fromthestretch

Not to mention better technology. Hitters now have practically unlimited access to video of pitchers they are going to face.

IT's definitely interesting, but something has to be said for the two different eras. The first timeframe coincided with the low scoring 80's and early 90's, the second occurred during the high flying mid to late 90's. His peak OPS+ years were at 27 (158) and 34 (169 - in just 475 PA). Then he had a 156 at 37, in 1997. His average OPS+ in those last 9 years was 135, while in the previous 9 years it was 129. His overall numbers spiked late in his career, but in relation to the league, they were close to the same. Those are good points. One thing that I think you an infer from this is that great hitters make adjustments as they get older.

That's no doubt got to do with wisdom moreso than any type of steroids for him: http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/apmegasports/200701091710618255958-pf.widec.jpg hehe :-) C'mon. Everyone knows that eating a steady diet of Twinkies improves your hitting.

This would have been a lot easier if baseball-reference.com allowed people to easily export into Excel. Through the end of the '98 season, he was averaging: .290/.411./556 and 32 homers per season Since '98: .320/.508/.729 and 40 homers per season The popular theory is that he started taking steroids after the 1998 season. If that is true, then he didn't really start reaping the benefits until 2001. His 1999 and 2000 seasons weren't anything above and beyond what he had done before in his career. His 49 home runs in 2000 may have been a career high, but it was only three more than his previous career high set in 1993. Also, his 2000 OPS was lower than his 1993 OPS. Those are some serious gains at an than peak older age. I wonder if he always took amphetemines the whole time? His Godfather definately could show him the way. Here's an interesting comparison. Tony Gwynn from 1982-1992 (ages 22-32): Averaged .327/.381/.433 per season Tony Gwynn from 1993-2001 (ages 33-41): Averaged .356/.400/.500 per season Those are also some serious gains, especially in AVG and SLG

This would have been a lot easier if baseball-reference.com allowed people to easily export into Excel. Through the end of the '98 season, he was averaging: .290/.411./556 and 32 homers per season Since '98: .320/.508/.729 and 40 homers per season The popular theory is that he started taking steroids after the 1998 season. If that is true, then he didn't really start reaping the benefits until 2001. His 1999 and 2000 seasons weren't anything above and beyond what he had done before in his career. His 49 home runs in 2000 may have been a career high, but it was only three more than his previous career high set in 1993. Also, his 2000 OPS was lower than his 1993 OPS.

You get a free pass with the first test failure in MLB. for all drugs or just greenies? According to SI.com:

If steroids truly do make you a better player, I'd hate to see how bad Ryan Franklin would be without them.

Seriously? Career .276/.340/.447/.787, 112 OPS+ doesn't exactly scream baseball legend to me, even accounting for his position. Did you know his career fielding percentage was higher than Ozzie Smith's? Speaking of fielding percentages, I was just looking at Omar Vizquel's stats. If Ozzie Smith is in the hall of fame then so should Vizquel. Omar's lifetime fielding percentage is .6 higher than Ozzie's. He's already got more hits than Smith ever had, and his lifetime .BA is 14 points higher. Not to take anything away from Vizquel since he is great defensively, he doesn't have quite the range that Ozzie did. And if you want to compare fielding percentages, the league average fielding percentage during Ozzie's career was .006 points lower than it has been during Vizquel's career, which oddly enough is the same as the difference in their respective fielding percentages.

I'm quite certain the Veterans Committee can't either. If they could, I'm sure Shoeless Joe would be in by now. That's odd. I could have sworn that changed in 2005.

Problem is, the punishment for betting on baseball - lifetime banishment -was clearly defined when Rose got caught. To my knowledge, Baseball Writers Association of America members are not allowed to consider anyone that has been banned when they are casting their votes. However, the Veterans Committee can. Players are not banned from baseball for using steroids, unless they are caught three times. Bonds hasn't officially tested positive. I think that does get talked about here...just not much by the mainstream media. Right now with McGwire, Sammy, and many others, it's just pure speculation. I'm sure many of us could come up with a decent list of players that we suspect took steroids, but obviously, no one has any proof.

That's due more to the fact that he doesn't go deep into games. He's made at least 31 starts in three of the last four years.

That can't be accurate. Scott Downs won four games for the Cubs in 2000, and he was originally drafted and signed by the Cubs. Mind you, he was traded to the Twins and then back to the Cubs before he ever made his major league debut. Most of his minor league experience was as a Cub prior to his debut. That being said, the Cubs haven't exactly had a ton of great seasons from lefties throughout history. That includes pitching (especially relief pitching) and hitting.

There are plenty of guys in the Hall of Fame that aren't pure.

And if they get caught, they should be punished by law (which isn't much to begin with), not by baseball, unless baseball specifically has rules or even guidelines for penalizing players for this type of action. You can argue that it may hurt the player's integrity or character, which are both taken into consideration when voting for the Hall of Fame. Those are things left up to the individual voter. But right now, baseball has a rule that says if you get caught once, you are suspended 50 games. It does not say that if you are caught once that you are not eligible for the Hall of Fame. Let's say that Player A is 30 years old and is on pace for a Hall of Fame-type career. He then gets busted using steroids and is suspended 50 games. He comes back, never tests positive again, and finishes his career with elite numbers. Are you (this question is posed to anyone, not just Amazing_Grace) going to hold him out of the Hall of Fame, essentially penalizing him twice for the same "crime?" I only ask because people are saying they don't want certain players in the HoF simply because they ALLEGEDLY took steroids, when there is no proof they actually did.

What about players that took amphetamines, or pitchers who threw spitballs or scuffed up baseballs? There are plenty of those in the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that certain people took steroids and penalize them without any proof. As someone mentioned, it's not just the power hitters that are taking steroids. Over half the guys caught at the major AND minor league levels since the beginning of the 2005 season have been pitchers. A lot of the hitters that have tested positive are guys like Matt Lawton and Alex Sanchez, players that no one would have suspected. Until it's proven that a player took anything illegal, there's no justification for excluding them from the Hall of Fame, assuming their performance warrants consideration. I could just as easily make the assumption that Ripken was able to play 2,600+ consecutive games because he used amphetamines to give him the energy to keep playing everyday, but without proof, it's pure speculation.

Buhner at least had a career OPS of .853 and 310 homers. While he certainly isn't a Hall of Famer, the fact that he got a vote is not nearly as bad as when Jim Deshaies and his career ERA+ of 91 got a vote his first year on the ballot. Of course, Deshaies jokingly campaigned for the vote, but still.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there recent regulations about which types of bats can be used in high school and college play? I thought that bats that only allowed a maximum batted ball speed of x mph (only using "x" because I have no idea what the exact number is) could be used. People have brought up valid points that: 1. It's easier to get a hit off the handle or the end of the bat when using aluminum, since the bat doesn't typically break. 2. The fact that it's easier to get a hit off the handle does tend to cause pitchers at that level to throw inside less often for strikes. 3. The cost of switching to wood bats at the high school level would be very high. If they did want to do something like this, they'd be better off using some type of composite bat that won't break as easily. I pitched in high school (years ago), and I had a few line drives come back at me faster than I would have liked (I also witnessed a few kids get hit in the head by linedrives that came right back at them). I've also played the past five years in an amateur wood bat league, against a mix of players with high school, college, and even minor league experience. I can tell you that I'm much more comfortable pitching to those guys with wood bats than I was pitching in high school against 14-18 year olds with aluminum bats. Somewhat related, one thing that always shocked me when I was working in college athletics was the number of college pitchers I knew that openly admitted to not wearing a cup when they pitched because it was uncomfortable. I'd gladly take the lack of comfort from the cup than the excruciating pain of getting hit in stones by a screaming liner. From a hitting perspective, swinging a wood bat takes some getting used to. The weight distribution is a bit different. If you've only used aluminum all your life, you can get into some bad habits with your swing. As Tim alluded to earlier, you have to do a better job of keeping your hands in. One thing that I've seen a lot of college coaches do is have their teams use wood bats during fall practices and scrimmages.

I believe that back in the day, they were more liberal with scoring certain things as sacrifices, such as a grounder to the right side to move a runner from second to third. Also, I believe that sac flies and sac hits/bunts were totalled together, not separately as they are today.

He actually started a game at second base for the Red Sox back in 2004.

Looking at his stats, even in most of his "down" years, he was still above average.

In a long list of "wastes of talent". Brien Taylor, T. Van Poppell, Toe Nash, Josh Hamilton, etc, etc. While Van Poppel may not have lived up to the hype, it's not fair to lump him in with those other three. He pitched in the majors for 11 seasons, and while his career numbers aren't impressive, he did manage a couple of decent seasons with the Cubs. The other three haven't even come close to what he accomplished.

Which clearly means we're winning the World Series, because, as we all know, chemistry begets winning, not the other way around, as some of you "statisticians" and "scientists" and "sabermetricians" who always insist on "empirical evidence" and "observable behavior" and "causal relationships" and all that other crap keep claiming. DISCLAIMER: please don't interpret this as as invitation to argue chemistry again. His VORF* is now +2.7 * = Value Over Replacement Father From the comments in a post on Fire Joe Morgan:

I don't see how they could start the year with him. Starters: Zambrano Lilly Hill Marquis Miller Prior Relievers: Dempster Wood Howry Eyre Ohman Wuertz Cotts Novoa Even without Marshall, the Cubs have a ton of arms. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Marshall has options left. If both Prior and Miller are not healthy on opening day, Marshall could start out the season as the "fifth" starter. Otherwise, I don't see how he fits right now. Everyone so far has listed Ohman, Cotts, and Eyre in the pen to start the season. Why on earth do we need 3 lefties? One of those guys should go, or else you'll end up letting at least one of those guys rot on the bench. I agree that one of them should be dealt. Novoa really has no spot on this team either. However, with all of those guys currently still with the Cubs, there's really no spot for Marshall at this time. Even if you do get rid of one of the bullpen lefties and Novoa, there are still six relievers there (and I didn't even include the other young pitchers who possibly could be fighting for a spot: Rapada, Marmol, Mateo, Ryu). Even if they want to carry seven relievers, I imagine the Cubs would rather have Marshall starting once every five days at Iowa instead of using him as the last guy out of the bullpen. He's obviously not going to take Zambrano's spot, and Lilly and Marquis' contracts pretty much ensure that they'll be in the rotation. Just going by last season, Hill has earned a spot ahead of Marshall. That leaves Prior and Miller. If either of those guys are healthy, they'll be given a chance before Marshall will.

I don't see how they could start the year with him. Starters: Zambrano Lilly Hill Marquis Miller Prior Relievers: Dempster Wood Howry Eyre Ohman Wuertz Cotts Novoa Even without Marshall, the Cubs have a ton of arms. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Marshall has options left. If both Prior and Miller are not healthy on opening day, Marshall could start out the season as the "fifth" starter. Otherwise, I don't see how he fits right now.

They most likely aren't looking to do anything to any player who used, except use them as leverage against companies like BALCO. Right now, the primary crime they want to charge Bonds with is perjury.