Started By
Message

re: Barry Bonds sure has lost some weight from his playing days

Posted on 1/28/11 at 4:44 pm to
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 4:44 pm to


in 2000, 5693 HR's were hit

in 2010, 4620 HR's were hit.



what is the decrease percentage?
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 4:50 pm
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
61010 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 4:59 pm to
quote:

someone who hit 39 HR and won the MVP the season before hitting 61 is more of an outlier than someone who goes 16 to 50?


That's according to Art De Vany an economics professor that has studied the data, Maris's 61 was more of an outlier relative to his entire career not just his next best season. I'll have to listen to it again since I can't find his paper, bue he may have meant it was less of an outlier than Bonds 73.
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:00 pm to
Bonds would make sense, but not Brady Anderson.
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
61010 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:02 pm to
quote:

in 2000, 5693 HR's were hit


1.17/game

quote:

in 2010, 4620 HR's were hit.


.949/game
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:04 pm to
is my math bad, or is that not around a 20% decrease in HRs from 2000.
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 5:08 pm
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
61010 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:05 pm to
For Comparison sake looks at these 3 years from the 80's (Remember there were 4 fewer teams)

1986 3813 or .906/game
1987 4458 or 1.05/game
1988 3180 .757/game

did they roid up for 1 year?
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 5:07 pm
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:07 pm to
is it coincidental that HR's have dropped by year since testing was implemented?
Posted by SPEEDY
2005 Tiger Smack Poster of the Year
Member since Dec 2003
88184 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:08 pm to
quote:

Anderson shattered his previous high of HR by 29 and RBI by 30


Maris shattered his previous high by 22 HR and 29 RBI
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:09 pm to
quote:

Maris shattered his previous high by 22 HR and 29 RBI



i think its important to mention that his previous highs were 39 and 112

and Anderson's were 16HR and 80 RBI


one was already a good player(MVP before his 61 season)
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 5:10 pm
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
61010 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:10 pm to
quote:

is it coincidental that HR's have dropped by year since testing was implemented?


probably, the decrease isn't that much. There are years before testing with fewer HR / game than since.
Posted by SPEEDY
2005 Tiger Smack Poster of the Year
Member since Dec 2003
88184 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:13 pm to
So Brady Anderson only juiced that one season?
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
61010 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:14 pm to
quote:

think its important to mention that his previous highs were 39 and 112


the previous high is not relevant to his entire career.

Maris had 3 good seasons, 60, 61, 62. He went from 16 in 59 to 39 in 60, I'd guess that going to the Yankees was the big reason why. Short porch and in line up with Mantle.
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:17 pm to
quote:

probably, the decrease isn't that much. There are years before testing with fewer HR / game than since.



Not that much?

it doesnt look like that much when you quantify the number by using HR/game. Maybe the decimals are tricking your eyes.

look at the totals. a 1000 total HR drop is "not that much"?
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
44897 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:19 pm to
quote:

Maris had 3 good seasons, 60, 61, 62. He went from 16 in 59 to 39 in 60, I'd guess that going to the Yankees was the big reason why. Short porch and in line up with Mantle.



you also have to factor in expansion
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
61010 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:21 pm to
quote:

it doesnt look like that much when you quantify the number by using HR/game. Maybe the decimals are tricking your eyes.


Avg like HR/game are more telling than raw totals. That's pretty easy to understand.

In any event comparing 2000 to 2010 is just cherry picking. HR totals dropped by way more in total and way more per game between 1987 and 1988. That's 1 year, not a decade. They didn't start testing in 88, no new ball parks, no big rule change, why did HR's drop 1278 in 1 year?
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 5:22 pm
Posted by dukke v
PLUTO
Member since Jul 2006
216458 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:23 pm to
quote:

He went from 16 in 59 to 39 in 60, I'd guess that going to the Yankees was the big reason why. Short porch and in line up with Mantle



HELLO!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Lester Earl
3rd Ward
Member since Nov 2003
290855 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:24 pm to
quote:

the previous high is not relevant to his entire career.



I'd say it is relevant to these outlier season you keep referring too.

I never said it was relevant to their whole career.



Not saying an outlier season has to be totally attributed to some outside variables, but when 10 guys per season start to have career years, it raises a red flag. Which makes the Maris comparison to anyone in the steroid era pretty stupid


quote:

Did Brady Anderson only juice for one year?


I don't know.


maybe he stopped after the ridiculous numbers he put up.

maybe he didnt do them at all. He has denied it. But he has also taken up for Rafael Palmeiro.
Posted by Sophandros
Victoria Concordia Crescit
Member since Feb 2005
45219 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:25 pm to
My point is that no one can say that steroids is the only or even primary factor in Bonds's late career success. To ignore the plethora of other quantifiable factors is intellectually dishonest. To ignore the use of PEDs by other players is naive at best. I don't like calling this the steroid era because there is a lot more involved in it than just the juice. I pointed out those factors earlier in this thread, so it's pointless to bring them up again.

It's just lazy and down right factually wrong to pin what you perceive this era of baseball to be on steroids. Overreaction to outliers and focusing on counting stats is very poor analysis.
This post was edited on 1/28/11 at 5:32 pm
Posted by PortCityTiger24
Member since Dec 2006
87455 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:26 pm to
quote:

(No message)



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
Posted by dukke v
PLUTO
Member since Jul 2006
216458 posts
Posted on 1/28/11 at 5:26 pm to
quote:

Did Brady Anderson only juice for one year?




I don't know.



The BALL was juiced in 1996.
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram