Good question. Bonds can hit a 1,000 homers for all I care; I will still take Babe Ruth as the greatest home run hitter ever. At least we know (or at least we think) he wasn't on the juice; he was just a big fatso who had "little girl legs", but he could pitch AND hit. The fact that he could do both is why I think he is the greatest baseball player ever.
Stack, let's take a page from another admitted juicer to see if roids affect one's numbers where it pertains to hitting a baseball. Ken Caminiti an average player puts up huge numbers that were way above career averages and has admitted to juicing in that season in order to acheive these numbers. Cammy alone proves that roids will help players hit the ball. Steroids also equals more strentgh obviously but more than that it also means quicker hand speed and a bat that feels lighter than before. Which means one can wait longer before having to commit to swinging at a pitch because the bat will be quicker through the zone. That will equate to better pitch selection ie. more walks and better contact when one does commit to swinging. Couple that with balls that fly over the wall now instead of being long flyouts and with these two factors it should be quite clear that something with Bonds is not quite kosher.
You could indict half the athletes in the world on pictures. Simply doesn't hold true in my opinion. People get bigger as they age. Even people who do not take steroids and who do not work out. The more mass you aquire the more muscle it takes to carry it around. Simple genetics. Even Tony Gwynn who was fat to begin with got bigger. With theories like his fly balls are now homers, give me a break. Everybody improves with age. The body and the mind become more eficient in muscle memory.
tony also slowed down as he aged, hmmm in fact 99% of athletes do, not Barry tho? It will be mtuhaf-in disgrace to Hank Aaron when Bonds passes him.
Maybe because he was a ******? Bottom line is, outside of his 73 HRs, he's been playing the same for the last few years. You know he's not juicing this year, regardless of what you think he did in the past. How do you explain that? All you haters are making me love Barry even more. Steroids or not, his name will always be at the top. HA!
Only in your mind. Just like OSU doesn't have an asterisk by their name, Bonds won't either. BTW, care to refute my point of his HR years and him having 100 in his first four full seasons? Didn't think so.
It is a little hard for me to refute points that are either not clear or were not presented well. But I guess this is what you are talking about: Of course, he didn't even make his MLB debut until he was 22. If he hit his 100th HR when he was 26, he was averaging 25 a year. That's a pretty good HR hitter. In today's baseball, that is average at best. That was good for players 40 to 50 years ago, but compared to the guys he is chasing in Aaron and Ruth, those are numbers that don't make one think that he is going to become baseball's all-time home run hitter. His lowest HR totals for a season have been 19 and 16 (I'm not counting his 18 HR total in '94, since it would've been closer to 30 that year), and the 16 was in a year when he didn't start playing until late May. Before his record-breaking season, he had six seasons of 30+ HR and four of 40+. Looking at those numbers, his homers really went up once he went to San Francisco, and by that time I think he was 27 or 28. Maybe he is a late bloomer, but it is doubtful. So, what exactly am I trying to refute here, Hangout Boy? If anything, you have NOT refuted my point of how it is suspicious that he has not been a consistent home run hitter his whole career. If anything, you have validated my argument by posting his career stats and showing that he "magically" became this great home run hitter once he hit 28. Care to refute why Barry couldn't hit 30 homers until he was 28 or so? Didn't think so. See I can be a flippant jerk as well.
That was fun. See ya around. BTW, he was 25 (turned 26 halfway through the season) when he had his first 30+ HR year. You're acting like he did a Brady Anderson. He didn't hit 9 HRs one year, then all of the sudden hit 50. He always had pop in his bat. It's really not a stretch at all to say that he just started hitting his peak when he got to 27 or so.
Aww - excuse me while I get a kleenex. I am sorry you are so condescending sometimes. Is that better?
You keep editing here... Yes, and that was followed by that "magical" season of hitting 25 homers or one less than his age at the time!
Do you know the specifics of the testing? Do you know for a fact that they didn't say "Hey Barry, we're going to test you sometime in September ... "? Just curious.
Hope this isn't too condescending for you, but an apostrophe also shows possession. I'm sincerely your's. Again, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
Are you serious? Is that how far the anti-Barry faction has fallen? Do you really believe that MLB would tell Barry when he was being tested?
Doesn't change the fact that he'd hit 30+ in a season before you thought he did. He showed obvious pop in his bat from the beginning. Not to mention, the early 90s weren't as prolific in terms of HR hitting as it was later in the decade. A combination of Bonds hitting his peak and the watered-down pitching due to expansion is a reasonable explanation for his consistently hitting 30+ and 40+ HRs every year starting in 1992.
