 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Bonds to sit out part (or all) of the season?
drunkengoat
I can't remember the inning (but it was late in the game, I remember that much) or the score, I can't remember if anyone was on base... I just remember the announcers making such a big deal about how Bonds (who was at the plate at the time) had had more homeruns than strikeouts for the majority of the season and was still relatively close... Basically fellating his awesomeness like the hypocrites they are.
And Paul Shuey, who was pitching in relief, stepping up and pitching to him. He works the count to 2-2 or even full... Then he does one of the sickest things I may ever see in baseball: he hung a curve fatter than Mama Cass out over the plate. Bonds swung and missed it like yesterday's cheese. I hit the fucking roof. No joke.
And so did everyone in Dodger Stadium, obviously.
March 23, 2005 at 09:39PM View BBCode
One of the most memorable moments in my life as a fan of baseball was on a Wednesday night a year or two ago, when the Dodgers and the Giants were playing the night capper.I can't remember the inning (but it was late in the game, I remember that much) or the score, I can't remember if anyone was on base... I just remember the announcers making such a big deal about how Bonds (who was at the plate at the time) had had more homeruns than strikeouts for the majority of the season and was still relatively close... Basically fellating his awesomeness like the hypocrites they are.
And Paul Shuey, who was pitching in relief, stepping up and pitching to him. He works the count to 2-2 or even full... Then he does one of the sickest things I may ever see in baseball: he hung a curve fatter than Mama Cass out over the plate. Bonds swung and missed it like yesterday's cheese. I hit the fucking roof. No joke.
And so did everyone in Dodger Stadium, obviously.
Smocko
Sorry, I meant intentional walks.
Bonds 604
Aaron 293
McCovey 260
I remember watching a Giants-Astros game early last year where Clemens struck him out twice looking. That was awesome.
March 23, 2005 at 10:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by 1tim412
Originally posted by Smocko
He has drawn over 300 more walks than no. 2 Hank Aaron.
Actually number 2 is Rickey Henderson and the tally is a difference of 112, not 300.
Sorry, I meant intentional walks.
Bonds 604
Aaron 293
McCovey 260
I remember watching a Giants-Astros game early last year where Clemens struck him out twice looking. That was awesome.
Duff77
Bonds had plenty of power even when he was half the size he is now. Even if he was on, and is now off, of steroids, that doesn't mean he'll stop working out. If he can get back in the lineup he'll still have more than enough pop to pass Aaron. It all depends on how many seasons he can squeeze out of his body, and how prodigusly he can hit dingers. There's a good chance he won't, but a chance he will, too.
March 24, 2005 at 12:54AM View BBCode
Originally posted by celamantia
Bonds is going on the disabled list long enough to get the juice out of his system before testing.
Let's see him in the batter's box without the 'roids and the body armor for a while.
Bonds had plenty of power even when he was half the size he is now. Even if he was on, and is now off, of steroids, that doesn't mean he'll stop working out. If he can get back in the lineup he'll still have more than enough pop to pass Aaron. It all depends on how many seasons he can squeeze out of his body, and how prodigusly he can hit dingers. There's a good chance he won't, but a chance he will, too.
Duff77
March 24, 2005 at 12:55AM View BBCode
Unless he does us all a favor and retires because of the press. Hey, let me ask you something--in Barry Bonds versus The Press, who are you pulling for? Personally, I'm pulling for the press.
swerve
Fucking Loser!!
March 24, 2005 at 12:58AM View BBCode
Just another ploy in letting the whole steroids thing die down a bit before passing Ruth and going after Aaron.Fucking Loser!!
RiverRat
1986-1999 Bonds had 445 homers an average of 31.8 per season. (ages 22 thru 35) At that pace he'd have to play 24 seasons to pass Aaron.
2000-2004 a total of 258 homers or an average of 51.6 per season. (ages 36 thru 40)
He must have done a helluva lot of working out the past 5 seasons!!!
To me, there is no doubt he was on the roids. Granted, he has great hand/eye coordination but without the help of the juice he's just a good contact hitter with moderate power. I've always thought of steroids along the same lines as corking a bat. Both are illegal and both make an average hitter good and a good hitter great.
I am originally from Pittsburgh and hated him then and no matter how the Pirates have struggled since he left, no one in Pittsburgh is shedding any tears of his departing. I'm just glad to see the rest of the country finally see what a selfish ass he is.
March 24, 2005 at 01:40AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Bonds had plenty of power even when he was half the size he is now. Even if he was on, and is now off, of steroids, that doesn't mean he'll stop working out. If he can get back in the lineup he'll still have more than enough pop to pass Aaron. It all depends on how many seasons he can squeeze out of his body, and how prodigusly he can hit dingers. There's a good chance he won't, but a chance he will, too.
1986-1999 Bonds had 445 homers an average of 31.8 per season. (ages 22 thru 35) At that pace he'd have to play 24 seasons to pass Aaron.
2000-2004 a total of 258 homers or an average of 51.6 per season. (ages 36 thru 40)
He must have done a helluva lot of working out the past 5 seasons!!!
To me, there is no doubt he was on the roids. Granted, he has great hand/eye coordination but without the help of the juice he's just a good contact hitter with moderate power. I've always thought of steroids along the same lines as corking a bat. Both are illegal and both make an average hitter good and a good hitter great.
I am originally from Pittsburgh and hated him then and no matter how the Pirates have struggled since he left, no one in Pittsburgh is shedding any tears of his departing. I'm just glad to see the rest of the country finally see what a selfish ass he is.
FuriousGiorge
That's incredibly misleading. Bonds didn't become Barry f-in' Bonds until 1990, when he made his first All-Star game and won his first MVP. From 1990-1999 he averaged 36.1 home runs a year, which is actually low because of the '94 strike and his injury in 1999 which limited him to 102 games. Give him those games back and his average probably jumps by about 1-2 homers.
In 2000 he hit 49 home runs. And if you average his homer output from 2000-2004, leaving out the 2001 outlier, he averages 46.25 homers. A spike, yes, but much less than you were claiming. I'm not arguing that Bonds hasn't used steroids, I'm just trying to refine these numbers to more accurately reflect reality. And yes, noting an outlier that was left out for mean calculations is perfectly acceptable, and something which is a necessary evil sometimes in scientific publications and not just when calculating baseball stats.
March 24, 2005 at 02:07AM View BBCode
Originally posted by RiverRat
1986-1999 Bonds had 445 homers an average of 31.8 per season. (ages 22 thru 35) At that pace he'd have to play 24 seasons to pass Aaron.
2000-2004 a total of 258 homers or an average of 51.6 per season. (ages 36 thru 40)
He must have done a helluva lot of working out the past 5 seasons!!!
That's incredibly misleading. Bonds didn't become Barry f-in' Bonds until 1990, when he made his first All-Star game and won his first MVP. From 1990-1999 he averaged 36.1 home runs a year, which is actually low because of the '94 strike and his injury in 1999 which limited him to 102 games. Give him those games back and his average probably jumps by about 1-2 homers.
In 2000 he hit 49 home runs. And if you average his homer output from 2000-2004, leaving out the 2001 outlier, he averages 46.25 homers. A spike, yes, but much less than you were claiming. I'm not arguing that Bonds hasn't used steroids, I'm just trying to refine these numbers to more accurately reflect reality. And yes, noting an outlier that was left out for mean calculations is perfectly acceptable, and something which is a necessary evil sometimes in scientific publications and not just when calculating baseball stats.
Duff77
Well, one of the shames of it all.
I wonder though... If it was the 'roids that turned Barry Bonds from a great hitter into SUPERMAN, then maybe they effectively cancelled things out in the HR department. I mean if he wasn't so fearsome, he wouldn't draw nearly as many walks. Even with less power, he might've been able to maintain about the same average in HRs, because he would've gotten many, many more pitches to hit. His BA, OBP, OPS, and all the rest would've been much lower, but the HRs might've been about the same.
March 24, 2005 at 02:21AM View BBCode
The fact is, there's no accurate way to determine how many home runs Bonds would have hit if he hadn't used steroids--assuming (as I do) that he did. Obviously, his years of experience helped him become a better hitter, 'roids or no. Also, some of his gain in muscle mass can be attributed to the fact that he works out--'roids or no. If he's been on them, then we know he would've hit less HRs than he has--but there's absolutely no way to estimate how many with any kind of accuracy. That's the shame of it all.Well, one of the shames of it all.
I wonder though... If it was the 'roids that turned Barry Bonds from a great hitter into SUPERMAN, then maybe they effectively cancelled things out in the HR department. I mean if he wasn't so fearsome, he wouldn't draw nearly as many walks. Even with less power, he might've been able to maintain about the same average in HRs, because he would've gotten many, many more pitches to hit. His BA, OBP, OPS, and all the rest would've been much lower, but the HRs might've been about the same.
RiverRat
You're right, there is no definate way to tell what his actual numbers would have been if he were roid-free but I seriously doubt they'd be anywhere near where they are now.
Just one rat's opinion. :D
March 24, 2005 at 02:30AM View BBCode
I'm sorry, I have to totally disagree. How many players increase their power numbers by 67% AFTER the age of 35??? I don't care how much you work out or how healthy you are, age DOES take a toll on the body.You're right, there is no definate way to tell what his actual numbers would have been if he were roid-free but I seriously doubt they'd be anywhere near where they are now.
Just one rat's opinion. :D
FuriousGiorge
Oh, and by my calculations it's a 28% increase in home run totals, not 67%.
[Edited on 3-24-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
March 24, 2005 at 02:31AM View BBCode
BP pointed this out in a column the other day - several of the guys who are absolutely, positively known as steroid users (Giambi, Canseco, Caminiti) were also remarkably injury or health-problem prone. For everything else, Bonds has been pretty durable even in this late stage of career. This is neither here nor there for Bonds (and doesn't prove anything one way or the other), but the larger point is this - it is entirely possible that steroids negatively influence a person's ability to stay on the baseball field as often as a non-steroid user, so at least some of the gains that a player on the juice get from using could very well be given back through their inability to actually get on the field and play as often as other players.Oh, and by my calculations it's a 28% increase in home run totals, not 67%.
[Edited on 3-24-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
Duff77
I'm not saying he earned all 703 HRs, but I'm thinking at least 625 to 650 of them are legitimately his.
March 24, 2005 at 02:43AM View BBCode
There's a clear increse, but if you factor out 2001, it's not that great (or at least not as great as it seems). 2001 is still the only year Bonds has ever hit more than 50 home runs. From 92-98, his average is about 37 or so. From 35 on, it's about 45 if you factor out the one truly exceptional season. The reason being, of course, that though Bonds is a thousand times more capable of hitting home runs, he gets many fewer chances. He hasn't had 500 ABs in a season since 1998, and not for lack of playing time. What I'm saying is, if he wasn't such a monster, he might get those 100 extra ABs and still hit 37-47 HRs every year, just like he did in his prime.I'm not saying he earned all 703 HRs, but I'm thinking at least 625 to 650 of them are legitimately his.
Pages: 1 2