Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Roger Maris Use Steroids?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by rj1
    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.
    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.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rj1 View Post
      If yoou're interested though, here's a baseball forum thread on it: Way We Evaluate Steroid Numbers - Baseball Fever
      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?
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by rj1 View Post
        For Shek, the first couple segments: http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTra...10_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?
        Last edited by Shek; 15 Jan 10,, 12:11.
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #34
          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?
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            Last edited by RollingWave; 19 Jan 10,, 08:21.

            Comment


            • #36
              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.

              Comment


              • #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

                Comment


                • #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).
                  Attached Files
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Juiced ball theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    ESPN.com: MLB - Why all the runs? The balls are juiced, of course!

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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?
                      Attached Files
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Freeloader View Post
                          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?
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Shek View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by Freeloader; 18 Feb 10,, 08:58.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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?
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X