189 replies to this topic

[timwakefield]

I knew I made a cogent post about steroids once, and I've been on such a mediocre-to-terrible run of posts lately, including in this thread, that I'm going to quote myself. Now I dunno if and how steroids and greenies should be considered the same or different forms of cheating. But as far as spitballs and all that,

timwakefield, on Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 5:48 PM, said:

Well, the thing about sign-stealing, ball-scuffing, bat-corking, etc etc of course is that people see it (not really bat-corking, but the others) as quaint. But the thing is, it's kind of true.Spitballs were legal until 1920, and even then it had a grandfather clause, so certain pitchers were actually allowed that advantage, while the rest of the league was not. Personally I'm almost okay with anybody who has the gall to cork their bat - I mean that is really gambling. The embarrassment of shattering it and having cork/rubber fly out is basically a fitting punishment for the crime. A week's suspension is fine too. And many forms of "sign-stealing" are totally legal, which is why the signs are so convoluted. And even the '51 Giants - they certainly were breaking the rules, but having a guy out in the bleachers with binoculars (and a mirror?? how did he signal to the batter?) frankly is a bit quaint. A spitball pitcher can be caught and reprimanded right then and there. Same with a corked bat or a sign stealer (you ever see a batter sneak a look down at the catcher's fingers? probably not because he'd be on his ass the next pitch...). But steroid users have all cheated for an unknown amount of time, and in a much less specific, much less baseball-related way. Cheating with the ball itself, with the bat, or with the signals are all very specific and help you accomplish specific things (albeit illegally) - steroids help you cheat at everything, all the time. I suppose I'm lucky that my favorite player over the last couple decades is certainly not in any danger of being outted as a roider - skinny-ass Pedro Martinez. Wake's probably clean too .

[Swift_Psycho]

timwakefield, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 11:54 AM, said:

Now this I completely agree with. It would probably be a much much better Hall if they let players vote. Like, if you've been in mlb for 8+ years or are retired and played 8+ years then you get a vote. The fact that it's morons like Dan Shaughnhgnghsy voting is almost preposterous. If players voted then all the steroid users would be judged on their records and numbers and abilities, and possible steroid use would be almost completely ignored I think. Not that that would be a perfect solution either, but it would be way better than how it is now.

Don't know if I want players voting, since players are often those that were extremely physically gifted but are pretty awful at player evaluation. Joe Morgan is probably the prime example of a guy who was an incredible player but knew stunningly little about why he was great. The guys that are probably most qualified to vote for the hall? (1) Writers/analysts who are actually taking advantage of all the new research out there that helps us avoid letting personal biases, selective memory, and other psychological factors influence whether someone is deserving or not. (2) A lot of the guys who work behind the scenes for baseball teams (particularly the more intelligently run teams like the Rays and Red Sox).(2) isn't a viable option for a lot of reasons, and neither really is (1), though over time more and more writers/analysts will begin to fall into category (1) just because progress is inevitable (though often slow). In the mean time, I don't know if there's a better option than what we have right now. Unfortunately.

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 11:58 AM, said:

I don't think players are any more informed than the media. In fact, I'd guess they know less. I'm also not sure possible steroid use would be ignored. Maybe it would be ignored by steroid users, but wouldn't the non-steroid users be upset that the others had an unfair advantage?I'm in the "the hall of fame is a historical museum" camp. Keeping someone out of the hall of fame because they broke some rules shouldn't be an available punishment. But I'd be ok with not letting him have an acceptance speech or participate in the ceremonies.

If someone broke rules or did something highly controversial (with proof, not just suspicion), then they ought to just mention it on the player's plaque or something like that, and let the fans decide how they feel about that player when they see him in the HOF. We should know that Gaylord Perry threw spitballs when they were long since made illegal, and I'll determine whether I despise him for it or not. We should know about all the players who used amphetamines (A TON). We should know that McGwire admitted to HGH (NOT the same thing as steroids AT ALL) and we as fans will make our own judgments. And Jeff Bagwell needs to be voted in and left untainted unless someone has proof that he used something.There's still the issue of the players who were clean and perhaps borderline and won't get in because of steroid users, and in their cases I really don't know what to say on their behalf. It's tough, but at the same time there were always players getting screwed out of the hall for one reason or another because of either other cheating players or stupid league rules (segregation almost certainly screwed a lot of black players from having a shot).

timwakefield, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 12:13 PM, said:

I don't think there are a lot of steroid haters playing in MLB, although I might just perceive that because they keep their mouths shut about it.

Meh, didn't everybody keep their mouth shut about it? Just like everyone doesn't seem to care about steroids in the NFL even to this very day? McGwire and Sosa made baseball fun and were really likeable, so we shrugged off our strong suspicions. It wasn't really until someone the media (and most of fans) despised got in on the action did people start to all of a sudden give a shit. I don't even like Bonds personally, but I do feel sorry that he had to take so much heat for using PEDs when he was only one among an ocean of users.And I suspect that players are divided on PEDs just like the general public. If I was a player who personally stayed clean, you bet your ass I'd have a problem with voting for PED users, and from that perspective I more than understand that.

[Swift_Psycho]

timwakefield, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 1:46 PM, said:

I knew I made a cogent post about steroids once, and I've been on such a mediocre-to-terrible run of posts lately, including in this thread, that I'm going to quote myself. Now I dunno if and how steroids and greenies should be considered the same or different forms of cheating. But as far as spitballs and all that,

I won't go into the justifications for spitballs being (what I consider) stupid/ridiculously arbitrary again, but I will throw in that the advantage when it comes to steroids and HRs is widely overblown. It DOES help, but not nearly as much as general fans seem to think it does. A LOT of our HR-generating power is derived from the lower body (which is why you see skinnier guys who also can hit bombs), while steroid users tend to bulk up in the upper body. Again, it's not NOTHING, but it does make their advantage much smaller than you might think.

[timwakefield]

Swift_Psycho, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 2:22 PM, said:

I won't go into the justifications for spitballs being (what I consider) stupid/ridiculously arbitrary again, but I will throw in that the advantage when it comes to steroids and HRs is widely overblown. It DOES help, but not nearly as much as general fans seem to think it does. A LOT of our HR-generating power is derived from the lower body (which is why you see skinnier guys who also can hit bombs), while steroid users tend to bulk up in the upper body. Again, it's not NOTHING, but it does make their advantage much smaller than you might think.

But it's certainly extremely easy to perceive that it helps a lot. Why else would these guys break the law and take dangerous drugs with potentially terrible and embarrassing side effects, not just in baseball but in all sports, particularly the ones that test strictly? The users must believe it has enough benefit to outweigh the potential ball-shrinkage, and the potential permanent embarrassment of being caught cheating at the highest level of your sport. Why do Olympic athletes use illegal substances, when there are extremely stringent tests and extremely brutal punishments? If you're gonna take a drug that may have hideous side-effects, wouldn't you hope to gain a lot from it? So this cheating must be very important to them. They must believe there is a lot to be gained, or else that there is a small amount to physically be gained but that it will have significant effects.

[Skeleton Jelly]

I'm going to become a trainer and give my athletes placebo-steroids. I'll just tell them it's a new undetectable performance enhancing drug. I bet that could work. I mean, not necessarily significantly, but confidence is important in sports, right?

[Swift_Psycho]

timwakefield, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 3:30 PM, said:

But it's certainly extremely easy to perceive that it helps a lot. Why else would these guys break the law and take dangerous drugs with potentially terrible and embarrassing side effects, not just in baseball but in all sports, particularly the ones that test strictly? The users must believe it has enough benefit to outweigh the potential ball-shrinkage, and the potential permanent embarrassment of being caught cheating at the highest level of your sport. Why do Olympic athletes use illegal substances, when there are extremely stringent tests and extremely brutal punishments? If you're gonna take a drug that may have hideous side-effects, wouldn't you hope to gain a lot from it? So this cheating must be very important to them. They must believe there is a lot to be gained, or else that there is a small amount to physically be gained but that it will have significant effects.

There certainly could be some placebo effect working alongside the mild actual advantage gained, and I bet there probably is. And of course, everything you wrote above also goes for amphetamines to some degree (aside from the ball-shrinkage). I'm not sure what you're arguing now though, or if you're responding just to push discussion along for its own sake? Are you still trying to find ways that steroids are special from other forms of cheating?It's wrong to assume, however, that just because some players do it, that that necessarily means the form of cheating is effective. The fact that players have bat-corked for decades even though research has shown it provides no advantage is proof of that. My guess is that players also perceive that steroids will help them more than they actually do.

[timwakefield]

Swift_Psycho, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 5:53 PM, said:

My guess is that players also perceive that steroids will help them more than they actually do.

I'm happy to agree with that (although I haven't studied it so I can't say how true it is), but I was just talking about why steroid use is perceived by the general public as being so heinous.

[BaseJester]

Swift_Psycho, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 2:22 PM, said:

It DOES help, but not nearly as much as general fans seem to think it does. A LOT of our HR-generating power is derived from the lower body (which is why you see skinnier guys who also can hit bombs), while steroid users tend to bulk up in the upper body.

Just looking at Mr. Olympia types, who are so jacked that they are growing muscles on their eyeballs, makes this hard for me to believe. Those guys still work the hell out of their upper bodies without getting disproportionate.I don't think it's possible to build those legs without some serious chemistry. I'd also think that this would be apparent on NFL lineman, who would be as big as they could get everywhere, I would think. If steroids build the upper body but not the bottom, they'd all be anti-weebles.

[Swift_Psycho]

BaseJester, on Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 10:46 PM, said:

Just looking at Mr. Olympia types, who are so jacked that they are growing muscles on their eyeballs, makes this hard for me to believe. Those guys still the hell out of their upper bodies without getting disproportionate.I don't think it's possible to build those legs without some serious chemistry. I'd also think that this would be apparent on NFL lineman, who would be as big as they could get everywhere, I would think. If steroids build the upper body but not the bottom, they'd all be anti-weebles.

My information is mostly based off of a terrifically informative, comprehensive, and extremely long article written in late 2009ish I think called something like "Steroids and Baseball." With that said, I've seen from several separate scientific articles (baseball related) that all concluded that anabolic steroids (1) do have an effect, and (2) that effect is far smaller than the general public believes.As far as looking at the body builders, it would shock me if body builders weren't loading up on a shit ton of stuff that baseball players aren't, and whatever they're loading up on, I'm sure it's A LOT more of it.With all that said, I won't personally pretend to be an expert authority on steroids or anything. But certainly nothing any of us has discussed has given any legit reason why we should care so much about steroids (and HGH, which again are NOT the same thing), but ignore amphetamines when it comes to discussing HOF voting.

[Swift_Psycho]

http://itsaboutthemo...-doping-part-2/Here's a really good article which talks about the strangeness of our PED-testing system. It doesn't discuss the moral aspects or anything that we've been debating over, but an interesting read nonetheless.