Luis Gonzalez: cheat?

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

So over the course of a year, after years of playing at a high level, your drives increased an average of 16 yards? Sure.

I'm very impressed you are a scratch golfer though, and how it relates to Luis Gonzalez......

You’re the one who made the analogy dumb dumb.

It’s clear you have a deeply rooted biased take on this given your location which is ironic considering the Yankees have been full of documented roidheads throughout the years.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by Noles939913

You’re the one who made the analogy dumb dumb.

It’s clear you have a deeply rooted biased take on this given your location which is ironic considering the Yankees have been full of documented roidheads throughout the years.

I didn't the other golf bragger did, keep up. You guys should play together.

And I'm a Mets fan who also thinks Bonds should be in the Hall.

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

So you would have given him a pass 2 years ago before he said this?

I suspected it, certainly, but would fall short of actually saying he was a user. There are also levels of suspicion here that are more nuanced. Some players I strongly suspected, some I mildly suspected, some I flat out don’t believe used.

[mrmojorisin71]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Did Luis Gonzalez do steroids?

It’s the same answer you should get if you were asked, “were other teams cheating in 2017?”

The answer is yes, pretty much the whole league.

[ScooterD]

This isn’t proof by any means, but there are two other facts that, for me, throw some doubt on Luis being clean - the simultaneous resurgences and successes of his teammates: Steve Finley and Jay Bell.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

The Astrodome didn't seem to effect Bagwell much. Gonzalez hit 15 homeruns in Wrigley.

"Like many players he got progressively better"
Like who? Give an example of a player who got progressively better in their 30s.

The Astrodome absolutely affected Bagwell. Though Bagwell was probably the greatest power hitter in Astros history, so he’s hitting HRs in any park. However, he was still affected. He hit .19 HRs per game in the Astrodome and .22 per game in Minute Maid/Enron/Astros Field.

Gonzalez didn’t “get progressively better on his 30s”. He had his best season at the age of 33 just like a bunch of other players. Most of his 30s he got progressively worse as he entered his decline phase.

In Arizona:
Age 31 - 26 HRs
Age 32 - 31 Better
Age 33 - 57 Better
Age 34 - 28 Worse
Age 35 - 26 Worse
Age 36 - 17 Worse
Age 37 - 24 Better
Age 38 - 15 Worse

The historical prime years for MLB players is Ages 26-32; meaning most players have their best season during those years. But several players had their best season at age 25 (Beltre, Goldschmidt) and Age 33 (Killebrew, Luis). And fewer, but some, even have it at age 24 (Foxx, Alonso) and age 34 (Mays, Mize). And once in a while someone has their best year in an even further outlier (Bryce Harper Age 22) (Hank Aaron Age 37).

So, in their 30s, Killebrew, Mays, Mize, and Aaron all had their best HR season in their 30s, past the standard “prime” seasons.

Not everyone ages exactly the same way. But Luis Gonzalez’ age curve as it relates to HRs is about as normally distributed as it gets.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

The Astrodome absolutely affected Bagwell. Though Bagwell was probably the greatest power hitter in Astros history, so he’s hitting HRs in any park. However, he was still affected. He hit .19 HRs per game in the Astrodome and .22 per game in Minute Maid/Enron/Astros Field.

Gonzalez didn’t “get progressively better on his 30s”. He had his best season at the age of 33 just like a bunch of other players. Most of his 30s he got progressively worse as he entered his decline phase.

In Arizona:
Age 31 - 26 HRs
Age 32 - 31 Better
Age 33 - 57 Better
Age 34 - 28 Worse
Age 35 - 26 Worse
Age 36 - 17 Worse
Age 37 - 24 Better
Age 38 - 15 Worse

The historical prime years for MLB players is Ages 26-32; meaning most players have their best season during those years. But several players had their best season at age 25 (Beltre, Goldschmidt) and Age 33 (Killebrew, Luis). And fewer, but some, even have it at age 24 (Foxx, Alonso) and age 34 (Mays, Mize). And once in a while someone has their best year in an even further outlier (Bryce Harper Age 22) (Hank Aaron Age 37).

So, in their 30s, Killebrew, Mays, Mize, and Aaron all had their best HR season in their 30s, past the standard “prime” seasons.

Not everyone ages exactly the same way. But Luis Gonzalez’ age curve as it relates to HRs is about as normally distributed as it gets.

Like many players, he got progressively better, peaked with his best season at age 33 then had a steady decline
This is your statement. So which is it?

You are delusional, and disingenuous. Every single one of the players you mentioned had 40-home run seasons in their 20s. Luis Gonzalez didn't even have a 30-homer season in his 20s (which for some reason you didn't think is relevant).

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Like many players, he got progressively better, peaked with his best season at age 33 then had a steady decline This is your statement.

You are delusional, and disingenuous. Every single one of the players you mentioned had 40-home run seasons in their 20s. Luis Gonzalez didn't even have a 30-homer season in his 20s (which for some reason you didn't think is relevant).

And you're refusing to see anything that challenges your stance despite having no hard evidence to point to.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

And you're refusing to see anything that challenges your stance despite having no hard evidence to point to.

My stance is that the numbers and career trajectory strongly suggest Luis Gonzalez used PEDs. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Like many players, he got progressively better, peaked with his best season at age 33 then had a steady decline
This is your statement. So which is it?

You are delusional, and disingenuous. Every single one of the players you mentioned had 40-home run seasons in their 20s. Luis Gonzalez didn't even have a 30-homer season in his 20s (which for some reason you didn't think is relevant).

Since you’ve decided to make it personal, I’m done engaging with you. I’ve have better things to do than be insulted by the likes of you. Go be obtuse with someone else.

[rngrdanny22]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

My stance is that the numbers and career trajectory strongly suggest Luis Gonzalez used PEDs. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

So, you claim he used, and are challenging us to come up with evidence that he DIDN'T use? Good lord, you'd be an awful lawyer.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by rngrdanny22

So, you claim he used, and are challenging us to come up with evidence that he DIDN'T use? Good lord, you'd be an awful lawyer.

I’m not asking for evidence. Nobody’s given a real comparison to González suddenly turning into a home run hitter in his 30s

Who is "us"? You haven't weighed in one way or the other. I love the guys that sit on the sidelines, don't say anything to contribute to the greater discussion, and then troll.

[BigL7370]

I would say Luis Gonzalez likely used, but he was a choir boy compared to the other infamous guys like Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Sosa, etc - to try and expose him as a steroid cheat would be vindictive.

I also believe that steroids / PEDs have different effects on players - your mileage may vary, where users are likely to have outlier batting seasons but also revert back to reasonable numbers.

A benefit is feeling stronger over the course of the season - where you may hit 5-10 more home runs, when you are not so run down with all the number of games played.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by BigL7370

I would say Luis Gonzalez likely used, but he was a choir boy compared to the other infamous guys like Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Sosa, etc - to try and expose him as a steroid cheat would be vindictive.

I also believe that steroids / PEDs have different effects on players - your mileage may vary, where users are likely to have outlier batting seasons but also revert back to reasonable numbers.

A benefit is feeling stronger over the course of the season - where you may hit 5-10 more home runs, when you are not so run down with all the number of games played.

Steroid use was widespread during that era. Caminiti stated 50% and Canseco claimed 80 to 85%. Aramis Ramirez recently made the following claim:

“There is no way the Hall of Fame would exist without Barry Bonds,” Ramirez said. “In the Hall of Fame there are players who used steroids. I can name 5 players that I'm 100% sure they used steroids and were recently inducted into the Hall of Fame.”

The point being nobody knows for sure who didn't and didn't use steroids during that era. It is highly likely only a fraction of those who used, tested positive and/or were caught otherwise.

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

My stance is that the numbers and career trajectory strongly suggest Luis Gonzalez used PEDs. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Again, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders and you don’t have proof. Merely speculation. Insulting a member here pretty much ended conversation.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Look at the homers. It's that simple.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

Again, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders and you don’t have proof. Merely speculation. Insulting a member here pretty much ended conversation.

Love the sanctimony in here. Is this a court of law? The burden of proof "falls on my shoulders"? It's my opinion, which I supported with real statistics.

[mgip21]

Add a poll!! My vote it yes!! Can’t see how there’s any doubt. If he was clean, Brady Anderson was clean. ��

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by mgip21

Add a poll!! My vote it yes!! Can’t see how there’s any doubt. If he was clean, Brady Anderson was clean. ��

A poll would have been a good way to start this thread.

[corndog]

Hard to say.
Could have just been a fluke year.

George Foster in 1977 comes to mind.

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by corndog

Hard to say.
Could have just been a fluke year.

George Foster in 1977 comes to mind.

George Foster was 28 years old when he hit 50 (in that 26 to 28 peak range). He also led the league in homeruns the following year with 40.

[StateEx]

Yeah, he cheated. You don't need the home run totals to confirm -- you just need to look at him. That's not just working out and eating right.

Why didn't he hit as many home runs the next year? Maybe his cheating regime changed. Maybe baseball is hard. Maybe he didn't like the side-effects.

[TeeBee12]

Originally Posted by rfgilles

Did you ever start randomly driving balls an additional 50 feet?

50 ft? 100%. 50 yards? Still 100%.

And for several different reasons. And I consitently hit the ball 300+ yards in high school and today. And thats not a brag on me. Thats a nod to the advancement in technology.

Going from steel to graphite shafts.

Hit a West Coast leg. Ball flies further in AZ & CO vs muggy FL.

Day the ProV1 came out.

Mountain courses. Downhill.

A course built on hard red dirt vs converted farm land.

Had a nagging, easily irritated back that lasted a couple of years. Once diagnosed properly it was a game changer.

Sometimes it’d be 50 yards further or 50 yards less forlike a week simply because of an unintended slight tweak in my wrist or swing that would appear/disappear outta the blue.

Look at guys like Speith, Rory or even Ernie Els at the British that one year. Fluke days or runs happen. Look at the list of World Series MVPs. Alot of guys never heard from again. Then reverse it. Look at Judges post season last year. Like the phrase Forrest Gump coined…”Sh!t Happens”.

The tee box is just like the batters box. Confidence is key. With it, youre floating and unstoppable. Without it, you get in your own head and cant do anything right. Pedro Cerrano taking Dorns driver cover that kept the bat warm for him. Resorting to sacrificing chickens and ensuring Jabus cup runneth over. Its funny because its true and sometimes its just as simple as that. Not all. But sometimes. Its easy to claim everyone was in that era. But without definitive proof and my lack of following his career, he gets the pass.

[TeeBee12]

Originally Posted by corndog

Hard to say.
Could have just been a fluke year.

George Foster in 1977 comes to mind.

Well played, Sir. Well played.

[ninjacookies]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Oh, can't forget the Dee Gordon thread, he hit for a higher average because of steroids, not because there is this thing called luck. Same logic applies to my last post. Obviously blowout has looks of guys who are experts in the medical field and on steroids, though.

You know being juiced and having an anomaly year don't have to be mutually exclusive, right? If anything, it'd just make a possible anomalous performance be even more anomalous.

Think you may be underthinking this one.


- 2001.

-

- The Clear.


Pick 3.


(you're never going to obtain that level of bulk/cut/vascularity being natty. Not unless you're IBFF comp. level or spend 12 hours a day in the gym)