MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[Lammycat]

You'd have been an idiot to not take steroids before 2004.

Wow. This is mind-numbingly revealing of the entire era of usage and a lot of fan reaction to it. Do you honestly think that most players took steroids? I don't think that the majority of under-the-radar players did. It was the upper echelon guys, for the most part, who were vying for records, ego, and contracts.

[Lammycat]

People all over baseball didn't want this to stop because there was too much money to be made by the players keeping up what they were doing.

I agree and that really is disturbing. The whole thing is a clusterfuck and unfortunately many careers will now be questioned over this. Again, though: it was personal decisions that got players in this jam. That's life.

[bobbob1313]

Let's think about this logically.

 

You are a fringe player. A good, not great guy, who could hit 10 home runs, play some defense, and hit for a little average. You were a good, not great player who was having a hard time sticking. You're telling me those guys had no incentive to take steroids? They had a 10 million dollar incentive to improve.

 

Baseball prospectus crunched the numbers for me. Comparing established home run rates, they looked at rates of power spikes of 10 home runs per 650 PA based on how many home runs on average players hit. So basically, how many guys who usually hit 10-15 home runs had seasons where they hit at least 10 more than they normally did, and on down the line.

 

Less than 10 HR per 650 PA: 3 power spikes per 100 players during the juiced era and pre-juiced era (i.e. no difference)

10-15: 11 power spikes in juiced, compared to 7 prejuiced.

15-20: 12 power spikes in juiced, 7 prejuiced

20-25: 14 power spikes juiced, 8 prejuiced

25-30: 11 power spikes juiced, 7 prejuiced

30-40: 6 juiced, 5 prejuiced

Greater than 40: 4 juiced, 6 prejuiced

 

 

Basically, there were more power anomolies from 1994-2004 among fringe power hitters compared to any period before, and that ratio is much higher than amongst established 30 home run threats. Not to say that stars weren't using it, obviously they were, but I would say it's certainly arguable (and much more logical) that fringe players had much more to gain.

 

We want to demonize steroid users, so we pin it on the big bad egotistical superstars, but they are just as human as the rest of the players. It is naive to think that steroid use was driven by ego and records. It's simple economics. To pin it on just surly superstars is to sweep it under the rug and deny how widespread it truly was.

[bobbob1313]

Wow. This is mind-numbingly revealing of the entire era of usage and a lot of fan reaction to it. Do you honestly think that most players took steroids? I don't think that the majority of under-the-radar players did. It was the upper echelon guys, for the most part, who were vying for records, ego, and contracts.

 

And the reason I say this is because with the amount of money that was been thrown around for free agents from 1994-2004 and since there were absolutely no penalties for it at the time, there was no reason from a baseball standpoint to not take steroids.

 

In Will Carroll's book The Juice, an anonymous minor leauger is quoted as saying "Look, if you told me shooting bull piss would get me ten more home runs, fine." There was simply too much to gain and not enough to lose for players to NOT take steroids. And in this way, MLB has to take a huge chunk of the blame.

[Lammycat]

Good points, bob. I didn't just pin it on ego and records, though. The records/numbers translate to a spot on a roster/paycheck/economics and I have recognized that. Ultimately, though, it's a personal decision. Getting busted for cheating/breaking laws and policy falls on the individual in the end.

[Lammycat]

I still believe that exonerating all players from this era is a slap in the face to those players who played by the rules, regardless if the majority or minority abused the rules.

[bobbob1313]

Of course getting busted falls on the individual, but at the time, it made too much sense to take steroids because nobody gave a shit. How many players face legitimate legal trouble for steroid use? 1? Barry is the only one I can think of, to be honest. If I'm a player during the 90's and you told me I could make 7 figures more and face a like .3 percent chance of getting into any legitimate trouble for it, I'd have taken steroids all day every day.

 

And Lammy, who did play by the rules? Everyone assumed A-Rod was clean and now it comes out that he took them. There are so many guys that we just will never know took them because nobody is ever going to bother investigating it. But look at how many players have come out just from the Mitchell Report which basically comes from like 2 sources. What if they release this entire list of guys from 03 and we see Chipper Jones, Griffey Junior, Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, and Jeff Kent? Who becomes the best player of the era? Dante Bichett?

[Lammycat]

And would you be lying and bitching about how unfair you're being treated if it was proven that you broke laws/MLB rules? Just because a player had a good chance to get away with cheating at the time dose not excuse the fact that they cheated.

 

Contrition and even acceptance has been shown to players who have merely come clean and copped to it. It's almost a non-issue for those players (Petite, Giambi, etc.). What rankles me is the inability to 'fess up and the indignant claim that they are untouchable/innocent/are above the game by players like Clemens and Bonds. Tainted era or not, cop to what you did and let the chips fall where they will fall.

[Smokestack Joe]

A-Fraud

[Lammycat]

What if they release this entire list of guys from 03 and we see Chipper Jones, Griffey Junior, Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, and Jeff Kent? Who becomes the best player of the era? Dante Bichett?

Greg Anderson will always be my favorite from that era.

[bobbob1313]

It doesn't excuse cheating, it explains why people did it, Lammy.

 

And yeah, I wish they would all come out and say it. It's so fucking easy to get away with it. You fail a drug test, all you say is "I did it once" and everyone forgives you. I don't believe for a second that Pettite only used one time, but nobody cares anymore.

[bjorn_skurj]

You'd have been an idiot to not take steroids before 2004.

Somewhere, Lyle Alzado is crying.

[dondoboy]

Somewhere, Lyle Alzado is crying.

My dad's favorite player.

[bjorn_skurj]

Parenthetically, I wish the Broncos would go back to those unis.

[jmacomber68w]

Parenthetically, I wish the Broncos would go back to those unis.

 

Best Old Unis in existence, anyways baseball thoughts.....

 

With this new Arod situation going down I am even more of a firm believer that Ken Griffey Jr was the best baseball player I have seen play in my lifetime. However, I am only 20 so I don't have too big of a pool to select from

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Frank Thomas advocated for more steroid testing for a long time. I really hope he didn't use, though it's certainly possible.

[bobbob1313]

I think I am one of the few people in the world who isn't in love with Griffey. One of the most overrated players of his or any generation.

[Sir Stewart]

You'd have been an idiot to not take steroids before 2004.

This needs to be quoted again. Stupid, stupid, stupid. You can back it up all you want with that 'fringe player' 'percentagewise chance of making it' 'bull semen' crap - saying a player would be an idiot not to take something that is documented to fuck you up big time in the long run - is fucking bullshit and stupid, stupid, stupid.

[bobbob1313]

When it could be the difference between 1,300 dollars a month and 3 or 4 million dollars a year, I have no problem saying what I did. Maybe I could have worded it differently, but do you really think that with those kinds of short term stakes at risk that 99% of people would even think twice about the long term consequences?

[dondoboy]

When it could be the difference between 1,300 dollars a month and 3 or 4 million dollars a year, I have no problem saying what I did. Maybe I could have worded it differently, but do you really think that with those kinds of short term stakes at risk that 99% of people would even think twice about the long term consequences?

Again, that's just sad.

[Moss]

Hearing that a player took steroids is becoming so anticlimactic. Like finding out Paul Lind was gay.

[bobbob1313]

Man, I hope none of you guys who are criticizing players for taking steroids for health reasons smoke or drink because you are basically doing the same thing those guys are without the million dollar plus paychecks. You are making a conscious decision to forfeit long term health for short term happiness.

 

And that's my problem with taking a 'moral' stance on this in general. Each of us is guilty of similar offenses (in spirit if not in scale), so I'm not willing to take the high road here.

[John Smith]

It all boils down to $$$ if the player felt roid's gave him a competitive advantage (i.e. led to bigger contracts) he would take them. If he didn't take them and saw the advantage and $$ that the roided up guys had then chances are he might start taking them. Of course all this depends on the individual's own moral compas. I personally think that far more players than just the stars and just hitters were taking them. both hitters and pitchers are performing at high levels much later in thier careers than they did when I was a kid.

 

Oh Bobbob, Barry is not the only player to face legal trouble for steroid use, he is facing legal trouble for perjury which one can do whther or not they are on roids. Clemens is paddling that same boat.

[MrRain422]

It wasn't just about money, it was also about competing. All of those guys (and by that, I mean every single player in baseball) is extremely competitive. They wouldn't have gotten that far if they weren't. If they see someone else getting an edge, they're going to be interested in what they're doing, just for the sake of being able to compete with them and level the playing field for themselves again.

 

It's still stupid from a health standpoint, but a lot of people, especially young people, do things that are bad for their health, and when you put them in an incredibly competitive environment, and throw in millions upon millions dollars, it's not at all surprising.

 

I don't think anyone should be excused for doing steroids per se, I just think that it's important to keep it's pervasiveness into perspective when judging these guys. Would Bonds and A-Rod been as great as they were/are without 'roids? Probably not. How much worse would they be? No one knows, though the evidence suggests they'd still be pretty friggin' great. All I know is, the more we find out, the more it seems that steroids were the rule rather than the exception, so a player who dominated the way that those two guys did were probably still head and shoulders above everyone else, even without the 'roids. No, not every player was on steroids, but it's also just as certain that it was far more pervasive than just a few bad apples -- there was a steroid culture that existed in the game, and it was fostered and encouraged by team front offices and the league itself, in both direct and indirect ways. Doesn't mean they weren't jerks for doing it, but it also doesn't mean they weren't still great ballplayers and likely still the best of their generation.

 

To me, 'roids is a relevant issue in discussing where these guys stack up against players of other eras. But within their own era, it seems clear to me that they were the best players on steroids in an era where a ton of guys were on steroids, so it's just not so easy for me to write off their whole careers. As bobbob has pointed out numerous times, Bonds was already in the conversation as the best player in the game before he started doing steroids. Compared to Bonds, we don't really know the extent of A-Rod's use -- all we know for sure is that he used in 2003, though of course it stands to reason that his use wasn't limited to that season. But he was already an amazing player when he was 19 years old and right out of high school -- I tend to doubt he was already on 'roids back then (though of course I don't know for sure). Their accomplishments need to be put into perspective, but that perspective includes not only the fact that they were on steroids, but also the fact that a million guys were on steroids and that they were great even without the 'roids. All of those things should be considered in evaluating them as players (and I'm limiting my argument here to evaluating them as players, not as people).

[Lammycat]

Man, I hope none of you guys who are criticizing players for taking steroids for health reasons smoke or drink because you are basically doing the same thing those guys are without the million dollar plus paychecks. You are making a conscious decision to forfeit long term health for short term happiness.

 

And that's my problem with taking a 'moral' stance on this in general. Each of us is guilty of similar offenses (in spirit if not in scale), so I'm not willing to take the high road here.

The moral stance, if in fact it's taken that way, is due to the fact that not only were/are steroids illegal (whereas smoking and drinking are legal) but they were banned substances per MLB rules (whereas smoking and drinking are not). That's the simplified perspective in my eyes.