Do you remember what Will Carroll said about Pete Rose?

Tom,

I mean no offense, but I don't think that Carroll's article in any way supports the conclusion that the facts of Bonds' alleged steroid use are too uncertain to conclude that "phenomenal performance over the the 2000-2004 seasons is primarily attributable to steroid use."

Rather, Carroll's point seems much more pedestrian: that Bonds may not have taken the best anabolic steroids he could have. To me, it does not follow from that premise that Bonds' major, unprecedented jumps in offensive performance could not be primarily attributed to steroids. If true, it simply means that he might have gotten more out of better steroids; or, perhaps, he wouldn't have gotten more out of better steroids because there could have been a plateau.

As I acknowledged below, I think we just disagree on this point. While I certainly understand that medical causation is an extremely, extremely tricky phenomenon, I'd need a much more robust argument to persuade me that much of his offensive stats post 1998 were not significantly attributable to steroids. As I said, we're not talking about a jump of 5-10 HRs a year. In 1998, he hit 37 HRs, in 99, 34 HRs, and a few years later, what was it, 72 -- almost TWICE the 98-99 #s? And that's not even mentioning his slugging percentage. That is a power display that has never ever been seen in baseball before. I simply do not believe, as amazing as Bonds was prior to 1998, that even a later-career surge in understanding and ability could be so unprecedented and pronounced without a major causal influence from steroids.

TP, I think Carroll's main points are that Bonds probably used steroids, but probably the wrong ones for maximizing the potential for improving performance.

As for Bonds' performance level, except for the 73 homer year, the remainder of Bonds' hitting performance in the 2000-2004 period is within his historical norms, and explainable as an aging superstar electing to be more selective (cut down on K's), rely less on speed (i.e., reduced stolen bases) and hit for more power in the latter stages of his career. Hank Aaron did the same thing, having the greatest frequency of HR's in a season at the age of 37 and 39.

In fact, Bonds HR's (49, 46 and 45 twice) were comparable to his best pre-2000 season totals (46), and the only other singular hitting category that showed substantial increases (in three of the seasons) over his pre-2000 performance was walks. Hits, doubles, RBI's, runs were all within historical norms for him. Thus, his OBP, SLG, and OPS went up during those years because of more walks and homers.

Actually, TP, I think you and I are fairly close in agreement. I think Bonds used steroids and they probably helped his performance to some degree. But I think the assumption -- which is really nothing more than speculation -- within the MSM and the general public that Bonds' 2000-2004 performance is totally or even primarily the result of steroids is widely overblown. As you note, medical causation is not so simple.

Not to mention the transparent hyprocrisy of the mainstream media and the public almost completely ignoring the fact that the records of many baseball stars from the past may have benefitted to some degree from illegal use of amphetamines and other pain relievers. So it goes in America.

All fair points, Tom. I'm still not certain I buy that most of his offensive performance from 2000-2004 was attributable to simply becoming a better hitter in late career -- after all, even with steroids, no one could be surprised that it was McGwire who initially broke Maris's record, because he had been a monster power hitter from day 1, whereas Bonds, while always a HOF hitter, never displayed such propensities to massive power stats.

and what are we to do about 72? I'm not ready to simply dismiss it as an aberration; it's just as likely that it is part and parcel of a pattern that was causally influenced by steroids.

I suppose our disagreement is one based more in degree than in kind, but of course, the monocausal analysis of most of the MSM is indeed painful to listen to (especially for someone who spent a good deal of time arguing medical causation in pharmaceutical litigation).

And I do agree with your last point; my older brother was astounded when I told him that Dock Ellis pitched a no-hitter whilst on LSD (or Wells pitching a perfect game while mostly drunk -- I was at that game).

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)