Sammy Sosa and Steroids

[wade]

there's definitely a double-standard between Baseball and other sports. I mean, look how huge someone like LeBron was at age 18. He gets credit as a "perfect athletic specimen" and no one blinks an eye that a teenager can be built like that. Did people ever mention steroids in the same breath as, say, Karl Malone? Shaq?

 

Or the fact that Shawn Merriman (I'm not sure I spelled either right there, the Charger LB) tested positive for steroids and nobody really cared after his suspension was over.

 

Yeah. I hate that crap. Our waiter last night overhead me and my father-in-law talking about A-Rod and the guy says 'yeah, that's why I don't like baseball'. I asked if he like NFL and he said yes, whereupon I pointed out what you just said. Guy says, and get this- says 'steroids don't help as much in football 'cause everybody's already strong'.

 

WTF? I know people rationalize steroid use in football (they must, or else there'd be more of an outcry) but I never expected that rationale.

[WrigleyField 22]

Here's my effort to try and track Sammy's size vs. production vs. age.

 

For HR I did it as a percentage of ABs to account for short seasons. SLG wasn't changed. They are both graphed against his age.

 

Pictures are mostly baseball cards. I figure they could be slightly off. Most likely in any given year, the picture is from the previous year (such as 2005, where he's wearing a Cubs uniform, but he was on the Orioles). It's not exact, but should provide for a decent look at progression, as opposed to just looking at 20 year old Sammy vs. 30 year old Sammy.

 

I don't think this proves anything one way or the other, but it is interesting to look at.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/steroidsammy.png

 

Edit- the most telling one for me is to look at two pictures from 1989 and 1990. Here they are in full size.

http://passtheword.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/sosa-89donrussbest.JPGhttp://www.basehit.net/CatImages/90Donruss489.jpg

The one on the right is one you'd typically see from someone trying to say Sammy was just some skinny kid. But he looks pretty big in the first one. Also his head seems pretty large, which is something people will typically point to.

 

Now like I said, nothing can be proven with these. The things with pictures is that angles and poses can create many different "tricks". We'd have to have a constant angle/pose year to year to make any significant conclusions. Still interesting to try and compare though.

[Roast]

Here's my effort to try and track Sammy's size vs. production vs. age.

 

For HR I did it as a percentage of ABs to account for short seasons. SLG wasn't changed. They are both graphed against his age.

 

Pictures are mostly baseball cards. I figure they could be slightly off. Most likely in any given year, the picture is from the previous year (such as 2005, where he's wearing a Cubs uniform, but he was on the Orioles). It's not exact, but should provide for a decent look at progression, as opposed to just looking at 20 year old Sammy vs. 30 year old Sammy.

 

I don't think this proves anything one way or the other, but it is interesting to look at.

*PIC DELETED FOR SPACE*

 

Edit- the most telling one for me is to look at two pictures from 1989 and 1990. Here they are in full size.

*PIC DELETED FOR SPACE*

The one on the right is one you'd typically see from someone trying to say Sammy was just some skinny kid. But he looks pretty big in the first one. Also his head seems pretty large, which is something people will typically point to.

 

Now like I said, nothing can be proven with these. The things with pictures is that angles and poses can create many different "tricks". We'd have to have a constant angle/pose year to year to make any significant conclusions. Still interesting to try and compare though.

Nice find. Yeah, his melon looks pretty big in that first picture.

[bcl412]

In those pictures it really doesn't look like he changed much.

 

I remember when he played during the steroid era he had some big arm but that first picture with the Rangers his arms look pretty big too.

[Tyrant]

Why wouldn't Sammy cheat? Lots of other players were doing it, and we already know he wasn't against the concept of cheating after he used the corked bat. I'm sure he thought it would give him an edge, so he probably went along and did it.

[WrigleyField 22]

Why wouldn't Sammy cheat? Lots of other players were doing it, and we already know he wasn't against the concept of cheating after he used the corked bat. I'm sure he thought it would give him an edge, so he probably went along and did it.

Personally, I think he probably did steroids, but thats a pretty weak argument as to why.

 

I'm not willing to definitively say ANYONE did steroids unless there is some hard evidence against them. Brian Roberts did steroids. Would anyone have ever expected that? No. You can't just look at stats and body size.

[UMFan83]

What I don't get is why the majority of sportswriters seem to think that Sammy is grouped into the McGwires, the Palmeiros, the Clemens, the Bonds, etc. I know it definitely seems logical that he was juicing, but unlike the others, there is no proof, no allegations, no testimony, etc. Until that proof shows up, it shows really poor morals to just lump a person in that group without any sort of proof. Jayson Stark in his article said that among others Sammy Sosa doesn't look like he's headed to Cooperstown. Why not? Because you think he did steroids?

 

To be honest, I think it's pretty dumb that people might not vote in Bonds, Clemens, ARod because they did steroids. Bonds was a HOF player before he most likely did steroids, I would assume Clemens as well, and ARod will have played several spectacular seasons after his steroid use. It doesn't make any sense, these were spectacular players. I can see why you wouldn't vote McGwire in though...although his "proof" of steroid usage is him basically taking the 5th under oath. Still more than Sosa has against him.

[WrigleyField 22]

More career tracks of prolific HR/Power hitters. This time without the pics, because thats too much work. I wont put the names to them, although I'm sure you'll be able to figure some out. Some have definitely been linked to roids. Others, not.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/ARODROIDS.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/BONDSROIDS.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/GRIFFEYROIDS.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/MCGWIREROIDS.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/THOMEROIDS.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/AARONROIDS.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/snetsrak43/sammyroids.png

[Rob]

Does Sammy Sosa strike you as being smarter than all the people who have been caught? It's obvious that there's a huge incentive for all of these journalists to dig up dirt, but Sammy flippin Sosa is the one criminal mastermind devious enough to not leave a papertrail, or a witness, or any physical evidence at all behind that one of the dozens of journalists hasn't been able to track down?

 

Is he really that lucky? Or should we maybe start think about cutting him a break?

[wade]

Rob,

 

I don't know that Sammy, or anyone else who's not been implicated but may have used, had to be a rocket scientist to avoid detection.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov/14/sports/sp-steroids14

 

I found this article that talks about the 2003 'anonymous survey' when 5-7% of players tested positive. Now, of that 5-7%, consider this-

 

"...players received several months’ warning before the tests began in spring training..."

 

“'To get a 5% to 7% positive response rate, even though everyone knew the tests were coming, indicates the problem is far more widespread than baseball is ready to admit,' said Dick Pound, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency in Montreal."

 

After the initial 'survey' in spring training of 2003, only 240 players were randomly tested for a second time that year. I don't know if it's ever been said that the 100-something positives the gov. has seized was from that or from the initial survey.

 

Also, Bonds' 2003 sample was just re-tested and came back positive for a drug that 2003s test did not identify. I.E., he tested negative in 2003 even though he was on the gas.

 

My point? That that many guys are caught when they know the test is coming- they're the stupid ones and you didn't have to be Einstein to test negative even if you were on. Even if you believed the survey would stay random (which it sure as hell should have- I'd be ticked), all you have to do is cycle off before spring training, or take something undetectable in the first place, or take a masking agent, etc. Anything to keep the number of positive tests down, and players maybe could have avoided mandatory testing in MLB at all.

[UMFan83]

I was listening to the radio on the way to work this morning, and one good point was made. The Mitchell Report was very New York-centric as it was a Mets clubhouse guy that was one of the few to talk. There has to be a a guy in the midwest, a guy in the west coast, etc that has similar information but hasn't been found yet.

 

Look at the 2001 home run leaders in baseball

 

1. Bonds - evidence of steroid use

2. Sosa - no evidence

3. Gonzalez - Whispers but no evidence

4. ARod - evidence

5. Thome - no evidence

6. Green - evidence

7. Helton - no evidence

8. Palmeiro - evidence

 

Of the ones that had no evidence, Sosa, Gonzalez, and Heltons HR numbers sharply dropped after testing started in 2004, and Thome who I doubt took steroids, has battled nagging injuries since 2004

[treebird]

Of the ones that had no evidence, Sosa, Gonzalez, and Heltons HR numbers sharply dropped after testing started in 2004, and Thome who I doubt took steroids, has battled nagging injuries since 2004

 

how do you decide whom to grant this designation?

[UMFan83]

Of the ones that had no evidence, Sosa, Gonzalez, and Heltons HR numbers sharply dropped after testing started in 2004, and Thome who I doubt took steroids, has battled nagging injuries since 2004

 

how do you decide whom to grant this designation?

 

 

He's a nice guy.

 

I guess I'm making an unfair generalization based on his reputation in the game and you called me out on it. I just look at his numbers and see a lot of consistency, although now looking at it closer I see his power numbers spiked during the years everyone calls into question as the height of the steroid era. Who knows anymore.

 

I feel like the names revealed now is just the tip of the iceberg. We'll probably never know how many people are juicing. I say just label this whole era the steroid era, and judge the era as a whole. What I mean is, recognize the top performers of the era in the Hall of Fame, just like you judge the best players of the 60's in the era as a whole, not compared to more lively offensive eras. This is probably the best solution. If you continue to leave the Bonds, Clemens, ARods out of the Hall of Fame, its going to be a never ending controversy and baseball will take an even longer time to get over this black eye.

[rocket]

I really don't think it's fair to assume that anyone is clean.

[dew1679666265]

I really don't think it's fair to assume that anyone is clean.

 

That's what gets me about this whole steroid issue. Everybody keeps saying the roiders were playing under an unfair advantage, and yet go on to say that they assume everybody was dirty.

 

But if everybody was dirty, where's the unfair advantage?

 

(By the way, I'm not referring to you with any of this Rocket.)

[brinoch]

for those that dig in their heels & discount the very obvious signs, I'll let you continue to believe in Santa. These are the same people who don't watch the 10:00 news because it is "so negative".

 

Cubbiebum, get on this.

 

C'mon. This is such a totally useless post. Have a warning.

[SouthSideRyan]

for those that dig in their heels & discount the very obvious signs, I'll let you continue to believe in Santa. These are the same people who don't watch the 10:00 news because it is "so negative".

 

Cubbiebum, get on this.

 

C'mon. This is such a totally useless post. Have a warning.

 

It was a joke, and not even one that made fun of Bum.

[CubinNY]

I really don't think it's fair to assume that anyone is clean.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

 

It's a pox on baseball that will live forever. No one in baseball (or many of its fans judging by this thread) will really give a damn though, because chix dig the long ball.

[Jehrico]

for those that dig in their heels & discount the very obvious signs, I'll let you continue to believe in Santa. These are the same people who don't watch the 10:00 news because it is "so negative".

Do me a favor, and swear you'll never become a judge.

[Fro]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847

 

Props to A-Fraud for admitting he used

[RynoHawk23]

It would be naive of me (and everyone) to think Sosa didn't use, but I want to believe he didn't. Until there is evidence, I will at least feel like he didn't completely betray me as a fan. Although, the corked bat and way he left the Cubs did enough damage. But I tend to remember him for the summer of 98 and his 2001 season. He was bigger than life and an awesome player to watch. Even if its found that he used, I still have those memories and it was a fun time to watch the Cubs - for the most part. :) But it was the beginning of the Cubs changing their culture and focusing on winning. I think its a shame that he is grouped with the players that have been found to use. And I think its a shame that he fell from grace with Cubs fans the way he has. I don't want to make excuses for a guy, but I think its comical that the organization made him out to be a monster in the end, when they were the ones that created that monster.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I think the ARod situation is ridiculous. There is really no point to bringing his name out other than to ruin him. This is not justice until all 104 are released, then you are trying to correct something. Right now its just to ruin a man's career and reputation. Which is fine, its the bed he's made - but not fair when there are 104 others.

 

I just find it so incredible that this hub bub is over numbers. The only reason any one cares about this steroid era are these numbers - 61 and 756. Because in baseball these are the holy numbers and in no other sport do they have numbers regarded in the same manor. The people that guard these numbers are fraternal baseball writers who still talk about Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle and Mays. Era's are era's. Ruth's era had no integration. Mantle and Mays had mounds lowered and the introduction of anphetimines. You can find something in every era that gave them an advantage. Are you going to tell me those guys wouldn't have taken something to get an edge? Mantle was an abusive user of alcohol. You don't think he would have taken HGH to prolong his knees and career if it was available? Guys back then were protected by the media. In this day and age they are stalked and watched like hawks for one misstep. Those holy numbers are the reason the NFL gets a pass. Merriman and others get found out and punished and its like it never happened. That helmet does wonders. No one cares about Merriman because he's not going to be immortalized. The best he can do is win a championship really. In the NFL its about the ring and the Lombardi Trophy - not individual numbers. Especially ones by a linebacker. And even if it is a guy like Peyton Mannning - what did it do for him? Did it make him throw harder? Did it give him the stamina to stay fresh the whole season? No one knows or has a tangible item to attach steroids with football. Baseball has those holy numbers and even though its a team sport there are individual accomplishments.

 

I get that there is right and wrong, and what these guys have done is wrong. But its not the end of the world. I will still watch and enjoy baseball every day I have on this earth. And I will enjoy the evolution of the game and remember when this happened and that happened. Its the story of the game, why does it have to be terrible? It is what it is now, let's move on. I actually would be more offended by a player that would test positive today than back 5 years. Because I do believe there was no penalty, so there was a LOT of gray area. Again, I don't approve of that culture, but now baseball has the proper testing in place. Now its officially cheating the system. Its time to move forward now, and let the steroid era be what it is and was.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think you make an excellent point that part of the reason everyone makes a deal about it with baseball players is due to the sacredness of the numbers. I also think it's combined with a romantic idea of baseball. Rightly or wrongly, many people have a romanticized view of baseball that isn't attached to other sports. The attachement to certain records in baseball combined with the romanticized ideal of the past makes fans respond to this issue a lot more than in other sports.

 

 

It's unfortunate. While I'd prefer it if steroids and other ped's weren't ever introduced to the game, I try not to let it affect my opinion of the player. Even for me, sometimes this is hard to do.

[CubinNY]

 

I don't know about you guys, but I think the ARod situation is ridiculous. There is really no point to bringing his name out other than to ruin him. This is not justice until all 104 are released, then you are trying to correct something. Right now its just to ruin a man's career and reputation. Which is fine, its the bed he's made - but not fair when there are 104 others.

 

Exactly. I don't know what Rodriguez did to deserve this, but the person in NY that did this must really not like the guy. I'd be willing to put a lot of money on whomever leaked this being a Yankee fan. I don't understand why many Yankee fans dislike A-Rod so much.

[ConstableRabbit]

 

I don't know about you guys, but I think the ARod situation is ridiculous. There is really no point to bringing his name out other than to ruin him. This is not justice until all 104 are released, then you are trying to correct something. Right now its just to ruin a man's career and reputation. Which is fine, its the bed he's made - but not fair when there are 104 others.

 

Exactly. I don't know what Rodriguez did to deserve this, but the person in NY that did this must really not like the guy. I'd be willing to put a lot of money on whomever leaked this being a Yankee fan. I don't understand why many Yankee fans dislike A-Rod so much.

He hasn't been very good for them in the postseason.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I don't know about you guys, but I think the ARod situation is ridiculous. There is really no point to bringing his name out other than to ruin him. This is not justice until all 104 are released, then you are trying to correct something. Right now its just to ruin a man's career and reputation. Which is fine, its the bed he's made - but not fair when there are 104 others.

 

Exactly. I don't know what Rodriguez did to deserve this, but the person in NY that did this must really not like the guy. I'd be willing to put a lot of money on whomever leaked this being a Yankee fan. I don't understand why many Yankee fans dislike A-Rod so much.

He hasn't been very good for them in the postseason.

 

He's been good for them in the postseason more often than he's been bad.