Barry Bonds would have hit 616 HR's w/out roids.

[JDrake]

clever title

 

[Gunslinger08]

It's never been proven that Barry took steroids.

It's funny to me that people get in a pissy fit about Bonds, but nobody mentions Giambi, even though it's been proven that he took roids.

 

[Kev]

I think the most important question is this:

"In the grand scheme of things, who really gives a fvck about sports records?"

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: Kev
I think the most important question is this:

"In the grand scheme of things, who really gives a fvck about sports records?"

Amen. I'm a sports fanatic, and I believe this as well. If sports records were so sacred to begin with, there would be a governing body with balls that would police these records. As it stands, there isn't one, so congrats to Barry Bonds.

 

[Baked]

And Ruth would have hit <100 HR life time against modern pitchers. Ruth was basically hitting against grade school kids.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

What makes you believe pitchers were so much worse back then

Training facilities and methods, nutrition, size, players not disallowed do to race, etc...

 

[PetunZ]

"Ruth did it on beer and hot dogs"

 

[oogabooga]

Interesting read, it kinda feels like here's fact a, fact b, fact c... so barry bonds lied... wait a minute. Good possible points made but it all kinda begins with "Yet according to the ziggurat of evidence compiled in the book "Game of Shadows,"". Overall interesting read, I like how he has that colum of info to tell people who want to tear his article apart how to do it 😛

 

[msparish]

One thing they neglected was the increased number of walks because Bonds was so dominating. They should have accounted for that and given Bonds several more at bats/home runs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Imagine how many HR's Ted Williams would have gotten if he didn't serve in WWII and Korea.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Baked
And Ruth would have hit <100 HR life time against modern pitchers. Ruth was basically hitting against grade school kids.

:roll: Just wanted to remind us of the accuracy of your nickname, eh?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Imagine how many HR's Ted Williams would have gotten if he didn't serve in WWII and Korea.

Ahh...a game of "Ifs." Griffey would've shattered records, Rodriguez will shatter records, and Pujols will shatter their records if a lot of ifs do and don't happen.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: msparish
One thing they neglected was the increased number of walks because Bonds was so dominating. They should have accounted for that and given Bonds several more at bats/home runs.

Q: How about all those extra walks the supposedly juiced-up Bonds started receiving? Even if a non-juiced Bonds hit home runs less often, he would have seen more pitches. Shouldn't Barry get a few home runs back?

A: We struggled with this, but ultimately decided to leave it out, mostly because walks are highly dependent on: a) game situation; b) the pitcher on the mound; c) manager discretion.

Still, for the sake of argument, suppose that a non-juiced Bonds walks in 1999-2005 at the same rate he did in 1996-98, once every 4.84 plate appearances. He gets 223 extra at-bats, and at his 1996-98 home run rate (one per 13.45 at-bats), hits another 17 home runs.

CK

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: msparish
One thing they neglected was the increased number of walks because Bonds was so dominating. They should have accounted for that and given Bonds several more at bats/home runs.

Q: How about all those extra walks the supposedly juiced-up Bonds started receiving? Even if a non-juiced Bonds hit home runs less often, he would have seen more pitches. Shouldn't Barry get a few home runs back?

A: We struggled with this, but ultimately decided to leave it out, mostly because walks are highly dependent on: a) game situation; b) the pitcher on the mound; c) manager discretion.

Still, for the sake of argument, suppose that a non-juiced Bonds walks in 1999-2005 at the same rate he did in 1996-98, once every 4.84 plate appearances. He gets 223 extra at-bats, and at his 1996-98 home run rate (one per 13.45 at-bats), hits another 17 home runs.

CK

Heh, didn't read the FAQ's...thanks. I still think they should have used it in their official numbers though.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

What makes you believe pitchers were so much worse back then

Red thinks that Cy Young wouldn't have reached 100 wins today, and that they should just rename the award the "Guy in the White Boy's Club who had it Easy" award. True story.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
It's never been proven that Barry took steroids.

It's funny to me that people get in a pissy fit about Bonds, but nobody mentions Giambi, even though it's been proven that he took roids.

Barry told a federal grand jury that he "unknowingly" took the clear and the cream. Do you believe that a plane never hit the Pentagon either?

Giambi is a POS too, but not on the level of Bonds, because he actually admitted it (albeit with an indirect apology):
Reporter: "Jason, what are you apologizing for?"
Giambi: "My attorney said I shouldn't say or I might lose my multimillion dollar contract, but just know that I'm sorry. For something. N stuff."

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

But they didn't.

I think everyone understands that the modern day athlete destroys athletes of decades past.

What always shocks me about Ruth is how incredible his numbers look compared to other players of his era. If pitching truly was as horrible as you're saying, then wouldn't you expect other hitters of the time to have darn good numbers, too?

I'm in the same boat as you in that I believe that pitching back then was likely atrocious, especially compared to today, but I think that you have to admit that judging by the stats that Ruth dominated the sport in an impressive manner in a way that no one else was apparently capable of doing.

That no one else of that time was able to come close is what always impresses me.

CK

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

But they didn't.

I think everyone understands that the modern day athlete destroys athletes of decades past.

What always shocks me about Ruth is how incredible his numbers look compared to other players of his era. If pitching truly was as horrible as you're saying, then wouldn't you expect other hitters of the time to have darn good numbers, too?

I'm in the same boat as you in that I believe that pitching back then was likely atrocious, especially compared to today, but I think that you have to admit that judging by the stats that Ruth dominated the sport in an impressive manner in a way that no one else was apparently capable of doing.

That no one else of that time was able to come close is what always impresses me.

CK

Why do you think pitching was worse ? I mean is there some reason for thinking that ?

I agree with you about Ruth, besides what you've pointed out, he also didn't have some goal to aim for and beat, he just did what he did for fun, basically.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

But they didn't.

I think everyone understands that the modern day athlete destroys athletes of decades past.

What always shocks me about Ruth is how incredible his numbers look compared to other players of his era. If pitching truly was as horrible as you're saying, then wouldn't you expect other hitters of the time to have darn good numbers, too?

I'm in the same boat as you in that I believe that pitching back then was likely atrocious, especially compared to today, but I think that you have to admit that judging by the stats that Ruth dominated the sport in an impressive manner in a way that no one else was apparently capable of doing.

That no one else of that time was able to come close is what always impresses me.

CK

Ahh another person who gets it. :thumbsup:

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

But they didn't.

I think everyone understands that the modern day athlete destroys athletes of decades past.

What always shocks me about Ruth is how incredible his numbers look compared to other players of his era. If pitching truly was as horrible as you're saying, then wouldn't you expect other hitters of the time to have darn good numbers, too?

I'm in the same boat as you in that I believe that pitching back then was likely atrocious, especially compared to today, but I think that you have to admit that judging by the stats that Ruth dominated the sport in an impressive manner in a way that no one else was apparently capable of doing.

That no one else of that time was able to come close is what always impresses me.

CK

Why do you think pitching was worse ? I mean is there some reason for thinking that ?

I agree with you about Ruth, besides what you've pointed out, he also didn't have some goal to aim for and beat, he just did what he did for fun, basically.

I've just always considered it logical that pitching was worse for the same reasons that Red pointed out above. A lot of scientific research in the areas of nutrition/conditioning, improved training methods, no race restrictions, a larger talent pool for MLB to choose from.

One of the biggest reasons that I don't think pitching wasn't as strong back then is because guys used to throw much more often. It was not uncommon to throw on consecutive games, or even both sides of a doubleheader the same day. Obviously, pitching effectiveness is going to be affected by that.

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

 

[Lyfer]

All this talk of steroids makes me want to take some rolaids.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

That is an interesting way of thinking of it, that additional pitch speed serves up more home run balls. To determine your point, you'd have to come up wotj some way of calculating the added difficulty it takes in hitting a 98 vs. 80 MPH fastball compared to the added distance the balls would be hit with the same swing. Considering that I'll never be smart enough to figure that out in my lifetime, I'll just speculate...

I'm still inclined to believe that there is a reason why flamethrowers never go out of style. I've never heard a coach say "Man, I wish my star pitcher only threw 80 instead of 98." But purely in terms of the home run ball, who knows for sure.

CK

 

[Tom]

CK-

Why were there more no-hitters back then ? Wasn't the average ERA quite a bit lower too ?

And how is it possible to measure speed of pitches before radar ?

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

The difference between a fastball being a mistake pitch hit a mile and a decent pitch fouled away can be just a few mph. I think we can all agree that the faster the pitch, generally the harder it is to hit. IMO, the mere fact that, even with all of the conditioning we have today, pitchers can't even come close to 300 IP or numbers like that, and that there are still constant arm injuries, shows that pitchers today at the very least throw a lot harder a lot more often. A young pitcher who takes great care of his body and uses modern methods and tries to throw 280 innings is likely to blow out his arm.