How many future HR's for Bonds?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Why do people keep saying this? Bonds admitted to the grand jury that he took "the clear" which is a steroid. He just said he didn't realize that it was a performance enhancing drug, he thought it was flaxseed oil.
So yes, it has been proven, it just hasn't been "proven" that he did it on purpose. (but we all know he did, and it will be proven that he did eventually.)

ok, lets say bonds admittingly took steroids. they were not against the rules that baseball had in place. so why all the outrage? do you think he was the only one? so, just because he is setting records, he is the one that gets penalized. what about roger clemens? there were NO rules in place to penalized ANYONE from that time frame. the owners and the players did what they had to do, to make baseball popular again. now they are paying the price

[dmek25]

i cant believe I'm actually defending Bonds. i personally think he is a piece of shit. but i also think that Pete Rose deserves to be in the hall. to me, the voters are a joke. i want people that go into the hall because of what they accomplish on the field. period. the last time i checked, Ty Cobb is still in

[dall-assblows]

id like to see him hit around 900-1000 homers. i think that would be good for baseball.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, remember "Hack a Shaq"? People would foul him cause he couldn't / can't hit his free throws...well, "Bean a Bonds". Put his giant head on base, cause he doesn't score as my stats show. He is useless on the paths now.

You forget to mention that Bonds has nobody hitting in front of him to drive him in and nobody in front of him to get on base. Neither is his fault or a reflection on his play.

You might also mention that he has five stolen bases and has only 271 at bats, which means that his 24 HRS means he hits one about every eleven at bats. Also, his 56 RBIs mean he gets one about ever five at bats in spite of the fact that the Giants are famous for not putting a man on base ahead of him and the fact that the opposition usually walks him when men are on base.

Projected to 542 at bats, which most batters expect over a year, Bonds comes in with 48 dingers and 112 RBIs, Hall of Fame numbers.

The Shaq analogy doesn't hold. Shaq misses his free throws, Bonds scores from second. Nobody walks him because they think he can't score if put on base. They walk him because he's too dangerous to pitch to and because the batters batting behind him are much less productive than he is.

[dall-assblows]

really it doesnt matter because A-Rod will smash his number by far.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

You forget to mention that Bonds has nobody hitting in front of him to drive him in and nobody in front of him to get on base. Neither is his fault or a reflection on his play.

You might also mention that he has five stolen bases and has only 271 at bats, which means that his 24 HRS means he hits one about every eleven at bats. Also, his 56 RBIs mean he gets one about ever five at bats in spite of the fact that the Giants are famous for not putting a man on base ahead of him and the fact that the opposition usually walks him when men are on base.

Projected to 542 at bats, which most batters expect over a year, Bonds comes in with 48 dingers and 112 RBIs, Hall of Fame numbers.

The Shaq analogy doesn't hold. Shaq misses his free throws, Bonds scores from second. Nobody walks him because they think he can't score if put on base. They walk him because he's too dangerous to pitch to and because the batters batting behind him are much less productive than he is.

I'm not arguing his home run numbers. The man is still biochemically a hulk. Of course a roid head can hit home runs.
You can try to slice it and dice it any way you want, but there is a reason that rumors say he won't get a contract with the Giants again, and that's not cause he's a top hitter like you suggest. My numbers prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is no longer a top tier hitter. How about this for numbers, Bonds has 160 total bases. Good for 3rd on the TEAM! That's right, even with all his walks, he is still only 3rd on the team...and almost 4th, the CATCHER Molina is only 7 behind him.
And while they do walk him because he's a danger of hitting a home run, it's also because he is not a threat on the paths. 3 people on his own team have more RBI than he does.
Please don't use the 5 steals to try to prove that he is still a threat. He is not. Look at Albert Pujols (SLOW GUY) he had 16 stolen bases in 05, and 7 in 06. He also had 5 in 03 and 04. Prince freakin Fielder had 7 steals last year. Also, keep in mind that Bonds had about 100 more at bats last year and had only 3 steals all season. The man can't run anymore. He's a liability on the paths and on the field. So for you to say he is still an elite player (or TOP player in baseball) is beyond reason. I've watched a few Giants games, and they held Bonds on 3rd when others would have been waived in and likely scored.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ok, lets say bonds admittingly took steroids. they were not against the rules that baseball had in place. so why all the outrage? do you think he was the only one? so, just because he is setting records, he is the one that gets penalized. what about roger clemens? there were NO rules in place to penalized ANYONE from that time frame. the owners and the players did what they had to do, to make baseball popular again. now they are paying the price

Where did you get that from? There have been rules in places against taking steroids for many, many years. It just wasn't enforced with drug tests.

You keep bringing up Roger Clemens, and while I will agree, I do think he took steroids (how else do you have a 2.98, 1.87, and 2.30 era in consecutive seasons at the ages of 41, 42, and 43?) who is blaming him? But who has pointed their finger at Clemens? Who said, he for sure took roids? There is a plethera of people pointing at Bonds, or Sosa etc, but no one at Clemens. I'm not saying that means he's innocent, but it does show that Bonds is amazingly guilty.
You last sentence: "the owners and the players did what they had to do, to make baseball popular again. now they are paying the price" is dead on accurate. They killed baseball by allowing these things. This is why baseball is now my 3rd favorite sport behind Football and NASCAR.

[BDBohnzie]

jsarno - just a head's up. Total Bases does not factor in walks, but base hits (singles + doubles *2 + triples * 3 + HRs * 4). So you look at On Base Percentage as a factor to include his base on balls, which Bonds is currently at .497, which means Bonds is getting on 1 out of every 2 trips to the plate.

Bonds has definitely lost a step, so walking him is much better than letting him swing, as you'll potentially have him run into more DPs with little to no protection behind him. All the while, he's a career .298 hitter. Now, steroids may help you hit the ball further, it doesn't help you actually hit the ball...

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

jsarno - just a head's up. Total Bases does not factor in walks, but base hits (singles + doubles *2 + triples * 3 + HRs * 4). So you look at On Base Percentage as a factor to include his base on balls, which Bonds is currently at .497, which means Bonds is getting on 1 out of every 2 trips to the plate.

Bonds has definitely lost a step, so walking him is much better than letting him swing, as you'll potentially have him run into more DPs with little to no protection behind him. All the while, he's a career .298 hitter. Now, steroids may help you hit the ball further, it doesn't help you actually hit the ball...

Correct. If a player is hitting a dinger one of every eleven times and has an OBP of .497, he's a top player in baseball even if he's lost a step or two. I'd love for my team to get him. We'd go to World Series again. Imagine a lineup with Fields, Thome, Bonds, Konerko, and Dye in it. Stuff of dreams.

By the way, comparing players from different seems ludicrous to me. There's no way Aaron, or Ruth, or Bonds accomplished their deeds under the same conditions. Bonds accomplished his in an era when pitchers have been juiced and only pitch a few innings a game, usually at night, when they are least likely to tire and the ball is difficult to see. Also, they throw harder than pitchers Aaron played against, even when not chemically enhanced.

Pitchers today are more racially diverse, come from all over the world, not just the U.S., are better trained, coached, fed, and are better physical specimens than they were in Aaron's day, as well as more likely to pitch fewer innings, every five days instead of four, and pitch during the day.
Aaron also had far better players hitting before and after him than Bonds has had. The same can be said, of course, for Ruth.

Ruth played in a era of day games, pitchers were only white, were paid next to nothing, had no training regime, played with hangovers, were expected to go nine innings in four day rotations, and usually coped by letting batters hit. There was a few flame throwers but most tried to get outs by forcing ground balls and fly balls.

Also, Ruth played at a time when the American League was essentially managed, the Yankees being the only real draw, and the other teams stocked with inferior players.
The games were called "exhibitions" for a reason.

So whose records are more valid. Don't know. Impossible to say.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

jsarno - just a head's up. Total Bases does not factor in walks, but base hits (singles + doubles *2 + triples * 3 + HRs * 4). So you look at On Base Percentage as a factor to include his base on balls, which Bonds is currently at .497, which means Bonds is getting on 1 out of every 2 trips to the plate.

Bonds has definitely lost a step, so walking him is much better than letting him swing, as you'll potentially have him run into more DPs with little to no protection behind him. All the while, he's a career .298 hitter. Now, steroids may help you hit the ball further, it doesn't help you actually hit the ball...

I was trying to figure out why you gave me that "head up", so I went back and find this comment that I posted Good for 3rd on the TEAM! That's right, even with all his walks, he is still only 3rd on the team..., I have no clue why I put that comment in that sentence. I know exactly how the calculate total bases, my point was just to show his total bases. So I apologize for that incorrect comment.

I do want to correct you on something though. You said steroids doesn't actually help you hit a ball. Well that has been proven untrue. During an interview with one of the Balco people (I posted it somewhere on here with his name, but I am forgetting his name now), he said that "the clear" will indeed help you hit a ball. It's gets you "zoned in".
From 02-04 he averaged a .358 batting average. Not including 05 (he only played in 14 games) but from 06-07 he is batting .275, that's a difference of 83 points. He's only batting .282 this year. Last year he batted .270 which is the worst he has hit in a season of 130 games or more since 1989, and his .282 is the 2nd worst.
Also, when you can hit farther, that means the difference of a warning track out, or a home run. So yes, that alone will bring your average down. It's too hard to speculate how many home runs he likely would not have hit. But I would guess that any that landed in the first 5 rows at least would have been an out had he not taken steroids, so that (just taking a wild guess) could easily mean 100-200 fewer homers. If it was 200 homers, then his career batting average would be sitting at .278. He'd also be sitting at 1462 rbi (instead of 1986, since he averages 2.6 rbi per home run). He'd be at 2015 runs, instead of 2215.
To take that a step farther, if all that were true, then there is no way he would have played in 06 and 07 after those knee issues...and no team would have gave him a contract to play either. That means he would have barely hit 508 homers, 1329 RBI, 1878 runs.

On the career list, Bonds would go from 3rd in runs to 12th, he would go from 5th in RBI to 83rd, and he would go from 1st in homers to 20th. He would also go from 226th in average to somewhere around 640's.
To take this even farther, if he hadn't juiced then he wouldn't have walked as much therefore all these numbers would have decreased even more with the possibility of his average going up.
Again, all these figures are wild guesses. If Bonds started taking steroids in 90 or 93 this would bode much worse for him.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I was trying to figure out why you gave me that "head up", so I went back and find this comment that I posted Good for 3rd on the TEAM! That's right, even with all his walks, he is still only 3rd on the team..., I have no clue why I put that comment in that sentence. I know exactly how the calculate total bases, my point was just to show his total bases. So I apologize for that incorrect comment.

I do want to correct you on something though. You said steroids doesn't actually help you hit a ball. Well that has been proven untrue. During an interview with one of the Balco people (I posted it somewhere on here with his name, but I am forgetting his name now), he said that "the clear" will indeed help you hit a ball. It's gets you "zoned in".
From 02-04 he averaged a .358 batting average. Not including 05 (he only played in 14 games) but from 06-07 he is batting .275, that's a difference of 83 points. He's only batting .282 this year. Last year he batted .270 which is the worst he has hit in a season of 130 games or more since 1989, and his .282 is the 2nd worst.
Also, when you can hit farther, that means the difference of a warning track out, or a home run. So yes, that alone will bring your average down. It's too hard to speculate how many home runs he likely would not have hit. But I would guess that any that landed in the first 5 rows at least would have been an out had he not taken steroids, so that (just taking a wild guess) could easily mean 100-200 fewer homers. If it was 200 homers, then his career batting average would be sitting at .278. He'd also be sitting at 1462 rbi (instead of 1986, since he averages 2.6 rbi per home run). He'd be at 2015 runs, instead of 2215.
To take that a step farther, if all that were true, then there is no way he would have played in 06 and 07 after those knee issues...and no team would have gave him a contract to play either. That means he would have barely hit 508 homers, 1329 RBI, 1878 runs.

On the career list, Bonds would go from 3rd in runs to 12th, he would go from 5th in RBI to 83rd, and he would go from 1st in homers to 20th. He would also go from 226th in average to somewhere around 640's.
To take this even farther, if he hadn't juiced then he wouldn't have walked as much therefore all these numbers would have decreased even more with the possibility of his average going up.
Again, all these figures are wild guesses. If Bonds started taking steroids in 90 or 93 this would bode much worse for him.

As I said before, or tried to, there are two many factors involved for anyone to make definitive comparisons between plays of different eras. Your projections about Bonds' had he not done this or that might well be offset by the different level of difficulty he's facing today as opposed to what Aaron and Ruth faced. It's fun to speculate and guess. My guess is that Bonds is the best HR hitter ever to play. It seems to me that his bat speed is better than Aaron's or Ruth's, for one thing. I imagine that can be measured from film. It would be fun to know. I would also like to know how fast pitchers were throwing before the gun was invented.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I imagine that can be measured from film. It would be fun to know. I would also like to know how fast pitchers were throwing before the gun was invented.

I would like to know that too.
The only person I remember hearing about bat speed was McGwire. His was over 100 MPH...110 if I recall correctly.

Not that I'm an expert, but I have seen film of the older pitchers, and you can tell the pitches are slower.

[onlydarksets]

Apparently about 40 more after this season:
Bonds says 2008 season likely his last - Yahoo! News

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I'd love for my team to get him. We'd go to World Series again. Imagine a lineup with Fields, Thome, Bonds, Konerko, and Dye in it. Stuff of dreams.

What dreams would you be referring to?
Your team is a crappy 54-63 and in 4th place, Buehrle and Vasquez have been your only decent starters, and Buerhle is inconsistant.
Where would you put his gimpy ass? Who would suffer in the lineup? You can't take Thome out of the DH spot cause he's a liability at first, and Konerko is already entrenched there anyway. So you would put him in left? You have Bonds in left, and Dye in right, both a liability in the field, and you would have Erstad or Owens in center? That's a laughable outfield in terms of defense. I doubt you'd have many more wins that what you have right now.