The Myths of 756: Barry Bonds’ Predictable Power Progression
The battle for 756 may be two weeks past, but the defining of baseball history is just beginning, and since truth in mainstream sports media coverage has become an endangered species… it is time to set "the record" straight on Barry Bonds. From the very outset, the best-selling book “The Game of Shadows” – heavily co-promoted by the previously Bonds-biased Sports Illustrated – was immediately anointed as the document of record in “the case against Barry Bonds” despite a reported less favorable response from the Pulitzer committee. In the court of sports journalistic opinion co-authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams essentially replaced drug testing and court-process as the new judge and jury. They would write what would soon become gospel:
“But after age 35 - after steroids - Bonds improved his game in most categories. From 1999 to 2004, he had far better power and drove in and scored more runs. His batting average increased by an astonishing 38 points, and his on-base percentage soared… At what should have been the end of his baseball career, Bonds became a significantly better hitter than earlier in his career, as a composite of those years shows.”
Bonds late-career excellence is often known as “Prosecutorial Exhibit A” to both longtime Bonds-bashers and many sincerely well-meaning journalists. Last October, Sports Illustrated’s “panel of experts” selected an all-time all-star team but excluded Bondsbecause his statistics "are not to be believed”[1]. Respected baseball commentator and historian Bob Costas recently stated:
“there’s no way he could have been remotely near the greatest player of all time without performance-enhancing drugs. His lifetime batting average was .290 through 1998 and he hit one homer every 16 times at bat. …He then went into the stratosphere when he started juicing.”
The Myths of 755: Hank Aaron Bonds with Barry demonstrated that it is possible to assess Hank’s historic stature without invoking Jesus. This follow-up effort shows that it is reasonable to explain Barry’s historic statistics without invoking “juicing”. This article is NOT about morality: whether it be Barry’s alleged use of performance enhancing drugs OR the mass presumption of guilt of one man that tests and courts won’t validate. For at least one Barry Bonds discussion all ethical matters will be put on the shelf. This is strictly about numbers: what they tell us, and what they don’t. It is strictly about our media: what they tell us, and what they won’t. Now let the homer-counting, number-crunching, and myth-busting begin!
1) The Bonds Power Surge Myth and “The Power Progression Theory”:
In this detailed excerpt from the Game of Shadows, the authors come strong with the statistical evidence:
Pre-PED & Post-PED Allegations
———-AB—–R—–H—HR–RBI–BB–SO–BA—-OBP
86-98–509–105–147–32–93–104—81–.290—.411
99-04--413–118–136–49-105–158–63–.328—.517
Over 100 point increase in on-base percentage, 17 additional home runs, and what about that “astonishing” jump in batting average! That’s it. It’s a wrap. Case closed. Class dismissed! …Unfortunately, the authors are blatantly guilty of statistical sloppiness at best or intentional manipulation at worst. COSELLOUT has embarked on the annoying and tedious task of dividing Barry’s career statistics into THREE parts: Now, let’s take another look: .
GROWTH PHASE —-AB—-R—HR–RBI–BB–SO–BA–OBP
First 7* (Pirates)—–512—96–25—79—81—84–.275–.378
Mid 6** (Giants)——506–115–39–110–124–77–.307–.445
Steroids 6 (Giants)-413–118–49–105–158–63–.328–.517
*1986-1992; **1992-1998; ***1999-2004 - Thank You Baseball-Reference!
When split into three different growth phases, what was previously presented as an unimaginable late-career power SURGE, or a “stratosphere” as Costas puts it, now looks like a natural and continuous power progression. The growth in virtually every category is either evenly split or is more significant during the first two phases of Bonds’ career! In other words, there is LESS statistical evidence that Bonds was aided by performance enhancing drugs in 1999 than back in 1992. Between Bonds’ early Pirates career and his early Giants career, his batting average increased an “astonishing” 32 points, his OBP 67 points, and added on an incredible FOURTEEN home runs per year! Did “skinny Barry”, perhaps out of jealousy of Terry Pendleton, start using steroids in the early 1990’s? Of course, no one has ever made such a claim.
What is far more likely is that Bonds — a prodigious talent and obsessive student of the game since a young child — kept on maturing, kept taking batting practice, kept working on his conditioning, kept studying pitchers tendencies, and kept improving every single year. All of these explanations can also be applied to the third phase of his career. You might wonder if there is any historical reference for such consistency of power growth across these three career phases? Yes, there is: his name is Hank Aaron. But first we give you Hank — "Game of Shadows version":
– During his first 15 years, Aaron averaged 34 home runs by belting 1 per 17.4 at-bats.
– Between ages of 35 – 39, Aaron averaged 41 home runs a year on 1 per 11.8 at bats.
Wow! Hank must have been “juicing” too! Now, here he is Aaron and Bonds together across three phases:
GROWTH PHASE—–HANK AARON———BARRY BONDS
First 7 Years———31 HRs (1/18.8 ABs)—-25 HRs (1/20.4 ABs)
Middle Prime*[2]—-36 HRs (1/16.4 ABs)—-39 HRs (1/12.9 ABs)
Fine Wine Years**–41 HRs (1/11.8 ABs)—49 HRs[2] (1/8.5 ABs)
*1st 1st 7 & pre-35; **ages 35 - 39
Aaron’s data also shows more of a career-long progression instead of an isolated late-career jump. In each growth phase he increased by five home runs per year by cutting down on his HR-per-at-bat ratio (13%, then 28%). Bonds was able to increase up to 14 home runs each growth phase by cutting his HR-per-at-bat ratio by at least 33% each time. However, it is worth restating: unlike Aaron, Bonds greatest growth increase came between the first and second thirds of his career. Ironically, it is Bonds growth that is more consistent and Aaron who had a greater late-career spike[3]. With both Aaron and Bonds, their home run progressions, at least statistically speaking, were natural evolutions. The only difference is that Bonds has a wider growth curve. And the primary reason his late career growth was so astonishing was because he was being measured against everybody else instead of the one and only true player in his class… HIMSELF.
2) The Bonds Work Ethic and the “Bruce Banner Myth”:
You know the story: One off-season Bonds stuck a needle in his ass and returned the Incredible Hulk. The reality is that his weight and strength gain was also more evolution than revolution. In 1986, Bonds’ weight was listed at 185; at 206 in 1997; and at 228 in 2001. When “the middle man” is included (pre-allegations), we get a much different picture of career-long weight gain that is quite common with athletes[4]. After Bonds smacked his 756th home run, he told reporters once again that his late father and god father — Bobby Bonds and Willie Mays—taught him everything he knows about the game of baseball. His father, an incredible all-star player before bouts with drinking and addiction curtailed a potential Hall of Fame career, also provided a lesson to his son on what NOT to do. Not only does Bonds have a disdain for drinking and drugs, but from the outset, Bonds has gone great lengths to prepare his body for the rigors of a long career. In 2001, Esquire Magazine named Bonds the hardest working athlete in all of sports. Okay, okay that 2001 date is questionable. How about this passage from Sports Illustrated’s Hank Hersch in 1990[5]: While it is quite fair to state that Aaron’s late-career prowess was an exception to the baseball rule, the same can also be said of Bonds career-long workout regimen long before any steroid allegations surfaced.
“During the off-season, Bonds trained five days a week, five hours a day. ”We’d start working out at 10:30 in the morning,” says strength-and-conditioning coach Warren Sipp. ”And every day Barry would be in the parking lot, waiting for me.”
3) Bonds vs. His Peers in 2007:
Where Have You Gone, Juan Gonzalez? In 2003 Major League Baseball implemented its steroid testing policy and either as a result, coincidence, or injury, many of Barry Bonds’ YOUNGER all-star peers free-falled into decline in the ensuing years. Some got caught using PEDs (Jason Giambi, Rafael Palmeiro); some were soon gone from the league (Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell, and Roberto Alomar); and others saw significant decreases in production and/or weight loss (Sammy Sosa, Todd Helton, Ivan Rodriquez, Mike Piazza, and Nomar Garciaparra). This list is not provided for needless witch-hunting, just for necessary referencing.
The Natural: At age 43, two years after missing close to a year because of knee surgeries, Bonds is currently hitting home runs at an astonishing rate of 1 per every 11 at bats and maintains an on-base percentage of close to .500. Both of these figures currently lead the National League and STILL eclipse his rates from his 2nd growth phase. Unlike many of his younger all-star contemporaries, he has: failed no drug tests, not retired, not lost significant weight, or has not had major decreases in production (not including injury) since testing was implemented four years ago. Had any of these scenarios occurred, media members would surely have presented it as yet another exhibit against Bonds. His 2007 production only validates that his “third growth phase” was no illusion. His detractors are almost forced to accept that, maybe, just maybe, Barry Bonds is just THAT GOOD unless they believe that Bonds is CURRENTLY using PEDs. The latter is an extremely difficult scenario to imagine given his surrounding circumstances[6].
4) The 650 Home Run Myth (if presumed guilty):
For argument’s sake, let’s assume Bonds is guilty so we can address the popular "how many would he hit clean" question. Bonds career growth challenges the almost universally held assumption that if he did take PEDs it would have some kind of drastic effect on his current home run totals. Sports Illustrated’s columnist Rick Reilly urged fans to celebrate Barry’s 756th home run by “holding up a big sign that says 650, which is about how many home runs Bonds would have if you replaced the homer totals from his alleged juicing years with his previous pace of 32 per season.” This 32 figure, borrowed from the Game of Shadows flawed data, presumes a 20% DECREASE in production from his previous six years. However, if an assumed “clean” Bonds” merely improved at the very same post-35 rate[7] as Hank Aaron, he would have hit 733 home runs[8] . When considering other BENEFICIAL factors[9] of NOT being on PED’s, this home run total could easily be 756 right now.
Conclusion: Does Bonds power progression prove that he never used performance enhancing drugs? No, of course not. Does it prove that the Game of Shadows authors and their promoters are unwilling or unable to tell the full Bonds story? Yes, of course it does. It should also demonstrate that Bonds’ late-career power was not only “possible”, but with statistical hindsight, was even predictable. And if number-crunching wasn’t your cup of tea, you could have just asked his former Pirate teammate:
”I think one day he [Bonds] will put up numbers no one can believe.” — R. J. Reynolds in 1990[10]
In summary, Bonds career home run trajectory, his career-long work ethic, and his 2007 statistics should leave readers with two options to consider: either Bonds did not use PEDs and steadily and naturally improved throughout his career, or he did use them but it really didn’t help him nearly as much as so many seem to believe. While debates about guilt, innocence, and morality will surely continue for years to come, it is time that both career-minded authors and fair-minded journalists stop using Barry Bonds’ unmatched excellence as damning evidence. Just because “the evolution has not been televised” doesn’t mean it never happened.
———————————————-
Part 1: The Myths of 755: Hank Aaron Bonds with Barry
Related: Barry Bonds 101: The Starting Five Rolls 12 Deep… TWICE!
Sports Illustrated’s Curious COVERage of Barry Bonds Series
PART 1 – The Pre-BALCO Covers
PART 1A - Giving Sports Illustrated* and Rick Reilly Their Due
PART 2 - The Asterisk Covers (coming soon)
PART 3 - The Home Run Covers (715 & 755)
OTHER - Rick Reilly is a Dork and Why it Matters
[1] Clemens, Rodriguez, and Piazza were the only “steroids era” contemporaries to make SI’s all-time roster. Given Bonds absence they were curious inclusions as Clemens has had steroid allegations come his way and Rodriguez and Piazza each experienced significant declines in weight and production shortly after drug testing was implemented in 2003. While this is no proof that either three men are guilty, the same can be said for Bonds.
[2] The 1999 season (Bonds is 34) was included in the “Fine Wine” data only to keep consistent his alleged “steroids period” data claimed by GOS authors.
[3] Bonds incredible improvement translated into incredible fear by pitchers which translated into lost at-bats due to base-on-balls. Assuming that Bonds did not receive the additional 34 walks per year in his “declining years” he would have been projected to average 53 HRs – another identical 14 home run increase.
[4] The lowering of the pitching mound in 1969 may have also contributed to Aaron’s growth. While some hitters benefitted, others like Aaron’s closest aging contemporary—Willie Mays—did not.
[5] It should be noted that Bonds off-season post-weight-training jump in weight from 2000 to 2001 was similar to his jump from 1996 to 1997 – pre steroid allegations.
[6] 30/30 Vision: Barry Bonds Sees those Numbers Coming (Hank Hersch 1990)
[7] The prospect of current PED use is quite difficult to imagine being with the quadruple-layered Bonds oversight that is 1) MLB’s current drug-testing; 2) George Mitchell’s baseball’s investigation; 3) a wolf-pack of investigative journalists; AND 4) a still ongoing federal probe monitoring whether he eats Wheaties or Cheerios for breakfast.
[8] Aaron’s HR-to-at-bat ratio increased 28% from his 2nd phase (16.4 per AB) to his 3rd phase (11.8).
[9] By adding Aaron’s 28% HR-to-at-bat-ratio “3rd phase increase” Bond’s 2nd to 3rd phase ratio would decrease from 12.9 to 9.3. Bonds would have hit 267 instead of 294 homeruns.
[10] Game of Shadow’s authors claim that Bonds injury in 1999 that took away about 150 at bats was steroid-related. As a result of unprecedented pitcher fears Bonds also walked more than 200 additional times between 1999-2004 from his previous 6 year stretch. If someone assumes Bonds guilty; assumes that he benefitted greatly from PEDs; and is playing the “how many would he have hit naturally” game, then they would have to factor in hundreds of his at-bats lost in the process.
[11] 30/30 Vision: Barry Bonds Sees those Numbers Coming (Hank Hersch 1990)
Sphere: Related Content
Another great post, Modi! Well researched, well presented.
I started working on a piece a while back that I ended up scrapping, but I still have the notes if you want - basically, it addressed the “Urban Legend” that steroids makes you better at 35-40; it was directly related to your comments about how other suspected (and admitted) steroid users all fell apart or had massive injuries after turning 35 - Canseco, McGwire, Pudge, Juan Gonzalez, Nomar Garciaparra, et al…
Anyway, fantastic work as always.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:26 amAside from the fact that he admitted to using steroids in his testimony, I would say you have a great argument that he didn’t use steroids.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:14 amGive me a break! This rationale has so many holes in it, the most obvious of which is that our man admitted taking steroids before a Grand Jury, that it would take me about a month to reply to every point you make. Oh, well, you’re well within your rights to defend this guy, even after he croaks at a very early age, Lyle Alzado-style. The only thing I do agree with you on is that Bonds was a great player even before (ahem) buying his first batch of flaxseed oil.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:15 amWhat’s funny is that people condeming Bonds always say “Bonds admitted taking steroids to the grand jury” without mentioning that he said that if he took it, it was without his knowledge. Apparently, the part of the testimony where he agreed with their pre-conceived notions was true, but the part where he disagreed with what they believe is a crock.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:36 pmThe guy is unbelievably obsessive-compulsive about his workout and diet regimen, and you actually believe this gargantuan-headed fool when he says he took it without his knowledge? Please.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pmNo, what’s funny is people believing Bonds when he says he had no idea what he was taking. Personally, I don’t care that he juiced; everyone was/is in baseball. I just don’t like that he’s a cockface and continually lies, and has a few naive defenders who keep on spouting nonsense.
And by the way, he still could be juicing. HGH is not tested for in baseball.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:45 pmThanks to SML, The Big Lead for linking up, and any other readers even if they didn’t read the entire article. This article is making the argument that his statistics should stopped being used as pieces of evidence against him any more than Hank’s late career surge should be evidence for continued amphetamine use. What I am saying is, lets just remove this “his numbers are too good to be true” from the debate. The other point is that if BONDS DID use PEDs, it really didn’t help all that much and would probably be approaching the HR record ANYWAY. His numbers at the age of 43 are a testament to that and I don’t hear anyone in MSM making that point.
And to your point Rick, I just don’t see Bonds taking HGH these days. Let’s see: Senator Mitchell has his its-all-about-Bonds investigation, investigative journalists are crawling up his ass, and an ongoing federal investigation that are examing the contents of his kids Flinstones vitamins. These are the same guys who busted Jason Grimsley for HGH and asked them to wear a wire in an effort to nail Bonds. I would think it HIGHLY unlikely that Bonds would start dabbling with HGH under these circumstances.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:14 pmspinal fluid, whether you believe Bonds or not, let me ask you this. If you were using “the cream” knowingly would you have rubbed it on your knee right in front of a pack of journalists? (Allen, that is the other point no one mentions — besides the Starting Five anyway)That is the situation that occurred. Does that sound right to you because that is something that I would question. Did Bonds then roll a blunt right in front of a police station afterwards?
My main problem is not so much those who believe Bonds used PEDs, it is really with journalists who refuse to tell the whole story so that we can make up our own minds with complete information… hence the impetus for the website.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pmCharles
Great piece. I have been meaning to write about the bullshit use of stats by Williams/Fainaru-Wada. Comparing his stats 1986-1998 to post-1998 stats is either dishonest, or completely ignorant of the development of the game in the 1990s. You’ve gotten the periodization exactly right.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:36 pmThanks J. My vote is that the authors were dishonest. When I consider all of the slanting throughtout the Game of Shadows: Other data, the way they presented the BALCO investigation, the heavy reliance on that oh so “credible witness” Kimberly Bell. It is beyond me how this book gets this “baseball bible” status.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:45 amMODI-
Thanks for referencing my Bonds article…. In a more recent article article I wrote I relate that there is yet another player to compare Bonds late-career numbers with who is, in my estimation a better model that Aaron (Aaron moved to the “Launching Pad” in Atlanta, which even according to Bonds detractors, greatly accounted for Aaron’s age 32-to-40 numbers).
The man whose late-career numbers can be compared with those of Bonds’ is Ted Williams.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:02 amDWIL, you are right that Ted Williams also offers a great case study. You should know that I referenced your Ted Williams article (.388 at age 38) on a very similar point in this article’s “prequel” - The Myths of 755: Hank Aaron Bonds with Barry. (http://www.cosellout.com/?p=78)
August 26th, 2007 at 2:45 amVery interesting article with excellent research.
It’s tough to say 100 percent on this issue.
Was the whole story being told by the writers in question? Of course not. But that wasn’t their focus either.
Definitely was a great read and well thought out.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pmHey, Carlos, just what is the logical fallacies here? I teach LOGIC, so I am curious for your insight(s).
August 27th, 2007 at 1:58 amDerek - thanks and your point about the authors focus is a good one. Since their focus was “making the case” against Bonds, then it should be expected that they present: A) good circumstantial evidence; or B) none at all. This inclusion is telling.
Chris, my guess is that Carlos did not read the entire article and believes that the article’s premise is to prove that Bonds did not use PEDs…
August 27th, 2007 at 10:54 amAaron’s late-in-life power improvement can be attributed to 3 factors:
1) The lowering of the mound in 1969.
2) Expansion, also in 1969. Adding 4 teams to MLB diluted pitching.
3) Fulton County moved the fences in in 1969. They were moved back out in ‘74. (How convenient!)
Had these factors not been present it’s highly likely his power numbers would have declined as normal with an aging player.
Bonds has some expansion effect as well during his career, though 1969 increased the number of teams by 20%, far more than ‘93 or ‘98. What raises eyebrows (and flogs the damn dead horse some more) is the increase in power at a late age (gradualness has nothing to do with it) while moving to a difficult to homer in ballpark.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:35 pmQuincy, thank you for that valuable information. While I was well aware of the pitching mound (see footnotes) I did not know about the fences being moved in at Fulton County stadium 1969. These factors and expansion would certainly have to be seriously considered. I should also state however, that Aaron’s closest aging contemporary (Willie Mays) reaped absolutely no statistical benefits from expansion and mound lowering. Considering the factors I would be willing to concede HALF of Aaron’s late career homer growth which improved upon his “second phase” increase by 28%. Assuming he improved by only 14% instead, then that would be an almost perfect mirror growth of his 13% first-to-second career power growth phase.
As for Bonds, both of his growth phases may have also been aided by the expansion that you bring up (thanks for that info too). What would be astonishing to me is if Bonds DID NOT experience great first to second phase career growth, but did in the 3rd phase. But statistically, it simply IS a mirror growth across three phases.
Finally, it is worth noting that Bonds career split between home runs home and away are almost identical. This might tell me that his home ballpark worked as neither an advantage nor disadvantage throughout his career (aka: most of Bonds HRs must not have been landing in the first 3 rows!).
Again, your input was appreciated. What I would be interested in learning, but have had no time to research is whether there are other greats who had a similar 1st to 2nd career phase growth as Bonds did in his first 13 years. If Bonds is in his own class in this regard, then that would suggest that Bonds simply has an unprecedented growth curve all the way around.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pmAlso, a possible factor that may have made Bonds home runs increased is lineup protection. He had his best years when, not surprisingly, he had Jeff Kent and Moises Alou providing protection for him in the lineup. Those may not be great sluggers, but they are better than what he had most of his career (Bonilla and Van Slyke proved to be overrated when they were seperated from Bonds).
Great response to the early comments, too. I love the “did he then roll a blunt in front of the police”! That’s f*cking fantastic!
August 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pmcosellout, you are my hero!
August 27th, 2007 at 8:29 pmIncredible research. The whole point of all of this (and Cosellout, The Starting Five, and others like it) is not to specifically exonerate Bonds, Vick, and others like them. It is to level the playing field, present a wider view, and to compell mainstream journalists to dig a little deeper and remember what they learned in journalism school - do the research, search for the truth, and leave your personal biases out of coverage. (see “NY Times coverage on buildup up to Iraq war.” ). We have become a society that so easily succumbs to manufactured communications. (Read: ‘What’s The Matter with Kansas” by Thomas Frank for a political example).
Sports coverage is so much more dangerous than politics because its’ personal agendas, racism, and a stampeding herd mentality are bottled up just below the surface - unbeknownst to the mostly young, shape-able, impressionable fans that gorge themselves on sports media.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThanks Wex for breaking it down. Whether one agrees or not with the premise, we all need to ask ourselves why MSM isn’t reporting this stuff. It has more to do with intentionality than incompetence IMO.
As for the impact of sports media over political media, if your statement is a true one (which it very well might be), it is also a very sad one…
August 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmhttp://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/cosellout_the_myths_of_756_barry_bonds_predictable_power_progression/
Thank you to the Baseball Think Factory for picking up this article that inspired an additional 200+ comments over on their site. Fair warning for all visitors to BBTF, you BETTER know your baseball before commenting on their board! They make most blog comment sections look like pre-school.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pmI am sure you are all aware that designer Marc Ecko has completed his online poll (Vote756.com) and that the Hall of Fame has decided to accept the Bonds ball with an asterisk branded on it.
I think the Hall of Fame has degraded its integrity by accepting the ball with a brand/social commentary on it. Bonds has never been proven guilty of ANYTHING. The Hall of Fame, by taking the ball as is, is complicit in indicting Bonds. I understand that, as a museum-curator, the HOF is inclined to accept it considering the importance of the ball as an artifact and/or attraction. But really, all it amounts to is a brilliant Marketing stunt for Marc Ecko and his clothing brand. How come no one has even brought up the fact that Marc Ecko bought the ball for marketing purposes – the amount of media coverage and ‘impressions’ he (and thus his brand) have received have already well-surpassed the cost of the ball (about $752,000). In other words the purchase of the ball amounted to a great ad-buy for his company (Effective brand-marketing in a competitve apparel/fashion marketplace).
The HOF should have only accepted the ball w/o an asterisk and only removed the ball or placed an asterisk/social comment on the ball if the facts on Bonds are proven later. Weak.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:42 pmyou nailed it wex. It is Ecko’s perogative to be an ass, but the HOF needs to be held to a higher standard. Hopefully, Ecko will accept Gilbert Areanas’ offer to buy the ball…
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 amRegardless of steroids, the man’s ruthian domiance is unparreled. Costas likes to talk about Bonds .290 BA pre 99, but ignores his career .411 OBP, a statistic that correlates better with run scoring than BA. For what it’s also worth, Bonds career BA prior to 99 is skewed by his years in pittsburgh. I believe from 1990-1998 Bonds hit .302, while averaging 102 walks, and over 30 homeruns and 30 stolen bases. That right there is one of the greatest ballplayers to ever play this game. Contrary to what Costas may believe, VERY few players ( and none in the modern era) were was dominant as skinny barry bonds from 1990-1998. The only one MORE dominant was Big Bonds from 2001-2004.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:18 am[…] from COSELLOUTS: On Barry Bonds This is great stuff (I’m borrowing liberally, but strongly encouraging you to read the entire piece): 3) Bonds […]
October 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI love how Todd Helton is now lumped into your suspected steroids bit. I love how his numbers actually went UP after steroid testing was implemented.
Way to look at your facts, moron.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:53 pmJosh, I will share with you some facts that may not have been detailed well enough for your liking.
Firstly, the hardest years to judge are seasons 2003 and 2004 for two reasons. Anonymous testing began in 2003 to determine if more than 5% were ballplayers were using without any penalty to users. Prior to 2004 testing was implemented for the first time with the threat of being exposed. Various steroids experts have said that the effects of prior use would have a positive carry over effect well into at least another season (especially with continued weight training), maybe even two years. Since we have no knowledge of any alleged users time of stoppage, and have little knowledge on the carry over effect relative any specific individual these two seasons are hard to judge if someone did in fact use PEDs. So a pretty good measure is the three seasons prior to 2003 against the 3 seasons after 2004.
The following facts certainly land on the PED radar. Here, judge for yourself:
3 Year Average for 2000-2002:
40 HRs, 134 RBIs, .346 BA
1 HR per 14.2 at bats
3 Year Average for 2005-2007:
17 HRs, 84 RBIs, .314 BA
1 HR per 31 at bats
Now I should add that I am not interested in witch hunts and have no desire to investigate Helton or anyone else. Helton and others was merely a reference point for Bonds. If Bonds HR per at bat ratio declined in the same manner that it did Helton, you could bet that every Bonds-bashing reporter would make sure that every reader was aware of these facts. But amazingly at the elderly age of 43 he hit a homerun once every 12.1 at bats.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:36 pmMODI - you’re a moron!!! LOL. People crack me up. Like you rolled outta bed and decided to say something stupid you couldn’t defend. You’ve got Helton out here looking like Biggio and Bagwell. Ouch!!!!!!!!
November 12th, 2007 at 8:13 pmWhile you are it, please take a look at the Boone boys. A classic case of East coast vs West Coast. We all know how the West was won. Yankee fan aside, the Yankee Boone did it the right way. Just bloggin’ here.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:41 pmMODI-
No one mentions it, but if anyone may have lied to the government while being questioned it would have to be Rafael Palmeiro. March 2005, before congress, he denied ever taking steriods. On July 30th, 2005, Palmeiro was suspended from baseball for testing positve for stanozolol, a steriod. Go figure!
Let’s not forget his former teammate Barry Anderson, a light hitting lead off man, who in 1997 not only hit 50 hrs but set career highs in almost every batting statistical catergory. up until that time Barry had hit only 72 hrs in his career! Never again did he approach that figure, in fact hit over 20 only one more time in his career for a grand total of 3 times! That’s when I said BULLSHIT!!!!
I would say that I am ambiguous about this whole PEDS issue. Athletes have been doping since the 50’s. With the improvements in science and medicine it’s very difficult to expect them not to seep over into sports. This is what man is searching for, improvement in human capacities. Through out the ages in one form or another man has sought to improve his physical self either it be by improving workout routines or by drugs or a combination of the two.
I will say that I admire most the athlete whose achievements are a direct result of hard work and sacrifice. But when these PEDS are used to make it easier to recover from hard workouts and let you train harder and longer I say what’s the problem? Mind you I’m not talking about the kind of doping that’s being used in some competions. The kind where they substitute body fluids or take injections during or after their competion to raise their level of performance. I’m talking about building body mass over a period of time quicker by working out longer and harder. Yes I’m aware of problems associated with certain steriod use but at the same time you have steriods being used to alleviate or retard certain medical problems all the time. I’ve gotten steriods to help in the healing process in certain injuries. It’s a flux.
Still you have to have the inert abilities to make them work for you. It can make a marginally talented athlete better (Anderson, Helton) who works hard and it can make a great athlete greater who works hard.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pmYeah Phil, the Brady Anderson thing was pretty ridiculous. As for Palmeiro i look at his violation much differently since there was finally an official steroid policy in place that had some teeth.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pmThere is a report coming out fairly soon authored by a corporate CEO who led the Barry Bonds fueled revenue-advertising frenzy from 2004-2006 at ESPN - and today, he’ll report on his “investigation” of steroid use in baseball.
That’s the most absurd shit I’ve ever heard of. The only thing that couple POSSIBLE top that would be if you told me that some star QB lost $130 million and was jailed for killing dogs, but a five-year old child was celebrated for killing a bear — and then you told me that the same network broadcast those two events back-to-back. Yeah, that’s the ONLY thing that could top that.
What? What’s that? You say this happened last night? Surely you jest. Welcome to the WWL!
December 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pmDidn’t know about the report… interesting, but not surprising
December 13th, 2007 at 4:01 amSure you did - it’s the Mitchell Report…Mitchell used to be the head of Disney from ‘04-’06.
That’s an indicator of exactly how preposterous this thing has become. This morning, ESPN’s Bob Ley did a segment on The Steroids Era in baseball - and framed the beginning as the 1998 season. How can that be when Bud Selig admitted the owners sat down and reviewed the situation in 1993? In 1994, players and GM’s were saying steroid use was widespread and a problem for the game - and that it probably defined the success of at least one AL champ in the early 90’s.
Now, Selig is leading a conspiracy of silence. He has ordered the franchise to collude by making no comment on the report until such time as the report can be reviewed. Of course teams have already reviewed the report to ensure that none of the revelations expose them to suit under the CBA. So, this latest coordinated activity - under the leadership of Bud-ness and Mitchell continues the charade.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:41 amDamn Temple! Right over my head! Feeling a lttle stupid right now! Please forgive me…
December 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pmIt’s all good. Howard Bryant has a decent piece on this.
By the way, I’ve maintained that the central issue in Bonds’ legal case is the fact the federal investigators did not drag OWNERS in to testify under the same set of conditions. I don’t know if owners would have perjured themselves, but in any event, this question of usage would have been resolved long ago if the questions were put to them (even with the promise of immunity).
December 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pmFrom ESPN - er, AP:
“Brian McNamee, a former New York Yankees trainer who worked with pitchers Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, was interviewed three times by Mitchell, with a personal lawyer and federal law enforcement officials in the room.
• Clemens was singled out in eight pages, with much of the information on the seven-time Cy Young Award winner coming from McNamee.
On page 169 of the report, it says: “According to McNamee, from the time that McNamee injected Clemens with Winstrol through the end of the 1998 season, Clemens’ performance showed remarkable improvement,” the report said. “During this period of improved performance, Clemens told McNamee that the steroids ‘had a pretty good effect’ on him.”
McNamee also told investigators that “during the middle of the 2000 season, Clemens made it clear that he was ready to use steroids again. During the latter part of the regular season, McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin.”
“After we read the report, we will have something to say,” said Randy Hendricks, the agent for Clemens and Pettitte.”
————————————-
Did I mention that McNamee was a cop (NYPD) from 90 to 93? No? Sorry. Selective reporting is a real bitch. Anyway, this former rep of NYC’s finest claims he stuck Jolly Roger in the rump with ‘roids in ‘98 while working for the Jays.
I cannot wait for the media to dismiss this report and the implications that Clemens clearly should suffer the same public fate as Bonds. It ain’t gonna happen. Clemens is gonna get a pass - and now, NOW - will begin the conversation about whether steroids are really all that bad for you. The new shift will be that Bonds is guilty of perjury - and that no matter what else transpires, he should do a 30-year bid for that.
Clemens and others will be absolved for their participation in what will be recast as a victimless crime - and Bonds will get the purgatory blast as a liar who deceived us all. Tick tock. It’s just a matter of time.
All the anti-steroid animus will be GONE in 6 months.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:11 pmTemple is a prophet.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pmYes, Temple is indeed a prophet! but I hope that he is wrong anyway…
December 13th, 2007 at 10:00 pm[…] is irresponsible. As to his power stats explosion in 2000, I’ll refer you this piece from cosellout.com: The Bonds Power Surge Myth and “The Power Progression […]
May 29th, 2008 at 12:44 amThe funny part is the comparison to Hank Aaron… a 10 HR increase can be explained by better at bats, worse pitching, and having a couple seasons that were exceptional (44 and 47 HRs). So using Hank Aaron’s progression you would have seen a 10-15 HR/yr increase from Bonds… instead you see a 24 HR/yr increase.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:16 amBonds admitted taking steriods. His excuse is lame as Bill Clinton saying he did not inhale marijuana while smoking it. Also, Baseball players who take steroids are cheaters. They are taking baseball careers away from honest ball players. I used to be an Olymplic Lifter and never took steroids only to be passed up by guys who took steroids. Now, they are dead or jobless. Steroids gives you at least 35% extra strength but also makes you impotent. That is why he has two divorces. He is the home run king in baseball but he strikes out in the bedroom because of his ever shrinking PENIS
June 9th, 2009 at 11:24 amGreetings Steve and others,
Steve writes “Bonds admitted taking steroids”.
That is simply not true. If you read his entire Grand Jury testimony, he never admitted using any banned substances. If I am wrong then provide the proof. Quote from his GJ testimony and remove all doubt.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pmGreat research. The media hates Barry and will do anything to slam him. How often in the past have we seen sports reporters denigrade an athlete and decades later we find out it was all a fabrication? Ted Williams, Kermit Washington, Michael Jordan (he was a “loser” and “selfish” in 1989), Kobe Bryant (”loser without Shaq”)are just a few that come to mind.
October 10th, 2009 at 5:42 pm