[ricelynnevans75]

(01-01-2012 04:01 PM)natejeffries Wrote:  There is a reason no catcher ever hit home runs remotely like Bench before.

Yogi Berra: Had 358 home runs in 8364 plate appearances.
(1 HR every 23.36 plate appearances)

Johnny Bench: Had 389 home runs in 8669 plate appearances
(1 HR every 22.29 plate appearances)

One less plate appearance in comparison to Berra. Yogi must have been on the roids.

(01-01-2012 04:01 PM)natejeffries Wrote:  He led the league in home runs twice, with 40 and 45. He also did it in a decade in which only a handful of players hit the 40 homer plateau. One other guy who did it twice was his teammate George Foster, who was the only man to hit 50 home runs over a 25-year stretch.

So Foster was on roids because OTHER players (out of his control by the way) didn't hit 50 in that span? Uhhhh.........

Willie Stargell and Hank Aaron also did it twice in the 70s. Guess they were on roids too. Sixteen people hit 40 or more 20 times total in the 70s.

George Foster (52 in '77 and 40 in '78)
Willie Stargell (48 in '71 and 44 in '73)
Dave Kingman (48 in '79)
Hank Aaron (47 in '71 and 40 in '73)
Jim Rice (46 in '78)
Johnny Bench (45 in '70 and 40 in '72)
Gormon Thomas (45 in '79)
Mike Schmidt (45 in '79)
Frank Howard (44 in '70)
Davey Johnson (43 in '73)
Billy Williams (42 in '70)
Harmon Killebrew (41 in '70)
Darrell Evans (41 in '73)
Jeff Burroughs (41 in '77)
Tony Perez (40 in '70)
Carl Yastrzemski (40 in '70)
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jyucha/HomeRun/fourty.html

(01-01-2012 04:01 PM)natejeffries Wrote:  Bench also was known for his rage. I am not accusing him of roid rage but one person on this site actually wrote about experiencing it firsthand as a little child, after being berated by the "Little General" for wanting his autograph.

He was known for his rage? AND?! I have a short temper at times and I don't do roids. Is there anything to support this other than someone on a message board?

(01-01-2012 04:01 PM)natejeffries Wrote:  2) Joe Morgan. Look up his stats. Pay attention to those first nine seasons with the Houston Astros. He had a batting average of .260 over that period.

In all of those seasons, he only had three years where he belted more than 8 homers and reached a high of 15. He averaged one home run per every 54 at bats.

He was traded to Cincinatti before the 1972 season and immediately posted career highs with a .292 average and 16 home runs. He hit 26 homers the next year.

In Morgan's first six years with the Reds, he had a batting average of .300. The 5'7 second baseman hit more than 20 homers four times. He lowered his home run ratio to once every 41 at bats. And it wasn't the ballpark. His home away splits were remarkably consistent throughout his career except for his biggest home run season in Cincinatti when he actually hit twice as many home runs AWAY.

Take a close look at footage of Morgan in the 70's. He had the muscles of an olympic weightlifter. Did I mention he was 5'7?

Pertaining to his batting average, OK, he hit .260 in his first nine season. His career average is .271. Yep, must be roids. Did you factor in the lineup he was in in Houston as opposed to Cincinnati? The players around you in the lineup do have something to do with the pitches you see. Unless you don't pay attention to baseball....

Three of his years that you're counting in Houston he played no more than 10 games the whole season. ('63, '64, '68)

His first six years with the Reds started with the typically recognized "peak years" for a ball player in which many ball players have their best stats in their career anyway.

A whopping 20+ homeruns four times over 22 years? In his peak years?! WOW! That's some solid evidence. Most he ever had was 27. Big deal....

Exactly what photos are you looking at in which he had the muscles like an olympic weightlifter?

(01-01-2012 04:01 PM)natejeffries Wrote:  3) George Foster

He went from being a guy who hit for average in the minors with a little pop to being a guy who couldn't hit for average or power in his first few years in the majors.

In his first three seasons in the minors, he hit a combined 25 home runs in 1,200 at bats.

In his first full year in the majors, he hit 13 home runs. Between 1971 and 1974, he batted .233 and hit 26 home runs in 930 at-bats.

In 1975, Foster was apparently let in on a secret as his average soared to .300 and he belted 23 homers, nearly the same amount of homers that he needed twice as many at bats to hit over the previous three years.

In 1976, he hit .306 and had 29 home runs.

In 1977, he did what nobody would do until juiced up Cecil Fielder 14 years later - he smashed 51 home runs.

Then he went into decline. Right away. He went down to 40 home runs the next year, followed by 30, 25, and 22 in 1981. He was traded to the Mets the next year where he batted .241 and hit only 13 home runs.

Just when you thought he was washed up, Foster miraculously found his swing again at the age of 35. He bested his home run totals of the previous three years by hitting 28 home runs before going into decline again.

I can't prove any of these guys took steroids and I don't think anybody ever will. But I have a strong case for suspicion.

Let's see, where to begin. His first few years where you lump everything together, he had one full season.
1971-140 games
1972- 59 games
1973- 17 games
1974- 106 games

Then you make it sound like he was "let in on a secret" in 1975. Actually, it was probably due, again, to the players surrounding him in the lineup, him starting to approach his peak years (two years away), AND the fact that he was able to play in 134 games.

In '76, he hit 29 home runs in 144 games and in 1977 (first of the peak/prime years) he hit 52 (not 51 as you incorrectly noted).

Ironically, you say he went on a decline when he went down to 40 home runs, when throughout your thread you've put 40 home runs on a pedestal.

(01-01-2012 04:01 PM)natejeffries Wrote:  I can't prove any of these guys took steroids and I don't think anybody ever will. But I have a strong case for suspicion.

Strong case? Where?

You can't prove any of it because your arguments are weak, terribly weak. You don't present important numbers or you lump things together to make it sound worse/better than it actually was. That's not a solid argument.

Stick good baseball players together in a line-up with good team chemistry, you're going to have excellent production. That's kind of what happens in baseball ya know?

[x yankeemike x]

ricelynnevans75=Beast

[dkotart]

(01-02-2012 12:34 PM)x yankeemike x Wrote:  ricelynnevans75=Beast

+1 He is like a baseball encyclopedia. Great job Ricelynn, but you got to love the conspiracy theorist attempt to twist and omit facts to support their theory.

[wmrklemm78]

(01-02-2012 12:18 PM)dbauer2 Wrote:  What's your point?

I was just pointing out that your original statement about red flags needed some qualifiers. The second statement was the qualifier for the first... Very well said.

[john1580]

(01-02-2012 12:46 PM)dkotart Wrote:  +1 He is like a baseball encyclopedia. Great job Ricelynn, but you got to love the conspiracy theorist attempt to twist and omit facts to support their theory.

yeah ricelynn is no joke , nice work.

This thread sucks but it is highly entertaining to read

[bustin 5 knots]

(01-02-2012 11:17 AM)wmrklemm78 Wrote:  Warren Spahn recorded 187 of his 363 wins after he was 35, including six straight seasons of 20 or more wins after he turned 35... red flag.

Jamie Moyer... red flag.

Phil Niekro... red flag

Tommy John... red flag

No one has ever accused anyone above from being on steroids and/or HGH, etc... They were all better AFTER turning 35... an anomaly.

He said power trend. Jamie Moyer has 0 HR in 485 career PA

---

And a lot of people don't realize that power is obtained as you climb the ladder. Look at Jacoby Ellsbury. In 2008 and 2009 he hit 9 and 8 homers respectively. In 2011, 32 HR. Must be roids.

[natejeffries]

Berra never had the power of Bench in his prime. Never remotely close.

Berra was consistent throughout his career, never topping 30 home runs.

Bench hit 40 twice and was known for monster shots.

Berra was a lefty who benefited from the short porch at Yankee Stadium.

Berra averaged twice as many homers at home than away.

Some years, Berra hit three times as many home runs at home than he did away.

Bench also hit a lot more doubles than Berra.

(01-02-2012 12:29 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote:  Yogi Berra: Had 358 home runs in 8364 plate appearances.
(1 HR every 23.36 plate appearances)

Johnny Bench: Had 389 home runs in 8669 plate appearances
(1 HR every 22.29 plate appearances)

One less plate appearance in comparison to Berra. Yogi must have been on the roids.

[wmrklemm78]

(01-02-2012 03:13 PM)bustin 5 knots Wrote:  He said power trend. Jamie Moyer has 0 HR in 485 career PA

---

And a lot of people don't realize that power is obtained as you climb the ladder. Look at Jacoby Ellsbury. In 2008 and 2009 he hit 9 and 8 homers respectively. In 2011, 32 HR. Must be roids.

Re-read post #5... he said "anomalies LIKE the recent power trend"... he didn't limit his statement to ONLY the power trend. Makes a big difference.

[natejeffries]

You didn't take the time here to do the stastical analysis that I did.

I did not average Morgan's first nine years by the average he had each year. I know he didn't play full seasons in three of those years.

I compiled his batting average based on his total at-bats for all of those years.

So Morgan hit .260 combined for his entire time with the Astros, but then averaged .300 in his first six years with the reds.

The guy did a 40 point jump from his first nine years TOTAL with Houston compared to his first six years at Cincinatti.

I took into account that he was in a better lineup. Is that worth 40 points? I give 10-15 more points at best.

But I don't give 40 more points in batting average and doubling the amount of home runs he hit. We're talking about a guy who is 5'7 smacking 27 homers at the age of 33. It doesn't compute with me.

(01-02-2012 12:29 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote:  Pertaining to his batting average, OK, he hit .260 in his first nine season. His career average is .271. Yep, must be roids. Did you factor in the lineup he was in in Houston as opposed to Cincinnati? The players around you in the lineup do have something to do with the pitches you see. Unless you don't pay attention to baseball....

Three of his years that you're counting in Houston he played no more than 10 games the whole season. ('63, '64, '68)

His first six years with the Reds started with the typically recognized "peak years" for a ball player in which many ball players have their best stats in their career anyway.

A whopping 20+ homeruns four times over 22 years? In his peak years?! WOW! That's some solid evidence. Most he ever had was 27. Big deal....

Exactly what photos are you looking at in which he had the muscles like an olympic weightlifter?



Let's see, where to begin. His first few years where you lump everything together, he had one full season.
1971-140 games
1972- 59 games
1973- 17 games
1974- 106 games

Then you make it sound like he was "let in on a secret" in 1975. Actually, it was probably due, again, to the players surrounding him in the lineup, him starting to approach his peak years (two years away), AND the fact that he was able to play in 134 games.

In '76, he hit 29 home runs in 144 games and in 1977 (first of the peak/prime years) he hit 52 (not 51 as you incorrectly noted).

Ironically, you say he went on a decline when he went down to 40 home runs, when throughout your thread you've put 40 home runs on a pedestal.


Strong case? Where?

You can't prove any of it because your arguments are weak, terribly weak. You don't present important numbers or you lump things together to make it sound worse/better than it actually was. That's not a solid argument.

Stick good baseball players together in a line-up with good team chemistry, you're going to have excellent production. That's kind of what happens in baseball ya know?

---

Just about every guy on that list was a consistent home run producer throughout their careers except for Foster.

Foster was a basket case. One year he averaged a home run every 70 at-bats. Another year he averaged a homer every 10 at bats.

After he hit 52 homers, his numbers went down every year to a low of 13 in 1982. And then magically they more than doubled to 28 the next yearat the age of 35. And the Mets had one of the worst lineups in baseball in 1983.

Why was Foster the only guy since Willie Mays and before Cecil Fielder to hit 52 home runs?

It could be that Foster benefited from bring in a strong lineup in 76. But what about 1983?

I am not stating with any degree of certainty that Foster was taking any enhancers. Like I said, I can't prove any of it. But I can lay the numbers out on the table.

Based on the visual evidence I've seen, Bench and Morgan are still the ones that glare at me the most from that team. Foster is not an obvious guy compared to them, but then again those middle relievers that were juicing in the 90s didnt quite glare at me either. Neither did Chuck Knoblauch and Hal Morris.

To be certain, if anybody on the Reds was on roids, they surely weren't the only ones.

I would definitely wager that there were a whole bunch of players in the 70s who were messing with it.

(01-02-2012 12:29 PM)ricelynnevans75 Wrote:  So Foster was on roids because OTHER players (out of his control by the way) didn't hit 50 in that span? Uhhhh.........

Willie Stargell and Hank Aaron also did it twice in the 70s. Guess they were on roids too. Sixteen people hit 40 or more 20 times total in the 70s.

George Foster (52 in '77 and 40 in '78)
Willie Stargell (48 in '71 and 44 in '73)
Dave Kingman (48 in '79)
Hank Aaron (47 in '71 and 40 in '73)
Jim Rice (46 in '78)
Johnny Bench (45 in '70 and 40 in '72)
Gormon Thomas (45 in '79)
Mike Schmidt (45 in '79)
Frank Howard (44 in '70)
Davey Johnson (43 in '73)
Billy Williams (42 in '70)
Harmon Killebrew (41 in '70)
Darrell Evans (41 in '73)
Jeff Burroughs (41 in '77)
Tony Perez (40 in '70)
Carl Yastrzemski (40 in '70)
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jyucha/HomeRun/fourty.html

---

Its ironic that Tony Perez is on that list of guys who hit 40 HR in the 70s.

He also hit 37 home runs in 1969.

Those are the only two years in his entire career that he hit 30 home runs.

If it was the lineup that helped Morgan and Foster, why didn't the numbers of Perez go up in the 70s?

Perez hit 379 home runs in his career but had eight home runs less than Morgan in 1976 when they were on the same team together.

Perez hit more than 100 more homers than Morgan yet why didn't his numbers go up in the 70s when this "magical" lineup came together?

[alfredoleal2001]

(01-02-2012 05:44 AM)natejeffries Wrote:  First of all, your assumptions are based on two guys who took steroids in their mid 30's - Bonds and McGwire.

Morgan never hit 20 home runs until he turned 30. He never batted .300 until he was 32, he never hit 30 doubles until he was 30 and he didn't steal 60 bases until he was in his 30's.

Steroids dont make a person run faster so i guess that doesnt count.