McGwire admits steroid use

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach

The leap from McGwire's rookie year of 49 to his peak of 70 is pretty much the same leap as Maris' pre-'61 high of 39 to 61.

Guess Roger was taking something, too. He hit 33 the next year and never topped 30 again.

Conventional wisdom blames the expansion year for the extra home runs.

Also, he hit 39 homers the previous year, in 136 games. This is 47 for a full 162 game schedule.

ALSO, the turned 27 in 1961, a good time to find your power stroke.

ALSO, 1960 saw the huge upsurge in homers, the first year at Yankee stadium. Maris had a dead-pull to right field, and right field at Yankee stadium is the shortest in the Major Leagues, at 296 feet.

How many lefties took advantage of the extremely short right field?

Not limited to: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Reggie Jackson, and many many others.

[EMSoccerCoach]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Well he did hit 42 in 1992, 52 in 1996, 58 in 1997, 70 in 1998, and 62 in 1999. *

SO ya the Roger Maris example of one-and-done doesn't really work.

* - taken from his BR page

That's fair, and my fault for not explaining myself better. I just kind of posted a quick hit, so that's my error. One and done wasn't the point.

My point is that McGwire's rookie year seems to be clear of steroids, if you take his tale last night as honest (and I do, FWIW). I was basically leaping from this top pre-roids number to the steroid peak. And that leap matches up with Maris'.

Expansion, as noted above, certainly accounts for some of that.

Turning 27? Not so much, as he was down to 33 at 28 next year and never hit 30 again. Hard to argue the perfect time to find a power stroke that fades a year later. Right field stayed that short after '61 as well.

Do I think Maris took something for an edge? Perhaps. Amphetamines were readily available and widespread. And that's no different than steroids. So if you blast McGwire, you better be on board with blasting Mays and Aaron at least, and cast the same passing of judgment on their era as this one.

It's ignorant to act as though old numbers are noble and pure and today's are the product of cheating. And to think every career year is the cause of steroids is a brainless leap.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by JackRules1

It just bothers me that no one seems terribly indignant with what Tiger did, while many are happy to pile on the steroids guys. Maybe what Tiger did hits a lot closer to home for those wanting to throw stones at all the bad guys.

Well, this is primarily a baseball fan site. If you go to a site whose users are primarily golf fans I'm sure you'd find a good % of them pissed at him too.

Personally, I can't stand golf so while I do think less of Tiger now, it's not like he's tarnished the image of the game I love or unfairly influenced the results of past tournaments or anything. He's just shown us that he's a complete fraud when it comes to his own image.

I suppose maybe part of it is that cheating on one's s/o is so common that it's more of a joke than anything. We did have a thread on the topic that got moved to OT and IIRC that's exactly what turned into, one long joke. Sure, when you stop and think about it, being cheated on is an awful thing so so should anyone cheating on anyone, but it is a pretty common thing and not likely something we're ever going to stop from happening.

Conversely, if we shame and kick out enough players who cheat in their game then we just might make a dent in cheating in sports. If we just accept it and welcome them back with open arms, however, then what message does it send? I think that's why I'm so peeved about it all. If more people found cheating in sports repugnant, I don't think I'd be so bothered by it. There'd be little to no need to be. The cheaters would be banned from the game and we could just move on.

[BaseballMan]

[QUOTE=dsvitak;2885918]Conventional wisdom blames the expansion year for the extra home runs.

/QUOTE]

Well i hope your also saying it should apply to McGwire as well since he played during 2 expansion years in less than 10 years. And as far as ballparks i would say theres probably a lot more new ballparks that helped McGwire.

[rudel.dietrich]

Jose Cansecos book is looking more and more to be 100% accurate. After everything that was said when he released it, every bit of it turns out to be true.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Conventional wisdom blames the expansion year for the extra home runs.

In 1998 or 1961?

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

In 1998 or 1961?

'61. Remember, Mantle hit 54 that year. BIG year for home runs.

Prior to the steroid era, I could easily quote to you every single player to ever hit 50, and the year. Can't do it, anymore, and I have no interest in memorizing them, as I did when I was a kid.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

'61. Remember, Mantle hit 54 that year. BIG year for home runs.

Prior to the steroid era, I could easily quote to you every single player to ever hit 50, and the year. Can't do it, anymore, and I have no interest in memorizing them, as I did when I was a kid.

But the fact that there was expansion in 93 and only five years later has nothing to do with the hrs hit during the steroid era?

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by Russ

..His 1996 season was an aberation, a fluke. But Brady Anderson didn't take steroids. I'd bet money on that....

So you are telling me that a guy that consistently put up a .425 SLG for 10 years throws up a .637 SLG in the middle of an era known for PED use did not knowingly use a banned substance? That isn't a lucky swing once a week.

Sure, it's circumstancial. But I think you might lose your money on that bet...

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

So you are telling me that a guy that consistently put up a .425 SLG for 10 years throws up a .637 SLG in the middle of an era known for PED use did not knowingly use a banned substance? That isn't a lucky swing once a week.

Sure, it's circumstancial. But I think you might lose your money on that bet...

I tend to agree with you but then again dont fluke seasons happen all the time?
And why do we only look at hrs? Wouldnt steroids help a player in other areas of the game more than hr? Beefing up isnt gonna help you hit the ball. And it may help to recover faster but you still have to run, throw and hit.

Im just not sure steroids gives you that much of an advantage if any. Id like to wait 5 years and see if everything decreases or if it stays the same. And what happens with the next expansion year.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

So you are telling me that a guy that consistently put up a .425 SLG for 10 years throws up a .637 SLG in the middle of an era known for PED use did not knowingly use a banned substance? That isn't a lucky swing once a week.

Sure, it's circumstancial. But I think you might lose your money on that bet...

So, a guy has a monster season on steroids then decides he doesn't like them and quits using them? Then goes straight back to career averages?

[MrHaroldG]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

Jose Cansecos book is looking more and more to be 100% accurate. After everything that was said when he released it, every bit of it turns out to be true.

And to think that initially, the public villified Canseco for releasing the book in the first place—now, as it turns out, the names he named either were on the Mitchell Report, were on the list of players who tested positive in 2003, or came out and admitted their guilt.

[f.montoya]

Canseco's interview here is right on the money...

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Russ

So, a guy has a monster season on steroids then decides he doesn't like them and quits using them? Then goes straight back to career averages?

Very good point.. "touche" in fact....

[JackRules1]

I think we saw a great example this year of what happens when users get off the juice. First, ARod gets outed in spring training. Then Manny gets bagged. I think when ARod became the first guy on "the list" to get mentioned, Big Papi saw the writing on the wall and got off the stuff before the season started, where as Manny kept on using.

Then Ortiz has a miserable season, though he did get better in the 2nd half. Both he and Ramirez were unproductive for a few weeks after they stopped using, but then their bodies began to adjust and their play improved. I expect them to be productive in 2010, but not close to the gaudy numbers they put up when they were on the juice. I look for Ortiz to hit 20-22 and knock in 95-100, which I think would be close to an average year for a clean Pig Papi.

My guess is that Ortiz never used the stuff until he hooked up with Manny in Boston in 2003. His numbers in Minnesota were unimpressive, though of course, the ball park could have had a lot to do with that.

As for ARod, he certainly started out the year (after coming off the DL) hitting some HR's, but nothing else. He also came back to life as time went along. He may be an example of a guy who does nearly as well when clean, due to his naturally gifted abilities. Possibly he really has been clean for some time, as he claims.

Obviously, all these guys (including McGwire) can play even without using. It's impossible to quantify exactly what effects steroids really have on their numbers (Anderson in '96 is a bit scary, though).

Of course, all this is just supposition on my part.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by MrHaroldG

And to think that initially, the public villified Canseco for releasing the book in the first place—now, as it turns out, the names he named either were on the Mitchell Report, were on the list of players who tested positive in 2003, or came out and admitted their guilt.

Canseco has also implied that Ripken and Gwynn were juicing, and I haven't seen much about that anywhere. Then again, if steroid use was as widespread as it seems to have been for the last half a century you could probably throw a pile of random names out there and at least half of them will end up being linked to the drugs somehow, especially if they played during the narrow time frame that has been actively investigated by the FBI or baseball itself.

[BaseballMan]

I dont really buy the Brady Anderson just used steroids for one year argument. Either he had a fluke season without steroids or with them. I dont really see a player just juicing for 1 year.

[rutri01]

didn't ANderson play the 97 season with broken ribs and 98 he missed time due to injuries too. Maybe his body was breaking down due to steroids or age. Not sure if he was injured the resy of his career. I think he played to 2000 or 2001.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by rutri01

didn't ANderson play the 97 season with broken ribs and 98 he missed time due to injuries too. Maybe his body was breaking down due to steroids or age. Not sure if he was injured the resy of his career. I think he played to 2000 or 2001.

Here are his games played from 92-00:

159
142
111
143
149 (50 HR)
151
133
150
141
131

[Russ]

But, yeah, 97 he had a broken rib and 98 he was hurt for a good part of the year.