Steff Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Yeah, I read that about being able to see the ball a little longer and still being able to send it yard. I just couldn't find it. Thanks. So I was right, that he was able to see the ball longer, which is what enabled him to go yard 73 times, despite all the walks What part of this from the article above do you not comprehend.... "Steroids don’t improve eyesight: that’s true.", and went on to comment on improved BAT SPEED. And how is it that you have this private and personal medical information about Barry Bonds and his eyesight...? I'm going to borrow from Kap here and ask you to put up, or shut up, with the information you are posting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Yeah, I read that about being able to see the ball a little longer and still being able to send it yard. I just couldn't find it. Thanks. So I was right, that he was able to see the ball longer, which is what enabled him to go yard 73 times, despite all the walks HGH reportedly improves eyesight. Steroids reportedly do not. There is speculation Bonds was on both, but he has always had a great eye. The thought that he was on steroids likely allowed stay back on the ball while still being able to hit it. His eyesight didn't do anything with that. Also, pointblank, a guy can be 20/15, and that isn't gonna help him draw walks. That's just going to help him see better. Eyesight ≠walks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) So I was right, that he was able to see the ball longer, which is what enabled him to go yard 73 times, despite all the walks Can you prove that what he was using helped him by adding x homeruns onto what his normal total would be? You dont know whether it helped him hit one more HR, two more, five more, or fifty more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 3 strikes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) Well, can you prove, beyond a doubt, that Sosa or McGwire took anything? I know it looks like they did, and I do think that they did, but they haven't been proven guilty either. Even if damning evidence comes out that they used steroids, is there any proof how much influence steroids actually have on homerun totals? Sure, it gives the person more muscle, which means they will have the ability to hit the ball harder/farther, but how do you know if it will add 1 homerun, 3, 5, or 10? Wow, talk about ridiculous statements. Yes, you can prove that they did. And yes it effects homerun totals. Check out the career's of IROID, Canseco, Sosa, Bonds, etc. Their numbers were inflated by steroids. In fact jose has admitted as such. QUOTE(Felix @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) Can you prove that what he was using helped him by adding x homeruns onto what his normal total would be? You dont know whether it helped him hit one more HR, two more, five more, or fifty more. Can you prove that certain antibiotics improve your health by x each day you take it? Talk about a case by case basis and measurements that cant even be made in a medical setting. Here is how you can tell how steroids effected Mcguire's homerun total, and how much it added on each year. McGuire not on roids Hr totals: 49 32 33 39 22 42 39 On roids: 52 58 58 70 65 So, not on roids he avg'ed 36.57 hr's per year On Roids he avg'ed 60.6 Hr per year. So that would come out to steroids adding 24.03 Hr's to his totals on avg per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't doubt roids have an effect.... Specifically though.. I'd like to see the concrete evidence that they improve eyesight, and that Bonds reaped the benifits of said improvment. TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) I don't doubt roids have an effect.... Specifically though.. I'd like to see the concrete evidence that they improve eyesight, and that Bonds reaped the benifits of said improvment. TIA. Depends if an OBP of .500+ proves that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) Depends if an OBP of .500+ proves that for you. If his eyeballs were hitting the ball and running the bases it might... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Also, pointblank, a guy can be 20/15, and that isn't gonna help him draw walks. That's just going to help him see better. Eyesight ≠walks This is true, pitch recognition has a lot more to do with walk totals than actual eyesight does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 12:11 PM) If his eyeballs were hitting the ball and running the bases it might... His eyeballls sure helped him quickly decide whether to swing or not. Plus his running of the bases is not something that improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuck the Cubs Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 This is true, pitch recognition has a lot more to do with walk totals than actual eyesight does. Right, but b/c of the added muscle, he could wait back a little longer and still send it yard. What I'm trying to say is that he was able to go yard 73 times, despite all the walks, b/c he was able to see the pitch longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 02:41 PM) Right, but b/c of the added muscle, he could wait back a little longer and still send it yard. What I'm trying to say is that he was able to go yard 73 times, despite all the walks, b/c he was able to see the pitch longer. Or maybe he was able to hit so many so far cause he was stronger from the increased muscle mass... Because, as the article states, steroids DO NOT improve eyesight.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286234/site/newsweek/page/2/ QUOTE Steroids don’t improve eyesight: that’s true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Bonds has always had amazing eyesight. He can see the catcher giving the pitcher signs from the outfield, part of the reason he is such a good baseball player is attributed to the fact that he has always had better than 20/20 eyesight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) This is true, pitch recognition has a lot more to do with walk totals than actual eyesight does. LOL...I suppose if said player with already good plate discipline had improved eyesight, he would draw more walks. I was trying to get at the point that a free-swinger is a free-swinger, and he is not going to start drawing more walks because of better eyesight, but more likely because they start pitching around the player instead, and he doesn't chase the pitches, but instead watches them go by for strikes. A patient hitter is always going to be a patient hitter, regardless of his eyesight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 12:44 PM) Or maybe he was able to hit so many so far cause he was stronger from the increased muscle mass... Because, as the article states, steroids DO NOT improve eyesight.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286234/site/newsweek/page/2/ QUOTE Steroids don’t improve eyesight: that’s true. However, HGH use may in fact be able to either improve visual acuity or to keep visual acuity from declining with age as happens to most people. According to the Game of Shadows authors, that's one of the reasons Bonds liked the HGH; it helped his eyes. In fact, even the article you cite includes this quote: There is anecdotal evidence that HGH does, in fact, improve eyesight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think everyone can see that Bonds, when no on the juice like this year, isnt as quick around with the bat. Therefor he has to start his swing slightly earlier, which makes you lose contact with the ball sooner, which gives you worse pitch recognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) However, HGH use may in fact be able to either improve visual acuity or to keep visual acuity from declining with age as happens to most people. According to the Game of Shadows authors, that's one of the reasons Bonds liked the HGH; it helped his eyes. In fact, even the article you cite includes this quote: Anything is possible, I totally agree. However despite what Chip and Dale claim there is no concrete evidence of what Bonds took, nor that he gained improved eyesight from it. That's all I am saying. I also think it's more likely that the bigger arms, legs, and trunk had a bit more to do with the balls traveling 8432 feet than his eyes did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Bonds is also older and injured compared to his record breaking season. But those couldnt be the reasons for his decline. Frank Thomas is on the juice, I mean how else could he have such a turn around. Oh he was injured last year. I forgot injuries can negatively affect a players stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) Bonds is also older and injured compared to his record breaking season. But those couldnt be the reasons for his decline. Frank Thomas is on the juice, I mean how else could he have such a turn around. Oh he was injured last year. I forgot injuries can negatively affect a players stats. Are you trying to imply Bonds wasnt on the juice? Because he admitted he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 No, what I am suggesting is that there is no way to prove that there is a correlation between Bonds decline this year and his lack of using steriods. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that in general the scientific community did not conclusively agree that steriod use would help you hit the ball farther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that in general the scientific community did not conclusively agree that steriod use would help you hit the ball farther. This is one of those cases where absence of proof is not proof of absence. In other words...no the scientific community has not, and will never agree that steroids make people hit the ball farther, or that they help baseball players in any meaningful way. Why? Not because Steroids have been proven to be useless, but because every reputable country and sports program in the world is banning performance enhancing drugs and instituting testing programs. And because the laws in most countries now ban them as well. In other words, it's actually impossible for science to conduct a double-blind study over many years of the effects of steroids on athletes in general, let alone baseball players. You can't take 2000 people, give steroids to half of them, placebos to the other half, put them all on an identical workout program, and then see which ones show the most improvement in their baseball skills. It's not only illegal, but dangerous to the health of the participants. Edited September 13, 2006 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) No, what I am suggesting is that there is no way to prove that there is a correlation between Bonds decline this year and his lack of using steriods. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that in general the scientific community did not conclusively agree that steriod use would help you hit the ball farther. Maybe its due to injury, but his improvements were steroid related, and thats enough correlation for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.