hehe
Posted on 03/08/2006 6:45:22 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
We'll see, won't we?
Fantasy = a flight of imagination.
Defend the cheater all you want.
I will not respond to using Hank Aaron data, as that assumes he is as good as the man who actually accomplished the record.
Since you bothered to bring up some names - here we go -
Jackson - 20 years - annual HR - 29, 47, 23,32,25,32,29,36,27,32,27,29,41,15,39,14,25,27,18,15
Schmidt - 18 years - 1, 18,36,38,38,38,21,45,48,31, 35,40,36,33,37,35,12,6
Stargell - 21 years - 0, 11,21,27,33,20,24,29,31,48,33,44,25,22,20,13,28,32,11,0,3
Your analysis assumes an average of 42 for the next five years dropping to 32 for 5 then 2 years at 20.
My point which is clearly demonstrated above - is that what your numbers assume is most definitely not a normal career path. Not a single one of those listed had a 5 year string within 5 homers of their best season - yet your system requires that. Besides that, one or two off years (typical - "off = 25 for these guys) and he ends up where he probably should/would have ended up - 660-680 (please don't ask me to support this opinion with statistics.)
Bonds was a great hitter. Now he is a famous cheater.
Your position is not supported by historical data.
Did you notice how consistent Schmidt was - wow - I never really knew till I looked up the real data -
You're not factoring for games played at all. Bonds hit 37 in 1994 in only 112 games, which equates to 53.5 for a full season. Let's say he doesn't play all the games, and ends up with 48 that year. We're gauging ability here. That's 48 for 1994, 33 for 1995, and 42 for 1996. That's an average of 41 per season for those three years.
You factored for one or two "off seasons". What about the dilution of pitching and the expansion with the Rockies that came after 1993, hmmmm? Don't think that could have provided for the opportunity for a couple of "on seasons"? What about the reconfigured ball park with a short hitters field to right that opened in 2000, where Bonds would play half his games, hmmm? Don't think that would help Bonds' totals?
You concede 660-680. I contend that a combination of these factors plus Bonds' proven ability at the very least made him a contender for 700 home runs and that was apparent early on.
The original poster's comment was that there was NO WAY Bonds could have made 700 without steroids. My contention was that he had enough demonstrated ability prior to any allegations of steroid use to threaten 700 home runs.
I just hate seeing people act as if Bonds had no ability at all, or that he hadn't proven anything on the field, before anyone accused him of using steroids.
David Wells is a HUGE Babe Ruth Fan! (pun intended).
When he went to the NY Yankees, he asked for #3 in The Babes honor - and of course was told that was not going to happen. So, he settled for #33.
Trivia....
hehe
That's Boomer all right. Often in error, never in doubt. No team he ever played for would ever elect him player rep, but he does have the rubber arm and is a definite big game pitcher.
Look - lets make it simple -
You are arguing something might have happened. You are selectively reviewing data to fit your argument. You are extrapolating his best un-juiced years to pretend he didn't cheat. You asked for data and got it.
There is no "if Bonds didn't juice" data.
Bonds is a cheater.
For fun - here is Jim Rice vs Cheater Bonds
Rice - 22, 25, 39,46,39,24,17, 24, 39,28,27 - avg = 330/11 = 30
Bonds - 16, 25,24,19,33,25,34,46,37, 33,42 - avg = 334/11 = 30.3
Using your logic I could argue that Rice "could have hit for X number average over the following X years" - the unfortunate truth for Red Sox fans is that it did not happen.
Maybe if Rice took drugs too he could have played 5+ more years, with increasing power, and have 700 HR too.
Hey - this is fun! OK - Reggie Jackson system you quote - over the first ten years - Reggie 28.5, Cheater 29.2. Reggie's next five years - 30.2 - a strong follow up to 28.5. Cheater - 42, 40, 48(by your played imaginary games method), 34, 49 for .... 213/5 = 42.6! Wow - hey - what happened? Jackson up 1.7 on average, Cheater up 13.4!? Is there any explanation on the table as to why great career power hitters like Rice and Jackson followed one performance curve, but the cheater follows another? Why - yes there is!
There is no Un Juiced Bonds data for the relevant time period. As far as I'm concerned his career ended at the earliest substantiated date of cheating. And steroids were not unknown prior to 1997/1998 either.
And by the way - it took Juice and a 73 home run season for the cheating wonder to hit for more total bases in his peak year than Jim Rice - by 5. So there is another stolen record for the Juice crowd supporters - just noticed that -
You aren't "gaging ability" - you are making excuses for a cheater. His pre-Juice data does not support your arguments for his imaginary performance.
At the end of 2000, Bonds had 494 home runs. Assuming he could play to age 42, he would need to average 29.42 home runs to make 700. In the years immediately prior to 2000, he was hitting in the high 30's/low 40's. Just 3 years at 40 home runs (entirely possible based on his average), would leave him needing just 86 over 4 years to reach 700. That even assumes he didn't catch on for one or two "hanger on" seasons as DH in the AL.
I'm not offering ANYTHING in the way of an excuse for any steroid use. I have one point, which again, was addressed to the original poster. 700 home runs was possible and within the realm of statistical probability based on his performance before any allegations of steroid use arose, including an anticipated decline in his home run count as he got older. Granted, a bad season or an career ending injury could have changed that, but barring something like that, he was a threat to reach 700 home runs! THAT'S IT!
My contention is that it was possible (and even likely) that Bonds would reach 700 home runs in his career without steroids.
Show me where it is IMPOSSIBLE.
The original poster said there was NO WAY Bonds would reach 700 home runs without steroids. My point is simply that it could be achieved without superhuman effort based on his known performance on the field. THAT'S ALL!
I understand much better. But try not to ask someone to prove something is impossible.
It was possible for him to hit 700. I agree - though the more I looked at it the less probable I'm starting to think it would have been (AL DH could be the clincher). I would much rather he tried. I like base stealing and speed on the basebaths much more than home runs. Just more baseballish.
What I found very interesting in researching my responses to you, since my original thoughts were more based on my intuitive remembrance of baseball records, were a few things -
Look at Bonds slugging % - there is a very clear difference between time up to 1998 and time after. This is contrary to recent historical precedent. I bet other Juicers of our era have similar tell tale changes in their stats.
Also - look at data for total bases, more specifically the age at which the high total base guys achieved their numbers - even in older times the high numbers were by guys in the early stages of their careers - (Rice was 24, 25, 26, 27) - most were under 30 in general. Then we look at the latest superachievers - many of the questionable names - hitting their high numbers at 32 (Sosa) 33 (Gonzalez) and 36 (Bonds) - prior was Ruth, Hornsby, Gehrig, Klein, Foxx, Musial - 26, 26, 24, 25, 24, 27.
Prior to late 90's - but still modern - Rice 25, Aaron 25, Foster 28, Mattingly 25, Frank Robinson 26, Ernie Banks 27, Albert Belle 28, Willie Mays 23. So clearly it is traditionally acheived between age 24 and 27. Suddenly we have these mid 30's super achievers.
Granted - it could be the pitching. Or the ball.
Note that players like AROD appear "unjuiced" his peak is at 25 years old. (Soriano 26, Guerrero 24, Pujols at 23). But Sosa, Bonds, and Gonzalez jump out. Maybe Gonzalez had that one great year, but based on my total bases at age analysis, his locker would be the first I would check. He hits for 419 TB in one season, and his next highest are 336 and 337 - at 31 and 32 - not typical at all of the over 400 TB club.
Steroid use is great for building muscle, but when you are talking about performance athletics, long-term steroid use leads to a rapid deterioration in performance as one ages.
Heck, Jose Canseco (confirmed-admitted) was through at 36. McGwire (suspected), 37. Caminiti (admitted), 38. Juan Gonzalez (accused), 35 and breaking down. Palmeiro (accused), winding down at 40, with deterioration in performance evident since 1999.
So, how do you figure that one guy (Bonds) uses steroids for years with nothing but continuous improvement in his stats?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.