Posted April 12, 200520 yr comment_1663753 Much of the case that Barry Bonds used steroids rests on the fact that his accomplishments lack precident in MLB history. After all, how many 38 year olds hit .341, post a .529 OBP, and hit 45 home runs? Browsing through Baseball-reference.com, I noticed Bonds' accomplishments HAVE been done before. Check out this simple comparison, between Bonds at the age of 38, and Ted Williams at the same age... Bonds: .341/.529/.749. 28 2Bs, 1 3B, 45 HRs, 90 RBIs, 148 BBs, 58 Ks, 231 OPS+. Teddy: .388/.526/.731. 28 2Bs, 1 3B, 38 HRs, 87 RBIs, 119 BBs, 43 Ks, 233 OPS+. The obvious difference is that Bonds did what he did for four years, while Williams had an incredible year in the midst of a few good ones. Still, the point is that if Williams can have a year like that, untouched apparently by chemicals, why is it so difficult to buy that Bonds COULD do the same thing? Yes, it is likely Bonds knowingly took steroids. But his performance is not an impossible feat.
April 12, 200520 yr comment_1663949 Well you seem bent on denying/defending anyone accused of roiding up, but I would say the difference is that Teddy's game was pretty much at a consistent level, his numbers didn't suddenly jump up at a point where most ballplayers start to go downhill. Yes Bonds is a talented ballplayer, roids or not. The fact is that a drug free Bonds would probably have stayed a 25-35 HR a year guy with maybe one 40+ HR season. He obviously had chemical assistance and his attempts to portray himself as a victim of the media are just embarrassing.
April 12, 200520 yr comment_1664175 This wouldn't even be such an issue if Bonds weren't so unlikable. It's stupid that it boils down to that, but let's face it, there are a lot of people who want to see him brought down and this is the ticket.
April 12, 200520 yr comment_1664211 People want to see him brought down because he's done everything possible to come off as a pompous ass, and now that he seems to realize thats how people see him he wants to play victim. I don't think I've seen a sadder sight than when Bonds used his son as a prop to gain sympathy for what the evil media was doing to him.
April 12, 200520 yr Author comment_1664640 Well you seem bent on denying/defending anyone accused of roiding up, but I would say the difference is that Teddy's game was pretty much at a consistent level, his numbers didn't suddenly jump up at a point where most ballplayers start to go downhill. Sure they did. Williams' numbers fell when he reached the age of 29, and spiked again at 34 when he returned from the Korean War. As for defending players on steroids, I just usually take a contrarian viewpoint, and I feel that the effects of steroid usage are severely overstated. Everyone assumes the balance of power lies with the hitters because of steroids. The fact is, nearly as many if not more pitchers take steroids then do hitters. Strikeout rates are at an all time high. Why have offensive numbers increased? Perhaps the fact that 80% of the new ballparks are easier to hit in than their predecessors as something to do with that. There are other reasons, but that is the biggest. More on that in a moment. Yes Bonds is a talented ballplayer, roids or not. The fact is that a drug free Bonds would probably have stayed a 25-35 HR a year guy with maybe one 40+ HR season. He obviously had chemical assistance and his attempts to portray himself as a victim of the media are just embarrassing. What he does with the media is irrelevant to this issue, and I honestly stopped caring a long time ago. Williams again was also despised by the media. But anyway, I don't know what effect a chemical-free era would have on Bonds. He might have hit better because the pitchers could not take steroids. He might have better counting stats due to a decrease in intentional walks. Besides, let's assume most of the hitters of this era are roided up. Bonds is STILL twice as good as the league average. I honestly don't know what steroids have caused, and it will take quite some time to assess their effects. I just prefer to stand back and review all the evidence, rather than throw the book at players I do not like. It's funny though. Sek, being a liberal, usually you would be on the front lines of a "fair trial" issue. But you're positively conservative on this issue. Myself, being liberal, take a conservative approach when it comes to baseball's finances. It is interesting how sports can effect one's political viewpoints.
April 12, 200520 yr comment_1667166 I'm the first to admit I'm biased against Bonds because he played for the Pirates and I got to see his assholery first hand. If there's one thing I can say about Bonds is that at least he's consistent. He was a douche as a skinny rookie with pipe cleaner arms in 1986 just as as he is with Hulk Hogan pythons in 2005. I also can't figure out why people don't think steriods help baseball players. The big reason baseball was able to come back from the strike was all the home run hitters. Roids won't help you hit a curve better, but they'll let you knock the ones you hit a mile. Moon shots sell tickets, roids let more guys hit moon shots, and baseball needed tickets to sell. Just like the WWF, baseball ignored the obvious users because they drew fans.
April 12, 200520 yr Author comment_1667419 I also can't figure out why people don't think steriods help baseball players. The big reason baseball was able to come back from the strike was all the home run hitters. Roids won't help you hit a curve better, but they'll let you knock the ones you hit a mile. Moon shots sell tickets, roids let more guys hit moon shots, and baseball needed tickets to sell. Just like the WWF, baseball ignored the obvious users because they drew fans. They do, and I'll even dispute the curve ball statement. Steroids would, in theory, give you quicker bat speed. That would enable you to swing a fraction of a second later, and give you that extra piece of time to judge the pitch. I still think the ballparks are the primary cause of the offensive explosion, for a few reasons. One, Canseco claimed to start the steroid boom with the Bash Brothers, but HR hitting exploded in 1994 (before the strike, mind you) at the beginning of the ballpark boom. Even Bonds. Remember he played in a pitchers' park until 2000. Pac Bell is still a pitchers' park, but the right field wall is 307 feet from home plate. Willie Mays estimated he lost a ton of home runs to Candlestick Park. So by reason, you would think that Bonds' home run output would increase when he left that park. As for baseball ignoring the users, that is true to an extent. But baseball was more concerned with winning the economic war every time the labor contract came up, and I don't think they really realized how big an issue steroids were.
April 12, 200520 yr comment_1669732 I still think the ballparks are the primary cause of the offensive explosion, for a few reasons. One, Canseco claimed to start the steroid boom with the Bash Brothers, but HR hitting exploded in 1994 (before the strike, mind you) at the beginning of the ballpark boom. Even Bonds. Remember he played in a pitchers' park until 2000. Pac Bell is still a pitchers' park, but the right field wall is 307 feet from home plate. Willie Mays estimated he lost a ton of home runs to Candlestick Park. So by reason, you would think that Bonds' home run output would increase when he left that park. I think Jose contends that he was the first to use roids in the late 80s and then sheparded all the other players to teh power of the needle. Just because something started in say 87, doesn't mean it wasn't pervasive until 94 or later.
April 12, 200520 yr comment_1669888 Bold denotes big increases 1987: 4458 HR 1988: 3180 1989: 3083 1990: 3317 1991: 3383 1992: 3038 1993: 4030 1994: 3306 1995: 4081 1996: 4962 1997: 4640 1998: 5064 1999: 5528 2000: 5693 2001: 5458 2002: 5059 2003: 5207 2004: 5451 From what I can surmise, both jumps occurred in 1993 (increase of 992 HR) and 1996 (881 HR). The spike in 1996 I think is the main cause for the current HR totals and keep in mind that Coors Field arrived then as well. Coors Field, Kingdome, Jacob's Field, Camden Yards, Fenway Park, Arlington Stadium, Oakland Coliseum, and Tiger Stadium all saw 200+ HRs hit there.
April 12, 200520 yr Author comment_1671933 Oh Boy. Harley, harley, harley. You are missing a couple of important pieces of information here. Why did home runs increase in 1993? Primarily because GAMES PLAYED increased by 324 games, due to expansion. Same thing in 1996. The home run totals fell in 1994-95 because baseball went on strike. Now if you look at runs/game, you get a better picture for evaluating offenses. Looking at the National League, offense soared in the 1993 season, probably due to expansion and the addition of Coors Field to the league. Beyond 1994, runs scored spiked briefly in 1999-2000, but has fallen ever since. Offenses have remained relatively steady since 1994. So why the jump in 1999-2000? Again, it could be the ballparks. The Astrodome, one of the friendliest pitchers' parks in history, was replaced by Minute Maid Park. The league saw the introduction of Bank One Ballpark in Phoenix, and of course, the short term effects of expansion pitching (funny how that never comes up anymore when we discuss Maris). For what it is worth, the American League did not have the same spike, which we might expect if the league-wide usage of steroids were to blame.
Create an account or sign in to comment