MLB HOF voting results

[Ben Kenobi]

Your source is Cracked? Fail.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering they are more reliable than you, I don't see what your are carping about.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now there's the standard of truth. "More reliable than Ben Kenobi".

[rah]

That's setting the standard way too low.

[SlowwHand]

Nevertheless, the people that matter, the voters, left them off. First ballot miss is not all that harsh.

[rah]

I have a problem with the people selected to vote too, but that's another issue.

It might have made sense 60 years ago when only the writers saw most of the games, but these days, that's not an issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, because the average fan would know better.

[rah]

Who said anything about the fans? You just make up what you think people mean and think. There are many people in the sports biz that follow baseball everyday and don't get to vote.

[Sava]

Indeed. This weaseling on amphetamines is ridiculous. It obviously had a greater effect on the game than steroids,

You are absolutely retarded.

Amphetamines never helped anyone hit 70 home runs.

Idiot.

How do you manage dress yourself?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sava speaks the truth, noble leader.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who said anything about the fans? You just make up what you think people mean and think. There are many people in the sports biz that follow baseball everyday and don't get to vote.

I agree. I think the franchise should be restricted to Steinbrenner.

[rah]

I appreciate that you agree that you just make things up.

[snoopy369]

I'm not an amphetamine denier or whatever - I have no idea of the comparative effects - but that Cracked piece is horrible research. The testing/bans overlap so much that it's impossible to make a statement about the two. Further, steroids have a long-term effect while amphetamines have a short-term effect, so it's unsurprising that 2005 saw no major change while 2006 did (assuming amphetamines had some impact). Anabolic steroids (the word "steroid" simply means a particular kind of molecule, generally cholesterol as a precursor) have a life-long effect in the sense that you can use them to more quickly build muscle earlier in life, and that muscle will stay around (as long as you continue to do normal workouts, up to a point anyway), so the steroids that someone did in 2003 still helped them hit home runs in 2007.

Further, the minor leagues had been testing for steroids for longer, and undoubtedly that had more of an effect than the major league ban - both because fewer players took steroids in the minors (not none or even 'few', but fewer), and because 'naturally' gifted players stood out a bit more in the minors - leading to a smaller decrease from banning steroids than would have been if the minors hadn't been testing for longer.

I'd love to see a good evaluation of the likely effects of the two bans, but I doubt we'll ever see anything particularly conclusive given the close overlap between the two.

I will say that amphetamine apologists are perhaps motivated, in part, because while anabolic steroids are clearly bad for you and have no really safe/legal alternatives (except things that haven't been banned yet due to bureaucratic slowness), basically every non-Muslim/non-Mormon on the planet uses a stimulant regularly (caffeine) that isn't really all that different from amphetamines. Yes, the latter are much more dangerous and certainly illegal, but psychologically speaking it's much easier to accept something you identify with to some degree.

[Sava]

I've taken prescription amphetamines before. I've even, once or twice, exceeded my prescribed dosage. The amount of amphetamines needed to jack you up enough so that you can hit a lot of home runs is so large that you'd basically look like a meth tweeker while at the plate. You'd have none of the other skills necessary for hitting a baseball... patience for one.

Only an absolute moron would think the comparison of steroids vs amphetamines is valid.

At best, an amphetamine may sharpen your response time... reflexes. And like snoopy said, the effects can be similar to coffee. Hell, 3 cups of coffee is going to give more of a buzz than a healthy dose of an amphetamine.

Steroids and HGH exist in their own category. Their use has completely skewed the game of baseball, statistically. For me, they've ruined it completely. I don't mind roided up psychos. Hell, I love the NFL. But baseball isn't supposed to be roided up science experiments.

I don't care enough anymore to say much more than this. Baseball is dead to me. I doubt I'll ever find enjoyment in the sport ever again. Maybe if the Cubs win the world series. So yeah, I doubt I ever will enjoy baseball again.

But I digress. Imran is dumb.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I will say that amphetamine apologists are perhaps motivated, in part, because while anabolic steroids are clearly bad for you and have no really safe/legal alternatives (except things that haven't been banned yet due to bureaucratic slowness), basically every non-Muslim/non-Mormon on the planet uses a stimulant regularly (caffeine) that isn't really all that different from amphetamines. Yes, the latter are much more dangerous and certainly illegal, but psychologically speaking it's much easier to accept something you identify with to some degree.

Amphetamines are closer to cocaine than they are your cup of coffee . (Of course MLB had its own cocaine scandals in the mid 80s) In a 162 game season, where durability and stamina are prized, something that can reduced the fatigue is a God send - you can play at 100% far more often than you physically should be able to. I mean people make fun of the small injuries that put MLB players on the DL, but when you are tired beyond all exhaustion, after playing 18 games in 3 weeks in the hot summer, small things are going to hurt a LOT more. A huge part of the game is that grind that no one sport can replicate.