On Shuffle
Let's see. Barry Bonds. Finally caught the Bambino. Hate it or love it, Barry Bonds is one of the top 3offensive players of all-time. Ruth, Williams, Bonds. You can't really separate Ruth and Williams, since Williams lost about 4.5 seasons to WWII and Korea. Aaron had the HR's, but was just really solid for a long time. Mays fell off the cliff after 35. Mantle had a drinking problem and also fell off the cliff in his mid-30's. Where does Bonds fit? Close to Ruth and Williams, with or without steroids.
He probably could have been NL MVP every year from '90 to '04, with the exceptions of '91 (off-year), '98 (McGwire and Sosa) and '99 (injured). He's got 8 Gold Gloves. The numbers are phenomenal. I don't know what you would say the effects of steriods were for this guy. If he was on them, it would be from '00-'03. He was tested and clean in '04. And there wasn't any suspicion until '00. Sure, maybe 73 is tainted. But really, the rest of the numbers from those years aren't that far off from '04, and are really a product of being walked so much (compared to '91-'00 where the walk numbers are high, but not so ridiculous). Net effect? Replace the numbers from '00-'04 with the averages from '93-'99. Still phenomenal. I think that his HR's are inflated, but only by maybe 40. Remember, if he wasn't walked so much, he's still be right up there. And whenever Barry's been on the field, he's been able to hit. The most telling thing- the numbers didn't dive after they started testing in '04, unlike Palmerio and Sosa. And since he's come back last season, his OPS is right around .985, and he's hitting a HR every 13 AB's, numbers that everyone not named Albert Pujols would envy.
Update: ESPN Page 2 just put up an article that looks at this from a similar standpoint. They suggest that Barry would lose about 98 home runs, had he been on steroids since '99 (apparently, it was '99, not '00 that was his first season allegedly on steroids). Interesting read, though it's primarily taken from the direct, physical effects of steroids, and they take away home runs by examining home run distances. They mention some interesting points if you were to critique the article. A big one that I think they should have used was the comparison to '90-'99 Bonds (with '90 being the season that Bonds made The Leap). For example, they could have pretty easily compared how Bonds did in the "dog days" from '99 onward compared to before '99. I seem to recall Bonds being pretty good down the stretch, though that may just be a selective memory. Steroids may or may not have had an effect there and should be explored more closely. Similarly, they could have examined the distances of his home runs prior to '99, and seen if the makeup was significantly different, and model the results to see if they fit their hypothesis of 20 pounds = 9 feet. But, you need to compare it to his previous performance, not just throw it out there arbitrarily. Also, the additional walks certainly matter. I have a suspicion that if you make the comparison based on pre-'99 vs. post-'99, you don't take away 98 home runs, but something closer to what I suggested of about 40. One other critique - while they talked about confidence (though they didn't take any home runs away), associated with taking steroids, I have to say that confidence is one thing that Bonds, from any stage of his career, did NOT lack.
Next.
Just booked a flight to Los Angeles. Conference in Long Beach from June 8-10. Show up. Get some sun. Drive around Cali. Present some stuff on Saturday morning. I'll do a little networking, and may even check out some research that other folks are doing. But the main thing: chill out and relax. Best part? I get additional research funds for this trip since it's actually at a good conference (Marketing and Public Policy Conference). Also, I just found out that I've got a conference next February in Las Vegas. Again, this is another one of the good conferences, so I get additional funds, as well. This is incredible. TFS: Vegas. On the U's tab. I'm either going to make a million bucks or die trying. Wow. I'm digging this whole conference scene, especially now that I'm done with classes. Get out, do a little travel, present a little research, goof off for a few days, and get reimbursed for my troubles. I get research funds. I may as well use them up for something cool.
Next.
It's time to dial in on my summer paper. Can't go on conferences if I don't pass my summer paper. In fact, I don't get my PhD, if I don't pass my summer paper. Better get moving. My best guess? 45 pages, before I add figures and references. Uggh. But it's not that bad. Of the 4 areas that I'm going to review, I know 2 of them pretty well, just took a class on 1 of them, and have an OK starting point for the last one. Of course, I don't have a clue how it'll all fit together until I actually do it.
Next.
Played basketball again today. Still getting the legs back, slowly. I'm trying to be smart. 2 or 3 games, and that's it. Get some treatment for the knees, as well. I think that it'll take me a little longer to loosen up when I play, but I think that I can get some of the quickness back, though I suspect that jumping may never get back. But, fundamentally, I'm still good. Played a big guy who's normally pretty solid. Maybe 6'2", 210. Absolutely shut him down. Muscled him up so that he didn't get anything clean in close. Annoyed his shot by keeping a hand in the face. Kept him completely off the boards. I didn't do much on offense, other than hitting a couple spot-ups from outside, but the teammates took care of it. Felt solid. Now, I'd like to get back to guarding people on the wing. That will come slowly. Hopefully by the end of the summer.
I think that I've let my classes get in the way of my intentions to exercise more and cook more. I think that now that classes are done with (for good!), I'm going to spend 1 or 2 hours being active every day, whether it be playing ultimate (we'll see about that), basketball, riding the bike, or lifting. And I'll start cooking more. It's time to get into better shape, and get back to being athletic. And by the looks of it, it's 3am. It's also time to start sleeping at a more normal schedule :-) We'll see how that goes.
-Chairman
3 comments:
Major can of worms here. I'll address the items I see as being problematic in your argument on Bonds.
First, you note, "Mays fell off the cliff after 35." Later, you state, "Replace the numbers from '00-'04 with the averages from '93-'99." Here's the problem with that reasoning. A major reason steroids are thought to have helped Bonds is in limiting his injuries. He was and is an injury prone fellow. Steroids help in injury recovery as well as muscle development. There's no way to know Bonds would have maintained statistics reminiscent of his athletic peak in his late 30's. Similar to Mays, it's more likely he would have at some point fallen off a cliff or been more frequently injured.
We're seeing it happen this year as well as last. It is likely Bonds' stats would have tapered off following '99 and we would have seen a performance similar to this year's a couple years ago. I think there might be even more than 100 HR's he wouldn't have. In fact, I think it's likely he wouldn't even be playing anymore. Impose the normal offensive production curve on his career stats up to '99 and you end up with a much much lower total in most areas.
On top of this, you cite confidence. I suspect that this confidence was not only from the fact that he knew he was stronger, but his success bred further confidence. If he were like the typical late-30's breaking down athlete, there's no doubt his confidence wouldn't have been as high. He wouldn't have been walked as much, and bottom line he wouldn't be close to in the same league as Ruth and Williams.
Say Mays or even Ruth for that matter had been able to use steroids. Do you think their production would have tapered off so much after 35? No, they would have even greater numbers than they do. The fact that Bonds peaked at age 38 rather than 30 points to a problem in judging his career stats appropriately.
Of course. We've never moved away from controversy.
And ou're right - there's no way to know. But some interesting things to consider:
Remember, Bonds in 1998 (completely pre-steroids) was 34 years old. I suspect that he's different from Mays/Mantle in that they started their downward slide at 32, actually, before really falling off the cliff at 35. Bonds put up a 1.037 OPS, 37 HR, 122 RBI, 120 R, and 28 SB, to boot. As far as injury goes, Bonds has been relatively injury free throughout his career. Since his first full season in 1987 until 2004, Bonds has played an average of 145 games a season, with only two major stints on the DL ('94 and '99). If anything, he was surprisingly durable until '05. And even this year, he's played in 37 out of 44 games, which is on pace for 136 games. Again - pretty reasonable.
As far as precedents for aging players doing spectacular things, I would suggest that modern training (even w/out steroids) and diet allows for the continuation of a peak much longer than it had in the past. But, we do see players lasting longer. We've seen some freaky things from aging athletes: Darrell Green still running sub 4.4 40's at 40, Junior Griffey hitting a HR every 14 AB last year at 36, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson still throwing hard and effectively (at times spectacularly) into their 40's. Carl Lewis taking home a gold in the '96 Olympics at age 35. Perhaps the most interesting is Hank Aaron putting up his two best seasons at age 37 and 39 (coincidentally, a lot like Bonds, whose best seasons have come at 36 and 39).
I understand the typical cycle of peaking at 27-30, plateau from 31-34, decline from 34 until falling off the cliff at some point. But that's a cycle that's normalized across the population (granted, that population is of very good players). But you get a couple of freaks, even within an examination of the best players. I don't think that you apply the normal curve to Barry - just look at what he's done since coming back from injury ('05-'06), and you see that his OPS numbers (.995) and HR rate (1 per 11.9 AB) are still in a class that few have attained (Ruth, Williams are notably better; Bonds '05-'06 is notably better than Aaron and Mays, slightly better than Mantle). Plus, I suggest that Bonds is turning the corner, and ready to put up better numbers this season. And as far as steroids having an effect, note that Palmerio, as he turned 39 and 40, fell off that cliff, and he tested positive for steroids. Similarly, Sosa fell off at 36. And McGwire at 36 and 37 (and he was probably on steroids). Bonds? Seems to be different.
You guys know what I think. I'm just putting more evidence out there for you to chew on.
-Chairman
Some of Bonds' success comes from scared pitchers too. It's not his fault, but the fact that he gets walked so often shows this. Pitchers are deathly afraid of serving one up (which I don't think they should be, but that's not the point).
This means they either walk him OR, yep, they groove one. Thus Bonds' OPS is quite high, but average not as good. The few strikes he's getting are disproportionately grooved. Or at least that's what I'm hypothesizing.
Post a Comment