Barry Bonds... new book details performance enhancing drug use

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by rah
Innocent till proven guilty. Having evidence isn't the same as being proven guilty. There has to be an official board to designate this. Everyone has their own opinion.

Is the standard beyond all doubt now? We passed reasonable doubt awhile ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

would you care to answer the question?

If we should put an asterisk? I'd say Hell No. He wasn't violating any baseball rules. First, you should put astericks on Rollie Fingers and Gaylord Perry's stats for openly admiting their cheating (violation of baseball rules), then everyone with a corked bat at some point in their career.

We seem to have an impressive array of evidence against Bonds. Let's go with that and say he's dirty.

Ah, I see, a crusade against one person. Wonderful.

[rah]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is the standard beyond all doubt now? We passed reasonable doubt awhile ago.

For you obviously. (and I'm sure most of the public) But someone has to make the final offical call. (The commisioner of the league comes to mind usually, but with bud )

And I have to agree a bit with Imran when he says a crusade against one person. There have been many that have used steriods. What are the standards for convictions? They have to be applied consistently for them to mean anything.

But having said that, it wasn't against the rules at the time so the records should stand. I have no problem with an asterick but it could get really silly, since who gets to decide on who gets one.

And I also agree that if we go to astericks, cheaters on other things from the past that have admitted it should be subject to the same.

Since all those astericks could lead to real confusion.
I say don't bother. Let people judge for themselves.
There's no dollar amount associated with records, just prestige. If that prestige is tainted, what other value is there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If we should put an asterisk? I'd say Hell No. He wasn't violating any baseball rules.

Nobody was suggesting that Maris was violating any baseball rules either. What's your point? I don't even see why it would be so offensive to put it next to Bonds records either. With arthritic knees that have little if any cartilage it's reasonable to presume that he would suffer the fate of his godfather Willie Mays and be stumbling around the bases at his age if not for steroid fueled work-outs

Ah, I see, a crusade against one person. Wonderful.

I'm not crusading against one person. Bonds is just the most visable symptom of the problem MLB refuses to deal with atm. McGwire and anyone else who juiced up should get the same treatment. I was answering the question you asked how we decide who's dirty and who is clean.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=DinoDoc]Nobody was suggesting that Maris was violating any baseball rules either.[/q]

Contrary to popular opinion, there was never any asterisk next to Maris' name. There were just two entries, for a 154 game season and a 162 game season. If you want a pre and post performance enhancing substance listing, I wonder when the time boundary would be? 1964? 1968? 1985? 1990? 1995?

I was answering the question you asked how we decide who's dirty and who is clean.

But how far does the evidence need to be is the question. If it is as much as is against Bonds, then it is just a crusade against Bonds. If it is eyewitness accounts, then players saw Aaron and Mantle take red juice and greenies respectively. If it is confession, then Mike Schmidt said he took greenies on occassion. If it is violating the testing, then Palmeiro is there.

[q=rah]And I also agree that if we go to astericks, cheaters on other things from the past that have admitted it should be subject to the same.

Since all those astericks could lead to real confusion.
I say don't bother. Let people judge for themselves.[/q]

Exactly.

[SlowwHand]

I still want Rose in.

[rah]

Most baseball enthuseists realize that the season was longer when the single season mark was beat.
Most future baseball enthuseists will realize that the 90's was the juice era.
The casual fan won't know, won't care, so why confuse them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I still want Rose in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting article on Baseball Prospectus.com

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4845

One way to examine this question is by looking at what I’ll call a Power Spike. A Power Spike occurs when a player “suddenly” starts hitting home runs more frequently than he used to. More specifically, we can define a Power Spike as follows:

1. A player is an established major league veteran, at least twenty-eight years old, with at least 1,000 plate appearances (PA) accumulated between his previous three seasons; and
2. The player improves upon his established home-run rate by at least 10 HR per 650 PA, in a season in which he had at least 500 PA.

We can look at the frequency of Power Spikes throughout different eras in baseball’s recent history.

In fact, if we rerun the numbers to account for macroscopic changes to the offensive environment, then the increase in Power Spikes disappears. Figure 9-1.2 presents the same information but incorporates an adjustment for league and park effects rather than using raw totals. More specifically, all the historical home run numbers are adjusted to the standards of the 2004 American League. There were about 20 percent more home runs hit per game in the 2004 AL, for example, than there were in 1986. So a player who hit 30 home runs in 1986 is credited with 36 adjusted home runs (20 percent more). An identical technique is applied to account for park effects (Figure 9-1.2). By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor any less frequent in the Juiced Era than in previous periods.

Instead, the period that stands out is the Dynasty Era of the early and mid-’70s, which interestingly enough corresponds with the widespread introduction of “greenies” (amphetamines) into major league clubhouses. Then again, perhaps the league adjustment is not the right thing to do after all. This gets to what I call a “chicken-and-egg” problem: Are there more home runs hit because there are more Power Spikes? Or are there more Power Spikes because there are more home runs? One way to refocus the question is to look at which hitters are responsible for the increase in home runs. Are home runs up because shortstops who look like Bugs Bunny are suddenly turning in 20-homer seasons? Because players like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, who were already very good, have taken their power output to unprecedented levels? Or is the difference felt universally--a rising tide lifts all boats?

This figure reveals something very interesting: Power Spikes have occurred more frequently in the Juiced Era, but the increase in frequency is almost entirely attributable to certain types of hitters. In particular, Power Spikes have become more frequent among hitters with average power--those guys who will hit more than 10 home runs but fewer than 30 in a typical season. Power Spikes have not become more frequent among hitters who have no power at all. It has never been very common for a hitter who has a weak, slap-hitting swing to transform into a power threat, and it is no more common today.

But there is also no increase in Power Spikes among players who were already very good power hitters, capable of hitting at least 30 home runs per year. 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. The players who have been most responsible for the Juiced Era home-run boom are the middle-of-the-road players: those guys who used to hit 15 or 20 homers a season and are now hitting 25 or 30.

So if steroids are a problem today, it is most likely among the average player, not the guys at the top or bottom of the chain. Interesting information about the 70s as well (depending on which measure you think is better for evaluation).

[Stuie]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I still want Rose in.

Me too.

Someone pointed out that it's a "lifetime" ban. Guess he's in when he's dead.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Stuie
Me too.

Someone pointed out that it's a "lifetime" ban. Guess he's in when he's dead.

Shoeless Joe's supporters hoped so as well.

[Ming]

Thanks for the article Imran... I find it interesting that this supports that amphetamines also could have had a major effect...

Steroids are bad for the game, and at least now they are illegal and are being tested for. Some might not think the current bans or testing go far enough, but at least baseball has stopped encouraging their use... unlike in the past when they just looked the other way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This year should be interesting because amphetamines are banned starting this season, where they had been legal, even while steroids were banned the last two seasons.

[-Jrabbit]

amphetamines are banned starting this season

That's incredible. How does MLB feel about heroin?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Shoeless Joe's supporters hoped so as well.

Say it ain't so, Joe

The statistical analysis is likely flawed, as I'd suggest that the high-powered hitters might have been juiced to become a high powered hitter... ie, while in the past steroids were only used later in a career, nowadays some probably used them from the beginning ... or at least from early in the MLB career. Many minor league players likely use them when they fail to reach expectations of power that were placed on them, and wilt under the pressure (imagine Corey Patterson ... he didn't, presumably, but it would have been hard to blame him if he had).

Jrabbit, why ban heroin out of curiousity? Amphetamines I see, heroin I don't ... unless you're banning cocaine and other non-performance enhancing drugs