation surrounding the guy comes down to the battleground of steroids.

It's just a blight on baseball and a downright shame that he thumbs his nose at the whole thing.

Which leads me to my ramble ;)

Bonds is the crackhouse of baseball's beautiful neighborhood. It makes a ton of money, all the hotties are there, and they have the best parties...but dang, at the end of the day it's still a crackhouse.

Edit: good grief, this is even more rambling than the post I originally deleted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a very strong correlation between the people who hate Bonds for ruining the game because of steroids and the people who are ignorant of body chemistry. No one has ever been able to draw the line and say what things are good and what are not.

All I know is thank goodness Bonds wasn't a Rockie a whole career, or else him breaking the HR record would make him a REALLY REALLY BIG cheater. ;)

 
Chase Stuart said:
There's a very strong correlation between the people who hate Bonds for ruining the game because of steroids and the people who are ignorant of body chemistry. No one has ever been able to draw the line and say what things are good and what are not.All I know is thank goodness Bonds wasn't a Rockie a whole career, or else him breaking the HR record would make him a REALLY REALLY BIG cheater. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not a doctor, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.Bonds was always a gifted hitter with excellent hand-eye coordination. Then he took something that helped him put on a tremendous amount of muscle in a short time. His warning track shots were suddenly flying into McCovey Cove.That's about it.
 
Chase Stuart said:
cobalt_27 said:
Chase Stuart said:
I know you're a big fan of the scientific method. I know you believe in rigorous statistical analysis. Yet you throw it all away with this subject.
Click to expand...
As are you with the scientific method. Why are you willing to throw it all away in regards to football when there isn't a single scientific study demonstrating the benefits steroids provide to becoming a better football player? Aren't you "throwing it all away"?Besides, I don't think I'm throwing anything away. This is always going to be the issue with inferential statistics, in that one has to make interpretations based on the data. My god, what more do you need with Bonds? I mean, seriously. What more do you need? Maybe you're unaware of the evidence. Maybe Game of Shadows hasn't circulated your reading rotation. Maybe you hold out the same skepticism for McGwire, Sosa, Canseco, Palmeiro and Caminiti as you do for Bonds. But, at some point, isn't it poor science to neglect the obvious?Might steroids hurt some individuals? Of course. Could it work to their detriment? Absolutely. I just don't see how, given the evidence we have before us, any rational denial of its performance-enhancing effects can be made.
Click to expand...
What would your take on steroids be if we gave it to 100 players, and their total number of win shares in season N-1 and season N remained the same? What would your take be if we gave it to 100 players, their total number of win shares remained the same, but five players saw huge increases in win shares and five players saw large decreases in win shares (with the other 90 consisting of normal random variation)?
Click to expand...
My take is that, even if their contributions in win shares was null, but the individual records were being tarnished, I'd still be against steroids. If it had a null effect on both team and individual contributions to the game, then of course I wouldn't care. That doesn't seem to be a defensible position, however. At least not with the individual achievements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Northern Voice
AL Cy Young Race
2 3
Replies
106
Views
5K
Northern Voice
Northern Voice
whoknew
Best Player in Baseball
Replies
20
Views
1K
Dave Baker
Dave Baker
P
*** OFFICIAL *** Barry Bonds pursuit of 3000 hits...
Replies
13
Views
1K
posty
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top