Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Isn't having a corked bat made just as premeditated as taking steroids?

To quote QuestGAV on the perceived difference: "cheating at the tactical level can be observed & uncovered by astute observers, whereas the strategic cheating has a broader impact and is only discernible with invasive measures like blood tests & wire taps"

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by <o>

Um, MD. Care to answer this one?</o>

Sure. Lifetime ban, all records and awards pulled, made into an unperson.

The objective here is to be so very draconian that no one is ever tempted to pull this *** again, ever.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

And if a player test positive for steroids, how do we know the players he went up against werent taking steroids. Unlessyou are naive to beleive only power hitters took steroids.

You can't punish the ones you can't catch, but you can punish the ones that you can...and you should. To the max.

[nestajones]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I support similar rules for people who break other rules - stealing signs

HAHAHAHAHAHA


hey everybody, they're flashing signs across the field! avert your eyes so we don't accidentally crack the code!

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

To quote QuestGAV on the perceived difference: "cheating at the tactical level can be observed & uncovered by astute observers, whereas the strategic cheating has a broader impact and is only discernible with invasive measures like blood tests & wire taps"

If by "astute observers" he means an X-ray machine, I agree.

Of course, there seem to be lots of "astute observers" who have uncovered Barry Bonds' and Sammy Sosa's alleged steroid abuse without the benefit of invasive procedures.

[Comedian2004]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

You can't punish the ones you can't catch, but you can punish the ones that you can...and you should. To the max.

The 10 day suspension is a joke.

If I was Commish:

1st offense: 30 day suspension (without pay) plus $250,000 fine.
2nd offense: one year suspension (without pay) plus $1,000,000 fine.
3rd offense: Ban from baseball, no pension, no hall, nothing. 3rd strike your out.

It would make the players think about it before they poked that needle in their butts.

As far as corked bats. No, not the same as using roids. It falls in the catorgory of skuffing a baseball. I think they handle this fine. There is always the risk of the bat breaking and being embarrassed. However, we DO NOT allow the 'It was not my bat', if I can't use the 'It is not my pot', then they can't use the 'It is not my bat'.

I think before each game, the umpire should take a name from a hat for each team and whoever name is drawn out has to take a roid test. This way, they never know when the test is going to happen. Also, at the start of each season and at the end of each season, EVERYONE should have to take the test, except Mark Belanger.

[<o>]

Originally Posted by Comedian2004

The 10 day suspension is a joke.

If I was Commish:

1st offense: 30 day suspension (without pay) plus $250,000 fine.
2nd offense: one year suspension (without pay) plus $1,000,000 fine.
3rd offense: Ban from baseball, no pension, no hall, nothing. 3rd strike your out.

It would make the players think about it before they poked that needle in their butts.

As far as corked bats. No, not the same as using roids. It falls in the catorgory of skuffing a baseball. I think they handle this fine. There is always the risk of the bat breaking and being embarrassed. However, we DO NOT allow the 'It was not my bat', if I can't use the 'It is not my pot', then they can't use the 'It is not my bat'.

I think before each game, the umpire should take a name from a hat for each team and whoever name is drawn out has to take a roid test. This way, they never know when the test is going to happen. Also, at the start of each season and at the end of each season, EVERYONE should have to take the test, except Mark Belanger.

Wow, and I thought Bud Selig was a dumb commish, I think we found a new contender. By the way, where would you find baseball players to play in your league? No baseball player would agree to those stipulations. And it was brought up earlier, why limit it to illegal substances? Why not do away with leagal supplements too. Aren't those doing the same things as steriods? Or is it ok, because it takes a little longer for you to get the results?

[Comedian2004]

If they did not want to play by the rules, it is their decision. If someone was not doing steroids, why would they not want to play? I am confused by your statement on that.

As far as legal supplements, they are legal, so until they are not legal, they are allowed.

Money would have to be spent on how this testing should be done, as we can already see, there may be problems with the testing. Sanchez tested positive? He hit 2 homeruns last year?

Look at Ben Johnson. He was banned for life. $250,000 is not a lot of money for someone that is making 14 million a season, but it sure would make the rookies think about it. The 2nd offense sounds very steep and it is. It should never get to that.

If I was a salesperson for a company and I broke into the office after hours and altered reports to make me a better salesperson, that would be considered cheating. What would happen to me? Would they say, well, it's ok, just don't let it happen again. No, they would fire me on the spot.

[<o>]

Originally Posted by Comedian2004

1. If they did not want to play by the rules, it is their decision. If someone was not doing steroids, why would they not want to play? I am confused by your statement on that.

2. As far as legal supplements, they are legal, so until they are not legal, they are allowed.

Money would have to be spent on how this testing should be done, as we can already see, there may be problems with the testing. Sanchez tested positive? He hit 2 homeruns last year?

3. Look at Ben Johnson. He was banned for life. $250,000 is not a lot of money for someone that is making 14 million a season, but it sure would make the rookies think about it. The 2nd offense sounds very steep and it is. It should never get to that.

4. If I was a salesperson for a company and I broke into the office after hours and altered reports to make me a better salesperson, that would be considered cheating. What would happen to me? Would they say, well, it's ok, just don't let it happen again. No, they would fire me on the spot.

1. It's a players union. YUou wouldn't be able to get the players to agree with it even if none of the players took steroids. It sets a bad precedent on fines. What's next handing out a $100,000 fine for pissing in the owners toliet?

2. So, it's ok to take muscle enhancers, as long as they are legal, nevermind that some of them have the same effects that roids do?

3. So, if you were to get caught for speeding twice, the local police should be able to fine you $2,100 for that second offense and take away your license for one year?

4. Actually, you would also be arrested if the company had a board of shareholders. That would be tampering with the SEC, and that would make you go to a federal prison. Hardly the same. But nice try.

[You'll Thank Me Later]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Isn't having a corked bat made just as premeditated as taking steroids?

The real difference in degree is between "tactical" offenses that can be dealt with by the umpires and "strategic" ones that must be dealt with by the commissioner or the courts.

[tcblcommish]

I have read this thru page 8 and I am kind of intrigued on this whole arguement. The most I heard is Mal saying that the game was better in the 60s and 70s and (sorry I cannot remember the name) saying that the talent pool is better now than it was before when Ruth played.

I will agree that our athletes of today are better than they were in the 20's. I think even Mal would agree to that but there are also 30 teams now compared to the 16 that there were back in the 20s. If you look at the product as a whole, the talent pool really isn't that much different than it was back then becuase even though there is a lot more top quality players and pitchers, there is a lot of below average major leaguers that wouldn't even get a sniff of major league time if there were 16 teams.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by tcblcommish

I will agree that our athletes of today are better than they were in the 20's. I think even Mal would agree to that but there are also 30 teams now compared to the 16 that there were back in the 20s. If you look at the product as a whole, the talent pool really isn't that much different than it was back then becuase even though there is a lot more top quality players and pitchers, there is a lot of below average major leaguers that wouldn't even get a sniff of major league time if there were 16 teams.

That's true. It's also true that the population from which talent is being drawn has increased much more than the number of available teams has.

Edit: Just some relevant stats:

1920: 40.7 million white men
2000: 138.4 million men plus millions of Japanese, Cuban, Dominican, Venezuelan, etc men.

In 1920 there were about 2.5 million available players per team. In 2000 there were between 15 and 20 million available players per team.

[Malleus Dei]

Bill James, in his essay "Revolution" in his book THIS TIME LET'S NOT EAT THE BONES (pages 398-413), does the math and concludes that a population base of 4 million people (not men or women, but people) is enough people to provide suffcient talent for one full-quality major league team. Beyond that size of population base, James states "It's making a distinction in talent which is unimaginably trivial."

1920 U.S. Population 105.7 million - or enough to support 26 major league quality teams
1920 U.S. Black Population 10.5 million
1920 U.S. Non-black population = 95.2 million, or enough to support 23 (and almost 24) major league quality teams

In 1920 there were only 16 major league teams. Based on James' work there was excess major league quality *white* talent in 1920.

Population data from http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/pds/af...r/timeline.pdf

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Just some relevant stats:

1920: 40.7 million white men
2000: 138.4 million men plus millions of Japanese, Cuban, Dominican, Venezuelan, etc men.

In 1920 there were about 2.5 million available players per team. In 2000 there were between 15 and 20 million available players per team.

Very true, but some additional relevant stats:

1920: 16 teams looking for the best
2000: Teams looking for the best... 30 MLB, 32 NFL, 30 NBA teams in addition to other venues paying some nice money.

That would drop the 15 to 20 mil down a rough guess of about 5 to 6.5 million (only counting MLB, NFL, and NBA and using the 450 to 600 mil you used as the talent pool). Wasn't sure how to quantify the athletes from other sports so I concentrated on the three that are looking at the same talent pool.

[<o>]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Bill James, in his essay "Revolution" in his book THIS TIME LET'S NOT EAT THE BONES (pages 398-413), does the math and concludes that a population base of 4 million people (not men or women, but people) is enough people to provide suffcient talent for one full-quality major league team. Beyond that size of population base, James states "It's making a distinction in talent which is unimaginably trivial."

1920 U.S. Population 105.7 million - or enough to support 26 major league quality teams
1920 U.S. Black Population 10.5 million
1920 U.S. Non-black population = 95.2 million, or enough to support 23 (and almost 24) major league quality teams

In 1920 there were only 16 major league teams. Based on James' work there was excess major league quality *white* talent in 1920.

Population data from http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/pds/af...r/timeline.pdf

I'm sorry Mal, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. By your logic, that means that there were 2 entire black teams being excluded. Am I correct?

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

In 1920 there were only 16 major league teams. Based on James' work there was excess major league quality *white* talent in 1920.[/url]

I'd tend to believe that. Altho that means that there's enough of a population base now to support around 100 teams.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by <o>

I'm sorry Mal, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. By your logic, that means that there were 2 entire black teams being excluded. Am I correct?

Utterly wrong, as usual.

1. It's Bill James' logic and argument, and was cited as such.

2. There was enough black talent *by James' logic and the population data* for two major league teams.

Nice harassment attempt, but you failed yet again.
</o>

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I'd tend to believe that. Altho that means that there's enough of a population base now to support around 100 teams.

James wrote that "with 240 million people...I'm suggesting something like sixty major league teams and 150 free minor league teams."

[<o>]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Utterly wrong, as usual.

1. It's Bill James' logic and argument, and was cited as such.

2. There was enough black talent *by James' logic and the population data* for two major league teams.

Nice harassment attempt, but you failed yet again.
</O>

I'm not harrasing. As I believe you are able to at least read a little, I already said I'm not sure I understand. How am I harrasing you? I asked a question, and you decide it's an attack? I think something might be wrong with you. I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to question something you typed.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by <o>

I'm not harrasing. As I believe you are able to at least read a little, I already said I'm not sure I understand. How am I harrasing you? I asked a question, and you decide it's an attack? I think something might be wrong with you. I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to question something you typed.

</o>There was enough black talent *by James' logic and the population data* for two major league teams. Good enough?