Worth noting that there was one key area that Bonds was clearly doing something different than anybody else. Everybody else in the game was using whip handle bats. According to Sam Holman (the guy who made Bonds' bats) the handle on Bonds' bats were so thick that the weights used in the on-deck circle didn't fit.

I've seen you point to this before, and it's preposterous. The knob on Bonds' bat may very well have been too thick to put a conventional donut on, but no one could swing a bat where the handle approached the width of the the barrel on other player's bats (which is what would be necessary for the donut not to fit). His bats might have had a slightly larger handle than was typical in that time frame, but nothing like you've suggested.

If you have any doubts, just look up a photo of Bonds swinging in that time frame. There's nothing obviously unconventional about the handle width.

Whatever worth it's deemed to have, I guess. What's any analysis "worth"?

If it's logical and based on facts, quite a bit. If it's based on phrenology, not much. I prefer to judge whether Clemens used steroids by looking at the hard evidence, not guess what he would be thinking if he happened to be thinking the way I wanted him to be thinking.

Well, Corso did, but you can argue that McNamee always had intentions of framing Clemens as far back as 2005. I don't believe that, but it can be argued.

Corso didn't, exactly.

I think the working theory right now is that Clemens with his evil powers got Andy to change his story, and it's not Andy's fault.

These are not the roids you're looking for.

and corso didn't support mcnamee's story - the time was wrong

I fail to see how the time line in his original testimony about McNamee telling him about saving the needles he allegedly injected Clemens with is wrong.

Corso didn't, exactly.

Fair enough. So the question is, why did he suddenly change his testimony?

From age 21 to 33, Randy Johnson won 65 percent of his games with a 3.37 ERA, a 128 ERA+ and a 1.255 WHIP. And from age 34 to 43, he won 65 percent of his games with a 3.23 ERA, a 141 ERA+ and a 1.110 WHIP.

Either Clemens' record is not evidence of PED use, or Johnson is a prime suspect too. And I didn't get to cherry-pick Johnson's career; his "old" group of seasons would have been much stronger if I had used 21 to 32 and 33 to 43, since his age 33 season was one of his best.

Randy Johnson all but admitted to PED use a few years ago.

There's no evidence that he used, other than the crime of him hitting more home runs than Maris.

Sad, but true. When links to roids were revealed about McGwire and Bonds, people automatically lumped Sosa into the same category for no reason other than that Sammy topped 60 homers too.

When Ryan Howard was chasing Maris in 2006, I rooted against him getting there cuz I thought he would've automatically been assumed to be juicing if he had. People seem to think that upper 50's is the max amount of homeruns a "clean" player can possibly hit in a season.

Randy Johnson all but admitted to PED use a few years ago.

Is my sarcasm detector on the fritz, or did the Unit actually say something that implied this?

I fail to see how the time line in his original testimony about McNamee telling him about saving the needles he allegedly injected Clemens with is wrong.

Not that part -- but the part about McNamee bragging about his dosing of Clemens doesn't fit with McNamee's timeframe for when he dosed Clemens.

Fair enough. So the question is, why did he suddenly change his testimony?

Because his memory is just as fluid as anyone else's? Not to mention that grand juries are not adversarial; witnesses say whatever the prosecutors want them to say. (I don't mean that they lie, but that they can be guided into saying things that, upon cross-examination, fall apart.)

Randy Johnson OBVIOUSLY had too much Human Growth Hormone in his system! Probably started when he was a teenager!

I don't have much new to say as a staunch pro-roider - but I am pretty good at Math.

There is really no possible way to infer THE EFFECTS of drug use from baseball statistics unless you have a control set with known usage and timing.

I would say the Clemens trail actually lends support that he was a non-user, or extremely rare user. Or a criminal mastermind.

What really sickens me is that there are probably sports "writers" out there who don't really care much about PEDs/Baseball at all but are simply writing the articles that they believe the public wants to read about this stuff.

What really sickens me is that there are probably sports "writers" out there who don't really care much about PEDs/Baseball at all but are simply writing the articles that they believe the public wants to read about this stuff.

Does the free publicity the papers give the players and teams in major league baseball bother you, too? The newspaper and TV business have been very, very good for major league baseball and its players.

Does the free publicity the papers give the players and teams in major league baseball bother you, too? The newspaper and TV business have been very, very good for major league baseball and its players.

I know you were being snarky (and I get why) but I really would much rather read writers who enjoy sports than those who do not. There are a lot of writers/media personalities who don't seem to enjoy the sport they cover. I understand at the end of the day it's a job and subject to the doldrums we all go through at work but it really detracts from the experience. A great example from the Boston area is the Boston Globe. Their two big name columnists are Dan Shaughnessy and Bob Ryan. I love Ryan, I don't always agree with him but I usually like what he writes. This is especially true when he writes about basketball, his love of the game shines through the page. Conversely, I couldn't begin to guess what sports Shaughnessy enjoys. He seems to ##### and moan and never express any sense of joy or wonder at the games.

If a writer doesn't like baseball, he shouldn't be covering it. Get on the football or soccer or MMA beat if that's what you prefer. These writers who just hate everything and take every possible shot at the horrible evil steroid users (or malcontents or players who don't hustle) are not enjoyable to read and I don't like having their stuff take a prominent role in the discussion of a sport I love.

What really sickens me is that there are probably sports "writers" out there who don't really care much about PEDs/Baseball at all but are simply writing the articles that they believe the public wants to read about this stuff.

I guarantee you that every single person commenting on these BBTF threads has put more time into looking at the evidence than the writers have. Even if your only contribution to the thread is to ask a question about the evidence, you're showing more interest than they do.

Let's face it, with the exception of Bonds, there's no other player who has shown a drastic increase in production at an older age.

Let's see, a player whose career went through 3 distinct key phases:

1)Early phase - starting out - averaged about 20 HRs per 500 AB (this lasts 3 or 4 years)
2)Middle phase - player's prime - HR/AB ratio jumps significantly (50% or more) (this lasts a decade or so)
3)Late burst - HR/AB ratio dramatically jumps again (lasts 4 or 5 years after the player hits age 35)

Yes, this pattern does indeed describe Barry Bonds' career. Surely no other player in history matched this pattern.

Oops! Sorry, it also describes Hank Aaron's career.

Yes, in terms of production (especially if you're talking OPS+), Bonds does have larger % increases than Aaron does, but it doesn't mean Hank didn't exhibit the same tendencies.

While we're at it, I wouldn't make too much of a fuss about OPS+, for that matter. The discussion at hand has always been about HRs. No one cares if a player has a dramatic increase in singles, doubles or triples late in his career. It's the homers everyone's focused on.

Because his memory is just as fluid as anyone else's?

And how can you be certain that his memory wasn't correct the first time?

The only evidence we have on Sosa is that he supposedly tested positive in 2003. People like Ray and David love to point out that the only years in question for Clemens are 1998, 2000, and 2001, so doesn't Sosa deserve the same benefit of the doubt? Plus, Sosa's increase in production occurred in his prime, in his late 20's.

Let's face it, with the exception of Bonds, there's no other player who has shown a drastic increase in production at an older age. Randy Johnson, who has never been linked to steroids, is the closest to Bonds in terms of production at an old age. Any other player doesn't come close. None of this means that I believe Bonds is the only one who benefited from any sort of PED, because I don't. I think many others did (and that includes Clemens). I'm just saying no other player besides Bonds statistically shows to have gained any substantial boost from ped's. Allan Barra has talked about this before.

1) the statement was anyone associated with steroid use. Sosa most certainly was. Was he proven? No.

2) Sosa's peak was 32 with his decline not starting not really beginning until 35 (his 34 season had an OPS+ that was higher than any season prior to age 29). That is without question off the typical peak cycle. Doesn't prove anything as there are numerous other examples of such, but it is not typical.

3) How many people have EVER shown a drastic increase in performance at an old age? The pool is very shallow. To me, that seems to be a pretty silly way to prove steroid use.

Roberto Clemente: 116 through 30, 155 after 30.
Willie Stargell: 136 through 30, 156 after.

Maybe the '60s Pirates were the initiators of steroids in baseball.

Ed Delahanty: 146 through 30, 167 after.

Or maybe the problem goes back a bit further than that.

As I stated, the late career improvement doesn't prove anything. However, there IS late career improvement that is atypical. Unique? Of course not, but people state there is no evidence of improvement without at least acknowledging that several folks associated with PEDs do have atypical career progressions.

Of course not, but people state there is no evidence of improvement without at least acknowledging that several folks associated with PEDs do have atypical career progressions.

Several folks associated with maple bats do have atypical career progressions.

As I stated, the late career improvement doesn't prove anything. However, there IS late career improvement that is atypical. Unique? Of course not, but people state there is no evidence of improvement without at least acknowledging that several folks associated with PEDs do have atypical career progressions.

The problem with your argument is that if Bonds used PEDs and that caused his atypical stats then why haven't other PED users replicated his stats if the PEDs are the cause of the stats? And if someone is amazingly good, they are by definition atypical so anything they do can be considered as the cause of it.

Wade Boggs ate a lot of chicken, drank a ton of beer and banged a lot of sluts. Clearly that caused his atypical ability to get a shitload of hits.

Just found this and had to share it. It proves Clemens took massive does of steroids.

no. 38 is not getting the respect it deserves.

:)

I guarantee you that every single person commenting on these BBTF threads has put more time into looking at the evidence than the writers have. Even if your only contribution to the thread is to ask a question about the evidence, you're showing more interest than they do.

As if to illustrate the point, Bob Ryan was on the Mr. Tony radio program yesterday, and said basically that the jury was "sports-ignorant and Clemens-ignorant", and that they didn't know what "we all know" ("we" being the sports-knowing public) that Clemens wanted to follow in Nolan Ryan's footsteps and be a power pitcher late into his career, so he took steroids.

"We all know that," which is why you don't need to look for evidence. You just know, unless you're "sports ignorant."

As if to illustrate the point, Bob Ryan was on the Mr. Tony radio program yesterday, and said basically that the jury was "sports-ignorant and Clemens-ignorant", and that they didn't know what "we all know" ("we" being the sports-knowing public) that Clemens wanted to follow in Nolan Ryan's footsteps and be a power pitcher late into his career, so he took steroids.

Such fantastic, insightful armchair pop pyschology proving Clemens's guilt. SugarBear would be proud.

Though if Ryan (Bob) is correct that Clemens wanted to "follow in Ryan's footsteps," that would have to mean that Ryan (Nolan) took steroids first.

#51 Why preposterous? Holman is on record as saying that he won't make bats with a handle thinner than 7/8 of an inch -- and that Bonds used thicker handles than that. Wouldn't take much of an increase in thickness of the handle to keep the standard weight from going on. And if you think you can judge thickness by eye from a photo, well I think you're wrong.

But I've only seen the quote about the handle on Bonds' bats once and can't find it again. Holman normally doesn't discuss the specifics of a client's bat.

Other things of note. Holman simply paid more for wood, and personally selected the wood for Bonds' bats from each batch (Bonds paid $500 per bat and paid up front at a time when Holman's company was having serious cash flow issues. Holman has said that this kept the company in business and he was grateful)

Though if Ryan (Bob) is correct that Clemens wanted to "follow in Ryan's footsteps," that would have to mean that Ryan (Nolan) took steroids first.

You'd be surprised at how many people have suspicions about Ryan (myself included)

You'd be surprised at how many people have suspicions about Ryan (myself included)

Me too, as his columns are so crappy that one wonders what kinds of drugs he's under the influence of while writing them.

Though if Ryan (Bob) is correct that Clemens wanted to "follow in Ryan's footsteps," that would have to mean that Ryan (Nolan) took steroids first.

It would also mean Clemens wanted to be a worse pitcher than he actually was.

Me too, as his columns are so crappy that one wonders what kinds of drugs he's under the influence of while writing them.

Definitely have to give you credit where it's due.

#51 Why preposterous? Holman is on record as saying that he won't make bats with a handle thinner than 7/8 of an inch -- and that Bonds used thicker handles than that. Wouldn't take much of an increase in thickness of the handle to keep the standard weight from going on. And if you think you can judge thickness by eye from a photo, well I think you're wrong.

It is preposterous Ron. The bat handle is the thinnest part of the bat, with a thicker knob and a thicker bat barrel. The handle can't possibly stop the donut from going on the bat unless it's thicker than the knob, which would be a very dangerous thing.

Edit: Screw it, I can't get a photo to load. Search for any photo from Bonds' time with the Giants and my point will become obvious. I don't care whether you can tell precisely how big the handle is from it, you can certainly tell it's nowhere near as thick as the knob.

It's certainly possible that Barry Bonds couldn't put standard weights on his bats. It just wasn't the handles preventing them.

Link doesn't work.

I seem to recall that Sammy Sosa had a bad with an abnormally sized knob as well.

Here's a picture.

Here's another

For those of you who haven't been able to find the smoking gun that proves Clemens used: you're not smart enough. Mike Francesa has found it.

Quoting now from a segment on WFAN:

Ok, here's the smoking gun with Clemens. Boston watches Clemens go 11-14 with a 4.46 era, 9-7, 10-5, 10-13. That's 40-39. In three of those four years he doesn't pitch 200 innings; he has a 40-39 record for those 4 years; he's 33 years old, and they think he's done. He's a power pitcher and they think he's done. He has not had a big year since 1992, he has had two losing years, he has only one time made 30 starts in those 4 years, he's starting to break down physically. He throws 170 innings, 140 innings, 190 innings - only 200 innings once. He goes to Toronto -- voila at 34. And remember: this got people fired in Boston. 21-7 with a 2.05 ERA in 264 innings. 20-6 with a 2.65 ERA in 234 innings. What happened? What happened? WHAT HAPPENED? Where did that come from? Where was that the last four years in Boston that they waited for it, and then he goes to Toronto, and then spits out along the way after that a 20-3 year with the Yankees, an 18-4 year in Houston... I mean, where did those years come from, where they basically said wait a minute, we gave him four years here - we think he's done, he's 33 years old... Then all of a sudden he has another career! There's the smoking gun.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, but:

1. Quoting W-L record is of course silly. Clemens had a 130 ERA+ over the four year stretch from 1993-1996. He led the league in ERA+ in 1994 and he was fifth in 1996. Yes, he was off his game during that stretch, but there was nothing wrong with his 1994 and 1996.

2. As for three of the four years not reaching 200 innings... um... there was the strike. He "only" pitched 170 innings in 1994 but that prorates out to 240 innings in a full schedule. In 1993 he pitched 191 innings, and in 1996 he pitched 242 innings. So there was really only one year that was very low in innings, 1995, which - even with the strike - prorates out to 158. The average over the four years is 208 innings per year if the strike is factored in. Again, yes, it's fewer innings than he was pitching. But nothing wrong with it. And most of it was 1995.

3. Same nonsense for the 30 starts thing.

4. Not a big year since 1992... No. He led the league in ERA+ in 1994 (what else was he supposed to do, other than hit home runs also?), and in 1996 was 5th in ERA+ while striking out 257 batters in 242 innings, leading the league in Ks and K/9.

5. Nobody in Boston "thought he was done." Even Dan Duquette, much maligned for his "twilight" comment, offered Clemens four years and $24 million. Toronto certainly didn't think he was done, offering him three years and $24 million.

----

Here are Francesa's reasons for the verdict vs. what HOF voters will consider:

And remember, the voters... someone brought up the court of law before... there is not the level that you need to convict someone in a court of law for these sportswriters. For sportswriters it is subjective. There is a clause for sportsmanship, integrity, that stuff. They can make their own decisions, and they don't need overwhelming evidence here. And remember, I mean, the courts narrowed the scope. Andy wasn't allowed to say anything he knew about it, he wasn't allowed to say anything about Clemens's history, he was not alllowed to talk about anything, he wasn't allowed to talk about McNamee, and so they narrowed the scope so dramatically that they didn't even give them a chance to put all the evidence in.

He's way off the mark regarding what Pettitte was allowed to testify to. There were some rulings around the edges, regarding whether Pettitte could say that McNamee supplied him and the like, but by and large Pettitte was able to tell what he knew. The problem was that Pettitte knew next to nothing.

He goes to Toronto -- voila at 34. And remember: this got people fired in Boston.

Who got fired in Boston because Roger pitched well in Toronto? Mike Gimbel?

Who got fired in Boston because Roger pitched well in Toronto? Mike Gimbel?

He told you. "People" did.

Bill James noted that pitcher longevity is basically tied to strikeout rate. The more guys you strike out, the longer your career will be. As one of the greatest strikeout pitchers in history, Clemens should be expected to have a very long career.


A couple of issues should be noted:
A. As mentioned, Clemens' mediocre record in his last few years with the Red Sox is an obvious red herring. He had a couple of seasons not quite up to his standards but he was generally great. He led the league in ERA+ in 1994 and led the league in strikeouts in 1996.

B. Clemens DID suffer decline. He wasn't the same pitcher with the Yankees that he was with the Blue Jays, though he was very good. I think most would acknowledge the large disparity in talent between the AL and NL around the turn of the century, which explains some of his improvement upon moving from NY to Houston.

Look at the list of career strikeout leaders:

1. Nolan Ryan was pitching no-hitters and still leading the league in Ks well into his 40s. Ryan was arguably a better pitcher in his 40s than any other time in his career. After age 40 his ERA+ was 116. It was 111 in his 30s. From 25-29 (leaving out his years of struggling with the Mets), it was 114.

2. Randy Johnson's peak was sometime around age 35-38. He led the league in Ks at age 40. His 40+ career is similar to Ryan's with a 73-52 record and 116 ERA+. His age 36+ career blows away Clemens'.

3. Steve Carlton's best 3-year period started at age 35. He won Cy Young Awards at 35 and 37. His 1981 season (age 37) was arguably as good as his 1980 CYA season, and his 1983 season (age 39) was almost as good as his 1982 CYA season.

4. Bert Blyleven had some uneven seasons but he led the league in Ks at age 34 and had fine seasons with the Twins at age 35-36. He had one of his best seasons at age 38 (17-5, 2.73 ERA).

5. Tom Seaver had a Cy Young-worthy season at age 36 and was perfectly good ages 38-40 (114 ERA+).

6. Gaylord Perry won a Cy Young Award at age 39.

These are your career strikeout leaders. There are other guys. Bob Tufts went over Schilling. John Smoltz came back from career-threatening injury to become the best reliever in the game at age 35 and then converted back to being one of the best starters in the game at age 38. His ERA+ from age 38-40 was 135 vs. his career ERA+ of 125.

David Wells, who wasn't a big strikeout pitcher and probably never lifted anything heavier than a quarter-pounder with cheese, had basically all of his best seasons after age 34.

Basically, it shouldn't surprise anyone when a great pitcher pitches well after turning 35.

Following up on what baudib said, but looking further back in history.

There were always effective old pitchers. Just as there were always a lot more pitchers who burned out or blew out their arms; it was the rare survivors who became the great old pitchers. Cy Young was a great pitcher well into his 40s - one version of the tale was the he finally got driven out of the league when he got so fat and immobile that he couldn't really field bunts. Jack Quinn spent 2 1/2 years in the PCL starting at age 32, and then came back to the majors to throw 2600 innings at an ERA+ of 119 from the age of 34 on. And while, as I said, there were always pitchers who were great in their 20's and then wrecked their arms, there's the weird backwards career of Dazzy Vance who somehow unwrecked his arm at the age of 30 and became the world's greatest strikeout pitcher for over a decade after that. Warren Spahn kept going, and going, and going. Then there was something they discovered in the 30's: an older pitcher who couldn't carry the inning load that he had when he was young could still be very effective as a 140-inning spot starter. Ted Lyons, the "Sunday pitcher," was the prototype of this, but he wasn't the only one. (That wouldn't work now, with today's regular schedules and no doubleheaders.)

We didn't even mention Walter Johnson, who won a Triple Crown at an older age than Clemens did; Pete Alexander or Satchel Paige.

Funny thing is, Canseco is an admitted user, yet there was really nothing unusual about his career at all. How come no one ever considers this?

Once you start with the assumption that Canseco was an exceptional talent who could hit 30+ homers at age 21, his career shape is very regular and normal:

-- 116 OPS+ as a rookie, 110 as a sophomore
-- Big step forward at age 23, in sort of a fluky year.
-- Four-year peak, including an injury-marred season, ending at age 26. OPS+ ranging from 147-170.
-- An extended prime period from age 27-31, in which he was constantly hurt, but hit when he was on the field (OPS+ ranging from 128-146)
-- A 5-year fade to the end (OPS+ from 106 to 134, with lots of missed time)

Compare his career to Reggie Jackson, whose probably the most similar player in history to Canseco, they're very similar. Except:
1. Reggie was always a bit better. Reggie only got a cup of coffee at 21, but was better at 22. Like Canseco, he took a huge step forward at age 23, a season he never again approached in terms of raw numbers or qualitative measures.
2. Reggie stayed healthy.
3. Reggie aged better. Reggie's second-best year came at age 34, when Canseco was all but done. Reggie also had a big year at age 36, and a decent bounce-back season at age 39.

I should also have mentioned, re Francesa's presentation, that Clemens having a historically great year in Toronto in 1997 doesn't fit with McNamee's timeline, as McNamee doesn't claim to have supplied Clemens with anything until 1998.

Remember, steroids do whatever you're trying to prove that they do. They cause the body to break down, leading to multiple injuries (McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti). But they also do the exact opposite and improve longevity, helping players stay healthy and productive for an unnaturally long time (Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro).

@86,87,88

LOWMYGAWD. That prooves it!!! All those guys were roided to the gills.

/sportswriter logic

IIRC part of the beginning of the end in Boston for Roger was the '94 season:

1)People (fans, writers) were PO'd over the WS being cancelled (which, of course, was 100% the fault of the players, right?:))

2)The writers and fans were absolutely hammering Clemens about what a crappy year he had based exclusively on his W-L record

Any Boston fans out there who were there at the time and can corroborate what I'm remembering? I would especially like to see some of the old columns, I'm sure they're out there.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Clemens said that got him started on thinking maybe it was time to go somewhere else given the treatment he was receiving.

Funny thing is, Canseco is an admitted user, yet there was really nothing unusual about his career at all. How come no one ever considers this?

Well, Canseco was using steroids in the minor leagues whereas if we are to believe the rumors and confessions the other guys (Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire. . . .) started using during their major league career.

LOWMYGAWD. That prooves it!!! All those guys were roided to the gills.

The only issue is that the guys 1 through 6 in post 86 do have a whiff of PEDS/steroids/cheating about them.