Thailog80 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Seven MVP's and ZERO World Series rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Seven MVP's and ZERO World Series rings. 118894[/snapback] I'll grant you that he's not been great in most post seasons, but since he's been in SF they've made the post season with teams that weren't nearly as talented as those they've faced. In the last WS he played, his OBP was .700. It's hardly his fault Livan Hernandez couldn't get my mother out. And screw all you guys making me defend friggin' Barry Bonds. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Let's all drink a Roid milkshake in his honor ! Way to gain 40 lbs of muscle in a few months and deny taking roids ! Go America ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Let's all drink a Roid milkshake in his honor ! Way to gain 40 lbs of muscle in a few months and deny taking roids ! Go America ! 118919[/snapback] Please cite the exact offseason in which Bonds "gained 40 lbs of muscle in a few months." I believe you are thinking of Len Dykstra or Ken Caminiti. Or... Jason Giambi. Everyone likes to point at pictures of Bonds as a rookie and now, but I'd like to see 19 pictures, one for every year since he got to the majors. I bet you'll see a much more gradual change than you think. It's like Sam Kinison's "old five-to-ten pounds a year trick." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Please cite the exact offseason in which Bonds "gained 40 lbs of muscle in a few months." I believe you are thinking of Len Dykstra or Ken Caminiti. Or... Jason Giambi. Everyone likes to point at pictures of Bonds as a rookie and now, but I'd like to see 19 pictures, one for every year since he got to the majors. I bet you'll see a much more gradual change than you think. It's like Sam Kinison's "old five-to-ten pounds a year trick." 118965[/snapback] Regardless of his usage (I would venture to guess performance enhancement is the norm rather than the exception with so much money involved), his performance is still ridiculous. I don't care what he's taking, to hit the ball that hard with that kind of frequency is AMAZING. McGwire's 70 HR season was legendary. For Bonds to do essentially the same thing but strike out only 93 times (big Mac struck out 155 times) is remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Barry Bonds is 40 years old and has more muscle now then when he was 25. Yep, he's not taking ANYTHING. The evidence is all there. I wish they would prove it and ban him from the game. Shoeless Joe got banned for less for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Let's all drink a Roid milkshake in his honor ! Way to gain 40 lbs of muscle in a few months and deny taking roids ! Go America ! 118919[/snapback] Pot stirrrrrrrrer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Let's all drink a Roid milkshake in his honor ! Way to gain 40 lbs of muscle in a few months and deny taking roids ! Go America ! 118919[/snapback] Yeah sure.... It's also a scientific fact that taking roids speeds up your bat. And it also helps your hand eye coordination. Not to mention it makes you hit the ball further. And if you watched him play (like I have for many years) you would realize that he didn't gain 40 lbs. in a few months. He put it on in the last 5 to 6 years. He decided years ago that he was going to rededicate himself to the game and his body. Which he did. Now has been accused of roids. Is it true? I don't know do you? Does anyone? And if memory serves me right it's usually around age 35+ when men and women tend to gain unwanted lbs... That just happens. So dog the guy all you want the fact of the matter is he is probably the best that has ever lived and the best that we will ever see in our life time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Yeah sure.... It's also a scientific fact that taking roids speeds up your bat. And it also helps your hand eye coordination. Not to mention it makes you hit the ball further. And if you watched him play (like I have for many years) you would realize that he didn't gain 40 lbs. in a few months. He put it on in the last 5 to 6 years. He decided years ago that he was going to rededicate himself to the game and his body. Which he did. Now has been accused of roids. Is it true? I don't know do you? Does anyone? And if memory serves me right it's usually around age 35+ when men and women tend to gain unwanted lbs... That just happens. So dog the guy all you want the fact of the matter is he is probably the best that has ever lived and the best that we will ever see in our life time. 119522[/snapback] Everything in the world points towards this guy being a steroid user. Just face it, Barry isn't as innocent as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Everything in the world points towards this guy being a steroid user. Just face it, Barry isn't as innocent as you think. 119533[/snapback] I guess I'm just in denial bf... denial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I would rather give up a homer to him then walk him to be honest with you. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. I'm not going to call you an idiot, I'm just going to say that what you said was idiotic. You can find something called the 'expected runs matrix' here: Expected Runs This tells you how many runs a team can expect to score given a base-out situation. From this chart you can see that a team can expect to score .46 runs in an inning when there are 0 outs and no one on. Further, a team can expect to score .81 runs in the 0 out, runner on first situation. Now... You would rather have Barry lead off with a homerun, than walk him. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding baseball. In the situation where Barry hits a homerun to lead off an inning, you could expect the Giants to score 1.46 runs (Barry's homer and then the .46 runs expected given the base-out situation). If you walk him (runner on first, o out), you could expect the Giants to score .81 runs. Tell me again how 1.46 is < .81? Without even bringing this table into consideration, your statement makes ZERO sense, baseball or otherwise. Say Bonds hits a homerun. Giants are guaranteed to score 1 run, for sure. If Barry walks, the Giants still don't have any runs, and aren't guaranteed to get any. You would rather guarantee that the Giants score a run, than have a chance to not give up any??? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and give you the chance to backtrack from the quote above. I could accept that you just had a 'McCarverism', and meant something other than what you said. Please tell me you meant something other than what you said. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Everything in the world points towards this guy being a steroid user. Just face it, Barry isn't as innocent as you think. 119533[/snapback] If anybody ever got cheated out of an MVP by a steroid user, it was Bonds himself. That's right. In 1996 he hit 42 home runs and stole 40 bases to become the first (and if I'm right, still the only) National Leaguer to have a 40-40 season. Yet the MVP went to Ken Caminiti. And if anyone ever was the poster child for steroid use, it was Caminiti. Add in the '91 season when Terry Pendleton won the award despite Bonds having much better numbers (both teams finished first, btw) and the '00 season when the writers gave it to Jeff Kent (who was never as good before or after he hit next to Bonds), and we're talking about at least 10 years in which you could have made a solid argument for Bonds as the MVP. Steroids don't help you hit .370 or walk unintentionally 114 times. That kind of patience doesn't square with being a steroid user. By the way, BF, have you seen Mark McGwire lately? He weighs about 100 pounds less than when he played. That line about people who live in glass houses comes to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 If anybody ever got cheated out of an MVP by a steroid user, it was Bonds himself. That's right. In 1996 he hit 42 home runs and stole 40 bases to become the first (and if I'm right, still the only) National Leaguer to have a 40-40 season. Yet the MVP went to Ken Caminiti. And if anyone ever was the poster child for steroid use, it was Caminiti. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 If anybody ever got cheated out of an MVP by a steroid user, it was Bonds himself. That's right. In 1996 he hit 42 home runs and stole 40 bases to become the first (and if I'm right, still the only) National Leaguer to have a 40-40 season. Yet the MVP went to Ken Caminiti. And if anyone ever was the poster child for steroid use, it was Caminiti. Add in the '91 season when Terry Pendleton won the award despite Bonds having much better numbers (both teams finished first, btw) and the '00 season when the writers gave it to Jeff Kent (who was never as good before or after he hit next to Bonds), and we're talking about at least 10 years in which you could have made a solid argument for Bonds as the MVP. Steroids don't help you hit .370 or walk unintentionally 114 times. That kind of patience doesn't square with being a steroid user. By the way, BF, have you seen Mark McGwire lately? He weighs about 100 pounds less than when he played. That line about people who live in glass houses comes to mind... 119741[/snapback] I wouldn't be suprised if McGwire used steroids himself. There are plenty of baseball players using them. I don't really disagree with you on the '91 MVP voting or the '96 voting. I just disagree this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. I'm not going to call you an idiot, I'm just going to say that what you said was idiotic. You can find something called the 'expected runs matrix' here: Expected Runs This tells you how many runs a team can expect to score given a base-out situation. From this chart you can see that a team can expect to score .46 runs in an inning when there are 0 outs and no one on. Further, a team can expect to score .81 runs in the 0 out, runner on first situation. Now... You would rather have Barry lead off with a homerun, than walk him. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding baseball. In the situation where Barry hits a homerun to lead off an inning, you could expect the Giants to score 1.46 runs (Barry's homer and then the .46 runs expected given the base-out situation). If you walk him (runner on first, o out), you could expect the Giants to score .81 runs. Tell me again how 1.46 is < .81? Without even bringing this table into consideration, your statement makes ZERO sense, baseball or otherwise. Say Bonds hits a homerun. Giants are guaranteed to score 1 run, for sure. If Barry walks, the Giants still don't have any runs, and aren't guaranteed to get any. You would rather guarantee that the Giants score a run, than have a chance to not give up any??? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and give you the chance to backtrack from the quote above. I could accept that you just had a 'McCarverism', and meant something other than what you said. Please tell me you meant something other than what you said. Really. 119547[/snapback] I'm not sure who came up with that, but I don't think that's accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts