- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Barry Bonds sure has lost some weight from his playing days
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:33 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:33 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
the guy interviewed claims studies do not show steroids improve performance for baseball. I can't find his paper thought, i think it might be a pay article.
I would argue that steroids have more benefits for pitchers than for hitters.
0
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:35 pm to barry
From the link you posted:
quote:
"I've seen [Bonds'] bat speed improve," a longtime major league scout told Page 2. "But I can't say it's because of steroids."
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:40 pm to Sophandros
quote:
From the link you posted:
quote:
"I've seen [Bonds'] bat speed improve," a longtime major league scout told Page 2. "But I can't say it's because of steroids."
I forgot baseball scouts were vastly knowledgeable of the possibilities of human physiology. His bat speed increased through magic.
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:46 pm to barry
quote:
So its much more believable that offesnsive numbers are down because of crappier players, umpires, better pitchers, etc etc or than the fact that steroids is now tested for and punished. Right.......
Are offensive numbers down significantly?
In 1998, the year McGwire hit 70 and Sosa hit 66, there were 5064 HR in MLB or 1.041 per game. In 2009 there were 5042 HR or 1.037 / game.
In 2001 there were 5458 HR in MLB, in 2002 it was down to 5059? Did they stop using in 2002 for some reason. In 2004 it was 5451, guess they were back on.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:47 pm to barry
You can't honestly say either way.
Granted, I'm in the camp who doesn't give a frick whether or not Bonds and the others juiced, due in large part to the fact that there are so many other factors out there that contributed to what's happened in baseball over the last 15 years that the steroids witch hunt is so wrong on so many levels.
Plus, I'm one of the few people out there who can look at a player like Bonds objectively.
Granted, I'm in the camp who doesn't give a frick whether or not Bonds and the others juiced, due in large part to the fact that there are so many other factors out there that contributed to what's happened in baseball over the last 15 years that the steroids witch hunt is so wrong on so many levels.
Plus, I'm one of the few people out there who can look at a player like Bonds objectively.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:48 pm to barry
quote:
His bat speed increased through magic.
Before Roger Bannister it was thought humans could not run a mile faster the 4 minutes, guess it was "magic" or steriods, cause it couldn;t be you know, just an outlier.
If roids caused Bonds bat speed to increase, shouldn't have done the same for others?
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:50 pm to H-Town Tiger
Exactly. This reductionist thinking around steroids is truly asinine. There are so many factors out there, but people don't want to blame bat technology, expansion, a tighter ball, smaller ballparks, et al because none of those can be used as boogeymen.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:50 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
efore Roger Bannister it was thought humans could not run a mile faster the 4 minutes, guess it was "magic" or steriods, cause it couldn;t be you know, just an outlier
That is a terrible comparison. Bannister was the limit of human performance. Bonds is defying aging. Not slowing it down but actually increasing performance with age.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:51 pm to Sophandros
quote:
but people don't want to blame bat technology, expansion, a tighter ball, smaller ballparks, et al because none of those can be used as boogeymen.
All of those exist toady, where are all the people blasting 50 plus homeruns?
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:52 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Granted, I'm in the camp who doesn't give a frick whether or not Bonds and the others juiced, due in large part to the fact that there are so many other factors out there that contributed to what's happened in baseball over the last 15 years that the steroids witch hunt is so wrong on so many levels.
I could give a frick about steroid players getting into the hall or not. I didn't like bonds before the steroids and i don't like him now. I hate him cause he's a miserable dick. What I care about is people who think steroids don't have an effect on hitting a baseball, its physics. More power, more speed, more distance, more runs.
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 1/28/11 at 2:57 pm to barry
quote:
All of those exist toady, where are all the people blasting 50 plus homeruns?
Why are homeruns being hit at the same rate today as they were prior to steroids testing?
Here's an idea: instead of focusing on the count of HRs by ONE OR TWO PEOPLE, look at the league overall. If you see that the overall, the RATE of homeruns hit is the same as it has been during the time that guys were known to be juicing, then other factors are responsible.
Focus on the center rather than on the outliers.
Focus on rate (which is essentially a measure of central tendency...) rather than maximum value.
I don't like steroids, but I dislike dishonest and illogical arguments even more.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:01 pm to barry
You're totally ignoring the pitchers (more of them were busted than hitters, BTW) for some reason. You're totally ignoring the physics involved in using different types of wood in the bats, winding the ball tighter, and the dimensions of the ballparks. You're completely ignoring the depleted talent in pitching staffs.
And of course you've totally ignored the fact that home runs per game has remained relatively flat over the last 15 or so years.
That last fact is important in objectively judging the steroid era. If home run records are supposed to be tainted because of the juice, then why don't we see a spike in home runs per game during the steroid era?
And of course you've totally ignored the fact that home runs per game has remained relatively flat over the last 15 or so years.
That last fact is important in objectively judging the steroid era. If home run records are supposed to be tainted because of the juice, then why don't we see a spike in home runs per game during the steroid era?
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:04 pm to Sophandros
quote:
sophrandos
htwon tiger
so you guys do not think Bonds was on steroids?
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:06 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
so you guys do not think Bonds was on steroids?
Whether he was or wasn't is not relevant. We're talking about the alleged impact that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs had on baseball. I contend that it's much less significant than people want to claim.
And FWIW, I'm pretty sure Bonds was on HGH.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:07 pm to Sophandros
quote:
I don't like steroids, but I dislike dishonest and illogical arguments even more.
What about my argument is dishonest and illogical. All you numbers are based on the assumption that the whole league was on steroids. It wasn't. THATS why im using specific examples.
Answer me this.
Can steroids make you stronger?
Can being stronger make you hit a ball farther?
I'm not arguing the game was tainted or records should be thrown out. I'm arguing that steroids can help you hit a ball farther and harder. You keep changing the argument.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:09 pm to Sophandros
quote:
so you guys do not think Bonds was on steroids?
Whether he was or wasn't is not relevant.
We know he was, in testimony he said he was on the cream and the clear but unkowingly it had steroids. Everyone seems to forget that.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:09 pm to Sophandros
quote:
We're talking about the alleged impact that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs had on baseball.
I'm talking about individual baseball players, not the game.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:12 pm to Sophandros
ok just clearing that up.
i think there was a huge impact on baseball, both hitters and pitchers. I don't feel like getting into that, I would be here all day.
i just dont think proclaiming that "outlier" seasons happen is a good argument.
i think there was a huge impact on baseball, both hitters and pitchers. I don't feel like getting into that, I would be here all day.
i just dont think proclaiming that "outlier" seasons happen is a good argument.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:15 pm to barry
quote:
What about my argument is dishonest and illogical. All you numbers are based on the assumption that the whole league was on steroids. It wasn't. THATS why im using specific examples.
More than just one or two guys were on steroids. I contend that at least half the league was, so using league wide numbers is relevant.
quote:
Can steroids make you stronger?
Can being stronger make you hit a ball farther?
Steroids give you the ability to work out more and to recover faster. If you can't keep a ball in play, then it doesn't matter.
quote:
I'm not arguing the game was tainted or records should be thrown out. I'm arguing that steroids can help you hit a ball farther and harder. You keep changing the argument.
I'm not changing the argument. I'm asking you to provide tangible evidence, not anecdotal evidence. Tangible evidence would be a spike in homeruns during the "steroid era", not one or two outlier seasons by a couple players.
Posted on 1/28/11 at 3:15 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
i think there was a huge impact on baseball, both hitters and pitchers
Thank you for including pitchers in this.
However, if there is a huge impact, it should be quantifiable.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News