PDA

View Full Version : Did Roger Maris Use Steroids?



Shek
28 Mar 09,, 05:04
In 1961, Roger Maris hit 61 home runs (22 more home runs that his career best) to break Babe Ruth's home run record by one. He never hit more than 33 home runs after that and ended his career with a home run/season average of 21.15.

Given his performance in 1961, should we suspect that he used a performance enhancing drug?

Shek
31 Mar 09,, 04:54
No replies? Doesn't anyone suspect Maris of steroids or some other performance enhancing drug? If we don't suspect someone hitting 61 home runs (with careers bests of 39 prior and 33 post), which is clearly different than past performance, then why do steroids take center stage with Sosa, McGwire, Bonds (despite the ambiguous advantage that PEDs provide in baseball, if they provide one at all)?

gunnut
31 Mar 09,, 19:29
Did they know what steroids were back then?

I don't think he did. If he did, why didn't he continue to and hit more more runs?

We should treat this year as an anomaly. Every once in a while, a player does something bizarre that he has never done before and probably won't ever again.

Look at Jonathan Cheechoo of the San Jose Sharks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cheechoo

He scored 56 goals one year to lead the NHL. He had never come close to that before and hasn't come close to that since. He's even worse this year. In fact, he has never scored that many goals at any level.

Shek
31 Mar 09,, 20:23
Did they know what steroids were back then?

I don't think he did. If he did, why didn't he continue to and hit more more runs?

We should treat this year as an anomaly. Every once in a while, a player does something bizarre that he has never done before and probably won't ever again.

Look at Jonathan Cheechoo of the San Jose Sharks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cheechoo

He scored 56 goals one year to lead the NHL. He had never come close to that before and hasn't come close to that since. He's even worse this year. In fact, he has never scored that many goals at any level.

Anabolic steroids were known to Olympic weightlifters as far back as the 1954 and first marketed in 1956. So it's possible that he knew of them.

However, I'm really less concerned about his potential usage since I'm not convinced at all of significant, if any, performance advantage in baseball. Barry Bonds' 73 home run season is essentially the same one season outlier. Mark McGwire's 70 home run season is part of two season's of outliers. Why is randomness never a treatment applied to explaning their successes?

omon
01 Apr 09,, 00:51
it could've just been a good year for him.

gunnut
02 Apr 09,, 19:31
Why is randomness never a treatment applied to explaning their successes?

Because we don't look at "the record books" with an eye on statistics?

It's probably a psychology thing. We revere "records." Who's the fastest? Who's the strongest? Who scored the most points, the most goals, slugged the most homeruns, stole the most bases?

Consistency is boring. A guy hitting at least 35 homeruns a year for 10 years straight is less exciting to watch than a guy breaking the homerun record, never mind that he came out of nowhere and will fade away after 3 seasons.

Michael Chang was the youngest to win the French Open. He came out of no where and never won anything since. But he's in the record books and people remember him. We don't remember those who consistently get into the top 4 but never win.

Eddie49
13 Jan 10,, 19:44
Let’s go back a few years to a time when the only performance enhancement was bourbon. This was the drug of choice for one particular pitcher who admittedly had quite a few the night before the biggest game of his life.
For those who may have questioned the ability of a player to spontaneously demonstrate feats far and above his normal routine, here is an average major league pitcher at best who played on 9 different teams during a 14 year career that ended with an 81-91 record (.471). In 1956, his best season, he started 20 games, but pitched in 38, so he doubled as a reliever. He was 11-5 with 107 strikeouts, (the only year that he topped 100) and an ERA of 3.26. His lifetime stats demonstrate why he played on 9 teams in 14 years.
On this day, however, October 8, 1956 he would take the mound to face Campanella, Gilliam, Hodges, Reese, Robinson, Furillo and Amoros, eight of the National Leagues finest hitters, along with the opposing pitcher Sal “The Barber” Maglie, who pitched a gem. Unfortunately, Don Larsen was better this day.

gunnut
13 Jan 10,, 20:06
^^^
That sounds like "the rest of the story" by Paul Harvey. :biggrin:

rj1
13 Jan 10,, 20:32
Anabolic steroids were known to Olympic weightlifters as far back as the 1954 and first marketed in 1956. So it's possible that he knew of them.

Steroids only started coming into the NFL really in the '70s, and it was of more use there than it would be in baseball at the time, as the style of game then was more smallball. I'd say no.


However, I'm really less concerned about his potential usage since I'm not convinced at all of significant, if any, performance advantage in baseball. Barry Bonds' 73 home run season is essentially the same one season outlier. Mark McGwire's 70 home run season is part of two season's of outliers. Why is randomness never a treatment applied to explaning their successes?

Because you had guys that never did anything in their career suddenly doing 50 HR seasons. It's a bit like the swimmers that were always middling in the world scene suddenly setting world records. It wasn't because they were any better, it was because they got a super great expensive swimsuit.

Here's the list of home run single-season leaders from the late '80s to now.

AL:


1985 Darrell Evans Detroit Tigers 40
1986 Jesse Barfield Toronto Blue Jays 40
1987 Mark McGwire Oakland Athletics 49
1988 José Canseco Oakland Athletics 42
1989 Fred McGriff Toronto Blue Jays 36
1990 Cecil Fielder Detroit Tigers 51
1991 José Canseco/Cecil Fielder 44
1992 Juan González Texas Rangers 43
1993 Juan González Texas Rangers 46
1994 Ken Griffey, Jr. Seattle Mariners 40
1995 Albert Belle Cleveland Indians 50
1996 Mark McGwire Oakland Athletics 52
1997 Ken Griffey, Jr. Seattle Mariners 56
1998 Ken Griffey, Jr. Seattle Mariners 56
1999 Ken Griffey, Jr. Seattle Mariners 48
2000 Troy Glaus Anaheim Angels 47
2001 Alex Rodriguez Texas Rangers 52
2002 Alex Rodriguez Texas Rangers 57
2003 Alex Rodriguez Texas Rangers 47
2004 Manny Ramírez Boston Red Sox 43
2005 Alex Rodriguez New York Yankees 48
2006 David Ortiz Boston Red Sox 54
2007 Alex Rodriguez New York Yankees 54
2008 Miguel Cabrera Detroit Tigers 37
2009 Carlos Peña/Mark Teixeira 39

NL:


1985 Dale Murphy Atlanta Braves 37
1986 Mike Schmidt Philadelphia Phillies 37
1987 Andre Dawson Chicago Cubs 49
1988 Darryl Strawberry New York Mets 39
1989 Kevin Mitchell San Francisco Giants 47
1990 Ryne Sandberg Chicago Cubs 40
1991 Howard Johnson New York Mets 38
1992 Fred McGriff San Diego Padres 35
1993 Barry Bonds San Francisco Giants 46
1994 Matt Williams San Francisco Giants 43
1995 Dante Bichette Colorado Rockies 40
1996 Andrés Galarraga Colorado Rockies 47
1997 Larry Walker Colorado Rockies 49
1998 Mark McGwire St. Louis Cardinals 70
1999 Mark McGwire St. Louis Cardinals 65
2000 Sammy Sosa Chicago Cubs 50
2001 Barry Bonds San Francisco Giants 73
2002 Sammy Sosa Chicago Cubs 49
2003 Jim Thome Philadelphia Phillies 47
2004 Adrián Beltré Los Angeles Dodgers 48
2005 Andruw Jones Atlanta Braves 51
2006 Ryan Howard Philadelphia Phillies 58
2007 Prince Fielder Milwaukee Brewers 50
2008 Ryan Howard Philadelphia Phillies 48
2009 Albert Pujols St. Louis Cardinals 47

Three years ago, David Ortiz led the AL with 54 homers. In 2009, his power disappeared and his first home run came a month into the season and just barely cleared the right field wall on the foul line. No one in the last two years in either league has hit more than 50. How many did it from 1998-2002? It's not like the pitching of the league at that time was poorer than it is now.

The bit on Maris is incredibly cruel. Baseball placed an asterisk next to his name for no reason other than he wasn't Babe Ruth and wasn't a charismatic Yankee. If it was Mantle breaking the record instead of him, there'd've never been an asterisk.

Prof
13 Jan 10,, 21:25
Hey, Shek:

Nobody knew the effect of anabolic steroids back when Mantle & Maris were dukin' it out. Or, at least, as far as I know. I was pretty young.

Prof

Prof
13 Jan 10,, 21:53
I knew there was something weird about this thread. Died in April of last year, resurrected today. MEOWR!

THL
13 Jan 10,, 22:26
Let me ask this....what is the big deal with steroid use? Other than they are illegal and drugs and all that. If players are allowed to work out and practice to improve their game, why can't they take a medicine that helps, too? If it were available to everyone, then everyone would have the same chances of it helping them.

How about all this OTC muscle builder crap that one can purchase at GNC and the like? Should that be banned as well?

Serious questions. I just don't see why the players would not be allowed to take a medication that would help them. We all take medications (that may be illegal if not obtained from a Dr) to help us at times.

TopHatter
13 Jan 10,, 22:55
Let me ask this....what is the big deal with steroid use? Other than they are illegal and drugs and all that.They're illegal for the same reason that narcotics are illegal: While they can pump you up (like Hans and Franz) they're also damaging/destroying your body. Liver damage, Heart disease, stroke etc.

Supposedly there's no absolute proof that they cause death, but as one columnist pointed out, Lyle Alzado's death was pretty convicing.


How about all this OTC muscle builder crap that one can purchase at GNC and the like? Should that be banned as well?
Not the same thing. You're comparing vitamins and herbal supplements versus hormones and the like.


Serious questions. I just don't see why the players would not be allowed to take a medication that would help them. We all take medications (that may be illegal if not obtained from a Dr) to help us at times.The whole idea behind sports is that it's your skill alone that determines the outcome. Taking anabolic steriods is considered cheating (really snazzy technologically advanced sports gear doesn't count, apparently).

THL
13 Jan 10,, 23:01
They're illegal for the same reason that narcotics are illegal: While they can pump you up (like Hans and Franz) they're also damaging/destroying your body. Liver damage, Heart disease, stroke etc. Then where does smoking and chewing tobacco come into play here?

TopHatter
13 Jan 10,, 23:07
Then where does smoking and chewing tobacco come into play here?

*shrug* They're also not illegal to begin with. They also don't enhance performance, merely harm the body, more-or-less slowly.

Prof
14 Jan 10,, 01:21
*shrug* They're also not illegal to begin with. They also don't enhance performance, merely harm the body, more-or-less slowly.
TopHatter:

Just to cut the clutter, steroids indulged in to the extent that some athletes use them to improve performance do indeed kill people. There is a virtual 1:1 association with down-the-line coronary disease. You use the things enough to improve strength in your teens or twenties & you will develop coronary disease. The same is true, only worse, with cocaine. You don't even need to develop CAD to croak. Cocaine related coronary artery spasm will flat kill prople with clean coronaries, or in its arteolar version will produce a dilated cardiomyopathy & progressive congestive failure in people without any detectable coronary disease at all. The stupid anti-drug TV commercials depicting the eggs frying are known by any reasonably intelligent 8yo to be bullshit, but for some reason nobody bothers to talk about the genuine dangers.

On the other hand, the athletes concerned are grownups. It's no one's fault but their own that they're ignorant, or can't manage delayed gratification, or whatever. Those athletes deserve the asterisks on their records they're doomed to, but that's it, assuming they survive past their 40s & 50s.

Apart from steroids & cocaine, there aren't any particular medical concerns about other illegal recreational drugs (I am not talking here about "huffing" aromatics or date rape shit), including the opiates. Even Heroin. Sure, you take too much & they'll kill you, but that danger is primarily a problem due to the drug's illegality itself.

Mostly the problem is social, & derives from illegality. Associated political, police & judicial corruption are due to the money secondary to their illegal status. Street violence, yadayada. None of it would be there if the goddam things were legal. It wouldn't be profitable, or at least in a criminal sense, if it were legal. & it could be taxed. & its medical purity & sterilty could be controlled.

Sorry to fulminate, but I'm a major-league antidrug guy with a bunch of professional experience with the problem. From time to time I get hand-wringing about it. I could go on forever, & I doubt if you want me to do that.

Whatever, being reasonable about the medical dangers of drugs is very important, & myths don't help. Sorry.

Prof

Eddie49
14 Jan 10,, 01:32
It's true that steroids are banned due to the damage they cause the body, but tobacco is another story. Much like alcohol, tobacco is heavily, and I mean heavily taxed by the government. Can you imagine the pressures on congress if they were denied their annual raise because tobacco was made illegal? So smoke 'em up, boys, they have big bills to pay in D.C.

Shek
14 Jan 10,, 03:03
Because you had guys that never did anything in their career suddenly doing 50 HR seasons. It's a bit like the swimmers that were always middling in the world scene suddenly setting world records. It wasn't because they were any better, it was because they got a super great expensive swimsuit.

Three years ago, David Ortiz led the AL with 54 homers. In 2009, his power disappeared and his first home run came a month into the season and just barely cleared the right field wall on the foul line. No one in the last two years in either league has hit more than 50. How many did it from 1998-2002? It's not like the pitching of the league at that time was poorer than it is now.

The bit on Maris is incredibly cruel. Baseball placed an asterisk next to his name for no reason other than he wasn't Babe Ruth and wasn't a charismatic Yankee. If it was Mantle breaking the record instead of him, there'd've never been an asterisk.

McGwire hit 49 as a youngster (23). The average peak age for home runs is 30, although this profile doesn't fit all and many athletes show their best performances in their 30's. Add in diluting the talent of pitching in the league by bringing in four baseball clubs worth of AAA pitchers, some wiggle room in the tolerances in the core of the ball, the dynamics of home run races (look at the strikeout rates by many of the individuals compared to other years - they were clearly swinging for the fences), and randomness, and there are plenty of very good explanations that don't include steroids.

Next, look at what steroids enhance (slow twitch muscle fibers in the upper body) vs. where home run hitting comes from (core body strength and hand/eye coordination combined with fast twitch muscle fibers), the actual physiological benefit of the increased bulk doesn't translate into the monster home runs that these guys were hitting. The benefit would have made warning track fly balls wimpy, barely clearing the fence home runs.

For an example of HR vs. SO, McGwire is a great example of where swinging for the fences can be signaled to a large degree by the variation in strikeouts.

Shek
14 Jan 10,, 03:12
Prof and RJ1,

I'd agree totally that Maris didn't use steroids given that they weren't well known at the time. However, that was a rhetorical question to serve my point - why the fixation on steroids as THE explanation for the recent record breaking performances? We have an example of where randomness and league expansion apparently are enough, and yet, given the exact same conditions in the 90's, not only is it not enough, but it's not even discussed!

TopHatter
14 Jan 10,, 04:45
Sorry to fulminate, but I'm a major-league antidrug guy with a bunch of professional experience with the problem. From time to time I get hand-wringing about it. I could go on forever, & I doubt if you want me to do that.

Whatever, being reasonable about the medical dangers of drugs is very important, & myths don't help. Sorry.

Prof
Thanks for the info Prof, well said. I'm also a major-league antidrug guy and I agree, myths don't help, either on the pro- or anti- side.

rj1
14 Jan 10,, 05:00
why the fixation on steroids as THE explanation for the recent record breaking performances?

Run your chart you're doing for McGwire for the annual home run leaders from 1985-2009.

As far as randomness, 10-20% sure. Something like 45 home runs to 70 the next for home run leaders? That's an improvement of 80%. How many times did you see Michael Jordan go from a points per game output in his career of 23ppg to 40ppg for the season? You're saying randomness but where your's standard deviation, where's your tolerances based on traditional numbers where 99.7% of the numbers are inside the bell curve (+/- 3 standard deviations)? Find those and I think you'll find it's not so random.

Shek
14 Jan 10,, 11:35
Run your chart you're doing for McGwire for the annual home run leaders from 1985-2009.

As far as randomness, 10-20% sure. Something like 45 home runs to 70 the next for home run leaders? That's an improvement of 80%. How many times did you see Michael Jordan go from a points per game output in his career of 23ppg to 40ppg for the season? You're saying randomness but where your's standard deviation, where's your tolerances based on traditional numbers where 99.7% of the numbers are inside the bell curve (+/- 3 standard deviations)? Find those and I think you'll find it's not so random.

Great home run hitters aren't part of the bell curve (as in they're so far out in the tails that you can't apply normal distribution thinking to their performances).

As far as MJ goes, you see it once.

Shek
14 Jan 10,, 11:44
As far as randomness, 10-20% sure. Something like 45 home runs to 70 the next for home run leaders? That's an improvement of 80%.

Roger Maris' record breaking season is better than his best ever before by 56%.

Mark McGwire's record breaking season is better than his best ever before by 35%.

Barry Bond's record breaking season is better than his best ever before by 49%.

Not only are McGwire and Bonds within Maris' "tolerance", it's by quite a bit in McGwire's case. My point is even stronger based on your line of reasoning.

Shek
14 Jan 10,, 12:38
Thanks for the info Prof, well said. I'm also a major-league antidrug guy and I agree, myths don't help, either on the pro- or anti- side.

HGH has no identified performance enhancing benefit. Pre-steroids has no identified performance enhancing benefit. Steroids has a minimal performance enhancing benefit. If anything, the placebo effect is stronger than any actual effect.

Given little tangible benefits and the huge downside of use, a big part of ridding baseball of them is to simply educate players.

On the flip side, there are lots of legal and accept means of achieving performance enhancement that way outperform the PEDs. For example, Tommy John surgery will bring a pitcher's speed back - where's the outcry over this performance enhancing procedure? There's a huge double standard in MLB.

rj1
14 Jan 10,, 14:53
Great home run hitters aren't part of the bell curve (as in they're so far out in the tails that you can't apply normal distribution thinking to their performances).

Sabermetricians I think would disagree with you.

As far as "are not part of the bell curve", perhaps that shows how "extraordinary" those performances really were and maybe there's a reason for it. They can be part of the normal distribution, it's just that distribution is then skewed to the upside. I got Minitab at my work, when I get some free time, I'll run the numbers and post here.


HGH has no identified performance enhancing benefit. Pre-steroids has no identified performance enhancing benefit. Steroids has a minimal performance enhancing benefit. If anything, the placebo effect is stronger than any actual effect.

Given little tangible benefits and the huge downside of use, a big part of ridding baseball of them is to simply educate players.

On the flip side, there are lots of legal and accept means of achieving performance enhancement that way outperform the PEDs. For example, Tommy John surgery will bring a pitcher's speed back - where's the outcry over this performance enhancing procedure? There's a huge double standard in MLB.

First, you can't die from Tommy John surgery. If you don't think HGH and steroids can kill you early, why don't you go look at pro wrestlers or certain football players from the '70s. Dave Meltzer, who writes a trade industry paper for pro wrestling in the U.S., writes at least one obituary every month or two for a guy that died in his 40s from predominantly steroid use. If you want I can give you his email, even in a non-competitive fixed sport such as pro wrestling he thinks steroids should be banned just because he's tired of going to see so many of his friends die young.

If steroids offer no benefit, why did 17-year-olds in high school that want to make it in the big leagues start using it in increasing numbers? Why did big leaguers start taking them if it offers no performance advantage? It's not like the stuff is cheap. And why do you think David Ortiz went from awesome in 2006 to a joke in 2009? Sure, there's aging, but not to that degree in three years.

Shek
15 Jan 10,, 02:33
Sabermetricians I think would disagree with you.

As far as "are not part of the bell curve", perhaps that shows how "extraordinary" those performances really were and maybe there's a reason for it. They can be part of the normal distribution, it's just that distribution is then skewed to the upside. I got Minitab at my work, when I get some free time, I'll run the numbers and post here.

I'm not too concerned about sabermetricians calling this distribution normal. However, I'll get worried when statisticians start calling it a normal distribution. I'm still working through getting my Stata files all setup since I switched over to a Mac and I'm still trying to track down the documentation for the Lahman Database v5.7, so this is from so old work that looked at the distribution of individual season home run totals from 1959-2004 for those who had at least 200 at bats in a season. However, widening the sample wouldn't change the outcome that the distribution isn't Gaussian.

Shek
15 Jan 10,, 02:58
First, you can't die from Tommy John surgery.

Strawman. I'm not examining the risk of the action - I'm looking at the performance enhancing impact, and Tommy John surgery clearly does so.


If you don't think HGH and steroids can kill you early, why don't you go look at pro wrestlers or certain football players from the '70s. Dave Meltzer, who writes a trade industry paper for pro wrestling in the U.S., writes at least one obituary every month or two for a guy that died in his 40s from predominantly steroid use. If you want I can give you his email, even in a non-competitive fixed sport such as pro wrestling he thinks steroids should be banned just because he's tired of going to see so many of his friends die young.

Another strawman. I never argued that they didn't harm individuals. In fact, I argued that the downside of using them was much greater than any potential performance enhancement.


If steroids offer no benefit, why did 17-year-olds in high school that want to make it in the big leagues start using it in increasing numbers?

Lots of 17 year olds do drugs, have unprotected sex with multiple partners, drive recklessly, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure if you want to use 17 year olds as a population against which to illustrate smart behavior based on knowledge.


Why did big leaguers start taking them if it offers no performance advantage? It's not like the stuff is cheap.

Because they aren't educated. Studies show that HGH and pre-steroids are worthless as PEDs, yet the confirmed stories and rumors abound of usage. Steroids increase muscle mass, but the benefits of this in hitting for power is small if not negligible once you sort out swing mechanics and muscle composition. What drives them then to do it? Lack of education, the prisoner's dilemma of the steroids game, and the tournament nature of MLB contracts. All of this is very consistent with economic theory and lack of knowledge.


And why do you think David Ortiz went from awesome in 2006 to a joke in 2009? Sure, there's aging, but not to that degree in three years.

Aging, randomness, injury, number of at bats, and swing are all explanations that can explain the decrease in home runs. Look at his BA in 2009 - not a good hitting year in general. Look at his AB in 2008.

Furthermore, a change from 54 to 35 (as in 2006 to 2007) isn't that abnormal. Roger Maris went from 61 in his best year to 33 the next year. For comparison, that's a 46% decrease (Maris) compared to a 35% decrease (Ortiz).

Eddie49
15 Jan 10,, 03:36
I think that you can throw all of the charts and graphics out the window regarding how well some players performed at one point as opposed to another in their careers. There are always players who will perform far and above the norm at any given time, and it usually happens when they, or anyone else least expects it.

A good example of this is Don Larsen who ended his 14 year career after playing on nine different teams with a record of 91-81. He faced not only the Nationals League Champs in the 1956 World Series, but eight of the finest hitters in baseball, and in their prime. He demonstrated nothing before nor since that dictated that a perfect game was within him.

As for the increase in home runs for Sosa, Bonds and McGwire, all anyone needed to do was just look at them. All three were pretty lean early on, but they sure on some mass real quick, didn't they? What a coincidence that for almost 40 years no one really challenged 60 home runs. Other than McGwire's 52 in 1996, not one of the three had hit 50 HRs prior to that 1998 season when suddenly 70 and 66 baseballs hit the seats, then 65 and 66 the following year. In 2001 when Bonds hit 73, Sosa hit 64.

Poor old Sammy hit more HRs than Maris did in three out of four years, and has nothing to show for it, just like Roger. I wonder what he and Rafael Palmeroid are doing now since they both just vanished after the cat got loose.

Eddie49
15 Jan 10,, 03:41
Furthermore, a change from 54 to 35 (as in 2006 to 2007) isn't that abnormal. Roger Maris went from 61 in his best year to 33 the next year. For comparison, that's a 46% decrease (Maris) compared to a 35% decrease (Ortiz).[/QUOTE]

Maris had a broken bone in his hand during the '62 season that wasn't properly diagnosed. It wasn't discovered until he was traded to the Cardinals in '65. He was subsequently labeled as a whiner because of it, but he continued to play nonetheless.

rj1
15 Jan 10,, 04:33
For Shek, the first couple segments: http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=1629xhttp://podloc.andohs.net/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=8512xhttp://a.espnradio.com/podcenter/espn_audio/kenny_01122010_simmons.mp3

Although I just realized how ridiculous this is: Citing randomness as the reason for the improved numbers and then saying "big home run hitters don't apply to the bell curve" when the bell curve represents how much randomness (standard deviation) there is. :eek: :rolleyes:

Sorry Shek, I just think you are 100% wrong unless you can provide better data and proof beyond circumstantial evidence which you haven't. It's not up to me to believe you, it's up to you to convince me and the rest of your audience that you are correct in your argument. And you've not even provided an argument, you've made one statement of "35% down is nothing" using a very selective set of data of only certain years after their peak years and that's been about it while ignoring the broader data on offer.

If yoou're interested though, here's a baseball forum thread on it: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=95381

Shek
15 Jan 10,, 11:39
Although I just realized how ridiculous this is: Citing randomness as the reason for the improved numbers and then saying "big home run hitters don't apply to the bell curve" when the bell curve represents how much randomness (standard deviation) there is. :eek: :rolleyes:

Randomness is not confined to the normal distribution. You can find variances for other distributions as well.


Sorry Shek, I just think you are 100% wrong unless you can provide better data and proof beyond circumstantial evidence which you haven't. It's not up to me to believe you, it's up to you to convince me and the rest of your audience that you are correct in your argument. And you've not even provided an argument, you've made one statement of "35% down is nothing" using a very selective set of data of only certain years after their peak years and that's been about it while ignoring the broader data on offer.

You've offered nothing here except circumstantial evidence. You're argument is Ortiz, Ortiz (you want to complain about selective sampling of data), "you're wrong," "you're wrong," without offering anything of scientific value. The fact of the matter is that you appear to not even consider anything other than steroids.

Shek
15 Jan 10,, 11:53
If yoou're interested though, here's a baseball forum thread on it: Way We Evaluate Steroid Numbers - Baseball Fever (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=95381)

Okay, other than a lot of correlation = causation arguments, I really don't see anything new in the pages I went through (sorry, lost interest after going through the first 8 pages of the thread). What am I missing?

Shek
15 Jan 10,, 12:08
For Shek, the first couple segments: http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=1629xhttp://podloc.andohs.net/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=8512xhttp://a.espnradio.com/podcenter/espn_audio/kenny_01122010_simmons.mp3

Once again, I listened to the first could of hours and I couldn't pick up anything value added. I like Simmons as a writer, but I certainly don't see him having the expertise here. I do like how he wanted to develop a test for HGH, a "PED" that has no "PE" effect (so it's simply a "D"). What am I missing?

Shek
15 Jan 10,, 12:15
rj1,

A series of questions for you. What does the medical literature say about the increase in performance that we should expect from steroids? What's the increase in muscle mass? What's the increase in strength? How is it distributed throughout the body? How do we separate the steroids from the exercise? In other words, how much of gain is from the drug and how much is from simply working hard in the weight room?

The next series of questions is how would any increased mass/strength translate to hitting? In other words, given any potential benefits, how does this actually translate from a physiological change in the body to a physical change in hitting the ball? Does it increase fly balls by 2 feet? 4 feet? 11 feet? 22 feet? 50 feet? 100 feet?

RollingWave
19 Jan 10,, 08:17
In 1884, a Ned Williamson hit 27 HR, in the next 30 + year, no one hit more than 25, and in fact very few even hit 20+. and then in the early 20s onward, you suddenly start having a bunch of guys hitting 30-40+ HR, and a guy that hit 60+.

Of course, we all know that was due to the deadball era. the balls changed in the early 20s to allow for it to travel more. but similarly, balls also changed (though not as drastically) after the 94/95 strikes. and maple bats etc began to come into use.

Another context is that teams grew, more teams = more players = more guys that wouldn't have made it with only 26 teams playing now did with 30. so the elite hitters get to face more low quality pitchers than they otherwise would, the way teams handled pitchers also changed. from the early 90s onward teams were no longer letting their pitchers pitch 250+ innings (let alone 300+ innings like the 70s) , they limit their best relievers to 1 inning duties in the back innings, and would trout out their worset pitchers in the 6th inning even if they were leading by one and the bases are juiced with their best hitter comming up. (where as in the 70s-80s, the Yankees would have undoubtablly threw out Goose Gossage, in the 90s they would have been reluctant to throw out Mariano Rivera in that situation because it's not technically a save!)

So all these context played a role, the issue here is that too many people are fixiated on just one issue (which is both overblown and unobjective. Lyle Alzado's confession said he started in 1969 and seem to suggest that it was already the norms in the NFL by then) .

FWIW, in the 70s-80s, a lot of baseball players used Greenies (amphetamine) and some even cocains, Tony Gywnn said that pretty much half or more of the guys in the 80s did, and Hank Aaron had a blurb about using it after he retired, Tim Raines even famously hide a pack of cocaine in his jersey and it exploded when he slide into a base.

Then we see Kirby Puckett, a guy who in his first two full years in the major league slugged an amazing .363, with .071 isolated power, and a wooping 4 HR in 289 games. for the rest of his career, he slugged .500 with a .176 isolated power , averaging 20 HR a year instead of 2.

Oh yeah, he also had noticable breakdown in his body towards the end of his career, he got really fat fast and suffered a massive stroke and subsequently passed away at age
46.

How does that not sound suspicious? a guy went from a punch and judy kid to a big time slugger, body broke down badly after retirement and died fairly young from stroke, the main cause of his early retirement, glaucoma (lost of vision) could also be attributed to high blood pressure which could be attributed to steriods.

but obviously that's connecting a lot of dots that may or may not connect. Puckett changed his swing (Which any one that's played baseball will realize is very important to how you hit) , much like Mark McGwire also changed his swing (he said this in that interview) . to drive for more power.

I do not support the use of any drugs that bring long term damage obviously, but in terms of what has already gone down. I feel that it is silly to get overworked on the issue, a lot of people used it, it was the context of the era. the HOF and record books basically celebrate guys who were better than their era. so what exactly is the problem here? Bonds didn't go from a bad player to awesome because of roids, if he really only started taking in his crazy 2001 season, then this is his line up to that point.

289/.412/.567 , 494 HR , 2157 Hit, 471 stolen bases. at age 35. those # alone were enough to get him in the ahll easily even if he retired right there. if you like advanced metrics like WAR (wins above replacement.) I have Bonds at 117.4 after the 2000 season, which put his value between Lou Gerhig and Ricky Henderson (aka 13th place all time). I think you might have heard of those two :P , that is assuming he does NOTHING after the 2000 season.

Even if you think Bonds got help from roids from 2001 onward. even if we take a massive cut on the value he put up during that period, he still probably end up somewhere around 5-10 top all time position players. (he is basically tied with Ruth)

I think what will happen is that voters will hold players , particularly sluggers of this era at a higher level, and espeically the notable suspects, but that means they'll knock down the borderline guys (say Gary Sheffield, Rafael Palmeiro and maybe Sammy Sosa), they'll make guys who would have been a pretty sure thing into a long drawn out vote (like McGwire now) , and they'll hold the no brainers off the first ballot (Bonds and Clemens). but eventually, unless your going to deny this entire era and pretend that it didn't exist, let alone being the most prosperous era of baseball ever. your going to vote those guys in.

Eddie49
19 Jan 10,, 13:15
You made some very interesting points, some that I agree with, others that I can take them, or leave them. Basically, you said what a lot of others have been saying all along.
My position on this PED thing revolves around that sacred home run record. For those who flirted with it, but couldn't quite reach it, they looked for assistance via weight training, bat speed (as in corked bats. By the way, a bat is corked to increase bat speed, not to propell the ball off the bat), and eye/hand coordination. Bonds had incredible bat speed` for two reasons. One was that he chocked up slightly, and second was that he had his own pitching machine. He loaded the machine with tennis balls each marked numerous times with a single number from 1 to 9, and he would only swing at even numbered balls. Together they explain the increase in HR production, but not the sudden increase in overwhelming power.
Everything in the past 25 years has revolved around $$. Maybe not directly, but indirectly. I recall Mike Piazza, who was the catcher for a great Dodger team for years, turn down 10 million to sign with the Mets for 11 million. Did he really need that extra million? Sure, a million dollars is a lot of money, but how many millions do you need? Loyalty, along with playing just for the game has gone south along with their brains. Is it a coincidence, except fo McGwire recently, that those who hit more then 61 HRs refuse to admit to anything? Why?
Give them the record if they want it, let them juice up until they explode like Puckett and Alzado, but just do one thing. Like with the other offensive categories, seperate the National League from the American League in regards to HRs. There are 103 names on that list from 10 or so years ago of players who tested positive. Three were leaked out, and they are probably the three most qualified or favored to challenge Maris' 61 homers; A-Rod, Ortiz and Manny. Surprise! Maris is still the American League single season home run leader, and has been for 48 years, PEDs or otherwise.

RollingWave
20 Jan 10,, 08:37
For more serious fans, most knows pretty much all the 500 HR guys off their head anyway. No one forgets Ruth after Maris, because Ruth was simply a much much better hitter / player, people might slowly forget Maris because outside of that one year he wasn't very special, he had a good but not very long peak, and he didn't have a long career at all. his overall numbers fall way short of HOF standards, (And even then he lasted all 15 years on the ballot) the HOF voters aren't always the brightest people, but overall they never really missed on a true HOF , but have been a bit questionable on some more borderlined case and have occasionally held out very qualified players too long (see Bert Blyleven)

Record is set against their contempory competition, so we basically should just view it in that light. everyone realize that Ty Cobbs is awesome even if he only hit 117 HR in his career, because they realize that the context of that era was not HR friendly at all, and they realize that he was eons better than his competition at that time.

So the context of this era includes PEDs, that's too bad , (I am not supporting PED in anyway shape or form, but I am skeptical of backtracking into the past against people that supposedly used, we don't back track into the segregated era and penalize them for not playing against black players do we) but since we now realize that the % of players taking them was probably very very significant and not just a few selected individuals, then it's part of the context, you still celebrate those that are better than their peer. you probably give guys more crediets if they were never rumored and a bit of a penalty if they were, but still. it's insane to go out your way and deny the entire era.

As for the money, I find it amusing at least, that in a country were government sponsored healthcare can be tagged as some sort of evil socialist / communist policy that people would feel that free agency amoung pro sports player are a bad thing. The FA era started in 1975, are we really arguing that baseball between 40s-70s (which basically saw the Yankees dominate the entire way except for the 64-72).

The FA and the money flow in general is a huge reason that we see today a large flow of foreign talents that wouldn't have appeared in the 60s and earlier. (Latin American players first started to show up in the mid 50s, but it wasn't until the mid 60s and 70s that they really became the norm) in fact, if the MLB hadn't forced the NPB to adopt more or less a FA policy, then players like Ichiro / Matsui / Nomo would have still toiled away in Japan at half the money until today. how is that fair?

You have to look at the other side of the mirror from time to time, the Dodgers losing Piazza over a million bucks might seems annoying, (but in fact they traded him to the Marlins for Gary Sheffield + Charles Johnson etc..) but the other end of the spectrum we can see... oh say Taiwan's CPBL, which has no FA system, almost no trade at all, and even waiver system is underdeveloped. with the exception of a few notable players (like former Major leaguers Chen Chin Feng and Chin Hui Tsao) they're all paid like crap and attendence have been terrible in recent years. unsurprisingly a string of game fixing scandals blew up in recent years (and appears to be a continuous event for a decade now.) and now the entire league is on the brink of destruction. certainly the market isn't big, but for a densly populated area of 23 mill they draw worse than most rookie ball leagues

Shek
27 Jan 10,, 04:38
Okay, a question for all those out there who blame steroids for the surge in home runs. Why the sudden increase that starts in 1993 (did Jose Canseco start a secret blog in the early days of the world wide web?)? How come home runs haven't fallen precipitously since 2004, the last year before testing w/penalty in MLB (for example, last year was the 11th largest home run rate season in history and 2006 was the 5th - both of them barely differ from most of the "steroid" era years).

RollingWave
27 Jan 10,, 09:27
Juiced ball theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juiced_ball_theory)
ESPN.com: MLB - Why all the runs? The balls are juiced, of course! (http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1449183.html)

This .

That and because modern stats analysist might have started to have impact on the game, though probably not to the result of the sudden explosion seen then. then again, players started juicing before 93 and it is unlikely that a whole lot more guys all started juicing at that same year. so the ball thing seem to have made more sense. since it would be a effect that clearly effect every single hit.

Shek
05 Feb 10,, 03:21
Here's six baseball players and their home run performances across their entire careers. Which one(s) would you test for steroids if you could? Why?

Freeloader
08 Feb 10,, 01:55
Marris had that year because Mantle was chasing the record himself, and they both were essentially trying to 1 up the other. Had Mantle not been having that type of year, Marris wouldn't of kept up IMO and the opinions of many. Mantle got hurt late is why he didn't finish with 60 or so himself.

Also - steroids in 1961 is pretty lol and far fetched.

Shek
10 Feb 10,, 13:56
Marris had that year because Mantle was chasing the record himself, and they both were essentially trying to 1 up the other. Had Mantle not been having that type of year, Marris wouldn't of kept up IMO and the opinions of many. Mantle got hurt late is why he didn't finish with 60 or so himself.

Also - steroids in 1961 is pretty lol and far fetched.

So then you would agree then that steroids didn't matter for McGwire or Sosa (if he took them) or Bonds (if he took them), and their great home run year(s) can be explained by other factors, to include randomness?

Freeloader
18 Feb 10,, 08:53
So then you would agree then that steroids didn't matter for McGwire or Sosa (if he took them) or Bonds (if he took them), and their great home run year(s) can be explained by other factors, to include randomness?

No.

McGwire took steroids. So did Sosa I believe, and I really believe Bonds did.

Did Sosa perform better trying to chase McGwire? Yeah sure, it probably fueled them both. But it made them both perform at a higher level than they had before or after. Remember - in 1998, baseball was still reeling a bit attendance wise due to the strike in 1994-95. This entire chase for 61 helped bring fans back to baseball. I think they used, and I think MLB knew, and did not care one iota.

You also said

"How come home runs haven't fallen precipitously since 2004, the last year before testing w/penalty in MLB"

Who has hit 60 since then? Only like 4 or 5 people have even hit 50 in the past 7 years. Bonds never in his career hit FIFTY homeruns in a season much less 60 - til his "randon" freak 73 in 2001. (He tried to play for the league minimum anywhere after 2007. Nobody would sign him. Not a single team).

The league wanted him gone. Same with Sosa and McGwire, due to steroids IMO.

Shek
18 Feb 10,, 12:43
Freeloader,

You've got two steroid tests that you can perform on the six players shown in my post #40. Which two players will you test?

Freeloader
18 Feb 10,, 16:51
Players 3 and 4 have completely abnormal years, so those two jumped out at me first.

Player 2 looks like a good player on the downside of his career. Player 1 looks like they just randomly jump, have some clearly better years, a super year, and then possibly get hurt and begin the decline. Player 1 for sure I test.

Player 5 has an increase too, but not quite as dramatic as player 1. The big year he has is clearly a jump, but not as out of control as 3 or 4 had. Player 6 is kinda close to player 5 but with bigger random spikes.

Forced to pick, players 1, 3, and 6 look the most suspect to me. Player 3 and 4 have huge spikes, but the arc on player 4 is smaller. I can narrow to two if it's that important I guess. Know who they each are?

Shek
19 Feb 10,, 02:58
Players 3 and 4 have completely abnormal years, so those two jumped out at me first.

Player 2 looks like a good player on the downside of his career. Player 1 looks like they just randomly jump, have some clearly better years, a super year, and then possibly get hurt and begin the decline. Player 1 for sure I test.

Player 5 has an increase too, but not quite as dramatic as player 1. The big year he has is clearly a jump, but not as out of control as 3 or 4 had. Player 6 is kinda close to player 5 but with bigger random spikes.

Forced to pick, players 1, 3, and 6 look the most suspect to me. Player 3 and 4 have huge spikes, but the arc on player 4 is smaller. I can narrow to two if it's that important I guess. Know who they each are?

You just tested Hack Wilson (1923-1934), Davey Johnson (1965-1978), and Wade Boggs (1982-1999). The two people who you didn't think to pick (or at least weren't even on the bubble as I read it) are two home run kings, Roger Maris (1957-1968) and Barry Bonds (1986-2007).

You'll find the graph with all the players named underneath, and you'll see that in this version they all share the same y-axis scale. In the anonymous version, they are scaled to each individual, making it easy to see that Wade Boggs' best year resulted in hitting just under 300% more home runs than his second best year ever (in his case, there was a one year spike in home run rates in 1987, making the ball a likely culprit). It also makes it possible to see that Maris' best year was basically the same % increase as Bonds' best year relative to their second best year.

In the face of such large jumps in relative performance, it should give us pause when we try to infer that a smaller (but still large) jump in performance has to signal steroids. Given that the change in the home run rate across the league in the post-steroid era (after the implementation of steroid testing that would result in real penalties) is not statistically significantly different than during the steroid era (see post #38), in other words it hasn't changed, it makes the steroids as the cause an even harder sell.

You bring up that the home run record hasn't been broken since 2001 (or that we haven't even seen a 60 home run season) , but why should we expect it to?

It took 36 years before Babe Ruth broke the record, and then it was broken another three times in the next eight years. It then took another 34 years for Maris to break Ruth's record. It then took another 37 years to break Maris' record (McGwire), which was then broken three years later by Bonds. Based on history, it seems more likely that we need to wait another two plus decades to see it broken. Although I wouldn't subscribe to such a predictable "cycle", I find it unsatisfying to think that if it hasn't been broken again in seven years that that somehow should infer that steroids is the reason for home run record performances (or even performances above 60). Rather, we should expect that home run geniuses will come along randomly, and even then, other random factors (league expansion, the ball, stadium construction) may have to align to result in witnessing the home run genius of a Ruth or a Maris or a Bonds.

For example, if not playing at Wrigley Field, what would happen to Sosa's totals? If not playing at PacBell Park, a left-handed pull hitter's dream, what would Bonds have hit (or for that matter, what would his HR totals have been if he hadn't been playing in home run unfriendly Candlestick Park for 6-7 years prior to the opening of PacBell Park.

Freeloader
19 Feb 10,, 05:54
Actually I picked Anderson, not Boggs, and said Bonds looked very similar to his. Also, the dots you showed me and the dots here are different, so I also had to work with botched information. To top it off, the Bonds and Boggs graphs I had suspected, since Bonds got hurt after his year of 73, and Boggs's 24 in 87 I was familiar with since I met him as a kid in 87. Still have the autographed ball.

Had I seen those same graphs with the names whited out, I would of gotten those two correct. The other 4 I did not know at all.

What the graph shows, is that HR totals of some past players, had random spikes in it, and give an appearance of how some totals today dipped and spiked.

Graphs aside - there's a glaring difference. McGwire admits he juiced. He got significantly better in his mid 30's?

McGwire's best three years - ages 33-35
Boggs best year - 29
Barry Bonds - 36
Hack Wilson - 30

Just something that sticks out. Not the normal time to peak when most are declining. Sosa has a tear for 4 years, then returns to normal. Just a bit odd certain players all randomly get ridiculously hot for a few years, some admit steroid use, and you do not believe it is steroids.

Shek
19 Feb 10,, 13:06
Graphs aside - there's a glaring difference. McGwire admits he juiced. He got significantly better in his mid 30's?

Can you point me to a scientific study that links steroids to hitting for power in baseball that is scientific, i.e., it doesn't use assumptions to build its case?


McGwire's best three years - ages 33-35
Boggs best year - 29
Barry Bonds - 36
Hack Wilson - 30

Just something that sticks out. Not the normal time to peak when most are declining. Sosa has a tear for 4 years, then returns to normal. Just a bit odd certain players all randomly get ridiculously hot for a few years, some admit steroid use, and you do not believe it is steroids.

I go back to my earlier question and the point of the original anonymous graph. Out of the normal seasons are labeled abnormal (even though they're the same or less abnormal from performance increases from a non-steroid era), steroids become THE explanation, and than any admitted use of steroids immediately becomes causal, and no other explanations are pursued. It's the exact same story as Iraqi WMD. Saddam had WMD, and evidence that doesn't prove he had WMD becomes rock solid evidence that he had WMD because alternate explanations aren't explored. It's simply an article of faith that steroids improves power hitting as you won't find any scientific studies that causally link steroids to power hitting in baseball.

Since age is an issue that you bring up, how is that this Olympic medalist at age 41 swam the fastest time of her life in the 50m, crushing the world record she had set at age 15?

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/08/16-22/dara_tessa_01.jpg

She had the most invasively possible testing regime an athlete can have, which never once detected any PED.

Make a case for me as to why or why we shouldn't suspect steroids for this Hall of Fame player's personal HR record coming at age 37? If the mere fact of having a career blip at late age isn't proof in and of itself, then you can't convict Bonds simply by the same performance.

BenRoethig
19 Feb 10,, 17:01
My view is this, you don't know when steroid use began, who was and who wasn't taking them and if it ever stopped. All we have is gut feelings. Some guys we never could have suspected might have been on the juice and others who were highly suspected could have been clean. When it comes down to it the only thing you have conclusive is the numbers themselves. Accept that is was part of the game (and many other sports) and move forward trying to keep ahead of PEDs as best as you can. I would rather let all those that were guilty into Cooperstown than rob a player who was falsely accused.

Freeloader
20 Feb 10,, 00:02
Can you point me to a scientific study that links steroids to hitting for power in baseball that is scientific, i.e., it doesn't use assumptions to build its case?

I guess you are suggesting that steroids don't help HR totals otherwise you wouldn't be asking that.

Look you're throwing out examples of people who have performed well, and who WERE tested extensively. Baseball was NOT doing that, I stated some reasons why and people have come out and ADMIT they were juicing. Jason Giambi juiced hard - and his numbers took off. A Rod - numbers took off. Sosa - looks to be the same if he did. These aren't coincidences, and one of these athletes said exactly why they took them - to hit more HR to earn their giant contracts.

Not sure why you are so adamant to denounce steroid use like it's not the reason why, when people are admitting they took them. Why else would they? Surely you don't believe it is "to get healthy quicker" crock.

How come no teams were willing to sign Bonds after his tenure in San Fran? Why didn't they keep him?

"If the mere fact of having a career blip at late age isn't proof in and of itself, then you can't convict Bonds simply by the same performance."

It's far more than the "blip" but the baggage that surrounded him, McGwire, etc.

Shek
20 Feb 10,, 03:23
A-Rod's #s during his steroid years are no different that you would expect if he hadn't used steroids.

Freeloader
21 Feb 10,, 16:11
Alex Rodriguez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodrial01.shtml?redir)

Note his Texas years. Now note this quote of his:

""When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day,"

His HR totals clearly went up from his Seattle days to his Texas days. He denied using in 2007, then admit it in 2009, so who knows between 2004-2009 when else he used steroids. I'm sure you've seen the interview with him and Gammons. He took them "to perform better". To hit more Home Runs. He's arguably a douchebag in some circles, but at least he finally admit using.

Shek
21 Feb 10,, 19:25
Alex Rodriguez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodrial01.shtml?redir)

Note his Texas years. Now note this quote of his:

""When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day,"

His HR totals clearly went up from his Seattle days to his Texas days. He denied using in 2007, then admit it in 2009, so who knows between 2004-2009 when else he used steroids. I'm sure you've seen the interview with him and Gammons. He took them "to perform better". To hit more Home Runs. He's arguably a douchebag in some circles, but at least he finally admit using.

1. Look in your junk mail and look at the "products" that people will send you "to perform better." If someone purchases those "products," how do we know that they "perform better?" What is the proof?

2. If A-Rod hadn't used steroids, how many home runs would he have hit in those years?

RollingWave
22 Feb 10,, 19:07
It should be noted that A-rod's highest slugging percentage actually came in his age 20 season in Seattle. (until 2007 anyway) , also, any semi serious follower should realize that Arlington's a much better HR park for right handers than either the Safeco / Kingdome or Yankee Stadium (it's just a good HR park in general, though YS is probably better for lefty)

I wouldn't go as far as saying that PEDs don't do jack , but the extend of it's effect on baseball performance seems grossly exaggerated. A-rod would be a awesome player with our without it, Bonds would still be a Ruthian player. and you or me taking it wouldn't do jack.

Freeloader
24 Feb 10,, 19:08
1. Look in your junk mail and look at the "products" that people will send you "to perform better." If someone purchases those "products," how do we know that they "perform better?" What is the proof?

2. If A-Rod hadn't used steroids, how many home runs would he have hit in those years?

Proof?

People taking them, and then proceeding to perform better?

ARod himself said that. Is he lying? Did he take them cause they taste good?

Shek
25 Feb 10,, 03:46
Proof?

People taking them, and then proceeding to perform better?

Well then global warming is clearly caused by stamp prices then by your reasoning. After all, global temperatures have increased after stamp price increases.

http://www.rogercuddy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/us_post_causes_global_warming_thumb.jpg


ARod himself said that. Is he lying? Did he take them cause they taste good?

Mark McGwire answered that they didn't help with home runs, so clearly they must taste good.

However, you still haven't answered my question. If A-Rod hadn't taken steroids, how many home runs would he have hit otherwise?

Freeloader
25 Feb 10,, 23:03
Mark McGwire answered that they didn't help with home runs, so clearly they must taste good.

However, you still haven't answered my question. If A-Rod hadn't taken steroids, how many home runs would he have hit otherwise?

Global Warming analogy doesn't work - you're stretching now, you stated I picked players earlier that I did not. Your asking an unanswerable question and you know it. You're fading fast here, Shek.

Mark McGwire was also called out as a liar by people in his clubhouse. Did you see his size growth? Strength doesn't help you hit home runs? He stated that to "less tarnish" his career and make all the HR's he hit look valid.

See ARod reference - he took them "to perform better"

The fact you are continuing to argue steroids don't help is actually laughable. A player actually STATED he took steroids to perform better (and he isn't the only one - Jason Giambi is another) and you're saying they lied? Again - strength doesn't help one hit homeruns?

Seriously?

http://nysuperblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/markmcguire-gotjuice.jpg

Shek
26 Feb 10,, 03:39
Global Warming analogy doesn't work - you're stretching now, you stated I picked players earlier that I did not. Your asking an unanswerable question and you know it. You're fading fast here, Shek.

Actually, the position is getting stronger. You can't provide any fidelity to how steroids add to a player's production of home runs. Thus, the evidence then falls back to more home runs = steroids, but since many things can cause additional home runs (randomness, more home run friendly ballparks, strike zone changes, equipment changes, league expansion, training), you are left with poor evidence and an argument about correlation.

I did mistakenly misstate one player that you chose, but the fact still remains that your top two suspects were people who played in the non-steroids era. It's clear that you (or I) can't separate random fluctuations in home run totals simply by looking at a home run total is greater than before.

As to the use of global warming, it's actually pretty spot on. The stamp price causes global warming is a great example of spurious correlation. The use of CO2 is another example of something that correlates with global warming, but as people have realized that there's more complexity to the global climate, the causality attributed to CO2 has been eroded. Likewise, the first explanation for increased home run production in the wake of Canseco's book, the BALCO tabloid reporting, and the Mitchell Report was the use of PEDs. Yet, it's a much more complex story.


Mark McGwire was also called out as a liar by people in his clubhouse. Did you see his size growth? Strength doesn't help you hit home runs? He stated that to "less tarnish" his career and make all the HR's he hit look valid.

The scientific literature is mixed as to the strength benefits of steroids. You have to separate out the exercise component from any potential benefit from steroids. Then there's a complicating factor in that not all strength gain equals greater home run hitting prowess. The wrong type of muscle gain could create more weight for your body to get in motion, meaning that it's possible for weight to adversely impact your hitting.

The fact remains that there's no scientific literature out there that specifically addresses the impact of steroids on home run hitting in a controlled experiment that could prove causality. There are some studies that point to increased strength benefits, but then it's a speculative jump to literature that derives potential power benefits through the use of physics.

The exercise in using McGwire is that you were trying to extract "proof" from the confession of someone who used steroids, and yet, when given an opposite conclusion from someone who use them, it's now invalid because it doesn't conform to your conclusion. Of course, McGwire could be a liar, but A-Rod is also one, and so that doesn't get you anywhere. Frankly, I think neither one carries weight, because our minds will perceive causal explanations when causality doesn't exist.


See ARod reference - he took them "to perform better"

Some players won't change socks during hitting streaks - do dirty socks help with hitting? Players pay big money for HGH, but all the scientific literature states that it doesn't do anything for strength. People buy all sorts of stuff because they think it will increase the size of their genitalia. Just because someone takes something because they think it will improve performance doesn't mean that it does improve performance. This is exactly the point from my comments above.


The fact you are continuing to argue steroids don't help is actually laughable. A player actually STATED he took steroids to perform better (and he isn't the only one - Jason Giambi is another) and you're saying they lied? Again - strength doesn't help one hit homeruns?

Seriously?

Once again, if I ate jaguar dung because I believed that it made me competitive with porn stars, would that be proof that jaguar dung works? That's what you're arguing here.

I also have a question - for all the players named on the Mitchell report, how come their average home run production decreased by .246 home runs once they started using?

Freeloader
27 Feb 10,, 02:57
Actually, the position is getting stronger. You can't provide any fidelity to how steroids add to a player's production of home runs. Thus, the evidence then falls back to more home runs = steroids, but since many things can cause additional home runs (randomness, more home run friendly ballparks, strike zone changes, equipment changes, league expansion, training), you are left with poor evidence and an argument about correlation. [quote]


[quote]The scientific literature is mixed as to the strength benefits of steroids. You have to separate out the exercise component from any potential benefit from steroids. Then there's a complicating factor in that not all strength gain equals greater home run hitting prowess. The wrong type of muscle gain could create more weight for your body to get in motion, meaning that it's possible for weight to adversely impact your hitting.

Yeah. Except that you can see the clear muscle gain on players in question. The wrong gain, as you said, would make them perform worse right? That did not happen.

You don't seem to deny that some players are taking steroids. Why would some players take them, state "to perform better" if not to perform better? What else?


The fact remains that there's no scientific literature out there that specifically addresses the impact of steroids on home run hitting in a controlled experiment that could prove causality.

Steroids are basically synthetic versions of testosterone in males. Testosterone promotes muscle growth and development. Combined with steroids, it promotes muscle growth. How on Earth you are not seeing this is beyond me. If you are stronger, then when you hit the ball, it can travel father. What I would argue is that they may not help you hit for a better AVERAGE, but they help with HR's. Steroids don't control how well you see the ball and can make contact at all. It effects power.


The exercise in using McGwire is that you were trying to extract "proof" from the confession of someone who used steroids, and yet, when given an opposite conclusion from someone who use them, it's now invalid because it doesn't conform to your conclusion. Of course, McGwire could be a liar, but A-Rod is also one, and so that doesn't get you anywhere. Frankly, I think neither one carries weight, because our minds will perceive causal explanations when causality doesn't exist.

Uh, nope. ARod stated why he took them. McGwire gave an alternative scenario to less tarnish his legacy. I have no plans to concede this point. Especially considering McGwire's clearly diminished size and strength after he retired is quite suspect. I believe strength helps one hit the ball farther is why. You're free to believe otherwise, but you are currently in the minority.


Some players won't change socks during hitting streaks - do dirty socks help with hitting?

Semantics, again. This is a superstition with some. Do the players claim "it actually helps them perform better" ever? If so - who?


I also have a question - for all the players named on the Mitchell report, how come their average home run production decreased by .246 home runs once they started using?

Elaborate?

Shek
01 Mar 10,, 02:26
Yeah. Except that you can see the clear muscle gain on players in question. The wrong gain, as you said, would make them perform worse right? That did not happen.

Wrong. They would perform worse holding everything else constant. That didn't happen. More home run friendly ballparks were introduced. Changes in equipment were introduced. Lesser pitching talent was introduced. Better training was introduced.


You don't seem to deny that some players are taking steroids. Why would some players take them, state "to perform better" if not to perform better? What else?

You are still confusing expectations and reality. People buy products from informercials expecting a certain level of return. It doesn't always happen.

Ballplayers take HGH expecting better performance, but it doesn't provide anything. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zero.


Steroids are basically synthetic versions of testosterone in males. Testosterone promotes muscle growth and development. Combined with steroids, it promotes muscle growth. How on Earth you are not seeing this is beyond me. If you are stronger, then when you hit the ball, it can travel father. What I would argue is that they may not help you hit for a better AVERAGE, but they help with HR's. Steroids don't control how well you see the ball and can make contact at all. It effects power.

There are several issues here. First, where you see the muscle growth is an issue (steroids affect primarily the upper body - your power comes from your lower body/core). Next, muscle growth is not the same and muscle strength - HGH stimulates muscle growth, with zero corresponding strength gain. For steroids, the literature often finds strength gains, but sometimes it doesn't. However, by the time you separate the strength gain from exercise from the strength gain from the steroids, you allocate it to various muscle groups in the body, and then calculate a potential impact on distance (assuming that the steroid regimen used did increase strength - remember, there's not a lock in the literature that this is always the case), you're measuring an impact in feet by counting fingers on a single hand in the maximum.


Uh, nope. ARod stated why he took them. McGwire gave an alternative scenario to less tarnish his legacy. I have no plans to concede this point. Especially considering McGwire's clearly diminished size and strength after he retired is quite suspect. I believe strength helps one hit the ball farther is why. You're free to believe otherwise, but you are currently in the minority.

So McGwire continued to lift weights just as he did while he was playing? Even if he did, he would have started losing muscle mass/strength a half decade ago since you start doing so right around age 40.

As to ARod, let's look at his numbers. We'll use home run rates (HR/AB) so that we cancel out noise created by seasons where he experienced more at bats. We'll use neutralized rates to dampen noise created by playing for different teams in different ballparks with different run environments. We'll project out predicted home run rates based on his pre-steroid seasons immediately prior to his use using a comprehensive aging study by JC Bradbury that was published last year. Home run production peaks out on the average aging curve at age 30. Not all players are average in the way they age, so some variability can be expected.

As we can see, ARod's increase in his home run production tracks pretty well with the average aging curve. Against that curve, he hits 2.37 more home runs in 2001-2, meaning that steroids gave him a boost of a single home run per season. Given the variability in home run production per season, we have no way of knowing whether that's simply a randomly produced difference or an actual gain caused by steroids, so we wouldn't be wrong in saying that there's no difference.

If we include 2003 as a steroid season (I've shaded it to highlight that year as well, but according to ARod, he quit after an injury in spring training, and so it's possible that his positive test came during spring training), then over the course of three seasons, he -5.35 extra home runs, or in other words, he hit less than expected by simply aging and approaching the average peak HR hitting age. Of course, that's just a difference of two less home runs per season, which given the variability of home run hitting from season to season, would mean that we wouldn't be wrong here in saying that there's no difference.

Bottomline, there's no distinctly observable boost in ARod's HR production that we wouldn't have expected from him simply physically maturing.

Shek
01 Mar 10,, 02:32
Elaborate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/opinion/22cole.html?_r=1

A crude approach IMO, but nonetheless, a rather striking finding that HR production decreased while using "PEDs."

Freeloader
03 Mar 10,, 05:26
Ballplayers take HGH expecting better performance, but it doesn't provide anything. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zero.

Ok. Talk to MLB then and tell them that. And the NFL and Olympic committee. They all disagree.





Bottomline, there's no distinctly observable boost in ARod's HR production that we wouldn't have expected from him simply physically maturing.

Notice the games played difference? McGwire's brother stated it (steroids) helped Mark play everyday. In ARod's first seven years with Seattle - he never played 162 games.

Three years in Texas - he played 162 twice, and 161 that last year. WE know he used in 2003. We do not know after that, but this all started hitting the fan a few years ago with greater intensity.

2008 and 2009 he played 138 games and 124 games. Looks suspicious.

Play more = hit more HR's = botched record books.

Shek
03 Mar 10,, 13:01
Ok. Talk to MLB then and tell them that. And the NFL and Olympic committee. They all disagree.

No they don't. The scientific evidence is that there's no performance enhancement. It's public relations to show fans their "serious" about PEDs (even though they aren't a PED, but only a D). It's to keep athletes away from potentially unsafe drugs. It's to keep athletes away from gateway drugs. In the end, it doesn't matter what a policy claims - it's what the scientific evidence says.

Channeling Robin Hanson on Growth Hormone Policy (http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2010/02/channeling-robin-hanson-on-growth-hormone-policy/)


Notice the games played difference? McGwire's brother stated it (steroids) helped Mark play everyday. In ARod's first seven years with Seattle - he never played 162 games.

Three years in Texas - he played 162 twice, and 161 that last year. WE know he used in 2003. We do not know after that, but this all started hitting the fan a few years ago with greater intensity.

2008 and 2009 he played 138 games and 124 games. Looks suspicious.

Play more = hit more HR's = botched record books.

Of course, if you look at McGwire's "steroid years," he plays an average of 106 games a year. That's not strong evidence for your steroids = play more hypothesis, especially when you compare it to his 150 games/yr average prior to his steroid use. Mr. Juice himself (Canseco) averaged 131 games of playing. Still not strong evidence for your steroids = play more hypothesis.

Now, I'm not a doctor, but I'd ask you to explain how steroids would have helped ARod overcome the torn labrum in his hip and then surgery and played more in 2008/2009. I'd also reference his 161 games in 1998, his 162 games in 2005 (before his hip injury that would slow him down in 2008-9), and his average of 157 games as a Yankee before his hip injury. Again, a difference of a handful of games to me is statistical noise, especially in light of how other players played (much) more in their non-steroid years.

Freeloader
08 Mar 10,, 02:58
Of course, if you look at McGwire's "steroid years," he plays an average of 106 games a year.

McGwire from 1993 to 1996 played in 27, 47, 104 and 130 games. From 1997 to 1999 with 97 being the year he was traded to St. Louis, he played 156. His next two years he played in 155 and 153. His HR's in his early career when he played a compariable 150 something games he hit a high of 49 HR's, then 32, 33, 39, 22 and 42 with about 150 games played each year. Three "questionable" years in St. Louis and he hits 58, 70 and 65. Not sure what you were looking at, but he played more games once again....and hit more HR's

While your angle of "steroids don't actually make one stronger in any way" (paraphrased) is interesting and well thought out, I'd be curious to know if there is any sources you know of anyone from any of those major sports, some Chairman or President or Commissioner, who feels steroids are not any form of performance gain at all.

Late reply, I know. Took the weekend off.

Shek
09 Mar 10,, 02:01
Freeloader,

Here's a site that you should check out that looks at this topic:
Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball (http://steroids-and-baseball.com/)

Eric Walker is the author of this book,
Amazon.com: Sinister First Baseman (9780890873359): Eric Walker: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Sinister-First-Baseman-Eric-Walker/dp/0890873356), which is mentioned among the pioneers in sabermetrics in this book:
The Numbers Game: Baseball's ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=C8853BeytxQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+numbers+game+alan+schwarz&source=bl&ots=a6ZngbNLQN&sig=5x1ER2KGk8wh9pdKLrIdei1uSr0&hl=en&ei=Z5yVS_62AoqENI7b5IgN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

I haven't read his book, but Schwarz's book is excellent if you want to learn some about the history of baseball and statistics. That doesn't necessarily make Walker an expert on steroids, but he is very good with the statistics and makes a pretty decent argument (although I'd disagree with him on the impact of expansion - it is still another piece to the puzzle - and wouldn't purport so much weight to a monocausal explanation using the ball as the single suspect).

Shek
09 Mar 10,, 02:11
McGwire from 1993 to 1996 played in 27, 47, 104 and 130 games. From 1997 to 1999 with 97 being the year he was traded to St. Louis, he played 156. His next two years he played in 155 and 153. His HR's in his early career when he played a compariable 150 something games he hit a high of 49 HR's, then 32, 33, 39, 22 and 42 with about 150 games played each year. Three "questionable" years in St. Louis and he hits 58, 70 and 65. Not sure what you were looking at, but he played more games once again....and hit more HR's

Re-read his press conference. He started using in 1993.


While your angle of "steroids don't actually make one stronger in any way" (paraphrased) is interesting and well thought out, I'd be curious to know if there is any sources you know of anyone from any of those major sports, some Chairman or President or Commissioner, who feels steroids are not any form of performance gain at all.

The paraphrase is slightly off. The scientific evidence is mixed on strength, although it more often than not finds increased strength. However, that strength is disproportionately added to those muscles that do the least in providing power to the baseball swing. Thus, by the time you parse out any potential strength gain from the steroids (not to be confused with the strength gain from the intense training regimens these athletes undertook) and account for how that strength actually impacts distance, the results are negligible such that the names on the records book today for the top home run hitting seasons would still be the same.

As to what the league officials think, I don't find that they speak with authority. They may have more access than I to scientists that have studied the question at hand, in which case, I'd listen to the results of those scientists provided that their studies are peer reviewed and available for study. I think that Amazon.com: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game (9780393057652): Michael Lewis: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393057658) is decent evidence that the conventional wisdom found in sports often isn't.


Late reply, I know. Took the weekend off.

No sweat here. We all have lives to live, and besides, I feel a case of March Madness setting in anyways. It could be an epidemic :biggrin:

Freeloader
11 Mar 10,, 03:09
I'll check out Amazon, books are usually cheap up there.

Waiting for the NFL draft more than anything myself. Want to see the Redskins draft some bloody OL for the right side of the line and a RB to replace the nearly done Portis.

cdude
11 Mar 10,, 03:36
Since age is an issue that you bring up, how is that this Olympic medalist at age 41 swam the fastest time of her life in the 50m, crushing the world record she had set at age 15?


Swimsuit, ask Phelps why he was beaten repeatedly by lesser swimmers in the World Championships last year, he will tell you.

cdude
11 Mar 10,, 03:45
People should look into HR/AB, not just HR per season. I bet the HR/AB graph for Barry Bonds looks much more suspicious than the HR/season graph.

PED absolutely helps performance, it's science. Anyone saw Bonds play would know that, his OPS was ASTRONOMICAL toward the end of his career.

Now I found this on baseball-reference:

1988 NL 22.4 (9th)
1990 NL 15.7 (5th)
1991 NL 20.4 (10th)
1992 NL 13.9 (1st)
1993 NL 11.7 (1st)
1994 NL 10.6 (4th)
1995 NL 15.3 (5th)
1996 NL 12.3 (1st)
1997 NL 13.3 (3rd)
1998 NL 14.9 (8th)
1999 NL 10.4 (5th) BONDS started doping
2000 NL 9.8 (1st)
2001 NL 6.5 (1st)
2002 NL 8.8 (1st)
2003 NL 8.7 (1st)
2004 NL 8.3 (1st)
2006 NL 14.1 (9th)**
2007 NL 12.1 (3rd)**



What Big MAC took was not banned by the MLB at the time, so he should be voted in the Hall. Bonds, too. Because what he accomplished before doping.

Shek
12 Mar 10,, 01:05
PED absolutely helps performance, it's science.

Since it's science, please post the scientific paper that describes the controlled experiment that fails to reject the hypothesis that steroids absolutely helps home run performance.

cdude
12 Mar 10,, 05:51
Since it's science, please post the scientific paper that describes the controlled experiment that fails to reject the hypothesis that steroids absolutely helps home run performance.

Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and East Germany

You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, though.

Shek
12 Mar 10,, 12:27
Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and East Germany

You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, though.

You made a very specific claim that it was science. The reality is that there are no controlled experiments, so all that exists are hypotheses that are untested, or beliefs, to include yours.

In examining ARod, his performance on steroids is no different than what we would have expected if he had not taken steroids. In other words, using the scientific method (but not a controlled experiment), there is evidence that steroids does not impact home run hitting, or if it does, it is extremely insignificant.

cdude
12 Mar 10,, 21:31
You made a very specific claim that it was science. The reality is that there are no controlled experiments, so all that exists are hypotheses that are untested, or beliefs, to include yours.

In examining ARod, his performance on steroids is no different than what we would have expected if he had not taken steroids. In other words, using the scientific method (but not a controlled experiment), there is evidence that steroids does not impact home run hitting, or if it does, it is extremely insignificant.

That's ONE data point, bro

At least I gave you four.

Shek
13 Mar 10,, 01:31
That's ONE data point, bro

At least I gave you four.

No, you gave me one. The other folks weren't baseball players. Besides, you didn't provide any causal data - all you've got is correlation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/opinion/22cole.html?_r=2

For the 48 batters we studied, the average change in home runs per year “before” and “after” was a decrease of 0.246.


Please explain for me why the average change in home runs for PED users was negative, i.e., these PED users on average saw their home run output decrease while using?

cdude
13 Mar 10,, 06:36
Oh, you are talking about baseball exclusively.

David Ortiz, Brett Boone are two obvious ones, with huge HR/AB gains after doping.

And to explain the decrease, most dopers started doping at the late stage of their careers. Jose Conseco started doping at a very early age of his career, so we would never know what his natural production level would have been had he not taken PEDs. But he has had a pretty good track record on the PED issue in the MLB. So I took his words that PED helps hitting home runs. And also the BALCO guy who's a scientist, now that's the scientific evidence you are looking for.



No, you gave me one. The other folks weren't baseball players. Besides, you didn't provide any causal data - all you've got is correlation.



Please explain for me why the average change in home runs for PED users was negative, i.e., these PED users on average saw their home run output decrease while using?

Shek
13 Mar 10,, 09:32
Oh, you are talking about baseball exclusively.

David Ortiz, Brett Boone are two obvious ones, with huge HR/AB gains after doping.

David Ortiz never tested positive again post 2003, and yet more home runs in four seasons since. Not a strong case for steroids providing a large unnatural boost.

Bret Boone's never tested positive, been seen taking steroids, etc. What we have here is heresay. So the proof is the spike in his numbers, which puts the cart in front of the horse. The effect now proves the cause? Bret Boone's power surge is not inconsistent with past players, especially given how close it came to the peak home run age for career players. In fact, you could look at what Carlton Fisk did at age 37 when he decided to lift weights in the off season.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/718626-post48.html


And to explain the decrease, most dopers started doping at the late stage of their careers. Jose Conseco started doping at a very early age of his career, so we would never know what his natural production level would have been had he not taken PEDs.

Care to provide evidence that most folks start using PED late in their career? Your source of evidence is someone who used it his entire career. He claims that Big Mac used it basically his entire career. Jason Giambi is a prominent example of an early juicer.


But he has had a pretty good track record on the PED issue in the MLB. So I took his words that PED helps hitting home runs.

Just two sentences ago you state that we never know what the counterfactual would be, and yet now, he's authoritative in stating the counterfactual? That's pretty inconsistent.


And also the BALCO guy who's a scientist, now that's the scientific evidence you are looking for.

BALCO didn't employ a scientist. Conte was self-proclaimed nutritionist. He had a doctor that marginally worked for him. They did buy many of their steroids from a rogue chemist out of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. He was able to work with the chemical compounds and did use himself. However, that's not scientific evidence.

Once again, we're at back at where we started.

1. No controlled experiments that demonstrate a causal link between steroids and home run hitting.

2. Studies that often find a link between muscle mass gain and strength, but nothing that then translates this into a precise power gain based on the mechanics of a baseball swing. However, the evidence often finds the gains from steroids are predominantly weighted towards the upper body, which is the least important part of generating power in the baseball swing. Once you account for this, using several models of the baseball swing by physicists and back of the envelope calculations, you can measure the impact of steroids in inches.

3. Statistics that show that the rate of home runs increased suddenly and dramatically in 1993-4 and then have maintained that level. For steroids to explain this sudden increase, they would have had to have been adopted over the course of those exact two seasons, and then that same rate of use would have to be continued through today, despite several years of now extensive testing with real penalties for getting caught.

4. Since we know that steroids didn't show up all of a sudden in 1993-4 with a huge cult of juicers (Canseco's story tells of a more gentle increase starting before 1993-4), we can turn to several other plausible hypotheses: expansion, the ball, equipment, stadiums.

5. Home run output is a random process, and so we should expect variation in output. Temporary spikes are not exclusively a "Steroids Era" phenomenon, but can be found across the entire history of baseball. Sometimes you can find reasons (getting traded to the Cubs and Wrigley Field), but other times it's simply a random outcome. You get more than your fair share of "juiced" balls (on the extreme ends, two balls that fall within MLB specs/tolerances will have a carry distance difference of 50 feet). You happen to hit the ball for power more than your fair share on days when the wind's blowing out. Etc., etc., etc. Thus, spikes in output need not have an explanation (although maybe there will be one that you can pin down that is systemic, like playing at Wrigley or Coors).

6. We have a study that finds that the average output of users declines. While not sophisticated in its approach, rather than producing smoke in favor of the "Steroids Era" hypothesis, it produces smoke as to why so many people want to assign most if not all power gains in the "Steroids Era" to steroids and other PEDs. Furthermore, the evidence is stacked in favor of finding a steroids effect exactly because of the way that people put the cart in front of the horse. If someone has a spike in power, then they will immediately be under suspicion of juicing and be cited as evidence of juicing. However, given that the physics of it measures the impact in inches and that the statistics of it finds a negative impact, we should expect that there are plenty of folks who experience now power surge. Since no surge is evidenced, no suspicion is cast, and so it's the surviorship bias that Sir Francis Bacon wrote about approximately 400 years.

barrysongpark
26 Jul 11,, 03:51
Ofcourse he took steroids---alot infact , he learned about them from Mickey Mantle ,just review the facts---he took so much drugs, that his hair was falling out ,and he died from a Hodgkins Lyphoma ,which was caused by the drugs he took, ----The facts are there -look at the strange statistics , --look at the old films of him, take alook up close, Ive researched this ,and its obvious ,on the other hand Babe Ruth did not take these drugs ,infact Babe Ruth was a drunk , but he had exceptional eye coordination and stength--
REVEIW THE FACTS----ITS VERY SAD ---BUT POOR ROGER MARIS DIED FROM THESE DRUGS--BALL PLAYERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED THESE RECORDS -THAT HAVE TAKEN DRUGS-

barrysongpark
26 Jul 11,, 03:59
Roger maris took so much drugs -his hair fell out and he died from hodgkins lymphoma which is caused by taking steroids--lets correct these records, and get the ball players who took drugs off the record books---babe ruth did not take steroids ,he was too busy drinking- any scientist can easily review roger maris records and see the unusual spikes in performance--its very sad he died from these drugs that mickey mantle got him started on --shame on these false heros----

gunnut
26 Jul 11,, 21:09
I think we're going about this the wrong way. They shouldn't take drugs because they're dangerous. NOT they shouldn't take drugs because they help them perform better.

We should make drugs legal in baseball. If they want to die for our entertainment, I'd say let them. After a while, people will look down upon those people and the fad will die off.

The more we ban something, the more people would want to do it to see if they can get away with it. Make it legal to remove this temptation.

ace16807
26 Jul 11,, 21:43
I think we're going about this the wrong way. They shouldn't take drugs because they're dangerous. NOT they shouldn't take drugs because they help them perform better.

We should make drugs legal in baseball. If they want to die for our entertainment, I'd say let them. After a while, people will look down upon those people and the fad will die off.

The more we ban something, the more people would want to do it to see if they can get away with it. Make it legal to remove this temptation.

I'm rather clueless as to the legal aspects of doping, but afaik some performance enhancing drugs aren't illegal but rather banned by sports organizations. Were these organizations to allow doping I would suspect there would be a significant drop in popularity both among clean players who don't want to compete on an uneven playing field and fans who are disgusted by the fact that drugs are behind the player's performance, not skill/ability. I simply don't see how any sports organization can rationally allow doping. Even if it gets to the point that it's taboo to do so and those who use performance enhancing drugs are frowned upon, all they have to do is deny they use them and the organization has no means of verifying the statement unless they plan to ban performance enhancing drugs again, which puts us back at square one.

Officer of Engineers
26 Jul 11,, 22:42
I see dead kittens

YellowFever
27 Jul 11,, 00:04
And gunnut contributed to the problem.....tsk tsk.

Julie
27 Jul 11,, 00:34
And gunnut contributed to the problem.....tsk tsk.He can get away with it...he is the Official Thread Jacker. Pay attention. ;)

In the meantime barry needs to hit the intro thread. :) Locked.