Your argument rests on a specific and falsifiable claim that amphetamines do not enhance athletic ability beyond its "natural" level.

I came here to say this after finally getting through most of this thread. Esoteric is a smart guy with some well thought out points. But the hang up here is that people think steroids and amps do two completely separate things. They don't. Guys use greenies to hit the gym harder, etc, and improve that "permanent baseline" the same way they would with steroids.

It's a shame that Esoteric won't be back to respond because the insults came in before the legitimate follow up comments.

#150 No argument from me. It seems to me that reaction time is at least as important -- and likely more important -- than upper body strength when it come to hitting.

It's just really hard to empirically test this.

For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent. If you think that PED users did a real bad thing, you don't have to be bound by the failure of the Hall to keep out earlier PED users. In fact, it's a practical certainty that if there haven't been contemporary steroid users inducted yet, there will be within five years. So if you want to keep steroids out of the Hall, but you still want to keep voting for at least some players, you have to accept some inconsistency.

And that is perfectly logical. I think the problem a lot of us here have, is people acting like roid use is different than other forms of cheating to the point that there is a bright line separating it. If a voter says "I'm not voting for roiders, and if it was up to me, we would remove all the habitual speed users, the Gaylord Perry's etc from the hall" I would be perfectly fine with their ballot(well not fine, but at least it would be an honest vote)

To think that there is a bright line between roid use and other forms of cheating is absurd.

Tell that to any batter facing a 95-100mph fastball or a fielder getting tensed, coiled and on their toes just before one of 150 pitches in a game. baseball is all about focus and reaction time, which is why people are all upset about the 100 or so therapeutic use exemptions for adderall and ADHD drugs given each year.

That's the thing. Improved focus and reaction time clearly aids in the most important and difficult part of the game, hitting, and that's beyond the energy boost. They're performance enhancing, which is why every other sport bans them and why baseball now does too. And I'm on the side that believes steroids were cheating and that players knew it - I just also think that amps were cheating and the players knew it, and you don't get to decide one is terrible and horrible and the other not because the people using one starting hitting a bunch of home runs and the guys using the others starting racking up giant hit totals (seriously, look at the modern hit totals - when did all these guys play?). In terms of visibility in the clubhouse, amps and steroids seem like they were at the exact same level to me - everyone knew they were there, everyone knew they could get them, no one said anything about it. What's the difference between there being a special pot of coffee and everyone knowing they could walk up to any one of 10 guys in the clubhouse and get steroids? Amps were in the coffee because you could take one and reap the effect that day, whereas steroids required hitting the gym for a few months - otherwise you can be damn sure roids would be in the coffee too.

Baseball has clearly stated a position now, which is good. But we can't go back in time and invalidate the records of guys like Mays and Aaron and we don't want to anyway. How many hits should we take away from Mays for games he played which he wouldn't have been able to without amps, or hits he got because his reaction time was jacked up, or sanctimonious writers he was able to avoid who might want to take him down because he played in the pre-mass media days? Lest we forget, Willie is personally a jerk just like his godson. Put them all in the Hall, lord knows no one's going to forget the steroid era, and move on punishing those who do break the now very clear rules to their fullest extent.

Take the right amphetamine in the right amount and you get improved reaction time. While Andy objects that there's no proven link between reaction time and baseball performance that's true of all PEDs. Nobody to my knowledge has studied what any PED does for baseball players.

I can't find it anymore, so it might just be my memory playing tricks on me, but I thought there was one study done where they took a group of people had them swing at a baseball thrown from a pitching machine, then they used some amps and compared the results and it was a noticeable difference. But as I said that seemed like it was nearly a decade ago and I haven't been able to find anything on it through searching so it's probably one of the signs of early onset senility.

It seems to me that reaction time is at least as important -- and likely more important -- than upper body strength when it come to hitting.

I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.

First, if it wasn't banned, what difference does it make whether it was detectable? Why is that word there, except to make it sound somehow illicit? Second, he should be commended for playing really well. He didn't "cheat" anyone in the scenario you describe, nor did he "beat the system."

Hypothetically, let's say player x started blood doping. From what I understand, blood transfusions can increase the oxygen levels in the body. This might be partifular advantageous during a postseason run or prior to the post season. It is a banned practice for Olympicans. I did a brief non-extensive search of the MLB drug testing policy on wiki, but didn't find anything about blood doping. So let's just say this is an example of something that is not banned by MLB. Would you be ok with this?

In the end, there will likely always be some legal PED, as drugmakers are ahead of the regulations and there will always be players who want to get every possible edge. I'm sure that there are players who are using now and simply trying to not get caught. There is no perfect method.

Re: retroactive morality. I'm not trying to defend the BBWAA now or previously. I'm sure that greenies were the PED of days gone by. I'm not here to defend those writers (still voting or not) or those ballplayers. However, I do feel steroid users cheated the game, their opponents and their teammates. Taking a different position than my own is entirely fine. I think it's a completely legit position to chase consistency to whatever end.

Laugh at me all you want, but I'm not only part of the greater majority but I'm on the side of the angels, and I'm not talking about Anaheim.

!?!!

I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.

Sooooo...use a lighter bat?

I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.

According to the work by Alan Nathan at U Illinois, the corking of bats actually results in batted balls going a shorter distance due to the reduction in mass outweighing the increase in bat speed. It appears that singles hitters would benefit most from corking, as the control of a lighter bat would allow them to wait a fraction of a second more to react to pitches and spray singles around the field.

What did Bonds use - a 33 inch 35 oz bat?

But the hang up here is that people think steroids and amps do two completely separate things. They don't. Guys use greenies to hit the gym harder, etc, and improve that "permanent baseline" the same way they would with steroids.

Confirming this to be 100% true. Good buddy of mine is an amateur bodybuilder, and while he refuses to take steroids or HGH, he's loaded to the gills on all sorts of other supplements, including a constantly rotating lineup of pre-workout products, virtually all of which are cocktails of various stimulants. Pretty much every musclehead at my local gym uses one or more of those supplements as well; there are constant conversations about which one gives you the best pre-workout burst of energy. Hell, I'll use em myself when I'm muscling up for swimsuit season. Stimulants and pumping iron are absolutely joined at the hip.

I will argue that the advantage of a corked bat is not in the fact that you hit the ball farther, but the slightly lighter bat makes it easier to hit the ball square more frequently. Improved reaction time would offer the same benefit.

Sooooo...use a lighter bat?

IIRC, in The Physics of Baseball, Adair said exactly that: a lighter bat has exactly the same effect as corking.

Sooooo...use a lighter bat?

It's the psychology of the situation. On top of that getting a lighter bat while maintaining the same dimensions(length, handle width etc) isn't easy. I'm assuming that in today's game corked bats are a lot less common than they were in the past when the bats were beefier.

Many people argue that the one of the largest causes of the explosion of offense was improved bat design, including lighter bats. My argument is that it's not that the bat speed increases or the mass increases on contact with the lighter bat, my argument is that it's easier to make solid contact during a swing because the lighter bat makes it easier to make minute adjustments on the trajectory of the bat.

According to the work by Alan Nathan at U Illinois, the corking of bats actually results in batted balls going a shorter distance due to the reduction in mass outweighing the increase in bat speed. It appears that singles hitters would benefit most from corking, as the control of a lighter bat would allow them to wait a fraction of a second more to react to pitches and spray singles around the field.

Everything I've read has said that the physics is at best a wash on corking versus non-corking when it comes to distance the ball travels. Which is why I think that the advantage of corking is more about making solid contact more consistently, than it is about added power to the bat.

IIRC, in The Physics of Baseball, Adair said exactly that: a lighter bat has exactly the same effect as corking.

Does the placebo effect work on inanimate objects?

Everything I've read has said that the physics is at best a wash on corking versus non-corking when it comes to distance the ball travels. Which is why I think that the advantage of corking is more about making solid contact more consistently, than it is about added power to the bat.

This is the greenies/steroids debate in a nutshell.

if it's cheating, why are all these pennant winners and title holders still up there for the 90s? What kind of sport acknowledges cheating and then lets all the records stand?