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.
Yep, lots of innocent people are in prison. There are too many people who are like you.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.
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.
I guess he must think Votto juiced in 2010
And the only suspicion with Molina is message boards.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by PuffyPig; 10-10-2013 at 11:00 PM.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.