Given the number of players commenting on this, I suspect the next agreement will increase penalties significantly. A first offense will probably be 81 or 162 games, a second 162 or 324 games (1 or 2 years) with the 3rd being a lifetime ban. Eventually I could see it being a 2 strike system ala the IOC - 2 years for a first offense, lifetime for a second with an appeal possible to reduce to 4 years. Of course, you take 6 years out of a guys career and odds are he is done anyways with rare exceptions (very young players, HOF calibre guys in their early 30's).

Eventually I could see it being a 2 strike system ala the IOC - 2 years for a first offense, lifetime for a second with an appeal possible to reduce to 4 years.

Perhaps. Hysteria-fueled cultism is never pretty.

#1 Probably. Everybody always wants the penalties increased.

Sooner or later we'll get to, burn down his home, kill the occupants, salt the land.

And we'll see see roughly the same percentage of players trying to get some form of extra help. There's roughly zero evidence that penalties beyond a certain minimum actually have any deterrence.

#1 Probably. Everybody always wants the penalties increased.

Sooner or later we'll get to, burn down his home, kill the occupants, salt the land.

And we'll see see roughly the same percentage of players trying to get some form of extra help. There's roughly zero evidence that penalties beyond a certain minimum actually have any deterrence.

C'mon, we all know increasing penalties will clearly work as a deterrent. Why would anyone listen to elitist psychologist mumbo-jumbo about experiments and case studies and such when it is so obvious?

There's roughly zero evidence that penalties beyond a certain minimum actually have any deterrence.

How much betting on baseball since 1920. How much before. We don't know about instances in which the player has broken the rule but not been caught, so it's pointless to discuss zero evidence in these cases. In any case, a lifetime ban does prevent that player from commiting the same offense.

Deterrence is but one basis upon which just punishment can rest. (*) Retribution is another, as is rehabilitation. It is not necessary that a punishment serve a deterrent purpose; if the sense of the baseball community is that roiding is an offense against that community warranting punishment along the lines of Wright's suggestion, those punishments need serve no deterrent purpose to be just.

(*) And arguably, the least just inasmuch as it uses humans as means to broader ends.

#5 Yeah, there's specific deterrence as opposed to general deterrence. A sanctioned player can't re-offend if he can't play, but there's no evidence that harsh penalties to one person influences the behavior of another.

Everth Cabrera? He's supposedly taking steroids and he hit two blinkin' HRs?

I thought this stuff was supposed to be performance enhancing.

No wonder my Padres suck so bad; we don't even cheat well...

Not one of Wright's quotes calls for stiffER penalties. He seems happy with the way things are.

It is not necessary that a punishment serve a deterrent purpose; if the sense of the baseball community is that roiding is an offense against that community warranting punishment along the lines of Wright's suggestion, those punishments need serve no deterrent purpose to be just.

If we lose the chance to watch even one great player because of this, the cost is far too much.

How much of a loss would it have been to be deprived the chance to watch several of the 90s/00s stars play? Players such as Bonds/Clemens/Ramirez/ARod/etc.

How much of a loss would it have been to be deprived the chance to watch several of the 90s/00s stars play?

None if they were consistently playing on roids and failing drug tests. Missing Mark Fidrych pitch more than a season and change was a far bigger deprivation.

... and Micheal Ray Richardson got suspended from the NBA for life at age 31 just for doing a few lines. Another much worse deprivation.

How much of a loss would it have been to be deprived the chance to watch several of the 90s/00s stars play? Players such as Bonds/Clemens/Ramirez/ARod/etc.

None.

If you removed them, somebody else would have been a super-star.

Sports is a zero-sum game. Performance is almost exclusively relative (once you reach a certain level). If you removed the top-10% of talent, the next 10% would just perform better and their careers would look like the top-10%.

Sports is a zero-sum game. Performance is almost exclusively relative (once you reach a certain level). If you removed the top-10% of talent, the next 10% would just perform better and their careers would look like the top-10%.

But the question wasn't about the top 10%. It was about the top 1%.

If you removed them, somebody else would have been a super-star.

Sports is a zero-sum game. Performance is almost exclusively relative (once you reach a certain level). If you removed the top-10% of talent, the next 10% would just perform better and their careers would look like the top-10%.

This is crazy talk. I started writing more, but realized it really is obviously so. And what David above said.

But the question wasn't about the top 10%. It was about the top 1%.

If the top 10 players in MLB today never existed, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The calibre of play would still be ridiculously high.

The 1980's (for whatever reason) had very few standout stars. We didn't notice, or care, at the time. 30 HR and 100 RBI were "wow" numbers, instead of 50 and 130.

I see no reason why a game with fewer superstars would be any less enjoyable. We'd just redefine superstar.

Post 13 has an element of truth, but is bit of an overstate. The stat sheet might look sort of similar, but imagine, say, the NBA in 1986 after removing
the top 10% of the players. The "thrill" experience wouldn't be the same for a fan, not at all. No Magic, Bird, Jordan, etc. Sure, somebody's gonna get 29 points
a game or whatever, but the game would have a different feel; be far less spectacular.

Post 13 has an element of truth, but is bit of an overstate. The stat sheet might look sort of similar, but imagine, say, the NBA in 1986 after removing
the top 10% of the players. The "thrill" experience wouldn't be the same for a fan, not at all. No Magic, Bird, Jordan, etc. Sure, somebody's gonna get 29 points
a game or whatever, but the game would have a different feel; be far less spectacular.

I see the argument for basketball more, but there is very little "thrill" in baseball.

In fact, a lot of the thrill in baseball is on defense, and eliminating the top offensive monsters might actually leave more room for the slick fielders.

18-well, there's 470 foot HR's, 99 mph heaters. Those don't grow on trees.

18-well, there's 470 foot HR's, 99 mph heaters. Those don't grow on trees.

But, are those any more inherently thrilling than 430 ft HRs and 96 MPH heaters? Assuming those are the standards of greatness. I mean, no fan can tell by eye the difference btw 95 and 99 MPH.

I mean, most all of us lived through the late 70's and 80's which was an era of very few outlier performances. Remember how big a deal Foster's and Fielder's 50 HRs were?

Did we think MLB was flawed b/c we weren't seeing the crazy individual performance of the 1930's?

30 HR and 100 RBI were "wow" numbers, instead of 50 and 130.

There were a lot of "wow" stolen base numbers in the 80s, but your general thesis is spot-on.

There were a lot of "wow" stolen base numbers in the 80s, but your general thesis is spot-on.

And those might well be coming back if you eliminate the roided sluggers from the game.

I think [16] and [20] states the point better than the bombast of [13].

[17] The NBA is much more top-5 talent dependent than baseball is, for a variety of reasons.

I'd rather have seen the Bonds/Clemens/Ramirez/ARod/etc. crew play their entire careers drug-free. Who wouldn't? But it's not like they were facing off against pureblood nicey-nices with Poland Spring DNA. One of the best footnotes of "The Steroid Era" is Barry Bonds tying the all-time HR record against Clay Hensley, because only one of those two players was ever suspended for using steroids. The "lop off the top 10% and let the real numbers fall into place" plan only pans out if we're confident that Mr. 11% is clean, let alone Mr. 62% and Mr. 94%.

Actually, yeah, I did find 70s-80s baseball kinda dull because of the lack of superstars. We had Carew and Brett chasing 400 and that was about it for "wow" moments. The guys from that era elected to the HoF are probably the dullest bunch -- almost no pitchers of course.

Which has very little relevance to the question really and implies that we'll only get outstanding careers if we let players use PEDs. For all I know that might be true but it's a depressing thought.

And didn't I read that WADA just upped the first penalty to 3-4 years?

The 1980's (for whatever reason) had very few standout stars.

True; it's not like the greatest third baseman of all time, greatest leadoff hitter, greatest defensive shortstop, greatest strikeout pitcher, greatest pitcher, greatest SS in AL history... and, of course, Teh Fear were playing in the 1980s.

We didn't notice, or care, at the time. 30 HR and 100 RBI were "wow" numbers, instead of 50 and 130.

Except for the strike year, the fewest HR to lead the majors was 39, and the fewest RBI was 121. 30/100 was a good year, of course, but "wow"?

And yeah, 470' HRs are more thrilling than 430' HRs.

Actually, yeah, I did find 70s-80s baseball kinda dull because of the lack of superstars.

And now we know why you hate the Mets. Simple jealousy. :-)

The guys from that era elected to the HoF are probably the dullest bunch -- almost no pitchers of course.

Rickey's prime was in that era. Case rested.

True; it's not like the ...greatest pitcher....(was) playing in the 1980s.

Seaver was still playing, but I wouldn't really count him as a point in the 80s favor.

A sanctioned player can't re-offend if he can't play, but there's no evidence that harsh penalties to one person influences the behavior of another.

I gave a specfic counterexample in 5. So there is not "no" evidence. And what is a "certain minimum", anyway? Whatever you decide what it is when you wake up in the morning?

#30 Finding that minimum can be tricky. Players showed that they parsed one positive test for amps with no penalties as "one free positive". Pretty much what Bonds said.

The initial penalties of 10 games? There's no evidence that they were in fact inadequate. The change was driven by howls of rage from outside of baseball.

But track and field has tried progressively harsher penalties without any evidence they accomplished anything.

And on the flip side, remember the recreational drug issues from the 1980s? Baseball was adamant that harsh penalties were needed to get drugs from the game. Now only an idiot would assume that they're completely gone, but with no harsh penalties, recreational drug use (cocaine) in particular) has gone from a constant problem to a very minor irritation.

Those are the examples from the sporting world. As #4 notes, it's a pretty well studied issue.

Given the number of players commenting on this, I suspect the next agreement will increase penalties significantly.

Doubt it. Most people don't willingly impose penalties on themselves without getting something back in return.

#30: You didn't give any evidence whatsoever of tougher institutionalized penalties serving as a deterrent. You gave an example of going from NO league-wide uniform penatlies to ANY league-sanctioned penalties serving as a deterrent. It has very little to do with this conversation which is why it's being treated as such

[31] Its also kind of hard to accidentally do cocaine. But maybe I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt to guys who are saying "I didn't know what was in that supplement."

And yeah, 470' HRs are more thrilling than 430' HRs.

maybe a little, but of course the triple is most exciting of all and they are normally less then 400'

My apologies for being more impressed by Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Koufax, Gibson, Seaver than by Henderson, Schmidt, Ozzie, Ripken, Ryan, Stieb and Sutter.

(The "70s" of course started somewhere around 1975-6!)

What a gutsy statement, Mr. Wright, that must have been hard for you.

So it now appears that a higher percentages of Dominican players and other Central and South American players are being caught under the system

Frankly, it is a lifeboat ethics type of situation - live in poverty and watch your family suffer or take something and be able to to help feed them - so usage will continue.

Morality is for people that can afford it - per Mr. Doolittle in "My Fair Lady".

Sports is a zero-sum game. Performance is almost exclusively relative (once you reach a certain level). If you removed the top-10% of talent, the next 10% would just perform better and their careers would look like the top-10%.

Others have touched on this, but to the extent this is true, it's highly dependent on the type of sport in question. If you remove Jan Zelezny, for example, the last twenty years of javelin throwing look very different.

My apologies for being more impressed by Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Koufax, Gibson, Seaver than by Henderson, Schmidt, Ozzie, Ripken, Ryan, Stieb and Sutter.

(The "70s" of course started somewhere around 1975-6!)

I know you're being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the problem with looking at eras like this is that players overlap and don't fit neatly into one era or another no matter where you draw the line. Certainly that first group of guys is impressive but Seaver achieved nearly half of his wins after 1975. Carlton won more than half after 1975. Clemens is a "steroid era" guy but he won 2 Cy Youngs and an MVP in the 80s. And did the Big Red Machine not feature two of the best players ever to appear at their positions? Were Mr. October, Fernandomania, and 1984-1985 Gooden not exciting enough for you?

If you remove Jan Zelezny, for example, the last twenty years of javelin throwing look very different.

Whoa, my obscure sporting reference meter just went on high alert.

Yeah, I'm calling booshwah. "Jan Zelezny" is clearly the real name of somebody from the Legion of Super-Heroes. Chameleon Kid maybe, or Princess Projectra.

First offense -- Castration
Second offense -- Crucifixion.

That ought to solve the problem.

Sports is a zero-sum game. Performance is almost exclusively relative (once you reach a certain level). If you removed the top-10% of talent, the next 10% would just perform better and their careers would look like the top-10%.

I mostly agree with the notion that performance in sports is purely relative, but there's a specific reason why I think it's incorrect to say you wouldn't notice if the top 1% of players were removed from the league. Talent distribution is inherently highly uneven, with the few best players having much greater ability than the second tier. If you remove the top tier, their total performance gets redistributed to the rest of the league, but it does so quite uniformly. That is, if you remove Barry Bonds, the crappy back-of-the-rotation starter benefits just as much as Randy Johnson. Heck, in terms of ERA, the former probably benefits MORE. Nobody is suddenly going to rise from mediocrity to superstardom when Bonds is removed from the league. So while it's true that there would be the same level of "total performance" across the league, its shape would be much different. There would be many fewer standout performances because you'd be removing the tail on the extreme right of the talent distribution.

Doubt it. Most people don't willingly impose penalties on themselves without getting something back in return.

I don't think that applies to this situation. Remember how receptive the MLBPA was to an increased drug testing program? The players that don't take PEDs, who presumably comprise a pretty large majority, DO get something out of harsher penalties: the assurance that they will be playing against fewer opponents who have an unfair advantage.

Sports is a zero-sum game. Performance is almost exclusively relative (once you reach a certain level). If you removed the top-10% of talent, the next 10% would just perform better and their careers would look like the top-10%.

Can't the truth or falsity of this be amply demonstrated by taking (just as the first of all the examples you could calculate) the best remaining hitter, once you've skimmed the cream, and summing his performance against both the bottom 90% of all pitchers, plus his projected performance against the best pitchers in AAA, specifically however many of those you'd need to replace the best 10% of pitchers you skimmed off the pitching pail? Seems like you'd end up with a bell curve very close to what you have now.

You're slicing the definition of performance pretty fine, though. The next 10% wouldn't perform "better", they'd only be getting better results, against weaker competition. If a AA pitcher pitches against me and I hit .400 against him, I'm not performing better against him than I am against a major league pitcher who strikes me out 5 times out of 10. I'm not swinging harder, for example. On those (perhaps rare) occasions where they throw an identical pitch, I won't be performing 'better' against the AAer's 85 mph fastball just because he and not the major leaguer threw it.

Seems like you'd end up with a bell curve very close to what you have now.

There is no bell curve now. I mean, there may be -- in the human race. But not in professional baseball, which is only the right tail of the bell curve. There are dozens of Neifi Perezes for every ARod. And removing Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro, et al. does not turn Jeter into a 600 HR hitter.

There is no bell curve now. I mean, there may be -- in the human race. But not in professional baseball, which is only the right tail of the bell curve. There are dozens of Neifi Perezes for every ARod. And removing Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro, et al. does not turn Jeter into a 600 HR hitter.

All you have to do to disprove this "bell curve" idea is to eliminate Jeter's appearances (or anyone else's) against the A-level pitchers from his statistics, and see what sort of a difference it makes. His numbers would likely rise a few points or a few home runs, but that's about it. It certainly wouldn't transform him into Honus Wagner at the plate or Ozzie Smith in the field.

I don't think that applies to this situation. Remember how receptive the MLBPA was to an increased drug testing program?

No; I remember that they were strongly opposed, only agreeing to one when Congress threatened to impose it by law if they didn't.

And we'll see see roughly the same percentage of players trying to get some form of extra help. There's roughly zero evidence that penalties beyond a certain minimum actually have any deterrence.

Throwing small-time drug users in federal prison hand over fist for the last 30 years certainly hasn't accomplished anything. I don't know how Ron's statement isn't smack-you-in-the-face obvious.

My apologies for being more impressed by Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Koufax, Gibson, Seaver than by Henderson, Schmidt, Ozzie, Ripken, Ryan, Stieb and Sutter.

I was far, far more impressed with Seaver, Jackson, Bench, Carew, Morgan, Palmer, Carlton, Brett, Carter, and Schmidt than with Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Johson, Martinez, Bagwell, Rodriguez, Alomar, Maddux, etc. Why? For me, it has nothing to do with steroids; instead it has nearly everything to do with turning 10 in 1977 and turning 30 in 1997. Intellectually, I know that Mariano Rivera is significantly better than Rollie Fingers, but Mo's cutter can never rekindle the childlike glee with which I watched Tekulve's sinker, Hrbosky's antics, or Gossage's flaming ire.

There were a lot of "wow" stolen base numbers in the 80s, but your general thesis is spot-on.

And those might well be coming back if you eliminate the roided sluggers from the game.

Yes, because no one associates speedsters with PEDs. Oh, gosh no. Never.

BTW, Rick Reilly informs us that the long putter, which apparently is some sort of golf thing, is:

the cheatstick

steroids with a leather handle

the scamstick

the wonder wand

And I'm still trying to figure this simile out:

Tour pro Carl Pettersson, who has used one exclusively for the past 16 years, told The AP's Doug Ferguson, "It feels a bit like a witch hunt to me."

He's right. It IS a witch hunt. Because long putters make you putt like a witch.

Seems like you'd end up with a bell curve very close to what you have now.

There is no bell curve now. I mean, there may be -- in the human race.

It's ####### amazing that you can agree with a point you disagree with.

There are dozens of Neifi Perezes for every ARod. And removing Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro, et al. does not turn Jeter into a 600 HR hitter.

Right. Let me know when you find someone who claimed it would.

All you have to do to disprove this "bell curve" idea is to eliminate Jeter's appearances (or anyone else's) against the A-level pitchers from his statistics, and see what sort of a difference it makes. His numbers would likely rise a few points or a few home runs, but that's about it. It certainly wouldn't transform him into Honus Wagner at the plate or Ozzie Smith in the field.

Other than asserting the sky is blue, did you have a point here? Watching you two blow each other was a special moment, though.