bjorn_skurj Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Damn, are their any decent players out there?Maybe the dudes on the bench. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Maybe the dudes on the bench. You mean the "idiots" on the bench, of course. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The names that have come out on the Mitchell Report and through failed tests prove that there is no one type of player that was using. Bench players, hall of fame type players, all stars, starting pitchers, closers, relievers. Are there decent players out there? Yes. Many of them took steroids too. Just like many decent players 40-50 years ago took amphetamines (including Hank Aaron, and if sworn testimony is to be believed, one William Mays). You can be a decent person and cheat, if you at some point in your career, reach the conclusion that it is illogical not to cheat, which is the conclusion most of these guys came to. Doesn't make you a bad person any more than copying answers on some homework or a test does, something that most students would admit to doing, or fudging some stuff on your taxes, something quite a few people do. If you want, you can criticize the relentless drive in our country to one up the person next to you, but baseball players are not alone in this and I don't think it's fair to judge anyone character just because they used steroids. Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 There's always good players like Miguel Tejada... ohh wait. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The names that have come out on the Mitchell Report and through failed tests prove that there is no one type of player that was using. Bench players, hall of fame type players, all stars, starting pitchers, closers, relievers. Are there decent players out there? Yes. Many of them took steroids too. Just like many decent players 40-50 years ago took amphetamines (including Hank Aaron, and if sworn testimony is to be believed, one William Mays). You can be a decent person and cheat, if you at some point in your career, reach the conclusion that it is illogical not to cheat, which is the conclusion most of these guys came to. Doesn't make you a bad person any more than copying answers on some homework or a test does, something that most students would admit to doing, or fudging some stuff on your taxes, something quite a few people do. If you want, you can criticize the relentless drive in our country to one up the person next to you, but baseball players are not alone in this and I don't think it's fair to judge anyone character just because they used steroids. I can see LammyCat's head exploding. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 I can see LammyCat's head exploding.No. Justifying cheating through steroid use seems to be fairly common. No one thinking this way will be swayed. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Justifying cheating through the "art" scuffing the ball, or stealing signs seems to be fairly common. No one thinking this way will be swayed. And for all of you old timers: Breaking news, baseball players in the 90's weren't the first to take any possible shortcut to become better. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Again, the degree of the puishment fits the "crime" in most cases. But we're talikng in circles again. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Again, that argument holds no water, since that means no crimes were committed up to 2004. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 O.k. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Stealing signs isn't cheating. It's intelligence gathering. Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Stealing signs isn't cheating. It's intelligence gathering. Yes. I liken it to counting cards at the blackjack table. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Stealing signs isn't cheating. It's intelligence gathering.Please, it's the same as taking performance enhancing drugs. No difference. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Please, it's the same as taking performance enhancing drugs. No difference.Nuh-uh. It's merely being attentive. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 So something that directly affects the outcome of the game in a very real way (stealing signs, scuffing the ball) is ok. Doing something that we have literally no idea how it affects the game is the worst thing ever. The difference? People have been doing one for a long time, so it's ok! Good logic. I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why steroids are worse than any other form of cheating. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why steroids are worse than any other form of cheating.Than ANY other form of cheating? How's this? Scuffing a ball can be limited to one pitch - one play. If the ump wants to insert a new game ball he can.You can't limit steroids usage to one play - the player has altered his physique in a way that cannot be reversed. Is steroids the WORST form of cheating? doubtful. Is it the least harmful? doubtful - we're talking about single-season records that are tainted here. But certainly you can agree that there are various levels of cheating. Jaywalking isn't as bad as running a red light in a car. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I don't really emotionally believe this myself, but I think people with a visceral repulsion to steroids base it on their perversion of nature and their short-cutting the hard work baseball players are supposed to dedicate to the craft. Steroids are not very Protestant-work-ethicy, if you know what I mean. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Oh, absolutely there are various levels of cheating. And I would argue PED are somewhat worse, but the level that it reaches is not known because instead of studying the actual effects everyone just gets mad and screams at guys who do it. There are known outcomes for scuffing a ball or stealing signs, but nobody really has any clue what impact steroids have on performance. Baseball Prospectus has done studies this with just the guys who have failed tests and found the difference in performance pre and post fail to be small enough to fall within the margin of chance, so the only actual study I've read where someone has tried to go indepth on the issue shows no real differences. I just have a real problem with people who celebrate some forms of cheating and then turn around and crucify those who cheat in another. It is often those who cry the loudest about PED that celebrate "gamey" cheating like stealing signs or scuffing the ball. I can't get past this hypocrisy. Bjorn, the argument could be made that there is nothing more protestant work ethic-y than using steroids. You would be working harder and doing everything in your power to reach your highest potential. Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why steroids are worse than any other form of cheating. (imo) steroids more than any other form of cheating (in baseball) because it skewed the records and stats i grew up with to such a large degree. watching sosa hit his 60th wasn't that great a feeling for me despite being at the game b/c it was obvious what was going on. i did not have the same feeling when gaylord perry pitched. or when brett used too much pine tar. or when all of mlb was on speed. in theory, cheating is cheating. steroids stands out to me is b/c it allowed ordinary ballplayers to achieve superstar status (even if briefly, aaron boone) or superstars to shatter modern day records, which baseball allowed to continue to boost popularity. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 There are known outcomes for scuffing a ball or stealing signs, but nobody really has any clue what impact steroids have on performance."Not having any clue" is really a stretch. If nobody had a clue, and it was just a chaotic result, why would players be tempted to take it? They have quite a good clue. Steroids makes you stronger - far stronger than you would on weights and nutrition alone. Being stronger means you have higher bat speed. Higher bat speed means when you make contact the ball leaves your bat at a higher speed. Balls leaving the bat at a higher speed travel farther than balls leaving the bat at a lower speed. Balls leaving the bat with higher speed means that hits that would have otherwise been caught at the warning track are now leaving the park. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I also really (REALLY) fail to see how emphetamine use and steroids aren't put on the same level. Matt, I meant real clues. That is all speculative, and doesn't really tell us anything substantive. We have no idea how much Alex Rodriguez benefitted from it, considering he had 4 clean seasons that are as good or better than any of his dirty ones. It also doesn't tell us how it is affected when the pitcher throwing the ball that hits the bat with the higher bat speed etc. is also on steroids. We focus way too much on the hitters, as if they werethe only ones who used. Half of the players who have failed are pitchers, which makes perfect fucking sense. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I also really (REALLY) fail to see how emphetamine use and steroids aren't put on the same level. Matt, I meant real clues. That is all speculative, and doesn't really tell us anything substantive. We have no idea how much Alex Rodriguez benefitted from it, considering he had 4 clean seasons that are as good or better than any of his dirty ones. It also doesn't tell us how it is affected when the pitcher throwing the ball that hits the bat with the higher bat speed etc. is also on steroids. We focus way too much on the hitters, as if they werethe only ones who used. Half of the players who have failed are pitchers, which makes perfect fucking sense.Who's Matt? Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Who's Matt? Me. Bobbob likes arguing with me even when I am not involved in the thread. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I always get your avatars mixed up... Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I always get your avatars mixed up...ah. Well, anyway... I think the REAL clues you're requiring are an impossibility, unless you have a lab set up with a control group and are able to clone a player to see what he's like on roids versus what he's like on Wheaties. MLB should use the same anti-doping laws that are akin to the strictest ones out there, which I'm assuming are ones put forth by the International Olympics Committee, which I'm assuming would put amphetamines on the same punishment level as steroids. The biggest problem is that MLB and the MLBPA have no intent on killing the golden goose. I'm sure that Selig is quite content not to rock the boat - not with his $17,500,000 yearly salary. Drinks all around! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts