Barry Hits #756!

[JasonEvans]

I said that, but it's a little out of context. I said that to illustrate my feelings on how little steroids DIRECTLY impact the game of baseball as it is being played -- perhaps some home runs went out that wouldn't have otherwise. But unless someone can point to me the home runs that wouldn't have otherwise gone out were it not for steroids, the records, etc. are fine with me. I just don't feel the integrity of the game has been compromised by steroids any more than it may have been by players popping greenies over the past 40 years. Should these guys be doing it? No, and they should be punished when caught.

The purpose for taking steroids is to allow people to work out more than they otherwise would, to get stronger faster, recovery from injury, aches and pains, faster, etc. Fine. Still, the record is not tainted for me any more than Dwight Gooden's rookie of the year award and other rookie records are tainted because he was high on blow and god knows what else all year in 1984.

As I have stated before, I have been told that it is not increased strength but enhanced recovery that makes steroids so important in baseball. I don't think any of us in this forum can relate to what a toll a season of baseball takes on your body and how much of an advantage can be gleaned from artificial recovery.

All I know is that a guy who had never hit 50 homers in a season jumped to 73 in one year (a ludicrous increase of more than 45%)... and he did it at an age when anyone else would be showing decreased power numbers.

How many fewer homers would he have hit if he had been clean? I have no way of knowing, but when you look at his career numbers and consider that he should have been slowing down his offensive output as he topped 40 years of age, it is not much of a stretch to say that he hit at least 30 tainted homers in THAT ONE SEASON.

-Jason "all of this is moot -- not even Barry knows the truth anymore" Evans

[g_olaf]

All I know is that a guy who had never hit 50 homers in a season jumped to 73 in one year (a ludicrous increase of more than 45&#37... and he did it at an age when anyone else would be showing decreased power numbers.

-Jason "all of this is moot -- not even Barry knows the truth anymore" Evans

So, here is something I don't entirely understand. Lets assume that steroids help you hit the ball further. If so, then we would assume that the extra HRs would be accompanied by a decrease in flyouts.

I was able to find flyout stats for Bonds from 1999-2007. So we can't compare the pre-accused-steroid period to accused-steroid period. However, we can look at 2001-2004, when he was ludicrous, to the past two seasons, where he's been regularly tested.

During 2000-2004, Bonds hit a HR on 12.1% of his at bats (15% of ABs in 2001). In the last two seasons, that number has dipped down to 8% of ABs.
His flyout% during 2000-2004 was 30.9%, for the last two seasons, it has been 31.3%. That's a difference of 0.4% of ABs. In other words, this could explain 1.6 of his HRs per season. Even in 2001, 29% of his ABs ended as flyouts.

Now, ideally, we'd have stats from the mid-90's to make a strong argument, however, these stats would indicate that, rather than hitting the ball further, Bonds was hitting the ball better.

EDIT: I'd also note that Hank Aaron had his most HRs in 1971, when he was 37 years old, isn't that the same age as Bonds was when he hit his most HRs?

[dkbaseball]

Great post G_Olaf, and a really interesting way to look at the situation. What Bonds has been doing in this century is simply amazing, and I think there is a lot that can be learned from it that the impulse simply to condemn precludes.

[Channing]

Aarons career homerun hi was 47, he was in the 40s several times throughout his career.

[JasonEvans]

So, here is something I don't entirely understand. Lets assume that steroids help you hit the ball further. If so, then we would assume that the extra HRs would be accompanied by a decrease in flyouts.

Now, ideally, we'd have stats from the mid-90's to make a strong argument, however, these stats would indicate that, rather than hitting the ball further, Bonds was hitting the ball better.

EDIT: I'd also note that Hank Aaron had his most HRs in 1971, when he was 37 years old, isn't that the same age as Bonds was when he hit his most HRs?

Sigh-- as I have said over and over again, steroids do not turn warning track flyballs into homeruns-- what thery do is allow you to recover from wear and tear to feel strong enough to hit more homers and focus better and not have to deal with all the "other stuff" that happens to your body when you play ball 6 days a week for several hours at a time.

Steroids also would help you increase your bat speed, making it easier to make good contact on balls and hit them harder. If you understand baseball, you know that a homerun is not just a 340 foot lazy fly-out that you hit a little bit harder.

Well, enough about that... I tire of it and I am sure the rest of you do too.

Oh, and as for your comment about Hank Aaron hitting his career high in homers at age 37-- the 47 homers Hank jacked in 1971 were hardly an outlier for his career. He had hit 38 the year before and 44 2-years earlier. He hit 45 homers in 1962 and was in the mid-40s in homers many times over his career (he sprinkled those mid-40s seasons out, an indication that there was nothing strange about hitting that many homers).

By contrast, Barry Bonds had hit more than 42 homers only once prior to age 35 in 2000 (which is when Game of Shadows says he began roiding as a response to Sosa and Mcguire's popularity). He then proceded to hit 49 followed by 73. Now, anyone can see 73 is a major aberration here. The 49 dingers in 2000 stands out a little bit -- its 40% more than he hit the year before and about 30% more than he'd hit in any of the previous 6 years -- but it is not so far out with the rest of his career that it offends...

But that 73 homer season in 2001 is just off the charts. It is about double the number of homers he generally hit the rest of his career. I mean, we are not talking about a guy who went from being a consistent mid-upper 40s homerrun hitter with an occassional pop into the 50s (like Mcgwire or Griffey or ARod) to hitting 73 homers. We are talking about a guy who generally hit around the mid-30s to maybe the low 40s. 73 just sticks out like a sore thumb.

Of course, he followed it up by several more seasons that also seem incongruous with the prior course of his career. From the age of 35-39, Barry Bonds hit homerruns at a far faster/higher rate than at any time earlier in his career. As so many folks hae pointed out, that just does not make sense. The human body does not work that way.

Well, as I was saying, enough of this! I am making arguments that have been made many times before by people far more elloquent than me. You can choose to believe what you want.

-Jason "anyone remember when I was Barry's biggest defender on the old DBR board?" Evans