Ryan Braun going down?

[Raisor]

Players have been cheating for 150 years. They'll continue to do so. Its always been thus.

Suspend the ones you catch.

Don't let the ones that aren't caught ruin the game for you.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Considerable time and effort is dedicated to attempt to disprove the obvious/logical and intuitive. A few times, it has grounds and manages to shift the course of what we believe/know...but most of the time it just fuels another conspiracy theory.

There are treaties written on:

1. Why the holocaust didn't exist (or wasn't as large as claimed)
2. Why the earth is only 6,000 years old.
3. Why the moon landing didn't happen.
and we can go on. These are all backed up by carefully filtered "evidence" and hundreds of pages long.
(Those are the more radical examples...there's a lot of grayer areas, like global warming, and pre-historic alien visits, etc.)

Now we have Performance Enhancing Drugs don't enhance Performance. Yet we have a history of athletes taking them and enhancing their performance. From weight-lifting to cycling. Swimming and boxing. Track and Field. And Baseball.
No, wait..baseball is different. It's unique. There are dozens of other factors in play. Yes there are. That complexity allows for sorts of theories to flourish and find some grounds. Even one in which PEDs don't enhance performance.

Thanks for the treaty. I'm sure its interesting. I'll wait for the movie or maybe the PED-phile Hall of Fame and Museum.
I'm very content with my mainstream ignorance.

Actually the sport's pre-eminent authorities have all concluded that PEDs had negligible effects on the game. Baseball Prospectus is the foremost authority on the statistical evaluation of the sport and they have published numerous books and articles showing how and why scoring rose and then declined -- and they have said repeatedly that PEDs were a very small piece of the puzzle. The world's most well-respected sports physicist Dr. Robert Adair has also repeatedly explained that PEDs had very little or no impact on home run power in baseball. The experts are overwhelmingly on the record as stating that PEDs were not the reason scoring and home run power rose and then fell. So if you refuse to believe what the foremost experts have published then it is in fact you that resemble the Flat-Earthers and Creationists and Holocaust Deniers and Conspiracy Theorists.

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Actually the sport's pre-eminent authorities have all concluded that PEDs had negligible effects on the game. Baseball Prospectus is the foremost authority on the statistical evaluation of the sport and they have published numerous books and articles showing how and why scoring rose and then declined -- and they have said repeatedly that PEDs were a very small piece of the puzzle. The world's most well-respected sports physicist Dr. Robert Adair has also repeatedly explained that PEDs had very little or no impact on home run power in baseball. The experts are overwhelmingly on the record as stating that PEDs were not the reason scoring and home run power rose and then fell. So if you refuse to believe what the foremost experts have published then it is in fact you that resemble the Flat-Earthers and Creationists and Holocaust Deniers and Conspiracy Theorists.

Oh yes, it had no effect, that's why people used. They risked their lives, careers all so they could get nothing out of it lol....

[Dom Heffner]

I would like to play cards with you sometime, Atomic Dumpling.

If you win while I cheat, it's apparently okay by your standards.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by jojo

Steroids help position players AND pitchers. The actual impact of PEDs on the scoring environment is more complex than simply looking at HR totals for many reasons.

Sure, but let's say it's 20% of players that are using. A pitcher or position player using PEDs is still facing a "clean" opponent 80% of the time. You're right of course, but unless usage is absolutely rampant, you'd still expect to see users have an edge over their peers who aren't using.

The point I think you're making is that looking at the aggregate numbers could be misleading. That is to say, you could have everybody on PEDs and we might observe no change in the run scoring environment because of the offsetting "advantages".

As for the era of roughly 1995-2004, I think it would be silly to suggest PEDs had no influence. But at the same time, it would be equally as silly to dismiss the role of talent dilution due to expansion, the addition of Coors field, the possibility of a "juiced" ball, etc. While Occam's Razor is a handy little short-cut, the world is a really complicated case and rarely do things have just one explanation.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

If you are going to be condescending at least be correct.


From the article.

"Power Spikes have occurred more frequently in the Juiced Era, but the increase in frequency is almost entirely attributable to certain types of hitters."

From your post.

"Saber-god Nate Silver proved that home run spikes by individual players were neither more common nor more drastic in the 90s than in previous decades"


Now, you can fudge numbers and somehow say that a player who actually hit 30 homeruns in 1986 should be credited with 36 home runs to come up with your conclusion, but to not mention that is misleading.

But if you are looking at the raw data there were more power spikes per 100 batters in the juiced era than any other. That is an accurate statement, which is the opposite of what your initial post stated.

You want to take one sentence out of a long article and use it out of context to try to distort the article and maintain it says the opposite of what it really says. The fact of the matter is the article concludes that steroids were NOT the reason why home runs were more prevalent in general, steroids were NOT the reason why there was a spike in 50+ run home seasons, and steroids were NOT the reason why scoring rose and fell in the years before and after 2000. There were other reasons that had much greater effect on scoring and power -- smaller parks, juiced baseballs, small strike zone, diluted pitching due to expansion etc etc.

To counter your cherrypicking of a quote from the article, I will cherrypick a few as well:

"In fact, if we rerun the numbers to account for macroscopic changes to the offensive environment, then the increase in Power Spikes disappears."

"By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor any less frequent in the Juiced Era than in previous periods."

"Sometimes a very good power hitter will turn into an insanely great one, as Bonds and McGwire did. But this is no more common today than it had been previously."

"Lots of players have had unusual career paths, back from the days when ballplayers' drugs of choice were Schaefer Beer and Vitalis Hair Tonic. Starting in 1953, a twenty-eight-year-old Ted Kluszewski, who had averaged just 15 home runs a season to that point in his big-league career, reeled off consecutive seasons of 40, 49, and 47. In 1973, Davey Johnson, who had just turned thirty, hit 43 home runs; he had never hit more than 18 before (and would never hit more than 15 thereafter). Even Hank Aaron defied expectations. In 1971, a season in which he missed more than twenty games, he set a career high in home runs with 47. Aaron was thirty-seven years old at the time.

It is natural to tie together cause and effect. These days, it has become just as natural to attribute any unexpected change in performance to ulterior motives. Eric Gagne adds 5 mph to his fastball? He's juicing. Albert Pujols, who was considered a second-tier prospect, bursts onto the scene with a performance worthy of Joe DiMaggio? He's juicing--unless he faked his birth certificate. Sammy Sosa? Not only was he juicing, he was also corking his bat, using a laser-eye mechanism in his batting helmet, and bribing the opposing pitcher to throw him hanging sliders."

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Oh yes, it had no effect, that's why people used. They risked their lives, careers all so they could get nothing out of it lol....

They cheated because they THOUGHT it would help. It turns out they were wrong, which is awesome.

Secondly, I never said it was OK to use PEDs. I think the cheaters should be caught and severely punished.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

They cheated because they THOUGHT it would help. It turns out they were wrong, which is awesome.

Secondly, I never said it was OK to use PEDs. I think the cheaters should be caught and severely punished.

I hear Viagra and Cialis don't work either.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Again, that question was already answered in the large post you responded to.

It's all theory and speculation. I go with facts and the facts are that those crazy numbers of McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are gone since PED testing was instituted.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

You want to take one sentence out of a long article and use it out of context to try to distort the article and maintain it says the opposite of what it really says. The fact of the matter is the article concludes that steroids were NOT the reason why home runs were more prevalent in general, steroids were NOT the reason why there was a spike in 50+ home seasons, and steroids were NOT the reason why scoring rose and fell in the years before and after 2000. There were other reasons that had much greater effect on scoring and power -- smaller parks, juiced baseballs, small strike zone, diluted pitching due to expansion etc etc.

To counter your cherrypicking of a quote from the article, I will cherrypick a few as well:

"In fact, if we rerun the numbers to account for macroscopic changes to the offensive environment, then the increase in Power Spikes disappears."

"By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor any less frequent in the Juiced Era than in previous periods."

"Sometimes a very good power hitter will turn into an insanely great one, as Bonds and McGwire did. But this is no more common today than it had been previously."

"Lots of players have had unusual career paths, back from the days when ballplayers' drugs of choice were Schaefer Beer and Vitalis Hair Tonic. Starting in 1953, a twenty-eight-year-old Ted Kluszewski, who had averaged just 15 home runs a season to that point in his big-league career, reeled off consecutive seasons of 40, 49, and 47. In 1973, Davey Johnson, who had just turned thirty, hit 43 home runs; he had never hit more than 18 before (and would never hit more than 15 thereafter). Even Hank Aaron defied expectations. In 1971, a season in which he missed more than twenty games, he set a career high in home runs with 47. Aaron was thirty-seven years old at the time.

It is natural to tie together cause and effect. These days, it has become just as natural to attribute any unexpected change in performance to ulterior motives. Eric Gagne adds 5 mph to his fastball? He's juicing. Albert Pujols, who was considered a second-tier prospect, bursts onto the scene with a performance worthy of Joe DiMaggio? He's juicing--unless he faked his birth certificate. Sammy Sosa? Not only was he juicing, he was also corking his bat, using a laser-eye mechanism in his batting helmet, and bribing the opposing pitcher to throw him hanging sliders."

You can not argue this fact.

Out of the general population of batters, there was a greater quantity of power spikes per 100 hitters during the juiced era than any other era listed. Every quote you have used to support your claim has some sort of qualifier. You used no such qualifier in your initial post.

[kaldaniels]

The politics of global warming aside, lets just assume it is occurring for this example.

Lets say this summer we have a record number of 90+ degree days. Atomic might argue that due to the new environment it isn't really a record as we have to adjust to previous years. (Yeah, that's silly)

But that doesn't change the fact that there was a record number of 90 plus days. Much like adjusting for park factors etc. doesn't change the fact that power spikes were more common during the juiced era.

[Brisco]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Actually the sport's pre-eminent authorities have all concluded that PEDs had negligible effects on the game. Baseball Prospectus is the foremost authority on the statistical evaluation of the sport and they have published numerous books and articles showing how and why scoring rose and then declined -- and they have said repeatedly that PEDs were a very small piece of the puzzle. The world's most well-respected sports physicist Dr. Robert Adair has also repeatedly explained that PEDs had very little or no impact on home run power in baseball. The experts are overwhelmingly on the record as stating that PEDs were not the reason scoring and home run power rose and then fell. So if you refuse to believe what the foremost experts have published then it is in fact you that resemble the Flat-Earthers and Creationists and Holocaust Deniers and Conspiracy Theorists.

AtomicDumpling:

While he does argue the effect is small, I cannot find anywhere where Dr. Adair has ever said, implied or argued that PEDs had "no impact" on home run power in baseball. He is reported as having said the added bulk from PEDs would cause 2-3 more home runs per year. To quote "There is no question the drug use helps..."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4256812

More importantly, Adair's study of physics was limited to effect of added bulk resulting from steroids. He did not study the effect of steroids on speeding up the healing process nor their ability to extend careers. See Rick's excellent post above concerning the effects of this change.

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

You can not argue this fact.

Out of the general population of batters, there was a greater quantity of power spikes per 100 hitters during the juiced era than any other era listed. Every quote you have used to support your claim has some sort of qualifier. You used no such qualifier in your initial post.

Hey, but you know H. John Puff 'n Stuff once licked the leaf of a fig to get an edge, what's the big deal?

Offense is at a twenty year low, it's because of the parks that were there twenty years ago and the expansion that is still here.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Actually the sport's pre-eminent authorities have all concluded that PEDs had negligible effects on the game. Baseball Prospectus is the foremost authority on the statistical evaluation of the sport and they have published numerous books and articles showing how and why scoring rose and then declined -- and they have said repeatedly that PEDs were a very small piece of the puzzle. The world's most well-respected sports physicist Dr. Robert Adair has also repeatedly explained that PEDs had very little or no impact on home run power in baseball. The experts are overwhelmingly on the record as stating that PEDs were not the reason scoring and home run power rose and then fell. So if you refuse to believe what the foremost experts have published then it is in fact you that resemble the Flat-Earthers and Creationists and Holocaust Deniers and Conspiracy Theorists.

Are we also to believe that Bud Selig and many-many other basbeall executives had no idea that PEDs were huge in MLB? Or perhaps that all of these experts were not given hush money? This is a sport that generates lots-n-lots of revenue. I was duped into believing that two "ASSUMED" PED users were chasing Maris fairly. Why should I believe anyone that speaks relative to PEDS that might be bought? That could mean anyone. The stats speak volumes to me. And the sudden drop in those stats once the story "got out" speaks volumes to me. So do the clinics that have many athletes on their clientele list (HUGE reason).

I am supposed to believe Baseball Prospectus (love their site of course) who depends on the game being popular for their success? Dr. Adair might have a fleet of Lamborghinis that he received from "consultant fees".

Hard to believe that millions of dollars are being spent, career reputations are risked and 1/3 season suspensions all for some sort of snake oil.

Just like the recreational drug failures in major sports (lack thereof). I have said it before... what if MLB gives athletes 90-day notification before their tests? Hudson (RIP) and Lincecum come to mind off the top of my head. Never failed a test, but both had it on them. Conspiracy? Please. I have been around the block enough times to know that a lot of young men are hitting the pipe. But not too many failures? Hmmm. I do not believe anything I am told these days. And MLB has caused that.

Perhaps if I had enough money... you might change sides and stand next to me.

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

They cheated because they THOUGHT it would help. It turns out they were wrong, which is awesome.

Secondly, I never said it was OK to use PEDs. I think the cheaters should be caught and severely punished.

Gosh, I hit 40 home runs last year without this and now I'm hitting 40 home runs per year with this!!! I'll keep going LOL....

Oh my.