It's bad enough that we humans obsess over "something happened therefore there must be an explanation" but it's much worse that we seem set on the notion that it has to be a single factor that explains it all.

Right. At either of those points it becomes a religion.

It's bad enough that we humans obsess over "something happened therefore there must be an explanation" but it's much worse that we seem set on the notion that it has to be a single factor that explains it all.

Another one who must have his strawman. Just leave me out of it.

It's not very fruitful arguing with someone who has all the answers before he asks any of the questions.

Just like it was odd that the 60s and 70s saw lots of pitchers strike out 300 guys a year, 3000 in a career, win 250+ games, throw over 4000 IP.

Just like it was odd that the 60s, 70s and 80s saw the number of 500+ HR hitters increase from 4 to 14 and the career HR record broken and 6 of the top 7 career totals. [off the top of my head I don't remember when Jackson and Schmidt hit #500 ... call it an increase from 4 to 12 if you prefer and 4 of the top 5 careers.]

As compared to when--the 1890s to the 1910s? The 1910s to the 1930s? Or are you just counting the WWII era for your comparative purposes?

It's not very fruitful arguing with someone who has all the answers before he asks any of the questions.

Or with someone who not only supplies his own answers but your answers as well---and then blames you because the answers that he's put into your mouth don't meet all of his objections. These guys would make a three card monte man blush with shame.

Look, something happened in the "steroid era"

Would this qualify as putting your conclusion in your set-up? How about, "Something happened in the greenie era," or "Something happened in the cocaine era," or "Something happened when the balls started to get made out of different materials," or "Something happened in the expansion era." Each of these statements implies the cause, and of course it is the cause you mean to "discover" later.

How about, "Something happened in the 1990s." Now prove something, sans the bias.

Or with someone who not only supplies his own answers but your answers as well---and then blames you because the answers that he's put into your mouth don't meet all of his objections. These guys would make a three card monte man blush with shame.

Yes, you can't even moot propositions. They want to discuss the matter in a way that makes it not worth discussing.

It's bad enough that we humans obsess over "something happened therefore there must be an explanation" but it's much worse that we seem set on the notion that it has to be a single factor that explains it all.

This is truly breathtaking. So marvelous that I, too, want to make sure it is not soon forgotten, thus I'm posting it again. It should be over some sort of archway into the nether regions, right below Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here. I'd ask the propounder of this bit of pompous offciousness to seriously think about the preening cravenness of this, but that would be in violation of all Gnostic f&cktardary;, I'm sure.

Clever attempt to divert the discussion away from its content.

But the content remains: the notion that we do, or even can, know what impact PEDs have upon performance is fallacious. Just as the notion that we do, or even can, know what impact one particular PED (say, steroids) has upon performance versus that of another PED (say, amphetamines), is fallacious.

This is the content.

Just like it was odd that the 60s and 70s saw lots of pitchers strike out 300 guys a year, 3000 in a career, win 250+ games, throw over 4000 IP.

Sounds like an Andy Rooney routine.

Is there a person anywhere -- a poster on BTF, a columnist, a blogger, a blogging non-blogger -- who has cast stones at amphetamine users? I have yet to see one, despite all the outrage.

Oh, I've probably done it sarcastically. Hell, I still worry that I'm solely responsible for poor Frank Thomas getting called in front of Congress and I may have singlehandedly sunk Bagwell's HoF chances. :-) (Don't forget, I'm the charismatic leader necessary for groupthink to exist!)

And we all love to cast stones at Pete Rose ... just not so much over his greenies. And Garvey probably used too.

And I assume Andy is (indirectly) casting stones at any greenie users who used them when not hung over (unpossible! who would do such a thing?). And I assume most of the steroid users were using greenies too.

But yes, I know what you mean and I can't think of anything to take seriously.

One year Carlos Silva walked just 9 guys in nearly 190 innings -- one of the most incredible stats I think I've ever seen. In at least 150 IP, the 2nd lowest BB/9 in MLB was Mathewson at .62 in 1913. That record had stood for over 90 years and Silva beat it by 30%. Silva's second-best season is a BB/9 around 1.6 so he improved by 75%. What's the explanation for that?

Easy, steroids.

One point to consider. I have little doubt that the number of guys using steroids was steadily increasing in the late 80s and early 90s.
And yet the Home run run was going down in that time.

The AL didn't surpass the home run rate of 1986 (or 1985 for that matter) until 1994. Further, while the AL home run rate in 1993 was still below the rates of the mid-80s, it did rise 17% in a single year.

In the NL likewise the home run rate was lower in 1992 than it was in 1986.

Now all of this doesn't prove anything. But it does suggest one of two things. If steroids are powerful influences on league wide home run totals the number of users remained broadly constant (or even declined) between 1986 and 1992. This strikes me as improbable (as does the notion of a sudden massive increase in use in 1993).

Which leaves us with the indication that steroids in themselves are not a particularly strong influence on league wide home run totals.

What is going with Andy is that he thinks steroids are totally, hugely, qualitatively and undeniably different than amphetamines, in a baseball context.

Yes, but "undeniable" doesn't mean what he thinks it does, and every time he tries to explain why steroids are different than amphetamines, he cites characteristics X, Y, and Z of amphetamines without being willing to acknowledge that those characteristics apply to steroids also. (My favorite is his repeated claim that even though we know the physiological effects of amphetamines, we can't discuss their effect on baseball players because there's no controlled study of the latter, as if there were for steroids.) Either he's being dishonest or dumb.

He winds up coming back to the numbers of the big HR guys from the last 12 years because those numbers back up the point the best. But, if Sosa, Bonds and McGwire had all topped out at 60 HR with the same backdrop and the same bodies, Andy's arguments would be the same.

He says that, but I don't believe him. His attempted distinctions are too irrational for that. The only reason for drawing a line between amphetamines and steroids as far as their performance enhancingness goes (*) is to "protect" the records of older ballplayers.

Or, to put it another way: let's suppose that there's someone out there who does want to protect the records of older ballplayers, and that's his primary motivation for opposing steroids. How would his arguments sound any different than Andy's? When you make the exact same arguments as someone else, it's likely that your motives are the same.


(*) That is, there may be many distinctions, including their availability, ubiquitousness, or side effects. But I'm talking about the fact that amphetamines are performance-enhancing, by his definition of performance-enhancing.

Now all of this doesn't prove anything. But it does suggest one of two things. If steroids are powerful influences on league wide home run totals the number of users remained broadly constant (or even declined) between 1986 and 1992. This strikes me as improbable (as does the notion of a sudden massive increase in use in 1993).

Which leaves us with the indication that steroids in themselves are not a particularly strong influence on league wide home run totals.

Or...
1. The PEDs (BALCO, whomever else) got better and better
2. The players, trainers got more and more sophisticated in their use

Granted, this would not explain a jump in the year 1993 but it could explain a jump from the mid-80s to the mid-90s.

let's suppose that there's someone out there who does want to protect the records of older ballplayers, and that's his primary motivation for opposing steroids. How would his arguments sound any different than Andy's? When you make the exact same arguments as someone else, it's likely that your motives are the same.

Well, gee, David, the arguments I've seen you make against the 1964 federal public accommodations act could be taken almost word for word from the fallback position argument of Lester Maddox and the White Citizens' Council, which was "Honest Injun, it's not about race, it's about freedom." I suppose, then, that it's "likely" that your primary motives there were identical to those of Lester Maddox and the White Citizens' Council.

Of course the bottom line is that this insistent disparaging of motives does absolutely nothing to advance your case in the eyes of anyone but your BTF pilot fish. My consoling thought is that the prodigious amount of time you've wasted over the years composing trite like that are hours that couldn't be inflicted upon some poor innocent courtroom. For that the courts of New Jersey or Maryland surely owe me big time.

Is there a person anywhere -- a poster on BTF, a columnist, a blogger, a blogging non-blogger -- who has cast stones at amphetamine users?

You mean other than those needling the crowd that insists steroids are the evil, but amps don't do anything?

Well, gee, David, the arguments I've seen you make against the 1964 federal public accommodations act could be taken almost word for word from the fallback position argument of Lester Maddox and the White Citizens' Council, which was "Honest Injun, it's not about race, it's about freedom." I suppose, then, that it's "likely" that your primary motives there were identical to those of Lester Maddox and the White Citizens' Council.

I knew you were going to post this in a desperate attempt to deflect from the point. Of course, the position isn't the same at all; Maddox and the WCC said, "We want to discriminate," and I said the opposite.

Of course the bottom line is that this insistent disparaging of motives does absolutely nothing to advance your case in the eyes of anyone but your BTF pilot fish.

Really? Because I've read several people on these threads saying, "I agree with Andy about the steroid issue, but he's obviously dishonest on the subject of amphetamines."

Or...
1. The PEDs (BALCO, whomever else) got better and better
2. The players, trainers got more and more sophisticated in their use

Granted, this would not explain a jump in the year 1993 but it could explain a jump from the mid-80s to the mid-90s.

But that's the problem: the increased "sophistication" and/or the better drugs and the results therefrom had to have all happened very suddenly. A vast number of hitters/trainers/manufacturers/suppliers had to have all gotten smarter suddenly, thereby creating a perfect storm very quickly. That strikes me as implausible. And that's even assuming that steroids have a huge impact on performance.

EDIT: It's also assuming that the previous steroids players were using had little impact, but these new and improved steroids (has it at all been shown that the drugs got better this quickly?) had a massive one.

Is there a person anywhere -- a poster on BTF, a columnist, a blogger, a blogging non-blogger -- who has cast stones at amphetamine users?

You mean other than those needling the crowd that insists steroids are the evil, but amps don't do anything?

Um, you kind of snipped my next sentence which spoke to that:

(No, saying that anti-steroids arguments apply to amphetamines also is not "casting stones.")

None of us are calling Mays's achievements illegitimate. We are simply responding to the argument that steroids users were enhancing their performance by pointing out that, if so, that would apply to amphetamines users also -- as a way to test whether the speaker's arguments are logically consistent.

Nobody here says "Rose should be discounted such that he is considered to only have 3,500 hits." Nobody thinks it was a travesty that Mays was elected to the HOF.

I knew you were going to post this in a desperate attempt to deflect from the point. Of course, the position isn't the same at all; Maddox and the WCC said, "We want to discriminate," and I said the opposite.

Except that that's not at all what Maddox and his friends said at the end. (What, do you actually think that they were honest about their motivations when their backs were to the legal wall?) They used the exact arguments that you do against public accommodations laws: "Freedom of choice." "The right of a business owner to choose his customers." Nobody who ever read what you've written about that subject could fit a dime between you and Lester Maddox---which by your own logic means that your motivations must be identical.

One of the things that make it trickier to tease out the impact of steroids is that the fast, low power switch-hitter was largely driven from the game in response to the changed conditions starting in 1993 (this also almost perfectly explains the decline in the running game in the same time frame) so raw league wide HR totals don't tell the full story.

One of the things that make it trickier to tease out the impact of steroids is that the fast, low power switch-hitter was largely driven from the game in response to the changed conditions starting in 1993 (this also almost perfectly explains the decline in the running game in the same time frame) so raw league wide HR totals don't tell the full story.

Must have taken a few years for this type of hitter to be phased out, no?

Oh goody. Now we get 200 posts where Kneepants explains that he doesn't support the consequence of his actions, just the freedom to have those inevitable consequences happen over and over again. Where's Dial with the popcorn?

Also, anyone who wouldn't vote for Mark McGwire for the HOF should be banned from watching Major League Baseball in any form.

Oh goody. Now we get 200 posts where Kneepants explains that he doesn't support the consequence of his actions, just the freedom to have those inevitable consequences happen over and over again.

And if you disagree with his views about "freedom," you must be in favor of slavery!

Also, anyone who wouldn't vote for Mark McGwire for the HOF should be banned from watching Major League Baseball in any form.

Well, so much for that alliance.....(smiles while wiping blood off neck)

Well, so much for that alliance.....(smiles while wiping blood off neck)

Nah, I won't stick ya for that. Just mock you and your little quotidian moralisms, that's all.

Nah, I won't stick ya for that. Just mock you and your little quotidian moralisms, that's all.

Me, I'll take the high road and won't even mention 1996 or 1999. That would be rude.

Me, I'll take the high road and won't even mention 1996 or 1999.

That's only half fair. While the Olympics were a pretty bad production, all things considered, the Michael Johnson "golden shoes" thing was pretty awesome. And while "69 Love Songs" didn't age particularly well en masse there are still some quality, multiple listen singles buried in there, and "Emergency & I" will always be a fantastic record.

Me, I'll take the high road and won't even mention 1996 or 1999. That would be rude.

You'll have to change your name to Jolly Old St. Neck Wound after posting that comment.

Jolly Old St. Neck Wound

Clever! (is just an "a" away from "cleaver.")

Nah, Sam knew what I meant. He knew I'd never be so small as to remind him of this and this. Gentlemen don't do nasty things like that.

I knew what you meant. 1999 was the year that Derek Jeter took the test that put him on the list of 104, right?

I knew what you meant. 1999 was the year that Derek Jeter took the test that put him on the list of 104, right?

I dunno about that, but I did notice a curious increase in his pumping fist size.

Except that that's not at all what Maddox and his friends said at the end. (What, do you actually think that they were honest about their motivations when their backs were to the legal wall?)

Yes. Maddox said he'd close his restaurant rather than serve blacks.

I dunno about that, but I did notice a curious increase in his pumping fist size.

The day that St. Jetes is exposed is a day I will literally adopt as a personal holiday.

Except that that's not at all what Maddox and his friends said at the end. (What, do you actually think that they were honest about their motivations when their backs were to the legal wall?)

Yes. Maddox said he'd close his restaurant rather than serve blacks.

Of course he did (though in fact he wound up selling the restaurant rather than closing it), but his arguments were framed exactly like yours. He didn't say "I'm against the civil rights bill because I don't want to serve blacks"; he (and thousands of other racist proprietors) said "I'm against the civil rights bill because it impinges on my 'freedom' as a private business owner, operating on private property, to choose my own customers." That's precisely your rationale as well. And by the logic you employ, that means that you must have the same motivations as Lester Maddox.

Of course you could completely deflate my point by saying that my recollection is mistaken, and that you would have supported the PA part of that 1964 bill, and by saying that you don't think that Lester Maddox's "rights" as a property owner should have included the right to discriminate on a racial basis. It's never too late to see the light.

I dunno about that, but I did notice a curious increase in his pumping fist size.

The day that St. Jetes is exposed is a day I will literally adopt as a personal holiday.

Drinks for all Primates at Mary Mac's!

The day that St. Jetes is exposed is a day I will literally adopt as a personal holiday.

For the sheer spectacle that will ensue (**), I wait for that day with the same anticipation with which the fundies yearn for the Rapture.

(**) "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended."

Meh. Francesa will outdo that himself a mere five minutes in.

The day that St. Jetes is exposed....

I should have really asked if you'd settle for an A-Rod flashing....

I should have really asked if you'd settle for an A-Rod flashing....

Uh, dude. That junk been all up in Madonna. Ain't no way I'm looking at that.

OK, then what about Chad Curtis? From what I can figger, he hasn't been in much of anything.

Chad Curtis? I don't have the time to unwind that boy's Daddy-God issues.