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 0.7880 seconds
55 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.
1. Social media assassin (Templeusox) Posted: April 02, 2007 at 10:15 PM (#2323058)Isn't that Bloomberg's exact position on gun control. I know a much more dangerous and serious situation, but still stepping in on a federal issue.
The PSAL. The league should decide if they are going to allow players to use aluminum bats.
I suspect rigorous data on the subject of injuries is likely hard to come by, given that virtually all amateur baseball these days is played with aluminum bats. Kind of hard to get substantial comparative data.
But I can tell you this: I was a teenager-to-young-adult when the switchover from wood to aluminum bats took place. And even in softball, not just hardball, the difference in ball velocity off the bat was hugely obvious. It wasn't close, or ambiguous in any way.
It would take a remarkable work of logical pretzel-twisting to believe that greater velocity of batted balls isn't more dangerous, not just for players but for spectators as well.
I don't think that's the only question here though. Foam baseballs would be safer too but it would make for a less exciting game. Would Little League baseball be better or worse with wooden bats? I can see arguments on either side but, either way, it doesn't strike me as something the mayor should decide.
DON'T BAN LAWN DARTS
(oh wait, this is about something else?)
Aluminum is pretty clearly more dangerous, but I am of the opinion that they aren't dangerous enough to warrant a city ordinance outlawing their use. This should be taken up by the governing body of the city high schools, not the council.
It's not hard at all. Metal bats are already regulated so that they're much less "hot" than they could be. This ban (assuming that the city council overrides the veto) will just lead to litigation, meaning that the kids will continue to use aluminum for at least a couple more years. That won't make anyone safer. Enacting a more stringent set of standards for metal bat performance on the other hand, could actually work (and spread to other jurisdictions).
And the problem in Little League isn't the bats. It's the huge disparity in ability levels among the players. There are 12 year olds in my son's league who can hit the ball 250 feet with wood and throw a ball from the OF fence to the plate on the fly. They're playing against other kids who can't move before the ball is past them if they're in right field, much less at third base.
so somebody should die before you're on board..
I do think it would be smart for HS and College to go to wooden bats because it is what the pro's use. It would make scouting hitters easier and I think pitchers would learn to use the inside corner better.
*this is for HS and College only, Little League is a different story.
"I don’t know whether aluminum bats are more dangerous or less dangerous"
I suspect rigorous data on the subject of injuries is likely hard to come by, given that virtually all amateur baseball these days is played with aluminum bats. Kind of hard to get substantial comparative data.
But I can tell you this: I was a teenager-to-young-adult when the switchover from wood to aluminum bats took place. And even in softball, not just hardball, the difference in ball velocity off the bat was hugely obvious. It wasn't close, or ambiguous in any way.
It would take a remarkable work of logical pretzel-twisting to believe that greater velocity of batted balls isn't more dangerous, not just for players but for spectators as well.
This sounds an awful lot like the argument that the leap from steroids improves strength to steroids improves baseball performance is obvious.
Indeed. Of course, given that I'm among those who find the notion of steroid use being able to improve baseball performance as rather obvious, I'm not quite clear on the point here.
Which is why, Frida's boss, Steve often argued that Barry's late-career performance was not atypical, did not need PEDs to explain them, and instead resulted from the same kind of clean living that explains the late-career surges of the immortal "Pappy" Schmeer and Stu "Stu" Grissle.
Not true, of course. I've often argued that Barry's late-career performance has been atypical, but the concept of late-career improvement -- often cited as "unprecedented" -- isn't unprecedented, but has in fact occurred many times throughout history.
Well, it would be nice to really understand there is a danger to correct before we correct it, yes.
You do realize they could decrease the danger by moving the pitching mound back by 5 feet, and all of the bases a corresponding amount, as that would allow for more time to react to a ball, if it is hit harder. And shoot, since base distance would be longer, we would be working on that obesity problem, too. NYC City Council, where are you?
Absurd on its face. Who would deny that "late-career improvement" is unprecedented? What was denied was that the type of late-career improvement Bonds exhibited was unprecedented, and was only explainable by PEDs. It was this you denied on multiple occasions by pointing to examples of people you thought exhibited similar improvements sans resort to PEDs.
Is this a fair summary, Steve? I'm not claiming an infallible memory, but it seems that that was your line of thought in all those Bonds threads.
I do not think we need to assume they do in order to explain their careers.
I hate to pull the "played the game" card, but anyone who played the game wouldn't argue that batted ball velocity isn't hugely greater coming off an aluminum bat than wood. They're pretty dangerous ... BBBBUUUUUTTTT, they're cheaper! Yay!
Despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Same kinda rationale that wins Derek Jeter Gold Gloves.
Andy: I know Steve eventually came to that position. What I'm interested in is different, and that is his current assertion that he never doubted PEDs' effects on performance. His arguments in the past seemed precisely to contest that, by arguing Bonds's late career didn't require such explanation. DOn't you recall that?
Mr. Impartial: Apparently he doesn't question the steroid use. I'm now asking if he believes the steroid use explains the atypical performance, just as surely as a metal bat explains the increased velocity on the ball.
Somebody tell this to my local college team. They can't hit the ball out of the infield.
The problem is the incestuous relationship between Easton and the leagues. The leagues take their cue from the national associations and the national associations are beholden to Easton. If the leagues weren't in bed with Easton then we could trust them to make judgements in the interests of the players, whatever those judgements happened to be. However since the leagues are neither impartial nor disinterested this is precisely the kind of situation that government should be interfering in.
The purpose of government is to balance the power of money with the power of popular representation. Since without the interference of government those with the money will get what they want every time (in this case Easton) it is incumbent on government to give the people what they want. This isn't a secret measure, if it was unpopular with parents and players it never would have gotten this far. The only people it is unpopular with is Easton and their lackeys in the leagues but I see no reason why someone should prefer what they want over what everyone else wants.
Your historically demonstrated elemental incapacity to understand my position is evidence, as I say, of either amazing obtuseness or intentional argumentativity (is that a word?), and my money remains on the combination of the two.
his current assertion that he never doubted PEDs' effects on performance. His arguments in the past seemed precisely to contest that, by arguing Bonds's late career didn't require such explanation
The ... point ... then ... and ... now ... is ... that ... it ... is ... foolish ... to ... focus ... on ... any ... single ... player's ... stats ... as ... the ... evidence ... of ... the ... impact ... of ... PED ... usage ... in ... the ... sport.
You can say that all you want. But you've also stated many times that you don't care about steroids even if the impact of PED were to be demonstrated. That is the big picture of your position. You can't expect people to focus on the minutia of an argument (the performance of Bonds is insufficient proof of widespread PED use and/or effect) when your general argument makes your minute argument irrelevant. If you believe, and I know you do, that steroids are good (in this case the abscence of opposition is tantamount to an affirmation) then your protests that PED haven't had a widespread effect is dissembling and rhetorical distraction.
You can't have it both ways. It's possible to make a genuine argument that you don't believe that PED's have had a large effect upon baseball. However it is intellectually dishonest to say that you don't believe that PED's have had a large effect upon baseball but even if you were to demonstrate that it had a large effect I still wouldn't care.
And I will continue to do so, because it's the truth.
But you've also stated many times that you don't care about steroids even if the impact of PED were to be demonstrated.
No, I haven't stated it many times. I've never stated it at all. It's not something I believe, nor is it something I've ever said. The ability of people to just say #&%@ and ascribe it as the statements of others, despite it's not being true, continues to amaze me.
If you believe, and I know you do, that steroids are good
You don't know this, because I've never, ever said that "steroids are good," in any unambiguous sense at all. Get the fracking facts straight.
It's possible to make a genuine argument that you don't believe that PED's have had a large effect upon baseball.
It's possible. I haven't made such an argument, but it's possible. I believe that the impact of PEDs on baseball statistics has been essentially impossible to detect, but that isn't in any way the same thing as saying that PEDs haven't had a large effect upon baseball.
Why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
However it is intellectually dishonest to say that you don't believe that PED's have had a large effect upon baseball but even if you were to demonstrate that it had a large effect I still wouldn't care.
Whomever it is you want to make this statement to, it ain't me.
Oh, well.
As is often the case, Gaelan makes a statement that is too tempting to not reply to, yet so late into the night that I'm not going to sacrifice precious hours of sleep to argue over. I'd just say that this is not a common ends of government as I've seen in any serious political science theories. It's closest to Marxist sentiments, but even there I'd say it's stretching it.
In fact, I'd say that this statement runs counter to Locke's hypothesis that government was formed through consent to protect private property of its members.
Since without the interference of government those with the money will get what they want every time (in this case Easton) it is incumbent on government to give the people what they want.
It's a major stretch to argue that Money will equal Power. In fact, some argue that government is the means by which such a transition is made, rather than the remedy.
I hear that Bloomberg may run for Pres as an independent.
If this is true, this veto is dangerous to him politically. Regardless of right or wrong, if a NYC kid gets seriously hurt by a batted ball off a metal bat, Bloomy is going to get blamed.
I agree, DMN. THat's not having it both ways. But I find it humorous that Steve continues to think the problem is us, and not him. He DID on numerous occasions claim that Bonds's performance did not require steroids to explain it, and now above he stated quite clearly that the PEDs' performative "boost" is as plain as day and would require pretzel twisting logic to deny. Well, since being called on that, he's twisting the pretzel and claiming that everyone just misunderstands poor little Stevie.
It's evident, as usual, that the concept of nuance is a bit too overwhelming for you to handle. The recognition of the pervasiveness of something is not the same thing as not caring about it, and certainly isn't the same thing as seeing it as an unalloyed "good."
Because, of course, it doesn't require steroids to explain it. Having good reason to believe it's been steroid-aided is not the same thing as requiring steroids to explain it, especially given that it's impossible to know, among many other relevant factors, the degree to which the performance of the pitchers Bonds faces have been steroid-aided.
Clearly you would love to be able to pigeon-hole me into a simplistic little box. However, the fact is that my view of the PED issue has always been ambivalent. The fact that subtlety eludes you is, indeed, your problem, not mine.
Nice rhetorical choice.
Of course Bonds' performance required and still requires PEDs to explain it. NOBODY ages like Bonds does without their assistance. All your crap references in the past to this or that player was just dissembling in defense of your (then held) position that Bonds didn't do 'roids, which Kevin and BL and I know then changed to "What, me worry?" when it was clear he did. Once it was established for all (but DMN) that he had, you resorted to the Dial defenses. Here, however, Frida's Boss caught you claiming unambiguously that metal bats bring more zing! and that that assists performance, w/o qualification. That PEDs make Bonds bigger and stronger (and his bat faster) apparently doesn't help in the same way. Sure.
I don't recall Steve'e ever saying Bonds did not use PEDs. Some guys in those threads did, but Steve's position, I believe, was that he didn't know.
Wrong. I never held the position that "Bonds didn't do 'roids." Your failure to grasp this fundamental point is amazing.
The many examples of historical mid- or late-career improvements were factual examples provided to counter the hysterical factless assertions that no player had ever peaked in his mid-to-late 30s.
It's obvious that you want to distill my position on this issue into a simplistic one-liner sound byte, which is futile enough. Getting it fundamentally wrong compounds the folly.
You did, in the earliest discussions, seriously doubt his use.
Many? LOL. The question never was does anyone peak in their mid-30s, but has anyone experienced the kind of phenomenal performance jump Bonds saw in his LATE 30s.
Answer this question: Has Barry Bonds' baseball performance benefited in any way from his use of PEDs?
Did I? Or was I highly skeptical of the evidence being presented of his use? And how is that "seriously doubt his use" equates to "didn't do roids"?
The question never was does anyone peak in their mid-30s, but has anyone experienced the kind of phenomenal performance jump Bonds saw in his LATE 30s.
Given that the big jump in Bonds's performance occurred between his age-35 and age-36 seasons, I don't know why that would be the question. And, of course, a serious inquiry doesn't concern itself only with exact replicas, but understands the relevance of similar occurrences.
Answer this question: Has Barry Bonds' baseball performance benefited in any way from his use of PEDs?
The answer, which I've provided many times, including #18 and #51 in this very thread, is that very likely it has, but it's impossible to know with certainty, and with precision as to degree of benefit. I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.
Likelihood that a random topic having nothing to do with drugs, Barry Bonds, or the San Francisco Giants will be turned into diatribe about PEDs: pretty darned likely, but not 100%
Likelihood that I will get annoyed at the site and the posters when reading yet another off topic thread devolving into personal insults about Bonds and PEDs: absolutely, positively 100%.
This is original? The kevin v Treder steroid argument is less original that the Andy Griffith reruns shown during Cubs rain delays.
What's loveable about Treder is that he repeatedly claims he's misunderstood, then posts how "clear" he's been in the past, but it's the inattention of others to his subtlety (fueled, he believes, by desire to provoke) that's the problem. So, here he proclaims "But I've already said so! Sheesh!" again, but if you look at his posts 18 and 51, he says no such thing as he claims here to say. Post 18 is not about Bonds at all, and post 51 is absolutely unclear as to whether Treder thinks Bonds benefited from steroids. There he speaks in not of his position, he never says "I believe", and when push comes to shove, well, despite his assurances that it's "obvious" in the original post that Frida elicited, in 51 "it's not certain."
Nonetheless, I'm glad to have everything cleared up. Steve believes Bonds benefited from PEDs; his statistical achievements are enhanced by the illegal use of drugs.
I can sleep peacefully now.
It's about the ability of steroids to improve the performance of baseball players. Bonds is a baseball player. It's about him.
post 51 is absolutely unclear as to whether Treder thinks Bonds benefited from steroids
What part of "good reason to believe it's been steroid-aided" is in any way unclear?
"obvious" in the original post that Frida elicited, in 51 "it's not certain."
Because it is obvious in the general sense, and not certain in the particular cases of individual players. This isn't anywhere near as difficult to understand as you attempt to portray it.
Steve believes Bonds benefited from PEDs; his statistical achievements are enhanced by the illegal use of drugs.
Which I've already said is likely true, multiple times in multiple forums, and which I've also said is very likely true of a large proportion of MLB players over the past several decades. I actually wrote, you know, a chapter on this very subject in the 2007 THT Annual.
Your ignorance is fathomless.
Which I've already said is likely true, multiple times in multiple forums, and which I've also said is very likely true of a large proportion of MLB players over the past several decades. I actually wrote, you know, a chapter on this very subject in the 2007 THT Annual.
Steve, I know I should just buy the book (I did buy last year's), but (1) how "large a proportion" of MLB players are you talking about? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? And (2) How exactly did you arrive at whatever number you arrived at, and what actual evidence do you produce to back this number up? Credible testimony (meaning testimony beyond that of Jose Canseco or Ken Caminiti)? Grand jury reports? Ducked questions under oath? Suspicious spikes in power performance? General assumptions that most players will try to get away with anything? Extrapolations from the widespread knowledge about greenie use? Other forms of educated guesses, such as projecting backwards from current testing results?
And beyond those who have been nabbed by their tests in the past few years, are there any specific names you care to mention of past users that we all don't know about already? And if there are, how do you know, or if you don't "know", then what's the basis of your educated guess about these individuals?
I've said all along that it's a far worse slander to label an entire generation of ballplayers as all part of a general "steroid era" than it is to make 99% certain statements about specific players such as Bonds and McGwire, since when the "steroid era" term is used you implicitly implicate the innocent along with the guilty. What's your take on this? Does this broadbrushed labeling of a generation bother you at all? Why or why not?
And do you acknowledge that this "steroid generation" term is often used (I'm not saying by you) as a way of diminishing the stain on those that we actually know used steroids? IOW "since everyone's guilty, nobody really is, and let's move on." I'm sure you've seen variations on this line written here many times, often by those with nothing to back up the "everyone's guilty" part other than the very innuendo they decry when employed by us so-called "steroid fascists." I wonder what your thoughts are on this particular sleight of hand.
I'll read your answers in the morning, given the 3 hour time difference.
Nonetheless, I'm glad to have everything cleared up. Steve believes Bonds benefited from PEDs; his statistical achievements are enhanced by the illegal use of drugs.
I can sleep peacefully now.
Don't know why you're so insistent on this point. Steve's been reasonable in clarifying his position in this thread - he doesn't know if Bonds benefitted from PEDs.
That's a very reasonable stance. IMO, the most reasonable stance given the information we have at this time.
Despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Same kinda rationale that wins Derek Jeter Gold Gloves.
This was a while ago in the thread, but I'd like to see the study that shows, all other things being equal, that batted ball velocity isn't greater coming off an aluminum bat than wood. Perhaps that's the case now with the aforementioned deadened bats ... it sho' wasn't eight years ago when I was in college. Although I did play in summer leagues where aluminum bats could have no more than a -3 difference when comparing inches to weight (i.e. a 34 inch 31 ounce bat was legal, whereas a 34 inch 30 ounce bat was illlegal). Could also be a contributing factor in addition to the deadening. The year before we switched over I used a 34/30 that was friggin' awesome. Also, given that no one's going to shatter an aluminum bat, they also had much thinner handles which allowed one to swing them much more quickly. Wooden bat handles have to be thicker or you're going to get more chipping/shattering, which cash-strapped programs aren't too big on, bringing us back to the money issue ... all the handles on the composites we were using were pretty thick. There's also the bigger/greater sweet spot ... in other words, I'm pretty confident that batted ball velocity is far and significantly greater off an aluminum than a wood bat.
And Derek Jeter doesn't deserver his gold gloves, he gets them for the team he plays on and his hitting, not his fielding. Just so we can clear that up.
Beautiful!!!
It doesn't require it. That's not what the word "require" means.
And do you acknowledge that this "steroid generation" term is often used (I'm not saying by you) as a way of diminishing the stain on those that we actually know used steroids?
"Often"? Maybe sometimes, but I think most often it is used because people believe "everyone was using", and that the offense across the board jumped. I think that's the media's perception - they certainly aren't trying or interested in "diminishing the stain" of Bonds, who hit another HR (735) last night entertaining me to no end.
In the end, that's where it will end up (as I have said many times). The stain will be diminished.
And as Squash notes, the effects of an aluminum bat aren't related to the poorly demonstrated claims of Bonds bat speed increase. They are completely different interactions.
A heaping dosage of ignorance from the Union? Oh, we've already got that.
What? Did you lose your script?
No one in the world knows, of course, as you're well aware.
(2) How exactly did you arrive at whatever number you arrived at
I have never "arrived" at any number, because obviously none of us have the means to do so. If you're fixated on attempting to derive a percentage, then my WAG, which is all any of us can make, would be somewhere in the 10-25% range for steroids and related stuff, and well over 50%, maybe somewhere closer to 100%, for amphetamines in various forms.
I've said all along that it's a far worse slander to label an entire generation of ballplayers as all part of a general "steroid era" than it is to make 99% certain statements about specific players such as Bonds and McGwire, since when the "steroid era" term is used you implicitly implicate the innocent along with the guilty. What's your take on this? Does this broadbrushed labeling of a generation bother you at all? Why or why not?
My take on this is that I'm far less concerned with "slandering" anyone than I am with expressing the truth as we best know it to be. My very strong perception is that the truth is that PEDs in their many forms have not been used by only a small handful of baseball players (or athletes in any other sport), but are instead an institutional phenomenon.
Given this, my take on the issue appears to be diametically opposed to yours: I don't especially care much about individual cases, not only because our means of drawing sensible conclusions about them are far less viable than our means of drawing sensible conclusions about the institutional phenomenon, but because the institutional issue is what far more fundamentally matters. Individuals come and go, institutional cultural norms and patterns persist.
The means, the motive, and the opportunity for baseball players to make use of PEDs have been pervasively strong, and remain so. This is the issue which I find far more compelling and important, as an issue of understanding the essence of the sport and the health and safety issues surrounding PED usage, than getting gossipy or self-righteous jollies over the case of any individual player.
Well, aside from the silly but in your case habitual snarky characterization of other's views, I appreciate the clarification of your general take on this. I think, however, it's extraordinarily wrong as a supposition. I've placed that in bold.
In terms of empirical analysis, it's just wrong to think we can draw more sensible conclusions about institutional phenomena than particular individual ones. We can, for instance, know very precise things about Bonds and Canseco and Caminiti and the minor league guys and all the other players for whom there is solid evidence of their use. As you freely grant in your earlier replies to Andy, we know much less about institutional numbers, and are engaged in speculation.
That said, from a moral perspective, it's not clear why you're so cavalier about the individuals; or, put differently, if I didn't know you were a libertarian, I wouldn't understand why you're so willing to prioritize the institution above the individual. Sure, individuals come and go and institutions usually outlive them, but some of us are concerned about the individuals and the consequences of the choices they make. I'd like PEDs out of baseball b/c they're harmful to individuals, b/c habituated drug use is not good for healthy individuals, and not b/c it's first "bad for the sport."
We can add this to the long list of things you think you know, but don't. I'm a registered Democrat, and vote either Democratic or Green on most ballots, and generally lean far to the political left.
Pardon me. I meant on this issue. You're one testy dude when it comes to avoiding the substantive issues!
I thought it was because they were "cheating", and thus "bad for the sport".
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main