Greenies vs. Steroids

[Dasperp]

For all the extremely anti-steroid people on this board, how is it any different than the widespread use of greenies over the past 50 years? I am very happy that both are now tested for, but i don't think it's right to use steroids as an excuse to invalidate records and keep people out of the hall of fame when many of the record-holders used Amphetamines.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

For all the extremely anti-steroid people on this board, how is it any different than the widespread use of greenies over the past 50 years? I am very happy that both are now tested for, but i don't think it's right to use steroids as an excuse to invalidate records and keep people out of the hall of fame when many of the record-holders used Amphetamines.


This one again. If I were fooish enough and had no worry about possible damage to my body from long term use why not use the big one steroids.

I could use greenies that give one a quick shot in arm, increase alertness although not proven. They stimulate the central nervous system, can cause insomnia, cause irritability, loss of appetite, weight loss in some cases, bring on euphoria that can be followed by fatigue.

Or I could go to steroids, that shorten the recovery time from workouts and injuries, build skeletal muscle, increase all over muscle mass, increase body weight and overall strength.

Greenies in no way are the overall equal of steroids, you can look that up. This is the choice today, track stars, body builders, football and baseball players.

Both are terrible and I'm not saying that greenie use over the years was fine. Lets stop downplaying steroid use in todays game because the was trhe use of greenies over the years.

[rockin500]

the point is that if you have problem with one, you MUST have a problem with the other. otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

the point is that if you have problem with one, you MUST have a problem with the other. otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

There is a problem with both, I agree. I just don't get it when some say, why just steroids what about greenie use. Both should have been banned long ago but don't go easy on steroids just because there was another problem years ago. Also it just so happens that steroids is in the news today, thats the big story.

[west coast orange and black]

SHOELESSJOE3: I could use greenies that give one a quick shot in arm... Or I could go to steroids...

Both are terrible...

not downplaying steroids at all, shoeless, but it can easily be argued that uppers, at the time, were the steroids of today. if steroids were around back when, would the players who used uppers have reached for steroids?

to list the benefits of uppers against steroids is not the issue.
of course steroids are more powerful in a variety of ways.

but players have used whatever has been available to them for a long long time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

SHOELESSJOE3: I could use greenies that give one a quick shot in arm... Or I could go to steroids...

Both are terrible...

not downplaying steroids at all, shoeless, but it can easily be argued that uppers, at the time, were the steroids of today. if steroids were around back when, would the players who used uppers have reached for steroids?

to list the benefits of uppers against steroids is not the issue.
of course steroids are more powerful in a variety of ways.

but players have used whatever has been available to them for a long long time.

I would think steroids if they were more readily available. I'm saying that today steroids is the one thats up front in the sports world, the topic of discussion. I haven't forgot about greenie use years ago, that was bad for the game just as I believe steroids to be bad.

Same old story back then, MLB and the commissioner not willing to address, take action with the greenie problem. Same thing with the steroids in todays game, they kept on the blinders until the lid blew off.

[Dasperp]

There is a problem with both, I agree. I just don't get it when some say, why just steroids what about greenie use. Both should have been banned long ago but don't go easy on steroids just because there was another problem years ago. Also it just so happens that steroids is in the news today, thats the big story.

That wasn't what i was saying. My problem is with all the hatred that's being directed towards Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro and the rest of the steroid users while the same people idolize guys who did the same kind of thing. The most common thing i'm seeing on the Bonds thread is people calling him a cheater and a disgrace to the game, when some of the most legendary figures in baseball's history cheated as well. Is Bonds worse because his cheating was more effective? As I said in the Bonds thread, when fame and fortune are at stake people are going to do whatever they can to get a leg up, and we shouldn't single out Bonds when so many have done it before.

[DoubleX]

Greenies give a short term boost (often followed by a low). Steroids create much longer lasting changes and basically change the composition of the body. From greenies I'm more aware and energetic for a few hours, with steroids my body is permanently stronger, and my fast-twich muscles and reflexes will permanently will permanent react faster until I stop doing steroids.

Greenies were cheating, but there is no way they can be equated to doing steroids. It's the difference between smoking marijuana and injecting heroin (except even that comparison is an understatement).

[2Chance]

I agree that greenies were also used surreptitiously by players hoping to 'get an edge.' Greenies, amphetamines, uppers, whatever you want to call them...were the equivalent of several cups of coffee in pill form.

Brett Butler used to drink about 15 cups of coffee during a game. I suppose he thought he was getting an edge over other players, too. Or he just liked coffee.
:coffee

Oh no, now I'm equating Barry Bonds with Brett Butler!:eek:
Anybody wanna debate taking Butler's bunt hits away from him? :rolleyes:

[johnny]

Greenies give a short term boost (often followed by a low). Steroids create much longer lasting changes and basically change the composition of the body. From greenies I'm more aware and energetic for a few hours, with steroids my body is permanently stronger, and my fast-twich muscles and reflexes will permanently will permanent react faster until I stop doing steroids.

Greenies were cheating, but there is no way they can be equated to doing steroids. It's the difference between smoking marijuana and injecting heroin (except even that comparison is an understatement).


aren't 'greenies' circa the 60's kind of like vivarin or a couple of jolt cola's?

[ESPNFan]

OK you want to know the difference between Amphetamines and Anabolics?

Ask yourself these simple questions:
Your a baseball player at the beginning of a season and your at the peak of your natural abilites. Do you take amphetamines to get an edge?

No.

Is there any evidence that Amphetimens improves performance beyond a players peak?

No

The baseball season is only 40 games long over the same length of time. Would more or less players be taking amphetamines?

Less

Amphetamies are take by ballplayers to cheifly in responce to being run down during the season. A few RedBulls or some guarana extract can solve that problem pretty quick and legally. Their longterm side effects significantly outweight any possible competitive benifit to a baseball player.

Anabolics are take for one reason only. To deliberately gain a competative advantage over your opponents. Its quantifiable and documented.

[lllllllllllllllllll]

This one again. If I were fooish enough and had no worry about possible damage to my body from long term use why not use the big one steroids.

I could use greenies that give one a quick shot in arm, increase alertness although not proven. They stimulate the central nervous system, can cause insomnia, cause irritability, loss of appetite, weight loss in some cases, bring on euphoria that can be followed by fatigue.

Or I could go to steroids, that shorten the recovery time from workouts and injuries, build skeletal muscle, increase all over muscle mass, increase body weight and overall strength.

Greenies in no way are the overall equal of steroids, you can look that up. This is the choice today, track stars, body builders, football and baseball players.

Both are terrible and I'm not saying that greenie use over the years was fine. Lets stop downplaying steroid use in todays game because the was trhe use of greenies over the years.


Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

Amphetamines do much more than " increase alertness ".

They help you perform better, especially in athletics or physical jobs.

I used to pop greenies before every hockey game, because of it I was more alert, faster, and rarely got fatigued. That's performance enhancement at it's highest order.

I dont know if they help more than steroids or not, I've never taken steroids so I dont know, but I sure as hell know amphetamines do MUCH more than " increase alertness ".

Why the hell do you think stargell and mays were taken them for ? LOL

You might want to read this article about amphetamines, to learn more about it's rampant use and it's benefits.

http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode/episode.01.story.html

[DoubleX]

Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

Amphetamines do much more than " increase alertness ".

They help you perform better, especially in athletics or physical jobs.

I used to pop greenies before every hockey game, because of it I was more alert, faster, and rarely got fatigued. That's performance enhancement at it's highest order.

I dont know if they help more than steroids or not, I've never taken steroids so I dont know, but I sure as hell know amphetamines do MUCH more than " increase alertness ".

Why the hell do you think stargell and mays were taken them for ? LOL

You might want to read this article about amphetamines, to learn more about it's rampant use and it's benefits.

http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode/episode.01.story.html

Is there really a need to call someone "incredibly ignorant?" Are you a scientific expert on the effect of greenies? You speak from your own experience with greenies, and I can tell you from my own experience with amphetamines that I found the effects to not be that dramatic at all. Each person is different, just because you used does not make you an expert, same as I'm not an expert based on my isolated experiences.

[Astro]

OK you want to know the difference between Amphetamines and Anabolics?

Ask yourself these simple questions:
Your a baseball player at the beginning of a season and your at the peak of your natural abilites. Do you take amphetamines to get an edge?

No.

Is there any evidence that Amphetimens improves performance beyond a players peak?

No

The baseball season is only 40 games long over the same length of time. Would more or less players be taking amphetamines?

Less

Amphetamies are take by ballplayers to cheifly in responce to being run down during the season. A few RedBulls or some guarana extract can solve that problem pretty quick and legally. Their longterm side effects significantly outweight any possible competitive benifit to a baseball player.

Anabolics are take for one reason only. To deliberately gain a competative advantage over your opponents. Its quantifiable and documented.
There is no proof that steroids help baseball players either... steroids can also hinder a ballplayer, if his muscle become too big they wont be able to move as quickly, pitch as accurately or remain energized as long

If you think anyone who took steroids' records should be erased, then anyone who took greenies, or did anything against the rules' should also be erased....

Who is to say one is worse than the other? It's a judgement call

[johnny]

I agree that greenies were also used surreptitiously by players hoping to 'get an edge.' Greenies, amphetamines, uppers, whatever you want to call them...were the equivalent of several cups of coffee in pill form.

Brett Butler used to drink about 15 cups of coffee during a game. I suppose he thought he was getting an edge over other players, too. Or he just liked coffee.
:coffee

Oh no, now I'm equating Barry Bonds with Brett Butler!:eek:
Anybody wanna debate taking Butler's bunt hits away from him? :rolleyes:
15 cups of coffee!!! man, now i know why we never saw him sitting on the bench between innings at dodger stadium.
:coffee :coffee :coffee :coffee :coffee :coffee :coffee

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

Amphetamines do much more than " increase alertness ".

They help you perform better, especially in athletics or physical jobs.

I used to pop greenies before every hockey game, because of it I was more alert, faster, and rarely got fatigued. That's performance enhancement at it's highest order.

I dont know if they help more than steroids or not, I've never taken steroids so I dont know, but I sure as hell know amphetamines do MUCH more than " increase alertness ".

Why the hell do you think stargell and mays were taken them for ? LOL

You might want to read this article about amphetamines, to learn more about it's rampant use and it's benefits.

http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode/episode.01.story.html

How do you know you were faster, did you have a way to time yourself. Do you think maybe you just thought you were faster.

As for your saying you were more alert and suffered less fatigue, I won't debate that, I stated the same in my post. The point in my post was that greenies and steroids are both bad for the game but steroids change ones physical build, make one stronger, greenies don't.

I'm not downplaying greenies, should have been banned long ago.

[Metal Ed]

I think a relevant question is when exactly did greenies become illegal? Regardless of the difference in effectiveness (obviously steroids are the better ergogenic aid), the questioner was asking what is the moral difference (not the performance difference) between the two.

With that in mind, I think that knowing exactly when amphetamines became illegal and exactly when they became banned by baseball, would be important to answering that question. Currently, amphetamines are illegal except when prescribed by a doctor. I know that Brooks Robinson likened them to a cup of coffee..... hmmmm. Coffee isn't in the same class of illegal drugs as cocaine (which amphetamines are). Lord knows I'd rather drink a cup of joe then injest a banned substance, so what gives Brooksie?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There is no proof that steroids help baseball players either... steroids can also hinder a ballplayer, if his muscle become too big they wont be able to move as quickly, pitch as accurately or remain energized as long

If you think anyone who took steroids' records should be erased, then anyone who took greenies, or did anything against the rules' should also be erased....

Who is to say one is worse than the other? It's a judgement call

I can't say for sure but it's reasonable to at least think a player adding more muscle mass to his body "might" benefit from steroids. I doubt it would hurt unless he went overboard with a great deal of added weight. I'm sure there are some players doing steroids who are no better than they were before steroids.

I don't think any records should be erased simply because we can't determine how much greenies or steroids added to a players numbers.

I'm not saying one is worse that the other, only saying my view is getting bigger and stronger on steroids would seem to benefit some players more so than greenies.

[Dasperp]

I'm not saying one is worse that the other, only saying my view is getting bigger and stronger on steroids would seem to benefit some players more so than greenies

I rhink steroids probably do help more than greenies, but are we really going to continue to absolutely kill Bonds because he cheated more effectively than other ballplayers? I'm guessing there's a sizable number of people on this board who don't want Bonds in the hall and don't think his records should count, and my point was that those people should be just as critical of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle.

[HogWash]

As en ex-steroid user myself, I know they don't provide the benefits many seem to think they do. They mostly are a placebo. Greenies I have no clue about. I heard they provide a coffee high.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Greenies give a short term boost (often followed by a low). Steroids create much longer lasting changes and basically change the composition of the body. From greenies I'm more aware and energetic for a few hours, with steroids my body is permanently stronger, and my fast-twich muscles and reflexes will permanently will permanent react faster until I stop doing steroids.

Greenies were cheating, but there is no way they can be equated to doing steroids. It's the difference between smoking marijuana and injecting heroin (except even that comparison is an understatement).

Well put. Apples and oranges in terms of their effect on a ballplayer. But, like many pointed out, both are cheating. Just different levels of it is all.

[ESPNFan]

Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

Amphetamines do much more than " increase alertness ".

They help you perform better, especially in athletics or physical jobs.

I used to pop greenies before every hockey game, because of it I was more alert, faster, and rarely got fatigued. That's performance enhancement at it's highest order.

I dont know if they help more than steroids or not, I've never taken steroids so I dont know, but I sure as hell know amphetamines do MUCH more than " increase alertness ".

Why the hell do you think stargell and mays were taken them for ? LOL

You might want to read this article about amphetamines, to learn more about it's rampant use and it's benefits.

http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode/episode.01.story.html

What kind of amphetamines did you take and how many?

[ESPNFan]

As en ex-steroid user myself, I know they don't provide the benefits many seem to think they do. They mostly are a placebo. Greenies I have no clue about. I heard they provide a coffee high.

Mind telling us what Steroid program you were on?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There is no proof that steroids help baseball players either... steroids can also hinder a ballplayer, if his muscle become too big they wont be able to move as quickly, pitch as accurately or remain energized as long


This, IMO, is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Gets brought up quite a bit by people defending Bonds. Look at Bonds' swing sometime and show us where he is "hindered." Come on. It's a short, compact, quick action that starts with the hips, torso, and shoulder. Has nothing to do with being "hindered." Just rediculous.

Throwing strength would be affected if a player bulked up like Bonds, which his has. His arm went from average and accurate, to below average and accurate becuase of flexibility issues. Which is the reason why pitchers don't bulk on when they take steroids. A players workout program, type of steroid, and the amount of steroid will reflect their goals on the field. Plain and simple.

The energy comment is false as well. Not only does HGH and all the others give you stronger muscles with more stamina, but increased energy and focus as well.

[ESPNFan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2289509&type=story

""Yet for every player who comes to rely on stimulants and develop a dependence on them, there's a corresponding skeptic. Bouton once ingested a "little red heart" to get up for a game and found the experience so unpleasant that he never did it again.

"I was wired, jittery and jumpy," Bouton said. "I hated it. I don't think I pitched well at all. I was so up for the game already, I didn't need any stimulants. I was overstimulated."

Houston Astros manager Phil Garner, who played 16 seasons in the majors, briefly tried Dexedrine, a stimulant prescribed for narcolepsy and attention deficit disorder. He took one five milligram tablet before each game as a pick-me-up, but soon found that it disrupted his sleeping and eating patterns and was generally counterproductive.

"It becomes a psychological addiction and a crutch," Garner said. "Some guys get on amphetamines and think they can't play without them. But it's just a false sense of security. If you educate yourself and really see what's happening, you find it's a dead-end street." ""


Its pretty clear that amphetamines just supply a false sence of "energy" and the addictive nature of them pretty much offsets any posible advantage.

BTW did it dawn on anyone that amphetamines have been around for years but there was never a statisitcal bumb or slump that accompanied it the way that power numbers have been increased by Anabolics?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I rhink steroids probably do help more than greenies, but are we really going to continue to absolutely kill Bonds because he cheated more effectively than other ballplayers? I'm guessing there's a sizable number of people on this board who don't want Bonds in the hall and don't think his records should count, and my point was that those people should be just as critical of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle.

Do you have proof that Mantle used greenies, are we assuming anyone who played in that era had to do greenies.

It's not my belief that Barry should not get into the HOF and I can't see MLB discounting any of Barry's or anyone known to do steroids numbers. I se him getting into the HOF and his numbers standing. For sure a great number a great number of fans and the general public will doubt some of his numbers.

May I repeat that I and most do not approve of greenie use in the past but the fact is that steroids is the issue that is up front in the news today, thats why it the most discussed subject.

[Dasperp]

Its pretty clear that amphetamines just supply a false sence of "energy" and the addictive nature of them pretty much offsets any posible advantage.

BTW did it dawn on anyone that amphetamines have been around for years but there was never a statisitcal bumb or slump that accompanied it the way that power numbers have been increased by Anabolics?

How does providing two examples make it clear? Alex Sanchez and Felix Heredia haven't exactly benefitted from steroid use, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help. And there is absolutely no evidence that this hitter's era is a result of steroid use. With testing last year, offense didn't suddenly go back to the way it was in the 70's, and the drop was so small that it was probably just due to random fluctuation.

[ESPNFan]

How does providing two examples make it clear? Alex Sanchez and Felix Heredia haven't exactly benefitted from steroid use, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help. And there is absolutely no evidence that this hitter's era is a result of steroid use. With testing last year, offense didn't suddenly go back to the way it was in the 70's, and the drop was so small that it was probably just due to random fluctuation.


Home runs last year dropped to their lowest levels since 1997 if I remember correctly (almost 8% from 2004) and I'm sure I can dig up a bill james quote or two that alludes to steroids impact.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Home runs last year dropped to their lowest levels since 1997 if I remember correctly (almost 8% from 2004) and I'm sure I can dig up a bill james quote or two that alludes to steroids impact.

Obviously more needs to be taken into account, but I posted this some time ago.

AVG NUMBER OF HR and ERA of a MLB team

RED = 161 - 200 ----- RED = 4.31 – 4.80
BLUE = 121 - 160 ---- BLUE = 3.81 – 4.30
GREEN = 81 - 120 ---- GREEN = 3.31 – 3.80
ORANGE = 41 - 80 --- ORANGE = 2.81 – 3.30
BLACK = 1 - 40 ------ BLACK = 2.31 – 2.80


YEAR - HR - ERA

2005 – 167 -- 4.29
2004 – 182 -- 4.47
2003 – 174 -- 4.41
2002 – 169 -- 4.28
2001 – 182 -- 4.41
2000 – 190 -- 4.77
1999 – 184 -- 4.71
1998 – 169 -- 4.46
1997 – 166 -- 4.39
1996 – 177 -- 4.61
1995 – 146 -- 4.45
1994 – 118 -- 4.51
1993 – 144 -- 4.18
1992 – 117 -- 3.72
1991 – 130 -- 3.89
1990 – 128 -- 3.85
1989 – 119 -- 3.69
1988 – 122 -- 3.71
1987 – 171 -- 4.27
1986 – 147 -- 3.95
1985 – 139 -- 3.87
1984 – 125 -- 3.79
1983 – 127 -- 3.85
1982 – 130 -- 3.84
1981 – 69 --- 3.58
1980 – 118 -- 3.28
1979 – 132 -- 3.98
1978 – 114 -- 3.67
1977 – 140 -- 3.99
1976 – 93 --- 3.51
1975 – 112 -- 3.70
1974 – 110 -- 3.62
1973 – 129 -- 3.74
1972 – 106 -- 3.26
1971 – 119 -- 3.47
1970 – 143 -- 3.88
1969 – 130 -- 3.61
1968 – 100 -- 2.98
1967 – 115 -- 3.31
1966 – 137 -- 3.52
1965 – 134 -- 3.50
1964 – 138 -- 3.58
1963 – 135 -- 3.46
1962 – 150 -- 3.96
1961 – 151 -- 4.03
1960 – 133 -- 3.82
1959 – 140 -- 3.91
1958 – 140 -- 3.86
1957 – 138 -- 3.84
1956 – 143 -- 3.97
1955 – 139 -- 4.00
1954 – 121 -- 3.90
1953 – 130 -- 4.14
1952 – 106 -- 3.70
1951 – 116 -- 4.04
1950 – 130 -- 4.36
1949 – 107 -- 4.12
1948 – 97 -- 4.12
1947 – 98 -- 3.89
1946 – 76 -- 3.46
1945 – 63 -- 3.58
1944 – 65 -- 3.52
1943 – 56 -- 3.34
1942 – 67 -- 3.49
1941 – 83 -- 3.89
1940 – 98 -- 4.11
1939 – 90 -- 4.27
1938 – 92 -- 4.28
1937 – 89 -- 4.27
1936 – 85 -- 4.53
1935 – 83 -- 4.24
1934 – 84 -- 4.28
1933 – 67 -- 3.81
1932 – 85 -- 4.18
1931 – 67 -- 4.12
1930 – 98 -- 4.80
1929 – 84 -- 4.47
1928 – 68 -- 4.01
1927 – 58 -- 4.02
1926 – 54 -- 3.92
1925 – 73 -- 4.33
1924 – 56 -- 4.05
1923 – 61 -- 3.98
1922 – 66 -- 4.06
1921 – 58 -- 4.03
1920 – 39 -- 3.46
1919 – 28 -- 3.06
1918 – 15 -- 2.77
1917 – 21 -- 2.68
1916 – 24 -- 2.71
1915 – 24 -- 2.84
1914 – 26 -- 2.75
1913 – 29 -- 3.06
1912 – 28 -- 3.37
1911 – 32 -- 3.36
1910 – 22 -- 2.77
1909 – 16 -- 2.53
1908 – 17 -- 2.37
1907 – 15 -- 2.50
1906 – 16 -- 2.65
1905 – 21 -- 2.82
1904 – 21 -- 2.67
1903 – 21 -- 3.11
1902 – 22 -- 3.17
1901 – 28 -- 3.49

[Ubiquitous]

Brett Butler used to drink about 15 cups of coffee during a game. I suppose he thought he was getting an edge over other players, too. Or he just liked coffee.
:coffee




Things like this kind of make me laugh. How do we know Butler was drinking coffee? How do we know if was just lying and he was actually just popping pills and using coffee as a cover story? Besides 15 cups is kind of an absurd number to begin with.

Hey I guess if Jeff Kent can get hurt washing his car then Butler can being drinking 15 cups of cofffee.

[Ubiquitous]

I think a relevant question is when exactly did greenies become illegal? Regardless of the difference in effectiveness (obviously steroids are the better ergogenic aid), the questioner was asking what is the moral difference (not the performance difference) between the two.

With that in mind, I think that knowing exactly when amphetamines became illegal and exactly when they became banned by baseball, would be important to answering that question. Currently, amphetamines are illegal except when prescribed by a doctor. I know that Brooks Robinson likened them to a cup of coffee..... hmmmm. Coffee isn't in the same class of illegal drugs as cocaine (which amphetamines are). Lord knows I'd rather drink a cup of joe then injest a banned substance, so what gives Brooksie?


They became illegal in 1970, as did much of the drugs that are illegal today. That was when Nixon enacted the Control Substance Act. Speed is now a schedule 2 drug, just like Cocaine, Ritalin, and morphine.

Steroids is a schedule 3 drugs which is actually lower then schedule 2 drugs. The law deems these drugs as lower risks then Schedule 1 and 2.

[Ubiquitous]

Home runs last year dropped to their lowest levels since 1997 if I remember correctly (almost 8% from 2004) and I'm sure I can dig up a bill james quote or two that alludes to steroids impact.


Dropping to 1997 is not exactly a iron clad proof. Its actually bad research. LAst years home run numbers in the NL were the same as they were in 2002, and they are still at historic highs. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the homers were at an all time high. They then dropped by almost 14% in 2002. Does that mean 2002 is proof that the players got off steroids?

In the AL the homers peaked in 1996 and never reached that peak again. The homer totals in 2005 for the AL are virtually the same as they were in 2002 and 2003.

The Bill James quotes you would dig up would not be in support of steroid use but quotes cautioning anyone from jumping to those conclusions based on one year of data.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Dropping to 1997 is not exactly a iron clad proof. Its actually bad research. LAst years home run numbers in the NL were the same as they were in 2002, and they are still at historic highs. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the homers were at an all time high. They then dropped by almost 14% in 2002. Does that mean 2002 is proof that the players got off steroids?

In the AL the homers peaked in 1996 and never reached that peak again. The homer totals in 2005 for the AL are virtually the same as they were in 2002 and 2003.

The Bill James quotes you would dig up would not be in support of steroid use but quotes cautioning anyone from jumping to those conclusions based on one year of data.


Whether it was increased steroid use, or the offensive environment changing for good, something took place in 1996. Before then, in the history of the game, an average ML team had never had over 151 HR in a season. (With the exception of '87 which was clearly a fluke. Many, many players had career highs in homers that year for some reason. Some think the ball was juiced for that one season) Then all of a sudden it shoots way above that for 10 straight years.

[Ubiquitous]

Whether it was increased steroid use, or the offensive environment changing for good, something took place in 1996. Before then, in the history of the game, an average ML team had never had over 151 HR in a season. (With the exception of '87 which was clearly a fluke. Many, many players had career highs in homers that year for some reason. Some think the ball was juiced for that one season) Then all of a sudden it shoots way above that for 10 straight years.

That is technically not true. By using raw numbers one forgets that for most of the history of the game teams played a 154 game schedule and that 1994 and 1995 were shortened seasons. If we set it up so that every single teams homer rate is based on a 162 game schedule there are plenty of teams before 1996 to get past the magical threshould of 151. The magical homer era of the 50's shows up quite well. For the NL it was 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Now was 1996 the start of anything, 1994 and 1995's shortened seasons actually masked the increase in homers for those years.

perSe yearID lgID
155.9 1953 NL
166.1 1955 NL
159.0 1956 NL
154.1 1957 NL
155.6 1958 NL
151.4 1959 NL
156.5 1961 NL
153.2 1961 AL
155.4 1962 AL
154.3 1964 AL
155.8 1985 AL
163.6 1986 AL
188.1 1987 AL
152.2 1987 NL
180.3 1994 AL
154.5 1994 NL
173.5 1995 AL
154.2 1995 NL
196.0 1996 AL
158.6 1996 NL
177.2 1997 AL
154.5 1997 NL
160.1 1998 NL
178.5 1998 AL
188.5 1999 AL
180.9 1999 NL
192.3 2000 AL
187.7 2000 NL
179.2 2001 AL
184.5 2001 NL
162.4 2002 NL
176.3 2002 AL
169.4 2003 NL
178.3 2003 AL
186.2 2004 AL
178.0 2004 NL
174.1 2005 AL
161.1 2005 NL

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That is technically not true. By using raw numbers one forgets that for most of the history of the game teams played a 154 game schedule and that 1994 and 1995 were shortened seasons. If we set it up so that every single teams homer rate is based on a 162 game schedule there are plenty of teams before 1996 to get past the magical threshould of 151. The magical homer era of the 50's shows up quite well. For the NL it was 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Now was 1996 the start of anything, 1994 and 1995's shortened seasons actually masked the increase in homers for those years.

perSe yearID lgID
155.9 1953 NL
166.1 1955 NL
159.0 1956 NL
154.1 1957 NL
155.6 1958 NL
151.4 1959 NL
156.5 1961 NL
153.2 1961 AL
155.4 1962 AL
154.3 1964 AL
155.8 1985 AL
163.6 1986 AL
188.1 1987 AL
152.2 1987 NL
180.3 1994 AL
154.5 1994 NL
173.5 1995 AL
154.2 1995 NL
196.0 1996 AL
158.6 1996 NL
177.2 1997 AL
154.5 1997 NL
160.1 1998 NL
178.5 1998 AL
188.5 1999 AL
180.9 1999 NL
192.3 2000 AL
187.7 2000 NL
179.2 2001 AL
184.5 2001 NL
162.4 2002 NL
176.3 2002 AL
169.4 2003 NL
178.3 2003 AL
186.2 2004 AL
178.0 2004 NL
174.1 2005 AL
161.1 2005 NL

I was talking about both leagues combined, and I didn't leave any years out.

I understand that you need to look deeper than raw numbers, but still, the raw numbers are glaring. Are you contending that homers didn't jump up in the 90's Ubi? Explain 60 HR being hit however many times, all by alleged steroid users. Hell, even Louis Gonzalez hit 57 thanks to the offensive environment. Granted, that was a major fluke, but it makes things like that possible. Greg Vaughn, Brady Anderson,..others?

The average ERA isn't game dependent, and those raw stats show the same thing as the HR increase does.

[ESPNFan]

Dropping to 1997 is not exactly a iron clad proof. Its actually bad research. LAst years home run numbers in the NL were the same as they were in 2002, and they are still at historic highs. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the homers were at an all time high. They then dropped by almost 14% in 2002. Does that mean 2002 is proof that the players got off steroids?

In the AL the homers peaked in 1996 and never reached that peak again. The homer totals in 2005 for the AL are virtually the same as they were in 2002 and 2003.

The Bill James quotes you would dig up would not be in support of steroid use but quotes cautioning anyone from jumping to those conclusions based on one year of data.

LOL bad research? You might want to tell Will Caroll who wrote the Book "The Juice" but judging by the numbers he might have a bone to pick with you.

This is the homeruns per game since 1985. (again the source is Will Caroll)

NL AL
1985 0.73 0.96
1986 0.79 1.01
1987 0.94 1.16
1988 0.66 0.84
1989 0.70 0.76
1990 0.78 0.79
1991 0.74 0.86
1992 0.65 0.78
1993 0.86 0.91
1994 0.95 1.11
1995 0.95 1.07
1996 0.98 1.21
1997 0.95 1.09
1998 0.99 1.10
1999 1.12 1.16
2000 1.16 1.19
2001 1.14 1.11
2002 1.00 1.09
2003 1.05 1.10
2004 1.10 1.15
2005 0.99 1.07

Its pretty clear that 1996 was not the peak of homerun production in MLB and that infact 2000. And you can see as well that 2005's production was less tha that of 1998.

And as far as Bill James go he was on record in Howard Bryants Book "Jucing the Game" as follows:
"About five years ago I did a series of studies focusing on constant and changing parks and studying the runs scored in each. My conclusion was that the new parks accounted for less that 20% of the increace in runs scored. 80 percent or more was caused by other factors."

Knowing how Thorough James is don't you think its odd that he only alludes to that 80% as "other factors"?

He went on to say:
"Obviously there are substances that impact a players performance. But saying specificly what the effects are, in the statistics are either a) impossible or b) beyond me. The problem is that with the exception of the odd case like the 65 homer players, whatever is done by one player with Steroids will be done by players without them. Ken Caminiti on Steroids posted the same batting numbers as Henry Aaron did without them. I don't know how one could distinguish the 'real' or innate ability from the jucied up numbers"

While James is saying that its almost impossible to figure the exact impact numericly of Anabolics he basicly calls out the 65 plus homer seasons of Sosa Bonds and McGwire as steroid aided and also states that a guy like Caminiti can put up numbers similar to that of a hall of famer with the help of them.
Its obvious to Bill James that Anabolics have made an impact on baseball but because of the nature of the substance and the lengths some users will go to hide their invovlement with them there is no way to quantify it more.

[Ubiquitous]

Well if Will had a bone to pick with everybody that disagreed with him he would be sitting atop an elephant graveyard.

I never say that the home run production peaked in 1996 for the majors. What I did say was that in the AL it peaked in 1996, which by the way it did.

And as for Bill he basically said what I just told you he would say, don't jump to conclusions. And no I don't thinks it odd that he doesn't describe the other 80% because he has before. Bill has listed a lot of things he thinks caused a jump. Everything from the stadium, the umps, the ball, the bats, the players, the drugs, and probably several other things I have forgotten.

[ESPNFan]

And some pointers on formatting stats for this site would be most appreciated ; )

[ESPNFan]

Well if Will had a bone to pick with everybody that disagreed with him he would be sitting atop an elephant graveyard.

I never say that the home run production peaked in 1996 for the majors. What I did say was that in the AL it peaked in 1996, which by the way it did.

And as for Bill he basically said what I just told you he would say, don't jump to conclusions. And no I don't thinks it odd that he doesn't describe the other 80% because he has before. Bill has listed a lot of things he thinks caused a jump. Everything from the stadium, the umps, the ball, the bats, the players, the drugs, and probably several other things I have forgotten.

But you can't just look at half the numbers. The NL in 1996 had the second lowest HR per game totals in the peak years from 1995-2005.

James calls out the historic homerun seasons of McGwire Sosa and Bonds and you say he's not jumping to conclusions? He says that a Jucied up Caminiti put up similar numbers to Hank Aaron! How is that not jumping to conclusions?

[Ubiquitous]

I was talking about both leagues combined, and I didn't leave any years out.

I understand that you need to look deeper than raw numbers, but still, the raw numbers are glaring. Are you contending that homers didn't jump up in the 90's Ubi? Explain 60 HR being hit however many times, all by alleged steroid users. Hell, even Louis Gonzalez hit 57 thanks to the offensive environment. Granted, that was a major fluke, but it makes things like that possible. Greg Vaughn, Brady Anderson,..others?

The average ERA isn't game dependent, and those raw stats show the same thing as the HR increase does.

I didn't say you left any numbers out, but if you look at MLB totals per 162 you still have 1994 and 1995 above the magical 151 as well as 1961.

As for the homers we have been over this before. Neither one of us has anything new to add. My view is already documented in those threads.

[Ubiquitous]

But you can't just look at half the numbers. The NL in 1996 had the second lowest HR per game totals in the peak years from 1995-2005.

James calls out the historic homerun seasons of McGwire Sosa and Bonds and you say he's not jumping to conclusions? He says that a Jucied up Caminiti put up similar numbers to Hank Aaron! How is that not jumping to conclusions?


This is what Bill James said in your quotes:
Obviously there are substances that impact a players performance. But saying specificly what the effects are, in the statistics are either a) impossible or b) beyond me.

Nor do I see him calling anyone out. If anything unless I missed something new of his, he generally defended the steroid users. Bill generally picked the side that was getting attacked by rumors and innuendos and urged people to not jump to conclusions based on false analysis. Such as his staunch support for Pete Rose.

He says Caminiti a known steroid user put similar numbers to Hank so therefore how do we adjust, what is real what is not? That is what he is saying. He isn't saying that since Caminiti put up Aaron numbers therefore everything that happened is because of steroids. What he is saying is "I don't know, and I don't know how to go about finding out"

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And some pointers on formatting stats for this site would be most appreciated ; )

Try this:

[ code]<<<<< make sure that space isn't there

I
N
S
E
R
T

S
T
U
F
F
[/code]

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Nobody said '96 was the peak. I mentioned that it looked like something changed in '96 and continued to grow from there.

How did we get off of the greenie vs juice topic? How can anyone think HR didn't increase in part because of PED's. Were there other factors, sure, several. But PED's played a part in all of this, including helping to change players' approaches at the plate.

[ESPNFan]

Actually James is pretty Brutal to certain people.

From his 2001 historical abstract in his asessment of Larry Walker's hitting .350 for three straight seasons. (and also listed in Bryants book)


"It will be interesting to see, as time goes by, how well the hall of fame voters will can see through the phoney batting stats of the 1994-2000 era, and pick out the truely great players from those who piled up numbers because of the unusual conditions in which they played."

Could he mean Coors feild? sure but why indicte a whole era of ball players, why not just say Coors Feild? And if James had said before that the increased offence is less than 20% attributable to ballparks then he must mean something else. I wonder what that could ever be?

As we get more and more details im sure James will expand his opinions on this subject and try to further explain the impact of the Steroid Era.

[Ubiquitous]

Nobody said '96 was the peak. I mentioned that it looked like something changed in '96 and continued to grow from there.

How did we get off of the greenie vs juice topic? How can anyone think HR didn't increase in part because of PED's. Were there other factors, sure, several. But PED's played a part in all of this, including helping to change players' approaches at the plate.


I know you didn't say peaked in 1996. I was disputing the notion that something changed in 1996. It didn't that happened earlier but was masked by the strike.

[Ubiquitous]

Actually James is pretty Brutal to certain people.

From his 2001 historical abstract in his asessment of Larry Walker's hitting .350 for three straight seasons. (and also listed in Bryants book)


"It will be interesting to see, as time goes by, how well the hall of fame voters will can see through the phoney batting stats of the 1994-2000 era, and pick out the truely great players from those who piled up numbers because of the unusual conditions in which they played."

Could he mean Coors feild? sure but why indicte a whole era of ball players, why not just say Coors Feild? And if James had said before that the increased offence is less than 20% attributable to ballparks then he must mean something else. I wonder what that could ever be?

As we get more and more details im sure James will expand his opinions on this subject and try to further explain the impact of the Steroid Era.


I think you are looking to0 closely for steroid talk. When talking about Larry Walker he is most certainly talking about Coors Field.

As for 20% yes he does mean other things. He is not saying that the only two choices are ballparks and drugs.

[runningshoes]

Are they giving free lobotomies here now? :D

[ESPNFan]

I think you are looking to0 closely for steroid talk. When talking about Larry Walker he is most certainly talking about Coors Field.

As for 20% yes he does mean other things. He is not saying that the only two choices are ballparks and drugs.

And Im not sayng that there are only two choices either. But Anabolic have had an impact during the past ten or so years that even statistical masterminds like James can't put their finger on.

And if he is just talking about Coors Feild why leave it so open ended and lump everyone who played from 1994-2000 as possibly suspect? The AL has almost no exposure to Coors during that time. Its pretty obvious that he's alluding to somethign else but without evidence he can't just start acusing people of doing steroids.

[Ubiquitous]

Bill James isn't writing a bible nor is he writing law.

Bill James has mentioned puffed up stats of other eras does that mean he thinks they took steroids?

Again Bill James has defended steroid users. There is a whole section in Barra's book in which Bill is arguing that their is no real proof of steroid use in the modern players. That bonds late surge is not unusual.

Bill has talked numerous times about the 90's and why he believes its a offensive era. When he says phony stats of 1994 to 2000 he isn't talking about steroids singly but to the actual values of the stats being posted. A .350 looks impressive but when you factor that he is playing at Coors in a league with say a .290 batting average it doesn't look all that impressive. He isn't saying the stats are phony becuase of steroids. Again Bill is a defender of steroid users.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Again Bill James has defended steroid users.

--There is a whole section in Barra's book in which Bill is arguing that their is no real proof of steroid use in the modern players.

--That bonds late surge is not unusual.



If this is all true, and I trust your word that it is, James just lost what little credibility he had left with me. Can't believe a guy who is supposedly that smart would write that.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Amazing that when the steroids hit the fan most have forgotten two other changes in the game that came about in the early to mid 1990s.

The ball, tested at the University of Rhode Island with the balls of the mid to late 1990s shown to contain over the limit percentages of synthetic fibers in the wool windings. It was believed that the synthetic material would resist dampness on humid days keeping the ball firmer. OK, is this concrete no, just an assumption. Now we get to the other changes, lower seams and tiighter cover. Again just as in 1930 pitchers complain, lower seams make the ball harder to grip, harder to get stuff on it.

Thats one, the ball what about the issue that was so hot in the early 1990s, the strike zone a joke lowered from the letters to just above the belt, thats not what the rule book says. Articles in dozens of newspapers, magazines, Baseball Digest, ESPN Magazine, the Sporting News, Baseball Weekly and a bunch of others. Many complete with diagrams comparing the rule book strike zone and that called by the umps in the 1990s.

BTW editors of Popular Science made at least a dozen phone calls to Bud Selig's office to discuss the synthetic material used in the mid 1990s and 2000 balls. That was in 2001 and Selig never returned the calls.

Steroids helped some who used them but everyone benefitted by the two forgoten changes, the ball and that funny little strike zone.

[Ubiquitous]

Bill James likes to go against the grain. Its how he got to where he is. Generally when someone or some view is attacked using faulty data or simply hearsay and rumors he will defend them. Its a quirk of his, he likes to fight for the underdog.

Craig Biggio
Pete Rose
Barry Bonds

While tearing down guys he views are being over-rated based on faulty data, andecdotal evidence, and hearsay.

George Sisler


Bill James was a staunch defender of Pete Rose or I should say he liked to tear down the evidence and arguments against Pete Rose.

[ESPNFan]

Bond's late surge inst that unusual!?!
Have you even seen the breakdown people have been doing of Bond's "late surge?"

Bonds from 1986-1999 his career # were roughly BA .290 with 34 HR's
Since 2000 its been about a BA .335 and 50 Hrs.

Name me another Batter that has had a five year career statistical peak from age 35 to age 40?

(numbers taken from BaseballRefrence.com)


Edited for clarity and out of respect to the english language.

[Ubiquitous]

The university of Rhode Island test gets brought up a lot. You really can't jump to any real conclusions from it, even the people doing the testing said that. A very very small handful of balls were testing nor did they know what the fibers did to the ball if they even had any impact all. What they said it could was a theory of theirs.

The Fibers were there not by some grand conspiracy but because of the nature of the business. They use recycled wool to make the ball and the wool has synthetic fibers. Thats it, thats why its there.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bill James likes to go against the grain. Its how he got to where he is. Generally when someone or some view is attacked using faulty data or simply hearsay and rumors he will defend them. Its a quirk of his, he likes to fight for the underdog.

Craig Biggio
Pete Rose
Barry Bonds

While tearing down guys he views are being over-rated based on faulty data, andecdotal evidence, and hearsay.

George Sisler


Bill James was a staunch defender of Pete Rose or I should say he liked to tear down the evidence and arguments against Pete Rose.

I understand that Ubi, but to defend steroid use in baseball is to hate what the game stands for.

And for him to say Bonds' late surge wasn't unusual? HUH? A guy that spends as much time with numbers and historical players as him, and he says that?

Being controversial is one thing, but making moronic statements is something altogether different. He first got lowered in my eyes by not doing his homework on the Ruth bat incident, and now this. Unforgivable to print that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The university of Rhode Island test gets brought up a lot. You really can't jump to any real conclusions from it, even the people doing the testing said that. A very very small handful of balls were testing nor did they know what the fibers did to the ball if they even had any impact all. What they said it could was a theory of theirs.

The Fibers were there not by some grand conspiracy but because of the nature of the business. They use recycled wool to make the ball and the wool has synthetic fibers. Thats it, thats why its there.

Ubi, have you read this from Popular Mechanics?

"But while all balls were in MLB spec as far as weight (5 to 5.25 ounces) and COR, balls at the lightest and liveliest end of the tolerance specs, compared to balls at the heaviest and deadest end of the tolerances, would typically travel 49.1 ft. farther than the heavier ball, on a 400-ft. hit. That's a 10 percent performance difference within MLB's own specs and could mean the difference between a lazy fly ball and a home run."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outd...s/1277546.html


And that's just the baseballs. They have separate specs on bats, which is very loosy goosy as well. Perhaps they should "tighten up" their specifications.

[Ubiquitous]

Bond's late surge inst that unusual!?!
Have you even seen the breakdown people have been doing of Bond's "late surge?"

Bonds from 1986-1999 his career # were roughly BA .290 with 34 HR's
Since 2000 its been about a BA .335 and 50 Hrs.

Name me another Batter that has had a five year career statistical from age 35 to age 40?

(numbers taken from BaseballRefrence.com)


That wasn't me saying that, thats Bill James.

[Ubiquitous]

I understand that Ubi, but to defend steroid use in baseball is to hate what the game stands for.

And for him to say Bonds' late surge wasn't unusual? HUH? A guy that spends as much time with numbers and historical players as him, and he says that?

Being controversial is one thing, but making moronic statements is something altogether different. He first got lowered in my eyes by not doing his homework on the Ruth bat incident, and now this. Unforgivable to print that.

He wasn't defending steroid use, but arguing that the stats were not conclusive proof that these players were on steroids. It turns out that they were, but he was arguing that the stats did not show that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He wasn't defending steroid use, but arguing that the stats were not conclusive proof that these players were on steroids. It turns out that they were, but he was arguing that the stats did not show that.

Gotcha. I don't get why so many feel he's some Grand Poobah, if he doesn't do proper research on certain things, or make outlandish claims without proof. Isn't a scientist type person supposed to back up their theories?

[Ubiquitous]

Ubi, have you read this from Popular Mechanics?

"But while all balls were in MLB spec as far as weight (5 to 5.25 ounces) and COR, balls at the lightest and liveliest end of the tolerance specs, compared to balls at the heaviest and deadest end of the tolerances, would typically travel 49.1 ft. farther than the heavier ball, on a 400-ft. hit. That's a 10 percent performance difference within MLB's own specs and could mean the difference between a lazy fly ball and a home run."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outd...s/1277546.html


And that's just the baseballs. They have separate specs on bats, which is very loosy goosy as well. Perhaps they should "tighten up" their specifications.

Your link is a dead end but I have read it before.

I think it would be kind of hard and expensive to tighten up the specs for a baseball. But I do think they should standardize the bat. Also Bill James had some suggestions in his Abstract about some rule changes I think they should implement as well.

[Ubiquitous]

Gotcha. I don't get why so many feel he's some Grand Poobah, if he doesn't do proper research on certain things, or make outlandish claims without proof. Isn't a scientist type person supposed to back up their theories?

I would argue how does one do proper research on whether or not one is on steroids? And yes Bill did try to back up his theories with data. He was wrong it happens. But I do agree that one should never follow anyones views or research blindly.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Your link is a dead end but I have read it before.

I think it would be kind of hard and expensive to tighten up the specs for a baseball. But I do think they should standardize the bat. Also Bill James had some suggestions in his Abstract about some rule changes I think they should implement as well.

Just out of curiosity what does he say?

Something to do with:

The mound
Body armor
strike zone
fence distances

?

On a side note, is he in favor of changing the save rule?

[Ubiquitous]

No none of those really. He doesn't really think tinkering with the strike zone and those things that effect it (like the mound) will do any good. Causing more strikeouts owuldn't bring more excitement or more action to the game. No what he is for is for rules that create an environment that causes action instead of the stop and go events that have become baseball.

Limit the amount of pitching changes
Limit the amount of throws a pitcher can make to pickoff runners.
Keep batters from stepping out of the batters box
Limit time between innings
Standardize bats
Move the batters box away from the plate


I actually like all of these changes and think baseball would be better off implementing them.

[ESPNFan]

Just out of curiosity what does he say?

Something to do with:

The mound
Body armor
strike zone
fence distances

?

On a side note, is he in favor of changing the save rule?


Its not fence distances. Carroll covers that in his book. In the NL fences are actually further now than they were in 1990. In the AL center feild is closer but down the lines its futher away again using 1990 averages as a refrence.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

No none of those really. He doesn't really think tinkering with the strike zone and those things that effect it (like the mound) will do any good. Causing more strikeouts owuldn't bring more excitement or more action to the game. No what he is for is for rules that create an environment that causes action instead of the stop and go events that have become baseball.

Limit the amount of pitching changes
Limit the amount of throws a pitcher can make to pickoff runners.
Keep batters from stepping out of the batters box
Limit time between innings
Standardize bats
Move the batters box away from the plate


I actually like all of these changes and think baseball would be better off implementing them.

Limit the amount of pitching changes -- I like this one. Or at least make it so a pitcher you bring in has to face a minimum number of batters. They could also limit the mound visits.

Limit the amount of throws a pitcher can make to pickoff runners - This one makes no sense. Ok, so let's say a pitcher has 3 pick off attempts per runner. If he just used his third, the runner knows he's going to the plate. The first baseman might as well play behind the runner at that point, and let the runner steal. I know the casual fan doesn't like it when pitchers pick-off a lot, but it's an essential part of the game. There's subtle things going on on both sides.

Keep batters from stepping out of the batters box - Not sure I like this one, although there could be a time limit or something. A hitter needs to step out from time to time. Whether to look down at the third base coach, or to adjust something, whatever it may be. I agree though, in between pitches can take forever, especially with pitchers who work slow and do loops around the mound after every pitch.

Limit time between innings - Anything past what it takes for a pitcher to get warm is too much, I agree. What do they give them now, like 10 pitches between innings? 6 or 7 would do, unless in the previous inning, his offense stayed up for an extreme amount of time. In that case, the pitcher could be allowed the usual 10.

Standardize bats - Completely agree. Get rid of the triple dipped rocket launchers. I'd even say regulate the length/weight ratio to -1 or something.

Move the batters box away from the plate - Out of all of these, I like this one the best. Problem is, they don't even enforce the box as it is right now. So if they don't enforce the box, what's the point in moving it. This same goal could also be achieved by allowing pitchers to throw inside, and stop warning the bench after the first retaliation pitch. Let them work it out on their own.

He should add "get rid of body armor except for shinguards, and except to protect recent injuries."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Its not fence distances. Carroll covers that in his book. In the NL fences are actually further now than they were in 1990. In the AL center feild is closer but down the lines its futher away again using 1990 averages as a refrence.

Compared to 1990 they might not be further. I'm talking about bringing them back to where you gotta get into one for a homer, like it used to be. If a pitcher succeeds in his goal of disrupting the hitters timing, and getting him off balance, he should not be taken deep. I see this happen multiple times nightly. That's not baseball.

Deeper fences would raise batting averages a little, and increase doubles and triples as well. Perhaps it would end up changing the approach of hitters who shouldn't be striking out 120 times a year. Maybe it would pay off more to cut down your swing.

[Ubiquitous]

Limit the amount of throws a pitcher can make to pickoff runners - This one makes no sense. Ok, so let's say a pitcher has 3 pick off attempts per runner. If he just used his third, the runner knows he's going to the plate. The first baseman might as well play behind the runner at that point, and let the runner steal. I know the casual fan doesn't like it when pitchers pick-off a lot, but it's an essential part of the game. There's subtle things going on on both sides.


I think it makes senses because pick off throws are a)boring b)selfish in that all it does is favor the pitcher. Bill talks about this one a lot and I happen to agree with. I don't think the creators of the game ever invisioned a pitcher continually throwing to first base. Afterall they limited how many times they can throw to a batter, why wouldn't they have limited the throws the first basemen if they thought it was going to be a problem.

FOr instance in your example I don't that as bad. If you put the rule at say three after 2 throws are you going to use that third one? Or are you going to keep in your back pocket. Are you going to see if you can catch the guy off base because he thought you were not going to chance it. Nor does it mean you cannot throw to first after three throws. It simply would be that after you use your alotted throws and unsuccessful throw over to the base will cause you to be penalized. Perhaps by calling a ball. So if we put this rule into effect what happens? Well there will be a lot less throws over for starters, which means the game will be faster, and there will be some more steals and steal attempts. Is that so bad? Stealing is exciting, stealing is action. A player standing on first and a pitcher constantly throwing over is boring its stagnant.

As for the batters box, that isn't even a new rules its just a rule that isn't enforced by the umps. Batters are not supposed to leave the box once they get in there, nor does a request for time have to be automatically granted.

The body armor rule is already there. Not sure if you are saying to get rid of injury as well or if you are saying get rid of armor except for injuries. But if its the second part that is what rule reads now.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think it makes senses because pick off throws are a)boring b)selfish in that all it does is favor the pitcher. Bill talks about this one a lot and I happen to agree with. I don't think the creators of the game ever invisioned a pitcher continually throwing to first base. Afterall they limited how many times they can throw to a batter, why wouldn't they have limited the throws the first basemen if they thought it was going to be a problem.

FOr instance in your example I don't that as bad. If you put the rule at say three after 2 throws are you going to use that third one? Or are you going to keep in your back pocket. Are you going to see if you can catch the guy off base because he thought you were not going to chance it. Nor does it mean you cannot throw to first after three throws. It simply would be that after you use your alotted throws and unsuccessful throw over to the base will cause you to be penalized. Perhaps by calling a ball. So if we put this rule into effect what happens? Well there will be a lot less throws over for starters, which means the game will be faster, and there will be some more steals and steal attempts. Is that so bad? Stealing is exciting, stealing is action. A player standing on first and a pitcher constantly throwing over is boring its stagnant.

As for the batters box, that isn't even a new rules its just a rule that isn't enforced by the umps. Batters are not supposed to leave the box once they get in there, nor does a request for time have to be automatically granted.

The body armor rule is already there. Not sure if you are saying to get rid of injury as well or if you are saying get rid of armor except for injuries. But if its the second part that is what rule reads now.

Ubi,

I understand that picking off is boring to some. Over the course of a season, how many times is that action abused to boredom? A handful, maybe 7-10 times. It doesn't happen that often.

I'm all for more steals. I'm all for more steals by players being more aggressive and working on the art of stealing. Part of the reason more players don't steal, is the approach by hitters. Everything trickles down and effects other part of the game. For instance. They'll never do it, but moving the fences back to where only legit HR's will go out, it would effect the hitters approach. The hitters approach would change the mindset of the baserunners. All of a sudden, it's worth the risk of stealing a base. Sitting back and waiting for the three run homer wouldn't be so common.

A pitcher might pickoff because of indecision on what to throw to the plate. He might have already nodded at a pitch selection, came set, and then second guessed the selection. His way out is to either step off or pick off. Now he can regroup.

All pickoffs are not created equal. Rarely do pitchers show their good move over to first. They use those sparingly. Not showing a good move, gives the runner a false sense of security. Subconciously, he says to himself "wow, that was easy to get back, I can take another step." Now, most runners are smart enough to know when it's not a "good move," and you'll even have players on your own bench, or the first base coach let you know it wasn't his best. Still there are subtle things that happen, it's part of baseball. Not to mention how much lefties rely on the threat of a pickoff. You'd be removing all of that.

I just don't like the limit. You're adding an entirely new set of things to think about for the pitcher, and giving a huge edge to the runner. Penalize him by adding a ball to the count? Seriously. The game right now hardly resembles what it used to 75 years ago, do we really want to alter it that much more?

[Ubiquitous]

But 75 years ago pickoffs were not as common as they are today. They have been tracking them since the 70's and all they have done is gone up. So if anything the decreased pickoff throws would bring us back to a game that more in common with the game 75 years ago.

Moving in the fences is kind of an impossibility. We are not talking about cookie cutter stadiums in which football and baseball is played. The fences are actually walls and rather immovable for most teams. Yes some could in fact move the walls back I would guess that most couldn't. Not without doing some serious remodeling of the outfield seating.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But 75 years ago pickoffs were not as common as they are today. They have been tracking them since the 70's and all they have done is gone up. So if anything the decreased pickoff throws would bring us back to a game that more in common with the game 75 years ago.

Moving in the fences is kind of an impossibility. We are not talking about cookie cutter stadiums in which football and baseball is played. The fences are actually walls and rather immovable for most teams. Yes some could in fact move the walls back I would guess that most couldn't. Not without doing some serious remodeling of the outfield seating.

Yeah I know. Dreamworld scenario I suppose.

Do you at least see how pickoffs are essential to keeping the game what it is? Maybe something can be done, but a low limit would do more harm then good, imo. Like I asked before. How many times is it really abused to the degree where you want to throw your remote at the TV screen? It's not THAT bad, and there's other problems they could focus on before that. Gimme that much at least.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The university of Rhode Island test gets brought up a lot. You really can't jump to any real conclusions from it, even the people doing the testing said that. A very very small handful of balls were testing nor did they know what the fibers did to the ball if they even had any impact all. What they said it could was a theory of theirs.

The Fibers were there not by some grand conspiracy but because of the nature of the business. They use recycled wool to make the ball and the wool has synthetic fibers. Thats it, thats why its there.

I think, I hope I did make that point, that there is no proof it made the ball any livlier.

On the conspiracy issue, I agree no conspiracy. Much of the wool used in the balls in recent years comes from recycled carpets and more synthetic material has been used in these carpets in recent years.

My thoughts, the lower seams making the ball harder to grip and the tighter cover could have some effect. I also believe that some improvements in the production of the bal have produced a more uniform ball. A few pitchers claimed that all balls were not the same going back some years. Jim palmer retired at the time picked up a dozen or more balls. He found them all to be uniform. He claimed when he was pitching he would ask the ump for another ball hoping to get one with a cover a bit looser. He did say in his time there was a wide variation in the balls but he found the balls in recent years to be more uniform.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No none of those really. He doesn't really think tinkering with the strike zone and those things that effect it (like the mound) will do any good. Causing more strikeouts owuldn't bring more excitement or more action to the game.
.


I wouldn't call going by the rule book on the strike zone issue tinkering. It was tinkering by the umps on their own, not by the rule book in the last 10 or 12 years that played it's part in the offensive explosion. It's a joke, never in the history of modern baseball was the upper portion of the strike zone reduced to a few inches above the belt, hitters delight.

Are those your words or James, that more strikouts would not bring more excitement to the game.

[Metal Ed]

Things like this kind of make me laugh. How do we know Butler was drinking coffee? How do we know if was just lying and he was actually just popping pills and using coffee as a cover story? Besides 15 cups is kind of an absurd number to begin with.

Hey I guess if Jeff Kent can get hurt washing his car then Butler can being drinking 15 cups of cofffee.


Imagine how many trips he must have made to the bathroom between innings. This comment strains credulity.

[west coast orange and black]

Alex Sanchez and Felix Heredia haven't exactly benefitted from steroid use...

i do not understand how anyone can assert from afar that certain individual players have not benefitted from whatever it is that was taken.

using does not automatically equal better performance.

[Metal Ed]

They became illegal in 1970, as did much of the drugs that are illegal today. That was when Nixon enacted the Control Substance Act. Speed is now a schedule 2 drug, just like Cocaine, Ritalin, and morphine.

Steroids is a schedule 3 drugs which is actually lower then schedule 2 drugs. The law deems these drugs as lower risks then Schedule 1 and 2.


Interesting, isn't it, that greenies are deemed a higher risk drug than steroids. Makes sense given what amphetamines do to the heart.

So the moral line between steroids and greenies continues to blur. Greenies were made illegal in 1970, right around the time that Jim Bouton claims that the "entire Baltimore Orioles team" was using them (and winning those championships). Certainly quite a few of the greenies users of the 60's wouldn't have just quit in 1970, would they?

[west coast orange and black]

^^ no, they wouldn't.

it can be argued that the players union fought against including greenies on the banned list more ferociously than they did against the inclusion of steroids.

[Ubiquitous]

Yeah I know. Dreamworld scenario I suppose.

Do you at least see how pickoffs are essential to keeping the game what it is? Maybe something can be done, but a low limit would do more harm then good, imo. Like I asked before. How many times is it really abused to the degree where you want to throw your remote at the TV screen? It's not THAT bad, and there's other problems they could focus on before that. Gimme that much at least.


I never said no pickoffs allowed, and if you limited the pickoffs in most cases your worries would never come about. Its not like this would alter every at bat. As for altering the game supposedly if one looks at the data and removed a good chunk of the pickoffs it would cut 4 minutes off of a game. Don't know if that is true but that is what Bill claims.

The way I look at it is like a shot clock in Basketball. Suppose that there is no shot clock in basketball and they now propose to put one in. Now many of your arguments for the pickoffs could be use to argue against a pickoff. The point guard needs to set up the play, players need to get into position, if he doesn't like the play he needs time to set another play, so on and so on. But what happens is the shot clock doesn't change that it simply moves the game along. Limiting pickoffs wouldn't destroy the balance between and offense if anything it would restore somewhat that balance. As of right now the pitcher is given unlimited throws to a base, and to me that isn't fair.

[Ubiquitous]

I wouldn't call going by the rule book on the strike zone issue tinkering. It was tinkering by the umps on their own, not by the rule book in the last 10 or 12 years that played it's part in the offensive explosion. It's a joke, never in the history of modern baseball was the upper portion of the strike zone reduced to a few inches above the belt, hitters delight.

Are those your words or James, that more strikouts would not bring more excitement to the game.


Both. Action is what is exciting, and the pitcher was their to serve the ball up and have the hitter put the ball in play and the defense to try and stop him. Tinkering with the mound, widening this or that will basically effect strikeouts, and more strikeouts and less action is not what baseball needs.

[Ubiquitous]

Interesting, isn't it, that greenies are deemed a higher risk drug than steroids. Makes sense given what amphetamines do to the heart.

So the moral line between steroids and greenies continues to blur. Greenies were made illegal in 1970, right around the time that Jim Bouton claims that the "entire Baltimore Orioles team" was using them (and winning those championships). Certainly quite a few of the greenies users of the 60's wouldn't have just quit in 1970, would they?

I spoke too soon. I think some forms of speed were illegal to use before 1970 but 1970 was a landmark year for drug control. Because I believe the act was the first time the government organized drugs into one big list. For instance Benzedrine (the first real amphetamine)was made illegal to use without prescription in 1959. SO I have a feeling all those players in the 60's were popping pills and they were illegal and they knew it.

[burger eater]

Brett Butler used to drink about 15 cups of coffee during a game. I suppose he thought he was getting an edge over other players, too. Or he just liked coffee.

Did he drink robusta or arabica blends? Did he ever wet himself when he layed down a bunt?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I never said no pickoffs allowed, and if you limited the pickoffs in most cases your worries would never come about. Its not like this would alter every at bat. As for altering the game supposedly if one looks at the data and removed a good chunk of the pickoffs it would cut 4 minutes off of a game. Don't know if that is true but that is what Bill claims.

The way I look at it is like a shot clock in Basketball. Suppose that there is no shot clock in basketball and they now propose to put one in. Now many of your arguments for the pickoffs could be use to argue against a pickoff. The point guard needs to set up the play, players need to get into position, if he doesn't like the play he needs time to set another play, so on and so on. But what happens is the shot clock doesn't change that it simply moves the game along. Limiting pickoffs wouldn't destroy the balance between and offense if anything it would restore somewhat that balance. As of right now the pitcher is given unlimited throws to a base, and to me that isn't fair.

I see what you're trying to get at here, but it's apples and oranges. Basketball is a totally different animal.

4 minutes off a game isn't worth changing what's been working for 120 years. Has our attention span as a society gotten that bad, that we need to worry about 4 minutes? Again, it's a bigger part of the game than you're giving it credit for. Some of the other ideas were good though.

Shoeless- the zone isn't being called just above the belt or even at the belt. The top of the zone is being called just above the middle thigh area. It's a joke.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Both. Action is what is exciting, and the pitcher was their to serve the ball up and have the hitter put the ball in play and the defense to try and stop him. Tinkering with the mound, widening this or that will basically effect strikeouts, and more strikeouts and less action is not what baseball needs.


Well, they went a bit, make that a lot lower than they should have. There was supposed to be an adjustment a few years back, to call the high strike. They did come up a bit and even at that they were not consistent.

I never expected that the adjustment would go back to the old, the real one, the rule book strike but I did expect a bit more.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I would be surprised, I would be shocked if baseball ever put a limit on throws to first, or any base, pick off attempts. This board is probably as far as that one will go. it would change the game too much. Try to imagine a situation in the game where the pitcher can no longer attempt to pick off or even hold the runner on base.

Are there at times too many, what ever too many is..... throws to first, sure, what a drag but don't hold your breath even thinking of this one flying.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Don't take this one too serious guys but I was just wondering.
Which one would be more feared, more lethal in the batters box....

A 190-200 pound Barry doing greenies.
A 230 pound Barry doing steroids.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Just think. With steroid use more prevelant in recent years, now we could have some players using both greenies and steroids.

[leecemark]

--If there was a limit on pickoff throws the pitcher would almost never reach that limit. He would save the last one to keep the threat of a pickoff in play. Thus the balance is not changed, but the game is speeded up.
--More important than limiting pickoff would be limiting pitching changes within an inning. That is what really causes the game to drag. If you need 3 pitchers for 3 batters you've got the wrong pitcher out there to start with.

[VTSoxFan]

I am completely opposed to the idea of limiting throws to first; it would alter too much the "head game" -- the cat-and-mouse war of nerves and reflexes that is so much a part of the game. Besides, there's always a chance that the pickoff throw will go wild, and that itself can cause some excitement. I am opposed to limiting pickoff throws in the same way I'm opposed to the absurd notion of limiting the number of pitches a batter is allowed to foul off.

Pitching changes -- now that's another animal altogether. Managers who play righty-lefty four times in an inning just drive me nuts. How about developing pitchers who can get both righties and lefties out instead of cultivating specialists who can only throw one out-pitch to one type of batter?

[Mattingly]

--If there was a limit on pickoff throws the pitcher would almost never reach that limit. He would save the last one to keep the threat of a pickoff in play. Thus the balance is not changed, but the game is speeded up.
--More important than limiting pickoff would be limiting pitching changes within an inning. That is what really causes the game to drag. If you need 3 pitchers for 3 batters you've got the wrong pitcher out there to start with.
If there was ever that being used, you'd have some leadoff hitter straying off the bag so that the limit would be quickly used up. Just fake steals, running early to drive the pitcher nuts and stuff.

As to 3 pitchers in an inning, I'm guessing that in an age of specialization, for a single inning, that may be necessary on a limited basis.

If it's the 8th inning and the fearsome #3 hitter is up, I'd bring in a reliever. If the hitter's a lefty, sometimes the quality southpaw specialist may work. If followed by a pair of righties, then I'd go with the setup man. There's your 3 pitchers in one inning.

Now if they want to go all Tony LaRussa on you and get a long line of emptying out the pen, then that's something different. Even then, at least everyone gets to work, rather than sitting there in their own rust. :D

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--If there was a limit on pickoff throws the pitcher would almost never reach that limit. He would save the last one to keep the threat of a pickoff in play. Thus the balance is not changed, but the game is speeded up.
--More important than limiting pickoff would be limiting pitching changes within an inning. That is what really causes the game to drag. If you need 3 pitchers for 3 batters you've got the wrong pitcher out there to start with.

More would change than we realize if that rule were in place. They just shouldn't mess with pickoffs.

Agree about the pitching change thing. Get's out of hand, especially with certain managers.

[west coast orange and black]

sultan: ...the zone isn't being called just above the belt or even at the belt. The top of the zone is being called just above the middle thigh area.

i though that we agreed that the zone gets called like this.

:eek:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

sultan: ...the zone isn't being called just above the belt or even at the belt. The top of the zone is being called just above the middle thigh area.

i though that we agreed that the zone gets called like this.

:eek:

No, it was more like this.:D

[west coast orange and black]

dude. funny is funny. and that's funny!
but you have him waaaaaay too far off the dish.

but do you really wanna see the babe depicted as a ___? cuz i can make it happen.

[Ubiquitous]

but do you really wanna see the babe depicted as a ___? cuz i can make it happen.


Take the bat out of his hand and replace it with a cork that should get his goat.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

dude. funny is funny. and that's funny!
but you have him waaaaaay too far off the dish.

but do you really wanna see the babe depicted as a ___? cuz i can make it happen.

You're right, just fixed it.

[chrismarullo]

A doctor friend of mine laughed when I told him about the "greenies" vs steroids argument. He said it would be like arguing pixie dust vs cocaine.

[CrimeInTheCards]

People who say greenies dont help are apologizing for the cheating antics of the oldtime players. Ofcourse greenies help. They make you faster, more alert, more durable, they do a lot. They help a lot in athletics, to think otherwise is downright idiotic and pathetic. Baseball players wouldn't risk taking them if all they did was provide a coffee High. They help, so do steroids. It's life, deal with it.

[west coast orange and black]

i do not see anyone arguing that uppers provide the same benefits as steroids. what i do see is people including context.

steroids simply were not widely available back then.
who here believes that those who used uppers would have not used steroids had they been available? according to reliable pollsters, athletes have long been committed to the idea that they would readily trade in decades of their lifespan for fleeting fame and a chance at glory and a championship.

what is the difference between using uppers then and steroids recently?
for many here, it is not the (objective) illegal act itself, but the (subjective) way that they feel about records and the biggest stars of yesteryear falling to the wayside.

[west coast orange and black]

chrismarullo: He said it would be like arguing pixie dust vs cocaine.

how does he know what pixie dust can do for the modern ballpayer?
can you please provide a link? :D

[Sultan_1895-1948]

People who say greenies dont help are apologizing for the cheating antics of the oldtime players. Ofcourse greenies help. They make you faster, more alert, more durable, they do a lot. They help a lot in athletics, to think otherwise is downright idiotic and pathetic. Baseball players wouldn't risk taking them if all they did was provide a coffee High. They help, so do steroids. It's life, deal with it.

In order to become actually faster, you need to strengthen the muscles that propel you forward. How exactly does popping a pill alter muscle fibers?

You say it's about energy, so if that's the case, then caffeine and Red Bull should be outlawed because they make you faster? Or are you just talking about "super duper" energy? They might make you feel faster, but greenies don't change anything about your body except your heart rate and your nerves.

[Ubiquitous]

chrismarullo: He said it would be like arguing pixie dust vs cocaine.

how does he know what pixie dust can do for the modern ballpayer?
can you please provide a link? :D


Do a google search on Pixie dust and Dusty Baker and you will see just how important pixie dust is to holding a major league job. do not underestimate the power of pixie dust in major league baseball. It can get you a multiyear multimillion dollar deal.

[west coast orange and black]

dude. johnny b is a fave, but ok.

[Ubiquitous]

You can have him back next year, better yet why wait until next year. You can have him now, make him your third base coach.

[west coast orange and black]

johnny b's arm would get tired of windmilling 'em all in.
he's better positioned at the top of the steps. ;)

[CrimeInTheCards]

In order to become actually faster, you need to strengthen the muscles that propel you forward. How exactly does popping a pill alter muscle fibers?

You say it's about energy, so if that's the case, then caffeine and Red Bull should be outlawed because they make you faster? Or are you just talking about "super duper" energy? They might make you feel faster, but greenies don't change anything about your body except your heart rate and your nerves.

You either never tried greenies before, or your just making up excuses because the oldtime players cheated as well. Coffee or redbull is nowhere near as effective as greenies. If that were true, players wouldnt risk their lives to take it knowing there's a natural, healthier way to get the same desired results. Greenies help a lot, pure and simple, especially in physical sports, or anything physical for that matter. They literally help you perform better. I've known pitchers who've increased the velocity on their fastball because of it. Mike schmidt, gwynn, so many players have said greenies have had a huge impact on baseball, and without them nextyear numbers will decline and players will be less durable. It's the truth, deal with it.

[Ubiquitous]

without them nextyear numbers will decline and players will be less durable. It's the truth, deal with it.


So what happens if next year the numbers don't decline, do you have to deal with it then?



What happens on a ballfield over 162 games is a lot more complicated then just steroids and greenies. The numbers could go up they could go down and it could have nothing to do with greenies or steroids. It could be the weather, the umps, the leagues, new players, players getting hurt, players getting older, new equipment, new philosophy, so on, and so on.

[ESPNFan]

You either never tried greenies before, or your just making up excuses because the oldtime players cheated as well. Coffee or redbull is nowhere near as effective as greenies. If that were true, players wouldnt risk their lives to take it knowing there's a natural, healthier way to get the same desired results. Greenies help a lot, pure and simple, especially in physical sports, or anything physical for that matter. They literally help you perform better. I've known pitchers who've increased the velocity on their fastball because of it. Mike schmidt, gwynn, so many players have said greenies have had a huge impact on baseball, and without them nextyear numbers will decline and players will be less durable. It's the truth, deal with it.

Well considering power numbers are already down this year during the first year of penalized testing there is now way for you to prove its not more steroid users stopping with the new tougher testing. And since Caffine or Guarana isn't banned there are still plenty of ampetamine alternatives for the ballplayers.

[Ubiquitous]

Powers numbers are down compared to what? Give it some time man, get some perspective. Its like declaring we landed on the moon and all we have done yet is lift-off. The power numbers are still high, still at all-time high levels. Steroid sluggers were not caught or run out of baseball last year, so either they didn't get caught or they went off of them and the numbers still stayed high. The home runs are still at early 2000's levels, so does that mean that in 2002 and 2003 players were not using steroids? Why is a 1.09 in 2005 proof that steroid users are dropping or that the testing is working when a 1.10 in 2002 and a 1.11 in 2003 was proof that there were steroid users and that we needed testing?

[ESPNFan]

Powers numbers are down compared to what? Give it some time man, get some perspective. Its like declaring we landed on the moon and all we have done yet is lift-off. The power numbers are still high, still at all-time high levels. Steroid sluggers were not caught or run out of baseball last year, so either they didn't get caught or they went off of them and the numbers still stayed high. The home runs are still at early 2000's levels, so does that mean that in 2002 and 2003 players were not using steroids? Why is a 1.09 in 2005 proof that steroid users are dropping or that the testing is working when a 1.10 in 2002 and a 1.11 in 2003 was proof that there were steroid users and that we needed testing?

Ubiquitous go look at the HR's per game stats I posted earier in this thread.
last year was the lowest rate for combined AL/NL since 1997. Not to mention that the HR numbers themselves dropped form 5451 to 5017. Thats almost an 8% decrease. Could it be a fluke? Sure but its awfully funny that that fluke happens the same year that a real penalty for taking those substances is inforced.
The point i was trying to make was if the numbers decline again next year then its more likely that its Steroids and not ampetamines elimination thats at the root of it, especially given the availability of ampetamine alternatives.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You either never tried greenies before, or your just making up excuses because the oldtime players cheated as well. Coffee or redbull is nowhere near as effective as greenies. If that were true, players wouldnt risk their lives to take it knowing there's a natural, healthier way to get the same desired results. Greenies help a lot, pure and simple, especially in physical sports, or anything physical for that matter. They literally help you perform better. I've known pitchers who've increased the velocity on their fastball because of it. Mike schmidt, gwynn, so many players have said greenies have had a huge impact on baseball, and without them nextyear numbers will decline and players will be less durable. It's the truth, deal with it.

No need to get a rude tone.

You never answered my question. How do greenies alter actual muscle strength? No doubt they help some players, probably to a large degree, but isn't it more psychological than anything? Sure, you may feel more energized and feel like you could run through a wall, but your actual physical ability remains the same. In other words, let's say you're playing the last game of a road trip, you're dog tired. If you took the field completely sober, you're going to be fatigued mentally and physically. So, to get yourself back up to par, you might take greenies. Taking them only raises you back up to your normal level and just make you feel faster. You don't agree?

[Ubiquitous]

I don't need to look at your numbers I already have them.
Here it is:
NL
2005: 1.01
2004: 1.11
2003: 1.05
2002: 1.01
2001: 1.15
2000: 1.17
1999: 1.13
1998: 0.99
1997: 0.96

AL:
2005: 1.09
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.11
2002: 1.10
2001: 1.12
2000: 1.20
1999: 1.18
1998: 1.11
1997: 1.10

So in each league there levels are similar to 2002 and 2003 with AL being similar to 2001 as well.

Even if one wants to combine the the leagues they still haven't dropped to 1997. They dropped to 2002. Using your Will Carroll chart has the NL dropping to 2002 levels and the AL dropping to 2002 level as well. Though Will's numbers are different then BRef's, and personally I'll take Brefs and the lahman databases word over wills.

Simplest terms in 2005 167.2 home runs were hit per team per 162 games. In 2002 168.9 homers were hit per team per 162 games. So again does this mean that in 2002 MLB was free of steroids?

[ESPNFan]

No need to get a rude tone.

You never answered my question. How do greenies alter actual muscle strength? No doubt they help some players, probably to a large degree, but isn't it more psychological than anything? Sure, you may feel more energized and feel like you could run through a wall, but your actual physical ability remains the same. In other words, let's say you're playing the last game of a road trip, you're dog tired. If you took the field completely sober, you're going to be fatigued mentally and physically. So, to get yourself back up to par, you might take greenies. Taking them only raises you back up to your normal level and just make you feel faster. You don't agree?

Or Sultan even more to the point if a MLB player was completely rested and at his physical peak would he ever consider taking amphetamines? They obviously do with anabolic steroids.

[Ubiquitous]

Well hell if everybody was at their physical peak they wouldn't take steroids either.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Or Sultan even more to the point if a MLB player was completely rested and at his physical peak would he ever consider taking amphetamines? They obviously do with anabolic steroids.

And I think that's just it. You become dependant on them from using them when you're feeling down, so when you're not feeling down, you take them anyway, because it still makes you feel like it's a boost.

I'm not doubting that they can help someone focus, but so can a lot of things. I'm just questioning that they make you run faster, because they don't do anything to your muscles, and I don't see how they could make you run longer either. A pitcher throwing harder than he ever has, well maybe that's just coincidence and he would have thrown harder that day whether he was on them or not. Some days you feel fresh, some days you don't. That's why they call it a grind.

[ESPNFan]

Well hell if everybody was at their physical peak they wouldn't take steroids either.

Anabolics take you beyond what you would normally be able to achive at your normal physcial peak.

[ESPNFan]

I don't need to look at your numbers I already have them.
Here it is:
NL
2005: 1.01
2004: 1.11
2003: 1.05
2002: 1.01
2001: 1.15
2000: 1.17
1999: 1.13
1998: 0.99
1997: 0.96

AL:
2005: 1.09
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.11
2002: 1.10
2001: 1.12
2000: 1.20
1999: 1.18
1998: 1.11
1997: 1.10

So in each league there levels are similar to 2002 and 2003 with AL being similar to 2001 as well.

Even if one wants to combine the the leagues they still haven't dropped to 1997. They dropped to 2002. Using your Will Carroll chart has the NL dropping to 2002 levels and the AL dropping to 2002 level as well. Though Will's numbers are different then BRef's, and personally I'll take Brefs and the lahman databases word over wills.

Simplest terms in 2005 167.2 home runs were hit per team per 162 games. In 2002 168.9 homers were hit per team per 162 games. So again does this mean that in 2002 MLB was free of steroids?

That's very Odd.
Using BRef the 2005 numbers for the NL HR per game that I got was 0.9946. (2594 games to 2580 Home Runs). The 2005 AL number was 1.0745 (2268 games 2437 Home runs) If my math is wrong please let me know because I'll be the first to admit it's not my strong point.

[digglahhh]

No need to get a rude tone.

You never answered my question. How do greenies alter actual muscle strength? No doubt they help some players, probably to a large degree, but isn't it more psychological than anything? Sure, you may feel more energized and feel like you could run through a wall, but your actual physical ability remains the same. In other words, let's say you're playing the last game of a road trip, you're dog tired. If you took the field completely sober, you're going to be fatigued mentally and physically. So, to get yourself back up to par, you might take greenies. Taking them only raises you back up to your normal level and just make you feel faster. You don't agree?


Randy,

Have you ever been in a physical altercation with somebody on serious drugs? I've seen people on powerful drugs get stabbed and not even notice. Certainly chemicals can elevate you beyond your normal levels. Whether it does this by enhacing your strength or desensitizing your perception of pain, doesn't really matter.

Plus, if that player isn't 100% that day, and he takes greenies or whatever to achieve his "normal" 100%, the % between 100 and whatever he was, is "artifiicial" even if it is only his "natural" peak. If an Olympic track star breaks a world record cleanly, would it be acceptable for him to dope to a level to replicate his greatest achievement without them? Of course not, a season is about peaks and troughs, that's why its called a grind.

Not being 100% all the time is par for the course. I would expect you to agree with this.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Not being 100% all the time is par for the course. I would expect you to agree with this.

Certainly.

It's how we view it though. If he's dog tired mentally and physically, takes greenies to bring him up to 100% (or perhaps even more when it comes to being alert and focused), then it's just viewed different. Is it still gaining an edge? Well, what if everyone else on the field got a good nights sleep and felt rested. Then him taking greenies would only bring him to their level, not well above and beyond their level like steroids do. Lots grey area here.

We've all seen "Cops." The trailer trash dude with a mullet and no shirt on, is high on crack. He probably feels like he could get hit by a truck and not get hurt. What he feels is different than reality though. Whether he feels his kidney rupture and his spine snap isn't the issue, it's whether it's ruptures, and whether it snaps. Much like when a pitcher takes cortisone, he could do serious damage without feeling pain. Is it your contention that greenies are like crack? lol, jk. Threw ya a curveball there eh? No doubt greenies help. Would you concede that they're not in the ballpark of what was on Bonds' shopping list?

[leecemark]

--Amphetimines most definately can boost performance. I can say from personal experience that they give you an huge boost in energy (focus I'm not so sure). Although its not so much that they give you energy as they allow you to tap more easily into your bodies natural reserves.
--They don't have a cumulative effect though and would have a negative effect if used habitually. The thing is they don't actually change your body like steroids. The Greenie you took yesterday, or the series of them you took in the offseason, won't help you tomorrow. Its just a temporary lift and you eventually have to pay for reserves you tapped into.
--When you come off them you feel drained. Much more tired than if you had engaged in the same activity without their assistance. If you keep taking them to avoid coming down you'll find they are hurting more than helping in a failry short time. You'll be jittery as Brett Butler with his 15 cups of coffee. In the longer term they will cause your body to break down for several reasons; it has been pushed past its normal limits, they supress your appetite and they make it hard to sleep.
--So while I don't doubt that they were/are common in MLB locker rooms, they are a tempory and occasional pick me up. They do not make a player into something different than he would be without them. Except, of course, he may be elevated back up to full capacity on a day when he would otherwise be dragging ass.
--The other thing is that they have been readily available to every player in every clubhouse for a long time. I suspect most playesr have taken them from time to time. That being the case, there is not a significant competitive advantage to any one player over the long haul.
--Steroids have not exactly been unavailable either, but they are not something you can casually take to give you a lift. You have to make a commitment to using them (and doing the real work too) to get any benefit. They are also perceived (true or not) as much more harmfull. I think the number of regular users of steroids is much lower for those reasons and also think those user gain a much greater competitve advantage. While its just a matter of degree, it is not an unimportant difference.
--Plus Mays and Aaron were amoung the heros of my childhood :D .

[Ubiquitous]

That's very Odd.
Using BRef the 2005 numbers for the NL HR per game that I got was 0.9946. (2594 games to 2580 Home Runs). The 2005 AL number was 1.0745 (2268 games 2437 Home runs) If my math is wrong please let me know because I'll be the first to admit it's not my strong point.

NL pitchers have given up 2616 home runs. NL hitters have hit 2580. AL pitchers have given up 2401 homers, and their hitters have hit 2437.

Looking at the hitters the NL in 2005 hit .995 homers per game. In 2002 they hit 1.003 per game. A difference of less then 1 percent. In the AL they hit 1.075 HRs per game, in 2002 they hit 1.089, a difference of 1.3%. Again the homer totals are the same as 2002. We don't have to go all the way back to 1997 to see these homer totals.