Ryan Braun suspended for rest of 2013

[Sammy Sofa]

We know McGwire took them early in his career. I think only hit the high number he did because of them. You know, like everyone else who hit that many.

 

So then you have a theory as to how many more he hit because of them? Outside of his one crazy season, bonds managed to tack on about 7-10 from his best pre-usage power seasons, and he was one of the greatest hitters of all time. Shaving off about 10 home runs from each of McGwire's big power/full/full-ish/around 100 games played seasons still has him around 450 home runs for his career. You're really saying that the guy hit most of the home runs in his career simply because of PEDs?

[Sammy Sofa]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

How do you know he "got 200 homers due to PED's?"

[mul21]

Hank Aaron thinks PED abusers damaged the game. And so do the baseball writers. The veteran's committee will agree too. Most everyone but baseball forum posters think this.

 

You're on a very slippery slope when you're using examples of past players who almost certainly were using greenies like they were candy.

 

Greenies at the very least. PEDs as we know them have basically existed since WW2, and really took off in sports in the 60's. That people willfully act like PEDs outside of speed weren't around prior to the late 80's are just flat out wrong.

 

Yeah, but that whole old school baseball mentality that extra muscle would slow your swing/pitches down makes me think that it would be a much slower adaptation to use in baseball. You don't really hear about widespread use in football until the 70s, so even if that's late, I would think the 70s is about the earliest baseball would have seen any significant use.

[USSoccer]

What's funny is that I've been in my office listening to all sorts of illogical derp all day about all manner of things, and just when I said "welp, it isn't going to get any more ridiculous than that", BAM, this thread and Wilson just drop the mic on dumb.

 

You're wrong. PED's have been around for 70 years, all the Billy Crystal/Bob Costas fap-idols of baseball were at the least using an illegal substance in amphetamines, and Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball before he went all Ken Griffey Gigantism.

[USSoccer]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

How do you know he "got 200 homers due to PED's?"

 

Because BALCO used to put that on their labels.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hank Aaron thinks PED abusers damaged the game. And so do the baseball writers. The veteran's committee will agree too. Most everyone but baseball forum posters think this.

 

You're on a very slippery slope when you're using examples of past players who almost certainly were using greenies like they were candy.

 

Greenies at the very least. PEDs as we know them have basically existed since WW2, and really took off in sports in the 60's. That people willfully act like PEDs outside of speed weren't around prior to the late 80's are just flat out wrong.

 

Yeah, but that whole old school baseball mentality that extra muscle would slow your swing/pitches down makes me think that it would be a much slower adaptation to use in baseball. You don't really hear about widespread use in football until the 70s, so even if that's late, I would think the 70s is about the earliest baseball would have seen any significant use.

 

Again, you had people worldwide using them to be able to train harder and play through injuries and build strength without turning into a monster; that's the part that came later and that's what so many people assume is the hallmark of a PED-user. People can and could easily use them to build strength without turning into a juicehead.

[Guest]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

You are showing a profound misunderstanding of how comparisons work. Eras change and circumstances change. People took steroids for a while, the mound used to be higher, black and foreign players were not allowed to play for decades. Fortunately we can put those circumstances in context instead of making arbitrary distinctions on what makes a HOF player across all eras, and we're all better for it. I'd suggest joining with that movement.

[Guest]

PED's don't make you a once in a generation baseball talent

 

Tell that to Bonds who only became once in a generation after he took them. PED's made multiple once in a generation players (Bonds, Sosa, ARod). None of those guys would have been that good without them. Bonds and ARod were going to be clean HOFers, but we'll never know for sure.

 

Oh my.

 

This is delicious.

 

Bonds' line through 1998:

 

.290 .411 .556 .966

 

164 OPS+

 

411 HR

 

99.6 WAR

 

Yeah, I think we know for sure.

 

Also, there have been 22 players in the history of baseball with 250 HR and 250 SB in their careers. Bonds had those numbers after only nine seasons. There have been 8 players with 300-300. Bonds did that early in his 11th season. He's also the only player ever with 400-400 (did that in 1998) and the only one with 500-500 (which he likely would have reached without steroids).

[mul21]

We know McGwire took them early in his career. I think only hit the high number he did because of them. You know, like everyone else who hit that many.

 

So then you have a theory as to how many more he hit because of them? Outside of his one crazy season, bonds managed to tack on about 7-10 from his best pre-usage power seasons, and he was one of the greatest hitters of all time. Shaving off about 10 home runs from each of McGwire's big power/full/full-ish/around 100 games played seasons still has him around 450 home runs for his career. You're really saying that the guy hit most of the home runs in his career simply because of PEDs?

 

I don't think you can really use Bonds' HR totals as a baseline since he was getting pitched to about once every 4 or 5 PAs.

[Wilson A2000]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not.Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

How can you possibly put a number on this?

 

Statistical averages. You don't leap in your late 20's or early 30's like that.

[Clem Fandango]

PED's were more useful for players to maintain their ability into their later years rather than becoming juiced up home run hitting freaks. The majority of these players basically bought themselves 3-5 more years of playing time and got a nice contract out of it instead of naturally regressing to DFA fodder. And a lot of them didn't start putting up these numbers until after their prime. They cheated to stay in the game longer and make more money, not to become Babe Ruth.

[Wilson A2000]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

You are showing a profound misunderstanding of how comparisons work. Eras change and circumstances change. People took steroids for a while, the mound used to be higher, black and foreign players were not allowed to play for decades. Fortunately we can put those circumstances in context instead of making arbitrary distinctions on what makes a HOF player across all eras, and we're all better for it. I'd suggest joining with that movement.

 

If you get 500 and are clean you are most likely in, era or not. 600 no doubt. Bad argument.

[Guest]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not.Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

How can you possibly put a number on this?

 

Statistical averages. You don't leap in your late 20's or early 30's like that.

 

So you mean like if a guy put up a HR total that was one off his career high at age 35 and then set a new career high at age 37? Or had his two best OBP, SLG and OPS seasons at ages 37 and 39 (and best OPS+ at 37)? Or had his best four AB/HR ratios at ages 39, 37, 35 and 38?

 

Because Hank Aaron did all of those things.

Edited July 24, 2013 by soccer10k

[Sammy Sofa]

We know McGwire took them early in his career. I think only hit the high number he did because of them. You know, like everyone else who hit that many.

 

So then you have a theory as to how many more he hit because of them? Outside of his one crazy season, bonds managed to tack on about 7-10 from his best pre-usage power seasons, and he was one of the greatest hitters of all time. Shaving off about 10 home runs from each of McGwire's big power/full/full-ish/around 100 games played seasons still has him around 450 home runs for his career. You're really saying that the guy hit most of the home runs in his career simply because of PEDs?

 

I don't think you can really use Bonds' HR totals as a baseline since he was getting pitched to about once every 4 or 5 PAs.

 

You're right (though he routinely lead the league in IBB for almost a decade straight through 1998, though those totals were obviously a lot lower). It's also not fair/accurate to shift over those kind of numbers from a hitter like Bonds to a much more (relatively) flawed hitter like McGwire, which is why I at least took the "max" 10 off for him for at least 13 seasons.

 

I mean, the whole thing is an exercise in hypotheticals and subjectivity; I just think the idea that McGwire had like 100+ (or even around 150) HR that were "helped" out over his career is a LOT more realistic than just saying most of his numbers were based on PED use. That guy was a HR beast from the day he started playing baseball.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

You are showing a profound misunderstanding of how comparisons work. Eras change and circumstances change. People took steroids for a while, the mound used to be higher, black and foreign players were not allowed to play for decades. Fortunately we can put those circumstances in context instead of making arbitrary distinctions on what makes a HOF player across all eras, and we're all better for it. I'd suggest joining with that movement.

 

If you get 500 and are clean you are most likely in, era or not. 600 no doubt. Bad argument.

 

YOU YOURSELF ARE EXPRESSING DOUBT AND SOSA IS NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME.

[Wilson A2000]

PED's were more useful for players to maintain their ability into their later years rather than becoming juiced up home run hitting freaks. The majority of these players basically bought themselves 3-5 more years of playing time and got a nice contract out of it instead of naturally regressing to DFA fodder. And a lot of them didn't start putting up these numbers until after their prime. They cheated to stay in the game longer and make more money, not to become Babe Ruth.

 

And Bonds's last 3-5 were his best weren't they? This wasn't just about longevity. He had his best years or at least close to it at the end. This wasn't about extending his career while putting up similar or slightly worse numbers. He had all time years.

[jersey cubs fan]

not worth it people

[Cubswin11]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not.Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

How can you possibly put a number on this?

 

Statistical averages. You don't leap in your late 20's or early 30's like that.

You should look at Hank Aaron's numbers then and stop promoting him as a clean guy under that logic

 

Edit: Soccer beat me to it

[Wilson A2000]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

You are showing a profound misunderstanding of how comparisons work. Eras change and circumstances change. People took steroids for a while, the mound used to be higher, black and foreign players were not allowed to play for decades. Fortunately we can put those circumstances in context instead of making arbitrary distinctions on what makes a HOF player across all eras, and we're all better for it. I'd suggest joining with that movement.

 

If you get 500 and are clean you are most likely in, era or not. 600 no doubt. Bad argument.

 

YOU YOURSELF ARE EXPRESSING DOUBT AND SOSA IS NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME.

 

Because he was dirty. He doesn't get 500 clean, let alone 600.

[USSoccer]

PED's were more useful for players to maintain their ability into their later years rather than becoming juiced up home run hitting freaks. The majority of these players basically bought themselves 3-5 more years of playing time and got a nice contract out of it instead of naturally regressing to DFA fodder. And a lot of them didn't start putting up these numbers until after their prime. They cheated to stay in the game longer and make more money, not to become Babe Ruth.

 

And Bonds's last 3-5 were his best weren't they? This wasn't just about longevity. He had his best years or at least close to it at the end. This wasn't about extending his career while putting up similar or slightly worse numbers. He had all time years.

 

What is your point? How does that refute anything that anyone is saying about his pre-1998 seasons?

[Tracer Bullet]

not worth it people

 

Yes it is. Angry Tiger is clawing at the surface. I'm excited.

 

Keep going Wilson.

[Wilson A2000]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not.Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

How can you possibly put a number on this?

 

Statistical averages. You don't leap in your late 20's or early 30's like that.

 

So you mean like if a guy put up a HR total that was one off his career high at age 35 and then set a new career high at age 37? Or had his two best OBP, SLG and OPS seasons at ages 37 and 39 (and best OPS+ at 37)? Or had his best four AB/HR ratios at ages 39, 37, 35 and 38?

 

Because Hank Aaron did all of those things.

 

What were Bonds's HR's per at bat from before 1998 and after? I would like to see that against what Aaron's were from the years before his late life surge to after it.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Wilson A2000

[Sammy Sofa]

PED's were more useful for players to maintain their ability into their later years rather than becoming juiced up home run hitting freaks. The majority of these players basically bought themselves 3-5 more years of playing time and got a nice contract out of it instead of naturally regressing to DFA fodder. And a lot of them didn't start putting up these numbers until after their prime. They cheated to stay in the game longer and make more money, not to become Babe Ruth.

 

And Bonds's last 3-5 were his best weren't they? This wasn't just about longevity. He had his best years or at least close to it at the end. This wasn't about extending his career while putting up similar or slightly worse numbers. He had all time years.

 

Yes, he had his best seasons post-1998: 11.9 WAR in 2009, 11.8 in 2002 and 10.6 in 2004. But he still had amazing years prior to 1999: 8.0, 9.7, 7.9, 9.0, 9.9, 7.5, 9.7, 8.1, 8.1.

 

Nobody is arguing that that he didn't benefit from using; the issue is with your idea is that he wasn't a fantastic player before he was using. You subtract his entire career from 199 onward and he is still a phenomenal "once in a generation" talent.

[Wilson A2000]

I said he was HOF. I just don't know about once in a generation for Bonds.

[Guest]

Based on Sosa's numbers, if he was clean there is no way a 600+ home run guy is not getting in Cooperstown relatively low WAR or not. Sosa got 200 homers due to PED's and he's wasn't going to have HOF numbers without them.

 

You are showing a profound misunderstanding of how comparisons work. Eras change and circumstances change. People took steroids for a while, the mound used to be higher, black and foreign players were not allowed to play for decades. Fortunately we can put those circumstances in context instead of making arbitrary distinctions on what makes a HOF player across all eras, and we're all better for it. I'd suggest joining with that movement.

 

If you get 500 and are clean you are most likely in, era or not. 600 no doubt. Bad argument.

 

YOU YOURSELF ARE EXPRESSING DOUBT AND SOSA IS NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME.

 

Because he was dirty. He doesn't get 500 clean, let alone 600.

 

So to sum up:

 

- Sosa is a once in a generation player because he hit 600 HR, and wouldn't have gotten to 600 HR without PEDs

 

- If you get to 600 HR you are in the HOF no doubt, regardless of whether you played in the PED era or not.

 

- Sosa isn't in the HOF because he did PEDs, and wouldn't have gotten to 600 HR without them.

 

This logic is bad, and you should feel bad.