Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenies vs. Steroids

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by ESPNFan
    Actually James is pretty Brutal to certain people.

    From his 2001 historical abstract in his asessment of Larry Walker's hitting .350 for three straight seasons. (and also listed in Bryants book)


    "It will be interesting to see, as time goes by, how well the hall of fame voters will can see through the phoney batting stats of the 1994-2000 era, and pick out the truely great players from those who piled up numbers because of the unusual conditions in which they played."

    Could he mean Coors feild? sure but why indicte a whole era of ball players, why not just say Coors Feild? And if James had said before that the increased offence is less than 20% attributable to ballparks then he must mean something else. I wonder what that could ever be?

    As we get more and more details im sure James will expand his opinions on this subject and try to further explain the impact of the Steroid Era.

    I think you are looking to0 closely for steroid talk. When talking about Larry Walker he is most certainly talking about Coors Field.

    As for 20% yes he does mean other things. He is not saying that the only two choices are ballparks and drugs.

    Comment


    • #47
      Are they giving free lobotomies here now?
      "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
      Carl Yastrzemski

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Ubiquitous
        I think you are looking to0 closely for steroid talk. When talking about Larry Walker he is most certainly talking about Coors Field.

        As for 20% yes he does mean other things. He is not saying that the only two choices are ballparks and drugs.
        And Im not sayng that there are only two choices either. But Anabolic have had an impact during the past ten or so years that even statistical masterminds like James can't put their finger on.

        And if he is just talking about Coors Feild why leave it so open ended and lump everyone who played from 1994-2000 as possibly suspect? The AL has almost no exposure to Coors during that time. Its pretty obvious that he's alluding to somethign else but without evidence he can't just start acusing people of doing steroids.
        Get out the Vote!!!

        Comment


        • #49
          Bill James isn't writing a bible nor is he writing law.

          Bill James has mentioned puffed up stats of other eras does that mean he thinks they took steroids?

          Again Bill James has defended steroid users. There is a whole section in Barra's book in which Bill is arguing that their is no real proof of steroid use in the modern players. That bonds late surge is not unusual.

          Bill has talked numerous times about the 90's and why he believes its a offensive era. When he says phony stats of 1994 to 2000 he isn't talking about steroids singly but to the actual values of the stats being posted. A .350 looks impressive but when you factor that he is playing at Coors in a league with say a .290 batting average it doesn't look all that impressive. He isn't saying the stats are phony becuase of steroids. Again Bill is a defender of steroid users.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Ubiquitous
            --Again Bill James has defended steroid users.

            --There is a whole section in Barra's book in which Bill is arguing that their is no real proof of steroid use in the modern players.

            --That bonds late surge is not unusual.
            If this is all true, and I trust your word that it is, James just lost what little credibility he had left with me. Can't believe a guy who is supposedly that smart would write that.

            Comment


            • #51
              Amazing that when the steroids hit the fan most have forgotten two other changes in the game that came about in the early to mid 1990s.

              The ball, tested at the University of Rhode Island with the balls of the mid to late 1990s shown to contain over the limit percentages of synthetic fibers in the wool windings. It was believed that the synthetic material would resist dampness on humid days keeping the ball firmer. OK, is this concrete no, just an assumption. Now we get to the other changes, lower seams and tiighter cover. Again just as in 1930 pitchers complain, lower seams make the ball harder to grip, harder to get stuff on it.

              Thats one, the ball what about the issue that was so hot in the early 1990s, the strike zone a joke lowered from the letters to just above the belt, thats not what the rule book says. Articles in dozens of newspapers, magazines, Baseball Digest, ESPN Magazine, the Sporting News, Baseball Weekly and a bunch of others. Many complete with diagrams comparing the rule book strike zone and that called by the umps in the 1990s.

              BTW editors of Popular Science made at least a dozen phone calls to Bud Selig's office to discuss the synthetic material used in the mid 1990s and 2000 balls. That was in 2001 and Selig never returned the calls.

              Steroids helped some who used them but everyone benefitted by the two forgoten changes, the ball and that funny little strike zone.

              Comment


              • #52
                Bill James likes to go against the grain. Its how he got to where he is. Generally when someone or some view is attacked using faulty data or simply hearsay and rumors he will defend them. Its a quirk of his, he likes to fight for the underdog.

                Craig Biggio
                Pete Rose
                Barry Bonds

                While tearing down guys he views are being over-rated based on faulty data, andecdotal evidence, and hearsay.

                George Sisler


                Bill James was a staunch defender of Pete Rose or I should say he liked to tear down the evidence and arguments against Pete Rose.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Bond's late surge inst that unusual!?!
                  Have you even seen the breakdown people have been doing of Bond's "late surge?"

                  Bonds from 1986-1999 his career # were roughly BA .290 with 34 HR's
                  Since 2000 its been about a BA .335 and 50 Hrs.

                  Name me another Batter that has had a five year career statistical peak from age 35 to age 40?

                  (numbers taken from BaseballRefrence.com)


                  Edited for clarity and out of respect to the english language.
                  Last edited by ESPNFan; 03-09-2006, 11:01 PM.
                  Get out the Vote!!!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The university of Rhode Island test gets brought up a lot. You really can't jump to any real conclusions from it, even the people doing the testing said that. A very very small handful of balls were testing nor did they know what the fibers did to the ball if they even had any impact all. What they said it could was a theory of theirs.

                    The Fibers were there not by some grand conspiracy but because of the nature of the business. They use recycled wool to make the ball and the wool has synthetic fibers. Thats it, thats why its there.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                      Bill James likes to go against the grain. Its how he got to where he is. Generally when someone or some view is attacked using faulty data or simply hearsay and rumors he will defend them. Its a quirk of his, he likes to fight for the underdog.

                      Craig Biggio
                      Pete Rose
                      Barry Bonds

                      While tearing down guys he views are being over-rated based on faulty data, andecdotal evidence, and hearsay.

                      George Sisler


                      Bill James was a staunch defender of Pete Rose or I should say he liked to tear down the evidence and arguments against Pete Rose.
                      I understand that Ubi, but to defend steroid use in baseball is to hate what the game stands for.

                      And for him to say Bonds' late surge wasn't unusual? HUH? A guy that spends as much time with numbers and historical players as him, and he says that?

                      Being controversial is one thing, but making moronic statements is something altogether different. He first got lowered in my eyes by not doing his homework on the Ruth bat incident, and now this. Unforgivable to print that.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                        The university of Rhode Island test gets brought up a lot. You really can't jump to any real conclusions from it, even the people doing the testing said that. A very very small handful of balls were testing nor did they know what the fibers did to the ball if they even had any impact all. What they said it could was a theory of theirs.

                        The Fibers were there not by some grand conspiracy but because of the nature of the business. They use recycled wool to make the ball and the wool has synthetic fibers. Thats it, thats why its there.
                        Ubi, have you read this from Popular Mechanics?

                        "But while all balls were in MLB spec as far as weight (5 to 5.25 ounces) and COR, balls at the lightest and liveliest end of the tolerance specs, compared to balls at the heaviest and deadest end of the tolerances, would typically travel 49.1 ft. farther than the heavier ball, on a 400-ft. hit. That's a 10 percent performance difference within MLB's own specs and could mean the difference between a lazy fly ball and a home run."

                        http://www.popularmechanics.com/outd...s/1277546.html


                        And that's just the baseballs. They have separate specs on bats, which is very loosy goosy as well. Perhaps they should "tighten up" their specifications.
                        Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-09-2006, 10:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ESPNFan
                          Bond's late surge inst that unusual!?!
                          Have you even seen the breakdown people have been doing of Bond's "late surge?"

                          Bonds from 1986-1999 his career # were roughly BA .290 with 34 HR's
                          Since 2000 its been about a BA .335 and 50 Hrs.

                          Name me another Batter that has had a five year career statistical from age 35 to age 40?

                          (numbers taken from BaseballRefrence.com)

                          That wasn't me saying that, thats Bill James.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                            I understand that Ubi, but to defend steroid use in baseball is to hate what the game stands for.

                            And for him to say Bonds' late surge wasn't unusual? HUH? A guy that spends as much time with numbers and historical players as him, and he says that?

                            Being controversial is one thing, but making moronic statements is something altogether different. He first got lowered in my eyes by not doing his homework on the Ruth bat incident, and now this. Unforgivable to print that.
                            He wasn't defending steroid use, but arguing that the stats were not conclusive proof that these players were on steroids. It turns out that they were, but he was arguing that the stats did not show that.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                              He wasn't defending steroid use, but arguing that the stats were not conclusive proof that these players were on steroids. It turns out that they were, but he was arguing that the stats did not show that.
                              Gotcha. I don't get why so many feel he's some Grand Poobah, if he doesn't do proper research on certain things, or make outlandish claims without proof. Isn't a scientist type person supposed to back up their theories?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                                Ubi, have you read this from Popular Mechanics?

                                "But while all balls were in MLB spec as far as weight (5 to 5.25 ounces) and COR, balls at the lightest and liveliest end of the tolerance specs, compared to balls at the heaviest and deadest end of the tolerances, would typically travel 49.1 ft. farther than the heavier ball, on a 400-ft. hit. That's a 10 percent performance difference within MLB's own specs and could mean the difference between a lazy fly ball and a home run."

                                http://www.popularmechanics.com/outd...s/1277546.html


                                And that's just the baseballs. They have separate specs on bats, which is very loosy goosy as well. Perhaps they should "tighten up" their specifications.
                                Your link is a dead end but I have read it before.

                                I think it would be kind of hard and expensive to tighten up the specs for a baseball. But I do think they should standardize the bat. Also Bill James had some suggestions in his Abstract about some rule changes I think they should implement as well.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X