Year In Review

[monkeyman576]

When selecting a year and it describes the main events that occurred during the year, why does it call the 90s and 00s "The Power Years" instead of "The Steroid Years" and avoid any steroid related comments about players?

[Mariner and Giants Fan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

When selecting a year and it describes the main events that occurred during the year, why does it call the 90s and 00s "The Power Years" instead of "The Steroid Years" and avoid any steroid related comments about players?

Why do you think?

I believe that steroids were not the main reason for all the power by players in those decades. Perhaps the balls were more lively at times and perhaps the pitching wasn't as good. Also analytics was in its infancy and did not have a big impact either. I personally believe that steroids impact on the game was drastically overstated. Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame as should Roger Clemens.

[jksander]

I would also think having the official MLB license probably prevents any mention of the S-word lol

[md40022]

Originally Posted by jksander

I would also think having the official MLB license probably prevents any mention of the S-word lol

Whether they are actually legally obligated to avoid the S word or not, to your point - it's probably best to avoid it for the sake of keeping certain parties happy.

[Sweed]

Why does it matter and who really cares?

[Pelican]

Oh, I care a great deal, and have generally avoided those years in playing OOTP for that reason. I like to play “what if” alternative scenarios (like abolishing the color line in 1914 or 1938 or 1945); but I can’t figure out how to replay 1998 with no juicers. Seriously, it’s impossible to identify who was cheating and who was not. If a juiced pitcher was facing a juiced hitter, would the result have been different, if neither were on chemicals? I wish I could figure out a formula to adjust ratings downward, and then identify the players subject to that adjustment. But it won’t happen. We’ll never know.

My gut feeling is that guys like Bonds and Clemens would have had HOF careers without steroids; but we’ll never know for sure. I too suspect that the effect was overstated, which unfortunately caused more players to experiment, sometimes with disastrous results. As a stat guy it bothers me that normal stats were inflated, to a degree we’ll never know for sure. Are Bonds and Sosa and McGwire really the HR kings? We’ll never know that, either.

One thing that has always bothered me is how guys who played fair, didn’t indulge, paid the price in reduced numbers and, in OOTP, reduced ratings. In effect they trusted MLB to do the right thing, and MLB didn’t do anything for a long time. How many potential stars did we lose, and how many everyday players got nudged out by cheaters? That’s the scandal.

So, whatever one calls those years, they are the least enjoyable for me to play in OOTP. YMMV.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Oh, I care a great deal, and have generally avoided those years in playing OOTP for that reason. I like to play “what if” alternative scenarios (like abolishing the color line in 1914 or 1938 or 1945); but I can’t figure out how to replay 1998 with no juicers. Seriously, it’s impossible to identify who was cheating and who was not. If a juiced pitcher was facing a juiced hitter, would the result have been different, if neither were on chemicals? I wish I could figure out a formula to adjust ratings downward, and then identify the players subject to that adjustment. But it won’t happen. We’ll never know.

My gut feeling is that guys like Bonds and Clemens would have had HOF careers without steroids; but we’ll never know for sure. I too suspect that the effect was overstated, which unfortunately caused more players to experiment, sometimes with disastrous results. As a stat guy it bothers me that normal stats were inflated, to a degree we’ll never know for sure. Are Bonds and Sosa and McGwire really the HR kings? We’ll never know that, either.

One thing that has always bothered me is how guys who played fair, didn’t indulge, paid the price in reduced numbers and, in OOTP, reduced ratings. In effect they trusted MLB to do the right thing, and MLB didn’t do anything for a long time. How many potential stars did we lose, and how many everyday players got nudged out by cheaters? That’s the scandal.

So, whatever one calls those years, they are the least enjoyable for me to play in OOTP. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Sweed

Why does it matter and who really cares?

To make it crystal clear my post is in regard to what OOTP calls that era, or any era for that matter. It is not a statement about the era it self.