Bonds, Steroids and cheating

[B-Man]

FINALLY, some other players are starting to point fingers at Barry Bonds. This guy should be kicked out of baseball, just like Pete Rose, though under baseball's absurd 5-strikes-and-your-out policy, I'm sure nothing will happen to him. Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Sosa--all of them are complete losers that are ruining the integrity of the game, in my opinion. The commissioner should put an asterisk in the record book next to Bonds' home run totals, but I'm sure gutless Bud Selig will never do anything of the sort.

If I was a major league player, I would be pissed that guys like Bonds are cheating and thus gaining an unfair advantage. People need to speak out. I congratulate Wendell for having the guts to speak up.

The pictures of the slimmed-down Giambi that appeared in the NY papers this week are a riot. I wonder what everyone will think about Giambi if he hits 19 home runs this year...

====================
ESPN.com news services
Someone is pointing a finger at Barry Bonds. And, ironically, it's a fellow major league baseball player.

Colorado pitcher Turk Wendell told The Denver Post that if his personal trainer had been linked to, and charged in, an alleged steroid ring, he wouldn't get the same treatment that Bonds has.

"If my personal trainer, me, Turk Wendell, got indicted for that, there's no one in the world who wouldn't think that I wasn't taking steroids," the Rockies relief pitcher told The Denver Post. "I mean, what, because he's Barry Bonds, no one's going to say that?

"I mean, obviously he did it. [His trainer] admitted to giving steroids to baseball players. He just doesn't want to say his name. You don't have to. It's clear just seeing his body."

Bonds' retort from Giants camp in Scottsdale, Ariz.: "I'm not going to comment on ignorance. Who's he?"


Bonds was surrounded by reporters on his first day at spring training Monday, and was asked repeatedly about his ties to the supplements lab accused of illegally distributing steroids to dozens of athletes. He's always denied using steroids and did so again, saying baseball "can test me every day if they choose to."

Yankees Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, and Bonds testified in December before a grand jury probing BALCO, the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative that's at the center of the federal steroids case. Being subpoenaed did not mean an athlete was a target of the investigation.


Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson, testified to federal agents that he distributed steroids and other performance-enhancing substances to several major-league players. It is unclear whether he identified those players to the grand jury; none of the athletes was named in the court documents.


"All I know is generally speaking, people start snitching," Cubs manager Dusty Baker told The Post. "That was the same thing in the Pittsburgh drug trial [in the 1980s]. People started scurrying and running and pointing. That's human nature: Save [yourself]."


Giambi has said that better eating habits and hard workouts had left him leaner. Asked Monday whether he had taken performance-enhancing drugs, Giambi said: "Are you talking about steroids? No."


Sheffield turned testy when pressed on the topic. He spoke about it a couple of times this month during informal workouts and said he had not used steroids.


"It is a pretty good coincidence that some of the names that are linked to them are the guys that are the big, massive, overmuscular looking guys," Rockies pitcher Denny Neagle told The Post. "And guys that did go through some serious body changes. I don't know or remember what Jason Giambi looked like back in his early days, but I know he wasn't as big as he is now. The jury is always going to be out on Barry."


Bonds, who turns 40 this summer, showed up at Giants camp right around his playing weight of 228 pounds. He will start the season two homers shy of tying Willie Mays for third on the career list with 660.


Steroid testing was on the agenda Wednesday when the Players Association staff opened its annual tour of spring training camps at the Cubs' facility in Mesa, Ariz. The steroid issue came up several times.


"We just went through with the players and reminded them what the procedures are," Michael Weiner, the No. 3 official in the union, told reporters.


Union head Donald Fehr missed the opening of the tour because of minor surgery but is expected back when the meetings shift to Florida.


Anonymous survey testing last season showed 5-7 percent of the tests were positive, triggering the start of testing with penalties this year. A first positive test for steroid use would result in treatment and a second in a 15-day suspension or fine of up to $10,000.


"I hope testing itself would be enough of a deterrent," Rockies star Todd Helton told The Post. "Isn't that the reason for doing it? But I think some of those names might become public over time. And if that happens, it will be a big deterrent."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
FINALLY, some other players are starting to point fingers at Barry Bonds. This guy should be kicked out of baseball, just like Pete Rose, though under baseball's absurd 5-strikes-and-your-out policy, I'm sure nothing will happen to him. Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Sosa--all of them are complete losers that are ruining the integrity of the game, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we leave out Mark McGwire from this list? How about Jim Thome?

[Boris]

You thought Bonds was a user before this BALCO fiasco. What made you suspect he was on the roids back then? Was it because he was big and strong?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I'm sure nothing will happen to him. Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Sosa--all of them are complete losers that are ruining the integrity of the game, in my opinion
you seem to know something that we all don't. Apparently you have tried and convicted Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, in your own personal court and found them guilty beyond your reasonable doubt.
How do you know they are guilty? Is it not possible that since they are professional athletes that they work out and stay in shape? or is it not possible they eat properly?
None of these are hard to believe being that they earn money by the physical talent and body.

Now I do believe that there are players in Baseball taking steroids, however my guess is it is players who are trying to make a name for themselves. It is the guy who's career high in HR's is 18, its the guy who's career avergae is .240. Its not the Bonds, the Sosas, the Giambis, these guys are proven athletes.

Something to know about Steroids. While they do make you incredibly strong, they also destroy your body. Look at the two most recent ballplayers to admit steroid use, Ken Caminitti and Jose Canseco. Both players had injury riddled careers, why? because the steroids they were taking were destroying their body.

You may also say that the stats for "suspect" players are high, well there are several reasons for that, and most of them are reasons why the game has gotten worse. This would include worse pitching, smaller parks, sparser talent, [censored] even worse defense.

I don't think these big name talents are the ones taking roids, and I also hope that they aren't.

[B-Man]

You thought Bonds was a user before this BALCO fiasco. What made you suspect he was on the roids back then? Was it because he was big and strong?

Yes, I did. Without rehashing all of my reasoning, in summary, it was a combination of several factors:

1. Change in body type (i.e. increased muscle mass, and his head appearing to grow).

2. Sudden, dramatic increase in power--after consistently hitting approx. 40 home runs per year, for many years, all of a sudden Bonds turned into Babe Ruth.

3. The age at which the above occurred.

I do not believe the combination of those 3 factors can be explained wihtout drugs. Is it possible Bonds didn't take steroids? I suppose so... but I personally think it is highly likely he is a cheat.

[krazyace5]

I agree with you, if these players are found guilty, they should have their records expunged. There is no way their records should hold up when the guys that set them naturally should have them. It would be a slap in the face to the real players that broke them through hard work and determination.

As far as the post on Mcgwire, I thought it was proven that he only took legal supplements that anyone could get from GNC. If not take away his record too.

[andyfox]

Note Giambi's comment that "if you're talking about steroids, no." Apparently this guy was giving out psedu-steroids that could allow the athletes to say they didn't take steriods, as Giambi has said.

People will forget. All they'll remember is the records. Remember, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were run out of town because of accusations of gambling. I've read the documents, they placed bets on games. Two pretty big names.

Sad but true.

[Vehn]

Sheffield turned testy when pressed on the topic.

[JTG51]

Remember, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were run out of town because of accusations of gambling. I've read the documents, they placed bets on games. Two pretty big names.

And sadly that no where near the top of the list of the worst things Cobb did.

Where did you read the documents, Andy? I'd like to read them also. Are they published in a book somewhere?

[Boris]

The other possibility is that Bonds decided to actually work on his game and his fitness rather than sliding by on his god-given talent. Bonds is not freakishly huge. I don't see why its so impossible that he put on muscle mass through hard work and without steroids. As for the big head, everyone bald guy looks like he has an oversized melon.

The thing I don't understand about the steroids rumors is that only big name players have been mentioned. From a purely economic standpoint these players have the least to gain and the most to lose by using roids. You would expect the marginal players to be the ones abusing the steroids.

[krazyace5]

Big names sell papers.

[NoChance]

Not guilty until proven guilty.

He says, "Go ahead and test me now if you want".

I wish someone would. Personally I don't think he is guilty of it. That does not mean he isn't doing it. I will wait to pass judgement until it's proven. Go ahead and test him. I want to know like everyone else.

[Boris]

You congratulate Wendell becuase he is saying what you want to hear. The truth is that Wendell's remarks have zero relevance to the issue of whether or not Bonds is a steroid user.

[B-Man]

You congratulate Wendell becuase he is saying what you want to hear. The truth is that Wendell's remarks have zero relevance to the issue of whether or not Bonds is a steroid user.

You are right in that Wendell's comments do not change the fact of whether or not Bonds took steroids. However, you ignore the fact that if more people spoke out like Wendell, and Bonds was made to submit to testing or other inquiries, perhaps we could get a firm answer.

I'd rather people speak out, like Wendell and Nagle, when there is a lot of evidence of cheating, rather than bury their heads in the sand and ignore it.

I would think the players who are clean would want testing, to eliminate the doubts about them. In my mind, all of Barry Bonds' accomplishments for the last few years should be heavily discounted. There's just too much evidence that he is a cheat.

[ThaSaltCracka]

In my mind, all of Barry Bonds' accomplishments for the last few years should be heavily discounted. There's just too much evidence that he is a cheat.
you have no evidence, and there is no evidence. You only have assumptions, not proof.
I think Wendell is a huge baby, he had no proof either, he is probably tired of either getting blasted by Bonds or tired of walking him.
I have heard many players say they wouldn't mind being tested, but the bottom line is the player's union won't allow it. Now that is ridiculous right there, but thats the way the have it.
You should also remember that MLB did a random test of players last year and found around 5% of players use roids. I don't think Bonds falls into that category

I'd rather people speak out, like Wendell and Nagle, when there is a lot of evidence of cheating, rather than bury their heads in the sand and ignore it.
I find this humorous simply because you said Sheffield should be tested, however you don't realize five years ago, Sheffield voiced his opinion that players should be tested.
He said last night on ESPN he would go take a test today if the Players union would allow it.

Someone else said it this earlier and I think it is a good point. The Marquee players have the most to loose and least to gain from using steroids, so why would they use them?

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
you have no evidence, and there is no evidence. You only have assumptions, not proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, you don't understand the distinction between evidence and proof. There is a lot of evidence which implicates Bond. We haven't seen proof--yet--but it might be coming soon.

[ QUOTE ]
You should also remember that MLB did a random test of players last year and found around 5% of players use roids. I don't think Bonds falls into that category

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the opinion. Care to give any facts or reasons to support it?

[ QUOTE ]
I find this humorous simply because you said Sheffield should be tested, however you don't realize five years ago, Sheffield voiced his opinion that players should be tested.
He said last night on ESPN he would go take a test today if the Players union would allow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy to make such offers when you know nobody can take you up on them, because the union would never allow it. (It also could mean Sheffield is on an "off" cycle right now.).

[ QUOTE ]
Someone else said it this earlier and I think it is a good point. The Marquee players have the most to loose and least to gain from using steroids, so why would they use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect. Lower-tier players will see incremental income from improvement, but the difference in money between a 10-homer player and a 20-homer player is dwarfed by the difference between a 20-homer player and a 40-homer player. In the case of Bonds, you also have to value his records and legacy as one of the all-time greats, and the single-season home-run king (and possibly, before he is done, career home run king). How do you put a value on that? It's priceless.

[ThaSaltCracka]

That's incorrect. Lower-tier players will see incremental income from improvement, but the difference in money between a 10-homer player and a 20-homer player is dwarfed by the difference between a 20-homer player and a 40-homer player. In the case of Bonds, you also have to value his records and legacy as one of the all-time greats, and the single-season home-run king (and possibly, before he is done, career home run king). How do you put a value on that? It's priceless.
If everything Bonds has to loose is priceless then it would seem he has a awful lot to loose. Do you think he uses Steriods simply because he has gained weight? Athletes work out, they lift weights, the eat properly. Can you not admit that its possible that he gained weight and strength from that?
now it seems you assume that steroid use also leads to increased offensive production. I don't see how you can make that assertion. While steroids make you stronger they don't improve your hand and eye cordination.

Thanks for the opinion. Care to give any facts or reasons to support it?
I all ready told you a proven fact about steroids, steroids destroy your body. Players that take steriods are frequently injured (ex. Caminit, Canseco), Bond's is rarely if ever injured. I have all ready listed other possible ways that Bonds could have increased his strength, other than steroids, however you seem to dismiss those completely.

Apparently, you don't understand the distinction between evidence and proof. There is a lot of evidence which implicates Bond. We haven't seen proof--yet--but it might be coming soon.
some of this evidence looks to be circumstancial, although I agree some may come out in the future which may show that it is true. I don't know, and you certainly don't know. This is a federal grand jury, so very few people know whats going on inside. Players could be named, however it is also possible that none will be named.

The point is, you shouldn't be jumping to a conclusion based upon what the sports media reports. They are notorious for over hyping and sensationalizing much in sports.

It's easy to make such offers when you know nobody can take you up on them, because the union would never allow it. (It also could mean Sheffield is on an "off" cycle right now.).
This right here I found astounding. The fact that he was a proponent for mandatory steroid testing 5 years ago, and you still think he uses steroids is amazing. You seem to be very disallusional. If he takes a steroid test he is likely to get kicked out of the players union. Ask how all the current MLB players who aren't in the players union fell about not being in the union. I am sure they would do almost anything to join the union.

[Bill Murphy]

Not saying any of the players you listed are innocent or guilty(and where was McGwire on your list?).

I actually know quite a bit about lifting & juice, much more so than about poker(save it /images/graemlins/wink.gif), although you'd never guess by looking at me.

Two quick points. Professional athletes are mega-genetic freaks, and any previously untrained person can have remarkable gains when they first start lifting.

So, you take the slender, obv'ly never lifted but a genetic superman, Bonds of the late '80s, and he prolly could've gained 30lbs of muscle just screwing around on an old universal machine for a couple of months.

I know two top pro bodybuilders who had never lifted but had always done lots of sports and physical labor jobs. Both blew up huge their first 2-3 months lifting(no juice), and said they never had strength or size gains remotely close later on, no matter how much gear they were on. Both also say that creatine, et al, are all essentially worthless, which I can attest to personally.

One obvious(tho not 100% reliable) 'tell' of a juicer is fullness in the cheeks & jowls. One may also note that Karl Malone has absolutely no signs of this.

HGH brows & bellies are easy to spot & impossible to hide.

Most likely scenario IMO is:

"Hey, Double B, just worked up your vitamin & supplement schedule based on your blood profiling."

- This sh1t's all legal, right, man?

"Of course, of course, you know I'm not going to jeopardize you, bro. Sayyayy, 'bout them playoff tickets..."

[andyfox]

The Fix Is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals by Daniel E. Ginsburg published by McFarland & Company (sometimes their stuff isn't available on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, you may have to order from McFarland's website), chapter 10 "The Cobb-Speaker Affair," and Cobb by Al Stump, chapter 25, "Reprehensible, But Not Criminal" are the best places to look.

[JTG51]

nm

[ThaSaltCracka]

you might find this interesting B-Man
Bonds (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bloc/040226)

[Taxman]

Of course we can't retroactively test retired players, so ultimately we're still just taking their word for it.

[Taxman]

Do steroids actually make your head grow? I didn't think they had anything to do with skellatal features. Bonds also stared hitting well over .300 recently but as we all know, that has nothing to do with steroids. Unlike say Sammy Sosa, Bonds has repeatedly welcomed testing as far as I can remember. Given the amazing performance of Bonds even while being pitched aorund more than anyone in history, I am inclined to credit him more than steroids.

[Taxman]

Lots of good point shave been made concerning why there are many explanations of how bonds could have gotten bigger without steroid use. Rather than rehash those, I'm going to focus more on the matter of Bond's accomplishments and legacy. First off, in addition to gaining power over the last few years, Bonds also has suddenly began to hit well over .300. This of course is not a product of steroid use. Even more amazing to me however is that Bonds has been pitched to (and I use that term loosely) less than any person in the history of the game over the past few years. Throughout it all he has not only shown inhuman discipline, but the ability to deliver time and time again. Neither of these are traits granted by steroids.

Why is it after all that Bonds broke the home run record? Even for all of his alleged steroid use, he is probably not the strongest player in the league. McGwire for one was much bigger (coming from an equally skinny body type) and yet he couldn't hit more than Bonds did. He also struck out a lot more, as does Sammy Sosa, as did Roger Maris etc. Look at Ken Griffey Jr. Obviously he has problems over the last few years but at his peak he was a premier power hitter and yet he is fairly slim. Alex Rodriguez also is strong to be sure, but not huge. I think the main reason people are so quick to accuse Bonds is that he tends to be a jerk, but that's not really evidence of steroid use. Ultimately I do not believe that Bonds used steroids, but even if he did I feel that you are giving him too little respect. You give any historic baseball figure steroids (assuming they in fact were not already using them) and they would still be pretty hard pressed to come close to matching Bonds' recent efforts. I don't know if you watch him much but it is a truly remarkable sight on a much greater magnitude than watching Sosa or McGwire ever was. He would get maybe 4 hittable pitches a game at times. 2 would be fouled off straight back, 1 would be a scorching single to center and the last would be in the bleachers. Nobody has ever opperated on that kind of level, steroids or not. I may be dissappointed if I found out that he had used steroids, but only because I believe he is capable of as much without them. Regardless, I still would be glad that I was able to observe such a player as he in my lifetime.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Nice post Taxman,
we finally agree on something./images/graemlins/grin.gif
Well said

[B-Man]

You guys just don't get it.

Nobody is suggesting Bonds' success is only due to steroids. Nobody is saying steroids make you hit well over .300. I think I said in my initial post (and if I didn't mention it there, I have written it before on 2+2) that Bonds would have been a first-ballot Hall of Fame electee if he had RETIRED prior to the last 3 seasons. He was a Hall of Fame player before the last 3+ years (which is about when I think he started hitting the juice).

Someone (not the post I am responding to) said Bonds doesn't get injured--that's a joke, right? He played 130 games last year. The year before, he played around 140. He does get injured. The number of games in which he has played has declined each year the last few years.

Let me try to be succinct:

From 1993-2000, Bonds was the best player in baseball. During that period, his home run totals were 47, 37, 33, 42, 40, 37, 34, and finally a then-career-best 49 in 1999. His slugging percentages during those years range from .577 to a then-career-best .688 in 2000--truly outstanding.

Then in 2001, at age 36, his numbers suddenly spiked--73 home runs, and an even more astounding .863 slugging percentage (which is the all-time record). The next year he slugged .799--which is the 4th best season of all time. Finally, last year, his slugging percentage "slipped" to .749--merely the 11th best season of all time.

You can't just look at the home runs, you have to look at all of the numbers, and put them in context. Look at the walks (1st, 2nd and 8th all time the last 3 years), the number of games and plate appearances, the home runs, and the slugging percentage. Then consider his AGE.

Someone please give me an example of another player who hit 50% more home runs at age 36 than he had hit in any other season. While your at it, give me an example of a player who shattered his best slugging percentage season at that age.

Anyone who truly believes this guy is clean is naive, or is not looking at the full picture.

He was the best player in baseball without steroids--nobody is questioning that. The steroids just made him better.

[J.R.]

Look with your own eyes (http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2171304)

[Taxman]

Why has Barry Bonds only hit over 50 homeruns once in his career? Lets see, starting from 93 when he joined the Giants, he's hit:

46 in 159 games
37 in 112 games
33 in 144 games
42 in 158 games
40 in 159 games
37 in 156 games
34 in 102 games
49 in 143 games
73 in 153! games
46 in 143 games
45 in 130 games

37 in 112 would have been 50 in 152 games and 34 in 104 would have been 47 in 152. So for the last few years barring 2001 he has been performing a little better than some of his better years throughout his career. It seems that his rampant steroid use has allowed him to hit maybe 5-6 homeruns per year on average, discounting the year in which he set the record. Yeah you're right, no amount of actual hard work could have done the same. Bonds may be using steroids, but ultimately, you have no more proof than I do. The difference is that I to me it seems far from impossible that his own efforts could not have helped him. There does seem to be sufficient evidence to back up that particular belief.

[B-Man]

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

You ignored most of what I wrote. You looked at 2 statistics (home runs and games) and ignored everything else. That is short-sighted analysis. (Incidentally, the 2 stats you looked at SUPPORT my theory, though not as dramatically as if you also consider slugging percentage, plate appearances, and age--then the case is far stronger).

You completely ignored age, slugging percentage and plate appearances in your analysis. Gee, I wonder why...

You also put words in my mouth. If you want to falsely create a position and argue with yourself, go ahead and engage in your mental masturbation. Just don't attribute those statements to me.

Have a nice weekend.

[RcrdBoy]

I know I'm getting to this late so I apologize for just jumping in, but I couldn't help it. Your argument that since you can't find anyone else that has had such a great spike late in their career there must be "something" to it would only make sense if the game hadn't changed. It is massively different.

Players these days work out all year long. They have personal trainers, nutritionists, physical therapists, and many other things that help maximize how productive players can be. As we see players getting older and performing at a high level in later years (is Jamie Moyer on steroids?)I think it has more to do with the advances in medicine, training, and nutrition, than doping. Steroids and growth hormone have been around for decades. Why the spike now?

As for suddenly spiking numbers, what about Brady Anderson? At the age of 32 he hit 50 HRs after only hitting 20 (21 when he was 28)once.

You have to look at Bonds or Sosa or any of these guys in the context of what is happening in the sport during their era. Part of why Sosa and McGwire didn't get as much flack is they both broke sixty in the same season.

Keep this in mind, 50 HRs have been hit 46 times in the history of baseball, and 41% of those have been his since 1990!

I just think there is way more to it than Barry Bonds being on steroids.

Just my 50 cents.

-Mike

[andyfox]

A lot of players have gotten beefier through the years. Look at Babe Ruth when he wa a young pitcher with Boston, then compare that with the body that hit 60 homre runs at age 32 in 1927. Look at tapes of Clemens when he won his first Cy Young award with Boston and compare that body with the one that won his last with the Yankees.

In the old days, body building was frowned upon. I heard Yogi Berra say the Yankees wouldn't allow it.

I'm not saying Bonds did or didn't or is or isn't using steroids or pseduo-steroids. I am saying the bigger body might or might not be evidence.

[Taxman]

Wow, that was combative. Chill out man, I wasn't attacking you. I did mention age. From a muscle mass perspective, people tend to reach their peak in their 30s and it is not much of a stretch for me to believe that Bonds could have worked out like mad to build up muscle. Plate appearences tend to coincide with games so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. If you meant "at-bats" that's something else, though the fact that he hit so many homeruns in so few at bats points much more towards his ability than steroid use in my opinion. Slugging percentage isn't all about homeruns. You can hit plety of doubles without possessing steroid-induced power.

There's no need to get so pissed at me, I was just making may point, just like you tried to make yours.

[Taxman]

[J_V]

No way Creatine is useless. It's the single biggest technological weightlifting breakthrough of the last 50 years for average people.

[Taxman]

Yeah, it'll give you your own pair of man-breasts in two months flat! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Oski]

The lawyer for the BALCO guy said Bonds declined to take steroids, even though they were offered to him. As a lawyer for a man accused of selling steroids, the guy put his foot in his mouth, big time. Who offered Bonds the illegal substances...how would he or his client know this? Lol. Good luck WITH THAT.

[Bill Murphy]

"...single biggest technological weightlifting breakthrough of the last 50 years for average people."

That would be the Trap/Hex bar! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

You need to work on your reading comprehension.
you need to work on being an unbiased reader of statistics. You ask any stats teacher, statistics can be skewed or distorted to support almost any opinion, much like what you are doing. You want us to list facts, not opinions, well I would like you to list some facts that SHOW Bonds is taking steroids. Don't list fatcs that show he possibly took steroids. You seem to be connecting the dots to draw a picture you want to see.
I will give you a fact that shows he didn't take steroids any you can tell me whats wrong with it.

"Barry Bonds never took anything illegal. He declined to take any of these illegal substances," said Tony Serra, the attorney for Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson. Bonds (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1746085) . Take a look at the article. Numbers can be used to show whatever you want them too, especially statistics. Find some real proof please.

You completely ignored age, slugging percentage and plate appearances in your analysis.
in relation to sluggin percentage, walks indirectly raise slugging percentage because it means less official at bats. So if someone who hits mostly home runs and doubles, has less AB's because of walks his Slugging percentage will indirectly be higher. Remember slugging % is Total Bases/ AB's.

[B-Man]

Sorry, sometimes I get a little too fired up.

I think if you read all of what I wrote, there is a lot of evidence that suggests Bonds is using steroids. There is no proof--I can't prove it, nor can anyone else prove it unless Bonds gets caught, and I assume he is too smart for that. If you look at each of my points individually, as you have done, sure you can find alternate explanations for each of them... but if you look at the big picture, and consider the totality of the circumstances, I think the most likely explanation is steroids.

I honestly believe he is a cheater. If he submitted to regular testing for the entire season and had a season on par with the last 3, I might be convinced he was clean. Not otherwise.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I will give you a fact that shows he didn't take steroids any you can tell me whats wrong with it.

"Barry Bonds never took anything illegal. He declined to take any of these illegal substances," said Tony Serra, the attorney for Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson.

[/ QUOTE ]

All that proves is that the attorney for Barry Bonds' best friend and trainer is taking the position that Bonds didn't take steroids. It proves nothing else. All he is doing is repeating what his client--Bonds' best friend--told him. Anyone who thinks that settles the matter is naive.

[ QUOTE ]
walks indirectly raise slugging percentage because it means less official at bats. So if someone who hits mostly home runs and doubles, has less AB's because of walks his Slugging percentage will indirectly be higher. Remember slugging % is Total Bases/ AB's

[/ QUOTE ]

You are failing to consider that someone who walks less will also hit less home runs (and doubles, triples and singles). You seem to be saying that more walks decrease the denominator, but have no effect on the numerator. That's not true.

My point about slugging percentage was that his slugging percentage the last 3 years was outrageous, and completely out of line with what he did up until age 35. I think its pretty unlikely someone could shatter not only his personal best, but also the all-time record for slugging percentage at that age without some artificial assistance.

[ QUOTE ]
well I would like you to list some facts that SHOW Bonds is taking steroids. Don't list fatcs that show he possibly took steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no proof Bonds is on steroids, nor have I claimed there is proof. There is a great deal of evidence, thats all. I've listed it in my other posts--I'm not going to rehash it all here, but if you look at the numbers, consider his age, and look at the changes in his body (and his head), it's hard to come to the conclusion that he is clean.

You are entitled to your opinion. Nobody can prove he's on steroids unless he agrees to be tested on a regular basis, and the union is not going to allow that. So we'll never have proof. But if you really think he is innocent, I think you are looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses.

[ThaSaltCracka]

You seem to be saying that more walks decrease the denominator, but have no effect on the numerator. That's not true.
Stats AB's, H, 2Bs, 3Bs, HR's, BB
2000 (480, 147, 28, 4, 49, 117)
2001 (476, 156, 32, 2, 73, 177)
2002 (403, 149, 31, 2, 46, 198)
2003 (390, 133, 22, 1, 45, 148)

now lets look at these numbers and see how they relate to SLG. It looks like his offense production did not change significantly during these 4 years. The 73 is a bit of an annomily, however they all look the same. So the Numerator is not changing much at all, however the denominator is. As a side note 2003 he only played 130 games.

All that proves is that the attorney for Barry Bonds' best friend and trainer is taking the position that Bonds didn't take steroids. It proves nothing else. All he is doing is repeating what his client--Bonds' best friend--told him. Anyone who thinks that settles the matter is naive.
I would imagine that this was also said in court, under sworn testimony. Now if they are lying thats a different thing, we have seen proof that people do lie to a Grand Jury, however there is no proof that they are lying, so far /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

But if you really think he is innocent, I think you are looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses.
actually I am looking at this through the innocent until proven guilty glasses, you should try them out, they are free you know?

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
would imagine that this was also said in court, under sworn testimony. Now if they are lying thats a different thing, we have seen proof that people do lie to a Grand Jury, however there is no proof that they are lying, so far .


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the details surrounding his claim, but if this is true then it seems likely he believed what he was saying. He would risk being disbarred, otherwise. I doubt he would risk his livlihood just to protect Bonds' image. Now of course even if he really did believe it doesn't mean that it's true blah blah blah /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Taxman]

It's ok, I know what it's like to get "a little fired up" /images/graemlins/wink.gif. You're right of course that there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, but I'm still not sure I believe it. Who knows if either of us will ever be proven right.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I will say that there is definitely a chance that Barry took steroids, however, I think they only way we will know is if he is tested. I personally don't think he did, but there is some evidence he may have, however I still think a lot of it is circumstantial.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I will say that there is definitely a chance that Barry took steroids, however, I think they only way we will know is if he is tested. I personally don't think he did, but there is some evidence he may have, however I still think a lot of it is circumstantial.

[/ QUOTE ]

To date, I think it is all circumstantial, but that doesn't lessen how much it should be believed. Some circumstantial evidence is very strong.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that more walks decrease the denominator, but have no effect on the numerator. That's not true.
Stats AB's, H, 2Bs, 3Bs, HR's, BB
2000 (480, 147, 28, 4, 49, 117)
2001 (476, 156, 32, 2, 73, 177)
2002 (403, 149, 31, 2, 46, 198)
2003 (390, 133, 22, 1, 45, 148)

now lets look at these numbers and see how they relate to SLG. It looks like his offense production did not change significantly during these 4 years. The 73 is a bit of an annomily, however they all look the same. So the Numerator is not changing much at all, however the denominator is. As a side note 2003 he only played 130 games.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok... you listed his stats. But I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The stats do not indicate that more walks cause a higher slugging percentage. In order to show that, you'd have to know what Bonds slugging percentage would have been in each of those seasons had he not walked so many times during each of those seasons, i.e. hypothetically, if Bonds had walked 30 fewer times last year, how many total bases would he have had?

There is no way to know, exactly, but if you think about it, intuitively, if player A and player B are both sluggers, of exactly equal ability, surrounded by equal talent, and player A has 50 more opportunities to swing the bat than player B, doesn't it stand to reason player A would have more hits, and more extra base hits, than player B? Why do you think they would have exactly the same number of total bases?

I actually think something close to the converse of what you said is true--a higher slugging percentage helps contribute to more walks. After all, look at the players who draw a lot of intentional walks--Bonds, Delgado, Manny Ramirez--these aren't exactly singles hitters. Pitchers are a lot more careful pitching to a slugger than they are to Pokey Reese. This is part of the reason Bonds has walked so many times the last few years--in fact, in one game, he was even walked with the bases loaded!

Also, check out Bond's stats from 1996-1998--he walked a ton those years, too, but his slugging percentage was about 200 points lower than the last 3 years!

[ QUOTE ]
actually I am looking at this through the innocent until proven guilty glasses, you should try them out, they are free you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the principal in a court of law (a criminal court, anyway). This isn't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion. In my opinion, it is likely Bonds is a cheat.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Ok... you listed his stats. But I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The stats do not indicate that more walks cause a higher slugging percentage. In order to show that, you'd have to know what Bonds slugging percentage would have been in each of those seasons had he not walked so many times during each of those seasons, i.e. hypothetically, if Bonds had walked 30 fewer times last year, how many total bases would he have had?

okay I will do the simple math for you. BTW my point is more walks with the relative same amount of offensive production will lead to a higher SLG%.
total bases for 2000: 330
330/480ABs= .688SLG%
total bases for 2001: 411
411/476ABs= .863SLG%
total bases for 2002: 322
322/403ABs= .799SLG%
total bases for 2003: 292
292/390ABs= .749SLG%

Now I agree with you if he had been walked less, there is no telling where his slugging percentage would be because who knows what he would have done. My point is with the relative same amount of offensive production(ie total bases, again the 73 homers is a bit of an anomilly), but with less official at bats, his slugging percentage will be higher, and the numbers show that.

Also, check out Bond's stats from 1996-1998--he walked a ton those years, too, but his slugging percentage was about 200 points lower than the last 3 years!
I looked at his stats from 1993-1999, the years he was in SF, before 2000.
His average slugging percentage over those 7 seasons was .618, and his average for walks a year was 117.
from 2000-2003, his average SLG% was .744 and average walks per year was 160. I think this further shows the effects that walks have on a SLG% of a highly productive offensive player. Although I will note that 1999 look like a season with some injuries. Was 1994 the strike year? I can't remember of the top of my head, but that also could lead to smaller numbers over that span. Also I will note that HR's were especially high in 2001 and walks were also especially high in 2002.

This may be of some interest to you as well.
I looked at Babe Ruths Stats.
The years in which his SLG% was above .600, his average walks per season was 143(9 seasons). In the seasons in which his SLG% was below .600, his average walks per season was 90(8 seasons, only those with more than 300 ABS).

That's the principal in a court of law (a criminal court, anyway). This isn't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion. In my opinion, it is likely Bonds is a cheat.
You are definitely entitled to your own opinion, however I am usually not quick to judge. I usually need to see some proof.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to show that, you'd have to know what Bonds slugging percentage would have been in each of those seasons had he not walked so many times during each of those seasons, i.e. hypothetically, if Bonds had walked 30 fewer times last year, how many total bases would he have had?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of slugging percentage is to have a number that can be used as a comparison regardless of the number of at bats. If he had 50 more AB's, he probably has SLG x 50 more TB's. Whether or not his OPS stays that high with another 50 AB's in stead of walks, who knows.

One thing: clean or not, are you going to pitch to a guy who hit 73 HRs in a year when he's got guys like Jose Cruz, J.T. Snow, Marquis Grissom and the like in the lineup around him last year? I think I take my chances with everyone else.

[B-Man]

Great slugging ability leads to more walks because pitchers will be very careful pitching to a great hitter like Bonds.

Discliplined pitch-selection, however, does not have the same effect on slugging (it might to a much smaller effect). For example, think about someone like Wade Boggs--he was in the top 10 in walks 9 times, but in the top 10 in slugging percentage only once. Just because you are selective, that doesn't mean you are going to hit the ball out of the ballpark.

Think about it logically. You are just looking at numbers and correlation. Just because A and B often go together, it doesn't mean A causes B.

In this case, I think B has a huge effect on A, and A may have a small effect on B.

Do you think Bonds, Manny, Delgado, etc. would draw so many intentional walks (and unintentional walks) if they couldn't hit the ball out of the ballpark?

[ThaSaltCracka]

Discliplined pitch-selection, however, does not have the same effect on slugging (it might to a much smaller effect). For example, think about someone like Wade Boggs--he was in the top 10 in walks 9 times, but in the top 10 in slugging percentage only once. Just because you are selective, that doesn't mean you are going to hit the ball out of the ballpark.
Imagine if there was someone who had power and was a disciplend hitter. That would be scary, someone so dangerous that they break the record for intentional walks, someone who sees one good pitch an AB, and still manages to hit for average and power. That would be Barry Bonds.

[B-Man]

Anyone who continues to believe these players are clean is in complete denial. I love how the attorneys for some of the players have changed their story and are now saying that their clients never "knowingly" took steroids--give me a break. First of all, ignorance is not an excuse. Second, why should anyone believe them? Only an idiot would believe these guys (though fortunately for the cheaters, there are plenty of idiots and gullible fans).

The following is from today's San Francisco chronicle:

Bonds got steroids, feds were told
Slugger's trainer said to have given substances to several athletes
Mark Fainaru-Wada, Lance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/02/MNGNM5C3AV1.DTL


San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds, New York Yankees stars Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield and three other major-league baseball players received steroids from a Burlingame nutritional supplement lab, federal investigators were told.

The baseball stars allegedly got the illegal performance-enhancing drugs from the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative through Greg Anderson, Bonds' personal weight trainer and longtime friend, according to information furnished the government and shared with The Chronicle.

In addition to Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield, the other baseball players said to have received steroids from BALCO via Anderson were two former Giants, outfielder Marvin Benard and catcher Benito Santiago, and a former A's second baseman, Randy Velarde.

Oakland Raiders linebacker Bill Romanowski also was said to have received performance-enhancing drugs.

Anderson allegedly obtained a so-called designer steroid known as "the clear" and a testosterone-based steroid known as "the cream" from BALCO and supplied the substances to all six baseball players, the government was told. In addition, Bonds was said to have received human growth hormone, a powerful substance that legally cannot be distributed without a prescription, investigators were told.

Agents obtained the information about the baseball players and illegal drugs in September during a probe that resulted in the indictment of Anderson, BALCO owner Victor Conte and two other Bay Area men on steroid conspiracy charges.

The information shared with The Chronicle did not explicitly state that the athletes had used the drugs they were said to have obtained. Bonds, who is baseball's single-season home-run king, and Giambi, who won the American League Most Valuable Player award when he was with the Oakland Athletics, have publicly denied using steroids. So has Sheffield. All three declined to discuss the matter Monday.

Last week, attorneys for Anderson and Conte quoted their clients as saying Bonds had never used illegal drugs.

The information about Bonds provided to The Chronicle was corroborated by a source familiar with Anderson. The source told The Chronicle that the weight trainer had obtained steroids and human growth hormone for Bonds dating back to the 2001 season. That was the year the Giants outfielder broke baseball's storied single-season record for home runs -- hitting 73.

"We continue to adamantly deny that Barry was provided, furnished or supplied any of those substances at any time by Greg Anderson," Michael Rains, an attorney for Bonds, said Monday. He also questioned the credibility of the source familiar with the trainer.

Other attorneys interviewed Monday answered in the same vein.

Sheffield's attorney Paula Canny said, "Gary Sheffield has never knowingly ingested a steroid ... and Gary Sheffield has never knowingly applied an anabolic steroid cream to his body."

Santiago's attorney, David Cornwell, declined specific comment but said: "Based on my involvement in this matter, I know that many of the athletes involved did not know they were being given a banned substance."

Anna Ling, an attorney for Anderson, said the trainer had "never knowingly given any illegal substance to anybody."

Velarde did not respond to requests for comment. Benard could not be reached.

Investigators also were told that pro football player Romanowski had allegedly obtained both steroids and human growth hormone from BALCO. Romanowski was one of the early big-name boosters of Conte and his legal supplements, and the linebacker helped draw other elite athletes to BALCO. In 1999, Colorado court records show that Romanowski's wife, Julie, told investigators that the linebacker had obtained human growth hormone from BALCO. An attorney for Romanowski didn't return a reporter's phone call.

Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Santiago and Romanowski were among more than 30 of the world's greatest athletes -- stars of baseball, football, boxing and track and field -- who testified last year before the San Francisco federal grand jury that investigated BALCO and handed up the steroid conspiracy indictments.

The names of Benard and Velarde have never before surfaced in connection with the steroid investigation, which has roiled the upcoming 2004 Olympic Games in Athens and, increasingly, the world of American professional sports as well.

The probe began making worldwide headlines last October, after the head of the agency that administers drug tests to U.S. Olympians alleged that Conte and BALCO were at the center of an international sports doping scandal.

The scandal attracted the attention of President Bush, a former owner of the Texas Rangers, who in his State of the Union address in January denounced steroid abuse in baseball and football. Then, on Feb. 12, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft convened a nationally televised press conference in Washington to announce the 42-count indictment against Anderson, Conte, famed track coach Remi Korchemny and BALCO Vice President James Valente.

The men are charged with conspiring to distribute performance-enhancing drugs, including human growth hormone and a newly created steroid called THG that allegedly had been designed to help elite athletes pass doping tests.

All four men have pleaded not guilty.

Ashcroft vowed to crack down on steroid abuse, saying it threatens the integrity of sports and "fosters a destructive culture contrary to the values that make sports such an important part of American life."

But even as it promised to get tough on steroids, the government took unusual steps to turn the focus away from the elite athletes suspected of using the illegal substances that BALCO allegedly supplied. Early on, the government said it was not interested in prosecuting athletes for using steroids, instead granting them immunity when they were called to testify before the grand jury.

The government also has deleted from public court files the names of every athlete who allegedly obtained illegal performance-enhancing drugs from

BALCO.
Court records show that agents of the Internal Revenue Service and Food and Drug Administration had been investigating BALCO and Conte for 18 months when they served search warrants on the lab and on Anderson's Burlingame condominium Sept. 3. That was when agents were told the names of athletes said to have been provided the illegal drugs.

In affidavits that don't name the athletes, investigators allege that Anderson was the link between the baseball players and their source of illegal steroids at BALCO. The indictment alleges that on two occasions, once in November 2001 and another time in November 2002, Anderson distributed human growth hormone to a "professional baseball player."

Agents claim that Anderson, Conte and Valente admitted their roles in providing steroids to baseball players -- and in some cases named names.

Internal Revenue Service investigator Jeff Novitzky wrote that while agents were searching Anderson's home on Sept. 3, the trainer allegedly told them the names of the ballplayers to whom he had provided illegal performance- enhancing substances.

"Anderson admitted that he had given steroids to several professional baseball players whose names I was familiar with from my review of other documents in this case," Novitzky wrote. Another IRS investigator, Brian Watson, wrote that Conte, the BALCO president, had made a "confession" to illegal steroid dealing to elite athletes. That also came on Sept. 3, after agents had raided BALCO and Conte's San Mateo home.

Conte, the agent wrote, gave a "complete statement regarding his involvement in knowingly, illegally, distributing steroids to numerous professional athletes." Conte said he knew it was illegal and assumed Anderson knew that, too, when allegedly receiving the steroids for professional baseball players, the affidavit says.

Later, Conte is quoted as saying that in early 2003, he had given a "clear" steroid-like substance to Anderson to give to a professional baseball player. The agent acknowledges he was not sure whether the substance qualified as a banned substance under federal law.

J. Tony Serra, Anderson's attorney, said last week that the affidavit referred to a "100 percent legal" substance the weight trainer had offered to Bonds. Bonds declined it, Serra said. Conte's attorney, Robert Holley, couldn't be reached for comment. Last week, he told reporters that Conte knew of "no illegal activity that has ever been done by Barry Bonds."

Anderson, 37, is a beefy former collegiate second baseman who has been Bonds' friend since their boyhood days in the San Carlos Little League, according to people who know the men. In 1998, the Giants star hired Anderson as his weight trainer, and Anderson has been a presence in the Giants' clubhouse since the team moved to Pacific Bell Park in 2000.

Anderson often conducted workouts for Bonds and other training clients at the former World Gym near San Francisco International Airport, a few blocks from BALCO. Conte and Anderson met through the gym. Later, the trainer introduced Conte to Bonds.

Through Bonds, Anderson met several of the other baseball players said to have obtained illegal substances from the trainer, according to a source who knows the men.

Bonds befriended Giambi after the 2000 season, when Giambi, then the first baseman for the Athletics, had won the American League Most Valuable Player award, the source said.

After the 2002 season, Bonds and Giambi were part of a team of big leaguers who traveled to Japan on a baseball barnstorming tour. Bonds brought Anderson along on the trip, and the trainer got to know Giambi at that time.

Bonds also had been friendly with Sheffield since Sheffield's days with the Florida Marlins in the 1990s. After the 2001 season, Sheffield, then with the Atlanta Braves, moved to the Bay Area for several weeks so that he could work out with Bonds. A source said Anderson had supervised some of the workouts.

Anderson became acquainted with Benard and Santiago during the trainer's visits to the Giants clubhouse, the source said.

Benard left the Giants after the 2003 season and signed a minor- league contract with the Chicago White Sox organization. Santiago also left the Giants after 2003, signing with the Kansas City Royals. Velarde retired from baseball in 2002.

During spring training on Monday, Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield declined to discuss BALCO and steroids.

"You're asking me about something we don't want to discuss," Bonds said at the Giants camp in Arizona. "... I'm tired of all these games."

At the Yankees camp in Florida, Giambi and Sheffield also declined comment.

Giambi referred to a conversation with reporters last week in which he denied using steroids. "I addressed it,'' he said. "I've got nothing more to say."

Sheffield also referred to his earlier statements in which he denied taking steroids.

"The issue is done with, as far as I'm concerned," he said.

The BALCO case and its connection to some of baseball's biggest stars have increased pressure on the sport to become more aggressive in the commissioner's stated goal of zero tolerance toward steroids. Last year, baseball implemented its first-ever plan to test for performance-enhancing drugs, but the policy has been widely criticized as too soft by officials from the Olympic movement as well as other sports governing bodies.

Contacted for comment Monday, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig called steroids "sinister and seductive" and said he was distressed about the allegations about the players.

"We at Major League Baseball must strive for zero tolerance as it relates to the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs," Selig said in a statement. "We will do everything in our power to get to zero tolerance as soon as possible."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who continues to believe these players are clean is in complete denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I would think so. If someone believes steroid abuse in baseball is a significant problem, then IMO all one has to do is look to see who might have gained the most from using them. It's not going to be someone who hits 10 home runs.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Only an idiot would believe these guys (though fortunately for the cheaters, there are plenty of idiots and gullible fans).
I hope your not talking about me. Believe me, I think there are some players taking steroids, and I think that MLB should have a strict testing policy. But for the sake of the game I hope one of the games premier players isn't taking them. Lets just say I am hoping BB didn't take them. BTW I read a copy of that article on ESPN.com, and I am not sure who to believe. Both sides seem to plant doubt.

[RcrdBoy]

This might end the argument.

Steroids - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1748786)

-Mike

[RcrdBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
But for the sake of the game I hope one of the games premier players isn't taking them. Lets just say I am hoping BB didn't take them. BTW I read a copy of that article on ESPN.com, and I am not sure who to believe. Both sides seem to plant doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Cracka. Doubt? The only doubt would seem to be that he used them.

No one has proven that he has taken them, but now that it seems to be 1) His personal trainer is busted and 2) He gave steroids and human growth hormone to Bonds.

Reasonably, is 3)Bonds got them, but didn't use them. Or 3) Bonds used them.

I guess you could say that Bonds unknowingly used them (notice that's exactly where Sheffield's agent is going) and that might be true, but it seems unreasonable to think Bonds did use.

It will be interesting to see if, over the next 2-3 years, HR rates go down.

-Mike

[B-Man]

Look, I wish the premiere player didn't take them, either. But that doesn't mean I'm going to bury my head in the sand and ignore the evidence.

I just don't see how any reasonable person can look at the big picture and still be of the opinion that Bonds is clean.

[ThaSaltCracka]

B-Man,
we shall all have to wait and see.
Personally I think baseball should just adopt the same testing rules the other major sports in the U.S. have. MLB is most certaintly making the situation worse.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasonably, is 3)Bonds got them, but didn't use them. Or 3) Bonds used them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to fathom that Bonds acquired steroids, but didn't use them. What on earth would he buy buying them for if he wasn't going to use them? To sell to others? Preposterous. I don't see how even his defenders can take the position that Bonds acquired steroids, but didn't use them.

By the way, I can't wait to see Jason Giambi hit 19 home runs this year (if you haven't seen the pictures, he looks like he's lost about 30 pounds and apparently is off the juice).

Bonds looks as big as ever, so I assume he's still using. I haven't seen any pictures of Sheffield this spring.

[B-Man]

I agree. Baseball's system is a complete joke (5 strikes and you're out!). The NFL cleaned up their act, there is no reason baseball can't do the same. But as long people like Gene Orza are running the union, I don't think we'll see major changes.

[ThaSaltCracka]

B-Man,
I am curious why you can't possibly see the other side at all. All I have read from you is statements like I don't see how ..........It's hard to fathom , you seem to write off any possibility that these guys work hard. I have read all your evidence so I don't want to argue that any more, but it seems like you came into the discussion with your mind all ready made up, and apparently nothing changes it. I have conceded that it is definitely possible that Bonds or any other player could be using steroids, but I also think its possible they work very hard to stay in shape and practice. Can you not admit that?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[B-Man]

He does work hard. No question about it. But a lot of talented players work hard... and none of them put up the kind of numbers Bonds puts up, at an advanced age, after a long track record of putting up numbers that, while consistently excellent, were nowhere near his numbers of the last few years.

Is it possible that Bonds is clean? Yes, it is possible. I am not 100% certain he took steroids.

But I am about 98% certain.

I did come into this discussion with my mind made up, because I've been following this story for years (not just Bonds, but athletes using steroids). I've long been very suspicious of Bonds and Sosa, and probably McGwire, too (he admitted taking andro, which was legal in baseball at that time; there is certainly a question whether he took more).

I admit there is a possibility Bonds is clean, but I think it is pretty remote. But since we probably wont ever know for sure, all I can go by is my opinion. In my opinion, based on all of the evidence, I think it is highly likely Bonds took steroids.

[ThaSaltCracka]

honestly if you took out the year in which he hit 73 HR's, his numbers are pretty consistent.

But I can see why people think he might be on steroids.
Call it a cats game?

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
honestly if you took out the year in which he hit 73 HR's, his numbers are pretty consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. His numbers for the last few years are a quantum leap over anything he did prior thereto. Check out his slugging percentage, OPS and HR percentage (HR/AB) the last few years, and compare that to his previous years. The numbers are not close. The last three years, he has posted the best, 4th best, and 11th best slugging percentage seasons in the history of baseball. He never even came close to such high ground prior to 2001.

Do you mean the last few years are pretty consistent with each other? Sure they are (other than home runs)... but why would they be any different if he has been juicing for 3 or 4 years?

Also, why would we "take out" the year he hit 73 home runs? Why would that not be relevant information?

[ QUOTE ]
But I can see why people think he might be on steroids.
Call it a cats game?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a "cats game"?

[ThaSaltCracka]

What is a "cats game"?
a push, tie, whatever you want to call.
You never played Tic-Tac-Toe?

[ThaSaltCracka]

Also, why would we "take out" the year he hit 73 home runs? Why would that not be relevant information?
statistically speaking, the 73 home runs are somewhat of an outlier

Do you mean the last few years are pretty consistent with each other? Sure they are (other than home runs)... but why would they be any different if he has been juicing for 3 or 4 years?
I mean almost his entire career. Every year he been in SF, his yearly totals for HR's, RBI's, AVG, 2B's, OB%, SLG% were all about the same. The last three years his OB% and SLG% have been higher than normal, but his HR's weren't that much higher than normal, again the 73 is an outlier, if he hit say 60-65, it may not stand out as much.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
statistically speaking, the 73 home runs are somewhat of an outlier

[/ QUOTE ]

It's outrageous. But why would you ignore it rather than consider the causes? You are just ignoring data that doesn't support your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean almost his entire career. Every year he been in SF, his yearly totals for HR's, RBI's, AVG, 2B's, OB%, SLG% were all about the same. The last three years his OB% and SLG% have been higher than normal, but his HR's weren't that much higher than normal, again the 73 is an outlier, if he hit say 60-65, it may not stand out as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

His slugging percentage, home run percentage and on base percentage have been far higher the last few years than ever before. For example, prior to 2001, he hit a home run once every 15 at bats. The last 3 years, he has hit a homerun once every 7.7 at bats. That is an enormous difference--basically, he hits a home run twice as often now as he used to. Even you must admit that is an astounding increase.

His slugging percentage and on base percentage have also risen by outrageous amounts.

I think we are going around in circles. The data is very clear. You can disagree about what the data means, but there really is nothing to discuss if you can't admit that his numbers have improved dramatically the last few years. They speak for themselves.

[J_V]

What is that?

[RcrdBoy]

[ QUOTE ]

His slugging percentage, home run percentage and on base percentage have been far higher the last few years than ever before. For example, prior to 2001, he hit a home run once every 15 at bats. The last 3 years, he has hit a homerun once every 7.7 at bats. That is an enormous difference--basically, he hits a home run twice as often now as he used to. Even you must admit that is an astounding increase.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but isn't this almost totally due to the fact that his walks are dramatically higher? Since walks don't count as an official AB then all these rates increase.

Couldn't it be that since he hit 49 HRs in 2000 and his line up protection in 2001 was Jeff Kent and Rich Aurillia he didn't get challenged as much. As the pitchers nibbled and worked the count to 2-0 or 3-1, isn't it plausible that Bonds got grooved or that he was able to narrow "his" zone in order to hit those HRs? Don't forget Aurilla hit 37 HRs the same year. This from a guy that has a career .775 OPS.

I think Bonds took/takes steroids. I mean 5% - 7% of MLB players tested positive with no random testing. They all KNEW when the test was and still that many players tested positive.

On the other hand, it doesn't diminish his accomplishments in my eyes. Nor does Sosa's corked bat, or Coors field, or overall ball park dimensions,or expansion years.

Eras are different. In 1969 they lowered the pitching mound. It doesn't make Bob Gibsons 1.12 ERA in 1968 less impressive to me. It instead makes Pedro's 1.74 ERA in 2000 look that much more impressive. Just as Bonds 73 is wild it doesn't come close to 1920 when Ruth had 54 HRs and George Sisler finished second in the AL with 19!


-Mike

[RcrdBoy]

Oops. I meant to mention that all the stats I used I got at the single greatest baseball web site on the planet. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/)

-Mike

[ThaSaltCracka]

It's outrageous. But why would you ignore it rather than consider the causes? You are just ignoring data that doesn't support your argument.
clearly you haven't take a statistics class, however I will not waste my time trying to expain what an outlier is to you.
Let me put it this way. His 73 homeruns is nealry 30 HR's more than his avergage number of HR's/season for his 11 years in SF. His 46 and 45 are, well you can do the math, right?

You can disagree about what the data means, but there really is nothing to discuss if you can't admit that his numbers have improved dramatically the last few years.
his SLG%, HR%, and his OB% have improved dramatically. So since his HR total per year is about the same, how does his HR% go up? How about because his AB's are lower. Why are they lower? Because he gets walked much more, which leads to an increase in OB%.

[B-Man]

I can't have an intelligent conversation with someone who continually ignores most of the information I provide, and chooses to only look at one or two statistics in isolation, with tunnel vision.

Apparently you seem to think that Barry Bonds would hit about 40 home runs regardless of how many times they walked him. What if they didn't walk him at all, do you still think he would hit about 40 home runs? Or, what if he walked 250 times, would he still hit about 40 home runs? The fact that he is hitting more home runs (yes, it is more, not the same) in fewer opportunities means something. Think about it.

I'm sorry, but I'm done responding to your posts. You are entitled to your opinion on what the numbers mean, but if you can't admit when you are wrong about facts (such as the ridiculous increase in his production the last few years), there is no point continuing.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but isn't this almost totally due to the fact that his walks are dramatically higher? Since walks don't count as an official AB then all these rates increase.


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be assuming the number of home runs he hits is not related to walks. Every time he walks, that is one less oportunity to hit a home run. If he walks 200 times, do you think he'll hit the same number of home runs as if he walks 50 times?

It's not just due to an increase in walks. He walked a ton in other years, too. That didn't produce a homerun rate of one every 7.7 at bats.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Bonds took/takes steroids. I mean 5% - 7% of MLB players tested positive with no random testing. They all KNEW when the test was and still that many players tested positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, it doesn't diminish his accomplishments in my eyes. Nor does Sosa's corked bat, or Coors field, or overall ball park dimensions,or expansion years.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that, we disagree.

[ThaSaltCracka]

At this point I don't care if you don't want to respond to my posts.
and chooses to only look at one or two statistics in isolation, with tunnel vision.
I Only look at two??? You are the one who keeps on talking about HR's, SLG, OBP, you seem to be looking at only the same statistics. The simple fact that he hits more HR's per at bat should show more than anything that it is skill not strength that leads to his huge HR total.
MORE HR'S IN LESS ABS.
Apparently B-Man I am the one who is unintelligent although I have looked at all of his stats, discussed all of his stats, even looked at the stats you have provided. I had asked if you wanted to call it a truce simply because I could tell you were not going to change your mind whatsoever. You are completely stuck on the idea that Bonds MUST have taken steroids, possibly because you hate him to begin with, I don't know. I was simply just trying to debate with you on the other side, although now it is apparent that even this is a waste of my time.
The whole point of having discussions/debates is to listen to both sides and come to conclusions. I had said several times that it is possible Bonds took steroids, however I have not seen any proof to prove that, although as you have pointed out there is some evidence he may have taken them. You on the other hand said he may have worked hard but more than likely he is taking steroids. Clearly you are the one with tunnel vision and a closed mind. Think out of the box, not just what you hear on TV or the newspaper.