This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Show me a study, any study, that details the benefits of steroids as relates to baseball. Its conjecture that steroids help baseball players hit homeruns. Highly likely, but people act like its fact. And HGH has very few proven benefits and those benefits would hardly seem to have much use in baseball.
Oh come on man. HRs have dipped dramatically since steroid testing came into affect.
Actually, the dip started the year they started testing for amphetamines, the year after they started steroid testing. This is the problem with this subject. There were many things that changed the past several years and your 'evidence' could merely be confirmation bias.
I always wondered what life after a lobotomy would be like.I always wondered what life in a cave was like.
It may not be a direct link, but the link isn't difficult to make. In order to NOT believe steroids impact baseball production you have to either believe A. steroids don't increase muscle size/recovery/strength or B. Muscle size/recovery/strength doesn't improve your baseball production.Take steroids or HGH out of the equation. If one guy is much bigger and stronger than another (regardless of how he got that way), do you need a study to convince you he has an advantage over a smaller, weaker player?
I always wondered what life after a lobotomy would be like.I always wondered what life in a cave was like.
Zing!But, it really is not very smart to deny all of the evidence that steroids enhances performance. Just because a peer-reviewed journal has not interrogated its effects on baseball does not mean that we can't use our brains--lobotomized or not--to extrapolate some generalized findings to more particular aspects related to baseball. If you deny science and believe in wizards, fine. But, the vast majority of baseball fans understand that it has had a tremendous effect on the most recent era.To claim to know the amount of effect of steroids on the 80s, 90s and 00s players is complete conjecture. Yes, it likely had some positive effect, but there are a ton of factors that contributed to increased offensive production. Year round weight training without drugs, better nutrition, better treatments, expansion, many new (and generally smaller) ballparks, Coors Field pre-humidor, Moneyball and the subsequent de-emphasis on defense, the de-stigmatization of the K, etc. A scientific observation is that steroids likely had some positive effect, but any more strenuous claim is wizardry. I've yet to see anything that even comes close to isolating a steroid effect.I always wondered what life after a lobotomy would be like.
If you deny science and believe in wizards, fine. But, the vast majority of baseball fans understand that it has had a tremendous effect on the most recent era.
If you haven't seen anything that comes close, then why make the first statement? Why would you think steroids had some positive effect if there isn't a scintilla of evidence to support that it benefits performance?Don't go all wet willy with this.
Great, now how big would the gap between these two players be if they were the same size?Hint: much larger.
The first statement is a reasonable assertion based on the available information. However, any statements purporting certainty or claiming to establish the amount of contribution of steroids step beyond bounds of the available evidence.
People always seemed confused when they learned relief pitchers used them so much. Just huge in muscle recovery.
Wouldn't steroids help you generate bat speed?The American Journal of Physics has a study published by a Tufts University physicist in '08 who calculated that a 10% increase in muscle mass would generate 5% greater bat speed. In a game where hundredths of milliseconds make all the difference, it would seem to follow you could catch up to some pitches you might otherwise miss.
Dont find the article particularly convincing. It ignores league wide analysis and makes several glaring assumptions. Most outlandish to me is the assertion of 10% more muscle mass not effecting the length and technique of a batters swing. He's obviously doing some basic Newtonian calculations without any understanding of the bio-mechanics. He just keeps on simplifying mechanics and guessing at variables. It feels like the framework to start an actual analysis with large sections intended to be revisited with actual data.
You're probably right and there's nothing to it. The huge spike in HRs league-wide, highlighted by the Brady Andersons, Brett Boones, Ken Caminitis, Bonds, Sosas, McGwires, et al...it's probably now that I think about it the result of global warming and not steroids.I'd be interested to see your data that demonstrates the length and technique of batters' swings are adversely affected by 10% increases in muscle mass. You seem to value empirical studies and not conjecture. Do you have any data to support this?
Brady Anderson An interesting take on Brady Anderson, imo, and part of the reason people generally need to temper their assertions re: steroids.And the spike in HRs examined by the study you linked is only the top few hitters in the league, he's not examining the league wide trends which have alot more data points and should be less susceptible to random fluctuations and singular outliers.
And the spike in HRs examined by the study you linked is only the top few hitters in the league, he's not examining the league wide trends which have alot more data points and should be less susceptible to random fluctuations and singular outliers. You aren't denying that HR numbers have spiked as a league-wide trend are you? Seems like an interesting point to make, if you concede it, already.Nevertheless, all I'm pointing out is that you are using words like, "considering..." and "it's hard to imagine..." and then making a statement/assertion (i.e., "the swing will change") without reference to actual data to support these claims. Note: I do not doubt that there is an association, but I am also open to using a logical argument when the evidence does not yet prove the theory. Borrowing from the old adage: the absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence.
ower. In the absence of any plausible alternative that can be characterized by data in some peer-reviewed literature or elsewhere
Excellent analysis. I wholeheartedly agree. Some of us feel as though we are battling for the middle ground between two extremist factions:(A) The What Me Worry Group wants us to deny, deny, deny. Steroids is not a problem for baseball, and even if it were, the problem has been exaggerated because we really have such uncertainty about whether it actually helps performance (i.e., hit ball far). It's not a big deal, so leave it alone.(B) The other group opens the flood gates to assume that EVERYONE has done it, that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and even then, they're probably still guilty of something unnatural (e.g., amphetamines, gatorade, nicotine) that enhanced their performance. Unlike the WMW group, this clan readily accepts that the inflated HR numbers are disproportionately the result of increased steroid use. In this case, since everyone has been an active participant, it's not a big deal, so leave it alone.While they share diametrically opposite views, they share a common glue: let it go, it's not a big deal, leave it alone. Along with many others, I am caught in the middle. The 90s up to the mid-2000s drew from pharmacological advances by a select number of participants that, even the few who were engaged in the steroid era, rewrote the record books and, as such, rewrote history penned by all of these frauds. That's sort of a bummer. So, I am pleased by the suspensions and public disgrace that has befallen so many of these cheaters. Bonds hasn't had even a nibble to get back in the league, which makes this world a better place. Mark McGwire and Raffy Palmeiro were humiliated before congress, aired and reaired over and over to expose what a sham they were a party to. Stricter policies have swept through MLB, so at least it takes someone with a severe case of antisocial personality disorder (or, alternatively, an IQ south of 70) to buck the system and continue using this stuff. All in all, I am quite pleased by the outcomes in this aftermath. Occasionally a board member proposes an interesting tweak, siding with the A or B team above. It's enjoyable to watch how they resolve the cognitive dissonance. At least it just passes some good time while spring training gets rolling, and I can start identifying which road trips to take and knock down a few stadia from my bucket list.
I really, really hate this line of reasoning. People continually throw it out there in all manner of discussions. As if we're obligated to somehow withhold from forming our own opinion until someone is charged with a crime and tried (also assuming that the courts are right).People are only innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the judicial system. The fact that Bonds has not been convicted does not preclude me from assuming he is guilty. The fact that OJ got off does not preclude me from assuming he is guilty.Just stop.curta269 said:
This isn't a court of law.curta269 said:
Im arguing data size, unproven assumptions, correlation and causation. You're arguing belief. Not really any common ground here.cobalt_27 said:And the spike in HRs examined by the study you linked is only the top few hitters in the league, he's not examining the league wide trends which have alot more data points and should be less susceptible to random fluctuations and singular outliers. You aren't denying that HR numbers have spiked as a league-wide trend are you? Seems like an interesting point to make, if you concede it, already.Nevertheless, all I'm pointing out is that you are using words like, "considering..." and "it's hard to imagine..." and then making a statement/assertion (i.e., "the swing will change") without reference to actual data to support these claims. Note: I do not doubt that there is an association, but I am also open to using a logical argument when the evidence does not yet prove the theory. Borrowing from the old adage: the absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence.dparker713 said:
Yet, the basis of you being a steroids skeptic/denier seems to be that no one has risen to the challenge to provide incontrovertible proof that steroids contributes to significant (and robust) improvement in a particular batting category or phenotype (e.g., home runs/power).
Nevertheless, I believe (as you are free to deny/remain skeptical) that the totality of circumstantial evidence is damning, that steady reasoning supports the association between steroids
It ranks right up there with people complaining about free speech whenever someone is called to the carpet for saying something stupid or offensive.Beat me to it.
I'm all about freedom of speech but I don't go around saying things about people that aren't true.It ranks right up there with people complaining about free speech whenever someone is called to the carpet for saying something stupid or offensive.Beat me to it.
When I say I think Albert Pujols uses PEDs, I'm not saying anything that's not true.I'm all about freedom of speech but I don't go around saying things about people that aren't true.It ranks right up there with people complaining about free speech whenever someone is called to the carpet for saying something stupid or offensive.
Beat me to it.
