minnow: Agreed on nearly all points.

I like my high moral horse.   I am a saint ;)  I actually live in a glass house.   I don't even dress in the basement.

If it was okay to do steroids, why didn't players just say, "Yeah, I shot **** into my *** to hit more Home Runs.  That's cool, right?"

I think if you don't punish these people now, it will just happen again with something else.  Actually, I think it will happen again but I think it less likely to happen sooner if we continue to make a big deal out of this.

Posted by llamanunts on 4/22/2011 3:53:00 PM (view original):
TJ: I don't buy that you can suss the steroid effect out of that.  Pitchers and fielders used it too.  Lots of other things happened, like smaller ballparks replacing bigger ones, teams and players buying into the patience-and-power paradigm, non-Glavine-related strike zones shrinking, etc.

How did greenies affect things?  For one thing, a bunch of players played wired instead of tired.  Alert instead of inert.  Why did I start rhyming?

 I think you can.   I think if you assume steroids helped pitchers and fielders as much as batters you are operating under a false assumptions.

You got any data to prove greenies effected the game?  I don't know what tangible affect they had. 

I don't have data on amphetamines or steroids and neither do you.  So there.

I do, you just don't like it.     I'll tell you this, Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez didn't hit 50 HRs for any reason you listed ;)

)

Thing is we can't measure the placebo effect. Steroids and sitting on the couch isn't getting you jacked. How many of these guys had serious weight routines before juicing? I'm guessing a lot of them took steroids around the same time they started getting serious about conditioning. I'd like to know if you gave guys some sugar pills and told them they were performance enhancing and then had them hit the gym 7 days a week, how many more homers would they hit?

I also agree with the point in that pitchers benefited too. Probably not as much from the steroids themselves, but more from the HGH that was generally stacked alongside the roids.

And TJ I also agree that the players (and MLB) should've just tackled this whole steroid issue head on. It was the lying and hiding that kep digging them in to a deeper hole.

I'm not sure this constitutes being on a "high moral horse". As far as asking Olympic athletes if they would take drugs if they knew they would not be caught, you might as well ask anyone if they would rob a bank if the knew they would not be caught, percentages would probably be higher.  Watching the juiced up guys hitting record numbers of HR's was something like "video baseball', not exactly the real thing. One of the main problems I think is that perhaps the average fan doesn't care about fundamental baseball, they go to the park to see "gorillas" crush the cover off the ball. However, whatever the average fan wants, I simply cannot find the justification for the use of PED's, and I really think it would be a serious mistake not to impose severe penalties on any player who was established to have done so. It seems obvious that the players on this site are lovers of the game, it seems just as obvious that we all were in some way cheated by all the phony stats.

That was my whole point. Olympics athletes, bank robbers, 5 year olds. It doesn't matter, it's human nature. If people can improve their situation without consequences, they will do it.

Are you ok with the fact that players have means to much beter medical treatments than they did in other eras? That along with increased awareness over conditioning and nutrition can help athletes stay healthy like never before.

Now would you be ok with players only taking steroids and/or HGH only to recover from injuries quicker and remain healthy through the season? Basically players can do everything in their power to remain at 100% but not exceed it.

Improvements in medical technology has a positive impact on society as a whole, not just baseball players. And no I would not approve of players using steroids or HGH to recover more quickly from injuries.  Injuries are as much a part of sports as any other variable. What's next Bionic arms for pitchers? Rocket propelled cleats for the base runners? Let's stay within the normal capacities of the human body and marvel at athletic prowess without the steroid or HGH illusions.

Posted by zubinsum on 4/22/2011 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GregNLFan on 4/21/2011 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zubinsum on 4/21/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I don't think Bonds, Rameriz, Palmero, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens et al. get in via the BBWAA who will essentially table the issue and leave it to the Veteran's committe or similar organization hanlde the issue once we have a better perspective.  I think these guys candidacy will rest in no small part on what they do after retirement.  If they contribute to the game (in the media as coaches or in other respected and productive ways) they get in, otherwise they will join Pete Rose on the outside looking in.

I agree with zubinsum.  Rose will likely get in posthumously, and some of these guys might go that route.

I do not think Rose will ever get in.

I think we'll eventually separate Rose the player-- a great hitter who played the game with fire, and who was a popular ambassador of the game-- from Rose the man who got in such trouble after his playing days were over.  On that theory, with time, people will forgive, and Rose will get in.  If it turns out that Rose bet on games during his playing days, that would be different, but as far as I've heard, nobody says he did that.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/22/2011 4:06:00 PM (view original):

I do, you just don't like it.     I'll tell you this, Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez didn't hit 50 HRs for any reason you listed ;)

)

I don't like it because I think it's probably 95% noise, 1% data and 4% bullshit.  Of course I don't expect you to compile and regress and whoosiwhatsit, but you're just breezing past about a million other factors and pegging all increases in offense, and only offense, to PEDs.  In the relevant time period.  That just doesn't fly.

Why did Davey Johnson hit 43 home runs in 1973?  Flukes happen.

Doodooface.

GregNLFan: Um.

In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, published by Rodale Press on January 8, 2004, Rose finally admitted publicly to betting on baseball games and other sports while playing for and managing the Reds. He also admitted to betting on Reds games, but said that he never bet against the Reds. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. He also said in the book that he hoped his admissions would help end his ban from baseball so that he could reapply for reinstatement.

In March 2007 during an interview on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Rose said, "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team," he said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."^[24] Whether Rose bet every night is significant to whether he had an incentive to influence the team's performance depending on whether he had a bet down on a particular game. John Dowd disputed Rose's contention that he bet on the Reds every night, asserting that Rose did not bet on his team when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched.^[25] Both Gullickson^[26] and Soto had ERA's substantially poorer than others in the National League during 1987.

The criticism of Rose did not diminish after this admission—even some Rose supporters were outraged that Rose would suddenly reverse fifteen years of denials as part of a book publicity tour. In addition, the timing was called into question—by making his admission just two days after the Baseball Hall of Fame announced its class of 2004 inductees, Rose appeared to be linking himself publicly to the Hall. Further adding to the debate was the 2004 ESPN made-for-TV movie Hustle, starring Tom Sizemore as Rose, which documents Rose's gambling problem and his subsequent ban from baseball.

If you think Steroids caused only 1% of the increase in HR's (and runs scored)   I think you're drinking your own cool aid.

I am not sure what the million other causes are but the ones you listed are certainly not 99% of the reason.

Let's explore some facts:

STAT	81-92	96-05	%of Change
HR/G	0.7	1.05	50%
K/9	5.7	6.8	19%
R/G	4.1	4.6	12%
2b/G	1.5	1.75	16%
AVG	.253	.265	4%
BB/9	3.21	3.45	7%
SLG	.375	.415	11%
SB/G	.89	.63	-29%

Now my original point was that the game changed in the late 1990's.   We now have more big hits, more walks and K's,  less SB.


Now for some opinions....



Now what is the cause of this change?  

Could it be a shrinking strike zone?    I have no idea.   If the strikezone did get smaller, it is hard to explain why strikeouts went up.  I actually don't think the strikezone has gotten smaller.  When I was a kid (the 80's) the de facto top of the strike zone was the belt.  I think we see more "high" strikes today then we did.

Is it smaller parks?  This certainly is a major factor.  There have been 14 new parks that opened up between 1994 and 2006.  Nine of them are more hitter friendly than the previous stadium:
Colorado
Cleveland
Detroit
Houston
Milwaukee
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
St. Louis

Four of them are pitcher friendly:

San Diego
Seattle
Arizona
San Francisco

Atlanta is the 14th but it was the launching pad before and it still is.

Is this a factor in increased runs and hits?  Sure.  Is it significant, I would say so.  Is it more than 50% I don't think so.

What about  the change in hitters approach?    I would say the "Yankee" batting style is a game changer.  However, is it a cause or an effect?  Walks are certainly less helpful without the big hits (regardless of booger says).  The big hits probably cause big swings which probably cause more swings and misses.  I don't mean to have circular logic here but now what causes the big hits?  I would say PED.

 
The game changed significantly.   Are there lots of causes?  Sure. Are steroids one of them?  I think so.  Are steroids a significant cause.  I think so.  I just don't see how you can explain such a significant gain in power stats without them.  There are similar changes in HRs in baseball's history but there is always a reason (WWII, mound height, ball change), I think this increase, and the 20% decrease in HR's since from 2006 to today has to be partly (and a big part) be explained by steroid use. 

Posted by llamanunts on 4/22/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):
GregNLFan: Um.

In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, published by Rodale Press on January 8, 2004, Rose finally admitted publicly to betting on baseball games and other sports while playing for and managing the Reds. He also admitted to betting on Reds games, but said that he never bet against the Reds. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. He also said in the book that he hoped his admissions would help end his ban from baseball so that he could reapply for reinstatement.

In March 2007 during an interview on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Rose said, "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team," he said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."^[24] Whether Rose bet every night is significant to whether he had an incentive to influence the team's performance depending on whether he had a bet down on a particular game. John Dowd disputed Rose's contention that he bet on the Reds every night, asserting that Rose did not bet on his team when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched.^[25] Both Gullickson^[26] and Soto had ERA's substantially poorer than others in the National League during 1987.

The criticism of Rose did not diminish after this admission—even some Rose supporters were outraged that Rose would suddenly reverse fifteen years of denials as part of a book publicity tour. In addition, the timing was called into question—by making his admission just two days after the Baseball Hall of Fame announced its class of 2004 inductees, Rose appeared to be linking himself publicly to the Hall. Further adding to the debate was the 2004 ESPN made-for-TV movie Hustle, starring Tom Sizemore as Rose, which documents Rose's gambling problem and his subsequent ban from baseball.

Thanks.  I missed, or forgot, that part.  I'm forgetting more stuff lately. :)  As Rose did bet during his playing and managerial days, I think that disqualifies him from entering the Hall.

The two most significant stats in TJ's excellent post are HR/G and SB/G, they are damning for the "steroid era" IMO. Steroids changed the game on a "fundamental" level, and it's a terrible shame if there are no consequences for it.