What is the downside of purging steroids from baseball?

In fairness to most Primates whom we've been arguing with, I don't think too many of them object to the current testing and penalties. They simply don't see (or don't acknowledge, whatever) any difference between one form of "cheating" and another. A subset of this group limits their "all cheating is the same" argument to illegal drugs, but then you've got others who keep bringing up such bizarre comparisons as glasses or lasik surgery. The truth is that there are really only two fault line divisions: Should post-testing juicers be voted into the HoF? And with many known amp users already in the Hall, should pre-testing known** juicers be considered? Everything else is pretty much a sideshow.

**Of course everyone seems to have his own definition of "known", which is why some of us hardliners spend as much time arguing with our ostensible "allies" who lump Bagwell with Bonds as we do arguing with the Rays and the CFBs.

It seems to me the steroid defender are defending their "childhood heroes" ever bit as much (and probably more) than the amp defenders.

That's probably got some truth to it, just as there are probably a few older writers who see McGwire's and Bonds's records as some sort of a desecration of Roger Maris's and Babe Ruth's graves. But for the most part it's just sillytalk, of the sort you can always count on from people like Ray.

-------------------------------------------

For the life of me, I don't get the desire to defend steroid users.

Mostly fanboyism. Also, (misplaced) notions of privacy, loyalty to the saber cause (*), and the frisson of excitement from mocking the establishment and conventional wisdom.

(*) Most of the dedicated saber community are radical revisionists on this question, a position which has become both a core tenet of the catechism and an article of faith.

I'd go with a little of the first, and a lot of everything else you mention. But sometimes it's not all that easy to tell.

... another core tenet of the saber philosophy is that the numbers generated in baseball games are inviolate, and integrated -- which is to say, all there is to know about the game is found -- and to be found -- therein. Even proven violations of baseball rules regarding drug use is deemed inherently inadmissable for consideration -- see, e.g., the Melky Cabrera situation.

But here we see splits all over the board. I wouldn't vote for Melky for the Hall of Fame, but AFAIC Sean's way of dealing with his stats on BB-Ref. makes perfect sense. In the cases of juicers, my asterisks are strictly internal. In the realm of the physical world they have a place only on the Ecko ball, where it affects the offending player only.

In fairness to most Primates whom we've been arguing with, I don't think too many of them object to the current testing and penalties.

That's true for some. Certainly Ray objects and has objected, as have others. And, as noted, none are willing to reconsider the numbers in the wake of even positive tests, much less pre-testing use.

But here we see splits all over the board. I wouldn't vote for Melky for the Hall of Fame, but AFAIC Sean's way of dealing with his stats on BB-Ref. makes perfect sense.

But majority opinion in that faction is that Sean's way wasn't right. Ray went so far as to deem bb-ref's credibility damaged by that treatment.

My attitude towards steroids is that it wasn't baseball's finest hour, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I find it difficult to single out players personally because I'm not entirely sure I would have acted all that differently in the same circumstances. There was an opportunity to gain an edge, with seemingly few consequences (and the possibility that your competitors were doing it too).

I guess I'm not sure what is to be gained by villifying users and suspected users. Under the present system I'm all for judging players for PED use. I'm not entirely comfortable applying that same standard to an earlier era, nor do I see the benefit of doing so.

For the record I started watching baseball in 1989 and my boyhood heroes were Greg Maddux and Craig Biggio. I never got into the McGwire/Sosa hoopla (mainly because I was your typical too cool for school contrarian teenager), and I've never felt much of an affinity for Barry Bonds.

But here we see splits all over the board. I wouldn't vote for Melky for the Hall of Fame, but AFAIC Sean's way of dealing with his stats on BB-Ref. makes perfect sense.

But majority opinion in that faction is that Sean's way wasn't right. Ray went so far as to deem bb-ref's credibility damaged by that treatment.

Well, given Ray's propensity to throw out "liar", "dishonest" and "illogical" as if he were issuing Papal edicts from a Pez dispenser, I think we can take Ray's opinion of Sean's decision with a Mt. Everest-sized grain of salt.

I guess I'm not sure what is to be gained by villifying users and suspected users. Under the present system I'm all for judging players for PED use. I'm not entirely comfortable applying that same standard to an earlier era, nor do I see the benefit of doing so.

Examining and upholding concepts of fair play and honest competition would be one benefit.

I guess I'm not sure what is to be gained by villifying users and suspected users. Under the present system I'm all for judging players for PED use. I'm not entirely comfortable applying that same standard to an earlier era, nor do I see the benefit of doing so.


I don't want to villify them; ownership, management, and the press surely bear lots of blame too.

I just want to acknowledge that their performance was altered, and make the appropriate judgement in a historical context.

There’s a deficit created with amphetamine use just as there is when you don’t sleep, or don’t get the right kind of sleep. The magic pill myth was burst a long long time ago.

My argument was based on the allegations made that steroids and amphetamines were the same. They are not. All the huff and puff, the fume and froth, here has not refuted that.

Do amphetamines create muscle tissue?

Do some of you guys pronouncing on the salubrious effects of amphs have any idea how amphs would affect a person who uses them day in and day out, year after year?

Jim Bouton: It's going to be psychological, if anything. They didn't do that much for you. They were pet pills, like NoDoz or caffeine [pills]. I tried it one time, and I was so jumpy and jangled and on edge that I couldn't stand it. I wasn't able to focus; I wasn't able to concentrate. I didn't like the effect at all. I was already up for the game; I didn't need a pet pill - and those were the days that pitchers pitched every four days.

Bouton Interview

I guess I'm not sure what is to be gained by villifying users and suspected users. Under the present system I'm all for judging players for PED use. I'm not entirely comfortable applying that same standard to an earlier era, nor do I see the benefit of doing so.

Examining and upholding concepts of fair play and honest competition would be one benefit.

I'd say that's the main benefit, despite the inevitable snarking and phony comparisons that inevitably follow such a statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to villify them; ownership, management, and the press surely bear lots of blame too.

I just want to acknowledge that their performance was altered, and make the appropriate judgement in a historical context.

Right on all counts. We can still acknowledge the tarnished records in a thousand ways while not giving the man who tarnished them a plaque in Cooperstown.

I don't think too many of them object to the current testing and penalties.

I'm personally with Marvin Miller on this one. I personally don't approve of testing, but I'm totally fine with the PA and MLB having negotiated a testing plan. I don't think Fehr and co. did a good job of negotiating the matter.

In particular I'd have wanted more room to (successfully) argue good faith positive (as I believe is the case for Romero for instance). At an absolute minimum I'd have required MLB to certify some supplements as being safe (as in if you test positive and can demonstrate that the supplements are tainted then you're OK. Not a hypothetical as this has in fact happened in tennis.)

"You hear stories about guys taking them as soon as they wake up in the morning and all through the day," said Seattle Mariners pitcher Jeff Nelson, among those who believe the higher figure is most accurate and that amphetamines should be banned. "It just gets to be a habit.

Lots of quotes from players and managers and coaches here, coming at the topic from every direction.

Selections of the opining of players, etc.

Do some of you guys pronouncing on the salubrious effects of amphs have any idea how amphs would affect a person who uses them day in and day out, year after year?

I have a hard time believing that it wasn't written totally tongue in cheek, but yesterday CFB said "we are saying Hank Aaron broke the homerun record because he used amps". At some point I'd like him to say whether or not he was serious when he wrote that, especially considering that there's no evidence that Aaron ever used amps more than once in his career.

I'm personally with Marvin Miller on this one. I personally don't approve of testing, but I'm totally fine with the PA and MLB having negotiated a testing plan. I don't think Fehr and co. did a good job of negotiating the matter.

In particular I'd have wanted more room to (successfully) argue good faith positive (as I believe is the case for Romero for instance). At an absolute minimum I'd have required MLB to certify some supplements as being safe (as in if you test positive and can demonstrate that the supplements are tainted then you're OK. Not a hypothetical as this has in fact happened in tennis.)

I completely agree with that last paragraph. Considering the cost in both money and reputation that follows in the wake of a positive test, I'd want to be 100% sure that that test result reveals what we think it's revealing. But I also think that those supplements should be approved and distributed by a MLB-controlled doctor only, and prescribed only for limited and specific use. The mere presence of someone like Victor Conte should raise a red flag the size of a bed sheet.

#213 I'm certainly fine with MLB being the only people to authorize distributors. I'm equally fine if MLB wanted prospective vendors to pay for some kind of certification process.

That's true for some. Certainly Ray objects and has objected, as have others.

Yes, I am completely against a testing policy. That said, if the union wanted to negotiate something, fine, but I think they did it very poorly. And they were basically strong-armed into it, and they still should have fought it. But if your membership as a whole wants it, after being fully advised as to the issues and the concerns, you need to try to get something done.

But here we see splits all over the board. I wouldn't vote for Melky for the Hall of Fame, but AFAIC Sean's way of dealing with his stats on BB-Ref. makes perfect sense.

But majority opinion in that faction is that Sean's way wasn't right. Ray went so far as to deem bb-ref's credibility damaged by that treatment.

No, I think I made one comment *before* Sean announced what he was going to do, that he should not go along with MLB's determination of who won the batting title. But after seeing the way he decided to deal with the matter, I think it's a reasonable approach, and I did not criticize him for it. (Specifically, I criticized Selig, for being an idiot.)

Yes, I am completely against a testing policy.

Why? It's to the players collective interest to get rid of steroids. Why take that unnecessary health risk? Testing is necessary to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma.

It seems to me the steroid defender are defending their "childhood heroes" ever bit as much (and probably more) than the amp defenders.

I'm adamantly against keeping steroid users out of the HOF, and I have no problem admitting that fanboyism is the primary reason why. It's not the only reason, obviously; I fully understand and agree with the people that think retroactive punishments are wrong, especially for behavior that was ignored and possibly even encouraged at the time. But is basing opinions like this on fanboyism really a bad thing? People talk about it here like it is. Isn't fanboyism the reason we follow sports and the reason why places like the HOF even exist in the first place?

I was born in 1979, so the 90's were my teen years and my favorite era of baseball of all time. I do find it insulting that the BBWAA is basically saying that many of my favorite baseball memories and players didn't happen or don't matter. And I don't see how this isn't going to hurt the HOF in the long run. It's a history museum; just record history - the good and the bad. IMO it's not their job to moralize and tell people how they should be viewing certain era's and events.

A lot of people think it's a black eye on the HOF that the hit king isn't in there, but at least Rose is just one guy, so the damage is minimal. But what if an investigation found that betting on games was rampant in the 70's, involving stars like Reggie, Schmidt, Seaver, Carlton, Morgan, Bench, Stargell, Carew, etc? And the HOF was snubbing them all. Would people who grew up watching 70's baseball have any reason to care about the HOF at all after this? That's what we're looking at now with the 90's/00's. At this time the BBWAA seems perfectly content with turning off an entire generation of fans just to prove a point. I'm sure there are fans around my age with the opposite view, but the vast majority that I've talked to about it are of a similar mindset. Age seems to make a big difference when it comes to steroid viewpoints.

sbb
for the life of me i dont know what you are going on about, you dont argue in good faith at all. comparing an illegal performance enhancing drug with caffiene? is that really what you are sinking too? comparing two things that arent remotely the same then attacking others for comparing amps and roids and saying "look at what they are doing"? while you engage in the same behavior? no wonder people drop out of these threads.
listen ampthetamines are drugs, they are illegal without a perscription they are performance enhancing and cheating, they are a different kind of cheating than steriods but they are what they are and if the anti-roids crowd is yelling "gotcha" on it, then they gotcha, because you have to be consistant.
If you say , "no Bonds" in the hof due to cheating, you have to look at Hank Aaron, because he used the same unfair advantage that Bonds used, performance enhancing drugs, different ones, sure, but drugs none the less.
to say a drug that is banned everywhere in sports by everyone is the equivalent of coffee is just idiotic and you guys need to stop it, nobodies buying, its not a real arguement, stop trying to pat yourself on the back for this , because it just doesn't work and makes no sense.
so if you are all in for not voting for this batch of cheaters, you have to stop making excuses for the last batch.

For the life of me, I don't get the desire to defend amp users.

If nothing else, the whole sordid affair was a stain on baseball, even if what they did wasn't technically "cheating" at the time.

What is the downside of purging amps from baseball?

Caffeine is "performance enhancing." It has been conclusively proven to have postive effects on both aerobic and anaerobic exercise and exertion. Like amps, caffeine acts as a nervous system stimulant, increasing focus and concentration. Unless the radicals are suggesting a purge of all coffee sippers from the ranks of the honest, they're going to have to remand themselves back to the drawing board for work on their principles and definitions -- which are in desperate need of adult supervision.

This is correct. Lots of things are "performance enchancing" to one degree or another, and it's -- in fact -- extremely difficult to say which ones are "BETTER". Classic example: HGH vs. magnetic necklaces.

The only conclusion from this is to punish players caught breaking the rules, according to the rules stipulated the collective bargaining agreement.

I don't think Aaron, Mays, Rose et al should be punished retroactively for violating MLBs current policy on Amphetamines. I don't think Bonds, Canseco, Caminiti, et al should be punished retroactively for violating MLBs current policy on steroids. Or for that matter, spit ballers, scuffers, and sign-stealers.

And, as noted, none are willing to reconsider the numbers in the wake of even positive tests, much less pre-testing use.

The "inflated" numbers are already normalized away by correcting for league offense levels. Since we have essentially no data on who was using what, when, we cannot normalize away any PED use from a specific player. How much of Gaylord Perry's stats are from doctoring the ball? We know he doctored the ball "some". We presume it helped him "some". We don't know how much or how big an effect.

The "inflated" numbers are already normalized away by correcting for league offense levels.

That methodology doesn't work if the players divide into fundamentally different tiers -- roid users and non-roid users.

For the life of me, I don't get the desire to defend steroid users.

If nothing else, the whole sordid affair was a stain on baseball, even if what they did wasn't technically "cheating" at the time.

What is the downside of purging steroids from baseball?

Less freedom in the world.

If the anti-steroids jihadists are right, worse performances.

But the real issue is more about the unfairness of retroactively purging them from baseball.

The distinction is simple: Amphetamines can keep a ballplayer awake and alert when he otherwise should just be taking a nap. But amphetamines can't turn a well-rested .240 hitter into a .250 hitter

Simple, and entirely pulled from your ass.

And the whole "well-rested" idea is a nonsensical argument anyway. Nobody is well-rested; the normal state is to be worn down over the course of a 162-game season.

More and More...

The distinction is simple: Amphetamines can keep a ballplayer awake and alert when he otherwise should just be taking a nap. But amphetamines can't turn a well-rested .240 hitter into a .250 hitter

Simple, and entirely pulled from your ass.

As opposed to your assertion that a well-rested ballplayer's talent level can be improved with a magic pill.

And the whole "well-rested" idea is a nonsensical argument anyway. Nobody is well-rested; the normal state is to be worn down over the course of a 162-game season.

Which is exactly why amphetamines were used, to restore tired ballplayers to their natural talent level. Whether or not that actually worked as advertised is an open question, but there is zero evidence that they ever did anything more than that. There are no greenie versions of the juiced-up Barry Bonds late career spikes** anywhere to be found.

**Again, relative to their own past peak performances. We all know that Barry Bonds was always operating on a higher level, but nobody's ever elevated his own performance after he turned 34 the way that Bonds did.

Examining and upholding concepts of fair play and honest competition would be one benefit.

The only conclusion from this is to punish players caught breaking the rules, according to the rules stipulated the collective bargaining agreement.

I don't think Aaron, Mays, Rose et al should be punished retroactively for violating MLBs current policy on Amphetamines. I don't think Bonds, Canseco, Caminiti, et al should be punished retroactively for violating MLBs current policy on steroids. Or for that matter, spit ballers, scuffers, and sign-stealers.

But the real issue is more about the unfairness of retroactively purging them from baseball.

I came to make these points and they were made already. I really don't understand how the fair play contingent can say it is OK to punish someone for something that was not against the rules (as documented and enforced) at the time. How can retroactive punishment be fair? And please don't tell me adjusting stats downward or refusing entrance into the Hall of Fame is not punishment - Barry Bonds is a Hall of Fame caliber level player and should have every expectation of being entered there absent a retro-active punishment for something.

I really don't understand how the fair play contingent can say it is OK to punish someone for something that was not against the rules (as documented and enforced) at the time.

This part of the fair play contingent doesn't say it's OK.

And please don't tell me adjusting stats downward

That isn't rightly denominated "punishment." "Correct analysis" is a more accurate term.

Barry Bonds is a Hall of Fame caliber level player and should have every expectation of being entered there absent a retro-active punishment for something.

Agreed. His final few years, though, were a carnival freak show that shouldn't be celebrated. A full telling of the Bonds years says that he violated the spirit of fair play and the established ethics of sport with his aggressive late-career drugging. He used drugs to fashion himself into a different human being (in a way that amp users and coffee drinkers don't do), with muscles and other traits he wouldn't otherwise have had. Not to mention that fact that there's something quite weird and depressing about the various drugs that counterbalance this and that effect of other drugs. Manny Ramirez took women's fertility drugs -- sorry, that's freaky and bizarre, if not outright Frankensteinian.

Which is exactly why amphetamines were used, to restore tired ballplayers to their natural talent level. Whether or not that actually worked as advertised is an open question, but there is zero evidence that they ever did anything more than that.

You are arguing that a well rested player who took amps would see no effect.

"Natural talent level" is not something that is set in stone. A player might have a natural talent level of say "50" when he's well rested. When he's tired, though, his natural talent level is "30" and if everyone is tired and their natural talent levels are now "30", then the guy putting his back to "50" by using banned drugs is enhancing his performance.

"Natural talent level" is not something that is set in stone. A player might have a natural talent level of say "50" when he's well rested. When he's tired, though, his natural talent level is "30"

Thirty isn't his natural talent level -- 50 is. He's tired, so he can't perform at 50 -- much like a pitcher can't come back the day after a complete game at full power. (*) In the case of the tired everyday player, the amp or the coffee or the Red Bull would restore his effective talent level back to or near his natural talent level.

(*) Thus, it isn't accurate to say Justin Verlander's natural talent level flucuates between the day he pitches and the day after he pitches.

You are arguing that a well rested player who took amps would see no effect.

But I thought everyone was tired (or not well-rested) not long into a 162-game season. Which is it?

Less freedom in the world.

If the anti-steroids jihadists are right, worse performances.

But the real issue is more about the unfairness of retroactively purging them from baseball.

I don't value the freedom to cheat.

Who cares if performance is worse? It'll even out across the league, and you won't notice the difference.

No one is purging anything. All the records stand. The point is what achievements we honor, and how we recognize talent and performance.

Barry Bonds was one of the 20 greatest hitters of all time. He was NOT one of the 2 or 3 best. We should haircut his performance for what we know he did.

Thirty isn't his natural talent level -- 50 is. He's tired, so he can't perform at 50 -- much like a pitcher can't come back the day after a complete game at full power. (*) In the case of the tired everyday player, the amp or the coffee or the Red Bull would restore his effective talent level back to or near his natural talent level.

Even under this framework, the player is cheating because he's putting himself back at 50 when other players are at 30.

Even under this framework, the player is cheating because he's putting himself back at 50 when other players are at 30.

No, because the other players have full access to the coffee, the amp, and the Red Bull and restoring yourself to your natural talent level isn't cheating. That's why surgery is ok.

Even if you insist on it being "cheating," it's of an entirely different magnitude than chemically increasing your natural talent level through, inter alia, adding lean muscle mass attainable only because of the chemicals.

It's tough to take a definition of "cheating" seriously when it would include drinking coffee.

That methodology doesn't work if the players divide into fundamentally different tiers -- roid users and non-roid users.

A divide that -- for years with no testing -- is completely opaque.

We all know that Barry Bonds was always operating on a higher level, but nobody's ever elevated his own performance after he turned 34 the way that Bonds did

Actually, Aaron isn't that far off. We did this a couple threads ago. It's just that Bonds' ridiculous IBB rate and the overall offense level made his stand out more. And furthermore - since the ONE thing we do no about PEDs is the Bonds was never the only one using - anything about his particular career is anecdotal.

Similarly we might argue that Boulton's experience with Amps was, in fact, atypical. People have different -- even wildly different -- drug reactions and responses and sensitivities. Boulton saying "it didn't work for him" is anecdotal TWO ways. One because, literally, he is just offering up a personal observation - and second it's an observation about a specific individual (himself).

His final few years, though, were a carnival freak show that shouldn't be celebrated.

What do you think Bonds' career line would like if he signed with the Rockies in 1993?

No, because the other players have full access to the coffee, the amp, and the Red Bull and restoring yourself to your natural talent level isn't cheating.

Um...amps are illegal.

It's tough to take a definition of "cheating" seriously when it would include drinking coffee.

The definition of cheating is that it's against the rules.

Thirty isn't his natural talent level -- 50 is. He's tired, so he can't perform at 50 -- much like a pitcher can't come back the day after a complete game at full power.

He's not at his peak natural talent level. I would say he very much is at his current natural talent level. There's nothing more natural than getting rundown from playing.

I don't value the freedom to cheat.

Roid use also deprived the teams of the freedom to offer fair and honest competition, and for the fans to consume it.

In no other walk of life would this so-called "freedom" of employees to go gonzo and damage their employers' product be supported.

In no other walk of life would this so-called "freedom" of employees to go gonzo and damage their employers' product be supported.

The employers didn't care at all and implicitly supported it.

The definition of cheating is that it's against the rules.

Not Ray's definition. Ray's definition is that amps (and, presumably, coffee) are cheating and have been since the 50s. He's said that innumerable times.

No, because the other players have full access to the coffee, the amp, and the Red Bull and restoring yourself to your natural talent level isn't cheating. That's why surgery is ok.

Amps are illegal drugs which subject the other players to breaking the law and health risks in order to catch up.

Even if you insist on it being "cheating," it's of an entirely different magnitude than chemically increasing your natural talent level through, inter alia, adding lean muscle mass attainable only because of the chemicals.

And you have precisely zero evidence that amps don't take a player beyond his "natural level." Andy has simply asserted this, with his justification being that no lab tests replicated under major league conditions have shown such an effect, while not requiring that kind of evidence to show the same re steroids.

Not Ray's definition. Ray's definition is that amps (and, presumably, coffee) are cheating and have been since the 50s. He's said that innumerable times.

? I have not.

My position is that if steroids are cheating, then amps are; if amps are not cheating, then steroids aren't.

There is no meaningful distinction between the two drugs for the purposes we are discussing.

Barry Bonds was one of the 20 greatest hitters of all time. He was NOT one of the 2 or 3 best. We should haircut his performance for what we know he did.

Why 20th? Why not 6th (cut 5% of OPS+)? Why not 11th? (cut 10% off OPS+)? Why not 50th? 150th?

Actually, Aaron isn't that far off. We did this a couple threads ago. It's just that Bonds' ridiculous IBB rate and the overall offense level made his stand out more.

Are you insane?

Aaron: through age 34 157 OPS+, age-35+ 150 OPS+
Bonds: through age 34 163 OPS+, age-35+ 221 OPS+

And you have precisely zero evidence that amps don't take a player beyond his "natural level."

They're a nervous system stimulant that wears off. Just as coffee is. They don't create new muscle.

What more are you looking for? People don't consider coffee drinkers to be increasing their natural talent level. Are they wrong? Is a person under the influence of caffeine in any way not "himself"?

SugarBear,

If coffee and amps do the same thing, then why would players take amps?

As opposed to your assertion that a well-rested ballplayer's talent level can be improved with a magic pill.

Except for the studies showing the effects of amphetamines -- which (hint) are about much more than counteracting a lack of sleep.

Which is exactly why amphetamines were used, to restore tired ballplayers to their natural talent level. Whether or not that actually worked as advertised is an open question, but there is zero evidence that they ever did anything more than that.

Wrong. It isn't their natural talent level. One's natural talent level is to only be able to put forth a certain level of performance for a certain length of time. To go beyond that is enhancing.

I'm trying to think of an example simple enough for you to understand. (It's tough, because you're easily distracted by shiny objects and chipmunks.) But let me try. Let's say that Justin Verlander can throw, at the outset of a game, 95 MPH. Now, as he's pitching, as his pitch count gets up there, he starts to wear down, and his fastball drops to 90 MPH and straightens out a bit. Now imagine there's a drug that he could take (or a device he could use, or a medical procedure he could undergo) that would allow him to continue to throw 95 MPH for 100 pitches, 150 pitches, even 200 pitches in a game. By your nonsensical reasoning, this would be merely "restorative" because it gets him to his "natural talent level." In the world of people who can use logic, this is enhancing, because it's not natural for him to be able to throw that hard for that long.

There are no greenie versions of the juiced-up Barry Bonds late career spikes** anywhere to be found.

False. There are no steroid versions of Barry Bonds' late career spike anywhere to be found. But there are plenty of examples of power spikes in the greenie era. You need to re-read your Nate Silver.

Why 20th? Why not 6th (cut 5% of OPS+)? Why not 11th? (cut 10% off OPS+)? Why not 50th? 150th?

I didn't say 20th, I said top-20.

We know what Barry Bonds was. He had a 163 OPS+ through age-34. With a normal decline, he was going to end up as a ~155 OPS+ player. He was a clear HoFer.

He is NOT a career 182 OPS+ player. I will not acknowledge that mad-scientist freak show.