Bonds Indicted [guilty on 1/4] [wrist whacked!]


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

GG

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:34 pm

Reggie played a lot of left before he was a Yank. I think Bonds won a lot of GG's because there weren't many good fielders playing left in the NL in the 1990's. The most contested GG's were in CF and among the RF's. Were he a true five-tooler, he'd have occupied right as Van Slyke, or center.

Being one of the premier LF's in the NL from the late 80's to early 90's was as empty as being one of the top wide receivers in the Big 8 in the 1980's- who was one competing against?

e.g.- What merit is there being one of the top heavyweight boxers during an era when the superior talent is in the middle and lighter weight classifications? It's all relative.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: GG

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:54 pm

bijanc wrote:Reggie played a lot of left before he was a Yank. I think Bonds won a lot of GG's because there weren't many good fielders playing left in the NL in the 1990's. The most contested GG's were in CF and among the RF's. Were he a true five-tooler, he'd have occupied right as Van Slyke, or center.

Being one of the premier LF's in the NL from the late 80's to early 90's was as empty as being one of the top wide receivers in the Big 8 in the 1980's- who was one competing against?

e.g.- What merit is there being one of the top heavyweight boxers during an era when the superior talent is in the middle and lighter weight classifications? It's all relative.

BCB

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I would add that you would be hard pressed to find a better fielding left fielder in the history of baseball that was appreciably better than Bonds in his early years. However, I agree that a left field GG doesn't carry the prestige of a CF or RF GG, but I do believe that a left field GG probably has more prestige than a 1st base or pitching GG.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Like a Bucket of Warm Spit

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:04 pm

jc:

Agreed.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:09 pm

Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

rf

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:14 pm

bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there. The more advanced the baseball, the more sweet-swinging lefties one encounters (and switchers too). And even some of the best righty batters aren't dead pull hitters.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: rf

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:16 pm

bijanc wrote:bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there. The more advanced the baseball, the more sweet-swinging lefties one encounters (and switchers too). And even some of the best righty batters aren't dead pull hitters.

BCB


And when the ball is not traveling that fast, it is easier to get around on it. At 100 mph is goes to right more often, I would think.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: rf

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:33 pm

bijanc wrote:bad hammy wrote:

"...Funny - back when I played ball we always put the crappiest fielder out in right . . ."

That's because not that many little kids bat lefty, so fewer balls are hit there.

Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment. :roll:
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

RF-CF-LF

Postby bijanc » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:05 pm

bad hammy wrote:

"...Actually, I knew that. It was just a (typically) spurious comment..."

I knew that.
:wink:

What kills me is that unlike many followers of track and field, I've heard some baseball fans say, "Bonds was already HOF bound prior to 2000, he still had to meet the ball, he still had to have great plate discipline and supreme hand-eye coordination. Drugs can't improve that. Look at all the walks, and his OBP. No one else is close. Look at his slugging pct."

To which I'd retort- "If (for the sake of argument he took 'em) PED's don't help, then why take 'em?"

(then there'd be the whole, "Well that doesn't help him get around on a 90 mph fastball")

Like fun it doesn't, upper body strength aids speed and power- watch any powerfully built sprinter run the first 20-40 meters out of the blocks- and note how most of those w/ the fastest starts are built.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:37 pm

The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball don't understand physics and/or baseball. Of course PED's improve bat speed. The difference between a 400' home run and a 500' foot home run is greater bat speed. Furthermore, if it takes a batter a few hundredths of a second less to get the bat around, then the batter can wait a few hundredths of a second later before he starts his swing, which means that he can also watch the pitch for a few hundredths of a second longer before he commits to a swing. In addition to this, the biochemist who developed "the clear" claims that it increases an athlete's mental focus.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mcgato » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:51 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:43 pm

mcgato wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.


Is there any scientific data to back up the eyesight claim? Or is it just something that has entered the general consciousness because the writer for Outside claimed that it did?

My empirical evidence that it doesn't would center around the fact that if it did, the Pentagon would have sucked up every available microgram years ago and all fighter pilots/snipers/et al would be on a steady diet. No? This is a substance in limited supply.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:36 pm

gh wrote:
mcgato wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The people who say that PED's can't improve your ability to make contact with the ball ....

Plus HGH improves eyesight.


Is there any scientific data to back up the eyesight claim? Or is it just something that has entered the general consciousness because the writer for Outside claimed that it did?

My empirical evidence that it doesn't would center around the fact that if it did, the Pentagon would have sucked up every available microgram years ago and all fighter pilots/snipers/et al would be on a steady diet. No? This is a substance in limited supply.


I think gh is partially right, but since HGH can be reproduced in large quantities, and there might even be returns to scale, if the pentagon was soaking up large quantities it need not impact the market price much and in fact might reduce it (always the economist). :lol:
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:50 pm

it can? That's not my understanding (not that I'm an expert in the field). I thought one of the great turnoffs of the whole HGH thing (setting aside the not-really-significant world of sports) was that the illegal traffic was diverting a limited resource from people who really needed it. ???
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:29 pm

HGH is very expensive, but it is not clear that 'diverting' the drug from its proper use is the cause of the high price. In part it is under the category of 'orphan drug'. It is offered by a number of companies and is produced by rDNA methods; my guess is that the production cost is not nearly so high as the price. Some of the docs could probably provide a better read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_hormone_treatment
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby mcgato » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:28 am

gh wrote:Is there any scientific data to back up the eyesight claim? Or is it just something that has entered the general consciousness because the writer for Outside claimed that it did?

I first heard of it from the Outside article. Here is a quick google result:
http://www.drcranton.com/hrt/hgh_body_of_evidence.htm

And there was one other change Meg hadn't expected. She had the beginning of a cataract in her right eye. The progression of the condition not only halted, but in Ruth's opinion her eyesight improved. Assuming that it was human growth hormone that produced this effect, Ruth is not the only person to notice eye improvement after HGH replacement therapy. Dr. Julian Whitaker, a well-known physician and medical writer, reports that his own eyesight improved to such an extent after he began HGH that he seldom needs his glasses anymore. There has been speculation that HGH strengthens eye muscle fibers, contributing to focus and lessening eyestrain.


I'm not a doctor, but my impression is that if you have 20-100 vision, HGH can help get it back closer to 20-20. If you already have 20-20 vision, it isn't going to cause you to see things miles away, or give you X-ray vision.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: RF-CF-LF

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:13 am

bijanc wrote:"Bonds was already HOF bound prior to 2000 . . ."

That part is true . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:23 am

Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:26 am

According to my understanding, this case will be a lot harder to make than the Marion Jones case. When Jones was shown "the clear" by federal investigators, she said that she had never seen or used it before. Bonds, on the other hand, admitted to using it, but claims that he didn't know it was a steroid at the time he used it. Jones lied about "what she did", while Bonds is accused of lying about "what he believed". It will interesting to see how they make that case without Greg Anderson. I also wonder if it would be illegal for Bonds to give Anderson money now that the Feds have decided that they won't be using Anderson as a witness. Maybe law dude can help us out.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:31 am

tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?


I believe the Williams/Fainaru-Wada book lays out the starting point for him, which is either '99 or '00, in direct response to the McGwire/Sosa explosion of '98. There was a specific cause/effect.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:42 am

tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?

I wasn't. Just making the statement that he would have been in the HOF for his baseball exploits prior to 2000.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:45 am

And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

HOF

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:51 am

gh wrote:

"...And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport..."

True. That said, baseball writers abhor him, and when first eligible in 2012, he's got about as much chance of election and induction as Ted Danson.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:16 am

Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

HOF

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:21 am

Could it be that Gaylord Perry wasn't a pr--ck? The baseball journalists are the gatekeepers to Cooperstown. Ballplayers know that. The writers weren't that enamored w/ Steve Carlton either, but Lefty didn't break the most revered record in team sport.

The indictment (and conviction, should it come) gives the writers an out when Bonds becomes eligible.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:34 am

bad hammy wrote:
tandfman wrote:Why would anyone presume that he was clean before 2000?

I wasn't. Just making the statement that he would have been in the HOF for his baseball exploits prior to 2000.



Can Pete Rose's career be parsed that way?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:02 am

MJD wrote:Can Pete Rose's career be parsed that way?

As a player there is no doubt that PR had a HOF career.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.


That's easy to answer.

Baseball has a time-honored (and do mean honored) tradition in which the word "cheat" doesn't really exist. Call it gamesmanship or whatever you like. Getting an edge on the opposition by anything short of mayhem has always been considered a part of the game.

I remember in elementary school reading a primer on baseball (written by the likes of a Clare Bee) which described all the things that were part and parcel of the game, starting w/ the spitball and going on through various ways to scuff the ball w/ your belt buckle, what have you.

It's a whole different culture, completely out of tune w/ the English concepts of "amateurism" which pervade track.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:08 am

So can the same argument be made to let him in the hall as Bonds pre-2000 career? I don't know when he was gambling.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:15 am

The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:51 am

Looks to me that they can do whatever they want to BB then based on that(non-racist) precedent.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:10 am

MJD wrote:Looks to me that they can do whatever they want to BB then based on that(non-racist) precedent.

They've always been able to do what they want. Remember, Jackie Robinson wasn't allowed to join the Brooklyn Dodgers because of some court ruling a la James Meredith. It was strictly a MLB decision.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:12 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF


That's not true.

The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:42 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF


That's not true.

The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.

Does the HOF exist completely independent of MLB? I always thought that it was an extension of MLB. Wasn't the rule passed after the fact? Prior to this rule, there was nothing preventing voters from inducting Shoeless Joe Jackson from being inducted into the HOF despite this so-called gentlemen's agreement. I suspect the powers-that-be passed the rule because of fear that there might be enough voter sympathy for Pete Rose to get him into the HOF.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:16 am

The Baseball Hall Of Fame is completely independent of MLB.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/about/faq.jsp
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby paulthefan » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.


it is absolutely right. I love pete rose (as great a baseball physical talent as there ever was), but I have no problem with retroactive rules like this, they are right and proper and good for society. The HOF is not a democratic institution and should never be one!
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:28 am

paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:24 pm

bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:25 pm

Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:38 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.

You make a good point. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only stipulates that you can't discriminate with regards to the right to vote on the basis of race (15th amendment) and sex (19th amendment). All other forms of discrimination with respect to the right to vote are perfectly legal.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:23 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.

True, and you can add legal aliens to that list :)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Master Po and 6 guests