For those of you who are getting worn out by that politics thread, a nice and quiet change of pace....(smile)

i wonder if we'll see a generational split over this, and have one bunch of older HOFers having frosty relations with the subsequent members, who, even if they are judged clean, will want to stay on good terms with their contemporaries.

For those of you who are getting worn out by that politics thread, a nice and quiet change of pace....(smile)

I haven't clicked on it since it went over 100 posts. Has anyone done a synopsis?

@1

Did George Brett ever use greenies? :)

No drug used by Andy's or any Baby Boomer's childhood idol is performance enhancing.

Here's the real question: Is the multi-HOFer boycott news, or is GB pulling it out of his ass?

Selfish Brett, wanting to be the only steroid user in the HoF.

Added Brett, "Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

See how quick Brett changes his tune when nobody shows up for the clean HOF induction of Tommy Manzella.

Yeah, well, George Brett is a big fraud who poops his pants. So what does he know?

Yeah, well, George Brett is a big fraud who poops his pants. So what does he know?

there's an injection/ejection joke here somewhere.

The only rider booted from the Tour de France for drugs this year was kicked out for using a hemorrhoid cream.

George Brett used a performance enhancing substance for years. It was called "Goose Gossage."

When George Brett was caught using an illegal substance, he threw a hissy fit.

13 >>>> 14

George Brett #### his pants.

Can't believe there's more than a dozen posts here and no one has yet pointed out that Brett and any fellow boycott threateners would not be blackballing the HOF. I'm sure the pinhead who wrote this meant to say blackmailing, but that obviously wouldn't be correct either.

No I think he meant blackballing, he probably using to to mean some sort of unofficial but organized rejection and refusal to associate with. Of course it really doesn't make sense but it's what I think he meant.

No drug used by Andy's or any Baby Boomer's childhood idol is performance enhancing.

But Andy would, like, totally be willing to concede that such a drug used by his boyhood idols were performance-enhancing if someone could show him laboratory results of experiments conducted under major league conditions.

Like he has seen for steroids.

Never say never of course: in a 100 years, when we have 500 pound offensive linemen and 8 foot centers and pitchers who throw 110 MPH fastballs to hitters with lightning quick reflexes (all via genetic and/or nanotechnological implants etc.), then steroid use will be looked back on as a quaint and curious phenomenon, in a similar way that we look back on tiny fielder's gloves and a game with few home runs.

Note the preceding is NOT necessarily an endorsement of such ideas.

Here's the real question: Is the multi-HOFer boycott news, or is GB pulling it out of his ass?

I didn't listen to the interview; but the implication from this quote above (with emphasis added):

He’s [Brett] basically blackballing the HOF by making certain that they don’t even think of putting them in because if they do, he says that the current Hall of Famers won’t attend the induction ceremonies....

is that there is unanimity among all current HoFers; that is, since Brett says "the current" rather than "many of the current" or even "most of the current", he's implying that they are all of one mind on this subject. This strikes me as most unlikely.

What seems more likely is that many current HoFers are upset about the prospect of known or suspected steroid users being allowed into Cooperstown. Indeed, several have already expressed this sentiment; and I have no doubt that those who feel the strongest on the subject will use whatever influence they have to sway the vote against those whom they view as "cheaters", including threatening to boycott their induction ceremony. But if and when it comes to pass that Bonds or Clemens or whoever it may be with the steroid taint is inducted into the Hall, I seriously doubt that a significant number (if any at all) of the current members will boycott the induction ceremony. The personal identities of the current members, their sense of who they are (if you will) are quite simply too closely tied to the institution of the Baseball Hall of Fame for any of them to turn their back on the institution or belittle it in any way. At least, in my humble opinion.

DB

in a similar way that we look back on tiny fielder's gloves and a game with few home runs.

Babe Ruth was nothing more than a fat old man with little girl legs. And here's something I just found out recently: He wasn't really a sultan.

George Brett used a performance enhancing substance for years. It was called "Goose Gossage."

That's certainly the most incontrovertible statement to date on this sadly lame thread. And here I was only trying to steer us away from politics for a few hours.

I never saw Brett with steroids or greenies - only alcohol. But he exhibited " 'roid rage ".

The Royals had to replace the metal garbage can in the runway leading to the locker room with a plastic can. The metal can made too much noise when Brett beat it after a bad first at-bat.

Bob, I am not suggesting you do so, but is there a major league player of note that you could "out" on the steroids issue if you wanted to?

Repoz Posted: August 26, 2010 at 06:08 PM (#3626835)

See how quick Brett changes his tune when nobody shows up for the clean HOF induction of Tommy Manzella.

but i will be there fer SHER not just cuz ah LUUUUUUVVVV tommy but bcuz i will FINALLY be able to drag Husband there promising him there won't be NO crowds. And i can finally get me an autograph...

Ray - unfortunately, no. The late 70's and early 80's were times of beer, greenies and maybe marijuana in the minors and then the cocaine stuff kicked in the 80's.

Ray - unfortunately, no. The late 70's and early 80's were times of beer, greenies and maybe marijuana in the minors and then the cocaine stuff kicked in the 80's.

But wait. The unimpeachable Tom House assured me that steroids were everywhere.

Often times this blog confuses me. Why are you people ridiculing Brett because he objects to PED abusers? George Brett was an awesome baseball player, arguably the best 3B of my time, and nothing he is saying here is wrong.

Whatever. later.

Often times this blog confuses me. Why are you people ridiculing Brett because he objects to PED abusers? George Brett was an awesome baseball player, arguably the best 3B of my time, and nothing he is saying here is wrong.

People here are ridiculing George Brett because many of us, with the exception of Andy and a few others, don't see any significant difference between the awful PEDs used by Bonds, McGwire and co. and the greenies used by Brett and his cohorts, and thus feel this principled stand he's espousing is BS.

The more interesting question that SBB raised and isn't getting discussed is whether Brett's comment is accurate. If large numbers of existing HoFers are sincere about boycotting HoF ceremonies if a known (or, hell, suspected) PED user is inducted, what effect will that have? Is that something the HoF can address. Is it something the HoF should address?

It's still all up to the sportswriters. Ugggh!

Often times this blog confuses me. Why are you people ridiculing Brett because he objects to PED abusers? George Brett was an awesome baseball player, arguably the best 3B of my time, and nothing he is saying here is wrong.

I'm not sure when your time was, but I'm not sure there's much of an argument to be made. Although Brett was an excellent player, one of the best third basemen of all time, his career was pretty contemporaneous with Mike Schmidt's career. By the time Schmidt was done playing, Brett was done playing third base. (I'd also point out that although I know that there are others who disagree, I think Boggs was a better overall third baseman too).

EDIT: Not that this has anything to do with your larger point.

Often times this blog confuses me. Why are you people ridiculing Brett because he objects to PED abusers? George Brett was an awesome baseball player, arguably the best 3B of my time, and nothing he is saying here is wrong. Whatever. later.

I stepped away from this site for a while, and (probably unfortunately) returned recently, so I'm also not up to speed on the thinking on this board.

Regarding roids, what is the prevailing opinion at BTF?:
1) that Clemens, Bonds, etc, never took roids?
2) that it's accepted that they did take roids, but it was only to allow them to return from injuries quicker, period?
3) that it's accepted that they did take roids, but you don't believe that roids allow a batter to hit a ball a greater distance, and throw a pitch at a greater speed, period?
4) that it's accepted that they did take roids, but you don't believe that roids allow a batter to hit a ball a greater distance, and throw a pitch at a greater speed, because there is no measured, scientific proof that this is the case?
5) that it's accepted that they did take roids, and although you do believe that roids allow a batter to hit a ball a greater distance, and throw a pitch at a greater speed, you refuse to blackball roid users because there is no actual measured, scientific proof that this is the case?
6) that roids allow you to hit a ball farther, but it's irrelevant in a sense, because since greenies were used back in the day, they also should be considered an equivalent PED to roids (Brock stealing bases, etc)?
7) that roid users should be blackballed, because while greenies help performance, it's only an equivalent to say mega-dose of caffeine, enhancing abilities that already exist; while roid users have been able to add mega-muscle mass- - and in the same way a player on roids who lifts weights would be able to squat more than twice his weight in a short amount of time if he commits himself to the gym, a hitter can gain added distance and a quicker bat with roids, and turn long fly balls into home runs.
8) something else?

EDIT: In the limited time I've spent in the gym, my friends and I maxed out on benching between 20 to 30 percent more than our body weight (165/205)(210/265). The most we had were protein shakes and that Muscle Milk stuff.

Guys who were obviously or admittedly on roids could bench at least twice their body weight. While I understand there have been no studies done proving that roids allow you to hit a ball farther, common sense tells me that this would be the case.

33 - basically all of the above

plus #9 - probably lots and lots of players took steroids. not sure which ones besides the ones who have confessed or had positive tests, but besides helping to heal from injuries better and allowing longer and better workouts, not known if you can sure for sure that shooting up WILL make you hit a baseball farther/better or throw a baseball faster/with more movement.

not that we particularly care or think they should be thrown in federal prison let alone be interrogated in front of preening pretentious politicians

I've always suspected Brett's frequent trips to the DL were caused by his body breaking down from the stress of doing so many steroids.

Plus 10. Accept that they did roids, and that it may very well improve your performance, but since all of baseball (the commissioner's office, the teams, their managers, their clean peers and the media) was to a degree guilty of allowing a culture of PED use to be largely ignored for more than a decade, parceling out guilt now is pointless.

Sort of 11: Accept that we don't really know who took steroids and how long players have been using (outside of failed test and maybe receipts for the stuff) and we don't know the effect of said steroids (they weren't all the same for one) and we don't know the variance of that effect, so any conversation that pretends like we do isn't very fair or useful.

People here are ridiculing George Brett because many of us, with the exception of Andy and a few others, don't see any significant difference between the awful PEDs used by Bonds, McGwire and co. and the greenies used by Brett and his cohorts, and thus feel this principled stand he's espousing is BS.

Do we know that Brett used Greenies ?

Do we know that Brett used Greenies ?

AFAIK, no, and I'm sorry I phrased it that way. The message is the same if I say the "players of Brett's era."

In the limited time I've spent in the gym, my friends and I maxed out on benching between 20 to 30 percent more than our body weight (165/205)(210/265). The most we had were protein shakes and that Muscle Milk stuff. Guys who were obviously or admittedly on roids could bench at least twice their body weight. While I understand there have been no studies done proving that roids allow you to hit a ball farther, common sense tells me that this would be the case.

I'm familiar with people whose bench press increased to 150% of their body weight despite not taking steroids. 200% is a lot, but then again, 150% is a lot, and though such improvement was done by good athletes in the everyday sense, it was not done by professional athletes. (I.e., it didn't feel especially remarkable -- it wouldn't surprise me if top athletes, generally more driven, might not see even greater benefits from working out).

#33

1. Bonds used various forms of PEDs. And I'm pretty sure he did so knowingly. Clemens? If he used, he did so knowingly. The evidence against him as far as I know is McNamee and I wouldn't take his word about sunrise.

2. To the extent that there's a coherent story about Bonds it seems likely that he started in response to an injury. And then made PEDs an ongoing part of his training. McNamee's story is that Clemens started in response to a career crisis.

3. Steroids will unquestionably make you stronger (or faster or some combination of both depending on training patterns). Bonds was unquestionably bigger and stronger in his mid to late 30s than at any other point in his career. Bearing in mind McNamee's timeline I'm damned if I can see in Clemens' line (remember that according to McNamee Clemens wasn't using anything in 1997). His great second half of 1998 looks a lot like his 1997 and his great pitching in Houston looks like command rather than some new found power. He was unusually healthy for an aging pitcher to be sure (though great power pitchers do sometimes age very well).

4. As Dan likes to point out, the evidence of baseball effects is pretty much cherry picked. They're associated with surge seasons (Brady Anderson, Ken Caminiti, Luis Gonzalez), consistency (Palmeiro), lat career excellence (Bonds), plus sudden breakdown. Indeed any alteration from a standard career path. And the less than great play of many of the people mentioned in the Mitchell report is generally discounted to focus only on the success stories.

Systematic look at the evidence of players either suspended for PED use or mentioned in the Mitchell report show that position players generally played a little worse when they were presumably clean but that the impact is nothing that will explain Bonds for instance. Pitchers basically showed no effect in rate stats (they pitched slightly better but within the typical variability that pitcher show)

The attempts I've seen to explain steroid impact via physics have generally been laughable because they assume a cleanly hit ball. And for any major leaguee with any kind of ball a cleanly hit ball is gone. Any additional strength just goes to the diminishing returns column (as an aside, Bonds was clearly hitting a lot more diminishing return shots in his late career power surge)

5) I'm for letting the criminal justice system handle the criminal aspect and letting the game handle the competitive side. They've been illegal since being scheduled and have been cheating since the testing agreements. Before that, a combination of sharp practice plus illegal activity.

And it's up to the voters to decide what to do with this. I've always been a numbers in context guy so 73* doesn't mean anything in particular to me.

6) In general greenies are brought up because they're as (performance enhancing, illegal, dangerous, coercive, bad example for the kid) as steroids. Most people bringing it up are asking for consistecy in the argument. Somebody like Backlasher concedes the point and moves on. I suspect Brett for instance would not.

7) Anybody who argues greenies is different is ignorant of 50+ years of research of amphetamines on reaction time. Reaction time has to be at least as important as upper body strength in successfully hitting a baseball. (And yes, there's no evidence of specific baseball related effects for amphetamines. Or steroids. Such specific research that I'm aware of is limited to things such as track)

And speaking of caffeine, one of the things that we now know is that it allows you to increase the duration and intensity of workouts. Same basic mechanism as steroids, just not as extreme.

And speaking of massive doses of caffeine. It's currently popular in Australian Rules Football for players to take massive doses before a game and then bring themselves down after with commercially available sleep aids. A player was recently hospitalized because his body didn't react well.

Since this is as good a place as any: Preliminary research into 1992-93 and the start of the HR explosion.

there were 174 players who had 300+ PAs in both 1992 and 1993. As a group they hit home runs almost spot on 20% more frequently (Doesn't matter whether you measure
per AB, per PA or per ball in play). No park adjustments, but that "shouldn't" matter that much for group averages (yes Denver is in the mix and that alone makes any simple study problematic)

The guys who top the list for percentage increase are mostly guys with very little power.

Of the guys who hit at least 25 home runs in 1993 here are the leaders in increased home runs per ball in play (in order of increase).

Phil Plantier
Mark Whiten
Chili Davis
Ron Gant
Rafael Palmeiro
Ken Griffey Jr.
Kent Hrbek
Frank Thomas
Bobby Bonilla
Matt Williams
Mo Vaughn
David Justice
Eddie Murray
Dean Palmer

These are all of the power hitters whose home run rate went up more than the group average.

Of course the next step would be to look at previously established rates (or whether they were coming off an injury or something like that)

Also, since I have it handy. Players who hit at least 20 home runs in 1992 and saw their home run rate decline in 1993. (Again using HR per ball in play. In order of decline)

Ryne Sandberg
Ray Lankford
Rob Deer
Andre Dawson
Brady Anderson
Dave Hollins
Gary Sheffield
George Bell
Mike Devereaux
Darren Daulton
Cecil Fielder
Terry Pendleton
Dave Winfield
Eric Karros
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker

Whatever. later.

That's why. ;)

If Clemens is found innocent, are all of these retired ballplayers and ambassadors of the game going to issue public apologies? Maybe Clemens did steroids, but if all the evidence is just McNamee's BS, then that is some weak ass #### to condemn a man with.

I wouldn't take his word about sunrise.

Tomorrow's, or yesterday's?

And speaking of caffeine

Better get another cup, or I won't get a damned thing done today.

In regards to 33, I think it's pretty much the case that (6) is the dominant thinking. There are tons of PED users in the HOF already, that cat's been out the bag so long that we might as well give up any pretense.

Well, and inducting Pat Borders into the Hall of Fame as the best clean player of his generation is dumb.

May I also suggest (12) "Don't care any more" :)

Ron J Posted: August 27, 2010 at 07:17 AM (#3627106)

1. Bonds used various forms of PEDs. And I'm pretty sure he did so knowingly.

- of COURSE he used anything and everything he could to improve his performance. he talked about it. the question really is - did he use any substance which was illegal AT THE TIME HE USED IT - and too many people don't like it if you put it THAT way. if tHG was most definitely NOT labeled as "steroid" when he used it, then even if he knowingly agreed to take a substance whose name was "THG" it most positively was NOT called a "steroid" when he used it.

Clemens? If he used, he did so knowingly. The evidence against him as far as I know is McNamee and I wouldn't take his word about sunrise.

- i'm surprised everyone else thinks that mcnamee is a decent honest good man of his word. and even IF clemens is exonerated in court, he will STILL permanently be labeled as a Bad Guy and a "cheat"


Bearing in mind McNamee's timeline I'm damned if I can see in Clemens' line (remember that according to McNamee Clemens wasn't using anything in 1997). His great second half of 1998 looks a lot like his 1997 and his great pitching in Houston looks like command rather than some new found power. He was unusually healthy for an aging pitcher to be sure (though great power pitchers do sometimes age very well).

- ron stop making sense.
when clemens was in houston, i watched every single game. he DID have great command and in my not so umble opinion what made him exceptionally great was his ability to adjust to whatever strike zone the ump was calling and change his game plan - AND his refusal to ever throw a gimmee strike - he'd rather walk a guy and pitch to the next one. i also think that the NL hitters had to adjust to a world class pitcher they hadn't seen for years

As Dan likes to point out, the evidence of baseball effects is pretty much cherry picked. They're associated with surge seasons (Brady Anderson, Ken Caminiti, Luis Gonzalez), consistency (Palmeiro), lat career excellence (Bonds), plus sudden breakdown. Indeed any alteration from a standard career path. And the less than great play of many of the people mentioned in the Mitchell report is generally discounted to focus only on the success stories.

- correct because people really REALLY want to believe that taking steroids turns you immediately into a home run hitter like mcgwire - and the writers are all still furious that mcgwire refuses to say that he couldn't have hit home runs without shooting up. or say that he ONLY shot up ONLY to hit more home runs. the fans and media get angry when you point out the great "success" stories like alex sanchez and larry bigbie. and they don't give a rat's ass about miguel tejada

Systematic look at the evidence of players either suspended for PED use or mentioned in the Mitchell report show that position players generally played a little worse when they were presumably clean but that the impact is nothing that will explain Bonds for instance. Pitchers basically showed no effect in rate stats (they pitched slightly better but within the typical variability that pitcher show)

- nobody wants this "systematic use" intelligent conversation crap. people want to say that shooting steroids turns manny alexander into manny ramirez. period.

The attempts I've seen to explain steroid impact via physics have generally been laughable because they assume a cleanly hit ball. And for any major leaguee with any kind of ball a cleanly hit ball is gone.

- let me see if i got this straight - are you seriously suggesting that michael bourn hitting a home run ball 400' off roy freaking halliday was NOT a result of his shooting up with steroids the day before?


I'm for letting the criminal justice system handle the criminal aspect and letting the game handle the competitive side. They've been illegal since being scheduled and have been cheating since the testing agreements. Before that, a combination of sharp practice plus illegal activity.

And it's up to the voters to decide what to do with this. I've always been a numbers in context guy so 73* doesn't mean anything in particular to me.

- ron,
nobody wants any of this "context" crap
it is ALL about Heroes and Villains. and the Heroes are the Nice Clean Wheaties Eatin Boys BITGOD and the Villains are McGwire, Barry Lamar and Manny who would have been sweeping streets if not for roids and denying great AAA players like Cody Ransome their Great Opportunity to become STAHS!!!!! And destroying The Sacred Home Run Record.
- people WANT to watch a whole bunch of teary-eyed confessions to support their prejuduces and they especially HATE the players who won't go along and they ignore all the steroid users who DID play along. it's ALL about the crying and agreeing to say what people want to hear

- as for the criminal justice system - please. you REALLY think that rich athletes are gonna get prosecuted for USING? please. that is for street n-words. and kids smoking mary j wanna. this is why mrs mitchell and selig and their little politician friensies want to convict by use of MEDIA. works MUCH better than having to have, you know, like PROOF


In general greenies are brought up because they're as (performance enhancing, illegal, dangerous, coercive, bad example for the kid) as steroids. Most people bringing it up are asking for consistecy in the argument. Somebody like Backlasher concedes the point and moves on. I suspect Brett for instance would not.

Anybody who argues greenies is different is ignorant of 50+ years of research of amphetamines on reaction time. Reaction time has to be at least as important as upper body strength in successfully hitting a baseball. (And yes, there's no evidence of specific baseball related effects for amphetamines. Or steroids.

- there are a LOT of players and a LOT of FANS (more than a few on this here board) who really REALLY believe that taking an illegal drug BITGOD was NOT "cheating" and anyhow, everyone who took an amphetamine took it because ONLY because he was hungover - and seeing as how they were ALL a bunch of drunken, hung-=over partiers, well, like, so what. AND taking an amphetamine IF you were not hungover (playing naked - which was frowned on) just made you overconfident and you'd throw the ball down the middle and get creamed - and this based ONLY on the word of that nobel prize winning scientist Jim Bouton

Lisa, the line in question was meant to read "And for any major leaguer with any kind of power a cleanly hit ball is gone."

My editor failed me again.

I leave it to you whether Bourne has real power. I suppose he just might though. He rarely tries to hit the ball hard because for him flyballs are (generally) the enemy. He can make a living trying to beat the throw from shortstop.