Is it time for amnesty?

[RubeBaker]

I don't know how many people out there are as sick and tired of hearing about the whole steroid scandal as I am. Frankly, I couldn't care less anymore as to who used what and when. You have the 30 million dollar investigation report that says nothing, Giambi says he will talk, but not name names (1) isn't that what they wanted in the first place, and 2) what good is that going to do "yeah, I had a friend that used em...").

It's time for the MLB to say, "We screwed up, the owners screwed up, and the players screwed up. We are not going to go after ad punish players who used in the past, but we are going to concentrate our efforts on continuing to clean up the game now and enforcing the rules that now exist."

Enough of this friggin witch hunt already.

[bluezebra]

Then let's exonerate the 'Black Sox', and pay off Rose's gambling debts.

Bob

[Ubiquitous]

The only time for amnesty is when one can realiably say that the sport is clean. Otherwise what is the point of amnesty?

Speaking of the black sox and gambling, amnesty was offered and given for gambling as well. But they didn't do it until the world was reliably certain that baseball was free from gambling. If you recall Landis in his Cobb/Speaker dealings basically said things that happened before my time will not further investigated and thus who did and did not fix games no longer was an issue.

[KCGHOST]

Are you suggesting that HoF voters completely ignore this in their balloting?? If you are, Mark McGwire is your new best friend.

[Centerfielder2]

Are you suggesting that HoF voters completely ignore this in their balloting?? If you are, Mark McGwire is your new best friend.

In a perfect world that would be great but everyone knows that will never ever happen

[Old Sweater]

I would just like to say that this "dead horse subject" has already went a thousand miles in the half year since I joined BBF and I don't believe that one personal opinion has been changed by any of the steroid threads.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I would just like to say that this "dead horse subject" has already went a thousand miles in the half year since I joined BBF and I don't believe that one personal opinion has been changed by any of the steroid threads.

Yep. It's like the "a-word" in politics: once your mind is made up, only a catastrophic event can change it.

[Seattle1]

The answer has to be "no" because if you let 'em get away with it, that only encourages others to break the rules and cheat later on down the line.

They'll think: 'if those Roid guys got away with it, then I can get away with [whatever] too.'

What I would really like to see is at least one big-name known user be banned for life from MLB, including the Hall of Fame. Maybe Barry Bonds would be a good one to single out (preferably before he breaks Hammerin' Hank Aaron's record). That would send an important message to the kids who watch baseball.

[Whitesoxnut]

How do you have an amnesty when everyone is still in denial over it? Look at the screws Buddy boy is going to put Giambi thru for his minute long guilt trip. By the time MLB is finished stepping on him there is no player that's going to come clean.

Because if the players come clean then MLB has to come clean, even tho we as educated fans know about all there is to know already about this shameful chapter in American sport. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3

Who knew? Everybody in the game knew including Buddy. They just whitewashed it, and ignored it, and then spent years trying to limit the damage done by it while BS'ing the fans. Even still there are a lot of players cheating I bet because there is no test for HGH or insulin, and probably not for a lot of designer substances.

Believe me when they are finished stepping on Giambi theres no player ever going to insinuate MLB was in on the hoax.

Its Buddys strategy to draw the whole thing out until fans get sick of hearing about it. That, and he wants to use the issue as a tool to weaken the players union. He's no dummy, that Buddy. Somehow hes taken this pile of crap and turned it into green, starting with looking the other way and playing stupid when Spring training started turning into "The incredible growing heads" series of Horror movies.

I can just imagine what the players who played clean in that era are thinking nowadays, looking at all the money everyone but they made. Boy, what a wonderful game this was before greed took it over. I'm just glad I'm old enough to remember when it was a game.

[natsnsoxfan]

The only time for amnesty is when one can realiably say that the sport is clean. Otherwise what is the point of amnesty?

Speaking of the black sox and gambling, amnesty was offered and given for gambling as well. But they didn't do it until the world was reliably certain that baseball was free from gambling. If you recall Landis in his Cobb/Speaker dealings basically said things that happened before my time will not further investigated and thus who did and did not fix games no longer was an issue.

Exactly. Just because we have a better steroids system in place doesn't mean that players aren't using them anymore. You can be almost certain that there are still plenty of players using them, especially since there are a few players each year that get nabbed for them. You cannot offer amnesty until we are absolutely sure that 99.9% of Major Leaguers are steroid free.

[Dodgerfan1]

Steroids are not only illegal in baseball, they're against the law in the real world, too. That means that those who use them are committing a crime. Hell no, we shouldn't turn a blind eye on them and simply move on. Not if we care about the rule of law, we don't. It's not that simple. I have heard some people complain that the Congress should stay out of baseball, but they are obviously ignorant of the fact that Congress is going after steroids as a federal crime, and NOT to protect old-timers' batting stats.

I understand the tiresome nature of this overdone subject, and I also understand why some would just throw up their hands and give up, but anything anyone does that is illegal, not just ballplayers, should be dealt with appropriately.

[Eastvanmungo]

Amnesty for those who used steroids before they were banned in baseball.

Persecution for those who used them afterwards.

Miniature flags for everyone else.

[west coast orange and black]

amnesty can be either the act of forgiving or forgetting.

it is not possible for us to forgive those who tested positive but whose results have not been made public, because of the rules that are in place.

for most of us it is not possible, for one reason or another, to forget either those who we know who have tested positive or those who have been suspected of using.

then there are the users who have not tested positive but who have skated simply because many of us have not wanted to believe that it is not even possible that those particular players could have used.

"no" voters, what about the players who have used but have not been known to have tested positive?

[Elvis]

"no" voters, what about the players who have used but have not been known to have tested positive?

What's the point of that question? :confused: What about child molesters that have never been caught? Unfair to those that have to out them? Same principle.

[Erik Bedard]

The answer has to be "no" because if you let 'em get away with it, that only encourages others to break the rules and cheat later on down the line.

They'll think: 'if those Roid guys got away with it, then I can get away with [whatever] too.'

What I would really like to see is at least one big-name known user be banned for life from MLB, including the Hall of Fame. Maybe Barry Bonds would be a good one to single out (preferably before he breaks Hammerin' Hank Aaron's record). That would send an important message to the kids who watch baseball.

Good luck getting Barry Bonds to test positive three times in the next month or so.

Amnesty for those who used steroids before they were banned in baseball.

Persecution for those who used them afterwards.

Miniature flags for everyone else.

Agreed.

Steroids are not only illegal in baseball, they're against the law in the real world, too. That means that those who use them are committing a crime. Hell no, we shouldn't turn a blind eye on them and simply move on. Not if we care about the rule of law, we don't. It's not that simple. I have heard some people complain that the Congress should stay out of baseball, but they are obviously ignorant of the fact that Congress is going after steroids as a federal crime, and NOT to protect old-timers' batting stats.

Many players have committed crimes, but as one poster here said, "If they are illegal in society but not in baseball, shouldn't they be punished in society and not in baseball?" Take Orlando Cepeda. He has been arrested numerous times on drug-related offenses, but are there people saying that they want to kick him out of the HoF because of it? Should Dock Ellis be banned for life because he said he took LSD? All of that is illegal by the laws of the USA. However, none of it is banned by MLB. MLB is a separate governing body from the US legislature. Congress can investigate steroids as a federal crime all they want, but MLB should provide amnesty for those who used the steroids before they became illegal in baseball.

I would just like to say that this "dead horse subject" has already went a thousand miles in the half year since I joined BBF and I don't believe that one personal opinion has been changed by any of the steroid threads.

My personal opinion has changed slightly. When I first came to the site, I thought that all players who ever used steroids should be banned from the game forever. Since then, I've come to realize that you can't punish someone for doing something that wasn't illegal by your rules. I think it was in the same thread where the poster who wrote the line I quoted above where I realized this.

On another topic, why is Congress investigating MLB, where there are some hazy rumors that players are on steroids, and maybe one or two proven cases where big-name players have been caught/admitted. Why are they not pursuing pro wrestling instead, especially after the Benoit tragedy?

[abolishthedh]

Agreed, Bedard, from the information I have gleaned from the news, Congress will prefer to investigate wrestling as opposed to baseball. On the other hand, I bet we can generally agree that this Congress will choose to do nothing on wrestling too!

Over the topic at hand, this may sound extreme, but I believe the time has come to 1) grant amnesty as a white flag, and then 2) close the record book retroactively to some agreed upon year (say 1998?) and 3) open a new 'record book' starting with that year.

Taking these measures would send a measure to ballplayers that MLB and society do not approve of cheaters, even if no laws were broken. I get a kick out of ballplayers who complain about respect, and the lack thereof when they feel they've been dissed. Respect is earned in every profession, and that means playing by the rules.

Incidentally, isn't that why Congress has always had a general lack of respect throughout history.... a history of corruption.

If MLB took these measures as I have outlined, Aaron, Maris and all players prior to 1998 would have their place and reputation cemented for the ages. It would also leave Bonds to complain about the next generation of cheaters in a context which allows him to see things differently than he has to date.

[west coast orange and black]

elvis: What about child molesters that have never been caught?
in this instance we're talking about an organized body and its members. we know who every individual members is. now, do we simply forgive / forget about possible indiscretions of all members of mlb?

[Brian McKenna]

They already have amnesty - their deeds and names will never be stricken.

What we don't have is allocution and our right as fans to have all the info and be able to put it in perspective.

A side note - the Mitchell panel is a waste - they'll take a decade to come to no great end. Which is what MLB wants I guess.

[Whitesoxnut]

My personal opinion has changed slightly. When I first came to the site, I thought that all players who ever used steroids should be banned from the game forever. Since then, I've come to realize that you can't punish someone for doing something that wasn't illegal by your rules. I think it was in the same thread where the poster who wrote the line I quoted above where I realized this.

The point is the entire game was phony and predicated on Lies. Even worse then that some of MLBs most cherished records were broken by lieing phonies.

Nobody has a "right" to be in the HOF or a right to be in the record books. Thats something you earn and these guys didn't earn them.

Since the strike era all this game has been about is greed. The strike itself was about greed. Shooting 'roids was all about personal greed and ego, as was MLBs refusal to address the problem even tho everybody knew. Thats why when I read here in these pages some of this complete loyalty to the game by some of the fans here I just groan. YOU, and WE, as fans are last on the list of importance with this game.

Imagine what Hank Aaron thinks now as this phony is closing in on his record with his 2001, 1 home run per 6.5 ABs at 38yo?:disbelief:

If you want the game to come clean then you have to wipe out the records of the 'roiders and ban them from the HOF. First on the list is McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds. There is enough suspicion surrounding Sosa, that and he's a proven cheat anyways. Or, just watch his eeengleeesh act in front of congress and compare it with his fine English after hitting 600. The guy is a pure phony.

I'll be frank, and I adore the game of baseball, but MLB lost me with the strike year. It was my kid playing that brought me back to the game and I haven't paid my way to see MLB since. I think the game is phony, the owners are phony, and many of the players are phony and arrogant.

Ive researched this steroids thing, as you can tell by some of the links I post, and the arrogance and dishonesty this game has had with its fans is just stunning.

Then again maybe they are right on target. Maybe we all are so stupid, pathetic, and so easily manipulated that we deserve to be flimm-flammed like this.

[Mattingly]

How about Messrs Rose, McGwire, Bonds and Sosa get amnesty as well as permanent ineligibility to be enshrined into Cooperstown? No prosecution from Congress, MLB, no tainted records, no asterisks, no HoF speech ever. I'd take that. Otherwise, no dice.

[tat2ist77]

I don't know how many people out there are as sick and tired of hearing about the whole steroid scandal as I am. Frankly, I couldn't care less anymore as to who used what and when. You have the 30 million dollar investigation report that says nothing, Giambi says he will talk, but not name names (1) isn't that what they wanted in the first place, and 2) what good is that going to do "yeah, I had a friend that used em...").

It's time for the MLB to say, "We screwed up, the owners screwed up, and the players screwed up. We are not going to go after ad punish players who used in the past, but we are going to concentrate our efforts on continuing to clean up the game now and enforcing the rules that now exist."

Enough of this friggin witch hunt already.

I agree. We all know it happened. No one stopped it from happening. It's over (now they're on to HGH). Lets let it die.

Greg

[slugger33]

I voted yes. Canseco and McGwire should be in the HoF!

[hiddengem]

The point is the entire game was phony and predicated on Lies. Even worse then that some of MLBs most cherished records were broken by lieing phonies.

Nobody has a "right" to be in the HOF or a right to be in the record books. Thats something you earn and these guys didn't earn them.



Buddy, do you realize how many guys in the HOF cheated in some form or another? Cheating is Cheating no matter how you slice it. Just get it through you head that your childhood heros were cheaters as well, its not just the guys that have taken roids.

Neither Bonds, McGuire or Sosa have ever tested positive for Steroids after they became illegal in the game or before for that matter. I'll guarantee you that had Steroids been around in the 40's and 50's and the players knew what they could do for them, many would have taken them in a quick second.

[Mattingly]

Buddy, do you realize how many guys in the HOF cheated in some form or another? Cheating is Cheating no matter how you slice it. Just get it through you head that your childhood heros were cheaters as well, its not just the guys that have taken roids.

Neither Bonds, McGuire or Sosa have ever tested positive for Steroids after they became illegal in the game or before for that matter. I'll guarantee you that had Steroids been around in the 40's and 50's and the players knew what they could do for them, many would have taken them in a quick second.
What kind of cheating are you referring to? Stolen signs from the catcher? Greenies? Doctored baseballs? Corked bats?

[west coast orange and black]

hiddengem: Cheating is Cheating no matter how you slice it.
what many will claim is that when cheating results in bigger/better numbers, that form of cheating is worse.
i don't get it: how can bigger personal numbers be worse than results that end up in the won-loss column?


I'll guarantee you that had Steroids been around in the 40's and 50's and the players knew what they could do for them, many would have taken them in a quick second.
this has long been my position, as well.

[Mattingly]

hiddengem: Cheating is Cheating no matter how you slice it.
what many will claim is that when cheating results in bigger/better numbers, that form of cheating is worse.
i don't get it: how can bigger personal numbers be worse than results that end up in the won-loss column?
So you're saying that people complain when someone is strongly accused of juicing and has great numbers, but don't complain when someone else has also been accused of juicing, but hits around .250 and has 5 jacks and 40 ribeyes at the end of September?

Re the W-L column, you're referring to team wins? Pitcher wins? I'm not sure I'm following your point being made on this.
I'll guarantee you that had Steroids been around in the 40's and 50's and the players knew what they could do for them, many would have taken them in a quick second.
this has long been my position, as well.
In that case, we'd have had lackadaisical MLB Commissioners back then. If that was around back then (they've been around since the '70s at least, re Arnold Schwarzenegger), would they have been affordable? Would it have been the "everbody knows, but nobody's doing anything about it" thing that's what I'm apparently seeing right now?

[StanTheMan]

I'll guarantee you that had Steroids been around in the 40's and 50's and the players knew what they could do for them, many would have taken them in a quick second.
this has long been my position, as well.

I agree with that position.... and for perhaps the first time WCO and B and I agree!! :applaud: Players of that era would have taken Steroids... and maybe at a more alarming rate than current/recent players, due to the lack of medical knowledge that would have probably existed at the time....

But that in no way does that opinion/fact exhonerate current/recent players for taking them.. Not even close.

The current group still chose to break the law and juice. I have no sympathy for them when public opinion, HOF voters, or courts of law, thrash them and their reputation about like rag dolls.

Amnesty? Absolutely not.


And count me among those absolutely FLOORED that hiddengem has actually posted that "cheating is cheating." I love getting inside his mind every few days or so and read about him and his career. It's as close to a big leaguer as many of us will ever get. He's genuine, and generous with his time on this board. But cheating is cheating? Wow. Just Wow.

Stealing signs, corking bats, doctoring balls, etc... are all VERY different than juicing. You can get caught doing these types of things ON THE DIAMOND, and often, the players can take care of it themselves with a few fastballs up and in... or an umpire inspects your glove, the underside of your hat, your bat, etc.

Until umpires can inspect buttocks for syringe marks lol.... PED's will be very different. Darker, more sinister, and a much more concious decision by the user to disregard a great deal of respect for the game, the opponent, and the fans by choosing to use PED's in the privacy of his own home/gym etc.... THEN come to the park and perform.

[natsnsoxfan]

hiddengem: Cheating is Cheating no matter how you slice it.
what many will claim is that when cheating results in bigger/better numbers, that form of cheating is worse.
i don't get it: how can bigger personal numbers be worse than results that end up in the won-loss column?


I'll guarantee you that had Steroids been around in the 40's and 50's and the players knew what they could do for them, many would have taken them in a quick second.
this has long been my position, as well.

It doesn't matter if they would've because they DIDN'T. Ken Griffey WOULD'VE broken Aaron's record if not for injuries, Mickey Mantle WOULD'VE been one of the top 5 players of All Time if not for injuries. Since when do we actually take would've's seriously on the site?

[hiddengem]

What kind of cheating are you referring to? Stolen signs from the catcher? Greenies? Doctored baseballs? Corked bats?

It doesn't matter what I'm talking about. Just because during the 90's players found a way to cheat that yielded better results, means its any worse than the best stuff guys could find in the 50's? Come on.

[Dodgerfan1]

I agree with that position.... and for perhaps the first time WCO and B and I agree!! :applaud: Players of that era would have taken Steroids... and maybe at a more alarming rate than current/recent players, due to the lack of medical knowledge that would have probably existed at the time....

But that in no way does that opinion/fact exhonerate current/recent players for taking them.. Not even close.

The current group still chose to break the law and juice. I have no sympathy for them when public opinion, HOF voters, or courts of law, thrash them and their reputation about like rag dolls.

Amnesty? Absolutely not.


And count me among those absolutely FLOORED that hiddengem has actually posted that "cheating is cheating." I love getting inside his mind every few days or so and read about him and his career. It's as close to a big leaguer as many of us will ever get. He's genuine, and generous with his time on this board. But cheating is cheating? Wow. Just Wow.

Stealing signs, corking bats, doctoring balls, etc... are all VERY different than juicing. You can get caught doing these types of things ON THE DIAMOND, and often, the players can take care of it themselves with a few fastballs up and in... or an umpire inspects your glove, the underside of your hat, your bat, etc.

Until umpires can inspect buttocks for syringe marks lol.... PED's will be very different. Darker, more sinister, and a much more concious decision by the user to disregard a great deal of respect for the game, the opponent, and the fans by choosing to use PED's in the privacy of his own home/gym etc.... THEN come to the park and perform.

This is an EXCELLENT post, Stan! Kudos!

[hiddengem]

I


Stealing signs, corking bats, doctoring balls, etc... are all VERY different than juicing.


Maybe you could point out for me where I said juicing was the same as Stealing signs, corking bats and doctoring balls.

I'm referring to PED's. Players have been taking PED's since the 50's at least. I know players personally that played in that era and verfied that to me. Now that the PED's are better than those days its a problem? Those guys used whatever they could get their hands on, and the players these days are no different.

[hiddengem]

It doesn't matter if they would've because they DIDN'T.


Oh, but because the PED's they could get their hands on in those days and used wern't steroids, its ok?

[StanTheMan]

Buddy, do you realize how many guys in the HOF cheated in some form or another? Cheating is Cheating no matter how you slice it.

If you are equating "off field" cheating (PED's, Greenies, Andro after it was banned, ephedra, etc) of different eras as a "similar" style of cheating,

then I hear you loud and clear.

But I, along with many others, sometimes jump to conclusion when the "cheating is cheating no matter how you slice it." comes out.

It that was the case, then you'd get 50 games when you get caught with vaseline on the brim of your cap, and a lifetime ban if you continue.

I think I understand where you are coming from though...

Every generation had their "PED" or something from that era, was available. Greenies, etc.

Just because today's PED's seem to perform better, you should not discount what other's decided to do... how they cheated off the field, in their era. I agree with that...

[StanTheMan]

This is an EXCELLENT post, Stan! Kudos!


Kudos received... Thanks. :clapping Bryan in Indy

[hiddengem]

Every generation had their "PED" or something from that era, was available. Greenies, etc.

Just because today's PED's seem to perform better, you should not discount what other's decided to do... how they cheated off the field, in their era. I agree with that...

This is how I feel.

[west coast orange and black]

two-three: So you're saying that people complain...
i seems to me that there has been a preoccupation with players' numbers rather than with team wins > playoff victories > world series parades. the game is played for the ring, not numbers.
players focus on wins while the general public is enamored / stuck on the numbers.

[west coast orange and black]

two-three: ...hits around .250 and has 5 jacks and 40 ribeyes
again, the focus has been squarely on bigger numbers (see bonds' drive to 756) rather than on the [fill in with infield position here] who had a bit more zip on the ball, was able to make the play, thus killing the rally and securing the win... that clinched the division.

the original question pertains to amnesty. mckenna mentioned allocution and the right to know who, exactly, used and thus be able to put it in perspective.
hell with that.
i still very much believe that we would be much better off not knowing who used.

[Skin & Bones]

This is an EXCELLENT post, Stan! Kudos!

Excellent? Maybe. Inaccurate? Most certainly. Of course Stan and I have been over the doctoring the ball/steroid comparison before, and he has YET to prove to me that steroids provide better results.

[Reed Johnson]

All players caught using steroids should be banned for life.

[Dodgerfan1]

Excellent? Maybe. Inaccurate? Most certainly. Of course Stan and I have been over the doctoring the ball/steroid comparison before, and he has YET to prove to me that steroids provide better results.

Well, of course, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that any drug that makes your muscles stronger would tend to allow you to hit a ball farther than you were able to before, assuming you are using the same form with your swing. That would change 'warning track power' to 'home run power', would it not? I'm not being condescending in the least, that's a legitimate question, as it seems obvious to me. Is that not so? I don't think we need to be doctors to realize that. I know I don't have to be strung out on drugs to know they can kill....

I never bought into the old "steroids don't help you hit the ball" mumbo-jumbo. As I said in a previous post, eyeglasses don't make you see, either, but they sure do make you see better.

[Whitesoxnut]

Funny how thse 'roid freaks went from 1 HR per 16 or 24 ABs up to 1 HR per 10 or 12. Bonds in 2001 hit 1 per 6.5. And especially since they did it in their mid to late 30's.

But 'roids had nothing to do with it right?:laugh


Well, of course, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that any drug that makes your muscles stronger would tend to allow you to hit a ball farther than you were able to before, assuming you are using the same form with your swing. That would change 'warning track power' to 'home run power', would it not? I'm not being condescending in the least, that's a legitimate question, as it seems obvious to me. Is that not so? I don't think we need to be doctors to realize that. I know I don't have to be strung out on drugs to know they can kill....

I never bought into the old "steroids don't help you hit the ball" mumbo-jumbo. As I said in a previous post, eyeglasses don't make you see, either, but they sure do make you see better.

[Whitesoxnut]

two-three: So you're saying that people complain...
i seems to me that there has been a preoccupation with players' numbers rather than with team wins > playoff victories > world series parades. the game is played for the ring, not numbers.
players focus on wins while the general public is enamored / stuck on the numbers.

You dont think the players are more interested in their stats then the team? Really? This is the MLB were talking right? In 2007?

Methinks they have 3 items of importance. #1 being their checkbooks, #2, being their personal stats, and #3, being how well the team is benefiting them. Yes there are exceptions, but this is a game of greed and somewhere way last on this list is the fans.

Why else would so many players shoot junk into their bodies? http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3 Or go on strike for almost a year?

You think they did it "for the team"?:laugh
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3

A year earlier Congress had raised penalties for possessing those and 25 other anabolics. But now the stuff violated baseball's rules, too. On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

[west coast orange and black]

whitesoxnut: You dont think the players are more interested in their stats then the team? Really?
i believe that winning is absolutely their primary agenda.

#1 being their checkbooks, #2, being their personal stats, and #3, being how well the team is benefiting them. Yes there are exceptions...
i strongly disagree.

re going on strike: winning + checkbooks need to be exclusive from the other?

re: "who knew": please provide yet another link to the story.

[Whitesoxnut]

whitesoxnut: You dont think the players are more interested in their stats then the team? Really?
i believe that winning is absolutely their primary agenda.

#1 being their checkbooks, #2, being their personal stats, and #3, being how well the team is benefiting them. Yes there are exceptions...
i strongly disagree.

re going on strike: winning + checkbooks need to be exclusive from the other?

re: "who knew": please provide yet another link to the story.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=1 OK :p

Funny, but before I started posting all these steroid links the Yea's were far ahead of the nays.

So your opinion is that MLB players care more about their teams then they do their money and personal stats? I think you have to high an opinion of humanity, and most certainly the game of MLB.

[StanTheMan]

Excellent? Maybe. Inaccurate? Most certainly. Of course Stan and I have been over the doctoring the ball/steroid comparison before, and he has YET to prove to me that steroids provide better results.

On the contrary......

Most people realize that throughout the world -- in every major sporting competition/league that I can think of, the penalty is currently, and has been, MUCH, MUCH more severe for using PED"s than for doctoring equipment/balls/bats/sticks/shoes etc.

So it is you, my friend, who need to prove to ME - that PED's are NOT worse than doctoring a ball.

[west coast orange and black]

whitesoxnut: So your opinion is that MLB players care more about their teams then they do their money and personal stats?
they care more about winning, yes.

I think you have to high an opinion of humanity, and most certainly the game of MLB.
thanx; it's how i was taught.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

On the contrary......

Most people realize that throughout the world -- in every major sporting competition/league that I can think of, the penalty is currently, and has been, MUCH, MUCH more severe for using PED"s than for doctoring equipment/balls/bats/sticks/shoes etc.

So it is you, my friend, who need to prove to ME - that PED's are NOT worse than doctoring a ball.

Its not that hard to prove steroids are worse.... doctoring a ball only works for as long as that praticular ball is in play, so even if they dont get caught..... its only for a pitch or two, plus with doctoring the ball it must happen at some point during the game, PEDs are invisible and long lasting i dont see how its NOT proven that PEDs are worse than doctoring a ball.

[hiddengem]

.............

[hiddengem]

You dont think the players are more interested in their stats then the team? Really? This is the MLB were talking right? In 2007?

Methinks they have 3 items of importance. #1 being their checkbooks, #2, being their personal stats, and #3, being how well the team is benefiting them. Yes there are exceptions, but this is a game of greed and somewhere way last on this list is the fans.
[/url]


So when you go to work, I assume you have some sort of job, are you more concerned about making your boss richer, or continuing to further your personal career so you can make more money and your family better off?

There are very few players out there that consiously comes to the park and say "I really don't give a crap if we win or lose". Everybody wants to win, but let me get this through your head. If a player on a great team plays crappy and doesn't produce, his GM isn't going to say "hey you know, Joe Blow really sucked this year but our team did great, lets sign him again and give him a raise" AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. If he does do a good job, the chances the team resignes him and gives him a job again are high and if they don't somebody else will.

When a player signs a long term deal, the emphasis on winning becomes even greater because he now has the security of knowing he's going to have a job few a few yrs regardless.

So why does it seem that you view a baseball player different than other members of society?

[west coast orange and black]

bigstelly: doctoring a ball only works for as long as that praticular ball is in play...
actually, it's the pitcher in question. the pitcher (or catcher) is more than likely gonna rub-a-dub more than just one ball.

...its only for a pitch or two
which could stop a rally, set a big slugger down, or even put a game to bed.

with doctoring the ball it must happen at some point during the game, PEDs are invisible and long lasting i dont see how its NOT proven that PEDs are worse than doctoring a ball.
hmm... i don't see how it's not proven that doctoring a ball is worse than ped > more potency to the guy who already has the upper hand.

[Skin & Bones]

On the contrary......

Most people realize that throughout the world -- in every major sporting competition/league that I can think of, the penalty is currently, and has been, MUCH, MUCH more severe for using PED"s than for doctoring equipment/balls/bats/sticks/shoes etc.

So it is you, my friend, who need to prove to ME - that PED's are NOT worse than doctoring a ball.

Which has everything to do with percieved health risks.

I already proved to you the impact doctoring the ball has on the numbers - It's a huge impact that mirrors that of steroid use, and unlike the juice, it takes no work to reap from it's benefits. You haven't proven to me at all that doctoring the ball provides less benefits to the cheater in particular than PED'S.

[Skin & Bones]

Its not that hard to prove steroids are worse.... doctoring a ball only works for as long as that praticular ball is in play, so even if they dont get caught..... its only for a pitch or two, plus with doctoring the ball it must happen at some point during the game, PEDs are invisible and long lasting i dont see how its NOT proven that PEDs are worse than doctoring a ball.


Doctoring the ball works by doctoring the ball. When you doctor it, the advantage is there, no if and or but's about it. The hitter is at a disadvantage, and that's that. Steroids, on the other hand, usually result in multiple trips to the DL, and all kinds of health problems - All for the benefit of prolonging your workouts. Doctoring the ball not only provides a huge advantage for the pitcher over the hitter ( something's PED'S don't do, since both hitters and pitchers equally benefit from them), but the results are outstanding, and the cheaters health isn't at risk.

This is a fact.

[Skin & Bones]

Well, of course, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that any drug that makes your muscles stronger would tend to allow you to hit a ball farther than you were able to before, assuming you are using the same form with your swing. That would change 'warning track power' to 'home run power', would it not? I'm not being condescending in the least, that's a legitimate question, as it seems obvious to me. Is that not so? I don't think we need to be doctors to realize that. I know I don't have to be strung out on drugs to know they can kill....

I never bought into the old "steroids don't help you hit the ball" mumbo-jumbo. As I said in a previous post, eyeglasses don't make you see, either, but they sure do make you see better.

Steroids don't make you see better, they enhance your workouts, thus enabling an athlete to get stronger quicker then they naturally would.

I also don't know where you got the idea that I questioned steroids benefits...

[Whitesoxnut]

Funny you should ask that. My job is to serve and protect the public, and in doing so risking my own life protecting people I never even met. I dont think I'm a good comparison. Not that its a hardship to me cause I was raised in the Church to be my brothers keeper.

Ive been shot at numerous times, have ran into fires, been in city-wide street riots, carried dead kids to the morgue. Again I dont think I'm a good person to compare with.

One team I will use as an example is my own Whitesox this year. I dont think many of those cowards give a hoot if they win or lose. I think even profane little Ozzie wishes he was down in Venezuela, or wherever hes from, strutting around like a Peacock.

And I think "most" if not "all" MLB players are more concerned with their stats and money then the team. The biggest example thru the years has been Barry Bonds. And if you want to see otherwise then go to your kids Little League games.


So when you go to work, I assume you have some sort of job, are you more concerned about making your boss richer, or continuing to further your personal career so you can make more money and your family better off?

There are very few players out there that consiously comes to the park and say "I really don't give a crap if we win or lose". Everybody wants to win, but let me get this through your head. If a player on a great team plays crappy and doesn't produce, his GM isn't going to say "hey you know, Joe Blow really sucked this year but our team did great, lets sign him again and give him a raise" AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. If he does do a good job, the chances the team resignes him and gives him a job again are high and if they don't somebody else will.

When a player signs a long term deal, the emphasis on winning becomes even greater because he now has the security of knowing he's going to have a job few a few yrs regardless.

So why does it seem that you view a baseball player different than other members of society?

[west coast orange and black]

whitesoxnut: My job is to serve and protect the public .... Ive been shot at numerous times, have ran into fires, been in city-wide street riots, carried dead kids to the morgue.
very good.

I dont think many of those cowards give a hoot if they win or lose.
I think even profane little Ozzie wishes he was down in Venezuela, or wherever hes from, strutting around like a Peacock.
And I think "most" if not "all" MLB players are more concerned with their stats and money then the team. he biggest example thru the years has been Barry Bonds.
not so good.

[hiddengem]

Funny you should ask that. My job is to serve and protect the public, and in doing so risking my own life protecting people I never even met. I dont think I'm a good comparison. Not that its a hardship to me cause I was raised in the Church to be my brothers keeper.

Ive been shot at numerous times, have ran into fires, been in city-wide street riots, carried dead kids to the morgue. Again I dont think I'm a good person to compare with.

One team I will use as an example is my own Whitesox this year. I dont think many of those cowards give a hoot if they win or lose. I think even profane little Ozzie wishes he was down in Venezuela, or wherever hes from, strutting around like a Peacock.

And I think "most" if not "all" MLB players are more concerned with their stats and money then the team. The biggest example thru the years has been Barry Bonds. And if you want to see otherwise then go to your kids Little League games.


Well, I'm not sure if you are a cop,firefighter or something else, but I do have the utmost respect for all of you. You guys are not paid nearly enough for the service you provide. You have obviously been through and done some very unselfish things in you career and I commend you for that.

But whats funny is this: I just had a very good friend and former collegue go through the academy, graduate and get hired by a city back in AZ where I live. He went into law enforcement because he thought it would be a good opportunity to get into another line of business where you were part of a "team", working together to protect the city.

However, what he found was that the cops he was hired to work with were far more selfish and out for themselves than probably any baseball player he ever played with. Far more concerned about themselves, moving up to make more money than working as a team to protect the city. Nothing like he thought it would be, so he resigned and has moved on.


But you never really answered my question. Why are baseball players held to a different standard than any other line of work?

[Whitesoxnut]

However, what he found was that the cops he was hired to work with were far more selfish and out for themselves than probably any baseball player he ever played with. Far more concerned about themselves, moving up to make more money than working as a team to protect the city. Nothing like he thought it would be, so he resigned and has moved on.

OH please. How many MLB players would walk down a dark alley looking for armed gangsters at 0300 for $60,000 a year? I work in a city that will eat up a copper and spit him out regardless of his level of narcissism.


But you never really answered my question. Why are baseball players held to a different standard than any other line of work?

This is a baseball forum isnt it? And how many file clerks make $9 million a year?

[StanTheMan]

Which has everything to do with percieved health risks.

I already proved to you the impact doctoring the ball has on the numbers - It's a huge impact that mirrors that of steroid use, and unlike the juice, it takes no work to reap from it's benefits. You haven't proven to me at all that doctoring the ball provides less benefits to the cheater in particular than PED'S.

No... it has LITTLE to do with perceived health risks... or MLB would have done something sooner. Chewing tobacco has MAJOR health risks... and was not addressed by baseball for more than 100 years. Why? Because a plug does not help you hit Home Runs. So your "health risk" argument goes flying out the window. IF tobacco had been banned, since, say, 1940.... you might say MLB has the health of the players at the forefront of policy making... but they clearly do not.

And WHEN did you prove to me the impact/results of doctoring a ball? And it's (in your mind at least) HUGE impact that mirrrors steroid use?

For the sake of everyone, I'd like a "refresher course" from you. Do I need to stick my head in the snad when I read your post on the subject? It will be hard to see my monitor! :laugh

Bottom line is.... EVERY professional sports league that I can think of, including baseball, football, soccer, basketball, the Olympics, every big time NCAA sport, competitive swimming, all 75+ track and field events, cycling, The World Cup, Cricket, Rugby, Hockey, Curling, Darts, Tic-Tac-Toe and Professional Wii....

ALL have stiffer, far more stiffer penalties for PED use than for doctoring equipment, or the baseball equivalent of doctoring a ball. The only sport I can think of that might not is golf, and auto racing.....

LOL.... you actually think all these governing bodies have the HEALTH risks of PED"s as more of a priority than the havoc PED"s can wreak on the game itself.

That's uninformed, and ridiculous, imo.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Amnesty? I was not aware that any recent players were on the ineligible list. There have been a few suspensions but that's been the extent of MLB's dealings with the subject, unless you count a lot of posturing and BS.

Amnesty would be for players who have been convicted, banned, blacklisted, or otherwise prevented from continuing their careers. I haven't seen MLB do any such thing, or much of anything.

[Skin & Bones]

No... it has LITTLE to do with perceived health risks... or MLB would have done something sooner. Chewing tobacco has MAJOR health risks... and was not addressed by baseball for more than 100 years. Why? Because a plug does not help you hit Home Runs. So your "health risk" argument goes flying out the window. IF tobacco had been banned, since, say, 1940.... you might say MLB has the health of the players at the forefront of policy making... but they clearly do not.

And WHEN did you prove to me the impact/results of doctoring a ball? And it's (in your mind at least) HUGE impact that mirrrors steroid use?

For the sake of everyone, I'd like a "refresher course" from you. Do I need to stick my head in the snad when I read your post on the subject? It will be hard to see my monitor! :laugh

Bottom line is.... EVERY professional sports league that I can think of, including baseball, football, soccer, basketball, the Olympics, every big time NCAA sport, competitive swimming, all 75+ track and field events, cycling, The World Cup, Cricket, Rugby, Hockey, Curling, Darts, Tic-Tac-Toe and Professional Wii....

ALL have stiffer, far more stiffer penalties for PED use than for doctoring equipment, or the baseball equivalent of doctoring a ball. The only sport I can think of that might not is golf, and auto racing.....

LOL.... you actually think all these governing bodies have the HEALTH risks of PED"s as more of a priority than the havoc PED"s can wreak on the game itself.

That's uninformed, and ridiculous, imo.

Uh, last time we argued about this I posted a link to a well researched post proving that with a little research, you can find some amazing things.

Go check out the results.

And I never said perceived health risks is the sole reason for banning roids, just the main reason. Had unfair play been an issue, back in 1991 when they were banned they would have immediately implemented steroid testing, and have the penalty be a 50 game suspension, or a lifetime ban. No slipshod penalty like "see the teams physician".

[hiddengem]

OH please. How many MLB players would walk down a dark alley looking for armed gangsters at 0300 for $60,000 a year? I work in a city that will eat up a copper and spit him out regardless of his level of narcissism.

Hey, I never said MLB players would sign up to do your job, I think you are underpaid for what you do, and I probably wouldn't do it either. You chose to get into a line of work where you deal with people that would just a soon see you dead as look at you and not many people are going to sign up for that. You are special individual.

BUT, thats not what we are talking about, or at least what I'm talking about. You are saying that baseball players are only concerned about their stats and moving up to make more money, and I pointed out that cops are no different. We just happen to be in a line of work that has the potential to make alot more money when you move up. But our thinking is the same.



This is a baseball forum isnt it? And how many file clerks make $9 million a year

What does this have to do with the question I asked you? Who gives a rip how much money you make or can potentially make in your line of work. EVERYBODY wants to do well at your job so you can move up and make the most money you can, thats just human nature.

[Whitesoxnut]

Hey, I never said MLB players would sign up to do your job, I think you are underpaid for what you do, and I probably wouldn't do it either. You chose to get into a line of work where you deal with people that would just a soon see you dead as look at you and not many people are going to sign up for that. You are special individual.

BUT, thats not what we are talking about, or at least what I'm talking about. You are saying that baseball players are only concerned about their stats and moving up to make more money, and I pointed out that cops are no different. We just happen to be in a line of work that has the potential to make alot more money when you move up. But our thinking is the same.

What does this have to do with the question I asked you? Who gives a rip how much money you make or can potentially make in your line of work. EVERYBODY wants to do well at your job so you can move up and make the most money you can, thats just human nature.

This is what you said.But whats funny is this: I just had a very good friend and former collegue go through the academy, graduate and get hired by a city back in AZ where I live. He went into law enforcement because he thought it would be a good opportunity to get into another line of business where you were part of a "team", working together to protect the city.

However, what he found was that the cops he was hired to work with were far more selfish and out for themselves than probably any baseball player he ever played with. Far more concerned about themselves, moving up to make more money than working as a team to protect the city. Nothing like he thought it would be, so he resigned and has moved on.

[StanTheMan]

Uh, last time we argued about this I posted a link to a well researched post proving that with a little research, you can find some amazing things.

Go check out the results.

Hmmm... I'm gonna need more than that. I checked out the "your HOF" thread in which we both posted, and looked at your Sosa posts, your Palmiero Posts, etc.

Apart from seeing exactly where you spend your time on BBF, and that you are active on a lot of hot topics :applaud: I regretfully found no link you reference above.

Direction, please. I don't think any of us have the time to search each and every post you have made, nor does that particular page, listing all your posts, give one any indication which contain links, and which do not. I looked at about a dozen to be honest.

[baseball_83]

Regardless of any effect doctoring the ball has, do 2 wrongs make a right?

[Skin & Bones]

Hmmm... I'm gonna need more than that. I checked out the "your HOF" thread in which we both posted, and looked at your Sosa posts, your Palmiero Posts, etc.

Apart from seeing exactly where you spend your time on BBF, and that you are active on a lot of hot topics :applaud: I regretfully found no link you reference above.

Direction, please. I don't think any of us have the time to search each and every post you have made, nor does that particular page, listing all your posts, give one any indication which contain links, and which do not. I looked at about a dozen to be honest.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=873130&postcount=47

[StanTheMan]

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=873130&postcount=47

Hmm..... I've never been on that board in my life, so I couldn't possibly have known about that post, or how that post proves anything at all, much less it's contents, or how I am supposed to feel about said data......

So I went ahead and read it anyway. :)

Interesting, but terribly flawed, imo. I'll use that poster's (you under a diff name on a diff board?) own stat... American League ERA. His/Her premise is that the AL ERA jumped up tremendously, once doctoring the ball was declared illegal. It did... but not to the extent that it did in the steroid era.

Take a look at recent American League ERA's in the "Steroid Era" and those years just prior to it.

1989-----3.88
1990-----3.90
1991-----3.89
1992-----4.09
1993-----3.94

Then Look at the "Steroid Era" which admittedly is hard to define.... I say it began early to mid 90's and may in fact have been part of the 1992 and 1993 seasons above. But I'll go with the more commonly described "steroid era." Pick out whatever groups of consecutive seasons you want... it's ugly anyway you go about it. espeially the mid to late 90's when baseball executives had their collective heads in the sand.

1994-----4.80
1995-----5.06
1996-----5.00
1997-----4.57
1998-----4.65
1999-----4.65
2000-----4.91
2001-----4.48
2002-----4.46
2003-----4.53
2004-----4.63

ELEVEN STRAIGHT years of an American League ERA HIGHER than any of the previous EIGHT seasons. You have to go back to th 4.46 in 1987 to find one as ugly as the steroid era.

Many of these ERA's are a full RUN (1.00) higher than the average in the "pre-steroid era" and most of them are .80 or more higher.

This discrepancy absolutely DWARFS the discrepancies in ERA's BEFORE doctoring the ball was legal (pre 1920) as opposed to the first few AFTER the umps became more dilligent at keeping clean balls in play. (1920 and after) as mentioned in your/that other post on redszone.

Without getting too caught up in the numbers.....

The LAST season where spitballs etc were LEGAL, 1919, the American League ERA was 3.22, as posted in redzone.
The VERY NEXT SEASON, when spitballs were ILLEGAL, 1920, the AL ERA was 3.79. Then a high one at 4.28, and a 4.03.

This is hardly equivalent to an ERA around 3.90 for several years leading up the steroid era, followed by 4.9's and even two over 5.00. All this... with pitchers juicing as well... not just the hitters.

Bottom line, is PED"s have a HUGE impact on hitting, more than doctoring a ball EVER has, imo.

[Skin & Bones]

Hmm..... I've never been on that board in my life, so I couldn't possibly have known about that post, or how that post proves anything at all, much less it's contents, or how I am supposed to feel about said data......

So I went ahead and read it anyway. :)

Interesting, but terribly flawed, imo. I'll use that poster's (you under a diff name on a diff board?) own stat... American League ERA. His/Her premise is that the AL ERA jumped up tremendously, once doctoring the ball was declared illegal. It did... but not to the extent that it did in the steroid era.

Take a look at recent American League ERA's in the "Steroid Era" and those years just prior to it.

1989-----3.88
1990-----3.90
1991-----3.89
1992-----4.09
1993-----3.94

Then Look at the "Steroid Era" which admittedly is hard to define.... I say it began early to mid 90's and may in fact have been part of the 1992 and 1993 seasons above. But I'll go with the more commonly described "steroid era." Pick out whatever groups of consecutive seasons you want... it's ugly anyway you go about it. espeially the mid to late 90's when baseball executives had their collective heads in the sand.

1994-----4.80
1995-----5.06
1996-----5.00
1997-----4.57
1998-----4.65
1999-----4.65
2000-----4.91
2001-----4.48
2002-----4.46
2003-----4.53
2004-----4.63

ELEVEN STRAIGHT years of an American League ERA HIGHER than any of the previous EIGHT seasons. You have to go back to th 4.46 in 1987 to find one as ugly as the steroid era.

Many of these ERA's are a full RUN (1.00) higher than the average in the "pre-steroid era" and most of them are .80 or more higher.

This discrepancy absolutely DWARFS the discrepancies in ERA's BEFORE doctoring the ball was legal (pre 1920) as opposed to the first few AFTER the umps became more dilligent at keeping clean balls in play. (1920 and after) as mentioned in your/that other post on redszone.

Without getting too caught up in the numbers.....

The LAST season where spitballs etc were LEGAL, 1919, the American League ERA was 3.22, as posted in redzone.
The VERY NEXT SEASON, when spitballs were ILLEGAL, 1920, the AL ERA was 3.79. Then a high one at 4.28, and a 4.03.

This is hardly equivalent to an ERA around 3.90 for several years leading up the steroid era, followed by 4.9's and even two over 5.00. All this... with pitchers juicing as well... not just the hitters.

Bottom line, is PED"s have a HUGE impact on hitting, more than doctoring a ball EVER has, imo.


Nothing you have said proves anything. You've basically did nothing but make massive assumptions about when the steroid era started, ( could have even been the 70's, if House is to be believed), and ignore other factors such as expansion which have contributed massively to the increase in offense.

What's a true fact is that statistically, the impact doctoring the ball has on a pitchers stats is massive, and the hitter is always cheated. Where as with steroids, both the pitchers and batter benefit equally from it.

[StanTheMan]

Nothing you have said proves anything. You've basically did nothing but make massive assumptions about when the steroid era started, ( could have even been the 70's, if House is to be believed), and ignore other factors such as expansion which have contributed massively to the increase in offense.

What's a true fact is that statistically, the impact doctoring the ball has on a pitchers stats is massive, and the hitter is always cheated. Where as with steroids, both the pitchers and batter benefit equally from it.


IF both the pitchers and hitters benefit equally from steroids.... then how do you explain the HUGE jump in ERA? Keep in mind that this is a bigger jump than the jump in ERA when doctored pitches were made illegal.....

Was this ALL expansion? Did teams somehow expand in the PITCHING positions only? Ummmm no.... expansion forced hitters and position players into the big leagues as well, and forced what were once bench players into starting lineups, as well as forced older players to stay in the game a little longer. The expansion argument (at least as an argument as to why the AL ERA would rise enough to dwarf any other similar time period in recent history) does not hold water.

If you still don't believe.... show me other expansion eras (presumably WITHOUT PED's, or as the verly least a much LESSER chance that PED's were being used to the extent they were in the mid to late 90's) in which the ERA rises as much as in my example, or any stat you choose demonstrating that expansion alone caused a similar jump in offense.... go ahead, search away... you will not find any examples my friend.

You say the steroid ERA may have started in the 70's? :laugh :laugh Make sure you brush the sand out of your hair after you remove your head from that hole in the beach you have it stuck in. The 70's? Take a look at HOME RUN figures from the 90's and the 2000's.... compare them to the 1970's.... then actually THINK about it, and see if you will ever post that sentence again. I think you won't. Don't think the HR figures are enough... then look at slugging %.

And I made massive assumptions about when the Steroied era started? As I stated, it is admittedly hard to define...... but intelligent baseball fans realize that the mid 90's is when PED"s began to become more and more common in baseball. McGwire, Bonds, et al.

I heard an interview on the radio yesterday, with John Olerud, a player who NEVER was associated with steroids at all, a player with a good reputation, and a very good player at that, and he stated the first time he heard talk in the clubhouse about a player juicing, was 1995.

I understand that it is basic human nature.... when you have a position you strongly believe in, and another person comes along, uses the VERY SAME STATISTIC and pokes major holes in your theory, it is very likely that you come back with....

you got the years wrong, you assumed, expansion did it all... etc. etc. etc.
Don't fell bad, it's common around here.

Oh... and your original post/poster cerainly ASSUMED, or at least IGNORED the fact that the lively ball in the Ruth Era certainly played a role in forcing the era's to rise, it was not the illegality of doctoring the ball alone.

Botom line its PED"s help hitters MORE than doctoring a ball helps pitchers, IMO. PED's also help BATTERS, more than they help PITCHERS, IMO.

[StanTheMan]

Where as with steroids, both the pitchers and batter benefit equally from it.

Sure about that? Then why have 12 of the top 17 Home Runs Seasons OF ALL TIME, come since 1997? PED's do NOT help pitchers and hitters equally... simple reason.

Also, the TOP SIX Home Run Seasons of all time have ALL been in the steroid era. How can one, or two, or in this case three hitters HIGHLY suspected of juicing, be able to do that against all those juiced pitchers?

[StanTheMan]

Nothing you have said proves anything.

On the contrary I proved that the ERA jump associated with the banning of illegal pitches in 1920 and the ERA's imeediately after WAS NOT AS LARGE OF A JUMP in ERA associated with the PED era... bothe before, and during/after.

Same league, same stat.

If your original post (poster) can ignore the lively ball, Ruth changing the game, the emergence of biggger, stronger players after 1920 etc.... then you cannot overemphasize EXPANSION, which diluted both hitting, and pitching in the modern game.

[Skin & Bones]

IF both the pitchers and hitters benefit equally from steroids.... then how do you explain the HUGE jump in ERA? Keep in mind that this is a bigger jump than the jump in ERA when doctored pitches were made illegal.....

Pretty simple really. Smaller parks, tighter balls, roids, aluminum bats, all add in favor to offense. This ERA is already built for offense, so regardless of steroids, offense will be favored.



You say the steroid ERA may have started in the 70's? :laugh :laugh Make sure you brush the sand out of your hair after you remove your head from that hole in the beach you have it stuck in. The 70's? Take a look at HOME RUN figures from the 90's and the 2000's.... compare them to the 1970's.... then actually THINK about it, and see if you will ever post that sentence again. I think you won't. Don't think the HR figures are enough... then look at slugging %.

The steroid era could have possibly started in the 70's, yes. We've already had a pitcher admit to using massive amounts of steroids during his playing career. You may know him, well respected pitching coach Tom House. Then you had Rose trainer and friends involved in a steroid scandal in the 80's, which presumbly Rose had nothing to do with. You had Canseco and Mcgwire using back then, Dykstra allegedly, and god knows what else.

You, my friend, are the one with your head in the sand.

I understand that it is basic human nature.... when you have a position you strongly believe in, and another person comes along, uses the VERY SAME STATISTIC and pokes major holes in your theory, it is very likely that you come back with....

I haven't been proven wrong about anything.

Oh... and your original post/poster cerainly ASSUMED, or at least IGNORED the fact that the lively ball in the Ruth Era certainly played a role in forcing the era's to rise, it was not the illegality of doctoring the ball alone.

As you ignore other factors that led to the rise in offense?

Botom line its PED"s help hitters MORE than doctoring a ball helps pitchers, IMO. PED's also help BATTERS, more than they help PITCHERS, IMO.

Bottom line nothing. You haven't proven anything to me. You've done nothing but make assumption after assumption, without providing evidence to back up your claims. How do pitchers benefit equally from steroids? Easily - Recovery, increase in pitch speed, better break on breaking pitches, and who knows what else. A steroid like Winstrol could provide some incredible benefits for a pitcher - Just check out Paxton crawford who talks about it.

[Skin & Bones]

Sure about that? Then why have 12 of the top 17 Home Runs Seasons OF ALL TIME, come since 1997? PED's do NOT help pitchers and hitters equally... simple reason.

Also, the TOP SIX Home Run Seasons of all time have ALL been in the steroid era. How can one, or two, or in this case three hitters HIGHLY suspected of juicing, be able to do that against all those juiced pitchers?

Uh, so three hitters proves steroids benefit hitters more than pitchers?

[StanTheMan]

Uh, so three hitters proves steroids benefit hitters more than pitchers?


It certainly is something to talk about.... some would say, yes it does prove it.

If you don't think so... think about this.

From 1920 to 1996..... the 50 Home run platuea was reached 17 times - in 77 years.

After 1995, the 50 homer plateau has been reached 23 times - in just 12 seasons.

But the pitchers are juiced "just as much as the hitters" and they "benefit the same?"

"probably" and "no way in he11" ........respectively

[Skin & Bones]

It certainly is something to talk about.... some would say, yes it does prove it.

If you don't think so... think about this.

From 1920 to 1996..... the 50 Home run platuea was reached 17 times - in 77 years.

After 1995, the 50 homer plateau has been reached 23 times - in just 12 seasons.

But the pitchers are juiced "just as much as the hitters" and they "benefit the same?"

"probably" and "no way in he11" ........respectively

Again, you are ignoring other factors which have contributed greatly to the increase in offense in the past decade or so. Regardless of steroids, this is a hitters era.

[StanTheMan]

Again, you are ignoring other factors which have contributed greatly to the increase in offense in the past decade or so. Regardless of steroids, this is a hitters era.


Absolutely a hitters era... I agree...... I am not ignoring anything.... I just place the value of PED"s HIGHER than what you do... simple as that.

I'd be happy to agree to just disagree here... you're a solid poster around here, (as am I... I feel)

But can you POSSBILY think that these "other factors" that are often mentioned (some smaller parks, the evolution of other sports which may take some athletes AWAY from MLB, expansion including both new pitchers as well as new hitters, bigger, stronger, more sculpted players, the decline of the African American player (offset healthily by the advance of the Latin player in many opininons) etc.......

......Can you possibly explain the exponential increase in POWER in this era primarily as a result of these OTHER FACTORS?

Please elaborate... how much of a role did PED's play in this HUGE jump in power... and how much of a role did your "other factors" play?

23 times the 50 HR barrier has been eclipsed in just 12 years....

At the previous pace (before the PED era) it would have taken 102 years to get to 23 instances of 50 HR or more.

But these OTHER FACTORS allowed this to be accomplished in 12 yeras.... what would have taken 102? I absolutely DON"T SEE IT THAT WAY, friend.

[Skin & Bones]

Absolutely a hitters era... I agree...... I am not ignoring anything.... I just place the value of PED"s HIGHER than what you do... simple as that.

I'd be happy to agree to just disagree here... you're a solid poster around here, (as am I... I feel)

But can you POSSBILY think that these "other factors" that are often mentioned (some smaller parks, the evolution of other sports which may take some athletes AWAY from MLB, expansion including both new pitchers as well as new hitters, bigger, stronger, more sculpted players, the decline of the African American player (offset healthily by the advance of the Latin player in many opininons) etc.......

......Can you possibly explain the exponential increase in POWER in this era primarily as a result of these OTHER FACTORS?

Please elaborate... how much of a role did PED's play in this HUGE jump in power... and how much of a role did your "other factors" play?

23 times the 50 HR barrier has been eclipsed in just 12 years....

At the previous pace (before the PED era) it would have taken 102 years to get to 23 instances of 50 HR or more.

But these OTHER FACTORS allowed this to be accomplished in 12 yeras.... what would have taken 102? I absolutely DON"T SEE IT THAT WAY, friend.

I most certainly believe PED'S have played a part in the power increase in the past decade or so. I just believe many other factors I've mentioned previously contributed as well. I think to say that great power feats of today are all, or mostly a result of steroid abuse is ridiculous. I don't think that's true at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if Maris record was passed regardless of PED use. Of course, I don't think it would of been the same for both Bonds and Mcgwire ( assuming they both used banned drugs), but these men do deserve some credit for their Ruthian feats.

[StanTheMan]

The year that Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's record for Home Runs, there were 1,200 Home Runs hit in the National League.

Last year, there were 2,800 hit. A HUGE increase from just a generation or two ago......

[Ubiquitous]

The year Hank Aaron broke Ruths record there were 12 teams in the NL. This year there is 16.

Also 74 through 76 were down years for the homers in the NL. Only one year (the year of the pitcher) was lower then that period in the last 60 years.

[Whitesoxnut]

I dont think Maris's record would have been broken if not for the juice. Figure McGwire started juicing in 91/92, at least in spring 1992 he showed up to spring with a huge increase in mass. So he had 6 to 7 years of 'roiding up to help him break it. Looking at "syringing Sammies" numbers and I'd bet he didn't start long after McGwire. And after that '98 record breaking season Bonds sniffed the air and decided he was going to juice too. Thats when he partnered up with the new wave trainers/chemical WCO&Bs that had started showing up in MLB entourages.

So neither of the two home run records would have been broken if not for steroids. Not the single year and not the career.

And about all those NFL records? I dont pretend to have "friends in the NFL" and dont pretend to have all this inside knowledge from "all my friends", which btw nobody ever shares. But I do know the NFL has had the most stringent steroid and drug testing of any American sport.
Among professional sports leagues, the National Football League has cracked down the hardest on steroids. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw and many others in pro football have been working on the NFL’s steroids policy since the late 1980s. The NFL, under then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle, became the first sports league to begin testing its players for steroids in 1987, started suspending violators in 1989 for a first positive steroid test and began a year-round, random testing program in 1990.

And how many Bonds type controversies have you heard about in the NFL since they started testing? None right? Even with all those eyes watching those players, and all those snitches and rats, and all that Law Enforcement watching?http://thehill.com/op-eds/nfl-is-a-model-for-cracking-down-on-steroids-2005-04-27.html

Under the NFL’s policy, all players are tested for drugs during training camp. During the regular reason, seven players from each team are tested at random for steroids each week. Random tests continue during the off-season. Players can be tested as many as 15 times in one year. A positive test results in an immediate four-game suspension (one-fourth of the season) without pay.

Now if MLB instituted these tests at the same time as the NFL do you think any of these records would have been broken? If you answered "no" then you shouldn't be giving any "credit for Ruthian feats" because the players themselves didn't accomplish them cleanly. They used drugs to do so. So these records should not be allowed on the books.

[StanTheMan]

The year Hank Aaron broke Ruths record there were 12 teams in the NL. This year there is 16.

Also 74 through 76 were down years for the homers in the NL. Only one year (the year of the pitcher) was lower then that period in the last 60 years.

Solid points indeed..... but neither of which comes remotely close to accounting for an increase of home runs of 1,560... in one freaking season. different eras, different "game", different ballparks, even a different ball to some extent.

But for me, different chemistry is the #1 factor.

[Ubiquitous]

True difference is about 1100 homers between the two. Go one year back to 1973 and the difference is about 800 homers. Move forward to 1977 and the difference is about 700 homers. Go back to 1970 and the difference is about 600 homers. Go back to 1961 and the difference is about about 300 homers. Go back to 1955 and the difference is about 150 homers.

[StanTheMan]

True difference???? I prefer math..... You are off by THOUSANDS Ubiq...

1974 HR's totaled 1,280 in the NL
1973 1,550

1977 1,631
1961 only 1,196 were hit.
1950 had even fewer, at just 1,100 HR's in the NL.

Again. last season, there were 2,840.... a 258% increase over 1950, and ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY more than the year Aaron broke Ruth's record.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay do the math.

You do realize that in 1950 there were 8 teams in the NL playing a 154 game season right? You do realize that there is now 16 teams playing a 162 game season?

In 2006 in the NL 1.1 homers were hit per game
In 1974 it was .66
In 1973 it was .80
In 1977 it was .84
In 1961 it was .98
In 1955 it was 1.04

[StanTheMan]

Okay do the math.

You do realize that in 1950 there were 8 teams in the NL playing a 154 game season right? You do realize that there is now 16 teams playing a 162 game season?

In 2006 in the NL 1.1 homers were hit per game
In 1974 it was .66
In 1973 it was .80
In 1977 it was .84
In 1961 it was .98
In 1955 it was 1.04

Of course I realize there are more teams... playing more games. It was you who brought up the 8 team league from 1950.....

Do you realize that calling something a "TRUE DIFFERENCE" of only 100 HR's.... is VASTLY different than what you just posted, and impossible to comprehend in the first form you chose?

Do you also realize the TRUE DIFFERENCE between the 2006 NL and the 1856 NL was the full 2,840? :waving

[west coast orange and black]

whitesoxnut: And after that '98 record breaking season Bonds sniffed the air and decided he was going to juice too. Thats when he partnered up with the new wave trainers/chemical Ali's that had started showing up in MLB entourages.

i find this rather hyperbolic + grotesquely comical at once.

ali hassan abd al-majid, dubbed "chemical ali" by iraqui kurds, was charged with war crimes and sentenced to death. there is no parallel nor comparison.

[Ubiquitous]

The only time for amnesty is when one can realiably say that the sport is clean. Otherwise what is the point of amnesty?

Speaking of the black sox and gambling, amnesty was offered and given for gambling as well. But they didn't do it until the world was reliably certain that baseball was free from gambling. If you recall Landis in his Cobb/Speaker dealings basically said things that happened before my time will not further investigated and thus who did and did not fix games no longer was an issue.

At some point Selig should pull a Landis

[Brad Harris]

I don't know how many people out there are as sick and tired of hearing about the whole steroid scandal as I am. Frankly, I couldn't care less anymore as to who used what and when. You have the 30 million dollar investigation report that says nothing, Giambi says he will talk, but not name names (1) isn't that what they wanted in the first place, and 2) what good is that going to do "yeah, I had a friend that used em...").

It's time for the MLB to say, "We screwed up, the owners screwed up, and the players screwed up. We are not going to go after ad punish players who used in the past, but we are going to concentrate our efforts on continuing to clean up the game now and enforcing the rules that now exist."

Enough of this friggin witch hunt already.
Amen.

At some point Selig should pull a Landis
Unfortunately that appears to be the only way he'll leave office.