Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers.

 

Testing is a joke across sports.

 

It's better than not trying at all, but if you are a multi-millionaire athlete and you can't beat the league's drug testing, you aren't trying.

[SouthSideRyan]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

Yet its strange that HR numbers went down sharply when they started to test for steroids.

 

Only not. The new policy was handed down in 2005, but the differences in the home run rates pre-2005 and post-2005 are not particularly telling of anything, especially if you think of steroids as having flourished in baseball starting in the mid-90s. To say the numbers have gone down sharply is incorrect.

 

Yeah I couldn't find the stats before I posted that. What has gone down though is the number of HRs the top HR hitters are hitting. Hitting 40 HRs was almost a prerequesite to be called a power hitter a few years back. Now you might win a HR title with 40 HRs.

 

That's happened once(Last year - Cabrera. Meanwhile the HR leaders hit 58 and 54 in '06 while testing was in place.)

[SouthSideRyan]

I want to repost O_O's link here so people will make sure to look at it.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

 

Look at the Runs/Game totals. Check out when the jump in runs/game happened. It was '93 to '94. Look at those roided up juicer years of 2001, '02, and '03. Don't get me started on the juicers of the 1930s, may they be burning in hell.

[OleMissCub]

Don't get me started on the juicers of the 1930s, may they be burning in hell.

 

haha, awesome

[Banedon]

I want to repost O_O's link here so people will make sure to look at it.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

 

Look at the Runs/Game totals. Check out when the jump in runs/game happened. It was '93 to '94. Look at those roided up juicer years of 2001, '02, and '03. Don't get me started on the juicers of the 1930s, may they be burning in hell.

 

Runs/Game for the entire league seems like a false way of judging that though. I mean from what we've heard, there were a number of pitchers juicing too....shouldn't they be balancing out the juiced up hitters?

[OleMissCub]

that little scumbag Mel Ott.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Runs/Game for the entire league seems like a false way of judging that though. I mean from what we've heard, there were a number of pitchers juicing too....shouldn't they be balancing out the juiced up hitters?

 

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did.

[Banedon]

Runs/Game for the entire league seems like a false way of judging that though. I mean from what we've heard, there were a number of pitchers juicing too....shouldn't they be balancing out the juiced up hitters?

 

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did.

 

Even if we ignore that then, shouldn't the pattern of increased runs be more gradual? Surely the whole league didn't start juicing at the same time. Yet over a 2 year span (1992-1994), we have nearly a full run per game increase. The more natural pattern would seem to be a slow ramp up as more and more players started using.

 

I'm obviously not saying that there's not a PED problem...I'm just not sure that Runs/Game is an especially great measure.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm obviously not saying that there's not a PED problem...I'm just not sure that Runs/Game is an especially great measure.

 

On that point, I definitely agree with you.

 

I think parks and expansion are a good place to look when considering 1993.

[Soul]

I can't believe Sosa lied to me, man.

 

Sosa lied, my Cubbie faith died.

[fromthestretch]

Runs/Game for the entire league seems like a false way of judging that though. I mean from what we've heard, there were a number of pitchers juicing too....shouldn't they be balancing out the juiced up hitters?

 

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did.

 

I doubt it's a perfect balance, but pitchers would seem to benefit greatly from the use of steroids, considering how useful steroids are when it comes to muscle recovery. A relief pitcher on steroids throwing on three consecutive nights is probably going to suffer less of a drop-off in his stuff on that third night as opposed to a "clean" relief pitcher. A starting pitcher on steroids coming off a 120-pitch effort in his last outing might come back stronger in his next couple starts than he would if he wasn't on something.

[jersey cubs fan]

Runs/Game for the entire league seems like a false way of judging that though. I mean from what we've heard, there were a number of pitchers juicing too....shouldn't they be balancing out the juiced up hitters?

 

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did.

 

I doubt it's a perfect balance, but pitchers would seem to benefit greatly from the use of steroids, considering how useful steroids are when it comes to muscle recovery. A relief pitcher on steroids throwing on three consecutive nights is probably going to suffer less of a drop-off in his stuff on that third night as opposed to a "clean" relief pitcher. A starting pitcher on steroids coming off a 120-pitch effort in his last outing might come back stronger in his next couple starts than he would if he wasn't on something.

 

Pitchers are more likely to benefit from the ability to bounce back, recover from injury or avoid injury. They aren't that likely to be that much better of a pitcher. Steroids won't help get movement on a fastball or break on a slider. They might help throw harder, but the ability to throw hard isn't necessarily a strength thing. Hitters definitely benefit from swinging harder. So steroids might prevent teams from having to use their weaker replacement arms as often, but expansion played a part in negating that benefit.

[fromthestretch]

Runs/Game for the entire league seems like a false way of judging that though. I mean from what we've heard, there were a number of pitchers juicing too....shouldn't they be balancing out the juiced up hitters?

 

I don't see why PEDs would effect the performances of two completely different types of athletes in ways that perfectly balance out. In fact, I'd be shocked if they did.

 

I doubt it's a perfect balance, but pitchers would seem to benefit greatly from the use of steroids, considering how useful steroids are when it comes to muscle recovery. A relief pitcher on steroids throwing on three consecutive nights is probably going to suffer less of a drop-off in his stuff on that third night as opposed to a "clean" relief pitcher. A starting pitcher on steroids coming off a 120-pitch effort in his last outing might come back stronger in his next couple starts than he would if he wasn't on something.

 

Pitchers are more likely to benefit from the ability to bounce back, recover from injury or avoid injury. They aren't that likely to be that much better of a pitcher. Steroids won't help get movement on a fastball or break on a slider. They might help throw harder, but the ability to throw hard isn't necessarily a strength thing. Hitters definitely benefit from swinging harder. So steroids might prevent teams from having to use their weaker replacement arms as often, but expansion played a part in negating that benefit.

 

I agree with that, and I feel that it's a big benefit. If a team can use its best relievers more often and still get their best stuff, that's big. We know that steroids aren't going to turn Patton into Marmol. But they could help Marmol have at or near his best stuff in his third or fourth consecutive appearance.*

 

*I'm not implying that Marmol uses.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Currently playing future HOF hitters that likely never used steroids IMO are Griffey, Thome, and possibly Pujols (Chipper Jones would likely be next on the list and maybe Ichiro if he keeps going).

 

Why?

 

I have some reservations about Pujols being clean but, if he was one of the 104 names, it would've been leaked.

 

And why?

 

Why do I think they never used steroids?

 

Their progression and body type never really changed, especially with Griffey and Thome, they both gained more mass throughout the years, but it was never muscle. Also, they never had jump in HRs after they established themselves.

 

As far as Pujols, there's still part of me that wonders how can he be so overlooked despite having played in front of all those scouts that they could misevaluate a bat that in 3 years would become the great rookie season bat of the greatest hitter since probably Ted Williams. His body isn't the same as it was JUCO as well.

I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers.

 

I'm not saying that Pujols used, but the not being caught by a test isn't always conclusive. Until this year, Manny had never been caught, but the test finally got him. While Pujols may not be a user, it also may be that he's been able to cycle off in anticipation of the tests.

[dew1679666265]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

Yet its strange that HR numbers went down sharply when they started to test for steroids.

 

Only not. The new policy was handed down in 2005, but the differences in the home run rates pre-2005 and post-2005 are not particularly telling of anything, especially if you think of steroids as having flourished in baseball starting in the mid-90s. To say the numbers have gone down sharply is incorrect.

 

Yeah I couldn't find the stats before I posted that. What has gone down though is the number of HRs the top HR hitters are hitting. Hitting 40 HRs was almost a prerequesite to be called a power hitter a few years back. Now you might win a HR title with 40 HRs.

 

That's happened once(Last year - Cabrera. Meanwhile the HR leaders hit 58 and 54 in '06 while testing was in place.)

 

Last year was the only year that the home run leader didn't have 50+ home runs since 2005. And last year's leader was Ryan Howard at 48.

 

The previous four years (2002-2005) actually had two seasons of league leaders in home runs hit less than 50. ARod and Thome (47) in 03 and Adrian Beltre (48) in 04.

[SouthSideRyan]

I used R/G because the issue people keep bringing up is bat speed. Bat speed helps you get all kinds of hits in addition to drawing walks.

[Derwood]

why is Babe Ruth never under any suspicion when he showed up and started out-homering entire teams?

[Soul]

Because beer guts have their advantages.

[SouthSideRyan]

Babe Ruth did it with hot dogs, domestic abuse, and segregation.

 

And corked bats.

[OleMissCub]

why is Babe Ruth never under any suspicion when he showed up and started out-homering entire teams?

 

Well, he only out homered entire teams in 1921 when the small ballers still hadn't adapted to the new live ball, but aside from him being an amazing talent, he was on a plain by himself because among other things:

 

a) he developed a power swing because as a pitcher for all those years he wasn't expected to do too much with the bat, so he was able to swing for the fences as he pleased.

 

b) they switched to a livelier ball in 1920, so a guy with an uber-power swing was naturally going to hit more HR's and the guys who were small ball hitters (the entire rest of the league) also saw enormous success in their own way, including more homers for them too.

 

Check out the AL league numbers from 1919-1922

 

1919: .268 avg, 240 total HR in the league

1920 (first year of new ball): .283 avg, 369 HR

1921: .292 avg, 477 HR

1922: .285 avg, 525 HR

 

c) Even though the live ball was causing more homers for everyone, most players in the early 20's were still playing in a small-ball mentality, so they weren't even trying to swing for the fences yet. But you did start to see more guys hit the long ball once Ruth started doing it:

 

In 1919, your top 5 individual HR totals were 29 (Ruth), 10, 10, 10, 9

1920: 54, 19, 17, 14, 12

1921: 59, 24, 24, 23, 19

1922: 39, 37, 35, 21, 21

[Roast]

I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread yet.

 

Now I have.

[UK1679666180]

Currently playing future HOF hitters that likely never used steroids IMO are Griffey, Thome, and possibly Pujols (Chipper Jones would likely be next on the list and maybe Ichiro if he keeps going).

 

Why?

 

I have some reservations about Pujols being clean but, if he was one of the 104 names, it would've been leaked.

 

And why?

 

Why do I think they never used steroids?

 

Their progression and body type never really changed, especially with Griffey and Thome, they both gained more mass throughout the years, but it was never muscle. Also, they never had jump in HRs after they established themselves.

 

As far as Pujols, there's still part of me that wonders how can he be so overlooked despite having played in front of all those scouts that they could misevaluate a bat that in 3 years would become the great rookie season bat of the greatest hitter since probably Ted Williams. His body isn't the same as it was JUCO as well.

I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers.

 

Actually I said Pujols was likely one of the clean ones, but of those 3-4 (Griffey, Thome, Jones, Pujols) he would be the least surprising among that 4 given those reasons. Strasburg wasn't the same pitcher, it's easy why he was passed up coming out of HS given that he was topping at 88 and it's much common with pitchers adding velo than hitters going from marginal draft picks (rds. 10-25) to the best in baseball in that same timeframe.

[XZero771679666304]

why is Babe Ruth never under any suspicion when he showed up and started out-homering entire teams?

 

Well, he only out homered entire teams in 1921 when the small ballers still hadn't adapted to the new live ball, but aside from him being an amazing talent, he was on a plain by himself because among other things:

 

a) he developed a power swing because as a pitcher for all those years he wasn't expected to do too much with the bat, so he was able to swing for the fences as he pleased.

 

b) they switched to a livelier ball in 1920, so a guy with an uber-power swing was naturally going to hit more HR's and the guys who were small ball hitters (the entire rest of the league) also saw enormous success in their own way, including more homers for them too.

 

Check out the AL league numbers from 1919-1922

 

1919: .268 avg, 240 total HR in the league

1920 (first year of new ball): .283 avg, 369 HR

1921: .292 avg, 477 HR

1922: .285 avg, 525 HR

 

c) Even though the live ball was causing more homers for everyone, most players in the early 20's were still playing in a small-ball mentality, so they weren't even trying to swing for the fences yet. But you did start to see more guys hit the long ball once Ruth started doing it:

 

In 1919, your top 5 individual HR totals were 29 (Ruth), 10, 10, 10, 9

1920: 54, 19, 17, 14, 12

1921: 59, 24, 24, 23, 19

1922: 39, 37, 35, 21, 21

 

We've debated this before, but there was far less parity in the game pre-1950's, and that is largely because the compared to the modern era, the talent pool was as shallow as the kiddie pool. Those great talents were great, but they only stood so much taller than the competition because the competition wasn't all that great.

 

No blacks, no Asians, no Latin players = less parity among individual players. Can you even imagine how much less exciting today's game would be with only whites?

 

We can romanticize all we want, but if anyone thinks borderline hedonist Ruth would hit 700+ homers in today's game (at least in the condition he was in then), they're crazy. Players then didn't have the facilities/nutrition/sports medicine they have today, but that hardly evens out the advantage of being big fish in a small pond. And when you can eat, drink smoke, gamble and screw all night and still be easily the best player in the game, it demonstrates how relatively little you had to work to be the best. Great players today require enormous dedication to maintain their superstar status, and average players require even more just to stay in the game.

 

If we are going to argue the legitimacy of the records of players who may or may not have used PEDs, you can argue the legitimacy of numbers posted by guys who didn't compete against players of nearly the same average talent level. Wondering if a guy who posted certain numbers could post them against a much higher level of competition is not too far removed from wonder what kind of numbers a guy would have put up w/o PED's.

 

Ultimately I think that arguments trying to categorize one era or another as being more "legitimate" are only sophistries, since the variables are always changing. The advantages, the nature of the advantages, the degree of the advantages, etc. are always in a state of flux.

 

All I am trying to say is that people who want to demonize guys like Bonds, Clemens and Sosa and toss out names like Ruth, Cobb and Walter Johnson (or Aaron, Mays and Josh Gibson) as paragons need to take a closer look at things.

Edited June 19, 2009 by XZero77

[XZero771679666304]

I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers.

 

Testing is a joke across sports.

 

It's better than not trying at all, but if you are a multi-millionaire athlete and you can't beat the league's drug testing, you aren't trying.

 

This. If at least 2/3 the guys in the NFL aren't totally juiced, I'd be utterly shocked, and no one seems to test positive (and even when someone does, no one cares).

 

Players are gaining their advantages where they can, because it's the nature of sport, like it or not.

 

The question is that even if we as fans could stop it, would we? People can feign indignation all they want, but as sports have evolved, the competition has gotten better, the players bigger, quicker and faster, and the games more exciting.

 

For right or wrong, I don't think most sports fans would.

[OleMissCub]

Can you even imagine how much less exciting today's game would be with only whites?

 

Save for a few players, just watch ESPN2 this past week.