sports and drugs [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

02-24-2004, 03:17 PM

Posted By: jay behrens  Really good article about the whole sports and drugs/steroids issue. <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/040220" target=_new>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/040220</a> Jay

Archive

02-24-2004, 09:02 PM

Posted By: HankronHere's the way I look at it, Jay. If baseball players can use steroids, than I can (and will) automatically knock off 30 percent from their yearly power numbers. For example, instead of hitting 73 home runs, Bonds hit 51. Or, if you like team sports, Mr. Bonds hit 51 and his tagteam partner Mr Steroids hit 22. If players can artificially enhance their power numbers, then I see no reason why I can't artificially adjust their statistics. Seems quite reasonabe to me.

Archive

02-24-2004, 09:42 PM

Posted By: HankronBy the way, 51 home runs is a lot of home runs (50 home runs was a huge accomplishment when George Foster and Cecil Fielder did it), so Barry Bonds has nothing to be embarrased about. Kudos to Mr. Bonds for a job well done.

Archive

02-25-2004, 12:01 AM

Posted By: steveGood point David. I hadn't been to Cooperstown in about 40 years until making my second trip there last summer. It was absolutely wonderful and better than I remembered it. The reason I say good point is because of Ruth. Looking through the glass cases at those rock hard baseballs from that era and knowing Ruth hit 60 of them into the stands of those huge ballparks against brutally tough pitching is in my opinion a much more remarkable feat than what Maris, McGwire or Bonds did. Although what Roger did was pretty darn good!!

Archive

02-25-2004, 11:03 AM

Posted By: jay behrensYou need to do a little research about those "huge" ballparks. Yes, there were places that went back to 490 and even 500 plus feet, but everyone of those dimensions there were short right and left field porches under 300 feet and power alleys that were under 330 feet. When Ruth hit 60 HRs, he hit 3 of them in the short porch of right field at Sportsmans Park in St Louis. Becuase so manny HRs were being hit into this area, an 8 foot fence was erected shortly after. When Jimmie Foxx hit 58 HRs in 1932, there is strong evidence that at least 5 balls, and possibly more, were hot off this screen. Given teh same conditions, Foxx would have set the single season record. As to your comments on pitching, don't kid yourself. Most pitchers in that era were still only throwing in the 70s and 80s. Feller was the exception throwing 90 plus on a regular basis. And with fewer teams and minimal use of relievers, batters faced the same pitchers over and over again and had a chance to get used to pitchers and how thy threw, making it that much easier for the hitters. David, are you also going to reduce by 1/3 Nolan Ryan's K total because he used training methods and dietary supplements that Walter Johnson didn't use or have access to? Every era of baseball is unique unto itself. Training methods change, playing style and game philospohy changes. "Old Timers" were appauled when players started lifting weights and there was serious talk about putting asteriks next to any records set by these players. 30 years from now our kids will be wondering whatever happened to the good old days of the turn of the century. 21st century that is. Jay

Archive

02-25-2004, 11:56 AM

Posted By: HankronJay, all your points are valid, and I was just making a point (Even if I did my statistical calculations in front of the television set, who would care?) My point was that if players can cheat (and, in fact, break the law) in order to artificially raise their numbers, who says that I or anyone else is required to take these numbers or records seriously.

Archive

02-25-2004, 12:04 PM

Posted By: HankronIt should be pointed out that my giving Barry Bonds 51 home runs was being charitable. In part due to his past history of not being a big power hitter, even in his 20s. In part because, if the International Olympics Committee was in charge and it was deduced that he took steroids, he would have lost all his home runs, rbi's, MVPs and received a two year ban. See, Jay, I'm a kind hearted and generous person.

Archive

02-25-2004, 12:10 PM

Posted By: HankronAbout 2-3 weeks ago, a national sportwriter joked about all the inevitable upcoming spring training stories that would be used by players to explain their drastic loss in weight in the off season. Jason Giambi didn't dissapoint.

Archive

02-25-2004, 02:23 PM

Posted By: runscottAlthough we call baseball and basketball "team" sports, many of the players consider their statistics much more important than their team winning games. For example, would Mr. HR Hitter prefer to hit 3 home runs in a game and lose, or to have 0 HR's and have his team win? Gone are the days when a Mickey Mantle lays down an unexpected bunt for a base hit and advances a runner for the team.

Archive

02-25-2004, 02:58 PM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsDavid: Funny you should bring up Mr. Giambi. I live in New Jersey and this morning our local paper had side-by-side photos of him (last year vs. this year). The difference is striking. He claims to have lost 4 pounds by laying off junk food. One Yankee official who remains anomymous found that to be laughable estimating the real difference between 18 - 25 pounds. His head is noticably smaller which is supposed to be a dead giveaway of stopping steroid use. Some of the wags on the local all-sports radio station have compared Giambi's 2004 appearance to Clay Aiken's. We'll see how much he likes the New York fans when he can't hit a fly ball out of the infield let alone out of the ball park!

Archive

02-25-2004, 03:21 PM

Posted By: steveJay - Very good points that you brought up. All those points are well known to longtime baseball fans such as myself. Obviously you are a longtime fan also. Debating players and statistics from different eras of course is always conjecture but good fun nevertheless. That being said I will never change my mind that Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time with Cobb being second. The debate is for third best throwing a blanket over about 15 players with Bonds being in there. I started watching baseball games in the early 60s through the present. I have watched many thousands of games on TV. Been to many hundreds of games. Baseball players definitely have not gotten better. I have spoken to dozens of baseball fans who watched games in the thirties and forties and they firmly agree with that. Baseball players have gotten stronger and faster but baseball is a game of finesse as well as athleticism - you know that. The pitchers back then were better pitchers, not just throwers as many are today. Pitching is not only just about speed - you know that. Football and basketball players have gotten much better and most players from the pre-WW2 era and into the fifties would obviously have no chance competing in today's game. But a baseball All Star team from back then would consistently crush any All Star team of today in a seven game series.

Archive

02-25-2004, 03:48 PM

Posted By: HankronIf it's any consolation to Mr. Giambi, if he only hits 15 home runs this year I will let him keep them all.

Archive

02-25-2004, 04:52 PM

Posted By: jay behrenssteve said: "But a baseball All Star team from back then would consistently crush any All Star team of today in a seven game series." I really hope you aren't serious. Pitchers may have mostly been finess pitchers back in the day, but all it takes is one mistake for todays players to take advantage of those mistakes. Unlike back then when you could get away with that mistake because most players did not have the ability to take you out of the park on every pitch and make you pay dearly for that mistake. And a claim for better defensive play back then has no standing as almost all postive defensive records have been set in the past 25 years. If the match up was 'old timers' versus current players, both playing at the peak physical condition for their era, the modern players would crush the old timers, plain and simple. I don't care how great Cobb, Wagner, Ruth et al were. Having never stared at a steady diet of 100mph fast balls, they would spend a few games adjsuting to hitting that pitch. Give the old timers the same training, etc as modern players and who knows who would win. Jay

Archive

02-25-2004, 04:57 PM

Posted By: HankronIt brings to mind the doctor in 'Heart of Darkness' who had a pair of callipers so as to measure the heads over those who were about to enter the jungle.

Archive

02-25-2004, 06:10 PM

Posted By: HankronJust to test, tonight I will use the salad tongs to measure Henry's head before he goes outside into the black back yard.

Archive

02-25-2004, 06:44 PM

Posted By: HankronEveryone can rest easy. According to pre and post salad tong measurments, Henry's trip to the garden and back did not make him go insane.

Archive

02-26-2004, 07:18 PM

Posted By: ty_cobbI'm feeling sorry for the modern jock and their addictions to so-called 'performance enhancing substances'. What performance exactly was enhanced? The Marlins won not Giambi, Bonds, Sosa et al. I miss the good old days when you could take the field totally wasted and WIN the World Series. 86 Mets for example. You got Doc Gooden, Keith Hernandez, Darryl Strawberry, it was truly a party season. There was no enhancement at all, they might as well have played with blindfolds on! Now don't give me the good 'ol days stuff about Babe Ruth. He loved his vices, and just because the substances are different today doen't mean he wouldn't have used them if they were available.

Archive

02-26-2004, 10:44 PM

Posted By: fkwMulti million contracts = inhome gyms/trainers/nutritionists + talent = 73 (658) HRs........... Not necessarily steroids. For example, Im in my late 30's (37), 6'2" & 228#...... just like Bonds (not quite as good of shape). Know one would think I was on 'roids. Bonds has a great athletic body, he is not huge! I played some ball, and have seen quite a few 16-20 year old 160# kids hit 400+ ' HRs, and have hit many myself in my day. Its not exactly muscle strength that makes the ball go that far, its more timing, technique and most importantly bat speed. Most major leaguers use a bat around 32-34 OZ..... = bat speed. To me steroids are a big advantage in football, not necessarily baseball. We all know Arnold in his day was huge and strong, but Id put $$ he would have trouble hitting a routine 275' flyball swinging a bat. I always laugh when someone tries to take anything away from Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, etc......... these guys are just great ball players (with 25-35 years of practice). Im sure Ruth, Foxx, Mantle, Williams etc. would have come close to 73 if not more, if they were in REAL tip top shape (gym/trainers/nutritionists) themselves. fkw