Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by westofyou

What's erroneous about it?

It was lively, in 1920 following WW1 the wool used in the ball changed to Australian wool and was known to cause the ball to be able to be wound tighter than before.

1921 also happens to be the first year a ball cleared the fence at Redland (Crosley Field)

Branch Rickey said the same thing, but I've also read that baseball stated the ball's performance shouldn't be effected due to the change. Still, I'd venture to say that it's likely true that the performance did change ... so that adds a third variable to the table alongside outlawing doctored pitches and using more balls per game.

I am convinced that all three variables each had their own individual impact on juicing offense, and the sum of those three variables produced the 1920s/1930s scoring rates.

[Dom Heffner]

What's erroneous about it?

It was lively, in 1920 following WW1 the wool used in the ball changed to Australian wool and was known to cause the ball to be able to be wound tighter than before.

This may be debatable - and according to this article the cork was instituted in 1925- but according to Bill James:

"Most baseball fans believe that there was a change of baseballs that was instituted in 1920, a 'lively' ball that was adopted which made possible the home run explosion by Babe Ruth, who hit the unimaginable total of 54 in a season.

"There was no such switch in baseballs. A better quality of yarn was available after World War I, and this may have accidentally increased the resiliency of the ball, but that was incidental, and its effect was not dramatic."

James argued that the explosion in offense was due to the outlawing of spitballs and a few other rule changes.

That ended in 1921 when the spitball was banned and clean balls were kept in play. Pitchers complained not only about the whiteness of the balls, but that they were slick and hard to hold. "The clean, new balls were incidentally much more 'lively' than old, soiled, battered and spit-upon baseballs of the previous decade," Bill James wrote, "but that was not initially the purpose of their use."

And again, talking about Gaylord Perry being able to use these pitches to the same extent that these players did is simply not plausible.

In the oral history, "The Glory of Their Times," the player Fred Snodgrass said, "We hardly ever saw a new baseball, a clean one. If the ball went into the stands and the ushers couldn't get it back from the spectators, only then would the umpire throw out a new one."

Snodgrass also said all infielders chewed tobacco and licorice and spit into their gloves to help make the ball as dark as possible for their pitchers.

Do those sound like the conditions that Gaylord Perry was pitching under?
Did he get to keep baseballs for innings on end? This would have taken a mass conspiracy where everyone would have had to darken baseballs for just Gaylord Perry.

The difference in the color of the ball was the key here, and to think that he could do this at will and with the same frequency and effect as did players in the early 20th century and only get caught once in his 20 plus years defies logic.

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives...ts/147989.html

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by registerthis

For me, the cirumstantial evidence is far too great for me to honestly believe Bonds has never used steroids. In addition to his tremendous spike in numbers and--until recently--durability, his ties to BALCO, the actions of his personal trainer, the testimony of those close to him, and his own admittance that he "unknowingly" used undetectable steroids (source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...d=1937594)--in addition to his near-superhuman production during an era where steroid use was known to be common, if not rampant--is enough for me to say with conviction that Barry Bonds is a steroid user.

Reg, what's fascinating to me is the language in the original article by the original writers is different ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...GGFA0UDU65.DTL

Chronicle: "Bonds testified that he had received and used clear and cream substances from his personal strength trainer, Greg Anderson, during the 2003 baseball season but was told they were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis, according to a transcript of his testimony reviewed by The Chronicle."

ESPN: "Bonds told a U.S. grand jury that he used undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," which he received from personal trainer Greg Anderson during the 2003 season."

The Chronicle article does not refer to the substances as "the cream" or "the clear" like the ESPN article does (without authors). This is an important distinction ... Per the Chronicle wording, I could receive a cream substance from a trainer to treat a skin irritation. Per the ESPN article that isn't the case.

I'm very curious as to this slight change in wording because it is important. The original is not damning while the second story is damning.

As such, the discussion shifts away from whether to Bonds was a steroid user, to whether or not he should be allowed into the HoF.

The argument that "cheating is cheating" regardless of how it is done falls flat, however, due to baseball's own variable penalties for cheating in its various forms. A player who steals signs, for instance, though technically cheating will suffer no repercussions (other than perhaps a beaning his next time at the plate.) A player who uses too much pine tar on his bat or puts spit on the ball may be called out or ejected from the game. A player caught corking his bat, or using a foreign substance on the mound, may face a multi-game suspension. A player who gambles on baseball games risks a lifetime suspension. And so on.

Notice that the highest penalty for cheating--for gambling--is in place because it calls into question the very integrity of the game. A player or manager who gambles on games--particular his own--raises questions about performance, intent and effort. It throws all results into question.

I wholeheartedly agree that gambling is wayyyy up top, with everything else well below it.

Steroids is far far closer to doctoring baseballs than it is gambling, though. Doctoring balls has carried a 10 game suspension for 85 years. Baseball's original steroids policy was not that different from its doctoring baseballs policy. Public reaction forced them to change it, that's it. If we see a pitcher in 2006 go 31-5 with a 1.15 ERA and 400 strikeouts, then comes out and says he doctored balls all year, I'd have to imagine public pressure would also force baseball to change that policy.

Steroid use, likewise, raises questions as to the integrity of the game and its records. Why should Bonds' single season record of 73 HRs be considered legit if he required the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs to achieve it? The same cannot be said for spitball pitchers, bat-corkers, and similar ilk, who cheat on an event-by-event basis.

The effect doctored baseballs have had is just too real for me to ignore. The AL ERA increase after 1920 was around 43 percent. Stanley Coveleski's ERA only jumped about 30 percent. Coveleski's two best seasons occurred in 1917 and 1918 when everyone legally threw what they wanted. After 1920, only he and 17 others were legally allowed to throw what they wanted. His two best seasons were before 1920, yet his ERA only increased about two-thirds what everyone else's increased. Common sense tells me the doctored pitches he was allowed to continue to throw is the difference.

Coveleski maintained real and significant value because he was able to continually throw doctored pitches. Anybody else afterward, such as Gaylord Perry, picked up that value too when they messed around with the ball. The only difference between Coveleski and Perry is the game gave Stan the permission to do what he did. It gave no such permission to Perry.

As such, I, personally, would never vote Bonds into the HoF--although I admit my opinions on this are just that, my opinions. Others may--and most certainly do--feel differently about such things. And that's probably why guys like McGwire and Bonds will make it in.

They'll make it, just like Gaylord Perry did. It may not be on the first ballot, but they'll make it ... as they deserve to do.

[westofyou]

and according to this article the cork was instituted in 1925

Nah, that was 1911 in fact that season took a HUGE offensive spike.

I don't think the ball alone was responsible, just like I don't think that steroids themselves are why Bonds numbers are so out of site.

A little of this, a little of that and this might change and this bends and so on... the game is mallable, it changes before you know it. The players approach, the equipment, the players diet, overall talent swing etc... all of it makes it muddy.

Sure Bonds numbers could be all because of steroid use, but then again maybe it isn't?

[Dom Heffner]

Sure Bonds numbers could be all because of steroid use, but then again maybe it isn't?

What about Caminiti? McGwire? Giambi? Palmeiro?

The effect doctored baseballs have had is just too real for me to ignore. The AL ERA increase after 1920 was around 43 percent.

I would honestly like to know how a pitcher pitching today could ever duplicate the conditions by which the players had so much success back in the early 1900s.

The only difference between Coveleski and Perry is the game gave Stan the permission to do what he did. It gave no such permission to Perry.

And the fact that Perry didn't have an entire infield chewing tobacco and spitting in their gloves to help darken the ball and he didn't get to use the same ball for innings on end, and batters could ask for new balls....

These conditions are simply not similar.

[westofyou]

What about Caminiti? McGwire? Giambi? Palmeiro?

What about them? What to do?

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

I would honestly like to know how a pitcher pitching today could ever duplicate the conditions by which the players had so much success back in the early 1900s.

Dom, they could not duplicate conditions from pre-1919 baseball, but that does not mean doctoring the baseball does not give a pitcher a significant advantage. Doctoring the ball gives the pitcher a significant advantage over not doctoring the ball, and it's an advantage that can be seen in any era.

During the offseason between 1919 and 1920, at least three documented changes occurred which likely resulted in the extreme spike in run scoring the very next season.

• Outlawing doctored pitches
• Using more balls per game
• Different wool type used in manufacturing the ball itself

The immediate spike in run scoring was huge. We're looking at nearly 1.5 runs scored per game and over 1 run per game in ERA, and the bulk of that change occurred over one season. The most reasonable explanation for that spike in run scoring is due to the sum of all three of the variables above.

You're making the mistake of trying to assume that the spike in run scoring was due only because of one or two of those three variables rather than all three as a sum. In fact, it's relatively easy to see that you've attempted everything possible to not factor in the variable of outlawing doctored pitches. I'm taking a look at all three factors, and I'm trying to come up with at least a reasonable assessment of how much weight to apply to each variable. I do not believe all three variables are equal, and I also do not believe that outlawing doctored pitches is the most important variable. But I do believe a portion of the spike in newfound offense was a result of that variable.

** In regards to the third variable and changes to the ball, MLB denied during that time that the changes in the ball itself changed the performance of the ball. That is a fact up for debate, but I'm likely to assume that some of the spike in offense occurred as a result of that change based on anecdotal evidence of the people in the game, such as Branch Rickey.

What it all comes down to in regards to doctoring pitches is how much of that 1+ run increase in offense and ERA is a result of doctoring pitches? Is it 10 percent? Is it 25 percent? Is it 50 percent?

You've been making the argument that 0 percent of that increase in offense and ERA is a result of eliminating doctored pitches.

For all the data that is available, that simply is not reasonable.

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to believe that approximately 25 percent of that spike in offense occurred as a result of doctored pitches. Is it really 20 percent? Is it closer to 40 percent? I do not know, but it is a variable that holds some weight. With all the data I've seen, 25 percent seems like a reasonable percentage. Converted to raw ERA, that's about 0.33 runs.

Likewise, 0.33 runs in 1920 is not the same as 0.33 runs in 1970 (it's probably closer to 0.25 runs in 1970). Again, what that means is it is not unreasonable to assume that Gaylord Perry may have saved an additional 0.25 runs off his ERA during his career. Suddenly, instead of having a 3.11 lifetime ERA in a league with a 3.63 ERA (117 ERA+), we have something more along the lines of a 3.36 lifetime ERA in that same league context (108 ERA+).

Over the course of 5,000 plus innings, a nine point difference in ERA+ is huge. With all those extra runs that Perry would give up, does he win 300 games? Does he have the gaudy counting stats that put him in the Hall of Fame? Is he even Hall worthy?

My answers to those three questions are 1) I don't know, 2) I don't know and 3) Probably not.

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

And the fact that Perry didn't have an entire infield chewing tobacco and spitting in their gloves to help darken the ball and he didn't get to use the same ball for innings on end, and batters could ask for new balls....

These conditions are simply not similar.

Stanley Coveleski pitched from 1912-1928. Through 1919, he had those conditions you're referring to with having infielders helping destroy the ball for him.

Starting in 1920, he did not have those advantages with using the same ball for the entire game, but he was still allowed to throw doctored pitches. Stanley Coveleski in 1920-1928 was pitching in essentially the same environment as Gaylord Perry per the rules regarding doctoring the baseball and replacing scuffed baseballs with new, clean balls. From 1920-1928, infielders were not permitted to spew chewing tobacco on the ball or do anything to darken it. When Coveleski was on the mound, the only player on the field that was allowed to do so was Coveleski. The only difference vs. Perry was Coveleski was permitted to do so while Perry was not.

I put in two years with Spokane, and then one with Portland in the Pacific Coast League, and I guess that year with Portland - 1915 - was the turning point. I was twenty-five years old, was in my seventh year in the minors, and was starting to wonder if I'd ever make it to the Big Leagues. I had good control, a good curve, a good fastball and a good slow ball. But evidently that wasn't enough.

One day I was watching one of the Portland pitchers throwing spitballs. "By Gosh," I said to myself, "I'm going to try to throw that."

I started working on the spitter, and before long I had that thing down pat. Had never thrown it before in my life. But before that season was over it was my main pitch, and the next year I was up with the Cleveland Indians. That pitch - the spitball - kept me up there for 13 years and won me over 200 games.

I got so I had as good control over the spitball as I did over my other pitches. I could make it break any of three ways: down, out, or down and out. And I always knew which way it would break. Depended on my wrist action. For the spitball, what you do is wet these first two fingers. I used alum, had it in my mouth. Sometimes it would pucker your mouth some, get gummy. I'd go to my mouth on every pitch. Not every pitch would be a spitball. Sometimes I'd go maybe two or three innings without throwing one. But I'd always have them looking for it.

They outlawed the spitter in 1920. Said only certain established spitballers coul continue to throw it after that. Me and sixteen others was all. Maybe the great year I had in 1920 had something to do with it. I don't know. They wanted to shift the odds more in favor of the batter.

-- Hall of Famer Stanley Coveleski, The Glory of Their Times

[37red]

He doesn't deserve the record, nor do many players in the last 10 years. I don't have anything against him personally, he's just not a smile glitter kind of guy, I didn't and don't like Neon Deon or people like him. Steroids, I hate that it ever came to that. I'll bet every sport has problems with them but baseball has a more blatant visibility. Every one seems to be doing some kind of drug, or at least TV and the pharmaceutical companies tell us to be. If I could pitch to him I would. No way would I throw at him, I'd much rather try to get one past him.

[Dom Heffner]

Starting in 1920, he did not have those advantages with using the same ball for the entire game, but he was still allowed to throw doctored pitches. Stanley Coveleski in 1920-1928 was pitching in essentially the same environment as Gaylord Perry per the rules regarding doctoring the baseball and replacing scuffed baseballs with new, clean balls.

Except that, by your own admission, Stanley was allowed to throw it.

If you could make the argument that Gaylord Perry was allowed to throw the spitter and most everyone else was not, then you'd have something.

Perry did not have the luxury of throwing the spitter without fear of penalty. Covelski did.

This changes everything.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Except that, by your own admission, Stanley was allowed to throw it.

If you could make the argument that Gaylord Perry was allowed to throw the spitter and most everyone else was not, then you'd have something.

Perry did not have the luxury of throwing the spitter without fear of penalty. Covelski did.

This changes everything.

Dom, I'm trying to quantify how much advantage a pitcher may have over somebody else. That's it, nothing more. There is an advantage to throwing the doctored pitches they have thrown, and it doesn't matter if they threw them in 1905, 1925 or 1975. You're looking for any excuse in the book to not believe there is not some sort of quantifiable advantage, which doesn't make any sense, but whatever.

You want to make the argument that it "changes everything" that one player was allowed to throw doctored pitches and another was not? Fine. Everybody who used steroids in the 1990s was allowed to do so per the game's rules without fear of penalty, because there was no policy or rules against steroid use within baseball.

That changes everything.

[registerthis]

Perhaps the corked bat = steroids argument would fly better with me if i could accept the idea that the player that used a cork bat on every single at bat, season after season. I don't accept that premise--I stand by the assertion that cheating, such as scuffing the ball, corking the bat, etc.--affects the game in the same way that steroid use does- which presents a player with a number of advantages that continue for an indefinite period of time.

In your scenario with the pitcher, it's highly unlikely that a pitcher who went 31-5 with 400 K's would achieve that simply by doctoring a ball all year. The odds that he would get caught if he doctored the ball on every pitch--as is the implication, if we're comparing it with the advantage gained by using steroids--are astronomical. Steroids, as we all well know, can be undetectable, or nearly so. Additionally, steroids help with far more than control--which is what doctoring a ball would do, or power--which is what corkign the bat would do. Perhaps more than anything, it allows for endurance. During the latter part of the season, when most players are tired or injured in some way, the steroid user has an inherent advantage over everyone on the field. He'll be faster, stronger, and more durable for everyday playing. Those are advantages that normal "doctoring" of balls an dbats can't offer.

[Puffy]

Hey, do you guys know that steroids were a legal sustance until the 1980's. And do you know that MLB didn't have a specific rule barring them until even more recently?

Since you now know that information do you guys realize that "the integrity" of records then could thereby be compromised because prior to them being declared illegal anyone could have used them?

And one of the reasons that people did not use them for baseball, originally, was because they weren't thought to make baseball players better, since its hand eye coordination. It was only once they started using them that it was discovered they actually did make a difference in a baseball player.

Listen, I don't care, steroids to me are a non-issue. The reason steroids are banned in all these sports and in general is because of the serious health risks to each individual (the liver mostly). So if someone is stupid enough to use them, so be it.

Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't care, but Bonds has amazing baseball skills - thats what I care about.

[Dom Heffner]

Hey, do you guys know that steroids were a legal sustance until the 1980's. And do you know that MLB didn't have a specific rule barring them until even more recently?

So baseball permitted the use of illegal steroids?

That Anti-trust thing is nice.

Baseball's silence on the issue does not mean they were permitted. Baseball probably doesn't have specific rules banning lots of things that are illegal in the U.S., but that doesn't mean they permit them. An absence of a rule would only mean no one caught using them could be punished. It doesn't mean baseball was fine with their usage.

These players were not forthcoming, letting everyone know they were on them. It was a secret, which, if baseball had no rule against them, why is that?

Puffy, I love ya buddy, but if your children ever come home after they get caught with some cocaine, I hope you give credence to their argument when they explain to you that it was legal at one time and that our drug laws stem from racial stereotypes perpetuated close to a hundred years ago.

I always told my parents that if George Washington could use marijuana, then why couldn't I?

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

So baseball permitted the use of illegal steroids?

That Anti-trust thing is nice.

Baseball's silence on the issue does not mean they were permitted. These players were not forthcoming, letting everyone know they were on them. It was a secret, which, if baseball had no rule against them, why is that?

Because they weren't allowed to do it, that's why.

Puffy, I love ya buddy, but if your children ever come home after they get caught with some cocaine, I hope you give credence to their argument when they explain to you that it was legal at one time.

Ahhhh, don't get me wrong Dom - I'm not giving credence to them. Just addressing the "integrity of the game" issue. Not saying it makes it right, nor justified, just that all thru the history of the game (since steroids were "founded") people had the opportunity to use them and pad their stats as well.

And steroid use is way down on my list of evils one could do to themselves, thats all.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Puffy

And steroid use is way down on my list of evils one could do to themselves, thats all.

On a personal level, sure.

As far as criteria for Hall membership, it's pretty high for me.