MLB Steroid scandal discussion thread (merged) (1 Viewer)

[Doug Miller]

See, Phil! It's easy, and fun.

I'm happy with the current talks that are happening between baseball and the union. I think the union just got a big bucket of water thrown in their face -- and it's about time.

I'd love to see an instant suspenion for first offense, then gradual up to a ban for repeated offenses. I'm happy to see (it's been reported) that they're talking about more than just performance enhancers. Are we going to see regular drug testing too? I think this would all benefit baseball. If I can only see one thing come out of this whole new talks, it would be that the results MUST be made public. I wouldn't care if they didn't even get suspended, as long as the fans knew what was going on. In the current agreement, I don't think we actually would hear anything about it until the 3rd or 4th offense, which is just ridiculous.

For as much crap as Selig gets -- and he get's a fair share from me -- this could be another mark in his legacy. Yes, steroids happened on his watch, but we could be looking at a commissioner that not only grew the game with it's exhibitions overseas and upcoming World Cup, but also added Interleague Play (I'm not saying it's good or bad, that's a different discussion), and now is instituting a full scale drug testing policy for MLB and the minors. That's a pretty big legacy, and a discussion for a different day. (Yes, he has a long list of negatives too, but again, different day.)

Doug

 

[Seth Paxton]

Follow up on the Bonds-eye thing. (from the hot stove thread)
One of the most famous anecdotes in all of MLB history is the time Ted Williams took a pitch that the catcher thought was strike 3 (as I recall it). When the catcher complained to the ump the ump replied "Son, if it was a strike, Mr. Williams would have swung at it." (or something similar)

The Point - is it that Bonds or Ted Williams knew it was a ball, or is it that if RESPECTED hitters take a pitch umps will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder how many called strikes Maddux knew he had 30 ft in front of the plate...even though they never got closer than 4 inches off the plate.

Again, by being able to wait longer due to arm strength allowing for quicker bat speed, a hitter is able to see a pitch longer. Makes him a better hitter.

Then a stronger player also turns weaker swings into solid shots, and half swings into gappers. Makes him a more feared hitter.

Then he gets pitchers working away from him a lot more, which allows him to walk more or to get ahead in counts and then dial in on sweeter pitches.

The stats showing OBP/power connection for Bonds:
19 seasons.
40+ HR season = 8
.440+ OBA season = 9, the 8 40+ HR years plus a 34 HR year

Add to this that 5 of these years are the last 5 seasons, and you have to wonder why his batting eye suddenly got so much better (career OBA of .443) than it had been. Add to that the fact that these 5 seasons followed his injury plagued 1999 season. What is one of the productive uses of steriods? Injury treatment, meaning a common time for a player to be introduced to steriods would be during a healing process.

Maybe his eye did just get better at the exact same time as his power, or maybe he started getting a lot more respect from both umps and pitchers. I think he is a guy with a good eye, but nowhere near all-time great like Williams, Boggs, or Gwynn.


Really it's no different than how speed allows Ichiro to not just steal bases and get triples, but also to get a lot more hits by beating out infield grounders. And building on that, the knowledge that he can beat out a throw forces defensive players to hurry their plays which in turn creates more on base chances for him. Continuing on the impact is that pitchers then have to avoid pitching him into ground balls, especially to the left side. Thus Ichiro's speed has helped determine the types of pitches he will see and be asked to hit. That has nothing to do with his eye at all.

You can't just look at physical traits in sports as some one for one connection. In all the majors an athlete can take advantage of one strong trait to help supplement and improve other aspects of his game.

Heck, even brains are commonly noted as a method for an average player to compete with guys more talented.


Blaming fans for liking HRs
I don't think fans do like more HRs. The drama of chasing Maris/Ruth/Aaron is that it was HARD. In 98 it seemed special, though suspicious. But after 6-8 years of this extra pop I think many fans are losing some interest in HRs. When a HR comes in a dramatic moment its still a big deal, but as a thing to see I think some luster has worn off, such as with the HR derby.

It strikes me as being a lot like the NBA and slam dunking. Fans used to love it, and in the right context of a game its still one of the biggest thrillers, but more fans complain about how limited the recent version of the NBA has become with so many players being all dunks and jumping and very little quality fundamentals and shooting.

MLB wasn't there yet, but with steriods I think many fans will really start to tune out HR kings, especially the bulky types like Sosa or Bonds.

What would Cobb do?
Yes, I think a lot of those guys would use. Not all, but a lot of them. I mean players of that era did try to cheat in whatever way they could. Cripes, this was the era of the Black Sox, not just one guy like Rose.

 

[Chris]

Which is why (on a seperate topic) before they'd ever let Rose into the Hall, they'd have to honor Shoeless Joe (IMHO); as while players on his team were in a fix, his stats from that world series are incredible, and he took the punishment with the rest of them... (which, the argument was later made.. if he knew, he should have turned them in, which is feasible, I suppose)

 

[Lew Crippen]

And that goes to my point Joseph: it is not that hard to openly acknowledge (even after the fact) using legal and non-banned substances.

 

[Doug Miller]

Thought I would get this in its right home.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1966232

Overall, I'm happy with the new policy. As mentioned above, it hits the thing I wanted most -- We're going to know who tests positive the first time and beyond (unlike the old policy that would take 4 times before we even knew about it).

I heard a lot of complaining on sports radio today that it was only up to a 10 game suspension, a lot felt it should be longer. I feel like the up to 10 for the first is reasonable, when you look at up to 30 for the second, 60 for the third, then a year. I think it's a pretty straight forward and escalating penalty.

I was disappointed to see that amphetamines were not on the list, along with other drugs like coke and the "smokables".

Still, all said and done, I'm happy with the new policy and am looking forward to spring training. It will be interesting to see some new physiques this spring.

Doug

 

[Doug Miller]

Wanted to revive this thread since Giambi is going to hold court today, and Canseco will be giving interviews next week. I'm going to hold off on commenting on Canseco's book, other than to make a prediction for Giambi's meeting with reporters. (When is it today, anyway? ESPN hasn't said, are they going to be broadcasting?) So here we go, my prediction of what Jason Giambi will say today:

"Thanks for coming, there's been a lot of speculation and reports in the media that I wanted to talk about today. Just before Christmas, testimony that I gave to the Grand Jury in regards to Balco, was leaked to the media. I want to make it clear that I will not address that testimony or comment on that testimony during the season or until it has been officially released to the public. That said, I do feel it is important to acknowledge that yes, in the past I did use steroids. I think it's important to talk about that for a few reasons. Yes, I used steroids during the 1999-2003 seasons -- At that time, steroids was not a banned substance for MLB. When steroids became an issue and a banned substance, I immediately stopped using them. I felt the need to use steroids to stay with the competition, and yes, it was wrong. I was wrong for using steroids. Beyond that, I want to make clear, that during the time when I was using steroids, that I did not inject or help anyone use steroids. Media reports, based on a former teammates book, have implied that I injected a past teammate with steroids. I want to say to you, that that is 100% false -- I will own up to my mistake, yes I used steroids. I regret it, it was wrong, and I have since stopped. I was 100% honest during my testimony with the Grand Jury, and again, to reiterate, I did not inject or assist any teammate in using steroids. Thank you for coming."

OK, that's my prediction. The timing of the press conference is just too close to Jose's book. Giambi was obviously going to address the media at Spring Training, but I think the book forced him to up it on his schedule. There's no way that Giambi throws Mac under the bus, whether it happened or didn't. He will categorically deny those reports, but admit the use today. That's my bet.

Doug

 

[Carl Miller]

Turns out Giambi said he's sorry a bunch of times, but never said what he was sorry for.

I think it's pretty obvious that if Giambi literally admits to his steroid use in public, the Yankees will have what they need to get out of paying his contract.

When a player whose career isn't shot gets exposed for using steroids, I'll be more curious to see how that goes down.

 

[Lew Crippen]

My favorite quite is actually from Giambi’s agent, who said (more or less), “The answers are there if you look for them.”

Is that inspired to promote dissection and speculation or what?

 

[Patrick Sun]

So... anyone else catch the Barry Bonds press conference yesterday?

Notice how he didn't go over the part about steroids aiding in the recovery time for injuries, while clinging on to the "well, steroids don't improve your eye-hand coordination" mantra, and sidesteps the notion that home runs that would have been warning track fly outs if steroids weren't used by the hitter, and such steroid use does present a way to cheat in the game of baseball.

And he also called every person in the pressroom a liar, and resorts to the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" defense. Nice.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I saw bits of it, and it was absolutely embarassing. He would be much better off to just come out like Giambi, and says "Yeah, I did it - I'm sorry, but off the junk now". Instead, he's living in this fairy tale world, and trying to make everyone else out to be the bad guy.

 

[James L White]

douchebag

Bonds is always a victim in every thing,(poor Barry, ) he's certainly climbing the ladder of biggest prick in sports. At least the loser will never win a World Series

 

[Lew Crippen]

‘Pudge’ Rodriguez may need a new nickname. Seems he reported in at 22 pounds less than last year.

 

[Joseph S]

What did he do that was different from Giambi? Neither have admitted anything to the public.

It's interesting that he's one of the few suspects that hasn't changed a bit physically or talent wise these past offseasons unlike McGwire, Sosa, Giambi... Either he has something better, hasn't stopped, or just maybe...

 

[Jack Briggs]

Thursday's hearings before Congress were fascinating. And there were all those superstars pleading either ignorance or simply refusing to name names (that still harms ya, Mr. McGuire).

But, increasingly, pundits and politicians are asking about those amazing records achieved during the 1990s. To wit, more people are saying that the post-1994 records either should be tossed out or heavily asterisked.

It took thirty-four years for Babe Ruth's single-season home run record to be beaten -- but, at first, not without an asterisk, because Roger Maris hit Number 61 after the 154th game of the 1961 season.

And, of course, another thirty-some-odd years passed before Mr. Maris's single-season record was beaten.

But was it? Not just one player, but two overtook the 61-homerun mark that year -- and not by just a single homer or so. Then, just three years after that, Barry Bonds belted out seventy-three homers. And how many players have hit in excess of fifty in the past few years?

Earlier on, I suspected a heavily jack-rabbited ball. During the ill-fated 1994 season, so many records were threatened. I suspected at the time that MLB had juiced the ball, hoping that the players, intent on beating the records, would keep the game alive and avert the strike.

Well, the more one reads about steroids, the more that the 1990s and early 2000s are being looked at closely.

Steroids boost an athlete's performance in several areas: eye-hand coordination, speed, power, etc.

And look at these men. Compare their photographs with the real greats from yesteryear. Babe Ruth was overweight but not out of proportion. Hank Greenberg. Mickey Mantle. And on and on. They look like healthy but real men.

These days? Look at their necks, their muscles, their size. They are magnified humans.

Mickey Mantle, on the other hand, though muscular, was of human proportions.

So, as Barry Bonds closes in on the Babe's and Hank's home-run totals, for what does it count? The Babe and Hank used their hands and wrists. Bonds and other current players, apparently, also are using drugs.

When the statisticians get down and dirty, they will have to make some decisions. And one wonders if the entire last decade will even count in the end.

 

[Joseph S]

The whole thing's a worthless publicity stunt, further evidenced by today's decision to call braindead comatose folks to congress. The records obviously will stand. It's impossible to pull them as every stat alters another stat. They don't take aways wins of spitballers, homeruns of those with corked bats, homeruns and Ks of players on cocaine and other amphetamines, etc...

 

[Patrick_S]

First lets get our facts straight:This is simply incorrect. There was never an asterisk in the record books.

The myth of Maris' asterisk

This is a moot discussion; baseball has already said that all of the records are staying and that none of them would have the mythical "asterisk" next to them.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

If Bonds and McGwire and Sosa and whoever else took steroids can look themselves in the mirror and feel content with what they accomplished, then more power to them. They know they cheated and whatever records they hold are not legitimate. I think the bigger issue is that MLB isn't concerned with the cheating. But, who cares about the integrity of the game when tickets and merchandise needs to be sold. It's a shame that those in charge of maintaining baseball are the ones orchestrating its destruction.

As for the records, cheating is cheating. Nothing you accomplish while cheating should be recognized. No matter what Bonds does, in my eyes, Hank Aaron will be the home run champion until someone legitimately unseats him and Roger Maris will hold the single season mark until someone hits 62 home runs without the aid of performance enhancing drugs.

One of the things that makes the situation so maddening is that Aaron maintained a steady playing weight of about 185lbs and that guy hit 755 dingers through pure talent. To think his name is going to be supplanted in the record books by a cheater and that record will be allowed to stand by the powers of baseball, it's beyond sad. The greatest joy would be the moment that Bonds does hit his 756th, there is nothing but prolonged and intense boo's. We shouldn't cheer for a cheater and a loser.

Bruce

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I think keeping steroids out of pro baseball makes about as much sense as keeping cocaine out of the record industry. The way I see it, pro sports is a form of entertainment. Musicians take all sorts of drugs to make the end product more entertaining -- why shouldn't athletes do the same? The Beatles hardly had a sober moment for the majority of their career, yet no one questions their talent because of it.

 

[Jason Seaver]

There will be no asterisk, and there shouldn't be. The term, after all, just comes from being a record of what happened. Those home runs happened, and that's all the record books should reflect. You can then apply whatever other history you know when discussing them, but the record is going to be seventy-three, not seventy-three-asterisk.

Ah, old-fogeyism. I get the appeal, but I wouldn't try to use it as an actual argument, even setting aside the ludicrous implication that Barry Bonds is not a "real" great (I mean, I'm not imagining him).

More than drugs have changed in the past however-many-years. Sports medicine, nutrition, and exercise have become more scientific in almost every way. The money is good enough that players are able to make the game a year-round job and hire experts as personal trainers, nutritionists, etc.

And the old-time players probably aren't as clean as they're given credit for. They'd pop greenies, spit on the ball, and make threats to keep black players out of the league. You can find a pervasive behavior that casts doubt on the legitimacy of records from every era.

 

[Kenneth]

One difference is that cocaine and other restricted substances don't generally affect your talent (although some very talented people have destroyed themselves very young due to drugs and drug overdoses). Steroids do affect an athlete's performance (hence their being banned in the Olympics and amatuer sports). I don't think that Congress will accomplish anything unless they threaten to remove Baseball's Antitrust Exemption (which they should do anyway).

Kenneth