Baseball: Bonds HR

We "fail to adhere...." Well, it's nice that the words themselves have become as nonsensical as the underlying thoughts, at least.

DUDE: This site has been so pleasant for the last 2 weeks. Do you have some felt need to metastasize through here and ruin it? You are incapable of sustaining anything resembling a logical argument, but that's fine; this isn't a debating society and we're not really here to bicker.

Some of your points are fall-down-and-die-laughing funny, but I can be polite about that, too. All men are created equal in sociopolitical theory, only.

You are needlessly antagonistic not only toward me, but toward many people. You have ruined the good vibes on this place in 24 hours' time. And trust me, the rest of us were enjoying them. Does it give the misanthrope in you some perverse pleasure to rain on our parade?

Why don't you take your beloved cheat, or a life-size inflatable doll of him, and go do whatever he wants? I'm really fed up, and now you HAVE reduced me to adolescent rhetoric and name calling, albeit names you'll have to look up: parochial, misanthropic, bellicose, boorish and cretinous. They all fit... consistently.

Please go away.

BHN

Originally posted by BirdstheBest
Thank you, Kwi. That was the quotation I was looking for.

"Amphetamines weren't being used for kicks, they were being used to sober up," Lee wrote. "A player did not gulp down greenies with the expectation that it would enhance his performance. He did it to get his pulse going on the morning after the night before."

Notice, these drugs were NOT used to enhance performance. And again, all the evidence is hearsay.

The players used to to get up for that days game. Yes they enhanced performance. Many more days off would have been taken without them, thus decreasing stats. This isn't from me, but quotes from Chad Curtis and Mike Schmidt.

Interesting how HOOTIE just ignored that quotation because it derailed his argument. Greenies WERE used to sober up; they were NOT used to enhance the players' performances. Any more smokescreens, straw men, or red herrings?

There's actually legitimate evidence that aaron took amphetamines. He admitted to taking it.

" Actually the 1968 season wasn't the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didn't drive in or scored 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pill-a greenie-that one of my teamates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to do, and besides that, I shouldn't have been so concerned about my hittin in the first place. Nobody was hitting in 1968. That was the year of the pitcher - Drysdale's streak of scoreless innings and Bob Gibson's 1.12 earned run average. "

www.amazon.com...

He was concerned about his hitting, so he resorted to cheating by taking drugs. He claims it didn't " help " him, but that still doesn't excuse his actions. Just like gary sheffield and tom house claiming steroids didn't help them.

They found red juice in mays locker, mantle's best friend said mantle suspected steroids cause him an odd growth in size as a teen. Ruth corked his bat, and took sheeps semen, gaylord perry threw spitballs, so did ford, and hornsby admitted to cheating.

Baseballhistorynut is calling other people names, yet he's the one who's about as informed as a toddler with down-syndrome.




[Edited on 5/19/06 by Gotensive]

[Edited on 5/19/06 by Gotensive]

Originally posted by BaseballHistoryNut
BtB, there he is, in all his truculent, warmongering glory.

As for the weight loss, do it SOON. It's both a lot harder when you're older and a lot harder on your health. It may be harder to sustain, too, but I'm hoping not.


Meanwhile, a brief note to the misanthropist:

I doubt the validity of your claim. I've only read FOUR Ruth bios, one of them about 5 times, and never seen a thing about this b.s.

But assuming you're not making that up out of thin air, you may know some of Ruth's stats. You may know that he was one of the greatest players in baseball history from ages 35 thru 39, and that Bill James has recognized this fact. So if--and again, I doubt it, but if--some line of bats he'd used was banned and he had to stop using them, it obviously had little effect.

Here's something you probably don't know. From 1918 through 1931--that's a 14-year span for the math-challenged among us--Ruth had 2 years in which he was suspended for huge parts of the season (1922 and 1925), and he led the league in HR's in ALL of the other 12 years during that span, and in slugging in all 12 PLUS one of the other 2. So, even though he'd by then put on a ton of weight, he still led the league in HR's and slugging at age 36, with Gehrig and Foxx as competition.

At ages 37, 38 and 39, his OBP were .489, .442 and .448, and his slugging percentages were .661, .582 and .537. Yep, the lack of those bats just destroyed the old Babe. He must have been cheating up a storm, and the commissioner's confiscation of bats just ruined him.

Personally, I shudder to think what HE'D have done with steroids in his late 30's....

I'm sure it's obvious to everyone who reads these threads which of us, by a huge margin, knows more about baseball history. You go right on and trot out your SABR formulae. As I told BtB during a discussion he initiated over flaws in the RunsCreated stat, the fact SABR members are such slaves to their stats is exactly why I'm not a member, and never will be.

PLEASE GO AWAY.

BHN

This arguement is extremely flawed and proves nothing. Lastyear without steroids giambi and sheffield both produced at a high level, and thisyear is the samething ( though, sheff did get injured)

Homerun totals lastyear didn't decrease, while strikeout totals took a 5% decrease. Homeruns are also still being hit at a very rampant pace.

Basically, there's very little evidence that steroids even had a small impact on the game's HR totals, let alone a big one.

And given the fact that bulking up on muscle has been proven to actually hinder fast-twitch muscles, one would think that bulking up on beef roids would hurt more than enhance.

But that's just a thought.

David Wells isn't afraid to say what he thinks of Mr. Bonds...

Count David Wells among those unimpressed by Barry Bonds' move up the all-time home run list.

The outspoken Boston pitcher had harsh words for Bonds, who tied Babe Ruth for second all-time with his 714th home run Saturday. The San Francisco slugger has come under intense scrutiny because of alleged steroid use.

Count David Wells among those unimpressed by Barry Bonds' move up the all-time home run list.

The outspoken Boston pitcher had harsh words for Bonds, who tied Babe Ruth for second all-time with his 714th home run Saturday. The San Francisco slugger has come under intense scrutiny because of alleged steroid use.

source

Yahoo! Sports

After watching the Sunday Convo with Albert Pujols, I got to thinking something. He's hitting Homers at the same rate right now as Bonds was when he hit 73. Though Pujols will have to jack a few over the next three games as Bonds homered 3 times in one game, then twice in the next for 5 HR's in a 2 game span. Anyways, what I'm getting at, is since we see a guy hitting at the pace of bonds, who many thought was only possible with the aid of steroids... couldn' this performance by Pujols show that a guy off roids can actually produce such numbers? I Started a discussion like this on the MySpace site, but only one person responded. So I'm asking yous guys. Could this be a good argument for those people who are Pro-Bonds?

Speaking as one who is not a real big baseball fan, I think there is probably a dilution of pitching in the modrn game (there are what, 30 teams now, and only 18 or so back in the '40's), and the hitters know more about the science of hitting (can train the specific muscles and train thier reflexes better now), so I don't think that it is neccesarily 'roids that allows more HR's nowadays. I mean, the rate of homers in all of the majors now compared to even 20 years ago is much higher, isn't it?

Yes, that's true. HR's are extremely more frequent than they were just before the Mid to late 80's. But many say the only reason Bonds reached 73 in a season, was with Roids. Now Pujols is doing it, and it's widespread belief that his is 100% clean. I don't think anyone doubts that, and for the last 2 months he's been extremely consistent with hitting, and is on the same pace as Bonds was when he hit 73.

Just a note, a story on ESPN shows that if you take away the added distance that the steroids supposedly gave Bonds, he'd still have about 616.

Dear Fellow Veteran Site Members

That's right. Bonds has tremendous natural athleticism and, apparently, tremendous natural longevity. Also, if the managers hadn't walked him 140-232 times per year, which they wouldn't have if he weren't homering so often, Bonds would have a lot more at bats. This would have reduced all the BS monster HR's, but it also would have resulted in a LOT more at bats, and thus a good many legitimate HR's. Not enough to cancel out all the phony ones, but, as the estimate suggests, enough to give him a VERY respectable career total.

So, let's say he weren't cheating, but were playing legitimately with what appear to be his legitimately exceptional playing-longevity genes (something cheating clearly did not give McGwire). Considering where he was through the end of 1999--i.e., before he suddenly started hitting all the "magical" long-distance HR's for the first time in his career, to the great delight of our idiot newbie name-caller--I think it's legitimate to say Bonds would be over 600 right now... without any cheating at all.

Whether he'd get to 755, of course, is another matter. And, of course, he'd never have gotten those "magical" single-season slugging records, any more than McGwire would have gotten his magical numbers.

By the way, IDIOT, welcome to the website. You want to come on here calling me names, well, screw you, too. I left here for awhile recently and discovered I'm something of a cherished commodity. You have come on here with guns blazing, making your FIRST TWO POSTS for the apparent pupose of calling me childish names.

If we were face to face, I'd smack you--and at 6'2" and 269 pounds, you wouldn't want me to do that. If you lived across the street, I'd bet you $20,000 that I could waste you on the Wechsler IQ test... and a whole lot of people on this website would ask if you'd like to make some side bets on that one, too.

Welcome to the site.

BHN

Originally posted by BirdstheBest
Interesting how HOOTIE just ignored that quotation because it derailed his argument. Greenies WERE used to sober up; they were NOT used to enhance the players' performances. Any more smokescreens, straw men, or red herrings?

Players would have had many more days off, if not for greenies. This means less stats. Very simple to understand. Mays and Aaron cheated. Accept it.

Then didn't Mantle cheat, too? He was obviously the one of those three who punished his body the most, and by far. Why do we keep hearing that the two black guys cheated, and not the dissolute white guy who, from his death bed, told everyone not to follow his "terrible" example?

Which is not to say you're the only one doing this. It's all over the place. Mays and Aaron used speed to stay awake. Over and over and over again. (Nobody else seems to think that's equivalent to turning oneself into a mountain range, but it IS cheating, for sure.) But if THEY had it, then their white contemporary who tried to live like Babe Ruth, but fell apart a whole lot faster and worse, certainly must have done the same thing, no?

Why don't we hear that "Mays, Mantle and Aaron" (their birth order) cheated?

Oh, BY THE WAY.....


I DID mention this place at the other site, in a slight sort of way. We'll see if anyone swings by.

But this site will never compare with that site in baseball history, any more than that site will compare with this one in any other sport. That site is ALL ABOUT baseball history, and has probably several thousand fanatics like me posting tons upon tons of stats, along with loads of thoughtful analyses. For instance, I've taken some criticism from casual fans, through the years, for "only" rating Whitey Ford #6 among left-handed pitchers. But I've now been persuaded that's MUCH TOO HIGH, considering the enormously beneficial combined effects of:

(1) His having been a lefty;

(2) The horrendous effects that park had on right-handed hitters; and

(3) The world-class quality of his teammates' defense, other than Mantle in CF after 1958.

After the expert who came up with this traded some posts with me, I looked up the stats of the 1950's Yankees teams for any other southpaws who had significant numbers of starts. Ed Lopat, not exactly an all-time great, started frequently from 1950-1954, and in those years went 77-30! Another guy went 11-5 in his only year, and still another went 16-5. You have to go to 1961 to find a mediocre year by a Yankee LHP starter in Ford's time.

This is what I discovered--for which he thanked me--after HE told me all his reasons why Ford was about #25 all-time for LHP's, not #6. He had allowed that Ford might be as high as #15, but after I found those stats, he stopped "allowing" that much.

So you heard it first here: Whitey Ford, despite being the one inactive 200-game winner with a better W-L% than Grove, is a hugely overrated pitcher and my ranking of him as the all-time #6 LHP is way off. There is NO doubt those teams had tremendous defense, nor that old Yankee Stadium was horrendous on right-handed hitters (415 to left, 461 to CF, and I think 457 to LCF). That makes Koufax my #6 lefty, and Plank my #7.

Anyway, here's the point:

Y'all will understand from the above discussion that this other place's members are NOT going to want to come here, any more than y'all will want to go there. But I did toss Sportztawk's name out there in one post, and in offsetting dashes--like these--no less. I can never do it again, obviously.

BHN

[Edited on 5/29/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]

Hootie, I've seen you around in other forums, and I respect your knowledge of statistics and the game.

Baseballhistorynut is an annoying moron who types lengthy posts time after time trying to pass off his gibberish as something legitimate.

The man's a follower, he doesn't know a thing about steroids, cheating, or baseball history. Nor does he want to.

Remember, the truth hurts, and it's painful to some fans ( especially, the elder ones) when proof surfaces that their past hereos were blatant drug cheats.

As for you threatening me baseballhistorynut, anytime you and your pair of man titties want to vist florida, let me know, And i'll be glad to re-arrange your face.


[Edited on 6/13/06 by Gotensive]

Dear Idiot,

I doubt it. Even at age 53, I imagine one or two of my punches would put you down and you wouldn't get up. Granted, there's no way in hell I could fight for more than one minute, but I don't think I would have to.

But didn't I offer to bet you $20,000 on a standard Wechsler I.Q. test? And I can promise you others from this site would be happy to bet you some serious money of their own, on the side, if you take me up on my offer. So you have a chance at a serious payday. Instead of posting 3 illiterate rants, and making tough-guy threats with the little fingers attached to your 5'7", 145-pound frame, why don't you take that I.Q. test with me? Hell, if I'm a "moron," then even an imbecile like yourself might have a chance.

Now, you have made 3 posts on this site. ALL of them were seemingly made for the sole purpose of attacking me. Why don't you tell us who you really are? Certainly nobody comes onto a site for the sole purpose of making grammatically abominable posts all aimed at one person. Are you Hootie, or are you some past member?

Looking forward to your $20,000, son. You only need to be approximately 1 in 42,000 to beat me. There are well over 100,000 such people on this planet. And I figure about 1 in 42,000 is as low as you are. That makes us about even, right?

Shall we go for it?

BHN

[Edited on 6/13/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]

Originally posted by Gotensive
Baseballhistorynut is an annoying moron who types lengthy posts time after time trying to pass off his gibberish as something legitimate.

Gotensive, attacking other posters in the internet world is what we call "Trolling". If you have nothing more to offer this site than attacks against members who have been here much longer than yourself, then you can find the exit 3 doors to your left.

If you disagree with someone, you respect their opinions by not attacking them, but by analying and disproving the things that were posted. For example, if he said:

"Babe Ruth was the worst hitter/Pitcher in the history of the game"

You don't say things like, "You're an idiot", or things much worse, but rather should say something like, "babe Ruth really was the BEST, because...".

If you continue with your trolling ways, and continue attacking rather than contributing actual usable material to the site, The "higher Authority" has this nifty little thing called the "Ban" button.

Originally posted by Gotensive
Hootie, I've seen you around in other forums, and I respect your knowledge of statistics and the game.

Baseballhistorynut is an annoying moron who types lengthy posts time after time trying to pass off his gibberish as something legitimate.

The man's a follower, he doesn't know a thing about steroids, cheating, or baseball history. Nor does he want to.

Remember, the truth hurts, and it's painful to some fans ( especially, the elder ones) when proof surfaces that their past hereos were blatant drug cheats.

As for you threatening me baseballhistorynut, anytime you and your pair of man titties want to vist florida, let me know, And i'll be glad to re-arrange your face.


[Edited on 6/13/06 by Gotensive]

You've got 3 total posts and you're already wanting to "re-arrange" the face of a respected and KNOWLEDGABLE member of this forum. perhaps you should find some where else to troll for a fight. Have a nice day.

This guy doesn't seem to understand what this site is about. He wasn't even attacking me personally, and I dislike the guy more than Ming.

Originally posted by GiantsFan

Originally posted by Gotensive
Baseballhistorynut is an annoying moron who types lengthy posts time after time trying to pass off his gibberish as something legitimate.

Gotensive, attacking other posters in the internet world is what we call "Trolling". If you have nothing more to offer this site than attacks against members who have been here much longer than yourself, then you can find the exit 3 doors to your left.

If you disagree with someone, you respect their opinions by not attacking them, but by analying and disproving the things that were posted. For example, if he said:

"Babe Ruth was the worst hitter/Pitcher in the history of the game"

You don't say things like, "You're an idiot", or things much worse, but rather should say something like, "babe Ruth really was the BEST, because...".

If you continue with your trolling ways, and continue attacking rather than contributing actual usable material to the site, The "higher Authority" has this nifty little thing called the "Ban" button.

Right....so he threatens me, calls hootie stupid, and yet, Im the troll stirring up trouble.

LOL, how ironic.

First, BHN would not have retalieated with a post, had you not hounded him in the first place.

Second, HOOTIE and BHN have had their goes in this thread, so an occasional small insult can be passed by I think. As long as it doesn't get out of hand, I think the two have been here long enough to know that anything more than what they've done, isn't acceptable here.

Third, both BHN and HOOTIE, during their disagreements, have actually posted things that could counter each others posts. They are having their own little debate. What you post, while some did contain a little supporting info, was mostly about bashing BHN, which is as I said, trolling.

Last, if you plan on coming to a forum to try and make another member feel inferior to yourself, be sure to actually post things that actually contribute to the site so you can build up your "Street Cred". If you become a respected member here, you have a little more "freedom" with things. Nothing in the world of sports is Fact. It is all OPINION. If you have a problem with someones OPINION, then you can address it in a polite fashion, with stats and such to support your disagreement, or don't post anything at all.

So this should be the end of the trolling and insults, let's get back to talkin baseball.