If anyone calls them prejudice or racist for not voting for me

Oh, Pedro, Pedro, Pedro. Pedro.

I’m not afraid to say that the way that George King and Mr. LaVelle Neal III went about it was unprofessional.

I seem to recall that King at least said he would never vote for a pitcher, which is explicitly against the rules, so that part is true.

I remember Brady Anderson going from 40 homers to nearly seven the next year. I saw Luis Gonzalez go from 57 to, what, 17 the next year?

The obvious problem with citing one-year wonders as proof of PED is, if the PED were in fact what enabled them to have the good year, then they would have been nuts to stop taking them the next year.

The obvious problem with citing one-year wonders as proof of PED is, if the PED were in fact what enabled them to have the good year, then they would have been nuts to stop taking them the next year.

Take them long enough to earn a big contract, then stop taking medication unknown but potentially dangerous long-term effects. Seems like a reasonable plan to me (with the caveat that I don't know if either player in question was in a contract year).

I seem to recall that King at least said he would never vote for a pitcher, which is explicitly against the rules, so that part is true.

It's worse than that. King said he would never vote for a pitcher, after having voted for pitchers in the past, and came up with a cockamamie explanation that he'd just happened to "see the light" the prior winter -- what a coincidence! -- when there had been a bunch of controversy over Kevin Brown's contract when people said a pitcher couldn't be worth all that money. (As if Kevin Brown's contract was the first time a bunch of baseball blowhards complained about a player getting a big contract and not being worth all that money -- ANY player, not just a pitcher . . . .). So for the first time publicly, King announced after the fact that he'd had a revelation, and wouldn't vote for pitchers for the MVP even though they are explicitly eligible under the rules, because he decided Brown wasn't worth the contract a major league team had signed him to.

It was laughable, and it was total bullshit. King had carried out a hit against Pedro Martinez, completely in defiance of the rules, and contrary to his own past practice, and he tried to justify it with a post-hoc piece of nonsense. Having offered a totally ridiculous defense, King has no one to blame but himself if people ascribe ugly motives to his ballot.

Don’t ask me. If you want to take me out, just don’t ask me. Take me out right then.

From the full article in reference to the ill fated 2003 playoff game. I like his attitude here. They ask him if can get one guy out, then another, then another, and his answer is basically, well of course I can, I'm Pedro F*cking Martinez, I can get anyone out.
As he says, if you think he's done, don't ask him, take him the f*ck out Grady!

I seem to recall that King at least said he would never vote for a pitcher, which is explicitly against the rules, so that part is true.

King said he'd never vote for a pitcher, but he was exposed as a liar instantaneously, since he had voted for David Wells in 1998.

And Rick Helling, because he Won Twenty Games.

The obvious problem with citing one-year wonders as proof of PED is, if the PED were in fact what enabled them to have the good year, then they would have been nuts to stop taking them the next year.

Sure, and while I don't recall whether these guys had just signed big deals, if a player sees the game purely in terms of making a living but feels PEDs are a health risk, then doping until he signs the deal that sets him up for life makes practical sense.

Having offered a totally ridiculous defense, King has no one to blame but himself if people ascribe ugly motives to his ballot.

It's one thing to debate or even bash George King's (or La Velle Neal's) failure to vote for Pedro or pitchers or whatever, but the "prejudice or racist" part was way over the line and wholly unsupported by any facts in evidence. I really like Pedro, but this wasn't his finest hour.

I really like Pedro, but this wasn't his finest hour.

Maybe not, but only because he's set the bar so high. It's a great, honest interview though.

Pedro is awesome, but he's full of #### about 2002. He keeps saying that he skipped his last start of the year because "his brother Ramon was once called up to the Major Leagues in September and never pitched, which is why he gave his final 2002 start to a Red Sox rookie Josh Hancock, so he could appear in a game." That would be sweet, except Hancock had already pitched twice that month for the Sox. Also, from an ESPN article at the time:

Red Sox manager Grady Little tentatively has scheduled Hancock to pitch Thursday in Chicago. Whether Martinez makes one final start would not prevent Hancock from making an appearance before the season's out.

"We'll sleep on it and let (Martinez) sleep on it," Little told the Hartford Courant. "If I had to guess, I would think he would want to make that start. But we'll make that decision."

Martinez also told reporters he was willing to take the chance that skipping his final start would not cost him a fourth Cy Young -- and the $500,000 bonus that would accompany it.

"I'm not going to take a chance of getting hurt in my next outing," he said.

If Martinez could vote for a Cy Young winner, he said, "I would break it even between me and D-Lowe."

It should be obvious that Zito won because of the winz (23-5 to Pedros 20-4). Who was the last pitcher to lead the league with 23+ wins and not win the CYA? It's also not at all clear that Pedro deserved the award--he was actually 5th in rWAR behind Halladay, Hudson, Zito, and Lowe.

The dropoff doesn't even have to be about health concerns or big payday contracts. The truth is probably much simpler in that the the desire and capability to maintain such a high level of performance is extremely rare. The highest levels of performance are a combination of skill and determination and then to maintain that high level year in and year out is adding a whole other level of determination on top of all that.

It's one thing to debate or even bash George King's (or La Velle Neal's) failure to vote for Pedro or pitchers or whatever, but the "prejudice or racist" part was way over the line and wholly unsupported by any facts in evidence. I really like Pedro, but this wasn't his finest hour.

Especially because La Velle is one of baseball's few black beat writers. Not that being black makes one immune to racism, but La Velle seems to be an easy-going, affable gent. Although not putting Pedro on the ballot was stupid. The 90's were strange times.

Pedro's finest hour

Is both a great band name and merely a bedpost knock on a career of absurd moments. And he may not be right about racism, but prejudiced is not a hard case to present. Prejudice against a pitcher winning MVP. Prejudice against Boston players. Prejudice against fiery individuals. Prejudice of the cut of his jib. Prejudice against good judgement, because they are just absent-minded or ignorant ########.

I mean, it's not like he shouldn't have won or anything.

Sure, and while I don't recall whether these guys had just signed big deals, if a player sees the game purely in terms of making a living but feels PEDs are a health risk, then doping until he signs the deal that sets him up for life makes practical sense.

I doubt very seriously this is true.

The issue there is that even if he stops juicing, the muscle mass is still there and he'd have to be really damn stupid to let it all fall off in one freaking offseason. One thing that people don't understand about steroids is that they don't automatically just turn you into the Incredible Hulk or something. They do IIRC allow you to lift more in one sitting but the largest effect is that they allow your body to recover from the small muscle tears that come the day after a heavy workout (speaking of which, guhhhh I am feeling that right now) more quickly, which in turn allows you to conduct those heavy workouts more often to positive effect. One of the anecdotes from Game of Shadows was that apparently at one point in Bonds' offseason regimen Gary Sheffield decided he wanted to get some of what Barry was having but, even with the drugs, he just didn't have the willpower to keep up with Bonds' grueling regimen.

Anyway, what happened to Anderson has happened to other guys in the past. Norm Cash is the guy we all remember, but it basically happened to Roger Maris for a couple years as well. Hack Wilson too IIRC. George Foster never came terribly close to that 50-dinger year he had with the Reds in the mid-70s. Neither did Cecil Fielder. It's not common but it's hardly unheard of.

Davey Johnson hit 43 homers in 1973, and his next-best HR year was 18.

Also, going by "III" smacks of Thurston Howell III to me. Like you need a monocle and a cigarette holder to complete the look.

The year Pedro really should have a beef with is 1999. Curious as to why he didn't mention that year?(eye-roll)

The issue there is that even if he stops juicing, the muscle mass is still there and he'd have to be really damn stupid to let it all fall off in one freaking offseason. One thing that people don't understand about steroids is...

...the psychological effect having a metric ####ton of testosterone flowing through your system has, especially on confidence. And as we know, 90% of the game is half mental. So even if you can maintain the muscle you built up, you may lose some of the edge you gained from them. Also, supplying your body with large amounts of artificial testosterone, can lead to reduced production of natural testosterone, which can have severe negative effects both psychologically, and physiologically.

Not that anything you said is wrong as such. Just wanted to point out that the notion that somebody could easily have decided to bulk up on roids, and quit once they reached a level of muscle mass they wanted to*. But to not be aware of the potential negative effects of coming off steroids. It's not entirely ridiculous.

*I actually know 2 guys who have done this

I remember Brady Anderson going from 40 homers to nearly seven the next year. I saw Luis Gonzalez go from 57 to, what, 17 the next year?

I remember Pedro going from 18 wins to what, 4 next year?

So, aside from the obvious comments made (and BTW, LuGo went from 57 to 28),

Roger Maris went from 61 to 33

Babe Ruth went from 59 to 35

Hack Wilson went from 56 to 13

Hank Greenberg went from 58 to 33

Mickey Mantle went from 54 to 30 (oops, sorry, he was a roider)

Davey Johnson went from 43 to 15

Anyway, let's play spot the roider.

Snapshots of 6 consecutive seasonal HR totals. Most seasons are full or nearly full. 1 season is strike adjusted. All players had long careers (15+ seasons):


Player A - 19, 30, 40, 26, 26, 9
Player B - 18, 26, 40, 26, 29, 13
Player C - 18, 29, 41, 21, 34, 13
Player D - 12, 19, 41, 25, 22, 11
Player E - 12, 16, 30, 16, 40, 29

Player A - 19, 30, 40, 26, 26, 9
Player B - 18, 26, 40, 26, 29, 13
Player C - 18, 29, 41, 21, 34, 13
Player D - 12, 19, 41, 25, 22, 11
Player E - 12, 16, 30, 16, 40, 29

I don't know who the others are but D and E are Darrell Evans.

Juicer!

Especially because La Velle is one of baseball's few black beat writers. Not that being black makes one immune to racism, but La Velle seems to be an easy-going, affable gent. Although not putting Pedro on the ballot was stupid. The 90's were strange times

Wow, I had no idea he was black. He worked in KC as a beat writer for a longtime and used to be on the radio. He sounds like a old school country white guy on the radio.

Also, supplying your body with large amounts of artificial testosterone, can lead to reduced production of natural testosterone, which can have severe negative effects both psychologically, and physiologically.

This is mitigated, physiologically at least, by proper post cycle therapy (HCG usually).

Also, going by "III" smacks of Thurston Howell III to me. Like you need a monocle and a cigarette holder to complete the look.

He definitely should have thought of that before he let his parents name him:-)

This is mitigated, physiologically at least, by proper post cycle therapy (HCG usually).

Yes, it is certainly possible to counteract the effects of decreased natural testosterone production, if you know what you are doing. You are not going to convince me though that every single ballplayer who juiced in the 90's (limited to no internet) knew what they were doing.

Player A - 19, 30, 40, 26, 26, 9
Player B - 18, 26, 40, 26, 29, 13
Player C - 18, 29, 41, 21, 34, 13
Player D - 12, 19, 41, 25, 22, 11
Player E - 12, 16, 30, 16, 40, 29


I don't know who the others are but D and E are Darrell Evans.


Yeah, I always thought it was weird how wildly inconsistent Evans HR totals were from year to year. He had two 40 homer seasons and two more of 30+, but then a whole lot of 16ish homer campaigns.

Player A is Sandberg. Player B is Ken Caminiti.

Player C is Ben Oglivie. Whom I was thinking about just last night (albeit very, very briefly) for probably the first time in decades.

Take them long enough to earn a big contract, then stop taking medication unknown but potentially dangerous long-term effects. Seems like a reasonable plan to me (with the caveat that I don't know if either player in question was in a contract year).

Sure, and while I don't recall whether these guys had just signed big deals, if a player sees the game purely in terms of making a living but feels PEDs are a health risk, then doping until he signs the deal that sets him up for life makes practical sense.

...the psychological effect having a metric ####ton of testosterone flowing through your system has, especially on confidence. And as we know, 90% of the game is half mental. So even if you can maintain the muscle you built up, you may lose some of the edge you gained from them. Also, supplying your body with large amounts of artificial testosterone, can lead to reduced production of natural testosterone, which can have severe negative effects both psychologically, and physiologically.

Not that anything you said is wrong as such. Just wanted to point out that the notion that somebody could easily have decided to bulk up on roids, and quit once they reached a level of muscle mass they wanted to*. But to not be aware of the potential negative effects of coming off steroids. It's not entirely ridiculous.

The convoluted logic used to attribute one year power spikes to steroids is amazing. Its like using "Reefer Madness" to analyse the effects of marijuana use.

You can continue on PEDs, even on lower levels if you are worried about taking high levels (they are all reasonably safe in standard dosages). Or you can quit and just keep lifting weights and still be very strong. And you don't have a metric shitton of testosterone flowing through your system, you take them in cycles, often in the off season, were these players going through multi-week cycles where they went from thinking they were King Kong to crying in the dugout because they couldn't hit the ball out of the infield?

And the very idea that steroids alone help you hit a ball farther is almost laughable. Steroids help you train more often and train harder. You hit the ball harder because you got stronger, you got stronger because you lifted weights often and hard. If you quit using steroids, you can still lift weights religiously. It's pretty clear that the entire HR spike of the 80s and 90s was mostly caused by the growing acceptance of weight lifting as a common training technique.

Yeah, I always thought it was weird how wildly inconsistent Evans HR totals were from year to year. He had two 40 homer seasons and two more of 30+, but then a whole lot of 16ish homer campaigns.

Player A is Sandberg. Player B is Ken Caminiti.

Yeah, Cammy is the admitted juicer. And his HR totals rise and fall from his peak look identical to Sandberg, and not that different from Oglivie, and Evans is all over the map.

Pedro was a headhunter, a liar, and probably an #######. But kudos to him for not bowing to the obnoxious media and giving interviews that are mostly honest.

Wow, I had no idea he was black. He worked in KC as a beat writer for a longtime and used to be on the radio. He sounds like a old school country white guy on the radio.

I think we call that Tony Gwynn Disease.

It's disappointing that Pedro participates in the obsession with the awards. If people didn't buy into the hype so much, no one would have ever heard of George King.

It's pretty clear that the entire HR spike of the 80s and 90s was mostly caused by the growing acceptance of weight lifting as a common training technique juicing of the ball.

FTFY.

Were you ever tempted to take steroids?

No. No. Because when I was in Triple-A, I was told that I was too small, that I was too fragile to pitch in the big leagues in the Dodgers organization. Back then, I felt tempted. One of my teammates said, ‘I have a doctor, if you want to go and get a shot and get whatever and get big…’

Well, that's it, Piazza's never getting into the Hall of Fame.

He never gave me details. I asked him what would happen. How would that work? He specifically said that there are certain areas of a man that will get damaged. As soon as he said that, I said, ‘No. There’s no way that I will go for that.’

Heh. I have to say that I totally buy this story.

I asked him what would happen. How would that work? He specifically said that there are certain areas of a man that will get damaged.

Nelson de la Rosa must have been a roid monster.

It's pretty clear that the entire HR spike of the 80s and 90s was mostly caused by juicing of the ball.

FTFY.

Has anyone ever shown convincingly the ball is juiced at all? If so I'm sure it played a factor, along with smaller parks, thinner bat handles, etc. But it's pretty clear that weight training is by far the dominant factor.

The explosion in HRs took place, almost entirely, between 1992 and 1994. I don't see how it can possibly be true that hitters' (but not pitchers!) use of weight training could expand so dramatically over a 2-year period -- and if it had, we'd know about it. There was then a smaller increase in HRs in the 1999-2006 period, which has since faded, leaving HR rates about where they were in 1994. (Maybe a smidge lower, if rates of last 2 seasons continue.).

I'm sure that weight training and lighter bats have helped hitters. But this has apparently been largely offset by changes that help pitchers (increased use of relievers, pitchers' own weight training).

This is mitigated, physiologically at least, by proper post cycle therapy (HCG usually).

Isn't HCG more commonly used in cycle to maintain gonadal function and then as a kick start to the testes once a cylce is finished? Guess that qualifies as PCT. Don't forget your Clomid or Nolva for PCT, too!

It's pretty clear that the entire HR spike of the 80s and 90s was mostly caused by juicing of the ball.

This would be such an easy theory to prove that the fact that it hasn't happened pretty much implies to me that the theory was bogus to begin with. Seriously, the "Guys are hitting more homers; the ball must be juiced" theory doesn't sound much different than the "Bagwell is big and hit lots of homers; he must be a roider" theory. Evidence over assumptions, people.

IT seemed to me the strike zone got really small. And they fired a lot of those old school umps e.g. Eric Gregg and was it STello too? They kept talking about getting them to call the strike zone and finally the HR just exploded that year Larry Sheets hit like 30 dingers..

Plus what about all that plate armor that batters started to wear? You dont think that was a factor? Pschologically that could have been huge.

This would be such an easy theory to prove that the fact that it hasn't happened pretty much implies to me that the theory was bogus to begin with.

yet there have been plenty of studies...and almost all of them conclude the same thing. Livelier ball. In fact outside of one early study, I do not think any of the next studies have said anything other than a livelier ball is most likely.

Player A - 19, 30, 40, 26, 26, 9
Player B - 18, 26, 40, 26, 29, 13
Player C - 18, 29, 41, 21, 34, 13
Player D - 12, 19, 41, 25, 22, 11
Player E - 12, 16, 30, 16, 40, 29

None of these seems particularly odd.

Sure, and while I don't recall whether these guys had just signed big deals, if a player sees the game purely in terms of making a living but feels PEDs are a health risk, then doping until he signs the deal that sets him up for life makes practical sense.

The convoluted logic used to attribute one year power spikes to steroids is amazing. Its like using "Reefer Madness" to analyse the effects of marijuana use.

You've missed the point. Well, you missed my point, anyway. I was mulling over when a guy might take steroids and why, if he was hitting more homers because he did in fact take steroids, why he might suddenly hit a lot fewer homers. I didn't propose everyone did this. I didn't propose ANYone did this. It just occurred to me that there are going to be a few guys out there who start doping, get some benefits, sign the first 4/60 deal and figure, ####, I could get brain cancer, it's not worth it to get the second 4/60 deal. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a hell of a lot more likely that one or more guys went this route than nobody went this route.

You can continue on PEDs, even on lower levels if you are worried about taking high levels (they are all reasonably safe in standard dosages). Or you can quit and just keep lifting weights and still be very strong. And you don't have a metric shitton of testosterone flowing through your system, you take them in cycles, often in the off season, were these players going through multi-week cycles where they went from thinking they were King Kong to crying in the dugout because they couldn't hit the ball out of the infield?

Who knows? I'm skeptical that most guys were getting solid, well-researched advice on how much to roid, how to properly cycle, how to cycle off, how to mask, and so on and so on. A lot of it is going to be trial and error, a lot of it is going to be guesswork that's anything from well-educated to hilariously misinformed. A lot of these guys have never done thoughtful research, let alone thoughtful research on a difficult medical subject.

I could get brain cancer, it's not worth it to get the second 4/60 deal. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a hell of a lot more likely that one or more guys went this route than nobody went this route.

Without claiming the ability to read Paul LoDuca's mind, the year after he'd quintupled his salary (to $2.6 million) is the same year that the Dodgers' internal discussions revealed: "Got off the steroids. . . . Took away a lot of hard line drives. Can get comparable value back, would consider trading. . . . If you do trade him, will get back on the stuff and try to show you he can have a good year. That's his makeup."

Aha!