Barry Bonds On Trial

[Dan Gould]

It seems so reasonable, so self-evident - stronger hitters hit the ball further, what could be more obviously true?

And yet, and yet .... Tim can't grasp it or admit it.

I think the problem lies in the steroid usage and the massive expansion of Bonds' physique in the years he became a power hitter. it can't be related because then the question becomes what did he do to get so much bigger and stronger.

So tim is left to deny, deny, DENY that strength increases power.

[Tim McG]

Steroids increase strength not the ability to hit HRs. There is no documented proof or credible source which will link HRs to steroids. None. Speculation and photoshopped pictures notwithstanding.

I think most reasonable people believe that strength is a significant contributing factor in the distance a hit ball will travel. Thus it is a factor in the ability to hit HRs. No way around it.

If you have a 98 pound weakling that can barely lift a bat, there's no way he's going to swing hard enough to put a ball over the fence. Someone with substantial muscles like Barry Bonds can easily swing hard enough to put the ball into McCovey Cove.

Obviously, coordination, vision, timing, and other things are factors too, but clearly strength is a contributor. And steroids increase strength, as you admit.

C'mon, be real here.

I am, Aggie.

Because if true, reliever Eric Gagne, OF Jason Giambi, OF Manny Ramirez and OF Jose Canseco would be HR record holders, too. But they aren't. That is my point.

I don't dispute the fact steroids increase muscle mass and aid in the recovery process from use. But the bottom line is Bonds was the best HR hitter in the history of the game, with or without steriods, and if he had been pitched to during even half of his MLB record walks, he would have demolished the HR record. Steriods just make a player bigger and stronger. That's all they can do.

Like I've said before, those HRs he hit were no cheapies. These were moonshots. Take away the steriods and the ball goes a few feet less far. They would still be HRs. That is why I don't get all the hugga-mugga over using steriods. Sure they are illegal but they are that largely because of the damage they do to a person's body. Remember Lyle Alzado? He was the NFL linebacker who died from cancer induced by the use of steroids. That is the bigger issue in my mind.

Edited April 12, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[papsrus]

I am, Aggie.

Because if true, reliever Eric Gagne and OF Jose Canseco would be HR record holders, too. That is my point.

I don't dispute the fact steroids increase muscle mass and aid in the recovery process from use. But the bottom line is Bonds was the best HR hitter in the history of the game, with or without steriods, and if he had been pitched to during even half of his MLB record walks, he would have demolished the HR record. Steriods just make a player bigger and stronger. That's all they can do.

Like I've said before, those HRs he hit were no cheapies. These were moonshots. Take away the steriods and the ball goes a few feet less far. They would still be HRs. That is why I don't get all the hugga-mugga over using steriods. Sure they are illegal but they are that largely because of the damage they do to a person's body. Remember Lyle Alzado? He was the NFL linebacker who died from cancer induced by the use of steroids. That is the bigger issue in my mind.

Ridiculous arguments.

Steroids would not make a cyclist or a sprinter hit home runs, but steroids would help those athletes perform at a higher level within their skill sets. Similarly, steroids would not turn a home run hitter into a world-class cyclist or sprinter, or a pitcher into a home run hitter, but they would help those athletes perform better within their skill sets.

Bonds would have been a different athlete without his admitted steroid use.

You have no idea how he would have performed without them, so supposing his home runs would have been a few feet shorter is baloney. His strength and conditioning would have been measurably lowered without them, and so he may very well have had average- to below-average power in the latter stages of his career without the help of roids.

And they are not illegal solely because of the harm they do to the user's body. There are medically legitimate uses for steroids, after all. They are illegal because using them is cheating. Why? Because they give the user an unfair and artificial advantage.

Fact: Bonds used roids.

Fact: Roids improve athletic performance.

What's in dispute: Whether he lied about knowningly taking them. If you believe he used them without knowing it, then you have to conclude he's a complete idiot, AND that his longtime friend Anderson had some reason for deceiving him and placing his baseball career and legacy in jeopardy.

But there's no denying his athletic achievements are tainted. The rest of the medical and sporting world realizes this. You can choose not to, but you'd be mistaken.

Edited April 12, 2011 by papsrus

[Tim McG]

I am, Aggie.

Because if true, reliever Eric Gagne and OF Jose Canseco would be HR record holders, too. That is my point.

I don't dispute the fact steroids increase muscle mass and aid in the recovery process from use. But the bottom line is Bonds was the best HR hitter in the history of the game, with or without steriods, and if he had been pitched to during even half of his MLB record walks, he would have demolished the HR record. Steriods just make a player bigger and stronger. That's all they can do.

Like I've said before, those HRs he hit were no cheapies. These were moonshots. Take away the steriods and the ball goes a few feet less far. They would still be HRs. That is why I don't get all the hugga-mugga over using steriods. Sure they are illegal but they are that largely because of the damage they do to a person's body. Remember Lyle Alzado? He was the NFL linebacker who died from cancer induced by the use of steroids. That is the bigger issue in my mind.

Ridiculous arguments.

Steroids would not make a cyclist or a sprinter hit home runs, but steroids would help those athletes perform at a higher level within their skill sets. Similarly, steroids would not turn a home run hitter into a world-class cyclist or sprinter, or a pitcher into a home run hitter, but they would help those athletes perform better within their skill sets.

Bonds would have been a different athlete without his admitted steroid use.

You have no idea how he would have performed without them, so supposing his home runs would have been a few feet shorter is baloney. His strength and conditioning would have been measurably lowered without them, and so he may very well have had average- to below-average power in the latter stages of his career without the help of roids.

And they are not illegal solely because of the harm they do to the user's body. There are medically legitimate uses for steroids, after all. They are illegal because using them is cheating. Why? Because they give the user an unfair and artificial advantage.

Fact: Bonds used roids.

Fact: Roids improve athletic performance.

What's in dispute: Whether he lied about knowningly taking them. If you believe he used them without knowing it, then you have to conclude he's a complete idiot, AND that his longtime friend Anderson had some reason for deceiving him and placing his baseball career and legacy in jeopardy.

But there's no denying his athletic achievements are tainted. The rest of the medical and sporting world realizes this. You can choose not to, but you'd be mistaken.

And you have no idea how he would perform without steroids, either. Speculation is all you have offered as your contrary arguement; not facts.

The rest of the sporting and medical world....really? What is the basis of your assumption?

Once again, there is no qualified source which has linked the use of steriods to hitting HRs. None. I stand for facts, Dr. Papsrus, not inuendo.

Edited April 12, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[papsrus]

And you have no idea how he would perform without steroids, either. Speculation is all you have offered as your contrary arguement; not facts.

The rest of the sporting and medical world....really? What is the basis of your assumption?

Once again, there is no qualified source which has linked the use of steriods to hitting HRs. None. I stand for facts, Dr. Papsrus, not inuendo.

A) Steroids improve athletic performance by a broad measure of criteria. That's a fact. The inescapable logical conclusion, then, is that athletic performance, by this broad measure of criteria, would be reduced without the use of steroids. Therefore, it is not speculation to conclude that an athlete's performance would be lower, by a broad measure of criteria, without roids. It's simple, inescapable logic.

B) The rest of the sporting and medical community acknowledges that using steroids does enhance athletic performance. Furthermore, it is broadly view as cheating. Therefore, not an assumption. Fact.

C) Your argument that steroids don't enhance the specific skill it takes to hit home runs is confused. Steroids help athletes perform by a variety of measures. Like I said, roids won't help a cyclist hit home runs, but they will help the cyclist perform better within his given skill set. Similarly, roids won't help a home run hitter become a world class cyclist, but they will help a home run hitter perform better within his specific skill set. Therefore, this argument of yours, which you've trotted out repeatedly over the course of this discussion, is bogus.

And now, a little break. Maybe George's excuse will remind you a little bit of someone.

[vajerzy]

No one will ever convince me Bonds didn't take steroids.

EVER.

I played 30+ baseball one summer with a guy who took steroids- late 1990s....he admitted it, talked freely about it...said it made his eyesight better..and made him stronger. He felt invincible....he became huge, very ripped. Hit balls a LONG way. He also became a nutcase, challenging me to a fight right on the field when I made an infield error behind his pitching....I didn't nor wanted to play on a team with him anymore.

Yeah, Bonds may be found guilty on perjury or not guilty on taking steroids....however my common sense says to me he did.....and so did MANY other ballplayers.

Is it illegal to reply to your own post?

Amphetamines in the 1980s = Speed (the noun, not the verb). Kept the "dog days of august" at bay for players. No one did anything about that. Just like no one did anything about steroids and HGH and other things in the 1990s....until recently. I've concluded that you make a "steroid era" section of baseball history in the HOF- compare everyone within that era- and vote accordingly, based on the players in the era. Beginning and end is subject to debate though.

Some people think I'm nuts...but I believe Ricky Henderson had a stint with steroids. Writers say they won't vote in any steroid players- IMO- they already did.

Interesting conversation- however no one will convince the other they're wrong...but at least everyone is keeping the discussions in a civil tone.

[Tim McG]

No one will ever convince me Bonds didn't take steroids.

EVER.

I played 30+ baseball one summer with a guy who took steroids- late 1990s....he admitted it, talked freely about it...said it made his eyesight better..and made him stronger. He felt invincible....he became huge, very ripped. Hit balls a LONG way. He also became a nutcase, challenging me to a fight right on the field when I made an infield error behind his pitching....I didn't nor wanted to play on a team with him anymore.

Yeah, Bonds may be found guilty on perjury or not guilty on taking steroids....however my common sense says to me he did.....and so did MANY other ballplayers.

Is it illegal to reply to your own post?

Amphetamines in the 1980s = Speed (the noun, not the verb). Kept the "dog days of august" at bay for players. No one did anything about that. Just like no one did anything about steroids and HGH and other things in the 1990s....until recently. I've concluded that you make a "steroid era" section of baseball history in the HOF- compare everyone within that era- and vote accordingly, based on the players in the era. Beginning and end is subject to debate though.

Some people think I'm nuts...but I believe Ricky Henderson had a stint with steroids. Writers say they won't vote in any steroid players- IMO- they already did.

Interesting conversation- however no one will convince the other they're wrong...but at least everyone is keeping the discussions in a civil tone.

I'm OK with that.

Just as long as they have an amphetamine/speed section, a "boo-boo-" juices section, a tobacco section [nicotine is a stimulant], an aspirin/ibprophin section, a food supplement section, a vitamins section, a juiced ball era section, a new equipment/technology section...I could go on.

A MLB record walks section for Barry Bonds would be nice, too. As in: It wouldn't matter anyway if they had pitched to him section.

Edited April 12, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

And you have no idea how he would perform without steroids, either. Speculation is all you have offered as your contrary arguement; not facts.

The rest of the sporting and medical world....really? What is the basis of your assumption?

Once again, there is no qualified source which has linked the use of steriods to hitting HRs. None. I stand for facts, Dr. Papsrus, not inuendo.

A) Steroids improve athletic performance by a broad measure of criteria. That's a fact. The inescapable logical conclusion, then, is that athletic performance, by this broad measure of criteria, would be reduced without the use of steroids. Therefore, it is not speculation to conclude that an athlete's performance would be lower, by a broad measure of criteria, without roids. It's simple, inescapable logic.

B) The rest of the sporting and medical community acknowledges that using steroids does enhance athletic performance. Furthermore, it is broadly view as cheating. Therefore, not an assumption. Fact.

C) Your argument that steroids don't enhance the specific skill it takes to hit home runs is confused. Steroids help athletes perform by a variety of measures. Like I said, roids won't help a cyclist hit home runs, but they will help the cyclist perform better within his given skill set. Similarly, roids won't help a home run hitter become a world class cyclist, but they will help a home run hitter perform better within his specific skill set. Therefore, this argument of yours, which you've trotted out repeatedly over the course of this discussion, is bogus.

And now, a little break. Maybe George's excuse will remind you a little bit of someone.

Steriods do not give you the ability to hit HRs. The do not make a cyclist a champion and there will never be a time steriods will do anything more than build muscles and the ability to recover faster from a workout.

Listen, you can turn this around as many times as you like, it is still seculation that with or without the juice Bonds would have hit as many if not more HRs. Nobody knows that. Not even the court of public opinion.

And you still haven't responded to the fact regarding the Bonds walk-a-thon and subsequent MLB record in walks factore in big time.

Edited April 12, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Patrick]

Yes, this is a waste of time to read, so why am I here? I don't know.

Lyle Alzado was not a linebacker, he was a defensive end.

[Dan Gould]

And you have no idea how he would perform without steroids, either. Speculation is all you have offered as your contrary arguement; not facts.

The rest of the sporting and medical world....really? What is the basis of your assumption?

Once again, there is no qualified source which has linked the use of steriods to hitting HRs. None. I stand for facts, Dr. Papsrus, not inuendo.

We've gone over this before - prior to 1999 Bonds had hit 30 homers, iirc, once. His home run rate was good but far from anything historic - something like every 22 ABs. From 1999 to the end of his career, Bonds achieved a rate of something like 1 every 13 ABs. Unheard of for someone in his mid-30s, and completely out of character for his established career pattern.

To Tim, it is nothing but coincidence that this happened at the same time that Bonds physique took on cartoon-like characteristics, or that his elbow ligaments exploded from the strain of holding so much more muscle together.

So not only does that give us an indication of the effect of steroids on homer production, it actually gives us a way to approximate the difference that steroids made: Take his pre-1999 home run rate and apply it to the remainder of his career. To be really rigorous, don't assume he'd maintain a 1/22 ABs rate into his 40s, but rather, slowly degrade the rate to 1/27 or 1/30.

Now you'd have the difference between what he would reasonably be expected to hit in his career - probably about 500-550 - and what he ended up with.

I'll wager a million dollars that everyone reading this thread aside from Goodie understands the concept and agrees, in broad outline, with the results and conclusions.

Goodie, on the other hand, will say something nonsensical.

[Quincy]

Some people think I'm nuts...but I believe Ricky Henderson had a stint with steroids. Writers say they won't vote in any steroid players- IMO- they already did.

I've wondered about him too given the muscles and the increase in power. For what's it's worth Jose Canseco says he has no knowledge of Rickey using. Hmm, a weird typo by me - I originally wrote Ricey. I'd better be clear for our Red Sox fans - no rumors at all that Jim Rice did 'roids. Nope, he faded out at age 36. Silly guy, didn't he realize power hitters peak when they turn 37?

[Chalupa]

Ha.

[Tim McG]

Yes, this is a waste of time to read, so why am I here? I don't know.

Lyle Alzado was not a linebacker, he was a defensive end.

I see.

So he didn't die of steroid induced cancer then?

Hm.

This has been a waste of a thread. Who cares? He has been convicted (or maybe not) in the court of public opinion, regardless of his guilt or innocence.

But more importantly what a waste of public money.

Agreed.

Edited April 12, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[TedR]

Those HR stats before 1999 and after 1999 from Dan's last post are factual evidence that steroids help the older player hit more home runs. Dr. Good's "I stand for facts" won't acknowledge these statistics and WHEN those stats took place because his opinions are based only on generalities ("best home run hitter in the history of the game"...."MLB record in walks".... I could go on) that support that opinion. An interesting quotation: "Arrogance is the belief that one's opinions are indisputable facts. Ignorance is not knowing the difference."

[Brad]

Yes, this is a waste of time to read, so why am I here? I don't know.

Lyle Alzado was not a linebacker, he was a defensive end.

Good question. I remember a playoff game with Alzado against the Jets and he was pretty much on the steroids then and he ripped off a Jets player's helmet and the Jet reacting like what is wrong with you man? Everyone knew it was the steroids.

Must be something in the Bay area water

[Patrick]

Yes, this is a waste of time to read, so why am I here? I don't know.

Lyle Alzado was not a linebacker, he was a defensive end.

I see.

So he didn't die of steroid induced cancer then?

Hm.

I plainly said no such thing. Just correcting the record. And not taking any bait.

Chili dogs -- thumbs up or down? What about garlic fries?

[Noj]

Chili dogs get a big thumbs up from me. With lots of diced red onion. I love garlic fries despite the bad breath and heartburn.

[vajerzy]

Some people think I'm nuts...but I believe Ricky Henderson had a stint with steroids. Writers say they won't vote in any steroid players- IMO- they already did.

I've wondered about him too given the muscles and the increase in power. For what's it's worth Jose Canseco says he has no knowledge of Rickey using. Hmm, a weird typo by me - I originally wrote Ricey. I'd better be clear for our Red Sox fans - no rumors at all that Jim Rice did 'roids. Nope, he faded out at age 36. Silly guy, didn't he realize power hitters peak when they turn 37?

Jim Rice was awesome- I enjoyed watching him in the 70s/80s. Got to meet him at a card show- he was gracious but didn't say much.

[vajerzy]

Not sure this has ever been posted:

http://stanmusialsstance.com/2010/02/10/hr-rates-and-steroid-use/

This is sure interesting...

[Patrick]

Chili dogs get a big thumbs up from me. With lots of diced red onion. I love garlic fries despite the bad breath and heartburn.

Fortunately I don't get the heartburn with the garlic fries. Had a nice batch of Gilroy garlic fries at the SF park in July 2001 (don't recall which phone company was paying for signage at the time). Sat in the upper deck in left field. Curt Schilling pitched 7 scoreless innings, surrendering just one hit and striking out 12, as the DBacks prevailed 9-2. Nice end to a long couple of workdays on the road.

Best part of the Gordon Biersch microbrewery franchise are the garlic fries.

[Aggie87]

Not sure this has ever been posted:

http://stanmusialsstance.com/2010/02/10/hr-rates-and-steroid-use/

This is sure interesting...

That's an excellent analysis! Hard to argue with that data, too.

[Tim McG]

Yes, this is a waste of time to read, so why am I here? I don't know.

Lyle Alzado was not a linebacker, he was a defensive end.

I see.

So he didn't die of steroid induced cancer then?

Hm.

I plainly said no such thing. Just correcting the record. And not taking any bait.

Chili dogs -- thumbs up or down? What about garlic fries?

No bait.

Just didn't see the necessity of the correction.

As posted before: Chili Dogs...all the way!

[Tim McG]

Not sure this has ever been posted:

http://stanmusialsstance.com/2010/02/10/hr-rates-and-steroid-use/

This is sure interesting...

That's an excellent analysis! Hard to argue with that data, too.

Spanning almost 90 years and numerous changes in health and nutrition habits, advanced batting mechanics, workout regimens, technology changes, better equipment, video teaching tools, the "juiced ball era", coaching intelligence and on a blog by an expert in what again...?

At BEST this "study" only shows there were a few players in the MLB who were the best at their craft and some who had spikes in their careers. How about that. Where was the data on the other 39 players of the 45 [400] HR hitters mentioned?

Yup.

Nothing to argue about here, huh.

Edited April 13, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

Remarkable how two PED users' data - that shows their improved hitting at a time when power hitters' HRs drop off - is so DRAMATICALLY different than the norm for all of the best hitters.

What's also remarkable is that you've been spouting your defense of Bonds on this board for years now. You'd think if your arguments were credible, that one person would have been swayed. Just ONE!! But it hasn't happened. Your position is an anomaly, nothing more.

If Bonds has spent his whole career playing for the Blue Jays or Twins, you wouldn't have carried this argument on at all.

[Quincy]

Not sure this has ever been posted:

http://stanmusialsstance.com/2010/02/10/hr-rates-and-steroid-use/

This is sure interesting...

That's an excellent analysis! Hard to argue with that data, too.

The graph for Darrell Evans was especially neat. He was part of the '73 Braves where 3 players hit 40 HRs. At 38 he and Fisk both had huge "old age" HR spikes. Yet with Darrell you can see that it was a league-wide jump in HRs, not just an individual 'roidy thing. He's kind of the poster boy for SABR where it showed a guy could hit .243 yet be more valuable than a .280 hitter because of his power, walks and for a time defense. Thanks for the link Vajerzy, I hadn't come across that one before.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Quincy