MLB - 2007 Season

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


if he did use them, and then went on to say what he did, to wit

'"I don't know to what extent [steroids] worked ... " Ripken said. "But if all your numbers are produced by those sorts of means, then I say, 'Yeah, they are artificial numbers.' "

Not exactly a headline-grabber, but Ripken also showed some contempt for the steroids era, albeit adding in his own positive spin.

"I think we all were very disappointed that steroids came flying out into the game of baseball; the integrity of the game was in question," he said. "Then there was good reaction on the side of Major League Baseball and the players association to put these policies in place to help restore the integrity of the game. I am very happy it is moving in that direction."'

then he is really a more massive liar and hypocrite than most.

Im not willing to believe that.

Seriously, after Rafael Palmiero, why put any stock in what any given player says? You can't, unfortunately.

I'd like to believe Ripken. I'd like to believe all the denials.

-Arrian

p.s. OOF. Wanger got torched last night.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian
p.s. OOF. Wanger got torched last night.

It is nice to have an actual reason to root against the Yankees.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Seriously, after Rafael Palmiero, why put any stock in what any given player says? You can't, unfortunately.

I'd like to believe Ripken. I'd like to believe all the denials.

-Arrian

p.s. OOF. Wanger got torched last night.

Look there have been two (mainstream?) books (no i havent read them) accusing Bonds of using steroids. All youve got against Ripken is that he played during "the steroid era". Ergo his record is as much subject to asterisk as Bonds' is. It sounds like you wont make a distinction unless either A. Bonds is convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a court of law or B. That Ripken can somehow prove his innocence.


I dont agree.

[OzzyKP]

He didn't say his record deserves an asterisk, he just said there is no reason for you, or anyone, to believe that Ripken was completely clean beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Arrian]

Exactly. I'm not actually accusing Ripken.

I think Barry Bonds is guilty of using steroids and/or HGH, and I know he used amphetamines. I know that Jason Giambi is likewise a cheater. I know that Rafael Palmiero is also a cheater. Ken Caminiti, and of course our old friend Jose Canseco. I know about Rincon and Perez and some other scrub types who have failed tests. I suspect many others (McGuire, Sosa, Sheffield, Clemens) in particular and even more in the abstract (random relief pitchers, fringe guys, etc).

All this business about putting asterisks on records is absurd because it doesn't solve anything, because the use of performance enhancers was RAMPANT. There is no way to protect the record books from the numbers of cheaters. Therefore, if anything, I'm arguing that the entire era be given an asterisk of sorts.

We do this w/o deleting a particular players' stats. We know that, pre-Jackie Robinson, competition wasn't really the same. We know "greenies" and the like were around decades ago and used freely. We know about 'roids.

Incidently, shouldn't Pete Rose's stats have an asterisk? What about the guys in the deadball era who are known to have throw games for money?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian

All this business about putting asterisks on records is absurd because it doesn't solve anything, because the use of performance enhancers was RAMPANT. There is no way to protect the record books from the numbers of cheaters. Therefore, if anything, I'm arguing that the entire era be given an asterisk of sorts.

Im not necessarily calling for MLB to officially asterisk this or any other record. Im not informed enough to know where it would end, or how hard it would be to rule on grey areas.

But in MY mind, this record is asterisked. And this is one of the few baseball records I know, being only a casual fan.

And this violation is one of the more egregious.

We do this w/o deleting a particular players' stats. We know that, pre-Jackie Robinson, competition wasn't really the same. We know "greenies" and the like were around decades ago and used freely. We know about 'roids.

I know that baseball became more competitive after integration, and find that a compelling story. I also know that the pitcher batter balance has changed over the years with changes in the rules. Of course things change over time. hell, the US population was larger in 1930, than in 1890, so a larger talent pool to draw on. And a much larger one today, with baseball recruiting players overseas more than in the 1950s. I see a difference between broad changes in the game, that are visible, and effect everyone, than drug usage.

Whether i should be as focused on steroids vs amphetamines, or whether thats an overreaction to Balco, is a worthy issue, I will grant you.

Incidently, shouldn't Pete Rose's stats have an asterisk? What about the guys in the deadball era who are known to have throw games for money?

I though Pete Rose only bet on games he didnt play in, or something?

As for guys who threw games, wouldnt that mean their "proper" stats would have been better? I can see that it in means their opponents stats are inflated. But Im not calling for a wholesale revision in all stats. I dont really care about whether Tobacco Joe Smith really should have had an era 4.0, not 3.5, cause some of his opponents were throwing games. I care about a handful of records, and unless you can show me that one of those records, which still stands today, was influenced by such a thing, I dont see why I should care.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
He didn't say his record deserves an asterisk, he just said there is no reason for you, or anyone, to believe that Ripken was completely clean beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Theres no reason to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jimmy Carter didn't receive oral pleasure from an intern at the White House.

It doesnt make "well its no biggie, everyone is under the same shadow, its the era that should be marked" true.

[Arrian]

It's not "no biggie." But the "everyone is under the same shadow" bit IS TRUE. That's unfortunate, and to me it's the most depressing thing about the steroid era. Far more so than Barry Bonds' home runs. When people look back at Bonds' career, the context of the era, and the specific allegations against him, will be remembered.

Here is my basic opinion, summed up more eloquently than I have, by Jay Jaffe:

I'm not happy to see Bonds break the record, but I'm elated to see the circus leave town...

The record is what it is, something to be taken in context. Even absent a positive test, the mountain of evidence that Bonds used performance enhancing drugs is enough to convince me that his accomplishment is tainted. We'll never know the extent to which Bonds was aided, but the fact that his historically unprecedented late-career surge matches up with the well-documented timeline of his alleged usage is enough for me. Bonds isn't alone among players in having take PEDs, and culpability for the whole sordid scene is shared by Bud Selig, the owners, and a complicit media. I'm not advocating an asterisk in the record books or the expungement of any statistics; if the fabric of baseball history can withstand the variable impacts of the spitballers, scuffers, bat-corkers, sign-stealers, and greenie-poppers, to say nothing of the Black Sox and Pete Rose, it can withstand this. But that doesn't mean we have to worship the record or the man who achieved it.

To each his own. YMMY and all that.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

But the "everyone is under the same shadow" bit IS TRUE.

No. Everyone who took steroids, or was complicit in the problem is. Or everyone who took any PED.

An athlete who set a record, who asserts he took no PEDs, and about whom there is NO halfway serious accusation that he took them, merely the banal statement that "anything is possible" and "the era was rotten" is NOT under the same shadow.

The bible says Noah was "a righteous man in his generation" Some read this as "he was a righteous man only by the standards of a corrupt generation" Others read it as " he was a righteous man EVEN in a corrupt generation" and so was that much more admirable, for to remain uncorrupt when all around are corrupt, is much harder, and a much greater achievement, than to be good in a good era.

To assume that everyone is tainted by the era, is to deny the possibility of rising above ones surroundings. It may be that no record breaking baseball player of our era did so, but I wont beleive that without positive evidence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The one thing that always gets me, though, are people who say that Bonds' production is only the consequence of steroids. The fact of the matter is that we KNOW of others who have taken steroids, including Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi, but none of them have come close to equaling Bonds. Is Bonds just taking more steroids? Or better ones? Obviously he was a great player and certain Hall of Famer before 1998. Then again, we don't know if he's been taking anything since steroids have been banned in 2003 (he was caught for amphetamines once though).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
An athlete who set a record, who asserts he took no PEDs, and about whom there is NO halfway serious accusation that he took them, merely the banal statement that "anything is possible" and "the era was rotten" is NOT under the same shadow.

You are obviously not familiar with the sports media in this country.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The one thing that always gets me, though, are people who say that Bonds' production is only the consequence of steroids. The fact of the matter is that we KNOW of others who have taken steroids, including Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi, but none of them have come close to equaling Bonds. Is Bonds just taking more steroids? Or better ones? Obviously he was a great player and certain Hall of Famer before 1998. Then again, we don't know if he's been taking anything since steroids have been banned in 2003 (he was caught for amphetamines once though).

I rather suspect I could take steroids for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and still not hit a single homerun, even if the pitcher was trying to help me hit one. Obviously the PEDs leverage existing talent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You are obviously not familiar with the sports media in this country.

What, you think they've decided to protect Ripken? That they just went after Bonds cause they didn't like him?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But the "everyone is under the same shadow" bit IS TRUE.

No. Everyone who took steroids, or was complicit in the problem is. Or everyone who took any PED.

An athlete who set a record, who asserts he took no PEDs, and about whom there is NO halfway serious accusation that he took them, merely the banal statement that "anything is possible" and "the era was rotten" is NOT under the same shadow.

The bible says Noah was "a righteous man in his generation" Some read this as "he was a righteous man only by the standards of a corrupt generation" Others read it as " he was a righteous man EVEN in a corrupt generation" and so was that much more admirable, for to remain uncorrupt when all around are corrupt, is much harder, and a much greater achievement, than to be good in a good era.

To assume that everyone is tainted by the era, is to deny the possibility of rising above ones surroundings. It may be that no record breaking baseball player of our era did so, but I wont beleive that without positive evidence.

FACT: you cannot know for sure whether a given player took 'roids. The player can deny, deny, deny and then turn out to be a dirty rotten liar. Or maybe he's totally clean. You do not know. I recognize that it sucks, and that it's uncomfortable to admit this, but it's true.

There are a number of players who I think are probably clean, and I'd be very disappointed to learn were cheaters. I'll serve up the obvious example, what with me being a Yankee fan and all: Derek Jeter. I would be appalled if it came out he used PEDs. But I also must concede the possibility of him using. And Bernie Williams (my favorite player). And Jorge Posada (36-year old catcher having a career year*). And Andy Pettitte, who after becoming best pals with Roger Clemens (a suspect on the pitching side nobody really talks about) suddenly picked up 2-3 mph on his fastball in his early thirties. And so on and so forth.

Jaded? Yeah. But having been a more-than-casual baseball fan for ~10 years, I can't help it.

Imran,

To answer your question: Bonds was already an elite player, and an all-around player. Add in the best chemicals BALCO could offer, and you get the best offensive seasons in the history of the game. Not for nothin', but I'd wager a bunch of those HRs he hit were off juiced pitchers.

-Arrian

* - there are reasonable explanations for this that don't involve PEDs. Posada came up as a 2B, and thus has less wear & tear on him. He also spent several years backing up the inferior Joe Girardi, which again reduced the wear & tear. It's not the years, it's the mileage. I don't think Jorge's a cheater, but I also cannot rule it out.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


What, you think they've decided to protect Ripken? That they just went after Bonds cause they didn't like him?

In part, yes. Barry Bonds is not a particularly likeable guy, and he's had terrible relations with the media.

That doesn't make him innocent. But it's pretty clear to me that many in the media were delighted to go after him.

Conversely, look at the treatment of Giambi. He's a nice guy, though no less a cheater. The media likes him. They cut him a lot of slack.

-Arrian