There already is talk that Pujols is on the juice...it's unavoidable.

I'm suprised you didn't mention the similarities in the smooth Pujols swing, just like Bond's 2001 swing. Every shot looks like a base hit, but magically leaves the stadium!

You so desperately need Pujols to hit 74 HRs to validate your unwavering devotion to Bonds and the belief that he didn't take steroids or if he did, they didn't benefit him. What I hope you realize is that if Pujols makes it to 74, it won't validate Bonds. Bonds, along with McGwire and Sosa, have tainted the game to the point that any legitimate acheivement by others will be discounted as being the result of steroids.

Pujols is 26 and reaching the peak of his abilities. He has shown a steady though not consistent increase in HRs each year. At least moving from the 30s to the 40s. Even a rank amatuer statistician like myself would discount him suddenly jumping into the 70s. The 50s and possibly the low 60s is not out of the question. But the key is he is young and coming into his full abilities so an notable increase can be expected.

Bonds was 37 and established his statistical levels when suddenly he spiked from the 40s in HRs to 73, then back down to 40s. Here is a stats study for you. Find how many players in the history of MLB, at age 37, have seen a 67% increase in one year in the amount of HRs they have hit. And how many of those were performing at a high level to begin with and then went through the roof. I can answer that: one. At the same time it is documented that Bonds was using steroids, even if he thought it was arthritis cream and flax seed oil. (me rolling my eyes) If you think all of this is coincidental and his success was due to advanced equipment and his amazing eye, well enjoy your fantasy world.

Even a rank amatuer statistician like myself would discount him suddenly jumping into the 70s.

Why? Why is statistically improbable that Pujols could increase his season home run total by 75% (which works out to roughly 74 homers)? Think about this: Let's say a player hits 38 homers after hitting 19 the year before; he's more than doubled his average HR total, which is 100%, right? Let me see if I can word this correctly: If Pujols hits 75% more HRs than his career average (40.2 homers) then he is actually hitting relatively fewer homers compared to that player, who is hitting 100% more—but Pujols has more homers from a numbers standpoint! (My math may be a tad sketchy, but my point is pretty spot on: An increase in homers for Pujols compared to that of the other player, is actually less!. In short, it's a "career year".) No doubt it's a big jump, for sure! But is it improbable and completely unexpected? Nah, not really.

Find how many players in the history of MLB, at age 37, have seen a 67% increase in one year in the amount of HRs they have hit.

This was not as hard as I thought: Darrell Evans. He was 38 in 1985 when he hit 40 HRs. The previous year he hit 16. A (roughly) 125% increase over his 1984 season. In 1983, he hit 30. Prior to that year, he never hit more than 20. By all means, 1985 was a statiscally freakish year. (He drifted down to 29 in '86, popped back up to 34, at age 40, in 1987.) And only once before, had he hit 40, and that was in 1973 when he hit 41 at age 26!

So was Evans juicing? No one ever suspected him of such to my knowledge. Was he just becoming a better, more selective hitter? His batting average in '85 certainly doesn't suggest as such: .248. But he was knocking the snot out of the ball and was never an "average" hitter. Is it at all possible that Evans just grooved his swing to become a better, smarter, more pure power hitter? Absolutely.

At the same time it is documented that Bonds was using steroids, even if he thought it was arthritis cream and flax seed oil. (me rolling my eyes) If you think all of this is coincidental and his success was due to advanced equipment and his amazing eye, well enjoy your fantasy world.

There's little doubt that Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Palmiero and others took steroids and knowingly so. Yet, who is in denial here? People like yourself seem to be unwilling or unable to account for or accept that there are numerous other factors that have contributed to the increase in homers (and offense) across the board in recent years. To be dismissive of these factors or not to even acknowledge the parts they play, and give all this credence and power to steroids as being some baseball miracle drug that's had a profound and, yes, unproven affect on baseball stats (talk about fantasy worlds!), is to be wholly disengenuous and dishonest, and ultimately, unfair in the judgement of the accused players.

[quote]People like yourself seem to be unwilling or unable to account for or accept that there are numerous other factors that have contributed to the increase in homers (and offense) across the board in recent years. [/quote]

Before the late 90s, hitting 50+ HRs was a BIG deal. Remember the coverage Cecil Fielder got for his accomplishment. Suddenly in the 90s there is an outburst of power in MLB. At the same time there is a documented rise in the use of steroids. Once the steroid scandal breaks and there is scrutiny about how players are performing, the level of HRs drop back to "normal" levels. Today, a 50+ season is a significant accomplishment.

Now if the rise in HRs was due to advances in technology, physical training, nutrition, mental training, or whatever legal means you want to cite, why are we not still getting elevated home run levels? Did players shun those advances at the same time they stopped taking steroids? No one would expect Bonds or Sosa to perform at elevated levels for an extended period of time. So, where are the others. Shouldn't Arod, Ramierez, etc. be hitting 50 and 60 HRs these days now that all these advances have occurred.

I think, looking back in several years, there will be general trend showing players incrimentally getting better, with this spike during the steroid era.

Suddenly in the 90s there is an outburst of power in MLB. At the same time there is a documented rise in the use of steroids.

Whoa, whoa. "Documented rise", by whom? Ken Caminiti? Jose Canseco? There was and is no documentation of this; all Caminiti and Canseco offer were their allegations, heresay and conjecture, but little proof.

As for "suddenly....outburst of power" and it being some kind of link between it and alleged steroid that is an allegation without proof. Again, as just one example, there's more proof in pointing to the growing number of smaller of ballparks that came into existence, starting in 1991 with Camden Yards. There have been 21 new parks in 16 years! Nearly all of which replaced larger multi-purpose stadiums that generally featured huge power alleys and deeper lines. Accordingly, home runs do begin to rise as new, smaller parks open, no doubt. And progressively, homers increase more so as more stadiums open and, just as importantly, new expansion teams are introduced—espeically the Rockies and Coors Field!

are we not still getting elevated home run levels?

Who says we are not? There are still 5-6 players every year who are hitting 40+ homers every year in each league since testing began in late 2003. Andruw Jones hit 51 last year. A-Rod hit 48. And in 2001 and 2002, his first years in Texas, A-Rod quietly hit 52 and 57 homers.

Shouldn't Arod, Ramierez, etc. be hitting 50 and 60 HRs these days now that all these advances have occurred.

There's no reason to believe that they won't! Although A-Rod, Manny, Teixeira are off to very slow starts, it's entirely possible that either one or all three or more could hit 50+ homers this year. But it's not necessarily a case of, well, shouldn't these guys being doing it, too. Sure, BUT conditions have to be right as I've tried to explain before in previous posts—lineup protection, the park they play in, the pitching staffs they face and, yes, even the weather and so on—all play a part in the gaudy numbers.

Look at this fact: We all know Bonds hit 73 in 2001. But what other players were also in the top 5 in the NL in HRs? L. Gonzalez (57, ARI), Helton (49, COL) and Green (49, LA). All in what division? The very pitching-weak NL West. And not one of those players has come close to those numbers since for myriad reasons, including Bonds. Are you really going to tell me that they were all juiced up?

I think, looking back in several years, there will be general trend showing players incrimentally getting better, with this spike during the steroid era.

And maybe you'll be right. Which goes back to the point about this post and Albert Pujols. What happens if he and perhaps others, with testing in place, hit 55, 60 or even 74 homers? What do we say then? They did in 'naturally' and it's more honest because their being tested? How does it support the arugment that steroids were the sole cause of this alleged spike in home runs and offense?

for standard review by the US Food and Drug

prescription drug and medicine information available on over 24,000 approved-
medications and pharmaceuticals, including side effects and drug interactions

This website includes all the Pharmacy Related (loosely defined)

Stumbled upon this and had to comment that you really unknowingly made the point of the Bonds' detractors. Darrell Evans could have become a smarter, more pure power hitter.

But between 2000 and 2004 Bonds not only registers 5 of his top 6 HR years but also 4 of his 5 best years for batting average including his best three years in a row (an obscene run of .370, .341, and .362).

So Bonds becomes a "pure power hitter" in 2001 but only sacrifices his batting average from its artificial high (he hits .328, also his highest average in almost ten years). He then sacrifices power for average but again only off the artificial high (he still clocks 45 homers a year) and hits some 60 points above his career average for those three years. SIXTY POINTS!

So a 35-year old .288 hitter averaging 32 homers a year comes back from an elbow injury and hits .339 AND averages 52 homers a year for FIVE FULL SEASONS????

Bonds was a great player before the steroids but the problem with the argument id not just the homers but the fact that he suddenly becomes an average hitter and the greatest power hitter ever in his mid-30s after an injury. This isn't about a "career year" it's about five of them (including two batting crowns, which Bonds had never been close to winning even as he won his earlier MVPs).

If Pujols hits 74, people won't question it because he's a young, great hitter just entering his prime. He hits homers, sure, but he also hits tons of doubles (unlike Bonds ever did) and it's not implausible that he starts grooving those for homers. Right now through 35 games he's on pace for 83 homers (obviously auge number) but only 28 doubles (by far his lowest output in his career). I don't think he'll hit 83 homers obviously but if he hit 74, it wouldn't validate Bonds any. It would just continue to validate Pujols.

ohcomeon:

Depsite your handle (it took me a second to get it), I appreciate your rationale and reasonable response. However, your recitation of stats is a.) too shallow of an analysis and, b.) just wrong in a couple of instances�and it makes a difference in your argument. Let me quickly explain.

First, point b. Bonds has always hit a ton of doubles. Yes, Pujols has averaged 45.4 doubles in his 5-year career; outstanding numbers. Bonds is at 28.2 after 20 years; pretty darn impressive (we'll see if Pujols can keep up his current pace). Trouble is, citing the number of doubles a player hits and how that translates into an expectation of home runs is just irrevelant. Doubles come in many forms: bloopers down the line, rocket grounders down the first base line, gappers, etc. Home runs just go over the fence, period. But doubles are not a direct indication of power nor is there an expectation of power to be derived from them as you're citing.

As briefly as possible re: Point A. There's is much, much more to consider when it comes to Bonds' average, home runs and so on. I blogged about this here. (If the link doesn't work, go "The Myths and Absurdity of the Steroids Scandal" at the main Wizbang Sports page.) There I've done some analysis of Bonds' stats, specifically around his SLG. and OBP. (In hindsight, I wished I had cited his OPS history, too.) In short, those numbers are prime, valid and meaningful stats to look at when it comes to having a reasonable expectation of a player's future performance. (If you haven't read "Moneyball", I would highly recommend it. It goes into explaining why and how OBP. SLG. and OPS are much better indicators of a player's ability than are AVG. Billy Beane uses Sabermatician guru Bill James' models to help draft players like Nick Swisher and find gems like Scott Hatteberg.)

People have said I'm using stats to "dance" and make my point. That's complete BS. They are right there in black and white for everyone to see. And when you consider ALL the factors and put the numbers in context that I've explained in previous posts, they begin to make sense.

Also in that article of mine you'll find some other reasons for the rise not just in Bonds' home runs, but in other players as well. There are just so many other factors that contributed to his gawdy numbers and the failure in not considering them and giving them proper weight and due is just dishonest and not thoughtful in analyzing Bonds' numbers. In fact, it will do much to explain your ".339 AND averages 52 homers a year for FIVE FULL SEASONS?"

And the whole point of my citing of Darrell Evans plays exactly back to your point of how "he could have become a smarter, more pure power hitter." That's EXACTLY what I'm saying about Bonds: He could have become a smarter, more pure power (and average) hitter. But nobody, almost nobody, seems willing to allow for that possibility. And that's a travesty considering Bonds' accomplishments.

Fair enough on all fronts and the analysis is interesting. I do think there are many factors contributing to the inflated numbers hitters put up in the late 90s through early 00s. The dilution of pitching talent in an expanded league has been an historical factor for past power surges and definitely contributed here.

But it is pretty clear Bonds and many other players did take steroids. While I don't think it it makes the hitters stronger per se, I do think it speeds up recovery time between games. With the factors working against modern hitters (exetensive travel, facing multiple pitchers), anything that helps a player keep his edge during the marathon season will also help boost his numbers.

But it is pretty clear Bonds and many other players did take steroids. While I don't think it it makes the hitters stronger per se, I do think it speeds up recovery time between games. With the factors working against modern hitters (exetensive travel, facing multiple pitchers), anything that helps a player keep his edge during the marathon season will also help boost his numbers.

I'm definitely on board with you and would only elaborate/clarify that steroids decrease the recovery time because of injury—one of their main benefits. (Steroids are given to medical patients all the time.) So it would definitely aid in making it through the long and grueling season.

My father-in-law, a doctor, and I agree on one single benefit of steroids for position players: quicker bat speed. But not from upper body strength, but from lower body strength where most power in the baseball swing is generated. But quicker hands equal a quicker bat which allow a hitter to turn faster on pitchers.

Given that, wouldn't it be interesting if somebody with some technological prowess were able to take video samples of Bonds' at bats from say '98 through '02 and compare them to his at bats in '03 and '04 when the controversy broke and testing began (and maybe even go further back in his career), measure his bat speed and see what, if any, increase there was and note the differences? If, as a hypothetical example, he went from a 122MPH bat speed in '99 to 126MPH in '01, that's a pretty significant increase and would be some pretty hard evidence of use. And apart from shooting players up with roids and testing them, it's the most scientifically feasible way to measure the true affect of steroids that I've been able to come up with.

Of course, I don't know if it's possible to measure bat speed from a video, and I think the sampling of at bats would have to be pretty large in order to obtain an average bat speed, but wouldn't it be an interesting exercise?

1. Bonds admitted taking steroids... he just didn't admit he knew what he was taking.

2. Ballparks are getting smaller and smaller

3. Bonds looks like a hockey goalie at the plate with all the armour he's wearing

4. Bonds was already a hall of fame baseball player before he had his 73 HR season

5. Baseball has added several teams over the past 15 years that "waters" down the available pitchers... 4 teams in the 90's equals about 40 pitchers pitching in the bigs that wouldn't have been there in the 1980's

6. You take a hall of fame player in Bonds, add about 25lbs of musle with incredible (steroid) strength, add protection that makes him fearless of getting hit by a pitch, put him in a lineup between two solid hitters, playing in smaller ballparks throughout the country, and that equals 73.

Albert i was just wanting to comment on the way that you play baseball, i my opinion you play wonderful and the way that you work with your teammates is excellent, keep up the good work! you are my number one fan, maybe someday i will meet you in person,. you have the best strenght in baseball and i hope that you win MVP this year as well as the others. keep up the wonderful work. if the cardinals ever get sign you off that will be the biggest mistake the managers could ever do, the team will go to thestraight to the ground. i wish that there were more people out there like you and your wife.