Sway me one way or another

[True Lakers Fan]

I really don't care what others think and have no interest in trying to convince the dumb ass that started this thread that some other player was better or worse then his precious drug addicted player. Say what you want but McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Rodriguez were drug addicts

End of Discussion

 

[Omar 382]

I really don't care what others think and have no interest in trying to convince the dumb ass that started this thread that some other player was better or worse then his precious drug addicted player. Say what you want but McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Rodriguez were drug addicts

End of Discussion

you are so fucking stupid.

 

[JR Hart]

I really don't care what others think

Then why are you posting on a forum where people express their opinions?

and have no interest in trying to convince the dumb ass that started this thread that some other player was better or worse then his precious drug addicted player.

It appears as if you do. And other people express opinions here and there is a variety of opinion on the effects of PEDS on performance.

Say what you want but McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Rodriguez were drug addicts

All right, I will say what I want. Of the 4 that you listed, only ARod has been been sanctioned by MLB in any way. The others are in good standing with MLB. There records of all 4 are official.

End of Discussion

I guess not. I just posted.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

you are so fucking stupid.

You only said that because you're fuckin PUTA

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Then why are you posting on a forum where people express their opinions?



It appears as if you do. And other people express opinions here and there is a variety of opinion on the effects of PEDS on performance.



All right, I will say what I want. Of the 4 that you listed, only ARod has been been sanctioned by MLB in any way. The others are in good standing with MLB. There records of all 4 are official.


I guess not. I just posted.

No they weren't sanctioned by the MLB - The MLB had not matured enough to recognize that they were unwanted drugs and had not moved to ban them - big difference there. The other three were still a bunch of fuckin dirtbags cheating the honest players that were on the honor systm

It's End of Discussion because your argument has failed - legitimate fans are not listening to you

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Either way you cut it, the MLB had not banned many ped's because the players union had blocked their efforts - It took an act of congress threatening to remove their tax exemption in order to get the deal done. The fact that it was not banned for McGwire, Sosa and Bonds to behave like drug addicts, did not make it right or okay. It does mean that their totals will always have a hidden asterick behind their names though because the average fan will look at the records and stats and will say to themselves and their kids - something like this "Bonds had incredible numbers son, but they weren't legit because he had to use drugs to get it done"

In fact many people has advocating putting a stat next to any player like that with a note - developed in the steroid era

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Either way you cut it, the MLB had not banned many ped's because the players union had blocked their efforts - It took an act of congress threatening to remove their tax exemption in order to get the deal done. The fact that it was not banned for McGwire, Sosa and Bonds to behave like drug addicts, did not make it right or okay. It does mean that their totals will always have a hidden asterick behind their names though because the average fan will look at the records and stats and will say to themselves and their kids - something like this "Bonds had incredible numbers son, but they weren't legit because he had to use drugs to get it done"

In fact many people has advocating putting a stat next to any player like that with a note - developed in the steroid era

That's some nice revisionist history... The owners cared as little about drug testing as the players did. It took Congress overstepping their bounds to get either side to the table on the issue.

I wonder when the NFL will get the Congress treatment, since it's apparently such an important issue that they felt the need to step in.

 

[redseat]

Do we honestly know when Bonds or any other player actually took steroids or illegal drugs? No. No we do not, so we can't say player A was better than player B "before" he took illegal drugs, we have no clue.

This is a debate that will last forever.... was Bonds a Great hitter... I do believe so.... can't argue with the numbers.....I am going to take Ted based on his service to the country and what I believe his numbers could have been if he stayed in the majors.

USING the stats provided by the OP then you have to go with Bonds.... But I still take Ted

 

[True Lakers Fan]

That's some nice revisionist history... The owners cared as little about drug testing as the players did. It took Congress overstepping their bounds to get either side to the table on the issue.

I wonder when the NFL will get the Congress treatment, since it's apparently such an important issue that they felt the need to step in.

Convenient excuse by attacking congress for doing their job, but wrong again as usual. The MLB enjoys this little tax exemption that avoids the anti-monolopy laws and subsequently save them a ton of dollars in US TAX dollars. At issue was the use of steroids which the MLB leaders wanted to take steps to stop. Steps such as drug testing and banning them, but the players enjoying the benefits of cheating resisted and blocked them every way they could, so Congress correctly notified the MLB to clean it up or lose their exemption which they had the legal right to do. Obviously the NFL was never as bad as the MLB because if they had been, Congress would have done so.

Congress did not over-step their boundaries - they correctly intervened in a multibillion dollar business that was allowing drug abuse to go rampant

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Convenient excuse by attacking congress for doing their job, but wrong again as usual. The MLB enjoys this little tax exemption that avoids the anti-monolopy laws and subsequently save them a ton of dollars in US TAX dollars. At issue was the use of steroids which the MLB leaders wanted to take steps to stop. Steps such as drug testing and banning them, but the players enjoying the benefits of cheating resisted and blocked them every way they could, so Congress correctly notified the MLB to clean it up or lose their exemption which they had the legal right to do. Obviously the NFL was never as bad as the MLB because if they had been, Congress would have done so.

Congress did not over-step their boundaries - they correctly intervened in a multibillion dollar business that was allowing drug abuse to go rampant

Wow, you're gullible, aren't you? You think that was Congress doing their job? When the country was facing major economic issues and fighting foreign wars? Their priority was steroids in baseball and the anti-trust exemption? Get a fucking clue.

It was a grandstanding opportunity and nothing more. It was a huge setup for those politicians to try and shame and embarrass players, so that once election time rolled around, they could ignore all the ways they'd screwed up by telling their voting constituents, "I was the guy that made Mark McGwire cry". Congress had no business doing what they did, or as I mentioned later, they would have done it for every sport, not just baseball. It was a hotbutton topic and they preyed on it. MLB's anti-trust exemption has nothing whatsoever to do with the steroid issue at large. That was just Congress's hook to the simpletons so that fewer people would realize how many millions of dollars of taxpayer money they were wasting. Many, apparently including you, bought it.

If illegal drug use was the heart of the issue, then the feds are free to investigate and prosecute players as they wish. No one's stopping them. Why aren't they? Because it's not a pressing issue.

 

[Black Belt Disciple]

TLF likes to prove how retarded and stupid he is. This thread and his posts are all the proof one could ever need.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Wow, you're gullible, aren't you? You think that was Congress doing their job? When the country was facing major economic issues and fighting foreign wars? Their priority was steroids in baseball and the anti-trust exemption? Get a fucking clue.

It was a grandstanding opportunity and nothing more. It was a huge setup for those politicians to try and shame and embarrass players, so that once election time rolled around, they could ignore all the ways they'd screwed up by telling their voting constituents, "I was the guy that made Mark McGwire cry". Congress had no business doing what they did, or as I mentioned later, they would have done it for every sport, not just baseball. It was a hotbutton topic and they preyed on it. MLB's anti-trust exemption has nothing whatsoever to do with the steroid issue at large. That was just Congress's hook to the simpletons so that fewer people would realize how many millions of dollars of taxpayer money they were wasting. Many, apparently including you, bought it.

If illegal drug use was the heart of the issue, then the feds are free to investigate and prosecute players as they wish. No one's stopping them. Why aren't they? Because it's not a pressing issue.

If it was then the MLB caved to it and was even dumber then

So who was smarter - the MLB players or Congress - or perhaps they were afraid they would lose their little exemption

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

If it was then the MLB caved to it and was even dumber then

So who was smarter - the MLB players or Congress - or perhaps they were afraid they would lose their little exemption

The exemption was never at stake for one minute. Again, if you believe that to be true, you are a simpleton of shocking proportions.

What the whole fiasco did was embarrass BOTH the players and owners and make them willing to come to the table and revise the CBA to help save some face. Chances are, it would have happened in the next CBA negotiations anyway.

It was all a PR stunt. Great use of taxpayer money.

 

[da55bums]

You mean the Korean War? It's not like took time off to play golf those 2 years.

Yes stan, the korean war years....that was exactly what I was talking about...at least someone knows some baseball history.

 

[rokketmn]

This is absolutely incorrect. Eventually, the talent pool catches up. It takes 3-5 years, but eventually, teams manage to find players who are worthy of MLB rosters in their system or from other places. It's those first few years where there's a scramble to fill roster spaces and an expansion draft that severely water down the talent pool, and the effects are most significantly felt in pitching.

That is funny. Just because you place an absolute in your statement doesn't make it true. It just comes across as trying to force your opinion as fact to those that are less informed.

Since expansion occurred in 1993 with the Rockies and Marlins and again in 1998 with the Rays (Devil Rays) and Diamondbacks, how does your statement hold true?

By your own words, you are saying that the talent pool catches up in 3-5 years (I'm sure you have data to back this up). In the time frame from expansion in 1993 (which would have meant better pitching in 1996-1998), there was actually the next spike in home runs. Going from 1998, MLB pitching should have started to get better somewhere between the 2001 and 2003 seasons.

These are the HR totals by year from 1992:

1992- 3038 -before expansion
1993- 4030 - did 2 extra teams really lead to 1000 more Hr's being hit? Doubtful.
1994- 3306
1995 -4081
1996 - 4962
1997- 4640
1998- 5064 - addition of D-Bax and Rays
1999 -5528
2000 -5693
2001- 5458
2002 -5059
2003- 5207
2004- 5451
2005-5017
2006- 5386
2007-4957
2008-4878
2009-5042
2010-4613
2011-4552
2012-4934
2013 -about 4000 hit so far, which would be a pace of about 4700

Yet, we have only seen a real decrease in HR's since 2006 (8 years after the last expansion), which coincidentally, happens to be around the time of stricter testing by MLB. We also have those same ballpark sizes. I don't think the players have gotten weaker and smaller over that time.

If you can pinpoint something else leading to the decrease in Hr's, I will certainly take it into account, but your primary theory doesn't hold water.

Coincidence or not, the rate of home runs seems to go along with when PED's started being used, and to when testing was started, give or take a year. I just happen to be a believer in that "coincidence".

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

That is funny. Just because you place an absolute in your statement doesn't make it true. It just comes across as trying to force your opinion as fact to those that are less informed.

Since expansion occurred in 1993 with the Rockies and Marlins and again in 1998 with the Rays (Devil Rays) and Diamondbacks, how does your statement hold true?

By your own words, you are saying that the talent pool catches up in 3-5 years (I'm sure you have data to back this up). In the time frame from expansion in 1993 (which would have meant better pitching in 1996-1998), there was actually the next spike in home runs. Going from 1998, MLB pitching should have started to get better somewhere between the 2001 and 2003 seasons.

These are the HR totals by year from 1992:

1992- 3038 -before expansion
1993- 4030 - did 2 extra teams really lead to 1000 more Hr's being hit? Doubtful.
1994- 3306
1995 -4081
1996 - 4962
1997- 4640
1998- 5064 - addition of D-Bax and Rays
1999 -5528
2000 -5693
2001- 5458
2002 -5059
2003- 5207
2004- 5451
2005-5017
2006- 5386
2007-4957
2008-4878
2009-5042
2010-4613
2011-4552
2012-4934
2013 -about 4000 hit so far, which would be a pace of about 4700

Yet, we have only seen a real decrease in HR's since 2006 (8 years after the last expansion), which coincidentally, happens to be around the time of stricter testing by MLB. We also have those same ballpark sizes. I don't think the players have gotten weaker and smaller over that time.

If you can pinpoint something else leading to the decrease in Hr's, I will certainly take it into account, but your primary theory doesn't hold water.

Coincidence or not, the rate of home runs seems to go along with when PED's started being used, and to when testing was started, give or take a year. I just happen to be a believer in that "coincidence".

I never said I had a "primary theory". Just that steroids were far from the only contributing factor in the rise in HR.

And I'd also suggest that HR are still up at the expense of strikeouts. The HR carries such value and cache that players are more willing to strike out in an effort to keep their HR totals high. You're seeing similar home run totals, but lower AVG/OBP/SLG numbers.

 

[rokketmn]

I never said I had a "primary theory". Just that steroids were far from the only contributing factor in the rise in HR.

And I'd also suggest that HR are still up at the expense of strikeouts. The HR carries such value and cache that players are more willing to strike out in an effort to keep their HR totals high. You're seeing similar home run totals, but lower AVG/OBP/SLG numbers.

Noted, and I do agree that expansion did play a part. I just disagree that the affects lasted as long as you think it did. I also disagree that the HR totals are up. As you can see from the list, the totals are down since 2006, and have pretty much been under 5000 after nine consecutive years above that number. Strikeouts are up, but I don't know if the correlation is due to players swinging for the fences or better top of the rotation starting pitching. Power pitching in particular. Likely some combination of both.

When the expansion drafts occurred (if memory serves me), teams were allowed to protect a certain number of players on their 40 man roster. They were also limited to how many guys they could lose (somewhere between 2 and 4?), and I also believe that if a team lost a player, they could then protect another from being drafted.

While the pitching did get thinned out, you were talking about one in every 3 teams losing a starting pitcher, and that starter was typically a 5th or 6th type starter anyway. The expansion drafts didn't deplete the rosters of the existing 26 or 28 teams, but rather cut them down by their lowest 2 or 4 players. As a result, you had about 10-15 starters that didn't belong in the league out of about 150. That is a small percentage.

Now, some of those players had star appeal and were left unprotected for different reasons. Maybe it was salary, or maybe it was because a former star was on the downside of his career.

I just find it hard to say that steroids were not the principal reason for the rise in Hr's. If I had to put a percentage on it, I would conservatively say 85% was PED's and 15% was expansion.

I find it hard to ignore the drop in Hr's after steroid testing started.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Noted, and I do agree that expansion did play a part. I just disagree that the affects lasted as long as you think it did. I also disagree that the HR totals are up. As you can see from the list, the totals are down since 2006, and have pretty much been under 5000 after nine consecutive years above that number. Strikeouts are up, but I don't know if the correlation is due to players swinging for the fences or better top of the rotation starting pitching. Power pitching in particular. Likely some combination of both.

When the expansion drafts occurred (if memory serves me), teams were allowed to protect a certain number of players on their 40 man roster. They were also limited to how many guys they could lose (somewhere between 2 and 4?), and I also believe that if a team lost a player, they could then protect another from being drafted.

While the pitching did get thinned out, you were talking about one in every 3 teams losing a starting pitcher, and that starter was typically a 5th or 6th type starter anyway. The expansion drafts didn't deplete the rosters of the existing 26 or 28 teams, but rather cut them down by their lowest 2 or 4 players. As a result, you had about 10-15 starters that didn't belong in the league out of about 150. That is a small percentage.

Now, some of those players had star appeal and were left unprotected for different reasons. Maybe it was salary, or maybe it was because a former star was on the downside of his career.

I just find it hard to say that steroids were not the principal reason for the rise in Hr's. If I had to put a percentage on it, I would conservatively say 85% was PED's and 15% was expansion.

I find it hard to ignore the drop in Hr's after steroid testing started.

They're down, but they haven't (and probably won't) returned to "pre-steroid levels" (whatever that is). That's because players are willing to suffer in other areas to maintain their HR numbers because the HR is worth a lot of money come contract time.

And I don't doubt that testing has played a part, but as always, there are a variety of factors.

 

[Demetrios37]

I'd suggest you look into the definition of "fact".

I really don't care about records when evaluating the player he was for his career. Records are often a product of opportunity, and of the environment at the time that player played. They're the cherry on top, not the sundae itself.

Nothing he did from the beginning of his career through 1999 was illegitimate, and he was already in pretty rare company by that point. Then, with the help of PEDs, he took it to another level. I have a hard time- as a logical person- believing that his performance from 1999-2007 was purely the result of PED use.He would not have hit 73 or 756, but PEDs alone can't explain his transformation as a hitter in those years. He completely re-dedicated himself to the craft of hitting. He simply wasn't willing to give in to pitchers and was willing to wait for the rare instance they gave him a pitch to hit who did his damage. He probably could have had MORE home runs had he not been so patient and disciplined. PEDs don't improve plate discipline. The change in his approach was the biggest factor in his late-career surge, and that's not historically anomalous. The PEDs gave him added strength to hit more HR, and helped keep him healthy, but otherwise, his performance is what it is.

I feel the same way about Bonds. He was the best player in the game without the help of P.E.D's. But after he started taking the he became God in a baseball players body (to ad lib Larry Bird). PED's didn't do that the other known cheats: A-ROD, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez. They put up prolific numbers but Barry Bonds was on another level.

 

[Demetrios37]

Steroids can make bad players good; good players great; and great players greater. Bonds was a great player. The PED use took him to another level. Why is that even being disputed?

For my two cents, I go with Ted Williams, and it's not even close. He spent 3 prime seasons in WWII, and the guy then VOLUNTEERED to go to Korea in the '50's and spend another 2 years. He also was a fighter pilot. It's not like the guy was working a desk far off from the fighting. I like that character.

Some say that Bonds was the better all-around player, and he was. There is no question about that. Williams was clearly the better hitter, and had a great love for his country that superceded baseball. Bonds wouldn't lift a finger for anyone but himself, which is why his name comes up on everyone's "asshole" list on another thread.

But, for me, I want the better all-around PERSON on my team if there is a close call. Barry Bonds was a dick even before PED's, and when his balls shrunk while using, he actually became a bigger dick.

Don't think for one minute that Ted Williams didn't also have a huge EGO and that he wasn't also disliked by many in his day. Distinguishing Ted Williams from Barry Bonds by saying Williams had a great love of country is a flawed argument IMHO. Sure Ted Williams served in the military but only reluctantly. After Pearl Harbor was attacked he was required by law to register for the draft. However, unlike these guys who made a genuine sacrifice Williams sought a deferment and as a result he was the recepient of abuse from fans and players alike until he succumbed to the pressure and voluntarily enlisted. But he never saw active duty.

I'm not taking anything away from Ted Williams but let us not give him credit that he doesn't deserve. He gets plenty of legitimate credit.

I don't see how you can draw conclusions based on comparisons of the personality traits of Williams and Bonds.. They played in completely different worlds.