Selig considering reinstating Aaron as Home Run King

[RobertR]

Maybe the ball carried better in Georgia but I doubt it.

I don't doubt it. Two of the biggest factors affecting how far a ball will carry are elevation and temperature. Fulton County Stadium had the highest elevation in baseball at 1,050 feet compared to Milwaukee County Stadium which was approximately 600 feet above mean sea level. Atlanta is also much hotter than Milwaukee. Wind is the other wild card, but we know that the wind comes in off of Lake Michigan a significant amount of time in Milwaukee.

 

Robert

[Crewin06]

I think you're really underestimating Aaron's ability. He was just one of those handful once in a generation truly remarkable hitters. I can't prove he didn't use steroids, just like you can't prove he did. I just think it's dangerous, but also easy, to throw around suggestions like that without any real hard evidence to back them up. Yeah, he hit 47 home runs in '71, but he had several years before that where he hit 40 or more (6 in fact, with several being around 44 or 45 in a season). So his jump in home run production really was not that remarkable.

I don't really know how to get this message across.

 

If he was just a once in a generation truly remarkable hitter i would say there is less of a chance that he used steroids and just chalk it up to a great being great.

 

However once again for the 10th time in this thread HE IS A ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL HITTER IF HE DIDN'T USE STEROIDS.

Like I pointed out before its not that he just hit more home runs, He hit more home runs in significantly less plate appearances. Yeah he had seasons where he hit 44 home runs before he turned 35 but he hit them in seasons where he got 650-700 plate appearances.

 

The year he hit 47 at 37 years old he had 566 plate appearances. When he hit 40 at 39 years old he had 460 plate appearances. To put the 40 HR season in perspective it would have been like he hit 57 HR's with the low end of his normal amount of Plate appearances he got from his 22-34 years (650). He did that at 39 years old, when he never hit more that 44 in a season before the age of 37. That doesn't seem odd to you? That isn't remarkable?

 

I can't prove he didn't use steroids, just like you can't prove he did. I just think it's dangerous, but also easy, to throw around suggestions like that without any real hard evidence to back them up.

 

Again this is not about proving he did steroids or proving he didn't do steroids like you want accomplished in this thread. It's virtually impossible considering the action would have been done 30+ years ago, they didn't have drug testing, and we don't have access to Aaron or anybody else that could have witnessed something. You want me to put together a 100% open and shut case like Aaron is on trial for Murder because I made an off-handed comment that Hank Aaron might have used steroids and I believe he did. I layed out what I consider a good amount of evidence considering the lack of resources I have that there should be a decent amount of suspicion that Hank Aaron used steroids.

 

I don't get why its dangerous to throw around suggestions that Hank Aaron wasn't clean at the end of his career. I think its hypocritical not to look at all the facts and ask what happend in this situation. If his career followed a normal player curve there would be no suspicion on my part. But it didn't. It didn't follow a career path by any player in the history of the game. Add to it he was on a team with a known steroid user and he was chasing one of the most precious records in all of sports and the question has to come up why hasn't anyone looked further into this.

 

Again if you want me to shut my trap just name me one other player (besides Bonds) in the history of baseball who had their best HR or best HR per plate appearance season after the age of 36 in which they hit at least 35 HR's and I will happily concede that Hank Aaron never did Steroids but the fact that Hank Aaron is the only player that I know of that set both of those feats in separate seasons makes me very suspicious.

 

Throw your head in the sand if you want and yell about it being dangerous to suspect players of using performance enhancing drugs ( I am sure players in the late 90's and early 2000's would love you) but the fact remains that throughout all of baseball teams and players have constantly been trying to get an edge any way possible, the fact that Hank Aaron might have used a readily available substance that helped him perform at a higer level and nobody knew the side effects of yet shouldn't be considered so unfathamable that nobody should talk about it.

 

All I said is there should be suspicion and I think he did it. I said a couple of times that I don't know myself and you kind of spit it in my face by saying that neither of us can prove anything and it is very dangerous to throw around suggestions. So lets turn this around for a second. Give me your case on why there is absolutely no chance that Hank Aaron ever touched the stuff that we shouldn't even suggest something like it on the f'n internet.

[bullox]

I'd like to think that the current state of Aaron both mentally and physically would lead people to believe that he never did steroids. Even at his advanced age he is still very sharp. Take a look at other admitted steroid users... not so much, even while much younger than Aaron.

[Crewin06]

I'd like to think that the current state of Aaron both mentally and physically would lead people to believe that he never did steroids. Even at his advanced age he is still very sharp. Take a look at other admitted steroid users... not so much, even while much younger than Aaron.

Admitted Steroid users in baseball that are 75 years old. No offense but there isn't that big of population to compare. If there was one I would try to compare but I can't think of any.

 

I wouldn't really compare to any in football or weightlifting because they are entirely different sports and take entirely different doses or tolls on the body. Without knowing which steroids he took (if he did them) I don't think we can accurately assess the mental and physical tolls it would take on him.

[Invader3K]

Crewin06, with that kind of tone you're using, I'm not going to bother responding to you at this point. I may reconsider in the future, but for now, I won't participate further in this conversation any longer. I just think it's disgusting that someone on a message board dedicated to the Milwaukee Brewers is trying to tear down one of the most iconic and respected figures in the game. Therefore, I am going to remove myself from this particular discussion.

[sbrylski]

Crewin06, with that kind of tone you're using, I'm not going to bother responding to you at this point. I may reconsider in the future, but for now, I won't participate further in this conversation any longer. I just think it's disgusting that someone on a message board dedicated to the Milwaukee Brewers is trying to tear down one of the most iconic and respected figures in the game. Therefore, I am going to remove myself from this particular discussion.

 

What the heck? This seemed like an appropriate and generally well reasoned debate. This response is kind of childish - I read it as you are quitting before you lose, even though your side probably has a stronger argument.

 

Crewin06 is just trying to present what evidence there might be on Hank Aaron to make a point about how foolish it would be to try and rid the record books of all steroid users. He goes a step further to claim that he believes Aaron did use steroids, but that's not the main point.

 

Here's the essence of Crewin06's argument graphed out. I compared Aaron with Bonds, a "steroid" HR legend, and Mays, a "clean" HR legend. I graphed the ratio of their HR/PA to their league's - in other words how much better they were than the rest of the league. And I marked all the major events in their career that could have altered their numbers.

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/aaron2.jpg

 

This, to me, is far from conclusive either way. But it is interesting to see how much more closely Aaron's line follows Bonds' than it does Mays', though I was a little surprised at how late May's peaked as well. In fact, Aaron's peaks are higher and later than Barry's, and my methodology should remove the effects of the mound being lowered.

[bullox]

Admitted Steroid users in baseball that are 75 years old. No offense but there isn't that big of population to compare. If there was one I would try to compare but I can't think of any.

Is that not indicative on its own, that there aren't any admitted steroid users 75 years old?

[Crewin06]

Admitted Steroid users in baseball that are 75 years old. No offense but there isn't that big of population to compare. If there was one I would try to compare but I can't think of any.

Is that not indicative on its own, that there aren't any admitted steroid users 75 years old?

Not really how many admitted steroid users are out there that weren't caught and weren't trying to get something out of admitting?

[burnzy24]

Not really how many admitted steroid users are out there that weren't caught and weren't trying to get something out of admitting?

Yea but remember at the time, Aaron's breaking Ruth's record wasn't a great thing to everone. Alot of fans, and probably players too, didn't want to see Aaron break Ruth's record because of race. If there was any hint of him using steroids you could of bet one of these players would have been motivated to tell to stain Aaron's accomplishment. There was such a microscope on him too I just don't see how something like steriod use could have not been noticed. That and wouldn't some broke ex-teamate, clubhouse worker, friend, etc be motivated if they knew he was using. Alot of money could be made with that alligation.

[Crewin06]

Sbrylski nothing that is on the internet will really be conclusive but that graph does a really good job of visualizing what I am trying to say and Willie Mays had a decent 35-end of his career. If you compare it to some of the other HR greats that I mentioned that played during Aaron's time like Killabrew, Frank Robinson and Willie McCovey I think it will look even uglier.

 

Burnzy, If a player doesn't want everyone to know they wouldn't be shooting up in the clubhouse or around untrustworthy people. Do you really think Rodriguez would have got caught if there wasn't a drug test that was supposed to be destroyed immediately? And Rodriguez is living in a time when there is a steroid witch hunt and player privacy almost non existent. I just don't think it would be as hard as people are making it out to be.

[RobertR]

I understand the graph, but I think that the HR/PA ratio compared to league average has some issues. Like park factors, you can't assume that everyone will benefit equally from a significant change in the baseball environment. It's not surprising that corner outfielders with power benefitted more from a lower mound than slap hitting middle infielders that didn't have the power to hit HRs no matter how flat the mound was.

 

And, of course, I think it's a mistake to apply one cause, PEDs, to the increase in HRs in the 1990s. Smaller parks, better scouting, better physical training (apart from steroids), teams willing to play bigger players in the middle infield at the expense of defense, expansion (including a ballpark in Denver), etc. all contributed to the HR explosion.

 

Robert

[sbrylski]

I understand the graph, but I think that the HR/PA ratio compared to league average has some issues. Like park factors, you can't assume that everyone will benefit equally from a significant change in the baseball environment. It's not surprising that corner outfielders with power benefitted more from a lower mound than slap hitting middle infielders that didn't have the power to hit HRs no matter how flat the mound was.

 

It should help each player's rate rather equally. Yes, a 30 HR hitter might increase to 40 HR, but a 3 HR hitter should still increase to 4 HR. It appears the slugger got more help, but the slap hitter got the same help in terms of rate. So in comparing the rates, I think we are fairly okay there. It might be a minor concern.

 

And, of course, I think it's a mistake to apply one cause, PEDs, to the increase in HRs in the 1990s. Smaller parks, better scouting, better physical training (apart from steroids), teams willing to play bigger players in the middle infield at the expense of defense, expansion (including a ballpark in Denver), etc. all contributed to the HR explosion.

 

There is no single factor that effected Aaron that did not effect the rest of the league just as much, unless he led the way in an increased level of physical training when he was in his later 30's.

[RobertR]

I understand the graph, but I think that the HR/PA ratio compared to league average has some issues. Like park factors, you can't assume that everyone will benefit equally from a significant change in the baseball environment. It's not surprising that corner outfielders with power benefitted more from a lower mound than slap hitting middle infielders that didn't have the power to hit HRs no matter how flat the mound was.

 

It should help each player's rate rather equally. Yes, a 30 HR hitter might increase to 40 HR, but a 3 HR hitter should still increase to 4 HR. It appears the slugger got more help, but the slap hitter got the same help in terms of rate. So in comparing the rates, I think we are fairly okay there. It might be a minor concern.

 

And, of course, I think it's a mistake to apply one cause, PEDs, to the increase in HRs in the 1990s. Smaller parks, better scouting, better physical training (apart from steroids), teams willing to play bigger players in the middle infield at the expense of defense, expansion (including a ballpark in Denver), etc. all contributed to the HR explosion.

 

There is no single factor that effected Aaron that did not effect the rest of the league just as much, unless he led the way in an increased level of physical training when he was in his later 30's.

 

It's a complete and utter fallacy that park factors affect everyone equally. Juan Pierre didn't benefit as much from Coors field as someone with some power like Dante Bichette did. Groundball hitters don't hit more home runs because a mound is lowered. Middle infielders that were completely without power, as was the norm in Aaron's era, were still completely without power. Park factors are most relevant to the average player, but when you're talking extremes of tools it's important to remember why a park plays as it does and how a hitter fits in.

 

Park factors are a very useful device, but there are plenty of exceptions. Handedness for example.

 

Playing in Fulton County Stadium, one of the hottest and the highest elevation ballpark in the NL when it was built most assuredly benefitted Aaron more than the rest of the league. Especially since he moved from one of the coldest ballparks. It's a stone cold fact that temperature and elevation affect air density, and Aaron most certainly benefitted from that more than most other ballplayers except his less talented teammates.

 

Robert

[Crewin06]

Fine say Aaron benefited from moving to Fulton County , although I don't believe 400 feet in elevation makes a big deal its not like he is moving from mile high to Pac Bell park where there is about a 5,000 foot difference in elevation, also you can say the tempurature in the move helped him although why stop at just the weather why not claim the fans were friendlier allowing giving Aaron more confidence (wait I can't suggest anything negative about Milwaukee or any player that played in Milwaukee) scratch that but these changes came to fruition when Aaron was 32 why did he keep getting better at hitting homers till the age of 39 when he was almost equal with Ruth then started to show his age and act like normal players his age.

 

I know the mound and player expansion. And although Sbryliski layed out a great graph that took these factors into account supposedly we can't trust it because the changes affected players differently. I don't like to repeat myself but as I noted before 4 other All-time homerun greats in their 30's were going through this same period 3 of which were a couple years younger and none of them were affected by this hardly at all especially the way it affected Aaron if any of Mays, Frank Robinson, Willie McCovey, or Harmon Killabrew had the burst from the 35-42 seasons that Aaron got they would be the Home-run king instead of sitting around the high 500's and in Mays case mid 600's.

[TooLiveBrew]

Juan Pierre didn't benefit as much from Coors field as someone with some power like Dante Bichette did.

 

Actually one of the biggest ways in which Coors skews towards offense is the higher # of singles it allows. They made the OF larger to combat the thin air & how far batted balls can fly, which in turn creates more space for singles & bloopers to fall in... not to mention the gap-shots. Now, this is just my knee-jerk response to your post -- I haven't taked the time to investigate Pierre & Bichette, or any other specific batters.

[Fatter than Joey]

Actually one of the biggest ways in which Coors skews towards offense is the higher # of singles it allows.

 

While this may be true -- the discussion is really focusing on park changes having an effect on roid-induced power numbers... Moving Pierre to or from Colorado isn't going to change his power numbers, or how many HRs he gets. (Pierre has 1 HR in Coors in 900 ABs.)

 

Power Hitters on the other hand, certainly could be effected drastically by a park's dimensions...

[logan82]

Foul territory has a big impact as well. Smaller foul territory puts more foul balls in the seats and thus more opportunities for the hitter to put the ball in the outfield seats.

[RobertR]

although why stop at just the weather why not claim the fans were friendlier allowing giving Aaron more confidence

Because I believe in science. The universal gas law isn't that complicated.

 

As far as Aaron goes, his SLG really didn't take off until 1969, the year the mound was lowered. From 1965 to 1968, his SLG was consistent with his career norms. Heck, he produced one of the three lowest SLG of his career to date in 1966, he just exchanged some doubles for HRs. He had a good year in 1967. And, in 1968, he produced his lowest SLG since his rookie year. And, really, there were three years there, 69, 71, and 73, that really didn't indicate that he was in decline.

 

Robert

[Crewin06]

RobertR -

 

Yeah I know the gas law isn't that complicated but to use it justify a player hitting significantly more homeruns per plate appearance when the air samples aren't that different and the altitude isn't really that dramatic is just ludicrous. Especially considering he was aging every year.

 

As far as Aaron goes, his SLG really didn't take off until 1969, the year the mound was lowered.

 

So 4 years went by in Atlanta where his slugging didn't improve but its the air? Again three 500 home run hitters (Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, and Willie McCovey) went through the mound lowering with Hank, all of which were younger than Hank by a couple of years , all of them had bigger years than Hank ever had before the age of 35 and the lowering of the mound. Out of these 3 sluggers that all have over 500 homeruns none of them had seasons over 30 HRs after the age of 35.

 

Doesn't that make you question Hank Aaron at all considering the seasons from 35-39 for Aaron were 44, 38, 47, 34, 40. These 3 players all played 10 + seasons before the mound lowering and all played their 35-39 seasons after the mound lowering, all had 500+ HR's and none of them hit more than 30 HR's in their 35-39 season but hank hit 30+ in all of them including his best HR total of his career and his best HR per PA of his career.

 

The fan comment was a joke which I think you know. I have tried to debunk every myth no matter how ludicrous.

 

Can RobertR, Invader 3K, or Bullox please answer one of my questions instead of coming up with new minor myth on why Aaron's HR total spiked dramatically in his late 30's

 

Please find me another player in the history of baseball who had their highest HR total or highest HR/PA percentage with at least 35 HR's after their age 35 season?

 

Isn't the data on Sbrylinski's graph weird for a non steroid user?

 

And

 

Doesn't that make you question Hank Aaron at all considering the seasons from 35-39 for Aaron were 44, 38, 47, 34, 40? These 3 players (Robinson, McCovey, Killebrew) all played 10 + seasons before the mound lowering and all played their 35-39 seasons after the mound lowering, all had 500+ HR's and none of them hit more than 30 HR's in their 35-39 season but hank hit 30+ in all of them including his best HR total of his career and his best HR per PA of his career.

 

If any of you could answer any or all of those questions it would be much appreciated.

[whizkid]

sbrylski's chart could use some adjustments but it would be difficult to do and I don't know how to do it accurately.

1) We know that Barry was intentionally walked and pitched around to an unprecedented extent. While Hank was intentionally walked and likely pitched around to some extent, nothing has ever been done before to the extent it was for Barry. Adjusting Barry's PAs from age 36 on for the reduced number of PAs where he actually had a chance to HR would raise his curve, I would guess significantly over the corresponding raise in Hank's.

2) Barry's margin over league HRs/PA came while playing half his games in a HR unfriendly park. A better way to assess pitcher's vs. hitter's parks than citing park dimensions and guessing at how the ball carried may be to use park factors. ESPN has HR park factors for ATT/Pac Bell that rank it near the bottom.

3) I haven't been able to find historical HR park factors, maybe someone else can help. At the bottom of the page here you can click on 5 year run park factors for what you think they're worth. You can read about the methodology. The 5 year park factors for Atlanta were:

1966: 101
1967: 101
1968: 101
1969: 103
1970: 103
1971: 107
1972: 107
1973: 106
1974: 106
1975: 108
1976: 107
1977: 109
1978: 110

I'm not a stat guru but as I understand it, averaging park factors over 5 years helps with the small sample of one year but also takes 5 years to get more to the true nature of the park. I'm showing past when Hank left to show the trend of the numbers. Per sybrl's chart, '71 and '73 are the real anomalies in Hank's HR/PA.

Beyond the numbers, Altanta Fulton County had a reputation as a launching pad. You can google atlanta fulton county launching pad and get hits to read about it. Hank played in a hitter's park and his line would be lower if adjusted for park factor.

Some anecdotal points:

1) Killebrew and McCovey were different body types than Hank, the kind that generally don't age as well and Willie had major knee problems.

2) Hank has said and observers noted that he changed from an all fields hitter to a dead pull hitter as he aged and adapted to that park. I think the drop in Hank's doubles over this period might be indicative of this.

3) As you can see from sybrl's chart, Hank didn't keep getting better at hitting homers as you said, it went up and down like all players.

4) If you look at the park factors, Robinson played in much more pitcher friendly parks at those ages. Candlestick was mostly neutral when Willie Mays was finishing up.

5) In 1973 when Hank hit 40 HR, Davey Johnson hit 43 and Darryl Evans hit 41 for Atlanta. It was quite unusual in that day and age. Perhaps you think they all juiced together but that would lessen the secrecy aspect. Perhaps you think they all juiced independently, but just for one year. Davey never came close to that number before or after. Neither did Evans until 1985 in Detroit which had a short RF overhang. Or maybe part of it was just how the park played that year.

6) Hank never was known for long, towering HRs, just a lot of them, mostly of the line drive type. It was said his power was in his wrists. He and Barry were quite similiar in build as young players, skinny. Hank developed something of a paunch in his final years and was quite heavy with the Brewers but never underwent the changes that have been quite noticeable with Barry and many other juicers.

[RobertR]

A 2 to 3% increase in carry is not insignificant. That's the point where you start to turn doubles into HRs. I'd like to see an XBH/PA chart, albeit that's basically just SLG.

 

What's more, looking at the graph, I think we're getting some distortions due to scale. To me, it looks like there's a standard deviation of around .5 HR/PA. A lot of what we're seeing in the chart is noise, IMO. A slow increase with age in HR rate, although a relatively stable OPS+, followed by a spike after the mound was lowered, and then a quick decline at the end of his career. Part of that goes to the old cliche that HRs and BBs are "old player's skills". Frankly, what's most notable about Aaron to me is not the HR rate, but the longevity and durability.

 

While I understand that it's impossible to disprove something like that, I do think that the lowering of the mound is not something that can be waved away. Heck, it's not the only reason, 1969 also saw expansion of baseball by an unprecedented 4 teams with Montreal, San Diego, Kansas City, and Seattle all getting franchises. Aaron's biggest spike occurs in the 1969 season. I understand that correlation isn't necessarily causation, but the whole point to lowering the mound in the first place was to increase offense. Occam's Razor is still an awfully good axiom, the simplest explanation for Aaron's increase in HRs in 1969 is that the mound was lowered and pitching was diluted. And he was able to benefit more from it than the average player because he already was far above average. And it's the most likely reason. Especially since Ball Four had no problem relating the widespread use of amphetamines in baseball but had no mention of PEDs.

 

Robert

[RobertR]

Another chart to look at for Aarons. XBH/Season.

 

Year Age XBH

1965 31 73 Last Year in Milwaukee

1966 32 68

1967 33 79

1968 34 66

1969 35 77 Mound Lowered Plus Expansion

1970 36 65

1971 37 72

1972 38 44

1973 39 53

1974 40 36

1975 41 30 Traded to Milwaukee

1976 42 18

 

Honestly, it's pretty clear that in the mid-60s, he merely traded doubles for HRs and his true decline hit in 1972.

 

Robert

[sbrylski]

I'm still making no conclusions either way, but because I had the data handy, I'll again graphically demonstrate Crewin06's point.

 

This time I put the year on the x-axis, for the comparison is between players from the same era and its emphasizing the effects of the lowered mound in 1969, which is marked.

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/aaron3.jpg

 

The player's ages as of 1969:

 

Aaron - 35

Killebrew - 33

Robinson - 33

McCovey - 31

 

None of them changed parks from 1966 to 1971.

 

Frank Robinson had a little late peak there, but nothing compares to the incredible increase by Hank Aaron - the oldest of the four.

[Crewin06]

So Guys I give you 3 simple questions and you can't answer any of them but give more contrived BS.

First off RobertR how do you get the the 2%-3% increase in carry? why not make it 50% while you are just making up random numbers. And Hank didn't see any benefit from this added 2%-3% increase in carry till 4 years after the fact? What a line of Bull. You would think it would be immediate and gradually decline instead it has the oppositte affect.

What's more, looking at the graph, I think we're getting some distortions due to scale. To me, it looks like there's a standard deviation of around .5 HR/PA. A lot of what we're seeing in the chart is noise, IMO. A slow increase with age in HR rate, although a relatively stable OPS+, followed by a spike after the mound was lowered, and then a quick decline at the end of his career.
HRs and BBs are "old player's skills". Frankly, what's most notable about Aaron to me is not the HR rate, but the longevity and durability.

If HR's and BB's are old player skills why doesn't any player in the history of the game age as well as Aaron. The reason the HR rate isn't notable to you is because you don't want to see all the facts. Its unbelievable how you are trying to twist things. Its not that hard. I'm not looking for an open and shut case that Aaron did Steroids I just want a concession that their is a good possibility. HR's and BB's are old man skills what a crock of !%#@.

While I understand that it's impossible to disprove something like that, I do think that the lowering of the mound is not something that can be waved away. Heck, it's not the only reason, 1969 also saw expansion of baseball by an unprecedented 4 teams with Montreal, San Diego, Kansas City, and Seattle all getting franchises. Aaron's biggest spike occurs in the 1969 season.

No it isn't the biggest spike is in the 1973 season when he is 39 years old and hitting them at such a rate that if he gets 700 PA's (like he did multiple times before) he breaks the single season home run record. Its rediculous that you guys can't admit that its a possibility.

I understand that correlation isn't necessarily causation, but the whole point to lowering the mound in the first place was to increase offense. Occam's Razor is still an awfully good axiom, the simplest explanation for Aaron's increase in HRs in 1969 is that the mound was lowered and pitching was diluted. And he was able to benefit more from it than the average player because he already was far above average. And it's the most likely reason. Especially since Ball Four had no problem relating the widespread use of amphetamines in baseball but had no mention of PEDs.

Again running around in circles. Why didn't Robinson, McCovey and Killebrew prosper as much then, why hasn't any player before or since been able to put up even close to the late career surge that Aaron has seen.

I don't know why I even respond to this anymore.

I ask to provide simple answers to simple questions and I get made up rediculous numbers on standard info, 2-3% increase in carry, .5hr/pa standard deviation. None of the stats that I have given are made up or off the top of my head but all your arguments are unmeasuable and you keep regurgitating them because there is nothing solid to stand on. I am not even looking for yeah Hank Aaron did Steroids I just want people to aknowledge that there is a good possibility.

Whizkid I admire your research but we aren't talking about Bonds. I would assume the Performance enhancers are alot better than any that Aaron took.

Also bringing up a player (Davey Johnson) that has 136 career HR's who had 43 HRs 1 year the year he came to Atlanta in 1973 and no other years in which he broke 20 and only 2 other years in which he broke 10 is not really a great way to prove that Aaron did not do Steroids especially when he played the better part of 9 seasons and 13 seasons total. Darrell Evens is another case of what the hell happend sets his career mark at 26 and never hits 30 again until 10 years later and doesn't hit 40 until he is 38 years old?

I'm not saying I'm just saying. But I guess I have my answer name me one other player in baseball history to have his best HR season or best HR/PA of his career while hitting 35 or more past the age of 35: the answer Darrell Evens a Hank Aaron teammate. Darell Evens almost achieved it twice once at the age of 38 slugging 40 HR's in 590 PA's and almost achieving it at 40 falling 1 HR shy at 34 HR's and .01 HR/PA short. Hank must have taught him that pattented older HR swing or maybe Tigers Stadium was just a HR launching pad. No it must have been the changes that took place in 1985 and the better air density in Detroit.

Man you guys proved me wrong. Who would guess that a guy could put up huge numbers sporadically in certain years of his career taking 10 years off to be mediocre at best ? I'm guessing Brady Anderson wouldn't. 41 at 26 years old putting up numbers with a person that hit 1/3 of his career homers in that year and he doesn't hit more than 25 again until 10 years later when he gets his fountain of youth and at Tigers Stadium hits 30, 40, and 34 homers at 36, 38 and 40 years old.

Personally I think it is just a great being great but what do I know

[PeaveyFury]

So Guys I give you 3 simple questions and you can't answer any of them but give more contrived BS.

 

Very condescending, and 'BS' is not allowed here per the site's terms of use.