PDA

View Full Version : A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game



Billy Hamilton's Legs
08-19-2012, 01:30 PM
After Melky got caught, as many of you have heard, Balco's Victor Conte said in an interview with ESPN that he suspects nearly half of baseball is still using PEDs (primarily in the form of synthetic testosterone). While I'm not inclined to think the true numbers are that high, I get the feeling the usage is still a lot more than anyone would be comfortable with.

I'm curious to hear what other people think the true level of usage is and what should be done.

Personally, I would bet the numbers are at least 10%, which is enough to bother me. Conte says tests exist that can better detect these new methods that players are using, so I wonder why the MLB doesnt adopt these tests. Apparently the method used is the one that takes place after the initial positive test in order to confirm the positive one.

Another question, are there any Reds that you think could be using? I DONT want to start rumors, but based on either increased performance or power numbers that seem to come from nowhere, there are a couple players that wouldnt surprise me.

DocRed
08-19-2012, 01:42 PM
I would guess 20% or about 4 or 5 players a team. I am sure it was much higher in the heyday of the Bud Selig JuiceBall era.

Ironman92
08-19-2012, 01:48 PM
Any Reds player would surprise me a bit.

I wish Wilson Valdez would start taking.

Krawhitham
08-19-2012, 01:51 PM
35%-45%

Ironman92
08-19-2012, 02:21 PM
Doesn't matter 91.4% of all statistics are made up....and 5 out of 4 people don't understand fractions.

Eric from NC
08-21-2012, 06:12 PM
It does seem that testing has gotten rid of anabolic steroids that caused the numbers to go crazy. I would think that there are 10-20%(mostly veteran players) using testosterone but it seems like it does not cause the crazy performance numbers that steroids. I think the loop hole is you pass a drug test if your testosterone amount if 4X or less of an average male.

Billy Hamilton's Legs
08-22-2012, 02:46 PM
Bartolo Colon says hi. you might be onto something with older players. At the least, it's players that have done well at some point and perhaps fallen off.

BungleBengals
08-22-2012, 03:25 PM
Doesn't matter 91.4% of all statistics are made up....and 5 out of 4 people don't understand fractions.

Haha nice! :laugh:

757690
10-10-2013, 02:09 PM
I've been here for a while now, I just haven't been posting in the ORG.

It's blatantly not true some of the things you've said (IE mostly college pitchers, adding more velocity to their fastball since the signing or drafting). For example, many felt that Miller was the second best pitcher behind Strasburg in the 2009 draft and the reason why he fell to the Cards was because teams were not going to be able to sign him. He always had a high velocity fast ball. Martinez always had a high velocity fast ball.

Again, you're not posting where you're getting your information from. If you're making a claim, by logic you have to back it up. You insinuating that the reason why the young Cardinals pitching is doing so well is because of PED's is sickening, dishonest, and completely misses the mark as far as describing why the Cardinals have been successful this year. It's posts like yours that have made the ORG go from a once respectable forum to somewhat of a joke.

1. Most of the pitchers I listed were college pitchers. 6 out of 8. That statement is true.

2. I never said anything about PED's in my post. The only way anyone could have thought I implied that would be if they were thinking that already.

3. I'm not the only one to wonder about such things. Even mild mannered Chris Welsh of the Reds broadcasting crew has brought up the exact same questions more than one on Reds broadcasts.

4. Not every pitcher I listed has shown improved velocity since being signed, but at least half have.

Kevin Seigrist

http://stlcardinals.scout.com/2/1251206.html

I
n his AFL finale, the side-armer threw his fastball roughly three-quarters of the time. While it was not exceptional at 87 to 92 mph,

Fangraphs now has him averaging 95 MPH on his fastball.

Lance Lynn

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2008/reports.jsp?content=lynn


Lynn threw his fastball in the 88-90 mph range in this outing, though he's been a tick faster than that in the past.

Lynn now averages 93 MPH on his fastball according to fangraphs. He has hit 98.

Trevor Rosenthal:

http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/04/21/11/Rosenthal-accelerates-prospect-standing/landing.html?blockID=508437


"Trevor was always a low-to-mid 90s (mph) guy," the manager said.

Rosenthal now averages 97 MPH and touches 100 according to fangraphs.

Michael Wacha

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/2/13/3982190/prospect-profile-michael-wacha-rhp-st-louis-cardinals


Wacha was a durable and often dominant college workhorse with a 90-94 MPH fastball.

Wacha averaged 93 MPH on his fastball and hit 97 numerous times according to Fangraphs.

Cedric
10-10-2013, 02:16 PM
1. Most of the pitchers I listed were college pitchers. 6 out of 8. That statement is true.

2. I never said anything about PED's in my post. The only way anyone could have thought I implied that would be if they were thinking that already.

3. I'm not the only one to wonder about such things. Even mild mannered Chris Welsh of the Reds broadcasting crew has brought up the exact same questions more than one on Reds broadcasts.

4. Not every pitcher I listed has shown improved velocity since being signed, but at least half have.

Kevin Seigrist

http://stlcardinals.scout.com/2/1251206.html

I

Fangraphs now has him averaging 95 MPH on his fastball.

Lance Lynn

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2008/reports.jsp?content=lynn



Lynn now averages 93 MPH on his fastball according to fangraphs. He has hit 98.

Trevor Rosenthal:

http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/04/21/11/Rosenthal-accelerates-prospect-standing/landing.html?blockID=508437



Rosenthal now averages 97 MPH and touches 100 according to fangraphs.

Michael Wacha

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/2/13/3982190/prospect-profile-michael-wacha-rhp-st-louis-cardinals



Wacha averaged 93 MPH on his fastball and hit 97 numerous times according to Fangraphs.

PED's are a creative and cheap way to manipulate a crap system to a teams advantage. I've thought for awhile it's likely a team mandated approach in many ways.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 02:38 PM
2. I never said anything about PED's in my post. The only way anyone could have thought I implied that would be if they were thinking that already.
Are you serious when you make this statement? I inferred PEDs from your post. It was blatantly obvious to me what you meant.

757690
10-10-2013, 02:41 PM
Are you serious when you make this statement? I inferred PEDs from your post. It was blatantly obvious to me what you meant.

Right. Because the evidence suggests PED use. There was nothing in my post itself, besides the evidence, that suggested PED use.

MikeThierry
10-10-2013, 02:51 PM
Right. Because the evidence suggests PED use. There was nothing in my post itself, besides the evidence, that suggested PED use.

You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever debated on a forum, anywhere. Of course you went down the PED route in your original statement.

Also, in the Rosenthal link you linked, this is what is said in the next paragraph down:


""He came out in two different stints against Elizabethton including the championship final game and he was sitting on 97 (mph) with a very good slider," Shildt recalled. "He knew it was a one-inning stint so he could let it go a little more."

Of course if Rosenthal is starting, he isn't going to have the high fast ball going. That's just basic logic. Stop looking for things when they're not there.

MikeThierry
10-10-2013, 02:55 PM
Good lord... 757690, do you even read the articles you linked? In the article you linked to Michael Wacha, it stated when he started, his velocity was 90-94. Fangraphs FX shows the average velocity for his fastball this year at 93.1 mph. Yes he topped 97, which isn't out of the realm when he was reaching that out of the bullpen. Remember, Wacha was in the bullpen for part of the year and it's not crazy to expect him to reach that speed. All of the stuff you cite can be explained using a logical thought process without the use of PED's.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 02:58 PM
Right. Because the evidence suggests PED use. There was nothing in my post itself, besides the evidence, that suggested PED use.
Uhh, no. Because PED accusations are made by fans all the time to discredit the accomplishments of other teams. That's why.

Now that I think about it, I remember you vehemently arguing that Molina was using PEDs a couple months ago, and your evidence was he hit more HRs the last two seasons. I guess this is your schtick.

MikeThierry
10-10-2013, 03:12 PM
Here is a good article on Rosenthal with an interview of his community college coach:

http://bcbaseballtoday.com/bc-player-commitments-draft-results/trevor-rosenthal-a-hard-throwing-pitcher/


“When we first saw Trevor play, he had a live arm and was very athletic!” Burroughs told me. “He played Short Stop and pitched while here and we visited with Trevor and explained to him that his future in professional baseball was as a pitcher. He agreed and that is when he started to progress at a rapid pace. His fastball velocity started to increase and his composure was really good. We used him as a closer and the best velocity he showed here was in the Junior College World Series at 97mph. It was easy to tell he had a high ceiling. We are proud that he is a product of our program and hope he has continued success as a Cardinal!”

As you can see, he already had stuff but it was really really raw in college. No need to go down the PED bandwagon here unless you're going to accuse him of using PED's in community college, 757690

Cedric
10-10-2013, 03:15 PM
Uhh, no. Because PED accusations are made by fans all the time to discredit the accomplishments of other teams. That's why.

Now that I think about it, I remember you vehemently arguing that Molina was using PEDs a couple months ago, and your evidence was he hit more HRs the last two seasons. I guess this is your schtick.

I think PED usage is widespread on many teams. There is no real incentive for a 23rd round scrub to not use something that so obviously works.

Some teams have large amounts of players that physically fit the PED bill and have odd career arcs that suggest possible PED usage. I also think known PED users in coaching capacities tend to teach what they know works to their players.

traderumor
10-10-2013, 03:20 PM
Here's what I will say. While the PED card may not be the right play, it remains to be seen what the holy grail is for the Cards' stable of arms. Is it dumb luck, a skill, or somewhere in between?

Of course, it was glaringly noticeable this year that there was an overabundance of young power pitchers throughout MLB and it has me asking obvious questions like "what the hell?" Dramatic shifts in a particular attribute of the game demands an explanation. I am very curious to see what the common thread is behind this spike in guys throwing high 90s and low 100s fastballs.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 03:21 PM
I think PED usage is widespread on many teams. There is no real incentive for a 23rd round scrub to not use something that so obviously works.

Some teams have large amounts of players that physically fit the PED bill and have odd career arcs that suggest possible PED usage. I also think known PED users in coaching capacities tend to teach what they know works to their players.
This speculation is all well and good, but it's not evidence.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 03:25 PM
Here's what I will say. While the PED card may not be the right play, it remains to be seen what the holy grail is for the Cards' stable of arms. Is it dumb luck, a skill, or somewhere in between?

Of course, it was glaringly noticeable this year that there was an overabundance of young power pitchers throughout MLB and it has me asking obvious questions like "what the hell?" Dramatic shifts in a particular attribute of the game demands an explanation. I am very curious to see what the common thread is behind this spike in guys throwing high 90s and low 100s fastballs.
Better coaching at younger ages, better physical training programs, better athletes becoming pitchers rather than position players.

757690
10-10-2013, 03:29 PM
Uhh, no. Because PED accusations are made by fans all the time to discredit the accomplishments of other teams. That's why.

Now that I think about it, I remember you vehemently arguing that Molina was using PEDs a couple months ago, and your evidence was he hit more HRs the last two seasons. I guess this is your schtick.

You mean like this post

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2989363&postcount=302

And I never argued that Molina was using PED's. I was simply providing evidence that suggested that he might be. In fact I explicitly stated that the evidence didn't probe that he did.

MattyHo4Life
10-10-2013, 03:29 PM
3. I'm not the only one to wonder about such things. Even mild mannered Chris Welsh of the Reds broadcasting crew has brought up the exact same questions more than one on Reds broadcast.

What things are you wondering? It can't be PEDS, because only people that are already thinking about PEDS would think that's what you mean right?

757690
10-10-2013, 03:36 PM
You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever debated on a forum, anywhere. Of course you went down the PED route in your original statement.

Also, in the Rosenthal link you linked, this is what is said in the next paragraph down:



Of course if Rosenthal is starting, he isn't going to have the high fast ball going. That's just basic logic. Stop looking for things when they're not there.

First, of course I was implying PED use. However, no one would get that implication, if the facts didn't suggest it or they weren't already thinking that.

Second, I stated that many young pitchers for the Cards experienced increased velocity since they were drafted. You said that wasn't true. You asked for links. I provided links that showed that four young Cardinal pitchers showed increased velocity.

How is that dishonest? You can argue that there were logical reasons besides PED use that explain such increases, but the facts are clear, a number of young Cardinal pitchers have experienced increased velocity since they were drafted.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 03:37 PM
You mean like this post

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2989363&postcount=302

And I never argued that Molina was using PED's. I was simply providing evidence that suggested that he might be. In fact I explicitly stated that the evidence didn't probe that he did.
Yep, I accused Liriano of using PEDs out of bitterness. But...and this is an important but...I didn't go around claiming I had evidence that Liriano uses PEDs.

You said Molina used PEDs and your evidence was that he his power production increased. Evidence would be empty syringes with traces of PEDs in them in Molina's locker. Evidence would be records of PED sales or shipments to Molina's house. Evidence is not "well, he hit more HRs". That's a non sequitur.

Molina might be using PEDs, but we have no evidence to support that claim. Zip. Zero. Nada.

757690
10-10-2013, 03:38 PM
This speculation is all well and good, but it's not evidence.

There is evidence, it's just not conclusive. Speculation is normally based in evidence.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 03:44 PM
There is evidence, it's just not conclusive. Speculation is normally based in evidence.
/facepalm

I hope to God you're not a scientist and the idea of you serving on a jury scares me.

MikeThierry
10-10-2013, 03:48 PM
First, of course I was implying PED use. However, no one would get that implication, if the facts didn't suggest it or they weren't already thinking that.

Second, I stated that many young pitchers for the Cards experienced increased velocity since they were drafted. You said that wasn't true. You asked for links. I provided links that showed that four young Cardinal pitchers showed increased velocity.

How is that dishonest? You can argue that there were logical reasons besides PED use that explain such increases, but the facts are clear, a number of young Cardinal pitchers have experienced increased velocity since they were drafted.

Actually, the links I provided showed that many of those young pitchers already had high velocity fast balls to begin with and what they're doing now isn't much different than what they showed when they were drafted. The only pitcher I will give you that had a drastic increase in their velocity is Lance Lynn.

Keep on being intellectually dishonest though and using manipulative arguments to try to prove your "points".

757690
10-10-2013, 04:02 PM
Actually, the links I provided showed that many of those young pitchers already had high velocity fast balls to begin with and what they're doing now isn't much different than what they showed when they were drafted. The only pitcher I will give you that had a drastic increase in their velocity is Lance Lynn.

Keep on being intellectually dishonest though and using manipulative arguments to try to prove your "points".

You provided one link that showed that Rosenthal was hitting 97. He's hitting 100 now.

Wacha absolutely gained extra MPH in his fastball, all you showed was that he improved his velocity once he temporarily shifted to the pen. However, that doesn't explain how he maintained that velocity when he went back to starting.

Even if you count Rosenthal as always throwing this hard, you have yet to show disprove that Lynn, Seigrist and Wacha increased their velocity since being drafted.

But I'm not going to accuse you of being dishonest because that would be rude.

757690
10-10-2013, 04:05 PM
/facepalm

I hope to God you're not a scientist and the idea of you serving on a jury scares me.

Science has advanced plenty of theories on theoretical evidence, such as Gravity.

Plenty of individuals have been put into prisons because of theoretical evidence alone, with zero physical evidence.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what the word "evidence" means.

757690
10-10-2013, 04:07 PM
Yep, I accused Liriano of using PEDs out of bitterness. But...and this is an important but...I didn't go around claiming I had evidence that Liriano uses PEDs.

You said Molina used PEDs and your evidence was that he his power production increased. Evidence would be empty syringes with traces of PEDs in them in Molina's locker. Evidence would be records of PED sales or shipments to Molina's house. Evidence is not "well, he hit more HRs". That's a non sequitur.

Molina might be using PEDs, but we have no evidence to support that claim. Zip. Zero. Nada.

So accusing someone of using PED's without any evidence is better than accusing someone of using PED's with evidence?

Beltway
10-10-2013, 04:13 PM
So accusing someone of using PED's without any evidence is better than accusing someone of using PED's with evidence?
You have no idea what actually annoys me about this. It isn't that you accuse Molina of being a PED user. I really couldn't care less about that. It's that you claim you have evidence that he's a PED user. You don't.

MikeThierry
10-10-2013, 04:19 PM
You provided one link that showed that Rosenthal was hitting 97. He's hitting 100 now.

Wacha absolutely gained extra MPH in his fastball, all you showed was that he improved his velocity once he temporarily shifted to the pen. However, that doesn't explain how he maintained that velocity when he went back to starting.

Even if you count Rosenthal as always throwing this hard, you have yet to show disprove that Lynn, Seigrist and Wacha increased their velocity since being drafted.

But I'm not going to accuse you of being dishonest because that would be rude.

At this point, I don't care if it's "rude". I detest people who use manipulative arguments to push an agenda or fail to look at all evidence involved but still makes an argument accusing players of cheating whether it's directly or indirectly (which is you) accuses them of doing so.

I don't know why you think it's some mystery that someone being drafted at a young age will increase the average fastball as their pro career goes on. It happens all the time in every organization. It's not out of the realm, for example, for a Michael Wacha to average a 93 mph fast ball in the majors when he has always been at 90-94 MPH and the pitching FX is based on the very limited sample size of relief work and just 9 games started this year. Use your damn brain and stop being selectively dumb.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 04:20 PM
Science has advanced plenty of theories on theoretical evidence, such as Gravity.
Are you seriously comparing your argument to Newton's theory of gravity? You have quite an inflated view of yourself. :laugh:


Plenty of individuals have been put into prisons because of theoretical evidence alone, with zero physical evidence.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what the word "evidence" means.
Yep, lots of innocent people are in prison. There are too many people who are like you.

757690
10-10-2013, 04:21 PM
You have no idea what actually annoys me about this. It isn't that you accuse Molina of being a PED user. I really couldn't care less about that. It's that you claim you have evidence that he's a PED user. You don't.

Just like with these young Cardinal pitchers, all I've done is present facts that suggest one possible explanation is that they used PED's. You're jumping to conclusions that aren't there.

PuffyPig
10-10-2013, 04:29 PM
/facepalm

I hope to God you're not a scientist and the idea of you serving on a jury scares me.

The fact that Molina had a sudden increase in power numbers is evidence that he might be using PED's. It mught be very weak, and completely circumstantial, and would and should be given little weight as to whether he in fact took PED's, the fact remains it does qualify as evidence.

If you added to that "evidence" the hypotheical facts that there were indications that he had received shipments of PED's to his house, and that their were witnesses to seeing him take those PED's, the before circumstantial evidence that there was a sudden increase in power would take on added importantce and would be given added weight.

Just becuase evidence is weak or circumstantial dosn't mean it doesn't exist.

Beltway
10-10-2013, 04:49 PM
The fact that Molina had a sudden increase in power numbers is evidence that he might be using PED's. It mught be very weak, and completely circumstantial, and would and should be given little weight as to whether he in fact took PED's, the fact remains it does qualify as evidence.

If you added to that "evidence" the hypotheical facts that there were indications that he had received shipments of PED's to his house, and that their were witnesses to seeing him take those PED's, the before circumstantial evidence that there was a sudden increase in power would take on added importantce and would be given added weight.


Just becuase evidence is weak or circumstantial dosn't mean it doesn't exist.
Wrong. Even if Molina took PEDs, his increased home run production is still not evidence that he took PEDs. There is no way to isolate that variable to test for it, specifically.

Deductive reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inductive reasoning

indyscott
10-10-2013, 04:51 PM
I guess he must think Votto juiced in 2010

757690
10-10-2013, 05:11 PM
Wrong. Even if Molina took PEDs, his increased home run production is still not evidence that he took PEDs. There is no way to isolate that variable to test for it, specifically.

Deductive reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inductive reasoning

It wasn't just his increased home run total. It was his increased home run total at a late age, after many years in the majors, plus his association with TRL, the poster boy for PED use.

As Puffypig said, it's weak evidence, but it's still evidence.

757690
10-10-2013, 05:12 PM
I guess he must think Votto juiced in 2010

Why do you think that I think that Votto is suspicion free?

indyscott
10-10-2013, 05:14 PM
And the only suspicion with Molina is message boards.

WAKEUP
10-10-2013, 07:55 PM
The fact that Molina had a sudden increase in power numbers is evidence that he might be using PED's. It mught be very weak, and completely circumstantial, and would and should be given little weight as to whether he in fact took PED's, the fact remains it does qualify as evidence.

If you added to that "evidence" the hypotheical facts that there were indications that he had received shipments of PED's to his house, and that their were witnesses to seeing him take those PED's, the before circumstantial evidence that there was a sudden increase in power would take on added importantce and would be given added weight.

Just becuase evidence is weak or circumstantial dosn't mean it doesn't exist.


It's called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
Your evidence isn't evidence at all.

post hoc ergo propter hoc is latin for "after this, therefore because of this"

It means your premise that Molina hit more home runs, therefore it must be steroids/peds is a common logical fallacy that states "Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event."

Y event being Molina starting to have a little pop in hit bat
x event being the steroid/ped era we used to and still live in

Molina's home run totals the last three years:
14
22
12

It's not like he is turning in a Brady Anderson performance here. He hit less home runs in the last three years combined than Chris Davis hit this year alone.

In 2009 Rryan Hanigan hit 3 home runs. Two years later, he doubled that to 6 while playing the same amount of games. must have been peds.

Yadier Molina is really no different than Ozzie Smith. They are both far and away the best players at their position defensively. They both were immediately great from the start in the field, but lacked in offense.

Both turned themselves into very good offensive players after 4-5 years in the league.

Ozzie Smith's first 7 seasons, he was a .238 hitter with a .311 OBP .298 SLG .609 OPS. He avg'd less than 1 homer a season. The only thing he could do offensively was steal.

In 1985 he hit .276 with a .355 OBP .361 SLG .716 OPS. He popped 6 homers in 1985 alone, after hitting only 6 total in his first 7 seasons and he hit another in the famous game 5 NLCS "Co crazy folks, Go crazy."

In 1987, he hit .303 with a .392 OBP, .383 SLG, .775 OPS

From 1985 - his retirement in 1996, Ozzie put up a nice .276, .355, .316, .702 slash line and averaged 30 steals a year. He had 1500 hits in that time.

Was he on PEDs?

WAKEUP
10-10-2013, 08:00 PM
In addition, Pete Rose hit only 4 homers his first year and then 6 his 2nd year, while hitting .273 and .269 respectively. Then he 'all of the sudden' hit .312, .313, .301, .335 and .348 with home run totals of 11, 16, 12, 10, 16.

That's quite a jump.

Must have been steroids.
;)

757690
10-10-2013, 08:22 PM
It's called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
Your evidence isn't evidence at all.

post hoc ergo propter hoc is latin for "after this, therefore because of this"

It means your premise that Molina hit more home runs, therefore it must be steroids/peds is a common logical fallacy that states "Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event."

Y event being Molina starting to have a little pop in hit bat
x event being the steroid/ped era we used to and still live in

Molina's home run totals the last three years:
14
22
12

It's not like he is turning in a Brady Anderson performance here. He hit less home runs in the last three years combined than Chris Davis hit this year alone.

In 2009 Rryan Hanigan hit 3 home runs. Two years later, he doubled that to 6 while playing the same amount of games. must have been peds.

Yadier Molina is really no different than Ozzie Smith. They are both far and away the best players at their position defensively. They both were immediately great from the start in the field, but lacked in offense.

Both turned themselves into very good offensive players after 4-5 years in the league.

Ozzie Smith's first 7 seasons, he was a .238 hitter with a .311 OBP .298 SLG .609 OPS. He avg'd less than 1 homer a season. The only thing he could do offensively was steal.

In 1985 he hit .276 with a .355 OBP .361 SLG .716 OPS. He popped 6 homers in 1985 alone, after hitting only 6 total in his first 7 seasons and he hit another in the famous game 5 NLCS "Co crazy folks, Go crazy."

In 1987, he hit .303 with a .392 OBP, .383 SLG, .775 OPS

From 1985 - his retirement in 1996, Ozzie put up a nice .276, .355, .316, .702 slash line and averaged 30 steals a year. He had 1500 hits in that time.

Was he on PEDs?

Good stuff.

However...

You're conflating using evidence to prove something true, and using evidence to suggest that something might be true. No one is saying that Molina's power increased, so therefore he must be using PED's. All anyone is saying is that his very sudden and drastic increase in power at a late age, combined with him playing for TRL, who has a tainted history with PED's and Molina's physical appearance, logically leads one to suspect PED's.

If this were a legal matter, this would be evidence that could possibley be used to get a search warrant, but not a indictment, and definitely not a conviction.

757690
10-10-2013, 08:25 PM
In addition, Pete Rose hit only 4 homers his first year and then 6 his 2nd year, while hitting .273 and .269 respectively. Then he 'all of the sudden' hit .312, .313, .301, .335 and .348 with home run totals of 11, 16, 12, 10, 16.

That's quite a jump.

Must have been steroids.
;)

Players get better all the time, but they almost always do it around ages 22-25. Yadi made his power jump at age 28-29. There are very few players in MLB history who have done that without PED help.

PuffyPig
10-10-2013, 09:58 PM
Wrong. Even if Molina took PEDs, his increased home run production is still not evidence that he took PEDs. There is no way to isolate that variable to test for it, specifically.

Deductive reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inductive reasoning

You are failing to understand the meaning of evidence.

A general definition follows:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Molina's increased HR's is consistent with PED use, though it certainly doesn't rule out other contradictory assertions.

It may be evidence of the weakness variety, but it is still evidence.

PuffyPig
10-10-2013, 10:07 PM
It's called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
Your evidence isn't evidence at all.

post hoc ergo propter hoc is latin for "after this, therefore because of this"

It means your premise that Molina hit more home runs, therefore it must be steroids/peds is a common logical fallacy that states "Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event."

Y event being Molina starting to have a little pop in hit bat
x event being the steroid/ped era we used to and still live in

Molina's home run totals the last three years:
14
22
12

It's not like he is turning in a Brady Anderson performance here. He hit less home runs in the last three years combined than Chris Davis hit this year alone.

In 2009 Rryan Hanigan hit 3 home runs. Two years later, he doubled that to 6 while playing the same amount of games. must have been peds.

Yadier Molina is really no different than Ozzie Smith. They are both far and away the best players at their position defensively. They both were immediately great from the start in the field, but lacked in offense.

Both turned themselves into very good offensive players after 4-5 years in the league.

Ozzie Smith's first 7 seasons, he was a .238 hitter with a .311 OBP .298 SLG .609 OPS. He avg'd less than 1 homer a season. The only thing he could do offensively was steal.

In 1985 he hit .276 with a .355 OBP .361 SLG .716 OPS. He popped 6 homers in 1985 alone, after hitting only 6 total in his first 7 seasons and he hit another in the famous game 5 NLCS "Co crazy folks, Go crazy."

In 1987, he hit .303 with a .392 OBP, .383 SLG, .775 OPS

From 1985 - his retirement in 1996, Ozzie put up a nice .276, .355, .316, .702 slash line and averaged 30 steals a year. He had 1500 hits in that time.

Was he on PEDs?

This post is a classic example of the quantum leap.

No one is suggesting that since Molina experienced a jump in power, he must be on PEDs.

But since players on PEDs often experience an increase in power, an increase in power is circumstantial evidence of PED use.

This cannot be reasonably debated.

What can be debated is the weight one would place in "simply an increase in power" being connected to PED use. I would suggest virtually none.

But it is still evidence.

jojo
10-10-2013, 11:49 PM
This post is a classic example of the quantum leap.

No one is suggesting that since Molina experienced a jump in power, he must be on PEDs.

But since players on PEDs often experience an increase in power, an increase in power is circumstantial evidence of PED use.

This cannot be reasonably debated.

What can be debated is the weight one would place in "simply an increase in power" being connected to PED use. I would suggest virtually none.

But it is still evidence.

An increase in power is no more evidence of PEDs use that a person running down a street is evidence that a crime was committed.

PuffyPig
10-11-2013, 09:32 AM
An increase in power is no more evidence of PEDs use that a person running down a street is evidence that a crime was committed.

A person running away from a crime scene would be evidence that he may have committed a crime. It couldn't convict him without a whole lot more, but it would be evidence.

Many are confusing the fact that even exceptionally weak evidence is still evidence. Your point about "running away from a crime scene" being "evidence" is a good one.

jojo
10-11-2013, 12:13 PM
A person running away from a crime scene would be evidence that he may have committed a crime. It couldn't convict him without a whole lot more, but it would be evidence.

Many are confusing the fact that even exceptionally weak evidence is still evidence. Your point about "running away from a crime scene" being "evidence" is a good one.

My point was that running down a street is not evidence of a crime. Having a career year concerning HR's is not evidence of any kind concerning PEDs. In other words, here is no crime scene. Just a guy running down the street and someone's supposition that it's possible that he's running from a crime.

In other words, THATS not evidence. It's a conclusion based upon incomplete information. It's pure supposition that then gets used as a premise for a conclusion that player X is cheating. And it's an argument that those who make it seem willing to defend with a vigor not deserving.

757690
10-11-2013, 12:28 PM
An increase in power is no more evidence of PEDs use that a person running down a street is evidence that a crime was committed.

If someone is running down the street, the thought that they may have committed a crime absolutely crosses my mind. I'm not going to draw any conclusions from it, but it does get me thinking.

Anyway, if the only evidence against Molina was that his power increased, the PED argument wouldn't go very far. It was his increase in power at a very late age, after 5 years in the majors of very little power, plus his physical appearance, plus his association with TRL. Even those together aren't enough to be fully convincing, but they are enough to start a conversation.

PuffyPig
10-11-2013, 12:39 PM
My point was that running down a street is not evidence of a crime. Having a career year concerning HR's is not evidence of any kind concerning PEDs. In other words, here is no crime scene. Just a guy running down the street and someone's supposition that it's possible that he's running from a crime.

In other words, THATS not evidence. It's a conclusion based upon incomplete information. It's pure supposition that then gets used as a premise for a conclusion that player X is cheating. And it's an argument that those who make it seem willing to defend with a vigor not deserving.

Running down the street is "evidence" that the person may have commited a crime. It might be the most flimsy shread of evidence imaginable, but it is still "evidence". You are confused as to what "evidence" means.

No one is saying that someone running down the street has commited a crime, and that's the conclusion you are jumping to. You are equating "evidence" as meaning "enough evidence to convict someone".

jojo
10-11-2013, 02:01 PM
If someone is running down the street, the thought that they may have committed a crime absolutely crosses my mind. I'm not going to draw any conclusions from it, but it does get me thinking.

Anyway, if the only evidence against Molina was that his power increased, the PED argument wouldn't go very far. It was his increase in power at a very late age, after 5 years in the majors of very little power, plus his physical appearance, plus his association with TRL. Even those together aren't enough to be fully convincing, but they are enough to start a conversation.

So in other words the only "evidence" is he hit 20 hrs one year.

The phrase "aren't fully convincing" has to be the ultimate understatement as applied to the argument made concerning Molina and PEDs. There is nothing abnormal about his development as a catcher and he is well known around the league as an extremely dedicated and hard worker as well as the "Derek Jeter" of the Cards clubhouse.

So the dude's bat developed with age, his well known, extraordinary work habits have resulted in a high level of physical fitness and Tony LaRussa happened to manage him during his 5 years of little power retiring as Cards manager essentially before the season in which Molina hit alot of homers.

I agree these "facts" should start a conversation about PEDs but it's not the one you claim should be started based upon these "evidences". We really should be talking about the glaring lack of actual cause in many of the PEDs accusations people like to banter about under the guise of "conversating".

Is Molina taking PEDs? I don't have a flipping clue. Is there reason to openly wonder and therefore question his integrity? At least admit it-doing so is unadulterated gossip fueled by inuendo and unsupported by facts.

jojo
10-11-2013, 02:06 PM
Running down the street is "evidence" that the person may have commited a crime. It might be the most flimsy shread of evidence imaginable, but it is still "evidence". You are confused as to what "evidence" means.

No one is saying that someone running down the street has commited a crime, and that's the conclusion you are jumping to. You are equating "evidence" as meaning "enough evidence to convict someone".

The only thing running down a street is evidence of is an accelerated gate that is likely accompanied by an elevated heart rate.

I fully know what evidence means and submit you aren't differentiating between evidence and interpretation and your analysis is flawed because it entertains a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence.

SporkLover
10-11-2013, 02:24 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9vnd3komJcI/Ua0oeEJUPAI/AAAAAAAAGn4/70CTIdU2ZKc/s1600/Punk%27D%231.png

Clearly there are people just trolling here. Throwing up nothing but speculation to entertain themselves with the folks that would refute their speculation.

http://blog.intrapromote.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dontfeedthetroll.jpg

SporkLover
10-11-2013, 02:59 PM
It's called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
Your evidence isn't evidence at all.

If you are going to get Logic 101 on us, I propose that you are really looking for cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not equal causation.

A and B cause C which causes D (string of causation)

Steroid use at an age older than 25 is associated with increase of hitting power outside of a typical growth curve.

Therefore increase of hitting power outside of a typical growth curve is caused by steroid use.

In this example, the correlation between steroid use and increased hitting power/age does not imply that steroid use causes the increase of hitting power at an advanced age. Although some folks might be suspicious of players that experience an increase in hitting power at an age outside of the typical growth curve... but that does not make the conclusion valid.

Zach Rymer of the illustrious Bleacher Report typed up a nice piece on how Yadi improved. Largely it was in how and what he was hitting not in his actual power. Bottom line... he is hitting fastballs better than he ever has in his career and putting more of them to his pull side. A Righty that can line drive into the left field leaves a lot of room for improvement for extra base hits without an overall increase in hitting power, especially if they are against fastballs. If his first 6 years were lots of line drives/hits to his power side, and right into defenders, or close to defenders.. that can explain the lack of extra base hits.

In my mind, what should draw suspicion is if his 2005 hitting style matched his 2012 style.... just with a lot of extra pop. A little Fan Graphs research will show you that's just not the case.

Here is some interesting reading:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1692564-yadier-molinas-rise-from-all-star-to-franchise-cornerstone-post-pujols

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-bytes-the-secret-to-molina-s-success/article_7b300010-aa66-11e1-a443-0019bb30f31a.html

757690
10-11-2013, 06:39 PM
If you are going to get Logic 101 on us, I propose that you are really looking for cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not equal causation.

A and B cause C which causes D (string of causation)

Steroid use at an age older than 25 is associated with increase of hitting power outside of a typical growth curve.

Therefore increase of hitting power outside of a typical growth curve is caused by steroid use.

In this example, the correlation between steroid use and increased hitting power/age does not imply that steroid use causes the increase of hitting power at an advanced age. Although some folks might be suspicious of players that experience an increase in hitting power at an age outside of the typical growth curve... but that does not make the conclusion valid.

Zach Rymer of the illustrious Bleacher Report typed up a nice piece on how Yadi improved. Largely it was in how and what he was hitting not in his actual power. Bottom line... he is hitting fastballs better than he ever has in his career and putting more of them to his pull side. A Righty that can line drive into the left field leaves a lot of room for improvement for extra base hits without an overall increase in hitting power, especially if they are against fastballs. If his first 6 years were lots of line drives/hits to his power side, and right into defenders, or close to defenders.. that can explain the lack of extra base hits.

In my mind, what should draw suspicion is if his 2005 hitting style matched his 2012 style.... just with a lot of extra pop. A little Fan Graphs research will show you that's just not the case.

Here is some interesting reading:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1692564-yadier-molinas-rise-from-all-star-to-franchise-cornerstone-post-pujols

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-bytes-the-secret-to-molina-s-success/article_7b300010-aa66-11e1-a443-0019bb30f31a.html

That's good stuff. Thanks :thumbup:

This is exactly why it's valuable to speculate and ask questions about a players change in performance. It leads to a discussion and new information can be learned.