Saturday, May 18, 2013
Murray Chass: ARE RED SOX REELING ALREADY?
(www.murraychass.com)
Read More...Shaughnessy is too good to have to invent anything. He neither invented anything in this instance nor accused Ortiz of using steroids and their cousins. What he did was take his skepticism and his curiosity, good traits for a newspaperman to have, and ask Ortiz about steroids. Ortiz’s responses did not indicate anger of being accused of wrong doing.
I would compare the Ortiz column to the columns I have written about Mike Piazza and my suspicions about his possible use of steroids. I ...
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.
Page 1 of 7 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›I'll bet there were fewer "clean" records set during that era than after it.
So you think guys stopped using amphetamines after 1985?
Correct.
I used to remember Namath throwing 4007 yards in a season, OJ running for 2003 yards and Tom Dempsey's 63 yard field goal. The first two I'm sure were obliterated (not sure about the latter) but baseball is the only game where numbers matter. NBA -- Chamberlain 100 pts in a game - is there anything else?
NHL - IS there any iconic record?
I've heard Selig whine repeatedly that baseball is held to a higher standard. I think that's something he should be proud of.
It's been tied 3 times, most recently a week ago.
There are many; they all belong to Gretzky.
There's a fundamental difference in the sports. Part of it is because baseball has no clock, and part is that in other sports scoring opportunities are chosen instead of having to wait your turn.
Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game because after a big start, he and his teammates decided to go for it. The got him the ball every opportunity, and fouled the opponents to get the ball back quickly. Normally, when a team has a big lead in basketball they slow down a bit instead of trying to run up the score. You never see a team up by 10+ points take a shot in the last 24 seconds of a game - they dribble it out.
There is no such situation in baseball. With a huge lead you might pinch hit and rest your stars, but if they are in the game the pitcher is trying to get them out and they are trying to hit the ball hard, whether it's a 1 run game or the score is 22-3.
Earlier this year Josh Hamilton hit 4 homers in a game and had a chance to be the first player to hit 5. If he had done that, it's hard to see anything illegitimate about it in the way that Chamberlain's game didn't set well with some opponents or observers.
I don't think anything like that has ever happened in a baseball game, but it's pretty much the same as what happened in Wilt's 100 point game.
My favorite being that Gretzky has more assists (1,963) than any other player has points (Mark Messier is second behind Gretzky with 1,887). He had just shy of 1,000 more points than Messier (2,857). Ridiculous.
This is apparently what happened in the famous Class-D game where Ron Necciai struck out 27 hitters. A batter had grounded out early on, but Necciai also had a guy reach on a dropped-third strike (not sure which inning). Then in the ninth, the shortstop committed an error, allowing a hitter to reach so that Necciai had a shot at his 27th strikeout.
Cy Young's win total is in the same boat in my opinion. Along with the fact that nobody is ever going to come close to approaching it. (Note: I don't mean on the same scale of course, but that it's a large gap between number one 511, and number two 417 and three 317.... that is basically five GOOD years of wins difference between first and second)
Going into the 9th inning, Astros up 4-0, Mike Scott had not allowed an assist -- all outs were fly outs or K's. This is apparently rarer than a perfect game, announcers said it had happened only 3 times before (or this would be the 3rd time).
Brett Butler led off the 9th with a walk.
(I have no memory of this:) Mike Laga pops up. I assume it was a bunt attempt.
Butler steals second (no throw).
Will Clark bunts to 2B, reluctantly they throw to first to record the out.
I propose that we retire the number 25, and declare Sept 23rd to be Steroid Remembrance day. Every player wears a jersey with #25 on that day, and that day alone.
(in honor of Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Giambi, Troy Glaus, Mike Cameron, Jay Gibbons, etc, all of whom wore #25)
Nothing except a fervent wish to cast steroids users as innocent by association. There's no issue discussed on BTF where the opinions are so lopsided, as can be evidenced by the overwhelming HoF support for Mark McGwire. They'll look at Hank Aaron's raw late career stats, ignore the change from County Stadium to the Launching Pad, seriously try to compare the minuscule spike in his power stats to the Olympian late career leap by Barry Bonds, and then call you a "hypocrite" if you don't accept their comparison. But then I'm not telling you anything you haven't witnessed here a hundred times already. It's the deadest horse in the BTF stable.
I don't know if it means anything, but look at the pitching leaderboards for IP, wins, and strikeouts. Guys from the 60's and 70's are highly represented near the top.
Pete Rose missing about 10 games in a 13-year run which helped him push past Cobb...
Staying healthy.
I don't know if it means anything, but look at the pitching leaderboards for IP, wins, and strikeouts. Guys from the 60's and 70's are highly represented near the top.
Usage patterns.
Nothing except a fervent wish to cast steroids users as innocent by association.
Yep.
Koufax 382
Ryan 383
Ryan 5714
1968
Wills 104
Brock 118
Aaron 755
Mays 660
Brock 938
Gibson 1.12
McLain 31
Rose 4256
Marshall 106
Maris 61
5 pitchers who started their careers in the 60s broke Walter Johnson's strikeout record (and one who started his career in 1970
Prior to 1993 the list of top ten HR hitters in baseball history featured 4 of the top 5 and 6 of the top 10 starting their careers in the 50s.
Top three players in games played all played the majority of their careers in the "amphetamine era".
That's all ######## of course but it seems like there was more than a little interesting stuff happening in the 60s and 70s. If you look at amps with the same critical eye as steroids you get pretty similar results.
If steroids magically helped hitters more than pitchers in the 90s why is it so unreasonable that pitchers were the beneficiaries in the 60s?
My position is I have no clue how much any of this stuff helps. However, I think it's erroneous to simply claim that lots of historic stuff happened in the steroid era thus proving that steroids are magic pills while not similarly acknowledging the amphetamine era as having its share of historic events.
There was a direct question asked and I think the same anecdotal evidence exists to answer it the same way that question is asked and answered regarding the steroid era.
I see that 28 got most of the points. I sympathize with those that think speed didn't do as much as steroids. Perhaps you're right. But they're both examples of using illegal substances to gain an advantage on the field. While I think you guys saying "Nothing except a fervent wish to cast steroids users as innocent by association," have a point, it isn't that the steroid users are innocent; it's that the speed users of the 60s and 70s weren't.
If we have to "deal with" the steroid era, we should "deal with" the amphetemine era. My opinion is we should simply note the context of the historical record, as we should with all historical records. Steroids, directly or indirectly, most likely boosted the HR count. So did bandbox ballparks and livelier bats/balls. Talking about 70+ HR without taking all of it into consideration is silly. Dismissing it as though it was a complete fraud is also silly.
If you don't like the steroid era, fine - I personally prefer a more sophisticated sort of game myself than the TTO game of the late 90s, early 00s. But if it was a fraud, as many of you claim, why did you watch? Why do you care about the game now when there are still users about? Why not go watch sports "better regulated"? Every era has it's villains and cheats, if you don't like those folks in the story, you need to put down the book.
The huge number of innings that a front line starter was expected to pull back then was very hard on the arm. Between starts, Koufax could barely lift his left arm, so he often had to comb his hair and shave with his right hand. (Not a new story. By the end of his 59 win season Hoss Radbourn couldn't comb raise his right arm high enough to touch his ear. Took him two hours to get loose enough to pitch)
It's been dealt with. People knew at the time that amps were rampant -- since all sorts of still-active players said so (*)-- and people know now that amps were rampant. The anti-anti-roiders just don't like the way it's been dealt with.
(*) There was far more contemporaneous and near-contemporaneous honesty and acknowledgment of amps during the "amp era" than steroids during the Steroid Era.
So, you guys back then held your heroes to lower standards than you want us to hold ours to? Not sure I get it. Sorry our guys mashed your home run records to smithereens.
This is kind of weird and indesipherable.
It is incorrect to say that the "amphetemine era" was not "dealt with." It was.
This might be a good time to reiterate that many arguments in this vein are not posed in good faith -- as their proponents aren't really interested in a discussion of amps, and don't really care about amp use, other than as it is juxtaposed against steroid use. It remains a subspecies of concern trolling.
IMO part of the problem in trying to have an intelligent discussion comes from the hardliners who completely obfuscate the issue by pretending that steroids are "magic pills", as opposed to the less melodramatic reality that steroids were one of several factors in the "steroid era" that helped to increase those home run totals. This is then compounded by those on the "other" side who seize upon every pinata post as proof of "hysteria" and ignore the fact that many hardliners have no affection for or connection to the sort of morons who go around conflating the evidence against Barry Bonds with the "evidence" against Jeff Bagwell. Between these two mentally challenged groups of individuals, you feel like you've walked into competing conventions of the Tea Party and the Socialist Workers Party that accidentally got scheduled in the same arena on the same day. They've both got their rigid agendas and they both consider anything less than 100% agreement to be some sort of crime against humanity.
Ummm, you think that might have something to do with the mass interruption of careers due to WW2? There's a very good reason the great players of the '30's and '40's didn't reach 500.
You also have the expansion of the schedule to 162 games in 1961, which was a big help for counting stats.
With a 162 G schedule and no war, a bunch of guys like Greenberg, Mize, DiMaggio, etc. probably break 500. Bot to mention Gehrig randomly dying 7 HRs short.
It's not about "good faith" it's about the double standard that people who want to penalize steroid users while ignoring amp use.
The point is that neither drug usage was legal, that both enhanced performances, but one is acceptable and one is not. They are both cheating and both led to records being broken and led to tainted games. The difference is that the Hank Aarons and Willie Mays of the world are given a pass because the people that worshiped them aren't intelligent enough(or informed enough) to recognize that it's cheating in a similar vein.
People that defend amp users while attacking roid users are doing it out of either piss poor education, or a misguided sense of loyalty to their heroes. No other reasoning behind it.
Amps helped keep you alert, Gibson was famous for completing his game with the same intensity that he started them with, isn't it probable that he had some help maintaining that edge?
Completely agree with that. I don't want known juicers in the Hall of Fame, but contextualizing their records isn't really much different from contextualizing the records of the dead ball era or other eras with distinct rules, ballpark dimensions, etc.
If you don't like the steroid era, fine - I personally prefer a more sophisticated sort of game myself than the TTO game of the late 90s, early 00s. But if it was a fraud, as many of you claim, why did you watch? Why do you care about the game now when there are still users about? Why not go watch sports "better regulated"? Every era has it's villains and cheats, if you don't like those folks in the story, you need to put down the book.
Having followed the game for 60 years, I've learned to adjust my appreciation for many styles of play, and though I personally prefer a game where power / speed and offense / defense are more in balance than they were in either the late 60's or the late 90's, at the end it's still essentially the same game. And besides, whatever the style of play, today's overall talent level alone makes it a far better game to watch than I ever witnessed when I was growing up.
This is true. However, the proponents of this argument generally seem to have a similar viewpoint regarding steroids (I know this is where I fall).
What I find puzzling is how one can be vehemently anti-steroids but not similarly opposed to amphetamines. The idea that the "amphetamine era was dealt with" makes no sense unless by "dealt with" means "allowed to stand unquestioned." If that's your position then I'd like to understand the differences between steroids and amphetamines. As cfb noted there is an acceptability to amps that is not there for steroids and I can't comprehend that.
The reasons are that amps weren't as effective as steroids in accomplishing their aims, and didn't impact as many games due primarily to the nature of their application. Secondary reasons are the different acceptance rates of their usage among the game's factions, and the openness of their usage.
The point is that neither drug usage was legal, that both enhanced performances, but one is acceptable and one is not.
That's too broad a brush, but yes -- generally correct. The game's factions almost unanimously don't believe amp use impacted the game for the worse as much as steriod use. The primary reason is that amps did not "enhance performance" as much or as frequently as steroids.
You've latched onto superficial similarities in a (failed) attempt to revise the history of the Steroid Era. It simply isn't persuasive and it really hasn't persuaded many people. It's a rump, niche interpretation.
162 vs. 154 games.
The 3000 hit club by decade of debut:
1870s: 1
1880s: 0
1890s: 1
1900s: 3
1910s: 0
1920s: 1
1930s: 0
1940s: 1
1950s: 4
1960s: 4
1970s: 6
1980s: 5
1990s: 1
The 500 HR club
1870s: 0
1880s: 0
1890s: 0
1900s: 0
1910s: 1
1920s: 2
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 8
1960s: 1
1970s: 2
1980s: 6
1990s: 4
The 300 Win club
1870s: 1
1880s: 4
1890s: 2
1900s: 3
1910s: 1
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 1
1950s: 0
1960s: 6
1970s: 0
1980s: 4
1990s: 0
I think there's good prima facie evidence that players career totals were boosted by the usage of amphetamines to enable everyday play at a high level.
That's exactly what it means. The era was contemplated with eyes wide open and the mainstream historical interpretation is that it should, not entirely but for the most part, be allowed to stand unquestioned.
People that defend amp users while attacking roid users are doing it out of either piss poor education, or a misguided sense of loyalty to their heroes. No other reasoning behind it.
This is exactly the sort of mentality I was referring to in #35. There's no way to respond to an argument that frames the issue in terms of generational hero worship and / or lack of intelligence. Too bad we can't resurrect Firing Line and arrange for nightly shouting matches between Primates like this and their counterparts Chass and Gumbel.
Those records are no such thing. Paul Molitor was hurt all the time, used cocaine, and still made it to 3,000 hits. Three-hundred wins isn't even an everyday player record.
There are other historical changes that account for the numbers you see, two straightforward ones are (1) increased salaries incentivizing longevity; and (2) vast increases in quality of training and nutrition, and understanding of physiology. Add (3) the advent of year-round dedication and training; and (4) dramatic improvements in surgery and sports medicine.
The idea that amps explain the numbers in the charts barely passes the laugh test.
EDIT: And guys born in the 1940s came of baseball age during the "amp era," and played their entire careers in it. What explains their very low membership in the clubs?
So the mainstream historical interpretation is the correct one? Why are amps banned today? It does not seem to make a lot of sense to say that amps were fine, then ban them anyway. If amps are OK then they shouldn't be banned, if they should be banned then why should we not look back at that era with an appropriate level of skepticism toward the accomplishments?
I believe so, yes. Like any other matter of history, you will find holdout revisionists.
Why are amps banned today?
They aren't particularly healthy, for one thing. It isn't a good thing to have guys grabbing pills out of jars on their own.
They're banned in most other sports as well.
Page 1 of 7 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.