Crewin06

Sorry I just couldn't let this go. Why is that in quotes. I know you determine standard deviations and other stats by just making things up but quotes? First off I never said it and secondly it's not even close to the basis of my argument.

Not to mention if only his road stats are taken into account for his ages 35-the end of his career, At age 39 Aaron still has his best HR/PA year of his career. Edit-OK I'm done before I get booted from the site. This is my last post on this subject and I will go back to posting very sporadically. Keep up the good work Brewerfan.

I'm sorry Fury I know I said I wouldn't respond to him anymore but C'mon. His 2 highest HR/PA seasons before 35 were .0683 and .0654. Even if you took out his ungodly home numbers, his road numbers provide the 2 best seasons of his career and 3 of the top 4 seasons of his career. Yeah the numbers might fit more neatly but they are still going to be easily the best stretch of his career.

No at that time I was just testing somebody's theory this is just pure annoyance at a poster that I happend to use a bad term. Don't worry I am done responding to that guy. Seriously though he asked what was the big deal about being low 1% in a 2-3% guess. Nevermind. Again don't worry I am done responding to him.

I can't help you with what you want.... but check this out.... 1.) Over 200 Hrs were hit in Fulton --- the next closest was 164 in the Stick. 2.) ATL pitchers pitching at home gave up 87 HRs, the next closest, the Phillies at 80, after that the Cubs at 72. 3.) ATL's pitchers Home ERA, 4.75 -- Phillies are next at 4.18, followed by the Cubs at 3.88 Aaron, Evans and Johnson were not the only dudes hitting HRs in Fulton in 1973. Lots of HRs were hit in Fulton in 1973 Nothing like the 1 year sample size to really emphasize a point. I'll concede that Fulton was a hitters park, and it probably did help him but the best HR total of his career at 37 and best rate at 39? Why not immediately? I just can't believe it. Also if Fulton County Stadium is such a launching pad (which I agree to a certain extent) and Aaron, Evans and Johnson all placing in the top 4 isn't an aberation why in the remaining 23 year history of the stadium was there only 3 other HR hitters to ever hit 40 in a season for a Brave. I mean Johnson hit 40 that season and only hit 93 more the remaining 8 full years and 12 total years of his career. Evans 26 at the time spent another 2+ seasons at Atlanta in the same stadium and never hit more than 25 in a season. What happend here? Am I really the only one that is suspicious that someone in baseball or in the Atlanta Braves asked the same question in 1973? Even among Hall of Famers he's unique. Just as Babe Ruth is. Just as Ty Cobb is. Just as Ted Williams is. Just as Rickey Henderson's SBs are. Agreed... At some point you have to concede that great players will be great sometimes... The only difference is Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams and Rickey Henderson were great throughout their careers. Usually better around 25-34 and tapering off towards the end. They aren't very good on par with other all-time greats in the same era then at 35 when most players are starting to sputter turn it up another 5 notches and run off the best 5 year stretch of their career. If Babe Ruth all of a suddenly hit 65 at 37 years old in 550 Plate appearances (when he was getting 650-700 the rest of his career) and steroids where readily available to him nobody would have asked what was going on? Out of these 3 sluggers that all have over 500 homeruns none of them had seasons over 30 HRs after the age of 35. False -- Frank Robinson had 30 when he was 37. Also, McCovey had 29 at 35, and 28 at 39 -- Mays had 28 at 39 -- Killebrew had 28 at 35.... so your selection of 30 HRs as a benchmark seems arbitrary. Furthermore, McCovey and Mays were not full-time players at 39 yrs., had they been, they would have exceeded 30 HRs. How is my statement false. Reading comprehension. Who in that list had over 30 Home Runs. As for 30 its a nice round number that none of them had more than. And the numbers you threw out there Robinson with 30, McCovey with 29 and 28 and Mays with 28 those are nice numbers if they weren't 60% of their high HR total. Right about where the normal baseball curve would put them. To put it in comparison it would have been like Frank Robinson hitting 51, Willie Mays hitting 55 or Killebrew hitting 50 at 37 years old with about 550 PA'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? What does this prove? -- I'd have a hard time finding another player that won 11 batting titles like Ty Cobb did as well... Aaron/Cobb/etc.. great players, even among the elites. I think if Aaron used steroids in 1971 and 1973, he would have used them in the gap years as well -- and we would not see big drops. Again I am not asking for someone who was the best at something throughout their career. I am asking for someone that was very good on par with the best of their time and then at the end of what would be a normal career kicked it up about 5 notches and had the best 5 year stretch of their career. And the gap year as you call it is a big drop off but to what? He still was top 5 in HR's in the league and he had more HR's than everybody in the 500 HR club even though he was 2-4 years older than all of them.

OK, in a discussion someone is using easily attainable stats that are facts the other guy is making up any stat he wants and can't be called out on it. For the love of god he gave a made up standard deviation without even thinking of running a regression analysis. Everything in his post I was referring \is made up. He didn't answer my question and used fake baseless stats. That line I got a strike for had more fact in it than any of Roberts posts put together.

If you can tell me how he got that Fulton County Stadium gave the ball 2-3% more carry other than he made it up then you can give me a strike or kick me off otherwise I stand by my assertion that he wrote down a bunch of contrived BS and he couldn't answer my question. Then he picks apart Sbrylinski's graph that has actual data showing Aaron hitting alot more HR's and picks it a part pointing out a Stadard deviation of .5 and the rest is noise when if the standard deviation is .5 like he asserts and the mean is 2.5 like it looks then Aaron's 37 and 39 seasons are 3-3.5 standard deviations away from the mean which is a huge deal Either the guy is making up a bunch of contrived BS or he is just a tool that doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Or he got less PA's like I have been saying all along Year Age XBH PAs XBH/PA 1965 31 73 / 630 .1158 1966 32 68 / 676 .1005 1967 33 79 / 663 .1191 1968 34 66 / 670 .0958 1969 35 77 / 634 .1215 1970 36 65 / 590 .1101 1971 37 72 / 566 .1272 1972 38 44 / 551 .0798 1973 39 53 / 460 .1152 Pretty much tied Babe Ruth's record 1974 40 36 / 479 .075 1975 41 30 / 535 .056 1976 42 18 / 306 .058 Again the more opportunities to hit homers the more homers one might hit. and as for the 40 HR 53 XBH campaign does it remind us of any other HR hitter of the past 10-15 years?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'd love to see ESPN's official statement on that suspension if they have one.

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.

Ultimately it doesn't matter since steroids were perfectly legal at the time, anyway. Wha What? Really it doesn't matter that the present day commisioner is thinking of wiping out a HR record because of Steroids when the old HR record holder actually did steroids(if he did)? If Hank Aaron admitted to using steroids it would be huge press. I just don't find your arguments that he did very convincing. I provided motive, opportunity, and the results that would suggest Steroid use. If I had a smoking gun like a positive drug test, people seeing Hank take them or Hank admitting to taking them this wouldn't be a discussion but a tutorial. Hell I don't even know if Hank used Steroids so I'm not going to try to convince you that 100% without a shadow of a doubt Hank did them. However I hoped that people would realize that there is a pretty good possibility and maybe even probable that Hank took them. We're talking about the guy who held probably the most prestigious record in sports for like 30 years...if he had used steroids, wouldn't someone have cashed in by now and wrote a book about how the Home Run King did 'roids to beat Ruth's record? I've never heard anyone really even suggest he did so. If baseball players are smart only 1 person would really have to know about it. The person you are getting the Steroids from. If it is a trustworthy person that could keep a secret there would be no leak. The place were players get in trouble is telling their mistress, getting it delivered to the house, taking piss tests that aren't supposed to see the light of day, getting the drugs from people under indictment, or taking them with !!%#+%@%@+ like Jose Conseco. If any player operated under the cover your ass approach then I don't believe anyone would ever have been caught. Also, one thing being ignored is that Aaron did change his approach to hitting later in his career specifically to hit more home runs. This has been stated by himself and many other players. Come on. The reason for having the best homerun period of your career in your late 30's and nobody else in the history of baseball can claim the same is because you changed your approach? Nobody else in the history of baseball has thought of this and been successful like you? Like I said before maybe it was just the perfect storm of circumstances, but between similar homerun hitters going through the same period of history and that no other player has had the late career production like him heavily suggests that he had help.

I was thinking the exact same thing only with Griffey but Edmonds probably has more left in the tank and can play defense better. I would just love to have Griffey in a Brewers uniform

1) that County Stadium was a pitcher's park, Fulton County was a big hitter's park so his HRs were suppressed somewhat from age 20 - 31. County stadium was 315 and 320 down the lines, 377 to the power alleys and 402 to center. Fulton County stadium was 330 down the lines 375 to the power alleys and 400 to center. http://www.andrewclem.com...onCountyStadium.html#diag Maybe the ball carried better in Georgia but I doubt it. 2) that the '60s were a big pitcher's period. The league ERA in '68 was 2.99. Yeah and the ERA in 1960 was 3.76, in 1961 it was 4.03, in 1962 it was 3.94, in 1963 was 3.37, in 1964 was 3.53, in 1965 it was 3.54, in 1966 it was 3.6 and 3.37 in 1968. In 1969 the league ERA was 3.6, 1970 it was 4.05, 1971 it was 3.46, 1973 it was 3.45 and in 1973 it was 3.66. It seems like the league wide ERA was all over the place regardless of the so called offensive outburst but way to cherry pick one year the ERA was exceptionally low. 3) that the rules were changed after '68 to favor offense. I understand that they were changed in 1968 to favor the offense but Hank didn't just get better from 1968 to 1969. Hank got better years in 1971 and 1973 than he had in either 1969 or 1970 he got better as he got older and as soon as he got pretty much to 714 he fell off a cliff. Even with dillusion and MLB lowering the mound I would think that a 27-32 year old would have better power numbers than a guy in his late 30's. Maybe it was just a perfect storm of circumstances that helped a 39 year old have the best HR per plate appearance ratio of his career. However Frank Robinson played in the same era was a couple of years younger and nothing like that happend to his stats. They remained on course with the typical career curve. Same with Harmen Killabrew who was actually 3 years younger than Aaron when before the 1969 season and had averaged more home runs per year from his age 23 season thru his age 32 season. Willie McCovey is another example of a player who played through this stretch and had a normal career curve for HR's 4 all time home run greats going through the same time period and only one of their careers don't follow the normal pattern of a normal baseball career? Now you are going to claim that somehow the reason that Aaron's career doesn't follow a normal pattern or any career pattern of any MLB player in the 100 + year history of the sport is because of some of the switches that happend during one of the seasons? Guilty by association, House being on the same team, went out with Salem and McCarthyism. If they had been buds, trained together etc. it may carry some weight. OK so House admitting to being a steroid user saying that about 6 other people on the pitching staff were using steroids and the fact that this coincides with a player on his team accomplishing something that was only achieved by one other player (Bonds) a known steroid user has nothing to do with this discussion? Seriously? It's not guilty by association but rather the fact that Steroids were present and probably easily accessible to Atlanta Braves players.

Yeah IN MY OPINION, I think Hank Aaron did steroids so again IN MY OPIONION, I believe that the chances that Aaron took Steroids are above 50%. I am not so blind as to believe there is a good possibility out there that Aaron did not do Steroids but if I was a betting man I would bet on Aaron doing some kind of Steroid. I can understand if people don't think he did steroids, that is fine but you have to leave the door open for at least a decent possibility. Again find another Home Run hitter to have his highest HR total after the age of 36 and hit at least 35 HR's and I might be swayed to think differently but Aaron at 37 hit the most HRs of his career and did in roughly 100 less plate appearances than a typical season from his age 23-34.

And stripping pretty much every MVP award from 1996-2003. Seriously 1996 Caminitti-Definitely Juan Gonzalez- Definitely 1997 Larry Walker- Thankyou Coors field, probably not Ken Griffey Jr.- God I hope not 1998 Sammy Sosa- more than likely Juan Gonzalez- definitely 1999 Chipper Jones- I doubt it Ivan Rodriguez- I am pretty sure he was outed as a steroid user 2000 Jeff Kent- unknown, I would guess yes Jason Giambi-definitely 2001 Bonds- I would guess yes Ichiro- I would say no 2002 Bonds-definitely Tejada- definitely 2003 Bonds- yes Alex Rodriguez- yes So from 1996-2003 I would say 11 of the MVP's were definitely on PED's, I would guess one (Kent) more was, and 4 others I would like to believe were not (Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr., Ichiro, and Larry Walker). Do we wipe the MVP award out of the record book?

Babe Ruth wasn't chasing down a record, Babe Ruth didn't hit the most HR's of his career at age 37 and the most HR's per plate appearance while hitting 40HR's at age 39, Babe Ruth wasn't teammates with a steroid admitter. If you can name me one other player in major league history that hit the most HR's of their career or the most HR's per plate appearance after their 36th birthday while hitting more than 35 HRs besides Barry Bonds I will happily say there is no chance that Hank Aaron took steroids. However the statistical annomally, the fact he was chasing a record, and he was teammates with an admitted steroid user doesn't just make Hank Aaron doing steroids a possibility but in my opinion it is probable. I can understand if people don't think that Hank Aaron did steroids, but the fact someone can't admit it was a possibility just doesn't seem rational.

as a 25 year old in AAA Pena put up a line of 49.1 innings, 6.93 ERA 47 BB's 49 K's. Then in winterball he put up an 8.1 ERA in 11 outings and 6.1 innings with 8 BB's and 3 K's. And I have never seen him pitch but I will usually take a younger arm that put up better stats and is a starter over the older one that put up worse stats as a reliever almost every day. As for letting Pena go over all of the other options, moves will have to be made at the end of spring training why not keep guys around that have a shot at making the team (Gwynn) maybe its a long shot but its still a shot.

Based on what? Aaron actually admitted using a "greenie" one time in his book, but said it was a terrible experience and he never did it after that. As far as him using steroids, I've never heard anyone give any legitimate claim to that. And Rafeal Palmero stood in front of congress waived his finger at them and vehemently said I did not do steroids. Alex Rodriguez said on a live interview that he did not use PED's. Who do we believe? All I know is one of the earliest admitters to using steroids is Tom House (http://www.bigshowbasebal...08/steroids-in-1970s.html) Who was a teammate of Hank Aaron's starting in 1971. He said alot of pitchers (about 7 per staff) were using them at the time which kind of means they were pretty prevelent at least in the Atlanta Braves clubhouse. In 1971 Hank Aaron hit the most home runs of his career at age 37 in only 566 plate appearances. Not AB's but PA's. Then in 1973 at the age of 39 years old he slugged the most HR's per PA's of his career in route to hitting 40 more HR's in 460 plate appearances. What happend at the end of Hank's career that helped him become such a more proficient HR hitter than he was earlier in his career? Nobody else finds it weird that Hank's best 5 yr home run hitting stretch came from ages 35-39 when he was teammates with an admited steroid user and his PA's during that stretch were decreasing? I am not saying Hank Aaron definitely used steroids. However I certainly don't think it is out of the question.

And how do we definitively know wheter a player was using steroids during a season. Bonds has still never admited to anything. Do we even have a definitive test that says Bonds used steroids? Personally I think it is rather hypocritical considering Aaron probably used greenies and there is some question to whether he also used steroids or performance enhancers towards the end of his career.