sure, walks play a huge role here. but the main reason he was walking so much more than before was that he was so devastating when he did make contact, so he was being pitched around or intentionally walked. so you can't really take walks out of the equation, b/c by extension it's still a measure of hitting ability. or at least in Bonds case it was.

Not only is this thread awesome 'cause of Red Bean, a lot of tardos have helpfully self identified. Everybody wins! (save the tardos)

Boy has this thread gone off on a tangent. WTF, Bruce Bochy?! Let me deal me the link OP provided. The main assertion is this:

"When split into three different growth phases, what was previously presented as an unimaginable late-career power SURGE, or a “stratosphere” as Costas puts it, now looks like a natural and continuous power PROGRESSION".

I have 2 big problems with the link. The 1st is the arbitrary use of the 1st 7 seasons of Bonds' career as a growth phase. The 2nd is that the link includes stats that IMO are irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters for this discussion is power, specifically HR's. The only stats I'll be dealing with are Slg Pct and AB/HR.

The OP cuts off the 1st phase when Bond's leaves Pitt. Why? Because he changes home parks? Here are Bonds' career stats through '92(Yr, Slg Pct, AB/HR):

'86 416 25.8
'87 492 22.0
'88 491 22.4
'89 426 30.5
'90 565 15.7
'91 514 20.4
'92 624 13.9

It seems to me that '89 is the more logical cutoff. '90 is clearly a breakout power year and although he regresses in '91 it is not to a point below where he was in his 1st 4 years. '92 clearly doesn't belong with the 1st 4 years. So what happens after he moves to SF?

'93 677 11.7
'94 647 10.6
'95 577 15.3
'96 615 12.3
'97 585 13.3
'98 609 14.9

Seems to me like a very consistent (and VERY good) player. I have no problem with grouping these years with '90-'92. '99 is when the fun begins. Barry allegedly began juicing before the '99 season but before he could get going that year he tore a tricep muscle and missed 7 weeks due to surgery. When he returned he did this:

'99 619 10.4

A career best AB/HR but a season that still looks a lot like the previous 9. For my purposes I'm going to include it here. So this is what we have:

'86-'89 456 25.2 Age 21-24
'90-'99 603 13.9 Age 25-34...Starts to mature physically, gets bigger and stronger and puts together 10 very good, if not great, seasons.

Age 35. What would we expect? More greatness such as we've seen over the last 10 years? A slight decline given the age. A rapid decline given the injury from the prior year? How about this:

'00 688 9.8 Career bests but not startling enough to make you go 'what the hell just happened'? 49 HR's is a new high, beating his old PR by 16% but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. But this at age 36!:

'01 863 6.5 OMFG! I remember reading a quote that when you look at Babe Ruth's stats compared to his contemporaries the only conclusion you can draw is that he came here from Krypton. This would apply to Bonds this year. The next 3 years:

'02 799 8.8
'03 749 8.7
'04 812 8.3

Bonds had the best 5 seasons of his career at the ages of 35-39! Has any other player in the history of the game had their best 5 seasons in their late 30's? 'Unimaginable' seems like a good word for it. Look at the 3 periods the way I think they should be grouped:

'86-'89 456 25.2
'90-'99 603 13.9
'00-'04 782 8.4

Smooth progression? Only if you believe that after 10 years of consistent production you suddenly, at age 35, experience a second growth spurt. The Bonds apologists need to come up with a better argument than the link OP provided.

I have my complaints about the OP link, but I don't see how excellence, even seemingly otherworldly so, becomes an indictment.

This thread is the most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life. A guy gets praised for making comparisons and drawing analogies which have less than zero logic to them. Not only does he worship the ground Bonds walks on, but he's telling us that Barry Bonds didn't do steroids because one player in the late 60's surged and others didn't. We're then being informed that Barry Bonds head size hasn't changed, but if it has, it's not proof of anything anyway. We're being told that testing one greenie 15 years into your career and hating it is the equivalent of spending years pumping female fertility drugs and sh*t called Mexican beans into your frame in a jealous rage over the success of Mark Mcgwire.

I might as well show up late to work 2morrow, then explain that I wasn't on time because it rained in Moscow three weeks ago.

Go ahead champ, copy-and-paste away.

FireStorm,

I'm amazed that you think increasing head size is anyway of an indicator of steroid use. Perhaps you can show how that is an indicator of using teh juice?

And wtf are you talking about female fertility drugs for and mexican beans? Have you been reading espn for juice advice?

Head size increase in and of itself is not evidence of anything. Head size increase, muscle mass increase, surging performance beyond what people think is humanly possible, positive amphetamine tests, pages and pages of documented evidence, witness testimony, and a potential pending indictment for perjury seem to paint a fairly clear picture, wouldn't you agree?

Would it also be fair to say that Bonds steroid use and Aaron trying a greenie are pretty diffrent and really don't belong in the same conversation?

You are a moran.

You're a [censored] idiot of the highest order. Head size increase along with any other indicator is the clearest indication of HGH use along with a distended gut.

The easiest conclusion to draw back is that no one uses HGH on its own. Its synergistic with juice and insulin. Amazing you hear no one talk about insulin abuse which is probably more important than stressing over HGH?

Get a clue dude.

And Aaron didn't take "one" greenie.

Feel free to explain why I'm a "moran" instead of relying on the idiotic 2p2 method of increasing your post count with a three word disagreement. Spelling lessons might help. As for indicators of steroid use, this is a silly conversation to continue to have, if you people want to live in a fantasy world where Barry is 100% clean and everyone else everywhere is lying, go right ahead.

Bean hasn't been saying that bonds didnt do steroids, at all, and that you think that's his point, shows that you don't know wtf you're tlakuign about. Plus you keep mentioning his headsize, when your evidence is "look at it!" show soem pictures of his head before, and his head after, i'm nto convinced, especially after bean cited his HOF helmet being teh same size as when he started.

edit: this is just to scratch the surface about why your posts are ******ed, and redbean is the man.

Yes, obviously Redbean is the man. One wonders why someone would stipulate to Bonds using steroids, but still research head size information to refute allegations that his head is bigger as a result of them. I don't think Redbean has any idea if he thinks Bonds took steroids or not, what I do know is that his logic is beyond bizarre and he's comparing apples and oranges. We keep getting told that it's some unfair act that the media castigates Bonds but doesn't mention Aaron's amazing one sentence mention of a greenie pop forty years ago. If you need the difference between the two to be explained, go back to grade school.

STEEROIDS DONT INCREASE HEAD SIZE. FFS.

This is why you're a "moran". You make arguments based on your own preconceived notions without any thinking. Or you read someone else's half cocked logic and then parrot it.

In and of itself, it isn't. However, within the context of his career and coming when it did after 10 seasons of consistent results it is evident to me that SOMETHING happened. Bonds' years from '00-'04 were not just normal growth. They were the 5 best seasons of his career (by a wide margin). They came after 10 remarkably consistent seasons. They came when he was 35-39 years old. Those are facts. Trying to show that these years were just normal growth is patently absurd.

You criticized the article for "arbitrarily" breaking Bonds career into three fairly even chunks 7-6-6 years.

And then you arbitrarily chopped it up into 4-10-5 years, and left off his last two seasons. All of which was mighty convenient because it seemed grouped to maximize the emphasization of your point.

Let's see if I can do the same with Hank Aaron, arbitrarily using 3-12-5 seasons, and leaving off the last ones.

'54-'56 - 1 HR every 25.4 AB
'57-'68 - 1 HR every 16.2 AB
'69-'73 - 1 HR every 11.8 AB (Age 35-39)

Uh-oh.

Looks like Hank started off slow, then matured and was consistent for 12 solid years, and then at age 35 he surged to heights he had never been.

Why do you think anyone should have to apologize for Bonds putting up good numbers?

Do you think someone should apologize for Hank's numbers too?

Either way....Ok, I guess I'll do it....um....hey guy...I'm sorry Barry hit all those homeruns.

Better now?

Oh, almost forgot....I apologize for Hank too.

And while we're at it, I apologize for Carlton Fisk too.

And Hank Sauer.

In fact, let me just go ahead and apologize for every person over the age of 35 who ever hit a homerun.

Here's some more fun with numbers:

Bonds 4 years immediately prior to MLB steroid testing:
1 HR every 9.7 AB

Bonds 4 years AFTER MLB steroid testing:
1 HR every 8.4 AB

Look at that improvement once we finally got those damn pitchers off the juice!

looking at these guys numbers, they look they their post 30's careers were nearly as strong as their 'traditional peak years'. however, like Aaron, they came nowhere close to Bonds' 'old' years in terms of overall effectiveness (as compared to their younger years).

People please start posting suggestion titles for Redbean.
My suggestion in honour of FireStorm is Strawman.

Not if you let me arbitrarily chop their careers into 3 different periods of my own choosing, similar to how whats-his-face did.

Oddly enough, Bonds most effective seasons came after steroid testing. I remember SI publishing that offseason (Verducci to be exact) that "now it will be a level playing field and we'll see the true players emerge, and some conspicuously disappear".

Oops. Not exactly what they expected.

He's constructed a rather nice one, hasn't he?

And I admire his moxy for flaunting it so openly without even a hint of trying to sneak it in or conceal it in the slightest.

He just swooped in upon us and...BLAM..."here's a patently ridiculous strawman I have constructed to argue with...ROOOAAAR!"

I figured I'd just stay out of their way and see who wins...judging so far, his own strawman may even outwit him...

"Just the facts, ma'am."

Also, I don't know how many current posters (including RedBean himself) will get it, but he should change his location to, "watching Bonds pwn".

Just wanted to point out that saying 90-99 is "very good, if not great" is underestimating things by quite a bit. That 10 year stretch alone isn't just HOF worthy--it's top 10 of all-time.

More fun with numbers:

Let's use your hand-picked, arbitrary periods as applied to the entire National League.

AB per HR:
'86-'89 - 44.0
'90-'99 - 37.6
'00-'04 - 31.3

Yikes.

Oooohhh....I got an even better idea. Instead of using your arbitrarily selected periods, let me choose my own.

Oddly enough, they correspond with the OP's article, 7-6-6 seasons. (Instead of your 4-10-5)

Remember, this is the entire National League:

AB per HR:
'86-'92 - 45.1
'93-'98 - 36.0
'99-'04 - 31.2

Hmmmm.

I wonder if something external has happened that has caused Homeruns to go up across the board?

Maybe it was steroids?

AB per HR:
'97-'02 (5 yrs pre-testing) - 31.8
'03-'07 (5 yrs post testing)- 32.4

Hmmmm...not that big a difference really...maybe it wasn't that?

Can we take a look at something besides what SI tells us to look at, maybe?

Could it be maple bats?

The much denser, lighter, harder wood approved in '98, slowly introduced in '99, and widely adopted by '00:

'91-'98 (8yrs pre-maple bat) - 38.4
'99-'07 (8yrs post-maple bat)- 31.4

Sheesh, if we had seen that big a surge over an entire league after drug testing, then people would be shouting it from the rooftops.

FACT: HR production league wide has increased substantially more from pre and post maple bat introduction than it has from pre and post steroid testing.

That's because pitchers don't benefit from maple bats!

AB per HR:
Bonds (4yrs pre-maple) - 13.9
Bonds (4yrs post-maple)- 8.8

Hmmmmmm

Maybe we should call this the "Sam Bat Era" ??