Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Offensive Production is Down

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    lougehrig: I HATE it when I have to always add the possiblity of steroid use or no steroid use when looking at player's record.

    how far back do you do, lou? what is the first season that you make adjustments?
    i am glad to see your use of "always," because there is no way to separate users from non-.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    lougehrig: Has the use of performance enhancing substances decreased?

    probably not. though use of certain ped definitely has.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
    You are right about there being no hard numbers for PED boosts in stats but the majority of the articles I have read stick to 0-3mph on a fastball and 3ft on a HR, which is a little easier to believe then those years you gave Bonds a 26% PED boost in slg%.
    The general public better get use to doubting the performances because I doubt if the game will ever be 100% clean with the current MLB drug testing policy and the fact that a player can make multi millions more getting a 1-3% performance boost at the top level.

    I do accept the fact that ball players do PED's and will continue to support and follow it. It's a lot better option then to keep supporting something you despise so much like the high moral fans do. There is no testing available for HGH and Selig won't turn over the testing to a independent company so as far as I'm concerned not much has changed as far as PED use in MLB. The players in the Mitchell Report didn't even get their hand slapped after the witch hunt nailed the HOF'er they had in mind to start with.

    I myself never put any numbers up, I myself don't put anything into that 26% boost.
    I don't despise anything about the whole deal, only looking at it realistically. Any who are found to use will be looked down upon by the public, their numbers in doubt, their position and ranking on the all time list effected.

    No plan, no testing is perfect. To cut those that get caught some slack just because some others didn't get caught won't fly. Take your chances if you choose, if caught don't expect a break just because your ONE of those that got nailed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    As far as I know there is no proof that it's 97% player or 80% or any number you want to toss out, there is none.

    Is baseball different than the Olympics, cycling or any other sport that bans PEDs. Thats some poor logic........... it's not all the PEDs, lets give the athlete some of the credit even if using a banned substance, sure.

    It's here, you don't want to accept the fact that do PED's and you can be punished and even worse the public will doubt your performance.

    You are right about there being no hard numbers for PED boosts in stats but the majority of the articles I have read stick to 0-3mph on a fastball and 3ft on a HR, which is a little easier to believe then those years you gave Bonds a 26% PED boost in slg%.


    The general public better get use to doubting the performances because I doubt if the game will ever be 100% clean with the current MLB drug testing policy and the fact that a player can make multi millions more getting a 1-3% performance boost at the top level.

    I do accept the fact that ball players do PED's and will continue to support and follow it. It's a lot better option then to keep supporting something you despise so much like the high moral fans do. There is no testing available for HGH and Selig won't turn over the testing to a independent company so as far as I'm concerned not much has changed as far as PED use in MLB. The players in the Mitchell Report didn't even get their hand slapped after the witch hunt nailed the HOF'er they had in mind to start with.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
    Everything ought to be within 3% unless you believe in the "Popeye on Spinach" boost that some fans believe in.


    Even with the far fetched 3% PED boost it's still 97% player.
    As far as I know there is no proof that it's 97% player or 80% or any number you want to toss out, there is none.

    Is baseball different than the Olympics, cycling or any other sport that bans PEDs. Thats some poor logic........... it's not all the PEDs, lets give the athlete some of the credit even if using a banned substance, sure.

    It's here, you don't want to accept the fact that do PED's and you can be punished and even worse the public will doubt your performance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Everything ought to be within 3% unless you believe in the "Popeye on Spinach" boost that some fans believe in.


    Even with the far fetched 3% PED boost it's still 97% player.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Shoemaker
    replied
    Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
    Yes, but now let's see what happens, which is why steroids have made it so difficult to evaluate performance.

    I HATE it when I have to always add the possiblity of steroid use or no steroid use when looking at player's record.
    or a pitcher's record.

    Leave a comment:


  • LouGehrig
    replied
    Yes, but now let's see what happens, which is why steroids have made it so difficult to evaluate performance.

    I HATE it when I have to always add the possiblity of steroid use or no steroid use when looking at player's record.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoSox Rule
    replied
    Doesn't the same question get asked at the end of every single April?

    American League
    2008: .260/.334/.398, 342 HR
    2007: .255/.327/.404, 335 HR
    2006: .269/.339/.437, 406 HR
    2005: .264/.330/.408, 318 HR
    2004: .272/.345/.425, 325 HR

    National League
    2008: .256/.331/.404, 407 HR
    2007: .258/.332/.400, 346 HR
    2006: .260/.336/.425, 439 HR
    2005: .259/.332/.409, 345 HR
    2004: .264/.336/.430, 399 HR

    Leave a comment:


  • LouGehrig
    started a topic Offensive Production is Down

    Offensive Production is Down

    Acknowledging that April is a cruel month and that pitchers are usually ahead of hitters in cold weather, offensive production in April, 2008 has decreased substantially.

    Has the use of performance enhancing substances decreased?


    http://baseball.suite101.com/article...uction_is_down

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X