Okay. I took 30 seconds to google search because I doubted myself a little, and found this right off the bat: Nolan Ryan when he first came up to the big leagues in the early 70s was throwing 105 miles an hour. No long toss—no weight training. I'm sure if I tried harder I could find more. Maybe I was a couple of mph off, big deal.
Major, you missed my point. If you assume that bonds could hit 40 homeruns in a season, which I don't think you can doubt, given a certain number of bats, and he might have been able to hit even more, then what we are talking about is ~ 33 to 65 homeruns. The number depends on how you view the steroid years, excluding 2001. 2001 is clearly the result of something. But 2001 also brings up another subtle question. If steroids can have that effect on bonds and he used steroids from 1999 to 2003, then wny don't he have more years like 2001. Did he intentionally not hit homeruns those years so as not to become too suspicious. Did he scale back on the steroids, or was it that the steroids he was using in 2001 were different than in the other years. Is there such a thing as steroids for homeruns, was it do to a juiced ball, what? The fact is bonds could have easily had those kinds of years w/o steroids. Only 2001 is superhuman and must be the result of something more.
I would like to know what testing instruments they were using. _____ Fans, researchers, historians and even the players argue all the time about who was the fastest pitcher of all-time. The most widely quoted response is Nolan Ryan, whose fastball was "officially" clocked by the Guinness Book of World Records at 100.9 miles per hour in a game played on August 20, 1974 versus the Chicago White Sox. A record that's still included in the book. Mark Wohlers 103.0 mph 1995 Spring Training Joel Zumaya 103.0 mph 07-04-2006 McAfee Coliseum Armando Benitez 102.0 mph 05-24-2002 Shea Stadium Bobby Jenks 102.0 mph 08-27-2005 Safeco Field Randy Johnson 102.0 mph 07-09-2004 Pacific Bell Park Robb Nen 102.0 mph 10-23-1997 Jacobs Field A.J. Burnett 101.0 mph 05-31-2005 PNC Park Rob Dibble 101.0 mph 06-08-1992 Candlestick Park Kyle Farnsworth 101.0 mph 05-26-2004 Minute Maid Park Eric Gagne 101.0 mph 04-16-2004 Pacific Bell Park Jose Mesa 101.0 mph 05-01-1993 Cleveland Stadium Guillermo Mota 101.0 mph 07-24-2002 Qualcomm Stadium Justin Verlander 101.0 mph 05-10-2006 Camden Yards Billy Wagner 101.0 mph 06-11-2003 Yankee Stadium Nolan Ryan 100.9 mph 08-20-1974 Anaheim Stadium Josh Beckett 100.0 mph 10-12-2003 Pro Player Park Daniel Cabrera 100.0 mph 05-09-2005 Camden Yards Roger Clemens 100.0 mph 10-10-2001 Yankee Stadium Bartolo Colon 100.0 mph 10-06-1999 Jacobs Field Francisco Cordero 100.0 mph 07-07-2004 Jacobs Field Rich Harden 100.0 mph 05-27-2005 McAfee Stadium Jorge Julio 100.0 mph 09-16-2004 Skydome J.R. Richard 100.0 mph 05-25-1976 Candlestick Park C.C. Sabathia 100.0 mph 06-28-2002 Jacobs Field Ben Sheets 100.0 mph 07-10-2004 Miller Park Derrick Turnbow 100.0 mph 05-27-2005 Miller Park Kerry Wood 100.0 mph 08-10-2005 Wrigley Field link
Given that his numbers declined from 1996 to 1998 and he hit 37 HRs that year, I don't see why we can't doubt that he'd hit 40 HRs a year, especially into his 40's. No, after 2001 he started walking a whole lot more, giving him fewer opportunities to hit HRs, yet he hit more HRs than he did in his prime. Look at his HRs per At-bat. In the late 1990's, it was around 1 HR per 13 or 14 ABs. In 2001, it was about 1 per 6.5. The following few years, it was about 1 per 8.5. He had never even been under 11 at any point in his *entire career* pre-steroids. He wasn't the same player at all post-steroids, and he likely wouldn't have remained able to play into his early 40's at that level without steroids. So yes, there would likely be a dramatic difference in his HR totals. If there wasn't much benefit, why do you think so many players use them?
Let's look at steroids as what they do: recovery from injury...they don't "build" muscle. Compare Griffey vs Bonds: Bonds used steroids at a time when most athletes' bodies breakdown from age; he prolonged that breakdown, which still may have an affect on a person years later...as in his body is now starting to act like anyone else in their late 30s. He does have the genetic advantage of having his father as an athlete. Okay, so now Griffey; he went through a lot of muscle injuries; if he were to take steroids (I doubt anyone in the world would perceive him as a steroid user...mostly because he's not an ass in public) would his injuries have been less? Hypothetically yes; he could have come back earlier from his injuries. He also has the genetic advantage of a father playing the game. The point is that even though Bonds isn't using steroids now, the effects of 5 or 6 years ago are still felt. If Bonds had never used steroids, he might be retired now from injuries his body couldn't heal quickly enough from. Again that is hypothetical, but it is near the end of his career now...he still could play another 3 or 4 years "part time" like he is doing now. But he won't, and if he hadn't used steroids I don't think his body would've held up as well as it has. And he wouldn't have as many home runs. David Ortiz is correct in saying steroids don't [directly] help ANYONE hit home runs; Bonds is an incredible athlete with the greatest eyes and quickest bat in baseball. This is why there weren't more Bonds in baseball...well I guess Sosa, McGwire, and Giambi are examples. Critics who don't know a damn thing about baseball or steroids want to say it is cheating or that they are the reason for more home runs...using steroids is EXTREMELY unethical, but claiming that it is cheating is hard to prove. The debate is on a completely separate level of true cheating, like Pete Rose. Gambling is gambling. Steroids are metabolized differently by everyone, which is why it's impossible to say that using them is cheating. Claiming there is intention to cheat or gain [unfair] competitive advantage is substantial, but wouldn't you say using GNC supplements is a competitive advantage as well? Well no, because everyone has access to them. So why steroids? Because it is a protective health measure and a public relations issue. The damage and proof will be seen in the future by people's bodies, like Bonds and Canseco. Basically the outcries are that this is THE record that happens to be the most holy in American sports.
Point of fact: 1994 he was 10.5. You still haven't explained the disparity between 2001 and the other steroid years. Sheer number of bats don't tell the whole story. Why do you think Barry is on a career year now? You state that Barry wouldn't have remained able to play at that pace in his 40s, and that doesn't quite fly, because it's mere speculation. Also, Hank hit 40 homeruns at 39 at a time when sports medicine wasn't nearly as advanced. I also don't think it is impossible to be under a 10 chip. Hank did it the same year at 39. 9.8. I have also heard that Barry really never concentrated on homeruns early in his career. Again, I don't think you can completely discount Barry's 40 plus homerun steroid years.
