McGwire admits steroid use

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by 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.

What about Norm Cash?

[Jason Moyer]

What do you guys think of these stats? Juicing?

Age 24-34 - 17.4 AB/HR
Age 35-39 - 11.8 AB/HR

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

What about Norm Cash?

Norm Cash was on the juice?

[Jason Moyer]

Obviously, look at 1961 in comparison to his career:

1961 - .361/.487/.662
career - .271/.374/.488

If you take 1961 out of his career line:

.264/.363/.473

[MrHaroldG]

Actually, Cash admitted years later that he used a corked bat during the 1961 season.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

What do you guys think of these stats? Juicing?

Age 24-34 - 17.4 AB/HR
Age 35-39 - 11.8 AB/HR

Any takers? I'm guessing at least one person here already knows who this is, but I'd be curious to see if anyone else would assume this guy was on something. The player in question had a curiously similar career arc as Barry Bonds, actually.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Any takers? I'm guessing at least one person here already knows who this is, but I'd be curious to see if anyone else would assume this guy was on something. The player in question had a curiously similar career arc as Barry Bonds, actually.

I can't figure it out.

So, whoever you are referring to had better years later in his career. That doesn't explain anything. Hank Aaron had some better years when he was older. For instance, he had 29 HRs in 1968.

In 1969 - an expansion year - his total jumps to 44. Of course, we all know the effects of expansion upon hitting, don't we?

He confessed to trying a "greenie" back in the day, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he continued to use them throughout his career.

He wasn't the only player to perform better as he got older. Didn't Carlton Fisk hit 37 homers at age 37?

Ted Williams hit .388 at age 38?

Pointing fingers into past without sufficient evidence of wrong-doing doesn't compare to all of the evidence piled up onto Bonds.

[Jason Moyer]

40 homeruns in 392 at bats is pretty impressive by 1973 standards, I think. Granted, there were a few other guys on that team who had unsual homerun rates compared to their career norms.

[Russ]

That's Hank Aaron, I believe.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

What do you guys think of these stats? Juicing?

Age 24-34 - 17.4 AB/HR
Age 35-39 - 11.8 AB/HR

Obviously not, since his power went up.

I already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that power goes down with Steriod use.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Obviously not, since his power went up.

I already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that power goes down with Steriod use.

No, you didn't.

[jaxmagicman]

Ok. So I posted a link that proves it.

You will not find anything even close to that agreeing with the other side.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Ok. So I posted a link that proves it.

Where? (bringing the Great Debate to your friendly sports thread)

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

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.

With his consecutive games streak Ripken using something to keep in the lineup would not surprise me in the least.

[jazzrack]

here is what bugs me, some guy is too hurt to play so they shoot him up with drugs send him out and he is a tough hero & that isn't considered a performance enhancer.

some other guy is older, gets sore mucles & rubs some roid creame on his skin so he can go out and play and he becomes a huge cheat.

[Jpotapoff]

Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach

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.

Either that or the crap Maris went through in 1961 killed his love for the game, affected him mentally, pressure to live up to that monster year hurt him, desire to swing more for average instead of swing for power, etc. Many things could explain why the sudden drop, and allow speculation that had he not gone through the pressure of chasing Ruth's record he was on a career upswing that he would have sustained for at least a few years (ie. he had his breakout year and reached a new level of performance).

Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach

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.

I will agree with that. Too many people make it so black and white and say that players in the 90s were cheaters because steroid use was rampant and all of their good years were due to steroids. And how you can't compare their stats to previous eras because of it. The problem is it is not that cut and dried. Just because someone had a jump in numbers that doesn't mean he was juiced. It's pretty much impossible to be able to tell just how much steroids helped certain players. It's possible that steroids hurt players nearly as much as it helped them.

And there's no real factual proof that steroids actually helped a person swing better. Build up muscle mass yes, but swing better? How about the loss of flexibility that the increased muscle mass brings? Not all home run hitters were massive people, in any era. So hitting home runs is more than just being big. Then there is the injury factor. Steroids is proven to hurt a person's body. Professional Wrestling (yes not a sport but they are still athletes) proved that. Wrestlers on steroids build up their bodies to be bigger than they could have ever gotten without drugs but many are too big for their frame and have suffered a lot more torn and pulled muscles, tendons, etc. because of it in other words have become fragile physically. Baseball players, while they didn't go to the extreme builds as wrestlers, still bulked up fast so it stands to reason that their bodies suffered from the steroids makes you more injury prone issue as well.

So one can't say that all of players in the 90s stats are tainted because steroids made everyone ten times better. Now you can say that due to steroids and other performance enhancing drugs it is impossible to tell which stats are legit and which are not. And that doubt casts a shadow over the era making it hard to separate the legit performances from the non-legit ones. But then again you can make that argument for many other eras as well. Not just in terms of drugs but other factors that gave a player an advantage. Like say weaker pitching in a time period, shorter fences, better or worse hitting backgrounds, less use of relievers, starters that went longer so you faced the same pitcher more times in a game not too mention faced a tired pitcher more than in eras where relievers were used. Better mechanics for pitchers (wasn't in the curve ball still thought to be an optical illusion in Ruth's era? Certainly they had less pitches available and the science behind pitching mechanics were much less known). Years where the pitchers had a higher mound compared to years the mound was lowered. Ball conditions. In reality every era has factors that makes it hard to compare eras to eras or casts doubts on who had an unfair advantage over others. Even something as simple as hitting in a ballpark were the power alleys were in your favour could be considered an advantage over others. Or playing in a home ballpark where the wind conditions carried your hits farther, or playing on a team with a bunch of good players and thereby you had better "protection in the lineup" or faced more tired pitchers than players on other teams because your teammates hitting the pitcher hard meant he had to throw more pitches. Tons of stuff that make it hard to directly compare players..

And there's the whole if the hitters being on steroids meant they got an unfair advantage over batters of other eras how about the pitchers they faced? PE Drug use was rampant amongst pitchers as well. Now if both sides were using PEDs doesn't it balance out? Or if hitters got such a huge advantage over pitchers due to steroids then just how great were pitchers in the steroids era then? That they were facing these steroid freak of natures yet were able to put up numbers similar or better than pitchers from other eras?

[Jpotapoff]

Originally Posted by MrHaroldG

Actually, Cash admitted years later that he used a corked bat during the 1961 season.

Which means he might have had a monster year that season if he didn't.

The Mythbusters tested the corked bat theory and found that a corked bat noticeably DECREASED the performance of the bat. Balls left the bat with a lot less speed because the cork absorbed the energy, and the whole idea that the cork allowed you to swing a heavier bat quicker didn't pan out either. I think they found it gave a slight increase in bat speed but very slight and it no where near made up for the loss in transfer of energy to the ball. I can't remember the numbers but it was something like the corked bats hit balls 10 to 15 feet less than the legal bats. It was amazing and from a science point of view it made perfect sense. Cork is softer than wood so it absorbed more kinetic energy fro the ball instead of making the ball bounce off the bat more. I think they also found it screwed with the bat's sweet spot (made it smaller or put it in a different spot) as well.

So really if Cash is telling the truth that he used a corked bat all season long in 1961 he probably robed himself of having a much better year had he used a normal bat. (other than the placebo effect of him thinking he'd hit better because he was cheating).

[Jpotapoff]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

With his consecutive games streak Ripken using something to keep in the lineup would not surprise me in the least.

Or Nolan Ryan for that matter. I don't think anyone really has suggested it but who is to say that Ryan's longevity wasn't entirely due to clean Texas living and not taking something more than Advil?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Jpotapoff

Which means he might have had a monster year that season if he didn't.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the physics, but wouldn't it make more sense to take a bat that's way heavier than one you'd normally use, and cork the other end (i.e. the handle) as opposed to the barrel-corking that people (i.e. Babe Ruth) do?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Jpotapoff

Or Nolan Ryan for that matter. I don't think anyone really has suggested it but who is to say that Ryan's longevity wasn't entirely due to clean Texas living and not taking something more than Advil?

OMG not Nolan Ryan. Especially not a guy who worked extensively with Tom House (and credits him for his longevity) and played for the Rangers, who apparently had their share of anabolic steroid users.