Ho-Hum

StormanNorman · #11 (**permalink**) 08-08-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Bonds has accomplished a number of things, I agree. I cannot deny it. I guess I just have been very unattracted as a fan to watch Bonds and follow him. That is just me though. He is not a Cardinal or with the Red Sox, and has played a number of years with a team who is the arch rival of the Dodgers; I grew up a Dodger fan in the Don Sutton, Steve Garvey, Manny Mota days.

SN, my gripe is with baseball itself and always will be. As I have said before, Mountain Landis cleaned up the game after the Black Sox problem about 90 years ago but in turn it gave baseball a pass card for many years to come. They work by thier own rules and have kept themselves seperate and in denial about steriod use. "US(?)...USE SERIODS(?)....YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING..." They have allowed it themselves. Bonds is still guilty in this but he is only one of many who have done this as per BB looking the other way.

Hi Cat,

They ignored it because the fans loved it. Remember the whole Sosa and McGwire thing in 1998? That was huge for baseball....and they needed that as they were still stinging from the 1994 strike.

Bonds can have the record. It won't be his for long I don't think.....Pujols or ARod have a good chance of breaking it. Like I said, from my geeky statistics point of view, Bonds really screws things up. I've attached a graph that compares him and Ruth year-by-year based on Bill Jame's win shares statistic.
- 20 win shares is a solid season
- 30 win shares is an all-star and possible MVP season
- 40 win shares is an awesome season...one for the books
- 50 win shares is a historical season and is only been accomplished a handful of times (Speaker - 1, Ruth - 3, Wagner - 1, Mantle - 1, Bonds - 2)

cat's meow · #12 (**permalink**) 08-08-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Cat,

They ignored it because the fans loved it. Remember the whole Sosa and McGwire thing in 1998? That was huge for baseball....and they needed that as they were still stinging from the 1994 strike.

Bonds can have the record. It won't be his for long I don't think.....Pujols or ARod have a good chance of breaking it. Like I said, from my geeky statistics point of view, Bonds really screws things up. I've attached a graph that compares him and Ruth year-by-year based on Bill Jame's win shares statistic.
- 20 win shares is a solid season
- 30 win shares is an all-star and possible MVP season
- 40 win shares is an awesome season...one for the books
- 50 win shares is a historical season and is only been accomplished a handful of times (Speaker - 1, Ruth - 3, Wagner - 1, Mantle - 1, Bonds - 2)

You are sort of preaching to the choir here because in the end statistics over the long term are the great equalizer. When I look at a player I look at statistics or the long haul.

SN, I had long talk with my Pop the last two days who is another statistics and history guy. He is very good this way, here are some things we discussed you might what to put in you hat too.

Bonds or no Bonds...he had the hall of fame #s before the 'off season in question,' he was very well on track to do great things whether you think he is the enemy or not.

The historical points about Mountain Landis and baseball getting pass after pass in controversies over the years. This is a problem with all of MLB not just a single player. If they had cracked down on this very early way back when people like Lyle Alzado were dying of brain cancer due to being 'roided out' then a difference could have been made. The MLB owners and commissioner's office stayed in denial.

Go all the way back to the 1920s during Babe Ruth's formidable slugger days and check out what happened (below)...the ball itself was 'juiced'...should Ruth’s enormous increase in #s have an asterisk? Hey, who is to say; baseball will not allow anything but wood bats but they DID change the ball (and they have slightly other later times too)...just before that time a cork centered ball had been introduced and many changes in the rules and pitching after Black Sox scandal were put into place...that is big changed in the fundamentals of the game.

Quote:

During the 1920 season , news balls were put into play to keep them from getting dirty, thus causing the live ball effect. Babe Ruth took advantage of these clean balls changing the game forever with the birth of the home run hitter. He drew such big crowds with his home runs that it was clear fans preferred home runs to pitching duels. Let the dead ball rest in peace.

Middle of the road · #13 (**permalink**) 08-08-2007, 01:31 PM

I say let him have his record. It won’t mean shit when his kidneys fail or his liver craps out because of all the steroids.

StormanNorman · #14 (**permalink**) 08-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

You are sort of preaching to the choir here because in the end statistics over the long term are the great equalizer. When I look at a player I look at statistics or the long haul.

SN, I had long talk with my Pop the last two days who is another statistics and history guy. He is very good this way, here are some things we discussed you might what to put in you hat too.

Bonds or no Bonds...he had the hall of fame #s before the 'off season in question,' he was very well on track to do great things whether you think he is the enemy or not.

Hi Cat,

No doubt....he was already one of the greatest players of all time.

Quote:

The historical points about Mountain Landis and baseball getting pass after pass in controversies over the years. This is a problem with all of MLB not just a single player. If they had cracked down on this very early way back when people like Lyle Alzado were dying of brain cancer due to being 'roided out' then a difference could have been made. The MLB owners and commissioner's office stayed in denial.

It's always easier to just ride the wave than rock the boat. Baseball is a business first and foremost.

Quote:

Go all the way back to the 1920s during Babe Ruth's formidable slugger days and check out what happened (below)...the ball itself was 'juiced'...should Ruth’s enormous increase in #s have an asterisk? Hey, who is to say; baseball will not allow anything but wood bats but they DID change the ball (and they have slightly other later times too)...just before that time a cork centered ball had been introduced and many changes in the rules and pitching after Black Sox scandal were put into place...that is big changed in the fundamentals of the game.

Actually, Cat, there is considerable debate about wether or not the ball became "juiced" after the 1919 season. The claim is that the ball didn't change one bit. Instead,
- They outlawed the spitter and shine ball
- Made more of an effort to keep clean, new balls in play especially after Ray Chapman's death
- Ruth was the first guy to really swing for the fences. He did hit 29 home runs in 1919 for the Red Sox....that was a record.

But, let's assume they did juice the ball, then that would be the case for everyone...not just Ruth. So, no....no (*). Ruth rose above his contemporaries playing under the same conditions they did. BTW, that is what the Win Shares statistic is based entirely on....how much did a player help his team win. With all things being equal, it would rate a .230 hitter in 1965 in the Houston Astrodome near the same as a .300 hitter in the 1930 National League.