Anyone else amazed by this Bonds story?

[B-Man]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.