Sway me one way or another

[rokketmn]

Why do I care whether his head grew or not? I'm not disputing he used steroids. Does having a bigger head somehow make him a better home run hitter?

You are saying that he put on lean muscle mass. This added "muscle mass" would allow him to hit more HR's. The size of his head just shows that this wasn't something that happens naturally when one hits the weight room.

I also know you are not disputing Bonds using, but you clearly are saying that they were not the performance enhancer for him that they were for others.

I will just ask the question directly, so to be sure exactly where you stand on Bonds. Do you think PED's made Bonds a better player and allowed him to hit more Hr's?

This question requires just a YES or NO. You can explain if you wish afterward.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Really? Bonds was already a better player than both of them regardless of the HR's, and had 2 MVP's on his resume while in Pittsburgh. He was also already a .300 hitter, something the other 2 were not. What did he have to prove exactly?

McGwire hit 49 hr's as a skinny rookie. He didn't quite get to that level again until he lost 2 years to injuries in 1993 and 1994. My theory is McGwire started using to get healthy, and it also improved his performance, as his rate stats jumped off the board starting in 1995. Then he kept using. That is just guessing on my part, of course.

Same thing with Bonds. He was a great player with Pittsburgh, but things got other-worldly when he went to San Fran in 1993. Presumably, he also met Victor Conte. His HR rates jumped way up (33%) and pretty much stayed that way.

Take a look at when the HR's started really flying out of the parks around baseball. I see it as being right around 1993, give or take a season. Is that a coincidence?

You can make assumptions that he got better as he got older. That is not out of the ordinary. What was out of the ordinary was by how much, and it was after 7 seasons.

1.) We know Bonds was the better player. But the general public didn't. All they saw was Sosa & McGwire. The story goes that this drove Bonds mad.
2.) Your McGwire theory is plausible, but I find it far more likely that he started using in the late 80s with Canseco. He may have been a skinny rookie in 1987, but he was already a hulking monster by 1989. That's what Canseco said, after all, and he seems to be one of the few guys who's been open and honest about all this, even if his motivations are poor.
3.) It's extremely well established that Bonds started using in 1999. His home runs jumped with the rest of the league's in the mid-90s. He also was in his prime when he got to San Fran. There's absolutely no evidence that Bonds started using any earlier than 1999. Bonds never even met Conte until 2000.
4.) Yes, home run rates started increasing in 1993. That doesn't mean that's when everyone started using steroids. Steroids had been in the game as early as the 1970s, and were prevalent since the mid-80s. They didn't magically just start in 1993. There's another event that happened in 1993 that's a much more likely explanation for the jump in HR. I'll give you a hint: Bonds slugged 1.042 at Mile High Stadium. That's his slugging percentage, not his OPS.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You are saying that he put on lean muscle mass. This added "muscle mass" would allow him to hit more HR's. The size of his head just shows that this wasn't something that happens naturally when one hits the weight room.

I also know you are not disputing Bonds using, but you clearly are saying that they were not the performance enhancer for him that they were for others.

I will just ask the question directly, so to be sure exactly where you stand on Bonds. Do you think PED's made Bonds a better player and allowed him to hit more Hr's?

This question requires just a YES or NO. You can explain if you wish afterward.

I never disputed he used steroids. He obviously did. I don't understand how his head size is relevant to anything I've posted.

The answer to your question is yes. I've never suggested otherwise.

 

[rokketmn]

You're an atrocious debater. You can quit while you're behind. No one will think less of you.

If you feel you are winning, that should be good enough. Why the need the tell other people who is winning? Let them decide for themselves. The insecure person needs to do things like that.

 

[rokketmn]

Yes, home run rates started increasing in 1993. That doesn't mean that's when everyone started using steroids. Steroids had been in the game as early as the 1970s, and were prevalent since the mid-80s. They didn't magically just start in 1993. There's another event that happened in 1993 that's a much more likely explanation for the jump in HR. I'll give you a hint: Bonds slugged 1.042 at Mile High Stadium. That's his slugging percentage, not his OPS.

Okay, but not everyone got to play in Colorado, and even those that did (as visitors) would only do it for upwards of 9 games per season.

It just seems coincidental to me that there were dramatic increases in HR's in the early '90's, by not just a few, but by many.

In 1991, there were two 40 Hr guys and one 35+ Hr guy. In 1992, there were two and two. in 1993, there were five 40 Hr guys and six 35+ Hr guys. In 1994, there was the strike and yet there were still two 40 hr guys and four 35+ hr guys.

There was clearly something going on.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

If you feel you are winning, that should be good enough. Why the need the tell other people who is winning? Let them decide for themselves. The insecure person needs to do things like that.

I never suggested I was winning. Just that you are not a skilled debater. I don't see our back-and-forth as debate. Just me making posts and you countering with drivel in a vain attempt to debate.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Okay, but not everyone got to play in Colorado, and even those that did (as visitors) would only do it for upwards of 9 games per season.

It just seems coincidental to me that there were dramatic increases in HR's in the early '90's, by not just a few, but by many.

In 1991, there were two 40 Hr guys and one 35+ Hr guy. In 1992, there were two and two. in 1993, there were five 40 Hr guys and six 35+ Hr guys. In 1994, there was the strike and yet there were still two 40 hr guys and four 35+ hr guys.

There was clearly something going on.

Ok. Clearly my hint didn't click.

E-X-P-A-N-S-I-O-N

 

[rokketmn]

There were 17 players who hit at least 40 hr's in 1996 and another 10 hit at least 35.

The numbers dropped slightly after that, but there were always double-digit 40 HR guys. The curious thing is when you start seeing guys like Brady Anderson, Jeromy Burnitz, Richard Hidalgo, and Tony Batista.

 

[rokketmn]

Ok. Clearly my hint didn't click.

E-X-P-A-N-S-I-O-N

Why are you such an asshole? Are you that insecure that you need to try to belittle people behind the safety of your keyboard to try to make yourself look better?

Though you don't list your location, you are a fan of the NY teams, and I from N.Y. myself. Why don't we meet for a face to face chat about baseball?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

There were 17 players who hit at least 40 hr's in 1996 and another 10 hit at least 35.

The numbers dropped slightly after that, but there were always double-digit 40 HR guys. The curious thing is when you start seeing guys like Brady Anderson, Jeromy Burnitz, Richard Hidalgo, and Tony Batista.

You're stating the obvious as if it's a stunning revelation: many of these guys were likely on steroids. But not necessarily all of them, and there were plenty of pitchers and non-power hitters who were on them as well who escape everyone's suspicion, which isn't terribly fair.

But there were other factors that led to the HR boom. It wasn't all steroids. I'm not sure steroids were even the biggest factor.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Why are you such an asshole? Are you that insecure that you need to try to belittle people behind the safety of your keyboard to try to make yourself look better?

Though you don't list your location, you are a fan of the NY teams, and I from N.Y. myself. Why don't we meet for a face to face chat about baseball?

I believe I stated in the "introduce yourself" thread that I was stubborn and opinionated and that many people would find me to be an asshole. I just don't have tolerance for people who bring nothing to the table. Come with better shit, and I'll acknowledge it, even if we disagree. Talk to JR Hart. He and I went at it for years and disagreed on close to everything. But we respect each other, because he at least has something to offer the discussion. Your shit is just so weak.

Don't worry, I'd belittle you in person if you were this insipid in person. I piss my friends off just as much. They don't even try to talk to me about baseball anymore. I don't do this for self-satisfaction. It's a personality flaw. I just enjoy talking baseball and want stimulating discussion and so few people can bring that.

But no, I'm not from NY. Jersey Shore. I'd invite you to come down for a beer and we'd talk it out, but it's the weekend.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Why are you such an asshole? Are you that insecure that you need to try to belittle people behind the safety of your keyboard to try to make yourself look better?

Though you don't list your location, you are a fan of the NY teams, and I from N.Y. myself. Why don't we meet for a face to face chat about baseball?

Also, it may be hard to believe, but I honestly don't mean anything personal by any of this, though I understand that's probably how it's interpreted. I'm sure you're a perfectly cool dude and we'd get along.

 

[rokketmn]

You're stating the obvious as if it's a stunning revelation:

No, I am stating when the league wide increase started happening, which is also a time when Bonds saw a spike in his HR rates.

In 1993, he hit 4 Hr against expansion teams and 2 against Colorado in the same day at Colorado. While teams may have lost pitchers to the expansion teams and were using some guys that wouldn't have ordinarily been in the majors, it cannot all be attributed to expansion.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

No, I am stating when the league wide increase started happening, which is also a time when Bonds saw a spike in his HR rates.

In 1993, he hit 4 Hr against expansion teams and 2 against Colorado in the same day at Colorado. While teams may have lost pitchers to the expansion teams and were using some guys that wouldn't have ordinarily been in the majors, it cannot all be attributed to expansion.

Why are HR the only measure of steroid use for you? Expansion and the new wave of tiny ballparks also played a big part in the HR boom. And can a guy not have a career year? In his prime? Playing on a great team? His SLG and OPS+ were comparable to the previous season to top it off, showing that the increase was league-wide.

You're barking up the wrong tree with Bonds. Believe whatever you want to believe the impacts of his steroid use was from 1999-2007, but it's very firmly established that he started juicing in 1999 in response to the 1998 HR race.

I have no reason to defend him. I have no horse in this race. It's just obvious, and there's been a whole book written about the subject.

 

[rokketmn]

I just don't have tolerance for people who bring nothing to the table. Come with better shit, and I'll acknowledge it, even if we disagree.

This is all judged by whom?

You say things that are opinions and you try to pass it off as fact. You don't have a factual reason as to why HR rates spiked or if Bonds' PED usage was mildly or extremely beneficial to his numbers. You also have no idea who is/was using and cannot judge as to what type of benefits they received. You are guessing just like the rest of us. So when someone says it is PED's and you say it is expansion, how is the other person wrong?

Plain and simple, you just don't like anyone that doesn't agree with you, gives you a challenge and calls "bullshit" when they read it from you. If that wasn't the case, you would move on. But, you take it to another level and get personal.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

This is all judged by whom?

You say things that are opinions and you try to pass it off as fact. You don't have a factual reason as to why HR rates spiked or if Bonds' PED usage was mildly or extremely beneficial to his numbers. You also have no idea who is/was using and cannot judge as to what type of benefits they received. You are guessing just like the rest of us. So when someone says it is PED's and you say it is expansion, how is the other person wrong?

Plain and simple, you just don't like anyone that doesn't agree with you, gives you a challenge and calls "bullshit" when they read it from you. If that wasn't the case, you would move on. But, you take it to another level and get personal.

Judged by the mighty internet message board gods, of course.

Didn't I clearly state earlier in the thread that I can only speculate? But I think my speculative opinions on the matter are pretty logical, and I've put a reasonable amount of thought into them. They're more reasoned than "Derrrrrr, look how many HR he hit!"

I also never countered "it is PEDs" with "it is expansion". I simply stated that there was more than one cause for the offensive explosion. Expansion and the new hitter-friendly parks aided in the boom big-time. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Obviously steroids contributed. I've never professed to know how much.

Again, I have no problem with a person disagreeing with me so long as they can provide well-thought-out reasoning behind their disagreement, because I put a lot of thought and research into forming my stronger opinions and hope that others do the same. JR Hart is a prime example of that. I love that guy, but hardly agree with anything he ever says. But I can tell he's been around the block and back and knows a thing or two (maybe 1.5).

 

[Swangin]

This is all judged by whom?

You say things that are opinions and you try to pass it off as fact. You don't have a factual reason as to why HR rates spiked or if Bonds' PED usage was mildly or extremely beneficial to his numbers. You also have no idea who is/was using and cannot judge as to what type of benefits they received. You are guessing just like the rest of us. So when someone says it is PED's and you say it is expansion, how is the other person wrong?

Plain and simple, you just don't like anyone that doesn't agree with you, gives you a challenge and calls "bullshit" when they read it from you. If that wasn't the case, you would move on. But, you take it to another level and get personal.

It's statements like this. From what I see it was never typed PEDs had nothing to do with the HRs being hit, I think he is simply saying there are other things that contributed to it. I saw nothing about putting an exact number on what is responsible for what, just that there are more than one factor. It comes across that most people think bonds sucked, and the amount of HRs hit across the league was only because of PEDs.

I believe he is only trying to bring other things to the table, that I look at as well that factored in. It's not making excuses, its not defending anyone, it's just about painting a bigger picture as apposed just saying PEDs made Bonds great, and PEDs are the only reason for the rise in HRs.

YES, PEDs HELPED MOST OF THOSE THAT USED THEM, YES PEDs HELP CONTRIBUTE TO HR RATE RISING, but it's not the entire story or picture that should be painted.

 

[rokketmn]

It comes across that most people think bonds sucked, and the amount of HRs hit across the league was only because of PEDs.

Well, I'm not one that said Bonds sucked before PED's. I said the opposite. I just said they led to an obvious HR spike.

The reason I thiink PED's played a bigger role is that with the stricter testing, we have seen a decrease in HR's over the last 2 or so seasons, and the sizes of the ballparks haven't changed. In fact, Citi Field, Safeco, and Petco brought fences in this season or last.

Also, with the same amount of teams in the league, we have the same amount of thinned out pitching, and Quad A pitchers.

I am not naive to believe that players aren't still using, but rather they are ahead of the testing curve. Remember, none of the Biogenesis players suspended failed a test. I do believe, however, that much fewer players are using, as evidenced by not only the decrease in Hr's, but also the genuine disgust many "clean" players are showing about the PED scandal. I feel that the players really want to rid the game of the cheaters, as opposed to the blind eyes that were turned by all during the late '80's, 90's and early '00's when it was evident something was going on.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Why are HR the only measure of steroid use for you? Expansion and the new wave of tiny ballparks also played a big part in the HR boom. And can a guy not have a career year? In his prime? Playing on a great team? His SLG and OPS+ were comparable to the previous season to top it off, showing that the increase was league-wide.

You're barking up the wrong tree with Bonds. Believe whatever you want to believe the impacts of his steroid use was from 1999-2007, but it's very firmly established that he started juicing in 1999 in response to the 1998 HR race.

I have no reason to defend him. I have no horse in this race. It's just obvious, and there's been a whole book written about the subject.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Also, with the same amount of teams in the league, we have the same amount of thinned out pitching, and Quad A pitchers.

This is absolutely incorrect. Eventually, the talent pool catches up. It takes 3-5 years, but eventually, teams manage to find players who are worthy of MLB rosters in their system or from other places. It's those first few years where there's a scramble to fill roster spaces and an expansion draft that severely water down the talent pool, and the effects are most significantly felt in pitching.