Ryan Braun

#76
#76
Vols520 said:
I also read Braun didn't gain any muscle, his strength and speed tests were all the same etc.
Click to expand...

Again, I wonder how much of an effect steroids, or whatever, has on performance.

And yeah, football is where that ish is prominent.
 
#79
#79
Dbake005 said:
Again, I wonder how much of an effect steroids, or whatever, has on performance.

And yeah, football is where that ish is prominent.
Click to expand...

I think the numbers that Bonds put up from '99 - '04 reveal the effect of performance enhancers.

Bonds '86 - '98: 411HR (31.6 HR/yr) in 6621AB (16.1 AB per HR)
Bonds '99 - '04: 292HR (48.6 HR/yr) in 2477AB (8.5 AB per HR)

A 8.5 AB per HR ratio is INSANE.

While I brought up Bonds and numbers, my favorite has to be his increased hat size in 2002. He went from a 7 1/4 to a 7 3/8. Perhaps it was because he was so happy with his 73-homer output in 2001.
 
#80
#80
When do you think 'steroids/PEDs' began to be used by players? Jw when the consensus on that is.

Bonds was a beast, regardless. So is Braun, regardless.
 
#81
#81
Dbake005 said:
When do you think 'steroids/PEDs' began to be used by players? Jw when the consensus on that is.

Bonds was a beast, regardless. So is Braun, regardless.
Click to expand...

I think Bonds starting juicing after watching all the attention Sosa and Mac were getting in '98 while he was putting up amazing numbers and being ignored.
 
#82
#82
Bonds was still the best hitter/player of that generation.

And pretty much all time.
 
#83
#83
I'm not getting into a bonds debate because I'll be 100% biased. But you do realize that a 7 1/4 hat size is a 7 2/8.. So going from a 7 2/8 to a 7 3/8 isn't a big deal..at all right? I have a ton of hats and they're 7 7 1/8 7 1/4.. Hats fit differently.

Also, you can't attribute all of the stat differences to steroids because he also significantly altered his approach at the plate and workout routines.

_vol said:
I think the numbers that Bonds put up from '99 - '04 reveal the effect of performance enhancers.

Bonds '86 - '98: 411HR (31.6 HR/yr) in 6621AB (16.1 AB per HR)
Bonds '99 - '04: 292HR (48.6 HR/yr) in 2477AB (8.5 AB per HR)

A 8.5 AB per HR ratio is INSANE.

While I brought up Bonds and numbers, my favorite has to be his increased hat size in 2002. He went from a 7 1/4 to a 7 3/8. Perhaps it was because he was so happy with his 73-homer output in 2001.
Click to expand...
 
#88
#88
TBrown said:
I'm not getting into a bonds debate because I'll be 100% biased. But you do realize that a 7 1/4 hat size is a 7 2/8.. So going from a 7 2/8 to a 7 3/8 isn't a big deal..at all right? I have a ton of hats and they're 7 7 1/8 7 1/4.. Hats fit differently.

Also, you can't attribute all of the stat differences to steroids because he also significantly altered his approach at the plate and workout routines.
Click to expand...

Hat sizes rarely change for 30+ year olds, especially after they begin shaving their head as bonds did.

Just so I understand correctly, you're claiming that the Hulk Hogans that bonds had as arms were also attributed to his new approach to the plate?
 
#89
#89
_vol said:
Hat sizes rarely change for 30+ year olds, especially after they begin shaving their head as bonds did.

Just so I understand correctly, you're claiming that the Hulk Hogans that bonds had as arms were also attributed to his new approach to the plate?
Click to expand...

No. I'm not attributing his arm size to his approach at the plate. However, I'm saying the increased number of balls landing on the other side of the fence might have been influenced by him focusing on doing so.
 
#90
#90
TBrown said:
No. I'm not attributing his arm size to his approach at the plate. However, I'm saying the increased number of balls landing on the other side of the fence might have been influenced by him focusing on doing so.
Click to expand...

Nobody's approach change leads to 300 HRs after turning 35.
 
#91
#91
I don't think he's trying to say bonds' steroids didn't have an effect.

Fact is, he was still the best player in the game.
 
#92
#92
Let's just make this boring and go to science.

So, he changed his approach at the plate to be more focused into driving the ball which is done by making contact, obviously, and producing more force to transfer to the ball for it to carry.

Taking Robert Adair's equation for relating bat speed, let's take a look at Bonds pre and post '99.

V = k sqrt(M/(m+M/81))

Pretty straight forward and simple equation where V is velocity (in MPH), m is the weight of the bat (in pounds), M is the player's weight (in pounds), sqrt is square root, and k is a constant of of 10 (in MPH).

Adair pulled the numbers and upon applying his formula he has a 206-pound Bonds (pre-1999) with a swing speed of 67.34mph, and a 228-pound Bonds swings the same 32-ounce bat at 68.81mph. That's a difference of 1.48mph. Seems like a relatively small difference, but it's actually quite large.

Alan Nathan, a baseball physics freak, estimates that each 1mph of bat speed equates to about six feet of distance on average. By these estimates, Bonds added nine feet to each fly ball leaving his bat.

ESPN broke it down and looked at the distance of all of his HRs from 1999 and looked to see how many fell short per the nine foot estimated difference.

1999: four out of 34
2000: nine out of 49
2001: 18 out of 73
2002: 11 out of 46
2003: 10 out of 45
2004: 13 out of 45
2005: one out of five
2006: zero out of five

I took a look at his HR totals by year earlier in his career to compare differences above to his average output when he was "apparently" playing clean.

Starting in 1990, home run totals:
1990: 33
1991: 25
1992: 34
1993: 46
1994: 37
1995: 33
1996: 42
1997: 40
1998: 37

Over that span that is an average of 36.3 hr/yr.

Jumping back to the estimated differentials of removing nine feet per HR above we have, per year:
1999: 30
2000: 40
2001: 55
2002: 35
2003: 35
2004: 32

Since '05 and '06 are kinda meaningless per his lack of play time, his average over this span would have been 37.8 hr/yr.

36.3 and 37.8. That's kinda interesting that those are relatively similar, no?
 
Last edited:
#93
#93
And either way, Bonds was still the best player in baseball and is one of the, possibly the, best of all time.
 
#94
#94
Dbake005 said:
And either way, Bonds was still the best player in baseball and is one of the, possibly the, best of all time.
Click to expand...

He apparently did not believe so because he changed his entire game and put up numbers that no one has ever even imagined nor came close to after 30 years of age.
 
#95
#95
Not to be an ahole, but I don't combine baseball and science and I'm not reading that gigantic post. I agree with dbake.
 
#96
#96
And I prefaced all this by saying I would be 100% biased in a Barry bonds conversation. I believe he's the greatest baseball player of all time and I can give you more stats supporting that than you can negating it.
 
#97
#97
TBrown said:
Not to be an ahole, but I don't combine baseball and science and I'm not reading that gigantic post. I agree with dbake.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Baseball is arguably the most scientific sport of all major sports. But, whatever.

TBrown said:
And I prefaced all this by saying I would be 100% biased in a Barry bonds conversation. I believe he's the greatest baseball player of all time and I can give you more stats supporting that than you can negating it.
Click to expand...

Of course. IMO, he was a first ballot HOF with this numbers prior to 1999 as there wasn't an area that he did not produce in the upper tier of all MLB run-producing statistical totals.
 
#98
#98
I was always under the impression that PED's were negligible in most hitting aspects but aided in recovery for sustained performance through the season.

Either way, I'm with DBake. Pre-steroids, Bonds is still in the GOAT discussion. As for the last twenty years of baseball, I'm just to the point of assuming that a vast majority of the really good to great players juiced at some point or another.
 
#99
#99
milohimself said:
I was always under the impression that PED's were negligible in most hitting aspects but aided in recovery for sustained performance through the season.

Either way, I'm with DBake. Pre-steroids, Bonds is still in the GOAT discussion. As for the last twenty years of baseball, I'm just to the point of assuming that a vast majority of the really good to great players juiced at some point or another.
Click to expand...

Well, another thing is... if 'everyone' or practically everyone was juicing during the time, I guess Bonds was just still... better at it.

I think its just as likely that a million injured relievers in the minors were juicing like crazy. What it really did for Bonds was let him keep playing at a high level later in his career... And steroids just don't make you able to square up a 97 mph fastball
 
#100
#100
Not only is Bonds the greatest baseball player of all time, he is the best juicer of all time and the beat drug test taker of all time. He also has the most loyal trainer of all time. Clearly the man has a lot going for him.

Dbake005 said:
Well, another thing is... if 'everyone' or practically everyone was juicing during the time, I guess Bonds was just still... better at it.

I think its just as likely that a million injured relievers in the minors were juicing like crazy. What it really did for Bonds was let him keep playing at a high level later in his career... And steroids just don't make you able to square up a 97 mph fastball
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top