Barry Bonds. What if...
craig44
Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have been looking at Barry Bonds stats recently. I got to wondering, had he not been frozen out after the 2007 season, how much longer could he have played? how many homers could he have ended up with?
I imagine he would have been a great addition to an AL team at the time as he could have DH'ed. that would have saved his knees and he probably would have been able to play a full season. at least in 2008.
His last year, 2007, he slashed: .480/.565/1.045. He was still one of the very tippy top hitters at the time of his retirement. He hit 28 home runs in only 340 AB's and was consistently pitched around as he led the league in IBB.
I think in a full season he could have hit 40 HR's in 2008. that would have put him over 800 career.
I believe had he been able to play DH in the AL, he could have lasted another 3 seasons and gotten to 825 or perhaps even 850 HRs.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Comments
Your numbers are probably pretty close
That's funny.
A few years ago I made my "best guess" as to where he might have ended up had he relied on his natural ability instead of turning himself into an alien mutant.
He was about a 30 HR a year guy and if he played 20+ years, he might have ended up with HR numbers similar to Willie Mays and been in the discussion of the greatest of all time.
Bonds' numbers are a complete joke as he is as a ballplayer.
There is quite a bit of evidence that Mays used Amphetamines during his career. They were not banned until the early/mid 2000s in MLB, but they were illegal under the controlled substances act, similar to steroids. I feel bad even calling out Mays here because, also similar to steroids, amphetamines and other stimulants (which were banned substances same as steroids even though they were not banned in MLB) were widely used in MLB. It's a profound amount of hypocrisy and a dash of pseudo-science.
Did you ever read the book "Ball Four"? Jim Bouton talks about "greenies" quite a bit. He says they can hurt your performance as well.
Comparing Anabolic Steroids to Amphetamines is like saying a hand grenade and a Nuclear bomb are the same.
Have you ever taken Amphetamines on a regular basis? I have. They might have kept me awake when I worked nights, but they certainly didn't do much else. Side effects of nervousness and paranoia wouldn't have made for a better baseball player.
Have you ever taken steroids? Up until recently, I was on Doctor prescribed injections of testosterone and I couldn't believe the positive effect it had on my pain and fatigue of being an old man.
Frankly, I'm surprised someone as smart as you would make the comparison.
edited to add; Please answer this question. Whose numbers were more effected? Willies for using "uppers" or Barrys for using Steroids and gaining 40 lbs of muscle?
A quick look at their careers is all it takes.
His 43 IBB in his final year would have put him only three behind the all time record for a single season(a Non Bonds season)....and he only played 126 games that year.
28 HR in 340 AB's and basically getting zero to one hittable pitch in an at bat is amazing...and for the "PED moaning gang"...even if they did give him an edge(and don't forget that you would have to figure how much of an edge he got from PED and working out compared to just working out without PED), his numbers are still insanely better than nearly everyone including whatever small edge he may have gotten compared to the league mates who were basically in the same boat as well.
As for anecdotal, I and countless other humans, have experienced immense strength growth from working out without any steroids. Steroids might have given me more strength, but the strength gained without them was still better than most all other people I know who either didn't work out or who did but just weren't as genetically pre-dispositioned to reach the same gains.
So even if you wanted to ding him for home runs in that final year, ding him down to 25 instead of 28
...unless one can prove otherwise...he hit 28 HR in 340 at bats and as the OP said, he was easily on his way to over 800 had he chosen to keep playing.
I think you have strategically missed my point.
Did I ever read Ball Four?
I have. It's OK. People who fawn over it seem odd to me.
Are you aware that amphetamines are stimulants and they do significantly impact athletic performance by enhancing endurance, strength, reaction time, and alertness while reducing exertion. They are banned not because they enhance ability, but because long-term usage poses risks like cardiovascular issues, heat stroke, and addiction.
Comparing Anabolic Steroids to amphetamines is like saying a hand grenade and a Nuclear bomb are the same?
That's powerful symbology.
Colorful analogy aside you're simply asserting that their magnitude is different. You should take care in your order when presenting an analogy as here you have 'Steroids' taking the part of 'hand grenade' and I suspect you're trying to state the opposite. It's not true that their outcome is significantly different with regard to athletic performance when used properly. Steroids take more dedication to realize benefit as steroids work by promoting muscle protein synthesis over weeks or months. Amphetamines stimulate the central nervous system... Most people have heard of stories of feats of strength that exceed physiological limits we might understand... well that's due to adrenaline which perform this same function. While adrenaline is short-acting, designed for immediate, temporary stress response -- fight or flight -- amphetamines are designed to have a much longer duration of action. I don't know whether you avoid knowledge or simply live under a rock but this isn't unknown to man... this is fact.
Have you ever taken Amphetamines on a regular basis?
I have not. I eagerly await the peer review of your scientific study on the real effect of amphetamines.
Have you ever taken steroids?
Yes. Does which kind matter?
Frankly, I'm surprised someone as smart as you would make the comparison.
I think it's a good comparison, so I appreciate your surprise. I might worry if we agreed that I've approached the concept without bias.
Player A uses controlled substance before MLB policy bans usage. OK
Player B uses controlled substance before MLB policy bans usage. Not OK
If there was a "crayon font" available here I would use it to make this point clearer.
Whose numbers were more effected? Willies for using "uppers" or Barrys for using Steroids and gaining 40 lbs of muscle?
It's tough to say as the usage of amphetamines in MLB, and this is supported by Bouton, was to maintain a baseline of performance throughout a grueling season. Is what isn't lost as important as what is gained? There are a lot of variables, which is why I make the argument that it doesn't matter.
My question is how many HR’s would he have hit if he didn’t have help??
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Probably not enough more homers to get him into the hall of fame.
Making the pirates hall of fame is pretty good though. Decent career, nothing that really stands out.
I enjoyed the book. Quite humorous. Also the first book written by an ex baseball player who actually experienced the effects of amphetamines. He said they could help and they could also hurt your performance.
>
>
>
That is not entirely correct. they can enhance alertness and also make you "jittery" and nervous. I don't believe they can increase strength. As you point out they have significant side effects, but you conveniently ignore the short term ones.
>
>
>
I suppose I could have said "stick of dynamite".
>
>
>
"Live under a rock"? Amphetamines just don't work long term. Your body quickly develops a tolerance and you need to take more and more while getting less and less in return, if anything. Steroids taken "properly" increase muscle mass, strength and mental intensity much more permanently. Guys like Bonds are most likely cycling on and off as well as using different steroids to get better results. Canseco describes it in his book. There's REALLY no comparison on the results between the two substances.
>
>
>
I know what they did to me, you admittedly have ZERO experience (under a rock?).
>
Yes and no, Steroids are generally synthetic Testosterone. I was taking a doctor prescribed testosterone. Felt like it took 10 years off my age. If you want to share your experience, feel free, if not, that's fine too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's a comparison, just not a very good one. It is possible I OVER estimated your intelligence.
>
>
>
>
>
No one's caring about MLB's policy. That's not relevant. Steroids were an illegal drug and the policy couldn't be changed with out the collective bargaining agreement being renegotiated. They weren't going on strike to tell the players that illegal drugs were wrong.
>
>
>
You're really becoming rather childish here, Again, I would think someone of intelligence *(?) would not have to resort to denigrating. Amusing that you use crayons in your reply. Is that what you are used to using?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The secondary point I would make is that amphetamines were readily available to the players, even if there's a benefit, easy to get for everyone. Even playing field.
Very few players were taking the time and effort to obtain and then use steroids, and work out enough in a way they would get the results that Bonds and a few others were able to get.
Why not go all the way and theorize what he could have done if he had been juicing right from the start as well as getting those 3 extra seasons?
He averaged 52.3 home runs a season from 2001-2004, give him 25 years at that rate and he ends up with 1,308 HR!
That is not entirely correct. they can enhance alertness and also make you "jittery" and nervous. I don't believe they can increase strength. As you point out they have significant side effects, but you conveniently ignore the short term ones.
Amphetamines generally maintain their therapeutic effect over long periods of consistent use, though individuals may require dosage changes over time and this may or may not be related to their bodies' reaction to prolonged use of the stimulant or changes otherwise independent of usage.
Amphetamines are designed to promote enhanced strength output, power, and endurance by stimulating the central nervous system.
When you state your opinion on science it's generally incorrect. There's no excuse today when information is a prompt away for you to be promoting false science online.
Honestly I'm done with you and this place. So stupid here.
I’m thinking about starting a thread and posting exclusively to it……..
“Cool badminton photos”.
Alas, the old adage appears true that there never has been a cool badminton photo. So a bit of a conundrum for me. 🤔
at this point in the PED game, I do not really care who used and who didnt. we will NEVER know who used and who didnt (with the exception of a failed test or an admission)
I am just using the numbers that have been accumulated by all the players of the past and present.
I fully believe most players have used PED of some sort. both past and present. take a look at Aaron Judge for example. 6'7" 285 pounds of chisled muscle. tell me that guy isnt on some type of designer PED that they dont even have a test for currently...
there is no formula that i can use to discount Bonds stats because of alleged PED use. do I discount his numbers by 8%? 13%? 42%? How much do I discount Gaylord Perry's stats for using illegal substances? What about Ruth using illegal bats? whitey ford? don drysdale? Rogers Hornsby? all known/admitted cheaters.
I also am not going to differentiate between "little" PED use and "big" PED use. or using illegal bats, balls other equipment.
for me, the numbers a player put up are the numbers i will use.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What if...Barry never took steroids.
Utilizing ChatGBT we can take a look at Barry Bonds and use his averages from his pre-steroid era 1986-1992 and apply that to all future at-bats. We can also use an expected decline with players like Miggy, Pujols, Griffey, and Frank Thomas as examples. Here is what we get.
2,470 hits / 415 HR / 1,390 RBI / .275 BA
ChatGBT did advise me that from 1989 to 1992, Bonds was seeing that his natural (pre-steroid) trajectory was improving so it is plausible that he would have better numbers.
This would be Bonds peak career numbers if we take that into account
2,870 Hits / 500 HR / 1660 RBI / .290 BA
We KNOW Bonds used. He admitted to using the clear.
You speculated on his potential home runs he might have hit had his career continued, and that's fair.
I just speculated how many he would have hit had he been juicing his entire career.
Even without the extra years if Bonds had signed with Boston or the Yankees his HRs would have been a lot higher. SF is a rough park for left handed hitters and he did did have to play a decent amount of games in SD with the original dimensions of Petco which also was death to left hanged hitters
He got robbed of double digit homeruns from the amount of games in those two parks
Fire AJ Preller
Well done Professor! Very informative and well laid out post.
some say that PED's of any kind made MLB an "unlevel" playing field. that is really not the case at all. at least before the 2005 season when they were added to the prohibited list as collectively bargained.
all the players had access to steroids/amphetamines/ped before the 2005 season when they were added to the collectively bargained banned list. some chose to use, others did not. to say the playing field was not "level" is inaccurate.
the 1984 MLB drug policy did not include either steroids or amphetamines, only drugs of "abuse" like cocaine etc.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Completely false statements here.
Amphetamines never helped a player hit 70+ home runs, especially a 30-35 HR guy like Bonds. Steroids gave an incredible boost by permanently increasing muscle mass as long as the player followed a regimen. Amphetamines were at best a temporary "boost" that could hurt your performance just as much as help it.
Secondly steroids were MUCH harder to obtain and use. Many players were not willing to inject themselves and also work out as much as was needed to show the results that guys like Bonds. McGwire and Sosa achieved.
Are both substances cheating? Of course, but steroids actually improve performance and amphetamines probably hurt as much as help.
All you really need todo is look at HR numbers. Ruth hit 60, Foxx hit 58, Maris hit 60. Several players hit in the low to mid 50's and these guys were sluggers.
Bonds was no slugger. Sosa was a league average hitter. McGwire was a slugger. Aroid wasn't a slugger either.
If amphetamines were anywhere near as effective, there would have been guys hitting more than 60 before steroids came into the picture.
Steroids/HGH were very easy to acquire for any MLB player. I dont know what to say to your statement that steroids were "MUCH" harder tp obtain. it is patently false. If a MLB player wanted steroids, they could find steroids. period.
Ruth was playing in a much inferior league (white only) that was in transition from the dead ball to live ball eras. there was no other era in baseball history where one player could out homer full teams. but you know all of that.
can you explain how using steroids/hgh/amphetamines is "cheating" if all players had access and there is no collectively bargained rule or penalty for use before the 2005 season?
to add, amphetamines absolutely can help performance. look at chris davis. he was an absolute monster on amphetamine/adderall. he was busted in the 2014 crackdown on adderall and tanked. .196 average. then he got a "theraputic exemption" for the next season and had another monster year. then all downhill after that.
amphetamines got him a $160MM contract and the lack of amphetamine made it one of the worst contracts in history
also, do a little research on Aubrey Huff. He said amphetamine made him feel "invincible" and were "more potent" than steroids.
amphetamines work. it is why they used them.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
None of what I said was wrong.
If amphetamines were as "good" as steroids, why did Chris Davis go "downhill after that"? Davis had 4 full seasons in the league Amphetamines most likely "burned him out".
Bonds didn't go downhill. This actually supports my position that amphetamines are a temporary enhancement at best, and then they HURT performance.
Aubrey Huff? Again, thanks for supporting my theory. His career was as up and down as a yoyo. Below average hitter in 2005, 2009, 2011, barely above average in 2007. Yes, Amphetamines can make you "feel" invincible, Bouton addresses this by saying they can make you too confident and hurt your performance.
ANYONE familiar with Amphetamines knows they are a street drug readily available to everyone. ANYONE who has used them will tell you they are a "garbage" drug and work a little at first then don't work very well, then eventually become worthless, as shown in your two players statistics.
Steroids and HGH are harder to get and much more difficult to get the benefits, but if you're willing to go through the process, you achieve actual permanent benefits. Many people refuse to inject themselves with a needle and a lot of players don't want to do the workouts to build the muscle. Those that do, get much bigger and stronger. unlike Amphetamines that might give you a "burst" of energy. Mayb when you are at the plate, maybe it "kicks in" too early or too late. Steroids give you the advantage at all times.
Steroids and HGH were not used, or used effectively in MLB, until Canseco educated the players on how to achieve gains with them. Even if players tried them prior to that, few if any went on a strenuous work out routine to build the muscle. they might have benefitted from quicker healing, but that's about it.
The NFL is a different story. The players started achieving gains in the late 1960's.