# of times Peavy gets screwed/Barry Bonds and roids

[HollywoodLeo]

Oh and Barry did hit as many homers without the alleged use of roids thank you very much Look at Bonds OBP and the win/loss record this season

So Bonds was hitting 60+ HRs a year before he started taking the juice?

[padrefanforever]

Carpenter was dominant last year for sure, and so was Clemens.......but neither won the K title, so it could be argued that neither was as dominant as Peavy..... Peavy or Clemens playing for a team that could score 900 runs in a season last year and both win 20, and either would have been looked at as the most dominiant pitcher in the NL.......

Also if you know anything about pitching......it's much easier to take the rubber knowing that the offense isn't going to no show to the game.... Peavy has never had that luxury, and Carp did last year......Carp was able to throw relaxed and that turned into a great year for him.....Peavy had to do damn near everything himself, and still couldn't muster enough wins to be more than a whisper during the Cy Young race.......and wins were the only thing that really seperated these guys.......the rest of the stats for all of them were great.....If I'm not mistaken

[padrefanforever]

So Bonds was hitting 60+ HRs a year before he started taking the juice?

Maybe he meant if you add everything from 1986 to 1998......then from 1998-2005 it would be the same.....lol......that might be true

[love_that_reefer]

Bonds hit 46 homers in 1993 and would have hit 50 in 1994 so like I said he has always hit homers.

In response to Carpenter, if you knew anything about Carpenter last year you would have seen that he didn't need the big offense. Also, when you have a lead you are more likely to make mistakes as you get relaxed. He did not need the big leads to win those ballgames as he was dominant. Strikeout totals do not equal dominance. Carpenter pitched essentially 3 more games than Paevy did by going deeper in the ballgames and giving the pen a rest. Carpenter was so dominant away from Busch. All this is stupid since all I said was put Carpenter on the Pads and he would basicall have 17-19 wins which would have been good enough to beat everyone else. Anyone who watched the NL last year knew it was a no brainer that Carpenter would get it.

[HollywoodLeo]

Bonds hit 46 homers in 1993 and would have hit 50 in 1994 so like I said he has always hit homers.

Nobody said he wasn't hitting home runs. It was stated that he wasn't hitting as many home runs.

I even had your back till I noticed that caviat myself.

Bonds was hitting 30-40 HRs a year before he started taking roids

edit: but I realize you said "as many"

[love_that_reefer]

Yes yes and yes blah blah blah. Peavy did not have the innings to help get him those wins he needed to be considered. Carpenter had everything he needed with or without the offense.

And yes he was hitting as many homers.

[HollywoodLeo]

Yes yes and yes blah blah blah. Peavy did not have the innings to help get him those wins he needed to be considered. Carpenter had everything he needed with or without the offense.

when you're pitching for an NL team giving zero run support sometimes it happens that you get pulled earlier than you otherwise would be so that you can be pinch hit for.

That and nobody, well at least not me, is saying Peavy had a better year than Carpenter.

And yes he was hitting as many homers.

Dude, this is not like arguing opinion. It's cold hard numbers.

Bonds allegedly started roiding in 1998

HRs from 1986-1997 = 374, or 34 HRs/year average

HRs from 1998-2004 = 329, or 47 HRs/year average

it's pretty cut and dry

[love_that_reefer]

So 1993 and 1994 never happened? Bonds just didn't hit those homeruns? Bonds has always had the power. That's the point!

And for the last time we all know Carpenter was better than Peavy last year. I simply said you put him on the Pads the way he pitched last year and he still would have won. He was that great!

[FmrFresnan]

Reefer, even a Bonds homer like yourself can't argue with those numbers.

[HollywoodLeo]

So 1993 and 1994 never happened? Bonds just didn't hit those homeruns? Bonds has always had the power. That's the point!

And again, nobody's saying Bonds wasn't a power hitter before the (alleged) use of the juice. But if you juice up a power hitter he's apt to hit even more home runs, and Bonds (might have) just proved that.

How you continue to argue cold hard facts is beyond me. Next thing I know you're going to be telling me the sky isn't blue and that there's 13 months in the year.

And for the last time we all know Carpenter was better than Peavy last year. I simply said you put him on the Pads the way he pitched last year and he still would have won. He was that great!

Nobody's saying Carpenter wouldn't have won here, Peavy won here. We're saying he wouldn't have had as many wins.

But i'm starting to learn that the term as many doesn't appear to be in your dictionary

[love_that_reefer]

The cold hard facts say that Bonds hit 46 in 1993! That's not a homer that's saying he hit as many! See the key words "as many". And yes if they would pitch to Bonds he would have had 5 seasons in a row with sixty but the facts say he only had one year over sixty. In 1994 he would have hit 50 easily! You guys were saying he hit the homers after the roids which I proved to be untrue. There is no arguement in my eyes.

And for the last time I think Carpenter would still have had 17-19 wins for your Pads last season the way he pitched. Look at his game log last season. He could have had more than his 21 wins.

[HollywoodLeo]

why is 1993 the only pre-roids year that is relevant to your argument?

Did the other years not happen?

Fine, i'm banking my entire argument on 2001 when Bonds hit 73 HRs. How many times pre-1998 did he do that?!

[love_that_reefer]

I answered that in the previous thread. 1994 is also relevant. You guys are acting like he never did it before and I PROVED otherwise

[padrefanforever]

46 isn't 73 in most math classes.......... and if Bonds ended his career and had hit 46 a few times and 55 one season nobody would be saying squat about him.........but you don't inflate after 30, and start jacking HR's like you're playing wiffleball........and as Hollywood has shown you with very simple #'s........Bonds has avg'd more HR's post 1998 juicing that before.......which is all that was said here that I can find........1994 saw Gwynn at the .400 mark, never happened either, so Bonds doesn't get to do the woulda shoulda coulda's.........

[HollywoodLeo]

I answered that in the previous thread. 1994 is also relevant. You guys are acting like he never did it before and I PROVED otherwise

I don't know what others were saying, but i've been saying this entire page that Bonds hit more home runs post (alleged) roids era than he did pre (alleged) roids era, at least in a ratio aspect. And the numbers don't lie

your counter-argument that in one season he hit a grand total of 1 more home run than he did in any non injury season from 2000 on, when he wasn't getting intentionally walked nearly as much, is pretty weak.

averaged 34/year pre-roids*
averaged 47/year post-roids*

even if you take out 2001 (73 HR year) his average is 42.67/year

* - alleged