PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else amazed by this Bonds story?


Clarkmeister
10-24-2002, 03:15 PM
During game 2 of the World Series, Joe Buck told the following story about Barry Bonds and Shawon Dunstan:

Early in the 2001 season, Shawon comes up to Barry and says "I think that if you stay healthy, you are going to hit 70 this year the way you are swinging it" Barry responded with "Well, if I hit 70, I'll buy you a new Mercedes"

Apparently, Bonds paid, and Shawon is still driving that free Mercedes.

Pretty cool story, I thought.

B-Man
10-24-2002, 04:04 PM
Did Shawon know Bonds was on steroids?

Clarkmeister
10-24-2002, 05:24 PM
Do you?

B-Man
10-24-2002, 05:37 PM
I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest he is. I can't prove it, but I think he, Sammy, McGwire, Luis Gonzalez and others are cheaters.

Do you think he's on the juice?

It's a shame, really, because there was no question he was a lock for the Hall of Fame before 2001. It's also ironic; I'm sure he turned to the juice because he wanted to improve his legacy. Now when I think of Bonds I don't think of his consistent greatness throughout his career, I think of steroids.

Clarkmeister
10-24-2002, 05:58 PM
You know, thats a fair question.

I certainly think that some players are, but I also think its very difficult to tell for a couple of reasons.

The best examples I can give are in the NBA, simply because they have careers almost as long as baseball players, and because their physiques are so obvious given their lack of clothing.

Ever seen Barkley, Malone or Jordan when they were rookies, 5 year vets, and 10 year vets? Malone was a skinny dude, now he is a tank. Barkley, as big as he was got way bigger. And Jordan was nowhere near the musclebound player he ended up becoming.

My point is these guys, especially the dedicated ones at the top of their sport work out and train year round now. Couple that intense training with the natural addition of weight with age, and you see how they can get so ripped without the use of anabolic steroids or HGH.

Does that mean that Bonds, etc aren't on steroids? No. But if it came out that none of the players you mentioned were on steroids, I wouldn't be shocked at all. I am very surprised you would list Luis Gonzales. He is still a pretty skinny dude. People do have career years, you know. Ask Brady Anderson.

Anyways, to answer your question, of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Gonzales, I'd be surprised if more than 1 was on HGH, and I wouldn't be shocked if none were.

B-Man
10-24-2002, 06:15 PM
I haven't really thought about the basketball players very much. I was a huge NBA fan in the 80s, I remember all of those guys when they were young. Jordan was skinny, I don't remember the Mailman being skinny, but if you say so maybe he was. Barkley was overweight but very athletic. The players today are MUCH more athletic, no question. I still think the Celtics or Lakers of the 80s would beat any team since (including any Bulls team) in a 7 game series, but thats a topic for a different post...

As for Bonds, I find it incredible that a player as consistent as he had been--consistently great, but always in the 30-45 home run range--could start to improve so much at age 35, and then have a quantum leap at age 36. Obviously, he got much bigger and stronger, and I think it was because of steroids. When someone improves at a late age, its very suspicious (just like that swimmer from Ireland--I think her name was Michelle Smith). He put on a lot of muscle, and I think he had help. Steroids wont make you a great baseball player, but they can make a great baseball player a great home run hitter...

I think with Sammy it's even more obvious, look at his body, and look at his forehead. Griffey, Jr. is the only bigtime slugger of recent years that I am convinced is clean (and unfortunately, he's not good anymore, let alone great).

Sure, L. Gonzalez could have just had a career year, but his career year might have been for the same reasons Caminiti had his (he admitted using steroids). L.G. went from a career high in home runs of 31 (set the year before, and before that it was 26) to 57, at age 33. He had been in the big leagues 12 years. Makes you wonder...

By the way, are you sure Brady Anderson is innocent?

HDPM
10-24-2002, 07:14 PM
McGuire was using Andro which is banned some places. Not a steroid, but definitely a supplement that wasn't around in the '40's&50's.

One amazing physique change is that of Tiger Woods. Look at him in '97 his first year as a pro. Look at him now. He is way bigger and stronger. And I don't think he's on the juice.

M2d
10-24-2002, 07:19 PM
not to pick nits, but are steroids useage really cheating? yes they are illegal in the USA, so that may go a way to defining them as cheating, but, if they aren't specifically disallowed by Major league baseball, can their use in a major league baseball game be considered cheating.
granted, this is a spirit of the word versus absolute definition of the word thing, but if you consider steroids cheating, where do you draw the line? are legal suppliments cheating? some have proven or suspected long term health effects tied to their use, but they aren't illegal. Does their use then fall into the legitimate category?
the argument for suppliments as cheating leads me to believe that weightlifting could be considered cheating, since it is something that was not available to previous generations of ball players. pure, unsupplimented weightlifting will surely pack on the pounds and the strength, and probably gives players untold advantages when compared to the players of yesteryear.
How about video analysis? high speed photography? extensive advance scouting? balanced diets? first class air travel? these are all techniquest or tools that players today have at their disposal that players in the 70s and earlier could only dream of.

B-Man
10-24-2002, 08:17 PM
Is murder cheating? There is no rule in baseball against murder, so does that mean it is allowed?

Even if I agreed with the above line of reasoning--which I obviously don't--steroids are illegal in baseball. There was not any testing for them because the players had not agreed to it until this offseason, but there was a commissioner's rule against it. There is no question that the use of steroids is and has been against the rules of major league baseball, there was just no way to enforce it.

The other things you listed--weightlifting, video anaylsis, photography, etc.--how do you consider those cheating? I never said steroids were cheating because they weren't available 100 years ago. They are cheating because they are agaist the laws of the U.S. and against the rules of major league baseball. I think comparing the things you listed to steroids is ludicrous.

Sooga
10-24-2002, 08:20 PM
Luis Gonzalez on the juice? Are you serious? Look at him.... Put him, Bonds, Sammy, and McGwire in a lineup and it's like a picture from the Sesame Street 'Which one doesn't belong' skit.. Lu-Go is a pole... There have been plenty of career-year one-hit wonders in the past (Roger Maris is the obvious example), I don't think Lu-Go's year was that far out of place, especially given that he changed his hitting stance drastically in 1997, which coincidentally was when his power numbers increased.

B-Man
10-24-2002, 09:29 PM
1. You don't have to look like Mark McGwire to be on steroids.

2. His arms are pretty big, even if not McGwire-esqe

3. Look at the following numbers:

0
13
10
15
8
13
15
10
23
26
31
57

Those are the season home run totals for Gonzalez his first 12 seasons. He had little power his first 8 years (never more than 20 homers),then some power, then all of a sudden at age 33 he hits 57 home runs. You don't think that is a little surprising?

I'm not saying everyone who has a career year is on the juice. But when a player has a long trackrecord of little power, then late in his career hits a ridiculous number of home runs, that should raise some eyebrows.

Sooga
10-24-2002, 10:00 PM
Like I said, Lugo changed his hitting stance almost completely during '97, which often does cause drastic improvements for hitters in some cases (like Andres Galarraga). Many players do hit their primes in their 30's. Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are prime examples. Sure, they're pitchers, but the point is that just because a player enjoys a career year in their 30's does not make them guilty of taking performance-enhancing drugs.

For the years '99 to '00, he only hit 57 homers combined, but he also hit 92 doubles, and improving doubles power is often a very good indicator of big-time power in the near future. I certainly didn't imagine a 57-homer year, but I knew that a huge breakout year certainly wasn't out of the question. This wasn't some punch-and-judy utility infielder going off for 57 home runs. This was an outfielder with a very smooth stroke whose improving power finally came around.

And finally, Lugo isn't a 'small' man, he's not some 90 lb. weakling, but c'mon. McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa aren't men, they're like mini-mountains. Look at their bodies. Lugo isn't anything close to that. Is it possible he's on something? Sure.. but I'd look into the huge bodies first before Lugo. And look in your baseball history archives.. plenty of names from the past have hit 40+ homers in a year for no particular reason, then went back to their 'typical' years.

B-Man
10-24-2002, 10:41 PM
And look in your baseball history archives.. plenty of names from the past have hit 40+ homers in a year for no particular reason, then went back to their 'typical' years.

He didn't hit 40, or I probably wouldn't be suspicious. He hit 57. There's a big difference between hitting 40 and hitting 57. Here is the list of players who hit 57 or more home runs in a season before 1997:

Roger Maris
Babe Ruth
Jimmie Foxx
Hank Greenberg

That's it. Here is the list of other players pre-1990 who hit 50 home runs in a season:

Hack Wilson
Ralph Kiner
Mickey Mantle
George Foster
Willie Mays
Johnny Mize

Of those 10, 9 are in the Hall of Fame (Foster isn't), a place Gonzalez surely will never be. I don't think any of them were "typical" hitters , and certainly none of them had a career high, excluding their best year, of 31 home runs, or a next-best season of 26.

Hitting 40 home runs is one thing, hitting 57 is another. And when a 33 year old player who has not had much power throughout his career hits 57 home runs, that is cause for suspicion.

I also disagree with your argument about doubles. Hitting doubles is very different from hitting home runs. Wade Boggs hit a ton of doubles, but only hit over 20 home runs once. There are a lot of players who hit a lot of doubles, but only an average amount of home runs. Here are the ML doubles leaders (top 10) from this year, in order: G. Anderson, Garciaparra, Soriano, Abreu, Ordonez, Beltran, Lowell, Floyd, Vidro, Cabrera. Only Soriano was also in the home run leaders (9th). Hitting doubles is very different than hitting home runs.

Hey, maybe Gonzalez is clean... but I am very suspicious.

Uston
10-24-2002, 11:17 PM
HDPM-Don't believe the McGwire-related media hype. Androstendione has been exposed as a worthless bodybuilding supplement. It's no more effective at increasing strength or muscle mass than Tylenol.

Sooga
10-24-2002, 11:26 PM
I don't think I have to point out the obvious, that the era we are currently in is unprecedented in terms of big-time power numbers. Since 1993 the homers being hit have been ridiculous. 57 homers today is NOT the same as 57 homers 40 years ago. You're comparing numbers from 2 vastly different offensive eras. I don't have the numbers with me, but there have been plenty of players before 1990 who have hit 40 homers in a season, and then faded back to mediocre numbers. It happens all the time. Lugo hit 31 homers in 2000, then 57 in 2001... that's not that much different than a player from the past hitting 20something homers, then going off for a 40 homer year. Sometimes things like that just happen.

As for the doubles, I never said that anyone who hits a lot of doubles will start hitting a lot of homeruns. What I said is that many power hitters start out developing their power by hitting a lot of doubles. Usually this happens when they're in the minor leagues, so that they're already hitting homers by the time they get to the majors, but Lugo apparently started a bit late.

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if Gonzalez was on the juice. I think it was just a fluke year. Are you saying that Lugo was taking steroids, hitting 30HR in '99 and 2000, then took a lot more steroids, hit 57HR, and then decided to cut back down, and only hit 28 this year? I think he just had a career year in 2001 and nothing more.

B-Man
10-25-2002, 08:26 AM
Of course this is an era dominated by home runs, and one of the reasons for that is steroids. I don't think thats the only reason, I think smaller ballparks, expansion and a livelier ball all have something to do with it, too, but steroids is part of it. You can't deny steroids are part of baseball.

You said Lugo's career year is comparable to a player from the past hitting 40 home runs and then going back to "typical", whatever that means. I disagree. 57 home runs is a ton, even in this era.

Look, maybe he's clean, maybe he's not. He's not my #1 suspect, but I definitly think he is suspicious. Bonds also started to creep up in homers one year before his monster year, just like Lugo, then slipped the year after, just like Lugo. Thats not proof, but its one more piece of interesting evidence.

Sooga
10-25-2002, 09:59 AM
Yes, 57 homers is a ton, I never said it wasn't.... all I said was that it was comparable to a player from the past hitting 40+...

You might remember a guy named Rob Deer who carved out a nice career for himself in the late 80's even though he only hit .220 overall. Why? Because he hit home runs, and the most he ever hit was 33. Back then, 30-something homers was big-time, and 40+ was at the top of the league... that's obviously not the case now.

While I'll be the first to admit that Lugo fell off huge from 2001, Bonds certainly did not. He had 73 less at bats than 2001 and still managed to hit 46. And the other at bats he had he hardly had any pitches to hit. If pitchers actually pitched to him instead of walking him 198(!) times this year, he easily could have gone for 60. But instead he hits 46 homers, leads the league in walks, average, obp and slugging (by HUGE margins), and had a higher OPS than he did last year. That's hardly slipping. In fact, his 2002 season was better than his 73-homer season.

B-Man
10-25-2002, 10:16 AM
I suppose you could argue Bonds' season this year was better than 2001, but I disagree. His slugging percentage declined from .863 to .799, and his home runs dropped from 73 to 46. He also played in 10 fewer games (only 143 games this year... maybe steroids contributed to his injuries (there is a well-documented correlation), maybe not). I call that a dropoff. You can argue that overall he had as good a year this year (though I disagree), but you can't argue he had better power numbers this year; it wasn't even close.

Note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with slugging .799, that is one of the best years anyone has ever had, its just not nearly as good as .863.

Rob Deer, all he did was hit home runs. Note that he never hit 40. Sure there are guys who have career years, it happens, not every one of them is on roids. But like I said, when a player late in his career suddenly becomes a bigtime slugger, I question how and why.