Jump to content

Would It Be Possible To Estimate What Bond's Best HR Season Would Be Without the Rhoids?


Old#5fan

Recommended Posts

In this day and age, with all the different ability to analyze things, would it be possible to analyze season by season all of Bonds/McGuire's, Sosa's, Palmerio's etc home runs individually (logically would start with Bonds) and based on the distance they traveled eliminate what would have been a fly all out or double at best?

My way of thinking on this is a mammoth 400 foot or more HR would have gone out anyway, but where the HR's could be taken away would be the one's that barely made it by 1-10 rows or so. To me that would represent the difference that the rhoids would give in an advantage to the hitter. Anyone else think this would be possible? Or am I way off base with this idea??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick rule of thumb estimate with Bonds would be: before 'roids he averaged 36 HR per season; during he averaged 46. So +10. Subtract 10 from his 73 HR season and 80 from his career total. So 63 and 682. However I think you could subtract another year or two worth of HR off his career totals because he would have started to break down sooner. I'd say around 600 total HR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing can be done about those juiced homers now. Attempting to analyze which balls would have otherwise stayed in the park would become a hanging chad situation.

Yeah, likely so, but it would be fun to see what Bond's best season would look like if all HR's that cleared the fence by 10 rows or less were eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this day and age, with all the different ability to analyze things, would it be possible to analyze season by season all of Bonds/McGuire's, Sosa's, Palmerio's etc home runs individually (logically would start with Bonds) and based on the distance they traveled eliminate what would have been a fly all out or double at best?

My way of thinking on this is a mammoth 400 foot or more HR would have gone out anyway, but where the HR's could be taken away would be the one's that barely made it by 1-10 rows or so. To me that would represent the difference that the rhoids would give in an advantage to the hitter. Anyone else think this would be possible? Or am I way off base with this idea??

You'd have to ask someone who believes steroids make you hit the ball farther. That wasn't the case with Bonds, so I don't know what to tell you. His average HR distance during his 'roid period was about the same as the league average HR distance today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hit 46 home runs in 1993 with what is believe a steroid free season. He won a couple of MVP's without steroids in his 20's and than 4 at age 36+ with steroids. I think you would expect some decline at 37 without the roids. I am sure he would have been close to 700 home runs without steroids. He deserves to be in the hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hit 46 home runs in 1993 with what is believe a steroid free season. He won a couple of MVP's without steroids in his 20's and than 4 at age 36+ with steroids. I think you would expect some decline at 37 without the roids. I am sure he would have been close to 700 home runs without steroids. He deserves to be in the hall.

"Some decline"??

It would have been a massive decline, starting way before that.

His juicing boosted his home run totals by 100 HR easy.

Who knows what he would have done in the 73 season. Probably right around 60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some decline"??

It would have been a massive decline, starting way before that.

His juicing boosted his home run totals by 100 HR easy.

Who knows what he would have done in the 73 season. Probably right around 60.

It is a shame we will never know, but it seems to me that Bonds would have easily made the HOF without sterioids, as he would have had around 600 HR's and probably a legitimate 60 homers in that 73 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some decline"??

It would have been a massive decline, starting way before that.

His juicing boosted his home run totals by 100 HR easy.

Who knows what he would have done in the 73 season. Probably right around 60.

SO even with 650 career home runs with his average and OBP he is top ten hitters all time easy. Put him in the Hall. Baseball writers are clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody really knows what he did when, but you can kind of figure that he was plausibly steroid-free through 1999. At that point he was 35 and had lost 50 points of OPS+ from his peak, so he was well into his decline phase. Without PED's, I doubt he ever would have topped the 46 HR he hit in 1993, but he was still good for 30+. Through 1999, he had 445 career homers, so he probably would have been in the 600-650 mark for his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me Maris still holds that record, and will until someone hits more all-natural. Everyone that beat it was on steroids.

I have seen a lot of debate on this recently, here and elsewhere and I think I have decided I am in this camp. I know pitchers were on steroids as well at the same time, but we didn't suddenly see 400 strikeout seasons, crazy low ERA's, etc... Other than Clemens resurgence late in the game, who else had unusual peaks (late career or off their norm during their career) during the same period? Am I not thinking of someone else? What other amazing pitching records were broken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...