User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1252 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I can't believe anyone is still making this argument. The increase in home run rate took place entirely between 1992 (.72 HR/G) and 1994 (1.03 HR/G) -- a 43% jump in two years. Most people assume the ball was the main culprit -- it's hard to imagine what else could change so quickly. But the idea that PED use expanded that much that fast is just implausible (even if we ignore the fact that pitchers benefit as well.)
The company I worked for flew me around with the fish.
/Second year, I was much smarter, and just smoked pot in Valdez + Petersburg.
/We were tolerated, as it was September, and all the college kids had left, though I'm sure it's all immigrant labor by now.
Hmmmmm. I see. Hmmmm. I believe Mr. Simpson would like a word with you.
The whole thing is a sticky wicket, if you ask me.
/ducks
When I wrote that, this thread was still speculating what "substance" was the reason for his suspension. At the time none of us had any reason to believe it was a positive steroid test over a positive weed test. Manny chose not to appeal his suspension either because he knew he was guilty or because he didn't want the reason he was taking this drug to become public (if in fact it was a non PED drug). I suspected it was a personal matter. Yet every, every body in the MSM will be saying he's a roider, juicer, a cheat, etc. There is a different between taking Roids and taking some other banned substance for a legitimate medical reason, whether by accident or intentionally. I was reserving all judgment on it being a PED or not until the facts were public.
If it was medically related, he would/could still fight the suspension w/o publicly revaling the disease. I'm sure the union would fight hard for a confidential medical conference or something.
Get over it, he did PEDs.
I was never under it. It's utterly irrelevant to me whether he did or didn't do them.
Seriously, if HCG is really the drug, its entire purpose appears to be to produce testosterone -- banned. And I keep posting this site, but only because it's sort of remarkable (and I doubt someone could have registered it and ginned it up since this news broke): http://www.hcgsteroidshgh.com/
I'm over it, he took them, let's move on. But I wrote that statement: It would be nice if he could somehow clear his name of being a "roider", but still maintain his medical privacy. hours ago before anything was concrete, and someone else had to copy/paste it hours later, out of context, and make me sound like a fool. that's what I was replying to. Information has came out in the last 3 hours.
Specifics have started to come out and I'm sure will continue to, and we'll deal with them all in time. I was watching ESPNews at around 1:15, about 90 minutes after the story broke, before any specifics beyond Manny's statement had come to light. John Buccigross was interviewing Bob Nightengale about the situation. He brought up the subject of the Hall of Fame, saying although it is still early on, did Nightengale have an opinion of how this affected Manny's Hall of Fame chances? After all, "we spoke to Buster Olney earlier, and he was already lumping Manny in with the Bonds, Clemens, ARod, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa group as not being worthy of the Hall of Fame."
Why is there a ####### 5 year waiting period when every BBWAA member is going to be digging his heels into the sand to take a position 75 ####### minutes after the suspension story breaks and NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION is yet known?????
My apologies. I did not understand that from your post (and didn't read all the way back.)
This is a ridiculous argument unless you are saying that all hitters and all pitchers were juiced. If 20% of the hitters are juiced and 20% of the pitchers are juiced then clearly the performances of the top hitters and top pitchers would improve compared to their non-juiced peers. Hitters stats are compared to other hitters, and pitchers stats are compared to other pitchers.....not to each other. If a certain percentage of hitters are using, then they will look better compared to the non-users whether pitchers were juicing or not. All hitters face the same pitching population whether the pitchers are juicing or not.
But the point is that it is implausible to think that steroid use was nonexistent prior to 1993, and then suddenly, enough players were using it to effect the leaguewide numbers. Way to completely miss the point.
Are you also reserving judgement on Bonds, Clemens, Giambi, McGwire. And if you are, let me warn you that you may be reserving judgment for a very long time. You know as well as I do that "the facts will never be made public" in any of these cases.
The typical reaction to these stories is not based on the facts of the case, but on how we viewed that player before the story came out.
Could be worse, Manny could be Sammy Sosa and get lumped in with a bunch of people who've been caught all because he had the audacity to hit a lot of HRs.
Then why do you feel the need to come out with smartass remarks like "Sammy Sosa did PED's. There. Now it's a fact."
If it doesn't matter to you, why do you rush to make sarcastic dismissals like that?
I'd put Bonds at the 99% certain level. McGwire I'm at 80%, Clemens 65% (these are non-scientific ratings). I put Sosa at 20% (though you didn't mention him).
If I understand your argument (and I am not totally sure that I do) you are saying that 20% of hitters on steroids will increase homerun rates regardless of pitchers being on steroids because hitters are compared to hitters. While there is the possibility that hitters taking steroids will increase the homerun rate, you also have to consider that pitchers on steroids will not allow as many homeruns to hitters that are NOT on steroids - which would drop the HR rate and even the whole thing out.
Maybe for you, or for the BWWAA, etc; but not for me. Granted my own personal HOF doesn't matter squat to McGwire, but he is in it. I actually have a lot of respect for Big Mac because he refused to take part in that travesty in front of Congress.
I understand that "the truth" might not come out on all of these players, and I'm fine with that. But when I wrote that about Manny, it was 12:45, about 45 minutes after the damn story broke. Still plenty of time for some limited details to surface.
Why is there a ####### 5 year waiting period when every BBWAA member is going to be digging his heels into the sand to take a position 75 ####### minutes after the suspension story breaks and NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION is yet known?????
Hyman is on Francesspool and they are waiting for the "other shoe" to drop in Pujols using.
The hyman also said that basically the only great clean ones left are Griffey, Pedro and Maddux.
Shocked the Jeter is included in the taint.
Sorry, that is incorrect. The point is that HRs by the league leaders have increased by 30% to 40% between 1992 and 2007.
Nobody ever said that steroid use was non-existent before 1992. It helps to read the posts. If you pay some attention to Canseco, Caminiti, and the huge power surge in the late eighties you would be aware of the silliness of that postulate.
And acne!!
Right, there are several completely unsupported assumptions going on here -
(1) Nobody (or hardly anybody) was using PEDs before 1993.
(2) Between 1992 and 1994, pretty much the entire league started using.
(3) Either (a) pitchers didn't take PEDs, or (b) PEDs don't work on pitchers, so the overall effect of PEDs is to increase offense.
The MSM just seems to accept all these things as true, and don't bother to look into any of these assumptions.
Maybe he's not included in the "great".
Blasphemy!!!!
Someone said Sosa has no more evidence against him than Pujols does. Ray pointed out that the only difference between the two is that people have accused Sosa. He did so in a snarky way by making a statement that Pujols used, then saying that now Sosa has no more evidence against him than Pujols.
In case you didn't notice - seems that nobody noticed the first time around - Ray's comments had nothing to do with Manny Ramirez, and everything to do with the lack of evidence around Sosa.
This was already addressed when the absurd HR jump from the early 90s was mentioned. Is it your belief those hitters all started roiding at once?
Do you think at all before hitting the keyboard? Just wondering...
HR rates exploded over 40% for ALL hitters. So if 20% of the players were juicing (your number), they would have had to increase their HR totals by 200% (three fold). Obviously, that didn't happen. In fact, if you compare your two lists, you'll see the more recent players hit about 40% more HRs -- it's just a function of the overall increase in HR rates, not some huge spike among a select group.
Personally, I don't doubt that PEDs have increased performance for some players. But the overall change in HR rates is just not a serious piece of evidence for that claim to anyone who has any idea what they're talking about....
I was not talking HR rate. I was talking about actual amount of HRs for the top 15 active HR hitters in 1992 versus 1997. Nothing about HR rates of hitters or pitchers. That came from somebody else who claimed that MLB starter juicing balls in 1993 and thus increased the HR for all players right up to the present time.
That's your point. But that increase can be entirely explained by the 40% increase in HRs for ALL players, which took place in 1993 and 1994. HR rates have remained at about the same, higher level ever since. This really isn't that complicated.....
McGwire is more marginal (because of short career) and Sosa and Palmeiro are VERY marginal (because 129 OPS+).
In terms of non-juicers, if it's possible to have no obvious Bonds-like physical effect, then I think all post-'93 players must be suspect. But because of that, I'm not sure it matters.
No
I have never once referred to the HR rate. Please don't waste your time arguing a point that was never made. I am talking about the change in career totals for the active HR leaders over a 15 year interval. This change at the top does not reflect the HR rate for the league as a whole. It is only among the top hitters that the increase is this huge. And I know that there are potentially lots of reasons that could contribute to this.
What in the world are you talking about? HR totals for the best HR hitters went up 30-40%, as you say. HR rates overall also went up 30-40% (as they say, you can look it up). The first is an entirely expected and unsurprising consequence of the second. And there is no possible way -- as you seem to agree -- that PED use could explain a 40% league-wide increase in HRs over two seasons.
There have to be at least 100 better arguments for the idea that PED use increases performance. Try to find some of those....
Late peak
-OR-
Huge increase in #s from one year to the next
-OR-
Continued great numbers into your later years.
Except he cheated. The effects are irrelevant.
Additionally, there are far more examples of players fitting that criteria who have no steroid allegations against them(HI HENRY AARON!!) than those who do.
Technically, taking money from gamblers doesn't violate the rules of baseball, either.
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
I've always thought this was a strange argument. Suppose we learned that a great hitter had found a way to frequently drug opposing pitchers, reducing their effectiveness on the days he faced them. This would not (I assume) violate the "rules of baseball," but it would be a crime that affected the outcome of baseball games. Is that a meaningful difference? Would you really say this player didn't "cheat?" It seems to me that violations of the contract, or crimes, if they impact the outcome of games, meet most people's definition of cheating.
My first thought was yes it does.
Then I decided to look
HRs per game from 1979 to 1993 were .874, from 1994 to 2008 were 1.104, an increase of 26%.
HRs per game from 1964 to 1978 were 0.779, 1994 to 2008's 1.104 represents an increase of 41.7%
Here is the top 10 from 1994-2008:
Cnt Player HR PA From To Ages+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+-----+
1 Alex Rodriguez 553 9076 1994 2008 18-32
2 Barry Bonds 540 7677 1994 2007 29-42
3 Sammy Sosa 539 7844 1994 2007 25-38
4 Jim Thome 531 8602 1994 2008 23-37
5 Manny Ramirez 525 8951 1994 2008 22-36
6 Ken Griffey 479 7629 1994 2008 24-38
7 Carlos Delgado 469 8543 1994 2008 22-36
8 Rafael Palmeiro 437 7711 1994 2005 29-40
9 Gary Sheffield 425 8216 1994 2008 25-39
10 Frank Thomas 417 7747 1994 2008 26-40
The average is 491.5
Here are the top 10 from 1964-78:
Cnt Player HR PA From To+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+
1 Willie Stargell 418 7802 1964 1978
2 Hank Aaron 413 7358 1964 1976
3 Willie McCovey 397 7375 1964 1978
4 Billy Williams 352 8463 1964 1976
5 Dick Allen 351 7289 1964 1977
6 Harmon Killebrew 350 6469 1964 1975
7 Reggie Jackson 340 6801 1967 1978
8 Carl Yastrzemski 339 9609 1964 1978
9 Lee May 325 7324 1965 1978
10 Frank Robinson 324 6670 1964 1976
The average is 360.9, add 41.7% and the average is 511.4
So the leaders have actually done the opposite of what you say.
Here are the top 10 from 1979 to 1993:
Cnt Player HR PA From To+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+
1 Eddie Murray 387 9692 1979 1993
2 Dale Murphy 373 8309 1979 1993
3 Andre Dawson 368 8838 1979 1993
4 Mike Schmidt 358 6231 1979 1989
5 Dave Winfield 353 8717 1979 1993
6 Lance Parrish 300 7093 1979 1993
7 Jack Clark 300 6966 1979 1992
8 Cal Ripken 297 8525 1981 1993
9 Dwight Evans 296 7785 1979 1991
10 Darryl Strawberry 290 5434 1983 1993
The average is 332.2, add 26% and you have 419.6- which comports with what you said...
PAs:
The 1994-2008 leaders averaged 491.5 HR in 8199.6 PAs
The 1979-1993 leaders averaged 332.2 HR (419.6 adjusted) in 7759 PAs
The 1964-1978 leaders averaged 360.9 HR (511.4 adjusted) in 7516 PAs
I'm going to look more, but I do not think the last 15 years have been unusual in terms of how many HRs the leaders hit as compared to the rest of the league. The 15 immediately preceding years WERE the unusual years.
When I posted the HR lists I didn't realize that there was a two year increase in HR rate that basically explained the big increase in career HRs over that time period. So what is the explanation for the big increase in HR rate from 1992 to 1994.
1) Canadian team steals back to back World Series.
2) MLB changes the ball, apparently permanently.
3) Dramatic increase in PED use by hitters.
I suspect that #2 is the primary reason, with maybe a contribution from #3. Any other ideas. Can we somehow blame this on the Rockies?
I know what Ray was talking about with his comment about Sosa. My point is, if he doesn't care who is using, why does he care who is accused of using? The accusation itself can't harm a player's reputation in Ray's mind if he doesn't care if that player uses or not. Yet, he feels the need to comment on accusations.
Late peak
-OR-
Huge increase in #s from one year to the next
-OR-
Continued great numbers into your later years.
-OR-
Suddenly breaking down due to injuries
-OR-
Having a much improved record of avoiding or recovering from injuries
Top ten from 1954-68:
Cnt Player HR PA From To+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+
1 Willie Mays 563 9715 1954 1968
2 Hank Aaron 510 9888 1954 1968
3 Mickey Mantle 479 8357 1954 1968
4 Ernie Banks 472 9388 1954 1968
5 Eddie Mathews 440 8827 1954 1968
6 Frank Robinson 418 8160 1956 1968
7 Harmon Killebrew 397 6260 1954 1968
8 Rocky Colavito 374 7559 1955 1968
9 Al Kaline 313 8702 1954 1968
10 Joe Adcock 287 5440 1954 1966
The average is 425.3, or 556.7 adjusted for context
no to debate "steroid" career paths, but Aaron moved from a bad HR park (Milwaukee) to a very good HR park (The old Atlanta Launching Pad)
I'm not sure I understand what you purport to have done or illustrated. According to another poster the HR rate across the majors increased dramatically from 1992 to 1994 and has remained relatively stable since then. This is certainly consistent with my findings. I would be interested in knowing if any work has been done to understand the tremendous increase in HR rates between 1992 and 1994 and what we have learned.
The parks are different, and playing in Denver was a small contributor to the overall effect.
Personally I think Steroids may have had a large effect on a small number of users, a small effect on a large number of users, and no effect or even a negative effect on some number of users-
I think something was done with the ball- and 60-75% of the league wide increase is attributable to that change. I think the changeover in parks has been a 10-15% factor.
Many have tried to blame it on Colorado, but the fact remains that HRs jumped in the American League as well.
Expansion has also been advanced as a reason, but unlike previous expansions (which saw slight, one-year jumps in offense in the expanding league followed by regressions to the mean the following year), the 1993-94 jump in offense was huge, and did not go away. Plus, the 1998 expansion did not significantly increase offense.
I'm sure there were a lot of factors, but the biggest one to me is obviously the ball. I do not believe that MLB deliberately juiced the ball, though. Rawlings moved their production of baseballs from Haiti to the Dominican Republic in the early '90s, and offense jumped up not long thereafter. MLB started a slow investigation in the late '90s, came out with a report in 2001 in which they basically admitted that the balls were at the lively end of tolerances, and then offense started decreasing not long thereafter.
I'm not sure what's going on right now. Offense is high in the early going, but it's too early to say for sure if the ball is juiced again or not.
someone claimed that HR rates (career totals) for the leaders have gone up more than the league as a whole*- which is what I was responding to. I assume everyone acknowledges that HR rates soared from 1992-94 and then stayed up.
*Which they really haven't- there was a weak crop of leaders so to speak in the 1980s- but the leaders' HR advantage compared to league now is entirely consistent with pre-1980 numbers.
We also had a very weak crop of pitching leaders in the 1980s... Something was damn odd about the 1980s.
whiteyball.
I thought that ended in 1947.
One often-cited reason -- expansion -- was definitely NOT a big factor. If you look at pitchers who pitched before and after 1994, their HRs allowed rose dramatically. Adding new "bad" pitchers was not a significant cause.
An easy way to see the change is this page at B-Ref (there's an AL version as well): NL Offense.
Yeah, I wasn't seriously proposing Aaron as a steroid user, my point is context doesn't matter to people.
And thanks to the doctor for coming through with the injury ones, I knew there was something obvious and contradictory that I was forgetting.
Not true.
Absolutely untrue.
How many homers the leaders hit compared to the rest of the league was unusual in the 1980s, the last 15 years have been more consistent with every other era (post WW II).
Sometime around 1977-80 leader home run rates declined relative to league average. Sometime around 1992, leader HR rates relative to league returned to historical norms AND league HR rates went up as a whole.
His road numbers also improved tremendously. Old Hank was almost as good and possibly better than young Hank.
I understand (a), don't bother with the people who are described by (b), and understand (c). He should get more R + R.
Yes. And, as you noted, to the broader - bizarre - issue of people treating accusations as evidence.
If I accused you of eating lollipops to give you an advantage in preparing whatever kind of work you do, would you feel the need to respond?
Do you really not understand this? I don't care whether a player used. But I do care if a player is accused without evidence. The accusation itself can't harm a player's reputation in my mind -- but it can in others' minds. That's why I care who is accused of using.
Um, BL? Did I claim that there was a witch hunt or a false accusation? I haven't made any comment at all about Manny's case, other than that it doesn't matter to me whether he used.
It must be hellish defending innocents against small potato accusations like PED use.
He posted on the first page, I believe.
What are the odds that Edgar used?
As did Albert Belle!
Or Karl Hungus?
McGwire's OPS+ would be reduced correspondingly more, since more of value was HR, and Palmeiro and Sosa would be pushed below the borderline, while Bonds would be reduced to say 550HR and by about 10-15 points in OPS+
With such an adjustment, Bonds is in without any question, while Manny is still well over the borderline.
That's assuming we know Manny took steroids throughout, which we don't -- I personally buy his story; he doesn't have any of the other steroid symptoms, unlike Ortiz. Steroids don't make you an exceptional natural hitter, as Manny is, they just build extra strength.
Fortunately LA appear to be handling this classily, which I bet Boston under the current regime (except Francona) wouldn't, any more than they handled last summer classily.
Roll on July 3!
Phil Mickelson must also be on it, then.
[Haven't chimed in here yet] Well, since I think in the long run steroids will slowly lose their taint as time passes, Manny will eventually get in the Hall, but he may be 70 by the time that happens.
If true, that seems pretty conclusive. Any medical reason for its use? Seems like there are other drugs for males needing a testosterone boost, but I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn, so who knows. Manny would have to provide detailed medical evidence/justification before he could begin to get any benefit of the doubt.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main