Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game

  1. #31
    Member Beltway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    337

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    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.

  2. Likes:

    MikeThierry (10-10-2013)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #32
    Member MikeThierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo
    Posts
    3,429

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    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.
    ďOur next home stand follows this road trip.Ē

    ďI just want to tell everyone Happy Easter and Happy Hanukkah.Ē says on the day before Easter

    Mike Shannon

  5. #33
    Member Beltway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    337

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    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.

    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.

  6. #34
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,194

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beltway View Post
    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.
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  7. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,399

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beltway View Post
    /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.

  8. #36
    Member Beltway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    337

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    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

  9. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    187

    Re: A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game

    I guess he must think Votto juiced in 2010

  10. Likes:


  11. #38
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,194

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beltway View Post
    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.
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  12. #39
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,194

    Re: A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game

    Quote Originally Posted by indyscott View Post
    I guess he must think Votto juiced in 2010
    Why do you think that I think that Votto is suspicion free?
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  13. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    187

    Re: A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game

    And the only suspicion with Molina is message boards.

  14. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    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?

  15. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14

    Re: A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game

    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.

  16. #43
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,194

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by WAKEUP View Post
    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.
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  17. #44
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,194

    Re: A Conversation About PEDs in Today's Game

    Quote Originally Posted by WAKEUP View Post
    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.
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  18. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,399

    Re: Scoreboard Watching 2013 (Playoffs Edition)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beltway View Post
    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.
    Last edited by PuffyPig; 10-10-2013 at 10:00 PM.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25