Here we go - Bonds, Clemens, Sosa on the Hall of Fame ballot

[tzill]

Thanks for proving my point.

Ummm...if you had a "point," it certainly wasn't "proven." Back to Logic 101 class for you.

 

[HammerDown]

The same reason Bonds or any of the others did...misinformation. Remember, corollary isn't causation.

You should probably send a memo down to the Giants since this sort of misinformation was still present in your clubhouse last year.

 

[HammerDown]

Ummm...if you had a "point," it certainly wasn't "proven." Back to Logic 101 class for you.

You came up with a whole two names. Impressive indeed!

 

[tzill]

You should probably send a memo down to the Giants since this sort of misinformation was still present in your clubhouse last year.

Dude, just quit while you're behind. You sound like a 14 year-old.

I'll do you a solid -- here's a definitive analysis of steroids and baseball. Read it, and then come back to the board to discuss the topic.

Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball

 

[tzill]

You came up with a whole two names. Impressive indeed!

You've been given the option to become informed. Either do, or don't. But if you won't, I've no time for you.

 

[HammerDown]

I'll quit when you tell me why members of the 2012 Giants were indulging in wanton PED usage if there is no performance benefits whatsoever. I'm waiting anxiously on your clear-headed logic.

 

[HammerDown]

You've been given the option to become informed. Either do, or don't. But if you won't, I've no time for you.

Whatsoever shall I do with myself now?

 

[gp956]

Dude, just quit while you're behind. You sound like a 14 year-old.

I'll do you a solid -- here's a definitive analysis of steroids and baseball. Read it, and then come back to the board to discuss the topic.

Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball

Walker's work needs some vetting. Generally, I agree that the impact of steroids on HR totals in the 90's is way over blown, but I'm also firmly convinced, for a variety of reasons, that increased lean mass helps you hit balls harder/farther - all else being equal. The question for me, with a nod to diminishing returns, is how much muscle mass is really needed, and can you achieve this incremental increase in mass without steroids, i.e. with home runs, you're "competing" against a "fixed" threshold, not other athletes whose performances are similarly increasing. Like most subjects, the more you know, the less sure you are that you know enough to give a definitive answer.

 

[tzill]

Walker's work needs some vetting. Generally, I agree that the impact of steroids on HR totals in the 90's is way over blown, but I'm also firmly convinced, for a variety of reasons, that increased lean mass helps you hit balls harder/farther - all else being equal. The question for me, with a nod to diminishing returns, is how much muscle mass is really needed, and can you achieve this incremental increase in mass without steroids, i.e. with home runs, you're "competing" against a "fixed" threshold, not other athletes whose performances are similarly increasing. Like most subjects, the more you know, the less sure you are that you know enough to give a definitive answer.

Absolutely, and D-K noted. But the science seems to indicate pretty unequivocally that steroids build upper body mass much much more than lower body mass. The majority of hitting is lower body strength and thus steroids don't do too much to help. I've suspected this for some time, and Walker's work confirms it. Then again, there could be some confirmation bias in there.

The two spikes in Bond's HR production are easily explained by 1. the juicing of baseballs in 1987 and 2. SSS deviation in 2001 (the 73 home run year). As Walker shows, the same thing happened to Maris in 61 -- and we can be pretty confident he didn't use steroids then. As he explains, any career of decent length produces an outlier year or two (a career year and a crap the bed year, if you will).

I guess the main point is that the ASSUMPTION that steroids help batters hit (or pitchers pitch) is flawed and that the likely effects are minimal. Medical science, physics, and the stats seem to bear this out.

 

[gp956]

I've suspected this for some time, and Walker's work confirms it.

I'd be careful with what you think Walker's work confirms. He employs too much under-vetted interdependent "if-this-then" logic strings for my taste.

But the science seems to indicate pretty unequivocally that steroids build upper body mass much much more than lower body mass.

The gains go where the work goes. Work the lower body preferentially and you'll gain there, preferentially. Though the male upper body may have more (or more sensitive) androgenic receptors, that doesn't automatically result in greater gains to the upper body - all it means is the upper body will respond with greater efficiency to supplementation+work. Additionally, what does it matter if the upper body grows? It's been more than a few years since I read Walker's site, but I don't remember seeing that upper body gains inhibit power gains from the lower body.

But then, I have a problem with the following thesis too:

The majority of hitting is lower body strength and thus steroids don't do too much to help.

I seem to recall Walker reaching this conclusion from the result of one study. I don't think the physics of hitting a baseball are well enough understood to reach this conclusion. Anecdotally, I know adding 30 pounds of lean mass to my adult frame over the course of 2 years added power to my game. I was a terrible hitter overall, but if I had to point to anything that contributed to greater power it was forearm and grip strength that was mostly responsible. Not only in baseball, but I hit a golf ball a ton farther too.

The two spikes in Bond's HR production are easily explained by 1. the juicing of baseballs in 1987 and 2. SSS deviation in 2001 (the 73 home run year). As Walker shows, the same thing happened to Maris in 61 -- and we can be pretty confident he didn't use steroids then. As he explains, any career of decent length produces an outlier year or two (a career year and a crap the bed year, if you will).

This I totally agree with. When I looked into this statistically back in 2001/2002 I could not find any unequivocal evidence that any single player's HR total was not explained by random chance. And we know from Aaron, that precedence exists for an older player to maintain/increase power numbers after the age of 35. This is where Walker should have stopped.

I guess the main point is that the ASSUMPTION that steroids help batters hit (or pitchers pitch) is flawed and that the likely effects are minimal.

Well, we know players are still doing them, and we know others now bulk up through approved methods, yet home run totals are way down. So, obviously, other factors play (and played) a much bigger role. Still, I would never say their use by players can be explained by "misinformation" - I just don't believe markets, being the perfect discovery mechanism that they are, are that dumb.

 

[powerchord86]

Which part? You think Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens wouldn't have been in the HOF if not for PEDs?

Roiders don't belong. Period. That's just my view. Take it or leave it. I know many disagree and that's fine.

With all the gray area and arguments to be made on the issue, I don't see how opinions on this will ever be consistent among baseball fans.

 

[powerchord86]

I think it's the: "if you don't agree with me, you're not a real fan" fallacy that he's objecting to.

Yes, that too.

 

[powerchord86]

Dude, just quit while you're behind. You sound like a 14 year-old.

I'll do you a solid -- here's a definitive analysis of steroids and baseball. Read it, and then come back to the board to discuss the topic.

Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball

Read an article I agree with or GTFO?

 

[calsnowskier]

Roiders don't belong. Period. That's just my view. Take it or leave it. I know many disagree and that's fine.

With all the gray area and arguments to be made on the issue, I don't see how opinions on this will ever be consistent among baseball fans.

I disagree 100%







Seriously, though, I think you have to take it into consideration, but if Niekro is in, how can you EVER keep Bonds or Clemens out? And just curious... What is your opinion on Rose and/ or Jackson?

 

[HammerDown]

Roiders don't belong. Period. That's just my view. Take it or leave it. I know many disagree and that's fine.

With all the gray area and arguments to be made on the issue, I don't see how opinions on this will ever be consistent among baseball fans.

I understand your view and it's hard to argue against it. But I'm curious if you think Bonds and/or Clemens would have had a HOF career without the juice? I'm not saying that entitles them to be in the HOF but most baseball writers feel they're both HOFers without the juice. And as regards Clemens, wasn't he almost surely using HGH as a means to longevity and recovery?

And there's a whole other aspect to this debate and that's the fact that HGH is the closest thing to a miracle drug available today. And it's not illegal.

 

[tzill]

Roiders don't belong. Period. That's just my view. Take it or leave it. I know many disagree and that's fine.

With all the gray area and arguments to be made on the issue, I don't see how opinions on this will ever be consistent among baseball fans.

Curious: Roiders don't belong, but Greeners do? How do you reconcile that?

 

[tzill]

Read an article I agree with or GTFO?

I never said GTFO. I said that if one wants to discuss from ignorance I'm not interested.

 

[Mays-Fan]

The two spikes in Bond's HR production are easily explained by 1. the juicing of baseballs in 1987 and 2. SSS deviation in 2001 (the 73 home run year). As Walker shows, the same thing happened to Maris in 61 -- and we can be pretty confident he didn't use steroids then. As he explains, any career of decent length produces an outlier year or two (a career year and a crap the bed year, if you will).

As a side note on Maris, I recall several reports on his 61 HR season. Several have mentioned that his hair fell out in clumps as a result of the "stress". I wonder, was it the "stress", or had he discovered some pharmaceutical magic? He had those two great years, then never came close to anything like that again.

We will never know. He later died of lymphoma, the same as Lyle Alzado. I know - loosely connected dots. Just saying.

http://www.anabolicsmall.com/roida3a.htm

The current history of anabolic steroids as abusable drugs
began in 1954 among Olympic weightlifters.(1,2,4)
In 1956, Dianabol (Methandrostenolone) was first marketed in the
United States, clearing the way for the use of anabolics by U. S.
athletes.

 

[Mays-Fan]

As a follow-up to my Maris/steroids hypothesis, I add the following:

Steroids and Hair Loss

Anadrol\50 - If you value your hair, don't touch this one with a ten foot pole. Nothing seems to control its negative effects on hair. Not Proscar, Not Nizoral, nothing...

Dianabol -Same as Anadrol\50.

Again - these are just dots connecting Maris and Dianabol. But they are getting more closely connected, IMHO.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Roger Maris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maris was perceived as surly during his time on the Yankees.

It is said, however, that the stress of pursuing the record was so great for Maris that his hair occasionally fell out in clumps during the season.

Lots of puzzle pieces here that paint a sketchy picture. IMHO.