Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenies vs. Steroids

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

  • Originally posted by CrimeInTheCards
    You either never tried greenies before, or your just making up excuses because the oldtime players cheated as well. Coffee or redbull is nowhere near as effective as greenies. If that were true, players wouldnt risk their lives to take it knowing there's a natural, healthier way to get the same desired results. Greenies help a lot, pure and simple, especially in physical sports, or anything physical for that matter. They literally help you perform better. I've known pitchers who've increased the velocity on their fastball because of it. Mike schmidt, gwynn, so many players have said greenies have had a huge impact on baseball, and without them nextyear numbers will decline and players will be less durable. It's the truth, deal with it.
    Well considering power numbers are already down this year during the first year of penalized testing there is now way for you to prove its not more steroid users stopping with the new tougher testing. And since Caffine or Guarana isn't banned there are still plenty of ampetamine alternatives for the ballplayers.
    Get out the Vote!!!

    Comment


    • Powers numbers are down compared to what? Give it some time man, get some perspective. Its like declaring we landed on the moon and all we have done yet is lift-off. The power numbers are still high, still at all-time high levels. Steroid sluggers were not caught or run out of baseball last year, so either they didn't get caught or they went off of them and the numbers still stayed high. The home runs are still at early 2000's levels, so does that mean that in 2002 and 2003 players were not using steroids? Why is a 1.09 in 2005 proof that steroid users are dropping or that the testing is working when a 1.10 in 2002 and a 1.11 in 2003 was proof that there were steroid users and that we needed testing?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ubiquitous
        Powers numbers are down compared to what? Give it some time man, get some perspective. Its like declaring we landed on the moon and all we have done yet is lift-off. The power numbers are still high, still at all-time high levels. Steroid sluggers were not caught or run out of baseball last year, so either they didn't get caught or they went off of them and the numbers still stayed high. The home runs are still at early 2000's levels, so does that mean that in 2002 and 2003 players were not using steroids? Why is a 1.09 in 2005 proof that steroid users are dropping or that the testing is working when a 1.10 in 2002 and a 1.11 in 2003 was proof that there were steroid users and that we needed testing?
        Ubiquitous go look at the HR's per game stats I posted earier in this thread.
        last year was the lowest rate for combined AL/NL since 1997. Not to mention that the HR numbers themselves dropped form 5451 to 5017. Thats almost an 8% decrease. Could it be a fluke? Sure but its awfully funny that that fluke happens the same year that a real penalty for taking those substances is inforced.
        The point i was trying to make was if the numbers decline again next year then its more likely that its Steroids and not ampetamines elimination thats at the root of it, especially given the availability of ampetamine alternatives.
        Get out the Vote!!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CrimeInTheCards
          You either never tried greenies before, or your just making up excuses because the oldtime players cheated as well. Coffee or redbull is nowhere near as effective as greenies. If that were true, players wouldnt risk their lives to take it knowing there's a natural, healthier way to get the same desired results. Greenies help a lot, pure and simple, especially in physical sports, or anything physical for that matter. They literally help you perform better. I've known pitchers who've increased the velocity on their fastball because of it. Mike schmidt, gwynn, so many players have said greenies have had a huge impact on baseball, and without them nextyear numbers will decline and players will be less durable. It's the truth, deal with it.
          No need to get a rude tone.

          You never answered my question. How do greenies alter actual muscle strength? No doubt they help some players, probably to a large degree, but isn't it more psychological than anything? Sure, you may feel more energized and feel like you could run through a wall, but your actual physical ability remains the same. In other words, let's say you're playing the last game of a road trip, you're dog tired. If you took the field completely sober, you're going to be fatigued mentally and physically. So, to get yourself back up to par, you might take greenies. Taking them only raises you back up to your normal level and just make you feel faster. You don't agree?

          Comment


          • I don't need to look at your numbers I already have them.
            Here it is:
            NL
            2005: 1.01
            2004: 1.11
            2003: 1.05
            2002: 1.01
            2001: 1.15
            2000: 1.17
            1999: 1.13
            1998: 0.99
            1997: 0.96

            AL:
            2005: 1.09
            2004: 1.16
            2003: 1.11
            2002: 1.10
            2001: 1.12
            2000: 1.20
            1999: 1.18
            1998: 1.11
            1997: 1.10

            So in each league there levels are similar to 2002 and 2003 with AL being similar to 2001 as well.

            Even if one wants to combine the the leagues they still haven't dropped to 1997. They dropped to 2002. Using your Will Carroll chart has the NL dropping to 2002 levels and the AL dropping to 2002 level as well. Though Will's numbers are different then BRef's, and personally I'll take Brefs and the lahman databases word over wills.

            Simplest terms in 2005 167.2 home runs were hit per team per 162 games. In 2002 168.9 homers were hit per team per 162 games. So again does this mean that in 2002 MLB was free of steroids?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              No need to get a rude tone.

              You never answered my question. How do greenies alter actual muscle strength? No doubt they help some players, probably to a large degree, but isn't it more psychological than anything? Sure, you may feel more energized and feel like you could run through a wall, but your actual physical ability remains the same. In other words, let's say you're playing the last game of a road trip, you're dog tired. If you took the field completely sober, you're going to be fatigued mentally and physically. So, to get yourself back up to par, you might take greenies. Taking them only raises you back up to your normal level and just make you feel faster. You don't agree?
              Or Sultan even more to the point if a MLB player was completely rested and at his physical peak would he ever consider taking amphetamines? They obviously do with anabolic steroids.
              Get out the Vote!!!

              Comment


              • Well hell if everybody was at their physical peak they wouldn't take steroids either.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ESPNFan
                  Or Sultan even more to the point if a MLB player was completely rested and at his physical peak would he ever consider taking amphetamines? They obviously do with anabolic steroids.
                  And I think that's just it. You become dependant on them from using them when you're feeling down, so when you're not feeling down, you take them anyway, because it still makes you feel like it's a boost.

                  I'm not doubting that they can help someone focus, but so can a lot of things. I'm just questioning that they make you run faster, because they don't do anything to your muscles, and I don't see how they could make you run longer either. A pitcher throwing harder than he ever has, well maybe that's just coincidence and he would have thrown harder that day whether he was on them or not. Some days you feel fresh, some days you don't. That's why they call it a grind.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                    Well hell if everybody was at their physical peak they wouldn't take steroids either.
                    Anabolics take you beyond what you would normally be able to achive at your normal physcial peak.
                    Get out the Vote!!!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                      I don't need to look at your numbers I already have them.
                      Here it is:
                      NL
                      2005: 1.01
                      2004: 1.11
                      2003: 1.05
                      2002: 1.01
                      2001: 1.15
                      2000: 1.17
                      1999: 1.13
                      1998: 0.99
                      1997: 0.96

                      AL:
                      2005: 1.09
                      2004: 1.16
                      2003: 1.11
                      2002: 1.10
                      2001: 1.12
                      2000: 1.20
                      1999: 1.18
                      1998: 1.11
                      1997: 1.10

                      So in each league there levels are similar to 2002 and 2003 with AL being similar to 2001 as well.

                      Even if one wants to combine the the leagues they still haven't dropped to 1997. They dropped to 2002. Using your Will Carroll chart has the NL dropping to 2002 levels and the AL dropping to 2002 level as well. Though Will's numbers are different then BRef's, and personally I'll take Brefs and the lahman databases word over wills.

                      Simplest terms in 2005 167.2 home runs were hit per team per 162 games. In 2002 168.9 homers were hit per team per 162 games. So again does this mean that in 2002 MLB was free of steroids?
                      That's very Odd.
                      Using BRef the 2005 numbers for the NL HR per game that I got was 0.9946. (2594 games to 2580 Home Runs). The 2005 AL number was 1.0745 (2268 games 2437 Home runs) If my math is wrong please let me know because I'll be the first to admit it's not my strong point.
                      Get out the Vote!!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                        No need to get a rude tone.

                        You never answered my question. How do greenies alter actual muscle strength? No doubt they help some players, probably to a large degree, but isn't it more psychological than anything? Sure, you may feel more energized and feel like you could run through a wall, but your actual physical ability remains the same. In other words, let's say you're playing the last game of a road trip, you're dog tired. If you took the field completely sober, you're going to be fatigued mentally and physically. So, to get yourself back up to par, you might take greenies. Taking them only raises you back up to your normal level and just make you feel faster. You don't agree?

                        Randy,

                        Have you ever been in a physical altercation with somebody on serious drugs? I've seen people on powerful drugs get stabbed and not even notice. Certainly chemicals can elevate you beyond your normal levels. Whether it does this by enhacing your strength or desensitizing your perception of pain, doesn't really matter.

                        Plus, if that player isn't 100% that day, and he takes greenies or whatever to achieve his "normal" 100%, the % between 100 and whatever he was, is "artifiicial" even if it is only his "natural" peak. If an Olympic track star breaks a world record cleanly, would it be acceptable for him to dope to a level to replicate his greatest achievement without them? Of course not, a season is about peaks and troughs, that's why its called a grind.

                        Not being 100% all the time is par for the course. I would expect you to agree with this.
                        THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                        In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by digglahhh

                          Not being 100% all the time is par for the course. I would expect you to agree with this.
                          Certainly.

                          It's how we view it though. If he's dog tired mentally and physically, takes greenies to bring him up to 100% (or perhaps even more when it comes to being alert and focused), then it's just viewed different. Is it still gaining an edge? Well, what if everyone else on the field got a good nights sleep and felt rested. Then him taking greenies would only bring him to their level, not well above and beyond their level like steroids do. Lots grey area here.

                          We've all seen "Cops." The trailer trash dude with a mullet and no shirt on, is high on crack. He probably feels like he could get hit by a truck and not get hurt. What he feels is different than reality though. Whether he feels his kidney rupture and his spine snap isn't the issue, it's whether it's ruptures, and whether it snaps. Much like when a pitcher takes cortisone, he could do serious damage without feeling pain. Is it your contention that greenies are like crack? lol, jk. Threw ya a curveball there eh? No doubt greenies help. Would you concede that they're not in the ballpark of what was on Bonds' shopping list?

                          Comment


                          • --Amphetimines most definately can boost performance. I can say from personal experience that they give you an huge boost in energy (focus I'm not so sure). Although its not so much that they give you energy as they allow you to tap more easily into your bodies natural reserves.
                            --They don't have a cumulative effect though and would have a negative effect if used habitually. The thing is they don't actually change your body like steroids. The Greenie you took yesterday, or the series of them you took in the offseason, won't help you tomorrow. Its just a temporary lift and you eventually have to pay for reserves you tapped into.
                            --When you come off them you feel drained. Much more tired than if you had engaged in the same activity without their assistance. If you keep taking them to avoid coming down you'll find they are hurting more than helping in a failry short time. You'll be jittery as Brett Butler with his 15 cups of coffee. In the longer term they will cause your body to break down for several reasons; it has been pushed past its normal limits, they supress your appetite and they make it hard to sleep.
                            --So while I don't doubt that they were/are common in MLB locker rooms, they are a tempory and occasional pick me up. They do not make a player into something different than he would be without them. Except, of course, he may be elevated back up to full capacity on a day when he would otherwise be dragging ass.
                            --The other thing is that they have been readily available to every player in every clubhouse for a long time. I suspect most playesr have taken them from time to time. That being the case, there is not a significant competitive advantage to any one player over the long haul.
                            --Steroids have not exactly been unavailable either, but they are not something you can casually take to give you a lift. You have to make a commitment to using them (and doing the real work too) to get any benefit. They are also perceived (true or not) as much more harmfull. I think the number of regular users of steroids is much lower for those reasons and also think those user gain a much greater competitve advantage. While its just a matter of degree, it is not an unimportant difference.
                            --Plus Mays and Aaron were amoung the heros of my childhood .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ESPNFan
                              That's very Odd.
                              Using BRef the 2005 numbers for the NL HR per game that I got was 0.9946. (2594 games to 2580 Home Runs). The 2005 AL number was 1.0745 (2268 games 2437 Home runs) If my math is wrong please let me know because I'll be the first to admit it's not my strong point.
                              NL pitchers have given up 2616 home runs. NL hitters have hit 2580. AL pitchers have given up 2401 homers, and their hitters have hit 2437.

                              Looking at the hitters the NL in 2005 hit .995 homers per game. In 2002 they hit 1.003 per game. A difference of less then 1 percent. In the AL they hit 1.075 HRs per game, in 2002 they hit 1.089, a difference of 1.3%. Again the homer totals are the same as 2002. We don't have to go all the way back to 1997 to see these homer totals.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ESPNFan View Post
                                Anabolics take you beyond what you would normally be able to achive at your normal physcial peak.
                                Isn't that what it's all about?
                                The Ultimate Baseball Look

                                Modern Synthetic Baseball Fields

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X