|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 9, 2007 13:51:57 GMT -4
Everyone else didn't do steroids. A lot of them did, but it's not everyone. As for your claim of why we haven't seen more people hit 600 and 700, 40% of the players above 600 HRs had their careers during the steroid era. 32% of the players bettween 500 and 599 HRs had their careers during the steroid area. 45% of the players between 400 and 499 HRs, from the same steroid era. We are seeing players reach these milestones at a higher rate than before. Then you've got guys like the Ken Camaniti's and Jason Giambis who clearly spiked their HR totals with the use of steroids, but also became huge victims of steroid side effects. Are they going to 700 HR's? Of course not due to their health falling victim to steroids, but they obviously hit more home runs while on steroids than they would have hit without them. Again, please stop it with insinuation that Bonds is being singled out. Sosa tainted the game with what he did. McGwire tainted the game with what he did. Palmeiro tainted the game with what he did. There's a hole slew of HR hitters in the game that tainted their accomplishments by the use of steroids. To even suggest that it's nothing more than a conspiracy by the media against Bonds is ludicrous. The amount of heat he gets corelates to the size of the accomplishment. Obviously Bonds gets more heat than Ken Camaniti did, but both Ken's and Barry's actions taint the game of baseball equally, and should be vilified for such. 2 players hit over 600 homers from this era. 2. Griffey may make it 3 soon. Exactly. 2 out of 5 is 40%. Glad to see we're on the same page there. And when Griffey gets it, it will increase to 50%, 3 out of 6, of which 1 of those 3 did it without steroids. Doubling a set of members, that was limited to 3 in over 100 years of professional basball, in less than a decade is technically a "slew". 1 additional member could be expected. 2 is unlikely. 3 is unnatural... like steroids. Depends on how you look at it. Griffey, ARod, Andrew Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Albert Pujols, and others, all have more HRs than Barry did at their age. But Barry got the benefit of the steroid boost when he got old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 14:01:17 GMT -4
All that proves is that there are some young players who are promising. Barry is a great player with or without steroids - we're seeing that right now. He's 43 and still hitting jacks - and without the help of steroids anymore.
You still haven't answered my question of how many homers were hit because of steroids?
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Aug 9, 2007 14:08:06 GMT -4
50 were hit from steroids, not a lot, but it kept him healthy to hit those. I don't think steroids made him hit a ton more, just keep him healthy and stronger at a later age. Question is though, will he get into the hall? Mcgwire is going to find out that he won't make it, he got hardly any votes last time. I don't think a lot of these guys will, so im wondering if in fact the steroid leak comes out publicly that bonds took steroids, will that cost him from going to the hall of fame or not? I know his stats before this issue was brought up he would still go to the HF, but if he is caught using steroids, that could have a lot of weight on whether he gets in.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 9, 2007 14:14:25 GMT -4
All that proves is that there are some young players who are promising. Barry is a great player with or without steroids - we're seeing that right now. He's 43 and still hitting jacks - and without the help of steroids anymore. You still haven't answered my question of how many homers were hit because of steroids? It's a lose/lose question for you to ask. If the answer is 0, then it begs the question of why he took steroids. If it's not 0, then the record is tainted. This is one of those questions that a defendents lawyer would never ask in court, because no matter what the answer is it makes his client look bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 14:19:31 GMT -4
All that proves is that there are some young players who are promising. Barry is a great player with or without steroids - we're seeing that right now. He's 43 and still hitting jacks - and without the help of steroids anymore. You still haven't answered my question of how many homers were hit because of steroids? It's a lose/lose question for you to ask. If the answer is 0, then it begs the question of why he took steroids. If it's not 0, then the record is tainted. This is one of those questions that a defendents lawyer would never ask in court, because no matter what the answer is it makes his client look bad. Good thing I'm not a lawyer and this isn't a court of law. But good job side-stepping the question.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 9, 2007 14:29:00 GMT -4
It's a lose/lose question for you to ask. If the answer is 0, then it begs the question of why he took steroids. If it's not 0, then the record is tainted. This is one of those questions that a defendents lawyer would never ask in court, because no matter what the answer is it makes his client look bad. Good thing I'm not a lawyer and this isn't a court of law. But good job side-stepping the question. How is that side-stepping the question? Any number given as an answer is completely arbitrary and prooves or disproves nothing. You might as well ask how many hits did gambling help Rose obtain? Even with an obvious answer of 0, Rose still tainted the game of baseball and has been vilified for such. Every single Roid user is in Major League Baseball is being villified for their behavior. Bonds isn't being singled out, as much as you'd like to believe he is. So one might as well answer your question with 0, because he'll still be villified for his behavior regardless of the answer to your question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 14:34:42 GMT -4
Spoken like a true politician.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Aug 9, 2007 14:52:37 GMT -4
LOL. He's a flip-flooper.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Aug 9, 2007 15:50:10 GMT -4
All that proves is that there are some young players who are promising. Barry is a great player with or without steroids - we're seeing that right now. He's 43 and still hitting jacks - and without the help of steroids anymore. You still haven't answered my question of how many homers were hit because of steroids? Well, let's take a compilation of the greatest batters into consideration and by reasoning, we can approximate the number of home runs that Bonds hit from steroids. At the age of 27, Roger Maris hit 61 home runs, the single season record for 37 years. At the age of 27, Barry Lamar Bonds hit 25 home runs. At the age of 37, Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs, a close to whopping 20% that he broke Maris' record. Even Mark McGuire, who hit 70 HRs hit a pretty whopping 15% increase out of nowhere at the age of 35. At the age of 32, Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs, the single season record for 34 years and surpassed by 1 homerun. At the age of 32, Barry Lamar Bonds hit 42 home runs. At the age of 33, Babe Ruth hit 54 home runs. At the age of 33, Barry Bonds hit 40 home runs. At the age of 37 (2 years older than the roided McGuire), as mentioned earlier, Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs. A whopping 9% of his career total. No point in his career was he close to 70 home runs. At the age of 42, Hank Aaron hit 10 home runs in 85 games. A total of about 20 in a season. At the age of 43, Barry Bonds is on pace to hit around 35 homers. 75% more... Technically, he has the ability to reach 500 with his current pace if he plays 2 or 3 more seasons at the level Aaron did for the final 3 years of his career. By the way, Hank Aaron hit those home runs without one season where he missed major time. Barry Bonds has missed 50 or more games in a season 3 times including 138 games in 2005. It took Aaron 300 more games to hit 755. In comparison, any other statistical record broken by his amount is impossible. To break Wilt Chamberlain's record, one would have to score 120 points. To break the 100m dash, you would have to run it in 7.8 seconds. To break the mile record, you would have to run a sub 3 minute mile. To break the single season point record in hockey, you would need 260 points. And all of these players got their records at their prime years, not the age where all players decline except Bonds meteoric rise and stability at his age. Through statistical comparison and giving him the benefit of the doubt up to the age of 35, I would basically take about 40-50% of his homeruns away since steroids mostly guarantee a doubling effect in performance whether it's endurance, power, focus, and/or speed. And considering the consistency of Hank Aaron (even at the end of his career he was done) and decline that Ruth endured. I would say 162-180 home runs were hit with the help of steroids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 16:10:32 GMT -4
WOW! you double your homers with steroids? If that were true then wouldn't Bonds have been hitting close to 100 homers? McGwire would have hit 35 for the year he hit 70? Sosa would have trouble breaking the 30 homer mark most seasons?
Your claims are outrageous and not in line with any of their career stats whatsoever. Unless you're saying that these guys all took steroids from the beginning of their careers?
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Aug 9, 2007 17:31:28 GMT -4
Possible,lol but not likely. Mcgwire was a tiny guy when he came up, and I think he had like 40 hr's when he didn't even look that big. I think these guys think that steroids made these guys super HR kings, I think it helped slightly, but if you hit a HR a certain amount of feet, steroids or not its still going out. Steroids doesn't give bonds better hand-eye coordination, and he has great hand-eye coordination. Maybe some of those Hr's that were barely out might have only made it to the warning track, but certainly not most of his, just a small %.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Aug 9, 2007 17:54:41 GMT -4
WOW! you double your homers with steroids? If that were true then wouldn't Bonds have been hitting close to 100 homers? McGwire would have hit 35 for the year he hit 70? Sosa would have trouble breaking the 30 homer mark most seasons? Your claims are outrageous and not in line with any of their career stats whatsoever. Unless you're saying that these guys all took steroids from the beginning of their careers? You must not using any logic. At their age, yes. Ruth, Aaron, Maris, all top HR hitters weren't breaking 40 at the Bonds age. As I pointed out earlier, at 43, Bonds is at a .2323 HRs per game. In comparison, Aaron had a .1176 HRs per game when he was 42. Is that or is that not double? At their prime, no. It's sure possible but it still would have been maybe tops 2-3 over Maris' mark. A home run record doesn't fall twice in 3 years by accident after it's only broken once in 71 years.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Aug 9, 2007 18:37:33 GMT -4
Possible,lol but not likely. Mcgwire was a tiny guy when he came up, and I think he had like 40 hr's when he didn't even look that big. I think these guys think that steroids made these guys super HR kings, I think it helped slightly, but if you hit a HR a certain amount of feet, steroids or not its still going out. Steroids doesn't give bonds better hand-eye coordination, and he has great hand-eye coordination. Maybe some of those Hr's that were barely out might have only made it to the warning track, but certainly not most of his, just a small %. Your hand-eye coordination deteriorates as you get older. Your ability to move a bat in that swift motion, even if your hand-eye coordination hasn't decreased too much, also deteriorates. That is unless somehow, you're able to improve your body or at least maintain it. Bonds had one season better than .315 before the age of 36. Then 37, 38, 39, 40 years of age, he hits .328, .370, .341, and .362. He never slugged over .700 before the age of 36. Then 37, 38, 39, 40 years of age, he slugs .863, .799, .749, and .812. Coincidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 18:40:30 GMT -4
WOW! you double your homers with steroids? If that were true then wouldn't Bonds have been hitting close to 100 homers? McGwire would have hit 35 for the year he hit 70? Sosa would have trouble breaking the 30 homer mark most seasons? Your claims are outrageous and not in line with any of their career stats whatsoever. Unless you're saying that these guys all took steroids from the beginning of their careers? You must not using any logic. At their age, yes. Ruth, Aaron, Maris, all top HR hitters weren't breaking 40 at the Bonds age. As I pointed out earlier, at 43, Bonds is at a .2323 HRs per game. In comparison, Aaron had a .1176 HRs per game when he was 42. Is that or is that not double? At their prime, no. It's sure possible but it still would have been maybe tops 2-3 over Maris' mark. A home run record doesn't fall twice in 3 years by accident after it's only broken once in 71 years. You just contradicted yourself. You said that Bonds doubled his homer total from steroids. Then you said that he could have possibly got 63 or 64....which is 10 fewer than he actually got.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Aug 9, 2007 18:43:11 GMT -4
You must not using any logic. At their age, yes. Ruth, Aaron, Maris, all top HR hitters weren't breaking 40 at the Bonds age. As I pointed out earlier, at 43, Bonds is at a .2323 HRs per game. In comparison, Aaron had a .1176 HRs per game when he was 42. Is that or is that not double? At their prime, no. It's sure possible but it still would have been maybe tops 2-3 over Maris' mark. A home run record doesn't fall twice in 3 years by accident after it's only broken once in 71 years. You just contradicted yourself. You said that Bonds doubled his homer total from steroids. Then you said that he could have possibly got 63 or 64....which is 10 fewer than he actually got. You aren't reading. In Bond's prime, he could have hit 63 or 64. MAYBE. Edit: I have no idea why it won't bold the "At their prime, no."
|
|