Really well written article on Steroids and the Hall of Fame by Bill James
http://www.actapublications.co...ndthe%27Roids_F2.pdf
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
.
Thanks 08.
Fascinating. Don't want to reopen the debate, but whether you agree or disagree with him...If you keep an open mind, you have to hand it to James to once again come up with a fresh perspective....and one that he, a man with a pretty unique insight into the game, has obviously put a great deal of thought into.
44
.
Thanks 08.
Fascinating. Don't want to reopen the debate, but whether you agree or disagree with him...If you keep an open mind, you have to hand it to James to once again come up with a fresh perspective....and one that he, a man with a pretty unique insight into the game, has obviously put a great deal of thought into.
44.
Bill James is a brilliant statistician who never played the game and therefore never had to compete for playing time against cheaters. If he had, he might feel differently. 
44:
Exactly my point in posting - regardless of how you fall on this subject, in my opinion he has done an excellent job of laying out, in detail, his position in a way that very few others have done.
Exactly my point in posting - regardless of how you fall on this subject, in my opinion he has done an excellent job of laying out, in detail, his position in a way that very few others have done.
I also enjoyed his unusual take on the PED problem, however, the bigger issue to me is:
I'm P-O'd that I won't get to live to be 1000 just because I was born a few decades too late!
Who knew?
I'm P-O'd that I won't get to live to be 1000 just because I was born a few decades too late!
Who knew?
brilliantly written article... as with a lot of his writings he understands how society changes and what is acceptable today may not be tomorrow or vice versa.
People operate so often in the vacuum of today... condeming or praising those of the past for their thoughts and deeds.
He is absolutley correct in his vision of the future... if we knew it worked and we could afford it everyone of us would be taking those pills right now.
People operate so often in the vacuum of today... condeming or praising those of the past for their thoughts and deeds.
He is absolutley correct in his vision of the future... if we knew it worked and we could afford it everyone of us would be taking those pills right now.
I thought it was interesting as well. Not sure about the part on Will Clark however. His other arguments are sound but no one will know with certainty who did and who didn't and what adjustments should be made because of that.
If people will go back and check stats from the mid 1990's to the early 2000's, they will see that some of the most prominent names in the game were putting up some big numbers later in their careers. No one has ever accused some of these of using steroids.
The double standards continue to amaze me. In the NFL, we have people that are way over 300 lbs running sub 5 second forty yard dashes. There is no way that is humanly possible with out some type of technological "enhancement" imho.
If people will go back and check stats from the mid 1990's to the early 2000's, they will see that some of the most prominent names in the game were putting up some big numbers later in their careers. No one has ever accused some of these of using steroids.
The double standards continue to amaze me. In the NFL, we have people that are way over 300 lbs running sub 5 second forty yard dashes. There is no way that is humanly possible with out some type of technological "enhancement" imho.
great point about the NFL... anyone remember Tony Mandrich? Shooting up race horse steroids as I recall.
08: That was interesting, although I'm not sure what to make of it. Didn't expect Bill James to go all George Jetson on us about the future. The only thing that struck me as odd was he seemed to be saying that if a large enough percentage of players either broke or ignored a rule, then we might as well let it go and accept it. Not sure what would be the point in even having any rules then.
Bill's next article: A salute to the East German women's swimming program back in the day. Boy, they were simply ahead of their time.
Bill's next article: A salute to the East German women's swimming program back in the day. Boy, they were simply ahead of their time.
I agree with you observer since he was never beat out by a player with enhanced skills through steroid use. I'm SURE he would feel different about this subject...
Another strange suggestion James makes is just because it was not illegal in pro ball at the time does that make steroid using wrong? Although I admire James's body of work I think this statement is a rediculous assumption that falls flat in the face or moral and ethical questions. For instance, steroid use may not have been illegal in the MLB at the time, but it was certainly against the law using a controlled drug without a legitimate medical reason and without being administered from a licensed physician.
A better question should have been, even if steroid use wasn't against federal and state law or against MLB policy does that make it morally or ethically correct if its use give a player an advantage over other players who are not using the drug?
Yet, I'll agree that it is a good article that will no doubt provoke opposite opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Natural:
Bill James is a brilliant statistician who never played the game and therefore never had to compete for playing time against cheaters. If he had, he might feel differently.
Another strange suggestion James makes is just because it was not illegal in pro ball at the time does that make steroid using wrong? Although I admire James's body of work I think this statement is a rediculous assumption that falls flat in the face or moral and ethical questions. For instance, steroid use may not have been illegal in the MLB at the time, but it was certainly against the law using a controlled drug without a legitimate medical reason and without being administered from a licensed physician.
A better question should have been, even if steroid use wasn't against federal and state law or against MLB policy does that make it morally or ethically correct if its use give a player an advantage over other players who are not using the drug?
Yet, I'll agree that it is a good article that will no doubt provoke opposite opinions.
.
Speaking of the change in late career players...
Fascinating article in he current issue of EPSN Mag...
"30 Is The New 40: In the post steroids era, veteran sluggers and aging arms are out. Translation: The battle is on among suits and scouts to stockpile the best young talent."
"In 2008 MLB expereinced the biggest one-year drop in average age...in the history of the sport. The youth movement is built upon increased skepticism in the front offices about whether players in their 30's can maintain production without the use of performance enhancing drugs."
Also a great deal cheaper of course.
Now while many of you who have sons in the minors already probably know this...and I know it is idealistic...and it is already being done by some...but for the rest of the HSBBW with college age players and below it will be new territory and if the article is on the point, the trend has implications for the future.
Says that teams are increaingly looking to build internally...Scouting budgets are increasing...They are revaluating their scouting proceedures...More cross checking...Looking deeper and geting more clear on their evlauations...More are looking at statistics, not just body/physcial tools...looking more for ballplayers not just physical specimens...more/increasing strength and training through the organizations......more reliance on character and the ability to overcome in a bsaeball environment and beyond, not only talent and success...clubs are increasingly looking at stealing the best college managers...Clubs are even talking about nutrition changes in the minors.
Well worth reading.
44
.
Speaking of the change in late career players...
Fascinating article in he current issue of EPSN Mag...
"30 Is The New 40: In the post steroids era, veteran sluggers and aging arms are out. Translation: The battle is on among suits and scouts to stockpile the best young talent."
"In 2008 MLB expereinced the biggest one-year drop in average age...in the history of the sport. The youth movement is built upon increased skepticism in the front offices about whether players in their 30's can maintain production without the use of performance enhancing drugs."
Also a great deal cheaper of course.
Now while many of you who have sons in the minors already probably know this...and I know it is idealistic...and it is already being done by some...but for the rest of the HSBBW with college age players and below it will be new territory and if the article is on the point, the trend has implications for the future.
Says that teams are increaingly looking to build internally...Scouting budgets are increasing...They are revaluating their scouting proceedures...More cross checking...Looking deeper and geting more clear on their evlauations...More are looking at statistics, not just body/physcial tools...looking more for ballplayers not just physical specimens...more/increasing strength and training through the organizations......more reliance on character and the ability to overcome in a bsaeball environment and beyond, not only talent and success...clubs are increasingly looking at stealing the best college managers...Clubs are even talking about nutrition changes in the minors.
Well worth reading.
44.
Sounds like some good changes, if you ask me.
Thanks for the heads up!
Thanks for the heads up!
First, regardless what chemical help Mantle-era players had (greenies, etc), they did not blow-up the record book the way the steroid HGH players have.
70+ home runs from out of nowhere? That will never be seen again and confirms this "help" was far more statistically significant than any earlier "help".
AND because, as we know, HOF membership is largely statistically driven, comparative stats-based HOF membership (for PED-era players) is an insult to previous inductees.
That said, 95% of this article is consistent with what James does (well) for a living. He:
A.) Applies complex pattern recognition of dense statistical analysis to predict future performance.
So, while I strongly disagree with the general idea, if I had to wager (about the HOF issue) I'd bet that a generation down the line "all will be forgiven".
I'm bothered by only two statements:
1.) everybody was doing the same things, and in which there was either no rule against doing these things or zero enforcement of those rules. people will come to understand that the commissioner’s periodic spasms of self-righteousness do not constitute baseball law.
!!! I find this to be a major self-service, in that he seems to be a.) defending his own earlier lack of intellectual inquiry (for whatever reasons) about PEDs AND b.) shifting ALL PED-blame (carrying an axe?) to the comissioner.
2.) Mark McGwire is going to be in the Hall of Fame, and Roger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro, and probably even Barry Bonds.
!!! Of this group, only Bonds and Clemens would EVER have made the HOF without PEDs. Any self-respecting sportswriter is obligated to consider that, before they annoint PED-era players.
70+ home runs from out of nowhere? That will never be seen again and confirms this "help" was far more statistically significant than any earlier "help".
AND because, as we know, HOF membership is largely statistically driven, comparative stats-based HOF membership (for PED-era players) is an insult to previous inductees.
That said, 95% of this article is consistent with what James does (well) for a living. He:
A.) Applies complex pattern recognition of dense statistical analysis to predict future performance.
So, while I strongly disagree with the general idea, if I had to wager (about the HOF issue) I'd bet that a generation down the line "all will be forgiven".
I'm bothered by only two statements:
1.) everybody was doing the same things, and in which there was either no rule against doing these things or zero enforcement of those rules. people will come to understand that the commissioner’s periodic spasms of self-righteousness do not constitute baseball law.
!!! I find this to be a major self-service, in that he seems to be a.) defending his own earlier lack of intellectual inquiry (for whatever reasons) about PEDs AND b.) shifting ALL PED-blame (carrying an axe?) to the comissioner.
2.) Mark McGwire is going to be in the Hall of Fame, and Roger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro, and probably even Barry Bonds.
!!! Of this group, only Bonds and Clemens would EVER have made the HOF without PEDs. Any self-respecting sportswriter is obligated to consider that, before they annoint PED-era players.
HAVERDAD
Let me cite one player ROGER MARIS who outside of his 61 HR year never hit more than 39 HRs in a season---not saying he did or didn't and yes he had a load of HR hitters in the lineup with him but that number has always seemed "odd" to me---to use the words from your post--"from out of nowhere" fits his year
Let me cite one player ROGER MARIS who outside of his 61 HR year never hit more than 39 HRs in a season---not saying he did or didn't and yes he had a load of HR hitters in the lineup with him but that number has always seemed "odd" to me---to use the words from your post--"from out of nowhere" fits his year
Are you saying that the only year Maris got "help" was in 1961?
Nevermind, it doesn't matter. The is a HOF discussion
The historical/biological baseline for what the human body could do was clearly 50-60HR. (Ruth, Mantle, Fox, Greenberg, etc.)
Maris did (could) not go beyond that point.
Nor, as you know, did he make the HOF.
Nevermind, it doesn't matter. The is a HOF discussion
The historical/biological baseline for what the human body could do was clearly 50-60HR. (Ruth, Mantle, Fox, Greenberg, etc.)
Maris did (could) not go beyond that point.
Nor, as you know, did he make the HOF.
HaverDad: Those are the best posts yet on the subject. I think it's safe to say that Maris had a statisical fluke of a season. Good player, one great year. Think Norm Cash, too. From the old clips, I didn't see Maris with a cartoon-character blown-up body like Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, who all had a string of off-the-chart seasons in the later stages of their careers, times when players are routinely slowing down.
quote:Originally posted by catfish342:
HaverDad : I think it's safe to say that Maris had a statisical fluke of a season.
Maris was 27 years old in 1961, arguably a peak age for natural power.
Consider this chart of HR production by age.
Pay strict attention to the freakish, disproportional levels of PED-era record-setters.
Remember, Maris' previous career-best, the year before, was 39 HRs, with -100 PA. That projects to 47, if he'd played every game.
Finally, factor in Mantle's great 1961, hitting in front of Maris, add the fact Maris had maxed his "pull" mechanics, to reach the 296ft RF porch (back then). Throw in a few greenies for day game-hangovers (after night games)..... and call it a career year.
NOTE : I'd feel the same way about PEDs if someone invented magic speed juice to take 0.2secs off home-to-1st times and turn Juan Pierre into a .425 hitter.