Selig considering re-writing the record books?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If there is I haven't seen it.

 

What exactly points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell?

 

A proven history of attempted cheating.

 

 

So, corked bat = steroids? I'm not buying that connection.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If there is I haven't seen it.

 

What exactly points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell?

 

A proven history of attempted cheating.

 

 

So, corked bat = steroids? I'm not buying that connection.

 

*shrug* I'm not saying it's much. But it's there.

 

The case against Sosa is circumstantial, but it's better than some other circumstantial cases.

[17 Seconds]

Okay, I'll try again.

 

 

Everything?

 

 

The point of the list isn't to create some kind of "truth". I'm sure that some of the names on that list are not squeaky clean but we do not have anything above the quietest whisper on those names.

 

If you want to say that Sosa and Bagwell are in the same boat that is fine but that isn't reality.

 

You're still avoiding his question. What points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell? Because Bagwell was a likeable guy he gets a free pass?

[Guest]

If there is I haven't seen it.

 

What exactly points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell?

 

A proven history of attempted cheating.

 

 

So, corked bat = steroids? I'm not buying that connection.

 

*shrug* I'm not saying it's much. But it's there.

 

The case against Sosa is circumstantial, but it's better than some other circumstantial cases.

 

So the connection isn't much yet Sosa has what you call a "proven history of attempted cheating"?

 

I think Sosa did steroids as well, but I don't see how there's any more evidence on him than there was on Bagwell.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The case against Sosa is circumstantial, but it's better than some other circumstantial cases.

 

So the connection isn't much yet Sosa has what you call a "proven history of attempted cheating"?

 

I think Sosa did steroids as well, but I don't see how there's any more evidence on him than there was on Bagwell.

 

"Not much" isn't "nothing."

 

A proven history of attempted cheating is something that Sosa has that Bagwell does not.

 

A sudden leap in ability level at at age most players have stopped improving at all is another.

[bhogg]

I think Sosa was on something, but I also do not think it's abnormal to have your peak years from age 29-32 which is what Sosa did. Following 2002, Sosa's performance got worse. Could it be that he was coming off the junk? It's possible.

[bhogg]

I think Sosa was on something, but I also do not think it's abnormal to have your peak years from age 29-32 which is what Sosa did. Following 2002, Sosa's performance got worse. Could it be that he was coming off the junk? It's possible.

 

 

 

You know, on second thought, maybe it is abnormal. Sosa was rumored to have fudged on his age. . . . . .who the heck knows?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Bagwell had a spike in production as well.

 

His first 3 seasons, he posted HR totals of 15, 18, 20...then he jumps to 39, is hurt one year and has 21, then jumps back to 31, 43, 34, ...

 

now, the jumps do coincide with his prime years, but so does Sosa's jump. So other than a corked bat, what points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell. If you start pointing to body types and physical developments, those same things occurred with Bagwell too.

[cubbieinexile]

Okay, I'll try again.

 

 

Everything?

 

 

The point of the list isn't to create some kind of "truth". I'm sure that some of the names on that list are not squeaky clean but we do not have anything above the quietest whisper on those names.

 

If you want to say that Sosa and Bagwell are in the same boat that is fine but that isn't reality.

 

You're still avoiding his question. What points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell? Because Bagwell was a likeable guy he gets a free pass?

 

 

I'm not avoiding it, I simply don't care about it. As I said above it is likely some of the names I listed used drugs but I haven't seen anything in the media or anywhere else that would indicate Bagwell used. We have seen about million things that say Sosa used. If Bagwell has coverage like Sosa then he comes off the list but as it is he doesn't.

 

The truly funny thing is that we are carping about Bagwell (the last name on the list) when there is over a dozen other and bigger names that I took off the list.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bagwell had a spike in production as well.

 

His first 3 seasons, he posted HR totals of 15, 18, 20...then he jumps to 39, is hurt one year and has 21, then jumps back to 31, 43, 34, ...

 

now, the jumps do coincide with his prime years, but so does Sosa's jump. So other than a corked bat, what points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell. If you start pointing to body types and physical developments, those same things occurred with Bagwell too.

 

Depending on your reckoning of prime years, Sosa's came either after them or maybe a one-year overlap. Not remotely the same as Bagwell.

 

Although there will never likely be any hard evidence against him, Sosa remains in limbo as the prototype of what a steroid-aided career looks like.

[Guest]

The case against Sosa is circumstantial, but it's better than some other circumstantial cases.

 

So the connection isn't much yet Sosa has what you call a "proven history of attempted cheating"?

 

I think Sosa did steroids as well, but I don't see how there's any more evidence on him than there was on Bagwell.

 

"Not much" isn't "nothing."

 

A proven history of attempted cheating is something that Sosa has that Bagwell does not.

 

A sudden leap in ability level at at age most players have stopped improving at all is another.

 

Corked bat = proven history of attempted cheating?

 

That's one example. Maybe you're privy to other things that I'm not (I'm in no way saying that I'm a Sammy Sosa expert here) but that one thing doesn't prove anything.

[Soul]

Bagwell had a spike in production as well.

 

His first 3 seasons, he posted HR totals of 15, 18, 20...then he jumps to 39, is hurt one year and has 21, then jumps back to 31, 43, 34, ...

 

now, the jumps do coincide with his prime years, but so does Sosa's jump. So other than a corked bat, what points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell. If you start pointing to body types and physical developments, those same things occurred with Bagwell too.

 

Depending on your reckoning of prime years, Sosa's came either after them or maybe a one-year overlap. Not remotely the same as Bagwell.

 

Although there will never likely be any hard evidence against him, Sosa remains in limbo as the prototype of what a steroid-aided career looks like.

 

He hit 66 @ age 29. 29 isn't a prime year? It's pre-30. Also, he hit 36 in just 144 games in '95, and then 40 in just 124 games in '96. Ages 26 and 27 are definitely prime years. He would have had over 50 HRs in '97 without the injury that ended his season early, at age 27, a prime year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bagwell had a spike in production as well.

 

His first 3 seasons, he posted HR totals of 15, 18, 20...then he jumps to 39, is hurt one year and has 21, then jumps back to 31, 43, 34, ...

 

now, the jumps do coincide with his prime years, but so does Sosa's jump. So other than a corked bat, what points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell. If you start pointing to body types and physical developments, those same things occurred with Bagwell too.

 

Depending on your reckoning of prime years, Sosa's came either after them or maybe a one-year overlap. Not remotely the same as Bagwell.

 

Although there will never likely be any hard evidence against him, Sosa remains in limbo as the prototype of what a steroid-aided career looks like.

 

He hit 66 @ age 29. 29 isn't a prime year? It's pre-30. Also, he hit 36 in just 144 games in '95, and then 40 in just 124 games in '96. Ages 26 and 27 are definitely prime years. He would have had over 50 HRs in '97 without the injury that ended his season early, at age 27, a prime year.

 

I'd generally call 25-28 prime years for a hitter, but even if we stretch that to 29, waiting until the last year and then exploding to previously unthought of levels of production is not normal.

 

OPS+ 25-33: 127, 121, 126, 99, 160, 151, 161, 203, 160.

 

You can fiddle with counting numbers and might-have-beens all you want, but there is a clear line to be drawn there, it isn't at 26 or 27.

[cubbinalltheway]

Bagwell had a spike in production as well.

 

His first 3 seasons, he posted HR totals of 15, 18, 20...then he jumps to 39, is hurt one year and has 21, then jumps back to 31, 43, 34, ...

 

now, the jumps do coincide with his prime years, but so does Sosa's jump. So other than a corked bat, what points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell. If you start pointing to body types and physical developments, those same things occurred with Bagwell too.

 

Depending on your reckoning of prime years, Sosa's came either after them or maybe a one-year overlap. Not remotely the same as Bagwell.

 

Although there will never likely be any hard evidence against him, Sosa remains in limbo as the prototype of what a steroid-aided career looks like.

 

He hit 66 @ age 29. 29 isn't a prime year? It's pre-30. Also, he hit 36 in just 144 games in '95, and then 40 in just 124 games in '96. Ages 26 and 27 are definitely prime years. He would have had over 50 HRs in '97 without the injury that ended his season early, at age 27, a prime year.

 

I'd generally call 25-28 prime years for a hitter, but even if we stretch that to 29, waiting until the last year and then exploding to previously unthought of levels of production is not normal.

 

OPS+ 25-33: 127, 121, 126, 99, 160, 151, 161, 203, 160.

 

You can fiddle with counting numbers and might-have-beens all you want, but there is a clear line to be drawn there, it isn't at 26 or 27.

what you generally call prime years doesn't really mean anything. not everyone's body make is the same. as a result, not everyone is going to peak at the same time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

what you generally call prime years doesn't really mean anything. not everyone's body make is the same. as a result, not everyone is going to peak at the same time.

 

Of course not. But when a player has a peak that is both slightly late and one of the most dramatic peaks in MLB history, and that jump in production coincides with an era in baseball when PEDs became so effective as to be widely noticeable all over the league, then the situation is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence.

[Iceblink]

Selig's whole reign needs an asterisk. He's the Dubya of commissioners: he's full of cronyism and crooked deals, bluster about his integrity and conviction, made lots of money for his friends at the expense of the thing he was entrusted to run, and is complete denial about it all.

[TruffleShuffle]

Selig's whole reign needs an asterisk. He's the Dubya of commissioners: he's full of cronyism and crooked deals, bluster about his integrity and conviction, made lots of money for his friends at the expense of the thing he was entrusted to run, and is complete denial about it all.

 

except dubya left the country in much worse shape than it was in when he started. if selig leaves tomorrow, he's leaving the game about as healthy as its ever been.

[TruffleShuffle]

Bagwell had a spike in production as well.

 

His first 3 seasons, he posted HR totals of 15, 18, 20...then he jumps to 39, is hurt one year and has 21, then jumps back to 31, 43, 34, ...

 

now, the jumps do coincide with his prime years, but so does Sosa's jump. So other than a corked bat, what points to Sosa that doesn't point to Bagwell. If you start pointing to body types and physical developments, those same things occurred with Bagwell too.

 

Depending on your reckoning of prime years, Sosa's came either after them or maybe a one-year overlap. Not remotely the same as Bagwell.

 

Although there will never likely be any hard evidence against him, Sosa remains in limbo as the prototype of what a steroid-aided career looks like.

 

He hit 66 @ age 29. 29 isn't a prime year? It's pre-30. Also, he hit 36 in just 144 games in '95, and then 40 in just 124 games in '96. Ages 26 and 27 are definitely prime years. He would have had over 50 HRs in '97 without the injury that ended his season early, at age 27, a prime year.

 

I'd generally call 25-28 prime years for a hitter, but even if we stretch that to 29, waiting until the last year and then exploding to previously unthought of levels of production is not normal.

 

OPS+ 25-33: 127, 121, 126, 99, 160, 151, 161, 203, 160.

 

You can fiddle with counting numbers and might-have-beens all you want, but there is a clear line to be drawn there, it isn't at 26 or 27.

 

all that proves is that he hit his peak slightly later than most hitters. that's not shocking for someone who took a long time to learn plate discipline and added the toe tap just before he took off. it's not like this is barry bonds, reaching his peak 10 years after most guys do.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

all that proves is that he hit his peak slightly later than most hitters. that's not shocking for someone who took a long time to learn plate discipline and added the toe tap just before he took off. it's not like this is barry bonds, reaching his peak 10 years after most guys do.

 

Yes, but this is separating a piece from the whole.

 

The fact that Sosa is a proven attempted cheater is a piece. The fact that he had a slightly late prime, and that his prime involved a huge leap in ability level, is a piece. The fact that all this happened during the exact years offense shot up throughout baseball because of improved PEDs is a piece.

 

Add up all the pieces, and you don't have a conclusive case by any means, but you have a reason to put him in a special category of suspicion.

[TruffleShuffle]

Yes, but this is separating a piece from the whole.

 

The fact that Sosa is a proven attempted cheater is a piece. The fact that he had a slightly late prime, and that his prime involved a huge leap in ability level, is a piece. The fact that all this happened during the exact years offense shot up throughout baseball because of improved PEDs is a piece.

 

Add up all the pieces, and you don't have a conclusive case by any means, but you have a reason to put him in a special category of suspicion.

 

i don't see the point of making special categories. there were no good reasons to suspect f.p. santangelo and he cheated. there were lots of good reasons to suspect barry bonds and he cheated. i don't really think that circumstantial evidence has been very good at identifying who's cheating and who isn't, so why bother guessing?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yes, but this is separating a piece from the whole.

 

The fact that Sosa is a proven attempted cheater is a piece. The fact that he had a slightly late prime, and that his prime involved a huge leap in ability level, is a piece. The fact that all this happened during the exact years offense shot up throughout baseball because of improved PEDs is a piece.

 

Add up all the pieces, and you don't have a conclusive case by any means, but you have a reason to put him in a special category of suspicion.

 

i don't see the point of making special categories. there were no good reasons to suspect f.p. santangelo and he cheated. there were lots of good reasons to suspect barry bonds and he cheated. i don't really think that circumstantial evidence has been very good at identifying who's cheating and who isn't, so why bother guessing?

 

I think you know that wasn't a good argument. The fact that one guy from the "likely to have used" category and "likely not to have used" category both got caught means that the categories are now populated with equally likely candidates?

[CubbieBum]

If they have admitted to years of use or tested positive multiple times then they should be taken out. I will never support the stance that it was allowed to happen by Selig so they shouldn't be punished. BS records are what they are because fans care about them. If someone is a known cheater then he should be wiped clean. I can support wiping out just the years they have a positive test in or admission to but can't support sitting and allowing everything to stay. In all actuallity I think a good rule would be for here on out:

 

If you have a positive test your stats for that season are erased and you are ineligible for any awards that season.

 

In order to do that though we would have to have league wide testing like Ortiz mentioned a couple weeks ago. I've never seen what the ordeal is with that anyways. If I was a clean player I would be OK with league wide testing so people can't cheat and hope they don't get tested.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1) Testing is irrelevant. The cheaters will spend more money on chemists to come up with new stuff than the league will on testing, every time. The stuff will always be ahead of the testing.

 

2) "If someone is a known cheater then he should be wiped clean. " Hank Aaron admitted to trying amphetamines illegally once. He's out.

[TruffleShuffle]

I think you know that wasn't a good argument. The fact that one guy from the "likely to have used" category and "likely not to have used" category both got caught means that the categories are now populated with equally likely candidates?

 

can you define the group of people who are likely to not have used?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you know that wasn't a good argument. The fact that one guy from the "likely to have used" category and "likely not to have used" category both got caught means that the categories are now populated with equally likely candidates?

 

can you define the group of people who are likely to not have used?

 

Non-baseball players? I should have said "more likely to have used" and "likely to have used."

 

Players who are known cheaters, players who have unusual career paths, players who have spikes in power that coincide right with when PEDs got good enough to break the balance, players who have exceptionally good bodies, they all go in the "more likely" category.