Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Mariner and Giants Fan

In my 17th season replay of the 2005 season (using Diamond Mind baseball version 9 with the first edition of the 2005 players projection disk) Albert Pujols won the National League Triple Crown! His line: .383-55-157!!

He tied with Jim Edmunds in RBIs and tied with Jim Thome in dingers! This is the first triple crown winner in the 17 replays.

3 replays left to go without Bonds. Then 20 with him from July...

BTW without him DMB thinks that the G-Men are mediocre at best (74-78 wins avergae per season)!!

Keep up the good work. Though the results are about what we expect, I'm interested to see the difference in number of wins that Barry brings to the table.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Mariner and Giants Fan

In my 17th season replay of the 2005 season (using Diamond Mind baseball version 9 with the first edition of the 2005 players projection disk) Albert Pujols won the National League Triple Crown! His line: .383-55-157!!

PECOTA has him tabbed for a near Trip season as well.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ad.php?t=95194

[disposableheros]

lets make sure everyone has read Mal's qualifier for the 130th time...

"when Koufax was on there was no one better"


so, he agrees that Pedro is better overall, just not on the individual occasions when Koufax was ON

[treedom]

When he was on what?

Don't tell me he took steroids too?!

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

lets make sure everyone has read Mal's qualifier for the 92nd time...

"when Koufax was on there was no one better"

Sheesh. Get it right, willya.

[Mariner and Giants Fan]

I just started my second 20 season simulations of 2005 with Bonds rejoining the Giants after the AllStar break. They went from under .500 to finishing at 85-77 and in second place, but missed the playoffs, 3 games off the wild card pace. Bonds numbers were .346-28-71 in 72 games.

Travis Haffner of Cleveland won the triple crown with these numbers .336-50-133.

I was reading the Sports Weekly today, it was their prediction issue for the 2005 MLB season. They picked the Giants to win the division even without Bonds for half the season. Hope they know something that DMB doesn't

[Carlton]

same a=holes...different thread....how'd I know the biggest would be in a 'Bonds' thread

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by Carlton

same a=holes...different thread....how'd I know the biggest would be in a 'Bonds' thread

Well, most of this thread has been a Pedro vs. Koufax argument, not Bonds.

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Well, most of this thread has been a Pedro vs. Koufax argument, not Bonds.

Carlton has never been one to let facts get in the way of his arguments.

[Malleus Dei]

Back to steroids...

There's two different kinds of cheating on baseball. There's tactical, on-the-field cheating, which doesn't seem to really bother nearly so many people, and there's strategic, off-the field cheating, which really does seem to bother a lot of people.

On the field, pitchers have been doctoring balls since there's been a game. While some of them have been caught and punished for that, some of the cheaters are well-known or even in the HOF (Ford, Drysdale, Sutton etc.) and some of them have admitted to it (e.g., Whitey Ford's comment " I had my own tool bench out there with me."). Hardly anyone gets really outraged over this sort of thing - possibly because it's purely tactical, it's totally in-game, and it's kind of traditional. The batter's equivalent is, of course, the corked/tampered bat. Other accepted forms of tactical,on-the-field cheating include blocking the plate (illegal), the phantom double play (illegal), taking too long between pitches, etc.

But then, there's something that offers a contrast: sign-stealing. That's pretty much accepted behavior as long as the other team is doing it on the field by themselves. Consider though, that when a team takes the sign stealing off the field and puts someone in the stands with binoculars, uses a video camera, or has the signals transmitted via the scoreboard or by a sound, then it's much more of an issue and people get much more upset.

Purely strategic cheating - betting on games, conspiring with gamblers to fix games - seems to really upset a significant number of people and to have serious consequences (Chase, Jackson, Cicotte, Rose, et al). Even simply associating with gamblers is enough to do it - witness the suspensions of Durocher and MacLain. While, there has always been a fraction of people who maintain that this sort of thing is all in good fun and is eventually forgivable, issues regarding the integrity of the game appear to upset a majority of the fans and generally lead to action by the commissioner's office.

So we seem to have two different kinds of offenses - stuff people do in games to help their team win, and more serious offenses that people do or make arrangements for out of the game. Sort of the tactical versus the strategic.

Now we come to drug-related offenses. The MLB's policy about drugs has overall been generally pretty laughable (how many lifetime suspensions did Steve Howe get?) and has essentially consisted of sticking its collective head in the sand. Whether this is because the MLB is terrified of the MLBPA, whether it's because the MLBPA members want drug use to be tolerated, whether this is simply part of an effort to keep this issue out of the newspapers, or whether this is because of whatever other explanation you can come up with is subject to debate, but the overall ineffectiveness of the MLB's drug policies have been pretty clear. Recreational drugs have been and are commonly used, and tactical performance-enhancing drugs (amphetamines/greenies) were a tolerated fact of the game for years.

Then along come steroids. Some people see steroids as just another drug - and, since the MLB clearly hasn't seemed to care much about drug use, they don't see steroids as a serious issue. Who cares if this slugger or that slugger only hit so many home runs because they were injecting steroids off the field, because, after all, the old Hall of Famers used to take greenies, and steroids are just a more modern and different form of performance-enhancing drug, right? This, of course, is getting into the slippery slope, but the argument essentially runs that if no one was or is upset about the old HOFers and greenies, why should anyone be upset about modern sluggers and steroids? Plus it's often said that people who use drugs themselves tend to be much more tolerant about other people using drugs (of whatever kind), which gives you a subset of baseball fans who are accordingly not likely to ever see this as much of an issue. Plus there's some people who simply aren't bothered by cheating and see it as part of the game.

However, there are people who see the issue not as a drug-related issue but as one of those serious cheating offenses that people do/make arrangements for out of the game. You don't pop a steroid before or during a game like you might a greenie; steroid use requires premeditated, off-the-field action. Steroids aren't taken to help your team win this game right now; they are taken to chemically enhance a player's own career and to help him in the pursuit of records now or once held by people who generally got them honestly (e.g., Hank Aaron's HR record). To a lot of people, some of them in the government (Jim Bunning et al), some of them in the MLB (Schilling et al), this is an outrage.

So where you stand on this issue pretty much depends on where you sit. Do you think that drug use is okay, that cheating is generally no big deal, or that steroids are just a modern version of greenies? Then steroid use by sluggers won't bother you much. Do you think that premeditated use of steroids is an issue that directly impacts the integrity of the game? Then you're likely to be upset by steroid use and you're likely to want stringent action against steroids to be taken by MLB.

Personally, I'm with former MLB pitcher (224-184) and current U.S. Senator (R-KY) Jim Bunning ("Records reached while on steroids should be wiped out") on this and see this as a Pete Rose-Hal Chase-Joe Jackson level of integrity issue. However, your mileage may - and in some cases clearly does - vary.

[Joshv02]

Mal: Since we have you back, where does LASIK fit in? Is that off the field cheating?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Mal: Since we have you back, where does LASIK fit in? Is that off the field cheating?

As in eye surgery? Surgery has yet to ever be considered cheating to the best of my knowledge, although I suspect a cyborg player ("...and at third base, the Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101!") would be considered illegal.

[mlyons]

Honestly, MD, I see next to no difference between taking steroids and taking amphetamines. Both are ways of chemically improving one's play, both are illegal to be using, and both are way too widespread. I'm firmly in favor of stricter drug testing by MLB to cut down on the usage of both. However, the idea of wiping out the records of those found to have used them strikes me as incredibly wrong-headed. Pete Rose's all-time hit record still stands, despite him having been banned from the game for gambling. All of Hal Chase's and Eddie Cicotte's records still stand, despite their cheating. Why should we treat steroids users any differently? Surely you wouldn't argue that Barry Bonds has been worse for the game than Cicotte was?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Carlton

same a=holes...different thread....how'd I know the biggest would be in a 'Bonds' thread

Yes, we could use more of your nuanced "Ty Cobb RULEZ MAN!" arguements here.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

As in eye surgery? Surgery has yet to ever be considered cheating to the best of my knowledge, although I suspect a cyborg player ("...and at third base, the Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101!") would be considered illegal.

Yes, but I'm asking if it should be considered cheating, not if it is. Do you think it should be? I can't tell too much of a logical distinction between the two.

Both enhance a players ability in a physical way that the player was not born with. Previously, neither were illegal (at least make this assumption for me). Both have long term effects. Both are off-the-field actions. Both are even preformed (distributed) through medicine. Must it be chemical to be cheating?

[Crapshoot]

To whit- is medicine illegal ? Tommy John Surgery often takes ligaments from your thigh or from a cadevar to strengthen your arm - is that cheating ? What happens when a pitcher decides to have surgery not to fix a problem, but to increase arm strength (as TJ generally tends to do, given the 18 month period) ?

[Malleus Dei]

Perhaps the line between them could be the line between "repair" and "enhancement." These are good questions without easy answers, and, given the future potential of bioengineering, perhaps vital questions, but bioengineering is a completely different thing than chemicals.

My wife got tired of messing around with contacts and had LASIK. She came out of it with awesome vision - 20/15 in both eyes - that she had never had before. What effect could that have on a hitter? Considerable, I would think.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Honestly, MD, I see next to no difference between taking steroids and taking amphetamines. Both are ways of chemically improving one's play, both are illegal to be using, and both are way too widespread. I'm firmly in favor of stricter drug testing by MLB to cut down on the usage of both. However, the idea of wiping out the records of those found to have used them strikes me as incredibly wrong-headed. Pete Rose's all-time hit record still stands, despite him having been banned from the game for gambling. All of Hal Chase's and Eddie Cicotte's records still stand, despite their cheating. Why should we treat steroids users any differently? Surely you wouldn't argue that Barry Bonds has been worse for the game than Cicotte was?

I've heard this argument a lot, but to me, it sounds like:

"We shouldn't punish steroid users now because we didn't punish similar criminals before."

That logic just doesn't make sense to me. Sure, you could talk about the relativism of records and whatnot...but if a player is proven to have taken steroids, why would you not punish him simply because others weren't punished before him? That's crappy logic IMO.

If a player is proven to have done steroids, his records should be discounted. I don't care how things were done in the past, or what we suspect and who we suspect to have been guilty of other transgressions...it is never to late to set a good precedent, and forming a methodology on "tradition" alone--and faulty tradition at that--is ridiculous.

It would be like saying that we aren't going to enforce environmental regulations on corporations in 2005 because they weren't enforced in 1965.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

it is never to late to set a good precedent

That's one Hell of a good point.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

If a player is proven to have done steroids, his records should be discounted. I don't care how things were done in the past, or what we suspect and who we suspect to have been guilty of other transgressions...it is never to late to set a good precedent, and forming a methodology on "tradition" alone--and faulty tradition at that--is ridiculous.

I'm not saying anything about punishing players today; I'm talking about erasing records retroactively. Once those records are in the books, they're in the books. Where do you draw the line? Jason Giambi has admitted taking steroids, so I guess you think all of his records should be expunged. Who was the AL MVP in 2000, then? Who was the NL MVP in 1996 if we throw out Ken Caminiti's records? Here's a related question: do you think taking steroids is worse than throwing games, taking amphetamines, or gambling on games? If not, would you want to erase the records of Hal Chase, Eddie Cicotte, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Mickey Mantle, and Pete Rose?