Jose Bautista...

[ex carrabba fan]

Didn't get to read through the thread, but steroids.

 

[mht214]

Didnt he also change his batting technique?

 

[mht214]

Didnt he also change his batting technique?

 

[airmaxpenny1]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

So if a guy simply adds more of an uppercut to his swing this is the result, the second coming of Albert Pujols? Right...

Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

You didn't read the whole post or the links in the post, Bautista always hit well when he pulled, .960 OPS when hitting to his pull side his whole career, he adjust his approached became a dead pull hitter(only like 1 of his 54 homers last year was to opposite field, also changed his swing to the point where he is an extreme fly ball hitter.

IMO If you belie that steroids can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

Well, I'm not saying that is the only reason, just a sginifcant part.  And we have seen guys produce before basically solely cause of steroid use.

Show me a couple example of it the other way around, 30 year old journeyman who became elite hitters mid-career cause I can't think of a single example right now?

 

[airmaxpenny1]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

So if a guy simply adds more of an uppercut to his swing this is the result, the second coming of Albert Pujols? Right...

Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

You didn't read the whole post or the links in the post, Bautista always hit well when he pulled, .960 OPS when hitting to his pull side his whole career, he adjust his approached became a dead pull hitter(only like 1 of his 54 homers last year was to opposite field, also changed his swing to the point where he is an extreme fly ball hitter.

IMO If you belie that steroids can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

Well, I'm not saying that is the only reason, just a sginifcant part.  And we have seen guys produce before basically solely cause of steroid use.

Show me a couple example of it the other way around, 30 year old journeyman who became elite hitters mid-career cause I can't think of a single example right now?

 

[5am6oody72]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

So if a guy simply adds more of an uppercut to his swing this is the result, the second coming of Albert Pujols? Right...

Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

IMO If you belie that steroids adding an uppercut to your swing can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

 

[5am6oody72]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

So if a guy simply adds more of an uppercut to his swing this is the result, the second coming of Albert Pujols? Right...

Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

IMO If you belie that steroids adding an uppercut to your swing can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24


Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

You didn't read the whole post or the links in the post, Bautista always hit well when he pulled, .960 OPS when hitting to his pull side his whole career, he adjust his approached became a dead pull hitter(only like 1 of his 54 homers last year was to opposite field, also changed his swing to the point where he is an extreme fly ball hitter.

IMO If you belie that steroids can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

Well, I'm not saying that is the only reason, just a sginifcant part.  And we have seen guys produce before basically solely cause of steroid use.

Totally disagree no we haven't seen this, baseball can be random, we see random spikes in power, Davey johnson 43 homer in '73, Joe Morgan's 24 HR, intellectually lazy people like to just blame it on roids when doctors and scientists are iffy on the correlation between steroids and actually hitting a baseball over the wall.
[h1]Ted Kluszewski never hit more than 20 home runs, until he turned like 29 and he 40+ the next 4 years then went back to being mediocre.
[/h1][h1]Jim Gentile was stuck in the minors for 8 years got to the majors and 46 home runs when he was 27, never hit forty again and his career was over in 4 years.
[/h1][h1]Gorman Thomas never had a slugging rate above .470 in first 4 years and hit only 22 home runs in that span, then when he was 28 he hit 48 and led the majors. He never hit 40 again. [/h1]Richard Hildaglo was in the league for 8 years only, hit 40 once and never hit over 30 again in his career.

These are all random examples in the 50's 60's and 70's




How much more do you need, baseball is random sometimes, jumping to steroids is the wrong conclusion.

Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24


Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

IMO If you belie that steroids adding an uppercut to your swing can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

Yeah re read my post again, cause thats clearly not what I think.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24


Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

You didn't read the whole post or the links in the post, Bautista always hit well when he pulled, .960 OPS when hitting to his pull side his whole career, he adjust his approached became a dead pull hitter(only like 1 of his 54 homers last year was to opposite field, also changed his swing to the point where he is an extreme fly ball hitter.

IMO If you belie that steroids can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

Well, I'm not saying that is the only reason, just a sginifcant part.  And we have seen guys produce before basically solely cause of steroid use.

Totally disagree no we haven't seen this, baseball can be random, we see random spikes in power, Davey johnson 43 homer in '73, Joe Morgan's 24 HR, intellectually lazy people like to just blame it on roids when doctors and scientists are iffy on the correlation between steroids and actually hitting a baseball over the wall.
[h1]Ted Kluszewski never hit more than 20 home runs, until he turned like 29 and he 40+ the next 4 years then went back to being mediocre.
[/h1][h1]Jim Gentile was stuck in the minors for 8 years got to the majors and 46 home runs when he was 27, never hit forty again and his career was over in 4 years.
[/h1][h1]Gorman Thomas never had a slugging rate above .470 in first 4 years and hit only 22 home runs in that span, then when he was 28 he hit 48 and led the majors. He never hit 40 again. [/h1]Richard Hildaglo was in the league for 8 years only, hit 40 once and never hit over 30 again in his career.

These are all random examples in the 50's 60's and 70's




How much more do you need, baseball is random sometimes, jumping to steroids is the wrong conclusion.

Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by dland24


Thinking Bautista "simply added more of an uppercut" is as laughable a comment as any comment in this thread though.

IMO If you belie that steroids adding an uppercut to your swing can make a journeyman 4th outfielder into the best hitter in baseball you need to find either a clue or Jesus.

Yeah re read my post again, cause thats clearly not what I think.

 

[dland24]

You can add Mauer to that list OKB.

 

[dland24]

You can add Mauer to that list OKB.

 

[frankbink5]

 

[frankbink5]

 

[hymen man]

He's been great, appreciated as hell.

 

[hymen man]

He's been great, appreciated as hell.

 

[kn0wledgeable]

when i watch him, his bat speed is crazy. he swings so hard. i dont think i've seen anyone swing as hard as him. only person that comes to mind is gary sheffield.

and he hits the ball with the barrel of his bat so perfectly. mix the two together and you have a problem

 

[kn0wledgeable]

when i watch him, his bat speed is crazy. he swings so hard. i dont think i've seen anyone swing as hard as him. only person that comes to mind is gary sheffield.

and he hits the ball with the barrel of his bat so perfectly. mix the two together and you have a problem

 

[airmaxpenny1]

People have statistical aberrations all the time that isn't what I'm arguing.  I don't view this as a statistical aberration though that is the thing, this guy is here to stay.  And unlike you throwing some guys who played in a pre-supplement era, I can use an obvious example of a guy who suddenly morphed into the greatest hitter of all-time at an age when people don't do that...

And there are about a few dozen or so other guys I could use as examples.  I'm sure John Jaha hit 34 and 35 home run in '96 and '99 cause of changes made to his swing or working with a new hitting coach, cause steroids can't make a guy into a good hitter

.  Guess what OKB, if you do take steroids, your bat speed improves exponentially so balls you wouldn't get to before, you suddenly are getting around on.  Plus these guys all got to the major league level before so the are talented on a grand scale.  Their smart enough to realize, try pulling and putting balls in the air + added strength equals home runs. Guess what there are guys who are strong, just not actually good enough hitters to consistently hit them out of the park.  Matt Stairs for example.  Without Steroids he prolly wouldn't havbe a job.  But with steroids, balls that would ordinarily become pop-ups turn into home runs.  I'ma Mets fan dude and I've seen Mike Piazza hit one handed, off-balanced home runs

, and you want to tell me they don't do anything for you.  Only thing you have is I admit I've only watched Bautista play the Yankees a few times but you don't just hit hit Bondsian type home runs out of nowhere.

 

@ calling me intellectually lazy.  Dude I know every aspect of sports can be summed up in some mathematical number but we just came out of an era where basically anybody who did anything of noteworthy was on the juice.  And I'm not one of these ******ed baseball traditionalists who view steroids as hurting the sanctity of the game, I'd voted Bonds, Sosas, McGewire all those *$%%%%##%+%!! in with them.  But you act like Steroids don't help, I've seen you defend Bonds's steroid career before

. 

Your saying steroids are the wrong conclusion, but give me a reason why that is true, we are coming out of an era where dudes put up out-of-this-world numbers cause of steroids.  If steroids don't make good hitters than how do you explain the falloff from the Steroid era? Power numbers have alarmingly gone down.  The fact is 95% of people who did anything in that era were on juice.  It just is what it is.  When Ryan Howard hits 50 home runs, I can accept that cause the guy is naturally built like a football player and was drafted 5th, he was supposed to be doing this.

In the word of my man  TO, " If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it is a rat."  Maybe that's unfair and this guy really is clean, but if this was 2001, he would fit into the scene of what guys were doing undeniably.  And it also doesn't help when stuff like this comes out:

[h1]M.L.B. Report Casts Doubt on Rigor of Drug Testing[/h1] [h6]By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT[/h6][h6]Published: May 5, 2011 [/h6]

• Recommend
• Twitter
• E-Mail
• Print
• Reprints
• ShareClose
  • http://graphics8.nytimes....ons/linkedin.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball%20steroid&st=cse#">Linkedin
  • http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/digg.gif");">http://graphics8.nytimes....nctions/digg.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball steroid&st=cse#"igg
  • http://graphics8.nytimes....ions/myspace.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball%20steroid&st=cse#">MySpace
  • http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/permalink.gif");">http://graphics8.nytimes....ns/permalink.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball steroid&st=cse#">Permalink

Hours after a jury convicted Barry Bonds of obstruction of justice last month in connection with his suspected use of performance-enhancing drugs, Commissioner Bud Selig did what he often has when attention is cast on baseball’s stormy history with steroids: he proclaimed that the sport had moved beyond the issue because of its robust drug program.

[h3]Related[/h3]

• [h6]Times Topic:Steroids[/h6]

[h5] [/h5]


Keep up with the latest news on The Times's baseball blog.

Go to the Bats Blog
[h3]Major League Baseball[/h3]

• Live Scoreboard
• Standings | Wild Card
• Stats | Injuries

[h3]Yankees[/h3]

• Schedule/Results
• Roster | Stats

[h3]Mets[/h3]

• Schedule/Results
• Roster | Stats

In a statement released by his office, Selig said baseball had the “toughest, most comprehensive drug testing program in professional sports.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

People have statistical aberrations all the time that isn't what I'm arguing.  I don't view this as a statistical aberration though that is the thing, this guy is here to stay.  And unlike you throwing some guys who played in a pre-supplement era, I can use an obvious example of a guy who suddenly morphed into the greatest hitter of all-time at an age when people don't do that...

And there are about a few dozen or so other guys I could use as examples.  I'm sure John Jaha hit 34 and 35 home run in '96 and '99 cause of changes made to his swing or working with a new hitting coach, cause steroids can't make a guy into a good hitter

.  Guess what OKB, if you do take steroids, your bat speed improves exponentially so balls you wouldn't get to before, you suddenly are getting around on.  Plus these guys all got to the major league level before so the are talented on a grand scale.  Their smart enough to realize, try pulling and putting balls in the air + added strength equals home runs. Guess what there are guys who are strong, just not actually good enough hitters to consistently hit them out of the park.  Matt Stairs for example.  Without Steroids he prolly wouldn't havbe a job.  But with steroids, balls that would ordinarily become pop-ups turn into home runs.  I'ma Mets fan dude and I've seen Mike Piazza hit one handed, off-balanced home runs

, and you want to tell me they don't do anything for you.  Only thing you have is I admit I've only watched Bautista play the Yankees a few times but you don't just hit hit Bondsian type home runs out of nowhere.

 

@ calling me intellectually lazy.  Dude I know every aspect of sports can be summed up in some mathematical number but we just came out of an era where basically anybody who did anything of noteworthy was on the juice.  And I'm not one of these ******ed baseball traditionalists who view steroids as hurting the sanctity of the game, I'd voted Bonds, Sosas, McGewire all those *$%%%%##%+%!! in with them.  But you act like Steroids don't help, I've seen you defend Bonds's steroid career before

. 

Your saying steroids are the wrong conclusion, but give me a reason why that is true, we are coming out of an era where dudes put up out-of-this-world numbers cause of steroids.  If steroids don't make good hitters than how do you explain the falloff from the Steroid era? Power numbers have alarmingly gone down.  The fact is 95% of people who did anything in that era were on juice.  It just is what it is.  When Ryan Howard hits 50 home runs, I can accept that cause the guy is naturally built like a football player and was drafted 5th, he was supposed to be doing this.

In the word of my man  TO, " If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it is a rat."  Maybe that's unfair and this guy really is clean, but if this was 2001, he would fit into the scene of what guys were doing undeniably.  And it also doesn't help when stuff like this comes out:

[h1]M.L.B. Report Casts Doubt on Rigor of Drug Testing[/h1] [h6]By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT[/h6][h6]Published: May 5, 2011 [/h6]

• Recommend
• Twitter
• E-Mail
• Print
• Reprints
• ShareClose
  • http://graphics8.nytimes....ons/linkedin.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball%20steroid&st=cse#">Linkedin
  • http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/digg.gif");">http://graphics8.nytimes....nctions/digg.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball steroid&st=cse#"igg
  • http://graphics8.nytimes....ions/myspace.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball%20steroid&st=cse#">MySpace
  • http:///graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/permalink.gif");">http://graphics8.nytimes....ns/permalink.gif");" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/sports/baseball/06steroids.html?scp=6&sq=BAseball steroid&st=cse#">Permalink

Hours after a jury convicted Barry Bonds of obstruction of justice last month in connection with his suspected use of performance-enhancing drugs, Commissioner Bud Selig did what he often has when attention is cast on baseball’s stormy history with steroids: he proclaimed that the sport had moved beyond the issue because of its robust drug program.

[h3]Related[/h3]

• [h6]Times Topic:Steroids[/h6]

[h5] [/h5]


Keep up with the latest news on The Times's baseball blog.

Go to the Bats Blog
[h3]Major League Baseball[/h3]

• Live Scoreboard
• Standings | Wild Card
• Stats | Injuries

[h3]Yankees[/h3]

• Schedule/Results
• Roster | Stats

[h3]Mets[/h3]

• Schedule/Results
• Roster | Stats

In a statement released by his office, Selig said baseball had the “toughest, most comprehensive drug testing program in professional sports.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

AMP

 

[johnnyredstorm]

AMP

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

People have statistical aberrations all the time that isn't what I'm arguing.  I don't view this as a statistical aberration though that is the thing, this guy is here to stay.  And unlike you throwing some guys who played in a pre-supplement era, I can use an obvious example of a guy who suddenly morphed into the greatest hitter of all-time at an age when people don't do that...

Barry Bonds, was already one of the greatest hitters ever, I would have argued his career pre roids that he was the greatest baseball player ever, I think it's likeley that steroids can put off the aging process, can make your career last longer but the supposition that they can make someone who is garbage great is crazy to me. Barry Bonds was already great.

And there are about a few dozen or so other guys I could use as examples.  I'm sure John Jaha hit 34 and 35 home run in '96 and '99 cause of changes made to his swing or working with a new hitting coach, cause steroids can't make a guy into a good hitter

.
See this is what I don't understand, if random spikes in power were common place before before steroids, and after, how is it logical to assume that steroids are the cause. It's fallacious thinking, If my allergies act up in summer, and then they also act up to the same degree in winter a doctor would not tell you that summer is the cause logically it would have to be something else.

If a+b= 2 and (a+b)+c=2 then logically c has to be 0.

Guess what OKB, if you do take steroids, your bat speed improves exponentially so balls you wouldn't get to before, you suddenly are getting around on.  Plus these guys all got to the major league level before so the are talented on a grand scale.  Their smart enough to realize, try pulling and putting balls in the air + added strength equals home runs. Guess what there are guys who are strong, just not actually good enough hitters to consistently hit them out of the park.
Scientist people more informed about steroids and there effects on hitting are far more dubious about this common knowledge that you are proposing. I'm suggesting that this common knowledge isn't base on any thing other than assumption. First you tell be that this isn't an abberration so therefor he MUST be using roids, now you tell me that these guys aren't good enough to consistently hit them. I gave examples of guys pre steroids who didn't get good until they were  late twenty's and stayed good for 4 or 5 years after that.

Qutes from Eric Walker somebody who has actually studies the subject has more fact then you and I.

"Two things quickly become obvious: one, that for most of the century there appears to be a fairly steady upward trend to power"
"For example, a 2000examination at the University of Rhode Island, on which a team of six professors spent five months, found that ball cores from 1995 and 2000 balls bounced an average of 33 percenthigher than their 1989, 1970, and 1963 counterparts. And in 1998, a CT scan of baseballs from many eras, supervised by Penn State professors, showed serious differences over timein materials and internal construction; in fact, Mark McGwire's record-setting 70th home-run ball (like others from that season) clearly showed a synthetic rubber ring or spring around thecore of the ball. Those results are much more meaningful than the fatuous puff piece MLB sponsored in 2000 as a PR exercise."


"It thus becomes quite impossible to believe in any theory that speaks of "boosting" power in modern times, simply because there has been no such boost. Below isa blow-up graph of the so-called "steroid era", starting at 1982 (because 1981 was strike-shortened and thus not a good data point).

Understand that nothing in this graph has been adjusted save the single ball juicing of 1993/1994 (whether 1993 was or was not post-juicing is still debated); the numbers on the left would change were earlier splicings and wartime smoothings dropped, but the shape and scale of the graph would be unchanged."

Remember, nothing is alleged to--or can have--happened to all of MLB over some one or two seasons: the claim is that PEDs were being used at a slowly but steadily increasing rate (andthus "distorting records") from very roughly 1980 through the present. Were that so, or anything like it, we would expect to see a clear long-term uptrend during this period. Butwe don't: we see a nearly flat line that, if anything, slopes slightly down. The "boost" just isn't there. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone from talking aboutit.

• 
  [size=-1]The principal advantages ascribed to anabolic steroids are those associated with androgenicity, or masculine traits. Upper-body strength and muscularity are two such key traits. . . . anabolic steroids increase muscle mass and upper-body strength. Anabolic Steroids in Sport and Exercise, Charles E. Yesalis, ed.[/size]
• 
  [size=-1]Testosterone increases upper-body mass differentially, so performance in [upper-body] tasks like weight-lifting should improve more than lower-body tasks or tasks in which aerobic aerobic capacity rather than strength are assessed. As expected, the task in which increases have been reported most reliably are in the bench press. Recent Progress in Hormone Research 57:411-434 (2002), Cynthia M. Kuhn[/size]
• 
  [size=-1]teroids increase muscle mass and upper-body strength . . . . The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1-7, Bhasin S, Storer TW, Berman N, et al.[/size]
  [*]
  [size=-1][M]uscle deposition promoted by testosterone tends to be greater in the upper body; this provides the greatest effects (and therefore the greatest likelihood of abuse) for sports like swimming, which rely on upper-body strength. Buzzed: The Straight Facts about the Most Used and Abused Drugs, Cynthia Kuhn, Scott Swartzwelder, Wilkie Wilson (Duke University Medical Center)[/size]
  [*]
  [size=-1]Testosterone also produces characteristic body changes, Dr. Pope said, with the most marked muscle growth in the upper body and the biceps. Psychology: Concepts and Connections, Spencer A. Rathus[/size]
  

That mistake is to assume that all added muscle mass is being used to further power a struck baseball. It's wrong.
As Professor Adair himself put it:
[table][tr][td][size=-1] The considerable energy . . . transferred to the bat . . . is generated largely by the large muscles of the thighs and torso. The arms and hands serve mainly to transfer the energy of the body's rotational and transverse motions to the bat and add little extra energy to the bat. [Footnoted with:] In particular, the contribution of the hands and wrists to the energy of the bat is almost negligible. [/size][/td] [/tr][/table]
In short: Batting power is all about lower-body strength. Bulging biceps and triceps and deltoids and the rest of the upper-body muscle set may wow the baseballAnnies--and perhaps scandal-sniffing reporters--but they mean essentially nothing to long-ball hitting. We don't need to rely on physicists for that fact: anyone in baseball knows itwell.
Professor Arthur DeVany, spares no words: There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home-run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids.
Common knowledge is dangerous, people quote it as fact, but held up to the scrutiny of logic and scientific inquiry, it can often times come up as @**#*%%$.

Matt Stairs for example.  Without Steroids he prolly wouldn't havbe a job.  But with steroids, balls that would ordinarily become pop-ups turn into home runs.  I'ma Mets fan dude and I've seen Mike Piazza hit one handed, off-balanced home runs

, and you want to tell me they don't do anything for you.


You think Matt Stairs is using roids? See, this is what bugs me, a statistical aberration is not uncommon in baseball pre "steroids era" but rather than just chalking ti up as randomness we assume steroids because we have no information, Matt Stairs is Canadian, I know about his whole career and know exactly why he took so long to do what he did.

Matt Stairs has been a obp+power hitter the first time he stepped on a baseball field, the reason it took him so long to get to the majors is becuase they tried to make him a shortstop, then a 2B, then a 3B, then an outfielder, finally he got to the American league and became a DH and then his career took off. Did you know Matt Stairs doesn't work out in the off season? Like not even at all. Doesn't touch a bat either, he just comes back to Canada skates and plays hockey. It's the assumption without evidence or information that he used steroids.



In closing;

- Jose Bautista type careers, have existed before steroids thus the assumption of steroids is illogical
- Even if he used steroids, scientist, statisticians are dubious on the effects on steroids and your ability to hit a home run and thus my initial point remains the same steroids aren't magic, they won't make you good when you are actually terrible.

There are outliers to everything, but I'll roll with the science on this one.

-

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

People have statistical aberrations all the time that isn't what I'm arguing.  I don't view this as a statistical aberration though that is the thing, this guy is here to stay.  And unlike you throwing some guys who played in a pre-supplement era, I can use an obvious example of a guy who suddenly morphed into the greatest hitter of all-time at an age when people don't do that...

Barry Bonds, was already one of the greatest hitters ever, I would have argued his career pre roids that he was the greatest baseball player ever, I think it's likeley that steroids can put off the aging process, can make your career last longer but the supposition that they can make someone who is garbage great is crazy to me. Barry Bonds was already great.

And there are about a few dozen or so other guys I could use as examples.  I'm sure John Jaha hit 34 and 35 home run in '96 and '99 cause of changes made to his swing or working with a new hitting coach, cause steroids can't make a guy into a good hitter

.
See this is what I don't understand, if random spikes in power were common place before before steroids, and after, how is it logical to assume that steroids are the cause. It's fallacious thinking, If my allergies act up in summer, and then they also act up to the same degree in winter a doctor would not tell you that summer is the cause logically it would have to be something else.

If a+b= 2 and (a+b)+c=2 then logically c has to be 0.

Guess what OKB, if you do take steroids, your bat speed improves exponentially so balls you wouldn't get to before, you suddenly are getting around on.  Plus these guys all got to the major league level before so the are talented on a grand scale.  Their smart enough to realize, try pulling and putting balls in the air + added strength equals home runs. Guess what there are guys who are strong, just not actually good enough hitters to consistently hit them out of the park.
Scientist people more informed about steroids and there effects on hitting are far more dubious about this common knowledge that you are proposing. I'm suggesting that this common knowledge isn't base on any thing other than assumption. First you tell be that this isn't an abberration so therefor he MUST be using roids, now you tell me that these guys aren't good enough to consistently hit them. I gave examples of guys pre steroids who didn't get good until they were  late twenty's and stayed good for 4 or 5 years after that.

Qutes from Eric Walker somebody who has actually studies the subject has more fact then you and I.

"Two things quickly become obvious: one, that for most of the century there appears to be a fairly steady upward trend to power"
"For example, a 2000examination at the University of Rhode Island, on which a team of six professors spent five months, found that ball cores from 1995 and 2000 balls bounced an average of 33 percenthigher than their 1989, 1970, and 1963 counterparts. And in 1998, a CT scan of baseballs from many eras, supervised by Penn State professors, showed serious differences over timein materials and internal construction; in fact, Mark McGwire's record-setting 70th home-run ball (like others from that season) clearly showed a synthetic rubber ring or spring around thecore of the ball. Those results are much more meaningful than the fatuous puff piece MLB sponsored in 2000 as a PR exercise."


"It thus becomes quite impossible to believe in any theory that speaks of "boosting" power in modern times, simply because there has been no such boost. Below isa blow-up graph of the so-called "steroid era", starting at 1982 (because 1981 was strike-shortened and thus not a good data point).

Understand that nothing in this graph has been adjusted save the single ball juicing of 1993/1994 (whether 1993 was or was not post-juicing is still debated); the numbers on the left would change were earlier splicings and wartime smoothings dropped, but the shape and scale of the graph would be unchanged."

Remember, nothing is alleged to--or can have--happened to all of MLB over some one or two seasons: the claim is that PEDs were being used at a slowly but steadily increasing rate (andthus "distorting records") from very roughly 1980 through the present. Were that so, or anything like it, we would expect to see a clear long-term uptrend during this period. Butwe don't: we see a nearly flat line that, if anything, slopes slightly down. The "boost" just isn't there. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone from talking aboutit.

• 
  [size=-1]The principal advantages ascribed to anabolic steroids are those associated with androgenicity, or masculine traits. Upper-body strength and muscularity are two such key traits. . . . anabolic steroids increase muscle mass and upper-body strength. Anabolic Steroids in Sport and Exercise, Charles E. Yesalis, ed.[/size]
• 
  [size=-1]Testosterone increases upper-body mass differentially, so performance in [upper-body] tasks like weight-lifting should improve more than lower-body tasks or tasks in which aerobic aerobic capacity rather than strength are assessed. As expected, the task in which increases have been reported most reliably are in the bench press. Recent Progress in Hormone Research 57:411-434 (2002), Cynthia M. Kuhn[/size]
• 
  [size=-1]teroids increase muscle mass and upper-body strength . . . . The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1-7, Bhasin S, Storer TW, Berman N, et al.[/size]
  [*]
  [size=-1][M]uscle deposition promoted by testosterone tends to be greater in the upper body; this provides the greatest effects (and therefore the greatest likelihood of abuse) for sports like swimming, which rely on upper-body strength. Buzzed: The Straight Facts about the Most Used and Abused Drugs, Cynthia Kuhn, Scott Swartzwelder, Wilkie Wilson (Duke University Medical Center)[/size]
  [*]
  [size=-1]Testosterone also produces characteristic body changes, Dr. Pope said, with the most marked muscle growth in the upper body and the biceps. Psychology: Concepts and Connections, Spencer A. Rathus[/size]
  

That mistake is to assume that all added muscle mass is being used to further power a struck baseball. It's wrong.
As Professor Adair himself put it:
[table][tr][td][size=-1] The considerable energy . . . transferred to the bat . . . is generated largely by the large muscles of the thighs and torso. The arms and hands serve mainly to transfer the energy of the body's rotational and transverse motions to the bat and add little extra energy to the bat. [Footnoted with:] In particular, the contribution of the hands and wrists to the energy of the bat is almost negligible. [/size][/td] [/tr][/table]
In short: Batting power is all about lower-body strength. Bulging biceps and triceps and deltoids and the rest of the upper-body muscle set may wow the baseballAnnies--and perhaps scandal-sniffing reporters--but they mean essentially nothing to long-ball hitting. We don't need to rely on physicists for that fact: anyone in baseball knows itwell.
Professor Arthur DeVany, spares no words: There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home-run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids.
Common knowledge is dangerous, people quote it as fact, but held up to the scrutiny of logic and scientific inquiry, it can often times come up as @**#*%%$.

Matt Stairs for example.  Without Steroids he prolly wouldn't havbe a job.  But with steroids, balls that would ordinarily become pop-ups turn into home runs.  I'ma Mets fan dude and I've seen Mike Piazza hit one handed, off-balanced home runs

, and you want to tell me they don't do anything for you.


You think Matt Stairs is using roids? See, this is what bugs me, a statistical aberration is not uncommon in baseball pre "steroids era" but rather than just chalking ti up as randomness we assume steroids because we have no information, Matt Stairs is Canadian, I know about his whole career and know exactly why he took so long to do what he did.

Matt Stairs has been a obp+power hitter the first time he stepped on a baseball field, the reason it took him so long to get to the majors is becuase they tried to make him a shortstop, then a 2B, then a 3B, then an outfielder, finally he got to the American league and became a DH and then his career took off. Did you know Matt Stairs doesn't work out in the off season? Like not even at all. Doesn't touch a bat either, he just comes back to Canada skates and plays hockey. It's the assumption without evidence or information that he used steroids.



In closing;

- Jose Bautista type careers, have existed before steroids thus the assumption of steroids is illogical
- Even if he used steroids, scientist, statisticians are dubious on the effects on steroids and your ability to hit a home run and thus my initial point remains the same steroids aren't magic, they won't make you good when you are actually terrible.

There are outliers to everything, but I'll roll with the science on this one.

-

 

[law3001]

WOW @ cats writing dissertations in here

 

[law3001]

WOW @ cats writing dissertations in here