Originally Posted by WAKEUP
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?
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.